|
|
Robert Lindsay of CaliforniaDo visit Robert Lindsay’s blog , read what he has to say. Posted by leslie on Thursday, March 17, 2005 at 08:05 PM in That Question Again Comments:2
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 18, 2005, 07:47 AM | # Sure, let’s go. Sorry, long: You are correct. Jewish particularism is something I am just getting hep to, but isn’t this particularism simply the predicted effect of any hyperethnocentric people? Particularism seems to go hand in hand with nationalism of all kinds, so it’s a mistake to regard it as “Jewish”. Thing is, I have no interest in being ethnocentric towards my race - white Europeans. I am proud of it of course - I am 3/8 English, 1/4 Scottish, 1/4 German and 1/8 French. My mother’s relatives came over on the second Mayflower boat and almost got killed by Indians in 1640. My father’s side were Protestant Anabaptist fanatics who left southeastern Germany in 1740 and ended up in Pennsylvania, where they segued into Pennsylvania Dutch. We have slaveholders and slave-free-ers, a Confederate general and J.P. Morgan, the famous banker. Before that, my mother’s side were Norman French who invaded England, and I go back to Charlemagne. Prior, we go back to the Lombard family in northern Italy at the Fall of the Roman Empire. Straight white northern European all the way - classic candidate for white nationalism. And I don’t care about my race, nor even like it very much. Black people are funnier, Jews and Asians are smarter. Whites are uptight,no fun, selfish and, in the US, reactionary. I’m the original RT race traitor. I hate race, ethnic warfare, ethnic chauvinism, ethnic politics, tribalism, all of it - and this is one of my main beefs against Jews - they are the most anti-universalist people on Earth. It’s all just primitive caveman stuff to me and it makes people act like 6 year olds. All it does is drive humans apart, when they are really so close there is nothing between them. Getting to know lots of people around the world, I have come to realize that, in so many ways, we are just all the same. I mean Thais, Filipinos, West Africans, Brazilians, Colombians, Argentines, Chinese, Dutch, Mexicans, Peruvians, Chileans, Pakistanis, Egyptians, Russians. That’s what really freaked me out - that in so many ways, a Ghanian, a Philipino, a Thai, is just like me. There are differences, but they are strictly minor. Fetishing race is erecting barriers between humans where none should exist! It’s promoting differences that are so petty it’s laughable. Look, suppose everyone on this blog sat down together. We could look at all the ways we look or act different, and go and separate into some stupid “tribes” on that idiotic basis, and end up fighting a lot, or we could just blow it off and try to get along. I am aware of race-IQ studies and I believe in Shockley, Jenson, Bell Curve and the rest. I resisted for decades but I finally studied it for years and it’s all correct. But so what? Further, what if some human races are less intelligent than others? There are slow people all around. Why should we hate people because they are slow? Suppose some group of humans is less attractive than another group (admittedly a value judgement). So? There are homely humans. Why should we hate people for being homely? I don’t understand hating an ethnic group because you think they’re not attractive or not smart. So why hate em? Immigration is a problem mostly for ecological reasons. I want to limit US immigration to 200,000 a year and put serious limits on Muslims. Further, there is no need to import massive numbers of poor, uneducated Hispanics to the US as they offer us nothing. The threat to the US is Islam, not race. In fact, I hate racialism and tribalism so much that I want to see the races (at least here in the US) thoroughly mixed. If there are differences, then we should mix everyone up enough to even everyone out. At some point there won’t be much race left as everyone will be mongrelized and all of the measureable racial differences will also fade away. Jewish 1) tribalism, 2) hyperethnocentrism, 3) chauvinism and 4) particularism are functions of the extreme nationalism of Jews. The White Nationalist, the Arab nationalist, the ethnic nationalist, wishes to battle these Jewish traits, which he so despises, by….turning Jewish! Yes. Get this, the nationalist who sets against the Jew, opposes 1-4, he hates these traits, and rightly so. So, he hates Jewish 1-4 so much that he develops his very *own* version of 1-4! Insane! He becomes an ethnic chauvinist, paticularist, ethnocentrist, solipsist, tribalist, and ultimately a nationalist in his own way. He’s now the Jew he so despised, inverted, and as smart. What a load of crap. What a joke. It’s clear that Jews wage ethnic politics and even ethnic warfare (usually nonviolent) against all other groups in society. In order to compete with Jews, the other groups in society must also become ethnocentric and wage nonviolent ethnic war back at them. The inevitable result is ethnic conflict, but if the groups competing with Jews don’t become ethnocentric, they are f-d. Tough, huh? 3
Posted by Guessedworker on March 18, 2005, 01:34 PM | # Robert, Thanks for responding. This should be instructive for us both - or, if it isn’t - at least let it be fun. That’s an amazing set of opinions. Straight away, right there in the middle, I can see a large black hole where you flip into a plaint against hate. I’m interested in that reflex because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the gentle love of kind I feel for my English family of families. Obviously, feeling no such love yourself you have filled this hole up from outside, as it were, with the liberal ideal of universalism. This is almost a religious conversion and seems to require that the universalism software is not merely installed but is upgraded as the moral superior to particularism. Perhaps it’s necessary for the keeping of the faith to characterise those outside it - which is about 90% of society - with extreme emotions they do not possess. But it is a tragic misconception and distances you further from those, like myself, who are content to be as Nature made us (and, importantly for the future of this debate, see no genuine means of being otherwise). Let me also say, it is often assumed on the right that liberals deploy invective - racist, anti-semite, fascist and what-have-you - because they want to silence their interlocutor. Maybe it’s so in some cases. We don’t pay much attention anyway. But maybe the emotion is real, as it clearly is with you. It is answering an internal construct of who and what “the enemy” is. In that case, it is wrong. I urge you to look more closely at those you would condemn. OK, well, in the interests of balance I’ll offer a perspective on racialism ... We are not gods. We are Nature. We are not perfectible, except that we are perfectly fitted to our ancient place in this world – not as individuals, of course, but as peoples. That has only come about – we have only survived to evolve (and evolved to survive) – because of a deeply inate particularism. A race of universalist liberals is inconceivable. Had the fertile crescent been peopled by tribes of race-blind liberals 100,000 years they would not have done enough in-group breeding to adapt to northern climes. Race, as Disraeli said, is everything. People – all people – discriminate. It is not hate. It is Nature. In Brazil and India the higher echelons of society are populated by the light-skinned. They reject marriage to those of darker appearance and, indeed, psychometric research suggests a correlation between lighter skins and higher mean IQ. It works! Difference is the true universal. Liberal universalism holds no sway in the heart of Man. He particularises everywhere, against which tide of Nature the liberal stands, wet-footed, like Canute. Man is essentially, irredeemably inegalitarian. Out of this ineluctable state of Nature arises the right of all people, as you yourself have averred, to defend themselves against external aggression for land. How, then, would you have the European peoples defend themselves against such aggression? Yesterday I was in London, the city of my childhood that I left many years ago and to which I rarely return. I was only in W1, in the city centre. I did not go to the inner-city areas where up to 80% of the natives have moved away. Even so, a good third of the faces I saw were not English. It is easy to see why Londoners complain that their city is being taken from them. This has happened because our elites of all parties deny us the moral, political and legal means to defend our land. We cannot even publicly declare our anger, since it is met with inhuman hostility and is likely to earn us a prosecution. Now, I know you abhor Pee-Cee - it’s the activist end of cultural marxism (which I believe you also disdain). How, then can you approve of either the elite’s politics or the immigrants aggression for land? 4
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 18, 2005, 03:31 PM | # Robert, Welcome to our blog. I hope you enjoy debating us contrarians. Let me state at the outset that this blog values diversity – diversity not of skin colour resulting in uniformity of opinion but diversity of opinion (which “liberal” democratic man actually hates the most). Anyway, I will state here that I agree with Guessedworker and will add a few bits of my own. Denying tribalism, is like denying the law of gravity, denying human physiology, denying that the sky is blue. The universalism you speak of is a recent invention and it exists only in the abstract. The white liberals who regularly instruct us on moralism themselves flee the ethnic minorities they seek to champion and settle in all white sub-urbs. They send their children to nice clean all-white schools where there isn’t a black face to be found. What is that, I dare ask? The kind of society you wish to create has no historical precedent. Find me one country on earth that works the way you wish the world to work. It has never existed and won’t ever exist. Nationalism is a simple extension of human nature – if we accept that human beings are attached to their children (which I think is undeniable), are attached to their family and to their kin, nationalism flows from it with ease. To create the kind of society you want to create Human beings will have to begin with abandoning attachments to their children, to their wives, to their parents…….etc. Nothing short of genetic engineering of humans could accomplish that. (And I doubt if even that would accomplish it) So what then remains of your project? It is a mirage and to the extent that people do accept it (as I think most of us will agree that westerners have in large part at least superficially accepted these nostrums), the nations that accept this logic will not succeed in wiping out “racism” from the earth but wiping themselves out. All whites may give it up and open their nations to the invasions of all and sundry but the Chinese, the Japanese or the Muslims (to take a few stray examples) wont abandon theirs (at least not to the same degree). Eventually the west will be wiped out but Racism will remain. It will survive and flourish. And it will flourish where it was supposedly abolished – in the west where whites abandoned it only to be replaced by aliens who bring it back with a vengeance. What follows, therefore, is the necessity for a political philosophy of prudence. Dreaming of an eternal end to war is like dreaming for Marx’s stateless utopia. It is a dream that won’t ever be realised. Nationalism is a practical human philosophy. It is based on an acceptance of human nature and human failings (as well as virtue). It regards itself as an expression of the nature of man and of his attachments. If you think (as I certainly do) that it is healthy and beautiful for a father to be attached to his children (and vice versa), it is equally healthy and beautiful for a man to be attached to his people (whoever his people are). I have no dislike for Jews for their ethnic particularism. I am critical of Jews for their hypocrisy, i.e. preaching universalism to the world and reserving particularism for themselves. Much Jew-hatred in the world stems from this. Having said that, does it mean that I cannot appreciate the humour or vivacity of a Jewish friend? Of course not. Nationalism does not mean denying the humanity of other tribes or other nations. It means being attached to your tribe and to its interests and doing what you can to preserve it. 5
Posted by ben tillman on March 18, 2005, 07:56 PM | # Robert: Your perspective is fascinating. Unlike most, you have managed to apprehend the facts (or many of the facts) that are most carefully hidden from view. It seems that our differences are differences in our values. You write: Black people are funnier, Jews and Asians are smarter. Whites are uptight,no fun, selfish and, in the US, reactionary. I’m the original RT race traitor. Judged according to your values, however, aren’t whites more *moral*? With few exceptions, whites are the only ones for whom your brand of “universalism” holds any appeal. 6
Posted by ben tillman on March 18, 2005, 08:09 PM | # ROBERT LINDSAY: Immigration is a problem mostly for ecological reasons. PHIL PETERSON: Eventually the west will be wiped out but Racism will remain. It will survive and flourish. And it will flourish where it was supposedly abolished – in the west where whites abandoned it only to be replaced by aliens who bring it back with a vengeance. Phil’s point is iterated by Garrett Hardin [the ecologist who wrote “The Tragedy of the Commons”] in his 1982 essay, “Discriminating Altruisms”: “Universalism is altruism practiced without discrimination of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity in time or space…. To people who accept the idea of biological evolution from amoeba to man, the vision of social evolution from egoism to universalism may seem plausible. In fact, however, the last step is impossible…. Let us see why. “In imagination, picture a world in which social evolution has gone no further than egoism or individualism. When familialism appears on the scene, what accounts for its persistence? It must be that the costs of the sacrifices individuals make for their relatives are more than paid for by the gains realized through family solidarity…. “The argument that accounts for the step to familialism serves equally well for each succeeding step -– except for the last. Why the difference? Because the One World created by universalism has -– by definition -– no competitive base to support it…. [Universalism] cannot survive in competition with discrimination. *** “It is to the advantage of non-Europeans, virtually all of whom retain their cohesion as distinctive, discriminating groups, to exploit the economic wealth and social order of the West, benefits many demonstrably cannot create for themselves. When this cohesive drive is placed in competition with self-sacrificing Western altruism, there can be only one outcome. In the near term, Europeans will be displaced by groups acting in their own self-interest. In the long run, biological destruction awaits us. Since those who displace us do not, by definition, maintain our morals standards –- for if they did, they would not be replacing us -– our flawed moral system will vanish with us.” 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 18, 2005, 09:17 PM | # Robert, where you’re an extremely unpleasant hypocrite is in refusing to admit openly (what you, like everyone else, knows privately) the ways in which race plays the central role in a society’s livability. I don’t see you or any hypocrites like you moving to Rhodesia or South Africa but I saw tons of South African “anti-racist” Jewish and English hypocrites just like you catch the first plane out of there headed for Israel, Europe, the U.S., or Australia/New Zealand the microsecond the Negroes took over from the Boers. They yap-yap-yapped for decades about how great the ANC was but it turned out they had no intention of actually living under it. Let the Boers do that! As for themselves, well, they were outta there!—what are you crazy or something, damn straight they were! It turns out the English “anti-racists” apparently only wanted to feel self-righteous and the Jewish ones apparently only wanted to destroy a white Christian country or something like that, because ... what was it again? ... oh yeah—because, as we’ve heard a thousand times since the flap about Gibson’s movie, a Crusader army in 1090 committed a pogrom against the Jews while passing through the Rheinland on the way to Palestine. You’re also unpleasant, Robert, in that you don’t value particular races or particular cultures. To not value those, one must be either incredibly dull, incredibly lazy, incredibly selfish, incredibly foolish, or incredibly dishonest. Or all five ... 8
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 18, 2005, 11:54 PM | # That’s an amazing set of opinions. Straight away, right there in the middle, I can see a large black hole where you flip into a plaint against hate. I’m interested in that reflex because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the gentle love of kind I feel for my English family of families. That’s how it always works. Look at the Jews, how they love their own! The ethnocentrist practices dual morality - is capable of intense love for his own group, but it’s typically reflected away into hostility towards all outgroups. I think a good analogy to tribalism is narcissism. The narcissist’s self-love is inflated, but so is his out-hatred. See also “pulling others down to his level”, etc. It seems that it is usually not possible to ethnocentrically value one’s own without a corresponding negative view of others. Obviously, feeling no such love yourself you have filled this hole up from outside, as it were, with the liberal ideal of universalism. Ahh but I lie. This is almost a religious conversion and seems to require that the universalism software is not merely installed but is upgraded as the moral superior to particularism. I am afraid that it is, sadly. I have just been looking into tribalism; I am still learning. It’s inferior all right. From a Christian POV, surely universalism is the right way. I am going to strongly disagree that 90% of US society are strongly ethnocentric. The universalists have done a good job here. I have no beef against white nationalism, and if you can ever create a form of it that is purged of racism and chauvinism and hypocrisy, let me know. It’s clear to me that the only way whites (or any group) can compete on an equal level with, say, Jews, in the US anyway, is for whites to become ethnocentric. It doesn’t have to be racial. In NYC, the “Catholics” (not a racial group) have sort of united to fight a wave of Jewish ethnic warfare recently. The media never tells you this, but I may blog on it. Read Henry Ford. The whites united to keep the Jews out of a major ethnic-war offensive in the 20’s to take over US banks for the Jews. The whites got together, stopped the Jewish probe, and we retain those banks still. So, to compete against ethnocentric groups, you probably have to go ethnocentric yourself. Incidentally, I have spoken with Kevin MacDonald, and he agrees with much of what I say here. So I am not saying you guys are immoral at all. I just don’t like it much myself. I would think that whites have a right to be just as ethocentric as, say, Jews. Why not? 9
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 19, 2005, 12:21 AM | # Let me also say, it is often assumed on the right that liberals deploy invective - racist, anti-semite, fascist and what-have-you….But maybe the emotion is real, as it clearly is with you. Yes, and your fellow Judeophilic conservatives are specializing in this nonsense these days too, BTW. It’s a fact, nationalism - tribalism - ethnocentrism - leads to racism, fascism, discrimination, bigotry, anti-Semitism, oh yah. And lots of other stuff. Re: evolution. In terms of natural selection, evolution is pretty near finished for the human race, except for some extreme situations (AIDS in Africa). I find it dubious that we have reached where we are today due to particularism, though tribalism may indeed be innate. WRT to the Fertile Crescent and in-group breeding and survival in northern climes, I assume this was just natural selection. Back then, evolution *was* shaping the human race. Discrimination is hatred, or at least it’s based on it. Since Jews discriminate probably more than any other group in the US, they must be filled with hatred. WRT to the lighter skinned not breeding with the darker in India (and the world over), I doubt they understand IQ at all. It’s just deep prejudice and some really stupid religion to boot. No doubt that particularism is bred into us and is natural, but so is wife-beating, getting drunk, stealing, murder, rape and genocide. We are Leftists, we are out to socially engineer the species away from its caveman tendencies. Or you can call it Christian instead of Leftism. Christianity and Leftism are about getting humans to transcend their base natures through brainwashing, shaming and praise. Out of this ineluctable state of Nature arises the right of all people, as you yourself have averred, to defend themselves against external aggression for land. Oh yes! And do I catch crap about this from Leftists and Jews. Hypocritical crap from Jews (as usual); principled but ignorant crap from Leftists. How can I, a universalist, support hardline Arab nationalism? And I do! I do support it! Because, as you imply, the Arab nationalists (other than Islamists) are the only damned Arabs in the Arab World who are out for the Arabs. They are the only ones who will stand to fight Zionist and Imperialist domination, colonialism and agression. The rest are sold-out, bought-off, or cowering. The damned nationalists are the only patriots left! And how can I not support that? When I hear the Arab nationalist cry, “Without the homeland, there is nothing!” how can that not stir my heart? It does. Haitian nationalists are the only people opposing the imperial conquest of that land. Nationalists in Venezuela and Cuba are the only people standing up to US domination and colonialism. And I AM an American nationalist, dammit. Also a bit of a “Christian nationalist”. And for this I catch shit from the Left, especially the Jewish Left (of course). How, then, would you have the European peoples defend themselves against such aggression? Against what aggression? What the heck are you fighting? Clue me. Look, you Europeans have a right, dammit, to set up any kind of citizenship and immigration laws that you want. It’s your country. Any people can decide how they wish to handle immigration and new citizenship and it’s ok, even if you do it in a racist way. 10
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 19, 2005, 12:33 AM | # Ok you complain that you go to London and feel like a stranger. Ahh. My brother feels the same way. 1. What’s so bad about that (London now being 40% non-European)? Well you know, I have the utmost contempt for this PC-insanity in Europe, coming mostly from the Left and Jews, that has made it a crime to say this or that. And I fear it. For, while you folks call me a universalist opposed to your nationalism and oppose me, keep in mind that I have been vilified for years now as a racist, particularly an anti-Semite. Mostly by Jews but also by a few liberal - Left Gentiles. So I really get hit from both sides. So, if these laws come to the US, I could maybe go down. I don’t blame you for being pissed! I would be furious! Now, I know you abhor Pee-Cee - it’s the activist end of cultural marxism (which I believe you also disdain). Mostly because it has been used to vilify me, but also because it is insane. Apparently, 75% of all jokes have now been banned! Apparently, all discussion of race, tribe or gender is now banned! Lunacy. How, then can you approve of either the elite’s politics or the immigrants aggression for land? The elite’s politics being what? Immigrants “aggression for the land”. Laughs. Oh come now. They just want a better life is all. They aren’t invading or colonizing or anything. Nevertheless, you have a right to control immigration any way you wish, including blatantly racist ways. It’s *your* country, dammit. 11
Posted by seelow heights on March 19, 2005, 02:19 AM | # ROBERT LINDSAY Immigration is a problem mostly for ecological reasons. I want to limit US immigration to 200,000 a year and put serious limits on Muslims. Further, there is no need to import massive numbers of poor, uneducated Hispanics to the US as they offer us nothing. The threat to the US is Islam, not race. It is this “universalist” belief-system prevalent among the majority of the Euro population that allows non-whites of all types to continually use the “racism” club to prevent the introduction of the sound policy proposals you support. I assume that in addition to reducing immigration you also oppose the crazy-quilt system of ethnic and racial preferences that benefit everyone on the planet except White males. It is widely assumed that Asians do not benefit from AA but the Feds give contract preference to even those of East and South Asian background. Quotas,PC,Multiculturalism, etc. have all become part of a regime that cannot be ovethrown by appeals to common sense. Like the Libertarians you have set yourself against the realities of both power and human nature. 12
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 19, 2005, 02:23 AM | # Re: White flight, well, I am an example of that I guess. I live in the California mountains, the last redoubt of the whites in this state. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 19, 2005, 03:37 AM | # Lindsay (above, 6:23 AM) at least admits his odious hypocrisy. 14
Posted by Effra on March 19, 2005, 05:59 AM | # Being a cockeyed optimist by nature, I wonder if the Jewish strategy of self-preservation by duping their gentile hosts into embracing universalism is really so smart. They have become infected by the bacteria they disseminate. Half of US Jews are marrying out, and their kids and grandkids won’t feel too Jewish. A minority still practise the religion, most of whom are easily identifiable and often politically quiescent. But the standard brand of secularised ‘cultural’ or ‘gastronomic’ Jew, who goes to temple only at Passover and eats bacon bagels, is rapidly losing touch with the phenotype of cultivated endogenous elitism which makes his high verbal IQ potentially subversive in a majority-white society swallowing his bullcrap about tolerance for all except ‘haters’. Zionism can be seen as a last ditch attempt to reconcile Jewish emancipation and assimilation with an exclusivist set of values, after the ghetto and its rabbinical controls were deserted. Zionism, like the Golden Calf, is set up as an alternative tribal cult for those who no longer honour G-d: Nazis as the Devil, Israel as the Messiah and community leaders who bribe the goyim or shame them into self-reproach as a priestly caste, protecting the sacred mysteries against ‘deniers’ and ‘self-hating’ heretics and apostates. But a faith founded on an unresisted persecution (and a historical half-truth) and on a failing state is less potent an agent of solidarity than the old Judaic rites and rules. The backlash against Holo-worship and Likudnik Zionism—the way the cult continues to present Jews as whining perennial victims who become proud bullies on their own turf—is no longer confined to us white ‘haters’. Distaste for so unattractive an image worries Jews themselves. Most would not dream of going back to Israel, many Israel-born sabras want out, Russian immigrants who waited years to get there are returning sadder and wiser to Russia. The coming Pentagon/AIPAC scandal being brewed by FBI investigation may shed a more lurid light on the USraeli axis of mutual deception between secular Zionists and Christian Armageddonites. There will be more heartsearching, and it will no longer be so easy to dismiss accusations of divided loyalties. If there is a crunch, most US Jews will pledge to the USA. I suspect too that the threat to western Christian morale and cohesion from freethinking Jews (as the vanguard propagators of ideas which threaten the social fabric) has peaked. Too many half-Jews, ex-Jews and assimilated Jews are reconsidering their Chosenness. Steinlight’s musings on the problems of open borders immigration are one portent; Norman Finkelstein’s ridiculing of the Holobiz another. Sure, the fanatics that remain as purported spokesmen for the race—the Foxmans, Lipstadts and Bronfmans—will be dangerous for a while, like cornered and wounded beasts of prey. They have enforced silence about Israel’s behaviour on most American Jews, invoking the old threat that if the community is seen to be divided and demoralised, we evil antisemites will scent blood and move in for the kill. Don’t rock the boat, keep it in the family! However it is becoming less and less of a family, thanks to outmarriage. We have a secret weapon of ethnic destruction: the blonde schicksa trophy wife, whose allure is as dangerous to secular Jewish integrism in the West as the fecund Palestinian lady is to the Zionist ghetto on the Med. 15
Posted by dlg on March 19, 2005, 09:31 AM | # “Half of US Jews are marrying out, and their kids and grandkids won’t feel too Jewish.” Indeed. This is a point often missing from discussions portaying the Jews as hyper-ethnocentric pseudo-universalist hypocrites. 16
Posted by ben tillman on March 19, 2005, 05:57 PM | # Half of US Jews are marrying out…. Unfortunately, this is propaganda. The last comprehensive study I am aware of (based on data from 15 years ago) placed an upper limit of 14% on out-marriage in the US. See Medding, Peter Y., Gary Tobin, Sylvia Barrack Fishman, and Mordechai Rimor. 1992. “Jewish Identity in Conversionary and Mixed Marriages,” American Jewish Committee Yearbook 92: 3-76. Of course, the figure may be somewhat higher now, though it is also worth noting that the figure is much lower, approaching zero, in Israel. I am unaware of data for other countries. The 52% intermarriage figure is based on the 1991 Jewish population survey 17
Posted by Effra on March 19, 2005, 09:22 PM | # Ben: Why then is the so-called ‘Silent Holocaust’ of exogamy, followed by assimilation of the next generation, causing such concern among American Jews? Just another deception strategy? Jews who are willing to marry both fellow Jews and gentiles are not very ‘good’ Jews. In any case, I believe the abandonment of religious observance and ghetto life are more important causes of the bleaching out of Jewishness, which accelerates as one generation supplants another. The failure of Israel to gather in diaspora Jews is significant. As the revisionist who writes under the name of Samuel Crowell has suggested, the Holocaust legend, with its attendant awful-warning myths and terrors, can be understood as symbolic of Ashkenazi Jewry’s fear that they are slipping into nonentity. The ‘Holocaust’ is a lurid dramatisation of what inevitably follows when Jews venture into the shark pool of gentile life. 18
Posted by ben tillman on March 19, 2005, 10:45 PM | # Why then is the so-called ‘Silent Holocaust’ of exogamy, followed by assimilation of the next generation, causing such concern among American Jews? Just another deception strategy? It’s not a strategy to deceive us, at least not primarily. It’s designed to foster group-orientedness, which is always strongest in times of crisis. The continuity of the Jewish group (i.e., the life of the Jewish organism) can be extinguished in one of two ways, and the prospects of group continuity are furthered by the exaggeration of the threat to that same continuity. ...Samuel Crowell has suggested, the Holocaust legend, with its attendant awful-warning myths and terrors, can be understood as symbolic of Ashkenazi Jewry’s fear that they are slipping into nonentity. The Holocaust Story has a straightforward biological function in the context of multilevel selection. Usually, the group’s efforts to compete with other groups is hampered by internal discord resulting from within-group competition among the members of the group (and, of course, as is the thesis of The Culture of Critique, part of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy is to cultivate such discord within gentile societies). When the fate of the individual and the fate of the group are identified, however, the within-group competition approaches zero. The Holocaust Story—stressing the attempted murder of all Jews—teaches that all Jews have a shared fate. I suggest that you read D.S. Wilson’s books. 19
Posted by ben tillman on March 19, 2005, 11:11 PM | # From the pre-print of Wilson, D.S. & Sober, E. (1994). Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 585-654. [URL=http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00/00/04/60/bbs00000460-00/bbs.wilson.html]Wilson & Sober[/URL] Group selection is often studied as a mechanism for the evolution of altruism. We have also seen that groups become organisms to the extent that natural selection operates at the group level. Although the concepts of altruism and organism are closely related, there is also an important difference. Altruism involves a conflict between levels of selection. Groups of altruists beat groups of nonaltruists, but nonaltruists also beat altruists within groups. As natural selection becomes concentrated at the group level, converting the group into an organism, the self-sacrificial component of altruism disappears. The message that the Holocaust Story is intended to convey to Jews is that Jews are not individuals; they are part of an indivisible group Thus, individual interests that might otherwise conflict with the good of the group simply do not exist. 20
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 20, 2005, 01:03 AM | # Ah yes I am a hypocrite, of course. In my defense, I will say that I just sort of ended up in the California mountains and it was not a conscious decision at all. The main problem I have with living in areas with lots of poorer Blacks and Hispanics in the US is that the crime rate seems to be higher. And there seems to be a gang virus attached to these groups at the moment. I am still a universalist though, but people can choose to live wherever they want, and not wanting to live a high-crime zone is intelligent. Re: your notion that my project does not work anywhere on Earth: well, it is working in the US, pretty much. Most people have lost their ethnic ethnocentrism and racial interbreeding is epidemic, even amongst ethnocentric groups. For instance, my brother just married a Vietnamese woman and he is on his way to assisting white racial suicide. I have been known to date Black, Thai, Filipino, Brazilian, Argentine, Chinese or Colombian women. A Black woman and an Filipina are currentl agitating to have my child. I may well give in and commit racial suicide at some point. Brazil, most of Latin America, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Singapore, Trinidad, Switzerland are examples of seriously interbred groups to the point where they are hardly any races existing anymore. Existing interbred groups posing as “races” include the Khmer, Vietnamese, Malay, Pakistanis, the Stans, the Arab World, Afghans, “Russians”. The fact that these peoples are seriously mixed and have been seriously mixing down through time negates your notions about the innateness of tribalism and the correlation between genes = culture. What sort of correlation genes = culture can there be when the genetic profile is constantly shifting? Your notion that the West will be wiped out is rather silly. The West will remain but its face will change. The interesting thing about the US is how readily these divergent immigrants quickly get Americanized, start intermarrying, and dissolve in the haze. Racism won’t survive in the West at all because other groups will come here and lose their ethnocentrism, intermarry, and vanish into the mongrelizated hordes, taking their racism with them. No one will “win” and no one will “lose” since both “winners” and “losers” will merge into one. To finish, I would like to point out the basic insanity of tribalism. In Africa, you have 1000’s of tribes. I understand that if you go to Africa, most every Tribe A will tell you that their tribe is the best one around, or of all, and all the surrounding tribes are somehow deficient. Now go travel 50 miles to the territories of Tribes B, C, and D that Tribe A just slagged. Note that Tribes B, C and D all insist that they are the best around, and each of them will slag tribe A with a bunch of negative attributes, including some of the same negs that Tribe A slagged on Tribes B, C and D. All of these tribes cannot possibly be correct in their attitudes, scientifically speaking. Also, looking at this situation, a logician would say there is some seriously irrational thinking going on here. So, tribalism may indeed be innate, but surely it is irrational as Hell. In fact, it’s totally crazy. Now tell me again why humans need to adopt insane attitudes, whether our genes tell us to or not? 21
Posted by Mark Richardson on March 20, 2005, 05:18 AM | # Robert, it’s not irrational to think well of your own tribe. If you think well of your own tribe, you get the enormous benefit of a positive self-identity. And if you think well of your own tribe, you are more likely to work hard to preserve the tribe’s existence, and to keep it secure and prosperous. And there’s no reason why I can’t think well of my own tribe, and at the same time assume that a Japanese man, or a Kenyan man, or an Englishman is happily doing the same thing. Please note Robert, that a great many of us are not “haters”. I myself have lived and worked in rural Japan and love its distinctive people and culture. I don’t want Japan to catch the Western disease and deconstruct itself. Although my first loyalty is to my own people, I would still be saddened by the loss of any of the great national traditions. 22
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:02 AM | # “The main problem I have with living in areas with lots of poorer Blacks and Hispanics in the US is that the crime rate seems to be higher” When they’re the majority, you’ll have to pack your bags and find another country. You might then understand the nature of your folly but it will be too late. 23
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:11 AM | # “Existing interbred groups posing as “races” include the Khmer, Vietnamese, Malay, Pakistanis, the Stans, the Arab World, Afghans….” And they’re all mighty pleasant places to live in aren’t they? Some of the most pleasant places on earth! 24
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:12 AM | # “In Africa, you have 1000’s of tribes.” Read Philippe Rushton’s work. That might assist you. 25
Posted by - on March 20, 2005, 07:16 AM | # Note that Tribes B, C and D all insist that they are the best around, and each of them will slag tribe A with a bunch of negative attributes, including some of the same negs that Tribe A slagged on Tribes B, C and D. All of these tribes cannot possibly be correct in their attitudes, scientifically speaking. Yeah, better they all judge each other by universal scientific standards; the tribes found wanting confess their manifest inferiority and pledge fealty to the objectively determined Master Tribe (Race). 26
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:31 AM | # “well, it is working in the US, pretty much” It depends on what you mean. Among American whites outmarriage with non-whites is about 2 percent of the total population. With time the populations will get balkanized. Similarly, Hispanics are known to hate blacks and vice versa (the other two large ethnic groups in the US) and there is little intermixing between them. Very little. People like yourself are the exception to the norm, not the norm. You will have to find me hard statistics as to how widespread mixing is in the United States. My personal impression is that it is the exception in almost all ethnic groups. The result is that eventually there will be large ethnic blocks with their own interests clamouring for state benefits. Currently blacks get the greatest benefits from the state. But as Hispanics already outnumber blacks, the demand for benefits for them will increase (due to things like affirmative action). So far whites have been completely passive and have done nothing even though American universities openly discriminate against them. But as the “quota” for AA candidates skyrockets due to relentless immigration, whites will eventually begin to wake up and resist. Then there are taxes. The most overtaxed American states are also the ones with the most immigrants. Currently the white American response is to relocate to other states to avoid paying ridiculously high taxes. But soon the unproductive population will form the majority (or close to the majority). Federal taxes will skyrocket. There will be nowhere to run. The whole thing is a recipe for civil war. Note that in all parts of the world where mixed races exist, slaughter is commonplace. Pardon me for saying this, but you seem to be amazingly ignorant about much of the world. Believe me, if you lived for six months in a country like Pakistan or Tajikistan, you would never want to go back there. Race mixing doesnt eliminate conflict. If it did, Central Asia would be the most peaceful place on earth. It is actually the most violent (after Africa - but thats another story). People like yourself are living in a cocoon. You live in a white majority country where you have law and order, where standards of living are the highest in the world, where comforts that the rest of the world can only dream of are taken for granted and you let your mind disappear into an abstract fantasy world. My best suggestion to you would be to get out of that cocoon of prosperity and comfort and travel the world a bit more. Go to the Middle East, go to Iran, go to Pakistan, travel to South America, especially Brazil. When you have travelled all over the worst hell-holes in the third world, come back to the US and ask yourself if you want America to look like those countries. If you think so, then good luck to you my friend. 27
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:44 AM | # I might add: travel to Central Asia - all through it. Central Asia has historically been a racial melting pot. It is also among the world’s poorest and most violent regions. 28
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:46 AM | # Here is a list of the world’s nations: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap&int=-1 Explain why the most homogenous (and usually that means overwhelmingly majority white) are the most prosperous. All the mixed race poster boys are either in the middle or scraping the bottom. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 20, 2005, 10:09 AM | # This Lindsay character is such an asshole I don’t see how anyone can take him seriously. I also replied to him, yes, but that was before I’d fully seen how degenerate and crazy he was. He’s turned out to be even crazier and more degenerate than I had thought. Worst of all, he’s extremely dishonest, a really unpleasant trait. He’s a typical leftist, fundamentally lacking in honesty, lacking morals in general, completely lacking honesty and integrity, and full of genuine hatred for himself and probably everyone else without exception. A person like him believes in nothing. His whole existence is nihilism—getting his kicks while he can, and waiting to die. That’s it. I would just ignore the guy. How can you even begin to talk to a person like this? 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 20, 2005, 10:52 AM | # I’ll just throw in that Mark’s post in this thread (3/20, 9:18 AM) reflects exactly my own feeling: “I don’t want Japan to catch the Western disease and deconstruct itself. Although my first loyalty is to my own people, I would still be saddened by the loss of any of the great national traditions.” 31
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 02:03 PM | # Robert, To add finally, the most unqiuely evil feature of all modern Liberals is their propensity for destruction within the societies they inhabit. For example, if you like living with Kalahari Bushmen, nothing stops you from migrating to a hell-hole in Africa. But no. Your kind must insist on importing the Kalahari bushmen here. Even if a majority in the country doesn’t agree with it. “In fact, I hate racialism and tribalism so much that I want to see the races (at least here in the US) thoroughly mixed. If there are differences, then we should mix everyone up enough to even everyone out. At some point there won’t be much race left as everyone will be mongrelized and all of the measureable racial differences will also fade away.” How do you propose we do that? By government mandate? By setting concentration camps for people who don’t play along. A kind of Neo-Nazi racial experiment to create a new master race - a blended master race! “Immigration is a problem mostly for ecological reasons.” Human Races aren’t part of “ecology”? I find it amusing that Stalinist liberals like yourself lose sleep about a few sub-species of migrating birds going extinct while insisting that human races be made extinct by Government mandate. The truth is that Liberals are driven largely by egoism and vanity. Rationality, reasonableness and learning have nothing to do with the ideas that people such as yourself espouse. It has to do with YOU. With your petty vanities and your petty interests. And with your desire to appear more moral than the people who surround you. As much as you might like to congraulate yourself at being such a marvel, you are not. You are Nietzsche’s “last man” - a type that is commonly found in the west. You are amazingly conformist. The only oddity is that you speak against Jews. But as many thoughtful readers here will note, ranting against Jews has become rather fashionable in American academia as long as the rants come from a lunatic left-wing perspective. I had hoped that we would be dealing with an original. Unfortunately there are a million clones of you walking around in the west. 32
Posted by Effra on March 20, 2005, 02:04 PM | # Ben: A few more exhibits: (1) (David Rowan, ‘For Richer, For Kosher’ (Sunday Times, February 6, 2005) (2) (3) • Of all American Jews currently wed, one-third are intermarried. • Intermarriage runs highest among the young and among men. • The greater one’s Jewish education, the less likely one is to intermarry. 43 percent of those who lacked any Jewish education intermarried, 29 percent among those who had one day per week of Jewish education intermarried, 23 percent of those who had part-time Jewish education intermarried, and only 7 percent of those who attended Jewish day school or yeshiva intermarried.” (from the US National Jewish Population Survey, 2000-01) It seems to be amounting to race replacement at a rather faster pace than among whites in Britain or even in the USA! And the polarisation between Orthodox or Conservative (most of those with profound Jewish education) and secular is widening: “One of the most interesting revelations of the study is that American Jewry seems to be moving in two different directions simultaneously. A small group of affiliated American Jews seems to be undergoing a Jewish rennaissance, while unaffiliated American Jews seem to be decreasing Jewish intensity.” (ibid.) The unaffiliated ones are the financiers and culture warriors. I have also seen it claimed that 90% of children of mixed marriages are not ‘raised Jewish’ in any meaningful sense. 33
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 03:37 PM | # “Switzerland are examples of seriously interbred groups to the point where they are hardly any races existing anymore” Are you referring to the Teutonic nation called Switzerland that is within the continent of Europe? You have got to be kidding me. I was in Switzerland skiing in January this year. I go there almost every year. Switzerland is overhwelmingly white. Not only that but there is a very STRONG anti-immigrant movement taking shape in Switzerland. I think you need to deal with your ignorance about the world first. There is little point in us simply refuting hundreds of factual inaccuracies that form the basis of your nonsensical worldview. 34
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 03:44 PM | # “Brazil, most of Latin America, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Singapore, Trinidad, Switzerland are examples of seriously interbred groups to the point where they are hardly any races existing anymore” Brazil is home to a significant white minority that practically owns and runs the country. Race is alive and well in brazil despite race-mixing. See here: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/brazil.htm The same goes for almost all of Latin America. Whites (or those that are mostly white) own these nations. The majorities are overwhelmingly Indian or Meztizo and wretchedly poor. See here: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/mexico.htm Singapore is 80 percent ethnic chinese. The Chinese are not intermarrying with all and sundry. The Chinese have a deep conviction in their perceived inherent superiority and they believe that Singapore is not a hell-hole like Indonesia because it is essentially a Chinese colony: http://www.sfdonline.org/Link%20Pages/Link%20Folders/Human%20Rights/barr2.html As I said before, you need to deal with your own ignorance first. The other problems will rectify themselves once that happens. 35
Posted by ben tillman on March 20, 2005, 05:30 PM | # [Lipstadt] said that if this trend continued ‘intermarriages could destroy everything’, placing the rate at 52%. She is relying on the discredited survey by Kosmin et al. As for your numbers for Jews in England, I have no idea what the source of the data is, although it is a safe bet the figures are exaggerated. 36
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 20, 2005, 06:32 PM | # Mark, if you can be a white nationalist without being a hater, all the power to ya. I don’t see many examples of it, though. I am all for non-racist versions of various nationalisms. When (Blacks and Hispanics) are the majority, you’ll have to pack your bags and find another country. You might then understand the nature of your folly but it will be too late. In California, whites are now a minority and non-whites are a majority. That is why we are having so much ethnic warfare these days (anti-immigrant propositions, etc.). Phil, Malaysia is a good country, so is Vietnam. The Stans are not so bad; I know people staying there right now. Parts of the Arab World are as nice as Phoenix, with much less crime - I have had friends there too. Whatever problems these places have, it cannot possibly be do to their mixed-race nature. I also add Italy, Spain, Portugal, San Marino, Hungary and Greece to the mixed-race nations. And yes, I have read Rushton’s book and don’t know what to think about it. Basically, I do not wish to think about such things. Yeah, better they all judge each other by universal scientific standards; Uh huh, and by those universal standards white gentiles are found inferior, you realize that? Phil, in that chart, the US is #2. The US is now merely 65% white and declining as we speak. Other nations far whiter than the US score much lower. Now, your science again? Bermuda is 58% Black and 6% other non-white. Cayman Islands is 60% Mulatto and only 20% White. Aruba is 80% “Hispanic”. That’s 3 out of the top 15. Most of the Top nations are White, but that goes against science because Whites are inferior to East Asians and Jews. Similarly, Hispanics are known to hate blacks and vice versa (the other two large ethnic groups in the US) and there is little intermixing between them. Very little. That’s not really true at all. It’s the Hispanics who hate Blacks, but that may be changing. The Hispanics tend to regard Blacks as inferior humans. Blacks resent Hispanics for regarding them as inferior. Most of the racism is Hispanics -> Blacks, not the other way. I taught in Lynwood, California 18 years ago and I was just amazed at the scale of race-mixing amongst my students. I asked them their racial background and many were mixed Hispanic-Black. I do not have any statistics for you, but I can tell you, it is surely common. You see mixed-race couples everywhere nowadays, mostly the young. Whites are already resisting, Phil. What do you think this whole Republican Revolution is? It’s White racism, writ large, and largely subliminally denied. All the new laws against affirmative action, the war on Big Government, war on welfare, war on social spending, anti-Spanish language initiatives, anti-illegal immigrant initiatives, etc. We have political violence, the Whites openly rigging and stealing elections. We basically have a White Racist Dictatorship now since 2000. It’s clear the Whites are getting desperate. Notice the desperate, violent, undemocratic, racist, ultraright, super-corrupt, mega-arrogant character of these Bushies? It’s White and Jewish racism, writ large. The Whites are desperate, and the Jews are cocky, but also frightened. My prediction: you are going to see some Left revolutionary violence in the US if this White - Jewish ultra-right dictatorship goes on. 37
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 06:37 PM | # “Bermuda is 58% Black and 6% other non-white. Cayman Islands is 60% Mulatto and only 20% White. Aruba is 80% “Hispanic”.” Those are tax havens. The money that keeps those nations rich comes from rich Whites in North America and Europe. “but that goes against science because Whites are inferior to East Asians and Jews.” What “science” are we talking about? Its news to me. This is what I do know: 38
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 06:39 PM | # “Phil, in that chart, the US is #2. The US is now merely 65% white and declining as we speak. Other nations far whiter than the US score much lower. Now, your science again?” Because in the voting population, whites are 80 percent plus. Let that change to less than 50 percent. And you’ll see the difference. 39
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 20, 2005, 06:51 PM | # Phil, slaughter is not commonplace where mixed races exist. IMO, slaughter is commonplace where there is segregation. Integration is a good thing. Your kind must insist on importing the Kalahari bushmen here. Even if a majority in the country doesn’t agree with it. Actually, Phil, I do not insist on importing anyone. I wish to reduce legal immigration to 200,000 per year and illegal to as low as possible. That is a revolutionary stance here in the US, especially as the vast majority of your conservative darlings here are committed to mass-scale immigration. How do you propose we do that? By government mandate? By setting concentration camps for people who don’t play along. A kind of Neo-Nazi racial experiment to create a new master race - a blended master race! None of the above, Phil. It will just happen on its own. As we wage war on racism and tribalism and particularism, people will marry out. Human Races aren’t part of “ecology”? Environmental degradation is bad for humans too. I find it amusing that Stalinist liberals like yourself lose sleep about a few sub-species of migrating birds going extinct while insisting that human races be made extinct by Government mandate. K, not a liberal, and not a Stalinist. See profile on blog. I am a Leftist civil libertarian. The truth is that Liberals are driven largely by egoism and vanity. Um, that would be what the racialism thing is all about? Nationalism - racism - tribalism - particularism = narcissism. Its correlate is narcissism at the individual level. Ever seen how narcissistic Jews are? Rationality, reasonableness and learning have nothing to do with the ideas that people such as yourself espouse. Really, it’s nationalism that gets into all the mystical stuff. Check out Mussolini - Giovanni Gentile on facsism, on how they reject scientific socialism and science in general, and elevate such things as “heroism”, blood, soil, glorious history, and other hyperemotional constructs. Unfortunately there are a million clones of you walking around in the west. Oh, I doubt it. Not that that would be bad or anything. 40
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:04 PM | # “Phil, slaughter is not commonplace where mixed races exist.” Read about the history of Central asia. A long tale of one slaughter followed by another. “especially as the vast majority of your conservative darlings here are committed to mass-scale immigration.” If you read all of my posts on this blog, you will find out how much love I have for those “Conservatives”. ” None of the above, Phil. It will just happen on its own. As we wage war on racism and tribalism and particularism, people will marry out.” What will you do if you hit a plateau and still left with massive populations that are racially different? “Environmental degradation is bad for humans too.” You didnt answer the question. Are human races part of ecology or not? If not then why not? To the extent that the North American timber-wolf is a race of the Wolf, whites are a race of humans. If enviros lose sleep about the timber-wolf going extinct, why dont they lose sleep over the races going extinct? “I am a Leftist civil libertarian.” Leftism is incompatible with freedom. “Um, that would be what the racialism thing is all about? Nationalism - racism - tribalism - particularism = narcissism. Its correlate is narcissism at the individual level. Ever seen how narcissistic Jews are?” This goes along the same line as the old smear that all those who are nationalists and those who see nations from a racial perspective are NAZIS. The views I hold are not in any way different from the views men like Churchill held on Nationalism or Race. And churchill was no fascist and certainly not a denier of science. “Oh, I doubt it. Not that that would be bad or anything.” If that weren’t so, this site wouldn’t exist. The destruction the Liberals have caused in less than five decades is the sole reason why sites like this exist. You will note that there are no equivalent Japanese sites (for example) because they dont have open borders and millions of immigrants streaming in unchecked every year. 41
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:07 PM | # ” I wish to reduce legal immigration to 200,000 per year and illegal to as low as possible.” Your whole idea is a massive contradiction. In order to destroy whites as a unqiue race of people in the US, you will need a lot lot more than just 200,000 immigrants every year. Also, remember that even though there are 30 million Hispanics in America (maybe 40 million), intermarriage rates are remarkably low with whites. Your talk of widespread race-mixing is true of certain urban centres. But we are speaking of a whole country. Without stats, your arguments hold no water. 42
Posted by Guessedworker on March 20, 2005, 07:16 PM | # Robert, Nobody beats down Phil on the threads, though many very clever people have tried. It can’t be done - and if it could they’d find me standing next in line. Give it up and migrate to the later thread. You haven’t chosen to respond to the substance of my post yet. 43
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:35 PM | # Robert, One last point before I go to bed: You should study the history of dog breeds. Dogs are little more than wolves that were domesticated several thousand years ago. At that point there were very few breeds of dogs. Today after several centuries of inter-breeding, there are literally hundreds of breeds. Applied to humans, the effect would be the same. There are currently no more than a dozen races of humans (at best). If massive mixing started, there would simply be no way to control it. How do you ensure that every human at the end of say the 1st century of your experiment would contain the same ratio of African/European/East Asian genes (for starters)? Its impossible. Instead of producing a homogenous human race you will wind up with perhaps 100 human races instead. The kind of thing you are hoping for is like a sci-fi fantasy from a B grade comic from the 1950s. Get some politcal maturity old chap. Start reading Churchill on the Sudan. Excellent starting point on an education about Race-mixing. As a great explorer in Africa wrote: “God made the higher races and God made the lower races but the Devil made the half-caste!” 44
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 20, 2005, 07:37 PM | # Comments noted on the tax havens. But you racialists say that a non-white state cannot be prosperous. You state that if a state becomes 80% non-white, 80% Hispanic, or 65% non-white, it will no longer function well. Yet these tax shelters do. I think most of the economic success of White European and Anglo states (US, Canada, Australia) is due to imperialism and colonialism. In the past, Arabs sat on top of the world. Then the Greeks and Italians, who are mixed race Whites regarded as inferior by Nordicists. Yet these inferior groups lorded it over the superior. Jews, demonstrably superior, lived in ghettos and often in poverty for almost 2000 years. Even now, plenty of inferior white states beat the Jewish state. Inferior white states beat superior East Asian states. Scientifically, that chart is all over the place. What “science” are we talking about? Its news to me. This is what I do know: East Asians are superior to Whites on IQ. Rushton feels they are superior to Whites on most every other scale too. Whites are inferior, face it. Because in the voting population of the US, whites are 80 percent plus. And this explains US economic success?! What the Hell are you talking about? US economic success is a product of culture, in part, and the US business community. It has nothing to do with the state at all. 45
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 20, 2005, 07:44 PM | # Are you referring to the Teutonic nation called Switzerland that is within the continent of Europe? Sorry, there are 3 different kinds of white folks there, that is what I meant. It’s not culturally homogenous. There are German, Italian and French Whites there. The French are Southern French, who are closer to Italians and Spaniards. The Germans are Germans. The Italians - I do not know, northern Italians? Brazil is home to a significant white minority that practically owns and runs the country. Race is alive and well in brazil despite race-mixing. Well the first part is true all right. But they don’t own and run it because they are superior! They colonize the other groups in Brazil. Further, many of those “Whites” are seriously mixed-in. The rest are largely Spaniards and Italians. Brazil is one of the least racist countries on Earth in terms of blatant outward racism, considering the mixed state of its society. However, racism still exists. But Brazil has progressed very far towards reducing racism. Brazil needs Leftwing Revolution! Like Chavez! Note Venezuela, where Chavez, the mulatto, leads the people waging class war against the White Overseer class! Viva Hugo! The same goes for almost all of Latin America. Whites (or those that are mostly white) own these nations. The majorities are overwhelmingly Indian or Meztizo and wretchedly poor. This is a fact, though Argentina and Uruguay are mostly White, and Chile is largely White, and the Mestizos are not that mixed. You’re correct for the rest, though Brazil and Venezuela are heavily Black (Venezuela is mixed Indian - White - Black). Panama is same. Puerto Rico is similar. Cuba, with the longest life expectancy, lowest infant mortality and best health care on the continent, is 62% Mulatto. Haiti is all Black but run by Mulatto overseers. The fact that White Overseer Dictators enslave the other races under their White Racist Dictatorships down there is why we need Left Revoltion in Latin America! Singapore is 76% Chinese and I question the statistics. I have met Singaporeans and they tell me many people are mixed race now. 46
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 07:46 PM | # Last point: Race-mixing appears to have become a quasi-religion for you. The first sign of a religious fanatic is to deny all the facts (“The Stans are not so bad”). The most inconvenient point for you is the kind of slaughter commonplace in the Caucasus: http://www.exile.ru/2004-September-17/war_nerd.html “And yes, I have read Rushton’s book and don’t know what to think about it. Basically, I do not wish to think about such things.” As I said, quasi-religion. Science gets in the way. Thats too bad. As I said, people with your views are rarely rational.
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq.htm Race and violent crime: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm Happy reading! 47
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 08:03 PM | # “Scientifically, that chart is all over the place.” It isn’t. See here: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//sft.htm http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//sft2.htm “East Asians are superior to Whites on IQ. “ East Asians have higher MEAN IQs. That says nothing about distribution. Israel is not majority Ashkenazi Jewish. Its Ashkenazi Jews that have higher IQs than whites, not Sephardic or Arab jews: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//ashkenaz.htm You can check Jewish mean IQs in the US and compare it with incomes. Its a no-brainer. I am assuming you have read “The Bell Curve”. If you havent, read it for your own verification. “Whites are inferior, face it.” See above. “Sorry, there are 3 different kinds of white folks there, that is what I meant. It’s not culturally homogenous.” You are pretty fast and loose with facts my friend. I thought we were talking about RACE not LANGUAGE. “But they don’t own and run it because they are superior!” No they own and run them because they have higher IQs. Meztizo IQs are about 87, “pure” Andean Indian IQs are probably lower. Note that in Brazil, the Japanese had no connection with the Spanish colonizers but the Japanese of Brazil are pretty rich. “The fact that White Overseer Dictators enslave the other races under their White Racist Dictatorships down there is why we need Left Revoltion in Latin America!” The mask slips. The murderous commie emerges. Red October lays awaiting. Civil Libertarian indeed. If past injustices and oppression were responsible for keeping a people poor, Jews would be the poorest people on the planet! 48
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 08:05 PM | # And here is the actual result of open borders: 49
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 08:11 PM | # “I think most of the economic success of White European and Anglo states (US, Canada, Australia) is due to imperialism and colonialism.” And Japan is richer than the US and Germany richer than Britain because they were better colonizers than the US and Britain! 50
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 20, 2005, 08:19 PM | # “Brazil is one of the least racist countries on Earth in terms of blatant outward racism” Blatant and outward being the operative words here. AND, its certainly not a single blended race that your sci-fi fantasy wants to magically appear. Actually if you read Steve Sailer’s article on Mexico, you’ll discover than the Mexican elite has become more White than it was 100 years ago. Race-mixing between races of extremely divergent IQs will not produce a uniformly blended race. Taken globally, you cannot have a single blended global race. Its basically impossible. 52
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 20, 2005, 08:27 PM | # I can’t believe people are taking this dreg seriously. The guy’s just an absolute piece of excrement. 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 20, 2005, 09:47 PM | # Here are your poor defenseless white gentiles, by the way, who are being controlled by the Jews: Lindsay here, poor guy. I wish the Jews would stop controlling good gentiles like him, forcing them to commit self-genocide! Lindsay would be fine if ONLY they would stop CONTROLLING him, those bastards! If they would just leave gentiles alone all our problems with race-replacement would be solved! Look, Jewish money and organization are obviously a significant factor in the current genocidal race-replacement crisis, and the particular segment of the Jewish Community that pushes this stuff needs to be exposed and denounced wherever appropriate (that is, it is proper to denounce this lot as Jews, not just as leftists, wherever their behavior in this regard is more on a Jewish group basis than on a leftist basis). But let’s not forget who runs the show: the gentiles do, gentiles all too often exactly like this Mayflower-descended Lindsay piece of mental and moral disease. Does anyone imagine for a second that Bush’s and Rove’s ideas on race and the nation-state are one jot different from Lindsay’s? They aren’t. 54
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 21, 2005, 04:28 AM | # “And this explains US economic success?! What the Hell are you talking about? US economic success is a product of culture, in part, and the US business community. It has nothing to do with the state at all.” In the US, incomes by Ethnic groups diverge widely. See here: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/color_of_meritocracy.htm The more Mexicans and blacks there are, the lower productivity will be. Also, because many low IQ mexicans cannot vote at the moment, the size of the welfare state is smaller (for a start). Everything is inter-connected. In South America, one banana republic follows another because the populations are incapable of sustaining the institutions that form a free society. The character and composition of the voting population has a direct bearing on the character and composition of the state: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/elec2000.htm Of course, in the inverted world of leftists, even the laws of gravity get reversed! 55
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 21, 2005, 04:30 AM | # “In the past, Arabs sat on top of the world.” Say when? 56
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 21, 2005, 04:30 AM | # “Then the Greeks and Italians, who are mixed race” Mixed with whom? 57
Posted by Phil Peterson on March 21, 2005, 04:32 AM | # “Then the Greeks and Italians, who are mixed race Whites regarded as inferior by Nordicists” We aren’t Nordicists. This is the wrong forum for that argument. 58
Posted by dlg on March 21, 2005, 05:31 AM | # “Here are your poor defenseless white gentiles, by the way, who are being controlled by the Jews: Lindsay here, poor guy. I wish the Jews would stop controlling good gentiles like him… Lindsay would be fine if ONLY they would stop CONTROLLING him, those bastards!” That sounds paranoid, Fred. Lindsay is a forty-seven year old man, he can think for himself. To blame his opinions on the Jews is simply bizarre, especially considering that the man is an inveterate anti-Zionist who believes Israel has no right to exist and supports the likes of Hamas. And he also wants the Jews to breed themselves out of existence. I guess the Jewish mind control program needs to be seriously upgraded? 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 21, 2005, 08:57 AM | # I was being sarcastic, dlg—or trying to be. Sorry if that wasn’t obvious. The point I was trying to make was exactly the one you just made. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 21, 2005, 09:10 AM | # It is gentiles like this excrement Lindsay—a Mayflower descendant, no less! what a turd!—who are running the show. They’ve got plenty of white-Euro-Christian hating Jews on their side, yes. But these gentiles are the people who are fundamentally to blame for what’s going on. By all means, attack Jews as Jews, not only as leftists, where that’s called for. But let’s not let the bigger culprits off scot-free. I’d venture a guess that 80% of gentile élites harbor opinions on race, ethnicity, the nation-state, and race-replacement immigration that are identical with those of this creep. Where he differs from the gentile élites is he’s also a Stalinist/Castroite Marxist (or, thinks he’s one anyway—he’s actually too stupid and narcissistic to be much of anything). 61
Posted by Effra on March 21, 2005, 09:59 AM | # ben tillman: “As for your numbers for Jews in England, I have no idea what the source of the data is, although it is a safe bet the figures are exaggerated.” Sorry, you’ll have to try harder than that. Do you also consider the stats I quoted from the National Jewish Population Survey (6,000 respondents, fieldwork 2000-01) “discredited”, and if so by whom? And again I ask: why do Jews themselves sound so alarmed about outmarriage and assimilation, if it’s not happening all that fast? Are they just fooling us? This is meant to be a website for sober, referenced discussion. I for one want facts, deductions and refutations thereof, not ‘I just know it can’t be true’. 62
Posted by dlg on March 21, 2005, 11:16 AM | # Fred, I’m relieved you were being sarcastic. Sorry I missed it, but you never know. I once had a roommate whose obsession with supposed nefarious Jewish power later degenerated into paranoid schizophrenia. He actually came to believe the ADL was monitoring his thoughts! 63
Posted by Guessedworker on March 21, 2005, 11:19 AM | # You mean the old bearded guy who hangs around in my dreams isn’t Abe Foxman? 64
Posted by ben tillman on March 21, 2005, 03:46 PM | # And again I ask: why do Jews themselves sound so alarmed about outmarriage and assimilation, if it’s not happening all that fast? Are they just fooling us? No, it is propaganda for internal consumption, just like the constant alarms sounded regarding anti-Jewish sentiment. 65
Posted by ben tillman on March 21, 2005, 04:15 PM | # This is meant to be a website for sober, referenced discussion. I for one want facts, deductions and refutations thereof, not ‘I just know it can’t be true’. That’s a gross mischaracterization and highly offensive. You would do well to apologize. I explained the infirmities of the 1990 NJPS that formed the basis for your claim that “[h]alf of US Jews are marrying out.” You subsequently produced data from the 2000 NJPS Survey (6,000 respondents). I’m not sure why you expected me to contradict these data; they contradict no claim that I have made. They are consistent with an increase from the upper limit of 14% exogamy found in the Medding study of US Jews, but I freely conceded the possibility of such an increase. Just where the data would put the figure now, however, is unclear. What proportion of US Jews have had the various amounts of Jewish education for which the 43%, 29%, 23%, and 7% intermarriage figures are quoted? Are these intermarriage figures for first marriages only, or do they include Jews who have out-married and in-married? Also, before you rely too heavily on the 2000 NJPS, you may want to consider that the 1990 NJPS is the same survey that produced the exaggerated 52% intermarriage figure discussed above. Did they get a more representative sample this time? 66
Posted by Effra on March 21, 2005, 06:18 PM | # ben: “In the Winter 2001/2 issue of jpr/news, Professor Barry Kosmin wrote an article about The American Jewish Identity Survey (AJIS) 2001, which he conducted together with Professor Egon Mayer and Dr Ariela Keysar of the Center for Jewish Studies of The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. “Findings from the Survey throw new light on marriage patterns among America’s Jewish adults. For example, the incidence of _intermarriage among America’s Jewish adults stabilized in the 1990s and stands at 51% for the period of 1990-2001. In addition to the 51% of Jews who married non-Jews in the past decade, another 9% married someone who converted to Judaism. Just 40% of Jews, or persons of Jewish parentage or upbringing, married someone from the same background in this period. It should be noted that the 51% of born Jews who intermarried includes 6% of the total marrying Jewish population for whom intermarriage was associated with a switch to the religion of their spouse. “While the incidence of intermarriage with non-Jews appears to have stabilized, the overall proportion of intermarried American Jewish adults has risen substantially as the high numbers of interfaith couples married in recent decades have replaced the older in-married (ie. both spouses Jewish) generations who were married before 1970. The study also found 276,000 Jewish adults, or about 7% of the total adult population, living in a relationship without marriage. In this group 81% are living with a partner who is not Jewish.” [JPR News, Spring 2002: journal of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research] Sounds a big enough headache to me. I don’t follow the reasoning in your original response: “...the interpretation of the data exaggerated exogamy by not accounting for those who have (or will have) married more than once, taking at least one Jewish and one gentile spouse. It doesn’t matter if a Jewish man has numerous wives if at some point he marries and has children with a Jewish woman. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if a Jewish woman marries a gentile after she has reared Jewish children and her husband has divorced her for a younger shikse.” Why shouldn’t it matter? These are all threats to the cohesion and exclusiveness of Jewry in a sea of gentility, a long way downhill from the days when marriage was Jew plus Jew pure and simple. and again: “...it is propaganda for internal consumption, just like the constant alarms sounded regarding anti-Jewish sentiment.” Well, not all propaganda is lies, and why shouldn’t Jews perceive anti-Jewish sentiment? There’s a lot of it about, rightly or wrongly: some of it on this site from people who have got too big a bee in their bonnets about the Chosen, taking them too much at their own valuation. 67
Posted by ben tillman on March 21, 2005, 07:10 PM | # Why shouldn’t it matter? These are all threats to the cohesion and exclusiveness of Jewry in a sea of gentility, a long way downhill from the days when marriage was Jew plus Jew pure and simple. Your point was that the Jewish community was being depopulated through exogamy. Obviously, if Jews have Jewish children, it doesn’t matter how many goyim they marry before or after they have their Jewish children—those children help to prevent the depopulation you speak of. 68
Posted by Effra on March 22, 2005, 07:25 AM | # But how ‘Jewish’ are such children? Are they not likely to be of the cultural or ‘gastronomic’ kind, members of Liberal or Reform synagogues if they go to temple at all, likely to mingle with the cattle more often and likely themselves to marry out and bring up children who are Jewish in no more perceptible sense than Irish Americans or German Americans? This is all part of the ‘slow fade’ of secular Jewry which I discerned in my first post. Expecting secularised Jews to vanish in a puff of smoke between generations is unrealistic; but I continue to think that their collective hysteria about being persecuted, in the past and the present, is an expression of subconscious fears about the relentlessness of this fading from history, rather than a semi-conscious ploy for intimidating and exprorpriating a host community. Of course the effect on us of all this moral bullying is demoralising and should be derided, but I think it is largely self-correcting: many Jews are already ashamed of being cast as eternal schnorrers by their ‘community leaders’, and respond by washing their Jewishness away. It appears as if in 50 years’ time most of the remnant of Israel will be pretty apolitical, very pious, distracted by ritual, distinctive and easy to accomodate. They will not want to foist themselves on the rest of us as masters of banking, media, academe and law, but just to pray and be docile citizens of the Diaspora lands in which they find themselves while they await the Messiah. 69
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 23, 2005, 03:16 AM | # The first sign of a religious fanatic is to deny all the facts (“The Stans are not so bad”). Well at the moment Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan are fairly stable. The violence in these areas is due to Islam, not being a mixed-race people, for Chrissake. The most inconvenient point for you is the kind of slaughter commonplace in the Caucasus: http://www.exile.ru/2004-September-17/war_nerd.html Those people are fairly pure, I guess. I never heard that the Caucasians were extremely mixed people? Are they not just white folks? You have 2 different kinds of white folks or more fighting there, but it’s not an issue of whether any of the peoples is mixed. Though the Russians are fairly mixed. “And yes, I have read Rushton’s book and don’t know what to think about it. Basically, I do not wish to think about such things.” As I said, quasi-religion. Science gets in the way. Thats too bad. As I said, people with your views are rarely rational. Rushton is way way out in Right Field in many ways. He poses many interesting theories, but has not proved much yet. But, even if he is correct, where in the Hell does this lead us? Why do we need to pay attention to such things? There are facts in science that can examine and say, ok, cool, but it’s not really important to know this, so we are not going to pay attention here. Why is it essential for us to pay attention to the facts of racial science, such as they may be? Why can’t we blow them off? Race and violent crime: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm Mildly interesting. Getting to know many Ghanaians has convinced me that most problems with US Blacks are due to discrimination. Blacks in Ghana are nothing like US Blacks. Almost like 2 races. Further, note that Cuba has a very low violent crime rate, far lower than the US, and most capitalist states in Latin America have far higher crime rates and far more vicious police and prisons. IQ and the Wealth of nations: http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_iq.htm Mildly interesting, but it’s not a real nice correlation. “Scientifically, that chart is all over the place.” It isn’t. See here: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//sft.htm http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//sft2.htm Mildly interesting again. He overrates himself. Wasn’t it 15 years ago the US was terrified of the Japanese threat? What happened? I am not entirely convinced of the inferiority of these East Asians, having gone to school with lots of them. They are smart as Hell. East Asians have higher MEAN IQs. That says nothing about distribution. That’s not the argument. The argument is that they have lower verbal IQ’s than Whites. Israel is not majority Ashkenazi Jewish. Its Ashkenazi Jews that have higher IQs than whites, not Sephardic or Arab jews: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com//ashkenaz.htm The link you gave me was interesting but provided no data on IQ of Sephardics. Got any? I am assuming you have read “The Bell Curve”. If you havent, read it for your own verification. Yes I have. Are these IQ differences genetic, or can they be changed by the environment, do you think? For instance, could Blacks close the White-Black gap by 30% just via environmental improvement? You are pretty fast and loose with facts my friend. I thought we were talking about RACE not LANGUAGE. Sorry I am dealing with some Nordicist clowns lately who would insist that Switzerland would have German Nordics = superior + French mixed or Nordic and south european = somewhat inferior + Italian south europeans = inferior. I guess you are part of the white = white crowd then. No they own and run them because they have higher IQs. Meztizo IQs are about 87, “pure” Andean Indian IQs are probably lower. I would surely like to see some evidence for that! American Indian IQ in North America is 90, it stands to reason that it is 90 throughout the Continent. Bell Curve suggests Mestizo IQ is 92, which sounds close. The problem here is you have profoundly unfair systems enforced via dictatorial gunpoint. It’s semi-feudalism at the point of the gun. In a fair system, I think the White would considerably dominate, but NO WAY would it look like it does now. It would look more like the US - where Whites dominate Hispanics, but the differences are much less than in Latin America. Note that in Brazil, the Japanese had no connection with the Spanish colonizers but the Japanese of Brazil are pretty rich. They are part of the semi-feudal ruling class of the death squad democracy called Brazil. 70
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 23, 2005, 03:48 AM | # The mask slips. The murderous commie emerges. Red October lays awaiting. Civil Libertarian indeed. Well I do support revolution in Latin America. I supported the FMLN in El Salvador and the URNG in Guatemala, the Sandinists in Nicaragua, the Honduran guerrillas, the FARC and ELN in Colombia, and some small guerrillas in Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and Bolivia. I would surely support some revolution in Haiti. You probably need to defeat the military of the ruling class in those places because the white ruling class scum will never allow a fair democracy to exist. You may even need to go Marxist dictatorship in some of those places. I would support Marxist dictatorship in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Ecuador, Haiti, Brazil and definitely Colombia. The other places probably not. Democracy is a lot better, but where the rich white pigs won’t allow a fair democracy, you need to sieze the state from them via the way of the gun and impose dictatorship on them. It’s unfortunate but it’s all the fault of the rich white scum. And Japan is richer than the US and Germany richer than Britain because they were better colonizers than the US and Britain! Japan is not richer. Actually if you read Steve Sailer’s article on Mexico, you’ll discover than the Mexican elite has become more White than it was 100 years ago. Hmmm, too bad. Sounds like they need to face the gun. Race-mixing between races of extremely divergent IQs will not produce a uniformly blended race. Taken globally, you cannot have a single blended global race. Its basically impossible. Yeh but you will mix things up enough to where the differences will be reduced, which is excellent. The more Mexicans and blacks there are, the lower productivity will be. Oh really? The US has been getting less white for decades now and where are we on that economic chart? #2? Interesting. Isn’t California #8 on Earth if it were a nation? California, the majority non-white state? Interesting. Also, because many low IQ mexicans cannot vote at the moment, the size of the welfare state is smaller (for a start). What the Hell does that have to do with it? That Top 20 list you showed was a list of the biggest welfare states on Earth. In South America, one banana republic follows another because the populations are incapable of sustaining the institutions that form a free society. The character and composition of the voting population has a direct bearing on the character and composition of the state: Hmmm and Chile and Argentina are genetically the same as Spain and Italy, yet so much more f-d. So where is your genes = political system game now? “In the past, Arabs sat on top of the world.” Say when? Oh around 900 or so. And genetically they were the same. They were kicking ass on the genetically superior European Whites and the Asians. How is it possible?! “Then the Greeks and Italians, who are mixed race” Mixed with whom? 90% white, 10% Black, both of them. Well, Southern Italians are 10% Black, esp Sicilians. Now how is it these 10% Black folks were kicking butt on the 100% White nations and the Asian nations for centuries, creating Ancient Greece and Rome, with these f-d up 10% Black genes? Where is your race = wealth = culture game now? 71
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 23, 2005, 03:50 AM | # To blame his opinions on the Jews is simply bizarre, especially considering that the man is an inveterate anti-Zionist who believes Israel has no right to exist and supports the likes of Hamas. And he also wants the Jews to breed themselves out of existence. Thx dlg. That’s a fairly accurate summation of my views. Really, I would mostly like the Jews to dumb down. Whether they want to racial hari-kari or not is less important, but Jews going extinct *would* make for a calmer, albeit slightly dumber planet. I’ll take it. 72
Posted by Robert Lindsay on March 23, 2005, 04:00 AM | # I once had a roommate whose obsession with supposed nefarious Jewish power later degenerated into paranoid schizophrenia. Now now dlg. You know that the paranoid schiz simply utilizes whatever conspiratorial or fearful entities exist in his culture in his delusions. Sorry to hear you roomed with a PS. I had a friend like that couple years back. Finally had to blow it off with him. He still won’t get help and he is basically homeless. He needs to be forced into a hospital by the police - the state - and forcibly medicated against his will. Thx for some superb comments on the JQ, Effra. I am afraid you are too optimistic. I have seen 1/2 Jews and 1/4 Jews and especially Jewish converts go 500 years f-g Kosher just like that. There is something soul-possessive and mentally obsessive about Jewish identity. I hope you are right but fear you are not. 73
Posted by ben tillman on February 14, 2007, 05:16 PM | # Wow—look at what our friend Robert has been up to(!!!): http://www.ziopedia.org/content/view/3301/90/ Robert Lindsay interview with ZioPedia founder and editor/publisher Andrew Winkler in response to intense media interest in an article with the title “Elie Wiesel and the Big Lie ” describing the alleged attack on the Nobel Prize winner by a Holocaust revisionist identifying himself as Eric Hunt. 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 14, 2007, 06:01 PM | # The vibes I’m getting are that this Hunt fellow who accosted Wiesel was in reality our old friend Robert Lindsay — or am I way off? Next entry: A pro-Gypsy elite versus Middle England Previous entry: The Conservative Tradition |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. alvin sunny commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/24/12, 03:45 AM. (go) (view) PMP Preparation commented in entry 'Starvation to keep the masses on a leash' on 05/24/12, 03:15 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) zhrcwuwmkq commented in entry 'The end of Mel Gibson's career?' on 05/23/12, 11:46 PM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/23/12, 11:11 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/23/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) Cockouche commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 09:40 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/23/12, 08:41 PM. (go) (view) GlablePax commented in entry 'University official sentenced for child porn, blackmail' on 05/23/12, 08:23 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Sheepishly. I am embarassed to admit, that of course I have some ethnocentrism but it is well buried and denied. As I’m aware of my psych defenses, unlike most, I can see it’s being denied. I like the way I look - I am white. I am, at times, proud of my people and of course proud of my ancestry. I feel a kinship with whites.
Posted by Guessedworker on March 18, 2005, 06:58 AM | #
I’d like to engage Robert here sometime on his liberal principles. Certainly, he is sound on his views of ethnic land rights as well as Jewish particularism. It would be interesting to see how someone so admirably sensible on these issues is nonetheless a progressive.