|
|
So why do liberal states accept unwanted immigration?
It stands to reason don’t it, yer daft Scouse git! It’s yer bleedin’ Joos innit?
Posted by Dan Dare on Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 01:51 AM in Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on August 08, 2009, 04:57 AM | # Dan: Discuss. If one holds that the will of powerful people acting in concert explains the swamping of the West with Third World populations, the question becomes: are Jews high in the power elites acting from the usual Jewish millenarianism or from their own self-interest as a member of said elites. CC, You are such a Jekyll and Hyde character. You possess a very rare gift for subtle understanding, yet you get your kicks, as someone here once said, from pushing people against the lockers in High School. Mr Hyde is winning out at the moment. You need to deal with this German thing so we can all profit from the mind of Dr Jekyll. 3
Posted by Al Ross on August 08, 2009, 05:09 AM | # GW, “this German thing” reminds me of a sign at the lions enclosure at Dublin Zoo, viz., “These animals are dangerous - when attacked they defend themselves”. 4
Posted by Captainchaos on August 08, 2009, 06:26 AM | # GW, I suppose there is a thin line between an aggressive advocate (e.g., a barrister) and an asshole (e.g., yours truly, on occasion). I believe it was Frank who accused me of “abusing the commons” at Takislag (no sic), and insinuated I deserved to be “kicked in the teeth”. Well, I can’t feel guilty about the way I comported myself there. Sorry if I offended Dan. Dan, sorry if I offended you. I work things out intellectually largely by bouncing ideas off people - through struggle. I figure if the interlocutor is as intelligent as he presents himself as being, and correspondingly his opinions are as cogent, then his arguments contra mine will clearly win out. And it is good sport. Or maybe it’s because I’m just too dumb to apply the necessary dialectic myself, in which case I flatter myself unjustly.
I suppose the straight forward way would be to attempt to fashion a Venn diagram, which would reveal the degree to which these overlapped. Some rough questions as criteria to establish a possible metric by which to quantify it all: 1.) To what degree is it off the essence of Jewry to strive to be power elites in their host societies? 2.) To what degree do Jewish power elites, however that is defined, act to the detriment of their own people out of self-interest (e.g., Bernie Madoff)? 3.) To what degree do Jewish power elites act for the benefit of their own people? 4.) How many of identifiable power elites, however that is defined, are Jewish? 5.) How many of identifiable Jewish power elites are identifiably motivated by millenarian ideology - always taking into consideration deception to advance group interests and the self-deception of altruism - and not merely money and power? 6.) To what degree, of those Jewish power elites, motivated preponderantly my money and power getting, expressing a more general instinct of Jewish materialism? That’s all I can think of off the top of my head. 5
Posted by I'd like to add... on August 08, 2009, 06:42 AM | #
Well, as the ol’ saying goes: “It takes a dozen hyenas to bring down a single lion.” Or something like that. 6
Posted by Captainchaos on August 08, 2009, 07:03 AM | #
LOL! All right, one more time, then I’m cashing in my chips, for a while. This is what I presume to be the truth: Germans, who are are less individualistic than the English per evolution, and more idealistic, and hence less materialistic, have within the range of their possible collective behavior, more a mighty striving for power, the advancement of their EGI, which is hear characterized as “impractical” “palingeneticism”. And of course all the things that go along with being Nordic, e.g., industriousness, inventiveness, physical prowess, etc. As the closest neighboring tribe to the English, they therefore have clashed historically over finite resources to boost their respective inclusive fitnesses. Now, there is a third actor added to this equation, and that is Jewry. The Germans, for the above described reason, are constitutionally more equipped to casting Jewry once again out of the equation; the English less and therefore more vulnerable to Jewish infiltration, and Jewish extended phenotypedom. The English, during WWII, with no small effort from the Jewish infiltrators in their midst, with all their “practicality”, missed the golden opportunity to cast off their parasites once and for all. Now, with what may well have been the last best hope for our race smashed, burned to ashes, utterly demoralized, beyond all hope of acting the savior again, the English, and their extended cultural phenotype of America, taking into account the Judaization of both, needs to find a way, a “philosophy”, to motivate their people to do sans “gangsterism” - what the Germans offered to do, but the English shortsightedly, and under the corrupting influence of Jewry, stopped Germans from doing, in only the way that Krauts could have done it. 7
Posted by Dasein on August 08, 2009, 07:20 AM | #
8
Posted by Guessedworker on August 08, 2009, 07:36 AM | # CC, I will have a think about the Venn diagram. As regards “the English” and “the Germans”, be sure to attribute to each their own attitudes and characteristics, but not the attitudes and actions of their elites. I am just now piecing together a post on mythicisation, and it is plain to me that with very rare exceptions, peoples do not “dream” and “yearn”. Their leaders do. 9
Posted by Captainchaos on August 08, 2009, 07:37 AM | # Put more succinctly: The individualism and “practical” materialism characteristic of the English, as above other European peoples, has now become the extended phenotype of the West, with the Anglo-American victory in said over the Krauts in WWII - amplified through the noxious prism of Jewry, and hence Judaized. We cannot count on the Germans, with their “palingeneticism” to save us again, for the reason that, as one wit once said, “they were well and truly murdered by the British and the Americans.” And a related question, What is more adaptive for Europeans, to be and English extended phenotype, or a German extended phenotype, always keep in mind the degree to which the former or the latter can rid us of the Jewish extended phenotype? Moving on…I see three options now for the salvation of our race: 1.) A “philosophy” which is “practical”, one which eschews “palingeneticism”, one which gets us in touch with our true essence - thereby freeing our people to act consciously as group members, and hence with restrained individualism, and hence to reject Jewry, who are not group members. 2.) Striving for system independence, in which we will construct a “hammer”, with which we will strike our enemies, both defensively and offensively (but we can’t say that out loud), in a gambit of Fourth Generation warfare. 3.) The pursuit even greater individualism, though decentralized, and thereby avoiding the corrupting influence of mass society (read: Jewry), in which single combat to death will be established by common consent (of the strongest) to bring order through a “natural” pecking order. (A notion that at least strikes as that which should be as offensive to the Good and the Great as the Kraut’s “palingeneticism” - but hey, that’s just me.) My two pence, take it or leave it. 10
Posted by It must be said... on August 08, 2009, 08:01 AM | #
Don’t forget CC that there are many millions of people of ethnic German descent (either fully or partially) living in the USA; thus there is the chance of a revival of Germanism in concert with some of the more ‘aware’ Anglo-Saxon Americans (emphasis on the Saxon) sometime in the future. Also remember that the White native stock of the USA was not ravaged nearly as badly during the two world wars as was the native stock of Germany, the UK, France, Russia, etc - therefore some of the best White stock still in existence may very well reside right here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2009, 08:21 AM | #
First: Is immigration being “accepted” or imposed with a mailed fist? And is a mailed fist “liberal”? Reflection on the answers to those is the beginning of seeing what’s going on and why. The whole “liberalism” thing is a crock. People are the same now as they always were. They’re not “liberal.” They’re normal. Everyone here knows my view of what’s going on. I don’t need to repeat it. 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2009, 08:43 AM | # You do of course have to analyse it to see exactly how it works, every step of the race-replacement process laid bare so that, as with eliminating malaria by seeing exactly how that worked, you can stamp the death-dealing evil out. This day relenting God Seeking His secret deeds (Lines penned by Sir Ronald Ross after working out the malarial parasite stages in the mosquito — work which was to bring him a Nobel Prize.) 13
Posted by Guessedworker on August 08, 2009, 08:59 AM | # Fred, Dan’s question concerns “liberal states”. It is in the realm of the political, not the popular will. And yet the word “accepts” suggests the latter. Political power, which in our age is a product of liberalism as surely as you and I are, does not “accept” the importation of African and Asian populations. It imports them. Therefore, I assume the question to mean: why do political powers import racial aliens? But it could mean: why do European peoples not rise up and slaughter the traitors and throw out the Africans and Asians, as would happen in any other country in the world? Perhaps Dan should clarify. 14
Posted by Captainchaos on August 08, 2009, 09:18 AM | #
That is potentially problematic, for if dreams, yearnings, visions of potential collective enterprises, are not in fact, never have been, and never can be, the articulated strategy for the maximization of group EGI, according to the nature, the essence of a people, and said elites, leaders, are not organically blossomed from their people, and can hence articulate a ‘higher’ vision of the maximization of group EGI, which they may experience as mythical, what then binds them to their people beyond what they could get from pursuing elitism per se internationally? Well, I suppose it will be answered, “EGI, but of course.” But that takes an elite(s), a leader(s), dare I say a Fuhrer (in times of extremis) of an especial character - and is the character of this type of man(men) more given to the “palingenetic”. To what degree are these correlated? Besides, it is Kevin MacDonald who posited, whose work we so heavily rely upon, the especial individualism of Northwestern Europeans. And so? Did he single-handedly nail down the genes which produce said? Well no. He did a historians work, but analysed his research material through the lens of sociobiology. The differing ‘natures’ of the English and the Germans, if indeed so, and in the way I contend, is a question which should be resolved empirically. No? And by the methods of a historian, at least in gathering research material, unless we hold this enterprise to a higher standard than MacDonald’s work, and as a result hypocritically hold out for the ‘better evidence’ of indisputably discovered genetic determinism - whilst condemning Jewry, leaving ourselves exempt. Of course I suspect you will/have already pursued the historians method. As should I. But it begs the question - and it ties in to the above question posed regarding the character of elites - why are you right - why are Desmond Jones and Wintermute wrong (assuming that if you are not elites, then you are at least reasonably representative of potential elites)? Further, if there is nothing of the essence which differentiates the English and Germans - genetically that is - in which case preserving them is really only a culturist formality, what then is the point of them fighting each other so ruthlessly, when genetic and group strategic amalgamation would be the clear and prudent course otherwise? Moreover, given the above questions provide answers not to your liking, or are not reasonably surmountable, should they be suppressed, given the greater good of the survival of our race collectively? I certainly yield to what I believe to be your superior judgement on that final, and most practical, of questions. 15
Posted by James Bowery on August 08, 2009, 09:58 AM | # It seems this has turned into a discussion of English vs German character. Since I cannot make sense of Dan Dare’s original post (other than the obvious perennial “Jewish question” on which I see no additional light being cast by Dan’s post) I’ll answer what I see as a significant assertion made by Captainchaos about individuality: It is my understanding that challenges by individual officers in the military to single combat to the death was formally supported by the German military long after it had already been prohibited in Britain. Why would that be if English are so much more individualistic than the Germans? 16
Posted by Bill on August 08, 2009, 10:06 AM | # Camp of the Saints Jean Raspail. It is all over for the White Man “And so ends the saga of Western man, not in pitched battle, not in defeat at the hands of superior forces, but by capitulation. Even after a quarter century, the novel is astonishingly current. It was written before Communism collapsed, and the new French revolution is spiced with anti-capitalist slogans that now sound slightly off key. One might also complain that a few of the characters verge on caricature. Nevertheless, the central tragedy -suicidal White weakness- is brilliantly portrayed and could have been written in 1995. Mr. Raspail obviously loves his culture and his race, and wrote in the afterward that although he had intended to end the book with a spasm of White self-consciousness that saves Europe, the final catastrophe seemed to write itself. Perhaps he could not, in good faith, write a different ending. In the preface to the 1985 French edition he observed: The story that Mr. Raspail tells -the complete collapse of Western man even when the very survival of his civilization so clearly hangs in the balance -may seem implausible to some. And yet, what Whites do in The Camp of the Saints is no different from what they have done every day for the past forty years. The only difference is that the novel moves in fast forward; it covers in months what could take decades. Whites all around the world suffer from Mr. Raspail’s “monstrous cancer implanted in the Western conscience.” South Africans vote for black rule. Americans import millions of nonWhites and grant them racial preferences. Australians abandon their Whites-only immigration policy and become multi-cultural. Mr. Raspail’s powerful, gripping novel is a call to all Whites to rekindle their sense of race, love of culture, and pride in history —for he knows that without them we will disappear.” http://www.mnforsustain.org/camp_of_the_saints_bookreview_taylor_sj.htm 17
Posted by Bill on August 08, 2009, 10:13 AM | # Camp of the Saints Jean Raspail My apologies should have added - Book review by Samuel Jared Taylor 18
Posted by Captainchaos on August 08, 2009, 10:23 AM | #
I also posited that the Germans are more idealistic, er, “palingenetic”, as offer up otherwise, least ostensibly, as a characterization of German cultural trends. Could it not be a thing of “honor”, of the warrior ethos, as treasured by you, as perhaps treasured by the “palingenetic” German (culture?)? Could it not also be so, that the English, as the more “practical”, the more individualistic, pioneered formal agreement, and systems of achieving agreement, and keeping them (contracts, social contracts), consistent with their more urgently sensed individual self-interests, consistent with Anglo-Saxon lore as treasured by Jefferson, or was this perhaps mythicisation on his part? After all, it was you who said the English Channel acted as a barrier against gene flow. Was it not?
Clearly a sarcastic, condescending swipe at the vulgar conspiracist known as Auntie Semite, aka the Single Jewish Causists, aka knuckle-dragging NS Krauts. But hey, I got a kick out of it. Pounding on the table sometimes does get the point across when other methods fail, or so one can hope. 19
Posted by Captainchaos on August 08, 2009, 11:14 AM | # Okay, back to basics. We all remember the Pretty Pictue of Europe post. In which a genetic study is talked about, in which the scientists “characterize genetic variation in a sample of 3,000 European individuals genotyped at over half a million variable DNA sites in the human genome. Despite low average levels of genetic differentiation among Europeans, we find a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances; indeed, a geographical map of Europe arises naturally as an efficient two-dimensional summary of genetic variation in Europeans.” And the “two-dimenional summary” or picture, is here. Take a look, there we have the average genetic distance, as attested by the study, picturesquely, between the English and (the) Germans - and also a clear Northwestern cluster. And? Clearly, the English and Germans overlap to some degree, but are, on average, some distance apart, and not as close to each other as, say, the English and Scots, or even English and Dutch. So what? Well, clearly, most of “the English”, and most “Germans”, have gene frequencies not held in common with each other - at least according to this study. Well, so what again? So…these are genetic interests which some “English” and some “Germans” hold in common, but most do not; at least as far as I can see, from the picture. What implications, from the perspective of, purely, the furtherance of EGI, does this have as far as implications of the two World Wars. Well, it would seem that the westernmost “Germans” and the easternmost “English” had the least reason, and the most to lose, by heeding the call to war. And yet they would have been “justly” been executed for “treason” had they not, or is that not what a ‘right thinking’ person would/should think? If indeed we are to make a totalizing philosophy from the cloth of EGI. But the Salterist dogmatists will say nay, there are other practical considerations, aren’t there? Nationalism is practical, because it is adaptive, Salter wrote it in the book, if he were wrong why would he have put it in the book, we know Salter to be right. But do we? Why not dissolve the notion of “English” and “Kraut”, centralize down to the most minute level feasible, as Bowery exhorts. Single combat for all. Could Salter, and we taken along for the ride, be guilty of romantic “mythicisation” of nationalism? All those wars, all that blood shed, the filthy “palingenetic” Krauts to blame for it all. Why not go in the other direction? Perhaps we should, or at least think about it. 20
Posted by James Bowery on August 08, 2009, 11:44 AM | # CC writes: Could it not be a thing of “honor”, of the warrior ethos, as treasured by you, as perhaps treasured by the “palingenetic” German (culture?)? Let’s not confuse masculine sexuality with “the warrior ethos”. The latter is hewn from the former. I treasure sexuality in its unmutilated form: 2 unequal, complimentary and biologically viable genders. Individual sexual beings consist of massive populations of interdependent clones. Groups of interdependent sexual beings are therefore an evolutionary atavism. Taken to its logical extent, we will be dealing not merely with eusocial insect or naked mole rat colonies, but with warring bodies politic of cloned specialists, devoid of wasteful genitals, occasionally engineering themselves genetically. Not for me. It is true that “civilization” is more tolerant of female sexuality than of male sexuality, but it is fundamentally a problem for the magnificent act of creation found in sex. PS: I suppose in your eyes, merely seeing Jews as a primary cause of civilization’s pathologies—not the sole cause—is a discredited world view. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2009, 01:03 PM | #
A couple of examples of “our present moral principles no other race subscribes to”: Here are extremely confused Englishmen apologizing for Negro slavery, http://www.fdesouche.com/articles/1413 . And here are the Christians rushing to embrace auto-genocide in the service of Christianity (throughout the original article the word “migrant” instead of “immigrant” is used):
22
Posted by White Preservationist on August 08, 2009, 01:22 PM | #
Yes, but remember also that the tradition of dueling remained more acceptable for many decades in the Anglo-Saxon USA (particularly in the very Anglocentric Southern United States) long after it had been outlawed in the more ‘civilized’ UK. Some American states never even technically outlawed it. 23
Posted by Dan Dare on August 08, 2009, 01:28 PM | # I must admit to having been a little mischievous with the original post, which opens my maiden innings here, as it were. It does contain a couple of ironic cultural references which relate to the theme but which might only be obvious to Englishmen (or Britons generally) of a certain age. The title itself is a riff on an article which appeared in the journal World Politics in 1998, entitled Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration. Unfortunately it doesn’t appear to be available for free online in complete form. I obtained it via Jstor and can deposit it on a file-sharing server if there is preferred site for MR, or if someone could provide a recommendation for such a service. The article is by Christian Joppke, a German sociologist who studied under Jürgen Habermas at the University of Frankfurt and I think it, together with his more recent book Selecting by Origin: Ethnic Migration in the Liberal State, go some way – but not all the way - towards providing a response to my question. It may appear odd that I should give much of the credit for explaining what is going on to someone of such impeccable liberal pedigree, but there we are, credit where it’s due. Joppke offers the following rationale for why liberal states accept unwanted immigration, which all of them do despite what appear to be restrictionist policies and rhetoric. He makes the rather obvious, but usually forgotten , point that only liberal states are plagued (his word) by unwanted immigration, and that : “… some states, such as the immigrant-receiving states of the oil-producing Middle East, are very efficient at keeping out, or sending back, unwanted immigrants.” We might also note in passing that the Asian tiger economies have been equally successful in that regard. Joppke, then, proposes the following: • Western liberal states have implemented self-imposed limits on their own sovereignty, including their ability to properly control immigration. Joppke notes that ”… The capacity of states to control immigration has not diminished but increased—as every person landing at Schiphol or Sydney airports without a valid entry visa would painfully notice. But for domestic reasons, liberal states are kept from putting this capacity to use.” • Since WW II in Europe, and since the mid-60s to mid-70s in the white settler countries, liberal states have collectively abandoned the practice of selecting immigrants based on ethnicity in favour of ‘source country universalism’. As Joppke puts it: ”…the universalistic idiom of liberalism prohibits the political elites in liberal states from addressing the ethnic or racial composition of migrant streams.” • Although, as Joppke states, ”… Under the hegemony of the United States, liberalism has become the dominant Western idiom in the postwar period, indicating a respect for universal human rights and the rule of law,” it is clear that expression of that idiom has been different in Europe versus the white settler countries, not only in form but also in time. Even within Europe we must distinguish between ‘post-colonial’ immigration (eg Britain, France) and ‘labour-force’ migration (Gastarbeiter) in the German-speaking countries and Benelux. Joppke puts great emphasis on the internal constraints that liberal states have placed upon themselves, and why these have arisen. He points to a combination of activist judiciaries, client politics (a euphemism for ethnic rent-seeking), and economic imperatives resulting from globalisation as the predominant driving mechanisms. He downplays, however, the importance of globally-imposed versus locally-imposed constraints, and this is where I feel his analysis is lacking. It does not explain the step-function change in the attitude of the political elites towards migration and citizenship that occurred from the immediate pre-war period to the immediate post-war timeframe. Prior to WW II every western state had an immigration policy that would, were an ethno-nationalist organisation like the BNP to propose such a policy today, be universally reviled as xenophobic and fascist. Within a few years following WWII every liberal European state that is now a migration destination had abandoned its ethnically-based migration regime for one that is source-country universalistic. The white settler countries in North America and Australais were later converts, but all eventually acquiesced to the new Zeitgeist Joppke discusses the international human-rights regime which sprang up in the late 1940s, but does not offer any insight into why that should have come into place practically overnight in historical terms, at that particular moment in time. He does lightly touch on the reason in his concluding remarks, noting that ”… nationalist semantics were delegitimized because of their racist aberrations under Nazism.” That, in my view, is the missing link in Joppke’s argument. The reason why liberal states accept unwanted immigration, and the reason why the present-day demographic transformation is occurring, is a direct consequence of, and a reaction to, the racial policies of the Third Reich. So, even though the United States is the only country in which Jews played a direct and significant role in the formulation of post-war migration policy, our present circumstances throughout the west can be seen as a direct consequence to recent Jewish history. We could, in fact, characterise the entire process as being ‘Hitler’s Revenge’. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2009, 01:47 PM | # So you’ve brought it around to what James Bowery alluded to in his opening post in the thread. And rightly so in my view: that’s three-fourths of the explanation. (Or more.) All the rest is just after-the-fact rationalizing as happens when one has been skillfully placed before the fait accompli. 25
Posted by White Preservationist on August 08, 2009, 01:49 PM | #
I think that’s a fascinating question, and one I’m personally interested in since I’m an American with both Anglo-Saxon as well as Teutonic blood (though I’m predominately AS) and I’ve always felt a certain pull or tension between those two natures. I suppose if we look at it first through an evolutionary/environmental/biological lens, we can possibly ‘blame’ the climate that each group evolved in. The climate of the British Isles is of course more hospitable and warmer (due to prevailing ocean currents) than the much harsher and colder climate of North-Central Europe, specifically the areas of Northern Europe wherein the Teutons/Nordics evolved. Therefore, throughout history the Anglo-Saxons of the British Isles could afford to be more individualistic because the climatic environment of the UK was more favorable to such behavior owing the easier life found therein due to the relative non-harshness of the climate as compared to other North European countries. However, the Teutons/Nordics of Northern Europe evolved in a geographic area that was much harsher and difficult to endure, as mentioned above - thus, in order to survive in the semi-Arctic, often barren, and windswept plains of Northern Europe the Teutons/Nordics would’ve been forced to be a lot more cooperative with each other in order to survive the much harsher climate. Also note that the ancient racial/ethnic stock of the British Isles was entirely of ‘Mediterranean’ origin, which also surely plays in to the character of Britons in whom those genes are still evident both physically as well as psychologically - only in about the last 2,000-3,000 years or so has the population of the UK become mostly ‘Teutonized’ or ‘Nordicized’ through various invasions and colonizations of the Isles by Teutonic Nordics. Does that make sense to anyone else? 26
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 08, 2009, 01:51 PM | # Otherwise known as “When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” Our task is to free up our balls and put the one who’s doing this to us’s balls in one of these presses that squash automobiles to the size of suitcases. Then make a video of it complete with screams to post on YouTube. 27
Posted by Mark Ijsseldijk on August 08, 2009, 01:57 PM | # James Bowery, I read your stuff vis-a-vis “horizontal transmission.” Hasn’t Jewish virulence reached the end of it’s rope, as it were, in terms of transmission options? Where could they possibly go once the West succumbs to their decay? And related to that question, is this stage of the decay of the West finally the terminal stage? Just some queries that occurred to me. 28
Posted by Captainchaos on August 08, 2009, 04:01 PM | #
Uh, no, that is, give or take, the opposite of my view. Unless you intend irony, which I am apparently remiss in misperceiving, if indeed that was your intent. 29
Posted by Anon on August 08, 2009, 05:38 PM | # Where could they possibly go once the West succumbs to their decay? They’re going to try Asia. And related to that question, is this stage of the decay of the West finally the terminal stage? Yes, the final violent, terminal stage. 30
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 08, 2009, 06:45 PM | #
Yes, but it should extend beyond climate, WP. When Fichte wrote about German individualism the “Germans” were a people living under the occupying forces of Napoleonic France. 31
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 08, 2009, 09:22 PM | #
In an individualistic society enforcement of contract falls to the state. Dueling, like lynching, undermines the authority of law enforcement. Classical liberalism was dependent upon the state to enforce discriminatory contracts. The revolutionary shift in that position is that now the power of the state is used to enforce non-discrimination. No doubt it was the same in the South; the guess is it was outlawed much earlier in the Northern states. 32
Posted by a Finn on August 09, 2009, 12:31 AM | # Dan Dare: “He points to a combination of activist judiciaries, client politics (a euphemism for ethnic rent-seeking), and economic imperatives resulting from globalisation as the predominant driving mechanisms.” - Yes, but there are other reasons too. Client politics refers to bureaucrats and other service providers who profit from immigrants; tolerance educators, language educators, immigrants as clients in different bureaucracies, housing service providers for immigrants in refugee centers, language translators, immigrants as voters of liberal parties, activist organizations representing and defending immigrants, lawyers representing immigrants, etc. Also, what is globalization, i.e. universal liberalism, what are it’s driving mechanisms. It’s core needs to be explained. It needs to pointed out that nobody and nothing in society escapes the liberal system. Everybody supports it with their actions, inactivities, propensities, decisions, choices, dependencies, necessities, work, leisure time, by giving information in various situations, by expending time and energy in various ways, pregiven frames of thoughts and words, etc.; in multiple ways, whether they know it or not, whether they are resisting it or not. E.g. people in this site do valuable, sustaining services to the liberal system by their writing, me included, although that is not of course my or others’ intention. This also means that the liberal power can’t be resisted from the outside, we are all part of it. System can be replaced with another system when: a) The present system is explained comprehensively b) The alternative system is explained comprehensively c) The alternative system’s pros and cons confer better overall advantages Ps. The Jews should not be issue in this. 33
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 01:03 AM | # A Finn, ever since Francis passed away you don’t hear it mentioned often, but the managerial state is worth learning about. Francis wrote on Burnham’s managerial state in what should be on the “you’re not literate until you’ve read these books” list. Francis takes Burnham and boils him down into what’s most important and relevant. The $30 price tag though is a bit much… I have both editions of the book, but I doubt whoever has copyrights now would allow me to scan it into the web (otherwise I would). An article (review of a related book) by Francis that gives an idea of what’s discussed in the book: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy reviewed by Francis. 34
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 01:05 AM | # Quote of Francis from the book review:
35
Posted by Dan Dare on August 09, 2009, 01:31 AM | # Finn said:
In the European context I would certainly agree, the immigration debacleper se in Europe is almost entirely self-inflicted. That said, Jews resident in Europe (principally the UK) have since the 1960s played a significant role in the construction of the race relations and human rights architecture that is in place in the EU today, and which serves to perpetuate the currently ongoing demographic transformation. In the US, it is course easily demonstrable that Jewish activism played a crucial role in the 1965 Immigration Act which has been the key enable in transforming the US from a European country to a non-European one. 36
Posted by a Finn on August 09, 2009, 02:11 AM | # Frank, what you are recommending to me is excellent, and I was aware of that. It tells us about the elites, but it tells us less about the system they manage, about it’s functions and their interrelations. How the writers here unintentionally support liberalism? One of the liberalism’s foundations is assimilating to the system with versatile methods all kinds of opposites. Writers here support liberalism by: a) Giving information about the level of opposition thinking. (Information is central to the operations of liberalism) b) Giving information about the avenues the opposition groups search and choose. c) Expending time and energy. Very little of the writing here produces anything practical. The most of it serves the elites by creating pressure valves to let off excess oppositional steam. d) Creating countless little niches, both inside this site and between oppositional sites. Countless niches that are opposed to each other are inefficient and easy to manage. e) Giving information about grievances and interests, that can then be managed by suitable incentives; direct or indirect remedies; punishments; offering satisfying, but useless dead ends to opposition; playing different opposition groups against each other, diverting attention and energies from really important things to things that may seem important, but are not; suggesting topics to sociological, psychological, political etc. studies, that can then be used in opposition management; information and emotional campaigns; etc. Etc. These allow liberalism inside the system fairly universally anticipate and project to the future theories and practices which create, sustain and extend the liberal power. 37
Posted by a Finn on August 09, 2009, 02:13 AM | # Correction: These allow liberalism inside the system to fairly universally anticipate and project to the future theories and practices which create, sustain and extend the liberal power. 38
Posted by a Finn on August 09, 2009, 02:33 AM | # Dan Dare, I know the role of Jewish liberals, leftists etc., in US immigration policies, but nobody is outside the power in liberal system. European-Americans were full counterparts in the liberal project with the Jews, willingly and unwillingly, indirectly and directly, knowing and not knowing. And by living liberally and consuming excessively, they fuelled the liberal system’s core. Same can be said about Europeans without the Jews. 39
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 03:48 AM | # A Finn, I’m catching up on this thread now so I can offer a decent reply CC, I wouldn’t have said you deserve a “kick in the teeth”. That’s not a phrase I’d use, so you’re surely confusing me with another. My complaint though was valid. I don’t think you at times understand what you’re doing. That’s not to say I’m any sort of model, but rather it was a generally held opinion by all who aren’t obsessed with WWII. For you WWII is more important than America and Europe today, and you even convince yourself that WWII history must be corrected in order to save America and Europe. For me, America and Europe are what matter. - I’m not looking to debate again but rather to clarify my position. I never advocated violence against you… 40
Posted by a Finn on August 09, 2009, 04:00 AM | # I wrote: “e) Giving information about grievances and interests, that can then be managed by suitable incentives; direct or indirect remedies; punishments; offering satisfying, but useless dead ends to opposition; playing different opposition groups against each other, diverting attention and energies from really important things to things that may seem important, but are not; suggesting topics to sociological, psychological, political etc. studies, that can then be used in opposition management; information and emotional campaigns; etc.” - These, in a larger context, give ample job opportunities to various bureaucrats, experts, service providers etc. Liberalism needs problems that need management. If there are not enough problems naturally, new ones are created and old ones worsened. 41
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 04:11 AM | # White Preservationist writes:
The Celts are some of the most ethnocentric, and they’re more native than the English. The only reason Germans might be more ethnocentric than Anglos is if the Germans have been mixed with another race (e.g. Huns). Personally, I think the claim that Anglos are more individualistic than other Nordics is pure fairy tale. Nordics might be uniquely capable of individualism and ethnic suicide, but that’s due to their mental abilities, social awkwardness, and control over emotion. I do believe Nordics are more likely to prefer small population densities, and they might be more apt to travel. 42
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 05:50 AM | # A Finn, You’re asking some big questions. The current system is more like Brave New World than 1984. The alternative system would be more ethnic oriented. A balance would be needed between social ties and power distribution. Francis once mentioned at TOQ distributism as possibly worth looking into. Distributism is not socialism (contrary to another commenter here’s claim at another site). We’ll defeat the managerial state by re-forming ethnic cores within the empire and by acquiring skills needed to partially replace the current elite. Small cores would seek to remain safe while seeking to awaken whites trapped within the system and otherwise influence the system (esp. with “have more white babies” programs as well as promotion of white-orienting and supporting culture). Presently whites are being exploited because they’re individuals competing against ethnic groups. We see how Jewish ethnocentrism has allowed them to thrive. These white cores will survive when the system collapses. The final goal though is of course an ethnic state. An ethnic state is generally weaker than an empire, however empires never last. It would be desirable to ally with other ethnic states. Other white ethnic states would be the most likely allies, but I think a few East Asian states would be potential allies too, since they too would wish to avoid digestion by an empire. Competition for resources will become fierce, so power will be determined by whichever state can control resources. Outer space could allow for military advantage. - This website This website is a think tank, trainer/motivator/supporter for activists, and educator for the random lost white blogger who stumbles in. Think Tank: This site allows each of us to break our everyday groupthink. We may enter here and allow our views to mature. Trainer/Motivator/Supporter: In theory, elites should grow here and then venture out to impact society. Perhaps this phenomenon is happening right now as many of us realise we need to act elsewhere to make an impact. Educator: Though this site does give information to anti-whites in general, it also gives information to whites who stumble in here. Before the Internet, information was more tightly controlled. Now, our ideas can spread. To the extent elites monitor this site, the primary danger they pose is arresting us on some charge of either hate crimes or plans for violence. So long as we avoid these dangers, they’re little threat. They might also seek to reveal our identities and then target us at our workplace/homes (try to get us fired or encourage random thugs to attack us by publicly posting our location and details). As for propaganda though, the Internet adapts too quickly. They can put out propaganda, but bloggers see through it. It’s up to us to respond to that propaganda, but there’s an army of no-lifes who respond regardless of us. And if a piece of information is stated somewhere, it has a tendency to spread. Unfortunately, this is somewhat controlled, and as we know China and Israel employ propagandists. - An important component of liberalism is the lack of threat to white survival. Whites however are now feeling an economic pinch and are waking up to the reality of their being discriminated against. Whites now have their needed threat. Put another way: a threat can be a good thing if it’s the right threat. An example of a bad threat: communism which reinforced white loyalty to the state and also to the ideology of racially blind capitalism. Islam could be a potentially bad threat too if portrayed as endangering liberal society, which is what’s being done in Europe. You can see this in how Europeans reject traditional values as being too like the backwards Muslims. -
Here’s another good part:
I find this to be a valuable component phenomenon of the current system. When seen as the dominant elite among other elites, it becomes useful. For any of us to mature as thinkers, we need to carefully gather all of our ideas into dynamic, readily locatable posts that are updated as new information is added. Books are too static; the political environment is always changing. 43
Posted by Dasein on August 09, 2009, 06:37 AM | # Frank, this is another good review of Francis’ thinking on managerial elites: http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol7no4/744WoodruffonSamFrancis.pdf 44
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 06:46 AM | # When I say “ethnic-oriented” I’m including within that loyalty to ancestral ties and values and traditions. It’s a roll of the dice. If a large, competent movement arises that’s both traditional-ethnic oriented (without losing appeal - that is to say the traditions must be fun and living and capable of defeating the competing anti-white cultures) and politically savvy, then we’ll found something solid and survive. We had Francis, but he died. I suspect he’d be very helpful right now during what at times looks to be the dawn of the rebirth of the West, and at other times the dusk of the fatally wounded. 45
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 06:48 AM | # Thanks Dasein. I’ll print it out now, but it might be half a week before I’ve read it and replied. 46
Posted by Dasein on August 09, 2009, 07:15 AM | # Frank, don’t worry about that, I was not expecting a reply. I just provide it as an additional reference (I saw that you had provided some to Francis’ work). 48
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 04:51 PM | # I’m just a grumpy redneck. I’m not the Narrator. 49
Posted by Dan Dare on August 09, 2009, 05:14 PM | # I’m a little surprised that no-one has taken serious exception to my contention that unwanted post-war immigration has been largely a consequence of the racial policies of the Third Reich. Not even the Cap’n. 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 09, 2009, 06:24 PM | #
If true, that’s not the Third Reich’s fault. Not at all. It’s someone else’s. 51
Posted by Captainchaos on August 09, 2009, 06:55 PM | #
Forgive me if I don’t understand quite how, other than the trope of “Hitler’s revenge.” If that is indeed it, that sword has two edges, one can say, “Damn Adolf, with your excesses, you jolly well poisoned the well for European ethnonationalism.”, or “We’re sorry Adolf, we should have been with you, you were right, you did what you could.” 52
Posted by Dan Dare on August 09, 2009, 08:22 PM | # Yes, I know, we are miserable worms and not worthy. That’s why I call it ‘Hitler’s Revenge’. 53
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 09:28 PM | # I think Richard Early described the war as between “The Master Race and The Chosen”. He meant that as criticism of both though. 54
Posted by Frank on August 09, 2009, 09:32 PM | # I mean to say he didn’t praise Hitler as the mighty Aryan saviour you Krauts proclaim him as. I’ll have to look back and see what criticisms he makes of the Germans. Early’s honest though, even if not a mighty German. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on August 09, 2009, 09:34 PM | #
I wouldn’t take it too hard Dan, not even Himmler was loyal to the end. 56
Posted by Q on August 09, 2009, 09:45 PM | #
The Junkers never could nor did support what they considered a guttersnipe. 57
Posted by a Finn on August 10, 2009, 12:29 AM | # Could you point to me a English language site: a) Where Hitler voodoo doll is not an evergreen pop-up which is stroked and tickled b) Where there is sensible moderation and reasonable content c) Which is in the paleoconservative - ethnic interest range d) Which accepts guest writers, if their content is good enough If you don’t like me, you will get rid of me. If you like my writings and/ or think there is interesting and useful contents, you will see more of it there. 58
Posted by Q on August 10, 2009, 12:55 AM | #
Here you go, Finnsky: 59
Posted by a Finn on August 10, 2009, 01:28 AM | # Q, not good enough to get rid of me. You have to try harder. It is so sad that I am hated so little in here. 60
Posted by Harsh_Henry14W on August 10, 2009, 03:43 AM | # Assuredly you guys have heard this quote (bold mine) that puts the ‘English Question’ to rest in my mind…
62
Posted by Q on August 10, 2009, 09:45 AM | #
Lurker, Rightly or wrongly I interpreted a Finn’s comment to be another in a long history of his criticism of this site. I realize my response was lame and uncalled for, therefore, I offer my apologies to a Finn and all concerned. 63
Posted by James Bowery on August 10, 2009, 10:36 AM | # White Preservationist writes of “the tradition of dueling”: Some American states never even technically outlawed it. I thank you for that informative list, although in my understanding of “the tradition of dueling”, which goes back to old Norse law, the challenged did not have the option of refusal because refusal meant that any and all were free to kill him in any way. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken, the thing that was actually outlawed by the Icelandic Althing shortly after Christianization was not Holmganga (single combat to the death on an island set aside for that purpose) but group force to kill anyone who refused a challenge. Also, if one goes back to our roots as sexual beings, “dueling” follows no rules but those encoded in our genetics as sexual beings. This is why I view even the elaborate rules of Holmganga, describing a small square area within which to do battle, to be perverse. This is also why it is sometimes effective for individual anonymous snipers to challenge non-anonymous individuals such as myself to single combat—even though it is clearly not a challenge at all since their identity is unknown. There is no actual person “there” to do the challenge. It is rather like someone in a car driving by hurling a insult to a pedestrian’s honor—the challenger obviously is a coward or he would confront the challenged in a direct and natural way—not relying on an unnatural technological artifact to make it easy to escape retribution on the spot, in mockery of the genetic instinct for honor. In its most profoundly genocidal form, this kind of “drive by insult” is standard fare for mass media content where a man and a woman sit together in a room watching a movie or television, while the Jews of Hollywood spew out ethnic slanders directly to our retinas, and demographic collapse occurs as a result. 64
Posted by James Bowery on August 10, 2009, 10:47 AM | # Mark Ijsseldijk, see this article:
It remains to be seen how effective their traditional strategy will be. The burning of political assets in the US with the bank bailouts is evidence that phase 3 of my theory is nearly complete—the creation of massive, hidden, easily transferable concentrations of wealth, with which to buy into the elites at the destination of their next horizontal transmission. The Chinese and Indians are going to be a lot less susceptible than have been various European elites during Ashkenazi evolution. 65
Posted by Dan Dare on August 10, 2009, 11:34 AM | # Thanks are due to Mr. Harsh-Henry VIII (above) whose commentary provides an opening to bring this discussion back on track. From the Hansard House of Commons proceedings for 17.12.42, to which der winzige Doktor refers:
66
Posted by Dasein on August 10, 2009, 02:27 PM | #
Dan, if this were true, what would consider to be the solution(s)? 67
Posted by Frank on August 10, 2009, 06:00 PM | # Dasein, perhaps: remind them how non WWII-Germans were thoroughly racist and make appeals that way while also undermining the WWII propaganda. I don’t think Americans are going to identify with being WWII Germans…, but pretty much every period in America’s history is racially charged. There’s plenty else to draw from. I look forward to Dan’s reply too, but I’d wanted to give mine. 68
Posted by Desmond Jones on August 10, 2009, 07:25 PM | # Still, it leaves the question unanswered “Why German barbarism?” If European nationalism was destroyed by German excess, why was Asian nationalism not destroyed by Japanese excess?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes In answer to Dasein, in a recent thread at GoV, Conservative Swede put forth the theory that Germans were the victim of the Nazis, in the same sense that Arabs are the victim of Islam. The Nazis, never really cared for the Volk, but only for their own ends. The evil is the ideology not the nation. Whereas, for Goldhagen, in his Hitler’s Willing Executioners, it was the German people who were evil. 69
Posted by Captainchaos on August 10, 2009, 07:33 PM | #
LOL! It ain’t the Kike’s fault, it’s the Kraut’s fault. Hookie dookie, a few questions for Dan: 1.) Do you accept the veracity of the traditional Holocaust narrative? 2.) Do you believe Jews have an evolved genetic compulsion to subvert to dominate host societies? 3.) Do you believe Jews have a collective negative or positive impact on the West? 4.) Which group do value the survival of more highly, Jews or Germans? 5.) Do you support the presence of Jews in the West in perpetuity, or do you support eventual expulsion of the Jews? 6.) If alive, and in a position of influence at the time, would you have supported the full implementation of the Morgenthau Plan in Germany? 7.) Do you believe the British participation in Operation Keelhaul was immoral? If so, should it be a cause for national shame? 70
Posted by Dan Dare on August 10, 2009, 07:51 PM | # Ah it’s Twenty Questions time with The Cap’n as quizmaster. What fun! Well let’s give it a go…
A. I am sceptical about major parts of the canonical account for which little or no forensic evidence is available. Such as the Treblinka ‘death camp’. That said, there is little doubt the Nazis were extremely beastly to the Jews who had the misfortune to come within their sphere of control, which probably resulted in the deaths of more than a million of them. 2.) Do you believe Jews have an evolved genetic compulsion to subvert to dominate host societies? A. No 3.) Do you believe Jews have a collective negative or positive impact on the West? A. On balance their influence has been malevolent. 4.) Which group do value the survival of more highly, Jews or Germans? A. Germans 5.) Do you support the presence of Jews in the West in perpetuity, or do you support eventual expulsion of the Jews? A. I would prefer that all Jews make aliyah but would not favour forcible expulsion 6.) If alive, and in a position of influence at the time, would you have supported the full implementation of the Morgenthau Plan in Germany? A. No, it was an insane proposal. 7.) Do you believe the British participation in Operation Keelhaul was immoral? If so, should it be a cause for national shame? A. Insofar as those forcibly repatriated were collaborationists, traitors and mercenaries it was not immoral. Did I win? 71
Posted by Captainchaos on August 10, 2009, 08:56 PM | #
Eh, some room for improvement. 72
Posted by Dan Dare on August 10, 2009, 10:28 PM | # Re Solutions: Should a patriotic-nationalist government come into power anywhere in the Eurosphere, the first order of business will need to be an immediate and permanent cessation of all immigration from outside the Eurosphere. The next priority, much more challenging, is to disentangle oneself from the tangled web of international human rights commandments that have sprung up like toxic weeds since WW II. In the case of European countries that may involve leaving the EU. Remaining in the EU brings with it anyway the exposure to secondary migration arising from the freedom of movement for all residents. Somalis provided asylum in Holland, for example, have an uncanny knack of turning up elsewhere, usually the UK. Third, at the domestic level, long-term repatriation programmes must be put in place, and any domestic race relations legislation repealed. That should just about do it. 73
Posted by Al Ross on August 11, 2009, 12:06 AM | # Anthony Eden’s parentage was described by one of his acquaintances thus : “Of course Anthony is the product of a union between a mad baronet and a beautiful woman”, to which the auditor replied, “That’s Anthony all right ; half mad baronet - half beautiful woman”. 74
Posted by Mark Ijsseldijk on August 11, 2009, 01:13 AM | #
Obviously anti-German fanatics propose this view. It is absurd to say that other Euro ethnicities would re-evaluate their own identities, indeed give up their own identities, merely based upon what one very time-specific nationalist outfit did. It’s ludicrous. As for nationalism in Asia, it’s just there. Always has been, always will be. There’s no divesting the Chinese identity from the Chinaman, the Korean identity from the Korean, etc. It just is.
On what ground does he base this? Hitler and the NSDAP came to power in a populist fashion. Their economics returned Germany from bankruptcy to prosperity. They had the hearts of the people from the beginning. Their popularity only began to wane after it was apparent they would lose the war. How can the Conservative Swede say with a straight face that the German Volk were enslaved? Most Germans supported some form of expansion and it is not accurate to portray them as “slaves” to the Reich’s ends. They were willing participants!
With a name like that, why am I not surprised. But I don’t suppose the Israeli people, in Herr Goldhagen’s eyes, are evil for their Nazi apartheid state or Master Race-type laws and policies? Hypocrite, liar, hater - Jew. 75
Posted by White Preservationist on August 11, 2009, 05:38 AM | #
There can and likely will never be any mass-expulsion of Jews ever again. Also, expulsion of Jews has caused many problem throughout history, as the constant migration of Jews from one place to another has left a trail of havoc wherever they’ve gone (read the essay “The End of Jewish Migration” by Dr. von Leers). It’s best to ‘contain the Jewish plague’ as it were and stop spreading that ‘plague’ to other nations by restricting them to certain areas of White nations - not forcibly cramped in little ghettos, but substantial territories of their own where Jews could reside and be mostly self-sufficient and thus stop being bloodsucking parasites on the backs of Whites. The best idea I’ve been able to think of as a solution to the Jewish Problem is to give them another semi-autonomous in either the USA or another country. Israel just isn’t going to cut it because there are too many Jews alive today to fit in that tiny country. However, Jews could retain Israel along with maybe 1-2 other colonies around the world. How about in the USA we could make approximately half of the U.S. state of New York in to a semi-autonomous Jewish territory within the confines of a resurgent White America? Jewry could live there in ‘Jew York’ (and Israel) unmolested, could make their own laws, have their own economy, etc., except they would be forced to live there if they chose to remain in the USA and thus could not meddle in the affairs and have a negative effect on the rest of the country. They would be kept strictly separate in their semi-autonomous territory and no longer be allowed to unduly control or influence White economies, political systems, immigration policies, the mass-media(s), academia, law/medicine, etc. 76
Posted by Frank on August 11, 2009, 09:07 AM | # “where Jews could reside and be mostly self-sufficient and thus stop being bloodsucking parasites on the backs of Whites. “ Catherine the Great tried that and failed. That’s asking them to take a serious cut in their standards of living - they’d hate us for it eternally… 77
Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 11, 2009, 09:25 AM | #
Jews don’t like snow, Frank. 78
Posted by Dasein on August 11, 2009, 09:36 AM | # Dan, I noticed that your solutions, while all good, do not address what you consider to be the main reason for race-replacement. Is this a strategic omission? 79
Posted by Dan Dare on August 11, 2009, 11:28 AM | # The principal reason, as I see it, is the international human rights regime which merged in the immediate post-war period as a consequence of Nazi Germany’s aggressive nationalism and its racial policies. A subsidiary but related major cause was the anti-colonialist (and paradoxically strongly nationalist) movement championed by the United States as a means of dismantling the European empires and reinforcing its global hegemony. Those are historical processes for which there is no solution per se, we can only deal with their effects. 80
Posted by Frank on August 11, 2009, 01:08 PM | # “Jews don’t like snow, Frank.” Florida then - it’s all black or Hispanic territory otherwise. It’s up to them to fight - mighty Celto-Aryan rednecks will be busy digging into the hills. 81
Posted by Lurker on August 11, 2009, 09:22 PM | #
The twists and turns of the long march of history would lead me never to say never. 82
Posted by White Preservationist on August 12, 2009, 12:47 PM | #
Where do y’all propose we expel them to then? If we expel the 7-10+ million American Jews to Canada, Canada will then have an even bigger Jewish Problem. If we expel them to Brazil, then Brazil will have a Jewish Problem that’s even worse. No European country is willing to accept many millions of expelled Jews as they realize how many problems they cause. And because I’m forward-thinking I am not willing to cede any territory within White nations containing prime agricultural areas (such as Argentina) to Jews, so we’ve got to give them their own semi-autonomous territory within the confines of a White nation that has plenty of space (like the USA, Canada, Russia, etc). So where to expel them to? Many people just say “EXPEL THE JEWS!” yet have no ideas or plans as to where they should be expelled to - also, as I noted above, endlessly expelling Jews just ‘spreads the Jewish plague’ around as it were…it’s like a seriously ill person intentionally coughing and sneezing all over people and consciously seeking to spread their highly contagious illness around. It’s irresponsible for a nation to push their Jewish Problem off on another nation - this has been going on for far too long, and it’s a main reason why the Jewish Problem keeps resurfacing in White nations time and time again. Thus, as I proposed above, Jews should be given a small but sufficient slice of a White nation that has plenty of territory to spare (such as the USA, Canada, Russia, etc). The lower half of New York State seems like a decent location since so many Jews already live there, the infrastructure is present and built, etc. They’d be forced to live there, but could have freedom of movement within that territory. And since the lower half of NY state is pretty large, they couldn’t claim that we were ‘ghettoizing’ them. They’d get to keep NYC and its important port/trading facilities, but a resurgent White America would get to work building a new American city that would soon rival and then surpass NYC as a world capital of culture, trade, commerce, and so on. 83
Posted by Dasein on August 12, 2009, 03:21 PM | #
Is Argentina really that impressive agriculturally compared to the other countries whose territory you are willing to cede?
What’s wrong with Africa? e.g Madagascar 84
Posted by Captainchaos on August 12, 2009, 08:09 PM | # WP neglects to consider what is glaring: A cascade of White nationalism throughout the West will leave no redoubt for Jews within the West this time, nor will they be able to play one White nation against the other given that. Just where would they go? Russia? Please, the only reason Russia tolerates Jews to the degree it does is so as not to antagonize the West. Of course, any nationalist breakthroughs in Europe will not last unless we win in America, for Judaized America will not countenance said. Having done that - and there is no other way but to do it - the Jews will go where they are told to go. 85
Posted by Lurker on August 13, 2009, 12:35 AM | # WP - I only meant that never is a long time, historically speaking, wait long enough and all bets are off. I wasnt trying to make a substantive suggestion as to where they should or would go. 86
Posted by Bill on June 17, 2010, 02:36 PM | # Guessedworker August 08, 2009, 11:36 AM
. This is a great one liner. The number of times I’ve wanted to shout this from the roof-top. Multiculturalism is not the dream of the English people. It is the dream of the multi-culti globalist elite and is being forced down the people’s throats. To me, the debate presented from above seems to be couched in such a way that somehow, the people are supportive of their leaders transforming of their societies. The BBC is telling us by the day, this is your future and if you’re not in agreement you are going against the flow. It is intended the debate is framed in such a way as to induce a feeling of hopelessness and despair by isolating the individual from the mass. Resistance is useless. What’s the use? - What can I do? Some day, when folk feel the explosive groundswell of protest - then the dyke will be breached. Consistent poll figures of 80 percent plus show the people are against immigration. Enter the NATO rapid response force. Next entry: MMORPG and the Slaughter of the Innocents Previous entry: “Nazis”, “Brownshirts” and the “Violent” Town Hall Meeting on Healthcare |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Trofigiogelry commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/24/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) DiefleleziG commented in entry 'Tiger Tiger' on 05/24/12, 12:18 PM. (go) (view) Martha Barreda commented in entry 'Sunic interviews Fraser' on 05/24/12, 12:12 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Adalberto Deavers commented in entry 'The compassion of the court' on 05/24/12, 12:00 PM. (go) (view) Optigmata commented in entry 'More thread wars' on 05/24/12, 11:08 AM. (go) (view) payday loans commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/24/12, 10:27 AM. (go) (view) Verlene Zumwalt commented in entry 'Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine' on 05/24/12, 10:16 AM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 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) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 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) 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 |
Posted by Captainchaos on August 08, 2009, 04:07 AM | #
Significantly, yeah, it is dem dar Jooze. Or have you no idea what goes on in this life? Shining the light of sociobiology on the evolved nature of Jewry may also risk, if done to the English in turn, having things come to be known about the English they may not wish to know about themselves, i.e., their higher genetic propensity to individualism as contrasted with other Europeans, which is proving unadaptive.
But back to the Jews, it seems that some bring up the Jews at every opportunity, that is unless they are pooh-poohing the level of deleterious Jewish impact to a tertiary level, in which case they still mention them. They speak of a “power elite”, yet concede Jews sit at the head of that table as well. What is a simple-minded Kraut, and a vulgar Amerikwan at that, to make of it all?