|
|
The Mendacity of the RealistRealist at Inverted World now has a piece about David Duke. I was disappointed to see this, because per Realist’s comments in his first column I was led to believe he’d be outlining his censorship policies and hoping to get to poke fun at them. I’ll have to settle for a less interesting subject to poke fun at. On a personal level I like Realist, he seems a good sort. That said, he seems to be out to lunch when it comes to logically supporting a position. The piece is basically a string of fallacies designed to discredit David Duke, and by extension, White Nationalism. First he reminds the reader of why he created IV - because Amren wasn’t quite philo-Semitic enough for his tastes. Sure, Amren heavily censors the topic in moderating comments, but the occasional tepid criticism of non-Arab Semites was allowed through to sully the constant philo-Semitism and finally it became too much to bear. To make matters worse, Jared Taylor didn’t excommunicate Duke for his heresy at the last Amren conference. Then Realist states his thesis:
Yes, you have that right gentle reader; Realist wants to take us all the way down the slippery slope. The “racial right” is insane because David Duke is insane, and David Duke is insane because of his beliefs on 9/11. Ergo, one theory in one man’s mind makes the entire “racial right” insane.
I have a question too; what is the difference between a leftist and a rightist? Is it the use of armchair pop psychology as a rhetorical weapon, or is it something else? Is it the broader use of logical fallacy as a whole as playbook?
By this definition, a person can be redefined from sane to insane in a 24 hour period by having a good long talk with yours truly. The line between sanity and insanity comes down to how curious you are, how much you read, and how well you sift the information. A better criterion, from a race-realist or WN perspective, is how well your ideas serve you in pursuit of your ultimate interests. By this metric Duke’s 9/11 theory isn’t insane. It might be less sane than alternative tactics or positions, but that’s open to argument. Realist then goes on to argue the merits of a conventional wisdom that he conveniently pretends contains no warnings about non-Arab Semites. More to the point, he ignores the conventional wisdom that conventional wisdom’s reliability tends to drop precipitously as it approaches controversial subjects, or more accurately, subjects of interest (by interest I mean vested interest, i.e. personal interests, group interests). Duke’s 9/11 theory is pretty much smack-dab at ground zero in this regard - no pun intended. In other words, Realist’s gonna need more than conventional wisdom. Realist goes on to persuade us via appeals to authority (“There is no respected school among the community of experts that thinks the Israeli government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks and failed to warn us of them”), especially spurious ones since the Inquisition awaits dissenters pointing fingers at the kosher (his attempt to counter this is his laughable assertion that the American media is anti-Israel - who does Realist think his audience is?)
Water’s boiling point is readily falsifiable and therefore qualitatively different from Dukes 9/11 theory in this context. Interested parties in power couldn’t give less of a shit when the Normans conquered Englaand, so its date is qualitatively different from Duke’s theory in this context. Finally, we get the coup-de-grace…with a pillow:
No, Realist, you haven’t made your case. Duke’s 9/11 theories may indicate poor judgement, depending on your perspective, but they do not indicate insanity. And Duke’s sanity, regardless of the foregoing, do not indicate widespread insanity in the “racial right.”
Here we agree. I think Hart’s actions were perfectly reasonable for a non-Arab Semite concerned only with non-Arab Semitic interests. You’ll get no argument from me.
In other words, his censorship policy will be entirely subjective and he’s probably uninterested in actually discussing any of the things he’s going to be writing about in future. Time will tell. Usual boring caveat: I neither confirm, nor deny, nor support, nor condemn, Duke’s 9/11 theory. I think it’s a tactical mistake because it’s too hard to swallow and because it isn’t really falsifiable, and because people have a tendency to adhere to the very fallacy Realist has expanded into an essay. Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 04:19 PM in Race realism, That Question Again, White Nationalism Comments:2
Posted by Pobble-Face on December 19, 2006, 05:41 PM | # Somehow using the word ‘insane’ in this context, destroys this person’s intellectual credibility more thoroughly than could a torrent of articulate counter-argument. 3
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 19, 2006, 06:12 PM | # The whole thing doesn’t rise to the level of deserving articulate counter-argument, to be sure, but I’m tired of that excuse in others so I’m hesitant to use it myself. 4
Posted by Andy Wooster on December 19, 2006, 07:25 PM | # The Realist makes Auster’s writings on the subject seem almost lucid in comparison.
So why does the Realist get to cherry-pick which positions of Duke’s he supports? Doesn’t this “logic” force the Realist to reject all of Duke’s positions, including his race-realism (which the Realist presumably shares)? 5
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 19, 2006, 07:59 PM | # Good point Andy, dunno how I missed that one. 6
Posted by Orion Blue on December 19, 2006, 08:47 PM | # He can only hope to regain the trust of reasonable people by publicly admitting and apologizing for his insanity. Perhaps more importantly, the propensity to assign ‘insane’ viz-a-viz ‘sane’ to one’s political opponents is to play into the hands of those who would presume to dominate the discourse on race. I am making an assumption here - which is that The Realist shares the same concerns on these topics as the rest of us - though I have to question his deployment of the ‘insanity clause’ against those who have a different perspective on the subject than he himself does. I am not sure what to make of ‘conspiracy theories’ and I am even less sure of what to make of the “Jewish Question” proposition, but one thing I would say is that to off-handedly denounce one’s political opponents as ‘insane’ is to play into the hands of those who would denounce any criticism of the alleged ‘multicultural consensus’. One of the reasons for my not being able to really make sense of the “Jewish Question” is that I live in the UK and, given the facts of the Nazi Holocaust, I find it difficult to challenge the Frankfurt School, post-modernist deconstructionsim and other contributions of Jewish intellectuals and scholars to the body of knowledge in cultural theory. I can challenge the validity of their claims and I can also criticise the formalised and ritualistic ‘deconstruction’ of those fundamental principles of our civilisation, but on the other hand, I have real difficulty in overcoming the charge of ‘anti-semitism’, because of the historical facts of the Holocaust. I am particularly concerned about the way in which History has been appropriated by the ‘cultural marxists’ in pursuit of their agenda, whlst they have been so very systematic in their wilful suppression of the realities of their own repressive regime. There seems to be a double-standard in force here and it is that which bothers me so much. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 19, 2006, 09:20 PM | # An opponent of forced race-replacement of Euros necessarily puts that issue first: opposition to forced race-replacement of Euros. “The Realist” puts that issue millionth, after a million other issues he deems more important. He’s not really an opponent of forced race-replacement then. A person who wants to live puts that issue first: if he finds himself in a burning building, for example, he runs out. If instead he dithers or insists on doing other things as the building is burning down around him — vacuuming, taking the laundry out of the dryer, writing a few letters, spackling the living room wall in preparation for re-painting it a different color, reading a good book, watching something worthwhile on TV, or making some important phone calls to people, he can’t be counted a member of the group that wants to live. Clearly, what he wants first and foremost is something else. The Realist is irrelevant. It’s now crystal-clear that his site will be irrelevant. The issues are passing him by; the “action” is galloping right past him. David Duke is not “the action” at present, Eurospherewide forced race-replacement is, along with the inquiry into exactly who the culprits are and how to counterattack them. If you want to deal with that subject you’re where the “action is”; if you prefer instead to to dwell on David Duke you’re an irrelevancy. David Duke misunderstands Jews in a few ways: I’ve just listened to the Antwerp speech and a couple of interviews, and that’s clear. That’s a side-issue. My concern isn’t with understanding Jews but with stopping and reversing forced race-replacement until the racial/ethnocultural status quo ante which obtained circa 1965 be fully restored and protections put in place this time which will prevent forced race-replacement from ever again being tried by the usual suspects. As someone who shares that concern, David Duke is an ally. If David Duke ever wants my opinion of the ways in which he misunderstands Jews I’ll be glad to give it to him. In the meantime there’s other work to be done. 8
Posted by Portable Curmudgeon on December 19, 2006, 10:15 PM | # I was really looking forward to handing fags like John PM (and aggressive, loudmouthed non-Arab Semites like “White, Jewish, and Proud”) their asses away from Amren’s kiddie pool, where the moderators put one side in shackles. I suppose that’s not to be. That’s what _this_ site is for. Why don’t you argue with them over here? This is such a great place, they don’t know what they’re missing! 9
Posted by JB on December 20, 2006, 12:19 PM | #
no Realitz, try an american TV network. One american TV network or newspaper that suggest those billions that american taxpayers send to Israel could be better spent elsewhere. Or that the 9 billions Clinton gave to Israel was a bit much. One american TV network or newspaper that points out that there’s something peculiar about american politicians making speeches in front of all kinds of ethnic lobbies (jews, mestizos, blacks, etc.) except white groups. One TV network or newspaper suggesting that the laws forbidding american individuals or companies from boycotting Israel should be abolished. One TV network or newspaper protesting the congressional medal of honor given to Rabbi Schneerson a chabad nutcase who considers non-jews to be inferior to the chosen. One TV network or newspaper pointing out the dubious relationship between a lobby for a foreign country - AIPAC - and the Democratic Party as exemplified by Steve Grossman then head of AIPAC becoming head of the Democratic Party in 1997. just one.
I can’t wait to read Da Realizt dismantle Kevin MacDonald’s thesis by quoting the SPLC and John Derbyshire.
- - - Israel’s connection to the Sept.11 attacks http://antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
10
Posted by Amalek on December 20, 2006, 12:27 PM | # I have real difficulty in overcoming the charge of ‘anti-semitism’, because of the historical facts of the Holocaust. What historical facts? All those films and photographs of the gas chambers, those unequivocal signed orders from Hitler, those names and addresses of 6m named victims stating cause of death, those impeccable census-based calculations about how many Jews there were in Europe in 1939 and 1945 to deduce the 6m total, those bona fides from Zionist whistleblowers and the Red Army propaganda department, those witness statements untainted by comparing notes, hearing propaganda scare stories or the passage of time, those unimpeachably objective histories written by Jews while the compensation had begun to be disgorged, those firm agreements *within* the camp of respectable historiography about how many died and how and where it was done? 11
Posted by Søren Renner on December 20, 2006, 12:29 PM | # “Look, Realist, not knowing what you expect ....” 12
Posted by Rnl on December 20, 2006, 05:00 PM | # Consider the BBC, for example. Between 2000 and 2004, the British network aired 17 documentaries about the Israel/Palestinian conflict, all but one of which portrayed Israel as the villain. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America has compiled dozens of examples of the BBC’s anti-Israeli bias. http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/the_insanity_of_david_duke/ You prove anti-Israel BBC bias by pointing out that a Zionist advocacy group has regularly alleged anti-Israel BBC bias. Perhaps there is some anti-Israel BBC bias, but the last place you should look for evidence of anti-Israel bias is the CAMERA website. Their standards for anti-Israel bias are remarkably low. In the BBC documentary Elusive Peace, which also ran on PBS, some Israeli spokesmen spoke on camera in Hebrew. That was anti-Israel bias, according to CAMERA. It made Israelis sound strange and foreign in the ears of the goyim. 13
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 20, 2006, 05:03 PM | # JB, yes, hilarious how Realist has to use the BBC. They cast Israel as the villain. Dude, wake up and smell the coffee! By the leftist (racially leftist, i.e. the American left and the American right) standards of the BBC, Israel IS the villain! They pulled a Manifest Destiny on the Indians of Palestine, right in front of everyone in the 20th century for God’s sake! Truth be told, the BBC’s position is pro-Israel too, just less so than the American media’s. 14
Posted by Rnl on December 20, 2006, 05:04 PM | # Orion Blue wrote: I have real difficulty in overcoming the charge of ‘anti-semitism’, because of the historical facts of the Holocaust. You live in the UK. Yet you - as a descendent of men who, at great cost, helped to defeat NS Germany - feel reluctant to speak on Jewish subjects because of Jewish suffering in World War II. You personally were not responsible for Germany’s race policies. Your grandfather wasn’t responsible for Germany’s race policies. No one has yet alleged that the British government ran Auschwitz. Jewish wartime suffering, which became the Holocaust around 1965, had nothing whatever to do with you. You are responsible for what you do. Arguably you should feel some emotional involvement in what your fellow countrymen do today and even in what they did in the past. But it is really strange that you should feel even slightly implicated in what your nation’s _enemies_ did sixty years ago. That you and many others in the West do indeed feel responsible for German crimes long ago is evidence of the power we’re talking about. 15
Posted by wjg on December 20, 2006, 05:08 PM | # RNL, Germany’s only “crime” was to defy the Master Race and its slaves. Aren’t we glad we fought on the “right” side in that war. 16
Posted by Al Ross on December 20, 2006, 05:58 PM | # Orion Blue might enhance his knowledge of ‘the holocaust’ by reading the recent interview with Dr Robert Faurisson at : http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3914 Thanks go to Friedrich Braun’s Civicplatform blog. 17
Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2006, 06:38 PM | # WJG, Germany’s crime was to behave towards its European neighbours with a vile and careless arrogance. Never excuse that. Orion Bleu, I am also English. We owe nothing to Jewry. Not a halfpenny, not a single syllable of apology. Not one bended knee before the graven image of the Holocaust. Nothing. Neither are we obligated to suffer the denial of our ethnic interests or of our moral right to this, our sacred homeland. We are not obligated to cosmopolitanise for Jewish ethnic interests. We are not obligated full stop. Except to strive in all things for our own good and in the name of reclaiming England for ourselves, to make her again what she always was and should always be. Wave away all your acquired faux-moral sensibilities. They are a worthless encumbrance. The publicity programe which is the (capital H) Holocaust exists in an case not to teach Geman history - something of interest to historians, no doubt. It exists to teach you what to think. Reject that and think anew. Let them screach their special little sinful names at you. It’s a small trial for a free Englishman. 18
Posted by JB on December 20, 2006, 07:03 PM | #
speaking of that, in this interview with Jeff Rense David Duke talks about an article in the USA Today about the Red Cross’ visit to the german run camps in Poland and elsewhere in 1944 and the author of the article says the Red Cross didn’t saw the mass murders/gassings, which in holologic means the Red Cross was totally incompetent at recognizing the crimes happening right under its nose. if anyone finds this article I’d appreciate having a link
http://www.acidplanet.com/artist.asp?PID=915104&t=2637 in Real Audio format, the complete Rense show, a downloadable file 19
Posted by wjg on December 20, 2006, 08:58 PM | # GW, All Europe is sliding towards extinction if not mongrelization due to who actually won that war and you find it rational to condemn Germany for how it treated its neighbors? The Judeo-soviet-american axis - for whom the UK was a water carrier - has eviscerated Europe. Germany was the defender of Europe. Now no one is. I was speaking within the context of the demonization of Germany as a proxy for all Aryans by our Masters. And in that context their ONLY crime was defying the NWO. If all they did was murder their own people - our people - like France (1790s) and the Soviets, they would not be held up as evil incarnate for lemmings to then regurgitate obediently. Are there some beefs between the English and Germans and vice-versa? Certainly, but until Englishmen treat that as an in-house disagreement and lift up as a model the NS revolt against world Jewry we will continue to fight phantoms instead of the real enemy. Embracing NS Germany - a la Yockey - as a virtuous period in our history is a necessary catharsis for the spiritual sickness that is killing us. These pro-forma condemnations of Germany to show how “fair” we are to our mortal enemy is music to their ears and more evidence of our cowardice. The offensive is the only strategy for victory. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on December 21, 2006, 05:06 AM | # WJG, It is Americans (and one Canadian) of German extraction who seek to make the “water-carrier” argument. They have their reasons. But we entered the war to free Poland, having without much honour turned our backs on Czechoslovakia, and in the event we fought it to free Europe. We also fought it, after Dunkirk, to save ourselves, do not forget. American and Jewish motives were what they were, no doubt. But they were not ours and we did not fight for them. We did what had to be done. I’m on record here for stating that the solidification of the German people during the 1930s was a great good (not the militarism by which it was accomplished, though). The constriction on communism in Germany was another. The revolt against the trespasses of Jewry was another. But none of that justifies the deeds done to other Europeans in their own homelands or, indeed, to the dead of the camps (I could conceivably exclude Barbarossa from the prior category because a war with Stalin may have been impossibe to avert by diplomatic means - we do not know). Because we are involved in the process of awakening our peoples’ hearts cleaving to the right is the only strategy for victory. You are a man of fine spirit. You must know that. 21
Posted by Orion Blue on December 21, 2006, 08:05 PM | # I should have put much more thought into my original post on this thread. I shall try to correct my errors and omissions now. “I am also English. We owe nothing to Jewry. Not a halfpenny, not a single syllable of apology. Not one bended knee before the graven image of the Holocaust. Nothing.” Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 10:38 PM Absolutely right. It is easy to forget that to all intents and purposes, we were actually “the good guys” in that conflict, but unfortunately, the self-appointed “elites” in this country are too busy trying to infect the rest of us with their oh-so-pious colonialism guilt complex to recognise that fact. The Holocaust, in the hands of certain political interests, has become a mechanism which is being used to make it all-but impossible for White people to have any sense of collective self-interest based on ethnicity, to assert our rights to our own living space and to make any objection to this forceful demographic gerrymandering almost illegal, whilst ensuring that all other groupings are ‘entitled’ to have such self-interest as self-evident truths. As unbelievable as it may sound, there are people declaiming the legitimacy of the 1951 refugee and asylum act in terms that equate the arrival of masses of Third World exiles with that of the plight of European Jewery in the 1930’s. This is where it is self-evident that the Holocaust is being used as a fulcrum for imposing a deliberate, calculated and wholly damaging political ‘orthodoxy’ on the rest of us. The details of the Holocaust are not really the major issue in some ways (I do not believe that all Revisionists can legitimately be portrayed as “rabid neo-nazis”), discussing the details of the Holocaust seems a legitimate field of inquiry for historians, without them necessarily being imprisoned for having the ‘wrong’ opinions on the subject. My own reasons for accepting the fundamental assertions of “mainstream” historians regarding the subject, is that I am not familiar with the Revisionist literature on the topic, though I concede that this could be due to the bad publicity and virtual criminalisation of Revisionist historians imposed by the Commentariat. I have already mentioned the fact that the Holocaust has been appropriated by various and sundry political interests (not necessarily Jewish ones at that), for their own self interests and to my mind, this is largely because of the fact that perceiving the Holocaust as the absolute nadir of human behaviour helps obscure the tyranny and criminality of outrages committed under the misgovernment of other political regimes, notably the Stalinist tyranny. I don’t really want to be drawn into a fruitless argument about whether or not the horrors of Stalin’s purges were “worse’ than the Holocaust due to the fact that the former was ad hoc and largely unplanned, while the latter was a systematic endeavour due to the pre-planning and the engineering required for such an enterprise. Such attempts to create a ‘hierarchy of evil’ seems pointless, since wholesale crimes are wholesale crimes, irrespective of who commits them. It is telling however, that significant crimes committed by “socialist” regimes tend to be obscured in the popular imagination by concentrating on those crimes committed by, for example, the Nazi regime. I hope I have clarified my thoughts on this subject, which can be summed up as being that although I accept the “mainstream” historian’s views concerning the Holocaust largely because I am wholly ignorant of the Revisionist literature on the subject but more importantly, I lack any deep knowledge of it that time period itself, other than what is circulated through “mainstream” channels. I freely admit that I could be wrong about this. I am also aware that it is being cynically utillised by those on the Left for their own political purposes, while these self-same people seek to suppress all knowledge of those crimes perpetrated in the name of Communism. This strikes me as rank hypocrisy and it deserves to be exposed as such. Finally, I should say that you are quite right to call me out on the ‘auto-pilot’ faux-morality that I sometimes emit; this has been ingrained in me to some extent by the prevailing sensibilities. It has taken me some time to overthrow that despotic tyranny to a point at which I could question fundamental assertions that I had grown into. 22
Posted by Rnl on December 22, 2006, 06:40 PM | # wjg wrote: Are there some beefs between the English and Germans and vice-versa? Certainly, but until Englishmen treat that as an in-house disagreement and lift up as a model the NS revolt against world Jewry we will continue to fight phantoms instead of the real enemy. Embracing NS Germany - a la Yockey - as a virtuous period in our history is a necessary catharsis for the spiritual sickness that is killing us. No one needs to embrace NS Germany. I’m personally opposed to invading Poland. I don’t like authoritarian government. But it is important, as Linder says, not to accept your enemy’s demonology. It carries hostile political meanings, and if you accept it you are tacitly endorsing the ideological weapons used against you. Hitler is evil incarnate and Stalin isn’t because the arbiters of political meanings are intent on delegitimizing White racialism. There can’t be any doubt that, as wjg suggests, nazis are proxies for _us_ in most popular accounts of World War II history. We are not the heroes who defeated the nazis. We are the people who could easily become nazis if we don’t rigorously self-police our penchant for irrational hostility to inoffensive others, one inoffensive other in particular. More people died in Soviet concentration camps than are alleged to have died in German concentration camps. Yet the latter deaths are a special crime, for which even the descendants of Germany’s enemies are supposed to feel guilt.
we entered the war to free Poland And Poland wasn’t free at the end of the war. So you failed. The German occupation of Poland was brutal. The post-war Soviet occupation was even more brutal. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on December 22, 2006, 07:43 PM | # Rnl, Yes, we failed. We spent 42% of the nation’s treasure to fight the Axis powers ... more than any other participant except, I believe, Japan. By the end of this year we will finally pay of the last of the post-war loan from America that saved our liquidity. Orion Ble, Thank you for your graceful response. It is a wellstruck, straight boundary - all your sentiments are what I would regard as absolutely normal except, of course, that in this “inverted world” they are mad and crazy. But that’s the cross we all have to bear - only what happens when alien interests supplant native interests. IMO, you do not need to obsess over the big H. It is a battle others will fight because they must. It isn’t really our battle, though it pays to point out occasionally the difference between German history and the publicity drive launched in the 1970s and now blared out at us from museums and on holo-days and in Spielberg mini-series the world over. History we can respect, if we know it. Publicity is something else, in this case hate. 24
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 22, 2006, 10:56 PM | # Wow, just read the latest comments in the IV thread. What is it about philo-Semites, that compels them to wrestle with straw men so? Doesn’t matter what we say, we’re all “blaming the jews for all the world’s problems.” Then there’s the hilarious WJP, who almost sounds like a WN shill out to discredit “WN jews” with his psychoanalysis Freudian tactics. Has Arcane ever had a discussion where he didn’t sound like he was talking to himself? 25
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 22, 2006, 11:00 PM | # At least John PM made it clear he’s far more an anti-Communist than he is pro-white. 26
Posted by Rnl on December 23, 2006, 01:52 AM | # By the end of this year we will finally pay of the last of the post-war loan from America that saved our liquidity. William F. Buckley’s first political act, at age six, was to write King George demanding that Britain pay her war debt immediately. Irving has some angry paragraphs in _Churchill’s War_ on “selling the Empire down the Potomac river” to finance the war. “The British won’t have a dollar left,” Morgenthau predicted. Most of the men around Roosevelt regarded that as a good outcome. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on December 23, 2006, 05:42 AM | # Svi, I’ve posted two last cmments to the thread this morning. They are now awaiting moderation. One invites John PM to explain his views here. The other names Arcane as a race traitor, for the benefit of those TIW and AR readers who don’t patronise GNXP. 28
Posted by GNXPwatch on December 23, 2006, 08:06 AM | # Speaking about GNXPers, here´s GC´s take on a recent study which states that high caste Indians are not significantly different from lower less-“aryan” castes : “that study is quite strange as it goes against the grain of the studies by bamshad, majumder, etc. which all found significant differentiation by caste. i think it’s going to turn out that the people smart enough to make it to the US are a highly nonrepresentative sample of India…” The snobbish, “Aryan” wannabe showing through? Typical of Subcons.
http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/12/brownology.php (If the prefix does not work on a haloscan url, please delete the link) 29
Posted by brownology on December 23, 2006, 10:42 AM | # GNXPwatch, the second link needs to be deleted for a reason which would be obvious once you click on it. The first link seems to be working. GW, would you like to do the honors with the second link, or do you want to leave it as a mute testimony to the depraved anti-whiteness of “Gene Expression?” Another point - some time ago, a liberal commentator took MR to task for using the word “brown” to describe South Asians. But Razib uses the word all the time in that context, and now uses “brownology” to describe population genetics analyses of South Asia. There there is, I remember, a South Asian blog called “ultrabrown”... I guess it is like the blacks and the dreaded “n word”, or Auster and criticism of Jews. Only the “ingroup” can use the phraseology, others cannot. Then, it is “racist.” 30
Posted by GNXPwatch on December 23, 2006, 11:57 AM | # ISorry about the bad link. I was only trying to link to the haloscan comment. Indeed, brownlogy, why don´t they stick to “sepia”, instead of brown? http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/ 31
Posted by brownology on December 23, 2006, 12:14 PM | # GNXPwatch, yes I am aware of “Sepia Mutiny” and of Razib’s participation there as a commentator. I believe that GC has also commented there in the past. GNXP is aimed mostly at whites, to promote an aracial view of the word (politically speaking, of course we all know that GNXP is “race realist”, but they do not want any real-world manifestation of this accruing to majority interests, etc.), while Sepia Mutiny is the in-house voice of “in-your-face” desi racial pride and activism. The GNXPers seem to have made the strategic decision that repressing majority activism is more important than promoting a specific desi activism, so they generally go against the “identity politics” grain at Sepia Mutiny. In other words, in this view, the cost of inflaming white identity by obnoxious minority activism outweights the benefits of that minority activism. Actually, the main benefits of Asian ethnocentrism is more quiet, as in ethnic nepotism and the promotion of Asian immigration (“skilled immigrants”, etc.), rather than in loud Sharptonian protest. Better to let whitey sleep and keep things quiet than to indulge in emotional “minority-victim” chest-beating and take the chance of waking whitey up. The slow dispossession of whites is going well, so, why rock the boat? 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2006, 12:24 PM | # Brownology’s got it exactly in that last post. He’s really got it down. Every white can read that with benefit. Thanks for an excellent post, Brownology! 33
Posted by Tancred on December 23, 2006, 12:26 PM | # Reproduced below is a comment by “White, Jewish, and Proud” from “The Inverted World.” Note his calling “Guessedworker” a “horse’s ass”, saying the Majority Rights participants are “barbarians”, his claim of his “whiteness” by “looking in the mirror”, as well as his dismissal of Germanic Europeans (I assume he refers to Vikings? Germanic tribes?) as wearing “smelly skins.” The latter is similar to Disraeli’s racialist dismissal of the Franks in “Tancred”: “Arcane, I don’t know why you waste your breath trying to reason with these barbarians, which is what they are. You cannot reason with them because they do not possess reason; they are mono maniac and neurotically obsessive. They’re so-called arguments are based on simple minded rejectionism, convoluted and invented euphemisms, and selective historical notation. And that’s it. Those three factors comprise the sum total of their arguments— all of their arguments. Furthermore, arguing with them is a complete waste of time and an exercise in futility. You will not convince them, nor they you. What’s more, it only encourages them. And if they get a rise out of you, it makes their perverted day. The absolute worst thing you can do from their point of view is to ignore them; that is the one thing they cannot abide. And the absolute best thing you can do for us here at this site and at Amren is exactly the same, ignore them. For example, only a horse’s ass could say such an astoundingly stupid thing as “National Socialism was a left-wing movement;” and a horse’s ass isn’t worth the time of day from a broken clock, much less the effort of an argument. On a personal level let me say that I don’t need the “permission” of anyone to be white. All I have to do is look in the mirror. And I don’t give a rat’s ass who won the NFC East last year, much less who came down from the misty fjords of Norway wearing the smelly skins of animals a thousand years ago. My concern is the future of white civilization. So let me suggest that you and John PM and others not waste your time and energy on these fools. They’re simply not worth it. By White, Jewish, and Proud on 12/22/06 at 5:29 pm” 34
Posted by Andy Wooster on December 23, 2006, 02:28 PM | # These philo-Semites are their own worst enemies as far as I’m concerned. Every time I read an argument on anti-Semitism from Auster, the Realist, or WJP my opinion of the arguer is lowered dramatically. These guys call to mind feminists with their complete inability to formulate a sound, coherent argument based on reason rather than emotion. 35
Posted by brownology on December 23, 2006, 04:06 PM | # Speaking of GNXP, here is another wonderful example of how Asiatic “cognitive elitists” are an asset to their new country: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/21/nspying21.xml Chinese spies, Indian spies, and now Iranian spies…let’s throw in some Koreans and Japanese, maybe Pakistanis and Bengalis too. Room for everyone! 36
Posted by brownology on December 23, 2006, 04:23 PM | # Two excerpts from the Telegraph article: #1 - “It was said he had communicated with a ‘foreign power’ in the incident on Nov 2, believed to be Iran.” #2 - “James is of Iranian descent…” You English guys are just afraid of the competition. After all, if you wanted to “pull a Kim Philby” in today’s Britain, you’d just find your path blocked by enterprising, intelligent, hard-working newcomers. Now, go “rally around the flag.” 37
Posted by wjg on December 23, 2006, 04:32 PM | # RNL, The White Race and our actualization - White Culture - has been spiraling downward for 100 years. In that whole stretch I am aware of only one semi-effective rebellion against this trend - NS Germany. If we Whites cannot look at it objectively, and try our best to learn from its successes and failures, rather than as the whipped slaves of Jewry then we deserve all the abuse we continue to get. I’m an American and I have come to terms with what an evil (from the perspective of European interests) the US regime now is and how it worked against us dramatically in WWII and ever since. The rationale of the “Allies” in declaring war to defend Poland is a joke. If that’s the case they would have declared war on the Soviet Union who invaded from the East and was clearly a much larger danger to European interests. The “Allies” then were under the control of the same power our respective ruling regimes are under now. We salute flags and sing anthems which represent things that have been not only denuded of any value but are our worst enemies. And this has been the case for quite a while. Reject NS Germany if you will but please inform me of a better recent model defending White interests than it. One more thing. Do you seriously think the “totalitarianism” of the Nazis was worse than that which we are now under? Obviously I’m asking this from the perspective of the group interests of Whites and not suicidal individualism.
For all your rejection of a literal God you seem to retain an almost superstitious trust in the sanctity of the motives of the British government in WWII. Let’s face it, our people were betrayed by our leaders in that conflict. I concede that FDR was an execrable traitor whose corpse should be treated as Cromwell’s. Brits would do well to think similarly of Sir Winston. Your other comments are very well put though we have some disagreement on what that “right” is. On that any effective movement must have consensus. 38
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 23, 2006, 04:53 PM | #
I made a reply to WJP (basically consisting of statements about how he hides behind censorship to make his arguments), which included my regret at calling JPM a fag. Amren style, the moderation killed it.
I’ve thought of him as a non-Arab Semite ever since he used “we” in the wrong context here at MR (remember his refusal to apologize for Abe Foxman?), not a confused European. 39
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 23, 2006, 05:05 PM | # I also posted a very short comment yesterday consisting of a link to John Jay Ray’s piece, Hitler Was A Socialist, and my appreciation of WJP’s anti-white “stinking furs” comment. It hasn’t appeared yet either. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on December 23, 2006, 07:05 PM | # Svi, WJG, Yes, I feel a more of a mystical connection to England’s past than to the Christian God. I readily concede that the entry of mysticism into nationalism might very easily cause me to be found out by historical fact. But then, when is history ever written clean and free from the distorting prism of personal politics? Not often that I know of. For better or worse, I happen to have a weakness for crudely guessing at the political future and for testing - one might almost say tasting - reports of the past through the medium of my insufferable Englishness. Anyway, perhaps I will post at length after Christmas on my sense of September 1939. Speaking of sixth sense and whatnot ... Svi, do you get the feeling that The Realist operates very like Ian Jobling did at Amren? I do. What an amazing coincidence. 41
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 23, 2006, 07:53 PM | # Yes, it rang true when you suggested it and it still does. 42
Posted by Undercover Black Man on December 23, 2006, 08:38 PM | # Guessedworker, you wrote: “What an amazing coincidence.” Actually, “The Realist” inadvertantly provided the proof of his true identity online. Shoot, I’m a Negro and even I figured it out. I wrote about it at http://undercoverblackman.blogspot.com P.S. Hey Svigor. Remember me? 43
Posted by Guessedworker on December 23, 2006, 09:09 PM | # Well done on the detective work, UBM. To my ears your remarks on WNism make a number of mechanical noises, including some gross generalisations. But it is the ascription of “hate” and “racism” that is your reporting downfall. If you don’t profess these things yourself why do you suppose that all racially-aware white Europeans do? Sounds like you are a prisoner of the anti-racial zeitgeist, though perhaps a very willing one. 44
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 23, 2006, 09:40 PM | # Hi UBM. I remember your name, if not any specific conversations. Assuming you’re correct about the style sheets (I didn’t look), nice bit of sleuthing. 45
Posted by Undercover Black Man on December 23, 2006, 10:01 PM | # Svigor, it seems that Dr. Jobling has pulled the smoking-gun writing sample from his personal website, but it is cached here: Guessedworker, per my “anti-racial zeitgeist,” I should say that I also oppose black racialism, as demonstrated in my recent critique of Randall Robinson’s call for reparations: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mills/randall-robinson-is-wrong_b_36639.html I oppose racialism per se, because I believe history shows us that it leads all too often to murderous ill will directed at the “other.” And I’ve read enough of such ideologues of white supremacy as William Pierce, George Lincoln Rockwell, Revilo Oliver and Henry Ford to be profoundly creeped out by their bad vibes. Can’t the West and its traditions be defended without recourse to racial reductionism? 46
Posted by wjg on December 23, 2006, 10:32 PM | # If it is true that Jobling is the Realist wouldn’t it be fitting. The very person who has censored anything critical of the Master Race from AmRen and made it another kosher-fest has the nerve to then start a blog promoting that warped bias even further. Jews can be somewhat admired and partially emulated due to their effectiveness but their little stepinfetchit’s seem to really believe that being a whore is admirable. 47
Posted by Pobble-Face on December 23, 2006, 11:07 PM | # In Response to UBM: “Can’t the West and its traditions be defended without recourse to racial reductionism?” I think other commentators here could word their analyses in terminology more pretty than mine, but let me use some Dawkinsian genetic language here. Basically the question is: Can the European extended phenotype (Western societal norms and standards of living) be preserved while the European genotype, declared a thing unworthy of defending, undergoes gradual attrition and eventual extinction? (I didnt choose this wording to be obtuse, the concepts mentioned above are worth investigating if you aren’t familiar with them.) The question is more than just a rhetorical one, to be answered with the knee-jerk “Yes” that it is inevitably meant to evoke. Its a question on which entire nations have staked their future. If the answer is yes, than places like Detroit, Rotterdam, Malmo, London, Toronto, Quebec and South Africa will have a good future. But this idea already had a variety of test-case scenarios, which in my opinion were close to ideal, and by that I mean the decolonization of Africa. Specifically, Uganda, Rhodesia, and South Africa. If people really want to know the truth, if they really want to know what’s up, then there is plenty of evidence to accurately predict the future with. It’s interesting that each step away from ethnic loyalty is rewarded with an increasingly fuzzy, abstracted conceptual ersatz. Join Larry Auster, and you get to defend ‘Western Civilization’; join UBM, and you can defend ‘The West’; join the Neocons, and you can defend ‘The Free World’; before the Neocons it was called ‘Democracy’. I’m done with ‘The West’, I’m done with ‘Western Civilization’. If it only brought us this far, I say, back to the drawing board. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2006, 11:40 PM | #
Judging by the pic at the Huffington Post you’re pushing the one-drop rule to extremes, aren’t you? 49
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 24, 2006, 12:21 AM | # Don’t need a photo Scroob, just read his writing. UBM, you aren’t the fellow I kept calling “black” at Amren all the time, insinuating that you weren’t, are you? If you are and Fred’s right about your photo, that’s pretty funny. Yes, I remember now, didn’t I make some joke like “‘undercover,’ indeed”? 50
Posted by Undercover Black Man on December 24, 2006, 12:57 AM | # Hey, white folks made the rules. And by those rules, both sides of my family tree were classified as “colored” and “Negro” since before the 20th Century. My dad (born in 1911) could only work as a messenger (or supervisor of messengers) for the federal government until Truman desegregated the civil service. He had to move to the back of the bus when travelling to Virginia, soon as the bus crossed the Virginia state line. My older siblings attended segregated-by-law public schools. My aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc. run the gamut from sandy-haired and fair to creamy yellow to cocoa brown to dark chocolate. Me, I get to hear what white folks say when they don’t think any black people are around. Hence, my nom de guerre. 51
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 24, 2006, 01:12 AM | # Er, the rules you refer to classify you as mustifee (approximate guess), not black. 53
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 24, 2006, 01:37 AM | # Well if the census-taker’s to be the arbiter, there’s no such thing as jews… 54
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 24, 2006, 04:01 AM | # I oppose racialism per se, because I believe history shows us that it leads all too often to murderous ill will directed at the “other.” In fact, history shows the exact opposite, especially the history of the 20th century. Niall Ferguson, a most prolific and most liberal modern historian, is forced to acknowledge, in his book “The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West” that,
Why is it extremely important? It is because a country like Canada, in the period 1904-1953 was overwhelmingly homogeneous. Ethnic disintegration, for Ferguson, is paramount in promoting the most deadly period in the history of mankind.
Yet now the homogeneous societies of the early to mid 20th century are ever more resembling the multi-racial monoliths of earlier times. And despite the scientific progress and economic well-being the the latter years of that century and the early years of this one Ferguson points to an anomaly that still confounds:
55
Posted by Proofreader on December 24, 2006, 06:22 AM | # Fred, judging from UBM´s pictures here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0589957/ I wonder how he could attend an AR conference, except as part of the press. Promising blog, nonetheless. 56
Posted by Dick Tracey on December 24, 2006, 06:56 AM | # “Well done on the detective work, UBM.” For crying out loud, that “The Inverted World” is a Jobling/Berman production is not exactly a “revelation.” For the former, the whole style of the site is exactly as is Amren, not even mentioning the extreme philosemitism and censorship of any reasoned arguments; for the latter, doesn’t anyone remember that recent VDARE article telling us that Berman was starting a so-called “realist foundation?” Hmmm, “realist”.... A good reason this hasn’t been gotten into is that it is essentially irrelevant. A saying I remember: small minded people talk about people, average people talk about events, the intelligent talk about ideas. The ideas of The Inverted World are ludicrous, and the focus of Majority Rights. I could care less one way or another about Jobling himself. “Can’t the West and its traditions be defended without recourse to racial reductionism?” I think other commentators here could word their analyses in terminology more pretty than mine, but let me use some Dawkinsian genetic language here. Basically the question is: Can the European extended phenotype (Western societal norms and standards of living) be preserved while the European genotype, declared a thing unworthy of defending, undergoes gradual attrition and eventual extinction?” The answer to both questions is no, but both questions miss the point that Majority Rights is also concerned with something more fundamental than “the West and its traditions.” 57
Posted by Guessedworker on December 24, 2006, 09:24 AM | # Dick Tracey, Nonetheless, there is the still relevant relationship of personnel > events > ideas, and the issue of Jewry is precisely that: Which people generate(d) which events in service of which ideas? It certainly isn’t my purpose to prattle on about people as such but to address the split (ie, an event) in American WN that certain individuals are trying to engineer. The two recent confrontations with Auster and then with Jobling and his Amen Chorus were entirely predicated on fidelity to our own interests and nobody else’s. The fact is that if the conspirators - for that’s how I see them -were only seeking to make a case for better political judgement, they could have done that without seeking to offer up WN to Jewish participation. That they do not do so, but go straight for the altruistic option, is eloquent, I think. So, OK Dick, here is my idea:- Jews who are interested in saving Western Civ have an obvious modus operandum available to them. They can protest the damaging behaviors of their co-ethnics. They can establish a foundation to do an honest job of protecting American liberty. They can organise to lobby on Capital Hill for family issues, for immigration restrictions. They can lobby the Hollywood Studios and the Jewish media to moderate their anti-majoritarianism and anti-traditionalism. They can seek to ally with religious Jews against the pornography industry. There’s no shortage of useful work for Messers Berman and Hart. But they won’t do any of that because it all serves their own ethnic interests. In the same spirit, they want to make WN safe for Jews so that Auschwitz will not be built again on American soil. The guiding idea is NOT the saving of Western Civ. It is not an idea at all. It is Jewish paranoia. Mr Auster and The Realist are not honest with us about that, and offer us a pretention to great ideas. But Auster’s hysterical response to Svi and me and The Realist’s censoring of our posts tells the real story. 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 24, 2006, 11:57 AM | #
Browsing the Inverted World comments thread on Susan Sontag the other day and happening across the above by “EW” which struck me as explaining the whole phenomenon in two sentences, I submitted a supporting comment which I expected would be filtered out but they did post it, yesterday. (Its last paragraph came out sounding obscure, which was not intentional — sorry. That last paragraph referred to an idea expressed in Roman author Lucretius’ book, De Rerum Natura.) EW’s point was, essentially, that The Realist had no need of writing an entire detailed response to that nonsensical claim of Sontag’s about whites being the cancer of the human race because she didn’t mean it. She was only striking back at Eurochristians on behalf of her tribe, the Jews, in retaliation for two millennia of pain inflicted and injustice meted out, and for still ongoing general Eurochristian unpleasantness as seen from the Jewish point of view, unpleasantness such as the phenomenon of communitywide public Christmastide festivities which Jews like Sontag find incredibly annoying, really cannot stand, and even consider evil in the sense of being an in-your-face symbol of threatening, scary, dark, dangerous, murderous, pure distilled anti-Semitism. Sontag was simply launching a salvo in a two-thousand-year tribal war, a war waged by Jews (allied currently with Eurochristian atheists, homosexuals, clinically-depressed clueless women, and various malcontents, non-whites, and others) against Eurochristians (OK, to be more accurate this particular tribal war, the Jewish-Eurochristian one as opposed to the previous Jewish-Levantinechristian one, didn’t really start heating up until about a thousand years ago). It’s the same war the 1917 Jewish Bolsheviks were fighting, the same war Lazar Kaganovich was fighting when he starved, shot, and deported the Ukrainian Kulaks (resulting in Hitler’s election in Germany when the German people understood the same Jewish-Bolshevik murderous genocidal tribal vengeance motivated by a thousand years of pent-up tribal anger, resentment, and hate lay in store for them, the Germans, unless a hard-line anti-communist was put in power), the same war Rosa Luxemburg was fighting, the same war Abe Foxman and Morris Disease are fighting (although Disease is in it more for the sheer lucre and less for the principle of the thing than Foxman is), the same war the Jewish ACLU is fighting, the same war Norman Leer was fighting in founding his nakedly anti-Eurochristian group “Extended Phenotypes for the Amerikwan Way,” the same war Alon Ziv is fighting in calling on all Eurochristians to do what the cricket and grasshopper did in that video when the worm got inside them. No need to look for genuine philosophical underpinnings of this war: there are none, apart from this tried-and-true age-old nugget of timeless wisdom which all races and ethnocultures forget at their mortal peril: “All’s fair in love, war, and tribal war.” You’re being attacked, Eurochristians, attacked in a tribal war you don’t even know is being waged. Realist, you can stop scratching your head now in regard to what possibly could have been Susan Sontag’s motivation for making that extremely bizarre statement, a statement which in fact is incomprehensible unless one understands the above. That’s the point of EW’s post (a point which also hearkens back to Desmond’s post in this thread, in which he quoted from Niall Ferguson): the phenomenon of tribal war and the realization that tribal wars aren’t only waged in the jungles of New Guinea and darkest Africa by men with bones through their noses wearing grass skirts and carrying spears and shields, or even in the dreary neighborhoods of Belfast and Derry, N.I. ... Marxism; the fabled “Decadence” of Berlin, Germany, of the 1920s and early 30s so beloved of Jewish writers of today; the 60s “New Left” in the U.S. and across Europe; Post-Modernism; today’s multi-pronged régime of forced Euro race-replacement; and so much more, were/are in significant measure a tribal war against Eurochristians waged by an alliance hugely prominent among whose members are Jews such as Susan Sontag and Alon Ziv acting as Jews not just as generic liberals. No, none of these historical phenomena was solely that, obviously. Just as obviously, all of them were partly that. 59
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 24, 2006, 03:02 PM | #
Yes, that’s always what springs right to mind whenever people like John PM insist that non-Arab Semites are white and “there are plenty of non-jewish liberals.” For many non-Arab Semites, liberalism is actually ethnocentric warfare. ~~~ Merry Christmas, everyone. 60
Posted by Viking on December 26, 2006, 06:56 AM | # The following was a comment submitted to the appropriate thread at The Inverted World and which has not been posted by The Realist. More to the point, neither The Realist nor any of that site’s regulars has seen fit to critique WJP’s comment. Does Auster have any defense of this, or is Jewish contempt for white historical groups somewhow consistent with a “pro-western” attitude and “traditionalism” and racial nationalism? Advice: from now on, whenever debating on the question of TIW, this episode should be stresed. “Realist, I have a comment which you, in good faith, should allow to be posted on your site. You have made it quite clear that comments harshly critical of Jews, especially those reflecting deep-seated animus, would either a) not be posted on your site (the comments section of which is moderated), or b) if posted, would be accompanied by sharp critique by you and your commentators. For example, if someone dismissed Jews as “leaving their ghettoes centuries ago in their smelly caftans”, I assume that would be viewed as anti-Semitism. I note though that “White, Jewish, and Proud’s” comment: ” And I don’t give a rat’s ass who won the NFC East last year, much less who came down from the misty fjords of Norway wearing the smelly skins of animals a thousand years ago.” slipped by your censorship and has resulted in no rebuke from you or your regular commentators. Interesting. In your hierarchy of whiteness, are Nordics second class citizens behind Jews? Or do you give Jews the same minority double standards that liberals give to blacks?” 61
Posted by Rnl on December 27, 2006, 06:21 PM | # wjg wrote: I was objecting to your idea that WNs must embrace NS Germany. If they choose to do so, that’s fine. If they don’t, that’s fine too. Hitler would have agreed with us that it is a bad idea for Western nations to import hordes of hostile, unassimilable aliens. But Queen Elizabeth I and Winston Churchill would have agreed too. Hitler believed that Blacks aren’t especially intelligent. So did Thomas Jefferson and Francis Scott Key, both of whom also believed that Blacks should be repatriated to Africa. Hitler knew that a culturally cohesive nation is stronger and more united than a racially balkanized and culturally fragmented nation. Every Euro-American outside of an insane asylum once understood that. In short, most of Hitler’s sound beliefs were once just common sense, recognized by almost everyone. We don’t _need_ to look back at a brief period in German history to accept them. *** Embracing German national socialism is different from analyzing the anti-White political meanings implicit in the latest Hitler documentary on television. Hitler has not become history’s most evil man because he was an autocrat who invaded Poland. His bad qualities and his bad decisions are largely immaterial today. If they were material, then Japanese war crimes would receive as much attention as German war crimes. We [Jews] are not only ‘the people of the book,’ but the people of the Hollywood film and the television miniseries, of the magazine article and the newspaper column, of the comic book and the academic symposium. When a high level of concern with the Holocaust became widespread in American Jewry, it was, given the important role that Jews play in American media and opinion-making elites, not only natural, but virtually inevitable that it would spread through the culture at large. [...] A good part of the answer is the fact - not less a fact because anti-Semites turn it into a grievance - that Jews play an important and influential role in Hollywood, the television industry, and the newspaper, magazine, and book publishing worlds. Anyone who would explain the massive attention the Holocaust has received in these media in recent years without reference to that fact is being naive or disingenuous. Peter Novick, _The Holocaust in American Life_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999), 12, 207. Hitler has become history’s most evil man as instructional tool in the service of multiracialism. He was a nationalist, an anti-Semite and a racialist, and his endless demonization instructs us that that we must avoid nationalism, anti-Semitism and racialism. Hitler’s brownshirts once burned books. No one in the German establishment today infers from this notorious event that it’s wrong to burn books because nazis once burned books. Bookburning and the imprisonment of authors occur regularly in modern Germany, and no one in a position of authority sees any inconsistency between nazi-like bookburning right now and the anti-nazi propaganda of the modern German bookburners. Anti-nazi propaganda merely tells them what kind of books they’re entitled to burn. All the meanings that emerge from Hitler mythology are similarly anti-racialist, since that’s what Hitler mythology is _for_. 62
Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 07, 2008, 11:59 PM | # “The Realist” is now signing his real name thanks to having come into a family inheritance sizable enough to free him from employment anxieties if his politics are known. 64
Posted by Frank McGuckin on January 08, 2008, 09:07 PM | # Jobling has well developed neo-con instincts. His website is heavily censored. No self-repecting White Nationalist should support the US invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq is a major crime. Bush should be hung for war crimes. Jobling is an apologist for the kike -infested Bsh administration. Joblings allegiance is to the state of Israel. This makes the pro-Jew English faggot a traitor. 65
Posted by D.E. Johnson on January 08, 2008, 09:43 PM | # >>Joblings allegiance is to the state of Israel. This makes the pro-Jew English faggot a traitor. Not exactly: traitor He is nevertheless a reprehensible specimen. D.E. Johnson 66
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on January 08, 2008, 11:57 PM | # From the looks of him, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jobling himself were of Jewish extraction, but I don’t think that matters much in this case. What does matter is his mendacity. I don’t know of any research that hasn’t confirmed that Jews are not in the European genetic clustering - Jews simply aren’t white. If he ignores this fact, he destroys his credibility upfront. I believe he may have published something on IW about Jews being genetically similar to Italians and Greeks - but this is irrelevant if true, since Greece and southern Italy have been compromised by race-mixing. When Jobling’s website first went online, I was hoping to find serious critiques of David Duke, perhaps along with the thoughts and ideas of Jews who claim to be pro-white. Instead, I got a pathetic attempt to intellectually legitimize an insult from Michael Hart. The tone was set from the very beginning, and I’m guessing it hasn’t changed since (I haven’t wasted any time looking at IW in recent months). 67
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on January 09, 2008, 12:57 AM | # I almost forgot: IW links to the loathsome Michelle Malkin. I suppose Jobling considers her an honorary white person, since she is wed to a member to that tribe which ranks highest on his hierarchy of whiteness. Jobling also stated, in the comments for the article called “The Decline of American Renaissance,” that Holocaust denial is more unhealthy than obsession with Holocaust. You don’t have to be a scholar studying white nationalism to realize that many Holocaust deniers are pro-white - while the number of pro-white Holocaust obsessives is probably zero. Jobling is not pro-white; he is pro-Jewish. His website is merely an attempt to introduce the rather flaccid concept of “race realism” into the neoconservative Jewish supremacist matrix. 68
Posted by larchsigh on January 09, 2008, 07:01 AM | # “I believe he may have published something on IW about Jews being genetically similar to Italians and Greeks - but this is irrelevant if true” It’s not: http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030236.eor Even the Seldin paper - with all its methodological issues - didn’t say that either, just that the Ashkenazim were more similar to the SE Europeans than to the N Europeans, which is not surprising, given that genetic variation is clinal as well as clustered. Relatively more similar does not equal “genetically similar.” And that’s not even getting into the NRY and mtDNA data either. Jobling simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about - a fact that is going to be further underlined in more detailed studies along the lines of Price et al. ” since Greece and southern Italy have been compromised by race-mixing.” Really? And what evidence do you have that you yourself have not been similarly “compromised,” and may in fact have less ‘native European’ genetic ancestry than individuals from those territories? Or, do you “just know it?” And how is that ‘certainty’ any different from Jobling’s? 69
Posted by larchsigh on January 09, 2008, 07:07 AM | # “From the looks of him, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jobling himself were of Jewish extraction, but I don’t think that matters much in this case.” But, perhaps it does matter. If he has no confirmed genealogical “Jewish extraction,”, but the “looks of him” so impresses you in that direction, perhaps the Jobling family line, indigenous as it may be, has been “compromised” by racial admixture? 70
Posted by onlooker on January 09, 2008, 08:34 AM | # Most Jews today are descendants of the Khazar tribe(a people of Turkic origin) whom of which converted from paganism to Judaism in the ninth century. So, the question is: Are these “Turkic people of origin” genetically white? 71
Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 09, 2008, 09:24 AM | # Hypothesis: those particular Jewish individuals who are more inclined to question forced race-replacement of Euros (or, to put it another way, who are more inclined to sympathize with Euros who oppose it; less inclined to go hysterically through the self-fulfilling-prophecy routine known as “I-could-never-support-them-because-they’re-all-anti-Semites”) have, on average and unbeknownst to them, a greater proportion of Euro-race admixture than the average Jew. What’s “speaking,” in their greater willingness to “listen to” alarmed Euros, their greater willingness to “see the Euro side of the issue,” is, unbeknownst to themselves, greater genetic relatedness to the population in jeopardy. How does genetic relatedness that’s unbeknownst to them motivate them? Partly the way genetic relatedness that’s known to people motivates people: there are unconscious feelings of racial identification acting through unclear mechanisms, probably a multitude of them, so that racial identification is probably both conscious and unconscious (leaving the unconscious part to motivate, if relatedness isn’t consciously realized). 72
Posted by onlooker on January 09, 2008, 09:37 AM | # ” ... The Ashkenazi Jews, who now compromise 90% of the Jews in the world, had a rather strange beginning. According to historians, many of them Jewish, the Ashkenazi Jews came into existence about 1,200 years ago. It happened this way:
73
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on January 09, 2008, 11:58 AM | #
I used the word “compromised” because I remember it being used for the same purpose in a VNN article by a WN who had just returned from travels in Italy. He wrote something to the effect of “Southern Italy has been racially compromised.” http://www.white-history.com/italy.htm None of this really has anything to do with me personally - the point I was trying to make, if supported by the evidence, would stand even if I were a coal-black Negro from Ghana. But for the record, I don’t “just know” anything. I have good reason to believe that were I to get an analysis from AncestryByDNA, some North African or even Negroid might be present. A full quarter of my ancestry is Italian, and half of that is Sicilian. However, the rest is Northern European, and I have fair skin and Nordic facial features. Therefore, if I do turn out to have less “native European” genetic ancestry than the average olive-skinned Greek, I think I could be forgiven for having thought otherwise.
Is it so horribly unreasonable to infer from a person’s features what his ancestry might be? If I encounter a person with thick lips, a wide nose, nappy black hair, dark brown eyes, and medium-brown skin, can I assume the person is Negro with some white ancestry, or do I need a DNA test every time? Forgive me if it seemed like I was making a value judgment on European populations subjected to racial admixture; I was not. If I believed only people of 100% pure Euro ancestry (if there is such a thing) could be part of a future all-Euro society, I would probably be excluding myself, as I wrote above. My point was simply that Jobling could not classify Jews as white by comparing them to Euro populations already subjected to large-scale race-mixing with Africans and Middle Easterners. 74
Posted by larchsigh on January 10, 2008, 06:14 AM | # What does Duncan “infer” about ancestry of the men pictured below? It wouldn’t be unreasonable to say that Jobling “looks the least ‘white” and “looks the most admixed” of these men. Is that in fact true? Who knows? Duncan surely doesn’t. http://inverted-world.com/images/ian_jobling.jpg http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/Zac-Efron-ds10.jpg http://www.naxos.com/SharedFiles/Images/Composers/Pictures/25979-2.jpg http://www.markpaulgosselaar.net/images/lisa/lisa026.jpg If Jobling has no known “recent” genealogical non-European ancestry, does he get a “free pass” from guys like Duncan with respect to “being of racially compromised ancestry?” Or do we be consistent and “infer” something about him, the same as VNN commentators, or Duncan himself, may infer about others? 75
Posted by larchsigh on January 10, 2008, 06:18 AM | # Most Jews today are descendants of the Khazar tribe (a people of Turkic origin) whom of which converted from paganism to Judaism in the ninth century. “
76
Posted by larch on January 10, 2008, 07:14 AM | # Getting back to the subject of this post; Jobling is indeed despicable. Like Auster, he routinely distorts the opinions of those he wishes to refute, throws up strawmen to knock down, distorts history and science to meet his philosemitic agendas, censors, and uses the most inane examples of the opposition to “refute,” rather than answering critics of higher levels of intelligence and insight. Furthermore, one has to laugh with Jobling praising himself for his time as “webmaster.” Essentially, looking at *both* the online website discussions as well as the AmRen yahoo discussion list, Jobling allowed Jews and philosemitic gentiles to attack European ethnies with impunity, while harshly critiquing and usually then censoring even more mild criticism of Jews. This has continued at his “Inverted World” website - in which individuals such as “White, Jewish, and Proud” are allowed to make cracks about “those in smelly skins emerging from misty fjords,” while analyses of Jews from MacDonaldite or genetic scientific perspectives are censored. Like GNXP and Sailer, I’ve given up on any participation on IW threads, because the time is wasted; if you submit an effective riposte, it just won’t show up, or will be quickly deleted (GNXP). By the way, far from being a boon to Amren, the website format has been a disaster, specifically because the inane comments threads essentially throw away the major advantage of Amren to begin with: its higher intellectual level and tone. As hard as it may be to believe, the comments threads there are at a lower level than here, and that’s no mean accomplishment. To the extent that Jobling enabled that, Taylor should be happy that “the Realist” left for “greener” (or more kosher) pastures. Note to Taylor: if you persist with a “news section,” at least delete the comments section. 77
Posted by VLC on January 10, 2008, 02:36 PM | # “Jobling is not pro-white; he is pro-Jewish.”
Please ? 78
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on January 10, 2008, 04:02 PM | #
I’m not citing VNN as evidence - only revealing my inspiration for using the word which, for some reason, so offended you. If you’re talking about the journal articles quoted by Kemp, then you ought to link to other articles which refute them or arrive at different conclusions.
You were the one who brought me into the discussion in the first place by suggesting I might be of less pure European genetic stock than the populations of modern Greece and southern Italy. You did this despite the fact that my own ancestry has no bearing whatsoever on what I was discussing. I decided to humor you by explaining why I thought I had less non-Euro ancestry than modern south Italians or Greeks, which was apparently foolish of me. AncestrybyDNA does not assay for “North African” ancestry, nor does any extant autosomal admixture test. It may not be classified as such. I was referring to the populations of North Africa as opposed to sub-Saharan negroids. But, don’t let these, like you know, petty details like confidence intervals and significance get in the way of your pontifications. I’m not pontificating. I’m posting my thoughts in the comments section of a blog (and explaining why I have those thoughts, to boot). Look up the definition of “pontification” in, like you know, a dictionary.
You’re the one so concerned with racial compromising, not I. My concern in the above post was with IW, Jobling, his Judeophilia, and his unfounded belief that Jews are white. If you had a problem with that phrase I used only once, you should have simply explained why it was inappropriate, or asked me to clarify. Instead, you have launched a lengthy and nasty attack on me.
You have taken a mere aside from me: “From the looks of him, I wouldn’t be surprised if Jobling himself were of Jewish extraction…” and made it seem like an obsession. I’m not concerned with whether or not Jobling’s family was racially compromised.
You should have said so in the first place, but apparently your urge to insult people on blogs is so strong that you must do so even to those who essentially agree with you. We both think Jobling is despicable and that he is in error when he classifies Jews as white. At worst, I had slight misunderstandings of the genetic data in the latter case, or took my conclusions too far. Instead of simply correcting me (which would have been more polite and taken far less time), you attacked me as if I were an imbecile trying to pass as a biology professor. I’m just commenting on a blog.
I didn’t draw any conclusions about any phenotypes based on whether or not “I like them.” Nor did the VNN writer, if memory serves. 79
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on January 10, 2008, 04:51 PM | #
Making an inference is not knowing. You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing whatsoever to the effect that Jobling looked admixed, only that I supposed he could pass for Jewish.
I don’t know what on earth you’re talking about. I don’t claim that it’s my place to give “free passes” to anyone for anything. You are trying to make me feel like an idiot for using appearance as a criterion for guessing a person’s ethnicity - something which is probably unavoidable for anyone with eyes to see, and something people on WN sites certainly do. If a guess turns out to be wrong, then it’s wrong. There’s no reason to snidely berate the person who made it. 80
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on January 10, 2008, 05:52 PM | #
I haven’t been to VNN in years, and I don’t remember mentioning Stormfront anywhere. If I need to spend more time understanding ethnicity and race, I don’t see why MOTT isn’t a good place to (at least) begin. You offer no better alternatives. From your tone, I assume it’s because you’ve already decided, after a mere two posts, that I’m a hopeless, ineducable dolt, and that you are superior to me. All this, not because I’m of a different ideological persuasion than you, or even because I disagreed with you, but because I had misunderstandings about the fact that Southern European populations are racially mixed to a greater degree than Northern ones. Or (even more petty) about the terms I used when describing this racial mixing.
If you’d like another example of someone who does these things, check a mirror.
Go fuck yourself, asshole.
If you hold the MR comment threads in such low esteem, do us all a favor and don’t waste your time participating in them. MR is the only pro-white publication on the internet that I’ve found to be worth following closely, let alone posting comments on. This is thanks in no small part to Fred Scrooby himself, and the fact that individuals like you are far fewer in number than on a place like VNN. I am not going to waste any more time on you. You obviously had your mind made up about me from the get-go, although I have no idea why. You’re also apparently the type of person who attacks and belittles people who agree with you - that might explain why you have enough time on your hands to post pictures of teen idols to comment threads that have no utility “other than comic value.” Piss off, loser. 81
Posted by larch on January 10, 2008, 07:51 PM | # “If you’re talking about the journal articles quoted by Kemp, then you ought to link to other articles which refute them or arrive at different conclusions.” 82
Posted by larch on January 10, 2008, 07:52 PM | # Making an inference is not knowing. You are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing whatsoever to the effect that Jobling looked admixed, only that I supposed he could pass for Jewish.” 83
Posted by larch on January 10, 2008, 08:05 PM | # ” If I need to spend more time understanding ethnicity and race, I don’t see why MOTT isn’t a good place to (at least) begin.” Well, if you like historical fiction and science fiction, yes. “You offer no better alternatives.” How about actual population genetics papers, as well as historical texts? “From your tone, I assume it’s because you’ve already decided, after a mere two posts, that I’m a hopeless, ineducable dolt…” Well, we agree on something. “All this, not because I’m of a different ideological persuasion than you, or even because I disagreed with you, but because I had misunderstandings about the fact that Southern European populations are racially mixed to a greater degree than Northern ones. Or (even more petty) about the terms I used when describing this racial mixing.” No, because you state, with all the arrogant certitude of the “true believer” that certain European populations are “racially compromised,” and then - beyond belief - attempt to assert that this has no negative connotations on a racialist blog. “If you’d like another example of someone who does these things, check a mirror.” Boy, that was a great riposte. “Go fuck yourself, asshole.” Eloquently spoken. Vulgar, as well as stupid. “If you hold the MR comment threads in such low esteem, do us all a favor and don’t waste your time participating in them.” Will do. Accept this comment then as my last word to you. “MR is the only pro-white publication on the internet that I’ve found to be worth following closely, let alone posting comments on.” Yes, I can see by “Go fuck yourself, asshole” that it all fits… “This is thanks in no small part to Fred Scrooby himself, and the fact that individuals like you are far fewer in number than on a place like VNN.” Yes, I know. My contributions to this blog has paled compared to yours. Certainly that is true. GW, I’m sure, has studiously ignored all my posts and comments over the years, and waits with breathless anticipation to your elegant commentaries. “I am not going to waste any more time on you.” You haven’t analyzed those pictures yet. “You obviously had your mind made up about me from the get-go, although I have no idea why. “ Because you are ignorant, and dogmatic about it. Some may call it “pontificating.” “You’re also apparently the type of person who attacks and belittles people who agree with you” I don’t remember doing that to MacDonald, Salter, or others who actually possess that organ called a brain. “that might explain why you have enough time on your hands to post pictures of teen idols to comment threads that have no utility “other than comic value.” The point was to compare the phenotype of the Jew Efron with Ian “free pass” Jobling. I guess the point is lost to those missing a certain organ. “Piss off, loser.” Another effective riposte. Brilliant you are. Goodbye. 84
Posted by D.E. Johnson on January 10, 2008, 09:44 PM | # Goodbye. Aww, c’mon, Larch. Stick around. GW is not a fascist, and he is never going to give up on letting any moron disrupt this forum and hogtie intelligent people who need to be doing something better than fencing with morons. It’s all about free speech, y’ know. And equality. The opinions of ‘Birch Barlow’ (an obvious clue, right there) and Duncan have just as much weight as yours, and are equally important in the goal to salvage a civilization which once prevented the likes of them from having a voice. Stop being such a prig, Larch, and start enjoying the food fight. 85
Posted by silver on January 11, 2008, 04:33 AM | # Larch, such sound and fury. But what does it all mean? Are you “Michael Rienzi”? That would explain a lot. 86
Posted by Guessedworker on January 11, 2008, 07:10 AM | # DEJ: “GW is not a fascist” Well, no. But larch is right that there is a cost to rejecting prescriptiveness in the disorderliness that results. Even allowing for our historical function as fractious “soldier ants”, white racial loyalists attack with remarkable vigour ... and all too often, as we see again here, we attack eachother. Happens all the time. Obviously, it would be a whole lot better for those with a command of detail at their disposal to offer it in a spirit of collegiality, and for those who are feeling their way forward - and that’s pretty well all of us - to accept same with humility. But that seems like an impossible trick to pull off. We are European in mind. Europeans are relatively individualistic (and we are living in an age of hyper-individualism). We don’t particularly conform in the blind way other peoples conform - certainly not above the IQ 100 tide-mark. We call the demand from above for conformity authoritarianism. Generally, we dislike it. We prefer to satisfy ourselves as to the soundness and justice of our collective actions - did we not, after all, invent the concept of democracy and of government by consent? So I see “lively debate” as unhelpful, inevitable and right all at the same time. I see it’s opposite - the handing down of truths writ upon tablets of stone - as an invitation to fractured leadership and, ultimately, no advance at all. What, then, would work for us, given that there must be intellectual and political leadership? Now, that’s an interesting question. 87
Posted by Frank McGuckin on January 11, 2008, 09:37 AM | # Is it Jobling or Jewblingstien, Jewblingwitz,Joblingberger,Joblingfeld,Horojoblingwitzor Finkjoblingstein? 89
Posted by onlooker on January 11, 2008, 11:26 AM | # Most Jews today are descendants of the Khazar tribe (a people of Turkic origin) whom of which converted from paganism to Judaism in the ninth century. “ larch responded: “That’s not true, and no matter how many times people cite “the Khazar hypothesis,” it doesn’t alter the fact there is no (biological) evidence supporting your assertion.” So you’re saying Ashkenazic Jews living in the world today have a continuous genetic connection to the Jews of the Torah? Where and why did the “Khazar hypothesis” come into being? Is there any truth to the “Khazar hypothesis”? As far as Jobling is concerned: If he can awaken whites to the plight of their condition, isn’t that a good thing? After-all, not everyone believes Jews are at the center of our problem. Some see that the Jews’ anti-white behavior is a symptom within the context of a much larger problem. That problem being modern-secular- liberalism. Jews, Muslims (and all other non-whites)—for the benefit of their own EGI—are exploiting that philosophical weakness. Why the white-race continues to embrace such ethomacichistic/autogenocidal policies (such as immigration) in the face of the results they’re producing is truly mind-boggling. 90
Posted by Frank McGuckin on January 11, 2008, 12:17 PM | # Ian Jewbling or just plain old Job: Thinks it’s great that Asian supremacists flood into America-legal way
91
Posted by Frank McGuckin on January 11, 2008, 12:31 PM | # CJ:Reggie Reginald R Perrin:Yes CJ CJ:IIIIII never got where I am today no knowing the difference between a JEWWW and Jobling. Reginald R Perrin:Yes CJ 92
Posted by D.E. Johnson on January 11, 2008, 11:10 PM | # What, then, would work for us, given that there must be intellectual and political leadership? Now, that’s an interesting question. Yes, that is an interesting question: How might intellectual and political leadership be accomplished by the disenfranchised? Certainly it cannot be achieved by restricting cogent input and exchange among potential leaders. Neither can it be restrained by allowing the enemy full rein in your own camp. So how do you propose to answer the question? Scuttlebutt has it, that you do remove some posts. Is that true? But to answer your interesting question, somewhat obliquely: You already know what is not leadership. 93
Posted by Desmond Jones on January 12, 2008, 12:40 AM | # So I see “lively debate” as unhelpful, inevitable and right all at the same time. An extended English phenotype, no doubt! 94
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 05, 2008, 08:20 PM | # The Realist is embarking on a complete revamp of his blog, to be completed over the coming months:
95
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 05, 2008, 08:46 PM | # The Realist (Ian Jobling) is an important voice on our side, but no matter how Jew-friendly he attempts to make his site (he’s now begun strongly endorsing “Tolerance” and “Pluralism,” which are, of course, none other than Jewish Zyklon-B), Jews will no more flock to his site than termites will to the Orkin Man: Jews see Euro group-survival and group-health as bad for the Jews. Jobling simply cannot understand that. Jewish leadership will never be on the side of Euro survival, health, and strength, but will always favor what weakens/sickens/exterminates Euros as a race. Next entry: Hot Cross Bush Previous entry: The Bear’s Lair: International Perspective |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) 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) 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 Svyatoslav Igorevich on December 19, 2006, 05:17 PM | #
This is doubly disappointing because I noticed in the comments on Realist’s first piece that the Amren crowd felt comfy there and I was really looking forward to handing fags like John PM (and aggressive, loudmouthed non-Arab Semites like “White, Jewish, and Proud”) their asses away from Amren’s kiddie pool, where the moderators put one side in shackles. I suppose that’s not to be.