The Story of O

Posted by Al Ross on November 28, 2007, 12:05 AM | #

That Ass-ahab media company really gives us the fundament Muslims’ viewpoint.

Posted by John on November 28, 2007, 06:19 AM | #

Evidently, the Steinfront donation wasn’t doing the trick. Neither will this. When they realize that, they will start to get desperate. That should be interesting.

Posted by Robert ap Richard on November 28, 2007, 12:56 PM | #

Non intelligo.

Posted by Tommy G on November 28, 2007, 01:54 PM | #

I think James Bowery wrote that speech for him?

Posted by John on November 28, 2007, 08:42 PM | #

It wasn’t James. Whoever put that together might have a sense of humor but definitely doesn’t like Ron Paul.

Posted by Duncan Tyyne on November 29, 2007, 12:02 AM | #

There’s something I’ve discovered about people interested in mainstream American politics.  Whenever I suggest to them that Sammy might have died some time ago, they get offended.  Supporters of the Republicans react that way because they’d lose a powerful bogeyman and object of hate if he were dead; Democrats get miffed because they could no longer call out Bush for failing to capture him.

I gather from this little production that he is indeed dead (or at least out of circulation), and that the neocons are now attempting to use him as their Frankenstein monster.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 29, 2007, 01:01 AM | #

I like Ossama. He’s a stand up guy. Instead of going to Europe at every opportunity to screw White whores and snort cocaine or blowing his money in casinos or on cars, like many Arabs with money, he’s actually fighting as best he can Zionists and trying to do something to improve the lives of his people and coreligionists. Whatever you think of his goals or methods, he’s a man of action. He’s got my vote.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 29, 2007, 06:58 AM | #

Friedrich,

What’s come over you today?  Two jokes in two comments!  Good job Phil’s in China.  He’d take you seriously and ban you again.

Posted by Robert ap Richard on November 29, 2007, 09:32 AM | #

Duncan Tyyne,
That’s exactly the same response I get here in Bush Country, Southeast Texas.  I still cannot help but see the similarity between OBL and Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein character.

BOO!m

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 29, 2007, 07:20 PM | #

GW, I genuinely like Ossama. I could expand on the reasons. But I’d like to know why you feel such animosity for the man.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 29, 2007, 07:31 PM | #

A current within the nationalist right has always welcomed Muslims and Islam. I share that perspective as many of my German National Socialist friends who have had some influence on my thinking in this regard over the years. As an atheist I’m not about to convert to anything, but that’s beside the point. Some of the reasons why the nationalist right should welcome Islam have been eloquently stated by Christian Bouchet, here:

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/10/28/french-intellectual-christian-bouchet-on-why-the-nationalist-right-should-welcome-islam/

Posted by Miss Canady on November 30, 2007, 09:17 AM | #

I prefer Saddam Hussein myself, now that was a cool guy.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 30, 2007, 09:37 AM | #

Friedrich: “But I’d like to know why you feel such animosity for the man.”

It’s easy.  I think of the young girl, my daughter’s age then, on the first plane that hit the Towers.

As for welcoming Islam, that’s simply suicide.  In order to survive we need our distinctions and we need our rationalism.

Posted by Tommy G on November 30, 2007, 11:02 AM | #

“I prefer Saddam Hussein myself, now that was a cool guy.”

He was pretty good but, I used to have high hopes for Muammar al-Kadafi before he went all pansy-ass.

Posted by silver on November 30, 2007, 11:37 AM | #

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2007/10/28/french-intellectual-christian-bouchet-on-why-the-nationalist-right-should-welcome-islam/

As anything aside from underhanded political manouvering that is out-and-out insane.

Muslims are not traditional nationalists, fighting only to secure their rights to their own lands—Palestine aside, they already possess those rights.  Islam is at its core expansionist. It exists to rule, not to coexist. To negate the expansionist core is to negate the whole enterprise. 

What honest alliance is possible, then?  What sort of ‘integration’ can be accomodated that doesn’t defeat the very cause of racial preservation? If Friedrich offers this up as a racialist, he must be so sick with Jew-hatred that he can’t see straight. 

Friedrich’s beloved German fatherland would be far better served by finding common cause with Jews rather than with Muslims.  Both Israel and Germany are plagued with Muslims.  Neither nation can survive without expulsing them.  Germans should support Israelis who seek to expulse Muslims from Israel (either proper or the territories—who cares?).  This could spur similar actions by Germany and other European countries. 

The basis?  Incompatibility with ‘western values’ (however those are dressed up).  The liberalism those ‘values’ refer to is certainly a sickness, but both racial integrity and traditional lifestyles can be supported within a reined-in version of it.

Posted by Maguire on November 30, 2007, 11:38 AM | #

“A current within the nationalist right has always welcomed Muslims and Islam.”

I don’t share this welcoming spirit.  Islam is a universalist religion with a Semitic core.  These Semites will always be more disposed to ally with the Jewish Semites against whites than vice versa.

They were accomodating allies to German nationalism for precisely as long as German nationalists retained a superior position and were likely to be useful allies against Judeo-British imperialism.

The behavior of Muslims since WWII and particularly when any of them arrive in Europe or North America is instructive.  I recall particularly one Palestinian activist female in New York City.  She was a completely kosher worshipper of Orthodox Holocaustianity.  Reading this Muslim woman’s slobbering judeolatry extinguished any true sympathy I had for her cause.  And we have to remember that Muslim’s real military performance is only exceeded on the low side by Africans.

In Europe and North America these Semites all have greater common interests in uniting to exploit native whites.  It’s a certainty that Semite oil sheiks and Semite New York and London bankers have vast common interests in mutually exploiting whites.

We can add to this the rampant Muslim physical aggression against whites in the European and Australian homelands.  It’s not 1941 anymore, Friedrich.  A more limited case might be made for the Shi’ite Aryan cousins in Iran.

I think the only reason this idea exists at all in Europe is the false superficial attraction of it as a method of expressing anti-Jewish opposition without transgressing the Jews’ totalitarian speech and political laws.  There is a darker unspoken reason.  This is the attraction exerted by Semite oil dollars on certain individuals like David Irving.

I have yet to hear one cogent reason why any Australian, British, Danish, Dutch or French white nationalist could ever see an ‘ally’ in any Muslim.  The interests of these, our true blood kinsmen, are and can be our only consideration.

Posted by Maguire on November 30, 2007, 11:43 AM | #

“finding common cause with Jews”

Only one relationship is ever possible between Organized Jewry and any non-Jewish people.  This is the same relationship that exists between a vampire and its prey.

Posted by Maguire on November 30, 2007, 11:52 AM | #

“Muslims are not traditional nationalists, fighting only to secure their rights to their own lands—Palestine aside, they already possess those rights.  Islam is at its core expansionist. It exists to rule, not to coexist. To negate the expansionist core is to negate the whole enterprise.”

I believe this to be very true. 

“It exists to rule, not to coexist.”

A statement that is equally true of World Jewry.  I see no true ally in either group, nor any reason to fight any of their wars for them.  White people’s interest lies exclusively in Blood and Land.

Posted by Tommy G on November 30, 2007, 12:17 PM | #

“White people’s interest lies exclusively in Blood and Land.”

Ultimately speaking that’s true; but unfortunately, in the mean time, our economy rests ‘exclusively’ on oil.

Btw—silver is dead-on right…again.

Posted by Maguire on November 30, 2007, 12:52 PM | #

“but unfortunately, in the mean time, our economy rests ‘exclusively’ on oil.”

This is true, but it does not arise from any laws of science and engineering.  It really rests on liquid hydrocarbon fuels.  The Great Hoax of the 20th Century was the proposition these can only be made from petroleum.  There is no natural shortage of carbon or hydrogen atoms in North America.

Our present external dependence on imported oil is as artificially contrived as England’s politically engineered dependence on imported wheat during the heydey of 19th Century ‘free trade’. 

Both contrivances were necessary to sustain and enhance the power of financial factotums focused on in the “City of London” and “Wall Street”.

Posted by GT on November 30, 2007, 12:57 PM | #

...our economy rests ‘exclusively’ on oil.

Time to do something about that, wouldn’t you say?  And frankly, I question the motives of any Nationalist who would disagree or fail to put his mind toward finding solutions to that problem.

‘Silver’ is partly wrong. Jews everywhere correctly perceive Whites a greater threat than Turks.  Whites in Germany must attack Jews everywhere and adopt a policy of supporting non-Jews in the Orient.  “Go back to Turkey, Turkman, and we’ll support you.”

Posted by James Bowery on November 30, 2007, 02:03 PM | #

Both contrivances were necessary to sustain and enhance the power of financial factotums focused on in the “City of London” and “Wall Street”.

Essentially correct.  Hijacking the fruits of invention necessitates—at some point—complete confiscation of all such fruits before the inventors figure out what you have done to them.  It’s rather like murdering the victim of a robbery.

What this means in this case, of course, is a Malthusian crisis.

Posted by Matra on November 30, 2007, 02:43 PM | #

I think of the young girl, my daughter’s age then, on the first plane that hit the Towers.

The Irish girl Juliana McCourt?

A current within the nationalist right has always welcomed Muslims and Islam.

The Nazis seemed to like Muslims. They helped them butcher tens of thousands of white Christians in Yugoslavia. Yet, unbelievably, there are still whites around who have a positive view of the Nazis!

Posted by Tommy G on November 30, 2007, 03:29 PM | #

I’ve just read some very sad news:

The beloved civil rights icon, Dr. Rodney King, has been shot in San Bernardino, Caifornia. “Can’t we all get along?”

http://www.knbc.com/news/14728855/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

Posted by Maguire on November 30, 2007, 05:14 PM | #

James,

“Hijacking the fruits of invention necessitates—at some point—complete confiscation of all such fruits before the inventors figure out what you have done to them.”

I think we should challenge the worshippers of “Free Trade” to list even one scientific or technological advance of the First Industrial Revolution whose emergence had been hindered by the old British Corn Laws.  They can’t do it because there aren’t any.  The entire foundation had already been laid under external mercantilist policies combined with internal laissez-faire practices. 

What Free Trade promoted then - and now - was grotesque scaling combined with the destruction of wage levels on both ends of the transaction.  This was true in the 19th Century with the Corn Laws, the ‘dark satanic’ textile mills of Leeds and Manchester and the ‘dark satanic’ slave-based cotton trade of the multi-racial Judeo-Confederacy.  And it’s true today of the Chinese based $1/day factories operated on 19th Century Leeds standards and the health insurance free Wal-Mart retail front end.

The reason I mention this is because the promoters of Free Trade have tried to identify it historically as being a necessary adjunct or even prerequisite of the Industrial Revolution.  This myth is a whopper, to put it mildly.

Maguire

Posted by DavidL on November 30, 2007, 08:10 PM | #

Maguire

For some time it has puzzled me as to why wealthy
and connected jews such as the Rothschilds of both
Britain and France would allow their backyards to
fill with the dreck from the third world.

From your posts above, the jew appears to have more of an
affinity with other semites and dark skinned folk.

So are the immigrants to these countries being used to
wipe out the white population with the elites moving in the
background out of sight ?

Color me slightly puzzled.

Posted by silver on December 01, 2007, 12:50 AM | #

‘Silver’ is partly wrong. Jews everywhere correctly perceive Whites a greater threat than Turks.

Maybe this is the case in Germany, with respect to Turks, but I don’t think it applies ‘everywhere’, with respect to Muslims (as a whole).  Even if true, the perception is cock-eyed, not ‘correct’: Jews may fear whites more than Muslims, but it is Muslims who are open about—and act on (see France)—their hatred of Jews. 

Whites in Germany must attack Jews everywhere and adopt a policy of supporting non-Jews in the Orient.

This is a recipe for going the way of the slow-cooked frog.

If you’re ever appeal to an audience broader than the choir, you have to find some way of shaking the common garden liberal from his slumber.  What better way than to attack Muslims?  Liberalism has rolled out red carpet for Muslims and

is how they are repaid?  Segregated swimming pools?  Honour killings?  Antisemitism?  This is something the liberal can grasp.  It gets him hmmmm-ing. 

If the liberal doesn’t wish his repose disturbed, he flashes a triumphant index finger and tells you “Multiculturalism!”.  But now you’ve engaged him.  Now you can discuss the merits of diversity.  You can point out that while the liberal celebrates diversity, the Muslims celebrate victory.  Attacking Islam is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, so if the liberal doesn’t run away scared, you’re on the first step to conversion: the right-liberal.

The right-liberal (especially the convert) thinks of himself as a hard-headed realist. He has junked the feel-good lefty-liberalism and he is now asking the tough questions, demanding the tough answers.  He wants to find a way to ‘make it work’.  Islam has become ‘Islamofacism’ and search is on for moderate Muslims.  You are now talking ‘culture’.

The right-liberal is forced to think about his own culture: how is it particular?; what creates it?; what is required to maintain it?  He begins thinking about life, about the meaning of things.  His culture, is it… more than just… liberalism?  His life, is it more than just… consumption?  A procession of questioning is initiated that will lead many to race.  Some, of course, will be frightened away, and stay with right-liberalism, or retreat right back into left-liberalism, or even communism—after all, not all white enemies of racialism are ignorant of its tenets.  But think of the converts who could be won with this approach and contrast it to ‘naming the Jew’.

You need numbers, not ideological purity.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 01, 2007, 02:22 AM | #

I have yet to hear one cogent reason why any Australian, British, Danish, Dutch or French white nationalist could ever see an ‘ally’ in any Muslim.

Not in Muslims per se but in Islam. Why? It appears to be adaptive. It enhances reproductive fitness in a manner that resembles the halcyon days of Christianity. Of course for a rationalist to accept the view it would mean sacrifice; a very high level of altruism. A European Islam would differ from an Asian Islam in the same manner a Christian Europe differed from a Christian Africa. A Europe devoid of feminism, a high birth rate Europe that encouraged high IQ females to bear children portends a much more dynamic moral entity than the current moribund childless future that looms.

Forsake evolutionary theory for Islamic theology? Forsake rationalism for reproduction? Possibly the choice won’t be given but simply made for us.

Religions come and go, but extinction is forever.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 01, 2007, 09:31 AM | #

David L,

The first affinity of elite Jews is to other elite members, since the maintenance of wealth and power is only possible through reciprocity among this group.  This does not disqualify the normal Jewish ethnocentric attachments of elite Jews to their own people.  They still serve their people through the lavish funding of innumerable charitable and advocacy bodies.  But a Jewish middle-man in the jewellery trade cannot do for the Jewish financial elites what genuine power in the hands of a person of any race can do.

Here’s something I wrote a while back on power elitism in general.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 01, 2007, 12:17 PM | #

I just re-read GW’s essay from eleven months ago which he links in the post above, and I must say GW is one of the best thinkers around on our side and that piece was masterful.  However I for one have gotten away from the Kalb-Auster-Paul Gottfried-Sam Francis-James Burnham invocation of managerialism as the cause of what’s going on.  Instead, managerialism or no managerialism I’d like to see what would happen if some very specific interests at the forefront of the onslaught were effectively attacked and weakened, if possible neutralized.  The entire infernal machine, I strongly suspect, would fall crumbling in a heap on the ground, no matter all the managerialism one wants to conjure up and without touching a hair on “managerialism’s” head.  Managerialism is a horse.  Specific interests are riding it.

Posted by GT on December 01, 2007, 12:40 PM | #

Silver,

There can be no balance of power between jews and Euros with jews in control. 

You need numbers, not ideological purity.

We haven’t numbers due to our reliance upon the judeoeconomy – not to ideology.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 01, 2007, 01:00 PM | #

Clarification:  those men I cited didn’t of course claim managerialism was the sole cause.  Auster and Kalb, for example, apportion blame among several culprits including liberalism.  But I’m no longer convinced of these Zeitgeist interpreations of these broad events and, as I said above, am become more interested in counterattacking very specific interest-group targets who’ve gotten their paws onto very specific levers of power totally apart generic notions of “managerialism,” “generic post-modern liberalism,” and “Zeitgeist.”  Neither the Zeitgeist nor “managerialism” nor “generic po-mo liberalism” has ever gotten a paw onto a lever of power:  only specific men with specific thoughts and intentions do that.  Swat that malicious hand off that lever of power and you’ve made a chink in the infernal machine though you dismantle “managerialism” not a whit.

I’m into specifics now, no longer generalities.  Frankly I’m tired of generalities.  I want to see exactly what’s going on with a magnifying glass and I want to respond to it in specific terms as it happens or at the very least expose it to light of day so all can see who have eyes.  When a man is murdered the police don’t pursue a generic murderer but go after a specific killer.  What exactly did this and that group do to bring this our present debacle about?  What were the precise nuts-and-bolts of their successful effort?  How did they go about it?  Exactly which specific groups are the culprits?  Those are what I want to know.  Let others deal in generalities from now till doomsday.  What I want to know are specifics and what I want to expose and verbally counterattack are specifics.

Posted by Andrew on December 01, 2007, 05:55 PM | #

In this place Fred, it is common place for the Moslem Lobotomized to be exonerated for any crime they may have committed against Infidels;

I suppose from a metaphorical point of view, Islam is but a Jewish conspiracy if perceived ideas are applied, and what better cover than to have the conspirators being the subject of persecution;
Regrettably that is virtually how the whole game is being played out if you were to believe most of the Post Modern Trope and propaganda;

Then Islamification and Osama have become the new spirit and the Messiah- That to me is a testimonial of a state of mind and how perverted and corrupt it has become- and for what it is worth Islam is but a primitive version of a science so written by Karl Marx and a substitute pseudo Intellect of Paradigms that constitute nothing other than fraud

Posted by DavidL on December 01, 2007, 08:08 PM | #

GW

Thanks for your response.
Enjoyed your thoughts on elitism.

At the Battle of Lepanto over 400 years ago
the jews saw their favorites the Turks defeated.
They got on board the “Christianity” train and road
it for all it was worth. Guess they’ve about wrecked
that ride and will soon be looking for the Orient Express !

_____________

Fred

Hope you get your specifics.
I’d love to know exactly who, where and
how much of the Fed Reserve “take” $$$ goes.
Then Viva La Revolution.

Posted by James Bowery on December 02, 2007, 12:09 AM | #

I think James Bowery wrote that speech for him?

If I were to write a speech for the big “O”, it would be something more like this:

In the name of Allah… etc… my al-Qaeda brothers invite white nationalists convert to Islam starting a sect of White Muslims.  We understand how Jews have abused you and your women and pledge ourselves as brothers in Allah to protect your wish to preserve yourselves as Allah created you.  Moreover, we understand that your use of technology is vital to your unique character among Allah’s children and hope you will consider using gender selection technology to create an abundance of beautiful women of high moral character to glorify Allah and provide many wives for yourselves, as is allowed by Islam.  We know you to be glorious warriors from the ancient friendship between Arabs and Vikings and pray, Allah willing, you will preserve your unique character to glorify and defend Islam.

Posted by A Casual Observer on December 02, 2007, 03:58 AM | #

You people who would sell all of Western Civilization out by allying with Islam or, worse yet, trying to convert the entire West over to Islam are sick, absolutely sick. If you are so filled with hatred for Jews that you would be willing to ditch our entire civilizational heritage by inviting in Islam to destroy them, then you are nothing but nihilistic scumbag who has no regard for the achievements of our people. The hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our ancestors who died to prevent this menace from taking over Europe will have died in vain, and history would be rewritten by our new Islamic masters to demonize Westerners in ways far worse than even the most anti-Western leftist could comprehend.

Islam would strangle all of our creative energies and turn our women into nothing but chattel. Islam is the epitome of universalist multiracialism; everybody, no matter what their ancestry, can be a Muslim and will be welcomed by Muslims everywhere.

What has happened to your sanity, I ask all the James Bowerys, Constantine von Hoffmeisters, Friedrich Brauns, Tommy Gs, Miss Canadys, that filled you so full of hatred that you would ally yourselves with the most anti-Western ideologies imaginable? How can one embrace the nihilistic and anti-Western expansion of Islam? How can one embrace Bolshevism, an ideology that has killed a 100 million people and threw entire segments of the West into abject poverty? Or National Socialism which killed millions upon millions of perfectly decent Europeans (Poles, Slavs, etc.) who did nothing wrong and whose crimes are now used as justification for anti-Western policies and philosophies? Or the anti-Western philosophy of Muammar al-Gaddafi, a man whose support for terrorists has killed thousands of Westerners and who ordered the destruction of Pan Am Flt 103? Or Arab Nationalism, whose dream was to build a giant Arab bloc with which to challenge the West’s dominance of the world?

All of these philosophies they have embraced are sick, anti-Western ideologies of death. To hell with all of you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 02, 2007, 04:08 AM | #

Does Casual have any suggestions for getting the Jews to stop pushing race-replacement?

Posted by James Bowery on December 02, 2007, 05:20 AM | #

“A Casual Observer” must be a “Christian” —or worse a “JudeoChristian”.  I wonder if he can point to a sect of Christianity (that has not been made pariah by Jews as has Christian Identity) that explicitly embraces the whites who want to form racial preservation enclaves.

Posted by A Casual Observer on December 02, 2007, 05:50 AM | #

How about we just go back to our roots instead of embracing those idiotic and suicidal ideologies? Are you so ignorant of Western history that you know of no indigenous ideology with which to fight back?

Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the Dutch People’s Party in Denmark, Alleanza National in Italy, Swedish Democrats, Swiss People’s Party, and the Progress Party in Norway have all embraced a market nationalist ideology that is very pro-Western and have been highly successful in elections. The British National Party, Front National in France, and Freedom Party in Austria have all adopted a paleoconservative ideology and have been relatively successful on and off. All of these parties have embraced our Western heritage and have rejected these Third World and anti-Western or Marxist ideologies that you all seem to be so happy about.

It’s this obsession with Jews that leads idiots like the ones on this thread to embrace anti-Western ideologies.

Posted by James Bowery on December 02, 2007, 05:59 AM | #

Oh though bulwark of Western empiricism against the irrational Islam, what is the minimum evidence you would require to accept the plausibility that our emphasis on Jews is not “obsession” but rational response to the magnitude of the problem?

Posted by GT on December 02, 2007, 11:19 AM | #

Goddamn the stupidity of these Amrening fools!

The Progress Party in Norway is a strong defender of Israel.  Why is that?  There are only 1300 jews in Norway.

The answer is that those 1300 jews are tightly interwoven within Norways managerial elite and are only one telephone call from international jewry, headquartered in the world’s only superpower - the USA.

By allying with jews the so-called ‘nationalist’ parties of Europe hope to return to a point in the not-so-distant past (1950s, 1960s, 1970s?) where the imbalance in power between jewry and Whites was less painful - that is, less multicultural – than it is now, but anti-racist and anti-anti-Semitic nevertheless.

The ‘nationalist’ parties of Europe realize that it’s easier and more profitable in the short-term to stay with the judeosystem than it is to build a new system (as do certain Americans on this blog).  So, on bended knee Norway’s Progress Party asks, “Oh, please Mr. International jew, if we can but assure you of our sycophancy to Israel, our anti-racism, and our anti-anti-Semitism, would you please allow us to halt further “Islamic” immigration?  Oh please, oh please, with sugar on top?”  Mr. Ij responds, “Heh, heh – well, let me think about it for a while.”

Europe’s ‘nationalist’ parties are ‘conservative,’ wave a false flag of opposition to multiracialism, and are fully subservient to the American ZOG’s European branch in Belgium.  And what is the unstated purpose of this branch?  It is to provide a temporary counter-balance to America should White Americans liberate themselves. 

Can you say WWIII, gentlemen?  America can blow Europe away many times over.  Europe can blow America away once.  Once is all that’s necessary.  Mutually Assured Destruction will keep America in line and Europeans enslaved.  Meanwhile, jewry escapes to .... China, perhaps?  Why the hell not?  After all, there must be a counter-balance to Europe (which includes Russia, imo).

Jewry must be attacked everywhere.  Islam must be attacked in Europe and supported in Asia.

Posted by GT on December 02, 2007, 11:32 AM | #

Are you people serious about ending jewish manipulation and tyranny?  If you are, then you had better start thinking about alternate systems and attacking the jews on a pan-European scale.  Failure to do this will result in a mere shifting of jewry’s power from the U.S. to Europe with very little change over the long run or the world-wide annihilation of our race - by ourselves, no less.

Posted by GT on December 02, 2007, 12:04 PM | #

Once America is liberated Europe’s true right can be given significant support, despite New America’s loss of international economic power for a generation or more.  But the new headquarters for International jewry in Belgium or “The City of London” will not allow New Americans to simply walk in and kick their asses out.  Despite our newly found access to a nuclear arsenal, continued European sycophancy to jews will guarantee their continued enslavement due to MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - and it is quite likely that, over time, jews may very well return to America to begin the cycle anew.

Your choice, gentlemen.  Wake the fuck up or continue this pointless, obfuscating discussion about alliances with jewry.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 02, 2007, 12:49 PM | #

Casual, I disagree with Christian Bouchet.  (If I ever get around to it, I’ll post a detailed disagreement in the article’s thread at The Civic Platform.)  You talk as if most here agree with Bouchet.  Most here don’t.  Friedrich Braun is someone I highly respect, with whom I agree on a great many issues, but on this I disagree with him diametrically. 

Now, Desmond has made the valid point that if no way can be found to preserve ourselves racially given the current Jewish-led genocide-onslaught, converting en masse to Islam as a race-preserving tactic for Euros might make sense, and I agree.  But his point was in no way meant to endorse Islam, only to explore a last-resort strategy for keeping ourselves intact racially if all else fails to withstand the present onslaught.  Later when all’s clear we can drop Islam and switch back to Christianity (or to something else, given Christianity’s failure to protect us in the first place) but at least we’ll still be us, not the racial mulattoids the Jews want us to turn into. 

As for the European nationalist groups you mentioned, you’re aware aren’t you that the Jews have launched major vilification campaigns against a number of them (against all for aught I know — I don’t keep up as I should):  the Vlaams Belang, the Swiss People’s Party, the National Front in France, the BNP, and the Freedom Party in Austria have all been viciously attacked and libeled in the most brutally dishonest, damaging ways by the concerted efforts of Jewish individuals and groups backed by Jewish-owned-and-operated national governments in France, the U.K., and the U.S. (Jews of course generally leading the pack of baying hounds consisting of, apart from the bought or cowed, their malicious, malcontent, opportunist, and/or all-around-clueless Euro allies).

Now, Casual, two test questions:  1) Is forced race-replacement taking place?  2) If so, is it undesirable?  Answer if you please and don’t evade:  I for one need to know what kind of man I’m talking to. 

Yes I remember you’ve posted here in the past and I remember unpleasantness associated therewith but I don’t recall details.  Refresh my memory.  (Are you the one I said was naught but an Arcane clone?)

Posted by James Bowery on December 02, 2007, 12:57 PM | #

“A Casual Observer” popping out of the woodwork all of a sudden in response to my somewhat in-jest speech writing for Ossama bin Laden motivates me to investigate the possibility of establishing a White Muslim sect more seriously.  I do, after all, have the distinction unique among white racial separatists as having a listing as a major donor to Farrakhan’s Million Man March. 

I wonder how Farrakhan would respond to an Islamic sect of White Muslims with an average of 5 children per mother, 4 of which were voluptuous Euro-babes with 160IQs brought up to be faithful to their husbands and bear many children—but mainly more of those voluptuous Euro-babes with 160IQs?  Would he call them “white devils” too?

Its just so interesting when the weasels pop out of the woodwork like that… makes me very curious about how I can make their heads to detonate.

Posted by A Casual Observer on December 02, 2007, 01:52 PM | #

Desmond has made the valid point that if no way can be found to preserve ourselves racially given the current Jewish-led genocide-onslaught, converting en masse to Islam as a race-preserving tactic for Euros might make sense, and I agree.  But his point was in no way meant to endorse Islam, only to explore a last-resort strategy for keeping ourselves intact racially if all else fails to withstand the present onslaught.

Once you go to Islam, there is no going back. Since everybody is getting so ahead of themselves by embracing Third World ideologies, why has Hinduism not been seriously considered? It is far less universalist in nature, is far less strict, and requires very little of its people.

As for the European nationalist groups you mentioned, you’re aware aren’t you that the Jews have launched major vilification campaigns against a number of them

Everybody on the left has launched major vilification campaigns against them, yet they keep on rising… especially Vlaams Belang, the Progress Party, Allaenza National, BNP, and Dutch People’s Party.

1) Is forced race-replacement taking place?  2) If so, is it undesirable?  Answer if you please and don’t evade:  I for one need to know what kind of man I’m talking to.

Yes it is taking place and it is undesirable. But I will never accept Islam as a viable option or “last resort.” Ever.

I do, after all, have the distinction unique among white racial separatists as having a listing as a major donor to Farrakhan’s Million Man March.

Sick.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 02, 2007, 02:22 PM | #

“Yes it is taking place and it is undesirable.”  (—Casual Observer)

Thank you for replying and for seeing.

Posted by James Bowery on December 02, 2007, 02:23 PM | #

ACO writes: Sick.

So now I’m wondering exactly how to go about starting this “sick” sect of Islam that has 4 Jayne Mansfield-type genius wives for every man.  Do you have to go file papers with some Vatican-counterpart in Mecca?  Do you have to memorize the Koran first or can you just pass a proficiency test first?  Or is it more like various “community churches” in the US where there’s just some guy who acts as the local Imam because he can get people to come to his Mosque?  That would be so cool…

So here’s what I’m thinking, ACO, and you tell me how sick the idea is:

A “community mosque” for White Muslims as a counterpart to the rural “community church” you see so much of in the US—but which practices gender selection to a 4 to 1 female to male ratio, with eugenic selection based on a beauty*intelligence figure of merit, where beauty is the community’s rating of the prospective mother and that of the prospective father’s mother respectively.  Additional points are awarded to potential fathers for heroism, and not only sperm samples, but tissue samples for cloning, are kept cryogenically preserved for the eventuality that a hero’s genes must be propagated, post mortem, as one of the few males born to the congregation’s next generation.

Now, understand, I’m not saying these heroes would necessarily be “suicide bombers” but we all know that heroism creates the risk of self-sacrifice with the concomitant loss of fitness, don’t we?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 02, 2007, 02:25 PM | #

“Once you go to Islam, there is no going back.”  (—Casual Observer)

There’s more going back than there is after turning from white to non-white.

Posted by James Bowery on December 02, 2007, 05:10 PM | #

I should probably point out to “A Casual Observer” that Jayne Mansfield died during a show tour she went on to pay off the mafia debts of her, married with children, Jewish divorce lawyer with whom she took up during the last months of her life.  Such a fate would be very unlikely for the similarly beautiful, intelligent and talented women of my proposed denomination White Muslims.

Posted by Proofreader on December 02, 2007, 06:11 PM | #

If you´re looking for white muslims, look no further than Kosovo or Albania. It doesn´t seem to have improved their lot.

Posted by James Bowery on December 02, 2007, 07:47 PM | #

You think there might be a significant probability of confounding variables at work in Kosovo and Albania, like, oh, I don’t know, invasion and forced conversion by the Turks, being under Soviet rule, being a pawn in post Soviet East-West conflict, etc.—not to mention, of course, the lack of a specifically racialist denomination of Islam for the preservation of their peoples in the face of the previously mentioned variables?  I mean, if there is one thing you can expect from a Universalist religion, especially one that allows polygyny, left unchecked by explicit strictures, it is that the dominant elite will take the most desirable women.

Posted by Proofreader on December 03, 2007, 03:06 PM | #

JB:
I meant to say Albania and Bosnia above (Bosnian muslims are in fact Serbs who converted to Islam).
Polygamy does seem to be disgenic in Muslim countries, as Sailer points out: it creates lots of restless and resented bachelors, and thus lowers social trust.
European success was based on high trust societies and minimum clanishness. Just the contrary of what polygamy (and Islam)  originates.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 03, 2007, 05:34 PM | #

European success was based on high trust societies and minimum clannishness.

It’s also what makes them most vulnerable, as Professor Andrew Fraser illustrated.

As the Chinese colonies in Australia grow in size, wealth and power, even their Australian-born members may be reluctant to dissolve their ancient collective identity into an individualistic society of strangers owing allegiance to nothing beyond a modern paper constitution, now divorced from its own ancestral roots. Thousands of years ago, the Chinese took an evolutionary path favouring the growth of centralized, authoritarian regimes; not surprisingly, the Chinese today place a premium on clannish behavior and downplaying the worth of individual creativity. The result has been a people marked by higher average intelligence-but more conformity and hierarchy-than North-western European societies as well as rampant xenophobia and ethnocentrism. [...]

Apart from the objective genetic interests at stake, a multiracial society forces white Australians to bear other, more subjectively painful social, economic and political costs. At the high end of Australia’s immigrant intake, a growing cognitive elite of East Asians threatens to become similar to   “market-dominant minorities”  such as the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia,  Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa. [47] Faced with competition from a growing East Asian population, white Australians will find themselves outgunned: Western-style “old boy” preference networks are only weakly ethnic in character, and, thus, permeable, making them no match for the institutionally-directed, in-group solidarity or “ethnic nepotism” practiced by other groups. Endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous regimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline, young East Asians already dominate the competition for places in universities and professional schools. Within two to three decades, it is not unreasonable to expect that Australia will have a heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians. [48]

It would be one thing if Europeans had a declining birth rate, like the Japanese or Chinese, but were clannish. Neither of those societies yet face the migration of millions of Africans into their homelands. However, the European situation is unprecedented. Declining birth rates and mass immigration of clannish peoples. None of the options mentioned above, the Freedom Party is defunct, the Swedish Peoples Party has a Pakistani on their brochure and the BNP barely floats above insolvency. The UK portends the future of a now pagan Europe. England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, illegitimacy, crime and STDs and has one of the highest rates of alcohol abuse. On the face of it, it appears the English are dead men walking.

From whence will moral guidance come? The BNP? The C of E? The theory of evolution? How much more degenerate and depraved will an Islamic England be?

Posted by James Bowery on December 04, 2007, 04:25 PM | #

Proofreader: What you describe goes back a long time before Sailer to George Gilder and to my own writings circa 1992 (Race, Gender and the Frontier) that explicitly discuss the dysgenics of polygyny—but let’s leave questions of priority aside for the moment and discuss the fact that you have apparently ignored my repeated positing of gender selection technology to create a human ecology with 4 females for every male.

Posted by James Bowery on December 04, 2007, 04:57 PM | #

Desmond, I see no evidence that civilization is compatible with women’s suffrage.  High social status for women, indeed, appears compatible with just two forms of human ecology:

1) Female saturated gender ratios resulting from high male mortality due to paleolithic die-offs of males from natural hazards.

2) Female saturated gender ratios resulting from high male mortality due to neolithic die-offs of males from artificial hazards (single combat as the appeal of last resort in disputes in agrarian societies—and mass war in civilizations, but war appears dysgenic since the most heroic tend to die childless).

In both cases high social status does _not_ equate to high sexual status, and indeed seems to be an opposing force.

Islam, Judaism and Confucianism are the only major religions I know of that relegate women to the low enough social status required of civilization.

It is unclear whether high female to male ratios achieved via gender selection can let women have high social status in opposition to high sexual status, while maintaining civilization, but one thing is clear:  Civilization is not natural and we should expect to have to do some pretty intrusive things to maintain it.

Posted by Svigor on December 04, 2007, 08:20 PM | #

Nazis, National Socialists, Neo-Nazis, White Supremists, etc., are useful - for triangulation.  So, I welcome them getting their shyte together.  Of course, letting the cat out of the bag in this way hinders said triangulation…

Posted by Proofreader on December 05, 2007, 05:02 PM | #

JB:
Thanks for the links. 4 wives? Now that you’re a married man, I thought you would have reconsidered the wisdom of having 4 wives…. LoL!