|
|
This operation in no way reflects negatively on any specific community or ethnocultural group.REALLY? TORONTO (CP) - A list of the adults arrested and charged with offences under the Criminal Code of Canada. Five youths, who cannot be named, were also charged: 1. Fahim Ahmad, 21, Toronto; 2. Zakaria Amara, 20, Mississauga, Ont.; 3. Asad Ansari, 21, Mississauga; 4. Shareef Abdelhaleen, 30, Mississauga; 5. Qayyum Abdul Jamal, 43, Mississauga; 6. Mohammed Dirie, 22, Kingston, Ont.; 7. Yasim Abdi Mohamed, 24, Kingston; 8. Jahmaal James, 23, Toronto; 9. Amin Mohamed Durrani, 19, Toronto; 10. Steven Vikash Chand alias Abdul Shakur, 25, Toronto; 11. Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, 21, Mississauga; 12. Saad Khalid, 19, of Eclipse Avenue, Mississauga. Source: this story about the recent arrests in Canada of a group of young men who liked loud music, and were actually planning to set off a large experimental musical instrument made with three tons of ammonium nitrate. Who were these talented enthusiasts? It doesn’t matter. We can only blame society. Posted by Søren Renner on Saturday, June 3, 2006 at 04:36 PM in Comments:2
Posted by Andrew on June 03, 2006, 05:47 PM | #
. Yes, the Ideological theologies of preccussion istromentation defence. Why didn’t we think of that? 3
Posted by Steve on June 03, 2006, 05:56 PM | # This term “youths” is all but a get of jail free card for terrorists and rapists. Our so called elites fail to understrand that youth is unique to K populations. 4
Posted by Andrew on June 03, 2006, 06:15 PM | #
This should assist in the relevance of the Canadian McVeigh’s, so be it they are Arab or Islamo-debetured. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on June 03, 2006, 06:30 PM | # Well, I hope the Canuck cops have more luck than the Met. This one looks like it is starting to spin out of control. The circumstances of the shooting of an unarmed vibrant gentleman look threatening for Sir Ian Blair, particularly post the Menezes shooting. It won’t take much to bring him down. The intelligence is beginning to look dodgy, too. Altogether too much time is going past without an announcement from the officer commanding, and the local, vibrant “community” is showing distinct signs of discomfort. 6
Posted by Al Ross on June 03, 2006, 08:01 PM | # Number 10 on the list of Third World pests is an interesting one. My guess would be that he is a Jaffna Tamil Tiger who was stupidly granted political asylum by the guileless Canadians and got bored with the Norwegian-brokered ceasefire. Conversion to Islam and the adoption of an Arab name, combined with previous terrorist experience made him a shoo-in for a role in the violent propagation of that hateful religion among the detested welfare-providing Whites. 7
Posted by Steve on June 03, 2006, 11:03 PM | # Thanks GW, you may be right. I’m certainly not up on the story but it will be interesting to watch now, especially if the Met fell foul of some carefully planted disinformation. What’s that cliche? These elites couldn’t run a piss up… 8
Posted by MissingLink on June 03, 2006, 11:13 PM | # The list above in no way reflects negatively on any specific community or ethnocultural group. 9
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 04, 2006, 12:52 AM | # OoooKay-Just sounds like a typical cross-section of the Canadian populace-8 Pakis,2 niggers,1 Tamil,and probably 1 really screwed-up white.Aínt Diversity and Multiculterism great. White people-WAKE UP AND SMELL THE SHIT-gangs,drive-bys,rapes,car-jackings,home invasions,murder,muggings,etc.,are the result of YOUR conduct at the voting booth.The idiots that allow[and acquiese]to this crap were placed in office by YOU,and only YOU can reverse the trend. Short of rebellion,that is. Semper Fi ! 10
Posted by rootless cosmopolite on June 04, 2006, 02:41 AM | # biological racism was discredited in 1945 and is not a subject of discussion in polite society. this site might pretend that it has a future, but that is only whistling in the dark. a more dangerous form of racism is cultural racism, also propagated by this site. this (defined by humanities scholar Kevin Passmore) is the fascist belief that citizenship is based partly on “culture” and you can only be a citizen if you speak the language, know the customs, bla bla bla. real liberalism accepts diversity, whether it is religious, cultural, linguistic, or even allegiance with other states. For liberals “loyalty tests” do not exist, such as knowledge of a nation’s history. assimilationism is racist, because it oppresses minorities. secession is even more so. fascist, xenophobic organizations like the BNP defines nation in a racist way, by ancestral stock. so….each race should be “pure” (!) and foster the “uniqueness” (!!) of the people. contemporary racist mentality also include (1) concern with the birthrate of “native” women in a country, and (2) hostility to Muslims (this replacing hostility to Jews). a useful test for detecting racism is asking “do you think all people living in the geographical area have a right to be citizens?” if no, he or she is probably racist. such racism is anti-scientific. racists like to emphasize the “differences” between people, as if this is something that divides us. we are all basically the same inside. no one has shown that cultural differences between “races” are greater than differences WITHIN them. racists don’t even intend to investigate these issues, since their ideology is rooted on prejudice. the name of this site, “Majority Rights”, is testimony to the fascist, medieval mentality of cultural and biological racism. the rights of the individual are stamped out, in the same of “majority” rights. the reasoning seems to be that cultures and races are somehow more important than the individual (what you call “proximate”?). 11
Posted by Mark Richardson on June 04, 2006, 03:12 AM | # Is Mr Rootless serious? Or is his post a send up of undergraduate leftism, like something uttered by the character Rick from The Young Ones? 12
Posted by Lurker on June 04, 2006, 03:16 AM | # So pure invidualism then? Where does this leave muslims, like the guys arrested in Canada? You mention them as being victims of racism yet there they are, self-identified members of a group that doesnt currently include all members of the human race - I trust you would be giving them the same lecture. 13
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 04, 2006, 03:30 AM | # “assimilationism is racist, because it oppresses minorities. secession is even more so…” You’d better inform the Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, East Timorese, West Papuans and Eritreans in that case, lest they be accused of “racism” and all. And on the subject of “assimilationism” you need look no further than such wonderful multicultural paradises as Malaysia - which not only has a restrictive immigration system that discriminates on the basis of culture and national origin, but also has aggressively Islamised its national institutions since independence. “no one has shown that cultural differences between “races” are greater than differences WITHIN them.” Umm. You’re mixing up your attempted whitewashing. You mean to talk about “biological”, not “cultural” differences. And on the biological score, I’m afraid you’ll have to explain your arguments to these people: 14
Posted by Guessedworker on June 04, 2006, 03:50 AM | # So, oh enlightened master, what is your ethnicity? You don’t sound Jewish to me. Probably a half-caste white/Indian, white/Iranian or somesuch. But it is not, of course, beyond the realms of possibility that you are just white and unbalanced. And maybe homosexual. But do tell. And answer me this: Does even one native people of any land anywhere wish to dissolve itself into the sea of humanity? If the answer is, as I suspect, no, do you grant any native people the right of self-determination on the matter? If the answer is, as I suspect, no, are you not a totalitarian little bastard? And ignorant - are you not painfully unaware of Darwinism, and ethnic genetic interests? And hypocritical - why have you not tested your universalist thesis and taken your dogma with you to Guinea or Somalia, there to tell the equal and same-inside people of the wonders of race-blind (and tribe-blind) individualism? Look, try to understand that your philosophy is too limiting and inhuman - actually totalitarian - and it is based on a false premise of human consciousness. Read this, which was written to cut the ground away from Popperianism - or right-liberalism - but will do for your left-liberalism, too. Here is something similar. If you are, in fact, a heterosexual white person, it would be a good idea in future for you to censor yourself for a change and drop some of the leftist cliches. They are a dead give-away that you have acquired your political belief without having done any serious philosophical reading. It would also be a very good idea if you caught up on the genetics debate. Yes, I know its annoying and inconvenient to have science against you, but 1945 does seem a tad distant and Mengellian, and hardly a fit riposte to the current state of knowledge. Finally, I will answer your “useful test”. Immigrants have no “right” to settle anywhere outside their homeland. Your premise, deadly as you consider it, is flawed. The native peoples have the human right to decide who, if anyone, should live among them. It’s the same principle as you having the right to decide who shares your home or your bed. You are, after all, an individual with your own, law-conforming property rights, and a people sovereign in their own homeland are, after all, no different. Oh, and one last point ... learn some English grammar. 15
Posted by rootless cosmopolite on June 04, 2006, 04:39 AM | # I am not surprised that cultural racists would have something against homosexuals, since homophobia is a natural corollary of intolerance and bigotry. almost all of the world’s countries now have substantial minorities from diverse cultures. as a result, policy must be inclusive and respect diversity to protect individual rights. “cultural racism” was actually a redundancy until the early 20th century, since race at that time was defined by clusters of nation, religion, language, etc. Irish were once considered non-white in the USA before recent times, further proof that race is social construct. by “biological racism was discredited in 1945”, I mean when Nazis were defeated. the history of the 20th century proves that “discrimination based on biological race” (racism) is impossible without totalitarianism. sorry, this is all basic policial science and sociology. better take that course over again, all my professors agree that cultural racism exists. do you think I trust some internet activist rather than PhD? I just state the facts, not argue with people because I know the truth. you might want to check on this, to describe racist mentality: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism Conventionalism—a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. (traditional ways are best) This example contains all three facets of RWA: * “honour the ways of our forefathers”, that is, conventionalism/traditional values ok, i’m tired now bibi 16
Posted by Mark Richardson on June 04, 2006, 05:01 AM | # Some people aren’t very talented at propaganda. To argue for multiculturalism and then to sign yourself “rootless cosmopolite” is a bit like arguing in favour of gay marriage and signing yourself “decadent pervert”. 17
Posted by Guessedworker on June 04, 2006, 05:42 AM | # You answered none of my questions, rc. Too tired, I suppose. What is your ethnicity? What is your sexual orientation? These are meet questions because white leftists frequently exhibit the pathology of self-hatred projected onto their own kind. Non-whites, of course, merely use liberalism as a flag of convenience, since its general direction accords with their ethnic genetic interests. Thus the right-wing authoritarianism you prattle about was the invention of a Jew, Herr Adorno, acting in concert with fifteen other Jews in Frankfurt before and after the Nazi era. Bottom-line, my question is: if you are of European lineage - which, as I say, I rather doubt - what is motivating your hatred of kind? If the answer is merely that your uni persons are leftists and you do not possess sufficient spirit of enquiry or independence of mind to look beyond The Dogma, then OK. Read our back-posts and break the chains on your mind. 18
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 04, 2006, 05:44 AM | # “Irish were once considered non-white in the USA before recent times, further proof (sic) that race is social construct.” It is only proof of your total lack of epistemological awareness and cognitive dissonance. “the history of the 20th century proves that “discrimination based on biological race” (racism) is impossible without totalitarianism.” So how come democratic countries such as Japan, India, Malaysia and Israel do, in fact, discriminate on the basis of biological race? I really wish we could get some better quality trolls around here. I could do this kind of stuff in my sleep. 19
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 04, 2006, 05:47 AM | # Oh, by the way. You forgot to inform the manufacturers of Bidil (tm) that race is just a “social construct”. I’m sure they will be very impressed by your credentials. 20
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 04, 2006, 05:55 AM | # Guessedworker - if you get time, it might be an idea to check the IP address of this latest blogroach. His illiteracy and complete inability to deploy reason is redolent of our friends Sam and Simon. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on June 04, 2006, 05:56 AM | # Some spinning of the media today by “security forces”. But still nothing definitive. I still think this is going to go belly-up, and the human rights lawyers will parachute in. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on June 04, 2006, 06:00 AM | # Steve, his IP address comes up clean. I think it is only to be expected that these youthful ideologues are intellectual carbon copies, insomuch as they are in any way intellectual at all. 23
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 04, 2006, 06:06 AM | # It was worth a try. I enjoy squashing blogroaches immensely, but it does pay to know what species of pest you are dealing with. 24
Posted by Matra on June 04, 2006, 10:28 AM | #
Given that almost all research has shown black Americans to be less tolerant of homosexuality than whites I guess blacks are cultural racists and their homophobia is just a natural corollary of their intolerance and bigotry. Al Ross:
Number 10 stood out to me as well - “Steven”. I mean what kind of a name is that for a terrorist? 25
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 04, 2006, 11:18 AM | # Wow-from which universe did this “Rootless"beam down from?He’s either a public school teacher,an Eloi on vacation,or ingesting too much of his “product”. And I thought the Flower Children of the 60’s were out of touch-this individual needs to spend a weekend in Liberty City.But,he did manage to incorporate almost every platitude known to the uberliberals in voicing his concern over rational thought expression.GW says he’s got a clean IP,but I smell SPLC.If I can’t find him,he’s well hidden,with multiple proxies,and blinds. 26
Posted by superace on June 04, 2006, 12:31 PM | #
Nothing wrong with the concept above in terms of racism or cultural racism. It’s only common sense that people of the same race can live and get along better with each other than mixing in with other races. One can even be a racist and still appreciate some of the good qualities of other races… you just don’t want to live with them that’s all. Unfortunately, a lot of people today equate racism with bigotry which is the ignorant uncivilized form of racism. And unfortunately its these ignorant uncivilized bigots who have turned the civil common sense racists off and kept them from speaking up more. After spending a few months reading this board I’ve seen the racist and the bigot… and enjoyed reading both but one can tell who’s had an education and good upbringing and who hasn’t. 27
Posted by superace on June 04, 2006, 12:33 PM | #
You’re not talking about Scrooby are you? 28
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on June 04, 2006, 02:09 PM | # Mr.Scrooby—DAMN,you are good-I’d put you up against the devil in a debate anytime-you’d get his golden fiddle. Semper Fi. 29
Posted by José María on June 04, 2006, 05:34 PM | # Maybe some of you have already written a post about why women tend to favour immigration. I am against immigration of non-Whites but I must admit that I am more against of non-White males than non-Whites females. I know that it is not fair to say it but to be honest I say it. Another reason women favour immigration is related to their different thinking, they seem to be less “intelectuals” and more practical than men in the short time, I doubt they are aware that intermarrying with Blacks will accelerate the downfall of our Civilization. I would like that some of you gave a link or made a post about it. Thanks friends. What the Leftist has written has been very well answered by some of you, I doubt he can understand it. 30
Posted by JB on June 04, 2006, 06:17 PM | # I think Mr.Rootless was here in March under the name Enlightened One http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/landmark_ruling_in_canada_on_internet_hate/ rootless cosmopolite:
That ought to be the requirement for citizenship to any country. And if that’s fascism allow me to point out to you that the world whole is currently fascist except the West so you’ll have to throw your moral condemnations elsewhere. Why don’t you try that on the chinese ? rootless cosmopolite:
You obviously cannot think by yourself. 31
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 04, 2006, 07:20 PM | #
I thought much the same. If he is serious, his proposals for…(what do I call it? Certainly not the nation)...stuff, seem to boil down to corporatism (etymological quibbles aside), seriously nightmarish 1984-type stuff. Silly rabbit, states are for nations (see the Latin root natio for details). 32
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 04, 2006, 08:50 PM | #
The ethnocentrist who lets such get in the way is no ethnocentrist, he’s a dilettante. Dilletantes have endless pursuits to engage them; something tells me that race-realism is nowhere near the top of the list, and that your postulate is bogus. 33
Posted by AD on June 04, 2006, 11:31 PM | # this site might pretend that it has a future, but that is only whistling in the dark. 34
Posted by AD on June 04, 2006, 11:52 PM | # rootless cosmopolites running off to tell their professors about cultural racism. 35
Posted by rootless cosmopolite on June 04, 2006, 11:57 PM | # OK, one last post. contemporary racists like to claim that they don’t think any race or culture is “superior”, but simply like to preserve their own. “we fight only for the equal rights of a nation to exist!” however, serious consideration dispels this as fatuous. these are simply marginal groups, however. cultural racists are more dangerous, since culture can serve as a proxy for race. (“more dangerous” means “more exclusive”). they have managed to translate xenophobia and intolerance into superficially defensible rhetoric. sciece has not proven that any culture is superior to any other, or that cultural differences like values differn more BETWEEN cultures than WITHIN them. for example, it is said that Muslims are incompatable because they are “homophobic”. however, such attitudes exist all cultures. modern fascists draw upon social darwinism, lamarckianism, collective psychology, sociobiology, mythology, as “scientific” excuses for their racism. however, this is not science as we know it. when they pretend to use science, it is in the service of prejudice. Hitler and his fascist heirs pretend to use science, and confuse science and morality. 36
Posted by rootless cosmopolite on June 05, 2006, 12:00 AM | # note: science has never proven and will never prove that racism is justifiable, or that “culture” is important. fascists don’t care about science, only their political goals. when they attempt to use science, they commit naturalistic fallacy. they think: “because this culture/nation/race existed for thousands of years, it SHOULD keep existing”. 37
Posted by Al Ross on June 05, 2006, 01:43 AM | # Fred, nitwits like this arent amenable to commonsense. They are Marxoid zombies programmed at the Leftist Humanities Departments of trash-dispensing so-called universities and do their best thinking with their glands. 38
Posted by AD on June 05, 2006, 02:23 AM | # ‘rootless cosmopolite’ is arguing that we’re morally wrong from a rootless cosmopolitan perspective. The premise he starts with is that everything is aggression against one-worldism, as if we would naturally gravitate towards it if it weren’t for our ‘reactionary’ interference. When in fact, it is one-worldism interference that is the aggressor to begin with. It isn’t us who should argue why not, but him to argue why in the first place. Why is the artificial mixing of ethnies and cultures a moral good, and how do these perceived ‘benefits’(cuisine,cheap labour) outweigh the costs(racially motivated rape,murder,terrorism, alienation,societal breakdown etc). No hypotheticals or theories(that can be argued either way with enough shysterism), just on-the-ground facts of a cost/benefit analysis. 39
Posted by Guessedworker on June 05, 2006, 02:29 AM | # rc, We can see that you are not highly intelligent, and that you have very little independence of mind. You are extremely suggestible. But I still wonder whether that is sufficient to explain the truly craven manner in which you spout your self-hate stuff. If you won’t tell me your ethnicity, which makes it impossible to know whether you want to abolish the West for reasons of principle or from a racial motivation, answer me this:- What are the surnames and ethnicities of your professors? What are the titles and who are the authors of your course books? What does your Mum and Dad think of your keen interest in abolishing the West? Do you have a girlfriend? Indeed, have you ever had a girlfriend? 40
Posted by Guessedworker on June 05, 2006, 02:47 AM | # Meanwhile, following its operation in Forest Gate, and the shooting of Abul Kahar, the Met’s reputation is approaching its nadir. There has been no evidence of a bomb or bomb-making found in the house.
Yes, I think that could be said to be true. Stand up, Sir Ian Blair. 41
Posted by Anon on June 05, 2006, 02:55 AM | # RC is obviously a cretinous troll. He dismisses any scientific evidence for cultural cohesion or ethnogenesis out of hand, and then calls “fascists” pseudo-scientific. He makes a nervous catch-all reference to sociobiology as being “not science as we know it”, though how he came to this conclusion is anyone’s guess. RC further accuses “fascists” of committing the naturalistic fallacy, however the argument he belittles is a straw man as is the term “fascist” itself. I say ignore him, he is either intentionally flippant or simply retarded. 42
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 05, 2006, 04:52 AM | # Christ. Just when we thought RC had run out of red herrings and non sequiturs, he’s back with a bunch more. ” they think: “because this culture/nation/race existed for thousands of years, it SHOULD keep existing”. “ True, although I doubt you’d be so critical of this sentiment if it were indigenous Australians, Red Indians, or Zulus making the same claim. Face it - you’re an epistemologically unhinged leftist half-wit with only scant knowledge of any history or science beyond what he’s been made to regurgitate by his equally unhinged college superiors. 43
Posted by ReD MArXiM on June 05, 2006, 07:45 AM | # rootless cosmopolite:
those minorities got their identity from a majority somewhere back in their native countries so they’re simply perpetuating a form a fascism disguised as victimism. Don’t be fooled comrade! They are the spawn of the Reactionary Dark Side of the Socio-Political Spectrum just like the white racists are. The chinese don’t exist, the french don’t exist, the americans don’t exist - we are all workers united in the struggle against the forces of Fascism and Capitalism ! 44
Posted by Guessedworker on June 05, 2006, 07:55 AM | # Red, go live in Uganda. Look for your mental health while you are there. 45
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 05, 2006, 09:01 AM | # Better yet, go live in Harare. I think you’ll come across a lot of people who share your ideology. 46
Posted by Amalek on June 05, 2006, 09:25 AM | # Do you have a girlfriend? Indeed, have you ever had a girlfriend? Oh come off it, GW. However crass and/or provocative the fellow is, that kind of riposte is worse. What’s next in this gentlemanly intellectual forum—‘Bet mine’s longer than yours, you poof’? 48
Posted by Guessedworker on June 05, 2006, 10:25 AM | # Erm, my dear chap that was merely a means to re-ask a question, albeit in such a way as to obviate the necessity for honesty in return. For such an exceptionally intelligent, well-read and seeming moral fellow you have a regrettable weakness for pugnacity. 49
Posted by Desmond Jones on June 05, 2006, 11:52 AM | # Come on Amalek, lighten up on GW. He has nothing but high praise and great respect for your words. We’re here because of him. He carries the load and foots the bill and he endures this crap day in and day out with little or no complaint, so if he wishes to have a little fun then so be it. 50
Posted by Tom Peters on June 05, 2006, 01:35 PM | # “because this culture/nation/race existed for thousands of years, it SHOULD keep existing”. The violent fantasies and the lust for genocidal actions always come out in the end when a “leftist” engages in their verbal mastrubation. Leftist motto: workers unite. ignore race - (but let us kill/neutralize/replace a few million of our racial enemies first) - then we can have paradise. 51
Posted by superace on June 05, 2006, 02:12 PM | #
Scroob, I’m glad to see that you’ve decided that my responses have met your IQ standards to warrant a reaction from you. Those fish oil pills must be working! But I’m going to have to disagree with you on your above statement. There are some who “get it” and whose “heart is in the right place” but who you don’t want on your team. Why? because their actions and the ridicualous things they say or do may have a negative affect on the cause. Why are some super skilled players kicked off a team? ( Terrel Owens kicked off the Philadelphia Eagles? Yeah, he’s black but we’re just talking skills here). Perhaps better examples would be why did David Duke change from wearing pointed capped costumes to a suit and tie? Because one day he woke up and decided that suit and ties were in season? The burning of the cross was a costly waste of good wood and gas? Or did he get some marketing advice from others? Do you think a mother with her kids and who believes in the cause wants to be associated with and participate in the kicking the s**t out of some black guy? Or as some on here have proclaimed, ” I’ve got my M16… lets shoot the illegals down the street and get this race war started.”? I suggest to you a lot of civilized people who believe in the cause are turned off by this.
And so do I. Simple folk does not mean that they are uncivil, unintelligent bigots which I think you are equating. 52
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 05, 2006, 03:39 PM | # Superace: First you wrote:
Now you’ve shifted positions (not saying it’s intentional, probably just a communications problem); you write:
It’s one thing to join the team and get a troublemaker kicked off; it’s something altogether different to refuse to join the team because of troublemakers. RC:
That’s it? We just get an assertion? What are we, chopped liver? You have the holy grail of moral anti-ethnocentric arguments and you won’t even give us a peek? Man, isn’t that always the way? One hears about this White Stag, but never gets to see him. I don’t see why motives are germane; do we have the right to fight for our own group’s existence, or not? Why is the question of belief in superiority relevant?
In what sense do you mean “more exclusive”? Since “cultural race” can be learned and biological race is inborn, I don’t see how “cultural race” is more exclusive than race.
You might want to get used to the idea that ethnocentrism is thoroughly defensible, right through to the core. I’ve argued the positions long enough to say that with great confidence.
Superiority is a red herring, as is the ubiquitous leftist assertion that “science has not proven” a variety of positions (many, if not most of them straw men, by the way). The races are different, and they have produced vastly different cultures. I’m not even going to bother with your transplanting of that dead fern, Lewontin’s Fallacy, into the soil of the cultural argument; just…too…boring. Science cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow. It hasn’t proved that communism is a formula for genocide, or that welfare works (or does not work), or that poverty is the whole of crime, or any of a million things people act on every day.
This is a non-statement. Muslim cultures and non-Muslim cultures differ in their rates of “homophobia” (and crime, and endogamy, and nepotism, etc., etc., ad infinitum).
“Fascism” is a buzz-word leftists use to smear ethnocentrists, but the two are not coterminous. It’s the modern equivalent of “witch,” or “heretic”. The word “fascist” applies to me about as well as the word “witch” might’ve applied to a philosopher centuries ago. Btw, you seem to be the one confusing science and morality.
I’m glad you saved this point ‘til last, because I was saving the bombshell (one from which you cannot recover) until last, so this dovetails nicely. Let us for the moment assume that the vast preponderance of the scientific evidence doesn’t point toward a nature + nurture equation of man (the position of race-realists) rather than a nurture equation of man (your position). Let’s assume it’s an open question. Even in the absence of any evidence for either position, race-realists are right and radical environmentalists are wrong. Race-realists (race is important, races differ in mental ability): Race-deniers (race is unimportant, races don’t differ in mental ability) Do the math. Also, consider that race-mixing cannot be undone; if race-realists are wrong, we can always change our minds. If race-deniers/mixers are wrong, their mistake cannot be undone. Even if we ignore this bombshell, you’re still wrong, because scientists preserve non-human species with far less salient distinctions than exist in the races of man; how much more important are the differences when they exist in humans? Scientists rightly assume that preserving biodiversity is in and of itself a good. Ethnic Genetic Interests are worth looking into, as well (use link at top left). Even if we ignore all that, we’re still faced with the realities explained by Social Identity Theory; even if the races are only different on the surface, mankind will still inevitably cleave along racial lines because contrary to leftist belief, even “superficial” racial differences are extremely important to humans. Even “superficial” racial differences mean, “no, sorry, we can’t all just get along.” Face it, your whole belief system is one big attempt to piss up a rope, to deny the essence of human nature. 53
Posted by superace on June 05, 2006, 04:41 PM | # Iggy: Yes I wrote this first. and then I followed it up with this in response to the Scroob: I’m not sure why you think I’ve changed positions. The Scroob stated that noone who “gets it” ( the cause ) and whose “heart is in the right place” should be shunned while I’m saying I wouldn’t want ignorant bigots on my team because they would hurt the cause. I listed a few examples in the previous post.
The sad fact of the matter is there are plenty of Americans who believe in the cause but have shut up because what they’ve seen are skinheads and the like kicking the sh*t out of someone, cross burnings, name calling and the like. And they are ashamed of that type of behaviour. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve gone toe to toe with a black convict ( got a black eye and I broke my hand but I knocked him out ) but that’s in self defense. 54
Posted by AD on June 05, 2006, 04:57 PM | # there are plenty of Americans who believe in the cause but have shut up because what they’ve seen are skinheads and the like kicking the sh*t out of someone, cross burnings, name calling and the like. In the real world or in movies/tv/jerry springer? 55
Posted by AD on June 05, 2006, 05:01 PM | # i wonder how many ‘skinhead’ attacks there are per year compared to shaved head non-white attacks on whites…..and does that stop non-whites from believing in their ethnic ‘cause’. 56
Posted by Guessedworker on June 05, 2006, 05:36 PM | # We don’t have a cause as such. We have an interest. Really, “causes” belong to liberalism, and involve folks getting all het up in the great press to win the crown of freedom. A natural interest is, by comparison, a quiet and unassuming, conservative thing. Leftists like rc dribble on about supremacism without the slightest understanding of how inappropriate and irrelevant that is. “It” - our interest - doesn’t require privilege of any sort, no clamorous peals of bells, no tickatape, no fuss. It only requires people to be true to themselves and to slough off all the years of harmful and regressive, received opinions - actually about four decades worth in the worst cases (which, alas, belong to my generation). It is just Nature to know who you are and who you are not, and to follow the gentle and wise dictates that arise out of that. There’s no mystery about it. 57
Posted by superace on June 05, 2006, 05:37 PM | #
why stoop to their level? we’re better aren’t we?.....
I don’t know about you but I don’t give a rat’s ass what their cause(s) may be 58
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 05, 2006, 06:46 PM | #
Statistically speaking, killer bees wreak more havoc. 59
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 05, 2006, 06:53 PM | #
I don’t believe that. I think there are vast millions who would (or, as GW so aptly puts it, follow their interest) if they knew even a small portion of the facts. If someone “gets it,” he won’t let trifles like guilt by association stand in his way, and if he doesn’t “get it,” he’ll let anything (from American Idol to the .5 skinhead-committed murders per year) stand in his way.
If one lets shame get in his way, he doesn’t “get it”. 60
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 05, 2006, 07:06 PM | #
I don’t quite understand this kind of thinking. Did you stand on moral authority in your fight with the black convict, or did you commence to open a can of whoopass when needed?
Whites could learn a bit from blacks. You don’t see many blacks refusing to pursue their interests for pathetic reasons like you’ve given. 61
Posted by superace on June 05, 2006, 09:52 PM | #
So I’m guessing Hitler and the Nazis got it?
Self defense so I guess ” open a can of whoopass when need”. The sad fact of the matter is there are plenty of Americans who believe in the cause
. Like I said to Scroob awhile back. If you’re really the take charge, hit them first, I got my M16 lets go, JohnWayne type then grab your videocam, do your best JohnWayne impression in the middle of SouthCentral LA, Chicago, you take your pick and I will give you points for that. You won’t winover a lot of believers of the cause but I’ll give you points for shoot off the gun the way you shoot off the mouth. Until then you’re just typing away here behind the protection of a screen. And I would prefer to read rational educated arguments and comments. ( which there are a lot of on this site ) 62
Posted by superace on June 05, 2006, 09:57 PM | #
What are you talking about? All I’m saying is to pursue our interests in a rational, civil, educated way. We would bring more of our own on side. Do you have a problem with that? 63
Posted by superace on June 05, 2006, 10:11 PM | #
Ever been to Orange County or Mississippi? Blacks and mexxs are worse but do we really want to like them? 64
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 05, 2006, 10:58 PM | #
Yes, and they used indoor plumbing too, jackass.
But aren’t you “better than that”?
Of course not, but you’re shifting again. 65
Posted by superace on June 05, 2006, 11:15 PM | # Self defense so I guess “ open a can of whoopass when need”. Yes I am, I whooped ass, Ass. 66
Posted by superace on June 05, 2006, 11:21 PM | # So I’m guessing Hitler and the Nazis got it? 67
Posted by Al Ross on June 05, 2006, 11:31 PM | # The USA was suckered in to the suicidal folly of WW2 and the personal bravery and sacrifice of family members doesnt alter that fact. 68
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 06, 2006, 03:32 AM | # The New World Order never told our ancestors upfront why they had to fight against the Nazis. The cover story was a sham. The cold truth is that World War II was fought to synthesise Tranzis and Marxists into a single global system, culminating in an international government. The corporate elites and the marxists are working for the same globalist cause, and this cause was forged on the battlefields of Europe. 69
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 06, 2006, 02:27 PM | #
I don’t want to insult your intelligence. You’re smart enough to get this. Read it until it sinks in:
Oh, my nationality is American, though I now consider myself a post-American. As for treachery, I see it the other way around; the U.S. government long ago betrayed the American people. 70
Posted by superace on June 06, 2006, 03:09 PM | # “I’m guessing you didn’t have a grandfather or uncles who fought against the Nazis.” (—superace)
Let’s get serious here. Our grandfathers etc fought against the Nazis because the UK was under attack and to liberate western Europe, which happen to be where many of our ancestors came from.. and as far as I know are white countries. Don’t tell me the US Congress at the time had a 15 year Jewish domination plan.
The New World Order at that time was going to be the USA and as far as I know the men in charge were white. I don’t have a problem with that .. do you? If the USA had not defeated the Nazis, the Soviet Union probably would have and the whole of europe would have been under communist control. You’re not communist are you? 71
Posted by Tom Peters on June 06, 2006, 03:38 PM | # ” Our grandfathers etc fought against the Nazis because the UK was under attack and to liberate western Europe” To liberate western Europe from who exactly? Western Europeans??? Irregadless of anyone says about Nazis and even communists one fact remains: if those two regimes took over Europe than we would not be talking about French becoming a minority in France within 50 years. We would not be talking about London being a non-British city today. We would not be talking about several other countries in western Europe becoming non-European by 2050, 2100 or whenever. The Americans ‘liberated’ western Europe only to make sure Western Europe becomes an Asian or African or Islamic colony. Bravo! Now that’ s smart! Personally, I am afraid of Americans and their ‘good’ deeds much more than other regimes and their ‘evil’ deeds. As should all thinking European-based people. 72
Posted by Guessedworker on June 06, 2006, 04:04 PM | # Superace is right. Nowadays there is so much “noise” on this subject created by German-Americans it is a good idea for those who did not take up arms against Germany to be extremely cautious in their judgements. My father’s generation of Englishmen were perfectly nationalistic and race-aware. They were “normal” in the sense that we, who suffer under racial- or neo-Marxist regimes today, see normality in Japan or China or India. But Nazism was always gnawing after something more than this normality. Friedrich Braun terms it the natural politics of a healthy Germany. That might be true in the sense that Germans have every right to the same national feeling as anybody else. But for me, that wasn’t what Nazism aimed at. Its reactivity to Versailles and to Jewish-communist agitation turned into something else. Aryanism ... the Master-race ... the sub-human Slav ... Judenhass and the rest, all this was not any form of national self-awareness that an Englishman would regard as normal and healthy. And neither should we today. The war against Germany was, for the ordinary English serviceman, initially a war for the kind of freedom and self-determination in Europe which he felt he himself enjoyed at home, and which he believed would be extinguished forever under a Nazi heel. After Dunkirk it became a war for national self-preservation. But then, after the Battle of Britain, it became a war for freedom in Europe again and remained so until the end. He didn’t fight as a dupe. He didn’t fight for nothing. He has been betrayed as we all have. But I am glad he won. 73
Posted by Tom Peters on June 06, 2006, 04:51 PM | # While I don’t disagree with much of Guessworker’s comment above I don’t see how a “normal” Britain and a “normal” America spawned the monsters that seek to replace us all today - and done it so easily with such little opposition or struggle. How could a “normal” society be so vulnerable to such an extreme change, to such betrayal, to its own demise? There is something missing! The seeds must have been there. Maybe under the mask of normalcy there was something brewing way back in 1945. Would guessworker like to comment on how we go from normal to nuthouse in such a short time? My opinion is that while Nazism and Communism were both extreme and in some sense evil - they were directly connected with the survival strategies of European people especially the middle propostitons of Nazism - many of which were simple nationalistic ideas. By killing the two systems and all ideas associated with them (extreme and non-extreme) we have created an intellectual hollow shell which we can not as a society defend. Today, we cannot even defend our basic long-term survival in the ‘mainstream’ arena. I don’t buy that we were “normal” in 1945. I think we were already sick back then or at least extremely vulnerable to what is happening today. The killing of healthy nationalism and healthy socialism is the death sentence of European ethnic people, who can not compete in open societies with tribal people like the jews. By constantly talking about how evil Nazism was and how good we were sans Nazism we are only playing into our enemies’ hands. It serves to defang and to castrate us. Frankly, when I look back at the American and British socieities in the thirties what I like the most is that they weren’t wimps and they had MUCH in common with the German Nazis. The Germans took it too far - yes (as always), but that doesn’t mean 90% of it wasn’t right for us. But that is just my opinion. 74
Posted by superace on June 06, 2006, 06:20 PM | #
I’ll tell you want, if the Nazis had won the war… eastern europeans, italians, french, and probably the english would be second class citizens at best and slaves to the Nazi empire at worse. And yes, all the Jews and non-whites would be exterminated. Not bad for some on this board.
This may be true but you and your family would today probably be a sub-class or a slave of the nazi machine… unless of course you’re the right kind of German. Are you?
Your previous rational statement was just undermined by this totally ridiculous one.
Guessedworker, I’m not sure if your father, grandfather are alive today but I would think they would be rolling in their graves if they heard the type of dismissal of their efforts and suffering by what has been posted here. And to say that the USA and UK, which were probably 99percent caucasian back in 1940 had some devious plot to “brown” their countries and that is the reason why they fought the Nazis? It’s this type of ignorance that causes the rational “racist” to shake his head. I’d be interested to hear from UK/western european posters as to whether they feel the USA should have fought in the War. 75
Posted by Matra on June 06, 2006, 06:25 PM | # Canadians pride themselves on being more culturally sensitive than Americans. Get a load of this from the Globe & Mail newspaper:
76
Posted by Tom Peters on June 06, 2006, 06:38 PM | # The problem is Superrace is that your politics are still of 1945 when we are living in 2006. My statements are consitent in saying the following: Nazis were evil to some degree as were the communists. But that statement does not make Americans all good just because they fought the Nazis and communists. Fighting evil does not make one automatically good. It just makes one POTENTIALLY good. The fact is that TODAY in 2006 Americans and their foreign policy are very destructive to all Euro-ethnic people everywhere - in my opinion. But don’t just take my opinion listen to what their foreign ministers say about ethnically strong states like Serbia before they blow it to bits. Americans will not allow a healthy Euro-state to emerge and that is what makes their actions evil TODAY. By constantly living in 1945 we are only playing into the hands of our enemies, while the demographic clock ticks. 77
Posted by Matra on June 06, 2006, 06:45 PM | #
What would really make them roll in their graves is seeing how their nation looks today. I’m sure more than a few veterans must wonder if their efforts were all in vain. One of the most pernicious things the Left did was turn the sacrificing and heroism of WW2 into a monument for “democracy” and “tolerance”. As if those were the main motivations for fighting the Nazis. Britain’s reasons for going to war weren’t that much different from previous wars with the French going back to at least William III: preserving a balance of power on the European continent. Canadians and others joined for kinship reasons and with little less enthusiasm than they did in WW1 or the the Anglo-Boer War when there was no Nazi ideology to rid the world of. 78
Posted by superace on June 06, 2006, 09:39 PM | # “The fact is that TODAY in 2006 Americans and their foreign policy are very destructive to all Euro-ethnic people everywhere [...]. But don’t just take my opinion listen to what their foreign ministers say about ethnically strong states like Serbia before they blow it to bits. Americans will not allow a healthy Euro-state to emerge and that is what makes their actions evil TODAY.” (—Tom Peters) Oh and don’t get me wrong. My rantings against the Nazis doesn’t mean I dislike germans. My girlfriend happens to be one. 79
Posted by ben tillman on June 06, 2006, 10:23 PM | # ...I seriously doubt that white America went to war to “brown” the country. Of course, that was not their intention, and it was not generally the intention of those who sent them to war. The facilitation of multiracialism and panmixia after the war did have pre-war antecedents, but I don’t think the group mind adopted those policies in earnest until after the war. Still, one result of the defeat of the Nazis was the imposition of multiracialism and panmixia in formerly white countries, including those whose soldiers had died fighting the Nazis. How’s that for gratitude? 80
Posted by Desmond Jones on June 06, 2006, 11:28 PM | # Aryanism ... the Master-race ... the sub-human Slav ... Judenhass and the rest, all this was not any form of national self-awareness that an Englishman would regard as normal and healthy. And neither should we today. This is just not true. Goldwin Smith, Madison Grant, Samuel Gompers (or at least the labour movement in the US, Gompers was an English Jew) and even the Cdn women’s rights activist, Emily Murphy, considered Slavs (eastern and southern Europeans) to be inferior to Anglo-Saxons/Nordic people. Canadian Jews like Abella rail against the likes of immgration bureaucrat Frederick Blair not only because of his alleged anti-semitism but because of his concern about non-traditional immigration of eastern and southern Europeans. It was derived from a sense of ethnocentrism that predated Salter and fervently held to the notion of an ethnocentric nationalism. It was most definitely the norm and it was prescient. As for WWII, why “fulfilment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland,” and not the Czechs? Who twisted Chamberlain’s arm to declare over Poland? Even Churchill pondered the rashness and suddeness of the decision.
Why the sudden reversal? Polling data at the time shows,
At the very least the UK public embraced appeasement until they were able to face an inevitable threat from a continually expanding Germany. 81
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 07, 2006, 01:23 AM | # Amen, Scrooby. WWII was fought to spread world communism. The NWO as we understand it is a synthesis of tranzism and communism. 82
Posted by JB on June 08, 2006, 12:50 PM | # Superace:
Those grandfathers and uncles fought for a government that sided with the USSR, the worst oppressive and murderous regime that ever existed in Europe, to “free” Europe and later decided that the white population of America had to be replaced by non-europeans. If they fought for freedom and democracy then how come americans have never been asked to vote on whether or not their country should become a huge multiethnocultural garbage dump ? Superace:
The Allies helped the USSR win the war I shouldn’t have to remind you that. The right american policy should have been to either help the Third Reich beat the USSR or not be involved at all in the war. After all they declared war to Germany for invading Poland but not to the USSR for having invaded the other half of Poland so right at the beginning they showed their pro-soviet bias. The Allies knew already what kind of mass murder and tyranny the soviets were capable of but they still preferred the reds to the browns. And although I think it was really stupid for Hitler to bomb London you can bet that was what Churchill wanted because it destroyed any chance of having a peace deal. Superace:
Someone should have asked that question to Roosevelt and Churchill as they are the ones who helped the soviets more the average red activists living in England and America at the time. Superace:
The initial plan for jews was to deport them in Madagascar or someplace else. And many jewish leaders at the time were in contact with nazi leaders hoping that the Third Reich would finally be their ally in their quest for a homeland. Superace:
the winner is the survivor not the nicest but it’s a question of attitude more than brute force per se. Whites are still the majority and they could win easily if they wanted to but until they’re ready to fight to win, ready to face the enemy in the streets, they won’t win. Hundreds of thousands of mexicans/illegals demonstrated in the streets, which is like a bunch of thieves picketing in front of your house demanding that you stop discriminating against them and let them steal whatever they want, but how many americans participated in the counter-demonstrations ? Very few. Their spirit is strong, americans’ spirit is weak. Unless whites change the mexicans are going to win because they’re not afraid of the enemy even though there is 6-7 times more whites than mexicans. What do you think is going to happen if a state decides to kick mexicans out ? The mestizos are simply going to shrug their shoulders and obey ? That’s how it worked in the past with the expulsions of the 1920s and 50s but there will be violent resistance this time and not only the media will take their side not America’s but the federal government will do the same and do whatever it can to oppose states who want to get rid of the mexican invaders. There’s going to be violence one way or another : when americans decide to send them back to Mexico or when they become a majority and decide to send whites back to Europe. * * * If you haven’t watched The Line in the Sand you can now download it for free trailer (you need QuickTime to view this .MOV file) : http://www.octobersunfilms.com/osf001trailer.mov 381 mb file (Windows Media Player required): http://yggdrasilfilms.com/TheLineInTheSand.wmv or you can buy the DVD for 20 $ 83
Posted by JB on June 08, 2006, 01:14 PM | # Ben Tillman:
it goes like this: nazism = millions of innocent jews in gas chambers, racism = nazism, discrimination = racism, self-preservation for whites = discrimination 84
Posted by Desmond Jones on June 08, 2006, 01:52 PM | # 12 of the 17 arrested in Toronto were of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin. One of the London bombers, British born of Pakistani origin, Mohammad Sidique Khan, who left behind a will and a video said:
The driving motivation for Khan, although no doubt enhanced by his religious belief, was not his God, but “his people”. The problem is the ethnicity of Islam, Rushton’s whispering genes. From the Toronto Star: Liberal MP had encounter with one of accused at Islamic centre
85
Posted by superace on June 08, 2006, 02:24 PM | #
The US and UK made a pact with one evil (USSR) to defeat another (NaziGermany). Only problem is they didn’t renege on their deal with the USSR and go after them afterwards.
Give me some points to backup your statement, otherwise it sounds loony.
86
Posted by Desmond Jones on June 08, 2006, 04:16 PM | # If they were both equally evil, then the fundamental question that remains is why ally with the USSR and not Germany? By 1933, Hitler and Mussollini were warning of the mass slaughter of Ukrainian Christians.
Almost ten years before the Jewish holocaust the ignominious evil of Bolshevism was on full display for all who wished to see. Yet it was clearly suppressed in an effort to villainise white ethnic nationalism in Germany. Why? 87
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 08, 2006, 05:04 PM | # JB, nice post until the stuff about Mexicans. I don’t think any kind of open conflict is necessary. The only reason the mestizos are so brazen is because they sense weakness. We’ve invited their boldness. More to the point, we don’t need to deport them or get rid of them. If we disincentivize their presence, they’ll slink back under their rocks voluntarily, without a peep. I think blacks, mestizos, and yellows are all sissies, really. They’re only emboldened by our complete spinelessness. Now, jews, on the other hand…they’re going to fight tooth and nail regardless, but they’re pencil-pushers not street fighters. 88
Posted by superace on June 08, 2006, 10:36 PM | # OK so any thoughts about this article? It’s got white guy with mongoloid DNA and its got Ghegis Khan vs Hitler. LONDON (AP) - Tom Robinson had long wondered about his family tree. He never suspected its roots might lie in the Mongolian steppe. Tom Robinson, in a photo taken while visiting Juneau, Alaska, in May. The Florida accountant used the field of “bioarchaeology” to discover he’s a direct descendant of Genghis Khan, the Mongol warrior who conquered vast tracts of Asia and Europe in the 13th century. (AP) He was in for a surprise. According to a British geneticist who pioneered the research, Robinson appears to be a direct descendant of Genghis Khan, the Mongol warrior who conquered vast tracts of Asia and Europe in the 13th century. Robinson said he was startled when he received a call from the firm Oxford Ancestors about a surprising ancestor uncovered by his DNA tests. ``My first impression was, ‘Oh no, who is it’ - imagining it was Adolf Hitler or something like that,’’ said Robinson, 48. ``So I was actually pleasantly surprised.’‘ 89
Posted by Tom Peters on June 09, 2006, 03:43 AM | # “So I was actually pleasantly surprised.” He was pleasantly surprised???? To have DNA from Ghenghis Khan? The whole story is stupid in so many ways. As if he would get a DNA test attaching him to Hitler. But in today’s world Hitler does equal the devil so you might as well mention how you ‘worried ’ about his DNA, in order to be a good ass-kissing, morally superior PC boy. Then it gets better! He is actually proud of the the fact that he has DNA from a raping, pillaging, killing-machine like Ghenghis Khan. Does this fool not realize that the reason he has Khan’s DNA is because one of his ancestors most likely got brutally raped somewhere?? But he did manage to slam Hitler - and today that’s about as far as you have to go in your thinking. 90
Posted by JB on June 09, 2006, 08:46 AM | # Svi:
yes that’s my point : they’re not afraid of whites. The US could kick these mexcrements out of the country rather easily if the Congress/Senate/WhiteHouse wasn’t a nest of traitors and americans’ mind not so numbed down by the jewish soma. I predict violence because the federal government will not do anything to stop the invasion but however some states will enforce immigration laws and kick illegals out of their jurisdiction which will provoke some kind of retaliation from the legal mexicans still living within those states with some help from criminal gangs. There will likely be some gunfights and riots. I don’t think it will be as smooth as it was in the previous deportations Svi:
perhaps, if anyone who employs them or gives them any public funds is severely punished then they could be annoyed enough to go back to Mehico 91
Posted by JB on June 09, 2006, 09:43 AM | # Superace:
In America before the war a large part of the media was in jewish hands and they were the ones who attacked Lindhberg after he pointed the finger at jews in one of his speech. The generals who fought the war weren’t fighting for the demise of their country but the US Army is a tool in the hands of the government, it has no real power of its own without the government especially against domestic enemies. Those who attacked Lindhberg knew that defeating Germany was good for them and among a lot of other things they thought was good for them was weakening the majority and pushing it in safe deadends and opening the borders to allow millions of non-whites to come live in the US. In a democratic regime the media owners are the rulers, they are the collective senses of the population and if it refuses to look in a certain direction say at the fire in the living room, ignores the scent of smoke and refuses to hear certain things like the guy screaming ‘Fire !’ then americans as a whole will not be aware that there is a fire in their living room and that it will consume the whole house if it’s not extinguished. The media sets the tone of almost everything that is discussed in public and in private and now there’s absolutely no diversity of opinion in the media it’s all jewish BS 24/7. Though not as bad as it is now it was surely bad enough for american politicians back then to notice that the jewish media wasn’t a friend of the country and that they had their own agenda yet they either collaborated with them or shrugged their shoulders. While the pawns of the Allies’ governments were fighting in Europe their politicians were being either bribed or pressured into doing what the jewish groups wanted. http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html
Neil Gabler is the author of An Empire of Their Own : How the Jews Invented Hollywood
Next entry: How simple it is! Previous entry: National liberation anyone? |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'British General Election 2010' on 05/22/12, 07:09 PM. (go) (view) QuottevoM commented in entry 'This thread business' on 05/22/12, 07:07 PM. (go) (view) Aborhoorstusa commented in entry 'Ladies against feminism' on 05/22/12, 06:53 PM. (go) (view) Sarws23ls commented in entry 'Thread Wars' on 05/22/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) rmmshzrbpvi commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/22/12, 05:37 PM. (go) (view) Graistetrisog commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 05:18 PM. (go) (view) ovephorie commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/22/12, 05:14 PM. (go) (view) Glurarieepife commented in entry 'Charlene Downes - a murder too far for the MSM' on 05/22/12, 04:56 PM. (go) (view) rarlencourl commented in entry 'Jews: jewish hand-wringing at recent high' on 05/22/12, 04:23 PM. (go) (view) Lifsappoift commented in entry 'Those nasty Christian concentration camps' on 05/22/12, 03:16 PM. (go) (view) winstrol commented in entry 'Was Churchill an antisemite and a Fascist?' on 05/22/12, 02:47 PM. (go) (view) DateSoaxiaDot commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/22/12, 12:58 PM. (go) (view) Judy20James commented in entry 'Hurricane can-do in Cancun' on 05/22/12, 12:49 PM. (go) (view) cocreneamenrYk commented in entry 'Time travel and a pol in the MultiCult' on 05/22/12, 12:43 PM. (go) (view) Marles Flora commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/22/12, 12:28 PM. (go) (view) LoomuttertNuBre2 commented in entry 'More thread wars' on 05/22/12, 12:22 PM. (go) (view) Wide plank flooring commented in entry 'Sound principles of money, by Arthur Kitson' on 05/22/12, 12:12 PM. (go) (view) buy nandrolone commented in entry 'Misology in America Part 2.1' on 05/22/12, 11:49 AM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) higDipseVes commented in entry 'This thread business' on 05/22/12, 10:22 AM. (go) (view) AdepayTwidway commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/22/12, 09:47 AM. (go) (view) sweectexcagma commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/22/12, 09:46 AM. (go) (view) cool math games commented in entry 'The French shooter' on 05/22/12, 08:53 AM. (go) (view) Blow Up Collar commented in entry 'Elitism, secrecy, deception … the way to save white America?' on 05/22/12, 08:08 AM. (go) (view) Leonardo15 commented in entry 'Native U.S. white supremacist militia anthrax hate-bombers attack the entire galaxy' on 05/22/12, 08:03 AM. (go) (view) Inhaphyessera commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/22/12, 07:54 AM. (go) (view) kejmunoek commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:53 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'A Wild Surmise About Stonehenge and the Technology of Ancient Brits' on 05/22/12, 07:35 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:19 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Matra on June 03, 2006, 05:20 PM | #
You beat me to it Soren. I was just about to post on this very topic.
The copper at the press conference said something about how these men were going to attack “their own people” - meaning Canadians. We were all laughing when he said that. How dumb do you have to be to think these foreigners consider European Christian Canadians to be “their own people”? The first report also said that the men were not Arabs. I suppose it’s possible - some Pakistanis, maybe some blacks, and a crazy white convert or two - but this first report left the impression that they weren’t what Desmond Jones calls vismins (visible minorities) at all. And all those references to the Oklahoma City bombing. Have we got a bunch of Canadian Timothy McVeighs here?
Anyway, there’s nothing to worry about because the Imam at a mosque many attended says a mistake was made. These good boys were too devout to do anything like this. No doubt we’ll be hearing about the dangers of anti-Muslim bigotry lurking beneath the surface of Canada’s multicultural paradise. Perhaps more “education” of non-Muslim Canadians will be required.