VSC/Heathrow

Posted by .357 (Dave Johns) on July 22, 2008, 10:08 AM | #

Well, Fred, I’d like to mount a counter-argument to your response, but I can’t. I think you’ve clearly seen through Gertz’ narrow observations, opened them up, then focused in on the real issue. I’m not saying that just to get along or go along either. The truth is: just about every nefarious thing that’s happening in the world—especially in the Western world— has Jewish fingerprints all over it. And yes, our paramount concern must be stopping those that are responsable for systematically and deliberately ethnically-cleansing people of European heritage off the planet.

Again, Fred, you’ve nailed it!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 22, 2008, 07:27 PM | #

I have mixed feelings about re-establishing the Knights Templar:  it would seem to reinforce Christianity, but does Christianity deserve reinforcement by us after stabbing us in the back on race-replacement?  Christianity refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of our side’s race-replacement concerns.  Why should we now help to reinforce it?  Or does Medvedev have in mind a different sort of Christianity, one which does not actively collaborate with the Jews, capitalists, and communists in our genocide?  Trying to imagining what sort of Christianity that would be is like trying to imagine what sort of Roman numerals would lend themselves to multiplication and long division.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 22, 2008, 07:47 PM | #

Or is it that Christianity is OK but we’re living in an age of politically corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, mammon-worshipping Catholic and Protestant hierarchies (and that includes the Pope and the Vatican)?  There have been such ages in the past of course, lots of them.  Dozens, at least.  Maybe we’re in one right now?

I would love to save Christianity.  But making amends with Christianity in the year 2008 is like making amends with someone who has tried to murder you, and seems as possible.

I was reading Jim Kalb’s latest entries the other day over at Turnabout, and he doesn’t appear to realize the betrayal Christianity including the Catholic Church is guilty of in this matter.  Christianity has to unequivocally address our race-replacement concerns and acknowledge their legitimacy or there is absolutely no continuing with Christianity; it has to disappear:  as things now stand, if Europeans survive, Christianity must die, because of what it’s done to us in siding with the mortal enemy of our lifeblood. 

And since Europeans will survive, prospects don’t look too good for Christianity, whence my sense of unease with the idea of re-establishing the Knights Templar.

Had Catholicism not tried its best to exterminate all people of European race I’d right now be volunteering joyfully to become a member of these re-born Knights.  But reality is reality.

Posted by snax on July 23, 2008, 02:43 PM | #

http://www.kolumbus.fi/aquilon/theauthor.htm

Kai Murros was born in 1969 in Helsinki. He spent the years 1990-1999 at the University of Helsinki studying various subjects, mainly history and oriental languages. In his Master of Arts Thesis Murros studied the gradual change of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army from a guerilla army to a modern professional army.
In his numerous TV and Radio appearances Murros raised a nationwide scandal with his radically nationalist views and appetite for ruthless measures. Murros openly threatened leading Finnish CEOs and politcians that after in the aftermath of the national revolution they would sent to prison camps as enemies of the people.
Today Murros leads a quiet life of a free thinker tending his garden in the northern outskirts of his native Helsinki.

His entire twenties at Uni, creates a fictional(!) online nationalist movement, ‘threatens’ a few reprisals if and when, then retires to the suburbs.

Easy online racialism anyone? 

At least tell me he works as a librarian part-time Soren…

Posted by melba peachtoast on July 23, 2008, 03:07 PM | #

Scoobysnax:
  (Not Scrooby, Scooby!)—Could you phrase that question about easy online racialism in the form of a video clip which reveals your real-life identity? Go on! We’ll wait here for you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 23, 2008, 06:42 PM | #

Like GT, Snax gets impatient when others think out loud, but thinking, pure thinking, is a crucial part of what lies ahead for us, especially when, like Kai Murros, you have a volcano for a brain.  Look at this eruption.  The structures of our oppression won’t stand the heat of this kind of lava-flow very long.  Their days are numbered; that handwriting you see on yon smoking burning wall is for them and they know it, whence their desperate hysteria on display everywhere you turn nowadays.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 23, 2008, 06:51 PM | #

A bridge gets built by some people imagining it, some people designing it, some people planning it, some people building it.  Take any of these away?  No bridge.

Posted by snax on July 23, 2008, 07:25 PM | #

melba, no I can’t, but we could work that out together: We might both create a profile at a forum, then I offer you my email addy, you design a test to confirm my identity, and I deliver it…. I could do that.

But what would that say about a kid who spent his twenties at Uni, then created a bit of (thus far) useless pro-White propaganda, and then retired on the profits, seemingly?

You’re rather missing the point. I don’t pretend to count, Kai Murros seems to.

Posted by snax on July 23, 2008, 07:30 PM | #

Pure thinking is fine with me Fred, when it doesn’t pretend to be practical.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 26, 2008, 05:54 PM | #

“But what would that say about a kid [Kai Murros] who spent his twenties at Uni, then created a bit of (thus far) useless pro-White propaganda, and then retired on the profits, seemingly?”  (—Snax)

“Useless”? 

You haven’t heard?  Ideas are stronger than bullets, comrade.  What do you think motivates men to shoot bullets in the first place?  What motivates them to go where those bullets are whizzing around their heads instead of staying safely at home?

It’s not ideas that are useless, but bullets that are if there are no ideas.  And if there are ideas but no bullets, men will fight with arrows, knives, their bare hands, their teeth, whatever it takes but they’ll fight.  When there are ideas.

That’s the difference between ideas and bullets.  And that’s which one is “useless.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 28, 2008, 11:22 PM | #

Elementary truths explained by Brimelow.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 30, 2008, 01:15 PM | #

Paul Nachman is stumped.  He’s looking for a particular word to describe something important, but can’t think of one and invites suggestions.  Every MR.com regular knows exactly the word he’s looking for.

Physicist and Vdare.com contributor Paul Nachman says he’s looking for a word, “a single word,” which “adequately encapsulates” the fundamentally different orders of importance of what’s at stake in the immigration crisis, on the one hand, and on the other, what’s at stake in issues such as the flat tax, oil drilling, abortion, or the Iraq War:

A few months ago, I had a discussion with a candidate for Attorney General in Montana about the foreseeable problem of illegal immigration into our largely-pristine state.  He invited me to “send all the information you have on the issue.”
The temptation was to respond:  “How many semitrailers —  or, perhaps, terabytes of disk space —  do you have?”

Instead, I tried to impress upon him that mass immigration, both legal and illegal, is much bigger than a mere “issue”  —  because it poses an existential threat to America’s societal security, the country’s “ability to preserve its essential nature and identity under changing and adverse conditions,” in the words of the late John Attarian.  Regular readers of VDARE.COM know this.  And the site’s archives document it in painstaking detail.

(So what’s a mere “issue”?  The flat tax, oil-drilling on the arctic coastal plain, and abortion are examples —  whichever way our gridlocked political system ultimately comes down on them, the country will still be recognizable.  So what single word adequately encapsulates our myriad-faceted immigration disaster?  I don’t know. Suggestions are welcome.  “Problematique,” coined by the Club of Rome, would do, but just try to launch that into the public lexicon!)

The word Paul Nachman is looking for has already been coined and is used at this site all the time in exactly the sense he describes:  it’s “ultimate” (race change) as opposed to “proximate” (the price of oil, the War in Iraq, the flat tax).  Paul:  bone up on your Frank Salter, comrade.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 31, 2008, 07:42 PM | #

Paul Nachman places an issue in the “mere issue” category if a country is still itself after the legislature’s vote, and in this other category, not a “mere issue,” if a country isn’t still itself after the vote. 

Let’s say the issue is tax policy, the national health service, or oil drilling and the British parliament votes on it.  We know beforehand England itself won’t disappear after the vote — it will still be there, it will simply be England with this or that tax policy, England with this or that national health service, England with this or that North Sea drilling policy.

So tax policy, the national health service, and oil drilling are “mere issues” in Paul Nachman’s terminology. 

Now let’s say the issue is immigration.  We know beforehand England will disappear after the vote and in its place will be Pakistan on the Channel, Nigeria North, Grand Zanzibar, or Uzbekistan-With-Umbrellas.  After the vote people will look around and say, “Where’s England?,” and the answer will come, “I don’t know.  It was there a minute ago, now it’s gone.  And you know it’s funny, because a minute ago there was only one Nigeria, now there are two:  the old one in Africa and a brand-new one in the middle of the North Sea.  It’s weird.”

So, immigration is not a “mere issue.”  It changes not just a place’s policies but its identity.  It’s like sending your child to the dentist to get a cavity filled, and what comes back home from the dentist is a Negro, Chinese, or Mexican child instead of yours.  Obviously whatever the issue was at the dentist’s, it went way beyond a mere question of a cavity.  It was something identity-changing, and as a result your child, instead of simply coming back with his cavity filled, is now himself gone, replaced by some other child.

Now, since whatever is not a “mere issue” in Paul Nachman’s terminology involves direct erasure of a nation’s identity, one would think political morality would require a full public frankly-worded debate nationwide, thoroughly and honestly airing all sides, followed by a clearly-worded public referendum, before it could become law.  This has nowhere been done where immigration policy has come up for a vote, whether in the U.S. in the black year 1965 or in any European nation before or since.

Why?

What are the forces pushing these identity-changing immigraton policies trying to accomplish?

Do the men behind them know they’re changing national identies?  Of course:  it’s obvious.  You can’t not know, any more than you can not know two plus two equals four, because it’s just as obvious.  So the question is posed:  since they’re doing it deliberately, deliberately avoiding full public disclosure, debate, and a nationwide referendum before entering these these laws on the books, what precisely are they trying to accomplish?

The other thing, of course, is:  no matter what their infernal intentions may be, they must be stopped, and as quickly as possible.  And after they’re stopped there must be a process of setting things to rights, of repair, of fixing what’s broken, not leaving their damage in place as a hideous fait accompli but putting things back the way they used to be and can be again, nay shall be again.

There was no hand-wringing in the United Arab Emirates about immigration:  they got themselves into a spot of trouble immigration-wise then directly went about sorting it out, and just announced it’s nearly sorted, and will be fully this coming January.  Simple.  We can do the same.  If necessary, hire the handful of government officials who accomplished it over there to come do the exact same thing over here.  Give them the keys to an office, the computers, the telephones, the powers, and set them to work.  And since it’ll be a case of “hiring Third-Worlders to come here and do jobs Europeans won’t do” (sound familiar? …), the other side could scarcely object, that being their favorite justification for their crimes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 31, 2008, 11:50 PM | #

Gleaned tonight over at Turnabout:

There’s a tendency today to criticize “essentialism,” the idea that something like Islam has an enduring character such that (for example) you aren’t going to see a moderate liberal Islam become the predominant form of the religion.

I’m inclined toward a moderate essentialism. It seems to me that at bottom the opposing nominalist view is the view that social managers can turn people and their beliefs into anything they want, so I don’t like nominalism (in addition to believing that it’s in fact false).

[...] To say there’s an essential Islam, Christianity, Judaïsm or whatever is to say that there’s a system of beliefs and practices that works for a lot of different people in a lot of different settings and stops working nearly so well if you change or downplay basic concepts too much.  That doesn’t mean that the system won’t go dead for a while, or won’t change at all in secondary ways (and those can be important as a practical matter), or people won’t give it up and turn to something else, as in the case of Christianity in the EU.  What it means is that the system has nine lives.  Its basic principles keep coming back with a lot more force than someone might expect who thinks of religion as a arbitrary and contingent concatenation of influences that’s been given form by random circumstance and can be rejiggered ad infinitum for any new circumstances and purposes that come along.

On such a view it makes sense to treat Islam, Christianity, liberalism, the West, China and what not else somewhat as characters acting in history that are likely to stay in character.  It can be difficult to say just how far you should treat something like Islam as a particular thing, but since it’s been able to maintain character in a lot of different times, places and circumstances it must be thinglike to some substantial degree.  A more particular claim as to Islam relevant to current events, of course, is that forcible expansion is integral to the basic system, so jihad can be inert and ignored for a while but it keeps coming back, especially when there are upheavals that force people to think about what they really should be doing.

The basic point:  lip service and changes in emphasis are real, but a religion like Islam that has demonstrated enduring appeal and staying power is also real.  That means that whatever ways of acting and looking at things are basic to it will keep coming back even though most Muslims most of the time are pretty slack about the whole thing.  The bottom line on the particular issue is that as long as there’s Islam jihad isn’t likely to disappear or become reliably unimportant through universal slackness and reinterpretation.  It’s a real problem and it’s likely to stay with us.

As this essay mainly about Moslems also implies that Jewishness — therefore, Jewish antagonism toward the West and toward Euros/Eurochristians racially and ethnoculturally (such antagonism being part of Jewishness) — won’t attenuate with successive Jewish generations no matter the influences that may come to bear on Jews, Euros and Jews should live apart, in separate countries.  When they live together Jews try to weaken and harm Euros.

“On such a view it makes sense to treat Islam, Christianity, liberalism, the West, China and what not else somewhat as characters acting in history that are likely to stay in character.”

Is the West likely to “stay in character” if present immigration trends continue?  Turnabout readers with the immigration crisis on their minds who are sensitive to the racial dimension of things human will rebut this to themselves as they read, saying neither the West, nor China, nor even Christianity or Islam, will “stay in character” if whatever are their human “substrates” or “matrices” change race. 

Why even think of this? 

Because it’s an important part of reality, a part the Vatican is studiously ignoring.  Because swift race-change is happening to the West, and it’s fair for people to acknowledge what that portends. China can’t “stay in character” if it changes race to Subcons, Nigerians, or Brazilians (which it isn’t but the West is).  Islam probably can’t “stay in character” either, if its demographic core, the Arabs of the Near- and Middle East, changes race:  its demographic core’s racial traits partly determine it, making it, Islam, partly genetic as Eurochristianity is partly genetic. 

Liberalism, also known as “Stuff White People Like,” is no exception but will succumb if its substrate, white people, continue to dwindle.

Now, it’s also possible that Jim Kalb, in referring to the West’s being likely to “stay in character,” meant not that the West would survive but that the West was, true to some flaw in its nature, likely to keep going down the tubes until its final extinction.  If so, what he wrote takes on a different meaning.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 04, 2008, 08:24 PM | #

Quite a good speech by someone out in California talking to a meeting of a European-American group:

My European-American brothers and sisters, it is an honor to speak before you today!

In that simple act of greeting lies the essence of my message — for we ARE brothers and sisters, men and women of one blood, one bone, one spirit, far-flung sons and daughters of the ancient tribes of Europe reunited on this land.

My brothers and sisters, the challenges before us are the greatest we have faced in the many millennia of our journey.  Our people’s heritage is dismissed as the product of “dead White males.”  Discrimination against us is not only allowed, it is mandated by law.

Our men and women and children are daily victimized by racially-motivated crime, at a rate far greater than any other group — yet the world “racially profiles” us as the perpetrators!  Our birth rate plummets, our population ages and creaks toward death; we have become a dispossessed majority ... and if you know the demographics you know that we are well on the way to becoming a repressed minority not only in California but across the country and around the world.

I shudder when I consider the fate of our grandchildren, or our elders in their helpless years.

What is the answer?  Our political leaders refuse to lead.  Indeed, they have abandoned us.  The Democratic Party has given us the mayor of San Francisco — who says he doesn’t care about the “idiot children” of European-Americans and repeatedly uses the term “white boys” to refer to our men.  I hate to think what he calls our women.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET ANGRY?

The Republicans have given us Ron Unz,( * ) a man who can write an article titled “California and the End of White America” and leave us with the implication that the end of White America is somehow not so bad, that it is acceptable.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET ANGRY?

James Brulte, a leading Republican official in southern California, stated outright that he would not support White males as aspiring candidates in his party.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET ANGRY?

When are we as European-Americans going to realize that we have been HAD by the current managers of the political system?

In justified anger and in frustration, we search for answers.  But the first answer must come from within — a spiritual answer.  We lost the political battles years ago, decades ago, as those who hate us made their “long march through the institutions” of academia, law, art, and literature.  [Scroob note:  Who, exactly, were those who hated us, who?  And exactly why did they hate us, why?  What did we do to them, to earn such hatred?  Were they members of a rival ethnic group?  Answer:  yes, that’s exactly what they were and exactly why they hated us.  We were their ethnic group’s traditional enemy.  But we didn’t know they still viewed us as that after three thousand years (Christians go back two thousand, goys three.)  We were blindsided; never expected it or saw it coming.]

We have been routed from those places of power, and we will not easily regain them.  [Scroob note:  Yes, that happened in the sixties:  we were routed as a group different from us finally achieved hegemony over our government, our country, us.]  We must start at a more basic level, the level of you and me, the level of attitudes and values.  We must change ourselves and then change others.  And the good news is, we can start to do this today, and every day, without passing a law or getting a permit.

First, we must learn to love ourselves!  [Scroob note:  this part won’t apply to many MR.com readers, as most of us never fell for the white self-hatred crap this new alien, extremely hostile hegemon has tried for forty years to ram down white throats.]  We must reject, wholly and emphatically [already rejected, don’t worry ...], the guilt that our enemies would lay on us.  We must feel our goodness, take pride in our achievements, and stand tall with firm self-respect.  [Whew, glad that part’s over.  Hey, I mean ... it was good, damn right, but that white self-hatred stuff just didn’t apply to me.  But I’m glad it was mentioned, because there are certainly those out there to whom it applied.]

As we learn to care about ourselves, we must learn to love our European-American brothers and sisters.  [Scroob:  Wait — this sounds maudlin too, I admit, almost like the last part there just above, but it’s very true, it’s not maudlin, and whites need to hear it:  hire your own race, defend your own race, help your own race, etc.  If you don’t no one else will; certainly not the Jews, who hate us.]  We must understand that we don’t have to like each other as individuals, but that, paradoxically, we must love each other if we are to survive.  Our differences of opinion and habit and taste shrink before our common heritage and our common interest.  [God damn right!  Well said!]

We must help each other, support each other, hire each other, trade with each other, discriminate in favor of each other in every facet of our lives.

Having decided that we are worthy of self respect, and having opened our hands and our hearts to our extended family of Eurofolk, we must turn to our ancestors — that long line stretching away into the mists of time, gone from us yet always with us — and honor them.  They live in us, as we will live in our descendants.  We have an ancient and powerful reservoir of might on which to draw.  Have you ever stopped to consider that each and every one of us standing here is the latest in a long line of winners?  It’s true:  if a single one of your direct ancestors had died before having children, that golden chain of ancestry would have been snapped.  Our forebears were tough and smart.  They had to be, or they would not have survived.  We, too, are tough and smart, and we will need all that smartness and toughness in the coming years.

It is not fashionable to think of ancestors as mattering.  But I say to you — our ancestors watch, and they and history will pass judgment on what we do, or do not do, in the months and years and decades to come.

Finally, we must link to this land, because there are those who would push us off it.  Activist and Democratic Party official Art Torres crowed about “the last gasp of White America in California.”  Another minority racist well known in political circles, Mario Obledo, said outright that California will be a Hispanic state and that anyone who doesn’t like it should leave.  Sorry, Art! Sorry, Mario!  Our roots are in this land!  We will not run.

We will stand here, fighting for our rights, our culture, our heritage, our people.  We will not abandon the graves of our ancestors!

My kinsmen, I said at the beginning of this address that we face the greatest challenge in our existence as a people.  But that should not dismay us.  Rather, it is an honor to be alive in this time, to take part in our historic task, to safeguard our people in this age of crisis.  The blood of heroes runs in your veins.  I ask you, here and now, to listen to that bloodsong and make a commitment.

I ask you, before your feet leave the place where you now stand, to look into your heart and decide that you will not submit to our dispossession, our dissolution, as a people!  What will you do today to respect yourself as a European-American?  What will you do today to help your European-American brothers and sisters?

What will you do today to link with your ancestors?  What will you do today to sink your roots deeply and immovably in this sacred soil?  You don’t need anyone’s permission or approval to do these things:  all it takes is will and love.

Resistance begins in the soul!

( *  Ron Unz is Jewish, so is not saying the end of his own race’s majority is fine, just the end of ours.  Many Jews of course react with Schadenfreude (in fact, you can leave off the Schaden — just plain Freude) at the prospect of our extinction, since they hate our race.  Maybe he’s that kind of Jew?  If he is, what he wrote is doubly unsurprising:  he secretly sees our demise as the best thing since

unleavened

sliced bread.  That was sliced, sliced — didn’t mean to make that slip there, just disregard that ...)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 06, 2008, 09:43 PM | #

James Fulford ever so gently chides Christianity for its enthusiastic collaboration in the premeditated, methodical annihilation of white people.  His restrained admonitions are better than nothing, but what is called for is a hurricane of condemnation of today’s Christianity and the men running it. 

We are locked in the biggest death-struggle of the past two-hundred-thousand years.  One of the death’s heads leering in our face as its bony hand clutches at our throat belongs to Christianity. 

What we’re seeing is the latest version of ecumenism and interfaith dialogue:  whatever it is that’s bad nowadays, the Jews think it up and the Christians are instantly on board.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 06, 2008, 09:51 PM | #

When the Borgias were running Christianity was it above reproach?  No.  And it isn’t now.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 09, 2008, 08:04 AM | #

On the subject of the Jewish neocons’ antagonism toward China (my post, third from the top of the thread), I just ran across this comment of mine from a few months ago, in another thread:

What exactly is the Jews’ game (the Jews running Bush’s foreign policy) in supporting the Kosovar Moslems over the Serbs? 

The foreign policy of the Bush Administration’s Jewish neocons is summed up in the following three principles: 

1) Israel’s well-being comes first;

2) the weakening of all Euro racial/ethnocultural nationalisms (including the U.S.’s) comes second, with primary emphasis on the stronger among them (you weaken the strongest first, then the rest can be weakened at your leisure);

3) where 1 and 2 conflict, 1 takes precedence; where 1 isn’t at stake the coast is clear to pursue 2. 

So, based on the above three principles, U.S. Jewish neocon support of Kosovo over Serbia must somehow 1) advance Israel’s well-being or, if Israel’s well-being isn’t at stake, must 2) weaken Euro nationalisms (with primary emphasis on the stronger among them).  It obviously weakens Euro nationalisms; in regard to whether it advances Israel’s well-being, I can’t see how it would.  So it must be a case where 1 isn’t at stake, leaving the Jews free to pursue 2. 

The same sort of analysis must somehow explain this wariness in regard to China which we see popping up from time to time among the U.S. Jewish neocons:  since one wouldn’t imagine they’re particularly anxious at this stage to dismantle China’s racial/ethnocultural nationalism, what’s putting them on their guard against China must be a perception that China is a future threat to Israel. 

As regards the U.S. Jewish neocon love-affair with Turkey, no mystery there:  forcing Turkey into the E.U. against Europe’s wishes both advances Israel’s well-being in a number of ways and helps weaken Euro racial/ethnocultural nationalism (helps weaken the racial/ethnocultural nationalism of all Euro nations together in one fell-swoop as a matter of fact, so the Jews must see this as their master stroke).