Washington + Jefferson = Soros & Gates? The Founders and what it means to be a nation

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, 29 November 2010 16:37.

by The Narrator

We often (very often) hear the jingoism “take America back” by all and sundry on both sides of the political/social divide. Particularly on the conservative side we see the notion put forward that The America is somehow far adrift from her foundational roots, as laid down by the Founding Fathers. But is this really the case? Is modern Americanism fundamentally different from 18th century revolutionary Americanism? What would the Founding Fathers think of The America today?

In addressing that, we must first consider what The America is and what The America is not. What The America is not, is a nation. What The America is, essentially, is a religion/empire, with much akin to a Marxist state. And one of the “gifts” which both Marxism and Americanism have bequeathed to the world is the ability to re-define words and even reality itself.

One example of that is the definition of nation. Since the advent of Americanism/Marxism the definition has been completely re-written to the point that it now actually means the complete opposite of what it meant for thousands of years.

As stated, The America is not a nation, which makes such linguistic concoctions as “a nation of immigrants” one of the more profound examples of an oxymoron and generally reflects the intellectual apathy found amongst the populace.

A nation is NOT a place. A nation is NOT an ideology or creed or form of government or philosophy. What is a nation? In the simplest terms, nation is another word for ethnic Group. A nation is a race or stock of people. The English are a nation. The Irish are a nation. They need not be gathered in the same locale, share a common faith or reside under a similar form of government to be a nation.

Let me say this again. Nation is another word for Ethnic Group. A nation is a biological unit, an extended family, aka a tribe.

From the Etymology Dictionary:

Nation
c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) “nation, stock,
race,” lit. “that which has been born,” from natus, pp. of nasci “be born”

The origin of nations is ancient, and the knowledge of it should be embedded in our culture. Its lack leads to all kinds of problems and comedy, such as the (inherently American) Evangelical interpretation of “prophesy” in regard to Israel becoming a nation again in the 1940s and how that “sign” points to the end of days. The irony there is that if they believe modern jews are the Israel of the bible, then they didn’t “become a nation “again in 1948 as they never stopped being a nation (ie, an ethnic group) in the first place.

Again, a nation need not have government, leaders or even a land of their own to be a nation. It is blood that makes a nation, not forms of government. Thus there is no American nation.

Can nations mix to form a new one? No. Small admixtures from cousin-nations can be absorbed, such as Danish into English, but the former is inevitably lost into the latter. There are no new nations.

So what The America is, is a proto-Marxist religion/empire. Nothing more. And in that, Americanism naturally shares more than a little in common with conventional Marxism. This is why The America and the former Soviet Union look so much alike. Both were artificially fabricated political constructs, rather than being natural, organic living-societies. (And, not surprisingly, both found themselves dominated by a nation who very much considers themselves a nation, separate from the empires they ruled.)

Take for example this excerpt from a letterfrom Karl Marx to Abe Lincoln:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large
majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago *the idea of one great Democratic Republic* had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued …

And in ambassador Adams’ reply (at the same link), we find the following,

Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example.

Adams, in a round about way, agrees with Marx (see the full quote at the link).

His father John Adams, a “Founding Father”, first vice-President and second President of the United States, wrote the following, concurring with the theme:

If the empire of superstition and hypocrisy should be overthrown, happy indeed will it be for the world; but if all religion and all morality should be over-thrown with it, what advantage will be gained? The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we are all children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other’s self love.

-page 619, ‘John Adams’ by David McCullough

Such is not the sentiments of a man residing (physically or otherwise) in the warring ghettos of the real world amongst his kin. No, that is the pompous affirmation of a man safely ensconced in an ivory tower, from whose lofty perch even Sao Paolo must look lovely at midnight when its dim and dirty lights glow luminously, masking the chaos, disease and death in the streets below. From such a distance joy and sorrow are indistinguishable and all peoples look alike … and they tend to look like ants.

Such sentiments, as express by Marx and Adams are echoed in our own time by Bill Gates, George Soros and the like; Businessman, Mercenary Merchants, ‘Power to the People-preachers’, “Citizens of the World” and so on. CEO’s with a corporate management mindset that believes social engineering cannot only reap ever-increasing profits but “better-off” the little people as well. A man-made rearranging of the elements to better suit the perceived “greater good”.

Thus Marxism and Americanism consummate their relationship through their shared denouncement of family, tradition and identity. Their offspring is the atomized consumeristic blank-slate. For tradition is the enemy of America.

And so we have, from our beginning, a hypocritical elite who bemoans the existence of an elite. A Merchant-Pirate class who bemoans piracy and class, and the rich and powerful piously denouncing riches and power. And with one voice they ask of the masses, “will you not give up your pursuit of power, riches and identity for the greater good?” (We can see this today with rich and influential celebrities using the soap box their multi-million dollar lifestyles afforded them to denounce both the bigotry of the people they openly and collectively loathe and the “greedy excesses” of people who earn less than $50,000 a year.)

Powerless people cannot give up power anymore than poor people can “enter a life of poverty”. Thus it is rare (if ever) that “people’s revolutions” occur from the bottom up. Marxist-minded social engineers are either of the elite or end up as the elite. And for them all things are malleable….for and by them.

“We the people” were neither consulted nor present when “They the rulers” applied our consent to their overthrow of history. So what the Founding Fathers instituted was the notion that nations are man-made creatures (akin to Frankenstein’s patched-together-monster) rather than natural outgrowths of the family/tribe. And that is a critical point, considering trends today. For if the family is the bedrock of a nation, then how we define a nation will effect how we think of the family.

If a nation is merely an agreed upon social arrangement, voluntarily entered into and agreed by individuals (as in a creed), then so is the family. We should not then be surprised at the existence of the Franken-family, wherein are found every conceivable arrangement (from two “mommies” raising donated sperm to single parents and their revolving-door one night stands to the adopted multi-rainbow mockery) redefined into constituting a legitimate family.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers’ action in creating The America was akin to a vacationing wife who writes back to her husband to inform him she is leaving him, taking the kids and moving into a commune where everybody is husband and wife to everybody else, and the kids now have 27 dads and as many moms. A “melting pot”, in other words.

In point of fact The Declaration of Independence was a divorce paper, wherein George and Tom and Benjamin and the rest announced their intention of severing ties with kith and kin. Their actions in creating The America was not only the breaking up of a home, it was a direct assault upon the sacred nature of the family in and of itself.

So in answer to the question, no, the Founding Fathers would not be surprised or upset at The America’s present state. They would be pleased with the progress. After a (well, very) little soul searching they would embrace a Marxist colored president, if not outright bow down before him, and promptly denounce any who oppose him as un-American. Even Jefferson, who wrote about the perpetually low mental and spiritual qualities of the negro would come around quickly. After all, a democratically elected Marxist Negro is the final embodiment of everything the “founding fathers” strived for in
their rejection of an un-elected White Monarch. Again, tradition is the enemy of America.

Besides, it should be rather telling, that as The America ascended to world supremacy post-WWII the world has become increasingly radically liberal and leftist in outlook and ideology. And debauched culturally and racially.

Europe is a good example of that. Western Europe has been under the American dominion for 60+ years, and in that time has rapidly slid into the gutter culturally, socially and demographically. It is frequently described today as a dying continent.

The America is a multi-headed Beast, seeking out whom it may devour. Americanism is a trumped up religion to sell a poisoned product. In times past that religion was euphemistically called Babylon. Through democracy and universalism via assimilation it has created an image of Global Governance, wherein people from all tribes reside under one government, with “justice for all” at the point of a PC litigated riffle. And it calls upon the whole world to bow down before that image. Those who do not bow down can neither buy nor sell on the world stage. They are derided, attacked and
denied the right to the preservation of their distinct nations (peoples) and ways. Just look at the White nations residing in The America ... What’s left of them.

Tags: History

Comments:

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:36 | #

I like this essay very much. Thank you, Guest Blogger.

I also discovered, and enjoyed a new video on the same topic from a slightly different perspective:

How Nations Die

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:03 | #

This disease that infected some but not all of the founders of the United States has its roots even before the “Christian” faux aristocracy that took root in Europe. It originated the moment a military leader refused to meet a “peasant” in single combat and was not killed, then and there, by the populace—confused as they were by some priest who had used Paul’s twisted anti-Christianity to justify drawing a distinction between the “nobles” and the “peasants”.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:19 | #

It originated the moment a military leader refused to meet a “peasant” in single combat

Oh yeah! This ostensibly marks the end of single combat as a social phenomenon, and thus the beginning of civilization, but it also throws wide the door to more lethal possibilities, whereby the invitation to single combat serves simultaneously as the death knell.

Inasmuch as noblemen have taken liberty from obligatory acceptance, shall peasants not take liberty from the requirement of formal invitation?

I share Leonard Cohen’s prognostication on this matter:

I’ve seen the future, bother. It is murder.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:41 | #

There may be an alternative to that future if a sufficient number of the populace can be freed from the spell of the priests.

Posted by jimmy Marr on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:12 | #

There may be an alternative to that future if a sufficient number of the populace can be freed from the spell of the priests.

Cohen seems to reference this sentiment in the second track of The Future: Waiting for the Miracle

When you’re squeezed for information
that’s when you’ve got to play it dumb:
You just say you’re out there waiting
for the miracle to come.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:42 | #

So, are you denying ethnic status to White Americans like myself? The Romans were such as us from the very beginning!

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:02 | #

James,

This disease that infected some but not all of the founders of the United States

I’m wondering if Hamilton and Burr figure into your thinking here, and if there is anything you’d like to say with regard to their duel, as an example of the value of single combat?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:14 | #

It was blood that made the American nation.

The common belief is that America has always been a mosaic of many nations with none of them predominating. The truth is exactly the opposite. This country began with a unified population. It was almost nine-tenths English, Scotch, Scotch-Irish and Welsh, that is, British, at the time the nation was formed. The Census Bureau’s study, A Century of Population Growth, published in 1909, estimated that in 1790, at the time of the first census, our population was made up as shown on page 91.

The English and Scotch comprised, therefore, 89.1% of the population. In some states the English/Scotch percentages were greater. In Maine the English and Scotch were 97.4%; in New Hampshire, 98.8%; in Vermont, 98.4%; Massachusetts, 98.6%; Rhode Island, 99.1%; Connecticut, 99%; Virginia, 92.1%; North Carolina, 94.3%; South Carolina, 94,1%; Maryland, 90.5%; Georgia, 94.3%; Kentucky, 94.3%, and Tennessee, 94.3%. In New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey the other nationalities were more heavily represented and that fact has led us to believe that because there were Germans, Swedes and Dutch in the Middle Colonies, that the colonies as a whole were mixed.

America, Nation or Confusion: A Study of Our Immigration Problems p.90, 91

BY

EDWARD R. LEWIS

PUBLISHERS

HARPER & BROTHERS

NEW YORK AND LONDON

MCMXXVIII

America was as much a nation of blood as England at its founding.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:20 | #

JM: I suspect that if Burr hadn’t killed Hamilton in a duel, Jackson might well have done so. Jackson was prone to dueling. However, one must bear in mind that code duello was really a mockery of single combat in the state of nature. The main purpose of code duello was to queer the culture. Highly ritualized single combat selects for specialized skills and is therefore dysgenic.

danielj, I’m not sure what you’re referring to but reflect on this question:

Why is it that Jews seem compelled to feature single combat in movies such as “The Gladiator” about the Roman campaigns against the Germans?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:35 | #

Locke’s notion of blank slate, from his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, denies universality. It does not embrace it.

But there is this further argument in it against their being innate: that these characters, if they were native and original impressions, should appear fairest and clearest in those persons in whom yet we find no footsteps of them; and it is, in my opinion, a strong presumption that they are not innate, since they are least known to those in whom, if they were innate, they must needs exert themselves with most force and vigour. For children, idiots, savages, and illiterate people, being of all others the least corrupted by custom, or borrowed opinions; learning and education having not cast their native thoughts into new moulds; nor by super-inducing foreign and studied doctrines, confounded those fair characters nature had written there; one might reasonably imagine that in their minds these innate notions should lie open fairly to every one’s view, as it is certain the thoughts of children do. It might very well be expected that these principles should be perfectly known to naturals; which being stamped immediately on the soul, (as these men suppose,) can have no dependence on the constitution or organs of the body, the only confessed difference between them and others. One would think, according to these men’s principles, that all these native beams of light (were there any such) should, in those who have no reserves, no arts of concealment, shine out in their full lustre, and leave us in no more doubt of their being there, than we are of their love of pleasure and abhorrence of pain. But alas, amongst children, idiots, savages, and the grossly illiterate, what general maxims are to be found? What universal principles of knowledge? Their notions are few and narrow, borrowed only from those objects they have had most to do with, and which have made upon their senses the frequentest and strongest impressions.A child knows his nurse and his cradle, and by degrees the playthings of a little more advanced age; and a young savage has, perhaps, his head filled with love and hunting, according to the fashion of his tribe. But he that from a child untaught, or a wild inhabitant of the woods, will expect these abstract maxims and reputed principles of science, will, I fear, find himself mistaken. Such kind of general propositions are seldom mentioned in the huts of Indians: much less are they to be found in the thoughts of children, or any impressions of them on the minds of naturals. They are the language and business of the schools and academies of learned nations, accustomed to that sort of conversation or learning, where disputes are frequent; these maxims being suited to artificial argumentation and useful for conviction, but not much conducing to the discovery of truth or advancement of knowledge. But of their small use for the improvement of knowledge I shall have occasion to speak more at large,

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke1/Book1a.html#Chapter II

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 01:27 | #

Highly ritualized single combat selects for specialized skills and is therefore dysgenic.

Isn’t having a lot of generalized skill a specialized skill?

danielj, I’m not sure what you’re referring to but reflect on this question

I was referring to this statement from the article: Can nations mix to form a new one? No.

Posted by Gorham on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 01:50 | #

So, are you denying ethnic status to White Americans like myself? The Romans were such as us from the very beginning!

I was under the impression that you were of Med ancestry. Are you of founding stock ancestry?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 02:20 | #

I had written: “Highly ritualized single combat selects for specialized skills and is therefore dysgenic.”

Prompting danielj to ask: “Isn’t having a lot of generalized skill a specialized skill? “

Man was forged in nature. A return to the natural state for selection can therefore be no more dysgenic than that which produced Man.

The ridiculous “rules” governing Holmganga reported by monks clearly have nothing to do with two men going out to an island and everything to do with making words overrule nature.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 02:28 | #

I was under the impression that you were of Med ancestry. Are you of founding stock ancestry?

I am of mixed European ancestry. Some of it is founding stock (although I’m not sure it goes back to the founding) - Scots-Irish (my mother’s father). I also have French Canadian in me (from my mother’s mother) which I suppose is founding Canadian stock. The other two grandparents are Italian, one of whom was pretty swarthy (my father’s father) and the other (my father’s mother) who was pretty light and blue eyed.

I don’t give a shit about the “founding” stock anyway. White is white here, as long as one is properly assimilated and respectful of our Puritan heritage.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 02:30 | #

Man was forged in nature. A return to the natural state for selection can therefore be no more dysgenic than that which produced Man.

Some people believe “man” was formed in the crucible of culture. It all depends on one’s working definition of nature and man.

Don’t have time for this tonight. Gonna go eat. Night all.

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 02:51 | #

There are an estimated 1,350,000,000 Chinese of which approximately 93% are Han Chinese. That equates to a Han nation of around 1,255,000,000. Not only are the Han Chinese smart and notoriously ethnocentric, they’re very ambitious. Their aim is to achieve hegemony, firstly, over the Pacific rim; then, who knows?

What technological advancements they cannot achieve on their own, they buy on the open market. What they can’t buy on the open market , they simply steal. They have scientists/spies working in virtually all our research labs where they steal our most guarded secrets on a regular basis.

While the Han Chinese are advancing on the world stage by leaps and bounds, what is the West doing?

Answer: Abandoning their own culture en masse and adopting that of the Negroids.

Posted by Gorham on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:18 | #

I don’t give a shit about the “founding” stock anyway. White is white here, as long as one is properly assimilated and respectful of our Puritan heritage.

Do you oppose sovereign ethnostates for founding stock Americans?

And do you think that a state comprised of Italians, or a mix of Italians and founding stock Americans, that was “assimilated and respectful of our Puritan heritage” would be the same thing as a state comprised exclusively or overwhelmingly of founding stock Americans?

Posted by Gorham on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:23 | #

I also have French Canadian in me (from my mother’s mother) which I suppose is founding Canadian stock.

Well French Canada isn’t English Canada.

And there is significant Amerindian admixture among French Canadians:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/11/amerindian-admixture-in-gaspesians.html

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:00 | #

Do you oppose sovereign ethnostates for founding stock Americans?

Why don’t we split up into 7 billion ethnostates?

The question is ridiculous. If you think you’re 100% English and you want to breed with somebody who is 100% English and live in a state that is 100% English then go ahead and work toward that goal. That isn’t my ideal for my country.

No. It would be a state composed overwhelmingly of Italians or mixed Italo/Founding-stock Americans. I don’t want a shitload of Italians here either. However, I consider myself a pretty ideal specimen so I wouldn’t mind a shitload of mixed folks.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:03 | #

Well French Canada isn’t English Canada.

And there is significant Amerindian admixture among French Canadians:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/11/amerindian-admixture-in-gaspesians.html

No shit? Hence the French in French Canadian.

I don’t care how “significant” somebody considers it. They are white in my book. I’ve known and worked with a lot of them (and would have spent some vacation time there had they let me in the country) and they pass my test. My only beef with them is their Catholicism.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:07 | #

Italian Americans are a genuine cultural asset. If we get to the point of ethnic cleansing in the continental United Sates, I recommend the transformation of Puerto Rico into a homeland for them.

Sorry Danielj. I’ve been drinking Italian wine while you were eating, and the Irish in me can’t handle it.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:07 | #

Do you oppose sovereign ethnostates for founding stock Americans?

You know. After thinking about this, I think the question is really, would you be mad that we excluded you from our ethnostate because we don’t consider you sufficiently white?

My answer to that is a resounding “No!” Go ahead and exclude away. I don’t have an inferiority complex or a desperate need to be accepted. We work toward different goals is all and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:09 | #

Sorry Danielj. I’ve been drinking Italian wine while you were eating, and the Irish in me can’t handle it.

Sorry? Is there some one drop rule for Italians that I don’t know about?

If there is, I want Mexico. I spent the evening drinking Negra Modelo and eating tacos and that shit is worth fighting for.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:09 | #

Is there some one drop rule for Italians that I don’t know about?

That’s quite possible, more’s the pity.

If the Last Drop Rule of Scots-Irish drinking is beyond your ken, another of our great genetic traits has apparently disappeared into the cracks of the Italian woodpile.

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:22 | #

Well if we look again at the founding stock of ‘America’ - Spanish and Portuguese….....wait…I mean British, although discovered by an Italian hired by the Spanish crown and named after a Portuguese Spaniard…the formative colonization came from the British Isles… Notwithstanding the Dutch and Germans in New York and the French in Louisiana, the Northwestern states and Canada….the Spanish in the south and west….all established in European law before the Anglo.

But what really established America and provided impetus for the small revolutionary colonies to expand without interference from other established colonial powers, was not ‘manifest destiny’ as the uneducated receive it from their after-school specials - but the Congress of Vienna, and Napoleons downfall. Here recognition was granted, and the new state of America was accepted as ‘fait accompli’, or sovereign among other European nations. and accorded recognition in terms of the Treaty of Westfalia - (a sovereign states right to territorial integrity)

But the real benefit to the new state was the Congress’s further splintering of the questions regarding the Spanish succession and Spain’s sphere of influence. This hindering of any new colonial adventures was of greater benefit and security to the American state than any domestic worth. Both Britain and France had active plans for reconquest in the America’s, on hold due to the Napoleonic interlude - only the Congress of Vienna put those plans on the backburner.

So a war fought and won by Germans and Russians against Frenchmen afforded the new state the uninterrupted security of it’s formative years.

These small overlooked facts, plus the other overlooked incident - American colonists going to war successfully against Britain to sever itself from it’s ties…...make the claim for a ‘pure’ stock of Anglo Americans look preposterous.

Furthermore, the idea of a pure bloodstock of English Anglo’s is ridiculous. The only claim to bloodstock on the British Isles…...are among the Welsh, Scots and Irish - the rest is propaganda. The English are not Anglo’s. Only a German can call himself an Anglo, or a Saxon, and be correct in terms of bloodstock. An Englishman calling himself an AngloSaxon is either a blood aristocrat or a victim of nationalist make believe.

With the English the issue is imperialism, not bloodlines. Although I respect what you are trying to suggest here….what you are saying feels good… However it is based on fantasy, and not reality.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 05:22 | #

That’s quite possible, more’s the pity.

It doesn’t bother me. I just think that most of the WN community is out of touch with the racism of the average American. They could get behind my kind of WN, where I don’t think they could get behind the genetic hairsplitting. But, I’m no Silver and being excluded from ethnostate “such and such” won’t bother me.

If the Last Drop Rule of Scots-Irish drinking is beyond your ken, another of our great genetic traits has apparently disappeared into the cracks of the Italian woodpile.

I’m not sure what the rule is but I forgot to buy beer on the way back so it is time to crack open the Delwhinnie. Surely that covers the Scot part?

Posted by Gorham on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:00 | #

They could get behind my kind of WN, where I don’t think they could get behind the genetic hairsplitting.

“Genetic hairsplitting” is unfair and smells like an attempt to mock and delegitimize perfectly valid aspirations. A lot of our current problems are due to a lack of “genetic hairsplitting” in the past that has cascaded over time.

The average American is favorably disposed to decentralism and thus could get behind a confederation, which is technically all we’re talking about here, as much as some kind of state you insist upon that would prohibit the sovereignty of its subject peoples.

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:02 | #

danielj:
I wouldn’t worry too much about not being invited to a pipedream. An ethnostate in America will simply never happen unless they can defeat and control all of America - One can not simply setup a comfortable home and hearth in a neighborhood dominated by one’s mortal enemies….of whom, such a arrangement will have formally notated that they have successfully stolen the majority of the country from you- Anglo-Americans. The American real estate market will have to drop much further before those cards hit the center table.

The idea of an ethnostate sounds like a reasonable enough compromise….except those on the other end have no capacity for compromise. An ethnostate is not but a pipedream unless it is dictated - seize control, or leverage through extortion or threat, the state and dictate it. It is the only way it will happen.

The rest of you who seem to be unable to grasp how the real world works outside of the Anglosphere’s mental aberrations, historical distortion and family romances, can Morris Dance and bun toss yourself to death for all the good it will do. Or you can devise a new ontology, as cleaved from truth as the rest of these aberrations, and generate a new man - rooted and authentic by the standards of a zeitgeist as distorted and dissimulated as that suggested here. A new man, as content with newly fashioned inner knowledge, filtered from older knowledge it contradicts and obfuscates, a man as rooted in existence, as he is useless and an impediment to action.

Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:13 | #

The cause of a ‘White’ ethnostate in the America’s I have never seen dealt with the intelligence and honesty that it deserves. Rather just a cranky pipedream to fantasize about. Rather, ‘oh decentralization isn’t that farfetched is it’

‘Far-fetched’ to put it mildly, obviously you have no idea.

However, an ‘Anglo’ ethnostate made up of founding stock…. is out and out delirium.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:19 | #

“Genetic hairsplitting” is unfair and smells like an attempt to mock and delegitimize perfectly valid aspirations.

I don’t think they are perfectly valid aspirations and neither does a majority of the populace, who would in fact, rightly characterize it as an over-obsession with purity and “hairsplitting.” It is also pretty incoherent when you get down to it.

A lot of our current problems are due to a lack of “genetic hairsplitting” in the past that has cascaded over time.

That isn’t the case. It wasn’t a lack of hairsplitting that got us into the mess. The fraction of Italians in the country aren’t the problem. Hell, the Armenians aren’t even a major problem.

I’m interested in living in a state with a mixed European peoples and one that will absorb more Europeans in the future. I’d like an infusion of new blood every now and again. I’m not concerned with maintaining some kind of nuclear or mitochondrial stasis. Mixed European is what I am and what most Americans that I see and know are. I consider this arrangement American and would like the future enthnostate I reside in to reflect this fact. Of course, we can all have pipe dreams about the specific ethnic balances we’d like to retain.

With the right kind of freedom - or decentralization, at your suggestion - white people will sort. The hyper-English can fight to carve out their piece of the pie.

What I’m not interested in, is “fairness” or “reciprocity” or any other bull shit arguments you care to make or any other buzzwords you choose to borrow from liberals. I don’t think anybody “deserves” anything or that there is any way to “equitably” carve this up. I consider any claim you might make upon my continent worthless unless you are ready to defend it with violence.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:24 | #

I wouldn’t worry too much about not being invited to a pipedream.

At the risk of protesting too much, I’m not.

Have your ethnostate, but if it comes after me on terms I find disagreeable, we’ll have a huge fucking problem. It’ll be World War Single Man Combat.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:26 | #

single combat

Deadly single combat as the organizing principle of society is Nazism for individualists.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:28 | #

Deadly single combat as the organizing principle of society is Nazism for individualists.

Really?

I guess I’m not a Nazi or an individualist and never the twain shall meet. Or something…

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:41 | #

Well, if every man who did not want to live life as effectively a slave needed to be prepared to engage in deadly combat at all times then the “militarization of society”, although at the level of the individual, would certainly be a fact. Curious English moralists are not up in arms.

And needless to say, a country so constituted would be a sitting duck for any other country with a standing army. Perhaps that is why the idea avoids the wrath of English moralists, because it is inherently ridiculous in countless ways.

Posted by Gorham on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:01 | #

I don’t think they are perfectly valid aspirations and neither does a majority of the populace, who would in fact, rightly characterize it as an over-obsession with purity and “hairsplitting.” It is also pretty incoherent when you get down to it.

Ok so you are opposed to it in principle and believe it’s illegitimate and “incoherent.”

That isn’t the case. It wasn’t a lack of hairsplitting that got us into the mess. The fraction of Italians in the country aren’t the problem. Hell, the Armenians aren’t even a major problem.

It certainly was the case:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/11/7-ways-mafia-made-us-better-place.html

Most importantly, it was the dynamic that was unleashed. Like I said, it cascaded.

I’m interested in living in a state with a mixed European peoples and one that will absorb more Europeans in the future. I’d like an infusion of new blood every now and again. I’m not concerned with maintaining some kind of nuclear or mitochondrial stasis. Mixed European is what I am and what most Americans that I see and know are. I consider this arrangement American and would like the future enthnostate I reside in to reflect this fact.

That’s fine. I certainly have no problem with the existence of mixed European ethnostates nor with being part of a confederation or alliance with them. But you should understand and respect that others, who are your allies in the greater cause, have aspirations of their own. Even just a few thousand founding stock Americans or Nords can be the seed corn for millions. It just needs the fertile soil of an ethnostate.

What I’m not interested in, is “fairness” or “reciprocity” or any other bull shit arguments you care to make or any other buzzwords you choose to borrow from liberals. I don’t think anybody “deserves” anything or that there is any way to “equitably” carve this up. I consider any claim you might make upon my continent worthless unless you are ready to defend it with violence.

I’m not interested in “bull shit arguments” either. Any offer to “equitably carve this up” would be a generous gesture on our part. Let’s be realistic here. A founding stock or Nordish ethnostate would quite quickly develop the technological and military capacity to expand its territory at will if it wished and handily dispatch all comers. Talk of “violence” is just bluster, a bluff to stave off the actual test of violence and buy time as you fuck us out of existence.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:22 | #

Nordish ethnostate

“Nordish” always struck me as a dimwitted way of saying one wishes to preserve Germanic blood. There are, after all, “nordish” Russians.

Posted by MacGregor on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:27 | #

The thesis is basically correct. Yet it can be stated more simply and with less reification. America isn’t a nation because nations didn’t exist when it came into being. America is an empire because it was part of an empire when it came into being. America is a melting pot because it was a colony that diverse peoples were encouraged to settle in. Yes, America is basically the same as it was in the 18th century. It has only changed the way it organises the same ideas and who it allows to participate in them.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:15 | #

Curious English moralists are not up in arms.

It appears the lazy bastards have yet to return from their extended Thanksgivings.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:24 | #

CC writes:

Well, if every man who did not want to live life as effectively a slave needed to be prepared to engage in deadly combat at all times then the “militarization of society”, although at the level of the individual, would certainly be a fact. Curious English moralists are not up in arms.

And needless to say, a country so constituted would be a sitting duck for any other country with a standing army.

That must be why Switzerland is always being conquered by everyone from the Romans to the Nazis.

What exactly is the difference between a standing army and a highly trained and armed populace in which honor is the organizing principle aside from the fact that a standing army is made up of men who have been deprived of all other means of livelihood so as to keep their mercenary fees low?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:25 | #

Well if we look again at the founding stock of ‘America’ - Spanish and Portuguese

Well, well…enough lies to choke a rabbi.

“The fact is that modern Germany, far from being purely Nordic,
is mainly Alpine in race. Nordic blood preponderates only in the northwest,
and is merely veneered over the rest of Germany, espe-
cially in the upper classes. While the Germania of
Roman days was unquestionably a Nordic land, it
has been computed that of the 70,000,000 inhabitants
of the German Empire in 1914, only 9,000,000 were
purely Nordic in character. This displacement of the
German Nordics since classic times is chiefly due to
Germany’s troubled history, especially to the horrible
Thirty Years’ War which virtually annihilated the
Nordics of south Germany. This racial displacement
has wrought correspondingly profound changes in the
character of the German people.

The truth of the matter is, of course, that the Pan-
Germans were thinking in terms of nationality instead
of race, and that they were using pseudo-racial argu-
ments as camouflage for essentially political ends. The
pity of it is that these arguments have had such dis-
astrous repercussions in the genuine racial sphere. The
late war has not only exploded Pan-Germanism, it has
also discredited Nordic race-feeling, so unjustly con-
fused by many persons with Pan-German nationalistic
propaganda. Such persons should remember that the
overwhelming majority of Nordics live outside of Ger-
many, being mainly found in Scandinavia, the Anglo-
Saxon countries, northern France, the Netherlands, and
Baltic Russia. To let Teuton propaganda gull us into
thinking of Germany as the Nordic fatherland is both
a danger and an absurdity. ” (The Rising Tide of Color p .202)

Posted by ... on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:40 | #

“Nordish” always struck me as a dimwitted way of saying one wishes to preserve Germanic blood.

To clear up your misconceptions:

The Racial Compact

The Nordish Race

The Nordish Crisis

Racial Average is Racial Destiny

The Tragedy of the Nordish Peoples

Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology

Posted by John Doe on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:51 | #

I don’t give a shit about the “founding” stock

Not much of a surprise that a Sicilian mongrel with a Filipino child would tell the founding stock to go to hell. But why the scare quotes around the word founding?

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:30 | #

Interesting reaction to this.

This particular article isn’t an advocacy of an ethno-state. It is meant to merely (a) point out that a nation is a race of people (or ethnic group, if you prefer), (b) and therefore cannot be created from scratch and (c) that the the founders of America were the George Soros/Bill Gates of their day.

If you were to apply the modern terms of right/conservative and left/liberal to the founders in the context of their day, they would most certainly reside on the left/liberal side. Far left. Very, very, very radically far left. We’re talking Symbionese Liberation Army left. Which, I guess, makes Benedict Arnold their Patty Hurst.

They didn’t just overthrow their king, they overthrew the entire order upon which A King and nation (ethnic group) resides. What the declaration of independence states is that their are no kings and their are no nations.
They were trying to pick up where they perceived the Roman Empire left off. In point of fact many of them seemed obsessed with Rome. For them the Roman Empire was a great idea but run by bad or incompetent people. Just as today you can hear many on the left defend communism as a great idea but whose history was marred by the “happenstance” of bad leaders. And in time to come they’ll be saying the same thing about The America.

Ultimately though, and with retrospect, the term Babylon best fits America.

Babylon means “the gate of the gods”, implying the entrance into a paradise. But Babylon is derived from Babel, which means confusion.

Using a Strong’s Concordance and taking the word back even further it derives from the meaning, to mix, to mingle, to fade.
.
.
.
.

The colonies were 90% British in 1790. But, again, that has nothing to do with the article. It’s what they did that is under critique here.

The Founding Fathers are, generously, the clowns of history. The assertion of the article is that their political ideas were bad. Their reasoning, unsound. Their actions, illogical and traitorous and ultimately destructive. They stabbed their own Civilization, their own people, in the back.

If our race survives into the future, it will judge them harshly for their actions. It will find them guilty.
More that that, it will curse the day they were born.

Take a look at ‘Londonistan’ toady. George Washington is the father of that too.
Look at France, with the chaos of torched cars via the dark hordes running rampant. Jefferson is the author of that.

Smart in many ways, yes, but ultimately driven not by wisdom but by the conceit and comfort of the the bureaucratic mentality. They saw themselves as merchants first, men second.

The modern leftist multicultural West was essentially"founded” by America’s revolutionaries. It is upon the principles articulated (and successfully enacted -they weren’t the first to try it-) in The America’s founding documents that the Global Village/New World Order now stands.
How often have we heard America called ‘The leader of the Free World’?
Think about the implications of that and where it is intended to lead.

Have other nations exploited that and made it worse? Yep. The Chosenites moved right into leadership positions and now hold aloft the red, white and blue on their conquest of prejudice, discrimination and identity.
But that’s another subject. Their actions cannot be called traitorous as they are not of us. They are an other nation. They are the wolves among the sheep.

But the mentality resides in a few amongst our own and has throughout history. Alexander the Great, comes to mind. We may admire his military genius, but think about what he applied it towards.
Ditto Caesar and Napoleon.

.
.
.
.
What of the White Nations in The America?

As I implied in the piece there is not much left of them, though they still exist, in ever decreasing numbers, in some places.
And I say again, some mixture can happen and be absorbed into the greater gene pool. Such as an Irishman marrying into an Anglo-Saxon family in an Anglo-Saxon community. His child will marry an Anglo-Saxon and so will that child’s child and so on till the Irish blood is, essentially, no more.

As for the hopelessly mixed, well, they’re still part of the White race. It might be said that they lack the title (family-name, i.e nation) of legitimacy due to the philandering (social engineering) of George, Tom, Benjamin and the rest, but they’re still a part of us.

So unless we know our family tree fairly well it would be inadvisable to get too cocky over applying those titles to the self.

Nordic isn’t a nation either. And many of the Scotch-Irish were, in fact, English.

As it is, we’re going down faster than the Titanic. The point of the article is to examine some of the things that are causing us to sink, and then not do that anymore.

...

Posted by arch on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:06 | #

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa02.htm

The Federalist No. 2
Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
John Jay

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:57 | #

Ok so you are opposed to it in principle and believe it’s illegitimate and “incoherent.”

I’m not opposed to you doing it.

I do understand. I’m just saying you’re going to have to fight for it.

Any offer to “equitably carve this up” would be a generous gesture on our part.

How so?

Talk of “violence” is just bluster, a bluff to stave off the actual test of violence and buy time as you fuck us out of existence.

You’re mad that I have a Nordic wife? Well, she votes BNP and I passed her test. Apparently, you guys aren’t on message enough. I’m not trying to fuck you out of existence. Besides, it is bigotry on your part to insist that two people coming together doesn’t fuck both peoples out of existence. I’m trying to make something new. I have no interest in aligning myself with the Italians, the French Canadians, the Scots-Irish, the English or anybody else.

Not much of a surprise that a Sicilian mongrel with a Filipino child would tell the founding stock to go to hell. But why the scare quotes around the word founding?

I’m not Sicilian anything and I’m giving the kid up for adoption. I wasn’t born with my boots on. I’ve since realized the errors of my ways.

The English have England. I wish them the best there. I love the English (although I wish the Nazis ended up being rulers of the continent). America is my country though.

Because of what I wrote in the preceding paragraph. I didn’t mean there was no such thing as founding stock.

Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:45 | #

Such persons should remember that the
overwhelming majority of Nordics live outside of Ger-
many, being mainly found in Scandinavia, the Anglo-
Saxon countries, northern France, the Netherlands, and
Baltic Russia. To let Teuton propaganda gull us into
thinking of Germany as the Nordic fatherland is both
a danger and an absurdity.

Desmond Jones puts a great deal of stock in early 20th century American literature which predates even the discovery of DNA. Where is the evidence for this ‘Nordic’ vs ‘Alpine’ stuff anyway? Nordicists just pick a phenotype, say it is ‘Nordic’ and go on their merry way pronouncing this European people ‘Nordic’ and that European people ‘non-Nordic’ based on frequency of this phenotype within their respective populations. It is ridiculous.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:22 | #

Phenotype analysis is progressing along with genotype analysis. The reality of race is no longer deniable and the reality of intra-racial groupings is becoming less deniable all the time. It is only a matter of time before the reality of intra-racial facial types is no longer deniable.

Enjoy your “there’s been too much admixture to recognize distinct types” bullshit while you can.

Posted by arch support on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:42 | #

Thanks go to arch on November 30, 2010, 11:06 AM | #

That clears things up quite a bit.

Although Narrator is dead-on about what a nation is or is not, I think he is a bit unfair to the Founding Fathers. After all, they were just men. They had no special precognition abilities. Ergo, how could they possibly know in advance the wreckage Twentieth century philosophies such as postmodernism, deconstructionism, multiculturalism, cultural-Marxism etc. etc. would have on what was meant to be a white Christian nation? Of course they couldn’t. To think otherwise would be a bit presumptuous.

Posted by Roland on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:28 | #

Although Narrator is dead-on about what a nation is or is not, I think he is a bit unfair to the Founding Fathers. After all, they were just men. They had no special precognition abilities. Ergo, how could they possibly know in advance the wreckage Twentieth century philosophies such as postmodernism, deconstructionism, multiculturalism, cultural-Marxism etc. etc. would have on what was meant to be a white Christian nation? Of course they couldn’t. To think otherwise would be a bit presumptuous.

Of course the point here does not concern whether the Founding Fathers had good intentions. The issue concerns the logical conclusions of the order they imposed on America.

Old Republic romanticism obfuscates truly informative analyses, such as the Narrator’s post above.

Posted by arch support on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 19:13 | #

Of course the point here does not concern whether the Founding Fathers had good intentions. The issue concerns the logical conclusions of the order they imposed on America.

Yes it does. Remember, Hitler had “good intentions” too.

How could anybody know beforehand that the order the Third Reich imposed on Europe would fail thus produce its logical conclusion: An opportunity for Marxists to descend down like a never-ending swarm of locusts upon white ethnocentrists?

Now what do we do?

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:22 | #

The modern leftist multicultural West was essentially"founded” by America’s revolutionaries.

This is such nonsense. The modern leftist multicultural unWest was founded by jews in Central Europe starting around the 1880s and was transplanted to the Anglosphere when they were chased out of continental Europe by the Nazis. There’s nothing complicated about it. It’s just stealth tribal warfare.

The American founding fathers dealt with the situation they found themselves in with a compromise based on forming a new nation from a mixture of very closely related national groups i.e Anglo-Americans bringing the Dutch etc into a new “us” called American. It’s a more peaceful version of what happened in Britain where the English brought the Welsh and Scots into a joint Britain because they shared the same small island. In America’s case that proposition nation idea was one of the cuts in the skin they used to get into the bloodstream but there’ll always be something.

Simply put if you believe this is all down to Washington or the Enlightenment or Protestantism then you believe that jews didn’t do this in Babylon, Sumer, Ancient Egypt, Rome and the Ottoman Empire. They did do this in Babylon, Sumer, Ancient Egypt, Rome and the Ottoman Empire. The form varies because they use whatever cuts in the skin are available but it’s just simple straightforward tribal warfare conducted by stealth.

Posted by Luke on Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:34 | #

This is just stupid. I started to read it but after a few paragraphs I just read perhaps the biggest stretch in English that I have heard for a very long time.

What is a nation? http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nation

Don’t go off trying make your own dictionary to fit the needs of your argument. Please use the term in context. When Tea Party members say “Take back our nation” they are referring to the specific definition of the state, a piece of land that belongs to a people, a place.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:04 | #

At the time of Washington and Jefferson, the US was overwhelmingly Aryan and mostly of that group’s Nordic subset. In the ancient Greek sense of the word, ‘natio’, the US was a nation

The Indian savages occupied what was largely unsettled territory and, of course, could not be counted as citizens. Also outside the ambit of US citizenship were the Black slaves whose future capability in the matter of ruining white - built societies was seldom speculated upon.

There were some Jews and it seems that few people in government other than Ben Franklin saw the potential threat of these nation -wrecking racial aliens.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 01:44 | #

Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world - the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?

...how grandly does democracy trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honor anyone who professes to be the people’s friend!

These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.

By degrees the anarchy finds a way into private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them.
How do you mean?
I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom; and the foreigner is equal with the citizen, and the citizen with the foreigner.

And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority, and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.
-Plato, The Republic

Posted by Armor on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:04 | #

The Narrator: “A nation is NOT a place” / “nation is another word for ethnic Group”

In other words: Orion! Our race is our nation.

I agree with that philosophy. But I would say that a nation is a political construction based on history, not only on genetic kinship. There is necessarily some arbitrariness in the way different ethnic groups have been separated by history. There is no sudden genetic difference as you cross the border between England and Scotland. But there used to be a sudden change in the style of government, in the traditions and social arrangements. It’s true that England and Scotland are genetically different on average, but it would still be true if the border had been set 100 miles farther to the South. The location of the border is a result of history, it is something political, not a simple result of genetics. Even so, people who live 10 yards away from the border may have a strong sense of loyalty to their nation. Within England, there was enough genetic diversity from North to South to form more than one single nation, but the English finally “decided” to be only one nation. It could be said that the English accept the proposition that they constitute one single nation, distinct from Scotland and Wales. They are a proposition nation. The English nation-state used to work like a universal system where everybody was supposed to share the same values, even though people were not exactly the same from one end of the kingdom to the other.

In fact, I think the neocon propaganda about the proposition nation is complete nonsense. I cannot change my nationality. I cannot become English or American by saying that I believe in their values. But even so, I think my national identity is partly political and not simply based on genetic kinship.

The Narrator: “What would the Founding Fathers think of The America today?”

They would be appalled !

Posted by Notus Wind on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 06:25 | #

James: Man was forged in nature…

I can accept this sort of statement if we’re talking about primitive man, but in the case of us moderns the emphasis has to be on “was”.

Yes, there is a significant part of our [modern] being that was forged in nature and remains with us still, but I think it would be hard to sustain the claim that such is the end of the story. If nothing else, our genetic lines come to us after centuries of ideological conditioning, feudalism, and industrialization - the influences of the natural world, they are not.

Posted by Silver on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:15 | #

In the ancient Greek sense of the word, ‘natio’, the US was a nation

In the “ancient Greek” sense of the word. I see. So what did it mean differently in Greek from its original Latin?

Although Narrator is dead-on about what a nation is or is not,

He’s not dead-on at all. Nations can be founded. New nations can come into being. And they can be founded “from scratch” provided they’re supplied with appropriate genetic components and historical antecedents—the founding occurs the minute sufficient numbers come to see themselves in a new light and determine to take action on that basis.

Next, danj is a pathetic bitch whose position amounts to, “Racialism is good and proper and ethnostates are the best human arrangement—but only if none dare consider themselves whiter than me and opt to exclude me on that basis.”

Gorham is essentially correct yet it is my experience that people like him can seldom bring themselves to agree with or work with racial others who see circumstances the same way and propose similar solutions. Why is that, Gorham? Is it the racial loathing, the despair, the perception you’re being played for a fool? I can’t quite put my finger on it.

Lastly, the commentary on this thread is proof positive of Desmond’s observation, “So much bullshit, so little time.”

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:20 | #

I think he is a bit unfair to the Founding Fathers. After all, they were just men. They had no special precognition abilities.

Posted by arch support on November 30, 2010, 04:42 PM

That’s true, they didn’t. But consider what they set out to do and then did. They set out to overthrow the order of the ages and knew the whole world was watching them and would see them as an example.

They very obviously didn’t see themselves as “just men”. They considered themselves wiser than all of the scholars, philosophers, princes, kings, theologians, etc… who had lived in the ages before them.
.
.
.
.

This is such nonsense. The modern leftist multicultural unWest was founded by jews in Central Europe starting around the 1880s and was transplanted to the Anglosphere

Posted by Wandrin on November 30, 2010, 07:22 PM |

I spoke to that in the article. They moved in and exploited an already unfolding situation. They had a lot of power and influence in Europe (think Disraeli) , but it always managed to be kept in check. But once in America they found the vessel for which they could assail the entire Western world.

Unfortunately there is a percentage of White Western Men who are inclined towards disaster and despising their own.
Case in point, http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mutiny_on_the_bounty/
.
.
.
.

It’s a more peaceful version of what happened in Britain where the English brought the Welsh and Scots into a joint Britain because they shared the same small island.

Posted by Wandrin on November 30, 2010, 07:22 PM

It’s not the same thing. Those were ancient nations who came under the authority of one king. The act of union did not create the Scottish people, for example. The nations were not blended. In fact even today the Scottish, Welsh and English remain, to a degree, genetically distinct. And this despite residing for centuries on a small island the size of Oregon.
.
.
.
.

This is just stupid. I started to read it but after a few paragraphs I just read perhaps the biggest stretch in English that I have heard for a very long time.

What is a nation? http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nation

Don’t go off trying make your own dictionary to fit the needs of your argument.

Posted by Luke on November 30, 2010, 09:34 PM

You make my point Luke. Go back and go to the etymology link I provided in the article. It reads,

c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) “nation, stock, race,” lit. “that which has been born,” from natus, pp. of nasci “be born” (Old L. gnasci; see genus). Political sense has gradually taken over from racial meaning

In the modern West Definitions of words do (too easily) change due to imposing cultural shifts. ) Hence the theme of the article! That’s why I went to the Etymology of the word.
.
.
.
.

When Tea Party members say “Take back our nation” they are referring to the specific definition of the state, a piece of land that belongs to a people, a place.

Posted by Luke on November 30, 2010, 09:34 PM

Which is one of the problems with the Tea Party. They’re far to willing to play by the rules the radical left appoints to them. What happens when the Tea Party White Uncle Tom’s find themselves a minority in “a piece of land that belongs to a people” that are majority black or hispanic or muslim or what have you? That is going to happen in a few years.

If you choose to redefine nation as “a politically organized body of people under a single government”, then don’t complain when that political body changes demographics and thus policies and makes up all new definitions to words to fit the new meme.

You will have built your house upon sand.
.
.
.
.

But I would say that a nation is a political construction based on history, not only on genetic kinship.

Posted by Armor on December 01, 2010, 05:04 AM

Well, nothing is 100%. But as I said, small admixtures from cousin groups can be absorbed into ALREADY EXISTING NATIONS.
The key point here being that even non-arbitrary lines on a map cannot make a new nation, as there are no new nations.
.
.
.

I’m surprised nobody has brought up Switzerland though.

...

Posted by Silver on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:27 | #

They would be appalled !

How can you possibly be so sure of that?

How can you can be sure some wouldn’t conclude that the thoughts that shaped the formation of present day America aren’t logical extensions of or, despite any initial impressions to the contrary, improvements on the rational reasoning they themselves employed?

“They’d be appalled at what we’ve become!” sayeth the nationalist. This is considered great propaganda. And given the (self-imposed) constraints of the nationalist mind it’s not difficult to see why they’d think so. Evidently the rest of the nation doesn’t quite agree, but don’t think for a second that that might cause the nationalist to vary his approach.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:30 | #

A large tribe formed of persons related by ancestry and birth is a nation and the US fitted that description in the time of Washington and Jefferson. Euromexicans like Silver may have difficulty with this concept.

The ancient Greek sense of ‘ethnos’ is the same as the ancient Roman one.

Posted by Philip on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:44 | #

It certainly was the case:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/11/7-ways-mafia-made-us-better-place.html</em> - Gorham

Ah, better be careful there quoting an article written by (Thaddeus Russell) a self-described “pot smoking’, ‘socialist revolutionary’, ‘egg-head white boy” that needed “black and gay cultures that showed me a way out of the self-imposed limitations of being white and straight” -
I was raised by pot-smoking, nudist, socialist revolutionaries as an egghead white boy in black neighborhoods in Berkeley and Oakland. I nearly flunked eighth grade and finished high school with a C average. Then I went to the anarchist, ultra-hippy Antioch College in Ohio, which accepted all their applicants, didn’t give grades, and didn’t have a history department.

...

I showed them that during the American Revolution drunkards, laggards, prostitutes, and pirates pioneered many of the freedoms and pleasures we now cherish—including non-marital sex, interracial socializing, dancing, shopping, divorce, and the weekend—and that the Founding Fathers, in the name of democracy, opposed them. I argued not only that many white Americans envied slaves but also that they did so for good reason, since slave culture offered many liberating alternatives to the highly repressive, work-obsessed, anti-sex culture of the early United States. I demonstrated that prostitutes, not feminists, won virtually all the freedoms that were denied to women but are now taken for granted. ...

This was not the standard left-liberal perspective my students had heard, and it certainly wasn’t a conservative one, either. It was informed by an unlikely mix of influences, including the hippies and other cultural radicals I had encountered in my early life, black and gay cultures that showed me a way out of the self-imposed limitations of being white and straight, and libertarians who caused me to question the commitment to freedom among the left that I had been born into and which employed me as a professor.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/132675.html

62

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:56 | #

JB,

That must be why Switzerland is always being conquered by everyone from the Romans to the Nazis.

Switzerland is under the protection of the NATO (i.e., America’s) nuclear umbrella and standing army. If this were not so, it would be ripe for the plucking.

What exactly is the difference between a standing army and a highly trained and armed populace

Standardization and professionalism of training; professional and established chain of command; budget; speed and efficiency of mobilization; quality and quantity of militarily relevant research and development; militarily specific educational institutions; professional military scholars/intellectuals which are publicly funded for the refinement of the craft of war. Need I continue?

deprived of all other means of livelihood so as to keep their mercenary fees low

Assuming military service is compulsory for all able bodied men of a certain age then one cannot say it is ‘unfair’ in that all such men, whether scions of the rich or the poor, must participate lest they reap the consequences. That they will be paid a less than an exorbitant fee for a few years’ military service would be considered a portion of the sacrifice for the nation entailed in their duty to the nation. It would be their duty to see that the military budget is not bankrupted by demanding too many zeros on their paychecks.

MGLS aka Mr. Miggles,

Alright, McCulloch uses “Nordish” as interchangeable with “Nordic” and “Northern European”.

63

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:43 | #

CC: You and the guys who get the US into “conflicts” in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan are clearly much greater military geniuses than the rank amateurs they engage. I can see why you claim that NATO and the US nuclear shield explains the history of successful invasions of Switzerland.

Are you still reading those books by Nazi generals?

64

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 08:47 | #

For that slender, Euromexican sliver of consistent nitwittery who thinks nation - building is likely amidst racial diversity, here’s a place to air your theories :

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/

65

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:00 | #

If a Swiss Army General had been consulted by Lyndon Johnson about the sorry debacle that was the Vietnam War, it is likely that the soldier would have pointed out that America was fighting die - hard Nationalism and not Communism, the former concept being as understandable to the Swiss as the latter was to LBJ’s Jewish masters.

66

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:27 | #

JB:

You and the guys who get the US into “conflicts” in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan are clearly much greater military geniuses than the rank amateurs they engage.

I do not condone superfluous imperial wars such as you mention.

I can see why you claim that NATO and the US nuclear shield explains the history of successful invasions of Switzerland.

A standing army would be more effective in repelling an invading army in the first place. Once a nation is occupied, it is only a matter of whether or not the occupying power has the means and the will to crush with sufficient brutality an insurgency. The Bolsheviks did eventually crush Russian resistance to their rule, did they not?

Are you still reading those books by Nazi generals?

David Irving is the source I trust.

67

Posted by MOB on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:11 | #

As a supporter and a subscriber to David Irving’s mailing list, I received these two messages recently. I already own many Irving books with extras for my grandsons. One of the best videos that I own features David Irving and Mark Weber—two entirely different styles, both superb.

MOB
_____________________________________

I am down here writing, and I’m glad to say I am now producing one ready-for-print chapter of “Himmler” every three or four days. It is going rather well. (I’ll be happy to give you a private view of a chapter if you’d like to comment on it.)

At the same time we are re-printing some twenty of my earliest books and frankly they look better than when they first came out around thirty years ago, for example “The War Between the Generals” and my “Hermann Göring” biography. You can see the full list of these Classic re-issues of my books on my new bookstore. You probably can not get them in your local Barnes & Noble.

We’ll be happy to rush them to you from Indianapolis, and as you’re on my supporters’ list you’ll get 15 percent off your entire purchase if you use the special offer code SUPPORTER on the shopping cart page.

__________________-
Big Christmas discounts on David Irving books until the end of the season!

Dear M….,

May I be the first to wish you a happy Christmas (I’m old-fashioned; I refuse to say “Happy Holidays!”). And: I promise I won’t write again before my Spring 2011 speaking tour of the USA.

I am still down here working on “Himmler”. I’m making good progress. I’ll have this book available by next Christmas. The interest in it is huge.

For this Christmas, we already have some new treats. Just off the presses is our reprint of “The Virus House,” my history of Hitler’s atomic bomb project. And we have “Uprising!”, my book about the dramatic and bloody 1956 Hungarian revolt against the Jewish and Red leadership; we’ve had many requests for it.

Click the bar at the bottom to see what else I have now put back in print. My book about the infamous Morgenthau Plan is now available for the first time in English—all the secret documents and photos. We can now also offer my foreign language books, and several hard-to-find titles by other approved authors.

————————————————————————————————————————
WE ARE starting our Christmas sale discounts early. The sale has already begun and we’re offering many of my books at their lowest prices ever. They make great gifts! These special low prices will remain in effect through January 10th, but move fast, as our stocks of some titles are already running low. Please stop by IrvingBooks.com today and browse around.

You can use your card or PayPal, or even select check or cash as your payment option when you check out.

Yours sincerely

You can use your card or PayPal, or email my girl at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) if you would like to use check, cash, or money order.

68

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:44 | #

Euromexicans like Silver may have difficulty with this concept.

So now he’s a euromexican. Thats a new one. The guy is a regular United Nations unto himself.

69

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:51 | #

I see earlier someone, who Ive never noticed before, called ‘John Doe’ was having a go at our Dan.

Back off John, you’ve obviously taken the trouble to dig into Dan’s story but then casually attack him on other remarks taken out of context. Deliberate or careless?

Thing is Dan has been commenting here for ages, he seems sound to me, but you seem to have popped out of nowhere and here you are sowing dissent. Thanks for that.

70

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:55 | #

Arch pointed out the Truth, in contrast to the fallacies presented here.

And here is where this article (which actually starts out ok) falls apart:

“but if all religion and all morality should be over-thrown with it, what advantage will be gained? The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we are all children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other’s self love.

-page 619, ‘John Adams’ by David McCullough

Such is not the sentiments of a man residing (physically or otherwise) in the warring ghettos of the real world amongst his kin. No, that is the pompous affirmation of a man safely ensconced in an ivory tower, from whose lofty perch even Sao Paolo must look lovely at midnight when its dim and dirty lights glow luminously, masking the chaos, disease and death in the streets below. From such a distance joy and sorrow are indistinguishable and all peoples look alike … and they tend to look like ants.”

Nations are BOTH ethnic groups, and religious groups, and those that deny the second, cannot hold to the former, for eventually, it either degenerates into some sort of pseudo-nazism, or neo-pseudo-paganism.

The Christian conception of man is that he is (at the very least) a bi-partite individual, comprised of a body (race) AND a soul (religion). There are those (myself included) who also believe that the indwelling Holy Spirit in the person of a believer, give a ‘tri-partite’ nature to man, as evinced by Christ, the ‘Second Adam.’ That last (For the record) is only a possession of Christians - so, those who are not, cannot even begin to understand a culture based on it.

I say this to point out that, while you quote Adams, you ignore the God he references, to give his philosophical/statecraft notions any bedrock. If you do that, you are no better than the Jews who lie and obfuscate, all in order to merely destroy and engender anarchy, rather than give a solution to the problem. Or you are desirous of returning to paganism, which is not an option for a Christian.

What I mean is, while Adams was correct, in that he saw all WHITE [Christian] Europeans as ‘brethren’ and therefore more than able candidates for inclusion in the ‘new’ nation of these United States, he (at the same time) still agreed with his father, than the Negro was to be counted (and accounted) only ‘3/5ths of a [White] person,’ as far as the ‘aristocracy’ of America was concerned.

That was also why Jews and other detrius were kept ‘beyond the pale’ of voting and office holding for so long in the nascent nation, and it was only the IMPORTATION of Jewish Marxism via the arch-fiend whom you reference writing to Lincoln, (the arch traitor to our nation) that the Jewish efforts at the slave trade, and the almost two centuries’ of fighting that eventually only allowed fractional reserve banking via the Federal [Jewish] Reserve Bank, only in 1913, not 1713, changed our nation from within- first in 1860, then in 1913, again in 1933, 1940, and 1963.

So, when you posit that the Founding Fathers would think modern mulatto-ized, and multiculturalized Sao Paolo a ‘haven of democracy’ or even better still, ‘a nation of equals,’ you don’t even have the foggiest clue as to what constituted an American to the Founding Fathers. The British knew who they were fighting against in the 1770’s- they called the whole American ‘War for Independence’ a PRESBYTERIAN affair- in essence, a “SCOTS-IRISH” Calvinist RELIGIOUS rebellion against a German foreigner King, and a Parliament who did NOT want to see them as ‘Equals,’ (along with a tepid Church of England) rather than a polyglot ‘melting pot’ that is only a later, jewish (Emma Lazarus) encrustation OVER THE DYING Racial Body, known as the USA.

It was, (in fact as well as indeed) a White, European, English-speaking, Christian (and even Calvinist) set of Englishmen who ASSIMILATED the Dutch, Germans, Irish, and (eventually) Italians, Scandinavians, etc. into our NATION. You play fast and loose with the fact that, even as late as 1965, the LAW was only to ALLOW WHITES into our nation. It was Jew Celler who started the whole bastardization of our NATION, to allow/permit scum such as the Obamanation and the whole lot of the ‘Other’ to defile our soil, and our women.

No, America is being besieged from without and within, and screeds like this one (and Tim Wise’s BS) only point out to those of us who know the TRUTH, that is was BECAUSE we were willing to be a White, Christian nation, that all of this ENVY has befallen us- it is also our right and our duty, even to the point of war, to restore it again to be what it once was. We merely fell asleep at the wheel, and actually began to believe (in our complacency) that all races/religions/nations were like us in our desire for Good and our Altruism. Barack woke many of us up to this fact, and, if the anger over the mid-term elections is any indicator, we may actually work to RESTORE that ‘white Christian nation’ once more.

Deo Volent.

71

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:00 | #

Next, danj is a pathetic bitch whose position amounts to, “Racialism is good and proper and ethnostates are the best human arrangement—but only if none dare consider themselves whiter than me and opt to exclude me on that basis.”

That isn’t my position. My position is although I feel like ethnonationalism is the ideal human arrangement, I’m not giving up America to any arrangement that doesn’t directly benefit me without violence. I really don’t care if there are people that consider themselves whiter than me and would like their own state but I would counsel them that they better be prepared for resistance if they try to plant their flag in my country.

Nobody has any “right” to any plot of land in my book. The only right people have is the right to fight for survival.

72

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:02 | #

It’s not the same thing. Those were ancient nations who came under the authority of one king. The act of union did not create the Scottish people, for example. The nations were not blended. In fact even today the Scottish, Welsh and English remain, to a degree, genetically distinct. And this despite residing for centuries on a small island the size of Oregon.

It all depends on one’s definition of “distinct” now doesn’t it?

73

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:42 | #

Fr. John,

let the following sink in a spell. I say that not condescendingly, but really think on it for a few….,

From George Washington to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport

Gentlemen:

While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.

If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy?a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.

May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants?while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington, 1790

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=21
.
.
.
Again, from that letter, “The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy?a policy worthy of imitation.”
.
.
.
.
It all depends on one’s definition of “distinct” now doesn’t it?

Posted by danielj on December 01, 2010, 02:02 PM

Distinctly speaking, what do you mean?

...

74

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:48 | #

But once in America they found the vessel for which they could assail the entire Western world.

I overstated. I agree that these cracks in the skin are important. My problem is their relative importance compared with the media and education poisoning of white children.

This is the kind of thing put in front of young kids to watch now:

http://www.watchsouthparkonline.net/season-1/

Earlier generations were fed Star Trek aka the UN in space.

This is how they’re psychologically attacked in the schools:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1020&bih=567&q=online+teaching+resources+holocaust&aq=f&aqi;=&aql;=&oq;=&gs;_rfai=

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1003&bih=567&q=online+teaching+resources+slavery&aq=f&aqi;=&aql;=&oq;=&gs;_rfai=

In the UK they’ve twisted the history of the Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Norman invasions into parables of Britain always being multicultural.

This genocidal war against the west is mostly being waged against white children as they grow up.

Personally i think that’s a much bigger factor.

So to me the two big causes were/are:

1) Not having nations that incorporated the scientific truth that Diversity Kills into their immigration and citizenship laws. If we survive, this is something that can be rectified in the future. Whatever form of future government individuals prefer i think all of them will need to incorporate Diversity Kills type ideas from HBD and EGI.

(You can blame this on Washington if you want but it happened in Ottoman Turkey too and Ancient Egypt and… etc)

2) The old elites allowing the takeover of media and education by a hostile alien group. To my mind this was mainly a foolish complacency partially caused by the elites often having a separate educational path. This would be cured in future by 1) as it should be impossible for a non-assimilating separate ethnic group to exist in a nation.

Simply put if you allow a clever, and particularly verbally clever, cohesive non-assimilating ethnic group into your nation and that group reaches a cretain, quite low, percentage of the total population then they will **** your country up. Guaranteed.

If the cohesive, non-assimilating ethnic group is less clever then they need to be a bigger percentage to cause the same effect. This argument doesn’t just apply to jews. jews are just a special case of a general principle. If you want the best for your people then you need to maintain a certain level of genetic closeness.

75

Posted by Armor on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:14 | #

The Narrator: “Particularly on the conservative side we see the notion put forward that The America is somehow far adrift from her foundational roots, as laid down by the Founding Fathers.”

America already existed before 1776. I don’t think the “Founding Fathers” claimed to have created a new nation. Even so, political independence helped Americans change the way they considered themselves. So, national identity is not purely about ancestry. I think the “founding fathers” were conservative, even though they fought for independence from England. It would be interesting to know what they had to say about the French Revolution of 1789, which really was a leftist revolution.

“Nation
c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem”

When I first started to read English, I noticed that Newsweek used the name ‘nation’ where I would have said ‘country’ or ‘state’. As if every African state represented an African nation, for example. It is a politically motivated distortion of language.

In fact, a nation is a European thing. It is meant to designate a European nation, as compared to other European nations. In Africa, they only have tribes. In China, they don’t care as much as we do about the general interest of the nation. The nation-notion, which is not very clear and stable in the first place, cannot really be exported to other parts of the world. And of course, the idea of a multiracial nation is a joke.

“Western Europe has been under the American dominion for 60+ years, and in that time has rapidly slid into the gutter culturally, socially and demographically.”

In France, leftism has not disappeared since 1789. It isn’t simply a matter of American influence.

Narrator: “The modern leftist multicultural West was essentially"founded” by America’s revolutionaries.”
Wandrin: “The modern leftist multicultural unWest was founded by jews in Central Europe starting around the 1880s”

Today’s Jewish activists are also responsible for spreading the absurd claim that the Founding Fathers launched the idea of America as a multiracial society.

Wandrin: “The American founding fathers dealt with the situation they found themselves in with a compromise based on forming a new nation from a mixture of very closely related national groups i.e Anglo-Americans bringing the Dutch etc into a new “us” called American.”

Such a compromise could be found even in England, before 1945. The population is rarely completely homogeneous.

W: “In America’s case that proposition nation idea was one of the cuts in the skin they used to get into the bloodstream but there’ll always be something. “

In France, the 1789 revolutionaries insisted on “equality”. It means, for example, that provincial parliaments were abolished, and everyone had to learn the French language spoken around Paris. Now, <s>Jewish activists</s> French journalists speaking on the French state radio will say that French society is based, since 1789, on the republican idea of equality and miscegenation. But in fact, the 1789 ideologues never said anything about race mixing.

76

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:12 | #

CC writes: “A standing army would be more effective in repelling an invading army in the first place. Once a nation is occupied, it is only a matter of whether or not the occupying power has the means and the will to crush with sufficient brutality an insurgency.”

The Swiss certainly are crushed compared to any other nation in the Eurosphere. Score another one for CC’s military genius!

CC writes: “The Bolsheviks did eventually crush Russian resistance to their rule, did they not?”

Yeah, I forgot how keen the Czar was on the Swiss as a role model for his peasants. Thanks for reminding me!

CC writes: “David Irving is the source I trust.”

A true pioneer of fourth generation warfare theory, that Irving…

77

Posted by Hamish on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:03 | #

The Swiss certainly are crushed compared to any other nation in the Eurosphere. Score another one for CC’s military genius!

What part of they were shielded by a nuclear umbrella don’t you understand?

Yeah, I forgot how keen the Czar was on the Swiss as a role model for his peasants. Thanks for reminding me!

The Captain’s point, which you are too stupid to understand, was that if an occupying power is willing to kill enough insurgents, which the Bolsheviks were, they’ll be able to crush resistance due to the natural advantages an organized army has over an guerrilla army.

78

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 23:33 | #

If nothing else, our genetic lines come to us after centuries of ideological conditioning, feudalism, and industrialization - the influences of the natural world, they are not.

No, JB is correct. Industrialization, for example, is the product of the reproductive differential, which is the product of natural selection.

“The natural genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others in their current environment…Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize populations for particular ecological niches…”

Clark’s work shows that this is why industrialization first occurred in the UK.

79

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 01 Dec 2010 23:50 | #

“The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy?a policy worthy of imitation.”

Yes but as an example, not to chase monsters or embrace favorite nations.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.

80

Posted by danielj on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:18 | #

Distinctly speaking, what do you mean?

As you suggest, it is all relative. Scots and Englishmen are closer to each other than they are to niggers. That’s it. Everybody knows this. It is a triviality.

81

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:09 | #

Hamish writes: “What part of they were shielded by a nuclear umbrella don’t you understand? “

My bad! Thanks for enlightening me about Operation Tannenbaum as described by that maven of fourth generation war theory, David Irving:
“The German invasion and occupation of Switzerland was placed on indefinite hold upon the receipt of intelligence that the US had extended its nuclear umbrella to Switzerland.”

I’m sure David Irving must have said something like that—at least in a private conversation with Captain Chaos.

Hamish writes:
if an occupying power is willing to kill enough insurgents, which the Bolsheviks were, they’ll be able to crush resistance due to the natural advantages an organized army has over an guerrilla army.

Yeah the Swiss are virtually the definition of a guerilla army. I should have known that from reading David Irving.

82

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:01 | #

Actually I probably shouldn’t be so hard on our local military theorists. After all, things are changing so fast that even fourth generation warfare is vulnerable to obsolecense. Who can expect them to keep up with such things?

83

Posted by Hamish on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:04 | #

My bad! Thanks for enlightening me about Operation Tannenbaum as described by that maven of fourth generation war theory, David Irving:

The Nuclear Umbrella protected the Swiss from the Soviets.

The reason the Germans didn’t attack, most likely, was simply because they didn’t want to tie up troops in occupying it.

Yeah the Swiss are virtually the definition of a guerilla army.

Whenever a Country is overrun by a foreign power, what resistance exists takes the form of guerilla warfare.

If you think the Swiss could’ve kept the Germans out of Switzerland, thus making the transition to guerilla warfare unneeded, you’re probably crazy enough to believe such imbecilic bullshit as that Jews were sent into Europe by Middle Easterners and North Africans as part of some freakishly long-term group strategy.

84

Posted by Mr. X on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 04:52 | #

Are Captainchaos and Hamish on crack?

85

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 05:49 | #

No, they’re just into Being Toward Immortality—the syndrome is very similar though, so your confusion is understandable.

86

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 06:53 | #

Desmond: Industrialization, for example, is the product of the reproductive differential, which is the product of natural selection.

Not to mention the British Agricultural Revolution and the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution and…

87

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:15 | #

Wandrin, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, except for the comparison to Ottoman Turkey and Ancient Egypt.
Different races of people with different (inherent) sets of morality, temperament, psychology and so on.

We have to judge the events of our own peoples in our way.

.
.
.

America already existed before 1776.

Posted by Armor on December 01, 2010, 05:14 PM

Well, no, actually it didn’t. Even 1776 is not the birth year of The America. 1787/1788 would be when it drew its first breath, with the drawing up and ratification of the Constitution.

Many people forget or don’t know that the idea of revolution and a sundering from England was considered outrageous and preposterous by the majority right up into the 1770’s.

It was only after the merchant Elites decided to go forward with it that newspapers, schools, churches and the rest picked up the meme and started promoting it.

Propaganda via the elite was used to manipulate the masses into supporting the revolution.

Some things never change. In 2003 it was “weapons of mass destruction!!!” . In 1776 it was “the British are coming!!!”

Same old manipulative bullshit works again and again.

.
.
.
.

It would be interesting to know what they had to say about the French Revolution of 1789, which really was a leftist revolution.

Posted by Armor on December 01, 2010, 05:14 PM

It was generally supported by most. Ironically one of the dissenters who opposed the French Revolution was John Adams.
You can read about this and get a better feel for their responces to the French Revolution in David McCullough’s book ‘John Adams’.
Jefferson was a big supporter of it.
.
.
.
.
In France, leftism has not disappeared since 1789. It isn’t simply a matter of American influence.

Posted by Armor on December 01, 2010, 05:14 PM

As I previously said, the Founders weren’t the first to try it, but they were the first to succeed and implement it and saw the outcome as the inevitable course all peoples would take everywhere, which would lead to a worldwide utopia of prosperity and harmony.

I believe the phrase is delusions of grandeur.

On what he and the others had done, Adams said,

“It is the will of heaven that the two countries (England and America) should be sundered forever.”

.
.
...

88

Posted by Hawks on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:45 | #

James Bowery:

In one of your comments above you link to a PDF about Andrew Jackson and his conflict with banking interests. It says that Alexander Hamilton was a Jew and discusses the Rothschilds and Jewish banker conspiracies. How valid is this history presented in the PDF? I have heard about the Rothschild/Jewish banker conspiracies but never have been able to figure out how much stock to put in them. Are there any other good sources on this?

89

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:08 | #

Hawks, I can’t attest to every detail in that description of Jackson, Hamilton and the Rothschilds. What is clear is that the Rothschilds were and presumably are a “shrewd” business-clan who were firmly ensconced in their Jewish identity and a product of the selection pressures of relying on usury among the Jews of Christiandom. That they would be involved in the establishment of any national banking system in the west should be expected. That a business-clan would communicate within its own ranks and differentially within their ethnic identity in varying degrees of privacy is inevitable. More than that, given the nature of fiat currency—resting on state power—one should expect that the most expert of banking business-clans would focus on influencing politicians by using any means at their disposal.

With the loose definition applied to “conspiracy” by detractors of those who dare think objectively about Jews, it is hardly possible to conceive of anything but an “international Jewish conspiracy” being in operation for a long time. Hell, by that smear’s “definition” there is virtually no phenomenon in which living organisms are involved that isn’t a “conspiracy” of some sort.

It seems that Jews are the only ethnicity in the world that we are to unquestionably accept the proposition that they are not ethnocentric in the slightest—lest we be accused of being “paranoid”.

But the reality of the Jewish group organism is far more horrifying than that exhibited by the Rothschilds dynasty: There are selective pressures on the Jewish group organism to make its members the most virulent people of all peoples, and these selective pressures, unfortunately for everyone—including Jews—do not require any intent by anyone, let alone a cohesive plan of any elite group, to steadily increase Jewish virulence.

90

Posted by Hawks on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:58 | #

James Bowery:

I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment.

I asked because it’s difficult to get a definitive picture on these matters. When you try to delve into it and research further, you end up with elaborate details and narratives that radically depart from “mainstream” histories on the one hand, and fierce, despotic dismissals of these ideas as “conspiracy theories” and “crazy” on the other. It’s a great big fog of mystery and you’re not sure whether you’ve obtained a better picture of reality after passing through it. So I was wondering if there were other good sources on it.

91

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:06 | #

@Hawks

It’s natural for human groups with a competitive advantage to try and create empires. The only difference with diaspora jews is they are stateless imperialists. The banking system is the most important colony of the stateless jewish empire like India was the most important colony of the British one.

The mechanisms are the same. When the Zulu Empire wanted to expand the power of their tribe the first stage was a bunch of guys talking in a room. When the Aztec Empire wanted to expand the power of their empire the first stage was a bunch of guys talking in a room. The jewish “conspiracy” is also just a bunch of guys talking in a room. The only difference is that people are used to the idea of visible empires.

off-topic: useful and amusing link if you’re arguing with someone over race being social construct

http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=40&adwords=gounen_s_jews&langchange=en&gclid=CJXv6uOJzqUCFVBO4QodBg2RlQ

92

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:18 | #

@Hawks
I didn’t actually make the point i was trying to make.

It seems to me the whole jewish banking thing is pretty straighforward really but because they tend to operate by stealth people have a natural tendency to treat it like the Knights Templar or something and it all gets a bit esoteric.

93

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 00:05 | #

Not to mention the British Agricultural Revolution and the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution and…

Which is the beauty of the theory of evolution, it’s not faith based but falsifiable.

94

Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 01:14 | #

I asked because it’s difficult to get a definitive picture on these matters. When you try to delve into it and research further, you end up with elaborate details and narratives that radically depart from “mainstream” histories on the one hand, and fierce, despotic dismissals of these ideas as “conspiracy theories” and “crazy” on the other.

This is why it’s very important to discard the cranks. There’s plenty of information available from mainstream sources about Jewish history and influence. Most of this comes from the Jews themselves. Here’s a few I can think of:

The Chosen by Jerome Karabel
The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine
Jews in Weimar Germany by Donald Niewyk
How The Jews Invented Hollywood by Neil Gabler

The same basic theme that anyone will find in examining Jewish history is that they are an extremely nepotistic and competitive people. From the days of Joseph in Egypt the Jews were crowding out the opposition, taking over the market, and then installing their relatives into positions of power. Gabler’s book has many examples of this.

“nepotism… was everywhere in Hollywood.” -Neil Gabler, p208

“Anti-semitism”, as Dr. MacDonald astutely observed, is really a defense mechanism against Jewish power. For instance, maybe you’ve heard that a long time ago Ivy League universities had “quotas” designed to limit the Jewish student body. Did you know that in 1925 the proportion of Jewish freshmen at Harvard was 27.6%? They were only ~3% of the population! Did you know that Poland created similar quotas in the 1930s to deal with the same problem?

Here is an interesting passage in The Jewish Century:
“In Austria, of the 112 industrial directors who held more than seven simultaneous directorships in 1917, half were Jews associated with the great banks, and in interwar Hungary, more than half and perhaps as much as 90 percent of all industry was controlled by a few closely related Jewish banking families. In 1908-11, in Germany as a whole, jews made up .95 percent of the population and 21 percent of the richest families…”

Now, we must ask ourselves: If these Jews were so economically successful, why were all of the Communist movements in Europe led by Jews? The “German” revolution of 1918 was led by Jews such as Hugo Haase, Eugene Levine, Kurt Eisner, Karl Leibknecht, Rosa Luxembourg, etc.

95

Posted by danielj on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 01:15 | #

Which is the beauty of the theory of evolution, it’s not faith based but falsifiable.

Falsifiability fails its own test. Can any one form for me an adequately falsifiable understanding of falsifiability as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Evolution isn’t falsifiable. Everything is evidence for evolution because it must be evidence for evolution when operating under the naturalistic assumption.

96

Posted by danielj on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 01:18 | #

This is why it’s very important to discard the cranks. There’s plenty of information available from mainstream sources about Jewish history and influence. Most of this comes from the Jews themselves. Here’s a few I can think of:

Don’t forget the Jewish Tribal Review website which utilizes mostly Jewish sources.

Jewish Economic Influence

97

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 02:04 | #

Falsifiability fails its own test. Can any one form for me an adequately falsifiable understanding of falsifiability as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Straw men both.

Falsifiability defines the inherent testability of any scientific theory.

“A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.”

Thus it’s falsifiable.

Discussing this subject with you is pointless, however.

98

Posted by Berne AI on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 02:09 | #

Falsifiability fails its own test. Can any one form for me an adequately falsifiable understanding of falsifiability as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Falsifiability is a criterion for whether or not a statement falls under the purview of science. It is not intended as an arbiter of truth.

A handy list of critiques can be found at La Wik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Criticisms

99

Posted by Hawks on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 04:24 | #

Wandrin, Sam Davidson, danielj:

Thanks for the sources.

Regarding the Rothschilds specifically, how valid is something like the following which suggests the family fortune to be in the trillions?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-rothschild-story-a-golden-era-ends-for-a-secretive-dynasty-756388.html

“But in another way it marks out the continuation of an even older tradition - the ability of the family which has founded one of the world’s largest private banking dynasties to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family.”

100

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 05:56 | #

@Hawks

Regarding the Rothschilds specifically, how valid is something like the following which suggests the family fortune to be in the trillions?

I doubt it. Various branches of the family may *control* trillions acting as investors of other people’s money as well as their own like a kind of mega-Madoff.

How many jewish bankers are there in Wall St and London - 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, more than that? I don’t know but it’s a lot. It’s like the diamond trade in Holland. It’s controlled by jews but it’s a collection of families not just one. They’re very nepotistic as a group and they don’t like competition so they target certain industries, push out competitors by hook or by crook and then create monopolies for themselves. This requires numbers, not great numbers, but numbers.

If you’re running a family business and jews target you you have no chance because you won’t be competing with one jewish family you’ll be competing with them all. Gypsies are just the same.

One of the effects of people focusing on one family like the Rothchilds is it leads people to see the mechanism as spooky and supernatural and stops them seeing the very simple true explanation, and the explanation jews don’t want people to think about, which is that jews operate as a team.

If the Rothchilds didn’t exist jews would invent them.

101

Posted by danielj on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 06:37 | #

Falsifiability defines the inherent testability of any scientific theory.

Except for the theory that falsifiability defines the inherent testability of any scientific theory.

“A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.”

Thus it’s falsifiable.

I understand that it is falsifiable.

It is not intended as an arbiter of truth.

But it operates that way.

Is your name an anagram Al?

(I said 80’s cover band… Not “new wave” asshole…)

102

Posted by danielj on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 06:39 | #

Discussing this subject with you is pointless, however.

Seriously?

Have I demonstrated unteachability in any way since I’ve come here? I believer there was a thread where you me and somebody else with a ‘d’ moniker that I can’t quite remember right now were in great agreement as a result of your efforts with me. I’ll try to find it.

103

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 09:16 | #

Bowery,

It shouldn’t take much reflection on your part to see that deadly single combat is explosive in its potential to produce immoral consequences. At the risk of signally my hypocrisy in that I have advocated for National Socialism, I will say it none the less, and in the spirit of openness to rethinking my advocacy of NS due to the consequences it produced which I think - and always have thought - morally repugnant. To my eye your advocacy of single deadly combat as the cornerstone of social organization smacks of revenge fantasy; to in a future time, as you imagine it, strike a blow at the world as it is today, the world that did you ill (“corporate concubines” and so forth). That is hardly a good measuring stick to meet out one’s prescriptions with.

As for my central contention in opposition to the viability of single deadly combat, that it would be ultimately ineffective against an invading army prepared to use utmost ruthlessness, in putting down any insurgency, it stands self-evident and unassailable. Were Stalin’s armies to have invaded Europe - including Switzerland - and been prepared to inflict a dozen Holodomors in subduing her populace, there is naught those reared on single deadly combat could to about it save succumb, them and theirs. And if you cannot see that, I too must question what it is you like to smoke in addition to tobacco.

I write the above with all due respect for your high intelligence and unquestionable loyalty to our people.

104

Posted by Fr, John on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:56 | #

Narrator- What was the point of your reply to my post?

That Geo.W. was not infallible? I concur.
That the USA has (because of her Western liberal/filioquist mindset) long labored under the FALLACY that ‘all men (meaning all hominids, and not all Whites) are EQUAL’?
That our own altruism in the West, has been USED by the Jews and the ‘persecuted’ for their own ends, and our dispossession?

I agree with you on these points.
But saying that someone was wrong IN THE PAST, is no reason to deny the legitimacy of a certain POV in the PRESENT.

I am advocating a Christian Theocracy, the only alternative to chaos, rule by the “Xenos” and one which has its’ roots in Christendom. Not a ‘liberal democracy,’ not ‘anarchy,’ nor even a benign multicultural monarch, as QEII has become. No, I want a Christian Ruler in a Christian land, and death for all capital crimes, to ‘cleanse the land’ of the evil that is within it. I am the liberal/libertarian’s worst nightmare. I am for a government that is a Christian ALTERNATIVE to Sharia Law- via the LAW OF GOD.

So, I will find the nuggets in our past, and chuck the dung of all attempts to de-christianize my history. Just as ALL historians have done, for millennia. For (as you are well aware) the Victors write the History Books.

That the West has been derelict in doing her Sovreign’s duty, does not absolve the troops of obeying their KING.

I disagree with the idiotic presumption that Geo W. could address Jews (as moneylenders and the backbone of American slave trade, especially as coming from Newport, RI) on ‘fraternal terms,’ is in ANY WAY a commendation for their TAKING OVER OUR LAND, two hundred plus years later.

Do you not allow Christians to learn from their mistakes?

White, Anglo-Saxon Christians (or Deists, if you really, REALLY find the concept of Christendom distasteful) were in the MAJORITY in 1780, or whenever that letter was written. When you are the DOMINANT POWER, you can AFFORD to be lenient and laissez-faire. Remember the British EMPIRE in India?

It is only when the ‘darkies’ (or their Jewish masters) rise up, and it looks like an “Emperor Jones” scenario (like Obongo, today) that ALL BETS ARE OFF. Now is such a time, today, ‘if ye hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as at Meribah,’ as the Psalmist says.

Your comment does no good,and merely seeks to deny the very things I said you wanted to deny. So, you have proved nothing. You only corroborated my position that you are purposely ignoring the Christian element, as though one can fight a demonic religion (Bolshevism/Talmudism/Islamism) with NOTHING.

As Gary North has said time and time again, ‘You can’t fight something with nothing. There IS no Neutrality.’ You are either for God, and Christendom, or you are a part of the problem.

Guess which you are?

105

Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:09 | #

I am advocating a Christian Theocracy, the only alternative to chaos, rule by the “Xenos” and one which has its’ roots in Christendom. Not a ‘liberal democracy,’ not ‘anarchy,’ nor even a benign multicultural monarch, as QEII has become. No, I want a Christian Ruler in a Christian land, and death for all capital crimes, to ‘cleanse the land’ of the evil that is within it. I am the liberal/libertarian’s worst nightmare. I am for a government that is a Christian ALTERNATIVE to Sharia Law- via the LAW OF GOD.

I am sure that The Narrator is cooing with anticipation.

106

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:39 | #

...death for all capital crimes

Amazing. Who’da thunk?

107

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 03 Dec 2010 21:56 | #

Capital crimes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5cX_ncZLls

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9BNoNFKCBI&feature=related

108

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 00:34 | #

Thank you, Thorn.

You are a very sensitive soul. I wonder why I think of you as crowned with horns rather than thorns?

As long as we are waxing sentimental over the plight of Africans, allow me to make a contribution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbevHibKOtw&feature=player_embedded#!

Watch it while you can. I suspect it will be quickly circumcised from the body politic.

109

Posted by Hawks on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 04:11 | #

James Bowery said:

“But the reality of the Jewish group organism is far more horrifying than that exhibited by the Rothschilds dynasty: There are selective pressures on the Jewish group organism to make its members the most virulent people of all peoples, and these selective pressures, unfortunately for everyone—including Jews—do not require any intent by anyone, let alone a cohesive plan of any elite group, to steadily increase Jewish virulence.”

Wandrin said:

“How many jewish bankers are there in Wall St and London - 10,000, 50,000, 100,000, more than that? I don’t know but it’s a lot. It’s like the diamond trade in Holland. It’s controlled by jews but it’s a collection of families not just one. They’re very nepotistic as a group and they don’t like competition so they target certain industries, push out competitors by hook or by crook and then create monopolies for themselves. This requires numbers, not great numbers, but numbers.”

If it’s this pervasive, powerful, and out of control, how do we stop or resist it?

Reading the “conspiracy theory” stuff would give me an eerie, creepy feeling. Reading this makes me feel demoralized, helpless, hopeless, etc.

110

Posted by Wikileaks on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 06:59 | #

Hunter Wallace: Execute Julian Assange

111

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:41 | #

Here’s a podcast I found interesting. Its interview of Jeff Gates by Mark Glenn about wikileaks.

Wikileaks: The Tel Aviv Connection

112

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:07 | #

Narrator- What was the point of your reply to my post?

Posted by Fr, John on December 03, 2010, 02:56 PM

Fr. John, the article stressed two points,

1. The actual definition of a nation.

2. The impact the founding father’s experiment has had on basic identity within our people. How we discuss America, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers amongst ourselves is going to be different from how we discuss it with others. I’ve defended those thing as well, elsewhere, in another context.
It’s about identity.
It’s also a catch 22.
We’ve no choice but to support the Constitution at present as it still, somewhat, grants us certain privileges. But its’ like a 500 lb oxygen tank. It gives us air, but it’s also dragging us down to the depths of the sea.

The SS Titanic is sinking on what was always a doomed voyage.

We need to be careful about getting our identity to wrapped up with “being an American”.
.
.
.

I posted Washington’s letter to show that the mindset of “equaity”, which is literally destroying civilization all around us today, was at work back then and was the ultimate impetus for George and the rest’s social engineering scheme.
Even if their initial focus was on declaring merchants equal to kings, it was untrue, destructive and inevitably leads to all sorts of professed equality, all being fundamentally untrue. Merchants aren’t equal to kings. etc..

My point,

was that the jewish problem is centuries old. The founding fathers would have been very much aware of it. Most of them were businessmen. Do you think they were naive of the jews?
Jews were responsible for much of the slave trade. They were bringing slaves to the New World before Washington was born.
The fact that Washington, in the midst of the first year of the office he was defining, took the time to kiss jewish ass suggests that their power and influence was already solidified, even then.
George knew what he was doing. He was bowing down before Baal….to Mammon.

After all, jews are like muslims in that if you get one you get them all. Anger a muslim in Denmark and there will be blazes scorching cities in Germany, France, England and the rest. Same with jews.

You keep trying to move them and their influence up “200 years later”, but that doesn’t fly. Washington’s letter is exhibit A as to their power in the United States right at its founding.

Just 65 years after Washington stepped down as President the following occurred,

In 1862, in the heat of the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant initiated one of the most blatant official episodes of anti-Semitism in 19th-century American history. In December of that year, Grant issued his infamous General Order No. 11, which expelled all Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi

...

A group of Paducah’s Jewish merchants, led by Cesar Kaskel, dispatched an indignant telegram to President Lincoln, condemning Grant’s order as an “enormous outrage on all laws and humanity, ... the grossest violation of the Constitution and our rights as good citizens under it.” Jewish leaders organized protest rallies in St. Louis, Louisville and Cincinnati, and telegrams reached the White House from the Jewish communities of Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.

Cesar Kaskel arrived in Washington on Jan. 3, 1863, two days after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. There he conferred with influential Jewish Republican Adolphus Solomons, then went with a Cincinnati congressman, John A. Gurley, directly to the White House. Lincoln received them promptly and studied Kaskel’s copies of General Order No. 11 and the specific order expelling Kaskel from Paducah. The President told Halleck to have Grant revoke General Order No. 11.

Grant revoked the order three days later.

That’s in the 1860’s Fr. John, not the 1960’s.
.
.
.
.
As Gary North has said time and time again, ‘You can’t fight something with nothing. There IS no Neutrality.’ You are either for God, and Christendom, or you are a part of the problem.

Guess which you are?
Posted by Fr, John on December 03, 2010, 02:56 PM

The odd thing here is that I didn’t write about Christianity in the article.

But, if you wish,

the main problem with the idea of “Christendom” is that it actually contradicts the message of Jesus. He said his followers would always be a persecuted super-minority hated by ALL nations.

...
.
.
.
.

113

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:21 | #

If it’s this pervasive, powerful, and out of control, how do we stop or resist it?

It’s not that powerful. It’s only relatively powerful because non-jews only operate as a tribal group against external threats whereas jews operate internally. In effect jews occupy a psychological blind spot. As soon as a host populations realises (or remembers) this then the host population acts as a tribal group also and jews are expelled - again - as the only defense against jewish behaviour is expulsion.

Reading the “conspiracy theory” stuff would give me an eerie, creepy feeling. Reading this makes me feel demoralized, helpless, hopeless, etc.

Void comp.

114

Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:09 | #

Cesar Kaskel arrived in Washington on Jan. 3, 1863, two days after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. There he conferred with influential Jewish Republican Adolphus Solomons, then went with a Cincinnati congressman, John A. Gurley, directly to the White House. Lincoln received them promptly and studied Kaskel’s copies of General Order No. 11 and the specific order expelling Kaskel from Paducah. The President told Halleck to have Grant revoke General Order No. 11.

Grant revoked the order three days later.

Christ! I was aware of Grant’s order but I wasn’t aware that it was rescinded so quickly!

Isn’t it amazing how these Jews can easily access the most important man in government? America probably wouldn’t have developed nuclear weapons had a paranoid Jew by the name of Leo Szilard not managed to contact Roosevelt and persuade him of the “urgent” need to counter the German “nuclear threat.”
(See: http://eternalforms.angelfire.com/jews4.html )

115

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:48 | #

Hawks asks: “If it’s this pervasive, powerful, and out of control, how do we stop or resist it?”

The first priority is to survive Jewish virulence. Keep in mind this is a problem facing the majority of Jews themselves.

The second priority is to reverse the evolution of virulence in Jews. This requires understanding their evolution of virulence:

Jews are acutely aware that there is some kind of anti-Jew cycle, but their view of it is part of the cycle. Rather than seeing the “persecution” phase as something that differentially hits the less virulent Jews allowing the most virulent Jews to escape and reproduce, Jews are required by the most virulent Jews—assisted by most anti-Jews—to see themselves as a monolithic group embodying innocent greatness destined for persecution until they achieve their self-prophesied position as rulers of the world. They band together more tightly into a group organism which can then sacrifice parts of itself for the preservation of other parts which—it so happens—are the most virulent of their people.

Understanding even this small amount requires an enormous effort on the part of both Jews and anti-Jews alike, so I’ll leave the exposition there for the moment—although there are articles concerning this that go further available here at MR.

116

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:20 | #

Quoting myself,

as the only defense against jewish behaviour is expulsion.

Should be the only *simple* defense against jewish behaviour is expulsion.

I think James Bowery’s broader point is correct.

117

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 05 Dec 2010 05:26 | #

Thank you, Thorn.

You are a very sensitive soul. I wonder why I think of you as crowned with horns rather than thorns?

HAHAHA!

I must confess, Jimmy, I was being a bit devilish there. I was trying to incite hatred towards white libtards (as if that is needed here). Anyway, as sobering and gruesome as the content of that video you posted is, I think the two I posted are much more puke inducing and enraging. After all, it is white libtards such as those in the vids I posted that are, in large part, responsable for creating the conditions that facilitated the murders of whites in South Africa and elsewhere.

As the inimitable Jim Jiles says: “There are niggers at large who will rob, rape, and kill you. The threat level is high and rising.”

118

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 02:39 | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbevHibKOtw&feature=player_embedded#!

Watch it while you can. I suspect it will be quickly circumcised from the body politic.

FYI: It’s already been removed for having contained “shocking and disgusting content”.

119

Posted by Hawks on Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:28 | #

Understanding even this small amount requires an enormous effort on the part of both Jews and anti-Jews alike

Very interesting stuff. The explanation makes a lot of sense.

But are you sure this will definitely help us stop or resist them?

The reason I ask is because I’m not sure if this cycle will hold in the US like it did in the past elsewhere. In the past Jews were the main and only minority, and even the lowliest peasants had folk wisdom and suspicion of Jews. But these days it seems like the average American is completely ignorant of Jews, and their behavior and activities. If anything they’re favorable to Jews via Israel and their hostility to Muslims/Arabs. They “blend in” and “camouflage” better in contemporary America. They might as well be invisible. The average American does however notice blacks, Mexicans, etc and most of the attention and anger is directed at them and probably would be directed at them in the event of a social breakdown and “persecution” phase. I think Jews might be able to get away scot-free and maybe even lead a “persecution” phase - I could imagine someone like Michael Savage commandeering the “persecution” phase against blacks, Mexicans, etc. to deflect any possibility of it going after Jews.

120

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:26 | #

The reason I ask is because I’m not sure if this cycle will hold in the US like it did in the past elsewhere. In the past Jews were the main and only minority, and even the lowliest peasants had folk wisdom and suspicion of Jews. But these days it seems like the average American is completely ignorant of Jews, and their behavior and activities. If anything they’re favorable to Jews via Israel and their hostility to Muslims/Arabs. They “blend in” and “camouflage” better in contemporary America. They might as well be invisible. The average American does however notice blacks, Mexicans, etc and most of the attention and anger is directed at them and probably would be directed at them in the event of a social breakdown and “persecution” phase. I think Jews might be able to get away scot-free and maybe even lead a “persecution” phase - I could imagine someone like Michael Savage commandeering the “persecution” phase against blacks, Mexicans, etc. to deflect any possibility of it going after Jews.

You’re absolutely right. It’s amazing to me. I was racially awakened in 2006 by a series of lectures given by a Soviet dissident, Valdas Anelauskas, entitled Zionism in Russia. Amid massive public outcry against his “anti-Semitism”, I championed his right to freedom of speech until 2010 when he was subverted by a clique of Jews in a crusade against me under the auspices of “Islamofascism”.

This thing is like HIV. It disables the distinction of friend from foe.

121

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 08:20 | #

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/1/12/143549/104

122

Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 18:09 | #

The reason I ask is because I’m not sure if this cycle will hold in the US like it did in the past elsewhere. In the past Jews were the main and only minority, and even the lowliest peasants had folk wisdom and suspicion of Jews. But these days it seems like the average American is completely ignorant of Jews, and their behavior and activities. If anything they’re favorable to Jews via Israel and their hostility to Muslims/Arabs. They “blend in” and “camouflage” better in contemporary America.

Hawks,

I don’t know how familiar you are with the ‘Jewish Question’, but it’s one of Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s central ideas that Jews both seek out and create conditions of ‘multiculturalism’ precisely because it helps them blend in. Until WWI most Jews lived in the areas of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. These were both very multicultural.

The United States did not become multicultural by accident. Even though at various times our immigration policies allowed for large numbers of foreigners to arrive, they were still forced to ‘assimilate’ into American culture. Speaking a language besides English was not an option. You arrived, learned English, and became an ‘American.’ As late as 1950 the U.S. was 90% White American. Today’s we’re maybe 60% White by honest estimates. Dr. MacDonald believes America’s shifting policy on immigration came about because of Jewish influence within American society. And they want multiculturalism, of course, because it’s ‘good for Jews.’

123

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:19 | #

Sam,

Yes. I agree. Shifting immigration policy came about as a result of Jewish influence. Unfortunately, Jews are not infallible. As Fyodor Dostoyevsky noted “There is something of its own punishment in all Jewish activity”.

As Muslims begin to comprise a larger portion of non-White immigrants, Jews are beginning to realize the danger of the monster they have created, and are trying to infiltrate White Nationalist groups.

The amazing thing to me is that I have actually seen them succeed in this endeavor. It looks to me like, in the long term, the Jews will have succeeded in flooding us under a tsunami of third world immigration, and then turned around and used us to commit a holocaust against them.

Nice.

At least we won’t be killing off our European brothers again. But if I could have my personal preference, I’d love to watch the Muslims eat the Jews alive.

124

Posted by Hawks on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:26 | #

I don’t know how familiar you are with the ‘Jewish Question’, but it’s one of Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s central ideas that Jews both seek out and create conditions of ‘multiculturalism’ precisely because it helps them blend in….Dr. MacDonald believes America’s shifting policy on immigration came about because of Jewish influence within American society. And they want multiculturalism, of course, because it’s ‘good for Jews.’

This explanation makes a lot of sense.

Until WWI most Jews lived in the areas of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. These were both very multicultural.

I was unaware of this. I was thinking of Germany and other places in Western Europe.

But are these old multicultural societies analogous to our situation today? I think the commoners of these societies had much greater folk wisdom and suspicion of Jews, either directly or indirectly through the proxy of religion, while the average American today seems very ignorant of or oblivious to Jews. And there weren’t very visible, salient foreign groups like blacks and Hispanics around in those old multicultural societies that today would attract the most negative attention.

I guess my point is that it looks like there’s a decent chance the traditional cycle might not hold. If understanding the cycle is an important part of stopping or resisting them, but then if the cycle doesn’t hold in our society, does that mean there’s no real way of stopping or resisting them, at least not any time soon? Do we just have to go along for the ride, as Jimmy Marr suggests, for the time being and hope for the best?

125

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 21:47 | #

Jews don’t work for race-replacement immigration because “it helps them blend in”. The Jewish strategy is consonant with the struggle towards the Judaic end-times. Olam tikkun, the “perfecting” of the world, is the struggle for which Jews must “suffer”. Remember, Jews are born with perfect souls. There is no possibility of sin for Jews, and no possibility of improvement. Only gentiles - the world , the nations - are imperfect and must be shaped so that the conflict that arises through their imperfection can finally be eliminated, ie, the world made perfect, Olam Ha-ba.

That elimination is the elimination of distinctions in the nations. This is the state of the world “peace” in which the messiac can return. He will be a political figure, not a spiritual leader. Thus Judaism is not a spiritual religion. It is a materialist religion. The messiac will bring in the final act of world history, and raise Jewry to the supreme lordship over Mankind, who will serve the Jew lovingly as the distinct higher man - ie, the one who has retained his ethnicity - turning over to him all their goods and chattels, etc, etc.

That’s the deal. That’s what explains the Jewish authorship of this, for example:

Classical Marxism
Revolutionary internationalism
Critical Theory
Postmodernism
Freudianism
Second-wave Feminism
Second-Wave Libertarianism
Gay Rights/LBGT Rights
American Civil Rights
Human Rights
White Privilege/White Abolitionism
Agitation for open borders and mass immigration
Neoconservatism
Academic race-denial
Encouragement for white race-mixing
Exploitation of the official holocaust narrative
Israel Lobby
Promulgation of hate speech law
Internet pornography
Negative imagery of whites on film and TV
Anti-white bias in media reporting

126

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:09 | #

Sam Davidson,

There’s a specific item in this category that might be of interest to you. Mormon eschatology calls for the ultimate grafting of LDS onto the “Tree of Israel”.

When you are involved with Mormons who also consider themselves White Nationalists, you are running a very high risk of being brought into the fold of Judah.

I’m not saying Mormon White Nationalists should be written of prematurely. By all means, use whatever utility can be derived from them, but in the final analysis, until they excommunicate, I recommend that they be treated with the utmost of caution.

127

Posted by Bill on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:37 | #

GW. Your 08.47pm just above.

Would you care to key in the unholy alliance, where the left is implicitly inviting and enabling the other to our shores. Last man standing.

128

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:13 | #

I guess my point is that it looks like there’s a decent chance the traditional cycle might not hold. If understanding the cycle is an important part of stopping or resisting them, but then if the cycle doesn’t hold in our society, does that mean there’s no real way of stopping or resisting them, at least not any time soon?

The cycle will hold. They’ll wreck everything, bring it crashing down and lots of innocent people will die unneccessarily. Then it will go wrong for them again as it always has and always will for reasons only a few of them will ever be able to understand unless and until they break out of the cycle themselves. The aim for WNs is to speed up the process, try and make the collapse as shallow as possible, and then climb back up again while they spend the next hundred years wrecking SE Asia.

129

Posted by Sam Davidson on Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:21 | #

But are these old multicultural societies analogous to our situation today? I think the commoners of these societies had much greater folk wisdom and suspicion of Jews, either directly or indirectly through the proxy of religion, while the average American today seems very ignorant of or oblivious to Jews. And there weren’t very visible, salient foreign groups like blacks and Hispanics around in those old multicultural societies that today would attract the most negative attention.

The various ethnic groups would have been very visible, especially considering the fact that different groups would have retained their own languages and dialects. But, you’re right that the average American is kept mostly in the dark on racial/ethnic matters. Thanks, television!

I guess my point is that it looks like there’s a decent chance the traditional cycle might not hold. If understanding the cycle is an important part of stopping or resisting them, but then if the cycle doesn’t hold in our society, does that mean there’s no real way of stopping or resisting them, at least not any time soon? Do we just have to go along for the ride, as Jimmy Marr suggests, for the time being and hope for the best?

Like Wandrin said, the ‘traditional cycle’ is happening before our very eyes. It’s going to be worse for us in the long term because of the introduction of inferior racial elements. Let’s not even lie to ourselves - the 85 IQ and below races are utterly incapable of maintaining our civilization. Even nations with mostly European leadership, such as Mexico(?), are turning into hellholes. Since race replacement is happening across the entire White world, it looks like this time we’re playing for keeps.

Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember me

Next entry: Laura Fairrie’s Battle for Barking: the nationalists’ verdict
Previous entry: The Diary of an Anti-Racist (Part 7)