Posted by James J OMeara on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:39 | #

I still don’t understand how the jews and fags keep you from having children with a nice lady.

My philosophy teacher, John N. Deck [author of Nature, Contemplation and the One: A Study in the Philosophy of Plotinus, University of Toronto Press, 1967; in print from Larson Publications] had 9 children [see ]http://anthonyflood.com/deck.htm] on his small college professor’s salary, and had no use for jews or fags. 

What’s your problem?  Can’t get it up?

Posted by Election Summary on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 07:38 | #

I still don’t understand how the jews and [an artificially increased frequency of] fags [lowers societal birthrate.]

My [anecdotal outlier comment disproves a population parameter statement. I believe this because I dropped Statistics 101.]

What’s your problem? [Don’t have a sense of humor? Because chicks love breeding wiseguys like me. If you were more like me, society wouldn’t have a population problem.]

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:36 | #

James,

You are answering to a question I did not pose.  I am interesting in determining the degree to which the official promotion of homosexual rights, serving as they do to suppress social conservativism and, thereby, the majority interest in a healthy society, is a product of diasporic Jewish ethnic activism or of the endemic liberalism of the elite.

There are some subtleties that I hoped some here might be interested in unearthing.  For example, liberalism itself is heavily Marxised, yes, and the egalitarian component can certainly be traced to its roots in Jewish intellectualism, and often to the most direct Jewish leadership .

But egalitarianism is not individualism.  In broad terms, although the long-term goal of classical Marxism is the same free individual, nonetheless the lodestar of the free and unfettered will belongs to that philosophical rejection of feudalism, serfdom, the power of the Crown, the barony and the Church ... to the power of the medieval elite.  This, too, had its Jewish intellectual component, of course.  But it was fundamentally a European intellect movement and gave the world not only the lodestar of individual freedom but that freedom of enquiry for which Copernicus and Gallileo worked and, in the latter case, suffered.

In broad terms again, it is worth reminding ourselves that liberalism has had a long intellectual distillation, and is not Cultural Marxism - but has been captured by it, meaning it has been enthusiastically embraced by the elite.  Jewish intellectual leadership here seems indisputable.

In general then, I would strike the balance between Jewish interests and European liberal philosophy as that between modern egalitarianism and individualism in a full-spectrum sense.  Yes, right liberalism is also intellectually led by Jewish philosphers.  But in the main it has concentrated on economics, not social or cultural issues, and for the purposes of this discussion it can be ignored (who, anyway, would claim that the great Rothbard or von Mises sought first to undermine gentile society)?

Last thought: if liberalism was shorn of egalitarianism would it still be dangerous to European ethnic interests?  Yes, in my opinion, because individualism is precisely that.  That doesn’t mean that there aren’t great benefits for the Nationalist (or genuine Conservative) in “naming” moden egalitarianism’s roots as something more than just 1789.  But in itself naming the neo-Marxist is not sufficient to repair the situation.  Liberalism cannot be reformed.

Posted by Amalek on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:04 | #

Mary Cheney, the Veep’s dyke daughter, has just announced that she is pregnant, presumably by a Mr T. Baster. Whether the end was nipped off or not I don’t know, but seemingly there is no Jew in the case. Mary is 37 and heard her clock ticking; her “partner” is 45 and the butcher of the twain, but not *that* butch. The kid can look forward to bastard status, no poppa and no siblings, plus all the increased risk of dysfunction that comes with the one-parent-family territory:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JaniceShawCrouse/2006/12/07/mary_cheneys_pregnancy_affects_us_all

The embarrassment in the GOP’s base furnishes a little vignette of what happens to a ‘conservative’ political party when it lets warmongering social liberals such as Dick Cheney hold the highest offices.

Posted by Invertus Gruntus Brutus on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:15 | #

Is this the latest salvo in the Hart-Berman attack against Taylor and Amren:
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/why_i_started_this_website/

The title “Inverted World” is, unintentionally I’m sure, quite ironic.

Posted by Theological Grunting Brute on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:03 | #

Example of inverted thoughts from the “Inverted World”:

“Even if these organizations stopped inviting anti-Semites to speak at their conferences and took down all the offending links, it would still not be enough. Rather, it is incumbent on the leaders of the American race realist movement to speak out against anti-Semitic lies. This involves more than the superficial, insubstantial disavowals of anti-Semitism that one sometimes reads in race realist publications. It means spelling out in detail why the theology of Jewish evil is nonsense.”

Of course, “it would not be enough.”  It is NEVER enough.

Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:36 | #

A respectful suggestion & question…

It is probably time for us to realize that the Semitic cousins who reign over the territories of North Africa & Southwest Asia share a vastly different culture & politics from that exhibited and developed by Euro man.

The basic question is neither the JQ nor Auster’s peeve, the MQ (the Muslim question). It’s whether or not members of the great Semitic nations (any of them) can find life compatible with Euro nations.

The JQ appears to be an application of all the same principles as the MQ except the rate of speed.

Both want Christianity out of North America & other Euro areas, special legal procedures & religious courts, special taxes on all our groceries, special privileges for religious practices, special & identical boy infant mutilation procedures, an end to any special privileges for Christianity & its accompanying cultural apparatus, special set-asides at schools & work guarded by tribal & nepotism practices, and an end to our cultures and histories every bit as radical as the replacement by Muslim culture of all the Christian cultures in Southwest Asia & North Africa about 1,200 years ago.

That was good-bye to one-half of Christendom in about three decades! We’ve forgotten that the Christian cultures on the south and east sides of the Mediterranean were so thoroughly wiped out.

So what is it that distinguishes the JQ from the MQ? The only thing I can see is that the JQ was content to take a century to secure the heights of our institutions, replace our Euro cultures with their Semitic culture, and silence Euro man through demonization, whereas the MQ seeks a speedier Semitic seizure of our territory & institutions now that it has awakened to history again.

In other words, shouldn’t the term be SQ (Semitic question)?

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:37 | #

So Wilhelm Marr was prescient after all?

Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:33 | #

Here’s a good example of the destruction of Euro cultures as described on 12/10/06 by Lawrence Auster at:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/#006709

“A Hassidic rabbi ‘asked’ the Seattle-Tacoma airport to place an eight-foot-high menorah next to the highest of the nine ‘holiday trees’ in the airport’s international arrival hall, as reported in the Seattle Times. The airport felt that if they had a menorah, they would have to have symbols for every religion, and the ‘staff didn’t have time to play cultural anthropologists.’ As the negotiations went on, the rabbi’s attorney, Harvey Grad, threatened to sue the airport. At that point the airport decided to take down the holiday trees — which had been a familiar, decades-old tradition at the airport — so as to avoid the issue altogether. This got a lot of people upset. The rabbi, Elazar Bogomilsky, says he is ‘appalled’ at the airport’s response to his ‘simple’ request. His attorney Grad complains: ‘They’ve darkened the hall instead of turning the lights up. There is a concern here that the Jewish community will be portrayed as the Grinch.’ Isn’t that rich? These Jews make the trouble, they threaten to sue, they virtually force the airport to take down the trees, and now they’re whining that Jews are being unfairly blamed.”

Naturally, Auster decided to blame this cultural bomb on Euros in the same posting as follows:

“I don’t blame Bogomilsky so much as I blame the majority culture which has given minorities the message that the fundamental meaning of America is diversity, and that minorities should expect as a right the public representation of their cultures and religions. The real result of defining a society as ‘diverse’ is not that you end up with the ‘riches of diversity.’ It’s that you end up in an empty space, with the once-cheerful lights turned out.”

So let’s see. A runaway rabbi sabotages Christmas decorations in a public space by threatening to sue. Auster recognizes the rabbi was wrong, but blames European Americans.

Multiply the rabbi’s snotty, racist, cultural destruction by 100,000 times every decade in America, add Auster’s self-serving compulsive blame-the-victim seasoning, stir well, and welcome to Semitic America.

The only difference with Muslims is that they would swarm the airport and pull down the Christmas trees personally.

Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:25 | #

First off, you can overshoot the JQ. In the US, the exponential rate at which the reality of Jewish power is being exposed is definitely leading toward broad based anti-Jewish sentiment - but this does not necessarily boost pro-white identity politics. The posters at libertyforum are more up to speed regarding the JQ than stormfronters are, yet the majority are not pro-white. For example, The Skunk, the funniest commenter on Jewish shenanigans, has a black wife. Anti-Jewish politics has a life of its own and it is not necessarily pro-white.

However, the two do intersect at several points. In particular, the single greatest challenge whites face, the fact that pro-white advocacy leads straight to neo-McCarthyite persecution, simply cannot be addressed separately from the fact that it is specifically Jewish organizations that lead these witch hunts. These organized persecution networks are the necessary condition for the suppression of pro-white advocacy and, by extension, white group interests. That’s our specific grievance regarding Jews.

(Neo-McCarthyite persecutions consist of blacklists, coordinated intimidation and economic strangulation of dissidents. See the Walt-Mearsheimer report on the Israel Lobby for details regarding Neo-McCarthyite persecution methodology.)

Without their persecution networks, Jews lose their superpowers and become irrelevant. They may need these networks to maintain cultural integrity, I’m not sure. But if they lose group cohesion, even briefly, I know we’d assimilate them into the white mass and utterly destroy them as a civilization in short order. They may have the money, but we’ve got the blondes. Two generations of interbreeding, three at most, and we’d wipe out the non-Israeli Jew for good. Without diaspora support the arabs would make quick work of the Israeli ones as well.

It’s almost as if Jews were symbiotic with these networks. Wherever Jews settle in even modest numbers they form neo-McCarthyite persecution networks to suppress “anti-semitism” among the host people. All fine and good until you realize that, in the Jewish mind, the host’s people’s ethnocentrism, also known as “racism”, is “anti-semitic”. When they start suppressing that too, they create a systemic competitive imbalance where one group can engage in group favoritism while the other can’t. Over time, this imbalance leads to massive privilege and wealth disparities and therefore resentment. When organized, this resentment is called “anti-semitism”.

In short, “anti-semitism” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s just paranoia at first, but actions taken to hold the host tied down against imaginary paranoias leads to real consequences.

This unplanned culturally conditioned behavior toward host populations is strikingly similar to the planned behavior of imperialists or supremacists toward subject populations. Did the British imperialists in India engage in favoritism toward each other? Yes. Did they persecute any Indians who asserted their group rights? Yes. Did the apartheid South African white supremacists engage in favoritism toward each other? Yes. Did they persecute any blacks who asserted their group rights? Yes.

I find it fascinating that a people can organically develop institutions that we would rely on political state structures to provide for us. In this case imperial enforcement.

Anyway, my point was that we have this one specific grievance with Jews and we’re not going anywhere until we confront it. In the US (and no doubt UK) we’ve had majorities against immigration since I can remember. Come have a look at how helpful that’s been. People agreeing with you doesn’t add up to much if they’re scared of neo-McCarthyite persecution for “racism”. And immigration isn’t even clearly pro-white because people can pretend they’re concerned about crime etc. That didn’t help either. The mere smell of neo-McCarthyite persecution where it counts, among the elites, is all it takes to override the people’s will for decades on end. Suppose, you convinced a majority that all you want is what they want and it’s all good. Guess what happens next?

Nothing.

Second, the question. Is liberalism an autonomous civilizational destroyer? As GW pointed out, today’s liberalism is not your grandmother’s. Forget economics, at the ethnic/cultural level today’s neo-Liberalism is Gramscianism, or Mark II Bolshevism.

So, in order to understand it, let’s look at Mark I Bolshevism (Communism):

Table 1 (below). Soviet Government by Nationality (1917) - 77% Jewish.

Mark I Bolshevism is Judeo-imperialism. Unlike traditional imperialists, who implement divide and conquer by fostering ethnic conflict between groups, Communists developed an innovative intra-ethnic strategy called class conflict to divide and conquer from within.

Table 2 (below). Soviet Genocide Table (1917-1987) - 54 million exterminated.

Mark I Bolshevism failed. It was too dangerous and too wasteful. Jews were sweating bullets throughout the post 1917 period. Had they been defeated and the revolution been overturned, the life expectancy of every single Jew in Eastern Europe would have dropped into the minutes. Unacceptably dangerous. In addition, conquering a people and then having to set loose a giant mass murder machine to control them is hardly efficient. Unacceptably wasteful.

Mark II Bolshevism was designed (by Gramsci) for the declared purpose of remedying these two flaws. It does so by adding women, gays and racial minorities to the proletarian mix ranged against the traditional elites and redefines these in religious, gender, lifestyle and ethnic terms. In other words, the “oppressor”, the bugaboo the useful idiots are coordinated against, shifts from “the capitalist class” to “christian white heterosexual males”. In this sense, neo-Liberalism is a further evolution in the innovative intra-ethnic divide and conquer strategy first pioneered by Communists (except it now adds a shot of traditional inter-ethnic conflict as well).

(As a side note, here in the U.S. we also have neo-Conservativism. The difference between neo-Conservativism (Mark III Bolshevism) and neo-Liberalism (Mark II Bolshevism) is that whereas neo-Liberals insist that useful idiots should be bamboozled into believing that supporting Jewish imperialism over whites is, in reality, a way of advancing the rights of the oppressed, the neo-Conservatives insist that useful idiots should be bamboozled into believing that supporting Jewish imperialism over Arabs is, in reality, a way of advancing democracy in the Middle East. Both kvetch that anyone who suggests there is a Jewish ethnic interest in these efforts should be persecuted for “anti-semitism”. Unlike Mark II Bolshevism, which replaced Mark I, Mark III is a parallel strategy focused on a different imperialist project - using whites against arabs. End side note.)

Bolshevism (mark I, II or III) is always Judeo-imperialism. The differences are in the brand of cattlefeed, i.e. the “ideology” and “ideals” the useful idiots are fed. Some useful idiots are bamboozled into supporting Judeo-imperialism by one brand, others by another. Bolshevism’s opposition (mark I, II or III) is called paleo-conservativism. This is not a genuine ideology either, but a startled attempt to reason with waves of harebrained nonsense without understanding their real purpose.

In the US neo-Liberalism means that while gays demand their right to be sodomized, feminists their right to abort, minorities their right to affirmative racism and secular yoomanists their right to suppress Christianity, not a single one has the slightest concern about the fact that Jews, 2% of the population, account for half the billionaires. They are not egalitarians in the sense that they care about economic or racial equality. In fact, owing to their obsession with “white christian hetero male oppressors”, these groups collaborate in neo-McCarthyite persecutions whenever they can. They’re egalitarians only in the sense that each one has been sold that their sectarian chickenshit issue is an instance of inequality and oppression. To gays, for example, equality means gay marriage.

Contrasting with Asia, we see that the Communism and Liberalism cattlefeed brands have also sold well, though they haven’t tried neo-Lib/Con variants. The Chinese Communists, missing the underlying ethnic agenda, wound up as nationalist socialists. The Japanese Liberals, missing the same ingredient, find themselves mentally incapable of comprehending why they should persecute expressions of Japanese group interest or why they should insist on becoming a minority in their own country. 

Besides, although both cattlefeed brands have undermined their demographics (as have non-ideological factors such as urbanization, the pill, education etc.), a shrinking population is only a problem when immigrants take advantage of a suppressed ethnic immune system. This is not the case anywhere in Asia because there aren’t any neo-McCartyhite persecution networks.

So no, liberalism is not a civilization destroyer once shorn of the ethnic agenda. A civilization underminer maybe, but so is the pill.

At Bolshevism Inc we don’t make the ideologies you use, we make the ideologies you use worse.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:32 | #

Jewish adumbrations on equality are not wholly necessary to today’s outcome, and it can be argued that they are peripheral at most.

You’re constructing a strawman. In many cases Jewish activism is a significant factor in bad outcomes, in others it is peripheral or nonexistent. No one, hopefully, would dispute that. There are many racial issues that can be discussed without reference to Jews; there are also many—like the Iraq invasion—that cannot be seriously discussed without reference to Jews. 

Hitler, who earns a top score on the anti-Semitism scale, blamed Jews for being significantly overrepresented in anti-German political activism. He didn’t blame all anti-German political activism on Jews.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:40 | #

From the inverted-world.com site mentioned above:

Besides, some of Taylor’s own writings showed extreme anti-Israeli sentiment. After 9/11, Taylor had published an article on The Last Ditch, a radically anti-Semitic website, in which he placed the blame for the attacks squarely on Israel.

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/why_i_started_this_website/

What Taylor said was that American support for Israel angered Muslim fundamentalists and many others in the Muslim world. That is not debatable.

Teaching more millions to hate us
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/WTC_Jared.html

Ramzi Yousef, the chief terrorist in the first WTC attack, was motivated by his anger at American support for Israel and said so explicitly in his claim of responsibility to the New York Times. His uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the 9/11 attacks, shared the same motivation and has also said so explicitly, as documented in the 9/11 Report. Osama bin Laden arrived at his ambition to destroy tall buildings in the United States after seeing the devastation of Beirut’s skyline in the 1980s, which he blamed on American funding of Israel’s war-machine.

We’re all entitled to interpret Muslim hostility to American Mideast policy as we choose. Some Muslim fundamentalists blame America for the corrupting influence of Baywatch re-runs on Arab television. That’s their prerogative, just as it is our prerogative to ignore their complaints. That Muslims complain about American support for Israel doesn’t make American support for Israel wrong. American support for Israel is, nevertheless, an important factor in Muslim hostility to the United States, and no one should ever be criticized for stating an undeniable truth.

Jared Taylor doesn’t love Israel, and because he doesn’t love Israel, he doesn’t always keep quiet about the cost of supporting Israel.

The double-talk of war
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/taylor_wardouble.htm

Berman cites this pre-invasion essay as evidence of Taylor’s rabid anti-Zionism. I’m certain that almost everyone who reads it—three thousand American deaths later—will have a much different impression.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:20 | #

A curious episode from forty years back:

Why Sirhan Sirhan Assassinated Robert Kennedy
http://crimemagazine.com/05/sirhansirhan,0906-5.htm

Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:25 | #

While US Senator Joseph McCarthy is the prime example of a political leader so demonized that his name is now regarded, even in these circles, as a prime example of bad behavior, he is the leading victim of the smear machine by those discussed by Steven Palese above. A better label for “neo-McCarthyite persecution networks” would be “Talmud terrorism networks.”

However, it is hard to argue with Palese outside his use of the name of the chief victim of Talmud terrorism networks as the supreme exemplar of persecutors.

Palese is certainly correct in that a focus on the great Semitic nations is not the same thing as a focus on the great Euro nations, and I suspect he means to say that one can lose his or her way by focusing on the first and forgetting the second.

Indeed we often see a focus on the Afro nations (especially AmRen), the Arab Semitic nations (especially Lawrence Auster), and the Asian nations (see this web site).

In particular, it seems to me that it is the Afro nations and the Arab Semitic nations that are used as red flags to focus our attention away from the development of Euro nations.

Frankly, I don’t know what measures we should take to retain focus on developing our Euro nations, and not getting sidetracked as we did in WWI and WWII. It’s almost as though we each have to work to preserve our centricity on our children, institutions, and social order, and somehow not be fooled again.

One step forward might be to refrain from using the name of a well-meaning, anti-Communist, Roman Catholic to identify the Talmud terrorism networks. Whatever else he was, McCarthy was our guy and we can find plenty of examples from the other side to use in this discourse.

Posted by Gintas Grunting Brute on Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02 | #

Over at Auster’s site, someone named “Gintas” has been complaining about “Majority Rights” - that the wonderful “The Inverted World” has already been attacked here, and as well, the implication that this blog is too focused on “whiteness” (i.e., race).

“Gintas” claims to be all shook up over this, which is why he accused Auster of being too race-focused, and was forced to apologize (while blaming MR).

Well, gee, “Gintas”, some of us brutes will continue to grunt against ‘The Inverted World’ and the obfuscatory con-game there, and yes, some of us are focused on race.