|
|
|
A white nationalism for non-whites and liberals, maybe I recall visiting Joe Sobran’s site some years ago and coming across a remark to the effect that the very existence of ethnic Europe is an unbearable reminder to the races flooding our lands of their existential inferiority, and our destruction is the only means by which they can look at their reflection in the mirror. It’s a sentiment I’ve seen since many times on the nationalist internet. It certainly explains why, when one finds oneself in conversation with a non-white, the will to racial supremacy is always presumed to hide behind all our words. It does no good to explain that the racial separation we seek cannot, by definition, afford us opportunities to oppress anybody. Those nationalists who have concluded that the animus is felt too deeply for the foreign to ever release its grip willingly are doubtless correct. That leaves us with two options. Persuasion or more persuasion. More persuasion would be messy. We must hope that just persuasion, allied to political power, is enough. So I wonder whether there isn’t some advantage to be got from a discourse of global freedom to accompany the gesture towards the door. After all, the fear of European racial supremacism is fifty years out of date and counting. It is the totality of the Money Power, with its favoured political, business and “ethnic” actuators and clients, which is the coming oppressor. And if this idea doesn’t chime too much with the Third World colonisers - and it probably won’t - it must offer something to that emotional constituency among our own kind described by Desmond Jones on the Pastor Manning thread thus:
OK, don’t get stuck on the Anglo-Saxon thing. A beautiful but costly empathy is common to all Europeans, and my interest here lies only in the utility of the notion that ethnic Europe is the last bastion of freedom for the world as well as for ourselves. After the Olam Ha-ba of a European panmixia there will be nothing. Liberals who cannot comprehend why our race matters to themselves might perhaps comprehend why it matters to the rest of the world, and thereby find a reason to allow the justice and morality of its survival. So we would say to them: you must try to understand what is at stake, and what Nationalists are really trying to do. You just can’t get past the racism thing now. But you must. Whether you like it or not, we have to separate from our replacers so that ethnic Europe survives and can take down the interest groups which seek to enslave us all. Just a thought. Comments:2
Posted by danielj on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:42 | # OK, don’t get stuck on the Anglo-Saxon thing. It isn’t us who are stuck on it. A beautiful but costly empathy is common to all Europeans If it didn’t cost anything, it wouldn’t be beautiful. 3
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:07 | #
Yes. 4
Posted by The Monitor on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:16 | # ” A beautiful but costly empathy is common to all Europeans” Guessed, you never met an IRA-loving crackpot who thinks Ireland is everything and the West is nothing? 5
Posted by Guy from Asia on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:17 | # Is this related to what you are saying? http://untimelyruminations.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/the-non-white-and-the-far-right/ 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:35 | # Obviously, this is the key to Western survival: that it would be a colossal tragedy for all humanity if the white race goes extinct. Therefore, we have a moral right to do (almost) whatever is necessary to preserve ourselves - to a much greater degree than other races. But situating these claims within the Western/Christian tradition(s) of moral philosophy is, I assure all, a very large theoretical undertaking. 7
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 12:17 | # Let me add that the target audience for WN ethical justifications is white people themselves. Nonwhites couldn’t care less about white survival, even when not actively hostile to us. Moreover, they rarely think in terms of abstract justice, but only of (perceived) benefits to themselves, racially as well as individually. Western Man is Ethical Man, however, as I never tire of repeating. This is an empirical, not aspirational, claim. [It is inextricably related, moreover, to the very sources of our (modern) historic superiority.] Our people must be convinced of the morality of their utilizing coercion to ensure their racial survival. All racial science is finally useless if whites think that acting on its discoveries is wicked, as huge numbers of our brainwashed people do at present. 8
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:48 | #
I’ve met a lot of IRA people who identify wholly with Cubans, Nicaraguans, Africans etc. At one level they’re an ultra version of SWPL who don’t just empathize with blacks they think they are black. As the man says
The Irish have some of that NW European blood too it’s just scrambled through an unusual history. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:25 | # Sinn Fein and immigration: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_slow_motion_ethnic_accident_in_ireland/ 10
Posted by Jupiter7 on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:38 | # I just want to alert everyone here that Paul Craig Roberts has crossed the line into being a cheerleader for race-replaceing the Native Whitem Majority. Go check out his post this morning on vdare.com about his enthusiasm for race-replacement in Texas. I have been warning you all about this for two years. I saw it comming. Disgusting isn’t it? In the beginning, PCR was a critic of immigration policy because it is a massive labor subsidy for the corporations. Now he is an enthusiast for nonwhite scab labor subisidy to the greedy cheating class…White Amerians are evil so its ok. Repost Paul Craig Roberts’s vdare.com post. here on majority rights. What a goddam fraud Paul Craig Roberts. Peter Brimelow is going to have make a decision about PCR. 11
Posted by Jupiter7 on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:17 | # Dasien If Paul Craig Roberts really believes what he wrote, it only go to show just how far his brain has been damaged by 9/11 conspiracy nuttiness. Nonwhites will be more than happy to take over the empire and take it to new levels…who is the test pilot for the F-22 Raptor? Paul Craig Roberts has the financial wealth that enables him never to have been a state of economic terror that comes with having to compete with his beloved darkies for wages within the borders of American. In a just world Paul Craig Roberts would be forced to compete with his beloved darkies.. he is ..a scumbag through and through…I’ve asked Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer-see my post in the Alex Kurtagic’s thread about “Democracy”...‘wattylersrevolt” comment. Peter Brimelow now needs to confront Paul Craig Roberts about his race-replacement enthusiasm. Paul Craig Robets you are a scumbag. Paul Craig Roberts wants his own racial kind dead. 12
Posted by Dirty Bull on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:55 | # No offence intended, but I do wish the blog owner would occasionally descend from Mount Olympus and actually deal with the mundane business of day to day living and real-politik. 13
Posted by danielj on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:44 | # I’ve met a lot of IRA people who identify wholly with Cubans To be fair, Eamon de Valera was actually of Spanish Cuban descent. I’ve quite a few Amero-Irish friends who really truly identify with the Palestinians. They still consider themselves oppressed on that level. I tell them that after the Irish signed the Lisbon treaty they have no more right to complain about “sovereignty” or division. However, the actual Irish immigrants I’ve met (almost all from Cork) went pretty much solidly in the White Nationalist camp after a little time in America. Two of them were initially pretty militant types but they still hired my English wife to work at their bar and would actually debate the subject pretty soberly and dispassionately after hours with us. It is the American “Irish” that don’t seem to have the pan-European vision and desperately try to lay claim to some legacy of suffering. 14
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:00 | # @danielj
Sure, it’s only a few of the ultras who have that armed wing of the SWPLs mentality but it’s an interesting example of the general concept. 15
Posted by danielj on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:38 | # Sure, it’s only a few of the ultras who have that armed wing of the SWPLs mentality but it’s an interesting example of the general concept. I’m sorry if it seemed like I was trying to contradict the broader point or be contrarian in any way. It just seems to me that without the material and moral support of the American Irish (not to mention the Hollywood glorification and romanticizing a la The Devil’s Own which seems to exonerate the very guilty American born children of Éire) the nature of the network would be very different. I don’t know enough to speak to anything but my own personal experiences though. 16
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:50 | # But as for the Anglo-Saxon nations, well, the US of A is quite frankly a write-off.Nothing will save it, things have gone too far for remedy, (Dirty Bull) Not exactly. The USA as presently configured will never again be the white nation it once was, and was intended to be. Officially, we are 65% white (223 million). But that number still includes (after all the methodological complaints going back to the 90s!) a lot of Hispanics (beyond descendants of Spaniards), as well as Arabs (and Jews). There are also some persons of mixed race heritage who nevertheless call themselves white (perhaps because the nonwhite admixture is less than 25%; I do not, however, exclude from the “white” category Old Stock Americans who properly classify themselves as white, despite having traces of Amerindian). So the US is now no more than 60% real white, and falling fast, not merely on account of continuing immigration, but, as The Narrator has pointed out, also because of the skewed age structure. But there are still about 175 million real whites (descendants of Christian Europeans; aka “Aryans”) in the US. That is not a small number of whites to be sharing the same nationality. Is there another country containing as many whites? Moreover, the US may contain the largest number of rightist whites in the world (perhaps Russia contains more WNs) - many of whom are at least racially conservative, if not yet nationalist. One could easily imagine many of them becoming WN in the future as conditions worsen. Whites are still surviving, if barely, in South Africa, and even Rhodesia. Whites will live tolerable lives in the US for a good number of decades yet. It is Europe that is worrying. You (at least in Western Europe) are much ideologically weaker than white Americans, and you are being colonized by a far fiercer, more cohesive and determined enemy than we are. Hispanics lower the national quality, but they are not the vanguard of a wholly alien religion and civilization. Euronationalists have more to fear from Muslims - far more. 17
Posted by Bob on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:25 | #
Best to remember that:
18
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 09:08 | # Jupiter, Roberts characterizes the influx of Third World immigrants to Europe and America as the latter being “occupied” by the former. He means this in precisely the same sense as what he considers to be the unjust “occupation” of Third World countries by American and NATO troops. That is, as an illegitimate and unwanted presence which usurps native sovereignty. Roberts does not support, indeed opposes, both manifestations of “occupation”. Wake up. 19
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 10:19 | #
Is this referring to the Greg Johnson vision of a nubile paradiso of pan-European-mixia that will be ushered in once Turks are welcomed with open arm? 20
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 12:07 | # How about a WN for libertarians, or, how stupid are those people?! Seriously. I’m going to post a little exchange I’m having over at mises.org. I like the Austrians, and consider myself a follower of Austrian micreconomics, at least as pure economic theory (unfortunately, libertarians sully good basic economics with unsupported philosophical claims). But in essence, most libertarians are nothing more than “free market liberals”. The article I’m commenting on dealt with teens and jobs (nb: I was a bit tired and harried when writing these exchanges). (Also, I’m “Leon” because “Leon Haller” has been banned from the site - for my mere white racial conservatism, of course.) My comments have underlined headers. Leon April 1, 2011 at 1:30 pm This article is veritably brilliant in its plain commonsense. But there is one enormous, complicating lacuna, at least wrt the issue of teen unemployment, and that is the deleterious effects of mass immigration (and re the teens, especially illegal immigration). Today’s immigration destroys American jobs. Theoretically, immigration could be good for the economy, if the people we allowed in were all highly successful entrepreneurs, or scientists, or just motivated persons of high mean IQ. This is not the case for the majority of immigrants today, who are mostly poor, uneducated, and of low mean IQ. Thus, even the ones who come here to work and not merely collect welfare (they all come here to vote socialist), are mostly unskilled, and therefore directly compete with (by definition) unskilled teens. There were lots of jobs for teens before the full effects of the immigration invasion’s artificial pumping up of the supply of labor came to be felt. All the other points (minimum wage, overscheduling parents, poor work ethic, etc) Jeff makes are valid. But changing all that will not have the desired effect if we keep giving employers the option of hiring adult immigrants. REPLY Inquisitor April 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm Abolish the welfare state, privatise everything and then teenagers and immigrants will compete on a marginally more even footing (I say this because the past interventions of the state disequilibriating competition between East and West are far-reaching.) REPLY Leon April 1, 2011 at 6:01 pm Agreed, but this is the purest political fantasy imaginable. Ask overpaid unionized public employees to contribute 2% to their ‘platinum’ pension plans, and they stage street protests, if not riots. “Privatize everything”? How, exactly? Moreover, why exactly should teens have to compete on an even footing with foreigners? Why not just keep the foreigners OUT? REPLY Inquisitor April 1, 2011 at 9:33 pm ““Privatize everything”? How, exactly?” Is this a serious question? There’s loads of libertarian plans for privatisation. it isn’t a matter of “how” but if (i.e. whether it’s done before the total collapse of modern states.) They can protest all they fucking like, economic fundamentals are going to assert themselves in a very hard way soon enough. Why should people be kept out based on which arbitrary line’s side they’re on…? REPLY Leon April 2, 2011 at 5:45 am I did not suggest that it was economically impossible to privatize everything, but my clear implication was that it was politically impossible to do so (and maybe even to reduce the state at all; we don’t know yet) at this time. Check out Wisconsin, and smell the reality. REPLY When my parents were growing up they worked on farms picking produce in the hot sun for (even in nominal terms) very little money. It is true that those types of jobs are generally occupied by migrant workers now, but do you know many teenagers who would be willing to do this type of work? I don’t. REPLY Leon April 1, 2011 at 6:17 pm I was not thinking of farm work, which most teens would not do due to geographic reasons, as well as school schedules. I was thinking of paper deliveryman (what I did for a bit as a kid), fast food worker, summer construction, lawn mowing, etc (babysitting is still open to native-born girls, because you usually want someone you know, not off the street). In CA today, those positions are all overwhelmingly filled by adult Mexicans, often illegal. This is a very deep issue, one in which libertarianism is inadequate, at least given the political state of things. Radical free markets will tend to equalize wage rates everywhere. Mises makes that point in HUMAN ACTION. If we had open immigration, or even just open free trade and outsourcing, eventually wage rates for average Americans would fall to a global norm, while capitalists would become ever wealthier, as they can reap the profits of thus holding down or driving down the price of labor. This is what is destroying the middle and working classes in America, and no amount of libertarian theory can change that fact. Is this what people want, especially given the ubiquitous presence of the state in so many areas of our lives – so much of which could be abolished? It’s not what I want, nor I think most Americans. I say, let’s have a radically free internal market – but with strict state controls on both immigration and foreign trade. For the long term political health of the nation, we need a more equitable distribution of wealth, while ramping up economic growth through a domestic privatization and deregulation agenda, including Fed abolition. If we don’t do something like this, America will go down the road of an angry electorate turning to massive redistributionary taxation, whose prime beneficiary will not be private sector workers, but the state itself. REPLY Jim P. April 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm Now couldn’t you make exactly the same argument for keeping teenagers out of the workforce? Teenagers are low skill, low wage workers. They are badly or non-educated. They are poor. Many barely speak english and are socially retarded. Don’t they have most of the characteristics of immigrant workers? Except one thing – unlike immigrants, they’re completely inexperienced to boot. In both cases, their only potential asset to an employer is their low priced labor. And theoretically, wouldn’t scientists and engineers and professors, phone operators and dry cleaners and convenience store owners (ie, entrepreneurs) complain that the Indians are taking all their jobs? Oh wait, they already do say that. As you yourself identified, the only reason there is an immigration “problem” is that we have government vote buying programs (ie, welfare). That is a problem with government – not immigrants. There is nothing wrong with low priced labor for low skill jobs. That is exactly why kids find work at restaurants and mall stores, except that they are usually too lazy and timid to do the real hard work that Mexicans will do for the same price (lawn care, minor construction, farming, etc). Immigrants, whether legal or illegal since either is nothing but an arbitrary quota and a bureaucratic contrivance, are a great benefit to the economy overall. Good work at a low price. But only as long as they are supported on the free market. If I think a teenager or a Mexican does good lawn mowing, it doesn’t mean a damn thing to me if either of them has their proper paperwork in order. As a customer, not a politician, why on earth should I care where the mower is from? Either scenario is earned income for a job well done. If taxpayers are made to pay for immigrant kids, their medical care, and their food stamps, that is indeed a problem. But again, this is no different than native born Americans on welfare programs. Both are a burden by being on the public payroll, not because they are from here or there, or because they have a green card or a learners permit or a passport. It makes no difference where a person is born. Again, public welfare and political entitlement is the real problem. Lastly, If you support government telling employers who they should hire and why, you implicitly support minimum wage and keeping kids out of the workforce. A government that can limit immigrants can (and will) limit your own native-born kids for the same reasons. And this, neverminding the fact that government can’t possibly know what the “right” limits are for anything. Anything not based on actual need in the market, is simply a made up number by well paid “experts.” That is the road to central planning and socialism. REPLY Leon April 1, 2011 at 6:35 pm Nonsense. The road to socialism has already been paved with nonwhite immigration. CA used to be fairly conservative, but is now the “bluest of blue” states. What changed was the electoral demography, due to massive immigration. If you study politics even rudimentarily, you quickly recognize that every nonwhite group in America votes heavily democrat/socialist (hence the liberty oriented Tea Party rallies were overwhelmingly white, as I saw firsthand – despite the ones I attended being in heavily majority-minority CA). You are living in a fantasyland of pure theory, forgetting that such a place does not describe America or any other actual country. We have a political system, and it’s not going away. Therefore, any improvements we would wish for must be made within that system. As it gets more dominated by artificially more numerous foreigners, it gets more leftist (including socialist). That domestic blacks and Jews are also socialist is irrelevant. Why add to the number of leftist voters already here? That is insane. Moreover, immigrants can, praxeologically, only be good for the economy if they are superior in economic quality to the native-born – as I implicitly noted originally. Otherwise, they are either a wash, or possibly an outright drain. Today’s immigrants are inferior to the native-born – in wealth, skills, education, and IQ. They don’t have to be - we could cherry pick immigrants, as many other Western countries do (not that I want any nonwhite immigrants, but if we’re going to let them into a nation they did not build, surely we can take the highest quality ones?!). But we don’t. We are being colonized and conquered by Mexico (and the Third World generally). And we the native born whites are paying for this colonization. REPLY You blame immigrants for increasingly controlling the government that, frankly, you want others to control. You’re an authoritarian and you just want your gang to be in charge. Honestly, I don’t see the difference between you and the “nonwhite” immigrants. Call me colorblind – blue and red states are all the same thing to me. I think your position encourages Statism, which is the fight to control others using the power of the State. If you supported freedom, you wouldn’t try to use State power to get it. Cop-outs like “we have a political system, and it’s not going away” only apologizes for the inconsistency of thinking that you can use politics and voting to force freedom upon the nation. If that sounds extreme or “theoretical fantasyland” to you: you’ll never kill the weed without pulling up the root. The actual problem here is that we are each voting to try our best to control the other. Accepting political solutions as “what we have so there” will blind you to the limits of power. It is also not an appropriate counter to an argument that rejects politics a priori. Call me crazy, but I do not believe in the religion that the State can be used to solve problems by pointing a gun until it happens. That includes jobs and immigration – try as you might, you will never control it in your wildest dreams in “fantasyland.” And as for your bit about cherry picking, I addressed it already. But again: Leon doesn’t get to do the cherry picking. Leon doesn’t know whether we need more or less doctors or lawn mowers. But you’re assuming that politicians and experts know that. Again, which is the path of socialism and which is not? The market can choose who is valuable and who is not without overlords. REPLY The sheer unworldliness of libertarians is amazing and dispiriting. I think it is another example of a profound problem with our race: the propensity to place ideology ahead of reality, or plain interest. 21
Posted by Selous Scout on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 15:08 | # the US of A is quite frankly a write-off.Nothing will save it, things have gone too far for remedy, Hold on there! It’s completely premature to write off the US. We haven’t even begun to fight back. When we’ve tried the whole “revolution”, “liberation war” and “civil war II” thing and failed, THEN you can write us off. 22
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 19:55 | #
It’s the problem of pure reason. These libertarians are committed to a world of cold rationality (the theories of classical liberalism) that exists in their own minds only. They are incapable of feeling kinship with their biological community. Rationalism, when it reaches this man-machine extreme, is nihilism. These people are as opposed to the life of our people as any egalitarian. Just look at Jim P.‘s argument in favor of immigrants against native-born children (once again premised on utilitarian grounds which do not take into account the cultural costs of said immigration)! You cannot reason with those who are this far gone. I personally see them as akin to automatons, and therefore creepy and disgusting caricatures of living, breathing organisms. Pardon my aggressive tone but it’s warranted, I believe, for them. 23
Posted by Wild Bill on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 20:33 | # So we would say to them: you must try to understand what is at stake, and what Nationalists are really trying to do. You just can’t get past the racism thing now. But you must. Whether you like it or not, we have to separate from our replacers so that ethnic Europe survives and can take down the interest groups which seek to enslave us all. Yes, this is the main issue before us. In our imagination we believe they have a moral sense that can be appealed to…. but in my experience, most of the non whites hate the whites so much that they would willingly drink water out of the ditch on their hands and knees as a condition of the whites extermination. google: silent sound 24
Posted by PM on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 22:26 | # Wild Bill ” ...but in my experience, most of the non whites hate the whites so much that they would willingly drink water out of the ditch on their hands and knees as a condition of the whites extermination.” Perhaps MR is not the place to discuss it, but there is such a reluctance in the media (and indeed from victims themselves) to discuss such experiences that I find I have a real curiosity when I see such cryptic remarks on this site and elsewhere. A good example of the way white experience of non-white anger is non-existent in the public eye is the way the Brixton riots are remembered today. I was watching a documentary about the riots a few months back, feeling rather irritable at what I was seeing, when it suddenly occured to me that in all the documentaries and discussions I have seen and read about the Brixton riots not once have I ever come across the perspective of a white resident of Brixton about how it felt to see their community go from traditional East End British, to razed to the ground by angry blacks in the space of thirty-odd years. It is not so much that whites have been airbrushed from the discussion, as this would imply that they have been deliberately left out. While I can see this is possible in the immediate aftermath, when the events are discussed now I feel that whites are not so much ignored as forgotten. There is one ‘narrative’ concerning Brixton, and that is that blacks were being mistreated by the police, and decided to fight back (I have heard one black pundit describe such riots as ‘civil uprisings’). Only this week there was a discussion programme on Radio Four on the riots, and sure enough there was the usual mix of politicians, black rioters, black rights activists, and a contrite anti-racist copper, yet in our society which is so sensitive about representing every demographic, the sizeable white community circa 1980 Brixton did not get a look-in. Yet if blacks were angry about being discriminated against by the police, how much greater the anguish and suffering of local, blameless whites at seeing their streets and communities destroyed? Yet no-one will ask the question, what had THEY done to deserve this? Were they not victims too, and if so, how would a BBC journalist quantify the relative victimhood of the two groups in this situation? 25
Posted by danielj on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 23:25 | # There is one ‘narrative’ concerning Brixton, and that is that blacks were being mistreated by the police, and decided to fight back (I have heard one black pundit describe such riots as ‘civil uprisings’). Don’t forget the classic Clash tune that solidified the narrative in pop culture. Also, stupidly sampled by Cypress Hill in some stupid song about clubbing with background vocals supplied by Tim Armstrong of Rancid (the American Clash). 26
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 00:13 | # danielj, Since the anti-Silver rant you have become my favorite MR poster. 27
Posted by PM on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 01:01 | # danielj- Funnily enough I was going to mention a story about two members of the Clash that is recounted by irritating left-wing folk-rock singer Billy Bragg in his book ‘The Progressive Patriot’ but I realised when I went back to the story that it concerned the Notting Hill riots rather than Brixton. I’ll mention it anyway though, because I think it’s interesting to consider what Billy Bragg seems to think is the lesson of this story, because it certainly isn’t mine- “As the riot ensued, however, the two white punks (Joe Strummer and Paul Simonon) found themselves the focus of that anger, cornered in an alley by a gang of black youths who ordered them to turn out their pockets. Finding only bricks and bottles, the gang realised that these two white boys were somehow on their side…and they moved on without further aggrevation.” There are certain elements of this story that do not seem to be the whole truth. People do not get ‘cornered’ down alleyways by angry blacks, they get dragged down them. And what does ‘turned out their pockets’ mean? It seems unlikely undercover police would have an I.D badge on them, so were they mugging them, or what? The fact that Bragg says they let them go ‘without further aggrevation’ would indicate they were going to get a beating, basically for being white. The lesson Bragg seems to take from this is that to avoid getting beaten up by blacks the best thing to do is to side with blacks in attacking otherwhites. In fact, in a wider sense, I suppose this is the moral of the whole book. Flicking around the book tonight I also found this little gem, which supposedly took place at an anti-racist rally- “On hearing that Griffin is a Holocaust denier, a tall, thin, elderly man steps from the crowd to speak movingly of his experiences as an ambulance driver who, as Aliied forces moved into Germany in 1945, witnessed tha aftermath of the Holocaust first hand. He described the smell of Belsen-‘We didn’t have to ask for directions’ seeing the piles of shoes beside the crematoria…” Funny that as you flick through the book you see the words ‘Nazi’, ‘Hitler’ and ‘Holocaust’ on virtually every page, you would have thought he would actually know something of what he was talking about, yet he doesn’t know that wherever else they may have been there were certainly no Holocaustian crematoria at Belsen! I haven’t heard the Clash song you link but shall have a listen too it now. 28
Posted by PM on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 01:15 | # The Clash song is as annoying as I expected it to be. What a bunch of pathetic fucking wiggers. 29
Posted by PM on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 01:22 | # ...and I have just realised that Brixton is Sarf Landan rather than East End, but the rest of my rant still holds. 30
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 03:04 | # Id just like to throw in the fact that Mick Jones of The Clash is of partly jewish origin. All coincidental of course. Joe Strummer was an interesting character, I often wonder, were he still alive, if he might have ‘turned’ at some point? Probably not but perhaps not totally impossible either. His brother was in the NF. I remember being surprised in an interview (in the NME maybe?) where he stated in 1986 after the US attack on Libya that Gaddafy had to be prepared to take it if he was prepared to hand it out to women & kids (by supporting terrorists). That was not the approved opinion expected from indie hipsters like him! He was too big in the indie hipster pantheon to be called on it though! Joe Strummer, like Billy Bragg (now a resident of a Dorset village) inexplicably preferred to live in an all-too-white Somerset village, far from the multicultural paradise in London they both helped to build. 31
Posted by danielj on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 05:53 | # The Clash song is as annoying as I expected it to be. What a bunch of pathetic fucking wiggers. That is in fact PM where punk came from. A bunch of white boys started hanging out in reggae clubs. Thanks for recounting the story from the Bragg book. I was already turned before I heard any significant amount of Bragg’s music so he has always annoyed me. Although, I can listen to Power in a Union (as naively cheesey as it is) without grating my teeth too much. I have a soft spot for all those traditional blue collar anthems. Joe Strummer was an interesting character, I often wonder, were he still alive, if he might have ‘turned’ at some point? Probably not but perhaps not totally impossible either. His brother was in the NF. I believe Screwdriver started out as just a regular punk band. A lot of English Oi bands start out or end up right wing. I also believe old Joe was, like our host, a military brat. Therefore, there was a chance. I’m glad it didn’t take me too long to escape and turn. But, I still have an abiding love for all things punk rock. 32
Posted by danielj on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 05:56 | # Since the anti-Silver rant you have become my favorite MR poster. Fuckin a. Tell me I dethroned The Captain and you’ll have made my day. Now if you’ll excuse me gentlemen, I’m gonna go down the pub and have a few Guinness and some shepherd’s pie. 33
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 06:38 | # Dan - Joe’s dad was a diplomat. So Joe lived in various countries and boarding school in the UK. Not a military brat but a quite similar kind of upbringing. I just read that again, bit of jewish ancestry in there too, didnt know that before. I only saw him once, mid 1980s, he was buying a pack of cigarettes in a shop in Notting Hill, he looked at me in my Joy Division T-shirt (or was Siouxse & the Banshees?) and he was thinking “Yeah, you know who I am.” I nodded as if to say “Yeah, I know who you are Joe.” 34
Posted by danielj on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 07:55 | # Lurker, The pie was way too “ground beef-y” and the Guinness was served too cold and too heady. I swear I saw Strummer at a Motorhead show although I have no idea why he was there. I didn’t approach. Was Notting Hill “Rotting” still in the eighties or was it already undergoing the gentrification process? Does that process work the same in the UK as in the States? Hipsters and fags move in and drive up housing prices for shacks and condos in the middle of a ghetto? Jews in the Strummer family tree? I’d say I’m surprised but that doesn’t happen anymore. Although, if you were wearing your Sixousie shirt, he might have taken offense since she was already solidly in the anti-semite camp by then no? 35
Posted by danielj on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 07:58 | # How horrifyingly ironic that hipsters and fags are on the front lines battling for territory while most white nationalists sit it out behind the keyboard… 36
Posted by John on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:08 | # Jupiter: “I just want to alert everyone here that Paul Craig Roberts has crossed the line into being a cheerleader for race-replaceing the Native Whitem Majority. Go check out his post this morning on vdare.com about his enthusiasm for race-replacement in Texas.” Vdare wouldn’t give him a platform from which to “cheerlead for race-replacement” (unless Vdare had also become such a cheerleader). From the article: Ironic, isn’t it, while Washington and its NATO puppets are busy occupying the world, they are being occupied by the world.” That sounds to me more like like a lamentation than “cheerleading”. 37
Posted by t. semkov on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:49 | # Tell me I dethroned The Captain and you’ll have made my day. “Uh” did that years ago—but Captain was too freaked out to acknowledge it. 38
Posted by danielj on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:41 | # I just meant as Sam’s favorite poster.
39
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 18:40 | #
Uh was the first to plant his flag a-top the Mt. Everest of social transaction theory. To not have known that STT explains All Things was indeed a jarring yet needed experience. Enlightenment at last! Thanks, Uh. 41
Posted by Silver on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 21:40 | # Since the anti-Silver rant you have become my favorite MR poster. Don’t blame yourself for that, though, Sam. We just see the world from two different perspectives. You, on the one hand, require ten thousand word essays to help you make sense of how Jean Seberg ever came to have sex with a nigger. For me, it’s just enough to know that she Jane, he Tarzan. Try looking at my posts this way: they’re just a rough outline of the sorts of things they’ll be teaching you in reeducation camp. 42
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 22:48 | #
The problem with White nationalism in the past was the people least effected by multicult brainwashing were least effected because they were clustered at one end of a spectrum and couldn’t relate well to those in the middle and at the other extreme. Success requires a collection of people from across the full length of the spectrum who can each relate to their segment. 43
Posted by danielj on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 23:44 | # Silver, I’ll give you this, you are the undisputed queen of snark. 44
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 00:34 | # The problem is not with “white-nationalism” per se; the problem is with white people in general. More specifically: when it comes to racial issues, most whites see more personal benefit in advancing the cause of non-whites than in advancing their own. That’s precisely the dynamic we must grapple with and subdue. 45
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 03:09 | #
I think White people are fine. I think the problem is they’re following a deliberately deformed Logos. I think the stages we need to follow are: 1. Demolish the existing PC Logos. We won’t be listened to while we are deemed heretics by the existing Logos. It has to be brought down first or at least weakened to get a word in. If a Logos is based on universal values they have to be universal and the PC ones aren’t as they’re not applied to White people. The PC Logos can be attacked and weakened on this basis all day every day. Bob Whittaker’s Mantra or personal riffs following the same pattern of constantly pointing out that the PC universal values are not applied universally can act as the battering ram against the current Logos. This battering ram doesn’t have to have a “them” and in many cases works better without one although it can if you want. 2. Success at stage one should lead to growing organisation(s) that act primarily as vehicles for promoting that battering ram idea and continue at it until the PC Logos starts to crumble. 3. At some point in stage two as the PC Logos is weakened enough aspects of an alternative Logos need to get injected into the discussion e.g “Diversity Kills” and “Nation First, Economy Second” for example. The aim is to knock down the old Logos then replace it with one that has elements which ensure our survival and which can be extended as far as neccessary. 4. If we succeed at stage three then we get our ethno-states. I have no doubt of this. It might take a fight but if we replace the PC Logos with a survivalist one thats 90% of the work. I think what we are looking at here is a herd effect based on the position of a set of scales. The scales are currently weighted in a self-destructive way and the herd is following - most of them very reluctantly. We don’t need to persuade every White person to become as instinctively ethno-centric as the average non-white person. (I don’t think that’s even possible.) We need to change the balance of the scales to a pro-White direction and the herd will follow and then *self-organise* along the lines of the new Logos. White people all co-operating to a common end are unstoppable. 5. Once we get our ethno-states then there’s a question of what needs to be done to prevent this happening again.
46
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 04:58 | #
I can believe that. In their heyday Motorhead were seen, over here anyway, as a kind of crossover act. Sort of an honorary punk band. And the compliment was returned: R.A.M.O.N.E.S by Motorhead. In fact I just noticed this one too. Lemmy with the Ramones playing his song. Post Dee Dee I see.
Well I have to say I wasnt really switched on about such things then but yes, I would say so. Hipsters rather than fags though. Thats more whats happening in Brighton - south coast of England. You have to reflect that London areas are very tightly packed together anyway. Notting Hill is, literally, only a few minutes walk from prime real estate - Kensington, an area that was still desireable even Notting Hill’s ghetto status heyday in the 1970s/80s. This is common, especially in central London, walk two streets and you’ve gone from wealth to poverty. This place in Kensington High Street is £735,000 thats @ $1.1 million. Its a few minutes walk from where I happened upon Joe Strummer but even then it would still have fetched a very high price as if Notting Hill were miles away, rather than just around the corner.
I didnt even think of that, but then somehow I dont think it was taken very seriously, and probably not by Strummer either. He would understand it was just a provocative pose by her, thats how it was presented at the time, and I think thats all it really was, style not substance. I suspect were all that to happen now she would be called on it, big time. Sensitivities are heightened. 47
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:43 | # It’s the problem of pure reason. These libertarians are committed to a world of cold rationality (the theories of classical liberalism) that exists in their own minds only. They are incapable of feeling kinship with their biological community. Rationalism, when it reaches this man-machine extreme, is nihilism. These people are as opposed to the life of our people as any egalitarian. Just look at Jim P.’s argument in favor of immigrants against native-born children (once again premised on utilitarian grounds which do not take into account the cultural costs of said immigration)! You cannot reason with those who are this far gone. I personally see them as akin to automatons, and therefore creepy and disgusting caricatures of living, breathing organisms. Pardon my aggressive tone but it’s warranted, I believe, for them. (Gudmund)
The problem is that libertarians do have much analysis of value to offer. The Austrian School, which I have studied to a considerable degree (after having been immersed in college in standard neoclassical stuff, so I do understand their critique of the mainstream in both economic thought and social science methodology), is extremely powerful, and, as I have argued here before, basically correct in its ‘praxeology’, at least when confined to economics proper (some get more broadly ambitious, and then the errors begin). They have many irrefutable arguments, whether on socialist impossibility, tacit and dispersed knowledge, the nature of money, time preference, the structure of production, etc. They also have a lot of sound refutations of various stupid liberal economic interventions (distortions), as well as commonsense observations about civil society, and the differing conduct of men under statism as against freedom. Unfortunately, libertarians are the ultimate blinkered ideologues, and will never accept let alone assimilate any fact which contradicts their allegedly rigorous and ‘apodictic’ (haha) preconceptions. One of my long term intellectual goals is to destroy the theoretical edifice of libertarianism; that is, to demonstrate in scholarship that libertarian ideology is 1) not logically necessary, but merely preferential; 2) unreconcilable with traditional Christianity; 3) actually inimical to maximizing real world freedom over the long run; 4) a species of the Enlightenment Left; and 5) a danger to the survival of the West (and possibly the planet). Unfortunately, I think libertarianism is going to grow more popular over this decade - and as the West becomes more ‘diverse’ (through the ultimate Big Government program of totalitarian race-replacement), it will grow more popular still (as will nationalism in reaction to increasing multicultural abrasiveness and aberrant behaviors). 48
Posted by danielj on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:43 | # I didnt even think of that, but then somehow I dont think it was taken very seriously, and probably not by Strummer either. He would understand it was just a provocative pose by her, thats how it was presented at the time, and I think thats all it really was, style not substance. I suspect were all that to happen now she would be called on it, big time. Sensitivities are heightened. Indeed. You should read the PDF I posted. There were more Jews crawling around the beginning of punk then I realized. It also goes into great detail about the Siouxsie stuff. This place in Kensington High Street is £735,000 thats @ $1.1 million. Its a few minutes walk from where I happened upon Joe Strummer but even then it would still have fetched a very high price as if Notting Hill were miles away, rather than just around the corner. Yea. That made my time in London kind of surreal. Everything is much bigger and broader in America. 49
Posted by Danny on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:20 | # There is a white self-hatred fest in full swing here: The comment by joachimlevi is particularly unpleasant “99% of .... Austrians and Germans, overnight, decided that Jews were “sub-humans”.... “ 50
Posted by Gregor on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:58 | # Wandrin; Your comment above at April 04, 2011, 02:09 AM is excellent. I’m reading an essay right now about “A Tale of Two Ontologies” which focuses primarily on Heidegger’s thought. In that essay the author teases out many things that a person who thinks like you/us might find useful. One thing he teases out is how “worlds” are brought down by a “disruption of reference”, by which he seems to mean that someone who wants to “bring down a system” can do it by engaging in the disruption of the internal referential integrity that maintains the “glue” that holds the system together. I know you’ve heard that before, and I know what rabbit told you about it! Anyway, here’s a link to the essay, and if 11 pages is too “disruptive” to your schedule, skip past the intro and Descartes stuff and start on about page 6. Take ‘er easy wabbit. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/education/downloads/2004_conference_quay.pdf 51
Posted by Hamish on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 22:12 | # Silver, I’ll give you this, you are the undisputed queen of snark. That’s because he’s a Jew. We must resist the urge to laugh at the Jew as he yucks it up over how he’s going to lord it over us, over how he’s going to destroy us. “Re-education camps”? Hardy Har-Har, you rotten Kike. 52
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 02:25 | # re libertarianism: http://www.vdare.com/misc/080514_pendleton.htm http://www.toqonline.com/blog/the-libertarian-blind-spot/ P.C. libertarianism By HENRY GALLAGHER FIELDS http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/fields_pclib.htm The Rockwell and Raimondo sites have the same master- jew Eric Garris. There has been much infiltration over the last thirty years. I was was aghast at Reason mag’s anti-racist There is no single libertarianism- there is vast disagreement. btw “Libertarianism” in the 19th century meant voluntary communism. Anarchy here, the state withering away (Marx) there. . . 53
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:15 | # Gregor,
Yes that’s how i see things. Ty, i’ll read it.
Undercover lovers of the world unite 54
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:56 | # Re Gregor’s article recommendation: why are those working within the Continental tradition of philosophy always such poor writers, often barely intelligible? 55
Posted by danielj on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:34 | # why are those working within the Continental tradition of philosophy always such poor writers, often barely intelligible? If any tradition deserves the slight, the ascription of bare intelligibility, it is the analytical tradition. The English do soulless philosophy and you can have that if you prefer to sacrifice vision for economy of expression and an impoverished ontology. 56
Posted by Gregor on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:07 | # @Leon I feel your pain, and have shared it. The process of getting “inside” Heidegger’s thinking is not an exercise in merely “translating” his referential-symbolism into a language we “already use”, it’s a process of walking a path of seeing the world in a whole different way. It’s less about “things”, and more about energy flows and “our” point of reference in “seeing” them. Now, what I just wrote probably seems equally “unintelligible”. I have to tell you, reading Heidegger really affects the shape of the world once you follow him in a direction on a path he’s trod. It doesn’t just affect the reader/thinker, it literally changes the shape of the world. So, you might ask, why suffer the painful effort of following along? I’m currently in the position of thinking that what we’re engaged in, what our “White Nationalism” thing, or whatever you want to call it, IS .... is a “War of Ontologies”. To even engage in this struggle, one must have a feeling for the ontological “fields” we’re playing on; which would mean having a picture of what “we” are, and how that differs from what “they” are. Difficult or not, some of these “continental thinkers” are addressing just that. I don’t see anyone else doing it, so I’m left with having to turn to them. The PROCESS of following this think seems to lead to a “Revelation of the Problem”, which of course leads to a revelation of the METHOD for attending to the problem. Best wishes! Gregor 57
Posted by Gregor on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:10 | # @ Danielj; Most of my background stems from “the English”, yet I have yet to find any philosopher worthy of the name in that tradition. Well, maybe that’s not quite right, some of Roger Scruton’s work resonates. Yet it STILL fails to address the “things” Heidegger, Foucault, et al tease out of obscurity. Is that what you’re getting at?
58
Posted by Gregor on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:36 | # More thoughts on why it may be important to suffer the pain of understanding those “continental philosphers”... I’ve come to the point where Carl Schmitt’s phrase “A nation is first conquered when it acquiesces to a foreign language ...” really makes sense, and points “us” in a direction. So long as we are using the language dictated by a hostile “other”, we are necessarily subjected to the ontology of the “other”. Everyone here knows the shape and style of that foreign language, no matter what language it’s spoken in. The only way out is to start using another language, one which de-structures the alien tropes, and replaces them with language which re-creates and re-structures OUR world. I believe an understanding of Heidegger’s thinking is key to this. Of course, none of his language can be used directly and sold to the “masses”, it must be decoded and then re-coded into language which can get “memetic legs”. Some people have already seen this, and are working on this in the “real world”, and doing so without even knowing who Heidegger is or what he thinks. One doesn’t have to “know” Heidegger to do these things, but known or not, one is on the same path he illuminates. My point is that, by learning the “Ontology of a World” presented by that man’s thinking, much much MORE can be opened up and used to create more and more effective “meme-weapons” to achieve the purpose of re-creating our world. As always, since we all “differ”, mileage may differ. 59
Posted by danielj on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 01:14 | # Yet it STILL fails to address the “things” Heidegger, Foucault, et al tease out of obscurity. Is that what you’re getting at? That and more. The Analytic Tradition just seems to be the handmaiden for “progress” of all the sickest varieties. It treats the question of ultimate reality as fully settled and approaches the world without any wonder. It is really just materialistic reductionism and scientism parading itself around in Socratic garb. They are specialists disguised as generalists. 60
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:13 | #
Punk was infested with Jews. It would be more accurate call the New Wave, Jew Wave. Siouxsie despite her swastika armband was half-Jewish according to some. I can’t find any evidence but she wrote a pro-Zionist song called Israel.
Sid Vicious despite his swastika t-shirt had a Jewish girlfriend Nancy Spungen. The Clash were signed to CBS by Maurice Oberstein. They were managed by the Jewish Bernie Rhodes and of course the Pistols were managed by fellow Jew Malcolm McLaren and the American New Wave label Sire records were founded by yet another chosenite Seymour Stein. Were some of members of Joy Division Jewish? They came from Manchester, a city with a large Jewish population and they were named after the Jewish prostitutes in Nazi camps from a work of fiction. In Ireland the leader of the Punk New Wave was Bob Geldof
Geldof’s punk band the Boomtown Rats had a song called I Never Loved Eva Braun. I suppose the fascination with all the Nazi stuff in punk was Jewish kids obsessed with anti-semitism. The Holocaust was called the Final Solution in the 70s.
Another military brat (he went to military school) was Johnny Ramone real name John Cummings, the son of an Irish builder. According to Marky Ramone in this month’s Mojo would make fun of the Jewish Joey Ramone (Jeff Hyman) all the time saying “Here comes 6’6” Jew boy walking down the street. Kike.”
Johnny used make it look he was making a Hitler salute when the Ramones played Today Your Love, Tomorrow The World a song which originally had the lyric “I’m a Nazi baby, you know I fight for the fatherland”. 61
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:34 | # I think Joy Division are off the hook (see what I did there?!) on the jewish charge. Id always thought that Johnny & Joey fell out after Johnny went off with Joey’s ex. The teasing wasnt some implicit stance by Johnny it was a personal thing between him and Joey. 62
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:05 | #
The IRA were very right wing and anti-communist up until the mid-60s. One of the leaders of their shift left was Roy Johnston from an Ulster Presbyterian background. . Their Irish-American support would have been conserative Catholic and anti-communist. They wouldn’t have been happy with tens of thousands of blacks in Ireland just like they didn’t like blacks bussed to their schools in Boston. The increasing Communist influence led to the split between left wing Officials and right wing Provisionals. But the Provisionals from the mid-70s gradually shifted left. The Officials political wing Official Sinn Fein evolved into the Workers’ Party before merging with the Irish Labour Party. They became very anti-nationalist and even pro-unionist dropping the Sinn Fein name to avoid confusion with the Provisionals. The miltitary wing ended their campaign against the British in the early 70s but continued armed robberies and protection rackets. The Provisionals became very left wing and developed links with the ANC, PLO and ETA. The descendants of the Officials in Labour and modern Sinn Fein both support the race replacement of the Irish and right on stuff like gay marriage despite their past differences. The current deputy prime minister (Tanaiste) and foreign minister Eamon Gilmore is an ex-Official. Not everyone in the Irish Republican heartland of West Belfast is anti-racist. I know a taxi driver from there who hates blacks. He left America after a black drew a gun on him and told me about Catholics and Protestants youths joining together in Ballymena to kick Pakistanis out of their estate. 63
Posted by Easily Amused Observer on Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:44 | #
Of course, that’s what the attack on Paul Craig Roberts is really about, not anything to do with his supposed support of race replacement. No one could read the PCR article and come away believing he supports race replacement, so it’s a purposeful lie. Now it’s pretty clear why the lie was invented - because PCR dared to speak out on the 911 thing. 64
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:52 | # Thank you, Gregor. I am sceptical, but I would be interested in seeing you develop systematically your “War of Ontologies” metaphor. I continue to think that the key philosophical battles facing WN involve ethics, not ontology. But I am open to considering alternative approaches, at least if their adherents can demonstrate, and not merely assert, some prima facie reason for supposing that efforts at understanding their intricacies will be worthwhile. Such demonstration may require a bit of ‘dumbing down’ for the uninitiated, something Continental acolytes in my experience are over-loathe to do. 65
Posted by Bah Humbug on Tue, 19 Apr 2011 06:39 | # I have no personal familiarity with Europe, but, in the United States, the ones who most gleefully push for the ethnic eradication of whites are… white Christians. The reason that I live around Vietnamese now is because Mormons brought them here. The reason that I live around Somali Bantu (polygamous ones, even) is that Evangelicals brought them here. Propagating the meme-plex of Christianity matters more to them than biological propagation. Indeed, if given the choice of Christianity surviving and white extinction, they would chose Christianity every time. It doesn’t seem to get any better here once whites have jettisoned Christianity, either. They’re still fanatical egalitarians. They’ll adopt children because the world’s overpopulated, doncha know? One human is as good as the other, so why not? Most whites seem to have been selected, maybe through religious culling of heretics and mobocracy culling of aristocracy, to think this way. Ones who think otherwise seem to be fringe. I’ve given up getting through to most whites. I often get the impression when I’ve tried to talk to them about human differences and evolution, that it causes tremendous pain. I don’t mean mild discomfort, either—like pursuing it will kill their soul and will to live. I’m not callous enough to do that. What do I hope for? That we will leave some decent records after our decline and collapse that the humans who claw their way up from the bottom can protect themselves from what brought on our demise. Perhaps they’ll achieve a technological singularity because it looks doubtful that we will. 66
Posted by Medical Internet Marketing on Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:50 | # Thankful conception 67
Posted by Franklyn Galusha on Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:36 | # The belief in Christianity or any other faith calls into question—your sanity. Why do so many people continuously feel compelled to share their beliefs with others who really don’t care. Why does individuals become so outraged when you don’t acKnowledge their god. Do the world a favor keep your religious beliefs to yourself between you and your god and don’t bore the rest of us with it. Religious beliefs are supposed to be a private affair between you and your god. Problems always arise when people for whatever reason decides that they must proclaim to the world what their religious beliefs are. You realize how much more peaceful world the would be if they did not? 68
Posted by north east indian on Wed, 15 May 2013 10:43 | # stupid retards whites are NOT aryans quit mocking our culture only hindus are aryan culture as christian are the opposite in beliefs compared to hindu aryans why do you white semens think you are aryans? germany never made it through russia as russia stomped germany and north east indians are the only aryan culture by the rig-veda sanskrit stupid! oh and our swastika was never white trashes icon that belonged to india so f OFF! Post a comment:
Next entry: Finkelstein defies the waterworks
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Lew on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:23 | #
It’s my second favorite quote by Joe Sobran.
My favorite Sobran quote is his famous definition of an anti-Semite as “someone Jews hate.”