|
|
|
Broken clock. Twice a day.
A spokesman for the renegade and criminal Real IRA, in an interview with the Guardian headlined “Real IRA says it will target UK bankers.” Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:56 | # And would that be the English people you hate so much? And what have they done, these schoolboys in Warrington and newspaper-vendors in the City of London, these wives walking their dogs in Chelsea, these young girls dancing and drinking wine and believing that life was long and beautiful. What have any of them ever done to you, you miserable, mindless, murderous little piece of shit? 3
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 03:06 | # GW; the Real IRA’s economic analysis is certainly simplistic and inaccurate. And I don’t suppose their terror tactics will actually do much to bring about the abolition of all debt and usury you were hoping for. But if you don’t know why a lot of Irish folk hate England then you really should read up on a bit of history. Begin about Henry II and take the story up to the Black and Tans. Pay especial attention to what one of our great national poets, Spenser, said about what he saw there when he was Governor, and don’t forget Cromwell’s little adventures. Much as I love England, I will willingly admit that her treatment of Ireland was frequently - no, GENERALLY - absolutely vile and despicable. All together now:
You don’t need reminding that Englishmen in Ireland frequently behaved like
I mentioned elsewhere very recently the strangeness of the fact that the tremendous and unforgiveable injustices done to the English had left little trace in the English popular memory: the Irish suffered more, much more, and why should you expect them to forget? 4
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 03:50 | # Further evidence, as the Klan suggested, of why Catholics cannot be trusted.
5
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:16 | # Gorb, The Irish who hate England and the English are cretins who cannot distinguish between a people and its ruling caste. The people bear no responsibility for the caste’s actions and, indeed, are victims of the caste in their own right. The Real IRA demonstrates that it can comprehend that. But then some clown pops up with a bit of broadcast racial hatred! Let me say it again, for your benefit. You, as an Englishman, bear no responsibility for deeds done in Ireland. You did not attack the Irish, oppress the Irish, starve the Irish ... anything at all. You are innocent. But ... you are an Englishman and that’s enough to be hated by “a lot of Irish folk” ... a lot of stupid, hateful, racist Irish folk, in fact. 6
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:31 | # Desmond Jones: I’m afraid you are talking sheer bloody nonsense, and should be ashamed of yourself. Exactly WHAT is the evidence that Catholics can’t be trusted and just WHERE is it? WHT can’t they be trusted in? Erin go Bragh merely said “F**k england” I pointed out the means whereby an overwhelming amplitude of reasons for the Irishman’s hatred and distrust of England could be easily discovered, and I quoted a verse from a “loyalist” song. (There are plenty of worse ones, but I didn’t feel the need to embarrass the “loyalists”.) What, pray, are you pleased to infer from those two posts? Were I to say - and I do now say it in all sincerity - “The Palestinians have good reason to hate Britain for her connivance in setting up the state of Israel, and Hilaire Belloc began to warn us 80 years ago that this would have dire consequences for Britain and Europe” does this imply any endorsement on my (or Belloc’s) part of Islamic terrorism or of the Islamic desire to colonise Europe? What do you pretend to infer from that? I merely state that stupid and cruel policies often generate unwelcome reactions. Don’t you agree? 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:40 | # Gorb,
Wrong. It is psychotic to hate a land or a people for the deeds of its ruling class. Are we to hate Ireland and the Irish because of the hate and murderousness of a group of Irish terrorists? No, of course not. We retain our humanity.
I infer that Palestinians can make the necessary distinctions.
Guildford and Birmingham as “unwelcome reactions”? I think Desmond must have been right. Gorb, you are in a moral hole. Stop digging. 8
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:47 | # @ GW: I’ve just seen yours which went up as I was still fumbling at the keyboard. I’m not sure I feel much benefited, but thanks all the same. On Irish matters, please see my post of May 03, 2010, 02:58 PM on the Compleat Anti-Racist thread. 9
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:12 | # GW: just seen your second one. Don’t understand yr. hackneyed jibe about digging myself into a moral hole. You yourself believe in inheritance and traditions, don’t you? Well, many Irish folk have inherited a traditional hatred of England. They may be wrong not to distinguish the ruling caste from those ruled - a little point I think I addressed in the earlier post I referred to above - but that’s a bad habit folks fall into, and I don’t think you need accuse me of any error here. They may be psychotic; I couldn’t say. But there it is. I didn’t take sides on this: so no moral question arises, although I feel tempted to suggest that if you feel it necessary to take moral, politial and religious advice from the Klan, that you’re in the gutter and the Catholics may be on a bit of a moral eminence. Oh, and btw, those convicted of the Guildford and Birmingham bombings had their verdicts of guilt reversed. I suppose the fact that so many Englishmen rejoiced at the guilty verdicts originally procured by police fabrications only strengthened some of those traditional hatreds, and made it difficult for some Irish folk to make that essential distinction between rulers and ruled. Although I don’t haunt low pubs as much as I used to, I still encounter social contexts where demotic expressions like “Bleedin’ thick micks” are in use. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:39 | #
The Klan? What on earth are you trying to say now?
Popular wisdom, not racism. Centuries of emigration has rendered the IQ of Ireland at 93. 11
Posted by uh on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:11 | # And would that be the English people you hate so much? And what have they done, these schoolboys in Warrington and newspaper-vendors in the City of London, these wives walking their dogs in Chelsea, these young girls dancing and drinking wine and believing that life was long and beautiful. What have any of them ever done to you, you miserable, mindless, murderous little piece of shit? The sage goes a bit red in the face! I seem to recall something about hatred being more important to the history of the European than love. A “moral” as it were. 12
Posted by majix on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:33 | # Seems like this thread got off on the wrong track with “Fuck England.” I think the solution of the Real IRA is great. As an Irish-American I cheer them on. Please Oh Please, if there’s a gawd in heav’n, start with the Rothschilds. 13
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:41 | # Needless to add, the more different the individuals are racially, the more even tiny numbers do matter. A few Hutus in Watusi-land, a few Irishmen in England, a few Poles in Germany, a few Koreans in Japan, a few Chinamen in Viet-Nam don’t present a huge problem. A few Hutus in Japan, a few Nigerians in England, or a few Cameroonians in France do, however. In cases like that, the numbers that “wouldn’t matter” exist but are microscopic. (Fred) If I may quote a great American Senator from days of yore: “One communist (in the State Dept) (my parens) is one communist too many.” (Tail-Gunner Joe McCarthy, R-WI) One non-white citizen or permanent resident in any nation of Europe, is one too many. The principle absolutely matters the most here. Admitting a single individual into the volksgemeinschaft as such destroys the racial principle which should be uppermost in the minds of the senior persons guiding the nation. Of course, there is nothing a priori the matter with racial aliens present in the territory, provided they are “just passing through”, whether for commerce or tourism, are discouraged from fornicating with the indigenes, and are closely watched by the authorities, esp if they are black or Muslim. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:53 | # The last thing we need, however, is any more intra-racial antagonism amongst our peoples. Two world wars, followed by a hugely destructive Cold War (remind me: what was the excuse LBJ gave as to why the USA had to change our “racist” (read “preservationist”) immigration laws? hmmm .... something to do with making a good impression on the Non-Aligned World ....), have brought our race to the edge of annihilation. It is our responsibility to pull back from the brink. Although I am a bit of a racial Nordicist, as well as Anglo/German chauvinist (ie, I prefer the English and Germans to other Europeans) and of course, militant eugenicist, I am willing to swallow these sentiments in the name of European racial/cultural solidarity. Oh, and we esp do NOT need to inflame white denominational antagonisms. Religious ecumenism should be emphasized by nationalists (and atheists would do well not to attack Christianity, of any tradition). 15
Posted by Robert Knox on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:26 | # The historian Owen Dudley Edwards once wrote a book about the two irish murderes Burke and Hare ( a case that has perpetually fascinated and obsessed me ever since I first read about it), in which he tried to make out William burke as some kind of hero of Irish republicanism! 16
Posted by Gussie Fink-Nottle on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:41 | # The first post is in all likelihood an anti-Irish troll rather than an Irish anti-English troll. Just think of which group is more likely to hang out at a site like majority rights. You’d think it was your first day on the internet to fall for that one. 17
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:39 | #
What about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the Bloody Sunday shootings that happened before Guildford and Birmingham?
Brits can be murderous too. 18
Posted by Matra on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:57 | # He says his ancestry is partly Irish Catholic and he was “brought up to revere greatly the martyrs of 1916 and to hold in contempt the Black and Tans.” btw, those convicted of the Guildford and Birmingham bombings had their verdicts of guilt reversed. I suppose the fact that so many Englishmen rejoiced at the guilty verdicts originally procured by police fabrications only strengthened some of those traditional hatreds, and made it difficult for some Irish folk to make that essential distinction between rulers and ruled. Of course, it was Irish from the IRA who carried out the atrocities then happily allowed innocent Irish living in England to do time for their acts. In 1916 the “martyrs” didn’t hesitate making involuntary martyrs out of innocent Irish going about their business. I think we can infer from Gorboduc’s words that he attaches more value to Irish victims when the English can be blamed. That is a sign of someone motivated not by universal nationalism, religion or culture, but by blood hatred of the Other. Similarly, Mangan had a link to a Vox Day blog post about immigration destroying empires and the USA. After some posters mention the role of non-WASP immigrants in America’s decline, an Irish-American poster ‘Red Bane’, who like Gorboduc claims not to be motivated by blood, lists all the supposedly great Irish contributions to America then states: “Its kind of ridiculous to lump these colorful folk in with the hordes of illegals we suffer with today.America would have been a miserable puritanical, eugenicist, Waspish stink hole without its Irish heritage”. He then goes on to say: “If everyone insults Wasps then it’s probably well deserved.No fire without smoke eh? They were certainly bastards to the Irish both at Home and in the “New World”. So even when events are taking place, not in Ireland, but in a land built by and made prosperous by the descendants of the British, these Irish still hate the Anglo-Saxon. So relieved to know it is not about blood,genes, race, and all that stuff. LOL 19
Posted by Matra on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:08 | # What about the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the Bloody Sunday shootings that happened before Guildford and Birmingham? In Northern Ireland we call this Whataboutery. 20
Posted by BGD on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:53 | #
Well obviously there would be few salt tears shed if we were to read in the papers about an assassination campaign targeting the highest level banking families. But then the IRA themselves were not exactly known for their finesse. The Real IRA with less experienced hands on board are more like the Special Constables of the Irish terrorist fraternity. So I don’t expect to read about car bombs and sniper fire against this sort of strata of our society. Especially as they have telegraphed ahead with their intentions meaning those who can afford to will be doubling security. More likely surely (and not dissimilar to the IRA) is that they’ll pack vehicles full of fertiliser based explosive and drive it to Canary Wharf and remotely explode it (or timer it if less adept) when they are well clear. And their victims will be Essex kids and commuter belters all engaged in jobs like trading, admin, number crunching and Excel jockeying and on a basic in the 40-100k range. Not quite the same. P.S. First comment disappeared into the submit ether. If it reappears apol for double post.. 21
Posted by BGD on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:57 | # A secondary assumption is that (according to received ‘wisdom’) Thatcher authorised her emissaries to negotiate harder with more rewards on the table when the IRA started targeting the City. If true, perhaps the RIRA want something. 22
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:13 | #
I’m well aware of that word. I was just pointing out that the British committed atrocities too. I wasn’t justifiying any atrocities. 23
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:31 | #
Still, I’d sooner an America populated by millions of Irish like Patrick J Buchanan and Kevin B MacDonald than one Hilary Clinton or George W Bush. 24
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:48 | #
The current pope is a Kraut and his predecessor was a Pollack who succeeded a long line of Wops not Dagos. The last Italian pope was from Lombardy, the whitest part of Italy. There hasn’t been a Dago pope in centuries. Catholics can join the Klan now. 25
Posted by Matra on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:39 | # I’d sooner an America populated by millions of Irish like Patrick J Buchanan Buchanan is a mixture of post-Revolution Irish and German Catholics and pre-Revolution English and Scots-Irish Protestants. Don’t know about Kevin MacDonald’s background. Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, the two most visible Irish Catholic conservatives, still bring up the mythical ‘No Irish Need Apply’ signs. The Real IRA with less experienced hands on board are more like the Special Constables of the Irish terrorist fraternity. So I don’t expect to read about car bombs and sniper fire against this sort of strata of our society. I could see them going after low hanging fruit like Belfast bank managers, etc. Unless they are getting help from the Provos I think they’d have difficulty carrying out attacks in London. This seems to be more about positioning themselves politically as defenders of the people standing up to the ‘establishment’, unlike those Sinn Fein ‘sell-outs’ who are cashing in. 26
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:27 | # @Matra, I was aware that Buchanan had Scots-Irish and German ancestry. Buchanan is obviously a surname of Scottish origin not Irish. I’ve got nothing against the English myself, my paternal grandfather was English. Its just that they don’t see history from the Irish point of view. Although I can certainly understand why the English and WASPs in America might resent Irish immigration. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:49 | #
An America founded by Irish Catholics, that’s a joke right?
This is the Klansman’s message:
There is no greater morality. 28
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:12 | #
What makes you think they cannot comprehend the distinction you make, and that attacking the English people is not merely a means to the end of motivating the English people to restrain their ruling class as the latter impacts Ireland? That was essentially the thinking of English lads who fire-bombed the Krauts and not genocidal hatred for Krauts, correct?
The English are entitled to the status of Master Race in what they regard as their own sphere of influence, why does that sound familiar? 29
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:24 | # majix, I trust you are even now booking your flight and onward journey to the borderlands of County Louth, swiftly followed by a second flight and onward journey to sunny, downtown, Mossad-crawling, IDF-infested Jerusalem. Running down them thar Rothschilds has got to be child’s play for the peerless heroes of RIRA. However, I think it is safe to assume that the gentlemen you encounter in the green and gentle delights of County Louth are MI5 operatives to a man and, anyway, their elusive prey is more interested in killing and maiming as many ordinary bank staff in the City of London as possible using a detonation that is as large and indiscriminate as possible. But it will certainly be an interesting story to tell your grandchildren. When you get out. Irish Anti-Commie,
That is a question you should direct to the relatives of the dead. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:30 | # An encore, CC? Quelle surprise. I know you don’t really expect me to actually respond to this grock, but I would not wish you to think I am ungrateful for the invitation. 31
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:42 | #
Or the reverse. What was the motivation after 9/11? Restrain the ruling class from bombing the fuck out of Afghanistan? Or what if the impact of the English ruling class was positive? What if the English rulers dragged the Irish kicking and screaming into the civilized world? What if the well being of modern Ireland directly correlates to the colonial efforts of he English? What if the alleged genocide by Cromwell was really an Irish ruling class contempt for their own that led to disease and deprivation that could easily have been avoided with a quick negotiation of terms? 32
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:17 | #
Bin Laden, intimately versed in the example of the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, thought he could win either way; either by making America see the wisdom of withdrawing from Islamic lands there and then or draw America into a lengthy series of wars by which the war machine and the will of the American people would expire through attrition. He is counting on the softness and decadence of Westerners to do most of the work for him. Of course he realizes he cannot win were the West to pull out all the stops, as was done against the Krauts. Terrorism that is not merely nihilism is always calculated to achieve a political objective. The fire-bombing of the Krauts was meant to break the back of the German people’s will to resist (and this is the more charitable interpretation). It did no such thing, however.
I never said the Irish did not benefit from English rule, as I believe Slavs would have benefited from German rule. As one Hungarian woman remarked in Irving’s Uprising, the Krauts were indeed strict and arrogant, yet cared for the betterment of the Hungarian people; the Bolsheviks on the other hand conducted themselves as conquering barbarians. 33
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:20 | # Gussie: I agree with your theories about EGB’s “F**k England” post. I left him alone and commented mainly on GW’s response. I think that American bloggers here have anticipated EGB’s profound message without being slammed down QUITE so severely. Reminds me of Cameron on Griffin ... GW gets flaming cross when I suggest he might be influenced by Klan thinking! (10.39 am)
I’m not TRYING to say anything, GW. I am now pointing out, I think perfectly successfully, that you endorse Desmond‘s judgment, which is supported by a versified bit of Klan chauvinism, that Catholics can’t be trusted (fourth post from top)
(08.40. AM) Didn’t you see Desmond’s Klan reference? GW goes on:
Don’t know how he knows this one, but even if it’s true, why did the Irish emigrate? Because the English had made such a God-awful mess of the place. That’s what I said earlier. Irish Anti-Commie: thanks for reminding people about the papacy’s ethnic history. Fred: thanks for your dissection of the situation. Evidence is that the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English have intermingled inextricably for centuries, and will go on doing so. 34
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:35 | # GW, I interpreted your request of me as referencing a abrasive and confrontational style I sometimes affect; and not concerning certain lines of inquiry. Knowing differently now, I shall desist in so doing as at least concerns English nationalism. My EGI is also tied to the isle of Britannia, as you know. So, therefore, I am concerned with saving her as well. 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 01:00 | #
Oddly, I tend to think that way about apologists for the murders of women and children.
Lynn and Vanhanen.
And I corrected you. But you were not listening, apparently. “The English”, you know!
I have no idea what you are talking about. 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 02:30 | #
No. The Scots maybe, but any people that relies on a single crop for their subsistence must be inherently stupid.
No. The Klan had it right. It appears the alleged Englishman does not know his own language.
Wrong again.
There is a clear genetic distinction between the Nordic Scots and the Gaelic Irish despite the alleged ‘hundreds of years of mixing.” http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/09/genetic-differences-between-five.html h/t n/a 37
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 02:35 | # CC, How do you reconcile your obvious sympathy and admiration for the German people with your constant use of the ethnic slur “Kraut”? If you can call Heidegger Krautegger perhaps we should be calling you Captainkraut, eh? 38
Posted by majix on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:00 | # Guessedworker. Not sure if that was an attack on me or what. I stand by what I said. My prayers are with anyone or anything that will go after the head of the beast. Right now I’m so broke I can’t get my car fixed till at least next month. So I’m sorry to disappoint you but I won’t be booking flights to anywhere anytime soon. 39
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:20 | # Notus, My use of the epithet “Kraut” in this context is a purely sarcastic play on the use of it by others whom I take didn’t intend it in a spirit of jest. And in addition, I just think it’s funny. Kinda like when nig…African-Americans refer to themselves as “nigger”. I’m half Kr…German (the rest is Dutch, English, and Scottish), so I figure no biggie. How did the Grand Canyon get dug? A Dutchman dropped a quarter in a gofer hole. Ya feel me, dawg? 40
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:37 | #
I like funny too, so you’re coming in loud and clear. 41
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:41 | #
LOL! I’ve seriously (though not in a spirit of seriousness) considered signing in under that name. That or “Punter Walleye”; although the latter seemed less appropriate. 42
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:14 | # majix,
I would prefer that you made your point lightly and humorously. You are not actually allowed to incite murders on the internet, even ones as absurd and impossible as that. Perhaps you would reflect on and learn from that. 43
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:05 | # This thread is sterile and unproductive. Those who plant bombs to kill indiscriminately are terrorists, and should be hunted and exterminated. The IRA fit this bill, especially as they were also heavily Marxist as well as nihilist (in the Conradian sense). Also sheerly criminal in many cases. Enemies of civilization, unworthy of life. ———————- I posted this on another thread, this time eliciting a single response. I try again: I reiterate something from above: Certainly, we must forever understand and acknowledge that repatriation (more honestly: racial cleansing) is simply not going to be applied peacefully, and this not only because some portion of the aliens will resort to violent resistance and terrorism. Many of our fellow whites will likewise engage in violent anti-fascist activities (and so they, too, will have to be reeducated, or, more likely, liquidated). Western lands, as currently semi-democratically constituted, will never legislate this, as the great majority of all peoples would rather be gradually displaced and miscegenated out of existence, than face the Hobbesian horrors of civil insurrection (especially when fought at the racial/genetic level, “where the color of our skin / is our uniform of war”). Thus, in all likelihood, before there will be repatriation, there will have to be fairly radical changes in government (this is why it was so so so vital never to have dropped our racial guard and allowed non-white immigration in the first place - or even merely to allow any more). (me, with new underline) This comment elicited no response, but it should have. 1. Will we be able to achieve WN goals democratically? If yes, in which countries? 2. Will we be able to achieve lasting racial security (ie, non-white re/expatriation) through political means at all? If yes, how (one possibility: WN parties actually win political majorities, which then gradually ‘tighten the screws’ on alien populations, until the latter either erupt in mass violence, or quietly slither away, with the final holdouts easily rounded up and forcibly deported)? 3. If it should prove unlikely if not impossible that political mechanisms will ever empower an expatriationist regime, or series of regimes, in the West, at what demographic level and/or point of political development should (militarily) revolutionary strategies be implemented, if ever? 4. Lastly, if revolutionary strategies are inevitable (this assumes my own counter-strategy for a stealth conquest-by-WN-immigration is never realized), what types of organizations ought we to be conceptualizing (and then building) now, that could function as historical precursors of (ie prepare the ground for) the WN revolutionary groups of the future? 44
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:56 | # GW: @12.00AM. don’t play obtuse. You are “in denial”! I said “Klan thinking” because you openly endorsed Desmond’s quotation of a stupid ignorant anti-Catholic Klan song (I’ve no idea whether this was a genuine artefact or merely appositely “ben trovato”) in support of a contention that Catholics “can’t be trusted.” Speak out please, or else undertake that you personally will never post any rubbish about “Christers” or “Jebus” ever again. If you don’t read others’ posts carefully, at least read your own or consider the context in which they appear Leon:
I quite agree about the IRA. Although I’m a supporter of genuine Irish nationalism, the IRA and its splinter groups aren’t (although they may have hoodwinked some people that are.) I also endorse the underlined portion of your italicised self-quotation just above. Strange that EGB, not previously much in evidence here, happened on the original post just a few minutes after its appearance. The thread mightn’t have generated much interest if GW hadn’t been providentially granted the opportunity for a bit of inflammatory rhetoric. 45
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:22 | # Desmond: re Dago. Your simplistic reliance on Wikipedia is touching. Where I come from in the UK Dago means a Spaniard. Not Italian. (The first and greatest Pope, St. Peter, was ethnically Jewish.) I had no idea that American demotic had altered the usage. I don’t use ethnic slurs to indicate my fellow-Europeans. And I don’t feel bound by US and Australian usages. I once posted (I think it was here) to say that I didn’t much care for the Poles that I’d met. I bitterly regret that: I’d rather be with a hundred monoglot Poles than with a single English-speaking American who maintained your attitude. I don’t know whether it’s our genes or our cultural conditioning that bring these behaviors out in us. Sorry: but there it is. 46
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 13:34 | #
Desmond’s Canadian. And not just “English-speaking,” he’s one-hundred percent Anglo-Saxon by ancestry. Around here he’s known as Sir Desmond. 47
Posted by John on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:09 | # “And would that be the English people you hate so much? And what have they done, these schoolboys in Warrington and newspaper-vendors in the City of London, these wives walking their dogs in Chelsea, these young girls dancing and drinking wine and believing that life was long and beautiful. What have any of them ever done to you, you miserable, mindless, murderous little piece of shit?” He said “fuck England”, not “fuck the English”. It’s possible, at least, he didn’t mean the latter. I’d take no offence if an Afghani said, “fuck America”. Most have every justification to say just that. 48
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:13 | # John, The quote from RIRA’s statement was perfectly specific target-wise, and that specificity was obviously the story. But our friend qualified that with a generalisation to “England”, which is the same generalisation that terrorists make when they bomb wine bars full of innocent young people. Hence my response. 49
Posted by Matra on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:29 | # perhaps those Irish who supported the gunmen and bombers were, while perhaps knowing little of any invisible Marxist agenda, attempting to AVOID the replaced and miscegenated fate proposed for them. Who “proposed’ such a fate for them? The governments in London over the decades that would have preferred all Ulster to become a part of the Republic? The Protestants who have had no power since 1972? That’s a new one. The thread mightn’t have generated much interest if GW hadn’t been providentially granted the opportunity for a bit of inflammatory rhetoric. But it helped us get to know you better. You are living in the UK, and presumably born there, yet retain ethnic solidarity to people outside of the UK to the point where you will side with them against the British. This highlights the problem so many white countries have: we may be too heterogeneous for any kind of white solidarity movement to emerge in resistance to race replacement. 50
Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:32 | # The AMERICAN Klan owed its allegiance to an AMERICA named for a dago explorer. 51
Posted by PF on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:01 | # I think there are two ways to connect with nationalism. Grievance and shared life. Shared life is having drinks with an expat soccer team you play for. Or your best friend who is cut from the same clothe as you. Of course there are always the women of your tribe, and comedy videos. Very good ways to connect. Grievance, the other half, is remembering what has been done and agreeing to feel a portion of the pain which attaches to your nation’s struggles. This too brings you closer in some way. After a while though this part is less inspiring. Nietzsche said he was more interested in his Kinderland than in his Vaterland - meaning more interested in the future he could build, than in the past which was behind Germany. People pursuing these two strategies of nationalism receive different fuels on which to operate: positive energy from shared life, and negative energy from grievance. Grievance is very good for synchronizing minds and establishing boundaries vis-a-vis other peoples. Although I think the fact that we are forbidden grievance as nations now is the biggest trespass against our psyches and the destruction of an important bonding mechanism, people who gravitate towards grievance-nationalism to the exclusion of the happy kind of nationalism, are going to end up in purposeless bitch-fights over past injustices, which they keep fastidious score of, just like that made-up scene in the non-existent film “Scent of a Loser”. The fact that these historical moral calculi never really balance out, because there is no shared framework where actions have fixed meanings to both parties, is one of the reasons why I think morality is confined to the boundaries of the sociobiological environment. Step outside your circle and your morality goes *poof* - bye bye. This is because its based on emotional weightings of events which cannot be described as abstract factual relationships - and while these are honored in the context of a family setting - they are ignored the moment one steps out of that setting. Whites are the first group to allow foreign emotional weightings of events to have value in their discourse - such as, what is the Hutu perspective on the Rwandan genocide? One asks abstractly. In other peoples’ discourses the sufferings of foreigners are overridden by indifference and consideration-of-self. I dont think this is a reflection of the way we are, but simply the way our discourse mutated over the course of the last 50 years: to become the disembodied floating playground of various individualists and dissimulating foreign interests. People with family/national loyalty already have claims on their sympathy - meaning they already have a suffering they need to honor. Disembodied whites go out in search for a suffering that they can honor. Sometimes this is because they subscribe to the fatal understanding that: “my parents are from the midwest and my background is pretty much boring.” Which is the admission that media hypnosis has destroyed enough of their personal family history that they emerge into their thinking years as veritable blank slates to be written upon by the judeo-establishment. A consequence of the loss of family storytelling and oral narrative in our culture is that there is nothing to stick to. Dad sat in front of the television, and his father worked late. In other words, here is my mind on a platter: do with me what you will, National Public Radio and the New York-Hollywood axis. Returning to grievance-nationalism is often the doorway for whites to enter an understanding of their peoplehood. Since we are not allowed to grieve anything that happens to us, by decree. Wanting to honor a suffering that occured in your bloodline - such as CC’s remembrance of the fire-bombing of Dresden - is a radical act. It is at least a confirmation of the will to reconnect to one’s organic heritage. 52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:08 | #
The slurs are reserved for founding Americans. LOL
Why is that surprising? A Mick like you is loyal only to Rome.
The American Klan was loyal, unlike today’s WNs, to its people, the founding Americans. 53
Posted by Armor on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:12 | #
Not so! America was named for a Welsh shipowner named Richard Ameryk (ap Meurig, in Welsh). Amerigo Vespucci has nothing to do with it. 54
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:09 | # Extremely interesting post by Armor. That long list of explanatory end-notes appended to that Wiki article makes a very compelling case, more compelling than the case for Vespucci being America’s namesake. Either way, it is pretty clear that for decades before Columbus, maybe as much as a century before, northwestern European fishermen were fishing the Grand Banks off New Foundland and knew about and had landed on the New Foundland coast and had contacted the Indians, and (my own theory) had left their genes among the Indian tribes of that area. 55
Posted by Hamish on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 04:30 | #
When did Gorboduc use slurs against founding Americans? Did he call George Washington a cocksucker? Did he call Christopher Jones a faggot? Did he call John Smith a blue eyed devil? 56
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 04:37 | # PF, What you say is no doubt true to an extent. I am aware of it. But only to an extent, one whose implicit recommendations for racial preservation would prove nearly totally insufficient in the present and worsening context. However, my hands are now tied as to my ability to expand on my meaning in a way that would not amount to bowdlerized pablum, so I won’t bother. 58
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:25 | # You may be right Fred. Newfoundland lore suggests that Madog ab Owain Gwynedd planted a colony there in 1170. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoc
Is the sunbeam not the sun? Is the posterity not the founder? 59
Posted by Hamish on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:04 | #
Then when did Gorboduc use an ethnic or racial slur against the descendants of founding stock Americans? 60
Posted by Silver on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:18 | # The answer is — and this is also the answer to so much of Silver’s needling — is race-replacement is always a question of numbers, never of individuals. We don’t require 100% “purity.” That’s not an answer to my “needling” because I’m the first one to state, adamantly, it’s all about numbers. Rather, I would emphasize that “demographics is destiny” is one of the most important phrases ever coined in the English language (well, originally French, but you understand); thus it’s because demographics is destiny that numbers are of the essence. What you have emphasized, on the other hand, is that “the gloves have come off” and that they’ll “stay off”. In other words, now that the tipping point has been breached, there will be no more talk of numbers, only of vengeance. So all you original small numbers folks, thanks for coming, but now I’m going to hound you to the ends of the earth, for all eternity (the gloves stay off). Doesn’t matter if you depart or if you’re expelled; I’m still going to launch broadsides at you. “Take that, you accursed space alien-looking motherfuckers down there in guatemalombia! White power, man, white fucking power!” What’s that, Scroob? You didn’t quite mean that? Well if you didn’t mean that, then don’t freakin’ say it. Or at least apologize. Those are the rules all the other kids play by, why do you get a pass? We do require overwhelming preponderance however. And we require that it stay that way. Let’s take this sentiment at face value. What mechanism would you employ to ensure it “stays that way”? I have my own idea. I think it’s an excellent idea. But I’m interested in what you have to say, because I think it’s highly irresponsible (dare I say, “mendacious”) to claim that the sentiment expressed by that statement is indicative of your political aspirations without having a clue as to how it may be attained and maintained. And no more of this “we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it” business, either. The bridge is now. Let’s hear it. But if the man is part-Irish and defends a certain Irish sense of grievance I can understand that — provided he doesn’t overdo it and start with the brooding sullen sarcastic gibes the way “The Other Guy” did. So how are you going to ensure that he doesn’t “overdo it”? See, that’s why I come at this stuff from a progressive viewpoint. Yes, races are real, and they differ in all sorts of important ways, and mixing up widely divergent types does little for anyone’s happiness, and people—whites, too!— are justified in preferring their kind and defending their racial interests. But why must we junk the tremendous progress that has been made in intergroup relations since the war? Why can’t we rejoice when an individual emancipates himself from the burden national belonging places on his psyche? “Oh my people, my poor people, how we’ve suffered; we must avenge ourselves! We must! The blood of our forefathers demands it!” That crap has no end. What’s wrong with simply acknowledging that all peoples have treated other peoples abominably throughout human history and letting the matter drop? And what does it bring a person, anyway? Say you do “avenge” yourself, what then? You’ve still got to go to work; you’ve still got to pay the bills; you’ll still get sick; you’ll still squabble over internal differences; on a more positive note, you’ll still aspire to material gain; in time it’ll all be forgotten anyway (who today cares about the atrocities of the 2nd century?); so what’s the bloody point of adding agonizing national yearning on top of all that? Well, there will probably always be nationalists who insist on adhering to the traditions of their granddaddies (or whatever they think those are). And they might prove essential to getting racialism off the ground yet. But my great hope is that “national liberals” and “national progressives” can step in and take over the reins before it all gets out of hand. 61
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:29 | # Hamish,
But he slurred the founding stock of the founding stock of present-day Anglo-Americans. 62
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:44 | #
From link Desmond Jones posted.
Your link just shows the Irish are more closely related to the Scots than Bulgarians and Portuguese, and Scots are slightly closer to the Swedes genitically than the Irish are, as most people with any common sense or knowledge of history would know. Most people would be aware of the strong Norse influence on Scotland. The Norse would have had a much less influence on Ireland. Are you saying there was little or no intermixing between Scots and Irish and the Scottish population taken as a whole is mainly Nordic, are you? The people of Shetland and Orkney and the Borders may be of Nordic or Germanic origin in the main but there certainly is a strong Gaelic influence over the rest of Scotland in Argyll, Galloway, the Highlands and the Hebrides in particular. Nothing “alleged” about the mixing of Irish and Scots. The very name Scot originally meant Irish. Also take into account the mass immigration of Irish and Highlanders into the Lowlands in the nineteenth century. Yes, there is a “clear genetic distinction” between the Scots and the Irish just as there is between Norwegians and Danes. No one ever said they were exactly the same but they are closely related. 63
Posted by Irish Anti-commie on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:09 | #
No doubt he is aware that his given name Desmond (if that is his real name) is of Irish origin. 64
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:26 | #
Many Scottish football fans would say the same. 65
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:38 | #
You’re wrong. St Brendan, an Irishman discovered America. 66
Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:59 | #
Where did I say that Irish Catholics founded America? But at least one played a part. 67
Posted by Armor on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:48 | # Silver: “now that the tipping point has been breached, there will be no more talk of numbers, only of vengeance” What we really need is racial separation. You can ignore nonwhites up to a point, but not when you are scheduled to become a minority in the next generation or two. “What mechanism would you employ to ensure it “stays that way”?” We are not there yet. The first step is to get racial separation. “Why can’t we rejoice when an individual emancipates himself from the burden national belonging places on his psyche?” Read this, for example. It’s a passage from an article about the false freedom favored by liberals and Jews. “The blood of our forefathers demands it!” That crap has no end.” It’s like your posts! 68
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:49 | #
In fact they did.
The assertion is that these people are indistinguishable. It’s just not true and from what you quoted from Dienekes he clearly suggests that a little more evidence will make that vividly clear. It was my grandfather and no he was not Welsh. Yes, Desmond…it appears now an unfortunately choice of name, now does it not? However, it really does not matter. As Fred has said, it’s about connecting the dots, and whatever the name, or the origin, the evidence is abundantly clear. Hmmm, St. Brendan…and Irish Indians…sounds very much like the story of Madog, and the Welsh Indians; stuff of lore, legend, myth, no? However, have it your way…St. Brendan it is. It still does not change the fact that the US founding people were overwhelmingly English and no other people, especially the Gaelic Irish, could have accomplished what the English did in the US. 70
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:04 | # I’ll beg to differ. Gorbuduc was projecting his own ‘inextricably intermingled’ position upon all the peoples of the UK + Ireland. This is the WN (or if you wish a more base statement, the mongrel) position. Isn’t this the Oppenheimer theory?
England is a land of immigrants who have inextricably mixed with an indigenous people. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/ 71
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:00 | #
Good, that’s what it’s about: numbers. You can’t race-replace France with one Negro. You can with forty million, which is the EU’s current plan (to be more precise, the EU plan calls for importing 56 million more Negroes, if memory serves — and that’s just for starters).
OK.
Taking vengeance on the ones doing this certainly appeals to my gut but I’m afraid I don’t follow you here. If our side (my side, not yours Silver) are ever able to demand an accounting from those who’ve engineered this, we certainly ought to hold fair, open trials with the severest punishments which it is legally possible to mete out for those found guilty. I have no doubt we’re talking about capital punishment here, and “vengeance”? Well, sometimes justice and vengeance coincide and yes this would be one of those times. Is that what you’re talking about?
Sorry, I don’t follow you here. Where I stand is simple. There’s a race. It’s called the white race. It’s being forcibly genocided. I want it stopped. I’m fucking mad. So are lots of others. Our numbers are growing. If ever we’re in a position to do something about it <strike>there’s going to be hell to pay</strike> we will. The ones doing the forcing know who they are. Until forced race-replacement ends I’m going to talk frankly about certain subjects and I recommend everyone do likewise. If that’s “the gloves coming off,” so be it.
I don’t know what you’re on about here. I think you misread me. I don’t think like you, Silver. For example, to me it’s not the most outrageous thing in the universe when a guy has so much as an unflattering thought about another race. That really doesn’t bother me when that happens. I realize for you, Robert Lindsay, and Christopher Hitchens it’s very different. Just understand I’m not like you, OK?
We’ll deal with that aspect when the time comes.
Sorry, I don’t follow. Any of it. Might as well be written in Chinese. I think you take me for way more complicated than I am. I told you I’m simple. I want forced race-replacement of whites ended, nothing more. And nothing less. Now Silver, please stop going round and round in the same circles. I told you, you’re becoming a crashing bore. When you think of something new to say, and can say it without sounding as if you’ve had a few snorts of whiskey too many, go ahead but until then why not go hawk your wares at the Daily Kos where you might find some buyers. Over here no one’s buying. 72
Posted by danielj on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 04:42 | # No offense to the Catholics but I’m with Desmond here. America is a Protestant country and should remain that way. They can all move back to Ireland or head off to Quebec if they prefer. 74
Posted by danielj on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 05:49 | # Sicilian mongrels back to Sicily. Sicilian mongrels? If there a half-nigger, half-Sicilians living here they’ll probably end up with the niggers. I certainly wouldn’t want to do Sicily such a great disservice. 75
Posted by Jeff on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 06:13 | # Sicilian mongrels i.e. half-Sicilian, half-whatever else, back to Sicily. 76
Posted by danielj on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 06:18 | # Well, half-Sicilian half-English is all European and no mongrel you stupid fucker. So, we can fight to the death over it while the niggers and spics take over the country. 77
Posted by danielj on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 06:22 | # (who today cares about the atrocities of the 2nd century?) Jews do. They still whine about Masada. 78
Posted by Jeff on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 06:56 | # Well, you’re the one telling groups of Northern Euros to leave the country. I’ll take Irish and German Catholics over Sicilian mongrel Bible thumpers any day. No, we shouldn’t “fight to the death over it while the niggers and spics take over the country.” We should unite as Europeans to defeat our common enemies. We decentralize afterward. 79
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:40 | # For those whose ancestral history, though not EGI, is somewhat abstracted from the circumstances concerning WWII, though still tied to the major combatants, as mine is, the English decision in its decisive impact to side against her Germanic cousins to the detriment of us all is not only a stab in the back but a knife to the heart. Leaving aside all the internecine slaughter related, all that has followed would not have been as such but for that. The price of the sin for betraying your own blood is death. 80
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:04 | # ”Scrooby, yes, I understand that you’re a simpleton. That’s why you can’t appreciate that there are complexities involved.” (—Silver) You’re complicating what’s not complicated, Silver. Here’s what’s going on: I’ll lay it out for you in a couple of easy-to-understand sentences: There are powerful men behind the scenes who are deliberately forcing race-replacement on the world’s Euro populations. We want it stopped (and if possible the culprits caught and punished as severely as the law permits). What’s complicated? What is it that I have to “appreciate”? Don’t look at me, I didn’t start it. They did. I just want it stopped. And no, there’ll be no compromising. Maybe from men who think like you, not from men who think like me. That’s as clear as I can make it. You keep wanting to complicate it but it’s not complicated. You keep wanting to make it murky but it’s not murky. It’s crystal-clear. And extremely simple. Just like me. 81
Posted by danielj on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:20 | # Well, you’re the one telling groups of Northern Euros to leave the country. I said if they prefer. I just want to stomp out Catholicism, not the Catholics. Religion was largely a proxy for ethnicity Was. Not so much anymore. I’m fairly certain Desmond doesn’t consider you a proper American. I’m sure he doesn’t. I didn’t say I agreed with him about everything. However, I am a proper American and the overwhelming majority of the country and an overwhelming majority of the racists in the county would agree. Nobody cares about what Desmond thinks. One interpretation could be that you are trying to distract attention from ethnicity because you fear exclusion, even if it means many of your ethnic relations would be excluded. Excluded for what? I don’t think you have any idea about my ethnicity, background, or where I would cluster. You think I fret over that shit? You think I even give two squirts of piss about it or yours or anyone else’s? I can only shake my head sometimes and wonder about what the fuck you are all on about. Secondly, I really don’t fear exclusion at all since my America isn’t an Anglo America. I’m not trying to preserve the English in America. I’m a White Nationalist. We’ve went over this a thousand fucking times. White is just white here. However, I probably wouldn’t let my daughter marry someone from the Jersey shore. But, I’m not concerned with kicking them out of the country or preventing them from marrying someone else’s daughters. You say white Catholics shouldn’t take offense, but you’ve said multiple times that you would fight to the death to prevent your exclusion from specific ethnic formulations of a white ethnostate. I don’t object to white Catholics, I object to their Catholicism. I prefer a localism that is powerful but I don’t want one that is so powerful that movement within America is impossible. I prefer we maintain some type of federal government, common currency and free movement within our borders. (Please don’t take this comment as any kind of personal attack. I enjoy your comments, and you seem like a nice person.) I’m not offended. I’m certainly not a nice person though. 82
Posted by Banshal Kumar on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:01 | # You foolish White people should not be fighting amongst yourself. All this Irish-English- Slavic etc… infighting will only make your enemies stronger (and there are many). This is not 1900 A.D. and Whites do not make 35% of the World population nor rule 85% of it anymore. 83
Posted by url on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:53 | #
Settle down. Captainchaos certainly doesn’t believe he’s chained. He’s now calling for the death of the English. The threat to Northern European unity comes squarely from Captainchaos and his ilk. 84
Posted by url on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:56 | #
How can a Sicilian with a Filipino child be an American?
Should a Sicilian with a Filipino child really be lecturing Americans? 85
Posted by danielj on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:55 | # How can a Sicilian with a Filipino child be an American? Where were you when I was growing up? None of the shit would’ve happened if you old boys had done your fucking job. I didn’t know any better as a youngster. Besides, I’ve left her and my child by her. My ex-wife was only half which means the kid (who I am in the process of giving up for adoption) is only a quarter. Should a Sicilian with a Filipino child really be lecturing Americans? I’m not a Sicilian. I thought you said you are half-English, half-Sicilian. To my best knowledge: 1)My mother’s mother was French Canadian. Could be genetically English or French. I’m not sure. She spoke French in the home. Dark hair, light eyes. 2)My mother’s father was Scotch-Irish/English from Tennessee. Blond hair, blue eyes (last name of Fair). My mother was the only kid that ended up without blue eyes. 3)My father’s father was the Sicilian. Short, dark hair, dark eyes and fairly light skinned. The kids are a mixed bag. Some of Aryan looking and some are Italian-ish looking but all fair skinned. 4)My father’s mother was Italian but blond and blue eyed. She can’t trace either family tree on my dad’s side back too far. Her great-grandfather had a name that was commonly given to Italian orphans in some village or other. I haven’t sat down with her yet and really looked over all the ancestry stuff she has done. Just ignore this question if you feel I’m getting too personal, but why wouldn’t you want her marrying someone who was Sicilian? They’d probably be Catholic (nominally) and that is a deal-breaker no matter the man. The full blooded types I’ve met are generally no good. Shit, have you seen The Jersey Shore television show?! I would make an exception for an exceptional man. I guess I wouldn’t rule the possibility out immediately. However, I doubt she (“she” is hypothetical technically since my wife and I only have one son currently) will be coming into contact with many Sicilians where we are ultimately headed. It is really an issue of population concentration and my affection for localism that will prevent it from occurring. Ok, sorry. I only replied because I found it interesting that you called for extreme treatment of a subset of whites that includes most members of an ethnic group from which you are closely descended. No one can accuse you of not taking your religious convictions seriously! I have no problem with Sicilians being in the country. I have no problem with any Europeans of moderately high intelligence and upstanding character moving here (within reason). I have a problem strictly with those, who aren’t anglus natus, remaining unassimilated. I speak English in public and I worship the same God the Anglicans worship with no loyalty to Rome. I love the Westminster Confession. I hate English “cuisine” but I’m not a big fan of Italian though either. 86
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:09 | #
Settle down, and rethink that terse little nugget of unwisdom. If England had come to terms with Germany, or stayed out all together, liberalism in the Anglosphere would never have progressed to the point of allowing mass non-White immigration. England would have been saved. America would have been saved. As stands, that both can be saved now is less than a surety to put it mildly. 87
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:25 | # Silver, I’ve yet to see you voice full-throated support for at least ending non-White immigration. Or do you wish to live out your days in an Australia ruled by the Chinese where the immigration laws have been re-configured to favor their co-ethnics? 88
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 00:50 | # CC,
What about the slaves in the factories and the dispossessed of the east? Do you think that civilised nations could stand by and watch that happening in the heart of old Europe? 89
Posted by PF on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:59 | # CC wrote:
Its interesting that such a large portion of your thinking (i.e. your thoughts about the essentially justified character of Nazism) would depend on an IF-THEN scenario. This reply is actually long enough that I am going to give its main points their own headings. Chapter I. ENGLAND STAYS OUT WHILE NAZIS TAKE OVER ALL OF EUROPE, BECAUSE THEY KNOW BEFOREHAND THAT ANYTHING LESS WILL LEAD ENGLAND TO COLLAPSE DECADES LATER OWING TO THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE AND ENGLISH CITIES BEING SWAMPED BY FOREIGNERS. An If-then scenario where England comes to terms with Germany or “stayed out all together” - and this halts the flow of nonwhite immigration by preventing the rise of liberalism in the West. Strikes me as indulgent on a few different fronts. One practice which is really an art form is to try and put yourself in the perspective of someone else. For England, then still one of the world’s great powers and immense in terms of prestige - to “stay out altogether”, while the Nazis roll into every single European city and occupy it - I would suggest that even in allowing this as a possibility, you’ve failed to semi-correctly imagine the state of Europe 1920-1950. Possibly its because we’ve fallen so far in terms of prestige, internal cohesion, and cultural confidence - that it now strikes you as plausible to imagine that England would not “give as good as she gets”. Imagining a scenario where a 1930s England lies down and lets its interests be trampelled is unrealistic. One must not have understood the tremendous status of Britain at that time in European cultural and political life, to say that. In your thinking, as far as I can tell, the “English cultural model” is something that is completely bankrupt and stands opposed to the “German cultural model”. For me this simplifies two underlying issues: while you understand these two things as ‘options’ to be selected between - and are judging history in retrospect for not being a fair (i.e racial interest serving) adjucator between these two competitive cultural models - they are not in fact models to be selected or denied in the abstract. For 90% of the people involved, the conflict moved beyond differences in thinking about social organization the moment war was declared. That conflict was not between philosophies or models of how-to-coexist, it was between nations and their war-machines. You see it in retrospect as a conflict about models of social organization, it was however profoundly not this way. If you think that you are not seeing things in this way - please examine your opinion that England should have essentially stood down because…. drumrolll… German Nazism is better at long term racial preservation. You essentially are saying that millions of men should have let their nation’s claims to power been trampelled because of the strategic benefits which could only be known decades later. They had no access to your perspective, yet you chide them for not acting on your knowledge. Once a nation declares war on another, 90% of the men of that nation will feel compelled, regardless of the philosophy being purveyed as pretext - to stand behind their flag and fight for their nation. All concepts of abstract philosophy are overridden in that moment. I would suggest that this moment occurred both for loyal Germans and loyal English - the overwhelming majority of men - and this makes it a conflict between war machines, not one between ideas. When that step is taken, we cease to have ‘options’. There is no option then for either side to stand down, because of the psychological dynamics of war. Chapter II. HERE’S AN INTERESTING TWIST ON WHAT-IF SCENARIOS INVOLVING ALTERNATIVE OUTCOMES OF WWII. When you opine that concession to Nazism would deliver us into a wog-free world of European sovereignty, I ask you to consider an equally serious issue that you might not have: nuclear weapons. Its entirely possible that the if-then scenario you’re asking for has a worse ending than our current state of race-replacement. With Nazi Germany and America entering a nuclear arms race, I would say the chances of a MADD-style event are much higher than between Russia and America. And even one MADD-style nuclear event, or even something close to it, would turn large tracts of the earth and possibly many major cities into moonscapes. Race-replacement in 2010 is not the worst outcome that the 20th century could have given birth to. I would say more about the huge potential for bias in creating complex if-then models of historical events, but I guess each person either understands the danger here or does not, depending on how much experience they have trying to develop models of complex systems. Its intellectual hubris to make an if-then statement about complex systems pivotal to your worldview. No insult intended. 90
Posted by PF on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 03:34 | # PF wrote:
Fascinating view PF old boy, and I’ve got this to add: One big problem that strikes me here is that the model-tweaker will adjust variable A, and then state all other things being equal. Yet he doesn’t know that variable A can be tweaked and ceteris paribus be maintained. This would imply he understood the entire system. Especially given a reality so complex as nations-in-wartime, for us to say ceteris paribus is a lie. Shift one significant piece and the other pieces shift. Not that some if-then statements are not more plausible than others, and not that they can never be realistic. But in the moment of viewing the historical-reality-to-be-adjusted, we only look at it through one evaluative framework. In this case we are looking at outcomes of WWII and asking: which would have been better for averting race-replacement? But given historical causality and its impact on us, as inheritors of the history we intend to “fix”, we have to assume that its likely that even our evaluative framework would shift. Meaning we fix one problem and have other, major problems pop up. After all, we were concerned with averting a specific historical outcome (our own) but we did not have a knowledge of all possible historical outcomes and thus did not know that some would be significantly worse than our own, or equally bad but in different ways. In other words, doing this sort of thing is like taking one of Soren’s adaptive landscapes and throwing oneself full force down an unknown slope. Is it smoother than our own? Are there jagged rocks in the middle of it? Does it end in a cliff-face? One knows after one has travelled it. There are several other objections that can be made to “finding fault with reality” in the form of critiquing historical facts. For example, the psychological unreality of the putatively posited “choice point” where the People-Who-Should-Have-Behaved-Differently are able to see the knowledge of the history-fixer and make a new decision - that clearly doesn’t exist, yet is essential to the reality of the scenario. Its exactly as real as the mental images one has of how an interaction with a woman should have played out, after it has played out in an unfortuitous way. Those images aren’t real and can never be. This is the meaning of is>should. The facts at least were real once upon a time, the pretend scenario is a figment of one human being’s imagination. The most it can aspire to is an off-hand admission of plausibility - yeah, could be you’d a been right. Thats intellectually unsatisfying because that confirmation is worthless in terms of real life applicable knowledge gained. In this case the if-then scenario is being used to fuel a personal ideology that vindicates Nazism by saying what it once promised to be, and that things should be forgiven on the basis of what they once promised. People are in disagreement about what was promised, what could have been realized, the legitimacy of the means used, and the pertinence of all these things to the present day—which is one reason why this philosophy is personal and cannot become public. It takes a storied edifice of thought about the past as its starting point - and not the world we live in and the realities we see. Passionate identifications with the past are proxies for issues in the Users present life and speaking about them as if the User actually cared about them is dishonest on two psychological levels: one which we can see (i.e. we never talk about ourselves or our own lives or plans or life in 2010) and one which goes deeper than the political (i.e. we don’t have any idea of what “we” are and view ourselves as extensions of the past Hero-Bully who stood up to the thing we fear, in this case R-replacement, because an ideational tether holds us together with an ancient ghost, and we lack the refined perception of reality in which this connection is revealed to be illusory.) 91
Posted by PF on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:01 | # PF, I do say, old chap, your propensity to begin posts by talking like a stereotypical british cartoon character is astounding. Does your gumption know any bounds? PF: Indeed, my gumption has damn near sprung its girdle and is running amok. Careful everyone, there is a gumption advisory - watch out for my gumption! Tally-ho, now on to the scribbling. PF wrote:
Actually, as hard as it is to model the brain-states of women who you can’t speak with extensively, we must remember that the example above involves only 1 woman. That is one female brain. Modeling historical reality involves modeling the actions and thus, the thoughts, of hundreds of millions of human minds. Even if one wants to use a reasoning process that doesn’t look at the brain - although how likely is it to predict actions if you are admitting to not be able to predict brain states? The confession that you can’t model the latter is the confession that you can’t accurately model the former. This is especially difficult given the singularities introduced by progress in technology and thus, the leverage that attaches to the use of technologies. High-level weapon’s technologies can be at the mercy of individual men, for example. How do we know how things will play out unless we know their ways of interacting with one another, their childhoods, their preferred style of speaking? It all appears trivial until we realize that human interaction and life can often hinge on these trivialities, and to confess a bankruptcy of knowledge in these parts doesn’t bode well for one’s later modeling attempts. In the sense that each successive mind added to the modeling algorithm adds a measure of complexity - even one which we cannot know - it also adds a measure of error. Thus the mind’s reasoning about it is all the more likely to be off, the more minds are included in the model. It would be easier to model 10,000 minds than 100,000 minds. Thus I would say this: until we can accurately predict how almost every single person around us is going to react to most things we say and do, we should not presume to make confident predictions about groups of human minds which are many orders of magnitude greater in number and complexity than the individual people whom we interact with every day. And I think that a man who can understand the minds of his contemporaries will achieve a commensurate measure of social and status-based success. Therefore we can ask ourselves how successful we are socially, and this can reveal to us at least partially - imperfectly, no doubt - how well we have achieved success at our task of modeling the minds and thought-processes of others. Because understanding other people is a good way to succeed with them. 92
Posted by PF on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:07 | # PF, Right then, right then, right right…. then - what are you up to here?
There’s a fair bit of ceteris paribus assumption going on in the bolded statement, no? What is a ‘respectable’ level? etc. etc. PF: Well that would have to not be absolute but to factor in where one started off relative to other people. You clever bastard. PF: Go fuck yourself. <*gives him the finger*> 93
Posted by PF on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:14 | # You fucking ponce rapscallion showoff with your flashy words. Were you wearing a beret as you typed this? Listening to Sting? 94
Posted by PF on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:19 | # I got your email and yes we can be friends again. After all, I am not Hunter Wallace. <*hugs*> 95
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:53 | #
It’s not the point. Daniel can proclaim himself American from the top of the Washington monument, if he so desires. There will be no dispute from this corner. The point is Wasps must see themselves as Wasps first and then as citizens of whatever nation in which they reside second. Therein lies the Wasp soteriology. Drew Fraser sums the position up best.
96
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 05:55 | #
Exeunt 97
Posted by danielj on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:21 | # The point is Wasps must see themselves as Wasps first and then as citizens of whatever nation in which they reside second. Therein lies the Wasp soteriology. That just isn’t American White Nationalism and, should it become so, I’ll stop being one. We’re not rebuilding East Anglia over here anymore. 98
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:37 | # If England had come to terms with Germany, or stayed out all together, liberalism in the Anglosphere would never have progressed to the point of allowing mass non-White immigration. England would have been saved. America would have been saved. As stands, that both can be saved now is less than a surety to put it mildly. (captainchaos) What about the slaves in the factories and the dispossessed of the east? Do you think that civilised nations could stand by and watch that happening in the heart of old Europe? (GW)
Indeed, even the proto-Black nationalist WEB DuBois predicted in 1900 that the defining feature of the 20th century would be the problem of the “color-line’: that is, “of the relation of the white to non-white races” (I’m trying to quote accurately, but it’s from memory). My point being that Churchill, who was highly intelligent, as well as racialist (we should all by now have heard or read innumerable quotes from him to that effect), should have known what American patriot Charles Lindbergh did: that another European war would be catastrophic for Western Civilization in its impending confrontation with Bolshevism (an ideology about which Sir Winston was perfectly acquainted, and which he roundly and admirably hated) and the geopolitical interests of the white race, which already by 1939 was understood to be rapidly declining (along with Western fecundity). Indeed, I’m certain that Churchill did know it, but that his martial vainglory bested his strategic sense. And here we are. CC is right: had Hitler fought to a stalemate (enabled in part by a British suit for peace), the whole world’s ideological axis (no pun intended) would have shifted far to the Racial Right - and especially so if the US could have kept itself out of the conflict (as many here wanted, as FDR promised on the campaign trail in 1940, and so as would have happened without England’s lonely defiance), and Sovietism subsequently annihilated (as I believe it would have been without the Anglo-American second front). ALL of our present racial difficulties finally stem from WW2 and its aftermath. Thanks, Winnie! 99
Posted by BGD on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:08 | # Regarding the argument that the UK has destroyed itself through the ascendancy of progressivism and a demographic tsunami because of our leading the charge during the Second World War, is it reasonable to assume that without WW2, the UK would not have experienced coloured immigration? With NS in the ascendant across Europe many more Jews would have been forced out of the country rather than being bottled up. Most of those would have come to the UK (at least as an onward embarkation point). A combination of this type of domestic Jewish influence alongside Christian social activism at the highest reaches of our society (of the sort highlighted by Corelli Barnett in The Collapse of British Power) and abetted by the national press could quite conceivably have come together to bring us to the situation of the 1948 Nationality Act. Instead of racial preservation = Nazism = the holocaust the popular mind could be fed with the idea of racial preservation = Nazism = murder/persecution/slavery to encourage acquiescence. 100
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:34 | #
Uprising! is an excellent book. 101
Posted by BGD on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:17 | # ^^ Uprising! The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 - is now available as a Free Download on this Website in Adobe Acrobat Reader .pdf format download (1.9MB) 102
Posted by Armor on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:02 | # GW: “What about the slaves in the factories and the dispossessed of the east?” I wonder where a believable account of nazi harshness toward the Slavs can be found. I just googled: german crimes slavs Excerpts :
— 103
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:28 | # BGD, what are the top five forces aggressively pushing the racial destruction of the UK? — specifically that, the UK’s racial destruction, not its economic destruction, moral destruction, educational destruction, architectural destruction, agricultural destruction, industrial destruction, cultural destruction, or whatever, but specifically its racial destruction: is someone pushing specifically that, and if so who are the top five responsible? If you quibble with the notion of any specific force knowingly pushing Britain’s “racial destruction,” think of it this way, amounting to the same thing: What force knowingly pushes and (as we see daily) pushes very aggressively for whites to recede before an advancing tide of color in Britain, even pushing for more and more importation of color for the express purpose of achieving the aim of, again, whites continually receding before an ever advancing tide of color? Are there specific people or groups knowingly doing this and can they be named? Judging by your comment I would say you’d list “domestic Jewish influence at the highest reaches of society” and “Christian social activism at the highest reaches of society” as two. If that’s correct, what would you list as the other three in the top five? If it’s not correct, what are your top five? I’m always interested first and foremost in who, exactly, is doing this. If specific individuals, groups, corporations, organizations, tribes, religions, what-have-you, are responsible, first and foremost I always want them named and a big spotlight shone on them: you can’t fight what you can’t see. Once you see them, once the biggest most glaring spotlight you can aim is shone on them, you can fight them, not before, because before, it’s like a blindfolded man trying to throw counterpunches. He won’t get very far but will be beaten down before he knows what hit him. Once the blindfold’s off he has a fighting chance. Shining a spotlight by naming the forces pushing this has the effect of taking the blindfold off, giving us a fighting chance. At this blog Dan Dare has said nobody’s “doing it to us,” we’re doing it to ourselves. Are we? Or is someone doing it to us? 104
Posted by BGD on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:26 | # Fred, is this one of your “one of us” tests? In looking at the issue in the way I did above I am looking backwards at a time in our history before the deluge. Back then, the empire was still a factor and our political class was differently constituted. So the Christian based social activism impulse I mention is less of a factor now although not non-existent (see the Blairs). In the UK we do not to my knowledge have dutiful academics digging in dusty corners for government documents in this area and then publishing trilogies that outline for us the driving forces. Why I am not sure. We are less open bureaucratically in that regard and less inclined nationally. As you seem to have taken pride in criticising Dan for in the past, it is something of the case of joining dots, apportioning particular weight to one area and another. Going beyond what one can point to on a piece of paper. It is true that there must be information available in biographies, government records that have not been weeded, news items on yellowing pages in libraries and so forth but to show mucky fingerprints on levers is less immediately accessible to us. Yes, Neather and the surrounding cast was a glimpse behind the curtain but even they are temporary hirelings. A couple of things in this regard stuck in the memory. One was that Alexander Baron noted in one of his pamphlets many moons ago that the Jewish sociological periodical “Patterns of Prejudice” outlined some of the behind the scenes negotiating in this regard that he was collating before being ejected from the Weiner Library where they hold a full catalogue. He never wrote on this topic again and didn’t respond some time past when I sent him an email enquiring, nor when I asked him in the comments section of his posts here. So what value to ascribe to him saying it I know not. Secondly David Irving had mentioned some years ago that the historian Professor William D. Rubinstein (J) Aberystwyth University had written to him previously enclosing a short history of the key actors in our early immigration history and they had been almost wholly Jewish. Obviously he now has lost ownership of many of his papers. So, no great revelations, the expected suspects: highest level international banking & business interests in league with government; ethnic organisations (significantly Jewish but also including the desire of ethnic minorities generally to increase their kin levels, wealth and position and organised at the heart of government); the progressive zeitgeist that circumscribes what is permissible discourse and is bankrolled by business interests and was at the start directed by largely Jewish sources but has now a life of its own (phenotype) and mouthed more widely; media (as preceding); organised Jewry in league with Jewish Home Secretaries in pushing through laws that prevent discussion; global elites through their foreign policy and governmental relations that are driving the policies of all nations to follow suit and driven by similar sources. I think that’ll do. 105
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 16:58 | # GW,
These were given over to slavery to the Bolsheviks anyway. As far as I know Patton was the only man of importance who wished to do the honorable thing consistent with the principles the Allies allegedly fought the war for: to not stop with Germany and take the Red Army down when this was possible. Would you have been with him, or would the additional British monetary expenditure and incursion of casualties been prohibitive for you? PF, I could quite easily tear every last one of your counterpoints to shreds by grounding them in the historical context. Leon has already gone a fair ways in the vein I would. You have the annoying habit of creating strawmen and attacking those instead of your interlocutor’s actual positions; arguing for the complexity and therefore unfathomability of the phenomena under discussion all the while asserting the certainty of your contrary view of those phenomena. You are too self-deceived and/or dishonest a debater to make debate with you profitable; a blackhole into which any light shined is promptly swallowed up never to escape. So again, I won’t bother. 106
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:34 | #
No.
“The Blairs” explains nothing independently of the other forces driving this if Blair was promoted, as I think, by the same forces precisely because he was judged after years of personal acquaintance and vetting to be either sympathetic or sufficiently malleable/controllable in return for personal advancement, fame, and riches. When there’s lots of behind-the-scenes political money available along with favorable media coverage assured by the same source the money is coming from, all to be bestowed on the candidate who’s got his mind right on open borders and Israel or is reliably judged to be willing to get it right in return for enough inducement, that candidate can’t be counted as an instance of a separate force (“Christians motivated by social activism”) even though that particular separate force does exist and does operate independently (on its own without Jewish or anyone else’s help).
If Alexander Baron is seeing this: Would you care to reply to the above paragraph, Mr. Baron?
Thank you. 107
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:05 | #
What I would like in a blog is to have a list like BGD’s above (which I broadly agree with) agreed by everyone as an absolute minimal assumed <u>starting point for all discussion, no exceptions</u>. Such a blog will be years further along in clarifying things than one still arguing over “Are we doing it to ourselves?” or “No, group X, Y, or Z is not doing it.” The truth is group X, Y, and Z are doing it, especially X, no we are not doing it to ourselves, and we need to be spending years on that fact analyzing it to death, getting it totally thrashed out, then going beyond to the next stage, then the next, not sitting here stuck wondering whether X is doing it or, Fjordmanlike, indignantly denying X is doing it. Participating at a Fjordman/Dan-Dare type of blog is for me more and more an utter waste of my time: I’ve come far in figuring things out through a lot of difficult thinking and I’m ready to advance to the next logical step, not to be held back by the terminally dense. There’s work to be done. 108
Posted by uh on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:25 | # arguing for the complexity and therefore unfathomability of the phenomena under discussion all the while asserting the certainty of your contrary view of those phenomena Well said. PF is like one of those snotty goth girls who “like art”, proclaiming the unfathomability of abstract garbage and yet the certainty of her understanding of it. Everyone else’s understanding is wrong, simplistic, biased, unifaceted; by virtue of understanding something of perspective, personality theory, neuroscience, and having read the biographies of worthier heads, PF alone is the arbiter of the correct apprehension of phenomena. 109
Posted by Armor on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:05 | #
The same can be said of journalists. What’s wrong is not their leftism, but the fact that only leftists are recruited by the media, even though leftists make up only a tiny part of the population. Not everyone in the media is Jewish, but it’s clear that everyone must be acceptable to the Jews.
There was no need for more manpower. What’s better: not enough manpower, or not enough jobs? Individually, it depends if you are an employer or an employee. Collectively, the interest of the country is not to import anyone from the third-world. If a corrupt government receives bribes from employers, it can reward them with tax-breaks, for example. No need to provide them with third-world workers. If third-world workers are imported anyway, they should be sent back home after some time and replaced with younger ones, so there won’t be any retirement benefits to be paid for them. Today, international banking & business interests are losing money due to the destruction of Western society by third-world immigration. But it seems that their influence can only work one way: in favor of more immigration. Never in favor of reversing immigration. This is proof that immigration is not a result of economic forces.
In the USA, the Blacks have clearly been manipulated. They are among the first victims of the mass immigration brought on by their alleged Jewish allies. On the other hand, the leftist sons of Spanish immigrants may be somewhat overrepresented among immigration activists in France. But it doesn’t amount to much. They probably receive help from Jewish organizations because they make a good false front.
I think if the Jewish driving force was removed, the European brakes would start applying, and we would find out that the zeitgeist did not have a life of its own after all. 110
Posted by BGD on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:06 | #
Fred, it would be invaluable to have a blog that examines key aspects, comes to a conclusion and summarises the agreed findings as well as looser easily accessible library of article sources on particular subjects to reference both in-house for research and outwardly to underpin propaganda. For attack, conversion and personal guidance purposes. But as I mentioned above, even though the actors in the UK are somewhat obscured and yet in the US they have been laid out to a much greater extent where does that take us, what level of utility does it offer? I have to say I have a level of pessimism. One can no doubt write knockout arguments from a US perspective putting the responsibility where it lies and the damage into proper perspective. That’s good for us but is that good for practical purposes, i.e. how do we use that information to win converts on a wider scale in the numbers we need. Do arguments backed by evidence generally work in gaining converts? There is no other real way of course. But in the US it’s been less than earth-moving. Hopefully as we infuse the wider culture with our perspectives, gain the low-hanging fruit and through them seed the broader culture then we will develop the core group that we need and outside of our domestic sphere develop something like the Islamic umma to which we all belong and take succour from. 111
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:14 | #
Agreed. I’m at the point now where I consider anyone not seeing that to be blind and it’s more and more a waste of time to hang around bandying words with them. There should be no blog which is “on our side” that hasn’t established that view, above, or some equivalent, as part of its starting point for any discussion. Yes there have always been Euro-race wackos pushing this or that insanity including racial insanity, pro-miscegenation insanity, and so forth, entirely without the help of Jewish influence/coercion/control. But they always petered out after a relatively brief moment in the sun, as the sheer common-sense normalness of the normal folk of society simply kept them sidelined, finally fizzling out and forgotten with little or no opportunity to do damage. What’s keeping the insanity going now isn’t these wacko Euro types who’ve always existed on the sidelines, but something else, as alluded to in the quote from Armor above: the scale of ordinary common-sense normalness always tips against these ideas and the wackos holding them; today the Jewish thumb on the scale tips it in their favor. 112
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:25 | # BGD, the more light you shed the closer you are to a solution. Things are always that way. There’s a whole world of analysis to explore beyond the first steps of seeing exactly who is doing it but that world will never be explored by those who can’t get past first base. It’s high time now to get past first base. We know who’s doing it. Let’s go forward with the analysis taking that as our starting point in every discussion, not always starting from the question “Who’s doing it? Is it even anyone, or are we doing it to ourselves?” Those questions are not just stuck at first base, they’re not even in the game. I’m in the game, I want to advance not stay stuck at first base, and I for one no longer have patience for anything else. Anything else is a waste of time. 113
Posted by BGD on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:55 | # Yep, Fred, from an in-house analysis perspective it is. No argument. 114
Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:23 | #
Curious, are you talking about the same kind of PCA plot that is made available to 23andMe customers? 115
Posted by danielj on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:21 | # Curious, are you talking about the same kind of PCA plot that is made available to 23andMe customers? What company should I go with when I go to get all that done? Is there anybody that stands head and shoulders above? 116
Posted by Notus Wind on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:19 | #
Although n/a is probably the best person to ask this question I can tell you that I’ve had a good experience with 23andMe. All I had to do was register an e-mail address with them, spit into a tube that they sent me in the mail, and then wait a couple of months for the results. In terms of ancestry they have three major sets of tools: classification of your mitochondrial DNA and Y DNA haplogroup (wholly passed down maternally and paternally respectively), percentage estimates of your racial ancestry in terms of the categories European, African, or Asian as based on your autosomal DNA, and finally a PCA plot that tries to place you amongst the world’s major ethnic groups. Each of these tools has a slightly different purpose. For example, you can use the Y DNA haplogroup classification as a way to check if your surname really came to you from an unbroken chain of males that were born with that surname (i.e. no male in your background changed their surname to the one you have or was cuckolded). I was able to use this piece of information to see that my Y DNA signature was indeed the same as that of the root family of my surname in East Anglia. On the other hand, the two dimensional PCA plot that you gain access to is a little bit more difficult to understand. To my best knowledge (and I could very well be wrong about this) it implicitly tries to estimate the weighted average of the different ethnic groups in your background and plot your marker accordingly. For example, a person whose father is ethnically West African Bantu and whose mother is ethnically Norwegian should have their marker display itself midway between these two groups, which might very well be alongside a Middle Eastern group to which they have no heritage. Similarly, if half of your ancestry is Northern European and the other half is Southern European then you would expect your marker to be somewhere in between these categories on the two dimensional plot. I was very satisfied with the service because everything I learned was either in agreement with what I already knew (in terms of paper based genealogy) or was consistent with what I already knew. There were no surprises that didn’t make any sense, which some people have experienced through the other testing services. 117
Posted by Armor on Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:50 | # Here is an example of the French government kowtowing to the Jews. Headline: Hortefeux offers guarantees to the Jewish community Excerpts from the speech of the Interior Minister before the grand rabbi of France and the President of the CRIF [the biggest Jewish pressure group in France] before the holidays of Tishrei. Paris, Synagogue de la Victoire, September 6, 2010 I announce it before you, Mr. President of the Unified Jewish Social Fund, in five years, the agreements reached with your agency helped to secure 487 buildings, including 145 schools and nurseries, 98 organizations and community centers and 234 synagogues. Lastly, I personally called the attention of the Minister of Justice so she would start legal proceedings in several cases of boycott initiatives against kosher or Israeli products. (...) First, for students, I think of how to reconcile their school obligations with the calendar of your religious holidays. Of course, I have forwarded your concerns to the Ministers of public education and Higher Education (...). As you know, in the fall of 2009, together we obtained the publication of new European regulations for ritual slaughter, which provided stability for the shehita. Today, while a vote in the European Parliament may cancel that work by imposing a discriminatory labeling for ritual slaughter, we remain particularly vigilant. You can count on my mobilization and that of the French deputies in the European Parliament so the project will not succeed. source: Interior Ministry <center> * * * </center> The speech was made in a synagogue, but there is a transcript on the website of the French Interior Ministry. A recapitulation : 1) Jewish schools in France are watched by policemen while European children have to attend school together with Blacks and Arabs (courtesy of the Jews) and without policemen. 2) The French government is using its judicial machine to prevent any boycott against Israel and the kosher assassination of animals. 3) The French government wants the school system to take Jewish holidays into account. 4) The European Parliament wants people to know if they are buying meat killed in the kosher/halal way, but the French government has vowed to derail the process. 118
Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 01:44 | # Armor, You seem like an intelligent and straightforward individual. I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer regarding the Jewish Question in France. My main goal is to gather as much possible information about the Jewish role in our racial decline and explore various explanations. (Data -> conclusions.) What we need is an international “club” to watch the Jews and their behavior. The amount of information that we could be gathering is tremendous. But we need observers! The more I learn about the Jews the more I discover that their behavior follows predictable patterns. What are these patterns? How are they expressed across time and space? We need raw data to interpret. We need answers. Perhaps the admins at MR would be kind enough to let me write a “call to arms” for the formation of such a club? If anyone is interested you can email me at s.davidson1981 AT gmx DOT com 119
Posted by danielj on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:40 | # Daniel, thanks for sharing that information. That sounds rather tragic with your first-born child, I hope everything works out well there. That’s life. I’m sure it will work out fine. The guy is a good dude. 120
Posted by danielj on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:42 | # By the way, I think you got the English thing from my wife. Her Mum’s a Jordie. 121
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:53 | # Dan, sorry for the nitpicking: the term is Geordie. *ducks* After all, Dan is not a nice guy! 122
Posted by danielj on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:23 | # Dan, sorry for the nitpicking: the term is Geordie. My bad. I did look it up. Not sure what happened there. Regardless, she took elocution lessons after relocating to London in her early twenties. She speaks properly now. 123
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:58 | # Fred,
I do not think I am an innocent with regard to the JQ. But I do believe that Dan is substantially correct in the context of most European nations. Jews are Jews and will always strive to supremacy. That is Judaism, after all. But for most of their history in the West, Jews had little power of their own. Cromwell invited Jews to return to England in 1656. Napoleon Bonaparte began to free them in France in 1806. Jews have always depended on us in that way. Today their power depends upon us in more subtle ways. They did not create individualism in us, or outgroup altruism, or our sense of justice, our materialism, or any other characteristics of the European mind. They did not create a politics which weights these characteristics and suppresses others, most particularly our ethnocentrism. Liberalism worked usable forms for Jews to exploit, and exploit them they did. The picture is always more complex than either side in this debate wants to acknowledge. It is more complex historically and by country. It is probably too complex for anyone to do justice to it. Acknowledging that isn’t going soft on the JQ. It is, however, an offence to those who believe in isostasy, in an absolute European victimhood/Jewish venality, and in simply solutions. 124
Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:41 | # I completely agree with GW’s take on the JQ as articulated in the comment above.
O’Meara makes a similar point in his essay on the meaninglessness of liberalism. 125
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 02:08 | #
Assigning the role of weasels to the Jews, let’s explore this relationship by likening Europeans to PF’s ontological rats, who are trying to express free will by deciding which of two labyrinthine passages to traverse into an unformed future. We could assume that whatever course the rats choose to pursue is an expression of ratness. Weasels, on the other hand, might embark on a different course that expresses their weaselness. But, what happens to the model if part of weaselness entails owning the media of mass communication and intentionally distorting the sources of reflective feedback on which rats depend for assessing and pursuing their ratness? 126
Posted by Armor on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:00 | # Sam Davidson, “I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer regarding the Jewish Question in France.” I don’t know much about the Jewish Question in France. I discovered the Jewish problem only recently thanks to the internet. As I have a Breton separatist outlook, I never read any French nationalist magazine. Otherwise, I would probably have learned a little about the JQ. I’m not a well-read intellectual. I only get my information from the internet. For example, my introduction to Alain de Benoist was when I read a few articles translated in English on the Occidental Quarterly, not long ago. He is supposed to be a big intellectual. From the little I have read, he does criticize the Jews, but without saying they are Jews. And I don’t think he is properly alarmed at the massive race-replacement which is underway. There is no equivalent in France to the late William Pierce, or to Kevin MacDonald’s work. And there is too little activism on the French-speaking internet to make people aware of the JQ. We need people like MacDonald who is factual, polite, explicitly pro-white, and who gives plenty of information on Jewish activism. By comparison, French judeo-critical blogs and websites are usually not entirely serious, even though they are useful. I hope some of the magazines are better. Serious websites tend to remain too cautious. The judicial intimidation is obviously a problem. It dumbs down the discussion. I don’t know of any French website where it is possible to have an open discussion, as on MajorityRights or OccidentalDissent. But it will probably become possible in the near future, as more people become aware of the problem. The quality will improve. Last summer, there was an effort by a small nationalist organization to reach more people. In their periodical called Le National Radical, they included a list of famous Jews who work in the media, politics, and so on, with the headline: The Jews who dominate France. I think it is very useful to do things like that. Some people already realize that Jews are overrepresented in key institutions, but it needs to be said publicly that it is not acceptable. Unfortunately, expressing outrage about Jewish activism may send you to a court of justice. In this particular case, they received a heavy fine for incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence against Jews on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin. And they were ordered to have their publication removed from the newspaper stands. In fact, there was nothing wrong with what they wrote, and nothing violent in my opinion. Here is an excerpt of the judge’s verdict. I used a Google translation and made some corrections : <center>* * *</center> There is no doubt that the contentious writings mentioning a “cultural colonization”, an “overwhelming dominance”, a “monopoly” that “stifles” other people, a desire to enslave (“forever”), a “need” to “destroy in ourselves any national roots, any collective pride”, “unfair practices”, a “policy of destroying the European peoples”, a “situation that has become unbearable”, aim to foster a strong sense of rejection towards a group of persons who are not defined otherwise than by their religion or origin, and who are described as having a desire to enslave, and to conquer positions of power for their exclusive benefit, and even to destroy nations and peoples. This feeling can only be reinforced by the injunctions, that remind in all respects the infamous publications from the time of the Collaboration, to uncover or look for “the Jew”, as evidenced by these sentences: “Note the names of the producers at the bottom of the movie posters” or “Attention must also be paid to Russian-sounding and Anglo-Saxon-sounding names”, or this other recommendation “Do not forget that many Jewish families were able to adopt typically French surnames, especially since 1945”. The association of the adjective “Jewish” with firms or juridical persons also evoke dark memories as in this list of publishing houses: “The publishing houses of [...] from the group [...], just like [...], the publishing houses of [...] or [...] are also Jewish”. Finally, the assumption on which the text is based and which denies all Jewish persons their belonging to the national community, is in itself a likely cause of discrimination. Ultimately, the virulence of the attack, outstanding in all respects, as well as the final exhortation, in the guise of a prediction whose legitimacy is taken for granted in advance (“We can not therefore doubt that they [the members of the nations] will soon call them [the Jews] to account. It will only be justice”) clearly constitute incitement, not only to discrimination, but also to hatred and - although he wrongly denies it, given the conclusion of the text in question - violence. French Version : Il n’est pas douteux que les écrits poursuivis qui évoquent une “colonisation culturelle”, une “domination écrasante”, un “monopole” “étouffant” autrui, une volonté d’asservissement (”à jamais”), un “besoin” de “détruire en nous tout enracinement national, toute fierté collective”, des “procédés déloyaux”, une “politique de destruction des peuples européens”, une “situation devenue insupportable”, visent à susciter un fort sentiment de rejet à l’égard d’un groupe de personnes non autrement défini que par la religion ou l’origine, et présenté comme animé par une volonté d’asservissement, de conquête des positions de pouvoir à son profit exclusif, et même de destruction des nations et des peuples. Ce sentiment ne peut que se trouver renforcé par les injonctions, qui rappellent à tous égards une certaine presse du temps de la Collaboration, à rechercher ou découvrir “le juif”, comme en témoignent ces phrases: “Notez les noms des producteurs au bas des affiches de cinéma” ou “Il faut aussi faire attention aux noms à consonance russe ou anglo-saxonne”, ou cette autre recommandation “Il ne faut pas oublier que de nombreuses familles juives ont réussi à adopter des patronymes typiquement français, surtout depuis 1945”. L’association du qualificatif “juif” à des entreprises ou des personnes morales est tout autant de sinistre mémoire, comme dans cette liste de maisons d’édition: “Les éditions du [...] du groupe [...], tout comme [...], les éditions de [...] ou [...] sont également juives”. Enfin, le présupposé qui fonde ce texte et qui dénie à toute personne juive son appartenance à la communauté nationale, est en lui-même, de nature à provoquer la discrimination. En définitive, la virulence à tous égards exceptionnelle de la charge, comme l’exhortation finale, sous couvert de prédiction dont le caractère légitime est par avance donné pour acquis (“On ne saurait alors douter qu’ils [les membres des nations] ne tarderont pas à leur demander des comptes [aux Juifs]. Ce ne sera jamais que justice”) caractérisent manifestement la provocation, non seulement à la discrimination, mais aussi à la haine et - quoiqu’il s’en défende à tort, compte tenu de la conclusion du texte en cause - à la violence. 127
Posted by danielj on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:13 | # Interesting that a country (France) with a history of radical anti-Semitism on the right and the left (and a famous Holocaust revisionist to boot!) doesn’t have a well established counter-Semitic presence on either end of the political spectrum. 128
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:37 | # Counter-Semitic Congratulations Danielj. To name something is to own it. I will assume co-ownership by racial extension. Thank you. 130
Posted by danielj on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:46 | # Congratulations Danielj. To name something is to own it. I will assume co-ownership by racial extension. I already own the domain name although I’m willing to relinquish it to the commenter who I believe coined it. At least, that is who I picked it up from. Actually, I think Joe Sobran might have been the first to say it. I’m open to correction on this one. From an October 22, 1990 column quoting Sobran from an even earlier article which he wrote:
131
Posted by danielj on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:57 | # Some other good stuff I’ve picked up from perusing the old MR threads:
Do we have a thread for posting quick turnarounds, argument stoppers, quips, phrases and terminology on MR? We should start one. I’m sure a bunch of us save the good ones and I’d like to centralize them all. 132
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:11 | #
With all due respect to Guessedworker, this assertion is not supported by the historical record. If liberalism is the key to Jewish exploitation then how does the Polish arenda system fit within that paradigm? It can not. For it predates the enlightenment by almost four centuries.
In revisiting the evolutionary issue it appears American biologist, George Williams, is closer to an explanation, than D.S. Wilson. There is no evidence for group selection that cannot be explained by self-interest and kin selection.
133
Posted by Tanstaafl on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:30 | # Those who see “suicide” are themselves an expression of the “suicide” they see. 134
Posted by uh on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:50 | # Interesting that a country (France) with a history of radical anti-Semitism on the right and the left (and a famous Holocaust revisionist to boot!) doesn’t have a well established counter-Semitic presence on either end of the political spectrum. I guess that points again to the relevance of radical anti-Semitic subpolitics against mainstream pro-Semitic superpolitics — that see a Léon Blum into office three times, and a Drumont, never. 135
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:02 | # Desmond,
Your quote describes a sealed system with some limited trade contact with the gentile world. It is the dismantling of the seals, and the taking up of Jewry’s G-d-given duty to “suffer” for the “perfecting” of the gentile that leads to the conflicts we observe today. What, in relation to genetic interests and group selection, is the meaning of this:
136
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:50 | # GW, thanks for your reply. As a couple of commenters in other threads here and there have noticed, I’ve evolved over the years. In an important way, the way we’re talking about right now, I’ve evolved away from the blog — we’ve diverged. On this issue I’m closer to men such as Tanstaafl, Armor, Sam Davidson, Wintermute, Chechar, Greg Johnson, and Prof. Kevin MacDonald than to men such as yourself, Notus Wind, Dan Dare, A Finn, and James Kalb. I started at this blog in 2004 with very different thoughts on this issue, and began evolving toward my present views during 2006 thanks to a great deal of brand-new readings, new discoveries, and hard thinking about the subject, years’ worth but especially my experience at another site during the latter half of 2005. I’m still traveling along this divergent path from the blog’s path, refining my ideas which continue to be in that new direction, not the blog’s ongoing main direction. So the divergence is widening. As is perfectly natural when it does happen — because people’s ideas change over time — MR.com and I are gradually parting company. 137
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:52 | #
It’s just as well then, Fred, that MR is a frat house and not a military school. We don’t do Judeophilia and we don’t do constutional patriotism. But everything else that reasonably articulate and thoughtful, race-conscious white men might want to discuss has a home here, and there’s no need for you to feel that you are parting company in any way. Besides, I might convince you of complexity yet. Or you me of the other thing. 138
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:31 | # Dan, thanks for dredging that up, that must have been a while ago, I’ve used that argument elsewhere before and since.
Ive thought that for a long time. We did have the snappy refutations thread, but thats just been pushed down out of sight like other regular posts. It needs to be permanently linked as a resource. I’ve been thinking it would need to have a regular thread where people can post stuff, then content from there can be taken out and edited and polished up for posting to the permanent resource. 139
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:20 | #
Give us a break Fred. You’re the hands of the clock. It wouldn’t be right around here at any time of day without you. 140
Posted by Notus Wind on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:57 | # Scrooby, I hope you don’t continue to feel this way. If it’s any solace, I believe that the majority of those who contribute to MR agree with you and will continue to do so. 141
Posted by Joshua on Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:03 | # Guessedworker and Fred Scrooby are both necessary parts of MajorityRights. Don’t leave Fred… 142
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 22 Sep 2010 01:54 | # Guessedworker, Williams is defining what he considers a group. His thesis is that outside of family, “group-related adaptations do not, in fact, exist.” If the RC Church had treated Jews in the same fashion they treated heretics and pagans, then Judaism would now be defunct.
Some limited trade contact? Good lord, they dominated the gentile world in Poland/the Ukraine of the period. Dr. Jones writes:
Ultimately, the exploitation led to a mass Cossack/peasant rebellion in the Ukraine which allegedly claimed between 100,000 to 500,000 Jewish lives.
The motivating force is not liberalism, although it is easy to see why MacDonald and O’Meara suggest that it is. 143
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:27 | # http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/07poland.htm
144
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:34 | #
THE PONY FISH’S GLOW GEORGE C. WILLIAMS 145
Posted by Armor on Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:55 | # How effective can Jewish activism be, given that they are only a minority? I found this comment by Takuan Seiyo on the blog Gates of Vienna (October 2008) :
Takuan Seiyo’s comment isn’t about Jewish influence. On the contrary, it’s about how Western nationalists can still turn things around. He says that a small persistent force may suffice to initiate change. But I think his comparison is even better suited to a description of how Jews achieved crucial influence in Western countries. Jews are the small rudder, and Western governments are the big rudder. If we hope to turn things around by sheer activism, there is no reason to reject the idea that the Jews were able to turn Western society upside down by the same technique. Although Jews are a minority, they do a huge amount of activism in favor of race-replacement, much more than we do in opposition. They own most of the media, they are better organized than we are, and have been at it for more than a hundred years. Unlike us, they have no inhibitions, and nothing to fear. A large part of their activism is paid for by us. Even so, the potential of White activists is greater. Jews are only a minority, and their propaganda is transparent rubbish that opposes our vital interests. It creates cognitive dissonance in the lemmings and it would have no success at all if it was not backed up by intimidation. By contrast, we are the majority, we tell the truth, which is compatible with white interests and natural aspirations, and our survival hangs in the balance. One of our priorities must be to denounce the hijacking of public institutions by anti-White Jewish activists. We should also campaign for laws that will prevent the concentration of the media into Jewish hands. A possible way to do that is to pass laws against media concentration in general, without mentioning the Jews. I suspect the main reason why such laws don’t already exist is Jewish opposition to the idea. In fact, the ship analogy isn’t entirely fitting. It suggests that a small core of activists can have a deep influence on a whole nation, which is partly true. But Jewish activists have only achieved control of our governments and institutions. Their brainwashing of the population remains superficial. As Svigor often says, the support for our destruction is a mile wide and an inch deep. For example, most of our politicians do not believe what they say. Their anti-white policy doesn’t reflect any national Zeitgeist. By contrast, white rage will eventually help white activists to take back the West. 146
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:43 | # @Desmond Jones
Good work. A deathblow to the “blame it on liberalism” theory!
@Armor
You are not giving yourself enough credit! The fact that you speak French gives you the ability to penetrate deeper into the French JQ than someone like myself. Others can use your work to put the pieces together. It would be very simple for you to start a blog about Jewish influence in France. It does not need to be well-written. A simple collection of news articles would suffice. As I’ve said before, even a casual look into the Jewish influence in Europe reveals similar patterns that are found in the United States and elsewhere. In the UK, the first Chairman of Channel 4 was a Communist Jew named Edmund Dell. The leaders of France’s 1968 radical students were all Jews. Imagine how much more Jewish influence in Europe we could uncover if our European comrades would actually do some research! 147
Posted by Armor on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 06:06 | # Higher up in the comments, on September 21, I gave an account of a courageous attempt, by Maurice Martinet, a French nationalist, to talk openly about the Jewish problem. He published a political bulletin with the headline: “The Jews who dominate France”. For that, he was heavily fined and ordered to remove his publication from newspapers stands. What’s new since then : Last November, Maurice Martinet was given a two month mandatory sentence and was condemned to pay 6,500 € to the LICRA, a Jewish organization. I don’t suppose that any newspaper reported the affair. Last month, Alain Jakubowicz, president of the Licra also wrote to Martinet to tell him to remove from his website : Other developments : From the website of the Licra : (my translation)
Post a comment:
Next entry: The Role of Anger in White Nationalism
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Erin Go Bragh on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:17 | #
Fuck england.