Posted by aeon on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 00:47 | #

None of these criticisms appear to be ideological, only tactical.  The New Right is not controlled from the top down.  If you want to be the Lenin of the New Right, why do you not put your beliefs into action instead of merely criticizing others?

Posted by Daniel J on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:09 | #

None of these criticisms appear to be ideological, only tactical. by aeon

Troy and I have some differences on the matter of “the way forward”.  by guessedworker

He seems to have acknowledged that already…

The New Right most certainly be controlled from the top (intellectual and cultural vanguard/Socratic Elite) down.

In fact it is critical to our success that we have a tireless, irreproachable and exemplary elite body of leaders…

Posted by Englander on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:28 | #

In fact it is critical to our success that we have a tireless, irreproachable and exemplary elite body of leaders…

I agree, and it surprises me that no such figures have emerged from the pool of talent we have available.

Posted by Stanley Womack on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:58 | #

On this point, I want to advocate again for seizure of the vocabulary currently in vogue that has been designed to suppress our legitimate aspirations and development, so as to provide new definitions and new usages for the words of the left-wing racialists.

This is how they seized power and the privilege of setting the social agenda, and it will be how we will seize power and the privilege of setting the social agenda, at least on an intellectual level.

Words like nationalism, patriotism, and conservatism are from the 1950s and have been re-defined to mean, in order, separatism, supremacy, and selfishness. I do not endorse these revised definitions, it is just the way the dominant media culture and corporate enertainment culture think.

Our solution forward requires that we turn our back on the past categories of virtue, and re-define the dominate vocabulary. An awful lot of what RD has put on this board and in its on-line syllabus is just exactly that. If we adults do not move forward that way, the kids eventually will leaving us in their dust.

The left-wing march through the institutions was just exactly what I am describing in its initial stages. I well recall how American history until around 1972-3 was taught around the concept of the closing of the frontier; suddenly the white people who closed the frontier were convicted of the most heinous crimes in doing that. In essence, the new writers of history texts turned our paradigm upside down. We can do the same even if it means throwing overboard the old categories of virtue, and the accompanying vocabulary.

Posted by Daniel J on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 03:01 | #

I agree, and it surprises me that no such figures have emerged from the pool of talent we have available. -Englander

I am only 23… Give me 5 years…

Posted by Louis Mortimer Bloomfield on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 09:57 | #

Yak, Yak, Yak! I don’t know how many of you half-brights live in England? But I’m glad I don’t, I left in 1973, and I ain’t coming back, it’s a fucking cesspool. ‘Guessedworker’ nailed it perfectly, “My England happens to include London and Leicester, Bradford and Birmingham.  It’s my country and I want it back, cities included”. Well let me know when you plan to do something about it. All you’re doing on this website is singing to the choir and adding to ‘global warming’.
Why do all those fucking niggers want to go to England anyway? Because it’s the ‘promised land’ that’s why. Well it used to be. I wish Africa and Israel had one neck and I had my hands around it. Some say the South will rise again, me, I’m waiting for the Second Holocaust, I love those crispy little critters.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:32 | #

So this is probably not the right forum for you, then, Louis?

Posted by alex zeka on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:51 | #

None of these criticisms appear to be ideological, only tactical.

The only rational ideology is one based on the real world, on what can be practicably done, in other words on tactics.

The New Right is not controlled from the top down.

Is not intellectual leadership, along the lines of Jefferson’s natural aristocracy of merit, possible within the context of a decentralised, quasi-anarcho-communal set up?

Posted by Daniel J on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:23 | #

So this is probably not the right forum for you, then, Louis? -Guessedworker

Not to mention the violence he speaks of only marginalizes our position even further and alienates us from allies.

Look at SVIGOR posts over at creative loafing and see how hard it is, explicitly proclaiming peace, to overcome people’s mind-lock.

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:25 | #

I dont think we need to hear from the likes of Louis again thanks very much.

Posted by Count Sudoku on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:03 | #

I suspect that there will be more and faster conversions in the future as whites become a smaller percent of the population and become increasingly screwed over.

Bob Whitaker at http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/ is actually optimistic for the future given that he has been in the fight since the 60s. Just today for example he posts…

So in the 1950s everything that came from the right was Hitlerism. In the first Knesset in 1948, no one would sit on the Right… Any mention of racial IQ difference was grounds for a lynching, and I do NOT mean that figuratively. Ask Professor Osbourne of the University of Georgia.

As I said, William Buckley’s appearance on the Jack Paar show in January of 1961 was as shocking as Dr. Duke’s being on a major show ten years ago. Paar made fun of him, while O’Reilly shrieked at Duke, but it’s the same game. But I have been here before. To you this is a whole new game; to me this is where I came in.

Today, Dr. Duke’s being on national television is unusual but not unheard of, as Buckley’s was then.

While the Fanatical Losers TODAY tell us that we get no hearing, I am amazed at every time we DO get a hearing.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:39 | #

GW is doubtless correct in surmising that MR is the wrong forum for Louis of the Michigan Jewish surname. The classical reference to strangulation was a deft touch. though.

Posted by Euroman on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:02 | #

Troy Southgate believes the cities are permanently lost. GW believes the third world won’t stop coming and breeding. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield is told to get lost. Is rearguard action the only viable option? The question has been implicitly answered with a “Yes” and there’s nothing even remotely revolutionary about it. It’s the same old greet, eat, whine and retreat. The flip side, on the other hand, is limited to night-time flyer distributions and street demos by the all-too-often Fed-financed tattoo/costume/informer crowd.

For five of my nine years involvement I’ve had to ask myself, “What is the point?” 

I think it’s time to face reality.

Posted by DasMook on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:22 | #

As a young man aged 21, I feel that there is a terrible smell of defeatism around Southgate’s idea of ‘surrendering the cities’. I have been attracted to the Native Nationalist movement from a background of opposition to New World Order. I think that in the current climate of the dominance of ‘(repressive) tolerance’ and ‘multiculturalism’ there is still room to gain ground and support.

What is taking place in Britain is colonialism. What the awakened natives must do is launch their platform from a position of anti-colonialism. I think that what plays most into the hands of the multiculturalists is the sheer ignorance about the numbers of what is going on. As you have referred to the citites of London, Birmingham and Leicester, an important contribution to debate in fighting back against this colonisation is illumination of what is going on ie:

In London, Birmingham and Leicester native British people will be a minority by 2011.

(The real shocker) Native British will be a minority in their own country by 2060.

There isnt a single soft-left multiculturalist in the whole world who can hold a moral high ground in the face of evidence that indicates future serfdom and genocide especially when put forward in the language of anti-colonialism. I am heartened by the support that I see the BNP gaining in the U.K. even in my own personal circle, all it has taken is a simple presentation of evidence of what is really going on, because what the establishment thrives on is manipulation of attitude by misinformation and ad-hominem attacks.

In my opinion the period accompanying the period of the next few general elections will be critical in the U.K as this represents a time when natives will still at least hold a majority, but the threat from islamification and colonialism will become more prominent barring Belgian style political party prohibition laws. This i believe will help galvanise more public support.

Posted by Daniel J on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:16 | #

Look at SVIGOR posts over at creative loafing and see how hard it is, explicitly proclaiming peace, to overcome people’s mind-lock. -Daniel J

I should have clarified I meant that you did the right thing SI…

I agree it pays off in silent nods…

I wish I had time to explain what happened in depth at the bar I work at the other night-but the short of it is.

Everyone there spent three hours shitting all over Christianity, Whiteness, Republicanism, Racism, Homophobia et cetera.

They stomped over everything I believe in and then asked for my opinion and I calmly said that I thought homosexuality was wrong.

They threatened me with violence immediately and revealed to everyone who the intolerant people really were.

Posted by Retew on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:43 | #

Svyatoslav_Igorevich wrote;

QUOTE

Lol, I keep naively expecting some kind of cogent defense of multiracialism.  Kinda silly, considering even the brain trust at GNXP has to use leftist S.O.P. (fallacy, followed quickly by censorship) to hold the line.

========================================

Well, take a trip over to MootSF and read some of Otter’s posts, or Eddy’s; they do a pretty good job. Most of the others have left now
or are busy.

I keep trying to get MSFers over here, but no luck so far. Getting people together who can actually debate is like herding cats, it seems; everyone prefers easy victories.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:56 | #

http://www.mootsf.org/forums/search.php?do=process

Search by user name otter yields no hits.

But to be honest, I’m not much interested in debating the merits of multiculturalism.  The time for debate is long since past given the fact that the state enforces it.  The debate is over.  Rape of freedom has alraedy occurred.  War is already waged.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:00 | #

Getting people together who can actually debate is like herding cats, it seems; everyone prefers easy victories.

        A better analogy:
 
    Getting people together who can make a decent case for multiracialism is like herding Sasquatches. 

  Cats, you see, actually exist.

Posted by Retew on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:12 | #

Sorry, should have given his full username; Y_I_Otter (not even sure I got that right, anyway it took me long enough to be able to spell Svyatoslav_Igorevich). Eddy is just Eddy.

As for the state enforcing it, war already being waged etc., I don’t see how that’s different from any other large scale policy decision by the government with which you might disagree; for example if you were a pacifist you’d have your tax dollars deducted for use by the military (and a lot of them) whatever your views on the matter.

If you objected to that, you’d have to be able to debate your position
if you wanted to win others over to your point of view and it’s the same with multiculturalism.

I know I’m talking to someone highly intelligent here, so I must point out that I’m saying this for the benefit of others who may be reading this and for whom this might not be obvious.

Debate is also valuable in its own right IMO as a means of divining the truth of a matter irrespective of who is there to witness it.

Posted by Retew on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:29 | #

Andy Wooster wrote;

Getting people together who can make a decent case for multiracialism is like herding Sasquatches.

Cats, you see, actually exist.

==========================================

So we keep being told (i.e. that we’ve got no case), but there are people on our side who think you’ve got no case either. I keep seeing people on SF claim (on the basis of debating a few high school or first year college students) that we’ve got no arguments, and people on MSF say much the same about WNs on SF.

So what does that prove, except that both sides have lost the ability to listen to one another, a sad state of affairs which I’m doing my best to try and remedy?

Like I said, we need decent debaters on both sides to settle the arguments (and I make no claims for myself in that regard).

Posted by moot retew on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 22:03 | #

“If you objected to that, you’d have to be able to debate your position if you wanted to win others over to your point of view and it’s the same with multiculturalism.”

Interesting that in Europe, Canada, etc. is it is practically illegal to overly oppose multiculturalism, and, aside from the de jure sanctions there are the de facto sanctions, which fellows as diverse as John Rocker and Jared Taylor (recently roughed up in Halifax) can attest.

So much for “debate.”

“...but there are people on our side who think you’ve got no case either.”

Frank Salter’s work is irrefutable.  The “brain trust” at GNXP has tried and failed, Professor Peter Gray has tried and failed, and the everyone else will fail as well.

And, no, “arguments” composed of logical fallacy piled upon logical fallacy will not constitute an effective refutation.

Don’t get carried away by your fellows’ ability to “debate” with Stormfronters - about as “challenging” as shooting fish in a barrel.

Then I remember reading some posts on a Yahoo public anti-racist group years ago - to the effect than an effective anti-racist strategy is to engage “racists” in endless and fruitless debates, constantly nitpicking, so as to waste the “racists’” time and not allow them to organize.

One wonders.

If you are a sincere advocate on open debate on these issues, how about first campaigning against the de jure persecution of nationalists outside the USA, and the de facto attacks against fellows like Taylor et al here and abroad?

Maybe then guys like James Bowery and myself can take your sincerity at face value.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:34 | #

If you objected to that, you’d have to be able to debate your position
if you wanted to win others over to your point of view and it’s the same with multiculturalism.

Wrong.

If I wanted to win others over to my point of view, then I wouldn’t brow-beat them with words backed by government force—I’d let them live their beliefs while I lived mine and show them the truth of my beliefs.  The fact that people advocate “dialog” when there is no freedom for experimentation is proof positive those people are theocrats and should be given all the tolerance shown by theocrats those with whom they differ.

Posted by Retew on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:35 | #

Moot Retew wrote;

“Interesting that in Europe, Canada, etc. is it is practically illegal to overly oppose multiculturalism”

We’re not Canada, WN and even Nazi parties are legal in the UK though inciting racial hatred is forbidden..

“and, aside from the de jure sanctions there are the de facto sanctions, which fellows as diverse as John Rocker and Jared Taylor (recently roughed up in Halifax) can attest.”

So much for “debate.”

That is true, but we don’t have a monopoly on that; people on our side have been roughed up as well and five anti-racist demonstrators were murdered by the Klan in 1980.

“Frank Salter’s work is irrefutable. The “brain trust” at GNXP has tried and failed, Professor Peter Gray has tried and failed, and everyone else will fail as well.”

Remains to be seen, I don’t know enough to do it and our best debaters are busy at the moment. I’ll have a skim through the post
archives at MSF to see what’s been said about it so far.

“And, no, “arguments” composed of logical fallacy piled upon logical fallacy will not constitute an effective refutation.”

Straw man. Point to a logical fallacy anyone on MSF has used and got away with (and don’t mention the Lewontin fallacy, which has been exposed on MSF as well as elsewhere).

“Don’t get carried away by your fellows’ ability to “debate” with Stormfronters - about as “challenging” as shooting fish in a barrel.”

Again, remains to be seen since few or any of you will come and debate with us. If we debate on SF we’re subject to long post delays, moderation and exclusion from the bulk of the site, and bannings in the bad old days of MuadDib - which is why MSF was set up in the first place.

I haven’t seen anyone beat Kamandi in a debate yet in the more than two years MSF’s been up. Certainly not “shooting fish in a barrel” anyway.

“Then I remember reading some posts on a Yahoo public anti-racist group years ago - to the effect than an effective anti-racist strategy is to engage “racists” in endless and fruitless debates, constantly nitpicking, so as to waste the “racists’” time and not allow them to organize.

One wonders.”

Not my strategy, and the first I’ve heard of this. I don’t approve anyway, it’s dishonest.

“If you are a sincere advocate on open debate on these issues, how about first campaigning against the de jure persecution of nationalists outside the USA, and the de facto attacks against fellows like Taylor et al here and abroad?

Maybe then guys like James Bowery and myself can take your sincerity at face value.”

If I could do that without being identified with you or your views I’d consider it, but frankly there’s no good reason why I should, bearing in mind the low opinion you and your ilk have for those who think like me and what would probably happen to me should you take power.

Jack_Boot wants to put me in a prison camp, Jack Black has called for a “demonstration” to non-whites that he means business by lynching the liberals first, to name just two I’m aware of; if I wanted to speak up on behalf of a cause or group, I’d choose one not likely to do me in should they succeed.

I’ve done some daft things in my time, but I’m not that stupid.

Note; I’ve seen enough of these temporary “joke” user names (retewy brute etc). Anyone from now on who doesn’t use a consistent one and stick to it won’t get a reply from me in the future.

Posted by Retew on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:54 | #

James Bowery wrote;

“Wrong.

If I wanted to win others over to my point of view, then I wouldn’t brow-beat them with words backed by government force—I’d let them live their beliefs while I lived mine and show them the truth of my beliefs. The fact that people advocate “dialog” when there is no freedom for experimentation is proof positive those people are theocrats and should be given all the tolerance shown by theocrats
to those with whom they differ”.

I understand what you’re saying in your last sentence in particular, but no society can survive without boundaries and values, which impose limits on what is tolerated; men in America aren’t allowed to marry 12 year old girls, for example, as they were (are?) in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East.

Our current one has decided that the line is drawn at discrimination based on race, and if you disagree with that and want to continue living in that society it seems to me you’ve got to do more than simply disobey it; you’ve got to argue your position.

I think the answer for American WNs is to buy a large plot of land and set up your own state, like that one in South Africa (Orania or something - it’s my bedtime frankly).

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:59 | #

WN’s can’t buy a large plot of land and set up their own state.  It’s illegal.

The problem is with the entire approach of democracy bounded by “minority rights”.

The solution isn’t democracy bounded by “minority rights” but the recognition that secession of territory with assortative migration (freedom of association) trumps all other so-called “human rights”.

Posted by Daveg on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:50 | #

WN’s can’t buy a large plot of land and set up their own state.  It’s illegal.

You can do lots of “informal” things, like setting up networks to do business, create school with curriculum you approve of, etc.  And you could try and create “kibbutz” like communities etc.

Whether these would achieve the goals you want is unclear.

There are other groups (not just jews) that use these types of techniques, including Lebanese - the third richest man in the world is from Mexico, but he is Lebanese.

Posted by MOOT RETEW on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:01 | #

Retew is “offended” by the “moot Retew” name, and will not respond.  Who cares?  This guy Retew is an absolute retard anyway.

He makes a distinction between being able to “establish a Nazi party in the UK” and “laws against incitement to racial hatred.”

Very good.  Have you considered, ye great anti-racist debating expert, that these “laws against racial hatred” can, and do, essentially make illegal the public expression of the beliefs of WNs and would make the existence of a “Nazi party” in the UK essentially meaningless, because the expression of the fundamental beliefs of that party would also be illegal? 

We are to be pleased that Griffin survived two trials, but the question should be why he was arrested and indicted in the first place, and what those arrests, and his “near miss” does to those people who may hold even more extreme views on race, ethnicity, and culture.  It silences them, you devious liar, that’s what it does, it freezes your precious “debate” before it can even begin.

Then the retardate Retew equates a situation in which, decades ago, Klansmen attacked communists, to the present situation, in which the governmental power, allied with anti-racist activists, supresses the holy “debate” we are to have.  You know, because of “Klansmen” there are laws in the US against groups wearing masks in public, particularly when these threaten, or perform, violence against others.  But, of course, anti-racist groups routinely get away with that tactic - you know, the same groups sometimes funded by corporations and other mechanisms of government oppression. The government and the anti-racists are two sides of the same coin, hold the same beliefs, and work hand-in-glove. It helps the debate of course when your opponents’ views are illegal

Then “retew” asserts that he cannot support our free speech rights (at the same time that he calls for debate, even though many of our views are illegal in his country), by citing the threats of someone named “Jack Boot.”  Gee…“Jack Boot.”  Pretty high level of opposition ya got there, huh?  Who’s next - “superadolf88naziteenagedsuperherohimmler?”

Even the Guardian an an essay defending the rights of “bigots” to participate fully in the political process and express their views.  Retew cannot do that, he must fear the immortal “Jack Boot.”  Yeah, Retew, the opinions of “Jack Boot” hold the same coercive force as the laws of the UK.

Posted by Retew on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:49 | #

You don’t know me, so cut the insults. I do accept that I’m not perfect, but a “retard” I am not, nor a “devious liar.” 

Secondly, you’re not simply asking me to give tacit support to your free speech rights, which I’m happy to do; you’re asking me to campaign openly for the free speech rights of the likes of Jared Taylor (who I do quite like btw; I’ve exchanged e-mails with him), which would involve some investment of time and effort on my part.

Tell me why I should want to do that, on behalf of someone like you whose powers of persuasion appear limited to throwing around insults?

Jack_Boot and co. may be harmless now, but they’re hoping one day not to be, and then their influence will matter and they’ve made it clear they’re willing to use it to do me harm. I suspect you would too, judging by the tone of your post. So it makes no sense for me to work to assist the process.

Does it?

You have a point about the Klan in Greensboro, but don’t forget they got off;
one of the jury later said he thought the Klan were “very patriotic.”

As for Griffin and co., it probably won’t mollify you to know that I didn’t support that trial but following Griffin’s acquital, government ministers called for even stronger laws against the expression of racial hatred. Clearly they didn’t think the existing ones were adequate.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:10 | #

Davidg writes: You can do lots of “informal” things, like setting up networks to do business, create school with curriculum you approve of, etc.  And you could try and create “kibbutz” like communities etc.

“informal” doesn’t help against the claim that there exists “the making of contracts”.  Moreover, a “network” is no defense against the cries of “discrimination” if one is operating a “public accommodation”.  Operating “our own schools” only works if we can enjoy the protection of the law in setting up a private school excluding those we choose to exclude—and that is one of he seminal court cases:

From the Wikipedia article on freedom of association:

it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limitation of freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the Civil Rights Act, as weighed against the First Amendment according to the court decision Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976).

The holding of Runyon is that the defendant private schools were free to express and teach their views, such as white separatism, but could not discriminate on the basis of race in the provision of services to the general public. So if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the schools strongly disliked them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them. The general rule to be drawn from this is that the First Amendment protects the right to express, including expression of racial discrimination, but people may not practice such ideas even within private associations.

Now, you can make an argument that the Wikipedia article is wrong, or this interpretation of the law is wrong or that interpretation of the law is wrong.

The ground truth is that the legal risk of doing things such as you suggest is high enough that no one with substantial assets would dare put their assets behind such a separatist enterprise within the current regime.

We are screwed until this regime comes down.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:14 | #

Oh, and appealing to examples of minority groups pulling off separatist things within this regime simply points to the hypocrisy of the current regime—which we most emphatically acknowledge.  That’s the reason for the name of this website.  “Minority rights” exist but these same rights do not really exist for the majority.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:16 | #

Our current one has decided that the line is drawn at discrimination based on race…”

“The” line?  That can’t be right.  Surely, you mean “a” line.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:38 | #

This “discussion” where “suggestions” are offered by obvious ignoramuses who couldn’t care a whit about our vital concerns simply reinforces the fact that we must act to bring down the current regime.

The attempt to elevate the debate to a level where some kind of resolution is plausible—a genuinely tolerant regime within which people live and let live—is an impossibility due to the mental fog within which our “debating” opponents live.

It must be destroyed.

Posted by Retew on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:44 | #

Examples of this “lack of concern” please James? I thought you at least were willing to give me the benefit of the doubt here, even if others aren’t.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:06 | #

Kamandi?  You’ve got to be kidding.  I’ve browsed some of his posts at your site.

You’ve got to be kidding.  Run-of-the-mill crypto-Jew.

Crypto?  That thread puts him clearly “out of the closet”.

Posted by Retew on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:07 | #

OK, since you’ve been blunt I’ll return the favour. I feel my views and outlook are being severely misrepresented here, and I have no faith that any future posts of mine will meet any different fate.

So, I don’t propose to post here again There’s no point trying to discuss this further except to say that “a genuinely tolerant regime where people live and live live” sounds fine by me.

It’s also not true that I “don’t care a whit about your vital concerns” either.

Oh well, I suppose you need a thick skin to debate these subjects and I don’t have one.

Posted by Daveg on Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:50 | #

So if the plaintiff African-American children wished to attend such private schools, and were clearly qualified in all respects (but race) and were able to pay the fees, and were willing to attend despite the fact that the schools strongly disliked them, then the schools were required by Section 1981 to admit them.

This is an accurate assessment, but I don’t see it as being all that bad.  What “non white” is really going to want to attend such a school, and pay money to do so?

It will take years to create a “core” of people who would graduate from such schools to start a real movement, IMHO.

BTW, I am not saying I would like to do this myself, per se, but I think it is an interesting exercise, and those that want to do it should be able to.

Posted by Stanley Womack on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:13 | #

I don’t understand the term “rearguard,” but if means to be always on the defensive, there’s no need for that. Probably the leading need is for some kind of European & European Diaspora news service, ie, plenty of cooperating media. That would be a big start.

We’ve already got the media seeds, all we have to do is link up and go on the attack.

Later on we can have the European & European Diaspora Congress, Anti-Discrimination Bureau, Anti-Defamation Bureau, Legal Services Bureau, and so on.

It will unfold itself.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:50 | #

Anyone know if Fjordman is Jewish?

It probably depends on what you mean by “Fjordman”.  I’d guess that the genes that built the fingers that type the Jewish propaganda came from non-Jewish parents.  But the genes that control the brain and thus the fingers are Jewish. 

So what’s the answer?

Posted by Norman_Guy on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:03 | #

Louis Mortimer Bloomfield _ I agree with you entirely, a new holocaust. Thats whats planned for us it seems, so since we are the only ones with the brains to do it, I say

Flame On!

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:38 | #

It is possible you know, Norman, that those of us with actual brains might want to try a more stable strategy.  Something more morally sustainable.  Something, therefore, political.

Genocide is such a (knuckle-) drag.  Try thinking consequentially.