Posted by zuwr on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:39 | #

I find this ironic because “Bo Sears” had a Jewish business partner for many years. 

And again, “Bo Sears” = immigration lawyer.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:08 | #

Maybe he saw the light, zuwr.  We take converts here.

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:07 | #

Michael Hart’s enormously Judeo-Christian, civilisation-saving and all-round Nazi-free conference…

...So now the big push to replace liberalism with Judeo-Christian tradition and give us poor European folks some racial confidence, damnit, can begin.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, February 9, 2009 at 11:34 PM in

The Neocons began working on the Juedo-Christian angle pretty much since their movement began. It’s their way of linking jews with Western Civilization.

They do the same thing in attacking Darwinism and linking it to the “holocaust”, thereby appealing to christian creationists while pushing their own agenda in the guise of Western “traditionalism”. 

And of course those who have been ensnared into the “Europe is the faith” kind of thinking are vulnerable to the likes of Auster and Hart.

Those who claim that The West is built upon Christianity are easy targets for “The Chosen”.

Western Civilization is a racial construct, not a religious or philosophical one.

Philosophies can be adapted and updated. Religions can be adopted or abandoned. But Race is the only concrete thing upon which Western Civilization truly stands….past, present and (hopefully) future.

 

...

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:54 | #

At bottom, Auster’s a garden variety Jew.  He holds the liberal media to higher standards than he holds himself:

The other day I linked a news article in a Virginia newspaper that truthfully reported a speech about Islam delivered by Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad. The fact that the reporter simply conveyed what Bostom had said, without imposing a liberal spin and liberal framework on it, was so rare as to be astonishing.

Auster then goes on to write or link to thousands of words about Duke and “anti-Semites” without quoting anyone.

All spin, just right.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:05 | #

I love how the behavior of Auster, and the rest of his ilk show no difference from liberals when it comes to Jews.  Suddenly free inquiry and truth-telling get bundled into a crate bound for Timbuktu.  They brook no dissent, and engage in no dialogue.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:13 | #

Little sissy boys, who can’t take criticism.  That’s why they hide from us and snipe from a distance but never engage at close range.  That’s why they never climb in the ring - because they know they’ll lose.

See, the status quo (Jews are perfect, criticizing them is heresy) is perfect from their point of view.  The prospect of a real, open discussion is terrifying because even if they win, they lose, because the status quo will be MAULED no matter what.  Think about it from their point of view.  Even if they can by some miracle “win” the argument, an avalanche of facts will become apparent to the lemmings in the process.  Can’t have that!  This is why MacDonald pisses them off; it’s not about some theory, it’s about the vast ocean of facts that MacDonald navigates in the process of outlining his theory that presents a problem.  Which is why there’s been no Diamond or Gould to come forward and run damage control.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:18 | #

In short, the reality of Jewry from anything other than an ethnocentric Jewish POV is so bad, so egregiously malfeasant, so far divergent from the status quo (Jews perfect; Jew-critics evil), that discussing it honestly is an automatic loss.  That’s why Auster types and free speech must part company, permanently; the two values (freedom of inquiry/discussion and Jewish ethnocentrism/extended phenotypy) are mortal enemies).

Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:16 | #

Their intention was not to explore specifically Jewish concerns or advance specifically Jewish interests, but to air the vital topics of immigration, Islam, and race differences in a civilized environment free of the vile poison of Israel hatred and anti-Semitism which so much of the paleocon and race-realist right tolerates, welcomes, and embraces.

HAHAHAH!  “Free of the vile poison…” - priceless!  It is doubly effective since, once you put Israel and Jews beyond criticism, you can’t have a very effective discussion about “immigration, Islam and race” since it is their machinations and money that promote mass immigration, foment war with Islam, and deny the existence of race (all but their own of course).

My comment is a reiteration of things I’ve said before, and contains nothing new.  So why do I comment?  Because there seem to be a large number of ethno-nationalists even here at MR who still do not understand who the real enemy is. 

I agree with Fred Scrooby.  Miasma theories are useless.  “Nihilism” didn’t cause this mess.  Neither did “liberalism” (though modern liberalism = cultural Marxism, a creation of our “chosen”).  These things are weapons that a certain group uses in perpetual tribal war against Europeans.

The Anti-antisemites at this site (i.e. Homelander, silver, Dr. Haller) are clearly not stupid people, which makes it far more probable that those who obdurately refuse to name the Jew are in fact obscurantists and our enemies.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:15 | #

Auster summed up his “save the West” philosophy pretty well: it’s all about protecting jews - though he bizarrely denies it at the same time he’s saying it. Why? It’s not because he’s stupid or confused. He’s a dissimulator.

Posted by Darren on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:28 | #

This is all baloney. Jews are not a western people, they are eastern - culturally and racially. Diaspora Jews in the west maintained their culture and ethnic distinction for centuries and still do.

So long as the Jews resist intermarriage and cultural assimilation they cannot, by definition, be part of the greater western society. They interact with it. That is all.

Not even Razib buys into that garbage - http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/the_judeo-christian_west/

LOL, you aren’t fooling us, Auster.

Posted by Rusty on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:05 | #

Wow, Larry’s Jewish Supremacist attitude was certainly on display in that letter, wasn’t it?  He makes it almost too easy these days to see “where he’s coming from.”

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:36 | #

So long as the Jews resist intermarriage and cultural assimilation they cannot, by definition, be part of the greater western society. They interact with it. That is all.

Posted by Darren on February 11, 2009, 01:28 AM

Well since they’re not White I hope intermarriage with them remains taboo for the majority of Western peoples.

And since they are not White it is absolutely impossible for them to truly assimilate into Western Civilization in the first place. Let them focus all of their energies on moving back and assimilating into their own native culture in the middle east…

.

Posted by Bruce Graeme on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:46 | #

How can you cluster together Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Mizrahi and many other Jewish ethnic groups? You can clearly see there’re many examples of Jews that have very little Semitic ancestry. I know some Ashkenazi do have semitic markers and some of them belong to semitic haplogroup. But haven’t you ever thought, if Ashkenazi are very semitic why don’t they resemble even very vaguely Middle Eastern people, why do they look a special kind of european? Why the heck do they look completely european or even sometimes turkic if they’re a “pure semitic people”? Did they become whiter with the passing of centuries?

You can be sure that Ashkenazi are light years far in apearance of original Hebrews from Biblical times. If they are completely semitic, why the heck those genes don’t make them look middle eastern?

The Khazar elite chose Judaism out of political expediency — to remain independent of neighboring Muslim and Christian states. The Khazars opposed the Arab advance into the Caucasus Mountains and were instrumental in containing a Muslim push toward eastern Europe. You can compare their role in eastern Europe to that of the French knights who defeated Arab forces at the Battle of Tours in France in 732!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26809309/from/ET/

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:55 | #

But haven’t you ever thought, if Ashkenazi are very semitic why don’t they resemble even very vaguely Middle Eastern people, why do they look a special kind of european?

I reject the premise of the question.  Ashkenazis resemble ME peoples, much more than vaguely.  Look at David Duchovny.  You telling me that guy doesn’t bear some serious ME features?  I don’t see him as especially ME-looking for an Ashkenazi, either.

Even if they didn’t look ME, so what?  Maybe they’ve been selected for Euro appearance.  It’s not a good thing that people who hate us have great camouflage. 

Why the heck do they look completely european or even sometimes turkic if they’re a “pure semitic people”? Did they become whiter with the passing of centuries?

Ah.  I don’t think they’re a pure Semitic people.  I think they became more European after the founding (evidence suggests the first colony took European wives, and closed off the breeding pool thereafter), but only very slightly.

You can be sure that Ashkenazi are light years far in apearance of original Hebrews from Biblical times. If they are completely semitic, why the heck those genes don’t make them look middle eastern?

I was under the impression that the Hebrews were an offshoot of the Phoenicians.  This is the traditional anthropological view.  I don’t know if current genetic data contradicts this.  But, I was under the impression that the Phoenicians weren’t so much Semites, as Meds.

The Khazar elite chose Judaism out of political expediency — to remain independent of neighboring Muslim and Christian states. The Khazars opposed the Arab advance into the Caucasus Mountains and were instrumental in containing a Muslim push toward eastern Europe. You can compare their role in eastern Europe to that of the French knights who defeated Arab forces at the Battle of Tours in France in 732!!

Uhm, belatedly maybe.  They fought, negotiated, and traded with Muslim and Christian alike.

The Chinese sapped much of the Mongol’s energy; doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy toward them.

Posted by Brian on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:49 | #

There’s something in the eyes that gives away a Jew; the eyes are typically close together, small, and deep set. Awareness of this this can aid in identifying an Ashkenazi, as without looking at the eyes, it can be difficult to tell their origins. Regarding other their other features, typically there’s something bony about a Jewish face—not bony as in high-cheekbones or chiseled features—but more as an absence of softer flesh on the face. If overweight or obese, a Jewish face will typically hang in a flaccid manner, rather than fill out. Eyebrows are flat or reverse-arched. The head is typically very tall and narrow. There is often a great deal of asymmetry in the face, especially in the nose. The chin is typically pointy or weak and the bow in the upper lip widely spread. Noses are not so much bulbous—though they can be—as they are downward inclined. The skin is often pasty and sallow from lack of outdoor work. Jews often need corrective glasses.

An Ashkenazi’s appearance typically elicits a comment on “weirdness” rather than “ugliness”, though personally, I find them just as horribly ugly as their other diaspora counterparts.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:36 | #

I read Bruce Graeme’s comment by accident earlier this morning (I had forgotten who he was) and it gave me a vaguely bad feeling.  Just now on reading Svigor’s reply to it, I suddenly remembered who he was and understood why I’d gotten that bad feeling earlier.  I’ve gotta try to remember not to read this guy’s stuff.  It’s very similar to The Monitor’s stuff — really creepy and gives you an unpleasant feeling, often extremely unpleasant, after making the huge mistake of reading it.  Fundamentally, this person is an opponent of Europeans and a race-replacement advocate (as was The Monitor) (which I think both freely admit, if memory serves).

Posted by Joe on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:14 | #

Ashkenazi Jews look like People from Lebanon and Syria with lighter skin, mixed with Armenian.  The whitest looking Jews look like Chechens or Armenians.  They don’t look northern European at all.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:28 | #

My mistake, I think I was conflating “Semite” with “Arab” above.  I was saying that Hebrews weren’t Semites when I meant to say they’re not Arabs.  Both groups are Semitic.  Do I have that right now?  I never claimed to know much about anthropology, sorry.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:39 | #

“Jews, who want to be decent human beings, have no choice but to renounce being Jewish and serve the anti-Zionist struggle (right now).”

I’ve been saying this for years.  If Jews want to join with Euro ethno-nationalists, Jews have to renounce their Jewishness.  They have to stop calling themselves Jews.  A man cannot serve two masters, and EEN and Jewry are separate, and hostile to one another.  “White, Jewish, and proud” is a contradiction in terms.

This is all apart from the lunacy of even entertaining the notion of welcoming Jews into our midst; it’s just a thought exercise for the likes of Jobling.

Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:54 | #

Joe said: Ashkenazi Jews look like People from Lebanon and Syria with lighter skin, mixed with Armenian.  The whitest looking Jews look like Chechens or Armenians.  They don’t look northern European at all.

This is very true, Ashkenazim look like that Armenian/SW Asian group.  They are definitely Caucasian, but not European.

Svigor said: My mistake, I think I was conflating “Semite” with “Arab” above.  I was saying that Hebrews weren’t Semites when I meant to say they’re not Arabs.  Both groups are Semitic.  Do I have that right now?  I never claimed to know much about anthropology, sorry.

Phoenicians and Hebrews were both West Semitic-speaking Canaanite tribes.  They share a remote historical tie with the desert Arabs, who are also Semitic (remember that the people of the Levant are not Arabs either but rather a patchwork of Muslim and Christian ethnic groups who speak mostly Arabic).

And moving on: If Jews want to join with Euro ethno-nationalists, Jews have to renounce their Jewishness.  They have to stop calling themselves Jews.  A man cannot serve two masters, and EEN and Jewry are separate, and hostile to one another.  “White, Jewish, and proud” is a contradiction in terms.

Yes, but not because of us.  Jews are almost always the aggressor when problems between us arise.  They won’t let us have our nationalism, but always try to strengthen their own.  And our own people turn on us because our racial enemies have poisoned the discourse (exploitation of White Guilt and the You-Know-What).  We become the pariahs of history and a target for blame to be heaped on (not to mention shaken down to pay for our own destruction).  And the sad part is that true Alpha Whites are few and far between in influence these days - a problem since it is, after all, the passivity that kills us.

In our case, the sword is mightier than the pen.  Why the hell don’t we wake up and use it?

Posted by Jewish Gene Thievery on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:33 | #

Gudmund: And the sad part is that true Alpha Whites are few and far between in influence these days - a problem since it is, after all, the passivity that kills us.

That’s because many of the best White men in Europe were slaughtered in the Jew-fomented wars of the 20th Century which killed tens of millions of the best Whites - thus their bravery, intelligence, and strength have been lost to the overall White race forever.  America still has a chance though because not nearly as many of its best men have been decimated by Jew-caused catastrophes as Europe - America likely is the last best White hope left in the world, and we Americans will react to the Jews sooner or later.  The UK and some other White countries that weren’t completely decimated by the two world wars still have many good men, but sadly their native elites have long been infiltrated by Jewry (see below for explanation) and thus the whole system and society has become majorly locked down against any possible anti-Jewish activity.

—-

I think MR should do a post about Jewish gene thievery which I spoke of above…

Jewry has also managed to genetically infiltrate the elite upper-echelons and upper-middle classes of many White societies.  This means that, in effect, Jews have managed to steal many of the best/elite White genes for themselves over the years, hoarding them and enriching the Jewish gene pool at the expense of the native/non-Jewish gene pool.  Hence a nation is infiltrated and slowly destroyed from within as Jews become the new hostile elite of a people or nation as the old leaders are replaced, die off, or (preferably for Jews) marry or breed in to the Jewish gene pool.

Jewish gene theft has been a recurring Jewish pattern - like vampires, Jews constantly need ‘fresh blood’ to stay on top of their parasitic game.  It also helps them to blend in a bit more physically with the surrounding native population which they seek to dominate and exploit.  It goes like this: Jews move in to a society, and slowly they acquire wealth, influence, and power.  With this wealth/influence/power they are able to in effect buy their way in to the elite upper-echelons of non-Jewish societies.  They then encourage many of these elite non-Jews to marry or otherwise breed in to the Jewish gene pool using all of their wealth and power along with massively indebting the elite classes (remember how many different European nobles and monarchs had all kinds of debts with Jews?), bribing them, deliberately causing political and economic problems in the country so they relent, etc.

Wealthy and powerful Jewish males have also been known to impregnate beautiful and elite non-Jewish women from good non-Jewish families by enticing them with money/power and all of the personal pleasures it can buy; similarly, Jewish women have been known (and have been encouraged by fellow Jews) to flirt endlessly with elite/powerful/wealthy non-Jewish men until they relent and either impregnate or marry them…sometimes Jews have even deliberately used nubile young teenage female Jews in some circumstances to entice elite/powerful non-Jews in to inadvertently breeding in to the Jewish gene pool - yes indeed, Jews are that sneaky.

Jewish gene thievery has the added bonus of eliminating anti-Jewish feelings from the people most likely to be anti-Jewish (upper classes, upper-middle classes) due to the fact that Jews are essentially replacing them in the elite portion of society - if Jews cannot manage to infiltrate their way in to a nation’s leadership class through slow gene theft, bribery or wealth enticement, and/or plain acceptance, they then resort to using wars, revolutions or political unrest, economic collapses, and other deliberate Jew-caused instability to attempt to dislodge the native elite ruling classes so that they can take their place (see quote below) - this happened in Russia and lead to the Jew-dominated USSR, and seems to currently be happening in modern America as Jews use the current economic collapse to further cement their absolute centralized economic control over American society and eliminate or identify any potential competition which they will assiduously work to eliminate.

-

I’m not a National Socialist or a big admirer of Hitler or anything, but he was entirely correct when he wrote:

[Jewry’s] ultimate goal is the denationalization, the promiscuous bastardization of other peoples, the lowering of the racial level of the highest peoples as well as the domination of this racial mish-mash through the extirpation of the folkish intelligentsia and its replacement by the members of his own people.

The end of the Jewish world struggle therefore will always be a bloody Bolshevization. In truth this means the destruction of all the intellectual upper classes linked to their peoples so that [Jews] can rise to become the master of a mankind become leaderless.

Stupidity, cowardice and baseness, therefore, play into his hands. In bastards he secures for himself the first openings for the penetration of an alien nation.

Hence the result of Jewish domination is always the ruin of all culture and finally the madness of the Jew himself. For he is a parasite of nations and his victory signifies his own end as much as the death of his victim. - http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/documents/part1/doc5.html

Posted by Jews Encourage Racial Mish-Mash on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:51 | #

“After the successful revolution he completely tore down [further] the bonds of order, of morality, of custom, etc., abolished marriage as a lofty institution and instead proclaimed a general copulation with the aim of breeding a general inferior human [racial] mish-mash, by way of a chaotic bastardization, which by itself would be incapable of leadership and which ultimately would no longer be able to do without the Jews as its only intellectual element.”

Sounds a whole lot like modern America with its ‘Change Revolution’ courtesy of the mixed Obama who is largely under the thumb of his ultra-wealthy Jewish funders and slick political operatives, does it not?

Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:40 | #

Ashkenazi Jews look like People from Lebanon and Syria with lighter skin, mixed with Armenian.  The whitest looking Jews look like Chechens or Armenians.  They don’t look northern European at all.

Bollocks! Some of them almost look German. I have Jewish friends who look exactly like me except with bigger noses. There are just too many types of Jew to nail them down perfectly but I will say that the Khazar origin of the Ashkenazis seems like the proper interpretation and makes them “Turkish” - really light looking Turks.

Two Hundred Years Together: From the Beginnings in Khazaria

Posted by Joe on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:01 | #

danielj, you are full of shit.  i grew up in still live in new york city.  i see more jews in a day than you will in your life.  ashkenazi jews have totally different morphology from germans and other northern europeans.  there are a few jews who are passable, but so are many turks and arabs. 

i find it fascinating that on all pro-white internet discussions of jews, you get these people who can’t admit that jews are a separate group from europeans.  they have this fantasy that jews are a group of white people who converted.  DNA proof that this is not the case doesn’t phase these people.  they always cite alleged jews that they know who are “totally white looking.”  yeah, like jerry springer is totally white looking?  please.

Posted by Yes, there are some blond blue-eyed Jews on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:39 | #

danielj: Bollocks! Some of them almost look German. I have Jewish friends who look exactly like me except with bigger noses—joe: danielj, you are full of shit.  i grew up in still live in new york city.  i see more jews in a day than you will in your life.  ashkenazi jews have totally different morphology from germans and other northern europeans.  there are a few jews who are passable, but so are many turks and arabs.

Barely any full-blooded Jews (people with 4 Jewish grandparents) can pass as Northern or Western European looking, because as joe says they just look far too Turkish, Arabesque, Armenian, or whatever else.

But when you get down in to SOME of the people who are 1/4-1/2 Jewish by blood, or people with even less Jewish ancestry than that (through some distant Jewish great-grandparents or something), then some of those people don’t look very Jewish at all - for an example see the pics at - http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/04/150-000-jews-in-hitlers-army.html

However, even though a person might only be 1/4 Jewish or has a few or scattered or even just one Jewish great-grandparents down the line does not mean that they can be trusted because it seems that so many of these very partial Jews still carry Jewish traits (however minute) and end up regressing back to Jewish ancestral behavior patterns because they have been infected by the Jewish taint - it’s in their blood, and thus the Jewish taint will haunt them forever.  If very partial Jews have kids then it will also infect their kids, even if they are blond haired-blue eyed and brought up in the most strict Christian home.  As a good example, just notice how much just a small bit of Jewish blood personally haunts and torments Fred Scrooby…the guy has Jewishness on the brain 24/7, and talks about them in every post here.  Coincidence?  Or due to just a few distant drops of Jewish blood?

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:14 | #

Yes, but not because of us.

Agreed.  It’s based on a no-BS assessment of Jewishness, not our own whims.  If Jewry turned around and spent about 10 years behaving in a way that contradicted the model they’ve been following for 3,000+ years, I’d reassess the situation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:21 | #

“Agreed.  It’s based on a no-BS assessment of Jewishness, not our own whims.  If Jewry turned around and spent about 10 years behaving in a way that contradicted the model they’ve been following for 3,000+ years, I’d reassess the situation.”  (—Svigor)

Another Svigor bullseye.  Dead-center.

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:48 | #

through some distant Jewish great-grandparents or something

That might include me, without research or DNA testing I don’t know. But I certainly don’t look Jewish. My Dad maybe a bit, his mother - definitely. Im guessing either her parents were Christian converts, making me 1/4. Or one of her parents married out and dropped the religion, making me 1/8. Or maybe this even happened further back. Dunno.

it seems that so many of these very partial Jews still carry Jewish traits

Oh dear!

Posted by danielj on Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:36 | #

danielj, you are full of shit.

Easy there asshole. 

i grew up in still live in new york city.  i see more jews in a day than you will in your life.

What the hell do you live in the city for? I’ve been to the city plenty of times and I’ve seen plenty of Jews too. You want a fucking cookie?

ashkenazi jews have totally different morphology from germans and other northern europeans.

Duh.

there are a few jews who are passable, but so are many turks and arabs.

As the next commenter figured I was talking about half-breeds.

i find it fascinating that on all pro-white internet discussions of jews, you get these people who can’t admit that jews are a separate group from europeans.  they have this fantasy that jews are a group of white people who converted.

Huh?

They were TURKISH converts, not European converts and it isn’t a fantasy. 

DNA proof that this is not the case doesn’t phase these people.  they always cite alleged jews that they know who are “totally white looking.” yeah, like jerry springer is totally white looking?  please.

Those that aren’t racially aware can not tell the difference. I was extremely left wing with Chomsky and Amy Goodman in my daily diet and didn’t realize what a Jew looked like until my awakening. They are both easily passable as Euro and so is Springer.

The issue is much more complex than you are making it out to be.

Even some of the Orthodox in Brooklyn are passable.

Posted by Bruce Graeme on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:43 | #

Fred Scrooby said: “this person [Bruce Graeme] is an opponent of Europeans and a race-replacement advocate.”
—-
A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put the right-wing politician Geert Wilders on trial for making anti-Islamic statements. And the British government has announced that it is banning Wilders from the country because his statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in his film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.

So, Islam is now busy establishing itself here in the West and I would like to ask Fred Scrooby’s opinion about this ongoing Islamization of the West and the rest of the Non-Muslim world in the near Future.

——

Under the influence of Evola (*), there is within the political right a wing that endorses and sympathizes with the Islam and consequently contributes to the Islamization of the West!

(*) “The Islamic law (shariah) is a divine law; its foundation, the Koran, is thought of as God’s very own word (kalam Allah) as well as a nonhuman work and an “uncreated book” that exists in heaven ab eterno.” [Julius Evola, “Revolt Agains The Modern World”, pages 243 - 244] 

These apologists for Islam carry in their demonstrations the flags of Iraq, Palestine, Algeria, and Morocco, shout Allah Akbar, and affirm their solidarity with Islam — all without the slightest affirmation of their own people and culture. See for example <http://www.aryan-nations.org> : LONG LIVE JIHAD! ALLAHU AKBAR!—August B. Kreis III]

This simple-minded Manichaeanism influences also left-wing immigrationists and display the greatest indifference to the fact that they are rapidly becoming an Islamic-Arabic colony: Eurabia! Marxists, willingly collaborating with Muslims, cry “Islamophobia!” whenever somebody points out the violence inherent in Islamic doctrines.

These islamophiles refuse to see what’s happening in Europe and America, whose soft, dispirited white population is increasingly cowed by Islam’s conquering life-force.

Is Fred Scrooby perhaps an islamophile too?

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:24 | #

Apparently Bruce Graeme has been tricked into thinking the choice is between muslims and Jews.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:47 | #

I don’t read your crap, Bruce.  I have no idea what your above comment said and I intend to keep it that way.

Posted by John on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:02 | #

I don’t speak for Fred but on the Islamic question I think he’d agree with this statement: Muslims in Europe are the cats’ paws.

The refugee-creating “War on Terror” kills two birds with one stone from “their” pov.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:29 | #

Bruce,

Fred is no Islamophile. As is evident in all his writing, he desires to be a devout Catholic, if only his church will eschew its egalitarian nonsense, the like of Vatican II. If you want an Islamophile to beat up on then I’m your guy. Bring it on baby!

Here’s the basic position:

I have yet to hear one cogent reason why any Australian, British, Danish, Dutch or French white nationalist could ever see an ‘ally’ in any Muslim.

Not in Muslims per se but in Islam. Why? It appears to be adaptive. It enhances reproductive fitness in a manner that resembles the halcyon days of Christianity. Of course for a rationalist to accept the view it would mean sacrifice; a very high level of altruism. A European Islam would differ from an Asian Islam in the same manner a Christian Europe differed from a Christian Africa. A Europe devoid of feminism, a high birth rate Europe that encouraged high IQ females to bear children portends a much more dynamic moral entity than the current moribund childless future that looms.

Forsake evolutionary theory for Islamic theology? Forsake rationalism for reproduction? Possibly the choice won’t be given but simply made for us.

Religions come and go, but extinction is forever.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 01, 2007, 06:22 AM

It would be one thing if Europeans had a declining birth rate, like the Japanese or Chinese, but were clannish. Neither of those societies yet face the migration of millions of Africans into their homelands. However, the European situation is unprecedented. Declining birth rates and mass immigration of clannish peoples. None of the options mentioned above, the Freedom Party is defunct, the Swedish Peoples Party has a Pakistani on their brochure and the BNP barely floats above insolvency, appear viable. The UK portends the future of a now pagan Europe. England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, illegitimacy, crime and STDs and has one of the highest rates of alcohol abuse. On the face of it, it appears the English are dead men walking.

From whence will moral guidance come? The BNP? The C of E? The theory of evolution? How much more degenerate and depraved will an Islamic England be?

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 03, 2007, 09:34 PM

Darwin’s theory of group selection:

A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes and as morality is one important element in their success the standard of morality and the number of well endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.

Posted by Bruce Graeme on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:59 | #

Desmond Jones said:  “Islam (...)appears to be adaptive.”
——
I beg you pardon?
——
Before attempting to formulate a long-term strategy to counter radical Islam, Americans must first and foremost understand Islam, particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it—without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations. [Emphasis added!] This is apparently not as simple as expected: all peoples of whatever civilizations and religions tend to assume that other peoples more or less share in their worldview, which they assume is objective, including notions of right and wrong, good and bad.
The mainstream interpretation, particularly in academia, of radical Islam is that it is a byproduct of various sorts of discontent (economic, political, social) and has little to do with the religion itself. To trace “jihadist” violence to Islam itself is discouraged; in academia, it may be treated as anathema.

Americans think this way because the secular, Western experience has been such that people respond with violence primarily when they feel they are politically, economically, or socially oppressed. While true that many non-Western peoples may fit into this paradigm, the fact is, the ideologies of radical Islam have the intrinsic capacity to prompt Muslims to violence and intolerance vis-?is the “other,” irrespective of grievances. Obviously, when radical Islam is coupled with a sense of grievance—real or imagined—the result is even more dramatic.

Conceptually, then, it must be first understood that many of the problematic ideologies associated with radical Islam trace directly back to Islamic law, or sharia. Jihad as offensive warfare to subjugate “infidels” (non-Muslims); mandated social discrimination against non-Muslim minorities living in Muslim nations (the regulations governing ahl al-dhimma); general animosity and lack of sincere cooperation vis-?is non-Muslims (as articulated in the doctrine of al-wala’ we al-bara’)—all of these are clearly defined aspects that have historically been part of Islam’s worldview and not “open to interpretation.”

For example, the obligation to wage expansionist jihad is as “open to interpretation” as the obligation to perform the Five Pillars of Islam, such as praying and fasting. The same textual sources and methods of jurisprudence that have made it clear that prayer and fasting are obligatory, have also made it clear that jihad is also obligatory; the only difference is that, whereas prayer and fasting is an “individual” duty, jihad is understood to be a “communal” duty (a fard kifaya).

The prophet of Islam, Muhammad himself said: “He who wages jihad in the path of Allah—and Allah knows who it is who wages jihad in his path—is as commendable as one who continuously fasts and prays [emphasis added]. Allah guarantees if he who fights for his cause dies, he [Allah] will usher him into paradise; otherwise, he will return him to his home safely, with rewards or war booty.” 1

By and large, then, to assert that radical Islamic groups, such as al-Qaeda, have “hijacked” or “distorted” Islam is unsatisfactory.1 They and others have spent much time and effort justifying their actions via Islamic law, and have been by and large successful.2 The unique role radical groups have been playing since the early 20th century is not so much distorting Islam, but rather bringing sharia back to the forefront of Islamic society, giving it a renewed sense of urgency, insisting to fellow Muslims that the root cause of all their troubles is that they have abandoned the laws of Allah and so must begin to tenaciously adhere to them.

That said, radical Muslims have further managed to exploit what the law maintains by making clever arguments. For instance, al-Qaeda’s number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, argues that, if offensive jihad is an obligation on the Muslim world—and it is—how much more is to be expected from Muslims when they are defending their territories from aggressors, the usual culprits being Israel or the U.S? He goes on to quote from prominent Islamic scholars, such as the medieval jurist, Ibn Taymiyya, who decreed centuries ago that, whenever “infidels” invade the Islamic world, the greatest obligation Muslims have, after faith itself, is to wage a defensive jihad. According to this popular definition, even women and children are required to participate—as evidenced among the Palestinians and in Iraq.

Being able to understand all this, being able to appreciate it without any conceptual or intellectual constraints is paramount for Americans to truly understand the nature of the enemy and his ultimate goals. Any attempts at formulating a proper strategic response without this necessary data is doomed to failure, especially in the long-term. Unfortunately, recent developments are indicative that the opposite is happening.

For example, far from closely examining Muslim doctrines and ideologies, a recent government memo, arguing that “words matter,” has all but banned several Arabic words that connote Muslim ideology and doctrine from formal discourse—such as mujahid, jihadi, umma, sharia, caliphate, and so on—asking analysts to rely primarily on generic terms, such as “terrorists.” However, without knowing the ideology that fuels any particular terrorist group one will be severely handicapped in trying to formulate a counter-strategy.

Censorship hardly seems to be a strategic response at this juncture.

Finally, while Americans appear to be suffering from the ability to appreciate the idiosyncrasies of Islam’s worldview, many radicals have proven themselves expert at understanding—and thus exploiting—the worldview of the liberal West. For example, al-Qaeda and many other radicals make it a point to intentionally use the language of political grievance when addressing Americans, only to abandon such language when talking to fellow Muslims, instead stressing only what Islamic law demands, such as jihad.

Before addressing the two, interconnected failures hampering the formulation of an effective strategy vis-?is radical Islam—education and epistemology—it is imperative that the reader better understand what sharia law is and how it is articulated, as this is pivotal to understanding how “knowledge” and hence “truth” is established within a purely Islamic paradigm.

http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/TUTC021209/Ibrahim_Testimony021209.pdf

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:09 | #

Bruce Graemecracker:  “Before attempting to formulate a long-term strategy to counter radical Islam, Americans must first and foremost understand Islam, particularly its laws and doctrines, the same way Muslims understand it—without giving it undue Western (liberal) interpretations. [Emphasis added!]”

I read Trifkovic’s book on Islam.  Don’t remember much of it, to tell you the truth.  Here is something else I read: Mudlims (e.g., Pakis, Arabs, North Africans; wogs) have an average IQ of around 85.  Did you get that Bruce?  I said 85.  We are essentially talking about a collection of near mindless rabble here.  If ole Whitey ever got around to slipping his jackboots back on and deigned to kick a few brown asses, it would be a route; not even that close.

“Americans think this way because the secular, Western experience has been such that people respond with violence primarily when they feel they are politically, economically, or socially oppressed.”

Ahem, Bruce, you are the one getting your panties in a bunch about the need to get all intellectual and shit about what is A RACIAL COLONIZATION OF EUROPE BY MUDS.  Polish them jackboots.

“The prophet of Islam, Muhammad himself said: ‘He who wages jihad in the path of Allah—and Allah knows who it is who wages jihad in his path—is as commendable as one who continuously fasts and prays [emphasis added]. Allah guarantees if he who fights for his cause dies, he [Allah] will usher him into paradise; otherwise, he will return him to his home safely, with rewards or war booty.’”

Adolf Hitler said to polish dem der jackboots.  Winston Churchill said to use poison gas on the little sandbuggers.

“By and large, then, to assert that radical Islamic groups, such as al-Qaeda, have “hijacked” or “distorted” Islam is unsatisfactory.1 They and others have spent much time and effort justifying their actions via Islamic law, and have been by and large successful.”

Are you saying it’s about culture and not race?  Gee, that’s a relief.  So the Jews don’t screw us over because they are genetically hard-wired pricks, it’s just that they learned to act like pricks from the Talmud.

“According to this popular definition, even women and children are required to participate—as evidenced among the Palestinians and in Iraq.”

We must invade, spread democrazy; we must protect Israel.

“Being able to understand all this, being able to appreciate it without any conceptual or intellectual constraints is paramount for Americans to truly understand the nature of the enemy and his ultimate goals. Any attempts at formulating a proper strategic response without this necessary data is doomed to failure, especially in the long-term. Unfortunately, recent developments are indicative that the opposite is happening.”

Deep, deep thought is required.  Hell, with 85 IQs they won’t be doing much of it.  Somebody has got to pick up the slack.

“For example, far from closely examining Muslim doctrines and ideologies, a recent government memo, arguing that “words matter,” has all but banned several Arabic words that connote Muslim ideology and doctrine from formal discourse—such as mujahid, jihadi, umma, sharia, caliphate, and so on—asking analysts to rely primarily on generic terms, such as “terrorists.” However, without knowing the ideology that fuels any particular terrorist group one will be severely handicapped in trying to formulate a counter-strategy.”

All Mudlims - EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM - should be expelled from White living space.  How’s that?  Gee, that was hard.

“Censorship hardly seems to be a strategic response at this juncture.”

We need to be unrelentingly explicit: our struggle with Mudlims is racial, as it is with Jews.  Glad to see you agree, Bruce.

“Finally, while Americans appear to be suffering from the ability to appreciate the idiosyncrasies of Islam’s worldview, many radicals have proven themselves expert at understanding—and thus exploiting—the worldview of the liberal West. For example, al-Qaeda and many other radicals make it a point to intentionally use the language of political grievance when addressing Americans, only to abandon such language when talking to fellow Muslims, instead stressing only what Islamic law demands, such as jihad.”

We’ll write a thousand PhD theses, we’ll let a thousand flowers bloom; then we’ll expel the sandbuggers from our living space.

“Before addressing the two, interconnected failures hampering the formulation of an effective strategy vis-?is radical Islam—education and epistemology—it is imperative that the reader better understand what sharia law is and how it is articulated, as this is pivotal to understanding how “knowledge” and hence “truth” is established within a purely Islamic paradigm.”

Are you polishing your jackboots yet, Bruce?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:01 | #

It’s great that Bruce is posting more now, as my workload at the office has picked up, and the opportunity to outright skip over so many posts in the comments (namely, all of his) saves me a good chunk of time.

Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:25 | #

I saw clips of that race traitor Benny the Vile yesterday kowtowing to his Jewish masters.  Essentially he is putting the Catholic Church “at their disposal.”  What festering, unmitigated scum.  Why some people defend this philosemite, anti-Euro pawn is beyond me.

Posted by vxv on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:59 | #

Bruce,

That testimony re Islam is from one Dr. Ibrahim, a scholar at The Middle East Forum.  What is the Middle East Forum?

The Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. The Middle East Quarterly provides in-depth analyses. Campus Watch critiques Middle East studies in North America. Islamist Watch focuses on the lawful promotion of radical Islam. The Legal Project protects public freedom of speech in this subject area.

‘American interests’—The American nation aggressively pushes for the global erasure of European man.  American interests should ALWAYS be opposed.  For Europeans to have any hope, America, and American interests and ideas, must be destroyed.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:13 | #

Bruce Graemecracker’s all consuming fury to burn out every last brain cell of his (both of them) in the quest to “understand” Islam (he really wants to destroy Islam, but he doesn’t even have the stones to say it, much less do it - LOL!) is the product of his philo-Semitism; his extended Judeo-phenotype enslavement.

Yawn.

Here is an interesting suggestion, Brucey boy: What would be more in the interest of the West (i.e., the White race), to invade every last blessed Mudlim country and give them the gift dumbocracy and Pepsi cola, or, to dump the goddamn Jews overboard and just invade and take the fucking oil.  Which do you think would more directly advance the interests of the West (read: White race), eh genius?

Not that I recommend the latter, at least in whole, just calling your bluff, really.  I’m sure you’ll understand.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:52 | #

” ‘American interests’—The American nation aggressively pushes for the global erasure of European man.  American interests should ALWAYS be opposed.  For Europeans to have any hope, America, and American interests and ideas, must be destroyed.”</i>  (—vxv)

There’s a huge amount of truth to that.  When the parasitic brain worm has turned the once-benevolent creature into a deadly, disease-spreading menace and a mortal threat to everything around, it might be better for it to die and the brain worm with it, giving the not-yet-infected a chance to live.  The U.S. started showing signs of being brain-worm-positive in the 1930s and 40s, and since the 60s has been lurching around confused and in the throes of the full-blown disease, a menace to all other nations on the globe.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:16 | #

I hasten to add, “America” is not the North American Euro people.  They must NOT die with the brain worm that’s infested the formal political organization known as “America,” but must slough off the dead carcass that’s trying to drag them down, and create a brand-new, structure, better than ever, this time with fool-proof protections in place against brain-worm infestation.

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:30 | #

I hasten to add, “America” is not the North American Euro people.  They must NOT die with the brain worm that’s infested the formal political organization known as “America,” but must slough off the dead carcass that’s trying to drag them down, and create a brand-new, structure, better than ever, this time with fool-proof protections in place against brain-worm infestation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 14, 2009, 07:16 PM |

I think that’s a good way of saying it.

After the election I wrote it this way http://signalsfromthebrink.blogspot.com/2009/01/congratulations-to-our-new-captain-shes.html

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:32 | #

Correction.

That should have read, “after the inauguration I wrote it this way”

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:45 | #

the Narrator is a brilliant man.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:50 | #

Are Jews white? [Executive Summary: NOPE!]

http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/2.html

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 21:22 | #

Thanks Braun.

Will The Civic Platform return?

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:18 | #

Yes, what’s up with the CP?

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:29 | #

TCP might return if I can solve some technical issues to make it more secure for everyone (delete all current I.P.‘s addresses and deletion any new ones after a couple of days, etc.). I don’t want to make it easy for people who would like to hurt us.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:41 | #

The Civic Platform was the best, most intellectually serious National Socialist site out there.  At least its archives should be accessible so those of aspiring racial consciousness can learn about NS from a sympathetic point of view; whether one agrees or disagrees about the ultimate desirability of NS.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:55 | #

Thanks, Captainchaos.

Posted by alex zeka on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:09 | #

I hasten to add, “America” is not the North American Euro people.  They must NOT die with the brain worm that’s infested the formal political organization known as “America,” but must slough off the dead carcass that’s trying to drag them down, and create a brand-new, structure, better than ever, this time with fool-proof protections in place against brain-worm infestation.

Google “mencius moldbug” for a rather longer exposition of pretty much the same point.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:21 | #

Thanks.  I don’t read Mencius Moldbug.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:55 | #

I agree entirely about thecivicplatform, Captainchaos.

I think you can access some of the content here:

http://web.archive.org/*/web/http://www.thecivicplatform.com

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 05:00 | #

Sorry the address should be :

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.thecivicplatform.com

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:44 | #

Preserving Western Civilization—the horror, oh the horror!

F. Roger Devlin

February 14, 2009

There was a time, within living memory, when a call for “preserving Western civilization” would have elicited about as much controversy as a panegyric upon motherhood. How things have changed. To a Baltimore Sun columnist, last weekend’s Preserving Western Civilization conference sounded “creepy.” The proceedings were declared “extremist” by the Anti-Defamation League, the authorities on moderation, while they also decried the speakers for employing “strident rhetoric” which “demonizes ethnic groups,” stereotypes Islam as a “militant ideology,” and promotes racism, white supremacism, anti-Semitism and all other manner of horribilificosity.  But—somehow—I emerged unharmed to file this report.

The conference was organized by pro-Western Jews displeased with tendencies which have surfaced at Jared Taylor’s biennial American Renaissance conferences. Anti-anti-Semitism was not the focus of Preserving Western Civilization, however, and only Lawrence Auster briefly alluded to the issue. Instead, speakers addressed the themes of third world immigration, racial differences, and Islam.

The ADL is right, of course, that there exists a stereotype of Islam as a militant ideology—a misconception due, no doubt, to its 1400-year history of slaughter, rapine and wanton cruelty. The conference’s opening speaker, Srdja Trifkovi?, got down to basics with an account of the life and deeds of Muhammad. The prophet of the “religion of peace” instigated forty-two battles in the ten years between his flight to Medina and his death; an entire S?ra of the Koran (the eighth) is devoted to the rules for dividing plunder.

Muhammad favored peace in the same manner as Joseph Stalin—after the worldwide triumph of his doctrine and the annihilation of all opposition to it. Muhammad repeatedly commanded his followers to perform acts morally repugnant not only to Christianity or liberalism, but even to the coarse sensibilities of heathen Araby. Only the direct command of God could have induced his followers to repeated treachery, murders, or the satisfaction of Muhammad’s adulterous and otherwise irregular lusts.

But Allah’s commands—revealed always, of course, through the mouth of his prophet—tacked and turned constantly so as to accord with the prophet’s perceived self-interest at any given moment. It is hard for outsiders to miss the suspiciously convenient pattern of Muhammad’s revelations, but Muslims face death for pointing out the obvious: just ask Salmon Rushdie.

Women, of course, are particularly threatened by the advance of Islam, and this was the theme of Brenda Walker’s talk. Walker, a feminist and registered Democrat, is an opponent of immigration on progressive grounds. She related the story of fourteen girls killed in a fire in Saudi Arabia a few years ago when police prohibited them from fleeing a burning building without their veils.

Meanwhile in Scandinavia, where Muslim rapes have become common, female professors tell the native women that being raped is their own fault. In England, Thomas à Beckett’s current successor in the office of Archbishop of Canterbury has recently welcomed the introduction of Sharia law as a force for social cohesion. The present writer has no sympathy with the feminist doctrine of sexual “equality” or the notion that women are bearers of group rights enforceable against men; but disagreements between progressives and traditionalists make little difference in the face a religion which gives its blessing to the beating, mutilation and even murder of women by their menfolk.

Patricia Richardson gained notoriety in 2004 as the first Jewish member of the British National Party elected to public office. She explained that the Muslim population of Great Britain is increasing at ten times the rate of the rest of the population. Between 2004 and 2008 the Christian population shrank by more than two million. Yet Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe, having recently overtaken Holland. The Blair government had the opportunity to opt out of the EU open door policy but passed it up. Asylum seekers are flooding into the country and no accurate information is available about them. 90% claim the same birthday—January 1st—and many grown men among them are officially sixteen years old: they must be tried as juveniles when they commit crimes. Meanwhile, a Muslim member of the House of Lords successfully used the threat of mass demonstrations to prevent the showing of Geert Wilder’s film Fitna in Britain.

Blogger extraordinaire Lawrence Auster reprised the Muslim theme by outlining a “Real Islam Policy for a Real America.” Muslims would need a good reason to be allowed onto our soil (e.g., status as recognized diplomats or their dependents), and all proselytizing would be met by swift expulsion; naturalized citizens would have their citizenship revoked in the event of their conversion to Islam; no Mosques; and so forth. Auster admits that his proposal is unconstitutional: a new amendment is necessary to clarify that Islam, because of its political nature, is not protected under the First Amendment.

Canadian Professor of Psychology J. Philippe Rushton addressed the heritability of IQ, recounting his travels to Africa and the Balkans to obtain optimal measurements of intelligence for different racial groups. He summarized ten separate arguments in favor of the hereditarian hypothesis, including twin studies and racial patterns in brain size.

Anthropologist Henry Harpending discussed a theme of insufficiently recognized importance: the fragility of Western monogamy. When men are not forced by conditions to work in order to feed their families, they turn to competing with other men, as did the warlike European aristocrats of old. Since 1800, however, and particularly in the modern Welfare State, it has been lower class males who are unreliable fathers.

Our lower- or underclass is taking on the characteristics of the African matrilineal family structure where men have low status and marriage bonds and father-child bonds are weak. Among the Herero, a gentleman avoids returning home after dark for fear of embarrassing his wife in the midst of consorting with another man; Mr. Harpending learned this apparently elementary rule of African courtesy while doing fieldwork in Namibia. His new book, The 10,000 Year Explosion, argues that—contrary to a widely received notion—the rate of human evolution has significantly increased since the advent of civilization.

Steve Farron, an American Jew who taught classics at Witwatersrand and still lives in South Africa, shared with the audience some of his unmatched research into the discriminatory practices euphemistically called “affirmative action.” Contrary to a common perception, Asians have not been victimized by such policies, and once voted 61% against repealing them in California: its victims are virtually all white.

The scandal of university admissions policies has been widely revealed thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, but less appreciated is what Prof. Farron calls “affirmative graduation.” This occurs even in medical schools where, as Farron noted, it should be viewed as criminal. When Harvard began recruiting blacks and Hispanics in the 1960s, they abolished letter grades. Instead, all medical students receive either a ‘Pass’ or an ‘Incomplete’ on their coursework. Students with ‘Incompletes’ take a series of five progressively easier tests until they pass; occasionally they fail all five and are passed anyway.

Furthermore, the US Medical Licensing Exams have been made so easy that 99.7% of white students pass on the first attempt. Prof. Farron made the point that abolishing explicit quotas can actually make matters worse; the usual response by authorities is to gut standards for everyone, so even incompetent whites start getting through.

Other speakers dealt with various aspects of immigration. Historian and native Californian Roger McGrath detailed the meltdown of the Golden State under the Mexican onslaught in a talk entitled “Paradise Lost.” This catastrophe is just now entering the national consciousness as California bonds are devalued and state politicians discuss whether to balance the budget by unloading the prisons or withholding pay from state employees.

Peter Brimelow explained the consensus among economists that there is no net economic gain to Americans from immigration: the effect is merely to shift wealth from labor to capital and from tax payers to tax eaters. He explained the folly of Republican “outreach” to Hispanics in a country where whites still do most of the voting. 42% of voters in the late election were white Protestants and the voted 65% for McCain; this would have been enough to give him the presidency in an America with the racial balance which prevailed as recently as 1976. Nonwhites went 79% for Obama, while Jews, according to one exit pole, went 85% for Obama. The shift of Jews to the Republican Party, once confidently predicted, has not occurred.

If an amnesty is passed and whites become a minority in America, it will mark the historical end of the American Nation State, but not the end of Americans. Implicitly or explicitly white Nationalist third parties will arise, or regional secession movements will move from the fringe to the mainstream. To paraphrase Churchill: Americans may not have fought on the beaches, but they can be counted upon to fight in the hills.

Law Professor Lino Graglia explained the legal history of birthright citizenship, a bizarre doctrine unique to the US whereby any child born on our soil—even to illegal aliens—is ipso facto an American citizen. This law is a powerful incentive to immigration both legal and illegal. An industry has sprung up in Pacific Rim countries of flying women to the United States in order to give birth here.

Birthright citizenship arose out of a misinterpretation of a clause in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The original intent of this wording was to exclude American Indians, who were under the jurisdiction of their tribes; and this interpretation was upheld in a Supreme Court ruling of 1884.

So how did the words get twisted into a grant of automatic citizenship to the children of immigrants, even illegal? It was not done by the Supreme Court, which has never heard a case on the subject. It appears to be nothing more than a decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service! As such, it could be easily overturned by statute. But so far no bill to this effect has reached Congress: attempts to introduce one have gotten bottled up in committee.

Even if Congress summons the nerve to do away with birthright citizenship, there will inevitably follow a Court challenge on the grounds of—what else?—the 14th Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy will then decide the matter in his capacity as Swing Voter on the US Supreme Court and, in effect, Ayatollah of American Constitutional Jurisprudence. In response to a question from the audience, Prof. Graglia noted that even if all this could occur tomorrow, it would do nothing to alter the status of the millions who already enjoy birthright citizenship.

*  *  *

The talks given at Preserving Western Civilization last weekend will eventually be made available either as CDs or as a volume of conference proceedings, or both. But often the best part of such events is the private discussions and planning sessions which take place between or apart from the official talks. I even saw a number of familiar names from the internet turned to flesh and blood before my eyes. Comic relief for the dire matters discussed was provided by Julia Gorin at a well-catered banquet on Saturday evening. Conviviality continued for several hours in the hotel bar following the conference on Sunday.

If you get an opportunity to attend an “extremist” event such as Preserving Western Civilization, do not pass it up; you’ll learn more than you will from the Baltimore Sun or the ADL.

NOTE: I would like to thank the conference organizer, Dr. Michael H. Hart, for allowing me access to several of the recorded speeches in order to insure the accuracy of this report.

F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D., is an independent scholar and the author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought. He is also a contributing editor to The Occidental Quarterly.

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Devlin-PWC.html

Posted by X on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:45 | #

Why wouldn’t you want to live with Larry?

Posted by Vince on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:40 | #

Friedrich Braun on February 14, 2009, 07:50 PM: “Are Jews white?”

White Jews are geneticaly closer to other whites than to non-white Jews. For example, you can transplant the bone marrow from white non-Jews to white Jews but not from non-white Jews to white Jews.

Posted by SM on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:27 | #

I can’t parse all of this here and at this site at once. (And Two: I am an intelligent white male and therefore not liberal; and I’m not a capitalist or christian.)

But…

White racists—generally conservatives—have a tendency to deliniate and demonstate how Euro history/ culture is more ‘liberal’ than [the so and so’s] and therefore Euro hist/cult is better.

But at the same time consevatives nationalists often harken back to ideals which could be easily dencounced as typical of primitive brutish ‘mud people’.

And continuing, the evidence used to demonstrate the [consevativism] of other cultures doesn’t take into consideration the parallels between the so and so’s and Euros.

For example:

From the above article…

There were ten wars fought back 1500 years ago between different tribal sects over [stuff that tribal sects fight over—material facts of life, spun into cosmic crusades because humans are delusional, non self aware and just plain full of crap]. Ten whole wars huh? 1400 centueris ago. Wow.

This is oppossed to the 9.75 wars fought between any given European tribal sects 1400 years ago. (Not to mention Greco Roman military expansion.)

Now, I do believe non white races are crueler and less empathic (for what ever nature nurture reasons organsism are the autonomic reflex apparatii (pretencing free will) they are—diet or mother’s knee, genes etc) But pointing to tribal expansion wars 1400 years ago evidences _nothing_ about that.

But as said it does expose the white racist’s tendency to frame things as though he is a liberal demagogue deliniating the great triumph of effete progressivism against that dangerous dreaded patriacrchy.

Just some food for thought.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:59 | #

Thanks for posting that, Friedrich.  So F. Roger Devlin of The Occidental Quarterly thinks the enemy is the Baltimore Sun.  Simply amazing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:34 | #

”White Jews are geneticaly closer to whites than to Jews.  For example, you can transplant the bone marrow from whites to white Jews but not from Jews to white Jews.”  (—Vince)

Interesting.  I didn’t know that.  Wouldn’t there a spectrum of closeness though?  White Jews’ degree of whiteness can’t all be the same.

On this subject, I have a theory that whiter Jews genocide whites less, as if they feel whiteness in their bones or something without realizing it and are less inclined to attack.  The genetically more-Jewish Jews genocide whites more:  they feel no whiteness within themselves.

Posted by Biloxi Marx on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:56 | #

I am not a Jew, but indeed a Christian - one who believes in not talking about religion since it is, after all, a very personal experience individually in spite of what any/all humans decide about the matter.

My cousin once removed was/is Karl Marx.  He was also not a Jew, in spite of the name and lineage.

No real Jews actually exist in the frame of reference used, since the yoke of need to exploit came into being for those who are predatory in nature and the discrimination comes in only to fool all the people all the time.

In other words, tribal killing fields were the same aeons ago, just as today with the exception but of course, technology (maybe).

Supposedly a spark plug has been found fossilized in amber and it was over 100 million years ago.  Guess what!  The Scorpion is also 100 million years old and IT GLOWS IN THE DARK, radioactive in other words.

Thus, our dilemma in being human:  predatory and non.

The predatory of our species has ruled the earth since the beginning of crawling or whatever was done, before we became “civilized.”

Oxymoron:  civilized.

Dressing up as HOLYWUD or (spelling????) here in the US, to sell us the brand globalization in the 20th and 21st Centuries so these freaks of nature could take the earth back to the favorite period in time, pre Magna Carta.

STUDY HENRY MAKOW:  http://www.henrymakow.com

His PhD. is not limited to any boundaries with respect to the light.

This website is truly awesome, btw—THANKS!!

Posted by SM on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:56 | #

Test.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:22 | #

White racists—generally conservatives—have a tendency to deliniate and demonstate how Euro history/ culture is more ‘liberal’ than [the so and so’s] and therefore Euro hist/cult is better.

But at the same time consevatives nationalists often harken back to ideals which could be easily dencounced as typical of primitive brutish ‘mud people’.

I don’t see the problem.  If “brutish mud people” had invented indoor plumbing, I wouldn’t eschew indoor plumbing just because “brutish mud people” had invented it, ethno-nationalism or no.

I wanted to respond to the next point in your comment, but I couldn’t find a point…

But as said it does expose the white racist’s tendency to frame things as though he is a liberal demagogue deliniating the great triumph of effete progressivism against that dangerous dreaded patriacrchy.

Just some food for thought.

I take a kitchen sink approach.  If that means appealing to the insane (the west is collectively insane from an objective standpoint) via figments of their delusion, so be it.

Posted by Hasbarabeen on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:27 | #

A schnorrer writes:

“Normally I hold a fund raising drive at VFR about twice a year, sometimes three times. However, necessity now constrains me against my wishes to make an appeal for donations sooner than would ordinarily be the case.

“There are some readers who have made repeated donations and I am grateful to them more than words can say. I would hope that regular readers who have never given a contribution might consider doing so, which can be done by clicking here”

Larry Auster is 60 this year. His most substantial intellectual achievement seems to be a pamphlet against immigration published almost 20 years ago. He spends most of his life replying to rebuttals of critiques of analyses, spluttering and uttering anathemas and denunciations (usually of people you’d think he had quite a lot in common with) like a good Talmudist.

Surely the little cheerleading squad which constitutes a comments section on the great defender of “Judaeo-Christian” civilization’s website would pony up enough to save Larry from panhandling like this. Looks like at least one Jew has been hit by the credit crunch- oh, but I keep forgetting, he ain’t no Heeb no more, no sirree!