|
|
|
PROGRESS BY PESACH You thought 1965 was bad? Get a load of this:
We are witnessing Jewish virulence in the migratory stage. The time will come for those who dream of a backlash against Jews but remember this: The main failure of Hitler was his failure to be sufficiently supportive of the Zionists (and Palestinians to the extent they were displaced) via the Transfer Agreement. Jews are not essentially virulent—it is their lack of a homeland that presses their evolution to virulence via horizontal transmission. Do not attack the Jews who remain more or less locally identified and opposed to immigration. Consider allies those Jews who help track down and prosecute the “spores” now carrying away our wealth to start the new cycle. Then with the horizontal transmission contained and the pro-immigration virulence incarcerated or otherwise neutralized, help the non-virulent of Jewish-identified return home peacefully. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:58 | #
They have Israel and Birobidzhan but don’t want to go there to live. Israel was supposed to “solve the Jewish problem.” It didn’t. The problem is still with us, and we have more work to do to solve it. Bottom line: Jews cannot live among Euros because they try to exterminate them. The two have to live in separate countries. That suits most Euros fine, but not most Jews, who insist on living among Euros. Clearly Israel and Biro aren’t enough, so I’d favor giving a portion of the U.S. to the Jews for a third country, a parcel plenty big enough to more than accommodate the whole U.S. Jewish population. We could call it <strike>The New Pale of Settlement</strike> New Israel. The thing, though, would be Jews would have to move there, otherwise the Jewish Problem would remain unsolved. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:38 | # By coincidence I commented on this same subject in another thread, here, http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_limits_of_politics/#c69197 , and, much more importantly, here, http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_limits_of_politics/#c69198 . (If you’re pressed for time and can’t read both, forget the first and skip right to the second, which gets down to the real meat of the issue.) 4
Posted by colin laney on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:40 | # The main failure of Hitler was his failure to be sufficiently supportive of the Zionists (and Palestinians to the extent they were displaced) via the Transfer Agreement. Please, not this again. Jews are not essentially virulent—it is their lack of a homeland that presses their evolution to virulence via horizontal transmission. Some testimony in favor of essential virulence: Cicero
Tacitus
John 7:13
Apion
These men are all bearing testimony to widespread and unpleasant aspects of the Jewish national character strongly in evidence before the Jews lost their homeland, if one uses 135 CE - the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt - as the date for that event. You might also consider that, contra your thesis that Jewish virulence is modified by possession of a homeland, that most historians estimate a good 60% of the Jewish population lived outside of Judea prior to its destruction. Huge colonies in places like Cyrene and Cyprus eventually descended into riots and mass murder . . . of the local population by Jews. Relations of diaspora populations - while Judea is still in existence, mind you - mirror perfectly the complaints/reports of people who later lived in close quarters with Jews. What do we see, in just the four witnesses above? Control of assemblies, limitation of free speech through terror, hatred of the rest of mankind . . . all boringly typical first hand accounts, to be frank. Ancient world, modern world, posessing a homeland or in diaspora, Jews never change. I could adduce a dozen more witnesses from the Ancient world, but your thesis is so false on its face that I resent having to exert myself to disprove it. If evidence from witnesses in the first century CE and BCE are insufficient to wrench you away from this noxious idee fixee, then perhaps an examination of the Bible - by our best estimates redacted in the 6th century BCE - would convince you. Please re-examine the accounts of Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah for autobiographical and celebratory accounts of virulence. What can we tell about the Jewish people circa 6BCE that their culture heroes are men like Jacob ( who stole his brother’s birthright) and Joseph (who infiltrated the Egyptian government, reduced entire native population to slavery via use of debt, and invited his relatives in to live off the fat of the land)? And given that these men are now indelible elements of Jewish character and self-consciousness, on what basis do you expect an about face from the Jewish people? All of this is to ignore any possible neurophysiological basis for Jewish virulence. Starting with the native duplicity and hyperethnocentrism of the Semite (I will take Arabs as a baseline/control) stemming from prototypical Near Eastern family and social structures (as per MacDonald), and adding in two and a half millenia (at least) selective pressures for more ethnocentric behaviors as less ethnocentric Jews marry out and the more duplicitous and vicious abandon their host societies just ahead of the shock wave of collapse they themselves have caused, we should expect that surviving Jews are now extremely well honed predators/ parasites - biologically. Which is in fact, in the US and the UK, exactly what we see. Adding to all this the strong enculturation in a societal norms of parasitism, supremacy, and hate for outsiders, a divine sanction for same, and a end state of world domination promised by the religious literature , you have a gene/culture co-evolutionary cycle of unparalleled viciousness. We would have to go to insect models of social parasitism to find an even remotely comparable system, as human history affords us none at all. We’ve had this argument before, James. I dread hashing it out again. This thesis regarding Jewish non-virulence is a complete non-starter. Given your intelligence, and your impressive capacity to interpret historical data, that you show such a passionate and irrational attachment to this thesis indicates that it serves some private psychological function for you. In my opinon, it would be more useful to reflect on the nature of your attachment to this idea - which cannot be supported by the historical record - and its essential destructiveness than to continue to argue on its behalf. Either you believe that Jews are not essentially virulent, in which case my estimate of your ability to interpret historical data is way off the mark, or you don’t want to live in a world that creates creatures of such staggering malevolence. This latter position is totally comprehensible, but it hardly helps others here to either understand their own plight and the plight of their co-racialists or to prepare adequate defenses against the agents that seek, and indeed, have substantially accomplished, their destruction.
5
Posted by The Name is GOY, Joe Goy on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 03:22 | # Scorpions who are local are obviously not the problem. 6
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:30 | # colin laney writes: We’ve had this argument before, James. I dread hashing it out again. You’ve apparently changed your moniker. Could you provide a link to your prior criticism of my theory regarding the Transfer Agreement and/or Jewish Virulence? Click here for an example search for such comments. It is certainly reasonable to compare hypotheses against historical observation as you are attempting to do here and I’m willing to be open minded about your position. My “idee fixee” is a working hypothesis—a strongly held one to be sure—but I certainly am interested in seeing the best argument available against my working hypothesis. You have a start and perhaps it should become an essay specifically regarding the hypothesis that Jews somehow are in essence virulent. My biggest problem with the hypothesis is the seeming appeal to the miraculous. It doesn’t satisfy me to believe that Jews are the spawn of Satan. My “psychological need” is for a maximally coherent world-view. You have some reasonable facts at your disposal but I’d like to see it fleshed out to a degree similar to that offered by Richard Faussette before I abandon my working-“idee fixee” that Jewish virulence is not, of essence, Jewish. My reason for considering this important is given in the above linked article to my critique of Charles Murray’s philosemitism wherein I describe Paul Ewald’s evolutionary medical approach to virulence relying on variation of virulence within the lineages providing a way of crowding virulence out of the niche. Agreed, that niche shouldn’t be occupied by Jews at all in a healthy relationship between human ecologies, but the problems here are multi-layered and manifold. I think it unlikely we’ll find a “silver bullet” cure. 7
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:48 | # Fred writes: We could call it The New Pale of Settlement New Israel. The thing, though, would be Jews would have to move there, otherwise the Jewish Problem would remain unsolved. I agree, but part of the problem is that the Jews that tend to move to Jewish land are the least virulent/least hypocritical about their Jewish identity. Assortative migration must involve involuntary expulsion as well as voluntary inclusion—and it is clear that leading with voluntary inclusion as has been going on with Israel—is a “non-starter” to use colin’s description. 8
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:04 | # Svigor, what it means is that there are Jews that may ultimately belong in a Jewish national territory simply because of their familial interests but they are not virulent. They may even contain genes and memes that lend themselves, during recombination, to virulence as part of Jewish virulence phenomenon—but they represent, as individuals, a decoherence of those traits. Helping them occupy the niches normally occupied by virulent Jews is a win in evolutionary medical strategy. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:15 | # The problem with letting the good Jews (the ones who aren’t spores)( * ) continue to live side-by-side with Euros in Euro lands is, though they themselves as individuals be good citizens, their children and grandkids won’t be, thanks to regression to the group mean: What’s bred in the bone breeds true in the flesh, and each generation of Jews will produce its proportion of spores no matter how stringently you select only the non-spores to begin with. It’s graven in stone, can’t be circumvented, and something has to be done about it. ( * The spores are tthe Jews who are homozygous for the following Jewish genes: the nation-destroying gene, the greed gene, the grasping gene, the lucre-worshipping gene, the gold-counting gene, the Eurochristian-hating gene, the race-denial gene, and the push-miscegenation-on-the-Euros gene) 10
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:37 | # One enormous problem with judging people as individuals is it leaves out regression to the mean. If people are outliers of their race, their children will inevitably be much closer to the racial norm. This means an individual leads a sort of double life. Phenotypically, he is as nice as the next guy, genotypically, he is still a black, hispanic, jew, arab, etc, underneath, a time bomb waiting to explode 2 or 3 generations down the line. One solution would be the elimination of birthright citizenship. Any individual regardless of race could be a citizen if he passes the various qualification tests, but their children would have to pass the same tests or be exiled from the country upon reaching maturity. If citizens preferred, they could leave with their exiled family members so we wouldn’t be tearing apart any families. We could also have a designated ‘exile’ zone of our country partitioned off where our failures are forced to live, so that we will always have a place to put them. The people there can live however they want, and any children from that zone that wishes to enter our country, can pass the citizenship qualification tests just like anyone else, and there you go they’re back in. An objective, fair, and perfect justice that rewards and punishes everyone solely as individuals. If we individually screened each new immigrant according to high standards—ie they must not have any criminal record, they must have enough money to take care of themselves, they must have a high IQ, they must be of good health and look attractive, they must know the language and accept the inflexible law of the land—we would a) create a eugenic wonderland B) drastically reduce immigration to a non-dangerous level C) not be discriminating against anyone based on ‘skin color’ but only based on objective merit. Set up the citizenship requirements correctly, and any problems you have with any group can be eliminated within the individuals from that group that get here. Get rid of democracy and those citizenship requirements cannot be changed no matter how much time passes or how many immigrants arrive. The objection to racism is it is a crude measurement and doesn’t take into account the variations within groups. It is unfair to use wide brushstrokes and claim ‘all jews are parasites’ or ‘all blacks are criminals.’ So, what would they have against demanding a set of good qualities from everyone equally? Every generation? No one is singled out or discriminated against, unless you count ‘thieves’ as a group it is wrong to discriminate against, or ‘idiots’ or ‘insane people’. I’m unimpressed with EGI’s worries that ‘eventually a country will fill up and then every new immigrant means a child of your ethnicity can’t be born.’ Because we are a long ways from that point, and by the time that era arrives, we will have such vastly powerful technology that we can just open up new frontiers in space, redesign people’s genes from scratch, or upload our brains into a machine-powered neural network. Interbreeding with other races or sharing territory with people from other races who have all the qualities we could want in a person doesn’t sound like a horrible fate. If they’re good people they’re good people. It’s having to live around bad people we object to, or mixing with inferior genes that lower the quality of our gene pool. It just so happens that bad people who do bad things to us and lower our overall genetic worth, happen to primarily belong to other races. The same could be said about some whites and they should be excluded on the same grounds. A further step would be to screen immigrants and children by ideology as well as physical, intellectual, and moral merit. This would require many more nations than just the two “pass” and “fail” countries. This way all christians could hang out with other christians they can share christiany feelings and laws with, all muslims with other muslims, all atheists with atheists, all environmentalists with environmentalists, and so on and so forth. Of course there could even be the ideology of not caring about ideology that would allow a diverse menagerie of people with different values and beliefs to live together in a vibrant melange. Again, race would never enter the picture, but it would have a heavy correlation to the sorting you would see in practice. If you exclude all muslims on ideological grounds, you also exclude a billion non-whites. The same for any other ideological background. For instance, it’s easy to get rid of the troubles of immigrant free-riders who come in to take advantage of your handouts, if you sort by the libertarian ideology and thus remove all possibility of such handouts. Many people here, svigor, bowery, others, just want the opportunity to sort nations into smaller groups with homogeneity in some certain aspect which they feel is important to societal success. They ask for the right to be homogeneous, to have the sovereign authority to sort into homogeneous groups. Racial homogeneity is a good bet to be homogeneous across a wide sphere of traits—but it would be possible to approximate this through simply listing, individually, every single trait we are looking to be homogeneous for, and then if that so happens to only include members of our race, well what can be done? It’s out of our hands, that’s what the test says. It also has the advantage of excluding members of our own race we really feel nothing for. For instance, I despise white liberals. I also don’t much like christians. I’d rather hang out with a mexican conservative atheist than a white christian liberal. An actual proposition nation with strict membership criteria would be more homogeneous than the loose categorization of race, so if it’s homogeneity (which allows for the unique and full-throttle representation of some intrinsic value to life we feel is most important to base our lives around) we want race is a poor filter. 11
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:08 | # James, Colin Laney said it best. Don’t be fooled by the Jews pushing for humane immigration reform. Didn’t you notice that they don’t specify exactly what form the reform should take? Their recommendations about raids ( http://www.hias.org/files/u24/Immigration_Raids_Policy_Resolution.pdf ) will do nothing but worsen the problems we have due to illegals. I can describe a very humane immigration reform policy. Aggressively prosecute employers of illegals; leave the illegals alone. This will take care of the illegal immigration problem. As to the illegals already in America, many will leave on their own if they can’t get jobs and most of the others will be amenable to the government paying their tickets to back home or leaving in exchange for some pocket money to rebuild their lives where they came from. As to legal immigration to America, end chain migration, diversity visa lottery, cut immigrants to no more than 200,000 per year and ensure that the immigrants are proficient in English and well-suited to thriving in the First World. If you can find me Jewish organizations willing to push this policy and then act on it, I’ll be open to the possibility that there are Jewish groups that we can consider as allies. 12
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:20 | #
It’s not enough to form a nation. There is no sense of common community. Of Nationality, as connected with Representative Government. John Stuart Mill
13
Posted by Colin Laney on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:54 | # My biggest problem with the hypothesis is the seeming appeal to the miraculous. Cicero, Tacitus, John and Apion do not represent an ‘appeal to the miraculous’. Rather, they are evidence - which, crucially, you do not counter - that prior to Hadrian’s explusion of the Jews from their homeland, that they were as virulent then as they are now. Control of the assemblies, suppression of speech about Jewish power, testimony to the Jewish ‘hatred’ of non-Jews. Is there something ‘miraculous’ going on here, or are these merely Hebrew hijinx as per their historical norm? I say the latter. Given that all four writers listed above lend their astonishingly modern sounding accounts of Jewish behavior prior to 135 CE is evidence that tends to disprove your thesis. Indeed, I think we must regard your thesis as having been falsified by the historical record. Do you have any evidence at all to commend it? Also, as I mentioned, there are other eyewitnesses prior to the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion who will corroborate the statements already given: Manetho, Apollonius Molon, Posidonius, Chaeremon, Lysimachus, and Diodorus Siculus, among others. The most intense period of anti-Semitism in antiquity (so far as we know) occured during the fourth and fifth decades of the first century CE - almost one hundred years before the loss of the Judean homeland. As a last word on the essential virulence of the Jews, I can’t do better than to quote Johann Gottlieb Fichte on this question:
It doesn’t satisfy me to believe that Jews are the spawn of Satan. You are sidestepping the question of their easily observable malevolence by exaggerating a possible mechanism that I, in any case, have not proposed. Regarding Satan, I reply with Laplace: “I have no need of that hypothesis”. That the Jews are, by their own self conception, the sons of Jacob should be enough. At any rate, the Jews’ ultimate parentage is not the topic here, rather we are examining their behavior while in possession of a homeland. I have shown that their behavior, prior to 135 CE, is so similar to modern reports that it can be regarded for all practical purposes as being identical, i.e. unmodified in any way by the possession of a homeland. Morover, I have provided a evolutionary mechanism which could be used to explain their increasing virulence (or the increasing effectiveness of their virulence) over time, one that is perfectly consistent with MacDonald’s thesis. Why is this conflated with the workings of the Devil? I submit that confusion of the workings of natural selection and the demonic realm is, ipso facto, Creationism, which is far more miraculous than anything I have here proposed. 14
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:04 | # The entire world over, our countries are no longer united nationalities, but a mix of all sorts of people, so a new filtering method would get us closer to nationhood than the status quo, neh? How about this: Multiply every idea by two factors: ‘likelihood it can be achieved’ by ‘quality of the result’, then subtract ‘suffering of the interim transition period’ from that number. Mathematically enumerate every single proposition by this method and then get back to me on what the ideal political strategy should be. For instance ‘kill all non-whites’ has a very low likelihood of success, a not even ideal quality of result, with a large minus for the suffering of the interim transition period. It should get a low score. Found a colony in an abandoned plot in Canada and purchase it from the state, invite all whites but no non-whites into this colony, and you get again a low likelihood of success (what nation is selling land to founders of new countries?), with a pretty high quality result (but not very high, after all conflicts between whites have been a sore point for ages and many whites ruin their own countries all by themselves), and a very low minus via interim suffering. The only interim suffering, I guess, would be people having to move. Launch a political coup that politely but forcefully divides the nation by racial lines and kicks all recent immigrants or their descendants back to their founding territory? Low chance of success (the military of the world is firmly against this), with a high quality of result (historic descendants of the area getting to remain where they’ve always been safe from foreign invasion and domestic subversion once more), and a high interim cost (we’d have to win a war, resulting in a lot of mayhem, then ethnic cleanse hundreds of millions of people out of their ordinary lives to an uncertain and perilous future.) Agitate using spurious and obviously side-issue reasons against immigration while never mentioning race, punish crime severely, encourage the use of abortion and birth control among minority children, and subtly manipulate the tax and spending codes to favor white american birth rates? This has one of the better chances of success since it operates within the established political parties and democratic process, with a gradual but high-quality result of finally stemming the bleeding and restoring trends in the right direction, with a low interim cost. It is so gradual no one will even notice the changes in their daily lives. Self-segregate into communities within the wider nation, abandon the nation to its fate, while practicing eugenics and homogeneity within the group? High chance of success, the mormons and amish are already doing it, a relatively poor result because it means abandoning most of the world to a hellish existence and no promise of security should the remaining islands of sanity be assaulted, but again a very low interim cost, it only requires people move to these islands of sanity. My favorite solution, letting a thousand nations sprout out of the corpse of America with a thousand different characters reflecting everyone’s dream utopia they can go and live in, has a low probability (America will not go down without a fight, and each little city state will try to invade and oppress the other, so typical of humanity), but the perfect outcome, and again a low interim cost since it just requires everyone move again, to a place of their choosing no less. There’s no problem being a supporter of all ideas at once, and just hope one of them succeeds. What it does require is we look at things flexibly, and be willing to compromise, because we’re not going to get what we want. We should instead learn to want what we’ll get. 15
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:49 | #
The premise is false probably skewed by a North American perspective. Poland is Polish, Italy is Italian, Austria is Austrian and even Germany, with its policy of Jus sanguinis, is still German. They all share a sense of community, “the possession of a national history, and consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past.” Even England, IMO, is still viable for the same reasons. 16
Posted by Homelander on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:54 | #
Or how about just a few? Three, or four, or six? Nations big enough that the one or two white homelands would be economically self-sufficient (if need be), offer adequate amounts of the amenities of civilisation which make contiuing worth it, and which could be reasonably secure militarily? Such Homelands probably could not be founded solely at the initiative of American whites, however. Probably an inadvertant assist from reconquista Meztisos, seccessionist Quebecois, and back-lashing Western Canadians might be required. Meanwhile a movement could gather under the broadest banner of immigration-restriction…but realistically it may as well be “whites-only” ala the BNP. Or, in the alternative, you could do endless internet-chat on “ain’t it awful” and “It’s all about the Juice!”: Chance of success - non-existent Quality of Result - morally, spiritually and psychologically void Intermediate Suffering…that may be the point of this S & M ‘net game, neh? 17
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:41 | #
Diamed Funny, isn’t that, in the left liberal worldview nothing is inherited, everything is individual, personal - except citizenship! Then suddenly we are all gung ho for inheritance, unearrned benefits, the importance of the family bond and all the rest of it. 18
Posted by OFN on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:00 | #
If true then such Homelands stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting off the ground, much less of success. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:52 | # I reject Diamed’s comment of 5:37, reject it totally, and the one by him after that I instantly stopped reading after the first sentence, so I don’t know what the rest of it says (and I totally reject the first sentence). Desmond’s replies to Diamed are correct. Diamed astonishes in his (previously unsuspected) willingness to compromise with the deliberate extinguishing of the white race worldwide, and not just compromise, not just meet them half-way, he meets them 99.99% of the way. Diamed’s record as a blogger here is like a country that enters a war on one side then switches in mid-war to the other side. There have been countries that did that. We don’t think much of them. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:57 | # Fjordman, who has now finally joined the battle over race on our side (after years of limiting himself to “culture”), may even be ahead of Diamed on the race issue at present, what with all of the latter’s astonishing backsliding: 21
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:18 | # How mixed are the other white countries in the world? To my knowledge they will all be majority non-white by 2050-2100. I don’t think they are largely different from the USA. Sure, they are less mixed right now, but at least American whites have children, whereas Europe is emptying itself out. The end result is Europe will be a minority around the same time America will. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ Australia: white 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1% New Zealaand: European 69.8%, Maori 7.9%, Asian 5.7%, Pacific islander 4.4%, other 0.5%, mixed 7.8%, unspecified 3.8% (2001 census) Russia: Russian 79.8%, Tatar 3.8%, Ukrainian 2%, Bashkir 1.2%, Chuvash 1.1%, other or unspecified 12.1% (2002 census) Canada: British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26% UK: white (of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census) Austria: Austrians 91.1%, former Yugoslavs 4% (includes Croatians, Slovenes, Serbs, and Bosniaks), Turks 1.6%, German 0.9%, other or unspecified 2.4% (2001 census) France: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Indochinese, Basque minorities Germany: German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish) Spain: composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types Belgium: Fleming 58%, Walloon 31%, mixed or other 11% Netherlands: Dutch 80.7%, EU 5%, Indonesian 2.4%, Turkish 2.2%, Surinamese 2%, Moroccan 2%, Netherlands Antilles & Aruba 0.8%, other 4.8% (2008 est.) Switzerland: German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6% I don’t see any nations here. A hodgepodge in every country, and it only gets worse every day. 22
Posted by Diamed on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:35 | # The problem Fred is you’re attacking the messenger. I’m not happy with the political climate we live in. I’m not happy with the reality facing us and the need to act within the next few decades to do something, anything to stem the bleeding. I’m not happy that when the dust settles, our best case scenario is something far weaker and smaller than what we had in 1900. If I had my way, world history would have played out very differently. But we can either choose to be ineffective and meaningless, or choose to strategically apply ourselves towards what might work. Vdare.com is a great site, because it fully understands the problem we are in, even the jewish aspect to it (heck it publishes kevin macdonald), while also rallying the ordinary american to a strategically viable cause—slowing down immigration. This will do more real good for whites than any amount of rigid, inflexible loyalty to some perfect white nationalist outcome. Part of being an adult is realizing we don’t always get what we want. I think it’s one thing to have your heart in the right place, and another to have your head in the right place. A subtle pro-white policy of lowering immigration rates, decreasing the tax burdens on affordable family formation, and fully supporting birth control and abortion among minorities would do more real good than announcing every day at 10am “We must deport all non-whites from our country,” over and over again. It’s a non-starter. It’s not a winner. Do you just want me to announce at 10am every day that we should form an all white nation and deport the non-whites? It’s stupid, it’s pointless, it isn’t intellectual progress. I prefer brainstorming solutions that might possibly get accepted by the public if phrased in the right way, before it’s too late. I listed like ten alternate solutions in the comment you skipped, no one here has considered any of them as serious possibilities, as winners. I feel the same way, none of them have any good chance, because at this late stage in the game, with just the 4th quarter left and behind three touchdowns, nothing stands a very good chance. Either we keep brainstorming new solutions that we can be at least halfway content with, or we can walk away from it all, or we can like a cukoo clock come out with an unworkable, non-starter every 10am and say “deport all non-whites, cukoo, deport all non-whites, cukoo.” What would you prefer? None of my policy prescriptions result in the extinction of the white race—or 99.99% of it. That’s a silly charge. 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:34 | # The first third of Diamed’s comment above, all I read, is bad enough that I can confidently reject the entire comment including the part I haven’t read.
How come Fjordman isn’t “a messenger”? You and he just passed each other going in opposite directions. Somehow he must not have “gotten the message”? I don’t compromise. Do the Jews? No. So now I’m going to? Uhhh ....... excuse me, but ...... I don’t think so. The Jews put you before their fait accompli and your first thought is, “I’d better slurp this up.” Uhhhh ...... Excuse me, but .... What else is on the menu? 24
Posted by Armor on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:39 | #
I wish MajorityRights would hire someone to go over Diamed’s posts and remove passages like that one from his posts before they are published.
I’m not sure what is your problem, but maybe you have a problem with your keyboard? 25
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:47 | # colin laney: “Please, not this again.” Get this Colin: Hitler was not in fact the one, pure, true savior of the White race and the one man who would never compromise with “The Satanic Jew”; at whatever cost to himself and his own people. If so, he would have (at least tried to) exterminated them. Or do you contend that he did so try? If you are not a pure-blooded German, and in fact put other things higher than the destruction of the Jews, I really don’t get it. An all consuming hatred of the Jews that defines our peoplehood in opposition to them is insanity. That the destruction of all of Slavic Eastern Europe was an acceptable cost so long as Jews were put out of business is a compromise with sheer evil. The kind of strength we need is not what a uniform and jackboots can give us. If we can become awake to ourselves and act consciously in our own interests we can have victory without vengeance and its attendant barbarism that would dishonor our race. The strong do not have to compromise their honor, and the dishonorable lack true strength. P.S. Though I have singled you out, it is a problem that is epidemic not just at this site, but on our side. 26
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:15 | # Soren Renner: “I strongly disagree, Fred. I suspected it previously.” What was it I said? Oh, yeah: “The strong do not have to compromise their honor, and the dishonorable lack true strength.” 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:14 | # Diamed: If they’re good people they’re good people. This is terrible advice. The world is full of good people. India and China alone could fill the US five times over with good people. How many do you want living in your house? It is true that politics - or “real life” if you prefer - involves compromises. But one doesn’t compromise at the point of setting out an ideology of change because the tug of war must start from the right position. One starts by setting out one’s ideal. That is the one time when one can, perhaps must, be an absolutist, the one time when principle is all. Don’t begin by betraying principles, and the principle here is that we European peoples must recreate our own living spaces so that a future can be secured for our children. Never mind the squeals from the dissaccomodated. Our need is existential. Theirs is not. 29
Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:24 | # Captain Chaos: Can I say that I really like the way you’ve been handling yourself at the keyboard lately? Keep up the good type mate! 30
Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:26 | #
Shouldn’t that read necessarily James? 31
Posted by q on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:31 | #
Soren is, shall we say, “special.” 32
Posted by Diamed on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:27 | # The solution to the dangers facing the white genome and the quality of life whites live under is not political, it’s technological. Political power is a daydream, it will never happen. There is still some good politics can do though—it can ally with non-racist but still concerned citizens and fight against amnesty for illegals, try to curtail ‘unassimilable’ immigrants, try to lower taxes and cut state benefits, try to legalize guns so we can fight third world thugs and protect ourselves and our family, argue for free speech about sensitive issues like black crime rates, dropout rates, jewish bankers, the holocaust, mexican criminal gangs, dropout rates, etc. If you focus on possible issues, you can delay the decay of white nations so long that space flight will give us a new frontier that gives any intrepid group with a burning desire to found their own nation the means to do so—without harming a single soul in the process. 33
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:16 | # Diamed: “Political power is a daydream, it will never happen.” This sounds suspiciously like silver’s “flemmard”. At least silver exhorts racial consciousness and racial separation. “There is still some good politics can do though—it can ally with non-racist but still concerned citizens and fight against amnesty for illegals, try to curtail ‘unassimilable’ immigrants, try to lower taxes and cut state benefits, try to legalize guns so we can fight third world thugs and protect ourselves and our family, argue for free speech about sensitive issues like black crime rates, dropout rates, jewish bankers, the holocaust, mexican criminal gangs, dropout rates, etc.” As the demographics quickly go south these are precisely the things that will become less attainable by political means. Unless we start a political party that is explicitly for the interests of White people. Said party could at least be the basis of a revolutionary authority when the shit really hits the fan. “If you focus on possible issues, you can delay the decay of white nations so long that space flight will give us a new frontier that gives any intrepid group with a burning desire to found their own nation the means to do so—without harming a single soul in the process.” But the inculcation of White separatist space colonization is itself a revolutionary idea that would require massive amounts of energy and infrastructure to accomplish; energy and infrastructure that would be denied to us in a multiracial society. Are you so stupid that you honestly don’t realize that? Or is this just a bit of Fool’s Gold you are throwing to the lemmings to take their eyes of the prize? I should have put you on ignore the minute you started talking about exterminating all non-Whites. Diamed, go fuck yourself! 34
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:59 | # Capt Chaos:
Reading a lot of sci-fi writers and transhumanists one gets the feeling that they are pretty gung ho for the multi-racial society, vanilla liberals really. Yet much of what they want out of the future, the great toys - spaceflight, immortality, nano machines etc will not happen in a multiracial society. If nothing else resources will be whittled away by ethnic squabbling and the like. More importantly the people they need to get this stuff done - white men - will not be around or at least politically emasculated. Bye bye bright future. Vernor Vinge is very big on the coming singularity, where technology advances beyond the level of magic. He doesnt seem like a stupid guy. But in one novel, The Peace War he insists on a central character being a young genius black mathematician. Peace War has a sequel - Marooned in Realtime - and now the protagonist is a great detective, and yes, he’s black. Does VV realise that if the real world is built to accomodate his favoured characters he won’t be getting his singularity anytime soon - ever? Greater love hath no man than he lay down his singularity etc etc 36
Posted by mnuez on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:51 | # Hey guys, Jew here. Now, I know y’all aren’t too big on morality and stuff like that but will no one be kind enough to let lil ole Fred know that “when the time comes” he’s gonna be thrown on the train with the rest of us? I mean seriously, y’all appear to be somewhat historically aware (hey sviyatoslav, waddup) so I have to assume that Freddy is too and is aware of the fact that in general folk like his buddies here happen to be less than overly magnanimous with folk whom we Jews like to call “self hating Jews”. Freddy has got to know that but has somehow managed to convince himself that “it won’t happen to me” - some serious cognitive dissonance there. So, come on guys, in the interest of fair play, wouldja just let Fred know the truth? Not that I personally really care too much about him. As a Jew, I don’t have the same visceral seething hatred for “race traitors” as you folk seem to have but there’s also no love lost between me and folk like Scoobydoo. If one of y’all happen to kill him him as part of some late-night dare in the woods where he went to join you for a Klan rally, well, no tears shed. A few laughs, sure, but no tears. It’s YOU GUYS I care about. I look up to y’all as morally pure, outspokenly brave and forthright folk. As such, it shatters my sense of security in all that is good and holy to see you not let Fred know the truth about who’s who and what’s what when “the time comes”. Poor Scoobydoo! mnuez
38
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:26 | # Mr Mnuez is something of a regular over at Steve Sailer’s. At least he is honest about where he is coming from as it were, unlike Silver’s two faced posturing. As far as I can see Fred wouldn’t even be Jewish according to Nazi Germany, don’t think I would be either (possible, undetermined, distant Jewish ancestry). 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:52 | #
No, see, the movement leaders are so delighted with my proposal to send all mystery meat to Israel, they’ve decided to let me stay off the train. 40
Posted by mnuez on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:56 | # Et tu Lurker? Fuck! Is anyone on this thread not Jewish? Pretty weasely attempts at a backtrack there though. Kinna gives away your rather strong Jewish heritage, not only by your clear and obvious “protesteth too much” backtrack but also by the very fact of the weaseliness of the backtrack. Fred says his grandma was Jewish so he sure as fuck would have been considered Jewish by the books on Colin’s shelf and I’m gonna hazard a guess that you’re even more Jewish than he is. No proud son of the white race would quietly attempt to back away out of the room like you just did (at least I hope they wouldn’t, please don’t shatter my faith in you guys). Anyhow, I don’t really care for gaining either of you two (or any of the obviously MANY other Jewish “passers” (“lurkers”?) in this space who are cowering under pseudonyms - except Laney. Yeah, it’s true that he’s one of the nastiest of the bunch here, a really rotten piece of shit, but that’s okay. As I’ve mentioned before, I know lots of nasty Jews who I wouldn’t like to have anything to do with. We’ve already got a bunch of em and one more won’t hurt. But Laney’s smart. He’s a better writer with a broader knowledge base than anyone else here. I’m not sure I understand his science fiction predilection but hey, no one’s perfect. To be clear: I would not be in the least surprised if it turned out that Colin Laney had some Jewish ancestry within the past three generations. Nor for lots of other folk here. Where you find literacy you find Jews. Oh, this is fun… If I may ramble on a bit further: What the fuck is wrong with you guys? Is it really that pleasurable to spend your days in Hate? (Note to self: Must spend less time Hating. This mnuez here makes a fine fine point.) 41
Posted by mnuez on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:59 | # Oh poor Fred. You don’t really believe that do you? You poor poor shmuck… 42
Posted by mnuez on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:13 | # As to the subject of this post, my feeling about you bunch is that knowledge of the truth is not a virtue very high on your lists but for the few of you for whom it in fact is of high interest to know the truth on things let me offer the following. I think it’s pretty fuckin damn obvious that I don;t care about ingratiating myself to any of you here, right? Can we agree on that good. So what I’m about to say is obviously not in the interest of doing so. I personally very very strongly oppose immigration to this country at this time and support the removal of the millions of illegals who are currently here. Furthermore, the many important-sounding organizations listed above are in-fact and in-deed not representative of any large masses of Jews - certainly not of non-intermarried Jews who are proudly and strongly and openly Jewish and pro-Israel. In fact if you were to poll Orthodox Jews and other non-intermarried Jews for whom Jewishness and/or Judaism is an important part of their lives, you would find that not only is there no awesome advocacy on behalf of the watering down of our American culture (not to mention wages) but that we are generally (some more, some less) opposed to the rampant liberalism that is demanding that thee millions of illegals be made into citizens and that millions more be allowed into the country as well. Again, I offer this solely for the few participators in this forum for whom knowledge of the truth is a higher value than having strongly held opinions that are impervious to new information from an obviously unbiased source (unbiased because, again, I’m under no illusion that I’ll make any friends here b sharing this and furthermore have no interest in being liked by the types of pathological haters that seem to populate this corner of the web. 43
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:13 | #
Well, see, it’s like this, genociding a guy’s race kinda does that to a guy, it’s weird, I know, maybe it’s the hormones? Any chance of getting your co-ethnics to stop? Hey just thought I’d ask, ya never know, you mighta had some pull or something ..... 44
Posted by !!!! on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:41 | # I personally very very strongly oppose immigration to this country at this time and support the removal of the millions of illegals who are currently here. followed by…. pathological haters that seem to populate this corner of the web.... Yes, well, supporting the removal of millions of Mexican busboys and farmhands, now that is such an act of compassion! Only the truly magnanimous cackle with glee over the idea of marching families back to Oaxaca at gunpoint. 45
Posted by $top$nitching on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:23 | # mnuez, I’m consumed with irrational hatred. Teach me how to direct this unfocused rage towards the poor and powerless, principally illegal Mexican workers. I’m looking forward to a few more of your rambling, stream-of-unconsciousness paragraphs telling me why I should begin raging against day laborers. Thanks. G-d bless. 46
Posted by mnuez on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:22 | # Who’s telling you to hate day laborers? Who says that I hate them? I’m not one of the folk here who hates large masses of people to the point where they want to see them suffer or die, I simply believe that as a sovereign nation we ought to realize that it’s in our best interests to not welcome in millions of foreigners at this time. I believe that Americans would have been wise to have adopted that policy against the French in their time, against the Irish in theirs, against the Italians, Poles and Jews in theirs (they all came together which is why their grouped together - I’m referring to the 1870s to 1920s here) - but all to a degree. I believe that America has benefited from the color brought by various peoples both to American culture as well as to the American economy, but only when foreigners come under two conditions: 1) When they don’t come in large enough percentages at one time such that they serve to diminish the national character and culture rather than to contribute to it and 2) They aren’t invited here at a point when the current American citizens are suffering from unemployment or abysmally low wages. To the extent that such a thing occurred during the various waves of immigration I believe that it was a damn evil thing that the American elite foisted upon their compatriots. A great many people spoke out against it and they were right, but the elites (who were almost entirely WASPs at that time) didn’t care. They wanted cheaper labor and let the plebs fight among themselves. I have absolutely NOTHING against the illegal (or legal) Mexicans (or Indians) who are here and believe that allowing a few in every so often would be a damn fine thing for us - furthermore, some should be allowed in temporarily if they require asylum - but the sort of invasion that’s been going on now is quite unlike previous immigrations inasmuch as they are entering in larger percentages than monolithic immigrants ever have before and furthermore, they’re doing it at a time when some tens of millions of Americans (a quarter of adults I’m guessing) are working for less than $10 an hour. This is NOT the type of environment where massive immigration, legal or otherwise, ought to be allowed. But again, I hold none of this against the Mexicans or Indians who are invading and realize that I, you or any other sane person would do the same if he were granted the chance. If there’s anyone I’m tempted to hate (though prefer not to because it hardly seems to be a healthy emotion to feel) it would be the elites who KNOW what they’re doing to their fellow citizens but hardly give a fuck. You can take a stance against many political opinions without becoming a rabid hater who despises all and every member of a religion, class, race or caste. And that, unfortunately, is a sentiment I haven’t seen too much of among the comments at this site. 47
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:56 | # Mnuez - I’m not Jewish. I may have some Jewish ancestry, well outnumbered by European. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:00 | #
Who’s doing it now, mnuez? Who’s the one principally shoving it down our throats since 1965 and the one principally keeping anyone from rectifying the genocidal situation today, right now? (Hint: it’s not the prods.) By the way, the (fill in the blank) ________ were already extremely aggressive during the period from the 1880s to 1924 in trying to beat back the forces favoring sane immigration policy at that time. It was with considerable difficulty that Euros in this country won the fight in 1924. The (fill in the blank) ______ of course never stopped fighting tooth-and-nail for open-borders genocide of this country’s Euros, fighting with everything they had, until after decades of throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the fight, they won in 1965, and they’ve hysterically kept anyone from fixing what’s broken ever since. There simply is no segment of the official (fill in the blank) ______ world that doesn’t view open-borders genocide of Euros in this country as paradise on Earth. This post-1965 genocide of the U.S.‘s Euro population has been one long uninterrupted orgasm for the (fill in the blank) ______ . 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:12 | # The main difference between you and most at this site, mnuez, is you approve of race-replacement immigration provided it won’t have a wage-lowering effect. Most here disapprove even then, because we oppose race-replacement in good economic times as well as bad. We don’t like our own genocide, I know it’s weird, I guess we’re just funny that way ...... 50
Posted by colin laney on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:48 | # Søren:
Cf.
51
Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:50 | # mnuez writes:
Looks like there was a Euro in the woodpile. Methinks he doth whistle past the cattlecar too much. 52
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:13 | # GW and other admin. Thought I posted this the other day… MR should link to Taanstafl’s site Age Of Treason. There, I’ve said it, again. 53
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:16 | # Oops, obviously that would be Tanstaafl rather than Taanstafl. 54
Posted by Scrooby fan on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:58 | # lurker,
Give it up, lurker. I’ve got more honour in my little finger than you and your hero Rienzi have in your entire genomes—which, given your, yes, posturing on that issue, would seem rather problematic for you . As for Armor, his problem seems more basic literacy than honour. 55
Posted by Scrooby fan on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:28 | # mnuez,
You don’t really care about Mexicans or Indians being hated; you care about you being hated. I find it hard to believe you can look at these people and not feel a visceral sense of repulsion at the thought that one day your country, the nation you profess to belong to, and even the world itself, is going to be crawling with such types. There’s a picture of a Mexican soccer crowd on vdare. Go on, have a look at it. Your refusal to face facts is making it a reality. Let’s be serious: you don’t care about people like this hating you. As a matter of fact, they already do hate you and you probably know it, or at least sense it. No, what you care about is the dreaded germanics hating you. That’s all it’s about. And this is coming from someone who’d be packed into a cattle car without a second thought about who his grandparents were. 56
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:50 | # “And this is coming from someone who’d be packed into a cattle car without a second thought about who his grandparents were.” Why is it that wogs are so paranoid? Is that a part of their group evolutionary strategy? 57
Posted by torgrim on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:24 | # “Yes, well, supporting the removal of millions of busboys and farmhands, now that is such an act of compassion! Only the truly magnanamous cackle with glee over the idea of marching families back to OAXACA at gunpoint.”—(!!!!) Busboys and farmhands…obviously, (!!!!), you like cheap labor, too. I bet you or your kin have a nice humble older gardner, or house maid, on the payroll? Ever have to compete for a job, say in the construction industry with someone that works off the books for half the wage of the native, while getting free food, health care, etc., and yet pay no taxes? 58
Posted by EA Steve on Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:26 | # Your refusal to face facts is making it a reality. Let’s be serious: you don’t care about people like this hating you. As a matter of fact, they already do hate you and you probably know it, or at least sense it. No, what you care about is the dreaded germanics hating you. That’s all it’s about. And this is coming from someone who’d be packed into a cattle car without a second thought about who his grandparents were. Scrooby Fan Foreign-born Hispanics are 44%, Blacks are 35%, native-born Hispanics are 20% strongly anti-Semitic, while the overall toatal is about 17%. http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4109_12.asp The average is 17%, and the Blacks and Hispanics-making up close to 30% of the population-are above the national average. The Asians, Arabs, and mulattos make up close to 5% or so. Whites are probably 65% officially, but possibly lower. As posted on American Lighthouse (http://americanlighthouse.blogspot.com/2008/10/note-for-jews-part-3.html), “Whites are apparently less than 17%, as the overall is lower than the that of the other races.” He also believes some anti-Semitism may be hidden among the native-born Brown Hispanic gangs. It’s funny, the White results were ommitted! Maybe the ADL doesn’t want to admit that White Gentiles generally aren’t anti-Semitic? According to the chart, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely than Whites, to be anti-Semitic! Here’s another treat, linked on American Lighthouse’s blog: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0403648.htm 59
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:11 | #
Nuez! Welcome to MR. This isn’t iSteve, so no censorship. Just saying, if you run up against it here, you have only yourself to blame.
C’mon Nuez, you’re starting off with an insult? We here all know Jews aren’t too big on facts or truth-telling (or morality, for that matter), but c’mon, right off the bat?
Hi Nuez, still out there wasting bandwidth?
This is inevitable. Jews can’t live amongst just themselves. It’s kinda creepy, really. Don’t worry, as “anti-Semitism” rises, you’ll start to feel warmer about your tribesmen.
LOL!
You’re easily amused. I wish I’d gotten that gene…
Nuez, the only thing I hate at the moment is your propensity for wasting bandwidth. I mean really, can anyone in the UNIVERSE a) display a functioning brain, and b) comment with as high a ratio of filler to something-worth-saying the way you do? I’ve seen people ramble more, but they’re usually semi-coherent. You display mean+ IQ and literacy, but you never say shit! It’s consistently amazing to me. That’s why I, and probably most iSteve readers, see the huge single-paragraph posts and scroll down. Ah, I knew it. Eventually you’d say something. It only took three posts.
LoL, and you call Scroob a schmuck? So what’s the Yiddish word for the kind of asshole who argues as if everyone in the world (except him) is a schmuck? Y’know, we never should have gone to war with NS Germany. I mean, isn’t it obvious that the NSDAP and Werhmacht weren’t representative of the large masses of Germans? That it would be wrong to declare war on Germany, just because the NSDAP and Werhmacht were raging assholes? For that matter, many in the Werhmact didn’t like the NSDAP, so shouldn’t we have just dealt with the NSDAP? Hey, now that I think about it, there were many in the NSDAP, even the leadership, who disagreed with NSDAP policy. We had no right to declare war on Germany just because of the bad actions of a few members of the NSDAP. We should’ve dealt with these bad actors as individuals, instead of lumping all Germans together and declaring war on them. What a bigoted, racist, hate-filled, ignorant, unwashed, ill-bred, unkempt, dastardly thing for us to have done! Shithead. I see you defecated in the thread a fourth time.
Nothing like confirming stereotypes (more than most, Jews project their own negative proclivities onto others). You might not like Jews (how un-Jewish!), but you definitely are one. Lemme check to make sure…yep, buried the needle on my Shlomo Portable Jewdar.
They aren’t. They’re just players, in the racial sense. All of them. And they see that whites are complete suckers, so this is the tune they play. P.S. Nuez, you’re barking up the wrong tree vis-a-vis the Jewish-ancestry-means-cattle-cars thing. The point isn’t Jewish ancestry, it’s Jewish tribal identity. If Jews all woke up tomorrow with permanent amnesia, and any reference to Jews was erased from the history books, in my mind it would be “game over” vis-a-vis the JQ. They’d just be hook-nosed normal people, pretty much. They certainly wouldn’t be acting like a bunch of psychos anymore. Hence, no more problem. They’d be assimilated (genocide! cries the Jew - so much for cattle cars) and that would be that. The rub is, Jews have a long history of crypsis, so we can’t trust their sudden conversions. This isn’t a problem when people with Jewish ancestry make it very clear from the beginning where their loyalties lie. Part of that is not referring to oneself as Jewish. No, the problem is Jewish identity, which is, well, problematic. To say the least. 61
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:23 | # Where did you show up from Scrooby fan? What do you know about Silver and his postings, quite sure you’ve read them? He was always posting in bad faith. 62
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 03:56 | #
Interesting considering that Serbian volunteers served in the SS as Serbian Hauptscharführer, combating communist partisans. The reference must be to Stalin’s Jews, who were no doubt happy to load the cattle cars with Serb nationalists headed to the gulag, as they did with most ethno-nationalists that fell within their purview. 63
Posted by Tanstaafl on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:40 | #
Yes, in fact it was Freud who noticed that tendency. Being jewish he of course projected it onto everyone. 64
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:45 | # I still believe MR should be linking to Tanstaafl’s site. Come on someone, get it sorted! 65
Posted by ex-PF on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:51 | # kudos to you Tanstaafl, for maintaining great prose style and clarity of reasoning while debating with the likes of Auster and Co. Thats fighting the good fight. 66
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:47 | # numnuz first tries to get our attention by being a smart-ass. Then he tells us why we should take him seriously.
Sorry numnuz, this doesn’t make you unbiased. Your bias was exposed in your first posts, where you tried making it clear that you, as a righteous, genious Jew, know what is best for Whites. 67
Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:16 | # Happy to be of service ex-PF. Many of us land in Auster’s lap having broken most of our mental chains. He tries to make sure we don’t break that last chain. Pointing out his priority, and his slimy alien dishonesty about it, seems to me a sure way to free more of our minds for the difficult work ahead. 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:38 | #
( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3824 ) Knowing that the above sort of thing results from lots of Moslem immigration, why are Europe’s richest, most politically powerful Jews pushing for even more Moslem immigration into, and Islamization of, the European continent and why do these Jews seek to crush any questioning of the race-replacement/culture-replacement process through “hate-speech” laws, so as to guarantee the replacement process and Europe’s Islamization will go to completion? Why do they badly want the Islamization of Europe, in other words (not to speak of the race-replacement of the European races, which they also insist on bringing about through immigration)? Good questions. Because these powerful Jews aren’t explaining themselves, we are forced to try to understand entirely on our own what it is they’re doing and why. The other day I proposed an explanation in this other thread comment: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/cameron_and_the_anti_white_alliance/#c70399 69
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:48 | # Lawrence Auster blogged a few days ago on the present log entry’s subject (the Jewish pro-race-replacement Progress by Pesach initiative), which generated some interesting thread commentary over there: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012702.html . (Prozium, in turn, noted to Auster’s log entry: 70
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:03 | # The head of the biggest U.S. Jewish organization informs Congress outright that Holocaustianity mandates the success of “<strike>Genocide by Pesach</strike> Progress by Pesach”: http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/03/24/the-kvetcher-greater-love-hath-no-man-than-this/ If this clown is any indication of the quality and fitness-for-American-citizenship of the 200,000 Jews he talks about who managed to get here despite obstacles, the U.S. Navy should have used every warship at its disposal to blockade their entry and send them back to whatever unfortunate land they came from: this imbecile is himself proof-positive of exactly the opposite of the conclusion he’s pushing. “Want more nation-destruction at the hands of Jews? Let more like this guy into your country and you’ll get it, guaranteed.” 71
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:58 | # Thank you, Fred. This should be heart attack territory for US patriots. 72
Posted by q on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:58 | # The reality is in America: Obama wants to take away your wealth and give it to someone else darker than you. 73
Posted by q on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:30 | # After q reads his own comments, q admits he’s not “very smart.” 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:23 | # Russia’s Jewish Oligarchs only got away with a trillion dollars of Russian national wealth. America’s version (you didn’t think we had them?) have just pocketed two point five trillion dollars of the U.S.’s wealth with more “planned.” Lots more. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Gates.html http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/03/24/oligarchization/ As everybody knows, Jews love race-replacement — let’s see, could Jewish Oligarchs calling the shots be why we have race-replacement shoved down our throats along with all the rest? Gee, can I have some extra time to think that one over? It’s a tough one. “These are matters of war and peace, prosperity and poverty,” and race and race-replacement. 75
Posted by chutzpah so pestilent as to elicit disbelief on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:19 | #
76
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:59 | #
Personally I don’t think all jews are the same. I also think it’s more likely to be fear and paranoia that drives them rather than outright malice but whatever the underlying reasons the end result is the same. Their paranoia leads to a quest for security through wealth which eventually undermines the prosperity of the host nation and their paranoia leads to a quest for security through the promotion of anti-nationalism (for the host nation) that destroys the security of that host nation. I think a percentage of jews will always behave this way when they’re a minority inside another nation and therefore I’ve come to believe that as a group they are definitely a threat even if many individuals aren’t. If they were dumb it wouldn’t matter so much but unfortunately they’re not. So I tend to agree with the quoted statement. In my ideal end state they’d have their biblical borders in Israel and live there as Israelis and we might finally have some peace between our two groups. If they live in our lands they’ll always mess our nations up out of paranoia even if it’s not intentional. 77
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:10 | # This log entry, http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/frontierist_news_roundup_20070126/ , asks the question,
Might this new academic study by historian Sean McMeekin help?
(I would’ve posted this comment in the other log entry’s own thread but there was no “box” for posting new comments there — or, not on my machine at any rate.) Post a comment:
Next entry: No anti-Semites. Just anti-Europeans.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
)
Posted by Svigor on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:52 | #
What does that mean?