Posted by Euro on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:49 | #

Just listened to your interview with Giles, James.Very impressive.But I don’t think the states are reliable repositories of sovereignty and authority.If they were we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.In my view,basing opposition to the current regime (in part) on “states rights” is a bit like hiring a security guard who fell asleep at his last job.And instead of concluding that the guard is inadequate and should therefore be passed over for employment;insisting that,but for those cursed thieves,our bungling guardsman is a worthy sentinel.Couldn’t a single LVT be combined with some other political arrangement?

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:30 | #

Euro, Wilmot Robertson would probably agree with you since he predicated his ethnostate on nuclear proliferation.  I suspect something like that would need to happen and would argue that it is, indeed, happening as we speak. 

John Robb’s military analysis:  Technological advances are empowering smaller entities to impose more and more damage on the traditional paradigm of centralized power.  His ultimate stable state is “resilient communities”—with a transition period of “global guerrillas” exploiting the nation states to the point that they are hollowed out.  His most prominent example of this “hollowing out” is what Wall Street has done to America as a nation.

The devolution of Federal programs to the States combined with the LVT and global military withdrawal is the least turbulent route to the “resilient community” (what I have been increasingly referring to as a “human ecology” formed by a combination of “voting with your feet” and mutual consent).

Posted by Bob on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:15 | #

To Remove the JewThink from the Jew

Excellent interview with Jim Giles. Thank you (and he). I am re-listening now… that’s why the title above.

One thing absolutely necessary to advance any modern society is a competently trained and utilized toolmaker class, and its associated machine tool operators.

This is where the devastation of ‘America’ has been the most silent, and deep. This class of citizen no longer exists as a viable entity, and realistic progress is impossible without it.

Certainly, CAD/CAM methods have dominated industry throughout recent decades; but in-depth knowledge of ‘start from scratch’ manufacturing has been lost—essentially shipped overseas.

The 1930s German populace, for all their problems in prior decades, was arguably the largest concentration of moral and highly educated White Aryans ever to be. That is what the German economic miracle was primarily based upon. Nothing close to that exists in America today.

Is it possible to create a new polity in this competitive world without effective industry?

Bob

Posted by Former US Marine on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:03 | #

It is NOT a country’s Geography or Natural Resources that makes its economy good. Look at pre-WWII Germany or Japan.

It is a country’s people that make an economy good. 

America has no UNIFIED people like other nations and will be destroyed by the Jew sickness of Marxism/Diversity/Multi-Multiculturalism. The only unity American has today, is $Greed$.  Once the US$ goes down the shitter, so does unity.

America will soon have no middle class and will be a place newly rich Chinese and Indians come to buy property. Some coastal communities will see property values increase but very few other places.  Property values are based on INCOME.

Posted by Ulf Larsen on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:05 | #

Mr. Bowery,

Thank you for a very interesting and informative interview/talk. I like your comparison between the internet and the Gutenberg press (I think it was), and the Protestant reformation. A ever increasing problem in the European Union, though, are the tougher laws on “hate crimes” and control of the internet. I don’t know if these tendencies also exist to the same degree in the USA, but it would be interesting to hear/read your thoughts on this problem. Do you think that the powers of political correctnes will be able to rid the internet of information they don’t like?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:46 | #

Ulaf Larsen: Do you think that the powers of political correctnes will be able to rid the internet of information they don’t like?

No more, nor less, than the Catholic church was able to rid the press of information it didn’t like.  The big changes I see:

1) Making the scripture more accessible to the layman.
2) Defections from the church, such as Luther based on individual interpretation of scripture.
3) Overreactions from the church, such as Galileo’s trial.
4) Bacon’s Novum Organum goes to press.
5) The US Constitution’s Laboratory of the States.

We’re seeing a lot of stage 3 already.  It is time to finish the work begun with the US Constitution of bringing together Luther and Bacon in a laboratory of the States.

There will be blood.  How much blood is up to the Jew.

Posted by Euro on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:14 | #

James Bowery wrote:

The only ethnicity it might be reasonble to think I “hate” from
my statements are the parts of the “white race” that imposed
JudeoChristianity on northern europeans and even that is misleading since
I am perfectly willing to see them live in peace with whomever desires
to coexist with them.

Jews dominate the mass media, again, with their Italian junior
partners, and therefore the moral content of the culture to which
European Winterlanders have been enslaved for many hundreds of years:

Oh my.I didn’t realize dagos were that awful.Have you ever been to Dagoland (sometimes refered to as Italy),James? I think you would find it a tad bit more civilized than Iowa.Or Mississippi for that matter.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:42 | #

The Eternal City and indeed most of the Mediterranean is, no doubt, more civilized than suits many European nationalities.  “Pagan” is basically the Roman word for “hick”. 

Guilty as charged.

But you missed the point of the link, which is the similarity with the Jewish demands for freedom from their would-be Egyptian masters—even if it meant giving up the civilized environment of the Nile.

PS: As a man who is about as “American” as they get, the phrase “Our Posterity” in the Preamble to the US Constitution has a special meaning. There is an as-yet unfinished transaction regarding the ongoing pattern of obtaining cheap labor while the US frontier closed and the US elites started extracting the impoverishing land rents addressed by Henry George in his book, written and published during that time.

Posted by Euro on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:45 | #

The Eternal City and indeed most of the Mediterranean is, no doubt, more civilized than suits many European nationalities.

Not true.Many “European nationalities” have been invading and traveling to the place near continuously for millenia.If it doesn’t suit them why don’t they piss off then?

“Pagan” is basically the Roman word for “hick”.

Pagus simply means country town or district in Latin. It’s not necessarilly pejorative.(I think.) Paganism survived most abundantly in Italy after the Dark Thing from Palestine took over.The Catholic Church, for example,is far more pagan than Bible thumping.Zero for two,mate.

But you missed the point of the link, which is the similarity with the Jewish demands for freedom from their would-be Egyptian masters—even if it meant giving up the civilized environment of the Nile

I was merely focusing on what I took to be a couple of very questionable assertions on your part.Italics are not extended phenotypes of Kikes,nor are we their junior partners in anything.The contrary is true.Northern Europe was never as servile to Hebrews until after she through off Roman domination.(A very benificent and mild domination I might add.) Contrast the Jews of the Antique world or the Middle Ages with their progeny of the Dutch Republic or post Cromwellian England.Whose the junior partner now,blondie?

PS: As a man who is about as “American” as they get, the phrase “Our Posterity” in the Preamble to the US Constitution has a special meaning. There is an as-yet unfinished transaction regarding the ongoing pattern of obtaining cheap labor while the US frontier closed and the US elites started extracting the impoverishing land rents addressed by Henry George in his book, written and published during that time.

Your patriotism is noble and praiseworthy,James.But calumniating Italians hardly does you or your cause any justice.As for that constitution,remember these words:“All that is written is nothing.” They come from de Maistre’s Essay on the Generative Principles of Political Constitutions. De Maistre was from the Mediterranean,by the way.

Euro docet. A presto gran Signore.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:30 | #

Apparently there is some controversy over the original sense of “pagan”:

The English word pagan is from the Latin paganus or someone who lives in a rural district, or pagus. In Latin, the word meant a villager or rustic, and was also used as an antonym for miles, or soldier. So when applied to a person, paganus means civilian.

The word makes its English appearance in the 14th century. The original English sense is the same as we use it today, meaning someone not belonging to society’s dominant religion, specifically a non-Christian. From Thomas Malory’s Morte Arthure, probably written sometime before 1400:

I sall…euer pursue the payganys þat my pople distroyede.
(I shall…ever pursue the pagans that my people destroyed.)

How it made the transition from the Latin for rustic or civilian to the English meaning is uncertain. Generally, one three explanations is proferred.

The first is that the English sense is a development from the rustic sense. As Christianity spread in the cities of the Roman empire, in the countryside the worship of the Roman gods continued for much longer. So those from the countryside were less likely to be Christians.

The second is that it is a development of the civilian sense. Christians called themselves milites, or soldiers of Christ. Pagans were the opposite.

Finally, again from the rustic sense, it came from the idea that those in the countryside were not part of urban society. They were a people apart. The metaphor was applied to religion as well, a people apart from the community of Christians were pagans.

(Source: Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition)

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:38 | #

Euro writes: Northern Europe was never as servile to Hebrews until after she through off Roman domination.

We don’t really disagree on that point.  As I said in the interview, the deal that was struck with Goths during the fall of Rome and the rise of Christianity was to immunize northern Europeans against Jewish virulence.  The price for that protection became heavier with time.  A counterfactual is not observable but we at least ended up with the scientific method and technological civilization—as flawed and riddled with virulence as it is.

Posted by NW European on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:21 | #

Have you ever been to Dagoland (sometimes refered to as Italy),James? I think you would find it a tad bit more civilized than Iowa.Or Mississippi for that matter.

Whose the junior partner now,blondie?

It is a shame the United States enacted the Johnson-Reed Act in 1924 rather than 1884.

Posted by Ulf Larsen on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:16 | #

Thank you for your answer, Mr. Bowery. I hope you are right!
One more question:
You mention something about a Jewish conference in Jerusalem, where they discussed if they ought to move their investments East, to Asia (I don’t really remember the details). Could you please tell me where I can find more info on this? What kind of conference was it?

Posted by Skynyrd on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:11 | #

You mention something about a Jewish conference in Jerusalem, where they discussed if they ought to move their investments East, to Asia (I don?t really remember the details). Could you please tell me where I can find more info on this? What kind of conference was it?

The article is here.

“The Institute for Policy Planning of the Jewish People” had organized this gathering for “a long discussion on the situation of the Jewish people.”

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:52 | #

Skynyrd is correct.

Correction to my prior statement:  It was a conference in Maryland reported by a newspaper in Jerusalem.

Questions of survival

By Shmuel Rosner

WASHINGTON - The following disparity tells us more about human nature than about the future of the Jewish world: The executive branch - the heads of the large Jewish organizations, on the whole - are optimistic and believe Judaism has a glowing future, while the intellectuals and thinkers are much more pessimistic and insist on mentioning the pitfalls and obstacles the coming years hold in store. Those who are entrusted with carrying out affairs must be convinced there is a point to what they do - and what is the point if there is no future?

Two groups of Jews gathered together last weekend at Wye Plantation, Maryland for a long discussion on the situation of the Jewish people. The first group, which met Wednesday and Thursday, consisted of the heads of 15 Jewish organizations such as the Presidents’ Conference, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the American Jewish Committee and others. In the second group were the “thinkers,” as the organizers termed them: Natan Sharansky from Israel, Charles Krauthammer from The Washington Post, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler, former Jewish Agency head Sallai Meridor and many others.

The Institute for Policy Planning of the Jewish People had organized this gathering. It had a somewhat ambitious aim - a strategic debate about the future of the Jewish people. In actuality, it focused on three issues: the challenge posed by Islam, the situation in Israel, and the weighty question of whether the Jewish people are on the rise or on the wane.
...
The fear expressed that “a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people,” also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected “in the coming two decades” - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews “should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India,” powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future. How should this be done? That will have to be the topic of discussion in the next gatherings already being planned….

Posted by Ulf Larsen on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:53 | #

Thanks for the link. Interesting to see the Jews use Spengler (or “Spangler”, as in the article) for their own causes. Elsewhere they don’t seem to be very fond of him.

Posted by Euro on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:07 | #

NW European wrote:

It is a shame the United States enacted the Johnson-Reed Act in 1924 rather than 1884.

Verily it is,sir.And in ways you cannot even begin to fathom.However the JR Act’s timing is relatively insignificant;for you see,the United States has commited far more shameful acts in it’s brief and checkered history. On a brighter note,I’m quite sure Johnson and Reed’s hearts were in the right place.

When you get a moment,oh god-like Nordic One,kindly ponder these words of La Rochefoucauld:

A man is perhaps ungrateful, but often less chargeable with ingratitude than his benefactor is.

P.S. I should have written who’s a junior partner now not whose.Silly me.

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:31 | #

Mr. Giles,

Let me state it plainly - I like your interviews. Even your motto “In search of honor and courage” is right on target. Not “In search of ideas”, not “In search of smart people”, we have plenty of that, but “In search of honor and courage” - I like that.

I have heard couple of times you mentioning the name of Israel Shamir as an example of a good Jew. Now, I have no reason to believe that Shamir is a bad Jew. I was just wondering if you have come across the following piece by Shamir, if so, what do you make of it?

The Poverty of Racialist Thought

Then, I would like you to ponder a little bit about the fact that it took about 6 years for Shamir to break silence about 9/11. Don’t you find it a little odd for a person as perceptive as Shamir to keep silence about perhaps the most important event in the 21 century for that long.

I know how painful it can be when our believes are shattered, but I am afraid Shamir is but another brick in the wall. In general, thinking about Jews in terms of good Jew/ bad Jew is not helpful at all. The simple fact is that the interests and the values of the Jews are the direct opposites of those of the gentiles. It’s a biological thing - nothing more nothing less. They are not bad, they are not good - they just trying to survive and propagate themselves like all biological species do. You cannot blame them for that, you cannot shame them for that. You just have to protect yourself from them. It’s not too complicated, really.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:42 | #

If we had been allowed to pursue our normal course of naturalism following on Darwin, sociobiology would have developed to the point that distinguishing “good Jews” from “bad Jews” would be part of everyday life, along with a vast array of other advances in the social sciences.  Indeed, the Ford Foundation may well have been at the forefront of funding that research rather than being at the forefront of our destruction.  But, starting at least as early as Boas, the intellectual assault on our naturalist predisposition has been relentless.  So, yes, we are left with “brute prejudice” as our only means of “discriminating”. 

My own “brute prejudice” born of the lobotomy inflicted on Western science in the area of sociobiology during the 20th century is simply this:

A “good Jew” is one that does not act so as to prevent me from excluding them from my society.  All other Jews are “bad Jews”.

This has the virtue that it gets to the root cause of Jewish virulence by getting to the root cause of all virulence, regardless of race:  Horizontal transmission.

Now, I know there is some disagreement with my theory of the evolution of Jewish virulence—which necessarily follows on our being deprived of our naturalism—but let me say in my defense that we are all forced to come up with models of the world upon which we act as working hypotheses.  We are all necessarily “men of faith”.  In the absence of a true Laboratory of the States to tease apart cause from effect, all of these models are inadequate in that they conflate cause with effect and “cherry pick” by allowing large errors against anecdotes.  The only measure of “honor and courage” in such a situation is the same measure applied to the Jew:  Are we going to allow each other to test our “working hypotheses”—our different religions—via human ecology experiments, conducted in separated territories formed by mutual consent with others?  If so, we are “good”.

Posted by Jim Giles on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:42 | #

Can a “good” Jew reproduce a “bad” Jew, genetically speaking?  I.E., are good jew genes a certainty to reproduce good jew offspring?

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:53 | #

In animal husbandry it is well understood that “breeding true” is achievable only under the strictest reproductive controls.  This is simply a fact of life of sexual reproduction.

You can get traits hiding for a generation or two (or more!) and then popping out in one generation only to go into “hiding” again in the next.  This isn’t nefarious—merely statistical.  If we had been able to conduct our own sociobiological research, we probably would have come to the fine discriminations necessary to admit Jews safely.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:57 | #

Jim,

I have had to remove your comment at 02.16pm.  I think a few moments reflection will explain to you why that is.

Posted by Jim Giles on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:08 | #

GW,  You may be right; I’m not sure.  I admire your work however.

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:27 | #

Thus far in my journey I like James Bowery’s idea the best, i.e., demand that they set us free and let us go our own way or (and these are my words ...

They will not set us free and let us go our own way on their own volition. They cannot do that, it’s like asking a parasite to stop sucking blood, or the lion stop being carnivorous and become herbivorous. Not because they don’t want to do that, but because they can’t.

The second option. Even discussion of this option simply blows away people’s minds, even though in an open battle the opposite is true - it is so natural (i.e. killing your enemy) that you don’t even have to explain the necessity of it. The problem is that only few people can see clearly that the enemy is waging a war of annihilation. Even for those few who understand it, the question “should we kill all Jews” is preposterous, because it seems impossible to discuss it overtly and stay alive at the same time. That’s where the “honor and courage” comes in. That’s why it is so important to demonstrate that it is possible - you CAN discuss that question overtly and stay alive. After all William Pierce has been doing just that until he died, not killed by the Jew but died. That’s why what you and Alex is doing so important.

There is something disgusting in the act of killing of a defenseless human being, no matter how guilty that person is. For example, when I hear Norman Podhoretz pushing for a war with Iran, or when I see William Kristol on TV calling Ron Paul a crackpot (btw, I completely agree with Bowery’s analysis of Paul and his movement)  - it is very hard for me stay calm. I would give $10K for the opportunity to fistfight any one of thousands of people like these two where it is allowed to continue the fight until I kill him or he kills me. But I am not sure if I could kill any of them if they were brought in front of me with their hands tied and somebody gave me a pistol and said kill them. I am not sure Alex or you could or would do that. But when I think about little girls being raped in the way it happened to that couple Alex was talking about, when I think that something like that could happen to my little girl and my little boy I go nuts, now I could do anything, I mean anything.

Jim, you are doing a very important thing, I am not sure even you realize how important it is. There is something in your voice that tells me this is a guy I could trust. God bless you, and God help you.

Posted by Mark on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:23 | #

Shamir is a “good Jew” in that he criticizes Zionism, like Finkelstein, however Shamir is also an anti-racist.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:29 | #

Jim, your show has the chance to develop into a real vehicle for the interests of our people.  Do not dash all that by giving in to the impulse to let our enemies strip all decency from us and thereby legitimate in the minds of those we seek to convince that our enemies were right about us all along.  It can never be honorable to kill the helpless and the innocent (in the sense that they have not committed direct injuries to our people) when they are under one’s power.

Posted by Ivan on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:36 | #

Shamir is a ‘good Jew’ in that he criticizes Zionism, like Finkelstein, however Shamir is also an anti-racist.

I like Finkelstein and I have great respect for him but for the reasons that may surprise many - he does everything he can to protect his tribe and he does it in an honorable way.

The most sober analysis of what Finkelstein is all about, in my view, is given by Dr. Pierce:

The Significance of the Holocaust

Posted by Q on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:38 | #

Reasonable people can agree, not ALL Jews are bad… it’s only 99.99236% of them that give the rest a bad name.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:20 | #

Ivan,

I appreciate that you are talking about saying the unsayable rather than saying it.  Even so, I had to mod your comment at 6.27PM.  It’s just a legal fact of life where I come from.

Posted by Jim Giles on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:42 | #

Thank y’all; I’m a bad writer; I cringe often after reflecting on what I write; I hardly ever regret what I say on RFM; I moderate bigtime on RFM; it’s a process no doubt; I’m going to do my best to limit what I write anywhere because I’m so very bad at it; I enjoy what y’all write.

Posted by Ivan on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:18 | #

GW,

This is YOUR blog, and I respect whatever decision you make on your own site.

Posted by Babylonian Hebrew on Mon, 24 Dec 2018 22:47 | #

Babylonian Hebrew (interviewed by Millennial Woes) is a Jew who advocates Zionism basically for the aim of curing the horizontal transmission that Bowery diagnoses.