Spengler’s Denouement: World-Historical Judaeo-Supremacy

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, 19 April 2009 22:10.

By Happy Cracker

Once in a while a document is published, which puts the human soul so nakedly on display, that one cannot help but stare at it, one’s mouth obscenely gaping, at a lack for words; one is held transfixed for a moment by a mixture of emotions: fascination, repulsion, disbelief tinged with the feeling of having one’s deepest suspicions finally confirmed. That cold rush of adrenaline - a feeling different from the hot rush that comes from racing cars or chatting up girls or getting in fights or soccer - the cold rush grips one, the eery visitor, slithers down one’s back and coils in a knot at the base of the spine.

That’s the feeling I had when famous internet commentator “Spengler” outed himself, and finally, at long last, cast aside the trappings of internet pseudonymity, the oblique angles of attack permitted a detached voice in cyberspace, and finally told the true story of who he is and where he is coming from. He sets the stage thus:

During the too-brief run of the Asia Times print edition in the 1990s, the newspaper asked me to write a humor column, and I chose the name “Spengler” as a joke - a columnist for an Asian daily using the name of the author of The Decline of the West.

Half-way into the story of his pseudonymous origins, he cuts to the chase and presents us with his vision of our death scene:

The old and angry cultures of the world, fighting for room to breath against the onset of globalization, would not go quietly into the homogenizer. Many of them would fight to survive, but fight in vain, for the tide of modernity could not be rolled back.

(That’s us, in case you missed it.)

In the next breath, Goldman aka Spengler points the way to our resurrection - as Jews! :

As in the great extinction of the tribes in late antiquity, individuals might save themselves from the incurable necrosis of their own ethnicity through adoption into the eternal people, that is, Israel.

What is this based in? A German-Jewish theologian’s worldview:

The great German-Jewish theologian and student of the existential angst of dying nations, Franz Rosenzweig, had commanded undivided attention during the 1990s, and I had a pair of essays about him for the Jewish-Christian Relations website. Rosenzweig’s theology, it occurred to me, had broader applications.

“Commanded undivided attention during the 1990s” might be going a little far, but this man’s ideas are a new pathway to our salvation….like Jesus, Marx, Freud, Adorno, and the Neocons before them….

The end of the old ethnicities, I believed, would dominate the cultural and strategic agenda of the next several decades. Great countries were failing of their will to live, and it was easy to imagine a world in which Japanese, German, Italian and Russian would turn into dying languages only a century hence. Modernity taxed the Muslim world even more severely, although the results sometimes were less obvious.

And yet the Jewish nation, which is smaller than all the other nations mentioned, will somehow remain untouched by the same demographic problems affecting the whole civilized world?

Why raise these issues under a pseudonym? There is a simple answer, and a less simple one. To inform a culture that it is going to die does not necessarily win friends, and what I needed to say would be hurtful to many readers. I needed to tell the Europeans that their post-national, secular dystopia was a death-trap whence no-one would get out alive.

I needed to tell the Muslims that nothing would alleviate the unbearable sense of humiliation and loss that globalization inflicted on a civilization that once had pretensions to world dominance. I needed to tell Asians that materialism leads only to despair. And I needed to tell the Americans that their smugness would be their undoing.

One very wise self-help guru developed a method to help people deal with their problems. He taught it to some disciples, or other teachers, who then taught it to newcomers. The disciples were frustrated that the newcomers were not sufficiently studious, and were content to learn only half the method. After seeing this, the guru answered the frustrated disciples thus: “Maybe that guy wants to be able to make his own mistakes?” To underline the obviousness of it, which was hitting him mentally at that moment and making him self-surprised at his own epiphany, he asked rhetorically in a very young American english idiom: “Who knew?”

Likewise, each culture on earth has vulnerabilities - none will have an unaltered path into futurity, that is for sure. To think that one uniquely appreciates these difficulties, and is in a position to advise all the cultures of the world, is some kind of chutzpah. To think one has the unique solution, and further that that unique solution involves dissolving all people’s into one’s own ethnicity and religion - well, that can only be described as überchutzpah, a word mirroring this philosophy’s founder’s ethnicity and thus suitably hideous.

We, as non-Jews, are ascribed a role in this world-view which is certainly novel: we are the Undead! Get a load of this:

In this world of accelerated mortality, in which the prospect of national extinction hung visibly over most of the peoples of the world, Jew-hatred was stripped of its mask, and revealed as the jealousy of the merely undead toward living Israel.

Cor-lummy! we’ve been called racists, nazis, scum, pigs, mentally ill - now, at long last, we get to be ZOMBIES!!! The Jewish dehumanization of the Goyim has finally made us into something cool!!

In fact, if non-Israelites are zombies, what does that make MR readers? We must be like Predator, Alien, Godzilla, Terminator and Robocop all wrapped into one! Hell yes!

Goldman begins to tell his tale; its one we know only too well - he was in the west, but not of the west, so he was bound to be schizophrenic and peg his loyalty to us on our ability to get his [spiritual] dick hard:

I have been an equal-opportunity offender, with no natural constituency[MR editor: except of course… umm…] . My academic training, strewn over two doctoral programs, was in music theory and German, as well as economics. I have have published a number of peer-reviewed papers on philosophy, music and mathematics in the Renaissance. But I came to believe that there are things even more important than the high art of the West and its most characteristic endeavor, classical music, the passion and consolation of my youth. Western classical music expresses goal-oriented motion, a teleology, as it were - but where did humankind learn of teleology? I no longer quite belonged with my friends and colleagues, the artists.

Oh, the self-indulgent artist’s tale: its lonely on the far end of the Bell Curve, you know!

Here’s an interesting political Werdegang:

G K Chesterton said that if you don’t believe in God, you’ll believe in anything, and I was living proof of that as a young man, wandering in the fever-swamps of left-wing politics. I found my way thanks to the first Ronald Reagan administration. The righting of America after it nearly capsized during the dark years of Jimmy Carter was a defining experience for me. I owe much to several mentors, starting with Dr Norman A. Bailey, special assistant to President Reagan and director of plans at the National Security Council from 1981-1984. My political education began in his lair at the old Executive Office Building in 1981, when he explained to me that the US would destroy the Soviet Empire by the end of the 1980s. I thought him a dangerous lunatic, and immediately signed on.

Here he converts to Judaism and proclaims the death of the German and Spanish and Russian languages. He is pretending to be whistfully regretful, but I personally sense an undercurrent of anxious anticipation:

Exile among the fleshpots of Wall Street had its benefits, but I had other ambitions. My commitment to Judaism came relatively late in life, in my mid-thirties, but was all the more passionate for its tardiness. The things I had been raised to love were disappearing from the world, or changing beyond recognition. The language of Goethe and Heine would die out, along with the languages of Dante and Pushkin.

Are you beginning to realize that I am not even exaggerating - literally, there is not an ounce of exaggeration in calling this respected internet columnist a World Historical Judaeo-Supremacist. It’s not polemic, its fact.

Not only that, but he considers himself the last universal genius (i.e. polymath):

Europe’s high culture and its capacity to train universal minds had deteriorated beyond repair; one of the last truly universal European minds belongs to the octogenarian Pope Benedict XVI. In 1996, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had said in an interview published as Die Salz der Erde, “Perhaps we have to abandon the idea of the popular Church. Possibly, we stand before a new epoch of Church history with quite different conditions, in which Christianity will stand under the sign of the mustard seed, in small and apparently insignificant groups, which nonetheless oppose evil intensively and bring the Good into the world.” The best mind in the Catholic Church squarely considered the possibility that Christianity itself might shrink into seeming insignificance.

On what basis does he say Europe’s capacity to train universal minds had deteriorated beyond repair? Is that just something that can say without evidence, being a universal mind?

Polymaths of European descent unite and say: who the fuck does this guy think he is?

Now I want everyone to think about MajorityRights when they read this quote, and think of exactly what Goldman is saying here, because this is very important:

Renewal could not come from music, nor literature, nor the social sciences. The wells of culture had run dry, because they derived from faith to begin with. I was raised in the Enlightenment pseudo-religion of art and beauty. Initially I looked at faith instrumentally, as a means of regenerating the high culture of the West. Art doesn’t exist for art’s sake.

The high culture of the West had its own Achilles’ heel. Even its greatest cultivators often suffered from the sin of pride, and worshiped their own powers rather than the source of their powers. Painfully and slowly, I began to learn the classic Jewish sources. My guide back to Judaism was the great German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig, and my first essay on these subjects was published by the Jewish-Christian Relations website in 1999 under the title, “Has Franz Rosenzweig’s Time Come?”

Bam! That’s us, kitten - they’re playing our song!

This niggah already understood the fundamental boondoggle early on.

I was in, but not of, the world of rabbinical Judaism, of classical music, of cultural history, of conservative economics, of practical finance, of cultural history - I belonged everywhere and nowhere. I could address each of these spheres only ironically and aphoristically, in a voice that only could be anonymous - for anonymity allowed me to be in but not of all of them. As First Things editor Joseph Bottum observed to me, “Spengler’s” voice freed my style. Why not openly identify myself? Because my readers then would have jammed my thinking into the Procrustean bed of their prejudice.

Yes, the Procrustean bed of our prejudice. Thats right where he gets to jam us, and every other nation on earth, as someone “in” but not “of” the milieus he moves in.

Extra, extra, read all about it: Emotionally shattered & alienated ashkenazi intelligence produces another marvelously contorted millenarian worldview!

And unsurprisingly, its all going to be alright, as long as we all agree to do whatever the fuck he says.

THE END?

Tags: That Question Again

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:58 | #

Fortunately, these “great Jewish minds” are no more conscious of themselves than is anyone else who is wandering through the fog. Their prodigious efforts to explicate the vileness of their hearts in golden prose, whilst impressive intellectually and sometimes even quite readable, still leaves us looking at vileness.

As James Coburn’s character said to a fellow fight promoter at the end of the humble 1975 Charles Bronson vehicle, Hard Times, “Chick, no matter what you do you’re always going to come up smelling of fish.”

Here is the super-vile, super-fishy David P Goldberg explaining how we must die to ourselves as Amalekites - meaning, essentially racially distinct Europeans who refuse to submit to Jewish supremacy - and thus be reborn as deracinated universalists for the benefit of The Perfect People.

Either Way, Amalek Must Die: A Passover Meditation

During the Passover Seder, Jews recite the following verse from Jeremiah 10:25: “Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not know you and on the families that do not call your name; For they have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him and consumed him and have laid waste his habitation.” Jeremiah is hardly the only prophet to call divine wrath down upon the pagans. Obadiah writes, “For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been.” (Obadiah 1:16) For the Greeks, non-being is a paradox; for the Jews it is a curse, for nothing is more terrible than to be forever cut off from the Source of Being.

Apropos of Obadiah, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik mentions a Hebrew explicative used by Orthodox Jews, yemach shemo, “may his name be erased,” as in “My grandparents left Germany before Hitler, yemach, shemo, came to power.” Heinrich Heine’s grandmother said it in colloquial German: Nicht gedacht soll seiner werden (roughly, “there shall be no thought of him”). Heine called this phrase “the flower of malediction,” for to a people so dedicated to the remembrance and continuity of life, nothing seems worse than the erasure of memory.

All these derive from Exodus 17:4, in which God says, “I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven,” and commands Moses, “Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua,” that is, make a special effort to remember to the erase the memory of Amelek.” That is yet another example of how characteristic Jewish humor derives from the Hebrew Scriptures. Later (I Samuel 15:3) God instructs King Saul through the prophet Samuel to exterminate the entire tribe. When Saul allows his army to loot the Amalekite cattle rather than to kill the tribe, he is excoriated by Samuel. Once a year, Jewish congregations read these passages from Exodus and I Samuel in tandem, and call aloud the divine injunction, “Do not forget!” Jews, to be sure, do not wish to kill their enemies as a general rule. Jonah evades his mission to preach repentance to Nineveh—the Assyrian city that despoiled the northern kingdom and dispersed its ten tribes—because he wants to see it destroyed. When Nineveh repents and is saved, Jonah sulks. God chides him for his indifference to the city’s innocent children as well as domestic animals.

All this sounds harsh by modern standards. Many modern Jews regard this material with distaste. Many Christians suppose that a New Covenant of love has superseded the allegedly vengeful world of the Old Testament. Did not Jesus say, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”? (Matthew 5:45-46) That there is a difference between Christianity and Judaism is obvious. But the underlying identity is even stronger.

Either way, Amalek must die. The Jews are instructed to kill off the tribe of Amalek, while every Christian must kill the Amalekite within him. Christianity wants each individual member of the tribe of Amalek to die to this world and be reborn into the nation of Israel, Amalek’s most hated enemy. Christian converts from the pagan nations still carry their Gentile nature within them. To say that a Christian must be converted every day is to say that the Christian must kill this inner Amalekite every day. It is the Jew who converts the inner pagan inside each Christian, wrote Franz Rosenzweig, by which he meant that absent the living people of Israel, the Israel of the Spirit into which Christians hope to be adopted too easily becomes an abstraction.

“Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life,” says Jesus (John 12:25). Self-sacrifice is the price of eternal life. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac, and therefore himself, was the foundation of God’s Covenant with Abraham and his descendants. God’s love removes us from the altar; a ram substitutes for Isaac so that Abraham may live, and in Christian doctrine, Jesus of Nazareth sacrifices himself for all of mankind. To be a Jew is to continue the life of Abraham; to be a Christian is to die to this world and be reborn in the spirit into the life of Abraham. As Henri de Lubac puts it:

To St. Paul the Church is the People of the New Covenant. Israel according to the Spirit takes the place of Israel according to the flesh; but it is not a collection of many individuals, it is still a nation albeit recruited now from the ends of the earth, “the tribe of Christians,” says Eusebius, for instance, “the race of those who honor God.”

In practice, to be sure, Christianity has been far more tolerant of pagan remnants lurking in the hearts of Christians than its doctrine demands—just as the Biblical Hebrews were more tolerant of the historical Amalek than God demanded. In both cases, excessive tolerance had catastrophic results. Neo-paganism laid its cuckoo’s eggs in Christianity and hatched them in the form of the national movements that would fight for dominance in Europe and leave the formerly Christian continent a secularized hulk. It is petulant for Jews to blame Pius XII for failing to save more of them when he could not even save (for example) Polish priests from the Nazis. But it is entirely fair for Jews to remonstrate with Christians for having failed to suppress pagan elements that fostered anti-Semitism.

That is why the harsh demands of the Hebrew Scriptures to rid the world of heathen enemies continue to be holy words for Christians. The battles of ancient Israel—the Exodus from Egypt, the wandering in the desert, the crossing of the Jordan and the conquest of Canaan—remain stations on the spiritual journey of every Christian. Christianity invites Gentiles to worship the God of Israel—not the Gentile peoples, but those among the Gentiles who are reborn of the Spirit into the “tribe of Christians,” the “People of the New Covenant.” The historical life of Israel is the inner life of the Christian. That great difference and great identity separates and unites the two revealed religions. But in either case, Amalek must die.

“Fuck him” is, I think, the appropriately anti-intellectual response. He can’t have his racist-historicist supremacism.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:14 | #

Bravo to the pseudonymous European author of this post!

MR at its finest!

Now, how exactly does one become a polymath? I too wanna shout “Fuck you!” to this guy from my unassailable position of erudition.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:39 | #

Goldman/Spengler recommends that Europe supplement its collapsing demographics with mestizoes instead of Muslims. Goldman believes it is better we accept an anesthetized departure from existence than struggle to live. Why? For him it was what we did to make his heart sing that was important, that was our importance to him. And once the music stopped his heart grew cold. For it was not love that moved him to defend us, he never knew us, therefore he could not have loved us.

Our song was not an expression of our being by his lights, it was an expression of his; the Jewish muse of Teleology. And, he believes, now seeing our beauty fade, having looked into the eyes of those we were performing for - by whose wisdom we only ever knew we were capable of being beautiful, and even what beauty was for that matter - grow cold and disinterested, we may strike the Jewish Avatar in a fit of petulant rage - and wipe to source of all beauty from the face of the earth. It is much better that we go quietly.

Aye, we know our enemies all too well, but they do not know us. They know not yet what ferocity we will fight to live whence we really know we are dying, and who is killing us.

The time has come to expel the Jew!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:32 | #

Reading Spengler’s interpretation of Christianity and its relationship to today’s Judaism almost makes me want to renounce Christianity, which is what I’d do did I not know there was another interpretation (another one going by the name the truth). It was a remarkably frank, in-your-face expression of Jewish Eurochristian hatred and yearning to see the Euro race genocided. Too bad this worm is going to be disappointed in that deepest tribal longing he so brazenly puts on display there.

Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:58 | #

I found Spengler utterly disgusting as well. He has a sick mind. And his post “Amelek must die” as very sickening.

Jews after Jesus are all nihilists. They can not speak the truth and they are spiritually and mentally blinded as a consequence of their sin.

Christianity wants each individual member of the tribe of Amalek to die to this world and be reborn into the nation of Israel, Amalek’s most hated enemy.

This is false, utter garbage. Christianity is about faith in God, Excellence, godliness, piety and the changing of one’s heart to goodness.

Christian converts from the pagan nations still carry their Gentile nature within them.

Here, the term “pagan” is a code word for “European”. Of course, Catholic Christianity shows forth the Gentile nature. Georges Dumezil enumerated the Indo-European trait of trifunctionality. This trait of trifunctionality is throughout orthodox, apostolic Christianity; i.e. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Protestants also attack Catholicism for its “pagan” ways. The Roman Catholic celebrations of Easter and Christmas, all show the old European Religious characteristics and practices; as it should. Christianity is an European religion.

To say that a Christian must be converted every day is to say that the Christian must kill this inner Amalekite every day.

This is total bogus BS. This is not Christianity whatsoever.

It is the Jew who converts the inner pagan inside each Christian, wrote Franz Rosenzweig, by which he meant that absent the living people of Israel, the Israel of the Spirit into which Christians hope to be adopted too easily becomes an abstraction.

Furthermore, Jesus himself told the Jews, that the faith will be taken away from them, and given to another people.

Matthew, Ch. 21
“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.”

Jesus Christ says right there, that the faith will be taken away from the Jews. The people bearing the fruits of it were the Indo-Europeans, especially the Greeks.

Don’t listen to the Jews they are a confused mindless bunch of wandering idiots.

Posted by Wunderhund on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:43 | #

it sounds like Rosenzweig / Spengler / Goldman, whatever, is scared shitless of the real pagan soul that dwells deep within all the children of Europa and which is now stirring. All we have to do is turn off their crappy noise and listen to our own inner nature. Jesus came to save the jews from their demonic egotism. He didn’t succeed. The European people were drawn into this drama because of the Roman connection with Jesus. Jesus started the job and we have to finish it. The jews are like a people possessed, mad, but powerful with a subtle and virulent magic. They want to convert us into universalist pseudo-jews; second-class citizens in the New World Order. There is but one response: Fuck you! That, and to offer a helping hand to those jews who want out of their mad house.

Posted by itnw on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:24 | #

A recent VDare blog post about “Spengler.” http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/04/18/spengler-outs-himself/

Posted by White Western Man on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:32 | #

The ‘chutzpah’ of so many Jews is truly incredible…for some flash-in-the-pan journalist like this Jew Goldman to take as a pseudonym the name of one of the most profound White/European historians of the 20th century (and quite even possibly the entire millennium of 1000-2000 CE) is tantamount to a blood libel of sorts against Whites/Europeans.

Who the hell does this Jew Goldman think he is? This muckraking hack, this petty current eventist, this wannabe Asiatic sensationalist, this money-grubbing banker, this JEW, trying to put himself on or even near the same level as Spengler…it makes my blood boil.

Just another great example of how Jews are culture imitators, and NEVER culture creators; they are also culture destroyers/subverters, and NEVER culture sustainers.

Posted by White Western Man on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:35 | #

Re: Wunderhund - “it sounds like Rosenzweig / Spengler / Goldman, whatever, is scared shitless of the real pagan soul that dwells deep within all the children of Europa and which is now stirring. All we have to do is turn off their crappy noise and listen to our own inner nature.”

You are exactly correct. There is without a doubt something deep stirring in the White spiritual collective at present, and It is beginning to come to a head now, though it’ll likely still a bit longer before the true eruption occurs. I cannot pin It down, and I have no name for It or any way to describe It, but It is definitely there when you really pay attention - as you recommend, tuning out the deafening Jew-noise by listening to our inner White self and/or getting out in to real nature (the sun, the sky, the forests, the fields, the mountains, the lakes and rivers and streams, all the associated flora and fauna, and so on) is the ticket to healing and becoming conscious of what is happening…the more you consciously avoid, yet can’t help but always notice and critique and feel very hurt by the Jew-wrecked cities and shopping malls and clogged highways and Jew money-games and immigrations invasions and the reigning apathy and the warped sense of morality which reigns the stronger your ability to notice It will grow.

Perhaps we are in store for a reawakening of the old Pagan soul coupled with a wholesale rejection of the imperialistically-imposed Judaeo-Christian order? Or perhaps the birth of an entirely new White spiritual order? It’s too early to tell, but It is coming, and sooner rather than later - the seeds for this were sown long ago, and they are about to sprout. I’m not trying to scare anyone by talking in eschatological terms here, as I sense this is more like a rebirth, reincarnation, renewal, or revival of some sort.

And yes, absolutely, the international parasite decay-mongering culture-destroying demon wanderers (AKA the Jews) are indeed scared shitless because they too realize at some level that something profound is happening to Whites, something they will not be able to halt, something that will reveal the Jews as the monsters they so obviously are, something they will be quite defenseless against (though of course they will attempt to put up a fight, and they’ve got lots of nukes now at their disposal). Many of the most aware, intelligent, and honest Jews are also scared shitless because they now realize how they have managed to imperialistically impose Judaeo-Christianity and all of the baggage of that gutter system upon Whites, which has directly resulted in the calamity Whites finds themselves in today.

“Jesus came to save the jews from their demonic egotism. He didn’t succeed”

Yup: ”[The Christian gospel is] first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” Christianity was, at least originally before Paul took hold of it and twisted it quite a bit, a religious/social/philosophical system concocted by a Jew named Jesus who was acutely and painfully aware of the deep depravity of Jews (both within himself and in all other Jews) and sought to correct their general characters, their culture, and their souls. Christianity was meant first and foremost for Jews, as a way for them to ‘fix’ themselves (both individual Jews and the collective Jew) - Christianity was an early form of ‘self help’ or ‘group therapy’ for Jews if you will. But we of course know that went horribly wrong and we are now left dealing with the consequences of Jesus’ undue idealism in believing that Jews, the Jewish mentality, and the Jewish soul could actually be repaired! BIG MISTAKE!

So listen up Jews - IT IS COMING AND YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE WILL BE ABLE TO STOP IT.

+ If you are interested, read some of my related arguments on these topics in a recent comment here on MR.

Posted by SurfsUp on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:48 | #

Rosenzweig’s (and Spengler’s) view of Israel as the eternal, enduring nation makes sense only if you accept that the Jews actually are the Chosen People and have a covenant with God. I don’t. Unless you are a religious Jew, Rosenzweig’s theology is just more of the same nationalist pagan pride that Goldman assures us is dying and powerless.

What chutzpah.

Also note that Goldman’s bildungsroman is typical of those iconoclastic Jewish intellectuals (is there any other kind of Jewish intellectual?): leftist politics followed by a conversion and subsequent obsession with Judaism (although not always as obvious as this in case) and what is good for the Jews (again, not usually this explicit). Now the mature Jewish genius will tell the goyim how to order their lives. I wish these people would go find another civilization to play with. I’m tired of this.

Posted by Mentious on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:53 | #

It will be hard for Israel to claim itself an “eternal nation” since it’s only been around just a little while.

Great post and great writing, by the way, in the way you introduced your review. Yes, it horrid.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:42 | #

this petty current eventist

That is a good one

+ If you are interested, read some of my related arguments on these topics in a recent comment here on MR.

It might be a bit of stretch to call your posts about Christianity “arguments.” I think “screed” or “rant” probably more apropos.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:50 | #

It’s obvious that both of Spengler’s columns — the one linked in the log entry and the one linked in GW’s comment (first in the comments thread) — amount in their essentials to nothing other than powerful expressions of Jewish nationalism, part of which consists of the deep desire to see those perceived as enemies of Jews laid low, translating here into immense satisfaction at contemplating the actual historical and biological end, the termination, of Eurochristians, whom Jews consider their worst enemy. I use the term “Eurochristians” because that specifically is the object of Jewry’s furious genocidal loathing — Jews don’t feel genocidal fury at Euros who aren’t of the Christian heritage or at non-Euros who are of that heritage (Mexicans, Nigerian Negroes, Vietnamese or Korean Christians, for example), just at Euro-race people who are: that’s the object of Jewish wrath, not “Christians” per se or people of Euro race per se but those in whom Euro race and Christian heritage are combined. Us, in other words, whether we be practicing, believing Christians or not — 1) Christianity is our cultural heritage, and 2) we’re of the Euro race. Those are — we are — whom Jews fantasize about exterminating and the ones about whose demise Jews like Spengler write columns of profoundest religio-cultural-nationalistic Thanksgiving. This whole essay of his is a love-paean to what he sees as the annihilation of Jewry’s enemies, Eurochristians. Yes he throws the Japs in as window dressing to divert the reader’s attention so he won’t be caught red-handed as a mere ethnoracial partisan rather than a philosoper, but it’s not the demise of the Japs that’s giving him such Jewish-spiritual orgasms, it’s ours.

Is Spengler one of a kind, or do many of the Jews occupying élite positions over Euro-race peoples in Eurosphere countries cherish likewise a deeply-felt hope to see the end of Eurochristians, and feel likewise the profoundest satisfaction at seeing the actual beginnings of it come about? Three guesses. Will that affect their actions, their policy preferences, in regard to Eurochristian peoples? Three more guesses.

One sees right there, in that simple reflection, the correctness of Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s whole approach to the subject and the wrongness of those, like Ian Jobling and Lawrence Auster, who condemn MacDonald.

Posted by Happy Cracker on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:08 | #

reply to Danielj:

Now, how exactly does one become a polymath? I too wanna shout “Fuck you!” to this guy from my unassailable position of erudition.

I think its possible to become a polymath by “mastering” (to whatever extent possible) several different and important domains of knowledge.

For example, Goldman is a polymath because - whatever objections can be made about his self-deception regarding his own ethnocentrism, or his general unlikeability as anti-white intellectual scum - he has (apparently) shown sufficient understanding of German, economics, cultural history, and classical music to get him noticed by the top people in these respective worlds. At the very least he made a great career for himself, and he can speak with some authority on a wide variety of topics.

I think we should be able to respect that trait, even in an enemy.

You, or anyone reading this, can become a polymath by putting in 2-5 years of work to master a certain domain of knowledge that you are interested in or appeals to you. Basically by choosing a hobby that requires the acquisition of a large (presumably useful) body of knowledge. Then you move
on to another one and do it again.

For example, since you participate on these boards, I think you are probably very informed about the intersection of philosophy/culture/history/politics/biology. That could be seen as one (or several) domains of knowledge. You could refine your understanding of these things further or you could move on to another topic, or both.

Now, if you want to work on another field - say, physics or chemistry or economics or whatever - in a few years you would become very well-versed in that field, and having “mastered” more than one domain of knowledge, you would be (something of) a polymath.

Of course, one sets for oneself (i.e. subjectively) the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable “mastery” of something. I don’t know if Goldman can converse convincingly in German, for example, or read Faust in the original without it being an effort that distracts him from enjoying the poesy. (If you have to make an effort to ‘get’ poesy, you’re not very good at getting poesy. [devious smile]).

Um… what was I talking about again? Oh yes, you decide what “mastery” is. You learn as much about a topic as you want to. If you do this in 3 domains of knowledge and with appreciable success, people will call you a “polymath”.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:13 | #

Forgive me if we’re supposed to know this, but is Happy Cracker exPF writing under another pen name or is he someone else? (Whoever he is, he’s quite good.)

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:29 | #

Fred, you’re supposed to know what you think you think you know, I think. If that’s clear. In any way. Or maybe it’s not meant to be clear. Who knows?

And what’s with the “quite”. Of course he’s good.

Now, how exactly does one become a polymath?

The better question is: how, exactly, does one come into possession of the sheer bloody brass neck to claim such a thing of oneself? Sometimes, one wonders whether the subtler qualities of humanity are evenly distributed among the races, even the more intelligent ones. <strike>Big Mouthism</strike> <strike>Bullshittery</strike> Verbal IQ isn’t, that’s for sure.

Posted by Genophobic on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:42 | #

how exactly does one become a polymath?

Simple. Spend the summer watching The View, Oprah, and Jerry Springer.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:08 | #

Thanks, GW. I think I think I know what you think I think I’m supposed to know, I think, but I’m not certain but I think that’s all right. I don’t think I’m certain, at any rate. But no matter — as the old saying goes, “If you think what you think is thought you’re thinking thoughts. I think.”

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:59 | #

This “Jewish intelligence is selection for civilization” thing mainly comes down to the issue of whether it is dysgenic or eugenic to select for verbal combat over more holistic forms of combat. As usual, my stance is that if you limit your combat to the verbal, you select against verbal communication and for regression to primitive signals. This is dysgenic for a lot of reasons.

Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:22 | #

Sorry chaps, I know this is a bit off-topic, but check out the following:

Almost all Western governments now exhibit certain common, antinomian traits. They pontificate ceaselessly. They are averse to standing custom and local habit; they mistrust free transactions and lie in wait for opportunities to interfere in commerce and free trade. Judaism and Christianity irritate them and they seek to repress the symbols of those faiths while making common cause with dubious faiths hostile to Judaism and Christianity. (emphasis mine)

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3880

Note the inclusion of “Judaism.” Contrary to the author’s assertion Western governments are not hostile to Judaism; in fact are positively supportive of it. It is Christianity and Christians that are targeted.

I swear, so-called “conservatives” are sometimes their own worse enemy.

Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:32 | #

Make that worst.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:46 | #

“Contrary to the author’s assertion Western governments are not hostile to Judaism; in fact are positively supportive of it. It is Christianity and Christians that are targeted.” (—Selous Scout)

Correct.

I used to view BrusselsJournal.com as essentially a tradcon blog (give or take a few details) with a slight Catholic tinge, in roughly the Kalbian sense of “tradcon.” Either I was mistaken or it’s changed: as is now clear, it is squarely in the neocon camp. You almost can’t get more neocon. Takuan in a couple of spectacular posts there made some tentative moves in a healthier direction but he’s either been reined in by someone or has had a change of heart, and is fallen back in line.

I visit there far less than I used to.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:25 | #

Boiled down to its most basic: Goldman admits to thinking the way he does because he’s a Jew.

I doubt we’ll ever get a more explicit accounting of an anti-White genocidalist’s motivations than that.

Posted by Separate the race from the religion on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:45 | #

Fred Scrooby: “Jews don’t feel genocidal fury at Euros who aren’t of the Christian heritage…”

That’s not true, Fred - a large proportion of modern Europeans are quite anti-religious/non-religious and Chrtistianity is on the wane big-time there, yet the quasi-genocidal Jewish assault there (via mass-immigration) has only picked up speed ever since Europe became more secular and non-religious.

It’s not so much the religion Jews naturally hate Fred, it’s the race; it’s similar to what was discussed in another recent thread, most White nationalists (or Whites in general) do not naturally harbor animosity against Islam or Latin American Catholicism…we just very much dislike when different racial/ethnic groups, in this case non-White North African/Arab/Turkish Muslims or Latin American Mestizo Catholics, flood in to our White countries by the tens of millions.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:18 | #

Quite right Separate. It’s the Naaaaaaaahzees. It’s always the Naaaaaaaaaaahzees.

Neo-paganism laid its cuckoo’s eggs in Christianity and hatched them in the form of the national movements that would fight for dominance in Europe and leave the formerly Christian continent a secularized hulk. It is petulant for Jews to blame Pius XII for failing to save more of them when he could not even save (for example) Polish priests from the Nazis.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:19 | #

Jews don’t feel genocidal fury at Euros who aren’t of the Christian heritage

I think there’s a set of “implicit whiteness” type traits and the more traits an individual White person has the more extreme the hatred.

So, for example:

White, “New Age” spirituality, homosexual - scores a 2/10 on the hatred scale.

White, liberal Christian, married with two kids - 6/10 on the hatred scale.

White, traditional Christian, right-wing, lots of guns, married with eight very strong and healthy White kids - 10/10 on the hatred scale.

No doubt they’d hate darwinian ethno-nationalists as much as traditional Christians if and when the numbers grow. In fact they’d probably hate them more as there’s no wiggle room for them in EGI.

Posted by Desmond jones on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:32 | #

No doubt they’d hate darwinian ethno-nationalists as much as traditional Christians

No Darwin, no Hitler, don’tcha ya know.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:53 | #

The poster signing as “Separate” may actually be right after all: it may be the Euro race exclusive of the cultural Christian heritage that has the effect on Jews that waving a red flag has on a bull, sending them into a destructive rage.

The thing is this: Jews keep trying to destroy Euros, destroy the societies they’ve made, destroy the Euro race itself, and the question is Why? The Jews aren’t talking, they’re explaining nothing whatsoever, so we are reduced to trying to figure out the reason ourselves without their help. Plainly there is solemn, white-hot hatred there of some sort, provoked by something to do with Euros, their societies, their personalities, their persons, their looks, something — something about Euros is a red flag waved before the Jews, causing them to attack. We just aren’t sure exactly what that something is, and the Jews certainly have no intention of ever divulging it to us. We’re entirely on our own in figuring this thing out. What’s not in doubt of course is that the Jews are on the attack and the stakes now are not just societal destruction but outright genocide of the race.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:55 | #

Wandrin also makes an excellent point.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:12 | #

Plainly there is solemn, white-hot hatred there of some sort, provoked by something to do with Euros, their societies, their personalities, their persons, their looks, something — something about Euros is a red flag waved before the Jews, causing them to attack.

Are you serious dude? And you call EA Steve’s comments dumb. Wow!!!

Posted by danielj on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:21 | #

Now, how exactly does one become a polymath?

Very amusing.

You’re supposed to say: You wanna be a polymath?

And then I say:No. I wanna no how one becomes a polymath.

The better question is: how, exactly, does one come into possession of the sheer bloody brass neck to claim such a thing of oneself?

Oi! He’s got a helluva set of knockers on ‘im.

Perhaps he is far to the right end of the ‘chutzpah’ bell curve?

Posted by danielj on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:23 | #

Setting aside the whole “polymath” question for a bit I find it comforting to know that most people like this die deliciously ironic deaths like falling off ladders or mountains. Simple gravity will bring this man back to ashes some day.

Pride cometh before an asswhooping

Posted by danielj on Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:45 | #

No. I wanna no how one becomes a polymath.

Dope! That ‘no’ should be ‘know’

Posted by Robert Mugabe on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:54 | #

Fred, it is not only Jews, all non Whites especially browns and blacks hate Whites with a vengeance. East Asians may hate Euros but not with the same genocidal fervour which is common in jews, arabs, brown mexicans, hindus, negro and maori alike. I do not know why? Maybe the success and appearance of Euros gives them an inferiority complex and they would feel better off without Euros in the world. Maybe a fear that if fully awakened, Euros would easily conquer them and maybe exterminate them. Jews are only the most successful amongst them. Most of them have white skin and can pass amongst Euros. Or maybe jews feel Whites are a potential thorn (like Islam or East Asians) in their plans to eventually rule the world.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:19 | #

No Darwin, no Hitler, don’tcha ya know.

I think he has a point in a round about way - Christianity, secularized Christianity aka White liberalism and cultural marxism aka jewish liberalism all have an accidental or designed weakness when it comes to national survival i.e universal values. The general hard-headedness of traditional Christianity used to outweigh this internal weakness but not since the foundation of the holocult put us into a state of permanent purgatory. So a widespread and active Christianity, manipulated to exploit the internal weakness, might actually be safer for jews. In fact they’ve sort of proved that in the states with the Evangelicals.

In contrast to that I can see that the second worst thing for the jewish group strategy would be the widespread acceptance of EGI, and Darwin is the foundation of that. It would be ironic if, in their desire to tear down Christianity to avenge their version of the past, they end up promoting something that is potentially far worse for them and something like Auster’s view, with jews accepting minority status in homogenous White nations dominated by a manipulated version of Christianity might actually make the best sense for long term jewish prospects.

The worst thing for them in my view would be EGI somehow wrapped up in a mystical and quasi-religious wrapper to gain the morale boosting effects of religion - which is what judaism is in my view and what Hitler created with the Nazis - as long as this ideology was self-controlled enough to not threaten the neighbouring White nations.

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:26 | #

Plainly there is solemn, white-hot hatred there of some sort, provoked by something to do with Euros, their societies, their personalities, their persons, their looks, something — something about Euros is a red flag waved before the Jews, causing them to attack.

I think it’s a natural human thing for competing tribes to have some hostility - even in the best cases e.g US / Canada there’ll be jokes about the other nationality on the other side of the border. Maybe the thing with the jews in the White nations is they live as a tribe within a host tribe and therefore have to suppress, repress and hide those natural hostile feelings and the repression makes those feelings fester and become more extreme.

I had a similar thought once in a different context regarding White comedians who told racist jokes. My (at the time) fellow lefties were very keen to stamp out every expression of racist attitudes, something they’ve mostly achieved now, but even then I thought comedians like that might provide a pressure valve, and the complete suppression of natural antipathy to the multi-cult could lead to anger building up in people if they didn’t have any kind of release.

I think it’s self-evidently true that certain types of White people can induce a visibly insane level of hatred from jews. Some, like openly genocidal anti-jews, are obvious threats to jews and you can see a logical reason for the hatred, but there’s also others like Palin where it makes very little obvious sense why they hate her so much unless they do see “whiteness” itself as the threat, certain markers act to increase an individual’s “whiteness” score and a high enough “whiteness” score induces jewish hysteria.

Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:41 | #

I liked Wunderhund post on April 20, 2009, 12:43 AM and I really liked Fred Scrooby’s post on April 20, 2009, 12:50 PM

It’s obvious that both of Spengler’s columns — the one linked in the log entry and the one linked in GW’s comment (first in the comments thread) — amount in their essentials to nothing other than powerful expressions of Jewish nationalism, part of which consists of the deep desire to see those perceived as enemies of Jews laid low, translating here into immense satisfaction at contemplating the actual historical and biological end, the termination, of Eurochristians, whom Jews consider their worst enemy. I use the term “Eurochristians” because that specifically is the object of Jewry’s furious genocidal loathing — Jews don’t feel genocidal fury at Euros who aren’t of the Christian heritage or at non-Euros who are of that heritage

He hit the nail on the head! And I thank Mr. Scrooby for this excellent insight. But this needs more expansion and clarification.’

The Jews hate Euros.

The Jews are an Eastern race and the Euro’s are Western. The Ancient Greeks noticed the enmity between the East and the West starting with the Trojan War, that extended into the Persian Wars, and the Conquest of Alexander. One thing is that the Eastern races exhibit femine traits; are femine and the Western races exhibit more manly traits; are masculine.

That is half the problem.

The second problem is that the Greek/European peoples are a metaphysical, transcendent people. We see metaphysically. The Semites, irregardless of their faiths, i.e. Judiasm and Islam, are materialistic. These two religions are concerned mostly with practice and not with things transcendent.

To show the metaphysical side of Euro’s is to see the emphasis of the soul in Christian thought whereas it is non-existent in Judiac or Islamic thought. The Soul is paramount importance, i.e. Plato and Aristotle, in European thought. Other things like Virtue and Duty and Honor and Glory. All these are European, not Semitic.

Next, Jews don’t hate Protestants. Their hatred is more towards Roman Catholicism. Protestantism being more a product of Jews for the Jews instigated the Protestant Reformation. It was Catholicism that suppressed the Jews; it was the Protestants, (and the Freemasons), that gave liberty to the Jews.

Fred Scrooby is right. What is dangerous to the Jew is the Euro because the Euro created Christianity and it is Christianity that booted the Jew from his special place.

Let me explain. When I lived in Europe as an American, I felt and heard a lot of animus of Europeans toward Americans. And I asked why. All these Europeans once ruled the world and during Reagan, that was now the American’s glory. They had a sort of covetous envy towards Americans.

The Jews have the same toward Christianity for Christianity has supplanted the Jew and his religion from its high place. Christianity has nullified Judiasm. This is why the hate. In order to destroy Christianity, the Jew must destroy the European races for it is the character of the European that fuels Christianity. Christianity is the embodiment of European character. Europeans are not revengeful like the Jew. That is Christianity. Aristotle noted that Europeans are high-spirited. Christianity is high-spirited unlike the Jew who is mean-spirited. Europeans are famous for hospitality, the Jew is not. And Europeans see metaphysically and Christianity is a metaphysical religion and Judiasm is not.

This is the hatred. What is hated is Euros who hold traditional apostolic Christianity. Jews don’t hate Euro atheists. Jews don’t hate Euro liberals. What scares the bejeezes out of the Jews is a Traditionalist Catholic and Pat Buchanan.

So kudos to Fred Scrooby for noticing and his insightful comments.

Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:56 | #

Natural antipathy, Wandrin, is called “volkenhas”. Many animals exhibit is well. Lion prides, wolve packs, gorilla groups all exhibit that as well. Even sea anomae colonies.

Every race has volkenhas. Haven’t you heard the saying, “Birds of a feather flock together”?

But the volkenhas between Jew and Euro is magnified. For several reasons. God said he put enmity between his children and the children of the devil; between the sons of righteousness and the sons of darkness. The Jew is nihilist while the European is righteous and this magnifies the volkenhass.

Second, the Jewish race is feminine and the masculinity of the European race naturally dislikes that.

Third, the Europeans have supplanted the Jew from his favored place and so the envy created is coupled with the volkenhass.

Fourth, The European is superior to the Jew. In all things, the lower hates the higher. Notice the vengence of the vulgar class in their extermination of the higher classes. Or of women against men. The whole feminist movement is about the metaphysical killing of men. Higher classes have contempt for the lower but never reaches intensity or virulence. A king never murders his people. But the commoners have a deep seated hatred and will kill their betters. In this paradigm, the Jew being less than the European seeks the death of Europeans.

Fifth, the European created Christianity and for this the European must be destroyed. Since Nature abhors a vacuum, and since the Jew rejected Christ, the only other avenue then is the devil. They are spiritually guided by being connected to the devil. The devil controls them. They are influenced not by the Holy Spirit but by a demonic force that also, since he is lower, the death of God.

Sixth, for the European, the Jew is dangerous because his thought and his culture is anti-European. Jews think and act monomaniacally. That is one reason they are attracted to democracy and egalitarianism for their religion is a strict monotheism. They are monomaniacal. The European is guided by his inherent trifunctionality. His mind is more sophisticated, more complex.

All races have volkenhass but between the European and the Jew there are more levels and therefore inherently more magnified.

Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:32 | #

The weak always hate the strong.

Posted by Happy Cracker on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:21 | #

Wow, Wandrin, you’ve said some interesting thing in the above comments.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:44 | #

Next, Jews don’t hate Protestants. Their hatred is more towards Roman Catholicism. Protestantism being more a product of Jews for the Jews instigated the Protestant Reformation. It was Catholicism that suppressed the Jews; it was the Protestants, (and the Freemasons), that gave liberty to the Jews.

Wha? What a load of absolute rubbish!

The Catholics are just as ecumenical in their drive toward appeasing the Jew as any Protestant sect (or any group of atheists, new-agers, or “spiritual” group of liberals for that matter). You even admitted in another post that the Catholic church was subject to infiltration so I fail to see what Protestantism has to do with the matter.

You can’t make a statement like the one above without a single historical reference and expect people to understand, let alone believe, what the fuck you are even babbling about.

Posted by 'Anti Racist' Tells the Truth About Racist Israel on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:39 | #

“Iranian President: Israel Is a Racist State”

By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

PARIS, April 20—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad argued before a U.N. anti-racism conference Monday that Israel is a “paragon of racism” founded on “the pretext of Jewish sufferings” during World War II.

...

Ahmadinejad, who just a week ago had suggested that Iran was ready for a new relationship with the United States, blamed America and its allies for a long list of ills, including the world economic crisis. He suggested that the Western model of economic liberalism was exhausted and that Western leaders, in their efforts to contain the crisis, “are simply thinking about maintaining power and wealth.”

Turning to Israel, he started by asking why the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have so much power over other nations. Although such powerful countries condemn racism in words, he said, by their deeds they “ridicule and violate all laws and humanitarian values.”

“Following World War II,” he continued, according to an official English-language text of his remarks, “they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless, on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question” of the Holocaust.

“They sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world, in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine,” he said, “and in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racists, in Palestine.”

Ahmadinejad said Zionist supporters enjoy undue influence over Western governments, imposing “their domination to the extent that nothing can be done against their will,” and he suggested that the only solution is to defeat them.

“So long as Zionist domination continues, many countries, governments and nations will never be able to enjoy freedom, independence and security,” he said. “As long as they are at the helm of power, justice will never prevail in the world and human dignity will continue to be offended and trampled upon. It is time the ideal of Zionism, which is the paragon of racism, be broken.”

British and French diplomats, whose governments had threatened a walkout if they heard anti-Semitic or anti-Israel remarks, left the room. Peter Gooderham, the British ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, called Ahmadinejad’s remarks “outrageous” and “anti-Semitic,” according to news reports.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told reporters that he deplored “the use of this platform by the Iranian president to accuse, divide and even incite,” which was “the opposite of what this conference seeks to achieve.”

Israel, preparing to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day starting at sundown Monday, derided the U.N. gathering for giving Ahmadinejad a forum. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called him “a racist and a Holocaust denier who doesn’t conceal his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.”

Posted by natural on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:48 | #

Posted by Separate the race from the religion on April 20, 2009, 08:45 PM | #

Fred Scrooby: “Jews don’t feel genocidal fury at Euros who aren’t of the Christian heritage…”

If white nationalists do not harbour animosity towards Islam then they full accept:

Qur’an 49:13 Surah Al-Hujurat (The Inner Apartments)
O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. “

And if they dont accept the above then they harbour animosity towards islam because in islam there is no concept of race and islam teaches you not to despise each other on the basis of race so in islam race is non existent in the sense that one is not judged by ones race so when one is not judged by ones race then naturally as faith grows racial awareness will become non existent and so we stop despising each other and when we stop despising each other it is a natural outcome that over a long or even short period of time you will find people of different races intermarry because of this psychological loss of control over that aspect of the mind which despises. Pure and simple.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:09 | #

“in islam there is no concept of race and islam teaches you not to despise each other on the basis of race so in islam race is non existent in the sense that one is not judged by ones race so when one is not judged by ones race then naturally as faith grows racial awareness will become non existent and so we stop despising each other and when we stop despising each other it is a natural outcome that over a long or even short period of time you will find people of different races intermarry because of this psychological loss of control over that aspect of the mind which despises. Pure and simple.” (—Natural)

I guess we can wave bye-bye to Sir Desmond’s proposal that in order to avoid race-replacement we convert en masse to Islam.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:45 | #

Excepting its Sufic core, Islam is an expansionist 7th century Arab nationalism. It employed universalism to lever open societies it had conquered - a consolation in some respects not unlike the pressage of nationalism upon the French masses after 1789.

Posted by Matra on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:56 | #

Next, Jews don’t hate Protestants. Their hatred is more towards Roman Catholicism.

Jews don’t care about most differences between Christians. In America they temporarily sided with Catholic Europeans against the dominant Anglo-Saxon Protestants. In France Jews join hands with the mostly liberal and leftist Protestant minority against the Catholic/nationalist majority. In Catholic Quebec they are staunchly anti-nationalist yet in English Canada they encourage an open-minded (ie. sympathetic) approach to most, though not all, Quebec nationalist aspirations and will dismiss as bigots any English Canadian who takes a so-called hardline approach to Quebec. If the Jews had made ‘All in the Family’ in Spain Archie Bunker wouldn’t have been a Protestant; he’d have been a staunch Catholic with a picture of Franco on his wall. Their modus operandi in any country is to undermine the majority culture.

W Lindsay Wheeler is so wrapped about in the doctrinal differences between Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox he mistakenly attributes religious motivations to others. The Jews don’t give a damn about that stuff accept when they can use religious doctrine to engage in short term manipulation of one group against another.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:01 | #

I think he has a point in a round about way - Christianity, secularized Christianity aka White liberalism and cultural marxism aka jewish liberalism all have an accidental or designed weakness when it comes to national survival i.e universal values.

With respect, the weakness of that position, Auster’s position, is that White liberalism, otherwise known as classical liberalism was not a universal theorem. Classical liberalism was racist and discriminatory. Mill was an ethno-nationalist, possibly the first, according to Salter. The perversion of classical liberalism, by Jewish liberalism (although it was embraced by other groups, including white ethnics) or what Auster calls non-discrimination, was a strategy of organised Jewry to neuter the classical liberal values of free speech and in particular freedom of association (which meant exclusion, racial, ethnic or religious).

In contrast to that I can see that the second worst thing for the jewish group strategy would be the widespread acceptance of EGI, and Darwin is the foundation of that.

Again, if the most liberal, of the classical liberals, pre-dating Darwin, recognised, if not EGI, certainly racial differences. The American transcendentalist, Theodore Parker, referenced in Gupta book, reviewed by MacDonald, criticised as a home grown Puritan culture of critique, despite being an abolitionist, realised that Africans showed limited potential for advancement and placed them on the bottom of Blumenbach’s list. He recognised the Anglo-Saxon race as being the most “progressive” of all the races, including other Europeans. He lauded the accomplishments of Anglo-Saxons in North America and believed they along with the Russians would divide Asia between them. He thought it likely the Jews had taken young Christian boys for their blood libel and held the Irish Catholics in contempt.

I take Blumenbach’s five races only as provisional—five baskets which will hold mankind and help us handle them. In respect to power of civilization, the African is at the bottom, the American Indian next. The history of the world, I think, shows this, and its prehistoric movements. I don’t say it will be always so; I don’t know.

Celtic pauperism is our stone of stumbling. The Irishman has three bad things—bad habits, bad religion, and, worst of all, a bad nature. In dealing with Irish poor, I lay down three maxims:—

(1.) The Irishman will always lie, if it is for his momentary interest. (2.) He will not work while he can exist by begging. (3.) He will steal when he can get a chance, and preferentially from his benefactor. I can recall but one instance of a grateful “gintleman from Cork.” These vices—lying, begging, stealing, are instantial of the genus “Paddy from Corrrck”. The opposite is exceptional—of Bridget and John, accentric individuals. I might add a fourth: Paddy will get drunk if he can find liquor.

Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker: Minister of the Twenty-Eighth Congregational Society, Boston Vol. 1

Book by John Weiss; Da Capo Press, 1970

It was also evident that post 1860 and Darwin’s publication, transcendentalism rapidly died out. However, Darwin was not the father of particularism. His was solely a descriptive methodology. The prescriptive attributes were left to others. There is no link between Darwin and Hitler any more than there is a link between the messianic mass murdering Jewish David and Darwin.

White nations dominated by a manipulated version of Christianity might actually make the best sense for long term jewish prospects.

Yes, which has existed since VII and Nostra Aetate. However, it’s not Christianity. In the view of the devoutly Catholic it cannot be seen as anything other than the anti-Christ.

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:10 | #

Their modus operandi in any country is to undermine the majority culture.

You can just about imagine a future time where the White nations have all been over-run and destroyed and the jews, realising they’d fucked everything up again, had all fled to China to get away from the wreckage. A China where millions of White refugees were being treated (quite rightly from the native Chinese point of view) as 2nd class citizens. And the jews setting up a NAAWP (national assoc. for advancement of white people) as a way to exploit the situation and undermine the majority group.

With respect, the weakness of that position, Auster’s position, is that White liberalism, otherwise known as classical liberalism was not a universal theorem. Classical liberalism was racist and discriminatory.

Yes, my definitions are imprecise. When I talk about “white liberalism” I mean the kind of kumbaya secularized Christianity which has been formed from the assault of jewish cultural marxist “liberalism” on the old order. I blame the confusion on jews stealing the word “Liberalism” to camouflage cultural marxism but I should aim to be more precise.

criticised as a home grown Puritan culture of critique

I don’t think jews are unique in generating a culture of critique. I think this behaviour is a product of certain conditions including their view of themselves as an elect and the condition of being a minority in-group inside a host group. I think it’s logical that the same behaviour could arise in a group who were also a minority and who also considered themselves seperate and elect e.g Puritans.

The only thing I think is unique about jews is the conditions are always true for them as long as they’re residing in somebody else’s nation. A Puritan minority can change their mind and rejoin the mainstream of their nation any time - jews can’t change as a group unless they assimilate. I think individual jews can but not jews as a group.

and held the Irish Catholics in contempt

Conquest and Empire creates a hostile elite in the conquered nations. It often also has the effect of making the dominant group think they’re superior which leads them to act accordingly. Historically there are thousands of examples of this happening and the vast majority of them involve a non-jewish tribe becoming a hostile, or at least very detached, elite over another non-jewish tribe. I think a minimum standard for a White nationalist is the acceptance of the borders and the right of self-determination of all the individual White nations. If anyone wants some Lebensraum they should look outside.

The current situation where, in my view, an extremely dangerous and hostile elite has been slowly forming by stealth, is just the latest example of the same thing except the conquest is from the inside instead of the outside and jews are the critical (but not the only) element in the formation of that hostile elite.

There is no link between Darwin and Hitler

There may not be any ideological link but after reading the discussion you pointed to on Auster’s site I had the thought that people who believe in Darwin and evoluton would accept EGI far easier than people who didn’t believe in evolution, and if a person believed EGI was potentially more dangerous to jews than Christianity, then I could see an argument from a jewish point of view of being anti-Darwinist and pro (a certain kind of) Christianity. I don’t expect it to happen as I think they’re obsessed with fighting the past. It was just a thought.

Btw I’m not linking Darwin and Hitler as an insult. Given the primacy of the holocult in destroying the west I’m currently of the view that the holocult needs to be indirectly undermined which to my mind also means trying to (partially) rehabilitate Hitler and the Nazis somehow as an extreme reaction to the even worse extremes of the Bolshevik Holocaust.

Yes, which has existed since VII and Nostra Aetate. However, it’s not Christianity. In the view of the devoutly Catholic it cannot be seen as anything other than the anti-Christ.

Yes I think that’s true. It’s the cultural marxist version of Christianity i.e anti-Christianity

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:15 | #

I blame the confusion on jews stealing the word “Liberalism” to camouflage cultural marxism but I should aim to be more precise.

This is true. There is theft and Auster is one its greatest proponents because, as you suggest, it’s cover for its ethnic nature.

I don’t think jews are unique in generating a culture of critique.

Possibly, however, the Puritan view, IMO, and with all due respect to MacDonald, does not measure up to the culture of critique standard established by organised Jewry. Parker’s views are light years from Boaz, Hirschfeld or the Frankfurt School. Nor does there appear to be a separateness or notion of the elected. On the contrary Parker firmly believed in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon as a race of people not just as Puritans. Even Robert E. Lee recognised the inevitable collapse of the slave holding system and so the transcendentalist were not removed from the mainstream. It is wrong, IMO, for MacDonald to present it this way.

Conquest and Empire creates a hostile elite in the conquered nations. It often also has the effect of making the dominant group think they’re superior which leads them to act accordingly.

Except this is not the case here. It is a natural reaction by a founding ethny to the invader in their midst.

Historically there are thousands of examples of this happening and the vast majority of them involve a non-jewish tribe becoming a hostile, or at least very detached, elite over another non-jewish tribe.

Possibly, however, there are many examples of a ruling elite, as in the Polish arenda system, becoming a hostile governing body over their co-ethnics, often using Jewry to viciously extort as much wealth as possible, because they recognise Jewish supremacy will always mitigate against sympathy for the extorted.

I think a minimum standard for a White nationalist is the acceptance of the borders and the right of self-determination of all the individual White nations.

It sounds like a good concept but how do you enforce it?

If anyone wants some Lebensraum they should look outside.

Salter’s prescription for preserving EGI prohibits looking elsewhere.

There may not be any ideological link but after reading the discussion you pointed to on Auster’s site I had the thought that people who believe in Darwin and evoluton would accept EGI far easier than people who didn’t believe in evolution…

Not sure, however, that’s not Auster’s intent. He believes his ticket to inclusion is Christianity and if Darwin were triumphant, and people accept the fact there is no God, then his whole Judeo-Christian construct tumbles down upon him.

Btw I’m not linking Darwin and Hitler as an insult.

No insult taken. It’s just a fundamental fact, which anyone can see by reading Darwin’s work, that he was not a social Darwinist.

It’s doubtful Hitler/the Nazis or related nationalism can be rehabilitated, certainly not in the near future. However, liberalism, in the classical sense may be, especially in the US, where constitutional guarantees preserve speech and may even open a legal challenge for freedom of association.

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:36 | #

Possibly, however, the Puritan view, IMO, and with all due respect to MacDonald, does not measure up to the culture of critique standard established by organised Jewry.

I’ve no doubt that’s true. My view is jewish group behaviour is an extreme version of normal human in-out group behaviour. That might be MacDonald’s point with the Puritan example - the lack of uniqueness in the type of behaviour, if not in how extreme it gets.

It sounds like a good concept but how do you enforce it?

Well it’s all a bit premature obviously but I’d imagine it would be like a WN version of NATO where membership was based on acceptance of the borders and right to self-determination of the other members and the maintenance of some agreed upon minimum level of military force to be used for mutual defense.

Salter’s prescription for preserving EGI prohibits looking elsewhere.

Shame, in my ideal end scenario, which assumes we’re not all massacred in the next 20-30 years, I’d like the further shore of the med to be re-colonised and returned to being part of the White world.

It’s just a fundamental fact, which anyone can see by reading Darwin’s work, that he was not a social Darwinist.

Not sure, however, that’s not Auster’s intent.

I have a habit of thinking purely in terms of tactics which may make my views unclear at times. I think people who’ve been educated to believe in Darwin and evolution but who don’t really know much about it could more easily be persuaded to make the jump to a social Darwinian position than people brought up to believe in intelligent design. That’s where I see the connect between Darwin and Hitler - as a tactical wedge in a conversation to persuade an individual in a certain direction if that’s the way the persuader (i.e me) wants them to go.

I don’t think Auster’s hostility to Darwin has anything to do with the above. I imagine many here would disagree but I think he’s genuine in his views but as he’s of jewish descent he’s obviously in a bind with people who believe the problem is jews as an ethnic group rather than jews as a religious group.

It’s doubtful Hitler/the Nazis or related nationalism can be rehabilitated, certainly not in the near future.

Agreed they couldn’t be rehabilitated fully without control of the mass media which would require winning power in the first place. Also personally I wouldn’t want to fully rehabilitate the historical Nazis for White Nationalist vs one nation nationalist reasons. However I think as part of trying to undermine the holocult I’m personally planning in conversations in the future to push the line that Hitler and the Nazis were simply a reaction to the Bolshevik Holocaust.

The power of the holocult is built on uniqueness and on the idea it was the ultimate expression of the evil of Christian anti-semitism and White ethno-nationalism. I think the best way to undermine it is to attack the uniqueness by pointing to the Bolshevik Holocaust and to try and change people’s view to the underlying cause being the preceding twenty years of (jewish) Bolshevik terror so close to Germany’s borders. That’s the sort of thing I mean by partial rehabilitation - extenuating circumstances.

However, liberalism, in the classical sense may be, especially in the US, where constitutional guarantees preserve speech and may even open a legal challenge for freedom of association.

I don’t really know enough about the states to judge what the best route is there but my gut feeling is the constitution is likely to be key.

@Happy Cracker

Wow, Wandrin, you’ve said some interesting thing in the above comments.

Ty, just thinking aloud.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:20 | #

Wandrin,

I probably mislead you, however, I’m not advocating a social Darwinian position. As far as enforcement goes, nukes, are possibly a better deterrent. Tactically, the Bolshevik Holocaust is probably a good avenue to pursue. The Lloyd George quote is always a good one to have at the ready:

...there is a real hatred and fear of Russian Bolshevism, and unfortunately it is growing in intensity. It constitutes the driving force of their international and military policy. Their private and public talk is full of it. Wherever you go you need not wait long before you hear the word ‘Bolshevismus’, and it recurs again and again with a wearying reiteration.

Their eyes are concentrated on the East as if they are watching intently for the breaking of the day of wrath. Against it they are preparing with German thoroughness. This fear is not put on. High and low they are convinced there is every reason for apprehension. They have a dread of the great army, that has been built up in Russia in recent years. An exceptionally violent anti-German campaign of abuse printed in the Russian official Press and propelled by the official Moscow radio has revived the suspicion in Germany that the Soviet Government are contemplating mischief.”

Thanks for the replies.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:03 | #

Tactically, the Bolshevik Holocaust is probably a good avenue to pursue.

It is a great tactic because it robs the person in question of a position of attack and makes the war a moral “neutral” and gives the Germans a motivation that was grounded in reality, as opposed to them simply being Satan’s spawn. It makes it realpolitick instead of Armageddon.

As far as enforcement goes, nukes, are possibly a better deterrent.

pax atomica

Posted by torgrim on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:16 | #

“Their modus operandi in any country is to undermine the majority culture.”—Matra

Here is an example of the above statement;
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:17 | #

Desmond Jones,

I probably mislead you, however, I’m not advocating a social Darwinian position.

It’s more likely the other way round as I’m still in the thinking aloud phase - not sure what I’m advocating yet.

As far as enforcement goes, nukes, are possibly a better deterrent. Tactically, the Bolshevik Holocaust is probably a good avenue to pursue. The Lloyd George quote is always a good one to have at the ready:

Yes, nukes much simpler. The Lloyd-George quote is perfect, thanks.

Danielj,

It is a great tactic because it robs the person in question of a position of attack and makes the war a moral “neutral” and gives the Germans a motivation that was grounded in reality, as opposed to them simply being Satan’s spawn. It makes it realpolitick instead of Armageddon.

Yes, plus once you get a person to the point of accepting the Nazis as a natural reaction to the Bolsheviks, there’s also a moral counter-attack point in the way “the Left” has tried to brush the Bolshevik Holocaust under the carpet - so you eventually get to the point where you’re accusing the priesthood of the holocult of being (Bolshevik) Holocaust deniers etc - so everything they say about people who would deny 6 million applies to them at least threefold for denying 20 million. It’s like Judo where you use the opponent’s own weight against them.

Posted by Fr. John on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:38 | #

““[The Christian gospel is] first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.” Christianity was, at least originally before Paul took hold of it and twisted it quite a bit, a religious/social/philosophical system concocted by a Jew named Jesus who was acutely and painfully aware of the deep depravity of Jews (both within himself and in all other Jews) and sought to correct their general characters, their culture, and their souls. Christianity was meant first and foremost for Jews, as a way for them to ‘fix’ themselves (both individual Jews and the collective Jew)”

Sigh.

“Jews” do not equal Biblical Hebrews
Read Koestler - http://198.62.75.1/www2/koestler/
They are NOT the ‘Chosen People’

Jesus is not a “jew” as defined today
Read this- http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesusjew.htm

The Church has clearly sanctioned hatred, indeed Psalms commands it of God’s enemies.
“Do I not hate them, O LORD, that hate Thee? And am I not grieved with them that rise up against Thee?
I hate Thy Enemies, O LORD, with a Perfect* Hatred- I count them my enemies”
-Psalm 139: 21-22

St. Theodosius of the Kiev Caves (Orthodox) puts it succinctly:

“Live in peace not only with your friends, but also with your enemies;
But only with your personal enemies,
and not with the enemies of God.”

As C. S. Lewis once noted, good and evil are like two sides of a pencil. As the end of the age approaches, you start heading toward the lead, until the two sides meet, and ‘wham!’

I think we are heading there.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/why-democrats-are-unregenerate-2/#comments
Recent Hollow Hoax substitutions for Nicea-Constantinople in Rome, are a clear indication of said ‘wham.’
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/once-a-catholic-pt-2/

Misericorde Domine.

Posted by whodareswings on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:12 | #

Maybe I missed it, but nobody is talking about Lyndon Larouche here and I don’t think Goldman converted to Judiasm. He embraced it late in his life which means he was probably a non-practicing Jew. Goldman was outted last year as an associate/employee of Lyndon Larouche. Apparently he was an editor at the EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) before he moved on the The Asia Times. That explains a lot (at least to me).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:08 | #

“I don’t think Goldman converted to Judiasm. He embraced it late in his life which means he was probably a non-practicing Jew.” (—Whodares)

Means nothing: non-practicing Jews still see themselves as part of the Jewish tribe, a tribe which includes both practicing and non-practicing. The tribal antagonism toward Euros is fully as strong among non-practicing Jews, even stronger in many cases.

Posted by White Cornerback on Thu, 07 May 2009 17:16 | #

Spengler makes a good point which seems to go over people’s heads: anti-Semitism is in fact a species of Jew envy. Anti-semites want whites or whatever group they’re advocating for to behave like…Jews.

This is true, isn’t it? Why can’t we just admit this and move on? And then, stop trying to get Jews to hate themselves, or expect them to, or begruding for not. Stop whining that Jews are somehow magically forcing whites to hate themselves. All the while continuing trying to get white people to care about their own preservation as a group as much as Jews care about their own.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 07 May 2009 17:34 | #

Why not try a different blog, “White Cornerback”? Check out http://www.WhiteAmerica.us . The synapse-challenged just don’t do well here.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 07 May 2009 22:17 | #

It is one thing for a group to care about its preservation and quite another for that group to harbour perpetual and unappeasable animus against the host people in the time-honoured Jewish fashion.

The admirably subtle Overseas Chinese in South East Asia dominate several economies (eg, those of Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines) in a way that Jews in the West can only dream about yet they don’t make it their business to promote their EGI by sponsoring (far less inventing) anti-host ideologies which are designed to undermine the indigenous population.

Posted by White Cornerback on Thu, 07 May 2009 22:50 | #

Fred—I’m not sure whose got the bad synapses Fred, but if you’re looking at me, that’s no way to talk to someone who supports majority rights and white survival. I read a good bit of anti-Jewish or anti-semitic writing, and some of its very interesting and provocative. I’m just not convinced by most of its conclusions in the end. Its scapegoating…like blaming someone else for your condition instead of taking a hard look in the mirror. A good example is the way Kevin MacDonald blames the 1965 immigration act on Jews, when in fact 98% of the people who voted for it were gentiles. The real culprits are liberalism, modernism, and doctrines of equality. Just because lots of Jews have taken to these ideologies like fish to the water doesn’t mean that they are more responsible for them than any of the multitudes of gentiles who have jumped off the deep end themselves.

Al Ross—Jared Taylor has a good article on Malaysia in a recent issue of American Renaissance. The Overseas Chinese are hated too.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 07 May 2009 23:47 | #

My point is that, unlike the animus-laden political motivation of the Jews (against which their greed for wealth pales), the unalloyed cupidity of the Overseas Chinese ensures that they do not toil indefatigably against the EGI of the host peoples and in so doing alienate their customers.

As a famous man (Dr Samuel Johnson?) once noted, ” No one is so innocently occupied as when in the pursuit of wealth”.

Also, the host people in Malaysia dislike the Indian Malaysians, a disputatious and fractious minority, considerably more than they dislike the Chinese. Anyway, the Malay attitude to the outlanders forms a Bell Curve, with some nationalist ultras on the right, some “tolerance” advocates on the left and the politically indifferent majority in the middle - a bit like the West really.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 07 May 2009 23:51 | #

White Cornerback is right of course: if your team keeps losing, in the last analysis you have to blame ... your team. But there are circumstances that are exceptions to that, for instance the fact that the Jews have gotten out of their native ecology and into ours:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/jews_shutting_down_debate/#c58383

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/jews_shutting_down_debate/#c58421

The normal rules of competition break down when that happens.

Posted by weston on Fri, 08 May 2009 03:51 | #

A good example is the way Kevin MacDonald blames the 1965 immigration act on Jews, when in fact 98% of the people who voted for it were gentiles.

Exactly. The ethnic composition of the rank and file of any movement is much more noteworthy and relevant than the composition of the leadership of that movement. Because, as we all know, the rabble leads and the elites follow. That’s just the way that movements work.

I read a good bit of anti-Jewish or anti-semitic writing, and some of its very interesting and provocative. I’m just not convinced by most of its conclusions in the end. Its scapegoating…like blaming someone else for your condition instead of taking a hard look in the mirror.

Have you really read MacDonald? Because this is a strawman. He doesn’t “scapegoat” the Jews, and he doesn’t let whites off of the hook.

Are whites ultimately responsible for the position they’re currently in? Of course. I’ve yet to encounter a single race-aware white who would deny this. But at the same time Jews—motivated by both self-interest and anti-Euro animus—have sought to attack and undermine white societies at every turn.

The fairly obvious point that advocates of the “liberalism only” theory fail to recognize or admit is that most Jews see themselves as separate and distinct from Euros. So when a Jew criticizes the majority population of a country, it doesn’t have the same character of self-flagellation as when an actual member of the majority population makes that same criticism. It’s an attack. It’s similar to the way support for a policy like Affirmative Action works amongst members of different races. It’s obviously very different for a white to support AA than it is for a black.

Posted by Grubkur on Fri, 08 May 2009 10:57 | #

Want to be like a Jew??

Goodness NO! What Aryan in their right mind would want to practice black magic, abduct children for ritual murders, poison wells, etc., etc.,

As far as Whites are to blame for the situation we are in, I actually take issue with that. It is akin to blaming a Female for getting Raped. No, do not blame the victim. It is clear (read Macdonald) that the Jews were behind this and they are the perpetrators!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 08 May 2009 17:35 | #

White Cornerback: before Euros can mount an effective resistance and realistically plan an alternative to the current forced race-replacement régime they have to be able to talk openly about exactly what’s going on. They have to be able to talk openly about race, about which groups or interests are most actively pushing race-replacemenet, and so forth. Who, or what group, will punish them most if they talk openly about what’s going on (and might this threat of punishment have had a dampening effect on the kind of organization needed)?

Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 08 May 2009 18:42 | #

I don’t trust anyone who accuses us of “scapegoating” the jews when the jews are clearly the ones doing that to us. Even a cursory investigation of this site shows more than enough proof of jewish conspiracy against Euro-Goy. This White Cornerback guy either doesn’t get it or is working for the other side.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments