Posted by DanielS on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:21 | #

An appeal to Dr. Lister for understanding.

I originally conceived of The Euro-DNA Nation as a means to coordinate three important concerns for persons of indigenous European extraction: 1) The ancient human ecologies of Europe and their bounds, 2) The smaller scale (“community”) units of peoples of indigenous European descent, their practical reasons and means necessary, to form as qualitatively differentiated, be they within and of ancient Europe; of the ancient European peoples but living beyond Europe; or of newer combinations and communities of Europeans peoples, living beyond Europe 3) Finally, for these concerns to hold up, it would be necessary to coordinate their interests, not only the newer and older concerns, but also the smaller and larger scale - the larger scale being necessary to form an economy and power big enough to defend against say, China, or to fund say, a space program.

I originally conceived of the idea of coordinating these three concerns at a time when I was quite innocent of your differences with Bowery (in fact, I was a little irritated the the bullet points beneath Bowery’s interview did not note that the matter of coordination had been a concern that I had observed, and that the interview between Stark and Bowery seemed to trivialize the matter..

Nevertheless, at the time I had actually believed (and still do believe) that Bowery’s perspective would help to facilitate the project by noting concerns that he had helped to flesh-out for some of us.
Even so, I am in full agreement with you that individualism is an epiphenomenon to the social and not a priority - in fact, its been a preoccupation (largely through Lockeatine rights) that has gone into our catastrophes.

Please note that I have observed GW’s reasons for favoring your view over Bowery’s and it has not caused me to leave MR. I can largely agree with what GW says here: “I do not want to explore Graham’s stinging criticism of theories which he sees as irredeemably liberalistic, yet worse, religious in kind, and of terminologies incorrectly applied from the biological sciences.  If he is right (and I think, broadly, he is)...”

I have observed how GW would not want to be without your insights and knowledge:

However, the editor of this version is an American and is more sympathetic to the needs of European Americans, and therefore of Bowery than you tend to be. That, I imagine, is among the reasons why Bowery’s name was not only left in the text, but a rubric, “Bowery”, was even added.

One of the reasons I do not object to that is that Bowery can be an articulate spokesman particularly of the European American perspective. However, I realize it is going to be a major turn-off to you, and if necessary, would consider another document that either leaves out names or adds yours, with your necessary concerns.

I had originally forefronted Bowery mistakenly thinking it would facilitate concordance at places like MR, but also because in places like the US it is absolutely imperative to find ways for freedom from association - and Jim has been highly focused and articulate of that - that is why I do not object to continuing his presence in the main post; as he can be a highly articulate spokesman of that concern, in particular.

This “freedom” is a way of using Alinsky against them – viz., making liberals and those who would impose liberalism, live up to their rules.

Now then, it was I, who noted immediately, the need to coordinate that concern with the very different concerns of the ancient European ecologies, where that intermediate step, concerns of assimilating liberalism and freedom, are anathema, the last thing that need to be highlighted.
 
It is in fact the vast difference of these concerns and the task of coordinating them that was interesting to me, and I strongly hope for you to see it that way - because we need your help - how to keep European peoples and their various communities as you might wish.

To note that the needs of European Europeans and European Americans are different, but not necessarily in conflict is a project in need of coordination and in need of your help.

You are also highly relevant in negotiating can I say, the mereology, of these smaller units and its grander form, so that we may in fact hold up to larger non-European nations and take on ambitious projects worthy of our dreams. Toward that end, your concerns on matters of fratricide are profound.

Now then, this essay has been re-edited for the third time: The first time by Soren Renner, the second time by Professor Kevin MacDonald and this time by an American whose voice has figured in WN circles for a while.

There are some phrasings that I like better than previous forms and some that I don’t like quite as much, but the content should be basically the same. My one issue with this version is how it would be apprehended by someone such as yourself, because the concern for the ancient human ecologies of Europe, which is second to none as a concern, is a bit quiet in this rendition (the idea of coordination has been quieted as well – I preferred my initial phrasing, “this focuses attention on the matter of coordination”).

In addition, my colleague who edited this had thought to add a rubric of “individuality”- that was just about the only change to his edit that I insisted upon, knowing how you would (rightfully) respond.
“Freedom from association” was inserted instead and I know that you still don’t like that, but please understand that that is an emphasis for the other concern, for those who live outside of Europe and need that emphasis, as their historical peoplehood is not so taken for granted.

Although I would imagine you would like the freedom not to associate with Americans, thus there is some ingredient there for your recipe.

For the exclusion of that one proposed rubric, “individuality”, I had written this:
Some, such as Dr. Lister, will attack a rubric such as “individualism” and he is not exactly wrong. It will feed into his worst suspicions of Bowery - and in turn,  it is not good to make Bowery shy-away, as he can be an articulate spokesmen (particularly for the American concerns)

Specifically, I would not add the rubric “individuality” (where “Freedom From Association” has been entered) as it highlights what is in significant part, a kind of Cartesian fiction that has gone into our problems to begin with - not recognizing the necessary indebtedness to the social wholes of our folk. There are degrees of individuality that are real and important, but they are all contingent upon the social and its culture nevertheless - a de-emphasis that has had us in trouble.

Notions of individualism and freedom are more important to emphasize as a matter of tact for the American context, using its traditional, liberal ways of talking, the Constitution and so on – a sneaky way of making them live by “their rules” as Alinsky might say. Though some may still see it as European way that will shake-off non-European kinds, I believe that in and among the ancient European human ecologies, these notions are rightfully be seen as the last thing that need to be fore-fronted as a value.

Beyond adding these notes, no changes to the content are proposed, other than the redundancy of “some” - (the word “some” had been added to the text) as in “some” ancient ecologies are important – the word some was taken out because ecologies are ancient European or they are not ancient. And again, the rubric “Individuality’ was changed to ‘Freedom From Association” as emphasis on individuality would signal a propensity to a fundamental mistake that all those concerned with our people as a whole, would see us as inclined to make all over again.

Again, I believe Bowery has articulated freedom from association to a commendable degree. The idea of one being demoted in moral recognition where they refuse to recognize forms of freedom from association strikes me as more than valid and rather important.

It strikes me as valid for a community or nation to establish a rule that states that if someone wants to leave say, and have mixed children, they may do so - but they may not return, especially not their offspring; instead they must live with the consequences of their actions and not force those consequences upon, e.g. the European communities, those who have mandated to remain European.

On the other hand, your concerns and abilities are crucial. Both GW and I have been at pains to note that we are largely in agreement with your perspective. I know that Bowery’s name being among the post is going to be distasteful to you; but please understand that I organized these thoughts prior to understanding the velocity that you saw necessary to put behind your critique of his views. My more obtuse vantage is of a perspective where conflict between your views is not ultimately necessary. 

We need your help. If cooperation takes creating another version that does not mention names or adds your name and input, that would be ok with me. My name is not there. I am just trying to make this work because it is that important.

Again, I agree with GW here

“I do not want to explore Graham’s stinging criticism of theories which he sees as irredeemably liberalistic, yet worse, religious in kind, and of terminologies incorrectly applied from the biological sciences.  If he is right (and I think, broadly, he is)...”

And I have not left MR because of it; rather believing that your observations are important while earnestly hoping for your help in coordinating these matters.

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 17:36 | #

James UK et al. take note of this Colin Liddell article at The Occidental Observer:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/11/doctor-shekel-and-mr-blair-jewish-wealth-promotes-gibbering-immigration-insanity-in-the-uk-and-the-us/#more-21456

Doctor Shekel and Mr Blair: Jewish Wealth Promotes Gibbering Immigration Insanity in the UK and the US

“John Derbyshire of VDare and Taki Mag writes:

  Someday historians will find an explanation for the gibbering insanity of British immigration policy this past fifty years. I have none. (John Derbyshire Finds There’s Still An England — And It Could Yet Be Saved, VDare, 14th November 2013)

Actually, some aspects of this insanity are quite comprehensible. For one thing, the gibbering insanity of British immigration policy reached its peak during the New Labour government (see here). Under Tony Blair, Britain’s treasonous narcissist-in-chief, Britain was flooded with workers for the jobs native Whites won’t do, like suicide-bombing, gang-rape, sadistic murder and no-trace body-disposal.

In this, Blair’s Britain is the exact opposite of far-off Israel, which is determined to maintain its racial and religious identity using border fences and mass deporations.

One might think that Blair would consistently oppose nations that control their borders and thus deprive themselves of all of that wonderful vibrancy and social dissolution. But that would be wrong.”

“I am not puzzled by this seeming contradiction because Blair’s rise to power was funded by an ardent Zionist Lord Levy. But Levy was forced to depart after the “Cash for Honours” scandal, in which he sold life peerages to Jewish and Asian businessmen to raise money for Blair. He was replaced as chief Labour fundraiser by Jonathan Mendelsohn, another ardent Zionist and one-time head of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI)”

“So here’s a question: Do politicians who receive lavish funding from rich Jews adopt policies that displease rich Jews?

I think not. Blair’s lies and deceit about the Iraq war did him absolutely no harm with Britain’s vibrant Zionist community. Nor did his open-door policies on immigration. Indeed, he appointed a Jewish minister to oversee them: the peculiar-looking Barbara Roche, who insisted to native Whites that Britain was a “nation of immigrants” and who co-founded the lobbying group Migration Matters, which campaigns for “progressive migration policies” (see here).”

“But Britain now has a new “Conservative” government under the part-Jewish David Cameron, who entered office loudly promising to slash immigration. Alas, he’s had little success: huge numbers of non-Whites are still pouring in. Does this displease Lord Feldman, the wealthy Jewish chairman of the Tory party who oversees its funding? Apparently not. Does it displease Feldman’s co-chairman, Grant Shapps, another wealthy Jew? Again, apparently not. The Jewish money continues to flow and the Conservative party continues to accept mass immigration and cultural Marxism. Indeed, the party promotes the latter: Cameron was central to the push for gay marriage. Like European integration, gay marriage isn’t popular with ordinary Tories, whom Lord Feldman is alleged to have called “swivel-eyed loons” (see here).”

“This should go some way to enlightening Mr. Derbyshire on a critical force on behalf of immigration insanity in the UK and the US and immigration sanity in Israel. Quite simply, immigration policy cannot be understood without comprehending how Jewish wealth and power flexibly advance Jewish interests in the Diaspora while favouring completely different policies in Israel.”

Colin Liddel

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 21:22 | #

...but rather a polite Hitler worshiper…who would never tolerate turning people off, let along scaring them away, by using the N word LOL

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Nov 2013 01:02 | #

Perhaps we need to clarify what we mean when we speak of freedom and individualism.  To that end it might help to set aside the terminally unfamiliar ontological approach for now and focus solely on the sociobiological one.  So, a very few, very tentative thoughts ...

The more I wonder about this whole matter of the European psyche, its supposed primordial individualism and the conflictedness of that with an altruism that roughly half of the spectrum of liberal opinion, at least, thinks is more primordial still, the less satisfied I am with it.  If anything truly deserves the name “primordial” it can only be because it goes beyond the concerns of the petty self, and runs out into the gene interests we all have in both our own children and in the ethny.  The male sex is particularly focused on the latter, since protecting other ethny members’ families induces protection of one’s own.  It is a wise investment.  Within the ethnic group there is no conflict between individual and collective interests.  They cohere, and the basis of their coherence is love - a similar point to one I made on another thread recently.

Freedom, it seems to me, enters earlier in the reproductive story.  It has to do with mate competition and the capacity of the male (and to a lesser extent the female) to realize sexual destiny.  That is surely its sociobiological root.

If so, then we can make the claim that freedom of the individual and altruism and self-sacrifice are not conflicted because they do not arise at the same moment in human time, or in the same act of human reflection.  There is something foundationally wrong with a system - liberalism, for example - in which they appear to conflict.  It cannot be right that interests we hold in our people at large somehow constrain the individual from mate competition.  Of course, what is wrong is precisely that liberal thought does not interrogate nature or the primordial, but has an ontologically flat view of the world - something most thinking nationalists know only too well.

I do wonder whether James is interested enough in liberalism to possess a nationalist (or even Western Marxist) critique of it - and, without it, whether he can develop a valid system of ideas.

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 28 Nov 2013 06:22 | #

GW@4

I really think you’re begging the central question. Liberals extend GI to all humans - and this makes a certain sense because humans are not undifferentiated members of tribal or ethnic groups, but are all individuals. It is as individuals that we act and feel. I can neither control your will, nor literally feel your pain. Christianity is correct: the individual is the proper locus of moral analysis and judgment.

Whites are the least racist race because we are the most highly evolved (though I can well see how that statement would appear circular). Whites’ lack of racism is of a piece with our overall altruism. Just as Jews, on average, are more intelligent than other groups, so Aryans are, on average, more ethical and benevolent. Is this surprising? Should it be? It has always been this way. By far the greatest amount of substantive moral philosophizing has been the province of whites. I would argue that our very racial altruism is a sign of our racial superiority.

What nationalist philosophers try to do is, I think, fundamentally wrong. They attempt to create a philosophy in which the group (national or racial) is held to be the fundamental, irreducible ‘social atom’, as if any group of individuals can ever be truly analogized to a single will. In that direction lies totalitarianism. 

The truth behind what political nationalism exists is that many whites (but possibly not even a majority) simply don’t want to be forced to live in multiracial societies. They don’t wish to live in countries in which all ‘groupishness’, at least for whites themselves, is banned or frowned upon, as cultural heritage and pride are important aspects of normal human life. They also don’t wish to live around many nonwhite groups because such groups are culturally hostile, or biologically dysgenic, or generally distasteful and unpleasant, where not actually murderously criminal. Most nonwhites add nothing of real value to white societies, and usually bring tremendous problems in their wake. The most bizarre element of the West today is, accordingly, the lack of white racism. Why so few whites are even racial conservatives really cries out for considered investigation.

My point is that one can be both an ethical individualist and a political nationalist, and that developing that moral synthesis is likely to be more helpful politically than expressions of either esoteric (and problematic, if not incomprehensible) ontology, or crude biological determinism.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 28 Nov 2013 08:32 | #

I have made a few minor edits for the sake of clarity:

I have separated from the previous paragraph the sentence that begins here

Ultimately, in order for one to dwell, socialize

And added “socializing” as a condition for approval.

I have also moved this sentence a few paragraphs below where it had been to where it now make sbetter sense:

“Regarding the habitation of ancient European lands, these requirements will likely be fairly strict and culturally rigorous.”

In response to Leon and GW’s comments, I have this to say:

Should we be surprised that Leon would barely approximate the scope of relevance? He is criticizing biological determinism? Maybe he is running out of places to run and hide..that might be a start.

...however, much of what we “feel” as individuals, or at least how those feelings count, is guided by the narratives and rules we share in our co-evolution - social.

..........

GW, I am not in the habit of looking upon liberalism as a male thing. However, I suppose that at the stage upon which you remark (the male wishing to exploit his fuller potential in mate selection) it is.

Even so, in terms of political reality and its practical fall-out, it is apparent that liberalism, in the main, is more of female proclivity and corresponding politic.

They can incite genetic competition through liberal openness to out-groups, can maintain more control by increasing stress on males in this way, while beta females, so to speak, can strike an undue bargain in the short term.

Our antagonists in power know this and are pandering to our co-evolutionary women. Our co-evolutionary women go along with it all too easily. While many may not approve of it under the surface (pandering with liberalism, for the immediate benefits it yields to individual females), it is convenient for them to allow these narratives to circulate.

The liberal tendencies of females and the emasculation of our males as they challenge it, is probably a problem in need of attention.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:46 | #

Leon,

It is as individuals that we act and feel

It is not as atomised individuals that we act and feel.  We are blood, we are kin, we are lovers, we are part of other people’s lives and they are part of ours.  We are not the Jewish notion of the individual that serves and satisfies the Jewish notion of the raceless gentile.  Christianity is a Jewish religion, liberalism is secular Christianity.  It does not cognise our full humanity.

Being “racist” (in the classical sense - let’s not be beholden to another Jewish notion with that) is not measured according to how “evolved” races are.  All human races are evolved for fitness to environment and, ordinarily, that makes them more different as time and selection wend their way.  There is no grand unity, no single metric in Nature, no journey on which all human groups can be measured for progress.  Europeans are not “more evolved” than Modern Africans.  They are differently evolved.

I rather doubt that Europeans are less ethnocentric than other races, Jews excepted.  But we have had our natural faith system replaced with a Jewish one; and we have had our politics developed out of that, and provided with additional Jewish “philosophy” throughout.  Man is suggestible, and these things constitute suggestion at the level of personality formation.  Instincts remain what they always were (as you nearly state in your fourth paragraph), but they are covered over, awaiting rediscovery.

Your third paragraph has some merit, but only in respect to the religious type of nationalist thinking which especially inhabits the fascisms.  The faith instinct is both a boon and a curse - a boon when the guiding philosophy of the age accords with the nature of the people, a curse when it doesn’t.

Regarding your fifth paragraph I will just say that you have no theory of the personality, and therefore you do not know how you came to be what you are or how you might be closer to your own truth.  Christianity does not do this special thing - there is no esoteric centre in it (as there is in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam).  You dislike the notion of such change today because it threatens what you love so much.  But I will get through to you in the end, because I am speaking the truth.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:06 | #

Daniel,

I am not writing specifically about liberalism or its notions of individualism and altruism.  I don’t find these to be adequate descriptives.  At bottom, Man must dominate other men to win the best mate.  But then he must love all his kind for them to love his own ... animal sexuality meets the social as survival strategy.  We are certainly not individual wills breaking the bounds of our natures to be free; and we are not compassionates weeping over the Other’s happily consolable pain.  Whether it is essentially masculine or feminine in nature, liberal thought is corrupt and corrupting.

I don’t see women as a problem.  I see them as beings who need from their men strength and light and deliverance from chaos.  If that is not forthcoming they will search for some proxy.  Feminism is the lie that the proxy is within Woman.  Women as well as men require a vivifying ideational world through which to move, and by which to know and experience their true selves.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:21 | #

Daniel,

I am not writing specifically about liberalism or its notions of individualism and altruism.  I don’t find these to be adequate descriptives. 

OK.

“At bottom, Man must dominate other men to win the best mate.”

I hope and believe that on a human level these motives may be moved to non-lethal forms of competition, inasmuch as they are deliberate. And that these motives will be relegated to unconscious, biological levels (e.g. the sperm battle). It seems rather a bit strange and reckless to do otherwise: rather like putting the figure before the ground and expecting good results on a backward premise.

“But then he must love all his kind for them to love his own ... animal sexuality meets the social as survival strategy.  We are certainly not individual wills breaking the bounds of our natures to be free; and we are not compassionates weeping over the Other’s happily consolable pain.  Whether it is essentially masculine or feminine in nature, liberal thought is corrupt and corrupting.”

Well, it may not be essentially feminine or masculine, but beyond many anecdotal experiences, it seems clear that women vote liberal more than men do (at least at this point in evolution).

“I don’t see women as a problem.”

That is a problem particularly when the bounds of our groups are ruptured with prohibitions against “racism.” Their liberal proclivities can go into runaway as they are pandered to by Jewish interests.

“I see them as beings who need from their men strength and light and deliverance from chaos.  If that is not forthcoming they will search for some proxy.  Feminism is the lie that the proxy is within Woman.  Women as well as men require a vivifying ideational world through which to move, and by which to know and experience their true selves.”

This last part I can agree with - sounds good.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 04:42 | #

If Augustinianism (honest cooperation) becomes boring, there can be non-lethal competitions set up to evaluate certain skills which are valuable to the social whole. It might be a bit sad for the losers in a moment, but non-lethal nevertheless, still recognizing their intrinsic value. On the other hand, the skills and value of the victor are manifest, whereupon they might be rewarded with added qualities that do not take away from the fundamental needs of the loser.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 05:10 | #

“rather like putting the figure before the ground and expecting good results on a backward premise.”

* the ground before the figure.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:03 | #

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/11/doctor-shekel-and-mr-blair-jewish-wealth-promotes-gibbering-immigration-insanity-in-the-uk-and-the-us/

Correction: This article is by Tobias Langdon, not Colin Liddell

“Doctor Shekel and Mr Blair: Jewish Wealth Promotes Gibbering Immigration Insanity in the UK and the US
November 27, 2013 — 1 Comment
Tobias Langdon

John Derbyshire of VDare and Taki Mag writes:

  Someday historians will find an explanation for the gibbering insanity of British immigration policy this past fifty years. I have none. (John Derbyshire Finds There’s Still An England — And It Could Yet Be Saved, VDare, 14th November 2013)

Actually, some aspects of this insanity are quite comprehensible. For one thing, the gibbering insanity of British immigration policy reached its peak during the New Labour government (see here). Under Tony Blair, Britain’s treasonous narcissist-in-chief, Britain was flooded with workers for the jobs native Whites won’t do, like suicide-bombing, gang-rape, sadistic murder and no-trace body-disposal.”

Etc.

Tobias Langdon

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 03:09 | #

Tony Blair Awarded ‘Special Prize’ By Poland For Helping EU Bid And ‘Opening Up Britain’

More than 54,000 European Union citizens have been convicted of crimes — including murder — in the past two years The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Poles and Romanians are the worst offenders according to the figures, adding to concerns over the impact of the two most recent EU expansions.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 03:38 | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 12, 2007, 01:02 AM

There appears to be a significant correlation between Polish immigration and BNP turnout. Wrexham, in North Wales, voiced concern over Poles taking Welsh jobs. Similarly resentment to the cheap Polish labour was found in South Wales, in locales like Aberavon, the home of British Steel.

Yorkshire and Humberside showed growth for the BNP, again an area with significant levels of cheap Polish labour.

Since 2004, however, North Yorkshire has become home to thousands of migrant workers from eastern Europe, the majority of them young Poles who have found jobs in employment sectors ranging from farms and factories to hotels, restaurants and care homes. Tom Linden, the BNP organiser for North Yorkshire, says their willingness to accept relatively low rates of pay is driving down wages, undercutting British workers and leading to reduced investment in training.

“Why would an employer put British teenagers through apprenticeships when he can advertise for some workers in Poland and get them the next day? The BNP, he said, saw “a massive untapped potential in North Yorkshire”.

“Local people are suffering every day, not just because the country is being taken over by nonnative British people, but because of things like crime and antisocial behaviour.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/those_bnp_results

LOL. Of course the increase in crime and anti-social behaviour is a direct result of the fact that non-natives are replacing British people.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 06:00 | #

Desmond, Britain has my full sympathy for fielding the criminal dregs of Poland. For that matter, they have my sympathy for fielding Poland’s hard workers, pretty women, desperate women, creative people, etc - they were all destined to go there through the EU and impact Britain’s native genome.

I have always been against the EU.

And I am all too familiar with Poland’s criminal element - they were bound to go there. I will describe some of their tactics later on. You have more than my sympathy, you will have my support in ridding yourselves of them.

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 04 Dec 2013 12:13 | #

I imagine Desmond resides in Canada, a multi - cultural haven in which, inter alia, the Tamil imports might well outdo the Poles in the matter of criminals per head of ethnic group.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 04 Dec 2013 23:08 | #

The issue is only marginally about crime, Al. The real issue is the preservation of ethnic genetic interests. The number of Polish immigrants needed to reduce Irish EGI by one child equivalent is, according to Salter’s table, 8.7. The number of non-European Caucasians need to reduce European Caucasians EGI by one child equivalent is 8.5. Therefore, the Irish should be happy to be replaced by Poles but angry about replacement by Turks. Either way the result is the same. Extinction.

There were no Tamils at the Christie Pits riot.

Posted by Matra on September 23, 2007

But lets go back in time. In the 1930s Toronto was the sight of the Christie Pits riot between Anglo-Saxons and Jews. Angelo Principe wrote in The Darkest Side Of The Fascist Years:

...in Canada as in Italy, Italians and Jews got along well together…Italians and Jews worked in the needle industry and garment trades both in Montreal and Toronto and both communities experienced discrimination by Canadian nativists, Anglo-Saxon right wingers and the militant Orange Order…Jewish and Italian women often baby-sat for each other and, thus, some Italian-Canadian children could function in Yiddish…

A splendid example of their good relations was the Italian participation on the side of the Jews in the Christie Pits Park riot in 1933. Stimulated by Hitler’s anti-semitism in Germany, some right wing Canadian youths created a Swastika Club in Toronto and practised discrimination and sometimes even engaged in violence against Jews. Christie Pits Park at the junction of Bloor and Christie Streets on the city’s west side was the theatre of violent fights between boys of the Swastika Club and Jews in the summer of 1933. Scores of Italian boys went to help their Jewish friends and one of the participants recalled that he was the only Jew in a truckload of Italian boys rushing to Christie Pits

.

Posted by Joseph Northpal on Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:25 | #

Older Whites will serve a minimum of 2 years in military defense

What army have you been in ?
Where in the hell is the precedent for such a disaster ?

Posted by Bob in DC on Thu, 05 Dec 2013 04:47 | #

What army have you been in ?
Where in the hell is the precedent for such a disaster ?

The best armies of ancient Greece, among others, were led by their generals from the front — not the rear.

The experience of elders is needed on the field of battle — not in board rooms.

The young must survive to procreate.  Their elders must teach and lead.

That is the Aryan Way.

Posted by DanielS on Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:33 | #

Bob, thank you for your appearance and voicing-in.

It is particularly big of you as I know and understand how appreciative you are of the personnel and the abilities of The Reich. Thus, it must be disconcerting to see me laying such responsibility at their feet - in the heat of argument against their staunchest advocates - online skirmishes that may sweep-past the fact of theirs and all of our affliction by the bacillus; that must be taken into account when considering over-compensations.

Northpal, I’d invite you to my grandmother’s for home made ravioli and hand rolled cavatelli with wet ricotta (you would have turned onto the street before Columbus Hospital, coming from the first ward direction and Dicky Dees), but she is deceased. She might not have been a great fighter, it is true: but could cook for the legions. My grandfather, now that was another matter - just give him a little equipment.

It is true that there are some things older people cannot do; and that there will have to be at least a modicum of some such service from younger folks; but particularly with the benefit of technology, there is much that older people can do.

Posted by Jews turn objective empathy to subjective sympathy on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:39 | #

Wolf Wallstreet, a.k.a. “Bob in D.C.”, draws an excellent analytic distinction regarding how it is that Jews have co-opted White psychological proclivities. Specifically, he suggests, hypothesizes, you might legitimately say, that:

“Empathy is objective / sympathy is subjective’

..though people often confuse them..

Empathy is objectively analytic, where one has a detached understanding but nevertheless an understanding of the others perspective, to where one can look at that person or people in their situation and understand them. On the basis of that information they can help them as if kin, or they can even use the empathic information to strategically oppose them as enemies.

That is a clearly useful capacity that Europeans have.

However, the Jews turn our objective empathy into sympathy: Sympathy is the subjective and emotional concern for the others position to where it cares quite singularly in identifying with them, to where it would help them - even obsequiously.

Jews create situations where European peoples empathize with others then they bring-in the sympathy buttons to push.

This then creates all the crazy responses to their agenda to genocide Whites, to where it looks like White suicide but is actually genocide of Whites: in fact a triumph of the Jews in a war over Whites.

That is a brilliant analysis by Wolf Wall Street. It is too bad he is uneven in his White advocacy. In the same podcast he said that it makes no sense for White advocates to attack Christians when they are anti Jew and not these Christian Zionist types.

On the contrary, there is plenty reason to oppose the Jewish mind cancer of White logic and defense otherwise called Christianity.

On the other hand, what does not make sense about the otherwise intelligent and decent guy that is Wolf Wall Street is why he would place loyalty to Hitler above loyalty to Whites. He showed signs of coming around to a reasonable position - acknowledging that it might be impossible to reconcile Hitler advocacy with Slavs (and much of Europe besides Germans) - which it is, but unfortunately, Carolyn Yeager kept him from coming around. 

Posted by A favor Trump owes on Sun, 13 Mar 2016 17:27 | #

Some interesting remarks early-on in Wolf Wallstreet’s Talk Show on March 13th::

- Gathering storm of race war lo in South Africa;

- The prospect of exile for South Afrikaners if Trump gets in - because Trump would owe Whites big time if he did win; he ought to be pressured to help in that regard; noting his one time remark that European (White) immigration to the US should be encouraged.

- Trump’s being compromised by Jewish mafia connections in N.Y. (Brighton Beach); these are nefarious people involved in the banking industry who can have motives in wanting to prevent a two state solution for Israel; trying to get China to float its currency.

-  Noting the assault on Trump, what security detail means for heads of state.

- The example of Kennedy’s security: James Jesus Angledon, an insane Zionist and creator of the Mossad structure, was director of Counter Intelligence at the CIA when Kennedy was assassinated.

* One salient error is when WWS provides “examples” of the difficulty of European nationalism, saying that “Croats hate Serbs, Poles hate Russians.”  It is not true that Poles hate Russians and therefore it is not an example of the “hopelessness” of national coordination.

That may be a kind of wishful thinking on WWS’ part. He tends to justify his favorite regime.

Posted by Norvin Hobbs on Wed, 29 Aug 2018 11:17 | #

Now is not the time to let our foot off the gas

Posted by OREL on Wed, 13 May 2020 09:34 | #

An Operation to Secure the Future of the Western Nations

Apr 21, 2020

OREL -Polstrat Project

This video series is dedicated to anyone, who wants to learn about a solution for the problem of our collapsing western civilization and the substitution of our people in our countries.

I am expecting that if this plan is approved- aware people will unite in action over the realization of this operation.

This is the only realistic peaceful solution, there is no alternative.

! Playlist with the Plan for the operation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El7IN...

! URGENT For those who approve the plan, and wish to declare their support, watch this! - https://youtu.be/ujpq2BnMEc4

Contact: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Contact information and the links to our emergency accounts on alternative platforms: https://youtu.be/ZQEe3FyUBLA