Posted by Bill on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:40 | #

And here’s another,

The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.

Then they came for the blogging dissident.

And another.

It was never really about “the terrorists”. It was not even about civil unrest. It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you.

Surprise! - Surprise!

When the penny dropped this is the first thing my gut instinct told me.  The War on Terror is the war on You!.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:12 | #

Occupy Wall Street tried to gain a foothold in Britain but only managed to raise puzzled curiosity among the general populace, the media treated it in similar vein and quietly left the movement to stew in almost indifference.

The bell went for the last round when police cleared them off the doorstep of the City and nothing has been heard of them since.

Do you think they will ever return?

Is this article by Brendon O’Neill in any way a hint to the feeling among the left?

In 2013, can we call off the Culture Wars?

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13212/

OWS is very silent on the culture front.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:45 | #

This is a good topic and I have noticed/experienced some of this going on..

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:52 | #

Interesting piece by O’Neill, Bill.  As I intimated at the head of the OP, there are things the left does well.  Reacting to authoritarianism is certainly one of those.  Whether it can react to its own authoritarianism, separating from it and creating a new ideological space, is another matter.

For instance, O’Neill was not able to cite race as part of the New Authoritarian gambit.  It is too difficult even for somebody declaring his independence to declare that the racial dissolution of European peoples has no place in the Western intellectual canon; and represents only a crime of genocidal proportions.  It just doesn’t compute yet.

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 10:55 | #

http://www.againstequality.org/2012/09/01/our-newest-anthology-on-critiques-of-hate-crime-laws-will-go-to-print-soon/

Strange bedfellows in the struggle against hate-crime laws?!?

Posted by Bill on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:26 | #

The Daily Bell has picked up on the Guardian’s piece and maintains that OWS was a false flag from the start.

Is Occupy dead?

It could be that the powers-that-be intended to crush the Occupy movement as a matter of course ... that this was the plan all along. But this seems unlikely to us. It makes sense that the powers-that-be harshly suppressed Occupy because it was threatening to spin out of control.

http://www.thedailybell.com/28526/Is-Occupy-Dead

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 14:22 | #

What you’ll see in the rebellion

Written By: Bob - Dec• 28•12

“Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.

They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush.

After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted.

Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds,  but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved.

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia.

While the Secret Service will be able to protect the President in the White House, he will not dare leave his gilded cage except in carefully controlled circumstances. Even then he will be forced to move like a criminal. He will never be seen outdoors in public again. Not in this country.

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well.

Here, the President will doubtlessly order the activation of National Guard units and the regular military to impose martial law, setting the largest and most powerful military in the world against its own people. Unfortunately, the tighter the President clinches his tyrannical fist, the more rebels he makes.

Military commands and federal agencies will be whittled down as servicemen and agents will desert or defect. Some may leave as individuals, others may join the Rebellion in squad and larger-sized units with all their weapons, tactics, skills, and insider intelligence. The regime will be unable to trust its own people, and because they cannot trust them, they will lose more in a vicious cycle of collapse.

Some of these defectors will be true “operators,” with the skills and background to turn ragtag militia cells into the kind of forces that decimate loyalist troops, allowing them no rest and no respite, striking them when they are away from their most potent weapons. Military vehicles are formidable, but they are thirsty beasts, in terms of fuel, ammo, time, and maintenance. Tanks and bombers are formidable only when they have gas, guns, and can be maintained. In a war without a front, logistics are incredibly easy to destroy, and mechanics and supply clerks are not particularly adept at defending themselves.

Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.

If we’re lucky, the United States of America, or whatever amalgam results, will again try to rebuild. If we’re very lucky, the victors will reinstate the Constitution as the law of the land. Just as likely though, we’ll face fractious civil wars fought over issues we’ve not begun to fathom, and a much diminished state or states will result, perhaps guided by foreign interests.

It will not be pretty. There will be no “winners,” and perhaps hundreds of thousands to millions of dead.

Yet, this is the future we face if the power-mad among us are not soundly defeated at the ballot box before they affect more “change” than we, the People, are willing to surrender to would-be tyrants.”

[author’s note: This article is just one of an evolving series of posts reacting to current events that many are interpreting as possible threats to our Republic and the Constitution. Please proceed to the main page to keep up to date. Thank you.]

source:

http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/12/what-youll-see-in-the-rebellion/

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 15:58 | #

The late great Andrew Breitbart confronts OWS protesters.

I dig the way he gets right up in their grills and calls them freaks and animals. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4od4QQVK1o

Man I sure do miss that wild and crazy Jew!

But as a consolation, his legacy lives on.

BTW, I still strongly suspect he was croaked by those in the government media complex.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:22 | #

Sorted by increasing date:

First I noticed some attention from OWS folks, e.g.:

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/tax-rich#comment-20284

The I got questions from them:

http://blode0322.blogspot.com/2012/02/bowery-on-bowery-tax.html

It is time for a declaration of fifth generation warfare against the money power and I believe I have it well formulated:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3346271&cid=42419669

I believe it is this kind of “Web 2.0” warfare that the money power fears may grow out of OWS and the kind of gruging credit accorded “the unbelievably right wing” in the first link.

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Wed, 02 Jan 2013 02:14 | #

>>  harshly suppressed Occupy because it was threatening to spin out of control

Raise your hand if you think the Occupy movement was ever able to correctly organize the site toilets, much less a Revolution. Occupy was a media event.

The inner core of governmental authorities actually don’t imagine that they are running according to a long term sustainable plan; they are satisifed that their opponents will never have a real “Army” because they’ll never be able to put together a believable pension scheme.

In every long-term regime in history, the stalwarts of the security organs are those who want to a “secure job”  with a pension after putting up with the 20-years of dealing with the public.

Disclaimer: “believable”  is relative to the audience.  If you are Papa Doc in Haiti, you only have to produce a pension plan that African cops would trust.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:28 | #

The Socialist Mind Game: A Brief Manual

By Oleg Atbashian

We are being played; it’s time we learned the game.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_socialist_mind_game_a_brief_manual.html#ixzz2GvVkPe7L
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Posted by Thorn on Fri, 04 Jan 2013 14:00 | #

I’ve never heard of the author of the article that I posted @ 11 but his message should not be taken lightly. He correctly came to the conclusion that Marxist theory when practised in the real world results in something profoundly evil; whilst a constitutionally limited Republic coupled with free market capitalism results in something profoundly good. Of course those truths are not exactly earth-shattering profundities; most of us already are aware of and understand them, but he does an excellent job of explaining why it is so.

“Growing up in the USSR, where the only permitted sources of information were textbooks and the official media, I believed that the Soviet Union was the most advanced society, while all other countries lived in poverty and oppression, devoid of the sun of Marxism-Leninism. I wanted them to become more like the USSR for their own good, and couldn’t wait to grow up and live in the communist future, not worrying about money.

With years, as I began to encounter boundaries to intellectual inquiry, coupled with rampant hypocrisy and corruption, I initially attributed it to the wrong, dogmatic interpretation of Marxism by the ruling elites. Next came the realization that Marxism was not the solution, but the cause of the dysfunctional system, and that the communist utopia was only a dead-end exit in humanity’s long and stressful journey towards progress. I took on activism, joined political underground, collected signatures in defense of dissidents, and wrote articles and short stories that satirized socialism and the self-delusional Soviet regime. Most of it was never published.

I moved to the United States in 1994, hoping to forget about politics and enjoy life in a country that was ruled by reason and common sense, whose citizens were appreciative of constitutional rights, the rule of law, and the prosperity of free market capitalism. But what I found was a society deeply infected by the leftist disease of “progressivism” that was jeopardizing real societal progress. So I started writing again, this time in English.”

Oleg Atbashian

Usually I only watch vids that are no longer than 3 or 4 minutes. This vid is 48 minutes long and it kept my attention to the very end. ( Don’t know if Oleg is Jewish or not but he sure implicitly says things that point to the problem of Jewish Supremacism.)

Oleg Atbashian Speaks to King Street Patriots in Houston, TX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0TMOerW-eM&feature=player_embedded

 

 

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 10:09 | #

For GW, Graham Lister, DanielS, and other economic collectivists among the MR commentariat, something to ponder:

Significantly increasing household income and total factor productivity (TFP), meaning getting more output from capital and labor, will require a winding back of SOE [LH: “state-owned enterprises”] wealth and opportunity—and, by implication, the role of the Communist Party in the Chinese economy.

For example, land reforms in the early 1980s allowed plot holders to produce whatever they wanted after meeting minimum quotas and selling surplus produce at market prices. This led to the rise of “township and village enterprises,” a spontaneous and unplanned explosion of community-led small industry. Although these were technically owned by local governments, they were run by private households that were allowed to keep most of the profits. Importantly, household incomes during this decade of Chinese rural entrepreneurialism rose at rates that corresponded with GDP growth. This period actually witnessed <u>the effective retreat of the state in economic activity</u>, and four-fifths of the poverty elimination that has occurred since 1980 was achieved during this first decade.

But then the state reclaimed much greater dominance over the economy in the aftermath of the countrywide protests in 1989, which led to the Tiananmen Square violence. The regime realized it faced a peril in becoming irrelevant to rising new elites, and the Communist Party thus decided it must remain the dominant dispenser of career, business, professional and even social opportunity. Thus did it tie the future of various elites to that of the party. The SOEs were returned to a dominant role in the economy, as evidenced by the nature of the current Chinese economy.

The problem is that the vast majority of Chinese SOEs don’t perform well in comparison with private firms. That’s because they are fed on easy diets of cheap and below-market credit rates as well as tax and subsidy privileges, and they are shielded from having to compete with domestic and international private firms. Thus, they thrive in a corporate culture and economic setting in which commercial success often is based more on political connection and maneuvering than on economic efficiency and innovation. Studies show that even China’s largest and most efficient SOEs perform two to three times worse than domestic private Chinese firms on measures such as profitability, return on assets, return on equity, return on sales and TFP. Remember that these are the same SOEs that receive three-quarters of the country’s on-the-books bank loans, otherwise referred to as formal finance. In contrast, domestic private firms are frequently forced to borrow from the “shadow” banking sector at rates that are at least four or five times higher than for formal loans.

To drastically raise both household incomes and TFP—and to avoid potential social catastrophe as the country ages—Beijing will need to oversee the massive and rapid transfer of national wealth from the state-corporate sector to the private and household sector. Options include a major SOE privatization drive, although such policies will be pointless if well-connected families are allowed to snap up shares in SOEs, as occurred during the 1990s and earlier this decade.

http://nationalinterest.org/article/pitfalls-aging-china-7886?page=show

Capitalism is not only the most just economic system, it is the most efficient, and this latter fact has been proven repeatedly under widely varying geographical, cultural, racial and legal conditions.

The answer is not less capitalism, but more (minus the plutocratic special pleading and tax favors as well as macroeconomic interventions, especially from central banks).

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 10:42 | #

Leon, I am for free enterprise, but the fundamental question is to what extent and in particular, by and for who.

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 12:35 | #

If as a movement Occupy retains its radicalism, and is not drawn into the system, and does not decline into a constructive engagement with the Democratic party as the Tea Party movement has through its engagement with the GOP, then there is an historic possibility open to it.  It could, through the agency of its more radical intellectuals, formulate and evangelise a revolutionary alternative to neoliberalism in a post-market age.

This is not impossible or improbable.  All that is required is a little of the financial contagion one hears about to morph into ideological contagion.  An Establishment whose sole purpose is to extract value from ordinary Americans and redirect it to the investor class could find its power to defend itself damaged, even compromised.  It may not take much for the spirit of a recessionary age to turn to one of creative destruction.

If that were to be the case, the Tea Party movement will have been completely sidelined.  Look at the historical irrelevance of its “non-negotiable core beliefs”:

1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally.
2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
3. Stronger Military Is Essential.
4. Special Interests Eliminated.
5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
6. Government Must Be Downsized.
7. National Budget Must Be Balanced.
8. Deficit Spending Will End.
9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory.
12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
13. Intrusive Government Stopped.
14. English As Core Language Is Required.
15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

You see what I mean. (Guessedworker)

No, I most certainly do NOT see what you mean, not an atom of it.

“Historical irrelevance”? That list is outstanding - and ALWAYS relevant. I may have a few quibbles and additions (most prominently, abolishing legal immigration and the Fed, along with then restoring a 100% gold dollar), and I’m always one for putting more teeth into anodyne phrases like “traditional family values”, but on the whole, the USA or any Anglosaxonist nation should be so lucky as to have that list translated into public policy. 

GW, you can produce interesting commentary, with the occasional well-wrought turn phrase, and you are clearly a patriot of England and Europa. I’m sure you’re also a true English gentleman, someone with whom it would be pleasant to converse over tea and biscuits. But you need to be careful about wandering off into (credibility-wrecking) conspiracist nonsense, as well as rather risibly falling for any hucksterism as long as it can be pigeon-holed into broader anti-neoliberalism. I also don’t think you understand US politics or political potentialities very well (in fairness, neither do many here, including many of the Americans).

OWS was not only racially, culturally and, er, hygienically, rancid. It was never in the least bit interested in challenging the really objectionable aspects of neoliberalism - open immigration, and globalization of wage rates. The latter, it must be said, is not objectionable as a “first-order” problem (if [removed] Corp wants to open a factory in Pakistan, why the hell shouldn’t it? it, and workers, shareholders, and consumers, are all made better off), but is so in a secondary sense.

Many persons, especially neoliberals defending economic globalization from nationalists, conveniently forget that the greatest economist of all time, Ludwig von Mises, pointed out in his magnum opus, Human Action, that the free market always tends towards the equalization of wage rates for the same tasks across national boundaries, or for however great the extension of the market.

Over time, eg, steelmakers in Pennsylvania will see their wages reduced to the condition of steelmakers in Brazil (or China). Free traders will argue that, in macro terms, this is a good thing, as the same product is being produced for lower costs, thus freeing up net capital to be employed elsewhere (in micro terms, the PA steelmakers are either going to find their wages lowered, or their jobs eliminated - but if governments prevented all specific harms resulting from the “creative destruction” of capitalism, they would literally eliminate any possibility of economic progress). This argument is economically irrefutable. Free trade increases the overall economic output for all economies which engage in it. Free trade between nations is analytically no different from free trade between cities or even individuals within nations. 

The problems with free trade policies are real, but non-economic. They are political and national (the latter implicating both ethnocultural and military security issues). We don’t want to allow free trade in missile technology between US defense contractors and, say, al-Qaeda. Japan may be unwilling to practice free trade with foreign rice growers because it perceives a national, cultural and military value in maintaining a domestic rice industry, even if it is economically wasteful (the outrage of a California rice crop, OTOH, is a function solely of the kind of politically-created economic inefficiencies - in this case, taxpayer-subsidized water for farmers - that persons like you and Dr. Lister would like to see maximized under your (perhaps in fairness rather hazy and ill-conceptualized) version of a nationalist political economy, in which the emphasis would surely be on “political” more than “economy”). 

Economically proletarianizing the white middle and working classes risks racially, culturally and morally proletarianizing them as well, which then can lead them to find nation-killing socialism more appealing than defense of property, and/or encourage them to form allegiances rooted in class-based as opposed to race-based resentments - which wouldn’t do at all (for the race itself, as well as for the cause of good government). The notion that a broad middle class is a force for proper order and social and economic stability goes at least as far back as Aristotle. Disrupting and diluting that class for the sake of short term profit maximization may well constitute long term folly even for the maximizers themselves. It is perfectly proper, then, for true conservatives to cast a jaundiced eye over the more utopian ejaculations of economic globalists, and certainly Free Trade should be considered the least important aspect of the Freedom Agenda, let alone any broader agenda of the Right.

OWS never developed any patriotic counter-neoliberal critique along the lines I’ve sketched above. Frankly, the ones I saw, in person one time, on tv or internet the other times, would not have been intellectually capable of producing much of anything. They were a paradigmatic left-wing rabble, a gathering of all the usual nutcases and America-hating malcontents (along with sizable contingents of bums and street criminals - quite unlike the stolid, bourgeois Tea Partiers, amongst whom I am proud to number myself, at least spiritually), spewing radical invective at will, and doing so completely indiscriminately, as though there were no difference between a businessman made wealthy by producing goods for sale in the open market, and some parasite receiving a coercive taxpayer bailout.

Indeed, that OWS was, in fact, a wholly manufactured movement of the Far Left of the Democratic Party, as against a spontaneous outpouring of inchoate anger from the allegedly underprivileged, is evident by its deafening silence on not only the direct link between the Fed and Big Finance (something Ron Paul discussed at length in his campaign), but on the matter of public union costs and practices (a huge factor in America’s stagnant economy), and even just union ‘pension-spiking’ (google this outrage, and learn about the real evil of the supporters of Big Government in the USA).

The TP was and is the real vehicle for national patriotic progress in America. The TP was not pro-Wall Street or Big Finance in the least. The TP is the only mass-movement which has criticized the Fed and central banking and the leveraged economy at all. Your dismissal of the TP is bizarre if not unconscionable.

Finally, WNs at this late date really need to learn something. There are very few pro-white leftists in the US. I have never met a single one in person, and I have been to many anti-immigration and WN-oriented meetings and conferences. Not every WP is as hardline and comprehensively rightist as I am, to be sure. But if you look at white survivalism, the gun culture, the Minutemen and other opponents of immigration, etc, you will not find more than the occasional oddwad who would say he basically agrees with Obama and the Left except for their views on race and immigration. Yes, there are undoubtedly still some racists in the unions, esp the dwindling private sector ones in the building trades, men who don’t like blacks but also want Big Government (or at least their union oligopolies maintained). I did once come to know slightly a house painter who was part of a work crew I employed, and who was both racist and quite anti-capitalist. But he was an Irish immigrant (possibly illegal, for all I knew; the firm was licensed and bonded).

I have been making this point for at least 4-5 years at MR. The base of any pro-white movement in the US is Middle America, or it is nothing (as the late Sam Francis and still living Pat Buchanan have both understood). Middle Americans are white, and mostly conservative; that is, they are moderately pro-white, more often Christian than secular, and supporters of private property and the market economy. While few are enemies of the market, they do resent Big Money using its advantages to consolidate its superiority (as was the case with TARP - a huge bailout of Wall Street - as well as the whole Fed QE charade). Any WP movement which disrespects Christianity, either by directly insulting it (in the manner of DanielS, uh, Dr. Lister, Alex Linder, or the weirdly oversensitive faggots at Counter-Currents), or even merely failing to address its moral concerns about race-hate as against racial honesty and race-preservation, automatically renders itself marginalized-to-useless to the task of mass-movement building (there is a reason I am studying Theology and Catholic moral philosophy).

Moreover, Middle Americans are the backbone of our market economy, and overwhelmingly labor in the private sector (with the exception of the large numbers in the military and law enforcement). They want capitalist growth, because they benefit from it, and indeed, need it, so as to be able to provide the lifestyles they want, while providing for the inevitable shocks and problems associated with our ever-more socialist government. Middle class MAs are vociferously antitax not because most will be affected by Obama’s recent tax hikes on people making over $400k annually, but because we understand that rising government spending does not redound to us, but rather, makes our own private sector lives and livelihoods that much less certain. We need and want a growing economy, and thanks to the efforts of free market advocates, neoliberal and libertarian as well as conservative, over the past couple of generations, there is now much more widespread economic literacy, at least in the most general sense (ie, Big Govt = crappy economy). Any WP movement that thinks it can somehow ‘coattail’ on an OWS-type platform is too foolish to be engaged with.

The central task of American WPs is to disseminate racial truth as widely among ordinary whites as possible. The way to accomplish this - the way to get an audience for our ‘risky’ and ‘extreme’ views - is to be as majoritarian, that is, as fucking normal, as possible - within the bounds of what constitutes normality for your target audience.

White race treason and PC more generally are not normal for our people. Most whites I’ve known (though not all, and the brainwashing is spreading and deepening the longer the invasion continues; I am continually surprised at the lack of racial reaction from whites to their ongoing dispossession ... it is possible that we have missed our ‘golden opportunity’ to end the invasion, which would have been either in the early 80s, with the minor but real “Conservative Ascendancy”, or immediately following the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and that it is now too late even to save a multiracialized America in which whites can nevertheless be at home and prosper; thus the only option for normal, non-PC whites to be able to live, not white, but merely civilized at all, especially in the future, will be secession) never wanted mass immigration, and many strongly opposed it. Everybody hated affirmative action. Yet, people just duck their heads and move on, in part because they think being pro-white is equivalent to being racist (which they assume means being hateful, which to them is wrong). Just subverting that equation is hard enough, and certainly has not been accomplished (and as miscegenation skyrockets and immigration proceeds apace, the time to do so with meaningful effect is running out).

The best way to advance white EGI in the US is to focus on awakening conservatives to how their values and preferred policies are being subverted by increasing ‘diversity’. Frankly, only more or less modal conservatives (like me) can accomplish this.

Or does GW think that the many youngish whites in OWS (Obama supporters to a pierced and tattooed woman, I guarantee you!) were somehow ripe for racial realism and WN activism? Grow up, people.

Posted by Thorn on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:37 | #

14

Posted by DanielS on January 05, 2013, 05:42 AM | #

Leon, I am for free enterprise, but the fundamental question is to what extent and in particular, by and for who.

———————

LOL!

Such chutzpah!

Obviously the slippery lying ludicrous lump is trying to hedge. Sorry danny, but you’ve made your anti-free market capitalism attitudes very clear. You can try to walk back your Bill Ayers style worldview wrt to economics, but no one that is lucid will fall for it.

Danny, if you’ve declined to read the article I linked to @ 11 or watch the video I linked to @ 12, make sure you carefully—repeat CAREFULLY—read Leon’s comment @ 15.

 

Posted by DanielS. on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:09 | #

/.

Posted by Thorn on January 05, 2013, 09:37 AM | #

14

Posted by DanielS on January 05, 2013, 05:42 AM | #

Leon, I am for free enterprise, but the fundamental question is to what extent and in particular, by and for who.

Yes, that is right - that has always been my position; It’s on record for a long time.

———————

LOL!

Such chutzpah!

Obviously the slippery lying ludicrous lump is trying to hedge.

No, Thorn, that has always been my position.

Sorry danny, but you’ve made your anti-free market capitalism attitudes very clear.

Just the opposite, Thorn. I favor free-enterprise - there do come limits, however; where and when it is destructive to European peoples and habitats.

You can try to walk back your Bill Ayers style worldview wrt to economics, but no one that is lucid will fall for it.

What the fuck are you talking about? you lying dog.. Maybe I should read Bill Ayers to garner some of the enemy tactics for our purposes, but just so happens that I have not seen more than snippets.

Danny, if you’ve declined to read the article I linked to @ 11 or watch the video I linked to @ 12, make sure you carefully—repeat CAREFULLY—read Leon’s comment @ 15.

Thorn-Blossom, hasn’t it been you who endorses Lawrence Auster, The Gates of Vienna,  Illana Mercer, who says that Jews are White? Who says the half Jewish Unamusement Park has such an ideal perspective, Who continually tries to misrepresent and smear what I say?

Thorn and Haller, there are sites where you would be comfortable, which welcome Jews as White, which are faithful to Christianity, which view any sort of consideration of alternative economics as a Marxist plot, etc. - why don’t you go there?

Posted by Thorn the mediocre on Sat, 05 Jan 2013 20:11 | #

Thorn-Blossom, hasn’t it been you who endorses Lawrence Auster, The Gates of Vienna,  Illana Mercer, who says that Jews are White? Who says the half Jewish Unamusement Park has such an ideal perspective,

Is that all you’ve got? So you’re saying that endorsing those excellent writers and blogs is supposed to completely discredit me? If so, boy, you’re more pathetic than I previously thought. Yes I endorsed all those you’ve listed and more. You can add Sultan Knish (Daniel Greenfield) and The Mad Jewess to the list. Of course there’s more, many more….

Who continually tries to misrepresent and smear what I say?

You’re projecting again!

BTW, have you read David Yeagley’s latest entry?

http://www.badeagle.com/2013/01/01/beware-sin-against-the-jews/

—

Smarten up danny boy. Alienating 99.9% of the population—such as you and your ilk do—is not a winning strategy. It’s a losing strategy. Like it or not, we need to form alliances with anyone and everyone that supports policies which strengthen the WP cause. For example the TEA Party isn’t explicitly pro=white but the core mission of restoring America’s founding principles, fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economics is anathema to the “anti-racists”. 

Danny, do you understand why the left VEHENATLY condemns the TEA Party principles as not only inherently racist but overtly racist? Have you a clue as to why?

 

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:01 | #

Posted by Thorn the mediocre on January 05, 2013, 03:11 PM | #

  Thorn-Blossom, hasn’t it been you who endorses Lawrence Auster, The Gates of Vienna,  Illana Mercer, who says that Jews are White? Who says the half Jewish Unamusement Park has such an ideal perspective,

Is that all you’ve got?

I wish it were, idiot, but the examples are too many to go into.

So you’re saying that endorsing those excellent writers and blogs is supposed to completely discredit me? If so, boy, you’re more pathetic than I previously thought. Yes I endorsed all those you’ve listed and more. You can add Sultan Knish (Daniel Greenfield) and The Mad Jewess to the list. Of course there’s more, many more….

Ok, so we’ve established that you are a philosemite who is trying to provide a way in for the people - Jews, who have been largely responsible for the destruction of Whites.

No, we don’t need the help of Jews - no thanks. We have enough of their “help” with non-White immigration, with their wars for Israel, with their media brainwashing, with their academic Marxism and liberalism, with their 2008 mega-bailout for their plutocrat bankers, who then in turn, print a limitless supply of money for themselves, with their religion which treats us as cattle and or evil, with the fake religion they pawned-off, that tells Whites to put their faith in the hereafter, with their international “business”, with their laws that would deny us even the free speech to defend our very lives…

No, it isn’t all I have, dick-head.

  Who continually tries to misrepresent and smear what I say?

You’re projecting again!

Nice try.

BTW, have you read David Yeagley’s latest entry?

http://www.badeagle.com/2013/01/01/beware-sin-against-the-jews/

He seems like an amiable guy, but I guess he is under American Renaissance’s gag-order against saying anything negative about Jews. So, I’ll pass on that one for now.

—

Smarten up danny boy. Alienating 99.9% of the population— such as you and your ilk do—

You pluck these figures out of thin air.

is not a winning strategy. It’s a losing strategy.

It is not a winning strategy to promote the suicide of philosemitism to Whites, whether it is through Christianity or any other of the man Jewish ruses. It is a losing strategy.

Like it or not, we need to form alliances

Don’t speak for me with “we” Mr. philosemite. It is you who hopes, needs in fact, to form “alliances” - it is called parasitism.

with anyone and everyone that supports policies which strengthen the WP cause. For example the TEA Party isn’t explicitly pro=white but the core mission of restoring America’s founding principles,

We have established a thousand times over: these are basically universalistic principles which, particularly as manipulated by Jews, esp their lawyers and courts, do not allow Whites to defend themselves as a group. To get back to America’s founding principles is what you want us to do, because you are Jewish.

fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economics is anathema to the “anti-racists”.

No it isn’t: it is a flip side of the same Jewish controlled game.

Danny, do you understand why the left VEHENATLY condemns the TEA Party principles as not only inherently racist but overtly racist? Have you a clue as to why?

Yes, because what you are calling “the left” isn’t really the left, or not the White Left, it is a Jewish voice, like yours, that runs the gamut from not really caring to outright hatred of Whites.

Go to Israel, faggot.

 

 

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:38 | #

GW,

I invite you to consider my comment @15. It does merit consideration.

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:03 | #

A closet homosexual, a liar, and a pseudo-intellectual walk into a bar. The bartender asks: what can I get you Daniels?

ROFLMFAO!

—-

Re Philosemites.

Question: Is it possible for philosemites to absolutely loath the goals of organizations such as as the ADL, SPLC, ACLU, NLG, ABA, NOW, PP, Frankfort School, AIPAC etc etc etc…..and in addition despise the actions of individual Jews such as Tim Wise, Paul Kievel, Heidi Beirich, Mark Potek, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Gerald Nadler, Anthony Wiener, Debbie Wassermann Schultz, Noel Ignatiev, William Kunstler, Ron Cuby, Norman Mailer, Ed Asner, Susan Sontag, just to name a few, and still qualify as a philosemetic?

Yes or no?

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:52 | #

Posted by Thorn on January 06, 2013, 10:03 AM | #

A closet homosexual, a liar, and a pseudo-intellectual walk into a bar. The bartender asks: what can I get you Daniels?

ROFLMFAO!

You can keep your psycho-babbling ad-hominems. You lose.

—-

Re Philosemites.

Question: Is it possible for philosemites to absolutely loath the goals of organizations such as as the ADL, SPLC, ACLU, NLG, ABA, NOW, PP, Frankfort School, AIPAC etc etc etc…..and in addition despise the actions of individual Jews such as Tim Wise, Paul Kievel, Heidi Beirich, Mark Potek, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Gerald Nadler, Anthony Wiener, Debbie Wassermann Schultz, Noel Ignatiev, William Kunstler, Ron Cuby, Norman Mailer, Ed Asner, Susan Sontag, just to name a few, and still qualify as a philosemetic?

Yes or no?

The answer is yes, it’s possible - it’s called damage control or, more insidiously, playing both sides, a little good cop/bad cop which Jewish interests are adept at.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:09 | #

A more important question is: Can the WN movement gain any traction with repellents like daniels (probably an SPLC mole) in their ranks?

Of course the answer is a resounding NO!

BTW, daniels, does Morris Dees pay you by the word or are you on the time clock?

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:47 | #

/.
Posted by Thorn on January 06, 2013, 11:09 AM | #

A more important question is: Can the WN movement gain any traction with repellents like daniels (probably an SPLC mole) in their ranks?

You’re making me chuckle with the SPLC bit. ..that laugh aside, why do you always associate winning with insinuating as many Jews as you can into White advocacy? First of all, it is a contradiction of terms. But more importantly, why don’t you just go to some site that welcomes them? Amren, Altright - etc. They are out there, you are welcome to go there.

Of course the answer is a resounding NO!

Your are like a goddamn moonie:

Win with Jews! win with Jews! win with Jews!

Seriously, An ontology project must ask who we are: we are various kinds of native European; this site focusing in particular on the interests of UK natives, starting with The English. Jews are not part of who we are.

BTW, daniels, does Morris Dees pay you by the word or are you on the time clock?

No Thorn, not in the pay.

But, you just don’t like him because he is not really Jewish!

You wish that were in his pay, since you are working so hard to inject Jewish interests into our midst.

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:32 | #

I think I’ve hit a sweet spot given the fact the left-wing kooks that infest mainstream conservative blogs call me an anti-Semite, a modern day Goebbels, a Klansman, someone who wants to legalize lynching of blacks, and, of course, they say I won’t be happy until all the Jews on the planet are thrown in gas chambers. These same left-wing kooks go apoplectic whenever I link to VDare or amnation.com. They think LA is the most vile racist on the planet.

On the other extreme, here at MR, there’s the left-wing oddball [Daniel “don’t call me PeeWee” S] whom accuses me of being Jewish and or “philosemetic”.

Moreover, what both Daniel “don’t call me PeeWee” S and the “anti-racist” libs that infest mainstream conservative blogs have in common is they both use circular reasoning to defend their skewed worldview.

Yup, I’ve hit a sweet spot.

 

Posted by DanielS on Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:43 | #

No you haven’t. You are a mere illustration of what we do not need.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:58 | #

Hey Mr. Lurker!

Could you consider erasing the bitch fight going on after my lengthy comment #15? I’m not going to write serious comments any more if they simply get ‘lost’ in a welter of irrelevancies and personal attacks.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 11:13 | #

Leon, you and Thorn are doing an abundance of burying useful thoughts with irrelevancies. In fact, there are some worthwhile points among the comments that you would seek to censure, notably this one;

Don’t speak for me with “we” Mr. philosemite. It is you who hopes, needs in fact, to form “alliances” - it is called parasitism

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:47 | #

Hey Mr. Lurker!

Could you consider erasing the bitch fight going on after my lengthy comment #15? I’m not going to write serious comments any more if they simply get ‘lost’ in a welter of irrelevancies and personal attacks.

Lurker,

I second Leon’s request.

However it MUST noted for the record it was Daniels that started the shit-storm on the Mulatto Supremacism thread @ 57 when he found it necessary to include the following in his response to uh):

Now, for a true yawner, look at Thorn’s post number 12 under the Security-Financial complex; if you want to do some good (though I already know that you do not) turn your harassment and criticisms to what might do some good.

Otherwise, why not go back to viewing porn if you get off on posts like Guest Lurkers’?

Thorn maintains Christianity and Capitalism are what we need to save us.

It is rather an unfortunate trajectory of those rebelling from communist circumstances that they are overcompensating in the direction of those things from which we really need to be moving from, if we are to save ourselves as a people. They are overcompensating against (overly-rigid) social organization and on behalf of the invisible hand of the so called free market.

To insist upon Christianity and the invisible hand of free market capitalism is to prohibit thinking and social responsibility to our people - exactly what we do not need.

And he is still doing Ilana Mercer’s bidding - take Thorn with you somewhere else.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:24 | #

No, that is not what started it Thorn.

And it is good that yours and Haller’s censorship not be allowed.

As you both continually try to insist that we need to include Jews and Christianity as a part of our interests, it at least does some good to show how anti-bodies may be formed against your would-be imposition.

It is important for there to be an alternative place where people are not compelled to include Jews within the camp; where people can be honest. where one does not have to pretend that they believe and value Christianity - as a great percentage of Whites do not, and quite wisely so.

There are plenty of websites which include Jews and Christians as mainstays, and again, where any consideration of alternative economics is immediately greeted as a Marxist conspiracy - you and Haller are welcome to go there.

Posted by Thorn on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:54 | #

As you both continually try to insist that we need to include Jews and Christianity as a part of our interests

You’re insane.

 

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:50 | #

 

After all, psychology has been a highly a Jewish field.

 

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:20 | #

A BLAST FROM THE PAST.

HERE IS THE GREAT FRED SCROOBY:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 19, 2009, 10:23 AM | #

“Fred, have you ever laid out somewhere what you see as the difference between ‘race replacement’ and ‘genocide’”  (—Tanstaafl)

Race-replacement is genocide; not all genocide is race-replacement, making race-replacement, in the language of your high-school math class, a “proper subset” of genocide — no? 

When the French National Convention ordered the Army to exterminate of the rebellious Vendéan population 1793-96 and the Army went ahead (demanding first that Paris furnish explicit written orders, the generals saying if the orders were to shoot/bayonet not just combatants but all priests, all women, all children, all nursing infants, all old people, more explicit orders in writing were required) that wasn’t race-replacement, just killing (around 400,000 men, women, children, infants at their mother’s breast, old folks, everyone, the orders were all Vendéans they could catch:  they were indiscriminately put to the sword, trampled down with horses’ hooves, shot with muskets, gathered in groups that were then shot using cannon grapeshot at close range, deliberately drowned en masse by herding large groups into rivers, taking all surrendering groups of combatants without exception and bayonetting or shooting them so there was not one single prisoner taken, zero, etc. — half the population of some 800,000 Vendéans genocided).  When the killing was over after two or three years the Directoire in Paris didn’t import 400,000 Negroes to repopulate the Vendée, so there was no race-replacement, and the Vendée was still the Vendée, and although considerably depopulated it could regenerate itself and come out the same. 

When the Jews in Moscow 1931-33 ordered the genocide of the Christian Ukrainians on a tribal payback basis they didn’t race-replace them, just killed them.  Once they’d polished off three to fifteen million (the accepted range among scholars, the exact figure uncertain) their bloodlust was sated and they didn’t bring in Sub-Saharan Africans to repopulate the place — didn’t plow the ground with salt, so to speak (what the Romans did to the farmland around Carthage so no city could rise there again, after they had destroyed the population and all the buildings and structures, “leaving not one stone upon another,” and burned to the ground everything that could ignite).  The Moscow Jews wanted tribal payback in the Ukraine and got it, quenching their thousand-year thirst for vengeance through the mass killing of millions of Christians, such that once slaked, that thirst did not push them to go further and “sow the ground with salt” by importing Sub-Saharans to repopulate the Ukraine though the Jew Trotsky, had he not been sent into exile years earlier, would very possibly have opted for exactly this “final solution to the Ukraine’s Eurochristian problem” — see this important article:  http://www.vdare.com/misc/091116_raehn.htm , which gives the story behind the story of a lot of this Jewish/communist crap that goes on.

The Ukraine, when the Jews were through, was left still the Ukraine although suddenly short some fifteen million in its population.  It could still regenerate; salt hadn’t been plowed into the earth.

When the Donmeh Jews, on the other hand, genocided the Armenians in 1915 ( http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=95 ) they did of course repopulate the depopulated areas with other groups.

When you get rid of virtually an entire population, that’s genocide; when in addition you racially “plow salt into the ground,” so that whatever shellshocked remnant of stragglers still stumbling around after your genocide machine has passed through can never again regenerate the extirpated population, that’s race-replacement. 

”why you prefer the former term over the latter?”  (—Tanstaafl)

I don’t think I “prefer” it; if I use it more it may be because I’m just being specific as to the particular method of genocide we’re now, as we speak, being subjected to.

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 05:07 | #

/
The Jews are so good, in comparison to the Romans, they did not pour salt into the ground after a genocide ..now if the really bad Jews were there…

...that pilpul is funny stuff.

Posted by Suburban_elk on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 20:15 | #

Fred Scrooby, ideas with style. Superlative, nonpareil. Definitive.

Good example, by the way: how he brought in concepts and defined words.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 09 Jan 2013 02:00 | #

Ive only just stopped by and noted the requests to delete/leave some of the above comments.

I’ll have to pass on that. In the past general policy seems to be to leave such exchanges in place. Personally it pains me to see a debate sinking to insults, we should maintain a higher standard.

Posted by Theo on Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:17 | #

First I noticed some attention from OWS folks, e.g.:

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/tax-rich#comment-20284

...

I believe it is this kind of “Web 2.0” warfare that the money power fears may grow out of OWS and the kind of gruging credit accorded “the unbelievably right wing” in the first link.

James,

That commenter who goes by the handle “beowulf” is a frequent commenter on somewhat non-mainstream economics sites. He frequently mentions you and your net asset tax plan by name and recommends it.

He’s also apparently the guy who came up with the “trillion-dollar coin” idea that’s gone viral and entered the official mainstream conversation:

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/01/trillion-dollar-coin-inventor/

It was a December 2009 Wall Street Journal article that ultimately inspired the Georgia lawyer known online as “Beowulf” to invent the trillion-dollar coin.

The article, “Miles for Nothing,” detailed how clever travelers were buying commemorative coins from the U.S. Mint via credit cards that award frequent flier miles. The Mint would ship the coins for free and the travelers would deposit them at the bank, pay off their cards, and accumulate free miles.

More than six months later, during a wonky online discussion about the debt ceiling, Beowulf thought of the article and, egged on by fellow monetary-system obsessives, came up with his own clever plan to exploit the powers of the U.S. Mint. His idea to issue a single trillion-dollar coin to the U.S. Treasury, thus letting it avoid borrowing and bypass the debt ceiling, is now much discussed among Washington elites, including at the White House, where a spokesman Wednesday wouldn’t rule out the scheme.

It’s been a remarkable journey. The path of the trillion-dollar coin, as Beowulf described it to Wired, began with a “silly question” in a “pointless … online bull session” in the comments section of financier Warren Mosler’s blog. Anonymous supporters helped spread the concept to the comments of other economics blogs and ultimately into posts on such sites. The idea soon attracted attention from more prominent liberal economists like James Galbraith and Paul Krugman, and then from writers like Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein. From there it was a short hop into the center mainstream. NBC’s Chuck Todd hammered a White House spokesman about the coin possibility on Wednesday.

If the president uses such a coin to bypass intransigent Republicans who refuse to raise the debt ceiling, or even if he merely uses the possibility of such as leverage in negotiations, it will underline how ad-hoc online communities, like the anonymous international band of commenters to which Beowulf belonged, are increasingly able to move their ideas from the fringes into the middle of political debate. It’s one thing for bloggers to help bring down a Mississippi senator or to embarrass a presidential frontrunner, as they have in years past; it’s quite another for commenters to re-engineer the funding of the entire federal budget.

Posted by Bill on Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:55 | #

It is absolutely vital UKIP inextricably links Europe with Britain’s loss of sovereignty, with mass immigration and global government.

One must become synonymous with the other in the minds of the British people.