|
|
|
Time travel and a pol in the MultiCult Lord Salisbury, three times a Conservative Prime Minister and a political giant in a more enlightened age, once remarked, “English policy is to float lazily downstream, occasionally putting out a diplomatic boathook to avoid collisions.” English, no less! But I digress. To illustrate the Anglo-centric point a little further, here’s what the New York Times reported on 4th March 1900:-
Today, though, English politicians - if that is what they really are - have an altogether different view of their and our priorities. Here’s Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and currently the most powerful Conservative politician in the country, talking to a reporter from Square Mile magazine about Barack Obama:-
Asked if his words consituted an endorsement of the Democrat hopeful, Mr Mayor said pithily, “Yes”. Well, I’m just wondering what a time-travelling Salisbury might have thought about Obama and the American body politic, and the “feelings of black people around the world”. Presumably, he would have held on harder than ever to his boathook, and to English national interest. He was flatly against what he called “black men” in the English Parliament, and opposed the Liberal candicacy of Dadabhai Naoroji at the 1892 General Election (Naoroji was elected nonetheless and became the first Indian sitting at Westminster). Salisbury happens also to have been the man who set up the first city-wide authority in the capital, London County Council - something he later came to regret as “the place where collectivist and socialistic experiments are tried. It is the place where a new revolutionary spirit finds its instruments and collects its arms.” And, these day, puts them around the nearest example of “black people”, apparently. In any case, the time-travelling Salisbury would be able to judge from the incumbent at City Hall how completely successful those revolutionaries have been. We are all MultiCultists now. Comments:3
Posted by snax on Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:31 | # I have little doubt that ‘conservatives’ like Boris and Dave know, really, that the race-realists on their extreme fringes are right about Blacks and about ‘diversity’. If so what does this say to the generally popular idea that we Whites can’t do duplicity (JWH @ WB and Soren Renner have recently commented on this)? 4
Posted by snax on Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:38 | #
Was he consistent GW? What did he think about White men running India? Certainly Britain’s other leaders of his day were usually imperialists - so maybe his age was as unenlightened as ours, only now it’s us on the receiving end? 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:10 | # snax, Salisbury was most certainly a convinced British imperialist, and baldy stated that India be “bled” for all it could give. No hint of sensitivity towards the feelings of the natives or of colonial guilt there. India was a British - possible English - possession and existed for the benefit of Englishmen. Simple. 6
Posted by silver on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:08 | #
Oh except they are. They’re committed to Israel being a “Jewish” state, sure, but is that so different from the French being committed to France being a “French” state? Israel has large, troubling anti-Israeli minority, as well as a significant number of non-Arab non-Jews, who are not antagonistic, but whose presence does serve to dilute ethnic cohesion. Unlike France, Israel has outlawed parties which would like to alter (internally) that demographic picture in favor of Jews. It’s diaspora Jews who shout most loudly for a Jewish Israel but, notoriously, permit and encourage the dilution of the countries they reside in, but many “white” ethnic groups do the same thing. An Italian friend, who posts on all the race boards, is livid over illegal Africans, told me not long ago he wasn’t particularly worried about immigration into Austalia. Well of course not! They never are. (Okay, they are, but seldom.) But only jews seem singled out for this double-standard. It’s understandable, since they hold so much power, but they’re far from unique. 7
Posted by snax on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:03 | #
Yes, the Jewish state they support is racial, the French state the French support is not.
That is not a double standard. Jews are particularly singled out for a real double standard though: in diaspora they are by far the most fervent and influential ethnic nationalists among minorities for their own people’s state; and also the most fervent and influential minority opposing ethnic nationalist policies for their hosts. Why defend them? 8
Posted by silver on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:51 | #
It’s not as racial as you think; even the “core” is composed of a racial range wider than Italy’s (or at least as wide). I don’t doubt that many secular Ashkenazis dislike the influx of Jews from Arab lands, and even less the Ethiopian and Indian Jews, but their hands are tied. Supposedly there’s a sense of “jewishness” unifying them, but any Frenchmen could tell you such ideals don’t quite work as intended. But it doesn’t stop there: Israel does take refugees at rates comparable to the lesser European destinations and does employ “guest workers” (who don’t leave) from all over. Furthermore, although it faces fierce opposition, the state is committed to a de facto multiculturalism with its Arab population (de jure in the case of language rights), and, like counterparts in Europe, has gone so far as to outlaw parties that call for Arab removal. Culturally, Israelis subject their society to critique at level that is on par with the French, and that even though Israel does face an existential threat greater than what France has ever felt.
Cheering immigration into your host country while bemoaning it in the fatherland is not a double-standard?
I question the fervency. The influence, on the other hand, is unquestionable.
My intention has been only to set the record straight. If am defending them, it’s only from false charges—as I would defend anyone else. But more that, Snax, while I’m obviously willing to be realistic about Jewish influence, it’s clear to me that white nationalists carry suspicions of Jews to extremes—scary extremes. I think this tendency has been the bane of pro-white movements for decades. It’s coupled with an extreme aversion to checking their own assumptions and conceding even the most obvious refutations. It can quickly degrade from realism into a sickness of the mind which finds Jews behind every door and contents itself solely with fulminating about Jews in the most obscene manner, to the point of cozying up to anyone, even mortal enemies like Muslims, who opposes Jews even over matters that are of no consequence to whites. Jews are not permitted a word in their defence against charges like this, every attempt to do so being characterised as yet another example of Jewish deviousness. It’s lost on antisemites, but such extreme and insane Jew-hatred only serves to strengthen the “antisemite defense” among philo-semites and neutrals. 9
Posted by Darren on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:27 | # While it is important to note that Israel has subjected itself to nominal levels of immigration and has not really cracked down on its Arab neighbors like it could be doing (at least in the way the Kahanists, who are outlawed from office, call for), one must not gloss over the fact that Israel nonetheless has very racialist overtones in its legal structure and general political discourse. Israel is a democracy (and thus derives its self-labeling of being “western” from this fact) so obviously there is a range of views, but even the centrist Olmert himself has called for Jews to fight against race-replacement by making sure Israel retains a Jewish majority. I have a hard time comparing Israel to France or any other Euro nation in this regard. 10
Posted by silver on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:51 | # Darren, my point is simply that there are parallels between the west and Israel. Israel isn’t some jewnazi state to hold up as an example of everything you want your own country to be racially. And did Olmert actually say “race-replacement,” or is this more of your seeing only what you wish was there? A “Jewish majority” is going to be a very tenuous concept in only a few short decades, due to religious divisions and since so many “Jews” are secular. This mightn’t be the problem it is shaping up to be if Israel did in fact enjoy the racial uniformity everyone on VNN seems certain they do, but it doesn’t. Again, the parallels with (modern, or post-modern, if you prefer) “Frenchness” are clear. Whatsmore, Israel is already suffering the same sort of anomie as western (and even eastern European) countries; the everpresent threat of war, once a counterweight to social breakdown, is now a significant contributing factor to the malaise; what will the coming decades bring? 11
Posted by Darren on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:31 | # Darren, my point is simply that there are parallels between the west and Israel. Israel isn’t some jewnazi state to hold up as an example of everything you want your own country to be racially. No, its not a “Jew Nazi” state, but its far, far more racialist than any European nation is. Again, I am fully aware what Israel’s actual policies are, as I stated in my previous post. And did Olmert actually say “race-replacement,” or is this more of your seeing only what you wish was there? So if Olmert doesn’t say those exact words, he doesn’t mean he is against it? http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=525
Clearly, Olmert is a racialist, even if he isn’t a “Jew Nazi”. Israel and Jewish people in general are very ethnocentric people, even if Israelis themselves fail to implement the necessary policies to maintain Israel’s survival. The comparison between France and Israel is rather flimsy in that regard. 12
Posted by Darren on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:52 | # Its proof that Jews (as a group) have a sort of dual morality, as snax pointed out. Israel is a very racialist state (and just because Israel fails to go full all out nazi doesn’t invalidate this claim) but Israel’s supporters outside of Israel are fervently denouncing racism, racial nationalism on the part of Europids, and immigration restrictionism. I’m not going to waste any more time arguing this. The facts are clear. Trying to argue against this by pointing out the obvious fact that Israel isn’t a fully Hitler-inspired NS state is a silly distraction from reality. If Jews want to get serious about racialism and follow Kahane’s sage wisdom, I’m all the happier for them. But I certainly will not be deterred from pointing out the current state of affairs as far as how Jews look upon the nationalism of Europids. 13
Posted by angela on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:15 | # Successful yes. But looking at that photo, the head of the black man must hold a considerably reduced volume compared to the white man. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 05:33 | #
Compared to any other white man, yes, Angela. Compared to Boris Johnson? I’m not so sure ... 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 06:49 | # By the way, what’s smaller in the Negro is not the whole head, just the braincase portion (behind and above the face and jaw). The head as a whole may be bigger, because of a bigger face and jaw. But the part that houses the brain is smaller — as is often apparent to the naked eye on careful inspection. Traditionally this braincase volume was measured by pouring birdshot into empty skulls then pouring it back out and measuring the volume of the birdshot. Nowadays it can be measured by means of CT or MRI scans. Why are we impolite enough to talk about this? Isn’t it enough that Negroes have been found to be lacking in this way without needing to rub it in? Imagine how they must feel. Well, we’re talking about it because the Jews and their allies want to force Negroes on us, so we’re entitled to hit back with a few facts and when we do, under the circumstances we’re not being impolite,no. The other side is. Before they tried to force Negroes on us we never mentioned this hurtful stuff, and if the other side would stop forcing them on us we’d promptly shut up and never mention it. 16
Posted by silver on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:37 | #
That’s not at all clear, I’m afraid. What is about Israel being racially mixed that you don’t understand, Darren? There are 130,000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel (and growing). That’s some 2.5% of the Jewish population there, which is on par with the African proportion of Britain (and that’s not even mentioning the African refugees which Israel does take). There are also some 70,000 “Bene Israel” Indian Jews (who look it, too). Hardcore zionists like the settlers have few qualms about converting racial “outsiders” to Judaism in an attempt to bolster their position. The numbers of such may be small today, but so were the numbers of racial outsiders in Australia fourty years ago, and America 140 years ago. Your mistake is to judge Israel by what it is today, rather than the course its travelling. Take your Olmert comment. Apart from not being explicitly racial (nor, given what we know about jews, even implicitly racial), is it really indicative of government policy or elite attitude (which is what most influences government policy)? The former Australian PM, John Howard, made a statement that it would “never happen” that Australia would one day become majority Asian, but was that indicative of government policy or elite attitude? Hardly. You might point to the Knesset member who said Ethiopian Jews weren’t really Jews and were only being included for political correctness as evidence of Israeli state racialism, but it’s no different than Le Pen’s statements, and it’s, again, no more indicative of government policy than the Australian politician who suggested Muslims could “clear out” if they didn’t appreciate “Australian values.”
It’s a curious sort of ethnocentrism that not only fails to secure a people’s survival but pursues policies which clearly thwart the group interest. It’s the parallels with the west which are to me clear, not the jewish hyperethnocentrism which David Duke sees in cloud formations.
I haven’t tried to “deter” you from doing that at all. Do it; doing is so is clearly necessary. But do it intelligently, discarding arguments which are not essential or false or so dubious as to cast doubt on your integrity. If you’re to ever get anywhere, this sort of discouse will one day have to move beyond a handful of blogs; it’s better that the inconsistencies of “Israel does it” are pointed out here, by a sympathiser like me, than for it to happen before a crowd of uninitiated skeptics. 17
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 04:10 | #
I’ll tell you what I don’t understand: your point. You say they are Jews. Essentially, then, you say, “Jews + Jews = Racial mixture”. What? 18
Posted by silver on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 04:47 | #
Not exactly all the same race, are they, Tillman? And when they secularise, as it’s typical for them to do in Israel, it makes for a not particularly cohesive cultural mix. 19
Posted by Darren on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 05:35 | # Jewish conceptions of race are different than ours. Our conception is based on genetic similarity. The Jewish conception is based on maternal lineage. There are, of course, debates within the Jewish community over “who” is a real Jew and who isn’t, but this is, as far as I know, the generally accepted standard. Perhaps one could make the case that Jews in diaspora are more ethnocentric since individual groups of Jews in diaspora are likely to be of the same ethnic variety than the racially-differentiated Jews in Israel, but I would still stand by the claim that Jews are highly ethnocentric, much more so than Europids. If you’re going to make the claim that Jewishness is merely a religious connotation, you’re going to be laughed out of here. It is indeed racial. Take your Olmert comment. Apart from not being explicitly racial (nor, given what we know about jews, even implicitly racial), is it really indicative of government policy or elite attitude (which is what most influences government policy)? The former Australian PM, John Howard, made a statement that it would “never happen” that Australia would one day become majority Asian, but was that indicative of government policy or elite attitude? Hardly. But did Howard explicitly state that the European Australians need to maintain their majority? This is not comparable. Olmert makes a statement that Jews must take heed to the demographic situation, whereas Howard merely dismisses claims, much like how our politicians who supported the Hart-Celler Act responded to critics regarding demographic issues raised by it. It’s a curious sort of ethnocentrism that not only fails to secure a people’s survival but pursues policies which clearly thwart the group interest. It’s the parallels with the west which are to me clear, not the jewish hyperethnocentrism which David Duke sees in cloud formations. Jewish ethnocentrism is something that developed as a evolutionary group strategy in diaspora living among host populations. If its maladaptive for the Jews surviving as a nation of people, then that is too bad. But that doesn’t nullify the fact that they are indeed a very cohesive group who is acutely aware of their genetic interests. I’m not sure what Duke’s exact claims are, nor am I really interested in hashing them out as yet another distraction. I’d rather talk about serious academics like Kevin MacDonald. I haven’t tried to “deter” you from doing that at all. Do it; doing is so is clearly necessary. But do it intelligently, discarding arguments which are not essential or false or so dubious as to cast doubt on your integrity. If you’re to ever get anywhere, this sort of discouse will one day have to move beyond a handful of blogs; it’s better that the inconsistencies of “Israel does it” are pointed out here, by a sympathiser like me, than for it to happen before a crowd of uninitiated skeptics. I’m having a hard time telling exactly what you have debunked or corrected. Hence, I label you as a “distractant”. Again, the failures of Jews in Israel to secure their existence does NOT in any way nullify the fact that Jews are a highly ethnocentric bunch of people. 20
Posted by silver on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 06:36 | #
That’s their conception of jewishness, not of “race.” Race is either a scientific concept or it isn’t. If it is, then there isn’t any room for “jewish conceptions” of it that diverge from the scientific consensus for non-scientific reasons any more than there is room for “jewish conceptions” of the germ theory of disease. If all the jews in the pics I posted above can be considered of the “same race,” according to “jewish conceptions,” then their conceptions are simply wrong. Essentially, their position would be that a Jew can be of any race—as the term is understood by westerners—which obviously invalidates the idea that jews belong to one race, again, as westerners understand the term.
If you think all those jews in the above pics belong to the same race, I think it’s you who deserves to be laughed out of here.
If Howard doesn’t want to see an Asian majority, we can assume he has in mind the idea of maintaing an European majority; what else would he have in mind? Or else he was simply quelling what he imagined (correctly, and obviously) are Australin fears without intending to actually do anything from preventing an Asian majority. Israeli fears are more immediate than Australian fears, given that Israelis likely have a much clearer idea of what a non-Jewish majority would mean for them (whereas Australians are as tragically deaf to the significance of demographic transformation as Europeans everywhere), so Olmert can afford to speak in more direct terms. But in neither case is anything actually done. If Israelis are as hyperethnocentric as you claim, why aren’t they taking steps that would secure their future, especially given the very real dangers they face? Why isn’t Olmert thundering about the necessity of securing Jewish survival rather than making a single statement (or intermittent statements, if he’s said more along the same lines)?
You just said they have different conceptions of race. Now you have them “acutely aware” of their genetic interests (so much so that one in two outmarry). Isn’t this contradictory?
A habit you picked up at VNN, I suppose?
But it does “nullify” a great deal of blather that WNs are forever spouting about Israel. 21
Posted by snax on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:13 | # The conception of race does not differ between us and Jews or anyone else - racial groups are populations that can be defined by ancestry. The difference of opinion is that they say their ancestry matters, while ours doesn’t. Thus does:
appear like projection. 22
Posted by silver on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:01 | # Snax, you provide a definition of a racial group that fails to account for the racial diversity of Jews: if all those Jews are of the same “race,” then the concept is more or less meaningless. Either that or you believe that not all those Jews are “really” Jews, in which case you’d better have some evidence. <blockquote>appear like projection. </blockquote?
23
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:17 | # silver, The core and prime movers of Jewry are the Ashkenazim. Without them Israel would not even exist. Do you deny this? 24
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:40 | # I once had a conversation with an intelligent Palestinian grad student. He related to me that in Israel there is subtle and sometimes not so subtle “racism” directed at non-Ashkenazi Jews by Ashkenazi Jews. These are not earth shaking revelations and really amount to nothing. 25
Posted by silver on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:41 | # No, I don’t deny it. Nothing I’ve said even comes close to intimating it. On the contrary, I agree that Ashkenazis and, to a slightly lesser degree, European sephardis, are the prime Jews, the “real” Jews, if you like. I don’t doubt they privately dislike the other Jews, wish that those Jews didn’t live in Israel, or wish there were some way they could be de-judaized. (An Israeli minister’s comment about the Ethipian Jews not being “real” Jews and only included for PC reasons is evidence of this.) But the fact remains that they don’t exclude such Jews, neither from Judaism nor from Israel. Cap’n, stop reading every comment as a defence of Jews. I’m not trying to indemnify Jews against all charges; only the false ones. Don’t you agree that you’re better off avoiding false chargs? One of the common false charges is to compare Israel to western countries and claim Jews have secured and safeguarded their racial/ethnic concerns to a degree unthinkable in the west. Think of what a slimey Dershowitz character could do with that in the case that these issues become common public discourse. 26
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:15 | # If people like Dershowitz are Ashkenazi supremacists. Dershowitz is an atheist, but he is against inter-marriage. I think its safe to say he is interested in Ashkenazi genetic continuity. Of course he can’t come out and say this because then his anti-racist cover would be blown to smithereens. So…if the above statements about Dershowitz (and his ilk) are true then why does he so fervently support Israel if he does not think it of vital importance to the continuity of his people, even racially compromised as it is? 27
Posted by silver on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:32 | # There are other reasons for supporting a state or an ideology than that it is “vital for the continuity” of one’s people. Perhaps the Dershowitz’s support Israel so fervently because they believe its destruction would harm the interests—threaten the lives—of the jews now living there (which is not an unreasonable fear by any means).
That’s not precisely true, though: one can wish for his kind to survive but simultaneously insist on living in a multiracial environment. What would be blown is the double-standard by which he considers desiring the suvival of his own kind moral and unremarkable while demonizing the same desire on the part of whites. 28
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:53 | # I recall hearing a statement by Dershowitz recently (I cannot recall the exact words) to the effect that during the Holocaust the Nazis targeted Jewish children because they wanted to destroy their genes. Now, I realize Dershowitz was describing what I believe to be his conception of what the Nazis were up to, but, I also believe this tips his hand (along with his recommendations against inter-marriage) as to what is of primary concern to him: Ashkenazi genetic continuity. You said previously that you believed that some Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews wished they could de-Judaize racially unlike Jews. Do you include Dershowitz in this? If so, I spy and inconsistency. Perhaps, even all this being true, Dershowitz (and his ilk) does have some human feeling for the racially unlike Jews living in Israel. So what? Besides, its not like they are unuseful as worker bees and cannon fodder whose loyalty is won through their commitment to Judaism. I’m afraid your argument that Dershowitz-like defenders of Israel don’t see Israel as an indispensible vehicle for the continuity of their people just doesn’t wash. 29
Posted by silver on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:32 | #
I’m afraid your meaning is unclear, or you misunderstood what I was saying. What I meant was that I suspect many Ashkenazis and European* Sephardis wished there was some way to remove from Judaism groups like the Ethiopian, African, Yemeni and Indian Jews, since these groups compromise the racial characteristics of the founding European Jewish population of Israel. Evidence for this is the claim that Ethiopian Jews are not real Jews because of the version of the Talmud they use. As I said, however, there doesn’t appear to be any way such groups can reasonably be excluded, or any arguments proffered for their exclusion that would convince the bulk of European Jews. * the distinction is important, because Sephardic takes on a different meaning in Israel itself, including many Arab Jews, from whom European Sephardis, such as those who lived in Spain and then the Balkans, appear visibly quite different.
My argument is more nuanced than that. Firstly, without unambiguous statements to that effect, we’re left with conjecture, and as convinced by our views as we might be, that’s not a firm basis for critiquing Jews. More importantly, however, I argue that even if (or even though, if you prefer) the Dershowtizs might see Israel as crucial for Ashkenazi survival, Israeli policies themselves fail to secure that survival and there is no evidence that they even attempt it. This is no different than Russian emigres considering Russia indispensible for Russian genetic continuity all the while the Russian state makes no effort to take that steps that would secure that survival, that step, the crucial step, being racial separation; without it, you can only tinker with the rate of displacement/replacement, but die slow or die quick, it’s still eventual death. (In the case of Russia, the state does offer “baby bonuses” (as do Germany and Italy) but, as far as I am aware, doesn’t limit the bonus to ethnic Russians.) To repeat: as ethnocentric as Ashkenazis might be, they aren’t taking, nor even recommending taking, measures that would actually secure their survival. And again, one of the common false charges is to compare Israel to western countries and claim Jews have secured and safeguarded their racial/ethnic concerns to a degree unthinkable in the west—it’s just not true. As such, it’s just silly to make comparisons with Israel the centrepiece of one’s critique of Jews. 30
Posted by zorn on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:49 | # silver, for the benefit of the gallery, can you please be honest about you origins (you know, bouncing from subcon to serbian, from living in the uk to living in aus…) 31
Posted by silver on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:11 | # Zorn, you are implying I’ve been dishonest. Apart from the claim that I was a Londo Paki, made over a year ago now, which lasted all of one day, I’ve never said I’m anything but a Serb living in Australia. That you think yourself part of a “gallery” really says a lot about the intellectual capacity of my critics (none of it flattering). Fundamentally, I’m either making sound arguments or I’m not. My interest doesn’t go beyond that. If you believe otherwise, prove it—and not with hostile statements I made one year ago, all of which I’ve retracted and none of which I’ve retraced, a point which not even my most acerbic critic, who, laughably, has seen fit to honor me with a tag on his blog, can dispute. (Rienzi, if you’d like to straighten me out, contact me. Do the honorable thing and click on my email, instead of taking pot shots at me where I can’t respond.) 32
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:12 | # What comes as close to guaranteeing group continuity as far as I can see is a ratio of a replacement level birth rate vs. the rate of miscegenation. If your groups birth rate is exactly replacement then if even a little miscegenation is going on your group continuity is losing traction, but, if you have a high enough birth rate then your can tolerate more miscegenation. I think you over state the degree of severity of measures that need to be taken to ensure group continuity. Is the Ashkenazi birth rate in Israel not of replacement level? What is the degree of miscegenation? I’d be willing to bet my left nut that the Ashkenazi birth rate is higher in Israel than it is in the diaspora. I’d be willing to bet that miscegenation between Ashkenazis and non-Ashkenazis is at least implicitly frowned upon which holds it to a low level. Putin’s clique isn’t doing enough or all it could to secure the genetic continuity of ethnic Russians? To that I would agree, but they are doing a hell of a lot more than our elites are here in the West. If our elites would EVEN do what is done in Israel and Russia many White Nationalists would declare victory and get drunk for a month. Who says White Nationalists generally or MRers in particular make “comparisons with Israel the centrepiece of [their] critique of Jews”? Do you have any “unambiguous” statements to back up this assertion of yours or is it just “conjecture” on your part? Sounds like a lot of straw men to me. The “centrepiece of [our] critique of Jews” is the way Jews behave, as documented by men like Dr. Kevin MacDonald, that damage our ability to maintain our genetic continuity. One example is Jewish neo-cons manipulating America into foreign wars of aggression to defend Israel. Oops, I mentioned Israel in connection with Jewish subversion of our Ethnic Genetic Interests. Sorry! 33
Posted by silver on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:56 | #
This is only the case if one group is the great majority, places restrictions on miscegenation and group can somehow depress the fertility of minority groups. If it can’t do the latter, minority groups will grow, eventually envelop and eventually replace the former majority.
Separation is the one guarantee. Other measures might stall replacement, but since they fail to prevent miscegenation, the numbers of racial outsiders will grow, and the draconian measures that would be required to prevent their growth seem certain to be more “severe” than separation. I have worked out some scenarios in which group continuity could be fairly assured under multiracial conditions, however, but those require a certain degree of separation, too.
I’m not so sure you can be so confident. In both Israel and the Diaspora, it’s the more religious Jews, especially Haredis/Hasidics, who have the most children. I don’t know whether this means Ashkenazis or not. My understanding is that Ashkenazis tend to be the most liberal, looking most kindly on Palestinians, which suggests that the proportion of Ashkenazis who are ultra-religious is lower than among other groups.
This isn’t the impression that I get, at least not from seculars. Again, though, it’s not it’s frowned upon that matters, it’s that it occurs. (Same as with black-white in America: plenty of people “frown” upon it, but are unable to prevent it.)
I can imagine. It’s not enough, of itself, but it does get the issue on the table. As I’ve argued before, that really is the first step, the crucial step, from which so much else can flow.
Right, and “the way they behave” is characterised as highly ethnocentric, so ethnocentric, in fact, that they hypocritically advocate one set of policies for America and anothe set for Israel. This is routinely extrapolated by WNs to mean that, as a result, Israel, racially, or even merely ethnically, is doing everything right. My point is that this hardly the case, and, further, that the behavior of American Jewery is more indicative of typical ethnic minority behavior than jewish behavior, since if it were strictly jewish behavior, we’d except to see a great deal more of it in Israel than is actually the case. One can, of course, disagree, but don’t you think accusations of “strawmen” every two sentences are a bit much? 34
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:22 | # silver on Ethiopian Jews: there doesn’t appear to be any way such groups can reasonably be excluded Well, there is this way:-
Of course, it might not be reasonable. 35
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:08 | # The point isn’t whether Israel is in fact a effective protection against Ashkenazi genetic disintegration but whether or not THEY think it is. The Jews need their own state in light of the Holocaust to insure their very survival and so forth. Many Askenazis believe that without Israel and its nuclear deterrence then sooner or later its Holocaust Part Deux and their number is up. It would seem that if Askenazis gave a damn about the long term viability of Israel then they wouldn’t take actions that are so instrumental in bring about the disintegration of the West, Israel’s one capable, steadfast ally. We know that they DO take such culture subverting actions (KMAC - Culture of Critique) and that they ARE fervently concerned with the survival of Israel (the Israel Lobby, the neo-cons, ad nauseam). So what gives? Why chutzpah all day long and we’ll worry about tomorrow when it comes? MacDonald has an answer that make sense to me: that’s their group evolutionary strategy, they can’t help themselves. 36
Posted by Dave Johns on Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:00 | # <i>“Fundamentally, I’m either making sound arguments or I’m not. My interest doesn’t go beyond that. If you believe otherwise, prove it—and not with hostile statements I made one year ago, all of which I’ve retracted and none of which I’ve retraced, a point which not even my most acerbic critic, who, laughably, has seen fit to honor me with a tag on his blog, can dispute.” But silver, you shouldn’t take offence! Afterall, there is truth to Oscar Wilde’s maxim: “There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” 37
Posted by zorn on Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:53 | # silver, i am saying that you are not arguing in good faith; you’re a liar. why should anyone take time to address yr arguments when none of us can be sure that is what you really believe? thx. 38
Posted by silver on Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:48 | # Zorn, that’s precisely the point: it shouldn’t matter what I believe. My arguments either stand on their own or they don’t. Either I provide evidence to substantiate the point I am trying to make or I don’t. You really needn’t concern yourself with what I “believe.” It’s just childish on your part to demand confessions from me every time I post. Anyway, as I’ve suggested to others, if you doubt me so much, just investigate my posts made within the last eight months or so: I challenge you to find anything that could be interpreted as being against your interests. Go on, don’t just sit there casting aspersions; put your doubts to the test. And God, if I was really out to deceive, why would I keep posting under the same tained moniker? Think, man, think. Oh, and I might ask the same of you: why should I believe what you post, hmm? You don’t even capitalise, which is the mark of an amateur and a red flag to me. Or why should I believe Fred Scrooby? His fidelity to accurate statements is suspect, to say the least (as I’ll demonstrate in just a moment); I see no reason why he should escape your weariness. See where this can go, zorn? Dave Johns: I disagree. I’d happily let others hog the limelight. I just want to keep them on the straight and narrow.
You’re talking about diaspora Jews. In that case, I repeat what I said earlier: Right, and “the way they behave” is characterised as highly ethnocentric, so ethnocentric, in fact, that they hypocritically advocate one set of policies for America and anothe set for Israel. This is routinely extrapolated by WNs to mean that, as a result, Israel, racially, or even merely ethnically, is doing everything right. My point is that this hardly the case, and, further, that the behavior of American Jewery is more indicative of typical ethnic minority behavior than jewish behavior, since if it were strictly jewish behavior, we’d except to see a great deal more of it in Israel than is actually the case. It’s ethnic minority behavior more than it is “jewish” behavior. The test is the way Jews behave in Israel. In Israel, Jewish elites parallel the behavior of the “benevolent majorities” of France or Britain. There are certaing Jewish groups, most prominently the settlers, whose behavior is characteristic of the “jewish supremicism” of WN lore who are influential, but they differ mostly in degree, rather than in kind, from nativist groups in, say, France.
You ask what gives? What gives is simply a classic case of miscalculation. The anals of history are replete with examples of nations miscalculating. Even organizations explicitly tasked with planning for and managing contigencies, like the CIA, for example, have gotten it spectacularly wrong. Only Jews, it seems, are exempt from such error. Where Jews are concerned, every incident, no matter how much intelligent observers determine it compromises Jewish interests, is interpreted as a part of some vast, far-seeing plan, every exigency accounted for years in advance. Also, you keep conflating the survival of Israel with Ashkenazi racialism. The Israel Lobby/neocons are “fervently concerned” with the survival of Israel, but this isn’t the same as saying that they agonise over Ashkenazi genetic integrity. Having said all that, yes GW, I did see the article about Israel ceasing Ethiopian immigration. (Am I more influential than I thought? 39
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:26 | # I think the example of Dr. Tomislav Sunic is germane here, silver. He is Croatian. He doesn’t seem to be in any doubt that he is White. He is not a self-hating wog. This ‘nordics vs. meds’ bugaboo doesn’t keep him up at night. From what I understand he is good buddies with the Political Cesspool guys and has moved to their area: Memphis, Tennessee. They accept him as White and I think they are pretty representative of American WNs. If you are trying to make WN safe for meds indirectly by making it more tolerant of other groups as well you are waisting your time. Have you read the Culture of Critique by Dr. Kevin MacDonald? If not, please do. If you really are a Serb then do your part in keeping the Balkans and Australia White. If you are not then do the “honorable” thing and repatriate yourself at the soonest time possible to your native non-White country. As far as Israel is concerned, I personally don’t wish for its destruction. I do wish that its people and its enablers/advocates would piss off and stop entangling Whites in its affairs. 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:21 | # Incidentally, the reason I’m not responding to Silver’s commentary on Jews or otherwise isn’t that he called me names the other week — that puny outburst was pathetic, of zero significance, and meant strictly zero to me or, I imagine, anyone else. The reason I’m not responding to him is Silver is not a straightforward mentality. He’s devious. He conceals. He misrepresents. He misleads. He’s ill-intentioned. He goes in circles. There’s something twisted about him. He hides his opinions. He camouflages his motivations. I’m not going to deal with personalities like that: to engage someone in one of these exchanges is to assume his honesty and integrity. Once you can no longer assume that — once you find yourself dealing with the likes of Silver, Birch Barlow, or Robert Lindsay — you can’t engage. 41
Posted by zorn on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:24 | # silver, well, id like to know that i am not wasting my time talking to a psychopath or a pathological liar &c;. i dont really comment on this blog, i just enjoy reading james bowery’s posts. i only felt the need to jump in so i could get you to clarify where you’re coming from—which you haven’t, evidencing deceit, sickness, i don’t know. you can believe what you like, silver, but don’t expect sane or truthful individuals to play along with your games. thx. 42
Posted by silver on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:15 | #
Cap, I think this reply reveals what was up your nose the entire time. It seems it wasn’t my opinion on Israel or the behavior of diaspora Jews that concerned you; it was all part of some ‘ploy’ to unmask me. How else should I read the above reply, appearing out the blue as it does? What I think of myself, whether I’m a ‘self-hating wog’, an undercover nordicist, or whatever else some people’s fertile imagination might conjure, is really quite immaterial. If you’re a WN, your sole concern should be whether the points I raise help your cause, or help you to help your cause, or not. I see no good reason to probe any farther than that, I really don’t. As for Kevin MacDonald, I’m quite familiar with his work.
Cap, I actually stand accused of making WN intolerant of all but nordics.
Just what do you suppose I’m doing?
Actually, the honorable thing would be to help raise awareness of the issues (as understood by WNs). One man’s departure, particularly one capable of speaking intelligently about race, is no help to anyone. Furthermore, I’ve already said that my desire is to return to my homeland, and I’d like to repatriate as many of my countrymen as I can. I’ve been tolerant of the high and mighty tone you’ve taken with me, but now you’re getting personal. If you’re going to be adversarial, at least be familiar with what I’ve previously argued. Not only does it prevent you from appearing foolish, but that would be the honorable thing to do.
You have no evidence for any of this. Quoting statements I made as an anti won’t cut it. I find it strange that you’d accuse me of having an unstable mentality. It’s not I who has made outlandish statements about land having a “spirit”; it’s not I who claims to have “sullied my hands” by merely responding to an interlocutor; it’s not I who reacts to being corrected by calling the other person lower than a gnat (or was it worm?—all for correcting him, yes). From where I stand, that you teeter on the edge of mental stability is not in question at all; the great uncertainty for me is how many times a session you’re forced to wipe your monitor down from all the spittle which surely flies from your mouth as you type. As for Rienzi, he was apparently under the impression that I’m a regular reader of his blog. Rienzi, I’m not. Thus I wasn’t aware that you’d tasked me with set of questions to answer if I wished you to get off my back. I’d appreciate it if you could email me those questions; I’d be happy to answer them. Zorn, if you’re not aware that I’ve not claimed to be anything but a Serb living in Australia for over a year now, you’re probably out of your depth here. (And if you’ve seen evidence of “sickness”? Take heart: you’ve a good man in Fred to share you delusions with.) 43
Posted by wjg on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:03 | # Silver, Among other apologetics for Jewish anti-racist “integrity” re. their views on Israel vs. their views within their Aryan hosts you say… “Unlike France, Israel has outlawed parties which would like to alter (internally) that demographic picture in favor of Jews.” Apparently this “outlawing” has not been too effective: http://incogman.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/global-zionist-hypocrites-to-eject-infiltrators/ There are many things one can say about Jews but being genuine is not one of them. They are so hypocritical and duplicitous it is hard for most Aryans to fathom it. 44
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:51 | # That was a good Incog Man piece on Jewish hypocrisy on immigration, linked by wjg above. Post a comment:
Next entry: The old lion can still roar
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
) Great news! Let’s hope Israelis take the next step in securing their future, which is dealing intelligently with the mix they already have—resettling/expelling some Muslims, for example. This is far more useful for our side (I think I’m justified in using “our” in this sense) than wishing the destruction of Israel.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:37 | #
A U.K. Conservative politician endorsing a U.S. Democrat for president — is that done? I take it that’s pretty bold?
And exactly whom is Boris trying to ingratiate himself with by those swooning comments and that love-fest photo-op pose with the Sub-Saharan he’s got his arm around? If it’s Conservative donors it must be the Jewish ones (maybe that’s all there are any more, money being so tight nowadays?). If it’s “Stuff White People Like” types among Tory activists then truly, as George Wallace said nearly forty years ago, “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.”
Except the Israelis. Hate to change the subject, but ... ever notice that? Except them. They get a pass. (Someone’s playing his cards damn close to the vest in all this, and it sure as hell ain’t the Euros ... they’ve got ‘em more like on public display all up and down their sleeve.)