Posted by Andy Wooster on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:38 | #

I posted this in the “Letter to Lawrence” thread.

He writes:
It’s the standard far-white anti-Semitic message: (1) The real cause of the West’s racial ills is the Jews. (2) The key to saving the West is that the European white majority must get rid of the Jews. (3) Getting rid of the Jews will somehow make the European whites strong and enable them to handle their other race enemies, something they will never be able to do while the Jews are around undermining them. And, finally, (4) if I, as a person of Jewish ancestry, do not agree with propositions 1, 2, and 3, that proves that I am a race enemy of European whites like the rest of the Jews; but if I as a racial Jew agree to the destruction or ejection of the Jews, that shows that I am A-Ok.

The first two things that came to mind after reading this screed:

1. Did he even read the letter? None of his four points are represented in Guessedworker’s letter.

2. Interestingly, he does link to the blog entry.  It’s interesting because it should be readily apparent to any of his readers who do follow the link that he badly misrepresents Guessedworker’s arguments.

Regarding Auster’s 4 point misrepresentation of Guessedworker’s letter:

1. Auster writes: “The real cause of the West’s racial ills is the Jews. “ GW *explicitly* rejects this, leading me to believe Auster didn’t even read the letter he links to:That order of play - liberalism <> the liberal elite <> the Jewish engagement - is fair, I think, and should tell you that “you people”, as you name us, possess a proper understanding of the West’s political and cultural woes.  The next time you leap to your conclusion and feel the irresistible impulse to shout about how obsessed with Jewry we are, please entertain the smallest of doubts somewhere in your skull that you may, in fact, be wrong.  You are wrong now.

2.Auster’s 2nd claim: “The key to saving the West is that the European white majority must get rid of the Jews. “ Nowhere in GW’s letter is this written. This is what is known as a “strawman” argument.

3. “ Getting rid of the Jews will somehow make the European whites strong and enable them to handle their other race enemies, something they will never be able to do while the Jews are around undermining them.” Where in the letter is this stated or implied? Another strawman.

4. “if I, as a person of Jewish ancestry, do not agree with propositions 1, 2, and 3, that proves that I am a race enemy of European whites like the rest of the Jews; but if I as a racial Jew agree to the destruction or ejection of the Jews, that shows that I am A-Ok.” Seeing as how points 1-3 are clearly false, this one must by definition be false as well.  Did you actually read the letter, Larry?

Two replies so far by Auster and yet he has not come close to *addressing* (never mind answering) Guessedworker’s actual arguments.

Posted by calvin on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:49 | #

So Auster urges us to believe that Islamic extremism is caused by Islam (which is true). We can conclude from this that Islam is itself the root cause of what has come to be known as “Islamophobia”; what should we then conclude is the root cause of anti-Semitism Mr Auster?

Posted by wjg on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:34 | #

GW,

Auster, with his own words, proves why Jews cannot be White Nationalists.  He is the best they offer to us, is a non-entity to Jewry, and still defends his tribe against us whenever there is a conflict.  So the balance sheet for Auster is:

Assets: Argues that Whites should defend themselves collectively.  Some of his arguments are outstanding.

Liabilites: Argues that Whites who investigate why they no longer defend themselves collectively should never name or act against the primary reason of that situation

The other part of the equation is that Auster is outnumbered 100 to 1 within his tribe re. his views, and out “relevanced” 1,000,000 to 1.

He has persuaded a fair number of WNists to go soft on Jewry (many who contribute here) because he does speak for us on most occasions.  We must ask ourselves whether suspending generalizations against Jews is rational just because of Auster.  I say no.

The funny thing is I agree with the first three points that he attributed to you falsely.  He is apparently projecting what should be the rational thoughts of “anti-semites”.  I could care less what Jews think of it so the 4th point is moot.

You and Svi have made a noble effort at persuasion which I think is futile.  What have you concluded from this exercise?

Posted by Michael Dupont on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:31 | #

It seems that Mr. Auster thinks that anti-Semitism is unrelated to how Jews behave in host societies. International Jewy has successfully undermined the West and White racial consciousness. Has he ever addressed the role of his tribe in killng the West?

Posted by Michael Dupont on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:38 | #

Maybe Mr. Auster would like to comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NAfrbwH9-0

Posted by hran on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 06:11 | #

Re: Auster’s straw men. Does anyone here disagree with the following post taken from this web site? If not, then Auster’s argument is sound.

The post in question:

I’ll humor the “girl” and address Jane’s point three. (Point one is irrelevant, point two is an ad hom, and the answer to point four is “Muslim is the symptom, _ _ _ is the disease.”)

3. What’s this about tipping hands?

Prior to the Iraq war only a few men of genius could detect the level of control through the smokescreen, but always within a second haze of uncertainty with regard to motive. Both clouds are now removed.

Now even an average world citizen can see the following.

Jews:
...*consciously* pursue their policies
... are tightly coordinated worldwide *as a racial group*
... operate with unrestricted ruthlessness

(media)
... have a centralized propaganda coordinating system for their
media assets worldwide
... manipulate said media *scientifically* and *in totality*
... consciously lie as easily as non-jews breathe—witness the
ongoing jewish lying 24/7/365
... possess near-monopolies over the media in Anglo-Saxon
nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc)

(government)
... completely control the US White House
... control the US Congress
... control the UK and Australia in like fashion, though least in
Australia

I’m sure I left out a few. Feel free to add.

Posted by Election Summary on Saturday, December 9, 2006 at 05:21 AM

Posted by Steven Palese on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:08 | #

hran, election summary is a commenter, not a blogger. The bloggers are listed to the left under the heading “The Writers”.

Besides, eletion summary is making a valid point. The reality of what’s been happening in the Middle East and what triggered our rampage is beginning to sink in. A few days ago I was reading/commenting this ungodly 1000+ thread at YouTube - have a look at how much public opinion has changed. Whether you like it or not, the number of people who can look at election summary’s list and agree with almost every point continues to grow exponentially.

Any, repeat any, more calamities in that region, such as an airstrike on Iran that goes bad, i.e. causes massive geopolitical blowback, gets us a draft and collapses the economy - something I’d give a 25% likelihood of at this time - would drop entirely, repeat entirely, on non-Arab Semitic shoulders. That’s the mood. Americans are not as dumb as everyone thinks, we’re just comfortable - that’s why we seem dumb and sometimes act dumb. But push us off the couch and its another story.

In fact, some American pro-whites, such as Bob Whitaker (the political insider and author), are fretting that we’re going to wind up with a mainstreamed coffee-colored “anti-semitism” that has nothing to do with liberating whites. That’s the new concern; not that talk of non-Arab Semites might be off-putting, but that we might get lost in it!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:53 | #

Now, for a little comic relief:  I just stumbled across the following.  Have no idea who this Greek guy is, but his comment will bring a smile to a few faces I’m sure):
______

Demonax wrote: “It was a multi-generational effort on [the Jews’] part to effect change in white nations to allow non-white immigration so that they did not stand out as the lone minority who could possibly be persecuted at some point in the future.”  Ethno, you strike me as an intelligent fellow, so I don’t believe you believe this bollocks.  It’s such bollocks in fact that it’s not worth the effort of disproving, suffice it to say that most of the people –  including yourself –  who contribute to Phylax have immigrant backgrounds and I’d be surprised if any of us ended up where we ended up as a result of some coordinated Jewish effort.  How smart are Jews?  The Jews I have known over the years have included a taxi driver, a croupier, a barber, a couple of third-rate journalists, a dope fiend, a real moron and so on. The Jews are not an especially smart race; they may be smarter than the Anglo-Saxons, but then who isn’t?  How organised are the Jews?  As organised, I would hazard, as any other diaspora with a significant and troubled history, like the Greeks and Armenians.  Whenever I need a plumber, electrician, estate agent, car mechanic, TV repair guy, etc., I use Cypriots.  Does this make me part of a Cypriot world conspiracy, or just someone who likes to stick to his own and prefers to put money in the pockets of his own rather than in the pockets of the English, Irish or whoever?  Like the Greeks, the Jews are also notoriously disputatious and prone to division and factionalism.  In the UK some of the most vociferous critics of Israel are Jews.  So much for unified and coordinated Jewish action.  And what or who are these “white nations” you keep going on about, Ethno?  Am I white?  Last time I looked in the mirror I had black hair, brown eyes and a swarthy complexion.  Most Jews I’ve met are fairer than me.  Why are Jews not part of these “white nations” you speak of, and yet Greeks are?  My point: forget about the Jews –  they’re not worth it; forget about blacks and whites –  they’re not worth it either. The only race –  if this is what we are – and nation that matters is the Greek race and the Greek nation. Devote your considerable intellectual energies to understanding, appreciating and promulgating the works of Hellenism.  The only enemies worth having are the enemies of Hellenism, who may well, occasionally, be Talmudic Jews or sociopathic blacks, but they are also Anglo-Saxonism, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Turkey, Albania –  in fact anything that is non-Hellenic, that is barbarian; because the world is not divided into Jews and Aryans or blacks and whites but Greeks and barbarians. Every other dichotomy is spurious bullshit.  Ultimately, all this Jewish conspiracy white nation stuff is unbecoming of a Greek, is ungreek in fact.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:28 | #

I’m sure a few of Larry’s little helpers will be here shortly to argue how misunderstood he is, and how desperately we need his calm, moderate voice on our side.

They’ll never learn. But perhaps GW has, at long last?

PS: Never forget that Arabs are semites too. And never forget that we whites don’t need *any* variety of Asiatic semite in our midst in any quantity—least of all the semites who wanna be in our gang so they can boss it. The track record of mischief-making—among the 57 semitic varieties and among us, when they transfer their ageless quarrels to happier lands—is just too long. Why risk it?

Posted by mickey o'brute on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:23 | #

I’d like to make a brief analysis based upon Figure 7.1 in Salter’s book and then ask some questions that should be answered by Lawrence Auster, The Realist, and bats-man.  Please note that these questions are phrased in a non-hateful manner, are asked earnestly with the intent of attempting to solve a problem, and I am confident that objective observers will agree with this characterization.  Further, attempts by Auster et al. to “spin” those questions and this analysis as rank “anti-Semitism” will likely do nothing but discredit them in the eyes of those who would see nothing wrong with probing these issues in a rigorous manner.

Figure 7.1. shows four basic group strategies based upon the distinctions of ethnic vs. non-ethnic strategies and territorial vs. non-territorial strategies.  This yields four possibilities listed below:

1.  Ethnic territorial – “traditional nation states and ethnic states”
2.  Non-ethnic, territorial – “majority ethnies in multicultural states”
3.  Ethnic, non-territorial – “mobilized minorities in multicultural states, and traditionally endogamous diaspora peoples”
4.  Non-ethnic, non-territorial – “immigrants who assimilate”

Note that Salter accurately describes multiculturalism as a system in which the majority is, as a group, politically passive and does not pursue group interests (atomized), while minorities are highly mobilized to pursue group interests, which they do at the expense of the majority – and that the establishment actively promotes such an dichotomy between majority and minority.  I assume that Auster, TIW, etc. would agree with this when comparing, for example, whites vs. blacks in America, or Europeans vs. Muslims in Europe.  Another point is that of these groups, Salter gives examples for group 3: “Armenians, overseas Chinese, Gypsies, Jews, Parsis.”

Now, I think we (that is, MR as well as Auster/TIW) agree that whites worldwide find themselves in group 2, which is a serious problem, perhaps a way of looking at THE problem.

I assume that Auster, TIW would say that placing Jews in 3 may be accurate historically (if they admit as much as that), but that most, if not all, Jews today are in group 4 or have already found themselves in group 2.  However, MR (as well as Kevin MacDonald) would place most Jews currently in group 3, a situation that has continuity despite the loss of some Jews into group 4.

So, that’s one debate: 3 vs. 4.  If Auster and TIW wish to understand our position without ad hominem, then let’s look at the situation if Jews are in fact predominantly in group 3.  What does this mean?

From the perspective of the white majority, group interests are best served by moving from 2 to 1 (that many whites do not currently realize this is irrelevant, the point is that the interests are served by state 1 and if Auster and TIW really believe in what they claim they would agree with this).

From the majority perspective then, group 3 is a problem.  If the majority moves to 1, then multiculturalism ends, leaving the following choices for group 3: exclusion, leading to them forming their own group 1; segregation, subordination, and marginalization within a majoritarian state, in which minorities might have individual rights but would be deprived of any right to pursue group interests; or assimilation into the majority –a viable option for both sides only if the groups are relatively genetically close and the minority not numerous.  Assimilation would mean the dissolution of the minority group and hence, a considerable loss to them; conversely, the majority may decide that the costs of assimilation outweigh the benefits, and so would opt for exclusion or segregation.  We can assume for the moment that, in the case of the Jews, the white majority would consider full assimilation.

From the perspective of a group in #3, that wishes to maintain their identity, they would resist assimilation (resist movement from 3 to 4) AND they would do everything in their power to prevent the majority from moving from 2 to 1; since an ethnocentric majoritarian state would certainly pose serious problems for any group practicing an ethnic, non-territorial minority strategy.  I believe that the work of Kevin MacDonald can be understood within this paradigm, that he believes Jews, being in group 3, wish to maintain the white majority in the maladaptive situation of being in group 2.

My understanding of the vision of Rabbi Schiller was that somehow 1 and 3 could peacefully co-exist in the same state – one could have a white ethnostate in which a Jewish community existed as a separate identifiable minority (certainly, Schiller, as a Rabbi and a devout Orthodox Jew teaching in a Yeshiva would be expected to oppose the dissolution of America’s Jewish population through assimilation and would support the continued existence of Jews as a specific group).

However, history shows us that this is highly unstable; in fact Salter says of strategy 3, “The history of dispossession and violence experienced by ethnies in this condition makes this combination unstable.”  On the flip side, MR would argue that these mobilized minorities harm majority interests (which Salter also agrees with).

It would seem therefore that if Auster, TIW, bats-man want a traditionalist white state from which Jews would not be excluded, they need to wholeheartedly support the full and sincere physical and cultural assimilation of Jews into the fabric of white gentile America.

The problem is that many Jews would view this with horror and as a demographic disaster.  Some Jews view assimilation as their worst threat since Hitler, and the views of people such as Elliot Abrams are well known.  As stated, I believe that Schiller would also oppose assimilation.  Far from MR being full of “anti-Semites”, I think that most here sympathize with the desire of Jews to preserve their people.  MR understands the Jewish reticence towards assimilation.  But this leaves the basic problem unresolved: a people cannot be an identifiable minority and a member of the majority at the same time. Further, if they are an identifiable minority, and if these people contain strong elements resisting – with justification – assimilation, how can their long-term interests be congruent to that of the majority?

So, the questions: what future do you see for the Jewish people in a white traditionalist majority-oriented state?  Do you support assimilation?  How do you answer the likes of Elliot Abrams?  What does it tell you that after making his comments, Abrams continued as a viable public figure, what does that tell you about the “Jews as a minority, similar to non-white minorities” paradigm?  What if the majority reject assimilation?  What if a sizable portion of Jews reject assimilation? 

Do you agree that asking these questions is not “anti-Semitism?”

Posted by Steven Palese on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:39 | #

brute, “The problem is that many Jews would view this with horror and as a demographic disaster.  Some Jews view assimilation as their worst threat since Hitler,”

Specifically, they call assimilation & integration “genocide liberalism”:

“Foxman of the ADL and writer Christopher Hitchens, among others, have attacked the Walt and Mearsheimer paper as anti-Semitic. And Judt’s advocacy of a binational state has drawn a flock of critics, the more angry of whom accuse him of “pandering to genocide” as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America put it. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum said Judt was pursuing “genocide liberalism.”

Foxman has referred to Judt’s views of Israel as “an offensive caricature.”

The Mearsheimer and Walt paper, however, has drawn praise in some quarters in Israel, particularly on the left. So, too some Israeli writers, not least Israeli historian and social critic Amos Elon, have praised Judt’s writings on Israel. Nor are Judt’s arguments without historical precedent: Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguist and political philosopher Noam Chomsky, who is Jewish, has advocated a binational solution in Israel, a view that three decades ago sparked such anger that police stood guard at his college talks.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800817.html

P.S. “binational solution” is Israeli slang for multiculturalism & diversity. Advocating such extreme measures means you need bodyguards.

“Do you agree that asking these questions is not “anti-Semitism?””

I’m not sure whether this question is sad or funny. “Anti-semitism” = anything offensive to non-Arab Semites. Is there a word for anything offensive to us? Do you see anti-whiteism in the dictionary? Do we go to non-Arab Semite websites and demand that they respect our specal racial privilege not to be offended?

As far as I’m concerned, anyone who even acknowledges “anti-semitism” as a valid concept is saying whites are morally inferior. Why are you acknowledging another group’s racial privilege not to be offended when you don’t have one yourself? Come on! If you care for this type of privilege, shouldn’t you be agitating for whites to have it? Equal rights for whites! We should be immune from group criticism too! We want anti-whiteism in the dictionary and we want people to be subject to neo-McCarthyite persecution for committing the sin of offending us!

The fact is, most non-Arab Semites believe they are born with much higher levels of innate victimological worth than anyone else and that this entitles them to all manner of racial privileges. In other words, most are completely delusional. The last thing you do when dealing with people who are delusional is acknowledge their delusions. That just makes them even more delusional.

Anyway, aside from this minor point that’s a great analysis brute just made.

Posted by hran on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:48 | #

Steven, If that comment does not represent the prevailing opinion of the bloggers then Auster was misrepresenting this site. I was wondering about the level of agreement on this site (bloggers/readers) with the points Election Summary outlined. 

mickey: Your analysis can be applied to any group. The mystery is: Why focus on the Jews? They are a small minority group and they already ARE assimilated. In contrast, look at the ongoing Mexification in California, etc. Whatever problem might arise from Jews not wanting to assimilate is dwarfed by the Hispanic problem. Focusing on the Jews is like trying to put out a match when the house is on fire.

Posted by mickey o'brute on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:59 | #

Well if the Jews were partially responsible for starting the fire, and if they are preventing the firemen from putting out the fire, don’t you think it is an issue that needs to be addressed?

How can you say that the Jews ARE assimilated, when their outmarriage rate is 1/2 that of what it should be based on their population percentage, when you have people like Elliot Abrams openly fighting against assimilation (and getting government jobs afterward - just like non-whites, Jews are treated as minorities and get away with things that white gentiles could never dream of), and they have a different cultural/religious background?

How can you compare that to “other groups?’’ Why did Salter specifically put Jews in group 3, and not those “other groups” that you mention?

Do you honestly believe that American Jews are completely assimilated into white America, with no independent identity and no resistance to assimilation?

Orthodox Jews ARE assimilated?  Hasids?  Rabbi Schiller in his Yeshiva?  Elliot Abrams railing against intermarriage?  When was the last time you heard, say, Ted Kennedy (a turd with many faults) publicly railing against Irish Catholic intermarriage?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:20 | #

I shared with Kevin MacDonald’s brain trust my ideas of how to control, contain and reverse Jewish virulence, and copied those thoughts to <a >a comment here, at MR about an evolutionary medical approach to protean Jewish virulence</a>.  It didn’t get much comment here—perhaps due to the fact that MR was still recovering from the presence of John Jay Ray.

I hate to see discussions with men like Auster take a turn toward base rancor since he is the kind of Jew we should promote to positions of prominence in Western Civilization as we prepare to terminate the horizontal transmission that produces the Jewish virulence we all, Auster included, decry.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:38 | #

From a comment of mine in the thread to which James has linked:

Auster:  “Unfortunately, Hitchens’s own analysis of the immigration issue is overly complicated and not terribly useful. Instead of getting at the core of the problem, which is non-discrimination as the guiding philosophy of the modern West, as expressed in the mass immigration of unassimilable peoples, he launches into a rather complex economic explanation.”

Auster is exactly right.  Ignoring the cause of the problem, he precisely identifies the problem itself.  Non-discrimination.  The way that an organism stays alive is by discriminating between self and non-self with respect to the resources that it has assembled.

The discrimination between self and non-self is the basic function of the immune system. 

Auster essentially states this truth—the most important truth there is for us to know ... other than the further truth that explains this immune malfunction.  And of course the salient further truth is that this state of inverted discrimination is the result of a pathogen.  Auster again:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005425.html

The fact remains, however, that the Jewish people, far out of proportion with any other ethnic group, keep producing a fantastic number of leftists, whether they are “Jewish” or not. Any gentile country with a significant Jewish population needs to consider honestly this Jewish tendency and find responsible ways of restraining it.

But when gentiles actually begin discussing such “restraint”, he draws the line.  He wants to control the process of “restraint” in order to ensure that Jews may continue to live among us gentiles, but he admonishes Jews to ratchet down the virulence.  In short, Auster is pushing the notion of vertical transmission.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:14 | #

Mr Auster has wearied of my uncouth assertions.  He has replied via a mail of just three short sentences: You want to me to engage in debate with you but you start off with the insults.  I’ve given you more than you deserve by replying to your blog entry.  Now go away.

Of course.  So, chastened by the experience as I am, and grateful that no further devestating exposures of my moral bankruptcy - and, of course, let us not forget my ancient racial animus - will be visited upon me in public, I slink away softly through the moist English night air, determined now upon leading a better, more “Austere” life of bright-burning Islamophobia ...

Sad.  But I guess Lawrence had no more ammo.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:33 | #

Yes, and vertical transmission will reduce the virulence of Jews but the issue of control over the transmission mode is going to be the point where Jews will either become part of the human family or be destroyed.  If there is something inherent in Jews that makes them need to maintain control over the transmission modes of Jews ALLOWED BY OTHER PEOPLES, then Jews have a need to commit the one, and only, crime against humanity:  denial of self-determination and their continued existence is not compatible with the continued existence of humanity.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:32 | #

GW,

Cheer up old chum. It could be worse, as Harry Potter discovered. It might be the cloak of invisibilty for you after naming The Race That Shall Not Be Named.

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:31 | #

Anyway, aside from this minor point that’s a great analysis brute just made.

I agree. So I hate to add another minor point, but ...

“binational solution” is Israeli slang for multiculturalism & diversity.

We should be clear that the binational solution is different from the two-state solution.

The former, an old idea from the pre-Independence era, called for a separate Jewish homeland within a binational state. It was consistent with the Balfour Declaration. Almost no one argues for this solution today, and in any case it wasn’t comparable to multiculturalism and diversity. It some ways it was their opposite. We could call it a less ambitious form of contemporary Zionism, since it proposed a homeland for Jews on Arab land, but not a Jewish state. Within this homeland Jews would live with other Jews and rarely see non-Jews. That was the old dream.

The modern Left’s two-state solution—one Jewish, the other Arab—is best understood as apartheid on a smaller piece of Palestine than the Israeli Right claims. Both sides in the internal Jewish debate over the Palestinian problem often get deeply angry. They exchange terrible imprecations. Their mutual hatred is genuine. But from our perspective they are merely quibbling over the physical size of the Jewish ethnostate. That Israel should remain a demographically Jewish state is acknowledged by almost all participants in the debate, including the Left. Many on the Right now reluctantly accept some form of a two-state solution, though they believe that the future Palestinian state should be extremely small, even smaller than the Left’s preferred Palestinian state.

There are a few exceptions, but for practical purposes every Jew discussing this subject, whether in Israel or in the Diaspora, is a racialist, though none of them would admit it. The Left in Israel regularly warns of the demographic threat posed by their subjugated Arab population and on that basis argues for physical separation from the West Bank, while the Right hints at involuntary transfer in order to preserve Jewish ownership of Jewish holy sites. The underlying assumption is the same in both cases: Jews should have a state in Palestine. The two sides dispute only how big that state should be.

Shlomo Ben-Ami, regarded by the Right as the doviest of the doves on Barak’s negotiating team, regards the Arab birthrate as Israel’s greatest threat. He would be condemned as a “racist” in any Western nation. In Israel he is a pro-Arab liberal.

The one-state solution, proposed by some Palestinians, is the closest you’ll get to “multiculturalism and diversity” in the Holy Land. Hence the near universal opposition in Israel to the Palestinian Right of Return, despite UN resolutions that demand it.

If Abe Foxman were genuinely committed to multiracial diversity, he would support the one-state solution and start chartering planes, trains and automobiles to transport Palestinian refugees to Tel Aviv, so Israelis could benefit from more diversity as quickly as possible. Since he isn’t serious about diversity, other than as a weapon against Euro-Americans, he prefers to campaign instead for Mexican immigration.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:37 | #

We cannot sit and do nothing while Iran becomes a nuclear power. We must at a minimum attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. To prevent them from cutting off world oil by cutting off the Straits of Hormuz while this is happening, we must, as Arthur Herman writes in November Commentary, seize the Straits ourselves. We could also seize their oil wells in the Gulf, where much of their oil is. We thus assure that countries we like can use the Straits, while Iran can’t, thus crippling Iran economically and putting the squeeze on the regime.

Remember, Sailer always talks of how Iran has zilch in conventional military forces and equipment. Though naval actions in the Gulf (which Herman says would be similar to what we actually did in the late 1980s to prevent Iran from blocking the Straits), and air action against their nuclear facilities, we conventionally exert our will over them to deny them the one thing they must not have which is nuclear weapons. We also cause them maximum damage, giving others the lesson that we will not tolerate any jihadist, nuclear-war-threatening regime to get the A bomb.

That’s Auster, self-styled paleoconservative American traditionalist: advocating unprovoked, large-scale aggression against an unoffending state on the grounds that—despite its repeated and explicit disavowals, validated by international inspection—it just might, one day, have nuclear weapons. Like Pakistan. And India. And- no, no, off message.

(How many has Israel got by now, and how long did it take Olmert to sort-of admit it?)

Auster denounces Bush’s incompetence in Iraq but does not balk at a bigger pre-emptive war on the basis of a scare about WMDs: He would trash every principle of the Founders’ foreign policy to parry what he perceives as a mortal threat to… guess where.

After all, Ahmainejad has said he wants to wipe out Israel, hasn’t he? No, he hasn’t; he said he wished the Zionist state to give way to a different polity, on the analogy of the USSR. There are plenty of post-Zionist Jews in Israel, not to mention Orthodox disbelievers in jumping the messiahship gun, who would agree.

Ah, but Ahmadinejad has (gasp) “denied the Holocaust”, hasn’t he? No, he hasn’t; he has called it a “myth” (look the word up) and pointed out how it is a pretext for keeping the Palestinians down. The pres made some wittily barbed remarks about the ME paying for European guilt, and explicity said more than once—most recently at his infamous Teheran conference for them that neo-Nazie “deniers”—that he has an open mind about how much or little of the Zionist-approved version(s) of WW2 persecution is true.

Larry’s MEMRI dossier of evidence against this somewhat democratically elected leader of a historically very peaceable country is backed up by the war whoopings of Commentary, the sacred monthly book of neoconnerie, in which Norman ‘Pope Poddy’ Podhoretz long since proclaimed World War IV against the Muslim world.

Auster’s galloping Islamophobia urges him to risk wrecking the entire world economy and making the USA’s military plight in the region a hundred times more dire—all in case a nuke might drop on Tel Aviv some time, never.

And that calls itself a conservative!

Posted by joel godfrey on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:29 | #

I don’t believe Jewish people ever helped out the west in our problems with the Muslims, and the simple fact that there is one, is somewhat proof that there has been some people undermining our heritage.  Who let the Turks into Contantinople?  Who in the Media wanted us to kill ourselves off in World War One and Two?  Who controlled the messages that degraded and continue to degrade our western cultures?  And why should western non-Jews always have to be demeaned or labelled racists, Anti-Semites and the like simply for having well informed non-Semite friendly answers to these questions?  hiding from the truth is not how we grow as a people, and hiding from labels thrown at us has lead to all off our proplems.  There has never been help from this group to elivate our situation at any time in our history.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:20 | #

“If Abe Foxman were genuinely committed to multiracial diversity he would support the one-state solution and start chartering planes, trains and automobiles to transport Palestinian refugees to Tel Aviv, so Israelis could benefit from more diversity as quickly as possible. Since he isn’t serious about diversity, other than as a weapon against Euro-Americans, he prefers to campaign instead for Mexican immigration.”  (—Rnl)

Exactly right, and true also of all his associates, allies, and contributors, not one of whom wants open borders, race-replacement volumes of racially/ethnoculturally incompatible immigration, diversity, or multculti for Israel, yet every single one of whom wants all those shoved down the throats of U.S. Europeans.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:24 | #

... and European Europeans ....

Posted by Theodor Adorno Brute on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:45 | #

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/the_insanity_of_david_duke/#comments

The other shoe has dropped: now critics of Jews are “insane” and are being pathologized as such.  True enough, Duke should get his facts straight (to the extent he has made errors) but does this make him “insane?”  And what can one say about a so-called “race realist” site that tells us we should, all else being equal, accept “common wisdom?”

Does anyone else see the irony in a site dedicated to exposing “The Inverted World” of upside-down truth telling us that rejecting “common wisdom” - except in the most extreme cases - is a marker of “insanity?”

By the way, my dear “Realist”, a question.  If Hart was justified in calling Duke a “f*cking nazi” and that Duke had “disgraced this meeting”, would not someone else have the right to tell Hart (or, have told him 10 years ago): “you are a f*cking multiracialist and you have disgraced this meeting?”

Or, does Hart, for some reason, get a “pass” for his bouts of “insanity”, while Duke gets nailed for his?

An “inverted world”, indeed.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:33 | #

Has anyone publicly accused The Realist yet of being my fellow countryman of ex-Amren editiorial fame?

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:05 | #

mickey o’brute wrote:

My understanding of the vision of Rabbi Schiller was that somehow 1 and 3 could peacefully co-exist in the same state - one could have a white ethnostate in which a Jewish community existed as a separate identifiable minority ... However, history shows us that this is highly unstable; in fact Salter says of strategy 3, “The history of dispossession and violence experienced by ethnies in this condition makes this combination unstable.”

The philo-Semites are unlikely to respond, so I’ll make an attempt on their behalf. It won’t be a very good attempt.

Auster would argue that Jews were a well-behaved minority for most of their history on this continent. Their situation may have been unstable elsewhere, but in America they were content to live as a tolerated minority within a White ethnostate. The dominant White majority was in turn willing to allow them to do so. That was, I believe, the general situation of American Jewry throughout the nineteenth century. Jews were then often regarded as a responsible and patriotic minority, almost as de facto Protestants in a then largely Protestant nation. (Their synagogues often resembled Protestant churches.) Their situation may have been theoretically unstable if analyzed logically, but it wasn’t unstable in practice. Jews were a White minority within a demographically White Christian state. They did not object to their minority status and suffered little from it, other than occasional acts of religious discrimination. If modern Jews feel, to quote Auster, a “self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population,” that instinct was dormant throughout much of their history as Americans. Thus “the full and sincere physical and cultural assimilation of Jews into the fabric of white gentile America” was not required by the mere fact of Jewish otherness in a Euro-American nation. Few saw Jewish otherness as a serious problem. In fact, few saw Jews as being notably other. (I’m fairly certain my summary above is correct, but if I’m wrong I hope someone will correct me. I should point out as well that there were fewer than three thousand American Jews in 1800, so their ability to mobilize aggressively was minimal.)

There is nothing, Auster argues, that prevents us from returning to the old arrangement, which was (using the categories above) somewhere between #1 and #2.  Euro-Americans would, in the better future Schiller and Auster hope for, tolerate Jewish otherness and Jews in turn would accept their position as a tolerated minority within a majority-White nation and would end their current attempts to destroy it. We can (arguably) infer that there is nothing _inherent_ in their situation that encourages anti-majoritarian subversion, because their behavior in the past was different. What has occurred is that the dominant culture has somehow lost its will to assert itself when faced with Jewish provocations. The annual Jewish assault on Christmas is a minor case in point.

The differences between Jews and Muslims must be remembered. Interspersed with periods of persecution and conflict, Jews have functioned harmoniously and productively as a minority in Western societies for over 2,000 years and can do so again. All that’s needed for this to happen is a self-confident and morally sound majority that firmly stands for its own culture without retreating into resentment and hatred in order to do so.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004562.html

The most destructive Jewish anti-White activism occurred (and still occurs) amidst very low levels of anti-Semitism. By the 1960s anti-Semitism, which had always been low by European standards, had been consigned to the fringes of political discourse, where unfortunately it remains today. So Jewish success in promoting multiculturalism and Third World immigration, along with the Civil Rights revolution, was not a response to genuine anti-Jewishness, since in fact there was very little genuine anti-Jewishness to which Jews and Jewish organizations could possibly have been responding. It was, on the contrary, the virtual absence of anti-Semitism that enabled activist Jews to engineer the transformation of America.

This is essentially Auster’s argument, though of course he would state it much differently. Jews were once restrained by the threat of anti-Semitism. Under that restraint, their aggression was minimal and many made genuine contributions to the nation. But with very low levels of anti-Semitism, Jews now feel free to remodel our culture according to their own ethnocentric inclinations.

That could change, an Austerian WN might argue, if Euro-Americans regain their old cultural confidence, including a willingness to name enemies and threaten retaliation. But until we do, activist Jews will continue to misbehave.

***

As I wrote in my article, “Why Jews Welcome Moslems,” Jewish organizations and a significant number of American Jews are passionately devoted to the cause of large-scale Third-World immigration and the resulting ongoing disappearance of America’s historic cultural and national identity, the ultimate effect of which will be to transform America truly and completely into what so many Jews have always wanted it to be: a majority-less collection of unrelated peoples forever divorced from its actual history as a nation and held together by nothing but an abstract belief in democracy and a desire for the good life.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005391.html

We can develop Auster’s point further.

Third World immigration and multiculturalism jointly form a Jewish strategy to normalize their otherness. The immigration policy brings in strange new people and the multicultural policy discourages them from joining #4, even if they felt an inclination to do so. The more minority groups positioned in #3, the less anomalous Jewish otherness becomes.

A fully assimilated Mexican-American is of little value to Abe Foxman. He is just one more Christian, and Mexican immigration in fact brings additional anti-Semitism into the country, as a recent ADL report concluded. On the other hand, a Mexican immigrant who, using Brimelow’s term, joins the alien nation - i.e. identifies himself as a Mexican and identifies himself in opposition to the Euro-American majority, which is now a common form of acculturation - is an ideal immigrant from an activist Jewish perspective. His group is one of many “mobilized minorities” within the fragmenting multicultural state. His group’s visible existence as a mobilized minority, with respected group organizations and telegenic spokesmen, normalizes self-interested Jewish activism. Everyone does it, except the majority. Identity politics is expected, almost patriotic. It’s what the country is all about.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:37 | #

“A fully assimilated Mexican-American is of little value to Abe Foxman. He is just one more Christian [...]”  (—Rnl)

He’s of value to Abe Foxman if he helps change the race from any semblance of majority Northern/Northwestern European to no matter what else as long as it’s not that.

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:12 | #

He’s of value to Abe Foxman if he helps change the race from any semblance of majority Northern/Northwestern European to no matter what else as long as it’s not that.

I don’t believe activist Jews reason that way. They might, but I’m inclined to doubt it. They look at us as a majority population - hence, from their perspective, their adversary. If their adversary’s population gets bigger, that’s bad, no matter what contributes to its growth. If Mexican-Americans assimilated as fundamentalist Protestants and stopped thinking of themselves as Mexicans, Abe Foxman would be worried. Any pleasure he might derive from seeing a darkening majority would be outweighed by his fears at his adversary’s demographic growth.

Christianity, for good or ill, is a strong force for multiethnic and multiracial assimilation. Jewish organizations, together with de facto Jewish organizations like the ACLU, fear Christians and work hard to eliminate Christianity’s presence in public life. I conclude that they don’t want assimilation, even if it makes us dumber. 

majority Northern/Northwestern European

With due respect, Nordicism in a Euro-American context is a sign of not thinking clearly. White = person of European descent.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:12 | #

Svi,

I don’t buy this “race is identity” meme.  It’s seen the other way around and needs tightening up.  Genotype and phenotype are, to quote Disraeli, “everything”.  The very leftist, kosher view, on the other hand, of choosing how to see yourself prays on the lost soul of the urban lightweight.  Don’t see yourself in the prescribed way and you’re walking a slippery slope to the Evil White Racist Syndrome.

If this provokes some introspection among European Americans, then RNL’s words are a good but incomplete guide.  Our loyalties are concentric.  Our reality is specific.  I am not American, OK.  But if I was, my indivisible truth would be Anglo, my loyalties to my fellow white Americans.  So brute, whilst he is not my kin exactly, is one to whom I would unfailingly be “kind”.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 21 Dec 2006 01:41 | #

Yes, OK Svi.  I am not being very clear.  The identity issue has been turned into a bad fish soup by every third-rate psycho-theoriser and culture warrior.  If we use the word at all we have to take it back on terms explicitly our own.  The r-word is inadequate (possibly even counter-productive for obvious reasons).  People don’t really identify through the broad fact of race.  It does not say enough about them to carry real meaning.

Remember, “identity” is used as a proxy for environment versus Nature.  So we could start by cleaving off those elements of identity that are proximate-interest related (ie, “I’m a music-lover”, “I’m a petrol head” etc) and which are issues of acquired personality (ie, very environmental). 

But clearly we cannot cleave off identification through kinship and love of country or locality (ie, less environmental: “Four generations of my family are buried in that churchyard”).  These are a vital battle ground, for they link us to home, they ground us where liberalism would have us floating “free”.

After soil comes blood.  I am my English genotype.  It’s ridiculous to claim that an interest in French cinema might be part of one’s identity but one’s genetic make-up is not.

Uncovering the psychological basis of identity is something the right seems not to have attempted.  The left needs to own the issue.  It shouldn’t just be ceded it, because the use that it is put to is so harmful - especially in an age when the Establishment is trying to sell us civic patriotism and/or to finesse from Multiculturalism to Assimilationism.

Much more rigour in our approach to it is necessary.

Posted by Rnl on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:24 | #

Svyatoslav Igorevich wrote:

Perhaps the reconciliation of the two positions is that the original distinction (assimilated mestizo vs. mobilized minority) is a non-starter - race is identity, and how comfortable an alien feels in expressing his racial identity does not gloss over his alienness or change the fact that the idea of “assimilated mestizos” is meaningless.

#4 is far from rare in history. It can occur even at the periphery of societies that are racially conscious. It will be common in societies that take pride in their non-racialism. For decades many Japanese-Americans have been disappearing into the Euro-American majority, even though the Japanese were once regarded as especially alien.

Of the descendants of Sally Hemings, Jefferson’s reputed mulatto mistress, some today identify as Black and some identify as White. Hemings herself was light-skinned (“mighty near white”). At least a few of her Black descendants are very light, but they still think of themselves as Black and live among other Blacks. They are assimilated mixed-race Blacks. Alicia Keyes (half-White) is also an assimilated mixed-race Black. This is far from a rare social phenomenon. Everyone can think of many examples. The idea of assimilated mestizos is not meaningless. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Svy’s distinctions, but all of this seems clear.

If Mexican-Americans were one percent of the population, we would anticipate their wholesale assimilation into the White population by, say, the fourth generation. They could be culturally assimilated mestizos in the first or second generation, if that was their inclination, and eventually, through intermarriage, their descendants would be socially recognized as White. But since Mexicans are much more than one percent of the population, and since they are increasingly organizing themselves into an activist community in implicit and often explicit opposition to the White majority, mestizo assimilation is less likely. That’s either good or bad depending on your perspective.

*** 

While we’re on the subject of Hispanics, here’s a curious episode in the strange life of Lee Harvey Oswald. The setting is New Orleans.

[Begin Quote] On Friday, August 9, Oswald staged another demonstration on Canal Street. Hearing about it from a friend, [anti-Castro activist Carlos] Bringuier rushed over to Canal Street to see who was involved in this pro-Castro effort. When he arrived there, he was “shocked” to see that it was Lee Harvey Oswald, who had just four days earlier offered his services to the anti-Castro movement. Oswald was now wearing a “Viva Fidel” placard and handing out pro-Castro literature.

Bringuier, infuriated by this turnabout, began cursing and shouting at Oswald. Oswald’s reaction, he recalls, was “absolutely cold-blooded.” He just “smiled and offered his hand, expecting a handshake.” When Bringuier approached, threatening to hit him, Oswald simply said, putting his arms down in a sign of nonresistance, “O.K., Carlos, if you want to hit me, hit me.”

At that point the New Orleans police arrived and arrested both Oswald and Bringuier for disturbing the peace.

[...]

At one o’clock on Monday, August 12, Oswald showed up at the Second Municipal Court, which was conspicuously segregated, having separate seating sections for whites and blacks. Oswald chose to sit on the black side of the room (while Bringuier sat on the white side). The judge dismissed the charges against Bringuier and fined Oswald $10, which he promptly paid. (Edward Jay Epstein, _Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), 224-226). [End Quote]

If you’re conspiracy-minded, Oswald’s decision to sit on the Black side of the courtroom was part of the fake leftist identity he was skillfully constructing. If you’re sensible, you’ll conclude that he chose to express his alienation and deep-seated nuttiness through an act of conspicuous anti-racism.

More interesting, however, is Bringuier’s racial choice. He defined himself as White by where he sat. Anyone who entered the courtroom had to make the same choice. Are you Black or White?

Many Cubans are Spanish (e.g. Daisy Fuentes), but Bringuier is fairly dark, darker than most anti-Castro emigres. He probably thought of himself as White only because in Cuba he was non-Black; many Cubans of predominantly European heritage define themselves as White in contrast to the impoverished Black minority.

In New Orleans Bringuier associated with various Anglo anti-Communists, and it is unlikely that any of them thought of him as a member of a different race. “Hispanic,” a bogus race invented only recently, did not then exist. White and Black were then the principal racial possibilities, as they were in Cuba.

People occupying what we could call edge categories - i.e. not obviously White, but not obviously non-White either - were often compelled to make a choice, as Bringuier was when he entered the court. If their choice was socially accepted, then they were socially recognized as White. As we would expect, no one objected to Bringuier’s choice, so in that formal social setting an assimilationist racial judgment was collectively arrived at.

There was then no incentive to define oneself as non-White, no special affirmative action privileges for example. Quite the contrary. In this case defining yourself as non-White meant you sat with Blacks, and only an anti-social nut would voluntarily do that.

This either-or system of assimilation may not have been an especially good system from a racialist perspective, but it was better than the multiculturalism that replaced it, and it was capable of assimilating the comparatively small number of edge-category immigrants then entering the country.

Posted by Rnl on Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:30 | #

Guessedworker wrote:

After soil comes blood. I am my English genotype ...

That is your decision. You could choose to emphasize a different truth. I’d advise British, if you asked for my advice. 

I’ll note as well that in the UK your choice of English over British, should it become popular, entails ejecting the Ulster Protestants, who have chosen British but will end up Irish.

We make choices not only on the basis of what we are and what we feel but also from a knowledge of what results our choices are likely to produce.

People don’t really identify through the broad fact of race.

They do in prison. They do during race riots. And increasingly we identify through the broad fact of race in multiracial societies.

Posted by Pobble-Face on Sun, 24 Dec 2006 00:23 | #

My Response to Rnl’s views on Assimilationism:

“If Mexican-Americans were one percent of the population, we would anticipate their wholesale assimilation into the White population by, say, the fourth generation.”

I don’t understand where the idea of ‘assimilation’ comes from, or what historical precedent it is based on, or why people think it should work. Assimilationism is a temporary solution to population transfer undertaken by states which have no ethnically-based self-concept. I think, any states which lack this concept, in the modern world, are in themselves ultimately transitory.

I think the Roman Empire is a great example of an assimilationist project gone totally awry. One should examine the Dark Ages following the fall of Rome, 400-800 B.C., for an interesting example of a multi-cultural, assimilationist society tearing itself to shreds in the absence of the centralized government which gave it birth. If you read the history of the Goths, or Ostrogoths, you see how horrible it really was. Battle after battle, the details largely lost, one can imagine that these ‘melting-pot’ peoples fought to the death over the spoils of Italy. From 450 to 700 there was no long peace in Italy, just never-ending internecine war.

And when order reemerges in Italy, suprise suprise, it is a homogenous northern tribalist power which reasserts dominance: first Goths *(a faintly problematic example), then Lombards, then French, then German. In the south, the Normans stepped in and took over for a time.

For those who view Italy’s internal turmoil in a bemused way, and consider that it somehow contributed to the colorful mix that was Renaissance Italy, let me say the following.
I suggest, that if these tribal powers had not been culturally wed to Italy through the Catholic church, they would have been much more ruthless and unforgiving, and the pre-Lombard Roman populace of Italy would have been largely enslaved/pushed out/exterminated. Italy’s dicking around is often justified by some cultural products which emerged later- I only wish to make the point that it could have gone alot worse for Italy, were it not viewed by its European conquerors as the center of culture. Usually, when you lose that many wars, you get destroyed or enslaved. History could have dealt alot more harshly with them. And then it would be no joke.

For more than a thousand years after Rome’s fall, Italy remained a country divided; in terms of politics, language, and national feeling. Politically, they were almost without influence- culture was the only thing on which they could pride themselves, and in the long run Italian literature and science was eclipsed by that of France, the British Isles and Northern Europe.. (Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment).

The last century in Italy was marked by sharp ideological divides, [Communist/Fascist] the rise of the Mafia, and acceptance of European race-replacement *(as in most other Western nations).

One constant feature of Italian history post Imperio Romano has been disunity, or internal quarrelling. I wonder if this less-than-glorious history can in any way be pinned on those Romans who were so fond of exogamy, that they united on the same territory, either as manumitted slaves, transcripted soldiers, imported wives or merchant-traders, peoples as diverse as: Celts, Iberians, Syrians, Goths, Africans, Alpines, Greeks, Levantines, Germans, Etruscans, Dalmatians, “Scythians”, etc. etc.

So assimilationism writ large could easily be a curse to those who impliment it: see ancient Rome. Even if you disagree that these long term effects could be caused by a lack of group consensus based on a lack of common EGI, (and hence high levels of distrust, betrayal, high cost of altruism, fickelness of aliances, intensive competition between coethnics), there is absolutely no disputing the fact that assimilationism proved to be the unraveling of the Roman political/military complex vis-a-vis the Goths. Rome tried to swallow the Goths, and integrate them, and it failed. And that was the last thing that it tried, because after that, it ceased to exist.

But assimilationism might have at one time been possible. I think the importation of Huegenots into Prussia was a foolish idea in itself, but it probably did help the Prussian state, at the cost of the already mangled Prussian EGI. It might have contributed to the destruction of Prussia, by encouraging the Prussian aristocracy to view its subject population as manipulable pawns in a Machiavellian power-competition, rather than considering ‘the interest’s of the people’. One of the historical faults of the Prussian state, I believe, was its quest for power as an end in itself, and its neglect of the interests of it’s people. Hence it became a kind of super-militarized comet in the firmament of European states; but also temporary, not a fixed star. The discovery of the Hohenzollerns and Junkers that they could simpy ‘import’ Huegonots to lay the foundations of industry might have been one more reason why they acted like 11-year-olds playing a game of Sim-Civilization or Risk rather than leaders entrusted with the lives of millions.

The invention of mass transport, and the constant pressure of Third World populations on First World populations - by that I mean simply the constant desire to immigrate - coupled with uncontrolled third-world birth-rates, means that ‘assimilationism’ as such is doomed, or rather, it is the philosophy of doomed states and peoples.

North-European assimilationism ‘worked’ in America for 150 years. Pan-European and Semitic assimilation ‘worked’ for 20 years, and resulted in the capture and take-over of all power structures, and essentially, the end of the country as such. In view of current events, I don’t regard this model as particularly compelling.

Pan-Roman assimilationism ‘worked’ for about 250 years. The Romans practiced slavery, and this no doubt contributed to the longevity of assimilationists models, since many of the ‘assimilated’ were in fact just spiritually and culturally trodden under foot, and their identities crushed.

So what is assimilationism then? A historical anomaly, I would say. Something transitory, indicating the inability of a state to recognize the ethnocentric imperatives of it’s founding population, and it’s simultaneous desire to achieve a cheap benefit at the cost of it’s native EGI. I regard this decision as being indicative of short-term thinking, like swapping family heirlooms for drug-money.

The fact that the American populace lies prostrate at the feet of a media complex, while it is conquered from without, doesn’t speak in favor of the assimilationist model.

Rnl also wrote: “With due respect, Nordicism in a Euro-American context is a sign of not thinking clearly. White = person of European descent.”

Yet more assimilationism.

Posted by Pobble-Face on Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:07 | #

I don’t know if my last post was of interest to anyone, but I would like to say two more things in relation to assimilationism.

Firstly, if anyone thinks that Anglo-Saxon history provides a model for assimilationism, a la Juts, Frisians, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Norwegians, and native Britons, they should be advised to look more closely at the history of England.
Each successive wave of invasion (Saxon, Danish, Norman) resulted first in a series of decisive pitched battles, which resulted in the destruction of previously existing states, followed by intermittent massacres and territorial cleansings lasting sometimes 150 years after the respective conquerors first arrived. It was the ultimate primordial political chaos- it was extremely unstable; the only people who would want to use this as a model would be people who aren’t actually aware of what they are referring to.

So when people allege that the history of England is some kind of comfortable assimilationist project, there is some kind of horrible, horrible irony, which lingers behind their naive words. England post-Norman, post-1100, is a relatively successful assimilationist project between purely Northwestern European peoples (exceptions insignificant), with one caveat that I will expound upon below. But when considering the price to be paid for assimilation, one has to count every event which subordinated tribal loyalty to national loyalty, and the number of times villages had to be burnt to the ground, rebellions supressed, massacre and counter-massacre carried out (Saxons vs. Danes), and the wholesale slaughter of opposing armies: that is a high price to pay for assimilation.

If someone wants to know how much fighting it takes before Juts, Frisians, Angles, and Saxons, Danes and Celts, can be forced to recognize themselves as one people, I recommend the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, and any history of the Danelaw, the Danish-Saxon Festival Massacres, and any history of The Harrowing of the North, which set Northern England back substantially*(I have only cursory knowledge of the Harrowing, but was told about it by a college student who wrote his thesis on it).

The caveat is this: the English assimilationist project is called a success because England between 1300 and 1900 is regarded as a very successful, powerful, and culturally influential State. English success was based on strong English national culture as a unifying force, not necessarily on English tribal loyalty or cogency. The army, the church, and the mores of Protestant society were fundamental underpinings of Englishness, because England was conceived under the compound influence of these different entities. It is NOT the other way around, England did not begin as a conglomeration of people self-identifying as English and seeking their common benefit. It began as a collection of war-torn and subject local people, in poverty, using their shared tools of State, Church, and Military to forge a nation out of their respective local groups. Now, the legitimacy of all of these things is under attack, and English identity is either destroyed or has to change forms. But the benefit is, stripping away the adjuncts of Church, State, and Empire or military, one has left only the base remainder: the feeling of organic belonging to the English people. Which in some people is strong enough to trump indoctrination from what is now the UK-government apparatus. For the first time ever, it would be possible for English people to lucidly and without referring to any political structure or Christian teaching - things which they share with millions of Indians and Africans - to understand themselves as English. English by virtue of simply being English.

It’s dangerous to strip oneself of traditions that give strength- Church and Army. One also inevitably loses millions of people, formerly called English, who feel insufficiently bound in the absence of these entities, and abscond in their own way. But what one then has, presuming one is not destroyed by foreign entities (an open question, and the risk involved), is something like a purified residue of people who genuinely are ready to think and act as a group.

Thats my honest opinion, that doctrines and customes are like clothes: the actual people itself, the nation, is the man beneath the clothes. Anyone who values the clothes above the man is suspect in my book: if left to himself, the man could make new clothes. Whoever puts doctrines or old memes above the living organism that has to play them out, goes against nature, to my thinking.

But subsequent English history has foundered on precisely the lack of tribal cogency which follows from assimilationism and weak self-concept. The decimation of Germany, progenitor of England, speaks volumes about the self-concept still being rooted in some arbitrary political constellation or transitory societal style. “For a free Poland” was written by GW above. If England ever fought on behalf of Poland, then it proved sufficiently well in so doing that it has no idea what its past and future trajectory is beyond a flickering notion of Realpolitik. States that participate in the decimation of ethnically-related States in favor of foreign States, show that they are still operating with Napoleon and Metternich-era paradigms. On the continent that once played Grand Politics in the grandest Style, where all of life was one enormous game of Risk, people are now directed by an organic nation that until recently never had either State or Army on their side. Organic nations trump ‘constructed’ nations.

The freedom with which Mugabe, Amin and Mandela have terrorized Brits in formerly British colonies, shows precisely how little understanding the UK political structure has of its own imperatives. Immigration is the final indicator, that the political apparatus has no idea what it is doing, and is the tool and whore of more or less blatant opportunists.

So in some sense, England has payed a high price for the glorious Assimilationism - so called- which was one of it’s fundamental stepping stones to peoplehood. And they will continue to pay until they realize all this, and become purists.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:03 | #

I’m not sure what Rnl’s point was that Pobble was replying to.  If Rnl isn’t opposed to forced race-replacement, I think everything he has to say is irrelevant to my own concerns which amount to opposition to forced race-replacement first and foremost.  As for Pobble’s long tandem comments, the same goes:  as I see it, the name of the game is opposition to forced race-replacement (as well as forced species replacement and forced species hybridization).  I’m against assimilation of incompatibles since that leads to race- and species-replacement.  For dealing with incompatibles who’ve been let in in excessive volumes I favor the twofold policy of moratorium plus repatriation:  no more racial/ethnocultural incompatibles to be allowed in, and those already here in inappropriate numbers humanely sent back with fair monetary compensation (unless they’re here illegally, of course, in which case they’re entitiled to no financial compensation as part of their humane but strict expulsion).

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:53 | #

Matt O’Halloran wrote:

After all, Ahmainejad has said he wants to wipe out Israel, hasn’t he? No, he hasn’t; he said he wished the Zionist state to give way to a different polity, on the analogy of the USSR.

Ahmadinejad turns out to be not a genocidal anti-Semite, but rather a strong supporter of multifaith “diversity” in the Holy Land. That this diversity would end Israel as Jewish state can only be a matter of legitimate concern to those of us who favor nation-states. No Jew who opposes racially and culturally cohesive states in the West is morally entitled to object.

Foxman and his fellow Zionists are the “racists” in this dispute; Ahmadinejad is the anti-racist. He and the Iranian government are also proponents of UN resolutions that mandate the return of Palestinian refugees. On this issue international law is on his side.

***

In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let’s get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran’s president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly “committed to annihilating Israel” because the “mad” or “reckless” or “hard-line” President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.

The most infamous quote, “Israel must be wiped off the map”, is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word “map” or the term “wiped off”. According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was “this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah’s regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the “occupying regime” in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, “This too shall pass.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html

***

[Ahmadinejad] made an analogy to Khomeini’s determination and success in getting rid of the Shah’s government, which Khomeini had said “must go” (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.

The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope—that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.

Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

***

Iran’s stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad’s statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for, which would normally be an end to the “Zionist state”.

In November 2005 Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:

We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.

Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution. Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?

Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:58 | #

If Rnl isn’t opposed to forced race-replacement, I think everything he has to say is irrelevant to my own concerns which amount to opposition to forced race-replacement first and foremost.

I was only speaking of the fact of assimilation, which has occurred often throughout history. Obviously I oppose miscegenation and race-replacement, and my observation that a small number of Mexicans could be assimilated doesn’t imply that more Mexicans should be imported.

Posted by bats-man on Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:55 | #

Brute,  I have read your passage. Some comments, concerns (don’t mean to answer questions with questions but I question some of your assumptions) and answers to your questions follow.  Also, please provide specific, summarizing Abrams quotes.

“I assume that Auster, TIW would say that placing Jews in 3 may be accurate historically (if they admit as much as that), but that most, if not all, Jews today are in group 4 or have already found themselves in group 2. However, MR (as well as Kevin MacDonald) would place most Jews currently in group 3, a situation that has continuity despite the loss of some Jews into group 4.” 
[I think that you’ve identified the first disconnect between “Austerians” and “MR-ites”—this affects everything else in your arguement that follows. I’d also argue, in addition to the fact that the Jewish population could be spread out (with the proportions arguable) between 2, 3, and 4, that individuals themselves could exist in multiple groups at the same time. Why can’t an individual Jew be endogamous, light the Menorah, and yet be “assimilated” and “majoritarian” in terms of seeing his interests as congruent with that of Euros, seeing himself as part of historic Western Civilization, etc? What I’m getting at is why can’t a Jew fit into multiple group categories based on various dimensions and layers of his worldview/reality [which is comprised of MORE than just propogating his genes or promoting his EGI]? Why are things so clean cut as Salter’s categories would indicate?  I think your analysis might change if you recognized this.]

“It would seem therefore that if Auster, TIW, bats-man want a traditionalist white state from which Jews would not be excluded, they need to wholeheartedly support the full and sincere physical [bats-man interjection: not sure I agree] and cultural [bats-man interjection :I would say we should demand they display basic societal loyalty, if not mimic our culture in every way] assimilation of Jews into the fabric of white gentile America.”

“Further, if they are an identifiable minority, and if these people contain strong elements resisting - with justification - assimilation, how can their long-term interests be congruent to that of the majority?”
[Jews would be well served by being minorities within a self-confident, majority white state. They’d still be disproportionately successful academically, financially, career-wise, etc. Their interest is to live in a prosperous modern nation, not an Islamic Sharia state (Europe) or a dysfunctional Meztizo crap-hole (North America). I would guess that Western Jews live better as a minority than Israeli Jews do as a majority at least from a standard of living point of view. There’s no rational benefit to them killing Western Civilization.]

“So, the questions: what future do you see for the Jewish people in a white traditionalist majority-oriented state?”  [ In such as society, they would not be allowed to continue their disproportionate (though by no means exclusive) leftist contribution to the death of the West. Their numbers are small. They don’t manifest the same social pathologies as low-IQ blacks/latinos or the various problems that result from Islam’s nature and Islam’s sheer number of adherents. I see no reason why they can’t fit into such as society.  I believe the west is committing suicide for much deeper reasons than Jewish leftism.] Do you support assimilation? [I don’t think they need to cease to be Jews to fit in in the West. I don’t think you’ve proven the opposite.] How do you answer the likes of Elliot Abrams? [Does he say out-breeding is a threat to Jews (sorry, I only vaguely remember what he said)? If so, no need to answer him given above comment.] What does it tell you that after making his comments, Abrams continued as a viable public figure, what does that tell you about the “Jews as a minority, similar to non-white minorities” paradigm? [Please provide specific quotes. It tells me that officially-designated victim groups can say whatever they want, something I already knew and have observed with blacks and Jews] What if the majority reject assimilation? What if a sizable portion of Jews reject assimilation? [Again, I don’t think they have to cease to be Jews. I think that part of the problem is that I don’t see things as being as neat and clean as your 4 group types. It seems (forgive the overused phrase here) reductive or one-dimensional to me].

“Do you agree that asking these questions is not “anti-Semitism?”
[I don’t deny your right to ask questions and won’t call you any names. For what it’s worth, I tend to think that the “anti-Semite card” and the “holocaust card” are the ultimate PC-weapons. There’s nothing quite like mind’s-eye-imagery of Jews being sent to the gas-chamber (more powerful than imagery of Kunta Kinte in chains) to murder debate and stop people’s brains from working. I don’t deny its misuse and abuse.  I think Auster has recognized (and experienced firsthand) this. Ironically, he has had the AS card played against him]

I think that the primary source of disconnect between Auster and MR is not so much due to his Jewish ancestry. I think it may be his “transcendent” worldview. Andy Wooster touched on this: “MacDonald’s entire framework is alien to Auster’s way of thinking. This is the real source of the disconnect between Auster (and perhaps Auster’s supporters as well) on the one hand and MajorityRights.com on the other hand.”
I suspect that Auster’s framework (where we are MORE than JUST a bunch of manifestations of genes, sacks of chemicals, etc.) and can’t always be categorized within Salter’s 4 group types, is alien to someone who thinks like MacDonald, et. al.

Posted by Elliot Abrute on Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:11 | #

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/970822/key.shtml

Is that a good enough Abrams quote?  Just use google and you can find more.  Substitute “white” for “jewish” and assume we are dealing with a goy no-goodnik here.  What’s the chance he’d be subsequently appointed to a government position?

“Why can’t an individual Jew be endogamous, light the Menorah, and yet be “assimilated” and “majoritarian” in terms of seeing his interests as congruent with that of Euros, seeing himself as part of historic Western Civilization, etc? What I’m getting at is why can’t a Jew fit into multiple group categories based on various dimensions and layers of his worldview/reality “

Hmmm.  Then you write: ” [ In such as society, they would not be allowed to continue their disproportionate (though by no means exclusive) leftist contribution to the death of the West.”

Which is exactly the point.  If a group is not biologically (especially) or culturally assimilated into the majority, then they are not part of the majority.  They are a minority, with interests that are the same as the majority - which is WHY these people engage in a “leftist contribution to the death of the West.”

“Jews would be well served by being minorities within a self-confident, majority white state. They’d still be disproportionately successful academically, financially, career-wise, etc.”

So, you admit that they will be minorities, and “dispoportionately successful” ones.  Hasn’t that been one of the major dividing lines between Jew and Gentile throughout history?  Jews refuse to assimilate, engage in resource competition with the majority - using their high-IQ and high-ethnocentrism to advantage here - and then use the political, economic, academic, and social power that accrues from such success to promote anti-majoritarian viewpoints.

Have you read Chua’s “World on Fire?”  It’s not just Jews.  Successful “middleman” diaspora minorities are the focus of majority animus the world over, and as long as the minority exists as a separate strategizing group, the problem remaims.

Thus, all the efforts made to dilute the demographic, political, and social hegemony of the majority.  This is inevitable.  It is so inevitable that even fellows like Professor Hart and Professor Weissberg promote multiracialism - and do so even in the context of American Renaissance.

It seems that Jews, including “pro-white Jews”, have an innate desire for “diversity” and an innate fear of being the only identifiable minority in a white nation.

Salter’s model may be too “simplistic” for you or Auster, but it seems to have great predictive power, for members of the endogamous diaspora groups behave, essentially, as predicted in undermining majority interests.

Posted by Election Summary on Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:19 | #

Is that a good enough Abrams quote?... [w]hat’s the chance he’d be subsequently appointed to a government position?

Elliot Abrams is already the Deputy National Security Advisor. The National Security Council is a nerve center of U.S. political power, and headed by the very Zionist Steven Hadley. (As best as I can ascertain from limited evidence, this important organ has been Zionist-supervised since its 1948 inception.)

From Wikipedia:

The National Security Council is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (or National Security Advisor). The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are also invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.

Posted by Rnl on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:14 | #

Wiped off the Map
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

This is a good story for neophytes. How did this false quote enter mainstream political discourse so completely that every TV talking-head can quote it, and who benefits from the fabrication?

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:16 | #

The same media that misquoted the Iranian President, did the same to the Pope by ascribing to His Holiness the words of the historical figure whom he referenced.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

Who, one wonders, would have a vested interest in causing such misunderstandings between Christians and Muslims ?