Posted by JJR Apologist on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:29 | #

“Euro” or “Euro-American/Canadian/... ” in the Euro-intramarried diaspora, and the exact ethnicity (or nationality, if same) in Europe proper. Because that’s a positive statement of identity, and clarifies the status of non-ECs. No more “Are [non-European Caucasoid group X members] white?” questions.

“American” no longer operates as a synonym for “Americans of Western European descent”. “White” is a color and not an ethic group, and also doesn’t exclude non-ECs. (Also, the word is not capitalized in common usage. )

 

“White” is not good because 1) Jews dodge in and out at their choosing, 2) isn’t capitalized in normal usage, and 3) other Caucasoid groups may claim membership.

Some prefer “Aryan”, but that suffers from the same defeats as “white”,

Posted by JJR Apologist on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:32 | #

I forgot to edit out the last two paragraphs in the above comment. Sorry about that.

Posted by John S Bolton on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:48 | #

Caucasian may be best for what is wanted here; especially in that it allows for censuring of anticaucasianism.
Jews can say antisemitism, but moslems are stuck with psychobabble like islamophobia to complain over.
Blacks would sound verbally inept if they used a term such as antiblackism or antiblackist; similarly, one does not want to use antiwhitism or antiwhitist.
Sometimes antiwestern and antiwesternism are used in the place where one might expect anticaucasianism to appear.
Isn’t there something viciously weak and cowardly about responding to explicit racial hatred and hostility towards yourself from others, by trying to say, oh, but we really have a cultural disagreement, don’t we,  respected brother?

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:56 | #

It is almost a law of Nature that a non-White national of a European country will quickly distance himself from the Third world by proudly announcing his possession of European citizenship.

The counterpoint of that note occurs when Westerners take up citizenship of an Asian country, as some of my fellow long-time Far East expats have done. In such cases the Westerners usually dont say much about their newly-acquired nationality, their reticence being partly due to a wish to continue holding their original passports.

Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:00 | #

Perhaps the greatest irony in identity politics is that we don’t choose or define who we are - our enemies do it for us. To quote Frenz,

If you don’t know what you are, your enemies will soon remind you

I remember reading a response to The Bell Curve where an Asian argued the book was an attack on Asians because it put them in the crossfire. She then went on to explain that although Asian-Americans do not consider themselves a group - they self-identify as Chinese, Vietnamese, etc - they increasingly view themselves as Asian-Americans because that’s what they’re attacked as. This makes a lot of sense when you consider that all (effective) identity politics is grievance driven and absolutely requires an outgroup bugbear. Ever heard a speech by pro-Blacks, pro-Jews, pro-gays or pro-feminists that doesn’t mention racism, anti-semitism, homophobia or sexism? I didn’t think so.

Incidentally, that’s why I use - and advocate using - the phrase “anti-white race hatred” as much as possible - there’s no identity politics without grievance politics. Period. End of story. Case closed. With regard to our identity politics, this concept (or rather, this immutable law) translates directly into the “sentiment” definition of who is white (small “w”):

You are white if you suffer with whites for being white.

The beauty of this definition is that there’s no arguing with it. Another definition I’m also partial to is the “ethnic” one where Whites (capital “W”) are people with shared blood, soil, faith and honor:

  * blood - genetic heritage: Caucasian
  * soil - geographic heritage: European
  * faith - religious heritage: Christian (see note 1)
  * honor - civilizational heritage: Western (see note 2)

Technically speaking “White” is short for Western Euro-Christian Caucasoid. If your heritage does not meet ALL four criteria, you are not White.

Some commentators, such as Pasquino, use a simplified two base “ethnic” definition where they follow the word “White” with: (i.e. people born with Euro-Christian heritage). I tend in the same direction because I like the simplicity. Given a choice I’d go all the way and self-identify as Euro-Christian (or as “having Euro-Christian heritage”) but, besides being clunky, the definition is out of our hands - not only do our enemies identify us as white, so do 99% of fellow whites. Our best bet is to work within the word and redefine it away from the narrow racial/genetic view and toward the broader ethnic one.

Why? Because ours is an anti-imperialist struggle and if we don’t use a definition that cleaves a distinction between us (the subordinate group) and our masters (the dominant group), we’ve lost before we’ve even started. It’s also easier to understand our enemy’s four attack vectors if we understand the four pillars of identity listed above. Jews themselves self-identify as an ethnic group; their Israeli ID cards say, “ethnic origin: Jewish”, so what they are is not up for debate - unless you’re willing to argue the State of Israel is wrong on this matter. Few people are aware of this and that’s why Jews can play Michael Neuman’s “veritable shell game” of Jewish identity. “Look! We’re a religion! No! a race! No! a cultural entity! Sorry—a religion!”

Where one is cornered into accepting Jews as whites, one should retaliate by redefining ourselves “second class whites”. For example, in an equal rights struggle to obtain a white student union on campus, Jews can be expected to pour in and challenge you to exclude them. Don’t. Just state that they, being forty times more privileged get listed as “first class whites” and are to sit in the front at all meetings, whereas we, being worth less than a third of a person, are “second class whites” and will sit at the back so as not to spoil their view with our moral inferiority. This approach carries the battle into the proto-organization, allows you to maintain the moral high ground, radicalizes the whites and places the anti-imperialist struggle at the fore - exactly what Jews want to avoid. Just threaten to do it and they’ll back off the “we’re white” charade. In case you don’t understand where these numbers are coming from, I’ll quote Pasquino:

According to the Nov. 16, 1998 Wall Street Journal, Harvard’s student body is 33% Jewish and 25% White. Moreover this pattern repeats throughout the Ivy League, the gatekeepers for access to the US ruling elite. (http://www.buchanan.org/pa-98-1127.html).

Given that Whites (people born with Euro-Christian ancestry) account for 75% of the US population whereas Jews (people born with Judeo-Semitic ancestry) account for 2.5%, we can deduce the following three facts:

Fact one. In terms of access to the elite, being born Jewish makes you thirteen times more privileged than average. (The level of Jewish over representation is calculated by dividing the Harvard percentage of 33 by the U.S. population percentage of 2.5 which yields 13.2)

Fact two. In terms of access to the elite, being born White makes you worth less than a third of a person. (The level of White under representation is calculated by dividing the Harvard percentage of 25 by the U.S. population percentage of 75 which yields 0.33)

Fact three. In terms of access to the elite, Jews are forty times more privileged than Whites. (The ethnic privilege differential between the groups is calculated by dividng the Jewish over representation of 13.2 by the White under representation of 0.33 which yields 40)

This pattern of massive Jewish over representation repeats throughout the Ivy League and has little to do with hard work or merit. In the few remaining elite colleges where admission is purely SAT based and therefore meritocratic, Jewish representation peaks at a more honest five percent. As for example at Caltech, the college with the highest SAT scores (both math and verbal) and the smartest students in America. (http://home.ddc.net/ygg/ms/ms-45.htm )

Jews achieve their extraordinary over representation only where the admissions process allows for racial favoritism and ethnic lobbying, a privilege Whites are denied so as to insure Jews avoid having to compete on equal terms. If the playing field were level, Jews would not be as privileged.

Anyway, before I get carried completely off subject by my anti-racism / anti-imperialism / equal rights rhetoric, let me conclude by pointing out that these two definitions, “sentiment” and “ethnic”, are very tight ones - they even exclude racially white Jews and Muslims. In fact, the “sentiment” definition is so incredibly tight it even cuts off gays due to all their group privileges. Personally, I think that’s a bit silly. I’m in it for my children and I don’t see why I should be hostile to gays when it is theoretically possible one of them turns out gay.

(Note 1. “Christian” refers to heritage, not belief - today’s White pagans and atheists may not be Christians but their ancestors were)

(Note 2. “Western” refers to our common civilizational heritage that extends from Iceland to the Urals and today includes the US, Canada, Australia and NZ, and not to the cold war concept that cuts off Eastern Europe and includes Japan)

Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:51 | #

Thanks Fred, what you like is pro-white victimology. I believe it’s the only way forward. We have to adapt to battlefield conditions. Stanley’s resistingdefamation.org is also very good - check it out.

Here’s a preview leaflet of what’s coming on my end:

Leaflet preview front

Leaflet preview back

As you can see this methodology is very very fierce. These leaflets are designed to utterly obliterate the disgusting anti-white racial theory known as the Unearned White Skin-color Privilege theory that is peddled by such renown white uncle toms as Wise and Jensen.

If I ever get over my addiction to posting everywhere but on my own blog (I swear I’ll update it today after the germany-italy game) you’ll see my whole anti-imperialism argument develop over the next 3 posts as I deconstruct that racial theory.

Posted by Stanley Womack on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:53 | #

All the foregoing comments are great especially because they seek to define us majorityites in our own terms, not as the opposite or negative or shadow of some other group. We’ll unlikely have uniformity on the label in our generation, but if we focus on who we are, not on who we are not, it will be a big step toward regaining majority rights.

One idea that emerged implicitly above is that identity or name is both an hierarchical phenomenon and a cascading phenomenon, so it is well within reason to have a series of identities or names, each our very own, but suitable in different contexts, depending on the topic and need at the time.

We’re smart enough to make that work. Jews make it work for them all the time.

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:19 | #

Excellent post, Steven Palese.

My only quibble is over your ‘Jewish - Harvard’ item. As you noted Jews, at 2.5% of the US population represent 30+% of that college’s student enrollment. A more meaningful comparison would tell us, not the Jewish share of the overall population, but the Jewish share of that part of the population intellectually equipped for Harvard.

Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:15 | #

What an intense match. Anyway..

Al, yes I agree. You’ll note the second link in the quote does in fact argue from that standpoint. However, from a pragmatic perspective it is better to keep IQ arguments on the back burner. The leaflet is intended for campus use and it’s best not to give Judeo-fascists an easy way of mobilizing their black uncle toms and hispanic vendidos against us.

Besides, the Harvard argument has impeccable sources and credentials. Ron Unz, WSJ and Pat Buchanan are very hard for them to attack with Neo-McCarthyite guilt by association tactics.

Indeed, by keeping IQ out of it, I’m getting good feedback from blacks at the UCSD Black Student Union. They say affirmative action is not working and that it’s a scam designed to disposses whites in favor of Jews while scapegoating blacks - I think they’re on the money. After all, divide and conquer is such a standard imperialist technique, it’s practically page one chapter one of the imperialist handbook.

Believe it or not, it is actually possible we may get blacks and hispanics to stand down and walk away in any campus confrontation with Judeo-fascists.

Posted by Voice on Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:20 | #

Steven and Stanley,

Great Stuff!  The more and more I think about the better it gets.  It doesn’t matter if we play the victim card or language game.  As long as we win!

What gets really hilarious, Steven, if we can turn the tables and get the blacks and hispanics working for our cause!  Some of the things that have been used against us are classics, with “people of color ” taking the top of the list as a anti-white bulwark.  Somehow, I would like to turn that on its head!

Furthermore, you are right about the IQ arguments as they are a way to censor debate or turn it into superior-inferior argument.  Who cares about that(science exists in the background) as we need to win the first battle of language and the vehement anti-white hatred.

Posted by Steven Palese on Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:01 | #

Thanks Voice, my “pro-white victimology” approach will be laid out on my blog as soon as I get all my ideas in order. I use MR as an ideological testing ground because of the intellectual caliber of most posters here. Right now my case for pro-white victimology is a disjointed mess all over MR. I’ll organize and assemble it here so you can see its development in a coherent manner (and for my own benefit, I’ll admit - this is where I’ll point the student activists I’m working with so they can see I’ve been busy):

First off, let me give you some background. I’m working with a student group at UCSD that is trying to establish a white student union. This equal rights struggle is an EXTREMELY radical move - there are NO white student unions anywhere in the US. So far ALL opposition has come from Jewish groups while black/asian/hispanic groups have been either neutral or - in the case of blacks - actually positive. Yes, you read that right - for various reasons blacks appear seriously hostile toward the various Jewish groups on campus and view us as a possible counterweight. Here’s a quote from Israel Shamir that gives us some insight on what blacks might be thinking:

In Atlanta, I saw the true beneficiary of the great struggle for Blacks’ liberation. After bussing and fights with KKK, after many Black casualties, now the Jewish students constitute forty per cent of the elite Emory, while the Blacks, the plurality of Atlanta, retain a statutory 10 % presence. The Jewish students do not come to university from integrated schools their fathers and uncles demanded: they go to superb private segregated schools.

The blacks do not compete with the Jews in the universities, as they are preferred tenants of private-managed and profit-making jails. While the percent of Jewish students increased, “the number of black men in jail has grown fivefold”, reported the New York Times[8], and there are “more black men behind bars than are enrolled in colleges”. Twenty years ago, there were one hundred fifty thousand black prisoners and half a million black students. Now eight hundred thousand blacks are in jail and only six hundred thousand are enrolled in colleges or universities.

Source: Divide and Rule

Anyway, I was asked to prep an attack leaflet that could be spread all over campus and hidden in books throughout the libraries. Something that would show the Judeo-fascists we mean business and that can be used as leverage. I assembled a series of key quotes into an argument that I think fits the required specs. However, I’m scared to death there might be some key flaws in my reasoning or in the quotes themselves so I needed to subject this thing to rigorous criticism before putting it in their hands. Of course, I couldn’t post on Judeo-fascist controlled fora or I’d simply get banned. So I used MR and libertyforum as testing grounds - there are plenty of Judeo-fascists on both fora and neither censors people. This makes them ideal for this purpose.

I started on MR with this post where I introduced a preview version of the leaflet project. I was operating under the delusion that its ferocity and radical nature would incite an immediate firestorm of protest. In retrospect that was a silly expectation - it got ignored:
Post 1

Lesson learned. I then explicity solicited feedback/criticism of it on another thread. Again nothing:
Post 2

Post 3

I then used some of the leaflet’s arguments to attack JJR, one of MR’s main bloggers:
post 4

Finally it (or rather arguments derived from it) gets noticed. I introduced the leaflet’s underlying theoretical basis, i.e. pro-white victimology and rejection of the current pro-white models based on triumphalism and/or utilitarianism. I then took the opportunity to again solicit feedback/criticism of the leaflet:
post 5

Criticism at last! Guessedworker responds. However, he’s not criticising the leaflet but the underlying theoretical basis. That’s fine but I needed the leaflet itself criticised and validated because time was running out - the students were expecting a working model July 1.
post 6

I decide it passed the MR test and move on to libertyforum, where debate is much fiercer though intellectual caliber is lower. I was sure the screeching Judeo-fascists that infest the place would try tearing it to bits:

LF post 1

LF post 2

LF post 3

LF post 4

LF post 5

LF post 6

Again it turns out my expectations were delusional. No luck getting hard criticism except for an infantile sewermouth who didn’t even touch the leaflet. At this point time runs out so I send off the current version to the students for their approval. I figure the complete absence of negative criticism on both fora validated it.

Back to MR where I respond to Guessedworker’s comment explaining that with certain people (e.g. the ruling stalinoids at UCSD) pro-white victimology is the only way to go. I then illustrate the concept against JJR in the next post:
post 7

post 8

At this point it occurs to me that what I’m talking about is non-obvious. Indeed, it is so far from normal pro-white discourse that I might as well be from a different planet. I decide to argue my position and use JJR as my test subject to demonstrate the effectiveness of this methodology. First priority: Stop people from getting rid of him - he is useful toward advancing the “pro-white victimology” concept:
post 9

post 10

Here I illustrate pro-white victimology in action, again using JJR as my test subject:
post 11

post 12

Finally, on this thread I come in to support my one and only ideological ally, Stanley. To my (limited) knowledge, he is the only other pro-white commentator who has caught onto the key importance of developing pro-white victimology. Our techniques are slightly different but the tiny differences between our approaches are nothing compared to the chasm between us and the triumphalist/utilitarian models that occupy the rest of the pro-white ideological field.

Ok so now I hope I’ve adequately explained (to the student activists) what I’ve been up to and how the leaflet has been validated.

It has yet to be used in battle (it’s still a negotiating device - a threat) so if anyone here wants to give us feedback please do so on this thread. Thanks.

Posted by Steven Palese on Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:07 | #

Just so there’s no misunderstandings: The ideological chasm I refer to in the above post is over methodology and tactics NOT over objectives.

Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:42 | #

OK I just got confirmation from the student activists that - aside from a few minor changes to the leaflet - the project is going forward. I need to change the amren and ygg links to something less vulnerable to neo-McCarthyite guilt by association tactics.

Zach, only ahandful at this time but if and when battle is joined the leaflet itself will operate as a recruiting tool. It will contain a link to a blog that will be set up for this purpose.

Posted by Steven Palese on Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:57 | #

Zach, yes it certainly can be replicated - that’s the idea. In fact, I’m planning on starting a different movement called ARC (Anti-Racism Campaign) that will target regime uncle toms like Tim Wise and Robert Jensen. The idea is to have activists call or write bookstores and university libraries demanding that they either:

1. Remove the racist texts
2. Enclose our rebuttal leaflet with the text
3. Ignore us

If they opt for 3, ARC activists will retaliate by inserting the leaflet in random books throughout their library/bookstore. Let’s see how they enjoy rifling through several hundreds of thousands of books every night looking for them.

How do you like the idea? It’s still just that but I think it has potential. If I go with it I’ll recruit in pro-white circles throughout the web. Would such an anti-racism strategy appeal to you?

Posted by Ron Lewenberg on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:31 | #

The term gentile, does not specify color or race. One is either a Gentile or Jew. There are gentiles of all colors.
I have never heard the term “gentile- American” used by any Jew.

I would also remind you that to almost anyone looking, I am white. Hispanics would consider me an Anglo.
If I were to move to Israel and live there for decades, I would still be considered an American by them. (Benjamin Netanyahu is often still refered to as America just for studying in the US for 10 years)

There is no conspiracy to keep Gentiles out of Ivy league schools. The Average IQ for an American Jew is 115. That makes us 5 times more likely to have an IQ of 140 or above compared to the average gentile. (To put this in perspective, with an IQ of 144, I am among the top 1% of Americans but only t he top 5% of Jews. Is it unreasonable that I should have attended Columbia?)
Harvard’s Jewish population is actually under 25% and is even less if you look at those who are Jewish under Jewish law.
Columbia, being situated in NYC, has the highest percent of Jews, including the only significant population of Orthodox Jews.

PS. Jews were part of the WEst, perhaps not all by cholice, for as 2500 years. We were in Spain before the Romans conquered it. We were in France before the Franks. We were in the Danube Valley before the Bulgarians and Hungarians.
Virtually everyone sees Jews as western except for some Europeans who choose to do so, or Jews who do so in response to real or percieved anti-Semitism.

Posted by Steven Palese on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:41 | #

Ron Lewenberg wrote:

with an IQ of 144, I am among the top 1% of Americans but only t he top 5% of Jews. Is it unreasonable that I should have attended Columbia?

No it is not unreasonable that you attended Columbia. It is however very unreasonable that you expect us not to notice how you are completely ignoring this part of the quote:

In the few remaining elite colleges where admission is purely SAT based and therefore meritocratic, Jewish representation peaks at a more honest five percent. As for example at Caltech, the college with the highest SAT scores (both math and verbal) and the smartest students in America.

Now try again and respect our intelligence please.

Posted by Steven Palese on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:45 | #

And if I may take advantage of your intellect, could you also give a shot at rebutting this please:

According to The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People by Steven Silbiger and Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment by J.J. Goldberg (currently the editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward), U.S. Jews represent 33% of millionaires, 45% of billionaires, 50% of Wall Street executives and so on thanks to their formidable ethnic solidarity.

This “formidable ethnic solidarity”, i.e. racial favoritism toward other Jews, is only one part of the Jewish success formula; the other part is preventing Whites from doing the same thing in order to avoid having to compete on equal terms.

The Walt and Mearsheimer report on the Israel Lobby documents the methods used by Jewish groups to persecute their opponents, including blacklists and co-ordinated campaigns of intimidation designed to destroy careers and reputations. ([url=http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011]http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011)[/URL]. There are over 300 national Jewish organizations and 4000 foundations with a combined annual budget of $6 billion that form part of this co-ordinated network of persecution. ([url=http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html)[/URL].

The publications of Jewish organizations proudly claim credit for their leading roles in the witch hunts against White solidarity activists and their websites proudly display the trophy scalps of dead White rights organizations. ([url=http://www.adl.org]http://www.adl.org)[/URL]. For example, recently an assistant district attorney expressed concern that White people were becoming an endangered species. In response, Jewish organizations immediately incited a “racism” witch hunt against him. He was fired the very next day. ([url=http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/03/prosecutor_fire.php]http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/03/prosecutor_fire.php)[/URL].

For detailed case studies see: Favoritism for Them, Persecution for Us - How Two Percent Eat Half the Pie by Dennis Pasquino. One of many case studies describes the Wall Street racial favoritism behind Michael Eisner’s appointment as CEO of the Disney media conglomerate, how he replaced senior management with fellow Jews within months and how his victims were paralysed into silence for fear of “anti-Semitism” witch hunts against themselves and their families. Of course, if White executives engaged in similar racial favoritism toward fellow Whites they’d be persecuted for “racism”. As media critic Michael Medved has pointed out, “The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions.” (“Jews Run Hollywood. So What?,” Moment magazine, August 1996.)

Jewish hyper-competitiveness is entirely based on this dual persecution strategy of a) inciting witch hunts against Whites who object to Jewish racial favoritism toward other Jews (persecutions for “anti-semitism”) and b) inciting witch hunts against Whites who get uppity and think they too can engage in racial favoritism toward other Whites (persecutions for “racism”). If the playing field were level, Jews would not be hyper-competitive.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 07:06 | #

It would be interesting to hear Mr. Lewenberg’s views on immigration and ethnocentrism. Being identified as an Anglo by Hispanics and being in Europe for many generations does not make one European. Nicholas Wade’s article in the NYT discusses the finding that Jews residing in northern and central Europe have greater genetic similarity with the ME populations, than the European host populations in which they reside, explodes that myth.

However, Herrnstein and Murray in the Bell Curve suggest that studies show 23 per thousand Ashkenazim have an IQ over 140, as opposed to 4 per thousand Northern Europeans. The 2000 US Census shows approximately 130 million Americans are of NE descent. My math is weak, however it appears there are ~520,0000 NE with an IQ >140, the Harvard level. Jews in the US are ~5,914,682. Using that number it appears ~136,000 have an IQ > 140. Of the Jewish NE populations ~21% of IQs > 140 are Jews. According to Diversity’s Losers - Part II - The Universities, the top 15 universities have an average Jewish population of 21%. The Jewish number wouldn’t be much affected by blacks and browns, maybe yellows, however their IQ may be highly bifurcated. Other European populations would also have an impact, however, it seems interesting that the two numbers run close together.

I know, I’m not supposed o talk up the competition etc. etc. etc.

Posted by Steven Palese on Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:31 | #

Desmond, I wouldn’t take his arguments seriously enough to respond that thoroughly.

First, on this very thread I pointed out that you’re one of us if you suffer with us for being us. Yet he argues that he’s one of us because he looks like us. That’s so lame it’s not even worth responding to.

Second, he tries to pull a fast one with his IQ argument. Let’s play numbers: 50% of Jews and 16% of whites have IQs above 115. Use whites not NE whites: there’s over 200m whites. 16% of 200m is 32m and 50% of 6m is 3m. We should outnumber them 10 to 1, yet they outnumber us.

The IQ argument won’t cut it. He knows that because he knows racial favoritism is the real story. That’s why he avoided the CalTech stat. He was trying to pull a fast one thinking we’re dumb goyim who’d fall for it. Don’t take him too seriously.

Now that he knows we’re goyim with attitude he’ll stay away.

Posted by Ron Lewenberg on Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:06 | #

Mr. Palese,

No it is not unreasonable that you attended Columbia. It is however very unreasonable that you expect us not to notice how you are completely ignoring this part of the quote:

  ” In the few remaining elite colleges where admission is purely SAT based and therefore meritocratic, Jewish representation peaks at a more honest five percent. As for example at Caltech, the college with the highest SAT scores (both math and verbal) and the smartest students in America.”

You make the assumption that Jews in America are just as willing to go to Caltech or MITas they are to go to Stanford or Harvard.
Jews are more likely to be lawyers than engineers these days. Perhaps it is because we have a cultural tradition of arguing, or perhaps we have just gotten lazy.
Cultural influences matter. Being an engineer just isn’t cool.
Still, American Jews have not acquired the anti-intellectualism all too common in America.
Jews in Hollywood may profit from marketing crap, but they do have so me expectations for their children. Hence, given the same IQ Jews are more likely to be involved in the scholastic or extra-curricular activities preffered by elite universities.

I do believe that there is a bias in admissions for universities. The leftists who have marched through the institutions of higher learning seek to mold the future intelligencia. They don’t like patriotic Americans snd probably look at students from “red state” America with suspicion. I certainly felt pressured to tailor my admission’s essays and spin my interview.

I will address Mr. Kalb later.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:12 | #

Lewenbert wrote:
“Jews are more likely to be lawyers than engineers these days. Perhaps it is because we have a cultural tradition of arguing, or perhaps we have just gotten lazy.
Cultural influences matter. Being an engineer just isn’t cool.”

Wow, that was the lamest argument I’ve heard in awhile.  Congrats!

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:28 | #

Steven Palese wrote:
“Just state that they, being forty times more privileged get
listed as “first class whites” and are to sit in the front at all meetings, whereas we, being worth less than a third of a person, are “second class whites” and will sit at the back so as not to spoil their view with our moral inferiority. This approach carries the battle into the proto-organization, allows you to maintain the moral high ground, radicalizes the whites and places the anti-imperialist struggle at the fore - exactly what Jews want to avoid. Just threaten to do it and they’ll back off the “we’re white” charade.”

Steven, that sounds cool.  But does it really work?

As for defining myself, I say that I’m White, or I’m an American, or an American of British ancestry, or, my favorite: native American (My paternal lineage goes back to 1670’s Virginia).  Calling me a gentile is insulting and I do not let anyone get away with it in my presence.

Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:37 | #

Mr. Lewenberg,

Thanks for responding. My apologies for assuming you were a hit and run spammer. This blog has been repeatedly attacked by just such a fellow and that conditioned my second post involving you.

I don’t find your argument convincing in light of the excellent programs CalTech has across the board - not only engineering.

However, I highly appreciate your willingness to debate in an intelligent manner.

Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:39 | #

Rusty, I hope so. It hasn’t been tried yet - I’ll keep you up to date on our progress at UCSD

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:12 | #

Steven, I like your thinking and see ideas like yours receiving more consideration lately.  I think you are one of the right guys in the right place at the right time.

One concern is the victim tactic; I think it calls for some marketing genius.  I can only go from personal experience here but most racially-aware Whites that I know much prefer an open, frontal assault on their attackers, if they decide to say anything at all.  I think they have a hard time seeing themselves as victims.  Perhaps it is because of our nature and our heritage—our sense of honor, honesty, fair play, relentless self-criticism, and all that.  These are the qualities which make us a better people. They have been very helpful to our advancement and we have used them openly for a very long time.  (Well, at least up until the time we let the Jewish camel’s nose into the tent.)  They are going to be hard to suppress or use selectively without some leadership. 

A related concern is the desired motivation to action.  Will your messages prompt the recipients to merely strive for more equality on an equal footing with other groups, and/or will it attempt to motivate the recipient to want some kind of separation, to create safe places where White people can live relatively free from the destructive influences of competing groups?

Just a couple of concerns, that’s all.  Good luck and keep writing.

Posted by Stanley Womack on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:17 | #

This is in response to Ron Lewenberg’s bizarre posting on Saturday, July 8, 2006 at 12:31 AM in which he states:

<<  The term gentile, does not specify color or race. One is either a Gentile or Jew. There are gentiles of all colors.  >>

This is the kind of sneaky statement that is non-responsive and insulting that we have come to expect from most members of Ron Lewenberg’s ethic and/or religious grouping. I wonder how stupid he thinks we are?

First, no one said “gentile” specifies a color or race. But thanks, Ron, for clearing that up. Denying what wasn’t said isn’t the best way to persuade us that you have an IQ of 144. In fact, judging by the comments you make, your IQ is closer to 97 or thereabouts. At 144, you should have the ability to respond directly and honestly.

Second, Ron persists in dividing all the people of the world (a little breath-taking I know for arrogance and sense of entitlement) into two categories: “One is either a Gentile or Jew.” Clarifying that that position is untrue is a major part of my posting. We simply do not accept the Jewish view that our name or label is “Gentile” with or without a capital “G.”

Ron missed the entire point of the posting. How intelligent can he be? On behalf of whites & European Americans everywhere, we explicitly deny the truth of Ron’s classification system and we label the statement as firmly based on a supremacist worldview in which he believes his kin and co-religionists have the right to name us.

I suspect he isn’t even aware that his claim to have the right to name us and smother our diversity is a supremacist position.

Posted by Steven Palese on Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:13 | #

Thanks Zach and Rusty.

I’ll comment on your feedback tomorrow - I’m somewhat exhausted from having written an ungodly 15,000 word response to Daedalus’ over at the JQ thread that jumped out of here and onto the phora. Here.

Just off the top of my head I’ll say that Zach you’re onto something. Perhaps I should dump the Judeo- and just call it fascism. I’ll look into it tomorrow - my brain has shut down.

Posted by Steven Palese on Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:58 | #

Zach, just so you know - I’m still thinking about your objection to the term “Judeo-fascism”

Don’t know whether to
a) keep it
b) step back to plain “fascism”
c) accelerate toward “ZioNazi”

Point c) has more merit than you think. Over at the JQ debate at the phora, Daedalus made a very good observation that the “Judeo-fascism” approach triggers “Nazi” alarm bells. The radical left vanguards overcome that by using ZioNazi - i.e. they premptively strike first and use the ZioNazi’s enourmous promotional investment in the “Nazi is bad” brand name against them.

The radical left vanguards have been so successful that “Zionist” is now considered more offensive than “Nazi” on many campuses including UC Berkeley - don’t dismiss their techniques.

Indeed, Zionazi has 37,000 hits on google. There are less than 1000 for “Judeo-fascism”. There’s gotta be a reason it’s so popular with the left.

What do you think?