|
|
|
When White Altruism Becomes “Controversial” The AP (via Forbes) reports that:
White female eggs are in exceptional demand. Many white women are saying they are donating out of a desire to help others. This of course is unacceptable to one: Jeffery P. Kahn, who says:
Hey, Dr. Con, perhaps reducing pressure on young women to make money would help. For starters let their prospective husbands’ earnings keep pace with land prices—for example by opposing immigration that lowers wages and raises demand on real estate. You oppose that and we can start to talk about your “ethics”. By the way, Dr. Con, I looked at your academic web site and followed it to your “Links and bibliography” expecting something about your specialty “bioethics”. Perhaps you can explain why all I found there was Holocaust activism:
Isn’t this rather insensitive after the white population of the US—you know, the guys who fought Germany in WW II—has just, in the last generation, undergone a 40 million loss in its population followed by immigration replacement due to policies inspired primarily by your coethnics? I mean at least you guys got Israel out of the deal. Where is our Israel? Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:48 | # James, you could always ask Dr Kahn a Salterian question or two about his favourite subject. 3
Posted by Bud White on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:16 | # Well articulated ,Fred. I agree with every word you stated. Hollywood is also complicit in promoting that type of malignant narcissism. 4
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:37 | # Bud White writes: I have to agree with Jeffery P. Kahn in part. When I read the following expert from the original article, I am convinced this thing is getting out of hand. [quoting a young woman in NYC who obviously values money over her EGI] Bud what has gotten out of hand is shoving young women into female saturated ghettos like NYC so they can become corporate concubines to Dr. Con’s coethnics and then kicked out for being middle aged during “corporate downsizing”. All* Dr. Con cares about obviously is the fact that some of these young women are finding a way to actually make money without subservience as “temps” to their cubicle lords at Citicorp. Despite pretending to be a “bioethicist” Dr. Con will never admit his own conflict of ethnic genetic interests. *Well perhaps Dr. Con also feels a bit resentful that some white men, who aren’t so morally nimble as his coethnics (and might have therefore been elbowed aside during the fertile years of these now middle aged women), snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. You see many of them, such as yours truly, find themselves below replacement fertility, if not childless altogether, in middle age along with those women—a situation obviously quite acceptable to Dr. Con’s “ethics”—only to turn what is left of their assets and lives into a viable child sired by *gasp* a non-Jewish white guy with the support of a white woman who has just had her eyes opened. 5
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:55 | # GW, I’m afraid the only question I would pose to Dr. Con would be something along the lines of: “Dear Dr. Con: As an academic authority on ‘bioethics’ in Minnesota, how gullible do you find young, nubile, blond pussy?” 6
Posted by Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:56 | # What I don’t get is, what’s the big deal if women do want to sell their eggs? The folks who are doing this research are getting paid, but they think the women who are being poked and prodded are supposed to do it for charity. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:56 | # Quite gullible enough, judging by that debonair suit and the impressive coiffure. Nick Kasoff, The point is that egg donation by white women is one of the ways by which, given the depredations of New York feminism and the slave-labour required to pay for a plot of land, other white women past their fertile years can have a family with the man they love. Dr Kahn appears to be doing his ethnic duty to block that escape route from white childlessness. The piquancy attached to his Holocaust link is that there is another, modern genocide in train. Is that explanation enough? 8
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:01 | # “We worry that we offer people so much money that they are blind to the risk and their motivation is strictly the money,” Kahn says. Are we categorically saying that there is no risk? 9
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:16 | # Of Khan, however, you tell us that he will never admit his own conflict of genetic interests. Why is that? Unlike Auster, Mercer and Schiller, Khan seems to be unalloyed mendacity. Moreover, his authoritative presence in a place like a Minnesota university indicates he is virulently committed to not just deception of others—primarily young recessive women—but self-deception. There is about as much hope for such a man as there is for a hard-core junkie suffering from advanced AIDS neuropathic amygdala degeneration. As to your critique of “white media” not addressing the needs of readers without certain prerequisites—this is, like any media a problem of target audience demography. Good pedagogy focuses on “placement” but do we have such a luxury here? How do we figure out the demographic distribution of the “lurkers” and the corresponding value distribution of reaching them? 10
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:38 | # Desmond, yes there is risk. There is also risk in childbirth. There is also risk in being a police officer or soldier. Need I go on? 11
Posted by Bud White on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:51 | # Dear Dr Con, I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer . . . be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. . . . Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Revelation 2:9-10, 3:9. 12
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:21 | # Desmond, yes there is risk. There is also risk in childbirth. There is also risk in being a police officer or soldier. Need I go on? So if it is prudent for him to say, well maybe you should seriously consider the implication of donating eggs simply to pay off you credit card, then why assume an alterior motive? 13
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:04 | # The facts of the matter are that egg donors are fully appraised of the risks already as a matter of course. No one has ever taken issue with that ethical requirement nor has there been any pattern of violation of informed consent ethics. He’s just making noise, that’s only one, of MANY, reasons why one can impute an ulterior motive in the case of the infamous Dr. Con. Now, the question arises: What is your ulterior motive? While we await your response my muse has just buzzed me with some lyrics: Get up in the morning, slaving for bread, sir, Get up in the morning, slaving for bread, sir, My wife and my kids, they are packed up and leave me. Shirt them a-tear up, trousers are gone. After a storm there must be a calm. Poor me, the Israelite. 14
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:54 | # He’s just making noise, that’s only one, of MANY, reasons why one can impute an ulterior motive in the case of the infamous Dr. Con. Imputing or assuming? And you know this because…? Why must I have an ulterior [thank you for the correction] motive? There are leading gentile/Jewish doctors with clinics that solicit eggs from young Eastern European women, probably for sums much lower than the US rate, for the American market. Who knows what impact this will have on the reproductive capabilities of those women? We are to believe that ethically, it is fine to endanger that population in order to serve our own. Is that the message? Is that why Kahn should be condemned? 15
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:53 | # I can impute an ulterior motive because your apparent stupidity is too tendentious to be mere stupidity. Also, would you care to discuss the connection between your pseudonym and Africans resident in the British Isles, or should I? 16
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:41 | # I can impute an ulterior motive because your apparent stupidity is too tendentious to be mere stupidity. Also, would you care to discuss the connection between your pseudonym and Africans resident in the British Isles, or should I? All of which proves what vis-a-vis Dr. Kahn? 17
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:25 | # Nothing of course. It merely points out why you refuse to accept damning arguments against your stupid “critiques”. 18
Posted by Retew on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:03 | # Hang on a minute, you’re all getting carried away here. This guy’s a doctor and what he’s saying makes perfect sense. We don’t buy and sell blood in the UK, and for a very good reason - because when money is the motivation, people take risks with other people’s health, i.e. sell unsafe blood to the blood bank. Even with our free Blood Transfusion Service, tragedies have ocurred and people have picked up serious infections such as hepatitis from transfused blood. It’d be much worse if blood were bought and sold. The same is apparently true of transfused eggs, except that the risk is to the woman donating the eggs. All very well to say that people are told of the risks, but people faced with debts and bills they can’t pay can easily discount those. Occam’s Razor suggests here that when there’s an obvious explanation for a statement, it’s more likely to be right than an “ulterior” one such as trying to reduce the white population in the US. As for Dr. Kahn’s interest in Holocaust matters, maybe he lost relatives through the Holocaust; a lot of American Jews would have done and that would be more than enouigh to explain it.. GW, I have seen your post on a different thread (to do with Peckham) and it demands some thought so I’ll get round to it soon. 19
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:33 | # Well, I don’t trust Kahn. He is an active Holocaust(TM)-promoting member of the tribe that is and has historically been hostile to Whites and White civilization; of course his motives are suspect. And given the serious decline in White birth rates and the imminent minority status of Whites in their own countries—a fact of which any thinking person is aware—the voicing of his “concern” in this matter is wildly inappropriate. How dare this Jew tell White women what to do with their own eggs! 20
Posted by Bud White on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:05 | # “If this article had a six-pointed star by Khan’s name, and if people generally knew what Jews were and what they wanted, I don’t think any mischief could arise from his schemes. But among a population that falsely believes that Jews are people “just like us” but with a funny religion, instead of the scheming collectivity they are…. (—wintermute) Surly you aren’t asserting that ALL Jews are complicit in subverting our culture and out to ethnically cleanse the white-race are you? From my own limited perspective, experience tells me their are many Jews who are just as disgusted as we are about the dispossession of the white-race. Doesn’t making blanket statements about Jews only serve to further marginalized our cause? Sure, Jews are overrepresented in our enemies camp, but isn’t it the powerful-wealthy Wasps who make-up the largest contingent? 21
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:03 | # By the argument that one cannot judge someone by his affiliations means that no one could be judged by his membership in anything, be it Judiasm, Islam, Mormonism, Hells Angels, the Frankfurt School, or the Black Panthers. It appears that normal White people, out of a desire to be nice and fair, ignore the bigger picture in instances such as these. I know most people know that just because someone seems nice does not mean that he is your friend; they know that the Evil One smiles very broadly, too. But I must repeat it because Whites continually forget this or cannot seem to apply it to anything concerning racial politics. Today’s civilized White man or woman, out of a sincere desire to be race-neutral and fair, never puts up much of a protest when his and his children’s genetic, social, economic, or cultural interests are damaged by outside interests. He naturally wants to be seen as nice and fair and so he refuses to shout rudely and loudly, “Stop it! You’re interests are destroying my and my children’s futures!” He does not realize that his is the only race that consistently rolls over like this. And what is the result of all this hyper-civility and misplaced compassion for those who hate you and your families? This: White conservatives the world over have been losing on every single battle front for over 100 years. Every healthy institution Whites had have been disabled or destroyed through Whites’ refusal to appear uncivilized. Right now, South Africans are being raped, butchered, set alight as we speak. And astoundingly, because of their radical liberal beliefs of racial egalitarianism and hard-wired belief in fairness, they do little to stop it. In America, we will be a minority in our own country in about 20 years. What makes this particularly disturbing is that most laws and cultural assumptions dealing with race today are already stacked heavily against Whites. And, thanks to the machinations of the Chose Ones, legislation against Holocaust(TM) “denial” and racial “hate speech” is making its way through DC. If this is not stopped now, Whites will soon be unable to voice any dissent at all against the anti-White politics now or in the future. What kind of future does this mean for our children? As to Mr, Kahn, what kind of person would willingly be associated with the group that is and always has been the strongest pushers of the communism and multiculturalism that continues to kill so many of our people? Khan’s affiliation with Judaism and Holocaust(TM) activism cannot be ignored, no matter how much “concern” for our well-being he appears to exhibit. A person’s group affiliation matters, especially in a world that is hyper-politicized and in a country where racial politics have become the norm. 22
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:25 | # Bud, what percentage of those White believers in multiculturalism are aware of who has been its most indefatigable leaders? They don’t even know what group controls the press and academia that controls that information. If they knew the truth, most Whites would be cured of their self-destroying multiculti madness immediately. When one single Jew comes forward to expose all of this history and gives the details of his tribe’s culpability in the destruction of the White race, and he receives honest, nationwide coverage of the matter on television and in the popular press for several months, then we’ll consider that there is such a thing as a good Jew. It will never happen. But we will continue to be deluged in the media and in academia and the publishing houses with how evil Whites are and how they and their civilization need to be destroyed. THAT we’ll see decades of! 23
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:35 | # Bud, in short, it’s this: how guilty are Whites if the economic, cultural, political, and mass informational gate-keepers are Jews? 24
Posted by Bud White on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:46 | # “Bud, in short, it’s this: how guilty are Whites if the economic, cultural, political, and mass informational gate-keepers are Jews?”—Robert of the Rohorrim Like I said before, Jews are disproportionately overrepresented as the gate-keepers of knowledge. Also, I do believe their is a conspiracy against the white-race, however, I’m not ready to lay the blame solely on the shoulders of Jews as a whole. [I’m not going to say] the conspiracy is a tiny group of Jews controlling the world. What I do believe is that the conspirators are both powerful Jews and Gentiles, and they have successfully seized virtually all of the influence-molding positions. From there they can use those positions to serve as “tone-setters;” they can - and do - teach the unwitting masses what attitudes are acceptable and which ones aren’t. The puppet-masters do have some of their disciplined minions directly connected with their strings such as Tony Blair and GW Bush et al, but most of the con piracy’s work is done by non-conspirators who are simply promoting themselves. Most of the people that are involved in the conspiracy aren’t even aware they are involved in it! They simply scramble all over each other as they promote themselves all the while doing the work of the conspirator. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:57 | # Retew, For the benefit of readers of this thread I will restate the issue from “Peckham”, because it has a bearing on Mr Kahn:-
Now, I disagree somewhat with wintermute’s very free use of the term “Jews” in this present thread, for the reason that there is more than one proximate value among Jews. Certainly, there are socially responsible Jews, often religious, who strive for many of the same goals we do. Social responsibility (or conservatism) is a common good that crosses ethnic divides. It is a societal, not purely ethnic norm. Thus, there are many radical rightists who admire Moslems precisely because they appear to be a moral and honour-driven group. So, does the presence of social responsibility qualify the discussion of the JQ? Jews like Larry Auster and Henry Makow who are interested in living in a healthy Western society are, at the very least, restricted in their response to the “problem” of diaspora and to Christianity? They can’t be assigned the same moral station in life as an Al Goldstein. In that much, Larry Auster’s frustration at never being allowed by people like me to belong to the majority because of ethnic origin could be just. But, as the “Peckham” question infers, at some point social responsibility dissolves into ethnic interest, and that’s where the issue of including Jews in our societies is decided. Dr Kahn might, as Desmond points out, be perfectly responsible, and as ethical as as any bioethicist on the planet. Likewise, the Zivs and Le Rois, the immigrationists and human rights artistes et alia may be responsible to a man. But they also pursue an agenda in opposition to our interests. Since our interests necessitate the exclusion of subversive aliens, whether they are black “Britons” or American Jews or French Islamics, that is really the basis on which all these gentlemen effectively exclude themselves. (Of course, there are other bases, such as genetic distance, on which we may exclude them.) I have strong doubts that it is possible for the human animal to set aside or neutralise his EGI. That is what James’ test demands and, without the violence, theoretic or otherwise, of the sanctions to which he lays claim, I agree with it. 26
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:18 | # My statement about childbirth incurring risks stands as does my statement about policemen and soldiers incurring risks. All of these actions are vital—that is life preserving. People take risks to preserve life. When a woman donates eggs, she is not only preserving life, she is preserving her own EGI. The problem of people being desperate for money is something I have addressed more than any other contributor here at MR and indeed if you look at “net asset tax” with emphasis on protecting subsistence for families, you’ll find Google presents you with my writings—not the Brookings Institute. Moreover, I sacrificed my prior track record of successful legislative reform activism due to the fact that I realized “there is no way but through the Jew” at the time I put for my proposal for a net asset tax with subsistence protection—which I saw as the best hope for averting a world-wide Malthusian crisis. This is because the opponents that came crawling out of the woodwork against it were very obviously Jewish—not WASP “old money” or any other group Jews would have you believe would oppose such a proposal. When I saw Jews oppose the best hope of averting a Malthusian collapse, the history of communism vs capitalism became much clearer to me and I realized they would take down the very technological civilization upon which their habitats depended—commit suicide—before waking up to their own vicious rapacity. So you can’t inhibit life preserving actions because you refuse to place proper emphasis on public policies that underly desperation for money—indeed the precise opposite is the case. It is in exactly the circumstance where people are so desperate for money that their bloodlines are at risk that you must allow them to take actions to preserve their bloodlines and that will necessarily, in that circumstance, involve vital personal risk within monetary transactions. Your alternative is war. Get behind my allodial human rights declaration and/or net asset tax proposals if you are genuinely concerned about subsistence rights before you start going after and destroying already desperate genetic interests being subjected to genocide—particularly if you are going to do so supposedly in “defense” of them. 27
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:59 | # GW: “So, does the presence of social responsibility qualify the discussion of the JQ? Jews like Larry Auster and Henry Makow who are interested in living in a healthy Western society are, at the very least, restricted in their response to the “problem” of diaspora and to Christianity? They can’t be assigned the same moral station in life as an Al Goldstein. In that much, Larry Auster’s frustration at never being allowed by people like me to belong to the majority because of ethnic origin could be just.” True to a certain point. I like a lot of what LA has to say. I think Makow is still finding his way, still trying to figure it all out. He ultimately rejects the notion that his tribe could be as evil as the proof suggests, prefering to believe that the Brits made the Jews do it. But LA is not “one of us” by his own admission. When he stops spitting “anti-Semitism” at those of us who accuse Jews of the same things that he accuses them of; when he stops alternately defining himself as White and then Jewish, at his convenience; and when he advocates that Whites be allowed to congregate as whites, *free from Jewish membership and control*; only then should anyone trust his stated belief that “Whites should assert themselves *as* Whites.” The truth of what happens when Jews are not excluded is illustrated by what happened to orgs such as Amren and the John Birch Society. Once Jews get inside, all honest talk about Jewish duplicity, at any level, is squashed utterly. You Whites who cannot seem to get up the nerve to stand firm against Jewish demands of inclusion—including those of the “nice, good” Jews—should try to answer this: How can Whites have self-determination if Jews, who insist on defining themselves as nonWhites, demand to be included as Whites and control what Whites discuss? It’s crazy. I’m not saying that all White groups should exclude all Jews; that’s unreasonable, the world is too big and complex for that now. I’m pointing out that even the “good’ Jews will demand entrance into any large successful Whites-only group (and their brethren und schwesterin will either support them or not lift a finger to stop them). Until enough Whites realize this contradiction, Jews will continue to control all discussions about White destiny. 28
Posted by Bud White on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:59 | # wintermute, My true belief about “most” Jews is that they are by definition the Antichrist; the devil incarnate. How else can such a tiny group of people have such sway over the rest of the world’s population? They must derive their power from Satan himself? I hesitated to post on this site because most here are eon’s ahead of me intellectually. But I thought I’d toss my two cents in anyway. I tried to present myself as a moderate on the issue of the Jewish question because I didn’t want to appear too radical. It seems that approach fell a little flat! LOL Btw—David Duke doesn’t go so far as to condemn all Jews either. He he wrong too? GW writes: “But, as the “Peckham” question infers, at some point social responsibility dissolves into ethnic interest, and that’s where the issue of including Jews in our societies is decided.” Yes indeed, when I was in High School, after class the students tended to gravitate to their own ethnic tribes. The Italians, the Mexicans, the blacks etc all grouped separately. When push comes to shove, ethnic solidarity always trumps the larger community interests, yes? I’ll continue to read, learn, and toss in a few comments now and then. 29
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:25 | # Bud: “Btw—David Duke doesn’t go so far as to condemn all Jews either. He he wrong too?” The White majority has to allow themselves to say, “This is our thing, Whites only. You blacks/jews/whatevers got your own organizations, and these organizations are ours, we built them. You all must respect our right to freedom of association. Now, go play, we’re working.” Only when Whites demand respect will they get it. 30
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:44 | # To Wintermute: Context is necessary, but what if you concentrated on the good which potential followers will gain and bad outsiders will reap in and how they will be left out of a secure and good group. When used with austere and non exaggerating language, it has a shock effect. It draws attention, because it deals with basic necessary needs of people; gaining advantages over others and good things; avoiding insecurity, danger and bad things; and the need to belong to a group. You don’t even have to have yet what you are selling; you are selling a kind of “prerogatives to future memberships”. With this method I have gained sudden desire from my highly educated opponents to run along with my opinions. It works often. But you must have a more comprehensive vision of your group than what I have seen here (Maybe I have missed something). Ethnic genetic interests are excellent and necessary foundation and territory is needed sometime in the future, but what before then. How do you form a group in practice, what are the many practical functions the group will have, how is it so advantageous over other groups and individuals? I have answers to these. Do you have them? P.s. Sidenote: My English grammar might not be perfect, but don’t evaluate me according to it. 31
Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:06 | # WM: Wow, you’re on a roll! Well said, multo bene! Finn: “I have answers to these.” Can you share them here? (Your English is good.) 32
Posted by Andy Wooster on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:24 | # Israel has the ability to not only embarrass Jews all across the world, which is bad enough, it has the power to make non-Jews notice the Jews among them which is impermissable. When Israel is causing too many gentiles to ‘wake up’, the chain is yanked. There is no question who is the more powerful partner in the world-nation Judah, and New York has dealt very efficiently with Israel in the past, when they have become too noticeable. This is a very interesting explanation for leftist criticism of Israel, one that I admit I had neither considered nor heard put forth before now. It certainly gives me something to think about. I’ve been reading your comprehensive comments from the past week or so with great interest. I believe that it would be a tremendous thing if you were to put your talents to work as a blogger or essayist. You’re a very lucid writer, and you’ve clearly done a lot of thinking about the JQ. 33
Posted by Bud White on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:00 | # To, Robert of the Rohorrim, and wintermute, Okay, okay! IT’S THE JEWS!!!!! But I’m sure your both quite aware of the fact that a very small number of people (in the Jew controlled West) are aware of the Jewish agenda. And only a very small percentage that small number have the balls to speak out about it! People like Duke and others are trying to reach as broad of an audience as possible to spead the message…to sound the clarion call. I believe Duke has to feign the pretence that he believes not all Jews are working as one. If he came right out and said: ” All Jews are of the Synagogue of Satan” and are out to destroy the world, he would scare away otherwise potential converts. Once people become a little bit aware of why things are happening the way they are, they will be more receptive to a deeper understanding of the truth. To come at people in full strength mode who aren’t even quite sure of what a Jew, or the Talmud acually is, will only scare them off. Wouldn’t a slower more incremental approach be the best course of action? Even if you have to tell them not all Jews have a malevolent agenda against whites, wouldn’t that work better as a ground-breaker? 34
Posted by a Finn on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:26 | # “Can you share them here? (Your English is good.)” Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 09:06 PM | #
But it would be useful for me to know if you know these things already, so I don’t tell you things you already know. In the following many months I probably now an then just comment on the sidelines. 35
Posted by Englander on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:27 | # I’ve been reading your thoughts, wintermute, for a while now (where I can find them) and it’s good to see you back. You had become a lurker. I know this because you are noticed and spoken of by people who wish you’d make your presence felt again. The phora could do with you at the moment. Few Jew-aware people speak-up anymore. Speaking of Jew-aware. You seem to be hyper aware. Even I have trouble accepting some of what you say. If you are considering writing essays, I think your first project should be to cover the same ground as you have done in this thread, but offer some proof for how you reached your conclusions. Make your conclusions seem reasonable. Because right now, I think even those of us with our eyes open and our ears clean will find it very hard to take. You must also consider that your idea, minus your writing ability equals a very difficult bite to swallow. 36
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:00 | # Some time ago Wintermute’s writing compelled me to face the truth about Jews and their fatal effects on host societies. Those, like Englander, who are sufficiently open-minded to follow Wintermute’s trail of logic will probably find it difficult to escape the truth of his arguments. 37
Posted by Bud White on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:46 | # Sorry wintermute, 38
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:07 | # Bud’s last sentence makes me think of the Jew Michael Medved’s criticism of Hollywood and Prime Time TV. If taken at face value, it might seem that Medved objects to the defacement of White society by the Jewish media’s cultural-Marxist filth. He doesnt, really. What Medved objects to,with his subtle approach, is the danger to America’s rapid Judaification posed by the offensive overtness of the anti-White assault. 39
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:17 | # Ok, Wintermute, thank you for your answers. I put that name and address you gave to the computer memory. My English vocabulary is good. If I write large articles, all I need is that somebody with good English skills corrects possible spelling and grammar mistakes. I explained in the previous answer part of the method of gaining attention. Some more information and a little bit of repetition: - Read the hierarchies of fears and needs from marketing or psychology textbooks. - Choose basic fears and needs that can be creatively interwoven to your case. - Make sure that every vector points to same direction and there is only one wäy out. The way you created in your mind in advance. - Make psychologically compelling situation. If he chooses your way, there will be relief and good feeling about gaining advantages. If he chooses any other way, there will be uneasines and a feeling of important loss. - Use austere and non exaggerating language, there is a kind of compelling tone without any orders. - Tell so much that he understand clearly what is at stake and understands that you know. Don’t tell everything and say that you left out many important pieces of information. This creates insecurity and worry that he is missing crucial information. - Start your writing by telling about advantages. Towards the end the threats (non personal threats, without threating) and fears increase. End the writing with the most threatening information. Threats and fears are generally more compelling than positive aspects. People remember the start and the end better than the middle of the texts, and they have often more impact on the feelings also. - Don’t show any interest how the opponent chooses. Tell without pity the choices. If he asks, say; I recommend this and this, but if you choose otherwise, I will not whine after you. - If the opponent tries to flaunt and tease you about choosing e.g. race mixing, say coldly that you recommend it to him, making sure he knows pros and cons and your opinion in general. - Don’t ask any information from him, if it is not crucial. - Direct the conversation in general. Direct the conversation to your strong fields and his weak fields. Change the direction of the conversation when necessary and to shake his position. Very rarely people notice how profoundly the course of the conversation has changed with one to three answers (E.g. the topic might change to entirely different field). Most people think the conversation runs smoothly forward even when there have been profound changes. Use this blindness to your advantage. - Even if you know much, answer fairly shortly. Shorter, dense, information packed answers have in general more psychological effect than long profusive ones. - Because multiculturalism and other such ideologies are often based on “feeling good to be tolerant” -feelings, compelling basic fears and needs overrides them pretty easily. The ingredients which media creates to liberal brain is mostly not strong. - Where the media has created stronger feelings, avoid them in the first times. Search the weaker parts. Later when ground is stronger, talk about the things you previously avoided. - Be always steadily and always of the same opinion in all situations, if possible. People see that you and your opinions have endurance. - If possible, make sure in advance that you have intelligent people agreeing with you in a conversation. There was a couple of advice. I hope there was some useful information for you. 40
Posted by a Finn on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:24 | # My suggestion about jews. Leave the possibility to jews to do good, despite everything. It has advantages to us. I explain some other time. 41
Posted by Bud White on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:37 | # To Al Ross: My advice to you, Al, is never trap yourself in a position where there is no way to escape. 42
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:13 | # After thinking about it for awhile, I’m going to revert back to my original attitude and say that not all Jews are conniving people. “Conniving” is a word that connotes a consciousness that need not be present. So, you’re original attitude is right in that regard. However, to be a Jew is to be part of an organization, indeed an organism, whose interests conflict with ours. As long as a Jew remains a cooperating member of the community he is complicit in the group’s actions whether he knows anything beyond his own little role. 43
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:23 | # To Bud White, 44
Posted by Bud White on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:26 | # “As long as a Jew remains a cooperating member of the community he is complicit in the group’s actions whether he knows anything beyond his own little role.”—ben tillman Then I have some good news, ben. Approximately 50% of Jews in the States marry non-Jews. That’s hardly a plan to strengthen their community. If that trend continues, they’ll be bred out of existence soon. Agreed? 45
Posted by Bud White on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:36 | # “The day I take advice on Jewish matters from one of old Jesus’s Hebrew-tale believers, there will be skiing on the hills of Hell, an event which, no doubt, in your Semitically-circumscribed view, I will be eminently qualified to witness.” Now, now, Al. I don’t believe your going to hell. But now you’ve got me curious. If you reject the Genesis explanation of creation, how did the universe come about? Did it create itself and everything in it out of nothing? Please enlighten a Semitically circumscribed dullard. 46
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:51 | # It is usually impossible, Bud, to convince people who willingly keep their reason in abeyance for religious reasons. Reading Richard Dawkins should help, but first you might prefer a visit to : 47
Posted by Bud White on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:00 | # “It is usually impossible, Bud, to convince people who willingly keep their reason in abeyance for religious reasons.” Al, lets say for purposes of discussion that I am an atheist. My question to you is: how did the universe come into existence? 48
Posted by ES on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:27 | # When I say that Israelis hate having their chain yanked by a group a fat, comfortable New York Jews who are not putting their lives on the line to make a home for their people, I mean to say that they have recourse to rhetoric that will seem familiar to readers of, say, VNN. A bit of historical background on the control structure: Recall that Israel and Zionism was very much a Rothschild-and -aquaintainces-funded venture, acting primarily through the World Zionist Organization. All land in Israel remains owned by the Jewish Agency, which is a *branch* of the WZO. In other words, they *own*. Judah has had its power center in New York City since approximately 1910 at the latest. Meaning whomever are its governing officials heavily reside in that locale. That’s why “fat, comfortable” New York Jews call the shots. But I’m sure your both quite aware of the fact that a very small number of people (in the Jew controlled West) are aware of the Jewish agenda. Practically every Jew I know is perfectly aware of their control over Amerikwa. This is probably representative of the general population. Put yourself in their shoes—how could any non-retarded Jew not possess this elementary knowledge? 49
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:30 | # Abiogenesis. Or it could be the big Jew-God up in the sky. 50
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:47 | # Can I return the discussion to Dr Kahn’s stated, rather than implied, ethic? He equates the sale of organs, which is properly regulated, with the donation (still for money) of eggs. Are they equatable in this way? The sale of an organ deprives the seller, or donor, of something provided by Nature for the life of that individual. The sale of an egg deprives the seller of the very temporary possession of something provided by Nature for the creation of another life. So where is the basis for drawing the comparison that Dr Kahn does? Unless fertilised, eggs are all going to waste. They are more comparable to the usage of human hair in wigs - all human hair falls out - than to vital organs. And vital organs do not have as their entire reason for being the creation of a separate life. Now, this bioethical expert, a man of obvious intelligence and experience in his field, surely knows this, or he is not an ethicist of any sort. So what is he up to? Nothing very professional - or very honest. Take your pick. 51
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:11 | # Moreover the actual risks of ovarian donation are far lower than childbirth—a state into which women routinely enter without informed consent and which, even if successful, saddles them with child rearing responsibilities for which they may not have planned or had support of the sire. One would expect regulation of childbirth prior to regulation of ovarian donation. But of course, that would bring up all sorts of “ethical” questions wouldn’t it? 52
Posted by Bud White on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:40 | # “He equates the sale of organs, which is properly regulated, with the donation (still for money) of eggs. Are they equatable in this way?” GW
Does Dr Kahn have ulterior motives? On the surface it doesn’t appear to be the case. But given the fact he’s a Jew, it’s a natural reaction to be skeptical of his underlying motives. 53
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:09 | # “Then I have some good news, ben. Approximately 50% of Jews in the States marry non-Jews. That’s hardly a plan to strengthen their community. If that trend continues, they’ll be bred out of existence soon. Agreed?” No. The 50% figure is bogus; the real number was apparently around 14% in 1989 (see medding et al.) and is perhaps 20-25% today. Moreover, intermarriage has its advantages. The children may identify less closely with the Jewish community, but they will be sympathetic, and there will be twice as many of them if two Jews marry gentiles instead of each other. And think of all the gentile in-laws whose sympathy may be elevated by the presence of a Jew and half-Jewish children within their own family. Finally, the intermarriage rate among millions of Israeli Jews is approximately zero, so it does not matter how high the intermarriage rate is in the diaspora. They will not be bred out of existence as long as the Israeli Jews continue to marry within the group. 54
Posted by Bud White on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:05 | # “The children may identify less closely with the Jewish community, but they will be sympathetic, and there will be twice as many of them if two Jews marry gentiles instead of each other.” Ben, isn’t it true some of the most virulent anti-Semites are those from mixed Jewish/Gentile marriages? From what I’ve read, the revulsion towards Judaism that some of the children of such mixed marriages have is unparraleled. That’s what makes me wonder if, wintermute, is one of those said children? 55
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:21 | # I think the irrationality of a lot of the Christians around fertility enhancement technologies is yet another area where Islam is going to make inroads into the West. Islamic Imams don’t try to reduce fertility with hysterical reactions to fertility enhancement technologies. That makes Islam attractive to aging career women for two reasons: 1) It provides a graceful way they can enter into a polygynous relationship (the only way many aging career women can fulfill their demand for a younger attractive man combined with their demand for a family of some sort). 2) It sanctions the fertility enhancement technologies they require to make up for their lost time. 56
Posted by alex zeka on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:24 | # wintermute, would you care to express yourself here: http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2007/02/true-brit.html ? 57
Posted by Englander on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:01 | # I doubt if many people will be very receptive to wintermute’s using of the old testament to show Jewish intentions. Jews are seen, rightfully, as very secular, and it will be very hard to show that their religious writing has had any influence on them. Wintermute’s writing borders on depicting a Jewish ‘hive mind’ of the sort used as strawmen against WN, who I have noticed have tried to distance themselves from such ideas. 58
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:32 | # “I doubt if many people will be very receptive to wintermute’s using of the old testament to show Jewish intentions. Jews are seen, rightfully, as very secular, and it will be very hard to show that their religious writing has had any influence on them.” You’re missing the point. The Old testament is an account of their group “personality”. 59
Posted by Daniel J on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:52 | # To wintermute: Judah is the world actor, and if necessary, will sacrifice Israel to secure the interests of the larger organism. A prime example here is the New York Times, which allows very limited criticism of Israel when Israel will not obey the deliberations of American Jews. For their part, Israeli Jews are very sensitive to the comfortable lives American Jews lead, and resent the crude deployment of Jewish power against them (who doesn’t?), which does happen on occasion. Israel has the ability to not only embarrass Jews all across the world, which is bad enough, it has the power to make non-Jews notice the Jews among them which is impermissable. When Israel is causing too many gentiles to ‘wake up’, the chain is yanked. There is no question who is the more powerful partner in the world-nation Judah, and New York has dealt very efficiently with Israel in the past, when they have become too noticeable. However, there are no other sins on Israel’s part that rankle New York, and they are not punished, for instance, when they harbor fugitives from American justice, or the Russian Oligarchs, or being the world center of Human Traffiking, or whatever. The only conceivable sin is to act againt common interests. Gentiles, as per the Torah and Talmud, have no rights or existence any Jews is bound to recognize, except tactically. Well said. I can not add a damn thing. Can I just say I have been dying for interaction like this. I have been on the Amren site for a few months and am new to the concept of white solidarity for white interests. However, I always had some reservations about Jews since my youthful indiscretionary foray into liberal non-think about the Iraeli/Palestine issue. I have discovered in the last few months that Amren and Stormfront and that whole “white supremacist” junk is completely infiltrated with Jews, and that scares me. I think it is the book by the Crosswinds Collective called “When Victims Rule” that has some time devoted to the idea of Gentile controlled media and I think I have finally found it. I have no kin,-no kindred spirit-where I live due to it being the Mecca for all causes “progressive” (San Francisco) and having a Jewish Cult/ural Center on every corner. I’m very happy to have found a poster with whom I consider on par (perhaps a couple miles ahead!) with me intellectually and someone dedicated to the actual “Question.” 60
Posted by Daniel J on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:04 | # It is usually impossible, Bud, to convince people who willingly keep their reason in abeyance for religious reasons.” Al, lets say for purposes of discussion that I am an atheist. My question to you is: how did the universe come into existence? Posted by Bud White on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 04:00 AM | # Hey Bud, I’m very sympathetic being a member of a United Reformed Church. Check out this link to an 8-part audio series to hear people completely eviscerate Dawkins’ arguments: As far as this goes: Posted by Al Ross on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 03:23 AM | # I think you are turning your back on a possible source of allies. 61
Posted by jlh on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:31 | # Wintermute is right on in everything he is saying about the Jews. The question: is Christianity the same thing? Is there no form that Christianity has taken, or possible path it can take, that is not toxic to white men? I submit that the present judeo-Christian view, which WJG has so rightly called a death cult for the white race, is actually a heresy based on the same jewish infiltration that our poster above has noticed in WN. I submit that the Germanicized medieval Christianity, which was quite hostile to Jewry, is compatible to our interests. I admit that tendencies inherent in it have historically resulted in humanism, liberalism and all the other isms that are killing us, but ... does it have to be that way? I hope to engage anyone who is not completely hostile to biblical religion. 62
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:20 | # On page 86 of his new book Homo americanus (yet to appear on the bookshelves) Tom Sunic writes of Christianity in America:-
... and on page 89:-
... and on page 99:-
In the page 89 quote Tom asks how Americans and American Christianity came to be influenced by Jews, but he has answered it on page 86, and goes on to explain the consequence on page 99. A culturally alienated people following a universalist religion in which one receives blessing for self-sacrifice ... what better engine of racial destruction could you possibly design. 63
Posted by Bud White on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:38 | # [What is wrong with taking advice from a Christian. You ever read Luther’s writings about the Jews? Or Catholics from earlier times (before the Jew friendly John Paul II, perhaps futher) who battled with them. I consider myself in the “Camp of the Saints” if you will and stand completely anti-Jew with Jesus himself.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9158422089779051101&q=Glenn+Miller Btw—Daniel, thanks for providing the link. 64
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:44 | # A culturally alienated people following a universalist religion in which one receives blessing for self-sacrifice ... what better engine of racial destruction could you possibly design. Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 10:20 PM | # I believe that the two - religion and culture - can be seperated. The self-sacrifice espoused by the Bible is a negation of the will, or flesh as the text would call it, and has nothing to do with denying yourself the culture held in esteem by your community unless it is inheirently anti-Christian. There is nothing in the Bible that says you have to be miscengenate that I am aware of. It all lies upon the spectrum of interpretation. Jews have appended their private interpretations to all kinds of different religions and/or social institutions and used them to their own genetic/social advantage. That doesn’t mean we judge the adulterated form of something as represantative of the pure. There is nothing at odds with keeping seperate gene-pools in the Christian religion. In fact I think that an argument can be made that God himself ordained it with the Heavensent disruption of the Babylon project. You are correct though, I can not envisage a better engine of racial destruction than decontextualized and universalized personhood. But here again the fault lies with the Jewish interpretation of God and not the Christian. I would also like to proffer up the idea that universalism is in fact, not the enemy! I spend my waking moments trying to force myself to ponder the eternal verities. I believe some things are true irrespective of time and place and regardless of one’s race, religion or creed. That said, reality teaches us that conserving one’s cultural identity require a kind of “temporal” truth as well. <ul>But the foundation of cultural truth is how a genetic population relates to the eternal truths!</ul> 65
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:33 | # Daniel J: I believe some things are true irrespective of time and place and regardless of one’s race, religion or creed. Natural selection is true. The need to worship, which is the common but heavily discounted currency of spirituality, is probably genetically derived and has its arising in the cost of trust. Beyond worship, the desire to be and not to live and die like a dog is also, alas, predicated on the will to status (ie mate selection). .. except there is waking consciousness, self-consciousness and, they say, something more conscious still - and the higher things, if they exist, have no purpose in Darwin’s scheme. So, of course, they should NOT exist, an elegant dichotomy I have not yet resolved. Thus, I have come to the place of a spiritual atheist. God is an idea of Man. Life after death is completely nonsensical. Christianity is the empty husk of an esoteric Judaic cult made into a universalist faith by Paul. We are not living in consciousness. Anyway, there are some certainties and some advantages. Because I do not despise the material I can seek a model of human life and society in the workings of our genes. Thus not many things are “true irrespective of time and place and regardless of one’s race, religion or creed.” One is that we compete for resources as individuals and as groups. Nationalism is genetic. It is not a choice. It is a discovery. 66
Posted by Axum on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:42 | # Germanicized Christianity: Spain: Lex Visigothorum, VI, 2, 4, (642-52), trans. Scott, The Visigothic Code, p.204 (revised). Magicians and invokers of tempests, who, by their incantations, bring hail-storms upon vineyards and fields of grain; or those who disturb the minds of men by the invocation of demons, or celebrate nocturnal sacrifices to devils, summoning them to their presence by infamous rites; all such persons detected, or found guilty of such offences by any judge agent, or superintendent of the locality where these acts were committed, shall be publically scourged with two hundred lashes; shall be scalped; and shall be dragged by force through ten villages of the neighborhood, as a warning to others. And the judge, lest, hereafter, the aforesaid persons may again indulge in such practices, shall place them in confinement, and see that they are provided with clothing and food, to deprive them of an opportunity of inflicting further injury; or he may send them to the king, to be disposed of at his royal pleasure. Those who are convicted of having consulted such persons, shall each receive two hundred lashes in the assembly of the people, in order that all who are guilty of such a crime may not go unpunished. J.N. Hillgarth, Christianity and Paganism, 350-750: The Conversion of Western Europe (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), 109 67
Posted by Axum on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:50 | #
Why evangelical Christians are philo-semites and will never be our allies: “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12: 3 68
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:15 | # Why evangelical Christians are philo-semites and will never be our allies: “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12: 3 Posted by Axum on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 12:50 AM
Your misguided analysis stems from the misinterpretation of scripture (the same mistake the Jews made) The promise was never made to a genetic lineage. He is not a Jew who is one outwardly. God claims He can raise up children of Abraham from stones. I don’t consider myself hostile to the cause. Perhaps I am unaware of my own hostility? 69
Posted by Tommy G on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:29 | # “.. except there is waking consciousness, self-consciousness and, they say, something more conscious still - and the higher things, if they exist, have no purpose in Darwin’s scheme. So, of course, they should NOT exist, an elegant dichotomy I have not yet resolved.”-GW There is no dichotomy there. All consciousness is a creation of God. I beg you to prove otherwise. 71
Posted by Axum on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:58 | # If I may ask, what is the true interpretation of Scripture? 72
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:07 | # A spiritualized interpretation which Christ, Peter, Paul et al tried to get people to understand. soteriology: Calvinist/Lutherean (The will is in bondage) 73
Posted by Tommy G on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:09 | # “Which God are you referring to, specifically?”—Axum Is there more than one? “If I may ask, what is the true interpretation of Scripture?” Only God knows! 74
Posted by Axum on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:25 | # A number of gods have been posited, yes. I would like to know specifically which god you are referring to. YHVH, Wotan, Zeus, Osiris, Allah, the One, the Trinity, the Deist god, John Frum of the Vanuatu cargo cult? Which of these is the creator of all consciousness? 76
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:13 | # I’m guessing here the Catholics would disagree. Posted by Axum on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 03:28 AM | # You are most definately right… However, they are a wierd amalgamation of paganism and Christianity so I think those in the “evolution is responsible for the generation of the universe” camp could find more common ground with them rather than us in the Protestant camp. A few people on the forum seem to advocate some kind of spirituality without God and that is close to Paganism no? 77
Posted by ES on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:44 | # Wintermute’s writing borders on depicting a Jewish ‘hive mind’ of the sort used as strawmen against WN, who I have noticed have tried to distance themselves from such ideas.—Englander Here’s the biggest hive: 78
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:23 | # “All consciousness is a creation of God.” Tommy, do please try to understand that I am contrasting mechanicity as ordinary waking consciousness with something different, intentional and of no particular service in getting through life. So, is all mechanicity the creation of God? Is, perhaps, that weak little light in your own head the creation of the devil? Do try to be sensible. Sorry, the answer to my riddle is not accessible through faith, which knows nothing of (real self-) consciousness and which is itself an evolutionary mechanism. 79
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:54 | # Natural selection is true. Natural selection is not true, at least the way I think you are putting if out there. Life doesn’t spontaneously arrive from non-living things.
Of course it is if you accept your interpretation of the genesis of the universe. Because I do not despise the material I can seek a model of human life and society in the workings of our genes. I do not despise the material either, nor do I think can argument be made that the Christian God alludes that we should. I think if you read Ecclesiates you would come away with the idea that it is simply a neccessary evil… Thus not many things are “true irrespective of time and place and regardless of one’s race, religion or creed.” One is that we compete for resources as individuals and as groups. Nationalism is genetic. It is not a choice. It is a discovery. Perhaps. But many things are universal when abstracted. -The entire realm of mathmatics (icluding physics and thermodynamics) -The major methods (Socratic and Scientific) I’m sure you could come up with some more. Sure, they are not “genetic truths” but you must remain with those if you refuse to believe reason is a gift of God or “innate.” Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 12:33 AM | # 80
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:54 | # Empiricism is a method or tool for comprehending the universe through the intellect. One could argue that it is a function of IQs above 124 that have the capacity to process abstract ideas. But I hardly think one could argue that it is itself coded genetically. So, as you say, its fruits are not “genetic truths”. Nationalism is different. It is an unabashed expression of ethnic genetic interest, ie the impulse to group adaptive behaviour. It IS, then, an abstraction of coded behaviour. This brings us to issues of free will, the existence of will, the meaning of “I” and personality, and the neurological model of the conscious mind, and so on - none of which I particularly want to explore in this thread! Life doesn’t spontaneously arrive from non-living things. No, we don’t yet know how life arises. Maybe Fred Hoyle is right after all, and the point of arising is, literally, very far from us. However, the fact remains that we do not know that “God” is the cause of its arising. The problem with that view is, as I have already inferred, that it is “knowable” only through faith - which itself evolved as a group adaptive behaviour. I am with Tom Sunic on Christianity, and believe that it is not of the Europid mind. It is, in the broadest sense, of the Semitic mind, and represents something not dissimilar to the Marxisation of liberalism during the late 19th and 20th centuries. There is a lot less we can do about our captured religiosity than there is to be done about our politics. I am certainly not of the mind that we can re-invent or re-awaken the old Odinist folk ways. Tom has a hankering after something he calls Prometheanism, and sometime I will ask him to expand on that for us. In my view, great religion is a planned venture and its central figure is chosen not by whatever diety it reifies, but by a compact circle of men guarding certain, as they see them, universal truths. Thus, there is some evidence that Jesus of Nazareth’s circle was familial. I don’t think you can just design a new religion or re-awaken a dead one, and I strongly suspect that the march of empiricism among Europids renders it impossible anyway. But the impulse among worship-gene carriers remains, and that, together with their extreme suggestibility, explains the current addiction to out-group altruism, political correctness and Holocaustianity. These are foils and we can kick them down. 81
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:28 | # The problem with that view is, as I have already inferred, that it is “knowable” only through faith True. Any attempt at the “origins” of the universe are. I still consider anyone (non-Judaic) who has an “in-group” Altruistic mentality on my team. I don’t see how Christianity is semitic per se, but I don’t really have a fully formed idea of semitic yet. I just know there is something seriously wrong. I have only been at it a year and am only 23. I figure I have another seven or so years to work out a complete philosophy 82
Posted by Daniel J on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:34 | # I just re-read my post and it seemed so infantile. I have been very depressed lately. Too sick to even turn on the t.v. and try to analyze the news. Its like everybody is Jewish and they are under every rock I turn over. The silly thing is it has made me the wanderer and the desert dweller. I am so thirsty now, but there is no water around me. Thank God [:)] for the internet. I am so excited to have found some people that challenge me. I gotta go to bed, we’ll continue this tommorrow. 83
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:08 | # I, too, was 23 once upon a time. But that was thirty-two years ago, and I am still laboriously piecing together my damned philosophy. All of us here, of course, are desert-dwellers - an apt analogy. I hope you find the spring-water pure and sweet. 84
Posted by Bud White on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:52 | # To all: I prefer and embrace a certain belief system called Catholicism. Many who post on this site view it as a bizarre strange set of fairytales…or worse. That said; don’t we all view other peoples belief systems other than our own a bit strange? I, for one, find it unfathomable to believe the universe created itself out of nothing. That is totally a foreign concept in my way of thinking. We all have our own belief systems, it’s must be encoded in our DNA to believe in something outside of our own existence. We all have the question: why are we here; what controls the universe we live in. None of us has a definite answer to the origins of our existence , so we must pick a belief system that makes sense for us. I, personally, find Christianity to make the most sense. Am I certain Christianity is the absolute final distillation of truth? No. I must accept it on faith. Atheists, too, must accept their belief system on faith. Science, and cold-reason have only scratched the surface in understanding the physical world we reside in. Let’s not forget, science and empirical evidence can only so far, beyond that, and we find ourselves in the realm of opinion. 85
Posted by Tommy G on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:47 | # So, is all mechanicity the creation of God? Is, perhaps, that weak little light in your own head the creation of the devil? Do try to be sensible. God blessed us with consciousness. We acquire mechanicity through our conscious experience. GW, mechanicity aside. Here is a riddle for you: Where does human thought originate? 86
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:57 | # wintermute wrote: the suggestion that Jews were blameless sweethearts who had done nothing worse than persuade stupid Whites to make poor choices Remove “blameless sweethearts” and replace “stupid” with “gullible” and you’ll be close to the opinion you’re satirizing. 87
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:14 | # Andy Wooster wrote: This is a very interesting explanation for leftist criticism of Israel, one that I admit I had neither considered nor heard put forth before now. It’s ad hoc. Wintermute’s belief in overwhelming Jewish power faces some problems. Why does Israel sometimes get bad press in a media system controlled by Judah? Why are there academic boycotts of Israeli scholars in Europe? Why are so many left-wing anti-Israel writers and activists Jewish? The chain-yanking theory serves as an explanation for what should be regarded as contradictory evidence. A sensible response would be that Jews have differing opinions about Israel. Finkelstein’s opinion of Israel is different from Podhoretz’ opinion of Israel. Another sensible response would be that not all opinions in the mainstream media are voiced by Jews or express Jewish interests. Jews dominate the mainstream American media; they don’t control every single opinion or piece of information that emanates from it. They certainly don’t control the media in Europe. Hence the markedly more critical view of Israel in the European press. In other words, the following is wrong: “at every point in the societal informational conveyer, there is a Jew, supressing, diverting, or damming up the free flow of information.” But anyone who accepts this simple view of Jewish media power will be forced to come up with ingenious explanations (like chain-yanking) for periodic anti-Israel commentary in the mainstream press. It must be interpreted as part of some larger strategy: “When Israel is causing too many gentiles to ‘wake up’, the chain is yanked.” As a group Jews are hostile to us. Their interests are opposed to ours, and the political behavior of most Jews and all Jewish organizations reflects that fact. We don’t need to demonstrate (or in this case attempt to demonstrate) anything more. I have no real objection to Wintermute’s exaggerated estimate of Jewish power, other than the fact that it is wrong. 88
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:09 | # Tommy G: God blessed us with consciousness. We acquire mechanicity through our conscious experience. Mechanicity is not acquired, except in so much as babies and very small children have yet to settle into established neurological patterns. But they do soon enough. Mechanicity very swiftly becomes the default setting for the human mind, in exactly the same way that water runs downhill, and getting it to go the other way takes a lot of heavy lifting and tends not to last for long. Where does human thought originate? Neurological research reports the functioning of the human brain as neurons, unrelated in location, firing in a seemingly disordered fashion. It invites us to consider the activity as a stream of kings for a day - actually, just a few seconds until the next explosion of unrelated activity. Over this, and presenting some semblance of unity and order, we appear to tell ourselves the story of “I”. It is an act of considerable creativity and love! During sleep it is dreams. Thought is associative, of course, and the triggers come from inside or outside the brain. One may assume that internally triggered associations are principally non-intentional brain activity, but do, naturally, include deliberate “higher” processes such as reasoning and intentional acts of memory. I do stress, however, that these processes are not self-consciousness - not a pushing of the water up the slope. Is creativity purely a biological function, or could it possibly be divine in origin? Do you mean the creation of life on Earth, Tommy, or human creativity? 89
Posted by Tommy G on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:01 | # “Do you mean the creation of life on Earth, Tommy, or human creativity?”—GW GW, I mean human creativity. GW, If you haven’t already read “The Hidden Face of God” I recommend you check it out. It’s a fascinating read. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0684870592/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-3802922-6184116#reader-link Click on “excerpt” and you can read the first six pages. At the very least, I think you’ll find it food for thought. 90
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:17 | # But anyone who accepts this simple view of Jewish media power will be forced to come up with ingenious explanations (like chain-yanking) for periodic anti-Israel commentary in the mainstream press. It must be interpreted as part of some larger strategy: “When Israel is causing too many gentiles to ‘wake up’, the chain is yanked.” It seems pretty obviously correct to me. A sensible response would be that Jews have differing opinions about Israel. Well, yeah, that ‘s what Wintermute said. 91
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:08 | # Tommy G, What I take from those pages is that the worship-gene carried by a proportion of us will express, and carry on expressing. I look upon faith as a psychological vermiform appendage, of function to a pre-empirical world (which still obtains in most non-Western societies). It will always be with us, always clinging to our guts. It has no choice. I didn’t think that G.L.Schroeder offered anything new or challenging.
He then goes on to abstract from organisational complexity precisely the same case for the existence of God that was used by the Rev. William Paley, a 17th/18th century naturalist prelate who gazed in awe at dead flies down a microscope. But insisting on the presence of God in a dead fly or in the human brain is simply wilfulness ... dogma drawn from the fundamental misapprehension that because Paley’s watch had a designer life must too. In my humble and not very well informed way I just understand the brain as an evolved organ, and consciousness of self as a rather ancient selected enhancement to survival - both serving our not very cosmic purpose, and the purpose of all life around us, which is to transmit genetic information. But because he possesses that damned gene Schroeder must have more ...
Sorry, but that’s because organisational complexity does not prove wisdom. Evolution is blind, not wise. It is the instrument of life’s elemental pursuit of continuity. 92
Posted by Tommy G on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:34 | # GW, thanks for reading the excerpt from “The Hidden Face of God.” Judging by your response, you were less than impressed, but your time and attention to it is appreciated. You remarked: “But because he possesses that damned gene Schroeder must have more ... “ GW, do you mean “damned” to hell? Was that a Freudian slip? You are obviously a learned man of substantial intellect and a deeply thoughtful person, too. However, we, that believe in intelligent design and those that don’t, must agree to disagree on that issue. I think you’ll agree we should put our religious beliefs aside and ally ourselves around our common interest - our main purpose - that being preserving and advancing the white-race. Btw—great web-site! I enjoy reading the many points of view presented here. All the best to you, GW. Sincerely. 93
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:29 | # Tommy, I am not at all antipathetic to any of my own people on grounds of Christian belief. I once read that one should never declare war upon faith in God since it is the final repository, should it be called upon, of conscience. It is being called upon, of course, within Christianity, where moral feeling is expected to be progressive and universalist, and love of kind is, if kind means white, an unmitigated sin. Do you read Jim Kalb’s Turnabout? Jim is a devout Catholic and radical right intellectual. He has a lawyer’s mind and a proper philosophical understanding of our present crisis, spiritual, political and demographic. 94
Posted by Tommy G on Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:44 | # “It is being called upon, of course, within Christianity, where moral feeling is expected to be progressive and universalist, and love of kind is, if kind means white, an unmitigated sin.” I find that type of openly hostile, anti-white, universalist thinking to be even more prevalent within the ranks of white secular progressives. In fact, it is the secular progressives disguised as Christians that infiltrated and subverted the traditional teachings of the Church. Christianity, by way of incrementalism, is morphing into an anti-white secular progressive religion that closely resembles the teachings of the Frankfurt school of cultural-Marxism.. “Do you read Jim Kalb’s Turnabout? Jim is a devout Catholic and radical right intellectual. He has a lawyer’s mind and a proper philosophical understanding of our present crisis, spiritual, political and demographic.” No, GW, I’ve never heard of Jim Kalb…thanks for the link to Jim’s web-site. From what little I’ve read so far, he seems to be right on target. 95
Posted by Amalek on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:17 | # “As a group Jews are hostile to us. Their interests are opposed to ours, and the political behavior of most Jews and all Jewish organizations reflects that fact. We don’t need to demonstrate (or in this case attempt to demonstrate) anything more. “I have no real objection to Wintermute’s exaggerated estimate of Jewish power, other than the fact that it is wrong.” (Rnl) I quite agree. Moreover, it is a favourite straw man of race realism’s enemies to say that we believe all action to be “determined” by our genetic inheritance, rather than influenced by it. Whenever we speak of Jewry as a monolithic monster we make the same unscientific mistake—tying ourselves in knots to prove that whatever any Jew says or does, no matter how seemingly antiethetical to their interests, is part of one ingenious master strategy. Wintermute falls into the fallacy of building a self-sealing argument. A thesis with no room for the unexpected, the contingent, the argument or action against interest, is not worth consideration. I think the confusion and self-contradiction in the Hebrew camp is genuine, and to be expected. Emancipation is slowly but surely killing Jewish solidarity: the groupthink, groupspeak and group-act of the tribe. It takes longer than for other ethnic minorities because Jews were more self-consciously separate to begin with, and in the early phases of assimilation (from c. 1789 to the present) they therefore fought harder agains the unfamiliar and upsetting process of losing their long-nurtured separate identity. Also, they have bred for verbal-ability intelligence, which makes it easier for them than for most cliques to cover their own panic and embarrassment by lying to others, but chiefly to themselves, about their motives and interests. However, Talmudic tricks of rhetoric and logic, the drizzle of chutzpah and reflexive doublespeak that Jewish spokesmen rely upon, are rumbled in the end. Such dishonesty reckons without the Caucasoid’s pragmatic talent for weighing words aganst deeds. The slow waning of Jewish solidarity in the USA is beyond dispute. Not just the decline in religious faith, and its replacement by defective and increasingly unconvincing solidarity-enforcement devices, such as Holocaustianity. Not just out-marriage and the gradual desertion of customs such as kosher and circumcision. The truest marker of the fissiparosity of Jewry is the refusal of the majority to make aliyah. Israel, their promised and predestined homeland, does not appeal to two-thirds of them. They don’t want to dwell alone among those weird settlers, militarists, sexually and financially corrupt politicians, primitive “Jewish Arab” sephardim, under a dodgy nuclear umbrella and surrounded by 20 countries which dislike them. They’d rather stay among the “antisemitic” whites. The answer to Herzl and his colonialist successors has consistently been thanks but no thanks. Jews have voted with their bottoms. But their power over their American hosts—financial, academic, media, political—is also fading. Most no longer think it is necessary to demoralise and divide their potential persecutors by corrupting them or shaming them into silence. Those who still follow that line have overplayed their hand since 1945, flushed with the surrogate success of the USA in the war Zionism helped to provoke. The creeping Likudnification of American politics since Reagan has been exposed not just by Mearsheimer and Walt but by an ex-president, no less. The failure of the Iraq folie de grandeur has re-ignited the issue of the Lobby in a way not seen since the early 1980s. The difference between then and now is that memories of WW2 and politeness about not criticising Shoah survivors or their kin have been less inhibitory this time. Those reticences have been nullified by disgust at Israel’s actions and the censorial efforts of its cheerleaders in the States, who will do anything for the Zionist entity except move there. (OTOH few American Jews dare speak out explicitly against the neocon agenda, even while voting 9:1 for Democrats who are mainly anti-war. That wouldn’t be “good for the Jews”—old habits die hard. But sometimes apathy is enough.) A cornered animal—such as the Jewish neocon warmongering tendency now is, with criminal trials for espionage and treachery under way—can be vicious. But my hunch is that its strength has already ebbed too much for it to do serious harm to the cause of American white self-preservation and the national interest. To alter the metaphor, “Jewish power” now resembles that of the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain and all you find behind the voice booming prohibitions and exhortations is a pathetic old man, going through motions that scare fewer citizens as each day passes. Meanwhile thw Jewish kulturkampf is also losing momentum: the third or fourth generation of secularised movie producers or professors, reduced to nihilistic anti-everything postures, cannot be moral instructors of the goy majority. The backlash against the Jewish-led drive to remove symbols of Christianity from public places is a sign of more scales falling from white eyes. Be of good cheer, friends. And don’t dismiss whole races as irredeemable, or credit them with too much cunning. 96
Posted by JB on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:12 | # GW:
I thought Calvin and Luther were in the same team. But I don’t know much about that period Here’s an idea for MR Radio: instead of simply interviewing some individuals about their selves you should invite people that could discuss or give a course about certain topics like the history of christianity. It would be great if Mr.Sunic and Soren could get together to record a series of shows about the history of christianity or the religious history of europeans from pre-christian times to today and the spiritual and social consequences. another series of shows could be about say the Crusades, the 30 years war, ... 97
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:25 | # Amalek tells us, inter alia, that non-religious Jews (“decline in religious faith”) are to be less feared than observant ones. I dont believe that opinion would have been shared by the victims of the Russian Revolution, the Jewish Bolshevik instigators of which were in the former category. Also, Amalek informs us that Jewish power, (” financial, academic, media, political”) is fading. As to Jewish financial power, the two most lucrative and fast-growing financial power-bases, hedge funds and private equity buy-out firms, are Jewish inventions and whilst the former are shadowy and often offshore-based, the latter group have become household names like KKR, Blackstone and Carlyle and are omniverously acquisitive, thus giving Jews increased ownership of US (and not only US) business. If Jewish media power is fading, nobody informed the Jew, Jeffrey Zucker, who just replaced the Gentile, Bob Wright as head of NBC Universal. With regard to Jewish political power, the recent Democratic Party gains in the US elections placed more Jews in elected posts than before and if the Chosen’s ruinous influence on academic power has lessened, I’d like to see some evidence of this unlikely development. 98
Posted by Bud White on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:45 | # Al, you sound like a cheerleader for the preposterous notion that Jews are almost omnipotent! Surly you don’t believe that, do you? 99
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:12 | # Bud, 100
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:15 | # JB, I think that’s a fine idea, if we can attract the necessary experts. That said, it takes time to develop new ideas, and it can be dangerous to try to do too much at once - or to suppose that the very best people will necessarily commit to us at this stage. One needs to appreciate that these are early days in MR’s development, and my long-term aim is for us NOT to remain at the level of a blog. MR is a project, and we are actively looking at other options to carry it forward, including video and a twiki-based collaboration. We are wholly open to good ideas, and if they can be realised we will push them as hard as we can. The perpetual constraints are manpower, specialist expertise and the hostile political climate. I am, as you already know, forever trying to get talented people to lend their shoulder to the effort. It always come down not just to willing hands, and plenty of them, but creative minds. That’s what we need. 101
Posted by Bud White on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:32 | # “What I do believe is that the US has been politically and culturally colonized by its racially-alien, Jewish enemies, who, if not exactly omnipotent, exert more power per capita than Whites could ever dream of.”—Al Ross Al, you took the words right out of my mouth! 102
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:25 | # Time constraints prevented my expanding on the Jewish media ownership theme earlier, so mention wasnt made of two potentially monopolistic Jew-driven media deals. The first has been officially announced and involves the merger of America’s two satellite radio companies, Sirius and XM, and the CEO-designate is the Jew, Mel Karmazin. The second deal is probably being hatched, even as we doze, and will, if agreed, merge Direct TV with Echostar, thus creating a US satellite TV monopoly under the CEO-ship of, yes, another Jew, Charles Ergen. Monopolies resemble kids, in that, you dont necessarily approve of them till you have one yourself and it looks certain the Jews will have two. Of course lawyers for the satellite TV companies will argue that their merger wont constitute a monopoly as they have competition from cable companies, the largest of which ,Comcast, is (surprise,surprise) controlled by a Philadelphia Jewish family with the racially-misleading name of Roberts. Post a comment:
Next entry: Majority Report
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 04:26. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:35. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 02 May 2024 03:12. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) |
Just kidding.
Posted by Bud White on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:58 | #
I have to agree with Jeffery P. Kahn in part. When I read the following expert from the original article, I am convinced this thing is getting out of hand.
“But if I’m honest, I did it for financial reasons; I wanted to travel,” says the 31-year-old woman who lives in New York and works for an international nonprofit. She asked to remain anonymous since her family doesn’t know she donated eggs three times.
“It would be a relief to know that my eggs were being used to find medical cures,” she says, “rather than being used to produce additional kids for well-to-do American families.”
This women is disgusting!