|
|
|
Wilders’ next big career move Geert Wilders, having emerged fresh from his triumphs at last month’s Dutch general election, in which the people appear to have succeeded in replacing this mainstream politician:
... with this one:
... so, er yes, Geert is going global:
It is interesting that he chose Britain, USA and Canada to launch Brand Wilders. None of them suffer from the same concentrations of Moslem immigration as his continental European neighbours. But what can he say in Flanders, Denmark or Sweden that he can’t in France or Germany? He is an attention-seeker. But he is obviously very good at it. He creates waves and I suppose he might be a nett positive for the nationalist movement on that basis alone. What do you think? (Apart from the fact that he doesn’t look like the other two gentlemen.) Comments:2
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 03:50 | # Job Cohen represents the second most voted-for party in the Netherlands. Here we see him demonstrating those wonderful “Judeo-Christian” values that Geert Wilders believes in so much. (By being a part of a gay-pride parade!)
3
Posted by Bill on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:21 | # British Nationalism is so desperate any enemy of its enemy is our friend. Don’t know a lot about him but what little I have seen - most impressed! Can we say the same of the EDL? 4
Posted by Holger on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:30 | # Something of Note from South Africa How long can you the MSM keep up the lies? … What lies you may ask … Are you having a laugh? See, we (non-liberals) know that you are the “podium” for the demise of whites across Europe! - Prove me wrong! … And after you’ve failed, realize that Europe’s MSM are Zionists’ slave whores! … Shame on you! I like the following saying, and it is oh so true – “A person’s tolerance for diversity is directly related to their distance from it”. I know … You want to call me a racist! … Right? … Boo Hoo! … I’ll go and cry in the corner, because my Nanny State tells me to - Wait a minute! … I never grew up in a Nanny State! … I don’t have white guilt, and I don’t buy your lies! Propagating lies won’t hide Europe’s (hate the whites’ IQ) plans for too long … The truth will always prevail, sometimes it takes a while. The New World Order is making me revise my geography lessons from school. “Sheeple” will learn that a leopard cannot change his spots! For now they think (white guilt) they have to embrace savage Stone Age cultures … That’s folly! Trying to dumb down whites via MSM is just as folly! Branding whites as racist for breaking away from “mass thinking” is also folly! As closure, I’d like to ask you – How can you as MSM employees sleep at night knowing that what you’re doing, is pure and utter Evil? And what’s even more sadistic, is that a lot of you are white! Don’t you (as a white individual) realise YOU’LL soon become a minority in your own country? - You do know those RICH diverse cultures breed like rabbits, don’t you? and we WHITES love our human rights, like abortion. And what we love above all is Democracy … You know, majority rule! Thank you 5
Posted by John on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:33 | # Wilders obviously didn’t get a copy of the rule book. Note this is my take on it based on my reading of where the trumps have been applied: PC Trumps Race Religion Sex Sexual Preference Politics
Race > Sexual Orientation = Religion (except for Jewish, which trumps Sexual Orientation) > Gender Politics is one that has variable trump value, depending on the circumstances but never trumps Jewish race or religion (except for “self-hating Jews”). 6
Posted by notuswind on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:42 | #
I’d like to point out that I’ve yet to see any European nationalist toy with this position, as the realities of Islamic culture are a lot less abstract to them than they are to their American counterparts. In my opinion, any kind of talk about Islam as a potential vehicle for our racial survival can’t possibly be sincere. If I may be a bit more controversial, I think that this kind of thinking has more to do with Jewish obsessiveness than it does with an authentic sense of nationalism. It comes from a mindset that is willing to sacrifice Western culture just so that we can get even with international Jewry. 7
Posted by graham_lister on Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:58 | # Personally I could never submit to Islam…what a perverse idea. 8
Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 18 Jul 2010 02:05 | # Jews are now against immigration to Europe and the US you just have to look at Fox News reports as non-white minority groups are hostile to Israel. As a predicted a long time ago Neo-cons like Kristol or lower level lackeys will be at the front of WN movements and the alternative right. MR should just get in line with the new reality and sport a “We support Israel” seal at the top right of this blog. WN are Jew wannabes any way. 9
Posted by jamesUK on Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:21 | # @Fred Scrooby
Perhaps because you don’t have a legitimate argument and you will just list left wing Jews like Chomsky as proof. Scholar: Europe’s Right is embracing its Jews http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/040209/njScholarEuropesRight.html Perhaps you would like to explain why Fox News is supporting Arizona and anti-immigrant stories as well as stories attacking blacks and Mexicans with Jewish think tanks like AEI supporting people like Wilders? I live in reality and like in the film Inception you live in the dream world with projections of your own subconscious perception of the world as you view it totally void in the shifts in reality. Did you forget you’re totem? 10
Posted by Matra on Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:35 | # Jews are now against immigration to Europe and the US you just have to look at Fox News reports as non-white minority groups are hostile to Israel. Fox News support for immigration control is very limited. Most of its commentators are GOP partisans who see a short term opportunity to weaken the Dems and rally normal (white) people to the GOP. But most of their experts only talk about the rule of law. None point out the need to mass deport Mexicans and other alien elements. Most Fox News conservatives want border security now to be followed by immigration reform. It is certainly positive to have Fox cons pay lip service to immigration control and thus help rally the base - the couple of million people who watch the channel regularly - against amnesty even if it is only in the short term but they are not supporters of a white America. Fox cons are not friends of white Europe either as they never miss an opportunity to preen about how immigrants/colonists in Europe are not as integrated into society as they are in the US thus showing how racist Europeans really are. Jews are overwhelmingly in favour of mass immigration into the USA and Europe. Even the main writers at Commentary, obviously the most Jewish of all ‘conservative’ media, still chastise very moderate US conservatives for their ‘extremism’ on this issue whilst demanding total fidelity to the most extreme Zionist position. It is obvious to all that Jews are overwhelmingly pro-immigration in both the USA and Europe, not to mention Canada and Australia. Of course people like jamesUK, who has shown over the years that he is incapable of understanding the difference between ‘their’ and ‘there’, can’t be expected to understand such things. As to Wilders, he sounds like a Serb/Zionist wet dream given his singular obsession with Islam. Conservative Swede has an interesting view of him as a kind of Kerensky who won’t succeed himself but will knock down walls allowing more extreme Euro-nationalists to eventually succeed. Time will tell. 11
Posted by jamesUK on Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:36 | # @Fred Scrooby I can’t find any good info pro or con regarding Jewish groups that support/not support Arizona’s immigration laws just articles listed on Goggle about history of Jewish immigration into Europe and the US and articles detailing Jewish lobbying behind the 1965 immigration law. Why is the largest news network in the US Fox News taking an anti-immigration/minority stance? You mean the British 90% white population or the similar numbers in all European countries? And the countries with the largest non-white immigrants France, Germany and Britain are from former colonies and allied states. 12
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:00 | #
Im in a leafy English county and I wouldnt be surprised if we werent pushing close to 10% around here*. As for Birmingham or London or Leicester… *Lot of students here too, not all will be staying. Blimey, just checked our district, (not the whole county), however part of this district is one of the least salubrious parts of the whole county. White: 89% So James, you arent far off with 90% but in what has to be a generally white area of the country and I’ll bet that 89% will be lower come the next census. 13
Posted by jamesUK on Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:57 | # @Fred Scrooby Choosing areas that are known to have a high concentration and minority dominant emigration to those specific areas does not constitute a mass browning of the UK. Perhaps you should just move to an neighbouring white area or region of London. That’s like saying there are millions of Jews going to overtake the US due to demographics as there is a high concentration of Jews in New York. @Lurker It is obviously more than 92.14% white according to the 2001 it was 90.94% and there is no census info from the 91 census and 2001 censuses on Wikipedia to measure the rate of immigration has in Britain. Most foreign worker immigrants are from the new EU countries not non-white 3rd workl countries. So your moronic BS statements have no basis in fact. 14
Posted by jamesUK on Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:00 | # Correction I ameded the wrong figure meant to say 89% and 92.14 @Lurker It is obviously more than 89% white according to the 2001 it was 92.14% and there is no census info from the 91 census and 2001 censuses on Wikipedia to measure the rate of immigration has in Britain. 15
Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:53 | # JamesUK, Embrace the Jews all you want. You’ll eventually be giving the Israelis and the Jews every concession imaginable while getting nothing in return. They are our racial enemies. They spearheaded the movements to overthrow White hegemony in South Africa AND the United States. Now look at us. Also, check out the responses to Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law: Notice how many of the “boycott Arizona!” types are Jews? If it wasn’t for Jewish politicians we wouldn’t have changed our immigration laws in the United States. From 1924 until 1965 they favored European immigrants. Read this: And this: You haven’t shown that there is any significant Jewish effort to support the West. You have only demonstrated how stupid and misguided these “pro-Western” parties are. Here’s a quote from General George Van Horn Moseley: ”...if you fail to meet this issue squarely, your organization will accomplish nothing, except possibly to support a certain overhead, including perhaps several Jewish secretaries, placed with you for the purpose of spying upon you and your work.” This is what the philo-semitic right is doing now. They are jousting with windmills while the real enemy puts the knife in their back. (Full text here: http://eternalforms.angelfire.com/jews2.html ) 16
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:57 | #
That says something about your intellect. I went to Google and typed in the following: adl “sb 1070” First result: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/CvlRt_32/5743_32.htm Phoenix, AZ, April 23, 2010 ... The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed profound disappointment with Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to sign what is now the harshest state immigration law in the country. Total elapsed time: roughly five seconds. 17
Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:00 | # @Sam Davidson As I said those articles relate historically to Jews supporting open immigration but does not take into account the new realities especially after 9/11 apart from the first one you posted where the Jewish major was against it but that could be construed as pandering to minority voting bloc being that minorities usually tend to vote more on the democratic side. I would have to check if Neocon writers are in support of the law or not @ben tillman Yes because that immediately came to mind the senate bill reference number which living in the UK as you can tell by my user name I would have known about off course. And I said Jewish groups indicating a joint Jewish political effort across the board not just one organisation who sent a letter of protest to Governor Brewer. I was expecting actually evidence of Jewish organisations financing groups and politicians to repeal the Arizona law. Maybe you should have read what I actually wrote before your idiotic retort. In fact the quotation in the same article latter can be construed to suit there own interests via Israel as large number of Israelis were caught up in the immigration crackdown after 9/11. “This bill will open a Pandora’s box for profiling,” explained Straus. Straus also highlighted how requiring law enforcement to focus on individuals without documentation serves to distract officers from their vital work of tracking and arresting violent criminals. Funny that you didn’t address the issues in my questions regarding the immigration law. @Dasein Dumb and Dumber 18
Posted by Photo illustration of race replacement on Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:41 | # Gallup did a survey of happiness around the world, and Denmark was ranked the happiest country. Forbes chose this photo as an illustration. Only 4 of the 14 children look Danish.
19
Posted by WR on Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:26 | # I think the whole Wilders/Freedom Party thing has strong parallels with the Neo-Conservative movement and the Neo-Con Controlled Republican Party. While we may be inclined to think that these groups are creating waves, the reality is that these movements will deliver no dividends to white advocacy. Rather they will co-opt white advocacy and white advocats, wasting their time and energy. Wilders, the neo-cons, the Republicans, the Freedom Party, etc. - these are all enemies. They must be treated as such. 20
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:02 | # Here’s a longer excerpt (Hoste here is commenting on an anti-Islam Serge Trifkovic article which ticked him off a little): In Trifkovic’s conclusion, that more Europeans may convert to Islam as time goes by and the religion gains power, I actually think he may be right. But most of them would be converting from Secular Humanism, not anything that can be called Christianity. It would be a mistake to believe that whites would be Muslims in the same way Pakistanis or Saudis are; the faith would be molded to conform with the biological characteristics of its adopters, or “Europeanized” as Christianity was in the first place. I don’t know what a Swedish Islam would look like, but it probably wouldn’t be half as ugly as the feminist-communist dystopia that the country is today. The culture of that Nordic state repulses me a lot more than that of say, Turkey. Not that I advocate a European mass conversion — such an event would have unforeseen consequences beyond what any mortal could imagine — though I could imagine a situation where a Muslim Europe was the least of all evils. One thing we may consider: from the perspective of white survival, Islam may be the best bet. What would be lost to miscegenation would be more than made up for in higher birthrates. Whether a European Islam would have a higher or lower rates of immigration is harder to say. Whites may sympathize with their new Arab and North African cousins, or they may become like other Muslim countries, i.e. restrictionists. Once again, too many variables to make solid predictions. We must have a realistic picture of the Muslim people though and not turn the abstraction “Islam” into some sort of Satanic prototype we expect people to conform to. If we are going to reject this scenario, and stick it out with Christianity no matter how much it’s failed or try for a revival of Paganism, we have to understand that the hostile minority in the heart of Europe is there to stay. The BNP used to favor repatriation. Imagine how much money it would take to convince your average Pakistani or African immigrant (or one who was born in the West and doesn’t even speak the language of his ancestors) to go back to his country of origin, multiply it by the number of non-whites and you would easily see that such schemes are impractical for all countries but those maintaining the largest white majorities (you think entitlement programs are expensive!). Genocide should be off the table [Scroob note: I should hope so!]; the same with regard to crazy ideas like banning Islam or the Koran which would lead to civil war and be incompatible with civilized society. What options are left? I have no good answers, and neither does anyone else. ___________________________________ This guy Hoste is one dumb asshole. I’m starting to wonder why I visit these sites. Some impulse towards race-patriotism, but it all seems so pointless. Truth gets told, but not always understood, and then it is followed by mental backsliding. 1. Very few people in GW’s oh-so-precious, all-there-is reality (no, make that REALITY) care about saving the white race per se. I certainly don’t, and I am known elsewhere (on the innumerable sites from which I have been banned) as an extreme racialist obsessive. If the standard white man were an uncivilized, inbred retard (say, after the bulk of our people shall have converted to ‘wiggerdom’), I would say To Hell With ‘Em. I’ve encountered plenty of dysgenic whites. I’d rather be ruled by (today’s) Japanese, or Jews. Any group of people have their better and worse elements, but overall, American Jewry is highly civilized. We object to them because of their anti-WN politics, and to some extent, sharp (and annoyingly ethno-favoritist) business practices. But unlike Negroids, most Arabs, and most Latinos, Jews make enormous contributions, at least in America. Jewish intelligence is a major positive factor in America’s global scientific and economic competitiveness (just as it is a major liability racially). Jews are bad insofar as they facilitate multiculturalism and race-replacement. Unlike blacks, they are not bad in themselves. I do believe that, as a community, they have lower ethics than whites (we whites, however, are the gold standard of ethicality!). But I have known, as well as know of, many highly ethical Jews, whose public giving, beyond mere Jewish causes, is very obvious throughout my California community. This may be a tactic of Jewish ethnic survival, but the larger community does benefit - unlike in the cases of blacks and Arabs, who only offer bad music, social pathologies, and endless complaints. 2. The point is that we wish to save our race not simply because it is ours, but because it is worth saving when set against some universal moral standard. GW’s and others’ views come dangerously close to the fallacy of anthropomorphizing unwilled, merely natural processes, as though in an allegedly meaningless universe - ie, a physical world without transcendent, exogenous moral order - the purity and perpetuity of my genes should matter to me more than hedonism. But why??!! Without any universal standards, who cares if my children or even grandchildren (which would be worse) are mongrels (the grandkids would be worse, as mongrelized children would result from choices on my own part over which I presumably had original control)? I keep saying variations of this, but to no effect. 3. I wish my race to survive in a pure form, or as pure as possible, because I love not my people’s biology (other than appreciating the beauty of the better looking among our women), but my people’s culture. I love my civilizational patrimony, the High Culture of the West, understand that it is morally (as well as aesthetically) superior to the productions of other races, and recognize that it was the unique, autochthonous product or series of products of a particular gene-pool, and that there is no a priori reason to suppose that it will be perpetuated and expanded by communities alien to the creator ethnie. 4. The idiot Hoste (like so many racial nationalists, not to mention libertarians) exhibits no understanding of the deeper philosophical, theological and historical sources of our superior culture - set against which Islam is TOTALLY ALIEN, and indeed I suspect inimical (why have Muslims contributed so little to the cultural flowering of mankind?) to great artistic enterprise (outside of narrow bounds, like architecture and calligraphy, and some poetry). Hoste’s very standpoint is wrong. Contemplating conversion to Islam as a method of white survival is really giving the game away at the outset. We must preserve our race in order (I believe) to preserve our culture and heritage. We don’t give up our culture and heritage simply in order to preserve the sub-species. 5. The West is Christian. Islam is inimical to every aspect of Western Civ, regardless of specific periods. It is inimical to Christendom, to the Renaissance, to the Enlightenment, to liberalism, to conservatism, to individualism, to ethno-communalism (Hoste ought to read even just a very basic introduction to Islam and its history.) A white/European Islam might well evolve into more benign directions than we currently see, but that is pure assumption without evidence. What a Europe converted to Islam would experience would be a profound reduction not merely of civilizational quality, but of the very chances of future European cultural renewal. 6. Islam “the best bet” for white survival?! Who writes such crap? The best bet for white survival is what I advocate: a re-racialized Christianity, a Crusader Christianity. Given me back the Puritans (not that I would have liked them in absolute terms) and old-school Catholics over the Islamists. The former produced plenty of children (in 1900 approx 30% of the globe was white). What killed white fertility was feminism, socialism and secular humanism. Why reach outside of one’s racial inheritance to increase fecundity, when our own traditions were just fine in that regard? Utter lunacy! 7. Finally, they (Euro-Muslims) are not “there to stay”. That’s what people said not very long ago about East German border guards. They are there until whites get their crusader acts together. Of course, there must be repatriation - TOTAL REPATRIATION, not simply of Muslims, but of ALL THIRD WORLD COLONIZERS OF EUROPE (note I say “Europe”; true hard-cores would include North America; ultra-hard cores would include Planet Earth, and would have little use for repatriation at all; my Christian sensibility can only countenance European race-cleansing, but that is non-negotiable). And no, Fred, that is not “genocide” (get your head out of your ass). It is “national liberation”. And no, we’re not paying the colonizers to go. If we are exceptionally munificent, we will allow them to remove personalty. And yes, there will be civil war, and not just between Europeans and Muslim settler-colonialists, but also between Euro-patriots and race traitors. There must be ideological as well as racial clean-ups. 8. And since when is banning Islam and the Koran incompatible with “civilized society”? Doing so is part of the essence of civilized society in the West. Perhaps it’s time for MR to host a debate whose purpose is to begin to define some type of minimalist WN agenda. Something practical. Meanwhile this Hoste character should be run out of nationalist organizations. 21
Posted by Armor on Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:25 | #
We object to them mostly because they support the race-replacement and the subversion of European culture. Another reason to wish they would leave for Israel is that they are not European (or not entirely). The cultural subversion by Jews isn’t simply a result of their ethnic hostility. I think they are really different. It isn’t hard to see that the English are different from the French and the Germans. The Jews are much more different.
I have always felt that most of Western literature had nothing to do with me. What I like is the European way of being and the European looks. I feel I can not have the same intensity of communication with non whites. But I haven’t much experience of talking to East-Asians. When I see some pictures of blond children in Afghanistan or even Pakistan, I feel a proximity with them, even though I know that they are necessarily different. I think there isn’t much left of my people’s culture. What’s left is their gene pool and their natural ways.
Personally, I don’t care if non-whites learn to appreciate “western culture” after the Whites are gone.
I think it is mostly immigration, as well as urbanization, the contraception pill, income redistribution to non-whites, overlong useless studies, unemployment, the necessity of both parents having a job, pessimism… and other factors. 22
Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 01:02 | # @Fred Scrooby Unlike others here I can recognise that figures like a 92% white majority to not constitute race replacement in Europe and all your BS scare mongering seeing how the bulk of non-white immigration came into European countries after the post WW2 period in Europe and during the 60’s and 70’s which you would not have for European and US supported and created Marxist Communism, creating WW2 with the “white saviour” Hitler and Churchill’s creating and establishing the Cold War. Turkish workers were brought into Germany as a result of a labour shortage from the East with the creation of the Berlin Wall after extra-ordinary destabilising campaign conducted by US and British Army and intelligence.
23
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 05:39 | # Dasein’s comments at 22:34 above are among the more sensible in this thread so far. He rightly cautions us to distinguish between the propaganda and the reality, since uncritically swallowing the former can easily result in the adoption of a defeatist attitude. In Europe generally, if not in the great metropoles in which the other tend to cluster, the rising tide of colour is barely discernible. Whist in Germany recently I drove from Karlsruhe through Rheinland-Pfalz, the Mosel region, Koblenz across to the Harz and on to Berlin without coming across a dusky countenance. There were plenty of course in both Frankfurt and Berlin but such is well-known and already anticipated. I look forward to Dasein’s forthcoming article on the matter. 24
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 07:03 | # The brute reality of the situation is that if Islam, and therefore the brown man, came to dominate in Europe mass mongrelization would follow in its wake. To my mind, the point is not even arguable. 25
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:06 | # Of course Fred, the simple fact that Forbes (or whoever was responsible for the photograph above) would go to the trouble of assembling such an atypical sample of ‘Danish’ children must indicate the intention of transmitting a message. I don’t know there is any such watchdog agency in Europe responsible for chastising advertisers who use images which don’t portray an approved level of racial mixing. I suspect it’s more something that ad agencies perform on their own volition, perhaps sometimes as a way of buttering up their clients through broadcasting liberal sensibilities. Are Jews behind it? Sometimes no doubt. Two of the largest London ad agencies (Saatchi and the WPP Group) are Jewish owned. But then, how to account for a long-running campaign like the ‘United Colors of Benetton’? When that burst upon us, Benetton was a little-known knitwear company from provincial Italy. I think who’s behind it and why are they doing it are interesting and valid questionsthat do require us to peel back the layers as you suggest. You claim to have already done so and determined that ‘Jews’ and ‘for race-replacement purposes’ are the correct answers, at least for the US. I’m not so sure. I believe we are doing it to ourselves and that, in a very serious sense, that is an even more intractable problem that any that Jews might present us with. 26
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:23 | # I don’t think ‘we’ can help ourselves; it is a function of the social conditioning that we been subjected to. Now that of course leads into a further discussion of the origins of that conditioning and the identities of the conditioners ... The collective ‘we’ excludes of course those few social renegades who have for one reason or another managed to evade or transcend the conditioning and its effects, and who tend to congregate around venues such as this. You know who you are. 27
Posted by EA Steve on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:30 | # Fred Scrooby, I have actually been partially converted on the JQ. I realize the nature of Jewish elites better, and notice the Jews hypocritically use their own ethnic networks for career ladders. Jewish Power is a little ethnocentric, when it comes to the elites. What particularly opened my eyes were the nomination of Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court and the tenative appointment of Chuck Schumer to replace Harry Reid (if Reid loses). However, Dan Dare does have a point in stating that our situation is part-self inflicted by us White Gentiles. Their are many wealthy and degenerate White Gentiles who are more than happy to race-replace their own people. He is not necessarily degenerate, but look at how anti-White Bill Gates is. The Kenndy’s and Bush’s also apparently support the Hispanization of America. There are Jewish and White Gentiles elites controlling the system. 28
Posted by EA Steve on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:33 | # Correction: “There are many wealthy and degenerate White Gentiles who are….” not “their” 29
Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:06 | # @Fred Scrooby Your boring repetitious statements about race have no substance behind them. As I repeatedly written I put race and ETHNICITY as a factor but unlike you I do not consider it the only factor and put it into a geo-political agenda and historical perspective throughout history aligning nation states and their boundaries to suit the Empire/foreign power they are aligned with. So what is your opinion than of our “imminent” race replacement in Europe and the US and the agenda behind it? That Jews hate Europeans and Americans so they would to destroy modern western societies that they largely created? Organised Jewry has been at the forefront of western government, industry, banking for hundreds of years in Britain since Cromwell establishing the City of London and the basis for international commerce and finance of the British Empire culminating in central control of Rothschild and establishment of international companies linking imperial trade which continues today with BP so if they wanted to destroy western civilisation that would have done decades ago. Like post WW1 Germany or Post Soviet Russia they would could have imposed economic policy that would have collapsed the economy and dramatically had an impact of population growth far more than importation of a few thousand immigrants. You can complain about “cultural Marxism” and “open immigration” and that Europe will soon be like South Africa which is a complete lie of course seeing how there are only about 1 ½ million Pakistanis in Britain and you are assuming that 3rd generation immigrant communities have the same high birth rate as first immigrant families another fallacy. The problem is quite simple native ethnic populations of Europe simply do not want children and like women prefer to advance there career than raise a family and a cheap domestic labour workforce from abroad which jobs we can’t outsource are brought in to fill the labour shortage. 30
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:10 | #
It’s not what Neather said. Oliviero Toscani, Benetton’s creative director until 1998, responsible for many of the controversial images, is allegedly Jewish.
31
Posted by jamesUK on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 01:57 | # @Dasein
They may not want it but that is how economies work which is based on the Adam Smith principle of create cheap and sell at maximum profit. If the native European populations were not so selfish and decided to raise a family rather than pursue there careers and people willing to menial labour jobs there would not be a population deficit and need to import cheap labour. If they are so against immigration why don’t they elect parties or candidates on the immigration issue or field one themselves on this issue? Why dont you stop being an armchair jockey and actively do something about it? @Desmond Jones
Allegedly is not proof we need facts and companies promote multi-culturalism all the time as it targets the wide target audience possible. 32
Posted by Armor on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:12 | # “United Colors of Benetton” Maybe shock value sells: the more disgusting the ads, the higher the sales. But it should become less effective as it is used more often. My guess is that it doesn’t work. I’m sure that Jews are overrepresented in advertising agencies, and that they push for that kind of thing. At the same time, what made those ads possible is that at some point those ads were allowed by the governments, by the media, the subways and bus companies… In Hollywood, there used to be the Hays moral code. In Hitler’s Germany, they probably enforced some kind of similar moral code. In Britain too, I suppose the government, the media and the schools used to enforce decency rules that were close enough to what most people were comfortable with. Since then, the moral codes have been discarded, and degeneracy is imposed on society from the top down. The growing power of Jews in western countries certainly plays a role in this. The economic concentration in the advertising sector also gives Jews more power. “Two of the largest London ad agencies (Saatchi and the WPP Group) are Jewish owned” In France, the biggest advertising company is Publicis. I think the ad agencies are pushing in the same direction as the media, the governments, the schools. It makes it all the more difficult to think that they are doing it for money. Dan Dare: “I believe we are doing it to ourselves” Even if it is done by other Whites, it is being done by a minority that does not reflect what normal people want. Besides, the Jews play a visible role in this: we SEE it constantly in the media. What you may ask is: how big a role? But even if we are not sure that their role is crucial, we should still bring down their numbers in the media and in key institutions in proportion to their numbers in our society. What could be wrong with that? I think it is disgusting that I can not listen to a pro-European point of view when I turn on the radio, but I keep hearing about the Jewish holocaust at nauseam, and about all kind of trivialities. Do you exempt the Jews of responsibility over the holocaust brainwashing? Before you start worrying that we may assign too much blame on the Jews, you should wait until their numbers in the media have been brought down to 1% of the population. If it doesn’t improve things a lot, it’s bound to improve them a little. What could be wrong with that? I think their over-representation in the media is immoral in itself. Please explain if you think I’m wrong. What other measure can you think of that would certainly improve things a little? 33
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 03:11 | # Armor: My concern about placing the preponderance of the blame for the degeneracy within our society on Jews is that so much of it is in reality self-inflicted, and that a reliance on facile solutions like naming the Jew will not, in itself, bring about the societal change that we all crave.
34
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:09 | # Here’s facts for you. The Journolist was a very Jewish affair. Suck on those sweets for a while. 35
Posted by Bill on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:33 | # jamesUK on July 22, 2010, 12:57 AM
Spot on! In the recent General Election, voters voted overwhelmingly for pro immigration parties. In approximate numbers, (from memory) out of an electorate of 40 million voters, 30 million exercised their right to vote. Of that 30 million, 29 million voted for pro immigration parties, despite media claims that 80% plus of the voter’s main concern was immigration! Work that one out! At the time, I post at length on how the media engineered the debate to focus on the economic question of to ‘spend or cut,’ to the exclusion of all other. This ploy was an outstanding media success. I consider myself very fortunate to have lived my teenage years during the decade of the 1950’s. Without my experience and perspective of life at that time I could not have absorbed the ways (and means) of how my country has been totally decimated. I have written extensively elsewhere on this topic - depicting how life was (for me) during that period. Liberalism tells me that truth depends upon from which platform one is viewing. I must go along with this (to some degree) as I have read many accounts of life in the ‘50’s which have been totally contrary to my own perception and experience, which of course for me, was overwhelmingly good. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The 1960’s ushered in an imported culture war, an era of lack of social discipline, the cement which holds a nation together. Liberalism kicked in with a vengeance, lack of respect, lack of deference, social engineering on a undreamed of scale, the feminism of the male, concern with fashion, beautifying, deodorants, long hair. The drip, drip of the media lampooning and undermining the conservative establishment, the pushing of sex, the encouragement of all things base to the human instinct. The 1960’s have just continued ever since. No matter what party was in power we always got liberalism. From the outset, Mary Whitehouse was a tireless campaigner against all of these things, continuing to her death. She was vilified and ridiculed remorselessly in typical liberal fashion. I think in future years, I think Mary Whitehouse will rank alongside the name of Enoch Powell as a prophet of doom for the English nation. Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Who or what was behind it all? Or did it just happen? 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:45 | # Jamesuk,
You can click on an image of Toscani on this page: http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/the_table_of_free_voices/the_table_of_free_voices.htm In fact, companies marketing multiculturalism are not merely targeting the widest possible audience. The marketing of the MultiCult to consumers takes the form of a narrow and highly politicised narrative often involving critique of whiteness and white society. The most egregious examples overstep the bounds of mere anti-racist utopianism and enter a Bismuthian dystopia of white women preparing to fuck negroes. Companies only market miscegenation and the supremacy of the negro over a feminised version of the European male to European women because, as individuals, the managers involved in decision-making want it that way. There is never any product USP in suggesting that a white woman fucks a negro. There is no great conceptual wealth in it, no socio-economic caché. It is solely an anti-white stratagem. You want evidence, but prior art in this respect does exist in the Jewish tradition of subversion as described by Nathan Abrams: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_jewish_quarterly_on_porn/ Do you think that it is stretching the realms of (of course, always) rabid and irrational anti-Semitism too far to accuse actors in this particularly subterrenean field of racial warfare of steering European males in one direction and European women in another? 37
Posted by Bill on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:06 | # Some more ramblings. The ‘60’s (in Britain) was light years away in the future from Thatcherism and Reagan neo-liberal economics, so we cannot apportion blame to Margaret Thatcher for the cultural onslaught launched upon our nation in the1960’s. Thatcher did not arrive on the British political scene for a full decade or more - until elected prime minister in 1979. In other words, a cultural war had been in full swing for over two decades by the time Thatcher and neo-liberalism came along. Although it is interesting to note that from the demise of post war socialism in 1951 it was followed by 13 years of solid conservative rule until the revolving door admitted again, the socialist Wilson and his ‘white heat of technology’ government in 1964. Of course, as a mere callow youth, all of this passed me by, the only influence of note during this time was that of my parents. Though both being working class - were staunch Tories. It wasn’t until much later in life did I begin to suspect that in the political world all was not as it it seemed, other forces must be at work behind the scenes, otherwise how was it possible to get what millions had never voted for? It transpires that over all these years, (how many - who knows?) shadowy forces were at work running in parallel to whatever government was in power. These forces had an agenda contrary to the proclamation of the Reds and the Blues as published in their respective manifestos. Fast forward to the present. My country now bears no resemblence to that of my youth, my country is breathing its last and is now on life support. The Conservatism of my youth has gone, the politics of my youth have evolved mysteriously and clandestingly into something called Liberalism and has enveloped the nation in a totalitarian police state-like grip. Liberal forces at work have launched a race replacement programme which spells the end of the English nation and its white people. The destruction of the nation state and the white race is at the core of these events. What has been going on over all these years? What does it all add up to? Who? What? Why? Cui Bono? 38
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:45 | # Bill: cui bono 1. The global and national power elites, under the auspices of banks in general and the Jewish financial dynasties in particular, who are broad internationalists seeking absolute control as a class and as inviduals, and to whose ambitions the natural individualism and creativity of European Man constitute a barrier. Hence the drive to isolate him from political power and influence through nationhood, the principal means of which happens also to be genocidal (I don’t believe the genocide is a goal in itself for most European-born power elitists). I listed the categories of power elites in the following article: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_problem_of_the_power_elite/ 2. Jewry, whose religion is not one of personal salvation from sin - there is no concept of sin in it - but of making the world peaceful by bringing down the “barriers” and “causes of conflict” inherent to human difference. This peace is the precondition for the messianic age during which a political (not spiritual) leader will annoint Jews, who alone will retain their ethnicity, as the master race entitled to all wealth and privilege. This Jewish religious struggle is near-identically mirrored by the political, intellectual and ethnic struggles of secular Jewry, which tends to confirm MacDonald’s thesis of a genetic underpinning to all of this. They can’t help it. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:29 | # A Mexican woman “brown beret” counter-demonstrating against white supporters of the new (and extremely mild) Arizona law: “This is America. It is Mexican land! If you’re white you don’t belong here! Go back to Europe!” http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/the-new-brownshirts/ All of U.S. organized Jewry and official Jewry, no exceptions — zero exceptions (remember “Progess by Pesach”?) — strongly supports this woman and strongly supports and encourages all anti-Euro Mexican activists like her, while it strongly supports the diametrical opposite for Israel, which is a Jewish national socialist apartheid state. Give that some thought (not JamesUK, he can’t think) and as you do, think of the power of organized Jewry in the U.S. This single Mexican activist in this video of course is not the problem. The problem is an immense movement of Mexicans in this country with exactly her ideas, and their very powerful U.S.-based funders and enablers who stay in the background. For example, where do penniless Mexican peons and illegal aliens suddenly get all this political power, all this funding, all these powerful insider political connections in this country? They have huge power, their groups like MECHA, La Raza, Lulac, and so on (with new ones springing up daily) garnering hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the Ford Foundation, the U.S. federal government directly, and private donors. How does that come about? It comes about because some powerful group in this country keeps very aggressively backing them with encouragement, huge funding, and insider political connections, legal expertise. Who might that group be that keeps very aggressively backing them? (Not JamesUK, he can’t think. Just the others who may be scratching their heads.) 40
Posted by Head scratcher, but not really on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:56 | #
41
Posted by Bill on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:06 | # Just seen where BNP Chairman Nick Griffin has been rejected by the palace and will not be going to the ball to meet the Queen at Buckingham palace. Outrageous, declares Griffin, this is thoroughly anti British. I didn’t read anymore, but what an opportunity for Griffin to grab the headlines and tell them some home truths. Will he do it? I dunno, but he’s in terrible trouble with his own party and could do with some advantageous publicity. They’re changing their minds at Bucking palace….. 42
Posted by Bill on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:35 | # Palace withdraw BNP’s chairman Nick Griffin’s invitation at last minute. 43
Posted by Armor on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:25 | #
If a crook is specialized in swindling old, naive people, we should stop him, not blame the weakness of his victims. Anyway, I don’t think that some kind of mysterious rot has set in that infects everyone. Most people are still healthy. Even if you think that Jews only have limited influence, you should at least recognize that our problems come from the top and that government’s policy and the media are hostile to white people. And they prevent us from taking action to change things. I doubt we can turn things around if you insist that the Jews should remain massively over-represented in the media and top institutions. In any case, the BBC and the media trusts should be dismantled. We should focus our attacks on specific institutions and on their leftist/Jewish infiltrators, but we shouldn’t spend too much time blaming the leftist/liberal disease. Leftism would not be a problem if we could stop/reverse the infiltration process, as Joseph McCarthy tried to do in the US in the 1950s. I think he didn’t name the Jews, he blamed the communists. Also, we need a lot of decentralization, especially in the field of education. I think there are two things : 1) There is a conjunction of several problems brought about by technical progress Technical progress brought the end of traditional society. Now, we are all rolling stones. There is also the growth of bureaucracy: we create an administration to do a particular job, and then, after some time, the administration starts becoming bigger and bigger and no longer serves the country’s interests. It is a natural evolution that no one is responsible for. I think James Burnham and Sam Francis wrote about that kind of thing in their texts about managerialism. 2) There is an anti-European policy that is imposed from the top by anti-European activists It isn’t hard to take measures to counter the destabilization and break-up of society caused by technical progress. It should be the role of government. It should be especially easy to fix things in Western countries, since we have all the expertise and intelligence that we need. But something doesn’t work. Instead of trying to fix the problems, they have decided to have us replaced with non-whites. They don’t do it for our own good. It is unlikely that our government’s policy is the result of cultural rot in the general population, since the general population resents that policy. Most people are still mentally healthy, unlike the leftist immigration-supporters, who are usually not very bright. The reasonable explanation is to accept that our governments have been hijacked. In the same way that we are intimidated into silence, most of the technicians and decision-makers in the government and administration are intimidated into not challenging the race-replacement policy. I think the decision of replacing white people comes from a tiny minority of activists who have a foothold in Western governments and institutions, and a very special agenda of their own. Who could they be if not Jews? Especially when we see that big Jews openly support the policy. It’s not even a secret. For example, it has never been a secret that the media had a huge influence on the result of elections. We just need to realize that it is more than a huge influence: it is a determining influence. 44
Posted by Armor on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:28 | # “the rot had already set in well before they came nest in such numbers in positions of influence. It is a symptom of the chronic sickness in our society that they have been able to do so.” In fact, it is a symptom of the sickness of government institutions, not of society. 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:00 | #
And when he was specific, he was careful to name an Anglo-Saxon Yankee.
n/a comments:
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/07/wasps-jews-and-mccarthy.html MacDonald:
46
Posted by Armor on Fri, 23 Jul 2010 03:57 | # About the JQ. If we refuse to acknowledge the role played by Jews, we allow a huge waste of time and energy by white activists who try do something for our people. If we have any respect for them, we should help them become aware of the Jewish problem. Most of us would like to think that we can have an gentle influence on the democratic process, and that we can really convince some of our opponents and change things in that way. But it won’t work. If we understand a little the Jewish problem, how our democracy doesn’t work, and how a small minority can have a lock on the political system, then we won’t waste time trying to change European mentalities in order to take our countries back. We’ll try to think of a better tactic. I think a white revolution could happen in several ways. There could be a civil war. Or there could be a bloodless coup, or a rebellion within government. We could even obtain laws preventing Jewish over-representation in government and the media. Mentioning the JQ may be rude to the Jews but is preferable to our racial demise or to a civil war in the future. 47
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:07 | # I have to say I agree with Armor in regard to the JQ and am baffled by the view of some here that getting deep into this or that philosophy is what’s needed to extricate us from this race-replacement mess. I fail to see how getting deep into any “new philosophy” is going to do that: what got us into the mess was not any new philosophy espoused by us or the other side, and no new counter-philosophy will get us out. As Armor says, what got us into it was establishment of control over certain key political levers of power by a group that wanted open borders, that wanted the subordination of Euro-race peoples to non-whites, and that wanted the end of traditional Euro-race culture and the transformation of Euro peoples into tiny racial minorities in their own lands. Why this group wants those things is clear when one understands that its leaders are the Jews — clear provided one knows something about that tribe’s mentality and the way they feel vis-à-vis Euros. They feel hostility, envy, resentment, jealousy, fear, rage, antipathy, very often hatred — they feel rivalry at best, mortal enmity at worst. In fact what this group wants is the extinction, for all practical purposes, of the Euro-race peoples. That’s the only way to interpret what’s going on because that that is the inevitable outcome of present very aggressive governmental policies is obvious: no one can claim not to see that that is the inevitable outcome, and therefore anyone who continues to push such policies must explicitly in his mind want that specific end result. There is no way to argue against that. It’s two-plus-two, case closed. Yes, yes, there are lots of dupes, foot-soldiers, and useful idiots who don’t see that inevitable outcome but not the central core of powerful men ultimately responsible for pushing this: that central core of powerful men, such as George Soros and Abe Foxman, and thousands of others we never hear of but who are just as ill-intentioned toward Euros, do see that inevitable outcome because they have to see it, see it as clearly as I do, and evidently want it because they keep pushing for it. If no “new philosophy” will get us out of this crisis, what will? As I see it, only a process of enough whites waking up will. If enough wake up, furthermore, the problem will be solved peacefully, “democratically.” If lots wake up but not quite enough to solve it peacefully there will remain the possibility for it to be solved by force. If on the other hand lots don’t wake up, it won’t be solved, because the ring-leaders of the problem, the Jews, will push it to the bitter end, meaning effective Euro-race extinction for all practical purposes: the racial-biological Brazilianization/racial-biological Maghrebization of the Euro race peoples throughout what is known as the Eurosphere. Any Euro race individuals who are currenty sitting on the fence about all this must right now stop sitting on the fence and take a stand: this is not a dress-rehearsal but the real deal: certain forces, which I identify as most importantly the Jews although they have allies, are driving your race to the equivalent of extinction for all practical purposes (survival of a relatively tiny remnant of unmixed whites will amount to extinction “for all practical purposes,” as should be obvious, and will place that tiny remnant very close to actual extinction for real, literal extinction). James Kalb is also searching for a “new philosophy” and argues against “liberalism” by pointing out its harmful effects. He ignores the possibility that men pushing “liberalism” already know its harmful effects and are pushing it precisely for those effects, because their aim is to disrupt, weaken, topple, destroy. It’s like one of these old Hitchcock movies from the 1940s where the husband is slowly poisoning his wife: Kalb’s pointing out the harm of liberalism to the men pushing liberalism on society is like Kalb’s going up to the husband in this movie and pointing out to him the harm of putting strychnine in his wife’s cup of tea every afternoon. The husband already knows that. It’s why he’s doing it. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Jul 2010 06:33 | # People will say the Jews aren’t capable of doing this. No? The Jews are capable of directing U.S. policy toward Israel and locking that policy into place so it never deviates fundamentally from near-unconditional support. Everyone in the United States and throughout the entire world knows that, knows that the Jews are directing U.S. policy toward Israel. The Jews are doing that because they deem it of utmost importance to themselves. Well, there’s something else Jews deem of utmost importance to themselves: open borders, and if they can do the one, they can do the other. And they are doing the other. They’re doing both. “So the Jews can do everything? They’re supermen?” No. But they can do both those things: direct U.S. policy toward Israel and direct U.S. immigration/open-borders policy. “Then why are Eurosphere countries with few Jews doing the same thing?” In part because the U.S. is both powerfully influencing and outright coercing them behind the scenes the way Moscow powerfully influenced and outright coerced its “Soviet Satellite nations” behind the scenes prior to 1989. U.S. open borders immigration policy is under Jewish control and Jews in the U.S. government use the power and prestige of the U.S. as leverage to get other Eurosphere nations to do the same. Also, a number of these other countries do have lots of their own Jews, namely France, Britain, Canada, and more and more Australia. Those with only small numbers of Jews see their small Jewish communities act as Trojan horses for introducing the influence of Jews from places where they’re numerous and powerful: the U.S., France, and Britain. There are also the myriad Jewish-produced pro-race-mixing pop-cultural influences on all these countries, made in Jewish-controlled Hollywood, Jewish-controlled television, etc. This U.S.-and-French-Jewish-produced pro-race-mixing crap has a HUGE influence on Eurosphere teenagers and women. I think some of the comrades in Europe don’t want to believe the extent to which their own countries, such as Great Britain, are today influenced and in fact outright coerced behind the scenes by the U.S. government. So they reject the thesis of Jewish control over their countries via the U.S. government. They’re wrong. 49
Posted by jamesUK on Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:01 | # @Fred Scrooby (aka Armchair Patton) Maybe you are to stupid to read my comments but I never said that Jews were not behind immigration into the US historically but today in contemporary US starting in the late 60’s and 80’s Jews have been taking a more right wing political overview as the leftists and socialists/revolutionary governments were/are anti-Israel. I am talking about the current situation in the US with the largest new service Fox News taking an anti-immigrant/minority position especially since 9/11. And where is the proof both contemporary and historically that Jews were responsible for immigration into Europe and why would they import a large hostile anti-Israel voting bloc? If Jews are leading immigration into Europe most non-white being Muslim then why are they promoting people like Wilders or hyping up and promoting the utterly bogus Islamic threat with books like Londanistan? And you haven’t even addressed any of the issued I raised. You are like a boring repetitious parrot constantly going over the same BS points. I take it you are a frequent poster on Stormfront or The Forbidden Truth? There is no danger of immigration to planet Scrooby as there is not enough space to fit them in beside your massive ego and big head. 50
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:37 | # Fred Scrooby on July 24, 2010, 01:23 AM (in reply to James July 23, 2010, 11:01 PM)
Overtime, this has puzzled me too. I’ve persistently asked myself why are the left in bed with Islam and at the same slaughtering them in Iraq and Afghanistan? It didn’t make sense. Why is the EDL (English Defence League) getting a free pass in demonstrating against militant Islam in English cities when the BNP receive a truncheon on the head for doing the same thing? Why are people like Mel Phillips, Larry Auster, GOV, and their like vehemently anti Islam immigration but cool with any other? It looks to me as if this is a Jewish schism between the right and left (but Fred says there isn’t a right and left) Neocon and Jewish Right. Didn’t Auster do an extensive piece on this. 51
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Jul 2010 06:53 | # Re above @ 5.57am. Correction
Should read Neocon and Jewish Left. Didn’t Auster do an extensive piece on this? 52
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:41 | # ”You ask a good question here: Why is Jewry both aggressively hyping the threat to the West of Islamic terrorism on the one hand, and on the other, aggressively promoting the replacement of traditional Euro-race-and-culture populations of the Eurosphere with non-European races of Moslem religion and culture? You ask that same question a different way above, and it’s a good one. I don’t have an exact answer ready, but that the Jews are doing both those things is not open to question, because it’s obvious.” (—my comment) In an e-mail someone told me, “that’s simple: it’s two different groups of Jews doing those things.” Wrong. It’s the exact same Jews doing both: the exact same Jews continually sounding the alarm about the threat of Islamic terrorism are fanatical supporters of the Islamization of Europe (and the Mexicanization of the U.S. and, if possible, the Negrification of everywhere — except Israel of course). Maybe it’s as Lawrence Auster explained once, I think in that piece he wrote for Front Page Magazine — in some ways Jews are sort of on autopilot: way back, maybe in the year 1000, or 500 AD, or 1500 BC, or whenever, they got the idea that supporting X, Y, or Z was “good for the Jews,” and although times have changed since the Bronze Age they never got the message so still are fanatical supporters of the exact same X, Y, or Z today. They’re on autopilot. Now, I have other explanations that seem likelier but that one of Auster’s may not be totally out of the question. When such large chunks of your brainpower are devoted to acquiring as much gold for yourself as possible through Ponzi schemes you don’t have all that much thinking capacity left to devote to figuring out that 2010 isn’t the same as 2010 BC. 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:15 | # ”When such large chunks of your brainpower are devoted to acquiring as much gold for yourself as possible through Ponzi schemes” (—my comment) Think I’m joking? Browse this web-site, http://zsidozas.wordpress.com/ : the Jews are all running Ponzi schemes, even the Ultra-Orthodox running them on their fellow-Ultra-Orthodox. They can’t control themselves. Must be some gene they have or something. You thought Bernie Madoff was the only one? You don’t hear of the true extent of this Jewish national trait — addiction to Ponzi schemes — because the (fill in the blank) _______ control the mass media — just as you never hear of the extent to which rabbis sexually molest Jewish kids, you only hear about when Catholic priests do it (and then you never stop hearing about it, it’s drummed into your head day and night). 54
Posted by jamesUK on Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:46 | # @Fred Scrooby The problem is you and other commentators and I used to think this way too given the control and domination of the mass media, banking and European and American governments that they consider Jews as a monolithic group but I think and there is historical presidences for this that Jews can differ and take conflicting political positions while at the core support key positions that strengthen the Jewish group and attack anyone that acknowledges or presents evidence that these various political/social movements fundamental political positions incorporate policies that benefit the Jews. Immigration is certainly one of these weapons but they are not going to import illegals to the point they would undermine there own political base. They don’t want a a monolithic power base white or especially hostile minority groups Islamic or otherwise. Other non European counrties have a much worse case of western support of immigration and minority groups in there country that impedes the stability and livelihood of there nation states. Take a guess what they are? Plus you and other commentator completely negate how Jews cooperate and interact with groups on an international scale in geo-political positions especially in regards to foreign policy and organised crime which has or at least becoming part of the global system. I think we should abandon political phrases like left and right, socialist and conservative and identify these as simply vehicles, a front to drive an alternative agenda. Left and right both agree on all the major issues wither it be foreign policy or domestic issues just under a different pretext. That’s why Soros and right wing groups/organisations work together to support major policy issues like these colour revolutions and an international US lead global system. I don’t think soveriegn nation states exist anymore. Case in post the recent declaration by the Strasburgh court regarding the legalality of Kosovos independence. 55
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:24 | # Why Jews welcome Muslims Lawrence Auster Front Page Magazine June 2004 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:45 | # Bill, thanks for posting that link to the Auster article. I was just skimming through it, and a few of Auster’s interpretations of Jewish behavior there are wrong. If I have time later I’ll post something in more detail. Auster’s Jewish and I’m Catholic and he’s a lot smarter than I am, so it’s odd that I’m calling Auster wrong about a few of the Jewish motivations he explains. But he’s wrong. 57
Posted by Armor on Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:02 | # Bill: “Why are people like Mel Phillips, Larry Auster, GOV, and their like vehemently anti Islam immigration but cool with any other?” The neocons tend to be anti-Islam and pro-immigration, but I think Auster and GOV are both anti-Islam and anti-non-white-immigration. At the same time, they are friends with Jewish ‘counter-jihadists’ who support immigration. Gates of Vienna refuses to acknowledge the Jewish role in the immigration disaster. I’ve never read Auster’s blog, but from what I’ve read elsewhere, the problem with him is that he is more anxious to stop ‘antisemitism’ than immigration, and he denounces anyone who points to the Jewish role in mass immigration as an ‘antisemite’. 58
Posted by Armor on Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:04 | # About the tactic of naming the Jews : The Jews as a rule are proud to support ‘diversity’, which is a code-word for race-replacement. They support it openly, not just hiddenly. They say that race-replacement is the moral thing to do, and they condemn their critics as Nazis. (They also insist that Nazism was a unique absolute evil, even though they keep calling everyone Nazis). We also know that the Jews are over-represented (a euphemism for ‘in power’) in the media and many other crucial places. What people like me say is simply that Jewish activism has a crucial impact on our existence. Even if they don’t have a crucial impact, they do behave as enemies. Surprisingly, even as Jewish activists enthusiastically organize and cheer our race-replacement, they will say that it is ‘antisemitic’ to suggest that they are making any big difference. This is strange. If race-replacing is moral, there should be nothing wrong in observing that Jewish activists are the main <s>culprits</s> moral heroes behind it. They shouldn’t be ashamed of their considerable success. I can understand why Lawrence Auster would try to minimize the Jewish role, since he isn’t himself an immigration enthusiast. But most of the time, it is the same Jews who say that ‘we’ need more non-whites, and that Jews should not be blamed/congratulated for the non-white invasion. 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Jul 2010 04:16 | # “I can understand why Lawrence Auster would try to minimize the Jewish role, since he isn’t himself an immigration enthusiast.” (—Armor) I don’t follow exactly — why does Lawrence Auster minimize the Jewish role? 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Jul 2010 04:18 | # All good points by Armor in his last two comments. 61
Posted by Armor on Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:12 | # why does Lawrence Auster minimize the Jewish role? He thinks mass immigration is a wrong-headed policy. As he strongly self-identifies as a Jew (at least, I suppose he does), he doesn’t like to criticize his own people. He doesn’t like to say that the organized Jewish community is pursuing a noxious policy that he disapproves of. By contrast, leftist Jews who officially say that mass immigration is a great idea should have no reason to try to minimize the Jewish role. 62
Posted by Gussie Fink-Nottle on Sun, 25 Jul 2010 06:09 | #
Part of the explanation is paranoia. For the most part Jews don’t want to be seen as too powerful, even if they believe their ends are all benevolent and beneficial. It’s risky. What if the wind shifts and their favored policies aren’t working? Holocaust II: The Sequel. Also I think that the idea that the people are behind whatever policy probably sells better than the Council of the Elders pulling the strings behind the scene explanation would. After all, the United States is a democracy and the masses want to believe they have some influence over government policies. 63
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Jul 2010 06:32 | # The Tea Party vs. the Intellectuals
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5387 64
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 19:15 | # The big question about Geert Wilders in the minds of all thinking people is does he oppose only Holland’s Islamisation or does he also oppose its race-replacement? Hanna Saigo over at AltRight suspects the latter: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/euro-centric/wilders-program/ . This is an important question as goes without saying but, either way, Wilders is of course viewed by all thinking people as a major plus: opposing Holland’s Islamization is worlds better than the current régime which intends both to forcibly race-replace and to forcibly Islamize the Dutch. Half-a-loaf is far better than no loaf at all. (Of course if with Wilders we get the whole loaf, as Hanna Saigo suspects, that’s heaven-sent.) 65
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:17 | # “opposing Holland’s Islamization is worlds better than the current régime which intends both to forcibly race-replace and to forcibly Islamize the Dutch. Half-a-loaf is far better than no loaf at all.” (—my comment above) I’m assuming there, of course, that part of Holland’s Dutchmen can be salvaged before race-replacement goes to completion, salvaged as a remnant wherewith to re-create the original population minus the Heidi Klum gene, a vast improvement (a gene which by definition wouldn’t be in the unmiscegenated remnant). But I admit, if what gets Islamized is all mystery meat, then who cares? So I didn’t say that exactly right, above, but I trust my intentions were clear. 66
Posted by Cpt. Swindle on Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:54 | # Do you liberal pseudo-intellectual idiots believe that when you yourselves willingly become minorities that the colorful savages you cheer for are going to keep the monstrosities of 3rd third living from becoming your new Starbucks? Reading these posts do you see a pattern here? The white race will never ever assimilate and consciously stagnate itself reversing millions of years of evolutionary progress. You liberal morons are to misguided to make sense even to yourselves. Especially if you cannot see that this is all genocide by design, by a band of khazarian con men cheering and investing their lives into watching us, our people and way of life be eradicated, so that out of the ashes they can build their own little misguided feeble minded Jew World Order in defiance of all the true deeper laws of nature. These sad little men know nothing about life in the real world mistaking delusional ideas for concrete reality, thus far the best they could come up with is Israel. Wow! Lets rebuild with that as our archetype. Well? At least then we wouldn’t have to listen to you diversity is good (from a distance) assholes. Post a comment:
Next entry: London New Right: Bowden on Evola
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by graham_lister on Sat, 17 Jul 2010 02:00 | #
Wilders is useful, very useful in my view - with Islam and multiculturalism it’s a wedge issue which cracks open the liberal consensus. If a premise of multicultural ideology is the equality and value of different cultures, plus liberal tolerance of radical different lifestyles (such as homosexuals), well what happens if different minority groups have radical opposing values (when one is intolerant of the other?). There is an obvious logical incompatibility between those propositions. Normally when two multicultural liberal pieties contradict each other all there is simply an indecent silence but Wilders is using Islam versus European/Dutch values to crack this silence and finally start the process of reframing the debate about the future of white societies. Now his critique may not go far enough but it is very significant that in one of the most liberal societies in the world he is gaining traction and the Dutch are starting the process of questioning all of the “benefits” of multiculturalism in a way in which official Dutch society cannot simply ignore.
Off topic but there is a really good talk by Jonathan Bowden on 1984 on youtube; well worth a listen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX4TC1cBvjg