← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · angloiberian
Thread ID: 13912 | Posts: 28 | Started: 2004-05-27
2004-05-27 07:32 | User Profile
Hi,
I'm new to this board -- this is my first post.
To start with, I think my politics are fairly similar to that of most people here. I don't call myself a white nationalist, in part because I don't feel that I can refer to most whites as "my people". I grew up within a multicultural environment on the west coast, and although I don't strongly identify with most Asians, mestizos or blacks, I can't say that I identify any more strongly with most whites, given how conditioned most of them are by modern popular consumer culture. I feel like a rootless intellectual who doesn't have a common culture or people to call my own.
That said, I strongly appreciate my European heritage, and recognize that most of the political conventions I favor have developed within a western cultural context (as opposed to being designed from scratch according to a rationalistic intellectual blueprint). I guess I would call myself a decentralist -- I like the idea of a loose confederation of sovereign city-states.
But on to my question:
When I read the materials on the various white nationalist websites, I feel that the constant references to the Jews as a source of our current social and political problems reveal a false assumption, namely that certain destructive behaviors exhibited by high-ranking whites in our society are entirely due to Jewish influence and could never possibly be self-motivated.
I have a basic understanding of Kevin MacDonald's arguments regarding Jewish behavior (although I haven't read Culture of Critique). The argument is that a diaspora that possesses extreme cultural differences with their host culture will not assimilate, but will instead remain distinct. Under such conditions, neither the diaspora nor the host population will identify their goals with that of each other. If the diaspora doesn't identify or sympathize with the host population, they may use predatory tactics against them as a mode of survival. A disapora group that's not particularly educated, like the Gypsies, will rely mainly upon petty theft and occasional rioting. The Jews, however, are a high IQ demographic who are far more ambitious than the Gypsies, and therefore will rely upon more sophisticated tactics: highly-level manipulation in the realm of politics, economics, education and media.
I agree with this, but couldn't one say the same thing about white gentiles who adopt a position in society that removes them from everyday interaction with ordinary people? As an example, consider the various successful Anglo-American industrialists from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I don't know how much Jews may have influenced the decisions of people like Rockefeller, Ford (who was anti-Semitic), Morgan, or DuPont, but did they really need the assistance of the Jews to become complete bastards? If you interact exclusively with a small circle of capitalists and investers, it won't be long before you cease caring about the needs or aspirations of those outside of the group. We need to understand that industrialists themselves constitute a unique culture that is separate from that the majority of the population of whatever country they reside in, much in the same way that the Jews do. However, I don't see the various white nationalist websites launching many attacks against big capital (unless it's Jewish capital).
Industrialists and Jews are just two example of tribes that conceive of themselves as separate and distinct from their host population. However, humans in general align themselves with those who belong to the same in-group, while regarding those outside the in-group as expendable -- or at the very least, worthy of less consideration than those inside of it. And of course, factions form within individual in-groups. The Jews are merely one manifestation of basic human tribalism. We don't need their help to be completely brutal and deceitful toward each other. (We don't even need tribalism to be brutal and deceitful toward each other, as is evidenced by people who physically attack or lie to their loved ones.)
It doesn't seem to me that the Jews have a monopoly upon manipulative behavior. I don't regard the interests of most Jews as fully consonant with my own, but I can say the same thing about a lot of white demographic groups. Don't you think that such an extensive focus upon Jews causes one to ignore the fact that many of our existing social problems are caused by basic human nature and would continue to be present even in the Jews' absence?
I do agree that its possible that the suicidal ideologies of progressive universalism -- communism, neoconservatism, multiculturalism, liberal internationalism, etc -- would likely not have become as strong were it not for the Jews. We'd have other problems to deal with though, even if not on the same scale.
2004-05-27 11:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=angloiberian]Hi,
I'm new to this board -- this is my first post.
To start with, I think my politics are fairly similar to that of most people here. I don't call myself a white nationalist, in part because I don't feel that I can refer to most whites as "my people". I grew up within a multicultural environment on the west coast, and although I don't strongly identify with most Asians, mestizos or blacks, I can't say that I identify any more strongly with most whites, given how conditioned most of them are by modern popular consumer culture. I feel like a rootless intellectual who doesn't have a common culture or people to call my own.
That said, I strongly appreciate my European heritage, and recognize that most of the political conventions I favor have developed within a western cultural context (as opposed to being designed from scratch according to a rationalistic intellectual blueprint). I guess I would call myself a decentralist -- I like the idea of a loose confederation of sovereign city-states.
But on to my question:
When I read the materials on the various white nationalist websites, I feel that the constant references to the Jews as a source of our current social and political problems reveal a false assumption, namely that certain destructive behaviors exhibited by high-ranking whites in our society are entirely due to Jewish influence and could never possibly be self-motivated.
I have a basic understanding of Kevin MacDonald's arguments regarding Jewish behavior (although I haven't read Culture of Critique). The argument is that a diaspora that possesses extreme cultural differences with their host culture will not assimilate, but will instead remain distinct. Under such conditions, neither the diaspora nor the host population will identify their goals with that of each other. If the diaspora doesn't identify or sympathize with the host population, they may use predatory tactics against them as a mode of survival. A disapora group that's not particularly educated, like the Gypsies, will rely mainly upon petty theft and occasional rioting. The Jews, however, are a high IQ demographic who are far more ambitious than the Gypsies, and therefore will rely upon more sophisticated tactics: highly-level manipulation in the realm of politics, economics, education and media.
I agree with this, but couldn't one say the same thing about white gentiles who adopt a position in society that removes them from everyday interaction with ordinary people? As an example, consider the various successful Anglo-American industrialists from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I don't know how much Jews may have influenced the decisions of people like Rockefeller, Ford (who was anti-Semitic), Morgan, or DuPont, but did they really need the assistance of the Jews to become complete bastards? If you interact exclusively with a small circle of capitalists and investers, it won't be long before you cease caring about the needs or aspirations of those outside of the group. We need to understand that industrialists themselves constitute a unique culture that is separate from that the majority of the population of whatever country they reside in, much in the same way that the Jews do. However, I don't see the various white nationalist websites launching many attacks against big capital (unless it's Jewish capital).
Industrialists and Jews are just two example of tribes that conceive of themselves as separate and distinct from their host population. However, humans in general align themselves with those who belong to the same in-group, while regarding those outside the in-group as expendable -- or at the very least, worthy of less consideration than those inside of it. And of course, factions form within individual in-groups. The Jews are merely one manifestation of basic human tribalism. We don't need their help to be completely brutal and deceitful toward each other. (We don't even need tribalism to be brutal and deceitful toward each other, as is evidenced by people who physically attack or lie to their loved ones.)
It doesn't seem to me that the Jews have a monopoly upon manipulative behavior. I don't regard the interests of most Jews as fully consonant with my own, but I can say the same thing about a lot of white demographic groups. Don't you think that such an extensive focus upon Jews causes one to ignore the fact that many of our existing social problems are caused by basic human nature and would continue to be present even in the Jews' absence?
I do agree that its possible that the suicidal ideologies of progressive universalism -- communism, neoconservatism, multiculturalism, liberal internationalism, etc -- would likely not have become as strong were it not for the Jews. We'd have other problems to deal with though, even if not on the same scale.[/QUOTE]"Question: Does the Critique of Jews Overestimate the Goodness of White Gentiles?"
Answer: Yes.
"Let's all make some money" stated a manager for Entergy (my local power company) recently. He was a white redneck, probably a Baptist. He made the comment in response to my stipulation that my neighbor honor a true property line between us rather than the 50 year old fence line. My neighbor wished to run his son's power to our power line which required my permission. I didn't grant permission and Entergy had to run another line which cost them more money.
"I can't say that I identify any more strongly with most whites"
Nor can I except for working whites, i.e., poor whites. These people are not programmed. They don't put on phony pretenses about race and they don't like rich gentile whites either.
I agree completely with your analysis and I for one am attacking big Gentile capital.
Pete Frierson, former owner of Frierson Building Supply in Jackson, Mississippi and at one time the largest independent lumber company in the country, hired me to cut his grass and keep up his yard as a teenager in high school. He also raised national champion field trial dogs. He bought his first bird dog from my best friend, an old man, in my small home town who was like a grandfather to me. This old man took me on as his special project because my father had been recently killed in automobile accident when I was 11. Mr. Frierson gave me $500 as a freshman scholarship football player at Miss. State. I used to fish in his pond behind his house and where I caught quite a few large bass. Mr. Frierson went to my little brother's funeral who also was killed in a car accident. Anyway, many years later I was arrested, charged and convicted of crimes that I did not commit and on appeal I requested that Mr. Frierson testify as a character witness for me. He turned me down, as did all my other white Gentile 'friends.'
Now you can conclude that I deserved what I got, that I wear tattoos and all the rest but you would be wrong. I do have a fierce tongue but that's it. And we do have something called the First Amendment.
We need some sort of new glue to bind us together other than white Gentile which is insufficient. All these groups who rant and rave about Jews endlessly get old after a while. I don't believe like they do that a Jew is under every bed. It would be more accurate where I live to say a rich Gentile.
What we need more than anything is for 'good' and 'smart' whites like you to stand up and lead as independent candidates rather than only theorizing.
2004-05-27 13:45 | User Profile
Does the Critique of Jews Overestimate the Goodness of White Gentiles?
Yes. But these are separate questions. Without gentile fallibilities - not just greed but venality, churlishness, anti-intellectualism, and a tendency to subdivide immediately into warring factions intent on fratricide, there would nothing to critique about Jews.
Why is Jewish power concentrated in the United States and not, say, China? Because the nature of the diaspora Jew is parasitical in nature, and white societies offer him a thousand vulnerabilities as openings.
But that's why these must be separate questions for now. Because the other alternative - that the white man forcibly alter his nature into something alien to better prevent against such paraite-infestations - is right out of the Jewish playbook that says man's nature is endlessly mutable and 'improvable'. You take measures to rid yourself of the parasites. Of course, the difference between [I]wielding a fly-swatter [/I] and [I]tenting your house [/I] is [U]time[/U]. The longer you wait to acknowledge the infestation, the more severe the measures you'll have to take will be.
One thing, however, is certain. You don't burn the village to save the village.
2004-05-27 16:43 | User Profile
Still, one likely finds at least one Jew in every rotten woodpile big enough to be of consequence to us all. Considering their percentage of the world's population, that is actionable, almost biblical, no?
2004-05-27 16:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The trivial reason for why Jews can't infiltrate China in the way that they infiltrated Europe and America is that Yehuda Ben-David can pass for "Bill Jones" but he can't pass for "Xing Wu Deng" even if he changes his name.[/QUOTE]
True...[I]now[/I]. But I'd bet money the first Jews to arrive in Europe looked about as "European" as Xing Wu Deng would today.
2004-05-27 17:36 | User Profile
Big Gentile Capitalism has its dangers, but I'm confident they can be alleviated by government action. The difference is that genetic similarity will put limits on the abandon of white men to exploit other whites. Not so for Jews.
In other words, yeah, we got baddies. Flakes. Jerks. Etc. But they're [I]our[/I] baddies, flakes and jerks. We can talk to them.
2004-05-27 17:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Does the Critique of Jews Overestimate the Goodness of White Gentiles?
Yes. But these are separate questions. Without gentile fallibilities - not just greed but venality, churlishness, anti-intellectualism, and a tendency to subdivide immediately into warring factions intent on fratricide, there would nothing to critique about Jews.
[I][COLOR=Red]Why is Jewish power concentrated in the United States and not, say, China[/COLOR][/I]? Because the nature of the diaspora Jew is parasitical in nature, and white societies offer him a thousand vulnerabilities as openings. [/QUOTE]There has long existed a great underlayment of hostility between Jews and Chinese: [QUOTE]Within six years European Jewry was butchered, but by then Sigmund Freud had died in exile in England. Freud though he had become a totem for Jews of the West did remain a "Viennese provincial" as Doctor Menninger termed him. [COLOR=Red]It would have assaulted his sense of race pride that Jews who had gone to China to live and work had forgotten their racial and cultural heritage over the years. They had become Chinese. Interestingly, this was the only civilization which managed to suborn Jews.[1] Jews have never forgiven the Chinese for this [1] Nathanial Peffer, [B][I]The Far East: A Modern History[/I][/B], p43 (Univ. of Michigan, 1958)[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]Bitterness by William Safire towards Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has its origins in this oft neglected fact. Mr. Lee, as I understand it, did take care to remind Safire of this on one occasion. I am not sure if this is true, but it does make a wonderful story.
2004-05-27 18:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]The difference is that genetic similarity will put limits on the abandon of white men to exploit other whites.[/QUOTE]
Please cite one historical example of this phenomenon.
2004-05-27 18:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I personally believe that anti-capitalism should be one of the central pillars of white nationalist ideology. The competition model of modern capitalism, which puts profiteering above any communitarian concerns, is ultimately poison for the building of a sense of nationhood and community across the different social strata. In many ways the plutocratic elite is indeed a hostile "nation within a nation" in much the same way that the Jews are, though to a much lesser extent because they have only been separated from the rest of their countryment for a generation or two and receive a small input from the middle classes every generation.[/QUOTE]
True communities and a sense of nationhood cannot be built by state coercion. If they could, then I dare say we wouldn't be here on this board expressing the opinions we do. In short, our present lack of communitarian concerns is not the fault of capitalism.
2004-05-27 18:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Big Gentile Capitalism has its dangers, but I'm confident they can be alleviated by government action. The difference is that genetic similarity will put limits on the abandon of white men to exploit other whites. [/QUOTE] Julius Caesar's armies killed over a million people in Gaul during his consulship, and enslaved far more than that. Do you really think that the Mediterranean/Nordic genetic divide is entirely responsible for this?
2004-05-27 18:35 | User Profile
Jews are not hated for being Jews in per se but for the way that they act as Jews.
A good example is what is going on in Palestine at this time, even thou the Palestinians in the West Bank have enough water to meet their needs they are obligated to give 4/5 of their water to the state of Israel, the Palestinians are not allowed to dig new wells or fix the old ones,,,,,,,, and now for the latest one, part of the deal in order for the Palestinians to have a "free" West Bank is that they will not be permitted to use "NO WATER" of their own, instead the Zionists State of Israel wants the USA and the World to build some desalination plants in the coast and pump the water up to the West Bank,,,,,,, this way in case of trouble all that the Jews have to do is to bomb the desalination plants and cut off all water to the Palestinians
2004-05-27 21:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=tex]Please cite one historical example of this phenomenon. [/QUOTE]
Well, nothing great comes to mind. Are you saying a poor white northern factory worker was treated no better than a black slave, both working under a white master? Could be. But I stand by the general proposition that genetic similarity makes for smoother relations and greater person-to-person empathy. That in turn can mean limits (I didn't say absence) of exploitation. Obviously Jews have higher levels of this in-group feeling.
Historically, battles were between white groups. Only recently have we come to dwell in the multiracial global village. Isn't it reasonable to think that this could have an effect?
2004-05-28 00:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]It certainly is true that Judaism limits the extent to which Jews are allowed to exploit co-tribalists (i.e. the Talmud teaches that it's acceptable to lie to and cheat the goyim, but not fellow Jews), but I fear that whites have no such sense of racial or tribal loyalty. Plutocratic robber barons were more than happy to use their American and British countrymen as wage-slaves (including children). Furthermore, there has been no limit to the hostility of white nations towards one another, especially hostilities between people who are blood-brothers divided by faith (the Balkans are an obvious example). [/QUOTE]You've hit on an important point that I think is illustrative of why many varieties of white nationalism fail: they expect and demand whites to be something that they have never been.
Whites have never acted as a unified people, nor have they ever identified their interests as synonymous or consistent with that of whites as a whole. We are not like the Jews, Muslims, mestizos, Chinese, or American Blacks (not black Africans, mind you, who have always been divided along tribal lines). It would be misleading to say that the above mentioned groups never exploit or prey upon each other, but they do enforce social sanctions against behaviors deemed that degrade the solidarity of the broader ethno-cultural group. Whites, on the other hand, identify with their immediate family and peer groups, and sometimes with a particular regional culture they may be immersed in. A white guy from NYC would be considered just as much of an alien to a rural white community in Appalacia as a black man -- and the black man may be considered less of an alien if he himself is from Appalacia. Although whites share a common heritage rooted in classical Greco-Roman civilization, Christianity, and in various pagan tribes, that doesn't translate into a desire to associate with one each other. At most, it makes us feel more comfortable and secure when riding on a bus with other whites than with blacks or mestizos (and even this example breaks down when we throw East Asians into the mix, who we tend to feel just as safe around as other whites).
This weakness that is not going to be overcome by exhorting people to engage in "white unity" by forming a new monolithic "white nation". European peoples have a long history of organizing ourselves into small, fragmented and somewhat parochial political units. This tendency in fact makes us unique. Further, I think we become weakened and less capable of protecting ourselves when we artificially attempt to organize ourselves into one big happy family. Take the United States as an example: a massive federal leviathan imposing its will upon numerous unique regional cultures dispersed across an enormous continent, while consequently reflecting the values of none of these groups. If North America was organized into a confederation of micro-states (smaller than that of current states) that were sovereign with respect to their own internal affairs, immigration from Mexico would likely be confined to a very small number of states (most likely those near the border, which have long hosted a sizable Mexican population to begin with, in addition to cheap-labor seeking farmers and agrobusinesses).
I think we'd function better acting separately than as a united whole, provided that we revive we a) recognize that we do possess a cultural heritage worth defending and b) we don't go to war against each other. The latter requirement is far more possible to satisfy today than during the Middle Ages, given the existence of certain forms of modern technology that could potentially enable us to live comfortably using previously extracted and processed resources that are readily available to us, in combination with unlimited or renewable resources (like sunlight or ocean water). We wouldn't need to invade other countries to secure our right to the fruits of various foreign resource extraction projects (i.e., oil drilling) if we actually had the foresight to develop a self-sufficient economy.
So that's where I disagree with many white nationalists.
2004-05-28 04:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]It certainly is true that Judaism limits the extent to which Jews are allowed to exploit co-tribalists (i.e. the Talmud teaches that it's acceptable to lie to and cheat the goyim, but not fellow Jews), but I fear that whites have no such sense of racial or tribal loyalty. Plutocratic robber barons were more than happy to use their American and British countrymen as wage-slaves (including children). Furthermore, there has been no limit to the hostility of white nations towards one another, especially hostilities between people who are blood-brothers divided by faith (the Balkans are an obvious example).
Consequently, I don't share your optimism.[/QUOTE] You mean like the War Between The States? The Thirty Years War? The Boer War?
2004-05-28 04:37 | User Profile
I think this seriously underestimates the amount of discord that has existed among the Chinese & Muslims. If you want to see Muslim discord, just look at Indonesia, Iraq and Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, etc. And Chinese history is incredibly bloody.
White solidarity in colonial situation was once quite strong, and stateman looked to the future of the West vis-a-vis the 'yellow peril.'
And though I agree we have not been as unified as we might have been, the main reason is that we were so powerful that the greatest threat to one white group lay in another white group, and not in the non-Western world. (Also, there is the simple fact of geographic proximity--France was more likely to attack England than, say, the Zulus.) The source of threats has changed. Hence we should not expect white disunity to continue, absent alien and fanatical forces.
Alas, we are beset by alien and fanatical forces.
I do agree that we need to keep to our separate racial and ethnic identities, and in particular should not try to build white unity by racial homogenization among various white groups. But I think more shared culture and more shared pursuit of interests is both advisable and likely.
[QUOTE=angloiberian] Whites have never acted as a unified people, nor have they ever identified their interests as synonymous or consistent with that of whites as a whole. We are not like the Jews, Muslims, mestizos, Chinese, or American Blacks (not black Africans, mind you, who have always been divided along tribal lines). It would be misleading to say that the above mentioned groups never exploit or prey upon each other, but they do enforce social sanctions against behaviors deemed that degrade the solidarity of the broader ethno-cultural group. [/QUOTE]
2004-05-28 05:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I think this seriously underestimates the amount of discord that has existed among the Chinese & Muslims. If you want to see Muslim discord, just look at Indonesia, Iraq and Kuwait, Iraq and Iran, etc. And Chinese history is incredibly bloody..[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that the Chinese and Muslim society are never prone to internal violence. However, the dischord that takes place in these societies have usually taken the form of dynastic struggles and class-based revolts, neither of which harbor the aim of fragmenting the larger political unit. They haven't undergone nearly as many wars for independence as European polities have. That isn't to say that certain factions haven't aspired toward independence -- Taiwan and Hong Kong are two good examples of regions inhabited by Han Chinese who largely resent being yoked to the will of Beijing, although this is due in part to their experience of extensive separation as a result of British imperialism. Nonetheless, a characteristic feature of both Chinese and Islamic civilization is that they each hold that all of their respective peoples should be united under a common political banner. To suggest to a group of Chinese citizens that Taiwan should be independent from China is to provoke a fight -- Taiwan is regarded as a child rebelling against its mother and family that needs to be harshly disciplined. Even though secession attempts haven't always succeeded in the the West, there tends to be a greater amount of sympathy for such a goal. During the American Civil War, many northerners initially supported the South's secession attempt, and many desired that their own state secede. I mention the idea of America being subdivided into significantly smaller polities to many people of widely diverging political backgrounds, and the responses I get tend to be fairly positive. There are hundreds of web pages advocating the sucession of particular states or regions of North America. Such web sites would be tantamount to treason in China.
2004-05-28 15:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]There has long existed a great underlayment of hostility between Jews and Chinese: Bitterness by William Safire towards Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has its origins in this oft neglected fact. Mr. Lee, as I understand it, did take care to remind Safire of this on one occasion. I am not sure if this is true, but it does make a wonderful story.[/QUOTE]
That is an extremely fascinating question.
The Overseas Chinese are an amazing lot. They're rich and powerful beyond all imagining, but they keep such a low profile nobody would ever guess it. Jews are into ostentation, but the Overseas Chinese are pretty good at keeping a grip on that. They have untold wealth stashed away in offshore jurisdictions.
I once had an Overseas Chinese client who routinely wired millions of dollars all over the world on deals he'd make over the bloody phone without a second thought. Of course, to other Chinese. And he dressed like just a regular bureaucrat, flew economy class, lived in a modest house.
I think that the Jews may have met their match in them. As far as I know, the Jews and Overseas Chinese never crossed swords much, so what you say really interests me. Although I must say that Asians generally - especially the Japanese - are totally aware of Jews and their power. Isn't it weird - let me emphasize that, WIERD - that the Japanese of all people should suffer the disease of "anti-Semitism?"
Can you give me a source on that subject?
The Armenians are another diaspora tribe I've dealt with on a number of occasions, and they also from my experience are keenly aware of Tribal power and influence. Like Greeks, from my experience they just assume that Jews are watching out for Jews, and that Jews should expect the same from them. I once read experts from a book by a Soviet Armenian that discussed the Armenian Massacre of 1916 in Tribal terms, including the interesting assertion that Attaturk and the other Young Turks were Muslim conversos. Is that true? This was a Soviet era book printed in Russian, and it passed the Soviet censor, which in itself is interesting. Do you know of any sources on that?
Please excuse the attempt to "pick your brain."
Regards,
Walter
2004-05-28 15:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Please cite one historical example of this phenomenon.[/QUOTE]
C'mon, Tex.
Just think of enlightened English rule for centuries in Ireland, as just one example.
Political disenfranchisement, institutionalized theft of bread from the mouths of the starving poor, religious persecution, state-engineered famine and forced emigration - what more could you ask for from the ruling aristocracy of the leading white nation on Earth?
Just kidding.
Damned straight we can't trust our rulers.
The American Revolution had it right: limited government of, by, and for white men.
Walter
2004-05-28 18:23 | User Profile
You have a slightly better case with the Chinese, I agree, but the Muslims are historically little better than whites, at best. With the Chinese, I wonder how long these feelings about 'treason' have been in place, and whether they are not more about communist ideology vs. American classical liberalism than they are about racial unity.
I too want more political decentralization, but I also want more white unity. Unity doesn't have to be achieve through nation-states. It can come from the Pope, speaking German, a Bund, etc.
[QUOTE=angloiberian] There are hundreds of web pages advocating the sucession of particular states or regions of North America. Such web sites would be tantamount to treason in China.[/QUOTE]
2004-05-28 19:17 | User Profile
[B]Walter Yannis[/B] [QUOTE]That is an extremely fascinating question...
The Overseas Chinese are an amazing lot. They're rich and powerful beyond all imagining, but they keep such a low profile nobody would ever guess it. Jews are into ostentation, but the Overseas Chinese are pretty good at keeping a grip on that.
I think that the Jews may have met their match in them. As far as I know, the Jews and Overseas Chinese never crossed swords much, so what you say really interests me. Although I must say that Asians generally - especially the Japanese - are totally aware of Jews and their power. Isn't it weird - let me emphasize that, WIERD - that the Japanese of all people should suffer the disease of "anti-Semitism?"
[COLOR=Red]Can you give me a source on that subject?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]I do not have my book with references, but I did type and google "Japanese and anti-semitism". The first source is excerpted: [QUOTE]In January 1995, two months before the poison gas attack in the Tokyo subway, a blatantly anti-Semitic tract, under the title ââ¬ÅManual of Fear: The Jewish Ambition ââ¬â Total World Conquest,ââ¬Â was published in the journal Vajrayana Sacca of the apocalyptic religious cult Aum Shinrikyo (Supreme Truth). This tract was described as the culmination of a decade of anti-Semitic propaganda in Japan.[1] Aum Shinrikyo is not only a cult with a skillful propaganda apparatus, it is also the only organization in the world that has perpetrated deadly chemical and biological terrorist attacks, notably the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway on 20 March 1995. Thus, we might ask if this cult represents a threat to the Japanese people, to the world and, in light of its extreme anti-Semitism, to the Jews. In order to understand Aumââ¬â¢s anti-Semitism, one must analyze its religious-political ideology and identify those the cult leader sees as its strategic enemies.
Aum Shinrikyo began operating as a religious organization in July 1987, having been founded as the Aum Shinsen no Kai organization in 1984.The head of the cult was Chizuo Matsumoto, also known as Shoko Asahara, a partially blind, charismatic former acupuncturist and yoga instructor, self-styled as the ââ¬Åone and only person who has acquired supreme truthââ¬Â and who attributed to himself supernatural powers.[2] [/QUOTE]This site notes American bon-vivant is honored in Japan: [url]http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:krDXUeEY4vgJ:www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw97-8/japan.html+japan+anti-semitism&hl=en[/url] [QUOTE]In the last few years veteran American "Jewish plot" crusader [COLOR=Red]Eustace Mullins[/COLOR] has found enthusiastic disciples in the elderly Ota and other Japanese anti-Semitic writers. Mullins toured Japan as recently as February 1996. Similarly, Western anti-Semitic writers are founts of inspiration. Ota quotes a great deal from American far-right publications such as Truth at Last and Spotlight, as well as The Turner Diaries, which he considers is compulsory reading "for all anti-Jewish patriotic Christians in the US." [/QUOTE] The following was written by Ian Buruma, a Jew or so I believe in the Guardian, a left-wing British newspaper: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4344947,00.html[/url] [QUOTE]Iris Chang, the Chinese-American author of a much-praised book about the Nanking massacre, has called this ghastly killing spree by the Japanese army in China in 1937 "the forgotten Holocaust", and is angry that the Chinese victims have not had the same recognition as the Jews. After a public reading of her book in Los Angeles, she was approached by a woman, who told Chang in floods of tears that her account of the massacre had made her "feel so proud to be a Chinese-American".
I am currently wrestling with a book by Tom Hayden, the ex-radical student leader and California legislator. Entitled Irish on the Inside, it is a nauseating account of Hayden in search of his "Irish soul". His inner Irishman turns out to be a staunch supporter of the IRA. But the true Irish soul, he explains, is shaped by the great famine, which Hayden wants all Californian textbooks to take up, for then "our trauma would be recognised alongside those of African-Americans, the Jews, the Armenians, and others who had demanded a place in classroom texts".
I'm sorry, but this way lies madness. Soon the world will be reduced to soulful communities competing for victimhood. It is a fruitless contest in which Jews would have few rivals, but not all Jews would wish to take part. That is why I am against Holocaust Day. By all means, let us remember, but without enlisting the dead to feed our own spiritual yearnings.[/QUOTE]My great source of my interpretation of the rivalry between Jews and Chinese was conversing with Chinese in Japan. Being a notably patient people, these Chinese realized they would have to wait, but did prophesy their time would come. The trust within that community to move millions of dollars solely on the word and honor of an individual is a characteristic our side cannot hope to match. The Chinese hold this against us as a people.
2004-05-29 10:19 | User Profile
Thanks, EG. You're llike an encyclopedia, only with ears.
I agree that the Overseas Chinese have a group cohesion that may surpass even that of the Jews. I don't understand the Confucian ethic, but it cerainly is a great thing that imposes a deep order on the individual soul and society.
Finally, I thought Tom Haydn was a Jew, and had no idea he was Irish.
What's up with that?
Walter
2004-05-29 13:40 | User Profile
We tend to think of whites as disunited and everyone else as united only because of the straw examples we see in the west of minorities ganging together as they are surrounded by a vast white majority.
But look eastward. Did anyone follow the Iran-Iraq war? How many people were slaughtered for nothing?
[url="http://www.exile.ru/178/war_nerd.html"]http://www.exile.ru/178/war_nerd.html[/url]
As for the East Asians, we all know of Japanese slaughter of Chinese who (at least for me) are almost indistinguishable from them.
In contrast, despite all our feuding, Europeans kept invading Moselm hordes out for more than a millennia - from Martel to the seige of Vienna and beyond. That is not a minor matter.
The only people who are a true TRIBE are Jews. Their unity and commitment to their own cant be matched by anyone. And it is the fundamental reason for their success in causing the havoc they have caused in the West.
2004-05-29 14:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE]But look eastward. Did anyone follow the Iran-Iraq war? How many people were slaughtered for nothing? [/QUOTE]
Those are very different nations.
The rulers of Iraq under Saddam were the Sunni Muslims, who ruled over a larger population made up od Shiite Musliims, Kurds, Turkomens, and assorted and sundry Christian groups. The Arabs are a mixed race group who speak a semitic language. The rulers of Iran are indisputably the Persians, who rule over minority populations of Kurds, Azeri Turks and a few minority groups like Armenians and Parsis, are Shiite Muslims, are much more caucasion by bloodline than the Arabs, and speak an Indo-European (Aryan) language.
There wasn't much in common between them. Certainly less than say, the French have in common with the Germans, who fought many horrible wars.
Generally speaking the European peoples are a cohesive group by blood and culture. They are racially caucasian, speak various Indo-European languages, and are united by a common Christian tradition in religion that incorporated a common Greek and Roman tradition of law, literature, and philosophy.
Maybe we are genetically more inclined to squabbling than other groups, I don't know.
Walter
2004-05-29 14:27 | User Profile
This is true but among Arabs themselves there have been lots of squabbles - there never is an end to it. In fact, their own rulers often torture kill and maim people as a matter of habit - Saddam being a good example of that.
And among the Chinese, it took no Jewish plot for the Chinese communists to starve 65 million of their own people. We talk of the famines in Russia, but at least those had an alien element - Jewish Bolsheviks. The Chinese had no aliens among them wanting to cause havoc. They did it themselves.
The reason European wars look more horrible than all others is because Europeans have always been the best armed - European weaponry is hard to match. And when that weaponry is used in warfare, the result is much more carnage than one would see elsewhere.
2004-05-29 15:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Thanks, EG. You're llike an encyclopedia, only with ears.
I agree that the Overseas Chinese have a group cohesion that may surpass even that of the Jews. I don't understand the Confucian ethic, but it cerainly is a great thing that imposes a deep order on the individual soul and society.
Finally, I thought [COLOR=Red]Tom Hayden [/COLOR] was a Jew, and had no idea he was Irish.
What's up with that?
Walter[/QUOTE]From this site: [url]http://www.white-history.com/hwr54i.htm[/url] [QUOTE]During the last quarter of the 19th Century, as the railways expanded down through California, increasing numbers of Chinese laborers were imported to the state from the Far East by the railway companies, knowing that they could be paid less than White laborers in California itself. This led to a considerable amount of discontent amongst White workers in California, especially when it became obvious that the Chinese laborers were seriously affecting the unemployment rate amongst Whites.
Above: Chinese emigrants line up to enter California: their mass immigration sparked off massive White protests and eventually in 1882, all Chinese immigration in the USA was banned by the US Congress for a ten year period.
Under the fiery leadership of the Irish born laborer Denis Kearney, White workers formed the Workingmen's Party of California in 1877: shortly thereafter a number [COLOR=Red]of anti-Chinese riots[/COLOR] took place. The Workingmen's Party attracted sufficient electoral support to ensure that California passed laws limiting the number of Chinese allowed into the state. This was followed in 1880, by the US Congress passing a law regulating Chinese immigration - and in 1882, the US Congress banned all Chinese immigration for ten years.[/QUOTE]Somewhat off the subject, but many may like this, or find it amusing: [QUOTE]The first Asian American New Yorker was a muckraker, a rabble-rouser, and a consummate smartass. [COLOR=Red]Wong Chin Fo[/COLOR]o wasn't actually the first Asian in New York. By the time he arrived here in the 1870s, there were several hundred Chinese scattered throughout the city, and Asian sailors had been part of New York's multicultural mix since the early days of the republic. But Wong was probably the first to proclaim a New World identity Chinese American (the name of his short-lived weekly broadside, New York's first Chinese newspaper). And the bilingual Wong, self-described multinational rebel and "Heathen" missionary, was a brash champion of the Chinese during the decade when they first came to the city in significant numbers.
Wong seemed an unlikely activist to a New York Times reporter who found him holding forth at Madame Blavatsky's 47th Street apartment in April 1877. Blavatsky, the founder of the mystical Theosophy Movement, had filled her living room with stuffed bats, snakes, a tiger's head, a baboon, and a crocodile swinging from the ceiling; she called the room "The Lamasery." In his dark silk-and-velvet coats, embroidered boots and skullcap, Wong, as his chronicler Arthur Bonner puts it, "blended nicely" into the menagerie. But he soon took to the stage to combat images of Asian exoticism and primitiveness. In a lecture at Steinway Hall, he scored the supposed barbarity of "Heathen Chinee" ways, announcing that, contrary to widespread belief, "I never knew that rats and puppies were good to eat until I was told by American people."
Wong's sharp tongue made him a kind of Victorian media activist, a quote machine for the boys of Newspaper Row. But his wit was accompanied by fearlessness. In 1883, Irish American labor leader [COLOR=Red]Denis Kearney[/COLOR], who had led the insurgent California Workingmen's Party by wedding class-consciousness to racism (the party's slogan was "The Chinese Must Go!"), came to the city to speak at the Great Hall of Cooper Union, where Abe Lincoln had once held forth. [I]Wong challenged Kearney to a duel. "When a reporter," as Bonner recounts, "who found him smoking a cigar in the office of the Chinese American, asked him what weapons he would suggest, Wong replied: 'I give him his choice of chopsticks, Irish potatoes, or Krupp guns."' (Kearney demurred, saying "I'm not to be deterred by the low blackguard vaporings of Chin Foo or any other representative of Asia's almond-eyed lepers."[/I])[/QUOTE]
2004-05-31 05:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Finally, I thought Tom Haydn was a Jew, and had no idea he was Irish.
What's up with that? [/QUOTE]
Tom Hayden was originally from Michigan, and in his Catholic youth he served as an altar boy to Fr. Charles Coughlin.
That's right. THE Fr. Coughlin.
2004-05-31 20:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Are you saying a poor white northern factory worker was treated no better than a black slave, both working under a white master? Could be. [/QUOTE]
Iôd say the worker was often treated [I]worse[/I], because the slave was property. Workers will only be treated well, if you have either (1) strong unions or (2) strong laws that protect them, or best (3) both of the above.
Btw, good points, Angloiberian and Jim Giles. There would certainly be some serious problems even without minorities, though the problems are very much exacerbated and complicated by the presence of the latter, and especially our friends the Jewish supremacists.
2004-06-01 05:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Fernando Wood]Tom Hayden was originally from Michigan, and in his Catholic youth he served as an altar boy to Fr. Charles Coughlin.
That's right. THE Fr. Coughlin.[/QUOTE]
Tilt.