← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust

Thread 4451

Thread ID: 4451 | Posts: 131 | Started: 2003-01-15

Okiereddust [OP]

2003-01-15 01:50 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 15 2003, 01:41 ** 'Unwillingness to speak honestly about the jewish nature of the attack against our race and civilization is conservatism's fatal flaw.' Alright, it was a bit odd to mistake a Jew for 'everyman.' But I balk at the idea that anti-white racism has a Jewish 'nature.' **

Did you ever read "Culture of Critique" Eddy? Or is it not yet available on your planet?

darkeddy

2003-01-15 01:53 | User Profile

Yes, there are many anti-white Jews. There also many anti-white elites whose parents were raised as mainline Protestants, or even as Catholics.

Moreover, Jews are growing increasing more conservative and anti-immigration. Obviously past anti-Semitism and the Holocaust poisoned the minds of many Jewish intellectuals against the West. But we should no more hold younger Jews responsible for this than they ought to hold the present-day youth of Germany responsible for the Holocaust.

The White Nationalist movement will get nowhere without the Jews. They are too powerful. And there is nothing inherent to Jewish culture that makes Jews inimicable to white Gentiles. White Jews and white Gentiles share many strong bonds of blood and culture, since there has been massive inter-breeding over the centuries of Jewish habitation of German, East European, and similar lands. These bonds form the basis for a racial-ethnic alliance, just as the bonds between, for example, Swedes and Greeks form such a basis.

Previously, the economic and technological conditions that prevailed led to fierce competition between Jews and Gentiles. However, today, there is no reason that Jewish sucess ought to threatening overall, as long as Jews do not irrationally advocate positions harmful to overall white interests. Jews are sucessful, in general, due to intelligence and good education. We can all benefit from the work of such individuals. The free market allows co-operation between individuals who might otherwise engage in zero-sum competion.

Yes, it can be wise to point out the Jewish nature of this-or-that species of Leftist influence. One would should always do so with the idea that one is continiung to appeal to conservative Jews--and to moderate Jews who may become conservative through one's influence.

(PS Check out Jewish World Review for some good conservative Jewish thinkers besides Paul Gottfried. Although as a WASP, if find some of the Jewish cultural items rather boring, the political articles are often quite good.)

mwdallas

2003-01-15 02:08 | User Profile

Obviously past anti-Semitism and the Holocaust poisoned the minds of many Jewish intellectuals against the West. But we should no more hold younger Jews responsible for this than they ought to hold the present-day youth of Germany responsible for the Holocaust.

The history of the interplay between the Jewish group and gentile populations goes back much further. I encourage you to review the literature, especially the first two volumes of MacDonald's trilogy and the numerous Jewish historical sources cited therein.

As for "past anti-semitism" poisoning the mind of the Jewish intellectuals, you have placed the cart before the horse. Judaism as a diaspora evolutionary strategy is inherently aggressive; anti-Semitism is inherently reactive or defensive. Anti-Semitism is an effect -- not a cause -- of Judaism, although anti-Semitism does reinforce Judaism and help to perpetuate the cycle of Jewish aggression followed by gentile reaction.

darkeddy

2003-01-15 02:14 | User Profile

I was not implying that anti-Semitism began with the Holocaust, of course. I am aware of work on the evolutionary strategies underlying anti-Semitism and Jewish strategies of separation and deception. This is what I was addressing with my point about changing economic and technological conditions. In the past, sharing territory fostered much more zero-sum competition than it need do so today, particular when the competing parties are biological fairly similar. Thus the old cycle of Judaic and anti-Semitic zero-sum competition need not continue.

Also there is the changing balance of power to consider: when European were dominate, intra-white competition had more rational impetus. With the rise of Asian powers and virulent Islam, and the general decline in white population v. non-whites, this has all changed. White Gentiles and white Jews have more reason to co-operate than ever before. We need to 'convert' Jews not to Christianity, but to white nationalism.

darkeddy

2003-01-15 02:32 | User Profile

MacDonald is a fine author. However, his work does not refure my position, since it describes what was, not what can be. Times change; so do rational evolutionary strategies.

Centinel

2003-01-15 02:44 | User Profile

**Moreover, Jews are growing increasing more conservative and anti-immigration. **

The only reasons Jews are becoming "conservative" are (1) because neocon evangelicals are dispensationalists who unequivocally support modern political Israel and (2) because they see Hispanic and Muslim immigration as a threat to US support for Zionism and Jewish interests. They are also scared of radical black nationalism, so much so that the Jewish-black political alliance is all but dead. (Look at the Hilliard and McKinney episodes if you doubt me.)

Aside from those issues, much of the Religious Right and establishment conservatism's agenda scares them. Abortion, feminism, gun control, education, etc.

Aside from the conservative, zionist Jews in the GOP, most Jews are still Democrats. GOP strategists would like to pick up around 40% of the Jewish vote if they can in 2004. Lieberman may be the only man the Democrats can field to stem Jewish attrition into the GOP.

Okiereddust

2003-01-15 02:48 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 15 2003, 02:32 MacDonald is a fine author. However, his work does not refure my position, since it describes what was, not what can be. Times change; so do rational evolutionary strategies.

I'm not sure you read the same MacDonald I did. Its Kevin MacDonald, not "Old MacDonald had a farm". He certainly didn't write it as purely a history lesson, rather it was as much a prediction of the future as a description of the past.

He certainly doesn't share your conclusions one iota.

darkeddy

2003-01-15 03:51 | User Profile

From your invective, I sense that you are not interested in rational debate. This is typical of anti-Semites. Mother Nature perhaps implanted a mechanism to arouse such irrationality in order to weed out defective genes.

Okiereddust

2003-01-15 05:40 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 15 2003, 03:51 From your invective, I sense that you are not interested in rational debate. This is typical of anti-Semites. Mother Nature perhaps implanted a mechanism to arouse such irrationality in order to weed out defective genes.

OK, if you think I was just using invective to describe the differences between you and MacDonald, maybe you'd just like to explain MacDonald's summary of his entire work in Culture of Critique

**Multicultural societies with their consequent fragmentation and chronic ethnic tension re unlikely to meet Jewish needs in the long run even if they do ultimately subvert the demographic and cultural dominance of the peoples of European origin in lands wher they have been dominant.

This in turn suggests a fundamental and irresolvable friction between Judaism and prototypical Western political and social structure. Certainly the very long history of anti-Semitism in Western Societies and its recurrence time and time again after periods of latency suggests such a view. The incompatibility of Judaism and Western culture can also be seen in the tendency for individualistic western cultures to break down Jewish group cohesiveness. As Arthur Rappin noted earlier in the century, all modern manifestations of Judaism, from neo-Orthodoxy to Zionism, are responses to the Enlightenment's corrosive effects on Judaism - a set of defensive structures erected against "the destructiv influence of European civilization". And at a theoretical level, there is a very clear rationale that western individualism is incompatible with group-based resouce conflict that has been the persistent consequence of the emergence of a powerful Judaism in Western societies.

One aspect of this friction is well articulated in Alan Ryan's (1994) discussion of the "latent contradictions" in the politics of Richard J Herrnstein and Charles Murray, the authors of the Highly Controversial volume "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life". Ryan states, "Herrnstein essentially wants the world in which clever Jewish kids or their equivalent make their way out of their humble backgrounds and end up running Goldman Sachs or the Harvard physics department, while Murray wants the Midwest in which he grew up - a world in which the local auto mechanic didn't care two cents whether he was or wasn't brighter than the local math teacher. The trouble is that the first world subverts the second, while the second feels claustrophobic to the beneficiaries of the first"

The social structure whose acceptance is here attributed to Murray envisions a moderately individualistic society, a society that is meritocratic and hierarchical but also cohesive and culturally and socially homogeneous. It is a society with harmony among the social classes and with social controls on extreme individualism among the elite....

Such a world is threatened from above by the domination of an individualistic elite without commitment to responsible lower status individuals who may have lesser intellectual ability, talent, or financial resources.**

The problems of an aliance between Jewish elitists and White Nationalists, or those at least willing to accept some of their premises, such as the strong biological differences between racists, are incidently shown by this dissection of the tensions between Murray's world view ands Herrnstein's.

mwdallas

2003-01-15 19:14 | User Profile

The fundamental problem with the proposal is that Judaism is an essentially parasitic strategy. Without the parasitism it's not Judaism. So what you proose is parasitic symbiosis. What would be the point? What could Jews give us that we can't produce for ourselves?

darkeddy

2003-01-16 00:47 | User Profile

I don't think the case has been adaquetly made that Judaism is 'essentially' parasitic. How would one prove this, even if one could prove that in the past Jews have engaged in 'parasitical' practises?

It is this move to a negative 'essence' that defines anti-Semitism. It is one thing to say that a people has done negative things, and other to claim that that people is inherently evil or harmful.

Jews can change. Why would we want to change Jews, given that we can produce everything that Jews could 'give us'?

Well, if one faces a group that has control of a resource that one needs to control, and has skills that are useful, one has two choices. One can either get the group to use their controls in useful ways--for example, in the case OPEQ, produce lots of oil for the West--and use the skills for one's benefits--for example, in the case of un-employed Russian nuclear scientists, get them to come hear. Or one can take that resource away from the group by fightining for it.

However, if one fights, one is likely to alientate the other group, so that if one fails to win the fight, more damage for one's own group will ensue. Now I ask you--is there truly both the will and means in white Gentiles society to remove Jews from their current positions of power? Let me suggest that there is not, and there is never going to be this will. It is simply not going to happen. Therefore, attempts to attack Jewish power will simply alienate the Jews further, causing them to use their power in ways that are harmful to overall white interests.

Thus it is better to try and convince the Jews to act in ways that leave them with a lot of what power they have (they aren't going to give it all up without a big, nasty fight), but that further serve overall white interests. For example, we could convince the majority of Jews to oppose 3rd world immigration, affirmative actions, and anti-race ideology that is designed not to end race globally, but rather to end just the white race.

As for the idea that Jews are eternally committed to the 'domination of an individualistic elite without commitment to responsible lower status individuals who may have lesser intellectual ability, talent, or financial resources'--here MacDonald is claiming much more than his history into the historical record allows him to. He is making predictions about how humans will act about which we ought to be skeptical, even if we agree that he is on to something about historical patters of anti-Semitic and Judaic behavior.

In the end, MacDonald is suggesting that Gentiles are just not up to the task of competing with Jews. I think this is pitiful, really.

darkeddy

2003-01-16 02:34 | User Profile

Rban, what is your problem? I have (or at least had) no difficulties with allying with Hindus, so long as they stay out of the West if they are not already citizens. However, while many Jews are whites (= of European descent), very few Hindus are.

Your posts grow very, very tiresome.

darkeddy

2003-01-16 02:53 | User Profile

You are simply wrong about the ancestry of 'Jews.' Jews are a people of varying ancestries. The ones who lived in Northern Europe for a long time have a lot Northern European ancestry. Do you really think that the Germans or Poles didn't poke the Jewish 14-year old girls any chance they got? Please.

Hereward

2003-01-16 02:56 | User Profile

Genetic studies suggest that Ashkenazi Jews have more in common genetically with Arabs and other Semites than with the Eastern Europeans among whom they've lived for centuries. This evidence is accepted both by philo-Semites and Prof. MacDonald.

darkeddy

2003-01-16 03:06 | User Profile

Well, my point is not meant to be deceptive.

I think your perception of Jewish identity and thinking is quite off. I have know a lot of Jews in my life, and have often been able to get them around to my way of thinking. Also, the Americans of German Jewish decent I have know certainly thought of themselves as Westerns, and also thought of themselves as having more in common with other white Americans than with Russian Jews.

I don't remember Horowitz attacking PB as racist. As see FPM running articles attacking mass 3rd world immigration almost every month. They are also serializing a work on the death of the West that might be caused by Muslim immigrants.

Jews want to limit Muslim immigration. There is no way they can really do this short of calling for limits on 3rd world immigration as a whole.

Finally, so what if Jews identify with other Jews? I have more in common with whites from Birmingham, UK than I do with the Latinos down the street. There are a lot of bonds out there. Doesn't mean white Jews and white Gentiles can't have closer political bonds focused on white nationalism, even if a lot of friction will remain.

naBaron

2003-01-16 03:31 | User Profile

The Question is not whether you can change minds... it's if you can change them in time...

It took the ethnic Catholic whites like me long enough..and we're inculcated with the idea of original sin.

Now try to change the minds of people who imagine that they were born right...

I'd give the project 50 years, minimum.

Okiereddust

2003-01-16 03:33 | User Profile

Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jan 16 2003, 02:57 ** With the exception of J.P.Zmirak, not one of the columnists at that site had a favorable thing to say about Buchanan's ever-so-mild Death of the West. They wailed as loudly as any liberal critic about the book's "implicit racism." If even Pat Buchanan's worldview is too extreme for the tastes of the most "conservative" Jews, what makes you think they'd be willing to collaborate with anybody further to the right on white nationalist issues?**

Pat Buchanan may not be the perfect example, as his populism, as well as his prickly relationship with Jewish groups in the past makes for rather visceral dislike for him among the neo's.

If there is a form of white nationalism that appeals to Jews, it would of course be Jarod Taylor and AMREN, who attracted a number of Jewish neo's, such as Richard Herrnstein, coauthor of The Bell Curve with Charles Murray. The defects of this form of "nationalism" which is really more like imperial elitism, of course were discussed extensively by MacDonald.

The logical outcome of this is the deracinated, pro-H1-B elitism of people like the congressional GOP and of course our own rban.

darkeddy

2003-01-16 03:40 | User Profile

I cannot for the life of me figure out how J. Taylor's white nationalism leads to the belief that we ought to cause un-employment among native-born computer programmers by letting in a horde of Indian immigrants. Surely this is something of a leap?

Okiereddust

2003-01-16 05:07 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 16 2003, 03:40 ** I cannot for the life of me figure out how J. Taylor's white nationalism leads to the belief that we ought to cause un-employment among native-born computer programmers by letting in a horde of Indian immigrants. Surely this is something of a leap? **

There are a lot of things you can't figure out ;) Seriously, I'm not saying Taylor advocated this at all, but the one part of The Bell Curve people, especially the neo-cons, picked up was this impulse for a cosmopolitan, universal cerebral elitism.

**Immigrants create a "brain gain" for the United States. During the final days of their empire, Soviet officials decried the "brain drain" of Russian Jewish physicists, engineers, and computer specialists who emigrated to America as refugees. Today, knowledgeable immigrants from around the world continue to want to come to our shores. Why would we want to stop them? **

[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=5463]A Conservative Manifesto on Immigration[/url]

darkeddy

2003-01-16 05:12 | User Profile

I fully admit that there are many, many things I cannot figure out. One of them continues to be your point in viewing Taylor's embrace of Jewish allies as leading 'logically' to the embrace of mass 3rd world immigration. It's not like the only thing white Jews and white Gentiles have in common is being smart.

Okiereddust

2003-01-16 05:51 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 16 2003, 05:12 I fully admit that there are many, many things I cannot figure out. One of them continues to be your point in viewing Taylor's embrace of Jewish allies as leading 'logically' to the embrace of mass 3rd world immigration.

It doesn't "logically" lead there to me, and I never said it did, but there is nothing in the mind of the Jewish intellectual that conforms to my notion of logic anyway.

The idee fixee of their mileau is hostility to nationalism. Take concept rendered friendly to them, like that of an intellectual elite, and, once proven that it is suitably harmless, they'll typically adapt it to their own ends.

MacDonald notes this basic incompatibility between Herrnstein and Murray, and I am basically repeating it, though I'm not an expert, or intend to explicate on its actual implications.

It's not like the only thing white Jews and white Gentiles have in common is being smart.

It isn't? You got me, I'm eagerly waiting.

darkeddy

2003-01-16 06:05 | User Profile

--Jews are transnational people. So are whites. They are also a nation--that nation of Jews. Whites are also a nation--that is what I take white nationalism to be about (among other things). I don't see what Jews transnationalism needs to be a problem for white nationalism at this point in time, since white nationalism is also a transnationalism.

White nationalist will never get anywhere by beating the 'Jewish horse' to death. Most whitw people will just tune out any kind of message that they do not think could ever be accepted by any politically conservative white Jew. There are too many mad anti-Semites out there for things to be otherwise.

--Okie, you wrote 'The defects of this form of "nationalism" which is really more like imperial elitism, of course were discussed extensively by MacDonald.

The logical outcome of this is the deracinated, pro-H1-B elitism of people like the congressional GOP and of course our own rban. ' Thus I wonder about the idea of "Taylor's embrace of Jewish allies as leading 'logically' to the embrace of mass 3rd world immigration."

Okiereddust

2003-01-16 06:50 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 16 2003, 06:05 ** --Okie, you wrote 'The defects of this form of "nationalism" which is really more like imperial elitism, of course were discussed extensively by MacDonald.

You seem to be taking me out of context.

na Gaeil is gile

2003-01-16 13:50 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 16 2003, 00:05 Jews are transnational people. So are whites. They are also a nation--that nation of Jews... I don't see what Jews transnationalism needs to be a problem for white nationalism at this point in time, since white nationalism is also a transnationalism.

The crux difference here is that Whites desire and create nation states with physical real world boundaries. Other than the Israel experiment, which is a disaster frankly, Jews do not. This is the reason for the 'rootless' in 'rootless cosmopolitan'. To me nationalism is meaningless without national territory and while Jews are masters of racial nationalism, even going so far as to proclaim themselves "God's Chosen", they are useless territorial nationalists. Very simply whites are defending their existing physical territory whereas Jews don't care about territory (except when it comes down to their own, pardon my French, "sh*ty little" country).

Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 16 2003, 00:05 Most whitw people will just tune out any kind of message that they do not think could ever be accepted by any politically conservative white[sic] Jew.

Again another problem in that virtually no 'politically conservative' Jews would ever support independent white only nations. They worship at the same alter of multicult as liberals. We have no message to give these Jews that they would find acceptable, nor is it reasonable to debase our independence to suit them. Eurocentric Jews are rarer than honest politicians.

In addition any two sets of nationalism of the same class are mutually exclusive, what we term in programming Either Or (XOR). One cannot support two kinds of racial nationalism any more than one can simultaneously be a French and a German nationalist. The choice for a Jew is either loyalty to Jews or loyalty to Whites, a loyalty to both is a conflict of interests as illustrated by the behavior of Zionist American Jews.

mwdallas

2003-01-16 17:21 | User Profile

**I don't think the case has been adaquetly made that Judaism is 'essentially' parasitic. **

Let me rephrase:

The Jewish diaspora strategy is inherently aggressive, and it is inherently parasitic. I would contend that "Judaism" without the diaspora strategy would not be properly characterized as "Judaism" -- it would be something new and different. Moreover, the diaspora strategy serves a specific evolutionary function beyond positioning the group for parasitic extraction of resources from the host population: as David Sloan Wilson explains in Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, a diaspora strategy facilitates the evolution of altruism.

**I think your perception of Jewish identity and thinking is quite off. **

Au contraire. It is your understanding of Jewish identity that is deficient. You fail to appreciate the extent and the nature of the cohesion of the Jewish group. This cohesion is essentially a biological phenomenon. Remember that in addition to degrees in political philosophy and psychology, MacDonald holds a degree in biology, and his exposition of Judaism is informed by the developing body of work on multilevel selection. Though the Jewish sources cited by MacDonald (Ginsberg, Lipset & Raab, J.J. Goldberg, E. Shapiro, J. Katz, et al.) are worthwhile reading, and while one's own empirical observations of current events invariably confirm MacDonald's theories, the path to a full understanding of the phenomenon of Judaism runs through the field of evolutionary biology. David Sloan Wilson, John Maynard Smith & Eors Szathmary, Thomas Seeley, and even Matt Ridley in their discussions of mutilevel selection and the "major transitions" of evolution in which lower-level units have coalesceced into higher-level units shed light on the phenomenon of Judaism. The fundamental shortcoming in your apprehension of the nature of the Jewish group is your failure to grasp that the group is a biological unit that must be confronted as such.

Still, you raise many interesting points that should not be dismissed out of hand. For instance:

**However, if one fights, one is likely to alientate the other group, so that if one fails to win the fight, more damage for one's own group will ensue. **

Indeed. Hell hath no fury like a parasite scorned. Case in point: Germany.

darkeddy

2003-01-16 19:01 | User Profile

--I am not interested in creating white-only nations either. When I say that I am a white nationalist, I mean that there is already a white nation--the nation of whites--whose interersts I am championing.

--I was disputing points about how Americans of German-Jewish descent understand their identity. Broad references to evolutionary biology do not address these issues.

I see that I am not excatly finding a lot of agreement here, so perhaps I ought to move to a different point: white nationalists need to de-emphasize the question of Jewish influence in describing anti-white ideology, and recognize that many white Gentiles also spread anti-white ideas.

Why do white nationalists need to take this approach? Because of both Jewish presence in politics, the media, and academia, as well as evangelical and other white Gentile sympathy for Jews, and fears of being seen as Jew-haters.

mwdallas

2003-01-16 19:41 | User Profile

**Also, the Americans of German Jewish decent I have know certainly thought of themselves as Westerns, and also thought of themselves as having more in common with other white Americans than with Russian Jews. **

First, are you claiming these "Americans of German Jewish decent" are Jews?

Second, if I infer that you are making this claim, I must point out that their conscious thoughts mean little. The best deceiver is a self-deceiver.

Polichinello

2003-01-16 20:06 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 16 2003, 13:41 ** > **Also, the Americans of German Jewish decent I have know certainly thought of themselves as Westerns, and also thought of themselves as having more in common with other white Americans than with Russian Jews. **

First, are you claiming these "Americans of German Jewish decent" are Jews?

Second, if I infer that you are making this claim, I must point out that their conscious thoughts mean little. The best deceiver is a self-deceiver. **

Self-deception requires free will and can thus be dealt with at a conceptual level. But in your statement above, you claim Judaism is a biological unit, implying--like it or not--that Jews do what they do because it's what nature makes them do. You're trying to have it both ways. It's a classic Heads-I-win, tails-you-lose situation. If Jews profess hostility to western interests, it's a conscious group evolutionary strategy. If Jews profess allegiance to western ideals, then it's self-deception, based on a group strategy of which they are unaware because it's biological.

Best, P

mwdallas

2003-01-16 21:08 | User Profile

P -- your argument fails again.

Actions speak louder than words, and Jewish actions amply display the hostility you reference. There's no need to refer to professed hostility.

mwdallas

2003-01-16 21:09 | User Profile

And how do you figure that "[s]elf-deception requires free will"?

Polichinello

2003-01-16 21:20 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 16 2003, 15:09 ** And how do you figure that "[s]elf-deception requires free will"? **

Because it requires a person to deliberately ignore facts dissonant with reality.

Best, P

Polichinello

2003-01-16 21:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 16 2003, 15:08 ** P -- your argument fails again.

Actions speak louder than words, and Jewish actions amply display the hostility you reference. There's no need to refer to professed hostility. **

By "professed hostility" I was referring to an extreme case, like say Susan Sontag or that odious Ignatiev fellow.

But even if we just look at "actions" you still play the same game. A zionist is consciously pursuing a group strategy. An assimilated Jew who refutes his ethnicity's tribalism isn't really transcending tribe; rather he's being moved by biological impulses that make him deceive himself. Heads you win; tails I lose.

Best, P

mwdallas

2003-01-16 21:29 | User Profile

There's nothing "deliberate" about self-deception.

Polichinello

2003-01-16 21:46 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 16 2003, 15:29 ** There's nothing "deliberate" about self-deception. **

Thank you for the demonstration.

Best, P

mwdallas

2003-01-16 22:38 | User Profile

Heads you win; tails I lose.

I suppose I do continually win these disputations because your lack of understanding of the relevant concepts puts you at such a disadvantage. Whether the characterization is that I win or that you lose, it is indeed the same result.

**An assimilated Jew who refutes his ethnicity's tribalism isn't really transcending tribe; rather he's being moved by biological impulses that make him deceive himself. **

That depends on what you mean by "assimilated Jew". Your failure to understand the relevant concepts reults in your using ambiguous language.

**A zionist is consciously pursuing a group strategy. **

Says who? And so what? You're criticising me for pointing out that it is possible for some people to be conscious of their motivation to achieve X and for others to be unconscious of their motivation to achieve that same desideratum. There's no inconsistency there.

Polichinello

2003-01-16 23:22 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 16 2003, 16:38 > An assimilated Jew who refutes his ethnicity's tribalism isn't really transcending tribe; rather he's being moved by biological impulses that make him deceive himself. **

That depends on what you mean by "assimilated Jew". Your failure to understand the relevant concepts reults in your using ambiguous language.**

Alright, let's say a left-wing assimilated Jew (or even a libertarian). You would attribute his universalist behavior to some biologically determined self-deception. Never mind that significant numbers of non-Jews buy into the same thing without any biological assistance; no, in this case, for the Jew, it's biology.

> A zionist is consciously pursuing a group strategy. **

If you left it at that, I'd be alright with the position because on its own it is consistent. A conscious movement can be measured and debated, and its adherents can be persuaded or dissuaded from their behavior. If conscious behavior was the problem, then you'd have no quarrel with a Jew who changed his views, nor one who didn't even participate in this movement--say, the Goldsteins down the street who mind their own business.

Yet that's not where you leave it. When someone acts contrary to, say, Zionism, you claim their still working for the group, but are doing so unconsciously. In a few of the more difficult examples, like Paul Gottfried or Murray Rothbard, you resort to the absurd measure of declaring them "not Jews," something neither of them would agree with.

Another advantage you find in using this double approach that you can claim this conscious act and then mix it in with the unconscious behavior mentioned above and thus--despite all your protestations about science's value-neutrality--impute evil to the whole group through guilt by association.

Best, P

mwdallas

2003-01-16 23:42 | User Profile

If conscious behavior was the problem, then you'd have no quarrel with a Jew who changed his views

Do you see what you've done? You've equated "views" and "behavior". They're not the same!

mwdallas

2003-01-16 23:44 | User Profile

**Alright, let's say a left-wing assimilated Jew **

You're missing the point. Not which Jews, but "what is an assimilated Jew, according to Polichinello?"

Polichinello

2003-01-17 14:56 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 16 2003, 17:42 ** > If conscious behavior was the problem, then you'd have no quarrel with a Jew who changed his views

Do you see what you've done? You've equated "views" and "behavior". They're not the same! **

And I'm accussed of hair-splitting. The obvious intent of my statement is that a change in views leads to a change in behavior. That's what free will implies. If you don't have that, then you don't have free will, and you can't vilify people for conscious behavior. And vilify them you do.

That's the problem with your argument. When a Jew is tribal, you shout out in so many words, "Aha, Villain!" But when a Jew is a universalist, you cry, "Aha, Robot servant of the villain!"

You're missing the point. Not which Jews, but "what is an assimilated Jew, according to Polichinello?"

Is there an assimilated Jew you would find acceptable without having to resort to the absurd measure of declaring him not a Jew (even when he identifies himself as one)?

Best, P

Avalanche

2003-01-17 15:35 | User Profile

Back to page 1 of this thread: (Sorry I'm late to the party...)

Darkeddy: Jews want to limit Muslim immigration. There is no way they can really do this short of calling for limits on 3rd world immigration as a whole. Oh darkeddy, did you MISS the WTC/Pentagon attacks (in which only ONE Israeli died; instead of the proportional couple-hundred)? Did you MISS that now muslims are specially 'tracked' (well, hassled, anyway) coming into the country? (But not Mossad agents! Even when caught spying, they're gently (and secretly) shipped home.) Dja miss the lines of muslim males having to register with the govt? Not the mexicans, not the somalis, MUSLIMS! (Historically, isnÃ¢â¬â¢t registration ALWAYS the precursor to confiscation?)

Cui bono?!

Did you miss the (jew-controlled, or does it make you feel better to call it MASSSIVELY jew-infiltrated)) "American" government trying to provide still MORE amnesty and driver's licences and medical benefits to ILLEGAL INVADERS and, ch|st-on-a-crutch (sorry TD), Social Security to Mexicans IN Mexico?! :angry:

The jews ARE the people who set up the 1965 "let's open the borders to ONLY people who can destroy the countryÃ¢â¬Â immigration reform, which had kept out educated Europeans and actually-in-need-of-asylum Afrikaaners who are in jeopardy for their LIVES. <_< (Although, granted, stupid whites were willing to be led, or to sell-out, to help it.)

Did you MISS the trillions of dollars sucked out of taking care of white (and black, for that matter) Americans and sent to Israel for THEIR HOUSING!?! Why are WE paying for their housing, but more than half of our states are millions of dollars in the hole (or, in the case of CA, a billion+)?

You have a very carefully inculcated world view (and guess who put it there?!) about how benign and helpful and "good" the jews are for us... and it JUST AIN'T SO!!! They are a competing RACE and our race is just rolling over and letting them destroy us... This is no Ã¢â¬ÅunconsciousÃ¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬ÅitÃ¢â¬â¢s just happening because theyÃ¢â¬â¢re intelligentÃ¢â¬Â program. This is how smart predators (or unthinking parasites) destroy their hosts!

Ask pretty much ANY American jew: Ã¢â¬Åif it came down to it Ã¢â¬â it became absolutely clear, that it IS in AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s BEST INTERESTS to drop Israel, to let them stand or fall as they can, to stop sending billions and billions of American tax dollars (and now a couple thousand American young people to stand as hostages and Ã¢â¬Ësupposed protectorsÃ¢â¬â¢), would THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?!Ã¢â¬Â Their answer will make it CLEAR that there is no dual-loyalty -- they are first and last and always jews who want Israel protected and supported no matter whether itÃ¢â¬â¢s Ã¢â¬Ågood for America!Ã¢â¬Â

na Gaeil is gile

2003-01-17 15:49 | User Profile

Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 17 2003, 08:56 That's the problem with your argument. When a Jew is tribal, you shout out in so many words, "Aha, Villain!" But when a Jew is a universalist, you cry, "Aha, Robot servant of the villain!"

I see no paradox here, Jewish 'universalism' consists of elevating Jews and therefore it is merely a tool of their tribalism. 'Universal' Soviet communism destroyed the old Russian ruling class and replaced them with Jewish commissars. 'Universal' multiculturalism is destroying the ruling class of the First World, whites, and replacing them with victim groups of which the Jews are top of the pile. It has being quoted a thousand times and bears repeating: "If you want to know where the power lies ask whom you cannot criticize".

For the record I have no problems with Jews being tribal as such, they are just behaving as whites should. What I have a problem with is the fact that our cultures are targets of their tribalism.

mwdallas

2003-01-17 16:01 | User Profile

But when a Jew is a universalist, you cry, "Aha, Robot servant of the villain!"

A Jew can't be a universalist. It's a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.

mwdallas

2003-01-17 16:04 | User Profile

Is there an assimilated Jew you would find acceptable without having to resort to the absurd measure of declaring him not a Jew (even when he identifies himself as one)?

I have twice asked you to define "assimilated Jew". Why are you playing this game?

Polichinello

2003-01-17 16:09 | User Profile

Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@Jan 17 2003, 09:49 ** > Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 17 2003, 08:56 That's the problem with your argument.ÃÂ When a Jew is tribal, you shout out in so many words, "Aha, Villain!"ÃÂ But when a Jew is a universalist, you cry, "Aha, Robot servant of the villain!"

For the record I have no problems with Jews being tribal as such, they are just behaving as whites should. What I have a problem with is the fact that our cultures are targets of their tribalism. **

The reason Jews were sympathetic to these movements at their beginning was that they didn't have any other alternative at the time. Both Bolshevism and "multi-culturalism" are tragic mistakes, mistakes that may have elevated a few Jews, but were far more harmful to Jews at large. Bolshevism killed hundreds of thouands of Jews, and Jews on the street are just vulnerable to crime as you or I. By setting up this standard of heads I win, tails you lose you're forcing them into that same situation once again.

Best, P

Polichinello

2003-01-17 16:38 | User Profile

As to the quote above, which I do have the time to address, wherever did you get the idea that non-Jews are adopting ideologies for non-biological reasons? Jews are certainly not singled out as being somehow more 'biological' than other groups. Far from. MacDonald is very plain about the probable evolutionary sources of maladaptive altruism among gentiles.

MacDonald may say so, but I don't see that idea carried forward in practice here. Gentiles here are divided into one of three groups: heroes, sell-outs or lemmings, which is nonsensical if this behavior is biologically determined.

A group that was honest with itself about its double dealings would be operating at a considerable disadvantage.

To be dishonest with yourself requires an act of free will. What you're saying is that the Jews have to choose to submerge or rationalize away certain inconvenient facts, which is by definition incompatible with the idea of their nature being biologically determined. I'm not saying there is no self-deception among Jews; indeed, there's a lot of it. The charities are a good example. But the fact that there is self-deception means that can you appeal to and reason with them.

As to MacDonald's books, if I have to read a three-volume tome (I've read most of the stuff on his website) to understand the plain meaning of your ideology or doctrine then it's not worth very much. You, the adherents, should be able to explain it.

Best, P

mwdallas

2003-01-17 16:50 | User Profile

But the fact that there is self-deception means that can you appeal to and reason with them.

It means precisely the opposite.

My exchanges with you are a prime example of the futility of attempting to reason with those whose psychological mechanisms occlude the truth.

darkeddy

2003-01-17 17:31 | User Profile

Originally posted by Avalanche@Jan 17 2003, 09:35 ** Back to page 1 of this thread: (Sorry I'm late to the party...)

Darkeddy:ÃÂ Jews want to limit Muslim immigration. There is no way they can really do this short of calling for limits on 3rd world immigration as a whole. Oh darkeddy, did you MISS the WTC/Pentagon attacks (in which only ONE Israeli died; instead of the proportional couple-hundred)? Did you MISS that now muslims are specially 'tracked' (well, hassled, anyway) coming into the country? (But not Mossad agents! Even when caught spying, they're gently (and secretly) shipped home.) Dja miss the lines of muslim males having to register with the govt? Not the mexicans, not the somalis, MUSLIMS! (Historically, isnÃ¢â¬â¢t registration ALWAYS the precursor to confiscation?)

Cui bono?!

Quite rationally, we profile Muslims rather than Chicanos. Nonetheless, the Jews cannot make the case for limiting Muslim immigration without generally calling for limitations on 3rd world immigration. The American public just doesn't feel enough animosity specifically for Muslim immigrants (vs. 3rd world immigrants as a whole) for any other strategy to work.

If I remember correctly, plenty of WASPs and Catholic voted to mangle our immigration policy back in '65. If you want to maintain they were all just mesmerized by Jews.... well, aren't self-supporting belief systems fun?

I find all these appeals to MacDonald amusing. As if our social science are currently at a level to offer detailed predictions on ethnic-group behavior. Try using your eyes and ears and talking with some Jews. You can watch them too if you think they are all 'self-deceivers.' While they often have a lot of animosity toward white racial ideals--they normally reference the Holocaust--the can be brought around to appreciate these ideals just as often, and will act accordingly.

mwdallas

2003-01-17 17:48 | User Profile

Try using your eyes and ears and talking with some Jews. You can watch them too if you think they are all 'self-deceivers.' While they often have a lot of animosity toward white racial ideals--they normally reference the Holocaust--the can be brought around to appreciate these ideals just as often, and will act accordingly.

You're straining credulity here.

Polichinello

2003-01-17 19:17 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 17 2003, 10:50 > But the fact that there is self-deception means that can you appeal to and reason with them.**

It means precisely the opposite.

Just because some of them won't listen doesn't mean that you can't reach others.

My exchanges with you are a prime example of the futility of attempting to reason with those whose psychological mechanisms occlude the truth.

Yeah, yeah, I'm rubber and you're glue...

Best, P

Polichinello

2003-01-18 00:39 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 17 2003, 18:04 ** I find myself in Houston at least once a quarter, and happen to have a box full of the book in question in my trunk. We could meet at Cafe Brasil in trenchcoats and I'd be happy to give you one, if price is a consideration. The first hit is always free. **

No, I can afford the book. It's the time that's the problem. I'll go ahead an order a copy off of B&N.com one of these days. They have them for about $27.00 now.

To Derrida. I'm not familiar with him, but whatever damage he did was certainly equalled, if not surpassed, by Foucault, a non-Jew. Derrida's alleged obsession with Jew/Gentile splits certainly didn't keep him from excusing Paul de Man's nazist past. I do know that the philosophers from the Frankfurt school, whom MacDonald makes reference to, don't really say anything that you can't find in previous non-Jewish philosophers like Rousseau.

I don't know what to make of your quote from Dawkins. Comparing the instinctual behavior of ants and birds to human beings, who are deliberative beings, seems a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. Are you denying free will altogether?

Best, P

mwdallas

2003-01-18 00:51 | User Profile

**We could meet at Cafe Brasil in trenchcoats and I'd be happy to give you one, if price is a consideration. The first hit is always free. **

Great stuff, Wintermute. Or you could meet at Alfred's (is it still around?) -- awfully good chopped liver.

**Given the depth and breadth of M's research, without me typing out long portions of the book here, you are left to rely on one line paraphrases - which would be more comprehensible to if you had read the book. Hell, they'd be more falsifiable if you'd read the book. You'll notice that I usually avoid these free for alls, where you take on the whole board, and set enough rhetorical plates spinning until all leave dissatisfied. I find those exchanges both tiresome and educational. Less tiresome if I don't participate, of course. **

How apt! How funny!

There are two conditions where evolved behavior no longer serves genetic interests - a change in environment (i.e. the human 'sweet tooth'), or a competitor who uses evolved behaviors parasitically. In that case, the behavior in question is most definitely both biological in basis and harmful to the host. Symbionts and parasites must study and utilize pre existing genetic triggers in hosts....

Excellent.

mwdallas

2003-01-18 00:53 | User Profile

Comparing the instinctual behavior of ants and birds to human beings, who are deliberative beings, seems a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. Are you denying free will altogether?

There is no need to deny free will. People can deliberate all they want and reach the wrong conclusion and engage in maladaptive behavior of they are supplied with false premises on which to base their deliberations.

I'll sit back and wait for the next spinning plate.

Okiereddust

2003-01-18 03:46 | User Profile

Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 18 2003, 00:39 > Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 17 2003, 18:04 ** I find myself in Houston at least once a quarter, and happen to have a box full of the book in question in my trunk. We could meet at Cafe Brasil in trenchcoats and I'd be happy to give you one, if price is a consideration. The first hit is always free. **

No, I can afford the book. It's the time that's the problem. I'll go ahead an order a copy off of B&N.com one of these days. They have them for about $27.00 now.

** You really need to forfeit some of your invaluble time Polly and read MacDonald's book, rather than pontificate ignorantly on questions he addresses. His section on postmodernism is brilliant, and addresses all the questions authoritatively you are just speculating on.

** Reflecting the congruence between the Frankfurt School and contemporary postmodernism, the enormously influential postmodernist Michel Foucault stated, "If I had known about the Frankfurt School in time, I would have been saved a great deal of work. I would not have said a certain amount of nonsense and would not have taken so many false trails trying not to get lost, when the Frankfurt School had already cleared the way". (in Wiggershaus 1994, 4)Whereas the strategy of the Frankfurt School was to deconstruct scientific, universalistic thinking by the use of "critical reason," postmodernism has opted for complete relativism and the lack of any objective standards of any kind in the interests of preventing any general theories of society or universally valid philosophical or moral systems.

Contemporary postmodernism and multiculturalist ideology have adopted several central pillars of the Frankfurt School: the fundamental priority of ethics and values in approaching education and the social sciences; empirical science as oppressive and an aspect of social domination; a rejection of the possibility of shared values or any sense of universalism or national culture, discussion of "post-colonial theory" - another intellectual descendent of the Frankfurt School; a "hermeneutics of suspicion" in which any attempt to construct such universals of a national culture is energetically resisted and "deconstructed" - essentially the same activity termed by Adarno "negative dialectics". There is an implicit acceptance of the Balkanized model of society in which certain groups and their interests have apriori moral value and there is no possibility of developing a scientific, rational theory of any particular group, much less a theory of pan-human universals. Both the Frankfurt School and postmodernism implicitly accept a model in which there is competition among antagonistic groups and no rational way of reaching consensus, although there is also an implicit double standard in which cohesive groups formed by majorities are viewed as pathological and subject to radical criticism.

It is immensely ironic that this onslought against Western universalism effectively rationalizes minority group ethnocentrism while undercutting the intellectual basis of ethnocentrism. Intellectually one wonders how one could be a postmodernist and a committed Jew at the same time. Intellectual consistency would seem to require that all personal identifications be subjected to the same deconstructionist logic, unless, of course, personal identity itself involves deep ambiguities, deception, and self-deception. This in fact appears to be the case for Jacques Derrida, the premier philosopher of deconstruction, whose philosophy shows the deep connections between the intellectual agenda of postmodernism and the Frankfurt School. Derrida has a complex and ambiguous Jewish identity despite being a "leftist Parisian intellectual, a secularist and an atheist (Caputo 1997, xxiii). Derrida was born into a Sephardic Jewish family that immigrated into Algeria from Spain in the 19th century. His family were thus crypto-Jews who retained their religious-ethnic identity for 400 years in Spain during the period of the Inquisition.

Derrida identifies himself as a crypto-Jew - "Marranos that we are, Marranos in any case whether we know it or not" (Derrida 1993a, 81) - a confession perhaps of the ambivalence, complexity, and self-deception often involved in post-Enlightenment forms of Jewish identity. In his notebooks, Derrida (1003b,70) writes of the centrality that Jewish issues have held in his writing: "Circumcision, that's all I've ever talked about".**

Polichinello

2003-01-18 19:18 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 17 2003, 18:53 ** > Comparing the instinctual behavior of ants and birds to human beings, who are deliberative beings, seems a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. Are you denying free will altogether?

I'll sit back and wait for the next spinning plate. **

If they have been supplied with false premises, then they are not being self-deceptive, merely ignorant. That can be addressed in the world of ideas. You don't need biological explanations for that.

Best, P

mwdallas

2003-01-18 19:24 | User Profile

**If they have been supplied with false premises, then they are not being self-deceptive, merely ignorant. **

And your point is ... ?

Polichinello

2003-01-18 19:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 17 2003, 19:47 ** This is actually very funny. I have just made a pretty lengthy and detailed post where I addressed your request to explain MacDonald, observed that it has taken two days (so far) to make an absurdly small point about M's attribution of a biological basis for behavior Gentiles and Jews, insisted that we should discuss whether or not that is true after first establishing whether or not MacDonald actually holds the view in question, and topped it all off by making pointed remarks about your ability to change the subject. **

Let me be clear here. I didn't say anything about MacDonald's view on biological motivations. I was talking about the people here, who may or may not be using his views. And I have tried to confine myself to that and that alone.

I addressed your example of Derrida because you seemed to place a great deal of importance on it.

Your explanation by way of Dawkins of interactions between Jews and Gentiles seems a rather long stretch. Dawkins talks about ants and birds. These creatures act on instinct, so it prompted a curious question out of me about whether or not you believe in free will at all. I'm sorry if it offended.

Best, P

Polichinello

2003-01-18 19:29 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 18 2003, 13:24 ** > **If they have been supplied with false premises, then they are not being self-deceptive, merely ignorant. **

And your point is ... ? **

You snipped the point.

That can be addressed in the world of ideas. You don't need biological explanations for that.

Best, P

Polichinello

2003-01-18 19:51 | User Profile

I'm not pontificating on MacDonald. I'm dealing with the statements made here in the forum. I've always tried to make that distinction, and I'm sorry if the line was blurred.

Let's look at your quote on Foucault:

Reflecting the congruence between the Frankfurt School and contemporary postmodernism, the enormously influential postmodernist Michel Foucault stated, "If I had known about the Frankfurt School in time, I would have been saved a great deal of work. I would not have said a certain amount of nonsense and would not have taken so many false trails trying not to get lost, when the Frankfurt School had already cleared the way". (in Wiggershaus 1994, 4)

In other words, Foucault, a non-Jew, didn't need the Frankfurt school to wreak havoc. He did just fine himself and then discovered they had done it as well and regretted not running into them earlier.

I don't deny Derrida was a loon, nor am I all too surprised to discover that he had an obsession with his Jewish ancestry and 'oppression,' as the rest of your quote goes on to detail. Really, it would be more surprising if he, a leftist Jew living in post-Hitler Europe, didn't have some issues. Of course, those issues didn't keep him from defending his intellectual forefather Paul de Man (see, another non-Jew wreaking havoc all on his own), who had written some Nazi propaganda back in WWII, so those issues had their limits.

Best, P

Okiereddust

2003-01-18 20:41 | User Profile

Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 18 2003, 19:51 I'm not pontificating on MacDonald. I'm dealing with the statements made here in the forum. I've always tried to make that distinction, and I'm sorry if the line was blurred.

Polinchello pontificate? How could you ever accuse of thinking such a thing? :D

**Let's look at your quote on Foucault:

Reflecting the congruence between the Frankfurt School and contemporary postmodernism, the enormously influential postmodernist Michel Foucault stated, "If I had known about the Frankfurt School in time, I would have been saved a great deal of work. I would not have said a certain amount of nonsense and would not have taken so many false trails trying not to get lost, when the Frankfurt School had already cleared the way". (in Wiggershaus 1994, 4)

I would use this analogy - he wandered aimlessly and searched mightily, then one day stumbled upon the Frankfurt School, and said voila - here it is, I'm home.

Just like the Moabitess Ruth, he met some Jews, felt himself more and more in congruence with them, and finally declared "your people shall be my people - your home shall be my home, your God shall be my God" (or at least, your god shall be my god -using "God" in a manner of speaking).

**I don't deny Derrida was a loon, nor am I all too surprised to discover that he had an obsession with his Jewish ancestry and 'oppression,' as the rest of your quote goes on to detail. Really, it would be more surprising if he, a leftist Jew living in post-Hitler Europe, didn't have some issues. Of course, those issues didn't keep him from defending his intellectual forefather Paul de Man (see, another non-Jew wreaking havoc all on his own), who had written some Nazi propaganda back in WWII, so those issues had their limits.

Best, P**

And of course, he has imparted this "looniness" as you call it into postmodernism in general.

We are here to verify it walks and talks like a duck, and in all probability is a duck. Why it is an ugly duckling, and whether it could have been a swan is for children's fairy tales.

mwdallas

2003-01-18 21:27 | User Profile

Your explanation by way of Dawkins of interactions between Jews and Gentiles seems a rather long stretch. Dawkins talks about ants and birds. These creatures act on instinct, so it prompted a curious question out of me about whether or not you believe in free will at all.

And I pointed out that the issue of free will isn't even implicated.

Then you responded with a non-sequitur:

*If they have been supplied with false premises, then they are not being self-deceptive, merely ignorant. *

This is a non-sequitur, of course, because no one had suggested they were being self-deceptive. I had pointed out that "deliberative" creatures can act against their self-interest if they base their deliberations on false premises. You have the most extraordinary difficulty following the thread of an argument.

Polichinello

2003-01-20 15:02 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 18 2003, 14:41 ** Just like the Moabitess Ruth, he met some Jews, felt himself more and more in congruence with them, and finally declared "your people shall be my people - your home shall be my home, your God shall be my God" (or at least, your god shall be my god -using "God" in a manner of speaking). **

I think Michel would have been a little more at home in Sodom, though he wouldn't have minded playing Ruth to someone's Boaz.

Seriously, the ideas the Frankfurt School came up with can be found in earlier non-Jewish philosophers going back to Rousseau and Machiavelli. They're part of a larger stream of thought bent on overthrowing customs and entrenched morality that's been running through modernity for a very long time.

And of course, he [Derrida] has imparted this "looniness" as you call it into postmodernism in general.

And if it hadn't of been him, it would have been someone else, as the example of Paul de Man shows.

We are here to verify it walks and talks like a duck, and in all probability is a duck. Why it is an ugly duckling, and whether it could have been a swan is for children's fairy tales.

The problem is, you have a lot of quacking and waddling going on from people who aren't Jews. So perhaps your parameter for identifying a duck need a bit of revision.

Best, P

Polichinello

2003-01-20 15:07 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 18 2003, 19:09 ** Now for the small print, just to make sure this first point really did take. Do you, Polichinello, publicly avow that Kevin MacDonald attributes, both to Jews and Gentiles, biological underpinnings to their behavior, while reserving the right to judge the truth value of this claim for yourself in the future? **

As I've pointed out here and other places, I'm dealing with what's debated here. When it comes to Jews, out come the biological factors, unless of course they're acting in a conscious way, then they can be tarred as "evil." With Gentiles, here, no such standard is applied in a general way: you're either a hero or a coward; it's a matter of unconstrained choice.

As to MacDonald, I have acknowledged that I've only read what's on his website. He did as I recall, make mention of it. How it works in the larger book I don't know. However,that doesn't mean I can't see and read what's posted here and take issue with what programs are advocated here as well.

Best, P

Polichinello

2003-01-20 15:28 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 18 2003, 15:27 ** Then you responded with a non-sequitur:

*If they have been supplied with false premises, then they are not being self-deceptive, merely ignorant. * **

Yes, you're right. I made a mistake and confused the parties in question.

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the Gentiles are good-natured folk who, though acting out of ignorance, have free will, and the Jews are self-deceivers who do deceive themselves because of biology.

Best, P

Mr.Wilson

2003-01-20 15:53 | User Profile

The final chapter of "The Culture Of Critique",by Kevin MacDonald [url=http://home.att.net/%7Edysgenics/whither.htm]http://home.att.net/%7Edysgenics/whither.htm[/url]

Chapter 5 of "Separation And Its Discontents",by Kevin MacDonald [url=http://www.euvolution.com/articles/chapt5.htm]http://www.euvolution.com/articles/chapt5.htm[/url]

mwdallas

2003-01-20 16:19 | User Profile

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the Gentiles are good-natured folk who, though acting out of ignorance, have free will, and the Jews are self-deceivers who do deceive themselves because of biology.

There is no contention that "Gentiles are good-natured folk".

There is no contention that gentiles have free will.

As for the point regarding self-deception, the contention is much more complex.

Polichinello

2003-01-20 18:50 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Jan 20 2003, 10:19 ** > If I'm reading this right, you're saying that the Gentiles are good-natured folk who, though acting out of ignorance, have free will, and the Jews are self-deceivers who do deceive themselves because of biology.

There is no contention that "Gentiles are good-natured folk". **

Oh, very well, altruisitic.

There is no contention that gentiles have free will.

Round here, it's taken as if they do.

As for the point regarding self-deception, the contention is much more complex.

Of course, of course.

Best, P

SHOGUN

2003-01-20 21:24 | User Profile

Antiyuppie has good point. Of course there are right-wing jews, I have known a few, but must not lose focus on majority.

THE SHOGUN Long Live Samurai! [img]http://www.nsjap.com/axis/mishima.jpg[/img] [/B]

edward gibbon

2003-01-21 20:46 | User Profile

SHOGUN Posted on Jan 20 2003, 22:24

Your avatar is of Yukio Mishima, the Japanese author who wrote well, but was a samurai only in his dreams.

mwdallas

2003-01-21 22:27 | User Profile

Dark Eddy --

After all this, I must say that I do not reject the notion of intercourse with members of the Jewish group. As we know, the Jewish group (both at the level of its individual constituents and at the level of the group) is prone to self-deception and irrationalism. Still, in view of pieces like Stephen Steinlight's reconsideration of Jewish support for the immigrant invasion, we also know that the group attempts to weigh costs and benefits in determining its ethnopolitical tactics.

The survival of parasites depends on the survival of the host (which is essentially what Steinlight was pointing out). They need to be reminded of this fact (though not in those terms!). Thus, despite their genuine paranoia about white people, the simple fact is that if Europe and the European diaspora are destroyed, Jewry will be extinguished.

Certainly, they can successfully govern a low-IQ black population, but as the David Horowitzes of the world observe, such populations cannot produce the wealth necessary for the optimal fulfillment of the first commandment: "be fruitful and multiply". Nor can such a population sustain the technological infrastructure necessary for defense against incursions from technologically capable East Asians.

Similarly, Jews can govern populations of American Indians, especially where the mestizo model is employed so that the ethnic difference between the ruling class and the subject class is concealed by the creation of a continuum connecting the two races and the familiar phenomenon by which all mestizos look to identify with the superior class and disassociate themselves from their darker neighbors. Again, however, it is unlikely that such societies can create the wealth and sustain the infrastructure necessary to fend off the technically competent East Asians.

East Asians, of course, are not a possible host. Greater intelligence (compared to Africans and Amerindians), greater ethnocentrism (compared to Europeans), and greater genetic distance from Jews mean that the Chinese are not susceptible to invasion by the Jewish group.

Bottom line:

The Jewish group can't survive without us. If you want to change Jewish opinion, keep reminding them of this fact. At some point, it may register with the Jewish group brain, and the Jews may go back to the former strategy of fomenting, mediating, and profiting from conflicts between and among white populations -- which is (from our standpoint) vastly preferable to the genocidal course they seem to have settled upon for now.

darkeddy

2003-01-21 22:55 | User Profile

Mwdallas -- thanks for your post. I have to admit I don't talk to very many Jews who talk about Jewish group survival, apart from Israeli, who have a different kind of host-symbiote relation. But I think the points you make about Jewish dependence on white Gentile populations are very on target, and is true historically as well: despite the porgroms, etc., white Christians have Jews a home for centuries in a way few other peoples would.

mwdallas

2003-01-22 00:07 | User Profile

I have to admit I don't talk to very many Jews who talk about Jewish group survival, apart from Israeli

Even if they don't consciously recognize it, that concern lies beneath the surface.

As the great Jewish historian Salo Wittmaier Baron explained, "Judaism stresses the general aims of the Jewish people," and "what really matters in the Jewish religion is not the immortality of the individual Jew, but that of the Jewish people."

SHOGUN

2003-01-22 01:28 | User Profile

Edward Gibbon, Your History lesson is appreciated, However, I quite aware of who Yukio is. I do admire your work on "Barbarism And The Fall Of Rome" though.[B]

Sincerley yours, THE SHOGUN

Long Live The Samurai [img]http://www.historicalweapons.com/japanesearmor.gif[/img]

Franco

2003-01-23 02:14 | User Profile

All --

I have studied darkeddy's posts on this thread, and he seems -- to me -- to have come to OD to aid the Jew.

For example, in one post he said "white Jews." Ain't no such thing. Sorry. Jews are not White.

Then he said that he was able to persuade Jews to his way of thinking at times. Sorry, Nationalism is RACE-BASED!! How do you persuade a non-White into a White?What a joke.

If I was the moderator here, I'd give eddykins the boot. I smell a philo-Semite or maybe even a Semite, or else someone who knows nothing about Jews as a race.

Leveller

2003-01-23 12:15 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@Jan 23 2003, 02:14 **All --

I have studied darkeddy's posts on this thread, and he seems -- to me -- to have come to OD to aid the Jew.

For example, in one post he said "white Jews." Ain't no such thing. Sorry. Jews are not White.

Then he said that he was able to persuade Jews to his way of thinking at times. Sorry, Nationalism is RACE-BASED!! How do you persuade a non-White into a White?What a joke.

If I was the moderator here, I'd give eddykins the boot. I smell a philo-Semite or maybe even a Semite, or else someone who knows nothing about Jews as a race.**

Franco, I think DarkEddy has made some very good posts. He's certainly taken more stick than he's given out. Then again, he has been dissenting. :unsure: As to who's white, white can mean caucasian, although most here would use a narrower definition, it's not a precise term.

Texas Dissident

2003-01-23 17:12 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@Jan 22 2003, 20:14 If I was the moderator here, I'd give eddykins the boot. I smell a philo-Semite or maybe even a Semite, or else someone who knows nothing about Jews as a race.

Ha! If we booted everybody here that was suspected at one time or another of being something they weren't, then it would probably be just me here talkin' to myself. :huh:

mwdallas

2003-01-23 17:30 | User Profile

As to who's white, white can mean caucasian, although most here would use a narrower definition, it's not a precise term.

You're absolutely right. I would exclude Jews from the "white race" because they themselves opted out of the white race when they began their practice of endogamy and, essentially, pseudospeciation.

il ragno

2003-01-23 18:31 | User Profile

Ah! Another Polichinello "fightin' thread". These things always start out as Karpov v Kasparov and end up as Alphonse v Gaston. My hat is doffed to Wintermute for almost keeping that placid mask from spiderwebbing into a thousand hairline cracks. Almost.

I dunno from evolutionary psychology but I know that these threads illustrate perfectly how The Group In Question rise to prominence. They needle and needle in that last word every time: "not understanding", requesting further "clarification", haggling over nonessential minor points, etc, until they can get a real rise outta ya. Then the picador thrust! - be it the withering sarcasm, the anti-Semitic reference, the allusion to jackboots, brown shirts, etc.

An instinctive understanding of the inherent leeway for mischief contained within the rules of "civil discourse",and an eagerness to capitalize upon it; the dogged belief that whoever argues the loudest and longest is the one who's 'right'; a shockingly conscienceless ease with hypocrisy, mendacity or any other rhetorical low-blow that secures victory; the viciousness of a pit-bull in triumph, and the endurance of a pack mule against conceding defeat..... these are the qualities that have served Jews so well in American life.

It's why Hitler had race laws.

Franco

2003-01-23 19:37 | User Profile

My responders:

"White" means Aryan or European. Jews are half-Arab urchins by race.

Having White skin does not make you White. If'n dat be da case, Michael Jackson be ready for memmer-ship in da Klan, homedawgs!

Polichinello

2003-01-23 20:59 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@Jan 23 2003, 12:31 **Then the picador thrust! - be it the withering sarcasm, the anti-Semitic reference, the allusion to jackboots, brown shirts, etc. **

Well, I do try to avoid brownshirt allusions, for that would be quite unfair...to the brownshirts, who at least could claim to be a serious threat.

An instinctive understanding of the inherent leeway for mischief contained within the rules of "civil discourse",and an eagerness to capitalize upon it; the dogged belief that whoever argues the loudest and longest is the one who's 'right'; a shockingly conscienceless ease with hypocrisy, mendacity or any other rhetorical low-blow that secures victory; the viciousness of a pit-bull in triumph, and the endurance of a pack mule against conceding defeat..... these are the qualities that have served Jews so well in American life.

Any saracasm I employed in this thread was long preceded by someone elses'.

It's why Hitler had race laws.

You have a rough go in a debate, and now you talk about race laws. Such a tender little creature you are.

Best, P

darkeddy

2003-01-23 21:54 | User Profile

Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 23 2003, 06:15 ** > Originally posted by Franco@Jan 23 2003, 02:14 **All --

I have studied darkeddy's posts on this thread, and he seems -- to me -- to have come to OD to aid the Jew.

For example, in one post he said "white Jews." Ain't no such thing. Sorry. Jews are not White.

Then he said that he was able to persuade Jews to his way of thinking at times. Sorry, Nationalism is RACE-BASED!! How do you persuade a non-White into a White?What a joke.

If I was the moderator here, I'd give eddykins the boot. I smell a philo-Semite or maybe even a Semite, or else someone who knows nothing about Jews as a race.**

Just as 'white' can many different meanings, so can 'Jew.' One can convert to Judaism. I call such converts 'Jews.'

Moreover, if we are going to call Greeks 'white,' despite the fact that they have more than a smidgen of Turkish blood, why are we not going to call a blond-hairws, blue-eyed Jew with Germanic-features 'white,' just becuase they have some small proportion of non-European DNA? Whites are always setting impossibly high standards for the racial purity of white Jews that they wont set for themselves. The fact is, the amount of non-European DNA possessed by whites is fairly significant. A black has a child with a white, that child has a child with a white, and that child has a child with a white--and then you get someone who thinks she has no black ancestory.

As far as persuading non-whites to take up one's way of thinking--it is surely possible to convince members of other races that they white race is worth preserving.

I don't think I have any Jewish ancestory myself--neither appearance nor family history suggest this. But who who knows, and in any case I think Jews are quite a fascinating bunch, and there are many Jews I quite like. I am not sure if I would call myself a philosemite, as I find Judaic culture gets rather tiresome, given my Christian sensibilities. At the same time, I find this idea that frienship with conservative Jews is 'aiding and abetting the enemy' to be very tiresome. You can't pick friends based on who they may or may not support over the course of their lives, and frienship with conservative Jews is much more likely to lead to getting them to adapt their behavior to the interests of white Gentiles than it is to lead to the furtherance of leftist ideals. My main objection to say, marrying some cute, white Jewish girl doesn't have to do with paranoia about helping the rest--it's just that Jewesses tend not to be to open to Christian activity, which is bothersome to me.

And, course, I am not going to plead guilty on the broad-brushed 'ignorance' charges constantly leveled by the more semitophobic among us. They sound like blacks--'you be ignorant, you hater!'

il ragno

2003-01-23 22:00 | User Profile

You have a rough go in a debate, and now you talk about race laws. Such a tender little creature you are.

Tender like Ariel, you mean, who actually implements and enforces the sort of race laws that guys like you cluck your tongue disapprovingly at when they're in a 60-yr-old European context. Tender like the Frums and Horowitzes and Podhoretzes, who quote Martin Luther King as they remind me not to assault Arab citizens on my street, while they turn the screws of influence to ensure their incineration on streets far from mine.

Thing that kills me is how you register your distaste at every rhetorical-overkill flourish you encounter on this board while out there in the real world Israel is trying them out on real live people. Of course you're not unaware of this, which is why you jab the added needle of "Well, I do try to avoid brownshirt allusions, for that would be quite unfair...to the brownshirts, who at least could claim to be a serious threat", a dry-martini version of "yeah, you talk big, but I don't see YOU killing any Jews indiscriminately". (Replace 'Jews' with 'whitey' and I'd imagine that summed up a lot of Horowitz's pep-talks to the Black Panthers three decades ago. "YOU go, Jamaal...I'm too vital to the Movement to risk capture.....")

You overestimate yourself. You guys are so cocksure of your indispensability to world civilization that you forget that world history is dotted with footnotes representing people and species who no longer exist...yet the world continues to turn anyhow. We've managed to muddle through just fine without the Great Auk; we'll likewise get by without Jews.

*Incidentally, I'm not even part of this debate. I've seen these things escalate to double-digit bandwidth pages before, occasionally with me in em. One circle-jerk's more than enough for me. *

Franco

2003-01-23 22:02 | User Profile

darkeddy --

Converts to Judaism are not recognized as "true" Jews by the Orthodox -- the most important yardstick of all. Jews are a race FIRST.

Secondly, you are either a WN -- White Nationalist -- who acts based on RACE ALONE or you ain't. Kinda like being pregnant: you iz or youse ain't.

Which it be wit youse, homedawg? In or out?

Why don'tcha hop over ta VNN [URL below] and try some weel WN scat, homedoggie? Word!

Franco

2003-01-23 22:49 | User Profile

Why was this thread moved to the Politics section? "Jew/Gentile" is racial, not-not-not political...

We must be angering the management with our frank talk...

Polichinello

2003-01-23 23:10 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@Jan 23 2003, 16:00 > You have a rough go in a debate, and now you talk about race laws. Such a tender little creature you are.**

That's right, IR. You're just like Sharon and the neocons at their worst, and can be equally distasteful.

Thing that kills me is how you register your distaste at every rhetorical-overkill flourish you encounter on this board while out there in the real world Israel is trying them out on real live people.

Which I've condemned, repeatedly. I've done here and elsewhere, and I've done so with my name signed in full view, BTW. What's your point?

Of course you're not unaware of this, which is why you jab the added needle of "Well, I do try to avoid brownshirt allusions, for that would be quite unfair...to the brownshirts, who at least could claim to be a serious threat", a dry-martini version of "yeah, you talk big, but I don't see YOU killing any Jews indiscriminately".

Which we don't, and won't.

(Replace 'Jews' with 'whitey' and I'd imagine that summed up a lot of Horowitz's pep-talks to the Black Panthers three decades ago. "YOU go, Jamaal...I'm too vital to the Movement to risk capture.....")

Yeah, that would be Horowitz. So what? I don't like him either, and I've told him so in an open forum.

You overestimate yourself. You guys are so cocksure of your indispensability to world civilization that you forget that world history is dotted with footnotes representing people and species who no longer exist...

Many of whom tried to snuff the Jews. I find it funny the way you say "you guys." Most Jews I deal with in politics don't like me, and they wouldn't call me a Jew. And that's just fine as I identify myself as an American anyhow.

yet the world continues to turn anyhow. We've managed to muddle through just fine without the Great Auk; we'll likewise get by without Jews.

Going by past history, this ain't going to happen anytime soon, but I guess we all got to have our own little dreams.

***Incidentally, I'm not even part of this debate. I've seen these things escalate to double-digit bandwidth pages before, occasionally with me in em. One circle-jerk's more than enough for me. ***

You just got through reading all the posts (I assume), and felt sure enough to launch into me. I'd say you interjected yourself into this debate just fine. So what is this? You don't like being launched back into, and now you want to slink out with a mumbling, grumbling "I'm not even part of this debate"? Like I said, you're definitely no brownshirt.

Best, P

Leveller

2003-01-23 23:12 | User Profile

Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 23 2003, 21:54 ** The fact is, the amount of non-European DNA possessed by whites is fairly significant.**

No it isn't, not even in places such as Portugal where it might be expected to be highest, and anyway the arguments made on this thread have little to to with the imagined obsession with racial purity you're assigning to them. As for Greeks being a bit like Turks, who doubts it? Ethnic groups are fuzzy sets. Because they don't have sharp borders, it doesn't mean they don't exist, except to an essentialist, or a Boazian leftist.

Texas Dissident

2003-01-23 23:27 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@Jan 23 2003, 16:49 ** Why was this thread moved to the Politics section? "Jew/Gentile" is racial, not-not-not political...

We must be angering the management with our frank talk... **

Actually no, you're not. The discussion essentially involves a political alliance between Jews and White Nationalists. We're in the middle of a little reorganization effort and I thought it fit better here.

I do appreciate your concern for us, though.

darkeddy

2003-01-24 03:04 | User Profile

Originally posted by Leveller@Jan 23 2003, 17:12 ** > Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 23 2003, 21:54 ** The fact is, the amount of non-European DNA possessed by whites is fairly significant.**

Leveller, I completely agree both that ethnic sets don't have fuzzy borders and thar this does not mean they do not exist. My point was that if you allow for this level of racial impurity, you are going to have a lot of trouble making the claim that no Jews are white.

il ragno

2003-01-24 15:07 | User Profile

Actually...sad to say this...but I secretly agree with Polichinello. They've won. [Due to the evolutionary group strategies that P insists don't exist.] He goaded me into blowing my top there, but essentially he's right.

What would be required to rid ourselves of this minute number of parasites - who've been fighting a low-level guerrilla war against all the other peoples of the earth for 5000 years- is now far beyond our capabilities.

We're Tom Paine, standing out in the icy cold and hawking hand-mimeographed pamphlets to passersby avoiding us like the AIDS and Hanta viruses combined, fighting a phalanx of television networks beamed via satellite to every corner of the globe whether anyone requested 'em or not. We're charging at armed troops with pointed sticks.

Earl Raab is right. ""The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible- and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever." The only part he left out was the truth dearest to his heart. "And so, the world is OURS."

And so it is.

Polichinello

2003-01-24 18:20 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 24 2003, 02:06 ** > Going by past history, this ain't going to happen anytime soon, but I guess we all got to have our own little dreams.

Scuse?

So the Jews are going nowhere? This is very interesting information.

I could swear that there's another Polichinello running around on this board who is constantly at pains to explain to the goyim here that Jews are quickly breeding themselves out of existence, that intermarriage combined with low birth rates combined with lack of adherence to religion means, for those of us on this board who are suspicious or critical of Jewish power, that we have nothing at all to worry about. **

When I said "this ain't going to happen anytime soon," I had a consciously targeted effort to eliminate Jews in mind. I suppose I should have worded that better. I'm sorry I caused you confusion.

Best, P

Polichinello

2003-01-25 00:10 | User Profile

Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 24 2003, 16:41 ** I'm very happy to have this little point of confusion sorted out. So, to be sure that I understand you, what you meant to say to Il Ragno's contention that races and types disappear all the time, is to reply to him that Jews would soon disappear, as you claim elsewhere on this site? Please confirm if that is what you mean. **

The answer is yes and no.

Yes, I believe secular American Jews, who are the large majority of American Jews, will fade out over the coming decades. (I don't believe I said "imminent." If so, then I misspoke and apologize wholeheartedly.)

No, I don't believe Jews are going to completely disappear. There'll always be a small remnant of religious Jews. But then again they're so few and dated that they're not really worth worrying about, and many of them agree with 80-90% of the positions stated here; e.g. immigration, family values, etc. They tend to be more Don Feder than Alan Derschowitz.

In short, there'll be a gradual diminishing, but no absolute Judenreinigung of the sort IR hints at with his crack about race laws, which is the sense in which I took his comment about getting by without the Jews.

Does this answer your question?

Best, P

Exelsis_Deo

2003-01-25 01:17 | User Profile

I'm sorry, but unless you are living in a gas bubble you need to realise that White race pride will have nothing to do with the Jew. How dare you say that White pride can go nowhere without the Jew. That is totally false. Even more than false. Jews are not White. To be Jew is a hereditary condition. It is NOT the same as being Irish, French, or Portuguese. You are not in the White group. That's just the facts. Your race cannot hide behind Gentile names forever. How long can the Jews assume the basic names of Christiian Kingdoms, they always take basic names, let me tell you. I can discern a Jew by looking at him or her. I CAN TELL. Go away with your Bat Man icon and start reading the Bible maybe you will throw up after you realize you need to be purified just like the rest of us, and your butt stinks even worse. Learn the facts and be open minded because the Jews caused almost all of the atricities of the past century, and continue to enslave and poison America. If you think you have a get out of jail free card, think again because the true Israelites are EVERYWHERE. Your heritage is a lie as much as your unbelief is a damnation.

Franco

2003-01-25 01:18 | User Profile

When Polich. says, of Jews, that "many of them agree with 80-90% of the positions stated here," brother, that makes not one tiny bit of difference. Man, some of the people on this board need straightening out!

Nationalism -- mentioned in the subtitle of this BB -- is RACIAL. Ok? Whether a Jew agrees with 80% or 100% of "x" idea is MOOT. Ours is a racial movement.

If you wanna play simple right-wing [oops, semi-right-wing] politics and never mention race, become a Rush Rimjob fan.

ORION -- Our Race Is Our Nation

Franco

2003-01-25 01:19 | User Profile

Good post, E. Deo

darkeddy

2003-01-25 01:40 | User Profile

What a beautiful speech, E-Deo. I particularly liked the part about my butt.

I claimed that white race pride can go nowhere without the Jew? What do you mean, exactly? I remember arguing once that it is better to find ways to get Jews to ally with white Gentiles than it is to engage in a purely negative approach, but that would seem a rather different claim.

Why don't you leave my religion out of it? I doubt that what bizarre cult you take to be Christianity has much to do with my own Lutheranism, so I don't think there is a lot of room for discussion there. Thanks.

Franco

2003-01-25 19:34 | User Profile

darkeddy --

Jews cannot "ally with Whites" in racial matters. They are NOT White.

Nationalism, once again, is based on race. And, religion actually has nothing to do with the matter, either.

Ours is a movement built upon RACE.

ORION -- Our Race Is Our Nation. [Not "Our Religion Is..."]

darkeddy

2003-01-25 21:30 | User Profile

Franco, you claim that those who are not white cannot ally with whites 'on racial matters.' Well, clearly non-whites can ally with whites. Perhaps you could explain what matters make such alliances impossible, and how?

Franco

2003-01-25 21:37 | User Profile

darkeddy --

Oh, you mean Jews, Blacks and Mexicans are gonna help Whites retake the West? Really? And then, when Whites do retake it, what happens to the Jews, Blacks and Mexicans? Is that what you meant by non-Whites allying with Whites? Is that how they are gonna help Whites racially?

Man, you smoke some good stuff, homedawg! Mind-bendin' it be! Dang! Pass me some o' dat, brudderman!

Frederick William I

2003-01-25 21:46 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@Jan 25 2003, 19:34 **Ours is a movement built upon RACE. **

Excuse me. (for the benefit of the unitiated here)

Your movement. That is the difference between conservatism-nationalism and racism.

As Oswald Spengler said > Racism is the lowest form of conservatism

darkeddy

2003-01-25 23:01 | User Profile

Originally posted by Franco@Jan 25 2003, 15:37 ** darkeddy --

Man, you smoke some good stuff, homedawg! Mind-bendin' it be! Dang! Pass me some o' dat, brudderman! **

I actually had in mind East Asians.

darkeddy

2003-01-25 23:08 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jan 25 2003, 15:46 ** > Originally posted by Franco@Jan 25 2003, 19:34 **Ours is a movement built upon RACE. **

Excuse me. (for the benefit of the unitiated here)

Your movement. That is the difference between conservatism-nationalism and racism.

As Oswald Spengler said > Racism is the lowest form of conservatism **

White nationalism is based on race, and yet I do not think it has to be racist. It is a movement that seeks to have whites flourish, and which can make strategic alliances with members of other races when appropriate. For example, there are plenty of Latinos living in the US don't actually want more Latinos moving to the country. They like whites, and they like their jobs even more.

White nationalism only becomes racist when it promotes the ideology of judging others solely in terms of their race, or when it promotes totally un-justified, and viciously negative claims about other races.

Franco

2003-01-25 23:19 | User Profile

Moderator Frederick W. --

What do you mean, "That is the difference between conservatism-nationalism and racism?"

As someone who was a wimpy conservative and is now a Nationalist, I can tell you that you CANNOT pin a political label upon a racial movement. Saying "conservatism-nationalism" is like saying "ham sandwich-bicycle." Nationalism is racial, conservatism is only political. Rush Rimjob is only political, while George Rockwell was racial.

Does the subtitle of your BB not have "nationalist" in it? Is not race the foundation of the White West? If Whites fall [and they will], will that White West remain? [Nope].

So, you see, ours is a racial movement FIRST.

Now, that will be $5, cash. Send it to....

Franco

2003-01-25 23:30 | User Profile

Darkeddy, you sound like a leftist. Why not try websurfing for something more your speed -- a website such as "The People's Revolutionary Committee to Continue Che Guevara's Legacy." Heh, heh...

darkeddy

2003-01-26 02:20 | User Profile

Franco, it's not my problem if you can't tell your left from your right-wing.

Franco

2003-01-26 03:27 | User Profile

darkeddy --

Golly, yes, you are correct -- I flunked PoliSci all 3 years. Not a college grad in that subject like you....you must think we WNs are pretty dim bulbs, huh, edster?

I been doing this longer 'an you, kiddo....

Leveller

2003-01-26 09:31 | User Profile

As a "ham sandwich-bicyclist.", I loathe the term 'racism'. I think it's a great mistake to resort to Trotskyisms in discussing these topics, especially since you never know exactly what people who use such slogans specifically mean. The main purpose of the term 'racism' specifically is to blur the distinction between any acknowledgement of ethnic identity and the most extreme cartoon supremacism (only among unfavoured groups of course).

darkeddy

2003-01-26 09:44 | User Profile

Well, I don't agree about the use of the term 'racism.' The term is everywhere; point out anti-white 'racisim' connects immediately. Particularly when one defines what one means by 'racism.'

The term 'racism' does not have a 'point,' aside from being a vehicle for transmitting ideas. It has a variety of meanings, but none of them are 'blur the distinction between any acknowledgement of ethnic identity and the most extreme cartoon supremacism.'

Dan Dare

2003-01-26 22:34 | User Profile

**QUOTE (Franco @ Jan 25 2003, 15:37 ) darkeddy --

**Oh, you mean Jews, Blacks and Mexicans are gonna help Whites retake the West? Really? And then, when Whites do retake it, what happens to the Jews, Blacks and Mexicans? Is that what you meant by non-Whites allying with Whites? Is that how they are gonna help Whites racially?

Man, you smoke some good stuff, homedawg! Mind-bendin' it be! Dang! Pass me some o' dat, brudderman! **

I actually had in mind East Asians. **

Oh no Eddy! You're not Rban in disguise? Say it isn't true!

BTW what's an East Asian? Chinese, Korean, Lao, Thai, Bengali? Tell me when I'm getting warm...

darkeddy

2003-01-26 22:47 | User Profile

Normally, people mean by 'East Asian,' Japanese, Korean, and the major Chinese ethnic group. Definetly not Vietnamese, Laosian, etc. That's South East Asian.

East Asian immigrants have the highest avergae IQ's and the best record of adaption to Western societies. I single them out as possible allies for whites because they too are hurt by affirmative action--there are high schools in San Francisco that turn away half of the eligible Chinese-American students to make room for Latinos and Blacks--and because many don't like mass 3rd world immigration from places besides East Asia. Also, they don't necessarily seem to care about having more of their brethren come to the West--or, if they do, they certainly aren't very vocal about it.

Basically, though, my view is that white nationalists can seek support from non-white individuals who are interested in supporting white nationalist ideas for any number of reasons. Since non-whites don't normally have a special affinity for other non-whites outside of their own ethnic group, they often prefer having lots of white around, and a white-dominated culture. Also, some are threatened economically, or through crime, due to immigration even by their own people (e.g., not all Mexican-Americans want more Mexicans to move here).

More generally, it is a good idea to cast one's message about preserving the white race in a way that non-whites could potentially support. After all, many whites have supported various non-white causes; the inverse relation can also be made to work.

Dan Dare

2003-01-26 23:25 | User Profile

I take your point that the Chinese outside the PRC, the Koreans and the Japanese (perhaps better termed the North Asians btw) are likely not to actively wish for the white man's demise. But that is mainly because they are smart enough to understand that the white world is the source of the innovation and dynamism that keeps their world afloat.

You are being too sanguine in suggesting that they don't necessarily seem to care about having more of their brethren come to the West. That's certainly not how it is playing out in practice in the Bay Area, where Asians of all types but predominantly North Asians are by far the largest ethnic group (SF Chronicle, 27 August 2002).

[url=http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/08/27/MN186574.DTL]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...27/MN186574.DTL[/url]

On the principle of divide and conquer, I agree it might make short-term tactical sense not to spurn support from some of the smarter parasitic groups that have latched themselves to our culture. But let's not fool ourselves that having even more of them around is a good thing.

darkeddy

2003-01-27 00:40 | User Profile

Dan Dare, I don't know if East Asians want more East Asians in the country, just because more Asians show up. I would guess that there is some interest, but you don't get the clamoring for loosening on immigrations restrictions that we find coming from Mexicans and Indians. Maybe the Chinese are just quieter lobbyists in these matters (as they are in others), who knows.

Franco

2003-01-27 01:01 | User Profile

darkeddy -- I just noticed the URLs in your signature area. FrontPageMag? You gotta be foolin' dawg! Them dudes are so Jewish/Israeli that they may as well slap a Magen [Star of] David on the top of their homepage and get it over with. I'm surprised there ain't no Hebrew text at FPM.

Eddykins, you and I are gonna have to have a looooooong talk. Don't worry, I'll fix yer brain. Just gimme a couple o' weeks. Feel free to send me a PM.

W.R.I.T.O.S

2003-01-27 06:27 | User Profile

Cutting through all the nonsense, the bottom line is this: Jews have never been able to coexist with european host populations in a way not harmful to the latter's group interests. Jews have their own state with nuclear weapons that isn't going to disappear anytime soon no matter how much many people may want it to. Jews conceptualize of themselves as a race apart, superior to and eternally at war with other people. With all of this in mind, it would be reasonable to believe that we should not allow the presence of Jews in our societies. My own position on this matter can be worked out in somewhat more flexible and nuanced terms, but the generalizations I have have made are non the less correct. Jews are a "special" people, and in light of their history, can't be treated like everyone else because they are not like everyone else. Above all, a people with such a highly evolved sense of collective identity can not be treated as individuals. Because our people have shown throughout history to be totally incapable of dealing with the Jews's many peculiar behaviors, I believe seperation is the only solution to the Jewish problem. Maybe if the average white were a little more suspicious and group concious the presence of Jews in our societies would not be much of a problem.

na Gaeil is gile

2003-01-27 10:13 | User Profile

Originally posted by Frederick William I@Jan 25 2003, 15:46 > Originally posted by Franco@Jan 25 2003, 19:34 Ours is a movement built upon RACE. **

Excuse me. (for the benefit of the unitiated here)

Your movement. That is the difference between conservatism-nationalism and racism.

As Oswald Spengler said > Racism is the lowest form of conservatism **

In that case, I'm sorry to say, Spengler was an arrogant fool who happened to learn the rote of advanced mathematics without first learning how to add and subtract. Race is the context from which all our achievements spring making nationalism without race an oxymoron.

It is the suicidal non-racial politics of the West's intellectual elite that has delivered us into this mess. Sadly their intellectual snobbery and boundless capacity to look down on the 'lesser man' blinds them to what even the crudest 88er can see.

Conservatives may dislike some aspects of White Nationalism but they should be providing leadership in place of critique. The view from their ivory towers is about to get really ugly.

This is our purpose: to make as meaningful as possible this life that has been bestowed upon us; to live in such a way that we may be proud of ourselves; to act in such a way that some part of us lives on. - Oswald Spengler

Of course in Spengler's day the concept that Whites would be facing displacement and extinction was inconceivable.

Texas Dissident

2004-01-17 10:22 | User Profile

Thanks to the good folks over at vbulletin, I have fixed that pesky quote issue that was making a good number of the old pre-conversion threads unreadable. :thumbsup:

One small step for coders who know what they're doing, one giant leap for idiots like myself and the aesthetics of OD.

Okiereddust

2004-01-17 14:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thanks to the good folks over at vbulletin, I have fixed that pesky quote issue that was making a good number of the old pre-conversion threads unreadable. :thumbsup:

One small step for coders who know what they're doing, one giant leap for idiots like myself and the aesthetics of OD.[/QUOTE]Good work Tex. Look like the "Speakers for the Dead" threads are talking again. ;)

Seriously, that is one of the best things about this forum I think, the overall breadth and depth with which we have approached the issues of paleoconservatism and WN since we've been going. We need to make that work for us, and it being there is a prerequisite for that.

Hopefully all the old forum is readable and accessible with a search function now.

wild_bill

2004-01-17 14:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkeddy]What a beautiful speech, E-Deo. I particularly liked the part about my butt.

Everything Jews do is totally self-serving. That's a lesson we should have learned by now. If some Jews seem to be moving to the right or are mouthing pseudo-white nationalist rhetoric, it is only to support some Jewish agenda. No doubt some Jews realize that if the US fills up with hostile blacks and Muslims, Jewish interests will decline. In any case, if it weren't for that threat, the Jews would continue full-force with their traditional efforts to subvert white Christian America - many still are doing this. If the Jews can use us to sufficiently weaken the Muslims, you'll see Jews quickly drop their phoney support for Christianity and partiotism.

On this issue, white nations are between a rock and a hard place. We can't ignore the obvious Muslim threat nor that of the Jews. The Jews, OTOH, cannot survive if isolated. This is why I advocate fighting both. If the Muslims can damage Jewish power, then so much the better, but the people who seriously think the Muslims are our allies are just as mistaken as those who think the Jews are allies.

Some people on our side operate by the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", but I think this is a delusion. We face threats from both the Jews and the Muslims, each for different reasons, but threats nonetheless. Muslim Jihad against the Christian nations is just as a much reality as Moses Maimonides' command to the Jews to destroy Christianity.

Smedley Butler

2004-01-18 05:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=na Gaeil is gile]I see no paradox here, Jewish 'universalism' consists of elevating Jews and therefore it is merely a tool of their tribalism. 'Universal' Soviet communism destroyed the old Russian ruling class and replaced them with Jewish commissars. 'Universal' multiculturalism is destroying the ruling class of the First World, whites, and replacing them with victim groups of which the Jews are top of the pile. It has being quoted a thousand times and bears repeating: "If you want to know where the power lies ask whom you cannot criticize".

For the record I have no problems with Jews being tribal as such, they are just behaving as whites should. What I have a problem with is the fact that our cultures are targets of their tribalism.[/QUOTE] Sir, that last paragraph is a mouth full, and right on target.........I felt it was so clearly stated, it needed another post.. Salute!

Valley Forge

2004-01-18 12:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkeddy]There is nothing inherent to Jewish culture that makes Jews inimicable to white Gentiles. [/QUOTE]

Wow. You really are quite ignorant.

In light of the anti-Gentile writings in the Hebrew old testament, it could very well be that the world's oldest documented ethnic hatred is that of Jews for Gentiles.

I guess you either weren't aware of that (it wouldn't surprise me) or you don't believe the Torah & Talmud are inherent elements of Jewish culture.

Valley Forge

2004-01-18 12:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=darkeddy]Jews are growing increasing more conservative and anti-immigration. Obviously past anti-Semitism and the Holocaust poisoned the minds of many Jewish intellectuals against the West.[/QUOTE]

So Hitler and the Nazis standing up to the Jewish criminals who murdered millions of White Christians, burned churches, and spat on a thousand years of Western civilization was "anti-Semitism"?

If you believe that, then whatever you may think to the contrary, you are not pro-White. People who are pro-White don't yak about "anti-Semitism" and the "Holocaust" (which, of course, is a lie that never happened).

Valley Forge

2004-01-18 13:35 | User Profile

[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_culture&Number=1205941&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=0#Post1205941]If Goyim knew what we teach...they would kill us openly[/url]

"To communicate anything to a goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the goyim knew what we teach about them they would kill us openly." -- The Talmud, Libbre David 37.

[QUOTE] There is nothing inherent to Jewish culture that makes Jews inimicable to white Gentiles. -- dark eddy[/QUOTE]

Valley Forge

2004-01-18 13:50 | User Profile

This is somewhat off topic, but, wow, here's a great exchange between FR's veronica (posting under the handle "bypass") by LF's Voegelin:

Veronica:

Lying about the Talmud is one of the template schticks of anti-semites. Dummies buy into it, while some anti-semites know it's a pack of lies, but pretend to believe it anyway in order to spread hate against Jews.

Voegelin:

The most damning accounts of the Talmud and Jewish thought toward Christians came from apostate Jews--many of them former Rabbis.

Jews cite Martin Luther as a so-called "antisemite". Fact of the matter is, he only wrote extensively about the evils of Jewish thought a few years before his death and as a result of:

1.Learning Hebrew and reading the Talmud himself. 2.Reading what Anthony Margaritha and others said about their former faith.

[url]http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_culture&Number=1209146&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1#Post1209146[/url]

**So called "antisemitism" was a medieval reaction sparked by former Jews such as Flavius Mithridates,Adam Librecht, Immanuel Tremellius,Christoph Christian, the German monk Hermann, Nicholas Donin,Franco de Piacenza, Johannes Pfefferkorn, Johann Gottleib, Antonius Margaritha, Samuel Maroccanus, Paulus Staffelsteiner, Paul of Prague, Christian Gerson, Johann Mentes, Paul Kirchner, Moritz Christian and Gottleib Hamburger--among others.

Were they all lying about what the Talmud said?**

Did Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1629), the renown professor of Hebrew at University of Basel in Switzerland, not read the Hebrew texts as he claimed to have in his seminal work Synagoga Judaica,?

What about the Toledoth Yeshu? That too a fake and a lie?

**Martin Luther (1483-1546): On the Jews and Their Lies, **

Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?

And if he were to go on to do something coarser than that, they would nevertheless expect it to be regarded as a golden Talmud. Whatever issues from such a holy man, from above or from below, must surely be considered by the accursed Goyim to be pure holiness.

They vent their curses on us openly every Saturday in their synagogues and daily in their homes. They teach, urge, and train their children from infancy to remain the bitter, virulent, and wrathful enemies of the Christians.

. . . . before they would have us Gentiles whom they incessantly mock, curse, damn, defame, and revile share the Messiah with them, and be called their co-heirs and brethren, they would crucify ten more Messiahs and kill God himself if this were possible, together with all angels and all creatures, even at the risk of incurring thereby the penalty of a thousand hells instead of one . . .

Someone may think that I am saying too much. I am not saying too much, but too little- for I see their writings. They curse us Goyim. In their synagogues and in their prayers they wish us every misfortune. They rob us of our money and goods through their usury, and they play on us every wicked trick they can. And the worst of it is that they still claim to have done right and well, that is, to have done God a service. And they teach the doing of such things.

But one need not look to medieval history or read the Talmud to know what the Jewish attitude is toward Christians.

The writings and actions of Jewish hate groups such as People for the American Way (created to bar traditional Christians from public office), The Simon Wiesenthal Center (which uses the so-called "holocaust" as a hex on Christainity) and the ADL (which has a hot line Jews can call if they spot a Christain praying in a public setting) is enough evidence of the intensity of Jewish rage at non-Jews.

Angler

2004-01-19 01:04 | User Profile

The idea of a "Jewish-Gentile alliance" is absurd. Organized Jewry is inimical to the interests of everyone except Jews, and that will ALWAYS be the case.

As for the Muslims and Arabs, I have little problem with them personally. In fact, I admire their exceptional courage as exemplified by the Palestinians who resist the Israeli tyranny. (15% of Palestinians are Christians, by the way.) Of course I have no wish to live in a Muslim culture or import them into the USA, but I don't believe that all Muslims seek to kill non-Muslims. That's Jewish/neocon propaganda, and we should take care not to fall for it. There are extremist Muslims who hate all non-Muslims, but they are a minority of Muslims as a whole, and we have far less to fear from them than from ZOG, which seeks to disarm Whites across the USA.

Should we cooperate with the Muslims? Well, in a very real sense we already are cooperating with them whenever we speak out against the Jew. My opinion is that we should take a neutral attitude toward Muslims -- not welcoming them into our movement (except perhaps the White ones?) but certainly not showing them undue hostility simply because they have different religious beliefs and cultural traditions. Most Muslims basically just want to live in their own lands without being molested by Israel, ZOG, or ZOG-instituted puppet regimes. Not only is that goal fully compatible with White interests, it is complementary to them.

wild_bill

2004-01-19 01:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler] As for the Muslims and Arabs, I have little problem with them personally. In fact, I admire their exceptional courage as exemplified by the Palestinians who resist the Israeli tyranny. (15% of Palestinians are Christians, by the way.) Of course I have no wish to live in a Muslim culture or import them into the USA, but I don't believe that all Muslims seek to kill non-Muslims. That's Jewish/neocon propaganda, and we should take care not to fall for it. There are extremist Muslims who hate all non-Muslims, but they are a minority of Muslims as a whole, and we have far less to fear from them than from ZOG, which seeks to disarm Whites across the USA.[/QUOTE]

Its not neo-con propaganda that Muslims are murdering Christians and destroying churches in Kosovo. Its not propaganda that Christians have been suppressed in Muslim Turkey. You will recall that Istanbul (aka Constantinople) used to be the HQ of Christianity. Now the great church is a mosque. See:

Hagia Sophia visited by OCA Delegation Istanbul (Constantinople), Turkey, July 4, 2003 [url]http://www.oca.org/pages/events/2003/07.July/0703ConstantinopleVisit/0704ConstantinopleTRKYVisitChurches/index.html[/url]

Angler

2004-01-19 04:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]Its not neo-con propaganda that Muslims are murdering Christians and destroying churches in Kosovo. Its not propaganda that Christians have been suppressed in Muslim Turkey. You will recall that Istanbul (aka Constantinople) used to be the HQ of Christianity. Now the great church is a mosque. See:

In nearly every Muslim country Chrisrianity is either suppressed or banned. No, its not merely propaganda. Of course, the neocons use this for their own advantage, but that doesn't mean the Muslim threat doesn't exist.[/QUOTE] I see your points, and of course I'm not trying to claim that there's no credible threat from radical Islam. But I simply don't believe that the Islamic religion itself is inherently hostile to Christianity or that the Muslim world presents a monolithic threat. (You're probably familiar with the old story of how Saint Francis of Assisi actually became friends with a powerful Sultan as Francis tried to convert him -- and this happened during the Crusades!) In fact, the different Muslim sects seem to be at odds with each other more than they're at odds with Christianity (e.g.: the Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq; the Northern Alliance and the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to the US invasion).

It's also worth pointing out that much of the anti-Christian hostility on the part of many Muslims, while not justifiable in our eyes, can be attributed to an association of Christianity with the West in general, and specifically with the Jew-nited States. We have to remember that the US/ZOG has taken advantage of radical Islamic religious fervor to accomplish its own ends; it has played with fire and allowed it to rage out of control.

Basically, all I'm saying is that we should keep a wary eye on the Muslims without giving them more reason to hate us than they already have. We should also be much less concerned about the Muslim threat as with the Jews and their ZOG. The Muslims have not taken over the US government; they do not control the US media or other national institutions; and perhaps most important, they are not trying to disarm Whites. The Jews are doing all those things, and they are being very successful.

TexasAnarch

2004-01-19 12:04 | User Profile

-[/QUOTE]

Yes it DOES. THIS IS JUST JEW AGIT-PROP. The aim of the massive post 9/11 attempt to identify US and Israel's interests -- both being attacked by "Islamofascists" -- WAS TO DRIVE THIS WEDGE [B]YOU[/B] post here, between America and Arabic countries, at the religious level.

This is shown most clearly by the anthrax attack in which the printed letters enclosed with the deadly substance mailed to liberal Senators Leahy and Daschle explicitly EQUATED AMERICA AND ISRAEL AS COMMON ENEMY OF THE WOULD-BE POISONER. BUT THIS REFUTED ITSELF! -- SINCE THE POISON CAME FROM WITHIN THE U.S., PROVING IT WAS A KILLER PROPAGANDA STUNT. DID YOU FORGET THAT WILD BILL? DID YOU EVER KNOW OR APPRECIATE THIS FACT? Of course it may not make any difference to you that they tried to poison liberal Senators. They are liberal, after all.

THIS IS A JEW TRUTH REVERSAL. THRE HAS BEEN PEACE BETWEEN AMERICAN AND ARAB NATIONALITIES FOR CENTURIES, UNTIL WILD BILL CASEY STARTED SICCING MUJAHADEEN WHIPPED-UP RELIGIOUS JIHAD FERVOR TO ATTACK THE SOVIETS. I WOULD HATE ANYONE WHO POISONED THEIR OWN KIND AND TRIED TO BLAME ME FOR THE HIDEOUS, HEINOUS ATROCITY, WOULDN'T YOU? I WOULD REGARD THEM AS LOWER THAN SHIT.

wild_bill

2004-01-20 01:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Yes it DOES. THIS IS JUST JEW AGIT-PROP. The aim of the massive post 9/11 attempt to identify US and Israel's interests -- both being attacked by "Islamofascists" -- WAS TO DRIVE THIS WEDGE [B]YOU[/B] post here, between America and Arabic countries, at the religious level. [/QUOTE]

What did Bill Casey have to do with the 500 years of Muslim suppression of Christians in Turkey? Or the Albanian Muslim terrorism against Serb Christians happening now? Or Russia's problems with the Muslim Chechens? And how about the trouble the Asian pagan religions are having with Muslims?

Gregz

2004-03-28 02:54 | User Profile

[B]Re: Jewish-Gentile White Nationalist Alliance?[/B]

We are both quite incapable of honoring such an alliance.

The word [Jew] is synonymous with the words [manipulator] and [double standard].

The Jews are the most xenophobic people on the planet. Yet they continuously seek to promote[I] 'cultual diversity'[/I]. The Jews have weakened there own ethical standing by so hypocritically promoting there so called [I]'tolerance'[/I] of politicised perversions and admixture. Nether of which conform to there own doctrine which they seemingly so selectively practice. However rest assured, there arrogance and vanity will breed complacency.

The Jews are intent upon the territorial expansion of Israel. Jewish nationalists will only pretend to support a separatist agenda as long as it does not apply in any way to them. Need I tell you people that the Jews serve only the interests of there own kind.

The Jews lived in Europe for over a thousand years and along side us for far longer. They know us well enough. Indeed 20% of the root words of Hebrew are of Indo-European origin. The European order afforded the Jew some level of protection. Far more than the slavery and lingering death that they would offer us. In fact the Jews would often flee from Muslim lands on mass in order to seek sanctuary in Christian Europe.

Whining about European decline and defaming our enemies will not accomplish anything in it's self. The way ahead is surely to first rectify are own peoples failings and then strengthen there will.

The Arab is now so enraged by his own inadequacy to counter the Jew he is beyond all rational compromise. The Arabs and the Turks are weak willed and where never free of the Jews puppetry in the first place. They simply can not except the prevailing order. There paranoid conspiracy theory's and societal problems only serve to further fuel their inferiority complex.

The neo-liberal-con ruling classes have betrayed the interests of the common herd to a belligerent Asiatic hoard. Exile shall one day be the just lot of these traitors and cowards. They believe that they can disenfranchise us, suppress our opinion and alter are customs. All I might add whilst centralising power and covertly eroding both our rights and interests. They are merely thieves in the night looking for easy plunder.

Traitors and subversive aliens are of lesser importance compared to the manor in which we are self's treat are own kind. The present lack of Pan-European solidarity is unacceptable. Are aim should be to first place our own house in order and then and only then, direct are resources into guarding it jealously. The Jews and Muslims have pointed to many of our peoples perceived failings in the past. Some of what they say is probably true in this regard and it seems that no people sees themselves clearly.

It is the highest duty of every European Nationalists either have a family or to provide support to others wishing to do so. The greatest enemy of are people is demograhic decline. We must move to both restrict the use of the contraceptive pill and legislate against the abortion industry.

We Christian Nationalists are regarded as being a potentially dangerous foe as we are strong willed and can not be easily controlled or manipulated. This is the real reason why our enemies seek to destroy us. Not for reasons of revenge or some form of twisted kind of heredity justice. They are quite envious of are [I]'cultural psychic'[/I], better character and moral consciousness.

Gregz

[URL=ftp://64.53.98.86 /downloads/01 - These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You.mp3] These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You[/URL]

The "mandate of heaven" demands obedient and loyal service to the common herd.

"The true king wishes all men to be kings."

He makes no distinction between those who support him and those who oppose him. For he knows that in the end, the will of the many always succeeds over that of the few. He remains indifferent, simply cultivating and developing all around him regardless. Hence the true king is really the lowest servant of the people and never there master.

Franco

2004-03-28 03:34 | User Profile

Jews are not racially White. How can Whites have an alliance with non-Whites?

Gregz

2004-03-28 03:53 | User Profile

Hi Franco

It is true that attitude of young Jews toward Europeans is less hostile than it once was. What do you think of my post?

Gregz

[URL=ftp://64.53.98.86 /downloads/01 - These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You.mp3] These Boots Are Gonna Walk All Over You[/URL]

Ponce

2004-03-28 04:36 | User Profile

If you go to sleep with a dog you will get up with fleas.

You guys know who the Jews are, so why even argue about them.

Stay away from them and you will live longer, those people have been kicked out of many countrys from around the world and not for being Jews but for being trouble makers.

They like to work from behind doors and from the dark, you never see them but you can see the result of their operations. How many more Americans boys must die for the state of Israel? Join the Army and die for Israel ?????

WAKE UP AMERICA, If a Cuban without an education can see them for what they are then so can you.

Gregz

2004-03-28 05:10 | User Profile

[B]Ponce[/B]

They believe that all gentiles are animals. No one trusts the Jews. Europeans are racial separatists the Jews are racial supremacists. We are all our own worst enemy and the Jews are living proof of that.

It's is my believe that Israeli expansion can not continue to be constrained and appeased politically. As Israel is intent upon utilising it's military in a offensive manor to both attain it's regional ambitions and secure it's territorial integrity. Israel will not survive in the long term as a nation state, as she is fighting a battle that she can not decisively win against overwhelming odds.

Gregz

"Circumstances are the rulers of the weak; they are but the instruments of the wise."- Samuel Lover