← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 7229 | Posts: 87 | Started: 2003-06-09
2003-06-09 19:37 | User Profile
I'm really starting to wonder about the whole business of American Renaissance welcoming and even inviting Jews to participate. Is there something to it I'm not seeing, like, "we'll string them along for a while, use their wiles to achieve power, then flip on them when the time is right"?
In all seriousness, I do see advantages to caution on the Jewish issue.
It is, as a practical matter, 10 times more radioactive than the black/Hispanic issue, and 10 times more difficult for Joe and Sally to understand. I once didn't "get it" on Jews, and needed careful tutoring to come along. I'm lucky in that I've had some life experiences that caused me to seek as deep an understanding of the White dispossession as possible. Even at this, I struggled with the Jewish issue, hoping to God there was some way to convince myself they weren't really a problem. Most White folks haven't had my experiences, though, and for them, it would be extra difficult to persuade them on the Jewish issue.
Maybe some genius has calculated the probabilities and determined that we just have to lie about the Jewish issue if we're going to get anywhere.
On the other hand, does anyone really think we can fool Jews?
2003-06-09 19:46 | User Profile
If only it werea trick. I think its actually a misguided attempt by certain groups to seem more mainstream than they actually are, and to maintain whatever advantageous connections they have with Jewish individuals/groups while still being "politically incorrect". Its very irresponsible and selfish, in my opinion.
2003-06-09 20:49 | User Profile
I once talked to a [ahem, cough] "famous author" who wrote several books about Jews. [no names here].
What did he say about this issue of Jews/WN? He said that Jews MUST NEVER be let into the WN movement. EVER.
Man, you talk about cutting our own throats. Geez.
[and I must wonder why a topic about race is posted in politics? Not complaining, just wondering]
2003-06-10 04:08 | User Profile
It may be a misguided attempt on the part of the guilty parties thinking that if the jews are on "their side", they can get the message out. The jews that do join, are hedging their bets. Either way, it doesn't work. The jews will work only for goals that aid their tribe above any other people or concern. The message will not get any real exposure either. Being shouted down on roundtable discussion programs shows some of our opponents to be idiots or lacking any factual ammo, but it doesn't get the word out.
2003-06-10 04:32 | User Profile
I am friends with several Jews and would say without a moment's hesitation that [on a personal level] I have no problems with them [Jews]. However, as for allowing them into the WN movement? No way! Schopenhauer didn't call them "The Great Masters of the lie" for nothing. It seems that Jews, at least in the realm of politics and the state, will invariably seek to turn everything to their advantage, forget about everyone else. Just my .02, tho.
2003-06-10 15:25 | User Profile
Any American gentile who find himself living in a big city and working in a socially important occupation -- journalism, finance, law -- deals with Jews on a daily basis. I'm fortunate in that I've had a pretty broad exposure, from the hideously hook-nosed jewy jews to the cleaned-up assimilated ones. It has taken discipline on my part to begin thinking of them not as individuals but as members of a group hostile to our interests. That, I think, is work many are unprepared to do... the National Socialists' "but what about old Greenberg over there?" problem. But once you've gotten the right mindset, you're in a much better position in terms of securing the repossession.
2003-06-17 18:34 | User Profile
Well, since I doubt the terms "White Nationalist" or "White Nationalism" would exist if not for Yggdrasil, I poked around his site looking for clues what he'd think of something like "inviting" Jews into self-described White Nationalist groups. (And, its not clear to me Amren describes themselves as WN. Am I wrong?) Surprisingly, it appears Yggdrasil does not absolutely rule such things out, since this essay still appears on his site. And, yes, it does say "neoconservative" Jews would be "welcome" in a "European-American nation." If he's moved on from this, he should remove it. If its some sort of divide and conquer strategy, he's, well, lying from where I'm sitting.
** [url=http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-19.htm]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-19.htm[/url]
As a group they are changing very rapidly. We should let that happen. We should not slow down that process by forcing them to circle the wagons in defense against us. We have nothing to gain by doing that.
Edgar Bronfman (Seagrams - Chairman of the AJC) wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week that the Jewish rate of intermarriage has now reached 70%.
No, that is not a typo - 70%.
**Neoconservative Jews are defenders of Western Civilization and would be welcome in a European-American nation.
Howard Stern, the redneck Jew, is emblematic of an even more significant movement of Jews out of the psychological ghetto of fear, and into mainstream European-American popular culture. When Howard Stern berates blacks, he is not overcome by fear that turning his goyish audience against blacks might lead to discrimination against Jews as well. Forty years ago that would have been an automatic reaction among all Jews. Today, that fear seems as implausible to most Jews as would a fear that stirring up anti-black sentiment would lead inexorably to discrimination against the Irish. **
Jews in the Howard Stern/Andrew Dice Clay mold do not consider themselves threatened by other whites. Psychologically they feel that they are whites, and I see no reason to try to change their minds. **
2003-06-17 20:23 | User Profile
Undecided --
That Ygg essay apparently is pretty dated -- 1996 or so.
Jews are NOT White, and must never be allowed into the WN camp.
2003-06-18 01:35 | User Profile
[SIZE=3]The White Nationalist Double Standard[/SIZE]
Undecided said:
[color=blue]"If he's moved on from this, he should remove it..." [/color]
If I am not mistaken, Yggdrasil commented on Stormfront not too long ago on this very subject of Jews being allowed into the ranks of white nationalism. I believe he's still open to negotiation on this matter, which should warm the hearts of the many VNN sycophants out there.
Okay, you say - no Jews allowed in WN. If you really mean it, then you need to be VERY specific about who is - and who isn't - a Jew.
For instance, is an individual who is 1/8 Jewish a "Jew"? If not, please let all those out there who are only 1/8 Jew know that you would welcome them into the WN fold. But if 1/8 Jews are not to be allowed - then it stands to reason that whites who claim 1/8 native American Indian should be excluded too, since from a purely racial standpoint they are even "less white" than whites who claim 1/8 Jewish ancestry.
If you do exclude whites who claim up to 1/8 native American ancestry, then expect to hear from some Stormfront members - who claim such a percentage of non-white genes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Adolf Hitler himself allow some Jewish blood to be present in otherwise "racially acceptable" Germans?
[SIZE=3]Who's More "White"?[/SIZE] [img]http://cache.corbis.com/CorbisImage/thumb/14/08/41/14084123/9000054538-001.jpg[/img] Danny Kaye - fair-haired, fair-skinned Jew
[img]http://cache.corbis.com/CorbisImage/thumb/11/41/65/11416575/BE086333.jpg[/img]Dudley Moore - dark-haired, darker-complected white
2003-06-18 01:43 | User Profile
Hello Undecided,
With respect to Yggdrasil I too like his site even if he never updates it anymore. Certainly one does not have to agree with everything he says (I don't ) to recognize that much of what he says is valuable. The term "white nationalist" has been about from at least the mid ââ¬Ë80s so it's a safe bet that Yggdrasil did not coin the term. Some things are simply not subject to mere opinion but are indeed strictly a matter of fact or the absence their of. To tell you a bit about the matter I refer you some comments I made in another thread here:
Moving on to TR's notion that jews are racially Occidental (as does his organization of choice, AmRen) I present the following:
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...5&dopt=Abstract]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...5&dopt=Abstract[/url]
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 6;97(12):6769-74. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes.
Hammer MF, Redd AJ, Wood ET, Bonner MR, Jarjanazi H, Karafet T, Santachiara-Benerecetti S, Oppenheim A, Jobling MA, Jenkins T, Ostrer H, Bonne-Tamir B.
Laboratory of Molecular Systematics and Evolution, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. mhammer@u.arizona.edu
Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of the Jewish Diaspora. A set of 18 biallelic polymorphisms was genotyped in 1,371 males from 29 populations, including 7 Jewish (Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian) and 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.
Jews have unique genetic ailments that racial whites do not as I am sure any one with even a passing familiarity with the subject knows. Less well known but discovered with minium effort are the following studies: [url=http://www.genetichealth.com/BROV_Gen_Dis_...Ashk_Jews.shtml]http://www.genetichealth.com/BROV_Gen_Dis_...Ashk_Jews.shtml[/url] [url=http://www.hfnj.org/genetics.htm]http://www.hfnj.org/genetics.htm[/url] [url=http://www.juf.org/news_public_affairs/art...le.asp?key=2225]http://www.juf.org/news_public_affairs/art...le.asp?key=2225[/url] [url=http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.08.1...7/genetic3.html]http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.08.1...7/genetic3.html[/url]
I suggest that TR briefly scan the genetic research prior to making such absurd claims as jews are whites. A decent start would be - www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstract.html And [url=http://www.jeffsarchive.com/index2.htm]http://www.jeffsarchive.com/index2.htm[/url], [url=http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/eugenics.htm]http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/eugenics.htm[/url], [url=http://www.yucommentator.com/archives/v62i.../cohengene.html]http://www.yucommentator.com/archives/v62i.../cohengene.html[/url], [url=http://www.judea.ru/show_topic.php3?topic_id=93]http://www.judea.ru/show_topic.php3?topic_id=93[/url] [url=http://eserver.org/bs/33/newitz.html]http://eserver.org/bs/33/newitz.html[/url]
Another good source of information on the topic is THE SACRED CHAIN: The History of the Jews By Norman F. Cantor. Harper Collins Publishers (New York, 1994). A decent article on the matter is here: [url=http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html]http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html[/url] [url=http://www.xenith.com/articles/jewish.html]http://www.xenith.com/articles/jewish.html[/url] and some more here: [url=http://www.jewishgen.org/Rabbinic/links/gen.htm]http://www.jewishgen.org/Rabbinic/links/gen.htm[/url] , [url=http://www.assyrianfoundation.org/genetics.htm]http://www.assyrianfoundation.org/genetics.htm[/url] .
Israel knows that TR is wrong (as shown by the Zionist state's immigration policy) and that should TR bother to look into the matter of genetic warfare and Israeli efforts to develop pathogens that kill only Arabs (rather then their own branch of the Semitic race) TR can save him self further embarrassment. A decent start is a story carried by London Times in November 1998 although another good source is- [url=http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/vredeslijst/20...001/000195.html]http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/vredeslijst/20...001/000195.html[/url] [url=http://www.isnet.org/archive-milis/archive...nov98/0647.html]http://www.isnet.org/archive-milis/archive...nov98/0647.html[/url] as is [url=http://www.faem.com/letters/h1104a.htm]http://www.faem.com/letters/h1104a.htm[/url] and [url=http://www.panmacmillan.com/PlagueWars/PDF...34pp372_376.pdf]http://www.panmacmillan.com/PlagueWars/PDF...34pp372_376.pdf[/url]
As to the matter of what impact Jewry has had on the Occident I would instruct everyone to read the McDonald trilogy . For those with little time to read about this most vital of issues see: [url=http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=1010]http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=1010[/url] >
As to AR and the jews plenty can be found here and at VNN on the matter as well as Legion Europa. What follows is an exchange between myself and an American at www.occidentalorigin.com on the matter:
From: vibeke Ostergaard <****>
Subject: Re: [edpf] Re: The American Renaissance group (arlist)
What you say has lots going for it at first blush in that you are correct that hitting people with pure, unadulterated truth simply causes them distress and they shut you out as a result. I will readily admit that from time to time I myself take AR articles and pass them about as they are good for pointing out to the uniformed that a racist policies hurt them if nothing else. Although the wonderful, but recently vanished www.macstand.com , did that job much better for the most part. I will also state that the AR conferences do have some excellent speakers that Americans should see (along with some mediocre ones) and I assume that AR has numerous members far better then the leadership (as does the NA) so my condemnations of AR are not total.
However, we must remember that what we are attempting to do is stop the demographic/cultural/spiritual destruction of Occidentals and those of you in America have an obligation to not assist those that are not attempting to do so. The critical problems with AR basically comes down to the unavoidable reality that you can't claim to be defending the racial interests of Americans if you: a) are confused about who is white B) openly state that miscegenation with far larger races and ones that hate yours is a good idea c) have non whites in positions of authority within your organization d) delude your self into thinking that cowardice on crucial issues will help you achieve real progress. What is needed is to honestly, express a positive, life affirming racialism carefully crafted to appeal to a very specific segment of white opinion.
Most importantly, the successful propagation of our ideas demands public activism and that we be living examples of the virtues of our ideologies by being exactly the opposite in our lives of what the propasphere says we are. >
Regarding American Renaissance, Vibeke, I have no illusions as to what, in many areas, it represents as a watered-down, insipid kind of racialism.
I suppose it all goes back to the old theory that it is dangerous to wake a somnambulist too quickly; the shock of awakening him/her could be traumatic. In other words, the white race seems to be in a cataleptic state induced by political correctness, Jewish "liberalism," globalist brainwashing, Falwellist-Robertsonist- Bauerist pseudo-Theology. American Renaissance may provide a mild stimulus in the process of awakening without undue shock, in the same way that some libertarian economists provide an occasional dose of sanity into Federal Reserve Greenspanist notions like "deflation is bad for you." Maybe a bit like Schopenhauer on the three stages in the development of a truth?
When the patient is partially awake, we can arouse him to reality further.
hohenstaufen
wrote:
The current management has issued posts in which they speak in glowing terms of the sex appeal of Latinas and how whites would benefit from miscegenation with "high IQ Asians". The management of the current list has also indicated that miscegenation with Mestizos is acceptable as a) they are partly European any way B) white Americans have interbred with domestic Indians for some time so doing so with Latin American - Euro-Indian admixtures is O.K.
If one has an hour or two to kill digging around in the letters and archives of VNN and O.D. you can find plenty of the exact quotes taken from the current AmRen list that states as much. If you read over Mr. Renzi's article on AR's jews you'll find extensive treatment on the matter as far as the magazine goes. >
2003-06-18 01:47 | User Profile
[off-topic]
See my post on Rennick under OD Avatars, in Members Only section.
2003-06-18 01:49 | User Profile
No, Rennick, Ygg's article about Jews being let into WN circles is 7 or 8 years old.
Why did you come to OD, Renny?
2003-06-18 01:58 | User Profile
[SIZE=3]From An Anthropological Standpoint, Jews Are Caucasian[/SIZE]
[color=blue]"Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population..."[/color]
The above quote only supports my statement, i.e., that Jews are white - IF one accepts the traditional anthropological conception of The Three Races of Man:
A: Caucausoid B: Mongoloid C: Negroid
Besides Europeans, Arabs, Iraqis, Jews, and Pakistanis, among others, are racially cacausoid.
On the other hand, American Indians belong to the mongoloid race, indicating that those Euro-Americans with 1/16 native American Indian blood are - from a scientifically racial standpoint - "less white" than a Euro-American who claims 1/16 Jewish ancestry.
Until white nationalists iron these inconsistencies out (they haven't) then excluding those with "some Jewish blood" will remain problematical.
2003-06-18 02:01 | User Profile
[color=blue]"No, Rennick, Ygg's article about Jews being let into WN circles is 7 or 8 years old."[/color]
That is true.
However, Yggdrasil very recently posted on Stormfront, within the last three months or so, indicating that Jews (some, at least) would be acceptable in a WN society. But don't take my word on this - either email him or consult someone at Stormfront who is knowledgeable about Yggdrasil's recent posts.
2003-06-18 02:28 | User Profile
ALL --
Kindly note that Jews are NOT White. They are a hybrid ethnic group. Not a race or subrace, but still related by DNA and blood. They are roughly half-Arab. If you are half-Arab, YOU ARE NOT WHITE.
Jews are inbred mongrels who get certain diseases....because they are inbred mongrels. See?
Why did you come to OD, Renny?
2003-06-18 02:31 | User Profile
What Is a Jew?
[url=http://cptwc.matriots.com/jews45.html]http://cptwc.matriots.com/jews45.html[/url]
2003-06-18 02:48 | User Profile
Here Rennick is using another typical troll diversionary tactics of suggesting that the opposition should work out some imaginary inconsistencies, inconsistencies that he simply asserts having totally ignored other people's arguments. As it has been proven beyond any doubt, Rennick is going to continue trolling no matter how many times he's refuted. :dung:
2003-06-18 03:00 | User Profile
Well, even if'n he ain't a troll, he is a Birch-type -- never naming the Special, Shiny, Chosen taproot of the death of the West. That's just as bad.
If the West is being murdered and you say, "no, the other people are killing it, not the Talmudists," then you are Part Of The Problem.
No Jews? No Problems. Got Jews? Got Problems. Which part don't Renny git [if he ain't a specialshinypet?] :sm: :D
2003-06-18 03:01 | User Profile
*Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 17 2003, 22:48 * ** Here Rennick is using another typical troll diversionary tactics of suggesting that the opposition should work out some imaginary inconsistencies, inconsistencies that he simply asserts having totally ignored other people's arguments. As it has been proven beyond any doubt, Rennick is going to continue trolling no matter how many times he's refuted. :dung: **
Despite my patience, I am beginning to lean toward your position, MR. I might just have to write him off and ignore him. I say this because I now notice that he's shifted the subject of his posts from "respectability versus 'skinheads" to a variant of the famed "Who is White?" question that multiracialists love to nitpick about, because they know that they can trigger endless hairsplitting and contention over definitions and procedures of analysis and such.
Is it just coincidence that so far he's managed to pinpoint the tired set of hotspots and snares that come into play when multiracialists try to "debate?"
I noticed that Rennick indicated in his profile that his interest is in "reforming White nationalism." Reforming it toward what ends, in what direction? To be a neutered carbon-copy of mainstream connedservantism? No thanks! If I wanted to play it Rennick's way, I could just return to the GOP and vote for Bush next time around.
2003-06-18 03:03 | User Profile
Can anyone say Neocon?
Sure, let 'em in. Why not? And after they help us clean up the country, repatriate all the ungrateful foreigners who chew up welfare or nab each H1b visa, they'll settle in comfortably, and get to work ALL OVER AGAIN in the manner in which they are programmed; working together to shaft ol' whitey, take advantage, rob the Rube. Any efforts by jews/jewish organizations are "feelers", they are attempts to help the tribe hedge their bets, as they know who will have last say when things tip.
"We were on your side all along, we just made some mistakes." Right. The tribe members who are noticing that their meddling with immigration is bringing in Ay-rabs who have no affinity for the "chosen" and mestizos who don't give a damn about THE HOLOCAUST™, are the "just in case" point men, trying to set things up when the inevitable collapse hits. Look what happened to the Republicans, to "conservatives".
They have waged war on White America for over a century, and against the West for millenia. It's WHO AND WHAT THEY ARE. Let them go somewhere else, let them bother somebody else ... MAKE them go somewhere else is probably a better way of saying it.
2003-06-18 03:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Tom Rennick@Jun 17 2003, 19:35 * ** [SIZE=2]Who's More "White"?[/SIZE]* [img]http://cache.corbis.com/CorbisImage/thumb/14/08/41/14084123/9000054538-001.jpg[/img] Danny Kaye - fair-haired, fair-skinned Jew
[img]http://cache.corbis.com/CorbisImage/thumb/11/41/65/11416575/BE086333.jpg[/img]Dudley Moore - dark-haired, darker-complected white **
Whoa! I never thought about the whole Danny Kaye vs. Dudley Moore paradox! This changes everything!
Well, you convinced me! Let the jews in!
Wait 'til I tell Alex Linder the news! :rolleyes:
SIZE=1[/SIZE]
2003-06-18 03:47 | User Profile
As my heewo [sp] Leon Trotsky say, "tis da shallow mind dat looks at skin color alone, ignoring DNA and genes." Either it was Trotsky, or.... my neighbor Dave Sheinbeinfeldwitzbergnikbaum.... Either way, words ta live by, they're!! :D :D :D
2003-06-18 03:49 | User Profile
Addition to above post:
"skin color" being the color of the skin of Jooos/sheenies/pets/Judenrodents, ya see...
2003-06-18 03:53 | User Profile
Kurt:
(btw, Danny Kaye dyed his hair)
[img]http://www.filodiritto.com/artediritto/locandine/KAYE.jpg[/img] Kay's appearance was considered "too Jewish" by the Hollywood studios that wanted the comedian to get a nose job. As a compromise, the dark haired comic actor dyed his hair blond.
[url=http://www.brown.edu/Research/Catskills_Institute/confrep/7.html]http://www.brown.edu/Research/Catskills_In.../confrep/7.html[/url]
2003-06-18 04:27 | User Profile
Half of the Jews in the West don't "look Jewish" due to certain factors: dyed hair, nose jobs, their ancestors lived in Europe for many years -- resulting in "White" skin, etc., etc. You really must go by DNA to be real sure that Bob Jones is really Bob Weintraubwitzfeld.
2003-06-18 04:33 | User Profile
Addition to above:
Jews lack a blood/genetic enzyme called Hex-A. That is a pretty good way to tell if someone is a Jew. Make him get a blood test. :D :D
So special... so mutant....
2003-06-18 04:52 | User Profile
[SIZE=3]JOOZE[/SIZE]
Franco said: > [color=blue]"Jews lack a blood/genetic enzyme called Hex-A. That is a pretty good way to tell if someone is a Jew. Make him get a blood test."[/color]
Mr. Franco: Why don'tcha give Kurt that blood test, okay? Ya never know, he just might be a Hymie trying to "pass".
[SIZE=3]Who's Not White Here?[/SIZE]
[img]http://women.stormfront.org/faces/janice2.jpg[/img] [img]http://women.stormfront.org/faces/elisha.jpg[/img] [img]http://cache.corbis.com/CorbisImage/agent/12/67/09/12670984/AX022054.jpg[/img] [img]http://women.stormfront.org/faces/Mussolini.jpg[/img]
According to Kurt & Franco, the woman third from the top isn't white. All I can say is this: if she isn't white, then DNA blood tests will be necessary - at gunpoint - in any white nationalist state run by Neo-Nazis. Load your Schmeiser, Franco....
PS: I confess - I didn't know that Danny Kaye died his hair blond. Just goes to show you can't trust a Jew, can you?
Tom
2003-06-18 04:56 | User Profile
No need for DNA tests, gefilte fish stink gives rennicks away :lol:
2003-06-18 05:09 | User Profile
Hawn is not White. She's half-ShinyPet. Again, White is not "appearance," White is DNA. Ya go by blood...
2003-06-18 05:10 | User Profile
Well, Goldie Hawn is "half jewish" - but since her ma' is jewish, and they are matrilineal, so ... she is definitely jewish. And looks it too, blonde hair or no. Maybe we'll see a picture of Alicia Silverstone next ...
[url=http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/hawn.html]http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/hawn.html[/url]
Family: Father: Edward Rutledge Hawn, former musican Mother: Laura Hawn (née Steinhoff), former jewelry wholesaler, dance school owner and administrator
Goldie Hawn was born in Silver Spring, Maryland, on November 21, 1945, to Laura (Stienhoff) Hawn, a dance school owner and jewelry wholesaler, and Edward Rutledge Hawn, a professional musician. Hawn was raised Jewish although, she notes, "not in a strictly religious atmosphere," and describes a happy home life. She began dancing at age three, and danced in the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo's Nutcracker chorus at age ten. Hawn recalls being asked to dance on point for a friend's bar mitzvah. The music started, and she slipped and fell-twice. Succeeding on her third attempt, "I realized I was probably the little girl who was going to make it."
2003-06-18 05:21 | User Profile
These look like perfect candidates for AmRen and Rennick's reformed WN :shock:
[img]http://www.jrbooksonline.com/images/Tormay2_Terrorists_1_30p.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.jrbooksonline.com/images/Tormay2_Terrorists_2_30p.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.jrbooksonline.com/images/Tormay_Kun_30p.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.jrbooksonline.com/images/Tormay_Boehm_30p.jpg[/img]
2003-06-18 05:27 | User Profile
Please pass the bagels and lox....mmmmm...yummy!!
2003-06-18 05:35 | User Profile
[SIZE=3]Goebbels - The Jewish-Looking "Aryan"[/SIZE]
Franco said:
[color=blue]"White is not "appearance..."[/color]
Maybe you're right, Mr. Franco. Just because a person looks totally and unquestionably "white" we shouldn't ASSUME they are - at least - not until a DNA test confirms it. So, should our "white" friends refuse to take such a test (or lack the money to) we should just consider them to be non-whites until proven otherwise.
On second thought, just call me old-fashioned, but I think I'll rely on my own two eyes to tell me who's white, and who isn't. Guess I just don't care to live in your world of extreme uncertainty, Mr. Franco. But I will admit one thing, if I had to choose between this man.... [img]http://www.salvator.net/salmat/pw/pw1/macht/bilder/goebb1.jpg[/img] or this woman as being "more white", I'd choose the woman.... [img]http://cache.corbis.com/CorbisImage/agent/12/67/09/12670984/AX022054.jpg[/img]
2003-06-18 05:41 | User Profile
[SIZE=3]Hey, Gotta Admit THOSE Jews Were Ugggly!!![/SIZE]
Madrussian said: > [color=blue]"These look like perfect candidates for AmRen and Rennick's reformed WN..."[/color]
Okay, gotta give you a point for that last shot. Below the belt, maybe, but those were DAMNED ugly Jews! But really, you gotta admit that THIS guy would fit in pretty well with those ugly jokers: [img]http://www.salvator.net/salmat/pw/pw1/macht/bilder/goebb1.jpg[/img] I mean, with that nose, dark eyes, and oily complexion, Herr Goebbels DOES look rather Jewish, doesn't he!
2003-06-18 05:46 | User Profile
It seems TR can't read even the shortest of abstracts honestly. He seems to think that "support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population..." means jews are white so I assume that he views the statement that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities." will be interpreted in the same way. Naturally, he ignores numerous other sources cited which firmly refute his claims.
Of course I note that uses the term Caucasoid as synonymous with White which it obviously is not. I am concerned with people of European descent or Occidentals as it is Occidental nations that have produced the civilizations that we Eurocentrics (rather then Caucasoidcentrics) are concerned with. He also thinks that Arabs, (of which Iraqis are a subset) and Pakistanis are white which indicates that TR is blind as well as dishonest. These people, very few exceptions, don't look Occidental and no one (save the faux racialists at AR) thinks of them as Occidental as they obviously are not. Given that TR thinks Pakistanis are racially like us I see once again indication that AR is actively in the enemy camp.
Whites are people of overwhelmingly European descent and no one else. Hair colour and eye colour, including Danny Kayes dye job, does not make one more or less an Occidental but the genotypes that allow us differentiate surgically unaltered Arabs, Pakistanis and Europeans do matter for reasons far more important then just aesthetics. We could quibble if the cut off point is 1/8th or some other comparatively low percentage but in the end the reality is that someone with a substantial non European ancestry is not racially Occidental.
Getting back to jews and beating the stillborn horse that is TR's poorly counterfeited racism I submit a bit more material that TR lacks the ability and desire to given an honest reading to from the Refuting racial Myths site whose graphics I will not reproduce here - [url=http://www.geocities.com/refuting_rm/2.html]http://www.geocities.com/refuting_rm/2.html[/url]
MYTH #2 Are Jews white? This question of course depends on how one defines "white". If one considers "white" synonymous with "Caucasoid", then Jews are white. However, if one accepts the traditional definition of whites as people of European descent, Jews are clearly non-white.
Jews are genetically distinct from Europeans Ashkenazi Jewish male lineages seem to be somewhere between 70% and 97% Jewish / Middle Eastern. It is possible that most Jewish female lineages originally came from host populations (though the data is inconclusive as to exactly where Jewish female lineages originate). However:
In each community, the women carry very few genetic signatures on their mitochondrial DNA, a genetic element inherited only through the female line. This indicates that the community had just a small number of founding mothers and that after the founding event there was little, if any, interchange with the host population. [In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots ]
After possible admixture early in the history of Jewish diaspora communities, Jews isolated themselves from their host populations and engaged in heavy inbreeding. Up until the latter part of the 20th century, Jews mixed little with non-Jews.
Jews do not genetically cluster with Europeans.
Triangles represent Jewish populations. As you can see, Jews do not cluster with Europeans, and Europeans do not cluster with Near Easterners (except in a broader sense). Jews cluster closest to Near Easterners, though Ashkenazi are slightly closer to Europeans than are other Jews -- possibly reflecting the European admixture in Ashkenazi. However, even with some European admixture, Ashkenazi are genetically closer to Near Easterners.
The above plot is based on Y chromosomes, but autosomal gene frequency data confirm that Jewish groups do not cluster with their host populations.
Ann Hum Biol 1982 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-34 Jewish populations of the world: genetic likeness and differences. Kobyliansky E, Micle S, Goldschmidt-Nathan M, Arensburg B, Nathan H.
In six Jewish populations from Eastern, Central and Southern Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Yemen, the frequencies of 30 genes from 13 loci were determined. The calculation of genetic distances between these populations as well as a cluster analysis were done. The gene frequencies of these six populations were computed together with those of 19 other Jewish populations of diverse countries described in the literature. Of the 19 populations, 22 alleles from 10 loci were checked. Gene frequencies in autochthonous, non-Jewish populations from these countries were also computed. All Jewish populations except Yemenites are concentrated in the same cluster, being closer one to another than to any of the non-Jewish groups. A similar picture is obtained when Jewish and non-Jewish populations from 19 countries are subjected to cluster analysis. The differences between the Jewish populations generally tend to bring them closer to the corresponding non-Jewish groups. The present data suggest that these differences cannot always be explained by admixture; other factors such as the effect of convergent adaptive processes must be considered.
PMID: 6802064 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Of interest as another example of his obvious bias, RM -- though he seems to feel negligible non-white admixture in Northern Europeans is of extreme significance -- fails to mention non-Caucasoid admixture in Jews. Seven percent (7%) of Ashkenazi Jewish Y-chromosomes are "Asian" (presumably Mongoloid), and "sub-Saharan" (Negroid) Y-chromosomes are also detected among Jews, in low frequencies.
Jews are phenotypically distinct from Europeans Coon acknowledges that Jews "have their 'look,' a part of their cultural heritage that both preserves and expresses their cultural solidarity . . . they have developed a special racial sub-type and a special pattern of facial and bodily expression" (The Races of Europe, 442).
The following studies confirm that Jews differ morphologically from their host populations.
Ann Hum Biol 1985 May-Jun;12(3):203-12 A morphological approach to the problem of the biological similarity of Jewish and non-Jewish populations. Kobyliansky E, Livshits G.
The genetic kinship between various Jewish and non-Jewish groups, from the biochemical standpoint, has been much investigated, frequently with very contradictory conclusions. The present paper reports the results of two comparative analyses of several Jewish and non-Jewish populations as based on morphological measurements of adult males. The first analysis employed data on Jewish and non-Jewish communities from five geographic regions of the world. The dendrogram resulting from the cluster analysis clearly indicates that Jewish populations are much closer to one another than to non-Jewish neighbour groups. In the second analysis, 25 ethnoterritorial groups of the USSR (one Jewish and the rest non-Jewish) were evaluated on the basis of 27 anthropometric characters. The latter Jewish group was markedly separate from the other 24 ethnic groups, and especially distinct when only traits with high coefficients of heritability were employed.
PMID: 4015030 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Am J Phys Anthropol 1986 Jun;70(2):265-75 Affinities between contemporary and skeletal Jewish and non-Jewish groups based on tooth morphology. Sofaer JA, Smith P, Kaye E.
Samples from five Jewish and six non-Jewish populations were compared in terms of the frequencies of 19 dental morphological variables. All but one of the samples came from Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. Nine were from contemporary populations, and two were skeletal. Of the skeletal groups, one was Jewish, excavated on Mount Zion, Jerusalem, and dated at around 3,000 years old; and the other non-Jewish, excavated on the east coast of Australia, and dated at between 1,000 and 200 years old. Assessment of affinity between the different groups was based on smallest space analysis and cluster analysis. The results demonstrated relative proximity of the Jewish groups (with one exception), despite the fact that they came from a wide geographical area. In particular, the sample from Mount Zion showed greater affinity with three of the four living Jewish populations than with most non-Jewish groups. The skeletal Australian sample formed a cluster of its own, distinct from all the other groups. For six of the groups, the relationships based on tooth morphology showed good correspondence with known relationships based on single locus polymorphisms. The similarity of the Jewish groups to each other in terms of both tooth morphology and single locus polymorphisms was of special interest, since differences in other morphological and anthropometric characteristics, thought to be the result of selection, are known to exist between the Jewish populations.
PMID: 3740251 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
RM implies that Jews are physically indistinguishable from Europeans, and clearly he is wrong.
Other differences between Jews and Europeans Aside from physical differences, important differences in other areas seperate Jews and Europeans. Jews have an evolutionary history that has made them distinct from Europeans in the realms of culture and evolutionary psychology.
RM's photographic 'evidence' In an attempt to show how "white" Jews are, RM presents photos of various Jewish celebrities. Even with historical European admixture, several of these celebrities are distinctly Jewish (e.g., Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand, Gene Wilder, Paul Reiser). Others have obviously modified their appearance through plastic surgery (e.g., Cindy Margolis, Joan Rivers). And yet others aren't fully Jewish by ancestry (e.g., Alicia Silverstone).
Lisa Kudrow, featured on RM's site, has admitted she had plastic surgery: "I had a hook nose, and now it's certainly smaller". Jewish women are notorious for getting nose jobs. This wouldn't make much sense if Jews were phenotypically the same as Europeans.
Certainly, there are some Jews who look fully European (and, for that matter, there are some Pakistanis who look fully European; I question whether even RM would call Pakistanis "white"). On the other hand, some Jews (perhaps 50% of Ashkenazim) look distinctly and unavoidably non-European. The vast majority of Jews are easily recognizable as such, whether through phenotypic traits or cultural characteristics such as facial expression. Even the Jews that are phenotypically indistinguishable from Europeans will be genetically distinct. It is probable that selective pressure during the 1000+ years they lived among Europeans caused Jews to tend towards European-type features (to a greater degree than would be accounted for by admixture), even as Jews retained their genetic distinctiveness. Moreover, Jewish celebrities are hardly a representative sample of Jews, since the tastes of the non-Jewish public select against heavily "Jewish-looking" actors.
Sources 1. Hammer et. al. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000 Jun 6;97(12):6769-74 2. Nicholas Wade. In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots. The New York Times 2002 May 14.
Thomas et. al. Founding mothers of Jewish communities: geographically separated Jewish groups were independently founded by very few female ancestors. Am J Hum Genet 2002 Jun;70(6):1411-20.
Nicholas Wade. Y Chromosome Bears Witness to Story of the Jewish Diaspora. The New York Times 2000 May 9.
Nebel et al. The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East. Am J Hum Genet 2001 Nov;69(5):1095-112.
Kevin MacDonald. What Makes Western Culture Unique?. The Occidental Quarterly 2002 Summer.
Additional reading Disclaimer which should be unnecessary: linking does not necessarily imply I endorse linked sites.
Russian Jewish genetics: A collection of abstracts and reviews of books, articles, and genetic studies
Glayde Whitney on Jewish genetic distinctiveness
Kevin MacDonald's work on Judaism from an evolutionary perspective / his page on Jewish population genetics
Reply to "Racial Myths" on Jews and Europeans (Note: some of the information on this page is incorrect, especially the suggestion that Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars. Ashkenazim may well have some Khazar ancestry, but they are predominantly of Middle Eastern descent in the male line. Still, the basic argument holds true: Europeans cluster tightly genetically; non-European Caucasoids are outside the European genetic cluster; Jews are largely descended from non-European Caucasoids.)
[url=http://cptwc.matriots.com/jews45.html]http://cptwc.matriots.com/jews45.html[/url]
What is a Jew?
[Page under reconstruction, but accurate nonetheless]
Are Jews a race? Yes...and no. Yes, they are people related by DNA or genes. But most anthropologists do not classify Jews as a race, or a subrace, since a) Ashkenazim Jews, i.e. most, Jews are a racial hybrid, and B) calling Jews anything other than a religion has been taboo since WWII. Further, that question "are Jews a race?" depends on the/your scientific definition of the word "race" [subspecies]. The term "ethnic group" is probably more accurate in describing the Jew, although "race" can also be used.
[A word needs to be said about the field of Anthropology and Jews. An anthropologist informed us that when he studied anthropology in the 1950s, Jews were not referred to as anything other than a religion, and he said that that feature is still true today. We call this non-mention of Jews as an ethnic group by the anthropology field dishonest, sneaky and politically-motivated].
White gentiles should hopefully be able to recognize Jewish people based upon their physical appearance, but granted, this is not always possible. However, Jews often have features that identify them as being Jewish by race. The majority of Jews do share common physical features -- especially in their faces and/or craniums [skulls].
Brief History of the Jews
Jews originally came from the tribe of Judah/Judahites back in old Canaan or Palestine. The Judah tribe was banished from the other Israelite tribes in about 950 BC. In 70 AD, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, and did so again in 134 AD, compelling Jews as a people to scatter in the wind. Some of those Jews made their way to Europe, others stayed closer to their original homeland.
There are two main types of Jews. Most Jews in America and Europe are Ashkenazim, aka "Eastern European" or "Russian" Jews.
Typical Jewish appearance: large nose that curves downward, weak chin, sloped forehead, 'pinched' facial appearance
Typical Jewish appearance, including large ears that protrude away from the head and a heavy, 'fleshy-looking' face. Some people in the White Nationalist movement have called this traditional Jewish facial appearance "rodent-like," although some Whites may find that description tasteless
Ashkenazim Jews are a hybrid race by long interbreeding, their major ethnicities being Armenid/Arab, also referred to by some as Armenid/Hittite/Assyrian/Arab, aka Armenid/Orientalid. According to Oxford University's Dr. John R. Baker, "the evidence from blood-groups bears on the theory that the Ashkenazim have both Armenids and Orientalids ["Orientalids" is Dr. Baker's word for Arabs] for ancestors." -- from Baker's book Race, [see below], page 242, hardcover.
Compare White skull above to Armenid/Jewish skull -- White skull has longer rear portion, whereas Armenid/Jew skull looks as if the back of the head were "sawed-off."
The other, comparatively rarer type of Jew is the Sephardim, also known as "Mediterranean," or "Spanish," or "Portuguese," or "North African" Jews. These Jews lived mostly near the Mediterranean Sea. Sephardim Jews also lived in Iraq (Babylon), Syria, Greece, Turkey, and in the Americas, especially South America. Furthermore, Sephardic Jews lived in Palestine long before the European Zionist movement. Only about 10% of all Jews worldwide are Sephardim; the rest are Ashkenazim. Sephardim are more closely related to Arabs, while Ashkenazim are more related to Armenids/Hittites/Assyrians.
According to Dr. Baker, "when it is said that a person has a Jewish appearance, the speaker usually has persons of Ashkenazic stock in mind. The members of this group are the typical Jews of Russia, Poland, and England, and they constitute the great majority, perhaps 90%, of all the people in the world to whom the name of Jews is applied." -- from Race, page 238, hardcover.
In 1492, Jews were expelled from Spain. Portugal expelled her Jews five years later. Some Spanish and Portuguese Jews converted to Christianity, and these Jews were referred to as "Marranos" by Jews who had left Spain/Portugal but kept their faith. Later, as the new converts began to gain power and social status, these "New Christians" become suspect by the "Old Christians" in Spanish society as being insincere converts. They were then called Crypto Jews, or Anusim -- Jews who still practiced Judaism in secret.
It is the opinion of many gentiles that there are many Crypto or Marrano -- also called "converso" -- Jews in positions of power all over the West, but that few gentiles know of these hidden Jews' real ethnic heritage.
Despite their geographical dispersion, however, all Jews are genetically similar to a remarkable degree, given their diaspora and the chance, seldom taken, to mix blood with surrounding populations.
[Also of note is that a U.N.-sponsored body listed "Jewish" as being only a religion in 1951 -- no doubt for political purposes, since WWII had just ended a few years previously. John Baker shows that Jews are indeed an ethnic group related by race, although he says that they are not a subrace since some people of Armenid descent are not Jewish].
The question "who is a Jew?" has a simple answer: anyone whose birth mother was Jewish by race -- i.e., not a convert to Judaism; or, cleverly, the few people who convert to Judaism. Under Israel's Law of Return [1], a gentile who converts to Judaism can immigrate to Israel. However, conversion to Judaism is rare and difficult by design, and such converts are not considered to be "true Jews." It is the opinion of many that Jews "allow" converts so as to make Jews appear, to outsiders, to be "not a race, only a religion." Such a feature also allows Jews to deflect the charge that Israel is "a race-based state."
[1] quote from Israel's amended Law of Return: "Definition 4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." -- Law of Return (Amendment No. 2) 5730-1970*; Addition of sections 4A and 4B apparently occurred in 1970.
Facial/Cranial Features of Ashkenazim Jews [Note that not all Jews have the physical features listed below]
A) Ashkenazim Jews have a long, large nose -- one that differs from Italian-type noses by the fact that it often curves downward at the tip; the nose often has a noticeable "hump" on the top portion of it, if viewed in profile; the nose often resembles the number "6," if viewed with the grooves of the "wings" of the nose, in profile [2]. Further, some gentiles have commented that Jews often have a facial appearance that seems "pinched," as if God had taken their faces between his thumb and fingers and then squeezed.
B) The forehead and temples of the skull recede quickly. In other words, the forehead and temples begin to slope or curve almost immediately, whereas in Whites those areas are more "wall-like" and vertical. Studies of Jewish skull shapes show that most Jews are either a) not Semitic; or B) only partly Semitic. Instead, they are Armenid/Hittite in their skull shapes [3]. This means that the term "anti-Semitism" does not really apply to Jews [also 3]. Further, many Ashkenazim Jews have short heads, as compared to Europeans.
C) The ears of Ashkenazim Jews are usually larger than a gentile's, especially the upper ear, and the ears often stick out, away from the head; this, combined with their large noses, often gives Jews a "rat-like" or "rodent-like" appearance. This "rodent-like" appearance is more noticeable when they smile.
D) Mouth opening/lips often larger than normal.
E) The eyes are sometimes slightly Asian in appearance, i.e. slightly more "squinted" than a European's. This is more noticeable when they smile, squeezing their eyes shut even more than a gentile's. Eyelids, especially the lower ones, are more puffed-out and "fleshy" than a European's.
F) Jews usually have a "weak chin" that does not jut out.
G) Jews usually have legs and arms that are, proportionately speaking, rather short.
H) Their head hair is usually curlier, and darker, than a gentiles; further, Jews often cannot grow heavy beards; their beards are often scraggly and frizzy instead.
[1] source: book Race, by Dr. John R. Baker, Oxford University Press/FHU; 1974/1981; pages 232ff, hardcover. This book is considered by many to be the most detailed book ever written about the various human races. It includes many photos and diagrams.
[2] "Luschan holds that the hook-nose is by no means characteristic of the Semites, and contends that the number of arched noses that are found among the Jews is due to ancient intermixture with the Hittites in Asia Minor. He shows that other races also, as the Armenian, for instance, who have a good portion of Hittite blood in their veins, have hook-noses" (Jewish Encyclopedia IX [1905], 338). Also: "The relation of the breadth of the nose to its length, known as the 'nasal index,' has been considered one of the best means of distinguishing the various races of mankind." (Jew. Enc. IX [1905], 339). And, "The nose is generally the characteristic feature of the Jews, who have, on the average, the longest (77 ram) and narrowest (34 mm)" (Jew. Enc. I [1901], 619).
[3] "The most important problem suggested by a study of craniometrical results concerning Jews is the relation of the type head of the modern Jews to that of the ancient Hebrews and to the modern Semitic skulls. The pure Semitic skull is dolichocephalic [long-headed], as may be seen from a study of the heads of modern Arabs, Abyssinians, Syrians .... The only way the type of the head may change is by intermixture with other races. If the ancient Hebrews were of the same stock as the modern non-Jewish Semites, and if the modern Jews are their descendants, then a pure dolichocephalic type of head would be expected among the Jews. As has been seen, all results of craniometry prove that the Jews are brachycephalic [broad-headed], and that the dolichocephalic form is only found among them in less than two percent of the cases" (Jewish Encyclopedia IV [1902], 335). Also, "Some anthropologists are inclined to associate the racial origins of the Jews, not with the Semites, whose language they adopted, but with the Armenians and Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls and cuffed noses they appear to have inherited" (Jew. Enc. X [1903], 264). Dr. John Baker's modern book Race also calls Jews brachycephalic instead of dolichocephalic.
See Here for a list of diseases that strike Jews regularly. [url=http://www.mazornet.com/genetics/index.asp]http://www.mazornet.com/genetics/index.asp[/url]
See Here the hazards of Jewish inbreeding. [url=http://www.geocities.com/refuting_rm/inbreeding.html]http://www.geocities.com/refuting_rm/inbreeding.html[/url]
Some Common Psychological Characteristics of Jews
While humans vary in their personalities and behavior, Jews often display distinctive behavior patterns. Listed below are their more well-known behaviors:
Jews often have a superiority complex, believing that they are superior to gentiles.
Jews are known to complain about life's daily hardships more than gentiles.
Jews are known to be more paranoid than gentiles, often believing that gentiles are "out to get them simply because they are Jewish."
Disloyalty towards non-Jewish persons and governments is a frequent feature among Jews.
Jews are often obsessed with scatological [fecal] subjects, e.g., human fecal- and urine-based humor. Further, Jews do not value "moral" behavior as Whites do, since their ancestors and relatives did not embrace the Christian socioreligious concept of "moral vs. immoral" behavior.
Jews, due to their unique history, have an uncanny ability to manage money and financial resources. Indeed, Jews seem obsessed with money and finance, and further, Judaism is a very materialistic religion that obsesses over valuable commodities.
Jews see themselves as physically unattractive; indeed, Jewish women often reduce the size of their noses via plastic surgery.
Jews seem to have an inborn dislike of anything culturally "European" or "White," be it art, literature, music, film, etc., and further, Jews seem to delight in criticizing such White cultural features.
Jews have a predisposition to thinking and acting in human "group" terms, i.e. "which social/political action is best for Jews?" This is an opposing feature as compared to Western gentiles, who have been trained to think as "individuals."
Jews seem to have an inability to believe that Jews might engage in any wrongdoing. Any gentile accusing any Jew of criminal or unethical behavior is automatically wrong in the eyes of Jews. Jews can never be guilty of anything, according to most Jews.
Jewish Genetic Distinctiveness By Glayde Whitney
From American Renaissance - 8 - December 2000
The Galton Report A sampling of recent scientific literature by Glayde Whitney
Jewish Y-Chromosomes are Semitic An international team of scientists from Israel, the United States, Italy, England, and South Africa, has investigated Y-chromosome markers to see if they shed light on the origins and genetic relationships of Diaspora Jewry. They do. Studies of Y-chromosome markers (transmitted from father-to-son) show that "religious affiliation is a better predictor of the genetic affinity among most Jewish populations in our survey than their present-day geographic locations. . . . [D]espite their high degree of geographic dispersion, Jewish populations from Europe, North Africa, and the Near East were less diverged genetically from each other than from any other group of populations in this study." In other words, Y-chromosome markers indicate that Jews throughout Europe, North Africa and the Near East constitute a single genetically-related group that has bred endogamously despite wide dispersion. Among the seven Jewish populations tested (Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Near Eastern, Kurdish, Yemenite, Ethiopian), only the Black Ethiopian Jews were not a part of the Jewish genetic cluster. Instead, Ethiopian Jews were very similar to non-Jewish Ethiopians, and both populations were clearly distinct from Jews. Not surprisingly, Ethiopian Jews in Israel have encountered many problems, just as blacks have in other Western societies. The Lemba tribe of southern African blacks, who speak a Bantu dialect and claim Jewish ancestry, were remotely related to other Jewish groups, with about 40 percent of their Y chromosomes coming from African blacks. It is thought that they are descended from Jewish traders who established a trading outpost on the African coast. Complex statistics, including multi-dimensional scaling, show that non-Jewish sub-Saharan Africans, North Africans, and Europeans form three distinct genetic clusters. As in other genetic studies, the sub-Saharan cluster differed most from all other population groups or, as the authors put it, "sub-Saharan African populations were characterized by an almost completely different set of [markers]." The Jewish populations (excluding the Ethiopian Jews) formed a tight group located at a point between the North African and European genetic clusters. In the center of the Jewish group (and indistinguishable from the Jews) were non-Jewish Palestinians and Syrians, while other non-Jewish Middle-Easterners (Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Druze) were on the periphery of the Jewish group. Further genetic tests confirmed a "close genetic affinity of Jewish and Middle-Eastern non-Jewish Populations." These findings are consistent with Jewish history and folklore, according to which modern Diaspora Jews are descended from Middle-Eastern Semites and have remained genetically distinct from host populations. The results appear to disprove Arthur Koestler's theory in The Thirteenth Tribe, according to which Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Asian Khazar tribe that converted to Judaism in the eighth century. However, the results of this study are entirely from male-line Y-chromosomes. In the unlikely event that the Khazars were converted by the method described in Deuteronomy in which the men were killed and the women taken as prizes, analysis of mtDNA transmitted in the maternal line might tell a different story. The authors point out that "comprehensive comparisons of mtDNA variation in Jewish and neighboring non-Jewish populations are not yet available." [Hammer, M. F., and 11 co-authors, (Communicated to NAS March 15, 2000), "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, published online before print at www. pnas.org.]
Contributing Editor Glayde Whitney is professor in psychology, psychobiology and neuroscience at Florida State University.
2003-06-18 05:52 | User Profile
Madrussian, that rogue's gallery you put up reminded me of a movie from 1932 called "Freaks". The pics you posted look just like the cast of that cult classic. I'll bet that whole crew you've presented us with was moonlighting in Hollywood. After all, the biz is run by their kin ...
[img]http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/32/32_images/freaks3a.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.vaxxine.com/mtbhl/template/freaksimages/freaksheader.jpg[/img]
2003-06-18 07:32 | User Profile
In my opinion, Rennick is a troll.
Goebbels does not look Jewish. Study photos of Jews. Goebbels' nose, forehead, chin = NOT Jewish.
But again, Jewish is MORE than just appearance. One must study either blood or family tree.
Why did you come to OD, Renny? Answer the question.
2003-06-18 08:24 | User Profile
"THE GENETICS OF THE JEWS" by A.E. Mourant et al., Oxford University Press, 1978, reports the findings of Jewish hematologists, whose work was originally published in The Lancet, the official journal of the British Medical Association. They report that "even the blondest Jew has Negro marker genes... which are due to concubinage (prostitution) and slavery."
So, even if Jews are "Caucasoid" they are not pur Caucasoids. Russians Jews often have considerable Mongoloid admixture. In any case, contrary to the ravings of unintelligent, ignorant philosemites like Tom Rennick and the creator of "Racial Myths" (who considers Jews white and Russians and Finns non-white) Caucasoid does not equal white. Jews are non-white; from a genetic standpoint it makes about as much sense to accept Jews as it does to accept Arabs and Turks, with whom the Jews clustert genetically, as white.
Jews are also distinct from Europeans phenotypically. Tom Rennick thinks that posting a couple of carefully selected partially Jewish celberities with hair dye and nose jobs will change this fact. It won't. Most Jews look like Mr. Rennick's favorite masturbation aid:
[img]http://www.vix.com/objectivism/images/rand3.gif[/img]
One would think that the fact that the Jews have been trying to destroy the white race for the past several centuries would be enough to disqualify them from ever being considered white.... apparently this little tidbit of knowledge is not enough for Mr. Rennick.
In any case, have fun reading about just how "white" Jews are gentically and phenotypically [url=http://www.geocities.com/refuting_rm/2.html]here.[/url]
2003-06-18 18:27 | User Profile
Right -- "looking White" does not equal "being White." Just ask Michael Jackson... 'course, if you are a Rennick-type, then maybe it do...
2003-06-23 03:16 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Undecided@Jun 17 2003, 12:34 * ** Well, since I doubt the terms "White Nationalist" or "White Nationalism" would exist if not for Yggdrasil, I poked around his site looking for clues what he'd think of something like "inviting" Jews into self-described White Nationalist groups. (And, its not clear to me Amren describes themselves as WN. Am I wrong?) Surprisingly, it appears Yggdrasil does not absolutely rule such things out, since this essay still appears on his site. And, yes, it does say "neoconservative" Jews would be "welcome" in a "European-American nation." If he's moved on from this, he should remove it. If its some sort of divide and conquer strategy, he's, well, lying from where I'm sitting.
** [url=http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-19.htm]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-19.htm[/url]
As a group they are changing very rapidly. We should let that happen. We should not slow down that process by forcing them to circle the wagons in defense against us. We have nothing to gain by doing that.
Edgar Bronfman (Seagrams - Chairman of the AJC) wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week that the Jewish rate of intermarriage has now reached 70%.
No, that is not a typo - 70%.
**Neoconservative Jews are defenders of Western Civilization and would be welcome in a European-American nation.
Howard Stern, the redneck Jew, is emblematic of an even more significant movement of Jews out of the psychological ghetto of fear, and into mainstream European-American popular culture. When Howard Stern berates blacks, he is not overcome by fear that turning his goyish audience against blacks might lead to discrimination against Jews as well. Forty years ago that would have been an automatic reaction among all Jews. Today, that fear seems as implausible to most Jews as would a fear that stirring up anti-black sentiment would lead inexorably to discrimination against the Irish. **
Jews in the Howard Stern/Andrew Dice Clay mold do not consider themselves threatened by other whites. Psychologically they feel that they are whites, and I see no reason to try to change their minds. ** **
Yggdrasil wrote some interesting articles but he is not any kind of authority. In fact his work has been at best useless and in all likelyhood harmful to our cause. This gist of his writings and contributions to alt.nationalism.white(remember newsgroups?) was that the demographic decline of the U.S. would inevitably produce a white backlash in the form of the Republican party becoming pro-white and/or some kind of skinhead race war a la the Turner Diaries. These predictions(made in the early to mid 90's) were dead wrong and never came with any kind of real strategy practical advice for activism.
"Itz not coming unless we make it come."
2003-06-23 03:21 | User Profile
Well, the same can be applied to the whishful thinkers proclaiming "the worse the better". There is no guarantee there will be a backlash. In the meanwhile, "the worst the better" attitude probably suits the enemies just fine.
2003-06-23 04:07 | User Profile
*Originally posted by W.R.I.T.O.S@Jun 23 2003, 03:16 * ** Yggdrasil wrote some interesting articles but he is not any kind of authority. In fact his work has been at best useless and in all likelyhood harmful to our cause. **
True But Ygg's a columnist, not an oracle. Columnists have good days and bad days and are not supposed to be right or even to supply good advice.
And when Ygg's good, he's very, very good. Below was the piece that got me interested in his stuff, from when the Mapplethorpe flap was current. His explanation remains almost artful in its simplicity while conveying the right conclusion about media code, the real meaning of Mapplethorpe, and what the "liberals" really want.
Besides which I think he's almost joking about "Howard Stern, WN". The fact is I cannot imagine Jews pouring into WN in enough numbers to matter one way or the other.
[url=http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-13.htm]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-13.htm[/url]
**Now I mentioned that our press must talk about these exhibits in code. It is not so much that the pictures themselves cannot be discussed; it is the gravitational pull these images exert on our elites that is troublesome.
It is not so much that the "art" might be described when a middle American city like Cincinnati bans the exhibit from its museum; but that in describing the court case brought by the ACLU to reverse the ban, the newspapers might have to explain its "redeeming social value" in the eyes of our elites. Now that must be described in code!
The middle class American probably has no trouble understanding that homosexuals might hold a fascination toward these works.
But what about our heterosexual elites? What is in these photographs that excites them?
Let us no longer speak in code!
The centerpiece of Mapplethorpe's exhibit is a photograph of a black man urinating into the mouth of a white man on his knees.
Perhaps to a homosexual, this photograph could represent some sort of erotic play.
But to our elites it has an entirely different meaning. It is the ultimate triumph of their multiculturalist vision. It is a graphic image of the endpoint of their struggle for "tolerance" for "diversity" and to "right wrongs" and to procure "equal justice for all."
That endpoint is the ultimate humiliation of the White Male.
The centerpiece photograph and the entire Mapplethorpe collection become a symbol to our elites of their hope to accomplish with sly manipulation of cultural toxins that which could never be accomplished through direct confrontation.**
2003-06-23 04:09 | User Profile
While some the material Yggdrasil is very good and far better then what is normally produced by Eurocentrics in the states he is in many ways quite typical of what is wrong with American racialism. W.R.I.T.O.S. pointed to the idle dreams of race war producing some vague, successful revolution with no real suggestion about how to make it happen or take advantages of any developments that produce revolutionary climates. He seems to be perfectly happy with the basic structure of institutions and the economy which he simply wants returned to white control which smacks of simple nostalgia. While he understands the destructive force of the Frankfurter School he fails to point out why your nation was open to such subversion or how it could be presented could "the clock be rolled back". Like pretty much everyone in American racial circles he has no substantial ideological disposition and as a result, no manifesto to promote and no strategy or tactics to help bring about the changes he wants.
Although I lived in the states for several years and I have followed the debacle that is American racialism pretty closely for several years I have no idea as to what it will take for two fatal flaws to be addressed. First, It seems that the desire to actively avoid any serious ideological matters and the coalition building that doing so creates is a defining characteristic of the scene their. A second is the daydreaming about societal decay producing a revolution which will propel some movement celebrity into power even though political, ideological and technical competency is practically non-existent. Those willing to think about what is fundamentally wrong with the scene beyond one's personal pet peeve (ex. Hollywood nazis, infiltration lemming stupidity etc) are almost never ask and attempts at constructive criticism is seen as a mortal insult seems to be very the much the rule. Almost no one likes to talk about those things so I really doubt that they will be addressed.
2003-06-23 06:13 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ragnar@Jun 22 2003, 23:07 * ** True But Ygg's a columnist, not an oracle. Columnists have good days and bad days and are not supposed to be right or even to supply good advice. **
Would that some here would cut Buchanan the same slack.
2003-06-23 07:27 | User Profile
I can't cut Buchanan slack because of his forays into electoral politics, being involved in presidenal administrations and being the standard bearer for paleo-cons in general. In any case, even as a journalist and a talking head i'll call him on any statement that does not serve genuine conservatism. Of course the same goes for anyone else that is clearly in the public sphere.
2003-07-01 19:03 | User Profile
First, I want to make it clear that I am not a 'white nationalist'. I am foremost a Catholic, American by birth and Texan in spirit. I am not a troll looking to stir up trouble, but I am looking for some leaders who can repair a horrid predicament that I find in American politics today; the utter defenslessness of her white male population in the tribal politics that now predominates in our country.
It was not always this way. There was a time when the working class American white male totally dominated in this country; then came the success of the unions after the Second World War, and the elites came to actually hate their own kind for various reasons.
This prompted a need on the elite's part, that led them to create an inversion of the popular culture from one based on Christianity to one based on a hybrid of Nietzsche and Aleister Crowley. The symbol of that cultural inversion was the 'Peace Symbol' which was a variation on the Neronic Cross. This popular culture is well described by Pope John Paul II as a culture of death, and it is killing white Americans off as a group in this nation at rates exceding those of other races.
Yet there is no white leadership that is opposed to the destructive effects of this cosmology that inverts Christian norms. In fact, the 'white elite' approve of it and denounce those who oppose it as 'hateful', or 'racist' or worse. Most of the 'white nationalists' I have found on the internet also endorse this Nietzschean view or use it as a starting point in their thinking.
So I am looking for those who can lead an opposition to this evil that infests our land. But in a nation of nearly 300 million souls, I can not find a coherent group of individuals that can offer a realistic hope or turning this tide of blood back to its hellish vent. All I can find is group after group divided against themselves in the face of a numerically superior foe by quibbling over pointless details and not allowing the assistance of those who would help us due to one thing or another, like impure DNA! God help us! This is incredible to me, but nonetheless it is true as this thread has shown.
The simple fact is that white America, in growing numbers, is looking for leadership. They see the political system for the tribal structure it is and they want someone who can represent American white interests articulately, rationally, and effectively. They do not want those who seem more pleased with ideological and genetic purity than they are with actually winning and rolling back the changes made to our national culture over the last 50 years. They are not looking for those who are content to be ever-dwelling on the fringe of our political environment, because they want some leadership that can and will do their damndest to win.
Americans also want people who appeal to what is best in America and its past, and who do not dwell on the supposed glories of an ancient European culture that is mostly despotic in its political outlook. White Americans want leaders who have more respect for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Robert E Lee, and others rather than Bismark, Hitler or some Teutonic myth-makers from a Europe most of our ancestors fled centuries ago.
Most of us do not want to worry about what genetic information might be lurking in our backgrounds, as most of our ancestors have interbred, to one degree or another, with many other ethnic groups. I am part Cherokee, and my wife is 1/8th Jewish. Why would I or most Americans ever support a bunch of ideologues being put into power who may see us as some latent enemy that they must purge for the good of the country? Most Americans will never support such leadership, and the only ones who benefit from such racial extremists is the political Left. Que Bono?
A white nationalist leadership that embraces American culture rather than European myth is a leadership poised to take the leadership of this country as the inevitable results of 50 years of misrule will come to fruition. When the US dollar plunges in the exchange markets, when the so-called 'service economy' grinds to a hault, when Americans learn the truth about the abuse that goes on daily in this nation directed at white males, they will fall into line. All it takes is some leadership that actually believes those things that most Americans do, and anti-semitism isnt one of those belief systems; that will always be rejected by culturally conservative Christians.
But even Joseph Goebels would have nothing to do with the far-Right of today, as he would only work with those prepared to win and capable of it. And winning means that you divide your opponents, not your allies. Winning means you make the Machiavellian deals, and not squander political capitol on ideological posturing.
This thing about Jews joining WN is a clear example of this 'lets-lose-for-ever' mentality. Obviously, one must have several levels of membership in any organization; one level is an entry level that allows anyone to donate money, resources or support of whatever kind to aid the cause. Another level is that of the committed activist that will work for the organization on a much larger scale, and devote much of his personal resources to the cause.
The cadre level of the organization, the leadership that controls and runs the organization, is another matter altogether. That level has its leadership chosen by invitation only and it is not publicized. The cadre is kept ideologically pure to maintain a cohesive and unified direction to work toward, while the lower level members can chose to either stay on board or go elsewhere. There is no reason on God's Green Earth to not allow Jews into the first two levels of anyone's organization yet keep them from the third, along with red-necks, neo-cons, and Catholic faithful like me.
But then, that is part of the reason that the Leftists have won since the Second World War. They are willing to do what it takes to win, even compromise at times when it is in their best political interests to do so. They are also willing to develop a set of provacateurs, by various means, men whose goal is to keep their opposition reduced to ineffective and impotent irrelevance by ever pushing it to the extreme and encouraging illegal conduct.
But white Americans like me will keep looking for leadership. It cannot be that every white American group is controled by either neocons or racial extremists. I hope to find or create a forum more representative of the movement that Jared Taylor or Russell Francis or the folks at VDare lead. This forum has many of that timber, but quite a few of the ideological mindset as well.
I pray that things can be improved here. This is a great forum and I hope to stay a while.
But if culturally conservative Americans are going to start winning anywhere, we need to start where the Lord leads us.
2003-07-03 05:12 | User Profile
Ideology is scary to "middle america." Better to let those smart jewish intellectuals do the thinking for us. To think ourselves would be "antisemitic." And Joe sixpack will never stand for that.
Anyway, I am a white nationalist/racial nationalist or whatever you want to call it and I just want it made absolutely clear to everyone that Pat Buchanan is not.
And if you're waiting for god to save you...
2003-07-04 06:39 | User Profile
I am not waiting for God to save me. He do that when the time comes.
Meanwhile, I try to do his good work here on Earth, and the injustice that is directed at my fellow working class white males is incredible! And is there help in sight?
Not on the left because they are infiltrated by Marxists who want to see white males suffer because they hate this country and the working class that made it great. They want us to die off to make way for more docile groups.
Is ther help on the right? No, because the right has four factions;
1) free trade ideologues,
2) Fundamentalists and Evangelicals,
3) cultural conservatives,
4) and Teutonophiles.
While I tend to sympathize mostlywith group 3, represented bymen like Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, it is dominated by the first two numerically, and by the fourth due to shout-down tactics on any common boards.
So Iam waiting for enough white males with common sense to step up and take the lead. When this might happen, I am not sure, but they still ahve a tough row to hoe no matter what.
2003-07-04 07:07 | User Profile
I am foremost a Catholic, American by birth and Texan in spirit.
Well, good for you. I notice "White" didn't make the list. Oh well, that's ok; we're all brothers under the skin, so who cares about race? <_< :thd:
[SIZE=1]And I'd just like to thank you Catholics for [url=http://www.catholic.org/cathcom/top_headlines.php?ID=1640]bringing Somalis into our country[/url]. God bless you.[/SIZE] :rolleyes:
4) and Teutonophiles
Teutonophiles? :lol: Where do you come up with this stuff? :lol: I suppose you'd prefer "Jüdenophiles?" :huh:
2003-07-04 08:26 | User Profile
Teutonophiles - definition?? :nerd:
2003-07-04 22:26 | User Profile
*Originally posted by ÃÅbeltäter@Jul 4 2003, 02:26 * ** Teutonophiles - definition?? :nerd: **
Heh, yeah, I find the word Teutonophile useful, and a logical derivation.
I use it to distinguish racially conscious white Americans who derive their values from Teutonic myth as opposed to American culture and history.
For example, while more white Americans honor Stonewall Jackson, George Washington, James Bowie, the democratic process and a republican government, the Teutonophiles tend to honor past anti-semitic thinkers, Nazis, fascists and totalitarian government.
Teutonophiles are the main reason that the rightwing in this country has remained fractured and impotent. The conservative masses of the USA are Christian and will never accept a leadership that uses an anti-semitic world view.
So as the term is useful and a logical derivitive, I will continue to use it.
As to Judeaophile, I guess I am just going tohave to say that since Jesus was a Judeaophile, I will be one too, as He loved them enough to die for them, as He died for us all.
2003-07-04 22:36 | User Profile
*Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 4 2003, 16:26 * ** The conservative masses of the USA are Christian and will never accept a leadership that uses an anti-semitic world view. **
Well that is the problem with your country, pilgrim. :cowboy:
2003-07-05 00:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by ÃÅbeltäter+Jul 4 2003, 16:36 -->
QUOTE* (ÃÅbeltäter @ Jul 4 2003, 16:36 ) <!--QuoteBegin-rglencheek@Jul 4 2003, 16:26 * ** The conservative masses of the USA are Christian and will never accept a leadership that uses an anti-semitic world view. ** Well that is the problem with your country, pilgrim. :cowboy: **
Yes, maybe it is our 'problem', but that summarization does not change the dynamics of our political process, does it?
Given the nature of the conservative impulse, if the Teutonic approach is hardly working among European conservatives, why should it be adopted in a land where Teutonism is not our tradition to conserve?
ÃÅbeltäter
2003-07-05 00:32 | User Profile
I think you are wrong to label it Teutonism. Like it has a derivation from Germany. It is a universal thing. Anti-semitism + Nationalism + "Totalitarianism" = Teutonism? How about Jew-hating Nationalism?
Kurt
2003-07-05 01:00 | User Profile
The conservative masses of the USA are Christian and will never accept a leadership that uses an anti-semitic world view.
But if they don't acccept an "anti-semitic world view," then the White race is doomed, since Jews are at the root of our problems. We'll just be reduced to blaming those darn "Republicans," "Democrats," "liberals" and "Teutonophiles" ( :lol: ), while jews continue to turn the US into a multicultural, anti-White, toilet.
]As to Judeaophile, I guess I am just going tohave to say that since Jesus was a Judeaophile, I will be one too, as He loved them enough to die for them, as He died for us all.
Now that I think of it, I guess I'll consider myself a Teutonophile, being of German descent, and [u]proud[/u] of it. Though I know the idea of any European-American--especially a German--taking pride in his ancestry bothers (and scares) the hell out Jüdenphiles such as yourself. Only Jews are allowed to have any pride in their race, isn't that right?
ÃÅbeltäter
2003-07-05 01:03 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Kurt@Jul 4 2003, 19:00 * ** Only Jews are allowed to have any pride in their race, isn't that right? **
Or negros. :afro:
rglencheek
2003-07-05 01:11 | User Profile
Kurt, you have every right to be proud of your German ancestry, why not? The Germans have blessed Western Civilization with a great many things.
But to persue political power in America using terminologies derived from a Teutonic culture is not a constructive approach designed to win. In fact I cant imagine what it is designed for except to purge small groups of independent thinking.
As an American, I respond to American heroes, none of which I mentioned were Jewish, no?
But if the JEws are teh root cause of the suicide of the West, then how did they lose control of Stalin and the Politburo?
If they are the root cause, then how have they lost control of the Universities which are completely dominated by anti-Zionist leftist?
I think that the Jews are not the root cause, but ideology is. That ideology that glorifies anarchy, hates Christianity, loves destruction, murder and bloodshed, that is the root of our problem and it is held and promoted by many of all races, ethnicities and religions. To describe them as simply Jews is not accurate and therefore useless.
The left is turning on the Jews today; how can that be if the Jews control the left?
rglencheek
2003-07-05 01:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by ÃÅbeltäter+Jul 4 2003, 19:03 -->
QUOTE* (ÃÅbeltäter @ Jul 4 2003, 19:03 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Kurt@Jul 4 2003, 19:00 * ** Only Jews are allowed to have any pride in their race, isn't that right? ** Or negros. :afro: **
Well, that is the effective sum of so-called 'Diversity' programs and 'multiculturalism'.
But if you think I espouse, agree with or do not oppose and even loathe these things then you are wrong, sir.
White Americans need to roganize and beat these tribalists at their own game, but we cannot do it if we do not adopt terminology that white Americans will respond to in a positive and constructiuve way.
We also cannot win if we cannot divide our opposition. The best way to do that is to develop positive relations with people of the otehr races. If we can divide them then we have a greater chance of winning, but we cannot divide them if we are refering to them in dehumanized terms, can we?
Right makes might; treat people with respect for their God given talents and rights and you can acheive a just relationship with them.
Of course, this presumes one wants a just relationship, no?
ÃÅbeltäter
2003-07-05 03:11 | User Profile
*Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 4 2003, 19:11 * ** The left is turning on the Jews today; how can that be if the Jews control the left? **
Look at your "right", republican party. So many jews, and pro-israel positions.
londo
2003-07-05 05:41 | User Profile
White Americans need to roganize and beat these tribalists at their own game, but we cannot do it if we do not adopt terminology that white Americans will respond to in a positive and constructiuve way.
Exactly. However, the first thing needed is an identification of "tribe." Blacks have that, Jews have that, and to a greater or lesser extent Hispanics have that. Whites, on the other hand are so very factionalized along political/religious/gender/etc... lines that there is little likelyhood any comming together as a tribe is going to happen without some cataclysmic event.
**We also cannot win if we cannot divide our opposition. The best way to do that is to develop positive relations with people of the otehr races. If we can divide them then we have a greater chance of winning, but we cannot divide them if we are refering to them in dehumanized terms, can we? **
I think that's wrong. Whites still make up about 70% of the United States. With active restraint on immigration from thirdworld countries and immigration encouragement from first world countries, the tide can be changed before it's too late. To do that it would be necessary for whites to identify their tribe, and then elect representatives that reflect their needs rather than the needs of "other" tribes. That's if the current system were to be used. I think it may be too corrupt, and a new (or better yet old) system may have to be implemented.
**Right makes might; treat people with respect for their God given talents and rights and you can acheive a just relationship with them.
Of course, this presumes one wants a just relationship, no?**
What constitutes a "just" system? Tribalists have demonstrated their ideal of "just", no?
rglencheek
2003-07-05 14:47 | User Profile
Londo, whites can define their tribe, but they have to communicate that definition clearly. There are several terms that are not used consistently and coherently, IMO.
'Aryan' or 'Indo-European' is generally a classification based on language families. This would include Iranians, Hindi, and and Turkic peoples, IIRC.
'White' is a classification of people based on the shade of their skin. It is not a genetic classification as many oriental populations like the northern Han Chinese, Koreans and Japanese were thought by some to be 'white' or at least honorary whites. The term has been used in more narrow terms as well, such as Ben Franklin who regarded only Anglo Saxons as white in contrast to other Western Europeans.
Genetic classification of Caucasian is more broad and I am not sure if it is any more accurate s there is a blending of races along the fault lines across the globe.
I think it more useful to simply use a definition of the 'white' tribe as those of European descent that are excluded from the benefit of Affirmative Action programs, and leave it at that. Thus the programs of the leftists initiated through our government can be used in backlash fashion to unite their opposition. This would also require genuine effort on our part to be just (impartial before the law) and promote our interests in an manner open to compromise and convivial to our rivals.
The bigger picture is to maintain the USA as a nation, with its Constitutional form of government and heritage of freedom. We can do far more by uniting the factions within than by dividing us against ourselves. Our hypothetical victories will be in vain if this nation itself is destroyed in the process.
Kevin Alfred Strom
2003-07-05 15:24 | User Profile
**Teutonophiles are the main reason that the rightwing in this country has remained fractured and impotent. The conservative masses of the USA are Christian and will never accept a leadership that uses an anti-semitic world view.
So as the term is useful and a logical derivitive, I will continue to use it.
As to Judeaophile, I guess I am just going tohave to say that since Jesus was a Judeaophile, I will be one too, as He loved them enough to die for them, as He died for us all.**
Teutonophile? Francophile? Anglophile? OK, but "Judaeophile"? We Euros damned well better start being Europhiles. Whites need to start thinking of themselves as Whites -- making what they actually are their primary method of answering the question "What are you?" instead of defining themselves by geography or language or, perhaps saddest of all, beliefs. Your statement above encapsulates the problem.
As I said on my broadcast earlier today:
"The blame for that result can be laid squarely on our grossest superstitions: the superstition that we are somehow linked to the 'Bible Lands' and the ancient Hebrews, and that the Jews are 'God's Chosen People,' to be accepted and treated as equals or betters in our societies; the superstition that the human races are equal and interchangeable and that it is therefore of no consequence whatever if our race survives into the future; and the superstition that it is morally wrong to do -- or even to consider -- what is best for your race. Those are horrible, grotesque, self-destructive superstitions. And they are killing us."
With all good wishes,
Kevin. [url=http://www.kevin-strom.com/]http://www.kevin-strom.com/[/url] [url=http://www.revilo-oliver.com/]http://www.revilo-oliver.com/[/url]
iwannabeanarchy
2003-07-05 15:43 | User Profile
The idea that being a Teutonophile--an admirer of the Teutons (Germans, Dutch, and related peoples)--involves an 'anti-Semitic' worldview is sick and moronic. Go home.
As to the idea that those with 1/16th Jewish or Cheerokee blood are somehow to be expelled from the Teutonic nation--try again, my friend. Your insecurity is paleable.
In any case, Jews occupy an important place as allies of white nationalists, and some Jews who marry into the white gentile tribe might simply qualify as white nationalists. This is reality exists despite the fact that leftists Jews in Hollywood and other media centers are a principle threat to the white race. McDonald aside, genetics is not destiny, especially once you have been made aware of your genetic-cultural dispositions.
Okiereddust
2003-07-05 16:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 5 2003, 01:11 * *But if the JEws are teh root cause of the suicide of the West, then how did they lose control of Stalin and the Politburo?
If they are the root cause, then how have they lost control of the Universities which are completely dominated by anti-Zionist leftist?
I think that the Jews are not the root cause, but ideology is. That ideology that glorifies anarchy, hates Christianity, loves destruction, murder and bloodshed, that is the root of our problem and it is held and promoted by many of all races, ethnicities and religions. To describe them as simply Jews is not accurate and therefore useless.
The left is turning on the Jews today; how can that be if the Jews control the left? Generally Kevin MacDonald covered this rather universal tendency of Jewish dominated movements in Culture of Critique. Certain things about Jewish support for leftist causes seems paradoxical, but really isn't.
Although perhaps without realizing it, your critique of this board is essentially pretty much the neoconservative critique of the gentile right. You really need to study and understand MacDonald's critique of Jewish influence on society and ideology, including that of neoconservatism, before you are really on our wavelength. At the risk of being lengthy, I'll reproduce a couple of relevent pages of MacDonald.
**Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for Judaism. Irving Louis Horowitz (1993, 89) notes the emergence of anti-Semitism in academic sociology as these departments are increasingly staffed by individuals who are committed to ethnic political agendas and who view Jewish domination of sociology in negative terms. There is a strong strain of anti-Semitism emanating from some multiculturalist ideologues, especially from Afrocentric ideologues (Alexander 1992), and Cohen (1998, 45) finds that "multiculturalism is often identified nowadays with a segment of the left that has, to put it bluntly, a Jewish problem." Recently the Nation of Islam, led by Louis Farrakhan, has adopted an overt anti-Semitic rhetoric. Afrocentrism is often associated with racialist ideologies, such as those of Molefi Asante (1987), in which ethnicity is viewed as the morally proper basis of self-- identity and self-esteem and in which a close connection exists between ethnicity and culture. Western ideals of objectivity, universalism, individualism, rationality, and the scientific method are rejected because of their ethnic origins. Asante accepts a naive racialist theory in which Africans (the "sun people") are viewed as superior to Europeans (the "ice people").
Such movements mirror similar Jewish ideologies that rationalize a powerful concern with Jewish ethnicity and attempt to produce feelings of ethnic superiority within the group. These ideologies have been common throughout Jewish intellectual history, the most enduring embodied in the idea of chosenness and the "light of the nations" concept. SAID (Ch. 7) reviewed evidence indicating that Jewish historians and intellectuals, beginning in the ancient world, have often attempted to show that gentile cultural influences have had specifically Jewish precedents or even that various gentile philosophers and artists were actually Jews. This tradition has been carried on recently by two Sephardic Jews, Martin Bernal (1987) in his Black Athena and Jose Faur (1992) in his In the Shadow of History: Jews and Conversos at the Dawn of Modernity. Indeed, there may well be a general trend since the Enlightenment in which Jewish intellectuals have been at the vanguard of secular political movements, such as the movement for cultural pluralism, intended to serve Jewish interests as well as appeal to segments of the gentile population. **Also apparent is a trend such that eventually these movements fractionate, the result of anti-Semitism within the very segment of the gentile population to which the ideology attempts to appeal, and Jews abandon these movements and seek to pursue their interests by other means.
Thus it has been noted here that Jews have played a prominent role in the political left in this century. We have also seen that as a result of anti- Semitism among gentiles on the left and on the part of Communist governments, eventually Jews either abandoned the left or they developed their own brand of leftism in which leftist universalism was compatible with the primacy of Jewish identity and interests.'** Gore Vidal (1986) is a prominent example of a gentile leftist intellectual who has been highly critical of the role of neoconservative Jews in facilitating the U.S. military buildup of the 1980s and allying themselves with conservative political forces to aid Israel--charges interpreted as implying anti-Semitism because of the implication that American Jews place the interests of Israel above American interests (Podhoretz 1986). Vidal also suggests that neoconservatism is motivated by the desire of Jews to make an alliance with gentile elites as a defense against possible anti-Semitic movements emerging during times of economic crisis.
Indeed, fear of anti-Semitism on the left has been the major impetus for founding the neoconservative movement (see Gottfried 1993, 80)--the final resting point of many of the New York Intellectuals whose intellectual and cumulative effect of neoconservatism and its current hegemony over the conservative political movement in the United States (achieved partly by its large influence on the media and among foundations) has been to shift the conservative movement toward the center and, in effect, to define the limits of conservative legitimacy. Clearly, these limits of conservative legitimacy are defined by whether they conflict with specifically Jewish group interests in a minimally restrictive immigration policy, support for Israel, global democracy, opposition to quotas and affirmative action, and so on.
As indicated in William F. Buckley's (1992) In Search of Anti-Semitism, however, the alliance between gentile paleoconservatives and Jewish neoconservatives in the United States is fragile, with several accusations of anti- Semitism among the paleoconservatives. Much of the difficulty derives from the tension between the nationalist tendencies of an important segment of U.S. conservatism and the perceptions of at least some gentile conservatives that Jewish neoconservatism is essentially a device for pursuing narrow Jewish sectarian interests, particularly with regard to Israel, church-state separation, and affirmative action. Moreover, the neoconservative commitment to many aspects of the conservative social agenda is half-hearted at best (Gottfried 1993). Most importantly, neoconservatives pursue what is essentially an ethnic agenda regarding immigration while opposing the ethnocentric interests of the paleoconservatives in retaining their ethnic hegemony. The ethnic agenda of neoconservatism can also be seen in their promotion of the idea that the United States should pursue a highly interventionist foreign policy aimed at global democracy and the interests of Israel rather than aimed at the specific national interests of the United States (Gottfried 1993). Neoconservatism has also provided a Jewish influence on the American conservative movement to counterbalance the strong tendency for Jews to support liberal and leftist political candidates. Jewish ethnic interests are best served by influencing both major parties toward a consensus on Jewish issues, and, as indicated above, neoconservatism has served to define the limits of conservative legitimacy in a manner that conforms to Jewish interests.
As anti-Semitism develops, Jews begin to abandon the very movements for which they originally provided the intellectual impetus. This phenomenon may also occur in the case of multiculturalism. Indeed, many of the most prominent opponents of multiculturalism are Jewish neoconservatives, as well as organizations such as the National Association of Scholars (NAS), which have a large Jewish membership. (The NAS is an organization of academics opposed to some of the more egregious excesses of feminism and multiculturalism in the university.) It may well be the case, therefore, that the Jewish attempt to link up with secular political ideologies that appeal to gentiles is doomed in the long run. Ginsberg (1993, 224ff) essentially makes this point when he notes that there is increasing evidence for anti-Semitism among American liberals, conservatives, and populist radicals. The case of multiculturalism is particularly problematic as a Jewish strategy. In this case one might say that Jews want to have their cake and eat it too. "Jews are often caught between fervent affirmation of the Enlightenment and criticism of it. Many Jews believe that the replacement of the Enlightenment ideal of universalism with a politics of difference and a fragmented 'multiculture' would constitute a threat to Jewish achievement. At the same time, they recognize the dangers of a homogeneous 'monoculture' for Jewish particularity... . [Jews] seek to rescue the virtues of the Enlightenment from the shards of its failures and salvage an inclusive vision from multiculturalism, where fragmentation and divisiveness now reign" (Biale, Galchinsky, & Heschel 1998, 7). Multicultural societies with their consequent fragmentation and chronic ethnic tension are 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 where 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 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 Ruppin (1934, 339) 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 destructive influence of European civilization." And at a theoretical level, there is a very clear rationale for supposing that Western individualism is incompatible with group-based resource conflict that has been the consistent consequence of the emergence of a powerful Judaism in Western societies (see SAID, Chs. 3--5).
-(Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique, Last Chapter)**
iwannabeanarchy
2003-07-05 17:26 | User Profile
Obviously, the Jews do not 'control' the left. Neither are they the 'root cause' of anti-white leftist ideology. All that can be said is that, historically, anti-white leftist ideology has been rooted in shifting cores that were composed of Jewish intellectuals. Here McDonald's account has some purchase. But to identify ways in which pro-Jewish ideology has overlaped with anti-white ideology is not to explain the full origin of anti-white sentiment.
As to why so many Jews are still anti-white leftists: many are simply insane. They are so taken with the plight of the Jewish people, and Jewish-white gentiles conflict, that they have lost all sense of the larger historical dynamics that are at work in today's world.
Others simply hate whites more than they fear anti-Zionist leftists.
As to the claim that glorification of 'anarchy' and bloodshed is the root of anti-white ideology: there is much to this thesis. Given the numerical superiority of non-whites and the basis of white advancement in order that protects individual rights and the accumulation of capital within families, it is no suprise that latter day Bolsheviks like blood, rape, murder, and chaos. (Side note: 'anarchy,' a la Nozick's usage, do not refer to an absence of law and order, but to the absence of a monopolistic state.)
However, there are just as many order-loving anti-white ideologues as there neo-Bolsheviks. Such anti-white neocons and their fellow travellers have seen that Westerns are to fond of order for a direct assault, such that the white race can be more easily destroyed or rendered insignificant on the world stage through co-opting of centers of order to allow for racial discrimination against whites (particularly white male intellectuals), and the displacement of whites and their property (through mass 3rd world immigration and high taxes).
Franco
2003-07-05 23:44 | User Profile
** iwannabeanarchy wrote:
In any case, Jews occupy an important place as allies of white nationalists, and some Jews who marry into the white gentile tribe might simply qualify as white nationalists. **
** Whoop! Whoop! There goes Uncle Franco's Jew-warning alarm again! It goes off whenever someone posts pro-Jew stuff.
JEWS ARE NOT WHITE. THEY CANNOT BE WHITE NATIONALISTS, NOR ALLIES OF SUCH.** :angry: :angry: :angry:
madrussian
2003-07-05 23:46 | User Profile
iwannabejewrat is bullshitting like Trotsky. If it walks and talks like a duck...it's a zhid.
Okiereddust
2003-07-06 01:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Jul 5 2003, 17:26 * Obviously, the Jews do not 'control' the left. Neither are they the 'root cause' of anti-white leftist ideology.* Well as a college professor of mine said, whenever someone is forced to say something is "obvious" or "evident" it usually means it isn't.
**All that can be said is that, historically, anti-white leftist ideology has been rooted in shifting cores that were composed of Jewish intellectuals. Here McDonald's account has some purchase. But to identify ways in which pro-Jewish ideology has overlaped with anti-white ideology is not to explain the full origin of anti-white sentiment.
**
Well you do say more anyway :lol: As to the origin of anti-white ideologies I don't think anyone ever said jewish interests are an entirely sufficient condition for their emergence.
The question of whether they are a necessary condition though is a live one. MacDonald and Gottfried had an exchange in Chronicles in this regard. MacDonald pro, Gottfried con.
Okiereddust
2003-07-06 01:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by iwannabeanarchy@Jul 6 2003, 00:14 * *oh, the 'untermensch' is getting a bit uppity, isn't he?
let's see, the russians have produced--what? some really poor novels? whores? drunkards? very poor political systems?
**
(Madrussian)iwannabejewrat is bullshitting like Trotsky. If it walks and talks like a duck...it's a zhid.
It seems to be walking and talking like an rban now :dung:
:D
Iwannabeanarchy or whatever, when are going to get around to hindu supremacy? :lol:
Lady_America
2003-07-06 02:28 | User Profile
*Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 18 2003, 15:29 * ** ... As long as they identify as white and are willing to say that self-identified Jews are the enemies of whites, they should be allowed into the movement... **
The only problem with that is they can change their mind. And, they may change their mind when they are fully entrenched and can inflict some damage.
About AR allowing Jews--why? is my only statement/comment/question.
Disappointed,
Lady
madrussian
2003-07-06 02:30 | User Profile
iwannabejewrat launched into an attack on Russians after my unfavorable remark about Jews. Why would he do that? :(
Alka
2003-07-06 03:22 | User Profile
**Iwannabeanarchy or whatever, when are going to get around to hindu supremacy? **
:lol: I was just thinking exactly the same thing. We have two too many trolls here who are fond of multiple handles. Thankfully they are all too transparent. It does make for cheap amusement.
rglencheek
2003-07-06 04:13 | User Profile
Firstly, I hope I have not been insulting to anyone here, that is not my intention. If you want to insult me fine, but I am essentially going to ignore such things. There are very important issues and I think it best to focus on those and not get into ad hominem.
Okiereddust - Although perhaps without realizing it, your critique of this board is essentially pretty much the neoconservative critique of the gentile right.
rglencheek: Well, Okie, I do have some things in common with neoconservatives, but almost entirely on issues regarding the swing of a significant number of Jews to an American view of life. David Horrowitz, for example, is not espousing his views for the bennefit of the Jewish ethnicity. It is a genuine reflection of his growth as a person, after the murder of a close friend by Black Panthers.
But the neo-conservative movement is about more than Jewish adoption of or manipulation of the right. There are issues relating to immigration (Horrowitz regularly has columns on the immigration problem and wants to limit it, IIRC). There are issues related to homosexuality (Horrowitz is more tolerant, at the risk of offending his Christian Right friends). There is no hidden agenda suggested as these position reflect Horrowitzes person al experiences, and his honesty in admitting to the sins of his past is laudable.
So, I dont think it accurate to reduce my point of view as neoconservative, and perhaps you did not mean to suggest that. I am not taking offense, but merely trying to correct an impression you have of my values. I am not a neocon, and neither is Horrowitz; it is really more complex than does one accept Jews or not.
I appreciate the text from Kevin McDonald's book. I am not familiar with it, but I think I will look it up. I agreed with all of it except the last paragraph, and to note that his observations are of macro-level tendencies in the Jewish community. not all Jews pursue these goals, and I have met a number of Jews who are quite alienated by the Reform leadership and its leftist allegiance.
Kevin McDonald: 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 Ruppin (1934, 339) 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 destructive influence of European civilization."
rglencheek: I think that individualism presents a tension with ethnic or nationalist identity of all kinds. But this is a positive thing in our society and has brought us a lot of originality, creativity and improvisation. The Jews are not much different than any other ethnic group that dissolves into the American mainstream, and in fact many of the 'neocons' are objecting to high levels of immigration for this very reason as are observers from other ethnicities as well, like Michelle Malkin who is of Asian descent.
I think Jews will become more comfortable with American culture as they continue to assimilate and discern between what is truly in their best interests and what is not, as some of the strongest challenges to Affirmative Action, for example, have come from Jews.
As to what is 'white' it is of little use unless you are trying to confuse the average person, to insist that being 'white' is anything more than having white skin. If one came up with some particular definition of 'blue' and then insisted that the sky is not 'blue', people will simply dismiss your message as the product of a krank or some one suffering from delusion. White is white; many Jews have white skin and if you want to insist that they are not then it makes the objector look foolish in the eyes of the average person. So let's drop the Newspeak and keep it real - if you mean that they are not Indo-European, then why not say simply that?
So while we debate semantics about antisemitism, nothing gets done or discussed about the injust divorce and child support laws that are stacked agasint divorced men. you wanna guess how many white males would give you their full and immediate attention if you were talking about that issue in stead? Or of the common rape and sexual slavery of white prisoners across the country? Or the way in which 'diversity' programs are being used to disnefranchise, impoverish and disempower white males across the spectrum?
Getting so deep into the subject of anti-semitism seems to me to be a huge distraction from more important issues if not a total waste of time.
Okiereddust
2003-07-06 04:43 | User Profile
Originally posted by Kevin Alfred Strom@Jul 5 2003, 15:24 * We Euros damned well better start being Europhiles. Whites need to start thinking of themselves as Whites -- making what they actually are their primary method of answering the question "What are you?" instead of defining themselves by geography or language or, perhaps saddest of all, beliefs.* Your statement above encapsulates the problem.
As I said on my broadcast earlier today:
"The blame for that result can be laid squarely on our grossest superstitions: the superstition that we are somehow linked to the 'Bible Lands' and the ancient Hebrews, and that the Jews are 'God's Chosen People,' to be accepted and treated as equals or betters in our societies; **
Of course you don't find anything wrong with dividing the white world once again by adding yet another eccentric belief - that of your cosmotheist church, and furthermore, making adherence to the beliefs of such church a criteria for being a loyal white.
If anyone at all accepts such beliefs as being less gross than what you think "is the grossest of beliefs" it is because he has not examined them do to no one taking them seriously.
il ragno
2003-07-06 04:45 | User Profile
Getting so deep into the subject of anti-semitism seems to me to be a huge distraction from more important issues if not a total waste of time.
Thank God for those 'more important issues'. Jews have come to count upon them to keep the cattle too occupied to notice the marionette strings.
Okiereddust
2003-07-06 05:04 | User Profile
Firstly, note how I use the quote tags. It is easy to learn to use, and makes long posts much easier to read.
Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 6 2003, 04:13 * *Firstly, I hope I have not been insulting to anyone here, that is not my intention. If you want to insult me fine, but I am essentially going to ignore such things. There are very important issues and I think it best to focus on those and not get into ad hominem.
Okiereddust - Although perhaps without realizing it, your critique of this board is essentially pretty much the neoconservative critique of the gentile right.
rglencheek: Well, Okie, I do have some things in common with neoconservatives, but almost entirely on issues regarding the swing of a significant number of Jews to an American view of life. David Horrowitz, for example, is not espousing his views for the bennefit of the Jewish ethnicity. It is a genuine reflection of his growth as a person, after the murder of a close friend by Black Panthers.
But the neo-conservative movement is about more than Jewish adoption of or manipulation of the right. There are issues relating to immigration (Horrowitz regularly has columns on the immigration problem and wants to limit it, IIRC). There are issues related to homosexuality (Horrowitz is more tolerant, at the risk of offending his Christian Right friends). There is no hidden agenda suggested as these position reflect Horrowitzes person al experiences, and his honesty in admitting to the sins of his past is laudable.
So, I dont think it accurate to reduce my point of view as neoconservative, and perhaps you did not mean to suggest that. I am not taking offense, but merely trying to correct an impression you have of my values. I am not a neocon, and neither is Horrowitz; it is really more complex than does one accept Jews or not.
I appreciate the text from Kevin McDonald's book. I am not familiar with it, but I think I will look it up. I agreed with all of it except the last paragraph, and to note that his observations are of macro-level tendencies in the Jewish community. not all Jews pursue these goals, and I have met a number of Jews who are quite alienated by the Reform leadership and its leftist allegiance.**
Glad you liked Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald incidentally does do a analysis of Horowitz's in his book, which I will get to later. Other paleo's have dissected Horowitz's work, and we have had many threads on Horowitz on this list, as well as of course MacDonald. It is hard to understand the issues we have with Horowitz without understanding some of this background.
**So while we debate semantics about antisemitism, nothing gets done or discussed about the injust divorce and child support laws that are stacked agasint divorced men. you wanna guess how many white males would give you their full and immediate attention if you were talking about that issue in stead? Or of the common rape and sexual slavery of white prisoners across the country? Or the way in which 'diversity' programs are being used to disnefranchise, impoverish and disempower white males across the spectrum?
Getting so deep into the subject of anti-semitism seems to me to be a huge distraction from more important issues if not a total waste of time.**
No doubt, feminism and its effect on men is an issue. You're quite right, we shouldn't be seen as just being infatuated with Jewish influence. After all, feminism is not a Jewish issue, except for Betty Frieden, Gloria Steinem, Erich Fromm and the Frankfurt School, etc. etc., i.e, pretty much a majority of leading feminists. :huh:
Naivete and ethnic goodwill appears virtuous ( :hyp: ) but if you're going to make any progress in getting to the root of things you needto wake up and smell the coffee. FYI MacDonald discusses people like you.
il ragno
2003-07-06 06:28 | User Profile
So while we debate semantics about antisemitism, nothing gets done or discussed about the injust divorce and child support laws that are stacked agasint divorced men. you wanna guess how many white males would give you their full and immediate attention if you were talking about that issue in stead? Or of the common rape and sexual slavery of white prisoners across the country? Or the way in which 'diversity' programs are being used to disnefranchise, impoverish and disempower white males across the spectrum?
You're new here, and I dunno if you're a young man or not, so I'll respectfully point out that - if you think raising serious issues which impact upon whites and/or males in this country...sans mention of Jews...is going to galvanize the populace or our legislators into action - you gots a looong way to go, homeboy.
Unjust child support laws? You'll be flayed alive by feminists citing sheafs of horror stories about deadbeat dads. It isn't fathers so much under fire but whole two-parent families. The Propasphere is dead set against 'em, particularly if Mommy stays home rather than pursues a career as Ally McBeal. You see, if they can dynamite the nuclear family it becomes far easier for the State and its handmaidens to step in and become both Mommy and Daddy.
Jailhouse rape? Knock yourself out. But you can't even whisper the word "white" or you're a you-know-what. The disenfranchisement of white men? Come on. That one doesn't even make it to first base.
Now if you're speaking about raising these issues on paleo or nationalist forums exclusively, you're now in Catch 22. Because you will be denounced, dismissed and bundled with us anti-Semites under the rubric of 'hate'. And that won't be our doing (last time I checked my pockets, I was fresh out of newspapers and tv stations) but wholly the handiwork of those fellows who - in your view - are ripe to fully assimilate if we'll just allot them a little more rope.
Now, part of me wants to shout "JESUS H CHRIST! Here's an 'embattled minority' that's wealthier and more influentuial than 90% of the majority 'oppressing' them, who fully control the information flow in a nation that no longer produces anything except media......when do you figure that final, full assimilation will be happening? 10 years? Six months? Next Tuesday?" But possibly you're new to these issues so instead I'll say....rather than reading MacDonald....you might do well to go back and study the fable of the Frog and the Scorpion.
Okiereddust
2003-07-06 06:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 6 2003, 06:28 * You're new here, and I dunno if you're a young man or not, so I'll respectfully point out that - if you think raising serious issues which impact upon whites and/or males in this country...sans mention of Jews...is going to galvanize the populace or our legislators into action - you gots a looong *way to go, homeboy.
**
To paraphrase Joseph Sobran, talking about politics and social trends in this country without discussing the Jews is like talking about basketball without discussing the Lakers and Shaquille (note - a minority :afro: example ;) )
Kevin Alfred Strom
2003-07-06 13:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust+Jul 5 2003, 22:43 -->
QUOTE (Okiereddust @ Jul 5 2003, 22:43 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Kevin Alfred Strom@Jul 5 2003, 15:24 * We Euros damned well better start being Europhiles. Whites need to start thinking of themselves as Whites -- making what they actually are their primary method of answering the question "What are you?" instead of defining themselves by geography or language or, perhaps saddest of all, beliefs.* Your statement above encapsulates the problem. As I said on my broadcast earlier today:
"The blame for that result can be laid squarely on our grossest superstitions: the superstition that we are somehow linked to the 'Bible Lands' and the ancient Hebrews, and that the Jews are 'God's Chosen People,' to be accepted and treated as equals or betters in our societies; **
Of course you don't find anything wrong with dividing the white world once again by adding yet another eccentric belief - that of your cosmotheist church, and furthermore, making adherence to the beliefs of such church a criteria for being a loyal white. **
I don't make adherence to my religious or philosophical beliefs, or the beliefs of that or any other church, a criterion for being a loyal White. Making the self-determination and survival of the European race one's highest value -- or at least a value so high on one's scale of values that it is absolutely non-negotiable -- is the essential criterion.
I'm glad to be able to clear that up.
With my best,
Kevin.
[url=http://www.kevin-strom.com/]http://www.kevin-strom.com/[/url]
Walter Yannis
2003-07-06 18:14 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Kevin Alfred Strom@Jul 6 2003, 13:50 * ** I don't make adherence to my religious or philosophical beliefs, or the beliefs of that or any other church, a criterion for being a loyal White. Making the self-determination and survival of the European race one's highest value -- or at least a value so high on one's scale of values that it is absolutely non-negotiable -- is the essential criterion. **
Agreed, but that requires looking the facts in the eye as they really are and not as we may wish them to be. We want to succeed as a movement, after all.
Any movement that would have staying power must have a religion; it must have a unifying force that gives meaning to individual lives and the group a distinctive purpose. This is simply a fact of man's evolved nature. This means embracing a religion with all the devine madness that entails, and eschewing mere ideologies. This fact of our evolved natures must be the starting point of all further considerations.
Thus, the real choice is not whether we should have a relgion for our movement, for Evolution has decreed that man will have a religion and left him no choice in the matter. The real question is which religion our movement should have, assuming again that we place success at the top of our value system.
I believe that the only practical choice is Christianity.
The simple fact of the matter is that a great majority of our people are Christians of one kind or another, and that our history and culture are inextricably bound up with that religion. In addition, there have been strains of the Christian Faith that have embraced healthy racialist norms, including for example the Calvinism of the Boers of the 19th Century or the Catholicism in pre-Revolutionary France. These things exist and would therefore not have to be invented out of whole cloth, but could rather be brought back into predominance through a movement that built on the faith and habits of mind of our people as they are today. I would also point out that no other religion or ideology succeeded in uniting Europe for centuries as did Christianity in its hayday, and indeed all attempts to replace the Christian Faith from its leading role have lead to the mass slaughter of whites, from the French Revolution to the Nazis, all failed in spactacular slaughter of our people. Christianity, then, for all of its faults as currently practiced, is uniquely positioned as the solely successful attempt at finding some unity among the European peoples.
Given these facts and many more besides, Christianity is the most sensible choice for our movement, inasmuch as any other choice would have to first overcome the enormous barriers of first dismantling the faith of most of our target audience and then re-educating them out of the ingrained mental habits of our entire culture (including especially the non-Christians), and all of this before it could even begin to lead. That isn't workable from either a marketing or organizational standpoint.
A revitalized Christianity is the only workable solution.
Thus, even without reference to the truth or falsity of the tenets of the Christian Faith, all WN's in my humble opinion must in good faith get behind the slogan "The Faith is Christendom, Christendom is the Faith", regardless of whether they believe personally. While their opinions are of course valued, they must never detract from the primary task of building a successful, broad-based pan-European movement, which will be of necessity profoundly Christian.
Regards,
Walter
Okiereddust
2003-07-06 18:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by Kevin Alfred Strom+Jul 6 2003, 13:50 -->
QUOTE (Kevin Alfred Strom @ Jul 6 2003, 13:50 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Okiereddust@Jul 5 2003, 22:43 * *Of course you don't find anything wrong with dividing the white world once again by adding yet another eccentric belief - that of your cosmotheist church, and furthermore, making adherence to the beliefs of such church a criteria for being a loyal white. ** I don't make adherence to my religious or philosophical beliefs, or the beliefs of that or any other church, a criterion for being a loyal White. Making the self-determination and survival of the European race one's highest value -- or at least a value so high on one's scale of values that it is absolutely non-negotiable -- is the essential criterion.
I'm glad to be able to clear that up. **
This isn't an easy subject I know, but I appreciate your willingness to deal with the questions. As you know NA members believe that people can control their destiny within the laws of nature, and they spurn religious doctrine involving divine transcendence including Christianity, in whose churches most of its members were raised. The National Alliance handbook says> We are obliged...to oppose the Christian churches and to speak out against their doctrines..... It is not an Aryan religion...like the other Semitic religions [it] is irredeemably primitive." This basic aversion, combined with the groups National Socialist type authoritarianism, while perhaps not antithetical to the religious toleration you seem to be asserting, certainly has created at best a strong tension throughout the history of National Socialism, as in the Third Reich.
Saying > I don't make adherence to my religious or philosophical beliefs, or the beliefs of that or any other church, a criterion for being a loyal White Needs a little amplification to me. The problem of course with dealing with National Socialism as an ideology of religious toleration is that at least many National Socialist ideologues have always claimed National Socialism itself was a religion, and the goal of any NS regime to create a regime where all its loyal subjects are National Socialists. Your reply here seems to hint at a certain ambiguity. 1. seems to be a stance requiring ideological/religious absolutism basically incompatible with real religious toleration, i.e.
**1.Making the self-determination and survival of the European race one's highest value -- **
while 2. seems to as a second thought recognize the possibility of religious freedom, within certain limits.
2. or at least a value so high on one's scale of values that it is absolutely non-negotiable -- is the essential criterion.
Even 2. could be interpreted as having a certain ambiguity that makes Christians uneasy, and would need interpretation. Is the requirement that race be non-negotiable allow for the toleration of the religious principle of divine transcendence, which NA officially frowns upon? This is a tough question for me, at least to answer in the affirmative.
In its official documents, speeches, and other propoganda it seems to me the NA seems to be implying it is only attacking the Churches softness on Judaism, which of course is a matter of concern to Paleo's of various religious persuasions as well. But probe deeper and you find it seems a much more pervasive distrust of Christianity and to some extent all non-Judaic religions. The rejection of divine transcendence and authoritarian doctrines seem to mitigate in general against the principle of divine transcendence, as it limits the scope of the states authoritarianism. Does NA doctrine recognize and allow for these limits? Is there a consistent position and conscensus within the NA on this?
Thank you for your time.
ORD
Walter Yannis
2003-07-06 18:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 6 2003, 06:28 * ** > So while we debate semantics about antisemitism, nothing gets done or discussed about the injust divorce and child support laws that are stacked agasint divorced men. you wanna guess how many white males would give you their full and immediate attention if you were talking about that issue in stead? Or of the common rape and sexual slavery of white prisoners across the country? Or the way in which 'diversity' programs are being used to disnefranchise, impoverish and disempower white males across the spectrum?*
You're new here, and I dunno if you're a young man or not, so I'll respectfully point out that - if you think raising serious issues which impact upon whites and/or males in this country...sans mention of Jews...is going to galvanize the populace or our legislators into action - you gots a looong way to go, homeboy.
Unjust child support laws? You'll be flayed alive by feminists citing sheafs of horror stories about deadbeat dads. It isn't fathers so much under fire but whole two-parent families. The Propasphere is dead set against 'em, particularly if Mommy stays home rather than pursues a career as Ally McBeal. You see, if they can dynamite the nuclear family it becomes far easier for the State and its handmaidens to step in and become both Mommy and Daddy.
Jailhouse rape? Knock yourself out. But you can't even whisper the word "white" or you're a you-know-what. The disenfranchisement of white men? Come on. That one doesn't even make it to first base.
Now if you're speaking about raising these issues on paleo or nationalist forums exclusively, you're now in Catch 22. Because you will be denounced, dismissed and bundled with us anti-Semites under the rubric of 'hate'. And that won't be our doing (last time I checked my pockets, I was fresh out of newspapers and tv stations) but wholly the handiwork of those fellows who - in your view - are ripe to fully assimilate if we'll just allot them a little more rope.
Now, part of me wants to shout "JESUS H CHRIST! Here's an 'embattled minority' that's wealthier and more influentuial than 90% of the majority 'oppressing' them, who fully control the information flow in a nation that no longer produces anything except media......when do you figure that final, full assimilation will be happening? 10 years? Six months? Next Tuesday?" But possibly you're new to these issues so instead I'll say....rather than reading MacDonald....you might do well to go back and study the fable of the Frog and the Scorpion. **
reglencheek: Il Ragno and I disagree on a lot of issues, but we agree on this one. I used to be a Republican, but I and many like me were shown the door when the neo-cons came to power in the GOP. We're now outside looking in, and we'd better get this issue straight if we hope to retake that which is rightfully ours.
It took me a long time, but I finally came kicking and screaming to the unpleasant conclusion that the nature of the conflict is not Left-Right or Socialism-Capitalism or [fill in the blank]; it is rather simply an inter-ethnic conflict pitting Jews against Gentiles. It's as banal as you can get; it's just a stupid Darwinian inter-tribal struggle that has been going on in various ways since the days of the Pharoes. These other issues merely cloak from full view the real nature of the struggle, as did all the Marxist ideological hair-splitting on the Left. This ideological cover is all part of the strategy of preventing the victims to see the victimizers for what they really are.
We need to see to the bottom on that or our children are doomed to dispossession and genocide, as the whites in southern Africa are finding out now.
I agree with Il Ragno.
You seem like a reasonable fellow. My very friendly advice is to just keep an open mind, read MacDonald, Shahak and the others, and watch as events unfold. It changed my mind.
Warmest regards,
Walter
Walter Yannis
2003-07-06 19:01 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jul 6 2003, 18:31 * ** As you know NA members believe that people can control their destiny within the laws of nature, and they spurn religious doctrine involving divine transcendence **
If that is true (and I've never read any of the National Alliance stuff), then they're at odds with themselves.
Their position is self-contradictory, for Evolutionary Psychology itself reveals that man is possessed of a religious instinct that will be expressed. We have no choice in the matter; we will have a religion, for Nature has so decreed and we are powerless to resist Nature's dictates of our own will.
If one is to "control ones destiny within the laws of nature" then one would be well advised to look his EVOLVED need for transcendence in the eye, accept it, and build his individual and group life from there. You might as well try to build a movement that denies man's instincts for sex and society, or even food and warmth. The religion instinct is as much a part of our brains' hardwiring as any other, like it or not, accept it or not, that's just the way that is.
If we want to succeed we must begin with this fact.
See the quote from Tolstoy's "War and Peace" in my avatar. Tolstoy, that towering artistic genius, powerfully revealed this essential truth long ago. Prince Andrei returned home from the war in 1805 wounded and sick and defeated, to a dead wife and a father in his dotage and an estate that was falling apart, and hundreds of poor peasants dependent upon him for their livlihood and defense. He realized that he couldn't look into the abyss and then go on to do his duties to his Tsar, family, and community without a belief in God. He accepted the necessity of faith for very practical reasons. He chose to believe. He humbled himself by embracing as good his own evolved need for a faith in the Eternal, and in so doing he found the strength to succeed in performing his sacred duty.
We need to get over this misguided scientism that says like a boy whistling in the dark "I can look in the abyss and not blink!" That's not dealing with the facts of human nature in any meaningful way. Not on a group level, and not on an individual level.
There ain't no atheists in foxholes. And friends, before this thing is over we'll all be in foxholes. Anybody who counsels the disastrous Way of the Abyss is no friend, and is in fact our most dangerous enemy.
Walter
rglencheek
2003-07-07 16:07 | User Profile
Again, if the Jews are the core of the Lefts message and the center of the Leftist ideological archipelago of 'communities' then the Jews and Zionism would not get the heave-ho, NOT EVER. But the simple observable fact is that they are in fact getting it now. True, certain Jews like Chomsky are still in the fold, but not the Zionists, and not the neo-cons by any means. To suggest a conspiracy on such a model is to suggest that humanity is falling under the heel of the most incompetent conspirators who cannot not even maintain control over their own movements.
The Truth, I believe is more complex. For instance, why would Jews defend neo-Nazi and KKK groups in court? If they felt any threat from such groups, then why would they risk protecting the seeds of their future destruction by defending them in court as they have via the ACLU on several occasions?
The answer is manifold.
1) These ACLU lawyers, mostly Jews, do in fact believe in the freedom of speech, though qualified in many self-serving ways.
2) The Jews do NOT feel threatened by neoNazis and KKK as they see these people as incompetent, fringe groups who could not lead a revolution or reform if all the power of the Federal government fell into their own laps.
3) Many Jewish radical groups feel that they cannot have a clear focus defending themselves in America without a boogeyman, without a wolf howling in the night. Well, the wolves are almost extinct, so what is the wolf-hunter supposed to do but import some wolves? Maybe get out into the night and howel a bit themselves to keep the villagers employing him?
The groups that the Jews do infact feel threatened by are the groups that are successful at recruiting members and accomplishing their political goals, and these they handle largely by ignoring them as much as possible. But ironically enough, it is the Jewish radicals themselves that promote and give publicity to American anti-semites more than anyone else because they find the existance of such to be in their best interests.
So how effective can these various anti-semitic groups be if the targets of their hatred are their cheif benefactors?
None, they are at that point plainly inert and sterile and of no threat to anyone.
The Left's ideological archipelago consists of amny groups; the Jews, blacks, homosexuals, feminist radicals, Marxists, etc. Each of these groups are useful to them for undermining the current regime, but the lefts ideology is not beneficial to those groups themselves. Yet teh Left maintains control through the recruitment of a leadership cadre in each group that pursues reward though the Leftist agenda is destroying the communities that they supposedly represent.
Take for example the homosexual community. The treatment of AIDS as a civil right instead of a communicable disease has led to one of the worst plagues in American history.
Take for example the black community. The promotion of a culture of resentment and blame has helped to keep blacks from ever acheiving what they could, and has infact done the opposite, and created a subculture of violence, ignorance, poverty and bastardy.
Take for example the feminist movement. It has destroyed many of the safeguards that women have had since the late 1800's and is about to destroy more, like the protection women have from being drafted, all to serve teh interests of a handful of female gernerals who know they cant get four stars on their shoulders unless they can get into combat somewhere. It is of no matter to them that this removes the last reason for not having women drafted, but it is likely of major importance to other women if the message can be heard.
Take the Jews for example. They are being discriminated agaisnt by these diversity programs and Affirmative Action laws just like any other whites. They are seeing their families shredded by narcicistic values being pumped into American Jewish homes via a decadent Hollywood and television industry.
In each of these communities, the Left has subverted the communities interests by creating a leadership cadre that subverted the interests of the community inorder to serve their own purposes, usually self promotion and wealth. The anti-semitic leadership of the far right is plainly the leadership cadre of the far right that the Left would prefer to have in charge of groups on the right, and their behavior demonstrates this clearly as they promote the anti-semites and ignore those other leaders that might get something done. This anti-semitism they know will always keep the far right repulsive inthe minds of most Americans and any minority groups that will remain safely under the Left's control via fear of the racist right.
It is the Leftist ideology that is the problem, not the communities that make it up. No, these communities can be led from this slavery to a better future if they know the Truth, and you can never get them to that Truth if you engage in rhetoric that dehumanizes them.
The hard-core leadership of the Left is not tied to any specific community, they are a composition of ideologues whose commitment to their system of beliefs binds them into a fraternity that supercedes their ties to any other institution, race, or fraternity. And only when we truly understand the nature of this ancient fraternity will we be able to engage them in the spiritual war that will save our civilization.
And Christians will defeat this Kabal of Tylers, partly via having Truth on our side, partly by neutralizing their methods, but also by finding grounds to compromise so that they no longer feel compelled to pursue the imposition of their agenda on all of mankind.
And if it is not American Christians that lead this effort, it will be Christians of another nation, but God's Will shall be done, if even the stones must cry out.
Okiereddust
2003-07-08 03:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 7 2003, 16:07 * Again, if the Jews are the core of the Lefts message and the center of the Leftist ideological archipelago of 'communities' then the Jews and Zionism would not get the heave-ho, NOT EVER. But the simple observable fact is that they are in fact getting it now. True, certain Jews like Chomsky are still in the fold, but not the Zionists, and not the neo-cons by any means. To suggest a conspiracy on such a model is to suggest that humanity is falling under the heel of the most incompetent conspirators who cannot not even maintain control over their own movements.*
Well I'm going to get repetitive, but you haven't read MacDonald, who does discuss these sort of questions extensively. You'd have to review his logic. But if all Jews aren't on the left, is that an evolutionary weakness? Does it make sense for a evolutionary group strategy to put all its eggs in one ideological basket? Far better to try to influence ALL ideological movements in ways compatible with its agenda.
The anology MczDonald uses is a expeditionary voyage. You use a number of boats, not just one.
**The Truth, I believe is more complex. For instance, why would Jews defend neo-Nazi and KKK groups in court? If they felt any threat from such groups, then why would they risk protecting the seeds of their future destruction by defending them in court as they have via the ACLU on several occasions?
The answer is manifold.
1) These ACLU lawyers, mostly Jews, do in fact believe in the freedom of speech, though qualified in many self-serving ways.
2) The Jews do NOT feel threatened by neoNazis and KKK as they see these people as incompetent, fringe groups who could not lead a revolution or reform if all the power of the Federal government fell into their own laps.
3) Many Jewish radical groups feel that they cannot have a clear focus defending themselves in America without a boogeyman, without a wolf howling in the night. Well, the wolves are almost extinct, so what is the wolf-hunter supposed to do but import some wolves? Maybe get out into the night and howel a bit themselves to keep the villagers employing him?
The groups that the Jews do infact feel threatened by are the groups that are successful at recruiting members and accomplishing their political goals, and these they handle largely by ignoring them as much as possible. But ironically enough, it is the Jewish radicals themselves that promote and give publicity to American anti-semites more than anyone else because they find the existance of such to be in their best interests.
So how effective can these various anti-semitic groups be if the targets of their hatred are their cheif benefactors?**
Your speculations are interesting, but not penetrating, speculation. Read the book.
There's an on-line version available from 1st Books for just 5 dollars.
**The Left's ideological archipelago consists of amny groups; the Jews, blacks, homosexuals, feminist radicals, Marxists, etc. Each of these groups are useful to them for undermining the current regime, but the lefts ideology is not beneficial to those groups themselves. Yet teh Left maintains control through the recruitment of a leadership cadre in each group that pursues reward though the Leftist agenda is destroying the communities that they supposedly represent.
Take for example the homosexual community. The treatment of AIDS as a civil right instead of a communicable disease has led to one of the worst plagues in American history.
Take for example the black community. The promotion of a culture of resentment and blame has helped to keep blacks from ever acheiving what they could, and has infact done the opposite, and created a subculture of violence, ignorance, poverty and bastardy.
Take for example the feminist movement. It has destroyed many of the safeguards that women have had since the late 1800's and is about to destroy more, like the protection women have from being drafted, all to serve teh interests of a handful of female gernerals who know they cant get four stars on their shoulders unless they can get into combat somewhere. It is of no matter to them that this removes the last reason for not having women drafted, but it is likely of major importance to other women if the message can be heard.**
What ties these movements together is the so-called "cultural marxism" of the Frankfurt School, with its emphasis on pathologizing cohesive gentile group affiliations and emphasis on "diversity".
Take the Jews for example. They are being discriminated agaisnt by these diversity programs and Affirmative Action laws just like any other whites. They are seeing their families shredded by narcicistic values being pumped into American Jewish homes via a decadent Hollywood and television industry.
MacDonald discusses this also. He has an interesting theory on this. Suffice to say while seemingly harmful, it also amounts to an evolutionary advantage for Jews.
In each of these communities, the Left has subverted the communities interests by creating a leadership cadre that subverted the interests of the community inorder to serve their own purposes, usually self promotion and wealth. The anti-semitic leadership of the far right is plainly the leadership cadre of the far right that the Left would prefer to have in charge of groups on the right, and their behavior demonstrates this clearly as they promote the anti-semites and ignore those other leaders that might get something done. This anti-semitism they know will always keep the far right repulsive inthe minds of most Americans and any minority groups that will remain safely under the Left's control via fear of the racist right.
Hate to agree with you, but there is a grain of truth here. The use of provocetuers is well known. We discussed this recently as it pertained to the Germain N.P.D. Is some Stormfront policy provectuer influenced? I've suggested this myself.
It is the Leftist ideology that is the problem, not the communities that make it up. No, these communities can be led from this slavery to a better future if they know the Truth, and you can never get them to that Truth if you engage in rhetoric that dehumanizes them.
Aka "hate speech". We of course try to maintain dignity on this forum, but really Jewish groups themselves make no distinction. Any criticism, no matter how measured, is lkely to be labeled "hate speech".
The hard-core leadership of the Left is not tied to any specific community, they are a composition of ideologues whose commitment to their system of beliefs binds them into a fraternity that supercedes their ties to any other institution, race, or fraternity.**** MacDonald's whle point is to show how this conflict between ideology and race for many Jewish ideologies in fact is negligable, often in fact opposite to surface apperance (aka the leftism you observe) beneficial.
You can argue his point, but you needto understand it.
And only when we truly understand the nature of this ancient fraternity will we be able to engage them in the spiritual war that will save our civilization. And you only understand through studying opposing viewpoints. Read the book.
**And Christians will defeat this Kabal of Tylers, partly via having Truth on our side, partly by neutralizing their methods, but also by finding grounds to compromise so that they no longer feel compelled to pursue the imposition of their agenda on all of mankind.
And if it is not American Christians that lead this effort, it will be Christians of another nation, but God's Will shall be done, if even the stones must cry out.**
No doubt, all things are ultimately spiritual warfare. But unlike the dispensationalists, we aren't putting eveything in the Jews hands, sitting and waiting for the deliverance of Armaggeddon and the rapture.
Franco
2003-07-08 04:09 | User Profile
ALL OD'ers will kindly note that Left and Right mean nothing as far as Jews go. Jews now control both the Left and the Right.
Forget stupid labels. Watch the names, and watch the power in all areas of Western life.
Walter Yannis
2003-07-08 12:51 | User Profile
*Originally posted by rglencheek@Jul 7 2003, 16:07 * ** Again, if the Jews are the core of the Lefts message and the center of the Leftist ideological archipelago of 'communities' then the Jews and Zionism would not get the heave-ho, NOT EVER. But the simple observable fact is that they are in fact getting it now. True, certain Jews like Chomsky are still in the fold, but not the Zionists, and not the neo-cons by any means. To suggest a conspiracy on such a model is to suggest that humanity is falling under the heel of the most incompetent conspirators who cannot not even maintain control over their own movements. **
rglencheek: You've only recently joined in our holy deliberations, so you're not privy to the long conversation we've held on these issues.
I've long said that the Left is coalition of interests, with Jews traditionally holding the epicenter. The coalition in America was made up of Jews and other discernible minorities: blacks, browns, homosexuals, angry feminists, white women who wanted a career more than family and wants the government to reassure them in their disastrous choices, and so forth.
White males were the enemy. The whole point of the Racial Extortion Coaltion was/is to tax white males at higher rates and to effect net wealth transfers to Coalition members. That's pretty obvious once you say it.
But 30 years ago a group of very perceptive Jews (nearly all of the them followers of Lev Bronshtein (Trotsky)) realized that they'd better cover the white, male, patriotic base, since what really matters is Israel and only white partiotic males can actually help save Israel from its enemies by working, paying taxes, and serving in the military. The Racial Extortion Coalition is swell, but what happens when Jews actually NEED white males for something other than a handy piggy bank? What if the money budgeted to keep the Gay Dominican Scout Master in AZT and K-Y Jelly is suddenly needed to protect Israel? Who's going to pay for the ruinous military expenditures and man an effective military?
Whelp, blacks are, well, you know what they are. Same for browns, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree. Women? Gays? Lesbian Puerto Ricans recoverning from drug addiction? Nope, nope and nope.
Only white guys can fit that bill, and some of the Tribe needed to side with them as their anger grew about the Coalition's depredations - just to keep their anger channeled in safe directions.
These very preceptive Trotskyists are today's neo-cons, and they've managed to shift Jewish perceptions away from the Coalition and now toward the most immediate interests of the hated and feared white males. Jews have begun to realize that they're going to have to cut off funding to the old Coalition members so that it can be re-directed to the defense of their Country. They've realized that they can't go on villifying the white male while counting on him for Israel's defense. This has caused no small consternation with the old Coaltion partners. Blacks are PO'd - witness the McKinney scandal. Trotskyite David Horowitz leads the campus crusade against reparations, and so forth. All of this is alienating the Coalition, and thus anti-Semitism grows on the old Left. That's why some of us here see our best recruiting ground among the young Leftists - a "black-red" coalition. But I digress.
But only the most immediate interests of the white male will be addressed, of course. Just superficial stuff, no talk about the true European, Christian and English-speaking essence of the American nation. Talk "ower taxes" but don't talk about a brown tide of illegal immigration burdening our schools and social welfare systems. Create a "strong military" but don't talk about who the best and brightest are and why in the world they should be interested in fighting in Iraq.
You get the picture.
The neo-cons are Trotskyite infiltrators. And they've won, which is why we're here on the Outer Limits of the Internet and not regular National Review subscribers.
Anyway, keep on comin' back, man. You're definitely on the right track.
Walter