← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · godlesscapitalist
Thread ID: 8411 | Posts: 54 | Started: 2003-07-24
2003-07-24 08:33 | User Profile
...
2003-07-24 10:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 24 2003, 08:33 * *In terms of practicalities, I believe one could sell this to the capitalist right by phrasing it in terms of the desirability of skilled vs. unskilled immigrants, and invoking the cost-benefit analysis of [url=http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.GBorjas.Academic.Ksg/HeavensDoor/HeavensDoor3.html]George Borjas.[/url] Some among you may be interested to note that Borjas' advocacy for restrictionism received a favorable review in [url=http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.GBorjas.Academic.Ksg/HeavensDoor/Commentary.htm]Commentary[/url].
I also believe that one could sell this to the labor-friendly left by phrasing it in terms of the plight of poor American workers - the low IQ whites, blacks, and Hispanics (the "Redblex" mix) that are most financially victimized by the neverending onslaught of cheap labor. Some of you must have seen the recent article in the [url=http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-immigration29jul20.story]LA Times[/url] that did just that. I [url=http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000778.html]commented[/url] on this at my website. In my view, Victor Davis Hanson's "compassionate" approach (as articulated in Mexifornia) is far superior to Sam Francis' barely masked racialism if one's goal is to convince Sally Soccermom and Joe Sixpack that there might be a benevolent side to immigration reform.
As for the left-leaning Jews, one need not convert them to the "pro-restriction" position entirely. One need only get more Stephen Steinlight [1] types to come to their senses. A comment that wintermute made was particularly apropos, though I have substituted "liberal media" for Jews:
** Hating the French and the Arabs is now greenlighted from on-high, and therefore is not subject to social sanction. The degree of their agressiveness could be like the "Two Minute Hate" as seen in 1984 - purely natural aggression that has no proper social outlet. Can you imagine their rage if dislike of blacks or mexicans were to be greenlighted by [the liberal media], complete with round-the-clock media blitzes on black crime and outright Mexican hatred of America (plus a peek at the real social costs). **
So - here's the question. Suppose that enough of the media was converted so that such a bill was passed, and that we dramatically reduced the level of unskilled immigration. That would mean a Steve Sailer like [url=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/israeli_fence.htm]fence[/url] or the equivalent to tightly control the border with Mexico.................
[1] By the way - after reading the extraordinarily ethnocentric Steinlight [url=http://www.vdare.com/misc/white_without_honor.htm]article[/url], and noting that he was a formerly high ranking official of the American Jewish committee, I can see that there is a reason for anger. In fairness, though, it is not as if [url=http://www.practicalpolitics.net/davison/7_23_02.html]white gentiles[/url] have not done the same thing. Let us leave it at that - I do not wish to get in another argument about the Jews.**
Interesting questions. Your proposed/supposed agenda is one of course the more moderate anti-immigration right has been trying to implement for years, if not decades. We need not get into discussing the hypothetical details though IMO, because the stipulation you place on the discussion - "I do not wish to get in another argument about the Jews" - basically so drastically both 1. limits the chances of what your proposed to next to nothing, and 2. ensures that such a program, even if implemented, would be done so in a way to render its achievement a very minor thing in terms of its practical cultural significance for the 75% majority not just in the long term, but pretty much the medium and short term as well.
To paraphrase Joseph Sobran, having a lively discussion about immigration policy without "getting into an argument about the Jews" is like having a lively discussion about pro basketball without getting discussing the Lakers.
Why this is so of course is perhaps one of the fundamental raison de etre's for this forum, and one we have discussed here and elsewhere for several years. But its a fundamental matter, and can not just be glossed over. The more moderate members of us are here because our proven experience that you cannot have a reasoned discussion on these policies, let alone think of implementing these policies, without discussion of the jewish role in them.
The nature of such a forum, discussing a subject taboo and off-limits to any mainstream audience, even on the anonymous internet, has led to a certain latitudinarianism in our audience and mode of discussion, as you noted previously in our discussion on forum rules. By contemporary standards, there cetainly is an element on this forum which is undeniably strident and intolerant, and which I'm afraid you will have to put up with if you want to stay on this forum.
The forum rules you referred to I think express an ideal which we hope to achieve on this forum, not an actuality which we practically expect to be achieved at all times. I guess this expresses a reaction to our experiences elsewhere on forums. Trying our best to straddle a narrow balancing act between discussing controversial ideas and always being polite and unoffensive to all proved to be impossible, leading us to feel perhaps a certain sympathy for those who had always maintained such a balancing act was impossible, and not tried so hard to achieve it.
I guess reading your post I see expectations and hopes for a kind of discussion and consensus on this forum which I think are just a little unrealistic. We've tried that road, and its failed. Much of this forum is about why its failed - the Steinlight article being perhaps one good illustration of such, but only one out of very many to be found here.
If you've found the Steinlight article, you can doubtless find many of the other such articles, and perhaps come to a more realistic understanding of what is practicle, in immigration policy in this country as presently governed and of the forum's realistic atmosphere and polity in approaching such difficult questions.
2003-07-24 12:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 24 2003, 11:35 * > > *Interesting questions.ÃÂ Your proposed/supposed agenda is one of course the more moderate anti-immigration right has been trying to implement for years, if not decades.ÃÂ **
Suspend disbelief for a bit, though...might you tell me whether you would prefer an immigration reform act as outlined above - even at the cost of white nationalism? Note that * de facto * "polite" self segregation would still be possible, and living standards would be comparable to those of today.
If that wasn't the question you found interesting, could you answer what it was? (Ok, let me hear your theory, Jews and all)** Like I say, the question was interesting once. It is now longer. When I was a kid I was interested in how martians might live. I guess as you get older you stick to what is practicable. If a horse could speak, I am sure I would have a lot of questions to ask him. But I don't drag a list around with me all the time just in case.
As to the Jews opposition, fundamental and visceral opposition (as MacDonald describes) to such an outcome is why they have opposed such a program in the first place. You can't really start talking about particulars until you've assumed certain fundamentals. Just as Israel has always demanded the Palestenians acknowledge their right preparatory to entering into negotiations.
> ** 2. ensures that such a program, even if implemented, would be done so in a way to render its achievement a very minor thing in terms of its practical cultural significance for the 75% majority not just in the long term, but pretty much the medium and short term as well. ** Why do you believe that if such a program was implemented that the achievements would be minor? I don't understand. **
Because we know who would be doing the implementing.
** To paraphrase Joseph Sobran, having a lively discussion about immigration policy without "getting into an argument about the Jews" is like having a lively discussion about pro basketball without getting discussing the Lakers.
...
If you've found the Steinlight article, you can doubtless find many of the other such articles, and perhaps come to a more realistic understanding of what is practicle, in immigration policy in this country as presently governed and of the forum's realistic atmosphere and polity in approaching such difficult questions. **
I think I already know what you'll say: Jews are disproprotionately represented in the media. But that does not mean immediate defeat. While Jews certainly vote & write left, there are certain tactics that would work.
For example - It would be tacticaly intelligent to bring up the fact of Hispanic anti-Semitism. I doubt it is anywhere near as strong as that of the Muslims, but Hispanics identify Jews as white capitalists, and feel animosity accordingly. Writing a book, or even an article on Hispanic anti-semitism - and promoting this heavily through the grapevine as legitimate - will start rumblings.
This would not be hard to write, particularly if you write it in the tone of a concerned liberal looking at a "social problem"...rather than a gleeful racialist. (i.e., not Franco.)**
Steinlight of course brings hispanic antisemitism up. I think a lot of your questions in this regard are similar to what Darkeddy asked in threads like [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=f6f4603fbc86d22afc0e5efbc1276f32&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&hl=&st=275]Toward a Jewish-White Nationalist Alliance[/url]. I think we went over the main issues pretty thoroughly. Generally people like him just aren't prepared to deal with the real problems we always bring up.
The practical matter is for someone in your academic position is that you are pretty much required to be philosemitic for advancement. This is one area where one cannot go into with such blinders on and expect to come up with anything new.
2003-07-24 12:16 | User Profile
So - would you then desire such a bill, if it came at the cost of white nationalism? Or - if you will permit an analogy - would you prefer to "heighten the contradictions" via mass unskilled immigration until the proletariat/white masses awake as one to their class/race interests?
I would prefer that immigration be halted. Though birthrate differentials -- even blacks are amazed at the number of children Mexicans produce -- would eat into the numerical majority, the end of the influx would at least give us a chance to catch our breath while attempting to break the ties between the sheeple and their malevolent leadership. Yes, the inner party and its criminal collaborators control all media of mass communication, but the internet provides a comparatively inefficient means of spreading the truth. Though the number of those divorced from the propasphere may grow slowly, they will be unlikely ever to lapse, as your second sentence suggests. If the internet medium remains available, the number of enlightened dissidents should grow exponentially.
2003-07-24 14:18 | User Profile
Suspend disbelief for a bit, though...might you tell me whether you would prefer an immigration reform act as outlined above - even at the cost of white nationalism? I think your premise is flawed. If we stopped ALL immigration this very minute -- we'd STILL be overrun by criminal or lazy, or uneducated, or uneducable or merely offensive blacks, mexicans, and other darker peoples. Where was I just reading a comment I thought telling: If you 'created' a Swedish-American inner-city 'ghetto' -- with the same lack of money and jobs, would that place end up filthy and stinking of urine and filled with broken windows and "street art" on every surface? NO, because WHITES tend tend NOT to be randomly destructive. Could a person of any race walk through that ghetto safely? Yes, because whites tend NOT to be massively violent and criminal. (And before you say, "it's the poverty that makes the blacks criminal" -- look to the source!! Is Africa a lovely civilized place where they do NOT suffer from American racism and thus have little or no crime and filth? Is Sweden a hell hole?!)
White nationalism is a response to CURRENT problems, not a preparation for future ones! Currently present black males are committing astonishing numbers of violent crimes; currently present blacks are suing companies for "institutional racism" (when do we get to sue blacks for institutional criminality?!); the EEOC is currently destroying white working abilities; the already-present blacks are agitating for reparations and "special" funding and "special" privileges. Aztlan is already well-advanced in the SW, LA is already a smaller Mexico City.
We are LONG past any chance of a peaceable settlement! White nationalism is the immune system response to a massive infection ALREADY present, not a vaccination against future infection! And since those people you don't want to discuss (you know, the Lakers?! :D ) are 'managing' this country into its grave, you could never even get close to your hopes for a partial fix.
2003-07-24 20:46 | User Profile
While asians are preferable to blacks or mexicans, a large number of them still can ruin a white nation. Look to Australia and Canadia for examples of this: in large numbers, asians tend to form criminal gangs much like the other two gropus just mentioned do. They're not as randomly destructive as the blacks, but they -are- destructive, especially against business.
If illegal mexican immigration were halted immediately and the illegals already here were sent back home, that would take the wind out of white nationalism's sails, at least until white people's failure to reproduce catches up with us. Not taking that vitally important second step, however, makes the first step equivalent to throwing a starving dog a meatless bone. Mexicans already have the numbers to ruin neighborhoods, make politicians pander to them, and probably take over the southwest; just stopping their reinforcements isn't going to correct that, and isn't going to slow WN's growth significantly.
2003-07-24 22:04 | User Profile
Well then, Godless, you like the immigration. Most of us don't. We're not getting anywhere, are we now?
_Jay
2003-07-24 22:13 | User Profile
**How would you be overrun? ** Poor word choice on my part -- we're already DROWNING in people who should not be here. ANY program that stops more coming in is good -- but we're ALREADY overwhelmed!
...promote skilled immigration - not just of Asians, but also Eastern Europeans This country is already groaning under a mssive load of people we canNOT take care of NOW! Stopping them coming will not enable us to take care of the ones alreayd here (and don't think they don't need taking care if!). And stopping more coming in will NOT stop 'reparations' idiocy, nor affirmative action idiocy, nor rapine, pillaging, and murdering (mostly of whites by blacks!!).
**As a thought experiment: do you think that you would have the views you do if the blacks and Hispanics were magically replaced with Asians? ** I'd have SOME of the same views... I'd still have a problem with importing ANYone who takes jobs from white Americans -- the Asians/Indians coming here are destroying the white tech industry. WHY should OUR country be the employer of choice for ANYone except Americans?! I'd be less worried about rampant criminalism, although there ARE problems with Asian gangs. Why should :rolleyes: "all" the white hotel and quickie mart owners in the country be replaced by Indians, and what should those bought-out/taken over whites DO for a living?
I agree that blacks are disproportionately likely to commit violent crimes, and that the tendency is likely heritable...but poverty is certainly a contributing factor. Hence the massive crime rate in Appalachia? The Russian problem with crime is a JEWISH thing -- it is jewish criminals and syndicates that have created a lawless and dangerous place. (Oh, er, sorry, it's the LAKERS!!! It's a Laker's problem! :) :D )
If this is true, why are so many white people fine with the current situation? I think this is because de facto self-segregation is still possible (away from the crime prone minorities). Because they're stupid and/or asleep! Self-segregation only works to a small extent -- because the blacks can FOLLOW (and do!) Do you really believe there isn't racial crime in white neighborhoods? And what when we run out of places? Explain why somalis are being brought into WHITE areas, and not settled (and kept, d@mn it!!) in black areas -- let them care for "their own!"
See, the thing is that antiracism has a kernel of truth. Most E/S Asians + Jews and many blacks & Hispanics can integrate into white society.
Anti-racism has only the kernal of truth that jew-media has taught you! MOST canNOT integrate -- they will ALWAYS look out for their own -- as whites will not! How many dinners have you eaten at the houses of your "E/S Asians + Jews and blacks & Hispanics" friends? Oh, you don't socialize with them either? You mean OTHER people should socialize with them? Which other people, and WHY?
You yourself posted on the "Oreos" at your school in the past. Only the inability to self-segregate from unskilled minorities makes whites racially conscious. An influx of Asians does not cause white flight.
yes, and I was young and dumb -- NOW I realize full-well that those Oreos have black friends who are NOT Oreos, and even the Oreos support victimization as a way of life, if not for themselves, then for their OWN people! (Think you the Oreos don't vote democrat and for affirmative action and for reparations and for "institutional racism verdicts"?! Whites, only, are so stupid as to take better care of OTHERS than of their own!
2003-07-24 22:28 | User Profile
*Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 24 2003, 14:06 * ** Well, this is slightly off topic but:
[url=http://nationmaster.com/country/rs/Crime]http://nationmaster.com/country/rs/Crime[/url]
Russia has a higher murder rate than the US. So do many 95%+ white ex-communist countries...see nationmaster.com.
I agree that blacks are disproportionately likely to commit violent crimes, and that the tendency is likely heritable...but poverty is certainly a contributing factor. **
godlesscapitalist-according to the Russian government, illegal immigrants, of whom there are at least 10 million in Russia, are resposnible for [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2760653.stm]40%[/url] of the crime in Russia.
Most of the violent crime in Russia is committed by [url=http://www.lincolnheritage.org/About_Us/Resources/Wkly_Magazine/New_Articles/Russia_Likely_To_Respond_To_Ch/russia_likely_to_respond_to_ch.html]Chechen[/url], [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9067&hl=russian+mafia']Jewish[/url] and [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2760653.stm]Chinese[/url] crime cartels.
**Russia is an illustration that whites can be criminal at per-capita rates exceeding those of American blacks if the rule of law is not present. **
Sure, if Jews, Chechens, Chinese, etc.. are now "white".
Please do your research more carefully next time
2003-07-24 22:36 | User Profile
So - would you then desire such a bill, if it came at the cost of white nationalism? Or - if you will permit an analogy - would you prefer to "heighten the contradictions" via mass unskilled immigration until the proletariat/white masses awake as one to their class/race interests?
Let me just presume that you have the following agenda: As a member of an ethnic minority in North America, you are of course in fear of a nativist backlash, as you would most likely become a target of that. You also realize that the biggest catalysator for such a backlash is Mexican illegal immigration and South Western irredentism as well as Black crime and a Jewish led foreign policy as well as an anti white victim culture and a culture war dedicated at the erradication of American national identity. But you also know that anti-asian feelings (muslims excluded) are much lower both in Europe as in Northern America than anti black, anti muslim or anti hispanic feelings are. So you fear how a generally welcoming culture could turn xenophobic in general once faced with black nationalism and hispanic irredentism. I of course understand your stance. If I were in your position, I would share it. But this is not an eugenitics or just a capitalist board. The issues here do not primarily deal with economics. The basic drive, at least for me, is the preservation of the cultural heritage of my ancestors. IQ differences are not my prime motive, although they are important if you want to maintain a certain level of standard of living. But I do not think that peoples, races or cultures with the same intellectual abilities will tend in any way to identify with a culture not shared by their ancestors. Nor do I think that they or their decendents will ever identify with the new nation completely. Personally I doubt that any coalition with Jews is possible. I do not know how that is in America but in my country their favorite ally are the Turks. The jewish strategy here is a Turko-Jewish alliance against the host population. The hostility towards any kind of nationalism among the natives is intense among these two groups. East Asians tend to be less aggressive towards whites than jews and people of color. This might allow a strategic alliance with them. But to me the ultimate goal of white nationalism should be that the native stock population should remain in charge of the nation their ancestors built. I can accept a 10% ethnic minority population as long as they remain demographically stable and do not tend towards any hostility or fifth column behavior towards the majority. In such a case I consider them enemies of my nation.
2003-07-24 23:57 | User Profile
You have identified real problems, but your "solutions" - inevitable violent revolution (for the Turner Crowd) or some sort of tipping point where whites gain racial consciousness - are, in my view, unrealistic. Ours too :crybaby: -- I think most of us are pessimistic that the 'great white hope' will ever awaken. There WILL be violent revolution -- but it will be more a complete breakdown of civilization -- and I think many of us are planning ahead for the the hoped-for rise from the ashes. But what else should we do? Give up, become slaves and forget even the hope of freedom? We are NOT, you'll notice, actually going out and starting the revolution.
After all - why would whites gain racial consciousness in the United States if such a thing never happened in Latin America? If current trends are not stopped (and the all important factor of transhumanism is omitted from the equation), I think it's much more likely to see a gradual Brazilian "browning". A gradual Brazilian browning followed by massive increases in crime, even above Washington D.C. levels, and a collapse of the civilization? Yeah, that's what we're hoping for... NOT! Current trends will NOT be stopped, the breakdown of civilization in American WILL happen and all our educating and agitating will not do much beyond MAYBE (and I don't really think so) slow it down so the children of today have to live through it, and we don't. (I'm not a parent, I can say that without blanching!)
Drakmal: If illegal mexican immigration were halted immediately and the illegals already here were sent back home, that would take the wind out of white nationalism's sails, No, I don't think it would because the level of crime would drop some, but probably not substantially. The blacks would still be here, and still causing a huge problem. And halting mexican immigration won't keep tthe somalis and liberians (you wanna bet they're next?!?!) from being brought here is huge uncivilized quantities!
2003-07-25 00:18 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Prodigal Son@Jul 24 2003, 16:28 * ** godlesscapitalist-according to the Russian government, illegal immigrants, of whom there are at least 10 million in Russia
**
By the way, my source for this is the [url=http://www.dpni.org/]Russian Movement Against Illegal Immigration[/url], which estimates that there may be as many as 12 million illegals in Russia and that they commit as much as 60% of the crime (this of course does not include the millions of non-white non-Russians who live in Russia legally, and the Israeli and Chechen mobsters who carry Russian passports). The website has hundreds of articles, editorials and statistics regarding illegal immigration (mostly of Muslims from the Caucasus and Chinese) and its effect on Russia, as well as interviews with government officials on the matter. Unfortunately all of the material on the site is in Russian.
Before extrapolating unrealistic conclusions from scanty data (i.e. "White Russians commit more crime per capita than black Americans"), please check the veracity, quality and quantity of your sources.
2003-07-25 04:23 | User Profile
**If this is true, why are so many white people fine with the current situation? **
A. They are corrupt; or B. They are ignorant.
Not very complicated.
2003-07-25 04:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Jul 25 2003, 04:23 * > *If this is true, why are so many white people fine with the current situation? **
A. They are corrupt; or B. They are ignorant.
Not very complicated.**
Actually I'm sure MacDonald has a more detailed explanation of the situation. Something about the natural submission of a people to hierarcharial power. But like you, I don't have timeto get into it.
2003-07-25 04:42 | User Profile
After all - why would whites gain racial consciousness in the United States if such a thing never happened in Latin America? If current trends are not stopped (and the all important factor of transhumanism is omitted from the equation), I think it's much more likely to see a gradual Brazilian "browning"
Read Carl Degler's book discussing the differences between the US and Brasil in this regard, Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States.
Here:
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0299109143/qid=1059108069/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5054457-2075355?v=glance&s=books]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books[/url]
It has nothing to do with racial consciousness; indeed, racial consciousness among whites and pseudo-whites (Sephardim) appears to be quite strong in Latin America.
2003-07-25 04:48 | User Profile
There may be problems with gang violence, but do Asians as a group actually commit crimes at higher rates? I doubt it.
Within a homogeneous society -- or against other members of the "ingroup" -- East Asians indeed have a lower crime rate than those of European descent, who in turn have a much lower crime rate than those of Sub-Saharan African descent. And some East Asians would appear to have succeeded in accepting White Americans as part of their ingroup -- they have assimilated. However, regardless of these facts, ethnic kinship still provides an opportunity for organized criminal enterprises that East Asians in the US and Canada take advantage of in a way that members of the majority ethnicity do not. Read Frank Salter on the relationship between ethnic kinship and organized crime.
2003-07-25 06:24 | User Profile
We need white power and nothing less. Anything else would be leaving the fate of my race in someone elses hands. What you're proposing is like some complex scheme to temporarily suspend the guillotine. It won't work anyway, but if it did, we'd be in posistion to slide right back at anytime. I demand a society in which whites are dominant demographically, politically, culturally, economically etc. I am willing to kill and die for this. Nothing short will satisfy me. All of the enemies that tried to destroy my people must be destroyed themselves. Personally, as much of a hardcore white nationalist as I am, I would not mind small numbers of select well behaved nonwhites who accept white dominance living in America.
Also: America now is more like 65% white. Singapore is a society that very few white people would feel comfortable in. As Jared Taylor noted, when an American neighborhood turns asian, whites no longer feel like it can be their home, whatever the crime rates and test scores are. And civil war two is not the problem, it's the solution.
2003-07-25 13:13 | User Profile
**godless: why not work ... to start your own media station? **
I HAVE to quote Wintermute and I hope he'll excuse me for copying his excellent words ( :D and I know he will!) but I've printed out his answer on this thread and kept it -- it's a PERFECT distillation of the exact answer (http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9356&hl=official+english):
Texas Dissident wrote:> The bottom line is that not much is stopping you from creating a media franchise, making a movie, opening a bank, running for public office, finding an old-fashioned girl, advocating Rightism, or blockading abortion clinics.
Wintermute answered n part, (I STRONGLY urge you to read his whole essay!!): ....
Franco can still blockade abortion clinics, advocate Rightism, and find an old-fashioned girl. Only the last will do him or his people any good. As to the rest of the Horatio Alger checklist, no.
There are in fact, a large number of very well connected people who will prevent people like Franco from even holding jobs. He cannot create a media franchise without other concious whites, because even if he does (and where will the venture capital come from - the Ford Foundation?), he will not be able to use the kind of social discrimination neccesary to create conscious white solidarity at the top level of his new organization - there are Federal laws to prevent that. And once, inevitably, a single jew is in, his company is sunk. It could be a jew pretending fealty to WN - like the jews at AR - but in the end, Franco's "Name the Jews Studio" will be producing anti-white screeds as vicious as anything David Geffen has ever done. Financing, blacklisting support crew (electricians, cinematographers, etc.) who must, to survive, also work for that other media franchise, distribution - there are a thousand points of vulnerablility from point A, where poor little Franco sets forth with his super 8 camcorder, and the hypothesized point B, where Triumph des Willens II: This Time it's Personal hits megaplexes, where his attempt to create a pro White media message can and will be sabotaged.
If Jim Robinson, Jared Taylor, the John Birchers, and the Republican party as a whole can't hold out, how can little Franco? The supply of whites who can act in their interests as a group, or even think about the same, is very small at the current time, a phenomena not unrelated to the curious ineffectuality of Republicans to close the border, block Gun Control, reform Affirmative Action, or to resist the new Empire.
Let me put this as simply and as baldly as is humanly possible. Every single white person alive faces odds of 13 million to one when challenging Jewish interests. Any other consideration of "power" is an irrelevancy. You might add that all forms of publishing, broadcasting, filmmaking are 100% enemy ground, and that the enemy also owns or controls about half the globe's circulating capital. You are an individual. They are a colony organism, like a jellyfish or a coral reef, that pretends to be comprised of individuals to avoid exposure and destruction. If one of them has a movie to make, he's maybe two relatives away from a Studio Head. If you have a movie to make, you need to establish your own quasi-national superstructure just to get it made.
The brave sailors of the U.S.S. Liberty were persecuted not only by their own governments at a national level - at Jewish behest, but hounded by the national press when they spoke in small towns -also at Jewish behest. Will a return to "true conservatism" help them? It seems unlikely, given that almost every conservative media outlet in America has treated them like lepers. How can a return to conservatism help people who were left twisting in the wind by real conservatives in the first place?
On a related note, I'll ask you to consider why there are not 800 or so vicious anti-Communist movies made during the Cold War? Would contemporary America be any different if they had been made? What imaginable force could have prevented them from being made, considering the preponderance of American public opinion at the time?
Was it "liberals"?
Was it "spiritual crisis"?
Or perhaps, lack of "individual initiative"?
Or might there be some unknown force, some ethnic "Planet X", that causes odd distortions in the orbits of those planets and interest groups whose movements can be tracked with the naked eye?
2003-07-25 23:34 | User Profile
*Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 24 2003, 15:53 * ** To be fair, in both countries Asians have very good demographics. Higher education rates, higher incomes, lower crime rates, etcetera. I can look this up if you're skeptical. There may be problems with gang violence, but do Asians as a group actually commit crimes at higher rates? I doubt it.
[...]
Saxenian, Borjas, and many others who've analyzed the issue have concluded that educated immigrants create jobs and bring wealth to the country. Unskilled immigrants are a net drain on social services, do not integrate, etcetera.
So I'm not sure what you mean by "destructive to business". **
I used to live in an asian neighborhood here in the US. It was actually only about 30-35% asian by concentration, whites making up most of the difference, but asian gangs, both korean and vietnamese, pretty much ran things. Several small businesses in the area--corner markets, hair salons, laundromats--were run out of business by gang violence or threats of it; only businesses run by friends or family of the gang members were more or less safe, at least until a rival gang decided to make trouble. I'm told by several friends in Australia that the situation is pretty similar in the large cities of Oz.
So I'm inclined to think that the demographics are misleading at best; that asians form gangs instead of perpetuating random crimes does lower their crime rate compared to blacks and mexicans, but it doesn't really improve the neighborhood. (Koreans, vietnamese, and chinese anyway; I've seen surprisingly little in the way of japanese gangs. They just don't seem to be as criminally inclined.)
And that's what I mean by destructive to business.
2003-07-26 04:10 | User Profile
*Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 24 2003, 23:21 * ** Oh yeah - I agree that if intermarriage rates were low, these groups would never fully assimilate. Assortative mating for IQ, income, and social status means that there has never been much black-white mating. But (though I know many of you are opposed to it), [url=http://www.asian-nation.org/interracial2.shtml]Asian intermarriage rates are 30-40%[/url]. **
Yes, but thatôs part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Members of this forum may heartily :lol: disagree on a few things, but what we all (I think) agree upon is that they are not us. In short, Americans do not want to be replaced by Asians, or even mixed Asian/Whites, just as I, for example, do not want Austrians to be replaced by immigrants from Turkey or elsewhere, or even by the mixed descendants of us and said immigrants.
Discussion here is mostly about how to keep that from happening, not how to more frictionlessly enable it. :rolleyes:
2003-07-29 18:48 | User Profile
Perhaps it is more noble and manly for the White race to fight (and possibly perish) than to accept the awful "Brazillian" hypothesis of a mulatto America. In the worst case scenario of nuclear warfare, White genetic material, the result of aeons of evolution, will be destroyed by irradiation. In the so-called peaceful "Brazillian scenario" White genetic material is destroyed by degrading and defiling it within the organism of a being that would be held in contempt by its illustious ancestors.
Aiwaz.
2003-07-29 19:18 | User Profile
Why did we fight in Vietnam and Korea, fund insurgencies in Afghanistan, and basically fight the Soviets all around the globe from 1945 to 1989 with every dirty trick in the book if we were really "ruled by Jews" sympathetic to communism?
Did we fight communism with the ferocity we've fought the enemies of Jews? You know, TOTAL WAR, all or nothing? No, it was a COLD war, and we always retreated.
It just doesn't compute. The movies thing is small potatos compared to our massive defense buildup and the fact that we sacrificed blood and treasure to fight the commies.
We sacrificed blood and treasure all right, as if that was our only goal all along.
The fact of the matter is that if you go to [url=http://www.theyrule.net]http://www.theyrule.net[/url], a huge fraction of the captains of industry are white gentiles. Yes, there are a lot of Jews, but it is not as if whites do not have power. You guys are really being very selective in....well, I'll post a detailed rebuttal in the KMD thread.
Americans are natural born mercenaries. Ask any rogue nation or any who've been lucky enough to be liberated by us. We are THE ENFORCERS.
2003-07-30 03:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 30 2003, 03:08 * *> ** Did we fight communism with the ferocity we've fought the enemies of Jews? You know,ÃÂ TOTAL WAR, all or nothing? No, it was a COLD war, and we always retreated. **
Yes, we did in Korea. That was a bloody, bloody war - and we pushed all the way up to the Yalu River....**
What do you know of it seriously? You were in India weren't you? Sure we fought both in Europe and Vietnam, but the way these conflicts were played at home was vastly different.
How can you call our funding of anti-communist insurgencies all over the world - including the game breaker in Afghanistan and the fomentation of dissent in Eastern Europe - to be "retreat"? We couldn't engage in total war because both sides had nuclear weapons. It had nothing to do with Jews.
That certainly wasn't something that was universally supported by Jews. Why they with it is an interesting story - the emergent "neo con" movement of course was a big part of it.
2003-07-30 04:19 | User Profile
**Would the rest of the world want "white nationalists" in charge of America's nuclear arsenal? **
Unequivocally, yes.
2003-07-30 04:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 30 2003, 04:01 * *First off - wintermute, I'm in the midst of responding to you. But real quick for Okie...
** What do you know of it seriously?ÃÂ You were in India weren't you?ÃÂ Sure we fought both in Europe and Vietnam, but the way these conflicts were played at home was vastly different.ÃÂ **
Actually, I was born in the US. I have an American accent, you know ;) When I say "we", I mean the US armed forces. I think I've earned the right to say "we" because I've done research for the US military.
Also, the antiwar movement (e.g CND and the like) was far stronger in Europe during the 80's than it was in the US - remember the protests over the Pershing missiles?
But here's the thing: ** Europe doesn't have anywhere near as many Jews as America does. Why then was Europe socialist, secular, and relatively soft on communism while the US was religious, capitalist, and tough on communism? ** Why is Europe's media to the left of ours? Why have Euros embraced the welfare state? France has only 650000 Jews: Now, don't get me wrong. I agree that Jews are disproportionately on the left (something like 80% voted Democratic) and I agree that many of them were sympathetic to Communism. I also agree that liberals in general do not like to hear criticism of Communism. But anticommunist Jews were very influential in the Reagan administration, and ** Communist sympathies were and still are quite widespread in non-Jewish Europe. ** More in my bulleted response to wintermute (which is taking a while to write...)**
Well right now I'm busy enough with my own country. Each country is a different case, and I'm not a trained professional to give an opinion on all, especially nuanced things like the Jewish contribution in each country. I do know that Jews have aroused enough animosity in each country in Europe that they are almost always the open target of the far-right. Probably our European posters could answer this question better than I could.
Although Latin Europe may be a slightly different case from the US culturally, U.S. Jewish type leftism has always been it seems closely similar to its Northern European equivalent. The US of course, basically jump-started the New left in Germany when it set up Frankfurt School Jews as leaders of Germany's de-nazification programme. Max Horkheimer even was in charge of organizing Germany's university system. Not surprisingly the Frankfurt School made a big revival in Germany, whose universities drifted far to the left. It is still worthy of note that in spite of all these WWII and post WWII factors conspiring to raise the ratio of gentiles in the European left, the outstanding student revolutionary leader of the 60's demonstrations in Europe was Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a jew.
Getting back to the general question which is the role of the jews in the rise of the left and the welfare state, MacDonald argued over this with Paul Gottfried in the pages of Chronicles. The proposition was "were jews necessary and sufficient for the rise of the left and the welfare-managerial state in Europe? MacDonald says they weren't by themselves sufficient, but that they were necessary. Gottfried says they were neither sufficient nor necessary.
2003-07-30 05:14 | User Profile
*Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 29 2003, 21:08 * **
** Did we fight communism with the ferocity we've fought the enemies of Jews? You know, TOTAL WAR, all or nothing? No, it was a COLD war, and we always retreated. **
Yes, we did in Korea. That was a bloody, bloody war - and we pushed all the way up to the Yalu River.
See this quicktime movie of the conflict, as well as a short history. You'll see that we did the necessary:**
**But after that - China and the USSR had nuclear weapons in Vietnam. We couldn't go to North Vietnam without risking Chinese/Russian nuclear retaliation. Remember, during the Korean war the Chinese didn't yet have the bomb...but they were determined enough to protect their territorial sovereignty that they massed troops on the border and attacked when we hit the Yalu. There's no question that they would have perceived an American invasion into North Vietnam as a threat to their national security - and during Vietnam, they now had the option of a nuclear response.
Similarly, how could we start a hot war with the USSR witout risking nuclear conflict? That was mutually assured destruction, remember? It was because of nuclear proliferation that total war stopped after Korea, not because of Jews.
All the way to the Yalu? Wow! And then what? Retreat to the DMZ where we were in the first place. And we're STILL there, long after the expiration of the USSR and while "communist" China supplies our WalMarts. I can just see Roosevelt shaking hands and signing a wheat deal with Hitler in Berlin. What diplomats those "anti-communist" presidents were. And if I had to watch a video to know the history of it, I'd turn on the Hitler Channel (since there ain't a Stalin Channel).
That doesn't mean we didn't come close to midnight - remember the Cuban missile crisis?
Another close call, right? I wonder if Senor Castro misses New York. I hear he visits the UN whenever Sharpton needs a photo of himself in the NYT, kissing a communist. I always wondered who that was supposed to appeal to. HA HA, I can just see von Ribbentrop casting his vote at the UN.
I hardly think we "retreated" during the Cold War. Vietnam and Carter were setbacks, but Truman, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Nixon were all strong anticommunists. How can you call the massive defense buildup during the 80's "retreating"? How can you call our funding of anti-communist insurgencies all over the world - including the game breaker in Afghanistan and the fomentation of dissent in Eastern Europe - to be "retreat"? We couldn't engage in total war because both sides had nuclear weapons. It had nothing to do with Jews.
Massive spending on arms, years and years of dead white men,.... while we traded with these .... enemies? Where were the "war crimes" trials for these enemies of mankind that we so relentlessly pursued for decades? Did we get any videos of their assassinated sons for the 6 o'clock news? Did we ever even get near one of their capitols? Did we put them in camps and leave them to starve after throwing them out of their homes to make way for Jewish DPs?
Yeah, fierce anti-communists, because they stated as much every four years. And George Bush and Bill Clinton both get filmed on their way to church, bible in hand.
:dung: :dung: :dung:
2003-07-30 05:17 | User Profile
**But anticommunist Jews were very influential in the Reagan administration, and Communist sympathies were and still are quite widespread in non-Jewish Europe. **
You're a label fetishist.
There were no "anti-communist Jews" in the Reagan administration. There were anti-Soviet -- or more accurately, anti-Russian -- Jews in the Reagan administration. As for "Communist" sympathies in Europe, so what?
2003-07-30 05:20 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Ruffin@Jul 30 2003, 05:14 * ** Yeah, fierce anti-communists, because they stated as much every four years. And ...... Bill Clinton both get filmed on their way to church, bible in hand.
:dung: :dung: :dung: **
What's Bill Clinton, Church, and bibles got anything to do with it? Mafiosi go to Church too, you blame the Catholics for organized crime (I hesitate to sask)
Demon possessed Damians shrieking at the sight of the cross..... :rolleyes:
2003-07-30 05:33 | User Profile
Do you agree that the governments of Canada, France, and Germany (not to mention a host of others, including much of the British left) constantly yelp about the US's descent into "fascism"?
The "descent into fascism" has been orchestrated by Jews, so you are very confused at the moment. The rest of the world would surely be very relieved to learn that the nuclear arsenal was in the hands of people for whom mutual assured destruction is not a desideratum.
2003-07-30 05:40 | User Profile
**Do you agree that the governments of Canada, France, and Germany (not to mention a host of others, including much of the British left) constantly yelp about the US's descent into "fascism"? I can give you sources - but try these:
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/20...rmany.election/]http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/20...rmany.election/[/url]
[url=http://www.americanvalues.org/html/german_...statement.html]http://www.americanvalues.org/html/german..._statement.html[/url]
Needless to say, those left wing social democrats aren't Jewish.**
The linked articles say nothing about fascism. The first suggests that Bush is a dictator; the second points out that the US government is an aggressor that is killing people needlessly. And, of course, these social democrats aren't Jewish -- if they were they would most likely support the US government's aggression. You're going to need to start thinking more clearly.
2003-07-30 05:41 | User Profile
OK Quick Draw:
**What's Bill Clinton, Church, and bibles got anything to do with it? Mafiosi go to Church too, you blame the Catholics for organized crime (I hesitate to sask) **
Don't worry, I'm not attacking your religion. I used it as an example of political PR. You know, fierce anti-communists, devoted Christians, whatever sells. Read the whole post for context.
Lawdy mercy.
2003-07-30 13:42 | User Profile
But McCarthy wasn't interested in actually finding these spies, but rather in grandstanding and using the spyhunt to redound to his political advantage. ** Did you read that in the Jew York Times, or the Washington Post? <_<
2003-07-30 13:57 | User Profile
:gun:
2003-07-30 13:58 | User Profile
**Also, the point about Europe being far more Communist/leftist than the US was meant to show that in country after country, leftism, immigration, and multiculturalism took hold without a substantial Jewish presence. **
No one alleges a Jewish presence is necessary -- Jewish hegemony and Jewish proxies will work. Western Europe has been under the dominion of the US government for more than 50 years. As has been noted in this post, governments and institutions were set up to serve Jewish interests. Think of de-nazification; think of Horkheimer being put in charge of Germany's universities, as is noted above. Europeans were told in uncertain terms that nationalism was forbidden, and the US government left plenty of troops over there to make sure.
And read Howard Bloom's "The Lucifer Principle" and think about your reference to "self-hating" Europeans in the context of Europe's place in the global pecking order.
2003-07-30 14:02 | User Profile
What I'm saying is that it's more accurate to say that the media is liberal than that it's Jewish, because not all liberals are Jews and not all Jews are liberals.
"Liberal" views that are at odds with the Jewish agenda are censored or censured as quickly as "conservative" views. "Liberal" Hollywood was quick to ostracize the Dixie Chicks, for example, who spouted "liberal" opposition to the war.
2003-07-30 14:05 | User Profile
**In other words, you dislike Jews because you feel that they're responsible for the above. **
No.
It is not "Jews"; it is the Jewish community, the Jewish group, that is the actor and the subject of our most-deserved animus.
2003-07-30 14:16 | User Profile
Now, I know you think it's Jews who are responsible for our plunge into "fascism" and whatnot. But hold off on that for a second. Put yourself in the average leftist gentile European social democrat's shoes. Do you agree that someone who uses Nazi as a negative term and considers Hitler a bad person would be very opposed to the idea of a white nationalist party in charge of the United States? **
You haven't supported your claim that European politicans bandy the term "Nazi" about. However, even if you can support your contention, I most assuredly do not agree with your assertion that European governments would oppose a white nationalist government. It is true that European governments are for, the most part, constituted of criminal collaborators with the Jewish hegemon rather than Jews themselves. These people like to hold power. Once they gain power, they like stability. A white nationalist government in the US would be perceived as stable and friendly. A neocon government (or at least a neocon foreign policy and military apparatus) is seen as unstable and hostile.
2003-07-31 05:41 | User Profile
**The fact that socialism and center-left parties came to power in more than fourteen different European countries - many of them without Jews - is one of the major holes in MacDonald's thesis. **
Hardly. You've constucted a straw man. Neither MacDonald nor anyone else I know of blames the Jewish group for "socialism" or "center-leftism". The Jewish group gets the blame for Marxism/socialism/Leftism that is advanced to serve Jewish interests. I think that you've already foreclosed yourself from claiming that Europeans socialists are advancing an ideology or political program for the benefit of the Jewish group, in which case the natural question is ... so what?
2003-07-31 05:45 | User Profile
**I could go on, but I really do believe that this book will be of interest to you if you want to understand how egalitarianism came about. **
A book by a Jew reviewed by a Jew. I'm shocked that they point the finger elsewhere.
2003-07-31 06:22 | User Profile
The point is that European socialists are ALSO in favor of mass immigration, anti-racism, egalitarianism, etcetera. **
Only because they consider them to be good for their narrow and criminal political interests -- same as with the Jewish group. When a parasite establishes hegemony (here the Jewish group), it creates opportunities for individual parasites to exploit the body politic. Sociopathic socialist politicians in Europe support multiculturalism because the Jewish group has made it possible for them to benefit at the expense of society.
2003-07-31 06:34 | User Profile
I passed over this, but it needs correction. Liberal Hollywood never ostracized the Dixie Chicks. It was Republican-voting country music buyers who got angry at them and crushed CDs.
Only because they were operating under a false understanding of the state of affairs. You know that. And I didn't refer to "liberal Hollywood" -- I referred to "'liberal' Hollywood". Please be more careful.
2003-07-31 06:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by godlesscapitalist+Jul 31 2003, 05:59 -->
QUOTE (godlesscapitalist @ Jul 31 2003, 05:59 ) <!--QuoteBegin-mwdallas@Jul 30 2003, 23:45 * ** > *I could go on, but I really do believe that this book will be of interest to you if you want to understand how egalitarianism came about. ** A book by a Jew reviewed by a Jew. I'm shocked that they point the finger elsewhere. **
Well, the fact is that most of the books/articles in recent times challenging the "antiracism" consensus have been written by Jews or half-Jews. Among them are:
Arthur Jensen (The g-factor, plus tons of other stuff, half-jewish) Richard Herrnstein (the Bell Curve) Steve Sailer (Isteve.com, half-jewish) Steven Pinker (the blank slate) John Entine (Taboo: about black athletes) Michael Levin (Why Race Matters)
Do you really limit yourself to only reading books by non-Jews? Also, do you have any evidence that Donald Sassoon is Jewish?**
I might also ask you if you only limit yourself to reading books by Jews. Jews such as Herrnstein do indeed critique egalitarianism, but their critique of it and their prescription to cure our society tends to differ fundamentally from gentile writers, as MacDonald, whom you seem to never read and always berate in spite of his greater ability than the writers you cite, points out.
****One aspect of this friction is well articulated in Alan Ryan's (1994, 11) discussion of the "latent contradiction" in the politics of Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, the authors of the highly controversial volume The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Ryan states, "Herrnstein essentially wants the world in which clever Jewish kids or their equivalent make their way out of their humble backgrounds and end up running Goldman Sachs or the Harvard physics department, while Murray wants the Midwest in which he grew up--a world in which the local mechanic didn't care two cents whether he was or wasn't brighter than the local math teacher. The trouble is that the first world subverts the second, while the second feels claustrophobic to the beneficiaries of the first." **
The social structure whose acceptance is here attributed to Murray envisions a moderately individualistic society, a society that is meritocratic and hierarchical but also cohesive and culturally and ethnically homogeneous. It is a society with harmony among the social classes and with social controls on extreme individualism among the elite.
There has been a powerful Western tendency to develop such societies, beginning at least in the Middle Ages, but also present, I believe, in the classical Roman civilization of the Republic. The ideal of hierarchic harmony is central to the social program of the Catholic Church beginning during the late Roman Empire and reaching its pinnacle during the High Middle Ages (MacDonald 1995c; SAID, Ch. 5). This ideal is apparent also in a powerful strand of German intellectual history beginning with Herder in the eighteenth century. A very central feature of this prototypical Western hierarchical harmony has been the social imposition of monogamy as a form of reproductive leveling that dampens the association between wealth and reproductive success. From an evolutionary perspective, Western societies achieve their cohesion because hierarchical social relationships are significantly divorced from reproductive consequences.
Such a world is threatened from above by the domination of an individualistic elite without commitment to responsible lower-status individuals who may have lesser intellectual ability, talent, or financial resources. It is threatened from within by the development of a society constituted by a set of ethnically divided, chronically competing, highly impermeable groups as represented historically by Judaism and currently envisioned as the model for society by the proponents of multiculturalism. And it is threatened from below by an increasing underclass of people with the attributes described by Herrnstein and Murray: intellectually incompetent and insufficiently conscientious to hold most kinds of job; irresponsible and incompetent as parents; prone to requiring public assistance; prone to criminal behavior, psychiatric disorders, and substance abuse; and prone to rapid demographic increase. Such people are incapable of contributing economically, socially, or culturally to a late- twentieth-century society or, indeed, to any human civilization characterized by a substantial degree of reciprocity, voluntarism and democracy [url=http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/whither.htm]Whither Judaism and the West? - (CoC Final Chapter)[/url]**
mwdallas
2003-07-31 06:44 | User Profile
**Well, the fact is that most of the books/articles in recent times challenging the "antiracism" consensus have been written by Jews or half-Jews. Among them are:
Arthur Jensen (The g-factor, plus tons of other stuff, half-jewish) Richard Herrnstein (the Bell Curve) Steve Sailer (Isteve.com, half-jewish) Steven Pinker (the blank slate) John Entine (Taboo: about black athletes) Michael Levin (Why Race Matters)
Do you really limit yourself to only reading books by non-Jews? Also, do you have any evidence that Donald Sassoon is Jewish? **
First, that isn't even close to "most". Second, how do you figure Sailer is half-Jewish -- he was adopted. Third, Entine's book doesn't challenge the "antiracism" consensus; it is instead a book of (qualified) race realism. Fourth, Pinker does not challenge the "anti-racism" consensus; he is a contemptible apologist for the sort of obscurantism Boas championed. Fifth, how did you determine that Levin is Jewish?
The evidence that Sassoon is Jewish is the fact that his name is Sassoon.
Okiereddust
2003-07-31 07:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 31 2003, 06:44 * *I criticize MacDonald because I think he's wrong. But I'd expect you to defend him, because you're a gentile (kidding ;)).
Anyway, as I pointed out above, it is not just Herrnstein who wants a meritocracy in which "smart Jewish kids or their equivalent come to power". It was a ** gentile ** who came up with the idea of the SAT and the meritocracy:......
You want to blame someone for the dispossession of the Episcopacy? The * gentile * James Bryant Conant is your man. After all, even if you believe that Jews were important in promoting multiculturalism (and I do), ** it was the gentile James Bryant Conant and his SAT who allowed the Jews to come to power in the first place. ****
I think you're missing the principle point of what MacDonald is referring to, and overlooking the direct point we were addressing to go, for the moment, far afield. I must point out that the writing the piece on Conant seems equaly amiss in putting out reams of graphs and empirical data. The piece nonetheless is very interesting, and I have a definite opinion on them. First it might be nice though for you to definitely acknowledge MacDonald's point, in that Jewish criticism in general of gentiles of low intelligence is not prima facie evidence that Jews are not expressing in part their general cultural crtitique of traditional gentile society.
ou ar wandering further and further afield, both here and in your reply to MWDallas - like MacDonald occasionally is accussed of doing. Plus, I don't recall you putting a single graph or empirical chart in your posts. You aren't a acquiring a Mirror-image" MacDonaldism are you? :lol:
mwdallas
2003-07-31 13:57 | User Profile
** In the Occidental Quarterly, MacDonald "compares and contrasts" Jews and gentiles (http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/). In the comparison table, he states several characteristics about modern-day Jews that are demonstrably false. Among them:
2) MacDonald's critique of Jews as "unscientific" does not square with the fact that they are vastly overrepresented as scientists, including 38% of US Nobel Prize Winners, >50% of the NAS math division, 27% of Fields Medalists, etc. (source: [url=http://www.jinfo.org/)]http://www.jinfo.org/)[/url] **
Oh, it "squares", all right. Awards are often won because of superlatve self-promotion, not superlative achievement. And, in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all group members these eminient scientists, are infinitessimal. He is generalizing, and a few specific counterexamples hardly undermine a generalization.
**His critique of Jews as "endogamous" likewise does not account for the >50% intermarriage rates among American Jews (several sources here: **
That figure is bogus. The rate in the US was documented at 14% (for first marriages only); in Israel, it is presumably much lower.
The 52% intermarriage figure (from the 1991 Jewish population survey commissioned by the Council of Jewish Federations) that is often cited has been criticized roundly. Cohen notes that the survey overcounted rural, Southern, black, and poor Jews, and Kosmin et al. (who performed the survey) acknowledged that they may have undercounted the Orthodox, for whom exogamy is anathema. Moreover, they found that 91% of intermarriages are nonconversionary, and only 28% of children of nonconversionary marriages were being raised as Jews.
Interestingly, nonconversionary marriages are much more common in second and third marriages, suggesting a strategy in which Jews begin their reproductive careers with inmarriage to a Jew followed by outmarriage to an unconverted gentile. Indeed, Medding et al. found that 86% of Jews married another Jew in their first marriage, compared to 70% in their second marriage, and 54% in their third marriage. It seems that significant numbers of Jews are "having their cake and eating it, too" by entering an endogamous marriage yielding ethnically Jewish children before entering a subsequent marriage with a gentile -- thus continuing the historical pattern of one-way gene flow from the Jewish poulation into the gentile population. MacDonald, "Separation and Its Discontents", p. 266.
the fact remains that the absolute exogamy rate of European ancestry Americans is only 3% (source: [url=http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/h...000/tabFG3.txt)]http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/h...000/tabFG3.txt)[/url], while that of other groups like the aforementioned Jews and Asians is around 30-40%.
An utterly silly comparison. Has it occurred to you that 97% of the potential mates for Jews and Asians in the US are outside their race, while he figure for Whites is much lower?
There are many historical facts that MacDonald conveniently omits. For example, the notion that gentiles have always had a "universalist morality" breaks down on contact with the institution of slavery ....
Where does MacDonald make such a claim?
Faust
2003-07-31 15:05 | User Profile
This Topic:
** If an Immigration Reform Act is passed... The demographic imperative: halted**
Is some silly given the fact that only "Immigration Reform" Bush and GOP will every give us is laws to let in even more non-european invaders.
kinbote
2003-08-01 17:59 | User Profile
Returning to the question posed in the first post, I would support legislatively ending immigration, regardless of whether it killed the possiblity of a white nationalist state. I also think it's possible that any reform would be too late to have this effect. The hispanic population grew nearly 60% in the 90s, the asian population more than that, and the black population around 30%, while the white population grew only 3%, all of which was probably due to Eastern European immigraiton. The disparities in growth rates may remain strong enough to provoke serious ethnic conflict even if the contribution to the disparities supplied by immigration is ended.
On a related subject, how can one contend that American Jews are a proximate cause of the browning of America when the same thing has happened in Holland, the UK and Australia and Jews make up only an insubstantial portion of these countries' elites?
Okiereddust
2003-08-01 18:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by kinbote@Aug 1 2003, 17:59 * On a related subject, how can one contend that American Jews are a proximate cause of the browning of America when the same thing has happened in Holland, the UK and Australia and Jews make up only an insubstantial portion of these countries' elites?*
In at least the UK and Australia, as with Canada, MacDonald has documented the strong role Jewish groups played in the liberalization of these country's immigration policies.
Dan Dare
2003-08-02 08:55 | User Profile
**In at least the UK and Australia, as with Canada, MacDonald has documented the strong role Jewish groups played in the liberalization of these country's immigration policies. **
Actually this is not the case for the UK.
In that instance the pain is entirely self inflicted.
See for example: Hansen R., 'Citizenship and Immigration in Post-War Britain", OUP 2000, ISBN 0198297092
Okiereddust
2003-08-02 12:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by Dan Dare@Aug 2 2003, 08:55 * > *In at least the UK and Australia, as with Canada, MacDonald has documented the strong role Jewish groups played in the liberalization of these country's immigration policies. **
Actually this is not the case for the UK.
In that instance the pain is entirely self inflicted.
See for example: Hansen R., 'Citizenship and Immigration in Post-War Britain", OUP 2000, ISBN 0198297092**
This apparently in general is an important issue to MacDonald. It is important enough that he seems to have added an addendum to the electronic version of Culture of Critique that was not there in previous additions. This is in the form of an appendix at the end of the chapter called Jewish Pro-Immigration Efforts in Other Western Countries. This appendix is not in older versions of Culture of Critique (See [url=http://cptwc.matriots.com/jews2.html]CoC Chapter 7 - Jewish Involvement in Changing U.S. Immigration Policy - (Matriots Website)[/url]
Reading this appendix, MacDonald mentions U.K. Jewish involvement in an early 1905 bill, and also mentions strong opposition to the Conservatives restrictive position on immigration in the 1970's.
Dan Dare
2003-08-02 20:14 | User Profile
Okie
Thank you for the MacDonald update, I hadn't seen that before but will look it up.
However the fact remains that Jews in Britain have had little influence on immigration policy, with the obvious exception of their strenuous lobbying efforts for the Hitler emigres in the 1930s. By 1939 approximately 50,000 German and Austrian Jews received refugee status in Britain.
In terms of non-Jewish immigration the real damage was done during the period between The British Nationality Act of 1948 and 1962, when the Commonwealth Immigration Act was finally enacted. During that 15 year period (and indeed before), any Commonwealth citizen was legally a British subject, and consequently enjoyed unrestricted access and residence rights in the UK.
Britain's immigration disaster is a sorry tale of imperial delusions, complacency and arrogance on the part of both Labour and Conservative governments in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Jews had little if any responsibility in this.
I know the picture is very different in the US.
The 1905 Aliens Order was inspired mainly by the large influx of East-europeans, particulary Jews in the late 19th Centruy, and was the first restrictionist legislation. It would not be correct to imply it was somehow in Jewish interests for this statute to be enacted.
kinbote
2003-08-03 00:11 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Dan Dare@Aug 2 2003, 14:14 * ** However the fact remains that Jews in Britain have had little influence on immigration policy, with the obvious exception of their strenuous lobbying efforts for the Hitler emigres in the 1930s. **
If the evidence rules out the Jews as a primary cause of the non-white flood into Britain and Holland, it would greatly undermine MacDonald's claim that they're the chief cause of America's immigration policy.
If the evidence shows this, it suggests that the instinct for self-preservation among whites started dying across the board in the 20th century and this decline occurred independently of Jewish influence.
MacDonald could still argue that American Jews seized on white America's doubts about the worth of their kind and civilization to help enact laws that are destroying America's white majority, but this is a much weaker claim than what I understand the thesis of COC to be.
Dan Dare
2003-08-03 02:05 | User Profile
**If the evidence rules out the Jews as a primary cause of the non-white flood into Britain and Holland, it would greatly undermine MacDonald's claim that they're the chief cause of America's immigration policy. **
No, that doesn't follow.
MacDonald's proposition that Jewish interests have guided US immigration policy since at least WWII remains intact.
It is not relevant for the British case, or for the Dutch for that matter. Their situations are an unintended consequence of their colonial pasts and not Jewish manipulation.
Roy Batty
2003-08-03 02:06 | User Profile
*Originally posted by godlesscapitalist@Jul 30 2003, 22:35 * **
3) The Gentile James Bryant Conant nationalized the SAT and made it possible for Jews (and Catholics) to gain power in the first place. The SAT was the dawn of the aracial meritocracy.
4) Gentiles with war brides after World War 2 came back to the US with them. The result was public pressure to eliminate miscegenation laws and open immigration to Asians. That was the 1944 War Brides Act, the precursor to various immigration/marriage reforms that culminated in the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and the Loving decision.
**
Well ... the SAT has had little to do with jews getting into power. Although I figured I should ignore "trolls" as GD is suspected/accused of being, I had to toss in two cents on this. Money is the biggest factor in jews gaining power and/or control. It's that simple. Buying their way in. Rothschild started that in earnest during the Civil War (with his front man Belmont), as has been discussed here before. Yes, the jews did do a great job on the SAT with their high intelligence and work ethic - BUT - when one compares their average SAT scores with their numbers in top schools, they don't add up, at all. Favortism, nepotism, cronyism, etc. all have a bigger say so than test scores. And being able to loudly proclaim themselves a "minority" group, a "victimized" people etc. lets them play several sides.
War brides? Hah. A ridiculously low percentage of soldiers were bringing in non-White wives. Even with the increase in inter-racial marriges in the US, the actual numbers are small, to the chagrin of jews everywhere. Even Sailer has commented on that when he writes about who is marrying whom. Jews themselves have admitted their duplicity in America's immigration debacle - and other problems - Stephen Steinlight anyone? :
[url=http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html]http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html[/url] For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese, and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans, Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
So, don't lie to us, we are all well aware of jews leading/controlling movements while using gentile "front men". Look at anthropology, the Immigration Act of '65 (written by jews, Sen Jacob Javits and crew - "sponsored" by Ted Kennedy), any number of gentile "Communists" on a jewish leash, including Martin Lucifer King.
Jews aren't responsible for every darn ol' bad thing that's happened to gentiles. Of course not. But they are the only group that has worked solidly within their racial agenda, the US (or whatever "gentile" land they are in) be damned, to fortify themselves and weaken all others. Whenever any group of Whites has begun to form an agenda, a movement favorable to Whites, the media alerts, the jewish alarm bells, go off, a clarion call to action to fight ANYONE who has the gall, the insight to attempt to do what ... the jews do. Which is why OD is seeing heavier and heavier troll traffic. Better nip things in the bud, eh?
The cycle is repeating itself again. Jews gain tremendous power, then blow it through their inborn arrogance, denial, self deception. It's in the genes.