Someone sent me this quote from an article by Tim Wise, “Anti-Semitism, Real and Imagined: Judaism, Zionism and the Struggle for Palestine.”
Zionism’s problem is not that it is Jewish nationalism, per se, but rather a form of ethnic supremacy. And more than that: a form of European supremacy to boot. After all, there were Jews who had remained in and around Palestine for millennia, without substantial conflict withtheir Arab and Muslim neighbors. Likewise, many Jews lived under Muslim rule in the Ottoman Empire, where they received a generally warm or at least neutral reception–far better indeed than at the hands of Christian Europe, which expelled them from one place after another.
These Jews, unlike the European Jews who sought to displace said Arabs from their land, lived there peacefully and sought no grand designs for “Greater Israel.” They did not create Zionism, nor lead the charge for the development of a Jewish state. For that, it took a decidedly Western, European and frankly white Jewish community. The Jews who were most indigenous to the land of Israel, or those of Africa, or the rest of Asia Minor — in short those who were most directly Semitic language group peoples — were never the problem. Nor indeed was their faith. A decidedly colonial mentality, itself an outgrowth of European thought and culture from the late 1800s forward, was the fuel for the Zionist fire. Zionism’s problem is that it is a form of white supremacy and Western domination.
In short, Zionism as just another form of White evil. This certainly establishes Wise’s bona fides as an anti-Zionist Jew, but I am still suspicious that his attitudes are just another form of anti-White strategizing among Diaspora Jews. Self-deception?
It is certainly true that Zionism was the creation of European Jews and that at its beginnings it was closely tied intellectually to European racial nationalism. As I noted in Ch. 5 of Separation and Its Discontents:
Important Jewish intellectuals [in the late 19th century and well into the 20th century] developed Volkischeideologies as well as racialist, exclusivist views, which, like those of their adversaries, were no longer phrased in religious terms but rather in [the] … language of evolutionary biology. These intellectuals had a very clear conception of themselves as racially distinct and as a superior race (intellectually and especially morally), one that had a redemptive mission to the German people and other gentiles. As expected by social identity theory, while the Germans tended to emphasize negative traits of the Jewish outgroup, the Jewish intellectuals often conceptualized their continued separatism in moral and altruistic terms.
The result was that anti-Semites and zealous Jews, including Zionists, often had very similar racialist, nationalist views of Judaism toward the end of the 19th century and thereafter (Katz 1986b, 144). Zionism and anti-Semitism were mirror-images: “in the course of their histories up to the present day it has looked as if they might not only be reacting to one another but be capable of evolving identical objectives and even cooperating in their realization” (Katz 1979, 51). Nicosia (1985) provides a long list of German intellectuals and anti-Semitic leaders from the early 19th century through the Weimar period who accepted Zionism as a possible solution to the Jewish question in Germany, including Johann Gottleib Fichte, Konstantin Frantz, Wilhelm Marr, Adolf Stoecker. All conceptualized Judaism as a nation apart and as a separate “race.”
What had changed for Jews was not the reality that they were a closed racial and national group. The charge that Jews were a state within a state was common among Enlightenment intellectuals. What had changed was that the (temporary) triumph of Darwinism had changed the language of racial separatism so that Jews were no longer seen as a religious state within a state but as a racially exclusive strategizing group often in competition with the ethnic majority. Zionism then became a logical solution to the problem of chronic conflict between Jews and non-Jews. Jews would simply leave Europe. Indeed, Zionists cooperated with the National Socialist government in the 1930s to get Jews out of Germany to Palestine.
This strand of racial Zionism continues as a prominent ideology within Israel, particularly with the intellectual descendants of Vladimir Jabotinsky. And, as Geoffrey Wheatcroft has pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”
The problem isn’t ethnic nationalism, and ethnic nationalism is certainly not restricted to White people. Ethnic conflict is apparent as well throughout the developing world, and will likely lead to more partitioning and nation-creation. As Jerry Z. Mullerhas noted, ethnostates are the norm, and “In areas where that separation has not yet occurred, politics is apt to remain ugly.” Ethnostates have a number of advantages besides the lack of chronic ethnically based conflict over everything from political power to affirmative action. As noted by Frank Salter
The problem is that Western societies have embarked on a public policy project in which the ethnonationalism of White people is officially proscribed as an unadulterated evil. Everyone else’s ethnonationalism is just fine. And at the risk of repeating myself, the organized Jewish community has adopted a strategy of rationalizing and promoting even extreme forms of racial Zionism in Israel while being a pillar of multiculturalism and massive non-White immigration in the West. What’s good for the Jews and all that.
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
Thanks very much to Prof. MacDonald for defending and extending freedom of speech on these issues.
Wise is an anti-White racist who makes his living as an anti-racist. This mentality is common on the Left, which picked up much of its anti-White and anti-Christian racism from the Jewish Bolsheviks and left-wing Jewish intellectuals, who claimed that their own bigotry was justified due to endemic historical intolerance of Jews.
I don’t believe Jews have been discriminated against any more out of proportion to Judeofascist Jewry’s misdeeds than any other minority, and possibly significantly less. For example, organized Jewry, acting through the Jewish Bolsheviks, created the intellectual climate and impetus that led to the Holodomor — the Soviet engineered genocide through starvation of some 6-8 million Christian Ukrainians. This, along with other Stalinist and Jewish Bolshevik mass murders, played a huge role in the rise of Hitler, and in the intellectual climate that led to the Holocaust.
Call it a dialectic. Call it karma. Call it “what comes around, goes around.” What it all comes down to is Wise and his left-wing ilk hate Christians, have from the beginning per their Jewish indoctrination, but profess persecution when Christians don’t reward them for their hatred and abuses.
Substitute Palestinians for Christians in the above paragraph, and Zionists for Wise and left wing Jews, and one gets pretty much the same phenomenon.
The hate-filled Judeofascists are essentially misanthropes destined to bring their followers into epic conflict no matter who they’re around. It’s they who need to change their attitudes, not everyone else.
Wise make a living out of attacking gentiles who he thinks have anti-semitic ideas. That’s how the guy puts bread on his table. Don’t expect much. LOL.
Last night I came across this 19th Century anthology of ancient pagan authors on the Christians, when actually it concerns the Jews. Amusing stuff when you consider Wise, and all of the rest of the modern Jewish apologists.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3IAEAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=celsus&cd=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Wise speaks at college campuses and he knows-given that many students and professors will have some knowledge of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict-that he can’t get way with bald-faced denial of Israeli crimes that violate the tenets of the official state ideology of PC-Multicult-Diversity that he promotes. So he has to include- at the very least- some ritualistic denunciation of Zionism. Otherwise he would lose credibility with his audiences. But it is very clear that his main targets are non-Jewish whites. This despite the fact that the US ruling class is fundamentally Jewish:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/100308_jewish_ruling_class.htm
It could be that Wise is a sincere anti-Zionist. I have no way of knowing. But Wise is primarily a businessman, and he knows that denouncing white Gentiles is a lot better for his career than denouncing Jews.
First off, masterful demolition of Tim Wise and the get-whitey-for-profit racket by Kevin MacDonald and Mark Green. Someone needs to expose these pseudo-academic grifters for the rip off artists they are. Anyone who’s spent time in the American education system has encountered these frauds. They slime their way around the high school, junior college, and university circuit, passing their Marxist brain farts off as morally enlightened philosophy.
We should all support The Occidental Observer–financially, if possible–so they can continue to name and shame the snake oil salesmen who peddle expensive elixirs for white guilt. (Note to readers: Send any donations you’ve set aside for Haiti to The Occidental Observer!)
On the other hand, while Tim’s partial Jewish heritage no doubt informs his distorted perspective on race and white identity politics, I tend to believe him when he says he’s not a Zionist and opposes the existence of an ethnically-pure Jewish state. In other words, he’s not a hypocrite like Joe Lieberman, who swaps his blood-and-soil yarmulke for his multicult-diversity cap as often as he shuttles between Tel Aviv and Washington. I get the impression that Tim’s thinking is more complicated–and more genuinely muddled–than that of the ‘split-brain’ Jews who manifest an obvious double standard when it comes to white ientity politics. (As opposed to the Jewish and colored kind.) Alan Dershowitz and the Neocons are examples of more flagrant Jewish hypocrites.
At the end of the day, Tim Wise and the rest of the hacks on the “antiracist” clown wagon should be kissing the feet of the white people they demonize. Because these honest and hard working people are, morally, so good natured and generous as to give their sloppy ideas the time of day in the first place. (Let alone the fact that they pay for the idle lifestyle of Tim and his ilk.) No other race or ethnicity would be so indulgent. (Least of all Jews.)
Therefore, our answer to Tim and other white-guilt-scammers should be this: “I care about my people and its ‘chosenness’ as much as any self-respecting Holocaust survivor. If you tell me I’m wrong for not wanting my granddaughter to marry a shvartz, then I give you the same answer any self-respecting Holocaust survivor would if told the same: ‘Kiss my tucchus, you Nazi!’”
(Note to Tim: I used the Yiddish just for you, bubbie.)
Wise is wrong about the Jews that lived among Arabs.
The far-right nationalist rabbi Meir Kahane said that his supporters are primarily Jews that lived with Arabs for centuries, or as he put it “Jews that lived under the Arabs”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mfnsRA2EEw
Could Wise explain why there are no “Anti-Zionist Jews” of Sephardi or Middle Eastern decent.
It seems that all this “Anti-Zionist Liberal-Left” Jews are of Ashkenazi decent.
Double games by cynical political players are the norm.
One recent example:
Neocons Krauthammer and Kristol denounce Geert Wilders:
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2010/03/09/krauthammer-and-kristol-join-beck-in-defaming-wilders-shame-on-them-all/
While…
…the neocons at City Journal fawn over Geert Wilders:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/cj_adv_search.html?cx=010085638868707497598%3Acmoasvt_j1u&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=geert+wilders+&sa=Search#683
I think they don’t want the prolish Gentiles who watch FOX News to get the
idea that it’s permissible to stray off the PC reservation.
From time to time in TOO and TOQ I have noticed the use of the word unadulterated as in “an unadulterated evil” from the closing paragraph in the MacDonald’s article above.
The Ten Commandments give us ten commands. However, if the commandment not to commit adultery means not humping the neighbours wife as in “Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife” then God gave us only nine commandments.
If the word as used by the writers of TOO and TOQ means whole, and not watered down, then adultery means something else.
I understand adultery to mean watering down, as in the publican fined for adulterating his beer or the dairyman fined for adulterating his milk.
Thus the word adultery applied to TOOs favourite topic would mean that watering down the assorted sub races of the human species through mixing the blood streams would not be approved of by God the Creator who expects his creation to be whole and healthy.
There’s a deeper fallacy here.
Tim Wise has been railing against Whites, some of whom assumed that he was doing so as a hypocritical Jew. But now we find evidence that to Wise, “Whites” includes Jews, which seems to make him just another self-hating Jew whose self-hatred extends to Whites in general.
This allows Wise to say that it isn’t his fault if some of us didn’t realize that he was speaking both as a White and a Jew, since as far as he’s concerned, Zionist Jews have always been right down there with other Whites. But Wise can in fact go even farther. Wise can say that if we didn’t understand that this is what he meant, it is because we automatically excepted him for his Jewishness (despite his best intentions), which makes us antisemitic, which utterly confirms his thesis with respect to non-Jewish Whites in particular.
I think that what we need to understand here is that the inculpative force of Wise’s thesis is only as strong as the actual correlation between Whiteness and privilege on which it is based. Once we understand that, it is clear that most Whites aren’t very guilty at all, because the putative correlation is very weak in their immediate vicinity. These days, most Whites are nowhere near as “privileged” as Wise seems to assume (I sure know that I never was – for all his self-pitying, Wise was probably what my siblings and I would have called a “rich kid”).
Jews, on the other hand, are very privileged indeed; they enjoy a level of privilege far out of proportion to their density in the population. For most of them, the correlation between Whiteness and Jewishness is very strong, insofar as their Jewish wealth and connections are self- reinforcing. So with respect to them, the inculpative force of Wise’s thesis is very high, much higher in fact than for the average White person. Zionists are the most privileged Jews of all; those who founded and financed the Jewish state are obscenely rich by anyone’s standards. Hence, they are the guiltiest “Whites” of all.
Unfortunately, however, I doubt that most Jews understand this. I think that as usual, Jewish exceptionalism and solidarity floats them right past this important realization with no discomfort or loss of sleep whatsoever. I also think that Mr. Wise does very little to awaken them to their relatively high level of guilt under his “White privilege = White guilt” thesis. What a shame that he does not take the time to spell this out for the Zionists more often and in greater detail!
What is an even greater shame is that the many Jews who consider themselves inherently superior to White non-Jews not only lack a proper sense of guilt, but deny all sympathy to one particular group, namely, White non-Jews. White non-Jews, who increasingly tend to be far less privileged than most Jews, would seem to merit compassion and restitution just like the members of nonwhite races. But instead, we continue to be mercilessly reviled as racist “goyim”, and what once was ours continues to be shorn from us by Jew-fabricated shears of guilt.
Anyway, here’s the fallacy: Wise’s correlation between privilege and race (and racist guilt) is not homogeneous. Throughout history, the vast bulk of the privilege has always been arrogated by the socio-economic elite. True, may of the elite have been Whites, and disproportionately many of them “Jewish Whites”. But if racism is bad, then it is bad to blame others just because they too happen to be White (the same color as the elite). That’s racism pure and simple.
In other words, Wise’s thesis is racist in the worst sense of the word. He’s blaming Whites in general for the alleged misdeeds of a privileged few just because they too happen to be White, and by the light of Wise’s own ethical premises, that’s insupportable.
If you want to cut the floor out from under Tim Wise and his ilk, this should be your focus of criticism. Where guilt is based on a racial correlation, and the correlation is highly uneven, any pretense of evenly spreading the guilt is racist by definition.
nd more than that: a form of European supremacy to boot.
it’s an eerie mirror of the neocons explanation of Palestinian resistance -Palestininans are ‘anti-israel’ because they were indoctrinated by nazis.. yes, I now its BS but that’s what frontpagemag.com /david horowitz are always touting..
everything always comes back to blaming white europeans
Tim Wise is a pathetic a zionist as they come.. He knows and gets a pass on all campuses with his little jewish fingers pointing down at the white pagans and white christians of America.. “He tells us what to do”? ..
This man need to be .. well
@ ethnonationalist: “It seems that all this “Anti-Zionist Liberal-Left” Jews are of Ashkenazi decent.”
Here’s an interesting video of Arab Jews in Israel calling anti-zionist Ashkenazi Jews marching against occupation every name in the book, including racist ones.
http://www.judeofascism.com/2010/01/meltdown-zionism-arab-israeli-jewish.html
So much for Tim Wise’ left-wing race theory that only whites are capable of racism and are the root of all evil.
Let’s look at this again:
“Zionism’s problem is not that it is Jewish nationalism, per se, but rather a form of ethnic supremacy”
So for Jews, nationalism is ok. What happened to the dominant groups who bond are ‘racist’ = Bad? Can someone get a clarification from Tim. So, is the issue supremacism or being a dominant group?
re: eurodele
I think there is something to be said about eurodele’s discussion. Look, liberals and Jewish ‘Liberals,’ have been turning right thinking on itself.
They use arguments of the badness of genocide and ethnic oppression, which presuppose the goodness of genetic groups and ethnic solidarity, to argue for the disbandment of Europeans or the celebration of others. This is really what it comes down to.
In response, it is not enough to claim innocence or to point out that out that most Jews are really rightists. These are necessary but not sufficient. In addition, we have to work on turning modern liberalism on itself.
……..
In another note, Read over this discussion on Jung, http://www.history.ac.uk/resources/e-seminars/samuels-paper
“What I do ask is whether there is something in the deep, fundamental structure of Jung’s thought, in its heart or essence, that made it inevitable that he would develop a kind of antisemitism. When Jung writes about the Jews and Jewish psychology, is there something in his whole attitude, his “take,” to use the colloquialism, that just had to lead to antisemitism? Is there something to worry about?
…
My perception is that the ideas of nation and of national difference form a fulcrum between the Hitlerian phenomenon and Jung’s analytical psychology. For, as a psychologist of nations, Jung too would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange so-called nation without a land. Jung, too, would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange nation without cultural forms – that is, without national cultural forms – of its own, and hence, in Jung’s words of 1933, requiring a “host nation”. [16] What threatens Jung, in particular, can be illuminated by enquiring closely into what he meant when he writes, as he often does, of “Jewish psychology”. His use of the term is dramatically inconsistent.
….
Then analysts could expressly ally themselves to so-called marginal or minority groups. They could contribute their limited but profound expertise to the achievement of the goals of such groups. The only thing analysts are good at is getting people to experience and express consciously what they implicitly know but have not yet thought or felt. Analysts could employ their skills and their capacity to work with the inexpressible in an exploration of the psychological experience of being a Jew, German, African- American, homosexual, woman, man. They could assist in getting behind the defensive stereotypes imposed by a threatened dominant culture as they probe the nature of difference itself”
Instead of concluding that the Nazis were pathological, and understanding the context, and the healthiness of Jung’s perspective, somehow, the Nazi’s became axiomatically evil in such a way that the very Healthy group instinct when expressed by Europeans, is seen as pathological at it’s root and need of exposing. How very Freudian of this Post-Jungian. I wonder what Jung would have said about that.
I find Uncle Tim’s quote to be particularly revealing in addition to the fine points raised by Professor MacDonald.
What struck me in particular while reading this quote is the implicit assumption of this passage that whites must live under the rule of non-whites or risk being “supremacist” and “oppressors”. Uncle Tim seems to feel that all was love and peace as long as non-Europeans called the shots. Introduce European ideas and the problems begin.
What is particularly galling is that Uncle Tim’s views necessarily assume a lie, and that is that Muslims treated their dhimmis well. I haven’t read it, and suspect a strong neocon influence, but an entire book has been written on abuse of non-Muslims by Muslims:
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268186847&sr=8-2
Uncle Tim is also guilty of harboring egregious double-standards. Obviously it is okay for non-whites to rule over whites, but unless Uncle Tim has become a fan of colonialism, it is unacceptable for whites to rule over non-whites.
I can think of two reasons to oppose Israel’s existence as currently constituted: First, the US is paying for their existence with our blood and treasure, and receiving nothing worthwhile in return; second, that land already belongs to another group. Otherwise I think an Israeli ethnostate is their right–the same right I reserve for my people. Uncle Tim, on the other hand, seems to feel that it is immoral for white Jews to have their own homeland, just as he obviously feels about non-Jewish whites.
It is obvious that Uncle Tim is a hypocrite for another reason: He doesn’t like white ideas or rule, yet he lives in a still mostly-white country. He needs to find his own homeland ruled by non-whites so he can practice what he preaches.
If I understand Prof. MacDonald’s note, the ideal would be the ethnostate, with none of the permanent ethnic tension that plague “diverse” societies. It would be nice if an historian would study seriously this subject. I think that East European peoples were most happy under the Hapsburg multi-ethnic empire and not the current ethnically homogeneous but hardly viable statelets like Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, and so on. And most existing ethnic states have tried to grow and absorbe different peoples instead of closing their frontiers, and among them is Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Great Britain, Argentina, the United States and many others. Also in the past it was like that: the Romans and the Greek city-states were open and granted citizenship after some years of residence. China itself is (and was) a very open country and always welcomed immigrants. So it may be (I am not sure) that an ethnostate is anti-historic and cannot stay so for long.
Regarding Israel being an ethnostate, you are right that the original Zionist project was ethnic and it was formulated according the political and economic formats of the turn of the century. The national fund was called – Colonial Bank. That was the accepted way of those times. But the ideal of an ethnic state is not what you find today in Israel. The projected population – Eastern European Jews – were exterminated. Instead ingathered the vast Oriental (colored) communities from Yemen to Morocco, and lately they brought in Ethiopians and there is fight to accept masses of Sudanese (non-Jewish) refugees. The country is 25% Palestinian Arab; moreover, the historical tendency is to arrive to some kind of common state with the Palestinians and we may soon have some kind of binational state (the separation wall nothwithstanding). If the idea was an Ashkenazi ethnic state, reality did not allow it and the idea failed.
Regarding America, not long ago it was never an ethnic state (except the New England beginnings) and the historic tendency is steadily toward growth and inclusion of foreign peoples.
Can history be reversed? Should it be?
Regarding Israel, it certainly cannot become an ethnic state. It is too late. Even my daughter married an Iraqi Jewish boy.
“I think that East European peoples were most happy under the Hapsburg multi-ethnic empire and not the current ethnically homogeneous but hardly viable statelets like Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, and so on.”
“Think?” I *know* that given the opportunity that the “Eastern European peoples” always chose separation, from the breakup of Yugoslavia to the non-violent “divorce” of Czechs and Slovaks – the latter breakup having no other major impetus other than the desire of the Slovaks to be separate from, and independent of, Czechs. who are, at most, only slightly different from them.
I note that with all the “misery” of these peoples, there’s no desire for reintegrating their “happy” diverse societies, is there?
I’m not sure that Eastern Europeans should be taking advice from Jews on how to organize their societies. Didn’t work out too well the last time, back in 1917.
“China itself is (and was) a very open country and always welcomed immigrants.”
Congratulations, “J” for making the single most absurd and factually inverted comment in the history of the Internet. China – populated by perhaps the most ethnocentric and xenophobic people outside of your own tribe – is an “open” country and “welcomed immigrants?” Are you eating hashish matzos?
What is it about a certain tribe that they are inherently mendacious? Is it genetic?
“If the idea was an Ashkenazi ethnic state, reality did not allow it and the idea failed.”
The idea was a Jewish ethnic state, which is only partially a reality. Stop importing Eastern European women as sex slaves and start expelling the Arab slave labor and the ethnic state can become a full reality.
“Can history be reversed? Should it be?”
Answers: uncertain, yes.
“Regarding Israel, it certainly cannot become an ethnic state. It is too late. Even my daughter married an Iraqi Jewish boy”
One Jew marries another (keeping in mind recent genetic studies showing different Jewish populations being very similar) – oy vey! The exogamy! What diversity of Israeli marriages!
@ J:”If I understand Prof. MacDonald’s note, the ideal would be the ethnostate, with none of the permanent ethnic tension that plague “diverse” societies. It would be nice if an historian would study seriously this subject. I think that East European peoples were most happy under the Hapsburg multi-ethnic empire and not the current ethnically homogeneous but hardly viable statelets like Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, and so on.”
No! I am a Croat and I can tell you that we are sick and tired of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empires like the Habsburg Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Yugoslavia. All those great Empires fell apart in bloody wars because forced multiculturalism just does not work.
We are happy with our Croatian ethnostate.
No matter how fanatical they are, the Quran and Muslims are no threat to us as long as they do not live in our nations. The same is true of Jews and their Talmud, and God knows they are fanatical and relentless.
Its fine to reveal Tim Wise to the world and discuss Jewish hypocrisy and methods. But there is an opportunity to reach millions and millions of people and not just the few who read this blog.
Oprah has had Lisa Kudrow and others on her program talking about their ancestry. By watching the episode you can see plainly that Oprah nurses hated and stirs hatred against white people.
She keeps in her home a record of slaves, where they were sold, how much they were sold for etc. She walks past it everyday so she can remember…. This is hatred. This is racism.
Blacks use the slavery that happened hundreds of years ago as an excuse for their failures and also to demonize white people and nurse grudges. This should be confronted and stopped. This slavery is never put into historical context and its never noted that Whites were also enslaved and even used as concubines and that we didn’t invent slavery. Oprah even made a slur against Southern people, saying all people are connected whether Southerners want to believe it or not.
Thats right Oprah, we’re all connected. name the top 10 greatest nations on Earth. Then name the bottom 10 and tell us once again what exactly connects us you self serving fat black assed moron.
Emmitt Smith was on her program and he talked of this white ancestor grandfather who raped a black slave from whom he is descended. It was horrible. This is graphic, moving, emotional content designed to demonize us.
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Emmitt-Smith-Traces-His-Family-History
Leaders of the A3P party and a Long Beach professor could contact the Oprah producers and get on Oprah’s show. This would give an opportunity to reach tens of millions of people and get the truth out.
Someone needs to confront Oprah about why she built a school in Africa rather than Appalachia. The reason is clear. She should have to confront the fact that we have nothing vested in helping blacks any more than she desires to help whites. We need to get this message out and make it clear.
Is there any research about how much blacks contributed during slavery and how much they have cost us since those times. Don’t they cost us more than they ever contributed. Do we have any benefit from blacks living in America?
The power of this blog cannot compete with the power of jew controlled tv. With all due respect, this is an opportunity that should not be missed. If you watch this episode, and you probably can on the internet, you will see the racism of Oprah and imagine her intentions as she talks about race. The mood of this program is dark and foreboding. Somehow the program “Who do you think you are” also manages to be somehow foreboding for White and Christian America as tho we are ALREADY RELEGATED TO HISTORY.
Lisa Kudrow once again talked about Jews and The Holocaust. Our leaders could go on that show and give graphic details of the Russian Superholocaust including photos, and how Jews are repeating their machinations upon White and Christian Americans that they used against Russians.
This is an opportunity. Please take advantage of it and go on Oprah’s show. Put all of this into perspective and let her know that Whites have interests also. Take a HUNDRED reputable historians with you so they will not be able to label you as illegitimate or racist. We have to do this.
When you champion palestinians you go against Jews. When others champion minorities they hurt us. Its that simple yet these other races and idiots like Oprah don’t wish to acknowledge this. Someone should explain it to her.
Clearly she is deluded that somehow she is going to engineer a takeover of America as tho somehow blacks deserve it. She and Emmitt both mention that they think they are somehow chosen and God has important things for them to accomplish. No I’m not kidding.
They claim “we built America”. I just want to point out that slave owners also owned mules that built America but we have no intention of turning our nation over to mules either.
On the program a white historian in Alabama actually showed evidence of horse breeding and said that horses were treated better than slaves. Well we do have to admit they have superior breeding today so we see the results.
We have to counter Lisa Kudrow and the idea she stole from Britain to put on a program about ancestry. its being twisted and used against us. Are there any ideas for tv programs that jews don’t steal from Britain?
Please contact the producers of Oprah and get onto her program.
The projected population – Eastern European Jews – were exterminated. you won’t get away with outrageous statements like that on this blog. The Askanazi dominate the israeli elite.
China itself is (and was) a very open country and always welcomed immigrants.this is so absurd a lie that it doesn’t even warrant comment. China has chronic overpopulation problems and restricts immigration to people of chinese extraction. Don’t bring of some sophistry about the western provinces.
I think that East European peoples were most happy under the Hapsburg multi-ethnic empire
gosh yes and greeks were happy under turks and palestininans are happy under jewish rule.
So it may be (I am not sure) that an ethnostate is anti-historic and cannot stay so for long.
yeah like England, Scotland, Denmark, Iceland.. you know the countries with the world’s oldest parliaments…countries that until recently had low crime high degree of freedom of speech and prosperity.
“Sociologists such as Robert Putnam have also shown that ethnic homogeneity is associated with greater trust of others and greater political participation.”
Take a look at all of the low-trust cultures of the world.
They are ALL ethnically homogonized.
From Haiti to Argentina (almost entirely Spanish-Italian).
Hell, look at Spain itself! and it’s deposit, Latin America.
Then again, look no further than the White family.
Though one certainly gets the point Putnam is making, and obviously people from Steve Sailer and KM and many others just Love to quote this line of Putnam’s, it hardly solves the matter.
Rather, it’s being applied lately like some kind of all purpose emolluent that resolves all of the tension that comes from a frank acknowledgement of the obvious and embarrassing, at least to those interested in pursuing ethnic interests, that even homogenous groups don’t get along, exactly because they don’t trust each other.
I don’t want to be misunderstood, I think that a lot can be said for an enthno-state, so long as this cautionary note is added and that we heed the many warnings that simple ooze from it.
That way we can avoid simplistic formulas to live by like,
Ethno-State ipso fact = Peace, Love and Harmony.
Pfft, what adult, who moves through the world with eyes open, is willing to commit himself entirely to such a silly notion? So then, why don’t they at least mention it?
of the obvious and embarrassing, at least to those interested in pursuing
should read,
of the obvious and embarrassing facts…..
”China […] restricts immigration to people of chinese extraction.” ( — “me”)
I agree with “me’s” posts in general, and regarding “J’s” commentary, I find it generally contains about 70 percent truth and sense, 30 percent untruth and nonsense, sometimes outrageously so. But I’ll throw the following in the mix here, on the subject of China’s immigration policies: Peter Frost, a biologist (specializing in, among other things, the genetics and evolution of racial differences in skin color, hair color, and eye color) sees China potentially on the road to mulattoizing itself by the importation of Sub-Saharans, a policy which Frost claims is to 1) allow Chinese bachelors to have wives (China aborts girl fetuses more than boy ones so there aren’t enough women for Chinese men to all have wives), and 2) in order not to offend Sub-Saharan nations with a “racist” Negro-excluding immigration policy, in the hope that those nations will continue to favor China with good prices and good deals on the raw materials it imports from them:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/02/china-and-interesting-times.html
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/03/china-and-interesting-times-part-ii.html
Peter Frost sometimes spouts crap, and I suspect he’s doing so at least partly here. But he does cite very surprising figures of the number of Sub-Saharans in some Chinese cities, numbers apparently growing.
This looks like the biggest mistake China has ever made in its history. Why it’s making it is at first glance utterly baffling. This will require some thought to understand.
Right. Evolutionary psychology is an empirical science in the sense that it seeks to explain observed population distributions and behavior patterns, and what we actually observe is not the situation described by “j”.
In fact, under the psycho-social tendencies assumed by j, genetically distinct human populations could never have evolved in the first place, let alone remained distinct. Even now, despite the ongoing efforts of alien social engineers and their propogandists to divert us from our natural course, we continue to see co-ethnics aggregating by preference. Hence, we know that the natural state of affairs remains overall racial segregation (with occasional limited exceptions).
The problem, of course, is that thanks mainly to the Jews, ethnic cohesion is now regarded as permissible for every group on earth but White Euro-Americans, who happen to have built Western civilization with very little help from any other group.
It follows that if we want Western civilization (as opposed to African or Middle Eastern or Chinese civilization) to survive in any form, we must break free of this artificial and highly unnatural restriction, which is transparently designed for just one purpose: to facilitate the ultimate ascendancy of Jews.
This looks like the biggest mistake China has ever made in its history. Why it’s making it is at first glance utterly baffling. This will require some thought to understand.
If you fear their rise, it’s certainly something you’d want to encourage.
J,
The leadership — for whatever reason, greed most likely — decided to “expand” those nations and “absorb” other peoples. I doubt the average person ever took too enthusiastically to it at all, certainly not if he had any inkling of the implications. Historically, if you consider the way people lived, such inklings wouldn’t have been too common, but we here in the 21st century, in the ‘information age,’ we really have no excuse for not considering the implications, no excuse for not responding with a resounding Hell Yes! to your questions Can history be reversed? Should it be?
I stand by my statement that China, historically and currently, is a country friendly to foreigners and immigrants.
The comment that Jews from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Morocco, Ethiopia, India, Daghestan, etc. and Ashkenazi Jews are all genetically homogeneous, reveals ignorance.
“If you fear their rise, it’s certainly something you’d want to encourage.” ( — Silver)
I oppose the race-replacement of the Chinese in their own country. I don’t “fear their rise.” I think they should rise as high as they can and be as strong, happy, and healthy as they can be. I oppose the worldwide forced race-replacement of unconsulted( * ), unwilling( ** ) Euro-race populations, a process now underway. If the Euro races halt and reverse their own race-replacement, something which — J’s pessimism about its chances notwithstanding — is certainly completely and humanely doable, they have no reason to be concerned about “China’s rise.” Or India’s, for that matter. They’ll be stronger than both. If ever a reason for concern arose, the way to contain matters would be to foment rebellions among the constituent nations of China and/or India, dividing the whole up into its constituent nations so that no constituent was big enough to be a threat. But under that scenario none of the constituent nations ought to have race-replacement forced on it. It would remain the same as it was racially, culturally, linguistically, the only difference being it would now be independent of Peking.
I oppose China’s current policy of forcing race-replacement on Tibet.
______
( * lying to them about what’s going on, what lies in store, and the reasons for it, is not “consulting them”)
( ** refusing to take their objections into account isn’t the same as their being “willing”)
J,
The comment that Jews from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Morocco, Ethiopia, India, Daghestan, etc. and Ashkenazi Jews are all genetically homogeneous, reveals ignorance.
Quite right. There is a bizarre tendency (perhaps not so bizarre if you assume their motive is to stir animosity) among WNs to contend Israel is some homogeneous, racialist, national-socialist paradise, with diaspora Jewish elites being stern hypocrites for denying the same to their host populations. The reality is somewhat different.
Nevertheless, J, though their origins and their phenotypes differ, they are still bound together by something important, something meaningful, which they all recognize. The same can be said of a ‘microracially’ variegated country like Greece; though the people there are generally not aware of diverse origins, recent immigration has begun to force them to ponder the question (thanks to western/northern racialist ideologies, in a somewhat disturbing manner). This in stark contrast to America and the modern West, where the people aren’t bound by anything important or anything meaningful — except a fatuous notion that this state of affairs is their ‘strength,’ which no thinking person actually believes, and which certainly doesn’t qualify as something important or ‘meaningful’ to anyone (save perhaps to the ideologues and power brokers who promulgate it and profit from it).
J says,
“The comment that Jews from Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Morocco, Ethiopia, India, Daghestan, etc. and Ashkenazi Jews are all genetically homogeneous, reveals ignorance”
Regardless if Jews are genetically homogeneous, they are ethnically so, and I mean that in the anthropological sense of ethne, or people with shared culture, traditions, religion. language, historic identity, and genes. Practically this means that they are an exclusive or particular group. It is the selective preference for Jews, or a particular people, that makes Israel an ethnostate. With regards to this particular point, it doesn’t matter if Jews are genetically (or racially) homogeneous — this is a red herring — any more than it matters that White Nationalists focus on the genetic aspect as a vehicle of identity. The point is that Jews as a people and Israel as a nation are not Multicultural in the sense of promoting diversity and universalism, where diverse means other than Jews and universalism means easy to become a Jew.
“Regarding America, not long ago it was never an ethnic state”
Boring Jewish reading. The US had an ethnic identity. Its was Anglo-Christian-European. Yes, others were expected to assimilate into that identity, which is what makes an ethnostate an ethnostate as opposed to a Multicultural state which celebrates diversity, or having no particular national ethnic identity, as defined above. It is because ethnostates work on the basis of identity, or a sense of ‘this people,’ and the desire to assimilate, they then try to limit their immigration and expansion to bioculturally compatible persons, given what particular priority they place on the various bonds which make a people a people as apart from other persons, (culture, traditions, religion. language, historic identity, and genes) –
It’s really pathetic to hear even Jews, like J, trying to claim they are ‘diverse enough.’ Being Jewish is fine, and if I were Jewish, I would say great; that represents one of the oldest living ethne. If you don’t want to be Jewish, then convert to Christianity and then become an atheist. Regardless, whether as a Jew or Liberated post-ethnic individual, don’t evangelize multiculturalism or resent others being the people they wish to be.
Good points. I would only add that from an historical perspective, the US still has, and will always have, an ethnic identity. Regardless of what the country has recently become, nearly all of its founders were of Western European descent, and it was mostly their ethnie that took the US to its zenith. This will never change.
Our current problems can be expressed in terms of our historic identity by observing that (1) the entire function of an identity is to lend coherence and cohesion to that which it identifies, and (2) displacing an historic identity by “diversifying” its functional description with disjoint cultural identities necessarily disrupts cohesion, and is thus the easiest way to destroy that which has been falsely re-identified and steal its resources.
This is so obvious that the disruption of national cohesion and theft of resources can be trivially identified as the very point of multiculturalism, a point about which those who push it lie their beaks off while spouting Orwellian inanities like “Strength in Diversity!” and sticking together like fresh dog droppings in order to fill the resulting power void.
“Quite right. There is a bizarre tendency [...] among WNs to contend Israel is some homogeneous, racialist, national-socialist paradise, with diaspora Jewish elites being stern hypocrites for denying the same to their host populations. The reality is somewhat different.” ( — Silver)
Israel is a national socialist apartheid state. National socialist as in Nazi. Yes, Jewish élites are hypocrites for supporting it while fanatically endeavoring to force “multiculti” societal annihilation and race-replacement genocide on Euro populations planetwide. Worse than hypocrites, they’re unspeakable genocidalists.
j says:
And most existing ethnic states have tried to grow and absorbe different peoples instead of closing their frontiers, and among them is Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Great Britain, Argentina, the United States and many others. Also in the past it was like that: the Romans and the Greek city-states were open and granted citizenship after some years of residence. China itself is (and was) a very open country and always welcomed immigrants. So it may be (I am not sure) that an ethnostate is anti-historic and cannot stay so for long.
Very good points, and whether it’s your intention or not, you make a good case for why it is folly to try to construct a white racial state more or less ex nihilo. To the extent that this has been tried (Australia, colonial America, South Africa) it has always failed. This outcome is built into the very structure of the technological system.
What is the difference between an immigrant and an invader? Only this: An immigrant is useful to the system. The racial purity of states lasts only so long as their citizens don’t encounter a situation in which it would be useful to them to bring in other races.
eurodel: “It follows that if we want Western civilization (as opposed to African or Middle Eastern or Chinese civilization) to survive in any form, we must break free of this artificial and highly unnatural restriction, which is transparently designed for just one purpose: to facilitate the ultimate ascendancy of Jews.”
IMO, most Jews don’t see contemporary America as part of Western civilization, because they understand (correctly) that it was largely Christianity that built Western civilization, defined it, and kept it intact (more or less). They’ve actually gone about attempting (largely successfully) to divorce America from Christianity in order to carry forth with American Judeo-Christian (or Judaized American) civilization.
And plenty of ostensibly conservative Gentile buffoons like Bush and Rumsfeld have helped them go about it. Remember Rumsfeld’s quip about “Old Europe” being comprised of countries that didn’t want to participate in the Iraq war, which was being instigated by the Israel lobby? That was a reference to old Christian Europe which wasn’t on board the brave new world of Judeo-Christian American Empire and its plans to remake the Middle East in its image, but rather stuck on the “old” Christian thinking about Jews. “Old” style “anti-Semitic” Christians are sticks in the mud, just like the Muslims — or so the inference went.
The irony in all of this is that all the Bushcons, neocons, neoliberals, Jewish ideologues, neo-Christian Zionists and left-liberal, post-Christian pushers and pimps (all of whom rally around the axis of Zionism) could take a flying leap off the continent, and America would be unfathomably better off. Maybe they should all take a flying leap into Israel, the object of their envy, instead of mooching off of Western civilization.
With respect to Jewish genetics, the relative genetic similarity of the major Jewish populations (i.e., Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Iraqi/Iranian Jews) has been reasonably well established over the years. See Fig. 3 here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2156-10-80.pdf
for more recent representations of these similarities.
Further, there are “socio-ethnic” similarities of shared culture and identity. Relative genetic distances aside, Ashkenazi and Iraqi Jews seem to share more aspects of ethnic identity than do, for example, Ulster Protestants and Irish Catholics, or Serbs and Croats. Therefore, intermarriage between Ashkenazi and Iraqi Jews is hardly the stuff of “multicultural diversity.”
As regards China – the idea that China has been an “open and welcoming country” to immigrants/foreigners ranks with “the Earth is flat” as absurdities, obvious to anyone knowledgeable of the facts and able to use Internet search engines.
Anyone who wishes to waste their time can google “China xenophobic” and “China racism.” That China is importing relatively small numbers of Africans for political reasons doesn’t alter the fundamental reality of China as an (historically) ethnocentric, xenophobic society – to the extent that Chinese communist cadres now shamelessly use ethnocentric nationalism in place of exhausted Marxism as the focal point of their regime.
“Quite right. There is a bizarre tendency (perhaps not so bizarre if you assume their motive is to stir animosity) among WNs to contend Israel is some homogeneous, racialist, national-socialist paradise, with diaspora Jewish elites being stern hypocrites for denying the same to their host populations. The reality is somewhat different.”
Gottfried, who is Jewish, has argued that Diaspora Jews (if not their Israeli counterparts) are hypocritical in their support of a Jewish state and their opposition to Western nationalism.
Actually, Israel is *not* an ethnostate – but it *is* an ethnically based state favoring its Jewish majority. It’s not perfect from the standpoint of Jewish ethnic interests, but those interests are better defended there than any Western nation defends their interests of their majority population.
“Very good points, and whether it’s your intention or not, you make a good case for why it is folly to try to construct a white racial state more or less ex nihilo. To the extent that this has been tried (Australia, colonial America, South Africa) it has always failed. This outcome is built into the very structure of the technological system.
What is the difference between an immigrant and an invader? Only this: An immigrant is useful to the system. The racial purity of states lasts only so long as their citizens don’t encounter a situation in which it would be useful to them to bring in other races.”
More Adamite nonsense. The points are not “good” – they are all easily refuted, and have been on this thread.
Ethnostates are a political decision and can be achieved with the proper political will.
It’s obvious we have a couple of jews making posts designed to bore the living the hell out of newbies, to turn them off. They try to scare, then they try to confuse, then they try to bore. Same thing all over the net. They congratulate and flatter each other about good points being made in their sophomoric banter. It’s hilarious when you realize there’s a good possibility they’re sitting next to each other in grimy ADL cubicles.
The amount of b.s. regarding the US and other countries taking in all kinds of ethnics is disingenuous. The US was taking in Europeans. As in white Europeans. Different ethnic groups to be sure. But the US was not taking Hmong, Mexicans, Somalians and other dirt world people.
They are getting so predictable in their b.s. that we get to witness amateur hour in their latest attempts at derailing the inevitable awakening.
Regarding my comment of 8:01 AM about China’s mysterious behavior in admitting lots of Sub-Saharan immigrants, I happened to see the following at another blog:
”The main [Jewish] control mechanism seems to be export licenses, via the US Commerce Dept.: if the Swiss don’t pony up billions to Israel, no more watches sold in America. If the Germans don’t put ‘holocaust deniers’ in jail, no more….etc. So it is a fact that organized Jewry will continue to rule in Palestine and in Europe…only so long as they continue to rule in America. Where the Final Battle between collectivist, globalist organized Jewry and individualist, nationalist Anglo-Saxon civilization will soon be fought, and this time to a definite conclusion.” ( http://antisemitica.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/zundel-released/#comment-829 )
I wonder if Jews in the U.S. government have been quietly coercing China behind the scenes on immigration, using trade agreements to punish or reward? “If you guys want x, y, or z trade agreement with us you’ll stand a better chance of getting it if you show us you’re not racist, by opening your borders to Third World immigration.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if that explained at least part of China’s vibrant new immigration policy.
Moral of the story: To anyone who thinks the scarcity of Jews in his own country means he and his nation are free of the sort of extremely harmful, damaging Jewish influences on daily life that we suffering under in the United States, such as in regard to excessive incompatible immigration, guess again. The Jews are in all likelihood coercing his country behind the scenes, through the enormous influence and power they wield in DC. Not only is there no reason this wouldn’t apply to China as much as it does to, let’s say, Holland, Belgium, and Norway, I’d be surprised if it didn’t apply to China as much as or more than these others.
Gottfried:
http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/zionists.htm
Chris Moore observes that “IMO, most Jews don’t see contemporary America as part of Western civilization, because they understand (correctly) that it was largely Christianity that built Western civilization, defined it, and kept it intact (more or less).”
That’s true. However, as we know, it was European civilization that colonized the Americas, and even though America rebelled against Britain, there remains a continuous stream of culture connecting the US to the older Christian traditions of Europe. As the US gained ascendancy, this stream fed back into Europe in a self-reinforcing process of joint cultural evolution.
It is true that the Jews, coming here later with the scent of easy money in their nostrils, have tried to dissociate the US from its cultural roots, implanting their “culture of critique” and even wangling a disastrous change in US immigration policy as part of their plan. But they cannot change history, and we cannot let them create the appearance of having done so. The minute we stop believing that this is a White Christian nation, we lose.
I believe understanding it to be a Christian nation and manifestation of Western civilization is enough without explicitly stating somewhere in writing that “America is to be a white Christian nation.” I believe a white majority will be part and parcel in America once the misanthropic, anti-white, Big Government-pushing, money worshipping and left-materialist elements are subordinated, but even if it didn’t stay a white-majority nation and instead became a white plurality nation, so long as the majority comprehended and respected America as a continuum and representation of Western civilization, that would be enough to hold it together and maintain its functionality and prosperity long term.
I’ve seen too many white money-worshippers sell their souls in exchange for selling out Christianity to believe there is any inherent nobility in the race. We are noble when and because we fully comprehend Christianity. So are other races when they do.
Commenter “j” aka “Israeli Water Engineer” has a post on his own personal blog discussing future demographic trends in Israel and its environs:
http://h2oreuse.blogspot.com/2010/02/global-warmings-demographic-impact.html
“Since urban lifestyles are detrimental for human reproduction, and no city is sustaining its population except by continuous reinforcement from the countryside, the implosion of Middle East population is becoming more and more probable. I think that about 2025 Jewish population growth in Eretz Israel will be larger than Palestinian Arab growth.”
“The operational consequence of that we should be ready to take over the agricultural lands that the Palestinians will soon be leaving.”
So for all his histrionics above saying how diverse Israel is, and how diverse countries all over the world are and have been historically, and how ethnostates are “anti-historic” and not likely to be viable, he predicts and envisions a demographic collapse of Palestinians and Arabs in the near future so that Jews and Israel will be able to take over the lands that “the Palestinians will soon be leaving.” No doubt he is giddy and foaming at the prospect.
Typical dissembling and dissimulation.
That’s chutzpah for you.
Carl,
Gottfried, who is Jewish, has argued that Diaspora Jews (if not their Israeli counterparts) are hypocritical in their support of a Jewish state and their opposition to Western nationalism.
My point wasn’t that they’re not hypocrites in general; they are, and massively so. I just meant it’s hardly the case that they’re enjoying all these alleged ‘national-socialist’ ethnic benefits in Israel that they shout down in and deny to western host populations. As you imply, it’s a difference of degree, not of kind.
Adam,
you make a good case for why it is folly to try to construct a white racial state more or less ex nihilo. To the extent that this has been tried (Australia, colonial America, South Africa) it has always failed. This outcome is built into the very structure of the technological system.
If it’s “folly” to construct a white racial state “ex nihilo” what’s the right way to construct one?
What is the difference between an immigrant and an invader? Only this: An immigrant is useful to the system. The racial purity of states lasts only so long as their citizens don’t encounter a situation in which it would be useful to them to bring in other races.”
That’s sadly true. It happens the world over. WNs don’t see it because they seem to regard themselves as the only ones having genuine racial interests or concerns; in their view the flooding of the Arab Gulf States with Pakis is a non-issue because for they see those people as “all the same rubbish anyway.” Of course there’s no reason for a WN to give a hoot about the Arab Gulf States but their predicament does illustrate the non-uniqueness of the race problem, Bob Whittaker’s vaunted mantra notwithstanding.
Still, Adam, if people can see where it’s all going, why on earth not resist it with every fiber of their being? Do you really think any of this is going to work out well? Certainly there are no guarantees that any success would be permanent, but there are never any guarantees in life. Surely people owe it to themselves to at least try — what alternative is there?
Carl says:
More Adamite nonsense. The points are not “good” – they are all easily refuted, and have been on this thread.
You are suffering from delusions of grandeur if you think you’ve refuted anything. Or maybe you just didn’t understand his points, and mine. What compelled the Founding Fathers to import millions of negroes into their white land? The fact that they were useful to the technological system of the day, that’s what. Later, the Jews were allowed to infiltrate their country for the same reason. Now come the mestizos. Bye bye white ethnostate, and hello diversity! That’s the way the cookie (and the ethnostate) crumbled. That’s the way they’ve always crumbled, and always will.
Ethnostates are a political decision and can be achieved with the proper political will.
Political will has next to nothing to do with it. Even the Nazis, during the height of the War, kept Jews in the Reich, some of them in the military, and more as slave labor in the factories. Why do you think they did that? Because they were useful, that’s why. You may start out with race as a high value, perhaps even the highest value, but eventually circumstances will force you to compromise. If you need to make more money and you think you can only do it by importing negro slaves, or if you need to win a War and think you can only do it by using Jewish slave labor, then you will do it. Technicians who ignore the needs of the system in the name of racial purity (or any other non-technical consideration) only become bad technicians. Although the Nazis could have refused to use Jews in any capacity, the system would have produced less, just as the FF’s system would have produced less without using slaves. If you know the optimum technical means is and choose not to use it you are just choosing to fail, something no one ever does knowingly.
Silver says:
If it’s “folly” to construct a white racial state “ex nihilo” what’s the right way to construct one?
Prior to the expansion of the global technological system as a result of the Industrial Revolution, racial “states” — in the form of racially homogeneous breeding populations over specified geographic ranges — had been constructed naturally over the course of millions of years. The ongoing destruction of human races is just one more ecological disaster that is disturbing this natural order of things. Absent that system, that order would be re-established. The world would heal itself.
Adam in his usual dissimulating way wants us to believe that mass immigration is the natural (and thus required) state of being for humanity, yet it is quite clear that it is hardly natural but rather imposed upon us.
The simplest way to refute him is to note that it is essentially only in white nations where this happens, not elsewhere.
Adam opposes homogeneously white nations because he is quite likely a Jew who harbors ethnic animosity towards his competition.
Adam, you have been refuted numerous times on this website – because the facts as they are do not match your argumentation. You would rather have us believe in some sort of mythical “law” of human progress that only seems to apply to white societies.
You always resort to character attacks and straw men when you are called out. I’m always glad to return the favor.
Notice how Adam deliberately leaves out how it was Jews who destroyed the racial order that existed in America. He implies that the mere existence of these other races is what did it, but leaves out the truth of the situation.
To his credit, Adam makes good points and observes the historical record quite well – except when it comes to analyzing the modern situation. He would rather have us believe that everything that has happened today is the result of the continuation of a historical pattern vis-a-viv the technocracy, yet it is quite clear that Jews (in context of their behaviors) are not a function of the technocracy; they are the function of their ethnic and genetic interests as competitors with Europeans.
So thus, he leaves Jews out of the equation entirely, except as a group of poor minorities who are only used for their labor or other skills. Again, if he were correct, then his arguments would apply to everyone – but the facts as we can observe them clearly indicate otherwise, so hence he is flat out wrong.
Fred,
That post on China is interesting.
I guess I would have a couple of comments -
(1) Would the Chinese men be so desperate that they would seek out nappy-haired, fat-lipped, black women? I find this doubtful. Chinese men have access to Europe and America too, you know. The only reason we’re hearing about Ethiopians from Frost is likely the rampant negrophilia that exists amongst the biology/HBD crowd.
(2) I don’t see any sort of indigenous “culture of critique” in China when it comes to topics of race and ethnicity. Such phenomena of Chinese intermarriage is not likely to be popular among the Chinese. I’ve read numerous blogs among American expats as well as regular news stories detailing the widespread discrimination against foreigners in China (contradicting J’s claim that China is “open” and “welcoming” to immigrants).
Furthermore, as China competes for more resources to satisfy its massive indigenous population, it is likely to increase its nationalistic sentiment, and thus, their ethnocentrism.
Adam,
Prior to the expansion of the global technological system as a result of the Industrial Revolution, racial “states” — in the form of racially homogeneous breeding populations over specified geographic ranges — had been constructed naturally over the course of millions of years. The ongoing destruction of human races is just one more ecological disaster that is disturbing this natural order of things. Absent that system, that order would be re-established. The world would heal itself.
Oh I see. I just thought you might mean something more than that with your fancy use of ex nihilo. Thing is, America was born in much the same way peoples/racial groups had expanded since time immemorial. The vast expanse of ocean separating the newly acquired territories (most of them sparsely populated, almost virgin) from the motherland added a novel geopolitical twist but the engineering feat required to pull it off was only a difference in degree over that required to cross the river or the mountain range.
I don’t think the Industrial Revolution had as much to do with the expansion of the global tech system as the Marxist revolution; the former created many of the newer technologies but it was the Marxist revolution that opened the ‘savages” mind to the notion that they too deserved them (for that matter, even the more backwards parts of Europe’s minds). Otherwise technological innovation and trade had been creating improved living standards since the agricultural revolution, with the consequence that people migrated to enjoy them. Alternatively, occasionally improved living standards resulted from conquests in which the remnants of more advanced conquering peoples presided over the legal, economic and cultural innovations they introduced (the “Herrenrasse” or cancer-of-human-history, depending on your point of view).
In your haste to put the blame on the global tech society, however, you seem to be ignoring one of its most significant innovations, the Internet, and its consequent democratization of information.
Political will has next to nothing to do with it. Even the Nazis, during the height of the War, kept Jews in the Reich, some of them in the military, and more as slave labor in the factories. Why do you think they did that? Because they were useful, that’s why. You may start out with race as a high value, perhaps even the highest value, but eventually circumstances will force you to compromise.
That was then, though. This is now. In the wake of any racial reorganization of society the armed netizen will be better able to keep the bastards honest than ever before.
Darren, in the comments threads for the two Peter Frost log entries I cited, a Chinese HBD-friendly blogger who signs as “The Asian of Reason” strongly disputes some of Frost’s views. This Chinese blogger and a couple of other commenters in those threads agree with points that you make. And of course, as a commenter over there signing as “Tod” reminds everyone, the Peking student protests that culminated in the Tian An Men Square Massacre grew out of mass demonstrations some weeks previously in Nanking by Chinese university students outraged at 1) the amount of sex taking place on campus between African Negro students and Chinese women and 2) the harsh communist government repression of complaints about it made by Chinese male students. When the Peking demonstrators demanded greater “democracy,” part of what they were demanding was the right to complain to their government about all the African Negro students fucking all the Chinese girl students on campus, something they were not permitted to complain about or do anything about because of absence of “freedom of speech.” Of course the controlled media over here never reported that dimension of the explosion. Israel avoids that sort of problem by obliging Third Worlders coming into the country on work visas to sign a pledge never to have sex with any Jewish woman and that includes Jewish prostitutes. That’s fully supported by the same official and unofficial Jewry over here that pushes miscegenation on us Euros in ten-thousand different ways every microsecond coming from all conceivable directions.
Adam Said:
“If you know the optimum technical means is and choose not to use it you are just choosing to fail, something no one ever does knowingly.”
Here he goes again.
I. Adam’s valid point: there’s a potential cost to ethnic homogeneity; it’s the same potential cost found in monogamy. Situation depending, it can limit production (or reproduction).
II. Here is the counter valid point: there’s a potential benefit to ethnic homogeneity; it’s the same potential benefit found in monogamy. Situation depending, it can increase production (or reproduction).
a. Here’s Adam’s reasoning: At time, people go with the productive against homogeneity; they have done so before and they will.
b. Here is the counter reasoning: And yet, people, still, go will the productive for homogeneity; they have done so before and they will.
Here is Adam’s conclusion:
1.a, trying to maintain ethnic homogeneity is futile; b. embracing Multiculturalism is good.
Here are Adam’ unspoken presuppositions:
X. The only value of ethnic homogeneity, like monogamy, is production/reproduction — this is the deciding factor.
Y. Either, the cost of ethnic homogeneity do outweigh the benefits (and therefore, given X, one should accept 1a and embrace 1b
or
Since some will inevitable transgress against homogeneity, and seek their individual benefits (I), in spite of the groups benefit (II), so one should accept 1a and embrace 1b
Here would be my alternative:
2. society defines itself as rigorously homogeneous and punishes adulterers –
3. society celebrates homogeneity and enforces homogeneity (say give a massive tax break to the desired peoples, which just means tax the diverse), but accepts, as inevitable, that there will be some who go against this, and does this without seeing this as undermining the conceived goodness of homogeneity.
4. society celebrates homogeneity without enforcing it but accept, as inevitable, that there will be some undesirables, and do this without seeing this as undermining the conceived goodness of homogeneity.
5. neither celebrates homogeneity or diversity, but lets things go as they do.
[(2-4) represent variants of ethnonational states, 5 is neutral, and one of course, is Multiculturalism.]
Adam,
In case I characterized you position wrong perhaps you could, to help clarify, read through and answer this question:
http://lesacred.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/meditations-on-multiculturalism-or-any-other-contemporary-paradigm/
In the face of skepticism, including on the part of Chinese readers, Peter Frost digs in his heels and reiterates his thesis, elaborating on it:
Lesacre and Silver both seem to make essentially the same counter-argument: that things will be different this time. What can one say to those who always wear such rose-colored spectacles that they think that they are special, and somehow the practical considerations of the past which destroyed racial states will no longer be operative? Santayana’s maxim about those who don’t know history being doomed to repeat it comes to mind; a maxim that is equally applicable to the chronic failure of American white racial movements throughout the 20th century. Taken together, the only prudent conclusion is that attempts to establish a whites-only nation are indeed folly; that there are powerful forces that oppose such a creation, and that these forces are not limited to just “da jooze,” but rather include built-in limitations of the technological system itself. Further, even in the extremely unlikely event that such a nation could be founded, it would eventually crumble in the face of practical necessities such as I detail. We can’t know in advance, of course, exactly how long it would take (though history suggests that it would not be long) or what those necessities would be, but we can know that they will exist. And no, Silver, I don’t think the existence of the internet and the supposed “democratization of information” is going to make any difference. Look at the last twenty years or so. Despite the internet, Israel has pretty much gotten its way on everything, in part due to the strength of the Israel Lobby, and in part due to the resource competition inherent in the global technological system itself. There’s a big difference between information being available in the sense of it being somewhere on the web and people being willing to seek it out and use it.
Silver would also like to blame Marx instead of the Industrial Revolution, but would there have been a Marx without the IR? I don’t think so. The articles on China are very interesting and show the same trends in operation even in societies where there are no Jews. That ought to tell you both something, although we can be sure it won’t. Sometimes nothing can cure a pertinacious refusal to see the obvious.
“Lesacre and Silver both seem to make essentially the same counter-argument: that things will be different this time: that things will be different this time.
Adam (Mr. Progressive)
Do me a favor and outline your reasoning formally. It really gets tiring reading your stories and trying to make sense of, infer, and fill in the missing logic, before I can make sense of that nonesense.
Regardless, I would never expent things to work ‘this time.’ I’m not the Progressive one, Mr. Progressive. There is and you fight for what you want. Nothing is guaranteed, nothing is permanent, no future is fixed. Everything you say makes this project all the more appealing.
“The articles on China are very interesting and show the same trends in operation even in societies where there are no Jews. ”
I have lived in China for a bit, and now and them I contribute to the Chinese Right too. There an important part of the long term game plan.
Adam, the more desperate you get the more entertaining you become. Why you insist on being desperate I do not know; please come clean.
Say some kind of ‘racial regime’ (be it an ethnostate; confederated limited separation, eg locally, counties, states; or just explicit social behavioral patterns permitted by freedom of association) comes into being, is it more likely that they would endure given the advent of the internet or less likely? If it’s more likely, then, why, it would indeed be ‘different this time.’
I don’t blame Marx, personally, or any specific thing he wrote. The inner feelings about the state of the human condition he gave expression to clearly resonated with millions. Obviously millions of people feeling and coming to believe that the ‘wretched of the earth’ deserve to enjoy the benefits of the IR is a more important phenomenon than the IR itself. Even if the IR alone, as per your claim, would have led to the beginnings of what the past century has borne witness to people’s ability to resist was clearly hamstrung by the notions of human equality that the left was inspired by.
Precisely. The Jews went from a standing start to maneuvering whites worldwide to the brink of extinction. Who would’ve thought it possible in, say, the year 1955??? They’d have called you insane for even thinking it might come to pass. They called Yockey insane.
Yet here we are facing it. The reality of this horror is now upon us. No more dreaming necessary, it’s here, its leering face staring right at us, two inches from our nose, in all its malignity.
Well, the Jews aren’t magical beings. They’re humans, just like us. Whatever evil they’ve done we can undo. It’s merely a question of rolling up our sleeves and getting to work.
They started their project here in this country in 1880. Let us start ours. Right now. Here’s where the rollback commences.
In earnest.
No one promised this will be easy. What is promised is we, unmixed white people, Euro-race folk, are not going to lie down and go gently into that good night as the Jews, the Abe Foxmans of this world, would love to see.
Fuck that.
Read Patrick Odowl’s post on vdare.com about Soledade O’Brian. Than read Joe Guzzardi’s dishonest response. Soledade O’Brian’s success in American is a result of her being given affirmative opportunities-discrimination against White opportunities-every step of the way. Not because she is an American. This is an absolute indisputable fact. Trust me.
I’m glad to see that the current article currently on the front page of this site supports what I was saying. There are a lot of points of agreement, but I’ll just quote two of them here:
[...]
By the Nazis having accepting modernity, they had in effect replaced race as the highest value with the technician’s value of the optimum means to an end, or in other words, maximum “usefulness”. As I said above, “The racial purity of states lasts only so long as their citizens don’t encounter a situation in which it would be useful to them to bring in other races.”
Actually though, there is an even easier, more intuitive way to demonstrate this. Since most of us here agree that the theory of evolution is correct, we automatically accept that there is, and can be, no higher value for a species than survival. But this means that, despite any propaganda claims to the contrary, no state in the real world can actually have the preservation of a certain set of racial characteristics as its highest value. The preservation of the totality of racial characteristics that we know as race will always be found wanting when it is weighed against survival, and therefore we can predict that a white racial state, or any other type of racial state, will only last so long as it doesn’t perceive a survival advantage in abandoning its racial interests. The Nazi experience in WWII demonstrates again that in the real world, survival is always a more important value than the preservation of some idealized conception of race. Organisms will do whatever they have to do to adapt and survive.