|
|
Sly Stallone, Rambo IV and why those white separatists have to dieI’ve never been a fan of Stallone, and the following doesn’t exactly further endear the man to me:-
Yeah, sure … happens all the time. It is more probable that the “white supremacists” themselves will have a tiny bit of Native American ancestry, but never mind. Never mind as well that this is just another Hollywood smear-job on white separatists, who are constantly mislabelled as supremacists and who, perfectly obviously, do not engage in taking part-Navajo children hostage or any other illegal activities.
The interesting question is why Stallone the Great Action Hero is such a stooge. What motivates the man? Alright, he wants to revive his career, to which end reviving Rambo after seventeen years must seem as good a means as any. But why agree to attempt it in such a dishonest, ludicrous fashion? It can’t be a paucity of alternative plot-lines. He could quite easily have “Rambo” join the Minutemen and go up against the invaders on America’s southern border – or, if that’s too insensitive for the powers that be, Mexican criminals or smugglers? Hell, what are the Minutemen but American heroes? Is “Rambo” supposed to have some sort of Amerindian blood-solidarity with the mestizo migrants? Maybe this assessment is relevant to the topic?
I stress, “…Stallone seemed willing to do just about anything for attention, however negative…” Well, it doesn’t come much more negative than Rambo IV. “Sir, do we get to win this time?” is not a question any white separatist need bother asking of the film industry. Posted by JW Holliday on Thursday, June 2, 2005 at 12:36 PM in Popular Culture Comments:2
Posted by dissidentman on June 02, 2005, 12:59 PM | # In one of the Rambo movies didn’t Rambo join forces with Muhahadeen warlords? Here’s some info on the Mujahadeen and their relationship to OBL. In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to defend an unstable Stalinist client state. As part of its Cold War against “communism” (in reality Stalinism), the US organized a counter-revolutionary war in Afghanistan to drive out the USSR. Billions of US dollars, matched by donations from rich Saudi tycoons and the proceeds of drug money, armed and funded the extreme right wing fundamentalist Mujahadeen guerrillas in Afghanistan, hailing them as “freedom fighters.” 21 years of conflict ensued in which 1.5 million people were killed. One of the organizers of the anti-USSR crusade was Osama bin Laden. While the US government has accused the Taliban of harboring bin Laden, they hypocritically gloss over the fact that the US armed, financed and trained this Frankenstein monster. In 1989, the USSR was forced to withdraw from its occupation of Afghanistan due to a growing crisis within Soviet society and opposition to a losing war that had caused 15,000 Soviet casualties. Many Mujahadeen veterans returned to their home countries either as members of bin Laden’s Al Queda organization or homegrown versions, exporting their terrorism abroad. In the power vacuum left by the USSR’s departure, Afghanistan was torn apart by civil war between rival factions of the Mujahadeen. The atrocities and constant fighting between the Mujahadeen warlords left the people of Afghanistan totally war-weary. It was in this context that the Taliban came to power with promises of law and order in 1995-96. The US did not utter a single word of criticism when the Taliban occupied the city of Herat and expelled thousands of girls from the schools. At the time, the Clinton administration looked favorably on the Taliban because they hoped to build oil pipelines through Afghanistan. As recently as May of this year, the US gave the Taliban $43 million, supposedly to combat the opium trade. Since September 11th, the US has flip-flopped 180 degrees and launched a war against the Taliban. Now the US supports the Northern Alliance as an alternative to the Taliban. [...] The Rambo movies are crude propaganda for the government-media complex. 3
Posted by dissidentman on June 02, 2005, 01:37 PM | # There is some Rambo movie were Rambo goes to Nam to free still-living POW’s. The Gipper gave it a thumbs up and declared that the Vietnam war had been well-intended which ignited a mini-contraversy at the time. My memories are hazy but I think they made the primary bad guys in that movie ethnic Russians, which I assume was due to PC. Furthermore the idea of some Conan the Barbarian guy killing hundreds of adversaries (with guns!) really makes suspension of disbelief impossible. I know that fiction doesn’t have to be realistic to be good but there has to be reality-inspired to make you forget that it’s not real. Here’s a link to the script: 4
Posted by Mrs. Blessed on June 02, 2005, 01:44 PM | # The reason why white separatists get bashed constantly is that there is no public organizatio dedicated to putting pressure on those in the media who engage in such defamation of their members. They make the perfect boogeyman for this reason—why WOULDN’T you use white seps as bad guys? You have to have a bad guy, but every other group is too politically hot to touch. 5
Posted by Braveheart on June 02, 2005, 02:30 PM | # Such films are very bad, because in this way “liberals” tend to mix-up in mind crazy fools with for instance paleo-conservatives. The next steps are: limit freedom of speech, outlaw parties… In Belgium we are acquainted with such a fuss. 6
Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2005, 03:38 PM | # The reason why white separatists get bashed constantly is that there is no public organizatio dedicated to putting pressure on those in the media who engage in such defamation of their members. LoL, this is a bit naive. Any such public institution would have to be the size of AIPAC, the ADL, and the NAACP combined just to start to have an effect; the Jews of Hollywood aren’t just going to give up their defamation machine over a bit of whining, and they don’t just pick on WNs because they’re defenseless. The gypsies are defenseless too, yet they’re prominent heroes in the Hollywood pantheon; gypsies would make excellent villains, yet they’re portrayed as victim-heroes. They make the perfect boogeyman for this reason—why WOULDN’T you use white seps as bad guys? You have to have a bad guy, but every other group is too politically hot to touch. Huh? They’re too hot to touch because Hollywood and Madison Avenue make them too hot to touch! 7
Posted by Matra on June 02, 2005, 03:46 PM | # “…Stallone seemed willing to do just about anything for attention, however negative…” Making a pro-Minuteman film would get him plenty of attention. He would be given the Mel Gibson treatment! I doubt Stallone at this stage of his career wants that kind of attention. 8
Posted by James Bowery on June 02, 2005, 03:55 PM | # As I’ve described before, Jews cannot afford to let up on their smearing of white separatists as supremacists because they have a guilty conscience over what they’ve done to whites. They’re rightfully afraid they would suffer justice at the hands of a freed white population just as a rapist wouldn’t let a woman go who he had tied up and raped repeatedly. He might have all sorts of reasons why women are evil and cannot be trusted—how they are always out to dominate him etc. but her statements that she wouldn’t try to dominate him if she let him go would fall on deaf ears because he’d know that if freed she would simply get help and come back and get him. Jews should stand-down and simply accept a rational Zionism (within the Oslo accords) rather than these crazed diaspora tactics—and they should accept whatever judgement is coming their way for having done what they’ve done to us. It would save everyone a lot of pain and suffering. They won’t do it. It’s not their nature. They will continue to smear us with Hollywood and use their lawyers/politicians to degrade our rights even to the point of incarcerating us with sexually sadistic ethnic gangs. They’re addicted to tyranny. They can’t stop themselves. They have to be stopped. 9
Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2005, 04:13 PM | # You have to have a bad guy, but every other group is too politically hot to touch. That just isn’t so. Hollywood has defamed Arabs for decades now. Hollywood doesn’t mind defaming anyone but Jews. Brando had this just right; every group in the world has been defamed but Jewry. Hollywood especially doesn’t mind using Asians as villains. I mean c’mon, the single best villainous nation state in the world, Israel, doesn’t even exist as far as Hollywood is concerned (except in the Holocaust milieu of course)! 10
Posted by friedrich braun on June 02, 2005, 04:23 PM | # “Such films are very bad, because in this way “liberals” tend to mix-up in mind crazy fools with for instance paleo-conservatives. The next steps are: limit freedom of speech, outlaw parties… In Belgium we are acquainted with such a fuss.” Who are those “crazy fools”? Was Randy Weaver a “crazy fool”? Why? What did he do to deserve beeing relentlessly stalked and have his wife and baby shot by ZOG agents? Additionally, they know very well the difference between faileocon lackeys and White separatists. No, the system will do any thing to perpetuate itself; all those who aren’t part of the system can expect to be smeared, persecuted, prosecuted, outlawed, assaulted, and even killed if they’re enough of a threat to the current multicultural, multiracial, pro-immigration, pluralistic anti-White agenda. If they can ban the most popular party in Belgium (other nationalist parties in Europe can shortly expect the same treatment, see NPD, NF, etc.)) in the name of “democracy”, you can bet that the only way to save the West from the system is through an armed insurrection (i.e., civil war), since the system will rather use its puppet-courts and other institutions to block a “legal” path to see itself marginalized and replaced by an organic, folkish, racially-based nationalist movement. 11
Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2005, 04:24 PM | # Notice how murder, pedophilia, rape, etc., are all “nuanced,” but racism is not. One tactic I’ve noticed is that racism never, ever, EVER exists on its own as a sin. It is ALWAYS accompanied by another, like child abuse, domestic abuse, sex crime, violence or murder, etc., and any of a host of pecadillos like poor hygiene, poverty, free riding, ignorance, stupidity, ugliness, elitism, etc. Any other “crime” can stand on its own, but racism needs help (usually the more help the better). 12
Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2005, 04:28 PM | # If they can ban the most popular party in Belgium (other nationalist parties in Europe can shortly expect the same treatment, see NPD, NF, etc.)) in the name of “democracy”, you can bet that the only way to save the West from the system is through an armed insurrection (i.e., civil war), since the system will rather use its puppet-courts and other institutions to block a “legal” path to see itself marginalized and replaced by an organic, folkish, racially-based nationalist movement. I disagree. For armed insurrection to succeed requires massive public support. Given massive public support, armed insurrection will be unnecessary. Imagine boycotts, sit-ins, obstructionism, and protests carried out and supported by millions of whites. 13
Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2005, 04:39 PM | # Another point is, why is racism so overwhelmingly white a sin? Cannot racism be battled without a white face? Blacks, Mestizos, Yellows, Browns - all are more generally racist than Whites. Whites have been racially neutered, yet they remain the racists of choice. Our invading Mestizos (to say nothing of native Blacks) tend to be far more anti-Semitic than the native White population. Shouldn’t they be getting a dose? 14
Posted by friedrich braun on June 02, 2005, 04:47 PM | # “I disagree. For armed insurrection to succeed requires massive public support. Given massive public support, armed insurrection will be unnecessary.” Well, we have the October Revolution as a precedent. A “revolution” that was nothing more than a coup d’etat organized and carried out by a handful of Jewish fanatics and professional agitators. All revolutions, in fact, have been the product of committed minorities. At any rate, the revolutionary scenario I envisage is, in large measure, taken from Guillaume Faye’s masterpiece: The Islamic Conquest of Europe http://library.flawlesslogic.com/faye_02.htm If you read French you can find the entire book on the web. And I also hear that it’s being translated into English. The civil war has already began, see the ethnic ghettoes in France, for e.g., which periodicall erupt into wild violence. It’s only a question of time before we witness larger scale actions from the Black/Brown criminal masses. I, for one, welcome the prospect, if it serves to awaken the decadent and complacent bourgeois majority. As things stand now, the majority is still fairy isolated from the “hot” sectors. But not for much longer. The indegenous Whites don’t reproduce at the same rate as the Afro-Asians, and immigration (legal and illegal) continues unabated. The time is ripe for an armed struggle while the Whites can still outnumber the Black and Brown waves of hostile invaders. 15
Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2005, 04:47 PM | # Expect (tepid, misdirectional) conciliatory moves as movies enter the era of garage budgets and P2P distribution. 16
Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2005, 04:51 PM | # All revolutions, in fact, have been the product of committed minorities. 17
Posted by Svigor on June 02, 2005, 05:05 PM | # I should add that sit-ins, boycotts, protests, etc., carried out by millions of Whites would be a civil war, but one in which the state would be largely defanged. Yes of course the state could respond with violence, but that would only lead to a inarguably justified armed insurrection. 18
Posted by Geoff Beck on June 02, 2005, 05:33 PM | # If anyone doubts whose ethic interests are being served in Hollywood, may this example convince you. 19
Posted by ben tillman on June 02, 2005, 05:37 PM | # It is more probable that the “white supremacists” themselves will have a tiny bit of Native American ancestry, but never mind. Indeed. And this is perhaps the most insidious aspect of this. Millions of white Americans have Indian ancestry; millions more have convinced themselves that they do. They must now oppose “white” interests, because “whites” oppose them. How ham-handed…. But effective in the long run. Diviser pour regner. 20
Posted by john rackell on June 02, 2005, 05:59 PM | # [in reply to friedrich braun’s subthread] There’s a neat physics demonstration used to demonstrate the principle of inertia. One hangs a massive weight from a slender thread. The thread supporting the huge weight looks like it will snap at any moment. One ties a second similar thread to the bottom of the weight. The strange thing is if you give this second thread a massive downward yank it doesn’t snap the supporting thread, instead the second thread itself snaps. The supporting thread, albeit massively overloaded stays. On the other hand a consistent pulling with the lightest touch on the second thread will snap the top thread holding the weight. By analogy the inertial mass is the European population, being supported or rather constrained by the overloaded Liberal zeitgeist. But armed insurrection is like the hard pull on the second thread. Even though its force is strong, its shock is short, it can’t overcome the inertia of the European masses. The shock is not transmitted to the European elites by armed insurrection. The liberal elites maintain their death grip of the European masses. A strong steady pull is what we need - democratic activism in support of European people in spite of official opposition. That is what will transmit the force through the European masses to the global elites. That will snap the globalist elites domination. 21
Posted by ben tillman on June 02, 2005, 06:27 PM | # ...they don’t just pick on WNs because they’re defenseless. North American Indians are also fair game from time to time. Think of the Seinfeld episode with the Cigar Store Indian. I suppose this stems from the fact that the Indians are the ultimate victim class, with a claim for reparations that would overshadow and indeed wholly invalidate all other claims for victim-class status. That is why the Mexican invasion is portrayed as Mexicans taking back “their” territory (reconquista) rather than Indios retaking theirs. 22
Posted by Phil Peterson on June 02, 2005, 06:33 PM | # Anyone care to guess what is Stallone’s IQ? It couldn’t be much higher than room temperature (in centigrade), I would imagine. 25
Posted by Kubilai on June 02, 2005, 06:55 PM | # His IQ is reportedly 148. I highly doubt that. I did a quick Google search and one article stated that he reports his IQ as above 140 and another IQ test link gave his as 102. A 102 may be a bit low for Sly, though it is more believable than a 148. As an aside, Sharon Stone has an over 140 IQ and that to me is believable. 26
Posted by Phil Peterson on June 02, 2005, 07:09 PM | # Sharon Stone has an over 140 IQ and that to me is believable. Sharon is part-Jewish I think. No surprise there. 27
Posted by Phil Peterson on June 02, 2005, 07:12 PM | # http://www.funfocus.net/bilder/cartoons/stallone.jpg
29
Posted by ben tillman on June 02, 2005, 07:27 PM | # I’m just going by what the MSM told me long before widespread use of the internet. You don’t trust the MSM? 30
Posted by ben tillman on June 02, 2005, 07:30 PM | # I’m not the only one who has heard this: http://www.ciao.de/D_Tox_Im_Auge_der_Angst__Test_2826672 Ich habe gerade übrigens etwas gelesen, was zwar nicht wichtig für die Filmkritik ist, ich aber doch für erwähnenswert halte. Und zwar soll Stallone´s IQ was mit 150 haben… Und da sagt man noch, Rambo wäre ein dummer Muskelprotz! 32
Posted by Kubilai on June 02, 2005, 07:36 PM | # Und zwar soll Stallone´s IQ was mit 150 haben No way in hell. His IQ is more closely indicative of Phil’s charicature above. Listening to him speak and his choice of vocabulary precludes his IQ from even creeping over 115. 33
Posted by Phil on June 02, 2005, 07:44 PM | # Die Intelligenz von Stallone ist nicht besser als die Intelligenz meines Briefträgers. Glück bedeutet Intelligenz nicht. 34
Posted by ben tillman on June 02, 2005, 07:46 PM | # Is Stallone Jewish???? I always thought it was a possibility. Apparently his mother said something suggesting a Jewish background while being filmed for a program called Big Brother:
http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/1347_sj_super_7.htm 35
Posted by Kubilai on June 02, 2005, 07:49 PM | # Phil, You must have geniuses delivering your mail in the UK, eh?? Hint: thank God for Babel Fish Translator 37
Posted by ben tillman on June 02, 2005, 07:57 PM | # If his intelligence is so average, how do you suppose he attended college on a scholarship? While studying at the American College in Switzerland on scholarship, he partook in drama studies at the college. Finally realizing what he was born to do, Stallone decided to pursue an acting career after receiving a standing ovation in his performance in Death of a Salesman. A lot of interesting stuff in this little bio: http://www.askmen.com/men/entertainment/36c_sylvester_stallone.html 38
Posted by Kubilai on June 02, 2005, 08:01 PM | # Ben, I’m shocked at you… With lousy grades and not much direction, Stallone headed for none other than beauty school. While studying at the American College in Switzerland on scholarship, he partook in drama studies at the college. Finally realizing what he was born to do, Stallone decided to pursue an acting career after receiving a standing ovation in his performance in Death of a Salesman. The aspiring actor began pursuing his dream by studying drama at the University of Miami, but headed to New York in 1969, 3-credits short of graduating. For shame, Ben. Shaaaaame…. 39
Posted by gay homosexual on June 02, 2005, 08:08 PM | # guess Stallone isnt very smart for a Ashkenazi, I thought Jews got As in school, at least all the ones I know do 40
Posted by James Bowery on June 02, 2005, 08:16 PM | # “gay homosexual”, RTFA: After protracted legal wrangling, the rights to Rambo were snapped up in 1997 by Miramax’s genre division, Dimension Films. But a planned Rambo IV stalled. Now, with Miramax heads Harvey and Bob Weinstein exiting Disney, they have sold the sequel rights for the intrepid character to Nu Image/Millennium Films, and the project is finally moving forward…. Nu Image boss Avi Lerner promises more first blood adventures. “It’s a franchise,” Lerner says. “If number four works, then you have a number five.” 41
Posted by gay homosexual on June 02, 2005, 08:21 PM | # thats ok i guess. i never really liked rambo, lol. i was just wondering if stallone was jewish. 42
Posted by James Bowery on June 02, 2005, 08:24 PM | # john rackell, I like analogies as much as the next man but why doesn’t the system you describe succumb to Alexander’s solution to the Gordian Knot? I’ve always wondered what would happen if the faces in the media became increasingly unfamiliar to the plebs. 44
Posted by john rackell on June 02, 2005, 10:05 PM | # I like analogies as much as the next man but why doesn’t the system you describe succumb to Alexander’s solution to the Gordian Knot? James: Well, taking my cue from what I’ve read of John Boyd (and William Lind) is that wars are won at the moral and psychological level, the rest is details. Euro Nationalists are coming from behind on that front too. The moral high plane still belongs to the multicultists: ‘hate’ is an evocative word. Violence wouldn’t cut the Gordian knot it would only cause nationalists to lose the moral high ground. Civil wars are more morally destructive than other wars and here immigrants would have an advantage because only Europeans would be fighting a civil war. The immigrants ability to act would be unfettered. And practically speaking a continent size change requires a continent size movement which requires time to develop. Non-violence will speed that process because it does not require secrecy which would impede growth, besides being morally defensible. The moral right though does ultimately belong to the nationalists. We have the inalienable right to resist our own genocide. But it takes time to convince people of this - the inertia of liberal brainwashing makes it difficult to set Europeans on a completely different course. I’ve noticed this in myself, lots of inner turmoil I’ve had to confront just to go to the Amren or BNP website or even VDARE. I too wanted to puke the first time I heard that Nick Griffin was slated to speak at that guy’s conference. For some of us it takes time to develop intestinal fortitude and break down the resistance from within. If nationalists really want violence then provoke the violence of the elites by simply speaking the truth in defense of Europeans. They’ll get all the aggro they can handle and the tranzi’s will be the ones losing the moral war. 45
Posted by Braveheart on June 03, 2005, 03:38 AM | # Perhaps somebody can draw Hollywood’s attention to the fact that at least in Flanders (for cultural, historical, political and other reasons) the conservative patriots are rather pro-Israel, in spite of what French-speaking leftists try to fool the world? 46
Posted by friedrich braun on June 03, 2005, 07:33 AM | # “Perhaps somebody can draw Hollywood’s attention to the fact that at least in Flanders (for cultural, historical, political and other reasons) the conservative patriots are rather pro-Israel, in spite of what French-speaking leftists try to fool the world?” Why would Hollywood care about tiny Flanders and its irrelevant pols? If they want to antagonize world’s Arabs and 1.2 billion Muslims by supporting that parasitical “shitty little state” and cancer of the Middle East, it’s their business, I suppose. However, if they think that their obsequious pandering will win them any brownie points with international Jewry, they’re sorely mistaken. Jews will ALWAYS view ethnically-based and racially aware Euro-White political parties as potentially dangerous to their tribe’s interests. 47
Posted by Guessedworker on June 03, 2005, 07:42 AM | # But true though that is, Friedrich, it does not take account of the real situation in Flanders or of the realities of political survival for a nationalist party in Europe. In fact, I’d go further and say that the “purity” of your position would spell political death for VB and for any hopes that, through them, the Flemish might have some chance to reclaim their country from the Moslem-loving, French-speaking Walloon left. 48
Posted by friedrich braun on June 03, 2005, 08:10 AM | # My position is that it doesn’t matter if you’re “pro”, “anti, or “indifferent” towards Israel, organized Jewry will always oppose any White movement, party, group, etc. based on ethnicity and race-consciousness. Since that’s the case, why unnecessarily antagonize Muslims? The Muslims are only a problem because they infest western countries with their unwelcome presence and because we stupidly meddle in Middle Eastern affairs more often than not on behalf of Israel. The problem with internaltional Jewry is more intricate and complex. Ultimately, White nations will have to work in concert to effectuate any common, lasting solution to Jewish subversion and parasitism. 49
Posted by Braveheart on June 03, 2005, 09:06 AM | # I cannot speak for Vlaams Belang because I am no member of that party, but it is a matter of fact that Vlaams Belang leader Dewinter sees Israel as the vanguard of Western civilisation and accordingly he has the best relations with the local rabbis. But of course Dewinter has also more practical considerations. Even five percent Jewish votes can mean the difference for him to become mayor of Antwerp. From the Arabs he won’t get one vote. The leftists say that he is a Jew-lover to “prove” that he is no racist, but that’s not enough to explain everything. There is real affinity between Jews and Vlaams Belang. Ant tiny Flanders is not important in itself, but nevertheless early this year there was a polemic in the American press. The polemic in the American press started with an article in The New York Times called Fear of Islamists Drives Growth of Far Right in Belgium (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/12/international/europe/12belgium.html?pagewanted=1) (registration only). The more conservative The Washington Times reacted with The emerging ‘Eurabia’ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050217-084155-2847r.htm). The New York Times immediately stroke back with a second article called Europe’s Jews Seek Solace on the Right (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/weekinreview/20smit.html?) (registration only). This gave cause to other reactions such in the New York Sun called Slap at European Jewry Prompts Backlash (http://www.spme.net/news/poller030305.pdf). 50
Posted by Stuka on June 03, 2005, 09:37 AM | # It’s only a question of time before we witness larger scale actions from the Black/Brown criminal masses. I, for one, welcome the prospect, if it serves to awaken the decadent and complacent bourgeois majority…The time is ripe for an armed struggle while the Whites can still outnumber the Black and Brown waves of hostile invaders. Agreed. Well said. But Whites don’t even have to outnumber the blacks and browns. Look at Rhodesia or South Africa to see what a besieged white minority can do given enough intelligence, resourcefulness, and firepower (all of which White Americans have in abundance). No worries. 52
Posted by friedrich braun on June 03, 2005, 09:42 AM | # Why are there so many Arabs in Belgium, maybe it’s because it was the Jews who allowed them in? The Arabs are the symptom, the Jews are the disease. Timid shabbas goyim from Vlaams Belang should first tackle the disease, instead of concentrating on the symptoms. Of course, there’s an element of poetic justice in the fact that the minorities whom the Jews loosed on Whites, are now producing anti-Semitic incidents in the same countries. 53
Posted by Braveheart on June 03, 2005, 09:56 AM | # To make a long history short: leftist French-speakers promote by all means Arab immigration to Belgium to weaken the Flemish. The Jews have nothing to do with it. And do you know that at this moment already 40% (forty percent – mostly Moslems and blacks) of all the children in Brussels have parents who BOTH live from public benefits! And it was the socialist mayor of Brussels’ Muslim terror nest Molenbeek http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?channel_id=3&story_id=17996 who was the coordinator for the new legislation giving them the right (and duty) to vote… If the leftists give the example to join the Arabs. Then why should the Flemish be reluctant to seek Jewish support? Flanders, 54
Posted by Matra on June 03, 2005, 10:01 AM | # Opposition to Muslim colonisation is far more popular than going after Jews. Attacking Jews will alienate the masses and play into the hands of the leftist establishment who’ll then be able to make a more convincing comparison between the Vlaams Belang and Nazism. If Jews can be convinced to support immigration control it will be a huge step towards saving the West. It is the Third Worlders moving here that is the most urgent problem. 55
Posted by Braveheart on June 03, 2005, 10:07 AM | # I agree. But in Europe the Jews are already convinced. Flanders, 56
Posted by friedrich braun on June 03, 2005, 10:11 AM | # I’m not so much interested in little, individual vignettes from Flanders. Jews played a key role in influencing the immigrtation policies of all western countries (and not only the US, although they were, of course, instrumental there as well). See the work of Kevin MacDonald, especially The Culture of Critique. http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books.html 57
Posted by friedrich braun on June 03, 2005, 10:18 AM | # “Agreed. Well said. But Whites don’t even have to outnumber the blacks and browns. Look at Rhodesia or South Africa to see what a besieged white minority can do given enough intelligence, resourcefulness, and firepower (all of which White Americans have in abundance). No worries.” Whites aren’t bullet-proof, you know? And, as Israel has shown, you can’t use nukes on an enemy who’s physically close to you without also suffering the consequences. That’s why Israelis named their nuclear option the “Samson Option.” After the Biblical hero who committed suicide but not before taking many of his enemies with him. 58
Posted by Braveheart on June 03, 2005, 10:29 AM | # Jews contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United States, including one-half of Democratic Party contributions and one-fourth of Republican contributions If the latter could be inverted, that would make a big difference. American Jews don’t seem to understand that president Bush is in the end better for Israel than a Democratic president. And the same for immigration. Why not try to convince them to change their mind? Flanders, 59
Posted by Matra on June 03, 2005, 10:35 AM | # By the time you convince the sceptical, even hostile, masses that Jews are responsible for our immigration mess it will be too late. Colonisation is proceeding and the West doesn’t have that much time. There is already considerable opposition to open borders in virtually every Western country. It would be better to focus on the enemy the average person can see every day. And if Jews have disproportionate influence over immigration policies we need to convince them that it is in their interests to put an end to open borders policies. I suspect that many Jews are already reconsidering their views on immigration. Given how many more Muslims are entering the West it would be surprising if they weren’t concerned about immigration. 60
Posted by friedrich braun on June 03, 2005, 10:39 AM | # I want Jews out as much as I want Arabs out, because both are foreign and incompatible elements. However, in terms of long-term destructiveness and subversion Jews have shown time and again that there’s no one more dangerous or a bigger threat. Trying to convince them won’t work and is counterproductive and undesirable, even if it were possible. History shows at every corner that the interests of Jews colide with those of White gentiles. 61
Posted by Braveheart on June 03, 2005, 10:46 AM | # My conclusion: at least between Flemish and German conservatives, there are big differences… Flanders, 62
Posted by James Bowery on June 03, 2005, 11:01 AM | # “Braveheart”, The reason it doesn’t make sense to try to get Jews to behave rationally is because their own leaders can’t do it. Look at David Sternlight’s writings on the “suicidal” attitude of Jews toward immigration policy. People have this idea that Jews rely on conscious conspiracy to achieve their ends. I don’t think they do, therefore they are in denial they are even engaging in these behaviors. Its a common strategy in evolution to self-deceive. Jews just do what they do pretty much—and rationalize it. They’re very very good at that. 63
Posted by Matra on June 03, 2005, 11:04 AM | # The greatest danger is not that we will be subverted by a powerful minority - that is already happening. The greatest danger is that we will be physically oppressed, enslaved or even wiped out by a strong alien ethnic group or religion that has the numbers to make permanent such a catastrophe. 64
Posted by James Bowery on June 03, 2005, 11:11 AM | # John Rackell, As someone with a solidly Quaker background and who has been “speaking truth to power” via the internet for some time, I definitely understand your argument. What I’m saying is a bit more subtle. Not all acts of “violence” are the same in their political side-effects. Obvious acts of self-defense are quite different from some Hollywood-crafted loon abducting a little girl. I understand we’re skirting what is “legally” permitted to discuss here but the fact of the matter is there are times when armed activities are justified. PS: My point, made repeatedly in this forum, about ethnic prisoner gang rape in the US is that what the US has done is basically make it so that if someone is going to resist the US’s denial of white self-determination, even via civil disobediance, they had better be prepared to go all the way—to death. This means one should be very circumspect about demanding all resistance be passive. Stephen Donaldson was raped by tens of black inmates for nearly two days simply because he went to a Washington D.C. prison during a Quaker “pray-in”. If you think the US is serious about their laws to stop prisoner rape then all you have to do is look at the laws to stop illegal immigration. 65
Posted by friedrich braun on June 03, 2005, 03:47 PM | # Jews cannot be trusted. Victor Ostrovsky writes in his: By Way of Deceit: For the First Time a Mossad Agent Speaks that every Dispora Jews is in fact a sleeper. An agent waiting to be activated by Israel. For e.g.: 66
Posted by Guessedworker on June 03, 2005, 05:36 PM | # Friedrich, You are overstepping the mark of what is acceptable here. We do not shy away from the JQ but neither do we want to be dragged down the road to National Vanguard. Can I ask you to find another string to bow when you comment on this blog? Thanks. 67
Posted by Svigor on June 03, 2005, 06:26 PM | # People have this idea that Jews rely on conscious conspiracy to achieve their ends. I don’t think they do, therefore they are in denial they are even engaging in these behaviors. Its a common strategy in evolution to self-deceive. Jews just do what they do pretty much—and rationalize it. They’re very very good at that. No doubt, and I’d add that this is a very powerful psychological weapon that is easily underestimated. I’m unaware of any group as proficient at this as Jewry, which is as it should be; they’ve been at this for three thousand years or so. 68
Posted by Phil Peterson on June 03, 2005, 06:32 PM | # Friedrich, I second what Guessedworker said. There are no Nazis on this blog. This is not a Nazi forum. And we have no sympathy for Nazis in any shape or form. We are Anglo conservatives, for the most part but more “old school” in the sense of recovering the sense of peoplehood that defined the West for much of its existence. We do not shy of discussing any subjects including the “Jewish Question”, if this is discussed with reliance upon rational and even-handed sources. Therefore, Mein Kampf would not be considered a rational source in this regard. National Vanguard is an organization I don’t know a great deal about. But what I do know is that it is an organization of people who have high regard for Hitler and National Socialism. And as far as we are concerned, National Vanguard counts as Nazi. Therefore, we request you to maintain the tone of this blog. This blog adheres to free speech principles. That said, advocacy of extermination and other Nazi programmes do not fall within the free speech principle that we adhere to. Thanks 69
Posted by dlg on June 03, 2005, 07:13 PM | # Does friedrich actually have any proof that Jews or Jewish organizations are responsible for the large-scale immigration of Moslems to Europe? I doubt he does. 70
Posted by James Bowery on June 03, 2005, 10:45 PM | # Erratum: My prior reference to “David Steinlight” should have been to “Stephen Steinlight” 71
Posted by James Bowery on June 03, 2005, 10:50 PM | # dlg, Would you say that the post WW II influence of the US on Europe is “responsibility” for the large-scale immigration of Moslems to Europe? 73
Posted by Geoff Beck on June 04, 2005, 11:05 AM | # Herr Braun: > that every Dispora Jews is in fact a sleeper. An agent waiting to be activated by Israel. This is overblown rhetoric. My criticism of Jews has been and continues to be harsh, yet this sort of reduction is overly simplistic and easily ridiculed. This is just not a serious statement. 74
Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2005, 11:16 AM | # No that was about Sweden—not Europe. Its a really bad idea to found a discussion about a domain on discussion of one of its extrema, as Sweden certainly is of Europe. If you want to see a good first-order model of how to explain extrema such as Sweden, then read my G.O.D. hypothesis—genetic omnidominance hypothesis. Until otherwise demonstrated, my default assumption is that US influence on Europe is what happened to European immigration policy, and what influenced US policy is painfully obvious to anyone with a mind who has lived here during this period. 75
Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2005, 11:31 AM | # Erratum: The correct link for the GOD hypothesis is: 76
Posted by friedrich braun on June 04, 2005, 01:01 PM | # GW: “You are overstepping the mark of what is acceptable here. We do not shy away from the JQ but neither do we want to be dragged down the road to National Vanguard. Can I ask you to find another string to bow when you comment on this blog?” Why does it matter if I linked to the National Vanguard site? How about addressing the facts, instead of attacking the source? Argue on the merits, GW, never mind the source. Only address the issues and facts. Why should it matter if the source is a nostalgic National Socialist or a radical vegan? Information is either accurate or it isn’t, irrespective of who’s the author. This sort of ad hominem attack is a staple of left-liberals and peecee enforcers - a beloved tactic. Secondly, as far as the straw man of National Vanguard is concerned, I take the liberty of pointing out that this news source figures as Matt Nuenke’s (one of your very prized and frequent contributor) favourite site, see http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/links.htm 77
Posted by friedrich braun on June 04, 2005, 01:07 PM | # “This is overblown rhetoric. My criticism of Jews has been and continues to be harsh, yet this sort of reduction is overly simplistic and easily ridiculed. This is just not a serious statement.” You’re showing your ignorance. Tell me, have you read Victor Ostrovsky’s By Way of Deception? If not, as it’s apparent, I suggest you do and then get back to me. Victor Ostrovsky illustrates in his work how the state of Israel and the Mossad relies on the Jewish Diaspora for it’s steady supply of foreign informers and agents. 78
Posted by friedrich braun on June 04, 2005, 01:17 PM | # “Does friedrich actually have any proof that Jews or Jewish organizations are responsible for the large-scale immigration of Moslems to Europe? I doubt he does.” I’m out of the country on business now and I don’t have access to my books (so I can’t quote passages), but I would draw your attention to Kevin MacDonald’s chapter in Culture of Critique on the role various Jewish organizations played in shaping (loosening) the immigration policies of various western countries. However, you can read the following on-line article, on how Jewish lobby groups influenced American immigration law. http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-immigration.html In sum, Jews feel threatened by homogeneous, ethnically cohesive White societies and have worked diligently to make them multiracial and multi-cultural. Just one instance where Jewish and Euro/White interests collide. A nice little quote taken from the piece above: The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible’and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Raab 1993b, p. 23).2 79
Posted by friedrich braun on June 04, 2005, 01:35 PM | # Ph.P.” ...That said, advocacy of extermination and other Nazi programmes do not fall within the free speech principle that we adhere to.” Your entire post is hysterical and full of straw men. Get a grip. I challenge you to point out where the National Vanguard advocates the extermination of Jews. Quote them, if you can. The National Vanguard is a White Nationalist site, I think many of the participants of MRB identify with that option. “...and other Nazi programmes…” How about advocating the Nazis’ very successful employment policies? lol You know, the Nazis also believed that 2 + 2 = 4, and it still does regardless of what they believed. 80
Posted by Phil on June 04, 2005, 02:23 PM | # I challenge you to point out where the National Vanguard advocates the extermination of Jews. Of course they wouldn’t. All they do is sing paens to Hitler:
That counts as extermination worship in the rational world. How about advocating the Nazis’ very successful employment policies? lol Such as turning Europe’s largest nation into a war machine that made the slaughter of millions of Europeans (30-40 million depending on the estimate) inevitable. Very successful policies no doubt. A Nazi sympathizer must deny everything in History. All Nazi atrocities must be denied as Allied propaganda - every mass shooting of innocents, every death in the camps (by whatever cause). It is almost as though God himself chose to appear on earth and write history in a manner necessary to permanently defame the poor innocent Nazis. Heavy odds when defending the legacy of that regime. As all our bloggers live in the rational world, we have little or no Nazi sympathy. But for some, worship of that insane failed cult (that permanently finished Europe’s largest nation and brought nothing but misery and suffering upon millions and decimated Europe) is the defining characteristic of their perverse worldview. I’d like no part of it. Thanks. 81
Posted by friedrich braun on June 04, 2005, 03:10 PM | # Again, Phil is building up sraw men just to knock them down. No one was/is advocating the extermination of Jews. You can relax. As far as your hysterical non sequiturs go, no one has said anything in this thread (until you brought it up) about National Socialist Germany, the causes of WW II, the Holocaust, etc., etc., etc. You want to discuss those issues, start a new thread. Get a grip. 82
Posted by ben tillman on June 04, 2005, 03:25 PM | # Until otherwise demonstrated, my default assumption is that US influence on Europe is what happened to European immigration policy, and what influenced US policy is painfully obvious to anyone with a mind who has lived here during this period. I believe this is correct. 83
Posted by Phil on June 04, 2005, 03:26 PM | # Again, Phil is building up sraw men just to knock them down. No one was/is advocating the extermination of Jews. You can relax. Strawmen? Surely you jest. I said National Vanguard praise Hitler and I showed you a glowing example of it. Since they are avowed admirers of Hitler, GW’s point about using them as a source stands. Does it not? 84
Posted by Phil on June 04, 2005, 03:45 PM | # Again, Phil is building up sraw men just to knock them down. No one was/is advocating the extermination of Jews. You can relax. I should add: Slippery slope. 85
Posted by friedrich braun on June 04, 2005, 03:46 PM | # “I said National Vanguard praise Hitler and I showed you a glowing example of it. Since they are avowed admirers of Hitler, GW’s point about using them as a source stands. Does it not?” No, it doesn’t. As I already pointed out, so what if someone said something positive about Mein Kampf or Hitler? Address the author’s facts and issues (if you want)instead obsessively attacking the source. 86
Posted by friedrich braun on June 04, 2005, 03:51 PM | # “I should add: Slippery slope.” Yes, indeed. EVERTHING can be construed as a “Slippery slope” towards Auschwitz and the Holocaust, including bad table manners. So why talk about anything at all? 87
Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2005, 04:06 PM | # Phil, If you agree to talk to me about some of the things about which the Nazis were correct I’ll agree to talk about some of the things about which the Commies were correct. PS: The Commies did immeasurably more damage than the Nazis did by any objective measure—including creating the Nazis through their starvation of millions of Ukranians in 1932 leading to Hitler’s election in 1933. When the exposure of western youth to movies, documentaries and school courses about the Ukranian famine are as numerous, heart-rending and demonizing of the Party hierarchy, largely Jewish at the time, as are those about the Nazi persecution of Jewery, you will have some moral standing to denounce people who are Nazi sympathizers. Until then, it is very unwise to go around being moralistic about them. You’re setting yourself up for accusations of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. 88
Posted by Phil on June 04, 2005, 04:28 PM | # as are those about the Nazi persecution of Jewery, you will have some moral standing to denounce people who are Nazi sympathizers. Until then, it is very unwise to go around being moralistic about them. You’re setting yourself up for accusations of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. - James Bowery James, Saying that the Nazis were better than Communists is hardly a compliment or an ackowledgement of virtue. Second point: the Nazis didn’t just kill millions of Jews but also millions of European Christians. And while we have seen a million documentaries about the Nazi atrocities against Jews, we haven’t seen even one percent as many about the millions of European Christians who were slaughtered by the Nazis - Poles, Czechs, Russians, Ukranians and many others. There are no docudramas remembering those millions. But if you consider yourself an advocate of European peoples, acknowledging that the Nazis were mass murderers of White Christians ought to be axiomatic. To condone them (or say nothing when others praise them) is as bad as singing paens to the Communists and to Stalin. You’re setting yourself up for accusations of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. And who is this enemy? If you mean by this that I say this only to make the same argument as organized Jewry does, you are wrong. I have ackowledged the work of MacDonald and written on this blog several times that I find his work persuasive. But why should I say nothing about the admiration for Hitler when it is openly espoused on this very blog? They can espouse it elsewhere. I don’t care. But I shall not say silent when they do it here. Last question, James: Were the Eastern Europeans who were butchered in the millions by the Nazis not Human? Were they sub-human? Did they deserve that fate? And if they didn’t, Nazism was a crime against the people of Europe of an order of magnitude approaching the Communists. I will not let it be waxed over as a trivial academic matter. EVERTHING can be construed as a “Slippery slope” towards Auschwitz and the Holocaust, including bad table manners. - Friedrich Braun No. Table manners and Hitler admiration are not comparable. Thats an absurd argument. Table manners didn’t build the SS, Hitler did. 89
Posted by friedrich braun on June 04, 2005, 05:01 PM | # “Second point: the Nazis didn’t just kill millions of Jews but also millions of European Christians. And while we have seen a million documentaries about the Nazi atrocities against Jews, we haven’t seen even one percent as many about the millions of European Christians who were slaughtered by the Nazis - Poles, Czechs, Russians, Ukranians and many others. There are no docudramas remembering those millions.” Do you mean to suggest that people die in wars? How about highlighting the butchery, slaughter, and war crimes of Brits and Americans in W II? Surely there’s no shortage of these…Let’s spread the moral posturing and outrage a bit. 90
Posted by Phil on June 04, 2005, 05:06 PM | # How about highlighting the butchery, slaughter, and war crimes of Brits and Americans in W II? Surely there’s no shortage of these…Let’s spread the moral posturing and outrage a bit. Most certainly. Question: How many civilians were butchered by the Nazis? What number are we talking about here? Nazi brutality against Czechs, Poles and Ukranians was to eliminate the natives of those lands to make way for replacement by German settlers. That’s genocide, as I understand it. And how many civilians did Americans and the British kill? Numbers please. 91
Posted by Kubilai on June 04, 2005, 05:09 PM | # Just my ignorant 2 cents: We do NOT want another Hitler rising from all this multi-cult attack on White nations. That to me, we be the final nail for us. We need someone or several someones advocating our rights for self-preservation and homeland preservation vis a vis Europe. In the New Worlds, like Canada, US, and Australia, the push should be towards racial separation if desired by the White masses though Australia maybe an exception here. I think it highly unlikely to have Canada and the US racially pure or even 90% White. Canada is too socialist and the US is too mixed as is. I would love to see it though am not holding my breath. I do understand people’s “sympathy” towards Nazism, however credibility of our arguments fall on deaf ears as is, let alone if one eeked out a semi-positive statement towards Nazis. Besides, Phil is absolutely correct that Nazism caused the death of millions more European Christians than Jews and that should not be swept under any rug no matter how one feels about our current plight. We aren’t tolerant of the Communist/Marxist atrocities towards Whites, why should we be with Nazis even though the total numbers are “smaller”? 92
Posted by friedrich braun on June 04, 2005, 05:29 PM | # “Most certainly. Question: How many civilians were butchered by the Nazis? What number are we talking about here?” By “civilians” do you mean Bolshevik partisan criminals? Since when have Bolsheviks morphed into “Eastern Europeans”? Ask the Finns and Balts, for e.g., what they think of these “humans.” “Nazi brutality against Czechs, Poles and Ukranians was to eliminate the natives of those lands to make way for replacement by German settlers. That’s genocide, as I understand it.” Funny BS. LOL a handful of Czechs died in WW II, Phil. As to Poles, Polish brutality towards its German minority was well documented in the 30s by the media and various international agencies. During WW II, they got exactly what they deserved. I’d even say that some aspects of the German occupation was too lenient and gentle. “And how many civilians did Americans and the British kill? Numbers please.” Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. quite a bit, I think. At any rate, I’m tired of arguing with self-righteous, hypocritical, German-hating Anglos who’ve conquered and colonized their way through history. Hence, I’ll exit this thread. Good night, gentlemen. 93
Posted by Guessedworker on June 04, 2005, 05:31 PM | # Freidrich, I am disinclined to play host to your attacks on Jewry. So this is how it is. MR belongs to me. You are a guest in my house. I have asked you respectfully, I think, to behave according to the rules that I set down here. I will ban you if you cannot exercise the necessary restraint. 94
Posted by Svigor on June 04, 2005, 05:32 PM | # Just my ignorant 2 cents: We do NOT want another Hitler rising from all this multi-cult attack on White nations. Well said. WNs need to keep in mind that reframing Nazis and Commies in light of revisionism should be held distinct from wanting native equivalents of Hitler or Stalin or National Socialism or Communism. As boring as they are, automatic caveats are sometimes a good thing. 95
Posted by Phil on June 04, 2005, 05:40 PM | # During WW II, they got exactly what they deserved. And that ends the argument. I had posed the question as to whether those Poles deserved to die. You have answered it. I can’t argue with that logic. I’d even say that some aspects of the German occupation was too lenient and gentle. So they should have butchered all of Poland, eh? Better solution? Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. quite a bit, I think. They add up but they still get nowhere near the Nazi total (which is why I asked you to provide numbers and you didn’t) especially when one considers that the US and Britain had much more firepower in the aggregate than the Germans did. Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. No one in Britain or America should be proud of it. And I would the last person to condone it. At any rate, I’m tired of arguing with self-righteous, hypocritical, German-hating Anglos who’ve conquered and colonized their way through history. How is being against Nazism a form of “German-hating”? Is every German a Nazi? Anglos “conquering” their way through History? You must be joking. Saying that my anti-Nazism is a form of German-hating is ludicruous. I have family members who are married to Germans for God’s sake. In the litany of pathetic arguments, this must rank as the worst. 96
Posted by Phil on June 04, 2005, 05:47 PM | # By “civilians” do you mean Bolshevik partisan criminals? Soviet civilian casualties in WWII exceeded 20 million (at the least). Were all 20 million Bolshevik subversives? 97
Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2005, 06:02 PM | # Kubilai, Since Phil refuses to address what I’ve said except to make absurd imputations about the supposedly low value I place on Slavics, I’ll address the valid point you raise: We do NOT want another Hitler rising from all this multi-cult attack on White nations. Obviously. Hitler was profoundly destructive to the core values he professed. His invasion of Poland was perhaps the most destructive single act of aggression in history. It was so destructive that rational nationalist socialists have suspected that it was due to his purported 1/4 Jewish ancestry that he ordered that act. I agree this is a definite possibility. Perhaps Hitler will one day be recognized as the greatest Jewish leader in all history for the effect his mal-leadership had on the west’s ethnic constitution—and the rise of Jewish dominion over the US if not the entire west, however wantonly self-destructive that dominion may turn out to have been for Jews. Now, having said that, I refuse to call people who adulate Hitler stupid. Stupid compared to what? Compared to the people we meet every day on the street who are parroting media-saturation multicultural supremacy because they are afraid of being denouced as heritics by the new state religion for being insufficently enthusiastic about their own disposession and probable genocide. I refuse to allow such irrational demonization of Nazis to go un-nuanced. 98
Posted by Guessedworker on June 04, 2005, 06:48 PM | # James, You are a highly intelligent man. Why on earth are you wasting your time taking up such weak positions? That’s a serious question, btw. You make yourself look and sound perfectly disturbed to the outside world. As a point of hard fact, the National Socialists might have been admirable had they merely held their own ethny in high regard. But they were sufficiently intoxicated with self-love to believe the lie of the Master Race. They felt themselves free to murder and enslave whomsoever they pleased ... and they did. The Nazis are still a curse on us in the very hour that our peoples are under threat. There is no virtue and no utility in them for us. Support them and help all those who would destroy us. 99
Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2005, 07:05 PM | # My position is merely politically weak. When I say something is a “definite possibility” I’m saying it is an hypothesis worthy of consideration by rational people. I’m not saying it is Truth the way people run around saying it is Truth that “Nazis are evil”. The key concept to understand is rationality. The root of rationality is ratio. If you have something you are evaluating you need to do it in context—by taking it as a ratio with some other measure so that you obtain consilience with the whole of human knowledge. Failure to do this is failure to honor the naturalistic tradition of our culture. Now having said that there _is_ virtue in appealing to irrational people—the majority nowadays probably as throughout recorded history—so they can be made rational. Nowadays you achieve this by violating the Jewish prohabition against “Holocaust relativism” so that you bring them from a state of religiousity to a state of RATIO-nality. It is precisely this RATIO-nal state of mind that Jews fear most—just as the rationality of the Protestant movement and scientific method were feared by the prior theocracy. 100
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 05, 2005, 01:54 AM | # Friedrich Braun, do you have a web-site? (Clicking on your name where you sign comments doesn’t go to a web-site but does give the impression there’s supposed to be one.) 101
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 05, 2005, 02:07 AM | # People like Friedrich Braun are fantastic pin-up boys for multiculturalism. After all, if it can be shown that all opposition to multiculturalism is really motivated by fascism, it will become impossible for respectable people to oppose the insane designs of the political class. Friedrich, your opinions are despicable, and you are a moral cretin. The Nazis were a gang of criminal Pagans who murdered millions of innocent people. To suggest that they did not kill enough Slavs is utterly vile. 102
Posted by Phil on June 05, 2005, 07:05 AM | # Friedrich Braun, do you have a web-site? (Clicking on your name where you sign comments doesn’t go to a web-site but does give the impression there’s supposed to be one.) He does. Click here. 103
Posted by Phil on June 05, 2005, 11:22 AM | # Fred, Steve, I should add: Our Nationalism is fundamentally defensive driven primarily by a desire to conserve for the benefit of posterity. We do not wish to conquer or enslave anyone and we do not wish to colonise. We want to be left alone. The ideas espoused by Friedrich (and others of his ilk) are fundamentally expansionist and genocidal. There is an enormous difference between the two. 104
Posted by Kubilai on June 05, 2005, 04:23 PM | # James, This topic, Hitler and Nazism, is a very, very delicate subject fraught with all sorts of pitfalls. Others here have done a great job explaining it. In my humble opinion, Hitler and his Nazis have done more for the multi-cult, Liberal, and JQ cause than any Liberal could possibly have dreamt of. Hitler is the left’s Holy Grail and we, no matter how it is justified, rightly or wrongly, CANNOT nor SHOULD NOT attempt to broach it/them. Our cause is too important to have ears automatically shut off due to the “H” word. We do not need it in our arsenal anyway. National Socialism, despite being a viable ideology in the pure sense, is immediately equated with facism and in turn Hitler, then Nazis, then Jew murdering bastards. The imprinting is just too damn strong for someone to attempt civil conversations with even sympathetic ears. Nazi sympathizers or any other term one wants to attach to the group, fall into a few categories. One is a group of not so nice people who hate and do believe in a Master Race. Another is a group who are fed up with the current upside-down situation and are looking for sympathetic ears, of which the Neo-Nazis are. The Neo-Nazis are a group that continues to be visible and interested parties can easily find one nearby though serious, racially awakened people quickly tire and outgrow the topics of discussion because they are too one-dimensional. Case in point is Svigor. Another is a group who believe in the National Socialist ideology as a form of government. Groups two and three have merit, though group one FAR OUTWEIGHS the “good” of two and three. It my opinion, there can never be any separation of the three in the current milieu. It is too dangerous and costly for our cause. Hell, we’re splattered as Nazis as is without a single peep of the word, let alone trying to bring a “logical discussion” of the benefits of National Socialism. For the record, when I say that I understand National Socialism, it is the ideology and not the monstrosity that Hitler created. 105
Posted by Svigor on June 05, 2005, 07:59 PM | # One test for white supremacist is, “does he deny evidence of white inferiority?” A test for honest National Socialist might be, “does he use Third Reich symbology,” or, “does he believe verbatim use of Third Reich literature is a good idea?” Any honest National Socialist should take things seriously enough to see this, but my guess is there is much overlap between National Socialist WNs and those who proudly wave the swastika and quote Hitler with pride. I think most of the wielders of the swastika are either unserious, pathological, very stupid, or cointelpro types. I think similarly of anyone who thinks Third Reich literature should compose a modern NS literature. 106
Posted by Svigor on June 05, 2005, 08:03 PM | # Oh, taking my own advice I should add that I’m not a National Socialist, nor do I know much about NS. 107
Posted by James Bowery on June 06, 2005, 04:03 AM | # My position on German National Socialism is and remains that it is a topic we cannot avoid addressing—so we should address it properly which is to say address it in the most politically adept manner we can consistent with rationality. Demonizing “Nazis” just isn’t rational. Sorry folks, but if anyone has a leg to stand on here it is me—my father, son of an Iowan farmer, volunteered to fight the Germans prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor because he thought Charles Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech was recommending capitulation—and he left a Quaker assembly abandoning his option as a conscientious objector to do so. All of my ancestors, most of whom are known, are traceable back to Scotland (probable patriline of Orangemen from Groningen) and were in the New World before the revolutionary war. I’ve never had any affiliation with any neo-Nazi organizations nor had any hostilities with anyone folks of another race. My best friend for most of the 1980s was the son of a woman who was a practicing Jew and my lover for most of that time was the daughter of a Jewess from Lithuania. I refuse to abandon or deny the honor of those who were misled by Hitler and many of whom may yet be hypnotized by his largely correct rhetoric. Yes, this is a political mine field. So is Marxism, yet I have been one of the primary proponents of asset taxation as a means of addressing the disease of capitalism, going back more than a decade, and been called a “Marxist” as a result. We’re going through a time when all who are afraid of the truth are using every tactic they can to corrupt conversation about vital issues and our sole option is to be as honest and rational as humanly possible about the history of the 20th century. I certainly honor the guest/host relationship so if my behavior has been inconsistent with the host’s wishes I will, without hostility or resentment, leave Majority Rights to those more consistent with the host’s vision for this site. 108
Posted by Kubilai on June 06, 2005, 10:14 AM | # I refuse to abandon or deny the honor of those who were misled by Hitler - James Now this is something totally different. Your “spin” can be a focus on the Germans who were misled and to me, it is acceptable because it is a reality with not insignificant numbers. It still is quite a slippery slope, though more “legitimate” and “palatable” of a stance in this day and age of unbridled PC. With that said James, I still think it best to avoid it because it is not necessary for our cause and the risk/reward is quite high. 109
Posted by Guessedworker on June 06, 2005, 10:23 AM | # James, It had not occurred to me to get heavy-handed with you. Looking at the substance of your comment here, it seems to me that you are asking for caution in applying the morals of one period to actions in another. This is a good principle to live by. But caution is needed too, in some cases, in the manner of its application. The German people were weak like you and I but there were things done - many things, even - that we would like to think ourselves unable to live with. This opens up the deep question as to the relationship between human suggestibility and moral accountability. By way of example, let us suppose that it’s 1941 and I am a simple Bavarian farmer who has been bewitched by the glamour of Nazism. I quickly become convinced that Slavs are sub-human and begin to mistreat the Polish slave-workers that have been bought to labour on my farm. Well, am I responsible for my actions? Is the Nazi Party responsible? Certainly, I could not reject the workers or oppose the will of the Party, since to do so would have brought extremely serious consequences. The answer, of course, is that I am responsible, since I had the option to say, “Look, you Poles, you are here now and there’s nothing you or I can do about it. But know that I shall treat you fairly as long as you respect the unnatural situation in which we both find ourselves.” Consider, then, the moral responsibility of the Wehrmacht towards non-belligents in occupied territories, where no such overt generosity was possible. In the east, particularly, its behaviour was a stain on the German uniform, a disgrace. But did every soldier contribute equally to this outcome. No, one must distinguish those who acted under compulsion from those who lent a degree of their own bloody appetities to proceedings. The honour of Germans, such as it is, hinges on compulsion, not on suggestibility. 110
Posted by Phil on June 06, 2005, 05:53 PM | # Guessedworker, That is beautifully put and I agree with it in totality. I wish to add the following thoughts of my own: The overwhelming majority of Germans alive today were born after WWII. They bear no responsibility for the actions of their forefathers. They were not a party to the decisions that were taken by the generation that gave power to Hitler (and under extraordinary circumstances I might add - economic ruin, military and diplomatic humiliation). So before one examines the question of culpability of Germans of that generation, the point that needs to be addressed is the question of culpability of the current German nation. And by an overwhleming majority, Germany as a nation that exists today bears no responsibility for the actions of Hitler’s generation. The continuous defaming of the German nation and the perpetuation of collective guilt foisted on that great nation by interested parties must have an end point (which we ought to have passed decades ago). WWII is history. It was the greatest tragedy in the history of the human race and even more so the greatest tragedy in the history of Europe. There were no winners in WWII. Only losers. All of us lost something. Including the winners. The war corrupted and finally destroyed our nationalism and created a Soviet behemoth that continued to grind millions under its heels. As to the question of culpability of the Germans of Hitler’s generation, there is no doubt that a collective insanity overtook some members of the German nation. But for every culpable, brutal soldier of the SS committing unspeakable atrocities, there were 3 or 4 proud and honourable young men who were serving their nation as proud young men have served their nations in many different ages in history - including today when young GIs are fighting a war for the US in Iraq. Those GIs have had little say in the rights and wrongs of the war and the decisions that led to it. They are only doing their duty. So in that sense, there were millions of patriotic young men and women who were only doing what patriotic young men and women do when their nation is at war. That is no crime and should never be held a crime. As for the accusation that criticizing Nazis is a form of German-hating, one can only say that it is the most harmful opinion one can hold of the Germans of today. Germany needs to emerge from the ghosts of WWII. It has a future. Europe has a future. And to continually associate Germans with Nazis (and to seek glorification of Nazis) only ensures perpetuation of German collective guilt for eternity. 111
Posted by James Bowery on June 08, 2005, 07:39 PM | # My touchstone of morality is whether or, more accurately, to what extent self-determination of self-identified groups is upheld. Anyone who works to oppose such self-determination loses their right to life. The most obvious example are slave holders. Next most obvious are states that refuse the right of minority ethnic groups to secede and find territory to which they can migrate with just compensation for their loss of territory. I don’t know enough about the history of WW II to judge the actions of the Poles vs Germans except to say this: When I say Hitler “mislead” Germans, I can state with relative certainty that, given the treaties signed between the allies, Poles and Soviets, his invasion of Poland was obviously going to lead to far more damage than any damage that might have been done to the ethnic Germans living in the territory claimed by Poland. Moreover even by National Socialist standards, the damage likely to Germany would be so overwhelming that it ran counter to his core principles to attempt to “liberate” ethnic Germans at that time. This is not to say that Hitler was not _morally_ justified in seeking any _effective_ means necessary to free ethnic Germans—that question depends entirely on the ethnic Germans living in Poland and their wishes. I simply am not prepared to address this question given my lack of knowledge of the details of the area and era. I will say this though: When a country loses a war, history is written by the victors and I am skeptical of the received history of WW II for precisely that reason. I’ve seen more than enough evidence of mendacity on the part of the Allies and Jewish interests to reserve much judgement. I can only go on a few things: 1) Communist attrocities directly preceeded German National Socialist attrocities. As it stands Israel is looking more and more like Germany than the “light unto the nations” it should have been. This is the legacy of allow Jews to run foreign policy for other countries. They just don’t have the rationality it takes to really do it. Given all this I beleive my father made a mistake to give up his option to not enter the war against Germany. His reaction to Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech bespeaks more of precisely the Jewish influence that Lindbergh warned of than it does of my father’s wisdom. 112
Posted by Neil on August 16, 2006, 11:05 PM | # Famous IQs Carol Vorderman 167
113
Posted by ben tillman on August 18, 2006, 01:50 AM | # Please—I’ve heard 148 but was unable to find any documentation for even that. 114
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 18, 2006, 02:53 AM | # Come on,people;take a break=this many comments on a B action movie makes me wonder-how many wankers are out there?The visisitudes and obligatory platitudes to ones’own intellect notwithstanding,JUST WHAT"S YOUR PROBLEM? It’s not meant to be mind-wrenching,nor introspective film,but ENTERTAINING!!!Job done-it makes money!For some reason,this has become a circle-jerk of JERKS Watch,enjoy,leave,turn of,whatever-but don’t fantasize about making it your next basis for your"Women and War"class at Berkley. 115
Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 18, 2006, 03:22 AM | # Would someone tell me just what a “gay homosexual"is?Sounds like a double negative to me,but then,in this day and age,maybe new forms of sexual aberration have been evolved.Bottom line-Thank GOD for AIDS.It’s helping Africa solve it’s starvation crisis’which coupled with internicine genocide,has kept the negros at a stable percentage of the world populace.Cock-suckers next! 116
Posted by Ludwik kowalski on January 03, 2010, 12:39 PM | # AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A FORMER STALINIST Please share this link with those who might be interested. http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/mybook2.html P.S. The book is waiting for a reviewer Next entry: Defining Leftism Previous entry: Out of India? |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:48 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 07:36 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:10 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:49 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:45 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:27 PM. (go) (view) marloe commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:21 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:17 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:08 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:03 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 05:53 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 05:51 PM. (go) (view) dc commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 05:13 PM. (go) (view) Lurker commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:55 PM. (go) (view) MP commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:43 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:31 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:07 PM. (go) (view) Wild Bill commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:02 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 03:47 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 03:24 PM. (go) (view) dosto commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 02:40 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 02:36 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 02:25 PM. (go) (view) Marlowe's Ghost commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 01:33 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by JW Holliday on June 02, 2005, 12:44 PM | #
It might seem a little strange to kick off a thread with an off-topic comment, but ...
With respect to something Svigor brought up in another thread, I really can’t say what I think of the extent of genetic differences between races, because this has not yet been fully established. We await more data. It is clear that important differences do exist. It is also clear that it are the relative differences in genetic information that are important.
OK, back to the “dream machine”.