Righteous Jew: Edwin Rubenstein

Posted by Bo Sears on April 17, 2007, 04:26 PM | #

We at Resisting Defamation have had a running battle with VDARE and Edwin Rubenstein over their use of the insectoid label WASP, the Spanish-language epithet Anglo (not at all identical with a shorthand Anglo-Saxon), and Rubenstein’s favorite, “non-Hispanic whites.”

Given this lack of respect for the principle of self-determination in the matter of our naming and labeling, I wonder if the poster could lay out three examples of Rubenstein’s writings that cannot be said to benefit his kin more closely than they benefit our kin.

He’s smart that Affirmative Action may lead to ever smaller slices of admissions & promotions for his own kin. But that’s related to their current access to the entire “white” quota.

He’s smart that Muslim & Mexican immigration may lead to loss of respect toward, and diminuation of, his kin’s market dominent minority status. Thus his opposition to much of immigration.

But what has he ever supported that isn’t really an effort to engage our energies in support of his kin’s special needs?

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I’ve never seen any example.

Posted by anon on April 17, 2007, 09:56 PM | #

Bo Sears,
okay three things:
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/070403_nd.htm
“Whites Bearing the Burdern in Iraq”.  I assume that Jews tend to be underrepresented in the military. 

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/061205_nd.htm
“Immigration-Driven Demographic Shift Dooming GOP”
a little bit harder to make the case on this one, but I assume that Jewish interests are more aligned with the Democratic party, than the Republican party.

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/061127_nd.htm
“Immigrant Workforce Up—Labor’s GDP Share Down”  A bit of a strecth, but I hold that lowering the gini coefficient is better for non-Jewish whites relative to Jews.

that’s three,
anon

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on April 17, 2007, 10:37 PM | #

Not saying he’s an honorary “gentile” Bo, but I think “righteous jew” is appropriate.

Posted by Bo Sears on April 17, 2007, 11:14 PM | #

Anon, my apologies for the testy tone in the following.

Regarding the first item, anon, may I refer you to:

http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/9194

which is a copy of a Jan. 2, 2007, article that appeared in the New York Times on that date. A similar article appeared in the Scottish Herald that same date and was extensively discussed on MR.

So Rubenstein’s essay was three months after the facts had already been reported about demographics among the Iraqi invasion forces, and the sources he refers to in his April 3, 2007, were issued even earlier to the public.

The best that can be said for his essay is that he provided a delayed, and incomplete picture of the demographics of the American military. He (1) continued his quest to use the label, “non-Hispanic white” in the body of the essay, (2) failed to comment on the number of his closest kin who were fighting and dying in Iraq, and (3) failed to comment about who gained from these white American soldiers fighting and dying…certainly not America. No appropriate context was allowed.

==========

The second essay mentioned above is right out of Mark Steyn’s playbook, namely to point a finger of blame at someone other than those who actually engineered the sudden demographic changes we are experiencing. Hum along with him and his tune, “Gloom & Doom, We didn’t do it, You did it to yourselves.”

There is at least one group just a little more responsible for the demographic shifts he identifies, but Rubenstein somehow doesn’t identify that group. You’ll have to guess who that is, because Rubenstein provides nary a clue except to blame the Republican Party.

And he gets to sneak in two uses of “non-Hispanic white.” Still no appropriate context is allowed.

==========

Regarding the third essay mentioned above, once again Rubenstein fails to outline the major group that suports massive immigration. His silence outweighs the nuggets of facts he brandishes without appropriate context.

==========

In short, each of his essays provides some clarity, but falls short of explaining the role of his closest kinfolk in the deaths and demographic changes he explains so winningly. Numbers don’t live in the clouds, they need to have their feet planted firmly on the soil.

Posted by a Finn on April 18, 2007, 11:08 PM | #

I don’t expect anything from the jews. I don’t wait them to do anything. I study their behavior and take what is useful. That jews twist here and there, more or less things to their favor is as natural behavior to them as four legs are to a cow. It will never change. If negative things come from the jews, I am always prepared. If positive and useful things come from them, good.

I expect only from my own people. I concentrate on what my people do and can do. I concentrate on what I do and can do. The rest are less important. I want my people to twist everywhere and always things to our favor. I want my people to be always prepared for the worst from other peoples.

Examples are of course ubiquitous, but in the following three part series is example how certain jewish twists are done:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article143519.html#article143519

http://www.voltairenet.org/article143635.html#article143635

http://www.voltairenet.org/article143703.html#article143703

Posted by Guessedworker on April 20, 2007, 09:57 AM | #

What’s you opinion, Svi, of anti-Zionist Jews such as Neturei Karta people:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSHl3C9kgY&mode=related&search=

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 20, 2007, 09:27 PM | #

What’s you opinion, Svi, of anti-Zionist Jews such as Neturei Karta people

How can one be anti-Zionist while taking the same positions you folks are taking? You don’t want western Jews to have any kind of power… no media ownership, no right to run for election, etc. If anything, you support policies that would promote Jewish emigration. Some of the bloggers on here openly advocate full scale Jewish deportations… but where would they go if you’re an anti-Zionist, too? Where else are they going to go?

It seems to me that by “deportation,” many of you mean “extermination.”

Posted by National Meritocracy on April 20, 2007, 10:49 PM | #

“You don’t want western Jews to have any kind of power… no media ownership, no right to run for election, etc.”

The singular feature of Jews is inassimilability. Other ethnicities, if not assimilable, do not immediately proceed to systematically and maliciously undermine and take over their host nations as Jews do.

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 21, 2007, 01:50 AM | #

The singular feature of Jews is inassimilability. Other ethnicities, if not assimilable, do not immediately proceed to systematically and maliciously undermine and take over their host nations as Jews do.

So what do you want to do with them? Do you support Zionism and the existence of the state of Israel?

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 21, 2007, 02:10 AM | #

I’ve read it numerous times before, but I can’t find anything at the moment… I don’t have much time. However, I will enter the links to Noontide Press, David Duke, The Barnes Review, and IHR as evidence to this effect. Of course, “endorsement is not implied,” but you guys sure do like talking about the “Jewish Question” without ever offering a solution to it; however, it is always discussed in a negative manner, as is Zionism. So why don’t you answer me a question… what do you propose as a solution to the “Jewish Question” in the West?

Posted by a Finn on April 21, 2007, 02:27 AM | #

a Casual Observer: “How can one be anti-Zionist while taking the same positions you folks are taking?”

- I am answering for me. Israel in itself does not interest me. I put links to Israel’s policies opposing pages, because I wanted to show how typical jewish twists works. Seemingly a critic of Israel and supporter of fair treatment of palestinians is in reality a pro-zionist. Sometimes the twists are this big, sometimes they are more subtle, like when Rubenstein does not mention jews separately from Whites, when calculating Iraq war participation percentages for different groups and thus hiding the minimal jewish participation.

“You don’t want western Jews to have any kind of power… no media ownership, no right to run for election, etc.”

- Jewish media ownership or right for elections does not bother me. The way those medias and political positions are used is disturbing.

“If anything, you support policies that would promote Jewish emigration. Some of the bloggers on here openly advocate full scale Jewish deportations… “

- No, I support that we deport ourselves away from the areas where jews are living. To our own areas.

“but where would they go if you’re an anti-Zionist, too? Where else are they going to go?”

- You have plenty of places to live, including Israel. The question is, how long you are glued to our side. Do you want to live by force with people who just want to live by themselves?

“It seems to me that by “deportation,” many of you mean “extermination.””

- It seems to me that whatever Whites say anything about independent living, you always scream extermination and holocaust. Does not convince me.

Here is one for you to think about. Why the overall effect of the jews to Whites is always negative, unless force is applied, which we don’t want to use? We don’t want to babysit you. We don’t want to live with people who can’t at least be neutral towards our best interests. And you really could protect your interests without hurting ours.

Posted by a Finn on April 21, 2007, 02:33 AM | #

Correction: whatever—-> whenever

Posted by a Finn on April 21, 2007, 04:21 AM | #

This last sentence: “And you really could protect your interests without hurting ours.” I mean it in a way: It is technically possible, not that I expect something from you.

Posted by Lurker on April 21, 2007, 09:46 AM | #

The singular feature of Jews is inassimilability, except some do assimilate. But then they stop being Jewish and identifying as Jewish. Bringing us back to square one.

Posted by James Bowery on April 21, 2007, 10:26 AM | #

“A Casual Observer”, while I’m certainly not going to be accused of competing for the title of “Righteous Gentile”, I posted a recent Majority Rights article on why I am an “Oslo Accord Zionist”. 

I’ve also discussed, here on MR, the fatal error Hitler made in not focusing Germany’s energy on the transfer agreement.

I probably don’t find the inconsistency of the anti-Zionist anti-Semites as annoying as you, but it is something I take a stand on not only here but in other fora—mainly private mailing lists.

The Oslo Accord provided room for a Jewish ethnostate and that is, in my theory, the ultimate cure for Jewish virulence.  As an intermediate step toward that “final solution” I see the distinction between less virulent strains of Jews and “righteous Jews” to be less important than it will be ultimately, so my immediate concern isn’t whether Rubenstein is a “righteous Jew” or not but whether he is simply less virulent—which he clearly is.  He should receive the support of everyone trying to disengage hostilities between Jews and their host nations.

PS:  I may, from time to time, express very hostile attitudes to some of these less virulent Jews when they attempt to go after the likes of Kevin MacDonald which, for example, Auster and Mercer have done—both of whom represent less virulent strains of Jews.  This is the kind of hostility expressed in a tense relationship one is attempting to maintain—not the kind of hostility that necessarily leads to silence and war.

Posted by James Bowery on April 21, 2007, 12:45 PM | #

One answer might be, “That’s none of our concern, just get them out of here:  by attacking us they’ve made their bed, now let them sleep in it.”

Agreed—it should not be upon the nations victimized by Jews to be tolerant nor nuanced but the reality is virulence is a vital threat and the “should” vs “should not” simply doesn’t apply.

One cannot reason with Jews as a group.  It is a group organism with specific metabolic pathways vitiating our nations.

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 21, 2007, 04:26 PM | #

James,

My comment wasn’t necessarily directed towards you and most of the bloggers on this site, although there is a few. It was specifically directed towards those who attack Jewish influence in both the West while simultaneously attacking the existence of the state of Israel. It seems that those types want to the Jews to be anywhere but their own countries, and anywhere but Israel, and anywhere… well, they don’t want them anywhere on the planet, it seems. And that’s why I get the “exterminated” part from.

Now on to other commenters:

Has he said his ethnicity, does anyone know?  Is he the one who signed as “Yawnnn” recently in the Jesse Owens thread?

No, I’m certainly not Yawnnn, nor do I even know who that person is. My ethnicity is Nordic.

I’d also like to see it if any of the site’s non-blogging regular commenters advocated it (regulars, not trolls here in transit).

There’s Braun and Stuka, for starts, and then there’s Wintermute.

Zionism is wrong?  One answer might be, “That’s none of our concern, just get them out of here:  by attacking us they’ve made their bed, now let them sleep in it.” That would be a legitimate answer but the WN answering that way who also condemns Zionism and the state of Israel is in effect consigning the Jews to non-existence

That is my point.

I think the lack of an explicit answer to that question may be what Casual Observer means when he says “people here want the extermination of the Jews”

Never said anything like that. There are a few who that could probably be said for, like Friedrich, but otherwise, no, I never said that.

Casual Observer, in addition to all the good done Euro societies by the presence of Jews, is there bad done?

I think every ethnic group in the West, including Jews, have done bad. The seemingly perpetual leftist tendencies of most Western Jews (although Israeli Jews continue to move to the right more and more) is most annoying.

Casual Observer, please offer your solution and state your ethnicity.

Nordic. My solution? I don’t support kicking Jews out of the West simply on the basis of their Jewish ethnicity. I do support those who want to create a white-only state in Europe, say in Norway or Finland, or even outside Europe, like New Zealand. A “white Israel,” if you may.

If just one thing’s been crystal-clear among all MR.com’s expressions of opinion about the Jews it’s been the assertion that when Jews acquire political power or media ownership they use it to harm Euro society (harming in some ways pretty gravely — mortally, in fact).  Yet Casual Observer leaves that part out, preferring to act as though (see his “victim’s-perspective” wording, above) our concerns in this regard represented “anti-Semitism” or something.

If there’s a problem, what’s your solution? I’ve offered mine, but none of you have the guts to offer yours.

Posted by a Finn on April 21, 2007, 05:10 PM | #

It seems to me that a Casual Observer follows the usual tactic of the jews. Either unsubstanciated hysterical false claims or silence and not answering. Trying to have reasonable conversation with them about the most important things is like whispering to the moon and expecting conversation. We should altogether cease trying to talk with them about these matters and talk between ourselves. If we answer some of their claims, we should not expect conversation or reasonable conversation. With jews we can talk when it is necessary in our businesses, officially, in small talk, when we have some goal to reach, in legal matters, in technical matters etc. That is enough.

Even if they would talk reasonably with us about these matters, their speechs benefit to us would be negligible and full of jewish twists.

Posted by a Finn on April 21, 2007, 06:15 PM | #

Ok. a Casual Observer answered at the same time I had the answering page waiting. If a C.O. is really Nordic and it is possible, there are many things to consider. As Nordics have faced only little ethnic competition in their daily lives, much less than say Americans, they are more gullible than average Americans about these matters. Also, specifically, they have little knowledge or contact with jews. Nordics have a tendency to be moral radiators, who want to emit their “goodness” to the environment for all to see. So this might have also underlying aspect: “Look how good solution I am advocating to all equally and equitably, being morally superior to you.”

Having lived in Nordic country all my life, I say this to Americans; You don’t have almost anything to learn from ethnic competition or jews from the average Nordics, nationalists included. In these matters you are highly superior. It is the ugly truth for us Nordics.

Reading here the postings and comments, reasonable person understand speedily, that the official line here is not extermination or holocaust. Occasional trolls does not matter. People certainly can make a question about Naturei Karta to other writer without advocating non-existence of Israel. Or are Naturei Karta magic words? When said, political stance is magically determined to be holocaust.

I don’t know anybody here who would have called in to question Israel’s existence or criticized Israel much. Our Western cultures, peoples and nations face constant intense criticism. In some aspects it is needed but in many matters it has gone to excesses. Still reasonable critique is necessary. Yet when the slightest criticism is said about jews or Israel, the usual choir starts to sing about holocaust and extermination. Also every word is interpreted in tortured, artificial, malicious and false way. There is something seriously wrong here. If you a nationalist, a C.O, why do you do that?

Posted by Guessedworker on April 21, 2007, 06:17 PM | #

I agree with Fred.  The evidence of Jewish good faith towards us would need to be ten miles thick before I will believe that the guilt-tripping of whites and the cosmopolitanising of white society are things of the past.

Jews, in any case, are not badly off home-wise.  They have two, the second being New York.  Then they could always add interesting places like Joburg and Rio to that.

Posted by ben tillman on April 21, 2007, 06:59 PM | #

The singular feature of Jews is inassimilability, except some do assimilate. But then they stop being Jewish and identifying as Jewish. Bringing us back to square one.

I like the way you put that.

Posted by john rackell on April 21, 2007, 07:12 PM | #

dissimulatibilty? the singular feature.

Posted by James Bowery on April 21, 2007, 07:23 PM | #

GW writes: Jews, in any case, are not badly off home-wise.  They have two, the second being New York.

Well the real problem is making sure Jews having an environment for which they are solely responsible (parasitism is not an option within the territory) and ensuring that they aren’t present where they are unwelcome (so only willing hosts are parasitized).  Israel’s existence potentially advances both of these noble ambitions.

Posted by JB on April 21, 2007, 10:01 PM | #

A Finn : can you tell us more about the media mogul John Denugent is talking about in this interview ?

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/eu_inventing_new_crime_category_holocaust_trivializing/#c42860

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 22, 2007, 12:50 AM | #

If a C.O. is really Nordic and it is possible, there are many things to consider. As Nordics have faced only little ethnic competition in their daily lives, much less than say Americans

You asked me for my ethnicity, not my nationality. My ethnicity is Nordic, my nationality is American; and proudly so.

Posted by a Finn on April 22, 2007, 01:16 AM | #

Aatos Erkko is the owner of many media and other companies. He is a billionaire and the richest man in Finland. He is a soft but slack liberal, and his political stance shows in his companies. He decided the close Eu vote in Finland by blatantly campaigning with his medias for joining the Eu. Finland’s largest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat is the most opposed media by nationalists along with Yle, the state owned tv and radio company. He owns a private airport and airplanes there. Aatos Erkko is one fourth part jewish, and it is said, that this has had strong influence on him politically. He is a member of the Bilderberg group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aatos_Erkko

Some articles:

http://virtual.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=8839&group=Business

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Dr+Aatos+Erkko+criticises+Finnish+foreign+policy+as+inflexible/1101979670224

http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20030103IE11

English edition of the Helsingin Sanomat in the web. I haven’t read this english version much, but what I have seen seems to indicate that Finnish version is much worse. Many of it’s editors are part of liberal and leftist networks:

http://www.hs.fi/english/

Tv channel four, mostly entertainment, political stance slightly better than Helsingin Sanomat’s, probably because of slightly better editors and tough economic competition, not an political endorsement in any way, though. It’s entertainment contains the worst degenerate major media filth in Finland. They have among other things The filth thursday with special programs. There is also normal entertainment and programs:

http://www.nelonen.fi/

Daily tabloid, gossip, news etc. Slightly better politically than HS due to the same reasons than in Nelonen. Bad paper still:

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/

Book publisher Wsoy. Books vary politically (when it’s part of the content) from wretched to fairly good. The better books has dealt with e.g. communists’ mass murders:

http://www.wsoy.fi/index.jsp;jsessionid=A73DE9370E64D7E6BF56DE2417C7CB8E?c=company&english=true&id=85

Picture of Aatos Erkko:

http://www.hs.fi/english/picture/1101980851364

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 22, 2007, 07:38 PM | #

What is your religion and the religion of your family background, Casual Observer?  If you’re not Jewish or part-Jewish, what significant personal connection have you had with the Jewish Community?

No matter what I say, it seems, every time I comment my ethnicity, my race, my religion, my ancestry, my relations, will always be questioned. What I think seems to bear less relevancy than my background… it seems that you guys would take a dyed-in-the-wool radical socialist, who wants to exterminate you and everybody else even slightly to the right of him who is 100% non-Jewish European by ancestry and has no Jewish relations and wants to see Israel obliterated by the Muslims, more seriously than a right-winger, who is 100% non-Jewish European by ancestry and actually has some sympathies for Jews and wants to save the West.

I profess no specific religion but my family is composed of Christians. I have many friends who are Jews and I strongly support the state of Israel. I realize that last statement is the most damnable part of my character, regardless of the fact that I support various European nationalist causes.

And yes, Area 51 does exist, although it might not be filled with alien technology, we need more operations like it if we care anything about the survival of the West.

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 22, 2007, 07:44 PM | #

I will add on further note that what groups like [the now-defunct] National Vanguard, National Alliance, European Americans United, Aryan Nations, Institute for Historical Review, do not realize in their anti-Zionism and their support for Iranian positions vis-a-vis Israel is that Israel is the canary in the mine. If anybody reads Islamist propaganda they will see that Muslims consider Israel to be nothing but one head of the European hydra.

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 22, 2007, 08:03 PM | #

On another note, I think this site has lately been too accomodating of those more involved with the world of fantasy than the world of reality… whether it is “national futurists” who glorify football hooligans as somehow being a heroic future warrior class, or “Traditionalists” who reject technology and modernity in favor of some highly romanticized spiritual past that’s of very little interest to anybody.

I thought we were supposed to be realists here… I’m surprised that no one else has raised this objection.

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 22, 2007, 08:17 PM | #

You’re the one who asked me questions, Fred. I answered. If you don’t want answers, don’t ask questions.

Posted by a Finn on April 22, 2007, 10:56 PM | #

To a Casual Observer: If you want rational conversation here, fantasy inferences and imaginary accusations are not the best way to start conversations.

I have said and/or pointed towards quite clearly, that to me national bolshevism is sickening ideology and I will oppose it with everything I have, my life included, if it ever becomes a effective force. Many others have stated their opposition also. That Kai Murros have a better version of it and have some good arguments does not remove his ideology’s fatal flaws. On the other hand it is of course possible that there is some kind of revolution in the future, if present trends continue. If that becomes necessary, I support some nationalist conservative version.

What information I have gathered here, indicates that almost all people here are supportive of technology and development. That includes me also. Possible single comments on this place, where people can fairly freely write does not change that fact.

Muslims are a grave threat to Europe and in the end also to Americans. European nationalists generally understand this better than American nationalists, because there are so many muslims in Europe. People too often concentrate only on what is right in front of their eyes and fail to see long term and large threaths. Reciprocally European nationalists generally don’t understand clearly what are American nationalists reasons to oppose jewish excesses.

I see jews this way. Jews become a pathogens, because we lack normal and healthy immune defenses. I am striving for balance between our communities. If Europeans would have their own separate ethnic genetic groups and normal ethnic competition defenses, jews would become harmless as long as we preserve our separatedness and defenses. It means security to both of our communities and is a platform, to which it is easy to build mutually beneficial co-operation and coalitions.

Is this ok with you?

Posted by A Casual Observer on April 23, 2007, 01:14 AM | #

Fine. You guys keep on yapping about the Jews and how football hooligans and mystics will save the West… 40 years from now, you’ll be the whiners, because you’ll have advanced no further from where you are now and, as usual, you’ll blame your lack of progress on the Jews. Scapegoating others is always easier than looking in the mirror from time to time.

Good bye.

Posted by a Finn on April 23, 2007, 01:34 AM | #

To James Bowery: I make a addition to your virulence theory, just in case.

Less virulent jews are of course better than virulent jews, but in overall situation it does not matter much. Virulence is in addition to inherent qualities and values, a positional and situational quality. If J. Bowery would become a state official, he would in that position of course do everything he can to help our peoples, but he would do it in less conspicious and milder ways than in here. Same way Rubenstein will, regardless what he is thinking inside, behave differently as a immigration critic compared to what he would do if he would be a neoconservative (virulent). Jews, conciously or not, seek their way to almost every movement, even to those, that oppose jews, especially if they perceive those groups a potential threat (jews are hypersensitive in this regard). In every movement jews, almost automatically do the best they can in their position to help jews. In some positions it means only slight twists of truth here and there, in other positions it is almost full power, but always disguised, jewish virulence. So Rubenstein might think: “Ok, I have to give these people lot’s of good stuff, so I can make these few slight but crucial twists here and there.” If he doesn’t think that, he does it anyway and the end result is the same. When estimating end results, it doesn’t also matter much if some less virulent jews really oppose e.g. neocons (virulent) or fake it (ineffective resistance). Less virulent and virulent jews are very rarely diametrically opposed to each other. Their connecting bonds are almost always more important than the differences in their opinions. This shows in the outcomes.

Jewish overall virulence rest as much on these less virulent jews. They are harder to notice. If noticed, there is lot’s of good stuff, which creates an incentive to look away. When observed individually, their negative effect is so small that it does not raise too much concern. Comparison with virulent jews make them more attractive.

Let’s describe time as lines. A is starting point. The more different possible futures differ, the bigger is the angle between the lines and the more far away different possible future points in the line are. Basic line is reality without all the less virulent and virulent jews (1). Second line is reality with all the less virulent jews (2). The angle created between these lines might not be big, and always less than with virulent jews, but the angle is more secure than with the virulent jews. With virulent jews people might do big or even radical corrective measures on the future line. So with less virulent jews, the angle can work a long time, barely noticeable at any given point of time to non-jews. After a long time, the futures between line 1 and line 2 will be radically different. Line 2 might even start to bend away from the line 1, increasing angle and making the futures even more different.

Highly likely the alternative future 2 has negative effects to us, if we don’t have our own ethnic group and use ethnic competition methods.

Virulence’s ebb and flow changes by outside forces, opportunistically and on “have to do” -basis etc. Part of it is planned and coordinated, the whole is just a natural outcome of jewish psychology and culture.

Jews have to be always considered by BOTH the EFFECTS of individuals and group aggregates. Also when individuals are by themselves relatively harmless.

Posted by daniel j on April 23, 2007, 01:40 AM | #

It appears I’m a bit late, but I am a staunch opponent of the State of Israel without popular Palestinian consent.

Having an ethnicity does not entitle to a tract of land, especially a tract of land that you had to ‘cleanse’.

That said, a two state solution is obviously the ‘realist’ response to the current manifestation of Jacob versus Ishmael.

Mr. Observer, do we actually sound like football hooligans?

I think most of us here would agree that sports are the opiate of the masses!

Lastly, I must be honest and admit that I hope to one day wake up to a Jewish Rapture. I can not tell a lie.j

My solution would be banishment of Jews from the practice of law, media ownership, banking, and government positions, but certainly not extermination.

Posted by daniel j on April 23, 2007, 01:43 AM | #

by the way, it is called ‘soccer’!!!

Posted by a Finn on April 23, 2007, 01:59 AM | #

A Casual Observer: “Fine. You guys keep on yapping about the Jews and how football hooligans and mystics will save the West…”

- Realities are not your best side.

“40 years from now, you’ll be the whiners, because you’ll have advanced no further from where you are now and, as usual, you’ll blame your lack of progress on the Jews.
Scapegoating others is always easier than looking in the mirror from time to time.”

- The biggest reason to our current situation is ourselves. Our incorrect thinking and action and our lack of correct thinking and action. I don’t blame us or jews. Reality is what it is and we have to extract the best outcomes from it. Our progress rests on our shoulders, even if others try to prevent us. 40 years from now we will have our ethnic groups and you will be wondering why the democracy didn’t give you what you wanted. 

“Good bye.”

- Goodbye.

Posted by a Finn on April 23, 2007, 02:09 AM | #

One addition: I am not opposed to democracy, it just can’t give us the most important things. We have create and do them by ourselves.

Posted by JB on April 23, 2007, 04:15 PM | #

http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20030103IE11

Erkko emphasises the importance of the position of Parliament. “I am opposed to referendums, because they are not democracy. Power belongs to the Members of Parliament.”

the parliament being more ‘flexible’, more corruptible

Posted by a Finn on April 24, 2007, 03:32 AM | #

JB: “the parliament being more ‘flexible’, more corruptible”

Exactly, people e.g. voted down the new Eu constitution against the will of the “elites”.

Posted by silver on October 03, 2008, 05:14 AM | #

Good-bye and good riddance to bad rubbish!  Come back when you’ve gotten an IQ boost of about 40 points and you decide to actually contribute something to the discussions instead of your current schtick, trying to out-Simon-Wiesenthal Simon Wiesenthal.  Oh and I almost forgot, there’s a perfect web-site for you to go hang around at:  http://www.Arcane’sArseholes.com — check it out:  you’ll think you’ve died and gone to Simon Wiesenthal Heaven, guaranteed!

(God, what a creep this guy is!  Makes my skin crawl just replying to him.  This guy’s such a whining loser he makes The Other Guy look like a veritable stoic!)

What a blithering idiot you are, Scrubby.  And that other crackpot, “aFinn,” too. 

In fact, it pains me to say it, but the whole sorry lot of you are.

The man simply wanted some sort of idea of what you actually plan to do.  Not just high theories of EGI this, Salter said that, MacDonald says, revolutionary conservatism claims, etc ad nauseam.  Provide a fucking example for once in your worthless lives!  Here buddy, this is how something like this could work.  Here’s an example of a separation plan might look like.  Here’s a consideration of some of the practical and moral difficulties involved.  But noooo, anyone who requests something like this is a “filthy creep,” a “whiner,” some entity so “boring” and odious that the very act of replying to it tests your patience to its limits .  Christ your obstinacy is so off the charts it requires medical diagnosis, an object of anthropological curiosity for the ages.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 03, 2008, 08:40 AM | #

I’ve already answered this, Silver:  We stand for ending the current unspeakable civilizational Euro-demographic cataclysm that’s not happening by accident or by some irresitible “force of history” or “force of nature,” but is being deliberately imposed as conscious, carefully chosen governmental policy and is easily reversed and all damage undone easily and humanely, and we have laid out sufficient details of what we’re after to constitute a viable starting point for our position and for taking the next step politically.  That term I just used was starting point, not culmination point.  Culmination points are never reached anyway, since there’s always ongoig tinkering with any system.  We’re at a starting point and in no need of ironing out every single ulterior detail at our present stage.  You have the broad outlines — and not just from us:  there are many voices out there now demanding the same fundamental thing; there must be a hundred times more than just five years ago and I bet that’s no exaggeration.

For the men of 1776 the fine details you demand — the Constitution — lay many years off.  But not the war.  The war was upon them.

The war is upon us.  The Constitution you demand lies many years off.

(Isn’t there some medication you’re supposed to be on, Silver?  Can’t get your prescription filled?)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 03, 2008, 08:53 AM | #

By the way, calling “A Finn” a crackpot when he’s one of a small handful of supremely rational, right-thinking, reasonable, moral, and appropriate minds and one of the most compelling, riveting, educational, and valuable voices posting anywhere on the internet today only underscores your own status as a crackpot.  Now, off to the funny farm with you, Silver, and stop hectoring the men here.