|
|
“Stomp Israel like a bug” (!)Nazism is definitely back. And, just like last time, it is Leftist. Below is a comment by Steve Frank on a post by Taranto covering some of the gibberings appearing on the website of the influential “MoveOn” organization within the American Left “Finally!!! It is no longer the Jews that cause all the problems in the Middle East. No, it is those crazy Christian Zionists!!! Just ask the supporters of MoveOn.org Bigotry and hatred runs rampant among the supporters of MoveOn.org. The leadership could denounce it, stop it, but they don’t. When you read the MoveOn blogs and article, you would think the Ku Klux Klan became socialists and instead of white sheets, they wear the look of fear and hatred. Of course what they really dislike is Freedom—that works against their worldview. If people can make decisions for themselves, then government won’t be needed. But, if you believe people are too stupid to govern themselves, then MoveOn is the place for you. Nothing people eat, drink, learn, say, believe is good enough—only government can shine the light on “Truth”. When you read the pages of MoveOn you see that all the worlds problems start with the Middle East and US foreign policy in support of Israel. I had always thought that the United Nations certified the creation of the State of Israel, but we now know, according to MoveOn supporters that Christian Zionists conspired to create a State just for the purpose of stealing oil. Yet in the almost 60 years of the State of Israel, the US has yet to steal a drop of oil. We even give foreign aid (bribe money) to Egypt, Lebanon and other trouble spots controlled by terrorist groups. Just a reminder of history: When Israel was certified as a State, Jordan offered to take in all the Palestinian Arabs—yet the leadership decided it was better to live in poverty and war, than get an education and success. It was the choice of the forerunners of Hamas and Hezbollah to force the Muslim population in the Middle East to become a warrior class. Now, the new scapegoats are the Christians, never the terrorists. In fact, the whole question of the Middle East to the Left is a cover for their latent anti-Semitism. Remember the father of modern liberalism, Franklin Roosevelt, refused to allow Jews to come into this country from Germany and the rest of Europe. Roosevelt, though he knew about the Holocaust, he said nothing, did nothing, and cared very little. So, the fact that his philosophical grandchildren don’t like Jews and the Christians that support them, is no surprise. Just listen to the words of Kerry, Clinton, Kerry, Schumer, and the others. It is Israel and US foreign policy, not terrorists, that are the problem. If only Israel would give up more land and give up their weapons, the crisis would be averted. This is terrorism, in the name of anti-Semitism, with a compassionate heart. Phooey, these are bigots in the old KKK style. The sooner we admit it, the sooner we can solve the problem. Posted by jonjayray on Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 12:18 AM in Liberalism & the Left Comments:2
Posted by Gaurav Ahuja on September 07, 2006, 02:13 AM | # They are wrong in the sense that it was about oil. Obviously Israel pushed America into war with Iraq and their partisans in America. Those of course are mostly secular Zionist Jews and evangelical, fundamentalist Jews for the most part. Remember that Iraq had fired missiles at Israel. Of course anyone who is a Zionist and is a foreign interventionist would’ve liked to push America into war with Iraq for a second time. And it doesn’t take a genius to realize that the organized Zionist(which is heavily Jewish) is inclined to really push this war. You heard that Saddam was a Hitler. Now Iran’s president is a Hitler. Gees this becomes obvious. Anyway nobody sympathizes with people who kill innocent civilians. Or do you? The Israeli government kills many times more civilians than the Palestinian side and probably the rest of the world’s Muslims put together. And by the way let us not forget suicide bombing has been usually practiced by non Muslims up until recently by Tamil Tigers so let us not be stupid and blame Islam. Political circumstances are the big mover as opposed to virgins in heaven or martydom to get into heaven. I do not want Israeli civilians to die either by the way, but I don’t feel sorry for Israel’s soldiers who push people around and make sure the concentration camps of Gaza and the West Bank are to stay that way. Please stop sympathizing with Israel just because it has a a barely majority White population. 3
Posted by Rnl on September 07, 2006, 02:32 AM | # The blog owner should eject JJR. Some nationalists in the West support Israel. That’s a legitimate position. JJR has, however, picked the stupidest, most ill-informed Zionist rant he could lay his hands on and he has elected to post it in a largely WN forum. He is either too dumb to recognize the errors littering Steve Frank’s rant, or else he is maliciously attempting to generate angry responses. There can’t be any other explanations. 4
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 03:11 AM | # There were Jewish refugees, mostly academics, that were allowed into the United States under FDR. It’s true that Jewish refugees in general were deterred from coming here, but this was largely because of the circumstances of the Great Depression, not any personal animosity towards the Jews on the part of FDR. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2006, 05:05 AM | # This story is a Russian doll. It starts with a plaint about the anti-Jewish feeling of Move-On posters by a man named Goldberg, then gets picked up by Taranto, then Frank and now JJR. Unlike the other three who are defending Jewish interests, JJR’s point is doubtless only to expose the character of the left - it’s parentage of Nazism being a staple of JJR’s output. For me the interesting aspect to the story is not the Nazism thing - which is debatable, to put it mildly - but the steady and ineluctable development of anti-Jewish feeling on the left, its dalliance with Islamists and the effect this is having on Jewish political loyalties. Matra’s recent, very good post about Canada’s left-leaning Jews switching support to Stephen Harper dealt with precisely this. Jewish opinion is waking up to the fact that the post-Iraq left is not a welcome home. Seemingly, the only allies of Israel now are Bushite Republicans and Christian zionists. Well, any disjuncture between Jewish finance and political and intellectual leadership and leftist politics will likely be beneficial for the white American. So the Goldberg/Taranto/Frank bleats are good news, and we want to hear more of them. Notwithstanding the traditional utility of leftism to Diaspora Jews’ ethnic interests, the political right makes more sense to them now. The question is, what effect beyond neo-conservatism will they have on it. 6
Posted by Calvin on September 07, 2006, 05:17 AM | # “Nazism is definitely back. And, just like last time, it is Leftist” Let me get this straight; Nazism is evil because it is “leftist”and all things leftist are evil. If leftism is evil why pick on the least obviously leftist mass movement of the twentieth century to become the symbol of leftist evil? Why not pick Communism? Communism is far more evil and far more obviously leftist. The Communists also persecuted Jews, or at leat that’s the basis of the standard refutation of the allegation that Communism was a Jewish movement Why not say, “Bolshevism” is back? Could it posssibly be something to do with the specifically European nature of Nazism? No Asiatic branch members, no Jewish founding fathers? This whole post just sounds like Zion lashing out at its traditional enemies. The KKK even get thrown in to the mix. “I had always thought that the United Nations certified the creation of the State of Israel” “Certified” the creation. They didn’t dream it up, they didn’t fund it and they don’t fight wars on its behalf. “Roosevelt, though he knew about the Holocaust, he said nothing, did nothing, and cared very little” Sounds a lot like Churchill, who failed to dwell on the holocaust in his memoirs. Maybe they both knew something about the holocaust? “Phooey, these are bigots in the old KKK style” How many people did the KKK actually kill? I mean, in comparison to Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao or the street gangs of modern America even? Once again, if its evil its got to be White. 7
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 05:34 AM | #
The so-called “Jewish Right,” or the neoconservatives, are just as loathsome, if not more so, than their brethren on the “Jewish Left.” In some respects, this is even worse for us, as the neocons actively repress what residual racialist sentiment remains within in the conservative movement. Ever browse FreeRepublic? The “Jewish Right” hangs out there. I am sure American paleoconservatives will be more than happy to tell you about what Jewish infiltration ultimately did to National Review. The “Jewish Right” and “Jewish Left” share the same views on most social domestic issues. The only real difference is that the former are warmongers whereas the latter, to their credit, are not. The only sensible policy for white racialist organizations, in light of experience, is judenrein. If individual Jews want to cooperate with such organizations on a guest or consultant basis, I have no objection to that. 8
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 06:01 AM | # Excellent post, JJR, and must reading for the WN ‘faction’ among the MR readership, 9
Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2006, 06:05 AM | # Daedalus, I am not arguing that Jews on “the right” are less inimical to their host. Expanding the argument slightly, there are two aspects to it:- 1) The sustaining ideology of anti-white leftism has been almost entirely authored by Jews. Will a less Hebreic left leave a space for new ideas from other sources ... perhaps sources less committed to the very damaging and influential hegemonic model of white oppression? 2) If Jews are forced rightwards, as seems to be the case, how will they re-form the right to their own purposes? Bushite neoconservatism looks pretty busted to me. If, unlike Kerry, the next Democrat candidate offers a better alternative to global democratisation, Iraq and a permanent War on Terror that’s pretty much the end of the neocon show, isn’t it? The geological plates are shifting. White racialist organisations won’t benefit directly from that, of course. But the white American might. 10
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 06:40 AM | # “Once again, if its evil its got to be White.” Yes. Welcome to “Majority Rights.” 11
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 06:42 AM | # “Schumer, and the others” Yes, Chuckie is an anti-Semitic Nazi. More, please, 12
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 06:44 AM | #
JJR’s output is usually indistinguishable from a White House press release. 1.) Miscegenation is wonderful. It’s only a matter of time before he starts rambling more mindless nonsense about “Islamofascism” or how we must “stay the course” in Iraq. I’m still not sure why he is a writer here. Nothing in his posts indicate that he has the slightest interest in racial preservation or anything insightful to say about the subject. His chortling over his son’s interracial partnership (which he dedicated an entire thread to, no less) removed any lingering doubt I had about that. I’m growing more convinced that it is a status thing. These constant posts about Nazis, WORKING CLASS people (his emphasis), and the joy of miscegenation are JJR’s way of saying that he is a bourgeois, not a lower class white racist. This indicates to me, along with his conservative politics (that is, neoliberalism) and obsession with economics, that JJR is actually a man of modest means insecure about his social status. I’m positive that I come from a wealthier family than JJR, but my own personal wealth is not really important to my sense of identity. I find this is usually true of my peers. Isn’t JJR a psychologist? He should know then that conservatism is negatively correlated with above average intelligence. Bright people are typically altruists who yearn to help others. This is why so many of them become, god forbid, LEFTISTS. In JJR’s world, social progress, along with racial solidarity, is something we should be opposed to. It makes sense when you think about it: by raising the socioeconomic status of lower class whites or evaluating them positively as our racial brethren, JJR’s sense of being a socially privileged bourgeois is thereby diminished; hence his constant rants about LEFTISM, BLACKS, and the WORKING CLASS, all of whom contribute to his anxiety as a beleagured middle class Australian. 13
Posted by Jeugenics on September 07, 2006, 06:44 AM | # I do believe the “permanent global domination” theme of neoconservatism is the final stage. And no, neoconservatism is *not* failing; the whimpering of a few powerless activists doesn’t resonate in the halls of power. In the USA the neoconservatives are secure in power, their associates substantially wealthier, their control over both parties tight. So, Jews are not pushed “right” or “left” in the USA; David Brooks (Jewish neoconservative authoring for the NY Times) essentially stated in an editorial that they (neocons/Jewry) will maintain a rough parity between the parties so as to play them off for maxiumum advantage, i.e. logroll. A possible illustration is the plan to shift a dozen or two seats to make a Democratic majority in the House so that their massive immigration bill will pass by next spring. 14
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 07:25 AM | #
True. I think you are overestimating the salience of divisions like “Left” and “Right” to Jewish politics though. A migration of Jews from the “Left” to the “Right” will do nothing to mitigate their influence in the academic world where they are most destructive. It would simply entail a rise of ethnic consciousness on their part, and a new willingness to support an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East. Would a new Left perhaps be less accomodating to Jewish interests? I doubt that would be the case. First, the Jews own the Democratic Party; they account for more than half of financial contributions. Second, there has been no perceptible shift of Jewish support from the Democrats to the Republicans. Ultimately, American Jewry is more committed to radical social politics than to Israel. Neocons have been predicting such a shift for years now and every election it fails to materialize. In fact, American Jews are prominent in the anti-war movement. Third, a migration of Jews to the Right, even only a small number, would only entail a marginalization of prowhite voices there. Just look at what has already happened to Pat Buchanan.
Many Jews have already done just that: Irving and William Kristol, Norman and John Podhoretz, David Horowitz, Dennis Praeger, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Ben Sharpiro. Aside from Horowitz, are any of these people even slightly pro-white? I haven’t seen any evidence that Jews are leaning conservative because the opposition of the Left to the Iraq War. Most American Jews oppose the war. The neocons are a minority amongst American Jews. Aside from the Orthodox minority, Jews care more about social issues like stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, and civil rights than Israel in their politics. They are the inverse of the Christian Right; the most consistently liberal group in the United States. Conservatives have a much better chance of picking up votes amongst Negroes and Hispanics than Jews.
White Americans will benefit from the decline of the Jews in absolute numbers, not from change amongst Jews in their foreign policy preferences. Fortunately, the high rate Jewish exogamy and their stagnating birth rate should reduce Jewish influence in our culture over the next fifty years. That will probably open up new opportunities for white racialists. 15
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 08:00 AM | # “JJR’s output is usually indistinguishable from a White House press release. 1.) Miscegenation is wonderful. ... I’m still not sure why he is a writer here. Nothing in his posts indicate that he has the slightest interest in racial preservation or anything insightful to say about the subject. His chortling over his son’s interracial partnership (which he dedicated an entire thread to, no less) removed any lingering doubt I had about that. “ Which is precisely why JJR should be encouraged to post here. With an analogy to WWII, JJR is like Italy, or France. A minor irritant, but a weak link by which the more destructive forces can be diminished as a threat to white survival. More posts, JJR, more posts. 16
Posted by Calvin on September 07, 2006, 08:24 AM | # People who refuse to support Israel tend to be liberals; liberalism is a form of leftism; Nazism was a leftist belief system; leftism is liberalism; liberalism is Nazism; Nazism is evil; people who refuse to support Israel are “evil. That’s not an argument. That is mental flatulence. You’ve got the whole liberal Bush hating gang shouting “Fascist” at the neo-cons and the neo-cons yelling back “Nazis” at the liberals. My dad’s bigger than your dad! The sophistication of cognitive elitism’s uberbrains is a wonder to behold. 17
Posted by rustymason on September 07, 2006, 08:40 AM | # Ha, I did it again! I said, What?! This looks like more nonsense from JJR. I’m batting 1.000 so far. 18
Posted by Steve Edwards on September 07, 2006, 09:16 AM | # JJR is doing a magnificent job. More! 19
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 09:56 AM | # I find the liberals more respectable than the conservatives. The two sides are a wash on my top three issues: race, third world immigration, and affirmative action. The conservatives do more than to sustain all of these things by refusing to fight than the liberals do by pushing these issues. An analogy can be drawn to warfare. Conservatives have the support of whites males who are still the dominant group in American society. They hold the tactical high ground. If the conservatives would hold their ground and wave the bloody shirt, the left would be stopped in its tracks. Instead, they retreat again and again and lose us precious time as the demographic balance of the country swings against us. So, the left continues to win battles, and moves further to the left, precisely because conservatives don’t have the stomach to change our policies. Unlike the conservatives, liberals at least have some redeemable points in their favor. There is strong opposition on the left to the War in Iraq and further crusades in the Middle East. Leftists are much more willing to reign in Israel. They support science and stem cell research whereas conservatives are still mentally in the Dark Ages over evolution. Liberals are better on the environment and more supportive of conservation. They are far better on economic issues than conservatives: less willing to coddle multinational corporations, less enthusiastic about free trade, less willing to gut social security, more concerned about poverty and other issues like student loans and millions of Americans lacking health insurance. 20
Posted by dchamil on September 07, 2006, 10:04 AM | # Daedalus (7:11 am) is right, a number of academic Jews were allowed to come to America to escape Hitler, although apparently not as many as John Jay Ray would prefer. Examples are Albert Einstein, Stanislaw Ulam, Abraham Pais, and there were others. All of these contributed to the Manhattan project. Enrico Fermi, a leader in the Manhattan project, was not Jewish, but his wife was. 21
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 10:12 AM | # Ludwig von Mises, Eric Voegelin, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Löwenthal, Erich Fromm. There were more, but their names elude me at the moment. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2006, 10:51 AM | # Daedalus, That is a very good snapshot of the political zeitgeist. I often bang on about this, so I apologise if you’ve heard me say it before. But two factors (at least) are required to complete the picture, IMO. 1) It is in the nature of liberalism to migrate leftward, not merely because since the mid-19th century Jewish philosophy has so consistently lit the path but because human freedom in its highest sense is not available in the worldly realm of personality upon which politics acts. Each failure to find freedom leads only to the desire for renewed search. This is what Jewish political philosophy has so brilliantly exploited. 2) Conservatism is not practised anywhere in modern Western politics and has never been practised in the US. It is extanct today only as a vague, anti-liberal pull. To find the real thing you must go back into British history, beyond 1832. For a period of not much more than half a century it operated as a complete zeitgeist in which Whig was sometimes more Conservative than Tory. It was killed off by the enfranchisement of the working class on an OMOV basis - and OMOV is the beast to be slaughtered if liberalism, its natural consequence, is to brought to a much-deserved end. 23
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 10:58 AM | # To add more fuel to the fire, I’ll say I got a -6.5 on the economic portion of the “Political Compass.” I am, therefore, an evil leftist. 24
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 11:00 AM | # ” and OMOV is the beast to be slaughtered if liberalism, its natural consequence, is to brought to a much-deserved end. “ Will the ‘masses’ give up the vote voluntarily? Therefore, you are left with either societal collapse, civil war, or a “revolution from above.” Which is it? 25
Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2006, 11:04 AM | # You are left with an expansion of the vote, JW. We discussed it yesterday. 26
Posted by rustymason on September 07, 2006, 11:06 AM | # JJR, I’ve just reread the posted story and I must say that I am filled to busting with grief and White guilt for my war crimes. My ancestors were such inhuman beasts for not protecting the Chosen Ones. Woe is me, my anti-Semitism haunts me so. White guilt, heavy, heavy guilt. Oh, the shame of it. Just kidding! Terrorists? What a insultingly stupid, meaningless label for the Muslims who attack us. Terrorism is a method of fighting. What good is your doctorate, Doctor, if you can’t even make simple distinctions like this? JJR wrote: Does any thinking person actually believe these lies anymore? JJR, there is a very good reason that millions of intelligent people around the world don’t like organized Jewry. Using the anti-Semite label is not an argument, it’s just name-calling. It declares that no one has any right to criticize Jews, an incredibly arrogant position. “Dr.” John Ray? Pllllleeeeease. Perhaps FDR ignored the Holocaust(TM) as did every historian and politician for a very good reason: the official Holocaust(TM) story is fiction, created after the war by stitching together unrelated facts and ridiculous rumors and Jewish propoganda. “Holyhoax” is a more descriptive name for the “event.” Your “Dr.” isn’t worth the electrons it takes to display it. It is becoming more acceptable, on the left and the right, for Whites to openly admit that they are wearying of carrying the Jew’s water. More are wise to organized Jewry and they are realizing that the phrase, “Juden Raus!” makes more sense than originally advertised. Keep shoving that holohoax in our faces and I think you’ll see what we mean. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2006, 11:20 AM | # Rusty, JJR didn’t write that. A jewish journalist by the name of Steve Frank wrote it. Or perhaps its was Taranto. Or perhaps it was the other one. But who cares ... always providing you see that it’s a cut ‘n paste job of no worth in its own right. 28
Posted by rustymason on September 07, 2006, 11:24 AM | # Yes, I know, but he posted it and obviously approves of it. 29
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 11:35 AM | # “You are left with an expansion of the vote, JW. We discussed it yesterday.” Yes, but the problem remains. *How* will you change it? Will the folks who will be relatively less-enfranchised by such a change support it in the last OMOV election? Or, will the masses be swayed by ‘populist’ demagogues who will preach to the Tarzans that supercillious effete academics and property owners will be unfairly gifted with additional votes? One can expect the quotes from “Animal Farm” - all voters are equal but some are more equal than others. I suspect people, being as they are, would rather have *no* voting, than a system where some are “unfairly” given more votes than others. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2006, 12:36 PM | # Reforming governments don’t often come to power with all the measures and consequences of their programme laid out in their manifesto (which no one reads anyway). The Blair government came in airily singing “Things Can Only Get Better”, and opened the borders within weeks. Ordinary white voters liked the song, no doubt, but who among them voted for a minority-white capital city? Getting elected is one thing. Delivering the desired ethnographic outcome is another. As I said on Alex’s Swiss thread, my concern is that the will of the people will not, on fact, be sufficiently steadfast. It will likely have to be supported in some way. Weighting the vote on other moral bases than egalitarianism is not wrong or unfair, and certainly more likely to produce a more amenable and, most important, more stable solution than a dictatorship, however benign. 31
Posted by Delmore Macnamara on September 07, 2006, 12:50 PM | # “Or, will the masses be swayed by ‘populist’ demagogues who will preach to the Tarzans that supercillious effete academics and property owners will be unfairly gifted with additional votes? “ I am afraid that my mind has been corrupted by Steve Bell such that “Tarzan” in a political context always and forever denotes the evil Michael Heselstine. What do you mean by the term, Mr. Holliday? 32
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 12:53 PM | #
In a sense, yes. The meaning of “freedom” and “equality” has been utterly transformed since the American Revolution. The same is true of democracy. In fact, I have been reading a book about this over the past few days. The Federalists were already denouncing Jefferson and his followers in the 1790s as being radical Jacobins out to subvert the Republic. Contemporary America would be unrecognizable to even the most radical of the Jeffersonians who merely wanted to expand the franchise amongst white men. Perhaps the most penetrating analysis of the race problem and its relationship to liberalism I have read yet is Philip Klinker and Rogers Smith’s The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of Racial Equality in America. Klinker and Smith make the crucial observation that American history hasn’t been an inexorable march towards racial equality. On the contrary, American racial attitudes have tended to wax and wane; brief episodes of egalitarianism have given way to long term retrenchment. The brief flirtations with expanding the meaning of equality has come only when three factors have concurred: “1.) in the wake of a large-scale war requiring extensive economic and military mobilization of African Americans for success; The three examples given are the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Second World War/Cold War. In the aftermath of the Revolution, slavery was abolished in New England and free blacks were given voting rights in many cases, indeed, even in Southern states like North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Eventually, the egalitarian spirit of the Revolution waned and gave way to the Antebellum period in which slavery hardened in the South and the North constructed its own Jim Crow regime. The Antebellum period ended with the Civil War and was followed by Reconstruction. During Reconstruction, blacks were given citizenship, voting rights, full civil rights, and were even protected by anti-discrimination legislation in the various civil rights acts of the period. There was nothing particularly new in the fifties and sixties that had not been tried before. Eventually, Southerners overthrew Reconstruction which gave way to Jim Crow America. Jim Crow grew more elaborate right down until the 1930s. Jim Crow America ended with the Second World War. The war against Nazism reinvigorated egalitarianism and delegitimized racialism. This was exacerbated by the Cold War against the Soviet Union where international considerations factored heavily into the support of the U.S. federal government for desegregation which finally began to wane around the time of Détente during the late Nixon administration and was eliminated with the breakup of the USSR in 1992. Klinker and Smith argue that we are now in a transition to a new, as yet undefined period like the Antebellum Era or Jim Crow in which enthusiasm for racial equality is waning.
“Conservatism” in America means neoliberal politics. A “conservative” in the U.S. is a classical liberal who rejects the reform liberalism of the New Deal. The debate between “liberals” and “conservatives” is a debate within liberalism. You’re right. “Conservatism” in the traditional (non-American) sense of the word, say, old style German conservatism is something else altogether. When I speak of “conservatism,” that’s not what I am referring to. America hasn’t always been a liberal country. Most people are unaware of this. The United States was founded as a republic, not a democracy. The Founders were proud republicans. They spoke of liberity and equality, but they were doing so within the framework of republican political theory which departs from liberalism in many important ways. “Liberty” had previously meant the capacity for self government, not the mere absence of restraint. It was John Stuart Mill who gave liberty its modern meaning towards the mid-nineteenth century. 33
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 01:09 PM | # An inspiring story of how things can change. We have redeemed our society from this madness before. We can do it again.
34
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 01:25 PM | # “I am afraid that my mind has been corrupted by Steve Bell such that “Tarzan” in a political context always and forever denotes the evil Michael Heselstine. What do you mean by the term, Mr. Holliday?” Crude, bravado-spewing, Bush-worshiping, “smash the ragheads”, IDF all the way, “rightist” “conservative” armchair generals. “Weighting the vote on other moral bases than egalitarianism is not wrong or unfair, and certainly more likely to produce a more amenable and, most important, more stable solution than a dictatorship, however benign.” Good luck with that. 35
Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2006, 01:46 PM | # JW, America is large and has space aplenty to accomodate a white ethnostate if that is what enough people want. But in England, as in most European countries, we don’t have the luxury of space. We have to operate through the agency of an elected government. Let us suppose that there was a such a serious terrorist outrage accompanied by so little desire among the major parties to address the enemy within that, out of the blue, the BNP rose like a rocket and won a Westminster election. How many subsequent terms would it win? How many years will it take to discharge from our society liberalism’s many precious gifts and change the public mind in a really fundamental way? Because we are used to dealing with ultimate and proximate values it does not follow that so too are our countrymen. The economy may falter under the stresses of change. The liberal world without may make horrible threats. The ultimate may become confused with the proximate and, eventually, judged less important. And all that may come to pass in only one governing term. Changing the franchise to favour BNP objectives and the party’s chance of re-election would be among the first acts of a wise nationalist government. Otherwise “good luck with that” really would be a fitting valediction. 36
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 07, 2006, 02:20 PM | #
Yes. My guess is the best strategy would be to STFU, start grooming schools for attractive white bimbos and train them in how to find and secure jewish mates. 37
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 02:37 PM | # The “British” government would likely ban the BNP if there was the slightest chance of victory, and the benumbed massed would go along with that, as long as there was some “tough-talking” “conservative” Tory to hoodwink them, once again. Didn’t Thatcher orginally run on an immigration reform platform, with some National Front bozos thinking “we won”, the same as what some KKK chapters did in November 1980, with Raygun? Do not underestimate the skill of the establishment and the stupidity of the masses. Granted, at least in the UK, you do have something like the BNP. Do all you can to enhance balkanization. The BNP should make free speech a key issue, equal to immigration. When I suggested the same to certain members of the Vlaams Blok, I was “blown off.” Who was this stupid American telling *us* what we should do? Shortly thereafter, the party was effectively banned and had to be reformed as Vlaams Belang - ready for the next ban. Guys: if it is illegal to talk honestly about issues X,Y, Z, don’t expect to win elections about X,Y,Z. 38
Posted by On Holliday on September 07, 2006, 03:19 PM | # My advice to the BNP (‘damn bloody Yank, what does he know?”) would be two-fold: 1.Make free speech an integral part of what the party stands for. It won’t be possible to achieve your goals if discussing those goals is itself, essentially, illegal or at best borderline legal. If even the Guardian will run an article criticizing speech laws (which I read recently, and was it mentioned on this blog as well?), then this is an issue which can resonate among varied groups. And, if the EU’s laws come up in this context, that can reach out to the anti-EU sentiment as well. 2. Within the context of the laws that do, unfortunately, exist now, emphasize less the “negative” (speeches that can be construed as attacks on Islam, etc. – although the Islamic issue needs be raised, somehow) and more the “positive” – the BNP’s commitment to defend the rights and interests of the native ethnies of the British Isles, including the right not to be demographically displaced. This can be aimed at the establishment as “the enemy”, for allowing the immigrants, rather than to the immigrants themselves per se, and can introduce Salterian concepts, gradually, starting with analogies to family and kin. A change of emphasis away from, “look how bad *they* are”, to “we have specific ethnic rights and interests and regardless of what we may think of the immigrants, this is the native land of the indigenous British peoples, and we have the right to it, just as other people have the right to their own lands.” I am NOT saying to ditch the “look at the problems immigrants bring” rhetoric entirely, or even to decrease it to a *large* degree – to the extent that discussing those issues is legal in the UK , they are of course powerful motivating factors for the average voter. What I am saying though is to do a bit less of that, and a bit more of the “we don’t hate anyone, and we don’t say all immigrants are bad, but we have our own interests and, good or bad, the immigrants are harming our interests” type rhetoric as well. Together with the free speech issue, it can put the establishment on the defensive. 39
Posted by Desmond Jones on September 07, 2006, 03:44 PM | # An interesting piece, IMO, apparentlyfrom a BNP supporter;
40
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 04:07 PM | #
I never said I approved of intermarriage. I don’t. It will probably be easier to deal with mischlings than full blooded Jews though. Arthur Jensen, for example, is such a quarter Jew. 41
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 04:19 PM | #
There is always the boycott. 42
Posted by Daedalus on September 07, 2006, 04:28 PM | # JJR might find this useful in his campaign against LEFTISM.
43
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 07, 2006, 04:43 PM | #
I know. That was my tuppence. 44
Posted by john ray on September 07, 2006, 05:22 PM | # “Isn’t JJR a psychologist? He should know then that conservatism is negatively correlated with above average intelligence” The reverse is true: 45
Posted by john ray on September 07, 2006, 05:31 PM | # “Let us suppose that there was a such a serious terrorist outrage accompanied by so little desire among the major parties to address the enemy within that, out of the blue, the BNP rose like a rocket and won a Westminster election. “ In that case the other parties would move close to BNP policies. It’s already happening. 46
Posted by Guessedworker on September 07, 2006, 05:50 PM | # In that case the other parties would move close to BNP policies. It’s already happening. Naturally. But there is a crunch point. Among liberals of left and right the MultiCult is sacrosanct and whatever “harsh” new immigration controls and “demanding” new nationality questionaires they introduce will, ultimately, always be crafted to protect it from the designs of nationalists. Still, the MultiCult will continue to spell displacement, replacement and deracination for an increasingly nationalist-minded white working class. So the question that must be asked is the one main parties don’t want to face: If mass immigration doesn’t work why is it necessarily permanent? 47
Posted by Rnl on September 07, 2006, 06:17 PM | # Guessedworker wrote: JJR’s point is doubtless only to expose the character of the left - it’s parentage of Nazism being a staple of JJR’s output. In other words, you have concluded that JJR is dumb, not malicious. That’s the charitable interpretation. Nazism is definitely back. And, just like last time, it is Leftist. (JJR) The evidence that “Nazism is definitely back,” and growing rapidly among the brown-shirted supporters of Clinton and Schumer, turns out to be a few posts on a free-speech forum run by a liberal Jew, who doubtless keeps a copy of _Mein Kampf_ beneath his pillow. For me the interesting aspect to the story is not the Nazism thing - which is debatable, to put it mildly - but the steady and ineluctable development of anti-Jewish feeling on the left, its dalliance with Islamists and the effect this is having on Jewish political loyalties. Matra’s recent, very good post about Canada’s left-leaning Jews switching support to Stephen Harper dealt with precisely this. So, again taking the charitable interpretation, the dumbest writer on the MR blog has inadvertently stumbled into a truth (a well-established truth, of course) which one of the smartest writers had already discussed. Wouldn’t it be better just to eject the dumb writer? After all, the truths he inadvertently stumbles into, truths he only arrives at accidentally and doesn’t himself acknowledge, have already been thoughtfully examined by others. He is bringing nothing good which you didn’t already have, but his manner of bringing good, in this case via a childish rant littered with historical errors and truly laughable political analysis, lowers the quality of your blog. Here’s the uncharitable interpretation. JJR is far less intelligent than he imagines himself, but not as dumb as he appears. With his current post he was hoping to generate dozens of enraged rebuttals and some low-grade anti-Semitism of the “kill the Jews” variety. He finds that entertaining. He failed, but that’s what he was aiming for. He was not, it should be unnecessary to mention, really trying to show that “nazism is definitely back.” 48
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 07, 2006, 09:35 PM | # Btw, the idea that the U.S. could stomp Israel like a bug is a bit naive. Our government is so thoroughly penetrated by Israel-sympathizers that we could do nothing without the Israelis having forewarning; a couple of sayanim with nukes could do a lot of damage, never mind what nuclear-tipped cruise missles could do to our power-projection capabilities. 49
Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 05:36 AM | # “Wouldn’t it be better just to eject the dumb writer? After all, the truths he inadvertently stumbles into, truths he only arrives at accidentally and doesn’t himself acknowledge, have already been thoughtfully examined by others. He is bringing nothing good which you didn’t already have, but his manner of bringing good, in this case via a childish rant littered with historical errors and truly laughable political analysis, lowers the quality of your blog.” Rnl, this depends on what you think, on balance, of the non-JJR components of this blog. If you think it positive, you’d want JJR’s pernicious influence removed. On the other hand, if you think the non-JJR component is a net negative, you’d want JJR to post as much as possible, for obvious reasons. More JJR posts please. 50
Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 05:44 AM | # “The reverse is true: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/rudin.html” It may just be that the “study” is poorly written (which would not be surprising given the intellectual deficiencies of one of the authors), but it seems to say, toward the end, that a higher F score is both positively correlated to conservatism while being negatively correlated to intelligence. Now, IF that is what the authors meant - and is not due to their butchered writing style - then one wonders how conservatism is linked to high intelligence. Of course, the whole distinction between “rational” and “irrational” authoritarianism seems a bit vague and subjective, and never mind that one is hard-pressed to find a reasonable connection between any sort of authoritarianism and libertarianism - unless, as James suggests, it is hypocrisy to protect personal property rights. The most direct way to study the question is to measure IQ of persons of different political persuasions, and have that done by *competent* social scientists (if such exists). 51
Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 05:50 AM | # “In that case the other parties would move close to BNP policies. It’s already happening.” What the good Dr. Ray neglects to mention in his “all’s OK, just vote conservative” mindset is that this movement would be cosmetic only - the establishment parties have NO intention whatsoever of actually following through on *any* policies consistent, even partially, with the BNP’s own policies. It is election-time veneer only. Once the “conservatives” have safely drained the voting support from the BNP, they’ll be the first ones at the airport, groveling before the brown immigrants and promising larger and larger migration quotas. 52
Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 06:15 AM | # The conservatives Sailer and Derbyshire: http://www.vdare.com/misc/060907_carter.htm Carter notes that Derbyshire has come out on favor of “citizenism.” One can only wonder why: http://olimu.com/Photographs/Photographs.htm Here, Derbyshire criticizes his own Anglo-Saxon appearance as being something from the movie “Deliverance”, while saying that the Chinese features of his “wife” make up for it: By the way, Derbyshire was an illegal immigrant: 53
Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 06:51 AM | # I take “citizenism” to be the proposition that race is not a defining aspect of the American national identity. That has been the status quo for about sixty years now. We’re not a people. We’re nothing more than “freedom,” “equality,” and “democracy”; faceless bourgeoisie bombing every country in the world to bring a KFC to every corner. That’s what we are about. No thanks. This is the sort of conservative stupidity that has gotten us into this situation in the first place. Sailer’s “citizenism” is ultimately nothing but a second dose of the “sneak up on the liberals” poison that we swallowed back in the sixties. Some of you might recall a thriving racialist movement of millions of people back then (it was before my time). Think of George Wallace and Strom Thurmond back in the fifties and sixties. Now, look at the deracialized boobs their followers were transmuted into after decades of conservative politics. Thurmond was an opportunistic traitor all along. As always, this all goes back to moral failure. Yes. It’s much easier to attack anti-racists on aracial grounds, but that is a coward’s way out and wins us no real ground. This act of cowardice is the original sin of conservatism. We are still paying dearly for it today. We can build our house on the foundation of race or lose. It’s that simple. There is no other way. If we are going to lose, I prefer to lose gloriously. A Pickett’s Charge is preferable to going out led by sissies whimpering about “citizenism” (not that Sailer has any real investment in the outcome). 54
Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 07:04 AM | #
Nixon implemented racial quotas and campaigned against them to win re-election. Saint Ronnie attacked affirmative action in his campaign against Carter but later decided the political price was just “too high” to sign an executive order doing away with affirmative action in government. He still had time to give us the IRCA amnesty in 1986 though. His successor, Bush Sr., gave us the Immigration Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Dubya has been trying for years to one up even LBJ with “immigration reform” even worse than the Hart-Celler. Conservatives aren’t simply guilty of empty promises. They have made positive efforts to throw fuel on the fire and make our situation even worse. 55
Posted by PatrickZ on September 08, 2006, 10:50 AM | # I agree with Daedulus. In America, Whites will either politically organize around race or die. The left,liberals and free market corporatists(conservatives) openly support and encourage race based politics forhispanics,blacks,muslims and asians Left/liberal environmenalist may help our cause though. IF the Left/Liberal environmentalist get their way, all sprawl will cease in America. I beleive that when Whites no longer have the option of fleeing non-whites, legal and illegal immigration will be completely shut off. I would not assume that Whites will tolerate arrogant hindus and pakistanis living the American dream while Whites live in trailer parks with their unmarried adult children I do believe that Brimelow and Sailer are quite aware of the very real possibility of a race based civil war in America. Both of them understand that resources in America are becoming scarcer with each passing year while at the same time America is dissolving into separate micro-states. I don’t see how a race based civil war can be avoided. Anyone who thinks it can be avoided has the burden of explaining how it could be avoided. It think this may be the reason why Sailer pushes the citizenship nonesense. Niether Sailer nor Brimelow have any serious ides as to how a race war can be avoided. The brutal reality is this:the Amerian dream can not be provided to a large number of people living in America…..unless the society is willing to risk ecological collapse. High rise north korean stlye apartment blocks won’t solve the problem. 56
Posted by JB on September 08, 2006, 11:21 PM | # JJR:
Holliday:
even after a record breaking year of 45,000 burnt cars and 1 month of riots in Paris no party other than the Front National is openly against immigration and in favor of repatriation. The only thing Le Pen opponents have come up with is though talk, i.e. longer prison sentences for violent criminals, longer and harder penalties for school kids who cause trouble, a liberally correct raceless Law & Order discourse, something they would never have thought of even after the riots if the FN hadn’t been there to defend the interests of the people. They want to take votes away from the FN but they have no intention of serving the majority’s interests once elected. It’s the same old story and it will be the same again and again until the Front National wins either the Presidency or the National Assembly A spokesperson for the FN’s main opponent (the UMP, the party of Nicolas Sarkozy the 1/2 jew “right winger”) wrote in the daily Le Monde that France must become a ‘proud and vibrant miscegenated society’ (“une société métissé fière et énergique”): http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-805348@51-796497,0.html 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 12:04 AM | #
Yes, “métissée” means precisely “mixed-race” in French, like mulatto, or mestizo, or half-white-half-Vietnamese, so Sarkozy’s party is saying (you’re seeing the French original right before your eyes, so this is no exaggeration!) “France must become a proud, vibrant society of mixed-race people.” Everyone got that? France must become a proud, vibrant society of mixed-race people. There’s no question (not that there ever was ...) about what our overlords have in store for us: we are witnessing deliberate, forced race-replacement, thrown right into Frenchmen’s faces. 58
Posted by melba peachtoast on September 09, 2006, 12:16 AM | # “Fortunately, the high rate Jewish exogamy and their stagnating birth rate should reduce Jewish influence in our culture over the next fifty years.” FIFTY YEARS?! WAKE UP! THE POSSUM IS STIRRING ITSELF! 59
Posted by Rnl on September 09, 2006, 01:29 AM | # On Holliday wrote: Rnl, this depends on what you think, on balance, of the non-JJR components of this blog. If you think it positive, you’d want JJR’s pernicious influence removed. I think it’s a good blog, which could be made even better by the absence of JJR, who is (I have no doubt) consciously attempting to sabotage it. Notice how his last two posts have been reasonable contributions of the sort one would expect from someone with his conservative orientation. He is not so witless that he can’t distinguish trash from serious material. When he posts trash, he does so maliciously. I don’t share your view that conservative = bad. Most White nationalists were once somewhere in the mainstream Right. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 01:37 AM | # For any whose high-school French has gotten a little rusty, I’ll take the liberty of translating what this clueless bimbo, this incredibly obnoxious Frenchwoman, Valerie Pecresse, wrote in the article linked in JB’s comment, above. The UMP spokesman, she’s described also as a former advisor to Jacques Chirac, that other “conservative” traitor to France besides her current boss, Sarkozy.
Can anyone believe what that brazen bimbo wrote? Can it be believed??? It surpasses belief! 61
Posted by JB on September 09, 2006, 03:14 AM | # there are no important differences between a John Derbyshire, a Valérie Pecresse or a George W.Bush, there’s no contradiction between citizenism and multiculturalism, race mixing and genocide. Pushing for citizenism while the media and our treasonous governments are pushing for the extinction of our race is sort of like telling a woman to get used to being raped 62
Posted by Guessedworker on September 09, 2006, 04:26 AM | # Thanks Fred. If you need a pick-me-up read the top piece here Btw, it includes a passage on Ayman al-Zawahri’s invitiation to Americans to convert to Islam. Griffin has, of course, a track record of predicting terrorist attacks, and this invitation fits the Islamic pattern for another ... or maybe not just another. 63
Posted by C.M. on September 09, 2006, 04:43 AM | # I do not carry about brownies in middle east, if sandniggers get a MK84 bomb on their homes, or that Israel deliberately destroy the infrastructure of lebanon, I don’t care. They are all low iq sandniggers! The whole middle east is a mess and the war is just entertainment. You should stop wooriying about sandniggers being bombed, you should study haplotyping more and genetics instead of worriying about people who are unrelated to you both in history and genetics. Sandniggers being bombed? Who cares? 64
Posted by C.M. on September 09, 2006, 04:49 AM | # I would tell you what I would do if bunch of fucking arabs were burning 45.000 cars in the banlieux of Paris: I would deport them home to north africa where they belong and where they can burn 45.000 cars in their homeland. Or those youth gangs in Europe, the fucking arabs caused nothing but trouble and resort to crime because the politicians are too soft on them. Deport the troublemakers and you will see how fast they will behave. besides I don’t like the nigger admixture that can be so clearly seen in their faces. 65
Posted by C.M. on September 09, 2006, 04:56 AM | # Some great bunch of WN you are: well if you feel sorry for them, let your daughter marry a sandnigger and have curly haired and big teeth and ugly grandchildren. I don’t care about israel and I certainly don’t care about fucking arabs. 66
Posted by Al Ross on September 09, 2006, 05:30 AM | # CM has a righteous understanding of Middle East affairs and his sentiments are, sadly, all too rarely heard. Whenever Arabs or other Muslim anthropoid dross begin their litany of social-Marxist complaints against the West we should, as Sir Gerald Templer communicated to the Communist leaders at the height of the Malayan Campaign,“Tell ‘em, fuck ‘em”. 67
Posted by On Holliday on September 09, 2006, 05:48 AM | # “I think it’s a good blog,” Really. Look what’s happened to this thread. “which could be made even better by the absence of JJR” No, just more viable - a bad thing. “who is (I have no doubt) consciously attempting to sabotage it.” Excellent. Tile hats off to JJR. Keep up the good work. 68
Posted by Alex Zeka on September 09, 2006, 05:49 AM | # G-d, in his infinite wisdom, made sure that the only neighbours of the Muslims were the Jews. 69
Posted by On Holliday on September 09, 2006, 05:54 AM | # The free market and conservatives, in their infinite wisdom, joined with “leftists” to bring these Muslims into Europe, and then America. Hey, the textile mills needed workers. 70
Posted by Daedalus on September 09, 2006, 06:58 AM | #
They were simply matching willing workers with willing employers. :p 71
Posted by EC on September 09, 2006, 08:48 AM | # No, just more viable - a bad thing. In all seriousness, I don’t fully understand your point, JW. It is true about Ray, and he has caused many good posters (and commenters, lurkers etc) to leave or severely curtail their contributions in whole or in part. People like you, Geoff, Mark Richardson, Steve Edwards etc. Phil being absent has not been a posititve either. With that, what exactly is your gripe about this blog? And, if I may, once that old crank either gets booted or croaks, why not help make this blog better instead of trying to close it down? 72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 09:53 AM | # Regarding the general topic EC’s comment above touches on, I probably shouldn’t jump in but—and please correct me if I’m wrong—this blog wasn’t founded as a “WN” blog (was it?—that’s not my impression) but as a place where the interests of the majority could be discussed and defended from varied points of view, a place welcoming expression of all points of view that weren’t blatantly unserious, a place where people on the anti-left could have unfettered debate without fear of being IP-banned. (I was banned five times from four sites before coming here—twice from GnXp.) John Ray—a founding blogger at this site, don’t forget: he’s been here from day one—has a right to be heard. (At bottom, as I’ve already dared to opine, his view actually encompasses ours—if fully implemented it would allow for ours, in a way—but that’s less evident and I won’t repeat it here.) I’ve attacked him sharply, sarcastically, bitterly, any number of times on the issue of race-replacement, but I’ve never tried to muzzle him. (Furthermore, he’s always been a perfect gentleman about differences and disagreements.) I wouldn’t try to muzzle anyone expressing a view unless he was an infernal leftist coming here just to spam the place, or some bomb-thrower or agent provocateur, etc.—someone who clearly wasn’t here participating in good faith. I for one certainly don’t mind strong language. But what OH is trying to do is drive Ray out, the equivalent of banning him. OH sees himself as a man in a hurry. Well, we all are. But some of us realize this thing won’t be hurried. It’s got a mind of its own, a logic we don’t understand, and is simmering at the moment, not yet boiling, and that for reasons beyond our control. John Ray has loyally stuck with this blog through thick and thin from the beginning despite his strong disagreements with a significant proportion of the opinion expressed, while weaker knees and stomachs than his have bailed out (or never begun participating though originally listed on the masthead). I don’t see how it’s anyone’s place here to decide Ray, a founding blogger of the site, is not perfectly at home in a blog he likes, has faithfully served since its birth and helped to build, and which he agrees with in fundamental ways (though obviously—maddeningly—not all fundamental ways). This infantile sniping at Ray at every turn is starting to be something negative, an irritant, a disruption to the threads—none of which is Ray’s fault whatsoever—and I respectfully call for a moratorium on it. My vote? My vote is John Ray needs to stay. As one who has extreme differences with John and has crossed swords with him, I vote for this not being considered “a WN blog” but something broader which encompasses so-called “WN,” and I see Ray’s participation here as of great value both past and ongoing. He should definitely continue making contributions exactly as he has always done. Argue with him by all means. But end the perpetual sniping which only makes those doing it look bad. 73
Posted by On Holliday on September 09, 2006, 11:05 AM | # “But what OH is trying to do is drive Ray out, the equivalent of banning him.” Wrong, Fred. How many times do I have to say that I - sincerely - want to see JJR post *more* here? How is it “driving someone out” to encourage him to post more? The trouble is, you think I am being sarcastic. I am not. I want to see “Tile Hat” like posts here on a daily basis. EC, I’d think the things here should be obvious. I am not going to publicly air things I’ve discussed privately with Guessedworker. I’m just going to say: Go, JJR, Go! 74
Posted by On Holliday on September 09, 2006, 12:02 PM | # “My vote? My vote is John Ray needs to stay.” I agree, Fred. “As one who has extreme differences with John and has crossed swords with him, I vote for this not being considered “a WN blog” but something broader which encompasses so-called “WN,” ...” And that is *what* exactly? Inquiring minds want to know. “and I see Ray’s participation here as of great value both past and ongoing. He should definitely continue making contributions exactly as he has always done.” I agree except I want to see the good Dr. Ray make *more* contributions, significantly more, in fact. At the very least, a doubling of the output would be helpful, and tripling would be better. 75
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 12:33 PM | #
I summed it up here (according to my understanding, at any rate):
I don’t view myself as a WN, by the way. I view myself as an ordinary, normal, completely apolitical person uninterested in politics, who loves my country, people, race, and traditions in the normal way. All that being only normal, I see no reason whatsoever for calling it some special name like WN. Let the abnormals, the degenerates on the other side, call themselves special names. I want none and will reject all that are applied to me. 76
Posted by PatrickZ on September 09, 2006, 01:16 PM | # I’m new to this place. I have no idea who Ray is. I don’t care if his views don’t significantly overlap with mine. If he is a founding member of this blog, he shouldn’t be driven away. I wouldn’t even drive Al Sharpton away. Fred, here is my prereence for America:I liked the demographic compositin of America befroe the passage of the 1965 immigration refrom act:90% White. My mission in life is to bring America back to when it was 90 % White. I want the chinese,east asians,post 1965 africans and hispanics out of my country. There are only two choices drive the aforementioned groups out America or Whites will be reduced to minority status and persecuted,enslaved and/or murdered. 77
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 03:38 PM | # Patrick, I agree with you. (Your comments about what’s been happening to Long Island were extremely interesting, by the way—I was born and raised in Queens and still have family in Queens and on the north shore of Nassau and Suffolk counties.) Never forget that the 1965 Immigration Holocaust bill was (considering its unimaginably seismic implications for the country) snuck through congress—that’s the only word for it: it was snuck through behind the people’s back. A bill having the obviously epoch-making consequences of that bill should NEVER have been treated as some ordinary run-of-the-mill proposal but should have been put before a national referendum or at the very least given the most extraordinary, detailed scrutiny by the whole public before it was voted on. Needless to say, it wasn’t. The American people had no fucking idea what was being done with the passage of that bill in terms of what its implications would be. The 1924 bill should have been given the force of a Constitutional amendment. That bill must be rescinded, every single one of its nefarious consequences undone because, considering its earth-shaking implications, it must be viewed as having been snuck through unfairly behind our back with laughably deficient public awareness and debate, and done that way on purpose lest it be voted down, and together with the total reversal of its unwanted effects leading to full restoration of the racial/ethnocultural status quo ante, there should be deportation of all of those still living who took part in sneaking it through Congress behind the people’s back, exactly as individuals discovered to be former concentration camp guards get deported. They don’t deserve to live in this country if they want to destroy it. Get them out of here forever. 78
Posted by Rnl on September 09, 2006, 06:53 PM | # Fred Scrooby wrote (or could be construed to have written): I read Dostoevsky, but I also watch Oprah. I subscribe to the Economist, but I also dance naked in the forest beneath the shimmering moonlight. I follow the Packers and hunt big game in Africa, but I am also in touch with my inner child. No mere verbal label can circumscribe the many whimsical dimensions of the real me. I want no special name and will reject all that are applied to me. White nationalism is the name for White opposition to our ongoing dispossession. It recognizes that the apolitical, commonsense views of our ancestors, most of whom loved their country and their traditions just as you do, were insufficient. It makes explicit the race-cultural reasons behind the commonsense views of the past, because it recognizes that apolitical common sense has demonstrably proven itself incapable of preventing the destruction we now confront. It was once apolitical common sense that France should not become an Islamic republic and that California should not be reoccupied by Mexico. Those old commonsense views are now the domain of White nationalism. To say that you’re an apolitical opponent of White dispossession is, with due respect, an open admission that you’re not thinking carefully. There’s no reason to resist an accurate label. 79
Posted by Rnl on September 09, 2006, 07:00 PM | # On Holliday wrote: Look what’s happened to this thread. _happened_ isn’t the best choice of words. It started bad, because the initiator of the thread posted juvenile neocon trash in the hope of provoking angry responses. JJR’s defenders evidently believe that he is too dumb to assess the quality of the material he posts. I don’t believe he is that dumb. Nevertheless, even in a thread that was started with bad intentions, there were valuable posts. That’s normal here, because many serious people visit the blog. So what _happened_ is that JJR’s attempt at sabotage was frustrated by the quality of the responses his trash generated. 80
Posted by Rnl on September 09, 2006, 07:15 PM | # From Nick Griffin’s blog: The latest news is of the attack in Jordan on tourists, in which a British man was shot dead. Buried in the reports is the fact that the gunman deliberately targetted only white people. According to Mediaspeak any attack in which the victim is selected on account of skin colour is a racist attack - or at least, that’s the rule if the perpetrator is ‘hideously white’, as the former Director General of the BBC so delightfully displayed his self-loathing prejudice. But not when it’s this way round. http://chairmanscolumn.blogspot.com/ This dimension of Muslim terror should be emphasized more often. “White meat” is an al-Qaeda term for the optimal demographic of their violence. The more “white meat” Muslim terrorists can kill, the more successful their enterprise. They do, of course, kill non-White Westerners, but we are (leaving aside one obvious exception) their preferred victims, and they often plan their violence in explicitly racial terms. The nightclubs targeted in the Bali bombing were selected because there were “lots of whiteys dancing there,” as one of the bombers stated afterwards. (One of my sister’s friends was among the dancing whiteys killed that day.) 81
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 07:23 PM | # I don’t choose to label the normal with special names to distinguish it from the degenerate. What’s the difference between a normal person and a white nationalist? I don’t see one. So why the extra name for the normal person? He can’t view himself as just normal but must henceforth say he’s something called a white nationalist?
It’s not my name for it. I call it normalness. What’s normal needs no special name. It’s the sicko stuff that needs a special name. Furthermore, assigning a special name to normalness implicitly concedes legitimacy to sickness and therefore is a highly misleading thing to do. There’s normalness and there’s not-normalness. That’s all. I’m normal, meaning I favor the ascendancy of normalness over degenerateness for society. The other side is sick, degenerate, meaning it favors the ascendancy of degenerateness, of sickness, over normalness for society. It’s as simple as that. Normalness and degenerateness. Those are the two poles.
It still is apolitical common sense that France should not become an Islamic republic and that California should not be re-occupied by Mexico. To see both of those things requires nothing other than apolitical common sense. That and the rest of the above is normalness. There’s no such thing as white nationalism. It’s redundant. What there are are various pathologies manifesting as narcissism, the absence of a social conscience, dishonesty, stupidity, cultural illiteracy, and so on, against which normal people react. 82
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 07:37 PM | #
Whan a burglar enters your home at night to take away your property do you come up with a special name for yourself vis-à-vis him? “Property Defender,” maybe? Do you say, “I’m something called a ‘Property Defender,’ therefore I oppose burglary”? Or do you say, “Some son-of-a-bitch-bastard came into my home last night and stole my stuff”? I say the second. Notice that making up a special name for yourself—a special name for normalness—implicitly concedes legitimacy to, in this case, the burglar, as if burglary was normal so a special name was needed to distinguish your kind of normalness from his. But burglary isn’t normal. There’s only one normalness. He need the special name of burglar, not you. Are you going to start calling yourself an “unburglar”? Of course not. Why not? Because normal people going about their business need no special name. They’re normal. 83
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 08:13 PM | # What it comes down to, I think, is I concede nothing to the other side in terms of legitimacy. Nothing whatsoever. Absolutely zero. I’m going to call myself by some special name for opposing something that has absolutely no legitimacy of any kind whatsoever, zero? 84
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 09, 2006, 09:11 PM | # I’m with Scroob 100% on this one, okay maybe 99% since I do recognize the utility of self-identifying as a WN. Since we’re using analogies (not that I need any prompting): Suppose you’re trying to guide a schizophrenic back to reality. He insists on being called Napoleon or he flies into a homicidal rage; other than that he’s still schizo but doesn’t fly into a rage. Wouldn’t you just call him Napoleon, if you thought that was the best way to proceed with his treatment? Similarly, the vast majority of the west is in the grip of psychosis (or whatever, I’m not a shrink); it makes sense to deal within the framework of this delusion, if it gets results. The trick (a big one) is not to absorb the delusion. 85
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 09, 2006, 09:39 PM | # Fred Scrooby 86
Posted by JB on September 09, 2006, 10:06 PM | # Fred Scrooby:
even if he were sincere the pertinence of his contributions is questionable. JJR keeps acting like a kid who throws paper planes in the classroom, Leftist-This & Leftist-That, quote the War Street Journal here, quote a clueless shabbaz goy there, he stands out from the rest of the contributors here by too often being a socio-political retard. Anyone with half a brain knows there’s no real difference between citizenist right-wingers and anti-racist left-wingers, whether they’re in France, Britain, Spain or the US, they’re all digging the grave of our race and civilization. But JJR doesn’t mind - don’t worry be happy, watch Fox News, vote for kosher rightwingers, go to church, listen to classical music and marry the chinese. Is that someone you want on your side ? He’s giving us the finger and he admitted that he gets a kick out of it. The quality and the purpose of this website is degraded by having too much JJR. If he has worthwhile contributions to make to the blog he should make them as a guest blogger and/or his entries should be approved beforehand by one of the blog owners. 87
Posted by JB on September 09, 2006, 10:07 PM | # Even though I am sympathetic to the palestinians I’m a zionist and I don’t want Israel to be ‘stomped like a bug’ because I want all jews to be sent there and moreover I want the country to be surrounded by a huge security fence so that they can’t get out. 88
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 09, 2006, 11:12 PM | # I don’t want Israel to be stomped like a bug either. However being just pro-semite is enough to cover this criteria, zionism is another matter altogether. Again in very simple terms: 89
Posted by Andy on September 09, 2006, 11:18 PM | # I think the leadership of this blog is commiting an incredible error in not addressing JJR’s status here. Too much energy is being wasted in responding to some of his more ridiculous efforts. It’s counterproductive at best and JJR is clearly deliberately trying antagonize the readership of this blog with posts like the one where he boasted about his son’s asian girlfriend. Responding to posts like that one or this one here are not getting us anywhere. All they’re doing is fracturing the blog’s readership and leading to in-group bickering. I think your choice is clear. You must boot JJR or severely limit his posting capabilities. JJR is fine and indeed even helpful when writing about racial reality. Limit his posts to this subject and he could be a positive contributor to the blog. Otherwise, just get rid of him outright. I really don’t know why this has gone on for this long. If I ran this blog I would also boot Holliday for openly advocating the destruction of the blog on virtually every comment thread. He is like the Jew in a white majority country agitating for open borders. 90
Posted by EC on September 10, 2006, 12:09 AM | # EC, I’d think the things here should be obvious. I am not going to publicly air things I’ve discussed privately with Guessedworker. Fair enough, JW. I’ve made my feelings clear in this regard and I again reiterate your invaluable contributions, both past and present. I also should not and do not fault you for having the convictions to attempt to steer the blog as you feel it appropriate. Where I disagree with you on is that it needs to be relegated to the garbage heap because of one cacophonous fool and, in your opinion, some sub-par contributors. As you are well aware, the readership, if we can infer from the quality of the commenteriat (I’m well aware of your opinion of Nick, notwithstanding), are no fools and do not easily succumb to bad memes. You see how topics are dissected, especially the Ray tripe. A high quality readership along with people such as yourself, who are willing to correct misguided ideals would, in my opinion, make the blog better. I do not think having an echo chamber would be very constructive, though I do agree that Ray has to go as he has completely worn out what may have been his small usefulness at the blog’s inception. Just my two cents. If I ran this blog I would also boot Holliday for openly advocating the destruction of the blog on virtually every comment thread. He is like the Jew in a white majority country agitating for open borders. With all due respect Andy, that is hardly Holliday’s point. 91
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 10, 2006, 12:35 AM | # JJR are you listening? Not many replies lately if at all. Here’s something more to ponder about the ‘hapeless jews’ and the world’s out to get them ‘fantasies’. While not all in here are Americans this concerns all whites, whether they know it or not. The republican party of Colorado(that’ right, Tancredo is elected congressman for Colorado) is throwing money at a candidate in an open seat race in Arizona thats NOT endorsed by Tancredo. Congressman Tancredo is backing an anti-open borders candidate named Randy Graf, RPC is backing Steve Huffman. Can anyone guess which position he takes? How outrageous is it that majority opinion in this country is being tossed aside by both obsolete parties? Out of a Congress of a hundred only two or three are free from AIPAC. And that you can take to the bank. 92
Posted by EC on September 10, 2006, 12:46 AM | # How outrageous is it that majority opinion in this country is being tossed aside by both obsolete parties? I’ve never in my life seen anything like what we are witnessing first hand. Over 80% of the US population thinks immigration is a major problem and needs serious curtailing and over 90% think illegal immigration needs to be stopped completely and the illegals sent back, yet the elite are openly and brazenly defecating in the people’s faces by forging ahead. The words treason and public execution come to mind regarding these elites. At times I begin to seriously wonder how simply voting is going to alter this course that we have been set on? The corruption seems too deep and thorough for voting to have any effect. 93
Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 10, 2006, 01:32 AM | # Though I share your pessimism, we shouldn’t give up. Even if am not of british decendancy Lord Nelson is my hero. I would think, what would he have done? Fight on. 94
Posted by a fairly intelligent reader on September 10, 2006, 01:46 AM | # Re: MR Yeah, I’ve had it. I’ll check in two months if you got back to being serious. 95
Posted by On Holliday on September 10, 2006, 05:31 AM | # “...the quality of the responses…” “I do not carry about brownies in middle east, if sandniggers get a MK84 bomb on their homes, or that Israel deliberately destroy the infrastructure of lebanon, I don’t care. They are all low iq sandniggers! The whole middle east is a mess and the war is just entertainment. You should stop wooriying about sandniggers being bombed, you should study haplotyping more and genetics instead of worriying about people who are unrelated to you both in history and genetics. Sandniggers being bombed? Who cares? Posted by C.M. on Saturday, September 9, 2006 at 08:43 AM | # ———————————————————————————————————————— I would tell you what I would do if bunch of fucking arabs were burning 45.000 cars in the banlieux of Paris: I would deport them home to north africa where they belong and where they can burn 45.000 cars in their homeland. Or those youth gangs in Europe, the fucking arabs caused nothing but trouble and resort to crime because the politicians are too soft on them. Deport the troublemakers and you will see how fast they will behave. besides I don’t like the nigger admixture that can be so clearly seen in their faces. Posted by C.M. on Saturday, September 9, 2006 at 08:49 AM | # ———————————————————————————————————————— Some great bunch of WN you are: well if you feel sorry for them, let your daughter marry a sandnigger and have curly haired and big teeth and ugly grandchildren. I don’t care about israel and I certainly don’t care about fucking arabs. Posted by C.M. on Saturday, September 9, 2006 at 08:56 AM | #” 96
Posted by On Holliday on September 10, 2006, 05:37 AM | # “Re: MR Yeah, I’ve had it. I’ll check in two months if you got back to being serious.” Excellent. Excellent. “If I ran this blog I would also boot Holliday…” GW can do as he wishes. It is his blog. As I well know in that his choices, from the time *after* I joined, has, in my opinion, destroyed the potential here. By the way, JJR was *already* a member when I joined. And, by the way, again, this is NOT “20-20 hindsight.” “...for openly advocating the destruction of the blog on virtually every comment thread.” One gets what one deserves. “...in your opinion, some sub-par contributors.” “sub-par” : that’s putting it mildly. 97
Posted by Guessedworker on September 10, 2006, 06:41 AM | # JW, Destructiveness comes in many guises. One of the sights familiar to all observers of politics on the radical right is that decline into anger, and sometimes hatred, which characterises the VNN constituency and which we saw occur with Geoff. Anger demands its reward at once. It has no wider understanding or interest. It does not care about means, merely its own ends. It is a narrowing experience, and it does not meet with the approval or respect of reasonable men. I operate on the basis - and perhaps err on the side - of a presumption of reasonableness on the part of the MR reader. In return for this small liberality we are, I think, rewarded with a remarkably decent and interesting commentariat, for which I am much gratified. When an occasional CM-type arises I don’t rush in with a heavy-hand. He is among gentlemen and may realise that he has obligations as a guest here. If not, he will get the chop. This applies to everyone who doesn’t take the rather disingenuous precaution of employing IP-disguising software - as many do (you, too, I think). 98
Posted by On Holliday on September 10, 2006, 07:16 AM | # GW, you are under the impression that “CM” is some sort of serious problem, where I was just reproducing certain comments to illustrate the “quality” of the thread. The “quality” of the commentators is a reflection of the “quality” of the blog. “Destructiveness comes in many guises.” Indeed. Can you trace the seeds of destruction for the blog? Andy, a blog is not destroyed by critical comments. If that was the case, “June Gordon” would have destroyed the blog long ago. The only person capable of destroying a blog is its owner, based on decisions made. I am not the owner, so I am hardly responsible for the fate of “Majority Rights” - merely a bemused spectator. 99
Posted by Guessedworker on September 10, 2006, 07:37 AM | # Not a bemused spectator, surely. No, I am not under the impression that CM is some sort of serious problem. He is a rare event. Ask Guan. The blog will not be destroyed, btw. The window for change in the direction you desire is still open. 100
Posted by On Holliday on September 10, 2006, 07:56 AM | # “The window for change in the direction you desire is still open.” The infection is so deep I can’t see how the cure won’t kill the patient. I await the results. 101
Posted by Rnl on September 10, 2006, 05:57 PM | # Fred, You argue your case well. I can see I was wrong to suggest that you haven’t thought this through. Still, I think you’re mistaken. Specifically, I don’t think you’re appreciating the meaning of the word “politics.” You aren’t even slightly apolitical. No one who opposes White dispossession can be apolitical. Opposition to an Islamic France or to a Mexican California is political. Powerful forces favor both. If you oppose White dispossession, you are taking a political position against powerful political forces. Although our disagreement may only be semantic, I’ll enlarge on my earlier comments anyway. It still is apolitical common sense that France should not become an Islamic republic ... It is a criminal offense in France to publish a book warning that France may become a Muslim republic and documenting the many ways in which a Muslim France would be worse than a non-Muslim France. Guillaume Faye was taken to court and fined for exactly those offenses. It would not have been a criminal offense in France a century ago to publish such a book, but no one would have exercised the privilege, because the prospect of a Muslim France would have appeared far too improbable to worry about. It was then mere common sense that Western nations should not throw open their borders to non-Whites. Few Whites felt the need to explicitly announce and explicitly justify their opposition to massive Third World immigration any more than they felt the need to announce their opposition to enriching French wines with large doses of arsenic. Both ideas were then too preposterous to seriously contemplate, let alone explicitly oppose. We can now see that this old apolitical common sense was insufficient. The failure to explicitly announce and justify the race-cultural character of our Western nations has led to the prospect of their eventual annihilation. White nationalism is, inter alia, a response to the manifest failure of apolitical common sense. assigning a special name to normalness implicitly concedes legitimacy to sickness and therefore is a highly misleading thing to do. The special name we’re discussing acknowledges that the world has changed. It’s both wrong and misleading to imply that it hasn’t. When a burglar enters your home at night to take away your property do you come up with a special name for yourself vis-a-vis him? “Property Defender,” maybe? Do you say, “I’m something called a ‘Property Defender,’ therefore I oppose burglary”? Or do you say, “Some son-of-a-bitch-bastard came into my home last night and stole my stuff”? In a world in which burglary was legitimized and resistance to burglary demonized or even criminalized, then you would indeed have to label yourself a “property defender” (or some similar name) if you chose to defend your property from theft, because in this hypothetical world the moral right of property defense would no longer be taken for granted. In this world you would be forced, if you wanted to explain your unexpected hostility to burglary, to state why you prefer to defend your property and why you so uncharitably refuse to allow others to take it. You would have to say that it is your property and not someone else’s. You would have to state explicitly your interest in retaining your property and you would have to convince others that they too should defend their property. In a normal world such anti-burglarist explanations would not be necessary, but in this hypothetical world they would be. Your opposition to burglary would be different from opposition to burglary in a world that acknowledged property rights. It would become political, not mere common sense, and you would be a property defender. In our world what was once common sense on racial matters is now “racism,” an offense far worse than burglary. White nationalism responds to the abnormality of this world in which we live. 102
Posted by Rnl on September 10, 2006, 06:01 PM | # Svyatoslav Igorevich wrote: the vast majority of the west is in the grip of psychosis (or whatever, I’m not a shrink); it makes sense to deal within the framework of this delusion, if it gets results. I think you’re taking Fred Scrooby’s rejection of the label White nationalist as tactical advice. That isn’t his point. He doesn’t want any label. He is not saying that he won’t, for tactical reasons, call himself a WN because the label might frighten apolitical Whites suffering from anti-racialist delusions. He is saying (a) that he is not a White nationalist and (b) that his opposition to White dispossession is apolitical. Both statements are, in my opinion, incorrect. 103
Posted by Rnl on September 10, 2006, 06:08 PM | # On Holliday wrote: I was just reproducing certain comments [viz. CM’s] to illustrate the “quality” of the thread. I have doubts whether CM’s comments were sincere; they struck me as anti-racialist satire. But let’s say they were sincere. No online forum that discusses racial issues will be free from racial anger and dumb vulgarity. That’s a given. No online forum that discusses the World Ping-Pong Association will be free from angry comments that detract from serious discussions of ping-pong. That’s a given too. We’re on the Internet, after all. In this thread Daedalus posted details of an interesting episode in post-Reconstruction history, and Fred Scrooby translated the revealing comments of Valerie Pecresse. Both contributions were surely valuable and required some effort. There was more of value too, including a few of your own comments. Unless your standards are far above mine, this shouldn’t be dismissed as a bad thread. Even if your standards are far above mine, you should remember that we’re not blessed with an immense number of racialist forums of any variety. Those that we do have, it seems to me, are valuable merely by virtue of the subjects on which they permit open discussion. 104
Posted by Boris on September 10, 2006, 08:31 PM | # CM Next entry: School sports not quite dead yet Previous entry: Jewish privilege |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. payday loans commented in entry 'Immigration: The individual matters most' on 05/25/12, 07:32 AM. (go) (view) Pevatoverty commented in entry 'How does he get away with it?' on 05/25/12, 07:29 AM. (go) (view) AryanInside commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 05/25/12, 07:14 AM. (go) (view) AryanInside commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 05/25/12, 06:21 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Immigration: The individual matters most' on 05/25/12, 06:21 AM. (go) (view) ovephorie commented in entry 'Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv' on 05/25/12, 05:19 AM. (go) (view) BroowlorCliEf commented in entry 'Why the Germans? Why the Jews?' on 05/25/12, 05:00 AM. (go) (view) DateSoaxiaDot commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/25/12, 04:28 AM. (go) (view) UK Dissertations Help commented in entry 'A small anecdote and some reflections on race and culture' on 05/25/12, 02:14 AM. (go) (view) Roof Leaks commented in entry 'YOBS' on 05/25/12, 01:16 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/25/12, 12:41 AM. (go) (view) pletcheroka commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/25/12, 12:36 AM. (go) (view) Graistetrisog commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/25/12, 12:19 AM. (go) (view) BomeDeddell commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) indernMix commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:42 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 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 metalhead on September 07, 2006, 12:42 AM | #
Ha Ha Ha. Are you serrious?
This looks like a job for Abe FoxMAN!
I am vengance, I am Eli Wiesil’s Night, I am FoxMan!