There are genes for civilization

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 30, 2005, 11:04 PM | #

“No, the West’s media and the scientists themselves can hedge and fudge as much as they like. But their favoured ‘post-modern’ gloss that ‘there is no such thing as race’ just came to look one whole lot sillier.”  (—Prof. Brand, linked in the log entry)

I believe the “there is no such thing as race” view of the world, which is nonsense on its face, was invented essentially as a JN (Jewish nationalist) policy position by Jewish academics, JNs, and Jewish political thinkers probably some time during the last half of the 1800s and has been pushed since the dawn of the 20th century and into the 21st mainly and most steadfastly, imaginatively, and aggressively by Jewish academics such as Franz Boaz, Ashley Montagu, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and so on, who know it’s nonsense but maintain it (with impressive stubbornness) because it serves a number of purposes congenial to Jewish nationalism.  These academics are/were also Jewish nationalists.  That it doesn’t depend on modern genetics is clear without even taking modern genetics into account, from the fact that a century ago there was no modern genetics yet it was already being claimed by Jewish professors as insistently as Jewish professors claim it now (and of course there’s nothing whatsoever in modern genetics itself that supports it).  The only way to maintain there are no races is to deny, along with races, every single Linnaean category in existence.  Claiming there are no races is the same as claiming two plus two equals five.  The Jewish professors who claim it do so not out of science but out of wishful thinking:  they “feel” it would be better for Jews were it so, and they try to see if they can build a case for it out of pure sophistries.  They don’t care that they’re dealing in pure sophistries on this particular topic, because to them it’s in a good cause, that of Jewish nationalism.  The Euro Christian professors who claim it are, to put it bluntly, dupes whose IQs are lower than the professors who have invented the sophistries, which explains how it is they could be taken in by them.  These professors are endowed with the same level of intelligence as the ones who suspect the crop circles in England might have been made by flying saucers and the possibility that Bigfoot exists merits federal funding for scientific study.  What’s going on is strictly an “Emperor’s New Clothes” situation, where any child can see there are indeed races, but adults attempt to deny it, one group out of pure politico/ethnic interest, the other out of pure stupidity.

Posted by JRM on October 30, 2005, 11:06 PM | #

I am not inclined to acknowledge Brand because he writes stuff like this:

http://gfactor.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_gfactor_archive.html#112938083720106389
PAEDOHYSTERIA AVOIDED

Following the death of a top British broadcaster, the widely loved John Peel, his widow revealed that, at his high-fee-paying school in Shrewsbury at age 13, he had been routinely expected to masturbate senior boys of 18 or so and was on one occasion raped by one of them (Sunday Telegraph, 9 x 2005). Schoolmasters, too, routinely sought out pupils for sex. Despite such experiences, and despite much unhappiness in his birth family, John went on to a kind if quirky personality, fame, riches, a loving wife and three dearly loved children - and all without a word of complaint about paedophilia.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 30, 2005, 11:36 PM | #

“John went on to a kind if quirky personality, fame, riches, a loving wife and three dearly loved children”

Did he send any of his boys (if he had any) to Shrewsbury, I wonder?

JRM I don’t know, couldn’t that entry of his be taken as a critique of so much of the whining, victimology, and litigiousness we see nowadays—sort of an admonition to put the past behind you and get on with it—rather than as a trivialisation of homosexual abuse of boys?

Posted by jonjayray on October 31, 2005, 06:27 AM | #

Chris gets into a lot of trouble because he dares to point out what every ancient historian knows—that man/boy sex was perfectly normal and accepted in the most brilliant civilization of ancient times—Greece.  And then Chris sins even more by drawing some inferences from that.  It’s more than I would do but I admire his courage.

Posted by anon on October 31, 2005, 07:28 AM | #

Chris Brand is arguably the modern embodiment of the Scottish Enlightenment. That makes him quite rare, despite the claims of some overly promoted smatterers such as Keith Windschuttle to that esteemed position (who lacks the necessary indeed essential sensibility for Truth).

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 31, 2005, 09:53 AM | #

Shrewsbury had that reputation when I was at Cheltenham (the two schools have a strong historic link—Cheltenham was evacuated to Shrewsbury (why??) in 1939-41). So we certainly shouldn’t demonize Brand on that account, however distasteful we find homosexual paedophilia (as I do.) I have always thanked the Lord that I was a day boy at Cheltenham, so able to escape.

Brand looks pretty well spot on here, and discusses the question in a properly scientific manner, as did Charles Murray (and as don’t most WN sites.) 

It really doesn’t matter which group of loony leftists came up with the race-is-irrelevant theory; there have always been plenty of non-Jewish destructive forces, and plenty of non-racial reasons why ambitious academic leftists should support that view. Focusing excessively on the ethnicity of the opposition simply makes us sound like Nazis, and weakens the force of our argument.

Given these findings, the differential in birthrates between North and South reinforces the differential in birth rates between the middle classes and the lower orders, and makes humanity’s climb back up the trees a more or less imminent threat in biological terms.

Population control worldwide, even more than immigration control in our particular countries is THE number 1 issue of our time. Allowing the Third World to stew in its own juice, as Geoff suggests, is a recipe for human annihilation in the long term.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 31, 2005, 10:11 AM | #

Martin, thanks for your helpful criticism.  I am as staunchly against mindless Jew-bashing as you are (I hate mindless anyone-bashing:  mindless Arab-bashing, mindless Oriental-bashing, mindless Mexican-bashing ...) and I certainly hope I’m not engaging in that in my comment above.  But I think I’m right and if I am, I think it’s important that what I said get said, by way of shedding some light on this extremely weird phenomenon of the denial of the existence of races by college professors.  Like anyone else, Jews are capable of doing astonishingly weird things—as witness, for example, their disproportionate attachment to Marxism in all its forms.  The denial of races, which is the most obvious sophist nonsense literally on a par with insisting 2 + 2 = 5, is an extremely bizarre academic position to take, especially in the case of otherwise highly-intelligent professors.  There has to be some explanation for it.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 31, 2005, 11:31 AM | #

You’re expecting rational self-interest from the left, and concluding that only a twisted version of Jewish racial self-interest can explain their views.

Since when has rational thought been a characteristic of leftist academics? Much better to assume it’s an emotional sixties-style hatred of the existing power structure, which appeared to favor whites.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 31, 2005, 02:53 PM | #

But Jewish professors were denying race way before the 60s, Martin—that was a central part of my point.  Boaz did it at the turn of the 20th century.  Montagu did it starting in the 30s and published a book denying the existence of race in 1943.  But I won’t belabor it here, and will consider what you say carefully.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 31, 2005, 05:17 PM | #

Leftist hatred of the power structure goes back at least to the Jacobins; it was merely especially virulent in the 1960s. Denying racial differences was part of the leftist assault after WWII; since the Nazis had regarded racial differences as paramount, those postulating racial differences could easily portrayed as Nazi and drummed out of respectable intellectual life.  Fun for all the family, but not I think specifically Jewish.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 31, 2005, 06:46 PM | #

I’d be delighted to be wrong, I can tell you.  Thanx for that explanation, Martin.

Posted by John S Bolton on October 31, 2005, 11:34 PM | #

The actual subject being the political implications of tropical adapted populations of genetically low IQ, being admitted on terms of equality to the precincts of civilization, a different question has to be raised. Insofar as politics is the ethics of aggression, there is only one relevant question; does the ingression of tropical adapted low IQ groups cause the overall level of aggression to rise? If it must do so, such ingression and freedom for aggression is obviously politically wrong. Agents provocateurs will never say this, though; not so long as their goal is to incite aggression.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 01, 2005, 07:00 AM | #

Fred and Martin’s positions on the JQ need to be understood as complimentary, not opposing.

Jews are hyper-ethnocentric and I don’t doubt that there are Jewish nationalists of high intelligence and learning involved in the invention of whole classes of deeply damaging, race-based leftism for the purposes of advancing Jewish interests.  Broadly speaking their efforts can, of course, be termed Critical Theory.

It is plainly so that the centre of gravity of diasporic-Jewish political thought is primarily racist in nature, being a deeply paranoid attempt to control host behaviour.  Were it not, modern Israel would be just like the West - or even further advanced down the cosmopolitan path.  It would not be an admittedly argumentative but still very Jewish state, but would specifically import non-Jews and encourage its “white” population to miscegenate with Falashas instead of raise laws against it.

Now that said, these diasporic Jewish intellectuals are only filling the spaces available to them in Western society.  Liberalism, from it’s dawning in the Renaissance, has been shot through with such spaces.  They are there, for example, in Locke’s anti-authoritarianism and in his theory of the tabula rasa.  Lockean liberalism went forward as the means by which the Common Man could challenge entrenched social power.  The Jewish contribution to that - even including Disraeli’s re-writing of Conservative history for the purpose of re-centering Conservatism on a liberal basis - has been to exploit and, if possible, re-focus it as a challenge to the ethnic cohesiveness of the host.

It does not matter whether this is a mere consequence of detachment - an unavoidable “discontent” of separation - or whether it is a conscious production.  Unconscious or conscious, its effect upon us is damaging just the same.

That effect in broad historical terms has been to shift the race-loyal, gentle Anglo tradition of enlightened self-help, characterised by 19th century working-class movements, into a race-disloyal, culturally-destructive engine of change.  Advanced liberalism today continues as a child of Western thought only insomuch as a reified psychology of guilt and self-hatred moves our not very good leftist intellectuals.  In its core advanced liberalism is pure cultural Marxism.

Hence my conclusion that while it’s appropriate to have the highest suspicions of the motives for 20th century Jewish political activism in the West, it is still necessary to contextualise these within a “greater” liberalism.

What is

safe and where, for my money, Martin may be wrong, is to be wilfully blind to the aforesaid motives on grounds of taste.  We arm ourselves to the degree to which we accept the conflicted ethnic origins of the Jewish contribution.  And if people want to run out of the door screaming “Nazi” that’s up to them.  Our priority is to survive the present impact of advanced liberalism.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 01, 2005, 09:36 AM | #

GW, I agree entirely with you on the ethnic conflictedness of being Jewish.  Clearly in the 18th and 19th Century, if you were Jewish you tended to be anti-establishment and cosmopolitan, because there was no Jewish majority state and establishments were generally both non-Jewish and to a degree anti-Semitic (least so in Britain—though Jewish emancipation failed amidst massive riots in 1753) but pretty consitently on the Continent.)

Since 1948, the incentives have been different.  Any Jew who wants to live in a Jewish country can do so (and many have) while anti-Semitism has become socially unacceptable. Jewish intellectuals have thus tended to be much less monolithically of the left than before 1900, even though many non-leftists are still more cosmopolitan than we would like.

The predominant Jeiwsh intellectual tendencies are thus readily explainable. It is however intellectually unjustified and, if taken to extremes “Nazi” to regard them as part of a massive hidden conspiracy as distinct from entirely natural and ethically neutral self interest.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 01, 2005, 09:42 AM | #

Even in the 18th Century, there were jeish British patriots.  I draw your attention to the career of Samson Gideon, without whom the Seven Years War would have been impossible, since it would have run out of money in 1757.  He was London’s leading banker, friend of Chatham, and raised unprecedented sums of money, in amounts thought impossible, to finance the war effort. Being Jewish, he could not be given a title as he deserved, so he baptised his son Christian in order for the then 15 year old boy to be awarded a baronetcy in 1762.  A MUCH greater man than the dubious cosmpolitian Rothschild, IMHO.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 01, 2005, 10:08 AM | #

“It is however intellectually unjustified and, if taken to extremes ‘Nazi,’ to regard [the predominant Jewish intellectual tendencies] as part of a massive hidden conspiracy, as distinct from entirely natural and ethically neutral self interest.”  (—Martin, just above)

No need, certainly, to invoke conscious conspiracies, Martin.  But no one with eyes can help discerning clear trends—which seem to be the result of individuals acting wholly independently but thinking so much alike they converge on the same place in their intellectual/political movements.  The same can be said for Christian intellectuals or any other group.  In fact, that’s why we get Jews like Goldschlager (is that the one?  I think I’m getting his name wrong) who claim the Holocaust was a Christian operation:  though we Christians are outraged at such an accusation, in a sense he’s right—had the principal players been Jewish it never could have happened.  That’s sort of a tautology, though, so doesn’t carry much meaning.  But we see from it why Jews are rightly incensed when people such as I, for example, claim “Jews” do this and “Jews” do that, e.g., support excessive incompatible immigration.  It would be better to say, “a portion of Jews do this,” or “a segment of Jews do that.”  But why put “Jews” at all if it’s not their Jewishnesss but some other factor that drives them, namely, the factor that distinguishes that particular subset of them?  Well, because it is partly their Jewishness that drives them, such that, analogously to the case where Christians stand accused of launching the Holocaust, such-and-such particular political sub-movement wouldn’t have happened were its main substrate not Jews. 

“Even in the 18th Century, there were Jewish British patriots.”  (—Martin)

We knew that and we honor their memories, but thanks for reminding everyone of the fact, and in particular for telling us about this man, the good Samson Gideon, whose name and patriotic deeds done in the service of England will be new to many here, me included.

Posted by Geoff Beck on November 01, 2005, 10:40 AM | #

Martin is busy plucking Jews out of the history books to prove: see they aren’t bad, really, just believe me!

Well, I know good Jews too, so what?

Well, I can pluck some Jews out of the history books too:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 01, 2005, 12:44 PM | #

Geoff, if it hadn’t been for Samson Gideon you’d be sitting in Kansas speaking French.

So be thankful

Posted by Geoff Beck on November 01, 2005, 05:55 PM | #

> , if it hadn’t been for Samson Gideon you’d be sitting in Kansas speaking French.

He must have hooked up with your Iroquois friends and wrote the Constitution of the United States - all that founding fathers stuff is just a myth.

In fact it was written by your Jew friend Gideon and the Indians.

Laugh out Loud.

Posted by Phil on November 01, 2005, 06:41 PM | #

Martin,

I think you do need to read Kevin MacDonald. Read him critically and throughly and form your own opinion.

I would recommend that you read the Culture of Critique.

In addition please also read the following four articles:

1. Henry Ford and the Jewish Question (Part I and Part II)

2. The Jewish impact on American immigration policy through a century.

3. Also read this article by Lawrence Auster (who was born Jewish but converted to Catholicism) on Jewish liberal insanity. 

4. Understanding Jewish Influence

I don’t think any of us here will doubt that there have been individual Jews who have been politically aligned with the (gentile) right in unequivocal terms.

However, we are now talking about the Jews as a people. And individual examples do not refute the broad generalization about Jews as a people.

Posted by Svigor on November 01, 2005, 08:45 PM | #

You’re expecting rational self-interest from the left, and concluding that only a twisted version of Jewish racial self-interest can explain their views.

You seem to be precluding rational self-interest from the left, which goes right to the heart of the matter at hand.  Sure, it’s counterproductive to obsess about jews, but it’s also counterproductive to pretend all leftist motivation is the same.  It isn’t.  A great many of the jews in question (who tend constitute the absolute worst of the explicitly anti-white left) are pursuing rational self-interest, even if it is usually in a self-deceptive way (it’s much easier and therefore more intelligent to pursue evil if it’s presented as a good, even - especially? - if one believes as much).

Of course “rational” is a matter of opinion in complex human affairs, and a strong case can be made that their actions aren’t rational.

Leftist motivations are hardly monolithic.  A great many are dupes, for example, who don’t examine their recieved beliefs at all.

Posted by Svigor on November 01, 2005, 09:02 PM | #

Goldschlager

Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 01, 2005, 11:24 PM | #

Guys, I would no more expect rational anything from the left than I would expect intellectual treats from Professors of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach.

One of my closer buddies in journalism is convinced everything’s a Jewish neocon conspiracy; he is himself Jewish from Belfast.

I’m quite prepared to agree that Jewish liberal academics are a nasty lot, that Trotsky and Freud were unpleasant individuals, and that much of the Jewish intellectual tradition is hostile to what I believe in and to a certain extent distinctively so.

I don’t however believe it’s an organized race-driven conspiracy, and don’t see what can possibly be gained, intellectually or otherwise, by proceeding up this unpleasant blind alley.  I do not intend to spend my limited time on this earth poring over the Dearborn Independent or Der Sturmer.

Equally, unlike the left, I am quite prepared to associate with thsoe who disagree with me on this question, and indeed would defend ardently your right to do so.

Posted by Phil on November 02, 2005, 03:58 AM | #

Martin,

It is irrelevant that MacDonald is at Long Beach. The only thing that ought to matter is what he has written. Those ideas need to be judged on their own. But to judge them, one has to be willing to read them.

As for the Dearborn Independent, you will note that MacDonald doesn’t endorse everything that Ford wrote. Instead, he has attempted to analyse the arguments against the context of the time. And you will also note that Ford was no Nazi - he wanted Jews to assimilate into the white Gentile population. That is quite different from der Strumer and Nazi ideology.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 02, 2005, 04:38 PM | #

The notion that self-interest (taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others)is ethically neutral is fundamentally false. The notion of some grand conspiracy (working in secret to obtain some goal) of the Jews, in 19th century Europe, is belied by KMac. Jewish particularism and disdain for assimilation was openly announced, “Let us not forget whence we spring. No more talk of ‘German,’ or of ‘Portuguese’ Jews. Though scattered over the earth we are nevertheless a single people”—Rabbi Salomon Lipmann-Cerfberr in the opening speech delivered on July 26, 1806, at the meeting preparatory to the Sanhedrin of 1807, convened by Napoleon.The emancipation of the Jews came with the expectation of assimilation. By 1870, as KMac outlines, it was readily apparent that assimilation was not happening. In addition, Germans, per KMac, viewed the overrepresentation of Jewish success, economically and professinally, as direct competition.

KMac - Jews not only continued as an etimically unassimilated group but were, “in their majority, not carried away by the ‘hurrah patriotism’ of the exuberant nationalists. They inclined, their devotion to Germany notwithstanding, to humanism, reasonableness, moderation, and a measure of internationalism, influenced also by the fact of Jewish dispersion across national frontiers” ( Mosse 1989, 43-44). Jews were thus less enthusiastic about creating a highly cohesive, unitary German society than were gentile Germans… Thus KMac documents that Jewish self-interest is not ethically neutral but inclined to favour Jews. Ditto for German nationalism. For KMac, both positions are evolutionary strategies for survival. For Germans, it was viewed as racial survival.

(KMac) Adolf Stoecker stated that “Should Israel grow further in this direction, it will completely overcome us. One should not doubt it; on this ground, race stands against race and carries on—not in the sense of hatred but in the sense of competition—a racial struggle”

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 02, 2005, 06:49 PM | #

Rabbi Salomon whatsit was speaking at a summit convened by Napoleon, who’d just united Europe forcibly under his thumb.  He was thus essentially giving the Emperor Stalin’s views not his own (while a great fan of J-L David and the Empress Josephine’s taste in interior decoration I regard Napoleon as superior to Hitler and Stalin only because he didn’t have their technology or efficiency.)

I can’t think of any Jewish demon, not even Trotsky, who was as evil as Napoleon. There is no doubt whatever that the overall long term aim of the French is utter domination of the human race and its replacement by snail-eaters. So why am I not worried?  Because the pathetic socialist pseudo-intellects haven’t got the firepower to impose their evil will on the rest of us.  The same applies to the Jews.

Posted by Geoff Beck on November 02, 2005, 07:34 PM | #

> I can’t think of any Jewish demon, not even Trotsky, who was as evil as Napoleon.

Really, you ought not expose your ignorance too much more, Martin.

Lazar Kaganovich

According to Robert Conquest and many historians of the period, Kaganovich, in league with Vyacheslav Molotov, engineered the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine or Holodomor in which 7 to 10 million people died

BTW, Molotov was a Jew too.

Napolean was a piker compared to the Jewish Bolsheviks.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 02, 2005, 08:41 PM | #

You can’t blame all 20 million of Stalin’s victims on Jews; Stalin wasn’t Jewish, even though many of his henchmen were. Napoleon’s total was at least 2-3 million, in an era when that was a lot and technology was limited.

Posted by Geoff Beck on November 02, 2005, 08:49 PM | #

Martin,

I didn’t blame 20 million on the Jews, Historian Robert Conquest and other said the JEW Kaganovich is responsible for 7-10 million dead in Ukraine

Now if you don’t like that, then tell Conquest he is wrong.

Don’t get mad because you can’t face the truth.

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

Posted by Geoff Beck on November 02, 2005, 08:54 PM | #

Here are some other facts you might find uncomfortable —- look away:

Peoples Commissariat (Ministry) Name Nationality

Chairman V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Foreign Affairs G.V. Chicherin Russian
Nationalities J. Dzhugashvili [Stalin] Georgian
Agriculture Protian Armenian
Economic Council Lourie (Larin) Jew
Food Supply A.G. Schlikhter Jew
Army and Navy [Military] L.D. Bronstein (Trotski) Jew
State Control K.I. Lander Jew
State Lands Kaufmann Jew
Works [Labor] V. Schmidt Jew
Social Relief E. Lilina (Knigissen) Jew
Education A. Lunacharsky Russian
Religion Spitzberg Jew
Interior Apfelbaum [Radomyslski] (Zinoviev) Jew
.Hygiene Anvelt Jew
Finance I. E. Gukovs [and G. Sokolnikov] Jew
Press Voldarski [Goldstein] Jew
Elections M.S. Uritsky Jew
Justice I.Z. Shteinberg Jew
Refugees Fenigstein Jew
Refugees Savitch (Assistant) Jew
Refugees Zaslovski (Assistant) Jew

Out of these 22 “Sovnarkom” members, Wilton summed’up, there were three Russians, one Georgian, one Armenian, and 17 Jews.

The Central Executive Committee, Wilton continues, was made up of the following members:

Y. M. Sverdlov [Solomon] (Chairman) Jew
Avanesov (Secretary) Armenian
Bruno Latvian
Breslau Latvian [?]
Babtchinski Jew
N. I. Bukharin Russian
Weinberg Jew
Gailiss Jew
Ganzberg [Ganzburg ] Jew
Danichevski Jew
Starck German
Sachs Jew
Scheinmann Jew
Erdling Jew
Landauer Jew
Linder Jew
Wolach Czech
S. Dimanshtein Jew
Encukidze Georgian
Ermann Jew
A. A. Ioffe Jew
Karkhline Jew
Knigissen Jew
Rosenfeld (Kamenev) Jew
Apfelbaum (Zinoviev) Jew
N. Krylenko Russian
Krassikov Jew
Kaprik Jew
Kaoul Latvian
Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Latsis Jew
Lander Jew
Lunacharsky Russian
Peterson Latvian
Peters Latvian
Roudzoutas Jew
Rosine Jew
Smidovitch Jew
Stoutchka Latvian
Nakhamkes (Steklov) Jew
Sosnovski Jew
Skrytnik Jew
L. Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
Teodorovitch Jew [?]
Terian Armenian
Uritsky Jew
Telechkine Russian
Feldmann Jew
Fromkin Jew
Souriupa Ukrainian
Tchavtchevadze Georgian
Scheikmann Jew
Rosental Jew
Achkinazi Imeretian [?]
Karakhane Karaim [Karaite]
Rose Jew
Sobelson (Radek) Jew
Schlichter Jew
Schikolini Jew
Chklianski Jew
Levine-(Pravdine) Jew

Thus, concluded Wilton, out of 61 members, five were Russians, six were Latvians, one was a German, two were Armenians, one was a Czech, one was an Imeretian, two were Georgians, one was a Karaim, one. was a Ukrainian, and 41 were Jews.

The Extraordinary Commission of Moscow (Cheka) ‘the Soviet secret police and predecessor of the GPU, the NKVD and the KGB was made up of the following:

F. Dzerzhinsky (Chairman) Pole
Y. Peters (Deputy Chairman) Latvian
Chklovski Jew
Kheifiss Jew
Zeistine Jew
Razmirovitch Jew
Kronberg Jew
Khaikina Jew
Karlson Latvian
Schaumann Latvian
Leontovitch Jew
Jacob Goldine Jew
Galperstein Jew
Kniggisen Jew
Katzis Latvian
Schillenkuss Jew
Janson Latvian
Rivkine Jew
Antonof Russian
Delafabre Jew
Tsitkine Jew
Roskirovitch Jew
G. Sverdlov (Brother of president of the Central Executive Committee) Jew
Biesenski Jew
J. Blumkin (Count Mirbach’s assassin) Jew
Alexandrovitch (Blumkin’s accomplice) Russian
I. Model Jew
Routenberg Jew
Pines Jew
Sachs Jew
Daybol Latvian
Saissoune Armenian
Deylkenen Latvian
Liebert Jew
Vogel German
Zakiss Latvian

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 02, 2005, 09:53 PM | #

And I suppose Mao Zedong was Jewish, too?  Really, Geoff it doesn’t prove anything.

For every Jew that has subverted honest straightforward British Physics with Communist Relativity and Quantum mechanics:

I will give you a Frenchman who has subverted honest straightforward British (and Greek) philosophy with Communist existentialism and post-modernism.

In my own field, economics, Keynes was British and Friedman Jewish.

It is impossible to prove a negative, and you are welcome to believe whatever conspiracy theories you like, but don’t expect me to.  You also sap the strength of the beliefs we have in common by harping on those for which there is no possibility of agreement, and wouldn’t be an acceptable solution if there was agreement.

The idea of sawing off the central US will I assure you leave a very poor state, however ethnically pure it is. It was the Voortrekker dream in South Africa and it didn’t work economically for over a century before it collapsed politically. Only the diamonds and gold of the Rand had saved it even as early as 1880.

The BNP has tried to drop anti-semitism, and is doing a lot better electorally since it did so. Gorgeous sex symbol though Diana Mosley was, her husband was a blind alley and waste of space.

Posted by Geoff Beck on November 02, 2005, 10:04 PM | #

Martin,

You stated

> I can’t think of any Jewish demon, not even Trotsky, who was as evil as Napoleon.

I countered this statement, to which you have no reply and told you the JEW Kaganovich liquidated 7-10 million Ukranian Christians.

For this you HAVE NO RESPONSE, other than to obfuscate. Sorry, but clearly your understanding European history is subpar - and after spreading the Iroquois non-sense your understanding of American history is quite wobbly.

Posted by JB on November 02, 2005, 10:55 PM | #

Martin Hutchinson:
“I don’t however believe it’s an organized race-driven conspiracy, and don’t see what can possibly be gained, intellectually or otherwise, by proceeding up this unpleasant blind alley.”

Martin,
guess which group in the US owns or runs television networks, Hollywood, the printed press, a lot of book publishers and radio networks ? This isn’t a conspiracy it’s a fact: the media is dominated by jews who think as jews, not as individuals, not as leftists. In the US you won’t find any destructive idea or trend that didn’t get approved by the mass media jews.

How do you reconcile the fact that the media is “patriotic” and pro-war and at the same time anti-white, anti-christian and produces and broadcasts degenerate entertainment. A leftist will tell you the media is right-wing and a rightist will tell you the media is liberal but they’re both wrong because the media has an ethnic bias, not a political one. But neither side will accept to frame the question in ethnic terms which is why they’re both useless to our cause. I’ve stopped thinking in terms of Left and Right a long time ago.

a list of names and photos:
Who Rules America?

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4231

lots of quotes and facts here. Not the format I usually appreciate but the website has too much information that can’t be ignored

JEWISH INFLUENCE IN THE MASS MEDIA

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/24media1.htm

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 03, 2005, 03:24 AM | #

Martin suffers from, as his fellow Briton WJ Phillips often proclaimed, the logical fallacy of invincible ignorance.

The arguer defends a position simply by refusing to acknowledge the force of the arguments supporting the opposing view.

Some phrases characteristic of this fallacy may include, “I refuse to listen…” “I don’t care what they say…” “I don’t however believe…” etc.

Sailer has an interesting piece on the ‘neutral’ self-interest of the Russian oligarchs, the western press’ leniency, their destruction of democratic and economic reform in post-Soviet Russia, their incitement of anti-semitism, (“Let’s expel the Jews. Let’s take back their property. The Jews are milking us dry.”), their use use of Israel as their Amen Corner, and “and ties to the business, media and think tank worlds in America generating financial and political capital” all because 6 ot 7 are Jews.

He leads into it quite cleverly with a discussion of the ill-fated Italian-American Civil Rights League. The moral of the story is that “Honest Italian-Americans ended up greatly benefiting from the collapse of the Italian American Civil Rights League. With the danger of being accused of racism removed, the federal government during the Reagan Administration hammered the Mafia and left it a shell of what it once was.”

Hardly an ‘unpleasant blind alley.‘It leaves one wondering how Russians would have benefitted if the fear of a charge of anti-semitism had been removed allowing criticism of the Magnificent Seven.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/11/brief-rise-and-sudden-fall-of-italian.html

Posted by Guessedworker on November 03, 2005, 07:02 AM | #

That permalink to Steve’s article doesn’t seem to be working.  But if you scroll down the right-hand column of his daily notes you will come to it pretty smartly.

Steve’s point, as Desmond says, is that stifling or delegitimising criticism frees one to behave that much more badly.  Sadly, Steve does not really penetrate the impact of delegitimisation upon the victims of that behaviour (that’s us, btw).  In essence, if certain Jews are freed to behave badly then that is only so because our freedom has been abrogated.  We are less free.

I think one can split this loss of freedom into the effects of false guilt at the personal psychological level and at the societal level.

At the personal psychological level one is hobbled by the ridiculously artificial aesthetic that saying anything uncomplimentary about Jews in any context is “racist” or “anti-semitic”, and “racists” and “antisemites” are nasty, illiberal social criminals - wholly non-U, wholly to be deprecated and, in all particulars, avoided.

The dynamic involved here is hardly that of the free and positive human spirit striving for betterment, light and reason.  Exactly the opposite.  It is posited upon the reification of a guilt that does not exist.  We suffer from fear of punishment by implied guilt.  The Pavlovian flip-side is that the process also involves a (very) weak reward.  For proclaiming one’s, of course, deep detachment from “racism” and “anti-semitism” one may experience a sense of faux-moral goodness.  The whole process is an intellectual prolapse in which a “mittle European” voice whispers, “Stop that critical thinking right THERE.  That’s it.  NOW you are being good, not like those evil goys before.”

At the societal level the whole goddamned business of avoiding being “anti-semitic” requires the acceptance of a gross blood libel on European people.  From birth we are all supposed to be carrying in our hearts the special original sins of “racism” and “anti-semitism”, and at any moment these can come barrelling out of the darkness to skewer yet more saintly and blameless Jews.  The hook upon which this deception is hung is, of course, the Darwinian love of kind, the normal, healthy ethnocentrism which all peoples possess.  In this way we suffer the worst of all possible racial abuse.

That abuse costs us quite fantastic quantities of treasure.  But that is as nothing to the cost in moral capital.  The psychological norm which joins like people to one another and to their homelands has been so weakened, we stand in genuine peril of losing the lot.  Only the brave or the mad will campaign for us politically - though self-preservation isn’t an idea that tortures other peoples, Jews especially.

If that weren’t bad enough, we have to lie to ourselves publicly to maintain our sense of false moral good.  We even pass laws upon ourselves so we can’t discover how many Jews were gassed at Auchwitz?  Don’t for pete’s sake say none.  Don’t let anybody ask how those Nazis are supposed to have stuffed millions of bodies through the tiny cast-iron doors of the camp incinerators.  That would send our Jewish moral guardians into total panic, and we would be TO BLAME.  Again.

No, the argument that we do not have the blood of millions of Jews on our hands cannot be prosecuted or the whole edifice of lies will come crashing down.  We would be free to do as we wished, and Jews would only be as free as we are.

Is that an anti-semitic thought-crime?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 03, 2005, 10:29 PM | #

GW, since the evidence that the Nazis intended to wipe out millions of Jews is incontrovertible, you can only believe that they were startlingly inept in their attempts to do so. Knowing Germans as I do, I find this unlikely.

As I have said many times, there are a number of issues on which this site provides valuable insights, and for which its beliefs are important, and its recommendations for action worthwhile (some being more practicable than others.) Third parties visiting the site and seeing its discussions of these issues will be enlightened, and their visits may be helpful to the causes in which we generally believe. 

There are also a number of issues, notably Holocaust denial, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and agitation about the Jewish conspiracy to destroy white civilisation, which will get the site and its participants dismissed by all those with even a modicum of power or influence as a bunch of dangerous and unpleasant fruitcakes. They also bring no possibility of positive action in a direction any of us would support.

This is just a reality. Deal with it as you will.

Posted by Geoff Beck on November 03, 2005, 10:49 PM | #

> There are also a number of issues, notably Holocaust denial, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and agitation about the Jewish conspiracy to destroy white civilisation, which will get the site and its participants dismissed by all those with even a modicum of power or influence as a bunch of dangerous and unpleasant fruitcakes. They also bring no possibility of positive action in a direction any of us would support.

Worried the ethnics and sherry drinkers down at the polo club won’t say hello to you?

You made some allegations, now back them up!

(1) tell me who, commentor or poster, has cited the Protocols as a legimate work?

(2) tell me who hear has denied the holocaust?

(3) tell me who here has said there is a “jewish plot to destroy white civilization”?

Put up or shut up, Hutchinson.

Truman had a saying: “if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.” I don’t think you can stand the heat, Hutchinson.

Why don’t you quit whining and tell someone they are wrong——and prove it for a change.

Posted by Geoff Beck on November 03, 2005, 11:04 PM | #

I know I’m getting close to the truth, why?

Because anytime the truth is being approached people get offended and make denunciations - especially the respectable conservatives.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 03, 2005, 11:14 PM | #

Geoff: (i) you
(ii) Guessedworker and you
(iii) you, repeatedly.

Read this thread for ii and iii, the previous nonsense on this about a month ago for i.

On this subject, you wouldn’t recognize the truth if you fell across it in the street.

On others, except for yoyur anti-Iroquois mania, you are perfectly sensible, indeed respectable

Posted by Geoff Beck on November 03, 2005, 11:33 PM | #

Martin,

Until you show me WHERE I denied the holocaust and WHERE I said the Protocols were genuine I say you are a filthy no good fibber.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 04, 2005, 02:26 AM | #

“There are also a number of issues, notably Holocaust denial, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and agitation about the Jewish conspiracy to destroy white civilisation, which will get the site and its participants dismissed by all those with even a modicum of power or influence as a bunch of dangerous and unpleasant fruitcakes. They also bring no possibility of positive action in a direction any of us would support. This is just a reality. Deal with it as you will.”  (—Martin)

I think this was partly aimed at me because of my first comment in the thread and some subsequent ones.  (I stand by those comments of mine.)

Posted by Guessedworker on November 04, 2005, 04:01 AM | #

Geoff,

You’re breaking our one and only house rule somewhat.  Do please keep that famous temper in check.

Martin,

My comment said nothing of whether the Nazis intended to murder Jews or not, which is a completely different matter.  I was attempting to complete the interesting and true observation by Steve Sailer, to which Desmond drew our attention, that once freed from criticism folks tend to go further in their bad behaviours.  Jews, freed of all criticism post-WW2, have gone further in theirs too.  The number of Jews murdered in the camps and the methods used to do so and, afterwards, to dispose of the bodies is one area in which “going further” has occurred.  Getting laws passed against questioning excess in this regard is another.

My comment sought only to explain that, and its seriously hobbling effect upon us.  We are not somehow moralised by it.  We are denied our rights to our own untrammelled identity and, thereby, our natural instinct for self-preservation.  We are dehumanised.

Your reaction shows not that I have gone over the top in some way or been duped by latter-day Nazis or Nazi sympathisers, but that our natural European decency and tolerance has been severely abused.  Indeed, you are exhibiting the effect of such abuse yourself.

It is of the highest necessity for Europeans, including the post-WW2 generation Germans, to break with the myths - including those of “the holocaust” - that bind us to this dehumanising blood libel of a unique “white racism” and “anti-semitism”.  I am very, very interested in the freedom of spirit and of action which would flow from that.

My comment, to which you took such exception, implied nothing more than that, did it?

Posted by Guessedworker on November 04, 2005, 08:58 AM | #

I will add one or two other thoughts to this last comment.

Quite apart from the issues surrounding what one might call Holocaustism and its effects upon the Western or European psyche, Europeans also labour under those effects flowing directly from Marxism and the Frankfurt School.

As we all know, the culture war has been centred on second-wave feminism, “gay” rights, racio-cultural equality and the permissive counter-culture of the sixties, all of which were intellectualised and led by Jews.  “Gay” rights, I believe, was almost entirely a Jewish movement.  One might add pornography to this list, save that it is, apparently, a business and not an intellectual movement.  Its effect is as deadly to us as any of the rest.

If I was a Jew I would be deeply shocked and disquieted by such a truly appalling contribution to the cultural life of my hosts.  There is NO Jewish shock or disquiet.  There are no great Jewish counter-movements for the repair of the damage caused by all this, no visible desire among the grand, right-wing men and women of Jewish extraction to put right all that has been done in their name.  There are no such Jewish men and women, unless one counts Henry Makow!

Is it anti-semitic to ask why not?

At this point I suppose, for the benefit of all half-wits, I need to stress that I am disinterested in prosecuting Jews for their racio-cultural activity.  That sort of thing is only to be expected.  The deeper problem for us is our blind individualism and intellectually low-wattage acquiescence.

I am, therefore, interested in spreading a wider understanding of Jewish racio-cultural activity to aid the chances of finding a way out from under it.  To my mind that is unlikely.  All these Jewish-inspired and staffed movements (and “businesses”) have worked with the grain of liberalism, and to defeat the former we must escape the latter.

When one thinks how Jewish marxists acquired funding for the Frankfurt Institute and pulled together so many keen intellects to theorise their assault on the Western psyche, one can only lament the total lack of organisation among us today.  Where are the billionaire-funded institutes theorising on our behalf?  God help us, the last concentrated movement devoted to European Man was National Socialism!

No wonder all criticism of Jewish ethnic nationalism in the West is met with screams of “Nazi, Nazi!”

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 04, 2005, 09:33 AM | #

GW, you’re conspiracy-theorizing again, a blind alley down which I do not propose to follow. To call “gay rights” a Jewish movement and infer from that that the Jews are conspiring to destroy our culture draws irrational conclusions from false premises.  Gay rights, having originated in NY and SF, by all means had a high percentage of Jews among its original membership, but in its maturity it has never been predominantly Jewish—indeed, were it so it would be self-eliminating within a generation.

Much trashy Western culture is Jewish, but much isn’t, from the white trash music of Elvis and the Beatles to the Latin dance and salsa, to the black hip-hop.

Whingeing that you are not allowed to deny the holocaust without being labeled a fruitcake is also pointless. The historical evidence for a holocaust, by all means 2-3 million rather than 6 million, and not as “bad” as the exterminations of Stalin or Mao, is uncontrovertible, so denying it is indeed the action of a fruitcake. 

More important, endless excited denunciations of Jewish conspiracies destroys the legitimacy and importance of this site among the uncommitted or potentially committed community.

The fact that I don’t denounce Jews is not evidence of my liberal guilt, but simply of the fact that I rather like them, having had one wife and several girlfriends from that race. They are up there with East Asians among the people who, while recognizing that I am not of their number, I generally expect to like when I meet them. Arabs, Africans, Latin Americans (not Spanish) and Irish would be at the other end of the scale, though I have friends and ex-wives among those communities too (e.g. one Irish American ex-wife, one Argentine girlfriend.)

Given that my ancestry, like that of almost all people in Britain, is by no means 100% English (the rest are from within the British Isles within the last 150 years, but I suspect Huguenot and goodness knows what before that) I am not particularly close to say the average Cockney,(1 friend, 0 wives/girlfriends) nor inspired to altruistic acts on his behalf. I have to say that I think genetic altruism runs pretty thin beyond say second cousins, in any case.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 04, 2005, 12:16 PM | #

No, Martin, you are not disconnected from the English working man.  His and your interests are inextricable.  Intellectual distance and class distinctions count for little in the scheme of things.  Anyway, as I write I am sitting in the midst of the English countryside, which is his and your land.  You defend it to mutual advantage and to the advantage of your children.  Set down that burden and others will pick it up - and are doing so.

The Jewish Conspiracy thing is a blatant strawman.  Only EGI and hyper-ethnocentricity are required to explain the phenomenon of the Jewish racio-cultural one-way street!  (this isn’t something to “denounce”, btw, but to acknowledge and understand).

On the Sads, I don’t have the link I’m afraid but I have seen a list of American activists, roughly nine out of ten of whom were Jewish.  Hell, even the yippies and the Paris protests of 1968 were led by Jews.  One doesn’t have to invent conspiracies.  Facts are everywhere and quite sufficient to demonstrate Jewish EGI.  As I asked before, where are the instances to the contrary?  Where are the great, historically significant Jewish movements demonstrating support for our traditional way of life?  You will look for them in vain because they would serve our EGI, not the Jews’.

By the same token, you could look for gentiles involved in theorising and leading the culture war.  Not Habermas.  Just a sprog at Frankfurt.  Raymond Williams even less. Foucault, I suppose, if you are French.  But then there was the non-gentile Derrida, Lyotard, the wife-killer Althusser ...

Among the feminists there’s gentile Germain Greer, I suppose.  Susan Mackinnon perhaps.  But read what Jewish feminists themselves say.

The plain fact is that purely destructive cultural and political movements do not serve our EGI.  So it was that 19th and early 20th century gentiles were profoundly disinterested in revolution (out of which disinterest the Frankfurt School was born).  I wonder how you think we managed to organise so very efficiently post-WW2 for culture war.

The answer is that “we” didn’t.  But there were still ample spaces in liberalism for destructive ideas to be advanced.  Interest groups, weak and ambitious politicians and outright self-hating evil-doers such as Ken Livingstone have been carried along with the flow, profiting thereby as what Antonio Gramsci never actually called Captured Intellects but you get my meaning). 

This is advanced liberalism in all its glory.  As I’ve said before its core is cultural Marxism, and cultural Marxism is a Jewish EGI-serving philosophy.  We need to be absolutely honest with ourselves about that - which, really, is the whole of my point.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 04, 2005, 12:30 PM | #

Lenin, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Pol Pot, the world is full of bad left wing guys who weren’t Jewish. Feminism’s like gay lib; it started in NYC so Jews were involved (and Jewish strength in the media may help new bad ideas get propagated.) Going back, Marx was Jewish but Proudhon and Saint-Simon weren’t, and they’re the inspiration for today’s left.  As I said above, for every Jewish bad idea I can find you a French one.

But what about Keith Joseph and Milton Friedman and Casper Weinberger, dammit, three of the major builders of the better bits of today’s world?

(Weinberger was NOT a neocon; he was fighting Communism not “Islamofascism”—god, I hate that term—and didn’t start wars to spread democracy, which the present lot do. Much of the silliness in today’s US foreign policy isn’t Jewish, it’s Texan, while Bush’s bizarre views on immigration aren’t Jewish, they’re New England corporatist.)

Bad ideas are NOT all about race; in this we may have a fundamental difference of opinion.  Race is important, but it’s by no means the only important factor in determining our future.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 04, 2005, 12:37 PM | #

BTW, you live in Sussex, don’t you?—a county I’ve spent less than a week in lifetime, at Brighton and Goodwood.  Nice place, I agree, but us Gloucestershire men (and I am ancestrally Gloucestershire and Yorkshire, as well as having grown up there) are a different breed of Saxon.  Also genetically quite distinct, since Gloucestershire farmers in 1750, let alone 750, didn’t meet people from Sussex, unlike my tangled affairs with Jews, Irish, Armenians, Argentines and Bulgarians—my only Brit was a West Country girl, but she ditched me!

I can get misty-eyed about the Virginia, Hudson Valley or Vermont countryside too—the early colonists did; with the exception of the climate, it wasn’t that far from home. Hudson Valley’s aesthetically the most breathtaking in parts.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 04, 2005, 07:56 PM | #

Martin,

I suppose it’s a cheap shot to say feminism didn’t just spontaneously erupt “in NY so Jews were involved”, like a road accident that necessarily must involve cars!  Anyhow, the question here is not whether the interests of Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Susan Sontag, Andrea Dworkin et al were ethnic. That is too crude.  Similarly, it is not whether they sought - or thought they sought - to “free” women rather than merely damage the relationship to men.  It’s more subtle.

The issue, really, is the character and meaning of critical theory, that being the unique product of Jewry and its distinctive mode of intellectual engagement with the gentile world.  Obviously, it is not the same thing as liberalism but neither is it a product of it - like, say, welfarism is.  Critical theory intersects with and makes use of liberalism for practical political purposes, that’s all.  So Proudhon and Saint-Simon are no more than historical adjuncts - part of the greater framework and useful reference points if needed but not specifically formative.

Che, of course, is entirely irrelevant to the European experience of Jewry.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 04, 2005, 11:46 PM | #

GW, this philosophical stuff is really well off my areas of expertise.  I accept that “critical theory” is said to be a primarily Jewish endeavour, but I couldn’t define it, or tell you definitively whether it is more critical to the worldview of the bad guys than Marxism, anarchism, Saint-Simonism, existentialism or a thousand other rotten ideas.

I simply believe that if the hypothesis is that the wrongs of the world are due to a conscious conspiracy by a single minority race, then the burden of proof is on the propounder of such an a priori unlikely hypothesis. And I don’t see it.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 05, 2005, 02:30 AM | #

The hypothesis is:-

1. Jewish intellectualism generates liberal philosophical critiques which destroy our way of life.  Other (mostly) Jews develop these philosophies into social movements.

2. In the last century and a half all but one of these philosophies (new-wave libertarianism) have been on the left of the traditional spectrum.

3. It doesn’t matter whether the individuals involved are acting from conscious ethnic motives.  Conflicted ethnic interests are a characteristic of all racially heterogeneal societies, and normal individuals observe them in any case.

4. You may well take as proof of the above the historically new and, therefore, “engineered” conviction, widespread in Western societies, that the indigenes belong only to the human race and have no ethnic genetic interests of their own to defend.

This isn’t an extreme position for us to hold, Martin.  Given the circumstances it is, I think, judicious.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on November 05, 2005, 12:21 PM | #

I’d forgotten about Ayn Rand, who’s another Jewish good guy. By no means all the new bad ideas in the last 150 years have been Jewish-inspired; some (Keynesianism) have even been British, horrifying though it is to say so.  In any case, a break point at 1832 (you presumably include Communism, the bad idea of thwe 1840s) is both artificial and deeply significant. A society that does not have a stable social order, and does not discriminate in determining who has the vote, is a society that has no mechanism for ruling out bad ideas, since the numerical majority can’t tell bad ideas from good ones.

Jewish bad ideas have come from within Anglo-American society, rather than being imposed from outside, like French ones. As such, they are I suppose more subversive, but tyhat’s a structural problem not an ethnic one.

If having a completely mono-ethnic society is important to you then by all means, the Jews have to go too. However, if you start getting purist, I am myself enough of a mongrel not to fit in such a society, and certainly my Bulgarian current wife and son are (my mother would probably be OK, being English back 5 generations—it’s all her fault for marrying Father.)

I think it’s important to try and use the scientific method on these questions.  For me, the Jewish conspiracy is intrinsically unlikely and somewaht unattractive as a theory, and hence requires a high burden of proof, a hurdle which it misses by a substantial margin. 

Race replacement is also a priori somewhat unlikely, though I agree in regarding it as very unpleasant were it to happen.  However in that case simply running the numbers forward from current trends in the US suggests that it’s inevitable, even as early as 2050 (when I may still be around and certainly my son should be.) It is thuis a real danger, and needs real and substantial action in order to combat it. I would suspect it’s a little further off in Britian, but don’t have the demographic data to check.

Without MR, I wouldn’t have run the numbers on race replacement; I have thus learned something, which is always good. On the Jewish conspiracy, I remain unconvinced, and separated from some MR’ers by the fact that I actually like Jews.

Posted by JB on November 06, 2005, 09:55 PM | #

Martin Hutchinson:
“from that that the Jews are conspiring to destroy our culture draws irrational conclusions from false premises.”

and you can surely point out to us what are these false premises ?

Our false premises would produce wrong conclusions not irrational ones by the way

Martin Hutchinson:
“Much trashy Western culture is Jewish, but much isn’t, from the white trash music of Elvis and the Beatles to the Latin dance and salsa, to the black hip-hop.”

gangta rap has always been produced by jewish records companies (i.e. Lew Wasserman’s MCA) and it’s broadcasted by the jewish media especiallly Murray Rothstein’s MTV. Don’t look at the creators and the artists they’re irrelevant. The producers are the ones who decide. More details here:

http://jewishtribalreview.org/blmusic.htm

Martin Hutchinson:
“I simply believe that if the hypothesis is that the wrongs of the world are due to a conscious conspiracy by a single minority race, then the burden of proof is on the propounder of such an a priori unlikely hypothesis. And I don’t see it.”

and you conveniently refuse to read Kevin MacDonald

Martin Hutchinson:
“I’d forgotten about Ayn Rand”

I think she was a rabid anti-racist. It doesn’t matter what jews bring to the table there’s always poison in it

Martin Hutchinson:
“A society that does not have a stable social order, and does not discriminate in determining who has the vote, is a society that has no mechanism for ruling out bad ideas, since the numerical majority can’t tell bad ideas from good ones.”

but all those jews, those liberals, those conservatives, those etc. tell us Democracy and Equality are good things, so good that we should conquer the world to impose these ideas on humanity. You wouldn’t be able to go on TV and voice a different opinion on Democracy and Equality without being attacked by all the liberals and conservatives. Think about that for a minute.

Martin Hutchinson:
“It is thuis a real danger, and needs real and substantial action in order to combat it.”

but guess who pushed for mass immigration

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-immigration.html

and guess who today forbids any talk in the US about race and immigration that doesn’t conclude that we’re all the same and interchangeable. Recall what happened to Trent Lott over his Strom Thurmond comments. There’s only one consensus about race and immigration and that consensus for some strange reason is in line with the ethnic sensibility of the owners of the mass media.

Posted by richard hoidal on September 28, 2010, 05:54 PM | #

you are all part wrong the jews today are not by race a jew, or better put a Judahite /Yehuda from Jacob. They are Edomites from Esau. dna studies have proven most Jews today are kurds and turks. So they are not who they say they are. Edomites are the other white race. But Esau mixed with the Canaanites and the Ishmaelite s. Yes it is true they the Jews today. And they do want to destroy the Israelites which of course are the Caucasians. But today it is not about a race to be in the true house of Israel it is being under the new covenant which makes one in the house of Israel. “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan.” Revelation 2:9 Mohammed was a edomite, and very possibly a jew edomite, a white man. Read the Hadith and you will know that truth!