Sunday, 13 October 2013

You see as normal a world in which Europeans are continually insulted by Jews for being "Nazis", even the Europeans whose ancestors fought against the Nazis. You see as normal a world in which every manifestation of European nationalism is stigmatised as Nazism and greeted with special repressive measures.

In this world, flayed by guilt, which they passively and meekly accept and internalise, Europeans have no chance of defending their countries against islamisation. Seen as tainted by some kind of "Nazi" original sin, the only way Europeans can redeem themselves is to mutely hand their countries over to the aliens and hope for the best.

You see this world as normal because that’s the world we live in.

But I don't see this world as normal. It is built on a falsified narrative of 20th century history, one which stresses the evils of nationalism, racism and right-wing politics. An authentic history, however, would acknowledge that anti-nationalism, political prejudice and left-wing politics had consequences that were as destructive, if not more destructive, than nationalism, and that the excesses of nationalism were among those consequences. In other words, extreme nationalism was a reaction to artificially-imposed extreme anti-nationalism. Those anti-nationalist ideas have been expressed in ideologies like Communism and multiculturalism. Each of these movements, if they even deserve to be considered separate movements, has exhibited the vastly disproportionate involvement of diaspora Jews in the fermentation of their ideas, their promotion through intellectual discourse and their implementation at the policy level. Anti-nationalism is, literally, the worst idea in history. If you could quantify the misery and death the violation of the nationalist principle – the idea that a people should live in a homogeneous ethnic group in its own territory under its own government - has provoked, it would be staggering to contemplate. History is largely the chronicle of the unpleasantness that arises when this principle is violated.

The islamisation of Europe is the consequence of the elevation of anti-nationalism to be the dominant moral ideal of our age. Immigration is the most obvious consequence of the elite’s embrace of this destructive ideal. And islamisation is the consequence of immigration.

When people are infected by HIV, they don’t die of HIV. HIV is just a state of weakness. It is when they catch a secondary infection in this vulnerable state that fatality results. That’s how it is with modern Europe. Islam is not the problem. Islam is what will kill us. But it’s the secondary infection, not the underlying malady. The underlying malady is anti-nationalism.

To some Europeans, it will no doubt sound banal to say that islamisation is the consequence of immigration because, for many of them, the two are inseparable. But this is much less obvious to Americans, since America has been a country of immigration since its inception. Because the American influence is dominant within the Counterjihad movement, and because much of the Counterjihad movement wishes to make itself as inoffensive as possible to elite opinion, in a pitiful attempt to win mainstream acceptance, this fairly obvious truth goes generally unacknowledged. Many Counterjihad activists will abstain from saying anything about immigration for fear of being accused of racism.

A more rounded history of the 20th century would be the clearest possible refutation of the ideal of multiculturalism. It would show that the fact of having different peoples living in the same territory inevitably produces unpleasant results. Even after centuries, separate peoples retain their own sense of ethnic distinctness because the urge to empathise with your own ancestral kin group is an ineradicable part of human nature. Cherishing their own separateness, these distinct ethnic groups inevitably generate conflicts of interests and end up plotting against one another. The Jews plotted against the Europeans in whose countries they were living and the Europeans plotted back, or vice versa. It doesn’t matter. The point is that the best way to have a harmonious world is to have separate peoples living in their own territories. That is the policy conclusion that an authentic 20th century history would tend to lead to. The warped narrative we have all been treated to hitherto, however, suggests exactly the opposite conclusion, namely that nationalism, ethnic identification, and the quest for territorial homogeneity is a terrible scourge which we must all be on constant guard against; that having different peoples living in the same territory is a great and enriching thing; and that all we need is a state willing to victimise the majority population, criminalise its free expression and use its power to crush any incipient manifestation of pride or self-assertion among its people.

The recent persecution of Golden Dawn is a good example of where the dominant narrative takes us. Now, Golden Dawn are very far from being my political ideal. Whatever their imperfections, however, they were one of the best hopes for stopping the islamisation of Greece and Europe in the only way that actually matters: achieving governmental power and using it to stop Muslim immigration and facilitate or enforce Muslim ex-migration. That hope may now have been extinguished, partly through direct and indirect pressure from Jewish organisations; and partly through the mythologised narrative of 20th century history that assigns some demonic significance to nationalism, racism and right-wing politics more generally. The EDL likewise have been wounded by the same bizarre European guilt obsessions arising from this distorted account of history.

Jews generally have no difficulty with the concept of ulterior, even subconscious, motivation. Freud, after all, who pioneered the concept of the subconscious, was a Jew. It is common to hear, for example, European governments accused of disguised or subconscious antisemitism for their policies towards Israel or the Palestinians. Why, then, do you have such difficulty with the idea that the Jews active in Communist movements could have had ulterior or even subconscious motivations related to their Jewishness? Are we really expected to believe it was pure coincidence that a group of excluded outsiders embraced and implemented an ideology that denigrated almost every aspect of mainstream European society, that sanctioned its deconstruction, the erasure of all its traditions, the wiping out of Christianity, the suppression of European patriot movements and the criminalisation of antisemitism?

I don’t take accusations of antisemitism any more seriously than I take accusations of islamophobia or racism. These are terms designed to shut down rational discussion by imputing impure motivations to opponents and elevating subjective considerations such as emotion and motivation above the core criterion of objective truth. In the world of serious discourse, however, a person’s motivations don’t matter. Facts matter. It is examination of the facts that has led me to take a critical view of the influence Jews have had on European history through their promotion of anti-nationalist ideas. Not that it matters, but I was emotionally well-disposed towards Jews prior to becoming aware of these facts. If any of the facts I have cited are inaccurate, I would welcome their correction. But that would be to engage in rational discourse. And we have seen no sign of a willingness to do that. Even you, in your comment, make no attempt to cite any factual inaccuracy. The post you are responding to consists almost entirely of quotes from a Jewish historian who acknowledges the Jewish role in the Communist dictatorships and balances this presentation of facts, overly so I would say, by offering a sympathetic appreciation of the context in which the Jews made the choices that they did.

Instead of rational engagement, we see exactly what I expected when I decided to broach this issue: the de rigueur insults of antisemitism, much like the de rigueur insults of islamophobia, and the silent withdrawal of support from websites that claim to be part of a Counterjihad movement. It is clear that these websites are primarily engaged, not in resisting Islamic Jihad, but in promoting the (perceived) interests of Jewry. They are interested in resisting Islam only insofar as the Islamic agenda conflicts with the interests of Jewry, which it clearly does to a significant degree. But that far and no further. When the two agendas come into conflict, the anti-jihad agenda falls by the wayside. Even the Counterjihad sites run by gentiles fear the disapproval of Jews, either because they are economically reliant on them in some way or because they have internalised the codes of conduct created to delegitimise criticism of Jews.

As I said, this response was anticipated when I first started talking about this issue. Nonetheless, it is dismaying to see the lack of moral and intellectual integrity in people you once respected. These are people who spend much of their lives presenting tangible evidence to a hostile mainstream audience unwilling to set aside its preconceptions in favour of the facts. At every turn, they are accused of having impure motivations, of being animated by hatred. You would hope, then, that these same people, having faced down the intimidating accusation of wickedness themselves, having bravely brandished factual truth in the face of the hostile arbiters of acceptable opinion, would themselves, when they found their own preconceptions challenged, be better than their own adversaries had been. But, tragically, they’re not. When presented with facts that challenge their preconceptions about Jews, they react in exactly the same way that their mainstream interlocutors do when presented with facts that jar with their preconceptions about Muslims.

The notion that a people – any people – could provoke a mindless, irrational hatred in almost everyone it comes into contact with is a very strange one, much like the idea that a religion could provoke irrational hatred and fear in anyone who comes into contact with its practitioners. Yet these very strange ideas are accepted without challenge in the mainstream discourse of our times. If I claimed, for example, that I knew of a dog that was persecuted everywhere it went: other dogs barked at it and attacked it; no one would give it food; children would throw stones at it for no reason; drivers would swerve to try and run it over, etc. the story would provoke extreme scepticism. It would sound so utterly fantastical, so at variance with our normal understanding of the world, as to hint almost at something supernatural. Individuals who claimed to be persecuted in this way would be classed as paranoid schizophrenic. Rather than indulge these fantasies, the best way to help someone suffering from this affliction would be to explain to them that other people’s responses to them would be governed by their own behaviour, just like every other person in the world, and that the idea of being singled out for persecution in some fateful way was absurd. The fact that so many seemingly rational Jews can take seriously the idea that they have some mystical identity which causes them to be persecuted for no reason is deeply disturbing. This bespeaks an Oriental, non-European mindset in which things happen because of supernatural agency. The European mind, by contrast, seeks rational explanations for the way the world works.

When one people attempts to live as a discrete minority in the homeland of another, setting itself apart, adopting an us-and-them mentality, favouring its own in-group in every interaction, it is going to end badly, sooner or later. This is simply human nature in operation. It is not the result of some mystical evil called antisemitism.
The lesson to be drawn from the tragic experience of the Jews throughout history is that anti-nationalism – in other words having different peoples living in the same territory - is a bad idea. Yet most Jews, at least diaspora Jews, have drawn exactly the opposite conclusion. No people can be secure without a homeland of its own. yet the effect of the anti-nationalist ideas advocated by so many Jews is that the peoples of Europe will lose control of their homelands.

I have to say I am repulsed, but not surprised, by the inability of Jews to acknowledge fault. It is the perfect analogue of the Muslim inability to acknowledge fault because it conflicts with their Koran-mandated self-image as the “perfect nation”. How is it antisemitic to simply take note of the fact that anti-nationalist ideas have had destructive effects on the world and that Jews have been disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and implementing them? If I take note of the fact that Socialistic ideas have had destructive effects on the world and that Scots have been disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and implementing them, does that make me antiscotistic or Scotophobic?

Why can you Jews not make such a simple acknowledgement yourself? Are you so steeped in a lachrymose narrative of victimhood in which innocent Jews suffer continuously at the hands of evil goy that you cannot admit that Jews, like every other people on earth, have, at times, had conflicts of interest with other peoples and, at times, have committed grievous wrongs against those other peoples? No European people that I am know of claims to have innocently glided through history without ever having had a conflict of interest with other peoples, without ever having engaged in contention with other peoples and, at times, having wronged those other peoples. To my knowledge, Muslims are the only other people who make this claim. The Koran tells Muslims they are the “Perfect Nation”. Jews believe they are the Chosen People. Although rarely voiced publicly these days, it is clear that this idea still influences the outlook of many Jews. Nothing else can account for such a reluctance to acknowledge fault or the strength of the curious conviction that a people is destined to be the constant target of persecution and that this persecution will be completely unrelated to its own actions.

You say you have no difficulty blaming Jews when appropriate and then cite an example in which you blame Jews for not resisting Nazism more forcefully. But this was mere passivity on the part of the Jews, not actual wrong-doing against another people. Can you give me any example from history in which Jews engaged in wrong-doing against another people?

I have to say that the unwillingness of Jews to acknowledge responsibility for their historical actions takes me much closer to a feeling of general antisemitism than my awareness of the Jewish role in Communism does. The Jewish role in Communism is a detail of history from a time in which there were many mitigating circumstances to explain the choices Jews made. The Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge responsibility is not a historical curio, however. It is right here among us in the present day and it comes from Jews who live in completely secure circumstances and who otherwise sound like reasonable people. We could compare the Jewish role in the atrocities of Communism to the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians in the WW1 era. As various diplomats have pointed out when attempting to persuade the Turkish government to be rational on this issue, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with modern Turkey. If Turkey acknowledged that the genocide had occurred, admitted wrong-doing by a previous generation of Turks and expressed its regrets, the issue would be closed and we could move on. The fact that modern Turkey is unwilling to do this, however, hints that something sinister and ugly is going on. It suggests that whatever attitudes lay behind the Armenian Genocide still exist. And Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge their culpability in relation to the atrocities of Communism evokes the same possibility.

Discussion and exploration of Jewish guilt in Communism is important for the following reasons:

1) It would establish that anti-nationalism had consequences that were as destructive, or more so, than nationalism. This is critical. The dominant political narrative portrays Nazism and, by extension, right-wing politics generally as being uniquely sinister and associated with violence and mass murder. Factual analysis doesn’t support that claim, however. The mass exterminations resulting from the political prejudice of Communism were greater in scope than the Nazi extermination based on racial prejudice. Throughout the post-WW2 era, right-wing terrorism has been almost unknown in Europe, while left-wing terrorism has been a chronic problem. In the present day, Europol issues annual reports cataloguing terrorist incidents in Europe. From these reports it is clear that right-wing terrorist incidents are rare to non-existent, while dozens of left-wing terrorist incidents occur every year. Highlighting the atrocities of Communism is one way of restoring balance to public perception.

2) It would make it clear that when individuals who self-identify as belonging to different peoples live in the same territory, they will, ultimately, perceive themselves as being threatened by the interests and actions of the other group and will try to ward off the perceived threat from the other group. This will cause unpleasantness to at least one of the ethnic factions and very often both. And this is true regardless of how highly qualified or economically successful the groups are, refuting the core contention of the immigration apologists that immigration should be assessed solely in terms of the obvious indicators of economic success.

3) It would establish that Europeans can be victims as well as perpetrators. Unlike anti-semitism, which is a marginal phenomenon, anti-Europeanism is the dominant ideology of the world. It is so overwhelmingly dominant that it is not even regarded as a distinct ideology. It is simply regarded as “the norm”. The emotional grip of this ideology rests on tales of Europeans doing bad things to non-Europeans in instances such as the Holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade, imperialism, etc. These accounts are, to say the least, unbalanced. They leave out key facts such as that all societies we know of practised slavery since the dawn of recorded time and that Europeans, after indulging in the practice for a few hundreds years, were the ones who stamped it out; that imperialism often brought betterment to the countries that experienced it in ways that can be measured through metrics such as life expectancy, population size, etc. Standard accounts of the Holocaust are also fundamentally unbalanced in that they neglect to mention the key fact that Nazism was a reaction to Bolshevism, that Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, and that millions of Europeans, and almost every constituent element of European society, were liquidated under Bolshevist rule. This was ethnic war wearing a mask of morality.

4) It would destroy the destroy the harmful myth of the innocence of Jews. The dominant narrative of the 20th century assigns Jews the role of passive, innocent victims to a mindless, irrational evil. This gives them a special moral authority, which they have not hesitated to invoke at every opportunity to push for open-borders immigration, diversity and the de-Europeanisation of European societies more generally. This may not be as apparent in America. But in Europe, any attempt to limit immigration, to discuss its harmful effects or to distinguish between various streams of immigrants results in the Nazi card being played almost instantly. Once the truth that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism, and Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, is established in the public mind, that special moral authority disappears for good. The standard mythology is an extraordinarily powerful tool that Jews can use to advance their own purposes. It is understandable that any people would be reluctant to give up such an all-conquering trump card. Nonetheless, truth demands that they do so.

5) It is simply a moral imperative that atrocities of this magnitude be acknowledged and their perpetrators held to account. Everything that is true of the Holocaust - the memorials, the commemorative ceremonies, the presence in textbooks and the popular imagination, the mantra of “We must never forget” – is equally true of the atrocities of the Bolshevist regimes, which were greater in scope than the Holocaust. It is an abomination that these truths are not more generally known. Imagine that we lived in a world where the Holocaust had been obscured from history. People were generally aware that there had been a war, that bad things had happened and that a lot of people had been killed, but nothing about a deliberate program to exterminate the Jews was known to the ordinary person. Only a few people reading esoteric books would occasionally stumble on this truth. Whenever they tried to raise it for public discussion, they would be immediately accused of paranoid anti-Germanism, anti-Europeanism or anti-Christianism and silenced. That’s the world we live in. In reverse. Anyone who denies Jewish guilt in the atrocities of Communism after the facts have been presented to them is the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier.

6) There is, it seems to me, inherent value in establishing the point that the world is explicable, that there are reasons why things happen. If we are to improve the world, we must first understand it. A narrative that postulates the existence of a mindless, irrational evil that mysteriously blinks into existence from time to time is childlike, primitive, absurd and un-European. This is how Orientals see the world, in the simplistic chiaroscuro of good vs. evil. A mature understanding of the world can accommodate nuance and assign more morally complex roles to history’s actors than the cartoon characterisation of goodies vs. baddies. The truth about the clashing totalitarianisms of 20th century Europe is that Jews and Europeans mutually victimised one another for reasons that were partially understandable, even if the atrocious form their vengeance took is ultimately unpardonable. If we wish to avert the possibility that such things could happen again, we must understand why they happened the first time. And the standard narrative – that the Nazis came to power through a combination of economic crisis and the spellbinding rhetoric of an evil demagogue - is simply false. Such an account deprives Nazi atrocities of their meaning. The Jews who died at Hitler’s hands are not honoured or ennobled by false accounts of what led up to their murder. The opposite is true. The truth is that at the heart of these contending totalitarianisms was ethnic conflict. And this ethnic conflict only came about because the principle of nationalism – different peoples living as homogeneous groups in their own homelands under their own governmental authority – had been violated. Jews were living outside of their ancestral homeland ruled by non-Jews. Germans were living outside of Germany ruled by non-Germans. The twin facts set off emotional chain reactions culminating in tragedy.

Once I see general acknowledgement by Jews of their moral culpability in this; once I see them express repentance and engage in the critical and public moral self-examination that Europeans have engaged in with regard to nationalism; once I see Jewish guilt in Communism become a matter of public knowledge and parallels drawn with the modern Jewish embrace of multiculturalism, I will be happy to let this issue drop. Until then, I will continue to talk about it. If that makes people unhappy or uncomfortable, then they had best go elsewhere.


Anonymous said...

Amen. I couldn't have said it any better.

I got this from Real Jew News
IN THE DARK NIGHT OF JULY 16 1918, Tzar Nicholas II and his pious Christian family were shot and bayoneted in cold blood by these Cheka Jews:
1. Jacob Yurovksy, a Jewish Czech
2. Sergei Medvedjev
3. Lev Nikulin, a Jewish Czech
4. Peter Yermakov
5. Fyodor Vaganov, a New York Jew
6. Jacob Sverdlov, (Yankel Solomon), the first President of the Soviet Union. He gave the order to murder the Royal Family. Sverdlov began his Anti Christian career when he joined the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1902.
*** This was the beginning of the wholesale slaughter of over 8,000,000 Russian Orthodox Christians from 1918 through 1943. ***
a) Leon Bronstein (Trotsky), Commander of the Soviet Red Army.
b) Grigory Apfelbaum (Zinoviev), Director, Soviet Secret Police, seized Church-owned property, murdered tens of thousands of Orthodox Christians.
c) Maxim Wallach (Litvinov), Soviet Foreign Minister.
d) Solomon Lozovsky, Deputy Soviet Foreign Minister.
e) Yuri Andropov, Jewish Director of the Soviet KGB
A PROMINENT JEWISH JOURNALIST now admits that in 1934, 38% of those holding high office in Stalin’s murderous regime were Jews:

If anyone is innocent, it definitely is not the jews.

Anonymous said...

>>The point is that the best way to have a harmonious world is to have separate peoples >>living in their own territories.

The presumption is that people were just taken from jungle, - can only play zero-sum game and must be kept apart because prevalent trait of human nature is so evil that they will attack each other at every opportunity.
It isn't exactly so.

"The best way to have harmonious world" - is to know truth and have good moral.

there isn't a grain of moral equivalence between bad things Jews did to others, and what others did to them, through history.

the contradistinction of "Jews" vs "Europeans" is an attempt of disingenuous lexical engineering. Jews lived in Europe since Roman times, they are not less Europeans than say Hungarians.

significant parts of European culture were influenced, in some cases dominated by Jews.
you can't avoid it when looking at Rembrandt's Old Testament paintings.
or when you meet the "kT" denotation in Physics handbooks.
Even Elvis Presley is Jewish, despite "non-European". or, is he?
Is Richard Feynman an American scientist, of European descent? Or, because he was Jewish, so maybe, err.. Asian?.. this is so clearly, a clownery.

>>"Nazism was a reaction to Bolshevism"
no, Nazism was nationalist reaction to the defeat in WWI + neo-Hegelian and vulgarized Nitzschean philosophy.

>> "Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon"
this isn't true. It was the mass people movement, millions were involved, majority non-Jews.
first thing Bolsheviks did was destroying Jewish religious culture.
"overwhelmingly Jewish" in Russia was Bund party, crushed by Bolsheviks
blaming Jews for "overwhelmingly Jewish anti-nationalism" isn't at all convincing.

you do very good Counterjihad work, thanks.
also, you might be one of the brightest antisemitic demagogues of present times, but don't think many people appreciate your site for that.

Anonymous said...

How can you prove that all these men witch slavic names were jews (except Sverdlow)?

Anonymous said...

>>in 1934, 38% of those holding high office in Stalin’s murderous regime were Jews

that is most likely true, Jews were over-represented among Communist elite, - but it doesn't make Stalinist repressions "overwhelmingly Jewish".

if you look at prominent physicists and mathematicians of XIX and XX century, the % of Jews there is also very high - but that doesn't make Physics and Mathematics "overwhelmingly Jewish" either. no rabbis are rushing to take credit.

unlike Nazis in Germany, Communist revolutionaries never declared any nationalist goals, neither Russian nor Jewish.
moreover, Stalin's USSR and German Nazis COLLABORATED (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, 1939).
in 1939, the antisemitic nature of Hitler's regime was already well known (Kristallnacht, 1938), many concentration camps were already built.
So do you want to say, Soviet "Jewish rulers" helped Hitler knowing very well that he is exterminating Jews?

it is hard to call all that "Communist Jews" conspiracy anything other than nonsense.

Anonymous said...

The NKVD was the organisation responsible for Stalin's repressions.

among heads of NKVD, one can count Dzerzhinsky (Polish), Yagoda (Jewish), Yezhov (Russian), Beriya (Georgian), Sudoplatov (Russian).

"The NKVD ... served as the Soviet government's arm for the lethal persecution of Judaism, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Greek Catholics, the Latin Catholics, Islam and other religious organizations"

read it all:

Anonymous said...

Europeans have three options (and while an Oriental mind may see the manipulative hand of Zionism all over it, it just seems implausible)
1) Japanese style robots/pension fund wizardry
2) having babies again
3) immigrants

Anonymous said...

When one goes to a family gathering, and the token Communist is lighting up a joint, talking about all the work they have done to improve the lives of inner city youth, or the nuances of Latino culture, perhaps one can be forgiven for overlooking the criminal mastermind in their midst.

Its true that when anything political comes up, I am a "racist/fascist" for daring to disagree, but if its all just some anti-white subconscious hatred, its buried pretty deep.

Anonymous said...

"Cyrus Miley states in a new interview that people in the music industry are old and too Jewish to know what's best for her career
'It’s always weird when things are targeted for young people, yet they’re driven by people that are like 40 years too old,' Miley told Hunger TV
'It can’t be like this 70-year-old Jewish man that doesn’t leave his desk all day, telling me what the clubs want to hear.' "
Did someone forget to mention the tribe control the music industry too?
We should make a list of the things the tribe doesnt control - it will be a much shorter list.

Anonymous said...

And you are a not so bright anti-Christian. Try this on: I am pro-Israel (always have been), I agree with Israel's strict immigration policies, and I believe Israel should be a Jewish homeland. Why is it that you, nor any other Jew on the planet, can reciprocate these sentiments toward Britain or any other Western country whose indigenous people are whites?

Whites have no right to their own homelands, that your position is it?

Anonymous said...

You left one out that has been used since before recorded history:

4) Ride the economic cycle out, adjusting economic policies to match the current demographics.

You don't lose your nation via 3rd world immigration with this option.

Anonymous said...

"The NKVD was the organisation responsible for Stalin's repressions.

among heads of NKVD, one can count Dzerzhinsky (Polish), Yagoda (Jewish), Yezhov (Russian), Beriya (Georgian), Sudoplatov (Russian).

"The NKVD ... served as the Soviet government's arm for the lethal persecution of Judaism, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Greek Catholics, the Latin Catholics, Islam and other religious organizations"
read it all:"
The NKVD was over 50% jewish staffed. And it is suspected Beriya was a jew - look at his photo.
Read what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has to say about the jewish hand in Soviet state control - he is a guy who knows, he was on the receiving end and lived to talk about it.
A lot of people like to tell lies about jewish activities in the Soviet State - making a pretty picture that gets the jews out of the central spotlight - they dont accept that any publicity is good publicity, obviously Oscar Wilde wasnt a jew

Anonymous said...

He/she is also unaware of the most basic principles of human nature. Tell me O' anonymous one, do the Zulus, the Xhosa, the Hottentots, and the Tutsis live in perfect harmony in Africa? Do the Palestinians and Israelis live in diversity bliss? In what Islamic nation do Muslims and Christians live peacefully on equal footing?

A nation can survive war, famine, economic disaster, and plague, but no nation can survive racial dissolution.

Gause's law, also known as the Competitive Exclusion Principle, applies to all living organisms.

Gause's law states that when two differing species or differing subspecies within the same species compete for the same critical resources within the same geographic boundaries, one of them will eventually outcompete and displace the other. The displaced species may become locally extinct, by either migration out of the area or by death, or it may adapt to a sufficiently distinct niche within the environment so that it continues to coexist noncompetitively with the displacing species.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 14 October 2013 00:43

I don't know whom are you asking and who is "White" in your view.

my posts are
13 October 2013 17:42
13 October 2013 20:40
13 October 2013 22:28

I am ethnic Jew and an atheist, not specifically anti-Christian or anti-Judaic because I largely see these traditions as those that formed Western culture for the last 2 and 5 thousands years, respectively (and the third one is Hellenic certainly).

I would like to see British immigration policy at least as protective as in Israel, in my opinion both countries are part of the West, both are threatened by the modern day barbarity.

take as many nationalism as you wish but don't try ramming it into somebody's throat by force.

every nation is dynamic entity, that is, in order to survive it must change, as the world around is changing. this is named evolution.
there are two ways for change - first is internal, through self-improvement (or self-destruction).
second way, is the change through interaction with others.
not exclusive certainly.

I wish you and your nation to make only decent choices on this way.
meaning, that in order to attain your aspirations, you will not need to harm, rob or enslave others.

the first decent choice you can made is to stop talking from the position of prejudice.

Anonymous said...

I have nothing against Jews per se but I find it EXTREMELY selfish of Jews to want various controls put on Muslims in Europe only to benefit themselves and say nothing about the displacement of the indigenous white Europeans.

Anon also keeps bringing up Hungarians. Here is my question for him -- what non-white race of people inhabited Western Europe before the white race?

It is in fact the homeland of WHITE PEOPLE!

Anonymous said...

Stop being prejudiced? And who exactly would that benefit? Like all other people on the planet not suffering from pathological altruism, I prefer my own race of people above all others. I have a vested interest in their well being and survival. And while I seek no harm to any other people, I will stand with my own if it comes to that by necessity.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 14 October 2013 01:14

"Gause's law, also known as the Competitive Exclusion Principle, applies to all living organisms."

people are not exactly worms or shrimps.
they have moral sense - Christianity should be telling you about that.
or read about it, what Immanuel Kant wrote - very "White" German philosopher with very Jewish first name.
evolution of human groups is defined by combination of culture and genetics.
we can do better than worms.

you can declare that Beria, Stalin, Hitler, all NKVD or whatever other criminals or tyrants were Jewish, make reference to "photographs", - that tells more about who you are than the subject.

Anonymous said...

"Stop being prejudiced? And who exactly would that benefit?"

that will benefit - you.
prejudice obscures truth from you.

Anonymous said...

White Advocate
l'm okay with jews who are pro-white as opposed to anti-white. l am pro those kind of jews. The other jews - the anti-white jews - l'm against them. l'm against the anti-white whites, too. But with the increasing violence and disposession that whites are experiencing at the hands of the immivaders - more and more whites are waking up.
As for evolution - turning whites mud coloured isnt exactly evolution - thats more like regression. You blend out the most productive race with mass immigration and brainwashing programs and then you call that evolution? If they managed to get rid of the Chinese or the Pakistanis by blending them out would they call that evolution?

Anonymous said...

White Advocate
Its not all that hard to determine whether people, organisations, governments, media etc are anti-white or pro-white. They dont have to be overtly pro-white as long as they are not anti-white.
Sumner Redstone owns CBS and Viacom and MTV and a whole host of media companies - is he anti-white? Does he care about Western civilisation, white people - white cultural institutions - white welfare? What is the outcome of the line his companies are pushing - is it good for white European people? The answer is obviously no. The mainstream media is arraigned against white people. The mainstream media is in most cases one of the main drivers of the white genocide - if not the main driver.

mony said...

we are sorry. very sorry. we apologize. even myself, one with a grandfather that couldn't spell "communism" even with a gunpoint, very sorry.
what's next CZ?

Anonymous said...

I disagree, not all Jews are trying to undermine western/white civilisation and bring about a permanent transformation of our nationhood and what it means to be a european.

Take this guy for example:

Although you might find the writing a little snide and over the top, forgive him... He's an American writer.

I'd also recommend Mark Steyn (a former Jew who converted to Catholicism) and Mark Levin. They're ardent defenders of the West/Europeans/Christianity.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Sultan Knish is Daniel Greenfield. He used to link to this blog once or twice a week on average. He hasn't linked once since I posted "The Jew Thing" about three months ago.

Anonymous said...

Ah, I see. You believe he's dismissed you as some kind of frothing at the mouth racist/nazi/antisemite?

That may be the case, I cannot comment either way, I was merely trying to show that, although it appears the multicult/socialist agenda has jews predominantly in the higher echelons, there do exist a good number who are defenders of our culture and national interests.

I wish there were more I could do but it just seems anyone who becomes even moderately successful at reasserting the independence of their people and try to stymy the tide of unwashed masses from africa suddenly find themselves behind bars or under intense scrutiny. The state looks for reasons to purge them.

Thus, I think it would be better if we could all be united and tackle one issue at a time... For now, it ought to be islam, then immigration, and then.... But if the first two were obliterated there would be no Jewish question to answer.

Anonymous said...

what type of soul searching about nazi's results in supporting them even more strongly the next time around ? it is not a type of soul searching that can be recommended for anyone. i know lots of germans, so i know that it happened, but people who don't get out much can easily think that it did not

Anonymous said...

throwing around the "nazi" canard is injudicious both to our intelligence and to your argument.

although jews may have been in europe before hungarians that doesn't mean diddly squat if they tried their damnedest to remain discrete from their host's culture.

If, however, you compared Hungarian culture to any other European culture you'd see 95% similarity. Can the same be said for jews?

Anonymous said...

Hungarians accepted Christianity but retained language.
As well as Poles and other Eastern Europeans.

Jews preserved both religion and language for a long time, but also participated in secular European culture when it started to form.

When talking about Jewish culture, one can remember groups like Hassids who conflated religious traditions with very distinct way of life. they also changed language a bit, - Yiddish is roughly speaking a mix of Hebrew with German.

my point is, with Hungarians, Jews, Poles, Russians - it was all happening in Europe and because of Europe.
Russian alphabet was borrowed from Greeks, Polish and Czech is Roman, Yiddish is Hebrew.
because there were no fucking others, frankly.
Assyrians and Babyloninas at that time were already done.

also, I would not say that there exists some integral "Jewish culture", as well as Christian culture - it is all decentralized, where language, geography, history is different, culture differs too.

so don't try substituting "Christianness" for "Europeanness" that won't play well.
European culture is the one that was formed in Europe, that is it.

and that includes Yiddish language and literature, things like Kleizmer music and cuisine, and - yes - Jewish greed for skills, knowledge and intellectual excellence.
there wouldn't be a chance for a Jew, if he wasn't 10 times better.

anyway, you try to simplify things to make a cartoon that you need, but reality isn't that simple.

Anonymous said...

German national socialism was a reaction to Jew communism. Judeo-Bolsheviks declared a soviet republic in Bavaria in 1919 with Jew Kurt Eisner as president. Much bloodshed was caused by them. Rosa Luxemburg was also a Jew. The last work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was called Two Hundred Years Together about the relationship between Russians and Jews. Despite Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn being a Nobel prize winner it has remained unpublished in English in Britain or the United States because of pressure by Jew owned book firms.

Nikephoros said...

This Jew baiting is besides the point. Jews are not why Europe has a problem with Islamic migrants. This problem is an outgrowth and consequence of Western European imperialism, which you like to pretend doesn't exist. For a long-time France was allied with the Ottoman Empire against other European powers. Later the Western European Powers integrated the Ottomans into their concept of continental balance out of fears that the increasingly moribund Ottoman Empire would be swallowed by Russia and to lesser extent the Austro-Hungarian Empire. France and Britain due to this fear, even allied with the Ottomans in the Crimean War against Imperialist Russia. For the peoples of the Balkans, and the Christians of the Mideast it would have been a godsend for the Russians to naturally have crushed and destroyed the Ottomans, but no, thanks to the Western Europeans, this never happened.

In the recent past of the early 20th Century, even Western Europeans would have been disgusted with even allowing any Mahometan migrants in sizeable numbers. But the same logic that had to normalize and justify Islamic civilization to create the public opinion to ally with the Ottomans against other European nations like Russia, has expanded even farther due to the increasingly business dealings in the Mahometan world. Now, not only allying with Mahometans in Europe to ethnically cleanse Orthodox Christian Serbs to divide Yugoslavia(an old Nazi policy, brought back to the 1990's thanks to America's foreign policy subcontractor par excellence, the unrepentant German Fourth Reich) is normalized, but so to is the actual demographic replacement of the imperialist peoples of Western Europe(which may not be such a bad thing, for many countries things will actually improve if Western Europe is knocked out of the global power equation).

In "Clash of Civilizations", Huntington separates Catholic and Protestant Europe from the Orthodox Balkans and Eastern Europe, with good reason. For hundreds of years, until today, the Western Europeans have seen Islamic nations as allies against their Eastern Orthodox competitors who see as real enemies, to subdue and colonize. Greece is economically contracting on average at least 5% economically every year, thanks to an unrepentant Fourth Reich headed by Merkel demanding austerity that is destroying every facet of the Greek state and society. In five more years the Greek military will be in a totally dire state and on the verge of total collapse. At that point there will be no force in the Christian Balkans to say stop the Turkish military from reaching Vienna. Look it up yourselves, after the economic warfare against the Eastern bloc, Bulgaria is out of commission economically(when during their Cold War, despite being much smaller demographically than Turkey, Bulgaria was actually a threat to the Turkish military) and Yugoslavia being dismantled at Berlin's initiative by all the might of the US military and NATO, the Turks have no local competitors in the Balkans. Who did this? Would Cheradenine Zakalwe, have us blame the Jews? Which countries have the power to stop the total destruction of the existence of Christianity in the Middle East we are witnessing, but do nothing? History is repeating itself, just like Western Europeans weakened the Balkan and Near East Christians by eviscerating the Byzantine state during the Fourth Crusade and other imperial escapades almost a thousand years, they are doing the same for their Ottoman Turkish darlings today. You should see how the incapable Turks, a nation where the average student only average 6.5 years of schooling, gloat on the internet, thanks to their Western allies who destroyed Yugoslavia/Serbia, Armenia, Greece, Bulgaria, Syria, Iraq, etc. Truly they are without peers in the region, and it is not because they are capable as a nation, but rather their imperialist allies, have done all the work to crush all their rivals.

Nikephoros said...

You are right, what passes for the Counter-jihad movement is a joke, but not for their silence on the made up Jewish question, but for their failure to criticize the imperialism of their own nations, which as a consequence has had to normalize their Islamic allies to the point that no criticism in the mainstream can even be mounted against Islamic migration so vast it is verging on a gradual demographic replacement.

Anonymous said...

>>German national socialism was a reaction to Jew communism...
>>Judeo-Bolsheviks declared a soviet republic in Bavaria..

Again, that revolution wasn’t against non-Jews but against governing “white elite” idiots who mismanaged class relations to the point of absurd, and started WWI slaughter.

Wiki gives refs to “Kurt Eisner's bloodless revolution” in 1918, he was Socialist not Communist”.
In 1919, Communists came to power in Bavaria, took hostage and killed 8 Bavarian aristocrats. One person from their committee was Russian Jew. When Bavarian republic was defeated, about 700 supporters of revolution were killed. Don’t think they were all Jews. It wasn’t Jewish project
These 8 victims were killed not in order to promote Jewishness, neither because they were non-Jews.
When Nazis came to power, millions of Jews were murdered, all over Europe – because of being Jews.
A bit of over reaction isn’t it?

Solzhenytzsyn’s book might be anti-Semitic. He is good, talented, honest writer.
Book is about mutual Jewish-Russain xenophobia.
Whatever is written there, nobody can contest historical facts – even if Jews harmed Russians and other Slavic people in some way, it was never violent. There were no Jewish armies spreading death all around Russia. But “in response” for their quite moderate misdeeds, - Jews got murder, this is documented. Starting from Khmelnicki’s genocide of Jews in 17 century, then 1905 pogroms, then Petlura and White terror during Civil War, then collaboration with Nazis in WW2, and Stalin’s repressions.

If, for these both examples, you can’t spot the difference, I’m not your doctor man.

fn said...

From Kevin MacDonald's review of Slezkine's book, The Jewish Century
Despite the important role of Jews among the Bolsheviks, most Jews were not Bolsheviks before the Revolution. However, Jews were prominent among the Bolsheviks, and once the Revolution was underway, the vast majority of Russian Jews became sympathizers and active participants.

Jews were particularly visible in the cities and as leaders in the army and in the revolutionary councils and committees. For example, there were 23 Jews among 62 Bolsheviks in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee elected at the Second Congress of Soviets in October, 1917. Jews were leaders of the movement and to a great extent they were its public face.

Their presence was particularly notable at the top levels of the Cheka and OGPU (two successive acronyms for the secret police). Here Slezkine provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in these organizations, especially in supervisory roles, and quotes historian Leonard Shapiro's comment that "anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator."

During the 1930s, Slezkine reports, the secret police, now known as the NKVD, "was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions", with 42 of the 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time 12 of the 20 NKVD directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of State Security, Police, Labor Camps, and Resettlement (deportation).


Anonymous said...

yes, there was, very likely, a over-representation.
in part, it was a revenge for 200 years of persecution and pogroms.
in part, it was self-preservation, as on the other side everybody were antisemites.
in part, it was opportunism.

still the numbers are everywhere less that 50%.
quite far from "overwhelmingly Jewish".

Anonymous said...

The Kuran is fascism and The Old testament is Nazism, but boy...this site sugests me that we should return to nationalism and even Nazism...and destroy the EU. I dont like that. I want Europe to be just like USA is

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

In other words, you support the European Genocide. You want European peoples to have no home. It's people who wanted Europe to be just like the USA that created the catastrophe we are now experiencing. That is one of the key sources of the mania for immigration, diversity and an identity defined by abstract values and an administrative status called citizenship.

No one is urging a return to Nazism, only to a world where states are built around ethnic groups.

Anonymous said...

CZ your last statement is fine, just two remarks

1) the problem in the West isn't immigration/diversity per se, but how it is promoted by brainless, cynical nihilist and lefti elites.

2) return to "a world where states are built around ethnic groups" might be too old-fashioned ideal.
National Western cultures and identities are the precious heritage that must be preserved, no question about it. Nationalism with borders, barbed wire and watch towers might be not the only possible solution for that.

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews