We're supposed to volunteer while foreigners get real jobs
Latté Island wrote about Michelle Obama's call for "volunteerism": "We're supposed to volunteer while foreigners get real jobs".
When I heard about Mrs. Obama's speech, my thoughts were similar, but unprintable. In the video, Mrs. O says that, while the "adminshtrashun" has started "dramatic new investments in health care, energy", blah blah etc., they can't do it without our "help".
Stop immigration, and then I might begin to think about joining the Democratic Party's and Federal government's program to nudge us toward the new slavery, I mean volunteerism. Then I would quickly stop thinking about it.
This country has gone round the bend.
Labels: Decline of the West
posted by Dennis Mangan @ 6:57 AM
84 comments
84 Comments:
And remember, the only valuable volunteering is when you help NAMs.
Barack Obama is owned by greedy cheating parasites worth millions....and billions. The are tycoons on Wall Street ond Silicon Valley. They fund the think tanks where Demcratic party policy is formulated. Wage slavery-a few paychecks from the street-is not enough for them. Now they demand that White Americans work for 0 $$$$. Quite a racket. A massive amount of wealth is being transfered from ordinary White Americans-through the employment of foreign scab workers- to the super rich and the President of the US who they own lectures Ordinary White Americans-overworked,a few paychecks from the street and facing race-replacement in the near future- about that their "patriotic duty to work for nothing.
Communist regimes loved people to volunteer. China's volunteers invaded North Korea. Under Stalin, millions volunteered to march on the Red Square shouting "Long Live to Stalin!" People would learn when receiving their wages that they have volunteered half of it for some noble social cause, or that they had purchased "Peace bonds" redeemable one hundred years from now. Volunteering is a typical communist figure, in capitalism you are supposed to get paid for your work.
J
The current US econimic system is a corporatist system. It is a system in which corporations are to be worshipped and obeyed. A system where American workers exist to serve the corporations-not the other way around.
In this economic system the corporation has demigod life and power over millions of ordinary White Americans.
In this system, millions of White Americans are progessively being transformed into terrorized wage slaves-a few paychecks from the street. When John Podesta and Bill Clinton blather on about Progress, this is what they mean.
One of the "wonderfull" side benefits of Bill Clinton's idea of progress is that in addtion to creating millions of White American terrorized wage slaves, these White American wage slaves will be reduced to a racial minority subject to enforced discrimination policy(affirmative action for non-whites-there is a whole lot of them these days in America thanks to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act)
This what the Dear Leader Barack Obama insists that White Americans volunteer for:racial and economic suicide.
J and Patrick Thompson,
Very sadly.........you have it pretty much right.
I'd LOVE to see Michelle trying to go to the ghetto to get those unemployed welfare mothers and unemployed men on street corners to come out to build playgrounds, libraries, do cleanup, paint over graffitti, and pick up trash..............but thats not who she is talking to and we ALL know it.
People are usually happy to volunteer in their own communities, not communities of "others". The thing is, that with Section 8 housing and HUD, the elite are bringing "others" to you.
We have a chance to give him a hostile congress in two years, and to elect a paleo-conservative presidential nominee in about three more years now. I hope we can overcome the neocons this time, who want to give us another Juan McCain-like nominee.
Volunteering to help someone else feels really good sometimes.
Opportunities that turn into lifetime paychecks often come from just being active, i.e. doing something to the best of your ability regardless of the pay.
It wasn't that long ago that team Obama planned to make "volunteerism" mandatory for high school and college students. Talk about double-speak.
They backed away from that proposal when it drew to much fire, but it does provide an insight (a crucial insight, I believe) into the thinking of our elites.
Mandatory volunteerism is a nicer way of saying mandatory, unpaid labor, which is a nicer way of saying slavery.
I know you've emailed me before but I lost your email so I have to send it this way.
I only caught one sentence from the post that caused all the controversy and you took it down before I saw it.
I notice a huge double standard though.
You get mad at the "anti-semites" who complain at Auster even though he shares "90%" of their views when the same "anti-semites" share 90% or more of your views.
Why attack them?
Remember when you recently posted about the female figurine recently found in Germany that was the oldest statue ever discovered?
Well, they just discovered the oldest known handcrafted musical instrument in Germany too; see: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_prehistoric_flute
If you liked Michelle Obama's speech, I'll bet you love Kerry Howley's idea to fix the world, "Welcome Guest Workers". Howley claims that "economic justice" would be served by a Harvard economist's proposal for every first world country to "hand out enough work visas [to immigrants from fourth world countries] to increase its labor force by 3 percent". Here's my take on that.
I didn't see the latest post that was just deleted. What is the topic that attracts fanatics?
Daniel: Well, here we go discussing the topic I didn't want to discuss, but since you're a regular here... It appears to me that Auster is hated by certain people strictly because he is, by their definition, a Jew. I reach that conclusion because, were he a Christian - oh, wait - were he ethnically Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian or even a Japanese, those who now hate him, or dislike him if that's too strong, would be lauding him for his brisk defense of whites and the West. So, I guess that I "attack them" because I find the notion ridiculous that any view Auster or any Jew holds is ipso facto suspect precisely because he or they are Jews. The blogger whom I criticized yesterday took this idea to a logical absurdity when he said that Lawrence Auster's opposition to Darwinism was rooted in his Jewishness. (This of course is why the ACLU is so busy promoting the teaching of creationism in the public schools.)
It's not so much a matter of "attack" as that I merely found the "anti-Darwinism is good for the Jews" idea so outrageously absurd, the venom reserved for Auster in certain quarters so thick and so undeserved, and, let it be said, that a talented and smart writer like the blogger I criticized has bogged down in the counterproductive superstition of racial anti-Semitism, that I thought it worth writing about. But these things have a way of going on and on, the anti-Semites - a fair description of the phenomenon we're discussing, even if Tan absurdly objects to its use by Auster to label him - pressing their attack with their idee fixe, that I felt that i just couldn't deal with it, at least at the time.
A half dozen comments were lost when I deleted the post, and my apologies to the commenters who wrote, as I consider those who comment here very important to any value this blog might have.
'This country has gone round the bend.'
Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: I suppose.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.
My $0.02.
You do remember what happened to Capt. Borodin, right?
Yes Anonymous, I do. White guy, bought heavily into American Dream, killed by a state executioner, while serving his country (or future one, can't really remember.
My point, Red October was produced not that long ago, in 1990.
OK, so a Baptist minister was beaten by the Border Patrol for no reason. What does this have to do with The Hunt for Red October? Will there be any repercussions against the BP officers? Maybe my pop culture knowledge isn't any good, but I'm not following this.
Mangan, I don't intend to intrude here, and I won't stay to argue. As a courtesy I'd just like to let you know that I have answered both your redacted post and your comment above at my blog in the comments of "A Moron Amused by a Fool Helping an Idiot". You're invited to respond there if you like. I think, from what you've written, you agree that when you cast aspersions at someone, as you have at me, you be prepared to defend your position. I've defended my position. In good faith I say you should defend yours.
DanielJ asked you about your double standard. It's a valid point. It didn't require you to again direct scorn my way. Is Auster exempt from the "90% of our views coincide" rationale? If so perhaps you could explain why.
Again, Dennis, this is really just for you because I know you care about this country and our people.
The blogger whom I criticized yesterday took this idea to a logical absurdity when he said that Lawrence Auster's opposition to Darwinism was rooted in his Jewishness. (This of course is why the ACLU is so busy promoting the teaching of creationism in the public schools.)
You honestly can't see how one set of Jews can be against Darwin because of their deep need to protect the Jewish people and another set of Jews could be pro-Darwin for the same reasons?
Are you telling me that Jews are soooo monolithic in their group drives that they don't tolerate any variance of opinion amongst their ranks?
Sounds like you are the one that is forcing Jews into a convenient stereotype for purposes of argument.
Jews disagree vehemently about what is good for the Jews. Whites disagree about whether or not Jews are good for White people.
Simple concept bro.
Tanstaafl: Did I "direct scorn" your way? I thought that I was criticizing your opinions. In any case, a constant that I find in your writing is the assertion that your critics have not really addressed your points, that no matter what they say, your reply is that that is beside the point. That's one reason I'm reluctant to have this conversation.
About a "double standard": maybe my point about having a great overlap, like 90%, in opinions is putting it badly, or mistaken entirely. Maybe that's not the way to look at it. (Like when, in any discussion of vegetarianism, some idiot asserts that "Hitler was one", as if that holds any weight whatsoever.) The issue here is American decline and what to do about it. Auster isn't exempt from the "90% rule" (if that's valid), but understandably objects to personal attacks or to reduction of his motivations or reasons to "what's good for the Jews", just as I would object to a fellow American patriot who, no matter how much we had in common, asserted that atheists or single men or some category to which I belonged ought to be excluded from American society. As I recall, Auster dealt much more calmly, if of course critically, in a discussion of Kevin MacDonald, who does not single out Auster by name.
I don't deny that Jewish ethnocentrism is a phenomenon to be acknowledged, understood, criticized if need be, but there are good reasons why it is such a taboo subject. (This helps to explain the existence of Holocaust deniers: get rid of the Holocaust and the taboo against criticism of Jews vanishes. It also explains why the deniers are anti-Jewish first, then become deniers.) You might deny that you imply or defend any such associations, but, fair or not, that's what most people think. Somehow, it seems that you don't understand that, that you think that your very strongly-worded tirades ought to be discussed calmly and rationally.
As for Daniel's point that "Jews disagree vehemently about what is good for the Jews", then it is certainly no sign in itself that, because Auster criticizes Darwinism, he does so because it's "good for the Jews". That's a circular argument. And even if so, why would it then matter?
As Dennis says, people like Tanstaafl make circular arguments, which IMO makes it a waste of time to argue with them. If American Jews demanded the destruction of Israel people like Tanstaalf would be forced by their psychotic world-view to conclude that they did so "in order to advance Jewish interests".
The "logic" of Tanstaafls postition is such that if all the Jews in the world committed suicide, he'd have to spin some theory about how this helps Jewish interests.
Subotai
Mangs, you don't have to publish this comment. But could you add Vanishing American to your blogroll? She's white and proud, she's coherent, she loves America... and did I mention that she's a she?
I definitely see her as more closely aligned to your purposes than some others you include on your blogroll.
he does so because it's "good for the Jews". That's a circular argument. And even if so, why would it then matter?
I wasn't advancing the idea that Auster was anti-Darwin because he was pro-Jew but rather was stating that it was possible for one set of Jews to be that way because of their Jewishness and other set to be Darwinian because of their Jewishness.
Tan has argued in the past that Auster thinks Darwin leads to Hitler and if indeed that is true, that explains his stance against Darwin.
For someone who claims to be a Christian, the easy route is just to explain you believe the Bible literally.
Tan has argued in the past that Auster thinks Darwin leads to Hitler and if indeed that is true, that explains his stance against Darwin.
Multiple logical disconnects there.
The general problem with Tanstaafls theory (if that's not too grand a word for it) is that by definition it cannot be disproven.
Newdow and Auster, Rothbard and Marx, Chomsky and Mark Levin, are all simply acting out some Jewish "will to power", in spite of what appears to lesser mortals to be huge differences between them. And no facts and no logic can interfere with T's chain of thought, because it consists of only one link. The premise and the conclusion are one.
Subotai
I think scorn is the proper description for phrases such as "outrageously absurd", "counterproductive superstition", and "tirades".
For what it's worth I also think your characterization of me is not fair or accurate. I put quite some effort into finding and quoting statements in support of my positions. I contrasted what I described as exaggerations with my actual positions. I have answered your points. I can't make you read what I've written, but its seems you haven't. I can't make you address certain points, but clearly you won't.
The argument that Auster criticizes Darwinism because he cares for jews is hardly circular. Auster specifically links the two every time he so passionately rails against "Darwinian anti-semites".
At Occidental Dissent (http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/06/26/logical-absurdity/), Prozium describes various anti-Darwinian Jewish and Christian groups, as if this proves some point. As if it isn't completely common knowledge that many fundamentalist Christians oppose the theory of evolution. The fact that some Jewish groups do as well means little, and besides provides no insights into Auster's mind. Here's how this brilliant piece ends:
"Auster is a well known traveller in all three circles. But to someone of Dennis Mangan’s way of thinking, it is absurd to suggest that say, an organization like AnswersInGenesis could be motivated by a fundamentalist version of Christianity as opposed to the weight of the evidence in their fanatical opposition to Darwinism."
AnswersInGenesis is a fundamentalist Christian group. When have I ever said that it's absurd to think that some Christians don't like the theory of evolution? Gimme a break.
I have answered your points. I can't make you read what I've written, but its seems you haven't. I can't make you address certain points, but clearly you won't.
Didn't I say that you would say that? I no longer even know what your point is. Auster does not discuss anti-Semitism every time he discusses Darwinism.
"If American Jews demanded the destruction of Israel people like Tanstaalf would be forced by their psychotic world-view to conclude that they did so "in order to advance Jewish interests".
This post will probably get me taken out and shot.
Remember Star Trek? Many Jewish people have said that Spock was Jewish in essence.
Spock's philosophy included the idea that, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few."
If an ethnocentric group were to decide it was in the interests of a greater number of them to eliminate some of them, they might make an argument, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few."
So perhaps, if Jewish diaspora were to decide that the end of Israel would assure their own survival, then, yeah, destroying Israel could be said to have been done in order to advance Jewish interests.
So perhaps, if Jewish diaspora were to decide that the end of Israel would assure their own survival, then, yeah, destroying Israel could be said to have been done in order to advance Jewish interests.
Thanks for proving me correct. By definition T's theory cannot be disproved.
It's a little known fact that the notion of the good of the many outweighing the good of the few did not in fact originate with Nimoy. Ill leave it as an exercise for the reader to trace its origins.
Subotai
Dennis,
I think this comment thread well illustrates something Auster said when Ian Jobling founded The Inverted World website: that in order to have a useful discussion about anti-Semitism, you have to exclude anti-Semites.
Subotai parrots Auster.
If one or more jews commit suicide I don't feel in any way compelled to explain it. If a particular jew makes hypocritical arguments in defense of jews, then yes, I think that can be explained by his jewishness. This simple point apparently causes great controversy. I'm not sure why. I'm not the one who assumes simply labelling someone (e.g. "anti-semite") is all I have to say.
You'll note my arguments, which both Auster and Subotai feel the need to broaden to all jews all the time, were specifically about Auster and Half Sigma. When asked I cited the evidence which led to my conclusions. Subotai cites none for his. I think it's because he cannot.
I no longer even know what your point is.
I agree.
When people criticize you, especially when you believe it is in error, you don't feel any desire to engage the criticism and counter it if you are permitted?
There's an article in today's WSJ, "God and Science Don't Mix", by Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist, and I assume Jewish. In the article he proclaims his atheism - isn't this more along the lines of what some people complain about wrt Jews? That they promote atheism? Yet supposedly Auster agitates against Darwinism, "atheistic Darwinism" I think he has referred to it as, because he's Jewish. Are Krauss and Auster arguing completely opposing viewpoints, do they both do it because it's "good for the Jews"?
Dennis's last comment gets to the heart of the illogical nature of anti-Jews: they claim to dislike Jews because the Jews' alleged ethnocentrism motivates them to pursue bad politics. And yet you'll find Jews on both sides of every political issue, including the ones the anti-Jew paleo-conservatives claim to support. Which means that they don't really hate Jews for their political views or actions; they hate them simply because they are Jews.
More generally, this shows why "white nationalism" is doomed as a political movement: putting Jews on the outside of the tent is just the first step. Next will probably be Southern Europeans, Catholics, etc. You end up with such a small, exclusive group, that it has no hope of exerting any political power.
One of the key points of Kevin MacDonald's writings about Jews is that Jews may even go so far as to consciously believe they are betraying their fellow Jews, yet unconsciously, they always will do what their genes believe is best for the Jews. Always. It's not even conscious, not subject to a man's will.
Warmed-over Calvinism.
You'll note my arguments, which both Auster and Subotai feel the need to broaden to all jews all the time, were specifically about Auster and Half Sigma.
Does that mean you are retracting your claim that Jews are genetically programed to always and everywhere work for the advantage of Jews?
Subotai
Dennis's last comment gets to the heart of the illogical nature of anti-Jews
Now you're painting with too broad a brush. Not all critics of Jews are clones of Tanstaafl. Jewish faults are very real and should be pointed out. In fact Auster does point them out frequently. It's the silly genetic determinism on display here which I object to.
Subotai
Perhaps we should all recognize that we have no enemies to the right of us---or frankly, no enemies to the right of what would be considered a very conservative Republican by mainstream standards. I'll go one further...if you are against changing the demographics of America in a direction unfavorable to me and my children through immigration, you are NOT my enemy and I will not waste any ammunition, rhetorical or otherwise, in your direction. Immigration is a salient issue---in fact the salient issue right now...how someone feels about evolution, jews, or the Holocaust is frankly of much lesser importance. Demographic displacement and the ensuing political vulnerability is far harder to recover from than pretty much anything else that can be accomplished through the political process. I don't ask that we 'all get along'...rather I ask that we expend any real animus against more profitable targets.
The conservative movement in America was distorted and is now neutered because it adopted the agenda of the neocons (anti-racism, open borders, proselytizing democracy, etc.). Jewish conservatives changed what should have been a pro-majority movement into one that also works against majority interests. Larry is ethnically Jewish, it's only natural that he will be concerned about Jewish interests. Tan, Prozium, and other pro-White bloggers are right to be skeptical about his writing. Jews, as a group, are very hypocritical. Even if Larry doesn't consider himself Jewish, I doubt he can unlearn everything.
Unfortunately this thread has become sidetracked. To win the battle against race-replacement, we gotta have a laser beam focus on the pernicious lies of the immigration enthusaists. And one of these pernicious lies is that without the Asians immigrants, America couldn't produce engineers,programmers and doctors. Those of you here who have sidetracked this discussion are letting the Asians get away with murder. And the thread has become very boring.
Auster has been in the trenches fighting against the evil immigration enthusiasts for years. I can put up with whatever flaws he has. I am dam glad he has put the time and effort into doing this.
If you are serious about winning the battle against replacement, you better be very focused. The lies of the immigration enthusaists must be obliterated.
Geez, you delete a thread to shut out the anti-JOO fanatics, and they just migrate to another thread...
The conservative movement in America was distorted and is now neutered because it adopted the agenda of the neocons (anti-racism, open borders, proselytizing democracy, etc.). Jewish conservatives changed what should have been a pro-majority movement into one that also works against majority interests. Larry is ethnically Jewish, it's only natural that he will be concerned about Jewish interests. Tan, Prozium, and other pro-White bloggers are right to be skeptical about his writing. Jews, as a group, are very hypocritical. Even if Larry doesn't consider himself Jewish, I doubt he can unlearn everything.
It should be pointed out firstly that it was non-Jew William F. Buckley who had the most to do with getting rid of the anti-Semitic stream in conservatism. He was also the one who made conservatism mainstream, popular, and respectable. These two facts are not unconnected. If conservatism becomes overtly anti-Semitic then it will be marginalized and irrelevant (even more so than it already is).
"If American Jews demanded the destruction of Israel people like Tanstaalf would be forced by their psychotic world-view to conclude that they did so "in order to advance Jewish interests"."
Actually, an increasing number of Jews worldwide are calling for the dissolution of Israel - not Israel's outright "destruction," more like an orderly dissolving of the Jewish state.
Their rationale, and I have heard this argument many times by Jews of all political persuasions, is that Israel is 'bad for the Jews' because it concentrates too many Jews in too small an area and thus makes it much easier to wipe millions of them out with atomic weapons.
Thus they want Israel dissolved (not "destroyed") so that Jews can again disperse widely across the world and live as a decentralized ethnic diaspora, making it more difficult to "round them all up" and kill them.
Geez, you delete a thread to shut out the anti-JOO fanatics, and they just migrate to another thread...
That isn't how it happened and neither am I, nor Tan, a "fanatic."
I sent Dennis a private message and he posted it.
His site is moderated in case you didn't notice.
If conservatism becomes overtly anti-Semitic then it will be marginalized and irrelevant (even more so than it already is).
So you're saying it is really just an issue of pragmatism?
It's not so much the evolutionary component about Darwinism that is opposed by Jews as many commenters here claim (Mangan and others), but rather the portion of Darwin's theory dealing with inter-species resource competition and 'survival of the fittest.'
Many Jews believe in and promote Darwin's ideas pertaining to evolution, there's no doubt about that. However, many are much more opposed to Darwin's ideas regarding 'resource competition' and 'survival of the fittest,' especially if that idea is applied to human ethnic/racial groups.
When Auster or other Jews speak about "Darwinian anti-Semitism," they aren't talking solely about Darwin's theory of evolution - they are referring to the idea that Jews and Whites are locked in to a long-running Darwinian competition/struggle for control of resources/territory and that only the fittest will survive and come out on top in the end, likely at the total expense of the other group, i.e. either Jews or Whites (BUT NOT BOTH) are going to win the resource competition and as such prove to be the group most fit for continued survival. That line of reasoning also implies that the group (either Jews or Whites) which loses the competition for resources/territory will likely not survive and as a result will fail to persist in a biological/evolutionary sense.
It should be pointed out firstly that it was non-Jew William F. Buckley who had the most to do with getting rid of the anti-Semitic stream in conservatism. He was also the one who made conservatism mainstream, popular, and respectable.
Rubbish. He banned anyone who was not pro-Jew and pro-Israel, not just "anti-Semites". The result was to turn National Review into a rather left-leaning magazine. And in case you have not noticed, the resulting conservatism is not popular, especially not with Jews.
Last I checked, all the Jews were hanging out over at the actual anti-Semetic party - the Democrats.
Subotai
The conservative movement in America was distorted and is now neutered because it adopted the agenda of the neocons (anti-racism, open borders, proselytizing democracy, etc.). Jewish conservatives changed what should have been a pro-majority movement into one that also works against majority interests. Larry is ethnically Jewish, it's only natural that he will be concerned about Jewish interests.
Auster is not "anti-racism, open borders, proselytizing democracy, etc". Are you capable of processing that information? Auster is a far more effective critic of Jewish behavior than people like Tanstaafl, mostly because he is not irrational.
If Auster took nuts like Tanstaafl seriously then he would favor open borders etc.
Subotai
Thus they want Israel dissolved (not "destroyed") so that Jews can again disperse widely across the world and live as a decentralized ethnic diaspora, making it more difficult to "round them all up" and kill them.
I don't think Jews are evil, but it seems pretty obvious that they are stupid.
Subotai
I think the main issue of Mangan's blog is race replacement, which is a real phenomenon going on in the United States. Once, American engineering schools were the best of the world and they were peopled by WASPs and a minority of Jews (I am an engineer and a Jew). Today you cannot find a WASP in those engineering schools, they have been replaced. In my time, American factories peoples by WASP workers had no competition and were envied and copied the world over. Today, the few factories still operating are peopled by third world immigrant workers. And they are being beaten by Third World competition, which is only too logical.
Now, I dont know why anyone should think that the current situation is good for the Jews. I for one think it is very bad. Jews had it never better than under the leadership of the WASPs. Israel had no better friends that quaker Nixon and Southern Evangelist Johnson. I dont know why Barak Hussein Obama should be better for us. I think the Jews who voted for him made a mistake, although antisemites think Jews never act against their interests and make no mistakes.
My point is that (1) Jews should be part or allies of the white majority, (2) To do so, we must be allowed to join. Obviously, we cannot live with antisemites like Kevin MacDonald, who says that Jews are genetically, irreversibly bad. (3) The time is now. America is in a deep crisis and the rigid structures of the past are dead. For a short time things are going to be soft and malleable. This window of opportunity must be seized. If not, it will surely be exploited by others, and surely not for our benefit.
J, haven't you said "Regarding Europeans, let them fry in Hell" (at FeministX's blog)? Why should any White American accept your offer?
And yet you'll find Jews on both sides of every political issue, including the ones the anti-Jew paleo-conservatives claim to support.
I believe Jews voted 80 -20 for Obama, a higher percentage than 'Hispanics' or 'Asians'. Sure you can find a few Jews taking mostly 'paleo' or 'traditionalist' positions, but they are few and far between.
No other group in America is allowed -- and does -- assert its interests so vociferously. Some quick -n-dirty quantification.
Google search for 'is it good for the *"
Jews 226,000
irish 1
WASPS 0
blacks 4
latinos 1
whites 1 (from vangaurdnewsnetworks forums
Catholics 1
gays 4750 --now that's interesting, the identity groups most, by this operalization-- to assert their interests other than Jews are gays, i.e. two above average income-wise groups.
Ironically a high percentage of the few hits for other groups comes from a Stanley Fish (I'm guessing he's a Jew) discussing the very question, but he seems to be under the illusion that "Is it good for Latinos, blacks etc" is discussed very much and then even more arrogance.
Fish" No one ever asks, is it good for the white, male, Anglo-Saxon graduates of Princeton; it’s always good for them [my emphasis]
On the specific issue, Auster's view of evolutionary theory, I think Mangan is right. But to be blind to the assertion by Jews of their own interests -- in opposition to or at least apart from other Americans -- is to be willfully blind.
"Auster is not 'anti-racism, open borders, proselytizing democracy, etc'. Are you capable of processing that information? Auster is a far more effective critic of Jewish behavior than people like Tanstaafl, mostly because he is not irrational."
Subotai, please try to keep up. Where did I say that Larry was a neocon? White movements that take in Jews end up getting distorted. What is Jewish WN? So far, it's a primary foucs on 'culture' (which Jews control), existential kampf against Islam, and tolerance (i.e. restrained or no criticism of Jews). I'm sure there will be all sorts of wonderful accretions to come. Tell me why Whites shouldn't be skeptical of Jews trying to carve out a niche in WN. And please present your case for Tan's irrationality (nothing a priori, please). We're all waiting... ... ...
"It should be pointed out firstly that it was non-Jew William F. Buckley who had the most to do with getting rid of the anti-Semitic stream in conservatism. He was also the one who made conservatism mainstream, popular, and respectable. These two facts are not unconnected. If conservatism becomes overtly anti-Semitic then it will be marginalized and irrelevant (even more so than it already is)."
If 'conservatism' was effective (not just mainstream, popular, and respectable), we wouldn't be here now. This is the end result of chasing out the 'anti-Semites'? Color me unimpressed.
"And in case you have not noticed, the resulting conservatism is not popular, especially not with Jews.
It's popular with the Gentiles. This is the fare being served up to a frustrated White America. Rush and Hannity won't be honest about the threat facing White America. They tease their audience (which is huge because so many people are frustrated) with tough talk on Islam and illegals. They're the right gatekeepers.
"Jews had it never better than under the leadership of the WASPs."
Jews never had it better than under the leadership of the German aristocracy, circa the early 20th Century. Think about how much better off Jews were there than in Poland or Russia, for example. Many Jews were prominent scientists, politicians, industrialists, etc., and great German patriots, too. Jews are safer in multi-racial societies, where they aren't the only prominent high-achieving minority. That's why it's logical for them to vote Democrat, despite it not being in their economic interests. The same is true of other high-achieving minority groups (Indians, Asians). You don't want to be the only target of proles, or politicians pandering to proles by making you a scapegoat.
"If 'conservatism' was effective (not just mainstream, popular, and respectable), we wouldn't be here now. This is the end result of chasing out the 'anti-Semites'? Color me unimpressed."
It was effective enough to let Republicans control the White House for 20 of the last 29 years. You think Reagan would have won in a landslide if he were an anti-Jew white nationalist? You're deluding yourself. Politics is about compromise and building coalitions, even with people you don't like. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this is why white nationalism is doomed to political irrelevance. And since most of you guys, for all your bluster, have never served in the military, it's doubtful you'll be able to achieve anything by force either.
Also, the attack on Auster, based on him being ethnically Jewish is reminiscent of the Nazi's "scientific" antisemitism, and it's another reason for Jews to be wary of white nationalists, and the paleo right in general. Think about it: for most of history, a Jew could simply convert and avoid persecution. Now, there's nothing he can do to avoid the displeasure of anti-Jew white nationalists. Even if he changes his religion and he agrees with everyone of your positions, you'll always suspect that he's doing so out of some evolutionary design to help the Jews at your expense. So it's rational for the Jew to vote for the Democrats, even if they include blacks, Muslims and other Jew-haters. None of the Democrats' Jew haters are in any position to be a real threat to Jews. A unified white nationalist movement, were it to win over most whites, would be a threat to the Jews, Indian Americans, and successful Asians.
What I believe is missing from Reijo's analysis re: Jews vs. WNs is that until recently, maybe even now, anti-Semitism has hardly been any kind of problem in this country, the last vestiges were dying by the late 40s, long before blacks got full civil rights. For Reijo's story to work, Jews would have to correctly think that anti-Semites are lurking almost everywhere there's a white skin, which is completely false. In that sense, Jews are victims of their own anti-anti-Semitism. Reijo says that historically, a Jew could convert and avoid persecution; the thing is, there isn't any persecution now, much less any from white Christians, so it is compeletely *irrational* for Jews to be voting "for the Democrats, even if they include blacks, Muslims and other Jew-haters", because those are real Jew haters, while there are very few whites who are.
Politics is about compromise and building coalitions, even with people you don't like - Reijo
And how fortunate white people are to have an ever increasing number of people to compromise with.
For Reijo's story to work, Jews would have to correctly think that anti-Semites are lurking almost everywhere there's a white skin, which is completely false.
It would not surprise me at all if Jews thought there was a Nazi behind every bush. Liberals in general think there is a vast wellspring of not-so-secret racism in America - and every time some whacko like von Brunn goes nuts, they say, "aha, that just proves there is virulent racism lurking beneath the surface of Amerikkka!"
Subotai, please try to keep up. Where did I say that Larry was a neocon?
In the words I quoted before my reply. Go back and read them.
And please present your case for Tan's irrationality (nothing a priori, please).
I already did that also.
We're all waiting...
We? I did not realise that you had multiple personalities.
Subotai
I'd like to respond to a comment by Gintas which, I think, was directed towards one of my comments. However, I don't know for sure because I missed it before it was taken down. Auster summarises Gintas thusly:
"Yet this same group-competitive drive, which is supposed to be universal in humans, and which is so powerful in Jews that it controls and directs all their thoughts and actions, and which is so relentless in Jews that it can't be stopped short of killing them all or imprisoning them on Madagascar, is so weak in gentile Europeans that they are willingly letting themselves be taken over and destroyed by their age-old tribal enemy."
"Tribal" is the key word here.
The reason that the 'kin selection' drive is so weak in Whites is because we have been out-breeding for too long.
Since around (coincidentally) Darwin's time, Western Europeans have been avoiding inbreeding since we started noticing that too much inbreeding can lead to birth defects, idiocy, etc. And, of course, outbreeding amongst Whites (Italians marrying Polish marrying Irish, etc.) has been very extensive in the U.S. The price we've paid for all this outbreeding is the loosening of the bonds within our society (yes, the genetic bonds).
Steve Sailer and Parapundit wrote some time ago about cousin marriage in the Middle East and how detrimental that practice is to the formation of democratic and functioning societies. Basically, the greater the inbreeding, the more "tribal" a society becomes -- tribal in that the extended, inbred families (i.e. tribes) spend all their time fighting one another and fighting any and all foreigners (think Afghanistan) and can't cooperate long enough to function as a nation.
Whites have been doing *exactly* the opposite for at least 150 years. We've put all the emphasis on outbreeding. Great for building democratic societies and avoiding birth defects -- not so great for social cohesion.
The Jews in Europe, however, have been inbreeding since the day they set foot in Europe. Sure, there has been some amount of outbreeding with Gentiles, but basically they have married within their own group. They're not as inbred as, say, Saudis, but they are still a "tribe" and a close-knit one and that.
So, Jews have strong feelings of ethnic genetic interests, but Whites not so much since we've been out-breeding for several generations now.
Also, the attack on Auster, based on him being ethnically Jewish is reminiscent of the Nazi's "scientific" antisemitism, and it's another reason for Jews to be wary of white nationalists, and the paleo right in general.
Poppycock. Anyone with with the remotest knowledge of the history of this quarrel knows that it was the Jews who picked a fight with the paleos and sought, successfully, to boot them from the GOP. That Jews can somehow feel persecuted by paleos is just one more example of their epic stupidity and hypocrisy.
But it is of a piece with the behavior of Jews in general. Normal people would have reacted to WWII by being grateful for and towards America. Jews, displaying the warped thinking which is their wont, decided that the lesson to be learned was that white Christains were evil. As if Hitler was Christian.
The irony here is that Jews are falling over themselves in their eagerness to live down to the image which the anti-Semites paint of them.
A blind man could see where this is likely to end. But not, it seems, the supposedly intelligent Jews. When, not if, the next purge occurs, they will certainly not ponder their own prominent role in causing it.
Subotai
A unified white nationalist movement, were it to win over most whites, would be a threat to the Jews, Indian Americans, and successful Asians.
Yet we already have a unified anti-white movement, which includes all the non-whites in the country. All that remains is for the whites to form the white nationlist movement which bigots such as you seem determined to call into being.
And when it happens, the last person you'll blame will be yourself.
Subotai
"For Reijo's story to work, Jews would have to correctly think that anti-Semites are lurking almost everywhere there's a white skin, which is completely false."
That's not the case. Jews wouldn't need to believe that most whites are anti-Semites to be concerned about a white, blood & soil sort of nationalism. I doubt most Germans were anti-Semitic. Not that this made a difference. The point stands that Jews are rational in thinking they'd be more vulnerable in this position, particularly the more they pay attention to the musings of the anti-Jew paleos and WNs.
"So, Jews have strong feelings of ethnic genetic interests, but Whites not so much since we've been out-breeding for several generations now."
That's a tidy theory, until a troublesome fact intrudes: 50% of American Jews marry non-Jews. So, in fact, Jews are out-breeding far more than non-Jewish whites, given that nowhere near 50% of non-Jewish American whites are marrying Jews or non-whites.
"When, not if, the next purge occurs, they will certainly not ponder their own prominent role in causing it."
Let me get this straight: your response to my point that Jews are rational in being wary of paleos and WNs is that,
1) It's "poppycock".
2) The Jews will face "a purge" (from WNs and paleos, I assume; let's pause to note that this directly contradicts your first point).
3) It will be the Jews' own damn fault.
How is this supposed to refute the text of mine that you quoted?
"In the words I quoted before my reply. Go back and read them."
No, Subotai, you cherry-picked a quote so you could distort the meaning of what I said. Go back and read the paragraph. The whole thing. Larry is not a neocon. The neocons distorted the conservative movement in America. We should be wary of Jewish involvement in WN, as the historical record suggest they distort movements in which they become involved. That's about as explicit as I can make it. Now do you understand?
You haven't proved Tan is irrational, at least not on this thread. He cites things Larry has said. You dismiss Tan's argument a priori. Do you understand?
"It was effective enough to let Republicans control the White House for 20 of the last 29 years. You think Reagan would have won in a landslide if he were an anti-Jew white nationalist?"
So what? Reagan passed the first amnesty bill. There's almost no difference between the Republicans and Democrats in terms of stopping race-replacement. Have you noticed a pattern yet?
it was the Jews who picked a fight with the paleos and sought, successfully, to boot them from the GOP.
So the JOOZ control the GOP and decide who gets to be in it and who doesn't? In view of the fact that Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat, it is not obvious that they control the GOP, but perhaps I underestimate their nefarious power...
"So the JOOZ control the GOP and decide who gets to be in it and who doesn't? In view of the fact that Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat, it is not obvious that they control the GOP, but perhaps I underestimate their nefarious power..."
Jews provide over 50% of campaign funding for Republicans.
No, Subotai, you cherry-picked a quote so you could distort the meaning of what I said. Go back and read the paragraph. The whole thing. Larry is not a neocon.
Here is "the whole thing".
"The conservative movement in America was distorted and is now neutered because it adopted the agenda of the neocons (anti-racism, open borders, proselytizing democracy, etc.). Jewish conservatives changed what should have been a pro-majority movement into one that also works against majority interests. Larry is ethnically Jewish, it's only natural that he will be concerned about Jewish interests. Tan, Prozium, and other pro-White bloggers are right to be skeptical about his writing. Jews, as a group, are very hypocritical. Even if Larry doesn't consider himself Jewish, I doubt he can unlearn everything."
If you would care to explain how you think this can be construed other than saying that "Larry" favors "the agenda of the neocons", and does so because he is genetically a Jew, then knock yourself out. Your inability to understand your own words is not my problem. Nor is your desire to take them back without seeming to do so.
You haven't proved Tan is irrational, at least not on this thread.
Eh, I think it's pretty clear that nothing anyone can say will "prove Tan is irrational" in your blinkered eyes, given your inability to understand your own words as shown above. I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of rational people that his assertion cannot be either proven or disproven, and thus is worthless.
Subotai
You dismiss Tan's argument a priori.
"Tan" is not making an argument. This would be obvious to you if you understood the difference between argument and assertion. An argument begins with certain premises and ends with a conclusion. "Tans" premise and conclusion are the same.
If you understood what "a priori" meant you would not be using it as you do. Look up its meaning and you'll see that I'm dismissing his assertion more a posteriori than a priori.
He is the one claiming to possess a priori knowledge - namely, that Jews (and only Jews, it seems) are genetically hardwired to always seek their group advantage.
Subotai
Let me get this straight: your response to my point that Jews are rational in being wary of paleos and WNs is that
No. Let me explain it again in small words which you will hopefully understand. Your "point" is nonsense. The only reason Jews have to be wary of paleos and WN's is their own hostility towards them. Curtail your own mindless bigotry and you'll find that others are much less hostile towards you. Funny how that works, isn't it?
The Jews will face "a purge" (from WNs and paleos, I assume; let's pause to note that this directly contradicts your first point).
It does not contradict it, assuming you understood it. Is it your mission here to disprove the notion that Jews are intellectually gifted? If so, point taken.
Subotai
Jews provide over 50% of campaign funding for Republicans.
Source?
"If you would care to explain how you think this can be construed other than saying that "Larry" favors "the agenda of the neocons", and does so because he is genetically a Jew, then knock yourself out. Your inability to understand your own words is not my problem. Nor is your desire to take them back without seeming to do so."
This is a complete waste of time. More fool me for continuing.
My statement:
"The conservative movement in America was distorted and is now neutered because it adopted the agenda of the neocons (anti-racism, open borders, proselytizing democracy, etc.). Jewish conservatives changed what should have been a pro-majority movement into one that also works against majority interests. Larry is ethnically Jewish, it's only natural that he will be concerned about Jewish interests. Tan, Prozium, and other pro-White bloggers are right to be skeptical about his writing. Jews, as a group, are very hypocritical. Even if Larry doesn't consider himself Jewish, I doubt he can unlearn everything."
Ok, now real, real slow. Stop me if you get lost.
The conservative movement was distorted and is ineffective because it adopted the neocon agenda.
The neocon agenda is anti-racism, open borders, etc...
The neocons were predominantly Jewish.
Jews distort movements in which they become involved.
Larry is Jewish (not a neocon- I haven't said that, please read very carefully). Larry is not for open borders. Anyone who knows Larry's last name (Auster) knows that he's not for open borders. Larry Auster is Jewish. If Larry joined a movement, he would be a Jew joining a movement.
Bloggers in the pro-White movement should be skeptical of Jews who become involved. Not neocons. They don't want to join. Neocons are for open borders and are not pro-White. Jews who aren't neocons (Jews like Larry Auster, who does not favor open borders), might say that they are pro-White. If Jews like Larry join the pro-White movement, they might try to distort it, just like the Jewish neocons distorted the conservative movement.
As mentioned already, Larry is Jewish. He would have been brought up with all the folklore of the Jewish tradition (stories- true if sometimes distorted- of persecution). Larry would have learned to be very sensitive to perceived anti-Semitism. Jews also learn that they are a special people. For this reason, they often behave hypocritically. The influence of Larry's upbringing will not disappear just because he became religiously Christian.
Ok, Subotai, I hope you made it this far and that it's all clear now. See how much shorter the original formulation was? That's because I assumed the reader would make sensible transitions between sentences. This obviously didn't work here. The problem is that your first instinct when reading something is to look for something with which you can disagree. Understanding what's being said is of secondary importance.
"'Tan' is not making an argument. This would be obvious to you if you understood the difference between argument and assertion. An argument begins with certain premises and ends with a conclusion. "Tans" premise and conclusion are the same.
If you understood what "a priori" meant you would not be using it as you do. Look up its meaning and you'll see that I'm dismissing his assertion more a posteriori than a priori.
He is the one claiming to possess a priori knowledge - namely, that Jews (and only Jews, it seems) are genetically hardwired to always seek their group advantage."
Tan says that Larry opposes Darwinism because he considers it bad for the Jews. Tan's underlying premise is that Larry, as a Jew, will be concerned about the impact of things on Jews. This cannot be disproven. It's an assumption. It might make sense on an a priori basis, there might be other examples that support this assumption. But it's an assumption.
Tan provides evidence that when Larry rants against Darwinism, it is linked to criticism of 'Darwinian anti-Semites'. This is evidence that Tan's assertion is correct. It's not proof. You can accept his argument or reject it based on the quotes he's assembled.
Your criticism of Tan's argument is that it cannot be disproven (i.e. it's not falsifiable). This is completely irrelevant. This isn't a scientific hypothesis. It's an assertion for which he can gather evidence (in this case, quotes from Larry). Do you understand the difference? Again, your dismissal is a priori. You haven't actually looked at any of Tan's evidence. If you rejected Tan's assertion based on your examination of his evidence, that would be a posteriori. I hope this is clear to you now.
"No. Let me explain it again in small words which you will hopefully understand. Your "point" is nonsense."
From "poppycock" to "nonsense": another non-refutation by you.
"Curtail your own mindless bigotry"
What bigotry, mindless or otherwise, have I expressed here?
"Is it your mission here to disprove the notion that Jews are intellectually gifted? If so, point taken."
If that's what passes for the cutting edge of your wit, perhaps you should keep it in your butter knife draw. Not that it matters, but I'm not a Jew, and I have made no extravagant claims for their intellects here. The point is that they, like Northeast Asians and Indians, are high achieving minority groups. That can generate resentment and make them vulnerable to populists pandering to proles.
"Source?"
Hmm, having trouble finding it, sorry. Might have been in paper or online subscription.
The best I can find right now is the Wikipedia referenced entry where they put it at 35% in 2006 for 'Jewish-funded Political Action Committees' , which wouldn't include individual donations. Bad form on my part though, sorry. I should have had the source ready before stating a number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States
"J.J. Goldberg wrote in his 1994 book Jewish Power that 45% of the Democratic Party’s fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party came from Jewish-funded Political Action Committees.[26] Richard Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, updated those figures in 2006 citing figures of 60% and 35% respectively for the Democratic and Republican Parties. According to the Washington Post, Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for 60% of money from private sources.[27]"
"You haven't actually looked at any of Tan's evidence."
Actually, for all I know you might have looked at it. The point is that you're not basing your rejection on inspection of his evidence.
A footnote for Reijo: Jews never had it better than under the leadership of the German aristocracy, circa the early 20th Century. If compared with Russia, sure. If compared with other societies and other times, I have no way of konowing. Maybe the best times were under the Pharaoh and Joseph in Egypt.
Anyway, the German junker caste led their nation into a bloody war and were defeated. No human force could have saved them.
The point is that you're not basing your rejection on inspection of his evidence.
By all means, enlighten me as to his "evidence". If you can.
Subotai
Your criticism of Tan's argument is that it cannot be disproven (i.e. it's not falsifiable). This is completely irrelevant. This isn't a scientific hypothesis. It's an assertion for which he can gather evidence (in this case, quotes from Larry).
Yes, his argument is based on Austers writings. And at the same time you claim that Austers writings cannot be trusted, as he is Jewish and thus all his writings are part of a effort to advance Jewish interests.
Subotai
If that's what passes for the cutting edge of your wit yada yada
I'll take that as you having nothing more to say.
Subotai
At 6/28/2009 01:08:00 PM, Anonymous said...
You keep repeating exactly what I claimed you said, whle thinking that you are saying something else. You keep saying that Auster is blinded by his (presumed) Jewish upbringing and that all his thoughts are a relection of that, and must be reflection of that. And whenever it is pointed out to you that you are saying this you respond with "no" and then repeat your same assertion again.
Your entire view of this topic is based on ideas you've gleaned from Auster and yet you keep insisting that Auster is not and cannot be a reliable source of informaton, because he must always be biased towards Jews.
Subotai
Here are some real volunteers, perhaps Michelle could throw her weight behind them?
"J" now considers race-replacement a problem. But only short months ago he was talking about race-mixing in terms suggesting he considered it a normal, perhaps welcome, development, and nothing to be concerned about. He is clearly purely self-interested. It's his right to be, and alliances shouldn't be out of the question, but more fool anyone who thinks he -- or any of his ilk -- can be trusted farther than he (they) can be thrown.
Dennis, first, sorry about the late reply. My pop culture reference was related to the bygone era when many people around the world looked up to America as a country with a rich tradition of civil liberty.
But that was back then in 1990..
"We should be wary of Jewish involvement in WN, as the historical record suggest they distort movements in which they become involved."
You should be more wary of German involvement. The Germans Marx (not a Jew in any meaningful sense) and Engels ruined and discredited socialism, the German Hitler ruined and discredited nationalism and Italian fascism, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home