The Jewish Question

seaxneat wrote:As a socialist, one that resides in the UK, I would like to say that I most definitely do not support universal healthcare. I'm sick of paying healthcare for anyone that decides to turn up here whilst our own people, the people that actually pay for it because there is no such thing as free healthcare, are put to the back of the queue. IMO the National Health service should be for the Nation, the clue is in the name, it should not be universal.

All universal healthcare has done for us is encourage people with AIDS, and any other disease, to come here for free treatment and I'd quite happily shut the door on the lot of them.

BTW I used to post here when the forum first started, my name on stormfront was legion**, but I've forgot what my password and username was here.

I believe that the question of immigration is separate from that of healthcare. Develop a healthy immigration policy and such would not present itself as a problem.

You might like to believe that universal healthcare and immigration are separate things but I see people that've came here for free treatment all the time. For example I had to take my mother to the hospital the other day, she's waiting to get her cataracts done, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that we (as Britons) were in the minority on that ward. Most of the people there looked like they'd came straight from Pakistan and they didn't speak a word of English between them. The rest of the hospital didn't look too different either, except there was more Africans and East Europeans about, either way most of the people there were not British.

I do agree that if we had a better immigration policy things would be different, in so much as our healthcare would cease to be universal and would be for the nation once again, but universal healthcare has done nothing for us but encourage foreigners to come here for a free ride.

Let's not get caught into semantics. Nobody advocated that a nation should provide healthcare to non-citizens just because it can.

seaxneat wrote:BTW I used to post here when the forum first started, my name on stormfront was legion**, but I've forgot what my password and username was here.

Do you know what e-mail the screen name is associated with? If so, I can look it up and let know what the screen name is and reset your password.

E-mail ExecutiveCommitteeOfficers@yahoo.com if you wish to resolve the matter.

Anarchism was created by racially conscious Europeans, so to call it "anti-European" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. At the time anarchism was conceived of, there was virtually no non-Caucasian immigration coming into Europe, so the idea of transcending the nation-state and replacing it with a confederation of freely associating syndicates didn't exactly conjure up images of swarms of non-European peoples immigrating to the continent, or what have you. The early anarchists didn't feel a government enforcing border laws was necessary to preserve ethnic or cultural integrity, they believed the people themselves could be trusted to do that. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that I agree with this form of governance, I'm merely explaining the theory to you.

Yes, but anarchism today would spell disaster for whites. We need order now more than ever. This face might explain why Jews like Chomsky have flocked to this ideology.

I presume you're referring to ideologies like "multiculturalism," and suggesting that Jews naturally gravitate towards them because they consciously realize such theories undermine European interests, correct? If so, I submit to you that the real reason multiculturalism has been embraced to the extent it has in the Global North is because it assists in making capitalism more functional, not because a secret cabal of powerful Jewish elites desire to witness the genocide of the European people. Noam Chomsky accurately explained the logic of bourgeois multiculturalism as follows:

"See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist—just because it's anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic—there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it's a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all of the junk that's produced—that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance."
Chomsky, Noam. Understanding Power, p. 89

I believe this almost proved my point. Of course capitalism will seek to undermine racial barriers, but the fact of the matter is, there are many, many Jews in the media pushing multi-cultism down our throats and they relish doing it. It isn't just multi-cultism either, they also push degenerate sex and drug culture down everyone's gullet. It is not only an attempt to enslave people into the capitalist machine but an attack on Europeans as well.

Jews frequently work in those fields because they come from a culture which nurtures and rewards traits conducive to success in the financial industry. Are some individuals naturally born greedy sociopaths? Of course, but they can be found within any ethnic population you choose to analyze. If you were to hypothetically "Aryanize" the economy (as was done in the Third Reich) and changed nothing else, a group of gentiles would soon emerge to fill the positions the Jews formerly occupied, and they would behave in exactly the same manner.

I disagree. Of course we need to get rid of capitalism, but "Aryanizing" the economy would be a great thing. Once we have our own Nation there would only be Aryans there so why would the economy be anything else but Aryanized? I know there will always be greedy, corrupt Aryans, as history demonstrates, but we have enough of our own. We don't need a whole race of greedy corrupt villains to add on to our problems.

The reason we're observing our culture became more hypersexualized is because sex is a base instinct and, consequently, sells—just as violence does. When you live in a world guided by the profit motive, marketing agencies are going to take advantage of whatever traits induce pleasure in the human psyche and commodify them (regardless of how crude they may happen to be). As for why miscegenation is actively promoted, refer to Chomsky's quote above.

Agreed.

I think it's erroneous to separate elite Jewish interests from the capitalism, for without capitalism these so-called "Jewish elites" could peruse no agenda of their own. Empirically speaking, we know that bourgeois Jews use their great wealth and power to influence the foreign policy of the United States (in order to protect Israeli interests), as well as to outlaw any symbols, organizations, books etc. which they feel threaten the Jewish people in some capacity. Beyond that, the Jewish bourgeoisie is engaged in nothing uniquely beneficial to the Jewish people and they have the play by the same rules as the gentile bourgeoisie—and their interests in this respect are ultimately identical (as they have to be): to maximize profit by whatever means necessary.

Well, could you say they were not pursuing their own interests in the soviet union?

Again, I cannot really comment on something for which I have no reason to believe exists. Races does exist, it's is a biological, empirically verifiable fact. Conversely, 'racial spirits' are metaphysical constructs. Moreover, there exist no 'pure' ethnic groups in Europe; every contemporary nation is an amalgamation of generations of genetic and cultural interactions and exchanges. The Spaniards are a mixture of ancient Iberians, Basques, Celts, and (to a lesser extent), Romans, Visigoths, Suebis, and Vandals (the precise composition of the mixture obviously varies from region to region); likewise the Brits are a fusion of numerous Germanic invasions intermingling with their indigenous stock, etc.

I know this.

Rev Scare wrote:Are you seriously attempting to dismiss the total history of the Catholic Church as a subversive Jewish conspiracy? The Catholic Church has existed as an independent entity for millenia with a fluctuating disposition toward Jews.

Yes I am. It is hard to imagine the driving force behind a religion who conquered Europe, then turned around and brutally tortured and killed all those for having native European beliefs in favor of a jewish man upon a cross and a religion where jews are god's chosen people.

There is no innate tendency of one population (in this case, a heterogeneous ethno-religious group) to harbor hostility toward another. Even if it were true, which I would find to be highly unlikely, it would be exceedingly difficult to provide substantial proof. Within the diversified Jewish "community," you find Jews who are both in favor of "white" nationalism and opposed to it. Needless to say, the historical events of the last century have influenced the majority of Jews to view European expressions of nationalism with skepticism and general abhorrence. The same, however, applies to the majority of gentiles. The approach that subsequent nationalist organizations have adopted since the end of the second world war (namely, of a reactionary nature) has not served to alter this position for the better in the least, but they have served to damage the credibility of nationalism to a nearly irreparable extent.

What exactly should we do to repair? Start loving jews and telling people an all white nation is bad?

As a socialist, Noam Chomsky supports universal healthcare for all, as do I. What most individuals find disagreeable is the double standards involved with providing illegal immigrants healthcare at tax payers' expense. If healthcare were available to all, then it would be more economically efficient than our existing system even if a segment of the population existed parasitically, as the sheer dissolution of the cartel that is the AMA would result in far more reasonable prices ($130 to have a doctor examine and clear my ear in less than 15 minutes).

I support universal healthcare too, but only for my people. I am not paying for a bunch of invader's well being.

Your insistence upon the resolution to this "Jewish question" is reactionary at its core.

What is "Reactionary" to you then?

Then you agree that the Judenfrage is a non-issue.

I don't believe it is a non-issue at all simply because I acknowledge capitalism as a great evil that has control of our people.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Yes, but anarchism today would spell disaster for whites. We need order now more than ever. This face might explain why Jews like Chomsky have flocked to this ideology.

Chomsky is one of the most reputable intellectuals alive, so to attribute to him esoteric, malevolent agendas is completely unjustifiable.

Moreover, by suggesting that anarchism would be a 'disastrous' ideology for people of European descent to embrace today, you're implicitly saying that Caucasians cannot be trusted to freely preserve their ethnic and cultural identities. I think such a notion is unfounded, though I nevertheless still believe that the state is indispensable—borders should be defended, a government is necessary to assist in economic coordination, etc.

I believe this almost proved my point.

How so? The thesis of the quote is that capitalism requires multiculturalism in order to remain functional, not that Jews are pushing multiculturalism forward because it advantages them in some capacity.

the fact of the matter is, there are many, many Jews in the media pushing multi-cultism down our throats and they relish doing it.

The mass media is disseminating the information their corporate owners tell them to, and I'm sorry, but these corporations aren't exclusively owned or run by Jewish individuals. Again, multiculturalism serves as an instrumental value for the bourgeoisie—in other words, it assists in the process of capital accumulation.

Furthermore, saying that Jewish people "relish" in promoting multiculturalism is baseless conjecture. Maybe some of them do, but there are doubtless innumerable gentiles who also think that promoting multiculturalism is the 'moral' thing to do. Why? Because a false dichotomy has been constructed, wherein people believe that the only alternative to multiculturalism is to support racial supremacism. As Rev Scare indicated earlier, reactionary nationalists bear quite a bit of responsibility for this unfortunate development.

It isn't just multi-cultism either, they also push degenerate sex and drug culture down everyone's gullet. It is not only an attempt to enslave people into the capitalist machine but an attack on Europeans as well.

As I said in my previous post, appealing to our baser instincts is one of the most effective ways for capitalists to sell their products—that's why we live in a culture permeated with sex, violence, and fatty foods. As for the drug culture, blacks have been most effected by this, so it sort of contradicts your contention that it's being promoted by Jews in order to harm people of European descent. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't really see drugs being promoted as a positive thing in the mainstream media as it is..

I disagree. Of course we need to get rid of capitalism, but "Aryanizing" the economy would be a great thing.

Whether "Aryanizing" our economy is desirable or not is besides the point I was trying to make. I was attempting to explain to you that merely changing the ethnic composition of capitalist institutions will do nothing to make those institutions produce more favorable results.

Once we have our own Nation there would only be Aryans there so why would the economy be anything else but Aryanized?

Everyone here promotes the establishment of ethnically homogenous nations, so we needn't get hung up on that.

I know there will always be greedy, corrupt Aryans, as history demonstrates, but we have enough of our own. We don't need a whole race of greedy corrupt villains to add on to our problems.

What socialism aims to achieve is the construction economic and political institutions wherein cooperation and solidarity are maximized, and greed and corruption are minimized. We already know the mechanisms by which this can be accomplished. Until we reach the point in which people can be genetically engineered, narcissistic and greedy individuals will undoubtedly continue to be born; however, contrary to what occurs under capitalism, within a socialist mode of production such individuals will no longer be hoisted to the commanding heights of the economy.

With that said, labeling the entire Jewish people "corrupt villains" is totally uncalled for and not even accurate. Furthermore, in accordance with the guidelines of the forum, you must refrain from "disparaging anyone on the basis of ethnicity, sex, or religion" in your posts.

Well, could you say they were not pursuing their own interests in the soviet union?

Did certain Jewish commissars commit atrocities against Slavic people in the USSR? Yes, but plenty of Slavic commissars committed atrocities against Jewish and Slavic citizens as well. I completely disagree with the Hitlerian notion that the Soviet Union was a "Jewish dictatorship."

seaxneat wrote:You might like to believe that universal healthcare and immigration are separate things but I see people that've came here for free treatment all the time. For example I had to take my mother to the hospital the other day, she's waiting to get her cataracts done, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that we (as Britons) were in the minority on that ward. Most of the people there looked like they'd came straight from Pakistan and they didn't speak a word of English between them. The rest of the hospital didn't look too different either, except there was more Africans and East Europeans about, either way most of the people there were not British.

I do agree that if we had a better immigration policy things would be different, in so much as our healthcare would cease to be universal and would be for the nation once again, but universal healthcare has done nothing for us but encourage foreigners to come here for a free ride.

Nowhere have I advocated on behalf of granting non-taxpaying residents access to nationalized healthcare. Chomsky, being a libertarian socialist, does not draw distinctions between "citizen" and "non-citizen," "taxpayer" and "non-taxpayer." I, on the other hand, was simply attempting to convey my own support for universal healthcare, not "free" healthcare—whatever that entails.

Whether or not you believe that people in need of medical care should be denied such a vital service on the basis of "insufficient funds" is another matter that I do not care to delve into at this time.

Nowhere have I advocated on behalf of granting non-taxpaying residents access to nationalized healthcare. Chomsky, being a libertarian socialist, does not draw distinctions between "citizen" and "non-citizen," "taxpayer" and "non-taxpayer." I, on the other hand, was simply attempting to convey my own support for universal healthcare, not "free" healthcare—whatever that entails.

In that case I offer my apologies. I can only presume that I, somehow, got my wires crossed when you wrote this.

As a socialist, Noam Chomsky supports universal healthcare for all, as do I.

In response to this.

I appreciate a lot of what Noam Chomsky is about and talks about but he is also for opening the boarders and wants to give "Undocumented Workers" free healthcare. Sorry, but that would hurt the white working class and he knows it. Also what is this undocumented worker BS? I thought the proper term was illegal.

Whether or not you believe that people in need of medical care should be denied such a vital service on the basis of "insufficient funds" is another matter that I do not care to delve into at this time.

I do not think that people should be denied medical care, if they want to set up their own healthcare systems then they're free to do so (just like we did here), what I object to is the working class of this country paying for them when they have billionaires at home.

seaxneat wrote:
I do not think that people should be denied medical care, if they want to set up their own healthcare systems then they're free to do so (just like we did here), what I object to is the working class of this country paying for them when they have billionaires at home.

Firstly, all working immigrants contribute to the wealth generated in the country, and all legal immigrants must pay taxes. Unless you are capable of proffering reliable statistics to the contrary, your claims are unfounded. I do in fact support universal healthcare for all, in that I do not believe that any individual should be refused adequate healthcare, but I also stand firmly in favor of eliminating access to nationalized healthcare by non-taxpayers (i.e., those who do not contribute to its maintenance) by restricting the perpetuation of the structures which allow for such abuses of the social service to occur. I do not believe that most socialists (and people in general) would object to treating an individual despite their citizenship status and ability to pay; what most oppose, as do I, is the proliferation of this system whereby the exploitative class imports cheap labor in order to profit at the expense of the rest of society.

Secondly, it is quite ridiculous to expect bourgeois billionaires within the various nations from which the immigrants originate to "pay" for anything. Clearly, if such parasites did contribute to the well-being of their societies, would-be immigrants would not desperately strive to escape the destitution and squalor of neoliberalism within the global South and, to a far lesser extent, areas of Eastern Europe.

Firstly, all working immigrants contribute to the wealth generated in the country, and all legal immigrants must pay taxes. Unless you are capable of proffering reliable statistics to the contrary, your claims are unfounded.

Are you seriously suggesting that an immigrant that comes here and works minimum wage somehow pays enough tax to pay for all their hospital treatment? They don't even pay enough tax to cover their housing costs, hence the reason that most of the ones that do work rely on tax credits and government top ups to survive.

Secondly, it is quite ridiculous to expect bourgeois billionaires within the various nations from which the immigrants originate to "pay" for anything. Clearly, if such parasites did contribute to the well-being of their societies, would-be immigrants would not desperately strive to escape the destitution and squalor of neoliberalism within the global South and, to a far lesser extent, areas of Eastern Europe.

I don't expect the billionaires to pay for their healthcare, god knows they don't do it here, but what I do expect is for people to get off their arses and set up their own healthcare systems instead of leeching off the British working class.

Chomsky is one of the most reputable intellectuals alive, so to attribute to him esoteric, malevolent agendas is completely unjustifiable.

Moreover, by suggesting that anarchism would be a 'disastrous' ideology for people of European descent to embrace today, you're implicitly saying that Caucasians cannot be trusted to freely preserve their ethnic and cultural identities. I think such a notion is unfounded, though I nevertheless still believe that the state is indispensable—borders should be defended, a government is necessary to assist in economic coordination, etc.

It would be much better to have a strong central state for us to preserve ourselves. We were conquered by the Romans before when we were scattered tribes and there was no definite borders. If we had a strong national army and state we could have crushed the Romans. Though, even for not having all that I'd say we gave those Romans a run for their money.

How so? The thesis of the quote is that capitalism requires multiculturalism in order to remain functional, not that Jews are pushing multiculturalism forward because it advantages them in some capacity.

As long as capitalism remains functional the Zionist bankers and Zionist media dogs will be around to reap the benefits at our expense.

The mass media is disseminating the information their corporate owners tell them to, and I'm sorry, but these corporations aren't exclusively owned or run by Jewish individuals. Again, multiculturalism serves as an instrumental value for the bourgeoisie—in other words, it assists in the process of capital accumulation.

Well 4 out of 5 of the major media corporations ARE owned by Jewish individuals.

Disney is owned by the Jewish Micheal Eisner. ESPN is headed by Steven Bornstein. Time Warner is headed by Gerald M Levin. Related to that Warner Music, the largest record company in the world, is headed by Danny Goldberg. Not to mention this is probably the most anti-white record company out there. It has produces tons of "Gangsta Rap" that calls for the murder of whites. Viacom who owns such anti-white stations such as MTV and VH1 is owned by the jew Murray Rothstein (now Sumner Rothstein). Oh and Nickelodean I might add. DreamWorks SKG, was formed by three jews. David Greffen, Jeffery Katzenberg, and Steven Spielberg.

Furthermore, saying that Jewish people "relish" in promoting multiculturalism is baseless conjecture. Maybe some of them do, but there are doubtless innumerable gentiles who also think that promoting multiculturalism is the 'moral' thing to do. Why? Because a false dichotomy has been constructed, wherein people believe that the only alternative to multiculturalism is to support racial supremacism. As Rev Scare indicated earlier, reactionary nationalists bear quite a bit of responsibility for this unfortunate development.

I didn't say gentiles were innocent. They're called traitors.

As I said in my previous post, appealing to our baser instincts is one of the most effective ways for capitalists to sell their products—that's why we live in a culture permeated with sex, violence, and fatty foods. As for the drug culture, blacks have been most effected by this, so it sort of contradicts your contention that it's being promoted by Jews in order to harm people of European descent. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't really see drugs being promoted as a positive thing in the mainstream media as it is..

Very true, it is an attack on our culture and vitality as a race in order to sell their products. Blacks have been most effected I believe because they are a weak race at base (I don't care if you call me a reactionary for saying that it is the god damn truth) and more prone to such things. Of course then there is white flight. When you have large black populations settling in white areas bringing their drug culture with them. Whites either move away; the ones who don't get absorbed into it or murdered.

Whether "Aryanizing" our economy is desirable or not is besides the point I was trying to make. I was attempting to explain to you that merely changing the ethnic composition of capitalist institutions will do nothing to make those institutions produce more favorable results.

I agree. I think we both agree that we want to do away with this system based on profit called capitalism.

What socialism aims to achieve is the construction economic and political institutions wherein cooperation and solidarity are maximized, and greed and corruption are minimized. We already know the mechanisms by which this can be accomplished. Until we reach the point in which people can be genetically engineered, narcissistic and greedy individuals will undoubtedly continue to be born; however, contrary to what occurs under capitalism, within a socialist mode of production such individuals will no longer be hoisted to the commanding heights of the economy.

Again, I agree with this.

With that said, labeling the entire Jewish people "corrupt villains" is totally uncalled for and not even accurate. Furthermore, in accordance with the guidelines of the forum, you must refrain from "disparaging anyone on the basis of ethnicity, sex, or religion" in your posts.

Sorry, most of them. Not all of them.

Did certain Jewish commissars commit atrocities against Slavic people in the USSR? Yes, but plenty of Slavic commissars committed atrocities against Jewish and Slavic citizens as well. I completely disagree with the Hitlerian notion that the Soviet Union was a "Jewish dictatorship."

I think it was. Lenin even made "anti-semitism" illegal.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:It would be much better to have a strong central state for us to preserve ourselves. We were conquered by the Romans before when we were scattered tribes and there was no definite borders. If we had a strong national army and state we could have crushed the Romans. Though, even for not having all that I'd say we gave those Romans a run for their money.

A state is certainly necessary to defend itself from external threats, but I don't believe it needs to be 'strongly centralized.' In fact, centralization is positively undesirable for the sort of ergatocracy many of us here desire. Unlike during the epoch of the Roman Empire, contemporary nations possess a great equalizer in the form of modern weaponry (e.g., tanks, missiles, nuclear warheads, etc.) and that alone will significantly discourage would-be imperialists. Moreover, this issue will become far less of a concern once all of the geopolitical world powers become socialist, as I discuss in this thread.

With that said, I expound upon my views regarding governance in my forthcoming essay, "Governing the Workers' State," so I ask that you please wait until it's completed before we discuss this particular issue any further.

As long as capitalism remains functional the Zionist bankers and Zionist media dogs will be around to reap the benefits at our expense.

I agree with you, insofar as Zionists will indeed continue to benefit as long as the capitalist mode of production is in existence. Where we disagree is on the extent to which Zionists are currently benefiting, and how much autonomous influence the Jewish people exert in the Global North.

Well 4 out of 5 of the major media corporations ARE owned by Jewish individuals.

And those media outlets, in turn, depend upon revenue (in the form of paid commercial space), which is exclusively provided by other large corporations, in order to stay in business—many of which are not owned by Jews.

Related to that Warner Music, the largest record company in the world, is headed by Danny Goldberg. Not to mention this is probably the most anti-white record company out there. It has produces tons of "Gangsta Rap" that calls for the murder of whites.

The 'gangsta rap' which explicitly called for the murder of Caucasians was mainly produced in the late 80s/early 90s, and is now largely passé. And is it not hypocritical to denounce that form of music being produced, while ignoring bands like the 'Angry Aryans' and 'Vaginal Jesus' releasing CDs which contain lyrics about murdering black people? The racist rap music obviously had a wider distribution, but it was primarily consumed by blacks anyway. Simply put, black people don't like white people, and white people don't like black people—nothing's going to change this, which is why each group is deserving of its own, self-determined nation.

Viacom who owns such anti-white stations such as MTV and VH1 is owned by the jew Murray Rothstein

"Anti-white" is a highly subjective term. I might not agree with what you believe qualifies something as being "anti-white," and there's no objective way to verify whether either one of us is correct—this is primarily what causes many of the debates on forums like Stormfront.

I didn't say gentiles were innocent. They're called traitors.

You call them "traitors," I call them misinformed.

Very true, it is an attack on our culture and vitality as a race in order to sell their products.

My point is, it's not a conscious attack to undermine our ethnic or cultural integrity that they're engaged in. It's merely a useful method by which to sell their commodities, thereby enabling them to profit and stay competitive in the market.

Blacks have been most effected I believe because they are a weak race at base (I don't care if you call me a reactionary for saying that it is the god damn truth) and more prone to such things.

They're "weak" because they live in a perpetual cycle of poverty—as the saying goes: 'poverty begets poverty.' Regarding whatever innate shortcomings they may possess as a people, it is indeed reactionary to dwell upon that. No people should be made to feel ashamed of what they happen to be; it's not their fault they didn't win the genetic lottery.

As for drug consumption, it positively correlates with socioeconomic status (regardless of race), and it's perfectly understandable why that's the case—if you lived in a decaying neighborhood and saw little chance of upward mobility, drug use would be an enjoyable (albeit temporary) escape from your otherwise deplorable existence.

Of course then there is white flight. When you have large black populations settling in white areas bringing their drug culture with them. Whites either move away; the ones who don't get absorbed into it or murdered.

I fail to see what white flight has to do with anything we've discussed thus far.

Sorry, most of them. Not all of them.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I think it was. Lenin even made "anti-semitism" illegal.

Yes, but to what extent was this law ever actually enforced? Moreover, outlawing antisemitism doesn't make a country 'Jewish' anymore than legalizing gay marriage makes a country 'gay.' Allow me to share some facts and figures with you. The following are excepts from an essay I wrote several months ago—if you'd like sources for any of the quotes or statistics I cite, I'd be happy to provide them to you:

"The history of Soviet Jewry is also interesting upon close examination. While the founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, was undoubtedly opposed to antisemitism, the same cannot be said of his successor, Joseph Stalin. According to the Georgian journalist (and Menshevik activist), Razhden Arsenidze, when attempting to appeal to the proletariat and peasantry in Georgia to side with the Bolsheviks, Stalin would often say in speeches, 'It exasperates Lenin that God sent him such comrades as the Mensheviks!' Stalin went on to explain that Martov, Dan, and Axelrod represented a 'rotten crowd,' which were 'nothing but uncircumcised Yids!' He warned that to work with the Mensheviks would be counterproductive, as Jews are 'cowards and shopkeepers' and that the workers of Georgia should know that 'the Jewish people produces only cowards who are useless in a fight.'

Nevertheless, Jews did play almost as prominent a role within the Bolshevik Party as they did within the Mensheviks. Aside from a few jokes amongst his close associates, and opportunistic gestures to appease Hitler during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin's antisemitism didn't really manifest itself again until after World War II. In his personal life, he was greatly displeased by his children's decision to have relationships with Jews. Upon learning of his daughter's relationship with a Jew, for example, Stalin yelled to Svetlana, 'Couldn't you find yourself a Russian?!' Following Svetlana's first marriage to the Jew, Grigori Morozov, Morozov was seized by Soviet police in May 1947. Shortly thereafter, their marriage was terminated by a bureaucratic maneuver conducted at Stalin's behest. Stalin also purged the Soviet state apparatus of Jews. In 1945, Jews represented roughly 12 percent of senior posts in the Soviet bureaucracy, economy, mass media, and educational system; by the end of 1951 they represented less than 4 percent. In 1950, 8 of over 1,100 delegates to the Supreme Soviet were Jewish, but by the end of 1951 only 1 remained among over 1,000 party secretaries. Between 1948-1953, the USSR also started what is referred to as the 'Rootless Cosmopolitan' campaign, wherein Jewish intellectuals were accused of lacking Soviet patriotism, and in some cases, attempting to sabotage the regime (i.e., the Doctor's plot of 1952). During the Rootless Cosmopolitan campaign, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was abolished, with many of its members being killed for alleged anti-Soviet activities. Moreover, Stalin was convinced that Jews were attempting to infiltrate his inner circle by marrying men such Molotov, Kalinin, Bukharin, Poskrebyshev, Voroshilov, Andreyev, et al. At the height of the Rootless Cosmopolitan campaign, Russian officials married to Jewish women were encouraged to divorce them; Stalin had even gone so far as to imprison Molotov and Peresypkin's Jewish wives. There is also evidence that Stalin had planned on deporting the USSR's Jewish population of two million people to the Karaganda camp in Kazakhstan, which stretched over 300 miles—though such was never carried out, as Joseph Stalin died not long after the plan was devised."
A., Michael. "Socialism, Race, and Equality."

With that said, I expound upon my views regarding governance in my forthcoming essay, "Governing the Workers' State," so I ask that you please wait until it's completed before we discuss this particular issue any further.

Alright comrade, fair enough.

And those media outlets, in turn, depend upon revenue (in the form of paid commercial space), which is exclusively provided by other large corporations, in order to stay in business—many of which are not owned by Jews.

Which ones do they depend on to survive?

The 'gangsta rap' which explicitly called for the murder of Caucasians was mainly produced in the late 80s/early 90s, and is now largely passé. And is it not hypocritical to denounce that form of music being produced, while ignoring bands like the 'Angry Aryans' and 'Vaginal Jesus' releasing CDs which contain lyrics about murdering black people? The racist rap music obviously had a wider distribution, but it was primarily consumed by blacks anyway. Simply put, black people don't like white people, and white people don't like black people—nothing's going to change this, which is why each group is deserving of its own, self-determined nation.

Well, Angry Aryans isn't produced and promoted by big time media corporations that want to push it to the general public. As far as their music goes, I can't say I even like it. Why would I want to listen to a band called Vaginal Jesus? Sounds like rubbish to me. I agree we don't like each other and need to split up, which is why I say "Stop the Hate - Separate"

"Anti-white" is a highly subjective term. I might not agree with what you believe qualifies something as being "anti-white," and there's no objective way to verify whether either one of us is correct—this is primarily what causes many of the debates on forums like Stormfront.

Agreed, though personally I think anti-white is anything that encourages race mixing or encourages destruction of white values and religious institutions.

You call them "traitors," I call them misinformed.

I find the general public and the majority of our volk misinformed and for them I have a great deal of compassion. For the ones in the media and government even to the bourgeois that exploit their own kind for profit I can not muster sympathy for them and can only refer to them as traitors.

My point is, it's not a conscious attack to undermine our ethnic or cultural integrity that they're engaged in. It's merely a useful method by which to sell their commodities, thereby enabling them to profit and stay competitive in the market.

I believe it is a conscious attack, and part of the reason ( a big part) is to sell their commodities.

They're "weak" because they live in a perpetual cycle of poverty—as the saying goes: 'poverty begets poverty.' Regarding whatever innate shortcomings they may possess as a people, it is indeed reactionary to dwell upon that. No people should be made to feel ashamed of what they happen to be; it's not their fault they didn't win the genetic lottery.

I don't mean to dwell upon it, but I do believe it to be true. It is not their fault for being born like that and shouldn't be made to feel ashamed; but I will however speak the truth when asked.

As for drug consumption, it positively correlates with socioeconomic status (regardless of race), and it's perfectly understandable why that's the case—if you lived in a decaying neighborhood and saw little chance of upward mobility, drug use would be an enjoyable (albeit temporary) escape from your otherwise deplorable existence.

I believe socioeconomic status is also dependent on race. Even in a socialist society, if we were to keep blacks around, I believe they would still live in poverty out of their unwillingness to work.

Yes, but to what extent was this law ever actually enforced? Moreover, outlawing antisemitism doesn't make a country 'Jewish' anymore than legalizing gay marriage makes a country 'gay.' Allow me to share some facts and figures with you. The following are excepts from an essay I wrote several months ago—if you'd like sources for any of the quotes or statistics I cite, I'd be happy to provide them to you:

"The history of Soviet Jewry is also interesting upon close examination. While the founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, was undoubtedly opposed to antisemitism, the same cannot be said of his successor, Joseph Stalin. According to the Georgian journalist (and Menshevik activist), Razhden Arsenidze, when attempting to appeal to the proletariat and peasantry in Georgia to side with the Bolsheviks, Stalin would often say in speeches, 'It exasperates Lenin that God sent him such comrades as the Mensheviks!' Stalin went on to explain that Martov, Dan, and Axelrod represented a 'rotten crowd,' which were 'nothing but uncircumcised Yids!' He warned that to work with the Mensheviks would be counterproductive, as Jews are 'cowards and shopkeepers' and that the workers of Georgia should know that 'the Jewish people produces only cowards who are useless in a fight.'

Nevertheless, Jews did play almost as prominent a role within the Bolshevik Party as they did within the Mensheviks. Aside from a few jokes amongst his close associates, and opportunistic gestures to appease Hitler during the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin's antisemitism didn't really manifest itself again until after World War II. In his personal life, he was greatly displeased by his children's decision to have relationships with Jews. Upon learning of his daughter's relationship with a Jew, for example, Stalin yelled to Svetlana, 'Couldn't you find yourself a Russian?!' Following Svetlana's first marriage to the Jew, Grigori Morozov, Morozov was seized by Soviet police in May 1947. Shortly thereafter, their marriage was terminated by a bureaucratic maneuver conducted at Stalin's behest. Stalin also purged the Soviet state apparatus of Jews. In 1945, Jews represented roughly 12 percent of senior posts in the Soviet bureaucracy, economy, mass media, and educational system; by the end of 1951 they represented less than 4 percent. In 1950, 8 of over 1,100 delegates to the Supreme Soviet were Jewish, but by the end of 1951 only 1 remained among over 1,000 party secretaries. Between 1948-1953, the USSR also started what is referred to as the 'Rootless Cosmopolitan' campaign, wherein Jewish intellectuals were accused of lacking Soviet patriotism, and in some cases, attempting to sabotage the regime (i.e., the Doctor's plot of 1952). During the Rootless Cosmopolitan campaign, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee was abolished, with many of its members being killed for alleged anti-Soviet activities. Moreover, Stalin was convinced that Jews were attempting to infiltrate his inner circle by marrying men such Molotov, Kalinin, Bukharin, Poskrebyshev, Voroshilov, Andreyev, et al. At the height of the Rootless Cosmopolitan campaign, Russian officials married to Jewish women were encouraged to divorce them; Stalin had even gone so far as to imprison Molotov and Peresypkin's Jewish wives. There is also evidence that Stalin had planned on deporting the USSR's Jewish population of two million people to the Karaganda camp in Kazakhstan, which stretched over 300 miles—though such was never carried out, as Joseph Stalin died not long after the plan was devised."
A. Michael. "Socialism, Race, and Equality."

I have heard of Stalin's anti-semitism and I do partially believe it to a degree. Though Jews claim they were persecuted everywhere so I can not help to be partly skeptical.

All that aside I will always associate the USSR as evil and unwanted. They destroyed my Reich. I will always harbor a deep seated hatred for them for what they did to my Fatherland. I respect modern Russians, but anyone who tells me Germany deserved it would probably be a victim of my rage. I am a German and proud!

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Which ones do they depend on to survive?

Turn on your television or read the next issue of the New York Times, they're replete with advertisements from car companies, clothing manufactures, restaurant chains, etc. In order to stay in business, media outlets have to sell advertisement space to such corporations. Should these media outlets ever air stories which their corporate subsidizers dislike, for whatever reason, those businesses will cease buying commercial space and the news outlets will find themselves in a very difficult predicament.

Well, Angry Aryans isn't produced and promoted by big time media corporations that want to push it to the general public.

I conceded that point in my previous post, but you're completely wrong in thinking that the independent record labels active in the White Nationalist music scene don't want to "push" their music onto the general public. I have personal experience in this, and they try every method imaginable to get as many people as possible to hear (and preferably purchase) the music they're producing.

As far as their music goes, I can't say I even like it. Why would I want to listen to a band called Vaginal Jesus? Sounds like rubbish to me.

My point was simply to show that there are white equivalents to the early 'gangsta rap' which contained explicitly racist lyrics.

Agreed, though personally I think anti-white is anything that encourages race mixing or encourages destruction of white values and religious institutions.

What constitutes "value" is itself subjective. Furthermore, I'm an atheist and see absolutely no problem in, say, parents raising their children to be skeptical of all religions. I don't believe forcibly abolishing religious institutions is ethical or even desirable, but I wouldn't say that policies which aim to outlaw religious institutions are inherently "anti-white" either.

For the ones in the media and government even to the bourgeois that exploit their own kind for profit I can not muster sympathy for them and can only refer to them as traitors.

I wouldn't go that far. Some of them are definitely despicable, but not all of them. It's counterproductive to get fixated on individual capitalists or politicians, far better is it to critique the entire system (which is what empowers these people) and advocate for a superior alternative.

I believe it is a conscious attack, and part of the reason ( a big part) is to sell their commodities.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here too.

I don't mean to dwell upon it, but I do believe it to be true. It is not their fault for being born like that and shouldn't be made to feel ashamed; but I will however speak the truth when asked.

Evaluating the characteristics of entire races is primarily a concern for various scientific disciplines—its most productive value lies in understanding the different diseases certain races are predisposed to, in order to find treatments. But the race and intelligence controversy, for example (which I've spent years of my life studying, incidentally), is of little use politically. I believe Noam Chomsky summarized the issue best when he wrote:

"As for social rewards, it is alleged that in our society remuneration correlates in part with IQ. But insofar as that is true, it is simply a social malady to be overcome much as slavery had to be eliminated at an earlier stage of human history. It is sometimes argued that constructive and creative work will cease unless it leads to material reward, so that all of society gains when the talented receive special rewards. For the mass of the population, then, the message is: 'You're better off if you're poor.' One can see why this doctrine would appeal to the privileged, but it is difficult to believe that it could be put forth by anyone who has had experience with creative work or workers in the arts, the sciences, crafts, or whatever. The standard arguments for 'meritocracy' have no basis in fact or logic, to my knowledge; they rest on a priori beliefs, which, furthermore, do not seem particularly plausible. I have discussed the matter elsewhere and will not pursue it here.

Suppose that inquiry into human nature reveals that human cognitive capacities are highly structured by our genetic program and that there are variations among individuals within a shared framework. This seems to me an entirely reasonable expectation, and a situation much to be desired. It has no implications with regard to equality of rights or condition, so far as I can see, beyond those already sketched.

Consider finally the question of race and intellectual endowments. Notice again that in a decent society there would be no social consequences to any discovery that might be made about this question. An individual is what he is; it is only on racist assumptions that he is to be regarded as an instance of his race category, so that social consequences ensue from the discovery that the mean for a certain racial category with respect to some capacity is such-and-such. Eliminating racist assumptions, the facts have no social consequences whatever they may be, and are therefore not worth knowing, from this point of view at least. If there is any purpose to an investigation of the relation between race and some capacity, it must derive from the scientific significance of the question. It is difficult to be precise about questions of scientific merit. Roughly, an inquiry has scientific merit if its results might bear on some general principles of science. One doesn't conduct inquiries into the density of blades of grass on various lawns or innumerable other trivial and pointless questions. Likewise, inquiry into such questions as race and IQ appears to be of virtually no scientific interest. Conceivably, there might be interest in correlations between partially heritable traits, but if someone were interested in this question he would surely not select such characteristics as race and IQ, each an obscure amalgam of complex properties. Rather, he would ask whether there is a correlation between measurable and significant traits, say, eye color and length of the big toe. It is difficult to see how the study of race and IQ can be justified on any scientific grounds.

If the inquiry has no scientific significance and no social significance, apart from the racist assumption that an individual must be regarded not as what he is but rather as standing at the mean of his race category, it follows that it has no merit at all. The question then arises, Why is it pursued with such zeal? Why is it taken seriously? Attention naturally turns to the racist assumptions that do confer some importance on the inquiry if they are accepted.

In a racist society, inquiry into race and IQ can be expected to reinforce prejudice, pretty much independent of the outcome of the inquiry. Given such concepts as 'race' and 'IQ,' it is to be expected that the results of any inquiry will be obscure and conflicting, the arguments complex and difficult for the layman to follow. For the racist, the judgment 'not proven' will be read 'probably so.' There will be ample scope for the racist to wallow in his prejudices. The very fact that the inquiry is undertaken suggests that its outcome is of some importance, and since it is important only on racist assumptions, these assumptions are insinuated even when they are not expressed. For such reasons as these, a scientific investigation of genetic characteristics of Jews would have been appalling in Nazi Germany. There can be no doubt that the investigation of race and IQ has been extremely harmful to the victims of American racism. I have heard black educators describe in vivid terms the suffering and injury imposed on children who are made to understand that 'science' has demonstrated this or that about their race, or even finds it necessary to raise the question."
Chomsky, Noam. "Language Development, Human Intelligence, and Social Organization."

The argument in favor of nationalism has to exceed group differences in average intelligence if it is to be taken seriously at all. For instance, if we based our nationalist convictions exclusively on questions of average IQ, we'd have no reason whatsoever to oppose a multicultural nation composed of Europeans and East Asians (since the latter group possesses a slightly higher average IQ relative to many European populations). Then there's the famous liberal argument for evaluating people on an individual basis, and on the "content of their character," which is quite potent. I address all of these issues in another one of my forthcoming essays, "Reevaluating the National Question."

I believe socioeconomic status is also dependent on race. Even in a socialist society, if we were to keep blacks around, I believe they would still live in poverty out of their unwillingness to work.

Socioeconomic status is partially affected by race, but not exclusively. There have been several studies conducted which indicate that poverty has such a dramatic affect on cognitive development that it literally stunts the indigents' ability to cultivate their innate potential—which is obviously a factor in the perpetuation of intergenerational poverty.

I'm inclined to agree that if we were to witness a socialist revolution within our lifetime, and nevertheless maintained multicultural societies, there would most likely be a higher rate of voluntary unemployment found within the black community than there would be in the white community. Though, again, it wouldn't solely be a consequence of their genetic endowment, environmental factors would also contribute.

All that aside I will always associate the USSR as evil and unwanted. They destroyed my Reich. I will always harbor a deep seated hatred for them for what they did to my Fatherland. I respect modern Russians, but anyone who tells me Germany deserved it would probably be a victim of my rage. I am a German and proud!

Not that I want to provoke your Germanic rage or anything, but I cannot help but disagree with you here. Joseph Stalin entered the Soviet Union into a non-aggression pact with National Socialist Germany in order to avoid war. I know there's a lot of revisionist history regarding this particular issue, but I find it preposterous to ignore the fact that Hitler entered into a needless war of aggression with the USSR. The reason he did this, as far as I can tell, is because he felt the Western powers (Britain and the United States) would actually welcome such an act, thereby enabling him to pursue his much cherished lebensraum policy. Imperialism is what ultimately destroyed the Third Reich, though I don't doubt that the bourgeois powers may have sought to undermine Germany's development regardless.

Turn on your television or read the next issue of the New York Times, they're replete with advertisements from car companies, clothing manufactures, restaurant chains, etc. In order to stay in business, media outlets have to sell advertisement space to such corporations. Should these media outlets ever air stories which their corporate subsidizers dislike, for whatever reason, those businesses will cease buying commercial space and the news outlets will find themselves in a very difficult predicament.

So it is the creators of the soap commercial pushing for the (conscious or unconscious) genocide of Europeans?

I conceded that point in my previous post, but you're completely wrong in thinking that the independent record labels active in the White Nationalist music scene don't want to "push" their music onto the general public. I have personal experience in this, and they try every method imaginable to get as many people as possible to hear (and preferably purchase) the music they're producing.

Angry Aryans is not my type of music and honestly not what I would want to use as a propaganda tool; but I would fully support a sound Nationalist band being pushed into the mainstream for propaganda purposes. Music is a very powerful propaganda tool.

My point was simply to show that there are white equivalents to the early 'gangsta rap' which contained explicitly racist lyrics.

Of course.

What constitutes "value" is itself subjective. Furthermore, I'm an atheist and see absolutely no problem in, say, parents raising their children to be skeptical of all religions. I don't believe forcibly abolishing religious institutions is ethical or even desirable, but I wouldn't say that policies which aim to outlaw religious institutions are inherently "anti-white" either.

I have no problem with parents raising their kids atheist either, but I would say an attack on Indo-European religions is very anti-white. Not important to dwell into though, as it is unrelated to the topic.

I wouldn't go that far. Some of them are definitely despicable, but not all of them. It's counterproductive to get fixated on individual capitalists or politicians, far better is it to critique the entire system (which is what empowers these people) and advocate for a superior alternative.

You can shout about the system all you want but until we start naming names along with it nothing really adds up.

Evaluating the characteristics of entire races is primarily a concern for various scientific disciplines

I disagree. I can see how they act everyday. You can see how they act all over the country. Their plight isn't one from poverty, they put themselves in poverty to begin with. An examination of history as well, will show that certain races have never invented a wheel or a written language. But I don't want to make them feel ashamed!! They should be proud to be mud hut builders!

Socioeconomic status is partially affected by race, but not exclusively. There have been several studies conducted which indicate that poverty has such a dramatic affect on cognitive development that it literally stunts the indigents' ability to cultivate their innate potential—which is obviously a factor in the perpetuation of intergenerational poverty.

The negroes got themselves in poverty to begin with. The big white evil overlord didn't just ship them off in a broken down ghetto. I have seen first hand the destruction blacks and even mexicans cause to white towns and cities. You can find their ruins all over.

Not that I want to provoke your Germanic rage or anything, but I cannot help but disagree with you here. Joseph Stalin entered the Soviet Union into a non-aggression pact with National Socialist Germany in order to avoid war. I know there's a lot of revisionist history regarding this particular issue, but I find it preposterous to ignore the fact that Hitler entered into a needless war of aggression with the USSR. The reason he did this, as far as I can tell, is because he felt the Western powers (Britain and the United States) would actually welcome such an act, thereby enabling him to pursue his much cherished lebensraum policy. Imperialism is what ultimately destroyed the Third Reich, though I don't doubt that the bourgeois powers may have sought to undermine Germany's development regardless.

I believe the USSR would have invaded the rest of Europe anyway. I believe it was a bad idea to attack so soon; but nonetheless I support the Lebensraum policy. It isn't out of an "ignorant reactionary stance", but I am German, so ultimately I want what is best for Germans. If Hitler conquered the world and renamed in Germania I would have no problem with that.

I believe the USSR would have invaded the rest of Europe anyway. I believe it was a bad idea to attack so soon; but nonetheless I support the Lebensraum policy. It isn't out of an "ignorant reactionary stance", but I am German, so ultimately I want what is best for Germans. If Hitler conquered the world and renamed in Germania I would have no problem with that.

So are you saying that enslaving slavs and all over the world even, for the imperialist dream of Hitler is not bad, or even "anti-white"? I am not "aryan",but i am every bit as "white" as you, and you can be sure that i would fight away any "germans" as much as i would fight away invaders from other races.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:So are you saying that enslaving slavs and all over the world even, for the imperialist dream of Hitler is not bad, or even "anti-white"? I am not "aryan",but i am every bit as "white" as you, and you can be sure that i would fight away any "germans" as much as i would fight away invaders from other races.

I don't believe he wanted enslave the world. Surely, he saw the slavs as inferior, but that was out of natural German sentiment we must look past. Norwegian SS units certainly didn't think of the slavs that way. Slavs fought alongside SS troops too, you know.

What do you mean you aren't Aryan? I am sure you are, you're just confused on who is an "Aryan" and who is not. Slavs are most definitely Aryan. Slavs are not the same racial stock as Germans but both have Aryan roots.

I don't blame you for fighting an attacker, because ultimately we do what is best for our own people. Today however, it is better that all Aryans unite less we ALL cease to exist.

seaxneat wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that an immigrant that comes here and works minimum wage somehow pays enough tax to pay for all their hospital treatment? They don't even pay enough tax to cover their housing costs, hence the reason that most of the ones that do work rely on tax credits and government top ups to survive.

I am suggesting that appeals to immigrant "parasitism" and other such nonsense in order to obfuscate the flaws inherent in capitalism are odious and downright invalid. Very few individuals pay for all (or even a significant sum) of their hospital treatment. The NHS relies on tax generated revenues in order to function, as do all government services.

In addition, who is to blame for such a state of affairs (provided that it is truly as severe as you claim; again, facts?)? If immigrants fail to attain a sufficient level of income (and the same applies to indigenous citizens), then clearly there exist deeply rooted economic inefficiencies within the system itself.

I don't expect the billionaires to pay for their healthcare, god knows they don't do it here, but what I do expect is for people to get off their arses and set up their own healthcare systems instead of leeching off the British working class.

For such a state of affairs to truly occur, it would require socialist revolution in the respective nations, which is highly improbable due to the exorbitant challenges encountered. Celtiberian, in particular, has treated this issue here, here, and here. Likewise, I have briefly touched upon it here and here.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:So it is the creators of the soap commercial pushing for the (conscious or unconscious) genocide of Europeans?

As you know, I don't believe there is a conscious pursuit to undermine European interests, but if you do, the answer to your question is: Yes, the companies which advertise through the media play a significant role in what "news" is aired.

but I would say an attack on Indo-European religions is very anti-white. Not important to dwell into though, as it is unrelated to the topic.

I disagree that it could be construed as being inherently "anti-white," but you're right in saying this subject is irrelevant to this issue at hand.

You can shout about the system all you want but until we start naming names along with it nothing really adds up.

"Naming names" is juvenile and will accomplish absolutely nothing, in my opinion. I don't care if we're talking about Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Billy Bob who owns a farm employing ten workers somewhere in Kentucky, they're all beneficiaries of a fundamentally exploitative mode of production. That doesn't mean, however, that we should round up the masses and indiscriminately lynch every individual capitalist. Proletarian revolution consists, first and foremost, of the expropriation and socialization of the means of production; then, if need be, defense against counterrevolutionary forces.

I disagree. I can see how they act everyday. You can see how they act all over the country. Their plight isn't one from poverty, they put themselves in poverty to begin with. An examination of history as well, will show that certain races have never invented a wheel or a written language. But I don't want to make them feel ashamed!! They should be proud to be mud hut builders!

I too see how they behave, but you're over simplifying the issue tremendously by suggesting it's exclusively the result of their genetic endowment. As I said, I've spent years of my life studying this subject, so telling me that sub-Saharan Africans were lagging far behind, insofar as technological development was concerned, isn't particularly shocking. The question is: why was this the case? It was partially due to their genetic endowment, certainly, but it was also partially due to the unique environmental circumstances they were faced with—for an example of the latter, read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Furthermore, ignoring the significant role poverty plays in human cognitive development is, quite frankly, absurd (see Eric Turkheimer, et al. "Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children," for example).

And again, observe the forum guidelines and refrain from disparaging black people.

The negroes got themselves in poverty to begin with. The big white evil overlord didn't just ship them off in a broken down ghetto.

The question of who's to blame for large segments of the black population living in poverty doesn't interest me, nor does obsessing over the average behavioral traits of a given ethnic group. As I said in my previous post, dwelling on the shortcomings of certain ethnic groups isn't productive for the advancement of left-wing nationalism.

I believe the USSR would have invaded the rest of Europe anyway.

Yes, it's convenient to think that, especially if one is seeking to absolve Hitler of any responsibility in the pointless war he started.

I believe it was a bad idea to attack so soon; but nonetheless I support the Lebensraum policy. It isn't out of an "ignorant reactionary stance", but I am German, so ultimately I want what is best for Germans.

Supporting Germans to the detriment of non-Germanic peoples—in the case of lebensraum, the Slavs—is thoroughly reactionary. I'm Spanish, but that doesn't mean that I support Spain's innumerable wars throughout history or the Spanish conquest of the Americas (which subsequently resulted in the genocide of various Amerindian tribes). Hitler's war ultimately wasn't what was best for the German people anyway, millions of dead German civilians and soldiers attest to that fact.

If Hitler conquered the world and renamed in Germania I would have no problem with that.

Then your nationalism clearly isn't of the leftist variety.

As you know, I don't believe there is a conscious pursuit which aims to undermine European interests, but if you do, the answer to your question is: Yes, the companies which advertise through the media play a significant role in what "news" is aired.

I am not just talking about news though. I am talking about the blatant race mixing and degeneracy displayed on channels such as MTV. I am just having trouble believing Soap Companies (or other such capitalist companies) would promote this stuff to sell their product.

"Naming names" is juvenile and will accomplish absolutely nothing, in my opinion. I don't care if we're talking about Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Billy Bob who owns a farm employing ten workers somewhere in Kentucky, they're all beneficiaries of a fundamentally exploitative mode of production. That doesn't mean, however, that we should round up the masses and indiscriminately lynch every individual capitalist. Proletarian revolution consists, first and foremost, of the expropriation and socialization of the means of production; then, if need be, defense against counterrevolutionary forces.

But some make a lot more than others with that money and they do horrible things with it. Billy Bob sure dosn't deserve a lynching; but some of the more infamous bourgeois definitely do.

I too see how they behave, but you're overly simplifying the issue tremendously by suggesting it's exclusively the result of their genetic endowment. As I said, I've spent years of my life studying this subject, so telling me that sub-Saharan Africans were lagging far behind, insofar as technological development was concerned, isn't particularly shocking. The question is: why was this the case? It was partially due to their genetic endowment, certainly, but it was also partially due to the unique environmental circumstances they were faced with—for an example of the latter, read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Furthermore, ignoring the significant role poverty plays in human cognitive development is, quite frankly, absurd (see Eric Turkheimer, et al. "Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children," for example).

Sure it could have something to do with the environment; but lets not forget what whites did in Africa. In Egypt then again in South Africa. Built civilizations. So if the environment wasn't a factor for whites (Aryans) why was it for the negroes?

The question of who's to blame for large segments of the black population living in poverty doesn't interest me, nor does obsessing over the average behavioral traits of a given ethnic group. As I said in my previous post, dwelling on the shortcomings of certain ethnic groups isn't productive for the advancement of left-wing nationalism.

It is crucial to awaken some of our folk; others not so much. Some of our folk are disenfranchised with how blacks behave. If it wakes them up to racial reality, it is not something we should try to hide.

Yes, it's convenient to think that, especially if one is seeking to absolve Hitler of any responsibility in the pointless war he started.

I don't believe he "started" it. But I don't want to absolve him of any responsibility either. We can agree it was a horrible and pointless war at least.

Supporting Germans to the detriment of non-Germanic peoples—in the case of lebensraum, the Slavs—is thoroughly reactionary. I'm Spanish, but that doesn't mean that I support Spain's innumerable wars throughout history or the Spanish conquest of the Americas (which subsequently resulted in the genocide of various Amerindian tribes). Hitler's war ultimately wasn't what was best for the German people anyway, millions of dead German citizens and soldiers attest to that fact.

Well I am not a self hater. If my people manage to conquer an area it is theirs. I will not take the side of Amerindians over my own flesh and blood. It turned out not to be best for the Germanic folk. Thanks to the capitalist west and communist east, two sides of the same coin.

Then your nationalism clearly isn't of the leftist variety.

Well it isn't of the rightist variety either. I support the abolishment of capitalism and a workers state. Getting rid of the entire bourgeois class. My nationalism is much more like Germanic Tribal Socialism. But hey whatever you wanna call it left, right, center, I don't care. It is what it is.

A couple of weeks ago the norwegian government recognized the palestinian state. Our foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre was massively critisized for this by the Israelis.

Today a zionist freemason made a massive attack on the norwegian government and the labor party that makes up the government.

You do the math...

Latest reports say more than 80 dead at Utøya..

Lew Skannon wrote:Latest reports say more than 80 dead at Utøya..

I think the guy was nothing more than a deranged and pissed off zionist freemason.