The Jewish Question

Lew Skannon wrote: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...

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

Hate to burst your bubble, gentlemen.

Anders Behring Breivik Identified As Suspect In Norway Shooting

The 32-year-old Norwegian man who allegedly went on a shooting spree on the island of Utoya has been identified as Anders Behring Breivik, according to multiple reports.

The Daily Mail and Sky News were among those to report the suspect's name. According to witnesses, the gunman was dressed as a police officer and gunned down young people as they ran for their lives at a youth camp.

Police said Friday evening that they've linked the youth camp shooting and Oslo bombing. Breivik is believed to have acted alone.

Norwegian TV2 reports that Breivik belongs to "right-wing circles" in Oslo. Swedish news site Expressen adds that he has been known to write to right-wing forums in Norway, is a self-described nationalist and has also written a number of posts critical of Islam.

A Twitter account for Breivik has surfaced, though it only has one post, this quote from philosopher John Stuart Mill: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests." The tweet was posted on July 17.

On a Facebook account that Norwegian media outlets have attributed to Breivik, he describes himself as having Christian, conservative views. He says he enjoys hunting, the games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and lives in Oslo. He also lists political analysis and stock analysis as interests.

He seems to be little more than your average reactionary nationalist — little different from the BNP/EDL sort. How you move from that basic premise to "Zionist Freemason" is beyond me. Tin foil, anyone?

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

What you call the "genocide of Europeans" is in fact nothing more than one of many externalities associated with capitalism (and market economies in general). Far from some top-secret cabal of 'anti-White' Jews, conspiring to commit 'genocide' against White people, businesses produce and distribute commodities associated with lucrative markets. 'Urban culture' is a novelty that was/is easily marketable to 'White' suburbia because it was (and, in some cases, still is) considered a taboo of sorts. There is a long tradition of youth consumer fads being based upon 'rebellious' concepts. This is what led to the emergence of 'rock 'n' roll' and all manner of cultural (generational) developments within capitalist societies.

And, as happens with all such cases social backlash, the emergence of this particular market led to outcomes — in this case, a certain level of cultural and (to a lesser extent) biological homogeneity — that a certain demographic of the population happened to find objectionable. In this respect, those opposed to this externality are no different than the Christian zealots and Islamists opposed to the 'denigration' of their faiths in various movies, cartoons, etc. Therefore your opposition is nothing but a link in a very long chain of social discontent caused by markets undermining certain values upheld by a portion of the population.

Unfortunately, choosing to ignore these facts — and instead humoring various nonsensical conspiracy theories — is not going to solve the problem.

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.

What an arbitrary argument.

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

All you're doing is scapegoating the preponderance of society's ills onto an ethnic population that is overwhelmingly comprised of individuals who exercise absolutely no control over the institutions responsible for perpetuating the very injustices you purport to oppose. The false dichotomy associated with antisemitism is a very simple (and severely flawed) way of addressing a very complex matter.

On the other hand, addressing the systemic nature of the problems facing the world today requires that we part ways with bourgeois convention and stand for solutions that render our agenda fundamentally incompatible with traditional expressions of 'nationalism' — which utilize such social poisons as irrational scapegoating, conspiracy theories, and chauvinism/jingoism, in order to perpetuate capitalist social relations (or other reactionary forms of social stratification). This is what sets left-wing/progressive nationalism apart from the 'nationalism' inherent to such ideological constructs as National Socialism.

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!

Are Black people inherently incapable of learning a written language or accomplishing any of the basic feats you mentioned? The fact that their cultures had not yet produced such things as a written language tells us no more about the innate potential of the Black race than the fact that the ancient Celts were 'culturally inferior' to the ancient Romans informs us of the innate potential of the Celtic people. The bottom line is that certain environmental conditions necessitated the development and use of certain evolutionary traits. Such traits vary amongst populations (both outside of and within the established racial groups).

Now, I am not going to argue that (sub-Saharan) Africans, collectively, share the same level of intellectual potential inherent to Europeans. However, I am not going to marginalize their intellectual potential either, simply because (sub-Saharan) African cultures were nowhere near as advanced as European cultures were during the time of their initial (cultural) encounters with one another.

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.

That's nonsense. Black people did not enjoy even the faintest semblance of equality with their White counterparts throughout the majority of their history in this country. As such, you cannot reasonably argue that they put "themselves in poverty to begin with". You could argue that they have a tendency to compound their problems, but the basic problems themselves are not solely (or even overwhelmingly) attributable to their own actions.

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 you make no effort to conceal your blatant chauvinism or imperialism, yet find these qualities compatible with left-wing nationalism?

Incidentally, imperialism does not always coincide with the best interests of the aggressor nation. Moreover, Hitler did not offer the German people the sort of social revolution that most real German socialists would have found to be sufficient. (And at the time of the German Federal Election of 1933, more of the German electorate voted for the SPD and KPD than it did the NSDAP. One would therefore imagine that the majority of German socialists would have preferred the abolition of the German bourgeoisie over needless war with the USSR, for the superfluous acquisition of increased 'living space'.) Instead, he offered the German people those things there was no mandate for. And so, like a good political opportunist, he generated the political capital necessary to execute his self-destructive agenda through unscrupulous means.

He added he did not think the attacks were "linked to any international terrorist organisations" but seemed to be the work of a "madman".

Norway's TV2 claimed the suspect has links to right-wing extremism, without disclosing its sources. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/suspect-held-twin-attack-norway-001755243.html

In other words they know shit. Otherwise they would quote sources.

Ah the Jew, always the Jew.

From Slavoj Zizek’s ‘Violence’;

Take the example of anti-Semitic pogroms, which can stand for all racist violence. What the perpetrators of pogroms find intolerable and rage-provoking, what they react to, is not the immediate reality of Jews, but to the image/figure of the ‘Jew’ which circulates and has been constructed in their tradition. The catch, of course, is that one single individual cannot distinguish in any simple form between real Jews and their anti-Semitic image: this image overdetermines the way I experience real Jews themselves and, furthermore, it affects the way Jews experience themselves. What makes a real Jew that an anti-Semite encounters on the street ‘intolerable’, what the anti-Semite tries to destroy when he attacks the Jew, the true target of his fury, is this fantasmatic dimension.”

In other words, it is not the reality of the Jew that we are being conditioned to attack but the ‘image’ of the Jew. We all know that the Jew hates us (we have been told so), so we hate the Jew in return. But what if the Jew hates us because we hate the Jew?

Hate to burst your bubble, gentlemen.

Anders Behring Breivik Identified As Suspect In Norway Shooting

The 32-year-old Norwegian man who allegedly went on a shooting spree on the island of Utoya has been identified as Anders Behring Breivik, according to multiple reports.

The Daily Mail and Sky News were among those to report the suspect's name. According to witnesses, the gunman was dressed as a police officer and gunned down young people as they ran for their lives at a youth camp.

Police said Friday evening that they've linked the youth camp shooting and Oslo bombing. Breivik is believed to have acted alone.

Norwegian TV2 reports that Breivik belongs to "right-wing circles" in Oslo. Swedish news site Expressen adds that he has been known to write to right-wing forums in Norway, is a self-described nationalist and has also written a number of posts critical of Islam.

A Twitter account for Breivik has surfaced, though it only has one post, this quote from philosopher John Stuart Mill: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests." The tweet was posted on July 17.

On a Facebook account that Norwegian media outlets have attributed to Breivik, he describes himself as having Christian, conservative views. He says he enjoys hunting, the games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and lives in Oslo. He also lists political analysis and stock analysis as interests.

He seems to be little more than your average reactionary nationalist — little different from the BNP/EDL sort. How you move from that basic premise to "Zionist Freemason" is beyond me. Tin foil, anyone?

No, hate to burst YOUR bubble ADMIN, but he says it himself. He is anto-racist, pro-multi ethnic culture nationalist. He is a freemason and zionist. (You don't have to be a jew to be a zionist.)

In Norwegian, sorry it isn't CNN source telling us he is a nazi. Or fox blaming it on muslims still.

http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/

http://www.nationell.nu/2011/07/23/extra-sionistisk-frimurare-gripen-for-terrordadet-i-oslo/

What you call the "genocide of Europeans" is in fact nothing more than one of many externalities associated with capitalism (and market economies in general). Far from some top-secret cabal of 'anti-White' Jews, conspiring to commit 'genocide' against White people, businesses produce and distribute commodities associated with lucrative markets. 'Urban culture' is a novelty that was/is easily marketable to 'White' suburbia because it was (and, in some cases, still is) considered a taboo of sorts. There is a long tradition of youth consumer fads being based upon 'rebellious' concepts. This is what led to the emergence of 'rock 'n' roll' and all manner of cultural (generational) developments within capitalist societies.

And, as happens with all such cases social backlash, the emergence of this particular market led to outcomes — in this case, a certain level of cultural and (to a lesser extent) biological homogeneity — that a certain demographic of the population happened to find objectionable. In this respect, those opposed to this externality are no different than the Christian zealots and Islamists opposed to the 'denigration' of their faiths in various movies, cartoons, etc. Therefore your opposition is nothing but a link in a very long chain of social discontent caused by markets undermining certain values upheld by a portion of the population.

Unfortunately, choosing to ignore these facts — and instead humoring various nonsensical conspiracy theories — is not going to solve the problem.

Like I said conscious or unconscious. You have merely given me a reason. The fact of the matter is Europeans are a dying breed, even in their own countries.

All you're doing is scapegoating the preponderance of society's ills onto an ethnic population that is overwhelmingly comprised of individuals who exercise absolutely no control over the institutions responsible for perpetuating the very injustices you purport to oppose. The false dichotomy associated with antisemitism is a very simple (and severely flawed) way of addressing a very complex matter.

On the other hand, addressing the systemic nature of the problems facing the world today requires that we part ways with bourgeois convention and stand for solutions that render our agenda fundamentally incompatible with traditional expressions of 'nationalism' — which utilize such social poisons as irrational scapegoating, conspiracy theories, and chauvinism/jingoism, in order to perpetuate capitalist social relations (or other reactionary forms of social stratification). This is what sets left-wing/progressive nationalism apart from the 'nationalism' inherent to such ideological constructs as National Socialism.

So I am using a bourgeois convention saying the jews are evil? I am not merely scapegoating the problem onto Jews alone. I know it is many of our own people exploiting their race and sometimes consciously. However; I do find it funny that jews wormed their way into so many banking and media spots. Why? Why are they obsessed with banking and media control? Jews make up 2% of the American population; yet there is so many of them in Hebrewwood and banks that one must wonder if it was a conscious effort. Don't tell me I am using bourgeois conventions when i am simply using my common sense in wondering these things. I want to abolish the system of capitalism as much as you do.

Are Black people inherently incapable of learning a written language or accomplishing any of the basic feats you mentioned? The fact that their cultures had not yet produced such things as a written language tells us no more about the innate potential of the Black race than the fact that the ancient Celts were 'culturally inferior' to the ancient Romans informs us of the innate potential of the Celtic people. The bottom line is that certain environmental conditions necessitated the development and use of certain evolutionary traits. Such traits vary amongst populations (both outside of and within the established racial groups).

The celts did have a language though and accomplished much much more than africans.

Now, I am not going to argue that (sub-Saharan) Africans, collectively, share the same level of intellectual potential inherent to Europeans. However, I am not going to marginalize their intellectual potential either, simply because (sub-Saharan) African cultures were nowhere near as advanced as European cultures were during the time of their initial (cultural) encounters with one another.

And they're still not. We give them modern instruments and they create such monstrosities like JAZZ and HIP HOP.

That's nonsense. Black people did not enjoy even the faintest semblance of equality with their White counterparts throughout the majority of their history in this country. As such, you cannot reasonably argue that they put "themselves in poverty to begin with". You could argue that they have a tendency to compound their problems, but the basic problems themselves are not solely (or even overwhelmingly) attributable to their own actions.

So when they moved into Detroit and turned into a third world hell hole it was because they were not treated as equals by us evil white folk?

So you make no effort to conceal your blatant chauvinism or imperialism, yet find these qualities compatible with left-wing nationalism?

I do find them compatible. Just not YOUR left wing nationalism I suppose. I guess I might get sent off the the gulags in your ideal workers state.

Incidentally, imperialism does not always coincide with the best interests of the aggressor nation. Moreover, Hitler did not offer the German people the sort of social revolution that most real German socialists would have found to be sufficient. (And at the time of the German Federal Election of 1933, more of the German electorate voted for the SPD and KPD than it did the NSDAP. One would therefore imagine that the majority of German socialists would have preferred the abolition of the German bourgeoisie over needless war with the USSR, for the superfluous acquisition of increased 'living space'.) Instead, he offered the German people those things there was no mandate for. And so, like a good political opportunist, he generated the political capital necessary to execute his self-destructive agenda through unscrupulous means.

You look too much at the social constructs. I wouldn't have run things 100% like Hitler either, I would have been way more socialist and completely abolished the bourgeois class. But. That does not mean we do not share the same Holy Racial views. Germany did need living space. I believe the Germanic race is the best racial stock there is. (That dosn't mean I don't respect my slavic brothers; I'm part Polish). I would have given them the living space. Hitler was a hero for our cause of Aryan preservation and he didn't ruin our dream, Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt did. With that said...

Germania Ueber Alles!

Whoops, seems Admins bubble still aint burst.

The suspect is reported by local media to have had links with right-wing extremists.

He has been named as Anders Behring Breivik. Police searched his Oslo apartment overnight and are questioning him.

The BBC's Richard Galpin, near the island which is currently cordoned off by police, says that Norway has had problems with neo-Nazi groups in the past but the assumption was that such groups had been largely eliminated and did not pose a significant threat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14262956

Isakenaz wrote:Ah the Jew, always the Jew.

From Slavoj Zizek’s ‘Violence’;

Take the example of anti-Semitic pogroms, which can stand for all racist violence. What the perpetrators of pogroms find intolerable and rage-provoking, what they react to, is not the immediate reality of Jews, but to the image/figure of the ‘Jew’ which circulates and has been constructed in their tradition. The catch, of course, is that one single individual cannot distinguish in any simple form between real Jews and their anti-Semitic image: this image overdetermines the way I experience real Jews themselves and, furthermore, it affects the way Jews experience themselves. What makes a real Jew that an anti-Semite encounters on the street ‘intolerable’, what the anti-Semite tries to destroy when he attacks the Jew, the true target of his fury, is this fantasmatic dimension.”

In other words, it is not the reality of the Jew that we are being conditioned to attack but the ‘image’ of the Jew. We all know that the Jew hates us (we have been told so), so we hate the Jew in return. But what if the Jew hates us because we hate the Jew?

Wouldn't be a problem if the image of the Jew wasn't oh so true.

Germania Ueber Alles! Wink

Reactionary crap, and I have Germanic heritage too comrade

Isakenaz wrote:Reactionary crap, and I have Germanic heritage too comrade

Ja, aber der Germanische Rasse ist die beste Rasse der Welt Kamerad.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Ja, aber der Germanische Rasse ist die beste Rasse der Welt Kamerad.

Oh come on, are you just fucking around now, SS?

Coach wrote:Oh come on, are you just fucking around now, SS?

Haha, partly. At least to what comade Isakenaz said.

I really do support the movement here. I hate capitalism and would love nothing more than to see the system of exploitation down. I know we all share that in common. However; I will differ with what a lot of members here have to say because of different Racial/Spiritual views.

No big deal. That is why we are debating in the opposing views section I suppose. I don't hate everyone.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Like I said conscious or unconscious. You have merely given me a reason. The fact of the matter is Europeans are a dying breed, even in their own countries.

No one here denies that fact. However, we apparently disagree with the causes behind such developments. And given our disagreements concerning causality, it is no great wonder why we also happen to disagree on aspects of what constitutes a genuine solution to this problem.

So I am using a bourgeois convention saying the jews are evil?

That sort of antisemitism largely precedes the emergence of bourgeois hegemony (for instance, the Tsarist establishment thrived off of antisemitism and that was one of the primary reasons why such a robust number of Jews happened to embrace certain radical theories and actively participated in revolutionary movements directed against the Tsarist state), but I would say that it was certainly integrated into the bourgeois tradition in certain contexts throughout history. Today, mainstream antisemitism has been basically transcended in most bourgeois societies, but its underlying premise — targeting specific racial/ethnic groups on the basis of their relationship to specific institutions — has largely been preserved.

For example, you will still encounter many people who happen to think that heterosexual White males are a social poison who are collectively responsible for most of the world's problems. (And this view is not confined to the mere margins of society.) An appropriate level of nuance rarely accompanies these sorts of critiques, as they lack any sufficient basis in institutional analysis. As such, the fact that only a minority of White males happen to exercise any influence over Western political and economic institutions is obscured and the capitalist system itself is largely spared of the sort of opposition that would otherwise threaten its hegemony. Now, if you replace 'heterosexual White males' with 'Jews' you will find that the nature of the antipathy directed against each of those groups (including its underlying irrationality) is essentially the same.

I am not merely scapegoating the problem onto Jews alone. I know it is many of our own people exploiting their race and sometimes consciously.

Well, that's a start.

However; I do find it funny that jews wormed their way into so many banking and media spots. Why? Why are they obsessed with banking and media control? Jews make up 2% of the American population; yet there is so many of them in Hebrewwood and banks that one must wonder if it was a conscious effort. Don't tell me I am using bourgeois conventions when i am simply using my common sense in wondering these things. I want to abolish the system of capitalism as much as you do.

And a few generations from now, when Whites are a minority in the West, what will you answer when someone asks why White people control a disproportionate amount of the wealth and (disproportionately) occupy positions of great power and influence in countries like the United States? Will you tell that person that you wonder if there is a 'conscious effort' on the part of the White race to 'worm' its way into positions of power and privilege, in order to advance some nefarious agenda?

There may be some cultural qualities that account for the 'inclination' amongst a certain number of Jews to pursue careers in finance and such. Their relative 'success' in certain areas may also be (partly) attributable to various cases of nepotism, ethnic solidarity, etc. However, the institutions themselves are no more or less deplorable simply by virtue of the race or ethnicity involved with them. There is simply no way to prove that the development of said institutions would somehow be less detrimental to the Western working class if they were purged of all Jewish involvement. All the antisemites can provide us with is conjecture and that's part of what makes it so fundamentally irrational.

The celts did have a language though and accomplished much much more than africans.

Try to follow my point. You suggested that the lack of cultural development inherent to sub-Saharan African peoples conclusively demonstrates the limits of their intellectual potential. I find this premise to be inherently flawed. Again, using that same logic, one would have to believe that groups like the ancient Celts were inherently inferior to the ancient Romans, simply because their cultures were far less sophisticated and they had not accomplished a fraction of what the Romans did in most areas of pertinence.

Cultural development and intellectual potential do not always coincide perfectly with one another. Many factors influence how a culture develops. (This is precisely why there was/is so much cultural diversity between peoples of similar constitutions.)

Given these facts, I find the notion of ridiculing other ethnic/racial groups embracing nationalism to be rather nonsensical. You may think that the Germans are worthy of special acclaim because they were able to accomplish a great deal in modern history; but if you were to exhibit the same sort of pride during certain points in antiquity, some Greek or Roman of a similar (chauvinistic) disposition would have thought you were mad.

And they're still not. We give them modern instruments and they create such monstrosities like JAZZ and HIP HOP.

And certain White people created 'monstrosities' like punk rock and death metal. Again, these constant appeals to culture as a means of establishing the value and potential of a specific race of people is nonsensical.

So when they moved into Detroit and turned into a third world hell hole it was because they were not treated as equals by us evil white folk?

First of all, don't try to put words in my mouth in order to garner sympathy. I never said "evil White folk" were collectively responsible for the levels of poverty found within the African-American population.

Secondly, all you are doing is underscoring the appalling conditions inherent to impoverished African-American communities. That does nothing to establish the initial cause of said poverty. African-Americans have been burdened with significant material and legal disadvantages throughout the majority of their history on this continent. If you juxtapose that to the overall development of the capitalist system, it should come as no surprise why so much of the Black community exists in such a pitiful state.

Again, this does not mean that I feel as though African-Americans are capable of contributing as much to the development of socialism as other races are likely to. However, given a fair opportunity (within a socialistic context), I am convinced that the Black community would demonstrate that it is capable of achieving far more than you likely suspect.

I do find them compatible. Just not YOUR left wing nationalism I suppose. I guess I might get sent off the the gulags in your ideal workers state.

Enough with the hyperbole.

This may well be an instance of conflicting interpretations, but I really cannot imagine how someone could view such an act of imperialism/colonialism as left-wing in the slightest.

You look too much at the social constructs. I wouldn't have run things 100% like Hitler either, I would have been way more socialist and completely abolished the bourgeois class. But. That does not mean we do not share the same Holy Racial views.

Care to elaborate on what the hell that is supposed to mean?

I know what Hitler's racial views were and they were virtually all rubbish — a product of flawed science (anachronistic even for Hitler's time) and certain (borderline) incorporeal theories.

Germany did need living space.

That's your opinion. The fact of the matter, however, is the German people were not demanding such a thing. They saw the material inequities of the bourgeois state as something that needed to be remedied through the application of socialist policies — that would in turn provide such things as 'living space' to the German workers, by expropriating the vast estates of the domestic oppressors. Instead, Hitler sought to perpetuate the aforementioned (bourgeois) inequities and basically bribe the German working class — by providing a portion thereof with lands stolen from the workers of neighboring countries. That was not progress by any stretch of the imagination and it surely violated the fundamental principles of socialism.

I believe the Germanic race is the best racial stock there is. (That dosn't mean I don't respect my slavic brothers; I'm part Polish).

Believe as you will. I believe Coke tastes better than Pepsi, but I have no interest in Coke's 'struggle for supremacy' over Pepsi.

I would have given them the living space.

And I would have told them to think again.

Hitler was a hero for our cause of Aryan preservation and he didn't ruin our dream, Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt did. With that said...

Sorry, the Third Reich was/is not my dream.

Germania Ueber Alles!

No one here denies that fact. However, we apparently disagree with the causes behind such developments. And given our disagreements concerning causality, it is no great wonder why we also happen to disagree on aspects of what constitutes a genuine solution to this problem.

I don't think we disagree on a solution. We both want to abolish wage slavery. I just want to get rid of the jews too.

That sort of antisemitism largely precedes the emergence of bourgeois hegemony (for instance, the Tsarist establishment thrived off of antisemitism and that was one of the primary reasons why such a robust number of Jews happened to embrace certain radical theories and actively participated in revolutionary movements directed against the Tsarist state), but I would say that it was certainly integrated into the bourgeois tradition in certain contexts throughout history. Today, mainstream antisemitism has been basically transcended in most bourgeois societies, but its underlying premise — targeting specific racial/ethnic groups on the basis of their relationship to specific institutions — has largely been preserved.

For example, you will still encounter many people who happen to think that heterosexual White males are a social poison who are collectively responsible for most of the world's problems. (And this view is not confined to the mere margins of society.) An appropriate level of nuance rarely accompanies these sorts of critiques, as they lack any sufficient basis in institutional analysis. As such, the fact that only a minority of White males happen to exercise any influence over Western political and economic institutions is obscured and the capitalist system itself is largely spared of the sort of opposition that would otherwise threaten its hegemony. Now, if you replace 'heterosexual White males' with 'Jews' you will find that the nature of the antipathy directed against each of those groups (including its underlying irrationality) is essentially the same.

Well, okay, I am just saying. The facts are there. Do what you want with them. We just seem to disagree that it was a conscious effort on the part of the jewish people to get themselves into those positions.

And a few generations from now, when Whites are a minority in the West, what will you answer when someone asks why White people control a disproportionate amount of the wealth and (disproportionately) occupy positions of great power and influence in countries like the United States? Will you tell that person that you wonder if there is a 'conscious effort' on the part of the White race to 'worm' its way into positions of power and privilege, in order to advance some nefarious agenda?

Not gunna happen in my lifetime. I'll make sure of it.

There may be some cultural qualities that account for the 'inclination' amongst a certain number of Jews to pursue careers in finance and such. Their relative 'success' in certain areas may also be (partly) attributable to various cases of nepotism, ethnic solidarity, etc. However, the institutions themselves are no more or less deplorable simply by virtue of the race or ethnicity involved with them. There is simply no way to prove that the development of said institutions would somehow be less detrimental to the Western working class if they were purged of all Jewish involvement. All the antisemites can provide us with is conjecture and that's part of what makes it so fundamentally irrational.

Admin you keep thinking I want to keep the system and just "purge the joos". Not at all. I want to get rid of both the system and the jews.

Try to follow my point. You suggested that the lack of cultural development inherent to sub-Saharan African peoples conclusively demonstrates the limits of their intellectual potential. I find this premise to be inherently flawed. Again, using that same logic, one would have to believe that groups like the ancient Celts were inherently inferior to the ancient Romans, simply because their cultures were far less sophisticated and they had not accomplished a fraction of what the Romans did in most areas of pertinence.

I don't think they were genetically inferior as they came from the same stock; but they definitely were inferior in the matter of technological development and weaponry.

Given these facts, I find the notion of ridiculing other ethnic/racial groups embracing nationalism to be rather nonsensical. You may think that the Germans are worthy of special acclaim because they were able to accomplish a great deal in modern history; but if you were to exhibit the same sort of pride during certain points in antiquity, some Greek or Roman of a similar (chauvinistic) disposition would have thought you were mad.

I don't ridicule them when they embrace nationalism. In fact, I support all races embracing nationalism. I would love if every race and and nation threw off their shackles and embraced nationalism.

Agreed that they would. But all that accomplishment comes from the same stock though; so it would make sense to a degree.

And certain White people created 'monstrosities' like punk rock and death metal. Again, these constant appeals to culture as a means of establishing the value and potential of a specific race of people is nonsensical.

Haha, touche. Though punk rock isn't bad. Death metal is shit though.

First of all, don't try to put words in my mouth in order to garner sympathy. I never said "evil White folk" were collectively responsible for the levels of poverty found within the African-American population.

Secondly, all you are doing is underscoring the appalling conditions inherent to impoverished African-American communities. That does nothing to establish the initial cause of said poverty. African-Americans have been burdened with significant material and legal disadvantages throughout the majority of their history on this continent. If you juxtapose that to the overall development of the capitalist system, it should come as no surprise why so much of the Black community exists in such a pitiful state.

Okay, but I still think it is largely to do with them themselves. I don't think it is entirely the fault of the system, I believe it is also their genetic disposition to just act like monkeys.

Again, this does not mean that I feel as though African-Americans are capable of contributing as much to the development of socialism as other races are likely to. However, given a fair opportunity (within a socialistic context), I am convinced that the Black community would demonstrate that it is capable of achieving far more than you likely suspect.

I think they would too; as long as they do it in their own nation.

Enough with the hyperbole.

This may well be an instance of conflicting interpretations, but I really cannot imagine how someone could view such an act of imperialism/colonialism as left-wing in the slightest.

Hey, like I said call it what you want. I joined this site cause it was called Socialist Phalanx not Socialist, anti-imperialist, anti-racial epitaph, true left winger Phalanx. I am a socialist and a racialist.

Care to elaborate on what the hell that is supposed to mean?

I know what Hitler's racial views were and they were virtually all rubbish — a product of flawed science (anachronistic even for Hitler's time) and certain (borderline) incorporeal theories.

I believe the Aryan race has a superior spiritual quality to it. That it is our most sacred duty on this earth to see to our own well being. It is the greatest gift from any higher being to be born into this stock. There is nothing holier than our blood and our future. I am in practice a Wotanist, but if you were to ask me what religion I was I would simply say - German. And I am about as fanatical about my religion as a jihadist.

That's your opinion. The fact of the matter, however, is the German people were not demanding such a thing. They saw the material inequities of the bourgeois state as something that needed to be remedied through the application of socialist policies — that would in turn provide such things as 'living space' to the German workers, by expropriating the vast estates of the domestic oppressors. Instead, Hitler sought to perpetuate the aforementioned (bourgeois) inequities and basically bribe the German working class — by providing a portion thereof with lands stolen from the workers of neighboring countries. That was not progress by any stretch of the imagination and it surely violated the fundamental principles of socialism.

Though, they did make life 100x better for the workers. That is not arguable. Demanding living space for the German PEOPLE was in the 25 points. This was read to the people and all of Germany before they even elected Hitler. So obviously the Germans thought they needed some space too.

Believe as you will. I believe Coke tastes better than Pepsi, but I have no interest in Coke's 'struggle for supremacy' over Pepsi.

Soda is bad for you. Don't drink it.

And I would have told them to think again.

I wouldn't have.

Sorry, the Third Reich was/is not my dream.

You and I will differ on that.

Ah, the continuing, never ending Jewish Question, still.
For those still contemplating the Norway Murders, here is a bit about the 'Manifesto';

The 1,500-page manifesto written by Anders Behring Breivik is a blueprint for a continent-wide revolution which reflects much of the thinking of Europe's neo-Nazis.

The document - 2083 A European Declaration Of Independence - lays out a three-stage plan leading to the overthrow of Europe's liberal democracies and replacing them with a pan-European conservative authority.

In some ways, the writings are a mirror image of those of Osama bin Laden , laying out views of why society is in crisis and how only "propaganda by deed" will inspire the masses to action.

Whereas bin Laden wanted Islam to triumph, Breivik supports a Christian Europe without large numbers of Muslims.

Breivik appears to have chosen the date 2083 because it will be the 200th anniversary of the death of Karl Marx .

Many educated neo-Nazis start from the premise that Marxism thought infected Europe, leading to a reduction in nationalism and the introduction, eventually, of liberalism and multiculturalism.

Breivik articulates all this. At a local level, he blames the ruling Labour party for introducing multiculturalism to Norway and, he believes, ruining the country. His writing is deeply anti-Islamic.

The neo-Nazi movement in Scandanavia is among the strongest in Europe.

The different groups are almost all in contact with each other, from Italy to Norway and from Britain to Russia.

There are two types of connection: one is intellectual, the other cultural.

One thing which brought the more openly thuggish elements together was the "White Power" music movement which sprang out of the British punk scene in the early '80s.

"White Power" bands and their supporters quickly began to forge links and attend each other's concerts.

These links became political and, before long, the established extreme-right organisations became involved.

There is also an intellectual strand connecting the neo-Nazis in different countries.

The thinking of this movement has trickled down to the rank and file which buys into the broad theories as outlined in Breivik's document.

The intellectual side of neo-Nazism draws on ancient European history, myths and legends.

The idea of Aryan race features prominently, especially in northern Europe, and much of the literature produced by the far right will mention ancient orders such as The Knights Templar.

Hitler's Mein Kampf is much studied. In some ways Breivik's manifesto is reminiscent of Mein Kampf.

Written in prison, Hitler's book was a blueprint for what happened in the '30s and '40s.

The Nazi leader laid out his path to power and what would then happen.

Breivik's trial will present him with an opportunity to defend and explain the actions he is now reported to have admitted to.

If he is found to be of sound mind, and if he is jailed, he will have time to write more - but the maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years.

With time off for good behaviour, theoretically he could be free before he is 50 years old.

During that time he may become an icon for the far reaches of the neo-Nazi movement.

Publicly few would dare voice support for his alleged acions but privately there will be those who will study them, and his writings, and approve of them.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/norway-attack-suspects-manifesto-hatred-131906296.html

Damn so he wasn't part of some insidious Jewish plot.

Isakenaz wrote:Ah, the continuing, never ending Jewish Question, still.
For those still contemplating the Norway Murders, here is a bit about the 'Manifesto';

The 1,500-page manifesto written by Anders Behring Breivik is a blueprint for a continent-wide revolution which reflects much of the thinking of Europe's neo-Nazis.

The document - 2083 A European Declaration Of Independence - lays out a three-stage plan leading to the overthrow of Europe's liberal democracies and replacing them with a pan-European conservative authority.

In some ways, the writings are a mirror image of those of Osama bin Laden , laying out views of why society is in crisis and how only "propaganda by deed" will inspire the masses to action.

Whereas bin Laden wanted Islam to triumph, Breivik supports a Christian Europe without large numbers of Muslims.

Breivik appears to have chosen the date 2083 because it will be the 200th anniversary of the death of Karl Marx .

Many educated neo-Nazis start from the premise that Marxism thought infected Europe, leading to a reduction in nationalism and the introduction, eventually, of liberalism and multiculturalism.

Breivik articulates all this. At a local level, he blames the ruling Labour party for introducing multiculturalism to Norway and, he believes, ruining the country. His writing is deeply anti-Islamic.

The neo-Nazi movement in Scandanavia is among the strongest in Europe.

The different groups are almost all in contact with each other, from Italy to Norway and from Britain to Russia.

There are two types of connection: one is intellectual, the other cultural.

One thing which brought the more openly thuggish elements together was the "White Power" music movement which sprang out of the British punk scene in the early '80s.

"White Power" bands and their supporters quickly began to forge links and attend each other's concerts.

These links became political and, before long, the established extreme-right organisations became involved.

There is also an intellectual strand connecting the neo-Nazis in different countries.

The thinking of this movement has trickled down to the rank and file which buys into the broad theories as outlined in Breivik's document.

The intellectual side of neo-Nazism draws on ancient European history, myths and legends.

The idea of Aryan race features prominently, especially in northern Europe, and much of the literature produced by the far right will mention ancient orders such as The Knights Templar.

Hitler's Mein Kampf is much studied. In some ways Breivik's manifesto is reminiscent of Mein Kampf.

Written in prison, Hitler's book was a blueprint for what happened in the '30s and '40s.

The Nazi leader laid out his path to power and what would then happen.

Breivik's trial will present him with an opportunity to defend and explain the actions he is now reported to have admitted to.

If he is found to be of sound mind, and if he is jailed, he will have time to write more - but the maximum sentence in Norway is 21 years.

With time off for good behaviour, theoretically he could be free before he is 50 years old.

During that time he may become an icon for the far reaches of the neo-Nazi movement.

Publicly few would dare voice support for his alleged acions but privately there will be those who will study them, and his writings, and approve of them.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/norway-attack-suspects-manifesto-hatred-131906296.html

Damn so he wasn't part of some insidious Jewish plot.

You can't deny him saying he was pro-israeli and pro-zionist. He said himself he got kicked off multiple pro-white internet forums for espousing such views. Furthermore; his killing of white children shows that he does not have our best interest in mind and anything he says on paper can no longer be taken seriously. He brings a disgrace to our ancestors; shooting a bunch of his own children and then when the guys with guns show up - surrenders.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:
You can't deny him saying he was pro-israeli and pro-zionist. He said himself he got kicked off multiple pro-white internet forums for espousing such views. Furthermore; his killing of white children shows that he does not have our best interest in mind and anything he says on paper can no longer be taken seriously. He brings a disgrace to our ancestors; shooting a bunch of his own children and then when the guys with guns show up - surrenders.

What of it? He is clearly anti-Islamic to such an extent that he supports Isreal's persecution of Palestinians and aggressive Middle Eastern policy. This is by no means a novel approach on the part of right-wing fanatics. Adherents of right-wing politics have historically displayed a propensity toward sacrificing the potential for the genuine reconciliation of national and international conflicts by imbibing ideology and pursuing unilateral policies with the short-term profit motive in mind.

Likewise, most capitalists favor Israel due to its imperialistic conductivity in the role of neoliberal hub of the Middle East. They can always rest assured that Israel's bellicose demeanor will serve to mitigate any budding revolutionary activity on the part of the working classes ground underneath the collective foot of the oil barons and fascist demagogues.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:
You can't deny him saying he was pro-israeli and pro-zionist. He said himself he got kicked off multiple pro-white internet forums for espousing such views.

Where did he say that? And what difference does it make anyway? he is nothing more than a murdering shithead, call him what he is, dont try to excuse him by allowing him the mantle of 'terrorist'.

Rev Scare wrote:What of it? He is clearly anti-Islamic to such an extent that he supports Isreal's persecution of Palestinians and aggressive Middle Eastern policy. This is by no means a novel approach on the part of right-wing fanatics. Adherents of right-wing politics have historically displayed a propensity toward sacrificing the potential for the genuine reconciliation of national and international conflicts by imbibing ideology and pursuing unilateral policies with the short-term profit motive in mind.

Likewise, most capitalists favor Israel due to its imperialistic conductivity in the role of neoliberal hub of the Middle East. They can always rest assured that Israel's bellicose demeanor will serve to mitigate any budding revolutionary activity on the part of the working classes ground underneath the collective foot of the oil barons and fascist demagogues.

Hey, nothing of it. I am just distancing myself from this lunatic. I am not even sure why he he is relevant, I was just commenting on what Lew Skannon said. That he is pro-zionist and a freemason. Make what you want of it. I didn't suggest it was a conspiracy nor do I do I think it is some Mossad setup.

Isakenaz wrote:Where did he say that? And what difference does it make anyway? he is nothing more than a murdering shithead, call him what he is, dont try to excuse him by allowing him the mantle of 'terrorist'.

He has said it in his manifesto. Precisely why he was booted off of forums like Stormfront, for positing his pro-israeli crap. I am not excusing anything, I detest what he did. He said he wanted a revolution in Europe. His and my revolution are very different if his idea of "revolution" is running around on an island shooting at unarmed children. It wasn't a revolution or an act of martyrdom; it was slaughter by a deranged lunatic.

The Admin already addressed most of the points you raised, I just want to respond to a few:

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Sure it could have something to do with the environment

It's not an issue of whether it "could" or not, the empirical research on the subject already answered that question in the affirmative. The only questions that remain are: to what extent do environmental factors influence cognitive development and general behavior, and how might we go about remedying the situation for the less fortunate? However, this subject is deserving of a thread unto itself and shouldn't serve to further derail the topic of this particular thread.

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.

As I stated earlier, dwelling upon the shortcomings of (average) black behavior is not a solid basis for advancing a nationalist agenda, let alone a Socialist-Nationalist agenda. Again, people cannot help the ethnic group they were born into and, therefore, shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of their origins. Encouraging vulgar racist sentiments to sweep across the population will merely result in unnecessary bloodshed. A vastly more constructive approach to pursue is to teach respect for the nobler elements of our respective cultures and encourage true diversity—which can only be realized by preserving our various cultures and peoples, and opposing integration and/or forced homogenization.

Furthermore, if we're to achieve the left-wing nationalism many of us here desire, we're eventually going to have to work with like-minded minority groups. Explicitly or implicitly suggesting that certain ethnic groups are "inferior" to people of European or East Asian descent is ultimately a hindrance to the end we seek, which is why the forum established a policy which disallows disparaging statements to be made against any ethnic group.

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.

I resent the implication that I'm a "self-hater" simply because I oppose the imperialism and genocide the rulers of my ancestral homeland were responsible for. It's not an issue of me "taking the side of Amerindians" over the Spaniards, it's about being a consistent anti-imperialist. Moreover, it was overwhelmingly the Spanish aristocracy and the Catholic Church who benefited from the conquest of the Americas, not the laboring classes of Spain.

As for the "might is right" ethic you seem to espouse, I dealt with that subject quite extensively in the 'Democratic Façade' thread and have no interest in repeating my position on the matter.

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.

I never understood how people could claim that bourgeois states were part of the "same coin" as the former Eastern bloc.. I suppose you could correctly claim that all of those states were/are oppressive to their citizens in some capacity, but that's basically where the similarities end.

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.

Well, I appreciate you confining your posts pertaining to non-leftist forms of nationalism to the 'Opposing Views' section.

It's not an issue of whether it "could" or not, the empirical research on the subject already answered that question in the affirmative. The only questions that remain are: to what extent do environmental factors influence cognitive development and general behavior, and how might we go about remedying the situation for the less fortunate? However, this subject is deserving of a thread unto itself and shouldn't serve to further derail the topic of this particular thread.

Where are these research results? From observation anyone could see that whites have achieved far more in the same environment as blacks. I do not think it is our responsibility to remedy the situation for blacks, either. That can even lead to horrible outcomes on its own. Take the peace core for example, they feed so many blacks so they can keep having children they can't feed. Can't feed um, don't breed um. Nature is auto-correcting. Not only that but take account into how many of our own women get raped and abused on these peace core trips.

As I stated earlier, dwelling upon the shortcomings of (average) black behavior is not a solid basis for advancing a nationalist agenda, let alone a Socialist-Nationalist agenda. Again, people cannot help the ethnic group they were born into and, therefore, shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of their origins. Encouraging vulgar racist sentiments to sweep across the population will merely result in unnecessary bloodshed. A vastly more constructive approach to pursue is to teach respect for the nobler elements of our respective cultures and encourage true diversity—which can only be realized by preserving our various cultures and peoples, and opposing integration and/or forced homogenization.

If we look at stats, such as black on white rape stats. It is clear they are an obvious problem to our people in our nations. If people are appalled by these stats; which they should be, and it serves to awaken our folk by all means we should spread the truth around. It isn't making them feel ashamed it is just the truth. There can be noble blacks who rise above the rest of their race and act noble, but the truth is simply the truth. They shouldn't feel ashamed. You can teach whites all about the noble elements in both of our cultures, but showing them the violence of blacks makes them cry for separation as well. We can not just ignore the vast amount of hate crimes committed against our own people.

Furthermore, if we're to achieve the left-wing nationalism many of us here desire, we're eventually going to have to work with like-minded minority groups. Explicitly or implicitly suggesting that certain ethnic groups are "inferior" to people of European or East Asian descent is ultimately a hindrance to the end we seek, which is why the forum established a policy which disallows disparaging statements to be made against any ethnic group.

I think we will have to work with them as well, but I do not see it as a hindrance. George Lincoln Rockwell worked quite well with the Nation of Islam.

I resent the implication that I'm a "self-hater" simply because I oppose the imperialism and genocide the rulers of my ancestral homeland were responsible for. It's not an issue of me "taking the side of Amerindians" over the Spaniards, it's about being a consistent anti-imperialist. Moreover, it was overwhelmingly the Spanish aristocracy and the Catholic Church who benefited from the conquest of the Americas, not the laboring classes of Spain.

So should we give the land back to these "Indians?" I am well aware the the ruling class and catholic church benefited the most, and the actual Spanish people benefited very little. I am very opposed to both of those institutions, and looking at it today the establishment of the country on this land mass is one of the most horrible things that happened for our race, but I still can not say I feel horribly sorry for the amerindians.

As for the "might is right" ethic you seem to espouse, I dealt with that subject quite extensively in the 'Democratic Façade' thread and have no interest in repeating my position on the matter.

I didn't mean to say that I would plunder another nation just for the sake of it being weaker, just that I would always side with my folk above all else. If it benefits them I don't have a problem with it.

I never understood how people could claim that bourgeois states were part of the "same coin" as the former Eastern bloc.. I suppose you could correctly claim that all of those states were/are oppressive to their citizens in some capacity, but that's basically where the similarities end.

Both are guilty of that sham called the Nuremburg Trials, or purim fest as Julius Streicher called it.

Well, I appreciate you confining your posts pertaining to non-leftist forms of nationalism to the 'Opposing Views' section.

No problem. I don't mean to upset the flow of the forum too much, as I appreciate debating and discussing here.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Where are these research results?

I already provided you with a very important study analyzing the detrimental effects poverty has on children's cognitive development—as you know, a significant percentage of the black population lives in poverty, thereby rending the study particularly relevant to them. There is also the issue of lead exposure many poorer children experience, which also lowers IQ—as Needleman, et al. "Low-Level Lead Exposure and the IQ of Children: A Meta-analysis of Modern Studies" shows. Bo Cai, et al. found that not only does lead negatively impact IQ, but it also increases children's propensity to exhibit behavior problems such as aggression, inattention and impulsivity (see "Lead Exposure, IQ, and Behavior in Urban 5- to 7-Year-Olds: Does Lead Affect Behavior Only by Lowering IQ?.")

From observation anyone could see that whites have achieved far more in the same environment as blacks.

That's obvious, but again, it's simply wrong to think this was exclusively the result of our different genetic endowment. The environmental was a contributing factor.

I do not think it is our responsibility to remedy the situation for blacks, either.

I wasn't suggesting that we go out of our way to help black people, but rather that we help the members of our own ethnicity who also happen to suffer from a poor genetic endowment. The best way to solve this problem is to eliminate poverty (by establishing a socialist mode of production) and investing in scientific research which will eventually lead to gene therapy becoming an accessible remedy to minimize innate, cognitive inequality. Blacks will also stand to benefit enormously from this research, though within their respective nations.

Take the peace core for example, they feed so many blacks so they can keep having children they can't feed. Can't feed um, don't breed um. Nature is auto-correcting.

The Peace Corps is a voluntary agency which has helped countless people over the years. There's no reason to disband it. Speaking of breeding, one of the main things the Peace Corps is engaged in is providing contraceptives and education to these impoverished people, which helps to reduce poverty significantly.

Not only that but take account into how many of our own women get raped and abused on these peace core trips.

They should be aware of the risks before signing up. It's not as though they're coerced into joining.

If we look at stats, such as black on white rape stats. It is clear they are an obvious problem to our people in our nations. If people are appalled by these stats; which they should be, and it serves to awaken our folk by all means we should spread the truth around.

The black on white rape statistics are obviously horrendous, but they aren't going to assist in making the masses more receptive to nationalism, in my opinion. Nationalist organizations in the United States have been using this data for years to try to appeal to people and it has accomplished very little in the way of attracting more people to the nationalist movement (let alone having people demand anything along the lines of ethnopluralism). Rape is a deplorable act committed by men of every race and most people just don't take ethnicity into account when condemning rape.

Again, this strategy of searching for flaws inherent in other ethnic groups isn't a constructive approach to take. It will spread hatred and violence, but it won't help us politically. Being labeled a "hate group" isn't beneficial for socialist-nationalist organizations.

It isn't making them feel ashamed it is just the truth.

Whether or not it's the truth is irreverent to the point I'm making. It produces feelings of self-loathing in people, which they shouldn't be made to feel simply because they happened to have lost in the genetic lottery. If I were to approach a very short man and continuously talk about how short he is and how his height probably affects his sex life negatively, he'd understandably become quite angry with me, and my remarks would also likely serve to further depress him over something of which he has no control. Dwelling on unpleasant truths isn't productive.

I think we will have to work with them as well, but I do not see it as a hindrance. George Lincoln Rockwell worked quite well with the Nation of Islam.

Leaving aside the fact George Lincoln Rockwell was a crackpot, the Nation of Islam's willingness to work with him doesn't say much. Following the proletarian revolution, we're going to have to be able to work with popular non-white, socialist organizations in order to establish plans for national self-determination of all peoples. However, if we have a history of engaging in propaganda campaigns centered around the 'inferiority' of non-white ethnic groups, they're going to be far less willing to peacefully work with us.

So should we give the land back to these "Indians?"

Being that most of the Amerindians who inhabited this continent are extinct now, that wouldn't make much sense. But yes, we should come to a mutually beneficial arrangement and give the remnants of those tribes their own nation somewhere in North America, just as we should allow the blacks to establish their own self-determined nation in what was known as the "black belt" of the United States:

looking at it today the establishment of the country on this land mass is one of the most horrible things that happened for our race, but I still can not say I feel horribly sorry for the amerindians.

It's not that I feel "horribly sorry" for the Amerindians, it's just that I'm not a moral hypocrite. If East Asians were to hypothetically invade Europe and commit genocide against European peoples, I wouldn't excuse it because they happen to have a slightly higher average IQ level, or what have you. If I'm opposed to genocide being committed against my own people, I stand critical when my own people engage in committing genocide against others populations.

I didn't mean to say that I would plunder another nation just for the sake of it being weaker, just that I would always side with my folk above all else. If it benefits them I don't have a problem with it.

No one benefits from imperialism aside from economic elites (be they the aristocracy and Church of antiquity, or the bourgeoisie today).

Both are guilty of that sham called the Nuremburg Trials, or purim fest as Julius Streicher called it.

I don't want to get into a whole discussion about the Nuremberg Trials, I'll simply say that it was indeed a kangaroo court.

No problem. I don't mean to upset the flow of the forum too much, as I appreciate debating and discussing here.

As do I. There's nothing wrong with civil debate—in fact, I rather enjoy it.

I already provided you with a very important study analyzing the detrimental effects poverty has on children's cognitive development—as you know, a significant percentage of the black population lives in poverty, thereby rending the study particularly relevant to them. There is also the issue of lead exposure many poorer children experience, which also lowers IQ—as Needleman, et al. "Low-Level Lead Exposure and the IQ of Children: A Meta-analysis of Modern Studies" shows. Bo Cai, et al. found that not only does lead negatively impact IQ, but it also increases children's propensity to exhibit behavior problems such as aggression, inattention and impulsivity (see "Lead Exposure, IQ, and Behavior in Urban 5- to 7-Year-Olds: Does Lead Affect Behavior Only by Lowering IQ?."

Yes, I read that and am well aware that living in poverty can have an effect on the negroes; however I was speaking strictly of antiquity and civilizations and the environment of Africa rather than urban America. General observation is that whites have created great works and civilizations in the same environment blacks have failed. I don't dwell on this, like I said, I don't mean to make all blacks feel ashamed nor do I harbor some hidden animosity for the negroid race as a whole. I do however like to point out where our race has succeeded and highlight our great accomplishments.

That's obvious, but again, it's simply wrong to think this was exclusively the result of our different genetic endowment. The environmental was a contributing factor.

Agreed.

I wasn't suggesting that we go out of our way to help black people, but rather that we help the members of our own ethnicity who also happen to suffer from a poor genetic endowment. The best way to solve this problem is to eliminate poverty (by establishing a socialist mode of production) and investing in scientific research which will eventually lead to gene therapy becoming an accessible remedy to minimize innate, cognitive inequality. Blacks will also stand to benefit enormously from this research, though within their respective nations.

Agreed 100%.

The Peace Corps is a voluntary agency which has helped countless people over the years. There's no reason to disband it. Speaking of breeding, one of the main things the Peace Corps is engaged in is providing contraceptives and education to these impoverished people, which helps to reduce poverty significantly.

I was more just suggesting that they stop trying so hard to save the negroes in Africa. I believe nature will auto-correct itself and their population will reduce itself down to what is able to be fed. Contraceptives and education is all fine and dandy, but I believe nature is still the best route to auto-correction. Speaking of contraceptives why can't they hand them out to the "latino" population in the United States?

They should be aware of the risks before signing up. It's not as though they're coerced into joining.

Ah, but they are. They're drilled throughout their 12 years in school and on the Tel Aviv that such a mission is noble and that helping all of the darker races is noble. Personally, I think we should just leave them the f*ck alone. Don't help them, or harm them. Leave um' to their respective business as I wish they would do with our people.

The black on white rape statistics are obviously horrendous, but they aren't going to assist in making the masses more receptive to nationalism, in my opinion. Nationalist organizations in the United States have been using this data for years to try to appeal to people and it has accomplished very little in the way of attracting more people to the nationalist movement (let alone having people demand anything along the lines of ethnopluralism). Rape is a deplorable act committed by men of every race and most people just don't take ethnicity into account when condemning rape.

It does bring some to our side though. I can speak from experience, as much as I hate to say it, it was not a sudden love for our culture and people that brought me to Nationalism. I was very reactionary upon first waking up. So much that I consider myself to have two awakenings. What brought me to open my eyes is the behavior of blacks at my school and how myself and fellow whites were treated. Waking up with feeling of hate and anger are natural, but we must overcome them and not be consumed by them. Love is the real reason we are here.

Again, this strategy of searching for flaws inherent in other ethnic groups isn't a constructive approach to take. It will spread hatred and violence, but it won't help us politically. Being labeled a "hate group" isn't beneficial for socialist-nationalist organizations.

As long as we speak of a nation for Ethnic Europeans we will be labeled a hate group, in my opinion. The media and SPLC who throws around the hate group label are never going to be okay with the idea that all races have a right to their own nation, the white race included. Hatred and violence is not a bad thing as long as it is directed in the right direction. I notice you have a Kai Murros quote in your signature, a wise man. Here is what he had to say about hatred.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97mbNzg2YUQ

Whether or not it's the truth is irreverent to the point I'm making. It produces feelings of self-loathing in people, which they shouldn't be made to feel simply because they happened to have lost in the genetic lottery. If I were to approach a very short man and continuously talk about how short he is and how his height probably affects his sex life negatively, he'd understandably become quite angry with me, and my remarks would also likely serve to further depress him over something of which he has no control. Dwelling on unpleasant truths isn't productive.

I believe the truth should be brought to light no matter how pleasant or unpleasant. If it is a negative truth perhaps it shouldn't be dwelt upon but it should definitely not be ignored. The truth will set you free...

Leaving aside the fact George Lincoln Rockwell was a crackpot, the Nation of Islam's willingness to work with him doesn't say much. Following the proletarian revolution, we're going to have to be able to work with popular non-white, socialist organizations in order to establish plans for national self-determination of all peoples. However, if we have a history of engaging in propaganda campaigns centered around the 'inferiority' of non-white ethnic groups, they're going to be far less willing to peacefully work with us.

I resent the fact you think GLR was a crackpot. I personally consider him a great white civil rights activist and appreciate his contributions to the cause of White European Survival. I think the Nation of Islam's willingness says a lot. Any other non-white racial group that desires separation and a nation of their own is a potential ally in my opinion. There is always going to be people who see the establishment of a white nation as hateful, regardless.

Being that most of the Amerindians who inhabited this continent are extinct now, that wouldn't make much sense. But yes, we should come to a mutually beneficial arrangement and give the remnants of those tribes their own nation somewhere in North America, just as we should allow the blacks to establish their own self-determined nation in what was known as the "black belt" of the United States:

Perhaps the Indians can have some area of the US as theirs, but I disagree with the whole black belt notion. Blacks back to Africa if you ask me. I don't want to split up the USA into a "White section" "brown section" "yellow section". I want the nation back that our ancestors fought for regardless of who it benefited. The blood was shed and it can be used for noble intentions on behalf of our people. Given that, I believe the USA might already be a lost cause for our people.

It's not that I feel "horribly sorry" for the Amerindians, it's just that I'm not a moral hypocrite. If East Asians were to hypothetically invade Europe and commit genocide against European peoples, I wouldn't excuse it because they happen to have a slightly higher average IQ level, or what have you. If I'm opposed to genocide being committed against my own people, I stand critical when my own people engage in committing genocide against others populations.

True, but we should focus on today. Where the genocide is being committed upon Europeans, and believe me when I tell you there has been a move to destroy the integrity of ALL races and peoples for at least 2000 years.

No one benefits from imperialism aside from economic elites (be they the aristocracy and Church of antiquity, or the bourgeoisie today).

Unless in a socialist society the rewards are given to the people. Which, if we ever were forced into acts of imperialism, I would fully support giving all the benefits to the people.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:
Perhaps the Indians can have some area of the US as theirs, but I disagree with the whole black belt notion. Blacks back to Africa if you ask me. I don't want to split up the USA into a "White section" "brown section" "yellow section". I want the nation back that our ancestors fought for regardless of who it benefited. The blood was shed and it can be used for noble intentions on behalf of our people. Given that, I believe the USA might already be a lost cause for our people.

I totally disagree with this position. I DO want to "spilt up the US into a 'white section' 'brown section' 'yellow section'" I DO want a "black belt nation". I want to rip the US empire to shreds (including internally), and let the working people of the various nationalities living on this soil form their own independent national workers' states as they see fit to do so. Most of our ancestors fought for a USA that was NEVER actually theirs!
The only way that a nation for our own working people on this territory will not be a "lost cause" is if it is Euroamerican national workers' state.