I was originally scheduled to speak at the National Tea Party Convention, but have been snowed in. A political activist from Alaska was found at the last minute to fill in for me at the event, but I would like to go ahead and share the speech I prepared with the good folks at Occidental Dissent.
Like many of you with me this evening, I supported Ron Paul before supporting Ron Paul was cool. I threw $20 at his first money bomb, the one which sent the first ripples of surprise through the political community. I voted for Ron Paul even though Indiana’s primary took place long after the race had been decided. I voted for Chuck Baldwin because I refused to vote for warmongers and bankster puppets.
But that was all back when they were laughing at us. That was when they wrote us off as delusional cranks whose efforts were a distraction from the important work that John McCain and his Washington establishment were doing. But who’s laughing now? For the first time in living memory, the Middle American people are waking up, paying attention, and even hitting the streets.
This changes everything.
*Applause*
As Gandhi once said in his own struggle for his own people: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they lose. The enemies of our American nation have stopped laughing. We should celebrate how far we’ve come, but we should realize that the fight has barely started. The political establishment, both the liberal Democrats and their fake opposition in the GOP, will come for us. The lobbies of the multinational corporations, the global bankers, the foreign governments, and the ethnic interest groups will try to buy some of us, silence some of us, and even persecute some of us.
Think about the trillions and trillions of our dollars the government has been throwing at other people. Who are these other people? If we seriously threaten that transfer of wealth, they’re going to come at us like cornered animals, fighting for their collective entitlements. They’ll call us names, tempt us to accept compromises, and even send masked thugs to assault us. But worst of all, they’ll take away the one thing many of you crave the most: your status and your respectability.
The smart money is on this whole movement imploding on itself as soon as you all feel your respectability threatened. We’re all against the bailouts, the deficits, and the rising taxes. But few of us realize that the organizations and institutions with a stranglehold on the American status competition game are the same ones bleeding us dry. Do you have the courage and focus to keep fighting when the entire media is laughing at you, all the “experts” are scoffing at you, and all the government bureaucrats are treating you like a criminal?
*Awkward Silence*
That’s what happens when you’re actually threatening the system.
At this point, you’re all a potential threat, but you’re not a real threat…yet. Many of you sitting here today support the imperial wars in the Middle East, nation-building favors for the Israel Lobby. You hold a conviction that the budget must be balanced in the same brain that you hold a conviction that we must govern the entire world by force. These conflicting beliefs can only exist for so long in such a small space before one overtakes the other. Choose life.
And at some point, you’ll have to own up to the identity issues. You’ll have to admit to yourselves that Jewish lobbyists are sending our sons and daughters to die in the desert. You’ll have to admit to yourselves that the recent economic bubble was orchestrated by Jewish bankers in collusion with Jewish congressmen and a Jewish Federal Reserve. In order to stop it from happening, you’ll have to openly discuss the actual people who are raiding our coffers and hijacking our military. You’ll have to admit that the Mexican invasion is more than a paperwork issue. You’ll have to forget the drug problem and admit the thug problem.
We can only be taken seriously if we stop speaking in code and start speaking like grown men and women. Therein lies the rub, ladies and gentlemen. You have a choice. You can choose to be respected or you can choose to be taken seriously. You can have respect or you can have honor, but you can’t have both. In fact, being respected is a sure sign that you’re not a serious threat.
We’re all in this together and we’re in this for far more than a balanced budget. We’re in this for even more than the fate of our republic. We’re in this for the fate of ourselves: White Americans. Look around you, stand up for a second and turn in a circle. The media jackals have been giggling about it for months and the “experts” are all upset about it, but none of us will dare to admit the glaringly obvious: that we’re all glaringly White. We’re a people, and not just any people. We’re the people who created this country and the only people to whom it will ever rightfully belong. We are the progeny to whom this republic was entrusted by the founding fathers.
Now, everybody wants to hijack this tea party movement, and we White Advocates are no exception. The libertarians think they own you. The GOP thinks it owns you. Fox News thinks it owns you. Sarah Palin thinks she speaks for you. But you will all get to decide for yourselves, as individuals, which direction to go when the powerful groups destroying our country force you to either go radical or go home. We in the growing White Advocacy movement are there to fight for you and your family against our enemies, not for principles against abstractions and code words.
When an honest White cop is verbally assaulted by Obama’s Black racist friend, Obama jumps in with his own verbal assaults. When Obama goes to church, his preacher damns America and the White men who created it. When Ron Paul questions the wisdom of invading Iraq, he’s accused of anti-Semitism. Don’t let the handful of Uncle Toms in attendance tonight distract you from what you know to be true: that we are a nation, with a great country, that other people are stealing from us in broad daylight.
If you’re serious about taking it back, I invite you to join me.
Why the deuce did some pro-whites vote for the idiot Ron Paul when Tom Tancredo was far tougher on immigration?
Ron Paul has said on several occasions that we should “increase” immigration to the US. He is a libertarian, a race traitor, and an open borders anarachists.
Yosemite, the libertarian solution is the only one that would roll back government power, especially the Civil Rights Acts and the Fair Housing Acts, which prevent us from forming our own community networks. The libertarian solution would also bring home our troops from fighting and dying for Israeli interests. Finally, the libertarian solution would end the power of the Jewish banking cabal.
All in all, that is a really nice package, even if combined with some continuing immigration. And, I think Ron Paul is very much against amnesty, and he is FOR enforcing the laws on the books against illegal immigrants.
Ron Paul ran as a pro-life anti-amnesty Republican, not a Libertarian, so I think your critique is a bit out of line. He is hardly a race traitor.
Ron Paul advocates “open boder anarachisty”
“Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.
We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html
Does he speak of California schools as being near last?
Does he mention GENETIC INFERIORITY of mexicans?
Wikitopian,
You are very good at the political-speak. I could see us supporting you for political office. I bet in a debate you’d wipe the floor with your opponent.
The Resistance is multi-layered. They think the above-ground political threat is all there is. Give them that to focus on, while they ignore a generation of home-schooled kids (Napoleon’s pups) rising up to really do them in.
“Yosemite, the libertarian solution is the only one that would roll back government power”
There is nothing inherently wrong with “government power”. We meed to replace the current regime with our own, and in order to smash the inevitable opposition of the liberal-minority coalition, we would naturally require a lot of “government power”. There is nothign wrong with “government power” as long as we have it. It’s only when our enemies have it that problems arise.
Libertarianism, especially of the Ron Paul variety, is incompatible with American nationalism and the pro-white movement.
1.) Ron Paul says we should be “more generous” to immigrants! In an interview with ABC, he said: “I think we could be much more generous with our immigration.”
2.) He also wants open borders – in a healthy economy. If his economic policies were in effect (which he believes would result in a healthy economy), he said, “we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country.” He told John Stossel that he finds the idea of a border fence “rather offensive”.
3.) He is against deporting illegal immigrants: “Having an army to go around the country to round them up and put them in trucks and haul them out, that’s not feasible.”
4.) He wants to increase immigration to the US. “I’m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.”
Clearly, Ron Paul is no candidate that pro-whites should support. Tom Tancredo has a far tougher stance on immigration, even if it is still inadequate and insufficient.
As for your remarks about Jews and Israel, I don’t care. This is another example of how militant, obsessive anti-Semites poison the pro-white movement. You prefer an anti-Israel candidate who is soft on immigration over a candidate who is tough on immigration but also pro-Israel. Immigration is an issue that is far more important than one’s stance on the Israel question. Immigration should be the deciding factor, not Israel. And from this perspective, Ron Paul was an inferior candidate to Tom Tancredo.
This is a fine piece of targeted propaganda. You do a really nice job of speaking their language and showing how the issues that they’re already concerned about relate to white advocacy.
“I voted for Ron Paul even though Indiana’s primary took place long after the race had been decided.”
I don’t know if y’all saw or heard the recent speech by Ron Paul – just saw a link to it on Mangan’s site: “Prepare for Revolutionary Changes in the Not-too-distant Future” – http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/01/ron-paul-prepare-for-revolutionary.html
Even a lot of the lefties and their ilk are starting to get very worried too, as recent posts by Kunstler, JM Greer, and others of that type illustrate. You know the system has lost all legitimacy when even those who are relatively priviliged within the system begin to lose their faith in it.
For instance, check out what Greer had to say in a recent post by him entitled “Endgame”:
Am I understanding this correctly? This speech was going to be given at the same Tea Party Convention where massively pro-Zionist Joesph Farah of WND spoke as I saw on C-Span yesterday? The same Joesph Farah that is one of the strongest supporters of the movement and the same JF that seems to be embraced whole heartedly by its members?
I admit that I am not very well informed about the Tea Partiers as I have seen many of their members take the “vote the bums out of Washington” position. Anyone that thinks there will be significant change in the country through federal sufferage in the age of the electronic vote is hopelessly dilusional and/or infantile in their thinking. I just can’t take them seriously. And I haven’t seen a thing to suggest that the TPers are pro-WN. This is very confusing, someone set me straight, for the way I see it, Wikitopian would have been lucky to not have been tarred and feathered if he gave this speech to the audience that I saw on C-Span.
I would also like to comment on the ideals of HW on a return to “conservatism” or “traditionalism” as posted a couple of days ago, for my thoughts also apply to this current contradiction
I am a race-realist and very sympathetic to WNist and the movement, but am still learning/observing and waiting for something to sink my teeth into, should it appear. I know for fact that their are many others like myself, some I know personally. I don’t believe that the WNist movement will progress without developing and promoting a somewhat detailed political platform. Race is not enough. And this must be done relatively soon.
The thread that HW posted about a return to “communitarianism” or whatever he would like to label it (there seems to be debate on this) illustrates my point perfectly. WP posted that he would support any government, whether left or right, in a white ethnostate, as long as they are loyal to race, family and the homeland. Not me. And many, many white Christian conserv atives are of the same mind. Race is not enough on its own. It is a very significant factor that allows for the opportunity of a much greater level of “brotherhood” and cohesion among a people, but isn’t the real “meat” of the matter.
I am going to post and continue in another entry as long posts have a habit of disappearing on me before completion, which makes me want to throw the computer across the room.
Damn I wish you could have given that speech. That speech is spot on and what is needed. I agree with all of it. Very good.
I really liked how you pointed out the subversion that is taking place in the Tea Party with hacks and warmongers like Joseph Farah. ( as above poster mentioned) They are taking it over and turning it all into another fake Republican movement like the “moral majority” which put Reagan into power.
For example, there are many white liberals that don’t associate with minorities (racists in practice), believe they are extremely patriotic to the homeland by supporting inclusion, and have large intact families that worship diversity, some of their members maybe even being in same sex marriages. Would these people be a part of a white ethno-state? I would rather, much rather, associate with black conservatives than this crowd. No joke.
I will never support a WN ethnostate that is pro-abortion, anti-gun and pro-gay marriage, just to name a few, and there seems to be a massive division among WNist on these very same issues. To me, these are “traditional” European values, meaning white. Think mainstream American values circa 1950s before the Jew sponsored social destruction of the 60s. I will never support a pro-Zionist WNist state (think Joesph Farah, WND, invited speaker at the Tea Party, who by many it seems, is thought to be sympathetic to the cause).
People within the WN movement often point to Japan as a good example of a successful ethnostate, and there is much to be said for that, but it isn’t everything. There is no doubt that their enthic cohesion is a huge benefit, but Japs are in decline just like us, albeit not nearly as advanced, and they have no Jews in their midst and very few foreigners among them in general, but they haven’t been impervious to outside negative influence on their culture. It is because they are abandoning their principles, just like we did. That is what allowed Jew interference in the first place. If we would have told him, circa 1950, “Look, this is our way, get yours out. We don’t want “diversity”, we don’t want militant feminism, we want a strong commitment to law and order, not liberal, soft criminal code, etc.”, he couldn’t have done what he did. A white ethnostate must have a platform that is deeper than race.
I can make many more examples and get into much greater detail on the subject, but will wait and see if this debate is of interest to anyone on the site. What is the WN position? What does “communitarianism” mean in practice? How will white nationalists come to a consensus on the issues?
Wikitopian,
That was a good speech. Unfortunately, I have a feeling you would have been booed off stage by the Zionists and the ‘multiculturalist’ types.
Yosemite,
The United States wouldn’t have immigration problems if it wasn’t for Jewish activists. Kevin MacDonald documented this in ‘Culture of Critique.’ The importance of Jewish influence in our society can’t be stressed enough.
Aservant,
It’s a matter of priorities. Personally, I have very strong ideas about how we should structure our society and culture – but if we could establish a regime that explicitly protected Whites as a race – it would be enough for the time being. Once we’ve lost our racial heritage there is no going back. We can always change governments in the future if they fail us.
Aservant:”WP posted that he would support any government, whether left or right, in a white ethnostate, as long as they are loyal to race, family and the homeland. Not me. And many, many white Christian conservatives are of the same mind. Race is not enough on its own. It is a very significant factor that allows for the opportunity of a much greater level of “brotherhood” and cohesion among a people, but isn’t the real “meat” of the matter.”
As I said in the post which you reference, I am only leftist in certain respects, those mainly being environmentalism and certain socioeconomic issues. Caring for the environment and also for our fellow Whites via a moderate form of White-specific socialism (ethno-socialism) is something that can benefit all Whites and our entire White nation. However, like I also said in that comment there are other areas (mostly key social issues) where I am very rightist — racialism is in itself a profoundly ‘conservative’ position in that it seeks to conserve the race.
Race is not enough on its own, but the protection and perpetuation of the race is the bedrock or foundation upon which all else must be built. And as we all know, without a strong foundation all structures both real (buildings, etc) and hypothetical (governments, nations, etc) are doomed to rather rapid failure as the slightest tremor causes the entire structure to crumble. The main problem facing the USA and some other White nations is that the racial foundation and bedrock of our White nation is rapidly being (deliberately) undermined, and thus some of our White nations are beginning to fail due to the fact that they are no longer based upon solid and immutable racial principles. The advancement of the White race must always be the over-riding concern of all policies and issues in a pro-White ethno-state: as Kievsky and others have noted, our primary mantra must be “Is it good for Whites?” instead of constantly wringing our hands about whether some policy is leftist or rightist. Instead of White conservatives constantly attacking White liberals or vice-versa, White libs and White cons ought to be working together in a pro-White racialist sense to collectively combat the peoples and forces who want to subvert our White nations, flood our nation with masses of non-White immigrants, and even drive our race in to semi-extinction.
There ought to be room and opportunity for all sides of the political spectrum to be expressed in a pro-White ethno-state or ethno-states. Perhaps within a hypothetical pro-White USA a state like Vermont would remain leftist, whilst a state like Alabama might wish to become even more conservative — that is perfectly fine, and those regional differences and intra-racial competition ought to be encouraged so that we can experiment and see which systems work best…if you prefer a form of pro-White leftism move to Vermont or a similar state — if you prefer pro-White rightism move to Alabama or another conservative area, etc. In Europe, should a pro-White wave occur there, Denmark might remain mostly leftist whilst Russian might wish to continue move further rightward: again, that is fine…different strokes for different folks. However, the goal is that all governments of White nations are first and foremost pro-White regardless of their preferred end of the political spectrum.
The main problem we have now is that hypercentralized authorities operating at great distances (in the USA out of DC, NYC, LA, etc etc) are trying to foist their anti-White views (both liberal and conservative) on to ALL American Whites regardless of whether someone is living in VT or AL or NM or wherever — these people (often Jews, White race-traitors, aracial cosmopolitan morons, internationalists, left/communists and right/corporatists, greedy business owners, etc) are using their control of the money supply, the mass-media, trade/commerce, taxes, food/water, energy, transport, and so on to destroy the racial principles upon which the USA and other White nations were once based on by flooding our nations with non-Whites and also by disproportionately ’empowering’ the non-Whites which already live within our nations with welfare, affirmative action, big gub’mint healthcare, food stamps, etc. while denying Whites those same benefits.
Too many Whites also continue to sell-out their race merely for money, both on the right and left — thus my affinity for varying forms of moderate pro-White ethno-socialism, probably not on a federal level but rather via the states; I support this so that we can get around the increasingly ridiculous money racket to a certain extent by placing White racial survival and ‘White cooperationism’ over the endless acquisition of mere Jew-printed money and PC status points. It is clear that there is entirely too much competition between individual Whites on a multitude of levels; at the same time that we are ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ and keep wasting our time competing ferociously against other Whites for money and status points and power and so on, the non-Whites continue to take full advantage of our racial disorganization and the intra-racial undermining of each other that is going on. Whites are competing ourselves to death, and non-Whites (especially Jews) are feeding on this kind-of ‘competitive decay’ to gain major advantages over us.
Once more and more Whites are freed from caring so much about acquiring enough money for basic survival, by for instance having a (non-totalitarian) pro-White government help them more easily acquire the basics like a house, food, auto, healthcare, etc without paying ‘Jewsurious’ interests rates or else going in to massive debt to Jewish-controlled banks, then and only then can they start to care about more important things such as the preservation of their race. Another way to put it is: the reason so many Whites cannot care and advocate for the White race is because they are perpetually stuck in the exhausting ‘rat-race’ in pursuit of enough Jew-printed cash to give their White family a decent place in a nice White community.
Mr Davidson,
“The United States wouldn’t have immigration problems if it wasn’t for Jewish activists. Kevin MacDonald documented this in ‘Culture of Critique.’ The importance of Jewish influence in our society can’t be stressed enough.”
Kevin MacDonald is a pseudo-scientific charlatan whose work on the Jewish question is exaggerated and has been largely refuted. What is original in MacDonald is not true, and what is true is not original. What Kevin MacDonald does demonstrate (not an original observation) is the existence of a disproportionate influence of Jews in liberal politics, but he does not prove that this has been the critical factor in the ethnocultural decline of White America. America was already heading in the same direction, and would have continued to do so with or without Jewish influence.
And to be honest with you, if there was an ethnic lobby in the United States made up of Afrikaaners manipulating US foreign policy in favour of Apartheid South Africa, I would have had no problems with that whatsoever. It is a matter of indifference to me if Jews support Israel and organize themselves as an ethnic lobby to this end. It’s Jewish liberalism that’s the problem – a problem that afflicts the majority of white gentiles as well – not their support of Israel. I also happen to support Israel, for many of the same reasons I supported Apartheid South Africa.
@Yosemite
Both Paul and Tancredo are strategic compromise candidates. I was generally supportive of Tancredo but Pon is almost as good on immigration as Tom and he offers a more comprehensive suite of anti-government and anti-imperial fare. I’m not militantly anti-Semitic and I’ve always been clear that Jewish influence is “a” problem and not “the” problem. To recap: Our elites have betrayed us. The Jews are capitalizing on the situation. We must create or restore an indigenous eite. You have tirades triggered by keywords devoid of context or constraint.
@Aservent
I’m fishing where the fish are. I don’t know about the rest of you on here, but my own friends and extended family are these people…the Christian Zionists, the libertarian clowns, the Fox News enthusiasts, and even some liberals. Those are my people. I didn’t pick ’em. I’m not happy with the situation, but I’m not going to just give up on them. I don’t care if the tea party folks can be reached or not; I’ll try to reach them.
“America was already heading in the same direction, and would have continued to do so with or without Jewish influence.’
No.
Jews are THE problem. And the Tea Parties are totally co-opted. I know. Personally. I got booted out of one (but not another) for being “too racist”. The original group, I was booted from, has already begun cannibalizing itself (my spies report back to me). One of the founders is a Crypto, and she behaves true to her vile, demonic Jew blood. She posted a link to a subversive Leftist website – I called her out – I got the boot.
And now she is censoring like mad, and driving other members away. And they’ve just ganged up on a really good guy (who I will bring to WN), who is doing waht they SAY they want done.
Any one of you that does not understand Jews ARE THE PROBLEM needs to rethink your identification as a White Nationalist.
The Jew is the Spawn of the Devil.
Satan Seed.
Wikitopian,
“I was generally supportive of Tancredo but Pon is almost as good on immigration as Tom and he offers a more comprehensive suite of anti-government and anti-imperial fare”
First of all, I should like to reiterate: there is nothing wrong with a strong government. A weak and facile government is always a sign of national decadence, and is usually accompanied by an apathetic and effeminate population. That is the situation we are in right now. What follows inescapablyfrom libertarian premises (those which are intelligble, at any rate) is open borders anarchy, the tolerance of miscegenation (for we are all mere individuals after all and thus have no obligation to our ancestors, to social institutions, to our nation, and to our race), and the collapse of traditional institutions. In short, libertarianism spells the death of the white race. It’s the final stage of national decadance.
Pacifism and the effeminate obsession with the “rights” of our enemies is irrefutable proof of national decadance. Fear of the sight of blood is always a sign of a weak and useless personality. Our ancestors fought in wars, and we will fight in wars again. War is part of the human condition, and behold, it is good!
Yosemite,
I’m not against government. I’m against THIS government. I’m not against wars. I’m against THIS war. You’re overwhelmingly arrogant and presumptuous, jumbling some keywords together to build up this strawman then rabidly tear into it. We’re not in this for the same reasons. We don’t have the same goals. We’re not going to agree.
Yosemite wrote: “Kevin MacDonald is a pseudo-scientific charlatan whose work on the Jewish question is exaggerated and has been largely refuted.”
Post proof or retract.
*Who* refuted KMacD’s work?
In *what* publication did this refutation occur?
What *exactly* do you know about the difference between science and pseudo-science?
Kevin MacDonald is a pseudo-scientific charlatan whose work on the Jewish question is exaggerated and has been largely refuted.
Of course, you can’t cite any refutatations (there are none), and you can’t come up with any on your own. So why are you spewing this bullshit?
What Kevin MacDonald does demonstrate (not an original observation) is the existence of a disproportionate influence of Jews in liberal politics, but he does not prove that this has been the critical factor in the ethnocultural decline of White America.
No one has ever offered a theoretically plausible alternative, and no one ever will. There is none.
In comment #16 Yosemite (the half East Asian) says that “liberalism” is the main problem and not RACE — there are always going to be those who try to divert our attention away from the racial problems which plague us and mislead us in to focusing on other secondary matters like “liberalism.”
If you think liberalism is the main problem Yosemite, you ought to join up with the ‘kwanservatives’ instead of spending your time on White Nationalist/racialist websites. We are ‘Race Firsters’ (racialists) here more than anything else, and most of us are also very skeptical of the anti-White international Ashkenazi mafia and wary of Jewish influence in general because of their many anti-White actions throughout history. Thus trying to convince us that “liberalism is the main problem” and that “Jews aren’t a major factor in White decline” is likely to fall on rather deaf ears here.
However, your comments in post #20 were pretty good aside from the fact that you seem to support centralized/communistic totalitarianism.
“Our ancestors fought in wars, and we will fight in wars again. War is part of the human condition, and behold, it is good!”
You may enjoy reading the following by Spengler – http://www.toqonline.com/2009/07/spengler-on-world-peace/ – “Talk of world peace is heard today only among the white peoples, and not among the much more numerous colored races. This is a perilous state of affairs. When individual thinkers and idealists talk of peace, as they have done since time immemorial, the effect is always negligible. But when whole peoples become pacifistic it is a symptom of senility. Strong and unspent races are not pacifistic. To adopt such a position is to abandon the future, for the pacifist ideal is a static, terminal condition that is contrary to the basic facts of existence.”
I agree that pacifism is a sign of a weak people; however, the main issue plaguing the USA is that our military is thousands of miles away fighting for idiotic abstractions like ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ among a bunch of backwards folks in Afghanistan and Iraq whilst the internal state of our nation is very bad and still worsening. We need to cease the far-away foreign wars until we are able to fix the internal situation of the USA — we already got what we wanted from Iraq and Afghanistan: that being total control of Iraq’s oil and Afghanistan’s opium; thus we need our military back in the USA to restore order, stability, discipline, and strength in an internal sense instead of trying to forcibly export those qualities to distant foreign lands full of people who hate The West and all outsiders in general.
We also need our military here to repulse the stealth invasion of the USA that has occurred from south of the border, and for other more important domestic tasks — as it stands now, they are continuing to shed blood in Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason: the only reason some troops are needed over there nowadays is to guard the oil and opium fields which supply Western economies and the world economy in general with a large daily supply of both those valuable commodities.
It is a matter of indifference to me if Jews support Israel and organize themselves as an ethnic lobby to this end. It’s Jewish liberalism that’s the problem – a problem that afflicts the majority of white gentiles as well – not their support of Israel.
—
Oh come on here — this is the standard, throw-away line so near-and-dear to many a ‘Kosher CONsevative’ heart (“Jewish liberalism”) — so why are you using it here?
Looks like WP agrees with the critique of ‘Yo-Semite’! 😉
tillman,
“No one has ever offered a theoretically plausible alternative, and no one ever will. There is none.”
There are plenty of very plausible alternative explanations to white racial decline than the simplistic consiracy theories of Kevin MacDonald and his ilk. The reasons for the rise of liberalism and leftism are well documented. Read some books, and learn for yourself.
Wikitopian,
“I’m not against government. I’m against THIS government. I’m not against wars. I’m against THIS war.”
Then why would you support a candidate who is against government – not simply “this” government? And I’d like to know the basis of your opposition to the Iraq war. The war was clearly in America’s interests.
Yosemite:”The reasons for the rise of liberalism and leftism are well documented. Read some books, and learn for yourself.”
You say that liberalism and leftism are the main problem without stating that Jews have long been the main promoters of radical forms of liberalism and leftism (particularly anti-European/anti-White forms) in many White nations: they started to promote ‘liberal’ ideas in the Netherlands and the UK during the 1600s-1700s (maybe even before that in Spain/Portugal before they were expelled in the 1490s), anti-Monarchism along with Marxism in 1800s (they were also majorly responsible for many leftish revolutions during that time), not to mention the murderous Jewish communists in 20th Century in the USSR as well as Jewish far-leftists, crypto-communists, and de-segregationists in the post-WWII USA (even beginning in the FDR Administration with the ‘Jew Deal’ as it was sometimes called back then). The examples throughout Western history abound.
Everywhere you look in Western history you see radical leftist Jews seeking to undermine and overthrow the existing (conservative) Western order — if you have not yet realized that, you are the one who needs to read more books.
White Preservationist,
“Yosemite (the half East Asian)”
The person who said I was part East Asian wasn’t me. He was posting under my username and email address. Check the IP address if you don’t believe. I am of entirely Anglo-Germanic stock.
“[Yosemite] says that ‘liberalism’ is the main problem and not RACE.”
I am not diverting attention away from racial problems by attacking liberalism because liberal ideology (including classical liberalism) is responsible for our present racial situation. Race is the thing of highest value to me. I value it above all other things. I firmly believe that that which is detrimental to the survival of our race must be rooted out of our society at whatever cost, even if the tearing out is both painful and bloody. And that disease which must be torn out of our minds and our society is liberalism, a disease which is so widespread that it has infected even the minds of its most ardent opponents. Liberalism is the reason for mass coloured immigration to the West. Liberalism is why miscegenation is tolerated and aplauded. Liberalism is why our people are ashamed of their race. Liberalism is the problem, whether it is manifested in Jews or white gentiles.
“We are ‘Race Firsters’ (racialists)”
So am I. That is why it is logical for me to attack liberalism, because it is the primary cause of white racial decline.
“You say that liberalism and leftism are the main problem without stating that Jews have long been the main promoters of radical forms of liberalism and leftism”
Of course I don’t state that – why would I state something that is both ridiculous and ahistorical? Jews per se aren’t the problem, my friend. It’s liberalism.
After a while of studying Jewry and their methods, I’ve realized that many leftist/secular Jews are borderline insane anarcho-primitivists who seem to want no order, no hierarchy, no rules, and so on — they want a completely ‘leveled’ society. A lot of these left-leaning Jews are clever (they populate academia and the media) but lack common sense. Conversely, there are the religious Jews who remain conservative by most standards while at the same time always seeking to advance the Jewish agenda in Western nations; these Jews often aren’t as clever as their coethnics, but they have more common sense. Both sides often work together – it is just that the fanatical leftist Jews channel their energies in to politics to advance the Jewish agenda (because they have lost religion and need a ’cause’ to live for) while the rightist Jews channel their energies in to the fanatical ethnoreligion of Judaism to preserve their bloodline untainted. Many far-left Jews (especially in decades past) actually came from religiously conservative (Orthodox) families, and they then exteriorized that rebellion against the rabid ethnocentrism of their Jewish family and faith on to the larger society. Even today the intense Talmudic study amongst Orthodox Jews prepares future generations of liberal Jews, those who constantly leave the Orthodox fold to become deceptive, fast-talking, and verbally intense Jew businessmen, lawyers, politicians, and so on — the Orthodox community is like a ‘Jewish breeding ground’ for future Jewish liars and deceivers of all kinds: leftists, businesspeople, politicians, etc. The common thread between them is a kind of fanatic zeal with which they pursue their particular form of advancing their preferred side of the collective Jewish agenda, whether political, economic, religious, racial/ethnic, etc…as Voltaire once wrote of them: “Jews are the greatest scoundrels who have ever sullied the face of the globe … They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and Germans are born with blond hair. I would not in the least be surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race…”. The last sentence is especially true, with Jews always corrupting and ultimately ruining the nations they manage to infest.
Actually, when Jews do not possess very much power (as in when they are newcomers to a nation or society) they act in the above-mentioned manner, with a “raging fanaticism.” But once they are safely ensconced in power and have become wealthy, then they tend to take a very sharp turn rightward and become strong statists who seek to centralize as much power, money, and influence in their hands alone, acting like a gang of Asiatic despots (which makes sense because Jews are at base Orientals and not Occidentals). We in the USA are entering this phase now, with very many of the most powerful, influential, and wealthy Jews now jumping ship from the Dems to the Republicans so that they can better ‘conserve’ all of the power, wealth, and influence they have gained by using far-left politics over a period of many decades to sufficiently weaken the Western culture, thus making it ripe their slow takeover and eventual rightist centralization of money, influence, and power under a despotic Soviet-like government.
It is also important to understand how Jews are strongly communistic amongst themselves (Jewish ethnic nepotism and ethnic networking for jobs, money, power, etc), whilst toward the non-Jewish society at large they are cut-throat capitalists — thus they live in both worlds, as helpful communists in their tight-knit communities (Jewish-only communism) but as ruthless capitalist hyenas in the larger non-Jewish nation in which they reside.
Yosemite:”That is why it is logical for me to attack liberalism, because it is the primary cause of white racial decline. … Of course I don’t state that – why would I state something that is both ridiculous and ahistorical? Jews per se aren’t the problem, my friend. It’s liberalism.”
Your statements blaming vague such “liberalism” instead of the stark biosocial realities of race and undue Jewish influence as the primary causes of White/Western decline make me wonder: are you lying to us about your ethnic background Yosemite? Are you actually a Jewish Semite instead of an Asian/European mix-breed as you claim? You would have more in common with anti-liberal Jews such as Jonah Goldberg or Paul Gottfried instead of pro-White/anti-Jewish White Nationalist racialists such as many of us here.
Jewish liberals de-racialized Western politics; Jewish liberals de-racialized many Western nations by advocating for the mass-immigration of non-Whites in to our nations; Jewish liberals de-racialized The South by demonizing White racial consciousness and instituting racial integration against the will of Southern Whites; Jewish liberals de-racialized America as a whole by seeking to turn it in to a bogus ‘proposition nation’ or ‘nation of immigrants’ instead of the White nation which it was always meant to be; Jewish liberals de-racialized the American mass-media by constantly filling the TV, movies, and airwaves with anti-racist/anti-White messages, promoting miscegenation (they also did this in the pornography business which they once controlled and owned), promoting Blacks as cool and Whites as boring, and so on; Jewish liberals de-racialized many White American women by filling their heads with stupid ideas about tolerance, diversity, and so on in women’s magazines, TV shows, etc, and they have also sought to turn many White women against ‘evil White men’ by spreading feminism, thus poisoning Western gender relations on many levels; Jewish liberals de-racialized American public education by instituting laughably stupid curriculums which constantly rail against the ‘racism’ of Whites in history and social studies classes while at the same time overemphasizing the persecution of Blacks, Indians, and all others over the courageous and brilliant ‘dead White men’ who created this nation; Jewish liberals de-racialized American academia on many levels by making all frank (non-PC) discussion of race and the race question strictly ‘off limits’ (Jewish liberals especially de-racialized Western academic anthropology)…I could go on and on.
Stop being a liar and fake YoSEMITE and face the truth. The truth shall set you free.
I fail to see why certain aspects of liberalism (especially related to socioeconomics) would be a major problem in nations which are all White or at least 95+% so. Before Europe, the USA, and other White nations started importing hordes of immigrants (often under Jewish direction), certain forms of economic liberalism was a good thing and worked very well in most White nations — various liberal policies worked especially well in many parts of Europe previous to the 21st Century before the non-White flood really began in earnest.
Or are we to suppose that letting fellow Whites who have fallen on hard times go homeless and starve, or allowing them to live in squalor with no social safety net to give them basic assistance when they grow old, or letting them die of an illness because they do not have health insurance, or continually sullying the environment in the name of perpetual and illusory economic progress, or burdening White 20-somethings with huge debts due to a basic college education, or preventing young White married couples from having children because of widespread economic insecurity, and so on are detrimental to White nations just because they often tend to be “liberal”? Again, I would not be in favor of extending the aforementioned benefits to non-Whites, but rather Whites only — if some idiotic Whites want to be uber-liberal/bleeding heart crusaders they can move to Africa or Latin America or whatever and help them there instead of liberally giving the Mexican Maria Lopez or the Haitian Jean Noir who has moved to the USA endless amounts of food stamps, rental assistance, and free healthcare so that they can have a bunch of non-White children on the dime of White taxpayers. Supposedly ‘conservative’ members of certain Christian churches are some of the worst in this regard as recent events in Haiti have illustrated — instead of adopting non-White orphans, shoveling them money, or just giving away food they should instead be helping some of their fellow Whites in the USA and elsewhere who are increasingly falling in to poverty, debt, hunger, and so on. It is the difference between “Our’n” vs. “They’rn” — too many Whites are concerned with the well-being of “They’rn” (non-Whites) instead of the prosperity and advancement of “Our’n” (their fellow Whites), pathetically seeking status points with the sickening Jewish/liberal dominated PC establishment.
Very many aspects of liberalism (race-denial, fanatical ‘equalism,’ feminism, etc) are destructive to White nations, I do not deny that. But selected aspects of liberalism — especially in terms of socioeconomics and environmentalism as I’ve noted — have greatly benefited the White macro-race in many instances. We just have to make sure that the governments in White nations act liberally ONLY toward fellow Whites and that we do not extend our graciousness on to other races because as we now know they will very often take advantage of us. The problem is that now anti-White Jews have largely hijacked the federal governments of many White nations, and thus they are the ones who are giving all of the these non-White immigrants all of these liberal benefits; governmental/bureaucratic Jews give all of these benefits to non-Whites using the monies of White taxpayers who have no say in the matter.
ME:”The problem is that now anti-White Jews have largely hijacked the federal governments of many White nations, and thus they are the ones who are giving all of the these non-White immigrants these liberal benefits; governmental/bureaucratic Jews give all of these benefits to non-Whites using the monies of White taxpayers who have no say in the matter.”
Let me give a couple of examples which illustrate that point.
I would like to start a pro-White non-profit charity which extends economic and social help to poor Whites living in Appalachia and other generally deprived regions of the USA: this charity would help to train them in new skills for jobs, seek to reduce alcoholism and other social ills, work with them to reinvigorate the local economy, offer reduced-price medical and dental care, and so on. But I cannot start this charity because it would be considered ‘discriminatory’ by the Jew controlled U.S. federal government, and thus the pro-White charity would be dragged in to court, bankrupted, and shut down.
Another idea I have is to start a large network of linked pro-White/White-only ‘eco-villages’ by reviving villages and small towns across the USA wherein Whites live amongst their own, preferably their families, extended families, friends, and acquaintances in local, regional, and mostly self-sufficient villages and small towns wherein they revive the old practices of local agriculture and livestock raising, local construction and craftsmanship, local White culture, and so on. However, to do something like this a group obviously needs some seed money or initial investments from powerful banks or wealthy individual investors. The problem arises though that Jews and their minions are the major bankers and wealthy investors who completely control the macro-supply of money in the USA, and thus you can forget about getting loans, government grants, or anything of that sort for projects such as that which are pro-White. Meanwhile this same Jewish-controlled government has no problem funneling many millions per year in loans and grants (funded by White taxpayer) to non-White immigrants in the USA who then use that money to start or buy up small businesses, start families, and so on: thus Jews and White race-traitors in the U.S. federal government are empowering non-Whites in an economic sense while at the same time discriminating against and stealing from hard-working/tax-paying Whites to fund the activities of non-Whites.
It’s a long shot of course but if there are any pro-White investors/bankers with access to Jew-free capital who is reading this comment and you have access to some seed money or financial connections to help fund the construction of one or more of these pro-White eco-villages/eco-towns you ought to get in touch with me sometime and we’ll discuss it: my email = FreeSpeechForever1776[at]yahoo[dot]com
Yosemite,
I admit that I was surprised to read that Kevin MacDonald’s works have been refuted. From your comment, it is obvious that you have researched the subject in depth. Your expertise will be of great value in shedding light on this issue for those of us who are less well informed.
The key to the racial displacement of Whites is the 1965 immigration act, having led to something like 100 million new non-Whites citizens here at present. Dr. MacDonald suggests that the prime movers of this act were Jewish, especially in the funding behind this. His case appears to be strong, which includes a thorough examination of the congressional record during the debates. Not only this, but MacDonald argues that Jewish groups have been heavily investing in and politically pushing “opening the gates” in regard to immigration for the past 100+ years. Please refute this using your sources, which would go a long way toward showing that Dr. MacDonald is incorrect.
I feel like I am semi-spamming this thread, but I want to say that the ‘Neo-Homestead’ ideas which I propose above is the best way to get America’s economy moving again.
There are tens of millions of suburban, urban, and rural Whites who are currently languishing in severe socioeconomic ennui; they are often bored and lonely and lacking strong community ties, they are wasting their talents and their lives in the daily 9-5 rat-race for Jewcash and they are eagerly looking for new and positive ways to move this country forward in to a new era. A new pro-White Homestead Act is the best way to do this, with currently cooped-up Whites branching out and building/retrofitting new pro-White sustainable communities all over the country using White American labor, American raw materials, American ingenuity and drive, and so on. In conjunction with the above we could also form an American pro-White ‘Green Alliance’ for unemployed and underemployed Whites which goes around doing beneficial things to benefit America’s environment: stuff like planting trees, restoring damaged topsoils and controlling erosion, cleaning up lakes and rivers and waterways, fixing brownfield sites, tearing down old blighted and abandoned buildings all over the place and restoring greenspace, starting small farms and ranches to provide White communities with locally-produced food, and other pro-environmental things along those lines.
But will the U.S. federal government or the state governments ever seek to institute or fund such plans? The answer is obvious: NO they will not because the government and banks (who are the ONLY people currently capable of funding the aforementioned projects) are unduly dominated by plutocratic Jews and their greedy allies.
Andrew:”Not only this, but MacDonald argues that Jewish groups have been heavily investing in and politically pushing “opening the gates” in regard to immigration for the past 100+ years.”
Guess who first published JFK’s book entitled A Nation of Immigrants, a book which called for a huge liberalization of American immigration law and was a key precursor to the 1965 Immigration Act?
“The book was originally written by Kennedy in 1958, while he was still a Senator. It was written as part of the Anti-Defamation League’s series entitled the One Nation Library. Subsequently, after gaining the presidency, he called on Congress to undertake a full reevaluation of immigration law; and he began to revise the book for further publication. In August 1963, excerpts of the 1958 pamphlet were published in the New York Times Magazine. He was assassinated before completing the revision, but the book was nevertheless posthumously published [by the ADL] in 1964 with an introduction by his brother, then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nation_of_Immigrants
Andrew,
“The key to the racial displacement of Whites is the 1965 immigration act, having led to something like 100 million new non-Whites citizens here at present.”
There is simply no evidence to support this claim. What proportion of the key supporters of the 1965 immigration act were Jewish? MacDonald doesn’t say. And he doesn’t provide a convincing reason to suppose that any such individuals were motivated by Jewish “evolutionary interests” rather than the dictates of liberal ideology. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, not the sceptics.
The fact of the matter is, the 1965 immigration act was simply a new phase of a century-old phenomenon. Anglo-Saxon racial displacement was occurring long before the immigration act of 1965. The racio-cultural core of America, the so-called “WASPs” as our enemies call them, had been in the process of displacement since the 19th century by hordes of Irishmen, wops, Huns, papists, and other non-Anglo-Saxons who don’t belong in America almost just as much as the Negroes, Hispanics, and yellow vermin.
As for my own racial identity, I’ve already told you: I am of Anglo-Germanic stock. My father is an Englishman, and my mother is Scandinavian. Someone has posted a few times using my username in order to spread vile lies about me. Hunter Wallace has also been a victim of this form of libel.
That’s true, but you over-state the case. The original Anglo-Saxon core of the USA was slow to grow and populate the vast North American continent, and thus in the 19th/20th Centuries the American government opened the floodgates for millions of non Anglo-Saxon Europeans to immigrate to the USA. The U.S. government had acquired incredibly vast new territories in the 19th Century, and they needed people to live on and develop them because after decades they remained totally empty aside from a few remaining Indians and a handful of White homesteaders, farmers, and ranchers — since the original American Anglo-Saxons were slow breeders (even if every family had 6+ children it wasn’t all that much comparably due to the vastness of the continent they had acquired), so they had to open the gates of immigration to other European Whites. They also needed new White workers to get a lead in the burgeoning Industrial Revolution which arrived in the USA during the 19th Century.
However, I don’t see why allowing many non Anglo-Saxon European Whites to immigrate to the USA was or has been too much of a problem since the continent was very sparsely settled and it would’ve probably taken at least 200+ years or more for the original Anglo-Saxon core to fill it out population-wise to any decent extent. By that time millions of Asiatics of various kinds likely would’ve established themselves as a presence on the West Coast of North America because American Whites didn’t have the numbers to defend it.
I have no problem whatsoever with the U.S. government allowing fellow Whites to immigrate here to the USA: Germans, Irish, Scandinavians, Slavs, and so on…they are all welcome here as far as I am concerned because they are all WHITE. I’m not too keen on the allowing of Southern Italians, Southern Spaniards, many Greeks, swarthy Portuguese, and of course Jews to immigrate here because they are obviously ‘Arabized’ Whites who are clearly not the same as Northern, Northwestern, Central, and Eastern European Whites due to the higher percentage of non-White/Arabish genes which they possess.
Plus, the USA has become a huge intra-White melting pot to some extent, with all kinds of White ethnicities and sub-groups merging with each other to produce new types of Whites, uniquely American White racial types. Intra-racial genetic diversity is good as long as it doesn’t erase a person or group’s original character. I myself am a White American with ancestry from 3 of the 4 major White ethnicities: I am primarily (1) Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Celtic; but I also have some (2) Germanic/Teutonic ancestry; and a bit of (3) Mediterranean/Spanish ancestry (one of my great-great-great Grandmothers was a Spaniard) — I may have some Slavic ancestry somewhere in my background too, who knows? My point is that this intra-White diversity is a great thing; however, we can all agree that non-White diversity is a terrible thing.
Again, there is a huge difference between allowing millions of fellow Whites to immigrate in to the USA vs. allowing tens of millions of non-Whites to just come on in. If non Anglo-Saxon Whites come here to the USA at least the USA will then remain a White nation, while the same is not true if non-Whites continue to flood in here.
I for one am all for further immigration of Europeans in to the USA — many European nations and cities are terribly overcrowded, such as the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, much of Germany, Denmark, and so on, and I would welcome many millions of new European immigrants seeking to escape stifling overcrowded conditions in Europe to come to the USA in order to continue to boost the overall White population (and economy) here and also further populate the vast North American continent (a lot of which is still empty).
Yosemite:”As for my own racial identity, I’ve already told you: I am of Anglo-Germanic stock. My father is an Englishman, and my mother is Scandinavian. Someone has posted a few times using my username in order to spread vile lies about me. Hunter Wallace has also been a victim of this form of libel.”
I apologize for writing earlier on here that you were half Asian. I was unaware that someone had been deliberately spreading misinfo about you.
“Again, there is a huge difference between allowing millions of fellow Whites to immigrate in to the USA vs. allowing tens of millions of non-Whites to just come on in.”
Of course there is a difference. But they are nevertheless two phases of the same phenemenon.
I am astonished that I even needed to point out to you the deleterious influences of non-Anglo-Saxon white minorities to US society. The troublesome meddling of Irish-Americans in US politics and their general hostility to Americans of Anglo-Saxon stock is well documented. The Irish would have been as bad as Jewish liberals, if they were not an incompetent people with a below average IQ. The fact of the matter is, all white races are not created equal. They are not interchangeable units. Greasy wops and half-barbaric krauts can never replace the civilized Anglo-Saxon. The general tone of American society has obviously declined as a result of the importation of millions of half-civilized Irish, German, Slavic, and Italian immigrants to the US.
@Yosemite
Then why would you support a candidate who is against government – not simply “this” government? And I’d like to know the basis of your opposition to the Iraq war. The war was clearly in America’s interests.
I voted for the human being whose prescribed actions were most compatible with my interests. That was Ron Paul.
The proposition that the Iraq War was in America’s interests in and of itself has so thoroughly boggled my mind that I don’t even know where to start. How…is…it…beneficial?
Wikitopian,
“How…is…it…beneficial?”
I am astonished you would have to ask. For one thing, our whole society is utterly dependend on oil. We would have no food, were it not for the petroleum that goes in fertilizers and then to transport it here, and then of course there are plastics and various other materials. Now, the Perian golf contains 65 percent of the world’s oil reserves. We cannot afford to have a potential enemy dominating that region of the world. As a rough political generality, the control of oil is comparable to the control of gold in past centuries, or the control of industrial capacity or the control of the seas in the 19th century, and therefore we are profoundly involved in the requirement to use our power to prevent oil from being monopolized in the hands of men whose designs are less than pacific. The Iraq was was undoubtedly in America’s best interests.
KMac’s thesis is hardly simplistic; he devotes thousands of pages in his trilogy to analyzing the topic, debunking many classical antisemitic theories in the process and pointing out our own involvement in our decline. I don’t get the impression you have a very comprehensive understanding of his work from your statement here.
Is the entirety of your argument against KMac predicated on the notion that enlightenment liberalism wasn’t a Jewish phenomena? IF this is your argument, I am going to laugh because it is not sufficient to explain our racial decline. Our situation is directly the result of Jewish attacks on our culture and infiltration of government and Kevin MacDonald has throughly documented this influence. You clearly have not reviewed his work adequately.
First, I have to ask the question: are you measuring supporters in terms of congressmen (and of that, we could look at the sponsors of the bill too), or in terms of the lobbying effort?
I suggest you read the entirety of the Culture of Critique and specifically his chapter on the Jewish role in liberalizing immigration. He quite clearly documents the motivation of the Jewish groups who were involved in agitating for immigration. If you have a problem with his reasoning or evidence, please cite the specific paragraphs and page numbers.
Yosemite,
Can you offer any evidence that we’re controlling Iraq’s oil production, now? Besides, the market is too fluid for one country to affect oil prices like you’re suggesting. Hell, OPEC, a global cartel, is barely able to nudge the dial. If country Y stops selling oil to country Z, then country Z need only purchase from countries A thru X. It could be to the advantage of one or another corporation, almost certainly a multinational one which doesn’t serve White American interests. But I don’t even see any evidence of that. Please explain your case beyond merely proclaiming “It’s the oil, stupid.”
By the way, Kevin MacDonald wrote an excellent summary of his views on this very topic a couple years ago when the SPLC and CSULB History Department was attacking his research. It is very applicable to Yosemite’s charges that KMac has a faulty argument in regards to the role of Jews in immigration liberalization and their motivations.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/ReplyHistory-2.htm
As for the specific number of Jewish vs. non-Jewish agitators for immigration reform, that is difficult to precisely tell, but it is easy to note through comparative analysis that Jews, bar none, were the loudest and most-organized voice in calling for immigration reform. There was no popular voice among non-Jewish whites calling for mass immigration on the basis that it would be good for the whites ( it was quite the opposite, in fact). But Kevin MacDonald does in fact document this motivation on the part of Jews who saw such restrictionism as immoral and anti-Jewish. So in that regard, you are flat-out wrong in analyzing their motives and simply assigning the motivations to “liberalism”.
We must create or restore an indigenous elite. (Wiki)
Careful there, W. – you’re venturing into Kike-lovers’ territory with remarks like that.
You will need to make sure that those of your “elite” are no more *elite* than anyone else, lest our Aryan peasants and Free-range White Men be given reason to suspect your ethnic origins.
There are plenty of very plausible alternative explanations to white racial decline than the simplistic consiracy theories of Kevin MacDonald and his ilk.
It’s evident that you simply haven’t acquainted yourself with MacDonald’s theoretical framework, which rather disqualifies you from discussing it.
The reasons for the rise of liberalism and leftism are well documented. Read some books, and learn for yourself….
This doesn’t cut it. What books? What do they say? What do you think the “reasons for the rise of liberalism and leftism are”? You can’t just point to common knowledge or academic consensus because, as we all know, that consensus is constructed through the efforts of interested parties. You need to hold up your end of the discussion.
The iron law of history is that the Jewish role in anything negative is always understated.
By the way, I’ve read plenty of books. Here are some particularly relevant books for you to read and reflect on:
A People That Shall Dwell Alone – K.B. MacDonald
Separation and Its Discontents – K.B. MacDonald
The Culture of Critique – K.B. MacDonald
Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior – D.S. Wilson
Religion and the Rise of Capitalism – R.H. Tawney
Judaism and Enlightenment — Adam Sutcliffe
The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State – Benjamin Ginsberg
Liberalism is the reason for mass coloured immigration to the West. Liberalism is why miscegenation is tolerated and aplauded. Liberalism is why our people are ashamed of their race. Liberalism is the problem, whether it is manifested in Jews or white gentiles.
…
That is why it is logical for me to attack liberalism, because it is the primary cause of white racial decline.
But what is the cause of liberalism? Until you answer that question, you haven’t even proposed an explanation of our ills.
Pasteur and Koch (and now Ewald) tell us that disease is caused by germs. You seem to favor the theory of spontaneous generation. Let’s see you support that belief.