Mothergoose

You say:

"Daniel, dream on! A non-Jewish left is an oxymoron."

It is an oxymoron according to the definition of the Left that people (I hope not you, ultimately) have been maneuvered into by Jewish academics and political planners. Jews want us to be defined as Rightist [anti-social, pseudo-objective individualists], because it is weak and amoral; as opposed to Leftists who organize on the basis of the White Class as a full social group, with relative, relational accountability to and from those on top to those in more fundamental stages of evolutionary (beyond the lifetime), developmental (within the life time) process.

I have addressed this issue in several discussions now, on Insurgent and on VOR, that the intellectual-moral quest we've carried as Westerners has left us vulnerable to Jewish exploitation – it is not an either/or between suicide and murder: viz, our wish for the innocence of Christianity, objectivism, science (expressed as scientism), universalism and individualism has rendered us naive to the relative and subjective motives of those who classify and cooperate as groups – Jews, in particular.

I agree that Richard Faussette and Bowery's notion of virulent Jewish elites allows us to distinguish the more innocent when addressing the JQ, by taking the angle that there are relatively benign Jews, those more situated and accountable; the persecution of whom, in blaming all Jews, only perpetuates justification of the cycle of increased Jewish virulence among their elites, who escape with the money, to renew the exploitation and parasitism of a new host country. This distinguishing of the relatively benign allows us to eschew the charge of anti-Semitism, where that charge is a problem – i.e., we would be blaming "only the guilty" Jews. I would hasten to emphasize a caveat that Bowery touches on only in passing, one my experience has shown, namely, that that virulence lays dormant and ready to break out even among the more "benign" Jews. Hence, discrimination against them as a whole is to be advised for a long quarantine period, indefinitely.

Nevertheless, Michael O'Meara does make an excellent point, that self destruction, is inherent within the Western ways that Jews are already exploiting – viz., objectivism, scientism, Christianity, liberalism, universalism, capitalism – these things which pose as "innocent" are really just naive by definition in not calling for accountability to the relative and subjective assertions of our interests as Whites; and narcissistically not recognizing the relative/subjective interests of others (e.g., Muslims, Blacks, Asians,); we would thus be taken advantage of, it would lead to our destruction, Jews or not.

However, in making this point, he does oversimplify some the over simplification of the one cause proponents – even Linder, the most prominent exponent of the Jew cause, is not quite that simplistic. However, that is to nit pick O'Meara's article to an extent. It is a good point that our vulnerability to non-Whites would exist with the western values we've practiced for centuries now. The Jews merely exploit and pervert these values against us. While striving after White homeland(s) note the plurality), we need to re-adopt classification of Whites (see my discussions on Insurgent and VOR ) and assert its relative and subjective interests in revolutionary contrast to our centuries long customs of pseudo objectivism, universalism, Christianity, scientism, open boarders/markets (the non-accountability, the non-situated, non-ecology of these outlooks), whatever would have us treating non-Whites as being the same as us and having interests which we value equally if not more to our own because we are supposedly innocent and objectively motivated – as opposed to relative and accountable to the White class/group.

Posted October 6, 2011 at 9:49 pm

Fourmyle of Ceres:

While there is truth to what you say here, that polemics against the Jews would be countered with abundant facts of their objective success and decency:

"Let me assure you, if the obese, inept, NSM paraded in front of a synagogue, in a matter of hours the symbols seen by the American people would be of decent, hard – working, clean, well – educated, effective Jewish families being criticized by obese incompetents, and "just why are you doing this?" "Well, we hate what the Jews are doing to us." "Like what?" "Well, they are getting degrees in biochemistry and going to medical school or becoming research scientists, and those are jobs we should have. Heil Hitler! Let's hear it, boys!"

This is to ignore that the Jews are acting as a group which provides fostering grounds for these "individual" and "objective" endeavors – biochemistry, medical school, research science are all "how to" questions, more in order once the "who" question (in their case, 'we' Jews, Jewish families) is answered and "why" questions are answered – why, because it furthers their relative/subjective well being. We have known Jewish professionals more competent than others and we have also known some of those professionals to be whiny, grown babies at the same time – because they are more used to being supported as a part of an extended family (and by those fighting on their behalf).

What I'm saying is, that Jewish objective success is part of their group support while you seem to propose that we should do the opposite, that our group support should stem from "objective", individualistic competition amongst ourselves and of mutual brutality. As if humaneness and support amongst ourselves will not yield objective success stories. It will. And let the infirm be weeded out where reasonable cooperation does not suffice – they will.

We should not allow ourselves to continue to be bludgeoned by a disingenuous Nietzschean individualism, a perspective of puerile girls, admiring only the hyper masculine qualities, to the logical extreme of admiring negroes; we need to be more honest and cooperative as Whites. If one is not competent to a particular objective task, understood – but he can make important contributions, likely more important contributions to the White way of life in his sublimation, nevertheless. It will be a good thing in the end when he finds out that he could not archive some of these things he admired as a young man and turned attention to a broader perspective. You show a disdain for sublimation – but that is an important distinguishing characteristic of us, as Whites – it is a part of what makes us creative and brilliant in the way of our life.

Nevertheless, you do make some good points:

That a man should attend to his work endeavors first, not to women – though I would add that this mistake is liable when men are trying to establish an answer to the "who" and "why' questions, understandably so, when they have been so subverted in the current, disordered context – hence, "how to" questions of work, "how to" make the Mulatto Supremacist, Jewish Supremacist system function more efficiently are not appealing to a sensible White man.

Of course I think it is good that you are critical of the Nazi platform, especially in our present context. The Germans of that day were instigated to over compensation with explanation, but did extend beyond German nationalism and a focused dealing with the Jews (expulsion for the "benign" and more harsh penalties for the "virulent" because they have proven to be criminally harmful?); we certainly need better control, coordination and cooperation among White nations – while not doing away with managed distinctions, boundaries, we need a coordination of all native European nations and peoples. Nazism shies many away from being articulate of Jewish culpability, not only because of Jewish propaganda, but also because not all of us are German. While we do not want to harm Germans, obviously we do not want to be harmed by them either; thus, in not being able to identify with those as Nazis who do not care for us, do not include us in their group, Jews are provided divide and conquer propaganda indeed.

However, I disagree with your endorsement of Christianity – it has had us obsequiously taking too many slaps and then reacting in easily manipulated biological convulsion. It is a Jewish trick that has had us depicting other Europeans as Babylonians – identifying us with Jews and other Europeans as the enemy. The text is the text, obsequious and self destructive, even if some are able to render creative interpretations.

14 Words can and should form the core of our religion: it is ideal, transcendent, forward looking, encompassing, practical and palpable.

Yes, there are well educated, competent, hard working and decent Jews – complicating the argument against them enough so that we should make use of the above mentioned 'benign' vs. 'virulent' Jew distinction at a minimum – but recognize that even the benign ones are a different people, functioning as part of a distinct group, probably having dormant, destructive properties to us, who cannot be expected care as much for Europeans as we do. Thus, we should discriminate against them indefinitely. Even if we have fewer competent doctors, for example, absent the Jews, we ought to take our chances to develop more of our own in that and whatever profession we need. They have achieved their successes while all, benign and virulent among them, are functioning as a group more supporting of one another than Whites (native Europeans) have.

It is natural for success stories to want to take more credit for their individual success than they deserve and to de-emphasize their indebtedness to their group. It is a false either/or to say that we deny our White success stories – good White doctors, scientists, etc. by acknowledging the supportive, evolutionary, processual grounds of the White group.

francis alexander:

You ask:

"At no point did the White Elite have their throats cut en masse. They gave up power to the jews Voluntarily.

"Explain this specific mystery of race treason and you unlock the entire key to our decline. O'Meara or any one else fancy taking a short at explaining their motivations for this bizarre and unprecedented action?"

I am confident that I have provided the basic answer to your question in my first post.

Posted October 8, 2011 at 12:19 am

I'd like to believe that he is predicting failure of a Rightist position; because it is inhumane and organizationally ineffective – the Jews want to drive us there because they know that it is foolish and they know that Leftist Classification – viz. of Whites (Europeans) has both the moral high ground and the greater potential for powerful organization; White traitors also want to drive us to the right and its objectivist individualism because it serves their interests. After that I would hope that he would be recommending a move sorting out Jewish perversion of the Left (a perversion which is really just more liberalism, catastrophic, obsequious liberalism, when you look at it – concerned primarily for non-White classes), and sorting out all non-Whites from the Left. I have discussed this as a matter of Classification, not economic, but of race: all native Europeans, including Russians (who "WE" are is not so hard to classify – viz, we are people evolved in the context of Europe over 40,000 years). After sorting out the Jews and other non-Whites (pseudo, Jew created, "marginals" who are supposed to "enrich" us), we address the White traitors – first and foremost of course, the plutocrats who facilitate anti White policies; then our gaze marches through the institutions, so to speak, clearing the traitors out, from plutocrats, to political, judicial and other career sell outs, academic sell outs on down to incorrigible liberals and mudsharks. We organize while bringing the White destroying elite and their followers down. We clear them out of our nation – separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim and separatism is always possible.

With this vision of the White Class (that I have proposed on VOR), we work out the proper balance of free enterprise, a reasonable understanding of individualism, industry that is socially and environmentally responsible; a sufficient moral order that has two way accountability from those on top of the class to those marginalized.

It should be possible to begin by declaring our skin and our DNA our nation; all who are loyal welcome members, innocent until proven guilty; and to proceed as a nation, declaring it so; coordinating it among various parts of the globe; working to bring one or more points, however small into being as physically marked territory for native Europeans*. Later on, after we've consolidated our strength and put it into different places where it cannot be an easy mark, we can work on re-establishing traditional White territories as White again.

* A hot head and impossible to deal with in many ways, Giles had a couple good ideas – one was a biological constitution and the other, I think, is that we should call ourselves Europeans; them Israelis, Africans and a few different kinds of Asians.

We know that when we say 'European' that we are not talking about Mulattoes and Jews with European Passports. European is more descriptive and accurate than White; shows more historical respect and depth; carries less of the baggage; doesn't make some of the trivial distinctions while maintaining the important ones. It also shows respect for What O'Meara is talking about – viz. undoing whatever competitive hubris that may exist to and from Europeans and their diaspora.

Henceforth, read the White Class and the European Class as interchangeable; with the European Class being the ultimate name, the White a provisional one, where people find it more effective; understanding that it is synonymous. 14

Posted October 8, 2011 at 12:32 am

* The term "European" doesn't make some of the trivial distinctions (like not distinguishing but rather lumping Southern Europeans with Blacks and Eastern Europeans with Asians), while maintaining the important ones – such as the traditional nations and regions of Europe, their folk. We want Swedes to be Swedes, Irish to be Irish and so on. I do not want to be misunderstood as one who favors amalgamating Europeans into one people; but do care that they function with a cooperative effort to preserve the wider class of Europeans as whole; in Europe and in diaspora.

Posted October 11, 2011 at 2:42 am

Greg Paulson,

Definition is where we are at, true.

Since you are a stickler for definitions:

The kind of corporatism that you want to endorse is fine and good but it is Leftist guildsmanship:

Wikipeida – "Corporatism, also known as corporativism, is a system of economic, political, or social organization that involves division of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labor, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests."

Posted by daniel on August 22, 2011, 08:17 AM

I like Dr. Lowell's work, but I cannot abide my fellow White separatists trying to make hippies into the arch-enemy, the turning point as it were. I was at pains to separate hippies from Jewish activism. Anti-industrial leftism was not their central issue – the Viet Nam War draft was! I was at pains to separate hippies from feminism, irresponsible sex, black power and what would be other Jewish corruption, improper leftism – for a reason. It is non Whites, most prominently Jews, who are the problem, not hippies and so called leftism.

The left wants to ship industry and its jobs to China? I thought that it was the right that did that?

There is no pure capitalism nor pure socialism and never will be. Thus, we must work out the balance that is in the best interest of Whites. Like many people, I had been undeclared, neither left nor right, for obvious reasons, most of my life – until I realized that by sorting out Jewish corruption and looking upon Whites as a class was the proper way of remedying the fallacy of civil individual rights; to look upon ourselves as a group. Thus, criticizing "the left' or saying one is neither left nor right, would be an intermediate stage prior to sorting out Jewish corruption from White leftism.

Non-Jewish leftism would be about Whites as a full class. It would encourage private ownership (see Bowery on land tax and laboratory of the states), and some common land, of course. It would not encourage irresponsibility – on the contrary, accountability to the class is built in. It would not oppose individualism unless it endangered White survival. It would not be against industrialism unless it threatened White survival, habitats and well being. It would not be against free enterprise unless it ran rough shod over Whites and their borders. It would not be against truth and morality – but truth and morality, our religion, as it were, would serve our relative interests as Whites (and by that, I mean native Europeans, each maintaining the distinctions of their nations – ideally at 98% native of that nation – and regions, as Mr. Lowell might like) – the truths and morals we value would be those that serve our relative interests as Whites – not some pseudo scientific objectivism beyond accountability and beyond us as Whites, let alone some Christian, Muslim, or Jewish nonsense religion. Our religion is 14 Words: it is transcendent enough, forward looking enough, yet anchored in palpable reality – the subtle beauty of our women, the world of our children and foremost, our survival as a people.  Yes, we want England to be populated by the English, Scotland by the Scottish – there is no necessary conflict among Europeans – all the nations of Europe to be populated by its people of tens of thousands of years, not blended with each other beyond a small percentage and not with non-Europeans at all.

This understanding obtained among Europeans, we can begin to coordinate with our White (indigenous Europeans) diaspora in the rest of the world – a coordination of White separatisms – White ethno-states, regions coordinated, not just in The Pacific North West, not just in Russia, but throughout the world.