European Left Is More Dangerous for Jews than the European Right
From the desk of Soeren Kern on Tue, 2009-06-16 15:22
Jewish groups in Europe and the United States have reacted with alarm to the gains made by far-right political parties in the recent elections for European Parliament. Right-wing and nationalist parties posted significant victories in Austria, Britain, Denmark, Hungary, Romania and the Netherlands in four days of voting that ended on June 7.
The Paris-based European Jewish Congress (EJC), an umbrella organization for Jewish communities in Europe, said: “As we assess the results of this week’s elections, one disturbing trend has already crystallized; the gains made by extreme-right groups is a Europe-wide phenomenon. The success of the far-right and nationalistic parties that won seats in the elections on the basis of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic platforms points to a clear erosion of tolerance and a clarion call to European officials to immediately engage in intercultural dialogue. The success of such rabid groups as The Freedom Party in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party in Austria (FPO), the Danish People’s Party, the British National Party, and Jobbik in Hungary, among others, will sadly only serve to embolden those who espouse the dangerous concepts of extreme nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.”
The New York-based Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said it was “deeply distressing that the blatantly anti-Semitic parties received so many votes,” and called on European leaders to “ensure that anti-Semitism, racism and bigotry never again gain a foothold in Europe…. It is imperative that European leaders do not remain silent, but speak out and reject the hateful and bigoted worldview of parties of the far-right and their supporters.”
The Geneva-based World Jewish Congress (WJC) said: “Far-right parties and extremists have made gains across Europe amid protest votes and low turnout for the European Parliament (EP) elections. The elections were held in all 27 EU member states from Thursday to Sunday last week. Support for centre-Left parties and governments collapsed across the EU as fringe parties, picked up protest votes.”
Although these and other Jewish groups are not alone in their concerns about rising anti-Semitism in Europe, their fear of the far right often obscures the indisputable fact that some of the greatest threats to Jews (and Israel) in contemporary Europe stem from the left side of the political aisle. Indeed, it is no big secret that all across the European continent, left-wing intellectuals are playing a crucial role in making anti-Semitism seem respectable. Of course, they are (usually) careful to promote their hatred of Jews only indirectly. Instead, modern anti-Semitism is typically disguised as anti-Zionism and an obsession with Palestinian victimhood.
European Judeophobia often takes on new life forms such as anti-Semitic boycott campaigns and anti-Israel demonstrations, the growing intensity of which the European left not only overlooks or obscures but often actively supports. It is transmitted by Europe’s left-leaning mass media, which not only believes that the systematic demonization of Israel promotes the postmodern and postnational ideological worldview of Europe’s governing class, but also appeases the wrath of Europe’s Muslim immigrants, lest they expose the myth of European socialist multicultural utopia.
As the European left intensifies its common cause with the Palestinian movement, Islam itself has emerged as a major threat to Jewish life in Europe. Although definitive statistics are scarce, most of the acts of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions in Europe in recent years seem to be perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Indeed, a 2003 report published by European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) attributed the increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe mainly to Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups. But those findings were so embarrassing that European left-wing elites quashed the report and commissioned another one. A subsequent EUMC report, which used a more politically correct research methodology, concluded that the “noticeable rise in reported anti-Semitic incidents” was the fault of “young, white Europeans incited by traditional right-wing extremist groups.”
In any case, right-wing groups such as Geert Wilder’s Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the Danish People’s Party, far from being the purveyors of “rabid” racism and anti-Semitism that the EJC claims, are some of the best allies that Jews (and Israel) will find in Europe today. In fact, the Danish People’s Party is a strong supporter of Israel as well as the US-led War on Terrorism, of which Israel is a major beneficiary. It has called for stronger sanctions against totalitarian regimes and dictatorships, especially those in the Islamic world. It has also supported academic grants for specific research into terrorism and Islamism. For his part, Wilders calls himself a true friend of Israel. During a recent visit to Jerusalem, Wilders said: “We see Christians and Jews as part of one culture. When I’m here I’m with my people, my country, my values. I feel more at home here than in many other European countries. Israel’s a democracy – it’s everything we stand for.”
Wilders and a growing number of other Europeans understand the threat that Islam poses to Europe and to the Western world. They are also taking a stand against an European leftwing political class that despises its Judeo-Christian heritage so much that it has become an undiscerning apologist for Islam. Unfortunately, the Islamization of Europe, which is being promoted by an intolerant leftwing multicultural dogma that gives immigrants more rights than natives, is one of the main factors contributing to the alarming rise of truly troublesome extremist groups like the Hungarian Jobbik party.
The European political right is far more nuanced and complex than catch-all labels such as “far right” or “extreme right” imply. Whereas right-wing groups in Denmark and Holland, animated by common sense, are pushing back against a European multicultural movement that has run amok and has pushed Western Civilization to the edge of the abyss, other groups like those in Austria, Hungary and Romania, animated by ignorance, are promoting hatred against any and all immigrants just for the sake of it. It is a world of difference.
The knee-jerk tendency to stereotype the European right-wing as anti-Semitic obscures the fact that, with few exceptions, the only genuine European supporters of Jews and Israel are on the political right-wing. Indeed, in the bigger scheme of things, Jews have much more to fear from the European left than they do from the European far right.
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group
Monarchist- return of Properties #2
Submitted by Hitech on Sun, 2009-06-21 23:15.
But what is taking place - is this harping .."you see Jews want that , Jews want that- those bloody Jews "..
Well, If I would be face to face with people like that - I would say , it is you who want to think of yourselves as the right good people and now , that totalitarian regimes are gone - you have an opportunity to do the right thing - so do it!!!"
That is the point about "the right thing"- it is "right" only when you take something from yourself, you sacrifice something so to speak , you do it in spite that perhaps you don’t have to. .
Now , you will come back :what about the Commie Jews ? I could come back what about them? I could state, which appears to be true, that in your mind only Commie Jews did to Poland what Communism did to Poland, of course, in your mind there were not ethnically Polish Communists, God forbid to admit they were actually the vast majority, that they were actually the real power in the Party especially after 1949 onwards, that the General Secretaries of the Communist Party of Poland were Poles , you conveniently forgot that that same Polish Communist Party (which was Jewish according to many Poles) blamed Jews for economic troubles Poland had , especially in 1968,.it blamed them so much, that from a few remaining Jews after WWII (I think there were 23000) almost all had to run and today Poland has no Jews practically .
Then you would come back with something , and I could state, the anti-Semitism in Poland did not start with Jews being Commies , it was there long time before that..and so on. It is without END.
I don’t care really. I consider most of mankind sick puppies - and that is at the best, good piece of it , simply garbage.
There is the proper actually even great - a social structure that allows all freedoms to any individual that he needs to pursue his life freely and that structure exists perhaps in 20-30 nations - so called the Western Liberal Democracy - which is under threat from within and it needs to be protected.
That system is worth dyeing for definitely living for.
We are discussing the ways which it can be protected or at this point "SAVED". I say :"Conservatism" .
Edensfelt's Bloody Mess
Submitted by Capodistrias on Sat, 2009-06-20 17:44.
Edensfelt you do go on... and on. Much of what you are saying about Marxism co-opting and corrupting the Christian tradition in Western Civilization is well understood and appreciated here among the writers and posters on TBJ. However, where you consistently fall down,and what you run away from,is an understanding of that tradition and its unique and central role in defining Western Civilization.
Ethno-Nationalism as you champion it is no better than the multiculturalism you abhor, both err in asserting any one race is inferior or superior at an existential level. Such a view of race was sacrificed on the cross some two thousand years ago. Your attempt to resurrect it is doomed to failure just like those who attempted to do so since, be they Nazis, Fascists, Communists, Multiculturalists, Islamic fundamentalists, White triumphalists.
Where you so often go wrong in your arguments which often contain very true and legitimate arguments is a preoccupation with symptoms rather than the source of the illness, for example, your comments on the Archbishop of Canterbury being more Marxist than bishop. True enough but that is not the source of his error, nor is it the source of his being a positively atrocious analyst of Dostoevsky. The source of his problem is that he is a lousy Anglican.
Or let's examine your contention that Christianity in Europe in some way pre-existed in Europe before Christianity. Christianity without its Judaic roots is simply not possible. I will listen to those who argue that the Greco-Roman tradition was an equal contributor to the emergence of Christianity on many levels this is true, but at the most fundamental level i.e. God, Christianity is a child of Judaism.
Edensfelt you are full of sound and fury as you argue your points, and you claim in your bio that you will go to any lengths as you charge forth on your white steed to defend Western Civilization , unfortunately, what you have not done is take the time to study or understand the central and defining force in Western Civilization, Christianity.
You are a wounded soldier on the battlefield, knocked off your high horse , flailing around and striking out indiscriminately at those who rushed to administer to you. Calm down, be not afraid, and listen to Pale Rider and Hitech, your medics, and quit bleeding out all over these pages.
Capodistrias
Submitted by Edensfelt on Sat, 2009-06-27 01:04.
P.2
I would say we are all wounded soldiers on the battlefield and that's because the malign forces who are attacking white nations have not been properly identified let alone targeted - yet!!!
I instinctively know what needs to be done, but the majority of indigenous European peoples would not have the stomach for it because bread and circuses has engulfed them and they revel in the enslavement it represents.
I believe that people should be prepared to not only fight to the death if necessary, but to eradicate the enemy entirely in the process. Let's face it, there is no point in sacrificing one's race and culture unless one can ensure mutual destruction.
Capodistrias
Submitted by Edensfelt on Sat, 2009-06-27 00:44.
Pt.1
I'm continuing with my dissection of your post of Saturday, 20/6/09
"Ethno-nationalism as you champion it is no better than the multiculturalism you abhor, both err in asserting any one race is inferior or superior at an existential level."
I disagree with your opinion here. Ethno-nationalism is nothing like multiculturalism which you are attempting to identify it with. Ethno-nationalism as a belief system most certainly does not hold that one race is superior or inferior to another. Ethno-nationalism asserts only that each race has an inalienable right to defend its individual ancestral territory, people, heritage, language, belief system and culture by any means necessary.
Incidently, I thought 'multiculturalism' was about denying the existence of race altogether so how could this particular ideology be asserting that any one race is inferior or superior at the existential level as you put it?
Regarding, your opinion that the Archbish of Canterbury's problem is that he's merely just a lousy Anglian, is very naive indeed in my view. When one encourages the conquest of one's land and peoples by the followers of an enemy creed which violently hate one's own creed, hates one's brethren, has an extremely long history of committing atrocities against one's flock and is still committing such atrocities right up to the present day, I would consider such behaviour much more grievious than being simply a bad Anglian - I would call it Treason.
Copodistrias - Re: Edensfelt's Bloody Mess
Submitted by Edensfelt on Thu, 2009-06-25 11:42.
"However, where you consistently fall down,and what you run away from,is an understanding of that tradition and its unique and central role in defining Western Civilization."
Upon reading the various contributions on this thread, it appears to be the case that a couple of posters have decided that Christianity should be reinstated as the spiritual driving force in European Civilisation (or what's left of it) and that Conservatism is the only vehicle by which to achieve this goal. (How naive!) Every other alternative viewpoint is either flamed or dismissed, leaving others feeling somehow obliged to agree, lest their contributions to the debate be shot down in flames.
These same posters bang on endlessly about how Christianity was the defining force in Western Civilisation. So what if it was, emphasis being on the past tense!
I am perfectly aware of the role played by Christianity in the foundations of European Civilisation, to be specific, over the past 1,700 years or so, but I do not agree with the notion that European Civilisation depended on it as some posters on here obviously believe. Christianity, as you acknowledge has caused pain and suffering down through the ages and would again if it were to be afforded a dominant role in European Civilisation in the 21st century, for example. For that reason, I am against the idea.
One must also bear in mind that religious leaders are mere mortals who have the potential to succumb to corruption and vice like the rest of us thus leading the sheep astray.
I do not believe for one moment that religion, in this instance, Christianity is the saviour of mankind because I do not hold with the unproven concept of a superior powerhead, ie, a Godhead.
I will continue disecting the rest of your remarks in due course.
@hitech
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2009-06-20 16:24.
since this fact of many Bolshevik commissars being Jewish in
early days of USSR is the fact and the process would show their true
motives . They would be many - but it would not be for the sake of
Jewish people , since I truly do not see connection. There is none.<
You may not see connection, some of them could see. Israel for example
protect all those Jewish communists that managed to escape from Eastern
Europe.Solomon Morel for example, a war criminal (WWII) and later communist butcher in Poland. Escaped to Israel and complained about anti-Semitism in Poland, never prosecuted.
I believe that those leftist Jews of our times that you call to be idiots
also consider themselves to be Jewish. This is similar situation, they
are just not so radical. I don't really care whether Jewish communists killed for the sake of the Jews or not. This is just your statement provoked myself to be involved in this argument.
The reason there is no problem between Jews and Germans today
is that Germans have stated clearly -they, under Hitler , have done
evil. Nobody can bring those who were murdered , but the official
Germany done what it could to show its repentance-they have introduced
laws (I believe anybody can deny Holocaust for example if they wish,
but not in Germany or Austria - it should be a crime , since that is a
part of repentance) , they have arrived at arrangement of compensation
, Israel took it - so that is it. We move on.
So it is all about the money and abandoning historical debates about
WWII? This is the problem with Eastern Europe? I can just repeat what
I have stated earlier about twisted tribalist understanding of private
property, I will just replace Jewish organizations by Israel. Even Nazi
Germany owned nothing to Israel. Nazi Germany never invaded Israel
because this state did not exist at that time.The victims were individuals, Jews among them and they should be compensated individually.
That is even interesting that invaded Poland got nothing from Germany
and Israel that don't even existed managed to earn some cash out of it.
Apparently corrupt German politicians were responsible for encouraging Jewish organizations to act as they do.
We reached to some agreement on some issues but we have still very different approach towards issued that I raised above.
best regards
pale rider
Submitted by Edensfelt on Sat, 2009-06-20 15:18.
P.5
Your contention that white Europeans are responsible for their own demise is partly true. However, you are deliberately overlooking the fact that Communism in the guise of multi-culturalism and diversity, is currently the ruling order and that means anti-white racial discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action and an across-the-board Quota System for non-whites only, with charges of racism being applicable only to indigenous whites.
You should be aware of what has been done to the education system. You should be aware of what has been done to all vestiges of Christian practice and influence, by Communist dictat. You should be aware of the Communist agenda of legalising vice, yes they are even attempting to legalise paedophilia by the edict of non-condemnation. What does that mean? It means they will be setting up yet another human rights charter for the practice of vice under the heading of 'lifestyle choices.'
No wonder white natives are suicidal. They've been led astray and any attempts to get back on track are being blocked by the the architects of Cultural Marxism via the vehicles of Common Purpose, government, and the judiciary.
An elaboration on my Conservative Manifesto - Part I
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-06-20 18:13.
If you define ethnicity as being more than racial ties alone then why have you continuously been talking about the white race? For instance, you start by saying that ethnicity is determined by bloodline, culture and other things, but you then go on to ask what 'race' has a right to a certain territory? You still talk of race as if that is what determines who we are and is the cause of our traditions and cultures.
Again, I say that being White is not in itself a quality and perhaps it defines your being but it certainly does not determine my person as I do not believe "in" race - race is the product of nature. Also, ethnicity can be based on a presumed kinship. Not all white Englishmen are descended of the Anglo-Saxon, for instance, and neither are all (white) Flemish fully Germanic. When and how does an ethnicity become an ethnicity? In some central European countries there are folks who are said to be "etnic" Hungarians but many no longer speak Hungarian, they do not have Hungarian citizenship, and they have not even retained their own tradtions and customs. Am I ethnically Flemish, Dutch, Germanic, European, "White European", etc? Perhaps I'm all those things! But it is still only part of the story. I know of people who grew up in Flanders but their parents are from North France. They are "ethnically" (or is it "racially"?) very likely to be Germanic and perhaps even descended of Flemish people. But are they ethnic Flemings or not? After all, their parents are French citizens and speak French. Personally I simply accept them as Flemings because they are like us and speak our language, so bloodline is not much of an issue here at all. So how or what defines ethnicity and just how strict does one have to be? How important a factor or relevant is one's bloodline in defending our civilization?
Of course it gets even more confusing because of the "nationalist" element. If you use a broader definition of ethnicity and also include and culture, religion or tradition, than why the emphasis on the "White race"? England is different from Scotland but they have been united for centuries. The Netherlands and Flanders were once very much alike and have been united and separated at various points through history. They have been separated again since 1830. So how can you be "nationalistic" about your ethnicity or race? Should the English and Scottish really separate because they are ethnically, racially or culturally different and have different bloodlines? If so, then you are doing away with history and traditions such as the monarchy. Then what is to become of those Scots who served the Queen and the British alongside the English, and those who wish to remain loyal and dedicated to Great Britain? In Belgium it is quite the opposite. Belgium was imposed on the Flemish because of the revolt of the French-speaking Wallonians against the Dutch. The two parts of the country are historically very different and now that the country has embraced federalism, it is becoming apparent that the two can hardly coexist under one State. In Switzerland, however, many languages and different "ethnic" groups have been living together, and as far as I know there are very few who would want Switzerland to break up at all. Why? Because of their long and shared history, traditions and a political system that appears to be working for all them. I would very much regret to see a nation like Switzerland dissolve.
Pale Rider - Re: An elaboration on my Conservative Manifesto
Submitted by Edensfelt on Thu, 2009-06-25 14:15.
You seem to be of the opinion that only culture is of any importance and that race plays seemingly little or no part in the creation of it.
Your veering off into a litany of your personal genetic ancestral roots, is irrelevant as all of those nationalities are racially white European. The associated cultures and languages were their creations alone and are distinct to them.
You then go on to suggest that race plays a secondary role to culture, but how could these cultures have arisen if not for the reality of race which you deny is of supreme relevance?
Nations are not compositions of black, brown, yellow and white races all occupying the same living space(s), nations are that of single races and their cultures occupying their own individual living space(s). The former condition amounts to what I've often heard referred to as a zoo or menagerie.
For the adherents of religion, in this case, Christianity to assert that culture only is of the essence, is to state that it doesn't matter if white European nations and their cultures are diluted and inevitably erased by alien non-white cultures as a result of mass invasion as long as Christianity rules supreme once again which could only be achieved via the majority conversion of all invaders to Christianity - an event that in reality, ain't likely to happen and of which, I suspect, you are perfectly aware.
You must recognise that Christianity by its nature, a universal creed, is in the business of spiritual redemption only and has no interest in the survival of the physical being of man. Its value system could not care less if every racial group were to fuse into one thereby eradicating true human diversity.
Christianity needs to go back to its roots and its roots are not in the West, they are in the Middle East.
@ Edensfelt
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Fri, 2009-06-26 11:12.
Thanks for revealing your true colors. It turns out that what I have been saying was correct. Your notion of ethnicity is really one of race, and I'm not buying into that. I used my own 'ethnicity' in my elaboration to point out how problematic a 'nationalist' ideology based on race or ethnicity is. Nowhere did I say race or ethnicity is insignificant either, you choose to believe that because of my opposition to ethno-nationalism. I also used examples other than my own ancestry, such as the case of the Hungarians. I also suggest you go read about feudalism, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Magyarization, the Holy Roman Empire, etc. If you really want to go back to pre-Christian pagan Europe then I think you've come to the wrong website. I don't hate my pagan ancestors and I am willing to recognize that some pagan civilizations achieved great things. Our civilization does certainly owe a lot to the Greeks and Romans as well. However, I am thankful that my pagan ancestors converted to the 'Middle Eastern' (sic) religion of Christ the Messiah. Neither do I wish to undo over a thousand years of heritage. That'll be all from my part.
Pale Rider
Submitted by Edensfelt on Fri, 2009-06-26 22:38.
What true colours are you alluding to precisely?
Of course, ethnicity is partly about race. It is also about the heritages/cultures/languages/traditions created by the various races. Whether you buy into it or not, is beside the point! This thread is not about your opinions alone. Others are entitled to hold them as well.
You then go on to protest that you didn't say race or ethnicity is insignificant which would suggest that you don't entirely disagree that race/ethnicity is a reality. However, one cannot agree or even only partly agree with the reality of race/ ethnicity if one then declares his/her opposition to what are, in fact, inalienable rights of ethnic groups to forge their own destinies in their own ancestral homelands by maintaining total control of all of the institutions their forbearers and they created, bearing in mind that failure to do so will result in alien groups attempting usurpation and dispossession.
This desire to safeguard and preserve each's ancestral homeland and each's institutions exclusively for each's ethny and each's progeny alone, is called Ethno-nationalism and you have just admitted you oppose it.
I am not suggesting we return to Paganism so you have got that wrong. You are far too quick to jump to conclusions about what others have said, even to the point of insinuating something that wasn't mentioned or said in the first place.
You seem to be implying that Ethno-nationalism means the undoing of a nation's past, be it whole or part and for that reason, I believe you have somehow developed a misconception about what Ethno-nationalism is.
Yes, I have, in the past, read about the Holy Roman Empire. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Magyarization are not topics which I find of any importance to me personally right now, since I'm not of any of those nationalities.
The following links might be helpful in explaining an inherent survival instinct that is wholly natural and absolutely imperative toboot, and is to be found in all distinct and individual living organisms.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sallis-Salter.html
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Interests-Ethnicity-Humanity-Migration/dp/...
An elaboration on my Conservative Manifesto - Part II
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-06-20 18:19.
Another example I'd like to use is Gaul or what is now called France. The French are a mix of many peoples, they are mainly comprised of Celts, Romans (or a mix known as Gallo-Romans), Greeks, and the Germanic tribe that gave France its name - the Franks. The ruling class of France in the Middle Ages were Germanic. Nowadays most French natives are a mix of all aforementioned peoples. The Frankish empire even included large parts of what is now Germany, which later became the Holy Roman Empire and also included people of various ethnic groups and languages - all united under the banner of Catholicism. One's identity was really more of a question of loyalty to the aristocracy and the king, a willingness to fight on their behalf and for your own local people or family, and being Christian. After all, there was no such thing as the nation state back then since we lived under Feudalism. Church and State were intertwined. So to return to the example of France, who is a Frenchman today? To me it seems a lot more of a question of nationality, being born in Gaul, having French parents or family, having a sense of loyalty to the French Republic or attachment to French history and tradition, as well as identifying oneself as being French. This is why I think that color of skin or ancestry is in itself not the main component of one's identity - these things have to be seen in proper context rather than being dogmatized as they ultranationalists do. A person who is loyal to the nation and respects its traditions and history can be as much a fellow countryman as a treacherous White multiculturalist whose ancestors lived here for a thousand years. However, it is true that this is difficult in practise and that's why immigration must be very limited and controlled.
Ethno-nationalists also have a tendency to focus very inwardly and oppose even some minorities within their own "ethnic" group that differ from the norm, despite being perfectly fine citizens. I have witnessed this myself. I am a calvinist Christian, not out of any tradition, but out of genuine belief and conviction. This immediately gives me a minority status despite being entirely Flemish, Christian, White, European, and a Westerner. According to ultranationalist in Flanders, Catholicism has to be defended because it has been Flander's main religion for several centuries. This may lead them to exclude fellow countrymen and patriots that are not Roman Catholic. When these non-Catholics refuse to change their religious views, they will call them traitors. Now such people might be perfectly Roman Catholic but whether they are believers at all is another matter entirely, as even non-White converts to Christianity who seek refuge in the West are not welcomed by them. They lack Christian empathy and a sense of higher purpose or nobility. As I have said before, they make a cold ideology, a set of man-made ideas or requirements to determine what it constitutes to be a Christian, a Westerner, or to decide whether one is truly Flemish, German, Dutch, etc.
An elaboration on my Conservative Manifesto - Part III
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-06-20 18:26.
The truth is that "being White" has never really been a requirement for being Western until the emergence of ideological nationalism and racialism in the 19th century. Or what are we to think of the Latin Americans? Are they deviant because they are a mix of Spanish or Portuguese blood with that of various pagan Native American tribes? Some Western European racialists and Romantic nationalists looked down upon the Hungarians because they regarded them as Asians, despite the fact that the Hungarians were christened before the Lithuanians and Polish were. Can you imagine! Also, the Hungarians fled from the southern Urals to the Danube Basin as they were chased by the Huns, and they have lived there since about the 9th century. What are we to conclude of that? That ethnicity or race is entirely irrelevant? No. Europe is "White" for historical reasons and it would be against tradition to allow all Europe to become Asian, Black or Indian. Nevertheless, the White race is indeed as you said a pattern of several ethnic groups and peoples. They have different histories, cultures and languages. What I think you need to realize is that historically they had one major thing in common to unite them, and that is their acceptance of Christianity, and Judaeo-Christian values. If native Whites had not been so stupid as to give up on that, there would not have been mass immigration and we would have nothing to fear of some non-White minorities. Hence, whether EUrope remains largely White depends on the Whites' willingness to re-embrace these values - not on some militant racial ideology with concepts like racial purity. If I may add that even the ancient Germanic peoples fought against each other and united their tribes to defend their faith. Some were 'Catholic' (i.e. Christian) such as the Frankish tribes, and others were Arians, e.g. the Goths.
I think that to categorically revoke someone's citizenship for not have the "right" bloodline is utterly wrong. I might actually have French ancestry myself, but I am nonetheless a Fleming and not a Frenchman because all of the ancestors I know of have lived in what is historically Flanders and they all spoke Dutch. Moreover, I grew up here and I feel a bond with this land and my people. Also, there is no reason for us not to accept a limited number of non-Whites or non-Gentiles as fellow countrymen. Benjamin Disraeli was Jewish, a Tory, and an Anglican, and he became the prime minister of Britain. Winston Churchill was part English and part American - the ultranationalists or ethno-nationalists would probably have had a problem with them holding the positions they did. However, these men were attached to Britain and the monarchy. The same goes for some non-Whites today, such as Michael Nazir-Ali. So far I have not seen you state anywhere how we should deal with non-Whites who were granted citizenship in an European nation, who have live and worked here, who respect our laws and traditions, and who might be the third generation living here and speak the national language perfectly fine. Are we to repatriate all these people, even those who are not Muslim fanatics, just because they don't have the right bloodline? Perhaps the British, for example, should above all get rid of such airheads like Prince Charles who wants to change the title of Fidei Defensor to "Defender of all faiths".
That'll be all.
PS: sorry for any grammatical or spelling errors
@pale rider
Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2009-06-20 19:18.
I generally agree with your manifesto except the fact that Calvin was indeed a heretic without a doubt. :)
About nationalism, let say it openly... Nationalism never had anything to do with conservatism. It is collectivist and modernist ideology that gained momentum after French revolution.
@ Monarchist and PatriotUSA
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sun, 2009-06-21 00:10.
Monarchist, thanks for the reply. I thought that you and I were pretty much in agreement with each other on nationalism. I should add that I'm not necessarily anti-nationalist because I do believe in patriotism and the word 'nationalism' is often used to refer to a non-ideological form of nationalism which is really about the love of one's country, people and family, and about defending truth and virtue against evil, even if it comes from one's own kin.
PatriotUSA, I appreciate the comment. Your testimony makes me cheerful and it should be a reminder to all that God has not rejected all Jews. Israel's rejection of their Messiah has lead to the salvation and blessing of many Gentiles, but Israel will eventually accept Him and be restored. That is why the Gentiles should not be boastful, but rather be humble and thank God for His grace and goodness, and bring the good news to the Jews in a respectful manner.
I'm sorry for the sloppy writing in my 'elaboration' on my conservative manifesto, I've noticed a lot of mistakes upon re-reading. But I guess I'm being a perfectionist again. ;) I wrote it rather quickly and didn't take enough time to revise the language before posting. I hope to refine and correct it sometime and post a better version elsewhere.
Have a nice weekend folks.
@pale rider
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-06-21 00:56.
Well if you do write a refined version of your manifesto elsewhere, please let us know so we can read it.
@Monarchist : German repentance
Submitted by Hitech on Sun, 2009-06-21 23:20.
Monarchist , I have to respond regarding this, since my original narration can easily be misconstrued as you did - it came at the end to supposedly "money" which is not a full picture and "money" is only a part of it.
Germany's acceptance of its role in WWII is way deeper than I have stated in a few lines -
1.it has accepted absolutely that evil was done under Nazi regime.
2.German children are honestly taught in schools about the history of WWII and the Nazi regime - I believe they do that without sparing German ethnic sensitivities
3.Germany has built real democratic institutions throughout all its societal structures ,
4. Germany has enacted real laws (they are real , you don't screw with them ) against denial of Holocaust (there can not be acceptance of any debate here in German lands -did Holocaust has happen or not?..well..Did WWII happened?
5. Germany has accepted the loss of its historical lands to Poland Russia and Czechs and dislocation of more than 14 million Germans from those lands
6. Germany has made financial restitutions to Jews.
That is what is called "repentance" , that it the path of Germany to a decent state , and nobody can ask anything more . It is done, yes there will be movies and books - and rightly so, it is not to belittle Germany - it is part of Human history .
Otherwise we all move on as we should.
Now , did Germany had a choice in the matter since it has lost the War? In some points above - it did not , and in some it did.
@Edensfelt and what ideology can save Europe
Submitted by Hitech on Sun, 2009-06-21 23:26.
Edensfelt - Ultra-Nationalism and saving Europe.
Also in my scenario of the future events in Europe , it just might come that so called Ultra-Nationalism will again be on the scene in the significant way, but it will be destroying not only the threat but the Western Democracy itself.
And your arguments that we all could adopt any cultures (such let say like Hindu ) are flawed in very important fact -I expect a free individual not to be interested in introduction of any culture that is inferior to one that he already has. A free individual, is or should be interested only in the social structure that protects fully individual rights and especially the right to think , to express and to speak freely ,among many others .
And that what the Conservatism would do - it would protect and demand from people of other cultures to adopt its ways, since they are choosing to be here.
Edensfelt, in some of your points you talk too elaborate for me.
The simple point of mine as far as Christianity is this .
I have meant that it (Christianity) has to regain its position in the society. Since the spiritual void ends up filled with something anyways, and that something at this point in Europe becoming to be Islam.
As I said, Christianity is a real religion, it is preoccupied ULTIMATELY with the spiritual relationship: between a man, his conscious and God. It is not about power and a submission of an individual to a group, or to a Power structure.
Although one might rightly argue that Christianyty has brought a lot of pain and hate in the world - BUT it is people who used Christianity for their own aims of power .
However since , many of us have a need for some spiritual direction , and when there is a void ,as I said, a primitive totalitarian ideology comes in and takes its place - then I say , if there is such spiritual need in an individual -let it be Christianity , since it has already demonstrated that its decedents (in some countries , not all, example of malfunction is Latin America ) have ability to critical thinking and critical self-examination , and as the result ability to build more or less decent society where all can breath.
Now I am done))))
P.4
Submitted by Edensfelt on Sat, 2009-06-20 15:13.
P.4
"The preservation of one's ethnicity depends on a nation's attachment to morality, culture and tradition - these cannot be separated. I would want the majority of Europeans to remain White but whether it will remain so depends on the various indigenous European peoples themselves and there is no point in taking pride or to believe in a self-defeating race or people."
Here, you then go on to recognise the elements of ethnicity after having tended to deny them prior. However, there is one remark of yours which doesn't quite make sense. I refer to the last part of your remark, ie, ".....and there is no point in taking pride or to believe......" This is one example of your contradictory mindset. You would like the majority of Europeans to remain white, but for that to happen, one must pay attention to race, not deny and dismiss it - that which you call self-defeating!!!!!!!
"Nobody here will deny that the West has allowed too many foreigners with incompatible cultures and religions to settle here. But to suggest that aliens are invading Europe is a distortion of the truth."
I think you know fine well that non-white invasion is occurring and are deliberately trying to obscure the fact. I'm afraid the distortion of the truth lies with you.
The EU is currently set on a course of admitting 50 million Africans from the sub-Sahara over the next few decades, and that's not counting the countless number of work permit holders and assorted illegals being let through with all attempts to deport them being blocked by the Marxist Common Purpose social-experiment engineers. (I'm sure you get my drift on that one.)
P.3
Submitted by Edensfelt on Sat, 2009-06-20 15:11.
P.3
"The inclination to let everything revolve around ethnicity is absurd and so is taking pride in one's color of skin."
How is either or both of these realities absurd and why? Ethnicity is what defines a people as you appear to agree with at times from my reading of your posts, but somehow you then go on to contradict yourself in the same or other posts.
"Ethno-nationalism is really an empty ideology that is as misguided as the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism in its exaltation of ethnicity as a common denominator and the single most important feature of Western civilization."
How and why is Ethno-Nationalism an empty ideology? After all in encompasses all of those aspects associated with ethnicity, ie, race, heritage, language, religion, culture and traditions.
Ethno-nationalism is about preservation of indigenous peoples which means all indigenous peoples regardles of the part of the planet they inhabit.
One cannot preserve something that is no longer indigenous and original once its gone.
pale rider
Submitted by Edensfelt on Sat, 2009-06-20 15:07.
P.2
"Being racially White does not determine a person's character, religion, customs or moral views, or that of the West in general."
I disagree here. The foundations of each indigenous white nation were actually established by our respective forbearers and not present day generations, those attributes you've outlined above being part of those foundations. Of course, modes and attitudes change with the march of time, but the foundations don't. People can stray away from those foundations as is human nature to do, but by the same token, have been known to return to them in time also. Let's hope the bulk do before it's too late.
How is either or both of these realities absurd and why? Ethnicity is what defines a people as you appear to agree with at times from my reading of your posts, but somehow you then go on to contradict yourself in the same or other posts.
"Ethno-nationalism is really an empty ideology that is as misguided as the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism in its exaltation of ethnicity as a common denominator and the single most important feature of Western civilization."
How and why is Ethno-Nationalism an empty ideology? After all in encompasses all of those aspects associated with ethnicity, ie, race, heritage, language, religion, culture and traditions.
Here, you then go on to recognise the elements of ethnicity after having tended to deny them prior. however, there is one remark of yours which doesn't quite make sense. I refer to the last part of your remark, ie, ".....and there is no point in taking pride or to believe......" This is one example of your contradictory mindset. You would like Europe to remain preferably white, but for that to happen, one must pay attention to race, not deny and dismiss it - that which you call self-defeating!!!!!!!
"Nobody here will deny that the West has allowed too many foreigners with incompatible cultures and religions to settle here. But to suggest that aliens are invading Europe is a distortion of the truth."
I think you know fine well that non-white invasion is occurring and are deliberately trying to obscure the fact. I'm afaid the distortion of the truth lies with you.
The EU is currently set on a course of admitting 50 million Africans from the sub-Sahara, and that's not counting the countless number of illegals being let through with all attempts to deport them being blocked by the Marxist Common Purpose social-experiment engineers. (I'm sure you get my drift on that one)
Your contention that white Europeans are responsible for their own demise is partly true. However, you are deliberately overlooking the fact that Communism in the guise of multi-culturalism and diversity is currently the ruling order and that means Affirmative Action/Quota System for non-whites, charges of racism applicable only to indigenous whites,
You should be aware of what has been done to the education system. You should be aware of what has been done to all vestiges of Christian practice and influence by Communist dictat. You should be aware of the Communist agenda of legalising vice, yes they are even attempting to legalise paedophilia by the edict of non-condemnation. What does that mean? It means they will be setting up yet another human rights charter for the practice of vice under the heading of 'lifestyle choices.'
No wonder white natives are suicidal. They've been led astray and any attempts to get back on track are being blocked by the the architects of Cultural Marxism via the vehicles of Common Purpose, government, and the judiciary.
RE: European Left
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sat, 2009-06-20 10:18.
1. Israelis have often equated criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism in order to dismiss legitimate inquiry into the treatment of non-Jews in Israel and its occupied territories.
2. That socialists of all manner are highly critical if not decidedly opposed to the Jewish State is not surprising. Socialism's main focus is on divisions of class. While socialists clearly acknowledge racial, gender, national and religious divisions, all these are subordinate and derived from class warfare, and must too be dissolved in order to create a classless society.
3. Social democrats have proved far more successful in deconstructing affinities of race, nationality, religion and gender than communists have. Indeed, whereas communism was able to force command economics on many countries, it was never able to eradicate nationality or religion. Communist regimes eventually allied with nationalism in order to bolster their power, as in the USSR, DDR, Poland and now China (which is de facto national socialist). In fact, Eastern Europeans are far more nationalistic, xenophobic, gendered and religious than Western Europeans. Social democrats in the West, allied with economic liberals, and limited their revolution to the realm of culture.
From the back row
Submitted by PatriotUSA on Sat, 2009-06-20 08:52.
I have not posted anymore for a couple of days as I felt the argument was going around circles; a dog chasing it's own tail is the best way I can describe it. Not to say that this has not been an excellent discussion with passionate poisitions being defended and all cards tossed down on the table.
I want to tip my hat to Pale Rider and HITECH. The Conservative Manifest is of such excellent thought and writing I already have shared your CM with several people of who thought it was quite well done. Pale Rider, nothing is ever perfect and that is the best we can strive for. Perfection, to me died on the cross.
Ultranationalists are more dangerous to Conservatives than Jews.
Perhaps your best summary and a much appreciated commentary. As one those individual Jews, I certianly know what you are writing about here. As mentioned previously, being a Jew who has given his life to Christ, being extremely conservative has exposed me to many forms of attacks and accusations that many have tried to lay at my feet simply for being Jewish. Adversity and conflict are excellent teachers when one realizes the limits of such events and refuses to take them to the extreme limits that some groups do. I think you catch my drift. This will be the last post for me on this article but will do as I alawys do and follow the comments for a few more days.
@hitech
Submitted by Monarchist on Fri, 2009-06-19 19:47.
1. This is not the first time when I hale an opportunity to exchange opinion with a Jewish person. It usually happened that those who already in their first post came up with my supposed anti-Semitism, stick to this claim to the very end of discussion. This is what you call “pursuit of true understanding”? You can misinterpret my posting all you want but you cannot quote me when I would collectively blame the Jews about something.
2. Martynology of Soviet Jewry have nothing to do with my point. Those communist Jews got what they deserved, Stalin murdered plenty of communists of many ethnic origins. Revolutions usually kill their children. Trotsky could be an idealist, so was Hitler. Those people were monsters with Machiavellian mentality. Being idealistic, this is not an excuse.
You wrote that Jews did not kill for the sake of Jews. I have wrote that some commies did. Neither me or you know true motives of those people. I cannot deny that probably some Jewish commies did not kill for the sake of Jews. Also you should not deny that some of them did it. Different people had different motives. If you stubbornly stick to your version then apparently you find such position comfortable.
There is such a joke in Poland about specific attitude that some Jews hold regarding total ‘innocentness’ of their kind.
Q: Who is Roman Polanski?
3. Your claim that Russian culture was fully supported by Soviet state is simply laughable and have nothing to do with reality. This is just another anti-Russian statement of yours. It is a pity that Russian posters so rarely post here, they would have a lot of work correcting your statements.
@Monarchist , Soviet Commie Past#1
Submitted by Hitech on Fri, 2009-06-19 22:23.
Did you read the article I have suggested?
In any case ,no, sticking to the preconceived notion ,let say that you are an anti-Semite , when you support your views with facts is not "pursuing the truth " .
Pointing out that significant killers acting on behalf of Stalin, were Jewish by ethnicity - does not mean "anti-Semitism" since that is the fact.
The question comes to the motives of those murderers.
Conspiracy theorists state that they were motivated by desire to take over the Mother Russia specifically as the part of this great Jewish plot - that is not true and it is anti-Semitic.
"Being idealistic, this is not an excuse" - I totally agree with you. The notion that you can kill for your so called ideals - is a crime already. Then Hitler had the right to kill - since his ideal was pure Aryan state without Jews and who knows whom else.
This is why I am saying that the litmus test of any ideology - is in its treatment of the individual rights and the first one - the right to life. If an ideology believes that it can kill individuals to achieve it's goals - then it is totalitarian garbage and should be confronted. All totalitarian ideologies believe they have the right to kill.
Bolsheviks showed their bastardness very very early to anybody who cared to see. In 1918 when they have murdered the Czarist family . To kill children and Czar's wife was a pure evil. Czar? - I am sure one could have made a case against him - for example he has ordered the execution of demonstration by Russian people in 1905, but murdering him was the crime and Czars "crimes" - if there were such, pale in comparisment to what Bolsheviks have done. The death of those 7 people - should have been the warning of what the Bolshevik regime is capable of.
As soviet pupils we were told about that event in 2-3 minutes narrative in the grade 9. Of course the teacher ,has justified the whole thing by saying that it was the right thing to do in order to avoid future blood spilling (riight).
Don't think for a moment that I feel any sympathy to for Yagoda (Jewish Stalin's commissar) and his likes. They did get what they deserved. By the way , have you ever read what Yagoda said before he was executed?
And you are totally wrong , I am not anti-Russian , and I did not make any anti-Russian statements, I have asked you to point them out, you did not.
@Monarchist , Soviet Commie Past #2
Submitted by Hitech on Fri, 2009-06-19 22:37.
In my opinion , today's Russia, should have some kind of real process regarding its Communist past. It is not enough to state simply that Stalin was evil and killed millions , it is not enough to show movies how people have lived in fear and were taken in the middle of the night never to be seen again.
Our (I mean Soviet people) grandfathers were killing and were killed. It has to be taken apart why they did what they did, who did - even identify by nationalities....Why people did not stand up, how we were brainwashed to such level that we all believed it was the right thing for a son to kill his father . If talking specifically about Jews - I believe that after we would have accepted the fact that we are capable of very horrendous acts (AS EVERYBODY ELSE)and probably would have to say something for production of evil bastards it would be actually a good thing for Jews , since this fact of many Bolshevik commissars being Jewish in early days of USSR is the fact and the process would show their true motives . They would be many - but it would not be for the sake of Jewish people , since I truly do not see connection. There is none.
For Russians - it would clear their relations with many Eastern European people - first of all , with Ukrainians . I do believe that Ukrainians were killed in 30s because they were Ukrainians - but again, it was not done for the benefit of Russian people or Jewish people)))) If such true process is not done, and I doubt that it will be in the foreseeable future, there always will be a point of strong resentment, bordering sometimes on hate between all involved . As well with Poles, USSR has done major damage to that nation, again ,not for the benefit of a Soviet citizen, and yes, many commies who carried out the acts were Jewish Communists.
The reason there is no problem between Jews and Germans today is that Germans have stated clearly -they, under Hitler , have done evil. Nobody can bring those who were murdered , but the official Germany done what it could to show its repentance-they have introduced laws (I believe anybody can deny Holocaust for example if they wish, but not in Germany or Austria - it should be a crime , since that is a part of repentance) , they have arrived at arrangement of compensation , Israel took it - so that is it. We move on.
But any case, it is all naivite , Russia will not do such process , since it would shake the ground that its today's leaders still stand on,and there will not be one happy family since that is not how people are and we all -Jews, Russians , Poles , Lithuanians , Hungarians and a bit further on the sides - Western European people , we all will be boiling in this idiotic soup of ethnic accusations and in the meantime Europe will be going down.
To All
Submitted by Hitech on Fri, 2009-06-19 22:43.
I had learned a few things here ... I thank my interlockers , I will be reading comments if there will be any but not posting any more myself.
Pain Rider, I will be using your Conservative Manifesto when I will see it fit- definitely I wont be stating that I had come up with it)))but it makes sense, and is the only future ..I believe if it will come , but unfortunetly after some strife..democracies do not never learn fast.. Best Regards to ALL
@ Hitech and Atheling
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-06-20 01:11.
Hitech, thanks for your kind words about my rebuttal of ultranationalism and ethno-nationalism. I think you have raised many good points in your responses to Edensfelt and I tend to agree with you. I do have to admit that I'm critical of humanism and I don't subscribe to the United Nations' human rights ideology. I really only use Christian morality and Western customs as my standard. However, I still understand and largely agree with your position.
Atheling, I'm glad you liked my 'manifesto'. It's far from perfect and I could have said a lot more in it. However, I think that I have managed to get my point across reasonably well. Perhaps I should consider creating a blog where I can further elaborate on my views. In any case, do feel free to quote me; there is obviously no copyright involved here.
I won't be participating in this discussion anymore as I believe it has become an exercise in futility. I have said all I can on this subject and if people are not willing to reason or to consider the arguments, and just keep insisting that their conspiracy theories and their perverted views of Christianity are right, then they are not worth my time. I have much better things to do. I also suggest that these ethno-nationalists buy a dictionary and look up the word 'ideology' instead of twisting the word to make it suit their ends.
Have a nice weekend.
P.2 Christianity may have
Submitted by Edensfelt on Fri, 2009-06-19 19:45.
P.2
Christianity may have formed the foundation of old Western Civilisation, but it was not the supreme architect. Western Civilisation began prior to the arrival of Christianity in Europe. With the advent of Christianity, Western Civilisation took a new direction yes, but the Enlightenment era was really the start of contemporary Western Civilisation as we know it today.
Communism was foised upon European Civilisation starting in Eastern Europe. Communism (and Capitalism for that matter) are Jewish created systems with ideological templates.
The Communist ideology originally suppressed ethnic manifestations for a time then began exploiting them as a means of repressing potential insurrections by one or more communities - the divide and rule tactic which, in turn, led to bloodshed and is still doing so throughout the world as we speak. This same ideology (Communism) will co-opt waring factions and set them against one another as in the case of Serbia and Bosnia. Who controls the United Nations? I take it, you are fully aware of the part that corrupt and lawless organisation played in the persecution of Christian Serbs.
"..... and it also ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who accepted this ideology were Gentiles, e.g. Russians and others."
Are you forgetting that Communism was and still is a totalitarian creed? Were not the Russian Gentiles subjected to persecution and death threats in the event of their noncompliance? Honestly, the naiveity and stupidity of some people!
Pointing out that Stalin was thought to have been of Jewish origin, is hardly a conspiracy theory. Some say, George Bush has Jewish input on one side of his family tree, is that a conspiracy theory too? Don't be so hysterical, for goodness sake!
"Communists "slaughtered Jews shows that they were not motivated by destroying the Gentiles or Christianity; they wanted to install Communist utopia and abolish all religion, plain and simple"
Your above statement is alarmingly blinkered and totally misleading.
Let me ask you, a question,
Why is the Communist agenda appeasing Islam and aiding and abetting Islamic takeover of the West? Well!
You can be as skeptical and as vehemently opposed to ethno-nationalism as much as you like, but you will not succeed in extinguishing what is part of human nature regardless of race and creed.
Edensfelt Stop Digging
Submitted by Capodistrias on Fri, 2009-06-19 15:38.
You aren't going to find the Ark of the Covenant buried under Stalin.
Ethno-Nationalism
Submitted by Capodistrias on Thu, 2009-06-18 19:49.
Edensfelt said:
"Ethno-Nationalism is not a betrayal of Western civilization. What a gross and despictable lie. Nor is Christianity an open-door invitation to eternal invasion and subsequent colonisation, but it is being cynically used as such by followers of the Marxist and Trotskyite agenda including so-called Conservatives."
Ethno-Nationalism has often and does often manifest itself as a betrayal of Western Civilization, though you would be correct in asserting that it does not have to be the case, nor has it always been the case.
However, the core of what is being debated here is a simple directive which lies at the heart of Western Civilzation : "Go Forth to All Nations."
Edensfelt is right in asserting that Christianity is not an open-door invitation to eteranl invasion. But it is an open-door invitation for eternal evangilization for each Christian's eternal salvation, if one attempts to define or direct 'Western Civilization' in contradiction to that imperative, and it was an imperative, then one has aborted the very essence of what Western Civilization has had to offer the world.
To lump Conservatives who understand and embrace such a fundamnetal element of Western Civilization with 'the Marxist and Trotskyist agenda' is a gross and despicable accusation.
Ethno-Nationalism
Submitted by Edensfelt on Fri, 2009-06-19 00:36.
Capodistrias
"But it is an open-door invitation for eternal evangilization for each Christian's eternal salvation, if one attempts to define or direct 'Western Civilization' in contradiction to that imperative, and it was an imperative, then one has aborted the very essence of what Western Civilization has had to offer the world."
Some posters here seem to be labouring under the illusion that Christianity still dominates and shapes Western Civilisation. It doesn't - not any longer. Communism has seen to that - at least for the time being.
To keep on manipulating the teachings of Christianity to provide a cover for the condoning of alien invasion which is leading to gradual territorial dispossession of indigenous white peoples of every white homeland along with the removal of their respective heritages, native languages, cultures and traditions to be replaced by those of every race of alien invader on this planet, is dowright satanic and murderous.
"To lump Conservatives who understand and embrace such a fundamnetal element of Western Civilization with 'the Marxist and Trotskyist agenda' is a gross and despicable accusation."
I take it, you are jesting, my friend. I sincerely hope so!
Conservatives are amongst the biggest hypocrites walking up and down the corridors of power today and few, if any, pay any respect to Christian teachings, let alone live by them. If those that profess to be Christians were to live accordingly, very soon they'd find their cushy political careers under threat for going against the grain (of Marxism). None that I've ever heard of, have ever publically demonstrated their Christian convictions and a willingness and put their careers on the line for them.
Please, Capodistrias, remove your blinkers and face the real world for once.
@Edensfelt and your comment about Stalin
Submitted by Hitech on Fri, 2009-06-19 06:47.
Edensfelt, no offence , but this is such bullshit..Regardless of the fact that you focus too much on ethnicity since the ideologies are the ones who play major role in the evolution of societies, not enthnicities -you got to get the grip on the reality , and Neo-Nazi sites is not the place where you find it.
Edensfelt and your comment about Stalin
Submitted by Edensfelt on Fri, 2009-06-19 10:33.
"Edensfelt, no offence , but this is such bullshit..Regardless of the fact that you focus too much on ethnicity since the ideologies are the ones who play major role in the evolution of societies, not enthnicities -you got to get the grip on the reality , and Neo-Nazi sites is not the place where you find it."
So, according to you, my stating that Stalin was thought to have had been of Jewish ancestry (I said he was thought to have been, not that he definitely was of Jewish ancestry) and my pointing out that mass invasion of white Western nations by non-white Third World races replete with their alien cultures, has major implications for white indigenous peoples, is bullshit.
You go on to state that it's only ideologies that play a major role in the evolution of societies, not ethnicities. Your synopsis is a total falsehood.
Let me explain: Ideologies are a product of cultural beliefs and traditions which, in turn, are products of ethnicity or ethnicities. Therefore, ideologies ultimately stem from ethnicity.
Are you suggesting that a country invaded by ethnicities of different races of non-white background is not also going to, in time, reflect this in the demographics and that indigenous white peoples are not in danger of being rendered first a minority and then extinct in their respective homelands?
No, I would point out that it's you, Hitech who needs to get a grip on reality and confine yourself to dedicated Neo-Marxist websites on which Marxist Liberal anti-white propaganda feeding is the principal agenda.
A Conservative's Manifesto - Part II
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Fri, 2009-06-19 05:58.
3. The Gospel is meant for all nations, full stop. Capo is entirely correct in saying that Western civilization has historically had a sense of mission and that is what makes it so unique. This mission was not to glorify one's race and go around the world to annihilate or subjugate the enemies of Christianity and foreigners, but to spread the Gospel of redemption to the lost. And please look up the meaning of this wonderful word 'Redemption'. During the time of the Crusades, Francis of Assissi actually went up to the Sultan and was allowed to preach the Gospel to the Muhammedans. How many of these extreme ethno-nationalists would be willing to do such a noble and inherently Christian thing as to preach the Gospel to our adverseries? And how would these ultranationalists actually preach the Gospel if they do not actually understand it? I have seen myself that many ultranationalists and White Nationalists who claim to be Christian actually claim that Jesus and St. Paul were somehow White men and not Semites. Some even claim that modern-day Jews are Asiatics and use this nonsense to further their hatred of the Jews and their theories that the Jews are responsible for Western decadence. Many of these people do not even understand basic Christian doctrine, they just recite a creed and they think they are saved. From what he wrote, I assume that Edensfelt includes me among those guilty of manipulating Christian teachings. Well, then, surely John Calvin must also have been a manipulator and a heretic who should have been burned at a stake.
4. I believe that it is my duty to love my people and to defend them when they are under attack. I don't put up with these ultranationalist fanatics who call me a traitor for disagreeing with their racialist drivel. I was born in a family and to a people for a reason and I embrace my nationality and my ethnicity as a gift and the will of God, period. I am a patriot. Conservatism entails a sense of non-ideological nationalism (patriotism) and a sense of attachment to one's "ethnicity". Nevertheless, this is not the essence or the heart of conservatism; it is not my duty to support my people at all times. If they persist in their devious ways then I will not support them in their stupidity just because I share their ethnicity. Conservatism is about tradition, but also about a quest for truth, and righteousness. Conservatism's basic belief is taken from Christianity - man is utterly fallible and ruled by his passions. This belief is what lead men like Burke, Wilberforce and Alexander Hamilton to oppose slavery; they did not refrain from rebuking their own people for being guilty of immorality and evil. The ultranationalists and racialists would surely have looked upon them as traitors. However, they considered it to be logical to oppose evil in defense of order, liberty and the God-given rights of individuals. That was their 'ideology' and their creed. When I read the writings of these men, I see wisdom, civility and a love of liberty. When I look at White Nationalist movements, I see twisting of history, a message of hatred, and a blind collectivist adherence to a race-based and artificially constructed ideology that vilifies and excludes people that do not merit such indecent slander. Their vision does not remind me of any of the traditions that I love so dearly about the Anglo-Saxon countries - or Western civilization at large, and not of the Gospel either. Surely they are not people I would want to have in charge of my country any more than the present-day PC elite or Muslim fanatics. It would only replace one tyranny by another.
In short, ultranationalism in its extremism is as dangerous and condemnable as liberalism is to true political conservate thought. This is what I believe and have arrived at by my own observations. This is all getting off-topic and I apologize for that to the writer of the article. I'm afraid that I have just wasted yet another hour or more of my time. But then again, this debate, however unfortunate, is unavoidable. In any case, I think that I have said everything I can on the subject; I will not keep arguing in this thread. Judge for yourself.
@Pale Rider's Manifesto
Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2009-06-19 06:31.
That was beautiful. I could not have said it more eloquently, and I would love to quote you on it.
Conservative Manifesto
Submitted by Hitech on Fri, 2009-06-19 06:24.
very principled. That is the only way. I will coment later
Conservative Manifesto
Submitted by Hitech on Fri, 2009-06-19 06:24.
very principled. That is the only way. I will coment later
A Conservative's Manifesto - Rebuttal of ethno/ultranationalism
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Fri, 2009-06-19 05:56.
My thoughts after having read Edensfelt's response to Capodistrias. KO, I think this will also provide an answer to your question about my views of ethnic nationalism.
1. Modern-day Western society is shaped by cultural Marxism and therefore it is somehow necessary to create a race-based ideology as an alternative? Exactly how do you determine ethnicity. Is there an American ethnicity? Is there an English ethnicity? Are they to be considered ethnic Germanics? Or should one lump all Europeans together and call them the "White race"? Does that include the Armenians and the Georgians? What about the Jews who are Semitic and not Indo-European despite the fact that they often look very much like White Europeans and have lived in Europe for centuries. Are they to be considered foreign or should they have a right to live here? And are all of White peoples driven by the same beliefs? The Flemish are overwhelmingly Germanic, and so are the Dutch. Both are closely related and arguably one and the same people from an ethnic point of view. Nevertheless they have grown apart over the centuries and they have different traditions and cultures. The Germans are a related people but they are a nation in their own right with a different history and character. The fact that I'm ethnically Germanic does not lead me to associate myself with a Norwegian more than with a Frenchman just because the Norwegians are Germanics and the French are less so. Being racially White does not determine a person's character, religion, customs or moral views, or that of the West in general. The inclination to let everything revolve around ethnicity is absurd and so is taking pride in one's color of skin. Ethno-nationalism is really an empty ideology that is as misguided as the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism in its exaltation of ethnicity as a common denominator and the single most important feature of Western civilization. The preservation of one's ethnicity depends on a nation's attachment to morality, culture and tradition - these cannot be separated. I would want the majority of Europeans to remain White but whether it will remain so depends on the various indigenous European peoples themselves and there is no point in taking pride or to believe in a self-defeating race or people.
2. Nobody here will deny that the West has allowed too many foreigners with incompatible cultures and religions to settle here. But to suggest that aliens are invading Europe is a distortion of the truth. The fact of the matter is that indigenous Europeans are committing suicide themselves due to their idolatry of cultural Marxist concepts of gender equality, feminism and multiculturalism. They have only themselves to blame. That non-White populations living in Western countries have higher birthrates is not in itself a crime and neither does it make them guilty of some collective invasion or conspiracy. They are not at fault for having higher birthrates; after all, they are not feminized cultural Marxists the 'indigenous' Whites are. It is the present weakness of Western civilization due to the indigenous peoples' rejection of Christian morality and natural order that is to be blamed for this sorry state of affairs. If people are too proud and unwilling to admit and repent then they have only themselves to blame when at some point they find themselves to be in the minority. If Whites would return to traditional family values and live by those principles, then minorities would always remain in the minority and they would be able to retain their traditions, cultures and national heritage. Another thing I must add: non-Whites are individuals who have inalienable rights also. To be equally opposed to a non-White but law-abiding and perhaps even patriotic citizen, as to a Wahabbi Imam preaching hatred and destruction of the West, is downright immoral and unjust. We must discriminate between those non-White individuals who truly are hostile and conspiring against the West, and those who are not.
pale rider
Submitted by Edensfelt on Sat, 2009-06-20 15:02.
P.1
"Modern-day Western society is shaped by cultural Marxism and therefore it is somehow necessary to create a race-based ideology as an alternative? Exactly how do you determine ethnicity."
Ethnicity is determined by bloodline, culture and religious affiliations. Surely, that's not so difficult to understand. However, one then has to ask the question, who are the true natives of a particular territory? What race has rightful claim on that territory? It stands to reason that only one race can have such a claim, ie, the first settlers, the indigenous inhabitants, of course. They arrived first and naturally shaped the territory in their own image over a considerable time span.
"Is there an American ethnicity? Is there an English ethnicity?"
English certainly. American ethnicity - debatable!
The North American continent (which is the section usually associated with Americanism and all things pertaining) has an indigenous peoples known collectively as Amerindian, who lived nomadic lives and never developed the ability to build cities, create legal and political institutions, education system, healthcare systems, and so on. (You get the picture!) It was only after the migration of white Europeans to America, (I refer specifically to North America since this is where white Europeans made their mark and effected total transformation of that landmass.)
Consequently, it is difficult to define what American ethnicity is since whites are not indigenous to America. Neither are Arabs, Negroes and Orientals either, for that matter.
"Are they to be considered ethnic Germanics? Or should one lump all Europeans together and call them the "White race"?
Within the white race, just like any race, there are separate nationalities. Germans are one such nationalitiy with their separate culture, language and traditions like all the rest. Language is one of the most prominent ethnic distinctiveness markers, by the way. However, someone who is not racially white but speaks a white language, is not ethnic English, or German, or Dutch and so on as the case may be.
Your 'white race' terminology would not include certain Semites. Indigenous Armenians and Georgians would be included in the 'white race' category, that is if they are genetically white in the first place. Regarding Jews, it depends what on branch of Semites you are referring to. We have to distinguish between those descended from those who merely converted to Judaism and who happen to be white and those who are clearly not.
P.2The ethno-Nationalist
Submitted by Edensfelt on Thu, 2009-06-18 18:07.
P.2
The ethno-Nationalist view is not what is extremist, rather it's the so-called Conservative view which is extremely criminally negligent when it comes to dealing with serious and dangerous developments that have arisen due solely to alien Third World invasion.
Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists all love to adopt the old Holier-than-Thou attitude on the question of white Ethno-Nationalism, but make absolutely no reference to the non-white equivalents and their refusal to allow alien races to overrun their societies. Non-whites know what will happen if they are foolish enough like white nations, to tolerate such suicidal behaviour. Neither do they dish out citizenship and Affirmative Action like confetti upon all and sundry foreigners who come begging cap-in-hand or gate-crashing their homelands.
Compassion can also be wholly destructive when the sentiment is carried to extremes as we are witnessing at the present time which has given rise to actual ongoing invasion as far as asylum involving dangerous races and creeds is concerned and still we are hearing the mindless advocation of even more relentless immigration on the grounds of escape from persecution and starvation, etc, etc, etc. The United Nations states that those escaping persecution should seek the nearest safe country to their own. Travelling across continents to Western lands does not constitute escape from persecution.
Should not immigration into the West be completely halted?
Are the after-effects such as the arrival of spouses and extended families, many carrying dangerous viruses, not to be considered at all, let alone a priority?
What about the various multitudes already within our territories whose birthrates are spiralling out of control?
What about the continued availablity of natural resources and arable land for crop production, and the burden of non-stop additional taxation needed to keep on expanding the general infrastructures of Western nations which, in turn, causes increasing depletion of available open spaces due solely to such unfettered invasion? Well!
I wouldn't mind if your sarcasm, satire, irony as you put it, was pertinent to the point put forward, but it wasn't.
Ethno-Nationalism is not a betrayal of Western civilization. What a gross and despictable lie. Nor is Christianity an open-door invitation to eternal invasion and subsequent colonisation, but it is being cynically used as such by followers of the Marxist and Trotskyite agenda including so-called Conservatives.
@ Edensfelt
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2009-06-18 18:53.
Give me one example of where I stated that I support mass immigration and multiculturalism. The truth is I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a problem. As a conservative (I don't mean a member of the Conservative Party, I'm not even British) I obviously disagree with these products of cultural Marxism but I also oppose those who turn the issue into an ethnic one, as if 'Britishness' was determined solely by one's color of skin. I am not ashamed of being White and Germanic but this does not determine my very being or my character. It is, however, part of my identity and I would want to see Europe remain 'White'. But I would first and foremost like to see a revival of Christian morality and true historic Western CIVILization! However, I entirely reject any ideology that is about pride of one's race. I'm not proud of Western civilization because it is White. The fact that its people are White does not make it inherently good or better than other civilizations. These ethnocentric ideologies often go against the different traditions in various Western nations. They make something as mechanical and artificial as an ideology out of a nation, its people, faith and traditions. Why I talked of compassion and morality? I don't believe in compassion as policy or an excuse for multiculturalism, but as a force for Westerners to remain civilized and not to dogmatically oppose and vilify all who are not of the same origins. Western civilization would never have reached the status it did if it weren't for Christianity. That is, a religion with Jewish origins, 'imported' from the Middle East and which very first core adherents consisted mostly of Jews.
As for your statements about Communism, it really just reinforces what I have said earlier. You claim that Jews created Communism to destroy Christianity and the Gentiles. Gentiles are non-Jews, that also includes Semitic peoples like the Arabs and Assyrians who are not Jewish. You speak of Jews slaughtering others but who slaughtered Greek and Armenian Christians again? And who wanted to destroy the Slavic peoples? Just to give a few examples. You claim that because Marx or Trotsky were technically Jewish, they must have been motivated by a hatred of Christianity. This entirely ignores the fact that they did not take any pride in being Jewish and it also ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who accepted this ideology were Gentiles, e.g. Russians and others. You say Stalin is thought of as having a Jewish mother and we are to agree with your conspiracy nonsense based on an assumption? The fact that they slaughtered Jews shows that they were not motivated by destroying the Gentiles or Christianity; they wanted to install Communist utopia and abolish all religion, plain and simple.
I hope this clarifies what I have said and why I am skeptical of ethno-nationalism and why I am, as a conservative and as a Christian, vehemently opposed to racialist movements such as White Nationlism, White Supremacism, Black Pride, La Raza, and other such extremist ideologies.
Best regards.
P.1I never said you
Submitted by Edensfelt on Fri, 2009-06-19 19:42.
P.1
I never said you personally support mass immigration and multi-culturalism. but the idealology you profess to belong to, ie,
Conservativism fails to speak out against it or whatsmore, do anything concrete about it either.
Ethnicity is not just about culture it is primarily about racial origins. For instance, can indigenous white Europeans be classed as Indians, Negroes, Arabs and Orientals or vice versa? Are we all the same race? No, of course! Btw, the correct term for classification of any living organism including man, is species. 'Race' and, in the case of all animal specie, the word ' breed' denotes the various sub-species within any given category. Likewise, does the word 'race' in relation to the human species.
You say you would like to see Europe remain 'White' (albeit with a tongue-in-cheek attitude) then you effectively deny there is any such category as white people at all by your use of quotation marks. One cannot, on one hand, assert that he/she would like Europe to remain 'White' and then on the other, go on ignoring the demographic affects of a collective over-population of non-white races along with their ongoing unhindered excessive procreational habits within the confines of white homelands, regardless. It becomes perfectly obvious to all but the intentionally blinkered that permitting this state of affairs to continue unchallenged, will ensure the indigenous European inhabitants are bred out of existence within less than 150 years. So, that's OK with so-called Conservative minded adherents is it?
That attitude is one of the many instances of collective hyprocisy fostered by an aligned political class who no longer espouse differing principals or policies on the political front. All formally separate political parties have fused into one entity of which the architects and orchestrators comprise of a combined Jewish-led New World Order totalitarian elite. These are some of the several facts that are now been criminalised in the hope that truth and evidence no longer form the basis of morality, justice, sanity and realism. In other words, if the powers-that-be can maintain their wall of deception and lies which they've carefully constructed and implemented over decades for forced consumption by the common herds, the cattle can then be used, abused and even dispensed with at will when and where deemed expedient.
If one rejects the concept of pride for a civilisation that was built and nurtured by one's genetic forbearers, he has denied his forbearers and everything they've strived for, achieved and bequeathed to their descendants AND the world at large. If he is prepared to go that far, then such an individual would be also prepared to have others deny that it was his forbearers who founded that civilisation thus allowing such enemies to stip him and my implication his progeny and ethnic group, of the racial and cultural aspect of their identity which precisely is what is happening to the decendants of the founding fathers of Western Civilisation today.
"The fact that its people are White does not make it inherently good or better than other civilizations. These ethnocentric ideologies often go against the different traditions in various Western nations. They make something as mechanical and artificial as an ideology out of a nation, its people, faith and traditions."
This statement of yours uniquely validates my previous remarks.
Nations have sprung from tribes who have evolved from the same racial stock, similar cultures and traditions and as mankind evolved intellectually, his natural priorities have been to secure the continued preservation of himself, his immediate offspring and future progeny within his particular group. This is where racial and cultural surivial come in. In self-loathing white Liberal circles, however, this human trait is denounced as a mechanical and artificial ideology on par with hate crime, but such disciples of Liberalism fail to recognise that the very anti-white racist philosophy they've willingly submitted to, IS actually an ideology - Liberal ideology, in fact.
You say, you believe in compassion "as a force for Westerners to remain civilized and not to dogmatically oppose and vilify those not of the same origins". What you are really suggesting is that Westerners should continue clinging to the misplaced Christian notion of love thine enemy and be tolorant of those who seek to destroy you. A turning of the other cheek, so to speak.
@ PR and Edensfelt
Submitted by KO on Thu, 2009-06-18 19:47.
Gentlemen: What I have noticed in my time reading and occasionally posting on this website is that stubborn proponents of total govermental colorblindness, on one side, and racial realists and ethnic advocates, on the other side, can agree that at the present time, there is virtually no need for additional Third World immigration, and no need for mass Third World immigration, ever. Thus, with respect to the task at hand, i.e., preventing Western nations from dissolving into dozens of strife-ravaged Bosnias, the two sides of the discussion can act as one and agree that a moratorium must be placed on all immigration. From there, after the assimilation problem has eased after 3 or 4 decades, a rational, nation-preserving policy can be hammered out in the political arena, with compromises on quotas and gross numbers that the political process will allow. My point is just that there is no need for patriots to be at each other's throats about race or the Jews until the fire of mass Third World immigration has been extinguished.
People who are obsessed with hatred towards particular groups should try to get over it, for their own good. That does not mean forgetting specific real or threatened injuries by specific ethnic or religious groups. PR, you can provoke with statements such as, Being white is part of who I am but it doesn't determine who I am. On the one hand you concede the reality of race in constituting human identity, on the other you appear to withdraw that concession and deny that it has any role in constituting identity. You also say that religion totally determines the identity (pardon any misquotation, but you catch my drift). A realistic sense of human nature, it seems to me, would have to recognize that race, religion, other cultural factors, and specific contextual circumstances might all play a role in thought and action at a given time. There is no basis for categorically excluding anything unless it never has a role in any circumstances.
RE: @ PR and Edensfelt
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2009-06-18 20:09.
KO, I am not advocating total colorblindness and neither have I asserted anywhere that ethnicity is not significant. On the contrary, I have said that it is part of who we are. I am White and genetically Germanic for all I know but that is not my identity. I am Flemish and a Southern Dutchman. I do not identify more with Germany than with France just because the Germans are more Germanic than the French, if you catch my drift. The English are as Germanic if not more genetically Germanic than the Germans are, and yet Germany and England have often been each other's rivals through history. The preservation of one's identity and nation cannot be based on collectivistic and supranational ideas about the White 'race' needing to be defended against non-Whites, which I think is very simplistic and often perverts or deliberately rips history or fact out of context. It is a composition of ethnicity, morals, language, history and traditions that makes a nation and a people. That is why such extremist and radical man-made concepts as White Nationalism, White Pride or racial supremacy, are at odds with a Conservative outlook on national preservation. I hope this clarifies my position.
Best regards.
@ PR
Submitted by KO on Fri, 2009-06-19 00:04.
Thank you for your reply. You have a reasonable and inclusive view and I wholeheartedly agree on the composite nature of nationhood. I do not include you in the stubbornly, ideologically colorblind. However, when you say national survival cannot be based on ethnic nationalism, I am still in some doubt as to whether your meaning is that it cannot be based SOLELY on ethnic nationalism, with which I agree because nationhood is a more fluid and composite construct, or that it cannot be based on ethnic nationalism AT ALL, which results in ethnic suicide because it prevents people from protecting their borders, demography, and culture from the demands of outsiders. I think it helps to see a nation as a collection of overlapping categories, and at the next lowest level a collection of families. Race and culture both have continuity through families, and individuals perpetuate the race and culture of their families. As a practical matter, when considering the relations of groups and not individuals, race and culture are inseparable.
I think your position is well expressed by Lawrence Auster's saying that race is essential, but not important. It is part of who you are, but it is not the basis of your merit or your society's merit. Perhaps one could say it is the material, not the form, of a culture or an individual.
@ Hitech and PatriotUSA
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2009-06-18 14:30.
Thanks a lot for your posts and I'm glad to see we agree. Hitech, what motivates me? Well, I have always been concerned with truth. I am angered by the nonsensical claims and twisting of history by the ultranationalist to further their cause, especially with regard to the Jews. Of course they will say I'm a Zionist agent or even a traitor for disagreeing with them, but all I'm trying to do is persuade them with facts. So do I presume to have the absolute truth? Definitely not. But I do know one thing after all the exchanges I've had: extreme ethnocentrism and extreme nationalism to the point where everything revolves around anti-Zionism and ethnicity rather than tradition and morality, are not conservatism, and it actually hurts the conservative cause.
What people need to understand is that ultranationalism will lead to a collectivist society where everyone will be expected to conform to what the State declares to be 'national identity'. You can then forget about individual liberty. As a conservative and a religious 'Dissenter' in an overwhelmingly Catholic nation, I highly prize liberty and limited government. Let it be clear that my notion of liberty is not a libertarian one though; liberty needs morality and order.
Ethnicity is part of who we are but it is not what makes us who we are. Ultimately ethnicity means very little when you see some non-Whites being more moral than White natives. Cultural Marxism is to blame for having lead to the present demographic crises. When a nation is unrepentant and persists in its idolatry of cultural Marxist concepts, it is of course more convenient to simply blame non-White foreigners, or some Jewish conspiracy. To preserve our ethnicity we must first and foremost persuade the indigenous people to change their ways.
I hope Monarchist will reply on this subject of the Jews. He strike me as someone who can think for himself and I value that. I like that he dares challenge our modern-day liberal democracies so openly, and I also appreciate his strong criticism of [ultra]nationalism.
Best regards.
A View from The Right #2
Submitted by PatriotUSA on Thu, 2009-06-18 09:27.
Pale Rider Wrote:
Most Jews have hardened hearts. I think that is why so many are often so very hostile to Christians, and most Israelis to this day are either very secular or religious and strongly against Christianity. I think that is also why most Jews cannot seem to be able to look at things from a Gentile's perspective for once. I wish more of them had the courage to do that. After all, I can perfectly understand why many Jews are skeptical or even hostile to Christianity, even though it is still misguided from my point of view.
Pretty accurate and what I have found as well. I have experineced hostility from both Christians and Jews. It was worse from my fellow Jews that I knew as most were horrified that I had given my life to Christ while still holding and cherishing my Jewish roots and heritage. Some Christians on the other hand, were nice up front but they were the ones who were the meanest behind my back. I just refuse to let these types get to me and move on with my life. I am not villifying either one of the above. Just saying it comes from both sides. Part of my family is from Lithunia and Russia. It certainly has helped me out as I am from a stubborn and slightly crazed lot that served as freedom fighters against the Germans and the Russians. I do see or at least try to see things from a gentile persepective. I do not agree with Jewish hostility towards Christiains nor have I ever shown that myself. I have never hidden who I am, my religious or spiritual side from anyone or anything. I do feel I am taking a risk these days saying who I am but as Pale Rider said:
"I'm truly grateful to see that we have Jewish members on this website who are with the Western conservative "Gentiles". I hope it will persuade the skeptics and haters that the Jews as a whole are not our enemy." No I am not your enemy and there are many of us who feel as I do. The leftards of liberalism are the only that are out for blood. They rot the foundations of my country from the ground up, trying to destroy the roots of the country, the Constitution, here in the USA. The cost will be to the freedom and liberty that we still enjoy here. Multiculturalism and diversity tears at the fabric of traditions and as mentioned, the natural order. Mark Levin hits on this quite well in his latest book "Liberty and Tyranny" A Conservative Manifesto. Excellent book, I highly recommned it.
Monarchist raises some interesting points about eastern Europe and the Jews there being quite bigoted. Those that are shoot themselves in the foot and I even grow weary of what comes from these people. Yes, these attitudes and displays of anti-semitism surely push these people to favor the palestinians, something that I think needs to be changed but that is a topic for another discussion.
Attitudes changing would be a great start. I have read ALOT about the treatment of arab Christians in Islamic countries and it is by and large horrible and violent as I have found islam to be, for the most part. And yes, I do study and read, daily. I think the Islamic countries have much more to answer for in how they treat not only arab Christians but just about any other religion, race or ideology.
Hitech: Would be glad to discuss your thoughts and views. Why I like BJ. There are intellectuals from all over here and most are respectful of others and their opinon, even when they disagree. Cheers to all and I am headed to the fridge for a cold one.
RE: +Michael and ++Rowan
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Thu, 2009-06-18 00:29.
I used the example of the BNP not to turn this into a discussion about the BNP but to point out ultranationalist hypocrisy.
As for Nazir-Ali, the Christian faith determines one's entire person. Therefore I think Nazir-Ali was right in publicly criticizing the BNP and he merely performed his duty as a pastor in warning his flock. I'm not saying I fully agree with what he wrote though; he's not a statesman after all. But at least he has a conservative rather than an ultranationalist mindset.
And yes, Atlanticist is right. If they were Conservatives at all they would not object to law-abiding non-White British citizens joining their party.
RE: +Michael and ++Rowan
Submitted by Edensfelt on Thu, 2009-06-18 01:39.
Bishop Nazir-Ali would also be aware of what the Bible says regarding
"let him who be without sin...."
"And yes, Atlanticist is right. If they were Conservatives at all they would not object to law-abiding non-White British citizens joining their party."
Just a minute! You are aware that the British National Party was founded for the defence of the indigenous white peoples of the United Kingdom? Furthermore, they are the only defenders of the native British people and their ancestral homelands.
Would you be so quick as to openly condemn the considerable number of non-white only organisations representing every non-white race and creed across the whole of the political and social spectum in our ancestral homeland, for their non-inclusion of white members? Well!!! The numbers involved must be in the order of at least one thousand by now yet you begrudge indigenous white nations the luxury of just one self-interest group. How utterly intolerant and anti-white racist such an attitude is.
They do say, that sometimes the root causes of the biggest obstruction to racial and cultural survival and thus the greatest enemy of them all, are often members of one's own race.