Messages

[Never forgive, never forget, and NEVER debate the goyim!]

One of my favorite questions to some unthinking paleface who decides to introduce the word "antiSemitism" into a discussion with me.

Can there be antiSemites without Semitism any more than there can be anti-communists without communism? That's a real stumper, one that the uncritical judeophile has trouble wrapping his mind around. So I define Semitism for him: Jewish supremacy, or, if he prefers, Judeofascists. If the one you are debating hasn't left the field by then, ask him to please try and explain away a few other glaring inconsistencies about his "antiSemite" buzz term -- and there are many, which should be on the tip of your tongue.

There is no reason our side should EVER lose a substantive debate with either a Xian herd animal or a Jew. Thus the Jewish maxim:

Never forgive, never forget, and NEVER debate the goyim!

So, in that context, digest the following statement from Dr. Wilson's article (below): "Nazis were antisemitic because of what Jews did to them," and put a Creator's spin on it for intellectual exercise.

PS. It would help if one will first read the works of Drs. Wilson (DS and EO, especially) and MacDonald in order to speak on a subject like evolutionary group theory from an informed point of view.

---

David Sloan Wilson Comments
    http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/slate-wilson.html

    The Debates

    Two Comments by David Sloan Wilson

    Selfish Groups and Adaptive Fictions: Two Themes Addressed by Kevin
    MacDonald Worth Defending

    This is David Sloan Wilson, the "leading advocate of group selection
    theory" mentioned in Shulevitz's article on Kevin MacDonald. The
    reason I did not return her phone call (she only made one) is that I
    was out of the country. I think that Kevin is being unfairly
    criticized. In fact, it is shameful how quickly those who are
    sensitive to being demonized are willing to demonize others. Even
    evolutionary psychologists, who have experienced their share of
    persecution in academic circles, seem more concerned to protect
    their own reputations than to defend the work of their colleague.

    I have read Kevin's first book and will shortly read the other two.
    When I do, I won't be shy about commenting on them. I have also had
    numerous discussions with Kevin about his work. The reason I do not
    regard Kevin's work as anti-Semitic is because he is developing a
    general theory of human social groups, of which Judaism is an
    example. The theory includes two major themes that are well worth
    defending. The first is the theme of groups as corporate units that
    care about their own welfare much more than the welfare of
    outsiders. This theme has a long history in all branches of the
    social sciences. From psychology we know how easily individuals make
    Us vs. Them distinctions. From anthropology we know how many
    traditional societies draw a moral circle around themselves and
    regard outsiders as literally nonhuman. Evolutionary views on groups
    as corporate units are complicated. Group selection, the process
    that would explain the evolution of adaptive groups at face value,
    was largely rejected in the 1960's. I think that the rejection was
    unwarranted and that group selection has been a strong force in
    human evolution (see E. Sober and D.S. Wilson, Unto Others: The
    Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Harvard University
    Press 1998). However, even evolutionary biologists who remain
    skeptical about group selection, such as Richard Alexander, John
    Hartung, and John Tooby, manage to think about groups as corporate
    units in more individualistic terms. Thus, there is much more
    agreement about the concept of selfish human groups than about group
    selection.

    The second theme concerns the adaptive value of human belief
    systems. A naïve brand of evolutionary epistemology claims that it
    is always adaptive to perceive the world the way the world really
    is. If so, then evolution would become a simple substitute for God
    as the agent that endows our species with the ability to know.
    Unfortunately, there are countless ways that even outrageously false
    beliefs can produce behaviors that are adaptive in the real world,
    which is the only criterion of success as far as evolution is
    concerned. Thus, a sophisticated evolutionary epistemology must deal
    with the problem of adaptive fictions, which makes knowing an
    unnatural act or natural only in certain contexts.

    I interpret Kevin's work as using Judaism as an exceptionally
    well-documented culture for which these two themes can be examined
    (along with a number of secondary themes). In my work I use other
    groups to study the same themes, including Christian faiths such as
    Anabaptism and Calvinism (No one has yet accused me of being
    anti-Anabaptist or anti-Calvinist). Sports teams, business
    corporations, and political movements provide other fine examples of
    selfish groups and adaptive fictions.

    Shortly after I finished Kevin's first book I happened to read The
    Slave, a novel by Isaac Bashevis Singer, and I was impressed by the
    correspondence between the two books. The Slave is about a devout
    young Jewish man who, during a period as a slave, falls in love with
    and marries a gentile woman. When he is freed and returns to his
    Jewish community, the only way he can bring his wife with him is for
    her to pretend that she is deaf and dumb.

    This love story takes place against the background of a Jewish
    community that springs up on the estate of an inept Polish nobleman
    who has hired Jews to manage his affairs. In no time, the Jewish
    community is churning out goods at unbeatable prices, even Catholic
    artifacts which strictly speaking is against the law. At the same
    time, there is always the threat of violence from the resentful
    Poles. The main difference between Singer's wonderful novel and
    Kevin's scholarly book is that Singer portrays the Jewish community
    as less cooperative than does MacDonald. According to Singer, Jewish
    communities, like other communities, have their share of individuals
    who are dedicated to feathering their own nests, even at the expense
    of their group.

    I would like those who regard Kevin's work as anti-Semitic to read
    The Slave and tell me how the two books differ from each other in
    their essential messages (alternatively, they can explain to me why
    Singer is anti-Semitic). Until then, I will continue to regard Kevin
    as a valued colleague who is addressing fundamental questions about
    human groups from an evolutionary perspective. There is a great need
    to understand both the bright side and the dark side of our groupish
    nature, to expand our moral circles as widely as possible and to
    suppress the Us vs. Them mentality that is so easily triggered in
    our species.
    __________________________________________________________

    David Wilson's Second Fray Comment

    It is frustrating for me to read so much nonsense on the subject of
    group selection, especially in a dialogue on fringe science. It is
    also instructive that the graduate student who informed Judith of
    group selection's respectability asked to remain anonymous. I can
    clear the air on the subject of group selection but it will require
    a bit more than a Fray posting. I hope that the editors of Slate
    will provide me the opportunity.

    The purpose of this post is to comment on the MacDonald quote that
    ended Judith's article. She found it antisemitic but I see symmetry.
    To rephrase the passage in abstract terms: Group A is threatened by
    group B and exaggerates the threat to its own members. Group B is
    threatened by group A and exaggerates the threat to its own members.
    As long as we stick to a general theory of what I called selfish
    groups and adaptive fictions in my earlier post, we are on safe and
    very important scientific ground.

    Judith's rendering of the passage was "those scheming Jews, the
    evolutionary justification for anti-Semitism." Consider the
    following two statements:

    1) Individual A is justified in destroying individual B because
    individual B behaved selfishly toward individual A.

    2) Group A is justified in destroying group B because group B
    behaved selfishly toward group A.

    The first statement is not morally acceptable at the level of
    individual interactions and the second statement is no more
    acceptable at the level of group interactions. Furthermore, truly
    selfish individuals/groups don't require justification to prey on
    other individuals/groups, any more than a lion requires
    justification to prey on gazelles. If Nazi Germany acted as a
    selfish group, the most exemplary behavior in the world would not
    have protected the Jews. I would therefore challenge a statement of
    the form "Nazis were antisemitic because of what Jews did to them."
    If only groups were so morally principled!

    This brings us to the general concept of morality: What unites
    individuals or groups into a single moral community that rewards
    good conduct and punishes selfishness? Hint: multilevel selection
    has something to do with it.

    David Sloan Wilson
    Professor, Department of Biological Sciences
    Binghamton University
    Binghamton, New York 13902-6000
    tel: 607-777-4393 fax: 607-777-6521
    email: dwilson@binghamton.edu

ZOG VERSUS JOG
by Eric Thomson

Dr. Goebbels taught that good propaganda is able to sum up a major concept in a few words. Red groups never seemed to learn this lesson, and they usually called their groups things like: 'Ad Hoc Committee for the Suppression of Rightwing Deviationism', etc. Then they'd call their enemies such names as "running-dog lackeys of Yankee paper-tiger imperialism", etc. In the blightwing we saw such memorable terms as "La Cesspool Grande", used in reference to The District of Corruption. The blightwing loves to use terms which can only be understood by the unconverted with difficulty. This is one more reason why the blightwing has failed to move the existing masses of White people, which stems from basic blightwing confusion and inability to communicate very well, if at all, to those whom we would like to see on the pro-White side. The blightwing slogan of "For God, Race and Nation" would have disgusted the good doctor, as it did me, for it split our loyalties 3 ways. Strong propaganda unites; it does not divide. Hence, I coined the slogan, OUR RACE IS OUR NATION!

To achieve any objective, one must concentrate one's forces and pursue the goal without dithering and deviating. Imagine the results if the Blitzkriegers had been confused about their routes and had paused along the way to pick posies. Rather than blow my own horn in regard to political correctness, I quote from an enemy publication, AMERICAN HERITAGE, of September 1995. In an article entitled "Home-Grown Terror", the author who writes under the pen-name, "Philip Jenkins", states: "The acronym ZOG has entered the vocabulary of the far right ... and has helped shape extremists' concepts of their enemy. Though the term ZOG was unknown to the Coughlinites, it exactly catches their world-view."

"JOG" is not only confusing. It is erroneous. Here's why: one blightwinger said that "Zionist" is a political term, not a racial term; therefore racists should not use it. He then defines "jew" as "a physical member of any race", so "jew" becomes a political term, also. So much for blightwing confusion. "Jew" is a racial term. Anyone who doubts this needs to do some research. I suggest "The Genetics of the Jews" by A.E. Mourant et al. This is a series of articles prepared by jew hematologists, which appeared in the official British medical magazine, The Lancet, and was published by Oxford University Press in 1978. Anyone can change his religion and his politics, but no one can change his race. "Jew" is not a political term, and we should not be sloppy in using it, just when we dislike someone.

Not all jews are Zionists. I have known anti-Zionist jews such as Josef Ginsburg, Rabbi Elmer Berger, Benjamin Freedman, Jack Bernstein (author of "An American Jew in Racist-Marxist Israel) and a group of religious jews in New York City who publish newspaper ads comparing the tenets of Zionism with those of Judaism. I object to Zionism because it aims at the destruction of my race and the enslavement of all races. Any White person who supports Zionism is a race-traitor and therefore is my enemy. Any non-White who resists Zionism is a potential ally, but he is not and can never be my kinsman. Zionism is the political and the religious expression of jews who intend to destroy the White Race, using White frontmen, just as the evil aliens of THEY LIVE used sold-out Earth people to destroy humanity. Non-Whites can also serve the ZOG against the interests of their own people . In fact, anti-Zionist jews believe that Zionism is a satanic reincarnation of The Golden Calf, which captured the allegiance of Old Testament jews.

To act straight, one must think straight. Down with the ZOG!

OUR RACE IS OUR NATION!

I no longer capitalize the word, "jew", which merely means "mongrel" at the high end of the scale. On the low end of the scale of value, "jew" means mongrel-parasite.

http://www.faem.com/eric/2000/et050.htm

---
Eric Thompson is an excellent writer for the Cause, and his archived articles at the above linked Web site make for some great, thought provoking reading. But Mr. Thompson is not necessarily right nor consistent in some of his views on things. He's good at introducing acronyms like JOG and ORION into the WN lexicon, and then promoting their acceptance and usage, as can be deduced from this article. The above commentary was no doubt in reaction to PM Klassen's introduction of the much more militant, Jew-specific acronym, JOG, which had taken hold within the more radical elements of WNism who see "anti-Zionism" as too encompassing -- hell, the sitting POTUS and all four gentile candidates vying for his and Cheney's jobs openly declared that they are dedicated Zionists. They are collaborating Shabbos goyim seeking political favors of Jewry, is what they are, whether they openly declare their fealty to Jewry, or not.

Perhaps someone with access to the Racial Loyalty archive can find the little box (which was featured in several issues of RL from 1988-89) entitled "JOG vs ZOG." It's the best, most concise argument for the use of JOG, especially by all who claim to be Creators.

BTW, I capitalize the word Jew, giving the parasitic mongrel race its due as the primary enemy of my race. Both Ben Klassen and William Pierce always capitalized both Jew and White. That's good enough for me. Thompson didn't care much for either Klassen or Pierce, but found concord with their shared anti-Xian, Nature-based, biological racist world views. That's what counts. That's why I enjoy reading Thompson, while disagreeing with him on a few things.

  If you find that your failing to recruit there are only so many things that one can do wrong. Failure is merely feedback that tells us what we are doing wrong so that we can stop doing that behavior and try something new.

3. Your casts or of novice proficiency, and you must continue to work in order to become broadcast better and better.
(This is the case for all of us. Any agriculturalist will at first blunder at his work, and then learning from self and others become only better and more improved. The trick is to read, read, read, and re-read the holy books. The trick is to cast, cast, cast and re-cast the seed of our creed...

---
Sounds contradictory to say "try something new" when faced with a series of failures at arousing the White Race to fight for its survival, then advise to keep broadcasting the same failed message to the same people who are now even more thoroughly conditioned to reject it, only moreso...oh! and read the Holy Books, and reread them again until the herd animals get the message that resonated so with responsible, independent-minded people, like us. 

The answer isn't to change the message, but the messengers: the "oafs," the "dull stones among us." These types should never be allowed into cadre positions, especially as "spokesmen."

Klassen often wrote about "half measures" and "half-baked solutions when criticizing groups that considered themselves in competition with Creativity. I thought of his criticism as I was reading this article:

---
Pro-Gold, Anti-Zionist
Friday, 14 November 2008 16:49 Voltaire
Bookmark it:
There exists a profound misunderstanding of the gold standard among anti-zionists. Again and again one reads how gold is the tool of the Jewish bankers, how gold strangles economic growth by providing insufficient liquidity and how money and its value are determined by the work of a people and the trust they have in their government. This misunderstanding is so omnipresent in anti-zionist circles that it is time to dispel the confusion and the fallacies.

Support for the gold standard has existed throughout the world long before the rise of Jewish bankers and modern capitalism. The ancient world was well acquainted with the benefits of monetary stability. The Roman economy flourished before the emperors started debasing the coinage. The successor empire, the East Roman Empire or Byzantine, flourished for a thousand years based on the gold solidus, which was accepted everywhere in the ancient world for its stable value. The French emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, although no friend of the Jews, always paid his soldiers and suppliers in gold. He had the example of the fiat inflation of John Law before him. (Those who espouse economic fallacies should learn from the example of Law, who made exactly the arguments they do. Law preached that money needed to flow freely through the economy to create prosperity. Money would always have value because it was guaranteed by the French crown. All those who warned of the dangers of inflation were scaremongers to be disregarded. A few short years later the printing presses of His Majesty, King Louis, had reduced the value of French money to zero.) Based on these historical examples, it is clear that support of the gold standard in no way implies support of the Jews. In fact, it was the Jews who took the United States off the gold standard. It was FDR, surrounded by a cabal of Jews, who demonetized the currency of the U.S. and who made it illegal for U.S. citizens to hold gold. Jews are not opposed to gold per se. They merely want themselves to have the gold while the citizens hold the worthless paper.

Advocates of the gold standard, like Ron Paul, are sometimes denounced by the editor of Ziopedia and Mr. Christopher Jan Bjerknes as Zionist or CIA agents. But this is completely unsupportable. Representative Paul is acutely aware of malignant Zionist influence. He has repeatedly called for a more "even handed" U.S. approach to the Middle East. He does not take on the Zionists directly because he justifiably fears their power. One can hardly blame him. A notable example of a man who is both anti-zionist and pro-gold is Lawrence Patterson, the editor of "Criminal Politics" magazine. Anyone who reads Mr. Patterson's publication can tell that he is extremely well informed on the Synagogue of Satan. He is also forthrightly a practicing Christian. But he will not endorse economic fallacies anymore than Voltaire.

This essay is not the place to set out the workings of the gold standard. That has already been done by this author in other essays published on Ziopedia. The purpose of this essay is solely to demonstrate that it is possible to be both pro-gold and anti-zionist. Opposition to the Zionist international should not translate into support for long exploded fallacies.

The author is a regular contributor to ZioPedia.

Source: ZioPedia.org

---

More in this thread: http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=83797

---
Mr. Patterson is "well informed on the Synagogue of Satan. He is also forthrightly a practicing Christian. But he will not endorse economic fallacies anymore than Voltaire."

Patterson won't expose the obvious hidden hand of the Jew in the currently unfolding global economic disaster because he can't even utter the word Jew except in the most glowing terms since he worships their tribal god. He's "anti-Zionist," you see, not anti-Jew. The author rightly points out Dr. Ron Paul's fearful equivocation on the Jewish question, too.That's why Klassen coined and used JOG rather than the half-baked ZOG. I don't know if the first six appointees for Obama's staff are Zionists, or not, but I know that five of them -- all but Gibbs -- are racial Jews. It's reported now that 31 of Obama's first 45 or so appointments are former Clinton staffers, or Clintonistas, and that Hillary Clinton may be Obama's SOS. Some "CHANGE," huh, for those who thought the Black nationalist Marxist would oppose the oppressive Zionists/neo-CONs?

These are good times for Creators, whose task it is to expose the perfidious Jew.

[RAHOWA]

why is that travis mcadam guy so hard up for Creator stuff?  does he have nothing better to do?  what an ass and a disgrace.

Do you have any other articles or anything by or about Travis McAdam? If so, please post them here in full for posterity, anything that shows individuals or media libeling Creativity is useful for the future. We are persecuted and discriminated against, as a religion this breaks "international law" and can be used to show the White public that not only Creators but White people in general are targeted by the international elite.

RAHOWA

Travis is a good, obedient house reporter. I caught the irony of this line from his standard hit piece: "Examples of this can be seen in sentencing disparities between white people and people of color in our criminal justice system for the same crimes."

Makes one want to ask this Travis cat for just a couple of all those names of people of color who are serving sentences in the criminal justice system, disparate from Matt Hale's 40-year stint -- for the same crime, that is. Please & thank you.

I question this statement by Travis also: "Since 1990 when the Network formed, we have seen many organized hate groups come and go in the state. The Aryan Nations chapters folded and Klan units formed. The Klan disappeared and The Creativity Movement gained a hold. The National Alliance and American Nazi Party rose to prominence with the demise of the Creators."

FACT: Rev Slim Deardorff of Missoula, MT,  had strong Creator roots in place there for nearly two decades before the civic-minded, come-lately MHRN hiked up there to clean out the "haters." To my knowledge the National Alliance never "rose to prominence" in Montana, not even one Local Unit, and certainly no "JR"-types that could be counted as NA members there. These MSM hit pieces are always full of such misstatements that rarely get corrected and are never retracted. Nothing less should be expected from the Jew-controlled enemy media.

To be sure, someone on this board knows who this weak-willed "JR" character is and can give more background, or "lessons learned," or something more about the so-called "defector" who sold out the Creed for gas money.

Creativity will never get back off the ground until it can ruthlessly reject early on in the process these lowlife "JRs" that would be attracted to the Creed. The Creativity idea is nothing without necessary high quality "human material" as its guardians and promoters.

[WELCOME TO AMERICAWHERE OUR DEBT IS BIGGERAND OUR PRESIDENT IS A NIGGER]

WELCOME TO AMERICA

WHERE OUR DEBT IS BIGGER

AND OUR PRESIDENT IS A NIGGER

That's the bad news. The good news is that Yo'Mama has already tipped his hand by tapping the Jewish bulldog Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff. Check this Yid out: http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/8922 He'll help YoMama to "unite" Nigger America with the disgruntled, demoralized McCain fans, like this fellow, who clings to his guns and his Jewish Book of Fables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fHxQ-WU22w

Gentlemen, it's your mission, should you choose to rise and accept it, to tap into what that Youtube chap was yapping about, establish your common ground with him  -- then go about deprogramming him to the extent that you can, as men like Klassen and Pierce and Oliver and so many more so graciously did for you.

---

Rahm Emanuel on being President Obama's chief of staff
Interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos
By

Lynn Sweet
on October 26, 2008

WASHINGTON--With Barack Obama's lead growing and John McCain's path shrinking, speculation is growing about who will serve in an Obama White House. On Sunday, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) whether he would be interested in serving as Obama's chief of staff. Emanuel did not rule it out.

Former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta [Clinton JEW] --a native of Chicago's North Side--is quietly overseeing Obama's transition operation, dealing with personnel, policy and process. The transition operation commissioned white papers on how to turn campaign promises into action; arranging security clearance for those involved in the handover; figuring decision time lines out how the executive office should be organized.

Obama has been pondering transition matters since at least last April, I have learned, with activity stepped up as it looked more likely he will win. The Obama team has been trying to keep all transition matters secret for fear of raising the hubris factor. But it is only prudent to plan and McCain is too.

When asked about serving as an Obama chief of staff, Emanuel said, "Three -- six years ago, the people on the North Side of Chicago took a bet on a young kid."

Mentioning men who held the seat before him, Emanuel said, "Members of Congress, representatives in that district were Dan Rostenkowski, Frank Annunzio, Rob Blagojevich, and they took a bet on a kid called Rahm Emanuel." That I take, having covered his first House race, as a reference to his being Jewish running in a North Side district where ethnic politics where at play, especially at the end.

full article:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/rahm_emanuel_asked_about