Autogolpe

White Bread has a point here, despite being tangled up in enemy payloads.

Diaspora Jews explicitly view themselves as nationless and in many instances their explicitly-stated beliefs and interests do not align with either Orthodox or secular Zionist Jews. Therefore if one is going to make a statement such as “Soros is actually acting against Jewish interests”, we have to acknowledge and address the salient question: Which Jews?

Embrace the power of “and”. Soros is a State department cutout, yes; we’ve always known that. He is also a willing and enthusiastic participant in that role. Zuckerberg wanted to push back on censorship, but was overwhelmed; Soros auditioned for the first chair. Just as State could find some other cutout if Soros disappeared, one should reasonably conclude that Soros would search for ways to continue his satanic mission if State cut off his support.

There are many Jews out there possessed of genocidal hatred toward both White Christians and non-secular, Orthodox or Zionist Jews. That does not quite make them anti-Jewish, it makes them another competing faction in the Judaic tribe, same way the rad-fems and trans-fems seethe with mutual hatred but still hate straight cis white men a thousand times more.

Anti-Zionist Jews are an almost perfect subset of the Progressive Left, so it’s still not especially productive to focus on their Jewishness above or in exclusion to their leftism; Soros, Nuland, Blinken, the Kagans and all the Jewish judges trying to overrule Trump are all part of the same sociopolitical cancer that needs to be excised from America, and I don’t think Shlomo the Bagel Shop Owner is going to have any objections. If he does, then he can keep them company.

What benefit does Shlomo bring to America that makes up for the fact that his genetic strain reliably spawns people like Soros and has for many centuries?

Debate is going to be pointless when one side ignores arguments made mere days ago and restarts everything from zero. Nonetheless, I’ll address this one more time to add a few points that were left out before.

First, your framing of the issue is “when did you stop beating your wife” shill tier. You could have stopped after the first half (“What benefit does Shlomo bring to America?”) and that in and of itself is a fair question worthy of debate, and has been/is being debated. But you then give away the game with your “genetic strain” addendum, implying that we should accept and do accept that part of your position without question.

Genes don’t work that way. Even Kevin Macdonald doesn’t make that claim, not overtly anyway. Diaspora Jews commonly have a nasty, argumentative, legalistic and subversive culture just like Negroes commonly have a violent, ignorant and thuggish culture; Indians commonly have a clannish, entitled and emasculating culture; Mestizo/Castizo types have a loud, drunk and bribery-oriented culture, and so on.

It would of course be idiotic to take the Boomer Civ-Nat position that culture exists in a vacuum, independent of genetic stock; it is equally idiotic to make the claim that heritage and heritage alone is the singular factor determining how an individual will behave in any given environment and what his outcomes will be. That doesn’t even work 100% reliably with IQ, which is significantly more objective, authoritative and predictive than race/ethnicity.

White Europeans reliably produce White Liberals, and have for centuries. What shall we do about their “genetic strain”? We all wish that the Cominator Solution would work to permanently eliminate leftism, but reality being what it is, and leftism being little more than the linguistic incarnation of entropy, you cannot eliminate it forevermore by eliminating all leftists any more than you can eliminate criminal behavior forevermore by handing all convicted or suspected criminals the death penalty. Leftists have low fertility anyway; their primary means of reproduction is memetic, not biological.

I have already answered the question of “what value does Shlomo bring” and my answer is: not much. We agree on this, which is why I proposed to give Shlomo three choices:

1. Change his name to Sam, join a based church, raise his children Christian, and never speak of bagels or the Six Gorillion again.
2. Make aliyah; go to Israel where he will be welcomed with open arms.
3. Become an illegal immigrant and be subject to summary deportation at the first sign of trouble, which deportation might be to a place considerably less pleasant than Israel.

This is a fair and just plan, and a moral and practical plan. Any regime that is capable of keeping White Liberals from the levers of power is going to be more than capable of keeping a handful of useful but uppity Jews and Indians from the levers of power. Tiny minority populations can be contained and controlled; they do not have secret mind control rays that Europeans are too naive and dimwitted to resist.

“Racial guilt” is a leftist position based on utilitarian ethics, and utilitarianism is one of the fastest ways to become demon-possessed. It is good to prefer one’s own kin and clan; it is good to form public policy based on valid stereotypes. It is highly immoral to hold every individual responsible for the perceived collective sins of his ancestors and racial cousins. One has to be able to distinguish between the parts and the whole, and not make the fallacy of division (or that of composition) his entire governing ideology.

We make policy based on the whole, and enforce it based on the parts, and never the twain shall meet. Said policy is likely to result in a lot of Tyrones on a boat to Liberia and a lot of Shlomos on a boat to Israel, and that is all fine and good because it is the outcome of a fair process. We do not want Stephen Miller, Usha Vance or Clarence Thomas being swept up in purity-spiraling genocidal madness. We want to remove the ones who are actively hostile or merely failing to assimilate.

The argument I hear from you and Cub is that Samuel Peters, HVAC technician and regular churchgoer, formerly Shlomo Ben Livshitz the bagel shop owner, is an unacceptable threat toward America and western civilization in general, because one of his grandchildren might start to express the “Jewish gene” and start funding color revolutions in Italy that we are powerless to prevent. Strip away the false-dilemma framing and you get an assertion that’s beyond merely insane, it’s fucking retarded.

Never be so antisemitic that you forget that white liberals are the worst people in the world.

I haven’t. I simply take the position that: 1) America is a white nation, existing solely for the benefit of white Americans 2) No other group whatsoever should be permitted to exist within its borders save as a tiny minority, explicitly excluded from political power, whose presence can be demonstrated to be a net benefit. I think these both perfectly reasonable positions to take.

Genes don’t work that way. Even Kevin Macdonald doesn’t make that claim, not overtly anyway. Diaspora Jews commonly have a nasty, argumentative, legalistic and subversive culture just like Negroes commonly have a violent, ignorant and thuggish culture; Indians commonly have a clannish, entitled and emasculating culture; Mestizo/Castizo types have a loud, drunk and bribery-oriented culture, and so on.

Where do these cultures come from, and why do they continuously emerge wherever in the world these genetic lineages travel? Adoption studies alone blow this out of the water – a black (even a half-black) raised by whites in a white community will always be black, always be prone to the same behaviors that render blacks a permanent dumb, criminal underclass literally wherever they exist in the presence of any other race.

White Europeans reliably produce White Liberals, and have for centuries. What shall we do about their “genetic strain”? We all wish that the Cominator Solution would work to permanently eliminate leftism, but reality being what it is, and leftism being little more than the linguistic incarnation of entropy, you cannot eliminate it forevermore by eliminating all leftists any more than you can eliminate criminal behavior forevermore by handing all convicted or suspected criminals the death penalty. Leftists have low fertility anyway; their primary means of reproduction is memetic, not biological.

In the same way you can effectively get rid of most crime by killing a very small number of repeat criminals, so too could you get rid of most leftism by killing a relatively small number of leftists each generation. And, of course, by ensuring there exist no hostile racial outgroups in your population incentivized to support leftism to boost their own status at the expense of the majority population.

This is a fair and just plan, and a moral and practical plan. Any regime that is capable of keeping White Liberals from the levers of power is going to be more than capable of keeping a handful of useful but uppity Jews and Indians from the levers of power. Tiny minority populations can be contained and controlled; they do not have secret mind control rays that Europeans are too naive and dimwitted to resist.

For what purpose should said jews and indians be kept around? What is the goal of their continued presence?

“Racial guilt” is a leftist position based on utilitarian ethics, and utilitarianism is one of the fastest ways to become demon-possessed. It is good to prefer one’s own kin and clan; it is good to form public policy based on valid stereotypes. It is highly immoral to hold every individual responsible for the perceived collective sins of his ancestors and racial cousins. One has to be able to distinguish between the parts and the whole, and not make the fallacy of division (or that of composition) his entire governing ideology

I don’t care whether any particular individual is guilty or not, for the same reason I am uninterested in determining which particular mosquitoes in a swam have sucked my blood. Their presence makes things worse for my kin, and therefore they must go. Their fate afterwards is a matter of complete indifference to me.

It’s not about “guilt”. It’s about improving life for my people.

The argument I hear from you and Cub is that Samuel Peters, HVAC technician and regular churchgoer, formerly Shlomo Ben Livshitz the bagel shop owner, is an unacceptable threat toward America and western civilization in general, because one of his grandchildren might start to express the “Jewish gene” and start funding color revolutions in Italy that we are powerless to prevent. Strip away the false-dilemma framing and you get an assertion that’s beyond merely insane, it’s fucking retarded.

My argument is that this country is the home of my people, and my people alone, and that any group that are not (biologically) my people, must continuously justify their presence in this country by providing clear and present aggregate benefit, and any who don’t must be removed immediately. It requires no justification, no guilt, merely a cost-benefit analysis.

I don’t care one whit about the morality of any stranger in my home, “it’s my fucking house” is more than adequate to justify the removal of absolutely anyone at any time.

Also the fact that extreme antisemites tend to be if not feds at least insufferable people. Nobody who isn’t a Fuentes follower likes him or his followers.

The replies are becoming long but lazy, so I’m going to make my reply short and lazy.

They don’t view themselves as white, and indeed are quite explicit about that fact.

Then get rid of those ones. I’ve been equally explicit on the point that the only ones who’d get to stay are the ones who either already view themselves as white (and Christian) or make the choice to come to Jesus after the regime change.

The ones who “assimilate well” are scientists who give nuclear secrets to the USSR.

This is simply false, a guilt-by-association argument. “Some Jews did this, therefore all Jews will do this.” The people who sold secrets to the USSR were leftists (really Communists, with capital C) who happened to be Jews, not Jews who happened to be leftists. What secrets did Einstein give, or Richard Feynman? Itzhak Perlman or Arthur Fiedler? Give us a break.

Be specific here. What proposals do you have to ensure that jews do not do what they always do, form ethnic networks to undermine the host population?

I’ve been specific. We require them to formally adopt the state religion, whatever variant of Christianity that turns out to be. Attaining citizenship will require a long probationary period of several years, with Christian friends and/or neighbors able to vouch for their authenticity at the end. Even after citizenship they would be barred from political leadership and priestly professions for 3 generations. Frequent inquisitions may be held for those suspected of being insincere. Those who refuse to go along will have the status of illegal immigrants.

I’ve repeatedly stated this and been repeatedly countered with “not good enough; every Jew must go because [circular reasoning and division fallacy]”. If this isn’t good enough for you, then the implication is that neither ordinary Christians nor the churches themselves can be trusted to be good judges of an individual’s character, and that you are so much more perceptive and holier than all of them and able to make decisions about individuals with Jewish DNA who no longer identify as Jews and whom you’ve never met. I smell a rat.

Nobody wanted to live around [blacks] and their dysfunction, even if it was kept better in check by harsh government than it is today.

And yet they were wise enough to realize that the segregated communities would occasionally produce a winner, just as the antebellum slave owners were wise enough to free the ones who showed intelligence and initiative. You’ve lost the distinction between “most” and “all”, and are continually dismissing the distinction between “racial traits” and “individual traits”.

What makes these people “the best” such that their positive value outweighs the negatives they bring?

I’m not answering that again, because it’s just another iteration of the same shill tactic of sneaking your assumptions into the question. They don’t all bring negatives.

I have yet to meet a single indian, for example, who did not over time work to make things worse for everybody around him via importing his fifty retarded cousins in addition to constantly dumping his shit (literal or otherwise) everywhere, like the world is his landfill.

I have. Very few if any of the H-1Bs and convenience store owners meet this criteria. But I’ve met Indians who were religious Christians, whose families have been living in the west longer than my own, who were clearly Indian by appearance but with no discernible accent, no suspicious cousins and no leftist tendencies. It is not common, and it is not a reason to import more Indians, but it is a solid reason to avoid deporting those particular Indians.

Have you learned nothing from Vivek’s Christmas meltdown

There was nothing for me to learn, because I never trusted Vivek in the first place.

If communities of softhearted white progs want to import infinity foreign pets because “think of the poor brown children!” they need to be smacked down

Strawman. Boring.

Also in any regime we have any left wing faggot pretending to be a religious leader are going to be among our top priorities to helicopter starting with the Jesuits.

My non academic understanding is that “semites” is some kind of racial category that includes all arabs. And jews happen tp be just one small minority in that category. I’ve nothing against arabs or any other semite(including jews) on racial grounds. So I’m just not anti-semitic.

Plus, “antisemite” is basically a slur used to stop any criticism of jews. I realize Jim wasn’t using the word that way, but still.

So I think calling my position anti-jew is more accurate than calling it anti-semitic. And by anti-jew I don’t mean all jews must be exterminated on racial grounds. My criticism of jews is that, contrary to jewish propaganda, jews are not exceptionally good. Yhey are way below average, morally considered. Yet there are always sizable amounts of jews at the top of government, cartelized industry, fraudulent science, etc.

War clearing mutational load is a feature of prehistory where everyone fights, the losing side gets exterminated, forces are small and local.

War has the social effect of burning away waste and slack; this can be good (thermidor tossing woke) or bad (levee en mass).

He is “Nothing can be done about leftism, it is just human nature, which springs forth spontaneously. No conspiracy, no organisation, just a totally grass roots phenomenon.”.

Genuinely, what are you talking about? I said you could get rid of most leftism the same way you could get rid of most crime. Get rid of a relatively small number of proven, repeat malefactors. A few thousand in the US would probably break its back for decades.

They are used to centralized leadership which has been cutoff but new coordination mechanisms will emerge, no permanent solution but THE permanent solution.

Why are these being treated as mutually exclusive? What is lost by doing both?

You expect an answer to this question, but refuse to answer the obvious counter: if the problem with Jews is their tendency to subversion and leftism, and we remove everyone who demonstrates tendencies to subversion and leftism, which includes the Jews with tendencies to subversion and leftism, maybe 50% of them or maybe 98% of them, then why are the remaining 2% of all-consuming importance?

“Something racial averages. Something ingroup strategy. Something re-emergence.” Very weak tea, boils down to Original Sin argument. What’s it all about?

Ah, but here we see the payload:

…you could get rid of most leftism the same way you could get rid of most crime. Get rid of a relatively small number of proven, repeat malefactors. A few thousand in the US would probably break its back for decades.

So there you have it. There are a few million Jews in the country, perhaps half of whom are in the Progressive left and another quarter are Orthodox (I’m being very generous with these numbers), and every single one of them needs to go because something something defective DNA can’t be controlled or educated. And there are perhaps twenty million White Progressives and another fifty million White Liberals in the country, but they are unimportant, trifles really, don’t even need to be controlled or educated, will simply self-correct after jailing a few thousand. Their structure is unimportant, their networks are unimportant, their organizations and foundations are unimportant, just put on a few show trials and dust off our hands in satisfaction.

Truly a Matador’s Cape argument if I’ve ever heard one. You’re a lot cleverer and more well-spoken than your predecessors, but still carrying the same basic message.

Either bad behavior on a massive scale is a sign of defective genes, or it isn’t. Either culture and racial tendencies bend to power, or they don’t. Either good-faith adoption of the state religion overrides ancient tribal loyalty, or it doesn’t. I won’t pretend to have proof of the answers to any of those questions, but whatever one believes the answer to be, should be self-consistent.

The Jim solution and the Cominator solution look radically different, but they are both based on internally-consistent logic. You don’t offer an internally-consistent position, you simply want to divert our attention from massive, industrialized evil on a mind-boggling scale to old and petty racial grievances with an abysmal track record of success.

“ZOMG NOW YOU’RE SAYING RACE ISN’T REAL”, yeah, heard that already, not listening anymore.

“What? Like, genuinely, what? Why is it so hard for you to recognize the obvious: there can be more than aspect to a problem, all of which should be dealt with? I have zero qualms about destroying white liberals, they are traitors and deserve everything they get. But, if they were one and all thrown into camps tomorrow, there would still be other issues that needed resolving. My answer would be to get rid of the foreign population, and enforce your high standards of behavior on the white population to eliminate liberals within it.”
When in practice has it happened in history. You could say okay Hitler did go after the communists (despite being close to one) and even before he went after the Jews. But the Aryan commies often got released and even got jobs if they would turn brown later on. In practice just does not happen. If you blame the left on an ethnic conspiracy this necessitates slack and weakness on the actual political conspiracy. Leftists jews (which is most reform jews) have to go as all leftists have to go. And then you implement the byzantine solution for the rest and to break their cohesion gradually you outlaw certain aspects of jewish education and circumsicion (with the provision if you circumsize a boy born in America abroad you’ll be hanged if you ever return). They’ll gradually either leave permanently or assimillate voluntarily. Going beyond this is stupid and serves no purpose at all.

To further read the reactionary philosophy on this subject in general civilizations are larger in scale than tribes or clans (where everyone is probably related by blood within a certain degree of consanguity) and become synthetic tribes. The less the synthetic tribe resembles a blood tribe (and in America that ship sailed when the Irish were let in) the less you can really use race as an organizing principle of cohesion. Now you don’t want radically different racial tribes living together and not all races are equal but a certain amount of civic nationalism based on the state religion is unavoidable. The kind of true WASP stock which would make white American racial solidarity anything more than a forced meme is only English, Dutch, German and very northern French Hugenot but white Americans without any Ellis islander blood at this point are very rare and you still need to base solidarity more on the state religion.

When meiosis in the second generation disrupts coadapted gene complexes, you get outbreeding depression.

Which is to say, if you breed a horse and a fish, you don’t get some superorganism that is the best of both. You get a creature with both legs and gills, or a creature with lungs and fins, that is, something that’s not suited for either water or land. At least, that’s the way to bet, based on the laws of thermodynamics, not to mention common fucking sense.

The greater the incommensurateness, the greater the requisite assabiyah necessary to overcome the deficiency in coordination – which of course also begs the question of to what end for the boondoggle.

Indeed. I must say, I am finding Calvin and Pseudo-Chrysostom more persuasive in this debate than Daddy S. and Jim.

Whether no-exceptions repatriation is practicable is a valid question for debate. Whether it’s a good idea, in principle… to question that would seem to be to question the entire proposition that good fences make good neighbors.

>The Irish we got were the lower level agricultural laborers of Ireland

Oh I see.

>The Irish also had less Saxon blood and more sort of Neanderthal sort of proto Indo European aborginal blood than Americans from England or even the Scottish highlanders

Well the Irish don’t have any Saxon blood. The Irish, Welsh and Scotts are Celts. Which makes them some kind of pure breed in the white european family. The English on the other hand are more a mix of Britons(Celts again) Germans(that’s where the Anglo-Saxon part comes from), Danes who spoke French, etc.

They are perfectly free to be as little of a problem as they like – for the benefit of their countrymen in their homelands, of course.

Well you know what they say, two jews, three conspiracies…

(had to do it with that perfect setup)

Which is to say, if you breed a horse and a fish… [you get] something that’s not suited for either water or land. At least, that’s the way to bet, based on the laws of thermodynamics, not to mention common fucking sense.

Which is a bad analogy because horses and fish are different species. A better analogy would be Greyhounds crossbred over several (I believe six) generations with Old English bulldogs, and a dozen other popular breeds of work dogs and “designer dogs”. Or how about… the Anglo-Saxon.

But let’s be real, lest I be misinterpreted once again to be promoting miscegenation or other silly/harmful practices: this has to be done deliberately, with purpose, selecting for specific traits and with a contingency plan for the “mistakes”. You don’t just shove a bunch of mongrel dogs in a closet to hump and expect a superdog to come out. You consciously select for desirable traits and against undesirable traits, and you cull and cull and cull some more over many generations until the crossbreed shows no signs of regression.

When immigration policy was sane, i.e. before Ellis Island mentality took over, that was the intent: to boil off the best, for whatever value of “best”, of some other tribe, and try breeding it under controlled conditions. Now you can definitely make the argument today that there is more than enough genetic diversity among the white populations in America to do this without any foreign invaders, and that is a very good argument for refusing to accept any more. It is less persuasive as an argument for throwing out everyone who’s a bit swarthy looking or has a big nose.

…to question that would seem to be to question the entire proposition that good fences make good neighbors.

Strange to arrive at that conclusion when I’ve very explicitly promoted fences, both literal and metaphorical. I am talking about a tiny portion of an already tiny population being allowed to remain inside the fence. A population that was invited in, generations ago, maybe not by you or me but invited nevertheless.

I tend to agree with almost anything Pseudo-Chrysostom writes and honestly don’t disagree with much of what he wrote here, except the very first paragraph that I find lacking in nuance:

All the khazars that were most compatible with European Christendom also already long ago integrated with them. The ones calling themselves ‘jews’ today are the ‘hard core’; the most immiscible, irascible, antithetical subsets possible.

This is a false binary to me. I can look around and easily find examples of:
– Khazars who stopped calling themselves “Jews” a long time ago.
– People who call themselves “Jews” but who look nothing like khazars and have difficult-to-trace ancestry.
– Children and grandchildren of khazars who went into the Jews for Jesus movement more than 50 years ago and stayed there, but still look pretty khazarish. (This is a complicated issue because their religion isn’t properly Christian either; I wouldn’t keep them as-is, but they might have more potential as conversos than the Talmudites.)
– Mischlings of all levels of purity from three-quarters Jewish to less than one-eighth, some of whom act extremely Jewish and others who are not even close.
– Actual White Europeans with no khazar blood who converted to Judaism for marriage or any other reason.

You can both accuse me of salami-slicing or splitting hairs here, but if I am doing that verbally then it is only because it’s what I literally propose to do in practice. The slices (some of them, anyway) are the ones who could fit in. The rest of the sausage won’t; toss it. My prediction is more than 90% will have to go – I’m less optimistic than Jim, but still want to see due process.

I never, ever stated that Jews were a great addition or have an inherent right to reside in America. I stated that some, a distinct minority, have traits worth preserving and won’t impose a very high social cost if they’re willing to adopt a new state religion, and that the others, the majority, should go to Israel voluntarily or face eventual deportation. And I further stated that the ones who do not continue to identify as “Jews” are going to be extremely difficult to sort out from the rest, and even more difficult to explain to their friends and neighbors why their 1/4 Jewish ancestry on their maternal grandmother’s side means they have to go, regardless of their actual status or behavior. That definition was considerably less than 100% effective for the Germans, who were far more racially cohesive at the time than Americans are today.

This has been continually misrepresented (not by Pseudo-Chrysostom, but by Calvin) as “Infinigger++ for Jews” which nobody here, least of all myself, is in favor of. I advocated for a plan that would achieve a nearly identical distribution to the utopian ethnostate over a few generations without inciting a civil war in the process that would create a power vacuum for Woke to reoccupy.

China is, to my knowledge, the most ethnically homogeneous nation in the world with a land mass larger than Kansas, and are still only 90% Han. I think 90% White European is a rather good target to aim for, and at least 80% should be the bare minimum for cohesion – that’s better than Russia is doing, for reference. Demanding 100% is pure insanity, an invitation to holiness spiraling and outgroup blaming that diverts attention away from the evil of White leftists, who are still the absolute supermajority of leftists even if Jews outnumber them on a per-capita basis.

Anyway, I feel as though I’m repeating myself at this point, and I’m getting sick of my own walls of text, so I’m just going to leave it at that. The evidence and arguments have been presented, and everyone can make up their own minds.

It is completely obvious that every state everywhere coheres on the basis of faith, and multi ethnic states were entirely the norm until the left adopted nationalism.

First part is true. Second part, entirely false. States start out monoethnic, become multiethnic upon conquering other lands, lose their asabiyyah, and collapse into monoethnic states. Then the cycle repeats. Sustainable multiethnic states do not exist. At best you have one ethnic group dominating all others in an imperial system, but even that corrodes social trust over time.

The most primal drives of each human subspecies are not the same.