I'd like to comment that the "Catholic Church" and "Faustian Culture" are opposed to Hellenism

The Catholic Church is not opposed to Hellenism. It isn't even opposed to Orthodoxy, at least not anymore. The Pope has done numerous ecumenical efforts (particularly in his meetings in Assizi, Italy). While I disagree with the Pope on many issues, and while I believe that many of his views are completely outdated, in all truth, one must say that Orthodoxy is largely to be blamed for not being a stronger cooperation between the two main branches of Christianity.

Just to give you an idea, here in Lisbon there is not a single Greek Orthodox, since the Greek colony is too small and scattered throughout the country. Whenever a Greek priest arrives from Paris to perform some sort of religious celebration, the Catholic Church generously provides the space and the conditions. I was baptized (by the Greek Orthodox rite) in a beautiful catholic XV century.

Could the reverse happen, say, in Athens? Or would it be considered Catholic interference into the homeland of Orthodoxy?

By the way, there is a large English (Protestant) colony in Oporto. As far as I know, they had to build their own church to celebrate their own masses.

Correction

here in Lisbon there is not a single Greek Orthodox

should be

here in Lisbon there is not a single Greek Orthodox church or chapel

The main point is that if one of the defining features of a group is the Catholic Church, then Greeks are not a member of that group. There are a few Catholic Greeks from medieval times, but the dominant religion in Greece is Eastern Orthodoxy.

>> one must say that Orthodoxy is largely to be blamed for not being a stronger cooperation between the two main branches of Christianity.

Co-operation for co-operation's sake is not meaningful. It is true that the current Pope has shown some good will by offering his apologies for the Fourth Crusade, and I personally (and most Greeks) don't have anything against Catholic _people_. However, reconciliation is impossible unless the Catholic church revokes all the innovations it introduced without an ecumenical council and accepts that the Pope is primus inter pares. Good relations on a human level are always welcome, but the deeper issues can't be resolved by negotiation.

>> Could the reverse happen, say, in Athens? Or would it be considered Catholic interference into the homeland of Orthodoxy?

The Catholics have their own churches in Greece where they worship. In the Orthodox Church, a church is not just a building that can be given for any purpose, or to anyone.

Sir

Your hostility toward the panEuro and LE concepts is noted. Perhaps you have a personal reason for wishing to dis-associate Greek identity with that of Europe and the West, and instead embrace nonWhite "Mediterranean" Caucasians. Your business, although I am sure that there will be Greeks interested in their rightful place in the West.

It is not my place to re-write Dr. MacDonald's work, but it is clear that he includes Protestantism in the West, and so would include Orthodoxy.

The Church at one time was one.
Note that this does NOT suggest that one must be "Christian" today - I am not. It is a historical issue.

MX Rienzi

>> Perhaps you have a personal reason for wishing to dis-associate Greek identity with that of Europe and the West, and instead embrace nonWhite "Mediterranean" Caucasians.

Greek identity precedes that of the "West". I am a racial realist, and there is no separation of Caucasoids into "white" Europeans and "non-white" Non-Europeans.

>> Your business, although I am sure that there will be Greeks interested in their rightful place in the West.

Most Greeks define themselves as Greek and Orthodox. Very few Greeks will be attracted to a cause that defines itself in terms of the "Catholic Church" and "Faustian Culture". The Greco-Roman roots of European civilization are conspicuously absent from Kevin MacDonald's little list of "Western" features.

>> Your business, although I am sure that there will be Greeks interested in their rightful place in the West.

>> It is not my place to re-write Dr. MacDonald's work, but it is clear that he includes Protestantism in the West, and so would include Orthodoxy.

Protestantism is an offshoot of the Catholic Church - Orthodoxy isn't. Of course, you don't have to accept the views of Kevin MacDonald in their totality. If you think that the Orthodox are included in your scheme, you should say so, because that is not clear in your article. A list that includes the "Catholic Church" automatically excludes Greeks.

BTW, it doesn't only exclude Greeks, but it excludes Orthodox in general. One just has to read The Brothers Karamazov to get a glimpse of an authentic Russian opinion on Western Christianity and on "Faustian" culture.

The essay can be updated; hopefully shortly.

In my opinion, I have presented sufficient evidence to separate Euro ans nonEuro Caucasians, in the various sections of the LE website that deal with this issue.

What Kevin MacDonald meant by the west being made unique by the Catholic Church was the effects of the political influence of the church on northern Europe. Unlike the spread of religions in East Asia, the Catholic Church was centred in Italy and southern Europeans had a say in the collectivism of northern European cultures.

There are a few points I would like to make:
1. Christian religion is a Jewish religion, but "West" as a culture is based on Christianity? Does that make sense?
2. European culture started later than mideast and east asian cultures. The first European region had some culture was in the south. Northern European were in all sense a follower. Their contribution to the world culture and development is limited to the recent a few humdred years. What has Irish contributed to the human history, other than they are very "blond" and "white". I don't know somebody named McDonald could have anything to say about the contribution to the human culture, less so than pass judgement on cultures much more advanced before.
4. Human history reflect the rise and demise of cultures. This was the first peak of northern European culture, don't lose the sight because of your short history.
5. What has boiled down to was who is the best looking people in the world. That is the sole base of racisim. Hitler thought good looking translated into physical strength and intellegence. But is didn't, it is too late for him to realize this. But it is not too late for you.

>> 1. Christian religion is a Jewish religion, but "West" as a culture is based on Christianity? Does that make sense?

Christianity is not a Jewish religion. Jews can't be Christian and Christians can't be Jews, so that's impossible. Saying that Christianity is a Jewish religion is like saying e.g., that Protestantism is a Catholic religion, because the first Protestants were Catholic before they became Protestant.

According to MacDonald, Christianity is a backlash against Judaism. I haven't read his second book so I cannot explain. But unlike the conversion of northern Europeans to a religion centred in Italy, the conversion of Christians and Moslems to a Jewish-derived religion was not centred on Jerusalem. Japanese Buddhism is not Indian, and in the same way Catholicism is not Jewish.

MacDonald did not pass judgement on any culture. In fact he stresses the need for Europeans to collectivise like the Middle East. But southern Europeans are culturally closer to the Middle East than to northern Europe.

caitlin, legion europa will hunt you down for slandering southern europeans so! doesn't everyone know that sicilians and maltese are more like their european biocultural "cousins" the swedes than their are non-white north africans?

>> caitlin, legion europa will hunt you down for slandering southern europeans so! doesn't everyone know that sicilians and maltese are more like their european biocultural "cousins" the swedes than their are non-white north africans?

Sicilians are more like Swedes in most respects. After all, they are Europeans, Indo-European speakers, Christians, live in a democracy, are part of the EU, share a great deal of biological ancestry, as well as the common Greco-Roman basis of their civilization. This is not to deny that they share with North Africans in living in more similar environments/climate and having another common component of ancestry from the prehistoric diffusion of agriculturalists.

It is generally accepted that Western Christendom, which is the civilization to which all of Europe, Latin America, North America and Australia belong, has its origins in medieval Europe: in the Christian Europe of Charlemagne, the Crusades, the Reconquista, etc. The extent to which Greco-Roman antiquity influenced this new cultural and geographic entity varies in relation to geography. Italy has the most "residual" greco-roman influence, the Iberian peninsula and France come in second. Various regions of Germanic Northern Europe encompassed in Christendom had very little or no Roman influence. It should be reminded that these Christians of the North were frequently attacked, plundered and raped by their racial cousins but civilizational enemies, the heathen Vikings. The Vikings in the North, just as the Huns in the East and the Moors in the South were considered "outsiders" in relation to Western Christendom. Of the three, only the Moors were not considered primitive barbarians. A similar ethnic phenomenon occured in the Hispanic peninsula between ethnically related peninsular Christians and Moslems.

Before the Renaissance, interest in greco-roman antiquity was very limited indeed in Christian Europe. Only the clergy had access to ancient greco-roman knowledge which they rightly regarded as being "tainted" by paganism, by the old, collapsed order to which Christianity signed the death certificate. Any attempt to revive a "dead" culture or society always leads to false and ridiculous charicatures of things we do not and cannot fully understand.

The "common European identity" of which so many speak of is a very recent phenomenon, based on the dubious glorification of wealth and "democracy". Other plans at European poitical unification in the past failed miserably, as is exemplified by Napoleon´s "Republican/Imperial" Europe and Hitler´s "Germanic" Europe the former costing thousands of lives and the latter millions. The degree of ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity in Europe is so great so as to doom to failure any unification scheme. The divergence of traditional geopolitical aims of the various European States also inhibits such plans. A united Europe will either be "Catholic and Spanish" à la Carlos V, or "French and Enlightened" à la Napoleon, or "Aryan and National-Socialist" à la Hitler. In practice what we would have is the submission of the peripheral and small nations (and some larger nations too) to centralized powers (Rome, or Paris, or Berlin) and to large and powerful states.

The geopolitical interests of the individual nations do not work in favour of a unified Europe. Portugal´s geopolitical interest is safeguarded not in Europe but rather by the development of Extra-European bases of support (Overseas Provinces) and the fortification of the Luso-Brazilian Community as envisioned by Dr. António de Oliveira Salazar. Spain´s interest resides in a solid Hispano-American community of interests, of almost infinite potential, as the nationalist post-1898 generation of Spanish writers and thinkers made clear. Italy´s geopolitical intersts reside in North Africa and the Horn of Africa, as well as indirectly in the Balkans. Italy´s strong influence in the rest of Europe and the West is cultural, not political. The British have their British Commonwealth and their "special relationship" with the US. Russia has its 6th of the world, most of it in Asia. Germany regards Eastern Europe as its area of economic expansion. Eastern Europe itself is a tinderbox of ethnic micro-nationalisms, as the wars in Jugoslavia made clear.

In addition to this, the various European nations see other European nations as traditional enemies. Poles distrust Germans, who regarded Slavs as "sub-humans" between 1933 and 1945. Germans accuse Poles of confiscating German lands after WWII. Irish accuse the British (with some justification) of historical injustices. How can all these people be considered "one nation" or unified under a single State? I honestly believe that the end result of such a scheme will be bloodshed and millions of deaths, as history clearly demonstrates.

Modern Greece is most definately a western nation, it being incorporated into the "West" when statehood was achieved in the early 19th century.

My personal opinion is that a strong Europe is a Europe in which each nation can safeguard its national sovreignty and geopolitical options, within the limitations of morality, particularly respect for your neighbour´s person and property. Peace in Europe can only be achieved through understanding and a common and ever greater consciousness of Christian civilization - the civlization of peace. We must learn to accept the truth that we differ greatly from one another but have certain common characteristics, mostly cultural and moral. Homogenizing efforts, whether they be led by the "enlightened" or the "Aryan superman elite" will always lead to barbarism and bloodshed, the exact opposite of what I regard the authentic "west" to stand for.

"Your hostility toward the panEuro and LE concepts is noted. Perhaps you have a personal reason for wishing to dis-associate Greek identity with that of Europe and the West

Perhaps his "personal reason" is that "Legion Europa" has nothing to do with anything remotely Western or European. I did a search to figure out who this "MX Rienzi" ass-hat is, and here was the first Google result:

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=%22M.X.+Rienzi%22&ei=UTF-8&url=D2clc48dBLAJ:www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index70.htm

Where he publishes an essay identifying Jews as an enemy race on VNN - a high-traffic neo-nazi website that in no uncertain terms makes demands for the physical extermination of all world Jews.

This is not a person that has any authority to dictate what is "European" and what is not - this is a terrorist.

My opinion of Legion Europa is that it is well intentioned but wrong. The problems with Legion Europa are first, that their definition of a European race uses the same tactic that is used by race deniers, taking one character out of context, and second that it ignores the vast range of both phenotypic and cultural diversity among Europeans, and the seperate evolutionary strategies of the different populations. Their Europe is neither physically or culturally homogenous. It doesn't make sense.

A third objection is that the Romanian Legionarries were, although anti-semitic, not interested in race in any way that I know. They just hated excessive Jewish influence. I have no idea how they came to be associated with notions of a homogenous Europe based on a supposed race.

"caitlin, legion europa will hunt you down for slandering southern europeans so! doesn't everyone know that sicilians and maltese are more like their european biocultural "cousins" the swedes than their are non-white north africans? "

I agree with Caitlin and Oliveira, in that Europe is very varied indeed, in spite of a common culture.

But Razib is wrong in opposing a Northern and Southern Europe, in that he forgets to mention Central (South Germany, Austria, the former Czecoslovakia and Hungary, all very similar) and Eastern Europe; as well as a distinct Western-Central Europe (France, Switzeland, Belgium) which is somewhere in between, not to mention the clear split between the Balkans, that is, South-Eastern Europe, and South- Western Europe (Portugal, Spain, Southern France and Italy).

The picture is not that clear-cut. Is a continuum, of course broken dramatically as you cross the border to Morocco or Tunisia. As for the British Isles, they are certainly very characteristic and unlike the rest of Europe.
All in all, it´s better to think of Europe in religious terms for a better grasp of its variety and history: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism , and within the latter group, a distinct Anglican/Episcopalian cultural unit. These are the main building- blocks of Europe.

i am ridiculing the bio part of the biocultural paradigm that legion europa espouses ;) biologically which group are greeks more genetically related to-the peoples of the levant or sweden? are sicilians more genetically close to tunisians or swedes? on both those counts i would think they are somewhere in the middle, perhaps even a bit more distant from the swedes if one accepts the high counts for neolithic penetration into southern and southeastern europe.

that said-the synthetic approach (religion, race, language, etc.) is probably the most realistic one. the racialists simply overemphasize one aspect.

(speaking as a habitual race mixer and lover of nordic women ;)

Silveira, I agree with almost everything that you've written. One point: it is true that Greco-Roman civilization did not affect all parts of Europe equally, and it affected some in different times than others. For example, the Germans were completely oblivious to Greek philosophy in the 5th century AD and they became enamored with it in the 18th century AD. Different people became Christian in different times all the way to the 17th century or so when the Lithuanians were converted.

ALso, by "Christian" or "Greco-Roman", I don't mean a monolithic system that is shared in toto. For example, one can plainly see that starting from the way they think, modern Germanic speakers resemble very little their older Germanic ancestors, and have rather adopted the Christian culture (at the time when they became Christian) and the humanistic culture (post-Rennaissance) which is rooted in Classical Antiquity. That is not to say that they think identically like all other Christians and other classically-influenced people.

>> biologically which group are greeks more genetically related to-the peoples of the levant or sweden?

The Levant is a broad category. That is the mistake that people make, to group different groups of people under a blanket term. There are groups of people in the Levant with significant Negroid admixture, there are groups that are more heavily descended from the Arabian tribes than they are from the populations which lived in the Levant during classical times.

I won't venture a guess on who is closer to whom, I will simply say that I don't see any barrier that which (when crossed) separates Europeans from non-European Caucasoids racially. Culturally, such barriers exist, but racially they don't exist, and if one crosses from Europe to Asia at any point, he will not be met by racially different people.

If by Levant you mean Anatolia and the Middle-East (BTW the route of the neolithic wave) , you are probably right. But Greeks are certainly not closer to the Tunisians than to Swedes.
Greece is not isolated in the Balkans: as you travel North, you meet kindred populations (Albanians, Bulgarians, Southern Slavs) forming a "cline" up to the Baltic.
A conflation of genetics,anthropology history and culture, I have to agree, is more meaningful than solely relying on race, as if we were speaking of a natural species.
By the way, since you mention Sicily, it is only characteristic in Europe by being a blend of the Greek and Roman world.

Anatolia is not traditionally considered part of the Levant.

The reason I think Christianity is Jewish religion are based on: 1. Christian warship the same God the Jew does, only add his son and Maria. 2. Christian accept old and new testaments, both of them were written by the Jews. Christianity was a religion initially developed by the jews who were in the fringe of the society to pretest the Jewish estabolishment. 3. Jesus was a Jew, so were all his twelve deciples. Only later on gentiles started to became Christian in one way or other. It didn't take long to have gentiles' number pass the number of Christians who were of Jewish origin. But it didn't make Christian not a Jewish religion. 4. Christian is a Jewish religion that most Jew don't like to be associated with. But Jewish (defination race) Chrisitian is worth a lot more than a Gentile Christian in God's eye, and there is one God for the Jews and the Gentiles based on the Bible. Jew can become Christian if he choose to be a one and he or she becomes a Jewish Christian, just like Irish Christian. So called Christian names were essentially Jewish names from the Bibles. To say Christian is not a Jewish religion seems to me one is not able to face the history. Hitler saw that clearly in the last century and denounced the Christianity (thought not in public), and instead embraced the Nordic Pagonism out of desperation.

Religion in the East constitutes small part of the culture, but by far not the whole culture. Confucism has been the culture for better or worse and Confucism was not based on Buddism or any religion. In that regard, Confucism is far advanced in terms of human spiritual development than any religions.

Back to the point I wanted to make. Western culture is based on Christianity which was not developed in Europe by Europeans, yet it exclude the vary people who developed it-the Jews. It doesn't make any sense. And when Gentiles Christians start to understand this truth, Jews will really become the chosen people. Doesn't matter how white you are, how blond you are.

To exclude Jews and the other semitic people- Arabs from Western culture if the Western culture is really based on the Christianity is a very racist action. This racisit action is solely based on the fundamental difference between the two groups, the physical appearances. Imagine the Jews be excluded from the Western culture if most Jews were blond and blue-eyed people. This reflect the stupidity of the racists group from antient time to now and into the future. Hilter was smart to de-associated the Christianity and the Western (Germanic)culture. He was mentally strong enought to do that with the understanding he was embracing the physical aspect of the Europeans, but not the mental aspect since it IS based on Jewish religion.

>> 1. Christian warship the same God the Jew does, only add his son and Maria.

They are both monotheistic. Christian concept of the Holy Trinity is very different from Jewish YHWH. Maria is the Mother of God, not part of God.

>> 2. Christian accept old and new testaments, both of them were written by the Jews.

The New Testament was written in Greek. St. Luke was a Greek. The Old Testament was written by Hebrew prophets, not Jews. It doesn't matter anyway, since the writers of the New Testament were Christians, not Jews.

>> 3. Jesus was a Jew, so were all his twelve deciples.

Jesus was the Son of God. The twelve disciples were Christians, not Jews.

>> 4. Christian is a Jewish religion that most Jew don't like to be associated with.

Well Christians don't think they are Jewish. Jews don't think they are Christian. The two are separate entities.

>> But Jewish (defination race) Chrisitian is worth a lot more than a Gentile Christian in God's eye,

Says who? Christianity supersedes ethnic differences.

>> and there is one God for the Jews and the Gentiles based on the Bible.

No, the Jews don't acknowledge the Holy Trinity.

>> Jew can become Christian if he choose to be a one and he or she becomes a Jewish Christian, just like Irish Christian.

Incorrect. Irish is an ethnic term. Jewish is a religious term. Someone can't be Jewish Christian.

>> Hitler saw that clearly in the last century and denounced the Christianity (thought not in public)

Hitler was nominally Christian, although what Hitler said about anything is not really an argument in favor of one interpretation or another.

dienekes, do you mean that the lithuanians converted to christianity in the 17th century because the peasantry wasn't very well versed in the gospel until the counterreformation? you know that jagello coverted late in the 14th century. also, lithuanians peasants still had snake groves into the latter half of the 18th century! (priests were sent to burn them down). additionally, the saami (lapps) were not fully christianized until the 18th century, they were the last worshippers of thor in europe for instance (and interesting cultural borrowing as the swedes were the last germanic scandinavian pagans, but they converted (officially) by 1100).

also, a minor point, magna gracia included southern italy as well, naples = neopolis. i believe until recently there were even italoit greek speaking communities in the toe and heel of italy, so sicily is not THAT unique. and yes, greeks are different from tunisians by a large amount, but that's why i used sicilians as the point of comparison.

>> dienekes, do you mean that the lithuanians converted to christianity in the 17th century because the peasantry wasn't very well versed in the gospel until the counterreformation?

I can't say that I'm well versed on the subject. I just remember that Lithuanians converted late, and 17th century was the approximate date that I remembered. The point was that different peoples got converted to Christianity at different times. Thanks for the extra info though.

Zane hu makes some worthwhile arguments. The question "is Christianity a Jewish religion" is largely a metaphysical question. I wouldn't put too much concern into it. It depends on how you want to look at it. Dienekes sees the ancient Greek tradition as still somehow fundamentally Greek even in its modern form as practiced throughout the Western world. By one perspective he is correct. Similarly Christianity, in its present Western incarnation, can still be seen as the modern embodiment of an ancient Jewish tradition.

Incorrect. Irish is an ethnic term. Jewish is a religious term. Someone can't be Jewish Christian.

So atheist Jews don't have the right of return to Israel?

jewish is both ethnic and religions. converts become part of the jewish people, ergo, terms like "daughter of abraham" being applied to female converts to judaism (converts are also told that it is basically as if their ancestors were their at mt. sinai). prominent christian jews include disraeli, marx (baptised lutheran) and the current cardinal of paris (born jewish).

>> It depends on how you want to look at it. Dienekes sees the ancient Greek tradition as still somehow fundamentally Greek even in its modern form as practiced throughout the Western world.

There is an important difference. Let's take an example, the concept of 'democracy'. I've mentioned before that the current form of government is incorrectly called democracy; I'm now speaking of the ideal of democracy that is shared between modern people and Ancient Athenians. The root idea is that power comes from the people and government serves the people, not the other way around.

Let's take Judaism and Christianity. I don't really see any similarities between the two. Sure, they are both monotheistic, but so are a whole number of religions. They both hold in esteem the Old testament Prophets, but Christians view them as anticipating the birth of Christ, while Jews see them as enlightened leaders who communicate the message of their national God.

>> By one perspective he is correct. Similarly Christianity, in its present Western incarnation, can still be seen as the modern embodiment of an ancient Jewish tradition.

Well, one could say that the Franciscans are Catholics. They are a tradition within Catholicism. One can't say that Christianity is a Jewish religion, since Christianity is outside the Jewish religion.

>> So atheist Jews don't have the right of return to Israel?

That is a political question. Jews are defined as a religious and as an ethnic group. It is the religious aspect that is incompatible with Christianity. The two are simply different.

I have little love for the myth of the "Judaeo-Christian" tradition. Quite simply, Jews and Christians have always viewed themselves as different from one another. There is no "Judaeo-Christian" tradition, perhaps only modern "Judaeo-Christian" comparative theology. This has lately been expanded to embrace all "Abrahamic faiths", so that the Muslims will be included as well.

We must make sure to differentiate between a tendency within a tradition (e.g., Hesychasts within Orthodoxy), related traditions (e.g., Orthodox and Catholics), and separate traditions (Jews and Christians). In the first there is no conflict, only different interpretation. In the second, there is broad agreement, but conflict in minor points. In the third, there are fundamentally different assumptions.

To give an example, Hesychasts and other Orthodox have the same Creed. Orthodox and Catholics disagree on the "filioque" within the Creed, whereas Jews disagree almost completely with the Creed.

Perhaps his "personal reason" is that "Legion Europa" has nothing to do with anything remotely Western or European. I did a search to figure out who this "MX Rienzi" ass-hat is, and here was the first Google result:

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=%22M.X.+Rienzi%22&ei=UTF-8&url=D2clc48dBLAJ:www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/index70.htm

Where he publishes an essay identifying Jews as an enemy race on VNN - a high-traffic neo-nazi website that in no uncertain terms makes demands for the physical extermination of all world Jews.

This is not a person that has any authority to dictate what is "European" and what is not - this is a terrorist.

Rienzi published an essay on a site which also contains essays written by those who advocate (but have never actually carried out) murder of Jews, therefore he's a terrorist? Can you say "guilt by association"?

oleg, come now, if you read the legion europa site you will see laudatory profiles of SS members who were pursued as war criminals.

oleg, come now, if you read the legion europa site you will see laudatory profiles of SS members who were pursued as war criminals.

I don't see them on the site. Perhaps you could post a direct link. In any case, Malloy didn't call him a "terrorist" because he lauds SS members (and I still think it's ridiculous to call that "terrorism"), he called him a terrorist because his articles have appeared on VNN. That's guilt by association, not to mention absurd. It's obvious that Rienzi himself and Legion Europa do NOT advocate extermination of Jews.

http://www.legioneuropa.org/History/ldg1.htm

yeah, i wouldn't call them terrorists, but VNN is pretty bizarro. check out their personals section.

Contributors to VNN have different viewpoints. At least two contributors aren't even white nationalist.

Rienzi doesn't seem to either. He just has a healthy fear of infiltration by other cultures (Israel opposes unrestricted immigration, why shouldn't Europe?)

After surfing through the VNN site, I can conclude that many if not most of its contributors, who by their statements and attitudes appear to be rancorous and hateful individuals, have personality disorders of some kind. Most of them would propbably not last for 10 minutes under a National-Socialist regime, such as that which governed Germany from 1933 to 1945, and which they apparently advocate. There is also a lot of pornography and grotesque images on this site.

I actually read VNN from time to time because they link to interesting news stories and sometimes have decent original content. Still, I wish they'd cut back on the "kill the Jews" rhetoric (especially since it's all tongue in cheek anyway).

My point earlier was just that it's irrational to say that because Rienzi occasionally writes for VNN, he therefore agrees with everyone else who writes for VNN.

VNN is funny sometimes and is a change from the pro-Israel Jews Media (oops News Media) but if you look under their promos its full of shit cartoons and pornography.

I don't like the way they have a go at blacks in Africa ie their own country. At immigrants I can understand but not people in their own country. I have nothing against any race.

Oleg - calling for the murder of Jews [0] as VNN constantly does (even "tongue in cheek", whatever that means...) is just unacceptable. I mean - you're living in Internet fantasy land here, and maybe you haven't stopped to think what those words would mean in real life. I think you should stop the parsing and evasion... if you want to kill Jews, don't beat around the bush - just admit it. If you "just" want to forcibly deport them and/or seize their property (or whatever your or Rienzi's fantasy WN partition plan [1] would entail), just say that too.

But if you have intellectual honesty, stop with the sophistry concerning VNN & Rienzi. The fact that the VNN guys haven't *yet* killed any Jews is no excuse - they *love* known Jew-killers. MX Rienzi isn't publishing hagiographies of SS guards because he likes their lapel insignias - he admires them for imprisoning/murdering Jews and seizing their property. And note: these were unarmed civilians, including women and children - not enemy combatants with guns and grenades. [2]

You know, on a related note, I could never understand this stuff about the "holohoax"...it seems like every single guy who denies that it occurred also seems to be in favor of killing and/or exiling Jews. [3] Funny, isn't it? These guys deny that Jews were killed, but would jump at the opportunity to slaughter/imprison them if they had the chance.

Would you, Oleg? Honestly now. Exactly what would you do, if you could? Murder or "just" forcible deportation/imprisonment & seizure of property? No evasions - give me the truth.

[0] Or *any* noncombatant group.
[1] E.g. here: http://www.legioneuropa.org/Debate/eurosep.htm
[2] Yes, there were mass murders in the USSR as well. And yes, as Anne Applebaum noted in an interview on Gulag, it seems that many of the gulag campguards were Jewish (though I don't know the stats.). But this is not simply an inversion of the Nazi situation...Stalin was certainly not Jewish, and he murdered Jews as well as gentiles in massive numbers.
[3] I can pull thread after thread after thread from SF as examples if you really want it...

Re the comments about the SS: the vast majority of the SS was composed of Waffen SS combat soldiers,who were very busy fighting Reds, and on occasion the western allies, and had little time to engage in persecution of innocent civilians; even if they wanted to pursue the kind of actions routinely engaged in by the Red Army and Ariel Sharon. By the way, what happened to the Legion Europa website? was he the victim of a Zionist hit squad? Just asking.

If someone denies the holocaust, it in no way implies that said individual is keen on murder, ostracizing jews and/or intends to "forcibly deport them and/or seize their property". That statement is just irresponsible and plain ignorant.

It is also well known, in educated circles, that the waffen-SS was not lacking in volunteers or heroic men. Also, the SS-mann was highly discouraged from joining the Nazi Party.

"godlesscapitalist", are you woody allen? I guess not; I figure Woody Allen probably comprehends "tongue in cheek". Since you don't, try a dictionary.