Comments posted as Leon Haller

Total Results: 1382

Sort order: by entry_id

Entry shortlink: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/entry_id [Example: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/237]

Comment shortlink: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/entry_id#ccomment_id [Example: http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/237#c112017]

comment_identry_idcomment_datecomment
1120172371311757434Seltzer sounds about right.
1124602371312791830[i]Psychologists are like stockbrokers and seminarians. Mostly third-stringers blowing smoke for a living. These people probably fall in the IQ range 75 to 85.[/i] Very stupid comment. there are many brilliant psychologists. Someone with an IQ of 75-85 would not be able to get through an accredited doctoral program.
1149732371316532233C.M., What has China given to the world, really? Very little. The few things of value only became valuable when the white man was able to perceive alternative uses. And remember: China has always had the largest population in the world, as well as the excellent old Confucian civil service. And yet, the Chinese have accomplished comparatively little (not just in science and technology, but the arts, music, literature, philosophy, etc). Almost everything of value on the planet came from the Aryan (though in recent centuries the Jews have, it must be admitted, also made some positive contributions, along with a lot of negative ones). I'm not sure you're even a real Chinaman.
1155962371317418644Fortunately, the Chinese government appears to be led by men a good deal wiser than this CM idiot, though I don't doubt that he does represent a sizable contingent of the men in the street. Anyway, we must all be eternally grateful for Deng's one-child policy. China's population will grow smaller in the future, though the sheer population imbalance is so great that China will become the world's dominant power, especially if white men keep building up their economy for them (if Lister really understood the force of his own anti-Hayekian critique, he would be directing his fire at the theoretical assumptions behind tolerance of this suicidal aspect of economic globalism - lowering short term labor costs at the expense of long term national security, parasiting off a secure future, as it were).
1180092371322356137This is certainly the thread which never dies. I wonder about this: <blockquote>As a very criterion-oriented psychometrician And note that verbal ability is the core element in IQ. If you want a quick index of IQ, vocabulary size is the best available shortcut measure.(jonjayray)</blockquote> Was the author of this now ancient post actually a psychometrician? And is it agreed that verbal ability is the core element of IQ? I would have thought math ability, but I'd be interested in hearing an explanation of this assertion.
1187609711323215164The comments here are hilarious. It's funny how little people understand about IQ, even though there is plenty of psychological literature widely available on the subject. Many famous people are claimed to have high scores, yet give no evidence in 'real' life of what commonsense suggests is high intelligence. Why do some assume that any demonstrated ability must result from IQ, simply because most abilities (even in sports) have a mental element? Mike Tyson, quite apart from his doubtless educationally disadvantaged background, is obviously not very bright. There is nothing I know of to suggest he's bright. Dumb people can't be good boxers? Incidentally, of all the celebrities claimed to have high IQs, the one I believe is James Woods (not Matt Damon, admitted to Harvard, but somewhat unintelligent in the responses he's offered in the 1 or 2 interviews I think I've seen with him; I'm sure his Harvard admission had an 'angle' to it), and this because he went to MIT. You don't graduate MIT without being fairly smart (though 'genius', which I'm sure their alumni association would like you to believe, really isn't applicable, either - I've know two MIT grads, and 'genius' never leapt to mind). I think another film thespian with an admirable IQ is Jodie Foster, who probably deserved to attend Yale.
10543510411294490766Jake, Interesting posts, though you started off on the completely wrong foot, with this crap: [i]Jews are more successful and prominent than other groups for the simple reason that they are superior to them. The Jews have by far contributed more to the world in science, medicine, technology, and all intellectual fields than any other group--an extraordinary feat given the endless discrimination, enslavement, and pogroms to which they have been subjected over centuries. Germany started both World Wars and should be ashamed of its pathetic, barbaric history of tribal war and aggression.[/i] I'm of German heritage, but an old-stock American. I do not deny the Holocaust. I do dislike Jewish assertions of superiority, not only for ethnic reasons, but because they are so obviously false. In my Ivy League university, Jews were certainly overrepresented, in both students and faculty, but Captainchaos hit the nail: ethnic nepotism is the reason, something at which Jews are the world's masters (and whites the world's losers - that is our greatness and our folly - it is we Aryans who are ethically superior to all other groups, including Jews). (Also, Jews are much more driven than ordinary whites to garner "elite" credentials.) Jews were hardly the best students. They were generally good debaters and discussants, but only to a point. They liked intellectual discussions on average more than the Gentiles, but they certainly were not as good as the best of us (I won the public speaking prize for my year, not a Jew; I and several other non-Jewish whites were faculty-selected writing tutors; only one Jew in our group; on the other hand, a Jewish pal of mine won the freshman essay prize). They had all the requisite mannerisms of "intellectuals" (I mean the preeners; some Jews were perfectly normal guys, no different from the whites in their behavior and outlook), but dig under the surface, and there was little solid cognitive substance. Most of the [i]summa cum laude[/i] graduates of my class were white, btw, not Asian, and not Jewish (though the "Chosen" comprised more than a quarter of my class). Historically, Jews have not contributed much to human civilization, except in the religious field, where they were the greatest innovators. Jews have made real contributions to the world (unlike blacks), but your hyperbolic statements show tremendous ignorance of history, including intellectual and scientific history. Historically, Jews contributed relatively little to most fields, from pure sciences to technology to philosophy to literature (Jewish contribution to art is nearly nonexistent). The vast bulk of Jewish intellectual achievement occurred since the Enlightenment. You will say this was due to emancipation, but that is only partly true. There were great Jewish philosophers (Maimonides, Spinoza), but not very many (and prejudice was not a factor). No prejudice could have stopped the formation of a canon of Jewish literature, but what there does exist in that regard is not impressive (until the 20th century - but then one gets into the ethnic nepotism thing again: Proust was great, possibly Kafka, too, though that is aesthetically debatable: but Joseph Heller, Mailer, Roth, etc? there is a lot of Jewish PR in those and many other literary Jews' reputations). I could go one, but I fear you are only superficially acquainted with the subject upon which you are comfortably pontificating (a [i]very[/i] Jewish trait, btw). Why don't you educate yourself a bit? Read: Harry Elmer Barnes, [i]An Intellectual and Cultural History of the Western World[/i] (3vols) Charles Murray (a very philosemiticic conservative), [i]Human Accomplishment[/i] Daniel Boorstin (a Jew), [i]The Discoverers[/i], [i]The Creators[/i], [i]The Seekers[/i] Jews really did NOT accomplish all that much historically. The great exception is commercial and especially financial enterprise. In that field, Jewish success, proportionately speaking, is unparalleled (though most real industry has been the product of whites). And, Jews might accomplish much more in the future. Finally, whatever the German guilt for WW2, Germans most certainly bear no more guilt for WW1 than any other European great power. You are making an assertion rejected by the whole of contemporary historiography. Also, your statements about Israeli productivity are wildly overstated. If it were so, why does Israel need so much US and German foreign aid? America and Germany have basically paid for the jewish state over the past half century. Also, Israel receives an incredible annual amount of private American Jewish support. I'm not certain how well Israel would due or have done in the absence of that aid (unlike Japan and especially Germany, who built themselves up postwar overwhelmingly on their own, despite some initial help from the US).
10543610411294491322PS - sorry for my several typos above. But my meaning should be clear throughout. Also, I am not a supporter of anti-Semitism, believing it to be a distraction from the real issues of racial survival facing Europeans, which involve the lethal errors of allowing mass nonwhite immigration, while simultaneously adopting race-denialism and ethical multiculturalism. On the other hand, I have no special love of Jews, unlike some obsequious 'conservatives', and believe as a matter of strictly objective history that the presence of Jewry in America and the West has been politically destructive of white interests.
10546910411294536665I need to study these issues more than I have. I am a conventional American conservative of the Hard Right, which used to imply (pre-neocon) looking at the world (and therefore race) honestly, and defending one's own people first, especially when my people, white Christians, are so obviously ethically and civilizationally superior to nonwhites, in the US and around the world. I am a race-realist (recognize the truth of racial inequality), and racial nationalist (seek to ensure the genetic perpetuity, as well as defend the political power, of the white race). Hail, I don't know enough to respond to you, but I doubt I shall ever really know the truth. I have several books from Noontide Press on the Holocaust, but I also have the standard mainstream histories, admittedly mostly written by Jews (eg, Yahil, Friedlander, Dawidowicz, but also Browning and others). There are interesting historiographical and even philosophical issues here pertaining to the possibility of attaining genuine historical knowledge. But how do we really know anything? Epistemologists and radical sceptics have been bruiting about these issues for, literally, millenia - and yet, we do know many things, albeit forever contingently (we must be open to new theories if additional evidence warrants them). I confess I find it hard to believe that all of the voluminous studies of the Holocaust, by very intelligent and not always obviously dishonest persons, constitute simple myth. We racialists are prone to wanting to believe otherwise than the mainstream view of the Holocaust, precisely because the Holocaust narrative has proven so fruitful for the ethnic (as well as white 'native alien') enemies of white power and the West - and, to some extent, because we recognize that Jews as a group (whatever the moral merits of individual Jews) are unusually mendacious and frankly sneaky when compared at least to white gentiles. That may sound like gutter anti-Semitism, but is it true? I think so. Not every black is a criminal, but characterizing blacks as a race of criminal savages (compared to whites) is a true generalization, to the extent that human group generalizations are ever true (and nationalists hold, scientifically, that they are, even of such generalizing is often abused). It's probably not an historical accident that Jews were the main developers of the discipline of "public relations" (aka, "spin"). One thing I do know, however, and have stated here and elsewhere, is that the road of Holocaust denial is not at present a fruitful one for white preservationists to go down. Obviously, I support free, open-ended intellectual inquiry (a very white attitude, btw), and, were I to become a political figure or pubic intellectual of note, I would certainly decry the totalitarian laws in Europe and elsewhere in the West obstructing such inquiry. The Jews do themselves no favor with these laws, and I do wonder what exactly they are afraid of. No one would think of jailing a man who wastes his time trying to prove that the Earth is flat. But those who would prevent the onrushing annihilation of white civilization had better realize how limited are our funds and forces, how much the "correlation of racial power" is against us. Every trend in the world, from biological to economic to ideological, is inexorably pushing whites to eventual extinction. If we would stop these trends, we need to be very shrewd. The anti-Nazi narrative, even acknowledging the tremendous amount of mendacity and exaggeration built into it, is extremely powerful to, and well-lodged in, the Western psyche today. You may not like that fact, but we must be realistic in all things. For well over two decades, I have been saying in racialist circles that we need to move past the Nazi period, and develop totally [i]Nazi-rein[/i] arguments and policies. Even real Nazis should recognize this. I was thus very gratified when Jared Taylor began [i]American Renaissance[/i], which was clearly intended to tell the truth about race and white survival while moving beyond self-limiting old debates on the Far Right. White nationalism could/will become more popular, as the objective situation of whites collectively continues to deteriorate throughout the world (and it only will do so, if only because we are demographically shrinking, while most nonwhite peoples are rapidly expanding, an expansion that will not slow in absolute numbers until near the end of the century). But it will only do so to the extent that either whites as individuals face lethal racial danger (at which point it may be too late to save ourselves), or whites generally come to see it as ethically acceptable (hence my repeated exhortations to locate WN within Christianity, a theoretical project of great interest to me personally, but of great utility to the larger cause). Even challenging 'Holocaustianity' makes this task more difficult than it need be. The way to deal with the Jews is [i]not[/i] to deal with them directly, but to build up a positive white racial nationalism. The focus should be on demonstrating: 1. the nexus between multiculturalism and multiracialism (and, for the latter, the relation between it and mass immigration, something not as well understood in the US as it should be - especially by the younger generation, ignorant of history, massively indoctrinated by multiculti propaganda, and seeing 'diversity' as the American norm); 2. the threat of multiculturalism to our traditions, and the independent value of those traditions; 3. racial inequality, and the physical as well as financial threats that nonwhites pose to whites now, and how much greater these will be in the future; and 4. the hypocrisy and injustice with which whites are treated by the anti-white establishments in the West. The important concern is to start the racialist ball rolling, so to speak. To do that, you focus on the [i]easiest[/i] issues (illegal immigration, black or immigrant criminality, 'affirmative' racism), the most graphic and well-understood, not the very hardest (the Jews and their behavior). Once one element of the Left's assault has been rolled back (either literally, or at least in terms of the psychological assent of the white majority), we press for more. Outside of revolutions (which are most unlikely in the West for the foreseeable future; ie, for decades during which the nonwhite presence, and, if you will, Jewish elite stranglehold, will continue to grow), this is the only realistic approach to take in democracies.
10547010411294537257I meant to end by noting that following my approach will lead to a situation in which the Jews gradually find themselves confronted with nonwhite aliens and savages, on one side, and an awakened and increasingly assertive and confident white community, on the other. Perhaps at that point Jews will see which way the wind is blowin', and even mute their antiwhiteness and wish to ally with us (I suspect that will be the case). But if they do not, it will be immaterial to us anyway, as Jewish power is based on white confusion and lack of collective consciousness. Awaken our people, through a ratcheting set of demands for genuine racial justice, and Jewish power will evaporate, without need for serious confrontations. Alas, it does take a certain worldliness and wisdom to appreciate my arguments, something sadly lacking among all too many racialists.
11189731501311602330Mr. Matare: Is that really you?
11189831501311602701Mr. Matare sounds ridiculously similar to William Shockley. Physicists/inventors becoming interested in eugenics.
10879136931303970121CL, You are mostly correct in your post, but spectacularly wrong when you write: [i]It was wrong what Europeans did to the Native Americans.[/i] There were fewer than a million Indians present in all of North America (north of modern Mexico) at the time of the coming of the white man. Contemporary Manhattan has more residents. Did that small number of Stone Age nomads have a perpetual territorial right to ALL of the continent? By what ethical theory? The argument re Amerindians really implicates the ethics of originary ownership of property. How does property arise? The effective theory of whites has been the mixing of labor with original land. Take land that has no formal prior ownership, plough the soil, plant crops, and voila, it's yours. The Indians would claim that all the territory that they subjectively perceive to be theirs (more formally, their hunting grounds) is in fact theirs by right. Whites, and I believe Christian doctrine, disagree. Is our theory any less morally valid than theirs? i think not. The situation today, however, is wholly different. We whites have produced complete nation-states, parts of a vast industrial civilization. Today's Third World immigrants are not frontier settlers. They are occupiers of settled territories. There is a complete moral distinction between pioneers, and colonists. You and other whites in verbal joustings need to remember that.
10640138861296477104[i]Posted by Desmond Jones on January 31, 2011, 05:00 AM | # So what was the British excuse for decimating Aboriginal populations in Australia? The eradication of consummate evil in the form of Aboriginal ritualistic sacrifice and cannibalism of their children. what “right” did the Brits have to settle Australia? The right of conquest.[/i] Then Mexicans have a "right" to America, because they damn sho is conquering our white asses!? This is all wrong. Conquest does not establish 'right'. Right of land occupancy is determined by the superiority of the civilization, coupled with the use to which the land is put. According to KaufJew above, the abos had 40k years to make something of 'their' land, and failed to do so. By what right then can they claim the entirety of ancient, let alone modern white-civilized, Australia? At most they could claim to 'own' their little personalty (boomerangs they made, loin cloths, domesticated animals, if any). Of course, any discussion of 'right' to me presupposes God, at least for practical effect. In GW's merely material world, there is no 'right', only 'eat or be eaten'. In that sense, right of conquest is indeed the only right.
11867640711323161719Many Fed chairmen were Jews, but not Paul Volcker (perhaps not coincidentally, a reasonably 'hard money' man).
6798941821232208173(I think I should have posted the following comments under this article! LH) Sirs: I’m new to the site, and have probably missed the relevant discussion, but ... why are you so hostile to Jews (I’m struck by the tone of some of th preceeding comments)? (No, I am not Jewish: Lutheran/Catholic, German/French/Dutch with a spot of English - pure white, unto the generations.) I have written elsewhere that this is a mistake, which in essence is this: why not try to convert (ideologically) Jews to white racial nationalism (or at least preservationism), instead of driving them away with hostility? I have read Kevin MacDonald’s now-famous sociobiological trilogy, which for me was merely the intellectual capstone to decades of critically observing the Jews, from Jewish family friends growing up, to Jewish college friends (my elite school was over a quarter “chosen”, as are most of the Ivies; ditto grad school), professional colleagues and competitors, and finally, the various worlds we all touch indirectly, those of scholarship, media, finance, law, entertainment, etc. No discerning man can fail to note the preponderance of Jews at the professional apexes of American life (it’s not quite the same now in Europe, is it?), nor to admit the ideo-politico-culturally malign role that Jews have played in Western, and especially, Anglospheric life since WW2, and before (we all remember that the anti-FDR Right routinely spoke of the “communist Jew-Deal” - and, of course, Jews were heavily involved both in promoting mass-immigration to the US before WW2, and throughout the whole sordid history of communism until the last years of Stalin’s life). No “white” ethnic group has more relentlessly pushed white deracination, minority rights, immigration, discarding of white cultural memory, endless white racial guilt, interracial wealth transfers, anti-traditionalism, and all of the other features of modern political and cultural life so alienating to any sane and racially healthy white man. Finally, 81% of Jews voted for Obama! A majority of all other white American groups except gays voted Republican (I voted third party, as always, this time prompted by the traitor McCain’s rancid immigration amnesty advocacy). So, yes, the Jews have given Eurofolkish patriots plenty of justifiable reasons to hate them. I know this story. But there is another side, which I shall just briefly touch upon. Bluntly, I’ve known many wonderful Jews in my life (how many of us can honestly say that about, say, blacks?). More broadly, we must all admit that Jews do make genuine positive contributions to American life, at least in the sciences and business (most Americans would also add entertainment to the list, though perhaps not bloggers here), as well as philanthropy to non-Judeo-specific causes. Without Jews, America would probably be a better place, but the calculus is not nearly so one-sided as with blacks or Hispanics. Unless you hew to the notion, plausible but by no means definitive or proven, that Jews (like blacks) are ethically inferior to whites (I believe that assertion to be true, but only slightly; I would like to see the comparison made controlling for IQ, smart people being shrewder competitors than more mediocre types, with such shrewdness sometimes stirring up unwarranted animosity), then it would seem that Jews exist in a deontologically different space from other minorities. That is, we object to Jews because their liberal politics puts us in proximity to and therefore at risk from the truly morally inferior groups. Put more concisely, Jews are objectionable because of their politics, which is a function of thought and therefore at least theoretically amendable; blacks/Hispanics/Arabs/aboriginals are objectionable because of their behavior, which derives from inherited traits and instincts, which are not amendable. Thus, if Jews could be persuaded NOT to be race-liberals, then what would be wrong with them? Would they still warrant nationalist hostility? All of which brings me to my real point. I think white nationalist anti-Semitism is a huge mistake. It may have had a place in the struggle against Bolshevism (though there were always some Jews who were strongly opposed to communism, from economist Ludwig von Mises to Hollywood studio head Louis B. Mayer). But in the desperate but still largely unrecognized struggle today to save the West from racial suicide through demographic inundation, Jews have no real reason to continue to push leftism. The Jew is hated by the increasingly multicultural Left, hated by Muslims, hated by American blacks (a delicious irony of history, given how much the Jews helped these Negroid ingrates in their hallowed “civil rights struggle"). The Jews will not survive apart from whites. If the West goes down, or merely if increasing numbers of non-whites lead to Western indifference towards Israel, it will not benefit the Jews. Far from it. From Wall Street to Gaza, their entire mode of existence is dependent upon a beneficent “white superstructure”. On an increasingly non-white as well as mostly dysgenic planet, Jews, like whites, will be ‘sitting ducks’ - only more so, given their still smaller numbers, yet proportionately much greater wealth. No, Jews will not like ‘mud’ rule at all. And given their high intelligence, and hence educability, this is an opening ... I could say more, and will, depending on whether this post of mine generates responses.
6798741831232207591Sirs: I'm new to the site, and have probably missed the relevant discussion, but ... why are you so hostile to Jews (I'm struck by the tone of some of th preceeding comments)? (No, I am not Jewish: Lutheran/Catholic, German/French/Dutch with a spot of English - pure white, unto the generations.) I have written elsewhere that this is a mistake, which in essence is this: why not try to convert (ideologically) Jews to white racial nationalism (or at least preservationism), instead of driving them away with hostility? I have read Kevin MacDonald's now-famous sociobiological trilogy, which for me was merely the intellectual capstone to decades of critically observing the Jews, from Jewish family friends growing up, to Jewish college friends (my elite school was over a quarter "chosen", as are most of the Ivies; ditto grad school), professional colleagues and competitors, and finally, the various worlds we all touch indirectly, those of scholarship, media, finance, law, entertainment, etc. No discerning man can fail to note the preponderance of Jews at the professional apexes of American life (it's not quite the same now in Europe, is it?), nor to admit the ideo-politico-culturally malign role that Jews have played in Western, and especially, Anglospheric life since WW2, and before (we all remember that the anti-FDR Right routinely spoke of the "communist Jew-Deal" - and, of course, Jews were heavily involved both in promoting mass-immigration to the US before WW2, and throughout the whole sordid history of communism until the last years of Stalin's life). No "white" ethnic group has more relentlessly pushed white deracination, minority rights, immigration, discarding of white cultural memory, endless white racial guilt, interracial wealth transfers, anti-traditionalism, and all of the other features of modern political and cultural life so alienating to any sane and racially healthy white man. Finally, 81% of Jews voted for Obama! A majority of all other white American groups except gays voted Republican (I voted third party, as always, this time prompted by the traitor McCain's rancid immigration amnesty advocacy). So, yes, the Jews have given Eurofolkish patriots plenty of justifiable reasons to hate them. I know this story. But there is another side, which I shall just briefly touch upon. Bluntly, I've known many wonderful Jews in my life (how many of us can honestly say that about, say, blacks?). More broadly, we must all admit that Jews do make genuine positive contributions to American life, at least in the sciences and business (most Americans would also add entertainment to the list, though perhaps not bloggers here), as well as philanthropy to non-Judeo-specific causes. Without Jews, America would probably be a better place, but the calculus is not nearly so one-sided as with blacks or Hispanics. Unless you hew to the notion, plausible but by no means definitive or proven, that Jews (like blacks) are ethically inferior to whites (I believe that assertion to be true, but only slightly; I would like to see the comparison made controlling for IQ, smart people being shrewder competitors than more mediocre types, with such shrewdness sometimes stirring up unwarranted animosity), then it would seem that Jews exist in a deontologically different space from other minorities. That is, we object to Jews because their liberal politics puts us in proximity to and therefore at risk from the truly morally inferior groups. Put more concisely, Jews are objectionable because of their politics, which is a function of thought and therefore at least theoretically amendable; blacks/Hispanics/Arabs/aboriginals are objectionable because of their behavior, which derives from inherited traits and instincts, which are not amendable. Thus, if Jews could be persuaded NOT to be race-liberals, then what would be wrong with them? Would they still warrant nationalist hostility? All of which brings me to my real point. I think white nationalist anti-Semitism is a huge mistake. It may have had a place in the struggle against Bolshevism (though there were always some Jews who were strongly opposed to communism, from economist Ludwig von Mises to Hollywood studio head Louis B. Mayer). But in the desperate but still largely unrecognized struggle today to save the West from racial suicide through demographic inundation, Jews have no real reason to continue to push leftism. The Jew is hated by the increasingly multicultural Left, hated by Muslims, hated by American blacks (a delicious irony of history, given how much the Jews helped these Negroid ingrates in their hallowed "civil rights struggle"). The Jews will not survive apart from whites. If the West goes down, or merely if increasing numbers of non-whites lead to Western indifference towards Israel, it will not benefit the Jews. Far from it. From Wall Street to Gaza, their entire mode of existence is dependent upon a beneficent "white superstructure". On an increasingly non-white as well as mostly dysgenic planet, Jews, like whites, will be 'sitting ducks' - only more so, given their still smaller numbers, yet proportionately much greater wealth. No, Jews will not like 'mud' rule at all. And given their high intelligence, and hence educability, this is an opening ... I could say more, and will, depending on whether this post of mine generates responses.
6856641911232899881As this post from GW is a sort of grab bag, and appropos of nothing (I couldn't find a relevant recent post, but what the hell) ... I posted the following comment in response to another interminable discussion of " racial strategy" over at one of your competitor sites, WHITE AMERICA. It's a mite confused, stream of consciousness, work-in-progress sort of thing. Thoughts? Here is a possibly stupid suggestion: why don't we stop having discussions of meta-strategy, and just all focus on increasing awareness of white dispossession and promoting defensive white preservationism in every venue, with every white person, in every way possible? These chat boards always remind me of a bunch of pre-Revolutionary Russian cafe-radicals, endlessly debating evolutionary vs revolutionary strategies for achieving socialism. What put those malign utopians over the top was not their precious theorizing, but the communistic consciousness that they had sown in certain sectors of Russian society, combined with the unforeseen circumstances of the First World War. Let us see how our future unfolds... Whatever we want is less relevant than what we will be able to get, which will evolve with shifting physical realities. Secession? Reconquest of America? Re-segregation? Restoration of freedom of association? (I've yet to meet a racialist who wants to restore slavery, though I know one, and met another, who want to exterminate all non-"Aryans", planet-wide.) Mere immigration moratorium plus abolition of affirmative racism? Circumstances will determine not only what we can get, but also what we should advocate at any time. I suggest we recognize that: 1. Western civilization (WC) is what we wish to preserve. 2. "WC could not have been created apart from the genetic endowments of the European peoples, nor is there any reason to suppose it will endure apart from that racial genome." Sam Francis (with some paraphrasing at the end). 3. The presence of substantial numbers of non-whites in white societies thus represents a lethal threat to the perpetuity of those societies (yes, I'm collapsing a lot of empirical assumptions into that statement). 4. For many historical reasons, whites are both massively outnumbered on Earth, and, absent war or natural calamity, destined to shrink much further as a percentage of the globe's inhabitants. 5. Unless whites somehow reacquire apartheid racial states (territories with sovereign polities in which all non-whites have been stripped of citizenship and physically removed), global ecological, economic and demographic pressures (to say nothing of ideological brainwashing), operating in tandem with white indifference or treason plus non-white ("family reunification") agitation, will eventually reduce whites to physically insecure minorities across the whole planet. Our race will then likely eventually disappear through a combination of miscegenation and, later, wrt the racially heartiest whites, extermination. 6. Western Man is Ethical Man, a fact we might in this case decry, but cannot avoid. The moral case for the physical removal of existing non-whites from Europe can be made (though not easily, if we are concerned with non-whites born on European soil; this will require a substantial re-thinking of Western ethics, but it can and will be done). I'm not convinced, however, such a case can be made, at least pre-racial warfare, wrt the New World (though of course, the ethical case to merely stop immigration is simple, which begins with no one having a right to immigrate, period). It would have been so, so much better never to have allowed Third World immigration. But as long as the immigrants arrived legally, what would be our moral justification for expelling them (obviously this reasoning does not apply to illegal aliens)? 7. Pan-European nationalists should focus on saving Europe: specifically, racialists there, and Occidentalists everywhere, should, as their highest priorities, demand a) an immediate end to further legal immigration, refugees and asylees; b) the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants, along with securing relevant borders; and, once this has been accomplished (but not before), c) the forcible repatriation of ALL non-Europeans from Europe. 8. Concurrently, racialists in Europe must agitate for laws banning/nullifying mixed race marriage, and incentives promoting white fertility (as exist in Russia today). 9. All public policies and legislation within the nations of Europe must thereafter be reformulated (for the indefinite future, until the crisis of impending white extinction has been definitively averted) to secure the existence of the white race (and I would hope, to reestablish continuity with historic Western national cultures). This is what I would like to see. WRT my nation, America, racialists must focus on increasing awareness among the indoctrinated white masses of the disagreeableness and dangers of allowing our country to be racially diversified through immigration, as well as of the sociobiology of interracial differences in ability, temperament and behavior. Politically, we must be shrewd, as minorities have been, making the most effective initial demands for seemingly race-neutral policies that, however, benefit our race disproportionately (eg, protecting gun rights, sealing the border with Mexico), while constantly issuing other demands, like stopping all immigration, with greater intensity after initial victories. My point, I guess, is really rather simple. There is no right strategy now that will necessarily still be correct in the future, so excessive theorizing about strategy is a waste of energy. Our energies should be concentrated on what is most feasible, which right now means 1) sealing the border; 2) reducing (eventually abolishing) legal immigration; 3) deporting all 20 million illegals (though not all at once, or in one area); 4) abolishing affirmative action; 5) maintaining firearms freedom; 6) granting tuition tax credits for parents who send their kids to private or parochial schools, or who homeschool; 7) defending and increasing/routinizing the use of the death penalty; 8) protecting the traditional Constitution, which slows the growth of the anti-white dispossessionist regime's power; 9) opposing all new welfare spending, which disproportionately benefits non-whites at the expense of whites. If we focus on these things, which together comprise a kind of "lowest common denominator" white nationalism, and which are also vital for the ultimate goal of securing a future for white children, we have our work cut out for the foreseeable future. Once we achieve some things (most importantly on immigration), we'll proceed to make new demands, as circumstances dictate.
7063042311236263462Here's something vaguely apposite that I just posted at the CHRONICLES website (I have to post under the pseudonym "Arthur Pendleton" as I have been declared, as earlier at takimag and elsewhere, persona non grata there), in response to this statement, "The New York Times recently said 'nativists are finished'", and some followups: 7 Comment by Arthur Pendleton on 5 March 2009: Your comment is awaiting moderation. Sadly, the NYT is correct. I was saying the same thing back in 94, after a Federal judge set aside the democratic will of the people of CA (many of us being very “un-clueless”, though the number of us old-stock Americans here in CA continuously dwindles), as evidenced by our support for Prop 187, to determine our own demographic destiny, at least wrt being overrun by illegal aliens. Many movement “conservatives” hated 187, and thought it would alienate hispanics from the GOP, foolishly failing to realize that it is the GOP’s conservatism itself, however tepid, that alienates hispanics. We nativists (I prefer the term ‘racial nationalist’ to describe my own views) have indeed lost the USA, at least if we were ever thinking about ‘taking back’ the whole 50 states, and reimposing traditional American cultural norms. That does not mean we have lost the immigration battle - far from it. The worse the economy gets, the more restrictionist sentiment grows. I even know two putrid Obama voters, who nevertheless are against amnesty, and immigration more generally (which is hypocritical of them, as their opposition to immigration, I happen to know, is mainly cultural, and yet they supported Obama in part as an idiotic and pathetic gesture of ‘post-racial’ goodwill - from whence does such white weakness originate?). And conservatives at the grassroots are now fully awakened to the threat of immigration (which is racial change, though everyone avoids saying this, including at CHRONICLES), and overwhelmingly opposed. Where the NYT, and all other race-leftists, from Marxists and black nationalists, to libertarians, Christianists, and even paleoconservatives, are wrong is in thinking that the Third World demographic colonization and conquest of the US somehow means that white racialism here is dead. Ha hahahahahaha! Far from it, people! We, the authentic Right, the one that everybody wishes would just go away, because we are akin to a guilty conscience, for the Right, and the Real Threat for the Left, as well as their minority ‘clients’ and allies, are growing leaps and bounds, both in numbers as well as in theoretical sophistication and media presentation. How well I remember the 80s, when it seemed there were no serious racialists or even American nationalists, with only “last-gasp” holdouts at THE MANKIND QUARTERLY and some vulgarians at INSTAURATION (though the editor, Wilmot Robertson, was one of the most important rightist thinkers of the past half-century). Today, there are legions of us, possesed of a degree of sophistication unimaginable in the postwar Klan or similar groups. Today’s racialists are not about “keeping down them n——”, but recognize the link between the white race and Western civilization, and know that our civilization, superior to all others, will not survive being integrated with our racial/cultural inferiors. That is THE political issue of our age (all the other issues so often whined about on this site and in this magazine just pale in comparison next to keeping America majority white, as well as building white tribalist consciousness, that our culture and genetic purity might be preserved whatever central state-imposed demographic changes).
10981942451306070058Cara, I feel for your plight, as you are obviously a civilized person suffering from bad historical luck, like Europeans during the World Wars, the people stuck under communist tyranny, and even, to a much, much lesser extent, traditional white men like me living in the shitty, multiculti, affirmative actionized California (and America) of the last few decades. What a garbage world we live in today! But it was brought to us by three groups: malevolent haters of Western civilization, whether of its white, Christian or private property/capitalist/rationalist aspects; liberal 'idealists', with their assinine schemes for social improvement that make everything worse; and reasonable, competent, but pitifully naive white majorities, comprised of people like [b]you[/b]. That you could actually be experiencing the slow-motion genocide of your own people, a people infinitely more valuable than the savages to whom you have beyond idiotically given your formerly excellent, white-run nation, and yet still even mention a worry about white racism, illustrates perfectly the origins of your present plight. When I was much younger in the 70s and 80s my family had some wonderful, senior age South African friends (British, not Boer) who were always inviting us to come visit them in SA. I remember my mother saying how much she would like to go before the country should fall to the blacks and be ruined. Sadly, we all just never could find the time, and eventually we lost contact with our friends (the husband died in the late 80s, and the wife, always a British citizen, returned to Britain; I never met their children, at least one of whom had a farming operation out in the Orange Free State, I think). My point is that even my parents and other family knew perfectly well that the white race had lost the will to fight and live; that we had succumbed to false notions of racial equality (especially the ludicrous notion that all men owe equal moral obligations to all others irrespective of race, religion, culture, nation, or any other collective identity - a notion absolutely without Christian ethical or theological foundation); that it was only a matter of time before the minority whites of SA were forced to share power with the black majority; and that as soon as that should happen, SA would be ruined. Obviously, we were right (as white racists always were and are). My question is, what were YOU PEOPLE thinking when you allowed for black majority rule??!! Being SA, you must have had much more experience of blacks than we Americans (just as, until quite recently, we've had much greater experience than the Europeans). What in the world did you expect would be the outcome of majority rule? You should have defended the eminently sensible apartheid system to the last man. Its purpose was to protect whites, the race at once more civilized and ethical, and thus morally deserving of concern, as well as more competent, and thus valuable for SA as a whole. I was very sad when SA fell. It was a bitter blow to Western Civilization. South Africans (the whites, esp the Boers) are some of the highest quality people on Earth. You should have fought far more ruthlessly to secure your national existence, and a future for white children in SA. At one time, in the 80s or early 90s, I might have even moved there to aid in the armed struggle, had SA issued an international call for white fighters, and vowed to preserve a white outpost in Africa forever. SA, or some portion of it, could have served as an international white ethnostate, a place of refuge for race patriots everywhere. Indeed, if a white racial revolution were to start there now, to carve out a white apartheid nation around, say, Cape Town, and if the white revolutionary government issued a call for race patriots from around the globe, I just might seriously consider even now going to enlist in the white armed forces, though my youth is past. You might be surprised how many alienated whites from all over - North America, Europe, Russia, Australia, perhaps even parts of Latin America - might heed the call. Unfortunately, if wobbly and weak persons like you, distraught at ... [i]white racism?![/i] ... are what we'd be fighting for, well, no thanks. I care only about aiding white nationalists - never white liberals.
10986242451306152247Cara, You are repeatedly misunderstanding me, and going off on tangents. Here is my core recommendation, to the extent I have offered one: [i]I’m not asking you to aggress against innocents. But you will only be safe in a white majority country (at least on the continent of Africa), and to get that country, whites will have to fight. Are you denying that whites, the very people who built everything of value in SA, do not have a moral right to personal safety in their own nation? or simply, to their own nation? “Self-determination” was all the cant in the apartheid years. What about white self-determination?[/i] First, the whole handling of race in SA history was a disaster (as, too, in America). Perhaps in the future white patriots will have learned from their failed pasts. You should have never accepted any black labor or settlement in SA (in (true) fairness, the problems associated with not doing this would have been very difficult to have foreseen in past ages, and in any case, they weren't). The white colonists should simply have come and colonized the land, never exterminating the native African populations (unless in righteous response to prior physical attacks), but also never employing them or allowing them to physically move around or reside on white-colonized territory. Whites should have pursued this policy ever further northwards, bringing as much territory within white cultivation/civilization as possible (and, of course, as defensible). Second, whites should have instituted rigorous anti-mixed race marriage laws, anti-miscegenation laws, as well as whites-only citizenship laws. No nonwhite immigration should have been allowed, though white immigration should have been encouraged at all times (except of white leftists). Finally, taxation should have been based on a fertility standard: the more children one produces, the fewer taxes one pays. Third, this is all water under the bridge. The only question now is, will whites survive in southern Africa? and, will the Boer nation persevere at all? Both are very doubtful, as things stand. Fourth, what is wrong with Boers demanding their own nation carved out of what was formerly their SA? Jews wanted their own nation, and got Israel. The Palestinians are clamoring for their own state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. What about the Boers (not to mention the Americans - we'd like our own nation again, too)? Fifth, Boers should ask the ANC to grant them territory from within SA to become a new, sovereign, whites-only, Boer nation. If the ANC grants this, then a peaceful separation becomes possible. Then what killing would there be? If it is not granted, then the [i]Boervolk[/i] have a moral right to take their own nation - to pick up guns, and, yes, attack the ruling, tyrannical ANC, and kill them and their soldiers and supporters. Presumably that does not implicate your nice black helpers, who, if they are nice and fair and just, as you imagine yourself to be, would have no objection to letting the Boer people go. You are not waging war against all blacks, or trying to take control of all SA. You only wish a homeland for the Boer people, and you are only killing the ANC and its supporters if they try to stop your secession. Do you understand the concept of [i]secession[/i] (Allen Buchanan is an American liberal scholar who has explored secessionist issues in depth, if you're interested in learning more)? Of course, once the [i]Boervolk[/i] have their own country again, there will be enormous problems keeping it. You will have to become heavily militarized (as with Israel), though possibly without global allies (you might be able to ally with Israel, or maybe get assistance from Russia). Every able-bodied man must participate in annual military training. You need to develop a "crash" nuclear weapons program. You will need to institute "open borders" immigration policies for any and all whites (but only whites!!!) wishing to emigrate there, and you might consider advertising for foreign white immigrants, even at the risk of diluting ethnic Boer cultural domination. As I mentioned previously, a white African republic might attract many white nationalist immigrants. There are many of us around the world looking for an ethnostate in which we could be openly, proudly, aggressively white. You really might be surprised at how many white persons would petition to move there, thus bolstering your numbers (remember: what has kept Israel alive for the past 30 years is the huge wave of Jews from the USSR who had started coming in the late 70s, and has raised the Jewish state's demographic profile). I think this answers your questions.
10985842451306147922Cara, Let's examine (briefly) your response to me. [i]Yes, I’m very sure that the people in power knew what was going to happen to the country when giving it over to black rule.[/i] I was not referring to people in power, but to the white people who in 1992 (I remember reading the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i] on this at the time - how time flies, I must say!) voted by I think about a 2-1 majority to hold all-race elections. What in the world were they thinking? Perhaps they were thinking like you, thinking of kind-hearted black workers they'd known, desperately pushing to the back of their brains their knowledge of the innate savagery in the soul of the typical African. Look where reality avoidance has landed all of you (of course, all sympathy to the terribly unfortunate white souls who voted NOT to end apartheid). BTWm if people in power knew what would happen, then why did they do it? Treason based on what? hatred? political interests or business greed? [i]White people all over SA were preparing for war in 1994 as they were convinced the black masses are going to ‘drive them into the sea’. Luckily, that didn’t happen, but now our country is slowly being destroyed. Yes, SA was a wonderful country to live in. It’s beautiful with rich earth and lots of minerals. [/i] It was wonderful under white rule, correct? And terrible under black rule, right? [i] Unfortunately I am someone who likes to be fair, if that makes me weak-minded, then so be it, I don’t like injustice. [/i] Who said anything about injustice - except the massive injustice that was done to whites, the builders of SA? And your concern with fairness is a typically dangerous white racial trait. It is highly admirable, as long as you exist among others mostly like you. When it is misapplied to multiracial contexts, when your racial competitors do not exhibit such touching concerns, then it is a formula for collective suicide. [i]The crime in SA are reaching terrible peaks due to the bad management of the ANC communistic government.[/i] Nonsense. I don't doubt the communism or the horrors of the ANC. But please stop making excuses for Negroid savagery. There have been unbelievable genocides, rape rampages and perpetual pillaging in the Congo and adjacent countries for the past decade. Millions have died. Communism has no part of it. Can you understand that? Can you draw the correct conclusion(s) from that fact? [i]But you have to live in SA to understand that it is not a pure ‘black and white’ (excuse the pun) situation.[/i] No, I don't. Nothing in human social relations is ever pure, one way or another. All is tendency. But some tendencies are statistically significant, and endlessly recurrent. [i]My mom lived with me and my husband until she passed away in 2007, she was diabetic. The last 5 years of her life she was in ill health. We’ve had a man work for us (from before I got married in 2004), a black man from Lesotho. He left his wife and kids to come to SA in the hopes of getting a job and making a future for his family. In total, I think he worked about 10 years for us (especially my mom), and he loved her, and she loved him. He is a good man, hard-working and honest. The last 5 years of my mom’s life, I was very appreciative of him as he looked after my mom whenever it was his day to work at our house. He would make her food and make sure she ate, he would bring a chair and tell her to sit down whenever she got stubborn and didn’t want to go inside (he was a gardener and she loved gardening). He was the one to phone me at work one day telling me that my mom passed out and I need to come home (in his very broken english). He was the one to tell my mom to go inside while he talks to the ‘tsotsi’s’ outside and get them to leave. He visited my mom in hospital on her last stretch and held her hand. That black man did more for my mother than some of her children. The lady who worked in my house for 4 years, I’ve got nothing but respect for. Also a hard-working and honest woman. I never had to check up on her, she always did her job. She never stole from us. In those 4 years she did not take one day off for being sick or feeling ill. I sent her home twice I think because she was quite sick and she needed to rest. She felt the same I do about the current ANC government.[/i] Are all whites wonderful? All backs evil? No, and, so what? Remember tendencies. Blaming the "current ANC government" (voted into power by the black majority, you seem to forget, in free and reasonably fair elections) is evasive and cowardly. [i]Now if a war breaks about between black and white people in SA, how do you expect me to ever lift a hand of violence against these 2 people? How do I fight and kill someone I’ve come to respect and love over so many years? And these are just 2 examples. [/i] Who's asking you to? If these persons are so wonderful, presumably you wouldn't have to. Your response is a PARADIGMATIC example of knee-jerk liberalism. [i]I’m not saying every black person in SA is a saint and we the white nation are horrible, not at all. I have my days where I get so angry at what is being done that I go off into one of my rants. But if seeing good in someone who’ve SHOWN me who they are is weak-minded and naive, then I guess I am. I don’t mind fighting for my country, and I don’t mind fighting people who attack me, I have NO problem with that at all.[/i] I'm not asking you to aggress against innocents. But you will only be safe in a white majority country (at least on the continent of Africa), and to get that country, whites will have to fight. Are you denying that whites, the very people who built everything of value in SA, do not have a moral right to personal safety in their own nation? or simply, to their own nation? "Self-determination" was all the cant in the apartheid years. What about white self-determination? [i]Me and my mother were attacked in our home (before I was married) by 4 black men carrying guns. My sister-in-law was shot at last year when they tried to hijack her car on her way to work at 8am the morning. So it’s not as if I haven’t felt the blows personally. I’m no untouched bystander when it comes to violence. [/i] But you naively refuse to learn the correct lesson from it. [i]But I won’t wage a war against someone purely based on skin colour. Maybe if I never knew these black people, never saw their good hearts, I would have whole-heartedly agreed with you. But I have.[/i] So you are willing to risk personal destruction at the hands of savage blacks because you know some nice ones? Classic liberal thinking, the thinking of white racial suicide.
10985742451306145950Silver, You are an idiot. What I wrote above is extremely moderate, both by my own standards, as well as those of most WNs. It is also wholly unobjectionable. It is truth. I notice that no argument is offered in support of the "Rainbow Nation". No argument is offered against my position that handing over SA to the black majority constituted a monumental disaster - as I among many WNs predicted, and as has come to pass. You must be a Jew. I generally don't like to beat up on 'the Jews', as it smells of intellectual evasion; that is, of a failure to perceive and decry the real problem of the Aryan, which is our own ridiculously misapplied morality (cf Cara comment above, as I will explain). But your obsessive concern with racialist PR or marketing (not unimportant issues in the [i]real[/i] world, btw) at the expense of forcing one and all to face plain truth has a very Talmudic smell about it. It is the white race above all others which stands preeminently for truth - not "tribal truth", or "Rortyan pragmatic/functional truth" - but Truth, and the virtue of seeking it, protecting it, and proclaiming it. The internet, or at least sites like this one, should be devoted to truth. Obviously, no WN politician should simply reiterate what is said here, even when what is said is true and eloquent. But what would be the point of shading the truth in this context? If persons like Cara can't handle what I've said ([i]this[/i] in the context of white genocide?! what reality dimension is this?! 4th? 5th?), that is indicative or mental or moral failings on their part, not mine. It is they who need work on their minds and characters, not I. And if I were drop dead now, or at any point in the next 10-30 years, it would actually be a bitter blow to the survival chances of the white race. All committed WNs work for the race in accordance with their own abilities, interests and situations. It so happens that my set of concerns - the ethics of white survival - is precisely the area that holds the key for that survival, and that my approach to those issues - integrating scientific racism with traditional conservatism within the bounds of Christian natural law - is the correct one, and hence most politically dangerous. The Left loves neo-Nazis because they are so easy to discredit ethically (and on a number of grounds, and for every other ideological group). Having been a racialist blogger now for a good 5 or more years, I have noticed that my style and approach really enrage racial do-gooders and egalitarians of all ideological persuasions - far more than Nazi fulminations ever seem to. There is a reason for this. Look at this ugly comment from over on the Rapture thread: [i]Posted by Alaric on May 22, 2011, 01:15 PM | # Christlickers generally are poor, uneducated and easily led. Jeebooism is a gutter religion, fit only for the basest of cowards, weaklings and morons. Keep in mind that this ‘rapture’ nuttery is common amongst the Christ-insane: if not in this particular form, then in another. What a despicable death cult. What a despicable lot of followers it has.[/i] Now imagine Alaric identifies with WN, and throws in some positive references to the Fuhrer in a comment on a non-WN site. See why the Left would[i] not[/i] fear him or his influence? But when I come along, correctly reciting standard Christian or conservative positions, but additionally pointing out some racial truth, especially when such truth has undeniable implications for social policy and public morality, then you see the vitriol unleashed. Nazism is easy to reject. Empirically established interracial differences in intelligence or statistical behavior, especially when harsh but justifiable conclusions are drawn from such information, are not. The race 'liberals' (which includes even Christian, anti-Muslim paleoconservatives) know I'm right, and fear such information becoming widely known. And what they fear above all else is what I'm working on; namely, destroying theories linking Christianity and (most forms of) anti-racism. Reconstituting Western ethics in race preservationist direction, is the key to Western survival. Seemingly everybody, from egalitarians to WNs, dislikes this way of considering the problem, which makes me even more convinced that this is the way to move forward. So you are quite wrong about me. I am valuable to this cause, and will prove that over time.
10988442451306228362No, and you said it more cogently than I did.
10997442451306505557Cara, I will interpolate comments in bold in between your italicized ones. Leon Haller -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by Cara on May 26, 2011, 10:50 PM | # [i]Hi Leon I read your post 3 days ago, stood up from my pc and walked out. I was completely dumbstruck. [/i] [b]Really? "dumbstruck"? Why?[/b] [i]Later the day I went back, read it again, stood up again and walked away again. The next morning I read it again, and again I stood up and walked away. Then I was offline for a day due to a motherboard change, and when I came back online, I read it again. I just read it AGAIN.[/i] [b]OK, you read it, and know it better than I do (I think I shall now read it again). But did you reflect upon it, especially this:[/b] [u]The only question now is, will whites survive in southern Africa? and, will the Boer nation persevere at all? Both are very doubtful, as things stand.[/u] [i]The 3 people I told about it (all white South Africans), started laughing. But mind you, maybe they’re just as liberal as I am and also weak-minded and naive Tomorrow I’m going to forward it to a friend of mine (also a white South African) who is most definitely NOT a liberal as far as I know, and I would like to hear his response to what you’ve said.[/i] [b]Were these people who remember how much better life was under apartheid? And why did they laugh? Have they already resigned themselves to the extinction of white civilization in Africa?[/b] [i]Two things that jumped out at me immediately with regards to your post answering mine, was the following, and interestingly enough, much the same thoughtlines as the black ANC: 1) We should only allow people into the new all-white state that think exactly like us (a democracy is where everyone agrees with me right?) 2) We should encourage people to breed like rabbits enticing them with tax relief (ANC slogan from the apartheid years: Liberation before Education)[/i] [b]Of course, you understand first, that democracy is one of the worst forms of government, as Aristotle recognized two and a half thousand years ago; and, second, that a Boer State must in no sense be a democracy, but rather a Racial Autocracy, a place of potentially much greater economic freedom than in ANC-communist SA today (you will need the economic efficiencies and growth generated by a capitalist economy arising from a system of strong private property rights in order to equip your national defense establishment with the most sophisticated weapons, and large numbers of them), as well as real/racial political freedom (as compared to white powerlessness in the black tyranny of SA) - but that, nevertheless, at least some scope for political freedom will be narrowed. The Boer State must recognize white fertility as an obviously integral part of national defense and survival, as important as munitions and armaments. Those who produce more white or Boer bodies should be compensated for their greater contribution to national defense/survival. [/b] [i]But that’s just my opinion and what I picked up from it. Let’s move on. [b]First of all, let’s look at the logistical issues with forming a ‘Boer’ nation (for this post purpose let’s call it Utopia). White South Africans currently form less than 10% of the total population. But being positive, let’s say 10%. What 10% of the country exactly would you like this Utopia to be? [/i] That is a matter for your more geographically knowledgeable leaders to figure out. But remember: if the Boers do not gain their own sovereign, racially apartheid state, then in (fairly brief) time, their people will go extinct. And life in the run-up to extinction will be ever nastier and more oppressive (see the recent history of Rhodesia).[/b] [i]Now CS suggested the south west of SA, which would give us wine exporting and tourism mostly, not much else. We’d have no mines as far as I could tell (if anyone can find information on this and either confirm or correct, it would be much appreciated). But definitely no gold or platinum or diamonds. But no matter how you look at it, a LOT of resources will be lost no matter which 10% you create Utopia on.[/i] [b]So, you will be poorer than now, at least temporarily. But your community will be free. And anyway, a lot of resources have already been lost to crony confiscation by the ANC. More will be stolen from you in the future (again, study Rhodesia to see your future). So what choice do you really have, assuming you wish to stay in Africa? And, btw, who actually controls all that gold, diamonds, etc? The [i]Boervolk[/i], or various international elite class corporations, themselves owned by shareholders from across the planet? Please do not be so naive as to think that SA mineral resources actually belong to your ethnocultural community! [/b] [b]Finally, a racially committed people with high morale can accomplish great things, including in the economic realm. Look at the history of the settlement of the US state of Utah - a far less promising place than almost anywhere in SA. Look at Australia. Who the hell needs platinum mines to endure as a people?[/b] [i]But let’s ignore the logistics completely. Let’s say the government and opposing party (let’s call it the Utopian Party – UP) come to an agreement and both parties are happy with it. No matter where it is in SA, the majority of white people will have to leave their homes, businesses and everything they’ve worked for to move there.[/i] [b]But you are only a few years away from having what hasn't already been commandeered by the ANC-communists stolen by squatters anyway. Again, consider Rhodesia.[/b] [i]Obviously the black, coloured and asian people will have to do the same, but seeing as they would be a minority compared to the majority of black, coloured and asian people in SA, we don’t have to worry too much about that. Especially the Cape coloureds who are mostly descendant from the Khoikhoi who’s territory the Cape originally was when the Dutchman, Jan van Riebeeck set foot in 1652.[/i] [b]Yes, of course, all nonwhites must be expelled from the white territory. Absolutely no exceptions. As I say, at first you must choose the zone to conquer, then quietly move as many Boers there as possible without attracting official notice, but eventually, the Boer will once again have to pick up his rifle and fight for his people's survival. If it's any grim consolation, within a few decades all white men everywhere will have to do so as well.[/b] [i]So now the UP have convinced all white people (except the liberals ofc) to move to Utopia. They won’t have much of an army to begin with, but with the open borders policy that you suggested, it might be possible to build a good army up again in a few years. In those same amount of years, SA will most probably have been run to the ground and wartorn (but this is just an assumption), so we’ll have a permanent border war going on (go read up on the border war between SA and SWAPO to see what that cost the country). But where will Utopia get the money from to supply weapons and tanks and airplanes and all that? I’m truly not so sure… so I won’t even speculate on that.[/i] [b]Perhaps whites will have to initially cluster in an area rich in tradable minerals - and then declare secession, taking the resources with you into the new nation. Ultimately, there will have to be heavy participation from whites who have remained in the military and police. They will have to seize equipment in a semi-coup d'etat, and either use it immediately to kill as many black troops and police as possible, or else simply haul it off to some previously agreed upon demarcation line, at which point they can dare the central government to try to come and retrieve it. But these are details, vital to be sure, but only worth exploring once the necessary separatist consciousness has been instilled in large numbers of the [i]Boervolk[/i].[/b] [i]So Utopia will have a quite crappy economy (even when you don’t even consider any form of warfare) to start off with. Not even to speculate on the amount of sanctions that might be implemented against it.[/i] [b]Maybe, maybe not. You might be able to strike up immediate investor deals with Russia and/or China, two countries less enthralled with liberal idiocies than the suicidal weaklings in America and Europe.[/b] [i]Let’s go back to the open borders policy. Now in my mind, I don’t envision a lot of well-educated white people moving from their home countries where they’ve built up a life to move to a newly established country with a fragile political environment. They would truly be a minimum. My guess is that you’d mostly get people from low socio-economic backgrounds with nothing to lose. [/i] [b]Maybe, but you need population. You might get quite a number of young, racially conscious whites spoiling for a fight. If you had done this even 10 years ago, I might have gone there, at least as an expat - and then found a wife, and stayed. Hell, if I did not have larger racialist ambitions necessitating my remaining in the US, I might still go right now. And I'm a graduate of one of the very most elite (Ivy League) universities in the US or the world.[/b] [i]They will not be highly educated and would most probably LOVE your fertility tax laws. They would produce more and more children for which they’d have no money to send to university and they in turn would produce more again.[/i] [b]God, let's hope so!! You need soldiers! University, incidentally, is mostly a waste of time and money (you really are very liberal). Eventually, I hope to see every white nation institute tax incentives (if not more directly coercive measures) to increase white fertility. Our race is going extinct globally (thanks to selfish feminism), and in the (near and continuing) future we shall have to be brutally determined to stop that trend by forcing white fertility to rise, by any means most effective. Tax incentives are the least onerous.[/b] [i]Not only that. Utopia would also be a multi-cultural, multi-linguistic country. We’d have polish, Russian, Italian, Greek etc. etc. So once again, you’d have ‘neighbourhoods’ of certain nationalities and languages flocking together. I can guarantee you now that the ‘boer’ nation will separate from these people as far as possible.[/i] [b]Not so very different from the history of America. We've managed to create a national Anglo-white identity out of many disparate European ethnic groups. You will do the same (create a Boer cultural identity from different white ethnicities) over the decades, especially with the inevitable intermarriage that will occur. And again, the Boers will be much safer in an all-white sovereign state of many other white ethnicities, than in your present situation, massively outnumbered and brutally dominated and terrorized by savage kaffirs.[/b] [i]These people with no education will have to be the labourers, not earning much and not being able to afford much, which will most probably stir hatred wrt ‘other’ groups again. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe being white will diffuse tensions.[/i] [b]The common black enemy (compounded by hostility from the "World (ie, Jewish) Community") will unite whites. Also, there will be a great sense of natural, racial camaraderie. Remember: most white immigrants will be hardline racialist pioneers, there not for fun in the sun, but to build the Racial State.[/b] [i]My guess is that all these things I mentioned above is partly the reason why no such thing have been done to the extent you are suggesting. There is a place in SA called ‘Orania’. It is ground bought by the late Dr. Verwoerd’s (architect of apartheid he is called) son-in-law and was put in place as to protect the boer language and culture. You can go read up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orania,_Northern_Cape. I personally think that the reason so few white people in SA are interested in moving there, is because of economic reasons as well as the fact that half the white people in SA are English, and NOT Boere. You can go read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaner.[/i] [b]I am sympathetic to the English SAs, too, though they disproportionately voted to dismantle apartheid (the rank fools, per my prediction of ruin back in '92!), so I care for them less. They can move to Britain or someplace as things get too awful. (And I have heard of Orania.)[/b] [i]I am truly not interested in fighting with you Leon, or anyone else that holds your beliefs.[/i] Yet you read my post, again and again. Hmmm... Like I’ve said in a previous post, I’m sure you have your reasons for thinking and believing the way you do. So I have 2 suggestions for you: [i]1) Go live in SA for at least a couple of months before you make suggestions as to what should be done. This might sound rude, but is not intended that way at all. What I’m trying to say is that SA is more complex than just being branded black and white. [/i] [b]I don't need to. I read, and know what's happening. Indeed, seeing things from afar may give me a more accurate long term picture of SA and its future than your view from the ground. [/b] [i]2) Why don’t you try and negotiate or forcefully take land within the USA for a white-only state/country that you dream of? The USA is bigger than SA and is a little bit less populated per square mile than SA. If I’m correct the Indian natives have their pieces of land, so you can ask for the same? You are also not in the minority wrt race so it should be easier.[/i] [b]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! How we dream of it!!!!! We, too, are an occupied people.[/b] [i]I am no economist, so feel free to bash what I’ve written if you have facts proving otherwise. That sounds a bit in-your-face, which is not the intention, I am truly interested in what an economist would have to say wrt such a state/country.[/i] [b]If Utah could prosper, and Israel function, so can a Boer Free State. It might be tough in the early years - but not as tough as what faced the Voortrekkers, eh? Where's your spirit?! Perhaps this excessive, and excessive short-term, focus on economic comforts is why you lost your country back in 1992.[/b] [b]Good luck![/b]
10998742451306573526You must do better than that, young Cara ... Have you shown my email to your conservative friend? And Beyonce could tour the Boer Republic, she just couldn't live there.
10999142451306592311Cara, I am ever busier, and will not respond to all these questions until the points I raised in response to your earlier comment are properly addressed (eg, you seem to have no knowledge of your own national history, of brave pioneers and bloody battles for living space and self-determination). Bear in mind one crucial matter: the Boers are going extinct, as are whites everywhere, it's true, but you are descending into Hell much sooner than we are, and your end (and the extinction process itself along the way) will be much nastier than ours. Your future is Rhodesia, where whites are being alternately murdered or just left to starve after all their property was stolen by their kaffir-communist government. Our future in the US is California, where whites have been demographically conquered, and are being dispossessed of their wealth through liberal government spending (which is really interracial wealth transferral, though on a much slower scale than you are experiencing in SA) - and where white youth are intermarrying with nonwhites and miscegenating at rapidly accelerating rates, at least in the major cities. But I guess having one's precious beyond price (white) genes absorbed into a mongrel genetic cesspool is still preferable to being butchered in one's own home by feral kaffirs. Now believe me, if I had the power, I would grant instantaneous asylum in the US for any Boer (or indeed, for any Aryan anywhere, except known criminals, disease bearers, homosexuals, and leftists). I would do this out of in part [i]selfish[/i] concerns. I want America to be made whiter, if possible. That would be good for my country. Admitting the entire [i]Boervolk[/i] into America would also be great for individual Boers - but terrible for the Boer nation collectively. Your ethnoculture would not survive more than one single generation here. Then it would be absorbed into white America, in turn to be absorbed into mongrelism. But at least it would be a mostly peaceful process. A final point. The Racial State (TRS) as I am envisioning it most certainly will not simply be a "whites only" society - a modern, Western democracy minus muds. For attention must be paid to its projected viability over the long-term. TRS will have tremendous economic freedom, far more than any place today except maybe Hong Kong. Such freedom is necessary to maximize economic growth, which in turn will feed armaments production and acquisition. But otherwise it will be extremely militarized, both in terms of the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending, and the constant combat training (in the form not merely of lessons in killing techniques, but also of assigning pre-warfare "shadow" positions to all persons, so that upon the outbreak of war, each individual will already have a known place in the military hierarchy, supplementing the standing, professional soldiery) individuals of both sexes, from ages 16-60, will receive and participate in, as well as socially regulated and authoritarian. Specifically, it will be rigorously eugenic, as well as formally oriented around maximizing white fecundity. School curricula will be designed around a core patriotic consensus, teaching not only standard subjects like reading and math, but also explaining to the children the reality of racial differentiation, the horrors of multiracialism, and the necessity for harsh measures to ensure white survival. Of course, this is the briefest outline of TRS, but you are certainly correct that society will not be nearly as free as in the modern West. It will also not be morally and culturally degenerate, nor headed to extinction.
11002042451306670401CL, I was being very moderate in all that I wrote to Cara. When I think of the injustice of what has happened to the hard-working, God-fearing Afrikaners, what I would prefer to write might actually get redacted, even here at MR. Re the intertwined issues of white natalism v eugenics, OK, I write comments here, not treatises. My comments are meant to be suggestive, not comprehensive. Yes, there is the tension you highlight, and I would always at this stage favor TRS maximizing white births. I had in mind mainly a system of positive eugenics (PE). WRT negative eugenics, there should be some of that, at least for violent criminals (heinous criminals will be executed, of course, but I refer to incorrigibles whose crimes have not reached the capital level), as well as retarded persons (I don't mean retards should be mandatorily aborted, though it could come to that in the early years, depending on how hard-pressed we are; I refer to retards being sterilized so they do not get impregnated), and, of course, gene carriers of certain disease types (eg, hemophilia) will be forbidden from procreation with carriers of the same genes - this to me is a Christian duty! WRT PE, we want to encourage the best to breed the most. IQ may be the best proxy for high quality. We could give a series of national IQ tests to persons upon turning 18. Smart persons will be encouraged to marry each other. The higher the combined marital IQ, the greater the tax incentive (or, past a certain numeric threshold, outright state subsidy) towards fertility. Moreover, the incentive or subsidy would be steeply progressive: say, $10k for child #1, an additional $15k for child #2, $20k for #3, etc (these amounts should not be taken literally; the actual sums will depend on the state of the national treasury, which, of course will improve over time after the hard, early "pioneer" phase is past). Given that the actual dollar cost of raising each individual child falls with each new child (ie, if it costs $10k annually to raise one kid, it most certainly does not cost $20k to raise two, still less $30k to raise three, etc), the high-fertility couple would be benefitted in both directions (progressive increase in child allowance for each additional kid, progressive decrease in childcare costs for each additional kid). I think this scheme (or something along the lines of the general PE principle) could lead to huge and very rapid increases in white births, especially if TRS was generally pro-child in its outlook (as it would be, especially in the first few generations of acutest danger), and if it also made high fertility into a correlate of high social status (as Mussolini attempted to do with some success, giving public recognition and state awards to women with the most children). Feminists will scream bloody murder, but, first, they can remain in Mudville if they don't like it; second, if born after the founding of TRS, they can always emigrate to Mudville; and third, women who produce more children are doing more for society than the feminists, and as a matter of justice should be appropriately compensated (as opposed to the anti-white fertility situation obtaining throughout the West today).
11002242451306671310Greek, Who is talking about violence against all blacks? Even to broach such an issue is to have allowed our opponents to have defined the issue. It is whites who built all of SA. The country was and is theirs. It does not belong to the descendants of black immigrants who have now been allowed to rule the place, and live of the dwindling "fat of the land" created by whites. All I have said is that the Boer community will die out unless it has its own sovereign territory. Surely you agree that the whites who built the whole fucking nation at least have a moral right to live as civilized white people in some reduced territorial portion of that nation??!! And that the majority blacks owe it to them to give them this??!! And that if the black ingrates cannot even give a bit of territory so that the [i]Boervolk[/i] might live as a community, then the Boers have a right to secede - and to exterminate any black aggressors who would attempt to prevent their secession? The only even slightly morally problematic issue would be the racial cleansing of those nonwhites currently residing on the territory of what would become the Boer nation. And that's not much - the Boers themselves would be displaced persons, with a much greater right to the entirety of SA (and thus even more to some small piece of it) than the blacks. So a few blacks would have to move, as many, many whites have been similarly cleansed - with nary a negroid expressing any moral qualms about it, one might add. Wake up, pal, and face reality.
11004742451306755575Greek, Did you even read what I wrote? Cara, Did you?
11008042451306842711[u]“Who is talking about violence against all blacks?”[/u] and only a couple of paragraphs later [u]“the Boers have a right to exterminate any black aggressors who would attempt to prevent their secession”[/u] (GreekWP) Friend, Are you joking? You're not implying any sort of contradiction - logical or moral - between my two underlined statements, are you? If so, then you need to re-read them carefully, or perhaps spend some time studying logic.
11236942451312622415So I assume, Lisa, that you will not object when Europeans finally remove all nonwhites from European soil?
7405643141241268013With all due respect, GW, you are totally wrong in your post above to Mr. Braun. Fire must be fought with fire. If ANYONE thinks any longer that the West will be saved except through violent revolution (and subsequent mass internal liquidations of traitors), he is deeply naive. I have considered this matter at some length, and from within several relevant disciplines, as no doubt you have, too, which is why I am constantly advocating on nationalist sites a greater focus on the ethics of violent action. England had its Glorious Revolution, we Yanks (and Rebels) had ours. While rightist violence may, for now, be nought but a dream, it is one we must cultivate and theorize, especially now, before the storm, that our people (or at least, OUR people, those on the Right) shall have been conditioned to act properly and without soon-to-be-superfluous bourgeois moralities when the time for action does arrive (and it will, no matter how much most whites, whether Left or Right, might wish to avoid such unpleasantness - the racial aliens will bring it upon us, all of us, regardless of any pacific attitudes we might hold). Our race's choice in this century is simple: accept a combination of genocide and passive extinction (I believe the most likely course will be predominantly passive attrition, much of it self-imposed, followed by genocide directed against the last whites) as the final fate of the West - or wage exterminatory war in defense of our genetic purity and cultural heritage. A war for life and living space for our people. If someone can present a likely alternative through which our race will be peacefully preserved, I would like to learn of it.
7575743571243787245I posted the following moderate and self-effacing comments, somewhat on point here, to the "traditionalist conservative" website of CHRONICLES magazine. In less than an hour or so, they had been deleted (I've re-posted them for now). Why? I encourage WNs to visit and comment on that site. The so-called Right needs to know that an authentic Right still exists, and is growing bolder. 13 Comment by cato on 31 May 2009: Your comment is awaiting moderation. Didn’t Sam Francis once refer to Christianity as a “fifth column in/of the West”? (He did.) Didn’t Spengler refer to it as the “godmother of Bolshevism”? (ditto.) Obviously, neither was referring to the historic fighting faith of the Crusaders. But that only begs the real question, which Dr. Fleming does not satisfactorily answer: could modern (white) race treason have arisen apart from Christianity? Probably not, even though today secular leftists, indeed secularists generally, are vastly less patriotic, even nationalist (and even racist), than committed Christians. But the real issue is whether those “exclusionary Christians” are acting properly according to their faith. My own view is that Christianity was once the greatest exalter of Western civ (ie, it played an enormously important role in lifting Western man up from pagan barbarism, including that of ‘civilized’ pagans, like the Romans), but that today, at least as a sociological and political, if not necessarily philosophical or theological, matter, it is clearly what Dr. Francis believed it to be. For nearly 30 years, as long as I’ve been intellectually awakened and able to understand adults, I think just about every religious sermon I’ve attended, which had any sort of social or political implication, had a left-of-center-to-hard-left orientation. The single greatest threat to Western Christianity (and Christianity all across the globe, now that communism has reached its just demise) is Islam; in the West specifically, it is Islamic immigration (no disagreement from the CHRONICLES crowd there, I’m sure). And yet, what did Dr. Fleming’s allegedly great pontiff, John Paul II, do about it? NOT ONE DAMN THING. No, scratch that. He made the problem worse. He declaimed on the alleged “rights of immigrants” (huh?), in a horrible document entitled “On Welcoming the Stranger” (or something like that). Since when do receiving nations (in reality, this means only white nations) have an eternal obligation to open their gates to any foreigners who want entry? Is that in Scripture? Can such a position be derived from Christian precepts? I’m inclined to doubt it, but I’m not sure. JPII was a learned man. Why would he preach such nonsense? Is the problem faulty understanding - or faulty doctrine? Isn’t Christianity primarily concerned with the fate of souls - not with the disposition of the things of the world? Our lives are supposed to be nought but a kind of training ground for eternity, in which case, patriotism will always seem a bit suspect. Loyalty is to Christ, to parents, wives and children (provided they are good Christians), perhaps to the wider Christian community … But to race, culture, (secular) community, nation, heritage, class, institutions, ranks, etc? I believe (but then, I’m mostly uneducated in Christian theology) that Christianity does allow for various loyalties, provided they exist in proper balance and hierarchy. But I do not know whether Christianity possesses the intellectual resources to provide moral justifications for the stern measures (ie physically aggressive ones) which must be taken if the West, understood historically properly as the civilization of the white man, is to survive. And that refers to Christianity at its best (eg, in the pages of CHRONICLES). The typical Western Christian today is a racial integrationist and a socialist (and most Western non-Christians are even worse!). I remain haunted by the words of Revilo Oliver, great writer and brave man, written nearly a half-century ago (this is from memory, so I’m paraphrasing): “The Civitatis Dei is a great work of Christian metaphysics, and perhaps even consoled its author while the Vandals were besieging Hippo Regius …. Our task is to defend Rome.” If Hitler had won, the West would not be on the brink of annihilation. Indeed, the gene pool would have been purified, the territories of the West (or at least Europe) racially cleansed, and there would always have been the possibility of eventual cultural instauration and moral renewal. But with the racial aliens flooding in, we are threatened with demographic conquest, peaceful but permanent. Once the West ceases to be white, there will be no possibility of renaissance. Is Christianity helping to keep the West white - or aiding in the alien conquest? Surely, even Dr. Fleming knows the answer. And that answer must determine the conservative’s attitude towards the faith. ----------------------------- Note: these comments can hardly be called extreme! I am not, eg, endorsing Hitler, but merely stating an historical fact. Nor am I disparaging Christianity, but rather, asking the perfectly intellectually legitimate question whether it is capable of truly preserving the West. The PC cowardice of the self-congratulatory and generally insufferable editor, Thomas Fleming, is really too much. No donations for you, Phlegming!
7614743701244365479Keep fighting, Mr. Griffin! As I know pathetically little about UK politics, except ironically about the BNP, which is often discussed in places like AMERICAN RENAISSANCE and here, I have some questions for GW or knowledgeable others: 1. Is the UKIP any good? What is its REAL agenda? 2. Are either the Greens or LibDems or both further to the left than Labour? Which British party is the most leftist? 3. Which party is the most libertarian/free market? Normally, I'd be inclined to say the Tories, but in France I believe the National Front is more genuinely pro-property than the Gaullists; Enoch Powell was firmer against socialism than Thatcher. 4. Can the Greens ever be persuaded to embrace immigration restriction based on Britain's looming (if not already exigent) problem of immigration-generated overpopulation? 5. Are there m/any good elements on nationalist issues to be found amongst the Tories? Or are they pretty much all terrified or treasonous sell-outs like the Republicans here? 6. Wrt immigration, are Labour and LibDem now all bad, or are there still some redeeming elements, at least among their voters? The old working class was not noticeably in favor of foreign invasions. Thanks. Leon Haller
7629343701244510147Thank you for addressing my queries, GW. It seems very depressing. Even if the BNP did a bit better than expected (congrats, boys! or is it "lads" in the UK?), it would seem that the race-replacement juggernaut is either ideologically, or at least systemically, unstoppable. Way back in the late 80s, I remember telling some older "conservative" "leaders" that the only hope for the future of the West, understood as a racial derivative of whites, would be if all race-patriotic whites from across the planet were to descend upon or immigrate to one smallish country with a low percentage of non-whites, say Ireland, or Uruguay, or even Australia, and essentially ideologically conquer it. We could make it the last redoubt of the white man (defense budget might have to be a bit high, but we could manage it), as Europe falls to the Caliphate, and North America becomes mestizoized, and later mongrelized. I was speaking slightly tongue in cheek (I had hoped Euro nationalists would have attained power long ago, and stopped immigration); it now seems like the last sensible option.
7648643791244732013Have any of you people ever heard of the phrase "Divide and conquer"? You are doing your enemies' job for them. Although I'm an American, and not very knowledgeable wrt the byways of British politics, there are some general facts and principles applicable to every particular national situation throughout the whole white world. First, the white race, composed of all the European peoples, and only them (hence there is a cultural as well as biological aspect to race; otherwise, we would have to admit the various white - brunette, redhead, even blonde - Muslims I have seen, and even met, into our fold; something which for many reasons we must not do), is going extinct, at least if we maintain our collective present course. Second, every exogenous trend is running hard against us. These include, minimally: a. the non-white global population bomb (fertility rates are thankfully mostly falling, but absolute numbers will continue to rise for most of the remainder of our lifetimes); b. the white DE-population bomb, esp amongst you hedonistic pansies over in Europe (less beer and soccer, more sex, perhaps?), is worsening, as Buchanan in DEATH OF THE WEST, and Mark Steyn (Jew? who cares?) in AMERICA ALONE, have discussed in polemical but depressing detail; even if our women suddenly start wanting lots of children, as a simple but inexorable mathematical matter, it will take quite a while for our population figures even to stabilize, let alone begin to rise even absolutely (and it would take centuries to get the global Europoid percentile of Earth's inhabitants back up to where we were in 1900 - around 30% of the total population of the planet); c. the age differential between whites and non-whites, with non-whites everywhere but Japan substantially younger than whites, with all that that will mean for shifting demographic, and ultimately military, power (as more countries gain nukes, their value will decline, and the West's technological advantages along with it - if Iran gets the bomb, what will declining Russia do if faced with military incursions by the far younger and soon to be more numerous Iranians?); d. intra- as well as interracial global dysgenics, by which I mean, that the biological quality of whites has massively declined in the last hundred years - and I believe that the rate of decline has been accelerating (eg, hardly any of the intelligent whites I know have kids); moreover, we all know that intelligence correlates with IQ, which correlates with income, at least in the contemporary West; unfortunately, it is a sociological fact that American women (probably not too different elsewhere) in the top income decile have the fewest kids (nearly half in that decile at age 40 have NO children), while those in the lowest income decile have the most kids (I think this holds for whites, though also for minorities); e. massive racial/territorial fragmentation due to the importation of tens of millions of immigrant invaders (ie, the walls have been pretty massively breached), every one of these diverse immigrant groups, everywhere in the white world, having higher than native-white fertility levels; f. ever increasing Jewish/leftist control over the media and academic (and financial, and legal) establishments throughout the white world; g. a constant legislative tightening of free speech wrt race, including the increasing criminalization of nationalist speech in the West; h. massive anti-(white)-racist / racial integrationist / miscegenationist propaganda having now penetrated every white mind everywhere (except possibly in parts of Eastern Europe, though I'm not qualified to say), such that the only white preservationists still existent are those of us who are sufficiently informed and independent-minded - always a minority of any large population group; i. steadily increasing rates of miscegenation, as well as interracial adoptions, everywhere (ie, white females not innately opposed to interracial coupling now have no 'unnatural' defenses, such as traditional lack of contact with non-whites, or legal/social prohibitions). Third, following from #2, only we can save ourselves, and we will only be able to do so through a conscious act of political will. If we take no action, our race will go extinct (or, as I believe more likely, be exterminated).
7648743791244733862So what is the proper course of action to save our race? What are our options? [Alas, work beckons, but I'll answer this quickly, with maybe a bit more tonight.] GW is absolutely correct. We need a politics whose ultimate focus is on saving the race itself (ie, race purity, race number, defensible race-demarcated territory) - NOT engaging in endless rehashes of history, or esoteric 'theory', or parsings of "who is white?" (frankly, we need all the allies we can muster!), or linking of the race-preservationist agenda to extraneous objectives (eg, capitalism? socialism? who cares, at least as a primary matter?). What patriot parties like the BNP must do is focus their energies on building support for the core issue: ending immigration (then later, repatriation of non-Europeans, for Europe; for America, racial secession). EVERY OTHER POSITION IS MERELY TACTICAL, AND MUST BE ADVANCED OR WITHDRAWN BASED ON HOW IT SERVES THE MACRO-AGENDA. I am not simply a racialist, but have all sorts of mostly conservative opinions on many issues. Understanding that these other opinions pertain to secondary concerns, I am perfectly willing to sacrifice any or all of them if doing so serves the macro-agenda. So the BNP should mainly stress immigration, and then more or less follow the polls on all the other political questions of the day. As soon as the BNP becomes identified as a "worker's party", or any other class-based, religion-based, region-based, or ideological party, it will start hemorrhaging support. The BNP must constantly seek out venues to educate people about the evils of immigration, and why it must be curtailed. The goal should not be an expectation of an eventual BNP government, but garnering of such a huge protest vote, singly identified with rejection of immigration (and covertly identified with rejection of the whole multicultural agenda), that the Tories move to stop immigration, lest they are kept out of office by a "divided Right". if and when immigration is finally ended, then we move on to broader and more ambitious pastures.
7655643821244817223"We should NOT be fighting or scapegoating the Moslem people. I support all righteous Moslems, whether they live in Europe or live abroad. Like it or not, the Moslems are the only people ACTIVELY FIGHTING against organised Jewry, and they should therefore be wholeheartedly supported." The level of stupidity this comment reveals is breathtaking, though I suspect it is genuine (ie not the verbal diarrhea of some ADL plant). Listen, you NAZI asshole, it is people like you (and that ass at the Holocaust Museum - itself a grotesque insult to us real Americans, admittedly, but that's another issue) who have so massively retarded the cause of white racial preservation. First, you are ignorant: Islam is the eternal enemy of the West, as well as the chief ideological cover for the coming global war of racial annihilation directed at whites (note I say 'whites' not Aryans, because our modern, non-white racial enemies do not distinguish between Jews and Aryans in their hatred for both groups). The Muslim is the battering ram destroying Europe, through passive demographics, and active terrorism. There can be no alliance with Muslims, as they are the fastest growing demographic in the world, while our race is shrinking rapidly, and, in their fundamentalist guise, literally insane; in other words, they have no need to ally with us. They are coming to conquer us. They lust after power, initially, to steal the white man's wealth and women, and eventually, to preside over the eternal darkness of an Islamic planet. No self-respecting European could ever tolerate Islam. It is profoundly alien to our minds, and utterly lacking in any joy or appreciation of that which makes life worth living. Second, Islam, however, meaning militant opposition to it, is the key to the West's survival. Why? As I have long observed, Western Man is Ethical Man. If he is to survive, he must have a universally valid justification (to satisfy his own ethicality, esp in adopting the hard, coercive measures which, physically, practically, are necessary for white racial survival; please, let no one imagine our race is going to endure without some applications of force, somewhere, even if done legally: eg, a nationalist government rounding up aliens for deportation; some will resist violently, at which point we must be prepared to shoot them). For the moment, for most whites as a sociological matter, racialist opposition to merely passive, State-allowed/encouraged race-replacement is not seen to be ethically acceptable, esp if it should involve violence. Many whites may dislike immigration, multiculturalism, etc, but they lack an ethical philosophy justifying their "prejudices". We may oppose race-mixing, for example, but if those two people love each other ... who are we, most whites will say, to outlaw their attachment? I have a different view of ethics, and find it perfectly appropriate for a community to enact race-preservationist laws. But, again, at this historical juncture, most of my fellow whites disagree, while meanwhile each day we lose our homelands a little more, with the time in which to recover them running out .... Islam changes this paralytic situation, precisely because it is a religion/ideology, and one historically hostile and confrontational towards Christianity. It is much easier to form an acceptable ethical justification for confrontation with Islam, than with black America, or hispanic immigrants, let alone with world Jewry. Islam and Muslim immigrants constitute the chief threat to Europe; they are also the easiest threat against which to develop an ethic of militant resistance. We in the West can either believe in God, or not. If no God, then no ethics, at least applied outside tribal bounds. But if we believe in God (as most white Americans in fact do), then that God is usually the Christian one. Thus, in opposing Islam, we can pose as defenders of Christ and His Church. That is a very powerful place to be, far more so than that occupied by whites who merely are racists not wanting to be integrated with blacks (not that there's anything wrong with that, either, but the ethical justification is neither as strong nor as obvious). But if we could get vast numbers of whites militantly confrontational with Islam, that aroused fury could easily then be turned in other directions ... The point is that the West is dying because the white man has lost his racial will, which in turn is due to ethical confusion. But once the white man can be induced to "come out fighting", again, that newly, re-martialized spirit can be expected to carry over into other zones of racial conflict ... What is needed is that initial spark leading towards the revivification of white will, said spark, however, needing an ethical grounding, so to speak, which Islam preeminently provides.
7676143851245152356Islam is NOTHING we can benefit from! Good Lord, take your head out of Goebbels's diaries for a few minutes, and read Mark Steyn's AMERICA ALONE (I don't care if Steyn is Jewish, and neoconnishly inadequate: his arguments are devastating). As I said recently (I'm re-posting, as I think this bears repeating, even endlessly, until it sinks in): Islam is the eternal enemy of the West, as well as the chief ideological cover for the coming global war of racial annihilation directed at whites (note I say ‘whites’ not Aryans, because our modern, non-white racial enemies do not distinguish between Jews and Aryans in their hatred for both groups). The Muslim is the battering ram destroying Europe, through passive demographics, and active terrorism. There can be no alliance with Muslims, as they are the fastest growing demographic in the world, while our race is shrinking rapidly, and, in their fundamentalist guise, literally insane; in other words, they have no need to ally with us. They are coming to conquer us. They lust after power, initially, to steal the white man’s wealth and women, and eventually, to preside over the eternal darkness of an Islamic planet. No self-respecting European could ever tolerate Islam. It is profoundly alien to our minds, and utterly lacking in any joy or appreciation of that which makes life worth living. Second, Islam, however, meaning militant opposition to it, is the key to the West’s survival. Why? As I have long observed, Western Man is Ethical Man. If he is to survive, he must have a universally valid justification (to satisfy his own ethicality, esp in adopting the hard, coercive measures which, physically, practically, are necessary for white racial survival; please, let no one imagine our race is going to endure without some applications of force, somewhere, even if done legally: eg, a nationalist government rounding up aliens for deportation; some will resist violently, at which point we must be prepared to shoot them). For the moment, for most whites as a sociological matter, racialist opposition to merely passive, State-allowed/encouraged race-replacement is not seen to be ethically acceptable, esp if it should involve violence. Many whites may dislike immigration, multiculturalism, etc, but they lack an ethical philosophy justifying their “prejudices”. We may oppose race-mixing, for example, but if those two people love each other ... who are we, most whites will say, to outlaw their attachment? I have a different view of ethics, and find it perfectly appropriate for a community to enact race-preservationist laws. But, again, at this historical juncture, most of my fellow whites disagree, while meanwhile each day we lose our homelands a little more, with the time in which to recover them running out .... Islam changes this paralytic situation, precisely because it is a religion/ideology, and one historically hostile and confrontational towards Christianity. It is much easier to form an acceptable ethical justification for confrontation with Islam, than with black America, or hispanic immigrants, let alone with world Jewry. Islam and Muslim immigrants constitute the chief threat to Europe; they are also the easiest threat against which to develop an ethic of militant resistance. We in the West can either believe in God, or not. If no God, then no ethics, at least applied outside tribal bounds. But if we believe in God (as most white Americans in fact do), then that God is usually the Christian one. Thus, in opposing Islam, we can pose as defenders of Christ and His Church. That is a very powerful place to be, far more so than that occupied by whites who merely are racists not wanting to be integrated with blacks (not that there’s anything wrong with that, either, but the ethical justification is neither as strong nor as obvious). But if we could get vast numbers of whites militantly confrontational with Islam, that aroused fury could easily then be turned in other directions ... The point is that the West is dying because the white man has lost his racial will, which in turn is due to ethical confusion. But once the white man can be induced to “come out fighting”, again, that newly, re-martialized spirit can be expected to carry over into other zones of racial conflict ... What is needed is that initial spark leading towards the revivification of white will, said spark, however, needing an ethical grounding, so to speak, which Islam preeminently provides.
7676243851245153717The West will not survive through educationist arguments, and sentimental nationalist appeals. The process of ideological conversion is taking too long in light of demographic trends (declining white fertility as well as alien immigration). The only hope for our racial survival, I now believe, is to try to further the clash of civilizations with the Islamic world. The West needs a unifying enemy; Islam is not only the best on offer, it is perfect! Islamism unites (or could unite, with proper reasoning and propaganda) just about everybody, albeit for wildly divergent reasons: Christians, Jews, white racialists, feminists, gays, conservatives, libertarians, secularists, procedural liberals, even boozers and potheads ... basically just about everyone in the West who doesn't want to live like some Arabian savage from the 7th century. Militant resistance to Islamism can easily be extended to other arenas of racial conflict, once the white man has reacquired his racial will. Or we could continue to bitch about the Jews, even going so far as to praise Islamic terrorists who do not differentiate amongst "the infidels" in their nihilism. They hate Europeans as well as Jews, but hey, as long as they hate Jews, they must be OK. I state categorically that anti-semitism (as opposed to Judeo-realism, which is acceptable) is a barometer of the maturity of racialists. Liberate yourself from it, and groups like the BNP will grow ever stronger Incidentally, if the white man ever musters the will necessary to destroy the Islamic presence in Europe - AND PROCEEDS TO DO SO - you will be amazed at how rapidly all other aspects of the white nationalist agenda will become possible (like, for example, removing Jews from opinion-moulding areas of national life) ... There is a rational sequence we must follow to achieve our final agenda. We need a visibly distinct enemy. The Muslims have provided us with one.
7678843851245233959Fred, You've somewhat missed my point. I've obviously never claimed, here or anywhere else, that Muslims are the only racial/national threat. Of course they aren't. But they represent the best enemy the West has to unify itself against (for reasons I've stated). While I do not agree with those philo-Semites who try to claim that anti-Semitism is some kind of mental pathology, I must admit, my experience with anti-Semites has convinced me that anti-Semitism does have certain pathological qualities, at least to this extent: once it has been embraced, it very often leads to a crowding out of alternative theories, explanations, courses of action, etc. I don't know why this is, but I've seen it personally too many times for it not to have made an impression. The anti-Semites of my acquaintance are invariably the most closed-minded among non-leftist ideologues. My own position seems more rational. I am neither pro- nor anti-Semitic. I am PRO-WHITE. If the Jews are a threat to the West, then that threat, as with all others, must be neutralized. But please be clear: even if the Jews are a threat, being PRO-white is more important than being ANTI-Semitic. Too often I perceive that Nazi types are more interested in bashing Jews than in saving whites. That attitude is unproductive. Furthermore, I assert as an empirical proposition that neutralizing any alleged Jewish threat would be far more difficult than achieving almost any other aspect of the nationalist agenda. The Jews are way too deeply embedded in American life. They are surpassingly powerful, and many whites, myself included, have many Jewish friends. On the other hand, as generations of white liberals have agonized over, most whites do not have very many nonwhite friends, and, of course, often perceive non-whites far more negatively already, without benefit of any nationalist enlightenment, than they do the Jews. We saviors of the West are in a weak enough position already, and as I've argued above, our time is running out. We need to awaken our people ASAP! Doing so viz Muslims, esp in Europe, though also in America post-9/11, is so much easier than explaining our opposition to Jewish power that I can't believe I have to keep pointing this out. It should be obvious. And, again, once we have toughened up our people to contend with the Muslim menace (or the black menace in the US - and there are useful overlaps between the two), once white MALES have become WHITE MEN again, just watch my friend at how quickly the Jews will sniff out "the new order of things", and start behaving themselves ideologically.
7693043851245598069They lavish so much affection on them that they eagerly send them off to wars, and sometimes encourage them to blow themselves up. Great people. Fine - let them be wonderful in their own lands, not mine. However, I was referring to Islam in its pure form, which is a metaphysically barren creed, perhaps unsurprisingly so given the anthropology of its origins. The Arab world is rife with cruelty, some of which may be due to genetics, but much of which stems from the cruel nature of Islam itself. Obviously, Mr. Reis knows little about Islam (perhaps East Asian Islam is different, though the butchery of Christians there by Muslim governments is not promising).
7698143971245633281Interesting post. Just a few things to consider: 1. Christianity has been for a long time the religion of the West. As an empirical proposition, as Europe has dispensed with the old faith, it has been transmogrified into a bunch of non-reproducing, non-white-ass-kissing pansies and socialists. Correlation or causation? 2. Must Christianity lead to multiculturalism? I genuinely do not know (and neither do you - this is one of the most profound yet largely unexplored areas of intellectual concern). All patriots should avoid this easy inference, however, as it is not clear that multiculturalism is a latent outgrowth of "taking Christianity seriously". At least as likely is the hypothesis that Christianity's replacement, sentimental secular humanism, the aptly called Religion of Humanity, is what has directly lead to our modern hysterical denials of racial differences, and acceptance of race-replacement. 3. Another empirical proposition. Most conservatives generally, and most racial conservatives in particular (I don't mean celebrity racialists, or extreme rightists - just the plain people who vote against immigration, affirmative action, etc) describe themselves as "conservative Christians", at least here in America. There is, in other words, a much stronger correlation between Christian conservatism and racial conservatism, than between atheism and racial conservatism. Why this should be, or WHETHER this should be, intellectually, I don't know. But this fact ought to influence political thinking about explorations of the intersection of Christianity and race-liberalism, especially when calls for a new paganism or similar nonsense start issuing forth. 4. I am sufficiently confident in my comparative theological knowledge to make this claim: the only philosophically and scientifically tenable alternatives to atheism are either some form of rational Christianity, or a deism as yet not fully articulated; that is, all existing non-Christian forms of supernaturalism, including various Christian sects, fail intellectually and scientifically. Christianity, especially Catholicism, is very strong, however. The more it is studied the more (intellectually) impressive it becomes. Paganism, however, whatever its former tribe-unifying merits, cannot be resurrected by the modern mind. 5. Even if all religion is, finally, empirically false, white nationalists may want to encourage a new efflorescence of traditional Christianity, if only for its healthy, life-affirming aspects. The old faith encouraged large families (biological reproduction). We need this now. For centuries, moreover, the old faith was not seen to be incompatible with anti-miscegenation laws, with ethnic expulsions, with ranks and hierarchies, and with anti-immigration statutes. Instead of jettisoning the faith because it has been racially corrupted, the easier as well as more politically prudent and fruitful course would be to recover and reapply the earlier, non-multiculturalist understanding of Christian obligation. 6. The Faith presided over great periods of Western (biological) expansion. It may have helped cause that expansion, directly and certainly indirectly. The Faith is therefore not necessarily inimical to the West; secular liberalism undeniably is. Oh, and the Faith may even be true ... racialists should adjust their thinking accordingly.
7703243971245752414Please note: I did not say whether I in fact believe or disbelieve in God. I merely pointed out the instrumental value of (traditional) Christianity from a white preservationist standpoint.
7979444621250681248I have not read the Buchanan book yet, but I have long maintained a negative view of Churchill, and not only for the libertarian reasons so amply and ably discussed by the American historian Ralph Raico (see his article on Churchill in [i]The Costs of War[/i]). Churchill was not a great statesman because he was unable to perceive that the future of much of the Western world would belong either to the Nazis or the communists, and that even by traditional Christian moral standards, let alone the yardsticks of racial and Occidental survival, the Nazis were far less objectively objectionable (the great Pope Pius XII did correctly apprehend the situation's geopolitical and moral calculus, and behaved accordingly, mitigating Nazi moral abuses where feasible, while always recognizing the much greater threat to Christian civilization posed by Stalin). By actively opposing Hitler, Churchill effectively supported Stalin (eg, Britain had by treaty guaranteed the autonomy of Poland; why did he choose to go to war with only Germany after September 1, 1939, when the USSR had simultaneously invaded Poland from the East?). Beyond intentionality, there is the easier question of functionality. Was Churchill's lonely stand against Germany good for ... Britain, Europe, or the white/Aryan race? That is, had Britain capitulated, would the power and position of the historic British nation, Western civilization, and the white race be weaker, or stronger, today? I think we know the answer now, don't we?
8319645281256035196I'm an American, and know what little I do of contemporary Brit politics only from perusing this site, the occasional articles of relevance in [i]American Renaissance[/i], and, infrequently, [i]The Spectator[/i] (the latter is supposed to be somewhat 'conservative', but I regard it as very moderate - even leftist). Many of these detailed tactical discussions respecting the BNP admittedly go over my head, but what I fail to understand is their necessity; to wit, given that ending all new non-white immigration, along with deporting illegal immigrants (assuming that deportation is the legislated penalty, as it is here in the US - albeit under-enforced), is both the [i]sine qua non[/i] of any agenda for the preservation and ultimate renewal of traditional Britain, as well as easily understandable, and widely popular, at least amongst those on the Right (here is a real question: how many Tories favor continued mass immigration? From the few I've met over here, I'd imagine immigrationists must be a small minority of the conservative electorate.), wouldn't it make sense for the BNP to advertise itself, at least at the national level of Mr. Griffin, as essentially a single-issue, anti-new-immigration party, and leave it there? No immigrant possesses a moral right to British residency or citizenship. That proposition is easily defensible, and, one suspects, merely obvious to many Brits. Beyond that, the BNP could simply list all of the demerits of continued immigration (overcrowding, crime, potential terrorism, sharia, disproportionate consumption of public benefits, jobs and housing competition, cultural and racial tensions, etc), and point out that only the BNP wants to stop immigration. Given your economy's difficult circumstances, continuing immigration is certainly not a policy which many Brits would list as important to them, even if they are brainwashed regarding, or indifferent to, its cultural and sociological effects. In other words, why all the discussion about working vs middle class, shock tactics vs 'mainstreaming', whether the party should be open to non-whites, how the BNP should approach women or labor or history or all secondary and tertiary policy issues? The BNP is NOT going to be the government for a very long time, if ever. Its historical role, at least for the foreseeable future, is to build up enough of a bloc vote to force the weak-willed Tories to end non-white immigration. To do this, it and its allies must convince enough of the public that immigration is a direct threat to the survival of Britain (easy), as well as hugely deleterious to the quality of life enjoyed by most of your people (again, fairly easy - we have the facts on our side). And THAT IS ALL! The Tories must be made to fear the electoral consequences of ignoring or procrastinating on immigration. If the BNP started making serious gains, and if those gains were clearly understood to be based on popular disgust with immigration (as would be the case if the BNP made that their sole major plank), then I believe the Tories would move to reduce or terminate the immigration status quo. Even if done for crass politics and not patriotism, the result is all that matters. Once immigration is ended, then the BNP can both advertise a larger political agenda, as well as 'up the ante', by broaching repatriation, the racial cleansing of Britain presumably constituting the ultimate goal of the BNP (or at least, of all true British patriots). What must be understood now is that politics often moves in the proverbial 'pendulum' fashion, and that the most important battle is to get the pendulum swinging in your direction in the first place. One starts this process not by shaving one's head, denying the Holocaust, or otherwise alienating the "lumpen-indoctrinariat", but rather, by staking your claim to what is least objectionable, and [b]then getting that accomplished[/b][i][/i]. Once that happens, as the saying goes, "nothing succeeds like success".
8355245321256403423Assuming that Neather piece is genuine, I must thank you, Fred, for posting it. That is the single most disgusting piece of raw, selfish treason I have ever read. Period. I subscribe to [i]The New Republic[/i] and [i]The New York Review of Books[/i], in bookstores I sometime glance at [i]The Nation[/i], and I even occasionally link my way to Afrocentric websites, just to be reminded of how much the ingrates hate us - and to rile up the 'groids with some unwanted facts. Never have I encountered anything like this. Usually, pro-multiculti pieces are based on either white guilt (for racism, 'family reunification', tolerance, etc), or the joys of an unaccounted for diversity. This is the first time I've seen a frank admission by a traitor that he and his govt deliberately sought to destroy the fabric of a society through mass immigration ... because the traitor thought it would make his country "more interesting", or "ministers passionately wanted a more diverse society" - and were prepared to impose their beliefs IN SECRET on societies they apparently knew did not share them. Always, the justifications are either utilitarian ("the economy/agriculture/healthcare etc needs immigrants"), or ethical ("they have just as much right ..."; "we can't keep families apart"; "...fleeing persecution..." , etc ad nauseam). To reiterate: I have never encountered anything so sheerly evil in my whole long life. "Bedford Forrest": you are right. We should all be keeping lists, and traitors like Neather should go right to the top of them. Day of the rope, comrades.
8355545321256403773We should think of Neather and the ministers who secretly imposed mass immigration on Britain as treasonous war criminals. My British history on this point is weak, but were any Englishmen executed for treason during WW2? I believe the answer is yes. How many, and who? Anyone famous?
8443045481257761590Something I posted over at Chronicles, perhaps of interest here (Hey GW:you could even post this as an outside column, if you wanted; basic restatement of a position that can never be reiterated too often): 47 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 8 November 2009: #47 – Well said, Mr. Peters, and that last line is particularly to the point. That is why living a virtuous life is the most important resistance, without which any resistance at the political level is pointless. 48 Comment by Lone Racer on 8 November 2009: @48: No, living a virtuous life is a good in itself. Absolutely nothing more. The occupationist regime simply laughs at such sentimentalist drivel, which is why you may lead as Christian a life as you want. Try leading an old school WHITE MAN’S life, however, and see what happens to you, at least if you are successful and attract notice. And no, resistance at the political level is not only not pointless, if Sam Francis were here to reprimand your nonsense, he would say it has barely even been tried. Oh sure, occasionally the grassroots rises up a bit and gets a relevant initiative passed under or around the regime, such as CA Prop 187 in 1994, only to see the regime immediately crack down in the form of a Third World federal judge ruling it unconstitutional, said ruling then in effect being upheld through inaction by the Supreme Court. But overall, we the Real American people have barely done a damn thing to resist what the great racial nationalist, Wilmot Roberston, in his seminal work, THE DISPOSSESSED MAJORITY (pub. 1972), recognized as the key fact of postwar America; namely, the comprehensive (political, cultural, economic, legal, etc) dispossession of America’s true racial/cultural (Anglo-Nordic) founding majority. Imagine that! In 1972, the US was about 87% white, but Robertson could already see which way the wind was blowing. And why was it so clear by that time? Because in the 60s (in a big way; from the 40s in smaller fashion) we first abandoned, and, in quick succession, began a never-ending campaign of heaping scorn upon, the Racial Principle, which is the single most important principle of human collective and political affairs (overwhelmingly so wrt modern America). This principle is complicated and multi-layered, but its simplified essence, for present purposes, is of general and specific relevance to the American situation (as well as episodes like this latest multicultural massacre) as follows: 1) Racial homogeneity is essential to national cohesion. Or, mixed race societies do not ultimately make real collective nations. 2) America was founded, settled and built by whites, and thus is OUR country. Non-whites do not belong here (including that ‘troublesome presence’, the descendants of the African slaves). 3) Whites are objectively civilizationally superior to other races, especially (this will sound tautological, but it is crucial) in producing the kind of societies which we whites find most attractive. 4) There is no logical, sociobiological, or historical reason to assume that traditional America will be perpetuated by non-whites should they attain to a demographic majority. Obviously, there is much more to the Principle, but I believe that the above roughly captures its essence. For the past half-century we white Americans (and to show that this is a biological, or at least biocultural, problem, and not a political let alone economic or historical, that is to say, structural, one, it must be acknowledged whites everywhere, quite apart from their very different national histories, political and economic systems, historic faiths, etc ) have totally rejected the Principle – have, indeed, been in the most astonishing headlong flight from it (from reality, you might say). This total reversal of racial outlook, from normal white racism, to fanatical (psycho-religious) anti-racism, occurred as a result of actions taken by three groups: self-hating secular white leftists, foolish Christians, and minority activists (mainly Jews and blacks pre-1960s, today Jews and blacks still, along with all manner of rapidly numerically expanding non-white groups, including Muslim-”Americans”, of course). The disempowerment of whites, and the empowerment of non-whites, is the story of postwar America. Obama is its culmination, as well as the avatar of our unfortunate American future. White supremacism, by far the most Traditional American Value, has given way to white dispossession. As we enter the Next America, in which white dispossession will give way to white oppression and active persecution, both by the government as well as the inner-city “street”, resistance will become not only possible, but imperative. Whites were morally disarmed before they were politically dispossessed. More and more of us now, however, are waking up to the realities of race, that, as my favorite, and as yet still imaginary, bumper sticker has it, Diversity Sucks. The real issue now is whether we can formulate A New Racial Ethics For Survival in time to save at least something of the culture of the old America, as well as to ensure that our people on US soil will be able to live tolerable lives free of both governmental oppression, and non-white criminal persecution. The core of that new ethics (really, just the old ethics properly applied in defense of white perpetuity) will be the recognition that whites have the right to communal survival, and that that survival depends upon collective action. In a word, the first part of the answer to all of our problems is the advocacy and then political realization of White Nationalism. The US is afflicted by many problems outside of racial ones, but there is no hope for solving any of them unless the racial problem (awakening and mobilizing whites under conditions of diversity) is overcome.
8783346501264509860To Dan Dare: ATo whom wereyou referring by "49er fans"? San Francisco's football team? Are you in the Bay Area?
8783446501264510437Several months ago, I tried to post the following comment pertaining to the EDL at the website of the British 'conservative' magazine [i]Standpoint[/i]. It was rejected, as had been its far more moderate predecessor (which I can't seem to locate). "Journalistically, this article was adequate, if altogether too concerned with EDL's 'racism', thus evincing leftist bias, and a lack of understanding of of what is really destroying Britain (in fairness, the EDL weaklings, with their touching concern about being labeled 'racists', obviously do not understand matters, either, and will be precisely useless as a vehicle of resistance to the accelerating annihilation of Britain, England, or any other entity or desirable aspect of the "Sceptered Isle"). The Stupid Party (UK Division) has never really understood the World Struggle of our time, which was never primarily between (Communist) East and (Capitalist; well, really Social Democratic) West, but rather between the white and non-white races for domination of the planet (as was recognized and predicted by the white-hating American Negro, W.E.B. Dubois, at the beginning of the 20th century). If Britain does not, first, end non-white immigration, and, second, ultimately deport EVERY non-white possessor of British citizenship (ie, not merely jihadist Muslims, who ought rather to be imprisoned upon discovery and capture, if Her Majesty's subjects are now too weak simply to exterminate them, as a service to the civilized world), thus in effect declaring itself a unitary white racial state, then sooner or later (more likely much sooner), the indigenous people of Britain will find themselves racially and religiously oppressed refugees in their own ancient fatherland. Every other issue of ostensible conservative concern pales into risible insignificance next to preserving the racial (and secondarily, ethnocultural) character of the British people. That, the very continuity of Britain itself, being the sole objective, the political duty of every British conservative, nay patriot, is to vote for the BNP, the ONLY non-treasonous party or indeed public organization in Britain today."
8936546811266849934All that matters, Fred, is whatever works to ensure the genetic perpetuity of the Europoid race, though for me that is only a means, not an end; the end being the preservation of the High Culture (Kultur?) of Western Civilization. If all whites were like the mostly pleasant, but totally cultureless and clearly dysgenic snowboarder 'dudes' I kept encountering nearly everywhere on a recent ski trip to Squaw Valley, I probably would be at most only a mild, 'defensive' racialist. Defense of the West is defense of the fallen world's closest approximation to the City of God. If we forget that, we lose the war. And try to understand what I've been saying re the Jews for years: if enough whites can be brought to a hard nationalism, the Jews, masters at wind-smelling, will fall into line quickly. Given Jewish power, and the memory (or if you prefer, indoctrination) wrt WW2, any WN movement focusing its ire on the Chosen is virtually predestined to repulse the great masses of herrenvolk we desperately need. Modern politics is a numbers game; we can corral lots of our people fearful of blacks, or Muslims, etc; one we have done so, with whom will the Chosen then side? We whites are our own worst enemies. I generally hate whites who blame our race for any racial problem (because our people are virtually always blameless), but when it comes to our extinction, WE BEAR RESPONSIBILITY, whatever the negative impact of Jewry. If whites weren't so weak, Jewish multiculti propaganda would be ineffective. White pride is more useful than anti-semitism.
9042547061269269163"What, pray tell, is David Cameron?" Post-Revolution animal feed. Question: The white race is dying, we all agree. Can all race-patriots from around the planet form some sort of Common Manifesto for white survival, some minimum program of real action in the physical world - and then start implementing it?
10735847121299109491This EUROPEAN ACTION is not only a socialist organization, it is much weaker on immigration and Islam than your average American conservative. I liked Oswald Mosely, but these people are leftist jerks, draping themselves with a wee bit of patriotic finery.
9173747331271679826I would like to have joined this discussion earlier, as I would like to understand what Mr. Bowery is talking about. I am clueless. That said, I think the explanations to many of the issues he broaches, especially respecting the collapse of Western birthrates, are considerably less complicated than he makes out. If he posts something again on all this, I will comment extensively.
9239247481272981591Respecting the question about possibly impending fascism, we can dream, but let's not mistake dreams for reality. I think we can agree, in plain English (though as an American I am amazed at how often I cannot understand what actual Englishmen posting here are talking about), that what is needed is the expulsion of non-whites from Britain (and ultimately from Europe). A fascist coup might be necessary, and possibly could result in the desired outcome, but what are the real chances of such an action being successful? To do anything anymore in the Western world (by 'Western', I mean Western Europe plus the Anglosphere, though increasingly Eastern Europe is sadly also being 'Westernized', at least in terms of nationalist character, the recent salutary election in Hungary notwithstanding) requires majority consent. The days in which a minority can impose its will against a determined majority are over. Does the majority incline right now to fascism? I know what some of you are thinking. What about Jewish influence? What about immigration, affirmative action, etc? Unfortunately, these are not really cases of the majority will being thwarted. If these were truly burning issues, as they are for most of us here, the BNP would experience a landslide this week. I hope they do, but I wouldn't bet on it. The brute fact is that, though it is possible that a majority of Brits do oppose, say, mass immigration, many Brit voters (ie real Brits + naturalized aliens) either support it, or are indifferent to it. Worse, even that British majority which is assumed to oppose immigration (and I must say, most of the Brits I've encountered over many years here in CA have been racially worse than worthless, so I can hardly believe that Britain possesses some underground nationalist majority just waiting to surface and eviscerate Cool Britannia) does not seem to care all that passionately about the matter. Just because 2/3 of Brits, let us say (I'd like to know the real numbers), would like to reduce or end immigration, this hardly implies that anything remotely like that number are prepared to go to the barricades over it - and that is what a nationalist-fascist (Weimar, etc) coup would require. I know many persons who would tell a pollster they would like to reduce immigration, but who would not give the matter another thought. They care marginally, but not passionately. And they certainly would not support fascism (until it's too late perhaps) as a way to effect an immigration moratorium. Indeed, I suspect even the vast majority of British Tories (who do not seem to comprise a majority of the overall population), if given a choice between fascism and continued immigration leading to the "minoritization" of the indigenous Britons, would resign themselves to minority status rather than give the Roman salute. Dispiriting, and altogether pathetic by my lights, but facts must be accepted. Fascism came to interwar Europe due to a probably unique set of variables unlikely to be resurrected or repeated. These have to do not only with WW1 and its immediate economic and political ramifications, including the sudden collapse of monarchies, and whole regimes, but also with the intellectual Zeitgeist of the period, as well as the mindset and character of the populations at that time. Whites today are sadly different from whites then, morally and philosophically. Even if we were to experience the same political catastrophes and economic hardships, it is unlikely that our PC-indoctrinated populations would turn to fascism as remedies, or that there would be the type of chaos necessary for fascist coups to succeed. If the white man is to win his war for racial perpetuity, it will probably not be through violent action, but through the patient elaboration and transmission of a counter-ethics to the current race-dispossessionist morality. Most whites believe that white nationalism is immoral; until a new ethics of white survival becomes sufficiently widespread, our side will never gain majority consent, and thus power. Fascist fantasies, romantic nationalism, historical revisionism - none is really helpful to our cause. We need to 1) develop that new racial ethics, justifying the right to life of the indigenous Western peoples, understood not as individuals, but communities; 2) teach our benighted co-racials this new ethics; and 3) then begin the quest first for power, and ultimately for wars of racial repatriation/cleansing, that at least Europe might be decolonized. I would like to hear from GW why he thinks there is any possibility of fascism coming to Britain in the future.
9239347481272982487That last paragraph of mine above is unclear. My point is that we race-preservationists need to change our race's racial morality (something which obviously has not been done wrt most whites). That is the first and necessary step. Without having done so, the majority would simply denounce and ignore (or imprison) us if we were to become more militant. However, once we do have a majority of our folk believing in racial principles (which must ethical at their foundation), then we must begin the long campaign for repatriation, which ideally should be effectuated peacefully, but if that should prove impossible, then more violent measures must be contemplated and pursued.
9242747481273058269A coming "global economic collapse" is quite unlikely. Economic collapses do not simply occur. In advanced, non-single resource-dependent economies, they are usually the result of either war, or incredible fiscal and/or monetary recklessness. While I am a harsh opponent of socialism, as well as monetary interventionism, with nary a good word for Bernanke or the idiotic or more likely criminal economic team of Obama, the brute reality is that the combined policies of these fools/criminals will produce very anemic economic growth, and likely 1970s-style 'stagflation', the end results of which will be that the private sector, and hence nation as a whole, will be much poorer than we need have been, say, 10 years hence. But this is a slow-motion process of state-growth and concomitant private sector impoverishment. Why exactly would this be supposed to lead to "economic collapse", which implies sudden, sharp downturns? Higher structural unemployment, with low growth and flat market gains, is the intermediate term outlook. Of course, it is also possible that things are at their nadir, and that the GOP will make excellent Congressional gains, and the Tories will assume the Prime Ministership. Neither of these very possible eventualities is likely in themselves to do much to prevent our accelerating white extinction, but either would be economically salutary, at least relative to the current regimes. No, gents, I would not count on an economic collapse paving the way for rapid nationalist growth. We have to grind it out the hard way, patiently reaching out to our people to explain the sources of their dispossession, and the moral rightness of their doing something to reverse it.
9242947491273059557The good guys, those of us fighting for the survival of our race by opposing alien imperialism, must be personally strong, and ready not to initiate violence, but simply to defend ourselves. I lift weights, and maintain reasonable physical fitness (though I'd like to know how to lose those 15 lbs hiding my 'washboard abs'!). More usefully, there is strength in unity. Nationalists must develop large networks of fellow patriots (I'm bad on this one, I confess) on whom they can rely for moral, financial, legal, and sometimes physical, support. Never enter hostile territory except in large numbers. And realize that our struggle is a long one, and that street action is less useful than making money, educating yourself and others, bearing and instructing children, and growing those networks of like-minded patriots. I'm working with two of my business partners to form a (moderate, but firm) organization to act as a clearinghouse for white Americans to meet other nationalist patriots. BANA should focus more on recruitment than confrontation - for now. But know you're doing honorable work, friends!
9246747531273134981Someone please enlighten me. What is the best outcome for nationalists? BNP breaks 10% of the popular vote, elects (how many?) MPs, while Tories gain seats, but fail to win the PM, as Lib Dems form a coalition with Labour? Cameron has the stench of a Bush, only more leftwing. I cannot help but think it would be better for British survival if he were to lose. But my knowledge of Brit politics is very limited.
9247047531273136022http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/02/cameron-britain-labour-cuts A "counterfactual" article on Cameron's Britain after 5 years: Britain should be so lucky! Who is this ass Dominic Sandbrook? He bills himself as some kind of historian, but he is clearly a fool.
9253547531273226672Can we now definitively state that Britain is a leftist nation? Correct me if I err, but such reports as I have seen suggest that more than half of voters voted for leftist parties. I'm speaking in terms of seats won. In terms of the popular vote, it seems that about 2/3 of Brits are leftists, 1/3 moderate conservatives, with a tiny number of authentic national patriots. If BNP and the Tories generally couldn't do better this time, what hope is there for your nation? This is the true final victory of the Left. Three hundred years ago, Britain was a deeply rightist nation (by contemporary standards). Your (indeed, the West's) entire ideological history, seen from a broad perspective, has consisted of an ever enlarged franchise, an ever enlarged state, and ever greater egalitarianism, first applied between Britons, now extended to aliens from across the whole planet. Occidental/racial patriots are never going to win anywhere. As I have said other times, our only hope is conquest. We must have a sovereign nation/jurisdiction under our majority. All WNs from across the Earth must emigrate to one smallish, linguistically easy, not yet too diverse, country (eg, Uruguay, or Australia, even just Tasmania), and take it over electorally. That will be the last outpost of the West.
9261347531273297998I can only repeat myself. The West is white, and there is no reason to assume that our civilization will survive if we are demographically subsumed by non-whites (and many to conclude otherwise). For our civilization, and ultimately our race itself, to survive, for reasons I have set forth here at other times, whites must maintain sovereign majorities in at least some territories. Put more clearly, we must have our own countries, which would preferably be all-white, though I think our culture and civ could endure if we were only preponderant, but also 'racialized', majorities. I suspect most MR readers would agree with me (though certain complicating issues would have to be disposed of; eg, how did the Jews survive so long, and why can't whites - and we, in our present form, cannot/will not - emulate them?). What is so dispiriting about elections like that of the US in 2000, France in 2002, and Britain this week, is that here were golden opportunities for the Silent Majority of allegedly anti-immigrant, pro-white, pro-nation patriots to register their disapproval with their respective dispossessionist regimes - and the silence is always deafening. In the US we had, for once, a genuine anti-immigrationist in Pat Buchanan; in Britain, which has been alarmingly overrun just in the past dozen years of Labour, you had the BNP (or even UKIP or just the wet Tories); most disturbingly of all, in France, Le Pen was actually in the final run-off - and yet the vast bulk of oppressed whites, having spent a generation watching their beloved and ancient French nation overrun by culturally hostile, physically dangerous, often criminal, and racially alien Muslims, could not bring themselves to vote for him. Whites were once the greatest race, but today most of our people everywhere are deluded and weak. This is not merely a local or nation-specific problem. With the needless capitulation of the Boer Republic, there is not a single race-conscious majority, or even large minority, anywhere is the Western world. The only exceptions might be whites of the American Deep South, a true "nation within nation"; the racially pure, and often color-conscious, white minority elites sprinkled throughout Latin America, who have more in common with each other than with their own national, mestizo populations, and who, gathered together, would thus constitute a real ethnonation; or maybe the Ulster Protestants - maybe), and though I know little about Eastern Europe, I expect them to travel our path of race-denial as they become increasingly 'Westernized' through economic integration within the EU. Lastly, Russia may yet survive, but even counting it as a white nation (something neither Hitler nor Madison Grant would have done, at least for the bulk of the population), it will eventually crumble apart ethnically, with the small, genuine white portion looking towards Europe - and then also following the path to race-denial, economic growth + immigrant worker-importation, and multicultural suicide. Seriously, what hope is there for our racial (and thus civilizational) perpetuity? The only hope is foreign demographic/electoral conquest of a sovereign nation. WNs are a small minority everywhere, but add us up across the planet, and even demographically, we could be, if concentrated within a single jurisdiction, a powerful force - very powerful if we consider that WNs are usually, contrary to media stereotypes, more intelligent than the general populations surrounding them. My very rough estimate is that there may be as many as 50 million white 'racists' (as defined by the liberal media) on the planet. Most of these are not, unfortunately, ideologically committed WNs, just persons like many I know personally (I also know other WNs like me) who aren't ashamed of being white, generally dislike non-whites, vote pro-white, again as the media would define that, and prefer living with whites. As conditions worsen for whites everywhere, we all should start thinking long-term about where we could flee to. What country is most promising to settle in? Emigration is tremendously difficult, but not nearly so much anymore as it was when, for example, our ancestors came to North America. And we do have a rough precedent: Israel. If the Jews could reclaim a piece of ancient territory for themselves, so they could have their own ethnostate, why can't we?
9279847531273577039I should respond to PF's comments, although the thread seems to be petering out. I am just too busy, and tired right now to do so, unfortunately. Thanks to those who did notice what I had to say. A final serious thought: Emigration is never easy, but wouldn't it be pretty damn cool to live in a white nation, or really, a WHITE nation?! A place where not only is the population overwhelmingly white, but where there are literally hundreds of thousands or millions of persons who more or less think as we do. Imagine meeting a new person, knowing that that person most likely shares your basic understanding of society, and certainly isn't going to whine and be offended by your observations? Think of the sense of shared national purpose, made stronger, I assure all, by the guaranteed antagonism of the rest of the world, the easy friendships and general camaraderie, the sheer joie de vivre??!! Multiculturalism is profoundly psychologically alienating. The racial state would be liberating and exalting.
9269247531273404162Per the sociobiological discussion above: Such analyses are always stimulating and provocative, but not really very useful (and often filled with circular argumentation). The task is to save the white race, and then, I would hope, the specific historical ethnocultures comprising our common racial civilization. Sociobiology might help us to explain why our race has reached this suicidal impasse, though I doubt it. One does not derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Western Man is dying for very simple reasons, all of which can be explained relatively easily. First, we are heavily outnumbered as a percentage of the total human population (how this has come about is known, if convoluted, involving such past behaviors as the export of Western medicines, the development of birth control and its social acceptance and use in the West, the West's earlier embrace of 'modernity', with all of its negative fertility ramifications, the Western-created "Green Revolution" in Third World agriculture, etc). Second, we have (we think) ethically discredited (white) racism - and we have ludicrously defined such racism in accordance with Western-only notions of individualism. Third, following from our cultural discrediting of racism (at least for the majority of Earth's whites), we have lost the ability to exclude non-whites from our societies, at least on racial grounds (and increasingly on any grounds). This had the greatest and earliest impact in countries like the US and Australia which had indigenous non-white populations traditionally excluded from most areas of the host white societies. Fourth, the modern revolutions in transportation and communications have made it easy for strange peoples both to be aware of the superior living arrangements in white societies, and actually to physically move there. Fifth, there are certain greedy commercial interests which have tremendously economically benefitted from being able to employ cheap immigrant labor (which was heavily non-white, at least until the collapse of Eastern European communism, and the subsequent expansion of the EU Eastward), and these interests have successfully led the fight for immigration. This crisis really has little to do with matters in which a turn to biological explanations is helpful. Such explanations are useful when, for example, we use psychometrics to elucidate the black/white IQ gap, such information then to be used to discredit the leftist assertion that, eg, white racism is responsible for black scholastic failure. But empirical data cannot resolve ethical disputes. Western Man is dying because he has embraced ethically false principles, the first and relevant one being that it is somehow morally wrong to use the coercive power of governments to maintain racial homogeneity (ie first, to keep out non-white immigrants, second, and more ethically difficult, to expel or repatriate non-whites from white polities in order to return to antecedent conditions of racial homogeneity). The kinds of sociobiological discussions which have preceded these comments of mine in this thread are really utterly beside the point. The white man is dying, to repeat, because he has accepted a racially suicidal morality. Why he has accepted this morality is to be found not in analyses of "reproductive fitness", genes, hormones, pheromones, kin ratios, or similar scientistic, deterministic claptrap, but in analyses of modern theology, philosophical ethics, as well as, of course, the sociology of contemporary media/propaganda. And the answers to our racial plight will likewise be found either in a) the development of a new ethics for racial survival, and its successful dissemination within the Western nations, or b) ideological emigration and our own white demographic conquest of some territory, as I envisioned in an earlier comment in this thread.
9270747531273414319Wandrin: Anti-racism has infected the entire white world, even countries that have no history of white racial oppression, like, say, Finland. Why have they allowed non-whites to immigrate there? Are they such fools that they cannot see where those initial foreigners - the "wedge in the door" - must ultimately lead? But that cannot be right, for they had the vicarious experience of the US with its racial problems, the anti-European savagery of the decolonization period, more recently, race riots in the 70s in Britain (I remember those, dimly), the huge, continuing immigrant/Muslim crime wave in France and Belgium since the 90s, etc ... and yet those stupid Finns have continued to allow non-Europeans to settle there!! Why, for the love of God?? It seems to me that white communities everywhere must have had some sort of latent racial defect, which only required a certain set of circumstances, including ethical/ideological "development" (really, retrogression or devolution), to become operational. It is one thing for the US, with its slave history, to feel a desire to atone for racial guilt (ridiculous and incorrect, but understandable, perhaps, wrt generous but weak minds). But why can't Finland tell the world that it wishes to remain Finnish, and thus refuse any immigration? Why must Finland allow itself to become "diverse" and multicultural? There is no answer. It has no such ethical duty. Yet the same forces allowing for the racial undermining of white colonialist powers, like Britain, France and America, seem to operate even in non-racist and non-imperialist countries. Hence this must be something 'endogenous' (ahh, now I resort to sociobiology) to the white race. My point wrt emigration/conquest is that EVERY white nation, at least in the West (but Eastern Europe will likely succumb eventually as well, in tandem with its ever greater economic integration with the West), is now either white-majoritarian race-suicidal (ie, the majority of whites either supports racial diversification, or is relatively indifferent to it), or white race-suicidal through a large number of white diversity supporters combined with increasing numbers of naturalized non-whites. What this British election proves, again (as in France in 02, America with Obama), is that few whites anywhere, as percentages of national populations, care passionately about saving our race, or even their own historic cultures. I happen to believe that there are, however, potentially significant minorities of whites, spread throughout the European world, who either are WNs, or could be, if they could be convinced that WN is ethically justifiable, which I think is possible (ie, WN IS ethically justifiable from a Christian perspective - I do not believe in atheistic morality, at least outside tribal bounds - and it is possible to persuade large numbers of our people of that ethical justification, though we obviously have not succeeded very well as yet). But, dispiriting as things are, we do know that there a lots of whites in absolute numbers scattered across the globe who are WNs, as well as much larger numbers who, if not actual WNs, nevertheless are in rough sympathy with our modest goals, and who, as physical conditions for whites objectively worsen in the coming decades, might be persuaded to emigrate to a welcoming WN nation, if a beachhead had been established somewhere. I'm being too verbose, so let me try to be simple and direct. I don't see how WNs are ever going to take over any major country, at least electorally, without population transferal. Even if we do it will be a modest WN. Immigration will be halted; but will non-Europeans be repatriated? I doubt it. Meanwhile, nation-killing multiculturalism will be the national ideology, with all it attendant pressures to erase historic cultures, lest the newcomers feel "discriminated" (eg Brits have to abandon Christmas so as not to offend the precious Muslim minority). WNs are not going to come to power through elections. Most whites not only do not think as we do, they never will. I say this even though I do expect WNs to make ever more conversions as time goes by, due to education on one hand, and worsening conditions on the other. But it will never be enough to achieve a governing majority, especially as the number of non-whites increases. The painstaking work of racial conversion cannot begin to equal the rapid increase in immigrants. But if the 5% of whites sprinkled across the white world who are pro-white were all to coalesce in one sovereign polity, especially if that country were numerically small, and already majority white (eg, Australia, Uruguay, Ireland, Finland, Estonia, etc), we could possibly "conquer" it, and instantiate, "sotto voce" of course (we don't want some anti-white-racist America to invade or otherwise destroy us, as they did Rhodesia and SA), a white racial state, a place where traditional whites can "live white", and thereby preserve our racial civilization. I see no other hope. If Brits, French, Dutch, etc, haven't racially awakened by this time, when will they? When their nations are 60% foreign? And then what will they do about it? They will have awakened to a condition of servitude. They will have been peacefully conquered, as is the position of our racial kinsmen in South Africa. SA today, Britain, USA, etc tomorrow.
9287947531273747781To "Al Ross et al": We are not going to save Western civilization and the race which created it unless there is a mass return to TRADITIONAL Christianity on the part of whites - but also, an ethical revolution within the Church recognizing the rights of ALL indigenous peoples (ie, including us Europeans) to live their own communal lives free of unwanted immigration-imperialism. The problem with atheism, besides the fact that it may be empirically wrong, is that there can be no real ethics without religion, or at least theistic belief (a big allegation, but I stand my ground). I emphasize "real", because of course there can be functional ethics (eg, I'm not a rapist not simply because rape is wrong, but because it doesn't appeal to me). But real ethics involves self-sacrifice, and in a godless cosmos, there is no reason to be sacrificial. Perhaps one could be so towards one's children, out of genetic instinct, but not towards strangers (unless one is stupid, and externally influenced). The old Christians were metaphysically and psychologically correct: without God and punishment, there is no point in being ethical. Morality is mere weakness. The relevance of this line of reasoning to our present race-replacement dilemma is twofold. First, Christianity gives meaning to life. Atheists always assert the possibility of human-created meaning, but that's obviously idiotic. If there is no supernatural realm then humans are purely animalistic, as opposed to at least the Catholic view, which is (now) that we are evolved from animals, but have been "ensoulled", and thus are no longer mere animals. With a meaningful, duty-bound cosmos, as is the traditional Christian one, tends to come a willingness and desire to bear children. It is probably no accident that European birthrates have collapsed in tandem with the rise of rampant secularism (yes, there are other causes, such as the welfare state, which reduced the economic value of children, and feminism, which allowed women to evade their social-reproductive duties - though both of these characteristically modern aspects of the West are also bound up with the decline of Christianity). If we don't somehow get whites to increase their fertility, our race is doomed. Thus, even atheists should support a growth in traditional Christianity. Second, and more on the personal level, successful resistance to our dispossession is going to require a lot of individual hardship on the part of race patriots. Just look at the abuse Nick Griffin, Le Pen, David Duke, etc, have to put up with! Now perhaps some of these men do so for unusual psychological reasons, or because they lack other outlets for their talents, or whatever. But ultimately, to swim against the tide on race today requires a real willingness to bear negative consequences for a cause for which most individuals will only ever be "repaid" in diffuse benefits. I doubt many persons will prove willing to do so unless they are deeply ethical, inner-directed beings - and without God, what point is there to being ethical? If sacrifice for any good external to one's selfish interests is pointless, then how many will sacrifice for a cause as impersonal and remote as the white race? The cost to me of being a race-patriot is far greater than the eventual benefit (assuming there ever is one!) of merely reducing ever-greater diversity. Of course, I resent that diversity. But I also resent redistributionary taxation, inflation, traffic, etc. What can I do about these things? And in a meaningless world, why bother? The benefits of racial activism, at least outside of a prison environment, are always lower, especially for the intelligent man with various life-options, than what can be obtained if one is selfishly quietist. The racial crisis of the West is first and foremost an ethical one. We are being colonized by those who are biologically incompatible with our nations and common civilization, and resistance to both that physical demographic invasion, and its domestic cultural effects, is hamstrung by the widespread but erroneous belief that such racial resistance on the part of whites is unethical. More precisely, the West is being strangled not by two forces, but three: 1) non-whites, either ones already present in the West before the 1960s egalitarian devolution in white racial consciousness (eg, in America, that meant blacks, Indians, many Jews), or outside immigrant-colonists; 2) white Judases, or "native aliens", or self-hating whites, who obviously are afflicted with some psychological maladjustment (which is not meant as an excuse for their treason); and 3) the vast white majority who have been conditioned to believe that 'diversity' is either enriching, inevitable, or, as mentioned, if resented, at least morally irremediable. We must develop a new racial ethics for white survival, one solidly grounded (for practical, as well as, I believe, metaphysical, reasons) in Christian moral philosophy and natural law. I am working on this, though I have much still to do.
9308347621274001302My votes (for persons you might actually be able to get) would be for: Derek Turner (on BNP, Britain generally) Steve Sailer (racial demographics and US political future) Tomislav Sunic (European New Right) Srdja Trifkovic (on Islam, situation in Balkans) Alain de Benoist (wow! - but would he?) Claude Polin (legacy of French Rev, relation to racial Jacobinism) Roger McGrath (Old West truths) Roger Scruton (Mr. Erudite Conservative - what does he really think of modern Britain, esp viz race?) But what are your preferred topics? I would try to get intelligent experts, even if they are not nationalists or even necessarily conservatives. The point would be to learn from them while challenging them to confront truths about race, identity, secularism, Europe's future, terrorism, growth of global mafias/gangs, collapse of West, etc.
9317247621274103601Lee John Barnes: I am in substantial agreement with your longish post above, and in the past at MR I have said some similar things. I would note, as someone who is more correctly termed an Occidentalist than a racist or white nationalist (though of course I've been called racist for decades, and my 'racism' - actually, racial honesty plus racial conservatism - repeatedly has gotten me banned from many leading "conservative" blog sites), that I am primarily concerned with the survival of the (pure) white race as the recognized foundation of Western Civ. I am also ruthlessly pragmatic and not romantic in my analyses, though my personality runs to "romantic Occidentalism". As such, I constantly think about Tomorrow, even while doing what I can [i]today[/i] to add my voice, activism and sometimes money to the cause of our people. Thus, in wanting to save the West, I will consider the plausibility of any tactics, from Christian extreme pro-natalism (eg, The "Quiverfull" movement) to nationalist party activism to guerilla warfare, that could serve the cause. But I try to do so with jaundiced eye, always focused on what might really work, as opposed to what I merely wish would work. I mention all this only as background to my agreeing with you on the vital need for psychologically stable and emotionally mature white preservationists to learn from the Jews, specifically, to discover and emulate the mechanisms by which they have been enabled to maintain a high degree of ethnic purity and cultural cohesiveness despite existing for millenia in Diaspora. That is an amazing and very possibly unique achievement! Unfortunately, diaspora may be the impending condition of Western Man (unless enough of us follow the advice I suggested in earlier comments to another post, and emigrate-to-demographically-conquer an independent country). It breaks my heart to say this, but before very long the white race may find itself without majority control of any nation, a minority in all its traditional homelands. While I believe, for reasons I have written about elsewhere, that such a condition would not last forever, but would eventually result in the extermination of the last remaining whites, I may be wrong about that. If I am, then the great danger to the preservation of white civilization would come from miscegenation and/or even just cultural absorption into hegemonic alien cultures. Think of the so-called hip-hop loving "wiggers": are they white? Yes they are, as race is at bottom a biological reality. But are they Western (that is, are they bearers into the future of European civilization)? Not at all. If whites are to become minorities in all polities they reside in, and if their extermination is forestalled, then how will we avoid biological extinction-through-miscegenation? And for the Occidentalist who wishes to preserve European High Culture, how will we inoculate our people from assimilating to the demographically dominant races' cultures (eg, as the number of Muslims in Europe continues to grow, the advantages to whites from embracing Islam will as well - how do we prevent that?). I suggest we study the Jews to see how they have maintained their psychological apartheid, even as they have simultaneously not only structurally assimilated to, but utterly mastered, many different systems of political economy. [Here I have to plug my continuing belief in the vital importance of our developing a Christian racialism (not the inanity of "Christian Identity", which no theologically literate person could take seriously as doctrine), or, race-realistic and conservative Christianity. Clearly, the long survival of the Jews as a people is linked to their possession of a religion which fosters community cohesion and cultural memory. Religion, even if empirically false (not that I'm saying it is), is a basic and powerful feature of mankind. A movement or people or nation with religious underpinnings will far outlast secular competitors. That's just the way of things. And for any type of white preservationist (historic nationalist, white nationalist, or Occidentalist) except Nazis, our only religious option is Christianity. Christianity is intellectually and empirically plausible in a way paganism is not and never will be (even to argue with this point would be to display a risible ignorance of the massive strength and depth of Christian theology, as against the paucity and piffle of what passes for pagan theory). And Nazism will not take flight again in large numbers, and not merely because of the seven decades' worth of universal and relentless condemnation. Even genuine philosophical Nazis need to understand the intense historicity of their cause, and that the objective intellectual and historical conditions facilitating the rise of NS no longer exist, nor ever will.]
9317847621274105926Leon, Interesting list, Benoist excepted. He and Tom Sunic made a poor two-part interview at VoR quite recently. His “novel restatement of fascism”, as his Wikipedia entry charmingly puts it, really is cultural nationalism, and looks to me to have been left behind by history. I think he has been living off his reputation as the anti-liberal enfant terrible of French 1960s radicalism for too long. He has served his purpose, which was important in its time but transitional in nature. He saved the anti-liberal right from its obviously suicidal fixation with 1930s Germany and the revolt against Jewish ethno-aggression. But he has little or nothing of value to say to us today. Roger Scruton I would love to interview, largely to unpeel the limits of his right-wing sensibilities and to see what, if anything really, he is willing to contemplate by way of action to save his people. But I think he would be very puzzled as to who we are, and why he should waste his time on us. Trifkovic would probably have to be a subject for someone else. I am a poor student of the Islam Question, and I doubt if I could do him justice. Likewise, Steve Sailer who would be a much better subject for James to interview. I thought Derek Turner had retired into a more politically sedentary life. What is he doing now? Polin and McGrath I know very little of and need to check out. Thank you for the suggestion. Have you thought about interviewing these people yourself? I would be very happy to discuss that with you, if you like. _______________________________________________ GW, Re Benoist, I merely myself would like to hear him discuss European paganism,among many other matters. Whatever his ideological faults, he is a major intellectual figure, and incredibly learned man. I agree with you completely re Scruton. But he is another unbelievably erudite and productive scholar (I'm a bit in awe, frankly), and such are always worth having (plus he's your fellow Englishman). Trifkovic is one of my favorites. I'd like to hear him asked about race vs Christianity in Occidental survival. He's excellent on immigration and multiculturalism, but I'd like to know where he thinks we should go, policy-wise, in a post-invasion situation (repatriation or what's the alternative?). Re Sailer, I'm not sure who "James" is, but I understand Sailer very well myself. If you're referring to his biological journalism then you'd want him interviewed by a geneticist (but why? Sailer is a popularizer, not a scientist). Sailer's real value is in crunching demographic numbers, and coming up with interesting sociological points based on those numbers. Doesn't Turner now edit a Brit journal called Quarterly Review? I think Turner would be interesting for his political observations on the present situation in Britain (eg, should England secede from the UK? Why not?). Polin is just a very learned French Christian conservative, but honest about the disaster of immigration. He is an expert on their Revolution; it would interesting to hear his take on the relationship between Jacobinism and the Rev and contemporary Western gutlessness on race. Also, I'd like to ask him about the proper Christian stance towards white survival. McGrath is just an excellent conservative hardcore historian who likes to debunk false PC claims about history, esp race and US history. Haven't you seen his affiliation with American Renaissance? I forgot Guillaume Faye and Frank Ellis. Finally, it never occurred to me to interview these people myself. My understanding was that you were looking for possible interviewees, not interviewers. I could be interested in such an assignment, but please provide some details as to how that would work. I have no idea how one speaks to people over the 'net (sorry), logistically. I'm based in CA, btw. Perhaps you should devote a separate, general post to how one of your readers could do an interview for MR radio. Best, Haller PS - I'd like to read your thoughts on the Con/LibDem coalition. What's this I'm reading about a non-EU immigration cap? That can't be too bad...
9318347621274106591Leon, Interesting list, Benoist excepted. He and Tom Sunic made a poor two-part interview at VoR quite recently. His “novel restatement of fascism”, as his Wikipedia entry charmingly puts it, really is cultural nationalism, and looks to me to have been left behind by history. I think he has been living off his reputation as the anti-liberal enfant terrible of French 1960s radicalism for too long. He has served his purpose, which was important in its time but transitional in nature. He saved the anti-liberal right from its obviously suicidal fixation with 1930s Germany and the revolt against Jewish ethno-aggression. But he has little or nothing of value to say to us today. Roger Scruton I would love to interview, largely to unpeel the limits of his right-wing sensibilities and to see what, if anything really, he is willing to contemplate by way of action to save his people. But I think he would be very puzzled as to who we are, and why he should waste his time on us. Trifkovic would probably have to be a subject for someone else. I am a poor student of the Islam Question, and I doubt if I could do him justice. Likewise, Steve Sailer who would be a much better subject for James to interview. I thought Derek Turner had retired into a more politically sedentary life. What is he doing now? Polin and McGrath I know very little of and need to check out. Thank you for the suggestion. Have you thought about interviewing these people yourself? I would be very happy to discuss that with you, if you like. ______________________ GW, Dammit! I responded at length, and somehow lost the comment. OK, I'm only going to restate that I hadn't thought of being an interviewer myself, and could be interested, but would like to hear more about the logistics of it. I have no idea how persons in widely diffuse places could be brought together over the net for a live discussion. LH
9389147761275479667From Lee Barnes: "British Nationalism, like the Liberal Multi-culturalists, has never sought to invite in ethnic minority people and encourage them to be British Nationalists. This has led to them being as exploited by the left and liberals and them being used as the mechanism to break down Britain into competing communities - whilst simultaneously denying only one group, the indigenous British people, the right to also organise as a community to protect our community interests in the Liberal Multi-cultural society. The EDL though are reaching out to ethnic minority people and seeking to Nationalise them, and hence to form a cohesive model of a Nationalist Multi-culturalism to replace the Liberal Multi-Cultural Model. This is also what the BNP must do." ___ This could be somewhat appropriate for the US, Australia, NZ, SA, etc- places with genuine non-white aboriginals. It is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE for Britain, for the simple reason that whites are the indigenes. You are being invaded, colonised and conquered by alien peoples as surely, if far less violently, as the various conquests of the Mongols. The big difference is that this time the destruction of your land is being aided and abetted by domestic race traitors (who, however, I believe, still represent a minority of the native Britons), the shortsighted greed of various commercial interests, and by the brainwashed passivity of the mass of the British people. Moreover, besides settling for too little, your suggestions might prove electorally fruitful in the short run, but are useless in the longer term. What you advocate is something very close to the idiotic liberal programme of 'civic nationalism'. This site, as I have understood it, fights for, first, British (GW: I would go for ENGLISH) ethnonationalism, and ultimately, white racial nationalism (which in our time recognizes that all whites everywhere a) have more in common with each other than with any non-Europoids, and b) are facing very similar racial/national dimemmas). If I may paraphrase the great "Tail-Gunner" Joe McCarthy: "One non-white (in Britain) is one too many". The goal of real nationalists is not to "integrate" or "nationalize" aliens into British society (which is certainly possible structurally, that is, sociologically and economically, though I doubt as an empirical matter that it is possible psychologically) ... but to EXPATRIATE them all away from Britain. Period. This, by the way, is the true and ultimate goal of White Nationalism. ALL non-whites/Europeans must be de-naturalized (stripped of citizenship or other legal status) and physically removed from European soil - forever. NO EXCEPTIONS! Europe then becomes again what it always was: the homeland of the white race. And in becoming so again, Western Civ will be preserved, or so I believe. Anyway, once the racial cleansing has occurred, then I will be in the forefront of demanding a very authoritarian 'rationalist constructivist' reconstruction or re-instantiation of European traditional High Culture (ie, after the National Revolution, Europoids aren't going to be permitted to remain or become 'indigenous degenerates', jiiving to rap tunes, and admiring non-white cultures from afar). But the sine qua non of future white racial survival (and thus, I maintain, the survival of the 3000+ year old West) is the reacquisition of racial sovereignty; that is, racially homogeneous sovereign polities (as we had until the postwar period). All nationalist activity must see this as the ultimate goal (or do MR bloggers disagree? and on what grounds?).
10523747801294139535Changing the subject: we cannot only talk amongst ourselves. We need to get in the faces of race-deniers everywhere, but especially amongst our ideological competitor groups on the "Right". Here is another of my racialist posts meant to stir up the race-denial pot among libertarians (at mises.org), this in response to a post on libertarian legal theory: Looks very interesting. But here's a conundrum. How do you deal with a race of savages who commit crimes at such appalling rates that applying an individualist standard to each instance of their criminality becomes most onerous for the law abiding members of other races? Let's consider American blacks (though we could consider black criminality across the planet; same behavior obtains everywhere). While not every black is a criminal, an inordinate (from a "white" standard of judgment) number of them are. Moreover, blacks must be the most racist race of all, they have no conception of individual rights, and everything they do (politically or ideologically) is accordingly based on their perception of what is good for their race, not what is abstractly good, just, proper, etc. We saw this with the OJ Simpson case, with the 96% of blacks who supported Obama in 08 (and continue to support him today), with the absolutely racist and perfectly predictable voting patterns of the Congressional Black Caucus (where, btw, is the Congressional WHITE Caucus?!), etc. White America would be far better off in public order terms if we could remove blacks from US soil. This seems inarguable. Fewer blacks, safer streets. How does this fit into a libertarian legal framework, with its naive overemphasis on the rights of the individual? My point is that that framework, like the Constitution and its protected liberties, was meant for whites only (literally, legally, at the time, but also metaphysically and morally). There is a world of anthropological fact underlying a libertarian society, which unfortunately, most libertarians are virtually congenitally incapable of recognizing. Liberty works -for white people, with their mostly (well, ideally, at their best) individual dignity-oriented outlook. It does not work in multiracial or nonwhite majoritarian environments (eg, the New South Africa, where very gentle white supremacy has given way, predictably, to horrific black savagery, endemic black corruption, and ever-worsening standards of civilization, first and foremost for our white brethren, but finally for the black majority itself). Libertarian theorists have barely begun to incorporate sociobiological realities into their thinking.
9542148211278869668Three comments: 1. Ferguson may be a moral shitbag, obvious grubby career builder (what do we think his marriage was about?), and racial/national sellout, but I must say he is a very impressive historian, especially for his still comparatively young age, and considering his amazing output (he has written more fat books than many scholars by the end of their lives - and those books are real scholarship, even if he obviously does not do much original, 'in the archives' research). I have most of his books, and though he is hardly one of the "world's top intellects" (or whatever the article's phrasing was), I must say he is a very competent writer. ... in this most unlike Obama, considered one of the world's leading orators, despite an inability to - as yet - pen a single memorable phrase. Affirmative action is what it is; but it does mean that exalted whites, at least males, usually have to have some real 'goods' to reach the stratosphere ... To PF: 2. Dawkins most certainly does not understand anything about "the truth of life", except its biological fundaments. A mole burrowing forever underfoot, afraid to look up, and then denying the sky. 3. On the delicate issue of literary style, or at least intelligibility, I have noticed a growing divide across the English family pond. British writers and scholars not all that long ago were unquestionably superior stylists compared to us 'colonials'. That seems to be changing. When in my favorite book megaplex, I often enjoy browsing your Spectator magazine. I am, if not often, then more than occasionally, unable to discern exactly what this or that writer is talking about (and not only because I'm not too familiar with parochial British politics and culture). The writing style over there seems to be getting more opaque over time. Part of this may be pollution from postmodernism seeping out of bad philosophy and worse literary studies into the broader culture. But I'm not sure that's the whole story. (In fairness, The Economist has remained admirably clear.) I confess to having had difficulties understanding many of your posts in the past. This has been somewhat vexing, as I sense that you might be saying some interesting things. I am also vaguely disquieted by the thought that perhaps my reading comprehension just isn't quite up to certain tasks (I don't think that's the case with the Spectator, however). I'd hate for you to feel that you had to 'dumb-down' your comments merely for the likes of me, but, at the risk of presumptuousness, you might wish to consider the following: First, go easy on sentence length. I understand that the ability to form complex sentences is often the hallmark of mental fineness, but doing so risks losing at least some of your intended audience. As the famous guide admonishes, let every word tell. Second, avoid overly obscure, 'in-group' vocabulary. At a minimum, offer exogenous readers some definition of words that the ordinarily literate person cannot be expected to know (eg, what is a "glyph"?). Third, be frugal with metaphors.
9542248211278870174To Dasein: OK, dropping the professorial stance - are you telling me you wouldn't bang that particular Negress in that gorgeous cobalt blue outfit??! I find blacks incredibly ugly as a rule, but, perhaps because she is East African, or whatever, Ms. Ali is one fine woman ... I can hardly blame Fergo for having the hots for her. Racial loyalty is for the group level (which does include choice of wife). But on the weekend ... have some fun, dude!
9545548211278945710"Paligenesis" was a descriptor coined by historian of fascism Roger Griffin to try to classify types of radical ultranationalism. I don't think we need some heroic "white rebirth" model of activism. I'm all for it, of course, provided it can be accorded with Christian morality (and it can, as long as it is confined to the Western fatherlands). But the proper approach to winning our struggle for racial survival at this moment in history is fear. We just need to get the facts out to our people - and then laboriously if necessary spell out their implications for the future of Western hedonism, which, if not the state religion (which is obviously Diversity), is certainly the people's. Too many non-whites = high taxes, crummy services, unsafe streets, weird habits, sexual theft of white females, etc. Eventual Islamicization in Europe, Mexicanization in US. Why do we need to go searching for the deeper philosophical and cultural roots of our dilemma? Not that such discussions aren't interesting in themselves, but ... every month in the US we are admitting about 140,000 legal immigrants, almost all of whom are coloreds. How many for Europe? The REAL problem, as I keep reiterating in a dozen venues, is that most whites think even thinking about race survival is immoral, to say nothing of our doing the hard things that will inevitably be required to ensure it. Our task is : first, theorize the compatibility of race-patriotism and Christian ethics (at least in US); second, explain that compatibility as widely as possible; and third, engage in practical racial consciousness raising and concurrent political activism aimed at halting immigration. Once we've stabilized the population (a huge and still improbable victory), then we can take a breather for deeper theoretical debates. So any new ideas for getting truth to our people?
9545648211278945870I'm not obsessed with her, I just thought her picture in the blue dress was very fetching. (East Africans are definitely better looking than their more Negroid brethren to the west.)
9545748211278946759More from Niall Ferguson: "But beyond the fiscal crisis, Ferguson is particularly dismayed at the actions of Ben Bernanke, who once seemed to genuinely get the dangers of deflation. Yet right now Bernanke is doing nothing, even in the face of deflation and a contraction of the money supply. This represents a grave danger, and it's shocking that Bernanke hasn't already re-begun more aggressive quantitative easing." What an ass. Knows nothing of monetary economics. (There are no dangers to deflation. It's the other way around.) Surprising, though, as his recommendations re federal fiscal policy (spending cuts, business incentives, debt reduction) are all sound.
9549948211279032241The solution is to have a flexible approach. If “race survival” doesn’t sound right on TV, or if the media have managed to make one word taboo, there is always some other way to say something equivalent. We can not expect the average white man to make a speech in favor of white survival, but there are other ways he shows his attachment to the white race. Just look at the polls about Arizona. ---- I agree, mostly. However, do not underestimate the number of sincere race-liberals. They are not all Jews, or even otherwise leftists (look at the ludicrous libertarians with their 'open borders'). I run across really racially closed-minded whites all the time. They are probably unreachable. But I also come across many perfectly decent persons who just don't feel comfortable re race. There is a deeper concern here. All exogenous trends are militating against white racial survival. The death of our race is not due simply to alien connivance, or race treason - or even polite PC. It is also due to racial passivity. If whites simply do nothing (to worsen things), we still die. Thus, if we wish our race and civ to live, we are going to have to employ very coercive measures to reverse broad facts/trends (past immigration, aboriginal peoples, Negro slave descendants, Big Business wanting cheap labor and short term profits, belief among whites that racial coercion is immoral, psychological preference for doing nothing, etc.). Basically, we need the racial state, somewhere. At a minimum, assuming that it should be (in) Europe, this means non-whites must be physically removed from territories, and either killed (if there is violent resistance), or at best dumped into countries which probably won't want them, and to which many of those removed will have had no direct connection. But this is the tragedy of history. Are whites going to go along with this cleansing agenda? Not in their present state of ethics - at least until the oppression of whites has gotten so obvious and bad, that whites are willing to revolt. But at that point we might not win (especially if deportees appeal to co-ethnics overseas for military aid - ESPECIALLY viz the Euro-Muslims and wider Islamic world). The idiot white race NEVER NEVER NEVER should have allowed ANY immigration. But reversing it will be neither logistically/militarily easy, nor as morally unimpeachable as keeping the aliens out in the first place. And so the need to convince our people of the higher morality of (white) racial survival. At the risk of sounding like a pompous twit, what I wrote above, however hasty and inarticulate, really is vitally important. No survival without cleansing, no cleansing without new racial ethics (even if they must be rooted in Christianity).
9611548211279724781To Grimoire (in his last comments): Good stuff! I call your attention to what I posted earlier in this thread, concerning clarity of thought and [removed]originally addressed to PF): 3. On the delicate issue of literary style, or at least intelligibility, I have noticed a growing divide across the English family pond. British writers and scholars not all that long ago were unquestionably superior stylists compared to us ‘colonials’. That seems to be changing. When in my favorite book megaplex, I often enjoy browsing your Spectator magazine. I am, if not often, then more than occasionally, unable to discern exactly what this or that writer is talking about (and not only because I’m not too familiar with parochial British politics and culture). The writing style over there seems to be getting more opaque over time. Part of this may be pollution from postmodernism seeping out of bad philosophy and worse literary studies into the broader culture. But I’m not sure that’s the whole story. (In fairness, The Economist has remained admirably clear.) I confess to having had difficulties understanding many of your posts in the past. This has been somewhat vexing, as I sense that you might be saying some interesting things. I am also vaguely disquieted by the thought that perhaps my reading comprehension just isn’t quite up to certain tasks (I don’t think that’s the case with the Spectator, however). I’d hate for you to feel that you had to ‘dumb-down’ your comments merely for the likes of me, but, at the risk of presumptuousness, you might wish to consider the following: First, go easy on sentence length. I understand that the ability to form complex sentences is often the hallmark of mental fineness, but doing so risks losing at least some of your intended audience. As the famous guide admonishes, let every word tell. Second, avoid overly obscure, ‘in-group’ vocabulary. At a minimum, offer exogenous readers some definition of words that the ordinarily literate person cannot be expected to know (eg, what is a “glyph”?). Third, be frugal with metaphors. _________________________ You are quite correct to note the rhetorical utility of using imprecise, neologistic vocabulary. Was it Wittgenstein who observed, "Whatever can be said, can be said clearly"? Whether Heidegger was the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, or a complete charlatan, I am not remotely qualified to pronounce upon. [Although I have a good background in philosophy, my studies, formal and informal, have mostly been in ethics and political philosophy, with lesser forays into epistemology, philosophy of religion and philosophy of science - the latter focusing on life sciences. I have studied little modern metaphysics and less ontology, and no Heidegger.] I do know, however, that the "Continental Tradition" lends itself to easy and often deliberate obscurantism. Those expostulating in this vein seek to elevate themselves through the employment of ludicrously specialized, really "in-group", vocabularies, whose precise meanings are necessarily slippery. The worst offenders of this have been, as you doubtless know, the deconstructionists, whose rhetoric is intentionally incomprehensible, the better to sucker the proles into thinking them the possessors of Deep Thoughts and Indescribable (ie with normal language) Insights. [It hardly needs to be said that when one does take the trouble to parse their ostensible profundities, one invariably finds so much less than one's initial impression.] A very good deconstruction of, inter alia, deconstruction is [i]Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction[/i], which makes very short work of these people, and really should be read as an intellectual inoculation, or, if not too infected, antidote, against the sort of nonsense that these days (though less of late, thank God) passes for intellectual depth or sophistication amongst the semi-literati. Saving the white race from extinction requires not a new ontology, but the recovery of an older ethics.
9650248211280165643GW, No problem, we're all busy. It must be a huge time commitment just keeping everything here humming along. Perhaps I'm merely beating a dead horse. Not that I believe that, but I'm sufficiently versed in currents of modern thought to recognize the considerable challenges to Christian belief therein. I do know this, though: [b]absent utter, exterminatory cataclysm, white Americans are not going to accept the somewhat hard measures necessary for racial (or even mere national) preservation unless those measures can be squared with Christianity[/b]. This opinion is borne of long direct and indirect involvement with the Republican Party and its activists. I know the American Right. It is not all [i]fundamentalist[/i] Christian, but most self-identified conservatives are Christians (even if not Bible-thumpers - God knows I'm not one). Those on the Right who are non/anti-Christian are usually either weirdly pro-immigration Libertarians, or viciously pro-immigration Zionist/Big Business "neoconservatives". Yes, there are racialists, but they are not per se hostile to Christianity, at least for the most part (those who are, are beyond marginalized from mainstream discourse). The vast bulk of the American Right are Christians, either High Church (like me), or fundamentalist/evangelical. Interestingly, most of these persons are also racially conservative (their leaderships are another story). Joe Sixpack Conservative is Christian. His Christianity is finally more important to him than his racial loyalty. Most of my family are like this. Most of my friends and their families are like this. Racialism must be made acceptable for Christians, or it won't ever take flight. I would advocate a religiously acceptable racialism even if I were an atheist, based on brute political calculations.
9628148211279987405Posted by Grimoire on July 22, 2010, 04:17 AM | # [i]Leon Haller: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Your point about obscurity and poor style is well taken and heeded. ‘Mea Culpa.’. It is often necessary when writing in English, once completed...to take and automatically edit 75% of the nonsense...I don’t think in English, but German, so my first draft is often a very poor translation, instead of a coherent whole. My posts of yesterday where hurried, and therefore regrettably and poorly edited. These comments are more or less a dialogue with Guessedworker, rather than a general exposition. So readers will suffer while attempting to determine the context, which is stretched over many threads and issues. Nonetheless your note is an important and necessary reminder with which I am in full agreement..[/i] Grimoire: I meant neither criticism nor disrespect. Indeed, I was agreeing with what I took to be your literary-style criticisms of some of those here designated as "ontologists"; to wit, that they exhibit a tendency towards wrapping what in effect are mere unproven (unprovable?) assertions in intentionally obscure, perhaps even "in-group", verbiage - an annoying habit amongst those overly impressed with the contemporary Continental Tradition in philosophy. Most of what I addressed to you had originally been addressed at the beginning of this long thread to someone else. I merely thought you would find it supportive of your own position. Anyway, that your primary language is German amazes me, for your command of English is outstanding - better than most natives, it hardly needs to be said. I could not begin to write with your degree of fluency in any other tongue. I periodically make my schoolmaster's plea (an expression: I'm in business) for precise diction. Postmodernist jargon strikes me as yet another element in the West's decline.
9628448211279990334From GW: Leon, [i]Saving the white race from extinction requires not a new ontology, but the recovery of an older ethics. [/i] Moral systems emerge from the struggle for survival. When a system is stretched beyond what is adaptive so as to accomodate social or religious change, the tendencies to maladaptiveness increase. Does the “older system” you have in mind contain maladaptive ethical direction? -------------------- A few lines, yet so so pregnant with implications and implied questions ... 1. [i]Moral systems emerge from the struggle for survival.[/i] Well, I hope you are aware of what an enormous and controversial statement this is. In a sense, this is simply the atheist view of morality. Assuming no Deity, everything human emerges from the blind (note how I already must employ anthropocentric vocabulary) processes of natural evolution. 2. I think the implicit point of your comment is something like this: Moral systems (including their extensions into the social and political realms) do not exist of themselves (ie, in a Platonic or Ideal sense); they are not inherent in reality. Thus the value of any moral system or ethics can only be assessed from a utilitarian vantage. For you, that vantage is the extended genetically related kinship group comprising a sub-species of homo sapiens; that is, a race. For you, then, we must assess any proposed ethical system in light of whether it favors (is "adaptive" in your language - a classic example of the inappropriate importation of the language of science into the realm of philosophy; but I suppose I'm begging the question here) the genetic interests of (let's get practical here) the white race; that is, the interests of the genes comprising the white race in their own reproduction in perpetuity. 3. I'm speaking loosely here (this is a blog, not a grad school exam), but I think your essential point is to inquire whether the West's traditional moral system &#40;Christianity&#41; has become maladaptive for white preservation. Again, I think your root assumption is that religion, or any supernaturalism (I'm sure you are too intelligent to believe in the physical existence of Wotan or Thor!!), per se is false, and thus can only be judged instrumentally - "but is it good for the Aryans"? And looking at the racial preservationist value of Christianity, you find it wanting. 4. I'm not capable of disabusing you of your atheism (perhaps no theist can ever do so for any atheist, at least given the present configuration of knowledge). I certainly cannot prove the existence of God, let alone the (ontological) truth of Christianity, though I would note that there are many brilliant men alive (and many more in the past) who are Christians, and that Christian philosophy is vastly more detailed and sophisticated than the caricature presented by Dawkins. 5. For me, being practical, the more interesting question is not whether God exists (I believe so, and am content in my belief, even though I continue to read books on both atheism and apologetics), but whether a) Christianity is indeed maladaptive for our race as a whole (it certainly isn't for those fundamentalist American Christians who have huge families out of a sense of fulfilling divine edict; indeed, contemporary American whites who do have greater than 4-5 children are almost invariably very serious Christians; I would hazard a guess that even a substantial majority of those who have more than two children are religious), and b) whether it must be maladaptive as a function of its essential theology and internal philosophical coherence. These are big issues - and the empirical evidence is not in the least one-sided in your favor. I'm going to post this now, and think about it a further response over my breakfast.
9628948211279994624[i]4. I’m not capable of disabusing you of your atheism (perhaps no theist can ever do so for any atheist, at least given the present configuration of knowledge). [/i] Ugh. This is pure slime. _________ Why? My statement seems unexceptionable.
9629148211279997533[i]5. For me, being practical, the more interesting question is not whether God exists ... but whether a) Christianity is indeed maladaptive for our race as a whole, ... and b) whether it must be maladaptive as a function of its essential theology and internal philosophical coherence. (- me above) [/i] As to question (a), a few thoughts. If all that matters is the genetic perpetuity of our race (that is certainly [b]not[/b] why I'm in this "race business"), then the issue for GW would seem to be twofold: first, does Christianity within a population have the effect of increasing or decreasing fertility; and second, does Christianity pose some type of "macro-threat" to societies in which it is the dominant ethical system &#40;eg, by enervating the warrior spirit necessary to group survival, or promoting passive race-replacement by encouraging the 'humanitarian' admission of racial aliens into Europoid territories/ecological niches&#41;? If Christianity is maladaptive wrt fertility, then why are Christian whites having the largest families? Indeed, why has white, and especially European, fertility fallen the most precipitously in tandem with rising secularization? This has little to do with the Pill, either. My maternal grandparents both came from enormous families (14 kids, 11 surviving to adulthood; and 9, with 6 to adulthood), yet they managed to have two children. Those children were born, and the huge drop in global white fertility began, well before the advent of the Pill. Even today, the most Catholic (indeed, Christian) white nation is Poland, and it has the highest fertility in the white world (not that it's very high absolutely, but virtually every other white nation, except the US due to its high-fertility minorities, has a below-replacement rate of fertility (I think one or two other countries, maybe Ireland, are hanging in there with bare 2.1 replacement fertility), many appallingly so). Why Christianity is adaptive for fertility I'm not sure, though I could adduce many conjectures, if I had the time and desire. I merely note my speculation (I suspect this will displease GW and MR generally) that the far future will see a resurgence of Western Christianity, if only on demographic grounds - it's the committed Christians who are having the kids!! Surely you sociobiological determinists can see the writing on that wall? As to question (b), this is likewise a big issue, and I'm not fully qualified to attempt a definitive answer. I would note, though, that Christianity was never historically opposed to the existence of nations, anti-miscegenation laws, immigration legislation, aristocratic distinctions, or slavery. With the exception of the latter, which could no longer be justified within the contemporary Christian consensus, Christianity, as traditionally understood, does not disallow any of these aspects of any healthy race-preservationist regime. That much present-day Christianity [i]is[/i][b][/b] race-treasonous (functionally, and often intentionally) is more a result of its pollution by liberalism, than of any defects inherent in its core theology (at least as far as I have gotten in my studies of it). I end by reiterating my essential thesis on all this: practically (but also ultimately philosophically, I believe) we would do far more good, in terms of theoretical work, trying to render Christian social thought compatible with racial preservation, than in reaching for some new 'ontology' which few can understand, and almost no one cares about. Our traditions are powerful, and did not prevent our greatness in ages past. Let us recapture them for our present purposes.
9632848211280061976Although my remarks were intended for GW, not uh (who needs a better online moniker), I will respond only to a limited extent, as I have already addressed many of these issues at other times (I suppose I should gather everything I have posted here pertaining to Christianity, rework it into one cogent piece, and then post it as a guest-blogger, so that I could refer back to it in the future when confronted with ignorance already disposed of). 1. Old time Christianity was hostile to neither white reproduction (quite the contrary!!), nor the maintenance of racial boundaries. Modern liberalism/leftism is premised on egalitarianism, which is asserted most strongly in the area of race. This liberalism has admittedly infected Christianity, but is not intrinsic to it (again, quite the contrary). It is liberalism which is destroying the West, racially as well as in many other ways, and it is liberalism which must be discredited. 2. As I keep pointing out, even if Christianity were empirically false, we race defenders should still advocate a non-liberal version of it publicly. The faith is traditional to the West (and whole mode of viewing reality); it has moved men to great achievements (we will see whether Heideggerianism, skinheadism, or other alternative ontological and (anti)ethical systems ever do the same - I utterly doubt it); it provides the metaphysical justification for an ethic of sacrifice, which will be needed if whites are to reject individualist hedonism in deference to racial preservation. 3. Those here who reject Christianity do so because they either perceive it to be cosmologically untrue, or otherwise have some personal animus. Unfortunately for them, atheism provides no justification for personal sacrifices, which absolutely will be required by many if our collective race is to survive. It is much easier to go along with the herd towards oblivion, than to try to wake up that herd, at great sacrifice (even if only in time blogging - but more likely, in much else). 4. The trick is not to dismiss something so elemental and powerful as religion, as you will simply alienate the bulk of your fellows, but rather to capture it and start using it for our purposes. At the very least, Christianity must be intellectually neutralized as a factor promoting race extinction. You don't neutralize it by discrediting the whole religion, as too many (especially on the Right) have too great an emotional investment in it, and simply will not adopt atheism (and if they do, we go back to the problem of hedonism vs racial sacrifice). You neutralize it by uncovering exactly why Christianity does not mandate multiculturalism. 5. The equation of wealth with fertility is so ignorant as to be idiotic. Wealthy people tend to have the lowest fertility. This is true both within Western nations, and between richer and poorer countries. In the US, serious (white) Christians, regardless of personal wealth, have larger families than wealthier secularists. Christianity promotes family, both theologically and sociologically. Secularism does not promote family, and it leads to declining birthrates (which is why we should want to push it on the Third World, including programs to "raise the social status of women" - anything to depress their birthrates). 6. Modern Christians are not "dopes". Sure many are morons, but so are many of all people. Secularists tend to be a bit more intelligent and better educated, but to those of us who are truly educated and intelligent, the average secularist is nothing impressive. What remains true is that secularists as a whole do not have large families. [Incidentally, who is "Gorboduc"?] 7. uh has no understanding of the history of revolution. He is correct that men are not moved to the barricades by rational arguments. He is wrong to fail to recognize that revolutions are built on the slow accretion and permeation of ideas, often over decades. Indeed, how did we get to our present racially confused state? The white man was not defeated in battle by non-whites, though they behave as though that were the case. What happened was an ideological revolution in Western conceptions of justice, away from traditional notions, and in favor of a radical egalitarianism extended across the planet. 8. Whites are confused about their real interests, to be sure. But they are even more confused about the morality of asserting those interests. The task of the serious racialist intellectual is to integrate race-realism and racial nationalism into traditional Occidental (Christian/Western) conservatism. This is the task I will be pursuing in the coming years and decades. I understand the necessity of mass appeal. But the core doctrine must be developed first. 9. In future years you (all) will see that my approach is correct (at least for the US, but I suspect for the whole white world). The white race will be saved by collective action based on a renewed race-realistic Christian conservatism - or it will proceed on its present path to majority genetic amalgamation, territorial diminishment, and, for the final remnant of the racially strong (like us here), either systematic or more likely chaotic extermination. What is absolutely clear is that the secular society has racially failed.
9649448211280162056GW: I'm surprised you have no response to my lengthy comment(s) above. Obviously, the sense of the MR community is that Christianity is a racial(ist) dead-end. Time will tell.
9656748211280231069I'd love to read a new posting on, let us say, "racial materialist metaphysics", especially if terms are defined, and objectives stated, carefully from the outset. It would also be taken far more seriously if specific references (at least to named philosophers), if not more precise bibliographic details, were provided. Indeed, the editor might consider a macro-discussion of Ten Areas of Racialist Controversy, and then allow for a short (or long, as desired and/or produced) statement laying out some thoughts on the particular topic [i]du jour[/i], to get discussion started. Who knows? Eventually these discussions could be culled and condensed into an actual book, something like [i]Defending Our Genotype: Selected Essays from majorityrights.com[/i]. I'm half joking about the title - it seems to sum up MR's outlook - but wholly in earnest about the project. Serious discussions on such vital topics should be at least somewhat conducted with a view towards developing a coherent body of thought to present to the wider world.
9545848231278948641Africans in America are smarter than most other Negroid populations not primarily because of better childhood nutrition, but because they have on average something like a 25% admixture of Europoid genes. What about Darwinian defenses these Africans have built up to deal with the diseases of their eco-niche? And are black infant transplants to northern climes noticeably smarter than their stay-in-Africa peers? Moreover, children's brains are tougher than many might suppose. Look at all the kids, German and Jewish, who suffered horrendous conditions during and especially at the end of WW2, but who grew up into intelligent, accomplished adults. I knew a man, now dead, who told me stories of the horrible hunger he went through in the Hitler Youth towards the end of the war. He was a very malnutritioned early teenager for over two awful years. Somehow, he grew into a very big-boned man, with a high IQ, who emigrated postwar to Canada, where he amassed a fairly impressive fortune.
9556548241279108511Agree with Fred on several issues. I didn't even know about this until today. Sent an email around notifying friends. Many responded; none had voted, either. As the vast bulk of my friends are demon right wingers, I do have just a bit of a warm feeling about this as well. Obviously, there are more of us than I had thought. People bleat about how this is a "law enforcement, not racial" issue - BS! For some that may be true, but for most, if they search their psyches deeply enough (and for many that doesn't have to be very deep at all!), it is a moderate way to register a rejection of white race-replacement. I also agree with Fred that there was a subtle bias in the very wording of and pictography with the poll. If they had said " ... AZ's modest attempt to try to stop criminal trespassing of the US", or some such, the results might be still higher. Even better, while I have never subscribe to cable, or even own a tv anymore, I was on vacation earlier this year, and did watch some pundit shows on the resort tv. This included some MSNBC. Correct me if I err, but isn't Fox more 'conservative', while MSNBC is way more liberal? Wouldn't one therefore expect this poll at least initially to be viewed by more liberals than conservatives? Of course, we might also expect more whites than non-whites (proportionately, not just absolutely) to respond as well, given higher white literacy, IQ, interest in matters beyond the self and of a more sophisticated nature, etc. I bet over 80% of poll takers were white (honestly? I wouldn't be surprised if it were over 90%). The huge disproportion voting YES thus suggests to me that even many otherwise moderate to liberal whites support cracking down on illegals. This in turn suggests two implications. First, opposition to immigration is something that may increasingly unite whites of otherwise varying ideological positions; and second, Obama's having the nerve to sue AZ over this will be yet another nail in that affirmative action ass's political coffin. Finally, the law is indeed altogether too modest. I almost would be inclined to vote NO myself, if I did not understand the larger symbolism. Immigration policy, including any targeted enforcement, really should be a Federal responsibility. The problem with a states' rights approach is that eventually some whole states could become "sanctuary states" (or even Mexican irredentist ones in the Southwest), as already are some US (traitor) cities, like San Francisco. I support states rights federalism in almost everything, but not deciding on genuinely national issues, like foreign policy, defense - and immigration/naturalization. A small bit of good news, anyway.
9556648241279109162Further re politics of Obongo suing AZ (from Amren): http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/07/governors_obama.php Dem governors worried about political impact this Fall. It's not too early to say to all fellow Americans here: MAKE SURE YOU GET EVERYBODY OUT TO VOTE THIS FALL. Unfortunately, it'll have to be for the GOP, but the message of strength thee would still be helpful to our larger cause.
9564848241279281612[i]Posted by Guessedworker on July 16, 2010, 09:24 AM | # Indian, Empire was an elite project. It was not British peoples who colonised India and elsewhere, but the British political, corporate and financial elites. The presence of Indian peoples in Britain is not required by the British people, is not wanted by the British people, is not legitimated by the consent of the British people. We have no means to deliver a request for you to go, since our political, corporate and financial elites are globalists, extended Jewish phenotypes and race-traitors whose goals are served by the destruction of the bond between British blood and British land. But go is what we want you to do. You will never be welcome, just as the British ruling class was not welcome in India. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?[/i] ---------------------------------------------- Very well said. Pithy and pointed. Some of the discussions of "ontological nationalism" and "palingenesis" would be greatly improved if conducted with similar linguistic discipline. That said ... at the risk of being presumptuous, what is the point of responding to such fools? I speak here not simply to the sitemaster, but to all who felt compelled to joust with this Indian ignoramus (he should start remedying his nonsense by studying the history of British imperialism, which was mostly a loser for "John Bull" - but a huge benefit, at least economically, not simply to certain connected British elites, along with various Indian princelings, but to the Indians themselves; the often overwrought Zionistic historian Paul Johnson has on several occasions discussed the extensive benefits of colonialism to the subject peoples). Life is short. The time to save our race is shorter. Might I suggest that commenters devote some more time to figuring out strategies to stop immigration, build white nationalist communities, as well as actually networking in the physical world to build those 'little platoons'? And to any Americans: what should be our 'bridge' organization at this time; that is, the organized force, movement, network of clubs, etc, which is intermediary between the complete racial atomisation we face now, and the [i]volkisch[/i] force we want actually to achieve our goals in real time and space? I absolutely have an idea here, but first I'd like to hear from others.
9565748241279295560I disagree completely. Respecting the social world, I believe in the final victory of physical forces and realities over mere propaganda. Consider the Bolsheviks. Vastly simplifying, from Lenin's perspective pre-WW1, the likelihood of a Bolshi revolution, when set against the reality of the Tsarist apparatus of repression, and the ignorance and apathy of the mostly Russian peasant population, must have seemed (superficially) very small. Yet he and the other criminals pressed on, did their revolutionary activities, and waited for the opportune time, which finally came with Russian losses and especially hardship on the home front during the war. My point is that all the Church/State "soft power" was no match for determined foes who understood (correctly, even if communism was profoundly wrong about man and society; this assumes of course that the Bolshis were not simply out for the main chance and actually believed their utopian nonsense - a debatable issue, admittedly) that the Tsarist regime did not really serve the interests or desires of the bulk of the population, and that in an increasingly restless and democratic/agitationist age, Russia could not simply cling forever to outmoded forms of rule and governance. Other non-commies (Stolypin, Kerensky) understood this situation of seeming invincibility masking underlying rot objectively as well. Ultimately, self-interest drives men and determines history. This should not be understood as merely materialistic (physical security, then economics, then pride/dignity). Religion certainly plays a huge role, though there is a blunt aspect to that, too: men wish to placate gods or reach Heaven. What does not obtain forever, and will so obtain ever less in a global future of increasing literacy and access to information, is any social structure which rests on a ideational foundation of both falsity and false consciousness. That is, a structure whose central normative justifications are either empirically false, or internally contradictory, and which relies for its perpetuation on a majority remaining in a state of false consciousness. Obviously, the paradigmatic example of such a structure is the contemporary white world's approach to race. Racial diversification is based, as all here know, on an endless series of both empirical lies about racial realities (eg, races are equal; races are culturally interchangeable; multiracial societies are as harmonious as homogeneous ones, etc), as well as moral justifications which are either false (eg, falsehood 1: Britain's colonial activities were rapacious towards innocent aboriginal peoples; falsehood 2: even if we admit to #1, past rapacity on the part of a few imposes moral claims on all present day Britons; falsehood 3: even if we admit to #2, justice demands as restitution that Britain should open its borders and grant citizenship and right of residency to unwanted foreigners; etc etc etc; bad reasoning all down the line), or, at least, do not generate ethical imperatives. I submit that there is no moral argument whatsoever proving that whites [i]must[/i] racially diversify their societies. Indeed, I believe there are strong moral arguments based in the field of intergenerational ethics suggesting that it is profoundly IMMORAL of whites even to [i]allow[/i] their societies to become, willy-nilly, in the course of things, diversified. I further submit that the vast bulk of whites do not benefit from diversification (some do, of course). By "benefit" I mean materially: in terms of economics, personal safety, personal pride/dignity, living space, ease of communications, cultural affinity, neighborliness, etc. Indeed, with the sole exception of those whites who directly economically 'parasite off' diversity (eg, the race relations industry, American agribusiness and fast food), or who are sexually attracted to non-whites, I cannot see how whites benefit at all from racial integration and diversification. These are policies solely rooted in false morality (and thus false consciousness). But that is precisely why we can win, indeed expect to win - unless the material/physical situation changes irrevocably (eg, the society becomes so saturated with aliens that it becomes either militarily impossible actually to remove them and restore the status quo [i]ex ante[/i], or at least to do so at an economic (and, yes, moral) cost that the majority - our race - would deem acceptable). Diversification does not serve [i]real[/i] white interests. Nor is it morally mandatory. So why does it continue? Because there are powerful forces in favor of it. However, we live still in democracies. If the majority really did not favor diversification, and opposed it passionately and intensely, then it would be ended. The problem is false consciousness. Most whites do not favor their racial dispossession and its effects, but they oppose it only weakly. They do so because they have been (and continue to be) brainwashed into believing that strongly opposing it is morally wrong (and whites, as I never tire of pointing out, are the race which preeminently cares about justice). Can the brainwashing and ultimately diversification be reversed? Yes, because we have both truth and self-interest going for us. And for the moment, we still possess majority power. And so back to my question in the earlier post. How do we start the necessarily simultaneous process of de-indoctrination and political foot-soldiering? I don't know exactly, but I do know that arguing with our enemies (unless in public forums amongst undecided persons) is a waste of time.
9565848241279295641My disagreement is with UH, not Fred.
9565948241279297477In fact, I agree with this latest post of Fred's as well. I stress materiality for the most part. When I stress the moral (philosophical) struggle, as I have here and elsewhere in the past, I do so because our people are not psychologically remotely ready yet for the physical struggle. Until whites become morally convinced of their right to endure, and take what physical measures will be necessary to effectuate that prior right, they will not act racially, absent direct, unquenchable hostilities, which are not however the primary 'diversity' problem (and when they do become that problem, we whites may no longer possess the sheer numbers or power to impose our will). Note: this is an empirical claim I am making. You want to save whitey? Unless he's surrounded by bloodthirsty savages, at which point it may be impossible to save him, all the racial willpower in the world notwithstanding, he just won't do anything 'racist' until he has become convinced that such actions are morally acceptable. GW: You are right that this requires a moral/theoretical revolution, but it will be done [i]within[/i] existing traditions. I believe, even respecting Europe, but undeniably wrt the US, this means the Christian tradition. I've argued previously here that morality in the absence of God is meaningless. I believe that. At best, without God, it could be based on instincts of affection and sentimentality, such as one feels for children (especially white children, in my case). But without God, only brute self/familial-interest is rational. Who the hell would risk life and limb for ... the white race??! Too abstract, too removed from me, the being deciding what to do, based on a pleasure/pain calculus. What racialists must do is prove within Christianity that white racial loyalty is either imperative (as I truly believe) or at least allowable. (I am slowly working on this.) Then we can move on to the practical questions of strategy and tactics. I don't wish to 'dis' The Ontology Project, but I have to stand with Fred. I doubt seriously that the whole key to the survival of our race will involve Heidegger in any way.
9603548281279656158Here’s a longer excerpt (Hoste here is commenting on an anti-Islam Serge Trifkovic article which ticked him off a little): In Trifkovic’s conclusion, that more Europeans may convert to Islam as time goes by and the religion gains power, I actually think he may be right. But most of them would be converting from Secular Humanism, not anything that can be called Christianity. It would be a mistake to believe that whites would be Muslims in the same way Pakistanis or Saudis are; the faith would be molded to conform with the biological characteristics of its adopters, or “Europeanized” as Christianity was in the first place. I don’t know what a Swedish Islam would look like, but it probably wouldn’t be half as ugly as the feminist-communist dystopia that the country is today. The culture of that Nordic state repulses me a lot more than that of say, Turkey. Not that I advocate a European mass conversion — such an event would have unforeseen consequences beyond what any mortal could imagine — though I could imagine a situation where a Muslim Europe was the least of all evils. One thing we may consider: from the perspective of white survival, Islam may be the best bet. What would be lost to miscegenation would be more than made up for in higher birthrates. Whether a European Islam would have a higher or lower rates of immigration is harder to say. Whites may sympathize with their new Arab and North African cousins, or they may become like other Muslim countries, i.e. restrictionists. Once again, too many variables to make solid predictions. We must have a realistic picture of the Muslim people though and not turn the abstraction “Islam” into some sort of Satanic prototype we expect people to conform to. If we are going to reject this scenario, and stick it out with Christianity no matter how much it’s failed or try for a revival of Paganism, we have to understand that the hostile minority in the heart of Europe is there to stay. The BNP used to favor repatriation. Imagine how much money it would take to convince your average Pakistani or African immigrant (or one who was born in the West and doesn’t even speak the language of his ancestors) to go back to his country of origin, multiply it by the number of non-whites and you would easily see that such schemes are impractical for all countries but those maintaining the largest white majorities (you think entitlement programs are expensive!). Genocide should be off the table [Scroob note: I should hope so!]; the same with regard to crazy ideas like banning Islam or the Koran which would lead to civil war and be incompatible with civilized society. What options are left? I have no good answers, and neither does anyone else. ___________________________________ This guy Hoste is one dumb asshole. I'm starting to wonder why I visit these sites. Some impulse towards race-patriotism, but it all seems so pointless. Truth gets told, but not always understood, and then it is followed by mental backsliding. 1. Very few people in GW's oh-so-precious, all-there-is reality (no, make that REALITY) care about saving the white race [i]per se[/i]. I certainly don't, and I am known elsewhere (on the innumerable sites from which I have been banned) as an extreme racialist obsessive. If the standard white man were an uncivilized, inbred retard (say, after the bulk of our people shall have converted to 'wiggerdom'), I would say To Hell With 'Em. I've encountered plenty of dysgenic whites. I'd rather be ruled by (today's) Japanese, or Jews. Any group of people have their better and worse elements, but overall, American Jewry is highly civilized. We object to them because of their anti-WN politics, and to some extent, sharp (and annoyingly ethno-favoritist) business practices. But unlike Negroids, most Arabs, and most Latinos, Jews make enormous contributions, at least in America. Jewish intelligence is a major positive factor in America's global scientific and economic competitiveness (just as it is a major liability racially). Jews are bad insofar as they facilitate multiculturalism and race-replacement. Unlike blacks, they are not bad in themselves. I do believe that, as a community, they have lower ethics than whites (we whites, however, are the gold standard of ethicality!). But I have known, as well as know of, many highly ethical Jews, whose public giving, beyond mere Jewish causes, is very obvious throughout my California community. This may be a tactic of Jewish ethnic survival, but the larger community does benefit - unlike in the cases of blacks and Arabs, who only offer bad music, social pathologies, and endless complaints. 2. The point is that we wish to save our race not simply because it is ours, but because it is [i]worth saving[/i] when set against some universal moral standard. GW's and others' views come dangerously close to the fallacy of anthropomorphizing unwilled, merely natural processes, as though in an allegedly meaningless universe - ie, a physical world without transcendent, exogenous moral order - the purity and perpetuity of my genes should matter to me more than hedonism. But why??!! Without any universal standards, who cares if my children or even grandchildren (which would be worse) are mongrels (the grandkids would be worse, as mongrelized children would result from choices on my own part over which I presumably had original control)? I keep saying variations of this, but to no effect. 3. I wish my race to survive in a pure form, or as pure as possible, because I love not my people's biology (other than appreciating the beauty of the better looking among our women), but my people's [i]culture[/i]. I love my civilizational patrimony, the High Culture of the West, understand that it is morally (as well as aesthetically) superior to the productions of other races, and recognize that it was the unique, autochthonous product or series of products of a particular gene-pool, and that there is no [i]a priori[/i] reason to suppose that it will be perpetuated and expanded by communities alien to the creator ethnie. 4. The idiot Hoste (like so many racial nationalists, not to mention libertarians) exhibits no understanding of the deeper philosophical, theological and historical sources of our superior culture - set against which Islam is TOTALLY ALIEN, and indeed I suspect inimical (why have Muslims contributed so little to the cultural flowering of mankind?) to great artistic enterprise (outside of narrow bounds, like architecture and calligraphy, and some poetry). Hoste's very standpoint is wrong. Contemplating conversion to Islam as a method of white survival is really giving the game away at the outset. We must preserve our race in order (I believe) to preserve our culture and heritage. We don't give up our culture and heritage simply in order to preserve the sub-species. 5. The West is Christian. Islam is inimical to every aspect of Western Civ, regardless of specific periods. It is inimical to Christendom, to the Renaissance, to the Enlightenment, to liberalism, to conservatism, to individualism, to ethno-communalism (Hoste ought to read even just a very basic introduction to Islam and its history.) A white/European Islam might well evolve into more benign directions than we currently see, but that is pure assumption without evidence. What a Europe converted to Islam would experience would be a profound reduction not merely of civilizational quality, but of the very chances of future European cultural renewal. 6. Islam "the best bet" for white survival?! Who writes such crap? The best bet for white survival is what I advocate: a re-racialized Christianity, a Crusader Christianity. Given me back the Puritans (not that I would have liked them in absolute terms) and old-school Catholics over the Islamists. The former produced plenty of children (in 1900 approx 30% of the globe was white). What killed white fertility was feminism, socialism and secular humanism. Why reach outside of one's racial inheritance to increase fecundity, when our own traditions were just fine in that regard? Utter lunacy! 7. Finally, they (Euro-Muslims) are not "there to stay". That's what people said not very long ago about East German border guards. They are there until whites get their crusader acts together. Of course, there must be repatriation - TOTAL REPATRIATION, not simply of Muslims, but of ALL THIRD WORLD COLONIZERS OF EUROPE (note I say "Europe"; true hard-cores would include North America; ultra-hard cores would include Planet Earth, and would have little use for repatriation at all; my Christian sensibility can only countenance European race-cleansing, but that is non-negotiable). And no, Fred, that is not "genocide" (get your head out of your ass). It is "national liberation". And no, we're not paying the colonizers to go. If we are exceptionally munificent, we will allow them to remove personalty. And yes, there will be civil war, and not just between Europeans and Muslim settler-colonialists, but also between Euro-patriots and race traitors. There must be ideological as well as racial clean-ups. 8. And since when is banning Islam and the Koran incompatible with "civilized society"? Doing so is part of the essence of civilized society in the West. Perhaps it's time for MR to host a debate whose purpose is to begin to define some type of minimalist WN agenda. Something practical. Meanwhile this Hoste character should be run out of nationalist organizations.
9633248321280064643Well, since you brought it up... a re-post: Posted by Leon Haller on July 24, 2010, 03:52 PM | # From GW: Leon, [i]Saving the white race from extinction requires not a new ontology, but the recovery of an older ethics. [/i] Moral systems emerge from the struggle for survival. When a system is stretched beyond what is adaptive so as to accomodate social or religious change, the tendencies to maladaptiveness increase. Does the “older system” you have in mind contain maladaptive ethical direction? -------------------- A few lines, yet so so pregnant with implications and implied questions ... 1. Moral systems emerge from the struggle for survival. Well, I hope you are aware of what an enormous and controversial statement this is. In a sense, this is simply the atheist view of morality. Assuming no Deity, everything human emerges from the blind (note how I already must employ anthropocentric vocabulary) processes of natural evolution. 2. I think the implicit point of your comment is something like this: Moral systems (including their extensions into the social and political realms) do not exist of themselves (ie, in a Platonic or Ideal sense); they are not inherent in reality. Thus the value of any moral system or ethics can only be assessed from a utilitarian vantage. For you, that vantage is the extended genetically related kinship group comprising a sub-species of homo sapiens; that is, a race. For you, then, we must assess any proposed ethical system in light of whether it favors (is “adaptive” in your language - a classic example of the inappropriate importation of the language of science into the realm of philosophy; but I suppose I’m begging the question here) the genetic interests of (let’s get practical here) the white race; that is, the interests of the genes comprising the white race in their own reproduction in perpetuity. 3. I’m speaking loosely here (this is a blog, not a grad school exam), but I think your essential point is to inquire whether the West’s traditional moral system &#40;Christianity&#41; has become maladaptive for white preservation. Again, I think your root assumption is that religion, or any supernaturalism (I’m sure you are too intelligent to believe in the physical existence of Wotan or Thor!!), per se is false, and thus can only be judged instrumentally - “but is it good for the Aryans”? And looking at the racial preservationist value of Christianity, you find it wanting. 4. I’m not capable of disabusing you of your atheism (perhaps no theist can ever do so for any atheist, at least given the present configuration of knowledge). I certainly cannot prove the existence of God, let alone the (ontological) truth of Christianity, though I would note that there are many brilliant men alive (and many more in the past) who are Christians, and that Christian philosophy is vastly more detailed and sophisticated than the caricature presented by Dawkins. 5. For me, being practical, the more interesting question is not whether God exists (I believe so, and am content in my belief, even though I continue to read books on both atheism and apologetics), but whether a) Christianity is indeed maladaptive for our race as a whole (it certainly isn’t for those fundamentalist American Christians who have huge families out of a sense of fulfilling divine edict; indeed, contemporary American whites who do have greater than 4-5 children are almost invariably very serious Christians; I would hazard a guess that even a substantial majority of those who have more than two children are religious), and b) whether it must be maladaptive as a function of its essential theology and internal philosophical coherence. These are big issues - and the empirical evidence is not in the least one-sided in your favor.
9633348321280064785Posted by Leon Haller on July 24, 2010, 05:52 PM | # [i]5. For me, being practical, the more interesting question is not whether God exists ... but whether a) Christianity is indeed maladaptive for our race as a whole, ... and b) whether it must be maladaptive as a function of its essential theology and internal philosophical coherence.[/i] (- me above) As to question (a), a few thoughts. If all that matters is the genetic perpetuity of our race (that is certainly not why I’m in this “race business"), then the issue for GW would seem to be twofold: first, does Christianity within a population have the effect of increasing or decreasing fertility; and second, does Christianity pose some type of “macro-threat” to societies in which it is the dominant ethical system &#40;eg, by enervating the warrior spirit necessary to group survival, or promoting passive race-replacement by encouraging the ‘humanitarian’ admission of racial aliens into Europoid territories/ecological niches&#41;? If Christianity is maladaptive wrt fertility, then why are Christian whites having the largest families? Indeed, why has white, and especially European, fertility fallen the most precipitously in tandem with rising secularization? This has little to do with the Pill, either. My maternal grandparents both came from enormous families (14 kids, 11 surviving to adulthood; and 9, with 6 to adulthood), yet they managed to have two children. Those children were born, and the huge drop in global white fertility began, well before the advent of the Pill. Even today, the most Catholic (indeed, Christian) white nation is Poland, and it has the highest fertility in the white world (not that it’s very high absolutely, but virtually every other white nation, except the US due to its high-fertility minorities, has a below-replacement rate of fertility (I think one or two other countries, maybe Ireland, are hanging in there with bare 2.1 replacement fertility), many appallingly so). Why Christianity is adaptive for fertility I’m not sure, though I could adduce many conjectures, if I had the time and desire. I merely note my speculation (I suspect this will displease GW and MR generally) that the far future will see a resurgence of Western Christianity, if only on demographic grounds - it’s the committed Christians who are having the kids!! Surely you sociobiological determinists can see the writing on that wall? As to question (b), this is likewise a big issue, and I’m not fully qualified to attempt a definitive answer. I would note, though, that Christianity was never historically opposed to the existence of nations, anti-miscegenation laws, immigration legislation, aristocratic distinctions, or slavery. With the exception of the latter, which could no longer be justified within the contemporary Christian consensus, Christianity, as traditionally understood, does not disallow any of these aspects of any healthy race-preservationist regime. That much present-day Christianity is race-treasonous (functionally, and often intentionally) is more a result of its pollution by liberalism, than of any defects inherent in its core theology (at least as far as I have gotten in my studies of it). I end by reiterating my essential thesis on all this: practically (but also ultimately philosophically, I believe) we would do far more good, in terms of theoretical work, trying to render Christian social thought compatible with racial preservation, than in reaching for some new ‘ontology’ which few can understand, and almost no one cares about. Our traditions are powerful, and did not prevent our greatness in ages past. Let us recapture them for our present purposes.
9633448321280065028Posted by Leon Haller on July 25, 2010, 11:46 AM | # Although my remarks were intended for GW, not uh (who needs a better online moniker), I will respond only to a limited extent, as I have already addressed many of these issues at other times (I suppose I should gather everything I have posted here pertaining to Christianity, rework it into one cogent piece, and then post it as a guest-blogger, so that I could refer back to it in the future when confronted with ignorance already disposed of). 1. Old time Christianity was hostile to neither white reproduction (quite the contrary!!), nor the maintenance of racial boundaries. Modern liberalism/leftism is premised on egalitarianism, which is asserted most strongly in the area of race. This liberalism has admittedly infected Christianity, but is not intrinsic to it (again, quite the contrary). It is liberalism which is destroying the West, racially as well as in many other ways, and it is liberalism which must be discredited. 2. As I keep pointing out, even if Christianity were empirically false, we race defenders should still advocate a non-liberal version of it publicly. The faith is traditional to the West (and whole mode of viewing reality); it has moved men to great achievements (we will see whether Heideggerianism, skinheadism, or other alternative ontological and (anti)ethical systems ever do the same - I utterly doubt it); it provides the metaphysical justification for an ethic of sacrifice, which will be needed if whites are to reject individualist hedonism in deference to racial preservation. 3. Those here who reject Christianity do so because they either perceive it to be cosmologically untrue, or otherwise have some personal animus. Unfortunately for them, atheism provides no justification for personal sacrifices, which absolutely will be required by many if our collective race is to survive. It is much easier to go along with the herd towards oblivion, than to try to wake up that herd, at great sacrifice (even if only in time blogging - but more likely, in much else). 4. The trick is not to dismiss something so elemental and powerful as religion, as you will simply alienate the bulk of your fellows, but rather to capture it and start using it for our purposes. At the very least, Christianity must be intellectually neutralized as a factor promoting race extinction. You don’t neutralize it by discrediting the whole religion, as too many (especially on the Right) have too great an emotional investment in it, and simply will not adopt atheism (and if they do, we go back to the problem of hedonism vs racial sacrifice). You neutralize it by uncovering exactly why Christianity does not mandate multiculturalism. 5. The equation of wealth with fertility is so ignorant as to be idiotic. Wealthy people tend to have the lowest fertility. This is true both within Western nations, and between richer and poorer countries. In the US, serious (white) Christians, regardless of personal wealth, have larger families than wealthier secularists. Christianity promotes family, both theologically and sociologically. Secularism does not promote family, and it leads to declining birthrates (which is why we should want to push it on the Third World, including programs to “raise the social status of women” - anything to depress their birthrates). 6. Modern Christians are not “dopes”. Sure many are morons, but so are many of all people. Secularists tend to be a bit more intelligent and better educated, but to those of us who are truly educated and intelligent, the average secularist is nothing impressive. What remains true is that secularists as a whole do not have large families. 7. uh has no understanding of the history of revolution. He is correct that men are not moved to the barricades by rational arguments. He is wrong to fail to recognize that revolutions are built on the slow accretion and permeation of ideas, often over decades. Indeed, how did we get to our present racially confused state? The white man was not defeated in battle by non-whites, though they behave as though that were the case. What happened was an ideological revolution in Western conceptions of justice, away from traditional notions, and in favor of a radical egalitarianism extended across the planet. 8. Whites are confused about their real interests, to be sure. But they are even more confused about the morality of asserting those interests. The task of the serious racialist intellectual is to integrate race-realism and racial nationalism into traditional Occidental (Christian/Western) conservatism. This is the task I will be pursuing in the coming years and decades. I understand the necessity of mass appeal. But the core doctrine must be developed first. 9. In future years you (all) will see that my approach is correct (at least for the US, but I suspect for the whole white world). The white race will be saved by collective action based on a renewed race-realistic Christian conservatism - or it will proceed on its present path to majority genetic amalgamation, territorial diminishment, and, for the final remnant of the racially strong (like us here), either systematic or more likely chaotic extermination. What is absolutely clear is that the secular society has racially failed.
9633148331280064158[i] I wonder whether the phenotypic variability in European groups played some role in the evolution of individuals and/or societies characterised by relatively high levels of trust. If detection of cuckoldry were made easier by the high phenotypic variability characterisistic of Europe, this would limit the requirement for distrust of other community members in preventing cuckoldry in the first place. [/i] 1. Were Europoid societies in ancient/primitive times characterized by greater levels of trust than non-Europoid ones? What about today? 2. What about Japan? Limited "phenotypic variability" (haha - translation: everybody looks alike), but high levels of trust (fewer lawyers, low criminality). 3. Is cuckoldry such a big deal among Africans? "It takes a village to raise a child" - remember that gem from the Clinton years? It does so because most Africans have no idea "who they daddies be". Admittedly, there is tremendous distrust among Africans, but I suspect that is due to their lack of genes for altruism and general ethicality. 4. Might levels of trust parallel IQ? 5. The history of Europe has been one of tremendous inter-ethnic warfare. Why (hypothesized) greater trust within, say, Scandinavian or Germanic tribes, but not between Swedes and Germans more broadly (given the close genetic relatedness of all these groups)? I'm sceptical of a lot of sociobiological 'explanations'. It is important to bring biology into social scientific discussions, but it can be pushed too far. "Man is the creature who makes his own history" is obviously untrue. But so is the notion that genetic replication ultimately explains all. How else to explain the constant proclivity of whites to work against their own genetic interests? There is this little thing called "mind", and that in turn produces this little thing called "culture", which is of ever greater importance as natural evolutionary factors recede into our species' past ...
9650948331280168590Dasein, thank you much for this very considered response. I have to get doing some work, but I'm going to consider your answers later tonight (CA time). You seem very knowledgeable in this stuff. Are you a scientist?
9633548341280066552I really have no idea what everyone's 'on' about here, and care less. I do note that most WN's are not good writers, are worse thinkers, and are generally not worth considering. People should stick with those who are real scholars (Salter, MacDonald, Sunic, O'Meara, Rushton, Ellis, Devlin, etc), or at least formally educated, and erudite, writers, like Jared Taylor. Generally, the more elite the writer's credentials, the better he is. Who is this Hunter Wallace? What is his academic or professional background? What books has he published? I can tell you for certain Richard Spencer is a nobody: cognitively mediocre, and not learned. Some at MR do seem intellectually serious (GW, Dasein, Grimoire, maybe others I forget). But there is too little intellectual discipline exhibited in most comments, as well as lack of theoretical seriousness. The kinds of exchanges seen recently on the subject of nationalist ontology, though spectacularly wrongheaded in my opinion, at least are engaged in a worthy task. Nationalist ideology is not remotely as intellectually developed as it could be, and needs to be. Intra-movement gossip does not further this objective, and should be eschewed.
9648248341280159731I agree with ARMOR above. GUDMUND: thank you for your considered reply. BTW, I believe you were one of the good guys in our common task of injecting race-realism into takimag, which that coward Spencer kept deleting. I would love to debate Spencer publicly, on any subject. I would wipe the floor with him. Any project with him involved (and he's queer, too?!) cannot betaken seriously. I admire and am grateful for GW's commitment to free speech, which does not mean that unintellectual verbal blasts need be kept posted. But it is not my place to comment on editorial policy. I just am myself a dedicated and practical man, and can't stand "politics". We have a world to win.
9649348341280161368[i]It’s also reassuring to learn about the ‘predominantly Northwestern European blood’, which must mean that the the Census Bureau’s apocalyptic projections about demographic replacement can be safely ignored as well. As for gangsterism, I can see how being in thrall to the Federal Reserve and Wall Street with their temple merchants of ‘predominantly Northwestern European blood’ would be infinitely more preferable than being under the thumb of Gazprom or Yukoil. [/i]- Dan Dare While this retort to CapnC makes some fair points, and while I myself have been declaiming for 25 years against the reality behind these demographic projections, it is also the case that the US has one of the largest concentrations (indeed, if not the largest) of Nordic genes to be found in any major geopolitical area. The US has about 200 million whites, and 110 million non-whites. While it is unfortunately true that many of those "whites" are either not white at all (they include some Hispanics and Arabs, not to mention Jews), or are not racially pure (though in that I must include two of my cousins, both blondes and fair and very, very white, except that, through their "Jamestown" mother, unrelated to me, they have "Native American" blood in them, as do many super-Old-Stock Americans), it remains the case that there are [b]quite likely[/b] over 100 million whites who are not only pure Europoids, but even who are of the Nordic or Alpinic racial types, the rest being Slavs or Mediterraneans (though many Slavic Americans of my acquaintance, especially the Poles, look very "Aryan", and several of my Italo-American friends are white supremacists). Given that the majority of American whites are of English, Scotch-Irish or German ethnic heritage, it is [b]possible[/b] that there are over 100 million Aryans here. Is there any larger concentration of Aryans within another sovereign nation? CapnChaos does have a point.
9684748341280406792OK, just one thing I do not understand. From the pictures of one "Hunter Wallace" posted above, this guy looks like he's about 18 - a young looking 18. WHY is such a youth being given ANY credence in WN circles? Why was he granted ANY involvement with TOQ - which I have hitherto assumed was a serious academic journal of the racialist right?
9696748341280490700[i]Posted by Hunter Wallace on July 29, 2010, 04:28 PM | # Leon Haller, If I recall correctly, years ago on Takimag you were trying to come up with “the philosophy” that would save the White race. Seeing as how we now have a mulatto president, I take it you failed in this grand task of yours.[/i] Mr. Wallace, I have no skin in this game. I do not know you, do not remember you from takimag, and know nothing of the goings on mentioned above, beyond what I've skimmed here. I am impressed that you remember my contributions to the taki-rag comments section, however, as the scumbag who was then the editor repeatedly (and, I continue to think, rather unfairly, if you'll excuse the petulance) deleted my posts almost as soon as I put them up, though some of them did have value to those willing to learn, and not merely regurgitate their own sophistries. The philosophy I am developing is not something that is produced either on demand, or overnight, especially by someone who does not have the leisure equivalent to a full-time academic, or paid activist. My views are welcomed here, for which I am grateful, but little appreciated, as I continue to argue more as a racial [i]conservative[/i], albeit a rare real one, than nationalist. The "philosophy" you allude to above indeed is/will be (it's an ongoing project) a serious attempt to integrate racial preservationism with traditionalist (Christian metaphysical) conservatism. With not the slightest disrespect intended towards this site's editor, who, along with several of his astute colleagues, is trying to work out his own racialist ontology, seemingly grafting a Heideggerian metaphysic onto a foundation of hard scientific materialism, I do believe my work will eventually prove more fruitful, philosophically, but also, and more importantly, pragmatically. Doing serious reading in Christian theology, as well as mastering both the conservative and nationalist traditions of thought, involves a lot of slow reading (made slower by note-taking). My primary intellectual interests heretofore (post-college) have been in political, social, and especially cultural history (European, American, and Twentieth Century World); general intellectual history; anti-communism; libertarianism; free market economics and finance; popular science (and history and philosophy of science, with emphasis on the life sciences); and literature, especially classic novels of the nineteenth and early to mid twentieth centuries. Probably the bulk of my reading, however, has been in very generalist learned periodicals, mainly the [i]TLS[/i], the [i]New York Review of Books[/i], and [i]The New Republic[/i] (all lefty, but good), but many others, too (most recently, [i]Standpoint[/i]). (I've probably wasted a lot of time on the latter category, time that could have been put to more intellectually productive use, I admit, but the learned essay is my favorite diversion, and addictive.) In the specific fields of Christian, conservative, and nationalist thought, I have only read, combined, about 130 volumes. Additionally, I've read many dozens of issues of the conservative quarterly [i]Modern Age[/i], every article written for more than two decades in the paleoconservative magazine [i]Chronicles[/i], every article ever written in [i]American Renaissance[/i], and the first few years' worth of TOQ (I've fallen quite behind, but I intend to catch up). Thus, though I've read a great deal worth reading in my life, I've only begun concentrating over the past few years on the task you have implicitly mocked above. As any serious scholar would attest, I obviously have a great deal more research to do. But I am slowly doing it, and its eventual product will be an aid to our people's survival, have no doubt. One last point: Obama's election is obviously irrelevant to my task, though I should point out that many of my taki-rag comments were written during or after the presidential campaign. Yours still writing and fighting for the West, Leon Haller
9703748341280595589Fred, Our thoughts on this are in sync. I only note that while Christianity certainly does not mandate race-replacement, the tough issues pertain to 1b). Christianity does not mandate open borders, either, but proving that requires a lot of knowledge and work, given at least the Catholic Church's historic, if philosophically non-imperative, bias towards 'welcoming the stranger'. The Church in its limited immigration theology always focuses on the immigrant (ludicrously seen as this lone, wandering soul, never the hordes we're actually getting), rather than the immigrant's effect on the settled community he's entering. The really tough stuff, which I am trying to work out, pertains to the use of force (state power) to maintain race preservation. For example, is it morally allowable for a Christian father to forbid a child from marrying another Christian, if he or she is outside his race? What about the State's passing anti-miscegenation laws? Coercive expatriation laws - especially for those non-whites legitimately born on white soil? Trust me: these issues are not remotely 'cut and dry', and it's a long theological path getting there, at least through Catholic thickets. Few churchmen at this time would agree with us (even though we are right).
9703948341280599793GW, I would like to respond to your comment, but I have two problems. First, I want to read that article you posted on "traction" (along with some comments). I don't have time this morning (CA/PST). But second, and more ominously, I actually don't understand what you're saying. We use many of the same words, but differently. [i]I am interested in carrying what is real to consciousness (in the particular sense I mean that) into the world of ordinary waking consciousness and daily life[/i] [i]this is a process capable of communicating itself without reliance upon logic[/i] I don't understand what you're talking about. Perhaps you could "dumb-down" your language a bit, and restate your thoughts for my benefit... [i]wouldn’t an ontological conservatism be a tight little feedback loop?[/i] Similarly, I'm not sure what you're asking here (though I only started to skim the "traction" post, so perhaps after reading it I'll have a clearer idea). My points above are fairly straightforward in conception, even if I can't yet prove them, or buttress them with all the requisite academic citations. In very brief (as I've stated these matters before elsewhere at MR, and wouldn't mind restating and reformulating them again, but in greater detail, for a newer thread): 1. Man is by nature religious. If he does not adhere to the old faith, he'll transfer those religious impulses to more questionable projects, usually of secular utopianism (eg, yesterday Marxism, today multiculturalism), or else engage in inappropriate sacralizations (eg, much of modern ecologism). 2. Christianity at least coincided with Western expansion and dynamism. Correlation does not equal causation, but in big historical analyses correlation does carry some independent weight. 3. Christianity gives meaning to life. Atheism, I and legions of others would argue, does not. 4. A sense of life's meaningfulness stimulates biological reproduction. Many Christian conservatives have wondered if it's merely a coincidence that Europe's birthrates have collapsed in tandem with its de-Christianization. Yes, feminism and the Pill have played big roles, as has the postwar welfare state explosion. But Christianity promotes marriage and family - and given feminism, contraception, and welfare, if we are going to boost Western fertility, it is only going to happen either via favorable pro-fertility tax incentives (which is having some positive effect in Russia, but I don't see such legislation getting enacted in Western Europe or North America, except backhandedly through negative childcare tax credits, which really aren't enough to stimulate artificial increases in fecundity; people in America have children or not regardless of tax credits, which can be helpful, but not dispositive), or because something psychological is compelling it. Religion is such a powerful shaping force. 5. The great clash of civilizations, especially on your side of the pond, is with Islam. All the vigor is with Islam. You don't defeat that kind of moronic certainty with either rarefied, often self-referential, philosophy (really, 'philosophical navel-gazing') or hedonism. There needs to be some ideological/emotional counterweight. Ironically, for blacks, that actually could be race loyalty. Blacks are just the most racist, race-obsessed, people you'll ever meet. Unfortunately, whites are differently 'wired', neurologically. ([i]We[/i][b][/b] aren't, but many or most of our fellow whites are.) Christendom successfully beat off the Muslims in the past, and it can do so again, provided it can become again a fighting faith. For the Church of England the very idea must seem ludicrous, but not here in the US. I thought the Iraq war was a huge Jewish/neocon distraction, but there are lots of admittedly not too bright evangelicals who saw it in Good/Evil terms. We need to cultivate that kind of friend/enemy distinction and identification. I'd like to write more, but I must stop now for personal reasons. I understand your basic position, I think: the past cannot be resuscitated. You are trying to develop some type of racially positive philosophical meaningfulness in light of the twin acids of scientific materialism, and postmodernist scepticism. I don't think materialism and scepticism are quite as well founded or lethal to tradition as you might, but that is a really big discussion. I do know that if we are going to save the West, we must save the white race, and if we are to do that, we need to figure out the most practical methods to persuade people to support immigration cessation, policies tending to increase fertility, as well as renewed racial and cultural pride, and concomitant rejection of multiculturalism and the cultural products of non-whites. Christianity at present is yet another barrier to what we want, but it could be an ally once again, if properly reconstructed.
9909448341282826279Wow, this thread won't die ... [i]American White Christians are a demographic we absolutely cannot afford to alienate from our cause. With them and them alone on our side we may not have enough to win, but without them on our side and conceivably against us we will surely lose.[/i] Captainchaos This statement is exactly right, at least for the American context. Anyone who disagrees is simply ignorant of the sociological situation in the US, or else very, very foolish. This is partly why I have always opposed the National Alliance, and any embrasure of Nazism of any variety (I also oppose Nazism on moral principle, considering it an evil ideology, even though I strongly would have supported the US staying out of the European theater in WW2, and obviously believe that the Nazis were infinitely preferable from an Occidentalist (indeed, even [i]Christian[/i]) perspective, to the Judeo-Bolsheviks running the Soviet Union). There will never be, indeed, cannot be (philosophically), any reconciliation between Christianity (in any of its major denominations) and Nazism. Even serious Nazis need to recognize that a future Nazism must not appear to be such, or it will have zero electoral traction. But we don't need Nazism to build our case for white preservation. We really could use a racially reformed Christianity on our side, however, and this even if all theistic claims are ultimately empirically false (something I do not believe). Christianity in the US is not going away, and where it does fade, the result, at least historically, seems to be ALWAYS greater racial egalitarianism, not less. I absolutely cannot account for this, it makes zero sense to me, but it should be noted as probably a fact of secularization.
9628048381279986393I wish you would post the entire review.
9650148441280163687Dasein, our email paths crossed (your latest was posted as I was writing mine). Thank you for this response. This is new and interesting information to me. So zoologically, is this the proper sequence? Species (canine) --- Subspecies (dog) --- Race (collie) I really don't know this stuff, though I think I once did, about 30 years ago. I'm not sure if I'm using "canine" correctly. I mean that there is a species above dog (because it would include wolves, foxes, etc), but also there are visibly distinctive breeds or 'races' of dogs. So for man we would have: Homo sapiens --- Homo sapiens sapiens --- Negroids, Caucasoids, etc. I think I may be confused. What is a species? A subspecies? A race?
9647848441280158705Don't you mean "species" in the title? I thought "subspecies" is simply a synonym for "race". Please clarify (apologies if the article did so, but I've only skimmed it thus far).
9649748441280162772Fred, thanks for the response. You may be right, though I don't know enough to form an opinion. Isn't the tell-tale sign (out of many genetic dissimilarities) of different species (say, dogs and cats) that they cannot interbreed? All humans are obviously of the same species (at least, I've thought so) because persons of different races can still reproduce together. Can't subspecies interbreed? For years I have been referring to "different subspecies of homo sapiens" (usually in the presence of race-[u]un[/u]realistic Christian "conservatives"). I hope I haven't been embarrassing myself!
9650748441280166256I didn't know that interbreeding was no longer the standard. Not all species can interbreed, obviously. Any examples of different species successfully breeding?
9650848441280166543dasein, we keep crossing emails, but thank you for your time. Perhaps I should finally get around to actually reading my now 10 year old copy of [i]Sociobiology[/i]?
9656248441280229385James, I don't have my copy of [i]Sociobiology[/i] in front of me, but I believe it was the 25th anniversary edition, which would make it 10 years old by your own publication date listing. I'm vaguely familiar with the scandal you mention from Ullica Segerstralle's (name from memory) [i]Defenders of the Truth[/i] (ditto title; it's in my storage area) about the sociobiology wars (Paul Gottfried in his [i]The Conservative Movement,[/i] rev ed, also discusses it) . I only mention this because my actual biological knowledge is much attenuated. My racial focus has always been more normative, as well as (geo)political, than science based. Most of my science I've gotten from the standard racialist sources (Rushton, Lynn, etc), as well as the excellent reviews Jared Taylor and Thomas Jackson have done of many of them at AR (also good stuff there from the late Glayde Whitney and Michael Rienzi). I just need to get my scientific racial facts (from sociobiology and evolutionary psychology) better (back?)grounded in actual biology as well as perhaps paleoanthropology. (I do have an amateur interest in cognitive sciences generally, at least in their more summary or popular versions.) On another note: any thoughts from anyone on the old hypothesis from [i]The Mankind Quarterly[/i] (I think Sir Robert Gayre, from memory) that blacks were several hundred thousand years younger/less evolved than other races (I mean had reached the human stage much later)? What is the contemporary scientific status of that view?
9684448441280405849Thanks. What about the notion of whites being a much older race than Negroids? Fact/myth?
9684948441280409049Thank you. I just wondered about the matter generally, if others were familiar with that hypothesis. I must say, you are admirably prompt in replies!
9657648461280245560"subcon"? I guess Indian subcontinental, but I'm otherwise unsure of this term. Must be Brit slang. BTW, outstanding linked essay of GW's. I think you should re-post it, to start a new thread of discussion. Bottom line re repatriation: yes, and it is non-negotiable, at least for Europe. As a Christian-leaning intellectual agnostic, I cannot embrace Nazism (I also do not share the antipathy towards the Jews, for strategic, moral, and personal reasons, of many here), nor can I ethically justify expulsions of non-white citizens from US soil, at least pre-race war (once racial war has been initiated by non-whites, as it almost surely would/will be, then all bets will be off, and though certain behaviors, even in wartime, are forever off-limits to Christians concerned about personal salvation (eg, rape of enemy females), total non-white expulsions, if militarily possible, will of course be effectuated). For now, I can only say re US racial population policy: 1. All (non-white) illegals must be deported, and the US/Mexico border militarized, with would-be future trespassers shot on sight. 2. All non-white immigration must be halted. 3. White immigration, especially from threatened areas (eg Africa, perhaps parts of Latin America, like Venezuela, Bolivia, in the future maybe Brazil, all of which do have a certain percentage of pure whites, albeit mostly of non-Nordic extraction - though let us remember our German Mennonite brothers in Paraguay, 150,000 strong), should be encouraged, including "poaching" (eg, allowing whites from elsewhere, especially the shitholes of the former Soviet Union, to come to the US, even if that means depopulation in those already declining areas - the survival/replenishment of white America is of greater world historical/racial importance than preserving Russian control over its whole landmass, as of preserving the Boer presence in SA, indeed, the British presence in Australia/NZ, etc). 4. Euro-Jewish immigration must of course be disallowed (this does not contradict what I stated above). But Europe is a totally different case. NO non-white has any reason for residing in Europe, the White Continent. There is absolutely no ethical (Christian) conundrum with total expulsion (though, of course, there could be with the manner of expulsion). Race-aliens must be told to leave the continent - though they should have sufficient time to wrap up their affairs as best they can. Any alien who violently resists deportation declares himself an enemy combatant, and should be killed on sight. Any European who violently resists alien deportation declares himself a military traitor, and should be killed on sight. This is a minimalist agenda. No patriot can possibly disagree with me, at least re Europe. I'm open to debate over the situation in America, which is unfortunately far more ethically complicated.
9657948461280246577I forgot to mention the mass expulsions of Europeans from throughout the Third World during the mid-20th century decolonization period (Algeria, India, Indochina, Congo, etc), still going in in Southern Africa today. No one was too worried about the morality of them! (I guess it's OK to screw over whites, but we must be ever so dainty and morally precious with the dysgenic colonists of our lands ...) And this despite the immense material and moral additions Europeans made to their colonies (unlike the minorities to our homelands). No compromise on territory, ever (listening, Alain de Benoist?). I'd like to see a vote - just to know if I'm wasting my time on this site. Are all agreed that all non-white "citizens" of Europe must be involuntarily repatriated out of Europe? Yes/No. No fence-sitting!
9668448461280319944[i]even down to disqualifying Sailer, with his Jewish descent[/i] (GW) What does this mean: Sailer's Jewish?
9683748461280402764This has degenerated into a really weird discussion. Let's keep it together, shall we? I'm beginning to understand why the (brainwashed) mainstream is so contemptuous of the Racial Right. We simply cannot leave well enough alone! Obviously, biology teaches that the organic world is messy. There usually are not fixed boundaries, only shaded ones. Swedes and Ibo are clearly distinct, but where do Arabs fit in? Some are basically Negroid, but others (some of whom I have known) are indistinguishable from Mediterranean whites. So how to classify for purposes of drawing friend/enemy distinctions? We do so on the basis of culture, psychological affinity, historical context, metaphysical congruence. Thus, today, I would classify an Arab Christian who looks Mediterranean white, and feels closer to European culture than to the Arab/Islamic world, as "allowable white". On the other hand, if an Arab is basically Negroid, or worships Allah, then he is not one of us. Is this taxonomy perfect? Of course not. But hewing to it would allow us to get on with our real work (see my comments above).
9696248461280486613I stand by my comments re the Arabs. Most are non-white racially, as I stated. But I have known some who are every bit as visibly white/Caucasoid as some Spaniards and Greeks I have known. If they are Christian, then Europeans should find them racially acceptable ("our list of allies grows thin", said the elf-lord). On the other hand, though the Syrian Assads could pass for Southern European, they are Muslim, and hence racial enemies.
9668348471280319643To British here: I don't understand Cameron. Is he evil, or just stupid? I had an instantaneous negative reaction to this goon as soon as he rose to international prominence. Do most Britons want Turkey in the EU? What is his motivation? On another note: yes, the US is playing a malign role in this, strongly pushing EU accession (mainly for US Empire reasons, though still idiotic). But why the lurch towards blaming Jews? Turkey is rapidly becoming Islamicized - and is increasingly hostile to Israel. Why automatically suppose the Jews would still want Turkey in the EU? I can see ethnic reasons certainly, but my point is that not everything over here occurs because of Jews. Finally, while I would like to see Europe racially awakened, even at the cost of chillier relations with the US, ideally what we need to build is "white pride, worldwide", as Stormfront has it. You Europeans may well require the US on your side if and when the great war against Dar al-Islam finally arrives (and it had better arrive, or you will surely become refugees in your own homelands).
9684048471280404822The comments from the paper quoted from just above are outstanding! Please post the entire paper! (This, incidentally, is what we should discuss, not Who's Whiter, Germans or Italians?) I do NOT understand why Europeans cannot create explicitly anti-immigration parties, done along nationalist lines. Yes, I know some exist obviously, but why don't they flourish? I say it's because of the cowardice of conservatives, who have never 'conserved' anything. It is as though they exist simply to manage the West's decline and senescence, when they could easily (well, not so easily now, but still plausibly) reverse it. While the racial element in immigration is the worst, there are many perfectly sound reasons to oppose immigration beyond simply race-replacement. Why can't a party eschew all Jew-baiting, Holocaust revisionism, intra-white ethnic disputes, etc, and simply focus on the costs and problems associated with the invasion? If the majorities are so opposed to the invasion, then wouldn't that work? The answer goes back to what I've written here before about the need for conquest. The core problem is that most whites everywhere do NOT heavily oppose the invasion. At best, they stand in only tepid opposition to it. There is little passion (though it is growing, thankfully, but only in tandem with the severity of the problem). No white majority anywhere is militantly determined to preserve itself. Hence the need for all racial whites to converge and peacefully conquer some single sovereign jurisdiction. Otherwise, we will remain a powerless minority everywhere.
9684248471280405602Fred, Obviously, you are correct wrt America's ludicrous "special relationship" with Israel. Why does it exist? Jewish influence. And yes, Jews have been by far the leading white (or "white") American ethnic group constantly pushing immigration here in the US (not to mention feminism, civil rights, gay rights, etc). As MacDonald showed, this goes way back at least to the 1920s. But here is a stumbling block: why does every European nation (many of which are quite hostile to Jews and Israel, you need to consider) fall for the denial of Race, when in many there are few if any Jews? Why can none commit to ethnonational preservation? Alleging "The Jews" is way too simplistic. There is some deep sickness in the racial soul of the white man (and no, it isn't Christianity, as I have also explained on this site - when the West was more Christian, it was also more racialist). I have no skin in this game. I'm not at all Jewish, and while I have a number of Jewish friends (several of whom are white nationalists, or at least far right conservatives), I have no love or concern for the Jewish Community per se. I just want the truth, to save the race which is the foundation of my civilization, and the way of life and mode of being in the world I cherish.
9685748471280415251Of course. Free trade and open borders are wholly analytically distinct issues. Free trade does indeed act as a substitute (in one sense) for free migration. One can have pure free trade, and zero immigration. But from a nationalist perspective, while non-co-racial immigration is a huge part of what we are against, free trade must ultimately be treated warily, too. There is a psychological tendency for those who are militant free traders to develop pro-immigration views as well. This comes from having a basically economistic view of life's goods. If maximizing wealth is seen to be the [i]sumum bonum[/i], then it's a short (mental) step from arguing on behalf of free trade's economic efficiency, to arguing that labor mobility can be efficient, too - or at least, to failing to be willing to make the economic sacrifices which might be attendant upon saving one's people. On the other hand, nationalist immigration and trade policies reinforce each other, philosophically as well as psychologically.
9697048501280494039Very good, notuswind. Of course, some of us have been very fully versed in carrying capacity theory for decades (I played a role in the 90s in helping to formulate some of the cc propaganda for population stabilizers to wrest control of the Sierra Club from the immigration enthusiast/city-densifiers; ah, we came so close ...). People like Garrett Hardin and Roger Pearson have been warning us for over a half-century about the intersecting trends of Western-created Third World population growth, global resource scarcity and ever-easier migration possibilities (the latter's [i]Heredity and Humanity[/i] is the outstanding short summary work here). And there have been leftist traitors for many decades talking up 'open borders' as a means of alleviating what they call enviro-population imbalances between the West and the Rest. Let's cut to basics, shall we? The (sociobiological) problems are simple to state: 1. overpopulation generally (threatening biosphere) 2. overpopulation of the wrong kinds 3. dysgenics (amongst everyone, including whites, except possibly Chinese) 4. race-replacement in the West. OK, everybody (I sense Fred and others getting huffy) ... 5. Judeo-ethnic dominance of power levers in US; disproportionate influence within "global power elite". Yes, we must use the environment and local sustainability as rhetoric to end what we would end anyway: the mud invasion. But notuswind overestimates their value (a mistake I made 20 years ago - perhaps he is young; no offense if not). I recall a date I was on in the 90s, during the heat of the Sierra Club immigration war. I patiently explained what we were about, oh so careful to avoid ANY mention of race and immigration. I couched my entire concerns in population-environment sustainability lingo. Alas, no dice. The bimbo started getting very agitated (shocking to me, as she had previously seemed pretty cool; I was sure she wasn't too political, and even thought she might be a Republican); I remember (this was after a bunch of drinks) her saying that this "sounded sooo conservative", "keeping our resources for ourselves and not wanting to share them", along with more of same. Rapid psychological shift from flirty comments about assorted naughtiness at her all-girl boarding school, to defensiveness and the I'm-offended look our modern bitch females have had incised into their not very autonomous psyches (our racial enemies got to us at least as much through our females as our consciences). The date was a failure (though thank God it was only drinks, and not dinner!). Sorry, notuswind et al. Every issue goes back to the West's denial of the Racial Principle. As long as we are unwilling militantly and proudly to assert our own collective genetic interests ahead of those of alien groups, we will lose every discussion and issue, no matter how valid, rational or scientific our position. For years I have been identifying the essence of "PC" as simply "whatever course of action, at any given moment, is the worst for the white man". Can data defeat that mentality? Of course not. Our enemies will always find some way around our reasons, some way by which, at enormous cost to whites, we can maintain a pro-mud position. "Immigration-generated overpopulation?. Hey, don't cut the immigrants! Impose cap and tax to reduce carbon footprint of natives, encourage [i]Maybe One[/i] (child) (remember that environmentalist shitbag manifesto?), high-density 'living', public transportation ... but we caaan't cut immigration!!!" We need, with the late Garrett Hardin, A New Ethics for (racial) Survival. Empirical data helps us build our case, but it will never be dispositive (except for plague ... maybe ...) without ethical change (really, 'awakening').
9702648501280573407Notus Wind, I agree with your points 1 (though I would like more elaboration of what you mean by "Liberal system") & 2 (and thanks for the Mill quote; somehow that one escaped me; I read the most famous [i]minor[/i] Mill works a quarter century ago - I wasn't about to read [i]Principles of Political Economy[/i] then, or now - but I was not 'ecolate' at that time, and so would not have remarked it). (And didn't Alexander von Humboldt precede Mill? This is from memory so I might be wrong; I could check Wiki but that seems like cheating.) But I disagree about the need for a completely new vision. Liberalism and especially socialism haven't run their course: they were always assinine. Ask any conservative/traditionalist. Why then can't we reject the Left and return to or revivify at least the essence of historic national patriotisms (while recognizing that the locus of patriotism changes over time, invariably ascending to larger units: we are living through another 'ascensionist' period in the West, this time from nation to race, though nations very much still exist, and still exert a powerful pull)? Environmentalist thought also has a traditional place on the Right, or better, a place on the traditional Right. But we need to be careful about neopaganism, whether literal (eg Druidism - though it might be fun to prance at moonlight with a bevy of naked chicks), or modern (investing some sort of sacredness in the planet, even if it's a recognized artificial imputation by questing humans fully aware they are in the GW/Dawkins "void of meaningless materiality", or whatever). We should indeed practice ecological stewardship (a now common Christian concept, one representing a genuinely new moral advance in theology), but as a matter of intergenerational ethics, not because we seek to replace traditional Western metaphysics, or the morality derived from it. New political visions have a tendency to produce new horrors. Or, as the A/author of Ecclesiastes put it, several thousand years ago, "There is nothing new under the sun."
9703648511280594696That Prof Sykes is a real shithead. Typical white: very smart, accomplished, cordial, and cowardly about race to the point of mendacity. Please - there are many straightforward possibilities. Hospital baby-mixup? Or, as LaForce correctly surmises, white baby-daddy (which would be rather interesting, as usually those cases produce an Obama)? However, it is certainly the case that sometimes there are whites who are 'passing', even if they don't know it themselves. A great grandfather was a black rapist of a white female; the baby was kept in the white family, it grew up very light skinned, say, and then married a pure white, whose offspring also married a pure white ... and then out comes the black. Rare, but impossible? This reminds me of another aspect of our plight which should be investigated, though it is truly sensitive: is there a modern need for Nurenberg style laws or at least requirements re who is really white? For the moment this still may not be too much of an issue in Europe, but it is a touchy one in the US. For example, I have a couple of adult, natural blonde cousins whose mother is a super-Old Stock American, descended from the Jamestown colony (I think; anyway, early 17th century Virginia). She has always claimed some Indian blood (in certain circles in America, starting in the early twentieth century, having a bit of 'Injun' began to be considered a source of pride: it meant you were Old Stock, or pioneer stock - usually to be contrasted with the hordes of European 'newcomers' flooding the country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries). Indeed, when I was a kid I used to make fun of the older, male cousin for having Chinese eyes. despite being the whitest-looking white guy, there really is something just slightly Asiatic about his eyes. The family stories probably have some truth to them. So who is white? Where should we draw the line? I have a Greek (white supremacist) friend who looks extremely Asian, despite being able to trace his Greek ancestry on both sides going back centuries. I have an Old Stock Anglo-Saxon friend who looks decidedly mixed-race Asian (family has had a long presence in Hawaii, and they do have a tiny bit of Hawaiian blood; of course, they are as WASP-living people as you will ever encounter). I have half-Jewish/white friend who is a hard-core "white man", as he likes to say, with the battle scars to prove it. I have several white supremacist full-Jewish friends. I have a militantly Zionist Jew friend whose daughter (of a pure Jewish mother) is much blonder than most white kids, especially these days. What about famous people? Is Tom Hanks really white? I bet he has something else in him. Ditto for many others of suspicious looks, who are nevertheless classified 'white'. What about pure Iberians? Is Penelope Cruz white? I've known several Latinos who are visually as white as she is. Even real Spaniards often have some Arab blood. Sicilians have a bit of African (remember Big Pussy on The Sopranos? Tell me that Italian actor didn't have Negro in him). At some indeterminate point we will have to deal with genetic 'boundary' issues, and move from genetic to cultural interests.
9708348521280661210I'm going to continue our discussion from notuswind's last post here, as it seems relevant to this one, too. [i]Yes, I would argue that this vision has run its course because we can now clearly see that it ends in an abyss that includes the destruction of Western peoples, rejection of traditional society in all its forms, and irrevocable degradation of the Earth. From a Christian perspective it is not hard to identify that this system is adversarial to all that is good, which means that it is empowered by spiritual energies that will always be with us in this life.[/i] -notuswind My point was that neither liberalism nor especially socialism ever had much real value, especially from a traditional Western (which means Christian/classical or Greco-Roman) philosophical perspective. Socialism violates Divine Creation, the link with the past, human nature, and the structure of human action. It was always doomed first to fail in its ideals, and later to descend into (from the Western view) barbarism. Liberalism did not violate the structure of human action, or some aspects of human nature, but in rendering the Divine and the past irrelevant, it sowed the seeds for the deracinated 'milksop' agenda it has become - and agenda which is racially unsustainable (ie leads to inability to defend territory, and ultimate genetic disappearance). [i]All I am looking for is a new vision (or philosophy) that will harmonize the timeless truths of our existence with the many changes that the modern world has brought. To my knowledge this has never been done.[/i] -notuswind But from a conservative perspective, this is unnecessary. Simply defend tradition, prudently removing what is clearly no longer acceptable to most (eg, total male control of females), while 'updating' our principles to cover heretofore unprecedented threats (eg, the combination of the global population bomb with modern communications and transportation technologies, leaving the West exposed to immigration invasions without new national preservationist legislation, which in turn now requires the incorporation of race realism into traditional political philosophy).
9708448521280662306I think the following is worth restating here, too: [i]Let’s cut to basics, shall we? The (sociobiological) problems are simple to state: 1. overpopulation generally (threatening biosphere) 2. overpopulation of the wrong kinds 3. dysgenics (amongst everyone, including whites, except possibly Chinese) 4. race-replacement in the West 5. Judeo-ethnic dominance of power levers in US; disproportionate influence within “global power elite”. [/i]
9708548521280662876Just watched the video. Hilarious! Tired, liberal weaklings, indeed! Neither intellectual nor even much physical or emotional vigor. Oh, how many of these types I have encountered over the years. No rootedness, no real psychic grounding except in desperate, self-congratulatory cliches about 'hopefulness' and 'optimism'. Fools (the kind who appropriately usually get killed first in action and horror movies). I must say, I was singularly unimpressed with their articulateness as well. These are fairly big names in science writing. I would have expected them to be far more forceful and insightful in their responses. I think I could destroy these chumps in a live debate.
9716148541280835992Only a fool or coward would care what minorities think about anything. "Struggle cred"? Only in the minds of deluded whites. Blacks don't suffer. They bring suffering upon themselves, and certainly prefer existing in harsh environments than submitting to the rigors of doing something to mitigate them. Never, never, forget: we whites owe non-whites nothing. They owe us everything! And it's time we started demanding compensation and reparations from them.
9730148541280916638Thank you thank you for the suicide data!!!!! I hypothesized this before some horrified liberals back in 1994. I said that whites were more sensitive than blacks, which I intuited explained what I believed (though I merely asserted the matter as though it were proved) were higher white suicide rates. We need to be careful about linking suicide with higher intelligence, except in the most general way. Suicide I would imagine usually grows out of depression. About 4 out of 5 depressives are female (according to an OUP text on depression I read a couple of years ago - title escapes me ... I think it was [i]Understanding Depression[/i], which I read on a friend's behalf). Females are on average somewhat less intelligent than men (though I think all the difference is in quantitative IQ, while the type of intelligence associated with higher sensitivity is probably more the verbal kind). Of greater importance, as many here will know, men are far more likely than women to be found at the highest reaches of intelligence. Anyone know about male/female differences in suicide [i]attempts[/i] (that last word is important: men being more aggressive, I would imagine they are more adept at actually offing themselves than women)? Bottom line though re other races, especially blacks: they are certainly less sensitive than whites, which I suspect, however, is less due to superior white intellect, or even empathic sensitivity, than to our superior morality (I suppose these traits are all interrelated, however). Whites care deeply about even abstractions, like justice; minorities less so; Negroids (and Arabs) almost never. But is this a source of racial strength - or weakness? It is like the aesthetic superiority of our genome: wonderful, but fragile. What a world of implications there are, for morality and politics, in that realization!
9749748541281092096Wanderer: Thanks much for that additional data. It is a rather delicious feeling when one's intuitions are proved empirically. I agree with your other comments. There is nothing at all wrong with those sensitive souls questing for meaning or otherwise concerned with moral improvement or aesthetic perfectionism. Such persons enrich our lives by their activities. The problem, of course, comes when this type of excessive introspection occurs in the context of war, whether military or demographic. We need active fighters and 'reproducers', not navel-gazers. (Those excessively concerned with any type of philosophy, especially wholly unpragmatic ontology, might take note.)
9741248561281012443Thanks for your ideas, Bill. Some good ones there, but one big problem: we would predict brainwashing via mass media to be most pronounced among morons. And yet, the really brainwashed are amongst the otherwise cognitive elites. Trust me, at least for the US. The Ivy League types, whether my own college peers, or the ones from other schools I've met in the decades since graduation, are at least as indoctrinated into 'diversitism' as the mental lower classes, who are more likely to have clear heads in part from experiencing diversity directly (or more so than the mental upper classes, who are more likely to have the financial wherewithal to escape it). No, I stick to my original thesis, first propounded by Revilo Oliver in the early 60s: there is some kind of heretofore latent defect in the white race, which only took the right set of mental and physical circumstances to effloresce into our present disturbed state.
9741348561281013637Concerning Trainspotter's earthshakingly brilliant and original comment above (in a nutshell: multiculturalism is not only injecting alien physical presences into our historic territories, but concurrently invading our psyches, stripping us of our own cultural identities, too - a point made zillions of times over many, many years, in many forums, sometimes even by yours truly), some loosely apposite remarks (re the ultimate irrelevance of empirical, especially coldly scientific, arguments to winning our war for survival) I posted a few days ago, re-posted here: 1. Man is by nature religious. If he does not adhere to the old faith, he’ll transfer those religious impulses to more questionable projects, usually of secular utopianism (eg, yesterday Marxism, today multiculturalism), or else engage in inappropriate sacralizations (eg, much of modern ecologism). 2. Christianity at least coincided with Western expansion and dynamism. Correlation does not equal causation, but in big historical analyses correlation does carry some independent weight. 3. Christianity gives meaning to life. Atheism, I and legions of others would argue, does not. 4. A sense of life’s meaningfulness stimulates biological reproduction. Many Christian conservatives have wondered if it’s merely a coincidence that Europe’s birthrates have collapsed in tandem with its de-Christianization. Yes, feminism and the Pill have played big roles, as has the postwar welfare state explosion. But Christianity promotes marriage and family - and given feminism, contraception, and welfare, if we are going to boost Western fertility, it is only going to happen either via favorable pro-fertility tax incentives (which is having some positive effect in Russia, but I don’t see such legislation getting enacted in Western Europe or North America, except backhandedly through negative childcare tax credits, which really aren’t enough to stimulate artificial increases in fecundity; people in America have children or not regardless of tax credits, which can be helpful, but not dispositive), or because something psychological is compelling it. Religion is such a powerful shaping force. 5. The great clash of civilizations, especially on your side of the pond, is with Islam. All the vigor is with Islam. You don’t defeat that kind of moronic certainty with either rarefied, often self-referential, philosophy (really, ‘philosophical navel-gazing’) or hedonism. There needs to be some ideological/emotional counterweight. Ironically, for blacks, that actually could be race loyalty. Blacks are just the most racist, race-obsessed, people you’ll ever meet. Unfortunately, whites are differently ‘wired’, neurologically. ([i]We[/i] aren’t, but many or most of our fellow whites are.) Christendom successfully beat off the Muslims in the past, and it can do so again, provided it can become again a fighting faith. For the Church of England the very idea must seem ludicrous, but not here in the US. I thought the Iraq war was a huge Jewish/neocon distraction, but there are lots of admittedly not too bright evangelicals who saw it in Good/Evil terms. We need to cultivate that kind of friend/enemy distinction and identification. I understand (GW's) basic position, I think: the past cannot be resuscitated. You are trying to develop some type of racially positive philosophical meaningfulness in light of the twin acids of scientific materialism, and postmodernist scepticism. I don’t think materialism and scepticism are quite as well founded or lethal to tradition as you might, but that is a really big discussion. I do know that if we are going to save the West, we must save the white race, and if we are to do that, we need to figure out the most [i]practical[/i] methods to persuade people to support immigration cessation, policies tending to increase fertility, as well as renewed racial and cultural pride, and concomitant rejection of multiculturalism and the cultural products of non-whites. Christianity at present is yet another barrier to what we want, but it could be an ally once again, if properly reconstructed.
9730948561280917550Again, I ask: will an Englishman tell me why you tolerate pushy, parasitical and violent immigrants?? Why?? In America, I understand, if disapprove of, the mentality. It is wrong, but superficially plausible to make excuses for blacks, due to our slave history (the arguments are beyond stupid, but so are most people, including whites). We're stuck on immigration with the "we're all from somewhere else" nonsense. Similarly, an obviously idiotic non sequitur, but with just the scintilla of truth to make it believable by the morons. But what the hell is wrong with Britain????!!!!! You fucking ended slavery, you defeated the Nazis, you gave the world the best law and highest civilization ever known. Why the fuck does the average Brit want to tolerate culturally alien and morally inferior wogs being brought into his territory?? What is the leftist argument - and why would it resonate with the white majority??? I am literally clueless on all this. (Clearly there is/was an evolutionary defect latent in the white race.)
9754848561281171403[i]Quite true Roberto. Our way of life has constantly been evolving. With every new generation of immigrants comes a new layer to the rich tapestry of diversity which makes Britain the great country it is today. The multitudes of new arrivals should not be feared they should be embraced as they will be the Britons of the future. Britain has always been a mongrel nation of immigrants and the arrivals will add o the strength through diversity which we have always possessed as a nation. Remember during the war we crushed the white supremacist Nazis who were supposedly racially pure and the reason for this is racial hybrids such as the British are genetically superior through the advantages of tapping into a wider gene pool. Just as mongrel dogs are superior in every respect to pure breeds the same rule applies to humans. It is a pity a lot of the Neanderthals who comment on this forum are not capable of the higher level of understanding you and I possess Roberto.[/i] I have almost never read anything quite so simultaneously stupid and factually inaccurate.
9755848561281176410Notus Wind, You are a scholar and a gentleman. The problem with the Far Right is that it has always attracted a disproportionate share of belligerent, caustic, oppositional personalities. It seems to go with the territory. It takes strong characters to resist an ideology - liberalism - that is at once hegemonic and self-righteous, yet unbelievably idiotic and obviously incorrect in its diagnoses and prescriptions. It is virtually calculated to annoy a normal man. We need more persons who are by nature positive, upbeat, agreeable, conciliatory, self-effacing and team-oriented. But it is difficult even to maintain those qualities in the face of an impending catastrophe at once world-historical, viciously denied, and still largely unnoticed or poorly understood.
9756048561281178612GW, Thank you for the lengthy reply addressed to me. This site is quite dangerous. Of all the WN (and merely conservative) ones I have (pa)trolled over the last decade, I find MR to be the most intellectually [i]demanding[/i]: one can never, at least in good conscience, merely emit a verbal belch or two, and then beat a hasty retreat! One must justify one's thoughts - always a hard task. I have gained a sense of how the poor fools accosted by Socrates must have felt (which also explains something about the hemlock) ... I, on the other hand, do not intentionally, impliedly impose any reciprocal burdens on others, including you. What I have written above as elsewhere was done in a spirit of genuine inquiry. I am fascinated to find others who share the same political goals (at least wrt racial issues) as I, yet who seek a very different set of justifications for their politics. Although I am unlikely to abandon my core beliefs, either about metaphysical reality, or political strategy, your retorts are a true challenge, and as such, reflecting upon them can only strengthen the content of my own evolving arguments. So I look forward to your further reflections on the issues I have broached, and, in the meantime, after posting this comment, I'm going to gather my thoughts (so annoyingly [i]un[/i]-cogent at the moment, perhaps following from a long week), and then try to respond to your reply.
9762048561281273224GW, Still gathering those thoughts (see above), which may be as numerous, but unfortunately not so readily at hand, as the proverbial lilies of the Sceptered Isle's fields ...
9773548561281353356Posted by Dan Dare on August 08, 2010, 11:07 PM | # [i]If Dan truly believes that the elites are, at this point, blind to the genocidal consequences of their actions—the gentile components of whom may or may not have primarily done this for short-sighted, short-term economic interests—then he is just wrong. Because, you know, people tend to notice brown squatters colonising the place after a while. I think don’t anyone in the Eurosphere can be oblivous to the presence of such squatters, no matter how well insulated they may be from its effects by reason of wealth or domicile. What I would question is whether the managerial elite perceive such a presence in genocidal terms; few of them, particularly in the political branch, have the necessary long-term perspective to pursue a project that might take generations to come to fruition. [u]Most often I suspect it is seen through the prism of their liberal sensibilities which arise [as] a result of their social conditioning and viewed as a natural and even desirable outcome of the economic imperatives that they answer to[/u]. [/i] ----------------------------- This is an OUTSTANDING answer!! The last sentence of Dan's response I have quoted is one of the best I have ever read (although its grammar could be considerably improved). The elites who push immigration are thoroughly deluded, but mostly sincere, fools, who combine a core racial egalitarian bias (indeed, psychological impetus), with (sometimes mis-)perceived economic interests favoring the importation of cheap labor (put another way, they mostly possess a short term outlook which sees foreign labor as an easy way to artificially hold down wage rates, and thus boost profits without having actually to provide better products or services). I'm sorry, but I tend to disagree with the conspiratorialists, at least when discussing non-Jews. I do believe that there are many Jews with influence who consciously wish to flood Western nations with non-whites (those here who think Jews will thrive under this non-white demographically hegemonic situation are quite wrong, however, as are the Jews themselves: they will do very poorly under full blown multiculti conditions where there is no longer a beneficent white majority protecting them). But most whites who go along with their own race-replacement do so sincerely: ie, they really don't see a problem with proliferating numbers of non-whites, and often (mis)perceive advantages accruing from immigration. Nutty, to be sure, but only from either an ethnopatriotic or national survival/security perspective. The former violates their brainwashed liberal universalism, the latter they simply don't recognize (as a function of the same mentality that succumbs to universalist nonsense in the first place). Sadly, absent total anarchic social collapse, there is no way around acknowledging the need for mass de-programming of our people.
9773648561281354480I forgot to add that I personally have known many sincere race liberals who are white (not Jews), do NOT hate their own race, do NOT individually benefit from immigration (and are harmed by affirmative action - at least the males), and yet support the whole multiculti agenda. They do so because they are silly fools (see this "Retew" above) and actually believe the nonsense. I am ceaselessly amazed at how gullible whites are, which, given that each generation is worse than its predecessor, has many profound implications for social psychology, and the social sciences more broadly. After all, how is it possible that a people can be brainwashed into supporting policies which violate its own interests? Indeed, that question must surely be a conundrum for the more 'deterministic' in the MR community. [b]With all your talk of EGI, the higher IQ of whites compared to most races, and the alleged (but false) non-existence of (moral) free will, how is race-replacement even possible in advanced, militarily powerful democracies like Britain and America? [/b]
9761948581281272989Going off topic (but in a good cause) ... Just wanted to note here, after a cursory examination of some past years' posts, that the cognitive quality of the site seems to be ascending, in terms both of the posts and especially the comments. It would seem that a genuine intellectual community of the Far Right is coalescing around MR. Many excellent insights have been proffered, albeit unsystematically. At some point it might be worthwhile to try to tap that community formally to develop some sort of ideological manifesto for what is clearly a growing global New Racial Right. I would be interested in hearing from others whether this has been done (at least in recent decades). One problem our movement faces is, I believe, this lack of a formal document describing our political aims (this is especially true in the US, insofar as we lack any nationalist political movement or party; rather ironic, given that the masses of our (white) people are more broadly rightist than at least West Europeans). There are now many excellent scholarly resources (eg, [i]Race, Evolution and Behavior,[/i] [i]On Genetic Interests[/i], [i]Why Race Matters[/i], [i]The Culture of Critique[/i], [i]The Occidental Quarterly[/i], 20 years of [i]American Renaissance[/i], etc), not to mention a proliferating number of race realist websites, from the more intellectual, like MR, to the more plebeian, like Stormfront. What is needed is a work of scholarship which can act as a movement unifier, or at least ideological baseline which can then serve as the foundation for a political program, and activist agenda. Think of the American conservatives. For decades (perhaps even now), if one wished to know what a conservative was, the intellectual could be pointed to [i]The Conservative Mind[/i], the common man to [i]Up From Liberalism[/i] or maybe [i]The Conscience of a Conservative[/i]. Kirk's book, despite its veritable baroque eschewal of 'ideology', nevertheless did serve as the springboard for the creation of modern conservatism, and it did so less by offering up its own original philosophy, than by serving up digestible summaries of the thought of famous (as well as forgotten) conservatives from history, out of which various (alleged) core conservative principles could be discerned, upon which in turn a political agenda could be (and was) fashioned. We do have one great synthetic work that I'm aware of: Wilmot Robertson's [i]The Dispossessed Majority[/i], a magisterial tome way, way ahead of its time (pub 1972). [I hope to God everyone here has read it - if not, do so, even if the book must by now be a bit dated; my edition was from the late 80s, which meant, however, that the Cold War was still a big issue.] From what I remember of my reading of it, nearly two decades ago, it is very much focused on the racial situation in the US, however, containing long discussions of which ethnic groups were assimilable to America's Nordic founding majority, and detailing how virtually every major institution in American life had by that time (1972!! - same year I think that [i]The Camp of the Saints[/i] was published - another book to rank high in the estimation of any true conservative/Occidentalist/nationalist) been turned 'anti-majoritarian' by an unholy combination of white race traitors and minority racists. But we need something like these books now. Or, really two things: first, a major work of nationalist political philosophy, equivalent to [i]The Conservative Mind[/i], one synthesizing the moral, political, and historical justifications of nationalism with the relevant findings of the modern life sciences; and second, an ideological racialist tract or manifesto detailing our grievances, goals and perhaps strategies, in language accessible to common persons. The MR community is wonderfully suited to carrying on the conversation(s) that can form the basis of at least the latter project. I think the site owner should start something like a separate area of the site devoted just to developing such a manifesto, perhaps located within the "Of Note" area (upper left-hand side of the screen). After, say, a year, I bet there would (or could) be a sufficient volume of responses to enable someone culling through them for optimum insights to obtain the basis for just such a tract, which in turn could constitute - who knows? one thing I've learned from the Jews is Think Big - the first volume from the forthcoming Majority Rights Press.
9773348591281350612(OK, I should have posted this here, instead of where I did ...) Just wanted to note here, after a cursory examination of some past years’ posts, that the cognitive quality of the site seems to be ascending, in terms both of the posts and especially the comments. It would seem that a genuine intellectual community of the Far Right is coalescing around MR. Many excellent insights have been proffered, albeit unsystematically. At some point it might be worthwhile to try to tap that community formally to develop some sort of ideological manifesto for what is clearly a growing global New Racial Right. I would be interested in hearing from others whether this has been done (at least in recent decades). One problem our movement faces is, I believe, this lack of a formal document describing our political aims (this is especially true in the US, insofar as we lack any nationalist political movement or party; rather ironic, given that the masses of our (white) people are more broadly rightist than at least West Europeans). There are now many excellent scholarly resources (eg, Race, Evolution and Behavior, On Genetic Interests, Why Race Matters, The Culture of Critique, The Occidental Quarterly, 20 years of American Renaissance, etc), not to mention a proliferating number of race realist websites, from the more intellectual, like MR, to the more plebeian, like Stormfront. What is needed is a work of scholarship which can act as a movement unifier, or at least ideological baseline which can then serve as the foundation for a political program, and activist agenda. Think of the American conservatives. For decades (perhaps even now), if one wished to know what a conservative was, the intellectual could be pointed to The Conservative Mind, the common man to Up From Liberalism or maybe The Conscience of a Conservative. Kirk’s book, despite its veritable baroque eschewal of ‘ideology’, nevertheless did serve as the springboard for the creation of modern conservatism, and it did so less by offering up its own original philosophy, than by serving up digestible summaries of the thought of famous (as well as forgotten) conservatives from history, out of which various (alleged) core conservative principles could be discerned, upon which in turn a political agenda could be (and was) fashioned. We do have one great synthetic work that I’m aware of: Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority, a magisterial tome way, way ahead of its time (pub 1972). [I hope to God everyone here has read it - if not, do so, even if the book must by now be a bit dated; my edition was from the late 80s, which meant, however, that the Cold War was still a big issue.] From what I remember of my reading of it, nearly two decades ago, it is very much focused on the racial situation in the US, however, containing long discussions of which ethnic groups were assimilable to America’s Nordic founding majority, and detailing how virtually every major institution in American life had by that time (1972!! - same year I think that The Camp of the Saints was published - another book to rank high in the estimation of any true conservative/Occidentalist/nationalist) been turned ‘anti-majoritarian’ by an unholy combination of white race traitors and minority racists. But we need something like these books now. Or, really two things: first, a major work of nationalist political philosophy, equivalent to The Conservative Mind, one synthesizing the moral, political, and historical justifications of nationalism with the relevant findings of the modern life sciences; and second, an ideological racialist tract or manifesto detailing our grievances, goals and perhaps strategies, in language accessible to common persons. The MR community is wonderfully suited to carrying on the conversation(s) that can form the basis of at least the latter project. I think the site owner should start something like a separate area of the site devoted just to developing such a manifesto, perhaps located within the “Of Note” area (upper left-hand side of the screen). After, say, a year, I bet there would (or could) be a sufficient volume of responses to enable someone culling through them for optimum insights to obtain the basis for just such a tract, which in turn could constitute - who knows? one thing I’ve learned from the Jews is Think Big - the first volume from the forthcoming Majority Rights Press.
9774648591281362702Outstanding rant, Narrator! At once hilarious, and depressingly (mostly) true. How you must hate my post immediately above! But I (and GW, Jared Taylor, etc) am/are right, and you are wrong. Just plain objectively incorrect, not, I hasten to add, in your macro-prescription - the need for a white racial state carved out of the dying America - but in your belief that what is needed are street agitators (it would be better if they had access to major media) willing to risk their all (eg, jobs, incomes, status, value of degrees received, portfolios, homes, etc), as opposed to the slow, patient cultivation of a new awareness of racial reality among our people. I have posted here before (actually, someone else posted some comments I had written at takirag) on the matter of why the last whites will face extermination, not amalgamation. I have also commented here extensively on the need for white immigration conquest of a foreign, sovereign polity as the last hope to save our race (I can't say my argument was met with overwhelming approval, or even notice). I'm not going to repeat myself. What you fail to understand is that revolutions are rarely effectuated apart from horrible physical conditions, which simply do not (yet) obtain in the US, and will not for some considerable time, and that when they are, as in the case of the American Revolution, the groundwork had been patiently laid for a long preceding time. The PC cult has been growing for many decades, originating in the civil rights movement (and the general postwar revulsion at Hitler and the Holocaust), and solidifying its hold through a confluence of factors, from mass immigration to free trade/economic globalist ideology to the continuously growing influence of Jewry. The anti-PC movement is also growing, but absent blood in the streets situations, how could it grow more rapidly? I, too, often think of 1990 as a baseline to compare how far matters have declined. And yet, there has also been a huge growth in that period in the intellectual sophistication of the Racial Right, not to mention mass awareness of the anti-white nature of the oppressor regime. Obviously, you think that counts for nothing - but it does. Compare two amnesties: 1986, and today. I remember '86. The idiot Reagan passed the amnesty with very little opposition, either from Republican politicians, or the conservative grassroots. Now consider today. There is huge anger against the very idea of amnesty - and though you may think this is all of the "we love LEGAL savages, just not illegals", you're reading the situation wrong. Just below the surface is enormous hostility to ALL immigrants (and today, in people's minds as well as reality, that means non-white immigrants). This is because of a lot of patient work done by anti-immigration intellectuals and journalists. Where you are correct is not in your amusingly overwrought description of what life in non-majority America will be like, but rather, in your implicit observation that America is racially too far gone even for a semblance of white civilization to be preserved through "within-System" methods, like voting, reformism, etc. White civilization will not survive within a non-white America, and, given the non-white population already present, the only hope to preserve white America is through racial secession - and that secession obviously requires a radical politics. But without the patient elaboration and dissemination of the facts of race, and the ethics of white survivalism, to large numbers of our people, such a politics is doomed to marginalization, however prominent the soapboxes, and loud the megaphones.
9790448621281523777(re-posted from an earlier thread) [Excellent list from PF!] Just wanted to note here, after a cursory examination of some past years’ posts, that the cognitive quality of the site seems to be ascending, in terms both of the posts and especially the comments. It would seem that a genuine intellectual community of the Far Right is coalescing around MR. Many excellent insights have been proffered, albeit unsystematically. At some point it might be worthwhile to try to tap that community formally to develop some sort of ideological manifesto for what is clearly a growing global New Racial Right. I would be interested in hearing from others whether this has been done (at least in recent decades). One problem our movement faces is, I believe, this lack of a formal document describing our political aims (this is especially true in the US, insofar as we lack any nationalist political movement or party; rather ironic, given that the masses of our (white) people are more broadly rightist than at least West Europeans). There are now many excellent scholarly resources (eg, Race, Evolution and Behavior, On Genetic Interests, Why Race Matters, The Culture of Critique, The Occidental Quarterly, 20 years of American Renaissance, etc), not to mention a proliferating number of race realist websites, from the more intellectual, like MR, to the more plebeian, like Stormfront. What is needed is a work of scholarship which can act as a movement unifier, or at least ideological baseline which can then serve as the foundation for a political program, and activist agenda. Think of the American conservatives. For decades (perhaps even now), if one wished to know what a conservative was, the intellectual could be pointed to The Conservative Mind, the common man to Up From Liberalism or maybe The Conscience of a Conservative. Kirk’s book, despite its veritable baroque eschewal of ‘ideology’, nevertheless did serve as the springboard for the creation of modern conservatism, and it did so less by offering up its own original philosophy, than by serving up digestible summaries of the thought of famous (as well as forgotten) conservatives from history, out of which various (alleged) core conservative principles could be discerned, upon which in turn a political agenda could be (and was) fashioned. We do have one great synthetic work that I’m aware of: Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority, a magisterial tome way, way ahead of its time (pub 1972). [I hope to God everyone here has read it - if not, do so, even if the book must by now be a bit dated; my edition was from the late 80s, which meant, however, that the Cold War was still a big issue.] From what I remember of my reading of it, nearly two decades ago, it is very much focused on the racial situation in the US, however, containing long discussions of which ethnic groups were assimilable to America’s Nordic founding majority, and detailing how virtually every major institution in American life had by that time (1972!! - same year I think that The Camp of the Saints was published - another book to rank high in the estimation of any true conservative/Occidentalist/nationalist) been turned ‘anti-majoritarian’ by an unholy combination of white race traitors and minority racists. But we need something like these books now. Or, really two things: first, a major work of nationalist political philosophy, equivalent to The Conservative Mind, one synthesizing the moral, political, and historical justifications of nationalism with the relevant findings of the modern life sciences; and second, an ideological racialist tract or manifesto detailing our grievances, goals and perhaps strategies, in language accessible to common persons. The MR community is wonderfully suited to carrying on the conversation(s) that can form the basis of at least the latter project. I think the site owner should start something like a separate area of the site devoted just to developing such a manifesto, perhaps located within the “Of Note” area (upper left-hand side of the screen). After, say, a year, I bet there would (or could) be a sufficient volume of responses to enable someone culling through them for optimum insights to obtain the basis for just such a tract, which in turn could constitute - who knows? one thing I’ve learned from the Jews is Think Big - the first volume from the forthcoming Majority Rights Press.
9822948631281881290[i]My plan would pave the way for the rebirth of an English, Welsh, Anglo-Irish and Scottish indigenous ethnic identity and cultural rebirth. Finally a generation of children would be raised with an ethnic consciousness or a nationalist consciousness. [/i] (LJB) No, it wouldn't. It would not be allowed to reach any sort of fruition. Any pro-indigenous teaching would immediately be labeled "hate-mongering", and outlawed or discredited. Your plan also would not solve the fundamental problem, which GW (excellent post at 9:14pm above, btw!) understands, but you do not: cultures are precisely the products of race (even though a race can produce multiple national cultures, based on the vagaries of geography, language and unique histories), and cannot be expected (ie there is no historical evidence) to be perpetuated by those of different racial types from the original creating race. Someone might appear to be (psychologically) assimilated, but there is no guarantee (indeed, there is almost certainly a guarantee the other way) that his descendants will remain assimilated. This has been the case with many non-white groups in the US. Filipinos of the older generation (born pre-1960, and especially pre-WW2) are far more culturally American (and favorably disposed to whites) than young Filipinos today, who are increasingly race/ethnicity conscious despite often having few if any personal ties to their ancestral islands. What I've just said is an extremely important point that I'm not sure I have ever seen either here at MR (though I am not a perfectly consistent reader, especially of comments), or elsewhere in the white race patriot world. I think it is [b]the key justification[/b][u][/u] for a "never say surrender" racialist approach. There is always eventually a reversion to racial type. I also second what another gent above mentioned (which I have reiterated numerous times here and elsewhere), that the [i]sumum bonum[/i] is to halt new legal immigration. While I would prefer that to be effected for racial reasons ("Defend Our White Realm!!"), politically it really doesn't matter what the justifications or slogans are - as long as it is accomplished. Most readers would agree. My particular argument is that rabid anti-immigrationism can be its own justification. That is, while I wholeheartedly endorse GW's genetic nationalism (though I would never end there - my support for racial nationalism is based on a positive and a negative: love of white civilization, and a recognition that it can only be perpetuated and continued by racially pure or near-pure whites, as well as fear for my and my family's physical security and material well-being if my white racial group should end up as a minority in any given sovereign territory), discussions of race/ethnicity do not necessarily have to be brought to the fore in nationalist (immigration-cessation wing) activism. Immigration has brought so many obvious and increasingly well-recognized problems to Western nations, that I fail to see why it cannot be opposed merely on its own terms, without recourse to the affective sentiments behind GW's poetic eloquence ("British land for British people", "that our people might sing the songs of their ancestors", etc). Please explain to me why a British party devoted solely or mainly to stopping immigration, and using as its justifications a huge bevy of non-racial arguments pertaining to unemployment, overpopulation + environmental degradation, budget deficits + immigrant services overuse, immigrant crime stats, even immigrants being more likely to vote socialist or EU internationalist ... cannot, if not win national power, at least represent enough of a threat to the Tories that it forces them to address immigration termination? Why is it thought that the British require a whole recovery of traditional ethnonational consciousness, historic Christianity (sorry, GW, but the one is conjoined to the other - you can't resurrect any but the most shallow simulacrum of British culture without bringing back the ancestral religion), and classic patriotism, simply to be awakened to and demand an end to an objectively festering problem like immigration? I don't get it. Just give the facts, costs, etc - [b]relentlessly[/b][i][/i][u][/u]. Once legal immigration has been halted (and illegal, but the latter involves no changed principle, only a commitment to law enforcement), then we can start upping the ante, attacking 'positive racism', multiculturalism, and special benefits for immigrants, as well as rebuilding British ethnicities, patriotism, etc, eventually leading to non-white repatriation. But all these sentimentalist suggestions are worthless or will prove too slow, unless the invasion is ended.
9823048691281881736[i]a good portion of this heritage could be salvaged but it needs to be married to a more substantive and primordial sense of identity and in order to do that Whiteness needs to be jettisoned.(Notus)[/i] What does that mean practically?
9823148691281881922[i]In Europe the metapolitical is generally understood well on the thinking right. But among Americans the liberal totality goes unchallenged, or certainly moreso than than in any European country. It is difficult to tell Americans this. They do not want to know that, in the most general sense of the term, the defining influence in their lives is also the force from which they must liberate themselves.[/i] (GW) Could you elaborate (esp on "liberal totality")? I'm unclear as to what precisely you are referring to.
9823248691281883294Ahh, we appear to be back to what I've been saying all along: our only hope is foreign demographic conquest. The hard fact is that many whites are self-hating race traitors, much larger numbers are idiotic race 'idealists', and the vast bulk are racially unenlightened (and at least some perpetually so by virtue of their inherent stupidity). Meanwhile, non-white immigrant settler colonialists (and new liberal voters!) pour in by the millions, every goddam year (recall that excellent "Third Demographic Transition" article). This is a race against time, and normal processes of education may never be enough (as The Narrator argued in a recent post) - at least if we cannot slow down the foreign colonization. Thus, we must prepare for our passive extinction through race replacement (and ultimate extermination). Well, more precisely, for how we are going to perpetuate our race and civ after having been transformed into minorities in all our ancient and modern homelands. I do not believe the Jewish 'clannish' strategy will then work for us. The muds, after a certain numeric threshold has been crossed, will not allow us to practice what will be vilified as "marital apartheid". Given their well known verminous lusts after our aesthetically superior white females, does anyone really think that it is beyond the realm of possibility that non-white majorities will disallow white/white marriages? No, our sole hope for collective genomic survival resides in the ethnostate. We must have a politically sovereign territory where whites are either the sole residents, or at least form an unassailable, and, after proper pro-natalist legislation is passed, growing majority. What legal or constitutional form such a racial state should take, and what policies it should pursue, and in what proportion, would make for interesting, but finally irrelevant, discussion. Our only task now is to figure out how we should go about acquiring such an ethnostate. Though I would prefer many white states, I just don't think we will have the time to develop the numbers necessary to secure more than a few, if any. (BTW, if my comment above still suggests that I have yet to properly emancipate myself from the "liberal totality", I'd like to know where I've fallen short.)
9829148691281957020I posted this on the Lee John Barnes thread, which is obviously finished (what follows is the last comment). I obviously think it's worth some consideration (it may in fact not be, but no man is the best judge of his own case...), so I herewith repost. ______________ Posted by Leon Haller on August 15, 2010, 01:08 PM | # [i]My plan would pave the way for the rebirth of an English, Welsh, Anglo-Irish and Scottish indigenous ethnic identity and cultural rebirth. Finally a generation of children would be raised with an ethnic consciousness or a nationalist consciousness. [/i] (LJB) No, it wouldn’t. It would not be allowed to reach any sort of fruition. Any pro-indigenous teaching would immediately be labeled “hate-mongering”, and outlawed or discredited. Your plan also would not solve the fundamental problem, which GW (excellent post at 9:14pm above, btw!) understands, but you do not: cultures are precisely the products of race (even though a race can produce multiple national cultures, based on the vagaries of geography, language and unique histories), and cannot be expected (ie there is no historical evidence) to be perpetuated by those of different racial types from the original creating race. Someone might appear to be (psychologically) assimilated, but there is no guarantee (indeed, there is almost certainly a guarantee the other way) that his descendants will remain assimilated. This has been the case with many non-white groups in the US. Filipinos of the older generation (born pre-1960, and especially pre-WW2) are far more culturally American (and favorably disposed to whites) than young Filipinos today, who are increasingly race/ethnicity conscious despite often having few if any personal ties to their ancestral islands. What I’ve just said is an extremely important point that I’m not sure I have ever seen either here at MR (though I am not a perfectly consistent reader, especially of comments), or elsewhere in the white race patriot world. I think it is [b]the key justification for a “never say surrender” racialist approach. There is always eventually a reversion to racial type. [/b][u][/u] I also second what another gent above mentioned (which I have reiterated numerous times here and elsewhere), that the [i]sumum bonum[/i] is to halt new legal immigration. While I would prefer that to be effected for racial reasons ("Defend Our White Realm!!"), politically it really doesn’t matter what the justifications or slogans are - as long as it is accomplished. Most readers would agree. [u]My particular argument is that rabid anti-immigrationism can be its own justification[/u]. That is, while I wholeheartedly endorse GW’s genetic nationalism (though I would never end there - my support for racial nationalism is based on a positive and a negative: love of white civilization, and a recognition that it can only be perpetuated and continued by racially pure or near-pure whites, as well as fear for my and my family’s physical security and material well-being if my white racial group should end up as a minority in any given sovereign territory), discussions of race/ethnicity do not necessarily have to be brought to the fore in nationalist (immigration-cessation wing) activism. [u]Immigration has brought so many obvious and increasingly well-recognized problems to Western nations, that I fail to see why it cannot be opposed merely on its own terms[/u], without recourse to the affective sentiments behind GW’s poetic eloquence ("British land for British people”, “that our people might sing the songs of their ancestors”, etc). Please explain to me why a British party devoted solely or mainly to stopping immigration, and using as its justifications a huge bevy of non-racial arguments pertaining to unemployment, overpopulation + environmental degradation, budget deficits + immigrant services overuse, immigrant crime stats, even immigrants being more likely to vote socialist or EU internationalist ... cannot, if not win national power, at least represent enough of a threat to the Tories that it forces them to address immigration termination? Why is it thought that the British require a whole recovery of traditional ethnonational consciousness, historic Christianity (sorry, GW, but the one is conjoined to the other - you can’t resurrect any but the most shallow simulacrum of British culture without bringing back the ancestral religion), and classic patriotism, simply to be awakened to and demand an end to an objectively festering problem like immigration? I don’t get it. Just give the facts, costs, etc - relentlessly. Once legal immigration has been halted (and illegal, but the latter involves no changed principle, only a commitment to law enforcement), then we can start upping the ante, attacking ‘positive racism’, multiculturalism, and special benefits for immigrants, as well as rebuilding British ethnicities, patriotism, etc, eventually leading to non-white repatriation. But all these sentimentalist suggestions are worthless or will prove too slow, unless the invasion is ended.
9829348691281960385[i]Posted by Notus Wind on August 15, 2010, 01:44 PM | # Leon, [u]What does that mean practically?[/u] Keep in mind that this idea that I’m developing privately - moving beyond Whiteness - is still in a very undeveloped and tentative state. Practically, it would mean that those of us who call ourselves White Americans recognize our own uniqueness and decide to jettison the idea of Whiteness for the purposes of explicitly developing our own ethnic identity (tailored to our uniqueness). Generations would grow up thinking of themselves in ethnic terms that are specific to us and not in terms that are exclusively ideological or racial. Of course, there would be a Western racial component to our ethnic identity but this new identity would [ideally] be able to accomplish certain things that a racial identity alone could not accomplish. In any event, I do want to get rid of this vague colorist notion of Whiteness. The problem that I am trying to combat here is this phenomenon of our people describing themselves as hopelessly mixed up mutts and bereft of any meaningful form of biological identity. They know that they are “White” but they also know that being White is not a unique attribute. If we fostered amongst them a unique biological identity of their own it would fix the problem. Remember, all of this thought is extremely tentative![/i] ______________________________ Notus, I still do not wholly grasp your point, but I have a general sense of what I think you're driving at, though if I'm correct in that surmise, then you should amend your descriptive vocabulary, as evidenced above. Am I correct in ascribing to you the concern that what we white Americans lack is the kind of historic ethnonational identity characteristic of Europe, and to a lesser extent, to whites everywhere else - Canada, Quebec, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Argentina, Uruguay and the white elites of Latin America? [Though it should be noted that the traditional ethnonational identities of the colonial Anglosphere, America excepted, were really just generic British, with a new ethnic overlay of "Canadian", "Aussie", "Kiwi", or African expat identities (except for the Boers, a genuinely new white ethnicity); similarly, les Quebecois hew to the traditional French identity, again with a "Canadian" overlay; [i]les pieds noirs[/i] would likewise have been part of the Francosphere, but with an "Algerian" overlay, had they not been racially cleansed (your antennae should be up right now, people, after that last comment - there have been precedents for racial expatriation in living memory ... or, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander ...).] You are superficially correct that white Americans, perhaps along with white Latin Americans (or perhaps not - the latter mostly seem to be content considering themselves to be members of transplanted Iberian ethnicities, or at least, if white/non-Iberian, to have assimilated themselves into the Hispano- or Lusospheres), do not see themselves as a new ethnicity, but continue to define themselves either in terms of race ("white") or nationality ("American"). If your point is that whiteness is too general, and Americanness is too inclusive, I agree wholeheartedly, and indeed, have argued for a similar understanding for many decades. Specifically, I hold that "White American"[i] is[/i][b][/b] a new white ethnicity, just as is Afrikaner. We white Americans cannot be reduced to the ethnonational identities out of which we originally came, and we have had sufficient history (both in timespan and depth of content) to have created our own unique ethnoculture on this planet. We White Americans are not simply 'white', though, like the British, French, etc, we are that. We are racially white, civilizationally Western, but ethnoculturally and nationally American, an identity now as unique as German, Russian, Italian, etc. (I don't think you mean "biological identity" as you use it above; I think you mean "ethnic identity".) Had we not experienced the post-1965 Third World invasion, "American" would have had a similar connotation to "German", "Dane", "Serb", etc. I suspect it still does, for white Americans. When you hear the word "American", of whom do you think: Obama? Justice Sotomayor? a black? an Asian? Of course not. When whites hear the word "American" they envision someone like you or me (I think this is true of non-whites, too, though I have no data on that point). Anyway, I think your general idea of creating and politicizing an [i]American[/i] ethnic consciousness is utterly sound. I have long had that idea myself, and am actually advising someone in the early stages of founding an organization for that purpose (I'm not going to say more, until the org is formally existent, which may still not be for a while). But the term that should be used cannot be 'American', as that increasingly encompasses any race or ethnicity, but rather, we should remember the heroic work of the late Samuel Francis, and employ the term [i]Middle American[/i]. Middle American ethnoculturalism nationalism, as Sam envisioned, will be the bridge to an eventual harder white (American) racial nationalism, when times get tough, and thus more propitious for our anti-diversitarian message.
9829448691281961056[i]Posted by Sam Davidson on August 15, 2010, 04:17 PM | # Ahh, we appear to be back to what I’ve been saying all along: our only hope is foreign demographic conquest. I was disappointed when you chose to not discuss this topic with me.[/i] ____________________ My apologies, Mr. Davidson. I cannot recall the specific thread you're referring to, but that's to be expected in my case, as I do not access MR every day (sometimes not for many days). I often pop in with a comment, and then fail to check later responses. Anyway, I will be checking this thread tomorrow, so I'll be happy to read any of your thoughts on my assertion.
9829548691281962528[i]Posted by Guessedworker on August 16, 2010, 12:05 AM | # Leon, [u]Could you elaborate (esp on “liberal totality")? I’m unclear as to what precisely you are referring to[/u]. From which sources does a new life acquire its personna? Obviously, inherited traits intrude into the process. But the great preponderance of influences are from without, as described in this comment to another Notus Wind thread here: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/announcing_a_new_series_the_ontology_of_mind/#c97675 This world of extraordinarily powerful and quantitatively unlimited psychological influences is temporalised and highly charged with the prevalent belief structure (which, in our time, is liberal). As the principle author of human personality, it is what divides you from your great, great grand-father and, in another direction, from your own truth.[/i] ___________________________________ Yes, I see this. But I should like some greater specifics. From what aspects of the 'liberal totality' are we American WNs [i]not[/i] succeeding in emancipating ourselves? Is it that many of us still believe in the dignity and worth of individuals? That we happen to like professional sports (I don't, but I'm not typical of any group, anywhere)? That we are not particularly at odds with the modern standard workweek? That we value our Constitution? Capitalism? Christianity? fast food? To what extent does white survival require rejection of modernity? How much of modernity? I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm still exploring, though between a revolutionary racial nationalism and a reactionary racial conservatism, I'm fairly certain I would fall on the latter side. I'm not interested in a wholesale rejection of the modern world (like some religious fundamentalists). But I'm also not disposed to overlooking the hard won wisdom of the past. In a word, I am a true (Burkean) conservative. The problem is that hardly any self-styled conservatives are in fact true conservatives anymore. Race (genetic purity and territorial homogeneity) is not the whole, or even the chief part, of conservatism. But it is a necessary element of it. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, as it were, however, to reach racial sound thinking. We simply need to disprove modern false understandings.
9829648691281962753[i]our only hope is foreign demographic conquest[/i] (me) I'm surprised this assertion repeatedly generates so little response.
9830148711281966247I'm reposting the following, as it seems slightly relevant, and I want to respond to GW, but am going to lose the thread, and I'm too busy to do so now. But I'll remember it here. LH Posted by Leon Haller on August 05, 2010, 12:07 PM | # Concerning Trainspotter’s earthshakingly brilliant and original comment above (in a nutshell: multiculturalism is not only injecting alien physical presences into our historic territories, but concurrently invading our psyches, stripping us of our own cultural identities, too - a point made zillions of times over many, many years, in many forums, sometimes even by yours truly), some loosely apposite remarks (re the ultimate irrelevance of empirical, especially coldly scientific, arguments to winning our war for survival) I posted a few days ago, re-posted here: 1. Man is by nature religious. If he does not adhere to the old faith, he’ll transfer those religious impulses to more questionable projects, usually of secular utopianism (eg, yesterday Marxism, today multiculturalism), or else engage in inappropriate sacralizations (eg, much of modern ecologism). 2. Christianity at least coincided with Western expansion and dynamism. Correlation does not equal causation, but in big historical analyses correlation does carry some independent weight. 3. Christianity gives meaning to life. Atheism, I and legions of others would argue, does not. 4. A sense of life’s meaningfulness stimulates biological reproduction. Many Christian conservatives have wondered if it’s merely a coincidence that Europe’s birthrates have collapsed in tandem with its de-Christianization. Yes, feminism and the Pill have played big roles, as has the postwar welfare state explosion. But Christianity promotes marriage and family - and given feminism, contraception, and welfare, if we are going to boost Western fertility, it is only going to happen either via favorable pro-fertility tax incentives (which is having some positive effect in Russia, but I don’t see such legislation getting enacted in Western Europe or North America, except backhandedly through negative childcare tax credits, which really aren’t enough to stimulate artificial increases in fecundity; people in America have children or not regardless of tax credits, which can be helpful, but not dispositive), or because something psychological is compelling it. Religion is such a powerful shaping force. 5. The great clash of civilizations, especially on your side of the pond, is with Islam. All the vigor is with Islam. You don’t defeat that kind of moronic certainty with either rarefied, often self-referential, philosophy (really, ‘philosophical navel-gazing’) or hedonism. There needs to be some ideological/emotional counterweight. Ironically, for blacks, that actually could be race loyalty. Blacks are just the most racist, race-obsessed, people you’ll ever meet. Unfortunately, whites are differently ‘wired’, neurologically. (We aren’t, but many or most of our fellow whites are.) Christendom successfully beat off the Muslims in the past, and it can do so again, provided it can become again a fighting faith. For the Church of England the very idea must seem ludicrous, but not here in the US. I thought the Iraq war was a huge Jewish/neocon distraction, but there are lots of admittedly not too bright evangelicals who saw it in Good/Evil terms. We need to cultivate that kind of friend/enemy distinction and identification. I understand (GW’s) basic position, I think: the past cannot be resuscitated. You are trying to develop some type of racially positive philosophical meaningfulness in light of the twin acids of scientific materialism, and postmodernist scepticism. I don’t think materialism and scepticism are quite as well founded or lethal to tradition as you might, but that is a really big discussion. I do know that if we are going to save the West, we must save the white race, and if we are to do that, we need to figure out the most practical methods to persuade people to support immigration cessation, policies tending to increase fertility, as well as renewed racial and cultural pride, and concomitant rejection of multiculturalism and the cultural products of non-whites. Christianity at present is yet another barrier to what we want, but it could be an ally once again, if properly reconstructed. ______________________________________________ Posted by Guessedworker on August 05, 2010, 02:36 PM | # Leon, I am still not free to do your various comments justice with a full reply. But I will reply as and when I can. Meanwhile, a few reflexive retorts (or remarks, if you don’t like the adversarial tone of that word - I recognise and appreciate the kindness and consideration with which you address my ramblings): Man is by nature religious. Which Man? Faith is gene-coded, and the genes are either expressed or not, and the frequency and degree of expression itself will vary among human populations. In European Man, I estimate that two thirds to four-fifths have the genes. We are not as given to fanaticism as other peoples, not least, perhaps, because of the command for celibacy of the Christian priesthood. But the incidence of faith gene possession is probably higher than it would have been during the pre-Christian era, owing to the excesses that Christianity has, in the past, afforded those who are fanatical, ie the burning of 500,000 “witches” in the late-medieval and post-medieval period. The remaining one-fifth to one-third of Europeans who simply have no possibility whatever of sincere religious sentiment have historically been “socially religious” or, since the second half of the 19th century, increasingly atheist. You can’t ignore us. We are too valuable to Truth, for we give the lie to the wild and overblown Weltanschauung that all fanatics, secular and religious, seek to impose on everybody else. You do it yourself, Leon, with those opening five words, “Man is by nature religious”. No, he is by nature bound to Nature. He only made god to help make the bindings secure, and he ended up bound to a madman. If he does not adhere to the old faith, he’ll transfer those religious impulses to more questionable projects, usually of secular utopianism Yes, indeed. The anti-racist left is the direct genetic heir of those witch-burning fanatics. The greens are their hysterical goodwives. Christianity at least coincided with Western expansion and dynamism. Correlation does not equal causation, but in big historical analyses correlation does carry some independent weight. Moving people with faith genes to place their shoulder behind the wheel is culturally productive, and, certainly, cultural strength advances EGI. But those people who laboured for God with their hands and hearts and voices, who built the great cathedrals and wore down the cold stone flags of country churches were not free, were they? Faith does not free the mind. That is not its function. What, then, is the highest desideratum for you, personally? What will you choose for Leon, Leon? Freedom of the mind or obedience to faith-based culture-strengthening programmes? A sense of life’s meaningfulness stimulates biological reproduction. That may be so. Or it may not. Birth-rates are always depressed by shifts from rural to urban living. All the facts need to be known before a judgement can be made. Christianity gives meaning to life. Atheism, I and legions of others would argue, does not. You and legions of others would need to explain why believing something while conscious only in the ordinary waking sense is more productive of meaning than the human experience of reality through consciousness of self. I won’t go too far into this now, but my crystal clear understanding is that faith’s only connection to the real is as an easy-to-work but lightweight and shallow proxy that requires none of the intelligence, knowledge and effort demanded by the act of being. It’s a poor substitute and, anyway, its real purpose is elsewhere - in the affirmation of adaptive behaviour. Behaviour, let it be said, has absolutely nothing to do with reality and human presence. There is, for example, the well-known problem of the impossibility of conscious evil. No moral strictures required. Religion is such a powerful shaping force. Indeed, Christianity, and the Jewish hatred of it, has shaped postmodernity. All the vigor is with Islam. You don’t defeat that kind of moronic certainty with either rarefied, often self-referential, philosophy We are only truth-speakers here. The activism we leave to Hunter and his pals. You are trying to develop some type of racially positive philosophical meaningfulness in light of the twin acids of scientific materialism, and postmodernist scepticism. No, it is rather more than that. I am not thinking defensively, or trying to pick bits out of the modern mind and weld them into some kind of Big Idea. But I do not like big talk about what I am trying to do as if I was a person of any consequence. I am nothing. I don’t matter at all. But ideas do. I do want to see European Man take ownership of himself, and I believe this would trigger the arising of a new civilisation of knowledge in the West, as I understand it to mean. I don’t think materialism and scepticism are quite as well founded or lethal to tradition as you might, but that is a really big discussion. All is material. We are all materialists, and cannot be other. But we live our lives steeped in illusions about self and reality. Knowing this ... having certitude ... I cannot be sceptical, can I? Scepticism is something assigned by those who have faith to those who need none. Neither am I anti-traditional in the sociobiological or socially conservative sense of the word. Nature is what it is, and will always out. No, I am anti-Traditionalist in the socially heirarchical sense. I am against the reign of minority interests, whatever they may be. I desire for myself and my brothers that no man stands over us save one we have put there ourselves and can vote out or nail to a tree or, along with James, challenge to mortal combat. Individualism is also part of the European sociobiology. we need to figure out the most practical methods to persuade people to support immigration cessation, policies tending to increase fertility, as well as renewed racial and cultural pride, and concomitant rejection of multiculturalism and the cultural products of non-whites. At present, we are far from practic. Everything must begin in ideas, or nothing will result. Christianity at present is yet another barrier to what we want, but it could be an ally once again, if properly reconstructed. Men and women will have faith, yes - in which regard America is wierd to European eyes. In the north of Europe and probably in the south too, it won’t be Christianity which expresses the gener’s faith. The Roman and Anglican Churches will continue to reap what they have sown.
9829948711281964179An intelligent post, yet what horseshit! This is a classic Dawkins-type discussion. That is, you have a natively intelligent person, who is scientifically knowledgeable, but also smitten with empirical modes of knowing, thinking for himself about problems over which many of the most brilliant minds in history have pondered at great length, all the while without availing himself of the intellectual progress those thinkers have made (probably due to ignorance of the history of ethical and moral philosophy). You see this not only in PF's post, but in the Romer comments that follow. I'm a great fan of Cattell myself, and I'm also a strong supporter (with Romer, I believe) of eugenics. But look at this howler: [i]Science tells us clearly what is moral[/i]. Science most certainly does NOT tell us what is moral. Empirical knowledge may inform aspects of moral discussion, generally by providing ever better descriptions of human nature, and psychological sources of happiness. But morality has to do with standards of interpersonal behavior. Science only tells us about material causes. It is wholly ethically neutral. Someone with a much more developed background in both analytic philosophy and Christian ethical theology than I possess could just skewer what's been written above. (New knowledge, incidentally, never overturns previous moral structures; at best, it can result in slight modifications to them.)
9893348721282672305I'm sorry to be contributing so late to this impassioned thread, but something I posted for Notus over at his Chinese economy discussion may have some relevance here. [i]Christianity is a “totalist” thought system. I don’t believe that Christianity literally need permeate every aspect of life, but one’s political commitments absolutely, if one is a serious Christian, must be conformable to the Faith. I keep stressing that the core issue of WN is the moral legitimacy of inter-group violence (and to a lesser extent, of coercion to enforce racial purity and cohesion). Examples? 1. A Christian white woman wants to marry a Christian black man. May we use the state to illegalize such a union? You think this is an ‘orthogonal’ issue? A simple one? Hardly. Christians thinkers today (who are very likely closer to the spirit of the early Church than those of early modern European times) generally believe in “free marriage”, provided both parties are of age, opposite sexes, and Christian. Advocating de-legalizing interracial marriage would strike vast numbers of Christians of all sects as morally wrong. Yet that is precisely what we must advocate, if we wish our people to survive over the long run. 2. The issue of immigration is fairly simple on the surface. It seems obvious that whites have the moral right (and even duty) to keep out non-whites. Unfortunately, the weight of modern theology (I mean serious, non-leftist-masquerading-as-Christian, theology; the silly leftists object to immigration restrictions even on Muslims, one ass arguing that their physical presence among us would make it easier for us to “bring them to Christ” than if they were to remain in Islamic societies where preaching the Good News is forbidden and punished) goes against our view (except wrt Muslim immigrants). Establishing a Christian case against immigration is eminently possible, but it requires upending the bulk of current writing on the subject, which resolutely fails to incorporate the anti-diversitarian findings of modern biology into its racial theology. Of course, integrating biology into theology is itself an enormous task ... 3. 1 and 2 are the easy cases. The real issue is this: we in the West must reacquire exclusive racial territory if we are to have good survival prospects (I would argue, if we are to survive over the long haul at all - but I recognize some would argue otherwise from the Jewish model of ethnosurvival; I am unpersuaded - look what almost happened to them, for Pete’s sake!). WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, Notus, GW, PF, Dasein, Grimoire, Scroob, Wandrin, etc etc? It means racial repatriation, at least out of Europe (America, and the other non-Euro-indigenous countries, are much more ethically fraught). And what does that mean? It means that not only legal immigrants, but those non-Europoids born on European soil, many of whom only speak a European language, must be forcibly uprooted, handcuffed onto ocean liners, like the African slaves of old, and expelled to elsewhere. And when some resist their deportation? It means some of them WILL BE SHOT. You dig, homey? Now it’s all well and good to talk about ‘ontology’, and ‘endogamy’, and the shit GOP or Tories, and the great Enoch Powell (who foresaw and sought to prevent this), and the BNP, and the Call of Blood, and the blood-Jew, and orthogonality, and homogeniety amongst bacteria, or whatever else catches our fancy ... but I’m a bottom line guy. And the bottom line is that coercive violence will be necessary to achieve our ultimate preservationist aim of restoring the racial apartheid status quo ex ante. You think this is a matter of Christian unconcern??!! I suggest your understanding of the Faith is less than optimum. You show me the Christian authority whose moral theology, as presently interpreted, allows for racial expulsions. Yes, you are correct that the biology of race differences is largely orthogonal to theology. But the legal and political uses to which we will put that knowledge is not in the least outside the realm of Christian notice - and criticism (and again I am referring to the better, more conservative or traditionalist authorities like the current Pontiff). I don’t wish to patronize someone as affable and polite as yourself, but I think you don’t understand either the state of Christian theology, or, perhaps, the implications of a serious nationalism. Respecting the latter, this is not about merely stopping affirmative action and immigration, or even the ethical allowability of an ethnostate, considered abstractly. This is about some whites somewhere precipitating a war for racial survival. I’m too old, and have worked too hard, to risk what I have by being one of those revolutionaries. But at least philosophically, that is the endpoint (or the first foreseeable of a series of endpoints) of what we are theorizing. [/i]
9893448721282674071BTW, excellent discussion, People. I actually read the whole of it, which I rarely do. Great passion and material from Fred, Wandrin, GW, Desmond Jones, and others. Many interesting perspectives. I still think we need to develop that "nationalist minimum", and then start practical, tactical discussions. I don't think we need to theorize everything at the outset. We know what we want: White preservation! Non-white foreigners OUT!! No excuses or exceptions. We don't need to resolve the strategic mistakes or ethicality of all the wrong turns our race has followed. We don't need extended intra-racial bickering. We don't need to establish the exact ontological status of Jewry. We don't even exactly need to determine who is white. [b]We simply must stop the alien invasion.[/b] Without that, all other issues become (near-) mute (well, for now; once we have lost of demographic majorities, we then need to think about how to protect ourselves as minorities). One idea/question: how best can we further the development of a Pan-European genetic nationalist movement? What we need is pro-white internationalism. This is obviously not a new idea, but does there exist any international pro-white organization? Could one be created? I'm thinking of something that transcends borders, and specific nationalisms. An international white brotherhood, not simply an alliance of nationalist parties. Say, The Leonidas Legion. The Indo-European League. Or just the Aryan Legion, the Occidental League/brotherhood/whatever. Note how the Jews jealously protect the interests of their own everywhere, not just in their own countries and Israel. We need some international organization which can be similarly internationally active, but which would also serve as an international social club of sorts. A place of refuge in major cities around the world, with the ability to recommend amenities, provide emergency legal or banking referrals, etc. If we aren't just blowing endless hot air, we all have to get out of cyberspace and into things in the actual world. Just some thoughts from someone who's been thinking for decades, but wants to start doing.
9922148721282980770[i](Look at Leon Haller. By his own account he’s had decades to think about it. And yet his rambling diatribes are all he has to show for it. Pretty sad.)[/i] (Silver) Silver, You could not hold a candle to my intellect, erudition, or educational background. Have you no sense of reality? Compare my posts to yours. If you cannot recognize that yours are what should be described as "rambling", then you are simply dumb, which I believe you are. Our position is crystal clear: we don't want biologically incompatible aliens being forcibly imposed upon us. We don't want to live in the same polities with non-whites. We don't want them ruling us (as now with Obama, elected with a mere 43% of the white vote; or much lower, if one extracts all the non-white 'whites' - Jews, Arabs, quarter-mixed, Gypsies, etc, whom our methodologically flawed Census classifies as "white"). If your diatribes were leavened with any historical knowledge, you might recognize that the views expressed by most of us here were the [b]majority[/b][i][/i] views across the Western world for centuries, until really the 1980s, when the combination of the Negro civil rights movement (a series of lies told to secure a bare majority of white popular support), unrecognized 1960s immigration changes, plus post-60s diversitarian propaganda inflicted in schools and the Jewish mass media, suddenly began to transform the traditional thinking about race among a substantial segment of the (like you, easily brainwashed) population. Still, I wonder ... if (legal) immigration (people are goddam sick of illegals) were put to a plebiscitary vote in the US (or Britain, France, etc) today, what percentage of (real, that is, racially pure) whites would support it's continuation? I suspect it would be less than a third. You think that race-mixers like yourself will win the war to destroy the white race. That brownnosers like yourself will come out on top. Persons like [i]you[/i] won't. The alien races you so cherish don't give a fuck about little nobody appeasers like you. They will use your gullibility to steal our lands, but once they have them, they will tax, then enslave, and finally butcher you and your kind as much as any more manly whites. If, that is, life-affirming race-patriots don't succeed in culling the traitors from our midst first ...
9926348721283018554I have no illusions about whites taking back America, at least in the normal course of events. Europe is another matter. The European nations are still overwhelmingly preponderantly white, and they, unlike the Americans, have every system of morality backing their cause (though most don't realize it due to [i]im[/i]moral brainwashing). Thus, Europeans absolutely could physically remove non-whites if they so chose. Their Third Continental War would be by far their briefest, unless the Mahgreb invaded, in which case the Euros could threaten military, even nuclear retaliation. Whites would win. What they lack is the will to do so. Hence the need for WN deprogramming. My only disagreement, but it is foundational, is that the re-conquest of the continent would be more likely to proceed under a resurrected ethical Crusader Christianity, with a healthy admixture of "ethnonational liberationism", than by adopting some neo-Darwinian, neo-Naziesque ideology. Silver is a complete ass, however. There will never be voluntary expatriation of anyone. Realistic? Utterly utopian.
9937448721283176037Silver, Although we are, alas, merely in cyberspace (I prefer live challenges), let's play a match before the MR community (and assorted others from your neck of the woods, if you would care to alert them) to see who is the better arguer, and whose grasp of racial/cultural, biological, historical, and political realities is the keener. Shall we? Seeing as you have time on your hands, why don't you summarize your position on race. Here are some questions to mull before doing so. Does race embody something taxonomically meaningful, or is it merely a retrograde concept from a more barbarous past epoch? Are there statistically significant differences in ability, temperament, and behavior between the races, and if so, are they primarily genetically or environmentally determined (and in what relative percentages)? Can different races ever assimilate to different cultures? Can every race conceivably assimilate to any culture? If cultural assimilation across racial lines is held to be possible, do the relative sizes of the groups doing the assimilating and being assimilated to matter? Is the use of state coercion, or, conversely, non-state violence, to ensure racial, national or cultural preservation permissible? What is "national security", and what is its ethical basis? Does Christianity mandate acceptance of race-replacement? Should any human regardless of individual DNA profile be allowed to procreate unlimitedly? Is there a moral duty to perform charity, what is its origin, what is its content, and how far and to whom does it extend? Is Jewry compatible with Occidental culture and/or European societies? To what extent is the individual Self externally (socially, culturally) constituted? Is demography destiny in democracies? Do whites in the USA owe blacks reparations for Southern state slavery - or do blacks owe whites reparations for post-Civil Rights Era criminal violence? Are whites a special race - biologically, psychologically or historically? Does modern race-denial contradict modern celebrations of racial diversity? Is multiracialism a species of philosophical utopianism? Is the white race going extinct, and should we or the world care? If the white race is going extinct, is this an epiphenomenon of passive (political, economic, social and psychological) processes, or the intended result of a campaign of genocide? Obviously, there are many other issues swirling around the race controversy, but thinking about the above should get you started. As you have implicitly claimed the right (and ability) to judge my productions, and found them wanting, let the MR community judge us both, and render a collective verdict. The loser shall exit this site forthwith and forever. Do you feel lucky, punk?
9937348721283173057[i]That’s very likely true. Which only makes it even sadder that in all the years you’ve been hard at work thinking about these issues the ideas contained in your posts here are all that you’ve been able to come up with. If you were honest with yourself you’d admit there’s really not all that much there. (Perhaps you have no sense of reality.)[/i] (Silver) You have read all my posts, here and elsewhere? Is a blog commenter expected to repeat ad nauseam his entire worldview with each comment? [i]You (especially you, personally) have yet to propose a way any of that can be gotten given the present political (and cultural) realities. [/i] (Silver) So what exactly are you asking me for? On what aspect of our plight would you like me to explain my position? [i]What alien races do I “cherish,” you wanker? I am the alien race (wrt WN politics). Nevertheless, I happen to believe “racialism” as a social and political principle makes a great deal of sense, regardless of how racial lines are drawn or races and peoples sorted. It’s how to get to that, how to achieve it, that I’m concerned with. If you were as sharp as you claim to be you’d realize that makes us ‘natural allies,’ despite my reasons for wanting to racially part ways differing substantially from your own. [/i] (Silver) I find this paragraph difficult to parse. First, for the record, are you non-white? Second, racialism makes sense, regardless of how races are sorted. What does that mean? Third, "It’s how to get to that, how to achieve it, that I’m concerned with" - is this what I'm supposed to address? In other words, I have nothing to add to the general discussion because I have not recently proposed how to ... what? Devise an appropriate political strategy to achieve racialist goals? I'm happy to answer questions, but try to be rigorous and clear in your formulation of them. I assure you, when I respond, it may be in depth, but it won't be rambling.
9938148721283181227The European nations are still overwhelmingly preponderantly white, [i]Leon, when will you learn that precisely is why Europe is failing? [/i](Uh) I don't follow you. Please enlighten me.
9938448721283181824[i]You should know however that you’re being too literal for Silver, as Silver was being too ironic for you.[/i] (UH) "Irony"? I see no evidence of irony. Do you mean duplicitousness, sarcasm, things like that? 'Irony' has a specific meaning, with which I am acquainted (I'm not being ironic). [i]This “showdown” approach really isn’t appropriate to MR. These guys don’t care, you have to understand that. They’re all about cryptic private emails and quasi-learnedness. That’s why you’re beating your head against the wall here[/i]. (UH) Who are "these guys"? GW, Scrooby, Dasein, the main persons? You don't think they care about WN issues, or about my little proposal (directed to Silver, whom I intend to reveal as a fool, as I dislike being disrespected by my inferiors - a very European Old Stock trait, incidentally one now rather in abeyance amongst my people)?
9938548721283182273[i]That’s why you’re beating your head against the wall here[/i]. (UH) Where, if anywhere, would I find a better fit for my interests, personality, and approach re these issues?
9942348721283256189Silver, I'm not sure what to make of you. Some of your responses are sensible, but then you say outrageous things (which another commenter has collected above). I can't tell if you are serious or merely 'baiting the bear' for fun. Anyway, it doesn't matter enough for me to expend additional energy on this back and forth. I don't have a whole lot of strategic political answers. There may not be any alternative to just slogging out the racialist education amongst our people, raising their ideological consciousness as we wait for some historical event or series of events which will lead them to rapid acceptance of radical solutions. One thing that is not being done, at least in the US, is politico-social organizing on the Racial Right. We need to stop this web crap and start meeting people face to face in our communities, forming little networks of the like-minded. Someone badly needs to start some kind of nationalist PAC. Nothing original, I admit, but until at least the conservative masses start demanding an end to immigration (which they definitely are receptive to), we will have no successes. And until we stop immigration/invasion, nothing else matters. Anyway, I really don't fit in here at MR, either, though I like the site. I don't like the term "WN", because I find it difficult to distinguish from "Nazi". While I am constantly being called a Nazi, and while I have been banned from many conservative sites for being an allegedly "obsessive racist" (which is just not true; I have many intellectual interests, as well as general conservative political ones), in fact, I am simply a true conservative who recognizes that race today is the dominant issue threatening the survival of Western Civ. My main intellectual concern is with demonstrating the compatibility and indeed necessity of white preservationism (my preferred term to WN) with/to both Christianity as well as traditionalism. I seek to integrate racial science into classical conservative political thought. Beyond that, I am interested in developing pure rightist political philosophy (and I have many other interests I will never write about). My main political concern is with developing and propagandizing the ideology of white survival, which is not just WN, but involves pushing many other issues which implicitly aid the survival chances of whites (eg, the death penalty). I also want to start a social organization for white Americans as whites, and someday soon try to get a talk radio gig (no doubt at some ungodly hour). Despite how I come across in comments, in person I am quite humorous, as well as fast and articulate. Innumerable persons, some with standing, have thought I should be in the media instead of business, and for the remainder of my career and life I seek to transition in that direction.
9943648721283273182These are complex issues. There is a huge range of us lumped together as WNs, mainly because the bulk of the population has been so bizarrely brainwashed (though a lot are kept deliberately ignorant: I have mainstream acquaintances and even friends who feel no revulsion to white/non-white miscegenation ("love conquers all, Lee, deal with it"), but who get worked up when I explain that in 2009 the US admitted about 138,000 legal immigrants [i]every month[/i], 99% of whom aren't white). Some WNs are true Nazis. I don't reject any white comrade, but I really have no desire for Nazism. Some are members of bizarre (un)Christian or even pagan cults. Some are not Nazis, but extreme Jew haters (I met one like this a few years at at a revisionism conference; the guy was very left wing, not really very pro-white - just blamed Jews for everything bad). Some are skinhead nihilists. Some are Darwinian atheists (a lot here at MR); others conservative Protestant fundamentalists. Some are eugenicists; some are radical natalists; others radical population reducers. I am a true conservative, a biological Occidentalist. I see the white race as the unique creator and bearer of Western High Culture, which I consider the world's superior culture and civilization, and which I hold will only be passed on and forever renewed by whites. Otherwise I am honest, and thus a race realist wrt inherited racial differences. I am also attuned to cultural and ideological currents, and believe that whites as whites are widely (and unfairly) blamed and hated, and thus will be at great personal, that is financial and later physical, risk if we do not maintain racial majorities in sovereign polities. My basic position is based not on hate per se, but love and fear. I am not opposed to interracial commerce (except in militarily necessary technologies), or tourism, or cultural exchanges. I am not spoiling for a fight. I hate white PC traitors vastly more than I feel antagonism towards non-whites. But I don't have any great liking of non-whites; I don't think they add anything to my existence; I do feel racially superior to them; and I do resent their presence in my territorial world. But mainly, I fear the direction the West is headed in, and I now feel that a large measure of coercion will be inevitably necessary for whites to secure their existence as a people. If more persons had listened to the racialists decades earlier, things would not have come to this. Those who imposed the immigrants on us did them and us a great evil. But it is what it is. We can try to remedy matters humanely, but, finally, in Western lands, Europeans come first. We matter, while the others matter very little.
9946648721283343465Fred, Thanks for the vote of approval. ____________ [i]at the risk of being accused a troll, I’d be interested in your opinion about the following: why is it that miscegenation is deemed “revulsion-worthy” and “genocidal”, but the same language and attention is seemingly spared with regards to non-breeding whites?[/i] ([b]Randy Garver[/b]) That's a more complex question that one might think initially. First, despite the harshness of various responses to you above, I don't actually think you're a troll, but rather, most likely a sincerely interested person who doesn't quite realize a) the extent to which a lot of common questions from "The Unawakened" have been thrashed out by WNs ad nauseam over the years, and b) that WNs are so used to being deliberately inaccurately portrayed by the (Jewish controlled) MSM that they/we tend to get overly defensive at times, assuming that real questions are just implicit attempts to annoy us or get us to say impolitic things. Your question really has two parts to it: why do we oppose miscegenation? And, should we oppose/denounce whites who [i]choose[/i] (no one would attach fault to the involuntarily sterile) not to reproduce? We oppose miscegenation both philosophically (as a principle), and psychologically, though not all WNs exhibit the latter outlook. One of my best friends is harshly opposed to immigration, and virulently hates and fears blacks, and blames them for every little thing (you can imagine his conversation in the Age of Obama), but when we pass by even the hottest white chick walking hand-in-hand with a minority, he just shakes his head sadly, while I start fuming. Miscegenation just doesn't bother him very much. Well, that is how some of us are "neurowired". It really "messes with my head" to see attractive white women with non-whites. I emphasize 'attractive', because with them there is the element of choice. I am more forgiving when I see really ugly white females with minorities; perhaps they wanted white men, but simply couldn't find any. I prefer white women myself, but if I were a 19th century explorer shipwrecked in an exotic place, I would probably take a non-white woman, too. Of course, there is also the 'commemorative' aspect to seeing a white hottie with a mud: I am immediately and viscerally reminded of all that I can't stand about the modern diversitarian regime, including its endless propaganda campaigns against white men - which, incidentally, reduce our sexual opportunities, and not only because WNs now have to compete for our preferred white females with muds as well as fellow white men. Women have a kind of instinct for Who Is Master, and they are drawn to that, however much their (pre-menopausal) bubblebrains may praise egalitarianism and multiculti. There has definitely been a huge loss of white female respect for white men across the social board, and this translates into not only racial survival problems, but relationship ones even where there is no mud anywhere in the picture ... most whites, even WNs, may not be aware of this. Indeed, I'm so 'wacked out' on this that I even believe that feminism is entwined with race-replacement, both sociopolitically as well as psychologically. Modern (Second Wave) feminism followed Civil Rights, and I believe they are more than temporally related. I think white male masculinity took a grievous blow (psychologically, as well as politically) from the empowering of minorities, and that females took advantage of that to press their own ludicrous (and race-endangering) agenda. Basically, the Jewish agenda of economically, politically, culturally and demographically dispossessing white men has also served to demasculinize them in the eyes of their own womenfolk (which may of course have been part of the intended purpose), and thus render us less sexually appealing. Female sexuality is nothing like the male's. It truly is socially conditioned (even though that conditioning leads to real biological effects). Today's white females sense general white male weakness stemming from larger political/cultural disempowerment, which they often then transpose onto all white men, thus making sexual conquests harder for all of us, even handsome white guys, wealthier white guys, tough white guys, etc. Obviously, plenty of us can overcome this disadvantage, but we, living in multiracial environments, all start out with a kind of rebuttable presumption (to use legal language) against us as [i]real men[/i]. I resent that. So seeing a hottie with a mud is naturally annoying to the normal white man, as it reminds him of his lowered status in society. And for the WN, who is perfectly aware of how intentionally/artificially this has come about, it is doubly annoying. Our [i]philosophical[/i] opposition to miscegenation stems from our natural concern not with race reduction so much as with blood pollution, at least today (one can imagine alternative contexts where our numbers would need to be boosted in a hurry). Non-breeder whites don't change the genome. They just aren't adding to it. Why would that be considered a problem, unless, again, our numbers had fallen so precipitately that a duty to reproduce could be imputed to everyone (in which case a voluntary non-breeder would be 'letting down the team', so to speak)? And, of course, one's non-reproduction, within the Salterian defended ethny (see comment above), simply increases the ecological capacity for others to breed at greater levels. The concern is with race/blood purity within separate territory (unique ecological niches). [BTW, Randy, although I am perfectly willing to venture into sociobiological discussions of racial phenomena where important and appropriate, I am frankly more interested in the political struggle (and its moral justifications) actually to save our race - [i]because it is primarily past political choices which have imperiled our race[/i] - than I am in rarefied, scientific and overly impersonal explanations for our plight. If you are interested in learning more about the issues pertaining to white survival I feel it incumbent to warn you against falling into the Darwinian theory 'abyss', in which humans are seen to be mere gene replicators, or some such nonsense, stripped of all their agency and capacity for moral choice. Our race is being herded into extinction as a result of perfectly conscious, deliberate acts of racial/legal aggression and attendant false-justificatory propaganda. What we need to do is uncover and disprove that propaganda, and then change our politics and laws from white race-destroying to race-affirming. Whether it is necessary or useful to translate our clear moral and political agenda into obscurantist, scientistic terminology is a matter I leave for the [i]volkisch[/i] community to determine, though my stance is public and unwavering.]
9954448721283438395Gudmund, Thanks for the encouragement. My occasional fits of pique are really directed at myself. I've made many mistakes in how I have conducted my professional life, though it was never clear that they were such at the relevant times. The macro-mistake was getting comfortable in where I was at, and just drifting - which, with the passage of years, I've come to judge as a dereliction of my racial duties, as, whether you or anyone else will credit me or not, I understood the essence of our people's plight long before the advent of the internet, whose knowledge sharing and exfoliating aspect has immeasurably increased the sum of racial awareness among our people (this, however, returns me to a deep fear I've implicitly expressed in other threads, in which you, too, have been a participant: viz, that we may be reaching our upper limit of converts at our present state of knowledge or polemical persuasiveness; that is, that most persons whose innate psyches predispose them to perceive racial truths easily may have been reached, given the ease of knowledge acquisition through the web ... how I remember nearly two decades ago making a special trip to UCLA's library to get help in finding the mail address of the little racialist magazine, [i]Instauration[/i] - which I never would have heard of if William F. Buckley, Jr., in his Zionistic attack on the alleged anti-Semitism of conservative writer Joe Sobran, hadn't mentioned Joe's earlier faint praise of it ...). I'm now in the process (as I mentioned in passing in an earlier comment on this thread) of deciding whether I shouldn't transition to a fulltime activist life. By that I mean, I'm considering three overlapping avenues: returning to grad school to do the doctorate some of my college profs had encouraged me to do long ago, which would then give me serious standing to publish in both academic journals of the Right, such as there are, as well as learned periodicals; trying to get into talk radio (with a friend - we're both pretty funny and passionate and knowledgeable and unintimidated - with good voices and demeanors, we've both been told independently by media producers); laying the groundwork for an American nationalist (not WN - that can come in future decades, when our people are more receptive) political activist and social networking organization. Or I can take a new business job I'm mulling, which would increase my working hours, and money, and then confine my WN contributions to comments as I do here. If I stay in biz, it's goodbye serious WN advancement, permanently (until I retire). The dilemma is that I have the personal and intellectual qualities, I think, really to contribute to our cause in a big way,if I so choose. I'm not some socially inept WPower retread, without good credentials, skills or contacts. I think I could equal most of the big name conservative radio guys, while offering a format calculated to drive listeners still further to the Right - not because I'm special, but simply because the big shots aren't that bright, or even all that entertaining, with the exception of Michael Savage. (Why is Glenn Beck big? Why??! Not funny, not original, not bright, not learned, nothing but "right place and time"). And my idea for a nationalist org, which I came up with 15 damn years ago, but did nothing towards, could catch on (esp if I could combine its theme with radio, as I have already thought out). Anyway, thanks again for your comment.
9954648721283439147Reginald, Randy, one, I completely support white racial/political separatism. I also totally support any measure that will increase white birthrates. Randy is obviously correct that these objectives are not mutually exclusive. I recognize the non-existence of the white ethny. duh. I was simply responding to Randy's query about why WNs view miscegenation with greater revulsion than white non-reproduction.
9961648721283589527Notus Wind, I saw the Grimoire comment about the same time you did, and provided a brief response. I now have to study it more closely, and see if I have anything worth contributing in greater depth. I wouldn't call myself very talented as a general matter. But I'm smart enough to do a doctorate (I know that, and by several measures); I'm good at ranting, articulate 'monologuing', and finding endless things to say on many topics, plus I enjoy instructing people, so I think I could have a legit shot at radio (if I can develop the right 'hook' or general presence to get a show initially); and I am good at managing people, as well as conceptualizing, developing and expanding organizations, plus my idea for an American conservative/defensive nationalist, activist, and educational group (along the lines of, say, the NAACP) is definitely one whose time has come (and will only become more relevant as we move to minority status - without ever of course having eliminated affirmative action, minority preference quotas, anti-white educational materials, etc). Who fights for us (but ... in a firm but moderate, non-WN, non-scientific racialist way)? The key is that doing these things (well, a relevant but PC doctorate comes first) can reinforce the other concerns. Obviously, I can't excel in all three areas, but I can do them all to some extent. I can certainly write books and do radio; likewise I could write and build an organization (esp as it would take quite a while for such an org to reach a point of requiring fulltime employees). I've theorized and researched all this at some length. It's just a big sacrifice (or at least risk) financially. It means a lot of suffering (just consider the doctorate - 5 years - though I would definitely try to so structure my studies as to produce as many media articles out of them as possible, and eventually a book out of my dissertation). Do I want this? Should I risk it? Give up my life as it is, in pursuit of a long-term dream(s) whose rewards are fairly far into the future? Tough call.
9844248731282134568Notus, Before I respond to your article, I can't help wondering: how the hell do you find the time to keep finding new material to post? Your commitment, as measured by your productivity, is most impressive! Just in the last few years, I have noticed a substantial rise in the intellectual quality of nationalists. Have others found this to be the case, too? I hope I'm not the only one old enough to remember the depressing 80s, no Internet, Reagan/Thatcher defining the "Right", and feeling like I and a few "hardcore" friends were the last self-consciously [i]white[/i][u][/u] men (beyond a few idiot skins) in the world. Amidst all the gloom of our shrinking camp of the saints, I'm yet strangely heartened ...
9845448731282148513Notus, A few observations, following your own (in italics). [i]the manufacturing jobs that have left the West for China have been gone for some time so how has China been able to sustain such an incredible level of economic growth for as long as it has? [/i] This is an over-generalization. The West has been hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs for two generations, at least since the Sixties. But this is, obviously, an ongoing process, though one proceeding, I believe (this is not my specialty, but I do keep slightly abreast of international business news, through the WSJ and [i]Barron's[/i]), not in a linear fashion, but with certain more accelerated periods. For example, there was tremendous American investment in China in the most recent decade, especially in the earlier part of it. Moreover, China's rabid recent growth could involve economies of scale resulting from earlier infrastructure development. One doesn't just decide to move a factory from America to China overnight, and without a great deal of prior (Chinese) domestic activity. China in the 70s, when Mao died and Deng came to power, and began his "revolution within the form" (you know the lingo, Notus - I suspect you and I have been reading and reflecting upon many of the same sources, perhaps even somewhat concurrently ... indeed, I have this curious sense that we might have met at a conference; otherwise you certainly remind me of someone ...), was piss-poor, still recently traumatized, and very underdeveloped. It was also determined to develop from within (though it sent a lot of foreign exchange students to the idiotic West, which gleefully accepted them, and taught them our science, commercial principles, etc - a nationalist twist on Lenin's "selling the rope"), in no small part to keep out threatening foreign influences during a dangerous (to the ruling Party) transitional period. Thus it took time (basically from 1978-1992) for the ever-patient Chinese to reach an internal economic level that could actually produce quality products for export, as well as legitimately attract foreign investment seeking cheap labor (that is, which could beat Western manufacturers, or persuade them to outsource to China). [i]The answer is a form of central planning. The government in Beijing overseas the allocation of capital in such a way that a predetermined national growth rate is achieved, whether the decisions needed to achieve this growth make any kind of economic sense is another matter entirely. Hence the economic formula for calculating GDP becomes something to be gamed, where the number that Beijing wants is produced by playing with the levers of government that control the variables in the GDP equation. [/i] Oh, please. These are nothing more than clever, unproven, and unlikely assertions. What evidence do you have suggesting that the CCP 'games' its GDP in this manner? Now, in one sense, students of the late Austro-libertarian Murray Rothbard know that nearly [i]every[/i] (at least [i]interpretive[/i]) government economic statistic is inaccurate (by 'interpretive' I mean requiring economic judgments; if the National Farm Bureau says x-billion bushels of wheat were produced last year, that's probably fairly accurate), because they are compiled on the basis of flawed economic methodology (CPI is just the worst, though GNP is awful, too). In that sense, China's are flawed, too (which in no way should be taken to mean that China's economic growth has been anything other than very, very real). But I have encountered no China expert who has argued that the CCP either directs the majority of capital allocations ("overseas" is the better word to describe what actually goes on, but not as you are using it above), or that China 'predetermines' its rate of economic growth - or that it would be stupid enough deliberately to misallocate capital (ie, put it to less than economically optimum uses, according to best estimates of optimality) in pursuit of phantom GDP statistics. This is important. Let us learn. China has had genuinely phenomenal growth of late because [u]it was kept artificially economically undeveloped for so long[/u] due to the vagaries of an unfortunate recent history, stemming first from its decrepit, autocratic and anti-innovative, internal-imperial past; second, from its devastation by Japan and the war; third, from its further devastation by its civil war and revolution; and fourth, by the unbelievable and continuous (and over time, intensifying) economic lunacy of Mao and the CCP under his control, and concomitant self-enforced isolation from international commerce, and the global postwar economic boom. The Chinese are not African savages. They possess (I think) the oldest continuous civilization. At times in the past, they have surpassed the West in development and achievements. As we all know, they have a collective IQ that is substantially higher than the white American median, and about equal to the highest white national IQs (Germans, Danes, Dutch). They are especially adept in quantitative reasoning. They also possess a set of pre-Communist (Confucian) values which are remarkably adaptive for modern commerce, as proven by the widely recognized commercial success of the so-called "overseas Chinese" (IQ doubtless plays a large role, too). And there are enormous numbers of them, over 90% of whom are of the same Han ethnicity (though their numbers are falling, especially relative to China's more fecund non-Han peoples). Given these factors alone, why would you or anyone [i]not[/i][b][/b] expect China to roar ahead, once the catastrophe of Maoist central planning were removed, a sufficient physical infrastructure built up, and its people told (by Deng) that "to get rich is glorious"? But there is one additional factor, especially relevant to the manufacturing issue. The Chinese have astutely developed a "calculational" market economy, but not a true free market. OK, I know you will think I'm a full of shit "back-self-patter", talking loud but without proof, but I swear, I predicted this and expressed my fear of this to some famous libertarian intellectuals back at the beginning of the 90s ('90 and '91 to be exact), who of course merely scoffed at (the youthful) me. I warned people (as I also did in the 80s viz the coming disaster of immigration - conservatives scoffed at me on that one, too)!! I argued that the fallacy of Soviet central planning (the calculational chaos ensuing from a non-market, or as was actually the real case, less than fully market, price system) did not necessitate an absolutely [i]free [/i]market - a mistake still widely made everywhere across the American Right. It is possible, that is, to possess rational market prices, while still developing national investment models, say, as in the case of the various Asian economies (not only China). And, this type of system presents a profound economic and especially, ultimately, military threat to societies like ours devoted to maximizing consumer preferences [i]uber alles[/i] (I hope some commenters recognize the salience of these points I am making). This is what China has done wrt manufacturing. The CCP basically decided that people could now "get rich", but mostly in those areas, namely industrial manufacturing, which China also felt would most enhance ultimate Chinese power. America and Europe allow for the maximizing of consumer desires (well, along with enormous amounts of government caused capital misallocation, some being direct, in the cases of economically destructive regulations, as well as straight transfer payments, others indirect, such as the proliferation of economically useless lawyers, especially in the US, inspired by all those regulations, or finance personnel, mostly resulting from excessive monetary creation by central banks, as well as various tax and securities laws favoring, when you get to the root of it, the over-financialization of the US economy, or, "money shuffling"). The Chinese have put a lid on consumer desires, the better to generate large savings, which the state then allows to be lent, but only for anticipatorily highly "value-added" projects. The bottom line: the Chinese people are less well-off than they should be based on their productivity, but the state-favored industrial base is getting ever more powerful (and government foreign exchange reserves ever larger, at least pre-global recession). This is not phantom growth, I regret to say. [i]As was well-known even by the old Soviet Union, one way of achieving a certain GDP target was to increase the number of construction projects. So long as enough capital exists it is an easy matter for even a quazi centrally planned economy, such as China, to force local officials to propose a sufficient level of construction growth and then allocate the capital accordingly. And as we all know China has more than enough capital to play this game. [/i] China today is not "quasi-centrally planned" in its economy, at least not in the way of the Soviets. In the USSR there was no private ownership of the means of production. China is essentially a "national(ist) market economy". It allows for rational pricing, but if the most effective use of a certain quantum of capital, in terms of Chinese individual preferences, would be to build an amusement park outside of Chungking, but the CCP would prefer another export oriented steel mill, guess what they are getting? But that steel mill, unlike its Soviet counterparts, would be fully integrated into the global capitalist economy. But what most increases not consumer satisfaction, but national power - amusement park or steel mill? Here's an easy way to think about this very profound point. You are my 17 year old son. You go out and earn a thousand dollars. What would maximize your use of that money would be to spend it on really good hash. That would make you happier than any other expenditure (hash maximizes your "marginal happiness"). As your dad, however, I don't care about maximizing your present happiness, or maybe your happiness at all. So I order you to spend the money on an SAT prep course, in order to boost your test scores so as to gain admission to a more elite college. Or maybe I just command you to buy a new .357, with a lot of ammo. You will be happier with the hash. But you will be stronger either with the SAT course, or the gun. Telling my son how he can spend or invest his money is not "central economic planing". It is authoritarian economics, not socialism. In America, we think maximizing national happiness involves letting everybody do their own thing (have maximum 'autonomy'), as long as they aren't aggressing against others. The Chinese don't care about maximizing individual preferences (though these might not remain bottled up forever). They are basically forcing their people to be over-workers and over-savers in pursuit of national industrial development. And it's working (again, for now; maybe not forever). [i]Now for some perspective, one of the reasons trotted out for the Asian financial crisis in the 90s is that the so-called Asian Tigers that were driving regional growth became “overheated” - whatever the hell that means - due to unsustainable levels of economic growth. It is reported that at the time of this “overheating” the percentage of GDP due to construction was somewhere in the vicinity of 30%. In contrast, the percentage of America’s GDP due to construction has been something like 5% over the past decade. Hold these facts in your mind as you read the following words of Marc Faber: … Faber joins hedge fund manager Jim Chanos and Harvard University’s Kenneth Rogoff in warning of a crash in China. China is “on a treadmill to hell” because it’s hooked on property development for driving growth, Chanos said in an interview last month. As much as 60 percent of the country’s gross domestic product relies on construction, he said. Rogoff said in February a debt-fueled bubble in China may trigger a regional recession within a decade. Wow! What does 60% look like? The mind boggles… [/i] Yes, this could be a problem, but these statistics don't confirm that. Why? The Chinese and American markets for housing are not remotely the same. The housing problems in the US were due, in a nutshell, to govt strongarm tactics (through FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC, but also more directly) against lenders, coercing them to lower home-mortgage requirements in order to make "subprime" mortgage loans to otherwise unqualified, mostly minority, borrowers. This massive and classic misallocation of capital was immeasurably helped along by the horrible lax monetary policies ("quantitative easing") of (Jew) Alan Greenspan, especially in the immediate post 9/11 period (in a sense, the whole global meltdown is a further consequence of al-Qaeda), to avoid what was assumed would be an imminent recession. This combination of Fed money expansion with govt 'incentives' (positive as well as negative) to increase minority homeownership triggered the boom in housing construction, and subsequent bust, when a huge number of these shitbags started failing to make their mortgages. Everything since has been political gimmicks to delay or, for some, partially avoid, facing economic reality. China I suggest is different. There may well be a housing bubble, but there is also tremendous and genuine demand, as tens of millions of migrant workers have flocked from the countryside, where they lived in communal mud huts, as it were, or very shoddy housing, to the newly industrializing cities. In these cities, these workers are earning real money, doing real work, but living in appallingly crowded conditions. Essentially, they are living below their real means. There is thus a genuine need for a lot of housing construction (there is evidence that the Chinese have overinvested in office building construction, but some of that empty space is simply a function of the widely unpredicted general global downturn; it might not be deemed "overinvestment" forever). A final point. Be wary of Faber. I like his free market, private property approach to macroeconomics, but he is prone to wild overstatements, especially of a gloomy nature. I have noticed that he is more circumspect when participating in [i]Barron's[/i] symposia, with high level fund managers, than when he is being interviewed by gold 'bugs' or other 'survivalists'.
9859948731282311926Notus, Thanks for your response, but I find that I have nothing to add to what I already stated above. We shall all be witnessing the growth and development of Chinese power in the coming decades. I for one hope they do have several mishaps and 'bubbles' along the way. Not for centuries have men lived in a world whose hegemonic power was not a white one. As a matter of simple statistics viewed in light of family history, I have four decades of life remaining, perhaps a bit more, if optimistic. I sincerely hope America is still #1 in 2050, that I may live long, yet still not live to see the torch irrevocably passed to the yellow man. My hope is unlikely, but not altogether improbable. On that melancholy note, I think I shall limit my input to MR for a while. I look forward to GW's extended discussion of racial ethics, or Christianity, or the intersection and confrontation of such, and to contributing to that anticipated thread. Beyond that, however, I need in my non-work/home/gym/finance/etc time to get back to researching, formulating and writing my book on racial ethics (and conservatism more broadly) from a Christian perspective. As a fellow American, perhaps you can appreciate that (or at a minimum, the reasonableness of my belief that) this is arguably the key issue for racial nationalists over here (as a matter of theory, of course, not what is finally the more important pragmatic activism). The American Right is where racial sense is to be found (outside of a few white unionized workers and cops, who vote Democrat for venal reasons). That Right is heavily Christian, or influenced by conservative political Christianity, or deferential to it. If racialism, or Occidentalism as I call my version, that is, the militant assertion of white political, economic and cultural interests for the ultimate purpose of protecting whites and preserving their majoritarian status in America (whose purpose in turn is to preserve traditional America), is to grow into a force of genuine political consequence, it must be deemed acceptable to Christianity. If white 'politicking' is forever placed morally out of bounds by the totality of Christians, then, without thoughtful counter-argument, and absent unforeseen and unlikely national apocalyptic cataclysm, our movement will remain what it is today: at best, 'subterranean', more likely, merely 'ghettoized' (albeit a steadily growing 'ghetto'). But to make WN morally acceptable does not only require a book like Michael Levin's brilliant [i]Why Race Matters[/i], one which merely (though devastatingly) provides the science and logic to debunk liberal racial platitudes about equality and white racism. We need to make the ethical case for white nationalism, but within Christian philosophy and theology. Working towards developing and finally publishing this theory, in a work of large scope, with appropriate scholarly apparatus (and resuscitating other elements in the traditional Far Right view of existence, especially pertaining to the philosophies of warfare and criminal punishment, and concurrently seeking to harmonize them with Christian moral thought, too) is, I realize, more rewarding to me, personally and finally (someday) professionally, than engaging in blog arguments or intragroup commentary. I want to produce something worthy of tangibility, of a value to last longer than thoughts rapidly lost I fear in the ether of cyberspace.
9859448731282305597[i]Posted by Notus Wind on August 18, 2010, 02:12 PM | # Leon, [u]Before I respond to your article, I can’t help wondering: how the hell do you find the time to keep finding new material to post? [/u] Academics get most of the summer off, as the semester slowly kicks in I’ll have to spend more of my free time preparing lectures for different groups of people. [/i] ______________ What field do you teach? Is it at the college level? Grad school? Don't worry, I'm not an investigator of any kind. Just curious.
9859548731282306136Posted by Dan Dare on August 18, 2010, 05:13 PM | # Leon’s response is excellent, but I believe he has discounted the importance of two ‘windfall’ benefits that have propelled China along its current economic trajectory. The first is the astonishing readiness of western countries to allow Chinese manufactured goods open access to their domestic markets, and the second is the enthusiasm that western companies have shown for entering into ‘joint-venture’ operations which ostensibly facilitate market entry into China, but in reality function as a conduit for the transfer of technology, process know-how and other intellectual property. In the absence of either or both these factors, China would have no chance of attaining economic superpower status. ----------------------------------------- I agree, DD, though I thought I had made at least something like those points (at least the second one), when I quipped about us "selling the rope". Yes, Western companies, with their characteristic lack of civilizational and racial loyalty, have certainly accelerated the rise of China - though that also applies to India, Brazil, before that to Japan, before that to the Middle East, etc. We built the modern global economy - though I know none of us here is holding his breath for any expressions of gratitude from anywhere. Whites as a whole have arguably never thought in collective, racial-conflict terms - to our present and ultimate racial detriment.
9859648731282308070Inattention begets repetition .... Notus [i]The government in Beijing [u]overseas[/u] the allocation of capital in such a way that a predetermined national growth rate is achieved[/i] Leon Haller [i]But I have encountered no China expert who has argued that the CCP either directs the majority of capital allocations ("[u]overseas[/u]" is the better word to describe what actually goes on, but not as you are using it above) [/i] Someone needs to 'oversee' the substandard English that occasionally crops up here. How did I repeat that error?!
9892348731282665430Notus: [i]O[u]n that melancholy note, I think I shall limit my input to MR for a while.[/u] I am sorry to read this, I sincerely hope that exchanging words with me wasn’t the catalyst for this change in attitude as I always look forward to reading your commentary (but you already know this). [b]Not at all. I just have so much work to do, but admittedly find blogging strangely addictive (I suppose it's fun to post and get feedback instantly). Have you ever thought of the number of books you can likely read in the remainder of your life? Given my general responsibilities, my actual physical rehabilitative need (and desire) for regular workouts, the much hated amount of time I now have to spend in defensive investment study, my love of literature, which I will not forsake if at all possible, and my love of learned periodicals (and now I guess websites), it is next to impossible for me to read more than around 25-35 non-fiction books annually (in fairness, what I read are frequently thick and ponderous, but still ...). Trying to develop a somewhat new political philosophy (at the least, the reconciliation of race-realism, and, more difficultly, racial nationalism, with traditional conservatism and Christian natural law theory) is a daunting task, and my time is limited. I reproach myself for being ill-focused. OK, this is going to sound really arrogant, but ... my sense is that here at MR, for example (and MR has better people than many other places), most respondents really have no idea of the scope of the task I refer to just above - a vital task for someone to do, I constantly aver (I wish an elite theologian would 'go there', but none is, as far as I know). I can tell this from the tenor of comments. A number of persons here are bright in a kind of free floating way. There are smatterings of genuine knowledge, some know more than a bit of history (maybe not too much more), others some philosophy, still others obviously have a scientific background. Most are familiar with WN issues and perspectives. But the traditions of the Intellectual Right (let alone Christianity) are broad and dense. There is a lot to master.[/b] [u]Beyond that, however, I need in my non-work/home/gym/finance/etc time to get back to researching, formulating and writing my book on racial ethics...from a Christian perspective. As a fellow American, perhaps you can appreciate that...this is arguably the key issue for racial nationalists over here [/u] As a fellow American who understands the unique religious temperament of some of our people, at least from a Protestant perspective, I appreciate what you’re trying to do with such a book more than you realize. But I must be honest in saying that I don’t think such an effort is necessary. From a nationalist perspective, I find that there’s surprisingly little in the Christian Bible that either works with us or against us - while there’s certainly nothing there that can be used to elevate the European genome there is also nothing there that directly affirms the false morality of socialism. I think Alex Zeka was right when he opined that much of Christianity is orthogonal to what we discuss around here. Hence my expectation is that however the winds of change blow you can expect Christianity to adjust accordingly so long as what it’s adjusting to is essentially orthogonal. [b]Oh no it isn't. Christianity is a "totalist" thought system. I don't believe that Christianity literally need permeate every aspect of life, but one's political commitments absolutely, if one is a serious Christian, must be conformable to the Faith. I keep stressing that the core issue of WN is the moral legitimacy of inter-group violence (and to a lesser extent, of coercion to enforce racial purity and cohesion). Examples? 1. A Christian white woman wants to marry a Christian black man. May we use the state to illegalize such a union? You think this is an 'orthogonal' issue? A simple one? Hardly. Christians thinkers today (who are very likely closer to the spirit of the early Church than those of early modern European times) generally believe in "free marriage", provided both parties are of age, opposite sexes, and Christian. Advocating de-legalizing interracial marriage would strike vast numbers of Christians of all sects as morally wrong. Yet that is precisely what we must advocate, if we wish our people to survive over the long run. 2. The issue of immigration is fairly simple on the surface. It seems obvious that whites have the moral right (and even duty) to keep out non-whites. Unfortunately, the weight of modern theology (I mean serious, non-leftist-masquerading-as-Christian, theology; the silly leftists object to immigration restrictions even on Muslims, one ass arguing that their physical presence among us would make it easier for us to "bring them to Christ" than if they were to remain in Islamic societies where preaching the Good News is forbidden and punished) goes against our view (except wrt Muslim immigrants). Establishing a Christian case against immigration is eminently possible, but it requires upending the bulk of current writing on the subject, which resolutely fails to incorporate the anti-diversitarian findings of modern biology into its racial theology. Of course, integrating biology into theology is itself an enormous task ... 3. 1 and 2 are the easy cases. The real issue is this: we in the West must reacquire exclusive racial territory if we are to have good survival prospects (I would argue, if we are to survive over the long haul at all - but I recognize some would argue otherwise from the Jewish model of ethnosurvival; I am unpersuaded - look what almost happened to them, for Pete's sake!). WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, Notus, GW, PF, Dasein, Grimoire, Scroob, Wandrin, etc etc? It means racial repatriation, at least out of Europe (America, and the other non-Euro-indigenous countries, are much more ethically fraught). And what does that mean? It means that not only legal immigrants, but those non-Europoids born on European soil, many of whom only speak a European language, must be forcibly uprooted, handcuffed onto ocean liners, like the African slaves of old, and expelled to elsewhere. And when some resist their deportation? It means some of them WILL BE SHOT. You dig, homey? Now it's all well and good to talk about 'ontology', and 'endogamy', and the shit GOP or Tories, and the great Enoch Powell (who foresaw and sought to prevent this), and the BNP, and the Call of Blood, and the blood-Jew, and orthogonality, and homogeniety amongst bacteria, or whatever else catches our fancy ... but I'm a bottom line guy. And the bottom line is that coercive violence will be necessary to achieve our ultimate preservationist aim of restoring the racial apartheid status quo ex ante. You think this is a matter of Christian unconcern??!! I suggest your understanding of the Faith is less than optimum. You show me the Christian authority whose moral theology, as presently interpreted, allows for racial expulsions. Yes, you are correct that the biology of race differences is largely orthogonal to theology. But the legal and political uses to which we will put that knowledge is not in the least outside the realm of Christian notice - and criticism (and again I am referring to the better, more conservative or traditionalist authorities like the current Pontiff). I don't wish to patronize someone as affable and polite as yourself, but I think you don't understand either the state of Christian theology, or, perhaps, the implications of a serious nationalism. Respecting the latter, this is not about merely stopping affirmative action and immigration, or even the ethical allowability of an ethnostate, considered abstractly. This is about some whites somewhere precipitating a war for racial survival. I'm too old, and have worked too hard, to risk what I have by being one of those revolutionaries. But at least philosophically, that is the endpoint (or the first foreseeable of a series of endpoints) of what we are theorizing. [/b] [u]If white ‘politicking’ is forever placed morally out of bounds by the totality of Christians[/u] But it wasn’t “placed morally out of bounds” just a few generations ago. Post-reconstruction White Southerners were probably more devout than their cousins in the North and were still capable of rallying around their identity for the purposes of recapturing their local governments through force of arms and from the hands of racial aliens. Their Christianity didn’t prevent them from establishing the infamous Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws, and I have no doubt that they would have gladly begun the process of recolonizing their slave population if the means were available. [b]You are correct, but irrelevantly so. I have made your exact argument polemically many times. But that something was deemed acceptable in the past, does not make it so, today or ever. Christianity has much doctrine. It is not inconsistent to recognize the greater, even genuine, devoutness of persons whom you otherwise allege to have been in the moral wrong about something. That is what a contemporary churchman would say. Yes, the Southerners' morality was better on, say, marriage, keeping the Sabbath, and tithing. But it was worse on race. No, these issues are as I say. Very complicated, but necessary to overcome. Most conservative whites in America are religious (and I would bet that most of the religious elsewhere are conservative). European whites may not remain secular forever, though their secularism has not made them racially heartier; quite the opposite, correlatively. We must convince our people that our cause is not hateful or evil. That task begins with the racialist reconstruction of Christian ethics. I am unshakeable in this belief. [/b] [u]I want to produce something worthy of tangibility, of a value to last longer than thoughts rapidly lost I fear in the ether of cyberspace.[/u] I lecture on math to a broad range of people - undergraduates, graduates, researchers - and was always attracted to the subject because of its permanence. The truths that our investigations reveal will never be dislodged and they will continue to build on each other so long as there are humans around with a mind to do the building. Even in such a degraded age as our own the world of math still stands coldly impervious to the excesses of liberalism and the idiocies of socialism. But even in such a unique field as this whatever you write will be lost in the sands of time never to be read by future generations. [b][Are you talking about math - or me?][/b] Of course, it will not be totally forgotten as people will find new and better proofs for the things that you discover - assuming that they are worth thinking about - but almost no one will read the original books and articles that you write. It’s a body of knowledge that is continuously rewritten and lovingly cared for by those attuned to its music. [b]Who are you referring to? Or, what are you talking about? I'm not comparing myself to the Greats when I note that they are still read, and will be forever (and not just the literary persons; people will always read Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes ... and for their intrinsic value, not just out of antiquarianism). Works of scholarship have a shorter lifespan, but not necessarily original ones. Kirk's [i][/i]The Conservative Mind[/i] will be read for centuries; I think [i]The Dispossessed Majority[/i] has many more decades, too.[/b] The great thing about blogs like MR is that we have the opportunity to communicate with other human beings in complete honesty. And there are very few places where this can be done in an era where propaganda has achieved an unprecedented level of effectiveness and refinement. I am confident that you will find yourself continuously drawn back here in much the same way as I was. [/i] [b]Right you are, alas.[/b]
9892448731282665628I screwed up the mixture of italics, underlines and bolds above, but it should be readable (my response-comments in bold). LH
9900548731282749120Notus, I do not have the time (nor would it be ultimately efficacious) to offer a lesson in Christian moral philosophy. But you are arguing as a common-sense American (of the basically atheistic/Darwinian Far Right), not as a Christian. I have not argued (here) that Christianity is the Way, Truth, Light, etc, merely that 1) the contemporary state of theology is worlds away from what seems to be plain sense to you; 2) the vast majority of at least American conservatives (the class of persons most likely to be receptive to racial messages) are guided by Christian moral precepts (and most Americans not guided by those precepts are deranged leftists, or ethnocentric Jews, or Muslims); 3) that if there is a conflict within conservatism between race loyalty and Christ loyalty (the content of which is mostly determined by external, overwhelmingly race-liberal-to-leftist sources), the bulk will choose Christ, and simply hope for the best racially; and thus 4) if we WNs are serious about changing our world, our doctrines must be made morally acceptable to the Christian majority. Hence the necessity of my work (or of someone superior working along the same path). Indeed, the very solemnity of 'race' (despite all the obvious hypocrisy and empirically disprovable assertions surrounding it) among whites, including conservatives, attests to the correctness of my argument. If Christianity cannot be made a theoretical ally of racial preservation, we are doomed, at least in America.
9883948761282574531[i]The REAL work ahead of us, however, is in the realm of organisation-building, fund raising, marketing, and practical politics, which means joining existing groups where surprise surprise you won’t get to be top dog. Stop trying to reinvent everything, as if every few years WNs feel the need to start at zero, tabula rasa. The intellectual groundwork has been laid. It’s up to the younger chaps to get in line and start acting like foot soldiers[/i]. - Selous Scout __________________ Well, yes and no. SS is correct that we are in a race against time (remember that lovely line from the beginning of [i]The Dispossessed Majority[/i],[pub. way back in 1972, as I never tire of reminding folks] about us being in "a race between the ripening harvest, and the encroaching jungle"?), and that we no more need a perfect nationalist Theory of Everything (as some of the more prominent persons at MR suppose) before proceeding with the political activities finally necessary to saving our race, than scientists need fully to understand the phenomena they propose to study before crafting a viable research program. At several points here at MR, I have proposed, to typically underwhelming response, that we need to theorize a "nationalist minimum" (of strategic objectives all patriotic forces can agree on), and then a formal "nationalist manifesto" outlining our goals, and then the various political and polemical tactics for implementing our objectives. And then, at that point, SS would be correct: we need actually to start getting things done in the real (non-intellectual as well as non-cyber) world, because the elements of our racial extinction are growing stronger and more pronounced each day (ie, cascading numbers of immigrant invaders, multiculturalism becoming more rooted, race-mixing, fraternization and miscegenation always increasing, etc). By the time we develop that Perfect Ontological Nationalism, the game on the ground may be over. I think many of us can agree that the "minimum of the minimum" is stopping lawful non-white immigration. That is far more popular than bashing Jews, or demanding non-Europoid expatriation, and far more efficacious than contesting multicultural lies and the erasure of our own national cultures. If you're in a hole, stop digging. I still hew to my recommendation that, at least in parliamentary systems (which is funny for me to contemplate, as I believe that encompasses all white nations, except my own, the US, about which I'm most interested and knowledgeable), we need to develop a mass anti-immigration party, movement, discussion groups, chat rooms, etc. That is, we simply need to reach an agreement among ourselves about the facts of immigration, and their (wholly negative) implications for national, physical, and epidemiological security; economic prosperity; and environmental preservation - and then relentlessly present these facts to everyone, everywhere, as often as possible. Once we attain that glorious day when non-white immigration has been ended (in all our respective homelands, which of course will not all happen simultaneously), then we can begin again "upping the ante" with new objectives, this time focusing on repatriation, restoring cultural traditions, erasing non-white cultural residues, etc. SS is wrong about the usefulness of continued theorizing in one respect, however - as I never tire of pointing out, here and in other venues. Western Man is Ethical Man. That is our virtue and our vice. It is our supreme justification for racialism, and, in our present ethical configuration, what is destroying us. But mark my words, people: we must make racialism ethically acceptable, or we are doomed before we begin. Unless we change the "multiracialist" ethics that now enslave white majorities everywhere, we will continue to languish and remain ghettoized. The new ethics of racial tolerance (and acceptance of race-replacement - not the same thing) did not arise suddenly. The groundwork was laid in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with the somewhat concurrent rise of secular individualist liberalism and Social Gospel Christianity. These ideologies remain hegemonic; indeed, we all know their grip, not only politically and legally, but also intellectually (I mean in terms of the sociology of the intelligentsia - most definitely not in terms of their inherent intellectual cogency or persuasiveness, which is much weaker today than in the mid- to latter half of the 20th century). We have only partially philosophically overturned the anti-racial preservationist ethics of liberalism. We have proven, if not widely disseminated, the thesis that white racism is not responsible for the 'underachievements' and social pathologies of non-white minorities. This is important. We have also disproven many multiculturalist canards about whites, non-whites, racial biology, the alleged value of racial diversity, and similar topics. These efforts, too, have been vital. What we have yet to do, at least convincingly to well-meaning, intelligent whites, some significant number of whom must finally be rallied to us (I'm referring here not to die-hard liberals, who are mentally defective and unreachable, but to non-racist conservatives, and non-ideological independents) is to provide a full and persuasive case for an ethic of white racial loyalty; in a word, white racism or supremacism. We must make the ethical case to a majority of our fellow whites that it is morally acceptable to keep out non-whites because they are non-white; that interracial marriage should be forbidden; that white nationalism is morally acceptable. Until we make that case, we will never take back our civilization. But that case [i]for[/i] racism has not yet been adequately made, and thus Selous Scout is premature in his derision of WN theorizing.
9890648761282652658OK, this isn't particularly relevant to this thread, but ... on the subject of activism, I hope people here don't simply spend all their blog time talking to each other. WNs need to get out there all over the web, at least the 'conservative' one, just to make sure our voices are registered, and to chastise racial deviance, as I did very quickly to this libertarian ass "intellectual" below. LH __________________ Thanks, Conservatives! by JACOB HUEBERT on AUGUST 20, 2010 in IMMIGRATION, POLITICIANS, TEA PARTIES Normally, when one party is in power in Washington, libertarians tend to root for the party out of power. When the Republicans are running things, the Democrats start to seem good, and when the Democrats are running things, the Republicans start to seem good. And of course, when the out-of-power party gets back in power, they disappoint you terribly by pursuing all the things on which they’re bad and forgetting the things on which they’re supposedly somewhat good — and you’re embarrassed that you ever (kind of, grudgingly) rooted for them. Now, though, the right is making things much easier than usual. The Republicans’ incessant whining about the non-mosque that is not at Ground Zero, their war on immigrants, and their calls for war against Iran make me hate both parties equally — so I won’t have to feel at all bad for temporarily liking one of them (I don’t) or feel betrayed by them (since they never showed any real promise anyway). Tagged as: conservatives, Democrats, elections, Ground Zero mosque, immigration, politics, republicans LikeDislike Community Disqus Showing 1 comments Sort by Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS Leon Haller 0 minutes ago You are some kind of intellectual? You are what Lenin would have recognized as "a useful idiot". While I am sympathetic to libertarian calls to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government, especially wrt economic freedoms, deregulation, and broader de-socialization, and while I think the US Empire needs to be downsized, for fiscal as well as strategic reasons, you obviously understand nothing about the role that coercive racial diversification through unwanted mass immigration/invasion has played in the real loss of the real liberty (not to mention property rights) of real Americans. Because you lack a realistic view of the evil (and again, coercive nature) of immigration, I will simply point to one statistic: Obama 08: white vote: 43%. More significantly, Obama, the most socialist president ever (as well as culturally and morally enervating - though as a libertarian, you understand nothing of the racial, cultural and moral bases of really existing liberty), was as a fact elected by post-1965 immigrants and their adult descendants. Now I certainly hated McCain (aka "Senator McAmnesty", aka "Senator Traitor"). But from the libertarian perspective it is impossible to deny that Obama is more hostile to liberty as defined by libertarians than was the not very good McCain. Under McCain (whom I did not vote for; I wrote in Ron Paul) we would not have had medical socialism, nor likely cap and tax, nor two radical new socialist judges on the Supreme Court, nor the $800 billion 'stimulus', nor many other Obamarxist evils. We might not even have had more warmongering! So your filthy immigrants have lessened your beloved liberty. And just wait for the future, as more and more it becomes clear that the ONLY libertarians in any great numbers are whites, while the engine for constant state socialist expansion will be an ever-increasingly non-white America. I could offer many other arguments for why the Big Government Federal corporate as well as social welfare program called "immigration" has been and is a disaster for the real liberty of real Americans. But I suspect you would be too stupid to understand them.
9912148761282851485Really excellent comment by Bill, early on. Hit several nails on their heads. Of course, we don't actually need to answer all of the questions of philosophy in order to recognize the moral bankruptcy of liberalism, and to reject race-replacement. We do need a metaphysical standpoint, though, from which to make our arguments. The problem with the GW/PF/Dasein/Notus Wind/Desmond/Wandrin, maybe/ etc approach is that they smuggle a lot of Christianity back into their pronouncements on topics other than pure metaphysics. For example, they make commonsense moral recommendations or observations, seemingly failing to recognize how thoroughly implicitly Christian those are. Their very language of justice, what outrages them, their sense of forensic ethics, are derived from earlier Christian categories. The deeper problem is that these gentlemen really don't have the guts to follow their analyses to the bitter end. I really must leave this site for now, so I offer this question: [b]Is your final goal the extermination of the other races? If not, why not?[/b] I can answer that question in the negative for myself, and for what must seem to someone like GW for the most childish of reasons. I believe in the Christian God. Not that strongly, to be honest, but enough that it prevents my moral erring (from the proper Christian perspective, which is emphatically [i]not[/i][b][/b] the smuggled-in liberalism of today's church!). I believe in God, because I believe in the resurrection of Christ; or more precisely, I'm willing to give His NT story the benefit of the doubt. I do so partly out of a "will to believe", but also out of what might be called evidentiary instinct. I've done a lot of thinking in my life, a lot of observing, a lot of hypothesizing (and a lot of reading, but that is less germane to my point). I've found my hunches to be invariably correct or borne out by later events. To take the first two fairly simplistic and not really impressive examples that come to mind (many others are personal to me, and would be meaningless to strangers). I recall the college economics class in which I first learned about the American Federal Reserve Board. I was immediately skeptical, sensing something very wrong with the discussion of monetary theory. Eventually, I independently theorized my way to a facsimile of the Friedmanite quantity of money theory (the Fed should not manipulate interest rates, but simply announce a set rate of monetary expansion at the beginning of a new cycle). I was not smart enough to reach the Misesian view of central bank abolition (though I recognized its soundness the moment I heard it years later), I admit, but my skeptical instinct was spot on. I have been sound in political instinct, too. I nearly got thrown off a GOP campaign I was staffed on back in '92 for loudly telling volunteers and plain citizens that it was vital for the party as well as conservatism that Bush/Quayle lose. Many famous intellectuals on the Right wanted Bush to win (and were then intending to attack him from the Right). They were devastated by the Clinton win. But I was right - as also with Obama, whom I predicted, on various blogs, would be very good for 1) the GOP, 2) the revitalization of conservatism, 3) the marginalization of the Christian Right (and man was I correct about that! just think if Hillary had won ... all the energy on the Right would have been devoted to the abortion issue), and 4) the expansion of the Racial Right. Amidst all the "death of conservatism" one read about two years ago, I was going against the crowd. I am not credulous. I am hard to sucker (I was a racialist long before I knew there were others of my kind, after all!). But though in my rational intellect I incline to atheism (reduced to agnosticism out of respect for all the brilliant men who have been believers), in my gut I go the other way. I don't pretend to possess a logical, let alone scientific, argument for God. God explains nothing about observed reality, and none of the analytical proofs for His Existence are finally dispositive. But there is something in the NT narrative that strikes me as deeply true. Perhaps I will go into this at greater length tonight, but for now I only say that I don't think the story of the Resurrection would have survived all this time if it were not a real historical event. Think about it. Why did Christianity survive and advance? The ancient Mediterranean was not primeval Africa. These people were more ignorant, but no less intelligent, than we are. If you told me you saw a man jump over the Eiffel Tower, why would I believe you? I wouldn't. Only a few retards might. Who would ever believe that a man who was widely witnessed crucified, widely saw to be dead, and undeniably buried rose from the dead, to be seen by many persons, none of whom are in any way presented as madmen? What utter nonsense! People would laugh at the story. But they didn't. Moreover, the men who claimed to have seen the risen Christ were utterly transformed to the point of willingly accepting gruesome martyrdom. Would you martyr yourself to the cause of some jackass who claimed to have jumped over the Eiffel Tower, or saw someone else do it? Obviously not. No, you can't lie about something like this and really be believed. One lunatic might fit the bill, but not a large group - and not the Apostles as they are presented in the NT. They were believed by converts because they were convincing. They were convincing because they were willing to die for Christ, something that at first they had not been willing to do (recall Peter's denials). They became willing to die for Christ ... why? Because the truth of his teachings was in his physical resurrection. So it is simply my gut instinct, which has done me well over the years, based on what I know of men and the reality of the world of men, to believe in the historicity of Christ. And that gut belief in Christ prevents my doing evil. Because I accept Christ, I am inclined to accept the rest of the core Christian message (albeit in a somewhat purified, and thus heterodox, form), part of which is that all men are presumptively possible brothers in Christ, and thus deserve the benefit of the doubt, too. This in no way implies that I am a pacifist, or believe that race-replacement is part of Christianity (it is not; it is liberalism, which unwise Churchmen have unthinkingly and improperly adopted). But, although I am even a strong eugenicist, I cannot accept an exterminatory ethic, at least not an initiatory one. That is why I would not exterminate the other races. But I don't see what holds you people back (other than the law; but we speak theoretically here). If I were an atheist, I can see no reason why the other races should be permitted to exist. There is no Darwinian morality. Is there insect morality? It is not good for the propagation of my genes that I must compete for finite resources with other races. Indeed, from a Darwinian perspective, one [i]must[/i] be an exterminationist. The only problem, however, and it's a real fly in the ointment for you people, is that natural selection is finally [i]individual[/i] organismic selection. I care about racial survival only to the extent that it aids [i]my[/i] genetic propagation. But what if my genetic propagation is enhanced by marrying a non-white - or by being a race-traitor?
9918848761282920087A good topic on which to bid fair [i]adieu[/i] ... Dasein: I have never believed that Darwinian evolutionary theory precludes Christian belief, though that, too, has been a mere hunch of mine which may not stand up to critical examination (as Christianity itself, or any religion, may not ultimately be justifiable). I would definitely like to see a satisfactory (scientifically grounded) theological reconciliation of Christ and Darwin (really Christ and all science), and believe that to be a chief task of theology today. This vital and fascinating issue was not, however, what I was originally discussing. Your dichotomy between religious myth and superstition is intriguing precisely because I don't know what you're referring to. Please elucidate. [i]In his book, Salter speaks of genetic interest portfolios. One example of the progression of concentration of your genetic interests would be: yourself -> children -> immediate family -> extended family -> nation (ethny) -> race -> species -> closely related species (e.g. chimps) -> less closely related species (e.g. insects). A rational actor could choose to keep a balanced portfolio. So there is also a ‘Darwinian’ response to the ‘exterminationist imperative’. [/i] (Dasein) I find this discussion unclear and unpersuasive. I don't recall this progression from Salter, but regardless, I don't understand what relation is signified by the arrows, at least in the context of my large comment above. I do find a great deal of this genetic interests stuff ludicrous, at least insofar as one supposes one can derive moral precepts from it. Indeed, the whole field of sociobiology is useful in gaining us insights into man's evolved statistically significant psychological nature(s), but useless for moral discussion. Humans are obviously not mere instinctual automatons, as are animals. We [i]choose[/i] to do actions, even if the genesis of that choice-making arises in our basic biological constitution(s). [Note: I keep adding (s) because we have to be very careful to remember that there are different types of human natures or psyches: the general human -> the tribal -> the individual.] What is the point of all this EGI stuff anyway? Basically, I just thought Salter's work demonstrates that Diversity Sucks; that is, that it is natural (ie, we are genetically so 'hardwired') to prefer cohabiting in communities of one's own genetic kind. I have a greater sense of kinship with my own children than with those of other whites; with those of other whites than with non-whites; by logical extension, with non-whites over space aliens. What matters is degree of genetic similarity (though even there we have to step back and use commonsense: how many persons hate their parents, siblings, etc?!). Morality concerns itself with how we [i]behave[/i], especially (but not exclusively) interpersonally - not how we [i]are[/i]. "Nature," says the Christian Katherine Hepburn in [i]The African Queen[/i], " is what we were put on Earth to overcome." Of what real use is Salter's work to white nationalism? As far as I can tell, only that it gives the lie to the notion that racial diversity is [i]not[/i] psychologically alienating or discomforting. It establishes that ethnic or racial prejudice is natural, not per se that it is moral. Essentially, Salter tells us that we're not wicked for being emotional racists, whether we understand that as preferring our own kind, or disliking other kinds. Furthermore, if some human attribute is deeply grounded in our evolved natures, then that fact establishes a boundary that should be respected if we wish to maximize human happiness. Anyway, to the topic at hand, your possible "Darwinian response" to the "exterminationist imperative" would be valid only if exterminating The Other lessened one's own reproductive fitness. This situation would apply to an average black Zimbabwean today wrt any remaining white Rhodesians. The whites are so superior that when they were in charge of Rhodesia the blacks enjoyed a measure of prosperity, too. By exterminating the whites, they are ultimately exterminating themselves. So, yes, there can be cases where a rational Darwinian atheist would not want to exterminate some out-group. But this simply avoids my challenge in your cases, gentlemen, because you know perfectly well that whites derive no enhancement in their reproductive fitness from the presence of diversity, esp of the African variety; absolutely the opposite. If you are an atheist, Dasein, and it were feasible to exterminate the other races, on a finite, overcrowded planet, why wouldn't you? You have not adequately answered me.
9919248761282921839[i]There is only Darwinian morality or, at least, morality based in evolutionary adaptiveness. A morality such as egalitarianism which constrains peoples from making adaptive life choices is a faux-morality[/i]. (GW) I profoundly disagree. I find it difficult to believe [i]anyone[/i] would agree. See my response to Dasein (the webmoniker, not the Heideggerian fiction) above. I would add that the essence of true morality is self-sacrifice. The Bible contains the parable of the Good Samaritan. The essence of the moral act was the personal sacrifice of the Samaritan. Without sacrifice, however slight, there is not morality. Morality involves doing something for the benefit of someone else, who could also be God (eg, not using illicit drugs, which potentially harms no other, but is deemed immoral because such behavior is thought impious). Moral obligation has always been thought, by traditional Western thinkers (including the ancients), to encompass duties to all rational creatures - though the degree and scope of those duties varies by relationship (including genetic similarity, I would hold). What is an "adaptive life choice"? It is one which increases my reproductive fitness. What if it increases my reproductive fitness to rob people? rape women? Are these actions then moral? Evolution by natural selection is blind to motives, and pitiless. It is a natural process. Nothing traditionally recognizable as moral derives from it, per se. This is [b]not [/b]to suggest that modern race-replacement is not immoral. It certainly is, because it introduces present and future unhappiness into people's lives, for the benefit of the malevolent or greedy few. (There is another reason r-r is immoral, and still another to justify resistance to it, but I'm not going to elaborate, as that discussion forms the heart of my book on racial ethics, unfinished and so still unpublished.)
9919548761282925008Angry Beard: What you say is true and interesting, but irrelevant to moral philosophy. First, the essential message of Christianity is NOT that "the meek shall inherit", but that the good shall. Part of being good is practicing humility. A humble character is not necessarily the type that allows others to rape and pillage him. Its essence is NOT self-abasement (that is more Nietzschean nonsense). I try to be humble, respectful, non-aggressive [i]towards good people[/i]. On the other hand, when dealing with the arrogant and immoral, I am very pushy and abrasive. In America (probably now in Un-Great Britain, too), black male youths like to walk down sidewalks in such a way as to require other pedestrians to have to make a special effort to get out of their way. They make no effort to accommodate others. Well, I make no effort to accommodate them. I really do get a secret thrill out of "unintentionally" smacking right into them (sometimes adding a bit of shoulder, if possible). But, I will walk far around a woman with a stroller, or little kids, even out into the street, if necessary. I never make them adjust to me. That is true Christian humility. I am a true Christian (the milquetoast priest is just a liberal coward dressed in religious vestments). Your point about enforcing EGI leading to greater reproduction is true, but not quite apposite. You seem to imply that the leftist critique of Euro-settlement of NA is correct: that we 'stole' 'their' land. Rubbish! That a few hundred thousand wild savages had developed a kind of hunting life across the vastness of NA did not [i]entitle[/i] them to ownership of the whole continent forever. They had a moral duty to share the land; that is, at least not assault peaceful Europeans wanting to settle it and develop civilization. Whites did not have a moral right to kill Indians (unless attacked), but we absolutely had the right to 'move in', and homestead land.
9919848761282928866Notus, I feel guilty here. It seems as though you may have put some serious thought into this paragraph, [i]If you had the patience to really press these types on where the form of the good is to be found they would answer that it is nowhere to be found because it does not exist. The is-ought problem between empirical facts and the form of good is addressed by eliminating the latter as a platonic form and reframing the phenomena of morality in descriptive terms. The latter being just the sum total of what the history of our evolutionary development says is adaptive and the phenomena of morality is explained as the mechanism through which our biology reveals to us its cumulative understanding of what is adaptive. Therefore, to know what is adaptive is to know what our biology recognizes as being morally good., [/i] but, beyond the first sentence, esp at the third, I cannot make sense of it (though I smell 'circularity', as I do in all discussions of evolutionary morality). (Beware anthropomorphism as well, a fallacy rife across MR.) The best 'naturalistic morality' types can come up with is this Salterian utilitarianism, which boiled down (as I wish more persons here would try to do - there is no shame in simplicity, only [i]over[/i]-simplicity) says, to the racial Other, "Your presence does not conduce to my people's long-term happiness, understood selfishly, because EGI theory tells us that like prefers like, and you are unalike. So stay out." Oh, "And we have the right ["right"? normativity smuggled back in?] to utilize brutal authoritarianism against our own people not fully committed to EGI in order to enforce maximizing EGI at all times." And, "We call this tribalist tyranny [i]morality[/i]." Is this a joke? What would Jesus say? Moses? Aristotle? Spinoza? Kant? G.E.Moore? My argument is much, much more involved. I do not believe in morality apart from God. What angers me about today's Christians is that they use the collective Church, its moral prestige, to push an unChristian, basically liberal, agenda. Liberalism with a theistic patina. I've said this for years now, including for a while here. No God, no morality (big claim, worthy of a book itself - but eminently arguable). So the dilemma for GW et al is why be moral when you don't believe in God? (I had a whole discussion on this earlier in the summer, remember?) Why adhere to the ethical essence of Christianity - "Do unto others.." - if there is no God, soul, Heaven, etc? If humans are nothing more than evolved animals (which we are, in part, but not whole), then morality can only extend a limited (genetic, sympathetic) direction - and that's not true morality anyway. And humans can choose to violate that even limited morality - and some do ... But to reiterate my long post above: For GW et al, why not exterminate the other races? Note he hasn't provided an answer. He can't. But this is GW's political fallacy: Face it, bro: we're not going to save the West without a fight (as I keep saying). We are being euthanized today. Actually, I have a neologism to describe exactly the process: "extinctionated". The West is being extinctionated. That is, we are not being exterminated per se. But [u]we are coercively forced to tolerate conditions which so act upon our race as to have the effect of shepherding us to extinction.[/u] (This is not "passive genocide", either, as would be the case with a foreign plague. This is active extinctionation.) The political fallacy is why sacrifice for the race? Why make personal sacrifices, reducing or risking one's personal reproductive fitness, which is what evolution acts upon, right??!! for the benefit of an abstract entity like the white race? I gotta get to work, but, my need to move on notwithstanding, I will flesh this out more (and respond to PF and Desmond) tonight. (This comment to you is really badly written, but I hope you can see some suggestive aspects to it.)
9922548761282987046Leon, [u]For GW et al, why not exterminate the other races?[/u] [i]Logically, why not exterminate every other male? Logically, because genetic interests reside in said males, and cost/benefit therefore applies. [/i] GW _______________________________ This is an inapposite analogy. GI reside in fellow white males - unless we're in a lifeboat situation with limited sustenance, of course. GI do not reside in other races; quite the contrary. On a finite planet, with a shrinking resource base, and ever more large-scale threats due to the greater human 'footprint' viz the biosphere, whites would be in an infinitely better position in terms of their ... (this is so silly) ... 'genetic interests' if other races simply did not exist (were not competing with us for resources and power). Is someone here denying this?! So, back to the unanswered (and unanswerable) issue: why not exterminate (if feasible) the other races? I wouldn't because I am a Christian (not in the least a fundamentalist one, however), and know that the slaughter of non-enemies ("enemies" to be understood as criminals or foreign military aggressors) is wicked in the eyes of God. Maybe I am empirically incorrect in my ontology, but my position is not illogical. A Christian does not kill the innocent. But for the racist atheist, why not (assuming feasibility)? It certainly would have been preferable in terms of EGI, or, more relevantly, quality of life and even physical survival, for the Boers simply to have exterminated SA blacks. You are saying they should not have done so ...? I can make no sense of your position.
9922648761282988666[i]I’m not sure I agree with the proposition that most American whites are meek. In my experience, many of them have stronger racial instincts than Europeans. Many are also Christian, although I don’t buy this alleged positive correlation between Christianity and racial instinct many of you are selling - in my area of residence the Churches are heavily involved in importing all manner of racial aliens to my living space. It hardly matters whether the “true Christianity” is or is not racialist, you see, since the large body of people identifying and active as Christians in America are working against the interests of the white (barely a) majority. Let’s not forget that America, for our purposes, can be viewed as being occupied by an enemy regime. The supposed “strength” of the Latin Americans would evaporate quickly if the enemy regime were not there to persecute racially aware whites and aid & abet the invaders in every way. They, not the religiousness of our people, ought to be the focus of any racial movement as it is they who have done the most damage through political activity. And it will take violence to extirpate them, there is no option for our survival that won’t involve a day of reckoning at some future date.[/i] (Gudmund) ___________________ I agree with most of this, except the part about most Christians being active race traitors. This is incorrect. Most anti-immigration conservatives, for example, are self-identified Christians. Non-Christian or atheist self-identified conservatives are much less rightist on immigration issues. Sorry, pal, just a fact. The Churches are useless, but then so are the media, the universities, the political parties, etc. Race treason permeates our culture and society at all levels. You can't assume from this, however, that the Churches are [i]doctrinally[/i] correct in their treason. They are not. They are being liberal, not Christian. Waking people up to this fact is of the highest practical, strategic importance. The fundamental problem is that too many Christian political conservatives (I'm not discussing what is called "theological conservatism"; Pope John Paul II was very theologically traditionalist, but very liberal racially) exist in a state of psychological tension. They know race-replacement is bad for them and America, but they think white nationalism is unChristian, and thus they abstain from supporting it or even anything tepidly like it (this describes the [i]Chronicles[/i] magazine crowd). Even if [i]you[/i] are an atheist, most whites (especially in America, though also in South Africa, and several European countries, like Poland) are Christians. Moreover, an even greater percentage of white conservatives are Christians, and indeed, take their Christianity very seriously. Certainly, most Christian conservatives take their ethical relation to God to be of greater importance to their lives than their political conservatism, let alone their racial loyalty. You don't deny this, do you? So demonstrating the compatibility of Christianity with white race loyalty is something even an atheist should strongly back. Because otherwise, at least in the USA, I'd really like WN atheists to identify for me exactly who and where are these untapped legions of white atheists who will soon take up our banner. Most white atheists, btw, are liberals.
9923248761282993002[i]Some will protest in typical fashion that multiracialist Christians are not “true Christians,” as if such a term has any meaning. It hardly matters what your version of “true Christianity” is when 95% of Christians vehemently disagree with you, think “racism” is a terrible sin, gleefully promote interracial marriage and adoption, and organize refugee resettlement into homogeneous white areas. They will claim just as strongly that you are not a “true Christian.”[/i] (One) Did you even read my comment to Gudmund? McCulloch is right in his criticisms, but an ignoramus and moron in his conclusions. The correct question is whether the "One World, One Race" ideology is imperative for Christians, that is, inherent to Christianity, and the answer is no, it it is not. Christians are ethical universalists, not (per se) racial integrationists. The point is that the Church, understood doctrinally, is neither pro- nor anti-white, in favor of or against immigration. That today's Church hierarchies are filled with filthy race traitors means they need to be racially reformed - not that we should leave Christianity. This is high school logic - but ungraspable in these parts. Well, the ignorance must be changed. Anyway, just keep living in the Neo-Nazi dreamland just over the rainbow, coming on the day after tomorrow. I'll keep trying to educate one and all in a realistic strategy for race survival.
9931348761283099274[i]how do you propose to “demonstrate the compatibility of Christianity with white race loyalty”[/i]? (Gudmund) Yes, that is the issue. That is what I am working on. I don't wish to be coy, because I do have answers on a number of philosophical levels, but I prefer not to discuss them until I am near publication. Unlike the selfless and self-effacing GW, an atheist who is to some extent a better Christian than I am, I'm intellectually ambitious and seek to make a name for myself in real world scholarship, writing at the intersections of Christian (esp Catholic) natural law theory, conservative traditionalism, biological realism (I am pro-Darwin, not pro-atheist), and racial nationalism. There are two separate issues. [i]Should[/i][i][/i] Christians be white preservationists? And, [i]may[/i] Christians be white preservationists? The former is more difficult, and requires a very different approach to Christian theology. I am still researching this, but I believe I understand how I shall come down, though it could involve developing an entirely new way of conceiving Christian metaphysics (and thus politics). I've never encountered anyone else using my approach; thus, as long as I am unpublished, I keep it to myself. Sorry. The latter is much simpler. I prefer to say that Christianity properly understood (not the secular leftist shit smuggled into today's Churches) is not [i]in[/i]compatible with a non-aggressive white preservationism. Here the issue pertains to the Christian justification for any boundaries in life. This, too, gets into a very long chain of reasoning, but commonsense is good enough for a blog. Does Christianity object to private homes? No. Does Christianity object to the preservation of historic traditions, provided they exist within the bounds of moral law (eg, the Aztec 'tradition' of human sacrifices is not to be respected by the Church, nor a Nazi tradition of beating Jews, nor Islamic tradition of denying education to females, or practicing polygamy, etc)? No. Does Christianity demand the destruction of historic nations through immigration-swamping? No. Does Christianity deny public recognition of scientifically established differences in abilities between the races? No. etc etc. WNs need to be very careful to avoid the secular liberal (and often Jewish!!) equating of Christian moral and social values with liberalism or socialism. The latter doctrines have deeply infected modern Christianity, but that just means Christianity needs a racial reformation - not that Christianity is defective. Don't buy into the self-serving liberal/Jewish caricature of the Faith of your forefathers!!! And always remember: it is easier to take over and build on what already exists, than to construct something wholly new. I have not even scratched the surface of my thoughts on this, but rest assured: it is better for WNs to (racially) 'subvert' Christianity, than to antagonize it.
9931748761283101422Posted by one on August 28, 2010, 10:57 PM | # [i][u]the Church, understood doctrinally, is neither pro- nor anti-white, in favor of or against immigration[/u] So in your best case scenario, Christianity is indifferent to racial survival. As it is now, Christianity completely and enthusiastically supports racial nihilism. Adherence to a religion that condemns our vital interests, but which, if you can formulate your philosophy and somehow persuade Christians of its correctness, would only be indifferent to our racial interests, is supposed to be crucial to our racial survival? [u]Anyway, just keep living in the Neo-Nazi dreamland just over the rainbow, coming on the day after tomorrow.[/u] If anything is a dreamland, it is your fantasy of the resurrection of Crusader kingdoms. It is telling that when pressed you resort to calling us neo-Nazis. [u]I’ll keep trying to educate one and all in a realistic strategy for race survival.[/u] Attempting to resurrect a centuries-gone Crusader Christianity is “a realistic strategy for race survival”?[/i] ______________________________________________________ So little understanding .... this is why I need to move on. It's just a waste of my time endlessly bickering, leading mules to water .... After these threads peter out, my presence at MR will consist solely of asking questions. Much less time consuming. Let others talk. I will learn, or ignore, as the case may be. It would represent an enormous improvement in the prospects of whites if Christianity could be racially neutered in the conservative public mind (leftists are hopeless and always will be, and thus should be ignored by us). As it stands, most conservatives think there is something, well, unChristian about white racialism. They have religious guilt over being pro-white, even though they instinctively know that we are right politically and empirically. That guilt has to be shown logically/doctrinally to be erroneous. And all that is necessary is to demonstrate that one can be a good Christian (ie, one is not jeopardizing one's immortal soul) and a white preservationist (or "true conservative", as I prefer to think of it). Christianity as a doctrine does not support racial nihilism. Institutional Christianity as it exists today sadly is another matter. But just because the worldly Church is corrupt (this time ideologically) doesn't mean its philosophical essence is incorrect. When I call you neo-Nazis it is not meant as an insult. It is what I think you must be logically if a) you reject God, and b) embrace WN. Nazism is the logical place for someone who rejects transcendence and yet is racist. I happen to think Nazism (or at least exterminatory racism) is morally wrong (an atheist WN doesn't, to be logically consistent, have to accept the Fuhrer Principle, fascist economics, secret police, etc, all the non-racist elements of the Nazi ideology), but that's because Nazism surely is incompatible with Christianity (no theologians, traditionalist or modernist, disagree on this point). But what is relevant here is that I think Nazism, or any anti-Christian WN, is strategically wrong. It will forever remain 'ghettoized', which is ultimately not useful for saving our race. Re Crusader Christianity: I was speaking metaphorically! I'm not trying to reestablish medieval Acre. I would like to see a new, tough Christianity (such as existed during the Crusades) replace today's milksop version. You need to increase your literary understanding.
9931948761283104325Fred, Your instincts are dead-on right, and I agree. What is happening to us is the 'extinctionating' (see my def above - or on another recent thread, I forget) of our people, who happen to be the best on Earth, and who have created the most magnificent moral (and everything else) civilization in history- the one which most closely approximates St. Augustine's "City of God". This [i]induced[/i] genocide is really and truly evil, in itself, as well as from the perspective of the intentions of those whose interests it serves. No, the Church [i]in its essence[/i] is not indifferent to the genocide, representing an unprecedented lowering of the existential moral level of humanity, but it is a shame how morally corrupted the Church has become that it does not fight this - even when one huge aspect of the genocide is the Islamification of Christendom! The Church's pretending this genocide is not occurring is a deeply sinful act of bearing omissive false witness on the part of its leaders. Enoch Powell was the better Christian, as well as shrewder man, when he spoke of the statesman's duty to speak out especially against "preventable evils". "A stitch in time saves nine"!! They could use their moral authority to denounce the false, utopian, Tower of Babel god of One Worldism, with all its ensuing horrors built into the historical pipeline. Instead, they ignore reality, preferring to be comfortable than confrontational (how different from their founder on the Cross!!). But for good men to acquiesce in these falsehoods, to be indifferent to the Church's own indifference, would itself constitute an immoral abandonment of the Way and the Truth. The flock is leaderless, but it must still act. Inaction in the face of great evil is evil action. We do not choose our duties; they choose us.
9938048761283179965[i]Why are laymen like Leon Haller forced to be the ones to thrash this out and clarify it? Why isn’t the Vatican doing it? [/i](Fred Scrooby) Fred, Why, indeed? I admit it has been incredibly dismaying to me all these years watching the Church ignore the moral right of indigenous Europeans to preserve their historic communities in the face of unprecedented demographic assaults allied to domestic treason, while loudly defending the [i]exact same[/i] rights to communal autonomy when voiced by non-whites. It is Satan who is supposed to be the Prince of Lies (and Hypocrisies)! A few years ago I attended a conservative conference on the subject of Christianity, the West, and Islam. At one point I publicly asked one of the speakers why the recent Popes were so reticent on the Islamic colonization of Europe. I noted that Islamic guestworkers could conceivably have flown under their radar back in the 50s and 60s, but not even the most cloistered of Pontiffs (and John Paul II was anything but that!) could watch the building of thousands of mosques on once Christian soil with benignity. What gave? Basically, the scholar could only state what I have reiterated here at different times: that the Popes themselves "have been influenced by secular currents of ethnic tolerance" (a rather anodyne way of expressing the ecclesiastical non-response to Christendom's ethnoreligious catastrophe!!). I'm not quite sure the senior members of the Magisterium quite rise to the level of the Antichrist and his minions, but they have certainly been derelict in their pontifical duty to educate and guard their flock (esp JPII, with his excessive media vanity and ecumenical outreaches). Of course, this only reminded me of another event I attended at my parish church a few weeks after 9/11. The Monsignor (head priest) invited a socialist labor law expert (whom I provoked, in a now legendary encounter in my neighborhood, into admitting he knew very little about Islamic history) to lecture us about how 9/11, though horrific, was an understandable reaction to past US involvement in the Middle East (OK, there is about 3% truth there, and we know why, but at the time and in context, the guy was trying to muddy 'the rolling river of righteousness'), and how the "truest American values" were expressed by some coven of Iowa race traitors who donned the veil for a week "in solidarity" with Muslim women in the US about to suffer a presumed nativist backlash!! (If only!) However much our people have been brainwashed, there is still some mental defect or soul-sickness in too many of them, one that is clearly autochthonous, and which we must consider a racial trait we need to work through or around. Finally, I note that I, too, really do wish some leading Vatican or High Protestant theologian (or Orthodox - they are actually the best, esp wrt Islam, probably because they have had centuries under dhimmitude, and more generally, come from a part of the planet less infected with Judeo-liberal antagonism to (white) national identities; but the Orthodox have limited influence in Western Europe and the Anglosphere), one dripping with Latinate erudition, and all the right post-doc training and ecclesial offices, would step up to defend the preservation of Europe. Even just forthrightly condemning EU-imposed Islamic colonization would be a huge start. But do we wait in vain? I can't help recalling Raspail's musings about The Beast and its role ...
9942148761283253162Beck is sickening, as well as stupid. But the Tea Party types (I know some and went to one rally) are potentially receptive to a far tougher message, only Beck is just building his career as a sellout (he wants to make money off the TP, while not alienating himself from the MSM).
9892748771282666613Agreed, but they have got to bite the bullet and change the name of the party. The very name British National Party is an albatross too far. Get rid. Route one, speed things up, time is running out. Change the name. Just look at Blair, New Labour. Bingo! (Bill) _________________________________ How about "Britain First"? The BFP? (hahaha, I chuckle, but am serious) or, "Britain Forever"? or, (I'm not joking, I think this is good), "Stability Party"?
9892848771282667164Brilliant comment from Wandrin at 8/21/10 above. Absolutely on target across the board.
9893048771282667533"Our Land" is also an excellent suggestion. Very evocative, yet pithy. Brilliant, really. Kudos.
9893548771282674460Wandrin, You are very intelligent, but with an admirably commonsense style of presentation. I am surprised that I have not attended to your thoughts at greater length in the past. But I am impressed.
9892548791282666198WNCompedium: That's a really good idea. Wasn't there once a pretty good collection at yggdrasil (sorry if misspelled, plus I don't know the address)? But to make this work, GW needs to create a separate in-site link, maybe under "Of Note", so that we can go directly in there with suggestions. It would be futile simply to post them in comment threads like this one. They would get lost.
9909148801282824763I have for over a decade profited from Mr. Nuenke's work in the field of eugenics, but I fail to see the point of posting this essay here at MR. Does anyone disagree? Garbage in, garbage out. Fairly obvious. It would have been far more useful if Nuenke had offered up an argument, or some data, on [i]white[/i] educational declines. We know most minorities are dumber than whites, and thus lower us in international comparisons. But do we have much evidence on genetic declines in our people? I believe we have some (I think I remember reading as much from Richard Lynn), and it is not encouraging. It certainly seems as though each new generation of whites over the 20th century has been less intelligent than the preceding one - especially when one takes into account the huge increases in education funding, now pretty much enabling all (non-retarded) whites to become literate, which was not always the case in times past (I seem to recall reading that the great Confederate soldier-general, and heroic founder of the Knights of the KKK, Nathan Bedford Forrest, was illiterate - though he damn sure was not unintelligent!). Given the importance of literacy to intellectual achievement, we would expect so much more of such achievements now that there is general white literacy. Yet, if anything, there is less (especially if one removes Jews from the analysis).
9900348821282746924Wrestling with issues raised at MR often has the dispiriting effect of making me feel unintelligent (and Notus Wind's brainteaser sure didn't help in that department!). Increasingly, I find my thinking somewhat stale; I have little or nothing to add to what I have discussed previously. On that note ... I reiterate: [b]Am I not correct in arguing that it is probably the case that every white nation [/b](or at least Western white nation - though Eastern Europe doesn't seem to be immune, either) [b]is going to experience "The Demographic Transition" (hereafter DT) over the next half-century or so[/b] (a sidebar: in one sense, I think that makes even us seeming 'latecomers' - Revilo Oliver was opining on these matters in the early 60s; Lothrop Stoddard immediately after WW1, though in the latter's case, the worry was more about declining white geopolitical strength, as opposed to the horrors of importing our own agents of extinction - nevertheless "racialist pioneers", for we are The Awakened decades before the bulk of our people get awakened themselves, by which time of course it will be too late for our "Phase 1" concern - ending immigration - to matter much)? [b]That is, that before our people become racially awakened, we shall have been transformed into racial minorities in all historic white homelands[/b] (maybe not Iceland, as Dr. Duke likes to say, but with a quarter of a million people, a pint-size [i]Camp of the Saints[/i] armada will be sufficient to end that Viking settlement)? Do people disagree with me? As a prediction, we obviously don't know to any certainty whether I am right. But I am basing my conclusion on the present ratio of racialist activism and electoral success (the latter especially in Europe, as in N. America and AU/?NZ there simply are no nationalist parties, though that fact itself, at least outside of the peculiar American duopolistic party-system, is not encouraging) to the numbers of alien colonists. In the USA, for example, we are absolutely no more than 65% white (and that includes Jews; many Hispanics of decidedly mixed heritage who choose to call themselves 'white' on censuses and interviews; possibly all or most Arabs; many self-identified or 'passing' whites who have some 'diversity' in their genes; and finally, the large number of Old Stock persons, including some in my own family, who really are white, racially, aesthetically and culturally, but who do have some aboriginal genetic material in them from way back: I see it in the slightly Mongoloid eyes of some of my - very blonde! - cousins). In reality, we are no more than 60% white, possibly less, and that does not include the 20-30 million illegal aliens resident here, 99% of whom are clearly non-white. And yet, look really at how [i]little[/i] racial/nationalist activism there is. I am the first to argue that there is a healthy racist undercurrent to the present vociferous denunciations of illegal immigration, though some of that positive, ratcheting vituperation is also due to our terrible economy. If unemployment were at 4%, and the Dow at 15,000, does anyone think we would have the same level of outrage about border issues? And even with our economic nightmare, who is talking about ending [i]legal[/i] immigration, running at 140,000 per goddam month! This is the best time in my lifetime for otherwise racially timid conservatives to link ending immigration with reserving American jobs for Americans - but who, outside of the Usual Right, is doing so?! So surely everyone agrees that America [b]will[/b][i][/i] become majority non-white, and, per my prediction in 1989 (!), very possibly by 2020 (and by 2030 at the latest). Even if we dramatically reduce immigration (and as Fred Scrooby's beloved Talmud has it, "if not now, when?"), we will simply succeed in pushing out the DT to maybe 2050 (after all, by how much does anybody really think we will actually be able to reduce immigration? a fantastic breakthrough would be 50%, leaving us still with 800-900k of high-fertility, non-white immigrants annually, not counting illegals). Will the same thing happen to aging White Europe? From everything I hear and read (including here), it seems likely. The ratio of racial agitation (not to mention still more limited political successes) to the present and incoming levels of aliens is just too discrepant to suggest that Europe will be able to save itself. Maybe this or that small country will stop immigration before the DT, but then they will be at the mercy of their bigger, Islamified/Third Worldized neighbors. Even if they are not overrun militarily, with their borders opened compulsorily, they don't have the size, physically or demographically, really to be independent. They will be racially Finlandized. My interest is in where we go from there. How do we save our race post-DT? I think this is a worthy topic of extended discussion. I also think my suggestion of emigration-conquest is also worthy of examination. That is, in this epoch of global capital flows, easy transportation, and instant communication, we whites, the last 'subjective whites' (remember: many of our impious racial kinsmen have no interest in preserving the West or our race, and never will until their last moments before extermination) from amongst all the nations, could theoretically stage a Counter-DT. There are enough of us, I think, or there will be as things darken, scattered across the world to be able to immigrate-conquer a small sovereign territory of our own, which could serve as our own racial state or genetic reservation, our own Israel. Any thoughts?
9909548821282830197Wanderer, very useful post. Of course correct, though I disagree with your explanation for the superior prognosticatory powers of past race-patriots: [i]Why was Lothrop Stoddard able to get so many things so right? To me, it’s because enlightened racialism is a noble thing (preserving the diversity of Mankind), and therefore allows for the clearest vision. Lesser ideologies—namely those which place economics as the highest aspect of human endeavor—will always get more things wrong than those with nobler intentions will.[/i] (Wanderer) This strikes me as overly-sentimental, whereas I think the reason is the diametric opposite. Enlightened racialism may or may not be a noble thing, but I am almost certain that Stoddard, Grant et al. were not particularly interested in the "diversity of mankind", except to attend to it in order to ensure that it would never catch the white man unawares, and thus threaten Western power. These men were motivated by geopolitical considerations, and hard-headed calculations about national/racial survival. May our race produce more of them!
9910348821282838736Sam Davidson, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think you have somewhat misunderstood my intentions, however, perhaps due to my failure adequately to explain (in this particular thread) what I meant by "conquest", and that you are overly pessimistic, though your concerns are clearly valid, and need to be kept in mind. First, note what I said: [i]There are enough of us, I think, or there will be as things darken, scattered across the world to be able to immigrate-conquer a small sovereign territory of our own[/i]. I never said nor meant to imply that we would [i]militarily[/i] conquer and 'cleanse' a territory. That may one day be necessary, though not necessarily possible. By "immigrate-conquer" I have always meant do to some sovereign country what, say, Cubans have done to Miamians, what homosexuals have done to straight San Franciscans, what African-Americans have done to the white natives of pre-war Detroit, and what Mexicans are doing to the US as a whole, starting with the southwestern states; that is, take over [i]demographically[/i]. We immigrate somewhere quietly, legally, gain citizenship, start bloc voting in favor of ever-more white immigration (which the "natives" won't necessarily oppose, [i]as they will be white themselves[/i][b][/b]), and then gradually change the character of the country into a WN one. Is this really so hard to do or far-fetched? Lots of WN whites (and our numbers are growing, and will one day grow exponentially, in tandem with our reduction to universal minority status (ie, racial minorities in all traditional polities)) could well be imagined to want to move to a place where they/we can live amongst our own kind, especially if non-white majorities persecute us (which they assuredly will, though the degree of oppression will vary considerably). And, if I am correct about the universality of the non-white DT, then what other realistic options will we have to preserve our race/culture? Second, where to go? The key is that it must be a sovereign nation, assuming we want to accomplish our task without the bloodshed of traditional, physical conquest (and we would, or else uh's allegedly 'realistic' objections become sound; it is likely that even a majority of WNs would rather see our race collectively euthanized through territorial dispossession and genetic amalgamation than actually have to engage in physical warfare, especially of an overseas, guerilla nature). Carving out a new sovereign nation from an old one is a way more bloody affair than merely colonizing a country through immigration. What the hell is happening to us, after all?! No Western nation has been militarily conquered by non-whites. We have been sold out by our own greedy (and in some cases, genuinely self-hating as well as hateful) elites, who have facilitated the immigration conquest of their own lands. Why can't we do this to some other country? Third, again, where to go? I suggest that we must choose a demographically small, traditionally white nation (or historic or geographically defined and isolated territory which has a degree of autonomy or at least clear boundaries, and thus the makings of an independent nation: I'm thinking of Quebec in the first instance, Alaska in the second, my statements above notwithstanding). It should have as few non-whites as possible starting out. It should have the ability to generate a high-degree of economic self-sufficiency. It should be First World, or very close to it. It would be nice for me, but also maximally efficacious, though not [i]absolutely[/i] necessary, if it were already an English-speaking place, given that the largest primary language spoken by whites is English - and English is by light years the most common second language among whites. It is, after all, very important to speak the language of the place you are emigrating to (well, at least for whites, majorities of whom everywhere are not unskilled laborers for whom language is unimportant to their occupations). Latvia may be a still very white and fine place (and may it ever remain so!), but unless I am faced with outright extermination and just want to go anywhere white which will have me, I will not move there, because I could never sufficiently master their language to work as a professional. Mere slow-motion racial extinction in the US is never going to be enough to get me to work as a janitor in a foreign country! So what are our options? [u]Present Day Majority White Territories With Historically Defined Boundaries, Small(ish) Overall Populations and Small Populations of Non-Whites/Muslims[/u] Australia New Zealand Alaska Ireland Quebec Costa Rica Uruguay ======== Argentina Southern Brazil Provinces ======== Scandinavia Baltics Switzerland Luxembourg, Lichtenstein Slovenia Czech Rep. Slovakia Croatia Serbia I rule out the third category simply for linguistic reasons. Very few WNs will be 'peaceful pioneers' to these countries as the language unfamiliarity will lead to too great an economic/professional sacrifice. These European countries are also dangerously situated viz their larger, future-Islamified neighbors; and Europe as a whole is dangerous to any sovereign country because of the EU, which is ever more totalitarian, and centralized (and whose bureaucracy will, it is posited, be under Islamic or Third Worldist/self-hating white control). I put Argentina and Southern Brazil into their own category because they are majority white (albeit of the darker, Southern variety), and mostly Western (but with dangerous levels of Latino influence), but they have sizeable populations, and thus might not be so easy to immigrate-conquer (or immigrate-conquer-secede, though Southern Brazil does have a lot of racially-tinged secessionist sentiment). Our most realistic choices are in the first category. Among them, Australia (or, perhaps only Tasmania!) is clearly the most promising. It is First World. It is New World. It is English-speaking. It has a tradition of white immigration, and thus might be more welcoming of lots of white foreign immigrants than an Old World white nation with a deep national culture and history like Ireland. It is wholly sovereign. It has a developed economy which could accommodate white professionals as well as laborers. It is geographically more defensible than most countries (even in the age of nukes, don't underestimate the psychological and still military importance of ocean boundaries - especially in the age of 'migratory/demographic' warfare), as well as wonderfully physically isolated (and so psychologically more prone to isolationism, and thus comfortable with it). Though it's carrying capacity is not remotely commensurate with its geographic dimensions, it does have a lot of still unharvested resources, especially minerals. I believe it could be agriculturally self-sufficient (though I am not sure it would need to be; a gradually whitening and racializing Australia would evolve into a very prosperous place, one with which other nations would want to trade (and exchange tourists), not go to war over ultimately unimportant issues of 'political correctness'!). Australia could support a bigger economy, and thus population. Finally, Australia has a bothersome aboriginal population, but it's small and fairly politically quiescent (unlike the Maoris of NZ, who are expanding rapidly, and nationalistically). Much worse, it has idiotically allowed a huge amount of non-white immigration over the past three decades, but the absolute numbers are still not that great, and the rate of immigration has been slowed recently. Their disloyal business community pushes for immigration, but ordinary Aussies are mostly against it. My suspicion is that Aussies are not anti-immigration at all - merely, sensibly, anti-[i]colored[/i] immigration. I have the distinct impression that Aussies might be very supportive of greater [i]white[/i] immigration, especially as the Australian mind is still somewhat taken with the old (perfectly legitimate) worry about being 'swamped' by Asians. I must end now. I will pick up this discussion in the evening. I note that my second choice for optimum demographically conquerable area is Alaska, though it presents many difficulties, the biggest one being a colored-dominated US being unwilling to give up its vast natural resources to a bunch of white separatists.
9910548821282839137[i]If we go down, we might as well take heart from the example of the boys trapped on the rapidly sinking HMS Hood in freezing North Atlantic waters.Remember how those poor chaps vainly and valiantly fired off one last salvo in defiance when only the bow of the ship stayed above surface.[/i] (Angry Beard) Yes, but too fatalistic. We are a great race, with immense latent resources. We are not inevitably doomed. The future is indeterminate, and it is darkest before the dawn.
9910948821282841723Wexler, I think your population stats are wrong re US. Right now, real whites (including those with a bit of Apache in them from the 19th century or earlier, but who look basically like Europeans) are in fact about 60% of the total population (I am excluding Middle Easterners, including Jews, though some of both groups self-identify as white, and look like it), though that number is falling rapidly, and you are right about the white/non-white age discrepancy. The Census claims whites will transition to minority status by 2042; after the tabulation of the current census (2010), that projected date will drop at least to 2040, though I expect it to go down further, probably to 2037 or even 2035. I believe the real DT will occur between 2020-25. As for a white American ethnostate, we must work ceaselessly for this, though whether it ever will be viable through peaceful means is unclear (but if there should be violent social and civic breakdown, the range of possibilities could expand quickly and dramatically; we must prepare ourselves to take advantage of such civic dislocations).
9911148821282843221Be careful, Notus Wind. Ideologists (of all persuasions) are always predicting the imminent or near-imminent end of the US, but it lumbers on. It won't forever, of course, but my money is still on a peaceful euthanasia of WA (race-replacement + intermarriage), until extermination at the very, very end (2080-2100) of the last true (unreconstructed or 'subjective') whites, with a DT to full-on Third World status (ie, economically, politically, and sociologically, in addition to racially, which will occur first) not before 2050. Someone as bright as you should have a more sophisticated vantage of these matters. By 2030, absent what I have called elsewhere the Omega Option (aka, Camp of the Saints: destruction through immediate, massive importation of aliens), but also absent any immigration reduction, the US will still be at least 45% white (real white; with Jews, etc, it will still be 50%+ white). Whites will be older on average, but they will remain far wealthier and politically dominant. We will be shrinking and declining, but still disproportionately in control throughout most of society. This group will not allow America to disappear as I think you anticipate, and I cannot myself foresee any possibility that a mere 20 years will suffice for it to lose everything. You are being a "terrible simplifier", disregarding the complexities in a society such as ours, including that people do change their operational thinking in new situations. Already, I have two assinine friends who voted for Obongo, but who are now going to "cross the line" and vote GOP in November. And don't underestimate the extent to which our economic problems are self-inflicted, and therefore remediable, or mitigable. Contrary to some of the conspiratorial defeatists lurking around here, the Jews do not control the whole economy and all politics and discourse. As times worsen, so spines will stiffen. It is happening already.
9918248821282910641Notus Wind, Thank you for occasionally addressing remarks to me. I have enjoyed 'dialoguing' with you. That said, I have now definitely concluded that I am wasting my time on this site. I am amazed at how many lengthy, suggestive comments of mine (see, eg, above) generate absolutely no discussion (let alone understanding of their at least conceivable relevance if not importance to our situation). Regulars here, so assured in their shallow pronouncements, and these despite what is to those of us truly literate and educated, an obvious lack of erudition across a range of non-Darwinian topics, just go on blathering in their merry way, failing to distinguish what might be significant from what is irrelevant, juvenile or ephemeral. I acknowledge and appreciate GW's hard work in putting together a wonderful site like this. But I cannot say there is very much in the way of new theoretical or even strategic political insights on offer. Moreover, my old work at the [i]Chronicles[/i] and [i]takimag[/i] sites (before I was banned at both, merely for challenging their lack of racial awareness) was invariably better understood and appreciated by fellow bloggers. Fuck it. My psyche, interests, strategic approaches, educational background and general outlook are incompatible with this site. I really need to discipline myself, and focus on my research for my book-in-development on racial ethics within the Christian natural law tradition. That will obviously do more for the intellectual side of our struggle than my continuing to spill ink here. Haller
9921848821282978380uh, I am shall we say readying to exit. My work here is simply not understood by very many (I don't mean literally; I don't write like some of the often unintelligible postmodernists lurking about; I mean its correctness). I stress two issues above all: the need to 1) develop an ethics of white racial preservation philosophically compatible with the Christian tradition; and 2) 'face the music' about our impending universal racial territorial minoritization (DT), and develop strategies to preserve our people (and Western civilization!) post-DT, towards which I have then offered as my preferred solution the peaceful, quiet, subterranean WN demographic/immigration conquest of some territory with existing, politically defined boundaries or, better, a sovereign country. My comments on these matters, despite being frequently lengthy and always clearly written, are met with at best dismissal, more usually, stony silence, which suggests either that I am a fool, or others are. However that may be, clearly my mentality is not in sync with more than a few persons in the "MR community". Ergo, my work is wasted, as is my effort, which could be put to better use (for our cause) in other ways. I will finish discussions on threads in which I have been a participant, and then continue reading the posts as time permits. But my future contributions, as limited time and resources permit, would be better directed towards, on the one hand, my scholarly work (which long-term is most meaningful to me anyway), and on the other, pursuing certain very practical activist avenues. I am very articulate as well as aggressive in debate, and, along with a local politician friend, often funny and outrageous in conversation. My friend and I have been actively pursuing getting our own talk radio show, which I think could happen in the next couple of years (it depends on factors too numerous to discuss here, including raising sponsors, which is tough and time-consuming, unless you are already famous). No, it will not be WN at the outset, but it will be [i]American[/i] nationalist, which covers some of the same ground. If we/I could ever make it, that is, develop a real, self-perpetuating audience, we/I would gradually move further along the Racial Right. We also are going to set up a 501(c)3 organization devoted to American nationalism. My goal is to contribute to our cause, and the conservative one more broadly, on a full-time basis someday, when I am fully financially secure.
9923148821282991596[i]Any concrete action we take towards the 14 Words will be met with force - either on part of the government or international forces. What I would like to impress upon other Whites is that we must fight to survive and this is the natural state of things. But I am 100% behind your plan! I don’t know much about Australia, but I’d imagine that the East Asians are beginning their demographic takeover. I’ve been to the Pacific Northwest, and but for an unfortunate circumstance I would have lived in Alaska for a while. The Northwest seems like a good place. Beautiful land, plenty of White people (although brainwashed). What is your opinion of Russia? [/i](Sam Davidson) __________________________ Sam, Ultimately, I fear you are right: whites somewhere will inevitably have to fight for their survival, though in most places most whites will be peacefully, voluntarily genetically amalgamated through miscegenation. Their genomic lines will simply disappear from the white gene pool. Out here in CA, it is horrifying to see the number of young white girls walking arm in arm with non-white men. No one forces them to do this. The point I made above, however, emphasized the quiet and clandestine aspect of demographically conquering someplace through concerted white immigration. We don't have to move in blaring the 14 words! We simply pick the best place, and start moving (which is not an easy process, so this type of plan would take 1-2 generations to be fully realized - but we're talking about the survival of a 100, 000 or 1,000,000 year old sub-species, so what's 40-50 years?). As WNs move in, we electorally organize (just as minorities do in the West) in pursuit of our interests, which would initially be for more white (and only white) immigration. As we become more powerful we keep pushing the envelope in moving the society in an ever greater WN direction. I'm talking about (re)building the Racial State. Only, instead of doing it after a violent revolution, which I do not see in the cards any time soon, if ever, we do it gradually, quietly, peacefully, always with an eye to maintaining economic prosperity. As I have argued in other comments on this site, I hold this to be the most realistic chance for ultimate white survival (even though from our present perspective it sounds far-fetched). I explained above my opinion on the suitability of Australia. Scoping out the Pac Northwest is an old racialist idea, but that would involve carving out a new country, as well as building an ethnostate - and that [i]would [/i]mean the war you've predicted. That will require revolutionaries. I'm trying to do this in a professional, non-dislocative way, so as to attract normal whites, non-revolutionary whites, who will always be the more numerous. As for Russia, I'm not optimistic, either for their own racial national survival, or as a possible WN colony. Although they are declining in population, they are still very large. In the early stages, how many committed WNs do you think there are or will be? We need a place with a small enough absolute population for us to have an impact. Then there are all the other negative factors: language difficulty; a still undeveloped economy that might not have jobs, or suitable ones, for incoming WNs; harsh climate; unfriendly people; lack of amenities; unstable currency; etc. We need a developed country with an advanced economy and a small population, not too many minorities, in which the language preferably is English. (Decent climate there too - nasty in Russia). Unlike the regular writers-dreamers-whiners here, I'm actually trying to think of something realistic and practical to advance our racial survival as things worsen. This discussion seems more useful than ones about Darwin, ontology and atheism.
9931148821283097296[i]First, I see violent repression as inevitable. Secondly, any “implicit” racial approach is going to fall on its face. If we’re just “voting with our feet” then we’re repeating the same losing strategy that Whites have been pulling for the past fifty years. First we lost the big cities, then we lost the good ol’ South, and now we’ve lost the entire country. We have to actually stand for something in whatever place we go. (Taking a stand does not mean a ‘last stand!’) Our territorial ambitions will only allow us to regroup. Holding that ground will require willpower and resistance.[/i] (Sam Davidson) I don't disagree with you. Not in the least. In fact, you remind me of another Sam, the late Dr. Francis, in his objection to white separatism and his preference for white domination. These are very complex issues, which don't admit of any clear answer favoring one approach over the other. I am only certain of one thing. It is far easier to repress people [i]intra[/i]nationally than [i]inter[/i]nationally. Obviously, the latter occurs, too (recall the West's suicidal destruction of South Africa), but the former is more usual. Yes, we are going to have to fight for our collective existence someday. But that will be far easier to do if we effectively control a sovereign nation (such that confronting us means war), even a small one (think Israel, and how it has survived - and even without America's money and weaponry, it would still survive now). South Africa was morally guilt-tripped, and economically-sanctioned, by the West, but it still ultimately committed suicide. I suppose the real counter to my own position is the geopolitical argument; that is, that a tiny racial state divorced from the superpower of the US, Russia, or potential superpower of the EU, would fall prey to to a non-white great power like China, or maybe some Hispanic confederation. On the other hand, the building of the racial state would be a gradual process, which would occur in tandem with that state's growing wealth. Our little WN state would not have to oppose trade per se; we could combine racial preservationism with radical laissez faire in the manner of Hong Kong. Business elites in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America might not really care about our nationalism - only the dumb liberal whites would!! But what really would the latter do about it? I should really do up a post on this, think through all my ideas. I continue to believe that the greatest threat (until the very, very last white holdouts are confronted, sometime in the 22nd century) is peaceful absorption, destroying us demographically through both immigration and ever greater miscegenation. We absolutely must have at least one sovereign nation which WE WNs control. Our own Israel. Without racial/political sovereignty, I believe we are doomed. I don't have any email from you. Did I ever give out my public e-address? I keep this one only for web commentary, so it's not my truly private one, but I'm curious how you could have sent me any email? Anyway, do you want my e-address? LH
9942048821283252791CS, Interesting idea about "buying" an area, but I am sceptical. At some point we need military of our own, which as mere 'renters' we won't be allowed. I'm completely open to new suggestions, but mind my point about language. English is the language spoken by the largest number of whites, both as a primary language and overwhelmingly as a secondary one. We must be [i]practical.[/i] Who will move as a 'pioneer' in the manner of 19th century America; that is, dealing with endless hardships and economic deprivation when whites, lets face it, are being euthanized, not exterminated? I live in one of the most densely racially diverse areas probably of the world. Virtually everywhere I go, I'm in the racial minority of persons around me. Yet, because there are only a few blacks in my haunts, things proceed in reasonably civilized fashion. Whites are disappearing around me, but my area is not turning into a black ghetto. And thus, though I exist in a constant state of simmering alienation, would I possibly up and move to [i]Croatia[/i], a place where any adult American (or Anglo from elsewhere) would find it incredibly difficult ever to master the language? As I mentioned above, my life would have to be in literal racial danger before I would do that. I think most persons with real world jobs, families and lives would agree with me. Reconsider my arguments re Australia. They need and can handle an increase in population, but already the Aussies are getting angry about Asian immigration. Maybe I should do a whole article on this, either for here or elsewhere?
9946248821283334050[i]If we were to choose a non-English speaking country, we would simply create an English speaking area (ghetto) which is what non-English speaking immigrants do in our countries.[/i] (CS) But that defeats the purpose. I want WNs to conquer a place through demography [i]and[/i] political involvement. I want WNs to become very integrated in their new country/future WN homeland. If whites just want to be ghettoized we can stay in the US, or our home countries. My original point was that eventually, without WN reactions, [i]every[/i][i][/i] white nation is going to become majority non-white. From that point it is only a matter of time until first our culture, and finally our race, disappear. WN emigration/conquest is to stealthily come to numerically (and then politically) dominate a sovereign territory, to provide a final homeland for our people.
9946348821283334154Croatian isn’t that difficult. Work those lips. (uh) You are an obvious expert in ([i]Serbo[/i]-)Croatian.
9912548831282852879Ok, this didn't exactly strike a chord (or elicit a single comment), so ... I re-post. Because it's important (to me, anyway). I still think we need to develop that “nationalist minimum”, and then start practical, tactical discussions. I don’t think we need to theorize everything at the outset. We know what we want: White preservation! Non-white foreigners OUT!! No excuses or exceptions. We don’t need to resolve the strategic mistakes or ethicality of all the wrong turns our race has followed. We don’t need extended intra-racial bickering. We don’t need to establish the exact ontological status of Jewry. We don’t even exactly need to determine who is white. We simply must stop the alien invasion. Without that, all other issues become (near-) mute (well, for now; once we have lost of demographic majorities, we then need to think about how to protect ourselves as minorities). One idea/question: how best can we further the development of a Pan-European genetic nationalist movement? What we need is pro-white internationalism. This is obviously not a new idea, but does there exist any international pro-white organization? Could one be created? I’m thinking of something that transcends borders, and specific nationalisms. An international white brotherhood, not simply an alliance of nationalist parties. Say, The Leonidas Legion. The Indo-European League. Or just the Aryan Legion, the Occidental League/brotherhood/whatever. Note how the Jews jealously protect the interests of their own everywhere, not just in their own countries and Israel. We need some international organization which can be similarly internationally active, but which would also serve as an international social club of sorts. A place of refuge in major cities around the world, with the ability to recommend amenities, provide emergency legal or banking referrals, etc. If we aren’t just blowing endless hot air, we all have to get out of cyberspace and into things in the actual world. Just some thoughts from someone who’s been thinking for decades, but wants to start doing.
9918148831282907330Ah, another suggestive comment of mine generates absolutely no notice. Fuck it. My intellect, interests, strategic approaches and general outlook are incompatible with this site. I shall waste no more time here.
9930948831283095661Good article, Mr. Miller. Kudos! One caveat re Japan and immigration. They don't receive immigration. It is not because they are 'exempted' by some shadowy cabal of nation-killing internationalist scum. It is because there is no large segment of native Japanese demanding 'diversity'. WNs like to say the West is being murdered, and there is much truth in that. But we are also, collectively, committing suicide. Japanese may be famous for honorable [i]hara kiri[/i], but they have no collective deathwish.
9953748831283425123Posted by heartfelt on August 28, 2010, 04:15 PM | # [i]I’m with Leon @ August 26, 2010, 07:01 PM, on doing rather than theorising. On the issue of political organisation, revolution, and liberation war, I think Whites need to look into their soul and ask themselves, would you be willing to organise and mobilise as a people and if forced to do so commit extreme actions in defence of your family, your people, your country? Are you man enough and clear-eyed enough to overcome the intellectual and moral qualms about standing up in the real world? For White people, this is all it comes down to!!! That’s it. We are not in a difficult dilemma here, folks. Once you accept the moral necessity of revolution and its attendant behaviours, then the process simply becomes a question of, How? Where? When?[/i] __________________________________ Sorry I missed this. So many threads, I lose track of where I am. I definitely agree on the 'primacy of the practical', which is not said to disparage the more intellectual among us. My 'practical' understanding is perhaps more evolutionary than heartfelt's revolutionary attitude, however. I suspect there almost certainly will come a time when some white men, somewhere, will have to fight for racial survival (and I'm not talking about merely those in an American prison). But before we reach that point, both of desperation as well as supreme possibility, all of us in our various capacities will have had to have done a lot of groundwork, at least if something broadly racially constructive can be expected to issue from such struggle. What I've suggested in recent weeks re: "WN emigration/conquest" is an example of this. It's very easy to get overly enthusiastic when one is sounding off amongst his [i]kameraden[/i] in cyber-beerhalls like MR. But later one awakens, the music is silent, and the dawn is grey. At that point one has to think of the gritty details of implementing one's proposals. Thus, for example, my emphasis on language familiarity when considering WN emigration. Because with language familiarity come much greater professional opportunities - and that tethering of our race-survivalist strategies to the ordinary business of life is what will turn idealistic aspirations into real, if always somewhat messier than planned, achievements.
9953848831283426847[i]It is murder in that the driving force is Jewish and most non-Jews disapprove of what’s going on. You know more about that than most people. Still, I suppose you don’t like the idea of expelling Jews. And you keep insisting that part of the problem is our collective deathwish. Talking like that makes you a suicidal accessory to the Jews. It is suicidal to accept the suicidal thesis. In your place, I think the Japanese would have no qualms expelling the Jews. That is because they have no collective deathwish. More seriously, I don’t think you are suicidal at all. I think you want to be respectable, avoid any harshness to the poor Jews, and avoid too much blame to yourself. In fact, you are the same as everyone else. Other people are not suicidal either.[/i] (Armor) ________________________________________ I'm not altogether sure of what your criticisms are of me from the above, except that I am too soft on Jews. The latter may be true, as I am influenced by my having a large number of Jewish friends, including many racial conservatives among them (I also have a large number of anti-Semite friends). On the other hand, if you read everything I write, I'm pretty blunt (including with the aforesaid Jewish friends) about the damage Jews have done to the US and the West. But unlike the majority here, I do hold out the possibility that more Jews could be converted to Occidentalism, especially as the overall racial situation continues to deteriorate. Jews may aggress against white EGI, but non-whites have no love for Jews at all. I sense the possibility of a mutually beneficial alliance. As for the suicidal stuff, you are sadly wrong (believe me, I wish it were otherwise). Maybe "suicide" is too strong, too intentional. But "apathetic" is on the mark. I know at least three things. In 2000 white Americans could have voted for Pat Buchanan, but didn't. OK, too little info, desire to beat Gore, whatever. But in 2002 (I think), the French had the chance to vote for LePen. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE NOT TO. Less than a fifth of the electorate did so, despite the clear evidence of France being colonized by savages. How can you explain that? Murder? "Cannibalism"? Nonsense!! The French majority felt that accepting mass [i]l'immigration sauvage[/i] was better than voting [i]pour le raciste[/i]. I call that suicide (ditto the non-BNP vote this year in UK). You, and those WNs in agreement with you, just can't deal with the fact that our race has degenerated into one basically of morons and lickspittles; in a word, losers. I'm trying to preserve our blood purity and territorial sovereignty in the hope that, centuries hence, our race will have sloughed off the snakeskin of liberalism, and returned to its ancient greatness. But we need to survive this period of degeneracy if that is ever going to happen. Oh, and I am respectable - and WN will only succeed when its public face likewise becomes respectable. We tried the skinhead approach in the past. For all the tough guy rants, it failed.
9953948831283427326[i]The great mass of people have interests contrary to theirs and if they could but be made aware of this fact, their awakening would endow a pro-White movement with untold strength. Our largest problem is people like the conservatives in America and their equivalents in Europe who divert the energy of large numbers of disaffected Whites into the causes of impotent controlled opposition (i.e., Tea Party in America, ‘culturist’ rather than racialist nationalism in Europe, etc). Since we lack the ability (funds, ‘legitimacy’, etc) to organize on a mass-scale like they can, GT and Maguire’s idea of from-the-bottom-up political organization is the only approach which makes sense[/i]. (Gudmund) I don't disagree. But I stand my ground. Whites as a race are simply more ethical than other races, and this translates into greater concern for the 'feelings' of others, as well as greater vulnerability to race-based guilt-mongering. Even many whites who agree with us (that importing diversity is undesirable) are ashamed of their feelings, and certainly think it immoral for us to organize to advance our EGI, even if the cost is national suicide. Hence my oft-stated belief in the vital importance of establishing the morality of WN, which for me in the American context, means reconciling WN with Christianity.
9911348841282844349OK, I have not read the article, and can't right now. But what in the world is the second illustration supposed to be about?
9922748841282989108Not quite, Lurker. I am not so sure of the white military character anymore. How does the dysgenic decline of whites over the past 100 years play into this? My uncle was a career US military officer, and he was of the opinion that the human quality of the white recruits had gone down over the decades of his service. I think we win mainly due to economics and our willingness to spend ourselves into penury on military budgets.
9942448881283257079I have a mixed reaction to Mr. Miller. I agree with everything he has written. I, and lots of others, have also felt this way, and talked this way, for at least 20+ years. The first issue of [i]American Renaissance[/i] plaintively asked "who speaks for us". There is literally nothing in this post that hasn't been said, including here at MR. What's new or original? Indeed, even recently, per the perennial question of WN strategy, I have argued that, propagandistically, we should be 'pure anti-immigrationists', focusing on the (non-racial) problems of immigration, but also future security concerns of whites (as eg in Rhodesia, and as Sam Francis argued for decades). So, yes, you're a good man, Miller, keep it up. But you might want to write less like a campaign speech, and try for a pithier approach, highlighting new ideas per strategy or whatnot, as opposed to regurgitations re 'our plight'.
9942848881283267037“As non-White Americans are free to create political organizations for the sole purpose of advancing the interests of a specific ethnicity, and White Americans are forbidden to do so, non-Whites enjoy fundamental rights and benefits which are denied to Whites.” Who or what law or legal body has said whites cannot form pro-white groups?
9943048881283268197[i]We can’t get where we have to go without frank talk about race. The word “racist” as used today is meaningless yet the Tea Party is enslaved to it and is going to flush itself down the toilet as a result.[/i] (Fred Scrooby) A violent yes and a violent no. Ultimately, the first sentence is correct. [i]Ultimately[/i][b][/b]. And yes the TP is worthless, though its grassroots isn't. Those are mostly our people. Who are we trying to save? But, Fred, a frank racial talk at this stage in our people's consciousness raising will simply send the TPers scurrying for cover! Those left will be the same old WNs. What is needed is a practical organization containing the TPers, but oriented towards WN concerns (not this appalling MLK asskissing - Beck is a worthless - and stupid - neocon). Do you think the TPers would have gotten offended if an intelligent person had spoken of the need to secure the border, stabilize the US population by ending artificial immigration, and abolish unjust affirmative action, along with lots of other standard conservative fare? Of course not! They would have cheered. Candidates advocating policies which protect whites do well. Candidates advocating openly [i]pro-white [/i]policies go nowhere. Logical? No. Reality? Yeah.
9943148881283268788Notus Wind, But you omitted the most interesting paragraph (the filthy rats smell the Middle American Revolution coming!): "Concerns of this kind are not confined to the Tea Party belt. Late professors Arthur Schlesinger and Samuel Huntington both published books expressing misgivings about, respectively, multiculturalism and rapid demographic change. But these were phrased so carefully as almost to avoid starting the argument they flirted with. More recently, almost every European country has seen the emergence of populist parties that call upon nativism and [u]give vent to the idea that the majority population now feels itself unwelcome in its own country[/u]. [Haller: its own planet!] The ugliness of Islamic fundamentalism in particular has given energy and direction to such movements. It will be astonishing if the United States is not faced, in the very near future, with a similar phenomenon. Quite a lot will depend on what kind of politicians emerge to put themselves at the head of it. Saturday's rally was quite largely confined to expressions of pathos and insecurity, voiced in a sickly and pious tone.[u] The emotions that underlay it, however, may not be uttered that way indefinitely."[/u] Exactly why I wanted Obongo to beat McAmnesty. Get ready for the whirlwind awakening of our people, Hitchshit!
9943448881283271007[i]I would like to see the TP types spend their energy advancing a Tenth Amendment (or state sovereignty) movement that seeks to force a showdown between a subset of the White American people and their federal government. Imagine, for a moment, the possibilities that would be available to us if just a handful of states were able to secure their independence to the point where the local population had the freedom to pass and enforce laws without fear of some federal authority declaring them unconstitutional. In my opinion, the politics of immigration and population stabilization are too limited. Even if all the TP types were to secure “conservative” majorities in Congress do you seriously believe that they would pass (and enforce) the legislation needed to secure our borders and stabilize the population? Our real solution lies in securing our independence from the federal beast and not the stopgap politics of immigration.[/i](Notus Wind) _________ I fear you are regressing, sir. Bit early in the morn? This is the first commentary from you on this site that has caused me to hoot in derision. I support states' rights as a conservative, not just WN. But what world are you living in - politically or constitutionally? The Constitution died in 'the late unpleasantness'; states' rights when the by then lesser South capitulated to school integration. The South in the 50s-60s was a more 'integral national' place than anywhere today. Its whites (as everywhere else) were much tougher than today's. The South collapsed when federal troops (far whiter than in today's military) were brought in. How will a handful of states (with hands full of desperately pleaded for federal largesse) secure any independence to pass laws without fear of federal authority? Why would they? How would they? Which handful? And what possibilities? To declare the Ethnostate?! Our only hope of securing our independence from the Federal beast is to STOP IMMIGRATION NOW! Immigrants from the Mud World are increasingly interpenetrating the entirety of the US. If we don't end the deluge (as I said to a teacher in 1982), we lose everything - and the possibility of anything. The beauty of making immigration cessation our signature (non-radical) issue is that it is the issue that best advances white EGI, while also being justifiable in totally race-neutral terms (see Roy Beck's and Mark Krikorian's books), so that frightened and confused little TPers don't scamper off. But the bigger bounty is that an America First immigration policy can bring (white) Americans together. It represents the best way to develop implicit whiteness. Toughen the spines of conservatives on job-taking immigration (20% real unemployment - we heard of our present predicament, right?), and a world of real possibilities can start to be not only imagined, but pursued ...
9946948891283348402Two comments: 1. Without doing more than skimming this article, I sense it to be way above my intellectual level (at least wrt analytic philosophy and logic - one college course probably won't cut it), and quite possibly above my cognitive level. 2. I fail to see its relevance to topics of European genetic preservation.
9954948891283439895Grimoire, I am honored that you should have directed such a lengthy and sophisticated comment to me. Whether I merit such attention has not been established. I do not have time until the weekend to do justice to you in a response, even assuming I can fully understand the substance of either your comment or the original post of Notus Wind, about neither of which am I optimistic. I hope this thread lasts that long. The following paragraph of mine comes from another recent thread; it seems to be somewhat in part in the spirit of your argument: [BTW, Randy, although I am perfectly willing to venture into sociobiological discussions of racial phenomena where important and appropriate, I am frankly more interested in the political struggle (and its moral justifications) actually to save our race - [i]because it is primarily past political choices which have imperiled our race[/i] - than I am in rarefied, scientific and overly impersonal explanations for our plight. If you are interested in learning more about the issues pertaining to white survival I feel it incumbent to warn you against falling into the Darwinian theory ‘abyss’, in which humans are seen to be mere gene replicators, or some such nonsense, stripped of all their agency and capacity for moral choice. Our race is being herded into extinction as a result of perfectly conscious, deliberate acts of racial/legal aggression and attendant false-justificatory propaganda. What we need to do is uncover and disprove that propaganda, and then change our politics and laws from white race-destroying to race-affirming. Whether it is necessary or useful to translate our clear moral and political agenda into obscurantist, scientistic terminology is a matter I leave for the [i]volkisch[/i] community to determine, though my stance is public and unwavering.]
9975448891283826949Posted by Notus Wind on September 04, 2010, 02:51 PM | # [i]Leon (and GW as well), One of my goals is to develop a theory of mind that will that will restore (at least in part) traditional conceptions of volition and spirit and then proceed to show that all Europeans are connected the world over by a mental field that our respective societies project. Furthermore, I will try to argue that this field is capable of constituting a form of unconscious collective understanding so that radical changes in one part of it will reverberate through the whole (in much the same way as the movements of a slinky reverberate through the whole). I am moving toward a holistic and meaningful understanding of European man’s collective consciousness. As you can see, this is an incredibly ambitious task and before I can go about developing such a theory in earnest, and with my self-respect intact, I must first hack away at the metaphysical forest that is now the mainstream in order to prepare the ground for such a radical theory. The use of logic, mathematics, empirical science, and philosophy will be crucial to the hacking process as these tools carry a great deal of currency to our modern understanding.[/i]. ______________________ You may be a lot more intelligent than the typical college professor (I hope you teach in the Ivy League, at least, if not Caltech or somewhere similar). I have argued publicly as an audience questioner with many professors, some liberal, most 'conservative', and the general consensus (which I partly garner from other audience comments directed to the mass, or to me privately) is that I usually 'best' them. Even beyond that, I am rarely impressed by the quality of abstract reasoning on offer, or even their usual articulacy (with exceptions, of course: the Middle East Studies expert Bernard Lewis, whom I heard at a talk two years ago, is a remarkably fluent speaker, despite being well into his tenth decade!). So, that said, I'm trying yet again to understand something you've written - and given the obvious analytical proficiency on display in the primary (Godelian) post, I cannot dismiss my lack of comprehension merely with the usual (and usually accurate) charge of postmodernist (or phenomenological) unintelligibility (or the common poor linguistic quality of the semi-intellectual, which does not characterize your posts at all). [i]One of my goals is to develop a theory of mind that will that will restore (at least in part) traditional conceptions of volition and spirit[/i] Is this the debate on free ('volition'), as well as the existence of the soul ('spirit')? [i]show that all Europeans are connected the world over by a mental field that our respective societies project. Furthermore, I will try to argue that this field is capable of constituting a form of unconscious collective understanding so that radical changes in one part of it will reverberate through the whole (in much the same way as the movements of a slinky reverberate through the whole). [/i] By 'mental field', may I assume you do NOT mean some sort of physical/material projection (along the lines of fraudster Uri Geller, claiming to bend spoons and the like solely with the awesome power of his mind)? Perhaps you mean something Jungian, a collective unconscious or Racial Memory in which there is greater commonality between Europeans (due to our more similar genetic inheritance) than between Europeans and non-Europeans (though this would seem to have to apply to other races, too). Or, less exaltedly, you could simply be referring to our common meta-culture (or whatever mentality is antecedent to our producing similar cultures across national lines), and how, say, racial pollution in one part of it is then more easily able to penetrate the whole of it. Or, perhaps I simply don't have a clue what you're referring to. [i]I am moving toward a holistic and meaningful understanding of European man’s collective consciousness.[/i] This sounds a bit like empty filler. [i]I must first hack away at the metaphysical forest that is now the mainstream[/i] A big and unfair request: could you elaborate on this mainstream metaphysical forest? What do YOU mean by 'metaphysics'? I had thought the philosophical mainstream was highly anti-metaphysical (at least for those adhering to the mathematical/logical approach at which you are so demonstrably adept). And, what exactly is left that others in your tradition have not already hacked away? Are you going to try to reconcile the British and Continental approaches? That [i]would[/i] be ambitious! What is the best way to analyze, or indeed, establish the existence of, European Man's 'collective consciousness': psychology (backed by attendant cognitive sciences), anthropology, sociology, history, or philosophy? This is perhaps another way of asking whether this alleged 'collective consciousness' is a real, existing thing or trait, or merely a useful metaphor or even fiction to describe the fact that, on average, a white man in one part of the world will have more in common in terms of mental reactions, as well as cultural and intellectual outlooks, with another white man from another part of the world, than he will, again on average, with a non-white. But I must be instructed as to the usefulness of [i]philosophy[/i], specifically, to this seemingly empirical task. [BTW, full apologies to Grimoire for not yet responding adequately to his lengthy comment to me. I haven't had much time to contemplate it this weekend, and now I'm going out to dinner and a movie (not [i]Machete[/i], however!) with my lady and friends - but it deserves serious consideration, or at least follow-up questions such as I have just posed to Notus. I will endeavor to do so.]
9975748891283827313[i]Is this the debate on free (’volition’), as well as the existence of the soul (’spirit’)?[/i] (me, above) I meant 'free will". Also, is the new-ish and rising concept of epigenetics of possible use to your task?
9953648901283422169A small suggestion to American viewers. You should see this movie, just to ramp up your anger at Hollywood and the PC regime generally. But try to see it at a multiplex, and then be sure to pay for something else (as conservative as possible) and sneak into the Machete theater. I viewed Mel Gibson's[i] The Passion of the Christ[/i] once, but by ticket stubb I probably saw it 10 or 11 times ... Always view your dollars as cultural votes.
9979148921283859383[i]The percentage of European women who are attracted to Africans is very small.[/i] (Desmond Jones) Not that small. I was recently in a cafe in San Francisco, a city with a small and declining black population, and saw three separate tables with couples, wherein the man was black (one a stylin' light-skinned urban brotha, a second a [b]coal[/b]-black African of some type, the third an incredibly ugly and poorly dressed mulatto), and the woman was a fairly attractive white. I was sitting near the cash register. Typically, in the latter two cases the white female paid for food/drinks, in the first one they each paid their own way. We have totally lost control over our women. The problem is that the 30% of white men who are absolute losers, and the overlapping 70% of white men who are racial losers, have really harmed the reputation of our race considered as a whole. These losers make the rest of us look bad. This is really warfare we're in, any way you look at it. Which is why figuring out the ethics (and politics - and mechanics!) of re-racializing and re-empowering our race is, oh let's see, maybe 40,000 times more important than worrying about whether Nietzsche or Heidegger or Godel or some other Deep Thinker can be conscripted to the white man's cause. Worries about ontology, and 'what's really real', are matters to be leisurely bruited about over scotch and sodas whilst sitting in plush armchairs reminiscing about our days spent in the White Man's Revolution - but are quite beside the point when the Beat Whitey Nighters are coming for you and your civilization ...
9993448961284122485I can't listen to more than 2 minutes of this. This guy is an utter lunatic. Passionate intensity is appropriate to passionate controversies and significant offices. This guy is not running for anything warranting such passion. The great problem we face in the US (the West?) today is that we need men who are at once very 'presentable' in dress, speech and general demeanor, but who are willing to defend a very radical (by today's Left-PC standards) agenda - and we just don't have them. Those of us who could fit this bill are either not interested in politics, or otherwise can't financially afford to engage in professionally risky and quixotic political activities.
9999348961284207345One must work within (and against) the constraints of one's era. I mostly agree with Fred, esp re his disenfranchisement recommendations ("The Political Constitution of the Racial State" - I haven't thought too much about this, though I've often thought of the need to think about it! - it would be a good topic for an MR thread), but don't wholly agree with the "we have lots of great people, but ..." argument. However hysterically pro-immigration the Jewish media may be, most ordinary whites do not perceive opposition to legal immigration, including that rooted in honest appraisals of demographic change, as racist and therefore objectionable. I'm pretty sure of this, despite being based on anecdotal evidence: I've lived in liberal areas for much of my life, cornered a lot of moderately liberal types over the years and calmly discussed demographic issues, and yet have experienced very little "that's racist!" blowback; surprisingly little. By "calmly discussing demographics" I mean I've pointed out how the country (USA) is changing racially, and what non-racial problems immigrants are bringing to our country (fact: threats of contagious disease are, for moderate to liberal persons, BY FAR THE BEST arguments in our arsenal, followed by overpopulation concerns, then budgetary costs, then crime and especially organized gangs - race-replacement concerns work, but ONLY with conservatives, and not always with them). I've encountered less resistance than I would have expected. Put another way, there are still a lot of liberals who think about race in terms of their own personal tolerance levels, and are not, per se, automatic supporters of RR - many have never thought in RR terms (mind you, this is not an argument designed to suggest that liberals should be our target audience ... FAR FROM IT! ... we first need to make the "conservatives" racially conservative). My point about presentability is that (to reiterate from many assertions I've offered at different times) stopping the Third World invasion is the [i]sine qua non[/i] of our movement, but discussing reducing or eliminating immigration does not, among our people anyway (forget talking to a Mexican-"American" about it), automatically generate negative feelings - but behaving unprofessionally does, however much the seriousness of the RR problem seems to us like it should generate a whole lot of outraged radicalism, in style as in word. Excuse my verbosity. Let me try to simplify. Contra Fred, I believe it possible to discuss ending, if not the whole RR agenda, at least immigration, without alienating electorates in predominantly conservative districts (and even in the nation as a whole at the Presidential level). However much the JMC (Jewish Media Complex) screams, most whites will not be automatically dismissive of this discussion. If that assertion is true, then what does matter is style and authority of presentation - and the willingness actually to make immigration moratorium arguments. So why do so few discuss the first component of the anti-RR agenda, ending immigration? Is it fear of the JMC? I reiterate my claim: we really don't have very many presentable people making immigration moratorium arguments. They are not being destroyed by the JMC, and I don't believe the JMC [i]could[/i] destroy them just on the basis of moratorium advocacy. We either have a lot of unnecessary self-censorship, or, my belief, ignorance. Most conservatives (and whites!) are against immigration, but they don't know why they should be so [i]passionately[/i], and thus aren't. Immigration still does not rank nearly as high on people's lists of concerns as jobs, taxes, spending, abortion, and other issues that our knowledgeable selves recognize to be, in the long view, distinctly secondary. We must change that understanding.
10004149011284289149On themes British, here was a blast from the recent past re-posted on the [i]American Renaissance[/i] site: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/09/decline_of_the.php It's a review of Peter Hitchens's book [i]The Abolition of Britain[/i], which I have not read, though undoubtedly many British MR readers have. It makes many good points, though of course Hitchens, like any good 'conservative', seems not to comprehend the scale of the racial problem, nor what it represents: the last nail in the coffin of Britain (and especially England).
10004349011284290902Very witty article, though I am interested in the author's last name. In America, "Baron" is almost always Jewish. Otherwise, the point about rumours cannot be emphasized too often, especially as we are living in an indeterminate time when photoshop exists, but people still tend to be gullible about 'evidence'. Someday people will learn to demand a higher degree of proof for scandalous claims, and will be appropriately sceptical of pictures as well as written documents, but we aren't there yet. The thuggery of the (fascist) "anti-fascists" calls to mind yet again my oft-iterated claim about the need to start forming white protective leagues outwardly styled as social organizations or clubs. Radical movements, such as we are, must necessarily be 'totalist'. We can't simply remain as either mere politicals, or, worse, atomised 'virtual communities'. Finally, re Hague. Does his orientation really matter? I mean, morally? Is Hague a solid rightist (ie, a racialist, the minimum of which is formally declaring for the end of immigration)? My impression, which may need correction, is that he is not one of us. And so, why rise to his defense? BTW, I vaguely seem to recall reading similar rumours about Hague back in the 90s. Specifically, I remember the liberal Brit ex-pat queer Andrew Sullivan insinuating that Hague might not be straight. Whatever. I have no fondness for homosexuals per se, but as gays might not find British sharia to their liking, perhaps we should mute our hostilities, and reach out to them ([i]politically[/i], I hasten to add).
10010249021284391183[i]The Chimp ranks as the most damaging president in U.S. history, with Abraham Lincoln coming in right behind him, LBJ third, Slick Willy fourth, FDR fifth.[/i] (Fred Scrooby) I cannot agree with this. By far the most damaging president of all was LBJ. He imposed racial integration (thus destroying thousands of neighborhoods, as well as schools - though Ike obviously played a role in the latter, too). He massively expanded the welfare state, which is the origin of the (non-Social Security) entitlement crisis soon to bankrupt, or at least economically cripple, the country. And worst of all, he deliberately changed our immigration laws from favoring to disfavoring white immigrants, thus setting in motion the Third World conquest and abolition of the Founders' America. I cannot imagine how an argument could even be broached that any other president was as damaging as LBJ. May he rot.
10010649021284392641[i]CC, I am in favor of repatriating and recolonizing the third world peoples in our midst and for restoring the pride and grandeur of our Western identity in a vigorous way. I think that should answer your question. [/i](Notus Wind) Well said, but it doesn't. The Captain's implicit point above is that repatriation will never occur except by means of a regime that is either neo-Nazi or close enough to it that it will be (fairly) labeled "Nazi" (eg, perhaps it will not instantiate the fuhrerprinzip, or co-invade Poland with the Russians, but wrt the core, the racial stuff ...). I truly hope I will never have to make that choice - become a Nazi, or (effectively) betray my race - but I cannot state a strong conviction that CC is wrong. Certainly, we must forever understand and acknowledge that repatriation (more honestly: racial cleansing) is simply not going to be applied peacefully, and this not only because some portion of the aliens will resort to violent resistance and terrorism. Many of our fellow whites will likewise engage in violent anti-fascist activities (and so they, too, will have to be reeducated, or, more likely, liquidated). Western lands, as currently semi-democratically constituted, will never legislate this, as the great majority of [i]all [/i]peoples would rather be gradually displaced and miscegenated out of existence, than face the Hobbesian horrors of civil insurrection (especially when fought at the racial/genetic level, "where the color of our skin / is our uniform of war"). Thus, in all likelihood, before there will be repatriation, there will have to be fairly radical changes in government (this is why it was so so so vital never to have dropped our racial guard and allowed non-white immigration in the first place - or even merely to allow any more). All the philosophizing is mere coffee club chit-chat, when you reach bottom. These are facts CC has faced, but my sense is most others haven't (yet).
10011149021284395092How eloquent is the whole, how hopeful and thus naive is the following: [i]The demand for survival ... the abolition of debt ... a philosophy of life befitting the European character ... if nationalism is made intellectually expansive in this way it will attract to itself the men and women it needs to address the modern political age[/i] (GW) If only, my virtual friend, if only. If only beautiful theories, and not raw, material concerns (and how ironic is that switch? the metaphysical materialist suddenly transmogrifies into the most idealistic of politicals), were ever enough to attract sufficient Men of (physical, martial) Quality. Christianity did in its infancy attract precisely the men it needed to spread its Good News across the civilized Western world. But what [i]political[/i] movement in history, especially among those devoted to hard physical/military tasks, has ever been borne on the backs of men primarily motivated by disinterestedness, by philosophy? As with the market, so with the arena: men are motivated to action by greed and fear. Material matters. We will only, practically succeed when enough of our fellow whites come to agree that their futures under culturally vicious and/or distasteful (eg, Islam), or merely Third World democratic-demographic, domination will be even more intolerable than the spectre of present-day civil strife, and so will suffer the latter to prevent the former. But, our people must also feel that what they will have to do to win back the world their immediate ancestors insanely gave away is ethically justified. This fact simply reflects a hitherto (pre-war) latent defect in the collective genome (I'm speaking metaphorically) of the white race. We are more ethical than other races, and that is a fact the WN must factor into his strategizing. Thus, we must provide a sound ethical basis for the inevitable violence of race-repatriation. Beyond that, however, we must focus our efforts on persuading enough of our fellows that life is going to get very bad in a very easily understood way, unless we take some hard and expensive steps now. Surgery to avert death. Unfortunately, a hard sell (which is why I elsewhere at MR have spoken at some length about peaceful WN demographic conquest-by-immigration of some particular polity as the last hope to preserve our race).
10011249021284395590It is foolish even to think of allowing traditional Western cultures to go by the wayside, as we build some new society (the permanent gleam in the eye of the totalitarian) founded solely in genetic similarity, which is only a foundation of European life, not its adornment. GW, PF and some others in their camp are racial revolutionaries. All we really need, however, are racial reactionaries - but ones with backbones.
10011649021284398240[i]Now we can skip all this hard work if we’re not interested in the real thing but in the cardboard cutout version of history that we Americans are force-fed, but if that is the case then the question hardly matters as anything to right of mainstream conservatism is considered neo-Nazi. To even read MR sympathetically is to be a neo-Nazi by today’s standards[/i]. (Notus Wind) This may be true, but it's not quite relevant to CC's point. First, I don't speak German either, but that doesn't mean that I can't trust what serious scholars have written about the Third Reich (and I can always balance out my reading with some revisionism if I'm worried about getting a biased picture). Most debates about that period focus on the extent to which the Nazi Party hierarchy was primarily 'principalled', or opportunistic, and on the question of Hitler's authorization of the Holocaust, and how far down the hierarchy knowledge of that (ostensible) authorization extended. For our purposes here, there is no academic disagreement, even among revisionists, that the Nazis were extreme racists, anti-Semites, militarists, and imperialists. We have [i]Mein Kampf[/i], as well as many of Hitler's speeches and cabinet minutes, attesting to this. In other words, we have a very good idea of what Nazism was, ideologically as well as historically. Second, and of obviously greater importance, what is "considered" neo-Nazi is not necessarily what [i]is[/i] neo-Nazi, and that does make a difference to intellectually honest persons. I do not consider myself to be a Nazi, nor do I think that what I have written is Nazist. That some liberal idiot or liar falsely labels Pat Buchanan a Nazi for polemical purposes, does not mean that there is no core Nazi doctrine which is very different from Pat's paleoconservatism. What I think CC is getting at is something I have gotten at, previously and here on this thread. He wants to know the extent of your commitment to white racial survival, and he is posing an extreme situation to clarify matters (though, as I've intimated, I don't think CC's dichotomy is unrealistic). Who is willing to embrace (a version of) Nazism (ie extreme, militarized racism - not just the race realism and white patriotism mostly on display here at MR, as well as amren and similar sites), if the alternative is white extinction? That is a tough question, and it may one day be an urgent one.
10021549021284551107I reiterate something from above: [i]Certainly, we must forever understand and acknowledge that repatriation (more honestly: racial cleansing) is simply not going to be applied peacefully, and this not only because some portion of the aliens will resort to violent resistance and terrorism. Many of our fellow whites will likewise engage in violent anti-fascist activities (and so they, too, will have to be reeducated, or, more likely, liquidated). Western lands, as currently semi-democratically constituted, will never legislate this, [u]as the great majority of all peoples would rather be gradually displaced and miscegenated out of existence, than face the Hobbesian horrors of civil insurrection[/u] (especially when fought at the racial/genetic level, “where the color of our skin / is our uniform of war"). Thus, in all likelihood, before there will be repatriation, there will have to be fairly radical changes in government (this is why it was so so so vital never to have dropped our racial guard and allowed non-white immigration in the first place - or even merely to allow any more).[/i] (me, with new underline) This comment elicited no response, but it should have. 1. Will we be able to achieve WN goals democratically? If yes, in which countries? 2. Will we be able to achieve lasting racial security (ie, non-white re/expatriation) through political means at all? If yes, how (one possibility: WN parties actually win political majorities, which then gradually 'tighten the screws' on alien populations, until the latter either erupt in mass violence, or quietly slither away, with the final holdouts easily rounded up and forcibly deported)? 3. If it should prove unlikely if not impossible that political mechanisms will ever empower an expatriationist regime, or series of regimes, in the West, at what demographic level and/or point of political development should (militarily) revolutionary strategies be implemented, if ever? 4. Lastly, if revolutionary strategies are inevitable (this assumes my own counter-strategy for a stealth conquest-by-WN-immigration is never realized), what types of organizations ought we to be conceptualizing (and then building) now, that could function as historical precursors of (ie prepare the ground for) the WN revolutionary groups of the future?
10027949021284634756Good stuff, Sam, thanks for the response. Trying to keep a practical focus. Intellectuals love to theorize things out to the [i]n[/i]th degree, but I'm less concerned with trying to figure out the precise constituents of the "European Race Soul", or the "Constitution of [i]der rassestaat[/i]" ,and more with getting the ball constructively rolling forward [i]now[/i]. At the end of the day, we know legislative Step 1, the [i]sine qua non[/i], End Immigration. No, what I'm thinking of is the development of practical, real world organizations which are not extremist at all, either in form, activities, or charter, but could one day be transformed fairly quickly into harder nationalist cells or operations. I'd like to hear about this type of an organization.
10037449021284813254Very good comment, Sam, couldn't agree more. My whole point here is just that WNs need somehow to start connecting in the real world, as well as face to face educating other whites (say, starting with Tea Party types, who are not only on about govt spending, but are an incipient ethnonationalist movement). We need an organization that is [i]soft[/i]-WN, without ever publicly saying so. Just something that brings whites together, mainly socially. My point is that whites need to feel part of a collective (strength in numbers, etc), which also really does exist, and which can operate as a network of mutual support in our increasingly non/anti-white society. It doesn't have to be ideologically WN ,and in fact should not start out that way. It should begin as [i]American[/i] nationalist, but with an undertow of WN (say by making people aware of domestic outrages, as well as the problems associated with immigration). It definitely should not be a hard-edged org at the beginning; rather, something that the average conservative could be comfortable with - but with the emphasis on 1) WN issues (without calling them WN), and 2) simply building networks of reasonably likeminded white people. Basically, we need a white version of the NAACP, but at the beginning even less directly political.
10052749021285061012I disagree. Most TPers are strongly anti-immigration. I don't care if they feel a pathetic need to fool themselves (though in fairness, there are plenty of non-racialist reasons to oppose immigration), and maintain an anti-racist self-image. We must stop immigration before anything else. The fact that TPers are overwhelmingly white, with tremendous contempt for Obama (which I noticed at the only TP rally I attended), is an excellent start, regardless of their present level of EGI understanding. Sadly, most white countries are just not ready yet for WN. But the groundwork of an oppositional, predominantly white American (in fact, if not yet in ideology) group consciousness must be laid first. As things worsen down the road, that group will harden, and be more receptive to WN. This was precisely why I wanted Obama to win, and said so on many sites. In fact, the wakeup call that his arrogance and incompetence have produced has exceeded my then expectations. I made a prediction in the mid-80s, which caused my dirtbag of a thesis advisor to refuse to recommend me for graduate study. I said that someday most whites would be racists, but that the turn to WN (as I/we call it today) would be too little, too late to save traditional America (I could not then imagine that Europe would embark on its own path of racial suicide; though I had seen minorities in Europe, at that point I still thought of them as "guestworkers", never to be permanent citizens). My predictions always eventually come true, and so will this one. We WNs will eventually be a majority voice for whites - but only after whites have been "minoritized" in the US, and likely everywhere else.
10022349051284558068[i]Needless to add, the more different the individuals are racially, the more even tiny numbers do matter. A few Hutus in Watusi-land, a few Irishmen in England, a few Poles in Germany, a few Koreans in Japan, a few Chinamen in Viet-Nam don’t present a huge problem. A few Hutus in Japan, a few Nigerians in England, or a few Cameroonians in France do, however. In cases like that, the numbers that “wouldn’t matter” exist but are microscopic.[/i] (Fred) If I may quote a great American Senator from days of yore: "One communist (in the State Dept) (my parens) is one communist too many." (Tail-Gunner Joe McCarthy, R-WI) [i]One[/i] non-white [i]citizen[/i] or [i]permanent[/i] resident in any nation of Europe, is one too many. The principle absolutely matters the most here. Admitting a single individual into the [i]volksgemeinschaft[/i] as such destroys the racial principle which should be uppermost in the minds of the senior persons guiding the nation. Of course, there is nothing [i]a priori[/i] the matter with racial aliens present in the territory, provided they are "just passing through", whether for commerce or tourism, are discouraged from fornicating with the indigenes, and are closely watched by the authorities, esp if they are black or Muslim.
10022449051284558797The last thing we need, however, is any more intra-racial antagonism amongst our peoples. Two world wars, followed by a hugely destructive Cold War (remind me: what was the excuse LBJ gave as to why the USA had to change our "racist" (read "preservationist") immigration laws? hmmm .... something to do with making a good impression on the Non-Aligned World ....), have brought our race to the edge of annihilation. It is our responsibility to pull back from the brink. Although I am a bit of a racial Nordicist, as well as Anglo/German chauvinist (ie, I prefer the English and Germans to other Europeans) and of course, militant eugenicist, I am willing to swallow these sentiments in the name of European racial/cultural solidarity. Oh, and we esp do NOT need to inflame white denominational antagonisms. Religious ecumenism should be emphasized by nationalists (and atheists would do well not to attack Christianity, of any tradition).
10028049051284635147This thread is sterile and unproductive. Those who plant bombs to kill indiscriminately are terrorists, and should be hunted and exterminated. The IRA fit this bill, especially as they were also heavily Marxist as well as nihilist (in the Conradian sense). Also sheerly criminal in many cases. Enemies of civilization, unworthy of life. --------------- I posted this on another thread, this time eliciting a single response. I try again: I reiterate something from above: [i]Certainly, we must forever understand and acknowledge that repatriation (more honestly: racial cleansing) is simply not going to be applied peacefully, and this not only because some portion of the aliens will resort to violent resistance and terrorism. Many of our fellow whites will likewise engage in violent anti-fascist activities (and so they, too, will have to be reeducated, or, more likely, liquidated). Western lands, as currently semi-democratically constituted, will never legislate this, as [u]the great majority of all peoples would rather be gradually displaced and miscegenated out of existence, than face the Hobbesian horrors of civil insurrection[/u] (especially when fought at the racial/genetic level, “where the color of our skin / is our uniform of war"). Thus, in all likelihood, before there will be repatriation, there will have to be fairly radical changes in government (this is why it was so so so vital never to have dropped our racial guard and allowed non-white immigration in the first place - or even merely to allow any more)[/i]. (me, with new underline) This comment elicited no response, but it should have. 1. Will we be able to achieve WN goals democratically? If yes, in which countries? 2. Will we be able to achieve lasting racial security (ie, non-white re/expatriation) through political means at all? If yes, how (one possibility: WN parties actually win political majorities, which then gradually ‘tighten the screws’ on alien populations, until the latter either erupt in mass violence, or quietly slither away, with the final holdouts easily rounded up and forcibly deported)? 3. If it should prove unlikely if not impossible that political mechanisms will ever empower an expatriationist regime, or series of regimes, in the West, at what demographic level and/or point of political development should (militarily) revolutionary strategies be implemented, if ever? 4. Lastly, if revolutionary strategies are inevitable (this assumes my own counter-strategy for a stealth conquest-by-WN-immigration is never realized), what types of organizations ought we to be conceptualizing (and then building) now, that could function as historical precursors of (ie prepare the ground for) the WN revolutionary groups of the future?
10042049051284896268[i]If England had come to terms with Germany, or stayed out all together, liberalism in the Anglosphere would never have progressed to the point of allowing mass non-White immigration. England would have been saved. America would have been saved. As stands, that both can be saved now is less than a surety to put it mildly[/i]. (captainchaos) [i]What about the slaves in the factories and the dispossessed of the east? Do you think that civilised nations could stand by and watch that happening in the heart of old Europe?[/i] (GW) I'm rather surprised at this riposte of GW's against CC's unexceptionable remarks. Is GW seriously suggesting that Churchill's behavior in WW2 was racially acceptable? While it is admittedly dismaying to contemplate just how far the collective mind of the white race has deteriorated into infantile racial utopianism over the past half-century, it is even more upsetting to recognize that white racial foolishness long antedated the Sixties. In the first third of the last century, when whites were racially dominant on the planet, there was a tremendous amount of proto-WN theorizing occurring in many parts of the West, very much including the US. Paul Valery, perceiving the real implications of the insane auto-genocide of WW1, noted that "we too are mortal" - that the West could fall as had other civilizations. Indeed, French race theorists were perfectly aware of the growing threat posed by non-whites and their savage hatreds of us as far back as the wild wake-up of the Haitian Revolution, with its massacres and rapes of whites. In the US there were all sorts of books written with titles like [i]The Rising Tide of Color[/i] and [i]The Twilight of the White Races[/i], as well as a racially informed (and successful!) anti-immigration movement ("Let's Keep America American!", campaigned Calvin Coolidge in '24). And Germany had all sorts of racist intellectuals quite beyond those associated with the Nazi Party. Indeed, even the proto-Black nationalist WEB DuBois predicted in 1900 that the defining feature of the 20th century would be the problem of the "color-line': that is, "of the relation of the white to non-white races" (I'm trying to quote accurately, but it's from memory). My point being that Churchill, who was highly intelligent, as well as racialist (we should all by now have heard or read innumerable quotes from him to that effect), should have known what American patriot Charles Lindbergh did: that another European war would be catastrophic for Western Civilization in its impending confrontation with Bolshevism (an ideology about which Sir Winston was perfectly acquainted, and which he roundly and admirably hated) and the geopolitical interests of the white race, which already by 1939 was understood to be rapidly declining (along with Western fecundity). Indeed, I'm certain that Churchill did know it, but that his martial vainglory bested his strategic sense. And here we are. CC is right: had Hitler fought to a stalemate (enabled in part by a British suit for peace), the whole world's ideological axis (no pun intended) would have shifted far to the Racial Right - and especially so if the US could have kept itself out of the conflict (as many here wanted, as FDR promised on the campaign trail in 1940, and so as would have happened without England's lonely defiance), and Sovietism subsequently annihilated (as I believe it would have been without the Anglo-American second front). ALL of our present racial difficulties finally stem from WW2 and its aftermath. Thanks, Winnie!
10078049221285592240How come the Right can't create its own counterweight to the "antifascists"; say, "anti-treasonists", who go around exposing and confronting race traitors? The Right needs to recognize that this is a physical war we are preparing for, and stop being so damn gentlemanly.
10089249271285837071We need to draw ethical distinctions between the Old and New Worlds. We are in a civilizational crisis of epic proportions. The existing 'liberal mainstream' in the West is philosophically untenable (because its practical ramifications have proven socially and politically disastrous). Rejecting 'affirmative racism' as well as the various types of multiculturalism is easy: such are either hypocritical and/or plainly incorrect in their tenets - and in no sense morally imperative. But our task, if we are serious about saving the European race, and its civilization, is to reject 'colorblindness' - and that is going to require an enormous reconceptualizing of Western ethics (which, several MR regulars might argue, will further require new concepts in metaphysics and ontology - I'm just not learned enough to form an opinion on that extension, however). That said, I still think we are all being overly intellectual (not in this piece, but as a general matter) - more especially British and Europeans, than "New Worlders". The situation here seems far more ethically complex. After all, we have had non-white presences here since the beginning. While we whites built this country, and undeniably did everything of real value here, it cannot be denied that we are still, deontologically, a frontier/immigrant people. We go back 400 years. But you Europeans?! You're losing what has been yours from time immemorial!! No serious case can be made that non-Europeans have any sort of moral right to be there. At best there are some complications from those actually born there (the second or third generation), though nothing insurmountable: the French established their colony in Algeria long before the Algerians established themselves in France, yet the former were effectively ethnically cleansed. Life is unfair, but I cannot see any moral reason why Europeans shouldn't tell their "guests" that it's time to start packing. So it seems to me that Europeans need to worry about intellectualizing their nationalism much less than Australians or Americans. Rather than contributing to the patriot cause by developing ever more esoteric racial philosophies, I, if European, would put more effort into the practical organizational and media work of explaining the dangers (and costs) of continued immigration. The Continent-wide 'nationalist minimum' would seem to be stopping immigration. Without accomplishing that, rarefied ontologies will prove physically, practically useless. As I said at one point on MR, I continue to see no reason why the British parliamentary system cannot support a single-issue, anti-immigration party - one stripped of the usual nationalist agendas and baggage. Why bring in WW2 revisionism, support for Palestine, national economics, foreign affairs, housing issues, the financial system, evolutionary theory, or anything that a normal political party (or ideological movement) concerns itself with? Why not simply have a successor to the BNP which solely focuses on stopping immigration? Could the EDL evolve into something like this?
10093349271285936260Very interesting comment from Prof Fraser immediately above. Are Chinese actually that superior? Why are they displacing white Australians from managerial positions? Is it due to professional superiority, as one would hope (by which I do not mean to minimize the ethical/ethnocultural argument, viz that the descendants of the Founder Race have a perfect moral right to keep their territory for themselves, regardless of what policies maximize financial returns for the business class)? Or might it be due to some type of 'diversitarian' advantage; for example, an erroneous belief that promoting (favoring) domestic Asians will help Australia better compete economically in Asia (that allegedly great future marketplace)? I've had a lot of experience with Chinese in CA in my life, and though they are as intelligent as whites on average, they tend not to be very creative or particularly insightful - the qualities, far more than mere average IQ, which ultimately propel economic progress (and nations forward, for good or sometimes for ill). There are certainly exceptions, but I do not believe Asians are more intelligent than whites. I think Asians in the West benefit from always being accorded a structural "presumption of necessity" - that is, that diversity is a good in itself, and Asians help realize diversity, without the inevitable lowering of standards accompanying Hispanics, Muslims, blacks or aboriginal peoples. If the Western nations were pure meritocracies, I believe whites would still overall come out on top (with the exception of the unfortunately obviously superior Jews).
10110549271286295134Excellent comment, Fellist. I shall have to think about it at greater length, though for now I am once again enjoying that feeling of realizing that there are many intelligent whites (so many more than one might ever think from encountering the MSM) who grasp the horrors of our situation, and are creatively working towards solutions (I'd still like to read more [i]practical[/i], organizational insights, but that's not to diminish the vital importance of our formulating a New Ethics for Survival - I'm one of the biggest advocates of developing this). Your suggestion is most intriguing. I have been groping towards something like it, at least to the extent of trying to justify my intuition that communist slavery was so much more horrific than the American Negro variety. The key (well, one key) is the differing expectations of discrete epochs. I have long thought that slavery would be clearly wrong ... [i]today[/i]. But I'm not at all convinced that it was wrong in past eras. Liberals who project their current psychological reactions onto past morally fraught conditions are clearly guilty of anachronism. I may add to this response tonight (USA/PST).
10102149301286106355I copied this from the Lewrockwell.com site. You will find it very suggestive and interesting. I have to divide it into two parts, as its length exceeds the maximum character allotment. LH ------------------------------------------- Part 1 A longtime Washington, D.C., insider, and former adviser to the Obama election campaign and transition team, speaks out on an administration in crisis, and a president increasingly withdrawn from the job of President. 2008 gave America an incredibly charismatic candidate for President of the United States. Speech after speech showed a candidate with increasing momentum as primary race after primary race concluded. And then came the nomination, more speeches, culminating in an election night victory. According to the person sitting across from me, those were incredibly exciting times, even for one who had been a participant with three previous presidential hopefuls. Barack Obama appeared to move from one city to the next effortlessly, gaining confidence and motivation with each campaign stop. He was remarkable to watch. He took the script, elevated it with his oration, left the crowds screaming for more, and then would do it all over again, time after time after time. On the campaign trail, Obama is a machine. When I asked this insider if the media gave candidate Obama an assist throughout his campaign, it elicits a sly smile. Sure — we definitely had people in the media on our side. Absolutely. We went so far as to give them specific ideas for coverage. The ones who took that advice from the campaign were granted better access, and Obama was the biggest story in 2008, so yeah, that gave us a lot of leverage. Could Obama have succeeded without the media’s help? Yeah, I think so. As I said, on the campaign trail he is very, very good. The opposition didn’t have near the energy, or the celebrity attraction that Obama brings. Plus, the country was burned out after eight years of Bush. We knew that going in. We knew that if we won the Democrat nomination, we were likely going to cruise our way to the White House — and that is exactly what we did.” But after Obama was sworn in, things began to change? Almost immediately. Obama loved to campaign. He clearly didn’t like the work of being President though, and that attitude was felt by the entire White House staff within weeks after the inauguration. Obama the tireless, hard working candidate became a very tepid personality to us. And the few news stories that did come out against him were the only things he seemed to care about. He absolutely obsesses over Fox News. For being so successful, Barack Obama is incredibly thin-skinned. He takes everything very personally. And you state he despises Joe Biden? Oh yeah. That is very well known in the White House. Obama chose Biden for one reason — to have an older white guy with some international policy credentials. Period. If Biden has all of this international experience that Obama found so valuable, why has he buried him under the pile of crap that became the stimulus bill? What does Joe Biden know about budgets and economics? Not much — but Obama didn’t care. Give Joe a job and get him the hell out of my hair — that pretty much sums up the president’s feelings toward Joe Biden. What about Hillary Clinton? Obama is scared to death of Hillary. He doesn’t trust her — obsesses over her almost as much as he does Fox News. He respects her though, which might be why he fears her so much as well. He talks the game, but when it comes down to it, she has played the game on a far tougher level than he has, and Obama knows that. How about Bill Clinton? I never heard Obama say anything about Bill Clinton personally, though I was told he has cracked a few jokes about the former president since getting into the White House. I have heard that Bill Clinton does not like Barack Obama. That really started when Obama played the race card against him during the primary campaign. Apparently Clinton was apoplectic over that and still hasn’t gotten over it. If there is one thing I have learned in this town — don’t make an enemy of Bill Clinton. So if Obama doesn’t appear interested in the job of president, what does he do day after day? Well, he takes his meetings just like any other president would, though even then, he seems to lack a certain focus and on a few occasions, actually leaves with the directive that be given a summary of the meeting at a later date. I hear he plays a lot of golf, and watches a lot of television — ESPN mainly. I’ll tell you this — if you want to see President Obama get excited about a conversation, turn it to sports. That gets him interested. You start talking about Congress, or some policy, and he just kinda turns off. It’s really very strange. I mean, we were all led to believe that this guy was some kind of intellectual giant, right? Ivy League and all that. Well, that is not what I saw. Barack Obama doesn’t have a whole lot of intellectual curiosity. When he is off script, he is what I call a real “slow talker.” Lots of ummms, and lots of time in between answers where you can almost see the little wheel in his head turning very slowly. I am not going to say the president is a dumb man, because he is not, but yeah, there was a definite letdown when you actually hear him talking without the script. That sounds like you are calling Obama stupid to me. No — I am not going to call him stupid. He just doesn’t strike me as particularly smart. Bill Clinton is a smart guy — he would run intellectual circles around Barack Obama. And Bill Clinton loved the politics of being president. Obama seems to think he shouldn’t have to be bothered, which has created a considerable amount of conflict among his staff. So how bad are things at the White House these days? I don’t know about right now, because I have not been there in over a month. But I still hear things, and I know what it was like when I left. It’s not good. As bad as it might look to voters based on what they do know, it’s much worse. The infighting is off the charts. You got a Chief of Staff who despises cabinet members, advisors who despise the Chief of Staff, a President and First Lady having their own issues… Come again — what about the First Lady? (The insider takes a deep breath) Ok, look, just like any other marriage, folks have issues. The Obamas are no different, except of course they are very high profile. I was told they were having issues before the campaign, and they have even more issues now. Maybe that is why Obama seems so detached — not so much the stress of the White House, but the stress of personal issues. I can certainly relate to that kind of situation. Care to clarify some more on the Obama marriage? No. That is all I will say about that. Don’t ask again.
10102249301286106401Part 2 Ok, back to President Obama then. In just a few words, how would you describe him these days? Like I said, it’s been a while since I was last at the White House, but I don’t have a problem saying that the president is losing it. I don’t mean he is like losing his mind. I mean to say that he is losing whatever spark he had during the campaign. When you take away the crowds, Obama gets noticeably smaller. He shrinks up inside of himself. He just doesn’t seem to have the confidence to do the job of President, and it’s getting worse and worse. Case in point — just a few days before I left, I saw first hand the President of the United States yelling at a member of his staff. He was yelling like a spoiled child. And then he pouted for several moments after. I wish I was kidding, or exaggerating, but I am not. The President of the United States threw a temper tantrum. The jobs reports are always setting him off, and he is getting increasingly conspiratorial over the unemployment numbers. I never heard it myself, but was told that Obama thinks the banking system is out to get him now. That they and the big industries are making him pay for trying to regulate them more. That is the frame of mind the President is in these days. And you know what? Maybe he is right, who knows? Will Obama run again in 2012? I don’t know. That subject was never brought up again after 2008, at least not around me. If he does, I think it would have more to do with allowing him another year and a half of campaigning again. He just loves it so much. He really needs the crowds, the cheering, the support of the people. Can he win in 2012? Oh — absolutely. Who else campaigns as well as Barack Obama? Nobody. What politician is more loved and supported by the media? Nobody. I don’t see the Republicans offering up a candidate as powerful as Obama. I mean Sarah Palin? Really? Obama would defeat her by a 20 point landslide! Romney? The Republicans will enjoy these midterm elections, but 2012 is Obama’s year if he chooses to run again. As a president, Obama has many flaws, but as a candidate, he is near flawless. But would another four years of an Obama presidency be the best thing for America? (Long pause) Now that is a much more interesting question right there, and a question I think more and more Democrat Party insiders are asking themselves these days, myself included. I am going to come right out and say it — No. Obama is not up to the job of being president. He simply doesn’t seem to care about the work involved. You want to know what? Obama is lazy. He really is. And it is getting worse and worse. Would another four years of Obama be the best thing for America? No it would not. What this country needs is a president who is focused on the job more than on themselves. Obama is not that individual. I actually hope he doesn’t run again. Looking back, as much fun as the campaign in 2008 was, Hillary Clinton should have been the nominee. Hillary was ready to be president. Obama was not ready. He had never lost a campaign. Everything was handed to him. He doesn’t really understand the idea of work — real, hard, get your heart and soul into it work. And frankly, that is very disappointing to a whole lot of us… So you still wish to keep your name hidden from the public? Why? I intend to remain working in this town for a bit longer. A public disclosure might complicate that just a bit given who is in power right now. But I won’t be the last one from the current administration coming forward. After the midterms, there will be a number of us speaking about what is really going on in the Democrat Party, if for nothing else because it’s such a damn mess right now. What do you mean “it’s a damn mess”? I mean just what I said. The Democrat Party is the most chaotic I have ever seen it — and that goes back almost 30 years. So who is to blame? We all are. By “we” I mean those of us who were working within the party power structure the last ten years or so. We got so caught up in the hate Bush mentality, we let the party get hijacked by our own far left. That was disaster the moment it happened. The disaster that will be the midterm election in 2010 started in November of 2006 when Pelosi and Reid took over the Democrat Party. Those two have only brought trouble to the Democrat Party since day one of that time. How do you mean? (A long pause…) Look, I’ve been in the Democrat Party in one way or other, be it campaigns, fundraising, lobbying, whatever…we lost our way in 2006. We put in place a Speaker of the House who is an absolute public relations train wreck. The lady is a… She’s tough. Yeah, she’s real tough. But outside of the halls of Congress, forget it. She’s a nut to the American people because America was and is a right of center country. As a Democrat I say that, because I understand it. Bill Clinton understood it. Pelosi, Reid, Obama…they don’t accept that fact. You mention Clinton a lot. Yeah, I do because Bill Clinton was the very best politician of our time and I got to see it up close for a period of time and I am still amazed at just how good he was. Second, I think Bill Clinton was a damn good president. He should be recognized more for just how good he really was. And you don’t place Obama in the same league as Bill Clinton? (Laughter) Hell no. Obama has only been in office a couple of years, so that isn’t even a fair question right now. But what I have seen of Barack Obama has not left me with the confidence to say he will be as good a president as Bill Clinton. Maybe he will get it figured out before 2012, and I sure as hell hope so because the Republicans are getting some real oddballs running their own show over there and that scares me too. What scares you more as president — Sarah Palin or Barack Obama? (Hands to head) Oh boy. What a choice! People would kill me for saying this — actually you know what, there are more and more of us Democrats saying what I am going to say in one form or another… Sarah Palin understands America more than Barack Obama. Yes, she has a minority of our far left who hates her, and some in our media are part of that group, but overall, she seems to get America. Americans aren’t a complicated people, and neither is Sarah Palin, so that probably works in her favor. But President Obama is just out of touch. He really doesn’t understand what America is. What it’s about. Or who it is. And that is a real problem for him — and the Democrat Party at this moment in its history. Are you saying you would vote for Sarah Palin over Barack Obama? No, I don’t think I could do that. As much as I admire Palin’s ability to connect with the American people, I just can’t stand her politics. I am a pro-choice Democrat. I support unions. I support welfare programs. Sarah Palin understands America, but that doesn’t mean she understands the best parts of America. That being said, I think President Obama understands hardly any of America. That is probably a big reason he appears so lost these days. Last time you mentioned trouble with the Obama marriage. I am not going to ask you to elaborate on that specifically, but could you tell us if you like Michelle Obama? Like is not a word we use in D.C. very much. Do I respect the First Lady? Sure. She seems like a strong woman, a good mother. I wasn’t around her really enough to say anything more than that. Or, at least, I would rather not. Were you afraid of her? No — not anymore than anyone else who was around her as briefly as I was. Here is what I get from the First Lady. She is very much the Chicago ideologue. Nancy Pelosi is the far left of the Democrat Party, right? Well, Michelle Obama might be to the left of Nancy Pelosi. She really doesn’t care for how things work in the country and she wants to see it all changed. I can respect that, though I would guess she is far too liberal even for me — and I consider myself a liberal Democrat. Could she be mean? Mean? She’s the First Lady. She is a strong, influential woman in America. I don’t know what you are trying to ask me there — though I suspect what you are trying to get at and all I will say to that is, “Don’t go there.” If you had President Obama here right now and you could give him some advice that he would follow, what would that advice be? (Long silence. Eyes closed — long sigh) Man, that’s a tough question right there. I have thought about it a lot lately. I know I’m not the only one who left that White House feeling really let down, but maybe that wasn’t fair to the President. Maybe our own expectations got so high that he had no choice but to let us down…some advice, huh? Hopefully without sounding disrespectful, I would tell the President to pull his head out of his ass. To man up, grow up, and start to pay attention to what the American people want and need. That is a big, big flaw with this president. He comes at it from the position of thinking he knows what we need because we don’t have the ability to know for ourselves. And he doesn’t respect any opinion that is different from his own. He just doesn’t care to know any other side to any given issue. I really believe it’s a maturity thing. I think our president needs to grow up. I hate to put it that way, but there it is. President Obama — grow up.
10110349311286291197Very suggestive article. It has got me thinking. Western liberalism as the "religion of the end of suffering" is a brilliant insight. I've never heard it described in quite those terms. I myself have long thought of racial egalitarianism as both the defining feature of modern liberalism, as well as the clear eschatological disciple of and replacement for mostly defunct Marxist revolutionism. It is, indeed, the characteristic species of utopianism of our age, as clear a Christian heresy as communism, but vastly more dangerous. Communism was so awful that, past the initial fervor of revolution, it could only be maintained through brute terror. Multiculturalism is materially and physically just tolerable enough that it only ever generates resistance to yesterday's outrage, while today's insinuates itself silently into our midst, an ever newer 'normal'.
10110749311286297838[i]“Why is suffering unnecessary on the left’s understanding?” The answer, I think, is that the left believes that the [b][u]only[/u][/b] [my emphasis] things that prevent us from healing the world and bringing an end to suffering are those structures from our Western past (e.g. biological, national, religious, linguistic, cultural) that naturally divide and distinguish us from each other along with the rest of mankind, which is why Lennon famously invited us to imagine a world without all these things. It is hoped that when these things are gone there will be no more war and exploitation; the peoples of the world will finally be able to enjoy the abundance of their labor in relative peace and harmony. [/i](notus) It's only the wingnuts who think this - the crazies on the Furthest Left. Most liberals are not so (reverse) ethnocentric. They simply have a jejune understanding of the world (eg, they believe in Wars on Poverty, Illiteracy, Body Odor, etc), as well as excessive faith in the meliorist potential of collective (esp governmental) action.
10195149321287658698[i]Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 18, 2010, 08:50 PM | # [u]All things considered, though, we just want to wake up one day and not feel that strange existential dread of having been displaced in our ancestral lands.[/u] Unfortunately, Brother uh, the pattern of history seems to be that, in order to be secure in your own homeland, you’d better be busy trying to relieve someone else of his - and even then… For there is and can be no stasis - no achievable equilibrium - in global affairs. Dominate or be dominated.[/i] I find this thought extremely disturbing (it's been expressed by a number of past thinkers, including James Burnham and Revilo Oliver), but it certainly accords with history, as NN asserts. The problem with imperialist expansion, however, is that it invariably contains not only the seeds of its own eventual political destruction, but also those of the destruction of its founding ethnic core. Whether and in what proportions these "seeds" are ideational or sociological, imperial expansion ends up bringing race (not to mention cultural and ideological) pollution. Perhaps we can learn from Japan. They have embraced modernity, with all its (at least alleged) benefits, but have so far successfully striven to avoid race pollution. Japan appears to be what "uh" wants - a true [i]national[/i] community.
10195249321287659253One problem that regulars at MR keep avoiding (there are several others) is : what if most whites, by virtue of their particular genetic constitutions as they interact with the current state of culture and ideas, simply do not care about white racial preservation? What then? What are our moral rights, and duties?
10195549321287660757The Larger Question, danced around but insufficiently honed: What is it exactly that "you people" want, and why? National (proletarian) Collectivism, Aryan Aristocracy, a recrudesced national past (and which one), maintenance of existing social and political forms and structures [i]sans[/i] non-whites, etc? I affiliate with white nationalism for three reasons. First, and more idealistically, I wish to preserve Western Civilization, which I find in the High Culture as well as superior moral values of the historic European ethnocultures/nations. I further recognize that biology undergirds social and cultural evolution, and I believe, as a function of historical study as well as personal (and vicarious) observation, that only genetic (racial) continuity will ensure cultural continuity ('culture' in both senses of the word: mental (intellectual and artistic) production, and folkways). Only whites will preserve Western culture in perpetuity. I am, in other words, nothing more than a true conservative. There are other true conservatives sprinkled throughout the West today, but most are cowards when it comes to acknowledging the ineradicable relation between conservatism and racial preservation, understood both genetically (blood purity) and demographically (numerical preponderance). Second, it is in my long-term personal interest as a white man to fight against my racial dispossession and disempowerment. The presence of non-whites directly harms me in numerous ways, from fear of criminal victimization, to wealth transfers (both in taxes and professional setbacks due to "positive" discrimination), to non-white seduction and (for me) ruination of white females, to anxiety about all these negative effects of racial diversification intensifying in the future. 'Diversity' brings no benefit to me, but many harms. Finally, I am a man of moral integrity, as well as personal honor (a Christian, if somewhat lackadaisical and heterodox, and a Roman), and thus find unendingly nauseating, and personally infuriating, the lies and behaviors associated with the Cult of Diversity, both the unearned swagger of arrogant and abrasive minorities, and the pathetic pusillanimity of whites in the face of it. The Christian in me morally rebels against the untruths of the Cult, while the Roman in me wants to confront and destroy it. I'd enjoy hearing why others identify with WN, and what they understand by it (I have an ulterior reason for posting this, having to do with what I take to be many philosophical and strategic errors swirling about the WN blogsphere, including here).
10213749321288005708One problem that regulars at MR keep avoiding (there are several others) is : what if most whites, by virtue of their particular genetic constitutions as they interact with the current state of culture and ideas, simply do not care about white racial preservation? What then? What are our moral rights, and duties?—Leon Haller [i]You are implying that most Whites control the state of affairs. Most Whites did not want “diversity” when it was brought upon by jews and helpers, and most Whites, through social engineering, may now indeed feel they want the “diversity” they have “learned” to “celebrate.” Too bad. Most Whites then were not relevant. Most Whites now are not relevant. The power elites are. I recognise no “moral” right of theirs to do what they do to me by virtue of destroying my race, and all who know what we are on this Earth for ought to know that our duty is to not let the suicidals--indeed, one should think of them as a pack of suicide bombers receiving no brownie points for their deeds--drive off our EGIs off the cliff by killing themselves, and us. Stupid questions, in my opinion.[/i] (pug) _______________ Sorry, but these are very deep issues. What if a majority of whites in Britain did not originally want immigration of non-whites, but now do not want their forcible deportation, either? (I suspect both parts of that question are accurate.) What is your moral theory justifying imposing your (ideological) minority will on the majority, forcing them to accept your preference for non-white removals? You can't just assert some kind of will-to-power. I mean, you could, but it would be rejected by most of the very persons whose collective genome is what you're trying to preserve. (I also hold it to be irrational, as I believe that adhering to any type of self-sacrificial ethic is irrational absent belief in God and divine judgment, and racialism today is self-sacrificial.)
10213849321288006210[i]As I see it, to be a (White) man is to be a warrior is to tell the truth - as to actions having consequences.[/i] (NeoNietzsche) No, reject God and you must reject everything non-sensual, including race and politics. Be consistent in your Nietzscheanism. What did N's Zarathustra say about "unchaining our sun"? No value can exist apart from God. The most rational course for an atheist is not WN, but total selfish amorality, in the manner of Hitler, Stalin, or the truest (if proto-) Nietzschean, the Marquis de Sade. Thus, the WN atheist can be wholly racist as he wishes. But why sacrifice for our race? Who cares about truth in a purely material world, "red in tooth and claw"? Just fleece the suckers as opportunities present themselves.
10214049321288009340[i]So, LH, store up your Treasures in Heaven, and then hope that you can locate them in the Hereafter. For I’m sure that you and many another of us would much prefer to be the isolated underclass of the present regime rather than having to associate with the racial aliens in our midst as their masters. [/i](NeoNietzsche) No, that does not describe me at all. Please do not make the elementary, ignorant mistake of concluding that Christianity is an egalitarian creed (perhaps you should read something other than Nietzsche). That is wholly untrue. Altar stood beside Throne for millenia. Christianity never per se even condemned slavery. It does speak the language of reciprocal obligations and duties of care, understood within the fellowship of Christ. But that has little to do with modern, nationally suicidal liberalism, as Britain's Enoch Powell, a Christian who was also a champion of private property, a race-realist, and an English and anti-Eu nationalist, perfectly understood (I think my own views in all this could best be described as "Powellite"). The reason that many racialists fail to grasp this point is that most are ignorant, unreflective products of drearily secularist backgrounds, which get reinforced by their attraction to racial science (which leads to Darwinism and then, hardly necessarily, to Dawkinsian anti-theism). Of course, in a diverse society, I want my own race to rule. I'm no fool.
10149349341286974110John is right, as Michael Levin has noted, and, quietly, me, too - I long suspected that all this IQ talk was itself a PC distraction from the real issue: why are such disproportionate numbers of blacks violent and immoral savages? Although, ironically, my personal interactions with blacks are usually positive (undoubtedly because the ones I come into contact with are generally civilized - ie, they work - and not uppity or pushy in a leftist/multiculti way, perhaps because I'm not in academia or government), my impersonal interactions (ie, 'on the street') are mostly negative. But low IQ is hardly the real culprit. I've known low IQ whites who are fine people. Intelligence is less valuable than character - even to our racial survival (well, to a point - if whites degenerate to moronism, we will not survive). [i]We are broadly ruled by the left, it has two pedals that serve as the gas and the brakes.[/i](Notus Wind) Brilliant metaphor; makes me fell like the first Huxley - why the hell didn't I think of that?
10149449341286975253I haven't watched this yet (and may not, due to more pressing matters), but I'm not sure the Jewish leftist pictured above has a bit of black in him. A lot of Jews look like he does. Does that mean Jews have a bit of black in the collective genome? But if yes, how did it get there, given their tremendous ethnocentrism and its concomitant emphasis on endogamy? And why has that bit of black neither lowered their collective intelligence, nor improved their collective athleticism?
10155949341287071713I don't follow you, Silver. The issue of possible Negroid admixture in the Jewish genome is a true conundrum, as far as I know. I've heard this claim over the decades, but it doesn't square with the heavy emphasis Jews historically have placed on intra-ethnic marriage (something I've seen firsthand, though it's rapidly breaking down now).
10178249341287402056[i]I’ve heard this claim over the decades, but it doesn’t square with the heavy emphasis Jews historically have placed on intra-ethnic marriage (something I’ve seen firsthand, though it’s rapidly breaking down now).[/i][u][/u] (Haller) [i]They don’t have to have bred with blacks themselves. Look at where they lived. Could have been any of the other ethnic groups living in those regions that initiated the process. Make sense now? (Unless you want to pretend that Jewish strictures on mixing actually have been policed to the letter, which is something no one else actually believes. Check out the anthrocivitas forum some day. Plenty of threads there depicting Jews from various parts of the world that display unmistakable signs of having mixed with the local population.) Maybe Instauration never touched on this but it’s all really elementary, anyway, isn’t it? If you can’t even provide a basic account of the essentials, Haller, I’m going to have to think twice about picking up a copy of your forthcoming book. Consider whether you’d profit from working this angle into it: Jesus’ admonition to love your enemy finds no finer political expression than racialism. The various races and tribes (sub-races) of men are “natural enemies,” not simply in the inclination of their members to war on each other, but in the sense that their intermingling causes their coalescence into new wholes that initially dilute and risk eventually bringing about the extinction of their respective racial identities (and the various life goods that flow therefrom). Loving one’s enemy thus requires one to love and value the existence of other tribes, or other ‘race kinds’, provided the existential threat they pose is mitigated by their requiting the same love and value.[/i] (Silver) __________________________________________________________________ Of course, this is obvious, as well as known by me. Without ever having visited (or heard of) anthrocivitas, I've always thought Jews have done mixing in centuries past, as I/we have all seen representatives ranging from natural blondes, to more stereotypically swarthy ones. But Kevin MacDonald has stressed their endogamy, and I seem to recall reading in some very mainstream venue that population studies of the Jews showed great genetic continuity over time, and little intermixing. Moreover, most of the Jews I have known have all claimed to be "100% Jewish" going back as far as they were aware, which in at least a few cases was remarkably far. Finally, if Jews did extensive interbreeding in the remote past (as they are very much doing in the present), why has there been perpetuated a "Jewish look"? I can often identify a Jew simply by facial observation. No, I continue to think this an issue worthy of investigation. And if such investigation has been done, I'd like to learn about it. On a related note, I was never very familiar with Instauration (I subscribed for a year, late in its history, found it boring, and did not renew), nor do I spend much time trolling racialist sites, or studying the science of racial differences. As a matter of fact, I do/will need to do more studying in this field before I publish anything of a foundational nature (under a different name I have published already on racial politics and legislation). However, my perspective is one in which the actual biology of racial differentiation is not all that important. As I've stated at MR previously, I am less a 'pure racist' than what might be called a 'biological Occidentalist'. I was led to racialism because of my primary concern with preserving Western Civilization, which was obviously created by whites, and which my own observations of non-whites as well as the behavior and racial mores of whites living in racially integrated environments suggest to me will not be perpetuated in the absence of whites. Basically, the burden of proof is on those who allege that (unwanted) race-replacement will [i]not[/i] result in "civilization-replacement" as well. I can see no reason why it wouldn't, and certainly common sense suggests that a white national culture (eg France) will not have its essence perpetuated by those of different races (I say 'essence' as cultures are always changing, but it is within limited parameters: the culture embodied by Celine or Camus was not the same as that of Balzac or Lamartine, which in turn was different from Corneille and Racine, but it is all recognizably French). The biology of race is, for me, important, but hardly the central issue. Is Obama black or white? What if it turned out that his DNA was more European than African? Would that really matter? The bottom line is that Obama not only looks black (and is therefore regarded as such), but despite a 'white' upbringing, he feels no affinity for whites, or for the preservation of our cultural (and legal/institutional) heritage. While I obviously recognize that race is a valid bio-taxonomical category (as Rushton has put it), my own work centers on race as a political category and cultural artifact, as well as on the renovation of Western/Christian ethics that I argue will be necessary to justify the physical measures that will have to be implemented if the white race is to endure. I have neither the ability nor inclination to try to advance the science of racial differences, nor is that science directly relevant to what I see are the central racial dilemmas. The struggle to save the West, which must include white racial preservation, really has very little to do with differential IQ scores, or whether Italians are 'white' or mestizo. As to your suggestion re Christ, His refrain about 'loving one's enemy' was indeed an implicit condemnation of[i] irrational[/i] racial or tribal hatred, a plea to recognize common humanity, and bring to a conclusion ancient hatreds and blood-feuds (eg, just because the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor 70 years ago doesn't give me the moral sanction to go beat up a Japanese tourist). Of course, it had nothing to do with totalitarian states ignoring their own citizens' needs and wishes by resettling undesirable and unwanted immigrant aliens into settled, historic nations and polities.
10178349341287402392Rereading what I just posted, I notice several grammatical errors. Apologies. It's late, and I'm winding down from a long weekend.
10156249361287074224JB, I'm going to try to find some time to read your various links. I still maintain, however, that the best approach for the moment is to reconfigure something like the BNP as a single-issue anti-immigration party. And then just keep hammering away at the practical problems associated with being colonised and conquered by socially and culturally undesirable aliens. We don't need to reimagine The Racial State (someday yes, but no need to try to involve people in that type of discussion now), or sally forth with a New Ontology. What's wrong with the old ontology, or whatever? Just ask the British a variant on Reagan's famous line, "Are you better off today than four years ago?". "Is Britain a better place for YOU, sir, as a result of the invasion?" I don't think this is so hard. And stop whining about the Jews. They are too concealed. And once the native British recover their manhood, they will sniff the wind, and modify their behavior accordingly. Diviso et imperio. ---------- On another note: Does Fred Scrooby still write here? I haven't seen anything from him in a while.
10179149361287408377Let's get back to reality. This is for my fellow Americans (maybe I re-post this on Nov 1): Thanks to 45 years of unnecessary, undesirable, and untrammeled Third World immigration, destroying America's historic and very salutary white racial base, we are now a diverse (and thus increasingly dysfunctional) hellhole. Our future is bleak. Multiracial societies are not a blessing, but a curse, needing constant management to avoid or ameliorate natural tensions, not to mention, for whites, endless interracial wealth transfers and remediation for the benefit of economically underachieving non-whites. We are also an increasingly dysgenic society, as the genetically superior of all races have had the lowest fertility rates for the better part of a century now. The US has long exceeded its ecological carrying capacity (and yet the environmental movement is silent about immigration's role in generating nearly all contemporary population growth, still more evidence that most environmentalists hate capitalism far more than they care about biospheric preservation). And our darker, dumber and more crowded populace is ever less traditionalist in its outlook and morality, and even whites are more brainwashed into accepting destructive ideological and moral nonsense than ever before. In this political and cultural environment, when America is no longer a natural nation, but just a giant 'diverse' mob, the only hope for the American people rests with a renewal of the rule of impartial law, and the restoration of a full capitalist economy, to replace today's politicized, "rent-seeking" economic regime. The GOP is mostly weak and stupid, but Obama and his Democrats are uniformly evil. Decent people need to educate themselves, and then rally together to demand a much tougher conservative government, one which focuses on cleaning up the US, "strengthening the core", to use a gym metaphor, and not such peripheral (or at best long term) concerns as abortion, the gay agenda, foreign policy, Iranian nukes, etc ad infinitum. We must: 1) seal the borders, deport all illegal aliens, and end the legal immigration invasion and conquest of the US; 2) bring back a vigorous and widespread use of the death penalty, preferably in the form of public hanging; 3) restore our lost 2nd Amendment rights; 4) abolish all foreign aid; 5) abolish the Federal Reserve, and replace it with a 100% gold dollar; 6) radically deregulate and re-privatize the economy, to return to real capitalism, and hence growth; 7) substantially slash the Federal budget, especially in 'entitlements'; 8) after 7), cut taxes, especially those on business and capital gains; 9) modernize our nuclear weapons systems; 10) abolish AT LEAST the Departments of Commerce, Labor, HUD, Transportation, Agriculture, Education; 11) abolish affirmative action, and the whole divisive, "diversity" mentality, recognizing that we require maximum economic productivity for a long time if we are to a) create necessary jobs, b) successfully compete with China, India, Brazil, etc, c) fully fund bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, and d) close the deficit; and 12) finally, though this list is hardly exhaustive, we must begin dismantling the financially unsustainable US Empire overseas, which is both a physical as well as international financial entity, and does no good for ordinary Americans. If we as a nation do not begin following this type of fusionist conservative/libertarian/nationalist agenda, then, mark my words, America as we have known it, indeed, even as a civilized, First World country, will be dead before 2050.
10156149371287072807You have real talent, Bismuth, in the manner of Waugh or Roald Dahl. But you need to tighten matters up a bit, and develop ideas worthy of your literary skills.
10168149381287242380I'm going to re-post something of mine which feels somewhat apposite to this piece (apologies if I'm violating blog etiquette): We need to draw ethical distinctions between the Old and New Worlds. We are in a civilizational crisis of epic proportions. The existing ‘liberal mainstream’ in the West is philosophically untenable (because its practical ramifications have proven socially and politically disastrous). Rejecting ‘affirmative racism’ as well as the various types of multiculturalism is easy: such are either hypocritical and/or plainly incorrect in their tenets - and in no sense morally imperative. But our task, if we are serious about saving the European race, and its civilization, is to reject ‘colorblindness’ - and that is going to require an enormous reconceptualizing of Western ethics (which, several MR regulars might argue, will further require new concepts in metaphysics and ontology - I’m just not learned enough to form an opinion on that extension, however). That said, I still think we are all being overly intellectual (not in this piece, but as a general matter) - more especially British and Europeans, than “New Worlders”. The situation here seems far more ethically complex. After all, we have had non-white presences here since the beginning. While we whites built this country, and undeniably did everything of real value here, it cannot be denied that we are still, deontologically, a frontier/immigrant people. We go back 400 years. But you Europeans?! You’re losing what has been yours from time immemorial!! No serious case can be made that non-Europeans have any sort of moral right to be there. At best there are some complications from those actually born there (the second or third generation), though nothing insurmountable: the French established their colony in Algeria long before the Algerians established themselves in France, yet the former were effectively ethnically cleansed. Life is unfair, but I cannot see any moral reason why Europeans shouldn’t tell their “guests” that it’s time to start packing. So it seems to me that Europeans need to worry about intellectualizing their nationalism much less than Australians or Americans. Rather than contributing to the patriot cause by developing ever more esoteric racial philosophies, I, if European, would put more effort into the practical organizational and media work of explaining the dangers (and costs) of continued immigration. The Continent-wide ‘nationalist minimum’ would seem to be stopping immigration. Without accomplishing that, [u]rarefied ontologies will prove physically, practically useless.[/u] As I said at one point on MR, I continue to see no reason why the British parliamentary system cannot support a single-issue, anti-immigration party - one stripped of the usual nationalist agendas and baggage. Why bring in WW2 revisionism, support for Palestine, national economics, foreign affairs, housing issues, the financial system, evolutionary theory, or anything that a normal political party (or ideological movement) concerns itself with? Why not simply have a successor to the BNP which solely focuses on stopping immigration? Could the EDL evolve into something like this? To what extent will BFP follow this approach?
10208649381287866479I went to that opendemocracy site - what a bunch of race traitors! What can patriots really do, when at this very late date, when the failures of anti-racism and racial integration are so obvious, there are still so, so many whites who cannot face reality? Clearly, the white race is biologically defective. We have reached our evolutionary endpoint. The only hope, as I've written here, is Aryan in-gathering - emigration/conquest/ethnostate.
10210149381287930295[i]I think we’re on the same page, Leon. What do you think about Northwest Front?[/i] (Jimmy Marr) Jimmy, Never heard of it, until you pointed it out. I read some of the website. Could be promising, but: 1. Weren't people already hashing this about as far back as the 70s (then it was to be called The White America Bastion, or something)? Various neo-Nazi and Identity people, who, incidentally, are far more ideologically extremist than I am, went up to Idaho, and nothing much happened, except ultimate US Federal Govt harassment, the killing of Randy Weaver's wife, etc. 2. My notion of the ethnostate comes about through WN emigration and peaceful demographic conquest of an already existent sovereign polity (eg, Australia or Uruguay have seemed the most promising to me). [I've discussed this at some greater length here at MR; maybe a search will find my comments.] The NWF idea seems to be talking about internal immigration/conquest, followed perhaps by racial cleansing and then secession. That is infinitely more difficult to achieve, especially as whites continue our slow-motion descent into slavery - or at least the status of a conquered people. 3. I strongly support racially conscious whites intentionally coalescing ("sending out the call") in a given area, forming political and social networks, and unannounced militias for common racial defense, and organizing politically, albeit in subterranean fashion, to perhaps take over local GOP party orgs, school boards, etc. I'm sceptical if this will actually lead to the real ethnostate (it would certainly help to make the lives of the area's whites more pleasant). 4. As for myself, I would probably pass on this initially, though I might be a "second-wave" emigrant (once tougher, more committed men like you or Covington, etc, actually did the hard initial settler work). I'm neither a pioneer, nor a hero, nor any kind of martyr. I have a very clearly defined set of objectives for myself to aid the movement for race preservation, most of which involve intellectual projects, the initial ones aimed at possibly gaining me a place within the broader conservative media (Haller is not my real name). I'm able to succeed within the commercial mainstream; as I transition to a different career, I think I can eventually be a kind of bridge between Hard Right conservatism, and WN. That is my goal, anyway, or one of them. Relatedly, I'm also in the process of trying to get up an [i]American[/i] (not white) nationalist organization, one which will utterly eschew any racism (and thus, if we grow, will be condemned by VNN, Covington, etc), but which will be an activist organization many of whose goals will be congruent with WN. We've got to wake up our countrymen to their dispossession, but we lose them if we go in too hard on race (just a fact of life, as I see it). Many of our fellow whites want to support an implicitly white agenda (eg, stop immigration, abolish affirmative action, resist multiculturalism, oppose welfare, shoot criminals, etc), as long as "race" is never mentioned. Hence, American nationalism. [I've discussed all this in private correspondence with GW.] 5. Although I would have wanted the US to have stayed out of WW2, I totally reject Nazism, both morally and strategically. Nazism needs to be buried. We don't need new racial symbols, or flags, or ideologies. We just need to assert traditional values, as long as they aid white preservation, and are understood to be racial values, too.
10210249381287930769A quick addendum: I'm not only a WN, or interested only in WN political issues. I am also a Catholic, and a serious conservative, and I have many intellectual interests to explore stemming from those identities, as well.
10213649381288004460[i]Enough with lies, Leon. They are strangling us to death. You cannot hope to do better than the Tea Party, which is and will amount to nothing but a pathetic diversion.[/i] (Captainchaos) [i]one which will utterly eschew any racism [/i](LH) [i]Having an organisation which ignores race as a way of avoiding attention but which under that cover relentlessly attacks the multicult could still be of some value. However i can’t see how an organisation that goes out of its way to reinforce the values of the multicult can be of any use.[/i] (Wandrin) __________________________ I have no intention of telling lies. Nor would any organization of mine ever reinforce multiculturalism in any way. I simply don't have to rub people's faces in the whole truth. Take immigration (to the US). I think we can all agree on two facts. At present it is 98-99% non-white, and unless stopped, it will reduce whites to less than 50% of the population by about 2030. By 2050, even without wholesale resettlement of alien peoples/refugees, whites could easily comprise a mere 25% of the US population; by 2100, we could be less than 10%. The paramount issue is that immigration be stopped. So what is more important: loudly declaiming all racial truths, no matter how many anti-immigrationists are thereby alienated, or actually stopping (or even just substantially reducing) immigration - even if accomplishing the latter requires the deliberate suppression of 'divisive' truths? I favor actual political accomplishments over maintaining ideological purity. We can always "up the racial ante" down the road. But we must stop the bleeding by whatever means first. You gentlemen need to develop a frankly more sophisticated sense of what is politically possible at this time, absent 'game-changing' (and improbable) social or physical cataclysms. I have always lived, intellectually and ideologically as well as socially and economically, in the real world. That world is not ours. If we are going to transform it as we would like, we are going to have to be patient and subtle, exactly as, to be honest, Jewry has been in multiculturalizing us. Hence the organization I am working on, which I believe represents the next step in white American racial/ideological evolution; which is to say, [i]American[/i] nationalism. Under that ideology, we can oppose immigration, affirmative action, multiculti, and many other outrages without ever harkening directly to race. By doing so, we will appeal to a far larger number of whites, than by doing anything directly racist. And yet, our agendas can substantially overlap. Eventually, after American nationalism has had its run, and actually accomplished the development of implicit white awakening among large numbers of whites, as well as the cessation of immigration, then the next generation can start pushing for the ethnostate. Push for it in today's deracinated climate, and you will be either totally marginalized, or persecuted by the occupationist regime.
10178549391287403990Well said, GW, in your riposte to CC. NS is dead, though some form of neo-NS (militant, proletarian based, pan-European racial collectivism) may be more likely (as well as effective) than old-fashioned nationalism. Or not. I don't know. Perhaps it depends on particular circumstances - the extent to which individual historic European fatherlands have been deracinated. Nationalism may be enough to preserve, say, Serbia, but perhaps the UK or France have been so 'multiculturated' that for patriots race is more meaningful than nation. And yes, integrationism is far more deadly than multiculturalism. I don't want Turks in Germany learning German, marrying Germans, and structurally assimilating into German society. I want them to remain as unintegrated as possible, pending their final removal from German soil and life. I am not, however, at all certain that we are that much closer to the racial resurrection of Europe. I dearly hope I'm wrong, but I fear there must be many additional outrages and catastrophes before our people are sufficiently awakened to demand restoration of their historic folkish states and communities. Recall an earlier suggestion of mine here at MR. What is needed is the appropriation and transposition of the mid-20th century rhetoric of Third World decolonisation to the European present. This is another area of future scholarly interest to me.
10178949391287406279The Western world, including the US, is locked in what is clearly now a global demographic war for racial survival. Slowly but surely, because whites everywhere have lost their communal wills to endure as distinct peoples on this Earth, our race is going extinct. Allied to this passive extinction is the active hatred of many - blacks in Southern Africa, Latinos in the Western Hemisphere, Arabs in Europe and even Australia, native Hawaiians, etc - across the globe for whites (a hatred mainly born in jealousy for our superior civilization). Islam is increasingly becoming the main locus of this global anti-white hatred. Islam is not a great religion. Only Christianity is true. Islam is a violent pagan cult that has been unilaterally aggressing against Christians and other religions of peace for 1400 years. It is the main, the Eternal, enemy of the West. It must be resisted anywhere and everywhere. Not ONE SINGLE mosque belongs ANYWHERE on Western soil. Every mosque is a kind of enemy outpost, a breach of our psychological and even physical defenses.
10190649391287569703NN, Why don't you condense your thoughts, and publish them here formally?
10190849401287570801[i]But I would submit that the real problem is much deeper than any particular intellectual cult or economic school of thought (European or Jewish) and arises from the fact that we operate on an incomplete view of wealth. In particular, the picture of wealth that’s built into our economic way of thinking tends to ignore the social dimension - because it only views humanity as a source of fungible labor - and also tends to ignore the environmental dimension - because it views the natural world as an external commodity, thus decoupling it from the human society that it supports. These mistakes are easy to ignore for a time because their consequences manifest progressively and collectively over some interval and, moreover, can be invisible to those individual businesses that are contributing to them. Thus we are treated with the absurdity of being told how “rich” China has become when her people lack clean water to drink and clean air to breathe, or how “wealthy” Western countries are when our people are in the process of being replaced. In the former it is the ecological element that is most ignored while in the latter it is the social element that is most ignored. It goes without saying that I’m not saying anything new here.[/i] (Notus Wind) Yes, but you say it well (except for this: "because it views the natural world as an external commodity, thus decoupling it from the human society that it supports." - not sure what the latter part means, unless it's something simple, along the lines of "don't piss in your own well").
10191549401287577034[i]civilizational overshoot[/i] (Soren Renner) Do you mean "ecological overshoot"? I am well acquainted with carrying capacity theory, but ecological overshoot cannot at this time be a problem for Europe (for many countries, yes, perhaps for the planet as a whole - but not for the West, [b][i]absent very excessive immigration[/i][/b]). One lacuna at MR. You gentlemen talk often of immigration, RR, dysgenics (and 'ontology', and similarly abstruse topics). But I can remember very little if any mention of Europe's birth dearth (except by me). Given the considerable amount of criticism here of free markets as well, how exactly do you envision Europe paying for the lavish state pensions, health care, etc of its social democracies, given its aging populations with their attendant entitlement claims? You nationalists can't have everything. The numbers don't add up. You cannot: a. end immigration + b. deport/repatriate non-whites + c. keep lowering your carbon footprint + d. reject rigorous capitalist efficiencies (for being Jewish, or some such nonsense) while e. continuing your social services regimes at anything like statutorily promised benefit levels. There isn't and won't be the money available. Significance? Assuming ending immigration is paramount, and you wish to at least [i]maintain[/i] recent environmental improvements (you can forget about very much greater pollution/carbon reductions), your only options are to make massive, politically problematic cuts in majoritarian entitlements like pensions and healthcare - or to ramp up economic growth by embracing radical laissez-faire capitalism. Nationalists will never get to democratic power advocating such cuts (what Cameron and Osbourne want in cuts, which, BTW, is exactly what should be done, but more expansively, is literally a tiny fraction of what's needed). Therefore, the politico-economic choice Westerners face all over the world (but esp in Europe) is : mass immigration (assuming the immigrants are net tax-contributors), or, real capitalism to generate greater economic growth (coupled with lots of hard work and higher taxes). Europe's "dolce vita" is over, even without aliens and minarets.
10195649401287661705[i]Posted by Dirty Bull on October 20, 2010, 03:45 PM | # Leon Haller, Yeah, and America’s economic model is di]oing just fine right now.You’re more fucked then we are, and what’s more you CAUSED this depression with your fucking stupid immigration of low skilled spics and dagoes (they couldn’t afford to pay their mortgages due to wages stagnating in good ol’fashioned free wheeling USA for over 40 years), whlst the yid shrks at Goldman Sachs (who have half of congress on thir pay-roll), shafted you dumb goys a treat - oh and another thing right wing cunts like George W. Bush were a diaster I am a WN, but i can’t stand people like you.In fact if WN is composed of people like you, I’d go ovr to the other side.[/i] Dirty Bullshitter, That's a rather extreme as well as irrelevant response, wouldn't you say? Too much into your bitters, perhaps, when it was written? I do not support immigration, like Goldman Sachs (those fucks cost me a lot of money in 08), think that the USA is in good economic shape, or believe Bush was a rightwinger (if you think so, you are even more ignorant than you appear). None of this is of any relevance to what I said above, which, of course, you failed to refute, because you cannot. Europe's pansy welfare democracies are fiscally doomed, absent mass immigration, substantial benefits cuts, or capitalist economic growth, and this was due in no small part to Europeans deciding to have fun and female careers for the past fifty years, instead of children. This point and the conclusion I derive from it are irrefutable. And the fact that hardline realists like me could cause you to betray your alleged nationalist commitment merely demonstrates that that commitment wasn't much to begin with.
10201549401287748781[i]Leon Haller, I repeat my point that it was the policy diasters of the USA that visited the economic crisis upon Britain - and therefore I take great offence at your pontificating on what we should or shouldn’t do. It was right-wing ass-holes like George Bush and his Jewish neo-cons who fucked up the world.It was America’s untold millions of 3rd world trash immigrants who gutted the mortgage market.It was the shyster yids at Goldman Sachs who ran off with the loot. I hate the EU.But the financial trainwreck (Made in the USA TM), is drawing me more and more to the conclusion that the UK must decouple from the USA in every possible way and seek a future in Europe. Anyway you’re fucked.You’re on a one-way ticket to Hell.You very, very soon will be 50+% minority - just look at California for your future. China will run the world.[/i] (Dirty Bull) I don't disagree with you on the grim future of the US, or on the causes of our current crisis (and I live in California, and so probably know much more about our state fiscal wreckage than you do). I totally disagree with you, however, in blaming the US for the profligacy of your recent idiotic Labour Govts - and of Europe generally. Britain's crisis is totally self-created: you're too socialist, as with most of the rest of Europe (read: too lazy). You need to return to capitalism (and you also need to stop immigration, which in your case is far more pathetic than in America's: we have an extensive tradition of immigration, plus we were a New World; you're the Old World - what excuse could you have had for destroying ancient fatherlands just to be good little human-rights pussies?). I, too, would like to see Britain move closer to Europe, and away from the US, though I doubt that will happen. I would like to see the whole of Europe become a series of Racial States, so that Western Civ will be preserved at least there, if it is overwhelmed here. America has been a bad racial influence on Europe, both ideologically, as well as sociologically. By providing you with your defense during the Cold War, we effectively subsidized your welfare states, basically transforming nations of warriors into craven benefits seekers. By removing our defense subsidies, it will force you Europeans to start recovering your independence, and hence manhood. But of one thing I am certain: although there may be more nationalists in Europe, there are vastly more lickspittle leftists, too. At the same time, there are far more tough-minded, gun-owning, property-oriented, freedom loving conservatives here. In the next decade or so, many of them will make the leap towards incorporating racial realism into their conservatism. Because white Americans are tougher than at least West Europeans, I think we are more likely to endure with honor than you. But you still haven't refuted my point wrt paying for Europe's bloated pension states in an era of declining native European fertility.
10208449401287863640Unfortunately, it is true that the US has not been a force for white racial good overall, except insofar as we alone prevented the spread of communism, esp in Western Europe, whose capitulation to the communists (without American military aid and spine stiffening) would have been disastrous. America's racial problems and 'solutions', none of which I ever supported, had nothing to do with Britain throwing open its borders (Germany, maybe, which angers me, as I am mostly of German ancestry, and we invaded them, and racially/ideologically reconstructed them), or with your awful, totalitarian anti-free speech laws (whose reach has meant that patriot sites like this one have to be based in the US). Don't blame the US for Britain's unnecessary capitulation to multiculturalism. It's your own weakness. This is a kind of universal white mental pathology. This does not change the fact that Europe, including Britain, opted for socialism and laziness in the place of capitalist discipline and rearing large families, and the result is a crisis in European finances which cannot be papered over (unless literally - via wealth-confiscating inflation), and will necessitate either a massive scaling back in your welfare states, or a return to capitalism in a big way - or mass immigration. A sad, self-inflicted situation. We are in a similar one; worse, because we have larger numbers of unproductive non-whites, but better insofar as whites here are much more capitalist-oriented, and frankly harder-working.
10209849401287926735DB, I admire PJB tremendously, but be assured, I think my own thoughts. I am a daily reader of [i]The Wall Street Journal[/i], a paper which is obviously too corporatist/globalist/immigrationist, but whose editorial page is nevertheless very good at dissecting legislation, as well as presenting all manner of business and political facts. They have published many articles and editorials over the years asserting that Americans work substantially more per year than Europeans, including Britons. I see no reason to dispute their often elaborately gathered findings. Indeed, look at these French weasels: striking and pillaging in large numbers over a proposal to raise the retirement age from 60 or 61 to 62. What a joke! I fully expect to work for pay (possibly out of necessity, or not, depending on my career and family trajectories, and the broader economy) at least until 70 - and I will write articles and books thereafter until I die. White fertility is a bit higher in the US than Europe, but that was never my point, which, rather, was that your social welfare/pension programs are so much more generous and comprehensive than our own, and your economies, even in the disastrous Age of Obama, so much more socialist/sclerotic, that your countries are mostly facing complete, long-term insolvency unless you radically change things. The US is in a worsening situation, too, but we have far more capitalist sentiment in our population, which bodes better for our extricating ourselves more rapidly. Labour always has been an utter disaster for Britain, never more so than under Blair/Brown. It is simply incorrect to blame the US for your current problems.
10209949401287927639[i]The dislocation of indigenous family formation caused by immigration is a major factor in the birth dearth. There is no difference in America except in the *average* which is higher because the middle states are not (were not) the target of immigration.[/i] (Wandrin) There is some truth to this, but you don't get off so easily. If you know your demographic history, you recognize that white fertility has been falling since the early twentieth century (as many then race theorists were already decrying), due obviously to a confluence of many factors, among which immigration barely registers. Our birthrates have continued to plummet, but much of the blame for that goes to feminism persuading women to seek out of home careers, and, frankly, The Pill (and easier access to more effective contraceptives generally). The devastation of two European Continent wars also wreaked havoc (along with massive civilian non-combat deaths, from disease and malnutrition), and communism both directly and indirectly depressed Eastern Europe's fertility. But the main culprits were feminism, socialism (decreasing the familial economic worth of children), and sexual liberationism. The modern rootless, deracinated, de-Christianized West is simply not very conducive to traditional families, which are now often seen as more of a drag than a joy. The paradox, of course, is that The Future Belongs to the Fecund.
10237349401288521116[i]Economics doesn’t matter. The idea that economics matters is Jewish, just like economics itself. Not everything is about money or money-grubbing. Contemporary money is just another Jewish fiction, an expression of ancient Babylonian Jewish ritual magic. In the past people have had many more children under much worse material conditions. If they wanted to, whites today could have many more children than they do, but they don’t, because they don’t care. They don’t value life, because they don’t have to fight for it. Whites are overconfident and complacent. They don’t care about the future because they take it for granted. They still have it too good. They have no vision and no mission, and they have no faith in something greater than their stupid materialism-addicted selves. Whites need more negative feedback to help them refocus on what really matters.[/i] (Johnny Montana) The first paragraph is ignorant and confused. The second paragraph, surprisingly, is very wise.
10195049411287656741[i]Either way, it will be a well deserved death to America.[/i] (Jimmy Marr) What are you referring to?
10201349411287746552Please watch your English style, Mr. Haller. “To what do you refer?” would be equally correct and preferable in some vague way. (Soren Renner) hahahaha! Yeah, you are correct (or "to what are you referring?"), one shouldn't end on a preposition, at least as a matter of style (grammatically, however, I committed no error). Given the incredible amount of inelegant phraseology, not to mention brain-freezing verbosity, frequently in evidence on this site, however, I must presume your reprimand was tongue-in-cheek, as I am far from the worst syntactical hooligan.
10201449411287747427[i]I’ve spent a great deal of time and energy arranging, financing and delivering racialist, historical revisionist, and counter-semitic programs at University of Oregon over the last few years. Its recently become clear that I will no longer be allowed to speak in campus facilities. Its disappointing in one way, and flattering in another. It required a resolution of the Faculty Senate to shut me up. But the saddest part about the whole deal is the feeling that my efforts were in vain. I recall a comment by a student at a presentation I gave during the heat of summer “I don’t really care about anything you have to say. I’m just here for the air conditioning”. The most affirmative response I ever received came from a contingent of white students who gave me a standing ovation for saying “The white race is going extinct”. The comment for which you have requested clarification: Either way, it will be a well deserved death to America. is a reflection of the resentment I feel as a result of this experience. I hope it passes soon. Thanks for inquiring.[/i] (Jimmy Marr) _________________________________________ I understand, and empathize. Obviously, you are brave, have a love of truth and justice, and are dispirited at the spectacle of our race, the planet's best, sleepwalking over a cliff (I always think of Alec Guiness in [i]The Bridge on the River Kwai[/i], uncomprehendingly aiding the racial enemy out of a misplaced fidelity to his own higher morality, until his awakening in the moment before his death). I often share that despair, but resolve it in two separate ways. As a theist/Christian (again, in [i]essence[/i], not in all ridiculous, culturally-artifactual particulars; I am nearly the opposite of a Thumper, in outlook as well as practical conduct), I believe that (self-sacrificial) activism to promote justice for our people is pleasing to God, as is all work for what is right and good. In my dark moments of atheism, when life seems pointless, I still believe racial activism has worth, if only as an expression of personal manly pride, and a refusal to be a coward or sucker. Remember: the respect and approval of one man of quality is worth more than the applause of thousands of sheep. Keep up your good work as best you can!
10337849421290260845[i]Leon, Your comment, while interesting in its own right, is not an answer to the question “What is your final value?” The answer can’t be “What would work best”, since one can still ask the question why. What is it, for you, that answers all questions and is still there, a self-evident truth, when they’ve run out?[/i] (GW) Very hard to answer. Logic and math of course, but [i]final[/i]? Physical pain, and its avoidance. Orwell's Room 101 (if that's the right number). Though, of course, come to think of it, that's not exactly true, as there are causes for which I might be willing to accept pain. My ultimate value would be ethics, doing that which God (if He exists) would consider morally right. If you are speaking politically, then my ultimate value is the biological perpetuity of the (pure) white race, but only because I believe that the maintenance of racial purity is the precondition of the survival of Western Civ, which I wish to preserve as a good in itself. If whites were degenerate losers, with no evolutionary/progressive or cultural renewal possibilities, then I would be a racialist only out of personal security and economic prosperity concerns (and intellectual interest).
10201649421287755985Interesting thoughts, beautifully presented. Of course, you understand that Christiam universalism has nothing in common with globalism, or the reduction of man to the status of proletarian cattle characteristic of Marxist aspirations. The "universalism" of Christianity merely acknowledges that all men are creatures begotten of God, and as such, are invited to partake of salvation through acceptance of Christ. "My kingdom is not of this world", Christ informed us, and loyalty to Him in no way obviates loyalty to kin and nation (whatever the various nominal or "theistic Marxist" Christians plaguing the various denominations may state to the contrary) - as millenia of Christians before our bizarrely fallen times have implicitly understood.
10207449421287840127I don't understand. I had a longish response, tried to post it (the word was "13boys"), and somehow re-posted a comment from another thread. I am really bummed out. How did this happen? I can't find my original comment!
10207549421287840328I cannot believe I lost that comment. What a lesson! Break up long comments, post paragraph by paragraph! What a waste of time. Fuck it, time to sleep.
10207649421287840813The one advantage of typewriters: at least you never lost your product with one or two incorrect keystrokes!!! That's really a turnoff. You know, I only tried to copy my text because of occasional problems with posting long comments in the past, which somehow got timed out, and wouldn't post.
10207349421287839871The Larger Question, danced around but insufficiently honed: What is it exactly that “you people” want, and why? National (proletarian) Collectivism, Aryan Aristocracy, a recrudesced national past (and which one), maintenance of existing social and political forms and structures sans non-whites, etc? I affiliate with white nationalism for three reasons. First, and more idealistically, I wish to preserve Western Civilization, which I find in the High Culture as well as superior moral values of the historic European ethnocultures/nations. I further recognize that biology undergirds social and cultural evolution, and I believe, as a function of historical study as well as personal (and vicarious) observation, that only genetic (racial) continuity will ensure cultural continuity (’culture’ in both senses of the word: mental (intellectual and artistic) production, and folkways). Only whites will preserve Western culture in perpetuity. I am, in other words, nothing more than a true conservative. There are other true conservatives sprinkled throughout the West today, but most are cowards when it comes to acknowledging the ineradicable relation between conservatism and racial preservation, understood both genetically (blood purity) and demographically (numerical preponderance). Second, it is in my long-term personal interest as a white man to fight against my racial dispossession and disempowerment. The presence of non-whites directly harms me in numerous ways, from fear of criminal victimization, to wealth transfers (both in taxes and professional setbacks due to “positive” discrimination), to non-white seduction and (for me) ruination of white females, to anxiety about all these negative effects of racial diversification intensifying in the future. ‘Diversity’ brings no benefit to me, but many harms. Finally, I am a man of moral integrity, as well as personal honor (a Christian, if somewhat lackadaisical and heterodox, and a Roman), and thus find unendingly nauseating, and personally infuriating, the lies and behaviors associated with the Cult of Diversity, both the unearned swagger of arrogant and abrasive minorities, and the pathetic pusillanimity of whites in the face of it. The Christian in me morally rebels against the untruths of the Cult, while the Roman in me wants to confront and destroy it. I’d enjoy hearing why others identify with WN, and what they understand by it (I have an ulterior reason for posting this, having to do with what I take to be many philosophical and strategic errors swirling about the WN blogsphere, including here).
10210049421287928051Very good, Wandrin (though I'm sorry that I accidentally posted that comment here, when I lost another, much longer one somehow). The jury is still out, though, on whether any kind of either liberalism or democracy will be compatible with any white ethnostate. They could be logically, perhaps, but [i]psycho[/i]logically, I think some type of fairly rigorous authoritarianism will be needed, both to achieve as well as maintain the ethnostate, at least in the early years.
10214749421288013203[i]“What do we want” is a good question. But it is not the first question. That, to answer pug, is “Who are we”. In the end, if we cannot answer this simple question, if, instead, all we can do is point to histories and genealogies or cite study references or lose ourselves in filmy imaginings of a virtuous past ... if we really cannot look at one another and at our children and say “This is who we are, and we are one”, then how can we be expected to fight those who oppress us and take our freedom as a people away and our children’s birthright? How can we be expected to slough off the veil of lies and distortions that they use? How can we find something more important to us than our jobs, our comforts, our security, our quiet lives, and do what must be done? It is easy to say, “Here ... here is the panacea. Here is what we must do.” Our numbers are full of people who have such thoughts. They don’t understand how deep the existential crisis runs. For over a thousand years we have worshipped an adopted god and a dogma of original sin. For over nine hundred years we have tolerated a detached and self-interested ruling elite. For over three hundred years we have chased after an abstract notion of liberty. We have industrialised and atomised, and become impoverished by debt and by a crass materialism. We have fought brother wars. We have allowed the Jew to insinuate himself in our affairs, and now we are told we do not exist and there is nothing to defend against the waves of unwanted aliens washing over us. The very idea, we are told, is unthinkable and inhuman. How can we, to borrow from Fred Astaire, simply pick ourselves up from this, dust ourselves down and start all over again? No, we must be serious. Our self-estrangement is too profound to permit simple solutions. As peoples and as a race, we have to return ourselves to healthy functioning, and the gold standard ... the real meaning ... of that is that once again we know who we are.[/i] GW) _______________________________ A [b][i]lot[/i][/b] here to mull. This response could easily generate a counter-response in the form of a series of questions - Thirty (or Fifty or a Hundred) Questions for Racialists. Because I am harried, I will confine myself. 1. Is it possible to say "who we are"? Who any race/people is, existentially? Has our race ever answered that question in the past? 2. Is it really necessary to answer "who we are" in order to save our race from extinction? 3. Why did our self-estrangement, if dated to the Euro-barbarian conversions (in the main, from Constantine to its substantial conclusion by the time of Charlemagne), only [i]now[/i] manifest itself? 4. Do you hold that modern Western/white self-denial was always a latent aspect of the West's acceptance of Christianity? Or is it possible that modern Christianity is itself a heretical deformation of the historic faith? How do you explain the clear fact that Western self-hatred has grown concurrently with the decline of traditionalist Christianity, and the rise of liberalism? 5. Is white suicide [i]primarily[/i] a philosophical, theological, biological, sociological, or political problem? I think these questions (and others I didn't list) are very important, as is this type of discussion (though we must always bear in mind that at some point soon, we must 'shite or get off the can'; we cannot endlessly debate the sources of our existential angsts, while the floodtide of aliens washes ever higher - I always like to remind the intellectuals that there is an ever-worsening [i]physical[/i] condition out there that finally we will have to defeat, concurrent with our theorizing, if not before we have fashioned a new meaning of life). My own view (very simplified) is: a. Christianity is plausible enough for me to accept it. b. Christianity, in its essence, does not morally necessitate the abandonment of non-universal attachments (to kin, community, nation, race). c. Liberalism is hostile to particularistic attachments, as well as un- and anti-Christian. d. The rise of Western self-destruction precisely chronologically mirrors the political ascendance of leftism (liberalism, socialism), though other, less ideational factors have played important roles in white destruction: rise of Jews, intra-racial wars, communication/transportation revolution 'shrinking' the world and thereby facilitating immigration, trade, capital flows, in turn leading to white elite unrootedness and psychic displacement from 'folkish' bonds, general rise of 'individual' and 'self', etc. e. The intellectual/ideational problem of white suicide is to be solved through a return to traditional Christianity, now theologically updated to sanction ethnocommunal preservation (such preservationism, I believe, always theologically latent in the Faith, though never explored in great depth - as far as I have discovered - as today's issues have never before obtained). Much more could be said, obviously. I leave the ball(s) in your court(s).
10215149421288014878GW, On one point we are in complete agreement. The modal way of life in the white world today is wholly racially unsustainable. That is, the entirety of the modern way of life propels white extinction, even if that is not the intention of most whites (neither is racial preservation, of course). Is racial extinction primarily an epiphenomenon of the modern lifestyle? Or is it intrinsic to it? Put another way, there is an ideology - multiculturalism, 'diversityism', liberalism - dominant in the West which promotes white extinction (or at least, excoriates positive steps towards white preservation). But it seems as though the dominant economic structures and (non-racial) social mores ('acquisitive individualism') in the West also functionally promote white extinction. Does the ideology create the structures and mores, or did the latter create conditions for which multiculti can be seen as an [i]ex post facto[/i] rationalization? I know I'm not expressing myself well, but perhaps you/others can intuit where I'm going with this. I want to know if this is really all one big intellectual problem/error, or if the modern world, quite apart from multiculti ideology, produces a non-communitarian, short-term outlooking greedmonger, for whom kinist or nationalist sacrifice is no longer desirable or even intelligible.
10215349421288015797NN, You just wrote that comment/response in 11 minutes??!! Unless you've merely appended something written previously, you must be some kind of genius. I'm not sure I merely could have typed what you wrote that quickly.
10219349421288092119To Jimmy Marr: You asked, I answered. [i]I think we’re on the same page, Leon. What do you think about Northwest Front? (Jimmy Marr)[/i] Jimmy, Never heard of it, until you pointed it out. I read some of the website. Could be promising, but: 1. Weren’t people already hashing this about as far back as the 70s (then it was to be called The White America Bastion, or something)? Various neo-Nazi and Identity people, who, incidentally, are far more ideologically extremist than I am, went up to Idaho, and nothing much happened, except ultimate US Federal Govt harassment, the killing of Randy Weaver’s wife, etc. 2. My notion of the ethnostate comes about through WN emigration and peaceful demographic conquest of an already existent sovereign polity (eg, Australia or Uruguay have seemed the most promising to me). [I’ve discussed this at some greater length here at MR; maybe a search will find my comments.] The NWF idea seems to be talking about internal immigration/conquest, followed perhaps by racial cleansing and then secession. That is infinitely more difficult to achieve, especially as whites continue our slow-motion descent into slavery - or at least the status of a conquered people. 3. I strongly support racially conscious whites intentionally coalescing ("sending out the call") in a given area, forming political and social networks, and unannounced militias for common racial defense, and organizing politically, albeit in subterranean fashion, to perhaps take over local GOP party orgs, school boards, etc. I’m sceptical if this will actually lead to the real ethnostate (it would certainly help to make the lives of the area’s whites more pleasant). 4. As for myself, I would probably pass on this initially, though I might be a “second-wave” emigrant (once tougher, more committed men like you or Covington, etc, actually did the hard initial settler work). I’m neither a pioneer, nor a hero, nor any kind of martyr. I have a very clearly defined set of objectives for myself to aid the movement for race preservation, most of which involve intellectual projects, the initial ones aimed at possibly gaining me a place within the broader conservative media (Haller is not my real name). I’m able to succeed within the commercial mainstream; as I transition to a different career, I think I can eventually be a kind of bridge between Hard Right conservatism, and WN. That is my goal, anyway, or one of them. Relatedly, I’m also in the process of trying to get up an American (not white) nationalist organization, one which will utterly eschew any racism (and thus, if we grow, will be condemned by VNN, Covington, etc), but which will be an activist organization many of whose goals will be congruent with WN. We’ve got to wake up our countrymen to their dispossession, but we lose them if we go in too hard on race (just a fact of life, as I see it). Many of our fellow whites want to support an implicitly white agenda (eg, stop immigration, abolish affirmative action, resist multiculturalism, oppose welfare, shoot criminals, etc), as long as “race” is never mentioned. Hence, American nationalism. [I’ve discussed all this in private correspondence with GW.] 5. Although I would have wanted the US to have stayed out of WW2, I totally reject Nazism, both morally and strategically. Nazism needs to be buried. We don’t need new racial symbols, or flags, or ideologies. We just need to assert traditional values, as long as they aid white preservation, and are understood to be racial values, too. A quick addendum: I’m not only a WN, or interested only in WN political issues. I am also a Catholic, and a serious conservative, and I have many intellectual interests to explore stemming from those identities, as well.
10220849421288184913Jimmy, One last comment. Don't give up your activism. Our race needs it as a prelude to any type of racial recovery. I'm just downplaying the notion of an ethnostate carved out of existing American territory. Also, WN activism should NOT focus on shock tactics, such as appropriating anything from Nazism. It should be about simple truth telling, and making appeals to justice, and the white man's own innate common sense, and sense of fairness. We are in the moral right, and morality among whites (especially white Americans) trumps mere recitations of dry scientific facts. The will-to-power posing of NeoNietzsche; the Hitler advocacy of Captainchaos; the desiccated, life-is-meaningless-so-we-create-our-own-meanings-despite-not-really-doing-so-because-free-will-does-not-exist philosophy of GW; the scornful rebuking of Christianity of Sam Davidson; the casual dismissal of God and man's spiritual longings of Notus Wind; the ludicrous anthropomorphizing of genetic structures by seemingly everybody, except AWOL Fred Scrooby ... Even apart from the many metaphysical errors I strongly suspect to be swirling about in these parts, none of these approaches is really going to amount to much in actually furthering our preservation, at least in the US, though the extent to which they might be tactically defensible approaches elsewhere merely accentuates the degree of the West's degradation and disassociation (dare I say "self-estrangement"?) from its heritage. I've said this before (to no avail, of course), but even the most hard-headed Darwinian or Nietzschean should be able to recognize the ethical superiority of whites to non-whites. It was from an early recognition of such on my part that I became a very precocious racialist. I was only ever attracted to White Power reactively and defensively. If non-whites were violently aggressing against us, then by (and with) God, we should defend ourselves! Fight Back! That was/is not only our right, but our duty. Later, of course, I broadened my understanding to include an awareness that mass immigration was a form of government sponsored 'structural violence' against whites. But always, I was motivated in racial thinking by a sense of moral outrage, compounded of course by the lies and historiographical duplicity of multiculturalism, not to mention disgust at constant white appeasement of violent and disagreeable minorities. My simple point is that, even for atheists and Nazis, we are going to win or lose in the realm of ethics. Most white people are good people (which, nota bene!, is why their survival ultimately matters); often ethically confused, never more so than in our times, but basically wanting to do the right thing. We must win on ethical grounds, or all the racial science will be unavailing. 'Ought' never finally comes from 'is'. And in America, the foundation of most whites' ethics is Christianity (and in Europe, too, though the fools have turned their backs on religious truth and their own heritage; having done so, of course GW is correct about the need for a new ontology, or a new understanding of reality, including of what kind of a being Man is, and of the sources of his happiness). We will win here only by convincing those whites who are [i]not[/i][b][/b] racially/mentally defective (the defectives are a large proportion of our people, but possibly not a majority), only confused or fearful, that racial preservation is at least ethically permissible, if not morally mandatory. And we will do that by subverting the true religious subversives (the multiculturalists); ie, by showing that one can be both a Christian and a white patriot, that Christianity is not incompatible with active, sub-universal attachments (eg, to race and nation). If WN is seen to be disallowed by Christianity, you can forget about it becoming a mass movement in the US.
10220649421288178124my interest has recently been piqued by Michael O’meara’s Toward a White Republic (jimmy Marr) Is this a book? Sounds very interesting.
10220749421288180553I got it. An article from TOQ. I'm way behind there. I'm in favor of racial coalescing within the US, as functionally has been done forever at the neighborhood level. If a [i]consciou[/i]s coalescing in the Northwest really starts to happen, great! Indeed, something of an implicit nature already has been occurring, as many racially/ideologically/economically disgruntled white Californians moved to Idaho throughout the 90s and 00s. Unfortunately, as Sam Francis pointed out 15 years ago, where whites move, jobs get created, and then non-whites follow. Non-whites have been migrating to ID, too (per my friends there). I suspect that this tandem process will continue (what's to keep the non-whites out, pre-ethnostate?), making a future transition to a new Northwest White Republic improbable. I fear Sam Francis was right: genetic segregation is vital (to preserve our race and thus civilization), but territorial racial segregation (within the US) is unlikely absent unforeseen, 'game changing' cataclysms - and thus, within the US, the proper strategy is not racial separatism, but something like "Boerism": ie, white supremacy, at least practiced within the white community itself (eg, we demand in-group loyalty, Race First consciousness, shaming and harassment of traitors, WN conflictual politics vis a vis other races). A white ethnostate will never be allowed to arise peacefully, and, fantasies of armed racial revolution are just that - fiction. They are fictive not because of the inadequate martial qualities or potential of WNs, but because of the contrast between the slow growth of white racial awareness, and the ongoing demographic inundation. A race between the ripening harvest, and the approaching jungle, as Wilmot Robertson expressed it - in 1972! [I'd say the jungle was winning, though with the advent of the internet, the harvest has been ripening more quickly of late.] I say this not to be a downer, but because I don't want limited resources of time, energy and capital being expended in ways unconducive to our ultimate goal of race preservation - especially when there are more useful activities and better approaches. I've penned some longish comments here at MR on the need for white emigration/electoral conquest of some foreign, sovereign polity as the last hope to prevent white extinction. So I do support the ethnostate, but I believe it must be brought into being by stealth, and within existing political boundaries and institutions, though the US is too diverse already, populous and politically stable in the medium term, to make ethnostate formation [i]within[/i] the US strategically worthwhile.
10230949421288356191Thanks for the responses and critiques directed to me. I plan to respond if I can get through today with some sanity left! I also need to engage with some of NN's broadsides from the Duke Letter thread of 10/9. I wrote a very long comment a couple of days ago, which I then somehow screwed up in posting and lost, leaving me still with lethargy in my limbs, and bile in my mouth. But the Old Culture needs its defenders, so I will try to rally soon. These are important issues. Y'all are opening my eyes to just how [i]un[/i]-conservative much of the WN global community is. In the US, even 'notorious' ex-Klan Wizard Dr. David Duke routinely mentions his Christianity, and certainly never criticizes the Faith. Many European political nationalists similarly profess the Christian faith. Indeed, Jared Taylor may not be a Christian himself, but I have never heard of him refer to Christianity as a problem or an obstacle to white survival. We need to have an entire post and comment thread devoted specifically to Christianity and race. It would be interesting to see the varieties of white preservationism present in the MR community.
10238549421288533511Excellent and interesting comments from many persons. MR seems to be discussing these issues at as high a level as anywhere else on the racialist web (is my sense correct?). I'd like to respond to so many (including some of the linked essays, esp from Narrator), but I am realizing that these issues quickly implicate the most fundamental concerns of men's lives (and I do mean "men"; females just don't seem interested in foundational matters or able to think as abstractly, in the main), to which collectively agreed upon answers are not available. That is, invariably, those seriously investigating all major political problems (which very much includes the struggle to save the white race and/or Western Civ) start "cheating" by taking those problems to ever-higher levels of abstraction and generality, until we finally hit the wall of Ultimate Inquiry which remains infinitely contested, and perhaps contestable: What is Real? and, What Can Be Known? Every plain policy problem, in other words, can rapidly be turned into a problem of ideology ("Is this really nationalist/conservative/progressive, etc?"), then political philosophy ("Is this just?"), then ontology ("Is this true?"), and finally epistemology ("Is this knowable?"). Of course, to get through our lives, we all rely on a huge background of empirically settled 'knowledge' (what GW perhaps would refer to as 'adaptive knowledge'; that is, the understanding of the world garnered through personal or vicarious experience - "don't touch a hot stove" - or through reasoning based on experience - we know what it's like to fall down, and thus can infer correctly the consequence of falling from a high place). Philosophers try to prove that we cannot really [i]know[/i] anything - yet they themselves seem to know not to walk into traffic, submerge electronics in water, swallow razor blades, shout the "n-word" in faculty meetings, etc. My concern here is not with Ultimate Reality (UR). I would like knowledge about UR, but I doubt I will find it here, or possibly anywhere. Even if I were presented with UR, I'm not sure I would recognize it as such, or be able to defeat epistemic critiques of it if I did. We're not going to solve UR issues, and even if we did, others might not recognize our accomplishment. And even if others recognized our achievements, how would that advance the cause of race survival? My point is that, wrt the issue of Christianity and race/WN, there are two only somewhat overlapping sets of concerns. First, what is the correct view of [i]essential[/i] Christianity (I'm a big believer not only in intra-Christian ecumenism, but in the notion of a Christian doctrinal and hence ethical core which transcends more superficial points of dissension) wrt race and integration v. preservation? Does Christianity in its metaphysical essence condemn temporal conservatisms, boundaries or sub-universal attachments? Is Christianity completely otherworldly, with no concern for earthly affairs (the massively agreed upon answer to this latter question, whether doctrinally or historically, has been "NO"; Christianity in the main body of tradition values the material world, and God judges men's behaviors in it)?. And second, what is the strategically correct approach WNs should adopt towards Christianity? Whether the Christian message corresponds to UR or not, should those whites concerned with race and civilization attack Christianity, coopt it, or ignore it? These are weighty questions, though as Narrator (and I, in other contexts, perhaps only in passing) has noted, they may be finally moot. Most people possess some sort of instinct for self-preservation, and we may be approaching (though I suspect still not for some considerable time) a day in which whites will be faced with the kind of limited options that available to whites confined in American prisons: fight or be enslaved or murdered. At that point concerns about ontology, ethics, and the like will be as meaningless as debates about animal rights and biodiversity in the face of a shark or tiger attack. But we are still far from that Race-Omega point, and the more we get our acts together now (as I believe Captainchaos asserts above), the greater our collective and thus individual chances for preservation will be when we do reach it. And that is why these deep issues do matter, and not just in terms of UR, but strategically. WNs know (not to an epistemic certainty, but as a function of the adaptive knowledge I referred to above) that the end result of the multicult will not be good for us, and thus recruiting to our cause now, "pre-war", is akin to weapons stockpiling. It is also necessary in light of the "ripening harvest / encroaching jungle" metaphor I utilized earlier. We're in something of a 'numbers game'. Our forces are shrinking; the future enemies', mainly due to immigration, expanding. If we do not stop immigration, we could lose by default. The later we stop immigration, the harder our final fight, whether for racial liberation, or racial survival, will be. Does it really matter what the UR of Christianity is? It does to me, and it should to you, but only individually. Obviously, it does not matter to us as racialists, and so it is not worth debating [i]here[/i]. What about the theologically proper view of Christianity towards race? That matters more, but again, only to that minority of intellectuals capable of understanding subtle and complex issues, and willing to consider issues dispassionately. Also, the issue is a limited one. Contrary to the condescension of NeoNietzsche above, it is crucial to draw distinctions between what is morally imperative, and what is merely ethically permissible - and such distinctions are relevant to our racial survival. Christians, vastly more numerous among whites than WNs, don't need racialists to prove the truth of their religion, nor do racialists need to be converted to Christianity (at least for race survival purposes). Moreover, very few Christians, if forced to choose between religion and race, are going to choose race. That is an empirical contention, but experience of the world strongly favors it. So a key, contemporary [i]strategic[/i] issue for WNs (not for Christians - remember who is powerful, and who is weak) is whether a Christian can be a WN? Does Christianity [i]properly[/i], theologically, forbid, again, sub-universal attachments, such as unequal concern for nation and race - or can we embrace our own cultural particularity, and practice demographic exclusivity? Let me reiterate: we do not need to resolve the existence or non-existence of God, the nature of justice, even whether Christianity condemns racism, properly understood. For our strategic racialist purposes we only have to show that stopping immigration and outlawing miscegenation (and in Europe's case, repatriation of non-indigenes) are not actually forbidden by essential Christian doctrine. This is possible, if not easy, as these problems are fairly new, and there does not exist a large body of theology on these subjects (except for some tendentious 19th century OT musings from various Southern patricians, which do not carry much weight amongst Christians today - and less for their PC violations, than shoddy scholarship). But of one thing I am certain. If most white Christians deem racial preservation measures (immigration + miscegenation + healthy nationalist pride) 'racist', and 'racism' ethically impermissible according to their religion, WNs will continue to exist in a circumscribed, if slightly, albeit continuously, growing ideological ghetto - and the Third World hordes will overwhelm us long before we shall have attained any power. In democracies, you go where the votes are. In America, atheists are not a big group. Right-wing atheists are infinitesimal. Where should we concentrate our firepower?
10238649421288534238PF's point wrt 20/20 historical hindsight is fair in general, but doesn't quite invalidate criticisms of Allied involvement in WW2, at least wrt the Anglo-American elites who dragged us into war. There were plenty of persons like aviator Charles Lindbergh who understood [i]at the time[/i] that American involvement would be catastrophic for white civilization (his words, in a speech), and could result in communist domination of Europe. There were many rightists who clearheadedly recognized that Hitler was the lesser of two evils viz Stalin.
10246849421288700256I'm pleased that I have played some part in stimulating this debate on Christianity and WN, and I appreciate those responses directed to me. The following statements of mine, which I judge the most useful of what I have posted on this thread, have not been addressed (unless I missed someone), and deserve to be, as they are the heart of the issue as I see it: [i]Does Christianity properly, theologically, forbid, again, sub-universal attachments, such as unequal concern for nation and race - or can we embrace our own cultural particularity, and practice demographic exclusivity? Let me reiterate: we do not need to resolve the existence or non-existence of God, the nature of justice, even whether Christianity condemns racism, properly understood. For our strategic racialist purposes we only have to show that stopping immigration and outlawing miscegenation (and in Europe’s case, repatriation of non-indigenes) are not actually forbidden by essential Christian doctrine.[/i] (me) So: Are patriotism, stopping immigration, and anti-miscegenation laws (a followup would pertain to mere anti-miscegenation [i]sentiment[/i]) un-Christian? More problematically, would European racial repatriations of non-indigenes be forbidden by Christianity (I refer to core doctrine, not the predictable actions of ecclesiastical authorities)? I think these questions form the "nationalist minimum wrt Christianity"; that is, the questions respecting the Faith which are relevant to nationalists. They deserve (terse) answers. Let's hear them. For my part, I don't think that Nazism (or any aggressive, as opposed to defensive and/or remedial, nationalism) can be conformed to Christian doctrine. The compatibility of the nationalist minimum with Christianity, however, seems obvious to me.
10325449421289994501So here is where the action is! Over 600 comments (even including some of mine, an eternity ago ...). I wonder if it's worth my jumping in ... [i]If we are to evolve into a real movement, we must learn to shun the cranks, liars and distorters. I’ve recently adopted a very simple, but stringent rule: if I know for a fact that someone is engaging in misrepresentation or distortion, not simply a misunderstanding based in good faith, then that’s it. No second chances; strict shunning. On the internet, we really have no idea who we are dealing with, so protocols must be both simple and clear.[/i] (Trainspotter) I second these comments from Trainspotter. I would only add my constant plaint: people should try to write clearly wherever possible. Clarity of style is usually coincident with clarity of thought; indeed, the former is often an effect of the latter, and even occasionally a precondition. I often have difficulty understanding various comments (I could name the worst offenders, but won't). It is possible that my incomprehension is due to my own inadequacies (which was certainly the case when Notus Wind - a refreshingly clear writer and thinker within the MR community - posted his detailed excursion into original analytic philosophy over the summer), but in the main, given my academic background and usual reading habits, I don't think so. Frankly, I think a lot of persons here, evincing only passing awareness of the broader currents of intellectual life, like to strike poses as daring, 'original' thinkers - often embarrassingly, it must be admitted, as their bold 'theories' are so often either wide but of little depth, or merely derivative of positions long held and debated by more serious and better trained parties. Still more annoying, however, is the penchant many have for employing arcane terminology that is not so much necessarily obscure, as merely and deliberately obscurantist. There is also the problem of the over-employment of unclear metaphors as well as various linguistic tropes intentionally lacking in objective specificity (and thus of limited accessibility to those uninitiated into their in-group meanings). MR certainly has the potential to be a leading forum for 'cutting-edge' analyses of all aspects of the white racial crisis. But to get there, participants should strive as much as possible to be both serious (exceptions for Bismuth, and similar real humorists) in outlook and concern, and disciplined in presentation to the extent of individual abilities. Certain egos need to be deflated a bit, too.
10329749421290083438[u]What is [i]your[/i] final value, Leon?[/u] (GW) What do you mean? What matters most to me in general (or in terms of the racial struggle)? Or what is my use, if any, to our movement? Or do you have some other meaning in mind?
10332949421290173385Perhaps this comment answers you in part. Posted by Leon Haller on November 16, 2010, 12:12 PM | # [i]This is how life is for most people. It used to be physically exhausting, dangerous, disease-ridden, destitute. Somewhere in modernity’s struggle to do away with all that the relation between citizen and state was mislaid, and into the void slithered the Jewish niche-fillers and the greedy bankers and so on. They are not where we, as dissidents and lovers of our people, have to take aim politically. Rather, we have to find incentives for re-engagement that touch real lives. And that’s not easy.[/i] (GW) But the incentives can be positive or negative (or both at different times). The question we face is, what type of racial nationalism should we promote: that of love, or fear? On the one hand, our people (no, peoples - an important distinction - the ethnies collectively making up the race) have been, over the past half-century or more, deracinated, and dispossessed of their cultural heritages (at least as public matters), and, at accelerating rates, their liberty, property/wealth, and ethnocultural control of territory and government. The British people have had their sense of British peoplehood hollowed out, to the point where being British no longer conveys the same sense of ethnic group belonging and militant affiliations that it would have at any time over several centuries (at least, the Elizabethan period through WW2 and into the 50s). Clearly, there is a need to recover and promulgate a renewed sense of Britishness, and attendant national pride, with an open and appropriate recognition that any ethnoculture arises from a genetic/racial foundation, yours/ours being white. Thus, interethnic cultural/national assimilation is possible with small numbers, but interracial cultural/national assimilation is impossible. This would be a positive white/British nationalism. It would express itself in concerns with building up a renewed British (or sub-British; English) ethnic pride, and with infusing that pride with a militant sense of belonging to a great and worthy people. I believe this would necessarily be a backward-looking, conservative sort of nationalism, the kind that tries to conjure up an unbroken line of tradition extending back into the primordial ethnic mists, and as a cultural reactionary, I would applaud it. Alternatively, those of a more revolutionary cast could seek to develop a forward-looking, but still positive, nationalism, one which might posit an ideal British type (in the manner of the Nazis’ Model Aryan, or the New Soviet Man), and then seek to persuade current citizens of the desirability of refashioning existing society so as to realize this type more fully and extensively. On the other hand, we could promote a more negative nationalism, based on consuming dislike or fear of group competitors or antagonists (certainly the more common psychological underpinnings of nationalist movements in history). Underlying this strategy would be a frank recognition of the degenerate state of the British, evidenced not least in their lack of racial/national pride, as well as of the ‘race against time’ aspect vis a vis the ongoing immigration invasion and territorial (and political) displacement. This strategy would appeal not to any ‘airy-fairy’ traditionalism or, conversely, New Ontology, but simply to the base instincts of the masses for security and prosperity; in a word, for much derided physical comforts. It would involve warning our people of the hardships they and their children will face if we continue down our current anti-racist, open immigrationist path. In other words, it would center not on cultural renewal or national pride (let alone the intellectual resolution of the existential problems of modernity and its still-aborning progeny), but simple fear of a dark future. I favor the latter approach. Fear is a greater motivator than greed ,and much more so than love.
10342349421290347346[i]The period of decline is marked by a dominant spirit of intellectualism. Clever-sillies who have never known hardship and who take their current level of wealth and comfort for granted attempt to undermine the cultural and racial pillars that once gave their society strength and stability, because the pillars are seen as repressive, obsolete relics of the less refined past. They see themselves as having grown past such primitive practices, rather than simply insulated from the forces that make them necessary.[/i] (pug) Excellent insight.
10342449421290348284[i]So your final value is living the word of the Christian God. In your higher emotional system you have a powerful disposition towards faith. But is this an irreducible value? What happens if some latter-day Plato comes along and demonstrates that, in the line of ascent from raw being, ethics stand several steps above the primordial ground? Where is the Christian God now? Is He the source or is He with you personally, interested in your behaviour? Both? Why, then, do you select the Behavioural Overseer but not the Almighty Creator? Is behaviour a final value or is being? And, then, if it is really being, what can that mean to you? How can faith connect to it? Is it really just an idea?[/i] (GW) To quote our current Fearless Leader, I fear these questions are "way above my paygrade". Men do not have access to pure Being, that is, to God. We apprehend but do not comprehend. What matters then to a simple man like me is precisely behavior. I do not know Ultimately Reality, and not being Plato et al, that fact really doesn't bother me. I simply wish to know how I'm supposed to act (morally). I believe behavior, not Truth, is the Christian's main concern. "What would you have me do, O Lord?" implored the second most important figure in the history of the faith (Paul). My main academic interest in applying the moral tenets of the Church to the secular political realm is to demonstrate that racial/national preservation, especially in its benign forms, like excluding non-white colonists from white polities, does not violate Christian ethics. (Surely you will admit that making that case would greatly aid our common political objectives.)
10354249421290516467Snarky comments about Christianity will get the West and its defenders nowhere. The faith will exist long after we at MR are all underground.
10224849441288268908Perhaps you should be worrying more British women now [i]converting[/i] to Islam!! As I wrote to the bastards (who's betting my comment will never appear?): The problem is the insanity of having allowed ANY Muslims to immigrate to the White, Christian nation of Britain. The Muslims are pushy, aggressive and self-confident. Meanwhile, Christians have allowed themselves to be emasculated, and thus appear to be wimps - as many of them are (the atheists are even more pathetic). Christians are cowed as well as persecuted by Government; whites are even more forbidden (by Western-hating, race-treasonous, 'liberal' elites) to express healthy racial pride - in their own bloody country!! - and even British Union Jack patriotism is frowned upon. So who are the sexual rulers of Britain? Whom do some white women now find attractive, and worthy of emulation? The Muslims - made to appear comparatively powerful and properly masculine by our own "human rights" and "diversity" garbage! Un-bloody-believable! What would Henry V or Richard Lionheart think?! To stop this destructive trend, restore British honor and Anglican hegemony. And remove all Muslims!!
10224749441288264231I have not watched either this video, or the Webster ones. Maybe this weekend. Going just off the title, however, I cannot imagine how justice for Palestinians could possibly be any [i]less[/i] of a British national interest. And on another note: does justice for Palestinians really require removal of Jews from Israel? To whom, precisely, does the territory of Israel belong? The descendants of excessively fecund Arab goat herders, or the people, most of whom now also were born in that territory, who created the modern nation, its cities, infrastructure, economic and communications networks, and prosperous farms, which have "made the desert bloom"? Putting the question another way: to whom does the USA belong - the descendants of the stone age primitives encountered by the white man in the 16th century, or the race whose ancestors founded and settled the modern nation, and built 99% of the 'capital value' of the country? The notion that pieces of Earth belong in perpetuity to the ethnies who happened to be residing on them when modern history (and property) began is logically and morally incoherent. Israel belongs as much to the Jews as to anyone else, with the possible exceptions of the Americans and the Germans, for obvious pecuniary reasons.
10224949441288269061oops! Forgot to provide the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1324039/Like-Lauren-Booth-ARE-modern-British-career-women-converting-Islam.html What a pathetic country! Replace the ancient faith, and see what you get.
10230749441288353579[i]The real strategy will be securing the borders of the Northern Empire. On this side of the pond, our Manifest Destiny extends all the way to Panama. In the Old World, the goal should be a reconquista of the Turkic Republics (esp. Kazakhstan) and the “reAryanization” of Turkey. (they are begging to be part of Europe anyway). If this is really what we want (and I think it is what we need), then we will have to make concessions to the East Asians.[/i] (cladrastis) I have to see the videos, though many of us (I mean myself and acquaintances, as well as famous persons within the Global Movement, esp Guillaume Faye) have been thinking in geopolitical terms about our race for a very long time now. What do you mean re Panama? We most certainly do NOT want any closer ties with Mexico, or racial infiltration therefrom. We need to at least partially push Mexico out of our territory by deporting the 25 million illegals present in the USA right now. Who the hell is going to reconquer the Turkic countries (they really are not 'republics')? The aging European pansies, with their ever-declining (native) birthrates, and continuously shrinking militaries? What could you mean? These are not Europoid peoples, racially, civilizationally, or historically, anyway. They must be kept totally away from Europa. And "re-Aryanizing" Turkey? WTF???!! Turkey is demographically expanding, as well as rapidly Islamizing. Keeping Turkey OUT OF EUROPE, as well as the EU, is the primary racial preservationist task of our time, along with militarizing the US/Mexico border.
10237249441288520924[i]Turkey is very important. If Colin Renfrew and Dienekes Pontikos are correct, it is the PIE Uremheit (I’m still undecided); if they are wrong, Turkey is still the origin of all West Eurasian civilization (and perhaps all civilization). I have a sneaking suspicion (though no direct evidence to confirm it) that even the Sumerians got their start by migrating down the Tigris from Eastern Anatolia (via Samarra). Yes, there is an East Asian component in the modern Turkish gene pool, but it is no greater than what is found in the Russian population. I won’t say too much more about it other than that the Turks should be encouraged to rediscover their identities (in more ways than one) as either Eastern Greeks or Hittites - and yes, I am talking partly about a complete language shift. Who cares who’s expanding now? It was not so very long ago that we Europeans were 30% of the global population (and rising). Panta rhei.[/i] (Cladrastis) I really don't understand where you are headed with this, or what, precisely, is being advocated. Turkey is only important insofar as it is a Muslim country transforming itself from secularism to Islamism, it is populous, and there are assholes who want Turkey in the EU - meaning free migration of 70 million Turks within the territories of the EU member states. Turkey must be kept out of the EU, or the West is finished. And the Turks are not white (not like I am, anyway).
10246749441288697668[i]Your desperation is great enough, Haller, that you deign to engage what is clearly worthless piffle in the hope that something of substance may be uncovered. There isn’t.[/i] (Silver) I suspect many here would say the same thing to me in reference to [i]you[/i] ... It is (characteristically) difficult to disentangle your argument(s) in the following: [i]In addition to being desperate you are also arrogant beyond what it is wise to be. Though there is nothing to be gained from widening the circle of inclusion, there is much to be gained from widening the circle of cooperative exclusionists.[/i] That is, those who are nationalists of other races? [i]It is strategically sound for balkanians to build bridges with racial similars in their own part of the world based on ancient, mythic, “pre-national” shared roots on the assumption that such shared identities can bridge the gaps created by modern national politicking (primarily wars). [/i] This is very confusing, though I think I can ascertain your point, which however is pure ideological posturing without any demonstrated understanding of the Balkans ethnicities, or the nature of modern nationalism. Moreover, to what does it refer? My criticism of Turkey vis a vis the EU? And what is meant by "strategically sound"? Strategy with regards to what - national preservation? conflict avoidance? There is no shared identity among Balkan peoples, esp wrt the Turks, who are remembered and appropriately hated for their Ottoman occupation. [i](Secularized Turks with their own anxieties about the progress of Islamization are certain candidates.) [/i] I do not oppose keeping lines of communication open with non-Islamist Turks, for obvious geopolitical reasons. But from my Occidentalist perspective, Turks are neither white nor Christian and do not belong in Europe. To admit them administratively, by allowing Turkey's admission to the EU, would constitute an immediate and massive ethnocultural 'diversification' of Europe - precisely what we racial nationalists seek to avoid. The proper strategy is to alienate the Turkish people from Europeans, so as to make segregation between them easier to maintain. [i]This is no more than what pan-Nordicists do.[/i] I am not well-informed about Nordicists. The opportunity for gain on your part arises from the implicit barrier this erects between your world and the rest, justifying an attitude of cooperation rather than confrontation. (The drawcard for denizens of those realms is a culture that celebrates their racial being rather than apologizes for it, as can only be in the case in—however unlikely and impractical it is—“pan-aryanism.") (Silver) It is too difficult for me to try to make sense out of these last lines. Try to write more clearly, at least when addressing me.
10230849451288354092Posted by uh on October 29, 2010, 12:45 AM | # I feel obliged to let everyone know - if this comment survives - that this was prompted by a private e-mail to Guessedworker. While I don’t think he himself wrote it, he has obviously betrayed my confidence in grand fashion, making nonsense of his pose as holding the “moral high ground”, I think. This is the sort of thing I wouldn’t even expect CaptainChaos to pull on me—it’s more at the level of “Hunter Wallace” and Scrooby. So the man who proposes to save Europe with abstruse philosophy, a high-minded Englishman with Fairness and Privacy as gods of his hearth, hasn’t even a sure grasp of confidentiality. A dismal prospect. ________________________ What the hell is "uh" complaining about? just read the piece (rather droll, enjoyed it), then saw uh's comment. No idea what's up. Maybe it was something GW has now removed. Too bad.
10246649481288693006This is totally irrelevant to your post, but very interesting nonetheless: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sarah-palin-campaigning-israel_513477.html Takes two seconds to digest. Amazing how easily whites get suckered then coopted.
10248349481288729859THEY ADMIT IT! We need to start thinking about treason trials. They aren't going to happen for a long while, but an internet movement "demanding heads", even without legal authority, will at least discomfort our enemies. _________________________________ Why the Democrats Will Win in California Jon Wiener | November 1, 2010 When the votes are counted on Tuesday night in California, Democrats will easily sweep the top contests. Senator Barbara Boxer is likely to defeat challenger Carly Fiorina, 51-46 per cent (Nate Silver’s projection at 538.com), and last week’s California Field poll shows Democrat Jerry Brown ahead of Republican Meg Whitman in the gubernatorial race by 10 points. Across the nation, the Republicans have a better-than-even chance of winning 50 seats held by Democrats – but none of those seats are in California. Why are the Republicans doing so badly in California, when they are anticipating sweeping victories so many other places? It’s not “the economy, stupid.” Yes, the rule in politics is that the unemployment rate is the most powerful predictor of incumbent approval ratings. But that’s not true in California, which has the third highest unemployment rate in the nation – officially 12.4 per cent (while the nation as a whole is at 9.2 per cent). It’s not campaign funding. Yes, the rule in politics is that the candidate with the most money wins. But Whitman has spent $141 million on her campaign, outspending Brown four to one. It’s not the candidates. Yes, Whitman looks weak now. But just a month ago she was tied with Brown. And Boxer was considered “beatable” a few months ago, when her disapproval ratings were slightly higher than her approval ratings. The best explanation: Democrats remain strong in California because “demography is destiny.” That’s what Harold Meyerson says – he writes a column for the op-ed pages of the Washington Post and the L.A. Times. “The electorate in California is the least white of any state, except Hawaii,” Meyerson said in a recent interview. “That matters, because the Republicans have a genius for alienating voters of color.” The Republican Party is increasingly a party of white people – and that, Meyerson says, “is death in California.” And although the Democrats in Congress have been, frankly, bad on immigration reform, the Republicans have been a lot worse: for them, “you’re a criminal suspect if you look Latino.” The only Republican to win a top statewide office in California in the last 15 years is Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the only reason he won was that he didn’t have to run in a Republican primary – he won the recall vote against Democrat Grey Davis in 2003. Republican primaries compel Republican candidates to move to the right – and, Meyerson says, “to say things that are a disaster with the Latino community.” California is exceptional also because the share of workers who are white and working class is much lower than the share in the Midwestern states, where the Democrats face big losses. While Obama has “a low cultural affinity with those voters,” Meyerson says, the way to reach them has been through an economic appeal – but there has not been enough in the Obama economic program to convince those voters that he is their economic champion. In the past, unions made the case to their members that the Republicans would be worse – but in the private sector union membership is down to seven per cent of the work force, so the Democrats don’t have much to push back with. But in California, unions are stronger than most other states. The big change began in the early 1990s, when aerospace collapsed in California. That led to a major out-migration of the white working class. At the same time there was a major in-migration of Latinos. The result is that, in the last four years the Democrats have addded a million new voters in California, while the Repulicans have lost 200,000. As of Sept. 3, the official count lists 44% of the state's registered voters as Democrats, while only 31 per cent were Republicans. So the GOP will be celebrating in a lot of states on Tuesday night, but not in California. Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/blog/155701/why-democrats-will-win-california
10248449481288730188BTW, the following statement is untrue: [i]“The electorate in California is the least white of any state, except Hawaii,” Meyerson said in a recent interview.[/i] We are third, following first, Hawaii (which forward thinkers like, well, me, have long argued should be given independence, along with, less controversially, Puerto Rico, Guam, and "American" Samoa), and second, New Mexico.
10248549481288730790A comment to the TORONTO SUN: The facts are very, very simple. White societies are better: for all people, but esp for whites. Forcing non-whites on ourselves, whether in the form of racial integration, or, worse, immigration, has everywhere been a disaster. If whites do not wake up soon, and re-embrace their historic, NORMAL, racial pride and nationalism, then our race and civilization will go extinct. Was "diversity" and "not being racist" worth that? Oh, and the liberal traitors everywhere who imposed integration, immigration and multiculturalism on innocent white nations need to be identified, arrested, tried, convicted, and exterminated.
10257649481288874846Is Angry Beard the same as Dirty Bull?
10256849501288870520Man, Notus, I was just [i]thinking[/i] today about maybe writing an actual post for MR about my thoughts on the election. But you beat me to it. I fear I'm fated to be a lowly commenter - forever.
10256949501288871579Re Race Traitor Wise - 1. Is he definitely Jewish? 2. How does he earn his living? Really. Who or what supports him? 3. Email this person, his contact for publishing: stacey@citylights.com. Let him/her know how offensive you find this piece of hate by Wise (consider copying the whole "essay"), and that you [i][b]demand they stop publishing him[/b][/i]. That is how leftist Jews behave; we had better start emulating them (sorry, GW, but that kind of activism is more useful than ontology disquisitions, although I know you enjoy the latter). 4. Thank you, pug, for calling that filth to my attention. I intend to fwd it literally to EVERYONE I know. May I suggest ALL of you do likewise?
10257049501288872959James Bowery, I've liked many of your posts and comments, but your understanding of economics is defective (in fairness, I found your comment above nearly unintelligible). As I've mentioned, though not demonstrated, here at MR at other times, the Austrian School is clearly correct microeconomically (its working out of the logic of human action, at least as applied to catallactics). It may not be correct macreconomically, due to its members' unwillingness to engage the arguments from ecological economists re the absolute possible scale of the economy vis a vis ecological limits to growth (are people here familiar with the "Plimsol line" argument)?. It is almost certainly incorrect [i]meta[/i]economically, as it fails to consider what Graeme Greene famously called [i]The Human Factor[/i] (marvelous novel, that, for those who haven't read it; it is anti-racist, but sophisticated in probing the perplexities of human emotions set against legal and ideological rigidities), for example, in failing to recognize the obvious: that 'labor' is not fungible like capital, or that markets will always (microeconomically) maximize allocative efficiency, yet operate within [i]necessary[/i] sets of laws, which can be macroeconomically destructive, especially over longer time horizons, or that ... well, we can all probably think of many ways in which non-economic elements of reality have huge economic effects, such that merely allowing people maximum freedom of self-control and commercial exchange will not yield optimum ultimate economic productivity (eg, high IQ women allowed to work outside the home decide to forego children for careers - great for them and their precious, 'liberated' 'lifestyles', very bad for the economy, and civilization, down river ...).
10257249501288873746[i]This touches on a point GW made to me earlier: [u]How can we be expected to slough off the veil of lies and distortions that they use? How can we find something more important to us than our jobs, our comforts, our security, our quiet lives, and do what must be done[/u]? No one really knows yet. Such has been beautifully discussed to no resolution. I guess it just happens—or it doesn’t.[/i](pug) ______________ No, no no, this is all wrong (and finally futile for atheists, who delude themselves, perhaps about God, but absolutely about human meaningfulness apart from belief in God). We do not need to appeal to nobility of spirit and the like to [i]preserve[/i] our race (maybe to [i]reproduce[/i] it). Fear based on rational knowledge is a better motivator. Let the masses understand that their jobs, comforts, etc, are mortally threatened by the postmodern racial consensus in the West, that there won't be security and prosperity and freedom from assaults or rapes unless we fight back and Take Back, and then we will gain influence. This is certainly a quicker approach than expecting even reasonably educated souls like me to master Heidegger.
10257549501288874557Again, the take home point is that the non-whites and their puppetmasters will be pushing back in the years ahead in a way that they haven’t been able to do before, all in an atmosphere of systemic crisis. In decades past, it was blacks rioting for handouts and benefits. Whites were clearly dominant, and the black stomped about like a petulant child. This pushback will be different: not for handouts per se, but for power itself, for everything. For being able to take and control, not just receive while existing on sufferance. It is now a battle for dominance itself. Again, whole new ballgame. (trainspotter) Very insightful. Of course, there is always pushback and counter-push, as loss and betrayal ramps up enthusiasm on one side or another. The good here is that minorities were heavily pro-Democrat, but whites are now unifying, and even more, conservative whites are getting fed up (where I was in, oh, 1988) with 'conservative' politicians winning with their votes, and then not following through with their stated agendas. This election is definitely the next stage in Sam Francis's Middle American Revolution. Personal note: I told all not to vote for McCain in 08, hoping for just this outcome (though I also thought Obongo would govern somewhat less leftist than the event). Sweet vindication.
10258049501288877230since you fail to ascribe the correct importance of stopping race-replacement for the West—existential—due to your Comeback Kid (pug) You lost me.
10261949501288961819Then if we had a pro-white activist group (but one without any White Power, Nazi, etc baggage) we could start an anti-Wise campaign, photocopying and emailing this racist rant to all persons responsible for hiring him, making their lives subject to uncomfortable publicity and protest. Jews do these types of campaigns routinely. Why do we never fight back? Who besides me has emailed citylights books complaining about being offended by this racist? In all seriousness, do we really need more intellectual investigations, reciprocal animadversions, and general philo navel-gazing? Remember that metaphor I am fond of: "ripening harvest v. encroaching jungle". We're in a race against time! Intellectual work, though stimulating to those of a certain mentality, is far less important than [i]moderate[/i] nationalist activism aimed at 1) resisting/ending immigration, and 2) organizing whites to demand color-blind justice for their group, and to push generally for a pro-white agenda, one which thinks way 'outside the box' (eg, not only must we grant independence to Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa, but to Hawaii, too; we need [i]national[/i] felon disenfranchisement; agitate for assigning refugee status to any white Africans, etc). We Americans need to think politically now, and in terms of likely activist progression, which I see as: Tea Party/Constitutionalism (2010s) .... Middle American Nationalism (2020s) .... White Nationalism (2030s) It is time to start an [i]American[/i] nationalist movement, one which eschews open racism, but pursues an agenda congruent with early-period WN (immigration, affirmative action, protecting programs disproportionately benefitting whites, like Social Security and Medicare, protesting against anti-white outrages and defamations, anti-crime policies, etc).
10264849501289035386Middle American nationalism is the bridge to WN. Radical WN will ostracize the very persons you want to save (YOUR people), while possibly leading to legal/prosecutorial harassment, or getting murdered by some anti fanatic, or wolf-pack of street savages. We are losing (recent GOP gains totally notwithstanding), and need to be politically realistic (but NOT unnecessarily (self-)defeatist) about what we can achieve, and within what timeframe. I'm right, you will see.
10272149501289131566Robertson published [i]The Dispossessed Majority[/i] in 1972. FYI. [i]The Turner Diaries[/i] was published in the 70s. Carleton Putnam was writing, inter alia, [i]Race and Reason[/i] around 1962. By the early 80s, though in high school, I was perfectly aware of the racial problem, both global and national, and was known among friends and teachers for being so. In 1984 I attended a dinner with my parents in which I prophesied the coming extinction of the white race, based on what I then knew of global demography as well as immigration patterns (being a Californian this latter was not hard knowledge to come by), and what I intuited about white weakness. In 1987 I started telling friends that one day I would write a book entitled [i]Survival or Extinction? The Future of the White Race[/i]. (And so I shall.) In 1992 I was working for a Congressional candidate and told him to hit hard on immigration. He refused, and lost a close race (in 94 CA Gov. Pete Wilson got reelected on the immigration issue). And so it goes. I am only pissed off that I have in fact done so very little with these issues I understood so precociously. One thing that really threw me, however: the Islamic invasion of Europe, and, even more, European tolerance of same. I was familiar with the presence of Muslims in Europe from having lived and travelled there extensively in the 70s and 80s. But it's the numbers now that are so galling. When I was in Europe in the 80s, one would see the odd non-white in the countryside, but most were to be found usually in the cities. Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam: these and others 25 years ago were not remotely as they are today. I think the rate of illegal immigration (and even legal) must have been much higher than officially acknowledged, over the last 20+ years. If I were a betting man, based on what I've seen of whites and their behavior, esp re race, in my no longer young life, I'd have to say that we are destined for extinction. The time to have awakened our peoples to the threat to their national survivals posed by the combination of mass immigration, anti-discriminationism, racial egalitarianism, and democratic enfranchisement was in the 1960s-70s - the very decades, however, when Left-culture was enjoying its greatest prominence among whites. I wonder if I'm the only one who would be very, very interested to read a book explaining exactly how, chronologically as well as legally, politically and intellectually, the collapse of our race came about. We all know the general outline, but I'd like to see the precise mechanism at work, wherein intellectual changes would then be cross-referenced to (later) specific legislation (eg Social Gospel Christianity leading later to the Black civil rights movement). But the main point is that our race will go extinct (as I've argued in the past, first by declining fertility coupled with rising miscegenation, obviously the present period, in the final stages, by extermination) absent necessarily violent resistance by whites. Our options are: 1. race war/cleansing 2. emigration and peaceful racial/ideological conquest by demography (as I have advocated here) 3. internal WN migration and eventual racial secession (ethnostate) 4. white domination (Jim Crow, apartheid), coupled with focus on increasing fertility 5. "Jewish" strategy: white minority status, endogamy, survive through ingratiation and usefulness Still, any race or tribe the bulk of whose members have to be persuaded to adopt the elementary ideas and values necessary for the group's survival is a group on its way to oblivion.
10300449501289628084Train - Thanks for wise response. I've had a house disaster this week, necessitating my disconnecting my net connection. I haven't been to work this week. No time to respond properly, but good words. Lots to say.
10322349541289913137[i]This is how life is for most people. It used to be physically exhausting, dangerous, disease-ridden, destitute. Somewhere in modernity’s struggle to do away with all that the relation between citizen and state was mislaid, and into the void slithered the Jewish niche-fillers and the greedy bankers and so on. They are not where we, as dissidents and lovers of our people, have to take aim politically. Rather, we have to find incentives for re-engagement that touch real lives. And that’s not easy.[/i] (GW) But the incentives can be positive or negative (or both at different times). The question we face is, what type of racial nationalism should we promote: that of love, or fear? On the one hand, our people (no, [i]peoples[/i] - an important distinction - the ethnies collectively making up the race) have been, over the past half-century or more, deracinated, and dispossessed of their cultural heritages (at least as public matters), and, at accelerating rates, their liberty, property/wealth, and ethnocultural control of territory and government. The British people have had their sense of British peoplehood hollowed out, to the point where being British no longer conveys the same sense of ethnic group belonging and militant affiliations that it would have at any time over several centuries (at least, the Elizabethan period through WW2 and into the 50s). Clearly, there is a need to recover and promulgate a renewed sense of Britishness, and attendant national pride, with an open and appropriate recognition that any ethnoculture arises from a genetic/racial foundation, yours/ours being white. Thus, interethnic cultural/national assimilation is possible with small numbers, but interracial cultural/national assimilation is impossible. This would be a positive white/British nationalism. It would express itself in concerns with building up a renewed British (or sub-British; English) ethnic pride, and with infusing that pride with a militant sense of belonging to a great and worthy people. I believe this would necessarily be a backward-looking, conservative sort of nationalism, the kind that tries to conjure up an unbroken line of tradition extending back into the primordial ethnic mists, and as a cultural reactionary, I would applaud it. Alternatively, those of a more revolutionary cast could seek to develop a forward-looking, but still positive, nationalism, one which might posit an ideal British type (in the manner of the Nazis' Model Aryan, or the New Soviet Man), and then seek to persuade current citizens of the desirability of refashioning existing society so as to realize this type more fully and extensively. On the other hand, we could promote a more negative nationalism, based on consuming dislike or fear of group competitors or antagonists (certainly the more common psychological underpinnings of nationalist movements in history). Underlying this strategy would be a frank recognition of the degenerate state of the British, evidenced not least in their lack of racial/national pride, as well as of the 'race against time' aspect vis a vis the ongoing immigration invasion and territorial (and political) displacement. This strategy would appeal not to any 'airy-fairy' traditionalism or, conversely, New Ontology, but simply to the base instincts of the masses for security and prosperity; in a word, for much derided physical comforts. It would involve warning our people of the hardships they and their children will face if we continue down our current anti-racist, open immigrationist path. In other words, it would center not on cultural renewal or national pride (let alone the intellectual resolution of the existential problems of modernity and its still-aborning progeny), but simple fear of a dark future. I favor the latter approach. Fear is a greater motivator than greed ,and much more so than love.
10354349591290517646Apocalypse [i]California[/i]!!! http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll-20101119,0,1562210.story?track=rss So goes California, so will go America ... and the West. Beware, learn from our idiocy, and send the above link to all non-race realist, "conservative" friends. Wake people up! The force for leftist revolution is now definitively non-whites. They are coming in endless legions, not to work, but to steal our cultures, our nations, our wealth, our women and our lives. Pan-European genetic nationalism is now the sole key to Western preservation. For Pete's sake, we really don't need more intellectualism, we need more basic political activism (I'm a hypocrite on that one, but at least I don't pretend that rarefied racialist debate is remotely as important as getting more ordinary people to endorse immigration moratoria across the white world). Enough with the abstract discussions. What should/can we be doing to stop the immigration invasion, and convert more of our own people to proper love of race and heritage?
10368549591290866115Trainspotter: I posted the following 10 days ago on the "Modernity's Gift" thread, but as it elicited no further comments there, and seems relevant to the new tack this thread has taken, I re-post here. It is a start to an answer to your concerns. Posted by Leon Haller on November 16, 2010, 12:12 PM | # [i]This is how life is for most people. It used to be physically exhausting, dangerous, disease-ridden, destitute. Somewhere in modernity’s struggle to do away with all that the relation between citizen and state was mislaid, and into the void slithered the Jewish niche-fillers and the greedy bankers and so on. They are not where we, as dissidents and lovers of our people, have to take aim politically. Rather, we have to find incentives for re-engagement that touch real lives. And that’s not easy.[/i] (GW) But the incentives can be positive or negative (or both at different times). The question we face is, what type of racial nationalism should we promote: that of love, or fear? On the one hand, our people (no, peoples - an important distinction - the ethnies collectively making up the race) have been, over the past half-century or more, deracinated, and dispossessed of their cultural heritages (at least as public matters), and, at accelerating rates, their liberty, property/wealth, and ethnocultural control of territory and government. The British people have had their sense of British peoplehood hollowed out, to the point where being British no longer conveys the same sense of ethnic group belonging and militant affiliations that it would have at any time over several centuries (at least, the Elizabethan period through WW2 and into the 50s). Clearly, there is a need to recover and promulgate a renewed sense of Britishness, and attendant national pride, with an open and appropriate recognition that any ethnoculture arises from a genetic/racial foundation, yours/ours being white. Thus, interethnic cultural/national assimilation is possible with small numbers, but interracial cultural/national assimilation is impossible. This would be a positive white/British nationalism. It would express itself in concerns with building up a renewed British (or sub-British; English) ethnic pride, and with infusing that pride with a militant sense of belonging to a great and worthy people. I believe this would necessarily be a backward-looking, conservative sort of nationalism, the kind that tries to conjure up an unbroken line of tradition extending back into the primordial ethnic mists, and as a cultural reactionary, I would applaud it. Alternatively, those of a more revolutionary cast could seek to develop a forward-looking, but still positive, nationalism, one which might posit an ideal British type (in the manner of the Nazis’ Model Aryan, or the New Soviet Man), and then seek to persuade current citizens of the desirability of refashioning existing society so as to realize this type more fully and extensively. On the other hand, we could promote a more negative nationalism, based on consuming dislike or fear of group competitors or antagonists (certainly the more common psychological underpinnings of nationalist movements in history). Underlying this strategy would be a frank recognition of the degenerate state of the British, evidenced not least in their lack of racial/national pride, as well as of the [u]‘race against time’ aspect vis a vis the ongoing immigration invasion and territorial (and political) displacement.[/u] [u]This strategy would appeal not to any ‘airy-fairy’ traditionalism or, conversely, New Ontology, but simply to the base instincts of the masses for security and prosperity; in a word, for much derided physical comforts. It would involve warning our people of the hardships they and their children will face if we continue down our current anti-racist, open immigrationist path. In other words, it would center not on cultural renewal or national pride (let alone the intellectual resolution of the existential problems of modernity and its still-aborning progeny), but simple fear of a dark future.[/u] (underlines added here - LH) I favor the latter approach. Fear is a greater motivator than greed ,and much more so than love. ____________________________________ Excuse my seeming petulance, but I am right. "The race against time". I keep saying this here at MR, but obvious though it may be, it's not quite sinking in. Our ultimate struggle will finally be a [i]physical[/i] (military) one. At the moment, the struggle to prevent white extinction is ideological, and really, I believe, ethical (again, as I've stated many times). To many, we have to explain the desirability of preventing white 'minoritization', but to most, we have to explain why it is ethically acceptable to use force if necessary to do so. There is great (practical) need to develop our thinking wrt the latter, most of the work of which, I believe, remains to be done, especially wrt assimilating not merely honest [i]race realism[/i] (IQ, crime stats, non-white electoral habits, etc), but [i]racial nationalism[/i], into Christian thought (my hobby horse, because I am unwilling to concede the ancient faith of my fathers to the philosophically aberrant, scientifically ignorant or disingenuous, and civilizationally treasonous elements who have mostly hijacked and bent it to their nefarious leftist purposes). The problem, however, is that all the while we are struggling to persuade our people of the necessity and moral allowability of fighting our racial dispossession, the enemy on the ground is rapidly multiplying - and, ultimately, it is that enemy we will have to dislodge if we are ever to reacquire our homelands (the precondition we all agree to finally ensuring white - and Western - survival). What happens if after tens of millions of hours of abstract discussion, we finally convince a majority of whites to fight back, only to discover that our territories are now preponderately non-white? Ripening harvest / encroaching jungle, pal. It is more effective to stop immigration (ie stop increasing future enemy numbers) by any means, with whatever arguments, than to work out some sort of Final Theory of Race - which, as GW understands, would be tantamount to a whole (new? maybe) Meaning of Life. That latter discussion can go on forever, sans resolution. We really don't need to think out everything related to race philosophically. We only need to develop an ethics of immigration restriction as well as white racial cohesion which is acceptable to the West's dominant moral tradition(s). After that, it's all down to strategy. Of course, once we have stopped immigration, then it will be time to disseminate a new ethics of racial repatriation, though let us recognize at the outset that actually implementing repatriation will be a physical problem (ie, just because most whites will by then have been brought to a minimalist version of WN, doesn't mean we will actually be able to effectuate our racial goals vis a vis the ever-growing alien populations amongst us). In the past I have proposed the need to develop a pragmatic nationalist [i]minimum[/i], the foundational goals we all agree on, and which are most important to our ultimate success. Obviously, that minimum is ending immigration. Is it not more worthwhile to devote our mental energies to figuring out how to accomplish that minimum, than to dwell upon issues both more difficult, and less useful?
10342249601290346617[i]You: So you believe that government’s role should be minimal? Libertarian: Yes You: And you believe that government shouldn’t impose morality on people? Libertarian: Yes You: So what’s the problem if individuals and the communities they form want to discriminate against racial groups? [this alone should be enough to have the intended effect but there’s always the outside chance of this next response] Libertarian: Racism is wrong but I believe that the market can be relied upon to correct such behavior. You: In other words, you would have told the civil rights era South that segregation is wrong but otherwise carry on with your bad self? Step 3: Enjoy the cognitive dissonance that follows from bringing the individual’s intellectual beliefs in contradiction with the false morality that’s been programmed into him.[/i] (NW) ___________________________________________________________ This catechism is one long non-sequitur. It is not an accurate depiction of libertarian views, and in no way refutes libertarianism. First, libertarians per se have nothing to say about racism, unless it is instantiated in law. The actual libertarian response at the end of Step 2 would be "Racism may or may not be wrong, but it is not something which should either be legislated for or against by government". Whether the market will tend to reduce racism or not is irrelevant to libertarian morality (deontological libertarianism). Second, libertarians are perfectly consistent in opposing ex post facto the actual racial segregation of the Jim Crow era South because that segregation was enforced by (American state) government(s). Of course, one measure of whether any given libertarian is a real libertarian, as opposed to mere free market leftist (such as those 'libertarians' at the US CATO Institute), is his/her stand wrt the Civil Rights movement; that is, the movement for compulsory, government enforced desegregation of private businesses (as well as the public sector). No consistent libertarian supports civil rights laws, as such infringe upon what libertarians believe are the real, natural rights of self-ownership, and ownership of the products of one's labor. The essence of private property is the freedom to exclude others from your property for any reason, whether morally legitimate (according to some system of general ethics) or not. By employing governmental (coercive) power to force businessmen against their wills to do business with racial minorities, anti-discrimination law violates libertarian ethics, which only permits governments to protect citizens against physical aggression, and not to promote 'social goods'. Really, Notus Wind, I'm surprised at you in this post. Your usual analytical rigor is glaringly absent. Incidentally, I am an unusual ideological animal in this regard: a non-libertarian Austrian. I do believe that the Austrian School (that of Mises) is correct [i]micro[/i]economics, though I also argue that it, without more, is incorrect [i]meta[/i]economically (as you, too have implied; eg, in your recent post on China and its environmental disasters). Economic systems influence the development of national character, as well as play an important role in the extent of national power. Mere laissez-faire over the long term undercuts its own survival prospects (the extreme example being private companies allowed to sell advanced weaponry to hostile foreigners). Excessive individualism is ultimately, ironically the enemy of the realistic protection of that individual dignity, security and even liberty, that the West, esp the Anglosphere, has realized to a greater degree than any other civilization. Libertarians are nothing more than economically literate fools. They are not necessarily active agents of Western extirpation in the manner of leftists (though the 'open-borders' idiots might so qualify), but they offer no defense of the race, culture and civilization which has actually realized the highest degree of liberty in the real world - and their ideology does tend to weaken that complex web of biology, culture and historical antecedents which undergirds actually existing freedom as well as capitalism. One of my major future scholarly projects will be the attempted intellectual evisceration of libertarianism. Most opponents of libertarianism attack it from the egalitarian Left; I intend to do so from the Occidentalist Right.
10354149601290516103[i]Posted by pug on November 21, 2010, 05:19 PM | # Leon Haller, What is there to intellectually eviscerate about libertarianism? All of it is based on a pathetic chain of unexamined default assumptions of can-should-must, and ranks well with the other prescriptions of religions such as left-liberalism or Christianity. As for any proponents of Östrich economics being economically literate and non-malicious at the same time, I completely doubt it.[/i] Way too many levels of ignorance for me to try to answer this. Suffice it to say that classical liberalism/libertarianism is one of the major traditions of political thought, and that many brilliant writers, living as well as dead, have been associated with it. It is not obviously idiotic like left-liberalism, either. It is rooted in one acceptable preference, for individual liberty, and one clear truth, that capitalism is the most allocatively efficient economic system. It also possesses a very strong ethical justification. It is certainly not obvious that coercive state interference in the voluntary, peaceful activities of citizens is morally justifiable. If you wish to critique libertarianism, then do so. Mere assertions, including my own, of its alleged inadequacy are unpersuasive.
10362249601290678348Should we have a quick rundown of the Austrians, then? (pug) What do you mean? Will you critique them? By all means do so. As I've mentioned many times, I criticize them, too, but metaeconomically, not economically. If you have persuasive economic criticisms, I'd like to see them.
10362349621290679163Dasein, You seem like a bright fellow, as I have noted previously. I have not read all your links, but one question: since DNA evidence is predictive of (common sense understandings of) race more than 99% of the time (correct me, PLEASE, if I'm wrong here, but that means, practically, that a forensics lab can examine a bit of blood and determine correctly >99% the race of the original "owner" of that blood, right?), how can race as a biological category be denied? I thought the leftist argument today questioned the existence of statistically significant racial differences, not races themselves. I'm talking about serious leftist thinkers and scientists, not Afrocentric buffoons.
10395849641291565084[i]That change, in the nationalist sense, is change at the fundamental level of human personality, so that human nature, which is unchanging, may play its part in the course of politics and the life of the people. The real question which thinking nationalists eventually come to is this: What in the people is real, and how can it speak politically through the din of the modern age? Answer that, and the rest can flow.[/i][i][/i](GW) -------------------------------------- Way too abstruse, way too difficult. As someone else above stated (hey, as I've been stating repeatedly), it's a numbers game, and the enemy is decimating us as rapidly as possible through "reverse-attrition" (flooding our territories with aliens, while ideologically delegitimizing nationhood amongst our own people). We needed this fundamental (ontological) recalibration 30-40 years ago - but here we are now. No bloody time!! Because ultimately we face a [i]physical[/i] problem: actually reclaiming our lands, which will mean war with the invader-colonists (and execution / extermination of the traitors amongst us). By the time enough whites actually have been "de-programmed", will there be enough to constitute the army necessary to win our war for survival?! That should be uppermost in your thinking. "Ripening harvest / encroaching jungle." We just need to 1) appeal to people's fundamental material fears (I thought I was the anti-materialist!) about finances, personal security, long term happiness - and the immigration invasion; and 2) convince them that it is ethically acceptable to stop the invasion. Why is this so hard, esp in an ancient land like England?
10411349641291828002I am always misunderstood, even though I am correct ... Let us do everything we can to save our race. Who disagrees? But the rate of immigration is such that in a few decades at most, even if an awakened white majority should arise, it will be unable either to legislate the ethnostate, or to physically/militarily achieve it without horrendous economic (not to mention human) losses - losses that even diehards like me, let alone most whites, even the conservatives, even the race preservationists, will NOT want to incur, for personal, 'selfish' reasons. The only thing that matters at present is also that which is both least intellectually or strategically contentious (among patriots), and most legislatively achievable; ie, stopping immigration. The focus of serious WNs should be on strategy and tactics for dealing with immigration. Once stopped, we can worry about the larger and longer-term issues.
10425249641292174553I'm done here trying to offer interesting contributions (which I haven't done of late, because the problem remains the same: no immigration moratorium, no ultimate ethnostate victory possible, for reasons I've elucidated at other points here at MR). I ask only this: 1) What matters more than stopping nonwhite immigration? 2) How can we do it? (A big question; I am a veteran of much US anti-immigration activism, but the goal is further away than ever.) We nationalists, [i]for the moment[/i], need to be focusing only on awakening our fellow whites to the facts of immigration and its negative consequences. Among ourselves, we need to be arguing tactics to achieve immigration cessation. Stop the bleeding, then other projects can be addressed.
10396049651291565755Whites expanded because of the Industrial Revolution, and something in our race/culture which encouraged heroic explorations and conquests, allowing Europeans to 'tap' into the resources of alien lands, furthering aiding their reproductive successes. The failure of whites to use their global political mastery to secure their racial hegemony for all time (as they could have in fact) puts the lie to the excessively naturalistic (Darwinian) explanations for social and national outcomes favored in these parts. We had it all - and then gave it away, something nothing purely Darwinist can account for. It was the public's (racial) ethics which changed. We must change them back, even as we concurrently work to appeal to pragmatic fears to end the immigration invasion. Incidentally, let's keep things serious here. We have a world to win - back.
10405849651291723553(sigh) There are so few really superior men in this world, including amongst racialists. The problem today is that there has been effected a separation between traditional superiority of character and judgment, and race loyalty, among whites. The 'better sorts' face a social and economics rewards structure skewed towards group disloyalty. Perhaps this can be called "the emancipation [from race and nation] of the [genetic] elites". Somehow the survival of the West (beginning with the survival of the race who created it) must become again a matter in which white elites have a personal stake. A movement of the befuddled and clownish will result in nothing more than the creation of an ideological ghetto, easily controlled. I, like the (much superior to me) late Samuel Francis, am very serious about racial survival, and use sites like this one to grapple with exactly how that can be effectuated. We are a long way even from maintaining the unacceptable status quo, and within a few decades, our window of opportunity will have been slammed shut on our fingers, permanently.
10405949651291724020Or, reality (again): For Americans: Thanks to 45 years of unnecessary, undesirable, and untrammeled Third World immigration, destroying America’s historic and very salutary white racial base, we are now a diverse (and thus increasingly dysfunctional) hellhole. Our future is bleak. Multiracial societies are not a blessing, but a curse, needing constant management to avoid or ameliorate natural tensions, not to mention, for whites, endless interracial wealth transfers and remediation for the benefit of economically underachieving non-whites. We are also an increasingly dysgenic society, as the genetically superior of all races have had the lowest fertility rates for the better part of a century now. The US has long exceeded its ecological carrying capacity (and yet the environmental movement is silent about immigration’s role in generating nearly all contemporary population growth, still more evidence that most environmentalists hate capitalism far more than they care about biospheric preservation). And our darker, dumber and more crowded populace is ever less traditionalist in its outlook and morality, and even whites are more brainwashed into accepting destructive ideological and moral nonsense than ever before. In this political and cultural environment, when America is no longer a natural nation, but just a giant ‘diverse’ mob, the only hope for the American people rests with a renewal of the rule of impartial law, and the restoration of a full capitalist economy, to replace today’s politicized, “rent-seeking” economic regime. The GOP is mostly weak and stupid, but Obama and his Democrats are uniformly evil. Decent people need to educate themselves, and then rally together to demand a much tougher conservative government, one which focuses on cleaning up the US, “strengthening the [Middle American] core”, to use a gym metaphor, and not such peripheral (or at best long term) concerns as abortion, the gay agenda, foreign policy, Iranian nukes, etc ad infinitum. We must: 1) seal the borders, deport all illegal aliens, and end the legal immigration invasion and conquest of the US; 2) bring back a vigorous and widespread use of the death penalty, preferably in the form of public hanging; 3) restore our lost 2nd Amendment rights; 4) abolish all foreign aid; 5) abolish the Federal Reserve, and replace it with a 100% gold dollar; 6) radically deregulate and re-privatize the economy, to return to real capitalism, and hence growth; 7) substantially slash the Federal budget, especially in ‘entitlements’; 8) after 7), cut taxes, especially those on business and capital gains; 9) modernize our nuclear weapons systems; 10) abolish AT LEAST the Departments of Commerce, Labor, HUD, Transportation, Agriculture, Education; 11) abolish affirmative action, and the whole divisive, “diversity” mentality, recognizing that we require maximum economic productivity for a long time if we are to a) create necessary jobs, b) successfully compete with China, India, Brazil, etc, c) fully fund bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, and d) close the deficit; and 12) finally, though this list is hardly exhaustive, we must begin dismantling the financially unsustainable US Empire overseas, which is both a physical as well as international financial entity, and does no good for ordinary Americans. If we as a nation do not begin following this type of fusionist conservative/libertarian/nationalist agenda, then, mark my words, America as we have known it, indeed, even as a civilized, First World country, will be dead before 2050.
10425049661292173697All efforts must go into stopping immigration, however it is argued for (welfare costs, resource depletion, lack of jobs, etc). Stop worrying about the Jews, fools! The Jew obeys whomever is powerful. If whites start taking back their homelands, Jews will gradually realize they had better change their xenophilic behavior. But you will never defeat the Jews by openly agitating against them. Too much emotional baggage re Holocaust, etc, amongst our people. Too little understanding of where the Jews fit into this scheme (plus too many whites have positive images of Jews: they think of friends, their accountant or dentist, etc). You do so passively, by reducing the importation of nonwhites, and then building up positive white pride in our race and heritage. Eventually, the Jews will realize that whites are awakening, and will adjust themselves accordingly. If they refuse, we will be awakened.
10425549661292176125The problem with "conservative" orgs and sites is that they always get coopted by cowards who won't face the racial problem. The problem with race patriot sites is that they always attract lower class and lower-IQ types, whose presence then repels the genetically superior people, persons of good character, high intelligence and above all, sound judgment, that nationalist movements need actually to win in the real world. The difference between me and you, Jimmy Marr, is that I am a serious man of outstanding education, good social background, and professional standing, who understands the crisis of the West, and is actually trying to formulate a real agenda for white survival. There is nothing mystical or irrational in my outlook. You, on the other hand, are one of the self-proclaimed "revolutionary legions", who set out to change the world, and end up getting burned out after accomplishing precisely nothing, except in their febrile imaginations. How often I've seen it! The difference is really between someone like Jared Taylor, who is patiently winning hearts and minds to the cause of white survival, and persons like George Lincoln Rockwell and the late William Pierce, who do a lot of grandstanding and revolutionary "plotting", but who end up alienating whites from their own cause. GW: you need to decide if your site is going to be for serious men, or mere babblers.
10429349661292255304Very well said, Notus Wind. Really eloquent. Good comments from others, but my point is continually missed. If we 'want it all', the ethnostate(s) or our traditional homelands returned to us, free of nonwhites, then we must recognize : 1. the nonwhite EGI competitor/colonist in Eurolands will not repatriate himself - he must be [i]removed[/i]; 2. said removal will involve physical force, which will finally be based in military power; 3. the more nonwhites resident in Eurolands when nationalists finally come to power, the harder and more problematic successful removal will be: ie, too many of you assume that the only problem is awakening our people, which is why you then look at the Jewish media/banking/legal/academic/etc complex, see that as the locus of anti-white EGI propaganda and activism, and assume the JQ is paramount; I, on the other hand, worry that a Grand Awakening is so far in the future that, by the time it shall have occurred, the West will have been so flooded with nonwhites due to continuous mass immigration that a racially awakened and enraged white people [i]will simply not have the demographic muscle actually to effectuate the desired removals[/i]. At the same time, stopping immigration is far more realistic than getting a majority of our people to understand the EGI incompatibilities between whites and Jews.
10406149691291725321Here's an idea. Let's start a new file under "Of Note" called "List". This will consist of a simple list of those in the public eye (celebrities, politicians, prominent businessmen, intellectuals, etc) who have knowingly betrayed their/our race. I don't mean simply went along with some particular PC inanity, probably out of cowardice or sybaritism. I refer to the real traitors and self-righteously self-hating whites. The list may prove useful at some still vague future time. 'Ye reap what ye sow' must be internalized by race patriots, and acted upon when circumstances become propitious.
10435549711292342161All white men are Afrikaners.
10479349711293314515Good comment, Andy. No one is more pro-Boer than I was, and am. But SA is lost to the white man. What insanity to have fallen for multiculti propaganda back in '92, following the demise of communism in Eastern Europe, and soon thereafter the USSR itself. The fall of communism [i]strengthened[/i] the position of Afrikaners. There was no need to sign your own death warrant. Now our goal must be to lobby our Western governments for special immigration provisions to get the whites out of Southern Africa safely to the US or Europe.
10439649741292424346Correct economics (on the evils of fractional reserve systems) interspersed with a lot of socialist horseshit. Will socialism [i]never[/i] die?! It has been utterly refuted theoretically-economically; traditional conservatives have always laughed at the socialists' complete misunderstanding of human nature; and it has empirically failed everywhere, and those failures are glaringly evident: Hong Kong v Red China, Mao's China v New China, North v South Korea, West v East Germany (whose economic wreckage I personally visited in the early 80s), etc [i]ad nauseam[/i]. Yet some nationalist idiots want to resurrect socialism, thereby alienating white middle class savers and property owners, instead of focusing their ire on the nonwhite invasions. Just useless people - badly needing the guidance and direction of educated and intelligent race patriots. Some of you here may be fit for fodder, but please don't apply for leadership positions! Admittedly, I'm not overly familiar with the structure of British education. But I have seen pictures of the student rioters - and they look exactly like the kind of left-anarchists who are always looking for an excuse to destroy bourgeouis businesses and property here in the US. I've had some experience with those types, and they are very anti-racist and anti-fascist. Fuck them! I hope the British police wipe them out, military style (just as I wanted helicopter gunships and even napalm strikes during the LA riots back in '92, which I remember all too well, they being way too geographically proximate for my comfort). Britain's economy is a complete shambles because of the insane public expenditure increases of your recent socialist New Labour shitbags. I of course completely oppose Cameron for not using this crisis to push for immigration cessation, and large scale repatriations. But I thoroughly applaud his austerity measures, and only wish we could elect an austerity government here in the US. I wanted the BNP to make a great showing in the elections. But you all should thank your stars Cameron is doing what he's doing - and that the morally degraded as well as deracinated British populace hadn't been fooled yet again into supporting Labour, the traitors who have been destroying Britain since 1945. May an authentic Tory Hard Right rise again, to teach the fucking proles their manners!!
10439749741292425447Here are two ways to guarantee that Britain, US, etc, [i]never[/i] end immigration (and hence become white homelands again): 1. Spend a lot of time discussing the Jews, how they are responsible for the West's decline, how Hitler was misunderstood, and why WW2 was a disaster for Britain and the US (it actually was, especially for you across the pond, but in politics, PR trumps truth every time). 2. Spend a similar amount of time referring to rich people as "evil", "bloodsuckers", "conspirators", etc. Be sure to talk a lot about "neoliberalism", "the working class", "industrial policy", "rapacious capitalism", "usury", etc. And always talk positively about socialism, "national economic community", "income redistribution", etc. In other words, be sure to highlight those aspects of your agenda which make Middle Britain and Middle America view [i]you[/i] with fear, instead of the alien colonizers, and minority criminals. And we have to ask why nationalists do poorly electorally? Fucking 'arses'.
10445249741292512315Sam, I have been very involved with anti-immigration work for over two decades, including for several years in an official capacity. I'm making a larger point, obviously, which is something like: I'm not a fantasist (see "Jimmy Marr"), I live in the real world, and I want to see advocated amongst at least those styling themselves "intellectuals" changes that are actually possible. I can craft hypothetical scenarios wherein racialists sweep to victory as well as any of you, but I'm concerned with practical measures, for reasons I keep spelling out, mostly to no avail. Jimmy Marr, i[i]n actuality, Leon’s delusions have some basis in reality. As soon as I get the NW Republic fully established, my first order of business will be dry-gulching him somewhere in the hinterlands of Aztlan.[/i](Jimmy Marr) Grow up, little boy. And don't bother men. I can state unequivocally that a man like me is infinitely more likely to establish a white homeland, or to play an instrumental role in such, than an easily mentally malleable simpleton like you. Your type over-predominating among the racially aware and loyal is precisely why our collective situation keeps getting worse. We need serious people, persons of real standing and accomplishment in the normal world, to fight for our race. Persons like you simply repel too many persons of superior caliber from a cause they might otherwise embrace. Faraday, You, or James Bowery, or both, are very confused. I'm really not going to teach the idiots here about capitalism. Go to Mises.org. Study real economics for years, as I have - then we can discuss the 'metaeconomic' inadequacies of l[i]aissez-faire[/i]. But you need the discipline to acquire the basics first. Captain Chaos, I am perfectly cognizant of the history of the West European Left, as well as the correct understanding of "socialism". No country today is without some socialist elements. That is no justification for socialism. I am not opposed to special state provisions for "old fighters" in some future racial state. And ...? I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Confusing the [i]herrenvolk[/i] by introducing additional national character-enervating socialist elements into our political agenda is beyond stupid. I am not "bottom line" in the short term. I am concerned with the ultimate "racial bottom line" of policies, which is why I oppose free trade, and the financialization of the US economy begun under Reagan. I also obviously oppose nonwhite immigration, even when eugenic, and thus actually good for the economy (eg, those Asian entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley have immensely added to real US GDP, but I would still have kept them out, especially of any future [i]volkisch[/i] state). Curious, No, I'm not.
10447949741292587510[i]You must be a bit slow if it took you “years” to study so-called “real economics” i.e. Austrian School economics since it’s basically just von Mises and Rothbard’s verbiage. Spend some at Mises.org and you realize that they’re just a bunch of intellectual mediocrities mindlessly repeating and applying the dogmatic formalisms of von Mises and Rothbard from decades ago and policing and attacking ideological deviates. No genuine thinking, just brainwashed parrots. It feels exactly like one of those Jewish intellectual movements that Kevin MacDonald has written about that revolve around authoritarian rabbinical figures (i.e. von Mises & Rothbard). I spent some time on Mises.org and got the sense that there was something wrong about the dogma there. James Bowery has explained what this major flaw is[/i]. (faraday) I actually agree with much of this, especially the Jewish guru part, as well as the unbelievably dogmatic aspect of libertarians in general. I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN. How many times do I have to repeat that??! I am not even a pure laissez-fairest - again, as I have stated. I recommended Mises.org due to the excellent books they carry, not the various mediocrities who publish short articles (though some of those articles could teach someone a great deal about the free market). If you don't think reading and really understanding Mises's [i]Human Action[/i] and the best of the Austrian School takes years, then it's quite clear you haven't read much or don't understand it. That goes for everyone here. It's pathetically obvious to me that most of you have very, very little grounding even in substantially incorrect neoclassical economics, let alone Austrianism - though of course ignorance doesn't stop you from issuing criticisms. For example, it is the Austrians virtually alone who are the major critics of fractional reserve banking, the ostensible subject of this post. Certainly they have developed the most economically sophisticated critique. Nationalists need to avoid the old "polylogism" trap; that is, the ridiculous notion that knowledge is race or ethnicity specific. The most extreme inanity was Hitler's derision of "Jewish physics", that physics which later produced the atom bomb which would have destroyed German will as surely as it did Japanese. I am way ahead of most of you (exceptions being Notus Wind, and maybe Bowery, though I need to read more of his stuff; what I have read shows a lot of confusion) in my own critiques of pure capitalism, which, however, are rooted in disciplines other than economics. Economically speaking, there is no more efficient allocative mechanism (nor certainly, ethically, any more fair system) than the free market. There are, however, extra-market criticisms of free markets, but they have to do with ecological concerns, on one side, and national defense (or racial defense, if you prefer), on the other. In other words, economically, the free market is perfect. Metaeconomically, absolute freedom needs to be sometimes sacrificed. But those sacrifices must be built on a base of free market understanding. Thus, if we pursue protectionism, we are doing so for some political goal (which can ramify economically), but we should recognize that we will be somewhat materially poorer for doing so. Do people here actually grasp my arguments?
10448049751292592165[i]in Greater London alone there are 800,000 waiting for a council house.[/i] What does this mean? I'm an American. Why don't people there buy privately developed and sold homes, as we are expected to do in the US? Does the UK govt somehow forbid private land development?
10452349751292675111I repost from the FRB thread, relevant to discussions here on the current British strike situation: Admittedly, I’m not overly familiar with the structure of British education. But I have seen pictures of the student rioters - and they look exactly like the kind of left-anarchists who are always looking for an excuse to destroy bourgeouis businesses and property here in the US. I’ve had some experience with those types, and they are very anti-racist and anti-fascist. Fuck them! I hope the British police wipe them out, military style (just as I wanted helicopter gunships and even napalm strikes during the LA riots back in ‘92, which I remember all too well, they being way too geographically proximate for my comfort). Britain’s economy is a complete shambles because of the insane public expenditure increases of your recent socialist New Labour shitbags. I of course completely oppose Cameron for not using this crisis to push for immigration cessation, and large scale repatriations. But I thoroughly applaud his austerity measures, and only wish we could elect an austerity government here in the US. I wanted the BNP to make a great showing in the elections. But you all should thank your stars Cameron is doing what he’s doing - and that the morally degraded as well as deracinated British populace hadn’t been fooled yet again into supporting Labour, the traitors who have been destroying Britain since 1945. May an authentic Tory Hard Right rise again, to teach the fucking proles their manners!!
10452449751292675976[i]I hope you are right. If Britain explodes into a race war, it would be a wonderfull event in European history. It would be a long overdue racial and political cleansing. When it happens , I hope there will be a healthy cultural cleansing also. Britain needs to be disinfected of cultural liberalism. It would be wonderfull if Britain were cleansed of filty slimy scum such as Billy Bragg, Pete Townsend,Michael Palin and John Cleese all of whom support race-replacement.[/i] (Jupiter7) I agree with these sentiments as an aspiration, though I prefer to speak in moral terms of a racial and ideological liberation of Britain, rather than amoral race war. Certainly, Britain needs an authoritarian government of the Far Right, understood as both racist AND capitalist (ie, it protects both the racial element of British civilization, and the property of private citizens). That said, what is going on is Left-hooliganism, or general anti-property and anti-work and anti-civilization anarchism, which itself needs to be rooted out and exterminated as surely as race treason. What must be restored (insofar as cultural restoration is always somewhat 'updated', and therefore imperfect) is GREAT Britain - white, Christian, capitalist, limited government, strong state (eg, for dealing with violent criminals and illegal aliens), the Old World High Culture distinctive of Britishness. This, of course, could never simply be legislated. It must be organically re-grown. However, the race problems could be solved through law (ie, remove all non-whites from UK soil), and the economic problems likewise - restore capitalism, repeal socialism. Restoring Christian Britain of centuries past, the Britain of all the great political and literary figures (Henry V, Alfred the Great, Duke of Wellington, the Bard, Dr. Johnson, Dickens, Waugh, etc) will be the work of generations, however.
10452549751292677879I have no love of China, but allow me to again disagree with Notus Wind on the subject of its intermediate term prospects. Chinese are highly intelligent, especially in the quantitative areas which disproportionately determine modern technological and so economic success. There were thus unsurprisingly many periods in world history when China was the most technologically advanced nation. They fell behind the West in the early modern period (beginning around 1500 a.d.), and fell comparatively still further during our Industrial Revolution. This faltering was as much due to dysfunctional characteristics of Chinese civilization, as it was to Western superiority, especially alleged racial superiority. This was particularly true in the 20th century, during which China's economic march into modernity was further retarded by the lunacy of Maoism. That lunacy, at once communist, 'autarkist', and specific to Mao's leadership, is long gone. China in some ways today is more economically rational ('rational', that is, from a wealth maximizing perspective) than the US, with its infinity of anti-prosperity government regulations, from union featherbedding to [i]excessive[/i] ("cap and tax" would spell the end of American economic power, if we ever adopt it) environmental protections to torts bar giveaways to affirmative action. Yes, China has environmental problems, but I think NW is making an overly big deal about their scope and deleterious effects. So they have dirtier rivers and air. I wouldn't like that, but maybe they just live with it. We used to have much dirtier air and water quality in the US; some of that has been reversed. Its mitigation did not destroy the US economy, though it did and does cost us a lot. But we are wealthier and prefer environmental protection to economic maximization. CCP leaders feel otherwise. China has everything it needs to become the world's giant economic power. I don't relish the prospect, for both geopolitical and geoenvironmental reasons, but there is precious little we could do about it, outside of starting a nuclear war, from which we Americans would not emerge unscathed. And China will become that power over the course of the rest of our lives. A people with a high quantitative IQ (higher than the West's today, except for the Germans, Dutch and Danes), vast absolute numbers, tremendous ethnic homogeneity, ingrained nationalism and notions of racial/ethnic superiority, and a government which is a world leader in eugenicist legislation, which turns to capitalism, will ineluctably become a great economic power, especially when its government is authoritarian, powerful, and committed to subordinating its people's liberties and personal comforts to economic growth maximization. I would never write off China, though I would be very careful about particular investments there.
10459049751292854379[i]The national IQ of China is 100. Sometimes it is given as 102. But it is a narrow bell curve. The amount of genius relative to the mass has proven capable only of generating the replication of technology. China is about numbers, conformism and authoritarianism, and will always be so. The European genius, on which the modern world is founded, is unique. We can always invent ourselves to the fore, providing we are sufficiently free to do so.[/i] (GW) GW, I hate to challenge you directly, but are you sure? Without going to my Rushton or [i]Bell Curve[/i], I thought the white mean was set at 100, and that the East Asian IQ was 105 - and that this was consistently demonstrated across a range of psychometric data (perhaps conflating "Chinese" with "East Asian" inflates the real Chinese IQ, if Koreans and Japanese are cognitively superior to Chinese; I don't know). Years ago, I had an interesting discussion with Michael Levin (author of [i]Why Race Matters[/i]), where we discussed the 'flatter' bell curve of the Asians as compared to whites (as well of women as compared to men). Certainly, Western Man since the Scientific Revolution has been vastly more cognitively accomplished than the Asiatics (see Charles Murray's excellent [i]Human Accomplishment[/i] - something all Occidentalists should read). But the Asians were long ahead of the West before modern times, including in scientific acumen (there was some British guy - Joseph Needham? - this from memory - who devoted his whole life to writing an enormous two dozen volume history of Chinese science, basically proving this point). I think what you have written above is overly utopian and 'romantic nationalist', and this rather at odds with your usual hard, materialist, 'ontological' self. In our race's declinist (I hope not 'senescent') period, we cannot afford to allow idealism or ideology to cloud our recognition of brute reality. Battles are won as often by more accurate information, as by greater valor.
10459149751292856082[i]I do not much like this Leon Haller. But he is clear-sighted and driven and it’s not difficult to believe him to be a man of action. Were I your opponent him I would fear. (As a matter of fact I fear him anyway.) He is what you need more of. Fewer clowns like Al Ross and Jimmy Marr. Fewer too-many-chiefs-types like Crapandchaos and other dregs not worth mentioning. More Leon Hallers.[/i] (Silver) Silver, Hear, hear! You may dislike me, but it would be churlish of me not to thank you for your compliment. You are quite correct, incidentally. Radical movements (that is, those outside of whatever 'mainstream' happens to obtain) usually attract a disproportionate share of morally and mentally marginal types. It just goes with the territory. But such movements only begin to succeed, if they ever do, when they begin attracting serious and superior men, men who can create satisfying lives within the status quo, but who resist doing so for 'higher' reasons. I am gradually transitioning into a life of full Occidentalist commitment. That commitment will entail academic, political/organizational, and (I hope) media work. If I live long enough, and remain physically and cognitively functional, I will eventually overwhelm and subsume the various intellectual tendencies in evidence here at this site. However much my approach is mocked here, it is the correct one, both metaphysically and politically, and the future will bear out that claim. There will always be lots of WN sects and 'ideological hothouses', of course, but their influence will forever be minimal to nonexistent, 'tempests in teapots'.
10459449751292865172And from what base of authority do you speak, Mr. Ross? Perhaps I have missed something, but I cannot recall any especially insightful comments from your pen. And your comment immediately above simply reinforces my point two comments above. That you don't recognize the utter marginality and timewornness of your own prescriptions is as damming as anything I could assert. You will be mouthing the same complaint in one decade, two decades, three ... Perceptive patriots will have long since shifted strategies and 'voices'.
10461949751292897052Obsessing over admittedly heavily internationalist Jews misses the point. The psychological problem is the loss (and recovery) of racial consciousness of the white man; the political problem, the ever growing numbers of nonwhites occupying white territory, who must eventually be removed/repatriated if our race is to survive. Suppose all Jews disintegrated. Would that suddenly lead white Americans to reject the cult of Martin Luther King, Jr, or to embrace white separatism, etc? Too many persons here paradoxically grant the Jews far too much propagandistic power, and thus, concomitantly, whites far too little intelligence to discern their own feelings, and make up their own minds (ironically, this from the same type of people invariably bleating about white 'genius'). The key to nationalist victory is to build outwards from the mainstream, that is, to radicalize it over time by continually 'pushing the envelope' on race issues. We start by focusing on genuine injustices (black criminality everywhere, illegal aliens, affirmative action, loss of free speech traditions in the Anglosphere). Then we move on to legal immigration, and the loss of traditional western identities, as well as the threat of Islam (Islamic antagonism and terrorism are tremendous political advantages for nationalists!!). Once we have actually stopped immigration and mosque building, and deported illegal aliens, our people will have been sufficiently awakened that our survival will no longer be in doubt. At that point, dealing with Jews as you might like will become feasible, even simple (note I am not hostile to Jews per se myself, merely revealing reality to simpletons). For those Nazis who actually want to save the white race (and not really just whine about Jews), the JQ should be the last topic of concern, not the first.
10452649761292681037I know nothing of this case, nor do I care to. I do care about the survival of Britain as a white nation (and someday, a re-Christianized and culturally restored one). The racial nationalist 'minimum' is this, I believe, in two parts: 1. Stop nonwhite immigration. 2. Eventually, remove all those with nonwhite blood (past a certain quantum, I suppose) from UK citizenship and finally soil. Is there more to racial nationalism? Need there be? It seems to me that all metapolitical thinking is geared towards strategic electoral concerns; that is, the purpose of such thinking is to figure out how to defeat ideological liberalism in order convince the greater number of real Britons to support #2. Or is there more, and to what end? The key error of culturalism is an empirical one, though one impossible to prove scientifically (and difficult even to prove historically). It is that, over time, biological essentialism triumphs. No matter how apparently culturally assimilated a particular nonwhite may be to his host nation, there is always an eventual return to his race's own cultural traditions, or at least to invented ones which are specifically and ostentatiously nonwhite (eg, Kwanzaa), either with himself or on the part of his descendants. Over time, having large numbers of nonwhites resident in a particular historically white country will change the culture of that country, making it, in its essence, less what it was (less white). The culturalist can offer no dispositive proof to the contrary (ie, examples where large numbers of one racial group adapt perfectly and permanently to the culture of another racial group; there is instead always cultural 'recidivism'), and thus the Precautionary Principle suggests that racially alien persons be kept away from the nation in question as a matter of course, regardless of what culture the aliens temporarily profess or even exhibit.
10455949761292760535[i]It isn’t difficult to deal with the Holocaust Question, either. You don’t have to lie. You just have to say something like: “I realise now that it’s a matter for historians, and it’s a mistake for uninformed members of the public, even politically active ones, to involve themselves in it. That said, it is very concerning that free speech is absent in this matter, and that’s largely true even in countries like Britain where you’re not actually locked up for questioning the official history. In France, for example, and Spain, Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Canada and, of course, in Germany many, many people have been imprisoned without what we, in this country, would understand as a fair trial. I think that is very wrong.”[/i] (GW) Brilliant response! Of course, race patriots are [b]utter idiots[/b] even to involve themselves in this issue (do some googling re "Jimmy Marr" and you'll see what I mean). We are being invaded, colonized and conquered at a tremendous clip by legions from the Third World in league with self-hating whites, but some nationalist morons want to obsess over the facticity of the Holocaust. Who cares about the Holocaust?! Disproving some element of the conventional narrative does absolutely nothing towards building up white consciousness, or preventing white extinction. Twenty years after the redoubtable Jared Taylor started [i]American Renaissance[/i] precisely to separate out what was valuable about racial nationalism from the moronic accretions of the neo-Nazis and we still have nationalists obsessing over this stuff. Get over it! You lost WW2; stop fighting that war and start fighting the one we are actually in. [i]...the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity.( ) And this is the point that Mr. Haller misses in his belief in China’s ascension. Europe, and more particularly the Anglo-Saxon did not rise because of it’s mean IQ, sense of race/nationalism and or it’s enormous demographic. It rose because of the intelligence and effort of the individual. It was not the race that conquered the wilderness or encircled the globe. It was individuals.[/i] (Desmond Jones) Sorry, but I understand this point (that civilization is created out of the efforts of superior men, who carry along the masses) perfectly and am an apostle of it. I think I've even said something like this here at one time or another. But each of your further assertions is incorrect. The former superiority of the West, which reached its apogee in the summer of 1914, or of 1939, depending on your perspective, and which has been leaching away, at an ever accelerating rate, ever since, was based on the confluence of many factors, cognitive, cultural, religious, geographic, political, nearly too numerous to investigate within the confines of a single academic volume. The superior man is obviously vital, but without a sufficiently capable mass behind him, his contributions cannot be made useful. Europe's mean IQ being higher than most of the rest of the world's was a huge factor in its rise to global hegemony. Had Europeans been in thrall to multiculti ideology over the past 500 hundred years (instead of only the past 50), would there have been a Western hegemony at all? [i]Au contraire[/i], Mr. Jones, a sense of group superiority is virtually a prerequisite to civilizational expansion and dynamism. WRT the role of sheer numbers, it is not only within democratic polities that "demography is destiny". Too many white supremacists seem to believe that the global hegemony of the West was due to racial superiority, which can then be expected automatically to reassert itself if we can merely debunk the racially suicidal ideology of liberalism (understood, incidentally, as radical individualism as often as multiculturalism and/or welfare socialism). I'm much less sure of this. I believe the white race is superior, but only in three ways: morally (we are the most ethical race, which in past times served us well [i]as a race[/i], but at the present time, is, ironically, a major source of our declension); aesthetically (the most attractive whites are the most attractive persons on the planet); and creatively (our race has produced by far the greatest works of the creative intellect, from art and music, to literature, law, philosophy, science, etc) - though whether we always will be the most creative race, especially outside of the fine arts, including literature, where I really do think whites as a race are collectively unbeatable, is very much an open question. Respecting the numbers, however, it probably won't thrill you to know that in 1900, a convenient date to mark the apex of global white power, approximately 1 out of 3 humans was white. I think Western dominance had a lot of "right time and place" behind it, and that the notion that there is some "latent genius" in Western Man waiting inevitably to burst forth, if only certain ideological preconditions could be achieved, is perhaps more wishful than empirically accurate. Certainly, the notion that the white bozos I routinely encounter out and about are somehow innately racially superior to, say, the industrious Japanese (who admittedly have their own strange [i]congeries[/i] of postmodernist national problems), brings a rueful smile to my face. It just ain't that easy. We are going to have to be smart, tough and resourceful if we are to shepherd our indoctrinated kinsmen through the contemporary racial bottleneck. There are no "inevitabilities" in history.
10458949761292852753The stats quoted by Desmond Jones merely confirm what I have long stated here at MR: 1) most whites are brain dead and simply will not 'wake up' until there is either mass butchery of whites in the streets, or, absent that, foundational cultural/intellectual change - which, however, takes too long vis a vis the "physical problem" of ultimate removal (ie, by the time the intellectual work developing ethical nationalism (my work) is completed, Britain, Europe, America, etc, will have nonwhite immigrant + descendant majorities, at which point repatriation will mean war, which will strike most whites as economically/personally unfeasible - and so the multicult will win by default); and thus, 2) the only hope for the survival of genetically pure whites for centuries hence is for substantial numbers of awakened white "pioneers" to emigrate to a 'conquerable' foreign polity, and to eventually demographically conquer and 'racialize' that country, which would in effect become a kind of international 'reservation' (if not 'zoo') for whites. I have proposed this option of foreign demographic cum political conquest many times, here at MR, and elsewhere. In this sense, the white separatist or "frontier" work of Jimmy Marr is actually the correct path for us (minus the stupid and pathologically counterproductive Nazi advocacy, of course), along with anti-immigration activism, of course, just to hold out hope that one day we might possess the desire and still physical power to drive the invaders out of our traditional homelands. Pragmatically, I don't think the world's potentially coming lone white homeland will ever actually be carved out of the US, but an area of the US disproportionately filled with WNs could at least be a livable alternative to the foreign racial homeland (if emigrating should not be feasible for some white Americans), on the one hand, and the ever-more Californicated America, on the other. "Ripening harvest / encroaching jungle". Never forget that is our situation.
10461749761292895434[i]Jimmy is getting upset: Cause if you don’t, I might have to bust a cap in yo honky ass. Bravo, Jimmy, bravo! This Leon character was begging for some butt thrashing but, as a Muslim, I am not allowed that kind of activity, you know. Thanks for your help. And you, rascal, pretended you didn’t know what to do. That’s what I call the spirit of strategic partnership. You are almost ready now for a suicide mission, Jimmy, that would make you eligible for 72 virgins in the kingdom of Allah, provided I solicit for you, of course, because you are not a Muslim ... yet.[/i] (ivan) --------------------------------------------------------- Who is this Islamic idiot "Ivan", what he is doing here, and why is he tolerated? You are not part of the West, Ivan, you never will be, the little of your ramblings that I have read are clearly the product of a poorly formed mind, and it is far more likely that if you were to meet me in person, it would be you who would greatly be in fear of an ass-kicking, not me (same goes for you, Marr, so watch your language). Islam is the eternal enemy of Western Civilization, and the chief contemporary battering ram and global ideology embraced by all haters of the white man. Read French nationalist Guillaume Faye on this. Others here should note the bizarre conjunction of Jimmy Marr's Nazism with a tentative embrace of or interest in Islam. This is a typical 'journey' of the type of marginal character from whom we serious and effective racialists need to disassociate ourselves if we or our ideas are ever to enter the mainstream (which we/they must, fantasies of racial revolution notwithstanding, if we are going to stop the racial demographic immigration tsunami - which must be stopped if racial recovery is ever to be possible!). Racialists really need to be much tougher with the bums, ne'r-do-wells and mental cases who so often flock to our righteous and necessary cause. We need to develop and settle on a 'nationalist minimum' agenda, one which is strategically and politically wise, and then, the better men among us need to form national or pan-national organization(s) which rigorously exclude men of low character or delusional psyches. The damage to the cause of white survival which has been done over the postwar decades by neo-Nazis, skinheads, and assorted other ideological and social extremists is incalculable. Who here at MR is serious, and who is merely a loser with nothing better to do in life?
10462549761292900485There are a certain number of people using this site to engage in serious discussions of white racial plight. Then there are the trolls, jokers, idiots, and time-wasters. It is clear to real intellectuals who is the wheat, and who the chaff.
10468249761293017157Bill, That was very interesting. Thanks for calling it to our attention.
10490649781293618147I re-post: Economically speaking, there is no more efficient allocative mechanism (nor certainly, ethically, any fairer system) than the free market. There are, however, extra-market criticisms of free markets, but they have to do with ecological concerns, on one side, and national defense (or racial defense, if you prefer), on the other. In other words, economically, the free market is perfect. [i]Metaeconomically[/i], absolute freedom needs to be sometimes sacrificed. But those sacrifices must be built on a base of free market understanding. Thus, if we pursue protectionism or environmental regulation, we are doing so for political and social goals (which can ramify economically), but we should recognize that we will be somewhat materially poorer, at least short term, for doing so. These assertions need to be very substantially elaborated theoretically, as well as demonstrated with relevant empirical data, but they are the correct path. Racialists do not need to construct their entire paradigm 'whole-cloth', so to speak. We need to recognize what is valuable in other traditions, and appropriate it for our own agenda. The economic insights of the free market schools are among the treasures of human civilization, and should be so recognized, even if libertarians make unwarranted leaps from economic facts to racially dangerous ideological prescriptions.
10500049781293766939Pug, What don't you understand?
10505149781293803976[i]I understand all. Lord Keynes, himself arguably one, once wrote, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist,” and he spoke the truth. The main problem we now have is, in a great majority of the cases, that “defunct economist” is a jew! Thus you.[/i] (pug) First, I'm not Jewish. I'm a German plus mixed white ethnicities Catholic. Second, I am familiar with the Keynes quote, and agree with it (though ironically, the very worst and most influential "dead economist" is the idiot Keynes himself, and he was not Jewish). But it is irrelevant to what I wrote. Third, you have not refuted any of my assertions. I'm beginning to see a much deeper problem with racialists. My experience has been that most American racialists (along with many of the Eurorightists I've met, esp from the French National Front, Vlaams Belang, and Southern Africa) are basically political conservatives, who happen to be honest about race, and who understand that any real conservatism rests on a biological (racial) foundation. These conservatives love Western, Christian, bourgeois capitalist civilization (as do I), and recognize that nonwhites don't belong to it, and thus threaten it (in many different ways) by their presences in its historic territories. I tend to forget that there does exist a radical/revolutionary racist tradition of thought and politics (beyond just the Nazis) which is often hostile to both capitalism and Christianity, as well as deeply anti-Semitic, of course, and only deserves to be classified as rightist at all due to its anti-universalism. I think this tradition is morally flawed, and that its political appeal will always be too limited to do much good (outside of prisons, perhaps) towards actually achieving something positive for whites. If the white race is to endure, it is apparent to me that this second tradition must be as thoroughly marginalized as non-racialist 'conservatives' (Republicans, Tories, Gaullists, Christian Democrats). The West needs a true Hard Right, not a Soft Right or Racial Left.
10512549781293921768More of my views on libertarians (for idiots like "pug", who seems to think I'm one of them because I happen to understand how a free market economy works): Nonwhites have ruined innumerable white cities, and whole societies (eg Rhodesia, South Africa, Belgium, The Netherlands, California, etc ad nauseam). We whites would be much better off living among ourselves alone, but neither our own treasonous governments, nor pushy and violent nonwhites themselves, will LEAVE US ALONE – in our own lands (see youtube video). Libertarianism is another part of the white leftist refusal to face racial realities. For whites, libertarianism, like liberalism and socialism, is an enemy of our liberties (for proof look at nonwhite voting patterns – leftist all the way, from Muslim Obama on down). Here’s an idea: Let the US secede from Hawaii. I’m all in favor of Polynesians having their country back – assuming you all leave MY country, the USA. Good fences make good neighbors – the essence of private property (something libertarians are supposed to advocate, but which they invariably relinquish when “race” and “civil rights” enter the discussion). (posted at mises.org)
10462449791292899778This is intriguing (an overused word, but apt here). You need to elaborate on the "being-becoming" distinction. You also need to decide more fundamentally whether you are trying to measure philosophical or political commitments. And is the purpose of this 'axial' project to determine where nationalists fit in ideologically within the overall population, or to compare nationalists (I assume you mean "white nationalists") (defined, say, as anyone who wishes genetically/racially pure whites to exist in perpetuity) with each other? This is actually the start of what could be an extremely fruitful discussion. I have in the past considered writing a taxonomical essay under the title "Race Realism, Racialism, and Racism" (alas, I never have), in which I would try to separate out the different types of racial thinking, and then defend my position ("Biological Occidentalism"), which I have discussed in some past lengthy comments here at MR. In brief: "Race Realism": This simply refers to public recognition of the scientific and sociological facts of interracial differences in ability, achievement, history and behavior. One can be a deontological liberal, and still be a race realist. It's about not falsifying reality. The libertarian Charles Murray is an example of a man who speaks the truth about race, but seems genuinely anti-racist. "Racialism": Racialists love their race, wish to preserve it, and put its interests first in their array of political concerns. Race, for racialists, is a moral category, as well as a biologically valid, and socially predictive, one. All racialists are (or should be) race realists (except, perhaps, wrt their own race), but obviously not all race realists are racialists (the conservatives Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire are examples, I think, of non-racialist race realists, though maybe I am being unfair to Sailer). "Racists": These are the real hatemongers. More precisely, racists are those who wish to use coercive power to inflict [i]unjustified[/i] ([u]very important qualifier[/u]) harm on persons of other racial (or ethnic, in the case of Jews) groups. Racists in a political context seem unconcerned with most of the traditional great questions of political philosophy, but embrace a simplistic politics of "us v them". Obviously, these definitions are tentative and simplified, and are offered as part of a continuing investigation into what is valuable within the nationalist tradition of thought, and what really is hateful and must be jettisoned by morally responsible persons (which I define with reference to the Christian tradition, as I continue to believe that there is no morality without God, and that Christianity is by light years the most plausible form of supernaturalism; this should not be misunderstood to mean that I actually believe in God, as is always assumed by my opponents here; note, however, that I'm not stating that I disbelieve in God, either). [[i]No God, no (rational) morality[/i]. That was the traditional belief of most Western persons throughout history, and it remains mine, too.] If you are going to do a compass for nationalist political ideology (as opposed to metaphysics), then I would suggest that one axis should be "nonviolent-violent" (or "political-extrapolitical").
10462949791292901219GW, Why do you take someone like "Ivan" at face value, and thus engage with him? He's only a troll stirring up trouble. Can't you discern who is and is not valuable in the extended conversation this site represents? Here is a prediction (not a personal threat): If you do not begin to exercise better administrative control over the course and content of threads, over time the superior discussants will drift away, and you will be left with the typical hodgepodge of ranters, weirdoes, 'humorists' (to themselves only), and unstable mentalities. I don't think hosting such was your intention in setting up MR. "Anything goes" is not the opposite of censorship. The rightly condemned censor is the person who will not allow the free play of disfavored ideas. We've all experienced this with the MSM, which will tolerate all manner of lunacy and degeneracy, but won't allow serious comments from those who love their blood and soil. But preventing discussions from degenerating into incoherence and silliness is an aspect of free and effective speech, too, rather as effective political freedom requires the force and discipline of law.
10465349791292936626[i]The more I hear from you, the more you remind me of Friedrich “multiple personality syndrome” Braun. I’m just curious: why do you think you’d survive if GW were to engage in Stalin style Great Purge. GW is no Stalin, but I believe your head would be and should be the first to roll.[/i] (Ivan) To Ivan the Islamic troll: I'm not Friedrich Braun. Trust me. If GW purged the idiots I would survive, because I'm not one, unlike you. Very simple. Unless I have much overestimated GW, he knows perfectly well who is bright, and who isn't. If GW decided he would rather have fools with nothing substantive to contribute, then I would leave. Frankly, the difference between someone like me, and mere "opinionists" like you and Al Ross, is that I am many orders of magnitude better educated, more learned, more insightful, and (I strongly suspect) more intelligent than either of you (unless of course you are merely [i]playing[/i] the fools, which would arguably be even more reprehensible than mere stupidity, given the gravity of the issues under discussion here). Show me something, anything, you have written here demonstrating the slightest intellectual awareness or mental acuity. (You'll have to do better than offering your spectacularly unoriginal opinions about Jews.) Why don't we ask GW whose head he would prefer? That would, indeed, be a metric of the seriousness of his own professed commitments. [i]One wonders how long the saintly GW will tolerate being lectured to on his own blog by such a sententious and tenacious bore as Haller.[/i](Al Ross) I think the real question is how low GW will allow his site to degenerate before he realizes that cretins like you are all he has left. Does Al Ross have anything to contribute to "nationalist axiality", or any other topic? As whites around the world increasingly awaken to their existential racial crisis, do you really think that it will be to obsessional atheistic Jew-haters that they will turn for guidance and leadership?! You actually think that your ideological preferences, in the brute arena of political competition, will win out over mine?! What hermetic mental world do you inhabit? Three Nazis hold a rally, and 3000 anti-fascists show up. Where are the patriotic conservatives who should at least be countering the antifa (while not, of course, actually allying with the Nazis)? The vast majority of conservatives, including legions of ordinary people who dislike the Third World invasions, and know in their bones that they bode ill for their futures, want nothing to do with Nazism, and will choose racial euthanasia over embracing it. That is hard, empirical reality, and holds as much for secular European whites, as for Middle American Christians. Sorry, pal, but Nazism had its day, lost, and is now deader than the dodo. My racialism, both empirically honest and realistic, and rooted in the real moral traditions of the West, is the only possible game in town. Conservative racialism has a chance of being embraced by sufficiently large numbers of whites actually to have the desired effect of advancing white genetic interests. Revolutionary (neonazi) racism is going nowhere. I suppose it takes a measure of wisdom (which many here obviously lack) to recognize this. [i]Mr. Haller, GW likes to moderate with a very light hand. Perhaps if you ask nicely he’ll let you be a moderator too! (One hopes not.)[/i] (Soren Renner) I have no desire to be a moderator. I would appreciate better moderation, however. I'm prepared to remove myself from participating at MR, if the majority would prefer my exit. But many persons here at different times have expressed appreciation for my comments. I would if the same could be said for some of you?
10465749791292948759I think this test, incidentally, isn't too bad. I was located in the blue quadrant, 5 spaces over from the right, 3 up. I am, indeed, an authoritarian rightist conservative, loyal to race and heritage, strongly attached to private property and the free market, fairly traditional values-oriented. I wonder where Al Ross and the other Nazis would be. Right-authoritarian, or Left-authoritarian?
10468849791293031093I actually have some good things to say: Sam Davidson, Excellent, thoughtful comment. You have stimulated my thinking. Your proposed axes are well worth exploring further by others. I still hold, though, that one axis for a nationalist political compass ought to be "violent/nonviolent", or "democratic/revolutionary". That would distinguish between the "hards" and the "wets". What is the purpose, after all, of a [i]nationalist[/i] compass? To determine whether one is in fact a species of nationalist (as compared to liberal, socialist, theocrat, libertarian, etc)? Or is it to determine the extent, or the militancy, of one's nationalist commitment? GW needs to elaborate on what he thinks we ought to be measuring or revealing. Jimmy Marr, ORION!! That has always been my position as well. Though having said that, sub-racial attachments are perfectly acceptable, too. I am more concerned with the preservation of the global white race than with the fortunes of (white) America. But I am more attached and loyal to America than to any other white nation. Frank, Good sense. You sound like a race-realistic or even racialist conservative, as opposed to a Nazi. I consider myself to be in that vein; I hope you elaborate on your (religious-based?) racialism in the future. Do you agree that white preservationists are under no intellectual or moral edict to renounce our historic Christianity, and that the cause of white preservation is retarded when white nationalists evince hostility to the Faith? Goethe, I am most intrigued (that word again, which I so rarely use!) by you. You seem extremely intelligent, esp in light of your youth. At your age I could neither write nor think as clearly as you (or so I remember it, perhaps incorrectly; I was a faculty-chosen student writing tutor at one of the Ivies). Certainly, my interests were less 'deep', focusing on politics, economics and history - and beer and sports and chicks! Anyway, I'd like to know: 1. What is your transcendent morality? What do you mean by "transhumanism"? 2. Are you a eugenicist or a racialist? If both, why? I can understand a TH being a eugenicist, but where does racialism enter? 3. What do you mean by "transgender"? You are anatomically male, but feel as though you have a female self-conception? What does that mean? How is that different from male homosexuality? I could posit an answer to that question, but as a very sexually conventional straight white man, how you must perceive yourself in relation to the world is something I really can't quite imagine. John Fitzgerald, No one will believe me, but in real life I am known for being very humorous. Really. All my girlfriends have always thought I was hilarious. Which is why EVERYBODY counsels me to stay away from racial topics. I cannot help but be in excessive earnest, as I watch the greatest race - My race - being systematically liquidated. The end result of nearly every trend in the modern world is leading to white extinction, and I find it maddening that this is so obvious to me, while even many of my friends remain almost willfully blinkered. I cannot discuss race humorously.
10468949791293031995PF, One day you will be regurgitating Heidegger as various simians use your books for heating material and toilet paper. Maddening though it must be for the antinomian atheists and neonazis, the world has passed you by. As long as there are men there will be atheists, and as long as there are white men, there will be Nazis. But you will always be despised and thoroughly marginalized. My approach, to cast white preservation in a form acceptable to Christian morality (which is eminently possible), and then situating such a preservationism within the broader set of traditionally conservative concerns, is the only realistic option for saving the race (and the West). The future will bear me out.
10469049791293032669I repost this, for the Nazis (I never criticize "Nazis" in public, but here there really are Nazis, who need criticism; incidentally, I am not offended by Nazis - to each WN his own approach - I just happen to live, mentally as well as professionally, in the real world, and understand what only mentally unstable types could fail to see - that any association with Nazism [i]undermines[/i] the cause of WN): Obsessing over admittedly heavily internationalist Jews misses the point. The psychological problem is the loss (and recovery) of racial consciousness of the white man; the political problem, the ever growing numbers of nonwhites occupying white territory, who must eventually be removed/repatriated if our race is to survive. Suppose all Jews disintegrated. Would that suddenly lead white Americans to reject the cult of Martin Luther King, Jr, or to embrace white separatism, etc? Too many persons here paradoxically grant the Jews far too much propagandistic power, and thus, concomitantly, whites far too little intelligence to discern their own feelings, and make up their own minds (ironically, this from the same type of people invariably bleating about white ‘genius’). The key to nationalist victory is to build outwards from the mainstream, that is, to radicalize it over time by continually ‘pushing the envelope’ on race issues. We start by focusing on genuine injustices (black criminality everywhere, illegal aliens, affirmative action, loss of free speech traditions in the Anglosphere). Then we move on to legal immigration, and the loss of traditional western identities, as well as the threat of Islam (Islamic antagonism and terrorism are tremendous political advantages for nationalists!!). Once we have actually stopped immigration and mosque building, and deported illegal aliens, our people will have been sufficiently awakened that our survival will no longer be in doubt. At that point, dealing with Jews as you might like will become feasible, even simple (note I am not hostile to Jews per se myself, merely revealing reality to simpletons). For those Nazis who actually want to save the white race (and not really just whine about Jews), the JQ should be the last topic of concern, not the first.
10477949821293232601I like "Big History" essays like this one, which contains some important ideas, and was obviously the product of thought and effort. Mr. Hamilton badly needs a firm editorial hand, however, in terms of both 'content' and 'structure'.
10490549821293616883All this material is fairly old hat, dissected at least as far back as Robertson, [i]The Dispossessed Majority[/i] (1972). A brief, excellent summary, containing pretty much everything even a fairly advanced racialist needs to know (for the education of the general public, anyway), is Pearson, [i]Heredity and Humanity[/i]. Surprisingly, he doesn't emphasize the Jewishness of the anti-hereditarians (if I'm remembering correctly; I read the book about 12 years ago), but it's pretty obvious if one's "Jewdar" is sufficiently attuned. I believe Jared Taylor reviewed the Pearson book in [i]American Renaissance[/i]. That review is now probably available online for free.
10497049821293708320[i]With respect Leon, the idea for example that Margaret Mead slotted the results of her research into a pre-existing ideology id not “old hat” and you know it. Why be dishonest? Or did you not understand what you read? Please try to give evidence that that point about ideology is dated.[/i] (G) G/David Hamilton, I didn't mean to come across as overly critical. Anyone who is willing to labor to compose essays advancing racial truth in some way is to be commended (though you do need to tighten up your writing style a bit syntactically, and eliminate simple typing/punctuation errors). By all means, continue in your work! Re: Mead , however, I've long known she was a fierce racial/cultural egalitarian and anti-hereditarian, and that her research was highly ideologically tendentious: From [i]The Dispossessed Majority[/i]: p 15 - "Other leading members of the equalitarian school ... were ... two vociferous Anglo-Saxon females, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead." p 386, n31: " ... the argument of the Boas school of anthropology, voiced most loudly by Margaret Mead ...". From [i]Heredity and Humanity[/i]: p 61, n2: "Although the egalitarian forces were unable to defend Mead from Freeman's charges after the fraudulence of her research was exposed, it is significant that some of the most powerful forces in American anthropology still strove to rescue what they could of her academic image in view of her historic importance as one of the main disciples of anti-hereditarian egalitarianism and Boasian anthropology." I've read about Mead's mendacious data in many other places over the years as well. Two broader points. First, racialists, especially those of us not working either directly in science, or in the intellectual history of racial science, ought to re-read [i]Heredity and Humanity[/i] once a year (I'd suggest Americans do likewise with Brent Nelson, [i]America Balkanized[/i], and Peter Brimelow, [i]Alien Nation[/i], though the Pearson book is the most useful of the three). It is brief, yet amazingly compendious. Second, that said, no one should entertain any illusions that our enemies, or even many of our potential converts, care very much about scientific fact. Our enemies want to dispossess and either enslave or exterminate us. Facts for them are merely ideological weapons, to be used or ignored accordingly. Our ignorant co-racials may occasionally be moved by presentations of racial truth, but mostly, mere empirical reality is not good enough to get them suddenly willing both to reject PC nonsense, and then [i]act[/i] in a racial preservationist/nationalist way. Our enemies have brainwashed the white majority planet-wide into thinking that acting in a racial nationalist manner, even if only to resist the 'passive aggression' of the race-replacement elites, is wicked, and thus forbidden (either by Christ, or some secular liberal/humanist norm). We have to 'deprogram' them. And that task is ethical, not scientific (even if the arguments for our side are based in part on scientific truth).
10511949821293912484Dueling is ridiculous, another waste of intellectual effort and time. White individualism is a wonderful achievement, so long as it is confined to whites (intra-white). As against nonwhites, whites must be tribalist. The key points, as ever, are that racialists need to develop, and, especially, disseminate, both positive arguments in defense of our race (these emphasize the intrinsic worth, and extrinsic/planetary importance, of whites), and negative arguments detailing the hard truths about nonwhites.
10512349821293913812Race-realists should not only be talking among ourselves. I posted the following at mises.org, to rattle the libertarians: Chodorov was a leading advocate of radical individualism. Individualism, however, is really no more than an evolved white racial trait. It is appropriate in intra-white contexts; that is, amongst undiversified (authentic) white nations. It is totally inappropriate outside of white contexts, under conditions of horrible, Big Totalitarian Government-inflicted 'diversity' (unwanted Third World immigration being the leading statist program of our age in the West). In those latter contexts, whites must subordinate their individualistic instincts, and behave tribally, if only for mere survival. Libertarians are congenitally/psychologically incapable of understanding the limits of individualism, but circumstances will eventually put an end to their dreams of "libertarian universalism". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiN6k-kF-fc (Thanks G, for calling my attention to this excellent video.)
10512449821293914357Incidentally, the proper relationship between individualism and tribalism is one of the most important issues in contemporary political and ethical philosophy. I don't mean this, BTW, institutionally, that this issue is much discussed or even recognized by professional academics, only that it is in fact a real, major issue for true intellectuals and scientists (actually, the scientists in their fields seem to be further along in theorizing this issue than philosophers, theologians, political scientists, etc).
10481749841293377902Unmentioned: winners: gold bugs, American Republicans (duh - how'd they get missed?), China, North Korea, Iran losers: Germany (forced to pay for Euro-parasites), Australia (another crappy Left govt), CA Republicans
10483749841293413553[i]Yes, the party must allow in non-whites. No, there is going to be a flood of them.[/i] (GW) Please elaborate. You expect a lot of nonwhites to join the BNP? Why? Can't political parties restrict their memberships?
10485649841293485727That is correct. I did mean the GOP, not ordinary white Americans, who have been the world's perennial losers since 1945. Of course, I mean "losers" in both senses: our ethnonational interests are always placed behind every other group on the planet (including other whites, the sole exception being African whites), and we are too foolish and cowardly to do something about this persecution and dispossession, when it is eminently in our power to do so.
10486349841293487994GW and John Lee Barnes, Thank you for the clarifications. It is too bad that Griffin is either so selfish, or, conversely, easily duped. If ethnonationalism is now illegal in Britain, however, might this perhaps at least have the salutary effect of transforming the BNP into a more single issue anti-immigration (protest vote) party, as I have recommended? Can the BNP still advocate zero immigration of nonwhites, or must it oppose [i]all[/i] immigration? Could it use coded language by opposing all non-EU immigration? Britain and Europe are descending into a new form of tyranny: "diversitism". (The US is as well, but we seem to have greater freedom to choose our destiny, however much racialists may dislike having to acknowledge that fact.) It is now clear that only violent revolution from below (doubtless initiated in the beginning by homegrown 'terrorists', if there are any such patriot-fanatics remaining) and more general civil war can prevent Britain's foreign ethnocultural submersion and de facto conquest. However, any ultimately successful revolution requires that the ongoing elite/NWO strategy of settling foreign colonists in Britain be neutralized now, or the real British may come to lack the physical numbers actually to win their war of national liberation (especially if various NWO elites in other Western nations attempt jointly to quell any anti-diversitist revolutions - a distinct possibility). Thus, stopping immigration, as I have long argued, and not worrying about free trade, or the Jews, or any other issue, is paramount for ultimate ethnonationalist victory. Stopping immigration, perhaps like preserving the pound, is going to require a "single-issue" approach. If the BNP rebrands itself as solely an anti-immigration vote, it is not impossible to imagine it eventually, after considerable public educational efforts detailing all the problems associated with immigration (and not only or even mainly focusing on race-replacement), garnering 3% or even 5% of the national vote. That would be enough for the Tories to want to neutralize this rising force by actually moving to end all non-EU immigration. Once the hemorrhaging has been stanched, then strategizing for national liberation becomes worthwhile.
10500149841293767509I remain curious about the questions I asked above: [i]If ethnonationalism is now illegal in Britain, however, might this perhaps at least have the salutary effect of transforming the BNP into a more single issue anti-immigration (protest vote) party, as I have recommended? [u]Can the BNP still advocate zero immigration of nonwhites, or must it oppose all immigration?[/u] Could it use coded language by opposing all non-EU immigration?[/i]
10500449841293768693On language and related matters, I have not always been as circumspect as I might, but I do have a suggestion for the site admin. You should establish some ground rules for discourse (no obscenities, epithets, irrelevant advertisements ... or excessive unseriousness). Ad hominem attacks are often appropriate, and do keep things lively, however - but they should be piercing and if possible witty (and not merely expressions of dislike). The question is, what is the primary purpose of MR: to act as a forum for the intelligent exchange of otherwise frequently verboten ideas and information pertaining to the EGI of the white race, or to act as a safety valve for personal rants, 'opinionating', and online 'goofing' that would not be tolerated in many other venues? There is obviously a core community here that appreciates an opportunity to [i]discuss[/i] these issues (as opposed to merely posting commentary that does not immediately appear online, as at amren.com). But that community is quietly sliding away, as the site becomes infected with the unserious and the frankly stupid. The problem is that serious comments, ones worthy of extended consideration or even vituperation - but not disregarding - get lost in threads filled with nonsense. It might appear that a firmer editorial hand would threaten to shrink the readership. It would, but only for a short time. Eventually, by getting rid of the idiots and goofballs neither MR nor the racialist community need, you would eventually attract the kind of discussants I suspect you really want.
10504949861293802093Bowery, why have you deleted my posts?
10505349861293804731I actually have no idea what Bowery is 'getting on' about.
10512649881293922430Language has always been a field of manipulation and hence power. Orwell understood this perfectly in developing his concept of dystopian "Newspeak", the point of which was not to facilitate comprehension of, ultimately, reality (the true purpose of language), but its opposite, and thus to make dissent from the Party's version of 'reality' literally inconceivable. Our job is to defend truth, which begins with upholding clarity of thought and [removed]something I have repeatedly pleaded for here at MR, as elsewhere) as a moral goal, as well as useful practice.
10512749881293922560My word "expression" was [removed] in my comment above. How.why? Strange.
10520849891294079280Dueling. Yes, that is a platform that is going to win elections. Yes, this is a man serious about preserving Western civilization, and its creator race. Yes, we don't really need to over-concern ourselves with the 2 million nonwhites pouring into the US (and the millions into Europe) every bloody year! Yes, it's a better use of our time to theorize civilization's philosophical fundaments than to figure out how to develop a single-issue anti-immigration movement to stabilize our populations, and end the artificial augmenting of our racial competitors-cum-enemies' numerical strength. Yes, somehow it will all work out. Yes, there are morons in the racialist movement. Ripening harvest v. encroaching jungle. No retreat is possible. One wins, the other loses.
10530649901294279093As to grade inflation, you'd be appalled at what goes on in the[i] elite[/i] universities in the US. I had a friend of mine in college who was a physics/computer science double major. I once asked him how a certain black of our acquaintance was possibly making it through physics (every person I knew in hard sciences at my school had an astronomical quantitative SAT score, with one exception, a prize-winning chemistry major, who was brilliant, but a poor standardized test taker - I know this, because I beat him substantially on the math SAT, although he, a good friend, so dominated me in advanced calculus that I frequently repaired to him for impromptu tutorials). This black did not seem very bright, relative to his student peers (though, like the overrated Obama, he was probably smarter than most whites in the general population; say what populist shit you will, but the Ivies do have very smart kids overall). My friend, a moderate but honest conservative (and thus Hard Right compared to the standard liberal douchebags populating America's top schools - and these liberals are not always, or mostly, Jews, either, I regret to say - just brainwashed Aryans), told me he was pretty sure that the professors were adjusting this guy's grades. I was floored. Humanities essays sure (I saw some things pertaining to gross grade injustices in my field that enraged me for days on end); but how do you "adjust" objective physics tests? My friend knew I was one of the leading campus rightist activists, and had a bad (politically incorrect, though this was before the actual term had been coined) reputation as an 'extremist'. He refused to give me any further details, but only said that he had proof that this black's grades had been changed administratively. I stress my friend was a typically white "nice guy", not too political, and the type who was way into computer programming (he's a wealthy Silicon Valley techie now), and didn't care to start 'rocking boats'. Affecting piece, btw, GW. This kind of writing, sociological, but ethical at bottom, does much more for our cause than abstruse philosophy, which goes round in circles, and which the majority of our kinsmen will never grasp anyway - or care about personally.
10531549901294315750Re Kanye West: Remember the ridiculous way Obama "denounced" him after that music awards embarrassment in 09? Yes, Obama did chide West, but oh so gently, taking him and his "music" seriously, instead of denouncing him as a ghetto savage and (at least) embarrassment to the black race. If Obama had even simply said that West disgraced black Americans, I might have a scintilla of respect for him.
10532749901294360013[i]What percent of the 70 to 75% hideously white unvibrant would so strenuously object to the unthinkable loss of vibrance, were the vibrant to return home to their heavenly paradise, that they would risk their lives in single deadly combat to retain the Gift in their neighborhood?[/i] (Bowery) Give the man a hammer, the world becomes a nail. What is this obsession with "single deadly combat"? It's starting to be funny. I reiterate [i]at nauseam[/i]: the West is running out of time to save itself. Every year, due to births, deaths, and mostly immigration, we become less white, both demographically (physically), as well as culturally (and even, we might say, historically). Every year, multiculturalism and 'diversity' establish themselves as the norms of the West. Every year the nationalist agenda becomes more remote of fulfillment. If we are going to win this struggle, we, like another great fighter of old, need to "put away childish things". We need to take brutally realistic stock of the exact correlation of racial forces, which very much includes the regrettable facts of widespread multiculti brainwashing and its considerable apparatus of (false) intellectual justification. We then need to develop a realistic and realizable racial nationalism free of traditional prejudices and irrelevant obsessions. Aiding this project is the task I have set for myself. It would be helpful if someone of Mr. Bowery's intellectual sophistication and alleged cognitive superiority would do the same.
10535549901294403957[i]I don’t know where Leon gets his self-esteem from but it sure as hell isn’t his intelligence or wisdom. [/i](Bowery) Bowery, You are so far out to lunch, so divorced from reality, that hearing you try to pass judgment on, alas, I shall say it, your betters, is actually funny. Or pathetic. Increasingly fitting in these environs, however ... Put aside your spectacular writerly verbosity, your utter inability to get your points across clearly and cogently. Put aside questions of comparative intelligence (though I'm quite convinced that there is no Single [i]Intellectual[/i] Combat at which you would best me; I doubt your manly kind, either, but let's keep it civil). You actually think you are[i] wiser[/i] than I am? Are you kidding? What is wisdom, but recognition of reality? I restate my position from above: [i]I reiterate at nauseam: the West is running out of time to save itself. Every year, due to births, deaths, and mostly immigration, we become less white, both demographically (physically), as well as culturally (and even, we might say, historically). Every year, multiculturalism and ‘diversity’ establish themselves as the norms of the West. Every year the nationalist agenda becomes more remote of fulfillment. If we are going to win this struggle, we, like another great fighter of old, need to “put away childish things”. We need to take brutally realistic stock of the exact correlation of racial forces, which very much includes the regrettable facts of widespread multiculti brainwashing and its considerable apparatus of (false) intellectual justification. We then need to develop a realistic and realizable racial nationalism free of traditional prejudices and irrelevant obsessions.[/i] (LH) I have repeatedly fingered immigration as the great problem needing addressing. This seems obvious. Eventually, if the problem continues festering, the Western nations will have reached a tipping point, beyond which our race will face this dilemma: Revolution or Euthanasia/Extinction. There will no longer be a peaceful or even necessarily physically successful way to restore the proper connection between white peoples and white lands. Which option do you think whites will choose? Unless whites are being comprehensively butchered in the streets (and the [i]wise[/i] man, Bowery, understands that this mode of white extinction is infinitely less likely than what both Jefferson and Lincoln feared: peaceful miscegenation/ genetic absorption / amalgamation), [u]are you really so [i]unwise[/i] as to think that civilized and pacific white persons will prefer colossal economic destruction, mass impoverishment, and widespread battle deaths simply to prevent their having descendants resembling Tiger Woods?[/u] Every reader at MR needs to recognize this reality, and then work and theorize within it (as I do). Many of you here (not all, certainly, but far too many) do not seem very well anchored to the real world. Accordingly, all manner of undisciplined racialist fantasies proliferate, and even get taken seriously. Such fantasizing is not helpful to our cause. What do we want, what is possible, and what are the concrete steps to make it so? [Coda: the West will be ancient history centuries before we see a return of Single Combat systems. But immigration reform is popular and possible, if patriots don't get distracted.]
10542149901294458776[i]Again and again I have asked this cretin to [u]compare legislative credentials[/u] with me. He has none. I do.[/i] (JB) What are you referring to? I have no idea.
10543349901294486172[i]Leon Haller, What do you propose?[/i] (nadasurf) I need to gather up past comments, and create a basic agenda piece, precisely so I needn't keep repeating myself. I don't have time or inclination for a lengthy answer. In brief, I propose: 1. The development of a [i]minimum[/i] nationalist agenda that all or most WNs can agree on. Otherwise, there is too much philosophical dissension (Christian v anti-Christian, Nazi v anti-Nazi, capitalist v labor/socialist, etc) within WN ranks for us to develop into an effective political force. To me, that minimum is stopping additional nonwhite immigration, and developing an outline of how the current regimes now universal in the West victimize whites. If we can't even stop new immigration (a huge task in itself!), how can we ever achieve any other element of the Racial State? No one here has a realistic answer or rebuttal to that, because none exists. Stop the bleeding, by any means possible, then press on for additional demands. The purpose of the outline is to create a portable (or easily emailable) propaganda piece to explain and justify our position quickly. What exactly [i]do[/i] we stand for? What do we give to pique the interest of someone just beginning to awaken to racial reality. We need a "gateway" piece, with some tailoring for different white cultures and political systems. 2. With the development of our minimally agreed upon ideology, we need less talking, and more doing. No more fantasy bullshit (cf James Bowery). We need to start up white clubs or associations across the white world. Basically, it would be an international social club, with chapters everywhere. These clubs would meet regularly, to socialize and educate; in a word, network. The purpose is for like-minded whites to get to know each other, and develop first social, later working relationships. We could find out who among us are lawyers, doctors, accountants, contractors, etc. We could then patronize each other's services and businesses, and basically start helping our own (sound like any particular ethnoreligious group we're familiar with?). The purpose is to build solidarity, as a prelude to larger political action down the road. Basically, we must everywhere become an alternate society within society (as are the Jews). This proposal is not fantasy. I've been a part of one such group. It is not officially ideological, let alone racial, but there is a [i]sub-rosa[/i] racial element, and it does network (and that network becomes a source of greater personal power). After all, whites in Southern California are a minority; why shouldn't we get together and increasingly work and stick together? I could elaborate further, if persons are interested. But I've left a lot of comments in the past, which were either ignored or not really understood.
10543449901294486806Note, too, how neither Bowery nor anyone else bothers to comment on my comments at January 07, 2011, 11:39 AM. Because I say what needs to be said, and there is no rebuttal. Judge for yourselves who is serious, and who is not.
10546349901294530465[i]What experience do you have in getting legislation signed into law?[/i] (JB) Little to none. I have never been elected to office, though I have worked on (formally, not as a volunteer) and in some cases co-managed several CA ballot proposition campaigns. The only famous one which non-Californians might be familiar with was the anti-affirmative action Prop 209, but I was only a volunteer public speaker on its behalf. I fail to see the relevance of this question, however.
10547349901294539489Lord, you are obtuse! Yes, I understand the concept of legislation, re immigration or any other matter. What I fail to see is what relevance my not having been a legislator, staffer, etc, has to either my ideological or political prescriptions, or to my criticisms of the pragmatic usefulness of your very extended theoretical forays into such arcana as resuscitating dueling.
10549549901294572744[i]Speaking of obtuse. Here’s what I actually wrote: Posted by James Bowery on January 08, 2011, 09:27 AM | # Leon Haller, you keep demanding that all available resources be invested in your legislative agenda—and agenda which you have repeated in various forms. You claim that any “distraction” from that agenda is inimical to white interests. What experience do you have in getting legislation signed into law? PS: I’m going to keep asking this question of you every time I see you post from now on until I get a straight answer from you. You will notice, if it is possible for you to notice anything that disagrees with your view of the world, that [u]I was challenging something very specific: Your ability to guide a grassroots movement the purpose of which is to legislatively stop or even affect immigration.[/u] Basically, you have no such ability.[/i] (JB) ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Re before, I gave you a straight answer. I have never been a legislator, or ideological movement leader, though I do have fairly considerable experience in political campaign management. 2. The underlined portion of text does not in the least logically or grammatically follow from what you had written previously - which itself was irrelevant to my criticisms. I have criticized the usefulness of discussing dueling and related issues of no practical significance to the real issue of our time, stopping nonwhite immigration. Instead of disproving that contention, you ask me about my legislative experience. When I fail to see the relevance of that question, you wonder that I cannot see the connection between laws and stopping immigration (a huge [i]non-sequitur[/i]) and so must support extra-legal measures (another [i]non-sequitur[/i]) to end the invasion. 3. My experience or ability in grassroots movements is logically irrelevant to my claim about the greater necessity of stopping immigration as against other matters, like dueling or the JQ. 4. I never said anything to you about my[i] personal[/i] ability to [i]lead[/i] a grassroots anti-immigration movement, or even interest in doing so - merely that figuring out how to launch such a movement is more important than figuring out how to, eg, restore single combat. 5. However, all that said, my sense from the very poor ratiocinative quality that you routinely demonstrate is that my leadership of such a movement, or any organization, such as I have led, would be vastly more effective than your own. And, incidentally, you have no idea what my education or professional past or net worth might be. 6. What is your experience even to be challenging mine (again emphasizing that legislative [i]experience[/i] is not directly relevant to the issue of strategic WN political direction, my point of discussion)?
10551449901294612085Yes, Mr. Bowery, I very much agree that this back and forth is a waste of time. There are too many 'generals' in the WN movement, sowing too much confusion among an insufficient number of grassroots 'troops'. Matters remain as I have elucidated them, however. If the movement is to be useful at all, it must settle on some kind of minimalist agenda, and then start acting on it fairly quickly (in historical terms). The difficulty here is that WN is comparatively ill-theorized, especially in light of the meta-politics of the age, in which rejection of the equality of human populations is comparable to denying the existence of God in the Middle Ages or early modern period in Europe. Thus, the basic agenda of WN (for now, that means stopping immigration, the [i]sine qua non[/i] of everything else) must be politically pursued even as the larger philosophical foundations of WN are being concurrently established. But perhaps this is always the case. Intellectuals articulate certain dissatisfactions, movements arise in response to these newly felt needs, and then new intellectuals further refine and justify the original theory. WNs have a lot of very real grievances, and have extensively articulated them. Our movement goes nowhere, however, I believe, not because WNs have failed to justify their case empirically, nor [i]primarily[/i] because our media, or if you will, the primary sources of propaganda, are controlled by ethnically and ideologically hostile elements (though this obviously plays a big role), but because most of our 'revolutionary base' (ie, normal, dispossessed white people) think our fundamental position - rejection of racial diversity - is unethical. More specifically, because, by definition, the masses are intellectually passive, what that means is that a very solid majority of the thinking persons within white societies believe that what we advocate is racist, and that racism is wrong. The intellectual task I have set for myself is to demonstrate, within the Christian (Catholic) tradition, that the WN position (or, at least, my traditionalist conservative version of it) is not unethical - that it is morally acceptable for a Christian to seek to preserve Western civilization (understood as European civilization), and that doing so requires the maintenance of genetically (racially) pure whites in all-white, politically sovereign, territories. There are several empirical steps in my argument, but at bottom it is an ethical contention. White communities have the [i]right[/i] to endure, and to resist the aggression of racial integration, which includes undoing the effects of past immigration/integration.
10551549901294613901[i]My primary fear of you is that you’ll receive support from the current regime.[/i] (JB) I doubt it! Or, we should be so lucky. I was quite serious when I stated at one point that I intend eventually to "overwhelm and subsume" other intellectual tendencies within the racialist intellectual community (they will always exist, but on the margins), including your own. This will be accomplished not because I am especially brilliant, but because I am correct - perhaps metaphysically, but certainly politically. My brand of moderate white preservationism, rooted in a realistic and conservative traditionalist intellectual and political framework (that is, a [i]non-radical[/i] racialism, as opposed to the ludicrously impractical and therefore irrelevant excogitations frequently in evidence among many of MR's "regulars"), has a real chance of actually winning converts over time, especially as social and economic conditions for whites deteriorate, and the Hitler years (and American Jim Crow era) recede ever further from personal memory. I severely doubt that there will ever be some great explosion of blood and soil anger among the white peoples. Why hasn't there been one already, at least at the voting booth? Just think back to the outrages. The LA riots did not produce a Buchanan presidency. The spiraling increase in violent crime in France (from immigrant nonwhites arrived very recently, unlike America's blacks) did not elect Le Pen. The 9/11 attacks did not lead even the majority of grassroots Republicans to demand that Bush seal the US/Mexico border or stop Islamic immigration, nor prevent Americans from electing an African with a Muslim name to the White House. The London attacks did not elect the BNP. Geert Wilders' party should be number one in Holland, but it isn't. I'm not gloating. I'm as befuddled and dispirited as anyone. There is something, or some combination of things, genes and memes, aberrant with our race that we should continue to respond to racial outrages as we do. No other race does so. Morality does not require that we do so. But those are the facts. My long term goal for the remainder of my life is to become an American conservative public intellectual (a self-supporting one - no easy task), but one who will act as a bridge between historically traditional, Christian conservatism, and scientific racial nationalism. (I'm really in the tradition of the late Sam Francis, and Jared Taylor and his [i]American Renaissance[/i], though leavened with Christian traditionalism.) One part of this goal involves scholarship, the other, political activism. I'm already in the opening stage of developing my pet dream: an [i]American nationalist[/i] political activist organization (a real and respectable one, not a Klavern or skinhead front group). We are about 10 years or less away from what will be explosive growth in what Sam Francis long advocated: Middle American nationalism. This is basically a non-racist white nationalism. Perhaps that sounds contradictory, but it isn't: it involves a positive white ethnoculturalism, a politics focused not on biological differences, let alone any radical cleavage from historic traditions, values and institutions, such as many WNs seem attracted to, but on racial injustices borne by whites, and their legislative remediation. Hunter Wallace, whatever his foibles and inconsistencies, is right about the "implicit whiteness" of the Tea Party (I've known this in other contexts for decades). Within a decade the American Right's current libertarianism (but one with a gratifying element of anti-immigrationism) will have worn out, and a "Real American" nationalism will be possible. My goal is to be an intellectual leader (or at least cheerleader) of that phenomenon, by having a dominant intellectual position within the American nationalist (implicitly WN) activist organization I and my partners are endeavoring now to create, and then expand over this decade. Mr. Bowery (as well as various radical nationalists) will of course think nothing will come of this. Excellent! We shall see. My insight is that, in modern democracies, radical discontinuities are only brought about (outside of crises, usually military ones) incrementally, over time. The "mainstream" WN agenda is so far outside the actual political mainstream that it is reflexively dismissed. One cannot succeed in a democracy by being too far removed from the Center (hence my utter derision at discussions like Bowery's of dueling, and similar hobbyhorses). The trick is to shift the Center in your preferred direction, a task to which I and my group will contribute. We start with America First, and the wrongs and hypocrisies endured by white Americans - not by trumpeting scientific race differences, denying the Holocaust ... or advocating (hehehe) "Single Combat" systems.
10551849901294617259Please tell me how to get that support! Or really, I'd be happy if the regime just stole less of my income. No, the regime loves guys like you. You are foils they use to repulse the masses, and discredit WN. The regime is terrified by persons with education and polish like me. Alas, it matters little. Every serious radical movement attracts its share of fools, weirdoes and unstable personalities. If the movement is to succeed, the marginal types get eliminated, either politically or literally. There is always a "night of the long knives".
10553149901294631273[i]Please tell me how to get that support![/i](Me) Hmn. Over twenty years in the movement, and you still haven’t figured this one out? The first and most obvious step is to post your mailing address, so readers who wish to assist will know that you are a real person, and where to send their financial support. (JM) Jimmy, JB was referring to my getting support from the regime, not private donors. When it comes to private donors, I know all about how to go about it, worry not. It starts with big donors, a couple of which I have already secured.
10553349901294634286Trebuchet, You are yet another idiot on this site (I'm very sorry to see the mental quality of commenters declining, but there it is). My "longwinded" posts contain a great deal of wisdom, if understood properly. And where are your serious comments? Let their brilliance shine forth, if it can! (I doubt it.) Anyway, I'm not going to waste time responding at length to people like you. You know nothing of the history or structure of Christian or Catholic theology. MR is actually now worse than what happened with my old comments at chronicles and takimag, which at least elicited enough positive reader reaction to get me banned there for my white nationalism (I've been banned from other places, too, but the PC at those two sites was particularly disappointing). It does not matter. A friend once was told by Jared Taylor that he started [i]American Renaissance[/i] with the intention of producing a publication that informed American whites about racial truth, without being silly, stupid, needlessly offensive or evil, as were most previous racialist efforts. I really understand his wisdom now. Any coherent set of views too far outside whatever passes for a mainstream invariably attracts legions of losers. Such losers range from social misfits and outright perverts to ideological fanatics obsessed with their radical stances and 'ingenious' plans. Leaders of such movements therefore need to be very careful about whom they admit into their councils. A good portion of leadership consists in judgment about people, to discern quality from the garbage that merely wastes time and lessens effectiveness. Among political tendencies evident on this site, mine, at least for the US (Western Europe and the rest of the non-US Anglosphere are clearly descending to oblivion; whites may well survive in Eastern Europe and especially Russia, but I know too little about those areas to say anything definite), is the only game in town. Wail and whine, but the next few decades will bear me out. You will see. A WN which begins as an American nationalism, gradually evolves into WN, and has been intellectually 'squared' with Christianity, is the future. All other intellectual tendencies on the Racial Right will be marginalized, either formally or effectively.
10553549901294635318Envoi: GW, Thank you much for your hard work in putting together this site. You seem like a very decent and wise chap. I regret that your uncompromising atheism will keep your influence more limited than it could be, but I wish you the best of luck. England certainly needs more patriots like you, though I do fear that your nation is lost, incredible as that sounds in light of the UK's glorious history. America may be further down the road to racial perdition in absolute terms, but we seem to have a larger core of racially realistic whites (esp in the South), as well as many times the number of "ruggedly individualist", gun-toting conservatives, who may not be racialist - yet - but whose survival instincts will eventually push them in our direction. I think there will one day exist some type of white American ethnostate, whereas I expect the best of your people will continue to 'stiff upper lip' themselves into national extinction. As I've stated, if Britain (and Europe) are to survive, it will only be through a white nationalism built on a tripartite foundation of national tradition(s), historic faith, and scientific race realism. Science by itself will not be enough. Others, I've enjoyed reading and conducting dialogue with Notus Wind, Dasein, Trainspotter, Sam Davidson, Wandrin, Gudmund, the Narrator, CaptainChaos, and perhaps a few others I am forgetting (along with the inimitable Fred Scrooby, wherever you are, comrade). Keep up your interests and enthusiasm, gentlemen! I'm weary of casting pearls before swine. My future writing on nationalist topics will be in published form. [i]finis[/i].
10535749911294406139Wise words from GW, and even Al Ross. Ivan, Islam is the eternal enemy of the West, and must be bulldozed wherever it appears within the West. These white women who have converted to heathenism must face an instaurated Inquisition, and then be purified through pain of their theological errors. The problem, besides illustrating the unbelievable stupidity of whites today (we whites have been declining genetically for quite a while, let no one forget), is that 1) many whites are irredeemably racially diseased, and need to be exterminated (or at least castrated, to kill off their warped genomes; on many of these issues, despite my unwillingness to relinquish Christianity, I am more bloodthirsty than CaptainChaos; the old Christians knew how to shed blood, too ... it's white liberals who are the freaks of history); 2) many whites are not racially sick, but are genuinely confused (and stupid) respecting the ethics of racialism; and 3) most whites have been systematically stripped of their cultures since the 1960s (if not earlier), and exist today only in an 'eternal now', with no sense of inherited tradition and thus national/racial loyalty. Our task, besides developing a popular movement to end immigration purely for functional reasons (crime, cost, affirmative action preferences, etc), is to relearn our ancient traditions, and to develop an ethics of racialism (which I believe must be done through Christianity, Europe's traditional faith, but let secularists reach their fellows, as necessary). A modern nationalism will be built out of the marriage of national tradition, historic faith, and scientific race realism.
10535949911294407084The end result will not be some happy mixed-race utopia. It will be the genetic disappearance of the white race, and a concomitant lowering of the level of civilization and humanity across the planet. But life will go on, with an occasional future Asiatic reflecting wistfully at the marvelous achievements of the Great Race, rather as we admire Attic Greece, gone but never forgotten.
10536049911294408422I have a disturbing question for this community. If whites, as the HTlinks suggest, are so stupid, weak, and lacking in any sense of the moral rightness of recognizing racial reality, or even sheer masculine pride, why do we here concern ourselves with our own race's preservation? I have no doubt that we have the right to survive as a race, as well as distinct national communities. But why do or should we care? Our people seem unworthy of our efforts, and even worse, profoundly ungrateful. Has being racially active ever benefitted anyone here personally? Why bother? I have long been haunted by this sense of futility, as well as unrequited loyalty.
10536549911294410576[i]The plaintive, “unrequited loyalty” moan must mean that Leon Haller’s follower has deserted him? Did he manage to emancipate himself from the Jewish superstitions so beloved of Christian nitwits in America?[/i] (Al Ross) I was just starting to have a bit of hope for you, Al. But your immaturity won out, again. Who exactly is my follower, btw? My comment was directed to the mass of whites, ungrateful for the efforts of those of us who are trying to head off catastrophe. Frank, But "we, too, are mortal", as Paul Valery observed of the West. Our civilization might perish; there is no guarantee of survival. We must work to make it so. And that is difficult, when the regnant ideology is nationally, but not personally, suicidal.
10543749911294492874[i]To set you straight, a “white liberal” in the context of the main entry is anyone, be he left-wing or right-wing, democrat or republican, socialist or conservative, egalitarian or radical individualist, who actually believes and, in so far as is possible, organises his life around the tenets of liberalism. These tenets all come together, eventually, in the myth of self-authoriality. It is important in the American political context, and was there at the beginning. Many Americans, including WNs as apparently national socialist as Alex Linder, are to one degree or another held in place by the myth of self-authoriality, and in consequence never really “get” what European nationalists are talking about when we dissect liberalism. We are dissecting the moving spirit of American life, as well, of course, of modernity in the old continent. Engagement with nationalism, including national socialism or any other authentic form of nationalism, is really only possible to the degree that the huge hold liberalism has over us, as the spirit of the age from which we abstract so much, is escaped. If one does not escape it, one is condemned to half-gestures such as Judeophobia and Christian conservatism, and the endless analysis that one encounters within intellectual WN.[/i] (GW) Could you elaborate on this? especially this concept of "self-authoriality". I'm not sure what you're talking about.
10547249911294538973[i]Leon Haller, At the crux of the issue of “self-authoriality” is the mistaken belief that one’s personal interests—not wants, but interests—can by authored by oneself rather than by Nature, and that one exists as an actor primarily alone rather than within one’s Volksgemeinschaft. This leads to a gross misallocation of wants in lieu of, and even opposed to, one’s real interests. [/i](pug) Very interesting. A new philosophical anthropology could be aborning out of development of this idea. It certainly constitutes a direct challenge to the liberal idea dominant in the West for the past quarter-millenium. I need to think about this more before responding at length. One issue, though: reducing the atomization or self-createdness of the individual in favor of expanding the role of community in the development of individual personality ('self') could, practically, lead to the kind of tyranny that so many leading Western thinkers and political figures opposed. Liberalism arose for a reason, in reaction to something found undesirable. I have not worked out where I stand on the individualism/volksgemeinschaft divide. I am also unsure as to whether a theory cannot be developed that gives us the best of both. I do see the problem, however. It is this: the collective mass of infinite individual decisions is leading to racial suicide (though this is not all "invisible handish" - there are elements [i]actively[/i] working to subvert and dispossess whites of their civilization). If we left all whites perfectly autonomous in their decision-making, the white race might cease to exist in a couple of generations (either through passive extinction, or active extermination after we have been thoroughly weakened in numbers and territorial power). Actually, these grim thoughts have occurred to me in the past. I have wondered if the tremendous blessings of individualist civilization - freedom, rule of law, free market - could be preserved in light of racial discrepancies, and declining white numbers (relatively as well as absolutely). My main intellectual task at present is to develop a thorough grasp of Christian theology and the history of secular political theory (these are large, lifetime, tasks, to say the least). My main theoretical task at present and for the foreseeable future is to justify white racial conservation within the Catholic tradition; to show, in a word, that Catholicism does not ethically obviate measures like racial restrictions on immigration, or racial patriotism more broadly. But in developing a complete racialist political and social philosophy, I will clearly one day have to confront this "self-authoriality" issue.
10549349911294570789Cratylus, You pose some interesting questions, that I myself think about on occasion. But, I suspect that you, like a lot of technophilic utopians, are way overselling the rate of change. I may very well be alive myself in fifty years. We will be an extinct species by then? I'm old enough to remember 30 years ago fairly well. I live in the same neighborhood I did then. Really, very little has changed, except there is a lot more 'diversity'. A few new shops in the nearby mall, a supermarket makeover. That's it. And I'm a Californian! The rate of change a hundred years ago was greater than today. In 50 years, there will be some technological improvements, though not too many. What's so different about today from 30 years ago? The ubiquity of computers, and electronic devices. But is that [i]fundamentally[/i] different? Even 20 years ago I used pay phones instead of my cell. BIG DEAL. The internet is about the biggest (technical) change, and are things really so different because of it? We waste more time, that's all. I assure you, in one hundred years people will still drive cars (probably non-carbon fuel), watch movies, chase pretty girls, use toilets, read books (though maybe more electronically), and go to jobs. The problem is that few of those people will be white. The disappearance or at least irrelevance of the white race will be the biggest change of the next century as opposed to recent centuries past.
10549449911294571144My main theoretical task at present and for the foreseeable future is to justify white racial conservation within the Catholic tradition; to show, in a word, that Catholicism does not ethically obviate measures like racial restrictions on immigration, or racial patriotism more broadly. (me) [i]Obviate: Definitions of obviate on the Web: do away with debar: prevent the occurrence of; prevent from happening. I’m not infallible, but I think a famous guy once said: “He who does not gather me, scatters me”[/i] Point? You think I used 'obviate' incorrectly? (I did not, of course.) Please. Whoever you are, you will never posses my language skills, so go away if you have nothing constructive to contribute.
10628249971296254379[i]Posted by Robert Reis on January 22, 2011, 11:08 PM | # Must read for Americans: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/01/student-loan-scam.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/voxpopoli+(Vox+Popoli)[/i] What kind of leftist shit is this? Of course, they do admit what is right at the end ("save", "live frugally", etc). Why should all these student loans get deferred or defaulted? Why should those who worked and saved for college, or who got loans and paid them off, now effectively subsidize today's students?! Bottom line: college is unnecessary and a scam, but more of a cultural one than anything foisted on ordinary people by politics. The US economy cannot support all the college graduates at the level they think they deserve, which is a joke anyway, beyond the top 50-100 colleges (out of around 1800+). Most people are not "college material", and should go to trade schools, or straight into the world of work upon maturity. The advanced knowledge allegedly required in our modern economy should be supplied by business on an industry-specific basis.
10628349971296254585[i]“One dramatic sign was the big influx of Jews.” Perversity resulted from that fact that “the old elite used to get on fairly well with the country it was set over. Members of the old social upper-crust elite were richer and better educated than the public at large, but approached life on basically the same terms.” The new, heavily Jewish elite, Gelernter argued, is not only different from the non-Jewish masses, “it loathes the nation it rules.” It loathes the nation it rules. That sentence perfectly describes this damn country.[/i] (Reis) Yes, it does. Very well observed. I'm surprised a neocon Jew like Gelertner would say this, though.
10602349981295656056I have vowed not to waste time commenting on websites anymore, but I am compelled by this topic to say that, though I share your concern, Mr. LaForce, with saving the white race (especially, for me, as doing so is the foundation for Western civilization's survival - an important point: if 99% of whites became "whiggers", or some other type of dysgenic retard, I would not be interested in preserving the race, other than for the personal security of myself until I die; I certainly would not involve myself actively with such an impersonal issue), your comments reveal you as nothing more than a race-conscious liberal. The comments on science and how it will 'free' us are particularly inane. Science can never resolve moral problems. I am strongly pro-science, as well as eugenics; these positions do not conflict with Christianity, rightly understood. Neither does white racialism, provided it is not of the aggressive, exterminatory variety (which, as I have argued at length on this site in the past, is the logical endpoint of non-Christian racialism). That racialism and eugenicism are widely seen to be anti-Christian merely reveals first, the extent to which the historic faith has been polluted by the egalitarian currents (or at least rhetoric) of modern elite class thinking dominant in the West; and second, a lack of Christian theological imagination in (admittedly desperate) need of remedy. I have noticed a spectacular lack of understanding of the real Christian message on the part of seemingly all its critics, whether Marxist, liberal humanist or nationalist. All these different persons, including famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, whose theological knowledge when set against his Olympian pronouncements is embarrassing, assume they understand the faith based on Sunday grade-school simplifications, without having really studied it. Honestly, to examine the whole relationship between Christianity and science is just too time-consuming, and not worth it in this place. The real issue for WNs is, obviously, not the truth of the faith, but its current and likely future impact on our racial perpetuity. Pragmatically speaking, I have made exactly the same comments as Hunter Wallace, in several different venues, and they are irrefutable. Even risking establishing WN in the public mind as incompatible with Christianity is [i]empirically[/i] stupid to a nearly inconceivable degree, and not only in America, where whites are more religious than in Europe. If you force most whites to have to choose between their faith and their race, they will reluctantly side with the faith against the race. Yes, a parallel track of activism and analysis is better, and no, Christianity on its own will neither save the white race, nor rebuild Western civilization. Our civilization has a biological and philosophical substrate. Both are indispensable. The biology is of course racial. If pure whites do not continue to exist, the West will die out. The philosophy is primarily Christian. In a thinking species like humans, or at least among an intelligent race like whites (or perhaps all that can be said is that among whites), ideology is apparently more important than mere biology (or else we wouldn't have the core racial problem, which is not one of physical power set against a looming racial enemy - yet - but of multiculti brainwashing and the concomitant need for white 'deprogramming'). The primary intellectual task for WNs today is to demonstrate the compatibility between Christianity and what I call 'biological realism' (or maybe I should just say "science", though that seems too broad, quickly involving cosmological and ontological (esp. 'free will') debates not in themselves directly relevant to the kind of ethical justifications for the tough political measures that will be needed to ensure white survival). I don't think this is all that difficult (racialism is actually much easier to justify than eugenics), though it will require demonstrating an extensive academic grounding in one or another of the major Christian theological traditions. To put it simply, Christianity does not necessitate endless streams of racially/culturally incompatible immigration (the major, though not only, racialist problem). Yes, the Churches have been infected with contrary nonsense, but why assume that the correct response to such rubbish is to jettison the faith?! Why accede to the (false) leftist egalitarian version of Christianity; find that version wanting; and then conclude that the problem is the faith itself, and that the solution is ignoring or worse attacking it? To me, the correct response, intellectually, is to 'de-marxify' the Church's thinking on race (and much else), and politically, to stress the compatibility between Christianity and WN; that is, that Christians are allowed multiple affective identities, and that there is no incompatibility between Christian faith and patriotic sentiment, including racial patriotism, which is the base of other patriotisms. This discussion of the relation between Christianity and race may never be resolved, because the debate between faith and [i]scientism[/i] is probably a now permanent feature of the human condition. I'm quite certain, however, that we don't have to resolve that debate in order to persuade a majority of our people to want to save our race. We only have to show that we whites have a moral right (perhaps even a duty) to endure; that to do so requires territorial separation; and that white nations have been the victims of active treason on the part of our elites, coupled with passive aggression by nonwhites muscling into our homelands, uninvited by the moral majorities. I'm also certain that the only type of nationalism that will ever take wing (until the literal personal survival of most or all whites is at stake, as it is today in American prisons) is a [i]conservative[/i] nationalism that seeks to uphold the dignity of Western civilization, and reconnect our atomized and deracinated peoples with their historic traditions, a big part of which was what went under the heading of "Christendom". And even if all forms of supernaturalism are finally false, as atheists claim, faith impels men to make great sacrifices, and that gives them great power (as we see with Muslim extremism today). Far better, strictly practically, to integrate with and subvert (if you are liberal) or cleanse (if conservative) the faith, than to imagine that it will ever be supplanted in emotive power by either arid scientific naturalism, or ridiculous 'religious racialist' cults or neopaganisms.
10628149981296252657[i]As I see it, every man belongs to a number of concentric groups : 1 . his immediate family 2 . his extended family, the clan 3 . the local population 4 . his race 5 . humanity and other primates The individualistic white man is supposed to care about 1 and 5. The tribal third-worlder is supposed to care about number 2. In fact, I think that most white people also care about number 4.[/i] (Armor) I wish you were correct in your last statement. That most whites do not care about the fate of the collective race is the whole problem. I think there should be a sixth concentric circle, between 3 and 4. That is 'country' or 'nation'. To the extent that today's decadent whites possess any nationalist instinct at all, it is directed to country, not race, though that may continue to change as the race shrinks numerically, and the countries become ever more nonwhite (something I predicted hopefully back in the early 80s; it's taking a damn long time, however, for that prediction to come true).
10632149981296326897What happened to Notus Wind? He has gone from major writer here to no-show. I miss Fred Scrooby and Trainspotter, too.
10621349991296049511[i]Desmond, [u]it is because the act of rescuing Blacks raises Whites’ moral and social status in a way that rescuing Whites would not.[/u] Our fellow Whites have many fine qualities but status-seeking to the point of self - defeat remains a problem.[/i] (Al Ross) Talk about begging the question!
10621449991296050140A lot of Nazis were homosexuals. Nazis would certainly have saved the white race from extinction. But is life under that type of order what we would prefer? Is the only option for white survival some type of revolutionary nationalism ('revolutionary' as against traditional social orders and normative behaviors)? I recall reading Will Durant, who once opined that the clearest historical indication that a civilization had entered a period of decline was widespread public acceptance of homosexuality.
10622349991296115151[i]Posted by Don on January 26, 2011, 01:09 PM | # Hey Leon, does the following mean anything to you? “Just When You Thought You Were Out, They Pull You Back In”[/i] You know, I was actually thinking of starting a longer post with that exact same quote ... Really, I am not lying. But then I thought I really don't want to write much, but could not resist noting what I did above.
10622649991296116551Your stupidity is priceless, Al Ross. Perhaps someone else can explain the logical fallacy embedded in your ridiculous assertion (which, incidentally, was cribbed from interesting, if not finally persuasive, articles by racialist writer Ian Jobling on "competitive altruism") that I referenced above. Persons like you have little to nothing to contribute to the development of any realistic nationalist agenda. Before further plaguing better educated men with your meager opinions, take some time off, and try to learn a few things from the wealth of knowledge that your fellow whites have accumulated. I would counsel spending less time with the pure philosophy (especially metaphysics) and evolutionary biology which seem to be the strong preferences here, and much more with history, especially that of politics and in particular revolutionary movements. But that's just me. Robust criticisms are useful in a growing intellectual or political movement, so long as the semi-learned are not leading the discussions.
10623449991296134320Captainchaos: To what of mine do your broadsides refer? I certainly agree that the US was manipulated into WW2, and that both we and the West would have been far better served by our staying out completely. Would that have resulted in a Nazi-dominated England? Not necessarily. The historiographical consensus today is that Hitler's true intention had always been to destroy Soviet Bolshevism, and expand [i]Germania[/i] into the east. He at least did not relish war with his 'cousins' across the Channel (unlike the vainglorious Churchill, who was actually very sound on many questions - Bolshevism, race, Empire, even eugenics; there is debate about his true feelings towards the Jews, however - but in the crux decided that being personally defiant and a world-historical personage was more important to him than suing for peace and saving the Empire, as well as many British lives and much property and infrastructure). But even a Nazi-dominated Britain would, in the long run, have worked out better for the British people. The Nazi yoke would have been especially light (indeed, it would had to have been, given how stretched were their resources on the Eastern Front; this precarious state would have continued for a long time even had the Red (Rape) Army been defeated), and a strong sense of race would have been instilled in the young generation. It is doubtful that The (Judeo?-)Sixties ever would have come to Britain, and even if Nazi control had gradually evolved and loosened (as I believe it would have), British racial and ethnic self-confidence would have been such as to reject dark-skinned migrants out of hand. I'm not a Nazi as a matter of political philosophy. But even from my traditionalist conservative perspective (one I share with Buchanan, though with more of an empiricist, and especially scientific racialist, bent), it is now undeniable that a Nazi-dominated Europe, even if not my ideal, would have been better for the cause of Western Man than the Allied victory which sealed our doom.
10624450001296159230At least discussing war is more real and thus useful than metaphysics. Here is yet another disaster of multiculturalism, and the denial of the Race Principle: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/01/engineer_jailed.php Western defense agencies must hire nonwhites - and give them access to vital state secrets. Predictably, we know who is [i]really[/i] loyal to white nations, and who is out for themselves only.
10626550001296216993Predictably, Al Ross makes a fool of himself yet again. Care to comment or correct, Mr. Site Administrator? I admit I should have written "who are out for themselves", though I was thinking of "who" as a noun substitute for entire ethnic groups, considered, however, as singular entities (ie, "the white man" v. "the Chinaman" or "the Muslim", etc). Perhaps I should have written "who is out for himself". What most amuses is that I wrote in haste, but Ross must actually have given the matter some thought. Comparing the quality of my prose, in extensive evidence on MR, with yours, Ross, is not something you should undertake. You have produced such a small amount of commentary, and of such meager intellectual insightfulness, that even a grammatical accounting which favored you (in fact it wouldn't) would be very much a Pyrrhic victory. Kindly go away and exhort and instruct your fellow juveniles.
10626650001296218458[i]The real point is that democracy is fine as long as one accepts that, in the US, too many White voters believe in the Semitic Supernatural and spring to the defence of that race which provided the Biblical Fairytales’ authors. This knee -jerk,cultural perversion’s adherents will be of no help in White racial preservation.[/i] (Al Ross) Try to learn something, Ross. Posted by Leon Haller on January 21, 2011, 11:27 PM | # I have vowed not to waste time commenting on websites anymore, but I am compelled by this topic to say that, though I share your concern, Mr. LaForce, with saving the white race (especially, for me, as doing so is the foundation for Western civilization’s survival - an important point: if 99% of whites became “whiggers”, or some other type of dysgenic retard, I would not be interested in preserving the race, other than for the personal security of myself until I die; I certainly would not involve myself actively with such an impersonal issue), your comments reveal you as nothing more than a race-conscious liberal. The comments on science and how it will ‘free’ us are particularly inane. Science can never resolve moral problems. I am strongly pro-science, as well as eugenics; these positions do not conflict with Christianity, rightly understood. Neither does white racialism, provided it is not of the aggressive, exterminatory variety (which, as I have argued at length on this site in the past, is the logical endpoint of non-Christian racialism). That racialism and eugenicism are widely seen to be anti-Christian merely reveals first, the extent to which the historic faith has been polluted by the egalitarian currents (or at least rhetoric) of modern elite class thinking dominant in the West; and second, a lack of Christian theological imagination in (admittedly desperate) need of remedy. I have noticed a spectacular lack of understanding of the real Christian message on the part of seemingly all its critics, whether Marxist, liberal humanist or nationalist. All these different persons, including famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, whose theological knowledge when set against his Olympian pronouncements is embarrassing, assume they understand the faith based on Sunday grade-school simplifications, without having really studied it. Honestly, to examine the whole relationship between Christianity and science is just too time-consuming, and not worth it in this place. The real issue for WNs is, obviously, not the truth of the faith, but its current and likely future impact on our racial perpetuity. Pragmatically speaking, I have made exactly the same comments as Hunter Wallace, in several different venues, and they are irrefutable. Even risking establishing WN in the public mind as incompatible with Christianity is empirically stupid to a nearly inconceivable degree, and not only in America, where whites are more religious than in Europe. If you force most whites to have to choose between their faith and their race, they will reluctantly side with the faith against the race. Yes, a parallel track of activism and analysis is better, and no, Christianity on its own will neither save the white race, nor rebuild Western civilization. Our civilization has a biological and philosophical substrate. Both are indispensable. The biology is of course racial. If pure whites do not continue to exist, the West will die out. The philosophy is primarily Christian. In a thinking species like humans, or at least among an intelligent race like whites (or perhaps all that can be said is that among whites), ideology is apparently more important than mere biology (or else we wouldn’t have the core racial problem, which is not one of physical power set against a looming racial enemy - yet - but of multiculti brainwashing and the concomitant need for white ‘deprogramming’). The primary intellectual task for WNs today is to demonstrate the compatibility between Christianity and what I call ‘biological realism’ (or maybe I should just say “science”, though that seems too broad, quickly involving cosmological and ontological (esp. ‘free will’) debates not in themselves directly relevant to the ethical justifications required for the tough political measures that will be needed to ensure white survival). I don’t think this is all that difficult (racialism is actually much easier to justify than eugenics), though it will require one to demonstrate an extensive academic grounding in one or another of the major Christian theological traditions. To put it simply, Christianity does not morally mandate tolerance for endless streams of racially/culturally incompatible immigration (the major, though not only, racialist problem). Yes, the Churches have been infected with contrary nonsense, but why assume that the correct response to such rubbish is to jettison the faith?! Why accede to the (false) leftist egalitarian version of Christianity; find that version wanting; and then conclude that the problem is the faith itself, and that the solution is ignoring or worse attacking it? To me, the correct response, intellectually, is to ‘de-marxify’ the Church’s thinking on race (and much else), and politically, to stress the compatibility between Christianity and WN; to wit, that Christians are allowed multiple affective identities, and that there is no incompatibility between Christian faith and patriotic sentiment, including racial patriotism, which is the base of other patriotisms. This discussion of the relation between Christianity and race may never be resolved, because the debate between faith and [i]scientism[/i] is probably a now permanent feature of the human condition. I’m quite certain, however, that we don’t have to resolve that debate in order to persuade a majority of our people to want to save our race. We only have to show that we whites have a moral right (perhaps even a duty) to endure; that to do so requires territorial separation; and that white nations have been the victims of active treason on the part of our elites, coupled with passive aggression by nonwhites muscling into our homelands, uninvited by the white majorities who morally own these nations. I’m also certain that the only type of nationalism that will ever take wing (until the literal personal survival of most or all whites is at stake, as it is today in American prisons) is a [i]conservative[/i] nationalism that seeks to uphold the dignity of Western civilization, and reconnect our atomized and deracinated peoples with their historic traditions, a big part of which was what went under the heading of “Christendom”. And even if all forms of supernaturalism are finally false, as atheists claim, faith impels men to make great sacrifices, and that gives them great power (as we see with Muslim extremism today). Far better, strictly practically, to integrate with and subvert (if you are liberal) or cleanse (if conservative) the faith, than to imagine that it will ever be supplanted in emotive power by either arid scientific naturalism, or ridiculous ‘religious racialist’ cults or neopaganisms.
10623550031296135008As I have argued here and elsewhere, the Right needs to start developing a new ethics of political violence, for we should be under not the slightest illusion that if our race is to endure for millenia to come, we must have sovereign territories which we inhabit and control exclusively ("racial states"), and I strongly doubt that such states will ever be actualized apart from some degree of violence, or threat of it. Ethics, people, is the key, not metaphysics.
10623650031296135059Thanks for the article and quotes, Mr. Miller.
10624550041296159496Is this a collection of previously published essays? If so, any idea how many have been translated and published in either [i]The Occidental Quarterly[/i] or [i]Chronicles[/i]? More generally, can de Benoist any longer be considered an Occidentalist or racialist?
10626750041296218737Incidentally, GW, if you should happen to obtain a pdf version of this book, I would be willing to take a stab at a review as well. I do wonder how many of the chapters of this book I might already have as previously published and translated articles in the aforementioned piublications.
10628050041296252057[i]Or if you REALLY want to make a difference, become a titan of industry - a White Preservationist Billionaire.[/i] (Thorn) I would be willing to do this. Could you explain how I should go about it?
10630250041296315795[i]Of course I was saying that with tongue in cheek, Leo[/i]. (Thorn) As was I. [i]BTW, Leo, what do you think about my assertion that it’s the global capitalists that are the main force behind causing the race-replacement of whites? In other words: gaining power and wealth is what intoxicates these evil bastards. To them, the extinction of the white-race is a mere byproduct of their addiction to power and wealth. Whatever evil act or acts it takes to gain or hold onto power, they’ll engage in it. (Did you notice I didn’t blame it all on the Jooooze?)[/i] (Thorn) That is a very deep discussion. Disentangling and then ranking by relative effect the forces promoting white extinction is a useful but complex exercise. Global capitalists are certainly contributing factors to the West's demise. But are they the [i]main [/i]ones? What you are really broaching is an old and probably irresolvable historical debate: which is the greater motor of change - ideas, basic human motivations like desire for wealth and power, or exogenous influences like climate, population trends and technological advances? The correct answer of course is that the primary agent of change can vary between issues, as well as over time wrt the same issue. Considering your assertion, we must inquire into the mechanism involved. I will assume the (racial) amorality of present Western elites, particularly non-Jewish ones (as I believe those are the objects of your condemnation). Many men throughout history, including Occidental history, have sought power and wealth to the exclusion of other concerns. At different points in the past, those single-minded drives collectively led, epiphenomenally, to an enormous expansion of the territory under white racial control, which later resulted in, or at least allowed for, massive growth in white numbers. Most men at most times seek nothing more than to better themselves and their immediate families, friends and allies. The white men who swarmed out across the globe after 1492 were not doing so consciously to advance white genetic interests, or even, for the most part, mere national interests. They were motivated by greed for gold, spices and trade routes, as were the nobility and merchants who initially backed them. But the byproducts of their spirit of acquisitiveness were huge, sustained and accelerating increases in white power (EGI). How is it then that the putatively same self-interested motives obtaining today lead to such enormous [i]losses[/i] of white EGI? Clearly, the answer must be [i]systemic[/i] failure; that is, the "system" that exists today, in contrast to that which existed in centuries past, is so constructed or formed that harming white EGI results in enormous individual benefits, while not harming (let alone supporting or merely rhetorically defending) white EGI leads to enormous individual losses (very much including loss of individual GI). We must next inquire into how such a counterintuitive (from an evolutionary standpoint) system ever could have arisen. This again could be a huge discussion. We would have to comprehensively examine the "state of the world" during the last period [i]before[/i] the new anti-white-EGI system became hegemonic (that is, before whites started to be professionally rewarded for racial disloyalty or indifference), and then identify what is different about the world after the new hegemony. One obvious difference: a huge increase in both the wealth and especially moral standing (in the minds of whites) of Jewry, the combination of which has led to such disproportionate Jewish influence in Western nations, in turn leading to diminishment of white EGI as that influence was used to promote racial integration, nonwhite immigration, "free" trade, feminism, sexual deviance, dysgenic welfarism, inutile public expenditures, and enervating critiques of white cultures, traditions, folkways, and national histories. An even bigger transformation, however, I think, was in the realm of ideas. Somehow the Left convinced a large number of whites, especially influential ones, that special affective attachments above the level of family and below that of humanity were morally suspect. The Left would like to banish national patriotism, but has not yet wholly succeeded (though anti-national projects like the EU may yet render old-fashioned patriotisms archaic or quaintly irrelevant). They have of course wildly succeeded with their "anti-(white)-racism". [Why banishing white racism has proven to be so much easier than getting rid of nonwhite racisms is yet another huge area requiring investigation and analysis.] My writing is getting away from itself. I recognize that global capitalism is not helpful to white survival, and that the leading international businessmen, if white, are almost all race traitors. I want to know why that is so. Is the reason structural, systemic or ideological? Are white global capitalists racially disloyal or indifferent because of structure - they make more money by being so; system - simply going about their business(es) without giving consideration to racial effects (good or bad) leads to bad racial effects; or ideology - they either hate white EGI (Jewry) or think that supporting white EGI is immoral? Some capitalists have structural reasons for hurting white EGI. The clearest examples in the US are agribusiness, construction and franchise restaurants. All benefit greatly from employing Mexican labor (esp if illegal). I don't think the average contractor is thinking about how his hiring of illegal aliens is hurting white EGI. He doesn't care! He just knows that doing so helps his profits. Other capitalists have systemic reasons. It is the interest (and fiduciary duty) of the chairmen of pharmaceutical companies to market their products as widely as possible. Doing so, however, often increases life expectancy among nonwhites, thus hurting white EGI (as, eg, when surplus Third World populations press for admission to Western lands). Finally, I have no doubt that many global capitalists, like whites more broadly, simply think WN concern for racial preservation is immoral. That view is incorrect and even incoherent, but people's beliefs, even when false, are empirical facts, and must be subjected to the same sort of serious scrutiny as 'harder' issues like IQ or hormones or demographic density, etc. All philosophy can basically be boiled down to three questions: 1. What is real? (ontology) 2. What can be known? (epistemology) 3. What is right (or, what should we do)? (ethics) I think understanding the structural or systemic forces leading to white decline, let alone situating them within a scientistic or 'biologistic' schema (a popular approach at MR), is less important than critiquing the ethical misgivings about race and racism that have made whites so racially impotent. I keep stressing over and over that seeing the racial dilemma as an inevitable clash of genomes, or mapping out all the social or anthropological implications of EGI, is less helpful than working towards a definitive ethical justification for white preservation (I mean the physically coercive prerequisites for that preservation). Our race is dying out finally not because of mechanisms (immigration due to desires for cheap labor; falling white fertility due to feminism and female careerism; increasing miscegenation reducing gene pool size) but because too many [b][i]conservative[/i][/b] whites (forget the race-liberals, who are mostly innately psychologically defective, and not just intellectually confused) think acting racially to preserve our race is immoral (and in the US at least, that further means "unChristian"). I've done a fair bit of political PR and campaign work in my time, overwhelmingly among Republicans, and I am right. Again and again I have tried to introduce mere race realism (crime rates, IQ, liberal nonwhite voting patterns as justification for preventing nonwhite immigration) into conservative venues, or among Republicans. The reactions I've received, not least being banned from many [i]genuinely[/i] conservative websites (Chronicles, First Things, the old takimag)(forget neocon places), suggest an incredible level of brainwashing among all segments of our people. And if we are not going to make nationalist inroads among conservatives, who will be our future power base - progressives?! Between persuading our people of the value and morality of their racial survival, and then actually implementing the measures needed to ensure that survival in the teeth of ferocious, physical/military resistance from nonwhites, we really have our work cut out for us.
10630450041296316287Captainchaos: I should have thought you would have favored my response to you on another thread: [i]Posted by Captainchaos on January 27, 2011, 10:09 AM | # much more with history, especially that of politics and in particular revolutionary movements. Well, from the perspective of White Americans, it would doubtless have been desirable for America to have stayed out of WWII and watch from afar on this side of the Atlantic as the Krauts achieved hegemony in Europe. But what of the “Mother Country” and our English cousins? Could White Americans have lived with themselves whilst the English endured under a Mosley puppet-government ultimately beholden to Berlin? As far as I’m concerned, too bad, so sad, and tough shit for them. America would have been saved and inherited Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Posted by Captainchaos on January 27, 2011, 10:37 AM | # In reading Buchanan’s book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War one can detect a real bitterness on the author’s part towards those he holds responsible for setting in motion the chain of events that murdered his beloved nation. These are as Lindbergh stated: the British, the Jews and the Roosevelt administration. For him, an abiding love of what America once was and a sincere hatred of Bolshevism is truly something more than a limp sop offered to Americans in saying that “revolutionary internationalism” is “something that has to be fought”. And what has become of England? “Enslaved” to the Tory-Labour-UKIP-Jewish hydra and race-replaced and mongrelized to boot. It was none of it worth it. [/i] Posted by Leon Haller on January 27, 2011, 12:18 PM | # Captainchaos: To what of mine do your broadsides refer? I certainly agree that the US was manipulated into WW2, and that both we and the West would have been far better served by our staying out completely. Would that have resulted in a Nazi-dominated England? Not necessarily. The historiographical consensus today is that Hitler’s true intention had always been to destroy Soviet Bolshevism, and expand Germania into the east. He at least did not relish war with his ‘cousins’ across the Channel (unlike the vainglorious Churchill, who was actually very sound on many questions - Bolshevism, race, Empire, even eugenics; there is debate about his true feelings towards the Jews, however - but in the crux decided that being personally defiant and a world-historical personage was more important to him than suing for peace and saving the Empire, as well as many British lives and much property and infrastructure). But even a Nazi-dominated Britain would, in the long run, have worked out better for the British people. The Nazi yoke would have been especially light (indeed, it would had to have been, given how stretched were their resources on the Eastern Front; this precarious state would have continued for a long time even had the Red (Rape) Army been defeated), and a strong sense of race would have been instilled in the young generation. It is doubtful that The (Judeo?-)Sixties ever would have come to Britain, and even if Nazi control had gradually evolved and loosened (as I believe it would have), British racial and ethnic self-confidence would have been such as to reject dark-skinned migrants out of hand. I’m not a Nazi as a matter of political philosophy. But even from my traditionalist conservative perspective (one I share with Buchanan, though with more of an empiricist, and especially scientific racialist, bent), it is now undeniable that a Nazi-dominated Europe, even if not my ideal, would have been better for the cause of Western Man than the Allied victory which sealed our doom.
10630850041296320999[i]Posted by Thorn on January 28, 2011, 04:04 PM | # “I’ve put Soren in touch with the publisher, so the call is answered.” I hope his book reviews aren’t as painfully embarrassing as his speeches. LORD HAVE MERCY!!! Note: To skip the intro, advance to the 2:00 minute mark[/i] Thorn: Thank you for posting this link to Mr. Renner's speech. Most enlightening to me, on several levels. First, I would not have expected the extremely taciturn (at MR) Renner to look or sound as he does. I would have expected a quiet, somewhat impish Dane or other European. I never suspected Renner was American. Second, that Renner is American and yet has, with some degree of snark, spoken in dismissive tones of my own comments at MR, is suggestive of just how little grip on political reality many here at MR actually have. If Renner showed up to speak (as I have many times) to a gathering of [i]conservative Republicans[/i] (presumably our allies, at least pragmatically) looking as he does, and making the arguments he made in London, he would set the racial cause back among the group addressed a generation or more. Even former Grand Wizard David Duke long ago embraced the "All-American" look! Can't Renner shave and wear a suit? My parents and some other family members are racialists - against civil rights, against immigration, no fans of Jewish media. If they are not MR's and Renner's base, who the hell is?! But they would be aghast at Renner, his image and his content. Strangeness or eccentricity should not be confused with brilliance (a mistake leftists make constantly). Third, I don't altogether disagree with the substance of Renner's speech. It reminds me of my own thoughts and worries about 'conflict' vs 'consensus' political theories. Christian thought down the ages (to some extent, libertarian, too, though the emphasis here is on the 'cooperation' seen to be inherent in the market order) has emphasized the latter, but I am more drawn, both by inclination and study, to the former. My task, in part, will be to integrate the best of both traditions (if possible, as I believe it is). Fourth, did Heraclitus speak of "war" or "strife"? I write from memory here (not even a wikipeak, though perhaps I should), but I thought he spoke of strife as the central principle of all things (thus against stationary models of existence, emphasis on constant change, "never step twice in same river"), but not in any teleological sense (even in the limited teleology of the Darwinians - that forms grow more complex over time). Matter changes, but I was not aware of any imputation of improvement. Fifth, I did very much like Renner's critique at the end of those who decry discourses of war when offered by our people, while ensuring that their own kinsmen live in accordance with such discourses. And more: that their decrial of our discourse of war is a form of war by them against us. Very good. Sixth, and lastly, clearly Renner (and MR, by virtue of its endorsement of his speech), is aiming to develop a[i] revolutionary[/i] racial nationalism (by 'revolutionary' I mean intellectually so, though undoubtedly the Molotovs will start flying presently), a new philosophy largely rejecting and bypassing the ethical and religious inheritance of the past. This is in marked contrast to my own conservative or reactionary racialism, in which I seek to recover the past, which includes honesty about race, including sociobiology. It is ever more clear why so many of my posts are met with such stony silence. We are allies in the foundational issue of preventing white extinction. Beyond that, I suspect that (true) conservatives (which finally I am, despite having been repeatedly disparaged as a neo-Nazi, and banned from posting on every conservative site I'm familiar with) and (MR-style) radical nationalists have little in common. After the racial revolution (we must hope) to restore all-white polities, we will all go our separate ways politically.
10630950041296322407[i]Posted by Captainchaos on January 29, 2011, 12:33 PM | # Thorn is apparently attempting to put in harness creative intelligences which he feels have the tendency to shade into eccentricity and thus diminish their utility. This he does with juvenile barbs as contrasted with Leon Haller’s at times borderline bullying. These tacks if not coupled with the ability to win intellectually in making counterpoints will fall on deaf ears. So far, neither Thorn nor Haller have demonstrated that ability. So they are not listened to.[/i] Me, the bully? hehehe! Try the bullied! Of course, being a racialist, my skin is thick, and I can give more than whatever I get. As for not being listened to, perhaps. But I speak with sincerity when I say, I have been solicited to write for [i]every[/i] nationalist/racialist print publication in the English speaking world (there are only a handful, I know, but the statement is true), including a couple now defunct, as well as many racialist and anti-immigrationist websites. I turn them down because my core theoretical position is not yet fully formed (I do routinely offer to do book reviews, but am strangely rejected for the most part). I have also received many unsolicited emails praising my work (how they get my e-address is always annoying). As for debate, if anyone here wanted to challenge me formally I would gladly rise to the occasion. I would lose, but only because my situating (and limiting) racialism within a Christian worldview already has the narrow-minded majority in these parts prejudiced against me. A neutral judge, say a Stanford professor, would almost certainly look upon my (haha) "intellectual ability" more favorably. I only criticize those (morally) deserving of criticism. Well-meaning, sincere, respectful, but silly souls are never criticized by me. Would you really like me to start tearing things up here? It would not be pretty (might also be too time consuming). I prefer espousing my own views, or keeping things impersonal.
10627950061296251817It is of course only the Egyptian regime that is friendly to the US, and that due to massive amounts of American tribute ("foreign aid"). The populace is becoming ever more Islamist, and thus Egypt will likely become more hostile to us if the Mubarak regime fails. That could be good news to us in the era of rabid budget deficits, though perhaps not. Any reductions in US aid to Egypt may simply be rerouted to Israel, to help them meet their newest security threat. The American taxpayers, Earth's cattle, will be shafted as usual.
10631450071296325650On the relation between the sexes: Men build the world, so that women can perpetuate it. (a Leon Haller original)
10631850071296326554[i]Global civilization teeters and must be taken down before it collapses uncontrollably.[/i] (JB) How is global civilization threatened by feminism? Do not assert - demonstrate. White civilization is threatened (also Japanese), but only because feminism lowers fertility, and we are being massively outbred by pre- or anti-feminist ethnys *(Latinos, Africans, Arabs). Eventually, they will conquer us, and either exterminate us or miscegenate us into extinction. But "global civilization"? Whites were not the only civilization (the best, of course). Our disappearance will not herald the end of either humanity or civilization, just a lowering in quality. Now I could make one plausible (but hardly definitive) argument demonstrating that human civilization might not endure without whites. But Bowery has not made this argument, and I will wait for someone else to make it.
10632450071296331761JB, People have been predicting civilizational collapse for at least a century. (Non-religious) apocalyptic scenarios arose as the scale of human existence became unimaginably more complex over the course of the 20th century (secular conspiracy theories go back to the 18th century, but they really flourished in tandem with this incredible increase in the scale of complexity confronting humans, whose brains probably have not evolved much since the Stone Age). Yet, when I head in to LA, I still see civilization even there, albeit much degraded from my dad's day. When I return to the OC, non-degraded civilization awaits. Where's the collapse? When will it become evident? How will one know? What I can't seem to ascertain from your writing is why civilization collapses just because of female empowerment (something I personally dislike, to be sure). Are you making an argument akin to Roger Devlin's "re-Africanization of the West" (I don't recall his alleging collapse, though - just greater degeneracy)? That is, feminism makes white women behave more like black women, which will cause their progeny to behave like savages, which will eventually reach a tipping point wherein there will no longer be enough people to 'man' the vital centers of a complex industrial civilization. I could see this happening, but it's not going to happen (the tipping point) within our lifetimes. I know plenty of white feminist women who are happily married to my friends, and are successfully raising kids, too. No signs of collapse, and certainly nothing imminent. To reiterate, the evil of feminism from a nationalist perspective is that it lowers white fertility. It also creates greater dissension on the domestic front, which interferes with a white man's fulfillment of his racial responsibilities.
10637350071296372461[i]I’m not familiar with Roger Devlin. Did he write cite ”Race, Gender and the Frontier” or is he another Einstein?[/i] (JB) Not sure what you mean, though the essay you wrote looks interesting. I'm surprised at your unfamiliarity with Dr. Devlin. He writes often on gender issues from the WN perspective, mainly for TOQ, though the phrase I used was taken from a very good article of that title published in AR a couple of years ago. Don't all regular commenters here read[i] The Occidental Quarterly[/i] and [i]American Renaissance[/i]?
10637050081296372012I'm a bit too young for you, GW. Growing up in the 70s I did have some Jewish friends. I do not recall their parents blathering about the Holocaust, however, or trying to teach me "lessons in tolerance". When I reached university in the mid-80s, however, my very Jewish (28%+) Ivy League school was very, very conscious of the Holocaust. Obligatory references to it were sprinkled throughout philosophy and history (and even literature) classes. Jewish 'thinkers' (esp Marx - this was just before the fall of the Wall) seemed to be disproportionately represented in class readings, which was no surprise, given the heavily Jewish presence among the faculty. Of course, there were literally only a tiny handful of (barely) conservative professors on campus, mostly of an Eisenhower or Gerald Ford type. I think one guy, sort of an ass, was very proud of himself for publicly supporting Reagan. I recall thinking he was no better than a moderate liberal. There were no nationalists (except covertly among the student body; a number of us were public anti-communist, pro-military and free market, but privately among ourselves, quite racialist). I am not a Nazi, but I also should not be misconstrued as having any particular affection for Jewry. Their presence has obviously been bad for white EGI. My past comments pertain to tactics. I continue to think (as do Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and other unimpeachable defenders of the West) that it is better for race realists to focus our very limited ammunition on the biggest problems, like ending immigration. The Jews are very well integrated into American life, as well as hegemonic in media influence. Attacking them directly is unwise, even for Nazis (assuming their ultimate goal is saving our race, and not merely venting against Jews). It is much easier to expose the problems with visibly distinctive racial aliens than to try to explain the necessity of "reframing discourses" wrt Jewry. Jewish power is not physical (except in the Middle East), but relies on control of commercial networks. If whites can recover their racial honor, I think the Jew will fall into line. If not, it will be easier, post-mass-Awakening, to deal with him.
10644150081296550386[i]Otherwise, it is my firm belief that the West will not survive unless it somehow breaks the power of Jewry. We are not going to fix immigration or social policies while the Jewish stranglehold on the West exists.[/i] (SD) I reiterate, with emphasis: I am not a Nazi, but I also should not be misconstrued as having any particular affection for Jewry. Their presence has obviously been bad for white EGI. My past comments pertain to tactics. I continue to think (as do Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and other unimpeachable defenders of the West) that it is better for race realists to focus our very limited ammunition on the biggest problems, like ending immigration. [u]The Jews are very well integrated into American life, as well as hegemonic in media influence. Attacking them directly is unwise, even for Nazis (assuming their ultimate goal is saving our race, and not merely venting against Jews). [b]It is much easier to expose the problems with visibly distinctive racial aliens than to try to explain the necessity of “reframing discourses” wrt Jewry.[/b] Jewish power is not physical (except in the Middle East), but relies on control of commercial networks.[/u] If whites can recover their racial honor, I think the Jew will fall into line. If not, it will be easier, post-mass-Awakening, to deal with him. Do you grasp my point, especially in bold? How do you or anyone else propose we break the Jewish stranglehold? Obviously, that would be optimal. BUT HOW??!! I see no way, given Jewish integration (not merely cultural domination). For example, how many Swiss have Muslim friends, spouses, or valued professional colleagues or subordinates? I doubt very many. Ditto for Americans and blacks (though unfortunately these numbers are always growing, which is part of the insidiousness of the modern religion of Diversity and integration). The brute reality here in America is that many of us do have Jewish friends and professional peers whom we are unwilling to alienate by "naming the Jew". I say this even though my Jewish friends know that I know all about Jewish liberalism, and resent it. Many Americans have overwhelmingly positive interactions with Jews; for example, a good friend of mine, whose mother had an excellent Jewish oncologist who helped her immensely, not least with emotional support, while she was diagnosed and later dying with cancer. Try to get my friend (who is a staunch, anti-immigration, anti-black crime conservative) to develop an antipathy to Jewry (and he is sufficiently awakened to know, like me, that Jews are liberal, and control the media). My argument above never seems to be appreciated by the racial right. It is a call for cunning. "Name the Jew", and you will be "Holocausted" into censure every time. On the other hand, focus white ire on those elements of our racial dispossession that are most visible and/or unpleasant (minarets in Europe, Mexican illegals, black savages, as well as affirmative racism, cultural attacks on white heritage - the Confederate flag, the display of the Union Jack, etc), and over time, you raise the racial consciousness of whites. That is the goal, is it not? Once white consciousness has been sufficiently raised actually to deal with some of the dispossessionist outrages, by far the most important of which is ending immigration, watch how the ever-survival oriented Jew falls into line. And, if not, "naming the Jew", and actually doing something about it (like applying ethnic quotas to media ownership), will become far more likely of success than such a strategy would be today. More guile and especially sophistication about the real state of our world today is needed on the Racial Right.
10657950121297079850[i]Like it or not, we are at the choose a side point. It’s both depressing and frightening to consider that even those who post in places like this don’t grasp the situation. There is going to come a time, danielj when you are going to find yourself huddled up in a ghetto (all places will be the ghetto), praying to god the orc-packs don’t find you. [u]Not decades from now. No, you can count it in terms of months. When it won’t be safe to grocery shop or stop for gas for fear of getting your throat slashed.[/u] It’s at that point already in many places. North, South, east and west. From Alabama to Wisconsin there are already a great many people who are afraid to go to their local Wal-Mart for food after dark. And in winter dark comes at around 5:30 PM. And soon, VERY SOON, it will be that way everywhere. There will be no place to hide. I guarantee you, danielj, with 100% assurance, that YOU are going to see the following VERY, VERY SOON..., Local police, hospitals, schools, supermarkets, fire departments, courts, state road and the like (basic infrastructure) either disappear or deteriorate into irrelevance. And with those will go food supplies, gas supplies and the remaining local economy. The orc-packs will roam with random, violent, glee. And because of the demographic situation, it’s going to happen overnight. It’s been happening for about 30 years now, but is at the point where the sudden final bell will toll, for many, unexpectedly.[/i] (Narrator) -------------------------- I do not disagree with the sense of impending civilizational decline or even collapse, but I take great issue with the timeline. You must be very young and immature, Narrator, or else you either live in an especially bad neighborhood, or are seriously delusional (and need medication or therapy of some kind). "In a matter of months" I won't be able to go out after dark for fear of getting my throat slashed? Excuse me a minute .. hahahahahhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahah!!!!! Ok, I had a little laugh there. Would you care to bet that in several [i]years[/i] (I'm very tempted to say [i]decades[/i]) virtually nothing will be changed in terms of daily life in the US except that the economy will still be wobbly, the country will be racially darker, and the illegals will still be pouring in? What you are describing is South-Central during the height of the 1992 riots over the beating of criminal Rodney King (technically, over the unremarkable acquittal of four of the police officers who beat King). I was living in LA (Westwood) during those riots. Our neighborhood sustained only very minor damage (assholes smashed some store windows; I am not convinced those dirtbags were black; I think they were white leftists). I did think there might be orc-pacs, however, so I became one of those whites who went up to the roof of his apt building with a hunting rifle, my trusty Colt 1911, and a pair of binoculars (and, to be honest, a cooler of beers, and my boom box, so my then girlfriend could listen to her bizarre New Wave crap while lounging in the rooftop hot tub, tres unconcerned about the seeming end of civilization). I was waiting for the orcs to storm my street, and, in my youthful ardor, was so goddamned disappointed when no one ever showed. The good news was that I could see other whites similarly watchful on their buildings ([b]I cannot describe the sheer coolness of looking through binoculars at white men with long guns on other apartment buildings, and then watching them notice you and wave those guns in greeting and solidarity - one of the most wonderful experiences of my life[/b]) and I definitely advanced the racialist cause among a number of people in my building, including some (of your dreaded) Jews. Of course, even the orcs get tired, and want to enjoy their booty. Long before we reach Narrator's Mad Max apocalypse, the laws will have been further toughened, gun restrictions further eased, more police hired, and more community basketball programs initiated. Most importantly, whites will have become far more racialist and group-solidarity-minded, and that will go a ways towards making them harder targets. There is always an evolutionary arms race, in human society as in the animal kingdom. I agree the savages are always waiting to pounce and destroy, but racial doomsday will likely only occur sporadically and in conjunction with natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina. The genius of America's racial destruction is that it is all in slow-mo. If things deteriorate too quickly, the natives get restless, liberal justices (like CA's notorious Rose Bird) get recalled, prison sentences are stiffened, and a semblance of civilization is restored. The classic example was the public response to spiraling violent crime in part due to the crack epidemic of the 80s and early 90s. Police techniques got more effective, the publics all over the country passed state level "three strikes" laws, gun control got wildly unpopular, and now actual violent crime is substantially down (not, note, criminal propensities, which are as high as ever). As I keep trying to get across, the real problem is not imminent racial Armageddon (which could be great for racializing the white masses; I was openly discussing race war for several weeks during and after the '92 riots, and I got in no trouble, and was barely chastised at all for "racism"). The problem is the constant loss of white living space through immigration; plunging white fertility, due to female careerism (as well as socialism and Big Government, requiring dual income families in order to live at the material level of our parents' generation, who did it on one income); and ever accelerating rates of interracial marriage and miscegenation. These latter trends are what will doom our race to extinction (but whites will be exterminated en masse only at the very end, when our numbers shall have been very greatly reduced from where they stand today, and where the remaining whites are "recalcitrants" - those whose psyches are such (as with us) as to NEVER tolerate miscegenation, and thus are genetically unassimilable by the mongrel morass). We should be so lucky that muds would start attacking us broadly and constantly. We need such external stimuli to ramp up racial awareness. Our race, in other words, is doomed less by the Negroid savage, than the Asian professional or Chicana bride.
10660050121297138452[i]These orcs, Mr. Haller will be the majority within a matter of months. Probably in about 36 months.[/i] (narrator) No, your facts are utterly incorrect. I have been laughed at (by 'conservatives', as well as progressives) for more than two decades for predicting that whites (and I mean real ones, like me - ie, those who are predominantly racially white [remember, lots of Old Stock WASP Americans, my family included, though not myself, have a bit of Amerindian in them from way back], and whose ancestors were Christian in 1492) would be an American minority by 2020. The standard (Census) view of the demographic transition over that period kept shifting, from 2080 to 2050 to 2042. I expect it to shift still earlier after last year's census, probably to about 2035-7. Even with a strict accounting, which would exclude predominantly mixed race persons and Jews from being classified as 'white', but would include territorially present illegal aliens (about 98.5% of whom are nonwhite), whites will not be a minority in America within 3 years. You are not even close to correct. Of course, if you are referring to [i]racially aware whites[/i], then, yes, we are a tiny minority. Nationalists need to be careful about setting forth correct empirical claims, both because accurate information is always vital for strategic planning, and because displaying easily refutable ignorance only demeans us in the eyes of as yet non-committed whites. I would add that there has been relatively little white flight in the past couple of decades, as well as some reverse flight, or white gentrification. I would like to get out of SoCal someday myself, and for mainly racial (as well as economic) reasons. But I'm certainly not fleeing hordes of orc savages, who are noticeably absent in the OC. We are being diversified, to be sure, but primarily by Asian families, whose merits are few, but not being throat slashers is I suppose one of them.
10660150121297139006Let me add that Narrator and others really need to consider the arguments I assert more carefully. Doomsday scenarios are not especially helpful, as they are not usually accurate, outside of extreme circumstances, as I mentioned. It is very important for all of you to understand that, at least in the US, the racial threat is, for the foreseeable future, one of lowering of the quality of our national life, peaceful racial invasion/demographic conquest, and increasing genetic losses through miscegenation. This situation, and not Jewish financial and media hegemony, is precisely why it is so difficult to awaken our people. If our people were being slaughtered to anything like the degree envisioned by Narrator, our task as nationalists would be very easy.
10661250121297174242Narrator, First, I agree with the thrust of your projections, but not their content (although you actually in part [i]understate[/i] the deluge: the legal immigration level of late has been about 1.6 million, not 1 million as you assert). That is, I read Amren and vdare, too; I know the country is being deleteriously racially transformed; but I have never seen anything from any credible source suggesting that whites were in [i]imminent[/i] danger of becoming a racial minority, though obviously we will become one within a few decades unless we end the immigration invasion (something I always harp on, especially when the discussion turns to JQ, ontology, 'dueling', or other less than immediate concerns that WNs obsess over; you certainly don't need to preach to [i]me[/i] about immigration, of all things!). Second, the majority of those nonwhite 'non-Hispanic whites' are Jews. Jews are about the last people who are going to be going around terrorizing the dwindling bourgeoisie (your original overheated contention which stimulated me to respond, you might recall). Many also consider themselves to be white, even if they are liberals. Third, I dispute your implication that most mixed race persons classify themselves as 'white'. In my experience, personal as well as vicarious, most classify themselves by their nonwhite parent, as with Obama. There are many professional advantages to doing so, few to being 'white'. Fourth, it is true that some "Spanish-surnamed" persons classify themselves as 'white', but many really are white. I have several friends who fit that category (white Cuban, Spanish, Portuguese, white South American). Given all the Hispanic activism out there, including politicians educating their 'community' in the political benefits of boosting their racial numbers, I wonder how many actual racial Hispanics (the bronze race) classify themselves as 'white' on the Census. Perhaps in the past, but I doubt very many in the recent count. Fifth, that America is becoming less white does not [i]per se[/i] mean it is becoming (or will become) more criminally violent, as you conclude. Certainly, we have become much less white since my college graduation. We have also become substantially less plagued with crime. I know, I remember. Obviously, I'm not drawing any causal link between the two trends, merely noting that society evolves in accordance with many variables, which have reciprocal influences. Whites were exposed to black savagery following the liberal civil rights movement of mandatory racial integration. They were unprepared for the onslaught, personally, psychologically, legally, and politically. Once they got used to the unfortunate new reality, they began to respond to it, with legal measures like "three strikes" laws, better law enforcement, and better gun laws (at least in the whiter areas; not where I am, unfortunately). The point is that you cannot infer the straight-line apocalyptic predictions (more minorities = more savagery as a permanent state of affairs) that you initially made. Sixth, you seem to be implying that every minority is some kind of street savage, panting to kill whitey (re-read your initial post). I dislike 'diversity' as much as any man, but that just isn't true. Even a good half of blacks are not actual criminals (which doesn't mean their presence is not still highly undesirable, of course). And most of the new immigrants are less violent than native born American-Africans. Seventh, it is true that the median white age is higher than other groups. But the difference is less stark than you imagine, as is the future demographic implication. Yes, even if we admitted no immigrants, the country would continue to become less white due to differences in interracial fertility (and growing miscegenation, let us not forget), as well as an increasing proportion of the population that is dying off being white (the age differential). I simply dispute the rapidity of the changes that you are presuming. Real whites will not be a racial minority in the US in a few years - though maybe by 2020, per my long-term prediction (which is itself much earlier than the predictions of any respected demographers with whom I'm familiar). It was only sometime in the last decade that nonwhite births first outnumbered white births. And even once whites are a minority, your Mad Max scenarios are exceedingly unlikely. Most minorities are not criminal savages. Their presence is alien, as well as dysgenic, and those are the real problems. I stand by my assertions above about the real race problems: the lowering of national quality, a reduction in national prosperity and potential, and the shift to an alien form of life. Those are reasons enough to stand up for white America.
10663250121297204832Second, the majority of those nonwhite ‘non-Hispanic whites’ are Jews. Jews are about the last people who are going to be going around terrorizing the dwindling bourgeoisie Posted by Leon Haller on February 08, 2011, 01:10 PM [i]That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, and you know it, which means that, for some reason, you are intentionally trying to misdirect the conversation. The percentage of jews was referenced in the context of actual numbers of Whites vs. non-Whites. What is your agenda here? [/i] . ----------------- OK, enough. I can't keep responding to someone as obtuse and logically fallacious as you are. For the last time, your observations, and the conclusions you draw from them, are self-contradictory. Your original post above contained the following: [i]Not decades from now. No, you can count it in terms of months. When it won’t be safe to grocery shop or stop for gas for fear of getting your throat slashed. It’s at that point already in many places. North, South, east and west. From Alabama to Wisconsin there are already a great many people who are afraid to go to their local Wal-Mart for food after dark. And in winter dark comes at around 5:30 PM. And soon, VERY SOON, it will be that way everywhere. There will be no place to hide. I guarantee you, danielj, with 100% assurance, that YOU are going to see the following VERY, VERY SOON..., Local police, hospitals, schools, supermarkets, fire departments, courts, state road and the like (basic infrastructure) either disappear or deteriorate into irrelevance. And with those will go food supplies, gas supplies and the remaining local economy. The orc-packs will roam with random, violent, glee.[/i] ----------------------------------- Pretty Mad Maxish, no? And wildly inaccurate, for reasons some of which I have adduced in my comments. You have a method of arguing that runs like this: 1) demonstrate (sometimes exaggerated, sometimes not) facts showing a rapid and accelerating decline in the percentage of the US population that is white (with which I broadly agree), and then 2) infer from these facts that Armageddon (this is a [i]metaphor[/i], genius - I am not stating that you literally used the word "Armageddon", so don't start hyperventilating) is right around the corner. I agree with #1, though I think your understanding of the timescale of the changes is faulty, but completely disagree with #2, strictly as a matter of empirical prediction. Thus, for example, respecting the Jews, you a) exclude Jews from the category of 'white'; b) mention them as part of an overbroad category called 'non-Hispanic white'; c) assert that the reason for the coming racial Armageddon ("VERY, VERY SOON") is the rapid dwindling of the pure white population; and d) can thus be seen to be implying that Jews are part of the cause of that coming Armageddon - which they may well be, but only passively, as a function of their communal commitment to liberalism, which creates the racial conditions for Armageddon, but not because they themselves will be out 'wilding' with the 'orc-packs'. Hence my response above. Your method of argument is a type of logical fallacy. Unfortunately, I can't remember which one (where's Notus Wind when he's needed?!). Maybe someone can tell me. As for my "agenda", it is always to get whites to see their true racial situation. Thus, I oppose the nonsense of multiculturalism. It is important as well for them to avoid wild conspiracy theories, and outlandish predictions. There is nothing wrong with trying to force whites to face the larger truth of our dispossession by spotlighting the worst aspects of the multiracial situation, but one must tread carefully. Many whites have a high regard for facts. Misstatements or exaggerations merely hurt our credibility. And WNs must display a higher regard for fact than our enemies, as we are powerless in the media, and are swimming hard against the race-denying [i]Zeitgeist[/i].
10668150121297346817Thus, for example, respecting the Jews, you a) exclude Jews from the category of ‘white’; b) mention them as part of an overbroad category called ‘non-Hispanic white’; Posted by Leon Haller on February 08, 2011, 09:40 PM Jews (I take it you are one) are, in fact, not White. Don’t like that? Go cry a river somewhere. (NArrator) --------------- [b]No, I'm not a Jew. I'm Roman Catholic, with Lutheran heritage also. I'm German/French/Dutch/English American (Old Stock - back to 18th century). I'm the guy always talking about the need to harmonize WN with Christianity, remember?[/b] - Leon ------------- [i]Now it makes sense. I’m guessing Leon Haller and ‘Who’s responsible’ are the same person. To answer your question, Leon, A. No one forces you to hire anyone. B. You’re breaking the law. C. You do not have a Constitutional right to succeed in any endeavor, business or otherwise. As for the “moral” reason, I’ve already covered that. Those illegals you hire and assist in residing in the United States are very likely to go about robbing, raping and murdering the locals. [/i] (Narrator) ------------------- No, wrong again. The "who's responsible" was not me. I was away on business yesterday, and offline. I never post here except under "Leon Haller". - Leon ------------------- Anyway, it is amazing how Narrator continually misreads and/or ignores my critiques of his comments. He needs to adopt a measure of intellectual humility (as do a number of others at MR), and perhaps spend some time in the study of formal argumentation (or "critical reasoning" or just traditional logic).
10657750131297076037"Change is accelerating", etc. Let's hope so. "Ripening harvest v. encroaching jungle." Personally, ANYTHING to stop the immigration invasion is OK by me, regardless of what other issues are taken or neglected.
10657850131297076282[i] I fear that those in our environs who talk about the reification of Islamism as a strategy of false opposition have a point[/i] (GW) What does this mean, and about whom are you speaking? I like this comment, and will use it in future quick comment posts (as should others): [i]Multiculturalism has not failed. In its true identity of multiracialism it has been an incredible success. The object of multiracialism is to break the bonds between European blood and European land by replacing Europe’s peoples with the Third World. There are four groups whose interests run congruently and who strive for this end: 1. The banking dynasties and major corporations, for whom globalisation is a means of establishing control of global wealth and power in perpetuity; 2. The international political class, which includes all mainstream political classes of the West; 3. The intellectual left who believe in the universality of Mankind, and hate nation as it applies to peoples of European descent. David Rockefeller said, “The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” 4. Jewry, secular and religious, which strives after a permanent suzereignty over the gentile through the deconstruction of all his psychological and physical boundaries, borders, differences and distinctions. All European peoples throughout the West are fighting for their collective lives. We underestimate this at our extreme peril.[/i](GW)
10691450161297990487Ivan, I understand your point above, but a religion must either be true (or true in parts or in essence) or false. Whether it can (or does) serve as a social "glue" (and is thus evolutionarily adaptive) is finally no longer of interest to the Western mind. The supreme quality of Western Man (the white man at his best) is that he wishes to comprehend reality. Physical facts, furthermore, have philosophical and then social and political implications. Christians believe their religion to be factually accurate, at least in its essence, which is that a (and only one) God possessed of a personality exists; that this God created our cosmos; that a man named Jesus Christ, uniquely possessed of an aspect of divinity, existed in history, and that He was resurrected from a state of death in real, historical time. Now you can believe or disbelieve the above. But men, at least the more intelligent and educated portion of modern society, cannot simply willfully return to a prelapsarian state of philosophical ignorance. I cannot force myself to believe what my reason applied to the evidence of my senses informs me is false. Thus religion can no longer be the "glue" you dismiss it as having once been (I agree with your "glue" metaphor, though the extent of religion's social "glueness" varies between particular religions; I also disagree with your atheistic implication that [i]every[/i] religion is merely a social "glue", uncorresponding in its cosmological narrative to reality). White men will no more return to a Christianity they believe to be false, than to a re-imagined pre-Christian paganism. Unfortunately, if religions have been primary social "glues", and if they are no longer intellectually tenable for whites, then the logical implication is that white societies will become socially "unglued", as seems to be happening with accelerating force. The only realistic options for those wishing to reverse the "ungluing" process are 1) to develop a new form of non-religious social "glue"; 2) to "re-glue" society by force; or 3) to reestablish the original religious "glue" upon a firmer intellectual (philosophical and scientific) foundation. GW and his epigones prefer option 1. Less intellectual persons often will advocate option 2. I contend that option 3 is the wisest course.
10693250161298041412[i]Mr. Haller, With respect, you must read your comment, February 17, 2011, 11:54 PM, again for it is contradictory.[/i] (Desmond Jones) I see no contradiction. If you will explain what you think is contradictory, I will endeavor to do a better job (if possible) of articulating my point. BTW, you didn't actually believe that "report" about a prison beating of OJ?
10693950161298072772[i]Posted by Leon Haller on February 17, 2011, 11:54 PM | # Ivan, I understand your point above, but a religion must either be true (or true in parts or in essence) or false. Whether it can (or does) serve as a social “glue” (and is thus evolutionarily adaptive) is finally no longer of interest to the Western mind. The supreme quality of Western Man (the white man at his best) is that he wishes to comprehend reality. Physical facts, furthermore, have philosophical and then social and political implications. Christians believe their religion to be factually accurate, at least in its essence, which is that a (and only one) God possessed of a personality exists; that this God created our cosmos; that a man named Jesus Christ, uniquely possessed of an aspect of divinity, existed in history, and that He was resurrected from a state of death in real, historical time. Now you can believe or disbelieve the above. But men, at least the more intelligent and educated portion of modern society, cannot simply willfully return to a prelapsarian state of philosophical ignorance. I cannot force myself to believe what my reason applied to the evidence of my senses informs me is false. Thus religion can no longer be the “glue” you dismiss it as having once been (I agree with your “glue” metaphor, though the extent of religion’s social “glueness” varies between particular religions; I also disagree with your atheistic implication that every religion is merely a social “glue”, uncorresponding in its cosmological narrative to reality). White men will no more return to a Christianity they believe to be false, than to a re-imagined pre-Christian paganism. Unfortunately, if religions have been primary social “glues”, and if they are no longer intellectually tenable for whites, then the logical implication is that white societies will become socially “unglued”, as seems to be happening with accelerating force. The only realistic options for those wishing to reverse the “ungluing” process are 1) to develop a new form of non-religious social “glue”; 2) to “re-glue” society by force; or 3) to reestablish the original religious “glue” upon a firmer intellectual (philosophical and scientific) foundation. GW and his epigones prefer option 1. Less intellectual persons often will advocate option 2. I contend that option 3 is the wisest course.[/i] ------------------------------------------ [b][i]Mr. Haller, If you believe that religion (or some religions) are adaptive, meaning there is a reproductive differential that exists between the Christian white world (especially the fundies) and the secular white world, then the conclusion must be that Christianity is on the ascent not in decline.[/i][/b] (Desmond Jones) Mr. Jones, 1) I'm not sure how you derived what you here impute to me from what I wrote in the comment you originally referenced. 2) I do, however, agree with the first part of your new comment, and see no contradiction between what I originally wrote, and what is now imputed to me. That is, I agree that religion can be evolutionarily adaptive, and with the empirical claim that white Christians (as I have noted here at MR on multiple occasions) do have higher fertility than white secularists. 3) Of course, this could mean that Christianity among whites will be ascendant - or not. It depends on, first, the extent to which people follow their parents' faith (or lack thereof), and this correlation is in fact fairly high; and, second, whether, however, there are stronger countervailing (societal) factors overwhelming this correlation, and pushing white societies towards atheism. Let us recall that the West was once heavily Christian, but is no longer. Obviously, there is no simple causal relationship in any of this. 4) My real objective in the comment above was to note that blind adherence to religion does not seem to be acceptable to a large and perhaps growing portion of the West anymore. We are no longer philosophical children (as Muslims and Hindus still are), able to accept blind faith. I speak of the broad trend of the West, not various recalcitrant pockets, even if those pockets are disproportionately fecund. Thus, we can no longer rely on religion per se for its (evolutionarily adaptive) "social glue" function (see Ivan's argument earlier). Religion must now be a much more rational proposition, if it is to survive (obviously, I am speaking in historical terms; this is a long process from the perspective of a single human life). 5) My core argument in response, recall, to Ivan's comment, was contained in my original last line. If societies cohere and persevere through time by means of a common faith, and if that faith is now in decline (as it clearly has been across the West for centuries), then what will provide the new "social glue"? Either a non-religious ideology, brute force - or, a reformulated version of the earlier traditional faith. I favor the latter.
10672950171297470246Dasein, Thanks for posting this (I also acknowledge my tremendous envy at your literacy in German, a huge deficiency in my abilities I shall never be able to remedy). Assuming Hoffman was not Jewish (I knew a Hoffman who was, and Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable, a rare step backwards, like race denial, in the growth and dissemination of knowledge), this is an excellent, concrete example of the white man's superior innate moral sentiments - that the Moor above is human, as we are, and thus has feelings which properly ought to be respected (though the presumption that he has the same feelings we have, or in the same proportion, is rarely examined) - and how those sentiments must be properly disciplined by extra-moral empirical facts if they are not to result in negative ultimate effects. The real issue, however, is whether or to what extent any course of action can ever be moral without regard to future effects, but then also how far out along the chain of expected effects one must project the presently contemplated action. This is a fundamental problem of moral philosophy, as well as obviously a particular concern for racialists. The paradigmatic example concerns (genuine) refugees. Simply put, the West opens up its arms to the persecuted, ands ends up destroying itself. Each person is not merely an individual moral agent, as liberalism in all its varieties presumes, but also the bearer of a collective genome which expresses itself over time in statistically significant and predictable ways. When contemplating granting shelter to an alien refugee, therefore, it is morally improper towards one's own people merely to think of the refugee as an individual case, needing succor. However deserving he may be, he contains within himself the probability of harming the host population, if not through his own future actions, then through those of his children. It is not kind to mock the blackamoor, but neither is it proper to accept his presence. The mockery could be seen as a healthy immune response on the part of a (through time) morally superior host.
10678450181297600622Assimilationism is indeed a much greater threat to white racial and cultural survival than multiculturalism. The latter encourages nonwhites to maintain their own historic (or often newly fabricated) ethnocultures within white majority societies. This at least has the advantage of keeping whites at something of a cultural distance, causing or allowing for greater nonwhite communal self-segregation, which in turn gives whites a better chance of staying genetically pure, as well as maintaining their own cultural continuity (not that the latter is ever easy, between commercial media as well as public educational indoctrination). What we want is territorial/political resegregation and later nonwhite expatriation.
10681650181297683934This was an interesting post, worthy of more comments than it has received. That says something about the immaturity of the Racial Right. Post something on the Jews, however lacking in insight or importance, and hundreds of comments will materialize. If we want to save the white race, and if MR is one of the cognitively high-octane sites devoted to that agenda, then clearly our movement still has a long way to go intellectually (let alone politically).
10689750181297858596[i]I would suggest that Leon stop doing that which tends to raise suspicion in the minds of MR’s readers; namely: cease to criticize MR for not adhering to his personal standards of discourse sanitized for mainstream consumption when he knows full-well the purpose of this site is not primarily as a popularizer of racialism but, to the contrary, a (mostly) uncensored venue for the development of racialist ideas.[/i](woodshed) ---------------- I would hardly call what I write politically sanitized. And how I write here is how I write elsewhere (which is probably why I've been banned from many allegedly conservative places). I criticize the Racial Right's less useful obsessions in the same spirit that I criticize the mainstream right's refusal to recognize racial realities; to wit, because we are running out of the time in which it is still relatively easy to ensure the survival of our race and civilization. With only a (historically) comparatively small amount of additional immigration, I believe we will have reached a point at which it will no longer be possible for Europeans to avoid recognizing their nations as now [i]de facto [/i]multicultural (as is the case with the US). When untraditional (nonwhite) immigrant-citizens and their native-born descendants make up 20% or more of your population(s), it becomes untenable (except in the minds of racists) to maintain the public fiction that these dark-skinned persons or communities are not part of the fabric of society. Most Europeans, ignorant of history as are whites (and all peoples) everywhere, seem now to think that Islam is part of the "European project". That position becomes more entrenched with each passing year. Moreover, as the immigrants continue to pour in, physical/military measures become ever less certain of victory. There is an enormous white traitor (antiracist/antifascist) community across Europe. There are greater numbers of hand-wringing white liberals, as well as confused conservatives (the normal people) who know the race aliens do not belong on their soil, but who can't formulate proper intellectual rebuttals to the hegemonic discourse of antiracist tolerance, on one ideological side, and individualism (and all it has in its favor), on the other. And allied to this treason cohort plus bewildered, uncommitted, useless majority, is a huge, militant, assertive, and ever-enlarging nonwhite presence. If matters continue in this vein much longer, national patriots might not even win a civil ethnowar. (This is rarely admitted or even broached, except, here anyway, by me.) Thus, anything which distracts racialists from the core issue of figuring out how to stop immigration as soon as possible, as well as deport at least the illegal aliens (the obvious first steps in a broader campaign of racial/national re-assertion and domestic conquest), is a waste of time - and should be denounced as such. I continue not to understand why recondite issues of nationalist theory are discussed when there are so many more practical matters (including intellectual ones) demanding our attention. We don't need to figure out every social implication of racial biology, let alone the Meaning of Life, or Mind, or whatnot. we need to end the invasions of our homelands, as rapidly as possible.
10681750191297684268Good post. [i]This is as true of supposed beacons of hip, free-living radical libertarianism like Samizdata as it is of the controlled mainstream like CiF. It was, as Svigor and Captainchaos discovered, true of Takimag. [/i] GW Me, too. I was repeatedly blocked from takimag, along with many other "conservative" sites, merely for telling the truth on race (and with barely if ever mentioning the J-word). What is especially pathetic is that the ridiculous gumba Richard Spencer is now the director of the National Policy Institute. Doesn't it publish TOQ? How did that happen?
10682950191297721860[i]Leon, didn’t you used to get in trouble over at Chronicles in the comments, years ago? I recently resubscribed to it, and I think I’ve figured out what Dr. Fleming desires: an aristocracy (ideally) or monarchy that rules over a multi-ethnic area within the US. Nationalism he fears would lead to dual-morality, e.g. a nation-state seeking to expand for Lebensraum. According to a recent article of his, nationalism inevitably leads to empire… How that’s so: your guess is as good as mine. I’ve read him for years, and I still can’t fully grasp his positions. It very much seems to me that nationalism is the most poweful force that could resist empire… I’m certainly not of his view… What sort of rulers would we have to put up with to manage us? The proper rulers ought to be from one’s own stock. It’s funny, I found vindication for my views within the Greek texts he recommends. Anyway, he’s a brilliant thinker despite the otherworldly stance, which might apply to the Balkans and other parts of Europe but not the US.[/i] (Frank) --------- Frank, Yes, I was banned there, and many other places. What is telling is that I am not nearly as extreme as many racialists, including here at MR, where I am probably on the "left" because I defend both capitalism and Christianity. But Fleming et al could not deal with me precisely because I force them (and their readers, who often were in agreement with me) to confront both the racial implications of their own views, as well as the effects race has on the nation and civilization they claim to wish to preserve. They have utterly no answer to my firmly but politely stated arguments, so they (esp Fleming) mischaracterize my positions, and then refuse to post my replies (mostly, though, they are content with banning me, under whatever name I use to post). Basically, they are cowards (I happen to know for a personal fact that Sam Francis thought so, too). At some level they know that [i]every[/i] aspect of society and civilization that they claim to cherish is, to varying extents, threatened by multiracialism, but they willfully refuse to draw the correct conclusions - either in theory (that whites, including Middle Americans, would be better off in segregated ethnostates), or in practice (that it is perfectly natural and ethical for whites, who founded and built America, to practice a nationalist politics - as minorities do under the guise of "liberalism" - in defense of our interests, property and way of life). They would much rather crankily discuss pragmatically useless conservative (and increasingly Christian theological) arcana, than actually attempt to formulate a race-realistic conservative politics for Middle American survival. Let me put it this way: between race and religion as the two possible central organizing principles for an American Right (some would argue that liberty is a third, though I disagree, for reasons too involved to discuss here) they will always prefer religion, no matter how inapposite it might be both to particular issues, and general strategy. And note: this statement should not be taken as contradictory to my own belief in the central importance to saving white/Western civilization of developing a white nationalism that is theologically compatible with Christianity. White Americans - [i]to save traditional America[/i] - need to organize themselves collectively [i]as whites[/i], not as Christians, which is and will continue to be a waste of time. But our racial politics should be conducted within the bounds of Christian natural law. I believe there is no theological incompatibility between Christianity properly understood and a defensive white racial politics devoted to preventing our further racial dispossession and ultimate extinction. This is the intellectual area I am studying in depth, and which I intend to write about formally in the future (after I am finished with my studies and research). I think Fleming knows I'm right, which is why he is so defensive towards me. He would pretend not to notice me if asked, but the truth is evident from whom he chooses to ban. As best as I could determine, all those he blocked except me were either impolite, or overly tendentious or distracting. I expressed myself well, and was always intellectually serious (until after a certain point I got sick of having elegantly written posts, usually more insightful than what the main writers had written, summarily deleted). Fleming, an ex-civil rights marcher, never forget, just can't handle the Hard Right. It was rumored he hated Sam Francis (Sam merely thought Fleming ridiculous), but as Sam was by light years the best writer at Chronicles (the "star" of the magazine, as another of the long-time contributors whom Fleming has chased away has described him after his death), he couldn't very well ban him, too! As to Fleming's "brilliance", I dissent. He is a very impressively learned man (his sub-editors are much less so), especially in his wonderful knowledge of languages, and obviously highly intelligent. His writing style is adequate, but hardly sparkles. But a "brilliant thinker"? I don't think so. I've been reading his magazine for two decades, and I've read one of his books (someday I will read [i]The Morality of Everyday Life[/i], which sounds like it could be very important). He has a lot of good insights, but I would hardly call him a profound or even systematic thinker, except in comparison to the shallow fools who write for the broader conservative movement.
10685050191297741589[i]In recent months I’ve developed the habit of taking my wife out cafe a couple of times a week for coffee. We were in the cafe today when a gentleman approached me, and said “There’s a rumor going around that you are a Nazi. Is it true?” I was noncommittal in my response. I basically said I wasn’t aware of any viable political party in the United States that could rightfully be described as National Socialist , but if there was I’d probably be a member of it. He then advised me that the cafe was a preferred place for anarchists, and that my visits there were attracting attention, and becoming a source of irritation to them.[/i] (Jimmy Marr) --- Do you have any like-minded associates you could encourage to visit this cafe periodically? You're not in Southern CA by chance? I'm not a Nazi, but I [i]hate[/i] aggressive anti-Nazis. I'm an anti-anti-Nazi. Screw them! That said, I must counsel prudence - unless the thought of being attacked and therefore generating a measure of publicity for the white cause actually appeals to you. This is why I so oppose Nazism as a tactical matter. Let's say a bunch of leftist hooligans attacked you. If you proudly admit your Nazi leanings, any PR benefit will be lessened or eliminated. Even if one is a Nazi, it is tactically more advantageous to deny it. From your own perspective, have you ever heard a Jew admit to being a Jewish supremacist? Ever?! They even try to whitewash Zionism, flailing about rhetorically in endless attempts to deny its Jewish supremacist essence. When people accuse me of racism, I always flip the matter around to a discussion of racial justice for whites (which our cause is), coupled with discussions of racial imperialism (eg, immigration), individual rights, especially to property (and thus against coercive racial integration, as with "civil rights"), as well as scientific and sociological truth about racial differences. The purpose is not to appeal to the brainwashed or psychologically defective white anti-racist (which represents a genetic strain within our race which cannot be overcome through ratiocination or argument), but to awaken more ignorant or neutral whites. Trying to justify being a "good Nazi", in an age of excessive white universalism, is well-nigh impossible. To reiterate (and I shall keep doing so until the truth sinks in!): we are dying as a race for ethical reasons. However much there may be particular sinister interests pushing race-replacement, whether for ethnic or economic reasons, the white majorities do not rebel primarily for ethical reasons, because they think that a robust defense of the white race - which obviously would include and advocate the coercive measures (eg, mandatory expatriation of [i]legally resident[/i] nonwhites) necessary to ensure our survival - is unethical. If not, why else does the race-replacement regime persist? Selfish short-term economic interests? Nonsense! Most whites have never fallen for the canard about immigrants being good for the economy - and certainly not now, when there is widespread public knowledge of the costs of immigration. Some pugnacious asshole asks you if you're a Nazi, say, "No, but I believe in the survival of my race and nation. YOU GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT?!"
10685150191297742090Posted by Desmond Jones on February 14, 2011, 11:31 PM | # [i] Mr. Marr, It appears to be time to find another coffee shop. However, if you wish to pursue it, speak to the owner. Relay the story exactly as you have done. Ask if the clientele/employees speak for him/her. Ask if it is his desire that you not frequent the store, and if that is the case, you will respect his to right to free association. If you are denied access to the establishment, then report it to the police in case you are confronted away from the coffee shop because at that point you will have nothing to lose. It’s not that the cops will help you much but at least the incident is on file.[/i] This is a wise comment. I would add that reporting the (call it a) threat, and having it on police file, will go some way to exonerating you (ie, by helping establish a self-defense defense) should you injure someone in the course of any physical altercation. Our shitty liberal country has a huge bias against property, and in favor of "judgment-proof" dirtbags. Anarchists usually have no property, and so don't have to worry about losing it by law. God, I hate the Left! Don't worry, my book on [i]Racial Ethics[/i] will have an extensive chapter on retributive policies, including for political crimes against our race.
10685250191297743791The survival of the white race is, for me, synonymous with the survival of the best of humanity. We are our own justification. Just thought that needed to be said.
10685550191297745557Ivan, Aren't you Islamic? What are you doing here? You are not a man of the West (perhaps not any kind of man).
10685650191297745775On the subject of threads, yes, it is vital to post often as time allows, esp if you are a quick writer. I just posted this on yahoo after an article about the new Obama budget: Obama is doing everything wrong (even assuming he is not a white-hating America hater, which I think both he and his wife are). Our economic problems are mostly self-inflicted (by liberals, and do-nothing "conservatives"). We need massive changes: stop nonwhite immigration first and foremost, then start ramping up capitalism through total deregulation, ending corporate taxation (but also bailouts), privatization of all non-military hard assets, like airports and buildings, and massive budget cuts to social(ist) spending. We can solve our problems, and come out fine. But only if we recognize that liberals did this to us - they created the violent, impoverished, 'diverse', cesspool America. The answer is to return to the wisdom of our ancestors, with one exception. We must exterminate criminals routinely and en masse, stop importing nonwhite immigrants (1.6 million every year, at a time of 20% real unemployment, too!!!), radically downsize government, and return to the morals and outlooks, especially on race, of our ancestors who built America. The exception is that we need taxpayer supported eugenics applied to the dysgenic, welfare receiving underclass, to undo the monster that liberal wealth redistribution has created (ie, minority birthrates would have been much lower over the past half-century if liberals hadn't stolen so much tax money from whites, and given it to nonwhites, especially the most inferior and economically useless among them). Unless we do these things, civilization is as doomed here as it was in the "new" (ie crappy) South Africa, the Rainbow S---hole where whites are robbed and raped and murdered every minute.
10688150191297810006[i]One more thing. Americans are physical cowards, whoever they might be: anarchists, communists, or fascists. Don’t be afraid that an American will assault you physically in a coffee shop. In my almost twenty years of living in the United States, I have seen only two real-life physical fist fights. In one case, two black ladies were fighting over a black man; I was the participant in the other one.[/i] Americans do pretty well in MMA competitions. I think "Ivan" spends too much time among white liberals in some university town. Or maybe he's based out here in Hollywood.
10688550191297810878Having a quick lunch at my desk, I see calvin's comment above. There are some important elements in it, as well as I think a measure of confusion. I'm busy the rest of today, and tomorrow until the evening; anyone else want to take a turn at deconstructing it? It would be a heuristically useful exercise for ethnonationalists.
10695750191298121952Richard Spencer banned me from takimag for my WN. Why would we ever want him for anything? He is not learned, not elite educated, not a good writer, and not very intelligent.
10700350191298209038So was my Russian ex. But a greedy bitch, too. I grew up knowing some genuine elderly White Russians (ie, persons who had fled the Bolsheviks). They were persons of elegance and very fine moral character. I'm sad that today's Russians are all so deracinated and dispossessed of their beautiful traditional Christian/national culture. The Russian today has no sense of his/her ancient past, and gives a shit about nothing and nobody. They are hard people, and their rootless, immoral character is putting the very future existence of Russia in grave doubt. Western whites are deracinated, and dispossessed of their pasts, too. But at least they are nice to be around.
10690650201297939860Unz is nothing special. I got into a long argument with him about the Federal Reserve back in '98. He was very uninformed on the subject. Worse, even after I patiently explained what was wrong, from a conservative perspective, with a government monopoly of money production, he still failed to grasp the significance of my argument. Frankly, I thought him kind of stupid (though I understand he possesses considerable scientific prowess).
10693350201298041797[i]Especially when dealing with the tribe, consider the possibility that such draining naivete and apparent slowness is just a strategy to cover for their obvious strategic interests without admitting such awareness. Be alert for patterns of disinformation, disruption, distraction and demoralization.[/i] (Scotchfiend) Perhaps. But he seemed sincere (this was an in-person encounter), and what might his ulterior motive have been? The more plausible explanations are 1) I did a poor job presenting the case against central banking, or 2) Unz may not be so bright outside his scientific speciality. His notorious cover story in [i]The American Conservative[/i] exonerating Hispanic immigrants from American belief in their criminal proclivities was riddled with intellectual/logical and even factual errors - though perhaps in that instance he was following an ulterior strategy of duplicity.
10709950201298501218I submitted this comment at the 'conservative' British publication [i]Standpoint[/i]. It was apropos an article about the disaster of modern multicultural Birmingham. I wonder if the moderator will be post it there. (I hope everyone commenting at least in British publications references majorityrights.com.) Why should the native people be made to feel like strangers in their own lands? Britain is under demographic siege through a combination of domestic treason (listening Blair, Brown?), and endless Third World population growth-generated immigration pressure. A nation is a blood and soil entity. It is organic, biological, not artificially constructed (this includes even the US). Britain is a white Christian society. Muslims and other nonwhites do not belong on British soil, and their very presence constitutes a perpetual threat to the daily well-being of the British, as well as the very survival of Britain in the future. They must, all of them, be repatriated out of the country. For honest and intelligent discussion of the catastrophe that the political refusal to recognize racial and cultural reality has brought to Britain, check out majorityrights.com.
10695850211298123016[i]“Supreme” has two meanings, which leftists love to conflate with that particular pejorative. A true “white supremacist” in the first definition of the terminal word of that phrase would be in favour of rather than opposed tothird-worlders being present in Western lands because it’s hard to rule over people who are half a world away. Definitively disclaim desire to rule over other races and expose how disingenuous it is to use such a term, which describes a fraction of a percent of racially-minded Euros, before discussion of whether your own is “superior”. (The only spatial metaphor I use regarding race is “in” and “"out").[/i] (John) Hello? The West ruled over hundreds of millions of race aliens "far away". The policy was referred to as "colonialism", and we continue to be excoriated over it. I do agree about the logical difference between claims of racial survival, justice, superiority, and supremacy, and that one's arguments need to be tailored to fit the audience. 1. We want our race to endure. 2. We want basic fairness for our race (eg, we shouldn't have to work to provide welfare for race aliens; we shouldn't have to suffer affirmative racism applied against us; etc). 3. We (or most WNs) do believe our race to be superior, in all the ways that really matter. 4. But should we reject supremacism/colonialism (in practice we are feeble, for now, but I refer to theory)? I'm not so sure. As the scale of man's industrial/technological assault against the environment grows ever greater, wouldn't it be nice if, let us imagine, we could, for the ultimate safety of the biosphere, simply command a stop to Indian fecundity, or Chinese industrialization? Wouldn't it be better for us (and even the natives, under many scenarios) if the white man again ruled Africa? I am of the opinion that the very existence of separate races sharing the same planet may one day doom mankind. We should have been brutally forceful in controlling and directing global fertility when our people did run the Earth.
10695950211298123334[i]Six possibles occur to me: creativity, individuality, enquiry, adventurousness, altruism/empathy, and the capacity for moral abstraction.[/i] (GW) That really covers a lot. If technological development is contained within either "creativity" or "enquiry", then I can only add the obvious: beauty.
10699750211298205365[i]Posted by Hamish on February 19, 2011, 06:08 PM | # [u]I am of the opinion that the very existence of separate races sharing the same planet may one day doom mankind.[/u] (LH) So we should kill off every race but one?[/i] NO, but we should do nothing EVER that increases nonwhite numbers anywhere. This would include famine and disaster relief, sharing of Western vaccines and medicines, etc. Or, and this is an ethically/theologically deep issue, if we do provide aid, it should have a 'sterilizationist' [i]quid pro quo[/i]: want your baby vaccinated? Ok, but accept personal sterilization for yourself. We should also re-start both Western fertility as well as expansionism (I understand the huge first step is to end nonwhite expansion into Western lands, but, again, I'm speaking in ideal terms). The expansion of the white race ("the unfolding of the Anglo-Saxons" as Teddy Roosevelt approvingly described one aspect of it) across the savage world was a racial policy endorsed by many Western statesmen in the 18th and 19th centuries (ie, they did not always speak merely in nationalist terms, but racialist as well). It was understood that the goal was to make the human population more white, and less nonwhite. For a long while this policy proceeded. We, their descendants, are the beneficiaries of those earlier racists, however resentful (ungrateful) recent generations may be.
10699950211298206533[i]Do you mean visual beauty, Leon - the superiority of appearance that is commonly claimed to be in the eye of the beholder but which J Richards used to define and objectivise here as “fine-ness”? Or do you mean aesthetic beauty, which is really the aesthetic capacity, which is really creativity?[/i] (GW) You are too sophisticated for me. I confess I was thinking of physical appearance mainly, but also of the capacity not to create beauty (obviously creativity), but to [i]appreciate [/i]it. The former was uppermost in my mind because, though I know that whites have been superior to many peoples in their appreciation for, and exaltation of, beauty, I'm not certain we were superior to all in that trait. It seems the East Asians also possessed a high degree (whether as high as the West's, I'm not qualified to pass judgment) of appreciation for natural beauty - though both the recent history of the PRC, as well as the filthy Chinese practices, esp viz restaurants and culinary waste removal, I have witnessed in LA, would seem to belie that claim. But I do think it undeniable that, on the whole, whites are better looking than other races. More importantly, the best looking whites are clearly the most desirable specimens of humanity. Whites, in other words, are the standard of beauty against which other races in our ever more globalized world increasingly judge even themselves. I think if there could be some kind of global ratings for, say, the hottest women, the huge bulk of the winners would be either white, or "white featured" to some extent. I'm not original in my thinking here, obviously. For younger MR readers, this point was made by Wilmot Robertson in his seminal [i]The Dispossessed Majority[/i] (1972 + later editions) (every self-respecting racialist has read this book, btw). Without getting the book from my library, I believe he referred to white physical/aesthetic superiority as "the aesthetic prop". One final point. In the 'list of six' above, you did not mention love of excellence, per se (as something worthy of pursuit for its own sake). Moreover, what can never be gainsaid is that it was the Greeks (described as "blond haired and blue eyed" by Herodotus) who defined for all time what excellence is.
10700050211298207104[i]Posted by Randy Garver on February 19, 2011, 05:53 PM | # Leon Haller said: [u]We want basic fairness for our race (eg, we shouldn’t have to work to provide welfare for race aliens; we shouldn’t have to suffer affirmative racism applied against us; etc).[/u] That seems like a perfectly reasonable request. Would you suggest refunding all of the tax dollars which my economically productive, nonwhite immigrant wife has paid to provide welfare for elderly and indigent whites? Such a plan might genuinely be a practical way to begin the process of reversing immigration.[/i] This is an uncharacteristically stupid retort, Randy. For the entirety of the 20th century the direction of interracial wealth transfers has been perfectly consistent and wholly one way - whites to nonwhites. Whites collectively have received from nonwhites collectively not the tiniest fraction of what we have paid out. That Oprah Winfrey or Yahoo's Jerry Yang or Denzel Washington, etc, or possibly even your wife for all I know, have paid far more in taxes than I ever will is irrelevant to the larger issue.
10700250211298208529GW, I re-post the following for your benefit or comment : Posted by Leon Haller on February 17, 2011, 11:54 PM | # Ivan, I understand your point above, but a religion must either be true (or true in parts or in essence) or false. Whether it can (or does) serve as a social “glue” (and is thus evolutionarily adaptive) is finally no longer of interest to the Western mind. The supreme quality of Western Man (the white man at his best) is that he wishes to comprehend reality. Physical facts, furthermore, have philosophical and then social and political implications. Christians believe their religion to be factually accurate, at least in its essence, which is that a (and only one) God possessed of a personality exists; that this God created our cosmos; that a man named Jesus Christ, uniquely possessed of an aspect of divinity, existed in history, and that He was resurrected from a state of death in real, historical time. Now you can believe or disbelieve the above. But men, at least the more intelligent and educated portion of modern society, cannot simply willfully return to a prelapsarian state of philosophical ignorance. I cannot force myself to believe what my reason applied to the evidence of my senses informs me is false. Thus religion can no longer be the “glue” you dismiss it as having once been (I agree with your “glue” metaphor, though the extent of religion’s social “glueness” varies between particular religions; I also disagree with your atheistic implication that every religion is merely a social “glue”, uncorresponding in its cosmological narrative to reality). White men will no more return to a Christianity they believe to be false, than to a re-imagined pre-Christian paganism. Unfortunately, if religions have been primary social “glues”, and if they are no longer intellectually tenable for whites, then the logical implication is that white societies will become socially “unglued”, as seems to be happening with accelerating force. The only realistic options for those wishing to reverse the “ungluing” process are 1) to develop a new form of non-religious social “glue”; 2) to “re-glue” society by force; or 3) to reestablish the original religious “glue” upon a firmer intellectual (philosophical and scientific) foundation. GW and his epigones prefer option 1. Less intellectual persons often will advocate option 2. I contend that option 3 is the wisest course. ------------------------------------------ [i]Mr. Haller, If you believe that religion (or some religions) are adaptive, meaning there is a reproductive differential that exists between the Christian white world (especially the fundies) and the secular white world, then the conclusion must be that Christianity is on the ascent not in decline. [/i](Desmond Jones) Mr. Jones, 1) I’m not sure how you derived what you here impute to me from what I wrote in the comment you originally referenced. 2) I do, however, agree with the first part of your new comment, and see no contradiction between what I originally wrote, and what is now imputed to me. That is, I agree that religion can be evolutionarily adaptive, and with the empirical claim that white Christians (as I have noted here at MR on multiple occasions) do have higher fertility than white secularists. 3) Of course, this could mean that Christianity among whites will be ascendant - or not. It depends on, first, the extent to which people follow their parents’ faith (or lack thereof), and this correlation is in fact fairly high; and, second, whether, however, there are stronger countervailing (societal) factors overwhelming this correlation, and pushing white societies towards atheism. Let us recall that the West was once heavily Christian, but is no longer. Obviously, there is no simple causal relationship in any of this. 4) My real objective in the comment above was to note that blind adherence to religion does not seem to be acceptable to a large and perhaps growing portion of the West anymore. We are no longer philosophical children (as Muslims and Hindus still are), able to accept blind faith. I speak of the broad trend of the West, not various recalcitrant pockets, even if those pockets are disproportionately fecund. Thus, we can no longer rely on religion per se for its (evolutionarily adaptive) “social glue” function (see Ivan’s argument earlier). Religion must now be a much more rational proposition, if it is to survive (obviously, I am speaking in historical terms; this is a long process from the perspective of a single human life). 5) My core argument in response, recall, to Ivan’s comment, was contained in my original last line. If societies cohere and persevere through time by means of a common faith, and if that faith is now in decline (as it clearly has been across the West for centuries), then what will provide the new “social glue”? Either a non-religious ideology, brute force - or, a reformulated version of the earlier traditional faith. I favor the latter.
10704050211298335526[i]Any neurologist these days will tell you that the self is, at the very low level of attentionality which characterises ordinary waking consciousness, a beguiling story woven over the mass of non-directed brain activity - activity which includes preparedness for decision, and probably even decision. Notus Wind takes a slightly more positive view of the reality of self-hood than I do, but then I make up for it by talking about what takes place at higher levels of attentionality, when at the very least a state of witness comes into play.[/i] (GW) Is the neurologist a 'self'? How does he who does not have a self arrive at a standpoint from which to make such determinations? Of course there is a great deal of un-'self'-directed activity. All animal activity is pure instinct. A great deal of human activity is, too. We often don't think about what we are doing, because we know ourselves (no irony or pun intended) and have thus formed habits which work for us. The notion that [i]all[/i] activity is such, however, is a mere hypothesis by persons who really understand very little about the mind, and keep injecting metaphysical assumptions into their scientific analyses. I'm tempted to say they can't help doing so, but ideally they should make more rigorous efforts to avoid jumping to conclusions which so obviously contradict commonsense and the lived experience of both past persons and ourselves. Of course I have a self. I have an unbroken chain of memory and thus identity going back a long way. I am a rational entity, and not only engage in decisions, but often reflect upon both the content and the nature of my decision making. Who is doing that reflecting if not my-self? You do need to write a piece on your views on all this. Start by acknowledging that you are an atheist, that all supernatural claims of whatever kind are false; that the universe has always existed in some form; that this universe, perhaps only one among many, or an infinity, has somehow come to be based on physical principles conducive to the propagation of life; that life evolves, and seemingly in a direction of ever greater complexity (why this should be so is not remotely universally agreed upon among leading theorists, btw); that at some indeterminate (and, I believe, indeterminable) point, consciousness arose, which in its turn led to knowledge, mastery of nature, and culture. For you, all that is, however, including all associated with humanity, was predetermined to be. This predetermined state is inherent in reality. It is not particular, and therefore remediable (as, eg, for Marx, the economic condition of the proletariat, based on a false consciousness amenable to (his) enlightenment; or as, eg, for Freud, human neuroses, based on misunderstood unconscious desires, or thwarted unacknowledged sexual drives). It is general and comprehensive. There is no freedom, whether Christian, praxeological or existential. I find all this false, spectacularly so as I write it out. What I cannot fathom is how life, or any aspect of it (eg, race, national honor, heritage), could be seen to be meaningful to someone holding such views.
10704350211298338402Randy, I see where you provided some sources for your figures, but they are at least in part false or misleading. The stats re whites and % of crime are utter horseshit. You should recognize that [i]prima facie[/i], so to speak. Those stats conflate Hispanics with whites (as the white collar crime stats conflate Jews and Middle Easterners with whites; also, whites are disproportionately white collar, as compared to nonwhites). Indians may have the highest household income (except for, I am certain, Jews), but that is because mostly very high-IQ and high skilled Indians are the ones coming here, and there aren't very many - yet. That is a function of our bizarre immigration system &#40;I'm not making a racial criticism here&#41;, based on (earlier) family reunification. I don't have time to explain this. Read Brimelow, [i]Alien Nation[/i]. Look at these stats from you: Bachelors degree attainment (US Census figures 2004): Indians 67.9% Filipinos 47.9% Chinese 50.2% Japanese 43.7% Koreans 50.8% Whites 30.0% Can't you immediately see what is wrong with them, especially for your forensic purpose in their deployment? (Others, join in please.) Of course, when I spoke about interracial wealth transfers, I was speaking of whites to nonwhites. I did not specify the issue of whites to Asians, or Asians to whites. However, whites as a whole are net taxpayers; nonwhites as a whole net tax recipients. Therefore, when you keep speaking of transfers from asians to whites, you are either confused or deliberately mendacious. What you really mean is interracial transfers from Asian nonwhites to other nonwhites (eg blacks). That is not my concern. After all, most of these Asians in the US came here well after the Negro civil rights movement, as well as the creation of the modern welfare state. Thus, they can be assumed to have known what they were getting into in terms of wealth transfers to other nonwhites in coming here. They did so anyway, correctly perceiving white-created America as full of opportunities for them. Most whites, esp those like me whose family has been here for several centuries, and has been middle to upper class for much more than a century, had all this system of interracial wealth transfer [i][b]imposed[/b][/i]on us - after we had already done the tough work of settling and founding and building the nation. Who gives a shit what some high-IQ chink or paki contributes? They have arrived after the real work was done (by my people). Finally, let us never forget the [i]political[/i] economy. That is, today, a huge portion of the economy, and hence individual economic success, is determined by government. The Democrats are the party of socialism, which is practical racial terms, means the party of white economic dispossession and immiseration - through taxes, transfers, immigration competition and affirmative action-based loss of opportunities (the GOP assholes, and many Democrats, have further destroyed the white economy through "free" (ha! if only) trade). All your precious Asian ethnicities vote heavily Democratic, thus harming white macro-interests, whatever their ethnic group-specific incomes may be. No, we whites should have kept our world for ourselves, through nationalist legislation, and strong and aggressive militaries. Now, we must find a way merely to ensure our genetic continuity. This will only happen in a globally hated ethnostate (nonwhite hatred will bind our people together, as with Israel and Jewry). I would like that to be in America (and for Europe to become a whole series of recrudesced ethnopolities), but I fear, as I've argued here in the past, that this will not happen, and that our sole chance of survival lay with foreign demographic conquest of a sovereign polity. I've offered up Australia and Uruguay as the most promising.
10700150221298208070I love Raspail. His understanding of Christianity, at least as applied to race issues, has always been my own (or perhaps, I have followed him). I urge anti-Christian WNs (and all WNs) to read [i]The Camp of the Saints[/i], a book that should be high on any racialist reading program (it's not very expensive, and might still be available through Social Contract Press, or Amazon), especially one with a conservative orientation. I regard [i]Camp[/i] as one of the five great dystopian novels of the last century (the others are Zamyatin, [i]We[/i]; Orwell, [i]1984[/i]; Huxley, [i]Brave New World[/i]; and Burgess, [i]A Clockwork Orange[/i]). It is a great work of literature, as well as a fire-bell in the night for Western civilization. If Raspail's other novels are comparably brilliant, then this man ranks as one of the world's greatest writers - far better than most of the recent Nobelists (I am a sucker for modern literature, and will usually read at least one thing by any writer awarded the Nobel Prize; in recent years I've not been too impressed, though Naipaul and Vargas LLosa are both excellent novelists). Thanks for the link.
10709150231298465037Excellent suggestions from Christian M. I've long advocated each of us compiling a private list of the really repulsive race traitors, which could one day be collated into a public List Project - just to let them know we're watching, and waiting.
10709350231298473436What are people here thinking of the Arab uprisings? Major historical events, which will be written about and analyzed for decades. I haven't seen very much here at MR on the implications for whites. Good? Bad?
10709850231298499348[i]some say it’s a “Rothchilds plot” to get the US into another war. [/i](Frank) Those who say this aren't very bright. Otherwise, I'm not sure whether these uprisings will be good or bad for Europe.
10726350231298849458Excellent comment from Philosopher King, even if its rendition of our racial past is rather 'romantic' itself. [i]In order to reinvigorate the West we need to appeal to people’s needs in the here and now and today people are persuaded by the accumulation of wealth and the desire to continue living, hence we must show them that immigrants threaten these things. In this sense we are appealing to what they love, however, they happen to love the wrong things.[/i] (PK) Note I have been saying exactly this, here and elsewhere, for years now, in my advocacy of a single-issue anti-immigration orientation for nationalists, the development of a "nationalist minimum", and my dismissal of the value of excessive ontological speculation. I have not emphasized the final sentence I have copied above, and that is a very wise insight. I hope you comment more, Philosopher King.
10728750231298897392You are wise beyond your years, Philosopher King. When I was your age, I was stuck in a very conventionally American liberal university environment, where there was literally nothing of racial truth available anywhere accessible. I, and many friends, knew there was something rotten in Denmark, so to speak, but it was difficult to see things clearly. Of course, you have the benefit of the Internet, which wouldn't be developed in a big way for another decade for my young self, as well as the immense breakthroughs in racial thinking and science which took place in the 90s. Don't take them for granted! Many persons struggled long and hard to reach the level of racial knowledge now routinely exhibited by bright 20 year olds. Persons like you do give me hope, though, that the message of racial threat and renewal is getting out to the public. In 1986 I proposed writing a book called [i]Survival or Extinction? On the Future of the White Race[/i]. People were shocked, less by the politically incorrect title (this was before "PC" had been coined as a term applicable outside of communist countries), however, than by the bizarre idea that the white race was headed towards obliteration (outside of a possible nuclear exchange with the Soviets). Even (intelligent) conservatives thought I was being over-alarmist. I wish I had done more to build on my racially precocious insights. You are right to continue your education in these areas. Indeed, I am doing the same thing myself, despite my much greater age. I am still trying to work out my own conservative-nationalist political philosophy; it is a time consuming endeavor, requiring much disciplined reading (and I have only a certain amount of extra-professional time). I don't wish to be patronizing, but if you need any bibliographic resources, I would be happy to offer some. Those, too, took me along time to discover, and are the results of much reading over several decades. [In fact, doing a racialist bibliography thread might be very useful as a start to a permanent collection. Also, this should include suggestions for solid reads across a range of disciplines only tangentially related to race.]
10713650241298590270The white man needs to get away from all these misfits and minorities, set up his own apartheid nation-state, and then re-acculturate, or even re-breed, a new, non-liberal white race. Because ... let's face it: there is something seriously evolutionarily defective about whites such that, whilst in a position of absolute power, we were so easily racially dispossessed by such morally, historically and even physically unattractive people.
10718850241298725696That you, Silver? And are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.
10756550251299678390[i]Leon, I think blogging is a more effective medium for communicating our ideas than the production of boring tomes. What must come to pass is a mass movement explicitly predicated on achieving racially exclusive living space. There is no substitute. Look to the success of a streamlined and radical message in upsetting political power in the Middle East. Yes, it did really happen. And can again, here[/i]. (CC) Yes, but ... We are in a very different situation from the Arabs. They are/were living under obvious tyrannies, often pitting one sub-nation ("tribe") against another. That superficially sounds like our situation, but obviously isn't. For one thing, we have the vote (or its illusion), they have not. Our situation is that our people need to be convinced of their dispossession, and eventual extinction - and of the moral rightness of doing something to stop it. Or, at least a substantial and vigorous enough minority of them. That's where the totality of our work comes in. We need everything - from academic works, to journalism, to political organizing, to ideological activism, to mass media, to street activism - all working to fulfill some "nationalist minimum", like ending immigration. We are a long way from there, unfortunately.
10754850251299602399CC, Yes. What I really need to do is to stop compulsive blogging, and start my formal writing. That's a long road, getting real academic, and then scholarly, credibility. Soon, I'm going to drop off the internet permanently, and concentrate on articles, essays and my book on racial ethics. Of course, it would be nice to streamline my life across the board, too. Actually, it would be nice if we could all earn our daily bread through racial activism, rather than dissipating our already collectively limited energies on racially unproductive 'real work'.
10754250251299585346So it’s to be a “forged in steel” alliance that requires not only their consent, but their permission? Like an agreement? I’m afraid you don’t know who you are dealing with. (marlowe) How do you get that interpretation (permission?) from what I said and you copied?
10751950251299515332[i]Leon, do you support the idea of a non-Neo-Nazi group excluding Jews from membership?[/i] (Hamish) I'm complicated, maybe confused, in my JQ views. I'm also overly influenced by my having too many close Jewish friends, as well as and especially by having several Jewish racial-conservative friends. I have to consider this at greater length later, as the workday beckons. Short answer? I see your point. It would have been better for US and the West if the Jews had never left Israel/Palestine. It would be better for us if they all returned there. But they are here, and they won't leave voluntarily. What to do? My views will elicit storms of outrage here. I think we should make an alliance with Jewry - but it must be forged in steel, with both sides held to account (unlike today, where everything is for the Jews, nothing for us). We must state clearly that our goal is to save white, Christian civilization. We must lay out the specifics (no immigration, ultimate nonwhite repatriation from Europe, no affirmative racism, real, white history taught in schools, only white Christian and national traditionalist public holidays, pro-white-fertility tax and social policies, etc). We tell Jews that we wish to increase white (Aryan) birthrates above all else (after nonwhite immigration has been terminated). We tell the Jews to support us, beginning with ending their support for immigration, and making sizable donations to nationalist parties, in exchange for which we will let them conduct business, attend synagogues, and live in our midst, if already here (no Jewish immigration, however). We will also morally support Israel in world opinion, and international bodies. If a group is committed to this .. if nationalist principles are written into its very organizational charter ... then what is wrong with letting Jews join, given that, whether we like it or not, they are in our societies already? I have Jewish friends who are very civilized, very conservative, very racist. They are also very intelligent, mostly very successful, and mostly affluent to rich. Could we not use persons like that, provided that we ourselves are inflexible and unyielding in our understanding of the white, Christian character of our organization and countries?
10750350251299498823Christian, Thanks for deleting my comments re the Asian/white issue, you jerk! You could have just deleted my personal stuff (which was posted both to correct misunderstandings, but also to amuse). Why did you delete my miscegenation comments?! I would have liked to have saved some of that (I just hadn't done it yet). I made a lot of serious points in my exchanges with Guest Lurker. In fact, you deleted my original comments re the difference between white "genocide" and liberals who undermine the conditions for white survival. Fuck! Post those back, shithead. Don't let my Christian commitments fool you. Real Christians (this is weird, given your name ...) are just, not foolish, cowardly or obsequious. I don't like this kind of highhandedness, and will remember it.
10750450251299499525PF, You're witty. Welcome back (thought you'd left after contracting Heideggeria). My Russian was very pretty, and skilled in ways men appreciate. But heartless, narcissistic and cunning. But that, along with much else, is past. That whole exchange had little to do with me originally. I merely pointed out the dangers of quality white women in CA (and elsewhere) with dating options now choosing Asian males over (presumably) available white men. I really wish my serious observations on those matters had not been deleted. To reiterate for the record: I never asked anyone for dating advice here. I mentioned some lessons from my own extensive experience.
10750550251299502103[i]Sorry Leon for the above post, I was in a mean mood and honestly I was just being a troll. All the stuff I said was only to amuse myself and has nothing to do with what I actually think of you - which is really with respect for a dedicated, highly intelligent and multi-faceted white man. A brother in arms, in all seriousness.[/i] (PF) PF, BTW, thanks for your kind comments. Whether I am intelligent or multi-faceted is open to debate. What I do resent is those (not talking about you) who question my dedication, just because I, say, don't think we can blame all or even most of our problems on Jews or Zionism, or don't believe that RaHoWa or Racial Armageddon is right around the corner, "in a matter of months", as Narrator opined recently. I am as radical as anyone here in my commitment to preserving the white race and the civilization it alone created and can alone sustain. I do not think there is virtue, however, in [i]theoretical[/i] radicalism merely for its own sake. What matters is that we adopt above all a ruthless commitment to seeing our situation clearly. Yes, that means calling attention to dangers, but not exaggerating them. It also means tailoring our messages properly for public consumption. For example, most people here mock my essential (but NOT fundamentalist) Christianity. I understand their position. I've read books by any number of atheists, and am not close minded in religious matters. My theologic-political views, which I intend to elaborate in future scholarship (I'm still reading about the issues, and formulating my final thoughts), are very unusual. I am Catholic modernist / liberal in theology, with a thoroughly non-literalist approach to Scripture, yet Hard (Racial) Right ideologically. That is a rare combination, which needs its spokesman. But even if all forms of supernaturalism are finally, empirically false, it is a truth to which we must adapt our rhetoric that, as I've pointed out in the past, most white Americans are Christians, and the vast bulk of [i]conservative[/i] white Americans are[i] real[/i] Christians. Take immigration. In the US, it is a fact of empirical political science that self-identified white Christians are more opposed to it than any other large demographic. It is also a fact that white atheists are much more likely a) to be leftists, and b) to be pro-immigration. I cannot explain why that should be so (my own sense is that most white atheists should be against immigration, and most other aspects of the Left's white-dispossessionist agenda), but given that it is, does it make any strategic sense to associate white preservationism with atheism? That is insane; indeed, only marginally less so than associating our just cause with Nazism, as the Jewish Left cunningly has done. The trick in democracies is that one usually can only change the electorate in gradualist fashion. What is more successful is the Aristotelian "revolution within the form", whereby the outer garb of the regime is preserved, even while it essence is hollowed out (the Augustan revolution being history's most prominent example: Rome changed from a republic to an empire, but the outward institutional signs of Republican Rome were not discarded, instead transmogrified into imperial appendages which nevertheless allowed for the maintenance of the image of historical continuity), as opposed to radical calls for wholesale change, which invariably inertial voters normally, sagely reject. So let no one confuse calls for rhetorical moderation with abandonment of core values. One often catches more flies with honey than vinegar, after all!
10744150251299325314CHRISTIAN, Sorry for throwing a curveball by mentioning the white female/Asian male thing a long time ago on this thread, though I'm sure it was in response to another comment, etc. These discussion threads always go all over the place. Also, I did suggest that this project was potentially valuable enough to merit its own special file under OF NOTE, which it now seems to have. On the other hand, looking back over what I've said (which keeps getting misinterpreted and personalized for some reason), there is actually some valuable insights strewn amongst the irrelevant stuff. And I did question early on whether our race actually is being 'genocided'. What is happening is that the conditions for our perpetuity are being gradually weakened or removed - like necessary ecological habitat supporting wildlife, which is not the same thing as hunters running amok. This last point of mine is rather important, and you need to formulate a convincing response, if this project is to have the value I suspect you impute to it.
10744250251299325415PF, [i]So Leon… are you looking for advice on Game?[/i] Uh, no, but thanks. Maybe I'll take a look at what you recommend. I need no advice (as you will see if you read what I wrote above). I do worry about the long term effect of many good white women now taking up with Asians (saw two more tonight in Westwood), as degenerate white females have done with blacks and Mexicans. I would like to know about Wintermute, however. I've heard the reference, but never seen anything by him/her.
10744350251299325476GUEST LURKER, "lengthy" would be more accurate than "long-winded". Look it up. The issue is QUALITY loss. How many quality white females around here run around with blacks? Seriously, dude! It's mostly the very slutty, low-IQ type (in the old days it was really ugly ones, too - now, I admit to being very annoyed when I see an attractive white girl with a Negroid, even if she usually is stupid and low class). But many women I see with Asian males are normal, middle or better class, etc. That represents a real loss to the race. In fairness, business takes me up to San Francisco with some frequency, and the Asian/white problem seems to be even worse there. I've also seen it in San Diego.
10744450251299325595FRANK, No hard feelings. I just don't want to be misinterpreted, or miscast as something I'm not. For example, on the many 'conservative' threads from which I've been banned (eg, Chronicles, First Things, Free Republic, etc), I'm often castigated as "that Nazi", when I repeatedly stress that I am not a philosophical Nazi, but a true conservative who therefore wishes to keep the white race from extinction. What is more 'conservative' than that? Unfortunately, for the race liberals at places like those mentioned, I ask the tough questions about the compatibility between race-denial / race-replacement and conservatism, to which the cowards don't have answers, and so respond like petulant children. Fleming is just the worst, a true coward (actually Scott Richert might be the very worst; I barely consider him to be on the Right at all). If you're not banned yet from those sites, keep hoisting the race patriot flag.
10744650251299335261[u]I say this not because I am impractical, but because we were probably fated to perish after Stalingrad. For 70 years we’ve been on borrowed time. I suspect we have a few more decades until the end, which means I shall have lived my whole life in the shadow of decline, as a member of a dying people. I suppose at this point all that matters is to chronicle how we could have endured, and why.[/u] (LH) [i]Coldly beautiful words. Am surprised by your pessimism[/i].(anon) ANON, Do you comment here or elsewhere under another moniker? You seem vaguely familiar. Anyway, I alternate between moments of optimism and pessimism. It would be strange to sound defeatist, especially for me, as I am tidying up my affairs and finances in order to be able to devote myself in the second part of my career/life to full-time racialism - scholarship, media work, and political organizing in the US on behalf of our soon to be white minority. I am doing this without any convincing expectation of final victory - though there are several levels constituting such victory, from reconquest of former white polities, to the foreign racial state I advocate, to white group consciousness raising and protectionist activism within 'diversified' societies to ensure white survival even if we are numeric minorities. I will do it for what are ultimately Christian reasons, but mixed with 'earthy' passions and psychic impulses. That is, I think that 1) Western civilization has both a right and even a duty to survive, and that it cannot do so without whites; 2) someone who understands the truth and could make a real contribution to the cause ought to do so, both out of Christian ethical obligation, as well as personal honor; and 3) I could write some books that would be a source of pride; possibly make it in rightist media, which I would prefer to my current business career; and really enjoy building the white activist organization I have had in mind for over 15 years. But in the end, will it matter? Only intermediately, I think. The back and forth between me and Guest Lurker in this thread is extremely important, because it implicates the major issue in racial survival: how can or will we stop our women from miscegenating? In every generation there is a large number of women who do not reproduce (I've done no specific research, but I'd like to know the number for women under 50, which I suspect is substantially higher than for women over 70, 80, 90). I think that number has been rising throughout the 20th century, and into this one. Every gene line whose carrier miscegenates is lost to the white race. For example, unless Tiger Woods' Swedish supermodel wife divorces him, remarries a white man, and has children with the latter, she will not have passed her racial essence to a new generation. I do not regard miscegenation as a 'spreading' of the white racial genotype to other races, but simply as a subtraction from the white race, at least if the miscegenator is female (why this should be so is obvious, but the answer could be given this way: is Obama white or black?). I think racial extinction is likely because miscegenation will only become more common in the future, at least to the extent that people are allowed sexual and marital freedom. It would have increased even apart from immigration, simply due to expanding wealth and ever easier travel. The internet exponentially increases miscegenation opportunities, and this will only grow in the future (until the pool of possible miscegenators has been soaked up, and only willful non-miscegenators remain - and they will be too few to defend themselves). What can counter the racial-loss effects of miscegenation? Ultimately, either sexual authoritarianism, long present in the West, esp pre-WW2, but now and for the foreseeable future totally morally and politically discredited, or else something (attitudes, laws, economic changes) to cause huge fertility increases among the non-miscegenating portion of the white population (to counteract or overwhelm the miscegenators, as it were). The former will not happen in the modern West as presently politically constituted (so we're back to advocating RaHoWa, and the instantiation of a semi-totalitarian Racial State), and all exogenous trends in society, economics, government parasitism, social dysgenesis, parenting psychologies, even environmental and natural resource conditions, militate against large white families (and the trend almost everywhere is for smaller nonwhite families, too). [Note: the one exception is certain white fundamentalist Christian groups with a hyper-family and reproduction orientation - yet another reason why we need to enlist Christianity on our side, or make it ideologically congruent with racial preservationism, as well as why atheistic forms of nationalism will always prove so, well, sterile.] The problem with Racial Revolution is that white societies are too wealthy and secure for their peoples to risk death and economic ruin in fomenting it - especially for something as abstract and personally remote as "saving the white race". Whites will have to become far more miserable than at present before they will pick up guns en masse for revolutionary reasons. Before that level of misery is reached, however, the white peoples will elect conservative parties, who in turn will ameliorate the problems with better government solutions, especially in the economic sphere - and thus further[i]anesthetize[/i] their populations in the face of accelerating racial dispossession and "pre-extinction". By the time whites are so immiserated that they "don't give a fuck", as the skins say, they will be too few to wage a credible counter-revolution (see, eg, their condition in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe today - and their lack of white revolutionary activity). Whites are going to have to learn to survive as a diasporic people (imagine that: a native born white Englishman [i]a refugee in bloody England itself[/i]!!). Will they be able to do so? Will they be allowed to?
10746850251299420563Posted by Sam Davidson on March 05, 2011, 06:22 PM | # [i]If the admins on this site are serious why are they allowing someone posting under the name “Leon Haller” to HIJACK A THREAD ABOUT WHITE GENOCIDE so he can talk about comparative penis size or how his relationships have failed?[/i] Sam, Obviously you haven't followed the discussion. Comparative penis size (between whites and blacks, which you don't mention), incidentally, seems to be a major issue for Philippe Rushton, whom Jared Taylor has called "the world's greatest living racial scientist", no mean praise from a major source. Of course, what is interesting is that I have a lengthy, impersonal comment about white extinction immediately above yours. No comments on that, which is a bit disappointing. It would be very instructive to have an intellectual but neutral party compare my stuff to most of what others publish here - and see whose material he finds more pointed, enlightening, even amusing, perhaps.
10746950251299421084[i]Leon is asking PF and Uh for advice on how to pick up women. Truly surreal.[/i] (Woody) What the fuck are you talking about? Where do I ask advice from anyone? I [i]declined[/i] PF's offer of such advice! I don't even remember "uh" being part of this discussion. Actually, from what I read here, I strongly suspect that I could be giving huge amounts of dating advice (and probably other types of (professional, financial) advice) to many regulars. I hate saying this, but there is a lot of inanity among the insights in these parts. There is considerable misunderstanding of female psychology; gross unfamiliarity with real Jews; tremendous economic and financial ignorance routinely exhibited; as well as endless ill-thought out bromides and general ideological thinking substituting for real attempts at useful analysis.
10747150251299421823[i]Leon, I posted racial comments at Chronicles for years. They never asked me to leave, but I’ve since realised they’ve all read the racially oriented sites. Dr. Fleming isn’t a coward I think but an authentic anti-nationalist. He wrote an article recently in Chronicles on how nationalism inevitably leads to empire and dual morality, and I’ve read countless other articles by him suggesting such a view as well. I nevertheless recommend people to read the magazine - the racial right is still dealing with insanity. A fusion of sanity and racialism is needed between the two. [/i](Frank) I've been reading CHRONICLES closely and in whole for two decades, month after month. I must now be one of their longer term subscribers - and by far one of their most diligent readers (even as the mag has massively declined over the past 3 years or so). I disagree re Fleming. He's pretty bright, and very learned (note my different emphases: I know any number of people I think possess his IQ; I've spoken with him in person, and was impressed, but not remotely intimidated; he is extremely classically well-read, I admit). He is also solidly conservative. Thus, he must realize that the Third World invasion is devastating for the prospects of Western survival, and indeed, he has admirably made immigration a major issue for the magazine. Yet every time someone mentions whites coming together to assert or just defend their own interests, he starts whining, banning people, trying to needlessly complicate the issue, or otherwise engaging in "reverse-PC"; ie, acknowledging problems associated with nonwhites, but then trying to find ways, however tortured, to blame (liberal, neocon) whites for having somehow created the mess. For Fleming, nonwhites are never really a problem in themselves - and natural racist responses are morally worse than the original problems which called forth those responses.
10723750261298814816Thank you for calling attention to ARKTOS Press. I'd never heard of it, but as I'm a fan of Evola among others, like Sunic and de Benoist, I shall certainly get some of their stuff in the future. On another note: please explain/elaborate upon the following (I cannot divine your meaning): "... the loneliness here is not that of the liberal “self” but of its opposite, the transcendental subject". What is a/the "transcendental subject"? I think immediately of a Christian soul, but I suspect that's not what is being referred to.
10724250261298819210Would you call this woman white? http://www.presidentassad.net/ASMA_AL_ASSAD/Asma_Al-Assad_PhD.htm Were the original Arabs whiter than they are today? What about Europeans?
10725850261298848357I think I've read that whites come from the Indo-Europeans (or Aryans?), who originally settled Europe from somewhere in Central Asia. I'm not sure this is positively known. That whites were the earliest [i]homo sapiens[/i] in Europe does not mean they evolved from proto-hominids there. At all events, what is the racialist [i]line[/i] on a, to me, obvious white Arab/Muslim like this wife of the Syrian ruler?
10725950261298848432[i]The Christian has no critique of consciousness because Christianity has no esoteric core[/i]. (GW) Please translate into intelligible English for the initiated.
10726450261298849897Frank, A bit of web perusal, though, offers no evidence for your hypothesis. Both her parents have Arab names. What an amazing woman, incidentally. It actually causes me to question the standard (neo?)conservative line on Syria. If Assad, Jr., would marry someone so Westernized as her, I cannot believe he is truly an enemy of the West (like Qaddafi, bin Laden, the House of Saud, Ahmadinejad, etc). Maybe of Israel, but not Europe. Perhaps he even shares traditional conservative (though not Christian, of course) values, but understands that they are not applicable in the Middle East, contemporary 'Jasmine Revolutions' notwithstanding.
10726750261298850351[i]Pigmentation is not necessarily coterminous with race. Race is defined by more genes than those that code for skin color. There are negroes with blond hair, pale skin and blue eyes due to albinism. Do we call them White? No, we call them niggers, or sandniggers in the case of pale skinned Arabs.[/i] (CC) Obviously. But this woman is no albino! Nor does she look a Semite, like even various blonde and redheaded Jews. She looks white European (a bit Southern Euro at most). The question is, how do nationalists view someone like this? She may be Muslim only as a matter of ethnic heritage. In reality, she might be a secularist, based on her background, and for all we know. In the white racial state, will we attempt to gather in all such white outliers (ie, those who are significantly European in DNA, but culturally outside the traditional Occident)? There are some in the Near East, and many in Latin America.
10726850261298850565[i]Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2011, 10:13 PM | # The Christian has no critique of consciousness because Christianity has no esoteric core. (GW) Please translate into intelligible English for the initiated.[/i] My head is really in the clouds these days. I meant to say "uninitiated".
10728550261298895789[i] Such disciplines have nothing to do with being “good” or with believing in something in the Christian sense.[/i] (GW) So what is their purpose, and relevance to the white race?
10728650261298895972Posted by Captainchaos on February 28, 2011, 02:35 AM | # I wrote: Pigmentation is not necessarily coterminous with race. Race is defined by more genes than those that code for skin color. What about that don’t you understand, Leon? Many Jews have a skin hue comparable to Northern Europeans, yet are absolutely genetically distinguishable from Northern Europeans. So those fair skinned Jews cannot be said to be Northern Europeans. Further, despite the fact that the Jews in question have fairer skin than many Italians, they can also be genetically distinguished from Italians. So they cannot be said to be Italians. So too your vaunted pale skinned Arabs. --------------------- But commonsense understandings of race track the genetics pretty closely, don't they? How do you tell if someone is white - by looking at them, no?
10732450261298981376[i]Such disciplines have nothing to do with being “good” or with believing in something in the Christian sense[/i]. (GW) What is the purpose of these metaphysical traditions or disciplines in other faiths? What is yoga or the other metaphysics of non-Christian religions supposed to teach or do?
10741050281299253112Mr. Baron, You have obviously put in a lot of work on this subject, and are to be respected for such. I have not read this piece carefully. I apologize; perhaps I will. But what is the point of Revisionism? It seems that neo-Nazi anti-Semites should be trying to [i]justify[/i] rather than [i]deny[/i] the Holocaust. Why deny it? How does that help to save the white race? And might there not be better ways to spend our time; say, in organizing activist groupings to go out and distribute literature on cars and in mailboxes about the costs of immigration? I agree about the religious overtones of all this. But doesn't that mean we should tread extra carefully then? People are more irrational over the Nazi period than over discussing immigration. But stopping immigration is infinitely (literally) more important than revisiting the Holocaust issue. Can't we postpone the reinterpretation of the Third Reich until after we've ended the invasion? First things first.
10742550281299283142Leon Haller: “It seems that neo-Nazi anti-Semites should be trying to justify rather than deny the Holocaust.” [i] You are called a Nazi if you say that you want to preserve the collective existence of white people and send the immigrants back to their home countries or give them a separate piece of land. If you help people realize that there has been of lot of defamation going on, and that European nationalists in the 1930s were usually not raving lunatics intent on killing Jews, it may help somewhat. I think we would be better off if every Jew lived in Israel. But if you start arguing that killing Jews is a reasonable solution, it won’t help the white cause.[/i] (Armor) I understand the modern ideology behind race-replacement. I think we should be combatting that replacement on its own terms, without diluting our moral message by trying to rehabilitate one of the more repulsive regimes in history, one which spoke in the name of Aryan civilization, but also killed a lot of (non-Jewish) whites, as well having been run in gangster fashion. Remember, most true conservatives of the period, who were much racially harder core than the tepid, postwar Reagan/Thatcher types, correctly regarded communism as a greater threat than Nazism, but disliked the Nazis, too. I've been called a Nazi many times simply because I believe in the pragmatic [i]likely[/i] necessity of white revolution, as well as the need for a Racial State, if our race is to endure. I don't particularly want bloody revolution. I just don't think the white race will be saved without it, unless we adopt my plan of peaceful foreign demographic conquest through WN immigration to a small sovereign country. The ensuing ethnostate would be so globally hated that it would have to 'morph' into a state with a [i]telos[/i], that is, one so constituted that saving the race becomes its central organizing principle. As such, it will be a great deal more authoritarian by today's lights than any current Western nation - though as capitalist efficiencies will be required to maximize national wealth (in turn to maximize defense funding), it could be argued that it would also be more free, at least economically, than today's Western regulatory/welfare states. Basically, we need a sovereign state which looks something like a pre-WW2 Western nation: libertarian (within national defense limits) on economic issues, but socially/racially authoritarian. Much less state interference in the economy, much more regulation of personal life to ensure both over-reproduction, as well as proper cultivation of the character and beliefs of the young. Come to think of it, we need a White Israel. Israel's central principle is Jewish preservation. If the Jews can have their own country, surely whites can have one of our own, too?
10742650281299283627Silver, I agree with what you have written here. Many serious racialists do as well. Saving the white race is a [i]conservative[/i] endeavor, the ultimate expression of conservatism. Dragging in the morally problematic Third Reich is as unnecessary as welfare liberals wasting their time trying to apologize for, or deny the crimes of, communism. They achieved what they did without whitewashing communism. We can do the same wrt Nazism. Keep Hitler and his ilk in the trash can of history. Some of us have a race and civilization to save.
10744050281299322868[i]Are Germans (some alive at the time of WWII) not part of that race and civilization? We must defend the dead since they are incapable of that feat.[/i] (danielj) Being a good half-German at least, and told by many that I look German, I am second to none in my opposition to Jewish-fanned Teutonophobia. I am very proud of my German background, as well as German-American heritage. I think we must also remember the Allied crimes against the Germans, especially the grotesque firebombings in spring '45, as well as the ghastly treatment of the disarmed German POWs following the war. I'm very big on revisionism on [i]those[/i] issues!! But why should we dilute those laudable qualities of being German and genuine historically neglected matters by associating them with the Nazi murderers? The Nazis cannot be rehabilitated, and even if they could be, there is an order of ideological progression in democratic modernity, which essentially holds that the masses just do not accept too radical revisions to settled beliefs, except over time. The exception occurs where the ostensibly radical change really only involves replacing one elite with another under a condition where the bulk of the people are latently already amenable to change. The great modern example of this was the 60s social-liberation movements: feminism, sexual loosening, civil rights and racial integration. The intellectual, cultural and ideological groundwork for this type of politics had been laid over many previous decades of attitudinal change (some might say degeneration). I think immigration, given its incredible costs and utterly minimal benefits, is a classic example where white majorities desirous of positive change already latently exist in most of our nations. On the other hand, an infinitesimal number of whites are willing even to hear pro-Nazi or Holocaust revisionist arguments. And what is more achievable as well as important: stopping immigration, or changing the conventional interpretation of the Holocaust? Whether on strategic or mere tactical grounds, the answer is obvious.
10746750281299419879Posted by the krauts debased themselves? on March 06, 2011, 05:14 AM | # [i] Being a good half-German at least, and told by many that I look German, I am second to none in my opposition to Jewish-fanned Teutonophobia. I am very proud of my German background, as well as German-American heritage. I think we must also remember the Allied crimes against the Germans, especially the grotesque firebombings in spring ‘45, as well as the ghastly treatment of the disarmed German POWs following the war. I’m very big on revisionism on those issues!! Good stuff, Leon. Keep it up and you really will get on the shit list of the English.[/i] Um, Ok. Have I been trying to get on the English shit list? Should I be concerned? The English behavior (possibly also American) during and after the war was worse than that of the Germans. The Germans were scrupulous in observing traditional laws of war when it came to the Western powers, though they were genocidal towards everybody in the East - which was one of their many mistakes. The firebombings under "Butcher" Harris were one of the greatest collective crimes against our race in history.
10759250311299850877[i]Leon, I think blogging is a more effective medium for communicating our ideas than the production of boring tomes. What must come to pass is a mass movement explicitly predicated on achieving racially exclusive living space. There is no substitute. Look to the success of a streamlined and radical message in upsetting political power in the Middle East. Yes, it did really happen. And can again, here.[/i] (CC) Yes, but ... We are in a very different situation from the Arabs. They are/were living under obvious tyrannies, often pitting one sub-nation ("tribe") against another. That superficially sounds like our situation, but obviously isn’t. For one thing, we have the vote (or its illusion), they have not. Our situation is that our people need to be convinced of their dispossession, and eventual extinction - and of the moral rightness of doing something to stop it. Or, at least a substantial and vigorous enough minority of them. That’s where the totality of our work comes in. We need everything - from academic works, to journalism, to political organizing, to ideological activism, to mass media, to street activism - all working to fulfill some “nationalist minimum”, like ending immigration. We are a long way from there, unfortunately. I would add to this here, wrt this particular post on Marine Le Pen, that France already illustrates a point I keep reiterating; to wit, that whites in many of our home countries, and soon in all of them, will no longer be able even to maintain the illusion that we can muster majorities if only we could break through the Jewish media monopoly. I think that would have been possible maybe as late as 1970 or even (pushing it) 1980 (eg, when Reagan was elected, the US was nearly 84% white, though that number did include at least Jews, and maybe Arabs, too - though there weren't too many of the latter back then). But today we are approaching the democratic limits of those of our people who are able to be awakened from their obvious racial false consciousness. What I mean is that, even if all potentially "awakenable" people (ie, normal patriotic white folks throughout the West) were in fact racially awakened, would they still be able to muster even 50% + 1 presidential/prime ministerial/parliamentary majorities? I'm not so sure. I was very disheartened by both the Le Pen fiasco in 2002, as well as the BNP in 2010 (not to mention disappointing rightist showings in smaller countries, like Benelux, Switzerland, etc). The British and especially the French did indeed have a choice, and look what they did with it. Even if we make excuses over the BNP, the 02 FN defeat was much worse, psychologically. Le Pen was a seasoned and well-established figure, unlike Griffin, and he offered a clear choice at the highest level (and there were no "Conservatives" to divide the rightist vote). 02 was a clear up/down vote for French national survival. Not even quite one fifth voted to preserve the French nation. How many whites would that have been in percentage terms? Perhaps ARMOR can help here. I don't know how many non-Aryans can vote in France. But in 2002 I suspect at least 75% or more of those voting in the presidential race were non-Jewish whites. Thus, a decisive majority of French whites could not vote FN, even though Le Pen had softened FN's rhetoric over the previous decade, which had also seen unprecedented immigration inundation, as well as spiraling crime rates equivalent to the crime rate increases experienced in the US during the 60s and 70s. By the time we awaken enough of our people to their racial danger, we will not be able to muster democratic majorities in our own countries, at least in Western Europe and the Anglosphere. Hence, to repeat my own strategic calculus, our only options for ultimate racial survival are 1) violent revolution to reconquer our homeland(s), or to carve out ethnostates within some portion of them; 2) peaceful foreign conquest through convergent white immigration to an existent, sovereign polity; or 3) the "Jewish strategy" of trying to ensure endogamy (which the Jews themselves are failing at today), and ethnocultural preservation as universal minorities.
10751650311299509670Small point: how the hell is it possible for France to (likely) get two Jewish Presidents, Sarkozy, Strauss-Kahn, in a row?! Please explain. I thought the French had a lot of anti-Semitism, and not just among Muslims. Why don't "Middle French" vote for their own?
10751550311299509409I posted this earlier on the white genocide thread, but it seems apposite to my response to GW on this one, re the issue of nationalist "complete and revolutionary change": I am as radical as anyone here in my commitment to preserving the white race and the civilization it alone created and can alone sustain. I do not think there is virtue, however, in [i]theoretical[/i] radicalism merely for its own sake. What matters is that we adopt above all a ruthless commitment to seeing our situation clearly. Yes, that means calling attention to dangers, but not exaggerating them. It also means tailoring our messages properly for public consumption. For example, most people here mock my essential (but NOT fundamentalist) Christianity. I understand their position. I’ve read books by any number of atheists, and am not close minded in religious matters. My theologic-political views, which I intend to elaborate in future scholarship (I’m still reading about the issues, and formulating my final thoughts), are very unusual. I am Catholic modernist / liberal in theology, with a thoroughly non-literalist approach to Scripture, yet Hard (Racial) Right ideologically. That is a rare combination, which needs its spokesman. But even if all forms of supernaturalism are finally, empirically false, it is a truth to which we must adapt our rhetoric that, as I’ve pointed out in the past, most white Americans are Christians, and the vast bulk of [i]conservative[/i] white Americans are [i]real[/i] Christians. Take immigration. In the US, it is a fact of empirical political science that self-identified white Christians are more opposed to it than any other large demographic. It is also a fact that white atheists are much more likely a) to be leftists, and b) to be pro-immigration. I cannot explain why that should be so (my own sense is that most white atheists should be against immigration, and most other aspects of the Left’s white-dispossessionist agenda), but given that it is, does it make any strategic sense to associate white preservationism with atheism? That is insane; indeed, only marginally less so than associating our just cause with Nazism, as the Jewish Left cunningly has done. The trick in democracies is that one usually can only change the electorate in gradualist fashion. What is more successful is the Aristotelian “revolution within the form”, whereby the outer garb of the regime is preserved, even while it essence is hollowed out (the Augustan revolution being history’s most prominent example: Rome changed from a republic to an empire, but the outward institutional signs of Republican Rome were not discarded, being instead transmogrified into imperial appendages which nevertheless allowed for the maintenance of the image of historical continuity), as opposed to radical calls for wholesale change, which invariably inertial voters normally, sagely reject. So let no one confuse calls for rhetorical moderation with abandonment of core values. One often catches more flies with honey than vinegar, after all! And, I would add, politics in democracies is a game of addition, not subtraction.
10751450311299508438[i]The problem with a party of “just nice, “Middle British” people, thoroughly normal and conventional, making the perfectly obvious and reasonable demand to end the Third World invasion, now” is that there are, obviously, many connected issues surrounding that one, and the whole comprises quite a weight - enough to weight down the life of all Europeans throughout the West. Politically, to begin the process of lifting that weight of our chests involves a great deal more than ending Third World immigration. It demands ending neoliberalism. It demands ending equality. It demands ending hyper-individualism. It demands ending the debt system. It demands ending elitism. And so on. That’s not a small thing. Nationalism, as the solution to these demands, implies a complete and revolutionary change. And it is the radicalism of the revolutionary that divides you from me, no? You want to retain the essentials and ideals of the Christian-liberal tradition, and I am telling you that won’t cut it, not by a very long way.[/i] (GW) No, it's not a small thing. And ending the invasion may not be the whole of the race-preservationist agenda, but we can surely agree that it is both the first step, as well as the [i]sine qua non[/i] of it. You can end neo-liberalism, debt, etc, but if you don't stop immigration, it's all lost. On the other hand, if we stop immigration, then we can move on to other areas, as I mentioned. Do you think you are going to effectuate your whole comprehensive agenda all at once? Or is it more likely that the nationalist agenda will be implemented piecemeal (I ask at a time when we can't get elected 'dogcatcher'!)? GW, for all your alleged or ostensible realism about, well, reality (metaphysics, consciousness, the Self, evolution, race, etc), you are strangely unrealistic about the prospects for radical political change. Ending immigration in itself would constitute a titanic nationalist victory. But how as things stand at present will that be achieved? By developing a whole new and therefore highly controversial and probably contestable blueprint for the life and consciousness of Western man? Or by pursuing victory on what is at once the most important aspect of the agenda, as well as the most popular and easily understandable? I say again: nationalists everywhere should be largely single issue anti-immigrationists. That issue cuts through other real conflicts over taxes and redistribution, not to mention moral values, and indeed every other policy. What issue on the right is more popular in Britain, France, etc than ending immigration (that is not rhetorical: in the US we have many, unfortunately, from taxes to budgets to union power to abortion to crime policies, etc)? What issue is simultaneously more important? People in politically stable democracies do not opt for "complete and revolutionary change", except in ways that seem to be associated with the Left, and generally have to do with stealing other people's money legally through the state, or else increasing social permissiveness. Getting rid of hyper-individualism will require, outside of internal fascist conquest, people to vote for greater social authoritarianism. Has this ever happened?
10750650311299502779I bet in the time of Charlemagne most Franks were blonde. Maybe today the modal Frenchman is a brunette, but note that France has been invaded by lots of non-Franks in recent centuries, not just the nonwhites of the past 40 years. Look at old French paintings- lots of blondes. In movies, though, French are often depicted as very Mediterranean, almost like Sicilians or Jews.
10750950311299503768anon, Are you French? It saddens me to see all this. As a child, I lived in Paris for a year in the mid-70s. I distinctly remember how few nonwhites there were as compared to my home city of LA. When we went on trips in other parts, Brittany, the Loire, Bordeaux, the Alps, often without my father, there were NO minorities that I can recall. (In fairness, I do not recall if we made it as far south as Marseilles). I thought how wonderful it was not to have minorities (esp blacks) around. I don't even know about the Islamic presence. It must have been there already, but my parents, esp mother, are fierce Catholics, and they/she would have said something about encountering mosques, either then or at some more recent point. I don't remember any complaints, though maybe I was too young to notice. When I returned in the early 90s as a race conscious adult, I was disgusted at the multiracial presence. But I was even more disgusted at the race-treason and sheer stupidity of most of the whites I met. I kept inquiring as to why they were unnecessarily importing America's racial problems. Some French were opposed to the invasion, but most were more worried about 'racisme'. What losers! (the final epitaph of the white man) Does anyone here think we will restore our control over our historic lands without violence at some point? Does anyone actually think we will restore our control?
10747250311299423085[i]Does that look like a class political act to you? It certainly does to me. [/i](GW) My French is too poor really to be able to follow the spoken comments, except occasionally. I like that Marine is blonde, however. That is the true French look, unlike that of the swarthy types who seem to predominate in media depictions of the French. Why can't the BNP be like this? N-O-R-M-A-L - no Nazi salutes, Holocaust revisionism, Judeo obsessions, predictions of immediate national Armageddon, ugly skinhead looks, funny clothes, etc. Just nice, "Middle British" people, thoroughly normal and conventional, making the perfectly obvious and reasonable demand to end the Third World invasion, now. Once that's done, we start pressing for repatriation. Really very simple. In other words, the BNP should be thoroughly mainstream conservative, perhaps with a little greater tolerance and concern for social welfarism than the Tories, but very ordinary and unthreatening, except that it should constantly harp on the national dangers of immigration. Why isn't there a party that does that?
10747350311299423314Who is Aubry, btw? Leftist? And aren't there other rightist parties in France besides the FN?
10747450311299423730I'm re-posting (part of) this comment from another thread, despite its only general relevance to this story: ... the major issue in racial survival: how can or will we stop our women from miscegenating? In every generation there is a large number of women who do not reproduce (I’ve done no specific research, but I’d like to know the number for women under 50, which I suspect is substantially higher than for women over 70, 80, 90). I think that number has been rising throughout the 20th century, and into this one. Every gene line whose carrier miscegenates is lost to the white race. For example, unless Tiger Woods’ Swedish supermodel wife divorces him, remarries a white man, and has children with the latter, she will not have passed her racial essence to a new generation. I do not regard miscegenation as a ‘spreading’ of the white racial genotype to other races, but simply as a subtraction from the white race, at least if the miscegenator is female (why this should be so is obvious, but the answer could be given this way: is Obama white or black?). I think racial extinction is likely because miscegenation will only become more common, at least to the extent that people are allowed sexual and marital freedom. It would have increased even apart from immigration, simply due to expanding wealth and ever easier travel. The internet exponentially increases miscegenation opportunities, and this will only grow in the future (until the pool of possible miscegenators has been soaked up, and only willful non-miscegenators remain - and they will be too few to defend themselves). What can counter the racial-loss effects of miscegenation? Ultimately, either sexual authoritarianism, long present in the West, esp pre-WW2, but now and for the foreseeable future totally morally and politically discredited, or else something (attitudes, laws, economic changes) which will cause huge fertility increases among the non-miscegenating portion of the white population (to counteract or overwhelm the miscegenators, as it were). The former will not happen in the modern West as presently politically constituted (so we’re back to advocating RaHoWa, and the instantiation of a semi-totalitarian Racial State), and all exogenous trends in society, economics, government parasitism, social dysgenesis, parenting psychologies, even environmental and natural resource conditions, militate against large white families (and the trend almost everywhere is for smaller nonwhite families, too). [Note: the one exception is certain white fundamentalist Christian groups with a family and hyper-reproduction orientation - yet another reason why we need to enlist Christianity on our side, or make it ideologically congruent with racial preservationism, as well as why atheistic forms of nationalism will always prove so, well, sterile.] The problem with Racial Revolution is that white societies are too wealthy and secure for their peoples to risk death and economic ruin in fomenting it - especially for something as abstract and personally remote as “saving the white race”. Whites will have to become far more miserable than at present before they will pick up guns en masse for revolutionary reasons. Before that level of misery is reached, however, the white peoples will elect conservative parties, who in turn will ameliorate the problems with better government solutions, especially in the economic sphere - and thus further [i]anesthetize[/i] their populations in the face of accelerating racial dispossession and “pre-extinction”. By the time whites are so immiserated that they “don’t give a fuck”, as the skins say, they will be too few to wage a credible counter-revolution (see, eg, their condition in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe today - and the lack of white revolutionary activity there). Whites are going to have to learn to survive as a diasporic people (imagine that: a native born white Englishman a refugee in bloody England itself!!). Will they be able to do so? Will they be allowed to?
10761350311300032159I regret having started this discussion re the racial composition of the "true French". At some point, as long as someone is Caucasoid, thoroughly acculturated to a European ethny, and has longstanding ties to a particular piece of European territory, I think it proper that we consider him or her to be white. Biological classification is often messy, and so is race. At some 'boundary' point far past visible racial distinctiveness, we have to move from DNA to culture. Our race grows smaller by the day. We don't need to be artificially shrinking it still faster.
10761450311300033387Concerning this original post re Marine: Yes, it would be nice if she made a better showing in the general. But let's not fool ourselves. She's even further from the true Right than her father (who actually is/was pretty good, but never the rightist giant the media made him out to be). She's also not all that better than Sarkozy, who has at least substantially increased criminal penalties, made alien deportations easier, and tried to inject a tiny bit of market realism into the assinine French regulatory state. 1. She rejects a racial definition, or even component, of "Frenchness". She explicitly condemns both racism (which of course is publicly defined by the Left), and anti-Semitism. 2. She is not a moral conservative, nor much of a defender of French Catholicism (the restoration of a crusader version of which is all that at this point can power a new (Racial) French Revolution). 3. I have seen nothing suggesting she is any harder line wrt criminals than Sarkozy. 4. Will she even try to accomplish as much as Sarkozy has in attempting to wean the lazy and parasitical French off their totally fiscally unsustainable [i]dirigiste[/i] economy and mammoth welfare state? She seems more anti-capitalist than anti-globalist, as concerned about free trade (a problem, not a lethal national threat) as immigration and Islam. 5. Has she called for banning Islam from France (eg, shuttering all mosques on French soil)? 6. Has she called for the expatriation of all nonwhites from French soil? 7. Has she called for army patrols for [i]les banlieues[/i]? 8. Has she called for the restoration and routinization of the guillotine for violent, esp Islamic, criminals? 9. Has she called for an end to French special aid to, and relations with, Africa? Marine may be the best current candidate in France, but if traditional France is still to exist in a century, only a fanatical racial fascism can save it. I doubt Marine supports that, even in her own private thoughts.
10761550311300033669Note: my point #2 above should not be seen as contradicting my penultimate sentence. Race (replacing Throne) and Alter must be re-allied, or the West will continue its descent.
10761650311300033845This is humiliating. I really tied one on last night with some local Irish-American pals, already anticipating St. Pat's. I meant "Race and Alt[i][b]a[/b][/i]r".
10763150311300104972[i]Leon Haller: “Sarkozy, who has at least substantially increased criminal penalties, made alien deportations easier” Not true. Crime is not adequately punished, deportations are almost non-existent, and immigration is up. Last Saturday, Marine Le Pen said she had been given recent immigration figures by patriotic high-level civil servants. According to her, France granted 23.504 residence permits in January 2011, a 42,1% rise compared to January of last year. She said that’s 75% percent more than at the time of (socialist Prime Minister) Lionel Jospin. By extrapolation, it would give 300.000 residence permits delivered over the year, a record never reached before. (source) The French interior ministry reacted with a statement saying that Marine Le Pen’s figures “give a false impression of the reality”. In fact, it’s the government that keeps giving false immigration figures.[/i] (Armor) -------------- Thanks for the info. I'm very sorry to hear this. I am prepared to defer to your superior knowledge of the French situation. However, what do you make of, for example (I remember others by MSM outlets), the following cover story devoted to Marine in a recent issue of [i]The Weekly Standard[/i] (yes, I know the magazine is the veritable Ground Zero of Zionist neoconservatism, but the article is by Christopher Caldwell, who has been pretty relentless in his criticisms of the Islamicization of Europe, done in at least the same vein as Mark Steyn's excellent book [i]America Alone[/i] (of course, I find both writers too leftist, but I can say the same thing about virtually everyone in the MSM))? http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/le-pen-mightier_552978.html Two excerpts from the Caldwell article: [i]It is not immediately obvious why Sarkozy, who promised a wide-ranging program of reform, should be endangered by an antiestablishment candidate. After all, he has delivered reforms. He toughened criminal penalties for repeat offenders. He fixed France’s labor laws to make it harder for public employee unions to bring the country to a grinding halt with strikes. In the face of massive protests, he stuck to his guns and pushed through a new law that will significantly raise French retirement ages. And he has broadened the so-called “fiscal shield,” a government guarantee to taxpayers that no one will pay the state more than half of what he earns. He brought France back into full membership in NATO, four decades after Charles de Gaulle withdrew from the Western alliance.[/i] and [i]Sarkozy has sought to promote the offspring of immigrants to cabinet and sub-cabinet positions, angering a lot of loyalists who were passed over. But he has also placed an unprecedented emphasis on law and order. Last July he spoke in Grenoble after two episodes of ethnic violence. The city had just seen three nights of battles between police and rioters in the neighborhood of Villeneuve, and that came on the heels of an attack on the police station in St-Aignan by 50 Roms, or gypsies, armed with axes. Sarkozy gave a speech that leapt way beyond the usual boundaries of tough-on-crime rhetoric. “We are suffering the consequences of 50 years of immigration, insufficiently regulated, that have led to a failure of assimilation,” he said. He urged the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences of unheard-of severity—30 years for serious attacks on police. And he called for stripping French citizenship from any newly naturalized citizen convicted of such a crime. Sarkozy’s critics on the left quickly pointed out that denationalizations had not been carried out since the dark days of the middle of the last century. It was the sort of policy which the National Front has repeatedly been accused of secretly favoring, and here Sarkozy was espousing it openly.[/i] I of course can spot what is wrong with the Sarkozy approach. We want the invaders deported. No exceptions. Any resisters should be treated as enemy combatants, and shot on sight. Agreed? But I'm trying to ascertain if you are being strictly fair with Sarkozy. I've read elsewhere that he has increased deportations of illegals. Ae you sure that is false? But are you saying that the article is actually untrue wrt Sarkozy?
10763250311300105728Armor, I'd like to ask you some further questions. You seem levelheaded and empirically minded, and I'd like sober predictions. What is your serious view of the French future? Will France truly be "Islamicized", what do you understand by that term, and how many decades until it happens? Also, what will life be like for the ordinary Frenchman - and do you think at some point there will be mass white emigration, as with Zimbabwe in the 70s and 80s, and South Africa in the 90s and 00s? Or will the ancient French people eventually spawn racial nationalist freedom fighters / "terrorist" organizations, as in WW2, to challenge the occupationist regime? And will the trigger be race/culture, or a threat to secularization by aggressive Islamism?
10765150311300140813Hamish, Just checking in during lunch on a bad day, saw your comments. You may be right re Sarkozy v. Marine Le Pen. As I mentioned to Armor, I defer to others on the true 'facts on the ground' re France. I only know what I read in the English press, though unlike some less intelligent types, here and of course elsewhere, I do know [i]how[/i] to read the MSM; that is, I have a pretty good sense of when they can be believed, and when they are being deliberately misleading. The positive stuff re Sarkozy may well be propaganda. I'm in no position to judge. I'm the very last person you need to remind that ending the immigration invasion supersedes (and [i]subordinates[/i][i][/i], I agree with you) all other issues. Surely, in the couple of years I have been commenting on this site I have established my credentials not only as an anti-immigrationist, but as one who puts ending the invasion far above every other nationalist, let alone non-nationalist, concern. So, yes, I, especially as a non-Frenchman who wishes to preserve that vital white nation for overarching collective racial and cultural reasons, but who has no particular concern for the French economy right now, would certainly want Marine to do or say whatever she must on every other issue, including the economy, pensions, etc, in order to gather up the largest possible number of French to defend the racial integrity of [i]la belle France[/i]. [I would counsel the same in the US. Indeed, the specifically American nationalism that I have intermittently advocated on different MR threads would cast off much of contemporary American conservatism (I mean among the authentic parts, not just the neo-liberal crap pawned off as 'conservatism') in an effort to build the largest possible coalition to focus on immigration cessation and illegal alien deportation, and then various other measures to help whites as a group. Indeed, I have always been prepared to say that every political issue henceforth must be judged primarily in light of its effects on white racial survival (though my reasons for placing white survival [i]uber alles[/i] in the pantheon of political concerns are not simply emotional, as I contend they must be for atheistic WNs; I am seemingly one of the very few persons who argue that not only is white preservationism morally [i]allowable[/i] under Christianity properly interpreted, but its advocacy is morally [i]mandatory[/i] for white Christians; putting it another way, I think white race treason is specifically sinful, and generally impious - an admittedly unusual argument I am patiently developing 'off-site', so to speak).] But I also read the racial press, and seem to recall a lot of grumbling about Marine's alleged 'softening' of the image of the FN; of her being an advocate of a more 'inclusive' (non-racist) FN; of wishing to shift the focus of the FN from defending French racial identity to defending French cultural cohesion and supremacy; and of her nationalist emphasis being at least as much on protecting French political and economic sovereignty (good and necessary things, no doubt!), as protecting French racial integrity. I'm not [i]per se[/i] opposed to a broader nationalist agenda, as long as the primary importance of race is never lost sight of - which, however, it invariably is whenever there is an attempt to 'soften' the message ideologically (as opposed to mere tactical silences about the larger agenda; you are correct, and I have certainly said as much here at MR, that we need to move in a directed but piecemeal fashion, working gradually towards ever greater levels of racial radicalization - going 'whole hog' as the neo-Nazis do only scares people, and leaves the popular aspects of our agenda perpetually grounded (and, for the record again, I'm not a Nazi, either practically or especially philosophically)). As long as any European politician says the following, I am with them: "I seek to preserve forever my nation and civilization, the foundation of which, that which begins national distinctiveness, is, as for any nation or civilization, race. All European nations are white nations. They are not compatible with nonwhites, who, merely by virtue of their biology, can never be racially, or even culturally, assimilated, except, wrt the latter, superficially and fleetingly. Therefore, as a matter of supreme national security, nonwhite immigration, legal and illegal, must be halted. Achieving this supersedes all other issues. Once an immigration moratorium has been legislated, and the illegals deported, then we must work to find ways to 1) repatriate non-Europeans to their ancestral lands, exactly as Europeans resident in and often born into former Third World colonies were made to return to Europe following the decolonization period of the mid-20th century, and then 2) increase our national fertility to generational replacement levels. We may also need to increase spending for military preparedness in the expected event of nonwhite anger and attempted military/terrorist reprisals." My point is to emphatically reject any sort of "Mosleyist" / [i]European Action[/i]-style, or French / Continental New Right, non-racial nationalism. The white race is the foundation of Europe and the West. I will subordinate all of my regular, conservative/libertarian ideological preferences in order to secure a future for that race and civilization. But I'll be damned if I'm going to embrace a nationalism that is silent about race; that thinks the "threat" of American hamburgers is comparable to Muslim mosques; and that is more wedded to protecting stagnant industries and bloated pensions from neo-liberal globalization and market discipline, than to resurrecting the ancient synthesis of Greco-Roman rationality and Christian metaphysics which defined our civilization for centuries if not millenia, and under which white men and culture reached their greatest efflorescence. My own "biological Occidentalism" is the correct approach to all these matters.
10765350311300144798[i]Silver, I think you may be wasting your efforts debating the likes of Leon Haller. I’m beginning to suspect that he may be just a loquacious troll. For all his talk of mono-racial bonhomie and the benefits ethnic purity, he’s described himself as a childless 40-something who lives in multi-cult ground-zero and who dates non-white women. And despite his burgher’s paunch and friar’s tonsure, he and the other grizzled old warhorses still saddle up and go “clubbing”, preferring to spend their time chasing a last fleeting whiff of unctuous young fanny rather than engaging in ethno-positive activities or actually setting about the challenging task of making more white people. For people like him, supporting the “white race” is great in theory, just not in practice. Such as these will curse the brown soup all while their chin whiskers are yet stained with it.[/i] (Randy Garver) ------------------- This is a propagandistic masterpiece - so full of lies, exaggerations, unwarranted inferences, and poor vocabulary (after searching your Thesaurus for "tonsure", you should have checked your dictionary for "unctuous") that it would take pages to deconstruct. But would it be worth a serious man's time to do so? Not really. It is strange, however, for a white man who has produced nonwhite children to criticize another white man for his failure to produce white children. Surreal. I further note that I live/work in "multicult ground-zero" because this is [i]my home[/i], you rootless and deracinated liberal. I was born in Orange County, was educated back East, worked there for a bit, have lived in different parts of California, and subsequently have returned to my native locale. Why the fuck shouldn't I? Just because millions of unwanted immigrants like your wife have been allowed to invade and colonize my homeland, therefore I, the native son of the soil, have to move out to Utah or Indiana to make room for them and their miscegenator spouses and mongrel offspring?! Why don't you and yours move to China? I have dated some nonwhite women. So what? They're here (and in such damnable droves, which I have been loudly opposing for over 30 years, since grade-school; the part of OC where I grew up was all-white back in the 70s, and even well into the 80s; it still isn't [i]too[/i] nonwhite). I have dated many more white women. Re marriage, I happen to have high standards, morally and intellectually, even more than aesthetically. It's not easy to find a good white woman around here. Hot, yes, but in terms of solid ideological values, very rare. I also have too much self-respect to do the mail-order bride thing (my Russian minx was already a naturalized American citizen for a couple of years by the time I had met her) .... As for my paunch, well, Randy, see how flat your stomach is when you hit your 40s. Of course, again I have high standards. I've never been called fat, and for a while after college I did work as a bouncer, albeit at a fairly tame club. It gets ever harder to stay lean as one ages. Let's be more accurate and say I am "muscular/slightly overweight", shall we? 20lbs extra out of 6'3"/240lbs isn't too much. (To give a better perspective, at my gym I use the Cybex chest press, which I think is harder than the bench, pound for pound, for pecs in lieu of benching, so I don't need to waste time with a spotter; I do higher reps, lower weights than in the past - as one ages, one must gradually become more physically moderate - right now I do reverse pyramids of 12-15 reps with 245-225-215lbs, although I have 36-7 sleeve size.) And I wouldn't criticize my looks. What do you look like? What is your ht/wt? body fat %? Twice when I was in my 20s I was approached unsolicitedly by scouts inquiring if I wanted to do some part-time male modeling. One worked for an agency, the other for Macy's (an American department store chain). I did go for the Macy's audition, but was not subsequently hired. I also went to the agency, but the staff was so full of queers, some of whom looked like they had AIDS (this was in 1990, when the media were still predicting that AIDS was about to explode into the general population), that I made some excuse about 'feeding the meter', and hightailed it out of there. I'm not young any more, and I would be laughed out of an agency, unless I completely slimmed down and did the shaved head look, but I suspect I could still pick up more "fanny" as you call it (white men who actually 'get some' call it 'pussy') than you ever could, today or in your prime. And given the quality of my commentary as compared to your own, where do you get off calling me a "troll"? What would that make you - a Viking?
10767650311300209800[i]I’ve no fear whatsoever that my American citizen wife and native born children are going to be moved anywhere against their will. It’s the implausibility of Leon’s plans which I criticize, and the distracting nature of such fantasy. Invasion of Ecuador? Come on now. That’s just silly[/i]. (Randy Garver) I don't think you're wife and kids should be expatriated. America, though built by whites, is not an ancient white nation. While we were under no moral obligation to open our gates to the Third World, it would not be just to deport those who came here lawfully, under our own insane rules, at least if they are not criminals - outside of a context in which whites were in imminent danger of actual extermination, as opposed to our current, merely self-inflicted dispossession, by in-country nonwhite groups (eg, our native blacks), in which case anything goes, and it's every race for itself. I'm not pleased about this, and some will plausibly say that I am allowing my essential (if modernist/liberal) Christianity to get in the way. So be it. My fathers were good, Christian men, and at least ethically (if not always in terms of social mores), so am I. I am not positive that God and the soul exist, but I think there is enough of a possibility of such that I err morally on the side of Christian obligation, properly understood - as I believe, and will some day try to demonstrate, I do understand it. I would not engage in, nor advocate, acts which cannot be justified in light of genuine Christian ethics (which, it must be emphasized, are neither liberal nor suicidal). My impression is that Hamish is from Europe, and there the situation is completely different, morally as well as historically. Europe is not a New World, a sparsely inhabited frontier continent. It has been settled by Aryans, and no other human race, since pre-history. It is the moral property of whites, and theirs alone (especially as it also produced a high civilization, unlike blacks in Africa, or Amerindians in America). That millions of nonwhites were encouraged by domestic elites to enter the white homelands, and then were forcibly integrated with / imposed on disempowered historic ethnonations, is itself an act of near-genocide; certainly, of world historical treason. It is perfectly morally acceptable to demand the return of the historic status quo; that those whose very presence is racially, socially and culturally destructive return to their real countries forthwith, regardless of naturalization or even birth status. Nonwhites in Europe are [i]colonizers[/i], no different from the British in India, or the French in Indochina, in earlier periods. Many Brits at one time had been born in India, but no one thought them Indian. And they and all other Europeans were made to go 'home'; ie, what we all knew were their real national homes, even if some of them, eg, Rhodesians, had been born and lived their entire lives 'overseas'. Europe has a moral right (I'd add 'duty') to survive, and that survival requires apartheid. Of course, the race aliens should be allowed the option of unmolested departure, and even removal of personal property. But any who resist their removal reveal themselves as the conquerors they in fact are, and should then be treated as enemy soldiers, and disposed of accordingly. As to the alleged implausibility of my plans, which you have again misstated, they are in fact the likely only game in town. I'm not happy about that. I want Europeans to rise up in nationalist rebellions, hang their traitors, and then move for mass deportations. I think that such rebellions either won't happen, or will take place under such weakened conditions as to fail. [i]How then will our race endure if we have been reduced to national minorities in all countries?[/i] We won't. We will disappear either through mass exterminations, or, more likely, miscegenationist pressures (followed by extermination of the racially recalcitrant whites left at the end). Our only option is a white (and even WN) majority state. A sovereign polity for our people, to ensure their survival. What is so silly about that? There is a country which perfectly fits that description today. It is Israel, the Jewish homeland. In 50 years, what nation will be the "white Israel"? There won't be one, unless it, too, shall be artificially, self-consciously created (again, as with Israel). That is what I am proposing. So then the only issue is what country can serve as the white Zion. I'm not going to rehash my arguments here. Suffice it to say, we will have to 'conquer' one, exactly as the Arabs are conquering France, through demographics. Racially conscious whites will have to 'in-gather' somewhere small enough in current population to have an impact, but still a sovereign nation (so that we can militarize ourselves appropriately). I have proposed Australia as first choice, Uruguay (not Ecuador, fool!) as second. What is our alternative? Every WN over-reproduce? [i]That[/i] is silly! As Hamish points out, the numbers just aren't there. Whites must have a majority polity. Possibly we could try to adopt the Jewish diasporic strategy (what an amazing historical irony that would be !!!!!!!), but I don't think whites have sufficient group clannishness to prevent miscegenation over thousands of years. Plus, I think we will eventually be forced to miscegenate (ie, nonwhites will forcibly marry white women, either by means of sub-legal threats, or perhaps majoritarian political coercion). Don't confuse empirical predictions with personal preferences. I hope France gets to be French again, instead of a future colony of the Maghreb. But I'm not hopeful that will come to pass. Finally, on this subject of marriage that you brought up, when did I ever say I opposed getting married myself? I would like to get married someday. I've just been taking my time about it, as have so many persons across the West (the more who effectively decide to delay marriage, the harder for someone who wants to marry young to do so). Plus, it's been very difficult for me to find the right partner, obviously. You can never blame someone for being unmarried or childless unless you know that person's special circumstances. Anyway, I may ultimately be far more valuable to the white cause as a childless scholar/writer/activist, than as someone tied down to a family.
10767750311300212028Randy, Our comments crossed each other. Please note that I never originally condemned you for marrying exogamously (go check past threads). I save my ire for those who created the conditions within which exogamy becomes more likely. At the individual level, you should marry whomever you fall for. Life's short. Your argument that I am implicitly hypocritical for not being a white man with children fails unless it could be shown that I had reasonable options for this, but declined them in order to chase nonwhite females. That is all so untrue in my case. I did not even think about marriage before my early 30s (almost none of my friends and peers did; that's just my generation and younger of white, urban Californians). In the past dozen years I have literally not been able to find a woman who was: merely average looking (or better); white; highly intelligent (I've dated mentally mediocre girls; I could not marry one, for basic psychological reasons); and at least politically conservative (racialist is too much to hope for). I am not shallow. I am totally willing to sacrifice on female looks, which isn't easy, as I have a more than ordinary attachment to good-looking women, and have dated several (which tends to deflate still further the less attractive ones). But I cannot sacrifice on brains and ideology - I would be too unhappy (and divorce would not be good for any kids). As for my colonization, last-ditch option, what is your better idea? Embark on massive pro-white natalist campaigns? By all means, I encourage it. But it is infinitely easier to wake people up on immigration, than to get them to change their most personal behaviors for some rarefied cause like saving the white race. Really, who's the fantasist?
10769350311300278523Thorn, Thanks for the vote of confidence. I comment to blow off some quick steam. What I really want to do is get myself to a professional situation where I can write full-time on these and related matters from a much more scholarly perspective. Though the 'nationalist minimum' - stopping immigration - is obvious to everyone, I think the paradigm as a matter of philosophy (metaphysics, ethics, politics) is in need of a great deal of theoretical development, and would ultimately prefer to work on that end. Someday ...
10766050371300173984Very disturbing reading, assuming it is all true. One of the ingenious aspects of the communist movement was its ability to sow discord, disorientation and fear - a big part of how Stalin maintained his dictatorship, as it had fairly little popular support, at least before WW2. When "whom can one trust" becomes a major concern, a movement is in trouble. That said, I return to my perennial point. Britain, and other European nations, require single-issue anti-immigration parties (not America, however; with our own state-monopoly entrenched duopoly, this wouldn't work). They must dabble in nothing else but ending immigration, using whatever rhetoric is deemed most useful at any given moment: national security, cultural loss, overpopulation, threat of infectious disease, budgetary overstretch, etc. The party must start out with a constitution of sorts, outlining what is acceptable for officials to say publicly - overstepping of which would lead to expulsion. Then the party must set out to recruit the most ethically and culturally attractive and professional persons possible. Such persons in the British context must be as normal and conventional as possible, even to the extent of espousing various elite-approved platitudes about 'tolerance' and similar rubbish. They must only be unyielding on immigration, which in turn must be described as bad for the present generation of British people, without necessarily making any reference to race, nation, etc. The point is to give Britons the opportunity to vote for a party which is highly simplified and unthreatening, except to immigration fanatics. A single-issue party would also force the opposition to debate immigration. On that glorious day when immigration is finally ended, the party can hold a convention to debate its next set of concerns.
10769250371300277934I am copying part of a comment of mine from another thread, as that one is petering out, and this section seems apposite here. Re nationalist party matters, stances, etc: As long as any European politician says the following, I am with them: “I seek to preserve forever my nation and civilization, the foundation of which, that which begins national distinctiveness, is, as for any nation or civilization, race. All European nations are white nations. They are not compatible with nonwhites, who, merely by virtue of their biology, can never be racially, or even culturally, assimilated, except, wrt the latter, superficially and fleetingly. Therefore, as a matter of supreme national security, nonwhite immigration, legal and illegal, must be halted. Achieving this supersedes all other issues. Once an immigration moratorium has been legislated, and the illegals deported, then we must work to find ways to 1) repatriate non-Europeans to their ancestral lands, exactly as Europeans resident in and often born into former Third World colonies were made to return to Europe following the decolonization period of the mid-20th century, and then 2) increase our national fertility to generational replacement levels. We may also need to increase spending for military preparedness in the expected event of nonwhite anger and attempted military/terrorist reprisals.” Surely all who presume to call themselves 'nationalists' can agree on this minimal platform. My point is to emphatically reject any sort of “Mosleyist” / European Action-style, or French / Continental New Right, non-[i]racial[/i] nationalism. The white race is the foundation of Europe and the West. I would subordinate all of my regular, conservative/libertarian ideological preferences in order to secure a future for that race and civilization. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to embrace, even if from afar, a nationalism that is silent about race; that thinks the “threat” of American hamburgers is comparable to Muslim mosques; and that is more wedded to protecting stagnant industries and bloated pensions from neo-liberal globalization and market discipline, than to resurrecting the ancient synthesis of Greco-Roman rationality and Christian metaphysics which defined our civilization for centuries if not millenia, and under which white men and their culture reached their apogee. Which BNP factions are sound on race? Are there any self-styled British nationalists who think it appropriate for nonwhites to be considered and treated as British? Any successor to the BNP must be totally opposed to any nonwhite immigration as a public minimum. Stopping immigration should be the main element in the party's agenda, as well as the only 'extremist' one. Imagine a BNP2 that is very mainstream, perhaps slightly Tory mainstream, in all of its positions, from the budget to foreign policy to education to unemployment, etc; which never mentions Jews, Nazis, Holocausts, race and IQ studies, past 'extremist' parties, etc; whose leaders and spokesmen all speak fluent, non-colloquial English, groom and dress 'business class', and have conventional, un-scandalous personal lives ... and whose leaders are relentless in discussing, in calm and measured tones, the catastrophe of contemporary immigration. Couldn't such a party make some serious electoral headway? I bet it could.
10769850371300291561[i]Stick to posting screeds ontis site Leon. Leave the politics to people whose live in Britain and whose idea of populist politics in British society does not derive from the Hitler, sorry History Channel[/i]. (LJB) Before I dispatch you, Mr. Barnes, I'll give you a chance to explain yourself. 1. Do you agree or disagree, in whole or in part, with the following? [i]“I seek to preserve forever my nation and civilization, the foundation of which, that which begins national distinctiveness, is, as for any nation or civilization, race. All European nations are white nations. They are not compatible with nonwhites, who, merely by virtue of their biology, can never be racially, or even culturally, assimilated, except, wrt the latter, superficially and fleetingly. Therefore, as a matter of supreme national security, nonwhite immigration, legal and illegal, must be halted. Achieving this supersedes all other issues. Once an immigration moratorium has been legislated, and the illegals deported, then we must work to find ways to 1) repatriate non-Europeans to their ancestral lands, exactly as Europeans resident in and often born into former Third World colonies were made to return to Europe following the decolonization period of the mid-20th century, and then 2) increase our national fertility to generational replacement levels. We may also need to increase spending for military preparedness in the expected event of nonwhite anger and attempted military/terrorist reprisals.”[/i] 2. Why exactly would a party conducting itself as I describe immediately below [i]not[/i] make electoral headway? And how do you equate this with Hitler? Is stopping immigration equivalent to embracing Nazism? Are you a leftist? [i]Any successor to the BNP must be totally opposed to any nonwhite immigration as a public minimum. Stopping immigration should be the main element in the party’s agenda, as well as the only ‘extremist’ one. Imagine a BNP2 that is very mainstream, perhaps slightly Tory mainstream, in all of its positions, from the budget to foreign policy to education to unemployment, etc; which never mentions Jews, Nazis, Holocausts, race and IQ studies, past ‘extremist’ parties, etc; whose leaders and spokesmen all speak fluent, non-colloquial English, groom and dress ‘business class’, and have conventional, un-scandalous personal lives ... and whose leaders are relentless in discussing, in calm and measured tones, the catastrophe of contemporary immigration.[/i] 3. What issue do you think is more important to Britain than ending immigration, such that [i]it[/i] should be the primary focus of a successor to the BNP? 4. What is the purpose of a nationalist party, if not to defend the nation from immigration-conquest by racial aliens?
10779650371300700270Mr. Barnes's cultural nationalism is deeply confused, as least as he has explained it above. I wish this thread hadn't died out, or that I'd responded earlier. Next time I notice him expounding on this nonsense, I will demonstrate its inanity. Of course, most of what I do write goes either unnoticed or misunderstood, so perhaps I won't.
10775650391300514676Mr. Baron, like so many neo-liberals, is deeply confused - but then, so are many of the respondents. The free market is the most efficient wealth generating, and fairest wealth allocating, mechanism. But corporations exist within a larger framework of competitor nations, civilizations, and races, as well as biological and ultimate ecological constraints, which themselves cannot be analysed by mere microeconomic measures. [I wish I could access my old comments on this site, as I have explained all this before here.] As Notus Wind has properly explicated here at MR, China's recent economic successes have been in some part due to short term exploitation of their natural environment, both in terms of renewable and non-renewable resource depletion, as well as environmental pollution (though we shouldn't exaggerate this eco-parasitism, as I believe NW did). Much of China's success is also due to their essentially fascist economy. That is, they have sought, with considerable success, to combine capitalist calculational efficiencies, the real source of capitalism's success [i]as a system[/i] (the real sources of the West's past economic supremacy were its relatively high racial IQ, especially disproportionate at the "genius end"; relative lack of centralized governments, at least compared to much of the rest of the planet; emphasis on individual worth as well as worldly achievement (which may be a source of weakness in a globalized age); development of science, the mother of the Industrial Revolution; martial supremacy, leading to successful white acquisition of new territories, as well as colonialist exploitation of nonwhite territorial resources; and of course, capitalism itself), with central state direction of capital allocation. Consider how powerful this system could be if applied even to today's multiracial (and thus less efficient) America. First, we tell the enviro wackos to get lost, and proceed to exploit the hell out of our natural resources, with no concern either for ultimate sustainability, or current pollution. We develop and utilize our enormous coal resources; build nuclear power plants; drill everywhere we can for oil; and put profits before people's health. That alone would hugely increase our real GDP, at least in the short term. Second, we basically force consumers to save enormous amounts of their incomes. How the Chinese do so is more complicated than I either [i]fully[/i] comprehend, or could explain here. The Chinese economy is very complex, even though ultimately all key decisions are made by the CCP. In essence, the party creates conditions for artificially high savings rates (ie, a savings rate beyond what Chinese workers themselves could be expected to choose under a reasonably free, consumer society), and then does not allow for very much capital to be allocated to the production (or foreign import) of consumer goods. The CCP has obviously made a collective decision to force their workers to place industrial expansion ahead of their own material quality of life. Imagine if we did this in America. That is, if government forced everybody to save even 20% of their incomes (I've seen some estimates suggesting that Chinese save as much as 40% of their incomes, and this from an income level a fraction of that enjoyed by Americans and Britons), while directing the bulk of that accumulated capital to be put into industrial expansion, instead of into basic quality of life services for the people (like health care, education, housing, environmental protection) - and all the while making it difficult for the people themselves to 'waste' money on frivolities, consumer pleasantries, vacations, leisure activities, etc. Just think about how much money Americans spend on entertainment, health care, general education (a total waste from an economic standpoint), maximal environmental protection, ski vacations, interior decorating, oversized homes, fashionable clothing, hi-tech "unnecessities", etc [i]ad infinitum[/i]. And then imagine all the monies so spent being ploughed into export-oriented industrial manufacturing, which itself is done in dirty, dangerous ways, where there are few to zero occupational safeguards, as in Mao's "Worker's Paradise". (It goes without saying that the Chinese don't waste money and energy on endless civil litigation of all types, anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action for low IQ races, etc.) You don't think the US would start kicking serious economic ass? I don't advocate this track, at least not [i]in toto[/i]. I like environmental protection, and a decent quality of consumer life. On the other hand, we definitely need a lot of change, or, under the status quo, we will continue our economic and ultimately strategic descent (this quite apart from the racial disaster). There is no mystery to Chinese success, or to Western decline. The Chinese did it for themselves (though they were able to parasite off mostly Western-originated and developed industrial and commercial practices, which we could have exploited to ensure white domination of the planet [b][i]forever[/i][/b], except that we were undone by collective racial hubris and stupidity, in the form of the world wars, Judeo-Bolshevism in the East, Judeo-Menshevism in the West, and our partly liberal/Enlightenment, partly Jewish, and partly Christian inspired racial self-abnegation, which is now reaching lethal/suicidal proportions). The West did it to themselves.
10785350391300970806Posted by Helvena on March 22, 2011, 03:12 AM | # [i]“The free market is the most efficient wealth generating, and fairest wealth allocating, mechanism.” - Yes that’s the favorite line of MBA programs, probably thought up at the University of Chicago. It all works so beautifully on paper but I’ve never seen it work in the real world. Was the free market working when China refused to unpeg the yuan from the dollar? By keeping the yuan artificially cheap against the dollar, China made its imports more attractive for U.S. consumers while making U.S. exports to China more costly.[/i] I wonder if Helvena even bothered to read the rest of my comment. She certainly didn't understand it. (Currency manipulation has little to do with the free market, btw.) This portion of my comment is extremely important: [i]The free market is the most efficient wealth generating, and fairest wealth allocating, mechanism. But corporations exist within a larger framework of competitor nations, civilizations, and races, as well as biological and ultimate ecological constraints, which themselves cannot be analysed by mere microeconomic measures... China’s recent economic successes have been in some part due to short term exploitation of their natural environment, both in terms of renewable and non-renewable resource depletion, as well as environmental pollution (though we shouldn’t exaggerate this eco-parasitism). Much of China’s success is also due to their essentially fascist economy. That is, they have sought, with considerable success, to combine capitalist calculational efficiencies, the real source of capitalism’s success as a system &#40;the real sources of the West’s past economic supremacy were its relatively high racial IQ, especially disproportionate at the “genius end”; relative lack of centralized governments, at least compared to much of the rest of the planet; emphasis on individual worth as well as worldly achievement (which may be a source of weakness in a globalized age&#41;; development of science, the mother of the Industrial Revolution; martial supremacy, leading to successful white acquisition of new territories, as well as colonialist exploitation of nonwhite territorial resources; and of course, capitalism itself), with central state direction of capital allocation.[/i] Thus, of course, it goes unremarked by the [i]hoi polloi[/i] ...
10781150401300765458Thunder, There can be no "retirement" from the struggle. European man has not been so threatened since the immediate end of WW2, and maybe since the time of Tamerlane. If you have satisfied your and your family's material welfare, then full engagement with the forces of racial dispossession must be the next order of business. And that's a tall order ...
10785150401300970135Thunder, I understood you, but was just making a general point. I have often felt that racial activism is really for the young and old, the former have passion and time, the latter, time plus a desire to leave things a bit better for those coming up, so to speak. People in their primes just usually can't find the time. Anyway, good luck, and enjoy yourself. Spitting in the eye of our occupiers is really tremendously satisfying, I've always felt.
10786250421301041792[i]Both Wilders and Marine are also psych-operations - directed from both sides[/i]. (Grimoire) Please descend from Olympus, and explain exactly what is meant by "psych-op", as well as how you know this to be the case. Is the implication that 'hidden hands' from afar are manipulating Arab unrest? If so, this would merely provoke further questions: how? and why only now, and not at points past? Revolutionary movements are no mystery, at least theoretically. First, the old situation is rendered mentally (intellectually, morally, ideologically) indefensible. Then, some incident occurs which raises a sufficient number of persons to such a pitch of either anger or courage that the old repressive measures are suddenly inadequate. Finally, the regime in power is either unable to develop or unwilling to deploy new measures of repression sufficient to quell the inflamed populace. I don't think that what is happening in the Arab world will be transferable to Europe just yet. The Arab case is a simple delegitimization of the autocratic regimes there, coupled with the use of new communication technologies to facilitate and embolden mass demonstrations against them. The roots of the Arab unrest lay in huge and increasingly visible disparities of wealth; surging youth populations, with a surprisingly large university-educated component; stagnant economies with massive unemployment, and few prospects for meritocratic self-improvement; and the penetration of European-originated liberal and democratic egalitarian 'ideals' into ever more remote places (I do not mean to endorse those ideals, either politically or ethically, nor suggest that they were the inevitable or sole outcome of Western intellectual evolution; merely, that they tap into deep and trans-racial currents of envy and desire permanently latent in the human psyche). Will there be analogous "national revolutions" in Europe? One hopes so, but the probability is not good. The raw material situation for the average European is not nearly what it is for the "Arab street". The possibility of individual economic improvement is infinitely greater. Europeans have the illusion of democratic self-government already. Moreover, what keeps nationalists from majoritarian acceptance - passionate empirical disagreement about the assimilability of nonwhites to European national folk cultures, and norms and patterns of morality and behavior - is far more intellectually embedded among our own masses than any apologia that Arab autocracies can plausibly offer. What was the moral or practical justification for assenting to continued rule by Mubarak or any of the Gulf sheiks, let alone Assad or Qaddafi? But standing athwart the nationalist and power is the steel battlement of "anti-racism", itself made up of the very strong substances of "human brotherhood", "equality", past "injustices" and their alleged present effects, etc. Asking men to give up on all those things, especially when they are constantly promoted by and through elites who benefit in very identifiable ways from the economies and societies resulting from acceptance of such platitudes, is not nearly as easy as merely denouncing regimes whose parasitic relationship to their own governed is obvious even to women and children.
10786550421301042603[i]Where Hamilton with his unpredicatability thesis and Marine with her pre-revolutionary situation differ is on the question of time. Nationalists know something about revolution. We have been thinking on the problem for a long while. We understand that the opposing tectonic plates on which our lives are lived out - racial community and individualism/economism - move at certain moments, and not necessarily with the peaceful results for which Marine appeals. The American Civil War was perhaps the classic example. The rise of Hilter and NSDAP was another. The Kosovo War was the most recent. [/i](GW) This paragraph is unintelligible to me. Please elaborate. I fail to see how these three examples (US Civil War, Nazis, Kosovo) are related, at least to the tension between race/nation and individual/economy.
10786650421301043215LaRouchites at MR? I once saw a LaRouche flier stipulating the Queen Elizabeth was involved in drug-running. Never, never poison the well of national preservation with intellectual extremism. Ideological, certainly; indeed, even by definition we are ideological extremists (ie, we reject the hegemonic ideology of anti-racism). Being so means we must be that much more vigilant against associating our cause with grandiose theories and unsupported, unlikely or outlandish claims. Our strategy must be to coopt as much of mainstream conservative discourse as possible into both our thinking and public pronouncements, while ceaselessly pointing out that true conservatives must be racial nationalists; that conservatism begins at the level of the gene, and thus that "colorblind conservatism" is hardly conservative at all.
10787450421301070367[i]Not a word about the obvious fact that people increasingly like each other and are increasingly related to each other (which has the effect of lessening psychological resistance/making it more difficult, even when one is attracted to “traditionalist” views). Leon Haller’s brain seems to be stuck in 1982 when so much of all this was still new.[/i] (Silver) Silver, Sometimes I agree with you, but often I find your positions, to the extent they are expressed intelligibly (as the above comment was not), simply empirically wrong. You also are prone to misunderstanding the central import of my remarks in light of their various contexts. Here I was not discussing whether whites have become more comfortable with nonwhites, but whether we can expect some kind of Euro-folkish uprisings analogous to what has been happening in the Arab world. I did not mention people increasingly 'liking' each other (meaning whites liking nonwhites), because that is not particularly the case, even for whites (nonwhites may like this or that individual white, but get them to 'unload' on whites [i]qua[/i] whites, and virtually any large sampling of them will constitute little but a mass of seething anti-white resentments). Yes, some whites are hysterical anti-racists. They possess evolutionarily maladaptive psyches, and will be either reeducated, expatriated or exterminated in the course of or after any nationalist revolution(s). Most whites, however, go along with their own dispossession for many reasons, from fear to apathy to ignorance to (false) morality. Nationalist intellectuals challenge and try to change racial ignorance (the egalitarian falsehoods spread about race), as well as beliefs about the alleged immorality of white preservation (specifically, of using the coercive power of the state to ensure race preservation, even against some white persons' non-aggressive wishes), through education. We deal with apathy by fear-mongering - pointing out how bad life is going to get if we allow ourselves to be turned into defenseless minorities in our own homelands. We deal with fear by forming organizations to bind like-thinking persons together. I do not believe that most whites support their racial dispossession because of their personal positive feelings toward nonwhites. If that were so majorities might not register opposition to (implicitly nonwhite) immigration. Whites would also not avoid [i]en masse[/i] nonwhite dominated living areas, schools and activities. I think the most accurate assessment is that whites, especially in Europe, tolerate immigrants, but don't particularly want them. That nationalist parties cannot make headway based on this issue, especially outside of the US with its unique and limiting duopolistic political system, is a cause for great wonder - though I continue to think that a large part of the reason is precisely because they tend to attract mentally unstable persons (very much including here at MR; even many of those whom I like and certainly view as comrades in arms do not strike me as normal in the way that I am; hence the extraneous and irrelevant obsessions, non-standard dress, often odd manners of articulation, general inability to distinguish the central from the peripheral, and so forth). And this is so for very complex reasons, which I grasp at least in part (though not yet to my own satisfaction), but their essence is twofold, implicating both thought and action: 1) most whites at some often unarticulated mental level think white racism is morally wrong; and 2) a 'system' has evolved whereby the most talented persons in Western societies are professionally rewarded in part to the extent they shy away from racial truth. What kind of man is going to go against the race-liberal [i]zeitgeist[/i]? Either a professional inferior, who has little to lose through involvement with disreputable activities, or a truly superior man of far reaching intellect and great strength of character. The problem is that we continue not to attract enough of the latter (though as the objective racial situation worsens, the quality of nationalist leadership is improving, at least on the Continent). I believe this is the case because too many whites cannot fathom the essential morality of our position. And that is so because the morality of racial coercion to ensure racial preservation has not yet, in my opinion, been fully developed. This is the chief theoretical task for nationalists, and the area to which I am applying myself (though I remain still in the research phase). The empirical truth is that many whites exist in a condition of racial doublethink (per Orwell). Personally, they don't particularly like nonwhites in their lives (despite being far more open to cross-racial fraternization than other races). But psychologically (really morally) they can't bring themselves to cross the mental barrier of acknowledging that race matters, and that they would prefer that other races just didn't interact with them. For reasons I myself only recognize, but cannot really fathom, whites uniquely possess some incredibly deep reservoir of egalitarianism that makes them gullible in the face of liberal/individualist antiracism (not, however, the antiwhite 'antiracism' of the white self-hating and nonwhite Far Left, which gets little traction with most whites, even liberal ones). Obviously, my empirical 'take' can be legitimately and endlessly disputed, precisely because humans, especially in advanced societies, are variegated. Historians and social theorists can only capture broad trends. We all know someone who is this way, another that way. Re miscegenation, I have discussed the dangers of that repeatedly here at MR, including in 2011. Go back and scroll through the last few months of posts, and you will find plenty of my comments on the subject.
10787650421301072189GW, I understand and accept the dichotomy between racial communitarianism and liberal hyper-individualism and idolatry of [i]homo economicus[/i]. I'm less sure that that tension had much to do with the US Civil War, Nazism or the Kosovo intervention. Maybe I'm failing to see your point. Re the Civil War, we need to beware of the excessive, [i]ex post facto[/i] rationalizations imposed from all sides. The South was not so devoid of economic considerations, and the North was hardly a paradise of multiculti correctness. There is a whole literature on how Lincoln blundered into the war, which was fought primarily over the preservation of the Union, and not slave emancipation, which only a small percentage of whites cared about (though later generations of liberals had to find 'meaning' in the immense carnage, and came to choose that one - which also intersected nicely with the propaganda swirling around WW2, the rise of social Gospel Christianity, accelerating Jewish media control, Democrat political considerations, etc). Hitler arose through various political machinations. His popularity was mainly based on a real fear of (Jewish) communist subversion, resentments from WW1, economic disaster, and his own superlative political and rhetorical abilities. Kosovo was a NWO action. It was an exercise of raw globalist power against a small and traditionalist white country. The liberal ideology of the Clinton/Blair types was obviously the driving factor. There was little economic gain or motive, as far as I can tell. I was not thinking philosophically, but historically, when I made my statement above.
10800250421301493913Posted by Dasein on March 25, 2011, 09:31 PM | # though I remain still in the research phase [i]Leon, Are you familiar with Alasdair MacIntyre? I’m only familiar with him from secondary sources, but I think you’d find his work suits your worldview as you’ve sketched it here. He’s a Thomistic Catholic, sometimes referred to as a post-modern rightist.[/i] Dasein, Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. It is dead-on, but painful! I have 5 books by MacIntyre - all as yet unread!! So, so much work to do. As I have mentioned in private correspondence to GW, I am torn between moving in several different directions. I want a better academic background (ie, I feel inadequate without a PhD; specifically, I want to publish at least one uncontroversial academic book - necessary theoretical background to the later and more important Racial Ethics stuff - and want the doctorate as as 'gateway opening' credential; it also gives intellectuals a lot more credibility, in academic as well as media work). But I also have an idea as well as several interested parties, a couple of whom have serious wealth, to begin building an American nationalist activist organization, one which is much less extreme than A3P, indeed, not formally racist or WN at all, as most forms of WN simply repel many conservatives, most of whom are Christian, but which will seek to develop a sense of righteous victimhood and racial persecution on the part of white Americans, as well as pursue a pro-white political agenda - even if it's never called "pro-white" (here is a bitter irony for WNs, which I understand and incorporate in my strategic thinking, but which many WNs disregard without offering realistic alternatives: in the US, the vast bulk of [i]racial conservatives[/i], that is, those whites most opposed to immigration, black crime, affirmative action, and multiculturalism, are believing Christians; white atheists, along with Jews, even when self-described 'conservatives', are generally much less attracted to the racial parts of the true conservative agenda). We need something, some type of pressure group, to unify whites around a moderate, anti-dispossessionist, white empowerment agenda - but which stays completely away from openly talking about race at all. I'm big on "implicit whiteness". I also believe that we are still several decades away from the time when an explicitly WN mass movement will be able to gain traction (this assumes no exceptional crises - though the response of a substantial minority of the white electorate in 2008 to the greatest financial crisis in modern times was to vote for a black neoMarxist - so please let us beware assuming that national crises necessarily advance nationalist goals). In the interim, between now and at least 2030, possibly longer, we need something in between conservatism and WN, something which shifts the focus of conservatism away from its relentless race-myopia, and prepares the ground for the coming WN of the second half of this century. So I want to be involved at both ends - the theoretical formulation side, and the practical implementation side (well, as activism - politicians who actually legislate the end of immigration, white persecution, etc, will be the true implementers). This is because, as I've asserted many times here, I think WN ethics is weak; I think reconceptualizing Western ethics to incorporate racial reality and accept nationalist objectives is pragmatically vital if we are going to win our struggle; but I also recognize that this is a race against time, given the colossal scale of the demographic tsunami. The world of primary thought moves slowly, even in the internet age. But we WNs had better start picking up the pace, or by the time a majority of our folk have finally been convinced of racial reality and the need for racial protective measures, we will be too scattered and few to impose our wills, politically or physically. "Ripening harvest / encroaching jungle", as I like to remind patriots.
10791250431301225013Haven't watched the video yet, though I saw some of this guy's outstanding rants in the past. Two comments re the commentary above: 1) Absent robust eugenics, carried out over several generations, I'd imagine, a Negro mass return to their historic Christian faith certainly[i] is[/i] the only solution to the moral regeneration of their race - and it is a real solution. Blacks in the American past have always had high rates of criminality. I recall once reading a judicial opinion from the New Jersey Supreme Court circa 1848, complaining that Negroes, who were alleged to make up less than 2% of the state population, were responsible for more than half the crimes. Some things never change ... On the other hand, the types of crimes being committed were not remotely like the savagery we have to deal with. And the overall black crime rate well into the mid-twentieth century was a fraction of what it is today. There are many reasons for the explosion of Negroid criminality, nearly all of them having something to do with left-liberalism. But there was a time when blacks were better behaved, and at that time Christianity was a far more influential force in their lives than at present. Christian 'rebirth' has improved the behavior of countless men over the centuries, and it should be actively encouraged among blacks (the larger society should also require sterilization of criminals, routine hangings, restoration of gun rights, surgically implantable contraceptives for welfare recipients, etc). 2) While I obviously agree with the notion that whites bear no responsibility for, or to have to tolerate, the moral inferiority of blacks, I find it curious that an evolutionary atheist (and worse - a possible denier of human free will) would even bother with words like "responsibility" in the first place. Even many (OK, [i]some[/i]) Christians recognize that evolution is seemingly blind to human moral constructs. In nature red in tooth and claw there is no morality, and thus from a naturalistic vantage, notions like "responsibility", "depravity", "what ought to be done", etc, are all unintelligible. This is the Achilles heel of all atheists who make any sort of public recommendations. Without God, nothing matters to me but me. I might behave well (there we go again, ineluctably smuggling old Christian moral language back into allegedly desacralized reality) towards my family or friends, but that is only because I am a social as well as selfish being, and my life is better with family and friends. But that is not really morality, the essence of which is sacrifice of one's desires or interests to benefit another, especially when there is no expectation of future reciprocity (it is thus less admirable for the single man to rescue the drowning supermodel than the plain Jane, for the latter action is presumably the more disinterested). As I've argued here previously, the problem atheist racialists face is that they want to rouse men to make sacrifices (which fighting for our race at this time certainly entails), but can give no real reason for doing so. Discussing EGI in such a context is worse than ludicrous. What matters to me is [i]my[/i] GI, and even that is already dangerously close to anthropomorphism. In a cosmos without extrinsic meaning, all that matters for individuals in fact is pursuit of pleasure, and avoidance of pain. Of course, seeing our race disrespected, dispossessed, and headed to extinction does cause psychic pain for some, and fighting back through racialist activism can be a source of personal satisfaction. But that pain/pleasure, cost/benefit analysis will not get rational men to make the kind of personal sacrifices that will be necessary really to save our race, anymore than it would be sufficient to get volunteers in wartime. Men make sacrifices when they believe in a morally ordered cosmos, in which human actions are eternally meaningful. Without that belief, men who sacrifice are less moral than merely confused.
10791350431301227345We all need to interact with the mainstream, as well as among ourselves in semi-private chat rooms like MR. I found the YouTube original, and posted this comment: "Please, people, isn't it obvious? As Larry Auster puts it, Blacks + Liberalism = Barbarism. Blacks cannot govern themselves or others because of their low ethics (low IQ doesn't help, either). The evil that liberals have done is to persuade blacks that they are just as good as whites, thus making them angry when their race never seems to meet white expectations. What would be best for blacks is if they were essentially reduced to having no say in the governing structures of their own lives - while also being subject to harsh criminal punishments if they get out of line. Then blacks can basically just work within their own spheres of competence, and otherwise enjoy lives free of larger responsibilities. Let the white man make the broader decisions for society. Let blacks have personal and economic, but again, not political, freedoms. They really would be happier as a race in the long run (though of course very few would admit it, perhaps even to themselves - but then women won't admit they prefer male control, either, but, as long as it's not abusive, they do)." This is uncharacteristically soft of me, I know. But sometimes it's best to tone it down slightly in purely public venues.
10800050441301489662Although it has not been [i]proven[/i], the generally accepted evolutionary hypothesis is [i]not[/i] that man evolved from apes, but from proto-human hominids. The apes represent a separate primate branch from humans. Similarly, whites did not evolve from blacks, if by the latter is meant the human ancestors of today's Africans. It is the mainstream understanding that all the races share a common pre-human ancestor, who undoubtedly, however, to modern eyes, would have more closely resembled a contemporary black than a white.
10800150441301489880For anyone familiar with the Russian original as well as English translation: Why is there a nearly 300 page discrepancy between the two editions? I hate abridgments.
10805750441301659093I have no particular affection for Russians, but we need them brought within the white fold (at least the genuine Slavs among them; I've met "Russians" who look more Turkic or Asiatic than white). Our numbers are few and declining; Russia still possesses immense untapped natural resources, which the overpopulated Chinese and sickeningly fecund Hindus, Persians, Pakistanis and Central Asiatics are doubtless all eyeing covetously; and most Russians I've met are of far tougher character than today's racial Nordics, who were drained of their last litre of Viking blood by the Europeans' modern Thirty Years War.
10805650451301657709Obviously, this is the key to Western survival: that it would be a colossal tragedy for all humanity if the white race goes extinct. Therefore, we have a moral right to do (almost) whatever is necessary to preserve ourselves - to a much greater degree than other races. But situating these claims within the Western/Christian tradition(s) of moral philosophy is, I assure all, a very large theoretical undertaking.
10805850451301660249Let me add that the target audience for WN ethical justifications is white people themselves. Nonwhites couldn't care less about white survival, even when not actively hostile to us. Moreover, they rarely think in terms of abstract justice, but only of (perceived) benefits to themselves, racially as well as individually. Western Man is Ethical Man, however, as I never tire of repeating. This is an empirical, not aspirational, claim. [It is inextricably related, moreover, to the very sources of our (modern) historic superiority.] Our people must be convinced of the morality of their utilizing coercion to ensure their racial survival. All racial science is finally useless if whites think that acting on its discoveries is wicked, as huge numbers of our brainwashed people do at present.
10807250451301691011[i]But as for the Anglo-Saxon nations, well, the US of A is quite frankly a write-off.Nothing will save it, things have gone too far for remedy,[/i] (Dirty Bull) Not exactly. The USA as presently configured will never again be the white nation it once was, and was intended to be. Officially, we are 65% white (223 million). But that number [i]still[/i] includes (after all the methodological complaints going back to the 90s!) a lot of Hispanics (beyond descendants of Spaniards), as well as [i]Arabs[/i] (and Jews). There are also some persons of mixed race heritage who nevertheless call themselves white (perhaps because the nonwhite admixture is less than 25%; I do not, however, exclude from the "white" category Old Stock Americans who properly classify themselves as white, despite having traces of Amerindian). So the US is now no more than 60% real white, and falling fast, not merely on account of continuing immigration, but, as The Narrator has pointed out, also because of the skewed age structure. But there are still about 175 million real whites (descendants of Christian Europeans; aka "Aryans") in the US. That is not a small number of whites to be sharing the same nationality. Is there another country containing as many whites? Moreover, the US may contain the largest number of rightist whites in the world (perhaps Russia contains more WNs) - many of whom are at least racially conservative, if not yet nationalist. One could easily imagine many of them becoming WN in the future as conditions worsen. Whites are still surviving, if barely, in South Africa, and even Rhodesia. Whites will live tolerable lives in the US for a good number of decades yet. It is Europe that is worrying. You (at least in Western Europe) are much ideologically weaker than white Americans, and you are being colonized by a far fiercer, more cohesive and determined enemy than we are. Hispanics lower the national quality, but they are not the vanguard of a wholly alien religion and civilization. Euronationalists have more to fear from Muslims - far more.
10809750451301746025How about a WN for libertarians, or, how stupid are those people?! Seriously. I'm going to post a little exchange I'm having over at mises.org. I like the Austrians, and consider myself a follower of Austrian micreconomics, at least as pure economic theory (unfortunately, libertarians sully good basic economics with unsupported philosophical claims). But in essence, most libertarians are nothing more than "free market liberals". The article I'm commenting on dealt with teens and jobs (nb: I was a bit tired and harried when writing these exchanges). (Also, I'm "Leon" because "Leon Haller" has been banned from the site - for my mere white racial conservatism, of course.) My comments have underlined headers. [u]Leon April 1, 2011 at 1:30 pm[/u] This article is veritably brilliant in its plain commonsense. But there is one enormous, complicating lacuna, at least wrt the issue of teen unemployment, and that is the deleterious effects of mass immigration (and re the teens, especially illegal immigration). Today’s immigration destroys American jobs. Theoretically, immigration could be good for the economy, if the people we allowed in were all highly successful entrepreneurs, or scientists, or just motivated persons of high mean IQ. This is not the case for the majority of immigrants today, who are mostly poor, uneducated, and of low mean IQ. Thus, even the ones who come here to work and not merely collect welfare (they all come here to vote socialist), are mostly unskilled, and therefore directly compete with (by definition) unskilled teens. There were lots of jobs for teens before the full effects of the immigration invasion’s artificial pumping up of the supply of labor came to be felt. All the other points (minimum wage, overscheduling parents, poor work ethic, etc) Jeff makes are valid. But changing all that will not have the desired effect if we keep giving employers the option of hiring adult immigrants. REPLY Inquisitor April 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm Abolish the welfare state, privatise everything and then teenagers and immigrants will compete on a marginally more even footing (I say this because the past interventions of the state disequilibriating competition between East and West are far-reaching.) REPLY [u]Leon April 1, 2011 at 6:01 pm[/u] Agreed, but this is the purest political fantasy imaginable. Ask overpaid unionized public employees to contribute 2% to their ‘platinum’ pension plans, and they stage street protests, if not riots. “Privatize everything”? How, exactly? Moreover, why exactly should teens have to compete on an even footing with foreigners? Why not just keep the foreigners OUT? REPLY Inquisitor April 1, 2011 at 9:33 pm ““Privatize everything”? How, exactly?” Is this a serious question? There’s loads of libertarian plans for privatisation. it isn’t a matter of “how” but if (i.e. whether it’s done before the total collapse of modern states.) They can protest all they fucking like, economic fundamentals are going to assert themselves in a very hard way soon enough. Why should people be kept out based on which arbitrary line’s side they’re on…? REPLY [u]Leon April 2, 2011 at 5:45 am[/u] I did not suggest that it was economically impossible to privatize everything, but my clear implication was that it was politically impossible to do so (and maybe even to reduce the state at all; we don’t know yet) at this time. Check out Wisconsin, and smell the reality. REPLY Anthony April 1, 2011 at 2:46 pm Leon, When my parents were growing up they worked on farms picking produce in the hot sun for (even in nominal terms) very little money. It is true that those types of jobs are generally occupied by migrant workers now, but do you know many teenagers who would be willing to do this type of work? I don’t. REPLY [u]Leon April 1, 2011 at 6:17 pm[/u] I was not thinking of farm work, which most teens would not do due to geographic reasons, as well as school schedules. I was thinking of paper deliveryman (what I did for a bit as a kid), fast food worker, summer construction, lawn mowing, etc (babysitting is still open to native-born girls, because you usually want someone you know, not off the street). In CA today, those positions are all overwhelmingly filled by adult Mexicans, often illegal. This is a very deep issue, one in which libertarianism is inadequate, at least given the political state of things. Radical free markets will tend to equalize wage rates everywhere. Mises makes that point in HUMAN ACTION. If we had open immigration, or even just open free trade and outsourcing, eventually wage rates for average Americans would fall to a global norm, while capitalists would become ever wealthier, as they can reap the profits of thus holding down or driving down the price of labor. This is what is destroying the middle and working classes in America, and no amount of libertarian theory can change that fact. Is this what people want, especially given the ubiquitous presence of the state in so many areas of our lives – so much of which could be abolished? It’s not what I want, nor I think most Americans. I say, let’s have a radically free internal market – but with strict state controls on both immigration and foreign trade. For the long term political health of the nation, we need a more equitable distribution of wealth, while ramping up economic growth through a domestic privatization and deregulation agenda, including Fed abolition. If we don’t do something like this, America will go down the road of an angry electorate turning to massive redistributionary taxation, whose prime beneficiary will not be private sector workers, but the state itself. REPLY Jim P. April 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm Now couldn’t you make exactly the same argument for keeping teenagers out of the workforce? Teenagers are low skill, low wage workers. They are badly or non-educated. They are poor. Many barely speak english and are socially retarded. Don’t they have most of the characteristics of immigrant workers? Except one thing – unlike immigrants, they’re completely inexperienced to boot. In both cases, their only potential asset to an employer is their low priced labor. And theoretically, wouldn’t scientists and engineers and professors, phone operators and dry cleaners and convenience store owners (ie, entrepreneurs) complain that the Indians are taking all their jobs? Oh wait, they already do say that. As you yourself identified, the only reason there is an immigration “problem” is that we have government vote buying programs (ie, welfare). That is a problem with government – not immigrants. There is nothing wrong with low priced labor for low skill jobs. That is exactly why kids find work at restaurants and mall stores, except that they are usually too lazy and timid to do the real hard work that Mexicans will do for the same price (lawn care, minor construction, farming, etc). Immigrants, whether legal or illegal since either is nothing but an arbitrary quota and a bureaucratic contrivance, are a great benefit to the economy overall. Good work at a low price. But only as long as they are supported on the free market. If I think a teenager or a Mexican does good lawn mowing, it doesn’t mean a damn thing to me if either of them has their proper paperwork in order. As a customer, not a politician, why on earth should I care where the mower is from? Either scenario is earned income for a job well done. If taxpayers are made to pay for immigrant kids, their medical care, and their food stamps, that is indeed a problem. But again, this is no different than native born Americans on welfare programs. Both are a burden by being on the public payroll, not because they are from here or there, or because they have a green card or a learners permit or a passport. It makes no difference where a person is born. Again, public welfare and political entitlement is the real problem. Lastly, If you support government telling employers who they should hire and why, you implicitly support minimum wage and keeping kids out of the workforce. A government that can limit immigrants can (and will) limit your own native-born kids for the same reasons. And this, neverminding the fact that government can’t possibly know what the “right” limits are for anything. Anything not based on actual need in the market, is simply a made up number by well paid “experts.” That is the road to central planning and socialism. REPLY [u]Leon April 1, 2011 at 6:35 pm[/u] Nonsense. The road to socialism has already been paved with nonwhite immigration. CA used to be fairly conservative, but is now the “bluest of blue” states. What changed was the electoral demography, due to massive immigration. If you study politics even rudimentarily, you quickly recognize that every nonwhite group in America votes heavily democrat/socialist (hence the liberty oriented Tea Party rallies were overwhelmingly white, as I saw firsthand – despite the ones I attended being in heavily majority-minority CA). You are living in a fantasyland of pure theory, forgetting that such a place does not describe America or any other actual country. We have a political system, and it’s not going away. Therefore, any improvements we would wish for must be made within that system. As it gets more dominated by artificially more numerous foreigners, it gets more leftist (including socialist). That domestic blacks and Jews are also socialist is irrelevant. Why add to the number of leftist voters already here? That is insane. Moreover, immigrants can, praxeologically, only be good for the economy if they are superior in economic quality to the native-born – as I implicitly noted originally. Otherwise, they are either a wash, or possibly an outright drain. Today’s immigrants are inferior to the native-born – in wealth, skills, education, and IQ. They don’t have to be - we could cherry pick immigrants, as many other Western countries do (not that I want any nonwhite immigrants, but if we’re going to let them into a nation they did not build, surely we can take the highest quality ones?!). But we don’t. We are being colonized and conquered by Mexico (and the Third World generally). And we the native born whites are paying for this colonization. REPLY Jim P. April 1, 2011 at 7:16 pm Now Leon, stick to what you actually know about the conversation here. You don’t know if I live in a “fantasyland of pure theory.” You made that part up the bolster your position, which I apparently disagree with. You blame immigrants for increasingly controlling the government that, frankly, you want others to control. You’re an authoritarian and you just want your gang to be in charge. Honestly, I don’t see the difference between you and the “nonwhite” immigrants. Call me colorblind – blue and red states are all the same thing to me. I think your position encourages Statism, which is the fight to control others using the power of the State. If you supported freedom, you wouldn’t try to use State power to get it. Cop-outs like “we have a political system, and it’s not going away” only apologizes for the inconsistency of thinking that you can use politics and voting to force freedom upon the nation. If that sounds extreme or “theoretical fantasyland” to you: you’ll never kill the weed without pulling up the root. The actual problem here is that we are each voting to try our best to control the other. Accepting political solutions as “what we have so there” will blind you to the limits of power. It is also not an appropriate counter to an argument that rejects politics a priori. Call me crazy, but I do not believe in the religion that the State can be used to solve problems by pointing a gun until it happens. That includes jobs and immigration – try as you might, you will never control it in your wildest dreams in “fantasyland.” And as for your bit about cherry picking, I addressed it already. But again: Leon doesn’t get to do the cherry picking. Leon doesn’t know whether we need more or less doctors or lawn mowers. But you’re assuming that politicians and experts know that. Again, which is the path of socialism and which is not? The market can choose who is valuable and who is not without overlords. REPLY Heather April 1, 2011 at 11:48 pm What a garbage post. Take your collectivism elsewhere. The sheer unworldliness of libertarians is amazing and dispiriting. I think it is another example of a profound problem with our race: the propensity to place ideology ahead of reality, or plain interest.
10814450451301921023[i]It’s the problem of pure reason. These libertarians are committed to a world of cold rationality (the theories of classical liberalism) that exists in their own minds only. They are incapable of feeling kinship with their biological community. Rationalism, when it reaches this man-machine extreme, is nihilism. These people are as opposed to the life of our people as any egalitarian. Just look at Jim P.’s argument in favor of immigrants against native-born children (once again premised on utilitarian grounds which do not take into account the cultural costs of said immigration)! You cannot reason with those who are this far gone. I personally see them as akin to automatons, and therefore creepy and disgusting caricatures of living, breathing organisms. Pardon my aggressive tone but it’s warranted, I believe, for them.[/i] (Gudmund) Yes. The annoying thing about libertarians is the excessive influence they have on the Right. They are the cowardly Right's (is there any other kind these days?) cover or excuse for avoiding the real issues that we discuss here. The problem is that libertarians do have much analysis of value to offer. The Austrian School, which I have studied to a considerable degree (after having been immersed in college in standard neoclassical stuff, so I do understand their critique of the mainstream in both economic thought and social science methodology), is extremely powerful, and, as I have argued here before, basically correct in its 'praxeology', at least when confined to economics proper (some get more broadly ambitious, and then the errors begin). They have many irrefutable arguments, whether on socialist impossibility, tacit and dispersed knowledge, the nature of money, time preference, the structure of production, etc. They also have a lot of sound refutations of various stupid liberal economic interventions (distortions), as well as commonsense observations about civil society, and the differing conduct of men under statism as against freedom. Unfortunately, libertarians are the ultimate blinkered ideologues, and will never accept let alone assimilate any fact which contradicts their allegedly rigorous and 'apodictic' (haha) preconceptions. One of my long term intellectual goals is to destroy the theoretical edifice of libertarianism; that is, to demonstrate in scholarship that libertarian ideology is 1) not logically necessary, but merely preferential; 2) unreconcilable with traditional Christianity; 3) actually inimical to maximizing real world freedom over the long run; 4) a species of the Enlightenment Left; and 5) a danger to the survival of the West (and possibly the planet). Unfortunately, I think libertarianism is going to grow more popular over this decade - and as the West becomes more 'diverse' (through the ultimate Big Government program of totalitarian race-replacement), it will grow more popular still (as will nationalism in reaction to increasing multicultural abrasiveness and aberrant behaviors).
10816950451302001006Re Gregor's article recommendation: why are those working within the Continental tradition of philosophy always such poor writers, often barely intelligible?
10832050451302605543Thank you, Gregor. I am sceptical, but I would be interested in seeing you develop systematically your "War of Ontologies" metaphor. I continue to think that the key philosophical battles facing WN involve ethics, not ontology. But I am open to considering alternative approaches, at least if their adherents can demonstrate, and not merely assert, some [i]prima facie[/i] reason for supposing that efforts at understanding their intricacies will be worthwhile. Such demonstration may require a bit of 'dumbing down' for the uninitiated, something Continental acolytes in my experience are over-loathe to do.
10831950481302604659Interesting post, Mr. Baron. I'm away getting in some excellent spring skiing, so I've no time for comments. I do have a clarificatory question for those others desiring a [i]judenrein[/i] West: You see Jews as an ethnicity, not merely a religion. What proportion of ethnic heritage is sufficient to constitute a "Jew"? Or, can a white man possess any Jewish blood, and still be considered acceptable to WNs?
10836850481302776997Jimmy Marr, Unfortunately, "Haller" has sometimes been stolen by Jews (as with Rosenberg, Bach, etc). I, however, have no Jewish or nonwhite blood that I am aware of, nor do I appear other than pure Nordic. But my question is an important one, no? How much Jewish ethnic background comprises a "Jew"? Surely, if WNs are going to devote much theorizing to the "Jewish problem" they need to be able to define terms. What constitutes a "Jew", if the subject does not practice Judaism? This is especially important these days, at least in the US, as there are now many persons who consider themselves "white" (at least anthropologically, if not philosophically) who possess some quantum of Jewish blood (I know several myself). What is the WN position wrt them?
10839050481302865639Johnathan, Nothing I said above can or should be construed as a criticism of Jews - though neither should this statement be interpreted to mean that I have no criticisms of Jews. I merely seek to stimulate discussion as to the old Nuremberg laws question of what, precisely, constitutes a "Jew". WN as a movement is, obviously, taxonomically obsesssed. It seems therefore incumbent upon us to have some objective standards when referring to ourselves or others. I'd like to know what those are, or ought to be, in the opinion of other WNs. Of course, I certainly do have my opinions on the JQ and how to think about it in the context of securing a future for white people and culture. Before offering them, however, I had hoped more analysis would be forthcoming.
10839150481302865953anon, It is interesting that a resident of Belize should find his way here. Are you white? What is your interest in WN? Also, what percentage of the population of your nation is white?
10846650481303284561(back to the grind ...) anon, Thanks for the info. I thought there might be more Europeans in Belize as holdovers from colonial times.
10846850481303287797Question for all non-racial nationalists: [b]Do you support the physical removal of all non-whites (ie, those whose ancestors were not Christian Europeans in, say, 1492) from Europe?[/b] Let's clear the air. The immediate nationalist minimum is the end of all non-white immigration into white lands (either historic ones, like those of Europe, or created ones, as in North America and Australia). The ultimate nationalist minimum is the physical removal of [b]all[/b] non-whites (except very temporary tourists, athletes or commercial visitors) from European soil, and, at the very least, all non-white illegal aliens from the "New World" white nations. I stress these are [i]minimums[/i]. Those who do not subscribe to these tenets cannot be called WNs, or even national patriots, and should desist from commentary on WN sites (otherwise, their inanities should be ignored, except to the extent that engaging with them hones our own arguments, which, after all, are still developing and not (yet) rejoinder-proof). Our cause is as serious as any in the contemporary world. The white race is the most advanced race. It would be a catastrophe for humanity if we went extinct, as current trends now suggest we will. The cosmos is meaningful and morally ordered, even if it often appears to frail reason to be otherwise. It is the duty of each man to add to the sum of moral order, or, at the very least, not to detract from it. Allowing for civilizational regression is a way of increasing moral disorder. The de-whitening of the West is a form of civilizational devolution, both in immediate temporal perspective, and even more so when considered in light of the future. We must halt this devolutionary process, the scope of our actions to be circumscribed only by Christian natural law.
10852650481303473335[i]Firstly, there’s a vast gulf between my attitude towards racial others and yours. I’ve never considered “crudity” per se that much of a problem. It’s your deep-seated hatred of others, combined with the burning desire to war on them and “avenge” yourself, that I’ve taken issue with. ([b]People like you—eg Leon Haller—are some truly dangerous, poisonous S.O.B.s.[/b] You should be given every chance to reform but if you fail to, quite frankly, I think the world would be far better off with you dead.)[/i] (Silver) Whoa, pal. Where did this come from? I'm one of the more moderate persons in these climes (note comment above ending with "Christian natural law"). And, interestingly, I have rarely joined in the anti-Silver invective. Strange. Silver, I don't think you know what you believe. It changes comment by comment.
10858250481303567957[i]What’s the matter, Haller? Surprised that someone might take seriously your issuing indignant proclamations about how your superiority entitles you to upend the lives of millions upon millions (some things never change; see Human History, Cancer of) and/or poison what should be regarded as the ironclad human right to positive self-regard of billions more? A bullet in the head is a trifle weighed against the misery you threaten.[/i] (Silver) Could you express this more clearly?
10858750481303570798[i]The more subtle, sound and morally courageous point is to acknowledge objective German superiority yet affirm Germans have no right to rule other European peoples as essentially their slaves.[/i] (CC) This German(-American) agrees. My point, however, concerned the limits of cultural nationalism. I think it applies to whites in Britain (eg, Poles), but not nonwhites.
10863850481303647974[i]Leon, [u]Could you express this more clearly?[/u](LH) Yes, in my view you deserve a bullet in the head—not for anything you’ve done, but for what you threaten. Clear enough? Or perhaps you were confused about the “why.” That’s simple enough, too. You consider yourself oh-so-superior that you figure this superiority entitles you to ruin millions of lives, either physically, or, billions more, psychologically (by virtue of your endless expounding upon how non-white lives are essentially not worth living). Now, I don’t think you quite believe that latter part, but your indignation is so white-hot (it fairly leaps off the screen and headbutts one) that the way you express your views inevitably tends to affirm such a point of view. Aren’t you essentially going up to people and telling them, “Ah, I can see what your problem is: you’re not white. [Bwahahahaha. Snigger. Snigger. Bwahahahah.]” Whether you intend it or not that is the impression that millions are going to get. You’ve created a psychological problem for them where none ever needed exist. I don’t think that should go unpunished. (I want you on your hands and knees, Haller, hands and knees.) PS - this may upset you, but I figure you’ve got the same in store for me, so what the hell, fair’s fair, right?[/i] Silver, You are very confused, perhaps beyond redemption. And ludicrously overwrought. My points are simple. As trends go, whites will not survive more than a century or so. Whites are, yes, the superior race, first by virtue of historical achievement, but even more, by virtue of their, well, virtue. We are ethically superior to other races by any 'metric' you care to employ. Combining that with our close-to-the-top cognitive superiority, as well as the all round fun and joy that whites bring to the world, and it would be a tragedy beyond measure if whites were to go extinct (in a way that could not be said for any other race). Whites have a right to live, and to live in non-alienating communities of our own kind. Instead, the modern world aggresses against us, prevents us from living as we were meant to live (ie, in accordance with our natures). No other race is subjected to this (more accurately, has the overflow of malevolent and/or brainwashed traitors who subject their fellows to this dispossession). Unfortunately, matters in my own still not long life have degenerated so far that, speaking practically, whites will not be able to secure their futures any longer without some degree of violence (unless the nonwhite colonists depart voluntarily, as they should, though probably will not). Many peoples have fought since the beginning of recorded history; soon we shall have to. I think my positions are perfectly compatible with a Christian (especially Catholic) view of existence. I have not proven this yet, but in time I will. Your imputation of some kind of strange malignity to me is exceptionally misplaced. I am both highly ethical in my personal life, as well as deeply interested in ethics. I am not, however, a fool, and thus I recognize when my people are being played for racial suckers - tricked into giving up our ancient patrimonies by means of false moral claims, especially about racial realities, considered both biologically and historically. And yes, our dispossession disgusts and infuriates me, as with any healthy (tribes)man; and yes, I am dedicated to doing something about it.
10878850481303967430Wandrin, I hate making yet another enemy ... but I have difficulty following the logic of some of your recent posts. Who are you talking back to immediately above - 'Silver'? Are you imputing Jewishness to him? Do we know he's Jewish? Anyway, take a deep breath, marshall your thoughts, and then let fly. I agree with Jimmy Marr about the general need for greater cogency among commenters here (if that criticism had been directed my way, however, I think it objectively unfair; my comments are occasionally long, but mostly cogent, and invariably intelligible).
10879050481303968500[i]Haller, you can call me whatever you want as much as you want. The bottom line is I don’t trust as you as far I could throw you, and I’ll do my utmost to ensure nobody else does either. Fortunately for me, the number of people of backgrounds like mine who would be so foolish as to trust anything emanating from your poisonous mouth could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.[/i] (Silver) Silver, Exactly what views do you impute to me? That is, what do you not trust me to do or not do? Exactly what is your background - nationality, ethnicity, etc? Exactly what are your own views, considered practically? Finally, answer my damn question: [b][u]do you support, oppose or not care whether Europeans remove all nonwhite residents from Europe?[/u][/b] That is the nationalist 'ultimate minimum' (the 'immediate minimum' being nonwhite immigration cessation). A lot of people around here spill a lot of words, while not precisely addressing each other's assertions. All very confusing. Anyway, Silver, I don't think you are or ever will be in any position to do anything at all to stop me and my plans. Slowly, too slowly, whites are waking up to their unjust, expensive and increasingly dangerous dispossession. My goals are simple: tell whites the truth about race, civilization, and their crumbling way of life; aid in the formation and expansion of American and later white nationalist organizations, while simultaneously integrating traditionalist conservatism, Catholic natural law theory, and scientific race realism at the theoretical level; and finally, make what contribution I can to the formation of the white homeland, either as a new ethnostate within the relatively soon to be defunct US ("soon" within 2-4 decades), or as an expatriate community seeking to conquer demographically and electorally a small (in population), foreign, sovereign polity. How are you going to stop me? And, why try?
10881750481304074699Wandrin, What is your ethnicity/nationality, if you don't mind my asking?
10846750501303285657True Finns seems better than any Finnish alternative. Outside of wartime, we must not forget that our task is always one of incremental, increasing radicalization. Doubtless TF is not ideal from a true WN standpoint. But we will never go straight from multicult to WN. This is a victory to be built upon. As to the other issues swirling about these environs re Muslims, Jews, Nordics v Meds, etc, the WN position is simple: OURSELVES ALONE (with no respect intended to the Marxoid/antiracist shitbags of the IRA). All true whites wish for is our own land(s), ideally corresponding to our historic nation-states, purged of all genetic strains which do not belong, whether Arab, Jew, African, mestizo, etc. Once we have our Racial Republic, we can begin formulating strategies to keep it.
10850150501303382558[i]Posted by Ivan on April 20, 2011, 11:33 PM | # Once we have our Racial Republic, we can begin formulating strategies to keep it. - Leon Haller You are not listening, butt head. The whole business boils down to the question of all questions: how does one get Racial Republic? That’s where you need a strategy - the rest is small potatoes. Stop talking about what you are going to do once you have your Racial Republic, dummy, and start thinking or at least listening to those who tell you what and how to do in order to get Racial Republic. Are you really that dumb? Perhaps, we are dealing here with a part-time-jew or full-blown-jew trying to derail the whole thing.[/i] Ivan, Go fuck off, you infidel cur. Who the fuck are you to even be talking to a real white man, let alone to one who is so obviously your cognitive (and probably financial) superior? No Muslim is ever part of the West. Very, very few Muslims are even racially white - and the ones who are had shit eating cowards for ancestors. If you had even a scintilla of honor you would renounce your idiot cult, and either embrace the True Faith, or at least become a self-respecting atheist. I have no particular affinity for the Jew. But the Jews are so immeasurably more civilized than the Muslims of this Earth that I would gladly side with the Zionists in any conflict with the ludicrous adherents of Mohammedism. I have known (and, even more, known of) many immensely talented Jews, whose contributions to America and the West are immense (which in no way should be taken to deny or excuse their hostility to white EGI). The Jewish presence in the West has its positives as well as negatives. The Muslim presence is wholly negative. As to the substance of your comment, how stupid are you? Have you ever read anything I have written here? I am among the foremost persons at this site continually reminding others of the need for realism in assessing our racial predicament. I have repeatedly called attention to the need to pursue a nationalist minimum, which should be immigration cessation, as opposed to worrying about a comprehensive nationalist philosophy. I am among the more politically pragmatic of regulars here. My whole point in the comment above - which you characteristically completely missed - was that we shouldn't condemn the True Finns for being less than pure WNs, as they are at least moving things in the correct direction. How you derive from that sentiment the proposition that I am unaware of the difficulty or unlikelihood of our instantiating the Racial Republic (a point I have repeatedly made in earlier discussions about the longer term need for WN emigration-cum-political/demographic-conquest), or that I think that strategic questions are less important than constitutional ones, is anyone's guess. Indeed, the very sentence of mine you copied belies your imputation to me of indifference to strategy. Its clear implication is, to the contrary, that it is more important to figure out how to obtain the RR, than to worry now about its precise political form, or underlying metaphysical justification. Because you possess somewhat poor reading comprehension, allow me to simplify: You are preaching to the choir.
10852550501303472899Ivan, you are either a troll or an idiot. Obviously, you seek to sow discord among the [i]herrenvolk[/i]. I am not a Jew; indeed, am one of the more regular defenders of Christianity here. Ask GW if he thinks I am a Jew (he knows a bit more about me than others here). I do,however, think that you are merely a provacateur. A Jew-hater certainly, but not someone to be trusted on racial matters. Why you bother to post on a WN site is bizarre.
10855550501303558322Lee John Barnes, I completely agree - and have said so many times here and elsewhere - that nationalists need rigorously to disassociate themselves from any type of Nazism (I would, for practical purposes, include Odinism and other pagan creeds, too, in that disavowal). But does Cultural Nationalism accept the following (what I regard as the "nationalist minimum")? To wit, that all nonwhite residents (ie, non-visitors) of Europe must be expatriated (whether to their ancestral homelands, or elsewhere)? Europe is the White Continent. It belongs to our race alone - a proposition ethically defensible within a wide range of philosophical traditions, including, I hold, Christianity. If whites were as numerous as Orientals we would not have to insist on having racially pure ethnostates. But we are few and shrinking, and must have an absolute nexus between Race, Territory, and Polity. One nonwhite permanently residing on historic white soil is one too many. Does the Cultural Nationalist think that nonwhites can be transformed into true Englishmen, Germans, Poles, etc?
10850250511303383152Good summary, CC. The problem, however, is that the parasite is killing its host. Jewish parasitism only clearly works with a genetic European host. When we are gone, whither Jewry?
10852450511303472437This guy Serrano combines interesting observations with rank lunacy. [i]Serrano: Hitlerism, as Otto Rahn would say, was Luciferian. Lucifer is the Morning Star. I am a Luciferian in the sense that Lucifer is the Morning Star, "the most beautiful light," and the Morning Star is a God-Goddess Venus. It is more than a planet, it is a comet that stopped where it is now in order to remind the divine men of their own spiritual origin, and to show them the way to recover it. There on Venus, Adolf Hitler is now, together with the elite who managed to escape Earth at the end of the War. Contrary to misconceptions, Lucifer has nothing to do with "satanism," which is manipulated by secret services such as the CIA, M-12, Intelligence Service and the Mossad, etc., in order to destroy the real spiritual current and the Archetype of Hitler. The real esotericism behind Hitler and the very small elite that surrounded him was an esoteric scientificism of other science and other technology as well. This was mainly based on the implosion principle, leading to the UFO's and traveling between dimensions, with the absolute need to lose the war here, to gain in the parallel world, or better said, in another place-situation.[/i] Um, yeah. Rather makes one long for the brute atheist materialism of GW. It's always amazing how much nonsense, in all directions, comes from those rejecting Christ. The problem is not Christianity per se. The historic faith has been polluted with the currents of liberalism. When Christians sound like liberals, including on racial matters, they are liberals, not Christians. WNs would do well to remember this, and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The battle to save our race occurs [i]within[/i] Christianity.
10857150511303564974GW + Jimmy Marr, I'd like to respond to you at some length, but it's very late here, and I'm tired. So, I merely ask if you agree that there are several separate issues for those interested in the relation of WN and Christianity within the context of preventing white (and therefore, I believe, Western) extinction. And these are: 1) What is true (eg, does God exist? If so, which religion, if any, is correct? If Christianity, which school or version? And does this correct faith disallow the measures necessary to ensure white preservation)? 2) If all forms of supernaturalism are empirically false, should WN acknowledge or proclaim this? Ie, is the objective of white preservation (and power) advanced by a) embracing atheism openly; b) trying to popularize a new, pro-white religion (Odinism, "esoteric Hitlerism"); or c) assuming the 'truth' of Christianity (the white man's historic faith for, variously, 1500-1700 years, with an immense body of both tradition and learning behind it), and then demonstrating that faith's ethical compatibility with WN? In a very small and oversimplified 'nutshell', my position is: A) God probably exists, and some version of Christianity (perhaps still to be theorized or at least solidified) is likely true. B) I want to be certain that WN is morally compatible with Christianity, which, I believe, it is, except in certain extreme versions, like Nazism. C) If all supernaturalism is false, white preservation is nevertheless best advanced not by aligning itself with atheism (especially not in America), nor by engaging in what I believe will prove to be a fruitless attempt to create a new (or resurrect an old) religion, but, rather, by continuing to profess allegiance to Christianity, while demonstrating the moral allowability, and even duty, of white preservation for Christians. In other words, even if I were a committed atheist, I would want to 'get right' the relation between Christianity and WN.
10869150511303733877I think we are all talking at cross purposes. Does God exist? If so, what does that imply for white survival? If not, what does that imply? I'm not a scholar of comparative religion, but from what I've heard from persons who are so knowledgeable, and whom I trust politically, it's pretty much Christianity or nothing. That is, really (philosophically) intelligent persons can be Christians, but not members of other faiths (though I have heard strange things about Buddhism's appeal - but it is sort of a non-religious religion). So if you do not believe in the divinity of Christ, then you are an agnostic or atheist materialist (unless you're ignorant or stupid). My belief is that, whatever the factual truth of Christianity might be, embracing and coopting Christianity for WN (assuming it can be done, at least to a moderate extent, as I believe it can be - after all, Christians for centuries were racists by the standards of today's liberals) is the best approach for saving our race. If WN and Christianity continue to be seen to be mutually antagonistic, I think WN will continue to be marginal in the West. Moreover, I believe that only a re-Christianized West (but "Christianized" along traditionalist, not postmodernist, lines) will succeed in rallying sufficient numbers of white men to prevent our racial extinction. Atheism simply does not stir men's souls to sacrifice and battle to the same extent as Christian duty. And the situation today is even worse. We are dying not by alien force of arms, but through apathy and excessive materialism and consumerism. Few whites want to sacrifice present comforts for the future well-being of their (dwindling number of) descendants. How is the atheist going to get whites to make those sacrifices? Only appeals to personal transcendence, to making the preservation of the white race a personal moral obligation rooted in religious piety, will suffice. Religion gives martyrs; will atheist racism?
10869250511303733978Jimmy, You have [i]The Forced War[/i]? Lucky man.
10881650511304074535"Thinking" about women is generally frustrating... Accepting them for what they are is more gratifying ...
10855850521303559781Silver, I have not followed closely enough to be aware of your ethnic background (nor, to be honest, do I care; I am interested only in the quality of arguments put forward in defense of my race). But I have to wonder: if you are white, do you recognize or care that your race is going extinct? Do you understand that whatever of moral and cultural value inheres in Europe is a product of the white race - and that there is no plausible reason to suppose that it will be perpetuated by nonwhite races (at the very least, you must surely understand that the burden of proof for the counter-proposition - that nonwhites can be expected to perpetuate white civilization - morally rests on those advocating, or exhibiting indifference towards, race replacement, as opposed to their (WN) opponents)? Here is the question which, I believe, separates the serious from the [i]poseurs[/i] (this goes for all others here, too): [b]Do you agree that all nonwhites resident in Europe should be stripped of citizenship, and physically removed (expatriated) from European polities?[/b] Yes or no? If no, please explain yourself (cogently and intelligently, if possible).
10902450521304600530[u]The word is repatriated[/u]. A citizen may expatriate himself. The people to whom Haller refers would not be recognised by any serious WN as citizens of Euroman’s homelands. (Silverback) This is a difficult semantic issue. In a biopolitics sense, "repatriate" (as in, "return to one's place of birth, citizenship, [b]or origin[/b]") would be correct. The problem under consideration, however, includes not only immigrants, whether citizens or not, for whom "repatriation" is the only possible word, but also nonwhites born on European soil, many (or all? I'm not familiar with the laws of naturalization or citizenship of [i]every[/i] European country) of whom are full legal citizens, regardless of how they are viewed by WNs. Referring to their removal from Euro-soil as "repatriation" is not obviously technically/legally correct. They are racially alien, European citizens who will be expelled from Europe. I think "expatriation" is right.
10856150531303561262[i]The BFP will work within the European Union to assist European nations to ‘re-nationalise’ their nation states and also to ensure we have a new EU model based on a Europe of Nations, not a Nation of Europe. We are anti-European Federalism, not anti-European.[/i] (LJB) This is excellent. I wholeheartedly concur. But understand the True Sequence: 1. Expel illegal aliens. 2. End (nonwhite) immigration. 3. Work to restore British pride and a correct understanding of national history and tradition. Some years later, 4. Restore anti-miscegenationist legislation. Some years later still, begin the period of 'tightening the vise', beginning with 5. the disenfranchisement of nonwhites in Britain; followed by 6. the stripping of nonwhites of UK citizenship; to be concluded with 7. the physical removal of nonwhites from British soil. #7 is the final goal of any real British Nationalism. I don't expect an actual political leader like LJB to admit this on a public site, but he had better be clear about what is wanted. The British are white. Only whites should be considered "British". ONLY A WHITE BRITAIN (or France, Germany, etc) is acceptable to nationalists. I do agree, however, that, absent an unforeseen cataclysm providing an unexpected 'opening' in the usual historical process, Cultural Nationalism probably must precede and pave the way for Racial Nationalism. But Racial Nationalism is the only true nationalism.
10856450531303561873"Racial Nationalists" - "Ethnonationalists" - "Cultural Nationalists" - "Civic Nationalists". Could someone please provide definitions of these terms as they are being bandied about here? I understand the differences between them as political scientists do. But I want to see what you all mean by them.
10857250531303565986GW + LJB, Thank you for the nationalist taxonomies. Need they be mutually exclusive? I would seem to be a racial/ethno/White/cultural nationalist (I am not a civic nationalist, however). GW (and others), You do agree, however, with this: [i]7. the physical removal of nonwhites from British soil. #7 is the final goal of any real British Nationalism. I don’t expect an actual political leader like LJB to admit this on a public site, but he had better be clear about what is wanted. The British are white. Only whites should be considered “British”. ONLY A WHITE BRITAIN (or France, Germany, etc) is acceptable to nationalists.[/i] (LH) I am correct that this is [i]your[/i] nationalism?
10857650531303566826[i]Cultural Nationalists believe that cultures derive from ethnic groups, not racial groups and hence the indigenous people must remain the dominant demographic in society in order to preserve the culture of the nation.[/i] (LJB) I agree with this. And with this, with one rather large exception: [i]Also that in order to be a citizen of the nation all immigrants must fully integrate into the national culture or they are colonists and not citizens and hence will be deported. Cultural Nationalists do not support regional Parliaments and support instead the political union of Britain as a way to preserve British Culture which is a mixture of all the indigenous folk cultures of Britain. Only the fully integrated immigrants are regarded as British citizens, colonists are not citizens. Cultural Nationalists accept fully integrated immigrants as British citizens, but also demand that immigrant numbers must never threaten the demographic superiority of the indigenous British people in perpetuity.[/i] (LJB) The exception concerns the weasel phrase "fully integrated". The American WN Jared Taylor is completely fluent in Japanese, and deeply conversant with Japan and its culture. But his race precludes his ever being considered "Japanese" by the Japanese. Can a member of one race ever really be "fully integrated" into an ethnoculture of another [i]race[/i]? As an empirical matter (and speaking as a Southern Californian with great experience of multicultural realities), I think not. Ethnicity is a part of an ethnoculture, and ethnicity cannot be divorced from race. A Pakistani or Nigerian simply cannot ever be 'fully integrated' into the British cultural nation. His visible distinctiveness alone triggers a biological 'friend/enemy' awareness which precludes full integration. Cultural Nationalism thus only applies [i]intra[/i]-racially (say, to those Poles CC keeps mentioning).
10859650531303574739Monkey wrench time ... Look, God save the Queen and all that. I'd very much like the Mother Country to survive, and I support the work of all British national patriots, whatever their internecine squabbles. But we all know that Britain (and France, Germany, America, etc) are goners, don't we? Speaking really pragmatically? As I've said many times, whites will only survive in racially exclusive, racially [i]willed[/i], sovereign territories. Racial States. That is, force will have to be applied to ensure our survival - and applied on a continuing, generation by generation basis (unless of course a gene for racial sexual repulsion could be bred into future generations; this does not exist, however, and our racial bottleneck is here and now). As far as I can determine, no white nation today possesses even an expatriationist majority (ie, a white majority willing to forcibly remove lawfully resident nonwhites from its territory) - let alone one willing to instantiate a teleological regime dedicated to permanent racial purity/preservation. Every exogenous (I mean, [i]extra[/i]-racial) trend is tending towards white extinction. Only an act of racial/political [i][b]will[/b][/i]can save us. But even as the dark multitudes pour in, only tiny percentages of whites can fairly be called WNs. Our recruitment is glacial; our colonization, torrential. Yes, solid majorities oppose immigration, considered non-ordinally. But when do those majorities ever actually base their electoral decisions on immigration first and foremost? Never. That is, nationalist parties never garner in actual elections anything like the same percentage of their nations' populations as express opposition to immigration, considered abstractly. So it can be said that while most whites oppose their majoritarian dispossession, they don't get too riled up about it - certainly not enough to actually elect 'extremists' willing to end it, let alone to trigger the violence that will erupt if we ever try to [i]reverse[/i] it. It seems that at our present course, whites will simply be further dispossessed in perpetuity, or unto extinction (or, for the last holdouts, extermination). I've said all this for years now, and now I reiterate the sole hope. WNs must establish a Racial State beachhead somewhere, preferably in a mostly white, demographically conquerable sovereign polity (Australia, Uruguay come to mind). Foreign conquest through immigration, and the subsequent building of a WN state dedicated to white preservation, is all that can resist the juggernaut of liberalism/capitalism/globalism leading to the One World of mongrelized proletarians/consumers. Dispiriting, no doubt. But can we say I'm wrong?
10859750531303575083[i] It can skip around the facticity of race precisely because it holds Man to be a cultural product. It does not accept that culture is dependent in any way on race, because, as it would say, “genes for this” and “genes for that” have not been identified. So, from the liberal-left’s point of view cultural nationalism as an argument for ethnic survivalism for the cultural progenator is just racism. You have given up blood and in the process removed our victory on its proof, and entered upon another area of argument with the left. [/i](GW) This is my position. But you have expressed it so very well. I am humbled.
10861750531303602911Good to see you back, Trainspotter.
10861850531303604377Cultural Nationalism is fine, as long as it is understood as a brick in the road to Racial Nationalism. Captainchaos's 'lemmings' cannot be expected to move as we would wish them to merely by "slamming their faces against the windowpanes of history", as a great nationalist once said. Commonsense (of the old school) would suggest otherwise, but recent history bears this out. Whites in the West today can only assimilate so much reality, if too divergent from current hegemonic narratives. Indeed, I think even CN may be too tough, though I would back it if British (I'm not sure about it's viability in America, where I favor Middle American Nationalism; this would certainly have a cultural as opposed to racial orientation, but the main emphasis would be on engendering a proper sense of victimization among whites, based on an explicit awareness of how the ruling regime dispossesses us and treats us as second class citizens, even according to its own hopelessly confused norms of justice). As I've suggested before, what is wrong with a single issue anti-immigration party which acts as a protest vote with the potential to drive the Tories into sanity on immigration? BNP, BFP, NF, etc - none of you will ever acquire real political power at the Parliamentary level (care to wager?). I GUARANTEE Downing St will never be occupied by Lee John Barnes. If BFP really started to make gains, the Tories would simply adjust themselves accordingly, coopting and moderating the CN agenda. Humans [i]en masse[/i] are not by nature ideological conservatives (as, say, I myself am), but they are dispositional or 'inertial' ones. Really radical change rarely happens under stable regimes, unless under subterfuge (as with Lyndon Johnson's changing of America's pro-white immigration laws, done with extensive public mendacity as to their likely effects). One doesn't need to publicly embrace WN or even CN simply to demand an end to immigration, the [i]sine qua non[/i] of both white and British (French, German, etc) preservation. Given the magnitude of the immigration invasion-catastrophe, a party running on that platform alone (perhaps as UKIP, in my limited understanding of it, is based around opposition to EU issues) could be a thorn in the side of the Tories, driving them to be better on immigration - perhaps all the way to pursuing a complete non-EU moratorium. That in itself would be a huge victory, which could then be followed by new nationalist demands. But first things first. Keep the message simple. Immigration: yes or no? Stay away from race (for now). There is plenty wrong with immigration apart from race - especially in this era of austerity and high unemployment. Such a party could really go somewhere. More comprehensive nationalist programmes and parties will only continue to get their 1-2%.
10861950531303604672PS - I most certainly am not abandoning race as the ultimate concern. But in the practical world of democratic politics, advances are mostly slow and marginal. Merely stopping nonwhite immigration is as much as we can fight for now. When victories are achieved, new and more radical aspirations become realistic.
10890350531304332566[i]Poles have no place in my land. They are not welcome. We will not make common cause with them. They are no different to any other coloniser, and we must rid ourselves of them no less than the rest.[/i] (GW) Hold on a minute! I thought you were a racialist first, an English nationalist second. After all, race comes before ethnicity. The former is genetic, the latter far more culturally determined. So what is wrong with Polish or other white immigrants? Of course, I can understand not wanting [i]too[/i] many at once, for cultural preservationist reasons. But such harsh sentiment! I have known several wonderful, very blonde Polish-Americans, including an ex-girlfriend. They are as racially white as any of us. What's next: little Englander dislike of Krauts? Are we not white enough? (Hint: I favor white unity, but if it comes to it, the undiluted Nordic German is clearly the world's superior human type, considered racially, culturally and historically.) Anyway, there must never again be intra-white ethnic feuding. That has absolutely no place in the racial nationalism of the future. What do people suppose produced our current decrepitude - Jewish ideo-cultural indoctrination, Third World invasions, or two genocidal European wars, plus an aristocidal Bolshevik campaign in the East? I opt for the latter explanation. Europe allowed itself to be weakened because its peoples were exhausted, morally as well as physically, following WW2. Never again.
10895250531304408799Silver, Respond please. Or remain permanently silent. [i]Haller, you can call me whatever you want as much as you want. The bottom line is I don’t trust as you as far I could throw you, and I’ll do my utmost to ensure nobody else does either. Fortunately for me, the number of people of backgrounds like mine who would be so foolish as to trust anything emanating from your poisonous mouth could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.[/i] (Silver) Silver, Exactly what views do you impute to me? That is, what do you not trust me to do or not do? Exactly what is your background - nationality, ethnicity, etc? Exactly what are your own views, considered practically? Finally, answer my damn question: do you support, oppose or not care whether Europeans remove all nonwhite residents from Europe? That is the nationalist ‘ultimate minimum’ (the ‘immediate minimum’ being nonwhite immigration cessation). A lot of people around here spill a lot of words, while not precisely addressing each other’s assertions. All very confusing. Anyway, Silver, I don’t think you are or ever will be in any position to do anything at all to stop me and my plans. Slowly, too slowly, whites are waking up to their unjust, expensive and increasingly dangerous dispossession. My goals are simple: tell whites the truth about race, civilization, and their crumbling way of life; aid in the formation and expansion of American and later white nationalist organizations, while simultaneously integrating traditionalist conservatism, Catholic natural law theory, and scientific race realism at the theoretical level; and finally, make what contribution I can to the formation of the white homeland, either as a new ethnostate within the relatively soon to be defunct US ("soon" within 2-4 decades), or as an expatriate community seeking to conquer demographically and electorally a small (in population), foreign, sovereign polity. How are you going to stop me? And, why try?
10867150541303687123As so often before, again I wonder why I waste my time here. "Pearls before swine", etc. I think it's in part because 'gems' like the following keep popping up: [i]Now, getting back to Russia and the genocide of Slavic people in that nation; surely the most ardent pro-capitalist dullards must see that even the dreadful Marxist tyranny of the USSR was better for the native Russian population than the current Russian Federation?[b] It’s funny how the ‘WN’ and others always rail so hard against communism, when it kept the racial base stock of any nation which espoused that ideology alive and expanding. I can’t recall any communist nation in the USSR or it’s sphere of influence forcibly integrating the Slavics with the mud hordes of the world.[/b] Peculiar. [/i](Alaric) Does Alaric know anything about history? I could recommend several books about the communist disaster, but bigots (for once the word applies) like our Gothic friend undoubtedly would avoid them. So just a few observations. 1) I am not a supporter of the Jewish dominated kleptocracy that is the current Russian Federation. This RF, however, is the product of the radical cleavage communism intentionally made with Russia's Christian past. The Jewish communists waged a religious war against Holy Russia (with much greater savagery, incidentally, than any similar campaign to suppress Islam), with the predictable results I noted in my comment above at 4-24-11 11:55am. If Russians were still a self-conscious people, strong in faith and national identity, they would not have been so culturally disoriented and hence easily manipulated or, really, conquered, by the kleptocrats. Loss of tradition merely leads to shortsighted, apathetic consumerism. 2) Sovietism most certainly did NOT keep "the racial base stock of any nation which espoused that ideology alive and expanding". This statement is embarrassingly ignorant. It is, indeed, the precise opposite of the truth, especially wrt the Warsaw Pact nations, but even respecting Third World varieties. Communism resulted in falling populations, as well as declining life expectancies, throughout Eastern Europe. Indeed, their populations, especially Russia's, are continuing their precipitate declines today (one piece of evidence for this - though no scholar denies the trend - is the salutary pro-natalist legislation that Russia has enacted in recent years). Chinese population only continued to expand in the first decades after Mao's revolution due to normal pressures carrying over from its fecund past (though communist created famines, a natural and expected result of collectivist agriculture, certainly did their parts to check these pressures). 3) As for the comment re communism's alleged lack of forcible racial integration, this is again either a product of abysmal ignorance, or an outright lie. The Soviet vermin imported savages from all over the Third World into Eastern Europe - Vietnamese into East Germany, (black) Cubans into Czechoslovakia, Africans and Arabs throughout Eastern Europe and the USSR (not to mention hordes of revolutionary 'trainees' into Russia itself). Moreover, the Soviets moved ethnic groups around within Russia like pieces on a chessboard. They also perfected the use of using different ethnic groups as troops to maintain internal order throughout the Soviet Empire itself - including inflicting Mongoloid savages to lord it over Slavs. Finally, the Soviets actively encouraged domestic interethnic (and racial) marriages within the Soviet Union (my Russian ex-girlfriend, who was nearly my own age, also confirmed this for me, on a personal/anecdotal level). Alaric, you're not very knowledgeable. Why don't you (and similar others) do some hard studying before spouting off your nonsense? Those of us fighting the hegemonic Left have enough work to do without also having to clean up messes made by fools on our own side.
10863950541303648522I shouldn't go off on tangents, but I re-post this back and forth between "Silver" and me here only because I've tried, without too much analysis, to get to the heart of our issue, as I see it, and perhaps that has a measure of value: [i][i]Leon, [u][u]Could you express this more clearly?[/u][/u](LH) Yes, in my view you deserve a bullet in the head—not for anything you’ve done, but for what you threaten. Clear enough? Or perhaps you were confused about the “why.” That’s simple enough, too. You consider yourself oh-so-superior that you figure this superiority entitles you to ruin millions of lives, either physically, or, billions more, psychologically (by virtue of your endless expounding upon how non-white lives are essentially not worth living). Now, I don’t think you quite believe that latter part, but your indignation is so white-hot (it fairly leaps off the screen and headbutts one) that the way you express your views inevitably tends to affirm such a point of view. Aren’t you essentially going up to people and telling them, “Ah, I can see what your problem is: you’re not white. [Bwahahahaha. Snigger. Snigger. Bwahahahah.]” Whether you intend it or not that is the impression that millions are going to get. You’ve created a psychological problem for them where none ever needed exist. I don’t think that should go unpunished. (I want you on your hands and knees, Haller, hands and knees.) PS - this may upset you, but I figure you’ve got the same in store for me, so what the hell, fair’s fair, right?[/i][/i] (Silver) Silver, You are very confused, perhaps beyond redemption. And ludicrously overwrought. My points are simple. As trends go, whites will not survive more than a century or so. Whites are, yes, the superior race, first by virtue of historical achievement, but even more, by virtue of their, well, virtue. We are ethically superior to other races by any 'metric' you care to employ. Combining that with our close-to-the-top cognitive superiority, as well as the all round fun and joy that whites bring to the world, and it would be a tragedy beyond measure if whites were to go extinct (in a way that could not be said for any other race). Whites have a right to live, and to live in non-alienating communities of our own kind. Instead, the modern world aggresses against us, prevents us from living as we were meant to live (ie, in accordance with our natures). No other race is subjected to this (more accurately, has the overflow of malevolent and/or brainwashed traitors who subject their fellows to this dispossession). Unfortunately, matters in my own still not long life have degenerated so far that, speaking practically, whites will not be able to secure their futures any longer without some degree of violence (unless the nonwhite colonists depart voluntarily, as they should, though probably will not). Many peoples have fought since the beginning of recorded history; soon we shall have to. I think my positions are perfectly compatible with a Christian (especially Catholic) view of existence. I have not proven this yet, but in time I will. Your imputation of some kind of strange malignity to me is exceptionally misplaced. I am both highly ethical in my personal life, as well as deeply interested in ethics. I am not, however, a fool, and thus I recognize when my people are being played for racial suckers - tricked into giving up our ancient patrimonies by means of false moral claims, especially about racial realities, considered both biologically and historically. And yes, our dispossession disgusts and infuriates me, as with any healthy (tribes)man; and yes, I am dedicated to doing something about it.
10864350541303649750As to this video, almost unbelievable. As in, I would not have believed the lemming/PC reaction of these asshole reporters if I had not just watched this. I don't know where to begin a criticism. The assumptions of these people are mindboggling. It's "controversial" and "inflammatory" to be worried about the white race and its survival? It's as though these feeble, witless types really have no idea why anyone could possibly object to some Orwellian "Migration Service" (what the hell is that?!) importing racial aliens into their country or neighborhood. However, as to this [i]So, how did the ethno-masochism of the liberal mind and the desire to be “correct” settle itself on the Russian political and cultural elites in a matter of little more than twenty years? It has done it without liberalism as a thought world having any history in the country, and without liberals actually wielding political power. It suggests that, among the elites in Russia at least, not political or philosophical ideals but the desire to make money by serving “business” and “investment” via labour-cost competitiveness is sufficient to take away all meaning of Slavic blood.[/i] (GW) I think the attitudes of the BBC bubbleheads are of far greater interest and import. Obviously, all the Russian elites care about, like their white counterparts in the US and Europe, is making money - and damn the cultural, racial or moral consequences. The real question, then, is how did making money trump all other concerns of honor, morality and nation/race? Unfortunately for atheist racialists, the answer is the decline of the sacred and its sense of transcendence in the Western world. God is the foundation of meaning in the world, the Unmoved Mover from which all else gains motion. Eliminate that idea, whether real or not, and, as Nietzsche recognized, you have "unchained the sun". What is left? Brute philosophical materialism leads straight to brute economic and political materialism. Alas, my online friend, I don't think you grasp this, or want to.
10864650541303651619Yes, Alaric is the type of bloke who will attract vast numbers of whites to the nationalist cause ... I disagree with Lee John Barnes on a number of points, but he is certainly correct that it is atheist and/or Nazi assholes like you who have kept so many decent whites from embracing their own collective racial and national survival. I can patiently struggle to explain the morality of white racial preservation to an ordinary person, but all they have to do is come across someone like you, and they head for the exits. Hitler did more to discredit the white man's cause than all the Jews and Negroids in history. Of course what idiots like Alaric (and God, there are no end to these people around here - Silver the Jew, Ivan the Islamist, Randy the miscegenator, various weirdo Nazis, the disgruntled Laborites, aggressive atheists, etc ad nauseam) are incapable of grasping is that the Establishment loves people like them. They discredit nationalism by associating it with rude and repulsive views and behaviors. I, on the other hand, or my approach anyway, they fear. The last thing race-liberals of any variety want is a racially patriotic white man who speaks to other white men in the language of ethics, especially Christian ethics. Such an approach could actually win converts.
10864950541303653662If the Pope just called for civilizationally destructive immigration, then he is speaking as a liberal, not a Christian. He is either malevolent, or more likely, mistaken (or perhaps misunderstood). The answer is not to condemn the faith (which, incidentally, in the Catholic tradition is not simply about belief, but [i]reasoned[/i] belief), but to educate the Pope about his error. I certainly do not support such an invasion. And there is nothing cowardly about being a true Christian. Quite the opposite. A man like me has more often than not preferred beating the shit (literally, verbally or metaphorically) out of some opponent, than striving to be fair, just and sympathetic. And there is especially nothing cowardly about being both a Christian and a WN. I get shat upon by both sides - which suggests to me that my approach is almost certainly the correct one.
10867350541303687352[i]Posted by Ivan on April 24, 2011, 06:12 PM | # It’s a pleasure to spot another man capable of truly independent thought - it’s like finding accidentally a diamond in a pile of Halleric jewish manure. Perhaps I should clarify for good-natured but muddle-headed white brothers - I am talking about Alaric. The other man who is able to think clearly for himself is, of course, the shining Silver.[/i] This comment should put to rest any doubts that "Ivan" is anything other than a troll. Avoid him.
10867850541303695573[i]One way of doing that is to use a satellite TV station to compete for airtime with neocon-dominated mass media in their own turf. If i was them i’d use RT to host friendly interviews with the sort of people who only get hostile interviews from the MSM in their own country (Le Pen, Griffin, Buchanan, MacDonald etc) and make crime documentaries about the various western countries which tell the truth plus programs about banking and political crimes plus stuff on genetics and sociobiology that would never get aired on the western MSM etc. The aim would be to get the more nationalist viewers of all the western countries watching RT* in preference to the mainstream channels. This would indirectly be WN but its main purpose would be self-defence.[/i] (Wandrin) Excellent idea. Unfortunately, I think Troll Ivan may actually be right re Putin. He is not a white race patriot, but at best only a Russia Firster - or maybe only the rare white leader who sees a coincidence of interests between his nation and himself. That's better than nothing or neocon, of course, but much less than what he could be.
10868050541303699779So no one thinks I let my essential Christianity get in the way of a clear-eyed view of racial reality, here is a little nugget I posted to annoy the editor of the paleoconservative magazine Chronicles: The Lord is Risen! On this Easter Sunday, the holiest day of the year for Christians, it would be nice to hear an opinion from the good Dr. Fleming on the subject of the modern cross that white people are forced to bear. The cross is called NIGGERS. Here is an instructional video to get the “little brain cells” moving: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/04/violence_in_ano.php What would Jesus do, in this McDonald’s, or about this problem? (Watch the video, to be reminded of why we fight.)
10868850541303731494Alaric, Only scholar-poseurs reference Wikipedia. It is so notoriously error-filled as to be useless. However, what you linked to does not even prove your points. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why. Perhaps someone else will. You are a true idiot, not worth a superior man's time. I am vociferously anti-Muslim, incidentally, as any of my many comments attest. (Christ, btw you moron, was denounced by the Jews, and killed by the Romans - six centuries before Mohammed inaugurated his cult.)
10868950541303731873[i]Leon, have I told you lately that you talk like a jew, you think like a jew, and you behave like a jew. Your agenda (namely, having gentiles fight each other) is supremely a jewish agenda. That’s more than enough for me to identify you as a jew. That’s all, brother, nothing personal - strictly business[/i]. (Ivan) You are a troll, attempting to sow discord among the serious, perhaps for Islamist reasons, more likely simply as a consequence of an aberrant personality. Proof? You know very well I'm not a Jew. What Jew professes (and defends) Christianity? Since when is my agenda having gentiles fight each other? Or do you mean whites v certain nonwhites, like the Muslim colonists of Europe? Go away, and never come back. This site is for whites. (Again, others should avoid this troll.)
10873550561303819367We're still waiting for Soren's review of the de Benoist book (apologies if I somehow missed it). I wouldn't mind reviewing something by Faye myself. The articles about him by O'Meara really piqued my interest. I don't like his anti-Americanism (which may be more anti-elite-liberal-American than anti-heartland America), but otherwise I think his approach is sound (especially in favoring cultivating Israel over any pro-Muslim outreaches).
10876450561303910342I would welcome a review from Lee John Barnes in addition to Soren's. Indeed, I sniff a future contest in the offing. How interesting it would be to have a dozen or more regulars, very much including supercilious blowhards like 'Silver' and 'Ivan', read the same book (obviously, all but one person would have to buy their own copies, but I trust that not all race realists are also paupers), and all submit reviews. It would be even more interesting if the reviews were a) to be subject to a maximum word count (to accommodate Jimmy Marr's ADD); b) all assigned ID numbers (as are exams in US law schools) by GW; c) then posted anonymously; and lastly, d) 'rated' by the broader MR community. That would be something, eh? A donnybrook for this herd of self-styled 'independent thinkers'. "Perchance to dream ..."
10876550561303911860Apropos of nothing: What is this racial sickness afflicting the most privileged of our people?! http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/thefamous/sandra-bullock-2010s-magazine-cover-golden-girl/1144 Why? Why? I'm sick of it!
10877150561303916218[i]Posted by Guessedworker on April 27, 2011, 01:30 PM | # Leon, There’s nothing to stop anyone buying the book and writing a review, which I will publish if it is suitably thoughtful. But Arktos offer us one free copy, and I can’t abuse that offer with requests for more.[/i] Didn't I deal with that rather more than implicitly? [i](obviously, [b]all but one person would have to buy their own copies[/b], but I trust that not all race realists are also paupers)[/i]
10877250561303916607[i]One of the chief reasons is ignorance. Amongst others is whites see great benefit in breaking ranks with their own. They know they’ll benefit greatly by aligning themselves and embracing non-white racial interests. Not only does it make these white race-traitors feel all warm and fuzzy inside, they benefit politically, socially and economically by doing so. Conversely, if they embrace their own, it invariably results in social ostracisation and economic ruin. That’s the sick twisted world we live in. This is precisely the dynamic we as white preservationists must change.[/i] (Thorn) I still, after all these years, am unable to understand how this state of affairs came to be. It could be the subject of many volumes. Why don't most whites see things as we do? I was WN way before I read anything by WNs. This must be where the Jews come into it. They are so disproportionately represented in the upper echelons of society that their concerns and infatuations set the tone and parameters for the rest of us. The best of us then conform ourselves to the Zeitgeist. Of course, Bullock's career would hardly be harmed had she not adopted a black baby! There is a sickness that is endogenous with our race.
10881550561304074272No adventurers, interested in the "review challenge" ...
10881950571304078319I know nothing about the birther controversy, and care even less - though I suppose I like how it distracts and dicomfits Obama. It does not appear to me to be a huge deal to most Americans, however. The Left doesn't care because Obama is their man, and perhaps even more, because they reject any nationalist divisions, even between American citizens and foreigners. They mostly think it an "oppressive" outrage that a document ratified in the 18th century should have any bearing or restraint on contemporary political life. The Right doesn't care for the most part because we are the patriots as well as the producers in our land, and as such, have much greater worries than whether this awful man is actually Constitutionally permitted to serve in his current capacity. The nation is going down the toilet much faster than even many of us on the Pessimist Right had thought likely a few short years ago. Bad as things are racially, as well as morally (a set of issues very important to a large segment of the broader Right), the main immediate worry for most of us is the parlous state of the economy, especially as it is effected by our gargantuan and seemingly untamable federal budget deficit (and concomitant staggering national debt). With the economy so weak, and public finances so out of control, Obama's birthplace is only a sideshow for the serious among us. Moreover, it is not wholly Constitutionally clear that Obama, even if physically born in Kenya or elsewhere outside of the US, would automatically be disqualified from the Presidency. Yes, a requirement for the Presidency is US birth. But like so much else, the "plain meaning" of the text is not altogether so plain; intent must be examined (in this conservative jurisprudes could find themselves ironically hoist on their own "original intentionalist" petards). It is generally agreed that the intent of the Framers in putting in that requirement was to ensure first, that only "real Americans" at the time of the Constitution's ratification (1787) could hold the Presidency (thus ensuring that no England-born, or other newly arrived colonist, whose loyalties might remain with the Mother country, could get elected - and thus possibly jeopardize the nascent Republic by seeking to reestablish formal ties with Britain; in other words, the Framers sought to preserve the Revolution in perpetuity, and did not fully trust the sentimental attachments of those who had not been resident in the American colonies for at least a generation); and second, to ensure that no future immigrant could ever be President - a very sound requirement for any nation, in my opinion. The first concern was only such for a generation or two following ratification. Nowadays, the birthplace requirement would be interpreted [i]ex post facto[/i] (that is, considering the Framers' intent for the indefinite future) as a disqualification of immigrants. The problem this poses for conservative "birther" fanatics is that, according to our citizenship statutes, there has never been any doubt that Obama is a lawful American citizen, regardless of his birthplace, because no one denies that his mother was an American citizen when he was born - and any person is an automatic American citizen if only one of his or her parents was an American citizen at the time of his or her birth. So the real issue (if Obama's birthplace was outside the US) is a genuine Constitutional one. Is an American who a) was an automatic citizen at birth by virtue of having had at least one American citizen parent at the time of his or her birth, and b) was born outside the US, disqualified from the Presidency? I don't think there has been a Constitutional case addressing this issue, and I have no idea how the Supreme Court might rule on one. I merely point out that, even if it could be demonstrated that Obama's birthplace was not in the US, such a demonstration alone is [i]prima facie[/i] insufficient to guarantee Obama's disqualification from the Presidency on Constitutional grounds.
10884450571304172344I'd say I'm a pretty hard-core political type, but predictions of imminent Armageddon are almost always wrong. The ones above will be proven wrong, too. The US has a tremendous genius for 'managing' decline. That's hardly something to be proud of, but it is a fact. The reason for this, which is extremely difficult for ideologues of ANY persuasion to grasp, is that people are not unidimensional (here, the study of serious literature helps - really). Libertarians think that anyone who is not a libertarian must be a socialist radical. WNs think anyone who supports 'civil rights' and 'family reunification' immigration policies must want to give away the whole country to violent minorities. Evangelicals think anyone supporting legal abortion must also support the entirety of the sexual revolutionary agenda. Etc etc. In reality, white race liberals are more often simply naive than actively treasonous or malicious. And every radical change begets resistance. More of it, more rapidly, produces faster resistance, as we've seen with the Tea Party and the GOP House takeover which resulted from it. Not all non-WN whites are raving race liberals, or economic fools. Yes, overall, the country is in terminal decline, and I doubt there will be a UNITED States in 2100. It is possible (but unlikely) that the US will collapse into poverty and mass anarchy by 2050. Assuming no substantial reductions in immigration, which is sadly likely but hardly guaranteed, even after nonwhites become a [i]residential[/i] [i]majority[/i] (I predicted way back in the late 80s that the Racial D-Day would be 2020, and I stand by my claim), it will be at least a further decade until they become a [i]citizen majority[/i], and then another 5-10 years until they reach an [i]electoral majority[/i]. These are very grounded and realistic claims (which I'm certainly unhappy about, however). Thus, we have about 25-30 years in which the majority of Federal legislators will be elected by whites. Obviously, an ever growing number of officeholders will be nonwhite. However, the white turn to conservatism might keep gathering pace, especially as the continuously deteriorating conditions lead the Right to focus ever less on secondary social as well as foreign policy issues, and ever more on issues of economics, on the one hand, and race and public order (crime, immigration, affirmative action and the spoils system), on the other. I suspect that whites will be moving further to the Right (and to [i]our[/i] Right) over the next few decades. In other words, 'dire straits' analyses are always too linear. They fail to recognize that people can and do change based on circumstance. I have a friend, a liberal New York Zionist Jew, nearly the embodiment of the type WNs despise, who characteristically voted Obama in 08. However, this gentleman, a very successful commercial attorney, has been so incensed at the sheer fiscal mismanagement of the Obama admin that he finally 'crossed the line' and voted GOP in 2010. There will be many, many more such persons in the coming decades. A similar problem with WN apocalyptic scenarios is that they falsely assume that all nonwhites vote lockstep for liberalism. That is simply untrue. My next door neighbors are Filipinos, quite polite, and deeply Catholic. Do I want them here, in the US or the OC? Of course not! My race built America, and I want the territory for my people - forever! But my neighbors are hardly destructive radicals or (more usually black) hooligans. They keep up their property, and cause me no headaches. Indeed, based on a complaint the husband made some months back to me about a tax reassessment he suffered, I suspect this man might even be Republican. Even if not, I can imagine him voting against new bond measures for increased welfare spending. Indeed, back in 1994, we had the very 'controversial' (read 'ridiculously moderate') Prop 187, which sought to deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens (it passed, but was later voided by a Paki federal judge). Much was made (including by me at the time) of the fact that a majority of every nonwhite group voted against it, while whites voted heavily but not overwhelmingly for it (about 61%). However, only Hispanics, who comprise the vast bulk if illegals, voted overwhelmingly against it (77%-23%). Blacks voted about 47% for it; Asians, about 43% for it - despite all the cries of "racism" and "economic damage", etc from all the usual suspects, from professional nonwhite nationalists, to Chamber of Commerce types, to media liberals. My point, then, is simple. America is going down, but the decline is unlikely to be sharp and violent, unless the macroeconomic managers of our economy really screw up (as they did wrt the housing bubble, which however, was mainly a monetary phenomenon). Impending problems create countervailing forces for solutions (another example is the crime drop in the 90s, which had nothing to do with any liberal uplift, but merely resulted from the passage of state level "three strikes" laws across the country, which have dramatically increased convict populations, sometimes needlessly, but concomitantly reduced crime rates - again, hardly my ideal, which would be widespread violent criminal extermination, but tolerably effective nonetheless). White extinction in America is far more likely to issue from slow but gathering race-mixing than race war.
10890650571304338171anon, Afraid not. I said somewhere that someday I (and a business partner) intend to try to break into American radio, perhaps sooner than later (though that depends on my friend's actions, for the moment, more than mine). At various conservative conferences I've attended, I have had a number of attendees over the years inquire of me whether I was or ever had been on radio, and to suggest I ought to be. John Archer, Thank you. I hope you will add your voice to the comments. For what it's worth, I completely disagree with what might be called the Radical Racial Right, which I define, in essence, as those who reject either Christianity, or at least the West's historic, secular traditions (themselves ultimately rooted in Christianity). Specifically, my position is that the findings of both modern racial science, and the sociology of race, need to be incorporated into traditional/modern (ie, post-Enlightenment) conservatism (pre-Enlightenment conservatism was really about the defense of feudalism, the alliance of Throne and Altar, the conditions for which no longer obtain, and will almost certainly not be resurrected). I see no need to reject the immense body of traditionalist thought, and formulate something completely new; indeed, I think that would be a huge mistake, both morally and politically (as Nazism was). The findings of modern science in fact bolster the case for traditional conservatism, properly understood. But the integration of racial realism into traditionalist political philosophy has not yet been fully articulated or even theorized. I call my position "biological Occidentalism". It sees the preservation of Western Civilization as the ultimate goal of political conservatism (really, of Western politics). It recognizes that Western Civ is the unique product of the white race (in the biological terminology perhaps overly favored in these parts, we could say "Western Civ is a phenotype of the white man's (Aryan) genotype"), and that there is no scientific or historical reason to suppose that it can be successfully transferred to or perpetuated by nonwhite communities. Thus, if we wish to save the West, we must, among other tasks, keep its homelands preponderantly white. Trainspotter, I find little with which to disagree in your rejoinder to me. Perhaps I expressed myself inartfully. I merely was referring to the amazing historical stability of the Anglosphere over the past century and a half - but also, it's true, with an eye to what I think will be the continued (and tolerably successful) managed decline of the US in the future. I think I was thinking not of successful preservation of the civilization through a period of declining power (for whatever reason, though in our case it's clearly self-induced by bad (liberal) policies, beginning with coercive racial integration and mass nonwhite immigration), but rather with the peaceful transference of political and economic power from one group to others. Here is one example of American adaptation to decline. Starting in WW2, lots of Southern blacks moved north. Their innate criminal proclivities were kept in check by a still racial traditionalist set of crime control policies. These were upended by the sainted 'civil rights' movement in the early to mid-Sixties. Rapidly thereafter came a huge Negroid crime explosion, first in the form of riots and mayhem, and later in a massive and continuing crime wave cum low level guerrilla war against whites. But this did not destroy America, or even our way of life for very many of us. Why not? Both individuals and the government made various accommodations. 'White flight' got many whites away from criminal blacks on a daily basis. Welfare and affirmative action were inaugurated as ongoing Negro pacifiers. Later, when crime kept going up (though not as much as would have been the case without liberal government attention), white people took matters into their own hands at the state levels, passing 'three strikes' laws, which got lots of blacks into an expanding prison system. Of course, from my [i]uber[/i]-traditionalist perspective, none of this addressed the root problem, which was the racial integration of violent Negroes with decent whites. Racial integration was an example of American civilizational decline (and a precipitator of still greater decline over time: granting equality to blacks, we could no longer plausibly maintain racial segregation at the level of international immigration). Yet we 'managed' it such that it lowered our quality of life, but did not destroy us. I think the system will keep managing our ongoing ruin for sometime (though we all know that our future is a slightly upscale Tijuana, if not Detroit) - much longer than racialists tend to think possible (incidentally, I made this same argument to a sceptical Jared Taylor in 1993, before I'd started reading [i]American Renaissance[/i], and thus far, I've been proven right vis a vis the racial 'catastrophists'). NV, I agree with you completely. Again, I was inartful of expression. By "race-mixing" I meant everything but race war. That is, whites are likely going to go extinct because of nonwhite immigration/crowding, and hence loss of living space, which lowers birthrates; all other factors causing below replacement birthrates (the main one being the social/national insanity called "feminism" or, worse, its harpy adjunct, "female careerism"); and increasing miscegenation. I think whites will go "gently into (their) goodnight", as opposed to being violently extirpated. If we were being violently targeted [i]en masse[/i], we might actually wake up!
10884150581304168667God save the Queen! (But this American missed the whole thing. No regrets.)
10890450581304333769Good stuff, Dr. Lister! Though perhaps a bit harsh. The wedding is only partly a symptom of celebrity obsession. It also represents a genuine moment for the British to wave their flags, and feel good about who they are as a people. A weak reed, perhaps, but on the whole something positive. The real question is why the royals have been so pusillanimous about allowing their ancient fatherland to be invaded by aliens, especially Islamic ones. I'm not British, and my knowledge of the history of that land is really much less than it should be for an educated man, but isn't the Queen the nominal head of the Church of England, and by extension, the defender of Christianity in the Isles? What would happen if she, or another royal, came out swinging against any continuing accommodations towards domestic Muslims? Would the monarchy be put at risk? Or might it be strengthened as a place for patriots to rally 'round? I honestly have no idea what the answer might be, but I'd be interested in hearing from the British themselves.
10978850591305893472I saw two movies tonight: [i]Thor[/i] and [i]Jumping the Broom[/i]. The first supposedly Nordic, the second very black American (there were barely any white characters). I hate to say it, but the latter was infinitely more interesting to me than the former. [i]Thor[/i] certainly looked good visually (most Hollywood movies do), but the script was just appallingly idiotic, much worse than it needed to be, and even the effects were pretty lame. I'm not sure what I expected, but certainly more than what I got. Don't waste your money. JTB was more more interesting, and I'm glad I saw it (beyond just getting a gander at at least a couple of unusually pretty black women). It was nicely made, lovely cinematography and art direction ([i]mise en scene[/i], and an affecting, "chick-flick" plot (my girlfriend got mushy, as usual). What was interesting was the intent behind the film. It was produced by the black evangelist T. D. Jakes, who also had a bit part onscreen. It was a "black" movie, but with obvious Christian overtones. It self-consciously toed the line between recognizing contemporary mass-morality and problems (laid on a bit thick, but that's melodrama), especially from the particular black experience, and trying to uphold what's right from a Christian perspective. I enjoy movies like this because they offer some insight into the state of mind of one part of black America, in this case the upper class (yes there was a culture clash in the plot between two families whose children are marrying, one upper crust, the other in the process of "movin' on up", but the fundamental perspective was definitely not [i]ghetto[/i]). The movie felt 'real' (if not very realistic). I can imagine blacks who have 'made it' actually trying to negotiate such issues of racial identity as how much of their cultural past to preserve, as well as how much [i]ghetto[/i] they should allow to intrude into their lives. This was a positive, but not preachy, movie. Race is never too far from these people's minds, but they don't obsess over it. I wish more blacks were as normal as these characters. America would be a much more pleasant place.
10895350601304409691[i]If I may correct the corrector Røaring Sinner: “Anton Chekhov”, not “Anton Chekov”.[/i] (Ivan) Yes, the former spelling is the conventional transliteration. But what [i]necessarily[/i] must follow from the Cyrillic?
10895550601304410865[i]“What have we allowed ourselves to become? Are we no longer a nation of laws...have we decided that the writ of habeas corpus is not worth defending? Is torture now an acceptable tool for making us safe? Unfortunately the single answer to all of these questions from the leaders of our country and to many of our citizens appears to be yes. And now we’re told that assassination of foreigners as well as American citizens is legitimate and necessary to provide security for our people. It is my firm opinion that nothing could be further from the truth.”[/i] Ron Paul Rep Paul should really stick to his excellent advocacy of the gold standard and Federal Reserve Board abolition. He seems to know little about anything else, especially foreign policy. The "writ of habeas corpus"? huh? What does that have to do with the circumstances of this particular case (hint: nothing)? Moreover, habeas corpus only applies to AMERICAN citizens, just as the rights derived (and sometimes invented) from the Constitution are supposed to be the province only of Americans! Yes, there have been egregious cases in which Constitutional protections were extended to foreigners. These are invariably the product of liberal ideology insinuating itself where it has no (textual or historical) place, and, moreover, they cover foreigners [i]within[/i] US boundaries (eg, [i]Plyler v Doe[/i], if memory serves, the 1982 case in which a bare majority of the Supreme Court decided that school districts could not bar entry to illegal alien children of school age resident in the US). Neither habeas corpus, obviously, nor any other actually relevant possible writ - nor any Constitutional provision at all - would have applied to Osama bin Laden, a foreigner resident on foreign soil. You'd think that Congress's self-styled leading Constitutionalist, of all people, would understand this. Finally, yes, Dr. Paul, the torture and assassination of international terrorists is perfectly consistent with American history and Constitution.
10895650601304412327Baron's Errors: 1) "who do we murder next?" [i]whom[/i], please. 2) “'Four more years', which he will probably get" You can't be serious! This will be forgotten in a few months, if not weeks. Of course, I have no idea who will be president in two years, though I think Obongo has an excellent shot - but mainly because the possible Republicans are all "charisma-pygmies" next to him. 3) "Why did Uncle Sam send a task force into a sovereign nation to assassinate a wanted fugitive without due process?" You might want to elaborate on your notion of "due process" (hint: see comment above; Osama had no due process standing, except, perhaps, under international legal agreements to which the US was a signatory). 4) "Would it not have been possible to arrest Bin Laden by staking out the place?" This is a joke, right? I mean, you're not really this stupid? "staking ... out ... the ... place"?! Do you possess even the rudiments of knowledge about military operations? 5) "There are numerous ways Bin Laden could have been subdued without raiding his compound," Such as? 6) "because of the magnitude of his crimes – which have not been proved in a court of law" It is not necessary, under US law, for our military to drag 'hostiles' into courts before killing them. Our military has always been used against foreign pirates, terrorists, and aggressive (non- or pre-citizen) aboriginals. 7)" serial killer John Gacy, they dug the remains of twenty-six bodies out of the crawlspace of his house. Surely that evidence was compelling enough to warrant his immediate execution? Instead, Gacy was brought to trial, and spent fourteen years on Death Row before he was executed by due process of law. Was Osama Bin Laden less deserving of due process than John Gacy?" Again, Gacy, however repulsive, was an American. And yes, after his conviction, he should have been immediately exterminated. That he spent any more than a few weeks on Death Row is a sign of liberal insanity, not "due process", "the Constitution", or "justice". I agree, however, about the body's elimination. It should have been returned to the US, extensively photographed by all manner of news media, decapitated, and then the headless body publicly incinerated before the world media. The head, however, should have been placed on a pike on the White House lawn for 30 days, as a warning to savages about what happens if you assault America.
10896150601304426970[i]“It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their enmities forge their fetters.” Edmund Burke[/i] Speaking from memory, I believe the phrase is, "Their [i]passions[/i] forge their fetters." A different meaning, that.
10898450601304487282[i]9-11 is not something to argue about - the time has passed long time ago for that. 9-11 is to be used as a litmus test to identify creatures like Thorn and Leon Haller in order to force them to wear the star of David and the yellow Jude ribbon when the time comes. And the time will come. The jig is up for the kike. In the age of the Internet, it cannot be hidden any longer despite the total control of all major mass media by the jew: http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=9461[/i] (Ivan) Ivan you fucking roach, Neither I, nor Thorn I think, are Jews. You, however, are Muslim. Muslims are almost never white, and those few who are had civilizational traitors for ancestors. The Muslim is the truest enemy of Western Civilization. Go away, and do not return.
10899050601304511309Unfortunately, "dc", I'm one of the somewhat few here who actually has something to say.
10900350601304544149dc, Are you some nazi type? That's great for saving the West. I oppose Nazism as an ethical matter. That does not mean I am personally bothered by Nazis (I have two pretty hardcore neo-Nazi friends), though as a (theologically liberal, ideologically Hard Right) Christian I could never truck with the ideology myself. (I am not a "Christian conservative" or "Christianist", incidentally. I am a moderate Catholic and secular extreme rightist.) Anyone who fights for the white race, however misguided his reasons, I consider at least a tactical comrade. I am neither a friend nor an enemy of the Jews. I am perfectly cognizant of the Jewish role in leftist movements of the past several centuries (as much as any of the anti-semites lurking about the Racial Right). I continue to think that there is something defective about our race that we are so easily duped. Blaming the Jews is cowardly. It also evades the tough questions about what we whites have suicidally done to ourselves. I was never duped (ie, I've always been a hardline racialist, probably for longer than you have been alive). I do think as an empirical matter that those who overly obsess about Jewry are less intelligent (in most cases - note the idiotic conspiratorialism rampant in this thread alone), or, in the case of a serious thinker like Kevin MacDonald, simply seizing an opening to do original, controversial intellectual work. Focusing on the Jews is tactically extremely stupid, and a very large component of why the Racial Right, despite its obvious correctness on so many issues, never really gets any electoral traction, anywhere. The trick is to build up white identity, in positive part by renewing in whites a feeling for the moral, cognitive, cultural and aesthetic value of our people and civilization, and in negative part by emphasizing nonwhite parasitism, criminality and/or terrorism. If you want to examine the extensiveness and quality of my comments here at MR, just scroll through the last dozen or so stories. You will find plenty from me, including one of many longish ones explaining my core position.
10900450601304544846I note that the intellectual quality of the commentary on this site has declined precipitously in 2011. That's really too bad. To a considerable extent, the quality of WN sites can be determined by the extent to which accusations of "Jew" are thrown around (as in, "you disagree with my ridiculous critiques of mainstream information, therefore you must be a Jew - or controlled or indoctrinated by Jews"). Be careful, GW, for a while you were building up a substantial, dissident intellectual community here. But the superior persons are drifting away rapidly, it seems.
10900850601304554274I repeat: [b]I note that the intellectual quality of the commentary on this site has declined precipitously in 2011. That’s really too bad. To a considerable extent, the quality of WN sites can be determined by the extent to which accusations of “Jew” are thrown around (as in, “you disagree with my ridiculous critiques of mainstream information, therefore you must be a Jew - or controlled or indoctrinated by Jews"). Be careful, GW, for a while you were building up a substantial, dissident intellectual community here. But the superior persons are drifting away rapidly, it seems.[/b] Proof positive. Look what follows. It is so painfully obvious who in these environs is intelligent, learned and articulate, and who is not (eg, Ivan, dc, Colby/Trebuchet, Alaric, Silver, Al Ross, and countless other worthless wastes and weirdoes, albeit a few with some small measure of intelligence and superficial learning, eg, James Bowery, the Narrator, NeoNietzsche). But I do admit that observing the cretins here (with some honorable exceptions, like GW, Dasein, Notus Wind and others) has been professionally and strategically useful. I never really understood why conservatives were so hysterically quick to disassociate themselves from nationalism, especially in these days of racial invasion. Now I know. It is because most WNs really are morally repulsive and intellectually/cognitively sub-par, and superior men naturally don't wish themselves to be grouped with such distasteful inferiors. I never thought I would say this.[u] What the West needs if it is to be saved is a [i]morally responsible[/i] nationalism.[/u] Generally, the use of the term "responsible" in an ideological context is a coded way of selling out, rather as the PC brigades' calling good patriots "Nazis" is a way to try to prevent whites from having the moral standing to save themselves. But sometimes there really are Nazis. I take solace in the fact that my lonely quest to save the West through the development of an ethical and intellectually grounded and sober nationalism, one fully consonant with our civilization's Christian heritage, is the approach ultimately most likely to bear political fruit in the real world. Hysterics in tiny ideological hothouses like this one count for precisely nothing in the real world. They never have, and they never will. Even the atheist should recognize the brute fact that Western Man is Ethical Man, and adjust his strategy and rhetoric accordingly.
10902050601304595425[i]How this Haller person thing sneers, prates and boasts. Listen you miserable cunt: You insinuate that you are so much older and wiser. I’m turning seventy. You boast of your learning and depth. I have my degrees and a lifetime of careful reading. And, incidentally, I have read your efforts, flatulent, slimy and dim as they are. I was triple sigma in my youth. You will have to do better than suggesting your virtues. National socialism: In a jew controlled society something like NS is a necessity. Moronic talk of majority appeal advertises the feeble minded. With jew penetration, “democracy” is no more than putting a price tag on government. Try it out. What, in fact, is wrong with being a “Nazi” ? Jews: Haller has it that noticing jew control is an obsession, doubtless indicative of a diseased mind. Look all about. Anyone who does not see the work of the jew is blind or their creature. WTC, “Holocaust”: Not just gigantic scams, but obvious gigantic scams. Ivan has it right: the degree to which a person accepts the fairy tales of our masters, shows the extent to which that person is part of our ruin. And so to bin Laden: The jew government of the US claims the murder of a man who is not known to have done anything more wicked than pointing out that America is under jew control. Jew organized crowds are delighted. This sanctifies the monkey in the Whitehouse. The idea that we should soft-peddle most issues in order to focus on White Nationalism is a delusion. Compromise with rubbish or evil ruins our best effort. The only path is across the board honesty. And Haller, Baby, Sweetums, do try, so sweet when you try, do try to do more than expose yourself as a fool.[/i] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is so pathetic about this "dc" character is that he digs his own grave. Any real, normal intellectual, scanning my comments and his, even just the ones on this thread, would easily and immediately conclude that he was perusing the products of two minds operating at entirely different levels of cognition. dc: you are a delusional idiot. That is not meant pejoratively. You are also a fool and obviously a major crotchety asshole. That is. You are correct that you are much older than I. Despite having nearly reached your biblical three score and ten, however, you do indeed remain, if not literally young, then jejune, I believe, is the word. If you were humbler and more ethical, your delusions would garner my sympathy. Of course, you [i]again[/i] misstate several of my actual positions. But arguing with someone like you is unnecessary. Even serious, Hard Right race realists like me consider your factually unfounded extremism to be beyond the pale of traditional morality. One sentence says it all: [i]WTC, “Holocaust”: Not just gigantic scams, but obvious gigantic scams.[/i] (dc) "obvious gigantic scams"? "[i]obvious[/i]"?! You don't think that such statements reveal your delusions? In the real world, where I live and operate, you would not even be laughed at. You would merely be ignored. What is truly pathetic is that you would thereby feel vindicated. "You are all fools, but I, dc, see the Truth. The FBI, CIA, entire news media, entire government ... they are all 100% controlled by the perfidious Jew. I am much better informed than everyone else. Who could possibly doubt me?" There is still time for you to grow up. Or at least, to get back on your meds.
10902150601304595648[i]Leon, Are you childless?[/i] (danielj) Yes, as I have stated elsewhere at MR. Also unmarried. Why do you ask?
10902550601304601121[i]@ Ivan, you are absolutely right about this: Jews like Thorn and Leon are so obvious that every person who has given any thought to jewish peril and studied their modus operandi should recognize them instantaneously. These bastards, posing like white people, do enormous damage to the image of ordinary white people who are overwhelmingly good natured folks.[/i] (Helvena) It is the weird leading the dumb. How many times must I reiterate that I am Catholic? Born, raised, lived (well, in a 'liberal' interpretation of the faith). I have not a drop of non-Nordic ethnic background (that I know of, of course). Thorn has repeatedly criticized Jewry on many occasions, even on this very thread. But he's Jewish because he happens not to agree with conspiracy yokels who think bin Laden had nothing to do with 9-11?! Recall what I said above about 'ideological hothouses'. And again, be careful GW - your silence might be taken as implicit belief in this embarrassing nonsense. Your handiwork loses credit by the hour.
10902750601304601848I am unmarried by choice. If I had one million dollars for every woman who wanted to marry me, I'd nearly be a decimillionaire. But marriage in this age of female empowerment is a tricky enterprise, and one has to be sure of what one is getting. Plus, in my past and present haunts of NYC and LA, it is not easy finding an ideologically sympatico female (or even just a moderate conservative with old-fashioned values). Sorry, Silver, if you were to carefully examine my comments over several years, you would see that I am by far one of the more civilized of persons in these parts. I suspect I am also among the most ethical. But what I say is its own justification. We shall just have to follow life's course, and see who makes an impact. I know who I am, and what I can do; whether the third rate approve of me or my approach is immaterial. The proof will be in the pudding, no? In these battles on the Right, eventually I, or my side/approach, will win. And you should applaud. The alternative is the Nazi crowd, proudly bereft of any [i]weak[/i] Christian impulses - and their reign will be pleasant for no one.
10902850601304601939[i]Your handiwork loses credit by the hour.[/i] I meant to say "credibility".
10903050601304602810I am a traitor because I am Christian - and [i]only[/i] seek the physical removal of all non-Europeans from Europe, as opposed to what you want, it seems, their extermination? Let me tell the sober folks left around here the truth: persons like Ivan, dc, Helvena, Silver, etc ad nauseam are all trolls and traitors. Anyone can tell they are leftwing, PC plants. How? Because, first, they propound the most repulsive shit, in order to make the site lose credibility among serious and ethical persons, and second, they deliberately attack and spew nonsense about the most effective regulars. Irony of ironies, that is really, actually, genuinely, an old Jewish leftist commie disinformation trick. Ivan et al - I think you are nonwhites sent here to discredit us. GO AWAY.
10910450601304766824Grimoire, Brilliant, or at least suggestive - though I wish you would speak less cryptically. I have clearly suspected for some time that Ivan was some kind of a phony, at least an unserious troll, if not a leftist plant. He calls himself Muslim, but he does not write/appear to think as a Muslim. I've read a decent bit about Islam and its history, as well as the Middle East, and Ivan does not sound genuine. Most persons with whom I have had disagreements here do, nevertheless sound authentic. Where you have lessened your own credibility is in challenging Scrooby. I'm pretty sure he was genuine. Ivan, go fuck off. (GW, protect the integrity of MR, and ban this cretin.)
10911050601304770772I am a traitor because I am Christian - and only seek the physical removal of all non-Europeans from Europe, as opposed to what you want, it seems, their extermination? (LH) [i]Case in point. This the line you come charging in with every time, with an almost childlike innocence about the reaction it provokes among those not inclined to think that way. All credit to you for figuring out it’s not simply “The Jew!” behind every policy intended to make life difficult for racialists but how is it you’ve failed to make the simplest connection of all between the repellent nature of your views turning neutrals among your kind against you? There’s Johnny Neutral going about his business, not thinking much of race either way, when he hears Leon Haller railing that he’s got to join in and round up all the filthy non-white scum and send them back to the shitholes they emerged from and which they rightfully belong in. If Johnny Neutral doesn’t feel so strongly about them—and the evidence is surely that he does not—then, bang, instant enemy right there, and this can occur despite his perhaps having had somewhat strong feelings on his own (just not as strong as yours). This effect runs up and down the socioeconomic spectrum; you’re only too aware of its results. That out of the way, just what is this “Europe” you want all the “non-Europeans” out of, anyway? The way I see it, perhaps half the “native” people of some half that (sub)continent are “non-European” (to a significant degree, certainly if “purity” is the standard). But even if I’m wildly over-inflating it and the real proportion is only 10%, what world do you live in that you imagine that the citizenry of those countries is just going to shave off 10% of their own ethnic flesh and blood because the high and mighty Leon Haller demanded it?[/i] (Silver) I understand PR, far better than you might think. It's a portion of what I do for a living. But this is a WN site. I'm trying to get WNs to recognize what we should be rallying 'round. The goal is population removal, not oppression, enslavement or extermination - nor endless whining with no action. Note, I would like all nonwhites out of America, too, but that isn't going to happen. Even though whites built America, we effectively invited the immigration invasion, plus we are a New World, and hence, retroactively open to all, considered 'ontologically' (ie, we cannot legitimately describe North America as an inherently "white continent", though we can obviously lay claim to American civilization). That's an ethically subtle point. We whites had a moral right to refuse immigrant admissions, on any basis we chose, and we still have that right (I mean, from a Christian moral standpoint; there always must be some final moral ground upon which to stand). Obviously, we have the right to expel all illegal aliens, and to employ whatever defensive means we choose to prevent further illegal entry. We might even have a right to retroactively deny citizenship to some of those who have only legally arrived recently. But wrt the bulk of legal immigrants, I cannot conceive of a Christian argument justifying their coercive expulsion - unless obviously as the endgame in a civil race war initiated by them against us. Then most bets would be off. Europe is wholly different. No other race lived there or (even possibly) evolved there. The lands are ancient; the civilization and culture wholly the products of whites. Nonwhites, moreover, are only resident there because disloyal governments [i]imposed[/i] them on the native born, without the latter's consent. A kind of auto-genocide has been perpetrated against the European peoples. By what moral theory must they tolerate its effects forever? Of course we are a long way from having any political breakthroughs, nor will we by failing to "soft-pedal" our real goals. But we need first to be clear about those goals, which are: 1. immigration stoppage 2. nonwhite repatriation from Europe 3. "De-multiculturalization" of the culture, return to tradition Obviously, building support for this agenda is likely to be slow. We start with immigration, the devil we know, before attempting to construct an entirely new philosophy to replace the existent one which could not prevent public brainwashing and indifference to race replacement.
10911350601304774907Grimoire, We are not going to make it. The West was the highest realization yet seen of man's potential for excellence in all the virtues. There is, furthermore, no empirical reason to believe that civilizations can be perpetuated by groups too genetically dissimilar from their founding stocks. Thus, the West deserves to live, but its immigration and coercive racial integration policies guarantee that it will eventually die (unless science fiction comes alive - one can imagine hardy whites venturing to alien worlds, to start the West anew; but the technology is so far distant, and the colonization so far along, that such options will likely remain mere fantasies during the remainder of the epoch in which whites continue to exist). Power, today more than ever, resides in the (muddled, brainwashed) masses. Our task is to convince a sufficient number of them of the ethical allowability and moral value of preserving their race and its territorial control as the mechanism for preserving the civilization of unique excellence that we were, and might be again. I believe the only way this can happen, given the speed of our devolution, is for whites to be brought to a heightened awareness of the hitherto only latent potential for a racialized Christianity; that is, a Christianity made aware that the pursuit of excellence and the striving for particularistic virtue is part of the Christian man's proper end, and that the multicult throws obstacles to that pursuit, and thus defeats that end. GW is correct about the need for a reformulated ontology; that is, unless we understand ourselves and real natures much better we will continue to maintain the social and political structures which, by their very essence, are driving our extinction. Where he is wrong is in failing to recognize first, that the time in which to accomplish this reformulation is running out, assuming effective real world action to halt our racial extinction is the final goal of the new ontology; second, a wholescale reformulation is unnecessary, because the theoretical tools are already contained latently in the Christian tradition, properly understood in its application to racial and historical problems; and third, Christianity for the foreseeable future has a grip on the imagination deriving from its history that it would take centuries for any new ontology to approach in intelligibility, and white acceptance. I'll try to make this clearer later.
10918750601304931175I'm really busy right now, but will respond to comments directed my way in a day or two. There are several here that need addressing.
10910250611304763055I like posts like this one which deal straightforwardly with politics, and are informative. Thanks. Some issues I'm wondering about, as I've been extremely busy these past two days and have heard or read nothing about Thursday's election: 1) What is a "First Minister of Scotland"? 2) Why does [i]"the future of the Union, of all the Westminster parties, and of political nationalism in England now all rest with a few million Scottish votes"[/i]? 3) If the Scots vote for independence, will they actually gain sovereign nationhood, and how long until that became a reality? 4) Wouldn't it be [i]better[/i] for the Tories and English nationalism, and a disaster for Labour, if Scotland left the UK? I thought the Scots were mostly leftist, and voted either Labour or SNP (which is mainly leftist). 5) Why are the Scots so leftist? 6) If Scotland gained independence, would it be full independence? Would they issue their own currency, start their own military, and have their own immigration policy? 7) Would independence keep Scotland whiter than existing trends? 8) How likely that Scottish independence would lead to sovereignty for Wales and Ulster? Would any parts of England push for secession? 9) Is the 69% NO to AV a good thing (I thought so)? 10) Did the BNP do worse than expected? 11) How does ethnonationalism in England benefit from continued Union with Scotland? 12) Without Scotland, would the remaining UK become more Tory?
10914350611304843182GW, Thanks for getting me at least a bit up to speed wrt British politics. Of course, I forgot to ask the really important question: [b]do you think Scotland is likely to become a new, sovereign nation within this decade[/b] (or the foreseeable future beyond that)? And would that be an outcome you would wish for? It seems to me an ironic situation. Scotland would leave as a much whiter nation, yet its voters are more leftist (and also globalist and multiculturalist? I don't know if those tendencies all run together over there as in the US). The remaining Britain would be more conservative in its political orientation, but also now even less proportionally white. Indeed, how white in percentage terms would the new British federation of England, Wales and Ulster be? And do you really think Ulster would be able to remain British? It wouldn't want to join up with an independent Scotland, would it? Ulstermen are much more conservative than the Scots, but aren't they mostly of Scottish ancestry? Final comment. I really can't understand how the Scots came to be so leftist. Historically, their national character combined among other traits entrepreneurship with extreme parsimoniousness (rather like Jews, come to think of it). The Scots gave America many tough businessmen (eg Andrew Carnegie) and military men (eg, Andrew Jackson), among other immigrants of accomplishment. Very strange, and sad. Scotland was very beautiful, and very white, when I visited it in the early 90s. I wish it could remain so.
10914450611304843643PM, Thanks also for your interesting comment. The real issue for me would be whether a resurgent Tory majority New Britain could have a better chance of ending nonwhite immigration, but also of putting the screws to immigrant benefits, and generally making life tough, so that there could be some attrition among them - indeed, maybe encourage some of them to emigrate to Scotland! Wouldn't that be fitting!
10914850631304856372I was going to put this over at the bin Laden thread, but it's getting clogged there. Why do I, a conservative, fight racial dispossession? First, while the locus of conservative concern shifts over time, depending upon which existential threats are predominant, it should be noted that conservatism is neither coincident with Christianity (or even religiosity), nor with mere tribalism of one sort or another, nor with liberty or capitalism, nor with any single issue, but rather is informed by all of these concerns and influences. I would argue, roughly with Russell Kirk and Sam Francis, that the true conservative is the man with the disposition to defend his own culture and that culture’s settled way of life, provided that such are neither violative of Christian natural law, broadly understood, nor demonstrably inferior to some other mode of existence (as Burke reminds us: “A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation.”). Put another way, the conservative seeks to defend both that which is a permanent part of a moral order thought either to be a product of God, or best suited to a substantially unchanging (genetic) human nature, as well as what is particular to his own politico-cultural community. Thus, conservatism’s non-ideological character. It does not offer any specific, ‘timeless’ policy prescriptions because all depends upon historical context. Simultaneously, conservatives are not merely relativists because they will defend the general principles necessary to the maintenance of humane civilization itself, even as they defend the particularity of their own communities. Second, the chief issue for real conservatives today is nothing less than the survival of Western civilization – that organic unity which has been demonstrably superior to all other human communities in all significant ways, and which is OUR civilization. In other words, this civilization is defensible by conservatives because it is good, and because it is ours (and we would not be who we are without it: it molds our minds, and determines our larger identities). The first question, then, is what aspect of our civilization is under greatest attack, and second, what is the most efficacious means of repulsing the threat? Conservatives, depending upon their varying ideological predispositions (Christian, racialist, or libertarian), will disagree on the answers to both of these questions, but I think that the racial threat is undeniably the greatest one. Here at MR, only 'plants' and anti-Zionist obsessives will disagree. Western civ was created by whites. To paraphrase Sam Francis, there is no evidence that this civilization (or any other) could have been created apart from the genetic endowments of the founding (white) race, nor is there any reason to suppose that it will be continued by persons of other racial backgrounds. Indeed, if the manifest failure of America’s experiment in racial integration to assimilate non-whites to Anglo-European American cultural norms is indicative of the future, then there is no hope that Western civ will be preserved in places where whites will no longer comprise demographic majorities. Thus, we must stop the non-white demographic and cultural and even psychic conquest of the lands historically associated with the West. THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR CONSERVATIVES TODAY – not ending the wars in west Asia, stopping abortion, eliminating the capital gains tax or budget deficit, defeating Obama, or any other secondary or tertiary matter. ALL other issues of conservative concern must, first, be subordinated to the overriding issue of white racial survival, and second, must be judged only in light of whether and to what extent they aid or harm the primary racial objective.
10918550631304931057I'm really busy right now, but will respond to comments directed my way in a day or two.
10937850631305375449[i]Posted by Lee John Barnes on May 08, 2011, 05:07 PM | # I am sorry Leon, but Conservatism has never been about preserving the racial characteristics of the nation state. Not in the UK, Europe or the US. Conservatism has primarily been about ensuring the incumbent ruling class of the nation state stays in wealth and power whilst ensuring the masses, who are from the same racial group as the ruling class, are oppressed and deprived of economic equality and political power. Conservatives are reactionaries motivated by self interest and class interest not racial altruism. At least in the real world they are.[/i] That may be somewhat true wrt the history of the Tory party, though obviously not with everyone (eg Enoch Powell). But I am speaking of what it means to be [i]truly[/i] conservative, considered philosophically, not merely in terms of historical party politics - though even there I think your view is inaccurate and overly cynical. Of course, conservatism in history has been concerned about preserving racial purity - just look at its history in the US, Australia and South Africa, all of which practiced various forms of racial segregation, anti-immigrationism and anti-miscegenationism.
10937950631305376585[i]Haller, That’s a fine response and those are all good reasons to “fight racial dispossession.” But they’re not the only reasons to, and taking a pro-self racial stand isn’t something only “conservatives” (a vague, even loaded, term) can or should do, which is to say that making race a conservative issue will undoubtedly distance those who don’t really have any other good reason to be distanced. But (a) you didn’t address the point I raised about “where does it all end?” and (b) there’s not even a hint there of any concrete proposals (something you’ve taken me to task for). Fear and uncertainty are huge sticking points when it comes to race. Shouldn’t allaying those fears form a central pillar of “what race means” at this here point in the 21st century?[/i] (Silver) I am sorry to be just getting back to this now, but this was a busy week for me. I'm fine with non-conservatives fighting to save the white race. I hate those "conservatives", however, who try to remove race as a topic of conservative concern. Racial preservation (not imperialism, or genocide), including the link between people and territory, is at the heart of conservatism, properly understood. I'm not sure where the "where does it all end?" was raised, or exactly what you mean by it. I have always stated forthrightly that the global WN agenda (or mine anyway) is as follows: 1. Repatriation of all nonwhites from all the nations of Europe (I admit, I'm not sure how Albania and Bosnia should be handled, and am open to suggestions). Illegal immigrants, and recent legal ones (say within the past five or 10 years) must be deported to countries of origin, with nothing more. Longer residing legal immigrants, as well as nonwhites born in Europe, can perhaps be offered certain financial incentives (eg, continuation of welfare payments overseas) to leave voluntarily. If they do not, they will be forced to do so, violent resistance punishable by death. Is that clear enough? 2. In New World countries like mine, the situation is more complex. All nonwhite immigration must be halted, and illegals deported. Immigration of whites should be encouraged legislatively. There should be incentives put in place to encourage white natality, and discourage nonwhite natality. All multicultural teaching in schools, as well as public holidays, must be eliminated. Anti-discrimination laws must be abolished. Interracial transfers of wealth must be terminated. Criminals, most of whom are black, must be punished harshly, and exterminated wherever warranted. The right to bear and use firearms must be restored. This list is not exhaustive.
10938150631305378855Ultimately, what is it you really want, Haller? Isn’t it a future for your kind, in which it can be safe and flourish, on lands traditionally its own? Isn’t that enough? If so, is it really beyond belief that racial others might consider that acceptable and, moreover, appreciate how their own interests could be satisfied under similar conditions? And if you disagree with that, would you at least agree that it makes tactical sense, as a way of drawing attention to the issues? (Ie, let’s establish this first; we can always kill each other later.) (Silver) I'm not even all that much of a racist, though of course I've been denounced as such innumerable times is real life, as well as banned for my "racism" from many "conservative" and Christian sites. All I ever point out is that we whites are victims of racial imperialism, through nonwhite immigration + coercive integration laws. I have stated many times that I am an "Occidentalist". I wish to preserve Western Civilization because a) I believe it is superior to other civilizations; b) even if a) is untrue, I believe it is worthy of preservation on its own terms; and c) at the very least, it is meaningful to me, especially after having had abundant experience of the alienating and unpleasant aspects of residing amongst nonwhites (or at least having to interact with them on a constant basis) in LA and NYC. I prefer living and working with whites, and would like to be able (and for future generations to be able) to live a truly white existence. Instead, even the little bit of "whiteness" available to me is constantly threatened and diminished. I worry that if whites do not maintain their demographic majorities in their traditional homelands (or at least somewhere), then they (and by extension, the West) will go extinct, either through miscegenation or extermination, or some combination of the two. This view is informed by extensive reading, especially in history, but also by several decades of observation of all types of nonwhite groups. They are just not as morally decent as whites, and will not treat us with anything like the concern and magnanimity with which we have treated them. And no, I unfortunately see no arena for "racial reciprocity". Whites build the world's most desirable societies, which is why nonwhites wish to dispossess us of them. We also happen to have cornered most of the world's best real estate. Nonwhites wish to take what is ours. I see no evidence that they care one wit about respecting our ethnocultural interests. They take what we let them have, for as long as we let them have it.
10925350671305114734No time yet to read article (I suspect I know what it says, though - and I would largely agree). Scanned comments, NARRATOR's is correct. We whites define our own societies, we do not beg for a place at the table carved by our ancestors, or at the feast our talents and toil have provided. That was the problem some years ago with the well-meaning, if incredibly naive and implicitly insulting, proposal for a European-American History month, modeled on the black colonization of the month formerly known as February (as Sam Francis used to joke). Such a proposal, made in a plaintive, "aren't whites people, too?" mode, implies that America is one great multicultural place, but that the, uh, contributions of whites, excuse me, "European-Americans", like those of, say, Hindus, Mohawks and Santerians, aren't being sufficiently recognized or appreciated by the larger society, and thus need greater public recognition. In fairness, it would be nice if there were greater public recognition of the role of whites in American history: in, that is, founding, settling and building the entirety of the modern nation our liberal masters are now so generously sharing with the itinerant lice of the Turd World. In the event, we didn't even get our month. The greatest indignity: to be made a servant in the house where you were the master (or worse, the owner). Not even the most 'squishy' portions of the New Testament require[i] that[/i] of Christians.
10940750671305405966I got some bad news for you sunshine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRvPoCWElOc&feature=related Are there any queers in the audience tonight? Get them against the wall Now there’s one in the spotlight he don’t look like to me Get him up against the wall And that one looks jewish! and that one’s a coon! Who let all of this riff raff into the room? There’s one smoking a joint, and another with spots If I had my way I’d have all of them shot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_leY_LgOuQ&feature=related As, I am sure, GW knows very well, the above words are not mine so, clearly, I am not in violation of any British laws. My only sin is that I love Pink Floyd - the gratest English rock band ever. Good night, baba. I like you. (Ivan) -------------------------------------------------------------------- I assume that even Ivan is not so stupid as to fail to realize that this is a [i]parody[/i]. I have to mention this because part of me just isn't sure about him ...
10991050671306323733“However, if all functional white people from all over the world.moved to one small country we might have the numbers to take over and run things or at least influence things enough so that in the long run we will..” (CS) I like it! What I have been long advocating (including here at MR) is catching on ...
10991450671306330512Re Malta, it's good to think outside the box, but there are problems. The core issue is susceptibility to (politico-demographic) conquest vs longer term strategic viability. Malta might be easy to conquer (or not), but hard to 'hold', and especially use for our purposes. I need to think more about this. Issues to consider: 1. What is the goal - to achieve a pleasant living space ('pleasant' from a WN view), or to establish a viable outpost for ultimate racial survival? 2. Is it actually possible to conquer Malta through politicized immigration? For example, what are their current immigration policies? Are they EU, and can any EU citizen simply move there? How long must one reside in order to become a citizen (and thus acquire voting rights)? 3. Even if WN immigration could happen, and be effectuated "under the radar" such that in time Malta came to have a WN majority (comprised of WN immigrants, plus WN native Maltese), how much room is there to grow? Is Malta militarily defensible without substantial population growth? 4. How attractive is Malta to putative immigrants? To do this requires a country with potential to grow its economy in tandem with its growing (WN) population. This is not some "Burning Man" style vacation, where a bunch of WNs all descend upon and take over some remote venue, simply because its sparse population means that such a takeover is possible. The issue is viability. Can the Maltese economy permanently support a large population increase? I suspect most WNs, especially of the pioneer type who would find emigration/conquest appealing, need to work (sell their labor) to support themselves and their families. Is such work available? Could it be, as WN immigration generates a critical mass of laborers and consumers? 5. Are there not better alternatives - places linguistically superior (ie, where a lot of people already speak English, the white language that is most common, even as a first language, and obviously as a second); with ecological room to expand; that might not notice WN migration for quite a while (I suspect the Maltese might figure out what's what very quickly, and possibly apply the brakes); with an already advanced economy, that either is or could be agriculturally self-sufficient, and that, with the right capitalist policies, could be made to expand rapidly in order to accommodate new labor entrants; preferably that already has a hi-tech defense establishment, even if small compared to the US, China, Israel, etc? No place that I can think of is perfect, but I continue to advocate Australia. They have a small population, still whiter than most white countries; it is the whitest English-speaking place, except for Scotland, Wales or Ireland; it is geographically remote, which has psychic advantages; it has a modern, if small, military (what matters are pre-existent defense skills, networks and institutions that can be rapidly expanded, that don't need to be built up from scratch); it has a developed economy, with relevant infrastructure, and lots of mineral resources, which could grow with the population; their elites are already pushing immigration, albeit Asian - how could they refuse to admit lots of whites? Obviously, we all have more thinking to do. But I do believe my larger prognostication is valid. Before whites wake up to their impending extinction, nearly every white nation will have a nonwhite majority, at which point white patriots will be faced with the choice of fighting civil wars (with all the economic damage that entails) to reclaim territories lost or ceded during the decades of the Immigration Invasion ("conquest by colonization") - wars whose outcomes are by no means certain - or simply passively to accept that collectively our race is going extinct, while individually continuing to live personally tolerable lives (until the very end, at which point the last remaining whites, the 'recalcitrants' who refuse to accept nonwhite domination, and who have not thrown away their genes in miscegenation, will likely be exterminated). Which path do you [i]really[/i] think most whites will take?
10991650671306331079I should have ended with "And thus we need our own viable country, a place where whites, and ideally WNs, are in the majority, and which is economically attractive now, and could be more so over time, and which is militarily defensible." I fear that without a Racial State, the white future is extinction by demographic inundation, non-replacement white birthrates, and always increasing miscegenationist pressures. In your hearts, you know I'm right.
10994150671306410816Interesting re Belize, anon. But I'm sticking with Australia. Small population, large landmass, clean and easy to defend, after armament and naval buildup, many Middle Australians would probably welcome more whites going there in lieu of Asiatics, already First World, etc. I really do think this is more promising than Jimmy Marr's Northwest Frontier (the old Aryan Bastion being theorized already by the late 60s). The ZOG might still let our people go, but not with any of[i] their[/i] territory!
10996950671306498963CS, I like your creative thinking, but consider my earlier query: [i]1. What is the goal - to achieve a pleasant living space (’pleasant’ from a WN view), or to establish a viable outpost for ultimate racial survival?[/i] By all means, if WNs could stealthily create a WN ethnostate on Malta, and if jobs were available in sufficient quantities, then taking it over demographico-electorally could be a really cool project. Think how great it would be to interact with WNs on an open and daily basis. Like a giant clubhouse or something. I certainly would consider migrating there, especially if I were married, and could find employment. But an outcrop of tiny islands like Malta is completely insufficient for our ultimate purposes (and we might just as easily be able to conquer through numbers an island elsewhere, say in the Caribbean or South Pacific, if a racialist clubhouse country is all we wanted). The Racial State will not be a Club Med, but a last outpost of Western civilization in a dying and hostile world - as well as, ultimately, the launchpad from which future generations will reclaim our territories lost through elite betrayal. To survive, we must grow, and the WN state will be governed with racial goals uppermost, the first of which is to expand our numbers through natural (and eugenic) increase (someday, someday, another book project of mine will be [i]Christian Eugenics[/i]), as well as appropriate Aryan immigration. We also need to be large enough to be able to accommodate sudden, large population increases. Moreover, Malta is extremely densely populated, and highly ethnically homogeneous. I strongly doubt they would want a bunch of immigrants, white or not. And what the hell language do they speak?! Remember, a big chunk of WNs are either English speaking, or know English as a second language. We must think about this practically, from an individualist perspective, but one geared towards an ultimate collective goal. The difference with Australia is that it is a real country, with room to expand (despite the harsh Outback, which may contain untapped resource wealth - certainly more than tiny Malta), but not an ancient one. Aussies, like Americans, are more white-racial as against white-ethnic. Look at how English patriots are riled up over Polish immigration, something that would only bother me a bit. European countries might prefer white to nonwhite immigrants, but I suspect majorities in most don't want any immigrants. I think Aussies would be quite welcoming of whites, much as I welcome white immigrants (except Jews) to America. Finally, we don't have to get a number of immigrants to Australia equal to their population, as many Aussies might well support at least the basic WN goals of ending nonwhite immigration, and expelling illegals. As more of us go there we will form a bloc, constantly agitating for more white immigration (like Latinos in the US). Eventually, as our numbers keep rising, we will keeping increasing the number and severity of our racialist demands.
10999250671306593356Too much for me to respond to right now, CS. But this might interest you from the SA exchange: Cara, I am ever busier, and will not respond to all these questions until the points I raised in response to your earlier comment are properly addressed (eg, you seem to have no knowledge of your own national history, of brave pioneers and bloody battles for living space and self-determination). Bear in mind one crucial matter: the Boers are going extinct, as are whites everywhere, it’s true, but you are descending into Hell much sooner than we are, and your end (and the extinction process itself along the way) will be much nastier than ours. Your future is Rhodesia, where whites are being alternately murdered or just left to starve after all their property was stolen by their kaffir-communist government. Our future in the US is California, where whites have been demographically conquered, and are being dispossessed of their wealth through liberal government spending (which is really interracial wealth transferral, though on a much slower scale than you are experiencing in SA) - and where white youth are intermarrying with nonwhites and miscegenating at rapidly accelerating rates, at least in the major cities. But I guess having one’s precious beyond price (white) genes absorbed into a mongrel genetic cesspool is still preferable to being butchered in one’s own home by feral kaffirs. Now believe me, if I had the power, I would grant instantaneous asylum in the US for any Boer (or indeed, for any Aryan anywhere, except known criminals, disease bearers, homosexuals, and leftists). I would do this out of in part selfish concerns. I want America to be made whiter, if possible. That would be good for my country. Admitting the entire Boervolk into America would also be great for individual Boers - but terrible for the Boer nation collectively. Your ethnoculture would not survive more than one single generation here. Then it would be absorbed into white America, in turn to be absorbed into mongrelism. But at least it would be a mostly peaceful process. A final point. The Racial State (TRS) as I am envisioning it most certainly will not simply be a “whites only” society - a modern, Western democracy minus muds. For attention must be paid to its projected viability over the long-term. TRS will have tremendous economic freedom, far more than any place today except maybe Hong Kong. Such freedom is necessary to maximize economic growth, which in turn will feed armaments production and acquisition. But otherwise it will be extremely militarized, both in terms of the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending, and the constant combat training (in the form not merely of lessons in killing techniques, but also of assigning pre-warfare “shadow” positions to all persons, so that upon the outbreak of war, each individual will already have a known place in the military hierarchy, supplementing the standing, professional soldiery) individuals of both sexes, from ages 16-60, will receive and participate in, as well as socially regulated and authoritarian. Specifically, it will be rigorously eugenic, as well as formally oriented around maximizing white fecundity. School curricula will be designed around a core patriotic consensus, teaching not only standard subjects like reading and math, but also explaining to the children the reality of racial differentiation, the horrors of multiracialism, and the necessity for harsh measures to ensure white survival. Of course, this is the briefest outline of TRS, but you are certainly correct that society will not be nearly as free as in the modern West. It will also not be morally and culturally degenerate, nor headed to extinction.
11005750671306794166CS, An article on current state of Australia (actually a whole special report this week). http://www.economist.com/node/18719530?story_id=18719530 Of course, the asses at [i]The Economist[/i] have no understanding that "correlation does not equal causation", that changing the White Australia policy may have correlated with today's good economy but did not cause it, nor of the idea that public policies can only be assessed through time - and thus that the final verdict on the effect of the recent immigration liberalization is likely to be quite different from what it might seem to be today. Wisdom is what's lacking, and wisdom is finally all.
10938050701305377311Continuing from another thread ... [i]Posted by Leon Haller on May 07, 2011, 12:28 PM | # Grimoire, We are not going to make it. The West was the highest realization yet seen of man’s potential for excellence in all the virtues. There is, furthermore, no empirical reason to believe that civilizations can be perpetuated by groups too genetically dissimilar from their founding stocks. Thus, the West deserves to live, but its immigration and coercive racial integration policies guarantee that it will eventually die (unless science fiction comes alive - one can imagine hardy whites venturing to alien worlds, to start the West anew; but the technology is so far distant, and the colonization so far along, that such options will likely remain mere fantasies during the remainder of the epoch in which whites continue to exist). Power, today more than ever, resides in the (muddled, brainwashed) masses. Our task is to convince a sufficient number of them of the ethical allowability and moral value of preserving their race and its territorial control as the mechanism for preserving the civilization of unique excellence that we were, and might be again. I believe the only way this can happen, given the speed of our devolution, is for whites to be brought to a heightened awareness of the hitherto only latent potential for a racialized Christianity; that is, a Christianity made aware that the pursuit of excellence and the striving for particularistic virtue is part of the Christian man’s proper end, and that the multicult throws obstacles to that pursuit, and thus defeats that end. GW is correct about the need for a reformulated ontology; that is, unless we understand ourselves and real natures much better we will continue to maintain the social and political structures which, by their very essence, are driving our extinction. Where he is wrong is in failing to recognize first, that the time in which to accomplish this reformulation is running out, assuming effective real world action to halt our racial extinction is the final goal of the new ontology; second, a wholescale reformulation is unnecessary, because the theoretical tools are already contained latently in the Christian tradition, properly understood in its application to racial and historical problems; and third, Christianity for the foreseeable future has a grip on the imagination deriving from its history that it would take centuries for any new ontology to approach in intelligibility, and white acceptance. I’ll try to make this clearer later.[/i] And a reply ... [i]Leon: a) Yes we are going make it. You don’t have a clear picture of what is going on the continent. The jews are not powerful, they only have those things which create the illusion of power. This power is a cloud of smoke which disappears with a wave of a hand. The minute you clear your head and become strong, you forget the jew because of his insignificance without your attention. Without your attention, then the jew appears wretchedly weak, he draws back your attention by limping in a ditch complaining how you have beat him. This is how he stays tied to you, attached to your ankle, and then your throat. It’s time to send him off on his own and attend to important business. b) Christianity at this time is not an effective tool for the mobilization of masses. The church has been totally compromised and penetrated. It has no fangs left of it’s own. To utilize Christianity you must first fight the church. We can’t spend our precious time fighting each other, whether Christian vs. materialist, Nazi vs Communist/Capitalist, British vs. Continent. If we fight each other and we will pay very dearly for this stupid habit. We stand on our own on this and will be effective on our actions and worth. A persons faith is a private matter, which is the way it is meant to be. c) GW is correct about the need for a reformulated etc. However he will not produce one. GW is a fine fellow, his perceptions paralyze him. He started this as a forum for specifically the British to discuss the problems at hand and mobilize towards a solution. Others are welcome to comment. However the solution decided on here may not be appropriate or constructive to you if you are not British, living in Britain or British, not living in Britain but invested in Britain’s survival. If you agree a reformulated ont - etc. is vital....begin now. It is getting late for such tangential projects.[/i] (Grimoire) Your response does not indicate that you have quite grasped the significance of my claims above. Care to respond further?
10941650701305417641anon, I don't look at events in terms of passing fads, but from the perspective of history. At the risk of being a pompous twit, what I wrote above is tremendously important. Thus, and quite expectedly, it generated "light" but no "heat", at least so far on two different threads where I have posted it. People around here deeply misunderstand both metaphysical and political reality, and the relation of the two. Ultimately, this is about one's acceptance or disavowal of God. But as I stress repeatedly, even atheists need to recognize that the racial crisis is a spiritual crisis, and that the logic of secularism leads ineluctably to apathy about miscegenation; selfish, 'high time preference' or short-term thinking; understandable unwillingness to sacrifice for the group; and general cultural anomie and alienation - rendering us easy pickings for less ethical, and more ethnocentric peoples. Our race will survive only to the extent that it does indeed return to a traditionalist Christianity, properly ethically reformulated to allow for whites to inaugurate the measures necessary for their collective survival. I am increasingly dismayed that I, along with a few persons like Thorn, seem to be nearly alone, here and elsewhere on the Racial Right, in recognizing this. But important and rare as intelligence is, wisdom (the recognition of reality) is much more important, and much rarer.
10968650701305743481[i]This is why I counsel people to put aside their hobby horses. I think one idea or simple truth most would agree, we want out countries, our borders and our sovereignty back, with the immigrants deported.[/i] (Grimoire) Yes, I have been saying this for years! But how do we convince our people of the [i]rightness[/i] of this? Now we're back to ethics, then religion ...
10935150711305293147Serious WNs will agree that our problems run deeper than mere politics, and even, for the moment (though only for a few more moments), than military/physical power. Our race is dying out due to corrupted ethics, incorrect or misunderstood ontology, and a collectively suicidal political/economic/legal system. Are these problems resolvable through legislation? Even more disturbing, what can be done if white majorities disapprove of the directions of their societies, but individually prefer to continue the very conduct collectively producing the social outcomes they decry? The point of these ruminations is that asking people to change their entire lifestyles in pursuit of abstract goals is, well, pointless. Far easier it is to stop immigration, in other words, than, say, resurrect European rural peasantries. Indeed, didn't Carl Schmitt teach something about political truths only being true in their particular historical contexts?
10937650711305374145No, for our race to survive, at least as a civilization (they could always keep a few thousand of us in existence on reservations or even in zoos, obviously), we must be a super-power. Otherwise, we will not be able to resist the world's envy and hence hatred. They would force themselves on us, as they tried and sometimes succeeded in times of old. Only this time our enervated peoples would simply roll over, valuing comfort far more than any personal and racial liberty that had to be fought for. Only a tiny minority of Westerners today are willing to be modern Spartans. Most people just want to live their own private lives, free of external hassles. It' so much easier to pay taxes for strong, technologically sophisticated professional militaries than to submit to the discipline of classical republicanism. That's just reality, and as our racial strength wanes, our perception must grow keener.
10940650711305405457I was not referring to my own attitudes in my comment above. I had been knowledgeable about Thermopylae for decades prior to the movie [i]300[/i], which I subsequently purchased on dvd (something I rarely do). And when I was still living in Westwood, I, in the immediate aftermath of the vicious 1992 black LA "Rodney King" riots, which I witnessed firsthand, informally tried to form a local militia, for obvious self-protection purposes. Though a couple of my personal friends were excited about it, the general response from neighbors was, um, underwhelming. Revilo Oliver, one of the intellectual godfathers of modern American WN, always stressed the need to be ruthlessly honest in our appraisals of the correlation of racial forces. My comments here at MR try to reflect such brutal realism, both in long term analyses, as well as tactical recommendations. To reiterate, for all and sundry: as our racial strength declines, our perceptiveness about the real options available to us must grow more acute.
10943250721305454464Is it a conspiracy? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/imf_head_assault A socialist, a Jew, an economic elitist, a sybarite, a likely pervert, and the man who might have been the next President of France. Ain't life grand!
10941550731305416287[i]These are very interesting topics but I don’t wish to go on tangents here that would be of little interest to the majority of readers at Majorityrights[/i] (Ivan) In what way is this essay [i]anything but[/i] an endless series of tangents? The ostensible fundamental issue to be analyzed is the (alleged) relation between probability theory (excuse me, Probability Theory) and the survival of the white race. OK, that sounds promising. But where is the argument? the thesis? There are only two places where anything other than irrelevant descriptions (literary "window-dressing") is provided. First: [i]The survival of the whites as a race is the prerequisite for survival of the Circassians as a race. What’s more, he firmly believes that the survival of the whites as a race is the prerequisite for survival of all races on the planet Earth, including perhaps - call be batshit crazy - even the Jewish race.[/i] (Ivan) And second: [i]What are the chances for a group of people, subjected deliberately and methodically for over a hundred years to social conditioning not to trust their, god given and nature imbued, common sense in the matters that are of utmost importance for the survival of that group as a race? Not much - wouldn’t you agree? That’s all what I had to do to answer the question - just ask the right counter-question.[/i] (Ivan) The first section I quoted contains the kernel of an interesting idea, which, though Ivan overstates the matter, I believe, I have already considered over the years, and intend to explore at some length in my future book [i]Racial Ethics[/i]. Is the survival of whites the prerequisite for the survival of humanity? I'm not sure, but given our ethical superiority, which translates in part into a unique concern for environmental preservation, this is at least arguable - though the more likely outcome is not that humanity would disappear in the absence of whites, but rather, that the moral level of humanity would merely be considerably reduced. Also, I hypothesize that some races would go extinct, as the hegemonic Orientals would, I suspect, have little use or compassion for the black peoples (Africans and Abos), and might either enslave or eliminate them. China is already moving into Africa in a big commercial way. Without (white) world opinion as a counterbalance, I suspect they would, instead of bribing and bargaining, just move in and clear the land of its populations, in order to seize the natural resources for themselves. The second section I copied is the entirety of Ivan's answer to his own question. Is something, some section of text, missing? Is Ivan serious? Or was this whole "essay" some kind of postmodernist inside joke? Ivan, you need to study less Probability Theory, and more "Argumentation Theory".
10941850731305418928For those interested in probability theory, this is a useful link (especially the descriptive midsections): http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/ BTW, this online encyclopedia is an excellent resource for the philosophically-minded. If persons are familiar with similarly excellent online philosophy or other resources (especially ones germane to MR's field of topics), please provide the links (eg, I appreciated the link to the Dienekes anthropology blog).
10941950731305419214Of course, I must reiterate, the battle to save our race will be won not on fields of logic, biology or even military science, but of ethics. Unless whites can be persuaded of the moral acceptableness of our taking the coercive measures that will finally be required to secure our collective existence, we are lost.
10950450731305545725[i]Your ethics, Leon, is not the same as that of GW’s. You called upon GW to ban me from these discussion forums numerous times. But GW, even though he did not protect me in his house from the pack of jewish hyenas attacking me, as a Circassian would, but he didn’t kick me out from his house; he warned me: you are on your own now, and you better be prepared to defend yourself. That’s gentleman’s ethics, Leon. You do not have it, and you never will[/i]. (Ivan) Ivan, I cannot decide whether you are mentally disturbed, a Zionist plant as Grimoire has alleged, or simply a pitch perfect example of the difficulties of cross-cultural communication. I really cannot believe that you are serious in what you write or in how you express yourself. What I do know is that I set out above, with my customary clarity, what was inadequate about your post. You have not addressed my criticism because, assuming you are genuine and not a troll or site-saboteur, your mind does not work in the logical, Western way that mine does, and thus you probably do not even recognize its validity. You do not belong here at MR because you employ senseless [i]ad hominems[/i] (eg, the "jew-crew", when none of us is in fact Jewish), and refuse to engage in (or are cognitively incapable of doing so) the serious discussions at least some of us are trying to have. The survival of the white race is a very large topic, implicating an array of disparate disciplines. There is plenty of room for real disagreements among dedicated race patriots. It is obvious to me, and ought to be to GW, who the sober discussants are, and who are the plants, troublemakers, and retards. In my opinion MR would be more effective in advancing the agenda of developing an intellectually persuasive account of our troubles, and how to overcome them, if GW were to exercise a heavier editorial policy, one that would exclude the likes of you. But that is his decision. And as for this [i]you are on your own now, and you better be prepared to defend yourself[/i] I exist on an intellectual (and, it is now perfectly obvious, cognitive) level so far above your Jewish obsessions and pathetic displays of college math major prowess that acknowledging you (or similar others) is simply wasting valuable time and mental resources. My real intellectual work on behalf of white survival is infinitely more valuable than most of the mental belches emanating from WNs precisely because it is not geared towards 'preaching to the choir', but rather, it seeks to [i]enlarge[/i] that 'choir'. I must be more disciplined in avoiding dialogues with fools.
11030750731307359830anon, You are American, or Belizean? Did you renounce US citizenship, or are you just an expat? You are white, right? Of what primary ethnic stock? Just curious. I'm the last generation which did not grow up with the internet, so certain aspects of it remain perpetually surprising, like how these online chat rooms or 'virtual communities' manage to attract persons from everywhere. Frankly, I don't like that. I would have preferred living in the days when travel was difficult, people didn't move around much, and communications could only be printed. But it (along with ease of travel) does make White Zion a possibility. If you wish to exit Belize, and like hot weather, why not Australia - and be one of the earliest White Zionist pioneers?
10950750741305547628[i]Now, for Gudmund, a special message. I know little of these other names you call me by, but I find it funny that people like you speak about mental illness. For one thing, pretty much the entire world and of course the scientific community says your movement is based on bullshit. The best counter your people can come up with is to allege some big conspiracy theory whenever science or history goes against you. Your movement is also filled with numerous anti-social, corrupt, and even perverted individuals, and you are well aware of this because you have likely been involved in it for some time. There is also some irony in calling me mentally ill and then insisting in paranoid fashion that there is a conspiracy of online Commies going under several names whose only purpose is to annoy you. Yes, you’re the sane one; the rest of the world is crazy. Keep telling yourself that. Your nationalist parties will fail, they will sell you out, and you will retreat back to your forums to cry and moan about it. That is the way the capitalist world works. They’ll rail against immigrants to get into power if they must, but they are ultimately beholden to that class which needs a supply of cheap labor. Not to mention the fact that someone must pay into your social welfare systems.[/i] (Arslan) There is some truth here, but mostly you reveal your own ignorance. All the science is against you, not us. For example, about a quarter century ago, a conference was going to be held on the genetics of criminality, I believe at the University of Maryland (USA). It was preempted and cancelled due to protests from the NAACP and "anti-racists". Why? Why must leftists always use coercive power against WNs? Why shut down conferences, shout down speakers, ban books, etc? Would such efforts be expended against, say, a conference of Flat Earthers or geocentrists? WN is correct in the sense that it has a theory, rooted in the very best science, that has been repeatedly confirmed by historical and sociological observation. Moreover, apart from scientific racism, WN speaks to perfectly reasonable grievances, as well as widespread desires and prejudices, that (Jewish influenced, if not dominated) Western elites simply refuse to acknowledge, and use propaganda to discredit or, failing that, totalitarian coercion to suppress. I agree that there are too many weirdoes, and mentally unstable (or at least, extremely unrealistic) types, floating around the WN movement. You see this in the mostly negative response to some of my arguments here at MR about the necessity (at least in America) of developing a WN that is philosophically compatible with Christianity, and tactically in sync with the modal lifestyle and cultural attitudes of whites today. But make no mistake: our fundamental message is correct, and will resonate with uncommitted whites to an ever greater degree as the full costs, in all senses, of the West's unprecedented experiment in multiracialism come to be more widely recognized, and felt. The future will belong to us.
10951150741305549418[i]The future will belong to us.[/i] (me) I must clarify this. I don't mean "whites" per se. The white race is on a path to extinction within a century or so. I have discussed this many times, arguing that the only hope for white survival is for racially conscious whites from all nations to emigrate and demographically 'conquer' a sovereign polity, and transform it into an apartheid Racial State (this is not a fascist or WN fantasy, however: Mexicans are in the process of peacefully 'conquering' my state of California, and there is no reason that racially conscious whites, simply wishing to live among those who are most like themselves, could not do the same on an international level - after all, we are modern, mobile, and have plenty of skills many countries would welcome). I mean that WN will eventually be the majority ideology among whites, though that may not count for much, as by the time this transformation has occurred, whites will likely be demographic minorities in most of their historic homelands, very much including the US, whose whites are on the most "advanced" edge of racial minoritization among the major white countries.
10951850741305556404There are some valuable insights in this piece, though they are enveloped in a great deal of nonsense (not to mention the risible lack of understanding about capitalism that follows in the comments). One issue does occur to me. Actually, I've been thinking about this for years, and would now like to hear from MR regulars. Real whites (say, those at least 31/32nds European in ancestry, itself already rather generous, if you take a gander at many Mediterranean persons; I do allow for my own family, which has a bit of Amerindian in it from way back; not me, as far as I know, but another branch) will be a minority in the US no later than 2020. Using even the most elastic possible definition of "white" (nb: NOT the ludicrous Census standard, which counts Muslim Arabs, as well as many Hispanics, as "white"), whites will be less than 50% of the American population by 2030. What do we do then? Or, what will be the shape of the "Right", and the larger society, when whites are a minority? My suspicion is that the persecution and dispossession of whites will only intensify, but how should we, and WN, respond? I don't think Murros's neo-Ralph Lauren vision of stylish [i]manque[/i] fascists is exactly the way to go, but it does seem obvious that whites need to organize themselves racially in some way. We need a white movement, one that combines social activities with politics and group protection. Thoughts?
10958150741305630079Arslan, I don't read longwinded diatribes by leftists, so perhaps you answered this already. While my take on race is less about biology than modal group behavior understood socially and politically, how can a race denier like yourself possibly account for the consistent demonstrations of Negroid criminality that we observe in the most variegated places around the world, without concluding that biology plays a (substantial) causal role? Why is it that no matter where blacks go they immediately become the group with the highest crime rates, with greater black population percentages translating into ever higher criminality? This can be found in places with past histories of white racial oppression (as if that actually matters, but I'll let that slide for the moment), like the US and Brazil; or in places where blacks have always been the majority (Africa); or in places blacks have ruled as freemen for centuries (Haiti); or in places which have no history of black presence, and only acquired such in recent decades (London, Paris)? Note that it would be striking if all interracial differences in ability and behavior had no specific genetic component. Humans are evolved creatures, after all.
10961850741305641504[u]Here is what I wrote[/u]: [i]Arslan, I don’t read longwinded diatribes by leftists, so perhaps you answered this already. While my take on race is less about biology than modal group behavior understood socially and politically, [u]how can a race denier like yourself possibly account for the consistent demonstrations of Negroid criminality that we observe in the most variegated places around the world, without concluding that biology plays a (substantial) causal role?[/u] Why is it that no matter where blacks go they immediately become the group with the highest crime rates, with greater black population percentages translating into ever higher criminality? This can be found in places with past histories of white racial oppression (as if that actually matters, but I’ll let that slide for the moment), like the US and Brazil; or in places where blacks have always been the majority (Africa); or in places blacks have ruled as freemen for centuries (Haiti); or in places which have no history of black presence, and only acquired such in recent decades (London, Paris). Note that it would be striking if all interracial differences in ability and behavior had no specific genetic component. Humans are evolved creatures, after all.[/i] [u]Here is how Arslan replied[/u]: [b]First off, Leon. My “long diatribes” were in response to Captain Chaos’ seemingly sincere questions. But I think you should start reading “long” things by leftists because then you might see what they are really saying. More on that later. No, there has been no study showing a causal link between being black and criminality. Those that have attempted to do so have been easily refuted, mainly because they typically fail to control for things like income and population density. You might be interested to find a study that was done a few years ago showing that in the US, a true “model minority” is immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa. Most people think that “Asians” were the “model minority” but anyone, including “Asians” can tell you that there are some serious criminal elements in certain Asian communities in the US. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps some day, science will find some kind of gene which happens to cluster along with those genes which make one appear “black”, or white, or whatever. But thus far, it hasn’t been found, so we have to take into account various material conditions in which people live, because these tend to have a bigger impact on people’s lives. Yes I know you all hate the “environmental”, “Boasian” explanations, but you use them all the time and probably don’t realize it. First, my example- intelligence probably is somewhat hereditary on an individual level(INDIVIDUAL, GOT THAT?), but we all understand if someone inherits good genes but lives in poverty all his or her life, they cannot possibly reach their full potential. Now the typical capitalist explanation, regardless of race or nationality, is “you’re poor because you’re less intelligent.” A variant of this explanation was often used throughout the 18th-19th century by the English bourgeoisie to describe their proletariat- OF THE SAME NATIONALITY. Now can you explain why former socialist nations in Eastern Europe, many of which are still largely ethnically homogeneous, have had such a spike in crime? Oh I know, it’s because of the socialist system which collapsed 20 years ago. But you can’t use that argument. That’s environmental, that’s Boasian. Any way you slice I’ll use eugenic arguments to whittle you down to two statements: Either Eastern Europeans are inherently inferior people, or the standard you apply to non-Europeans just doesn’t apply to other Europeans for some unknown reason. So don’t even try to go that route. I sincerely hope that wasn’t too long. I thought since folks like you always complain about getting shouted down as “racists” and “Nazis” without any debate, you might appreciate me taking the time to address as many of your concerns and questions as possible.[/b] Three responses to Arslan: First, on a personal note, I do read many "long-winded" tomes by leftists, but they have names like Bertrand Russell, Georg Simmel, Simon Schama, John Rawls, Jonathan Israel, Eric Hobsbawm, Scott Lash, etc etc. I read significant scholars, that is, not polemicists (don't take that personally; I understand the efforts you are making here, albeit in a lost cause). Second, you did not remotely answer my question (newly underlined above). Give me something to work with here, concisely stated. Third, juxtaposing these two responses as I have done is a useful way to see the inadequacies of the leftist mind in action. Evasion, obfuscation, 'straw men', outright falsehoods - it's all there. This is a textbook example of poor reasoning. Study it analytically. Care to try again, Arslan? (Hint on method: reduce your ideas to their essential claims, and then list them numerically.) (Hint on substance: you must either deny that blacks have higher criminal propensities than whites, or you must account for the interracial discrepancy in crime stats with environmental explanations. What might those be, how do they operate, and what is your proof?) If you work with me, Arslan, I will teach you something of how to reason (ie, once I have clear answers to work with, I'l refute them). Doing so may then help you to see how you go wrong in thinking about race, as well as where.
10962150741305643081The reason to broach black criminality in the context of racial discussions, especially where the biological reality of race [i]and its social effects[/i] is denied (only scientific illiterates deny race as a valid biological construct; how, eg, can DNA tests distinguish white from black blood to a 99% or greater accuracy?), is not to 'hate on' blacks, but because it is so easy to isolate race as the (likely, if not yet scientifically proven) causal factor behind the undeniable correlation between black race and criminality. It is empirically possible to imagine some environmental or historical source(s) for widely observed black criminality, but it is not plausible to designate such either the best explanation, or the simplest one fitting the facts. If everywhere I travel I'm told I stink, which is more plausible: that others have faulty noses, or that each venue I visit has been so physically arranged as to make it seem that I have body odor, or that my BO is a 'social construct', or that I cannot have BO because my sweat glands have not been proven to be more malodorous than the norm - or that I should bathe more often?
10962250741305643199[i]In the leftist anti-world, we move not through peoples possessing genes and tendencies, but probabilities generated by capitalist calculation and disembodied “linguistic groups”. No one has really succeeded; no one really failed. They have abolished blame, admirable enough, but with it all natural hierarchy in their ghostly anti-world where blacks could succeed “if”, and whites have succeeded “only because”[/i].(anon) Clever.
10966850741305720702Sorry for the re-post (except at very bottom), but I do think it useful actually to have the comments and responses juxtaposed. We can more easily see how the leftist relentlessly evades answering difficult questions (for race deniers), and throws up irrelevant information as smokescreens to prevent uncareful readers from realizing that the question was not addressed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here is what I wrote: Arslan, I don’t read longwinded diatribes by leftists, so perhaps you answered this already. While my take on race is less about biology than modal group behavior understood socially and politically, [u]how can a race denier like yourself possibly account for the consistent demonstrations of Negroid criminality that we observe in the most variegated places around the world, without concluding that biology plays a (substantial) causal role?[/u] Why is it that no matter where blacks go they immediately become the group with the highest crime rates, with greater black population percentages translating into ever higher criminality? This can be found in places with past histories of white racial oppression (as if that actually matters, but I’ll let that slide for the moment), like the US and Brazil; or in places where blacks have always been the majority (Africa); or in places blacks have ruled as freemen for centuries (Haiti); or in places which have no history of black presence, and only acquired such in recent decades (London, Paris). Note that it would be striking if all interracial differences in ability and behavior had no specific genetic component. Humans are evolved creatures, after all. Here is how Arslan replied: First off, Leon. My “long diatribes” were in response to Captain Chaos’ seemingly sincere questions. But I think you should start reading “long” things by leftists because then you might see what they are really saying. More on that later. No, there has been no study showing a causal link between being black and criminality. Those that have attempted to do so have been easily refuted, mainly because they typically fail to control for things like income and population density. You might be interested to find a study that was done a few years ago showing that in the US, a true “model minority” is immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa. Most people think that “Asians” were the “model minority” but anyone, including “Asians” can tell you that there are some serious criminal elements in certain Asian communities in the US. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps some day, science will find some kind of gene which happens to cluster along with those genes which make one appear “black”, or white, or whatever. But thus far, it hasn’t been found, so we have to take into account various material conditions in which people live, because these tend to have a bigger impact on people’s lives. Yes I know you all hate the “environmental”, “Boasian” explanations, but you use them all the time and probably don’t realize it. First, my example- intelligence probably is somewhat hereditary on an individual level(INDIVIDUAL, GOT THAT?), but we all understand if someone inherits good genes but lives in poverty all his or her life, they cannot possibly reach their full potential. Now the typical capitalist explanation, regardless of race or nationality, is “you’re poor because you’re less intelligent.” A variant of this explanation was often used throughout the 18th-19th century by the English bourgeoisie to describe their proletariat- OF THE SAME NATIONALITY. Now can you explain why former socialist nations in Eastern Europe, many of which are still largely ethnically homogeneous, have had such a spike in crime? Oh I know, it’s because of the socialist system which collapsed 20 years ago. But you can’t use that argument. That’s environmental, that’s Boasian. Any way you slice I’ll use eugenic arguments to whittle you down to two statements: Either Eastern Europeans are inherently inferior people, or the standard you apply to non-Europeans just doesn’t apply to other Europeans for some unknown reason. So don’t even try to go that route. I sincerely hope that wasn’t too long. I thought since folks like you always complain about getting shouted down as “racists” and “Nazis” without any debate, you might appreciate me taking the time to address as many of your concerns and questions as possible. Three responses to Arslan: First, on a personal note, I do read many “long-winded” tomes by leftists, but they have names like Bertrand Russell, Georg Simmel, Simon Schama, John Rawls, Jonathan Israel, Eric Hobsbawm, Scott Lash, etc etc. I read significant scholars, that is, not polemicists (don’t take that personally; I understand the efforts you are making here, albeit in a lost cause). Second, you did not remotely answer my question (newly underlined above). Give me something to work with here, concisely stated. Third, juxtaposing these two responses as I have done is a useful way to see the inadequacies of the leftist mind in action. Evasion, obfuscation, ‘straw men’, outright falsehoods - it’s all there. This is a textbook example of poor reasoning. Study it analytically. Care to try again, Arslan? (Hint on method: reduce your ideas to their essential claims, and then list them numerically.) (Hint on substance: you must either deny that blacks have higher criminal propensities than whites, or you must account for the interracial discrepancy in crime stats with environmental explanations. What might those be, how do they operate, and what is your proof?) If you work with me, Arslan, I will teach you something of how to reason (ie, once I have clear answers to work with, I’l refute them). Doing so may then help you to see how you go wrong in thinking about race, as well as where. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The reason to broach black criminality in the context of racial discussions, especially where the biological reality of race and its social effects is denied (only scientific illiterates deny race as a valid biological construct; how, eg, can DNA tests distinguish white from black blood to a 99% or greater accuracy?), is not to ‘hate on’ blacks, but because it is so easy to isolate race as the (likely, if not yet scientifically proven) causal factor behind the undeniable correlation between black race and criminality. It is empirically possible to imagine some environmental or historical source(s) for widely observed black criminality, but it is not plausible to designate such either the best explanation, or the simplest one fitting the facts. If everywhere I travel I’m told I stink, which is more plausible: that others have faulty noses, or that each venue I visit has been so physically arranged as to make it seem that I have body odor, or that my BO is a ‘social construct’, or that I cannot have BO because my sweat glands have not been proven to be more malodorous than the norm - or that I should bathe more often? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Arslan: [i]Actually I did answer your claim. I said if you control the crime statistics for population density and poverty, you will see that they become relatively equal. [/i] [LH: empirically false, on several grounds] [i]Also you can find that prior to about 1964, 2/3 of the US prison population was white. Some time after that, this ratio reversed. What happened?[/i] [LH: not sure if true, but if so, unsurprising: prior to 1964 US population was 90% white] [i]Lastly, if you want to talk about correlations and not causality, then you need to explain the criminality and corruption in modern day Russia, which as I have stated before rivals several African nations.[/i] [LH: not true at all viz the African comparison, but note one must always make allowances for particular historical circumstance - eg, China was poor under Mao not because Chinese people are economic incompetents - as witness the outsized commercial success of the Overseas Chinese - but because communism is economically dysfunctional; Russia has a lot of crime compared to Norway because its culture and moral structure were severely attenuated by atheistic communism; the point is that whites can display high levels of law abidingness, if conditions are right, whereas blacks, under the same conditions invariably display high levels of criminality] [i]You want to prove a causal link between black folks and crime? Find a gene or genetic indicator which causes criminal behavior and clusters primarily in people who have the same genetic code that makes them “black”. It’s not hard.[/i] [LH: Yes, it is, especially as the Left in the US routinely blacklists or shuts down any research into the genetics of criminality] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I commend others for taking the time to deconstruct Arslan's lengthy comments. I tried, but my patience for poor reasoning is just not what it used to be.
10967850741305734752W (Arslan?), It is laughable, no, embarrassing, for you even to challenge me, based on the stupidity and historical ignorance YOU display (while bizarrely accusing me of same), but here goes. I may have to do this sequentially, in different boxes. 1. Here is what I actually wrote (responding to Arslan's poor reasoning, though I'm not going to copy the original): [b][LH: not true at all viz the African comparison, but note one must always make allowances for particular historical circumstance - eg, China was poor under Mao not because Chinese people are economic incompetents - as witness the outsized commercial success of the Overseas Chinese - but because communism is economically dysfunctional; Russia has a lot of crime compared to Norway because its culture and moral structure were severely attenuated by atheistic communism; the point is that whites can display high levels of law abidingness, if conditions are right, whereas blacks, under the same conditions invariably display high levels of criminality][/b] And W's reply: [i]W: Incorrect. The Republic of China could barely even control its own territories after 1911. You clearly don’t know anything about Chinese history. China was once one of the most advanced civilizations in history, even before Europeans as well. But a number of historical events and developments left it open to continuous invasions by Steppe peoples(last of which were the Manchus) and then colonialism.[/i] This paragraph could only have been written by someone young and dumb, who clearly doesn't know anything about Chinese history, unlike me - but worse, whose entire "argument", if such it can be called, is a complete [i]non sequitur[/i] as it relates to what I actually said. [nb, MR regulars: it is always easier to argue with someone highly intelligent, even if he disagrees with you, than to spar with idiots - but especially, with sophomoric idiots, ie, those with a bit of knowledge, but obviously lacking in awareness and understanding of the wider contexts real intellectuals take for granted.] W, what exactly are you arguing with? What is "incorrect"? Is it your contention that China was poor under Mao (especially relative to its present economic performance) not because of the inherent economic dysfunctionality of communism, but as a kind of holdover from ... uh, what, exactly? "invasions by steppe peoples" (Mongols, Manchus)? I said nothing about classical Chinese civilization. I am aware of China's having been economically superior to Europe during the Middle Ages, and about its falling behind beginning in the early modern period, and then especially after the turn of the 19th century (cf. Pomeranz, [i]The Great Divergence[/i] Princeton Univ Press - this is from memory). I am generally familiar with Chinese history in the 20th century, with Sun Yat-Sen and his nationalist revolution, the period of warlordism, and the disproportionate control of ports (but not too much more than that, incidentally; I suspect W has a secondary school level of historical knowledge of China, at very best - but is too generally historiographically untutored even to realize it) by Europeans. Europeans did not, unfortunately, penetrate very far into China, so excessive attribution by modern leftists of the variable of (European) "colonialism" as the cause of China's 20th century backwardness is misplaced. NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE POINT OF MY COMMENT, blockhead! I was obviously making an observation about attending to "particular historical circumstance", which Arslan fails to do repeatedly in this thread. I mentioned China as an example of a country with a superior population whose economic performance was long sub-par based on what one could expect given the intelligence and, yes, undeniable historical achievements of the Chinese. I then provided an answer to China's intense poverty in the twentieth century, at least postwar. It was due not to Chinese cognitive inferiority (as is the case with African failure), but to the inherent economic irrationality of communism (and the still greater lunacy, combined with totalitarian dictatorship, of Mao). W's response to this is a series of [i]non sequiturs[/i].
10967950741305736747continuing ... 2. Here is what I actually wrote (responding to Arslan’s poor reasoning, though I’m not going to copy the original): [b][LH: not true at all viz the African comparison, but note one must always make allowances for particular historical circumstance - eg, China was poor under Mao not because Chinese people are economic incompetents - as witness the outsized commercial success of the Overseas Chinese - but because communism is economically dysfunctional; Russia has a lot of crime compared to Norway because its culture and moral structure were severely attenuated by atheistic communism; the point is that whites can display high levels of law abidingness, if conditions are right, whereas blacks, under the same conditions invariably display high levels of criminality][/b] And W’s reply: [b]Russia has a lot of crime compared to Norway because its culture and moral structure were severely attenuated by atheistic communism;[/b] t [i]Sorry, you are not allowed to use this argument. It’s been twenty years since the fall of Communism, most Russians describe themselves as Orthodox, and the Church is supported by the government. You are attempting to use historical material reasons to explain their criminality. Do you suddenly believe this is relevant now, or does it only apply to “white people”? Also you know little of Russian history if you think this kind of corruption today is something new. It existed long before the revolution.[/i] Again I was responding to Arslan's prior comments, which W/Arslan does not provide (as context). Where o where to begin? First, twenty years is hardly sufficient time to morally revive a degenerated society - and especially the one in question, given the unique situation there today (every historical situation is unique, as Carl Schmitt sagely noted long ago - but, if I may appropriate Orwell, some are more unique than others). Communism was uniquely evil, unparalleled in the ferocity and totality of its attack on traditional moral strictures and structures. Solzhenitsyn (heard of him, peon?) once opined that it would take Russia as long to recover from Bolshevism as the Bolsheviks had controlled Russia. Russia has not begun its recovery, in part because the society has not remotely been 're-traditionalized'. However, you compared Russia to Norway, and asked why the one has more crime than the other, given that they are both white (though to be accurate, they are not precisely racially the same; I do not know whether Slavs are everywhere more criminal than Nordics, as blacks are than whites, but I was not discussing this issue, either). I never said that non-genetic factors do not influence social outcomes, or that there are only genetic determinants of outcomes. This is another of your "straw men", and hence example of bad reasoning skills. I merely observed that blacks commit crimes at rates so much and consistently higher than whites that there is undoubtedly a genetic factor explaining that differential. I suspect I know much more about Russian history than you do. I made no comment about the history of Russian crime or corruption - though such assertions would not be relevant anyway to my argument about blacks. The real question for your alleged counter-example of Russia is not how Russian whites behave in Russia, but whether Russians everywhere behave criminally, as blacks do. (Are you intelligent enough to see that? I don't think so.) Do they? No, they do not. Americans or Canadians of Russian ethnic heritage do not commit crimes at anything approaching the rate of blacks anywhere.
10968050741305737589continuing ... 3. Here is what I actually wrote (responding to Arslan’s poor reasoning, though I’m not going to copy the original): [b][LH: not true at all viz the African comparison, but note one must always make allowances for particular historical circumstance - eg, China was poor under Mao not because Chinese people are economic incompetents - as witness the outsized commercial success of the Overseas Chinese - but because communism is economically dysfunctional; Russia has a lot of crime compared to Norway because its culture and moral structure were severely attenuated by atheistic communism; the point is that whites can display high levels of law abidingness, if conditions are right, whereas blacks, under the same conditions invariably display high levels of criminality][/b] And W’s reply: [b]The point is that whites can display high levels of law abidingness, if conditions are right, whereas blacks, under the same conditions invariably display high levels of criminality][/b] [i]No proof of this has been provided. [/i] Proof? What proof do I need, other than what I originally offered, way higher up in this thread? Whites do display law abidingness everywhere across the Earth. In every area of heavy white settlement, whites are far more peaceful and law abiding than blacks living among them. This is common knowledge; I'm not going to cite anything here. Look at National Institute of Justice stats for the US. Read that excellent monograph based on those stats, [i]The Color of Crime[/i]. Look at the explosion of violent crime unleashed as soon as the white man stupidly, voluntarily relinquished power in South Africa. SA had been more law abiding during apartheid, but that was only because a tight political and police grip prevented the latent criminality of the Negroid population from being able to 'express' itself. Conversely, wherever blacks are located, there are high rates of criminality. Again, what proof do I need? Get an FBI report on the 20 most per capita crime-ridden cities in America. Every one has a large black population. Look at the most law abiding communities. All are heavily majority white (and very low to nonexistent black).
10968450741305742648lastly ... Here is what Arslan originally wrote: [i]Also you can find that prior to about 1964, 2/3 of the US prison population was white. Some time after that, this ratio reversed. What happened?[/i] and how I responded: [b][LH: not sure if true, but if so, unsurprising: prior to 1964 US population was 90% white][/b] And here is the idiot W: i]Reading people like you talk about “bad reasoning” is just hilarious. For example when you try to explain why the ratio of white to black prisoners changed so radically just after 1964, as though the white population dropped so heavily and the black population rose sharply. Come on. I just love watching folks like you play the role of some wise old man teaching common sense or whatever. All your answers are over-simplistic and you display your severe ignorance of history with every sentence.[/i] (W) Well, well... you are really stupid, W ... I mean shamefully dumb ... First, I was not writing a treatise here, trying to account for every last variable in changing crime patterns, and all in their proper proportions. Second, I did not stipulate to the fact presented. I'm not sure that 2/3 of the US prison population pre-1964 was white. In fact, I'm skeptical. For example, even today, the Census classifies many nonwhites (eg, a considerable number of Latinos, and not just Cameron Diaz!, Arabs, Gypsies, even some mixed-race persons) as white! That is a fact, if you recall the ethnic classification scheme on the latest Census. But the Census does keep getting more nuanced, esp wrt Hispanics. My strong suspicion is that 1964 prison population stats were primitive in their 'ethnic awareness'; that is, that they used only the crudest of classifications. Asians were 'Chinamen', Native Americans 'Indians', blacks 'blacks' - and everybody else was 'white'. I suspect that prison population stats were less accurate in racial classifications than Census ones. So, in 1960 the US was 90% 'white', according to the Census. The real white population would have been somewhat less. I bet that the alleged 2/3 stat for the white percentage of the nation's convicts was substantially overstated. There is some evidence for this in popular literature accounts (I've read a lot of classic crime and [i]noir[/i] fiction of the 20s-60s) of "dark and swarthy" villains, not to mention what we know today about the higher rates of criminality (as compared to whites) of Latinos, Arabs and of course the Roma/Sinti, a people whose whole way of life is based on theft. But even if the 2/3 stat is correct, if the US is 90% white, and the prison population is only 67% white, and the vast bulk of the rest of the population is black (8-9% was the number back then), then that must mean that blacks are heavily overrepresented in prison. Was that due to racism, as leftists try to argue, or greater black criminality? Well, based on what we all experience and watch out for in our daily urban American lives, only an idiot would suggest racism. As to why the interracial prison disparity has markedly grown since the 60s, I will tell you. 1. The white median age has gone up (crime is a young men's activity, mostly) more than blacks and much more than Hispanics. 2. Whites have gotten characterologically weaker, and concomitantly more pacific (this in most wealthy places, not only America; England in the 18th century was far more violent than England in the 20th, until it began importing diversity in a big way over the past three decades). Even when I was a kid in the 70s there were a lot more fights in white schools, such as I attended, than my friends with kids tell me there are today. I know for a fact that whites were still more violent (not evil, not criminal as blacks are, but more prone to fighting, more honorable, tougher) in the 40s and 50s. I have known older white men who spent time in their youths in prison. But they were not in there back then for the kinds of horrendous, amoral actions blacks routinely commit today. They were in for things like assaulting (arrogant) cops, running numbers games, moonshining, vendettas and revenge actions - not rape, muggings or assaults on innocent and helpless people. I suspect that someone like W is not only arrogant and dumb, as we see from his comments, but also cowardly and weak, and thus probably has no clue as to the kind of (white) society I'm referring to. It once existed all over the US, even in laid-back California, but now, if even existent, is largely confined to rural areas, esp the South and Appalachia. 3. I suspect part of the feminization of white men is ideological, part cultural upbringing, but part also rational fear of landing in our racially integrated, minority dominated prisons, to risk being gang-raped by Negroids who turn faggot behind bars. I have thought of this myself, in various 'iffy' situations. There have been a number of times where I 'cooled down' only because I didn't want to end up in jail or prison (also, didn't want to risk getting sued by some dirtbag with his Jewish civil rights attorney, and then having a multicultural 'jury of my peers' award my hard-earned assets to some minority) with a bunch of savage blacks. Had I known that at worst I'd be spending time in the Big House with the 1950s versions of some of my dad's friends who'd been there then, I would have done a few things differently myself, believe me. 4. But the real change accounting for the (alleged) post-1964 black/white prison disparity has to do with minorities themselves. Essentially, in the US we've had a slow-mo situation akin to the 'fast forward' situation in South Africa that I mentioned above. 1964 is an interesting year for Arslan to choose, as that was the year of the Civil Rights Act - the year that began the "Second Reconstruction", that began Negro liberation, than began modern racial integration, that - coincidentally? - began the modern crime explosion (violent crime in the US increased by 298% between 1965 and 1980, and would be at even higher than 1980 levels today but for the "three strikes" movement that swept American states in the 80s and 90s; that is, the criminal propensity of the population is as great as ever today, but we have more dirtbags behind bars than ever before). Basically, before 'civil rights', [i]Miranda[/i], gun control etc - the whole asshole leftist agenda - blacks were "kept in their place", and they knew it. Their innate criminal propensities did not have the kind of outlets suddenly provided them by the weakening of white establishment will to (racial) power. Also, the dysgenic and morality enervating welfare state was only getting into full swing by '64. Blacks always had much higher crime rates than whites, and much, much greater innate criminal propensities (my whole original argument, remember). But before the 60s, the black church was a stronger institution in black communities; there was greater fear of law enforcement; crime was not as culturally accepted among blacks; drugs were less available, etc. But whatever environmental changes were put into place post-1964 enabling blacks to 'actualize' better their innate criminal propensities, my original argument simply pertained to those propensities' existence, which is the best explanation for why blacks behave as they do everywhere they are found. Arslan did not refute this, and the idiot "W" doesn't even understand what disagreement was even about. Enough. Arguing with leftists is boring and unproductive.
10969150741305750561Yes, I think I'm about done with blogging, here or anywhere. It's been fun, but to what end? I do it for a bit of intellectual stimulation of a more visceral sort (my colleagues at work are not intellectuals) ... I'm always looking for new and better ideas in all this ... it's a bit addictive ... But really, the serious man does not blog. Sorry, but it's true. A serious, dedicated WN would be doing at least one of three things: real intellectual work (published as books, journal articles, learned magazine pieces); propaganda in wide outlets, like radio or newspapers (so blogging not here among the comrades, but in places like the Telegraph where new persons could be reached - I consider that [i]outreach[/i], not blogging); and political and movement organizing. I'm going to pursue the first. I've been accepted into a couple of doctoral programs, and so am transitioning from a two decade business career to a new life of scholarship. I need to lay aside this light blog stuff, and really focus on acquiring the base of knowledge to write my main life's work, my treatise (among other projected works) integrating WN (really, scientific race and biological findings) with Anglo-American conservatism, and Catholic natural law theory. I think that is the correct theoretical underpinning for the defense of Western civilization. Politics guided by history, informed by science, and interrogated by ethics. [i]responding to Arslan’s poor reasoning >Leon Haller I warned people here. This guy’s m.o. is dragging people into long-winded dialectics. Arguing with him is a waste of time, his arguments are positively riddled with logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies. And he will never, ever concede a point. Might as well save your time and effort, he’s a joke.[/i] (Gudmund) Gudmund, You are wise. But how much of all this is not a waste of time?
10972450741305801252Why did I waste my time on this guy? Haller (and a few others) suckered! But what I said above about the decline in white prison populations is worth considering.
10958350751305631292[i]Whenever I see an exceptionally-powerful person fall from grace I immediately try to deduce what that person did or why they were sold down the river. Otherwise you’re just focusing on the pretty assistant next to the magician.[/i] (Christian M) This sounds appropriately worldly, macho and cynical, but I'm sceptical. People today are overly gullible about power, but the other extreme exists, too (ie, excessive conspiracists are also gullible in a way). DSK is more likely to have been 'stung' by French patriots (or at least Sarkozites), than to have outlived his elite "usefulness". More likely still, the truth is as the [i]bare[/i] facts present themselves. He's a filthy pervert who either (insanely) thought he could get away with something so brazen as this, or he has a near psychotic lack of self-control (eg, maybe he was playing with himself, the maid walks in, and he then acts out of base lust). As I mentioned on an earlier thread: socialist, globalist, Jew. Perfect. Enjoy the [i]schadenfreude[/i], troopers! We don't get too many of these! And if ARMOR is reading, I'd like to hear his French take. Are French patriots dancing over this? Even if Sarko beats Marine, I myself would, if French, still much rather have had him reelected than to have gotten stuck with DSK.
10966550751305718222[i]Leon Haller is a lonely man[/i] (Ivan) Ivan, Where do you get off with these irrelevant, [i]non sequitur[/i] [i]'ad hominems'[/i]? I mean, what the fuck do you know about me, besides the facts I've offered here over the years: that I am American, Catholic, big, Ivy League educated, unmarried, childless, Republican ... and much more intelligent than you are (the latter is an obvious deduction)? You always introduce these weird, untrue, irrelevant assertions. It's like my saying, "Ivan is wrong in his opinions because his wife's fat, he's short, and he's only slept with three women." I suspect all that is true, but of course, I don't [i]know[/i] any of it.
10967050751305721270Yes, I was reading in Tuesday's WSJ that DSK has had past complaints about his aggressively physical approach with women. I hate sounding so biased, but ... given the total hegemony of globalism, liberalism, and Zionism or at least sycophancy toward Jews, in the MSM, I am inclined to think that any story like this about a Jewish globalist/elitist is probably true. If this type of thing were directed against a rightist like Pat Buchanan or JM LePen, I would assume it was probably false (while acknowledging that it could be true). I think my position is reasonable, don't others? PS - C'mon, Armor, you can do better than that. Is the French media saying Sarko or Marine will benefit more? Is there another Socialist who could do as well as DSK (pre-sex crime)?
10968550751305743174I have mentioned in the past here at MR that I am mostly German, some French, a bit Dutch, bit English. Although I don't normally think in ethnic (as opposed to racial) terms, I am of a far higher racial type than you are, Ivan. I am a Nordic (though I am not a Nordicist). You are an Arab, or something close. And I may still have kids, don't worry. I've never even seen a Viagra, let alone needed one. You are outmatched and outclassed in all ways. Isn't there some website where you can plague your own people?
10972050751305800091[i]Leon, You have made many valuable contributions here. Why waste time on Ivan? He is a time-wasting troll. Let him return to his own people then he can speak with some credibility.[/i] (Thorn) Thank you for the vote of confidence. And you are correct (see my comment about efficient use of time in the context of reading Marx in the newest Baron post) re Ivan (and similar trolls). People like us, and the many other serious race patriots participating in the ongoing conversation here at MR, need to talk to each other, and exclude the unserious (at least until they change their ways and prove their worth). After all, what are we doing here? Letting off steam (in part)? Or trying to use the power of a collective to further our common understanding of racial problems? If I were running this site, I would try to make it less haphazard, and more goal-oriented. We're mostly talking to ourselves, so this is not about outreach to unformed minds, as in a Yahoo or Telegraph or Times chatroom, or keeping up our presence in the mainstream out of a sense of personal and racial honor (just so the smug multiculti bastards know We're Still Here). If MR has a purpose, IMHO, it should be to develop interdisciplinary WN ideology. Ultimately, working through very sophisticated theoretical problems of evolutionary adaptions, or ethics, or metapolitics, etc, may be very personally rewarding, but it's less important to real action in the physical/political world than formulating a core ideological program to present to the masses. If I ran this site, I would attempt to focus discussion on a Topic of the Day (or Week), and basically exclude tangential comments. One topic could be the Jews, another country by country political strategies, another WN ethical justifications, and so forth. From those more narrowly focused discussions could emerge the beginnings of a coherent, core WN doctrine. But long-winded discussions of irrelevancies with idiots and 'plants' is obviously counterproductive, and we must all exercise self-vigilance in resisting the temptation to do so, a temptation arising from our very natures as rational, Western men with an ethical commitment to discovering and defending truth.
10972150751305800216excuse me "adaptations" (also spelled "proofread").
10971950761305798774Dr. Lister, Instead of wasting time actually reading the "Analytical Marxists" may I suggest David Gordon's excellent dissection and critique of them entitled [i]Resurrecting Marx[/i]. It's on sale here: http://mises.org/store/Resurrecting-Marx-P22.aspx Re Marx more broadly, it is indeed necessary for the serious rightist intellectual to be familiar with Marxian doctrines, as so many have seeped into conventional liberal and thus MSM discourse. But no one should actually read Marx, beyond maybe [i]The Communist Manifesto[/i] and [i]The Eighteenth Brumaire[/i] (or at most some anthology of Marx and Engels which reprints those selections from the entirety of their work most generally accepted as expressive of the key elements of their doctrines). NO ONE SHOULD EVER WASTE PRECIOUS TIME READING DAS KAPITAL! I say this simply because Marx was almost totally worthless; his writing, especially on political economy, is extremely boring; and we all suffer from the classic intellectual's problem: life is short, time is scarce, and there is so much more worth reading, even just in areas germane to the problems of race and civilization, than there will ever be time to read it. We should all resolve to make maximally efficient use of our time (and thus I should follow my own advice and simply ignore ineducable trolls like Arse-lan and Ivan).
10972250761305800736Let me add that if one wishes for a short, masterful explanation of Marxism and its flaws, one could do worse than (British classical liberal) David Conway, [i]A Farewell to Marx[/i]. Of course, if one wants a detailed overview of the whole sweep of this rancid ideology, the classic rec is Kolakowski, [i]Main Currents of Marxism[/i], originally a trilogy, now reprinted in one huge volume.
10973250761305808559[i]I am an Libertarian who believes the role of the state must be limited only to protecting liberty itself. I do not support dictatorships, I support the right of the state only to act in order to defend liberty itself and to defend the right of its citizens to assert their liberty, not to usurp liberty in order to defend the state. The state that awards itself dictatatorial powers is already a dictatorship, even if it doesnt use those powers. I believe the Organic National Community is the best model for the gurantor of liberty - a national community of people of the same stock and culture. In such a state, the state itself is a minimal state - not a power in itself.[/i] (LJB) This is quite close to my own position. One problem: you are not a libertarian, because that cannot be squared with any real nationalism. The libertarian believes he has the right to associate with whomever he wants, including the right to bring that person, if foreign, into his country. The nationalist does not believe this, holding that individual liberties are always conditional, subject to being overridden for the good of the nation (or ethnic group). Libertarians and WNs (or any type of nationalists) diverge in first principles. That said, I, too, am a White and American nationalist who places a high value on liberty and property.
10982250771306078325Where do you find these weird videos? Anyway, Rapturism has nothing to do with any of the recognized forms of orthodox Christianity (Catholic, Reformation, Orthodox). It is a weird cult that is ignored by Christian intellectuals, whether traditionalist or modernist. It is not remotely representative of the religion. Of course, even Rapture nonsense is no less nutty than this glob of ignorance: [i]Christlickers generally are poor, uneducated and easily led. Jeebooism is a gutter religion, fit only for the basest of cowards, weaklings and morons. Keep in mind that this ‘rapture’ nuttery is common amongst the Christ-insane: if not in this particular form, then in another. What a despicable death cult. What a despicable lot of followers it has.[/i] (Alaric) These statements are pitifully uninformed. Christians in the West are mostly middle class (some lower, some upper), better than average schooled, and much better than average read, and not at all easily led. Just the opposite. It is the secular masses who fall for every bit of modern lunacy, from animal rights, to gay marriage, vegetarianism, radical ecology, Marxism, feminism, pacifism, Freudianism, children's rights, hi-tech utopianism, multiculturalism, New Age spirituality, below replacement fertility, racial egalitarianism, etc. The real Christianity of the historic West is the antidote to all such nonsense. And Christianity is as far from a death-cult as it is possible to imagine.
10986950771306190450[i] Ironically, Dennet actually ceded the title of House Philosopher to Dawkins though. Of all the “New Atheists” Dawkins actually seems to be the one to wax most philosophical.[/i] I'm surprised at this, as Dennett is a serious cognitive philosopher. Dawkins, as with any intellectual willing to put in the self-study, could be a philosopher, but isn't. He has contributed nothing to that field. What I, not being a scientist, wonder is whether he can even be called a scientist. Yes, he earned his doctorate I believe in zoology (I'm too lazy to confirm this with a google search), so he is technically trained. But has he contributed anything [i]original[/i] to science as such? At best, he is a kind of evolutionary theoretician ("selfish gene"), though mostly he seems to be no more than a mere science popularizer, albeit a very good one. I have enjoyed several of his books, and own all of them.
11004650771306754986This is one of the most confusing threads I've ever tried to follow. The issue is white preservation. Some view this as an end in itself; others, like me, view it instrumentally as necessary to preserve the High Civilization of the West. Either way, let's not get bogged down in divisive and irrelevant historical interpretations. Cultures change; historical events can be endlessly interpreted. What matters is that our lands are being demographically conquered by alien peoples who are inferior to us, and who hate us. Stopping their entry is the first matter of business, one we can all agree on, as well as the last - if we don't stop it, nothing else will matter. So please keep focused.
10986050781306149221I like it! Not much as serious literature, but it reminds me of Dr. Pierce's [i]Hunter[/i], and not only in similarity of titles. I'm sure there was some inspiration and influence. You're not the [i]real[/i] author, are you GW? Or is it Bismuth?
11001350781306647094Yes, feminism bears much of the blame for modern Western effeminacy in the face of multiculti treason and alien aggression. But let us still praise Wilders for at least acknowledging the horrors of Muslim immigration, and for putting himself on the line to do something about it. Anything less would be churlish and childish. Outside of mud-instigated race war, ours is still a sequentialist struggle. We must divide and conquer the enemy, step by step. We need to recover Occidental consciousness and patriotism. Once we have done so sufficiently, we can face down the muds. Once we have shown the fortitude to do that, watch how quickly our women (and Jewry) will fall back into their appropriate places.
11004550781306753417[i]The immigration “horrors” have nothing to do with religion but rather with the temperament of the immigrants and behaviours arising therefrom. If the selfsame Arab and Negro immigrants were Christian, atheist or pagan, it would be no less horrible. Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.[/i] "Muslim" in the European context is generally an ethnic not religious designation. The Muslims rioting in France in 2005 were hardly good Muslims by the standards of Islam. That said, you are totally wrong. Blacks are pretty awful everywhere, whether nominally Christian or not. But that is not so for Arabs. Christian Arabs tend to be both fairer-skinned than Muslim ones, as well as much more intelligent, civilized and commercially successful. Lebanese-Americans, for example, are overwhelmingly Christian, and also wealthier as a group than Anglo-Americans. Christian Lebanese were always much closer to Mediterranean whites culturally and behaviorally than they were to Muslim Arabs.
10996250791306463621From the Vertovec paper GW linked to: [i]Similar trends affecting American cities have prompted Roger Waldinger and Mehdi Bozorgmehr (1996: 23) to ask, ‘[b]is today’s diversity a stable arrangement, or is it simply a stage in the evolution of a new type of homogeneity, in which most residents will be foreign-born?[/b]’[/i] Question: After any successful WN revolution, should those who in the "Diversitarian Era" purveyed such nonsense be tried for race treason, and, if convicted, executed? One of my long term desires is to produce a philosophical inquiry into the nature of treason. Race treason will of course be a major topic.
10995550791306450812Robert Reis, Good comment, esp [i]I mean it. I am done arguing with these morons and charlatans.[/i] Discerning the optimum allocation of scarce time, energy and material resources is an important aspect of our near-Sisyphean struggle to prevent white extinction. I long ago concluded that engaging with 'hard-core' race-liberals, race-liberalism, incidentally, being the essence of modern liberalism, is a waste of time. Recognizing racial reality is visceral: either you get it immediately or you don't (this assumes lived experiences of other races, and so might not apply to the dwindling numbers of whites still fortunate enough to live in remote, all-white communities, and whose racial views might thus be disproportionately the product of brainwashing via the carefully fabricated, vicarious racial experiences afforded by mass media). Most persons' political persuasions are pre-rational, and based on individual psychic make-up. An urban white with experience of diversity who nevertheless sincerely celebrates it (as opposed to the many of our oppressed brethren whose livelihoods depend upon their mouthing PC platitudes) is obviously mentally disturbed. Can such a person be reached with racial truth? Often the answer is no. But even where 'reality-penetration' is possible, the effort, in light of more promising, higher 'marginal returns' uses to which racialist energy could be put, isn't worth it. It is my sense, based on long observation as well as personal experience, that at least a quarter of whites (and, sadly, perhaps an even higher percentage of racial Nordics) are psychologically unfitted in their own natures to recognize and ascribe the reality of statistically significant inter-group differences in ability and behavior to biologically essential (genetic) factors. They might be dragged kicking and screaming to admitting that, say, blacks commit more crime than whites, but for internal reasons, related to those which lead some to unshakable theism, and others to its opposite, they simply will never accept that the disparity is genetic, as opposed to all their desperate environmental and historical exculpations. There are, however, many of our people for whom a little bit of racialist education can generate huge returns in racial consciousness raising. These are persons whose psyches are not innately malformed, but who have never been presented with the truth, and are insufficiently perceptive to have reached it themselves. I estimate that such racially ignorant persons comprise more than half our race, and they are the people to whom our attentions should be directed. In all things, you go to where the hunting is good.
10997550791306505824I'm having a good discussion with a liberal white South African female over at the genocide in SA thread. Check it out.
11012150811306963643[i]Good to see you take my point on board.[/i] (LJB) It's a point many of us have been making for a long time, and with good reason: as we debate fine issues, we continue to lose our homelands at accelerating rates. At some point, perhaps already passed, the problem moves from philosophy to military science. This is why for several years here at MR, and for a long time before that elsewhere, I have emphasized that the most relevant philosophical problem is ethics, not ontology. Most whites have been convinced that resisting our dispossession is unethical, and this inexplicably despite the huge explosion (or because of it?) of atheism in Europe. I emphasize bringing the racialist platform in line with traditional understandings of Christianity because, first, I think Christianity very likely true (in its core 'ontology'); second, it is hugely dominant among American conservatives (and here we cannot win any power just with hardcore white nationalists, and in my experience, very, very few white leftists are even remotely amenable to WN); and third, I go far against the grain in predicting that Europe is at the low (or high depending on your perspective) point of secularism - that is, as the civilizational (political, economic, fertility, declinist) crisis heats up over there (and, with lulls, and false starts, over time it will), many Europeans are going to rediscover their ancient faith, as people often do in times of great stress. We must make sure that faith includes, as it once did, realistic and (truly) just analyses of the role of racial transformation in the crisis and decline of the West.
11012250811306963956For example, we are racialists because we don't want to import this into our nations and lives: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110601/wl_africa_afp/nigeriacrimechildtrafficking_20110601143218
11014850811307015243[i]1) Graham Lister - you need to get out more. You sound like a cross between Victor Meldrew and one of the Taliban. 2) Grimoire - excellent anaylsis - the point is simple, those who can communicate to the masses, will be the master of the masses. Those who can communicate only to intellectuals, will be regarded with contempt by the masses - and we need the masses to vote nationalism into power - not intellectuals. 3) Ivan - you sound like you have run out of your medication. Get some more. You need it. 4) GW - all conteporary political ideologies are intellectualy cohesive. That is not the point though - the point is that unless they are communicated to the masses, they remain as memes only alive in the minds of a tiny rump of intellectuals. The nationalists we need are not intellectuals - they are communicators. Communicators who can communicate nationalism to the masses and gain their support are worth a thousand intellectuals.[/i] (LJB) ------------------------------------------ [I find Dr. Lister extremely level-headed, and welcome his contributions.] Communication/persuasion/outreach towards the masses is obviously crucial. But you (all) are assuming that nationalism would be obviously popular, if only "the word" could be gotten out to our people, instead of being bottled up by the alien-controlled MSM. I'm not so sure of this anymore. Earlier in my lifetime, perhaps as recently as the early 90s, the white nations, including even the US, despite its being further along the path to white minority status than most, had preponderant majorities of traditional national and cultural (possibly even racial) preservationists (aka, "patriots"). It was in the 60s, 70s and 80s, when brave men like Enoch Powell were speaking out, that we really needed large cadres of committed nationalists explaining to the masses the facts of race, and thus the kind of future they and their children would invariably experience if already existent trends in immigration as well as non-discrimination litigation were not halted. We would have had receptive audiences, filled with persons who were old enough to have remembered the (better) time before multiculturalism. Unfortunately, now we are faced with an obviously vastly more difficult situation, and not only because we have huge numbers of racial aliens resident and integrated within our lands. We also have a younger generation of whites (in the US, the Obama Youth, who by no means are all nonwhite) who have been both indoctrinated into multiculturalism and opposition to white traditions nearly from birth, as well as raised in multiracial environments. Many whites, raised around lots of nonwhites, come to reject multiracialism. But many others actively come to embrace it. Worst of all, even many whites not enamored of 'diversity' nevertheless have been conditioned to think that reversing such diversity, even if physically (again, [i]militarily[/i]) possible, would be grossly unethical. Let me emphasize that point. There are enormous numbers of whites who would have opposed immigration in the 60s-80s, and might still vote to oppose further immigration today, but who would also oppose racial repatriation, which, let us not deceive ourselves, would require harsh measures to achieve, and likely lead to racial civil war in many places. So as I repeatedly have asserted, there is a desperate need for sophisticated philosophical analysis, though it should involve not abstruse "racial ontology", but the provision of ethical justifications for what for the masses are clearly calls for [i]verboten[/i] 'racism'. Ethics, not ontology, is the key intellectual task, even as we concomitantly work in the political realm to legislate the WN Lowest Common Denominator, which is halting nonwhite immigration.
11015250811307025313An addendum: What I wrote above should in no way be interpreted to mean that I actually think whites will save their homelands, at least in the absence of the most extreme threats of nonwhite violence and external military conquest, which I do not think will be forthcoming (or not in sufficient time to use them as springboards to a [i]successful[/i] general racial awakening and alien cleansing). At best the purpose of a nationalist movement is to make life better for the whites living in increasingly multicultural societies - to defend their rights and material interests, keep pressing for an end to immigration, and inculcate a sense of national and racial tradition in the face of hostile governments, media and popular cultures. But such is not enough to save the West's national cultures, nor collectively to save the race. Now that the demographic defenses have been breached in big ways, the trend is inexorable. Over time, increasing numbers of whites will miscegenate; whites will probably never reach replacement fertility, and even if they do, they will not over-reproduce so as to replace the huge fall in populations guaranteed by the sub-par fertility of the past couple of generations; and white majorities everywhere will almost certainly not want to risk civil/racial warfare, with all the loss of life and especially property and wealth destruction that would entail. Thus, even as WN movements grow ever stronger among whites - and they will - their natural base of support will continue to shrink, and their likelihood of attaining even a modicum of power will further recede under continuing waves of both immigration, and eventual naturalization (as well as, for a while at least, greater relative domestic nonwhite fertility).
11015350811307025522Sorry, got timed out, and didn't copy whole comment. Meant to say: An addendum: What I wrote above should in no way be interpreted to mean that I actually think whites will save their homelands, at least in the absence of the most extreme threats of nonwhite violence and external military conquest, which I do not think will be forthcoming (or not in sufficient time to use them as springboards to a [i]successful[/i] general racial awakening and alien cleansing). At best the purpose of a nationalist movement is to make life better for the whites living in increasingly multicultural societies - to defend their rights and material interests, keep pressing for an end to immigration, and inculcate a sense of national and racial tradition in the face of hostile governments, media and popular cultures. But such is not enough to save the West's national cultures, nor collectively to save the race. Now that the demographic defenses have been breached in big ways, the trend is inexorable. Over time, increasing numbers of whites will miscegenate; whites will probably never reach replacement fertility, and even if they do, they will not over-reproduce so as to replace the huge fall in populations guaranteed by the sub-par fertility of the past couple of generations; and white majorities everywhere will almost certainly not want to risk civil/racial warfare, with all the loss of life and especially property and wealth destruction that would entail. Thus, even as WN movements grow ever stronger among whites - and they will - their natural base of support will continue to shrink, and their likelihood of attaining even a modicum of power will further recede under continuing waves of both immigration, and eventual naturalization (as well as, for a while at least, greater relative domestic nonwhite fertility). WN (or any kind of nationalist) parties will probably not attain ruling power, and, even if they do, they may be able to end future immigration (there are many non-racial reasons for doing so), but will not reverse what has already arrived. And thus over time, as ever greater numbers of whites have nonwhite in-laws and friends, white resistance to racial euthanasia will weaken (at least without what I have repeatedly called for, a New Racial Ethics of Survival). Of course, there may occasionally be a stronger reaction triggered by a special moral outrage (eg, an attempt to impose some version of Islamic law on a European province or whole country). But that won't translate into a general racial cleansing uprising. At most, the powers that be will (temporarily) back down, waiting until white numbers are still fewer to try their schemes again. And always, the river of civic integration and ultimate biological assimilation will keep flowing ... We've lost everything, everywhere. That eventuality is already 'built' into the present state of things, even if we're still a long way from rock-bottom. The only hope to save the white race is through my proposal for the White Zion. WNs must gradually relocate themselves to a common country which is sovereign yet small enough that we could peacefully, demographically conquer it, exactly as Mexicans are in the process of doing to my home, California. I believe there either are, or, in a few decades, will be, enough WNs (not hardcore Nazis, nor "ontological nationalists", nor neo-pagans, etc, but all of these combined with the much larger number of white conservatives who would simply prefer to live in a monoracial society) from around the world who could do this and will want to. The model for this is, ironically, Israel. Lots of Jews emigrated to Palestine, starting in the late 19th century, and then in huge numbers following WW2 and the formal establishment of Israel. The Zionists wanted a homeland for the Jews, and so they took one. There is no reason we cannot do so as well. I have offered Australia as the most all-round promising (not just in terms of its vulnerability to demographic conquest, but also its potential as a place of white refuge and ultimate Racial State). I'm open to hearing other suggestions (eg, CS suggested Malta).
11019750811307065813[i]Leon, this is what we need to do ; 1) form legal and lebby groups to promote and protect white civil rights in society 2) form media groups to create our own alternative media outlets on the internet 3) form scholarships to send white activists to university / colleges etc 4) form community groups to work in communities to work with white families 5) form outreach groups for ex-prisoners to help them back into a WHITE society, not the degenerate one that caused them to go to prison in the first place 6) form political groups that aim to reach young white people and who can take them on holidays etc where they learn white culture 7) form our own shops and businesses Imagine if a white rights group went into the cities and offered white city families and kids free camping trips, educational scholarships, training and job training schemes in white companies, jobs in white businesses etc etc that would be real positive change.[/i] (LJB) ------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not opposed to any of these suggestions, and appreciate attempts at shifting WN discussion to issues of practical politicking (though you might find each of the above enumerated steps to be hugely difficult to implement, [i]practically speaking[/i]) in preference to labored discussions of spirit-of-raceness, or soul-of-racelessness, or 'presence' and its absence, or onto-atheology, or any other discussion barely intelligible to this Ivy League grad, let alone to our heroic (or only hypothetical) Man in the Pub. But if you carefully read what I wrote above, it is I who am the truly pragmatic thinker in these parts. Even with all your white businesses (and how the firms of Goldfarb, Rabinowitz and Weisman, and Silverblatt, Azofsky and Cohen, and Hirschfeld, Liebskind and Feuerstein, and ... are licking their lips in anticipation of the non-discrimination lawsuits those promise!), white scholarships (with money from whom, exactly?), and white community groups (presumably formed out of our atomized/liberalized white masses), the essential racial problem I have outlined above remains. There are more and more of them, fewer and fewer of us - everywhere. It is possible that in a few decades there will be only a handful of sovereign states still possessing white majorities. And those will be accidental, [i]Finlandized[/i] majorities, existing only at the sufferance of surrounding nonwhite or non-European or newly multiracialized states, unable to assert vigorous white traditional cultures, and possibly even still trending towards multiracialism themselves. In an age of instantaneous communications + easy travel + (white aid/trade/therapeutics-created) Third World population explosion + global capital flows + the past several decades' worth of Western national adoption of 'anti-racism' as meta-political and pedagogical principle, ensuring that there will be whites on Earth forever requires present assertions of racial will. The trends independent of such will (or indeed its treasonous, anti-racist antithesis) are all running against us; that is, towards a nonwhite demographically, and thus politically and finally physically, dominated world (though as to whether the ultimate terminus is Planet Miscegenation, as the One-Worlders fantasize, or Planet Orient, I venture no opinion). This is hard, practical reality, albeit with the Far Future in mind. On the other hand, it is the rejectionists of White Zion who fail to see that, for the WN, present actions can only be assessed in light of ultimate objectives. What is our ultimate objective? Is it, as I wrote above, [i]to make life better for the whites living in increasingly multicultural societies - to defend their rights and material interests, keep pressing for an end to immigration, and inculcate a sense of national and racial tradition in the face of hostile governments, media and popular cultures[/i], or is it to secure our perpetual existence as a race (which for me is the most important precondition for the perpetuity of Western Civilization, which is my own political [i]sumum bonum[/i])? If the former, then by all means let us work locally, build up a consciousness of white victimization, create white legal aid and political lobby groups, teach our children our real histories, support patriotic businesses, et al. Indeed, we should do all these things anyway (though always with the understanding that talking about doing them is not the same as actually doing them, and that endless discussions of Small Schemes are no less "hot air" than discussions of Big Schemes). If it is an ensured future for white people we seek, however, then all such political and cultural outreach represents nothing more than Rusty's management of the collapse scenario. Of course, we'd best get on with it as a public service, and WNs can find some satisfying camaraderie and even fun in the process. But let us be under no illusions that very many WN (or any type of ethnonationalist) governments will attain power, or that any of the few that do (outside of, perhaps, the Slavic world, though they are facing demographic miniaturization, too), will actually be able to reverse the internal trends towards miscegenation, below-population-restoration white family size, and resigned public acceptance of multiracialism, and its ineluctable descendant, multiculturalism. To secure our racial existence requires, at this bottleneck in our racial history, and absent unforeseen wars or plagues, a teleological Racial State: that is, a society of whites intentionally organized around the macropolitical goal of ensuring white survival. [I have outlined some features of such a state in the MR thread on genocide in South Africa.] Here on this thread I have offered Israel as an historical example where something like this was successfully realized. The unimaginative response was to scoff at my alleged impracticality, and to tell me to run off to Serbia (a fine people the Serbs, btw, and I wish them very well - but Serbia for geopolitical and truly pragmatic reasons, both political and personal, is inadequate as a proposed RS). But where exactly is the impracticality? Demographic/electoral conquest has occurred in the past, and is occurring as we debate. CA is in the advanced stage of being conquered demographically by Hispanics, as is Nevada, Arizona (though whites there are heroically, but probably futilely, resisting), and Texas. San Francisco was electorally conquered by homosexuals who deliberately migrated there in the 1950s-70s (and have continued doing so in replenishing trickles ever since) with the avowed intention of creating a Gay Mecca and place of refuge (on a smaller scale they also did this in places like Fire Island in the East and Northern CA's Russian River area). Cubans more or less electorally conquered Miami, as Jews earlier did New York. WNs are and likely always will be minorities in all sovereign polities. Even if we somehow, somewhere attain to a majority, our scope of racially remedial action will be limited to slowing down the rate of decline legislatively (eg, stopping further immigration, itself extremely difficult to achieve, and thus a tremendous potential accomplishment), but not to reversing that decline. And given the global, extra-political trends (that is, trends having nothing to do with philosophical misunderstandings, or ideological hostility to nations as such, or alien racial hostility to white existence, but which simply are the collective sum of an infinity of individual, race-neutral or irrelevant decisions) pushing us towards white extinction, only a radical resetting of our options will suffice to save us (across the Far Future). The RS is not at all impractical, though of course its development will (but need not) take decades. By in-gathering many WNs it offers an end-run around the tedious (and in terms of modal, evolved white psychology, futile) development of hegemonic nationalist movements across Magna Europa. The focus will shift to more productive discussions about how to intensify racial consciousness among the new chosen, and transmit it down the generations, as well as very practical defense and trade issues, as opposed to patiently trying to explain to brain-deformed liberals and/or brainwashed idiots the virtues and ethics of white preservation. In even a semi-RS, WN activism will be so much more than 'spitting in the wind'. And lastly, why the fear of being asked to be pioneers? Is such timidity the true and best and essential spirit of Western Man, the race which subdued the Earth, brought savage lands into civilization, traversed the poles, and conquered the moon? My ancestors came to this New World variously throughout the 18th century, and some in the 19th. America was hardly a settled place then. Life was not easy, and I suspect that the original immigrant pioneers among my forebears never got to return to their Old Countries. In light of their hardiness, and that of millions of other "swarming whites" (in Stoddard's excellent phrase) who founded North America, Australia/NZ, Argentina, Brazil, Southern Africa, some of you are [i]whining at the prospect of buying a fucking plane ticket to Australia?![/i] White men must be [i][b]men[/b][/i], first and foremost.
11019950811307066749From another thread: A final point. The Racial State (TRS) as I am envisioning it most certainly will not simply be a “whites only” society - a modern, Western democracy minus muds. For attention must be paid to its projected viability over the long-term. TRS will have tremendous economic freedom, far more than any place today except maybe Hong Kong. Such freedom is necessary to maximize economic growth, which in turn will feed armaments production and acquisition. But otherwise it will be extremely militarized, both in terms of the percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending, and the constant combat training (in the form not merely of lessons in killing techniques, but also of assigning pre-warfare “shadow” positions to all persons, so that upon the outbreak of war, each individual will already have a known place in the military hierarchy, supplementing the standing, professional soldiery) individuals of both sexes, from ages 16-60, will receive and participate in, as well as socially regulated and authoritarian. Specifically, it will be rigorously eugenic, as well as formally oriented around maximizing white fecundity. School curricula will be designed around a core patriotic consensus, teaching not only standard subjects like reading and math, but also explaining to the children the reality of racial differentiation, the horrors of multiracialism, and the necessity for harsh measures to ensure white survival. Of course, this is the briefest outline of TRS, but you are certainly correct that society will not be nearly as free as in the modern West.
11022950821307205832Important questions, good insights, but inadequately demonstrated conclusions. 1. There are far too many persons (esp nonwhites) enjoying way too high living standards from govt work. 2. Govt is mostly the enemy of prosperity (here persons like Mises and Rothbard should be studied, even if their Jewishness offends some persons), but not only due to its own unproductive and unnecessary employees. It is govt provision of non-real 'public goods' (eg, postal services) and ownership of assets (eg, airports) which build incredible inefficiencies into the economy. The solution is massive privatization. 3. Govt is also the enemy of prosperity because of the tremendous costs caused by needless regulations, especially in the labor markets, but also including the very systems of taxation imposed across the West. The solution is massive deregulation, and tax simplification. 4. Govt regulations have the ancillary effect of creating much artificial private sector employment (eg, labor/most torts/civil rights lawyers, 'diversity' counselors, corporate 'govt relations' personnel, tax preparers, etc). Such employees do not add anything to real living standards. 5. Govt-controlled monetary systems are the source of both working-class destroying inflation (a hidden tax which redistributes wealth from common savers to, first, govt itself; second, to the 'private' banks; third, to the largest corporations, especially highly leveraged ones), as well as painful cycles of recession and worse (which in turn only serve to accelerate both the delegitimization of capitalism, as well as the growth of govt domination over economies). 6. Govt pseudo-deregulations first in the 80s and later in the 90s encouraged a massive financialization of the US economy (also the British, I think, as well as perhaps those of other white countries). This over-emphasis on finance led to much needless destruction of Western industry - torn apart to create "financial value", but rarely economic value - and its concurrent outsourcing to Third World countries, like Mexico, India, and of course, China, as well as to an economically harmful (esp in the long run) concentration of 'cognitive' resources (ie, smart people) in finance, as opposed to technical areas of production, and industrial management. 7. Massive immigration of badly educated and lower-mean-IQ specimens bodes ill on multiple levels for long term economic performance (as do domestic dysgenic trends, from early 20th century European conflicts, to female careerism and its ensuing white fertility collapse). 8. All that noted, however, let us not adopt the economically illiterate stance of so many "salt of the Earth" types, from Christians to agrarians to paleoconservatives to Laborites to nationalists, who think the "real work" is only or mainly physical, and that managers and traders and middlemen serve no economic function. These days, most real work is done behind desks, and in laboratories - which is why whites are found there, and Mexicans have the hammers and shovels. 9. It is not clear how "the collapse" will occur, or whether it will occur at all. It could be public debt driven, esp if the US dollar loses its reserve currency status (a distinct intermediate term possibility). More likely is this "new normal" above-mentioned: permanently higher structural unemployment, higher mean inflation, worsening public services, eventually higher taxes. In other words, extended economic sclerosis, and continually declining living standards (but not necessarily any more sharp drops). 10. This trans-Western decline, perhaps more pronounced in the US and Britain (though Cameron is doing a lot right in focusing on 'austerity') than in better managed countries like Canada and Australia, or more industrious ones like Germany and Denmark, will probably aid the Right more than the Left (eg, 2010 US elections), and might turn public opinion against immigration - or not: nothing has been done in the US, which is still accepting 1.7mil legals per year, despite the worst [i]real[/i] employment picture since the Great Depression. 11. I highly doubt there will be any turn to local food production. Far more likely, irate US taxpayers will demand serious reductions in farm subsidies, esp for idiotic 'biofuels', as well possible restrictions on food exports. The US, Canada, France, maybe Aus/NZ, are in no danger whatsoever of having to turn to local produce (mush as "slow foodies" may fervently wish it). I'm not sure about the rest of Europe (except that Nordic Europe will almost certainly continue to have the financial wherewithal to import what food it wishes). It is in the Third World where in the coming decades there will be massive hardships related to insufficient food (food price inflation was a major cause of the recent "Arab Spring" revolts). 12. Prolonged hardship may or may not force people to "grow up", in a conservative sense. It might just mean more elected socialists looting their way through whatever remains of private wealth. It all depends on the quality of leadership. Overall, tough times are electorally better for the nationalist Right, among conservative whites, and the socialist Left, among liberal whites and nonwhites. That racial/ideological polarization, already evident and growing, will be good for WN. 13. In Troubles or not, we do not need to create a religion, nor will such an endeavor be successful. We are forever past the Axial Age. Many of our people will be returning to their ageless faith - not the sad myths of the pagans, but the joyful and highly intellectualized truths of Christianity, the traditional religion of the West. Our task is to align ourselves with that religious return, so that WN is acceptable to Christianity - indeed, we ought to be the staunchest defenders of the faith, the better to subvert its contemporary errors, which have unnecessarily and heretically rendered it little more than 'theistic liberalism'. Indeed, the faith, properly understood, [i]demands[/i] national and racial loyalty as natural expressions of pious character. The good man is defined by [i]loyalty[/i], to God first and foremost, obviously, but also to other orders of creation - to parents, to wife, to kin, to community, to nation, and to race. Of course, the scope of lesser loyalties is bounded by moral law, but that law imposes no duty of race-mixing, nor of passivity in the face of occupationist regime-encouraged alien dispossession and race-replacement. Quite the opposite, in fact. Every epoch is unique. Peoples and civilizations must win themselves anew, adjusting ideological emphases and survival tactics. Our collective gene-line created a great mode of being in the world under an ancient alliance of Throne and Altar. For those who would save the West, that it might remain something greater than a huddled and besieged White Zion, our greatest task is to forge an alliance of Race and Altar. It can be done intellectually, and it must be done strategically.
11030850821307368799Several comments worth responding to. Graham Lister first. Graham, Where do I begin, and should I? I'm much too busy to write something lengthy, as I did already in comment #1, but your comment on June 04, 2011, 09:33 PM | # is both fundamentally correct, yet filled with mistakes of economic history. Oy! Should I/ shouldn't I, should I/ shouldn't ... [i]Yes I’m not really down with this love of the right-wing, dog eat dog, neo-liberal economic/social model. If an ethnically and culturally homogenous society is valuable then it is a collective good. It cannot be defended, in any serious way, by the nostrums of liberal individualism. That would be a category error. Hayekian liberalism in this context is dumb beyond belief.[/i] (GL) Let me just start by alluding to a compliment that I was going to pay you on the Grimoire article thread; namely, that you read real books (one can tell that too many MR commenters do not, preferring internet snippets to sustained engagement with serious texts). Scruton, [i]Modern Philosophy[/i], Kolakowski, [i]Main Currents of Marxism[/i], Paxton, [i]Anatomy of Fascism[/i] - I have 'em all. I've even considered getting the Bonner book, but you're right - the equations are too intimidating for non-experts like me. Given that you read widely and well, might I suggest that you actually read some serious capitalist theory (not Ayn Rand, though her novels, which are all I've read of hers, do have their uses - not as literature, but as skewerings of left-liberal hypocrisy and exposes of the corruption which grows out of state/capitalist collusions). You sneer at Hayek. I, too, find him overly, well, liberal (and ironically, both weakly Austrian and [i]insufficiently[/i] libertarian - if you study the tradition, you'll know what I mean). But have you read, to take his most famous political works, [i]The Road to Serfdom[/i], [i]The Constitution of Liberty[/i], or [i]The Fatal Conceit[/i]? Better still, you (and other conservatives and nationalists) need to fully absorb the vital insights into economic processes discovered by the classical liberals and later libertarians if you wish to construct a countervailing ethnocollectivist economic model. I am working on this myself, and discussed these issues here at MR last year (I really have to keep files on my comments). Indeed, I hope one day to write a book on [i]Nationalist Economics[/i]. At the risk of disappointing you, however, be forewarned: Austro-libertarian (Menger, Mises, Hayek) [i]microeconomics[/i] is clearly correct. Period. There are technical reasons for the overwhelming superiority of capitalism (the purer the better) to every form of socialism and state planning, involving economic calculation (Mises), and the uncollectibility of dispersed, particular knowledge (Hayek), in addition to the old conservative psychologistic incentives problem. Read Rothbard, [i]Man, Economy and State[/i] (for economics), and Mises, [i]Human Action[/i] (for a comprehensive methodological individualist view of the problem of scarcity and human society). You could also try Riesman, [i]Capitalism: A Treatise[/i]. These are all massive works, not easily read. But you cannot come away from them believing any more of this purely political/rhetorical "Third Way" garbage (whether of social democratic Left, or nationalist Right). (For a very stimulating if dry work expanding libertarian theory into new and mostly politically incorrect subjects, read Hoppe, [i]Democracy: The God That Failed[/i].) We may nevertheless want a Third Way between socialism and capitalism, but we are pursuing it for non-economic reasons. Mixed economies will be, apodictically, materially poorer than capitalist ones. I do think the Austrians can be challenged [i]macroeconomically[/i] in two areas: ecology, and politics. Put another way, I criticize libertarians [i]meta[/i]-economically. I refuse to expand on this here (or I'll be writing all day). Perhaps you can intuit my criticisms. [i]The Scandinavian model has produced high levels of prosperity and stable societies with high levels of social capital/social solidarity. Please note, our American friends, they are not ‘socialist’; they are market economies but with generally smart policies to build both social and economic capital. Unlike the UK with its housing bubble producing the illusion of prosperity, a never-ending population of immigrants in generally low-paid jobs to generate ‘economic growth’ and the organised spivary of finance capital.[/i] (GL) Utter rubbish. The Scandinavian model is/was a total failure on every level - from economic prosperity, to fiscal solvency, to nuclear-family breakdown, to falling indigenous populations, to decline of religion, to loss of traditional values, to imposition of multiculturalism and liberal immigration (anybody recall the Danish cartoons episode? hello? Muslims in Copenhagen in Viking times?). They were total squanderers of both "social and economic capital" (read Swedish-American conservative Allan Carlson on his ancestral homeland's social disaster). You are a scientist, right? Correlation does not equal causation - ring any bells? Such prosperity as Scandinavia enjoyed in the postwar period was due to their inherited social and economic capital from their pre-socialist, traditionalist past; genetic, Nordic superiority; and their being allowed to parasite off American taxpayers providing their defense (something dismayingly true for all Europeans, the French and British somewhat excepted). [i]Let me ask a simple question to people especially of the more libertarian bent. Imagine you can live in a time like the USA in 1954 or in the USA of 2004. As a white I would pick a 1954 style society every time. Guess what marginal tax rates for the wealthy were up to 90% - Government was pretty big back then too.[/i](GL) Graham Lister, PhD? "Piled higher and deeper"? How many errors of fact and implication does this contain? I really don't want to count the ways ... You don't know much about American economic history, do you? Yes, I'd rather live in America circa 1954 than 2011. That is because America in '54 was whiter, more Christian (old-school, not weirdo evangelical), more ethical, more civilized, more eugenic, less crowded, more segregated, less sexualized, less culturally degraded ... and more prosperous, in part because it had a much, much, much smaller government, in both absolute size, and regulatory scope, than is the case today. Take one fact among many I could offer. In 2000, the US Federal Govt consumed 18% of GDP. Barely over a decade later, that number has risen to an unprecedented 24%! Govt in 1954 was 'big' by pre-New Deal standards; it was tiny compared with today's. And though the Fed tax code was more progressive then, as you correctly point out, its overall tax take was far smaller, not to mention at the state level, where it was relatively much smaller still. The US has never been as socialist as it is today; its govt at all levels has never been larger or more costly; it is govt economic strangulation, made far worse by Obongo, which is why the US cannot lead the world out of recession. We need much more capitalism, not still less. [i]So what has happened since 1954? - Well it is often noted that the ‘right’ won the economic arguments and the ‘left’ the cultural ones. But as Adam Curtis argues his documentary “The Century of the Self” these developments are two sides of the same coin. The coin of individualistic liberalism. To put it crudely the ‘left’ version of this ideology undermines traditional social and cultural norms. So do it in the road if it feels good, be a LSD dropping libertine homosexual, be a sluttish woman that fucks a different black every night if you want to etc., it’s your ‘right’ as an sovereign individual. And on the ‘right’ well if can we can cynically profit from something we will...so let’s go with the trashy mass-culture (you want porn 24/7 here you go) and if it keeps the profits flowing, yes lets have the millions of Mexicans please (and fuck Euro-America, if it ends up destroying them so long as we make a buck who cares?). It’s your ‘right’ as a sovereign individual to make as much money as possible – not matter how toxic the effects are upon the common good and the historical well of social capital. Markets can have extremely negative consequences, they can radically undermine the genuine things of value that sustain a healthy culture. Markets must serve the health of society not the other way around. Knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing is a big part of the reason why Western world is in the position it now faces.[/i] (GL) Bullshit. The Left won nearly everything. Trust me. I know a lot about modern American history and politics. Even the American Right has never been wholly libertarian. It has never embraced mass immigration (except for the fools at the otherwise excellent [i]Wall Street Journal[/i]), drug legalization or pornography. It has been pro-military, and aggressively anti-communist. Your criticism is really directed at the cowardly modern Republican party, which serves the (misperceived, short-term) interests of the large corporations and hangers-on. [i]Clinton and Bush Junior are separated by secondary ‘expressive’ issues but on all the key functional issues are in agreement (the two sides of the political class have far more in common with each other than with with us plebs both functionally and ideologically). The political class of America is now, more or less openly, a hostile class to their own population. Right and left liberalism are two cheeks on the same behind – the same butt that is defecating all over the genuine long-term well-being of the vast majority of Euro-Americans.[/i] (GL) This I mostly agree with, though Americans better not believe the 'two-sides of the same coin' stuff too intently. Bad as I regard the GOP, they are light years better than the awful Democrats. It is literally vital to my own well-being and that of countless other Old Stock Americans that we defeat Obama next year. There is a lot riding on this. [i]I have lived in both Minnesota and Texas and the vast majority of everyday Euro-Americans I encountered were polite, decent, helpful, civil and generally nice people (far more that in England which is the most culturally and socially degraded nation in the Western world). The demographic crisis facing them is real and more pronounced that in any other Western nation, but the USA is practically a colony of Israel these days due both to our Jewish ‘friends’ and self-serving traitorous elites so the longer-term prospects look rather bleak.[/i](GL) I think this is exaggerated, on two grounds. First, are we as bad off demographically as some European countries? Especially benelux? Are we worse off than New Zealand (probably)? England sounds pretty bad. Second, I think white Americans today, degraded as we are, are still tougher and more independent, and thus more prepared to deal with diversity and collapse than you Europeans, who seem like the weakest people of all time. There are many more conservative Americans, both in absolute and relative terms, than there are rightists in the various European nations. And we are mostly further to the right than your own conservatives. [i]Any ethnocentric politics, to my mind, must be build around the ‘radical center’ than can appeal to both men and women, the blue-collar worker and the professional. Intelligently collectivist and communitarian, profoundly contemptuous of every form of the destructive ultra-liberalism (right and left) that, thus far, has been the evermore powerful and hegemonic shaper of modernity. A synthesis of the best of right and left traditions in order to protect our collective and individual well-being, understanding the profound interdependence of the latter on the former, and looks beyond mere survival to our renewed flourishing as European people. A politics and culture which from the lowliest street-sweeper to the highest scientist recoginses their profound value and dignity because they are OUR people. And just to finish, should we ever live in genuinely revolutionary times, personally I would not be unhappy to see the rounding up every ‘follower’ of that Jewish bitch Ann Rand (aka Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum whom, of course, pushed the idea, for the goyim at least, that we have no collective identity, history, interests and so on and thoughts of such are the highest form of evil), and the administration of desperately needed ‘retrospective abortions’ for the self-styled ‘objectivists’.l[/i](GL) Read Kirk, [i]The Conservative Mind[/i], and imagine it incorporating honesty about race and genetics, and you have my own long term scholarly project.
11030950821307370689[i]Posted by Grimoire on June 04, 2011, 09:56 PM | # These comments are excellent. Leon, nice piece - you should expand this. I like where Kievsky goes with his ideas, thanks Soren. Revolution Harry, your right - but we are not a political party, lets not get pulled into that dead and controlled way of thinking. That is what we have to overcome, not enlist in. We are a social movement that encompasses all native Europeans, or all people everywhere, to go live in their own countries as their own masters. This type of movement, -540 degree’s counter to everything that has come before - has a possibility of universal attraction. We should brainstorm a new idea, totally unique, to attract those who sense ‘everything is wrong’, as youth do openly. We need awareness that musical or cultural genius is found first among the young. You cannot control or manufacture honest creative expression...but you can come across and recognize it, and when you do find it, it is cultural dynamite. All I’m saying is be open to it...you do come across it if you are very lucky and have open eyes. There is no reason a black or Indian artist who advocates returning to Africa or India or the Moon shouldn’t be recognized, respected, encouraged and promoted. We’d be insane not to. We’d be insane to turn away anyone who shares our basic beliefs - immigrants go home and clean up your own mess....corrupt politicians, your ticket is invalid, compromised political systems - we can’t hear you, armed police surveillance state - you’ve been hacked, national military - hows the holiday in Afghanistan? Cultural Marxists - fuck off we’re sick of you...and btw. say hello to my little friend. There is the possibility of a end run around the system[/i] ------------------------------------------------- Grimoire, Thanks for the compliment. And yes, your list of hates is mine, too. But I cannot agree with this: [i]This type of movement, -540 degree’s counter to everything that has come before - has a possibility of universal attraction. [/i] This reminds me of arguments I've had with Silver, and my response is the same. Let us not be naive. Our competitor races are not neo-Wilsonian (you study American history, no?) "national idealists", caring about equal self-determination for all. They want what is ours (land, wealth, women), and will happily take it if we continue to let them. Alliances between racial nationalists of different races are inherently self-defeating. Why would some African or Arab or Mexican want to be master in his own shitty country, when he can be master (and live the High Life) in ours? Nobody is going home of his own accord. He must be pushed.
11031050821307372455Kievsky, Thank you, and thanks for the original post. Though I myself have suffered in the downturn, I guess I just fail to see the desperation you do. Our racial plight is bad enough; why must people exaggerate other matters? I'm not anti-farmer, far from it (except for those parasites living off taxpayer subsidies). I think involvement, esp of white youth, in local agricultural projects would be a socially and culturally excellent trend. The modern world is highly alienating from the normal rhythms of existence. Increasing awareness of those rhythms can only help. I'm not sure of the economic viability of local farming. Of course, if the goal is just to produce enough crops to feed oneself and pay off any debts incurred for purchase of seeds and fertilizer, then maybe it would work. Right now, I don't know if these farms would be competitive with the large scale agriculture which has made America a leading food exporter. Americans won't starve, because, as I pointed out, there is so much inefficiency built into the system that could be immediately eliminated (eg, ethanol subsidies, which would instantly free up much corn for the market). More broadly, the American job market is crap because of Obama and his policies. I hate to sound 'mainstream', but just vote GOP; if we take the Senate, you will start to see improvements. We are not like our brothers in South Africa, instantly at the mercy of useless savages. We have tremendous know-how, and lots of white people, with lots of resources. But we have fiscal problems and business uncertainty due to Obama. Remember, the natural course of a free market economy is to grow. If we are stagnating or declining it is due to poor management - which we can get rid of. And you're from CT? CT has huge amounts of money! Every person but one I've know from CT was rich.
11031150821307375492[i]Graham_Lister said: ‘.. far more that [sic] in England which is the most culturally and socially degraded nation in the Western world’ Though it pains me to say it Graham that statement is correct, on both counts. Oh how I wish it were different but we’ve been so awfully betrayed as a people. The common folk were abused for centuries by the wealthy and titled elite and sometime during the Industrial Revolution our culture died. When the political elite took over in the latter part of the 19th century our society was shattered. Enter the do-gooders, the social scientists and the Marxists. One last opportunity came after WWII. The people were again fully united by the war and they deserved the return of their culture. Not just for the huge sacrifice made but in recognition that were it not for the incredible bonds of kinship this island people still possessed the war would have been lost in 1940. What they got however was mass immigration. England is slightly smaller than Louisiana, a mid-sized state in the US of A. We didn’t stand a chance. Both socialists and capitalists have spent the last six decades destroying what little remains of our way of life. The payback will mean civil war. I, and others like me, are preparing for that war. We do not suffer the illusion of winning. We calculate our losses at 100 per cent for the first 2500 patriots. We’re hoping it will finally wake the people when they see large numbers of their kinfolk dead on the streets. We have friends in the US who are willing to supply us with arms. What greater honour is there than to die for England, to give the unborn the freedom to forever live, love, laugh and cry with their own kind, in England. Our ancestors did no less.[/i] (Foundation) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Great spirit, but cunning can often be the better part of valor. Don't be stupid. Don't be attracted to a politics of romantic and futile gestures. The 'yobs' won't care. The Muslims will laugh. The commoners will be still more dispirited. True British revolutionaries would be urban guerillas. They would attack mosques (remote ones first), Islamic 'community centres', any sort of NWO "racial sensitivity" bureaucracy - but NOT police or (legitimate) governmental bodies, let alone anything to do with ordinary Englishmen. Even better would be targeted assassinations of known race traitors in the media, universities and general culture. If authors publishing multiculti trash in the nation's newspapers were routinely assassinated within days of publication, a very pungent message would get heard very quickly. Of course, thanks to the traitor Blair, Britain is now the most surveilled country on Earth, so this might not be easy ... But do not try to start a war anytime soon. I'm sorry (and I am a foreigner mostly ignorant of the present English situation), but I do not believe the conditions are right for such actions to accomplish anything more than getting a number of good men needlessly killed.
11033050821307487469A curious "protection racket" with absolutely zero benefit for American taxpayers, and without which you Euro-pansies would have been Sovietized many decades ago - and then you could have said au revoir to your precious 30 hour work weeks, labor coddling, socialist health schemes, sexual liberation, and unearned "dolce vita". The global role of Western Europeans since the 60s, with the honorable exception of Britain in the 80s, has been pernicious and pathetic. "Where have all the soldiers gone?" Indeed.
11034650821307527535The cogency of your posts is rapidly declining, Graham. I was actually going to discuss virtue v deontological ethics, per your request, but I'm now inclined to think that might be a waste of time. You really need to read some of the books I recommended, because you are very confused, esp wrt political economy and recent economic history, even if you do point to some failings in American conservatism (not that we American Hard Rightists aren't well aware of these ourselves).
11038350821307624977[i]Perhaps he wasn’t in the mood to debate a narcissistic capitalist ideologist masquerading as a white nationalist?[/i] (bubba) What a fucking idiot. After all my comments here, I have nothing to prove. On the other hand, who the fuck are you, even to be opening your mouth among your superiors? Go away.
11038450821307625880Graham, You either did not read or understand the following (see esp sentences in bold): You sneer at Hayek. I, too, find him overly, well, liberal (and ironically, both weakly Austrian and insufficiently libertarian - if you study the tradition, you’ll know what I mean). But have you read, to take his most famous political works, [i]The Road to Serfdom[/i], [i]The Constitution of Liberty[/i], or [i]The Fatal Conceit[/i]? Better still, you (and other conservatives and nationalists) need to fully absorb the vital insights into economic processes discovered by the classical liberals and later libertarians if you wish to construct a countervailing ethnocollectivist economic model. I am working on this myself, and discussed these issues here at MR last year (I really have to keep files on my comments). Indeed, I hope one day to write a book on [i]Nationalist Economics[/i]. At the risk of disappointing you, however, be forewarned: Austro-libertarian (Menger, Mises, Hayek) microeconomics is clearly correct. Period. [b]There are technical reasons for the overwhelming superiority of capitalism (the purer the better) to every form of socialism and state planning, involving economic calculation (Mises), and the uncollectibility of dispersed, particular knowledge (Hayek), in addition to the old conservative psychologistic incentives problem.[/b] Read Rothbard, [i]Man, Economy and State[/i] (for economics), and Mises, [i]Human Action [/i](for a comprehensive methodological individualist view of the problem of scarcity and human society). You could also try Riesman, [i]Capitalism: A Treatise[/i]. These are all massive works, not easily read. But you cannot come away from them believing any more of this purely political/rhetorical “Third Way” garbage (whether of social democratic Left, or nationalist Right). (For a very stimulating if dry work expanding libertarian theory into new and mostly politically incorrect subjects, read Hoppe, [i]Democracy: The God That Failed[/i].) [b]We may nevertheless want a Third Way between socialism and capitalism, but we are pursuing it for non-economic reasons. Mixed economies will be, apodictically, materially poorer than capitalist ones. I do think the Austrians can be challenged macroeconomically in two areas: ecology, and politics. Put another way, I criticize libertarians meta-economically.[/b] I refuse to expand on this here (or I’ll be writing all day). Perhaps you can intuit my criticisms.
11038650821307628764Your comment of June 9 is nothing but a huge series of straw men. I'm rather shocked you can't seem to recognize this. [i]Really so if one is not a hard-right Haykenian liberal on economic matters then one is an idiot?[/i](GL) Yes, or an ignoramus. Of course, I pointed out that the Austrians (Hayekians) can, I believe, be criticized wrt their political economy, but the criticisms are meta-economic, not economic. You don't grasp the distinction, do you? [i]Let’s try a simple series of questions Leon In real terms have median wages in the USA over the last 30 years declined, flat-lined, or grown? You know it’s a fairly simple empirical question Leon. Another empirical question – how many Euro-Americans (adults and dependents) were in receipt of food-stamp aid in say the year 2010? Another question – in the last ten years what was the average number of Euro-Americans, per year, that suffered personal bankruptcy due to their own or a dependents healthcare costs? Again I’m not making any moral judgment about the answers - I simply want to know the facts. Leon surely you can answer those pretty simple empirical queries? Are they outragous questions? Am I a secret Commie for asking?[/i](GL) But what is the point of these questions? What are you trying to prove? Your method of argumentation is inadequate. Consider question 1. There is, one can dimly discern, an improper, implicit imputation that a defender of laissez-faire (understood as a system of economy, not political economy: the former deals with wealth maximization under conditions of scarcity, the latter with the economy understood as merely one component of the larger polity) would deny any negative assessment of the state of US wages in the recent past. But what justifies that imputation? Do you think a Hayekian (the proper term is "Austrian" or "Misesian") denies reality? Why suppose that someone who favors free markets would say that wages have grown? Why suppose that, if wages have declined in the period under question, the culprit is the market - and not government-imposed or created deformations of the market (as is in fact the case? And what is the point of the other two questions about Euro-Americans? To what are they relevant? [i]And on the market. Of course markets have social utility. I don’t see any complex society doing without them anytime soon. But they do have problems – ever hear of ‘externalities’ Leon? The unrestricted free-market is not my God. It is a human institution - so is flawed just as any human institution is. Moreover at a systematic level mass-markets are, at best, morally neutral. Corporations operating in the market, particularly in mass-consumerist societies will sell anything if it turns a profit and they can get away with it/generate demand via advertisement. It’s astonishingly naive to assume the market simply responses to bottom-up pre-existing demand and isn’t in the business of ‘trend innovation’ and the top-down expanding of our wants and creation of new demands.[/i](GL) No, markets [i]qua[/i] markets do not have problems - except in the general sense that no human institution (as you note) is perfect. But you don't understand the issue, which is not whether any human institution is or can be 'perfect', but whether markets are better than governments at wealth maximization (generating prosperity) - and the answer is overwhelmingly yes, as a matter both of (praxeo)logical deduction (read Mises and/or Rothbard, so you don't continue embarrassing yourself), as well empirical demonstration (eg, North v South Korea, East v West Germany, Maoist China v Hong Kong or Taiwan, etc). Yes, I understand the concept of 'externalities', though it has no relevance to public policy. Corporations attempting to commodify things which in your opinion should not be so treated is not an economic problem, let alone a failing of free markets. It may be a political problem, depending on one's ideology. Lastly, I made no remark about trend innovation, nor do I have any objection to it, however. What is yours? [i]For example look at the wonderful highbrow world of modern art. No real restriction from government on the production and sale of artwork. And it’s an exceptional example of toxic liberal pseudo-culture. So if some ‘artists’ can play the ‘Emperors new clothes trick’ on half-educated buffoons (with more money than sense) our artistic heritage can be happily and totally undermined by such brands as Damian Hirst, Jeff Koons, Robert Mapplethorpe et al., and their rancid anti-art? But hey the market decides all that shit is good so why worry about the attendant cultural pollution. And if in order to generate profits the artwork must become ever more ugly and offensive well that’s just the market at work, yes? So trash culture frequently turns a profit – well unless society restricts the operation of the ‘free-market’ trash culture is what we will get. Too bad that culturally improvised people of all classes set the cultural tone for society at large. But hey the unfettered market is working the old magic so let’s celebrate modern art, vulgar television, disgusting fast food outlets every damn place, porn of everytype on tap 24/7, gangster rap and bondage gear for infants on sale in San Francisco et al. It’s all good. So long as someone wants it and will pay for it let’s go with it.[/i](GL) I don't support modern 'art' or 'culture', nor deny that it can turn a profit. Relevance to the issue of whether markets are better guarantors of prosperity than governments? I also have never stated that anything that markets do is nationally or socially or morally optimal. You are imputing to me views I have not advanced or defended (nor whose defense is implicit in anything I've said). [i]Liberal individualism really is a sort of ‘in the bonemarrow’ American ideology, yes?[/i] (GL) I have never defended liberal individualism, which is neither coincident nor coterminous with the economic case for free markets.
11034750831307532294Here is some advice for those wanting people to slog through their essays: 1. Show some basic writerly courtesy. For example, proofread. Is that so much to ask? At least remove the typos, the misspellings, the dangling participles, the incorrect homonyms (eg, "there" for "their"), the 'dyslexisms' ("conservation" for "conversation"), 'knowing' allusions even highly erudite persons cannot be expected to recognize, neologisms or arcane vocabulary not obvious in meaning, and left unexplained, etc. This piece violates all of these strictures. 2. Please don't restate the obvious, at least to those whom we can assume to be already versed in the core nationalist concerns and arguments (eg, 'diversity' in society increases the likelihood of social frictions: well, er, quite, we all have kind of been saying this [i]ad nauseam et infinitum[/i] ...). 3. Ruthlessly edit, and where necessary, re-write. I have no idea what this paragraph means, [i]Understanding the generative mechanisms of what might be dubbed psycho-political emotionality and how to even consider, let alone hold, certain beliefs comes with too high a price in ‘psychological costs’ such as of the self-image of being a ‘good’ person, is I think, an important issue. Additionally it also goes back to questions of how narratives of normativity are being formed.[/i] but I'm certain it could have been expressed more clearly. "Whatever can be said, can be said clearly." - Wittgenstein 4. Clarity of expression proceeds from clarity of thought, which is a moral virtue as well as strategic necessity. We should all strive to attain it.
11038050831307620581[i]I, too, am a Multiculturalist, since it offers some slight protection against the deracination of my people, which the alternative of integration expressly does not. I am all for the burka and the niqab and the chador and the veil. I think that, while they are at it, the women should wear beards too, Life of Brian style. I am all for the Rasta hair, the gangs and the knives, the rap, the prison time. Let them be as much themselves as they possibly can - as foreign as foreign can be. Foreign-ness is a giver of time, and time is a giver of political opportunity. And, God knows, we need plenty of that.[/i] (GW) Yes, exactly. We are thinking. Good. This sentiment, which I most certainly share, is what caused me to vote against the 1998 (or was it 2000?) "conservative" anti-bilingual instruction ballot initiative (the "Unz Initiative") here in California. I want Latinos to continue to speak Spanish only. I want them kept as foreign as possible. The illegals are far more humble, respectful and hard-working than native-born Latinos, who speak English (sort of) and are fully acculturated to America's culture of proletarian (ghetto/barrio) disrespect. With the exception of illegal gangbangers, I can state as a fact of personal experience that illegal Hispanic aliens are vastly preferable to native-born "American" Hispanics.
11038150831307620689PS - I don't take meds, and I'm possibly the very last person here who needs to.
11062750831308311688Tabula, Lister is a thin-skinned idiot, not a rightist at all. I think he sucks off the UK public dole as some kind of community college teacher, so he likes Big Government. "Ethnocentric communitarianism" - as though that's original! The proper term is "National Socialism". Those of us on the Right want National Capitalism, or as I've been saying since the early 90s - Liberty in One Country! (better Liberty for Our Race!). But mark my words: Lister is more communitarian than nationalist.
11037950841307619958Just a little reminder ... All is not smoke and mirrors. That was the case in the US in the 50s-70s, maybe in Europe through the 90s. No longer. We have been invaded and colonized by tens of millions of biological aliens. They are not going to leave our lands without a fight - a real fight. I keep saying this, but I remain unsure whether it ever really sinks in ... Moreover, the particular postwar intellectual and later demographic environment has exposed a massive genetic flaw inherent in vast hordes of whites. I refer to the deep propensity towards anti-racism, One Worldism, Brotherhood of Manism, call it what you like. The notion that all these whites are brainwashed is empirically inaccurate. Certainly some are, but most are not. Many whites love diversity, and only needed the right environmental conditions to allow for the expression of that particular genetic flaw ('flaw' on the collective level; individually, it's only a flaw to the extent that the white genome is genetically recessive viz other races). The brainwashed are those mostly, by nature, on our own side (the conservative masses), who know the imposition of diversity is somehow wrong, but think that resisting it forcefully (that is, beyond voting against immigration on the rare occasions the matter is put before the common people) is ethically problematic, too. In fact, that we must tolerate diversity now, even if we were originally at moral liberty to have opposed it. So, five forces we must contend with: 1. the alien colonizers of our lands (and racial others - Negroids, Amerindians, Australian Abos, Maori - present there, but not as a function of recent immigration invasions) 2. Jewry, with its seemingly innate hostility to Euro-EGI 3. hordes of whites genetically predisposed to race treason 4. amoral whites who personally benefit from actions and circumstances which harm Euro-EGI 5. non-'diversitarian' whites who nevertheless think WN is immoral (often 'unchristian'). Obviously, the only group we have a shot with - and [i]whom we must convert to WN[/i], or the cause is hopeless and ridiculous - is the last one (absent exterminatory cataclysms in which [i]all[/i] whites regardless of PC views are targeted by nonwhites). This is why I emphasize the development of an ethics of racial preservationism, as well as why I'm soon to be formally studying Christianity. We either reclaim the ancient faith for Magna Europa, and then re-Christianize our overly apathetic people into that racially renovated creed, or we will over this century lose the bulk of our people to miscegenation, if not final extermination. The only other option is White Zion, the WN conquest-by-immigration of some sovereign polity which we can transform into a white Racial State, a last holdout for the remnant of our people.
11041850841307708385Thorn, Excellent, common-sense response. Lee John Barnes, Great stuff! I can tell a few stories like that, though living in the very un-ancient, hyper-postmodernist, and thoroughly multiculturalized LA, making any sort of "white man's stand" generally strikes me as a huge waste of time, not to mention potentially fatally dangerous, given that the savages often have concealed weapons, whereas I, the law-abiding white man with property and assets to worry about, do not (usually when I have made scenes it's because I have either been drunk, or had a really bad day...). Anyway, good show, as your people say or used to (incidentally, what is "twenty stones"? I'm a bit sceptical of that claim, as the great English soldier and Great Gamer, Capt Frederick Burnaby, reputed to have been the strongest man in the 19th century British army, able to carry a pony under each arm while fording a river, was said to have weighed 18 stone). Randy Garver, [i]Please cite the chapters and verses in the New Testament upon which you base your oft-repeated claims of Christian support for white racialism. One would seem to find far more support for mono-ethnicism in ancient pagan religions that amongst evangelistic ones which seek to unite all souls under the standard of a universal divine authority. Unless of course yours is simply a case of wishful thinking.[/i] (RG) Yes, ancient paganisms were more tribalist than Christianity, both theologically and even in practice. Unfortunately, perhaps, they happen not to be true, and, not quite the same thing, no one believes them to be. WRT the NT and WN, you have not read me very closely. I have never argued that Christianity [i]supports[/i] (let alone mandates) WN, nor have I ever made even the lesser claim that Christianity supports white preservationism (the least aggressive version of WN). I have only ever argued that Christianity [i]allows[/i] societies to enact the legislation necessary to ensure white survival (eg, forbidding mixed-race marriages, not admitting nonwhite immigrants, or passing special tax incentives to reward white fertility). The point is that Christianity is a rather ideologically elastic religion (but not infinitely so: one cannot be a Christian and a [i]committed[/i] communist, nor can one be a Christian and a [i]committed[/i] Nazi - I'm sure there were some genuine Christians at times who were also members of communist or Nazi parties; I have a friend who's a Democrat for reasons related to his legal practice, but in reality he is quite conservative, and mostly votes Republican). A person can be both a sincere and practicing Christian while adhering to any of a wide number of political ideologies (or to none at all). As for the universality of Christ, you of course are correct. But the unity of the Church is a spiritual one; it has nothing to do with shuffling people into other people's homelands, or promoting miscegenation, or proclaiming all cultures intellectually or aesthetically equal, or granting affirmative action privileges, etc. I WILL write a book on this one little point someday: repeat after me: CHRISTIANITY IS NOT LIBERALISM !! (Maybe that should be the title? Might at least sell better.) Stop conflating and confusing the two (admittedly, a deliberate and very widespread tendency). Lastly, wrt NT, I rarely feel compelled to "cite" anything. I'm Catholic; we are not [i]sola scriptura[/i], but rather we stress reason applied to faith/Scripture. The moral law is rooted in Scripture and Christ's ministry, but, contrary to my Protestant brethren, it is rarely spelled out there in any sort of morally/legally adequate detail. It is the duty of men to reason out the practical implications of Christ's message. Try proving from anything Christ said that Western nations (or any other nations) are required to destroy themselves with alien immigration in order to fulfill His commands. He said no such thing, nor did he ever condemn tribes or nations or states as such ("render unto Caesar", etc). The NWO project is far more akin to the blasphemous Tower of Babel, than to any moral edict of Christ.
11042050841307710669[i]Lee - I know what you mean isn’t England awful in how impolite many people are[/i]. (GL) Most of the English I have known were exceptionally polite and Old School, even the ones my age. Of course, they were much higher class than the proles ... It's been nearly two decades since I was in Britain. I did find the rural folk vastly superior even then to the (white) city dwellers. Have manners noticeably deteriorated since the early 90s? And was LJB laying down the law to whites or muds? ------------------------------------------------------- O wait a second! I failed to read closely. LJB was smacking down a couple of twinks?! What the fuck are you girlie men congratulating him for? I thought it was some feral Africans! Shit, come to LA, boys, and really take your lives in your hands. In 02 I nearly started a racial brouhaha in a movie theater in Westwood (a normally nice area, btw) when I told a couple of loud-talking negroes to shut the fuck up and watch the movie. This one negroid stands up (theater is dark, medium crowded, movie playing) and actually asked "who the fuck talking up" (I assume I don't have to translate). I said "me", and glared at the fuck. I was really pissed off since dinner (the couple next to us had been this pretty blonde, better looking than my date, with a short, fat, greasy gook - utterly inexplicable - will anybody ever explain this white female/gook male thing to me?!), and half-figured that these negroids would not shoot me in front of so many witnesses, though my girlfriend was really nervous. The negroid, about 6 rows forward, made some threatening noises, but didn't actually do anything but sit his ass back down. The great thing was, once I had said something, and this negroid is standing (in the middle of a theater, the uppity fuck) sort of glaring at me, his seated friend also faced around looking at me, other voices started to say things like "sit down", "shut up", "fuck off", etc. I definitely won that encounter. Frankly, I have a slight feeling that if the shit ever came really hard down, I, despite all my earnest appeals to Christian moral law, might actually end up being far more brutal in my treatment of the Other than most persons here at MR. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. You see, I have fully (should I say 'ontologically'?) disinfected myself of any residues of moral liberalism. Reasoned hate is actually far stronger than that based on sentiment.
11042150841307710937PS - And I do not weigh 20 stone, whatever that exactly is in normal measures, nor do I have a beard, tats, etc. Just a clean-cut Nordic yuppie, with some muscles from weights (and standing 6/3, 240 about).
11042250841307711136RS, I don't think you read what I wrote very carefully (see bold). You are mostly objecting to straw men (a common fault around here). [i]Moreover, the particular postwar intellectual and later demographic environment has exposed a massive genetic flaw inherent in vast hordes of whites. I refer to the deep propensity towards anti-racism, One Worldism, Brotherhood of Manism, call it what you like. [b]The notion that all these whites are brainwashed is empirically inaccurate. Certainly some are, but most are not.[/b] Many whites love diversity, and only needed the right environmental conditions to allow for the expression of that particular genetic flaw (’flaw’ on the collective level; individually, it’s only a flaw to the extent that the white genome is genetically recessive viz other races). [b]The brainwashed are those mostly, by nature, on our own side[/b] (the conservative masses), who know the imposition of diversity is somehow wrong, but think that resisting it forcefully (that is, beyond voting against immigration on the rare occasions the matter is put before the common people) is ethically problematic, too. In fact, that we must tolerate diversity now, even if we were originally at moral liberty to have opposed it.[/i]
11042750841307713681[i]“Note that this guy was 9 stone and about five foot 4 and I could have snapped him in two with a single clench of my fist” Maybe so, although you’d have to shove your fist up there pretty hard, Lee[/i]. (PM) And then his friend would have gotten really jealous, and demanded EQUAL TREATMENT!
11046650841307788224[i]I am not that big - I have 18 inch arms, a 44 inch waist and a 56 inch chest.[/i] (LJB) That's pretty damn big, I think! Of course, it depends on the muscle/fat ratio. How tall are you? 56" chest is damn big, I think (I'm not an expert on this stuff at all, but I wear a 48" suit jacket, and am sometimes told I'm big (though not too broad) "through the chest and shoulders" - but that's by men's tailors in LA, where there aren't too many big guys, except serious, freakish bodybuilders, and some blacks). I'm 6'3", and if really washboard lean (no fat, but no weightlifting) would weigh 210lbs, though now I'd be about 220lbs (but an unfortunate extra 20lbs of fat gets me to 240). That's not considered really big, obviously, in the world of men properly considered "big" (football and basketball players, bouncers, etc), where I guess the cut-off would be - what, 250lbs natural with no visible fat? But in the everyday world I'm usually bigger than most guys I come across. Of course, these days, really, noticeably big (in America, "football big") is usually 300lbs or more, again low body fat. And what is a "stone" roughly in normal pounds? Of course, in America a lot of size is irrelevant to nationalist activities. A lot of puny nonwhites teens are packing guns, and that will stop even the heaviest hitters.
11046950841307788724[i]Silver, These days I have to take account of language around here, and you’ve just broken the world record for non-accountability right there. Excuse me while I clean up the mess. Don’t want to just delete it. Leon, too.[/i] (GW) Fair enough. I will rigorously watch my language, esp re expletives, if others do the same. I need some guidance, however. What are acceptable terms for other races and ethnicities? And may I make a suggestion that I've been brewing over a while? Can we have some agreed upon set of of acronyms for regularly used terms? For example, EGI - European genetic interests WN - white nationalist RS - Racial State CN - cultural nationalist btw - by the way imo - in my opinion wrt - with respect to MSM - mainstream media Please all feel free to contribute others.
11050150841307978569Lurker: thank you. But does that mean LJB weighs 280lbs (20 stone)??!! That's quite a sizeable chap! I saw a picture of LJB with Nick Griffin. Griffin must be pretty big, too. Dasein: Thank you for the corrrection. Desmond: Thanks for that [i]Economist[/i] link. I read [i]The Economist[/i], don't know how I missed that juicy little nugget of Negroid horror (what is it with their constant immigration advocacy, btw? It goes way beyond mere PC-duty). Grimoire: Some truth, some falsehood in this: [i]It doesn’t help at all to understand how complex the problem is. Because from what I’ve seen in America, they were made to be evil. It was the elites who did away with segregation....imported them all over the country, and then took away their jobs with a living wage and brought in the heavy drugs....not the Columbians...but Princeton, Yale and Harvard. In general, the blacks, at least once just wanted to have a wife and a kid, 40 acres and a mule, and live as law abiding citizens. The sea of wogs was [b]manufactered[/b].[/i] Elites did away with Jim Crow, in part as a response to first, Jewish pressure, later tremendous black activism. Blacks originally migrated voluntarily out of the South during and immediately after WW2. Yes, the Feds did do some advertising in the South of government wartime opportunities outside the South, but blacks were not objectively relocated until much later, late 60s, early 70s and picking up and continuing in the 90s until the housing bust a few years ago. The first relocation period was a function of Fair Housing Acts and contemporaneous and later massive public housing spending (courtesy of Oppressed Whitey, as always); the second, due to Clinton-era concerns over "spatial segregation" (that malignant f-----!), which intersected with the Carter era Community Reinvestment Act (as well as vicious new anti-"redlining" rules) to strongarm lenders into making housing loans to unqualified minorities, so as to promote minority homeownership (this itself also a form of neoconservative social engineering - the theory being that putting underclass minorities into homes they can't afford will transmogrify them into good suburban family values people and conservative patriots). This, in an oversimplified nutshell,is the origin of the housing bust, which is the source of America's (and possibly the world's) present economic malaise. I invite everybody to think about that. Tens of millions out of work, tremendous portfolio losses (including for yours truly), older white people's savings and retirement plans pummeled or wiped out - all for minorities. And almost no one points this out (except, [i]inter alia[/i], the black conservative economist Thomas Sowell, to his immense credit). I was never wealthy, and I am down nearly a million dollars - a large portion of what I had (my own case was uniquely awful, but still caused by the financial crash). Do not ever ask me to feel sorry for or sympathize in any way with muds. I had a plan for a future of racial activism; I push on with it, but money is no longer "not an issue". I hate what the elites + muds have done to me (and the millions of my race brothers). My only 'revenge' is to write and work towards White Zion (I know how the victims of Bolshevism felt).
11050250841307979753[i]Leon, you’re a true son of a bitch and I sincerely believe there is a great deal wrong with and hateworthy about you. Yet, when it comes to your attitude towards the blacks, try as I might (and, I assure you, I have), I really can’t find fault with you.[/i] (Silver) You're a crotchety soul, aren't you? [i]These “people” are just impossible. How the hell anyone who is not a negro can stand being around masses of negroes is absolutely beyond me. (The odd one or two is understandable.) [/i] (Silver) So you do have some regular sensitivity and humanity in you? Congrats! Your reaction is that of a normal human. [i]Part of the Melbourne CBD was crawling with them tonight. Compared to what many Americans routinely go through it was probably nothing remarkable (and I’ve lived in America, so I know what it can be like).[/i] (Silver) O GOD! Not Oz, too?! What are they doing there? They're not Abos, are they? [i]Even so, I felt cornered and suffocated by their presence. It’s a visceral reaction I have toward them that I’ve never really been able to put into words, and one I don’t experience at anywhere near the same intensity with other races (though some Indians come close).[/i] (Silver) All perfectly normal. It's their irrationality, unpredictability, lack of ethics, and propensity for violence, combined with large size. [i]There were three cops walking towards me as I was leaving (one unmistakably Anglo-Saxon, the other two “Italian-looking") and I said to my friend loudly enough for the cops to hear as they passed, “Fuck, there’s niggers everywhere tonight.” The urge to protest in whatever small way one can can be hard to resist. It’d be amusing to see the authorities put me up on “racism” charges. The wogs out here aren’t as quick to condemn one of our own taking our own side as your people tend to be, so coming after a “Silver"-type could create quite a stir and really risk opening a can of worms.[/i] (Silver) Will we ever be privy to Silver's ethnicity?! Why would he be in Australia? I'm thinking secularized Muslim, family money, perhaps. Persian, maybe, family fled the mullahocracy? [i]It’s for this reason I believe “the nigger is the trigger”—something that can get “race on the table” as issue worthy of real public debate, and on the part of other races besides whites, too. You have to figure there would be millions of non-whites out there who would jump at the chance of being able to live apart from negroes. Living around them means having to put with endless bullshit and, in the long run, losing your racial distinctiveness to them through interbreeding. What in the world do diversicrats think is so fabulous about life around negroes that it justifies paying such a price? Stated in these terms their project could hardly sound more ridiculous.[/i] (Silver) Yes, much truth here. Of course, an essay could be written on these comments. Only whites morally agonize over the Negroid, and (thus?) only whites are threatened by them. Most nonwhites do live apart from Negroes. Where there is integration, it is either feckless whites who are made to suffer, or else, in Latin America, the only nonwhite area with large numbers of blacks, the Latinos there simply brutalize their blacks in order to get them into some kind of order. Anyway, no points for belatedly noticing the insanity of negroid integration. What have we been saying ... ?
11050350841307980037Randy, I need to respond to the following later tonight: [i]Leon said: [b]WRT the NT and WN, you have not read me very closely. I have never argued that Christianity supports (let alone mandates) WN, nor have I ever made even the lesser claim that Christianity supports white preservationism (the least aggressive version of WN). I have only ever argued that Christianity allows societies to enact the legislation necessary to ensure white survival (eg, forbidding mixed-race marriages, not admitting nonwhite immigrants, or passing special tax incentives to reward white fertility)[/b] (LH). Perhaps I’ve misread or misunderstood your previous comments in which this topic is discussed, but I’ve had the distinct impression that you’d been implying that Christianity is not just compatible with ethnic-nationalism, but is a necessary and indispensable cornerstone of it. I’d argue that such a religion as Christianity is by nature evangelical and universalist and thus (at least somewhat) negatively biased against ethnocentrism, but reasonable men can disagree on this point. “Render unto Caesar...” and all that.[/i] (RG) But for this, [i]the warning to readers to be sure they are not intentionally or unintentionally conflating “The Church” with “Christianity”. For the most part, “The Church” couldn’t be more divorced from “Christianity”. Catholics are rather notorious for not recognizing this distinction.[/i] (RG) please read this: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/christianity-and-the-westambiguous-past-uncertain-future-6 by one of the world's major Christian theologians.
11052650841308053736All very interesting, gents, but we WNs must be forward looking. Until we have secured our racial territory, I don't think historical inquiries are optimally useful. Our race is going extinct, and the die-off will come more rapidly than expected, and will likely be more brutal as well. Admittedly, I don't expect to see it. If lucky I will die in the 2050-2065 time frame, whereas I'd be truly surprised if the die-off occurred before 2075-2100, absent Great Power nuclear warfare (or unforeseen plagues). There are still a lot of whites, in absolute numbers, and they still control a lot of wealth, skills and military hardware. Our competitors/opponents, moreover, are diverse and disunited, and certainly not singlemindedly devoted to conquering and annihilating the white race. Still I very strongly suspect that, for the last generation of whites, the end will arrive sooner and more unexpectedly than anyone will have thought, rather like the 2008 financial meltdown, come to think of it. Our task as theorists is to formulate strategies for survival with the highest probability of success; as activists, to begin pursuing them with due haste (even though "haste" should probably be understood in terms of decades).
11056050841308143925[i]Re - Christianity Leon - if your version of Christianity involves systematically abusing young children (the Roman Catholic Church) or includes creeps and con-artists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson screaming rubbish about JEE-ZUSS while shaking down the sheeple, then yeah I’d say I don’t want anything do to with it. Will I have to be ‘re-educated’ on the wisdom of Hayek and Billy Graham by ‘intellectuals’ like your good self?[/i] Sliver don’t worry Leon worships PROFITS beyond anything else - do we detect the Jewish extended phenotype at work? And Leon I don’t personally give a shit if you are some Ivy League ‘hotshot’. My undergraduate education was at a university which is older than any the USA, as indeed was part of my graduate education. So cut the “your so ignorant about my God the ‘free-market’ and its operation” crap. I have actually read Nozick and Hayek, have you or was your education mainly in doing such crappy shit as cost-benefit analyses in so called ‘business school’ which is to fine food what McDonald’s is - the intellectual equivalent of a pile of inedible emetic crap. (Graham Lister) _________________________________________________________ You seem rather upset, Graham? Touched a nerve, have we? Though I can't quite get what it pertains to: the aggressive atheist's annoyance that intelligent men are still loyal to God and Church, or resentment that someone else can dissect and easily expose your pathetic I'm-more-than-just-a-boorish-scientist's intellectual posturings (so he says, who really knows these things? I have two friends who are scientists, one a PhD in biochemistry from Stanford, and what they write is soooo much more articulate than Graham's ventilations)? Your acerbity towards me, when I have been undeservedly gentle with you, is of more than passing psychological interest. I think it points to a real WN problem -why WN never gets any real traction politically, despite the soundness of our observations. It certainly confirms for me yet again the correctness (and eventual triumph) of my approach to our shared concerns. I am Catholic, yes. My Church is quite a bit more than a tiny handful of disgusting paedophiles (actually, almost none were even that, strictly understood: the priests 'abused' almost exclusively teenagers; in our degenerate society, many teenage faggots routinely engage in homosexual relations with older men; I'm about the last person to condone such behavior, on the parts of the teens no less than the priests - but you might wish to get your facts straight before embarrassing yourself). It's obvious that you know nothing about Christianity, the historic religion of Western Man, whether as history or theology (please, don't embarrass yourself still further by running to wikipedia or some other online well of errors to dredge up a few facts for which you have not the slightest intellectual context with which to assess or even make sense of them). I know nothing of Billy Graham, nor have I ever referred to him, here or anywhere else that I can remember. Of course I've read Nozick and Hayek, as well as the more rigorous and consistent Rothbard and Mises. I hope I don't have to reiterate for you yet again that I am not a libertarian? Still, if you have actually read them, you certainly did so without, um, profit. And, finally, on the subject of profits, why do you deliberately repeat something I have flatly contradicted, indeed, several times just in the most recent threads? Are you being churlishly polemical, or are you really just that stupid? I state at multiple points that the Racial State must be teleological, and will subordinate individual rights and desires to the overarching collective goal of white preservation. Somehow that translates into my "worshipping profits, excuse me, PROFITS, [i]uber alles[/i]"? You're not [i]that[/i] dumb, so clearly there is some deeper animus (against God [i]and[/i] capitalism - how very unusual!). Thus my reference to the psychological conundrum you pose. You do not understand economics. You continue to conflate understanding economic reality with libertarian ideology (something the greatest modern libertarians, Mises and Rothbard, never did). Worse, you can't seem to (refuse to?) understand the political and racial arguments I make for WNs qualifiedly supporting free markets (or Christianity, in the case). But it makes no difference. As with GW and various others here, you don't understand how fantastically limited is the political usefulness of, let's see ... "ontological nationalist social democracy", would that be right? Extremist movements are always riven with faction, ours no less than others. I'm sure you will wail without surcease when you belatedly come to realize that my approach has won, as it assuredly will. I will enjoy the spectacle. [i]Lee - I know what you mean isn’t England awful in how impolite many people are.[/i] (GL) At least you've gotten one thing right.
11056250841308145158I re-post this from the top of this very thread. Perhaps Graham Lister would like to validate the rather high regard in which he holds his critical faculties by subjecting my political argument to withering critique? Please especially consider what's in bold font. And don't be afraid to suggest alternative strategies, making sure to explain from among which present social groups or classes you expect the WN army to arise. (Try to write with minimal cogency this time.) Just a little reminder ... All is not smoke and mirrors. That was the case in the US in the 50s-70s, maybe in Europe through the 90s. No longer. We have been invaded and colonized by tens of millions of biological aliens. They are not going to leave our lands without a fight - a real fight. I keep saying this, but I remain unsure whether it ever really sinks in ... Moreover, the particular postwar intellectual and later demographic environment has exposed a massive genetic flaw inherent in vast hordes of whites. I refer to the deep propensity towards anti-racism, One Worldism, Brotherhood of Manism, call it what you like. The notion that all these whites are brainwashed is empirically inaccurate. Certainly some are, but most are not. Many whites love diversity, and only needed the right environmental conditions to allow for the expression of that particular genetic flaw (’flaw’ on the collective level; individually, it’s only a flaw to the extent that the white genome is genetically recessive viz other races). The brainwashed are those mostly, by nature, on our own side (the conservative masses), who know the imposition of diversity is somehow wrong, but think that resisting it forcefully (that is, beyond voting against immigration on the rare occasions the matter is put before the common people) is ethically problematic, too. In fact, that we must tolerate diversity now, even if we were originally at moral liberty to have opposed it. So, five forces we must contend with: 1. the alien colonizers of our lands (and racial others - Negroids, Amerindians, Australian Abos, Maori - present there, but not as a function of recent immigration invasions) 2. Jewry, with its seemingly innate hostility to Euro-EGI 3. hordes of whites genetically predisposed to race treason 4. amoral whites who personally benefit from actions and circumstances which harm Euro-EGI 5. non-’diversitarian’ whites who nevertheless think WN is immoral (often ‘unchristian’). Obviously, the only group we have a shot with - and whom we [i]must[/i] convert to WN, or the cause is hopeless and ridiculous - is the last one (absent exterminatory cataclysms in which all whites regardless of PC views are targeted by nonwhites). This is why I emphasize the development of an ethics of racial preservationism, as well as why I’m soon to be formally studying Christianity. [b]We either reclaim the ancient faith for Magna Europa, and then re-Christianize our overly apathetic people into that racially renovated creed, or we will over this century lose the bulk of our people to miscegenation, if not final extermination.[/b] The only other option is White Zion, the WN conquest-by-immigration of some sovereign polity which we can transform into a white Racial State, a last holdout for the remnant of our people.
11056450841308145538Here it is, callow Graham! Right over on the Hedges thread - on which you wrote something after this (didn't sink in, huh?). Again (and again, and again ...) ... Let’s see ... what did I just say immediately above? Please re-read what I have now placed in bold. [b]I stand with nationalists who dislike neo-liberal worshippers of homo economicus. Idiots around here continuously misinterpret me on this point. I do not place markets above all other values. I absolutely am willing to limit economic and other freedoms in the interest of race and civilization - and have so acknowledged repeatedly.[/b] Unfortunately, I’m coming to realize more and more that nationalists (like paleoconservatives) really for the most part have not studied economics, or finance (probably also not business management to any significant degree), and so are prone to making purely ideological, and wildly ignorant, animadversions about markets and fiscal matters. [b]Worse, they insist on conflating free market theory with much less sound libertarian ideology, despite their being no necessary intellectual reason for doing so. They proceed to criticize some aspect of libertarian inadequacy, and then act as though they’ve discredited free markets. [/b] Should I state this a few more times?
11042550851307712444I don't have an hour to waste on this. I do know that Hedges is a pacifist, leftist, Christian anti-conservative, a 100% guaranteed, impeccable 'anti-racist'. So what do I want to listen to this shithead for? Two further comments, and a prediction. 1. The great litmus is nonwhite immigration. Ask anyone where they stand on it. If against it, they are either rightist, or have the potential to become so, and thus are worth engaging. But if not immediately, viscerally against it, then they are psycho/genetic leftists, and will never be converted to racial realism. 2. At least in the New World Anglosphere - US, Canada, Aus/NZ - anybody who is anti-capitalist, absolutely including nationalist anti-capitalists, sooner or later discovers his inner leftist, and replaces his nationalism with a primary emphasis on socialism (sometimes also ecologism) of some variety or another. No true white rightist outside of historic, folkish European contexts, can ever be either anti-racist or anti-capitalist. 3. Prediction: Graham Lister will eventually discover that he's more of a 'communitarian' than a nationalist, and will proceed to leave MR.
11047150851307807109Jawake, Good comment above, though I am absolutely 'on top of', and in agreement with, Malthusian arguments, and have long considered the environment to be an Achilles' heel of free market theory, and especially of libertarianism - and I have said so many times here at MR, including just recently on the Kievsky thread. Global warming is horsesh-- on so many levels it's not worth discussing - though the justification behind the potential catastrophe of "cap and tax" is something I could refute in a short paragraph if necessary. However, the human (and more especially, nonwhite) threat to the quality and perhaps even perpetuity of the biosphere is beyond question. I was already known in my gradeshool back in the 70s as a rabid environmentalist, and militant anti-Third World natalist and anti-immigrationist (that is not an exaggeration: I was very racially precocious, as a friend of mine constantly reminds and berates me - I had all these racialist ideas in more than embryonic form before I became a teen - and even in the 70s used to get punished by teachers for my racism). [Two points of error: keeping out the immigration invasion is not "social engineering". Allowance of that race-replacement process is the ultimate in state-sponsored social engineering. Don't confuse the horse and the driver. Also, I may not be understanding you correctly, but (real) conservatives have always been opposed to immigration - for as long as I can remember.] I stand with nationalists who dislike neo-liberal worshippers of [i]homo economicus[/i]. Idiots around here continuously misinterpret me on this point. I do not place markets above all other values. I absolutely am willing to limit economic and other freedoms in the interest of race and civilization - and have so acknowledged repeatedly. Unfortunately, I'm coming to realize more and more that nationalists (like paleoconservatives) really for the most part have not studied economics, or finance (probably also not business management to any significant degree), and so are prone to making purely ideological, and wildly ignorant, animadversions about markets and fiscal matters. Worse, they insist on conflating free market theory with much less sound libertarian ideology, despite their being no necessary intellectual reason for doing so. They proceed to criticize some aspect of libertarian inadequacy, and then act as though they've discredited free markets.
11048750851307924832Let's see ... what did I just say immediately above? Please re-read what I have now placed in bold. [i][b]I stand with nationalists who dislike neo-liberal worshippers of homo economicus. Idiots around here continuously misinterpret me on this point. I do not place markets above all other values. I absolutely am willing to limit economic and other freedoms in the interest of race and civilization - and have so acknowledged repeatedly.[/b] Unfortunately, I’m coming to realize more and more that nationalists (like paleoconservatives) really for the most part have not studied economics, or finance (probably also not business management to any significant degree), and so are prone to making purely ideological, and wildly ignorant, animadversions about markets and fiscal matters. [b]Worse, they insist on conflating free market theory with much less sound libertarian ideology, despite their being no necessary intellectual reason for doing so. They proceed to criticize some aspect of libertarian inadequacy, and then act as though they’ve discredited free markets.[/b][/i] (LH) I think we are all arguing at cross-purposes, though I'd like to hear a bit more (see below) before I explain the problems. The comment by Grimoire is literally too confused for me to follow. One great thing about the classical, not to mention the Austrian, economists, is that their writings are clear and relentlessly logical. Those of all leftists, as well as various Third Way types, very much including fascists and National Socialists, never are. Unfortunately for Grim, he really disrobes himself and gives away the game (in this case, revealing how little he understands whereof he speaks in the economic area, whether in terms of theory or history) with this Parthian shot: [i]Fuck this lecturing us with 19th century American retard economics.[/i](Grimoire) How retarded is this statement? Should I count the ways? Do I really have the time? 1. While correct economic (ie, free market) thought to some extent goes all the way back to Aristotle, it really started developing in a systematic way with Thomas Aquinas, and still more, with the Later (Spanish) Scholastics. There is a good book on this (albeit with an awful title in my first edition of it): Chafuen, [i]Christians for Freedom[/i] (it's been reprinted under a different title, and can be purchased here: http://mises.org/store/Faith-and-Liberty-The-Economic-Thought-of-the-Late-Scholastics-P170.aspx). 2. The venerable (18thC) Adam Smith was a Scotsman, though free market 'purists' now consider him to have set economics off on a somewhat misdirected path; Turgot, Say and Bastiat were French; Humboldt German. The most consistent scholars of 'laissez-faire' became known as the Austrian School, so-named because it began with the 19thC Austrian Carl Menger, continued through his students Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk and Friedrich von Weiser, and then the great champion and dividing line between the early and 'modern' Austrians was the celebrated 20thC economist Ludwig von Mises - after whom came his still more famous (though less rigorous and consistent) student Friedrich von Hayek, as well as the leading American libertarian Murray Rothbard - and so it goes, down to the present. 3. The pattern of America as a nation with very strong property rights (really going all the way until Roosevelt's socialist New Deal, beginning in 1933) was set not in the 19thC, but by the Founders in the 18thC. I don't need to name names, because virtually every leading figure in the American Revolutionary, Constitutional and even Antebellum periods was a staunch advocate of private property rights and the free markets arising from them, at least by today's enervated standards (this absolutely includes the 'Strong Statist' Alexander Hamilton, who wanted to use the state to promote industrial development, which he correctly saw as the foundation of national power, and thus ultimately the guarantor of American survival and liberty - but who was as pro-capitalist as anyone else at the time, if not as pro-individual rights; my own nationalist economics, the economic theory which I believe must guide the coming Racial State, is very much Hamiltonian, seeking to combine laissez-faire understandings in terms of the necessity of strong property rights, as well as incentives for individual betterment, with an agenda of state-guided economic development - rather like China's today, btw - to ensure the financial resources to pay for the large military expenditures that will be required for it to survive, especially in its infancy, once it "comes out of the closet"). 4. My point is that free market analysis was primarily developed by Europeans, not Americans, and that America's 19thC laissez-faire economy, itself not very different from Britain's economy, or Germany's, had its origins in the 18thC. 5. Note, also, that America in the 19thC (and Britain) had one of history's greatest economic development trajectories under conditions of laissez-faire. Compare this to the anemic growth and dismal fate of modern Keynesian/interventionist and welfare states (look at the economic decline of Britain pre-Thatcher!), not all (or even very much) of whose economic sclerosis can be blamed on racial minorities before very recently, especially outside the US. 6. Note what I said about not confusing market theory with liberal/libertarian ideology. Free market economic understanding is one of the underpinnings of the modern world (and free markets, and the entrepreneurial energies they unleashed, were greatly responsible for the literal (population) growth and power of Western Civilization). Libertarian ideology is simply silly. 7. My own economic theory (an adjunct to Racial State theory), and any intelligent nationalist economics (both as theory and practice), will be built on a free market foundation. Mises was essentially right, as were the Jewish scientists whose efforts produced atomic weapons. If we are to save the white race, we must use the tools available, however they came to hand. 8. From the fact that we will make use of the insights of the economists, it does not follow that we will follow all of their wealth-maximization recommendations (which, I understand, are often even self-defeating over a longer period; eg, immigration). The RS will not be purely laissez-faire, let alone libertarian. The individual must be subordinated to the [i]telos[/i] of collective racial survival. But he must also be 'incentivized' to be productive (so as to create the wealth and self-sufficiency to ensure collective survival). Fascists prefer that incentivization to be in the form of either patriotic exhortations (which do have their place), or totalitarian coercion. I believe that the most effective approach is to harness private greed to public ends through a largely free market economy, but one subject to overarching, racially teleological guidance. 9. Trainspotter: I think you and I are mostly on the same page in all this. I will respond to you later, when you flesh out a bit more what your own RS political economy would look like.
11048850851307925262The following statement of mine is syntactically awkward: [i]Note, also, that America in the 19thC (and Britain) had one of history’s greatest economic development trajectories under conditions of laissez-faire.[/i] It should read, Note, also, that America in the 19thC (and Britain), under conditions of laissez-faire, had one of history’s greatest economic development trajectories. Proofread, always. Apologies.
11050050851307976532[i]Leon, For a man ever short of time, you are ever finding the time to write all this epic commentary, which you have also recently sworn off as “unmasculine”, between references to your impending opus. I am not complaining or disagreeing, only observing.[/i] (anon) I can't quite remember the "unmasculine" quip, but alas, it is mostly an addiction. Though I can also justify my time spent here (which isn't all that much, really - I write quickly, don't post, etc) as starting the "thinking through" as well as refinement process for my more important work down the road. Over the years here I've already been forced to consider points which had not previously been at the fore of my racialist thinking (eg, that there is a lot of anti-Christian sentiment among WNs, as well as anti-capitalism, more than I had realized - and that those tendencies need to be refuted or neutralized). I suppose what I really ought to be doing is to formalize some ideas (eg, "nationalist economics" or "Racial State"), and then submit them as posts, in order to garner the most feedback. But you're right: time is always at such a premium. And as you get older, and progressively run out of (life)time, the premium only increases.
11042650861307713227Thank you for posting this, Dasein. I would not have seen it otherwise (unless it were to have made the WSJ). What do you think of Gould's massive[i] Structure of Evolutionary Theory[/i]? I bought it when it was released, mainly because it looked like a great overview of the subject, and while I knew Gould for the mendacious egalitarian Jew he was wrt 'sensitive' issues, I'd always thought he was good at explaining evolutionary history and the history of theory (as for example in many of his essays published in the [i]New York Review of Books[/i] that I'd read over the years). I haven't gotten around to reading it, however.
11048150861307880234Graham, One thing I will say for you is that you do take in a broad and high quality array of readings. So why don't you read some of the best in economic thought? Check out anything by Mises or Rothbard or Hoppe at Mises.org.
11066550861308409811I think you should. And do so with one eye on turning your material into a book. I would read it, especially if it simultaneously explored the larger currents of anti-racism in their formative period. Indeed, a history of anti-racism, from a sociobiologically-informed and WN perspective. What a useful project that would be (easier recommended than done of course...)!
11056850871308151139[i]Mention ontology to even an educated fellow nationalist, and certainly to an activist, and he will very likely gaze unawares at the ground beneath his feet. After a few seconds the void of understanding will fill with something very like scorn. He will level his eyes at you and deliver himself of the opinion that that sort of thing has nothing to do with the world of struggle in Nature and politics that he knows and sees everywhere – the struggle which European Man is so demonstrably losing. Too detached from reality, too self-absorbing, he will say. Too many dancing angels. And then, to set you right, and quite without irony, he will remind you of the great existential plaint, the crisis of the crisis. While you are engaged in all this intellectual vanity, he will say, we Europeans are growing older and weaker by the day, our lands more lost to us, our family lines more negroidalised, the political class more traitorous (if that is possible), the bankers and corporate scum more rapacious, the Jews more audacious.[/i](GW) You lookin at me? Hey! You lookin at [i][b]me[/b][/i]?! On the off-chance that you might be, how many converts to the task of preserving white EGI do you expect ontological nationalism to make? (Very sophisticated essay, however.) And can we infer that Dasein is British (not strictly, but it seems more likely than not)? I'm disappointed with myself: being a 'narcissist' (according to pinhead 'bubba'), I had assumed he was American. He expresses himself too clearly to be European (let alone Heidegerian! surprises, surprises) ... (Thanks, btw, Dasein for your interesting suggestion some weeks ago of Scotland as the White Zion. I'm sceptical, because it's not a sovereign polity (yet); does not seem to have many ethnonationalists among its people; and yet has an old culture and history - I think the deracinated 'new territories' of North America and Australia - or portions carved out of them - are riper for ideologico-demographic conquest than any old nation would be. But whatever works has my support!)
11057050871308152396I shall try to find some time over the next few days to give this essay the close reading it merits (and I guess I'll have to read its predecessor, which I'd likewise only skimmed). However, after skimming it, I can only say that the rabid materialist really ought to go 'whole hog'. God is the ground of meaning. No God, no values of any kind, including life itself, let alone tribe, nation, etc. Put another way, without God, you are simply projecting your own values and concerns onto Being as such - and the globalist does the same with his opposing preferences. This may as a matter of fact be ontologically true (or it may not), but didn't an old partisan opine that the purpose of philosophy was not only or primarily to understand the world but to change it? And is pursuing this mode of analysis really the best way to change the world in accordance with your (our) preferences?
11057250871308154420For example, this is what we should focus on: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/06/white-children-in-the-minority-in-10-states/comment-page-21/#comment-640039 I don't think O(nt)N(at) will offer sufficient motivation to do anything about arresting our racial plight.
11062850871308312642Guest Lurker, Here is where the need for authoritarianism comes in. Idiots like Graham Lister, Jimmy Marr, Dirty Bulshitter and other riff-raff who plague WN, want economic communitarianism, a socially as well as economically fatal policy. Nationalists want social communitarianism, where a man is fee to dispose of his property as he sees fit, but where the gene pool is considered a collective good (as it is). Actually, that sounds pretty much like the old USA, with its "one drop rule", and nearly perfect property rights. I wonder if the conjunction between racism, capitalism and ultimate national power is correlative or causal?
11066450871308406284The onto-nationalist cares about Nordic preservation in the here and now. It's not primarily about the individual considered as a creature alone, but about the individual psychologically identifying with something larger than himself, with the well-being of that thing a precondition of his own well-being, even if the thing's well-being is projected into a much greater future than the individual will experience. Reasonably expecting my race and even my nation (it is unusual perhaps for an American to be concerned with blood and soil preservation) to endure brings me a certain psychic contentment now (though these days it's the opposite situation which mostly impacts my psyche). Is this rational? Perhaps not - I don't know. Is playing chess? I enjoy the latter. But seeing my race dishonored bothers me; contemplating its future discontents bothers me still more. So even if there is no philosophical justification for concerning oneself with Nordic preservation, it may be considered psychologically rational, if one's psyche is oriented towards nationalism. That sounds a bit circular, but I don't think it is. The fundamental theologico-ethical issue in all this is less whether God wishes for the preservation of biologically pure races (perhaps He does, though I suspect perfect indifference on His part), than whether it is allowable for men to concern themselves with such matters as racial preservation at all, and, if 'yes', the scope of moral action divinely permitted to actualize the requisite conditions for such preservation. This latter question is what interests me among the philosophical aspects of our struggle (in part because it obviously has a very practical aspect, but also because I believe real progress can be made towards answering it. I'm not sure discussions of ontology (or metaphysics or even epistemology) actually make much unquestionable progress. The purpose of ontology, I think, is to investigate the nature of Being, in the process, it is hoped, coming to some correct conclusions about reality. Onto-nationalism, which I do not understand very well (in either substance or purpose), seems to be about demonstrating that concern for EGI is integral to the fullest development of human personality. That is, that Western modernity made some basic errors in its understanding of the human condition, errors which the onto-nationalist seeks to identify (and later expunge), and that these errors possessed an inner logic, the intellectual working out of which has culminated in the cult of 'diversity', whose practical realization now not only threatens the survival of our race (and for me, therefore, our inherited civilization), but which leaves us whites, as individuals, profoundly alienated from what ought to be our true selves (that is, how we ought to[i] be[/i] in the world, and understand the world). I don't doubt but that is a gross simplification of onto-nationalism. Perhaps if I studied Heidegger (or 20th century Continental philosophy more broadly) I would grasp its deeper subtleties, the relevance of which to our [i]time-sensitive[/i] political (and evolutionary) struggle still seems remote.
11075850871308660157[i]And Leon Haller - I’m trash? Really? I notice all you can do is offer insults - you have nothing of any intellectual or political substance to say, especially on environmental or socio-economic matters. Do you really think economists do not make prescriptive recommendations and have no ideological assumptions? That markets don’t have negative downsides? Moreover I understand where you are coming from (and I don’t accept it) but you seem to get very angry if anyone dares not to accept your ‘wisdom’. It seems your world-view is little more developed than Gordon Gecko (greed is the ultimate good) with some racism thrown in. Hardly inspirational for any moderately thoughtful person is it dear chap? Little bit of a hard sell perhaps? But carry on because you have all been doing so well in achieving your political goals, yes? Personally I do not conceptualise myself as a ‘WN’ - in my mind that brings up images of skinheads, people with a Nazi fetish, and of individuals that think reading ‘Sociobiology’ makes them experts in evolutionary biology and genetics. Which it does not. I am centrist, ethnocentric communitarian and moderate nationalist. Not really down with the whole love of militarism/fascism et al., of the far right. But I do believe in persevering our European homelands and peoples. Even if they are, in your mind, ‘socialist hellholes’. But the politics will be particular to each society. I’ll make a little wager that Denmark will be in much better shape - ethnically and in quality of life terms, than the USA, in 20 years time. Well it already is and isn’t predicted to have a 50%+ non-Euro population in the blink of a historical eye. But you enjoy Mexifornia. And what is all this 5th rate ‘racial’ theology crap about? God wants races to survive – oh really what a knock down argument that is...NOT. And you dare to assume you’re an ‘intellectual giant’ - it’s not so much delusions of grandeur more of adequacy I would say.[/i] (Graham Lister) _______________________________ What a joke. I have contributed far more of value than anything you have. There is no comparison. Scroll through, say, the last 30 posts, and see what I have offered. What makes you so pathetic - I mean this quite seriously - is that you continually not so much misunderstand, as simply misread, what I've written. I really think you are somewhat dyslexic. I may be wrong, but I'm not being deliberately polemical. [b][i]I neither said nor implied[/i][/b]: a. that economists have no ideological biases; b. that markets have no downsides (how you jump to unwarranted conclusions! you would have failed the rigorous courses in logic I took in college); c. I do not want to preserve the European nation-states (you are surely the ONLY MR person who has ever accused me of anything like that); d. that European countries are "socialist hell-holes" (though they are socialist - as is the US, unfortunately and inexcusably); e. that I support Mexifornia (perhaps the single most idiotic imputation you or anyone else as ever asserted about anyone here, at least in my reading over the past few years); f. or that "God wants races to survive" - indeed, just a few comments up I wrote: [i][u]The fundamental theologico-ethical issue in all this is less whether God wishes for the preservation of biologically pure races (perhaps He does, though I suspect perfect indifference on His part)[/u], than whether it is allowable for men to concern themselves with such matters as racial preservation at all, and, if ‘yes’, the scope of moral action divinely permitted to actualize the requisite conditions for such preservation.[/i] (Haller) How, from what I have copied, and especially underlined, do you interpret my argument to be "God wants races to survive"? How?! Only one answer: [b]very poor reading comprehension skills[/b]. The larger point is that, strange as it seems to me, given that I am a clear writer, you repeatedly fail even to [i]understand [/i] what I write (let alone appreciate its value, which requires wisdom more than intelligence). You then inadequately attempt to knock down 'straw men' I never put up: eg, because I recognize the economic (and ethical) superiority of free markets over socialist or regulated ones, therefore, according to Graham, [note the blinding [i]non sequitur[/i]!] I must endorse Gordon Gecko's "greed is the ultimate good" (what the character actually said was "greed is good", because it is "an expression of the underlying evolutionary process", or something like that; this from the first [i]Wall Street[/i], which I saw two and a half decades ago, though I still recall Michael Douglas's very well-delivered speech). I suppose I do get a bit flummoxed when faced with argumentation of such poor quality (especially when confidently expressed). Face, it - like a lot of people in these parts, you have a kind of irrational closed-mindedness about God. You remind me of Richard Dawkins (perhaps you can aspire to be like him, though you will have to improve your writing ability). He blissfully asserts his atheistic arguments, completely unaware of how amateur is his philosophizing. [Disproving Dawkins does not prove God, of course; though it must also be noted that not proving God is not equivalent to disproving God.] I have repeatedly stressed the practical aspects of my assertions re the fundamental question of the compatibility of Christianity and racial preservation. No question will prove more determinative of the outcome of the racial struggle (and I have argued repeatedly why that should be so; I refuse to do so again here, just for your benefit). As a strictly pragmatic matter, if measures empirically necessary to the survival of the white race cannot be shown to be ethically compatible with Christianity, then our race will go extinct. "Ontonationalism" may or may not possess some ultimate worth, but propagating it as a strategy for white survival, in lieu of returning to the historic faith of the West, will prove a dismal failure. The task for the sincere, serious and relentlessly practical WN is to reclaim Christianity for the West (ie, to remove those liberalism-informed theological errors which enable it to be used against Western survival), and then work with those conservative elements seeking to re-Christianize the West. The model here is not Hitler but Enoch Powell [note to Lister: Powell was not only a race realist and British patriot, but also a Christian and staunch supporter of the market economy]. This may disappoint the Nazis, but their time is long past (outside of the most extreme racial conditions, like mixed-race prisons). As I've said before, I shall enjoy watching the Listers squeal as atheism increasingly retreats from the fore of WN consciousness (though this will come about not from salutary conversions of WNs to Christianity, but from the ever-increasing recognition among the larger conservative population, which is far more Christian than either the WN or liberal communities, that racial integration and mass immigration threaten the very survival of our civilization, as well as everything conservatives wish to conserve). But enough. You are neither intelligent nor wise enough for me to wish to continue to respond to your ill-argued broadsides, nor shall I do so in the future. And as to my offering only insults - I invite dispassionate others to peruse the first five posts on the current MR homepage, to see whether I or Lister is more guilty of that charge.
11385450871315444178DASEIN, Sounds very interesting. What books will you be referencing?
11386150871315478583Thanks for that link, Desmond. How some of you find what you do on the web never ceases to amaze me. I guess I'm still basically a book-dude. Probably my age, just a bit pre-internet.
11386450871315487096I think many of you here at MR, interested in questions at the intersection of philosophy and science, might find this journal a useful and intriguing resource: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/browse_byissue.asp
11057850881308180863Crises are usually exacerbated by hooligan elements, who want disorder for its own sake. They merely retard or ruin Greece's chances of getting out of this mess, which is all its own fault - too little capitalism, too much typically Southern European corruption (insufficient Nordish genes in these environments?). Of course, this also causes many of us to lose money. Quite a number of companies I invest in were either holders of (some, often small amount) of Greek sovereign debt, or, far more commonly, were investors in both the equities and the debt of various European banks which have Greek debt. I bet many of you reading this right now have indirect investments in this situation (often without your knowing it - you just wonder at the market turmoil, and, if ignorant or stupid, darkly mutter about "neoliberalism"). The street thugs and their uncomprehending supporters would not themselves have the slightest idea what to do to extricate their nation from its crisis - other than the preferred nonwhite method of simple default, which always amounts to a huge theft from others (bankruptcy laws should be abolished; debtors' forced labor camps restored). Then watch how they would snivel, and Greece slide into greater dislocation and poverty, when the rest of the world refused to do more than narrowly tailored business with Greek companies, let alone extend any more credit to them or their ridiculous government. The salutary long-term effect would be that Greece would be forced to develop on its own, slaving away to accumulate the capital to finance its own future economic growth (as the US and especially Britain originally did). A new respect for bourgeois ethics and habits of financial rectitude might be born. Or not. The radical whiners and Third Wayists could have a nice experiment in non-communist non-capitalism. As the more talented elements gradually emigrate to greener pastures, Greece can serve as a cautionary tale, for the nationalist Right as well as liberal Left.
11062650881308310811Looking at these comments, one would think MR is more National Socialist than Nationalist. I recall Ian Jobling, a very civilized and ethical, if somewhat moderate, white preservationist writer, warned me against bothering with this site, which he claimed was filled with low morals types (as well as innumerable close minded fools). At first, I thought many here, beginning with the editor, were decent sorts; but the moral and intellectual quality of MR has declined precipitately in 2011. Too bad, though I did warn GW that this was happening, and that he ought to exercise firmer editorial control - at least if he wanted [i]serious[/i] minds to engage his thoughts. Rather than waste time debating such really, truly, pitifully ignorant buffoons (reminds me of some Negroid chatroom where they all sit around agreeing with each other that blacks invented airplanes, philosophy, constitutional law, etc), I'm merely going to re-post from another thread yet again a response, with additional interpolations, to the invincible economic ignoramus Graham Lister, the man who has a good nose for books, and even pretends to have read them (I have in fact read most of those you refer to, you pathetic, and rather dyslexic, 'intellectual wannabe' (why, btw, do you always spell the half-wit Silver "Sliver"? a joke? or reading difficulties?), and I can actually tell (even if the rest of the monkeys here can't) that you haven't (unless you are completely idiotic; I mean more so than I actually believe you to be, which is considerable, though I still classify you more as foolish than simply stupid; you most certainly have read neither Hayek, nor Scruton, nor would the writer known as "Theodore Dalrymple" be remotely sympathetic to your blusterings; if you think he would be, then you also either haven't read him, or very much by him, or, again, your reading comprehension is just exceptionally poor - which, more than affirmative action, such as we suffer from terribly in the US, might account for your failure to find an acceptable teaching position): ------------------------------------------------------------------ [i]R[/i][i]e - Christianity Leon - if your version of Christianity involves systematically abusing young children (the Roman Catholic Church) or includes creeps and con-artists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson screaming rubbish about JEE-ZUSS while shaking down the sheeple, then yeah I’d say I don’t want anything do to with it. Will I have to be ‘re-educated’ on the wisdom of Hayek and Billy Graham by ‘intellectuals’ like your good self? Sliver don’t worry Leon worships PROFITS beyond anything else - do we detect the Jewish extended phenotype at work? And Leon I don’t personally give a shit if you are some Ivy League ‘hotshot’. My undergraduate education was at a university which is older than any the USA, as indeed was part of my graduate education. So cut the “your so ignorant about my God the ‘free-market’ and its operation” crap. I have actually read Nozick and Hayek, have you or was your education mainly in doing such crappy shit as cost-benefit analyses in so called ‘business school’ which is to fine food what McDonald’s is - the intellectual equivalent of a pile of inedible emetic crap.[/i] (Graham Lister) _________________________________________________________ You seem rather upset, Graham? Touched a nerve, have we? Though I can’t quite get what it pertains to: the aggressive atheist’s annoyance that intelligent men are still loyal to God and Church, or resentment that someone else can dissect and easily expose your sophomoric I’m-more-than-just-a-boorish-scientist’s intellectual posturings (so he says, who really knows these things? I have two friends who are scientists, one a PhD in biochemistry from Stanford, and what they write is soooo much more articulate than Graham’s ventilations)? Your acerbity towards me, when I have been undeservedly gentle with you, is of more than passing psychological interest. I think it points to a real WN problem -why WN never gets any real traction politically, despite the soundness of our observations. It certainly confirms for me yet again the correctness (and eventual triumph) of my approach to our shared concerns. I am Catholic, yes. [Strange - and telling - how accusations of "Jew" get hurled at persons of superior intellect who actually stand fast to the old verities: God, Church, liberty, property, high culture, etc. Yes, there really is, as the leftists claim, a morally repulsive element within WN, which is why a) WN gets nowhere with whites, the world's most innately ethical race, and b) why my own specific form of conservative nationalism - integrating race-realism and white-preservationism with Western traditionalism - will eventually far outstrip in [i]real world[/i] power anything you children (I refer to emotional states, not chronological age; several of you are much older than I) will ever offer. The political future belongs to none of us, but to our nonwhite colonizers. (I have offered White Zion as an option for ensuring that white men continue to rule [i]some[/i] portion of the globe.) But the [i]ideological[/i] future, even within WN, will belong to those of us in the traditions of Enoch Powell and Pat Buchanan far more than to those of Hitler and David Duke. That will be a bitter pill for you anarchists, socialists and blasphemers to swallow. How ironic, yet appropriate, that those who worship power over justice shall ultimately have neither.] My Church is quite a bit more than a tiny handful of disgusting paedophiles (actually, almost none were even that, strictly understood: the priests ‘abused’ almost exclusively teenagers; in our degenerate society, many teenage faggots routinely engage in homosexual relations with older men; I’m about the last person to condone such behavior, on the parts of the teens no less than the priests - but you might wish to get your facts straight before embarrassing yourself). It’s obvious that you [actually, nearly the entirety of the MR readership] know nothing about Christianity, the historic religion of Western Man, whether as history or theology (please, don’t embarrass yourself still further by running to wikipedia or some other online well of errors to dredge up a few facts for which you have not the slightest intellectual context with which to assess or even make sense of them). I know nothing of Billy Graham, nor have I ever referred to him, here or anywhere else that I can remember. Of course I’ve read Nozick and Hayek, as well as the more rigorous and consistent Rothbard and Mises. I hope I don’t have to reiterate for you yet again that I am not a libertarian? Still, if you have actually read them, you certainly did so without, um, profit. And, finally, on the subject of profits, why do you deliberately repeat something I have flatly contradicted, indeed, several times just in the most recent threads? Are you being churlishly polemical, or are you really just that stupid? I state at multiple points that the Racial State must be teleological, and will subordinate individual rights and desires to the overarching collective goal of white preservation. Somehow that translates into my “worshipping profits, excuse me, PROFITS, uber alles”? You’re not that dumb, so clearly there is some deeper animus (against God [i]and[/i] capitalism - how very unusual!). Thus my reference to the psychological conundrum you pose. You do not understand economics. You continue to conflate understanding economic reality with libertarian ideology (something the greatest modern libertarians, Mises and Rothbard, never did). Worse, you can’t seem to (refuse to?) understand the political and racial arguments I make for WNs qualifiedly supporting free markets (or Christianity, in the case). But it makes no difference. As with GW and various others here, you don’t understand how fantastically limited is the political usefulness of, let’s see ... “ontological nationalist social democracy”, would that be right? Extremist movements are always riven with faction, ours no less than others. I’m sure you will wail without surcease when you belatedly come to realize that my approach has won, as it assuredly will. I will enjoy the spectacle. [i]Lee - I know what you mean isn’t England awful in how impolite many people are.[/i] (GL) At least you’ve gotten one thing right.
11066250881308402016[i]Two pincers - globalisation and the international banking system attacking from the right - anti-white left-liberal idealogy attacking from the left It’s not new e.g. Schiff funding the Bolsheviks. Left and right are used to misdirect from “what works best?”[/i] (Wandrin) The system of government managed international finance (Bretton Woods and its various additions) is not remotely right-wing (a case for such a contention, which I would support in a limited fashion, can be made for globalization/free trade). Every tendency of the traditional Right - libertarian, Christian, nationalist - opposes the current financial system, one best characterized as "privatization of profit, socialization of risk. The international banking arena in particular conforms to neither libertarian, nor conservative, nor Christian, nor nationalist precepts. It is purely exploitatively elitist.
11066650881308410109Exposure Now! Here is another tidbit I feel I should have known, but did not until now: Lauren Bacall is Jewish. Who knew? Also, she is the first cousin to Shimon Peres, president of Israel at nearly 88! (Why do rightwingers seem to die so early?)
11067350881308436055I'm still wondering if I should respond to the idiots Jason, Dirty Bullshit, Silver, Dane et al. They think they scored something off me, but only revealed their own pathetic ignorance (esp Jason). What do others think? I hate wasting valuable time, if no one's going to evaluate my comments soberly ... ------------------------- Re Bacall and "Jewishness": I really don't know what to think. One hears WNs talk about how endogamous the Jews are (excuse me, [i]were[/i] - every married Jew I personally know but one has a gentile wife), but personal observation suggests a wide genetic variation, from practically Hindu-looking to extremely Nordic. What gives? At some point, we have to accept race as visual phenomenon (isn't that how humans in large part make friend/enemy distinctions; that is, assessments of relative genetic relatedness?). Obama is half white, but he looks black, and doubtless because of that fact, he identifies as black. And the opposite is surely true, too, that there are persons who look white, were raised white, and self-identify as white, but who might be part nonwhite. How do we view them? Life (biology) is messy. We taxonomize as best we can, but matters are less clearly delineated than we would like. Are Armenians white? Some look very Middle Eastern, but ones I've known have resembled Balkans peoples, whom we accept as white (except maybe Albanians, and these for racial as well as cultural reasons? certainly Albanians look but also behave more like Arabs than white Europeans). Armenian-Americans are quite successful economically. The ones I've known think of themselves as white. So how should we think about them? Ideally, our race would consist of clear Nordics like myself (dark blonde, now with age light brown, hair, green eyes, semi-rectangular head shape, straight nose, fair to medium skin tone, etc). But we Europeans seem to exhibit unique genetic variation compared to other races, which itself may be an external indication of inner (psychological) superiority. And given our rapidly declining numbers, I don't think we can afford to be too exclusive in our admissions to the 'white clubhouse' ...
11068350881308452563Interesting stuff, anon. Who are the best scholars working in this area? And even if there is a pronounced DNA difference btwn Semites and us, does it matter? I think Jewish anti-white (esp anti-Euro-EGI) behavior is more learned than innate. They are an arrogant people, partly for Biblical/theological reasons, partly as a function of their high intelligence long in conflict with their more constrained opportunities (smart people want to be recognized, not marginalized as they were for a long time). Hence they have developed this ingrained culture of victimization wrt the societies in which they are minorities. But I'm not certain that such a culture is unchangeable, given altered external circumstances (eg, white decline; when we're gone, who will protect Jews and their wealth?). Thorn, [i]You can have them, Leon. They’re all yours.[/i] I really don't want them ... What I'm considering is starting my own site, one operating at the intersection of conservatism and biological nationalism. The problem with conservatives (I mean real ones, the paleos, not the GOP/Limbaugh crowd) is that they are scared to discuss white decline forthrightly, as well as willfully ignorant about the social and political implications of modern biology (and more broadly, science). The problem with WNs is that extremism of any kind always attracts a lot of misfits, losers, mentally unstable types and genuinely morally ugly persons. WN is no exception; it may be worse, among traditions on the Right, because it is bounded neither by (universalist) religious faith, nor by the libertarians' admittedly utopian non-aggression axiom. Back in the 90s, at an early [i]American Renaissance[/i] conference, I recall listening in on a conversation Jared was having with another attendee, in which he mentioned that he started AR specifically with the intention of producing a publication that would be honest about race, but neither morally nor politically extremist, the kind "that you could display on a coffee-table without being worried or embarrassed", in his words. We need an internet chatroom analogous to that, where serious persons could engage in civil discourse for a common purpose of developing reasonable, rational, and ethical white/Western survivalist ideas. My impression is that GW may have intended MR to be such a vehicle, but that, given the subject matter and angry passions it naturally arouses, and without a firm editorial hand, it has degenerated into a "groupthink" place where challenges to reigning orthodoxies, no matter how foolish or ill-informed the latter may be, are disparaged and dismissed without any attempt at understanding. If I were in charge of a site, I would keep it at a rigorous intellectual and moral level. Obscenities would be deleted, personal as opposed to intellectual attacks would be frowned upon, and unhelpful informalities would be kept to a minimum. Anything could be discussed; but any comments not academically serious would be removed. Such a site would not attract multitudes. But it might get the kind of people worth talking to in the first place.
11069450881308494272Here is an example of a standard issue libertarian ASSHOLE: (from lewrockwell.com): Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on June 18, 2011 09:48 PM A reader sends along this link, and notes: Marriage licenses came about in the late 19th century to prevent mixed-race marriages. That should be appalling to anyone, and is in my opinion the strongest argument to privatize marriage. The linked article makes many points similar to those I made in my article from Friday. And it notes that: The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry. By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. At the heart of it all, predictably, is the urge to control the lives of others. White people might marry black people! Horror of horrors. Therefore, the state must get involved. No doubt these arguments in favor of more government meddling were made with an overlying patina of "freedom." Just as the modern anti-immigration crowd today argues that we must destroy freedom in order to save it, the old racist proponents of government marriage likely argued that we must abolish freedom in marriage or the "Negro agitatuhs" and their dusky-skinned allies will destroy freedom. Conservative "logic" at its best. ------------------------------------------- Do not EVER accuse me of being libertarian.
11069250881308484012Very well stated, Dr. Lister. Perhaps you should stick to "bio-sociological" discussions ... What makes Jews so successful is not simply clannishness, but also exceptionally high IQ (esp of the verbal variety, and more among Ashkenazi than the 'Oriental' types who predominate in Israel (and Crown Heights)), as well as the larger white guilt matrix. I wonder how successful Israel, which does have a pretty good economy, would be on its own, without US tax monies, as well as constant infusions of Western-educated and raised Zionists (I knew two smart Jewish kids from my university class who moved to Israel after graduation; there may have been others; even in the 80s, the Ivy League was typically 30% Jewish; imagine being surrounded by swarms of the country's very smartest young Jews, 90% of whom were oh-so-proto-PC-liberal, and all very opinionated ... great forensics practice, however, for a young Far Rightist like me and a few of my pals). If what is being alleged is that Jews can never really psychologically assimilate to Aryan (or probably any non-Jewish) societies, I would tend to agree, at least wrt the past and even present. I'm not sure about the future, however. I have a lot of Jewish friends and acquaintances (this is LA, after all - must be the capital of Jewry outside of Israel and NYC, now that most of the Soviet Jews are gone), and in multiculti LALAland, they totally self-identify as "white". Trust me, I'm around these people constantly. Will Jews ever be assimilated to a white-maintained European country, like Scotland or Poland? Of course not. But can Jews be assimilated to whiteness under white-minority conditions? An interesting question. I think the answer is yes. We Americans need to encourage that assimilationist trend, given outsize Jewish financial, cultural and political power. Divide and conquer.
11069350881308486058[i]Leon’s position on economics is not that different from Linder’s. In his last interview with GW, Linder said something to the effect “libertarians have a respect for economic law the same way that Nazis had a respect for biological law.” IIRC, he described his ideal state as being based on free markets within a racial preservationist superstructure. It’s interesting that Linder, who is one of the most judeocritical thinkers within WN, respects a movement which, as far as I can see, was and is heavily influenced by jews. That alone makes me sceptical of the von Mises Institute and those associated with it. But it could well be that they are right, despite the heavy jewish influence. I don’t find economics interesting enough to devote much time to studying it.[/i] (Dasein) Very sensibly put, Dasein. I wish you would contribute more often. I'm rather jealous of that excellent quote from Linder. Well-put, memorable and obvious - why hadn't I ever thought of it?! Recall, however, that I did somewhere mention "Jewish physicists". Truth is truth, regardless of which race or ethny first discovers it. I assure you, the economic insights of the (disproportionately Jewish) Austrians are not mere ideology and 'word-castles' in the manner of Marxists and Freudians (or Ayn Randians) - Jewish guru-cults all (as KMac points out). There is some of that cultishness surrounding Mises and Rothbard, at least at the Mises Institute, but they were Jews of real brilliance and insight, like Wittgenstein (and I'd add theologian Martin Buber, though many here would demur vigorously, and on multiple grounds). I continue to see libertarian philosophy as a major challenge, both theoretical (and in that both ethical and functional) and practical, to nationalism. It is hardly obvious that individual rights, as libertarians understand them, are wrong (the libertarian understanding makes great intuitive sense to white Americans in particular; it could have great potential among Christians, too). I agree with GW and others that libertarianism is neither philosophically (for me that means ethically) unchallengeable nor compatible with ultimate white survival. But their philosophy has been powerfully articulated - more extensively and better than nationalism, I think. Of course, to reiterate my earlier point, economics is [i]wertfrei[/i], as they like to say. It aspires to social scientific status, and is not therefore normative. Thus supporting free markets does not entail automatic support for libertarianism or neoliberalism, considered as political philosophies. Indeed, understanding free markets does not entail supporting even free markets. Austrian economics will guide policymakers who wish to understand the principles of collective wealth maximization. But economics does not establish the normativity of wealth maximization, any more than a dentist tells you what to do about a tooth. He merely gives you its physical status, and your options for it. WNs may wish to disregard wealth maximization in order to pursue other goals (like racial preservation). But we should do so knowing what we are doing and its costs, shouldn't we? I personally support maximal free markets, within the bounds of: a. Christian requirements b. ultimate ecological limits c. racial and ethnonational preservation d. military and physical security. Is my position so unreasonable, or deserving of the abuse ignorantly heaped upon it? Or is it in fact the final, correct rightist position?
11075450881308654914CS, This: [i]As a very rough rule, if a person looks White and thinks of himself as White and is the kind of person our other members wouldn’t mind their sisters marrying-and if we know that he’s no more than one-sixteenth non-White, we consider him White.[/i] (CS quoting Pierce) seems to conflict with this: [i]in response to the question, “Who’s White?” we answer: “Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions.”[/i] (CS). Dr. Pierce was perhaps the most fanatical racist of his era; frankly, far more extreme than I am, and I've had the "racist" accusation hurled at me dozens, maybe hundreds, of times (simply for speaking racial truth). I think we have to be careful here. Even the Nazis in the Nuremberg Laws held someone white if they were no more than 1/32 non-European in ancestry (please correct me if I'm wrong re Hitler - this was from memory, and quite a while ago at that). At some point, culture and self-identification take over from racial biology. Otherwise, your own standards are contradictory. Lots of European peoples have some nonwhite in them: Iberians, Sicilians, even Irish have Arab (and through them some Negroid) genetics; the Hungarians have Magyar; many Russians Tartar, Ingush, etc; I've had Greek and Greek-American friends who ranged from blonde and blue to nearly Oriental-looking. Everything in biology is 'tendency'. Blacks tend to be much less intelligent than whites, but Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is much more intelligent than most whites (and he is not part-white, like Obama). We also need to bring measurements of relative genetic-similarity. Being 1/32 Negroid is literally a lot more 'tainted' (given the genetic distance between whites and blacks) than 1/32 Arab or Indian. I find this all interesting, because I still recall the more 'liberal' standard often used back in [i]Instauration[/i] during the 80s: "if a man looks white, acts white, and fights white, we consider him white". I think that's a reasonable compromise standard, and I suspect something like that is what Thorn has in mind.
11076250881308663863CS, I concur, and I'm glad you are thinking pragmatically (I hope there are others out there doing so as well). Unfortunately, re the Big Bucks, much easier said than done. Moreover, and this is important, part of the genius of the dispossessionist regime is that it basically acts as a "eugenic sewer". That is, it allows considerable scope for the genetically superior elements in white societies to advance their personal, material interests, and basically enjoy, in a vulgar way, a pretty high quality of life - provided they do not seek to challenge the regime, especially in its core (Judeo-dominant, multiculti) elements. (In his inchoate rants against rational economics, Graham Lister, is, I think, expressing his opposition to this unattractive system, albeit putting the cart before the horse.) If they do challenge it, they are usually not exterminated, but they are professionally ruined (I had a bad professional setback in the early 90s that was openly attributed to my alleged 'racism' - the awful part was that my racial transgressions, based purely in objective, Christian/Western understandings of justice, did not remotely rise to the level of hard-hitting extremism which I and everyone else exhibit here at MR). So the problem re the very wealthy is that "the system" offers lots of life possibilities to the superior (even with affirmative action outrages), while throwing up tremendous barriers to expressing any sort of white solidarity, however mild (this situation I would agree has largely been manufactured by Jews - though increasingly it is perpetuated by the growing percentage of aliens in our homelands). I don't think we should look to the rich for solutions or recruitment. Each WN, however, needs to be parsimonious, and as financially (and martially) independent as his particular circumstances will allow.
11076450881308666134One point I do wonder about is why we assume that modern Jewry is the same (ethnically, genetically) as the Biblical community. One fact rarely discussed here at MR is the centuries long disappearance of the blonde. I've read that ancient Europe was far blonder than at present (apart from nonwhite migrants). This seems reasonable given white genetic recessivity. Herodotus described the ancient Greeks as "blonde-haired and blue-eyed" (perhaps he's the originator of the phrase?). Their modern descendants are only occasionally like that. We know the whole ancient Middle East was far whiter than at present, as doubtless was North Africa (I seriously doubt either Hannibal or St. Augustine were Negroid). Perhaps the Jews were as well. The ones who migrated to Europe after the diaspora may be more like their Biblical kinsmen than modern Israelis. I've often thought of European Jews as one more Mediterranean white ethnic group, whereas the other inhabitants of the Middle East are clearly racially different (esp in having larger admixtures of Negroid genes). But anyway, I think Thorn's point is a practical one, which after all is what our common struggle is or should be..
11079750881308752328Thorn, Thanks for the vote of confidence: [i]Leon, you are one of the most misunderstood commenters I’ve ever seen on the net. I feel for you. But fellas like Silver understand you. That’s why he attacks you so fiercely. He knows you offer a workable strategy to move us forward. One that can very well gain traction amongst the masses. That scares people like him.[/i] I'm too tired (and bored with MR) right now to respond to several comments that deserve my responses. Maybe tomorrow evening. Two observations: 1. Silver is not the only one. The real issue, Thorn, is less a desire on the part of most of the bizarrely large number of my attackers and denigrators here to discredit race realism and nationalism, obviously, (as is the case with the various "conservative" and Christian websites which have banned me over the last 6 or 7 years), than a PERFECTLY CORRECT fear that they themselves will be marginalized by my (our) approach. Mull that over a bit. Many WNs (and extreme libertarians, and extreme Christians - and that's just on the Right) actually have a psychological predisposition towards enjoying being an embattled, but extremist (and correct, in their minds) minority. These 'purists' hate anything smelling of reality-based and necessitated compromise. And when they congregate, whether physically or virtually, they tend to 'feed' off of each other's energy, each trying to outdo the next guy in ideological purity and extremism. Believe me, I could be as extremist as anyone, in sentiment and vituperative language, if I so chose. But I'm trying to get persons who are either uneducated (say, about the facts of racial differences in ability and behavior - common in Christian venues, though libertarians and 'conservatives' are often awful as well), or unwise (common everywhere, here as much as in more moderate places) to face a reality which I seem to see far more clearly than most. Statesmanship is not about moderation, per se, but measuredness. Sometimes brutality is called for, other times, guile. The movement to save our race and civilization must be led by men capable of both leonine and vulpine actions - and the wisdom to see what situations require which type of response. Frankly, the minds on display around here mostly do not inspire confidence in this regard. Consider only the obvious contempt and dislike, occasionally bordering on pathology, that many here display towards Christianity (or free enterprise, for that matter). What this type of WN wants are legions of men who are both atheist and nationalist. Let's see ... where exactly are those legions, and why haven't they been gathered for a generation or more, given that racial outrages against whites have been occurring at least since the 1960s? I don't have an answer, but I can observe the world. Leftists, including racial leftists, are far more likely to be atheists (or at least religiously indifferent secularists) than Christians. Moreover, Christians are far more likely to be rightist than are secularists/atheists. Let's emphasize this: 1. Leftists - more atheist (or secularist, or Jewish) than Christian. 2. Rightists - more Christian than atheist. 3. Christians - more rightist than leftist. It seems rather obvious to me that the 'target-rich' environment for WN recruitment is among rightists, not leftists. Given that rightists are more religious (Christian) than leftists, and given that WNs are a tiny minority of all voters (see vote totals for US 2000 Pat Buchanan; France 2002 Le Pen; Britain 2010 BNP; etc etc - note also that none of these candidates was as extreme as what gets posted here at MR), if we really do want to do something positive to save our race (DO NOT ASSUME THIS IS ACTUALLY THE REAL GOAL AMONG ALL WNs - many just want to vent their hatreds, without ever making messy, real world progress), what is likely to have the greater effect: shitting on the ancient faith, and exalting some type of Nietzschean will-to-power, or conversely, striving to develop a new ontology out of whole cloth (a task for a Descartes or a Kant or perhaps even a Heidegger), one that will be understood by a few dozen persons, and agreed to by fewer ...... or patiently sifting through and refuting the liberal accretions that have marred the true faith, ultimately showing that Christianity and white preservation (which, after all, need not, and for a Christian, must not, entail nonwhite annihilation) are perfectly philosophically compatible? The problem for the atheist WN is that he is often as animated by hatred of Christianity as he is by genuine concern for Western civilization. And he knows that my form of nationalism could potentially easily overwhelm his, if only because a) there are more religious than nonreligious people, b) even many secular whites are morally influenced by residual Christian ideas and norms, and c) race is visceral, meaning that most white race traitors are simply unreachable (ie, if, eg, in the face of Negroid savagery, one still clings hysterically to a belief that there are no mental and character differences between whites and blacks, then one is probably not going to be swayed by any form of rational argument from WNs). My belief is that the largest recruitment area for the racial right is among white conservatives (Jared Taylor of [i]American Renaissance[/i] thinks this, too). If we can develop and propagate arguments convincing enough of them that white preservation does not conflict with their majority Christianity (or Christian-residual morality), then we have a real chance to save our race and civilization. The problem for MR types is that this approach threatens to render them useless and, again, marginalized. They know it, and resent it. They want to keep WN pure and all to themselves. The analogy here is with purist libertarians who go ballistic when persons like me appropriate Mises or others of their heroes. The globalist libertarians at the Mises Institute hate it when I acknowledge the truths of Austrian microeconomics, but then point out how much better off we would be absent a black presence. But they really,really hate it when someone correctly defends free enterprise, but refuses to fetishize it (as I'm accused of doing by idiots on this thread, but in fact do not). Be optimistic: the future of the Racial Right will belong to such as us. The problem is that neither we nor any other RR tradition is likely to be able to attain majority political power in any white nation in time to save it as a [i]white[/i] nation (I hope I prove wrong, and at least some of the European countries preserve their whiteness, in historic culture, as well as bare biological fact; obviously, our America is on a countdown to mongrel oblivion). Hence the need for White Zion, as CS (and before him Sam Davidson) and others and I have been discussing. 2. Re all this discussion of the Jews. I have not made up my 'final mind' on the JQ, but I do know that WN is weak (though it could be strong), and that we need to tread lightly, not because we're concerned about Jews, but about recruitment of those of our own people who are favorably disposed to them. Divide and conquer. Start with telling the truth about blacks, just giving relentless facts of odious criminality and welfare parasitism (and esp the injustice of affirmative action). Given a) the biblical relevance of the Jews, and b) Hitler and the Holocaust (not to mention Zionist financial, media, academic, legal and political power), fighting the Jew, that is, making exposing Jewry the centerpiece of WN efforts, is virtually predetermined to be less effective than 1) exposing black savagery, 2) discussing immigration and the 'browning' of white nations, and 3) building up positive white cultural and racial pride. As whites become deprogrammed, and re-encultured in our old ways, the influence of the Jew will be correspondingly marginalized. Some battles are won through confrontation; others, through removal of the conditions enabling the enemy to fight. WNs need the wisdom to perceive this distinction in concrete circumstances. On another note, last night my girlfriend and I went to see a re-showing of the second movie in the Lord of the Rings trilogy (ahh, how wonderfully Nordic were those films, in spite of Peter Jackson's leftism - and note they did very well at the box office, despite - because of? - a complete lack of concessions to multiculturalism). After, we decided to sneak into the super-late showing of [i]The Hangover 2[/i], which had just started. At the beginning of the film, there was a striking minute or so from a song I'd heard years ago, but not recently. It sounded very traditionalist, in sentiment as well as style, very white, but still rock. It had just the greatest feel to it. I had to google it: "The Downeaster Alexa" (see below). We listened to it about 20 times in a row. The singer, of course, is Billy Joel, a Jew. I was shocked at first. But try explaining to Joe Average why he should dislike Jews after he just listened to the song. What a steep mountain - and how much easier to discuss flash mobs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVlDSzbrH5M
11083350881308829596Dr. Lister, I need to devote some time to your comment, but I don't feel like it at the moment. But this: [i]And sorry to be snotty but what is that Billy Joel drivel? I could barely take 30 seconds of it. I don’t know what was worse the music and ‘performance’ or the fact that the ‘singing’ still allowed once to make out the lyrics.[/i] Surely you are joking? 30 seconds? I am not one to compare popular music to Mozart or Chopin in terms of aesthetic (musicological) quality. Does that mean, however, that popular productions can't also be beautiful? Or at least enjoyable? And you weren't 'blown away' by or even attracted to this song at all?! I find that amazing, especially as I might have thought that you, of all people, might have been drawn to this musical paean to the working classes, this elegy for a laboring way of existence now going extinct due to unwise unconcern over ecological limits. Why, from a 'Listerine' perspective, it's got it all - condemnation of capitalism, the moral goodness of 'hands-on' work, biology in the background! What's not to like (other than the out of place black guitarist in the video)? Anyway, you're surely aware of the real point of the example: Jews have talent, are often popular, and thus trying to expose their racial perfidy is much more difficult than explaining interracial differences - and that therefore the latter race-centric approach is likely to be more fruitful in building WN than a Judeocritical one.
11087250891308955780There is not a single error in my post immediately above, which is why you have not shown any. It is quite clear from whatever I write that I am both considerably more intelligent as well as learned across a range of disciplines than you are. There is no real comparison. And I write so much more cogently that any comparison is simply laughable (I might forgive your writerly ineptitude, as English is not your primary language, except that the problem is not with grammar: it is that you meander about, unable to exhibit a logical flow to your ideas, while launching irrelevant intellectual salvos, full of sound and fury, but hitting nothing, like lobbing shells into endless ocean, and pretending that is combat). Your criticisms ironically apply far more to you than to me. I expound reality; you lecture from an imaginary Olympus. And while you are occasionally correct, how often do you make blanket, highly tendentious assertions as if they were merely obvious - when as often as not they are grossly misleading; eg : [i]The Great American society of the 20th century was achieved by destroying Germany’s technological and military might.[/i] (Grimoire) This is as false as any interpretation of history ever can be. The only scintilla of truth it contains is that postwar, Cold War America benefitted from the services of a number of captured German scientists. WW2 actually set America back in many ways. It consolidated New Deal socialism (whose predictable long-term budget busting effects have now been realized, and grow worse every year); it gave a huge new impetus to black integration, and all the social, economic and dysgenic wreckage that has entailed; it entrenched Jewish power and moral prestige (and not only due to the Holocaust); its opening up of factory production opportunities for countless "Rosie the Riveters" helped to lay the groundwork for the later feminist revolution, which massively curtailed white natality; etc etc. I could go on at length (and I claim no originality on this particular score: if you were erudite, as I am, and especially if you had any purchase on American historiography, as you falsely imply, you would be aware of how well covered is this ground, by liberal historians celebrating these changes, and paleoconservatives deploring them). But enough. There are so many sophomores attracted to this site. They must be intellectually and politically marginalized, if WN and thus Western Civ are to have any sort of chance.
11081350891308807698[i].I take it that you think the poor Anglo Saxon was undermined by Slavs, Mediterraneans, or just any European despoiling your lofty claims of priority. The problem you will have with this thesis, is you don’t have a shred of support for the claim, unless you resort to fantasy, or a spurious attempt at rewriting history and pushing it out as propaganda - an Anglo Saxon specialty. In terms of N.America, if you were educated at all...you may have heard it was discovered, explored, settled and claimed by the Spanish, then the French, and Dutch...even the Russians, well before the British. The British gained the upperhand only by exploiting the turmoil of the French revolution, the wars of Spanish Succession, and the Napoleonic era… and they were kicked out of the richest and most suitable part of the continent for settlement by mainly Anglo Saxon settlers… how ironic. [/i](Grimoire) Of course Desmond is substantially right. The British began their permanent presence with Jamestown (though they pre-dated it, too: Cabot was off the eastern Canadian provinces in the late 1490s, in the 1500s there were Hakluyt, Raleigh, and the Roanoke disaster). I'm an Old Stock American, family came here variously in the 1740-50s (both sides), with the only 'recent' arrivals coming in the late 1880s, having been persecuted Catholics in Prussia who decided to exit Bismarck's [i]Kulturkampf[/i]. I am unusual in being both Old American and in having only the tiniest quantum of English ancestry. My German side (which contains both Lutherans and Catholics, and Bavarians as well as Prussians - the supreme irony is that the Lutherans came from Bavaria, and the Catholics Prussia) all seem to have gone first to Pennsylvania, then spread out to Ohio and across the Midwest. My French side, always Catholic, had gone either to Louisiana (pre-US), or Michigan (Detroit, which my family helped to build more than a century ago) and/or Ontario. So I am a true "European-American", as opposed to an Anglo-Saxon one. That said, it is obvious to any student of history that the US was overwhelmingly founded, settled and built by white men generally, but mostly by Anglo-Saxons specifically. It is irrelevant whether the Spanish and French had a few forts or isolated fur trading outposts. Moreover, America's British Culture, as the great conservative and man of letters Russell Kirk entitled his final non-posthumous work, was clearly undermined by the demographic presence of non-British whites, ever more so as ever more non-Anglo immigrants poured into the US in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The main opponents of immigration restriction in the 1920s were Jews, as Kevin MacDonald has so ably demonstrated. But they were not the only ones. Many Catholic fraternal organizations were also immigration proponents - far more so than we have any evidence of WASPs having been. America would have been better off on the whole if it had restricted all immigrants, from the beginning. I say this even though I truly believe that the Germanic is somewhat biologically superior to the Celtic. Germans have made immense, if usually quiet, contributions to the growth of the US. But admitting the principle of multi-ethnicity at all was the first step in the fall of America. Unfortunately, this [i]it was Anglo Saxon incompetence and avarice that undermined the efforts to control immigration in North America[/i] (Grimoire) is substantially correct. As with the Hispanics today, however, it was always a greedy minority that overrode the more diffuse wishes of the patriotic majority. There has never in American (post-1776) history been any majoritarian clamor for mass immigration.
11082850891308827177Jason, You are such an ass (I ought still to show your errors - eg, complete misunderstanding of the alleged American "default" of 1790 - from the Osterity thread, but it just seems so pointless). Obviously, for personal reasons, I'm glad non-Anglo whites were not excluded from the USA. But from the Anglo majority culture's perspective, it was a mistake. Perhaps you should have copied this: [i]But admitting the principle of multi-ethnicity at all was the first step in the fall of America.[/i] (LH) Population biologists have projected that the USA population would have been about 175-200 million without any immigration after 1787. Now we're about 325 million, with the vast bulk of that 'excess' consisting of nonwhites. There is an independent value to America's British Culture, the majority culture which animated this country from the Founding to perhaps 1960. The culture of the Founders, the notions of rule of law, sanctity of private property, Christian public moral codes, and white supremacy, while hardly uniquely American (Burke would have found nothing to argue with), nevertheless reached their fullest flower here. I may be a white preservationist, but that is hardly the whole of my political philosophy. The Nazis were also white preservationists (as were all the major white nations pre-war), but that doesn't mean I'm a Nazi myself. The culture of the Founders was a special ethnoculture of supreme (conservative) quality imo, with great future potential. Anything serving to dilute that culture was/is [i]ipso facto[/i] a bad thing. Non-Anglo immigrants, even white ones, were on the whole a dilutive influence (and modern Third World immigration obviously a disastrous one). There is abundant proof of that assertion in American ethnic historiography (just look at voting patterns: throughout the whole of American history, immigrants have always been disproportionately on the Left side of American politics; if we could sweep in all the Boers and other African whites, they would constitute a mammoth exception to this historical relation between immigration and ideology). America was transformed from an uber-conservative nation into its modern leftist incarnation by the mechanism of immigration pure and simple, beginning with non-Anglo white immigration.
11082950891308827614BTW, any historian would snicker at this statement: [i]If anything you should be mad that the original French culture of Louisana was blotted out by the machinations of the British Empire, and that the Germans weren’t able to form colonies in what is now America because the land hungry English gobbled too much of it up before German’s could get there.[/i](Jason) This is the problem with open chatrooms They attract the uneducated, who disrupt intelligent conversations with twaddle demanding correction. Read English historian Paul Johnson's wonderfully comprehensive, one-volume [i]A History of the American People[/i]. Then we can talk with some common facts at our disposal.
11083150891308828474[i]None of you seem to get - that the Anglo American alliance is a myth[/i]. (Grimoire) First, who brought this up at all? Second, this is not a myth. White geopolitics is always in the minds of the leaders of great powers. But there have been close ties between Britain and the Anglophile American upperclass at least from the post-Civil War through the late 50s. America was strongly pro-British throughout that period, even if also hard-headed about pursuing our own interests. And Germans certainly were not excluded as immigrants. We're the second largest white ethnic contribution to America, after the English.
11085750891308921030Jason, Your comment directed to me is so confused, both in your deficient understanding of a host of issues, as well as in your complete misunderstanding of my positions (one example must suffice: where have I ever stated that non-Anglo whites (like myself) should be deported from the US?!), it would be a sheer waste of my time to respond to you. I think I shall adopt a new policy wrt MR: only respond to intellectuals (as demonstrated by the ability to think and write, and evidence of actual learning). Grimoire, You don't know very much about US history, do you? And, like Jason, you can't seem to understand what I write. This from you: [i]The ethics of the founding fathers of America were not British values, but classic European Republican values. The American system of government bears no relation to British systems of Government, it is based on a Roman Republican system. Non-Anglo European immigration and values made America great… ensured it remained a Republic.[/i] is simply wrong, and on so many levels. Of course I know that the Founders, who proudly demanded the rights of Englishmen, and repeatedly referred to themselves as such, were heavily influenced by both the classical Romans (had Cicero never existed, neither would America), as well as some Continental thinkers, like Montesquieu. The "American system" consists not only in its unique tripartite Federal structure, as well as constitutional federalist architecture ("states' rights"), but also in a court system which was based on English common law (there is abundant evidence of the Founders' immersion in Blackstone and the writings of Sir Edward Coke), as well as tremendous protections accorded to private property, similar to protections more fully developed in Britain than elsewhere in Europe. Non-British European immigration - a rather large, 'catch-all' category - did not ensure that America remained a Republic; if anything, each wave of white immigrants was more socialist/leftist than the previous one (at least from after the 1848 revolutions onwards, the period of substantial Continental European, as well as Irish, immigration). I'm shocked that you would make such a fantastically ignorant assertion. The leftist radicalism of the Germans in the 19th century was oft-remarked by resentful Anglo natives. The Scandinavian-settled areas (upper Midwest) continue to this very day to be among the more white-leftist areas of the US. The Irish and Italians and East Europeans (we don't even need to mention the Jews - a wholly separate category in so many ways) were all further to the left than the Anglo natives, and across a broad panoply of issues, from property rights and government spending, to crime control policies and racial issues (of course, all white ethnic groups were more rightist than most whites today, but the Left won the 20th century, in no small part with the help of various non-Anglo white ethnic groups, along with blacks and Jews). The commitment to our Constitution has always been strongest among British-derived elements. That is plain, ethnographic fact. Your anti-Anglo prejudices have risibly clouded even your recognition of bare historical reality. I'm proud of the great contributions that Germans have made to America. But this is an Anglo-Saxon country at base; we Nordic whites (at least the more conservative ones) have assimilated ourselves to the preexisting British culture. Just read Kirk, [i]America's British Culture[/i] Finally, I've been a proponent, perhaps far longer than you, of a great Northern/Nordic alliance. I also opposed after the fact (and undoubtedly would have before it, had I been alive at the time) US entry into both World Wars in Europe (the Pacific War was completely different). None of this is relevant to my historiographically accurate claim that Continental immigration began the "de-conservatizing" trend in American history. Please study American history before sounding off on it.
11088250891308975684My comments speak for themselves, as do yours.
11089150891309007523Sorry, Graham, your post was important, and deserving of comment. I have a lot to say, though given the number of years I've been commenting here at MR (and much longer at points elsewhere), I will probably be restating things, though of course you may never have seen them. Of course, "sociology of Christianity" plays out rather differently across the Atlantic (ie, obviously, my perspective is different from yours). And my comments are as often normative as sociological (eg, in this context, I am interested in what should be as much as what currently is). I'll respond much later today, CA/USA time. You might want to remind me where your post in question is located. (back to sleep now)
11089250891309009453Is this what you're referring to? [i] Dear Mr Haller, I do sometimes become mystified at some of your comments. On the Christianity point – yes some Christians have been traditionalist or conservative in viewpoint but equally there is the tradition of those facing towards the left as witnessed in the Civil Rights era and the Catholic social gospel (which I would guess you totally dislike). So Christianity can be ‘read’ in many different ways and I am skeptical at a societal level it will every be read in an exclusive ‘catch-all’ way again. In places such as Italy, with a history of a strong enforced orthodox interpretation of Christianity backed by a very powerful institutional framework, today people generally ignore what the Church says if it contradicts what they want to do – this is true for Italian Catholics let alone the secular population. Even in post-Christian England many people will, on being asked their religion, answer Anglican (’we’re Church of England’) but it means practically nothing other than wanting a nice old Church to have a wedding in, and for the middle classes getting one’s children into a half-decent school. Even for the 5-10% of the population in the pews in England their worldview is little more than ‘motherhood and apple pie-ism’ and ‘being nice to people’. There was a documentary series a while ago on the BBC about a year in the life of a regular Anglican parish in England, and at one point the filmmakers asked the vicar if they could ask the worshipers about what they believed. He vicar’s brilliantly and unintentionally funny remarks were along the lines of: ‘please don’t as you will only confuse them’. What I think you don’t appreciate is that most well-educated people of all outlooks, and especially those in the strata called the intelligentsia, in the West at least, are not generally religious. In the modern academy atheism, methodological naturalism or whatever label you wish to use is the default background assumption for anyone seriously engaging in the natural sciences and the social sciences along with most of the humanities. Now I’m not saying that one cannot be a well-educated, intelligent and articulate theist but it is a minority pursuit. So demanding that we all read up on Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell etc., and praise their banalities is not that appealing to we ‘old/real Europeans’. OK but American is still a ‘Christian nation’ – things are very different in the USA. Perhaps, but I’d make this observation. America is also the liberal nation like no-other. At worst it could be described as the greatest social experiment in liberal theory, the attempt to socially engineer an inorganic order primarily conceived of as premised in maximalist liberal terms. So one might actually say that the true religion of America is its own liberal foundations and cosmology (the Constitution, the propositional nation etc.). OK even if one disputes that, Christianity in America exists in a free-market of free-floating lifestyles and ideas without any overriding cultural background of a institutionally and sociological dominant orthodoxy to fall back upon. Instead even within Christianity in America we have the never-ending ‘Heinz 57’ approach of ‘trend innovation’ and every growing sub-divisions of sects and denominations. Christianity might be a ‘mile wide’ in the USA but it seems about an ‘inch thick’ – little more than the thin gruel of yet another superficial pseudo-lifestyle in the consumer world. I’ve seen this first hand – get a group of American Christians in a room together and they will soon be arguing over what seems to the outsider as innate and trivial points of doctrine and interpretation. Just how many versions of Baptism or Lutheranism does any society need? Additionally the only Christian movement not in retreat is the charismatic/Pentecostal formation – it is very multicultural as well as being, to the outsider, an exercise in willfully insanity – literally speaking gibberish etc. And I don’t want to live in a society in which owning a book by Darwin makes one a heretic or worse still an ‘evildoer’. Things that Pentecostal types routinely direct towards people educated in advanced biological thought/science. Even more ‘mainstream’ Evangelicals in America are caught up in all this creationist/intelligent design nonsense. It’s unbecoming for even the moderately educated to indulge in such nonsense. And you think this ‘culture’ will save your collective bacon. I have my doubts. As for left-right distinctions you are still in the old mindset that arose from the liberal Enlightenment. Strictly speaking right-left distinctions are relative. Any ideology can have it’s conservatives and radicals (perhaps even centrist moderates also?), its right-wing and its left-wing. On political strategy in the actually existing very dirty world of real politics I doubt many would be a better guide than Machiavelli.[/i] (Graham Lister) ---------------------------------- Where did you post a critique of methodological individualism? A cursory scroll around hasn't located it. On another note, I do think it would be more useful for me to drop out for a while from these mostly pointless fusillades. I'm thinking of avoiding all posts, here and elsewhere (though I've been banned so many places that MR has been my mainstay of late), for the next few months, and then returning with some testamentary formal posts (if GW will agree to publish them), laying out my views on a host of issues related to WN: Christianity and race, ethics and race, White Zion, constitution of the Racial State, mobilization strategy, the JQ, liberty/property/rights/race, future scenarios, etc. It would then be fun to hear others' critiques (and I'm sure they would arrive fast, furious, and disrespectful), and useful for me to respond to them. Reading criticisms will help me refine my arguments theoretically, as well as tailor them for optimum future WN consumption (that is, I am interested in developing philosophical truth and political strategy, but also in best marketing my material).
11089350891309012769Graham, Here is an interesting and apposite (not to Boas, however, sorry Dasein!) piece by historian of Anglo-American conservatism Patrick Allitt on religious differences between Britain and the US: http://nationalinterest.org/article/prayers-our-fathers-4575 (BTW, stop saying I want people to read Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. I am CATHOLIC, OK? Even if I weren't, I would never align myself with evangelicals. I couldn't care less about those Protestant sects, though my dad is Lutheran (really, rather agnostic).)
11092150891309085631Thanks for the vote of confidence, oiky. I try to write so that people can understand my points, whether they agree with them or not. A number of blog commenters here seem to employ the opposite approach, writing in as obscurantist a vein as possible in order to appear to the uneducated to be more profound than they actually are. That, btw, is a very common vice in higher academia today. Please comment more often. I'd like to hear more "working class" perspectives on Britain (and Europe) and its problems.
11096650891309174489For the record: I hope I'm not damned as a "Nordicist" or Anglo-Saxon supremacist by others just because I have argued with Grimoire on this thread as to which ethnic group primarily settled and built America (even G. would not deny that Anglo-Saxons [i]founded[/i] the country). America was primarily a British nation for a very long time; first, in terms of the literal ancestry of the majority population, and later, insofar as the hegemonic American culture, that to which non-Anglos like (most) of my ancestors assimilated, was overwhelmingly derived from the founding British stock. Of course, today the hegemonic American 'culture' (I use the term anthropologically, not aesthetically) is part Jewish, part black. How far we have fallen! But at least our history cannot be undone.
11103850891309345088Who the fuck is this Grimoire's Twin jackass? [i]Non-white immigration and values made America great[/i] This is what has ruined America, by any social scientific index you want to use. Nonwhites have played virtually no role at all in the development of America (with the exception of some black slave muscle, in the service of white know-how, down south). America is, in its abiding essence, an Anglo-Saxon nation, today, tomorrow, forever! When America's British Culture no longer predominates, then America will be dead.
11104050891309350605I do wonder whether maybe the idea of demographic conquest really isn't best suited for the whites of the New World, maybe also poaching some from places where the people are just too cowardly actually to make a nationalist stand, and the numbers of nonwhites are bad (eg, The Netherlands, Belgium). Maybe Grimoire does have a point wrt Central Europe. There are around 90 million people between Germany and Austria; at least 2/3 currently are white. That's not an insubstantial number. Perhaps there can yet be a White Zion in [i]Mitteleuropa [/i]under German hegemony, maybe encompassing a significant portion of the continent (ie, including within its hegemonic area Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, perhaps elsewhere)? Maybe there needs to be two WZs, one English speaking, composed primarily of whites from the Anglosphere, and one German speaking? I really would like some portions of Europe to remain European, though I fear for the worst. My main concern, though, is with WNs from America, Canada, Aus/NZ, Britain and South Africa/Rhodesia. Our people are even more insecure here than in Central Europe. It's all so difficult to foresee. I wish there already were one self-consciously white nation. How is it possible that every white society has succumbed to the virus of 'diversity', despite great linguistic, historical, and cultural differences?
11104750891309354607White Zion is a long range contingency plan. Ideally, Europe will get its act together, and become the WZ.
11106150891309397070Canada is completely inadequate as WZ. I don't mean geographically - obviously the US Northwest Frontier of many a WN fantasy is also wonderful - but these places are parts of jurisdictions politically controlled by majorities composed of white biological/congenital leftists + nonwhites. I wish it weren't so, but I have many wishes, few ever fulfilled. I'm trying to perceive reality clearly. The US is lost. Canada, even assuming it is never [i]anschlussed[/i] with America, is headed towards loss (they may be less nonwhite than America, but their whites are far more multiculti). The likely course of the entire West is white extinction. There is no way around that fact, except through short term thinking. I will, statistically, likely die around 2050. I expect there still to be not only old whites like me, but young whites still living on the Earth. There may even still be some white (youth) majority societies then; a few even potentially lingering into the 22nd century. But the trend to extinction is unmistakable, and unyielding without acts of racial/political will. Whites must declare their demand, and willingness to fight, for [b][i]sovereign living space[/i][/b], or in a century or so we will be gone from the world. This is simple math combined with psychology, geography and economic development(s). I make this point with conservatives all the time, and a few are starting to understand it. Saving our race is a prerequisite to saving our civilization, but it won't happen "in the course of things", but only through conscious, directed, political action done for the sake of race (though not only for long-term preservation, which is far too abstract a goal for most people, but also to provide short term benefits; that is, WZ is both a grand political project, infused with all the collective, future-oriented, tribal zeal that characterized the pre-formation of the Jewish Zionist state, as well as a place of refuge (or at least psychological wholeness and personal contentment) for alienated WNs right now (thus CS's point about settling predominantly in one city first is fair - though, skills sets and occupations being different, it might not be feasible for every WN emigrant actually to settle in just one city, but we can certainly have a municipal locus of our broader efforts, as I think, if I recall correctly, post-WW1, pre-1933 Munich was for the NSDAP)). I have no strong opinions re where WZ should be located, only that it must be within a sovereign polity that is small enough in population that it really could be either demographically conquered over the course of a generation or two (25-50 years), or at least subject to WN influence in all political areas relevant to white survival; eg, in instantiating whites-only immigration policies, for whom I would favor near-open-borders, and anti-multiculti indoctrination in the schools; later, as we become more numerous and established, our demands would increase in scope and severity, each WN demand building on earlier WN precedent, with the goal being always to increase the white population, decrease the nonwhite, and increase WN control over racial education and discourse - WZ is an evolutionary, not revolutionary strategy; I'm not opposed to racial revolution, but am not sanguine, either, about the successes revolutionary action would likely enjoy.
11088150901308974969You are an odd fellow, Graham. The first rec was nice as background music - ie, it was a very simple composition sounding like a movie track. The second was just awful, a bunch of primitive clangings and mutterings, about as far from Bach or Handel as conceivable. I had to pull the plug after about a minute. And I love both Celtic music and some heavy metal. I brought up the Billy Joel piece for a reason having little to do with music per se. But there is no comparison which group is the more musically talented.
11118050901309559860Brief lunch here at my computer (cannot begin to respond to Graham's inquiries) ... Question for Looking North: Am I doomed as a reasonably fair-skinned (I can tan, but must do so carefully), blonde-haired (as a child), green-eyed man living in Southern CA? I do also dislike the sweltering heat of the Deep South, Midwest, East Coast even, etc, especially in summers, but that is due to humidity (I was in Wilmington, NC, for a week in October a few years ago, and thought the climate was just wonderful, though maybe that was due to the proximity to the ocean). We are so very spoiled climate-wise here in CA. LA obviously gets hot, but it is a nice dry heat, so I do quite fine, I think. I've always been careful about sun, though - tanning gently, slowly. And I have about a dozen pairs of highly protective sunglasses. BTW, what is all this shiite about Southern 'degeneracy'? Many of America's leading political thinkers, statesmen and writers (and even many entrepreneurs) have hailed from the South. And what is meant by 'degeneracy'? I equate liberalism, esp of the racial variety, with being degenerate of character. You will find far more liberalism in bitter cold Minnesota, which has sent national politics such manly men of the West as Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and now (Jew) Al Franken. The White South may well turn out to be the very last redoubt of Western Man. Perhaps it's best if we all keep the focus on practical matters - like how we are going to end the Third World invasion of at least one lousy white country!!
11087550931308962388I am going to interpolate some comments to this very important post. -------------------------------------------- [i]The tragic part is that this is actually a rosier picture than the reality. “Non-Hispanic white” is a category that includes millions of North Africans and middle-easterners.[/i] Worse, still, as AR has been arguing since the late 90s, many racial Hispanics actually classify themselves as white (as some are, including some of my own friends; but white Hispanics, ie Iberians, are a distinct minority of US Latinos). On the other hand, some of those Arabs ludicrously classified as "white" are Christian refugees, a not inconsiderable number of whom are highly conservative. I know a local cafe owner, an Arab immigrant from Jordan whom I'd long mistakenly assumed was Muslim, and who is clearly not white, but who is actually Christian, and nearly as rightist and even racialist as I am. I realize that's anecdotal, but a lot of US Christian Arabs have a healthy hatred of Muslims, and really want to be considered white (as do some Hispanics, beyond first-wave Cubans). I'm not justifying their admission to my Nordic nation, but the white holocaust might be delayed by such types. [i]So this news release is actually softening the blow. When these non-white children come of age in 15 years the older generation of Whites (who make up an increasingly sizable percentage of whites) will be rapidly dying out.[/i] That's what the Census and MSM always do - try to soften and mask the real rate of white dispossession. [i]As many who have read here before know, I’ve estimated the white population in America to be around 52 to 55% of the total population circa 2008/2010. [/i] I don't think that is quite correct, even though I, too, would adopt a 'purist' model and exclude Semites of all kinds (Arabs are included in "white" so as to avoid having to classify Jews as nonwhite Middle Easterners), non-European Hispanics, and mixed race "whites" (though I would allow up to 1/16 nonwhite ancestry), from being counted as "white". I think the resulting, "real white", number would be 55-58%, but it is certainly falling rapidly. The trend is the thing, not the precise numbers at any given moment. I have been warning about this since the early 80s. I recall in 1982 telling a bunch of unconcerned adults that the US would be majority nonwhite by 2020 (which I still consider racial D-Day), a prediction the racially nonchalant have routinely scoffed at as I have reiterated it over the intervening decades. I will be proven correct. It makes me sick, as I worked hard at one of the anti-immigration orgs for several years in the 90s to prevent this, or at least to awaken brain-dead conservatives to the implications for their own movement of continuing mass immigration - to no avail. [i]So in 15 years the changeover will be even more dramatic than what has been experienced so far. Because, remember, all signs point towards a continuing flood of migrants and immigrants and refugees from the third world on top of the demographic projections based on those already here. Millions are pouring in every 12 months. Officially, and I stress “officially”, so-called non-Hispanic whites are 63% of the population in 2010. In 2000 it was 69%. In 1990 it was 75%. That’s averaging a 6% drop every ten years. Or a 3% drop every 60 months.[/i] Yes, yes and YES! As I like to remind MR readers, whenever persons start over-concerning themselves with obscure philosophizing: "ripening harvest, encroaching jungle". We need to secure our homelands, or at least terminate the continuing immigration tsunami, long before we reset racial preservation on a sounder philosophical footing (about which disagreements are as endless as philosophy, anyway). [i]Without going through all the math again, I’ll venture to guesstimate that by mid-century (39 years from now) whites will, optimistically, make up around 29% of the population of the United States. And it keeps getting worse from there, as non-whites reproduce like rabbits.[/i] Basically right, though non-Hispanic, nonwhite fertility has substantially fallen (and Hispanic fertility would also likely eventually move closer to the white norm - but only if we stop immigration!!). In 2050, when, given my essential good health, I am still likely to be alive, quite old and racially depressed if still living in America, the real white population will certainly not be more than 1/3 of the country - and again, falling faster and faster, given the skewed age structure. What is much worse is the threat of what I call the Omega Option. How many racialists have considered this (I've been discussing it, more in other places than here, for the past decade)? The OO quite simply is Raspail's [i]Camp of the Saints[/i], literally. That is, we reach a point where we have an Obama, or more likely a Mexican, in the White House, who is faced with some "humanitarian" disaster somewhere in the Third World, and who chooses to respond by either admitting overland, or airlifting, tens or hundreds of millions of Third World refugees into our nation virtually overnight (or any white nation; one could easily imagine an Aussie or Canadian PM doing something like this - "we have so much empty space / underpopulated / good for the economy / reaffirming our common humanity" etc etc). Is this really impossible or even unlikely? [And you know it will be abetted by Christian clergy race-traitors, morally bullying their reluctant but pitifully undereducated flocks - which is another reason why I keep stressing the racial reformation of Christian theology: ordinary white Christians, most of whom will give up their race and civilization before their Christianity, need some kind of well-reasoned counterweight to a theology of race-treason, which is incorrect theologically, but also what's on offer in the churches today.] It all goes back to our having abandoned the Racial Principle, first in the US, and then throughout the white world. Whites will not save our race and civilization without returning to it; that is, only a conscious (and doubtless violent) assertion of racial will-to-survive will enable us to survive, as every exogenous trend is independently leading to white extinction (first, population decline, eventually, state or private criminal-led extermination, as in Rhodesia and South Africa, respectively). [i]That means that if you are 25 years old today, by the time you are 75 years old whites may very well be no more than 19% of the population of America. To give a further perspective here, if by some miracle we gained political influence in the next election cycle, increased our birthrates and stopped all immigration and deported all the illegals and refugees, we might be able to manage to be 40% of the population by mid century.[/i] But that only delays the D-Day, no? If we stop legal nonwhite immigration and deport all illegals, unless we massively increase white immigration and/or white fertility (the former probably more possible than the latter, though neither is likely), with a majority of American births now being to nonwhites, it's inevitable that at some distant point nonwhites will outnumber whites anyway. [i]In other words, we’ve crossed the point of no return.[/i] Absolutely. I tried so hard for so long to warn people of this. Most whites I spoke to agreed (usually the ideological ones, including "conservatives", did not), but did not adjust even their voting habits accordingly. And here we are. When Peter Brimelow first started his heroic jeremiads against immigration, back in 1992 (I well remember receiving that particular issue of [i]National Review[/i], though I had been agitating against immigration in my college Young Republican Club back in the 80s; even my fellow conservatives thought immigration was more of a "local, California" issue; "not for long", I warned the rubes), in the literally immediate aftermath of the LA "Rodney King" riots, which I likewise recall well, as an LA/OC guy, there was still a chance to save America as a predominantly white nation, but the window was narrow, as all of us anti-immigrationists and racialists recognized. The window, as Narrator rightly recognizes, is now firmly shut (though we must still work ceaselessly to stop the invasion, if only to delay D-Day, and not further augment the enemy's numbers, as we move towards the new goal of the ethnostate). [i] “White flight” is no longer an option. Go into any small town in rural America and you’ll be confronted by growing numbers of blacks and Hispanics. They’re seemingly doubling by the year (There are, after all, about 160 million non-whites in America now, so they’re naturally going to be everywhere).[/i] Yes, and no. WF was a phenomenon of the second half of the last century in the US. It sought to recreate real American zones from among those of our people dispossessed by white traitor/Jewish-instigated black racial integration, which ruined a thousand Majority-built cities. Increasingly, there is nowhere left for whiteflighters to fly to, as Sam Francis warned in the mid-90s. But this merely points out the ever-greater need for what I have called White Zion, the in-gathering of whites (beginning with WNs) into one sovereign polity, in the hope of quietly, demographically conquering it, and then building it up into a Racial State, explicitly dedicated to being a sanctuary for whites from across the planet (as well as base of operations for future military expeditions and technological developments to re-conquer lost white lands). [i]To our north Canada is being overrun too, and to our south hundreds of millions more non-whites await their chance to pillage and plunder the US as well. Even our ancient homelands and strongholds in Europe are under assault and being swamped by enemies.[/i] As whites allow themselves to be reduced to minorities everywhere, at the mercy of nonwhites everywhere, we will be harassed, hounded, and finally hunted. We need a nation-state firmly under our majority control. [i]Recently there were so many high profile black on white mob assaults in multiple states and in a variety of settings that even the MSM was forced to cover it. Even if our people “Wake Up” now today, there is no going back to the safety and prosperity we’ve known. We are in a stage of rapid decline. There in no longer a safe haven or a fortified position into which to retreat. We are scattered and surrounded. Whatever our future fortunes may be, we are now in a place unprecedented in human history. Thus the means by which we might extract ourselves from this situation will need be unprecedented as well. We are in uncharted territory.[/i] Absolutely. Hence White Zion must be thought of in real terms, as a possibility - indeed, the only possibility, especially for Americans. Our European cousins need to worry more about the Omega Option, actual military invasion and conquest from ever-more overpopulated Islamic lands (a distinct possibility, as the Muslim populations explode thanks to access to Western medicines, and the Euro-pansies, in evidence even among MR WNs, insist on preserving their financially unsustainable socialist/communitarian experiments, and slash defense budgets to do so for a bit longer - listening Cameron, you jerk?!) and gradual disappearance through continuing low level immigration + expected miscegenation.
11088350931308976710I hope there are millions of Hard Men. It seems like everywhere I go in the US, I'm one of the very few. A lot of the toughest white men I've known have been just as racially indoctrinated, often from memories of their integrated high school and college sports teams, as any soft liberal. I don't have a weak stomach, very, very far from it, but you are right that, despite endless denunciations of my racism, I do have delicate or at least Christian morals. That was why I worked so hard two decades ago to try to keep THEM out - so much morally and physically simpler than expelling them once they've set down roots here. My horrified sense is that if some band of white superpatriots did try to start a civil war to save our race, they would easily be eliminated by mostly brainwashed fellow white law enforcement officers, in conjunction with Jewish media propaganda and nonwhite ground forces. This is why it is so important to get a majority of our people to understand the justice of our cause. Our people are uniquely ethical. This is a sociobiological fact that WNs have to accept and work with or around. The majority support is not remotely there yet.
11089650931309028103As I like to remind MR readers, whenever persons start over-concerning themselves with obscure philosophizing: “[b]ripening harvest, encroaching jungle[/b]”. [b]We need to secure our homelands[/b], or at least terminate the continuing immigration tsunami, long before we reset racial preservation on a sounder philosophical footing (about which disagreements are as endless as philosophy, anyway). (Haller)
11090050931309050311Dave and SelousScout, One thing I do know, at least for Americans, is that we need to start forming non-violent (for now) White Protective Associations (not necessarily under that name), which can also serve as groups to organize meetings of WNs, which in turn should lead to education and grassroots activism on racial issues. Of course, these types of groups already exist ([i]American Renaissance[/i] for education in white concerns, Council of Conservative Citizens for education and Majority activism, lots of websites, etc.), but they are always too extreme in ideology, insufficiently "issue-comprehensive" (eg, the focus is on stopping immigration, or protecting gun rights, instead of tying ALL issues of nationalist concern together in one political, cultural and social group package), and, paradoxically, too political at the expense of the social. What is needed right now, for this particular historical juncture, and in America (maybe in the rest of the New World Anglosphere, too - but probably not in Europe, where they already have comprehensive nationalist parties, which just need to be more effectively led, or maybe only more time to grow), is a white American "bridge" between conservatism, which obviously has millions or tens of millions adherents, and the moderate WN groups aforementioned (what you, SS, seem to represent is the still further-out militant ultra-Hard Core, which, like your honorable moniker, will or could certainly be necessary, but will only gain any real and lasting physical victories if a majority, or at the very least, large minority, of whites has already come to accept the justice and necessity of WN or white preservationist (WN intellectuals do need to work out the precise scope of our plans, with appropriate ethical and strategic justifications); to repeat, neither the philosophical, nor more important psychological/ethical, nor most important political, let alone, to my knowledge, all-important physical/martial, groundwork for your kind of operations has been readied). This "bridge" movement should not even be WN, but rather "race-conservative", or "Middle American nationalist" (like Lee John Barnes's British cultural nationalism, this would seek to preserve traditional America and its historic culture and way of life, without scaring off "everyday patriots", especially Christian ones, with a lot of biological racist talk, even if those subjects, as with IQ, genetics of crime, etc, are scientifically true). It should be wholly non-violent as well as non-coercive in orientation; that is, it would seek not to take away the (natural/human or Constitutional) rights or property of any nonwhites in the US, but would seek to create an empirically accurate understanding on the part of whites of how WE WHITES have been, and continue, with accelerating intensity, to be, dispossessed of our culture, property and country, and why it is perfectly reasonable and ethical for us to resist this liberal-instigated, Big Business-supported, Federal Govt-imposed dispossession. This group would then show what must be done legislatively to stop the dispossessionist process (ie, end immigration, abolish affirmative action, disenfranchise violent felons, routinize public hangings, protect guns, expand 'concealed-carry' nationwide, limit or end welfare transfer payments, eliminate multiculti propaganda in schools, etc), and then start mobilizing the grassroots to demand that it be done . The group would also have a social component, first to bring WNs (or just MANs) face to face, but also as a place of psychological and sociological refuge for whites who just want to widen their circle of true friends and acquaintances, a place for meeting and networking. I think ever larger numbers of whites, socially atomized by having to live and work in cities that are heavily nonwhite as well as insufferably white-liberal, would like to have their own 'clubhouses' (whether literal or just organizational) where they can be their true selves (ontonationalists like GW can surely appreciate that desire). Like all tribal movements, ours, to be sustainable, cannot be only political (constant activism without more gets tiresome), but must be folkish and comradely. I know there is potential for this kind of thing because I was long a member of an informal, but intentional, whites-only social group, always numbering in the few hundreds (it was deliberately limited and selective). As long as there is no direct commercial element, a group in the US can be discriminatory (though I would not suggest this one be so [i]formally[/i]; what a lot of white weaklings really want is to be around their fellow whites, to be in white-majority situations, without really admitting that's what they want, even to themselves - a very, very, VERY important point, one few WNs have grasped). A MAN group would seek to grow into both a nationwide political and fraternal organization. It would not define itself as white, or even only admit whites (which, ironically and regrettably, would turn off a lot of whites), but it would very clearly [i]be[/i] white, dedicated to white rights and justice for whites, pushing an implicitly if moderately pro-white political agenda. Such a group could be the foundation for building an anti-liberal, effective if not explicit white consciousness, which could then serve as the nucleus for future, harder WN organizations, as circumstances dictate (deteriorate). But our people will drift into a dispossession past all remedy, and thus eventual extinction, if we seek to go from where they are today, psychologically and ideologically, directly into "Hard Men" WN. It is vital that those who would preserve our race think [i]sequentially[/i], of how we can move step by step away from annihilation (active or passive), into conditions enabling permanent life for our people.
11090450931309053616Silver, I agree and disagree with what you posted. We in the anti-immigration movement in the 90s were not hate-filled white racists, and even those of my knowledge who were, did not so present themselves, but were always careful to point out the general problems caused by immigration, and general advantages of stopping it. The most "racist" things I ever wrote and that got published (pre-Internet) were Brimelow-style discussions about how integrated, multiracial societies led to needless social and political conflict, and that maintaining America's white majority would be good for all Americans regardless of race, which I believe is undeniable, though of course the implicit reason is that whites are civilizationally and ethically superior. I never stated this openly, but is it not correct? Like all WNs, I knew and said at the time that the white relinquishment of power in South Africa would lead to terrible consequences, for the blacks as well as the whites. Were we wrong? Of course not (incidentally, the white genocide, and grinding African hunger, in Rhodesia is a direct consequence of the loss of white rule in SA, a point never made by the idiot PC mainstream). That we failed to end or even reduce immigration can in no historically accurate way be attributed to any rhetorical severity (such as we might exhibit at WN internet sites). It was short-sighted capitalist greed, combined with Christian heresy and/or theological naivete (which I intend to correct over time), nonwhite lobbying, ideological treason (eg, in the case of the Ford Foundation, the rich white charity founded on racialist money which all-but-built organized American Hispanic nationalism: purer treason the world hath not seen), Jewish media propaganda ... and stupid WHITE APATHY ... which successfully defended the continuing immigration status quo/invasion. Your observations about white psychologically contain a lot of truth, though it ultimately depends upon both the individual in question, as well as which type of nonwhite we're considering. Most whites really fear and dislike blacks, though few will admit it (however, I've been able to elicit an amazing and gratifying number of such admissions over the years). As to other races, it's a mixed bag, wherein white individualism, so noble if kept within white bounds, plays a mostly negative role. That is, whites are genetically (and theologically) predetermined to regard individuals as individuals, at least to a much higher degree than other races. This of course was our downfall, and GW is correct that a philosophical revolution is required to overcome or neutralize that innate tendency (we may disagree, however, about both the content of that revolution, as well as its timing in the scale of WN tasks). I do not exaggerate nightmare scenarios, though I admit their plausibility. My concern, repeatedly asserted here at MR, is, however, more with what I have called "the drift to extinction". More nonwhite colonists (even without the Omega Instant-Suicide Option), endless below white replacement fertility, slow but ever-increasing miscegenation, shrinking the gene pool, as you pointed out .... all leading to fewer and ever more powerless whites. The last whites will be those whose psyches are such as to be innately "strong in love of race and heritage", and thus immune to miscegenation, but without the protection of a sovereign polity, with modern military, under their control, what will become of them? Rhodesia as the template? The nightmare scenario will not occur in the next quarter century; maybe not until 2100. I don't know. Again, the trend's the thing, however. Finally, you are hopelessly naive to think that nonwhites will extend to us the same respect and solicitude we have insanely given to them. They are takers, and they want what is ours. If we do not defend it, we will lose it. That is very nearly a universal law of life.
11090950931309066364Sorry for all the typos in my last post (proofread!).
11091850931309083777[i]American moving into its fin de siecle era? The experiment in an ontologically liberal politico-social order looks like it’s rapidly coming to an end (as an ethnocentric/homogenous polity). Tim Wise was right about that rapidly ticking clock for Euro-America. Perhaps the future is as even more violent/nasty Brazil-like ‘society’ with lots of guns, nugatory social-capital, and much inter-group rivalry (and gated ‘communities’ for the fortunate very-wealthy few)? Geographic and/or economic ‘White-flight’ may be individually rational, but it will never deal with the communal problem. Many Euro nations are still at the robust and fairly recoverable 90%+ Euro stage. Unfortunately not England, but even if England is seriously ill from the blow-back arising from the vanity of Empire (yes you are all British subjects in the colonies, have a passport etc., is where this idiotic multicultural policy started locally) it is still not yet terminally ill, but it seems like America might well be. Perhaps the only true organic homelands we Euros have - the places on Earth that gave birth to us - are the places we will actually defend. Give me Denmark over Uncle Sam any day of the week. I’ll be 75 in around forty+ years time (should I still be here) and I would not wish to be living in the USA under the conditions outlined above in the original article (even if I was inside a ‘gated community’) it is likely to be a very unpleasant and dangerous society.[/i] (Graham Lister) --------------------------------------------------------------- [b]There is a certain smugness in your view of the US, Graham, which may not be warranted. A cursory google search yielded this govt population info for Scotland:[/b] [i]The estimated population of Scotland on June 30, 2010 was 5,222,100, a rise of 28,100 on the previous year and the highest population since 1977 The population increased because 5,200 more people were born than died and because immigration exceeded emigration by 25,000. Other minor changes resulted in a loss of 2,100 people Over the 10 years between mid-2000 and mid-2010, Scotland's population increased by 3.1 per cent (+159,000) from 5.06 million to 5.22 million In the twelve months up to 30 June 2010, the number of births exceeded the number of deaths by 5,200, the largest natural increase since 1991-92 Over the year there was a net migration gain of 25,000 people. This includes net gains of 3,300 people from the rest of the UK, 21,500 people from overseas (including asylum seekers) and 200 people from the armed forces Over the year 46,100 people (including asylum seekers) came to Scotland from overseas and 24,600 left Scotland to go overseas. The net gain of 21,500 represents about one in 250 of the total population. That net increase, and the number of people who came to Scotland from overseas, is the highest since these estimates began in 1991-92[/i] --------------------------------------------------------------- You seem not to recognize the significance of sheer population size as a factor (I had been thinking about mentioning what CC wrote above) in national survival (The Narrator may be missing the significance as well). There are around 175 million whites in the US. The vast bulk of these are not immigrants, but real Americans. They may have many different ethnic ancestries (and much individual mixture, as with me), but culturally, nationally, and increasingly racially, we are pretty much the same. I have solid friends who are Anglo, German, Scotch, Irish, Italian, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Greek, Sicilian, Bulgarian, and Swedish (with other mixtures in them) - and Jewish, I admit (some of my Jewish friends are more racist than the Aryans, btw). But when we 'hang', we're all basically American whites (even most of the Jews). Old World white ethnic antagonisms are long dead in California, and dying out across America. As far as whites are concerned, we are a Racial Republic, albeit insanely anti-racist. Yes, we are relatively old, so the later die-off will be much accelerated, and miscegenation (genetic loss) is likewise accelerating. Still, absent wars or acts of God, does any demographer think there will be fewer than 100 million US whites in 2050? Even if we never reduce immigration at all, such that by 2050 there are 400 million nonwhites, 100 million whites is still a defensible number, especially if there is a much higher degree of racial consciousness among that 100mil, as I believe there will be (and that 100m will continue to be relatively better educated, more skilled, more intelligent, wealthier, and thus disproportionately influential as compared to other US racial blocs). Moreover, as intimated, as our situation worsens, whites will move in two divergent directions. Some will grow more culturally alien, aping the nonwhites in attitude and culture, and intermarrying with them at ever higher rates. These are the racially (and, I hold, characterologically) degenerate whites, the loss of whose genes over time will strengthen the character and racial quality of the remaining undiluted white gene pool (remember Leonidas and his 300! "the strength of the wolf is the strength of the pack"). These remaining others will also grow more conservative, especially racially so, a phenomenon we've been seeing now for decades, as more and more whites self-identify as 'conservatives' (only nonwhite immigration has prevented the electoral collapse of the Democrats - well, [i]ceteris paribus[/i]; it is possible that without nonwhites, whites themselves might be more liberal based on other issues, more willing to support wealth redistributionary social programs, for example). The Tea Party phenomenon is instructive as an opening salvo in the battles for the "Next America". I attended a few of its rallies. It is clearly a white (and Middle American) phenomenon, as liberal and foreign commentators repeatedly noted. But, contra Narrator, while it is indeed insufficiently race-realist and aware, it is still far better in that regard than any other rightist movement in my lifetime. The TP is known to be vociferously anti-amnesty for the 30 million illegal aliens (something Narrator did not mention, and a very significant issue) trespassing on our soil. At the rallies I attended, I constantly mentioned LEGAL immigration to the persons around me, at one point attracting a rather sizable crowd listening to my harangue about the changing racial composition of the country. I only recall one jerk arguing with me about the benefits of legal immigration; another said he didn't want us to appear 'racist', so we should only discuss the economy. Everyone else who spoke to me agreed with me. So I think it fairly certain that, as our numbers grow smaller, our hearts will grow keener, if I may paraphrase a great Old English stanza: Battle of Maldon 993 [i]Thought must be the harder, The heart, the keener, Courage must be greater, As our strength grows less.[/i] In sum, the American future is not enviable, but in the next half-century, it might not be catastrophic. It depends on what we do about it. ON THE OTHER HAND .... Is Europe really so recoverable? Is Scotland so safe? You have admitted into your national life the principle of multiracialism; your neighbor to the south is so morally and culturally degenerate that England may allow itself to become Islamicized without a fight; if that happens, will your little 5-6 mil Scotsmen find the will to resist further immigration, or massive refugee resettlements? What if England becomes a base of Islamic jihadist campaigns against its neighbors? Will you have the military power to defend yourselves? The Islamic crescent is the fastest growing area of the world, after parts of Africa. In 30 years both Egypt and Iran will have populations exceeding Russia's; the Middle East as a whole will dwarf Old, dying, sybaritic Europe, the fantasyland continent where everyone rejects God, honor, entrepreneurship and adventure, and just wants to live as well-pensioned, over-leisured civil bureaucrats (a pathetic dream already foundering against economic reality). The semitic lands have already exceeded their carrying capacity, and the mismatch grows worse annually. Their peoples are violent, religiously indoctrinated, ethnoculturally confident, with ever increasing numbers of unemployed, sexually unattached young males. And the oil is not going to last forever ... Fairly soon (and not a moment too soon), bankrupt America is going to start withdrawing its remaining troops from Europe, something we should have done immediately following the collapse of the USSR. As you Europeans continue to deal with the internal economic contradictions of your own slovenly welfare states (whose budgetary problems cannot remotely be blamed wholly or even mostly on immigrants), and look to defense drawdowns as a way of siphoning off some more cash to prop up these structurally unsound social democratic regimes (after "conservative" Cameron's cuts, Britain will be left with only 80,000 troops, the fewest number in more than a century), is it really unthinkable that the Muslims might try to militarily conquer Europe - and worse, if it happens 20 or 30 years hence, when the international population imbalance is so very much greater, and the internal ratios so much worse, too - that they might succeed? And Graham thinks little Denmark, whose 'leaders' shit themselves over some cartoons, will have a better chance than tens of millions of gun-owning, property-loving, increasingly racialized white Americans.
11092050931309084338CS, Sadly, you are probably right, over the longest run. Whites as a race will not survive in perpetuity unless we formally dedicate ourselves to that goal, and obtain the means (the racial state) for effectuating our goal. Certainly this is true, as I've stated previously, for New World Anglosphere whites. US, Canada, Aus/NZ, and obviously South Africa already, will all be overrun. We Anglos are not quite the same people as Europeans. I'd like to see both an Anglo RS, and some Continental survivors. I continue to see Aus as most promising. I'm just not as pessimistic as some wrt white America in the short and medium terms. Things will continue to darken, at an accelerating pace. But the hell is almost certainly decades away.
11092250931309086981CS, An addendum, which is relevant to White Zion theory: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1980, White South Africa was acknowledged — even by her enemies — as the most powerful country on the African continent. Now, 25 years later, this White giant has collapsed and is in the hands of the ANC. The Afrikaners, once masters of the country, are today a subject nation, ruled by people, who only 120 years ago, did not have the wheel. How did this happen? What happened to Apartheid? Why did that policy not guarantee White survival in that country? What went wrong? Arthur Kemp provides the answer: It is one of the many bitter ironies about South Africa that the policy of Apartheid – to which Afrikaners clung for decades as their only hope and salvation from Third World domination – was in fact an impracticable and unworkable system which led directly to the Afrikaners’ demise as a political force in that country. The politicians — the National Party — who fostered Apartheid, are the primary criminals in this tragedy, holding out a false illusory hope to the Afrikaners, and then when the inevitable became just that, changed track and gave in, abandoning their followers to ANC rule as callously as they had earlier lied to them. For Apartheid – in reality forced social segregation – was nothing but an illusion, a twisted distortion of the demographic reality of South Africa, not to mention the truth that it was, ultimately, morally repugnant as well. Who really wants to rule over millions of non-Whites by force? What sane White person would wish that as a legacy to their children? Worse, the conservative White South African politicians – all of them – never understood – and possibly still today, do not understand – what the driving force of political power is: namely, physical occupation. Political power comes from physical occupation: not historical rights, not title deeds, not moral rights – only occupation. Those people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that region. Two examples, familiar to all, illustrate this point well: Example 1: North America. On that continent, the American Indian (Amerind) people lived for thousands of years, creating a culture which dominated that continent. The culture of North America reflected the fact that the Amerinds lived and formed the majority population there. After 1500 AD, however, that continent filled up with White immigrants from Europe. These White immigrants displaced the Amerinds by squeezing them out of possession of North America. The great shift in North America then occurred. Whereas the Amerind culture had dominated for thousands of years, in a few hundred years the dominant civilization on that continent had become White European. This shift reflected the fact that the majority of inhabitants of North America had become White Europeans — and the Amerind civilization “fell” because the population of North America changed. This effect — the displacement of peoples and the subsequent disappearance of their civilization — has direct implications in racial terms. The rise and fall of any particular civilization can therefore be traced, not by the economics, politics, morals etc. of a particular civilization, but rather by the actual racial presence of the people themselves. If the society which has produced a particular civilization stays intact as a racially homogeneous unit, then that civilization remains active. If, however, the society within any particular given area changes its racial makeup — through invasion, immigration, or any decline in numbers — then the civilization which that society has produced will disappear with them, to be replaced by a new civilization reflecting the new inhabitants of that territory. Example 2: Israel. The state of Israel is today a political reality, not because the Bible says Jews belong there (although many Jews and Christians might think so), but simply because the Zionist movement has ensured that Jews are a majority in that territory. This was done through a deliberate policy of settlement and immigration, coordinated over decades. This also forms the rationale behind the current Israeli government’s plans to build up Jewish settlements in the occupied Arab West Bank: by physically occupying the territory, they hope to change the make-up of that region to the point where it becomes de facto part of Israel. History teaches us that there are two main reasons for a change in the racial make-up of anysociety: either military occupation or the use of foreign or alien labor. The American Indians serve as a text book example of the “military occupation” case study, as detailed earlier, while South Africa serves as a text book example of the “use of foreign labor” case study. When a change occurs through the use of alien labor, the following process occurs: – The dominant society imports (usually racially) foreign labor to do the menial work in that society. – These racial aliens then become established, settle down and multiply in numbers by drawing upon the society’s structures (in White countries, their science, healthcare, technology, etc.)- They grow in number, and finally dominate that society by their sheer numbers. It is, simply put, a demographic reality: those who occupy a land, determine the nature of that society. And so it was – and is – with South Africa, where population figures reveal precisely how the use of alien labor by the Afrikaners dispossessed them of their fatherland.Consider the following: in 1904, the first population census of the old Transvaal (one of four provinces in the ‘old’ South Africa) revealed that there were 297,277 Whites and 937,127 non-Whites in that region. (Transvaal,1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.) Importantly, the 1904 census also tells us that of these non-Whites, some 135,042 were not from the Transvaal, and only were in the “Witwatersrand to work in the gold and other mines”, and that only 77% of all Blacks in the Transvaal in 1904 were actually born there. What this means is that, with the transient migrant laborers removed from the equation, there were 297,277 Whites and 802,085 Transvaal born Blacks in the region. Now, according to the 1960 census, the population of the Transvaal numbered 6,225,052, of which only 1,455,372 were Whites (Transvaal, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1966). This was just the figure for the Transvaal, it needs to be noted. For the entire country, the figures were/are even more frightening: in 1966, there were 4.5 million Whites to anywhere between 30 and 35 million non-Whites. What caused this disproportionate population imbalance to swing from 802,000 Blacks in the Boer homeland in 1904, to 4,769,680 in 1960 – just 56 years? The answer: the Black numbers multiplied because they were drawn to the Transvaal by the offer of work, and once settled there, used White society benefits (healthcare, technology, etc.) to exponentially increase their numbers. It was not just in the Transvaal where the use of non-White labor caused this massive demographic shift. The east coast city of Durban, in the ‘old’ province of Natal provides yet another breathtaking example. According to the Durban city police department’s report of 31 July, 1893, there were only 360 “native women, including Hottentots” in that city in that year. Although that report does not specify how many Black males were in Durban in 1893, given that there were this few females, it is safe to assume that a fairly similar number of males were present. In any event, it is unlikely that the Black population of Durban was more than 1,000 – this in 1893. According to the 2001 census, the population of Durban consisted of3,090,117 people of whom 277,492 (nine percent) were White, as opposed to2,812,625 non-Whites. This includes some 618,000 Indians, imported by the British to provide cheap labor in the city. The formalization of Apartheid by the National Party after 1948 did therefore not address the real issue: namely that the White population was simply being outnumbered by non-Whites because they wanted the non-Whites to do all the manual labor. This issue has faced every minority trying to rule over a majority country throughout history: the contradiction of allowing huge numbers of racial aliens into the territory in question to do the labor; whilst trying to prevent that civilization from being overwhelmed by foreign numbers. The truth is that it cannot be done. In South Africa, almost every White household had (and still has) one or more Black servants. They have a maid (or maids) to clean the house; a ‘garden boy’ or two to keep the garden neat; and all building work is always done by Black laborers. It is an ironic truth that Blacks did indeed build the infrastructure of White South Africa – as the laborers, not as the planners or directors, but certainly as the muscle power. The Afrikaner farmers who are now being murdered complain bitterly of the attacks on their properties, and of the impending government plans to seize and redistribute their farms. Yet it was those same Afrikaner farmers who were the ones who employed (and still do) hundreds of Black laborers on those farms, providing their families with housing, schools, food, and of course, churches. It is estimated that each Afrikaner farmer still to this day, employs anywhere between 100 and 300 Black laborers – and then still provides for their families as well. Outnumbered on their ‘own’ farms by hundreds to one, it is little wonder that the White farmers are subjected to such attacks. In the mines, the economic heart of the country, the vast majority of common laborers, numbering many hundreds of thousands, are Black. All over the country the overwhelming majority of laborers doing almost everything, from factory work to driving, from road building to house building, were (and still are) Black. Over this mass of economic integration, the Apartheid government attempted to enforce social segregation and still maintain a White government: it was a plan which was doomed from the start. Apartheid was based on a fallacy: the fallacy that non-Whites could be used as labor to drive society; that non-Whites could physically form a majority inside South Africa, but that they could not determine the nature of South African society. The huge Black housing complex of Soweto, located outside Johannesburg as a dormitory town for non-White labor working in the ‘White’city, was, for example, built up in 1961 – at the height of the Apartheid policy, which was supposed to be saving the Whites. In fact, all that Apartheid actually did was guarantee that Whites would most certainly be overrun by the ever-growing non-White numbers. Apartheid was built on the premise that Blacks could do the labor, and could live segregated in the areas from where they performed the labor.This then, was the lie of Apartheid: that it was possible, through strict segregation, to ensure that Blacks could not rule over a country in which they were/are the majority. The historical record is clear: there has never been a society in which the majority of the population has not determined the nature of that society. Nowhere, ever. White South Africans, it must be said, more or less believed the lie: they were happy to have Black domestic servants; to have Blacks serve them in restaurants; iron their clothes; make up the very beds they slept in – and were prepared to believe that this mass of established Black labor inside their territory would never have any effect upon the political power structure of their country. It is said, in jest, that the definition of a White South African is ‘someone who would rather be murdered in their bed than make it.’ Amusing? To be honest, not really: consider these true examples: * Under Apartheid, Blacks could not use White public toilets, but were used to clean those same toilets each day. One can only wonder at the naiveté of such an arrangement. * Under Apartheid, Blacks could work in restaurant kitchens, prepare the food, put it on the plates and deliver it to the White patrons’ tables, but could not eat that food at the same table in that same restaurant. What hypocrisy is that? Surely if one was going to be consistent, one would have forbidden Blacks from working in restaurants completely: but no, Apartheid didn’t go that far, it was built upon the premise that Blacks did do the work. Cynical observers talked about the “grass mower” syndrome amongst South African Whites. They regarded Black labor as akin to lawn mowers. A lawn mower sits quietly in its shed or garage until you need it, then it mows the grass, and then you put it back in the shed where it stays quietly, not causing any trouble, until the next time it is needed. Somehow, White South Africans believed that Black labor was like a lawnmower: you could have it around, and when you didn’t need it, you could hide it in its little shed where it would be good and quiet – until you needed it again. The reality is, of course, dramatically different. Another important part of the Apartheid lie was that military force could keep the system intact. The demographic reality once again belies this: the South African White population totaled about 5 million at its height, while the Black population at that time was around 30 million. Of the 5 million Whites, less than 800,000 were of military serviceable age, and not even all of these could be called up at any one time, so in reality the state had to rely on no more than a few hundred thousand military personnel at any one time – to try and control a Black population of millions. Given that demographic reality, it can be seen that Apartheid was unsustainable by military means. Yet the lie continued, and young White South Africans were conscripted into the army and police to fight and die for a system which was doomed from the very beginning.
11092350931309087038(continued...) --------------------------------------------------------------------- At the same time, White Western healthcare and technology was made available on a massive scale: the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere was erected in the Black township of Soweto, outside Johannesburg, specifically for the Black population. Infant mortality rates for Blacks fell dramatically (and were way below that of the rest of Black ruled Africa). This rapid population growth put additional pressure on the demographic makeup of the country. As the non-White demographic balloon swelled further and further, the White Apartheid government was forced to think out ever more stringent and oppressive laws to protect the Whites as the Black population continued to leapfrog in numbers year after year. These laws – detention without trial, banning of books and people, were bad enough by themselves, but as the conflict intensified, both sides started using methods which would be shunned by any decent society: the Apartheid state used officially-funded death squads while police torture became routine; and the ANC placed bombs in restaurants, and encouraged mobs to necklace murder collaborators, amongst other outrages. In the name of a lie – that Apartheid could be sustained – the state caused, what was in anybody’s book, morally repugnant acts to take place, on both sides of the political divide. The Black resistance movements adopted a guerrilla hit-and-run policy of attacks on strategic targets. To combat this unconventional war, the South African Police were given extended powers of detention and other draconian measures – all of which could only be short term fire fighting measures, as the main issue: that of preventing majority Black occupation of the country– was never addressed by any Apartheid laws. The White government tried to give practical application to the policy of “Grand Apartheid.” Independence was given to a number of traditional Black tribal homelands, the first in the mid-1970s. In this way, the Apartheid government deluded itself into thinking that Black political aspirations could be satisfied in the exercise of voting for these tribal homelands, despite huge numbers of these tribe members living outside the borders of these states – in the so-called “White” urban areas (which in fact were not majority White at all, once the domestic servants, gardeners, shop workers, factory laborers, miners, drivers, shelf packers etc. etc. were counted in). The White government also refused to adjust the size of these traditional tribal areas to fit in with the changed demographics, stubbornly insisting that the “Black Homeland” land area – some 13 percent of the country’s surface area – could accommodate what was rapidly becoming over 80 percent of the total population, even if it contained much of the prime agricultural land, as was the case.In a nutshell, the Apartheid government refused to accept the basic truth of racial dynamics: those who occupy a space determine the nature of the society in that space, irrelevant of to whom that space originally belonged. White South Africa’s fate was sealed when the territorial division was not adjusted to fit in with the demographic realities; when all the effort was put into creating Black homelands and none put into creating a White “homeland” and the continued insistence upon the use of Black labor. The partial reforms of the mid-1980s – which included the repealing of the laws forbidding mixed racial marriages and mixed racial political parties, combined with limited constitutional reforms which gave Indians and Coloreds (in South Africa, these are people of mixed race) their own parliamentary chambers, did little to stop the increasing violence. In fact, racial violence increased dramatically: the reforms created an unfulfilled “revolution of rising expectations,” and it was precisely during this cycle of Black violence and White counter violence that the racial war taking place inside the country exacted its highest death tolls ever. In 1990, the White government finally faced the truth that it could no longer effectively control the ballooning Black population, and unbanned the ANC and released Nelson Mandela from prison. By 1994, power had been handed over to the ANC in a one-man one-vote election – although strict Apartheid had ended in the 1980s, it is from 1994 that the policy is considered to have been laid to rest.It was an inevitable result: Apartheid could not be maintained. It was, in practical terms, unenforceable due to the demographic reality; and it was morally unacceptable as well, forcing young Whites to partake in a conflict which could not be won. White South Africans therefore sowed the seeds of their own downfall with Apartheid, a system of segregation that could never be maintained in the face of their own use of Black labor. It is too easy – as many ‘right wing’ White South Africans still do – to blame conspiracies, Jews, the ‘Illuminati’ or the last White president, FW de Klerk, for the collapse of White South Africa. The reality is that the White population itself was responsible for the collapse: they were the ones who used non-White labor; they were the ones who supported and maintained the system which turned out to be the largest non-White breeding program in history. Apartheid was founded on the deadly logic of petty segregation: History proves this is no answer to the racial question. The only solution lies in complete physical geographical separation, nothing less. Any attempt to implement, by force, racial segregation over a hopelessly racially-integrated economy by a minority, is doomed to fail, and Apartheid was no exception to this rule.Apartheid had to fall: the only question was when, not if. And the politicians who sold it to White South Africans as their only hope and salvation, lied: either deliberately, or out of ignorance of the reality of the relationship between demographics and power. Can the Afrikaners be Saved? The question therefore arises: Given the current situation, can the Afrikaners be saved? The answer is relatively simple: * In a united South Africa, in which they are the perpetual minority, the answer is no. * In a smaller region where Afrikaners form the majority population, the answer is yes. No minority has every survived indefinitely in the face of a growing hostile majority, particularly one in South Africa where the material discrepancy between White and Black is so vast. The only way in which Afrikaners can be saved, is if they come to understand the relationship between demographics and power: with no risk of overrepeating this critical point, namely, that those who occupy a territory, determine the nature of that territory. Only once a majority of Afrikaners understand this truth, can there even begin to be talk of a practical plan for saving them from ultimate long term extermination at the hands of the Third World. Theoretically, if a majority of Afrikaners should come to this understanding, then it would be possible for Afrikaners to save themselves – as no-one else is going to save them. Let us be positive and say that theoretically, if Afrikaners did come to an understanding of the relationship between demographics and power politics. Then they would stop wasting time blaming crackpot conspiracies for their downfall, stop dancing around wasting time playing party politics in a majority rule system in which they are just as doomed to failure as they were under Apartheid and start practically working towards creating a territory or region in which they become the demographic majority. This would, ipso facto as a result of their small numbers, be a much smaller territory that then current area of South Africa. Where it would be, could be decided when and if that time ever comes: the only preconditions must be that it must be majority occupied by Afrikaners (like Israel was created by being majority occupied by Jews); and that those who settle there must be prepared to do their own labor. (There are immense problems in this, and this writer would be pleasantly surprised if the majority of Afrikaner farmers could in fact be persuaded to dispense with their hundreds of farm laborers and mechanize like their American counterparts; or if the majority of White South African households could be persuaded to make their own beds and wash their own dishes instead of using the plentiful ‘maids’, but that is another story). Yes, this means gathering together the stock Afrikaner nation into a defined area – for example, (and this is just a theoretical example) if 500,000 Afrikaners had to settle in the old Eastern Transvaal, and physically occupy it, then this territory would de facto, and later even de jure, become an Afrikaner state. The only way, then, that Afrikaners can be spared the fate of all first World minorities in Africa, is for them to abandon their dependence on non-White labor, accept that their salvation lies in a smaller territory, and finally pack their bags and congregate in that smaller territory where they will form an outright demographic majority.There is no other way: all else is chaff in the wind. History will tell if the Afrikaners have it within them to undertake this second Great Trek, or if they are doomed to go the way of all-White settlements in Africa: be ploughed under as the Third World destroys them bit by bit. About the writer: Arthur Kemp is the Rhodesian-born author of March of theTitans: A History of the White Race. He was educated in South Africa, obtaining a BA (Political Science, International Politics and Public Administration). He volunteered for military service in South African Police from 1985-1988, where, in active combat against the ANC-led uprising in the mobile Unit 19 of the Riot Reaction Squad, he first realized the fallacy of Apartheid, namely that the military ability of White South Africa was insufficient, on a purely demographic basis, to contain the Black uprising, and that the White politicians were lying to their White electors.
11093350931309098188[b]More on Europe's decline, for Graham Lister: [/b] Germany Will Become Islamic State, Says Chancellor Merkel September 22, 2010 - Paul Williams, PhD Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Germans have failed to grasp how Muslim immigration has transformed their country and will have to come to terms with more mosques than churches throughout the countryside, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily. "Our country is going to carry on changing, and integration is also a task for the society taking up the task of dealing with immigrants,” Ms. Merkel told the daily newspaper. “For years we've been deceiving ourselves about this. Mosques, for example, are going to be a more prominent part of our cities than they were before.” Germany, with a population of 4-5 million Muslims, has been divided in recent weeks by a debate over remarks by the Bundesbank's Thilo Sarrazin, who argued Turkish and Arab immigrants were failing to integrate and were swamping Germany with a higher birth rate. The Chancellor’s remarks represent the first official acknowledgement that Germany, like other European countries, is destined to become a stronghold of Islam. She has admitted that the country will soon become a stronghold. In France, 30% of children age 20 years and below are Muslims. The ratio in Paris and Marseille has soared to 45%. In southern France, there are more mosques than churches. The situation within the United Kingdom is not much different. In the last 30 years, the Muslim population there has climbed from 82,000 to 2.5 million. Presently, there are over 1000 mosques throughout Great Britain - - many of which were converted from churches. In Belgium, 50% of the newborns are Muslims and reportedly its Islamic population hovers around 25%. A similar statistic holds true for The Netherlands. It’s the same story in Russia where one in five inhabitants is a Muslim. Muammar Gaddafi recently stated that “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without sword, without gun, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists; we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50 plus million Muslims (in Europe) will turn it into the Muslim Continent within a few decades.” The numbers support him. FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Paul L. Williams, Ph.D., is the author of The Day of Islam: The Annihilation of America and the Western World, The Al Qaeda Connection, and other best-selling books. He is a frequent guest on such national news networks as ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC, and NPR. Visit his website at http://thelastcrusade.org/. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]I just cannot believe how you Euro-idiots allowed this to happen. Your situation was never the same as ours, racially, morally, existentially, etc. There was no need for this.[/b]
11093450931309098276GW, <i>Why is everything getting text-bolded on this post now?</i>
11093750931309103771CS, Yes, the article is very important, esp re our common interest in White Zion (I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't pay a designer to do up a website under that name, specifically to encourage strategy discussions, practical aspects for individuals, networking, and generally to create interest in that very specific aspect of the broader racial agenda?). The thesis is undeniable, and holds eternal lessons: "we will pick our own cotton, forevermore". We simply require the greedmongers to pay higher wages to white menial laborers (which seems right from a Christian perspective, too). If some capitalist wants to make more money employing cheap labor, he can emigrate and do so elsewhere. WZ must always be solely white in its territorial inhabitants, no matter what early diminishment in potential wealth that would entail. [Idiots around here keep asserting that because I acknowledge (understand) the superiority of free markets, I must therefore be an uncritical supporter of them, even a libertarian fool. Not bloody likely! Economics is value-free analysis, like logic, or math. One should understand it. But how one organizes a national economy is a function of moral and political values and preferences. I prefer living in an all-white territory, even if, in the short run, and only in the short run, industrial or agricultural profits might be increased through the importation of nonwhite labor. The economy of WZ must be substantially capitalist, if only to make the best use of dispersed, discrete knowledge, as well as to incentivize entrepreneurship and hard work, both aspects being required to maximize wealth generation, itself necessary to support the military infrastructure we will need to confront and deter a hostile planet. But the economy will serve WZ's overarching racial preservationist goals; it will not be a source of independent value or concern in itself. Is anybody still calling me a libertarian?!] My only point of disagreement with Mr. Kemp is over the question of whether apartheid really was militarily unsustainable going forward from 1990, when Mandela was released from prison. Of course, he is a lot more qualified than I to make that determination, insofar as was both Southern African, and a member of the SA constabulary! I am, nevertheless, skeptical of his claim on this matter. Small numbers of whites maintained control over large numbers of nonwhite serfs or even slaves throughout the Americas. Far fewer Brits maintained the Raj over a vastly greater number of Hindus than the number of blacks facing the Boers. My intuition is that the Boers could have maintained apartheid indefinitely, even with global economic sanctions, but that they were sold out by their own greedy elites, who put their personal economic interests in eliminating the sanctions regime ahead of national survival.
11093850931309104385Quote: “I just cannot believe how you Euro-idiots allowed this to happen” [i]I don’t know who you refer to as Euro-idiots. If you mean the population here, yes, just like in the US. The 90% or so brainwashed average joes still “voting” for Sarkozy, Merkel and all these traitors. Ignorant and don’t having a clue. I think the foolishness of the US average people is even more dramatic then in Europe.[/i] (Nowa) Please, in the US the situation was TOTALLY different (not that we're not foolish, too, of course). We are a New World, with nonwhite aboriginal inhabitants. We imported millions of African slaves, whose descendants plague us today. We have long had a national mythology as a "nation of immigrants", making it that much harder to ethically justify keeping out immigrants, even if nonwhite. And we don't have the ancient nations, cultures and extended histories you have. Europe had no reason historical whatsoever to evolve a multicultural understanding. The moral justifications for white maintenance were infinitely stronger. You were purely stupid, succumbing to globalist anti-racism, unlike, say, the much wiser Japanese.
11096750931309178326NY just allowed gay marriage. GM has nothing per se to do with this thread, or race. Or does it? The West will only survive through a return to all its historic traditions and modes of existence, from racial segregation, to strict private property rights, to traditional Christian moral values enforced by a "limited government, strong state" (ie, a government that does not meddle in commercial affairs, except for national security concerns, but which is highly authoritarian viz other aspects of people's lives -exactly as things were in the 'good old days'). If we're going to survive we must look to the conditions that obtained in times past when our race was string and expansionist, and then assess the viability of those conditions in light of modern science. Where do WNs stand on "gay-marriage"?
11096850931309180114Racial Armageddon, or passive extinction? And so it goes ... Babies Born to Ethnic Minorities Outnumber Number of White Toddlers for First Time in U.S. History More news stories on the Demographic Transformation Daily Mail (London), June 23, 2011 Ethnic minorities now make up the majority of babies in the United States, official figures revealed today. It is the first time that this has been the case and the change reflects a growing age divide between mostly white, older Americans and predominantly minority youths that could reshape government policies. Preliminary census estimates also show the share of African-American households headed by women—made up of mostly single mothers—now exceeds African-American households with married couples, a sign of declining U.S. marriages overall but also continuing challenges for black youths without involved fathers. The findings, based on the latest government data, offer a preview of final 2010 census results being released this summer that provide detailed breakdowns by age, race and householder relationships such as same-sex couples. Demographers say the numbers provide the clearest confirmation yet of a changing social order, one in which racial and ethnic minorities will become the U.S. majority by the middle of the century. Currently, non-Hispanic whites make up just under half of all three-year-olds, which is the youngest age group shown in the Census Bureau’s October 2009 annual survey, its most recent. In 1990, more than 60 per cent of children in that age group were white. The preliminary figures are based on an analysis of the Current Population Survey as well as the 2009 American Community Survey, which sampled three million U.S. households to determine that whites made up 51 per cent of babies younger than two. After taking into account a larger-than-expected jump in the minority child population in the 2010 census, the share of white babies falls below 50 per cent. By contrast, whites make up the vast majority of older Americans—80 per cent of the over 65s and roughly 73 per cent of people aged 45-64. Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor and senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire, noted that much of the race change is being driven by increases in younger Hispanic women having more children than white women, who have lower birth rates and as a group are moving beyond their prime childbearing years. The numbers come amid public debate over hotly contested federal and state issues, from immigration and gay marriage to the rising cost of government benefits, that are resonating in different ways by region and demographics. Alabama became the latest state this month to pass a wide-ranging anti-immigration law, which in part requires schools to report students’ immigration status to state authorities. That follows tough immigration measures passed in similarly Republican-leaning states such as Georgia, Arizona and South Carolina. But governors in Massachusetts, New York and Illinois, which long have been home to numerous immigrants, have opted out of the federal Secure Communities programme that aims to deport dangerous criminals, saying it has made illegal immigrants afraid of reporting crimes to police. California may soon opt out as well. While the number of black single mothers has been gradually declining, overall marriages among blacks are decreasing faster. That reflects a broader U.S. trend of declining marriage rates as well as increases in non-family households made up of people living alone, or with unmarried partners or other non-relatives. Female-headed households make up a 19 per cent share among Hispanics and 9 per cent each for whites and Asians. Meanwhile, figures released last month revealed that the migration of young Hispanic families has fuelled the age divide between regions of America. Young Hispanic migrant families are increasingly moving into western and southern states, while older baby boomers stay put further north. The population in the South and West is now dramatically younger than in the Northeast, and there is a gap of 3.9 years between the youngest and oldest regions of the country, according to figures released by the Census Bureau. In all, 12 of the 14 states with median ages of 36 or younger are located in the South and West, including California, Colorado and Georgia, whereas 13 of the 20 states with a median age of 38 or higher are in the Midwest and Northeast, including New Jersey, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Younger people are increasingly leaving these areas—particularly industrial cities in the Midwest like Detroit which have been badly affected by the recession—to find work in the Sun Belt. But ageing is being slowed in the South and West, as young Hispanic migrants settle and have families, while others continue to move in. Another intriguing recent study has revealed that college-educated immigrants now outnumber those entering the country with just a high school degree—and the variation is much bigger in urban areas. They outnumber those educated at high school by 25 per cent in 44 major American cities—and 30 per cent of working-age immigrants now have a college degree, compared to 19 per cent in 1980. An increase in demand from U.S. employers has seen more college-educated immigrants arriving in the U.S. over the past decade than immigrants without high school education, reported Yahoo News. Only 28 per cent of U.S. immigrants are without a high school diploma and half of skilled immigrants are overqualified for their jobs, a report by the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. said.
11107750931309432330[i]It is not recoverable without bloodshed.[/i] (Selous Scout) As an analytic statement, this is correct, though the operative word is "recoverable", or maybe just "It". What is not recoverable, and what is meant by "recoverable"? If you mean that Europe's future is not assured racially without removing the alien presence, and that such removal is not possible without at least some bloodshed, you are correct. If you mean that white Americans will never be allowed to form their own ethnostate and secede peacefully, you are also correct. If, however, you mean that legions of WNs will not be able to immigrate and electorally/demographically conquer a sovereign country, like Australia, without bloodshed, I'm not so sure. If the WNs were sufficiently cagey and patient, so as to quietly amass a preponderant majority and beefed up military before moving to expatriate the nonwhites from the WNs' new White Zion, would the nonwhites (aside from the Abos, a unique case) resist their removal with bloodshed, especially if it is peacefully requested and effectuated without wealth or even property confiscation? Look at what Latinos are doing to the American Southwest. They are peacefully conquering it. Why can't whites (in the beginning, WNs) do the same somewhere? There are many more Mexicans than WNs, but there are many more whites in the world (and even in the US) than Mexicans - and yet Mexicans are slowly conquering parts of the US (and maybe the whole thing, by some distant future). Whites are, on average, wealthier, better skilled, and, at least in the US, possibly even more psychologically accepting of mobility than Mexicans.
11098750941309234172Not being British, I have nothing to say about this party minutiae. Good luck, and all that. However, as a dispassionate, foreign well-wisher, it seems obvious to me that neither the BP, nor perhaps any nationalist party, is ever going to attain the prime ministership, at least under civilly peaceful conditions, and for the indefinitely foreseeable future. The sole hope to save (not necessarily to restore) Britain at this historical moment lay in stiffening the spines of the Tories on immigration, and issues related to multiculturalism. The BNP, to be politically useful, ought to drop all extremist baggage, and any pretense to being any sort of potential governing party, especially at the national level, and instead re-envisage its role as being a single issue, anti-immigration protest party, at least until all immigration has been halted, and all illegal aliens deported. The point is to be a clear protest vote, so that the Tories (and, perhaps in a few places, Labour) can be made to understand the political consequences of failing to stop the invasion. A party stripped of all lengthy manifestoes and ideological positions, solely cast as anti-immigration, will offer a clear choice to neglected voters, many of whom might oppose immigration, but are otherwise filled with reservations about the rest of the Far Right agenda. Such a party can also act as a tremendous educational force. This is a matter of national survival. People's minds must be made to be as focused as possible on that fact.
11135450941309984106Having re-read the comments, including those directed to me, I remain unpersuaded as to the plausibility of any approach beyond my own. If nationalists cannot rally the True People to stop an unclamored for and ostensibly unpopular foreign colonization by visibly distinct, culturally hostile, and often truculent and ill-behaved aliens, at a time of manifold and extensive economic anxieties and wrenching budgetary modifications, then exactly what can they do? -------------------------------------------------------------------- [i]There already exists a single issue pressure group on immigration in the UK, called ‘Migration Watch’ and there have in the past been a number of single issue political groups of the kind suggested by Leon. These have never experienced any great political success however [u]as they become easily dismissed by establishment politicians as ‘fanatics’ with extreme views[/u], obsessing over a single issue that it is impractical to address in isolation.[/i] (Papa Luigi) Whereas the BNP is now seen as the soul of reason and Establishment respectability?! Is this a joke? Regardless of any political toxicity attached to the BNP 'brand', nationalists in Britain, absent exogenous catastrophe and/or civil 'warre', as Hobbes fulminated against, are not going to attain power, at least not in the indefinitely foreseeable future, or through political (democratic) means. Issue manifestoes, form shadow cabinets, pretend that a Parliamentary majority beckons, deceive yourselves. In the end, Britain (at least England) seems to be moving closer to a US-style party duopoly. Any ideological concern which becomes sufficiently broad-based will get absorbed (and, yes, to some extent tamed) by the Tories or Labour long before its political standard-bearer can attain the PM. Think I'm wrong? History is on my side, the burden of proof on yours. It is my impression that race-replacement is being driven by immigration (unless earlier nonwhite colonizers are fantastically fecund), and yet that True Britons have no say in the matter. How will you get a say? Through pressure groups like Migration Watch (which are important, and have their place), or through "pressure parties" like UKIP? There has to be an institutional place for anti-immigrationists to make themselves heard. This will only have an effect in the real world of legislation if a major party, in this case the Tories, experience a realistic fear of losing votes which could tip close districts to Labour. And time is running out. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i]3. To balkanise the population along pure indigenous/non-indigenous lines. In the latter respect, the BNP does not need to win a political majority to move the game in its direction. [u]It need only obtain a majority among the pure indigenous.[/u] That will be enough to begin making demands on system politicians that they cannot meet. This is the “joy” scenario for nationalists, when the long sleep of the people is at an end and the movement’s energy can flow into extra-parliamentary activity.[/i] (GW) "Obtain a majority among the pure indigenous"?! Well, that's my point, old chap. First, the BNP is nowhere near that time, and second, by the time it does get there, if ever, the pure indigenous may no longer [i]be[/i] a majority of the British population!!! What do I keep saying, wrt the whole European world: "ripening harvest, encroaching jungle"? As we painstakingly persuade our idiot race of its impending demise, and moral right to secure its future, the numbers of Them keep rising - which is the real problem, not the melodrama of whites agonizing over what constitutes permissible patriotism as against impermissible 'racism'. Think always as I do, in strategic/military terms. I like that phrase from Guillaume Faye - "avant la guerre" (I'd thought of this idea decades ago, but he published, so credit goes to him). Pre-war: that is our [i]true[/i] condition. [i]You, Leon, want respectability and a narrow approach based on immigration alone. But immigration is not the issue. Race-replacement is the issue, and, even then, only an issue. Debt and finance oligarchy is the deeper issue.[/i](GW) I have no idea what you're talking about, though I'm pretty sure it will lose votes, as compared to a relentless focus on the visceral (ie, easily understood) issue of immigration, which is a complete disaster for the indigenous without any compensating benefits. For one thing, many more pure indigenous, in my country as well as Britain, have a stake in the financial system that they do not have wrt immigration. Talk too loudly about "finance oligarchy" and what a lot of people hear is "socialism" and "the government's going to take my money". Given the ideo-psychological correlation between the Right and racism, and the Right and capitalism (at least, support for private property), it is vastly easier to rally conservatives around patriotic immigration reform, than attacking corporations or business. I should have thought this was obvious. I wonder if the English Defense League isn't the entity to place one's hopes in. Remember: success breeds more success. The way to achieve the larger agenda is to start having small successes. If nationalists cannot end (unpopular) immigration, they can't do anything.
11107350951309419945What fucking austerity are you referring to? They have barely paid a damn thing so far, these fucking little brats! Do you understand that over a third of Greeks parasitically work for government, which allows many of them to retire with full pensions at age forty fucking five? It's worse than Britain! It's even worse than California! Do you have any understanding of how these ASSHOLES have ripped off hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder wealth from around the world - that is, forcing private austerity on hundreds of millions of honorable, working, saving investors? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH. Do you have any understanding of the issues here? Of course, the euro is evil, and must be destroyed (so are all modern, fiat currencies, though the further removed from a commodity like gold, the worse). No capitalist or libertarian would disagree. Of course, the EU is an enemy of a Europe of national fatherlands, and must be disbanded. But this is about the Greek public sector fraudulently hiding its real economic condition from foreign investors; doling out huge amounts of foreign money in petty patronage and corruption (not to mention "make work" in their bloated public sector, similar to all public sectors); and now whining about having to meet their financial terms, and either expecting to get away with their theft ("default" - isn't that what most bankruptcies really are?), or expecting the sober and productive Germans to have to bail them out - and of course, anarchist hooligans who are always lurking ready to take advantage of the suffering of good bourgeois folk, the backbone of any society. Confront these thugs. Crush them, beat them, gas them, burn them, break them. The best outcome on the streets would be for the American air force to napalm these fucks once and for all (my general recommendation for how to deal with any violent leftist protests). That won't happen, but another civil war might be good for Greece - with let us hope, Western powers militarily aiding the forces of order and sobriety. Greece needs a Pinochet. Come to think of it, every Western nation needs a Pinochet ....
11108650951309438191Drat, I simply won;t have time until much later to respond to the characteristically irrelevant and ignorant attacks. But Graham, why don't you flesh this out a bit? [i]Mr. Haller is an economically illiterate market ideologue[/i](GL) Please illustrate my economic illiteracy, if you can.
11108850951309441128Here is an example of what the economically literate here at MR should find a productive (and ethical) use of tax money: http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/113040/more-money-for-struggling-homeowners-smartmoney?mod=loans-home#mwpphu-post-form After all, we're all a "community", right, so let's spread the wealth of others who earned it (oops! worrying about earning your own money and paying your debts is so, why, 'neoliberal' ...). Fucking retards. MRers are to economics as liberals are to sociobiology.
11108950951309441728Enoch Powell was the greatest British political leader of the 20th century. He was possibly the truest [i]conservative[/i] in the Western world as well. I hope Dirty Bull recognizes that Powell was also a staunch defender of free markets, sound money and strong private property rights. I have a collection of his writings in which he opined that he should have liked to have been killed in the war. Who could blame him? [Graham, when proving my economic illiteracy, you might want to refer to some of what I have written on the matter over the past month or two here at MR (esp where directed to you), and this time actually respond to me, and not straw men from your fertile imagination.] [GW, I will respond to your comment over at the Papa Luigi thread, with which I substantially disagree.]
11109150951309444157Dirty Bull, I basically agree with you. But it's the Greek politicians, who blew through so much money instead of at least using it to build infrastructure and industry, that the masses should be angry at, not foreign creditors who want some of their damn money back (rather indirectly and perhaps remotely, I'm one of them!). I hope the euro collapses and takes the EU with it (don't count on the latter, though I may be wrong, and hope so). Then I hope the Muslims start terrorizing Europeans; that nationalists start a campaign of counter-terror; that militaries are mobilized; that they get drawn as participants into the conflict; and that the end result is the collapse of nations, and their replacement by neofascists, who embark upon campaigns of national cleansing and immigrant repatriation. At the end I'd like to see Europe free, white and sovereign. None of this changes the fact that what you are seeing in Greece is no different from the overpaid public unions marching in the US (eg, Wisconsin), or the socialist Brits marching and not wanting necessary cuts in their own bloated public sector. This is a war by the state-cushioned classes against the private sector tax-slaves who pay their bills, and are getting sick of it. Perhaps a war between public and private sectors throughout the West? Boy would I enjoy participating in that one!
11110350951309476031PARASITES ALL! http://news.yahoo.com/mass-public-sector-walkout-begins-040031375.html Three cheers for PM Cameron, who is turning out to be better than expected, though not remotely as conservative as he needs to be to save Britain. This is really the long-predicted crisis of Big (social democratic) Government, interestingly happening everywhere in the West, and even in some non-Western places. Shows the inexorableness both of economic law, as well human nature, which is simply incapable (as the old conservatives always predicted) of producing restrained, responsible, one man/ one vote democracy. Too many people want something for nothing. And the number of tax slaves is constantly dwindling ... Here the libertarians are utterly right (and you are so wrong, Silver, et al - will respond tonight), just as WNs are right about racial integration. Both sides need each other, and if the West is to survive, it needs both nationalism and capitalism (a heavy dose of eugenics, and widespread criminal hangings, would help, too).
11110450951309478196This Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century looks rather interesting, though of course it must be read and interpreted in light of correct, capitalist economics. Arrighi is writing from a quasi-Marxist perspective. Of course America is declining, and when it falls, the world will be a much uglier place, and the condition of all the Western peoples will be far more perilous. Euro-Disneyland can't even maintain itself now, under American protection. What will the pansy-parasites do when, for brute financial reasons, that protection is withdrawn? America is economically declining, not because of world-historical shifts in power or productive capacity or whatnot, but because of abandonment of the racial principle, first in theory, then for decades in practice, in terms of integration of blacks, and mass immigration, with all the problems that such a genetic lowering of the population brings in its wake; a century or more of [i]white[/i] dysgenics; the collapse of future-oriented communal ethics coincident with the decline of 'old-school' Christianity (even in America, a far more Christian place than Europe); and the collapse of constitutional limited government, and private property rights, and their replacement by 'rent-seeking' social(ist) democratism (ie, wherein the system structurally encourages political activism as a method of wealth acquisition, instead of buttressing business enterprise as the legitimate means of 'getting ahead'). America is doomed; Europe is doomed; the future belongs to the Far East; and the only ultimate issue for patriots is whether, in a few centuries, there will even be Europeans anywhere on Earth.
11113250951309518339IN THE OH-HELL DEPT: http://news.yahoo.com/case-against-strauss-kahn-near-collapse-report-013823812.html shiite! Screams of "anti-semitism" are coming ... I hear them faintly, already ...
11113650951309522673Graham, Where is that quote from? It rings bloody familiar, but I can't place it ...
11113750951309524541I promise to respond to people over this Independence Day weekend, when I'll be at a friend's vinyard. Very relaxing, will bring macbook. Probably Saturday or Sunday I'll respond here. I do hope this thread continues until then (although, excepting Silver's confusion of basic correlation/causation, I've responded to and repeatedly disavowed Lister's straw man critique of my alleged "free-market fundamentalism", and am rather tired of it). Tomorrow evening I really want to finish [i]The Serpent and the Rainbow[/i]. I'm about 40% in, and wish I didn't have work tomorrow, so I could just spend the morning reading it. Anyone read it? Thoughts?
11112750961309513525It would be most instructive if both Grimoire and Desmond would submit side by side reviews (perhaps they can pick a number of GW's choosing to see who gets the free review copy). But I look forward to getting this new work myself (despite not being a WASP at all, only a humble Nordic).
11113050971309517791[i]There you are GW, a translucent presentation of Idealism, ontology, teleology, the Absolute and racism/Nationalism’s role in the grand scheme of Western consciousness.[/i] (Rod Cameron) "translucent"? Actually, [i]c'est le mot juste[/i]. This post is as clear as frosted glass. Here is a suggestion. Why don't you all write so as to make yourselves understandable to those of us in the commentariat stuck scrimmaging in MR's mosh pit? I mean this. The author should try to summarize his entire piece in three short paragraphs with a view to making its core assertions intelligible to an intelligent but philosophically untrained friend. Frankly, though I recognize that work and thought went into this expostulation, it seems to me less an argument than a lengthy concatenation of unproven assertions, cluttered up with undefined if not specious neologisms. (I invite anyone here, not just Mr. Cameron, to try this useful little exercise. Discipline yourself to explain this article in 3 paragraphs, even if that risks over-simplification.)
11113550971309522137Michael, Yes and no. The real issue is not ontology, but ethics; specifically, is it ethical for whites to violate traditional (Christian) norms against violence in order to secure our existence in perpetuity? More specifically, race survival requires sovereign territory. We have been denied this due to unwanted mass immigration. May we (from some ethical tradition, which for me is Christianity) initiate violence against nonwhites who refuse to exit our territories peacefully (atheists, whatever their metaphysics, can do what they want, ethics only having any relevance in the presence of divine punishment for sins, which is not, however, to say that the ethical is only that which is divinely willed; morality exists quite independently of God, but without God, there is no reason to adhere to any ethical absolutes; ethical existence without God, or without belief in God, is, in other words, simple weakness)? That is the only real philosophical question growing out of nationalist concerns. Nationalist ontology may have some use (eg, by demonstrating that the nature of reality demands, for maximum human happiness or fulfillment of some kind, that human communities be racially delimited), though I doubt it, and on many levels. Strictly pragmatically, the only philosophical issues we as nationalists must resolve before moving forward (beyond, that is, such perfectly morally acceptable policies as deporting illegal aliens, and ending legal immigration, affirmative action, multicultural indoctrination in Western schools, etc, all of which we need to get enacted right now) are in the realm of ethics.
11128150971309820813I see that my suggestion that it would be a useful exercise for someone to attempt (at the understood risk of oversimplification) a 3 paragraph summary of the lead post has not been pursued. Neither has any rebuttal been offered to my implied assertion that ethics is a more fruitful philosophical discipline for nationalists than ontology. I repeat: why, in simple and straightforward language, is it thought that nationalists should seek to reformulate ontology, instead of ethics?
11128050981309819793Wikipedia on Morrissey: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Morrissey has always been politically outspoken, directing his criticism at figures ranging from Oliver Cromwell, the British Royal Family, former British Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair and former U.S. President George W. Bush. He has criticised both the two main political parties of the United Kingdom, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In a 1984 interview, Morrissey spoke of the then-Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher: "She is only one person. She can be destroyed. It is the only remedy for this country at the moment." Morrissey's first solo album, Viva Hate, included a track entitled "Margaret on the Guillotine", a tongue-in-cheek jab at Thatcher. British police responded by searching Morrissey's home and carrying out an official investigation, while Simon Reynolds, who had interviewed Morrissey for Melody Maker, was questioned about the tone in which Morrissey had made certain remarks about Thatcher.[77] At a Dublin concert in June 2004, Morrissey caused controversy by announcing the death of former US President, Ronald Reagan and stating that he would have preferred it if the then current President, George W. Bush, had died.[78] In October 2004, Morrissey released a statement urging American voters to vote for Democratic Party candidate John Kerry for President, calling this vote a "logical and sane move". Morrissey opined that "Bush has single-handedly turned the United States into the most neurotic and terror-obsessed country on the planet."[79] In February 2006, Morrissey said he had been interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and by British intelligence after having spoken out against the American and British governments. Morrissey said that "They were trying to determine if I was a threat to the government, it didn't take them long to realise that I am not."[80] During a January 2008 concert Morrissey remarked "God Bless Barack Obama" and ranted against Hillary Clinton after a performance of "The World Is Full of Crashing Bores."[81] In December 2010, he publicly supported Johnny Marr, who had stated that he forbade British Prime Minister, David Cameron, from liking the Smiths. Morrissey added "I would like to, if I may, offer support to Johnny Marr who has spoken out to the media this week against David Cameron. David Cameron hunts and shoots and kills stags – apparently for pleasure. It was not for such people that either Meat Is Murder or The Queen Is Dead were recorded; in fact, they were made as a reaction against such violence". In his statement, he also lambasted the British Royal Family, noting their continued violence toward animals (in their pursuit of hunting and their use of bearskin to make the hats of the British guards) and their utter irrelevance in British life. He referred to Prince William and his then fiancée Kate Middleton as "so dull as people that it is actually impossible to discuss them".[82] [edit]Accusations of racism Morrissey was accused of racism throughout part of the 1980s and much of the 1990s, primarily due to the ambiguous lyrics in songs such as "Bengali in Platforms," "Asian Rut" and "The National Front Disco," the latter containing the lyric "England for the English." These criticisms also stemmed from Johnny Rogan's biography of the singer which claimed that, in his late teens, the singer wrote "I don't hate Pakistanis, but I dislike them immensely." In 2006 Liz Hoggard from The Independent argued that "Morrissey didn't help his case with an uneasy flirtation with gangster imagery: he took up boxing and was accompanied everywhere by a skinhead, named Jake." She claimed that the "man who abhorred violence became strangely fascinated by it."[83] Encyclopædia Britannica argues that Morrissey's 1990s albums, including Your Arsenal (1992), Vauxhall and I (1994), Southpaw Grammar (1995) and Maladjusted (1997) "testified to a growing homoerotic obsession with criminals, skinheads, and boxers, a change paralleled by a shift in the singer's image from wilting wallflower to would-be thug sporting sideburns and gold bracelets."[84] A trigger for much of the criticism was Morrissey's performance at the first Madness Madstock! reunion concert at Finsbury Park, London, in 1992, in which he appeared on stage draped in the Union Flag, often associated with nationalism and the British far-right. As a backdrop for this performance, he chose a photograph of two female skinheads. The British music magazine NME responded to this performance with a lengthy examination of Morrissey's attitudes to race, claiming that the singer had "left himself in a position where accusations that he's toying with far-right/fascist imagery, and even of racism itself, can no longer just be laughed off with a knowing quip."[85] In the early days of the Smiths, Morrissey stated that "all reggae is vile," leading to the first reports of his alleged racism. He later explained that this was a tongue-in-cheek answer to "wind up the right-on 1980s NME" and that he grew up partly on the classic singles released by the British reggae label Trojan in the early to mid-1970s.[30][86] The Smiths' "Panic," released in July 1986, fades out with the refrain "hang the DJ, hang the DJ, hang the DJ..." Rogan's biography reports that initial critical response to this content was interpreted as distaste for the increasing influence of rap and R&B;over popular music at the time. Morrissey has strongly rejected claims that he is racist, saying "If I am racist then the Pope is female. Which he isn't," and "If the National Front were to hate anyone, it would be me. I would be top of the list." He qualified that by saying that far-right rage "is simply their anger at being ignored in what is supposed to be a democratic society."[87] In the 2002 documentary, The Importance of Being Morrissey, he posits the question, "Why on earth would I be racist? What would I be trying to achieve?" In the film, he also takes issue with those who fail to discern the subtlety of his supposedly racist lyrics, stating that "Not everybody is absolutely stupid." In 1999, Morrissey commented on the rise of Austrian far-right politician Jörg Haider, stating "This is sad. Sometimes I don't believe we live in an intelligent world."[88] In 2004 he signed the Unite Against Fascism statement,[89] and in 2008 he made a personal donation of £75,000 to the organisers of the Love Music Hate Racism concert in Victoria Park, London, after the withdrawal of the NME's sponsorship left the event facing a financial shortfall.[90][91] In 2007, Morrissey sparked controversy by claiming British identity has disappeared because the country has been “flooded” by immigrants in his interview with NME. Morrissey's lawyers are now pressing legal action against NME for defamation, with the magazine declining to print a retraction or apology.[92] Within days of issuing the writ against NME, Morrissey also released a detailed explanation of his side of the story via an online fanzine. The statement included a firmly worded rebuttal against the accusations of racism, a condemnation of racism itself and an exposition on his belief that NME's editor had deliberately staged and scandalised the outcome of the interview in an orchestrated attempt to boost the paper's "dwindling circulation."[93] In 2008, Word Magazine was forced to apologise in court for an article by David Quantick that accused Morrissey of being a racist and a hypocrite.[94] In September 2010, during an interview with Simon Armitage in the Guardian's weekend magazine Morrissey described the treatment of animals in China as "absolutely horrific" and in reference to other reports of animal welfare violations in China he said, "you can't help but feel the Chinese are a subspecies."[95][96] A spokesman for Love Music Hate Racism, which received a donation of £28,000 from the singer in 2008 after his apparently anti-immigration comments made in music magazine NME, said it would be unable to accept support from Morrissey again if he did not rescind or dispute the comments, saying: "It really is just crude racism. When you start using language like 'subspecies', you are entering into dark and murky water. I don't think we would, or could, ask him to come back after that."[97] Despite accusations of racism in the United Kingdom Morrissey maintains a large Latino fan base in the United States and in Los Angeles particularly. His height in popularity among U.S. Hispanics was the subject of William E Jones' documentary Is It Really So Strange?[97] Morrissey himself has written about Mexico in his song of the same title and has stated his affection for the Mexican people in interviews. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Only simpletons confuse ambiguity with brilliance. (Sorry, Graham, still must respond to you; still enjoying my Independence Day weekend away.)
11143450981310235703Actually, I'm going to emend that last comment. I don't think I'll have time to contribute much more to MR for quite a while. I'm not going to comment on any new threads, and will only respond to comments directed to me from currently active threads. Some time later in the year, or early next year, I'd like to post some formal pieces, if GW accepts them. My purpose will be to elicit feedback from other WNs, so as to improve my analyses prior to submission for publication in magazines or journals (which in turn will be useful for future book projects). So I'm going to fade out after this thread. But I've enjoyed conversing with many here. Our struggle will be long, and victory is far from certain. We have set our faces against the dominant superstitions of the present. Good luck, camaraden!
11142750981310211486I repost this here, as the thead is light, and so the material won't get lost. (LH) Mr Haller God enjoys omnipotence and is the ground for all ethics/morality yet morality exists independently of him and not by his will. What strange ideas you have, even for a Catholic. The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods?” It involves several aspects. Sovereignty: If there are moral standards independent of God’s will, then there is something over which God is not sovereign. God is bound by the laws of morality instead of being their establisher. Moreover, God depends for his goodness on the extent to which he conforms to an independent moral standard. Thus, God is not absolutely independent. Omnipotence: These moral standards would limit God’s power: not even God could oppose them by commanding what is evil and thereby making it good. As Richard Swinburne puts the point, this horn “seems to place a restriction on God’s power if he cannot make any action which he chooses obligatory… [and also] it seems to limit what God can command us to do. God, if he is to be God, cannot command us to do what, independently of his will, is wrong.” This point was very influential in Islamic theology: “In relation to God, objective values appeared as a limiting factor to His power to do as He wills… Ash’ari got rid of the whole embarrassing problem by denying the existence of objective values which might act as a standard for God’s action.” Similar concerns drove the medieval voluntarists Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. Freedom of the will: Moreover, these moral standards would limit God’s freedom of will: God could not command anything opposed to them, and perhaps would have no choice but to command in accordance with them. If moral requirements existed prior to God’s willing them, requirements that an impeccable God could not violate, God’s liberty would be compromised. Morality without God: If there are moral standards independent of God, then morality would retain its authority even if God did not exist. This conclusion was explicitly (and notoriously) drawn by early modern political theorist Hugo Grotius: “What we have been saying [about the natural law] would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to him.” On such a view, God is no longer a ‘law-giver’ but at most a ‘law-transmitter’ who plays no vital role in the foundations of morality. Nontheists have capitalized on this point, largely as a way of disarming moral arguments for God’s existence: if morality does not depend on God in the first place, such arguments stumble at the starting gate.
11142850981310211528That was from Graham Lister.
11142950981310211750I likewise repost this from Graham. (LH) Mr Haller I know there are a lot of active threads at the moment so I didn’t want you to miss my reply/questions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr Haller Let us argee to disagree on your interpretation of the effects, importance, and value of market mechanisms. I feel we are, at best, to be talking past each other. I could be cheeky and ask for a negative effect of markets from you but it’s not important. The quote in my post in the Greece thread is of course from Adam Smith. I’m interested in your thoughts on methodological individualism (does it miss anything about social reality?, Does it have implicit normative assumptions? etc.) and on the sociology of religion. Is God dead sociologically in these post-modern times? How do you imagine you could enforce such a organising narrative? Crude mythologies don’t stand up well in the bracing cold winds of science, and any sophisticated defence of theism is well about the heads of the average Christian. On the Christianity point – yes some Christians have been traditionalist or conservative in viewpoint but equally there is the tradition of those facing towards the left as witnessed in the Civil Rights era and the Catholic social gospel (which I would guess you totally dislike). So Christianity can be ‘read’ in many different ways and I am skeptical at a societal level it will every be read in an exclusive ‘catch-all’ way again. In post-Christian England many people will, on being asked their religion, answer Anglican (’we’re Church of England’) but it means practically nothing other than wanting a nice old Church to have a wedding in, and for the middle classes getting one’s children into a half-decent school. Even for the 5-10% of the population in the pews in England their worldview is little more than ‘motherhood and apple pie-ism’ and ‘being nice to people’. There was a documentary series a while ago on the BBC about a year in the life of a regular Anglican parish in England, and at one point the filmmakers asked the vicar if they could ask the worshipers about what they believed. He vicar’s brilliantly and unintentionally funny remarks were along the lines of: ‘please don’t as you will only confuse them’. What I think you don’t appreciate is that most well-educated people of all outlooks, and especially those in the strata called the intelligentsia, in the West at least, are not generally religious. In the modern academy atheism, methodological naturalism or whatever label you wish to use is the default background assumption for anyone seriously engaging in the natural sciences and the social sciences along with most of the humanities. Now I’m not saying that one cannot be a well-educated, intelligent and articulate theist but it is a minority pursuit. (GL)
11143050981310215440Dr. Lister, I just don't have time to respond adequately to your post, except to say that I perceive no contradiction in my position. Where have I stated that God is absolutely omnipotent? Can God make logic illogical, or 2+2=5? No, He cannot. I have never held or stated otherwise. That morality exists independently of God's will does not mean that He cannot violate it (only that He does not), nor that any being other than God can fully comprehend it. That is, morality exists independently of God, but only God in His omniscience can fully recognize the moral 'totality' inherent in any particular situation. Humans can only approximate perfect knowledge of morality, though to a higher degree in some instances (like a savage raping and strangling a young girl) than in others (eg, should we 'pull the plug' on terminally ill people for reasons of cost, even if they might be artificially prolongued in life for some short additional period?). Nevertheless, God is the ground of morality because only His existence makes it meaningful. With God, man becomes something other than merely a "hyper-social primate", and his actions thus take on metaphysical/moral significance. Without God, man's actions are nothing more than an animal's, and animals act by instinct only, not by reason. If a lioness tends to her cubs, it is not a freely chosen act of personal sacrifice, but a genetically programmed instinct which compels such behavior. There is no morality or purpose in nature, and without God, there is no ontological distinction between humans and other animals. Why be moral then? At best, we could agree out of enlightened self-interest to submit to a Hobbesian despotism in order to forestall the "warre of all on all", and thus win for ourselves the benefits of social cooperation and division of labor. My following the law would be based likewise on enlightened self-interest. But that is moral mimickry, not morality, the essence of which, as intimated, is not simply following authoritarian rules whose purpose is to facilitate human material advance and conflict avoidance, but rather, personal sacrifice for the good of another. Without God as Judge, such sacrificial action would be merely ridiculous (indeed, evolutionarily maladaptive). I would never rape a woman because rape is deeply repellant to me (and not just for Christian reasons: I also would personally recoil from such behavior as a matter of my own, genetically programmed instincts - which, however, do not extend in all directions: I would lose not a minute's sleep over exterminating enemy combatants, especially if they were nonwhite - as well as hurt pride, which also precludes my 'renting' whores (ie, I shouldn't have to steal it or 'pay' for it, in my self-estimation)). But without God, I would not desist from embezzlement or any other crime which suited me, and which rational calculation considered prudent (greater than 50% chance of escaping detection). Morality, like math, is independent of God, but without God, and unlike math, it would be drained of meaningfulness, something only for the weak or superstitious.
11143150981310215654I have some things to offer re your second comment, but I'll have to do so later.
11146150981310378943Sounds good! I shall return ...
11137450991310053917There are several posts with comments directed to me to which I should like to respond, but I'm just extremely busy at the moment. Apologies. One point nagging at me about this GW/Grimoire scuffle: DOES ANY OF THIS REALLY MATTER? To varying degrees, every white nation is under racial siege, and soon (in historical time - within a decade or two), every white person will be under racial assault. Time is running out. The era to have done all this philosophizing was when it first became apparent that Western intertribal morality had undergone a complete inversion, one probably unrivaled in history, and that this was occurring at roughly the same time as 1) an unprecedented population explosion in the Third World; 2) the rise of Western feminism, with its emphasis on female careerism and therefore clear hints of a future fall in white fertility; 3) revolutions in communications and transportation technologies; 4) increasing global trade flows, as well as de-territorialization of capital; and 5) 'non-discrimination' enactments to Western immigration laws. [This list of the origins of the present catastrophe is not meant to be comprehensive; eg, we would have to include the Holocaust cult arising in this period of the 60s (and not in the first two decades following WW2, during which time Jews were mostly embarrassed by what had transpired, and maintained a low 'Shoah-profile').] It was in the period during and immediately after Enoch Powell's great "River of Blood" speech that nationalists needed to develop a whole ethics and even theology of ethnocultural resistance to totalitarian integration and genetically incompatible immigration. Some great and vitally important books were published (eg, [i]The Dispossessed Majority[/i], [i]The Camp of the Saints[/i], both 1972, [i]Which Way, Western Man?[/i]), but, at least in the Anglophone world, a comprehensive racial philosophy (ontology, ethics, political thought, etc) was not, to my knowledge, developed. I intend to devote a large portion of what I hope will be the second half of my life to this recondite task (which is specifically for me, as I've stated previously, the philosophical integration of scientific race realism with classical conservatism and Christian natural law). But I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be more useful for all real or self-styled WN (I prefer WP - "white preservationist") thinkers to devote their time to propaganda (awakening the slumbering masses of our people before their doom), and racial and political organization. We know the substance of any "lowest common denominator" WN: stopping immigration, and resisting racial oppression from above (eg, affirmative action, multiculturalist mendacity), and violent racial assaults from below. A movement, a great, sweeping movement, can be built on this lcd-WN without us actually having to solve all (or any) of the great questions of existence which have always bedeviled ratiocinative beings. Once we have actually secured our racial future, we can set about [i]ex post facto[/i] giving the new dispensation its appropriate theoretical raiments. Time is not the white man's friend.
11139650991310108222Grimoire: I agree with what you say about the innate survival instinct, and our 'apex' culture (that's a good expression, which I shall appropriate in the future). My point was a simple and pragmatic one. The Occident is being colonized at such a clip that I question whether we have the time to engage in these extended ontological disquisitions and debates. What do they realistically hope to accomplish? If I, a reasonably bright, Ivy-educated, middle-aged man who has done a great deal of serious reading (albeit [i]not[/i] in metaphysics or ontology or advanced logic), and certainly has been intermittently studying and reflecting upon the decline of the white race for more than two decades, have difficulty understanding this level of philosophical abstraction, then of what use is it relative to the most pressing issue of our common concern - stopping the legal invasion-by-immigration - which also happens to be visceral and thus easily understood by the masses? WPs need to get their priorities straight. My emphasis on racial ethics of survival is at bottom a very practical one. If I thought the matter solved, I would devote my energies in this area to pure informational propaganda (ie, disseminating as widely as possible the basic facts of the Third Worldization of the Occident, and what this will portend for whites in the future). Unfortunately, the left has somehow managed to win the "Is white preservation evil?" debate, and I strongly believe that that fact accounts for much of the reluctance of many whites even to face the reality of their racial dispossession, let alone to resist it. But WN ontology? If most persons are cognitively incapable even of grasping the relevant issues, why should any extended elaboration of such be considered as (let alone more) useful than writing directly to the masses in plain language about their impending and dangerous foreign subjugation? This all seems obvious to me. BTW, despite my strategic disagreements with GW, I think him very far from being 'insane'. And most of us here are similarly sane (there are some exceptions, of course).
11139850991310115548Pursuing complete self-interest on the part of whites would be sufficient to save the white race. What is my self-interest in being turned into a minority in California, and soon throughout the US? I have met very few white immigrationists in my time. A few sick freaks, from "right-wingers" to leftists. The embrace of the Cult of Diversity really transcends normal ideological categories, though most diversitites are leftists. Yet I have also met few white nationalists (outside of specific political conferences). Most whites, in the privacy of the voting booth, would probably vote against legal immigration, if offered the chance. But getting most of them to move beyond this level of survivalism to thinking in 'group-conflict' terms invariably bumps up against the "that's racist" (ie, immoral, wrong, bad, evil, etc) response. If a majority of whites won't reason their way past that response, we will go extinct. That reasoning involves ethics, not ontology, and it is understandable by at least the more intelligent in a way that ontology will never be. And of course the clock keeps ticking ...
11142450991310205244What will the end purpose of this proposed site be, and how will you achieve it? My thought has for while now been that an intellectual nationalist site ought to be about soliciting ideas on particular topics with a view to formulating collectively a comprehensive nationalist ideology and policy agenda, which can then be translated into propaganda for widespread dissemination. Different persons bring different backgrounds and areas of expertise to the common discussion, and out of that 'diversity' could be found the expertise to develop an intellectually tenable nationalist philosophy, as well as programmatic political agenda. It could also serve as a networking site for nationalists, facilitating activities in different geographical areas (eg, who are the WNs in, say, Orange County, CA, USA?) - as well as the site for Pan-European WN to advocate and coordinate the years or decades-long quest to establish the White Zion.
11142550991310206315Graham, I like how you bring bibliographically relevant citations into discourse here. I thought you were a biologist. Is philosophy a hobby? I've thought about buying that Frank book in the past, but its mathematics was too intimidating. Also, I don't see the need to try to understand these matters at that level of quantitative sophistication, at least for the political theorist. I'm not sure this is correct: [i]However it is a false dichotomy between evolutionary biology and culture. We are only able to have culture, ethics and so on because of the type of animals we are - hyper-social primates – and we are this type of animal due to our adaptive evolutionary history. Admittedly, anthropologically, there has existed a deal of plasticity in human socio-cultural/symbolic activities and systems but human behaviour is even, in this facet, shaped by functional considerations.[/i] (GL) Human culture may grow out of human biology, and thus ultimately evolutionary adaptations, but hasn't the growth and development of civilizations now long since moved out of natural evolution's shadow? Certainly, the rate of human agent-based change vastly exceeds undirected genetic changes.
11144350991310254511Graham, In case you missed it, I posted a short answer to one of your inquiries on your neoliberal thread.
11149851001310632062http://seekingalpha.com/article/278370-southern-europe-beyond-a-demographic-point-of-no-return
11152151001310729364Pure white separatism is the only answer. No exceptions, no excuses, no bullshit. Pure-blooded whites living on racially cleansed territory, heavily militarized, authoritarian conservative morality, alliance of Church and State, with added twist of militant eugenics policy considered as patriotic act. Whites cannot live with honor under any other situation; indeed, considered over the historical long-term, they otherwise cannot live at all. All WN energy must be put into acquiring and populating and building up the Racial State.
11152251011310729700Stop putting the cart before the horse. Build the alliance against the threat of visibly distinct alien savages. Once whites have grown comfortable fighting for blood-kin again, the relation between Aryan and Jew will automatically adjust itself. There is a lot of wisdom in that penultimate sentence.
11902651011323574600Useful work, Lurker. Keep it up.
11154051021310821391Who is this "we"? Each man fights for his own reasons, which range from theological and ethical, to psychological and personal (or, more usually, some multiple combinations thereof). Every serious WN could write a lengthy essay is response to this query. I'd like to hear why YOU (esp as an atheist) fight.
11158351021310981416This is not bravado speaking ... Know what's funny? I feel much more in tune with Selous Scout (and to a lesser extent, Andy) than with those with more exalted motives. I'd like to think my Christian commitment would overpower hates, and allow me to remain just even in wartime (not that I wouldn't exterminate a mob of feral savages without thought or conscience; I've always been brutal and beyond moral conventions where my sense of cosmic justice is offended). But I'm really not sure ... I question my motives. In theory, I am moved by a love of the moral virtues, and a perfectly rational and righteous sense of victimhood. Our race is the truly oppressed one, and that it is also objectively superior, and therefore ethically possessed of superior rights and prerogatives, only adds to my outrage (I have no time for the "multiculturalism-of-the-Right" meme, the one where we protest that we really only want equality for whites who are in fact treated as second class citizens in their own homelands; true, but not the issue). But in practice, I can barely stand the presence of nonwhites in any physical proximity to me (unless attractive and female) when I am in any Western land (Orientals in HK, Hispanics in Mexico, etc, obviously don't bug me, unless they're personally rude to me). Certainly, all my intellectual work in the future will be in part an exercise in revenge, as well as a pursuit of fairness for my people. I am a prisoner under a totalitarian regime, and seeking to undermine that regime's philosophical foundations is my small way of resisting and hurting it. Note, however, that my dislike of nonwhites pales next to my extreme hatred for white race-liberals. I've always been perfectly serious when I have called for (here, but especially in years past at Amren, Chronicles and takimag) post-revolutionary trials for race-traitors. Those who maliciously sought to destroy our race and civilization must be tried, convicted and painfully executed. I absolutely see no contradiction between such righteous revenge and necessary (for the population at large) and instructional extirpating of PC sentiment, such cleansing of the culture, and my commitment to the compassionate Christ. Justice must be served; we will be merciful Christians insofar as only the guilty (and not per pagan practices, their families) will suffer. On another note: should I respond to Guests Worker and Lurker? I'd like to, but am afraid I'd be writing for an hour. I have some other internet stuff to do, and will think in the meantime about how I can provide short answers.
11158451021310988284[i]Leon, I am not this thing “an atheist”. I am a man. You are a man with a theistic prompting inside your head. Regardless, both us have the same interest in life. We do not actually require deities in order to take or even to moralise life-choices. If you did not have the theistic prompting inside your head you would still make the same essential choices. You would not be incapable of finding what is. You would not be a less good man. You would not go to hell.[/i] (GW) So much could be said. Speaking only for myself, the answer is "not really". That is, I am a far more ethical person because of my religious belief than I would be otherwise. While I am not by nature cruel, neither am I particularly kind. I have to force myself to be so. I'm essentially very selfish, can't stand being bothered by others, and am largely indifferent to the plight of the suffering. Without what Vonnegut mocked (I forget where - [i]Sirens of Titan[/i]? [i]Cat's Cradle[/i]?) as the "Great Eye in the Sky", why should I ever do anything truly moral (that is, an act which is self-sacrificing)? I do not believe in the possibility of effective morality without God. Yes, morality exists independent of God, as does math, but it is not compelling in His absence. ("Without God all is permitted", as Dostoyevsky had it in The Grand Inquisitor section of [i]The Brothers Karamazov[/i], if memory serves.) I think murder can be shown to be wrong in itself, quite apart from its violation of divine command. But tell that to a savage; what does he care? In the absence of God, why should I not be a savage? At the very least, and of relevance to MR, why not exterminate the Other (if we had the capacity to do so)? Please don't feed me that anthropomorphizing genetic interests stuff. You and I both know that our individual as well as racial GI would be massively improved if the African race were eliminated. They survive because God would be hurt if we exterminated the lot of them (which does not imply a positive duty of any kind to increase the African GI, say by advancing their reproductive fitness through aid and vaccination programs, which I, even as a Christian, staunchly oppose, at least in the absence of countervailing, mandatory contraceptive measures). What you don't seem to recognize, GW, is that your fundamental moral attitudes, which you strangely seem to think your own (how very liberal of you!), are really the residual products of your ancestors' Christian heritage. But how quickly those residues evaporate! A couple of generations without the metaphysical reinforcement and its attendant cultural conditioning, and all is lost. Just look at England. Formerly, one of the most civilized of nations (I remember the many old English people my family knew back in the 70s, very proper, stereotypically 'old-school', would be horrified at Britain's decline if still alive); today, following a half-century or more of active and passive de-Christianization, and the typical Englishman, esp below a certain age, is either a vicious prole, or a pusillanimous foreign-race ass-kisser (note how rare is the non-Christian, yet still patriotic and civilized and humane Westerner; wait until the next generation, and the one after that worse yet!). You are a dying specimen, one not being replaced (culturally, but increasingly literally). Without God, without divine command, your nationalism is just another preference, like being liberal or queer, or supporting nationalized health care or Manchester United. Thus, in very partial answer to Guest Lurker, I would say that the white race will not survive apart from a return to a racially-renovated Christianity. I truly believe that demonstrating the compatibility between Christian moral commitment and white preservationist policies is the major theoretical task facing intellectual nationalists. (In furtherance of that end I am shortly renting out my home, moving across country and returning to school to pursue a doctorate in Catholic Theology, with a heavy philosophical course load, however.) I would assert this even if I rejected all supernaturalism. But I do not. That is (if possible, I will expand on this tomorrow), I do actually believe in the historical/empirical facticity of Christ and His resurrection. I've discussed why I believe so here at MR at an earlier time (sorry, I don't know how to find the thread). I will try to do so again tomorrow, though I'm very busy arranging my move, etc.
11158551021310988871I posted this at several places in specific response to Graham, but failed to catch his attention. It seems relevant here as well, and thus I re-post: Dr. Lister, I just don’t have time to respond adequately to your post, except to say that I perceive no contradiction in my position. Where have I stated that God is absolutely omnipotent? Can God make logic illogical, or 2+2=5? No, He cannot. I have never held or stated otherwise. That morality exists independently of God’s will does not mean that He cannot violate it (only that He does not), nor that any being other than God can fully comprehend it. That is, morality exists independently of God, but only God in His omniscience can fully recognize the moral ‘totality’ inherent in any particular situation. Humans can only approximate perfect knowledge of morality, though to a higher degree in some instances (like a savage raping and strangling a young girl) than in others (eg, should we ‘pull the plug’ on terminally ill people for reasons of cost, even if they might be artificially prolongued in life for some short additional period?). Nevertheless, God is the ground of morality because only His existence makes it meaningful. With God, man becomes something other than merely a “hyper-social primate”, and his actions thus take on metaphysical/moral significance. Without God, man’s actions are nothing more than an animal’s, and animals act by instinct only, not by reason. If a lioness tends to her cubs, it is not a freely chosen act of personal sacrifice, but a genetically programmed instinct which compels such behavior. There is no morality or purpose in nature, and without God, there is no ontological distinction between humans and other animals. Why be moral then? At best, we could agree out of enlightened self-interest to submit to a Hobbesian despotism in order to forestall the “warre of all on all”, and thus win for ourselves the benefits of social cooperation and division of labor. My following the law would be based likewise on enlightened self-interest. But that is moral mimickry, not morality, the essence of which, as intimated, is not simply following authoritarian rules whose purpose is to facilitate human material advance and conflict avoidance, but rather, personal sacrifice for the good of another. Without God as Judge, such sacrificial action would be merely ridiculous (indeed, evolutionarily maladaptive). I would never rape a woman because rape is deeply repellant to me (and not just for Christian reasons: I also would personally recoil from such behavior as a matter of my own, genetically programmed instincts - which, however, do not extend in all directions: I would lose not a minute’s sleep over exterminating enemy combatants, especially if they were nonwhite - as well as hurt pride, which also precludes my ‘renting’ whores (ie, I shouldn’t have to steal it or ‘pay’ for it, in my self-estimation)). But without God, I would not desist from embezzlement or any other crime which suited me, and which rational calculation considered prudent (greater than 50% chance of escaping detection). Morality, like math, is independent of God, but without God, and unlike math, it would be drained of meaningfulness, something only for the weak or superstitious.
11161351021311046478[i][b]Deeply unimpressed I’m afraid Mr. Haller. You simply assert the independence of morality (logic, maths etc.) from God, do not demonstrate why or how this state of affairs could be, let alone ‘pay the price’ for your position by addressing the possible objects and implications that arise from it.[/b][/i] I'm afraid I'm deeply unimpressed with your response, Dr. Lister. What you ask for (in tossed off comments on a website?!) has been the subject of huge analysis in densely written books and articles. It would take pages and days for even a professional academic expert in this area to fulfill your expectations. [i][b]If that were an essay by an undergraduate on the the topic of analytical onto-theology it would not really be a satisfactory one.[/b][/i] But your comments in reply would be? I really don't think you have demonstrated the intellectual acumen proving that you are capable of passing such judgments on me. For what it's worth, two decades ago, I was independently nominated by four professors (I think only three nominations were required) at one of the consistently rated top five universities in the US to serve as a student writing tutor, one of a tiny handful of paid tutorial positions. To this day, I have several essays maintained on file in the main library's 'reserve' section, to serve as examples of proper student writing for future generations. Incidentally, one of those professors, now deceased, who nominated me was a famous name in classical philosophy (his specialty was Plato). [i][b]As understand it traditional concepts of theism state that God and only God is a ‘necessary’ phenomena and everything else conditionally exists at his will (if God decided not to exist would logic still hold - after all its an ‘independently existing part of reality’ according to your answer). Apparently a whole series of things which theists find difficult to answer questions upon such as those about like logic and morality and the tensions, to put it mildly with omnibenevolence and omnipotence.[/b][/i] Aside from this comment's illiteracy, perhaps due to haste, it fails to recognize that I was offering my [i]opinions and beliefs[/i], not an attempt to resolve analytically some of the deepest and thus most difficult questions of existence. Why do you demand of me what you yourself do not submit? And what you say cannot be stated comprehensively, as if encompassing all believers. Some have held that nothing exists apart from God; others that even God is in part finite (as, eg, in not being able to render nugatory the law of identity). And the Christian God could not decide [i]not[/i] to exist (there's a whopper, at least to the theologically knowledgeable). [i][b]Better in my judgement for theists to say that the reality of God is deeply mysterious and goes beyond our human ability to fully comprehend. Then in the spirit of Wittgenstein a period of humble silence might follow on behalf of the theist.[/b][/i] I have not actually contradicted this sentiment, though this is not the traditional position of Catholicism. The reality of God is indeed deeply mysterious, and not fully comprehensible by the (unaided) human intellect. But a great deal is also thought to be known about God, and not only as a function of revelation, but of ongoing ratiocination, too. [i][b]However, what I think is more damaging to your position Mr. Haller is the sociological ‘post-modern’ and post-religious nature of the world we actually live in (God is sociologically not theologically ‘dead’) and secondly the very diverse, multivalent ‘readings’ of Christianity that historically inform this very ‘plastic’ religion. Why and how would your version of take on it become the ‘common-sense’ of the age?[/b][/i] Several issues are conflated here. If God is sociologically 'dead' (perhaps you should be more circumspect in extrapolating from your own, parochial experience: Britain is known among sociologists of religion to be the least 'churched' country in the West), it is ultimately because He is no longer intellectually tenable (though I suppose it is possible that the sociological situation could be reversed: intellectuals could become persuaded of new arguments for God, while the idiot masses remained mired in benighted unbelief). Belief and unbelief have sociological and political consequences, however, one of which for unbelief seems to be the death of the West (though whether that necessarily follows from unbelief, not logically, of course, but [i]psycho[/i]logically and [i]socio[/i]logically, I'm not sure - another of the great questions of the age). When the West was substantially Christian, it was confident, fecund, expansionist, and racist. While I am not here asserting a [i]necessary[/i] causal relationship between those qualities and Christianity, their mere correlation [i]alone[/i] ought to give pause to atheist WNs (especially in light of the equal correlation between the decline of public Christianity / rise of European secularism and the contraction of the West - geographically, demographically, and, most stridently and strikingly, psychologically, ideologically and politically). You seem to assume, like every other secularist, that secularism is the 'wave of the future'; that is, that once societies reach a certain level of intellectual and economic 'modernization', religion will gradually retreat into a purely private realm, accordingly declining into public insignificance. This state of affairs is then myopically and unquestioningly assumed to be permanent. (How mid-twentieth century this all is! I feel like I'm being lectured to by Bertrand Russell.) This attitude reveals a very limited knowledge of the issues at hand. First, it is untrue. Countries can go through periods of greater and lesser and then greater religiosity. Moreover, different denominations also wax and wane at different times and rates. The US is a case in point. We have had many famous revivalist episodes or 'awakenings' throughout our history. Some scholars claim we are in such an awakening period now (allegedly, this is the fourth). China, a country that has rarely hosted the kind of religious intensity seen across most of the rest of the planet, and which suffered until recently under a regime characterized by the most appallingly brutal totalitarian atheism, is now home to a very rapidly growing Christian population, one especially concentrated among the middle and professional classes. There is no necessary reason to assume that God's alleged 'sociological death' will be, or need be, permanent. That is mere secularist triumphalism, which Britain's own prolific and very distinguished scholar/theologian Alister McGrath considers already rather dated. My argument (the broader one, to which you implicitly refer, though I've not made it in this particular thread) has always been that 1) religious conservatives, both theological and political, increasingly outnumber religious liberals; 2) secularists seem to be, for reasons I cannot account for, but only observe, mostly on the political and especially racial left; 3) it is a fact that, at least within the US, there is a strong correlation between self-styled religious conservatives, and opposition to (what is now widely understood to be nearly exclusively nonwhite) immigration, and immigration can be used as a proxy for a range of issues associated with, if not WN, at least white preservationism; 4) while many highly motivated and explicit WNs are atheists/secularists, the base of voters they need to reach are mostly not; 5) the core conservative voters that WNs everywhere need to convert to white preservationism are hesitant to embrace WN because they value ethicality, and (wrongly) assume WN violates it; and 6) it is more useful to discern and explicate the compatibility of Christian ethics and (some versions of) WN, than to try to construct a non-Christian WN, given the correlation between secularism and liberalism (especially race liberalism). It seems you're arguing with Britain in mind; I, with America. As for the second portion of this criticism, your concern wrt the interpretive elasticity of Christianity, and how my own 'take' on it could become the era's 'common-sense', well ... that's a rather large ambition, don't you think? A Christian theology 99+% based on traditionalist interpretations, whether Catholic or Protestant doesn't matter (as I think a moderate, defensive WN is compatible with either), which merely seeks to elucidate the very simple proposition that concern for preventing white extinction, and the requisite legislative measures to effectuate that concern, do not violate Christian moral understandings - this to you is less likely to have mass appeal than a very nearly unintelligible (and quite possibly incoherent), atheistic neo-Heideggerian 'ontological nationalism'? Are you quite serious? "The world we actually live in" ... indeed. I'm not seeking to invent a new Christian theology, but rather, to identify and expunge the race-liberal elements which have improperly infected the faith as currently understood. This is often how intellectuals operate. They present their understandings of truth, and hope that others are persuaded. Are you suggesting I need some kind of marketing campaign, once I have produced the requisite scholarship?
11189251021311594995[i]It is in the interest of European Man that faith should play a less dominant part in his life.[/i] (GW) It is in the interest of Euroman that he should recover the [i]correct[/i] faith, the one under which he attained his greatest power and extension of his civilization, and divest himself of the false/idiot creeds to which he has lately fallen prey: marxism, multiculturalism, Holocaustomania, general egalitarianism.
1115825103131097951412? isn't that statutory rape? In the US that shit wouldn't fly, bad as things are here. Why are the British so weak?
11166351041311153379All most droll ... The bottom line is that I am a loyal white man, even when it has been in my self-interest not to be so. Most especially then (I dislike multiculti bullying). Anyway, something interesting about our "ethnic" friends in this: http://news.yahoo.com/report-deadly-nz-quake-uncovers-israeli-spy-ring-231311624.html New Zealand? WTF?! Concerns about global hegemony suddenly seem less far-fetched ...
11169151041311245878J Richards, Your level of economic ignorance is painful. I've advocated the need for a specifically nationalist political economy. But such must be built on a correct foundation of economic understanding. Study Rothbard's [i]Man, Economy and State[/i]. Then you might be able to jump off of that and offer something constructive. I do not want "the people" controlling the money supply, any more than I want the [i]demos [/i]controlling the food supply. My bet is that such a project would yield endless wealth redistribution through rampant inflation. We need a strong rule of law stipulating a gold standard, and then allow only market forces to operate. Money should be in the hands of neither the banker-cartel Fed, nor some democratic mob. Property rights are the foundation of economic prosperity (assuming a certain threshold level of national intelligence). They should be free to operate in the monetary sphere as in all others.
11159951041311022121[i]But VDARE et al. deceive by publishing essays like the one by Susan Green. They deceive by telling us that the most serious problem is a belief in equality, or immigration, or Muslims, or black criminality, whereas these are symptoms. [/i] Absolutely wrong. Whatever the role of Jews in the West's destruction, the primary problem is indeed the West's modern liberal beliefs; specifically, that opposing race-mixing, whether geographically or genetically, is morally wrong. Until nationalists establish the opposite principle, we will go nowhere. [i]Since the money masters website promotes a solution [fiat money created, as a public service, by a government elected by the public] that is very different from Ron Paul’s solution [a gold-backed currency], one that will work whereas Ron Paul’s wouldn’t, the website is legitimate][/i] Also absolutely wrong, and amazingly ignorant. We already have fiat money, pure fiat money in the US since 1971. I agree with moneymasters website wrt the evils of fractional reserve banking (FRB), as did Rothbard and as does Ron Paul. The solution is indeed a gold-backed currency, along with laws properly outlawing FRB as a form of fraud. FRB is not, however, some evil foisted on us by Jews. It has been the dominant mode of finance, supported by plenty of Aryans, for a century. Money, to be truly stable, must be taken OUT OF THE HANDS of governments, including democratic ones. The natural result of doing so would be a return to a commodity money, likely gold. It's always sad when one encounters writings which very nearly 'get it', but then fumble the ball so close to the goal line.
11161451041311047780I stand by my comments. I am amazed at the lack of basic economic understanding consistently in evidence here at MR. This does not bode well for nationalism's future. There are too many ordinary conservatives now who do understand real economics (when the simplistic but decent Michelle Bachmann claims to read Mises at the beach, clearly a threshold has been reached). VDARE, Amren etc are intelligent and correct. Keep the focus on ending the immigration invasion. Without that, the struggle is lost without a shot fired. WNs who insult Christianity (need I tell the assorted fools here that that 'ideology' has a lot more backing than WN?), or who parade economic ignorance in the face of a large demographic (white Middle America) which increasingly understands and rejects socialism, inflationism, and Big Govt, and is appropriately fearful of its financial future, merely muddy the waters and lessen our potential popularity. I am one of the few here who is truly awake and perspicacious (though Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and others like them certainly do understand reality as well)..
11161551041311048034Let me add: successful politics is always about addition, which requires some lowest common denominator ideological agenda. We have nowhere ended the immigration invasion. Yet stopping it is far more popular (and vital) than anything else WNs ever voice or propose, including rants about "ethnics". Once we stop the invasion, we can always issue new demands ...
11169251041311246663Let me add, Rothbard was the great theorist against fractional-reserve banking, which he considered inherently fraudulent, and in favor of a gold standard. Actually, he wanted pure freedom - for the true "the people" to decide on their money through individual transactions. I happen to think that in transitioning away from the Fed/FRB system, we will psychologically need a period of authoritarian money, during which the government should command a gold standard. Once people have gotten used to it, say, for a decade, then govt can remove legal tender laws and simply allow people to use whatever they want as a medium of exchange - though people will probably stick with gold, as they did throughout history. If you can stomach all the libertarian ideological nonsense, you should really study the Austrian School via the Ludwig von Mises Institute (mises.org). Their economics is correct, and they have the best economics online bookstore (and article archive) I know of.
11171851041311390222"berg spray" hahaha ... Does it come with negrito repellant, too?
11635551041319203959<strong>@Richards</strong> <blockquote><em><em>What does it matter who’s been commenting here longer between you and I?</em></em></blockquote> "between you and me" ... (sigh) ... it makes a big difference. You are not MR's moderator, site owner, etc. Therefore, what you want to be done, think should be done, etc, is totally irrelevant. You have no standing to criticize me, and that quite apart from your general stupidity and suffocatingly insular-conspiracist outlook. <blockquote><em>Don’t post essays by others and lengthy excerpts in the comments unless there’s no online source. If you find an online source, link to it. This goes for others, too. Just after your reply to me you posted a comment that you posted at the Atlantic when you could’ve just linked to the article and asked us to read your comment. And again the comment’s about the same issues you’ve repeatedly posted on. Many blogs explicitly prohibit lengthy excerpts, whole articles in the comments and repetitions ad nauseum as it’s bad etiquette. In your case it’s more egregious as you deflect attention from the real issues.</em></blockquote> The comment I had made at <em>Atlantic</em> is directly relevant to the substance of this thread. Indeed, it is extremely useful and clarifying - far more than nearly anything else on this thread (except, of course, earlier comments by me). I am one of the very few here who ever does get at the "real issues". Certainly, you don't have a clue what they are. <blockquote><em>What do you mean by my type? I support private property and the free market. I also prefer capitalism and a small government. And don’t bring up irrelevancies by mentioning [third world] immigration and affirmative action. See any regulars here who favor these? So why do I think that you’re malicious?</em> </blockquote> By "type" I meant one, like some others here (XPWA, GenoType), who is sympathetic to the easily discoverable leftist hooligans in the OWS movement (point of this thread, recall?). The point of my writing here on this thread is in part to help others understand the political limits of any sort of nationalist economics (again, note that I am practically the only one actually writing on that subject that GW has brought up several times recently as one needing theoretical development). <blockquote><em>I don’t want the private sector to create and control money. A government elected by the people should create money as a debt-free public utility for the exchange of goods and services, and control the money supply. The wealth remains in the hands of the public (private property in the form of goods, services, possessions such as houses or vehicles), people are free to loan, invest or bet, but they loan a dollar for each dollar they possess, invest a dollar for each dollar they possess and bet a dollar for each dollar they possess, i.e., private individuals or entities don’t create money in any form. This is the solution to the economic mess, fully consistent with capitalism and the free market. For instance, if the amount of goods and services increases, the government will increase the money supply in tandem to facilitate the purpose of their exchange, and the government is thus just in charge of the utility for exchange but doesn’t own the goods and services being exchanged and doesn’t bother with the exchange process apart from checking criminal activity. </em></blockquote> 1. Of course the private sector must evolve money. It is the only possible rational monetary system. Money originated on the free market (read Mises, <em>The Theory of Money and Credit</em>), before being seized by governments. 2. What is meant by a "debt-free public utility"? 3. What you are talking about here is exactly what Rothbard (and I, following him) advocated, namely, the abolition of fractional reserve banking, which Rothbard called "inherently fraudulent", and should be prosecuted as the digital equivalent of counterfeiting (or maybe coin-clipping). The only difference is that you think govt should control the money supply, and we believe that money should be allowed to be treated as a commodity, and thus the quantity of money should be determined by the intersection of supply and demand, as with any other commodity. Any commodity could serve as money, but historically, the free market coalesced around the gold standard, and I think the state should reestablish such by legislation, though without legal tender laws (thus people should be completely free to use anything they want as money, alongside the official gold standard). After some period of time, the state can then remove the official requirement of a gold standard, and simply allow any money the people want. (The concern is that if govt just suddenly ceased using the dollar, without first moving to an official commodity money standard, people would become completely discombobulated, and economic calculations and price settings would be needlessly erratic for the adjustment period.) 4. When you write this <em>if the amount of goods and services increases, the government will increase the MS in tandem to facilitate the purpose of their exchange</em>, you reveal your basic monetary misunderstanding. How does the govt <em>know</em> how much to increase the MS? By what standard? Are you advocating something akin to the Friedmanite "quantity theory of money rule"? 5. The libertarians have a huge literature on the evils of govt control of the money supply. If instead of the bankers' Fed, "the people" controlled the MS, I suspect there would be a constant bias towards 'loose money' for falsely understood 'employment expansion', as well as discharge of justifiable debts in debased currency. The true "people's money" is whatever money arises on the free market. <blockquote>But your trail of postings deflects from this issue and you blame overspending when no amount of spending reduction will overcome a debt problem created by money being created as debt, point the finger at impotent individuals such as Obama when the bankers are running the show [by proxy], shift the blame to illegal aliens who cost us in the billions whereas Wall Street/private banking costs us in the trillions [not to mention the immigration problem they’ve created to undermine ethnic solidarity in the Western world against their schemes], and promote solutions that keep these malicious bankers in power [e.g., gold standard]. There’s much more to your malice but this is what’s relevant to the post. </blockquote> The overspending problem is that the Federal Govt spends more money than it receives in tax revenues (duh). To pay for the difference it issues debt. This is not the same problem as the Fed and bankers inflating the system through fractional reserve. The US president is hardly impotent (that is pure ideology talking). Wall Street and the banks have not cost us trillions (unless you're referring to TARP, which I and every libertarian opposed, and which funds have mostly been repaid). WS did not create the immigration invasion (though I agree re undermining Western solidarity). The gold standard is the arch enemy of the banking establishment. You are living in a kind of psychic bubble, completely cut off from reality.
11169351051311246896Malick's [i]The New World[/i] was disappointing, if I remember correctly, but [i]The Thin Red Line[/i] was good (as was the James Jones book it was based on).
11170551051311362120A rant so unintelligible (I merely skimmed it, but doing more would threaten sanity) Mr. von Hoffmeister must either have been on drugs, or enjoying some kind of inside joke, when he penned it. Graham, to what do you refer as "the OP"? That Liberalism book looks interesting, though of course you're aware that VERSO, some of whose books I own (eg, Blackburn, [i]The Making of New world Slavery[/i]), is a very leftwing publisher.
11172351061311415284Good observations and questions. I read the link re Warsi. Why is there such a creature as a "Baroness Warsi", and why is she allowed to pollute not only British soil, but the Conservative party? Disgraceful, as is this PC toady Oborne. Post-WN revolution, I hope you Brits spend more time exterminating your traitors than socializing (wrecking) your economy.
11172451061311415444Here is the entire Oborne DT article: Many of the biggest losers from the Wall Street Crash were not those greedy speculators who bought at the very top of the market. There was also a category of investor who recognised that stocks had become badly overvalued, sold their shares in the summer or autumn of 1928, then waited patiently as the market surged onwards to ever more improbable highs. When the crash came in October 1929, they felt thoroughly vindicated, and waited for the dust to settle. The following spring, when share prices had consolidated at around a third lower than the all-time high reached the previous year, they reinvested the family savings, probably feeling a bit smug. Then, on April 17, 1930, the market embarked on a second and even more shattering period of decline, by the end of which shares were worth barely 10 per cent of their value at their peak. Those prudent investors who had seen the Wall Street Crash coming were wiped out. There was one crucial message from yesterday’s shambolic and panicky eurozone summit: today’s predicament contains terrifying parallels with the situation that prevailed 80 years ago, although the problem lies (at this stage, at least) with the debt rather than the equity markets. After the catastrophe of 2008, many believed and argued – as others did in 1929 – that it was a one-off event, which could readily be put right by the ingenuity of experts. The truth is sadly different. The aftermath of that financial debacle, like the economic downturn after 1929, falls into a special category. Most recessions are part of the normal, healthy functioning of any market economy – a good example is the downturn of the late 1980s. But in rare cases, they are far more sinister, because their underlying cause is a structural imbalance which cannot be solved by conventional means. Such recessions, which tend to associated with catastrophic financial events, are dangerous because they herald a long period of economic dislocation and collapse. Their consequences stretch deep into the realm of politics and social life. Indeed, the 1929 crash sparked a decade of economic failure around much of the world, helping bring the Weimar Republic to its knees and easing the way for the rise of German fascism. So we live in a very troubling period. The situation is very bad in the United States, where ratings agencies are threatening the once unimaginable step of downgrading Treasury bonds, and Congress is consumed by partisan wrangling over raising the nation’s debt limit. But it is desperate in Europe, because the situation has been exacerbated by a piece of economic dogma. The faith of leading European politicians and bankers in monetary union, a system of financial government whose origins can be traced back to the set of temporary political circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and which was brought to bear without serious economic analysis, is essentially irrational. Indeed, in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard. Back in 1929, politicians and central bankers assumed that the convertibility of national currencies into gold (defined by the economist John Maynard Keynes as a “barbaric relic”) was a law of nature, like gravity. European politicians have developed the same superstitious attachment to the single currency. They are determined to persist with it, no matter what suffering it causes, or however brutal its economic and social consequences. There is only one way of sustaining this policy, as the International Monetary Fund argued ahead of yesterday’s summit in Brussels. Admittedly, the IMF should not be regarded as an impartial arbiter. Theoretically, its responsibilities stretch around the globe, but it has become the plaything of a reactionary European elite, of whom its latest managing director, Christine Lagarde (a dreadful and backward-looking choice), is the latest manifestation. However, the IMF was entirely correct when it pointed out that the only conceivable salvation for the eurozone is to impose greater fiscal integration among member states. This advice was finally being taken yesterday – and it is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the decision which European leaders seemed last night to be reaching. By authorising a huge expansion in the bail-out fund that is propping up the EU’s peripheral members (largely in order to stop the contagion spreading to Italy and Spain), the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union. So long as the settlement is accepted by national parliaments, yesterday will come to be seen as the witching hour after which Europe will cease to be, except vestigially, a collection of nation states. It will have one economic government, one currency, one foreign policy. This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states. This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago – which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”. David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. The markets have rallied strongly, hailing what is being seen as the best chance of a resolution to the gruelling and drawn-out crisis. It is conceivable that yesterday’s negotiations may indeed save the eurozone – but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation. Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated; they face a future as vassal states, their role reduced to the one enjoyed by the European colonies of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They will provide cheap labour, raw materials, agricultural produce and a ready market for the manufactured goods and services provided by the far more productive and efficient northern Europeans. Their political leaders will, like the hapless George Papandreou of Greece, lose all political legitimacy, becoming local representatives of distant powers who are forced to implement economic programmes from elsewhere in return for massive financial subventions. While these nations relapse into pre-modern economic systems, Germany is busy turning into one of the most dynamic and productive economies in the world. Despite the grumbling, for the Germans, the bail-outs are worth every penny, because they guarantee a cheap outlet for their manufactured goods. Yesterday’s witching hour of the European Union means that Germany has come very close to realising Bismarck’s dream of an economic empire stretching from central Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean. History has seen many attempts to unify Europe, from the Habsburgs to the Bourbons and Napoleon. This attempt is likely to fail, too. Indeed, a paradox is at work here. The founders of the European Union were driven by a vision of a peaceful new world after a century of war. Yet nothing could have been more calculated to create civil disorder and national resistance than yesterday’s demented move to salvage the single currency.
11173051061311419563Oborne is right, I think, that the EU's current (mis)management of its financial crisis is inexorably leading the monetary union towards fiscal union. He is also correct that such union would lead to Northern countries' assumption of Southern pension liabilities. Beyond that, he is not that "clear-sighted" at all. 1. [i]Most recessions are part of the normal, healthy functioning of any market economy[/i] Wrong. While minor, region-specific or sector-specific booms and subsequent busts are always possible in advanced economies, economy-wide recessions are ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE monetary phenomena (as Rothbard once put it) caused by central banks. 2. [i]the 1929 crash sparked a decade of economic failure around much of the world[/i] Wrong. It was the central government's meddlesome responses (at least in the US, to my knowledge, though probably also elsewhere) that transformed what ought to have been a short, sharp recession, itself caused by the loose Fed monetary policies of the 20s, into a prolongued depression. 3. [i]The situation is very bad in the United States, where ratings agencies are threatening the once unimaginable step of downgrading Treasury bonds, and Congress is consumed by partisan wrangling over raising the nation’s debt limit.[/i] Not exactly. The economic situation is bad in the US mostly because of the actions of the Fed and especially the Obama admin since the 2008 crash (though we do face horrible, long-term fiscal imbalances in our useless 'entitlement' programs, but which are endogenous to these programs, and thus not Obama's fault). Had the Fed simply allowed for a short, sharp depression, we would already be growing out of it. But by its insane, inflationist policy of money debasement ("quantitative easing"), the Fed has partially delayed the economy's final reckoning with the badly distorted housing market (the root of our problems, again caused solely by a web of governmental policies, laws, and monetary actions). This, in combination with the huge, $814 billion waste of the 2009 Obama "stimulus", whose purpose and effect was to transfer huge amounts of private sector wealth to state governments so that they could bail out various statist (and Democratic) constituencies which rely on govt paychecks and welfare checks, as well as Obama's strident, anti-business, anti-capitalist rhetoric (strangely echoed to some extent around MR), is why our current economic performance is so anemic. The Congressional debt-wrangling is, long-term, a very good thing, however. The fundamental battle is always between the economic rationality and proper incentives to productivity of the for-profit sector, and the constant waste of socialism and chronic distortions produced by regulations of all varieties. What this debt battle is really about is stopping America's further slide into a socialist economy. That outcome is far more important than even a realized debt downgrade. 4. [i]in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard[/i] Wrong. The only comparison is that both are seen to create large markets benefitting from avoiding the problems, costs and calculational uncertainties associated with doing business in different currencies. The euro (and the present dollar) is pure fiat money, its value totally at the whim of government officials. The gold standard was "the people's money", its ultimate value determined by freely transacting individuals. the "true euro" would be a market-determined, international gold standard, such as existed in the 19th century.
11173551061311422059continuing... 5. [i]the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union ... This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states.[/i] Correct - and a very bad thing - but not for Greece et al. 6. [i]This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago[/i] True? I don't think so, though my EU history is not great. They wanted a common currency to facilitate trade, which in turn was assumed would bind the countries with economic incentives, and so avoid future wars. 7. [i]but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation.[/i] This is ridiculous. If Germany is required to bail out the pensions and many of the public costs of these unproductive Southern countries, that can hardly be called "economic destruction". It's more like a forced gift. China is helping to prop up the American welfare state. Without that Chinese investment in Treasury paper, we would either have to severely curtail our federal entitlement programs (which might actually be a good thing long-term, but not in a short-term economic sense), raise interest rates, raise taxes, or tolerate much greater inflation. China is helping us live beyond our means. And would southern deindustrialization be so bad? If the countries were all part of a single fiscal bloc, and Germany were so much more industrially efficient that it came to dominate manufacturing within the union, so what? How is that bad for Southerners? They will benefit economically from German productivity. The law of comparative advantage is lurking around here. 8. [i]Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated[/i] In what sense was their economic sovereignty a good thing? If German domination forces Southerners to run more efficient, less corrupt, less socialistic, and more transparent economies, so what? Southerners' problems are mostly due to their own gross fiscal and economic mismanagement. Who could possibly argue with the idea that many black-run American cities and townships would be better off being stripped of their sovereignty, and then taken over and managed by more distant, white-run governing structures? 9. [i]Despite the grumbling, for the Germans, the bail-outs are worth every penny, because they guarantee a cheap outlet for their manufactured goods. [/i] Wrong. Germany doesn't need such a "guarantee". If their products are good, people everywhere will demand them. But the bailouts constitute real money being taken from German taxpayers, now or in the future. As always, German taxpayers will be the big losers here. European banks will win, as will southern populations, able to avoid reckoning with their profligate, statist ways. Finally, I understand why European ethnonationalists might oppose a European superstate. But where's the problem for those of us who are [i]racial[/i] nationalists?
11190951061311622258Well, this discussion sank without a trace. Too bad, your questions were worth exploring at greater length, GW.
11224151061312233268I am really bummed that this discussion was upstaged by the Breivik shootings. It really should be restarted under another thread. These are very salient issues, and nationalists need a voice wrt them.
11178951071311462491Whatever this guy's real motives, we should be clear about one thing: the white race will not endure except through purifying violence. The drive to globalist homogenization is too strong. At some point, white racial and national patriots will have to pick up weapons and kill some number of our ideological and ethnonational enemies. The only alternative is to see authoritarian parties of the Right gain power, which will never happen in too far gone America, and apparently is unlikely even in not-too-far-gone Europe. Even in that happy eventuality, someone, even if only a policeman or soldier, is still going to have to shoot a nonwhite violently refusing to leave the white nation. Enoch Powell (a good Christian and conservative, incidentally) foresaw much blood, and he will be proven correct. One useful nationalist theoretical task is to formulate the moral justifications for the coming bloodshed.
11180551071311478269[i] But never cede the moral high ground, not even for a minute. Always attack, just as the Left does. [/i](Trainspotter) Good stuff. My way, too, which is why I continually emphasize the ethical aspects of our cause. [i]It is important not to allow oneself to be dragged into the scenarios of political violence of the like which sprang from Breivik’s psychopathy. We do not gain today from violence but from discourse. Violence closes the public mind to our discourse. Violence is not patriotic. It is not necessary. We are in a political phase at least for another fifteen years, by my estimation. Win or lose, we have to see that through.[/i] (GW) My comments above should not (really cannot) be construed as a recommendation for nationalist violence at this time. I certainly would never advocate indiscriminate slaughter of the innocent, let alone innocent members of my own race. I was making a purely dispassionate calculation as to political realities, one I have offered several times in the past here at MR. Recall I am constantly reminding regulars, especially those of a more abstruse bent (eg, you), that WNs ultimately face a physical task - the removal and expatriation of nonwhites from European soils. I have advocated this for 30 years, and in all that time have never thought that the white race would be saved absent tremendous bloodshed. I see even less reason today to modify that prediction. I think I will do my dissertation on some aspect of war and national defense from a Catholic natural law perspective. I have long thought that developing a new ethics of war, one suitable for the unprecedented situation in which the ordinary peoples of Europe now find themselves, would be a 'growth field' in the future. After all, whatever nationalism's future political fortunes, the die is long cast. War is coming. We must prepare, intellectually, organizationally, politically, and strategically.
11188651071311591287This is a really big deal for all of you, isn't it? Interesting. I'd quite forgotten about Norway today until checking MR just now pre-sleep. I think the false flag angle is interesting (how easy is weapons access in Norway? how easy is it to kill 80+ people with small arms fire?!), but otherwise, the only option, both morally and pr-wise, is total WN condemnation and disassociation (while blaming the Left for destroying the social 'belongingness' of Western societies, which in turn leads to sociocultural malaise, psychological alienation - and the occasional lone nut). I note that no one bothers to argue with my contention that WN violence will, as a matter of cold fact, ultimately be necessary if the West is to survive. Does anyone think the West will endure absent authoritarian police violence, or, alternatively, civil warfare?
11190851071311622031[i]Posted by Wandrin on July 25, 2011, 05:08 PM | # Leon I note that no one bothers to argue with my contention that WN violence will, as a matter of cold fact, ultimately be necessary if the West is to survive. Don’t put support for violent acts in other people’s mouths. If people support that kind of thing let them speak for themselves.[/i] Don't understand. Will the West be saved other than through violence (obviously targeted, not random killings of our own people) at some level? If so, how?
11194951071311676049Stop being so defeatist. I like what Trainspotter said earlier - always attack the Left, never admit anything or back down. I am out there attacking the bastards, pointing out that immigration + multiculturalism + forced integration = genocide of the white race, and that as that genocide becomes ever more obvious, there will be more unhinged acts like this. It's the Left's fault. Hammer that home, STOP TALKING AMONGST YOURSELVES, and we will get past this. Ideologists of all types always spend too much time talking to others like themselves, instead of engaging potential 'converts' with other intellectual and political interests (as I do constantly, injecting WN arguments into libertarian and Christian chatrooms, 'stirring things up').
11178851081311461370Two points on strategy. First, WNs need to get out in force on the internet and in the MSM countering the notion that this ass was in any way a WN. Relentless repetitiveness is the key. Write something pithy and pungent, and then copy and paste it everywhere you can. Two types of such responses are required. The first should be hard-core WN, stressing, as Balder does, that no WN would ever harm innocent (even if misguided) whites, we are not Zionists, and represent quite a bit more than Islamophobia. The second should be written from a "concerned liberal" perspective, one which, while condemning 'extremism', worries itself over 'pursuit of truth', 'non-defamation/presumption of innocence', and 'freedom of speech' issues. Second, more broadly, while nationalists should never deny racial and ethnic principles, nor ever, ever whitewash the dangers of nonwhite/non-Muslim immigration, what exactly is wrong with the "focus on Muslims first" strategy? I have long advocated such for Europeans, just as I have advocated for Americans a narrow focus on exposing and countering black criminality, on one hand, and the economic costs and environmental and epidemiological harms of immigration (without stressing racial change and demographic conquest), on the other. We need to insinuate 'divisive', anti-universalist thoughts [i]somewhere[/i] into the public debate. As benighted whites gradually start thinking in such particularistic, 'conflict' terms, WNs will keep moving the targets. I don't understand why this political strategy, based on the observed psychological principles underlying contemporary democracies, is so widely rejected by WNs. I do know that we keep losing, however increasingly sophisticated our ideology has become.
11179951081311474599I have not followed the facts of this crisis too closely. Were those killed all militant leftists or race-aliens? If they were, then it does not bother me, either. I've extensively travelled in Norway on two separate occasions. I love the country, and wish it all the best. I also hate the Left; the more of them exterminated, the better. When it comes to aggressive leftists, SS, you will never exceed me in body counts, if and when war comes. But I was under the impression that these were fairly ordinary Norwegians killed by another nutter. That does bother me, even if they were typically misguided liberals. After all, most of our people today are typically misguided (racial) liberals. Our task is either to reeducate them, against their wishes if need be, or at least use their bodies to reproduce more of our people, to whom we shall then teach the old and proper ways of things. We cannot operate on the assumption that any white not with us is therefore automatically against us. That would be suicidal folly.
11180751081311479004PM, Do you, humor aside, understand my point? Just because one white person is a worthless leftist, does not per se mean that his/her genome is perpetually polluted. A white leftist is worthless, but her genome still belongs to the [i]volk[/i]. Recall that wonderful tribalist sentiment from the [i]Dune[/i] novels: a person's identity belongs to himself, but [i]his water belongs to the tribe[/i] (or something like that). The genome is like that. As with the biosphere, we are stewards over it, not absolute owners (a view perfectly in accord with Christian theological anthropology, incidentally). That is a very, very important point, crucial to my (and any) ethics of white survival.
11180851081311479157Not that I wouldn't mind exploding with some of those fetching Nordic daughters!
11182551081311508815What I just posted on yahoo: This type of tragedy will be ever more common in the lands of Eurofolk, until we are allowed by our cultural marxist leaders (excellent observation!) to live in peace, dignity, sovereignty, and cultural and racial separation. We do not want multiculturalism coupled with unwanted immigration ruining every white nation. It is the white nations of the earth that are being invaded, colonized and conquered by the Third World, in evil alliance with treasonous "indigenous" white governments. ENOUGH! Obviously, this massacre was evil, because directed at innocents. In particular, it shows that the shooter was deranged, not nationalist. No white nationalist would kill a bunch of white kids, even if they were misguided multicultural liberals. But had this shooter selectively targeted the TREASONOUS elites who have betrayed his nation by allowing biologically alien colonizers to invade it, well, I certainly would not have condemned him. War has been declared on whites everywhere; the goal is our racial extinction. Wake up white man, before you have been dispossessed of all your homelands, and beautiful Europe and America look like the new rape capital of the world, South Africa, where whites huddle in fear in their homes, hoping they die natural deaths before being murdered by oh-so-wonderful 'diversity'. Hit back, people, hit back!
11200551081311750530Interesting analysis, PM. I do wish everyone would just relentlessly focus on stopping immigration - intellectually (though the intellectual battle was won long ago - what more need we say?), but especially media-wise and politically. Why is LEGAL immigration not asked about of every political candidate at every public rally or Q&A;?
11188951091311593638July 23, 2011 The Norwegian Terrorist Is a Neocon Posted by Lew Rockwell on July 23, 2011 07:30 PM The apparent mass murderer, instead of being the stereotypical "jihadist," turns out to be fanatically anti-Muslim and ardently pro-Israel. Indeed, he was much influenced by such neocons as Daniel Pipes. The children he massacred had held a pro-Palestinian rally the day before, and the Norwegian government planned to recognize Palestine and get out of Libya, both acts eliciting the hatred of neocons. As to his religion, he is not exactly a follower of the Prince of Peace, though he may be some sort of Christian rightist or theocon. That is how, as a hater and a killer, he could describe himself as a Christian and a conservative, a Hageeite. (Thanks to Ralph Raico and Gary North) UPDATE See also Glenn Greenwald. UPDATE from Ralph Raico: Few of the reports I've seen mention the gentleman's partiality to the State of Israel.
11189151091311594563Geert Wilders is a hero, whatever his views on Israel. He is actually trying to do something (at great personal risk) to save his nation. As to the "genuine article" - what is it? Re race, I want all nonwhites physically removed/expatriated from European nations. I also seek to use the power of governments to increase indigenous fertility, and, ideally, to combine natalist with eugenicist incentives. All anti-racist/nationalist indoctrination and mendacity must cease immediately. Mosques, unless possessed of historical value, must be bulldozed and burnt. For the New World Anglosphere, I want: 1) all illegal aliens deported; 2) all further nonwhite immigration ended; 3) all affirmative action programs and anti-racial discrimination laws repealed; and 4) multiculturalist school propaganda terminated. Do I qualify as "the genuine article"? I'd really like to know, because note I have little to say re the JQ (I do think there should be some kind of ethnic antitrust legislation viz the media), am pro-capitalist, pro-Christian, and not opposed to Israel's right of existence. MR's editor(s) really need to define a WN.
11194651091311675311He is a Radical Conservative Counter Jihadist who aims to build a new Catholic Imperium in Europe and impose Catholic Conservative values on society.[i][/i](LJB) Outstanding! (as long as the Imperium is WHITES ONLY) (sounds like yours truly, btw)
11194751091311675406What is this "genuine article"? Define, please! We must have some agreed upon basis before we can commence the sectarian purges.
11195251091311676769Is this [i]Re race, I want all nonwhites physically removed/expatriated from European nations. I also seek to use the power of governments to increase indigenous fertility, and, ideally, to combine natalist with eugenicist incentives. All anti-racist/nationalist indoctrination and mendacity must cease immediately. Mosques, unless possessed of historical value, must be bulldozed and burnt[/i] sufficient to qualify me as a nationalist, or am I still just a conservative, albeit a realistic and toughminded one?
11200751091311752352[i]Leon, When you argue for a revival of “true” Christian faith do you do so primarily to reinstate God in our lives or to make us race-loyal? I know you think the latter follows on from the former, but just humour me and answer the question in its bare form.[/i] (GW) I don't wish to avoid difficult questions, but that one is really tough for me to answer "barely". OK, "barely": I would like to restore an intellectually purified (purified of a lot of sectarian garbage, unessential emotionalism, obviously human derived theological accretions) version of Christianity to the West. I think a re-Christianized (I prefer Catholicized, but Protestantized in the relevant areas if that's most likely) West would be preferable in itself to the modern secularized West, where God is either disbelieved, or relegated to a purely private belief, like astrology or the (alleged) benefits of yoga, etc. I am castigated everywhere for my alleged "Nazism", but really I place Christianity over race. I hold that the Christian faith, properly understood, does not mandate any element of the multicultural agenda, and thus a Christian is free to resist it (obviously, not as Breivik did!). That's pretty clear and simple, no? However, as a strictly personal matter, my race-loyalty is something I emotionally place above my Christianity. That is, I am fairly materialist, and am more concerned with 'things seen than unseen'. I rarely took an interest in Christianity per se, before seeing how it is improperly used to advance the race-replacement agenda. If America and the West had never succumbed to multiculturalism, I would never comment politically. I would make money and enjoy life. I certainly would not embark upon a long period of formal Catholic study. Catholics (and other Christians, as far as I know) are not required by their faith to be theologians, or even just theologically expert. The basics of the faith for the common man are fairly straightforward. My primary intellectual interests are in history, economics, and literature. I have become increasingly interested in philosophy and theology [b]only[/b] because it is so obvious to me that what is happening to the white race is evil - 'evil' considered from a Christian perspective. And because it angers me. I am not saying that a Christian cannot be a multiculturalist, nor that a Christian cannot be a nationalist. The faith is highly elastic (within reason - Breivik disqualified himself by his actions). It is clear that our race is being herded into extinction, and that the method is ethical (combined with immigration and legislated/coercive integration). That is, whenever persons resist, they are silenced by cries of "racist" (implication: "evil"). But is resistance to mc evil? My intuition (and rough knowledge of theology from years of church, general reading, etc) says it is not, and I want to acquire the knowledge to prove that contention, at least to my own satisfaction. So, in conclusion: I could never violate Christian ethics in pursuit of nationalist objectives. But I am a white preservationist above all in emotional attachment and politics, and it is my political nationalist concerns which led to my interest in Christianity.
11203051091311779473AWA, I think you're confusing "psychopath" with "sociopath" (though maybe not; I claim no psychological expertise). Those described as "psychopaths" have often been cunning, patient and 'inner-directed'. "Sociopaths" is the term more commonly used for your violent ghetto blacks. GW, Why do you keep referring to those killed as children? From what I'm reading, it seems that very few were really "children"; some were in their twenties. And what is your ethical basis for making that statement anyway? Week-kneed sentimentalism? How many children were murdered in the Allied firebombings of Germany (or Japan, but presumably we care less about the latter)? Most of the population of Dresden in 1945 were women and children refugees from the East, fleeing the advancing Soviet Rape Army. These young persons were the next generation of leftist traitors. Killing them was clearly wrong from a Christian standpoint, for a variety of reasons beyond the general prohibition against doing evil that good may come of it. Specifically, though those youths were brainwashed fools, they had not yet to my knowledge committed any racial crimes; they hadn't the power actually to[i] be[/i] traitors. Though it was statistically probable that many of them would have grown up to be actionable race traitors, Christianity does not allow for present punishments to be inflicted for putative future guilt. We believe in free will, the possibility of repentance and growth, etc. But you are an atheist, unbeliever, what have you. From that animalistic view, human life (or any life - or anything) possesses no intrinsic worth, 'worth' being a moral concept rooted in divine being. When one animal eats another, is it acting immorally? Is the question even meaningful in an impersonal cosmos? I have stated my preferred goal: measures to ensure white survival [i]within the moral bounds of Christian natural law[/i]. But without belief in God, soul, immortality, etc, who cares about wiping out a bunch of future leftists? I recall the vast hordes of pushy, self-righteous, race-replacing liberals at my university. You think I, even as a Christian, would lose sleep over a nut massacring them? Not my crime, not my sin, not my problem.
11195151101311676625Good comments from Saxon and Bill. Start a single issue anti-immigration party, like UKIP on EU. There has to be a baggage-free party where the British people have a chance to make a collective decision re whether they wish to preserve their nation (sadly, I'm not holding my breath re the outcome, but at least the British could then realize that they did it to themselves, and the good Brits could clear out and relocate to the coming White Zion / Racial State).
11222051101312197051[i] it fits with something i’ve believed for a while which is white people, especially northern europeans, are different in that they only have a minority who are naturally fully ethno-centric, a minority who are fully ideal-centric and a majority in the middle who are a bit of both but dominated by their ideal-centric half. If so then nationalists already have the ethno-centric minority. They’re on board naturally but they hang back because they know they’re a minority. This means for political organisations who are aiming at a mass audience the main target of propaganda should be the middle group *and* the sort of propaganda that would work on the naturally ethno-centric won’t necessarily work on the middle group.[/i] (Wandrin) Yes, I've been arguing for something like this for years. For example, WN hostility towards Christianity is stupid beyond words (for many reasons, strategic as well as tactical).
11222351101312201986GW, Yes, I agree with all you've just written, but, being a broken record, I remind you of the "ripening harvest / encroaching jungle" problem when considering the totality of our plight. The alien settler-colonialists are flooding in, and our ability to reimpose our racial will, even assuming a mass awakening of [i]les indigenes[/i], accordingly floods out. You musn't discount this! The purpose of a nationalist party is twofold: stop the bleeding, and secure our future. The latter may involve far more than electoral concerns, but if we do not stop immigration, it will all be moot. What good is a nationalistic English people if they only comprise 30% of the population? They will always be at the mercy of the Other, like (conservative - and, to an increasing extent, white) Californians today.
11200051111311744399OK, I confess: I'm not always the brightest chap (though my loyalty is unswerving). Could someone explain in plain English what the point here is? What is the "incident", and what the hell are all the comments about?
11200451111311750042Thanks, Jimmy. I'm chuckling. Clearly not Breivik.
11223951111312232960The West is not just Aryan. It is ridiculous to say, without more, that a Nordic is superior to an Italian or a Frenchman or a Pole. Sweden and Denmark have advanced the West more than France and Italy? I'm a true Aryan, and I recognize that our numbers are very low. Should we go still lower? Lines need to be drawn with common sense. Let us hew to the old standard: If a man looks white, acts white, and fights white, he's white. Enough.
11227251111312279409Those criticizing me are playing into our enemies' hands. I have never said that the Nordic element within the West did not contribute more to European civilization than the less Nordic elements. That probably is the case (just look at Northern v Southern Italy). Being as well as looking predominantly Germanic, I have no personal 'beef' with Nordicism. My point was pragmatic, and on two levels. First, as our numbers are small and dwindling, we cannot afford to be over-choosy in whom we allow into our "fight club". If a man considers himself white, identifies with whites, and wants to aid white EGI, should we ostracize him or insult him because he's not Nordic? I personally know persons of Southern Italian, Spanish, Greek, and yes, even Jewish, heritage who are all very far right, anti-'diversity' nationalists. A case could be made for maintaining barriers viz rightist Jews (though I'm not sure I would agree with it), but it would be rank stupidity to exclude the others from our cause. And in the US, and probably the rest of the Anglosphere outside of Britain, that cause is RACIAL nationalism, not ethnonationalism. Second, even the Nordic elements within the Southern or Eastern European ethnys, who according to Nordicists deserve the lion's share of credit for whatever civilizational accomplishments their ethnys have made, undoubtedly feel personally closer to their ethnonational kinsmen, regardless of any relative differences in respective Nordic/non-Nordic genetic breakdown, than they do towards Nordics of other ethnocultures. A predominantly racially Nordic Frenchman probably (psychologically) is more attached to a non-Nordic fellow Frenchman than to a fellow Nordic from Germany or Britain. Race trumps culture, as long as the races in question are visibly distinct. But I believe culture and nationality trump race when the races are not visibly distinct (or not excessively so, as are whites and Asians or blacks). Thus, I suspect Nordicists alienate not only non-Nordic Europeans from any broader European or white nationalism, but also those Nordics who hail from heavily non-Nordic European countries. On another issue, it may well be that the Nordic elements of France and Italy disproportionately contributed to the great accomplishments and cultures of those nations. But to suggest that France is greater than Denmark due only to its larger population is ludicrous. France has given Western culture [i]relatively[/i] far more than Scandinavia. I have long had an interest in intellectual and cultural history, and the French honor roll in those areas is vastly, disproportionately greater than Scandinavia's. Lastly, this statement [i]What does [sic] Sweden and Norway have in common with Italy and Greece? I’ll tell you what, absolutely nothing.[/i] (AWA) is just appallingly ignorant. They all have the whole heritage of classical and Christian civilization in common.
11229851111312370596[i]There are no Nordics from heavily non-Nordic European countries. If a blond, blue-eyed, dolicocephalic Albanian is Nordic, then the term has little biological meaning.[/i] (dasein) We must not mean the same thing. There are plenty of Nordics in/from Italy. My friend's late (and very successful) immigrant grandfather was one. Rectangular head, fair skin, blue eyes (hair was white; not sure of original color) - what more do you want? The man was from the far north of Italy, within easy bicycling distance of Switzerland, but he strongly identified as Italian (and "white", though certainly not as "Aryan", let alone "Nordic"). I'm speaking in common sense terms, differentiating an Italian who looked like any German-American, from, say, my Neapolitan friend, or a 100% Sicilian-American ex-girlfriend, both of whom are swarthier, yet also consider themselves "white" (and they behave white, so that's enough for me). [i]All of this begs the question of what Nordic means.[/i](desein) Precisely, though I also wonder about the purpose of the differentiating exercise.
11207451131311825662GW, I responded to you (not yet to Graham, though I think I have addressed most of his queries previously) at the "Separating Wilders" thread. There is an issue lurking about here that seemingly no one wishes to face, but it is the real one, apart from whatever Breivik might have thought, or WNs think: What is one's moral responsibility to one's own genome? This is an ecological question, one peculiarly fitting to an [i]intergenerational ethics[/i] analysis. We all recognize now that one generation does not have the moral right to abuse natural systems such that they are rendered unusable by future generations (to the extent that we can speak of moral right, which I can as a Christian of sorts, though I wonder whether atheists can speak of ethics - to repeat my earlier question: is a predator animal behaving 'immorally' in eating its prey? what is ethics without God, but sentimentality attached to residues from earlier eras of thought?). This has constituted the one genuine improvement in the ethical consciousness of man in the modern era. But what about 'social ecology'? 'racial ecology'? You are a leading theorist and opponent of race-replacement as it affects European peoples. Is there not something wrong with those individuals ([i]or entire societies[/i]) who would pollute their national bloodlines, or destroy the integrity of their homelands, by allowing them to be colonized by those whose very presence will destroy the societies at issue? What exactly is "treason", what is its appropriate punishment, and what should the ethical man do if a majority of his fellows [i]wants[/i] to commit it? Does one generation have a right to defile the past, and destroy the future of generations to come? The ideology which supports this radical autonomy is called "liberalism". Conservatives believe, with the Whig Irishman Burke, that society is a great chain, connecting the dead with the living as well as those yet unborn. English Catholic convert G. K. Chesterton spoke of the "democracy of the dead", meaning that they, too, have interests which must be respected by the living. I suspect we all agree that the present generation does not have the moral right to destroy itself with racial abnegation. What does it matter even if a clear majority of a nation's voters wish to destroy their historic nation through allowance of an immigration colonization? Some things are not allowed, regardless of their level of current popularity. The really difficult issue that Breivik poses has nothing to do with the murder of the youths, which I do not believe can be morally (let alone strategically) justified, but rather, whether a Breivik would ever be justified in [i]specific[/i], targeted assassinations of even legitimately democratically elected public figures, if those figures are actively colluding to impose alien colonization on their own countries. Again, wrt the youths, they may have been brainwashed, but they hadn't done anything morally culpable. They were too young to have politically imposed alien colonization on (that is, betrayed) their nation, and thus they were not guilty of anything. In having no coercive power, they were innocent. But speaking philosophically, can we say the same about, for example, some immigration minister, determined to impose 'diversity'? What if he is acting within his legal rights, and the majority support him? Does his majority support excuse his race-crimes (recalling the democracy of the dead and unborn)? Would any liberal today condemn an assassin of the elected Chancellor of the Third Reich? The real issue is that liberals don't perceive race-replacement to be a crime meriting punishment. Breivik held a different view.
11207751141311827952Whites as a race are now too stupid and weak to exist. We have been genetically rotting for more than a century - but with massive acceleration in the dysgenic trend in recent decades. Likewise, our numbers have not only fallen precipitately, beginning in the early 20th century, but are set to decline much further and with astonishing rapidity in the coming decades, due to my generation's collapse in birthrates (itself due to feminism's victory in opening up professional opportunities to females). Meanwhile, at the moment of our race's greatest weakness in straightforward numeric and geopolitical terms (at least since Tamurlane's aborted assault on Europe), as well as relative to the now exploded, world-historical (and long-predicted, but not prepared for) Third World population bomb, we have everywhere abandoned the Racial Principle, and embraced the psychotic death cult of racial-difference denial and egalitarian multiculturalism. Oh, and interracial fraternization and miscegenation proceeds apace ... And you think your race will survive? Please. Who is naive, and who realistic? Whites will survive only through our efforts - through the struggle of those who affirmatively want white survival. And our efforts will only amount to anything if we can separate and form our own sovereign living space - the Racial State. Everything else at this point is mere management of decline, pre-extinction (more likely, however, pre-extermination).
11210151141311857419Maybe whites [i]are[/i] waking up ... See this story http://news.yahoo.com/high-school-student-alleges-racial-bias-valedictorian-choice-223416668.html The comments (at least the one page I scrolled down examining) were more racist than most of what gets said at MR - and that was yahoo! All anti-affirmative action, whites get shit on usually, etc Well, I say, "Yahooooooo!" :)
11210551141311861807[i]Leon, Well done. Certainly the bleakest words on the matter I have ever read. Yet in every one of the comments of this kind, after all the doom-saying, there comes an encouraging little coda that appeals to man’s optimism bias, usually with trigger words like survive and efforts, as above. I’ve observed, though, that the doom-saying part of these comments has gradually overgrown the optimistic disclaimer toward the end, likely reflecting your growing pessimism with regard to our fortunes as “a sprawling exogamous population”. So are we finished or aren’t we? Don’t just get off on writing our obituary. This isn’t a mere exercise in literary pessimism. Actually decide if you believe we are finished, or simply enjoy sounding the death-knell while maintaining belief in recovery. CULTIVATE THE HABIT OF DECISION. Then give us pics of your Asian girlfriend.[/i] (anon) I'm chuckling (I hope I'm supposed to be!). (And apologies for misuse of the word "precipitately"; I meant "precipitously", obviously.) I'm a brute realist (except, people will say, in religious affairs - though I would emphatically disagree). I've stated the above many times, here and everywhere. Why am I so big on white Zion / The Racial State? It is our only realistic hope. If we all migrate to a sovereign polity that is not too populous, we could take it over politically within a generation. There have never been so many race-conscious whites in my lifetime; revolutions in communications and transportation (hitherto the white man's enemy) have made the world smaller than ever; and most of us have now concluded that separatism is better (even individually) than supremacism. So many whites get turned off from WN because of connotations of discrimination, oppression, etc. Separation is clean, ethical, and already informally practiced by many (most?) whites. Anyway, what other option is there? I hate repeating myself, but again, most whites - purely out of self-interest, if not ethics - will not choose racial warfare over racial euthanasia. The only way a true rebellion will be ignited, as Breivik had wanted, is if there is desperation over basic survival on the part of large groups of whites - esp if part of the reason for such desperation is either nonwhite behavior, or white elite traitor favoritism to nonwhites under circumstances of general immiseration. If instead of euthanasia we get butchery in the streets, then maybe whites will fight. Otherwise, it is all "go gently into that goodnight". The psyche that leads one to WN is clearly rare among our people. And that makes all the difference. PS - I don't think my girl would like that at all. For someone in her twenties, and kind of a free spirit (studying art and design, with, naturally, this being Socal, acting classes thrown in, not that she's remotely hot enough really to have a chance at anything), she is remarkably immune to a lot of this facebook/twitter crap her age cohort obsesses over. She likes privacy. And she's [i][b]Eur[/b][/i]asian, pal. I'm not into the pure yellow breed. Actually, she's slightly more white than not. Her dad is as white as I am, but her mom looks Central Asian (I've never met them, but she keeps a framed picture of them in the house). She's actually Japanese-American from way back, but one of her (the mother's) grandfathers was also white. So my girl is 5/8 white (and that's Nordic white, at least per 4/8). Don't worry, though. I doubt we will be miscgenating. I'm quite sure she's using me for the rent-free pad in a decent area, and I think I'd prefer a WN (or at least more intellectual) wife anyway. But if we did mate, how would my kids rate on the race scale? I suppose 3/16 North Asian still violates the 'one-drop' rule ... not sure, though ...
11221951141312196407An unwanted observation for WNs: This girl is 100% Jewish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0NvU7cphRs At some point, one has to reevaluate matters in light of an objective assessment of the "correlation of forces (and adversaries)" ...
11222251141312201369Great comments from lots of people on all these various Breivik threads. Good work! anon wrote: [i]Leon, Thanks for the haller. I regret to inform you that despite noticing your mistake with precipitately, in the very next utterance you call yourself a stupid realist (brutal, not brute ). Anyhow, you completely missed my point. I am asking what you really believe: That we are really doomed or that this Racial State is possible and we shall be redeemed? Your commentary is increasingly grim, yet you are as lief to come back with big, happy ideas that completely contradict the tenor of the foregoing. Which is it, buddy — oblivion or salvation? I don’t care about your Christianity or what you’re a fan of. Do you feel more full of hope or more full of despair? what does your reason say in its coolest moments? is the Racial State possible, or is it not? I suppose I am asking you to transcend, for a moment, the exhortative mode, and consider the matter apart from your preferences. There’s a conflict of modes (hope / despair) in your posts that I find aggravating. One minute you’re scribbling some dismal stuff on our collective tombstone, which is all right by me, but the next you’re preaching reinvigorated Christianity and White Zion like they’re just around the corner. Now, I fully agree that “we” ought to gather in some congenial polity and live as a sort of “intentional community” as do so many others subgroups of variant intentionality. But the point again is to know at last what you believe or assert is most likely for us — desperate affirmation of ethnic interests or continued passivity? Those are the options. More of the same and worse, or some scenario of confrontation and renewed sensibility. Do you believe more in your doomsday scenario or your White Zion scenario?[/i] ------------------------------------------------ First, lots of great comments from you of late, Mr. Anon. I need to read some of them more carefully. Second, on the grammar issue, speaking of being a "brute realist" is perfectly standard and appropriate. The phrase is neither nonsensical, nor uncommon. Third,, you are asking a very difficult question of me, though your observation of my shifting tones is probably correct. Haven't I stated the real issue many times (appropriating Wilmot Robertson's metaphor): "ripening harvest / encroaching jungle"? I'm a great believer in ultimate physical reality (which in human affairs means brute force - the ability to impose one's will on others: power). Ideologies are fine, but raw power finally is determinative. The West still has tremendous power (though it's dwindling, both absolutely and relatively). Which WN was it in the past few years (Scrooby? Grimoire? some recognizable European?) who said that if 10% of whites were WN we'd be unstoppable? Certainly, we have the physical power to survive as a race and whatever kind of (technological) civilization we wish to be. But we are clearly headed towards extinction. Why? I have discussed this before, here at MR and elsewhere. We are dying due to a confluence of physical, political, economic, sociological, and above all philosophical/ideological trends. At base, at the very time in history when the white race most needs - for physical (power) reasons - to live by the Racial Principle (ie, that races differ at the biological level, and thus are neither interchangeable nor even compatible within the same ecological niches (or 'countries')), we have thrown it (and ancient caution) to the wind. Year by year, our racial power (ie, ability to control our racial destiny) correspondingly weakens. Our ideological insanity (a form of evolutionary maladaptiveness) is destroying our physical power. Past some (tipping) point of physical power diminution, our situation will be (physically) irreparable. So, the harvest/jungle metaphor. We must awaken our people from their multiracialist slumbers while there remains time to resurrect our racial power. Is this all clear? I cannot really answer your question, because you are asking me to prognosticate in an area (human desires and intentions) for which extrapolations are ineluctably highly provisional. Of course, that's why we have a chance. Will our people awaken before our racial power is all used up, and unrecoverable? I honestly don't know. I suppose it depends on how bad things get - and that is the Awful Paradox. For there to be true racial recovery, the raw quality of life for Western peoples might have to get very bad (eg, basic necessities of life might have to become scarce, or raw persecution of whites the order of the day). The problem (Paradox) is that as the effects of denying the Racial Principle ever-worsen Western quality of life, Western peoples will constantly 'turn Right' to mitigate those effects. As those effects get mitigated, the 'meta-euthanasia' of the West (rising immigration, greater integration, increased blood pollution (miscegenation)) is able to resume its 'extinctionist' course. How optimistic you are wrt white preservation depends in part on your view of (or inversely correlates with) the competence and resilience and adaptability of The System. If they are incompetent and generate a macro-crisis which they cannot resolve, one which inflicts tremendous tribulations upon whites, then WN, responding to that which is physically [i]real[/i] (and not merely ideational), could find a favorable political 'space' opening up quickly. If WNs are sufficiently organized, they could possibly find themselves in a position to achieve a shattering victory over our enemies. But if you think The System in the West is basically competent and therefore stable, there would seem to be no hope for the white man to end or avoid the meta-euthanasia unless: 1) we can change the New Morality of (a majority of) the people back to the older version wrt race (hence my emphasis on ethics and renovated Christianity, which I find more likely to recrudesce than ancient indigenous paganisms, or hyper-modern fascisms), at least in Europe, which is still physically recoverable, or 2) we can establish an Aryan analogue to Israel (White Zion), a sovereign state for the preservation of our people. White Zion is utterly, physically possible and even plausible, though "nothing is, but thinking makes it so". Will we do it? I'm inclined to think whites will never quite do enough actually to secure their future, though they will keep mitigating diversity's negative consequences right up and into their collective grave. In a hundred years, whites across the planet will find themselves reduced to the sorry condition of the European Jews pre-emancipation, hemmed in and 'ghettoized' by racist strictures enacted by nonwhite electorates. It is our duty and glory to prevent this. The key is changing the white man's racial ethics (which may involve a great deal of philosophical reenvisioning).
11381751141315367311Thanks, indeed, Armor. I need to read more about the Holocaust, even though I do agree with Faye that we need to be forward looking, and focus our energies on ending the invasion, and enhancing white consciousness and pride.
11229751161312369818The key is "Middle Britain". Nationalists can be seen as fascist hooligans or leather fetishists, or they can be seen as respectable as the Tories - only serious about saving the historic nation. I am ever more convinced that radical cultural and political rejectionism is very wrong. The key in Britain is the same as in America. Right now no major party in either nation is anti-immigration. That represents a huge "political space". Move into it! Stop your insane worrying about the Jews, and similar secondary issues. You can establish a new relation to them [i]after[/i] you have developed some nativist consciousness as a by-product of the anti-immigration education and activism that will be necessary actually to get immigration ended. I frankly think the EDL sounds very promising. Any nationalist organization should have a social and networking component to it beyond old-fashioned political activities.
11234851161312549376Too much theorizing. Focus on basics: all the negatives brought on by immigration-generated "diversity". I'm getting sick of everything. Nationalists need to tie the economic crisis faced by middle classes with all the social spending on "diversity", how affirmative action has ruined countless white men's careers, how diversity relentlessly votes socialist, and how socialism has wrecked the Western world. It is very easy to tie socialism and multiculturalism together. The economic collapse must be seen to be directly related to the diversification of the electorates. Then we might have a shot at awakening whites.
11235551171312559815I think Fjordman is quite intelligent, btw. If only official "conservatives" were half as truly conservative as he is, the West would be in decent shape. I can live without carping about Jewry, as long as whites maintain their majority in the US (and exclusively so in Europe).
11235651171312559983But Fjordman talks about whites being turned into minorities in their own countries. He often references race - not only Islam. I do agree with these people that Islam is a more particular threat to Europe than other racial or cultural alien entities.
11235351171312559237[i]They help stifle debate about the real issue (biological death of the nation) and real solution (peaceful repatriation) [/i] Really? Fjordman and GoV don't want Muslims repatriated?
11239751171312704524Is this the "anon" from Belize?
11240751171312715258Is Fjordman Jewish? Is that known as a fact?
11240851171312715671From WIKI: Fjordman believes that the Western governments promoting the influx of non-white immigrants are demonstrating "white masochism", and that white people have the right to maintain: a place of our own where we can prosper, live in our own major cities without having to fear violence because of our race, and without being stripped of our heritage in order to placate people who moved to our countries of their own free will. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others.[54] He denies that this is a white supremacist view: Guarding your identity is . . . a universal human trait, not a white trait. In fact, it is less pronounced among whites today than among anybody else. Only whites cling onto the idea of universalism, everybody else sticks with their own ethnic group. . . . It is not about white supremacy, . . . it is about equality. Whites are currently the only racial group specifically denied the opportunity to defend their countries and heritage. . . . The idea that every white person who desires self-determination and self-preservation is a racist, a white supremacist and a Nazi is nonsense and should flatly be rejected.[54] He argues that current policy is in fact tantamount to "reversed Nazism, since it is based on the assumption that whites should have fewer rights than others and can be colonized and ethnically cleansed with impunity".[54] Fjordman rejects accusations of racism: I asked . . . whether it should be considered “racism” if native Swedes resist being turned into a minority in their own country, which they will become within a few decades if current levels of immigration continue.[55] According to him, "non-whites attacking whites" constitutes "the vast majority of racist violence in Western nations".[54] He associates this with socialism. In his view, "[T]he West did not win the Cold War. We haven't defeated Socialism,"[56] and "in Europe today, Marxists and Leftists of all kinds virtually control Western media and academia".[57] The Western media treats Muslims who attack Western civilization with more lenience than whites who seek to defend themselves: White critics of mass immigration are systematically demonized as racists, bigots, “right-wing extremists” or Fascists and Nazis. . . . Muslim groups who support terrorism and want to smash Western civilization are called moderates in Western media, yet we are labeled as extremists if we resist being turned into a minority in our own country.[58] Fjordman argues for the preservation of a native majority, including indigenous Europeans. In his 2007 essay "A European Declaration of Independence", he demands, among other things, an extremely restrictive immigration policy, the dissolution of the European Union and rejection of multiculturalism and says that otherwise, Europeans will have to conclude that the governments have given up on their people, and that the laws and taxes which they impose on them are therefore illegitimate.[59] Sounds pretty damned close to my own beliefs. Fjordman is a true conservative.
11246251171312794919[i]Well, it’s that face, isn’t it: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10089390 I don’t think, Leon, that you are anti-nationalist in the name of Zionism. For us, this is the defining trait of the Brussels Journal/GoV/Spencer/Mel Philips/Mark Steyn crowd. If the chips were down these people would fight against nationalists and for the MultiCult, because that is the Jewish interest.[/i] (GW) But does his name "Peder Jensen" sound Jewish? I'm not anything in the name of Zionism!! Hahaha. I don't have enough experience with these sites to evaluate your assertion. I did love Steyn's book [i]America Alone[/i], and sadly agreed with its portrayal of pathetic, apathetic Europeans. I can't believe Europe is crumbling in the face of the anti-racist virus. America, I understand, but do not accept. But Europe? Why? Why?
11239651181312704377Is British media as controlled by Jews as its US counterparts?
11239951181312708993[i]Jews will always congregate in areas where the gentile can be guided towards Olam Ha-ba. [/i] What do you mean? Are you referring to the Jewish concept of the afterlife?
11239551191312704246Hunter is reasonably intelligent, but there are many, many of us here at MR who are clearly and obviously far more so (including, [i]inter alia[/i], Trainspotter).
11246151191312794002[i]http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/96/chris-hedges-revolution-in-america.html Worth a read[/i] (Lister) Kidding? One of the most sheerly ignorant and idiotic pieces I've read in many years. Nearly every sentence contains either gross errors, exaggerations or, worst, omissions. Re the latter: Note how Hedges says absolutely nothing about 3rd World immigration's role in American working class wage stagnation since the 70s? I have two iron provisos re two types of leftists. I will listen to (not necessarily agree with) any environmentalist who acknowledges that immigration must be terminated for population stabilization/carrying capacity concerns. Likewise, I will listen to (not necessarily agree with) any anti-corporate complainer about neo-liberalism or globalism provided he denounces immigration for its aformentioned role in wage stagnation. In other words, you know an environmentalist and a protectionist are serious when they denounce immigration - and unserious when they do not. BTW, the crack about the world's people getting poorer as a result of globalization is ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT. It is an empirical fact that billions in the Third World in recent decades have been lifted out of poverty by global capitalism. Whether that fact should be applauded by white men is another issue. If there are still billions of poor, this is in no small part due to the ongoing Population Bomb. It has nothing to do with Western corporations, which make life much better for the poor around the globe (though, again, the cost of this foreign investment and outsourcing has also been the (other half of) stagnating Western wages - Mises talks about this tendency towards wage rate equalization in [i]Human Action[/i])).
11246551191312797930CS, I'm more and more ready to leave. Have you been reading about the increasing flash mob attacks on whites: eg, http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/08/are_flash_mobs.php I really hope I can get out of CA permanently within a decade at most, maybe sooner. I just don't want to sell my house in this crummy market, plus I have family issues. What do you think about a White Zion / Racial State - specific website? It would not be for debating finer points of nationalist theory, but for committed WNs to discuss the specific issues surrounding WZ, whether theoretical (and there would be a lot, focused on convincing whites of the precariousness and hopelessness of their situations, now and in the future), or legal, practical, etc? I like MR, and have nothing but respect for GW, but I think the basic issues have been resolved, at least as regards WZ. There is nothing unethical about WNs congregating in a place or places of their choosing (the gays did it in the 60s and 70s wrt San Francisco), nor about us then seeking to increase the white population of the chosen WZ area (after all, nothing improves a place more than white influx!), nor about us seeking eventual legislative hegemony. Moreover, apartheid/WZ is the culmination of all discussions of genetic interests, rights of peoples, ethnocommunitarianism, etc. The human condition is immensely complex. There will always be room for philosophical elaborations. But I think most of us know what we want, at bottom as pertains to nationalist issues - "non-diverse living". So the only broad area of debate at the primary level is whether we should strive to reconquer for nationalism various ancestral homelands (the European nations) - or push for a new, postmodern, if you will, WZ. For European nationals, I can see that being a difficult question. Why should an Englishman want to divest himself of his heritage, which includes his land? But for whites outside Europe, there are only pragmatic issues to be resolved, like the all-important issue of where to go.
11252851211312886865Shades of a book I read 35 years or so ago: http://books.google.com/books/about/Wild_Jack.html?id=Lqq34I-PGogC
11252951211312887026[i]the new threat from the Judeophile cultural conservative “far right”[/i] (GW) Oh, cmon - I would hardly call cultural conservatives, even the pro-Israel ones, a threat on par with the foreign conquerors marauding across England. First things first, please.
11253151211312887738[i]The young black male is not going to be excused this time. He has delivered himself of a direct and violent challenge to the social order - an insult which is authentically black and belongs to him, and has no provenance outside of the narrow and low space between his ears. He has made a world of violence and chaos for himself, in which his male dominance strategies can be liberally exercised. That is the sum total of his civilisational worth, and it is not going to be easy for any thoughtful government minister to continue to delude himself that but for a bit more educational expenditure, better role models, more mentoring, sport facilities and youth clubs, and fathers at home, there walks a white boy. There doesn’t. The truth of black sociobiology is knocking loudly on the door. It might not be opened this time round. But opening it is the only option in the longer run.[/i] (GW) Brilliantly expressed, but rather optimistic, no? Will Britons see things this way? And at this very late date, can the fatuity of liberals ever be underestimated? [i]But it marks the end of Marx in educational thinking [/i](GW) How nice, but really? And a larger question: if London reaches a tipping point soon where it becomes overwhelmingly nonwhite very quickly, how would you feel - in terms of sentiment - about seeing it airbombed, or even nuked, in the event of a second civil war? Personally, I'd have no personal or moral objection, but I'm not British, either.
11253251211312888068[i]Seriously, though, do you really think that the security services aren’t taking a much closer look, post-Breivik, at “far right” dissidents and dissident opinion?[/i] (GW) Oh, I'm sure you're correct on that point. Did I misunderstand you? I thought [i]you[/i] were the one considering the Judeophile "far right" a new threat (ie, to nationalist aspirations), not the security services. Apologies. BTW, are the security services totally populated by leftists? I might have thought that kind of work would disproportionately attract right-of-center types.
11253351211312888296And what the hell are these pictures? Is the ape stealing whitey's clothes? Really? Why? Humiliation? Why not fight back, if there is only one?! And, are any Brits banding together to fight the savages? And what is the government saying?
11253751211312890994When I did the Henley Regatta decades ago, I met some pretty tough Brits - and these were not skins or football hooligans, either. Surely some of the latter are fighting back? Are there no reports of angry whites counter-attacking? BTW, this is an eerie real life facsimile of a trailer I just saw recently for a new, repulsive Brit movie called [i]Attack The Block [/i], about space aliens in inner city London. I was shocked at how multiracial the cast was, though that probably does reflect social reality. The diversitycrats who imposed these savages on Britain must, postwar/restoration, be exterminated. One reason I'm about to start studying Catholic theology formally is to do the hard intellectual work of providing moral justifications for such trials and executions (at least within my own faith tradition). Make no mistake: Old Christendom would have roasted these savages on stakes. Honestly, the empirical track record of Christian v secular civilization wrt racial survival does not favor the godless. Correlation does not equal causation, but still ...
11254851211312896820I agree with Guest Lurker. The white race has reached its evolutionary bottleneck. Only a few of us will survive - except we won't, because of the physical force/coercion problem I keep mentioning, but no one here ever responds to (too depressing, I guess). In other words, most whites are evolutionarily maladapted to this juncture in their history. Those of us who aren't will be too few to survive the coming (already here?) physical assaults - unless we have relocated and formed White Zion. There is great internal coherence to my seemingly disparate positions. Anyway, England I have learned in less than 1 hour, is totally defunct. Disbelieve me? Check out my little war for White England : http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/we-dont-need-the-army-we-need-the-order-to-charge/#comment-137703 Nearly everyone is against me (and therefore MR)! England is dead. White Zion looks more promising by the minute.
11254951211312897055[i]My solution is to decrease the numbers who believe, because they are dangerous, and increase the numbers who don’t. Any problem with that?[/i] (GW) An unusual bit of foolishness, which avoided my point: Make no mistake: Old Christendom would have roasted these savages on stakes. Honestly, the empirical track record of Christian v secular civilization wrt racial survival does not favor the godless. Correlation does not equal causation, but still .... and my question: there are English tough guys, footballers, skinheads, etc. Do none of them fight back? No reports of such?
11255051211312897548The losers at inspectorgadget WILL NOT ADMIT the obvious racial aspect. It's all "these are hooligans of every race ... go hang with the BNP ... I have many black friends ..." I was just educated. England is utterly dead racially. You are 100 times more PC than white Americans. I felt like I was in a Huffingtonpost chatroom. You people lecture us Americans?! Are you kidding? See the responses to me. Sounds like the Democrat party. England is gone. Dream on.
11255251211312899360England is dead. Long live White Zion! America is bad, too, but we've had blacks from the beginning. So they are American, even if undesirable. But Britain? How could a people get so indoctrinated so quickly, and tolerate such a foul presence?
11255451211312901398Excellent post from PM at the ridiculous inspectorgadget site: PM Leon–please do not waste your time with the British police–only the foolish or naive in Britain would, especially when a crime has been committed. A true story: my mother, who is in herearly sixties, was working as a receptionsist in a local doctors surgery. A group of youg boy–probably about 12 years old, were causing a commotion outside, so my mother went out to tell them to go away. One of the group of boys, who was Eastern European, approached my mother with a large piece of wood and threatened to kill her, before theey all ran away. Obviously the police were called, and at first they were sympathetic. Then they asked what the boys looked like, and my mother told them they were Eastern European. Straight away their tone and attitude changed towards her–had she said anything to them that they could have found insulting? They basically interrogated her as a racist. As if a 60 yr old woman is going to pick a fight with a gang of foreign kids. Now my mother understands what I have been telling her for years: the British police are scum, avoid them at all costs. They would happily smash the face of an elderly white British woman into a fuking wall if they thought it would gain them some love from a minority, or the chance of a promotion. When you live in Britain in areas that have lots of minorities, you will regularly see how the police cower and cringe before them, call them ‘mate’ and pretend not to see petty crimes going on around them. They are desperate to be liked by blacks and Asians, who can as you imagine, rightly despise them for their servility and obsequiesness around them. The intense, exaggerated respect for non-whites is matched by an utter contempt for those that they can get away with openly despising–native white Brits. When around British people they will swagger and strut, with their ridiculous bat-belt swinging around, talk to their partner and ignore people, and just generally let it be known that they are there to enforce politically motivated speech and thought codes, not to actually prevent or solve real crimes. They are a political police force now, no different really from the Gestapo.They have correspondingly lost any respect from the law abiding British public, who will quite openly cheer a criminal gunman such as Raoul Moat who threaten to shoot them. So they have lost the support of the law abiding British, and are still despised by the minorities they have courted. A policeman’s lot is not a happy one Leon, but as you can see from they comments you received above, it is a richly deserved one. My advice to all white British people is to avoid dealing with them at all costs. As my mother found out, it could well lead to your own persecution on heresy charges. This is particularly true of people with children, as the police are very trigger-happy when it comes to trying to get British children taken from their parents having been called out to family homes following a crime report. Nothing a British copper loves more than the sound of a white child being torn from his parents, knowing that they were the cause. Can you imagine how many Asian children are taken into care in this way every year? Of course you already know, it just never happens. Got to respect foreign cultures in the police, blood, innit. I hope their precious minorities in London, Birmingham, Bristol and Nottingham batter the fuck out of them.
11255551211312901674And my reply: PM – Outstanding post, friend. I truly ‘feel’ for you, if you’ll pardon the negroidal expression. I’m deeply troubled that things have gotten so bad, but I sensed something wrong here at this blog. Obvious intellectual inferiors berating me instead of the niggers wrecking their country. I know a number of American cops; behind closed doors, at least my acquaintances are solid race realists. they would laugh at these pusillanimous arse-kissers. You have put your finger on a great evil – the conjoining of hard minority racism with soft-Marxist ‘therapeutic’ liberalism. These whites here are so indoctrinated (while ridiculously thinking themselves “open-minded”) I can well imagine them taking out their basic frustrations, borne of such intense racial ‘doublethink’, on innocent whites – the true, lawful British people. A lot of cops by nature are bullies; when allied to PC brainwashing and cowardice before aggressive Africans, how natural to save their manhood by bossing around the good people. Have you read the late Samuel Francis on “anarcho-tyranny”? Apparently, it is even worse in Britain than in the US. I’m really sorry. I can tell you are the real patriot. These people here have no love for the land; just concern for covering their own hides, mixed with some slight residual desire for civic peace. If they were patriots, they would call out the army to exterminate the hooligans en masse, no prisoners, maximum blood in the gutters. England needs a second revolution. It’s coming anyway. But will it end gloriously?
11255851211312904247Very funny from London's Burning, despite total horseshiite re Thatcher, who saved Britain, literally. A very great lady. It pains me to see such ingratitude. You are right re Big Business traitors loving immigration (how many letters has the WSJ not published from me on immigration??!), but wrong re the Left, at least in the US. It is still mainly the left that wants its next proletariat imported and dark-skinned, though greedy BB and loony libertarians chime in, too.
11256351211312906548I suspect I know far more about Reagan than you do, Graham. I was alive, teenager and later adult, and strongly supportive of his presidency at the time. There is nothing you've just said that I am unfamiliar with. But a question: what is a "conservative" in your view?
11256451211312906866BTW, that idiot inspectorgadget site deleted all my comments, and worse, put a block on my ability to comment under any other address. Worthless cowards. Here I was cheering on the true English. I'm starting not to like the British very much. The older generation that I knew growing up, yes. Very good quality people. But today's? All socialists and secularists, even if not also horribly PC. You should have seen the responses to me. Only really three supportive, and I think PM comments here, sometimes. And on a police site!!
11264951211312968916Robert Reis, Thank you. We all do what we can. I was really shocked/educated, though. These posters were anonymous! Many were saying at least non-liberal things. I disagree with CS that these persons had to "watch their backs"; I think they were genuine in their utter unwillingness to contemplate the racial aspect of the crisis - while negroids are burning England in front of their faces!!!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH WHITE PEOPLE??!! Anyway, white American cops would not anonymously respond to WN with such sincere, monolithic rejection. I know white cops; many are racists (that more aren't is what's shocking). England is dead- not because of Islamic terrorism or negroidal savagery, but because the white population is basically insane (and infertile, or at least dysgenic). GW and his clansmen will be welcome in White Zion, of course. We'll be waiting for y'all ...
11265051211312969137PM, I thought your post was really eloquent in its heartfeltness. It makes me sad (though we Yankees have our own, similar problems). Seeing Britain colonized and the indigenous bullied is somehow worse than the horrors of America. After all, you're the Old Country. There is no excuse for what has happened. The traitors must swing for this, however distant in the future.
11265251211312970146From the perspective of Euro-fitness, what we want is both quality and quantity. Duh. Desmond's point (I've made it as well, [i]ad infinitum[/i]) is that Christianity, both officially and as a byproduct of adherence to its belief system, encourages fecundity. Your secular society does not encourage white fertility (or at least, it has not produced much of it anywhere). Now perhaps GW prefers a greater racial authoritarianism (I do), in which eugenic fecundity would be legislatively encouraged. But GW does not control the government, and the possibility of racial authoritarianism is remote. Indeed, I guess the core issue in this debate is: which is more likely, racial fascism attaining power, thus allowing for eugenic and natalist legislation, or larger numbers of whites recovering their ancestral faith, and producing larger white families because of it? At this time, I think the latter. It is already happening among both white American evangelicals (most are not opposed to race mixing, but that is because of their brand of Christian ideology, not because of inner feelings of universalism, for the most part; I've had considerable experience of this), as well as French Catholics. The Americans are subconsciously practicing demographic competitiveness (as some bitchy minority scholars have noted); but the French Catholics are doing so consciously and overtly, in an open attempt to compensate for Muslim fecundity and immigration.
11267951211313008030An act of self-interested kindness: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixel-eight/6024429000/ This is what white altruism ought to look like. (GW) ------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. Any my less uplifting response on flickr: Yes, this is nice and 'homely', but do you understand that Britain is under dysgenic attack? That this is a race + hooligans + communist/anarchist war against the very white, Christian, European, common law foundations of British civilization? And do you understand the solutions: deport ALL nonwhite (maybe all non-ethnic British) residents from British soil; bring back public whippings and regular hangings of criminals; restore the right of civilized persons to own and carry firearms; begin a long campaign of both positive and negative eugenics (encourage the better class of citizens to over-reproduce; provide financial incentives, say withholding benefits, to reduce underclass "chav" fertility levels); and reintroduce school curricula encouraging pride in British history and achievements, instead of evil (and mendacious) socialist and multiculturalist nonsense? Britain can be saved - but only after, I fear, a civil war of extermination of aliens, criminals and leftists which will make Cromwell look very soft and obliging. ----------------------------------------------------------------- GET THE GODDAM MESSAGE OUT, FOLKS! EVERYWHERE ONLINE! Copy and paste what I just wrote and spread it on every British site possible. TALKING AMONG OURSELVES IS NOT WHAT'S NEEDED RIGHT NOW.
11325351211314095960An atheist/druidist vs a Protestant bigot. I'm not sure whether this back and forth is humorous or unpleasant. Perhaps a bit of both. The West's modern racial problems have many origins, but traditional Christianity (Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox) is not one of them (it might be interesting to devote a post or whole series to this task of enumerating all the forces which have brought us low, from WW2 to modern transportation to the Jews). Monocausal explanations of very complex historical and sociological phenomena are rarely satisfactory. I count three forces as the primary agents (there are many secondary ones) behind the white man's fall: 1. A genetic defect (in the collective white race) predisposing a relatively enormous number of our people (as compared with nonwhite groups) to indifference towards tribal units and their survival; 2. Jewish power (based on wealth, media control, and intellectual influence) aggressively used to promote cosmopolitan morality, and concomitantly to discredit nationalism morally; 3. A general decline in piety, and in belief in the meaningfulness of things beyond the self. I would say that the decline of public Christianity has been more harmful than helpful for white survival. I would argue further that the ultimate key to white survival is to be found in a renaissance of historic Christianity (not the contemporary, PC-polluted variety, which is more enemy than friend), but one theologically updated, so to speak, to allow for white/Western preservation. This is not all that complicated.
11328551211314148714A witty grab bag from what seems like a distant past. For one thing, your attitude was more like a conservative than a WN. How much has changed in a half-dozen years. What will the next half-dozen bring? Very nice this bit, too: [i]I work the other way round. In our time the exploited class is the majority whose wants and views are ignored, whose protests are made illegitimate, even illegal. By contrast, these slack-brained, sad creatures among the Stones exploit our goodwill and call it freedom, yeah. They are free-riders of a kind. [b]They do not contribute (I don’t mean economically, though that is probably also true. I mean in terms of utility to their people).[/b] Even so, I am their keeper in so much as they are of my people and share our genetic interests, whether they understand that or not. They wouldn’t, of course. Social liberalism teaches only self-indulgence, and has no use for kinship.[/i] (GW) The modern liberal feels himself emancipated from any 'people'. He is a citizen of the world - a repulsive phrase, if ever one was uttered.
11263151221312955413The site you took these from is obviously run buy sniveling liberals, er, 'conservatives'. My posted response: What the hell do you have against the noble heroes of the BNP and the EDL? Why do you feel the need to disparage them (implicitly)? The EDL itself seems far too liberal, pretending that this is something other than the opening salvos in a race war for the destruction (or for patriots, survival) of England. England has been invaded, colonized and apparently conquered by Third World peoples brought in by treasonous cultural Marxists with the intent of destroying white, Christian England. There can never be peace and a decent chance for a future civilized Britain until EVERY nonwhite is repatriated from British soil. NO EXCEPTIONS. Start with the Muslim terrorists, then move to the black criminals, then back to non-criminal Muslims, then on to other groups - until every person resident on British soil is WHITE.
11263251221312956089To the MR community: This is YOUR moment. England burns. Question: what are you doing about it? If not physical hooligan control, are you all at least blogging on mainstream sites? If so, remember something I often forget (at least here and at other more intellectual venues): Keep It Short. This is not just a race war; it is also a media war. It is very important that Brit patriots win that latter struggle. It is vital that this wonderful educational opportunity not be lost, that everyone, but esp British themselves, people who presumably know how the police function, where neighborhoods are, what a "quango" is, etc, GET OUT ON THE NET (if not the streets and pubs) IN FORCE, undermining the PC regime with micro thought-bombs (eg, "Wasn't England better before diversity was imposed on us?", "If minorities are unhappy here, perhaps it's best they return to their own lands.", etc), anywhere and everywhere. Selous Scout is correct. The little debates still raging between the godly and the godless (Rusty and RevHarry v GW), while quite interesting on their own terms, are not productive at this opportune moment. As a clever American Jewish leftist put it, "We shouldn't let a good crisis go to waste." No, we shouldn't.
11264151221312966117CS, You know what annoys me? I've been thinking about white conquest / the Racial State / White Zion for decades, and discussing it for many years, and now, doing a google search, I just discovered that the venerable Sam Dickson gave a talk on the subject (calling it "Euro-Zionism") at this year's AR conference (I'm really behind in my AR reading this year). Hunter Wallace is discussing it, too (Hunter among others is using the idea for a domestic US racial state or migration of WNs to the Pacific Northwest, I guess similar to Dr. Pierce and Harold Covington - I have not read HC's books, but I will eventually). Hmmm, I know some friends of Dickson's, with whom I've discussed the matter at past times .... Anyway, I think a site specifically dedicated to White Zion issues is really needed, though it might need another name, as the word "Zion" in there could be a turn off, and misleading - many whites might think it refers to white support for (Jewish) Zionism, as opposed to appropriating the model of the Zionist ethnoconquest and absorption of Palestine for WN purposes, which is obviously my interest. Name possibilities: White Zion Euro-Zion The Racial State A New Land White Separatism White Separation White Nation New White Nation White Conquest White Colonization White Pioneer White Homeland (I think this sounds most promising) I'm open to suggestions (from everybody). I think the site would have to be kept homeland-specific. We really don't need yet another all-purpose, general interest WN issues site, like MR or Amren or Stormfront or Occidental Observer. I wouldn't want the site to discuss the English race war, Christianity, the Jews, the banks, Great White Men, or anything else except - all the myriad issues which are implicated in creating a WN / WS(eparatist) homeland. Of course, knowing me, I might not be able to resist discussions of what the Racial State would look like, once established - and maybe that would be an appropriate discussion topic, come to think of it. I have to ensure that people would be interested in posting on it. I'm going to be really busy in the next few years doing further graduate study (I've been out of school for nearly two decades); writing some extracurricular articles for some WN publications (which will have some crossover with my formal studies); and setting up another site under another name and with some other people, which will be oriented towards American non-racial (aka conservative) nationalism, and will be an adjunct to a political activist organization we're setting up. So my ideological activism will increasingly have two components: promotion of conservative American nationalism (that is, an agenda not specifically racialist, but which is geared towards the empowerment of white Americans: basically the old Buchananite/Sam Francis agenda minus the moral values concerns), to protect my people as they are transformed into an oppressed minority group in the USA (and we will be [i]oppressed[/i], when a minority, let no fool doubt that); and the broader, global promotion of WN nation-establishment. I will have huge amounts of school work for the next few years (plus some continuing part-time money work carrying over from my current job - not to mention never-ending investment decisions in this awful volatile climate, which may not abate for many years, perhaps not until we get a hard money man at the Fed, and/or a free-market or at least pro-business Republican in the Presidency). My scholarly agenda is very important to me, too. I want to develop my rightist political philosophy uniting classical conservatism, market economics, sociobiological realism, and Catholic natural law (moral theory). I have conceived of several volumes of scholarship I plan to write before I die (plus a couple of more popular works, geared, I hope, to the mass market). Bottom line is that I can't drop my life at this point and dedicate it to a WZ site, though I think I could be a decent editor of such a site. My concern is that I don't want to have to write all the text, except maybe some intro stuff, which perhaps I could base on an article I've thought about writing on this topic for TOQ for a few years now (and I could recover a decent bit of casual writing on the matter that I've done here and elsewhere). I have made a firm commitment towards getting the other site up by the end of the calendar year. Plus, I have lots of reading to do in this next academic year to figure out my precise dissertation topic as early as possible (I want it to be something directly related to my life-scholarship plans, something foundational, but which doesn't raise any PC flags among my Christian liberal / Jewish Marxist -multiculti professors). Do you think a White Homeland site would attract intelligent and serious posters, as MR does?
11264851221312968322http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LKHAkpv22o&feature=related [i]Towards the end (8th minute or so) there is an interesting little snippet about Thatcher rejecting Enoch Powell’s views of multiculturalism (i.e. Thatcher embraced it). Again what a wonderful ‘ethnocentric conservative’ at work - I don’t bloody well think so.[/i] (Lister) Excellent video. Thanks for alerting me to it. It is shocking, however. As I keep repeating, how much easier everything would have been had we merely maintained territorial segregation , aka, 'borders'. I am a Powellite. That is my ideology: defense of Western (European, Christian) civilization, defense of ethnoculturalism, public recognition of racial reality, private property and the free market that arises from its protection, strong military, small non-security government, 'blood and soil', traditional moral and aesthetic standards, law and order. Note, please, Mr. Lister, that Powell was a very strong defender of private property, free markets, and sound money. You do realize that support for supranationalist bureaucracies like the EU has nothing to do with either conservatism or classical liberalism? Thatcher was basically a classical liberal, albeit a culturally conservative one (but that still places her, in relative terms, on the Right). Re immigration, she was generally against it (unlike Reagan, who really did not think in race-realist terms at all), but she was, like so many Western, postwar politicians of what has passed for a "Right", basically cowardly, or at least, she wanted to fight what she saw as the main issues (the Cold War, and reviving Britain's economy through in part taming the odious, Marxist labor unions), and was too ignorant to understand the mortal future dangers inherent in immigration (which really consists in admitting the principle that harmonious racial integration is possible and immigration of nonwhites thus acceptable). I'm absolutely serious when I say that Thatcher remains a great PM, and that Britain would be a much worse place had she not held power. (It was Blair/Brown who, predictably, ruined Britain, mainly through immigration, but also with reckless social spending - Iraq war was a minor distraction). Of course, Britain might be the best country on Earth had Powell made it to PM. Would that Cameron proves her successor.
11267751221313002022[i]The key issue is actually is one a liberal of whatever variety or a non-liberal, post-liberal, communitarian etc. That is someone that recognises the ontological priority of the whole before its parts - that communal life and social capital (our common interests, cultural values, and even physical inheritence) must be defended and that defence is more important now than making money, consumerism, or PC idiocy etc. In liberal political theory the individual is ontologically prior to all other phenomena. In fact any form of collective or communal life, taken seriously, is viewed as positively dangerous by liberals (of course it’s a partial truth that they expand to be the whole truth - typical ideological thinking). These people obviously have no idea what frequency-dependent phenomena are. In the UK you could use the simple question ‘was Enoch right?’ to determine if you are ontological liberal (or not). Thatcher and indeed all of the political class in the UK have consistantly answered that question with a resounding ‘NO’. Hence revealing their deep attachment to liberalism[/i]. (Lister) ---------------------------- Of course Enoch was right! But he was right about everything, from the dangers of colored immigration and the EU, to the vital necessity of private property and the free market. You fail to understand that defending immigration restriction need not in any way, philosophical or practical, entail supporting, say, a national health service. There can be a recognition of the ontological priority of the tribe - that is, that selfish and shortsighted individual desires which conflict with the requirements of tribal survival, like importing foreign workers, can be collectively overruled - without a rejection of either correct theoretical economics (which has the individual acting man as its proper unit of analysis), or the rights and dignity of the person. That was really the essence of traditional Americanism, and I believe it was right. For example, many would think Jefferson the archetypal classical liberal (libertarian). Yet he was an opponent of immigration at a time when that was understood to mean non-[i]English[/i] migration. He really didn't want anyone new admitted. How do you deal with that position? Was Jefferson just confused about what his own commitment to individual rights required? Can no libertarian argue for or support collective goods, like cultural preservation through immigration restriction, or the laying of taxes for advanced national militaries? Very few self-identified libertarians would go that far. And what about Thatcher herself? She may have slammed down her copy of Hayek's [i]The Constitution of Liberty[/i] (an important if flawed tome), saying "This is what we support", but that did not lead her either to reject a strong national defense, or to support increased immigration in the manner of the filthy Labour socialist Blair (whom the prolific and otherwise estimable historian Paul Johnson in [i]Standpoint[/i] has ridiculously characterized as a "conservative", on the flimsy and irrelevant basis that Blair evidently is sincere in his Christian belief, and of course, acted the lapdog on Iraq). As a matter of practical policy she may have failed to stem the immigration invasion, but she did not actively support it, to my knowledge, and it would be merely ludicrous to claim that she saw immigration as a vital aspect of her agenda. Reagan failed to return the US to a monetary gold standard, but that doesn't mean he opposed one, let alone that he was a proponent of 'loose money' (he was not). You seem to think that classical liberalism is incompatible with the nation-state. This is false on so many levels. Read the classical liberal David Conway, [i]In Defence of the Realm[/i], a tedious and repetitive work, I admit, but one which goes to great lengths to refute that notion, arguing (if I recall) pragmatically that the maintenance of Britain's historic culture of liberty and individual rights requires radically restricted immigration, both in numbers and ethnocultural character. It was the socialist Labour Left which destroyed Britain, not the pro-capitalist Tory Right, which was merely foolish and shortsighted. Look at the clip from the Powell documentary you posted. It was Tony Benn sniveling about "racial prejudice", not the Middle British shopkeeper's daughter. Thatcher was a great help to British well-being, even if she should have focused more on immigration (assuming the British people in the 80s would have supported her on restriction; would they have, and with sufficient enthusiasm, or were they, like their US counterparts, more concerned about other matters, like rebuilding defence and overcoming leftist created economic sclerosis?).
11268151221313008489Hey look, someone is finally creating a White City: http://white-city.net/?en Unfortunately, it's in Tel Aviv.
11268551221313011546Look at this ass-licker: ---------------------------------------------------- Now is not the time for police to use water cannon and baton rounds Such tactics should only be used in very specific circumstances and we will not rashly deviate from the British model of policing Hugh Orde guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 August 2011 20.39 BST One of the greatest strengths of British policing is that operational decision-making is conducted not by politicians, but by professional chief police officers who have spent their whole career in policing. While David Cameron today referred to some of the more extreme measures available to us, they are not new, and responsibility for their deployment remains entirely a matter for chief officers. There can be no confusion here at all; it is a fact that we cannot be ordered to police in a certain way but we will be held robustly accountable for what we choose to do or not do. As one of only two officers in the country to have ordered the use of water cannon and baton rounds in public-order policing, my professional judgment is it would be the wrong tactic, in the wrong circumstances at this moment. Both require an extremely precise situation. The use of water cannon, while logistically difficult, works against large stationary crowds throwing missiles at police or, as I witnessed in Northern Ireland, at other communities. It achieves distance between police and unlawful crowds that is often vital. Utilising baton rounds, an even more severe tactic, is fundamentally to protect life. When I ordered their use, again in Northern Ireland, my officers were being attacked by blast bombs and live fire. I would always use both with a heavy heart, but it is always an issue of proportionality. What we have seen so far from these riots, involving fast-moving and small groups of lawless people, is a situation that merits the opposite end of public-order policing. This morning, myself and members of police forces around the country had the opportunity to share with the home secretary the tactics that are working and the evidence is that fast arrests, rapid processing of prisoners through the court system, making sure the correct charges are being placed and collecting appropriate evidence through proper, investigative practice, is working. Baton rounds and water cannon were not mentioned once. Although the policing of disturbances in London on Monday has been widely criticised for lack of arrests, we have learned and moved on quickly from it. Indeed, events on Monday posed unique difficulties for the deployed 6,000 officers – more than have ever policed an event in London. Making arrests at that time, although some did occur, would not have been sensible; we needed cops on the street to keep the peace and preserve life. We can deal with property loss and damage post-event, and while foresight is not always a commodity afforded to the police, part of any deal is that the police will have to explain themselves to the public. What we have seen so far is not soft policing, and although I understand the enthusiasm of politicians and communities for robust measures, excessive force will destroy our model of policing in the long term. What we must hang on to in all of this is the British model of policing, premised on human rights and the minimum use of force. We police with consent and must be professional, proportionate, fair and justifiable to the public at all times. --------------------------------------------------------------------- What a coward. This at a time when Britain and the whole world are hurting economically. I wonder how much these riots are actually going to end up costing me personally, in terms of more stock losses on various global insurance companies I own shares in, and which will be hit with cleanup tabs in the billions. Fuck these looters, and the liberals who have 'nurtured' them! Debating water cannon, when they should be deploying SAS snipers, and deputizing all able-bodied men, issuing them rifles and truncheons and orders to kill as many hooligans as possible (with financial rewards for maximum body counts). EXTERMINATE ALL THE BRUTES! I think what Britain needs is to suspend the rule of law, such as it is, and inaugurate a long period of military fascism. Of course, this will likely only happen after a second civil war. I wonder, among the atheists and Big Talkers at MR: How many of you are prepared to exterminate the Left in all its manifestations? Any rightist not prepared, under conditions of social breakdown, to kill the ideological and racial enemies of our people is no true rightist at all.
11268751221313011888I repeat: It was the socialist Labour Left which destroyed Britain, not the pro-capitalist Tory Right, which was merely foolish and shortsighted. If poltroons like Graham Lister actually think that antagonizing Tories by mouthing off against a heroic figure like Margaret Thatcher is going to aid the cause of saving Britain, then I can only say, please stay in your lab, and leave the practical politics to wiser heads.
11269051221313012483[i]The banality and vacant inner world of the ‘last man’ - shopping, TV sport, and recreational sex, the new holy trinity of modern England. Seriously is there a more culturally degraded nation than the UK in Western Europe?[/i] (Lister) And the decline of Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with this enervated state? And men will be roused to reject this nihilism by unintelligible ontonationalism, or by red-facedly declaring "God is Dead", but let's all still cling like good little liberal secularists to the hope that we can preserve traditional moral and aesthetic standards in the absence of the overarching metaphysical belief system that gave those standards their meaning and justification? How little you understand of men, history and (human) life! After all the "God is dead, and we have killed him" crap, recall that Nietszsche's Zarathustra sagely noted, "We have unchained our sun." Indeed. The line from 19th century atheism to hooligans in hoodies is straight as a bullet.
11269151221313012981[i]Leon, you’re not white. [/i](Helvena) What I can't figure out is where you come up with this shit? I did love that first video, however..
11269251221313014017[i]Wow, Leon! So what happened to Christian forgiveness? What happened to the redemption from a life of error?[/i] (GW) Obviously, you're joking (if I thought this were a legitimate query, I would have to reevaluate my estimation of your intelligence). For the lesser minds ... This is a war, a racial war exactly as the precociously wise (if not quite maximally articulate) MarmiteMan understands it to be. A Christian is not required to forgive his attacker in the course of the attack. Atheists deliberately misunderstand the concept of forgiveness (and btw, I'm no expert, either - not every Christian is a theological expert on every issue related to the faith). The first step in forgiveness is CONTRITION (humble acknowledgment of wrongdoing) on the part of the guilty party, followed by demonstration of a sincere desire to REPENT on his part. You are correct that if some hoodlum suddenly converted, humbly beseeched me to forgive him for his crimes, and concretely demonstrated his repentance by, say, handing me all his money, with promises to work until he had paid his literal debts for the damages he had caused, along with other penalty payments (restitution + punishment), and generally showed good, contrite character throughout, then, yes, I would not be at moral liberty to exterminate his black ass, harvest his organs if applicable, etc. That situation does not seem to obtain at present. As I wrote, this is a dysgenic war, perhaps the earliest salvos in a broader confrontation between producers and parasites - a war of the purest good v the blackest evil. The hooligans should be exterminated en masse. I would give that order if PM or President, and, being a real Christian, would not lose a moment's sleep over it (indeed, I would be anxiety ridden for the fate of my soul if I should have allowed physical of mental/emotional cowardice to [i]prevent[/i] my issuing the shoot to kill edict).
11269351221313014124I reiterate: Do you understand that Britain is under dysgenic attack? That this is a race + hooligans + communist/anarchist war against the very white, Christian, European, common law foundations of British civilization? And do you understand the solutions: deport ALL nonwhite (maybe all non-ethnic British) residents from British soil; bring back public whippings and regular hangings of criminals; restore the right of civilized persons to own and carry firearms; begin a long campaign of both positive and negative eugenics (encourage the better class of citizens to over-reproduce; provide financial incentives, say withholding benefits, to reduce underclass “chav” fertility levels); and reintroduce school curricula encouraging pride in British history and achievements, instead of evil (and mendacious) socialist and multiculturalist nonsense? Britain can be saved - but only after, I fear, a civil war of extermination of aliens, criminals and leftists which will make Cromwell look very soft and obliging.
11269751221313017157Dear Mr. Lister, or The Master of Straw Men: You either never read anything I post, deliberately distort what I plainly say, or are an idiot. I used to think it was Option #2, but I'm increasingly leaning to #3. One thing you (and a few other sophomores around here) have taught me: it is very important that any serious national survivalist movement marginalize its semi-intellectuals, or at least keep them on a tight leash. Second-rate minds are far more dangerous to the movement's success than merely over-rash 'doers'.
11269851221313017317Helvena, Thanks much for that link. I'd never even heard of it! I've added it to my bookmarks.
11269951221313017713Anyone who isn't worried about Muslims really doesn't get it. But that's fine, you worry about the Jews, serious WNs worry about building white pride and consciousness of race, and then see in a decade or more which group is more powerful in the real world. Because power is what this is all finally about.
11272451221313065327Paging Dr. Lister: Curious about one point. In your ethnocollectivist utopia would there be an [i]individual[/i] right to keep and bear arms? Should there be one in multiculti Britain? Because I can't help thinking how ridiculous all this is from an American perspective. These kinds of happenings really don't occur in the US, which I believe has greater experience with ape-oid riots than the UK. Here, despite the serious savagery on display (ie, not mere aggressive, and rather spoiled bratish, hooliganism basically [i]allowed[/i] to get out of hand, as in your country), it is usually mostly confined to the apes' neighborhoods themselves. If they tried to descend [i]en masse[/i] to predominantly white areas, even in risibly weak white LA (well, at least OC), and bully about, looting and burning, they would quickly be met with serious small arms fusillades. A small amount of firepower is usually enough. Back during the '92 riots, my dad in Newport Beach and several of his neighbors were totally prepared to close off their street in the event that savages decided to travel out that way for surprise attacks. With only 4 guys, led by my dad, a WW2/Pacific vet (but then still a vigorous man in his 60s), I have not the slightest doubt that they could have held off literally dozens of apes, even on the assumption of the latter being armed. Looters aren't soldiers. They're out for fun and booty, not serious war. If they meet that kind of resistance, they move on. I was in Westwood unfortunately at the time. Despite being surrounded by mostly unarmed weaklings, there were still many of us who were armed (a surprising mishmash of whites it was who were armed, too: some servicemen, some incipient WNs, like yours truly, some seemingly effete yuppies, a number of otherwise nerdy and typically abrasive LA Jews; I even had a fairly obviously gay neighbor who lived on the same floor of my apt bldg, and who was walking around with an impressive S&W;(I think) .357 (for sure) for a few days). I was posting sentry for several days on the roof of my building (my employer shut down for a few days), with binoculars, and an 18" modified/pistol grip shotgun (with about 50 shells) and Colt 1911 (about 300-400 rounds, what I had at home pre-riot) about my person (and some admiring girls still coming up, after day 1, to tan and hit the hot tub), and would spy other whites on other bldgs also surveying the territory with their binoculars. The greatest joy was when we would notice and then salute each other by brandishing our shotguns and rifles high in the air. Westwood did sustain some minor vandalism, when we all got caught by surprise by the original verdict, and the apes exploded (at least as I remember in Westwood) very rapidly. Unfortunately, after that first evening, no more apes came our way. Had they tried to hit my section of Veteran Ave, a lot would have been cut down. That experience leads me to believe that the actual fighting of the impending race war won't be as awful as many WNs think. I mean, sure there will be incredible slaughter, but there is a certain joy, I could even then intuit, in fighting with one's people in the noble cause of resisting ape depredations. Too many whites walk around bored and with no sense of purpose. Being threatened with apish destruction concentrates the mind wonderfully, and would provide already awakened WNs with super-purpose. Feelings of depression, for those prone, or despair or lethargy would get quickly dispelled. Anyway, if whites could own guns again in the UK, as in centuries past, I don't think the new Troubles, Twitter or not, would have gained a foothold.
11275051221313103789I'd really like to hear something about the issue I broached above of whether the disarming of the British population has been a good thing.
11275651221313121826OK, I repeat my question another way: Should the British enjoy the same right to bear arms as e Americans do? [i]Leon Haller, Just out of pure curiosity, are you equipped to go to the shooting range?[/i] Are you asking if I am an armed citizen? What do you think?
11275751221313122066As per usual what I write does not resonate, but I repeat the following, because it's really the essential lesson of all this: That experience leads me to believe that the actual fighting of the impending race war won’t be as awful as many WNs think. I mean, sure there will be incredible slaughter, but there is a certain joy, I could even then intuit, in fighting with one’s people in the noble cause of resisting ape depredations. Too many whites walk around bored and with no sense of purpose. Being threatened with apish destruction concentrates the mind wonderfully, and would provide already awakened WNs with super-purpose. Feelings of depression, for those prone, or despair or lethargy would get quickly dispelled. [b][u]Anyway, if whites could own guns again in the UK, as in centuries past, I don’t think the new Troubles, Twitter or not, would have gained a foothold.[/u][/b]
11282251221313265335What a useless fucking country Britain has become! Graham Lister's tirades against Americans, set against the backdrop of Britons cowering and disrobing before their nigger masters, are simply pathetic. They might have some value if Britain were still the country it was in the war. But what about Britain today is worth defending - and anyway, who and where are the defenders? My view of Britain has undergone a sea change in the past week, not so much because of the virtually free pass given to violent Third World hooligans - with the ass-licking (Tory!) government debating whether water cannon and plastic (?!) bullets should be employed as riot control, as the police did nothing but sip tea - as because of my experience on that useless inspectorgadget blog. I pointed out that blacks were the cause of the riots, and wouldn't Britain be better off without them? Sorry Bill, virtually every response was negative. These responses were from [i]anonymous[/i] posters, many describing themselves as cops. All manner of whining about "where's your armband?", and "brave black coppers are out there on the line", and similar crap. Where is the outrage over there, where are the anonymous demands for DEPORTATION NOW, return of public hanging, arming of the native British population, or just ending the immigration invasion? Britain is dead. The problem is not even or primarily the millions (tens?) of racial (and white ethnic) aliens colonized on your shores, who could yet be wiped out if Henry V, and Wellington, and Nelson and past generations of redcoats could be resurrected (or, more soberly, their spirit). It is not the fact that Christianity has disappeared from your land, or that with it the whole historic British culture in one or two generations has likewise been eviscerated (no connection there, is there? 'Course not. A culture and moral system can endure without the metaphysical superstructure supporting them - obviously!). It is the supreme spinelessness of the contemporary British people that is so shocking. The vast majority of whites have been utterly, to me shockingly, brainwashed. How did that happen? How could it? The white majority in the US, awful as we have become, is not remotely as supine. Europeans have the nerve to mock Americans, but we are much tougher than you are. We still have a spirit of rebellious independence (just go to the Vegas gun show, as I do every few years), that is reflected even in yahoo comment boards, where you will find far more conservative and racialist sentiment in a typical article about blacks, or even Obama, than I saw on any British news site at the height of the race war, including that ludicrous police blog. Britain is dead because no one will fight for it. No one will fight for it because most have been more thoroughly brainwashed into racial egalitarianism and universal brotherhood crap than the captive peoples of Eastern Europe were ever brainwashed into believing in communism - and because the rest are secularist bastards for whom life is accidental and meaningless, today is therefore everything, and the understandable attitude is thus to keep one's head down, and just carry on (in this exactly mirroring the attitudes of the peoples caught under communism). True British patriots should stop fooling themselves. Your only hopes are for a revived and racially renovated Church Militant, exactly as the old CE establishment was (at least wrt the colonized races), to act as the moral guide for a revived British patriotism which recognizes that Britain has been both invaded by foreign armies, and betrayed by its leaders. The goal must then be to foment a second civil war to drive the invaders into the seas (and to convict and hang the traitors - Blair, Brown, Benn, all of them - who facilitated the foreign conquest). While I have no doubt that earlier generations of Brits, if time-teleported and forced to live in the present, would respond in exactly this way, I admit civil war to save Britain seems far-fetched at best. Your other option is White Zion, where at least you can live out your days with racial and ideological compatriots, taking some solace in the knowledge that though your nation is gone (but where are the Celts? Franks? Goths? Vikings? mere ethnicities do inevitably transmogrify and disappear over long periods), your race will endure, with consciously created ethnic revivals always possible in the future. Face facts. The number of British patriots is too small to win back the land. But this is probably true for most if not all white nations. It is only by relocating to a common area that we will have any hope of becoming a majority, and hence of reconstituting society according to our values and prerogatives - which is necessary if our race is to endure, given, as I repeatedly argue, that all endogenous as well as exogenous trends are leading ineluctably to white extinction.
11272251231313062287Somebody on the Maltese Incident thread stated that Mr. v. Hoffmeister was the youngish, blondish guy in the blue shirt. True? That man's look does not in my experience correlate with the kind of person who publishes what v. Hoff does here at MR.
11274951231313103559Soren, Since the inauguration of the age of digital photography I have been most rigorous in avoiding being photographed. Where such has been unavoidable, usually at social gatherings and without my permission, I have insisted that I remain unidentified. So I shall remain (I hope - I had to threaten an ex once over this), until I am ready and [i]choose[/i] otherwise. Arlette, I suppose poetry is not my forte (and certainly not my interest, though I do love novels and stories). I saw that photo only because M. Renner published it here recently. The convivium depicted, and its sunny, maritime background, did look quite wonderful. I am jealous. Graham, I, too, am a fan of Houellebecq, though the insignificant [i]Lanzarote[/i] made no impression I can now recall. Your review, btw, is outstanding, especially from the second full paragraph until the second to the last. It reads like something published in a better periodical. But five minutes? I could not type it in 5 min, let alone compose it, too. Bernanos was a Catholic reactionary novelist. Mounier was a strange, unconventionally classifiable figure. Aron, I'm unfamiliar with beyond the name, though, like Leon Aron and Raymond Aron, surely Jewish. I would not have thought to have mentioned these gentlemen in the context of a discussion of Houellebecq, more an apostle of an ineluctable nihilism than any sort of religious reactionary, reactionary modernist or otherwise spiritual critic of French modernity. But he is certainly worth reading, especially for those who are, as you imply, alienated from both the facile American 'rights' advocacy and dessicated consumerist hegemony characteristic of neoliberalism, as well as the tiresome and demonstrably false platitudes of the egalitarian left.
11281451241313238356[i]P.S. So we have Houellebecq as a dissector of liberal cultural values, and I would also suggest Ballard and Coetzee in this regard also. But who else might be on the “contemporary literature” reading list for the by no means narrow-minded non-liberal?[/i] (Lister) Interesting question. Are you looking for dissectors of liberalism (and critical or sympathetic? an arch-dissector of liberal values in the latter category would be Updike; also, maybe Cheever), as you say, or really for anti-liberal writers? I would place Coetzee in the former category, not the latter (though I've only read a couple of his novels). I should read Ballard, I suppose, but haven't. I generally hate postmodernity, so my literary tastes mostly tend to date to no later than say, about 1990, which is pushing it (and for books published in the 70s or 80s I prefer authors whose sensibilities were formed much earlier - Iris Murdoch, Graham Greene, Solzhenitsyn). Usually, whenever I do dip a toe into the pool of truly "contemporary" lit, I am annoyed by its sentimentality, affectedness, frequent opacity, and general 'preciousness' (eg, [i]Beloved[/i], a book I found excruciating to get through, or [i]The English Patient[/i], or even [i]Atonement[/i], which I did rather like all the same). I mostly try to read the acknowledged classics, and only occasionally read something that hasn't survived the test of at least a few decades. Intellectuals like to pretend that they've read all the 'old stuff', but how could they? How many of us really have read (and labored over) all 37 (?) plays (I think) of Shakespeare, or all of the 15 or so mostly fat novels of Dickens, or even [i]War and Peace[/i], let alone more than a fraction of the 92 novels and novellas comprising La Comedie humaine? I saw a piece recently in the liberal/neocon [i]The Weekly Standard[/i] where 70-something literary critic Joseph Epstein admitted that he had never read [i]The Brothers Karamazov[/i]. The time for extraneous reading is limited; why risk reading something history has not yet vindicated when there is so much it has? As for anti-liberal writers (I'm partial to many more liberal, or at least not [i]anti[/i]-liberal, ones - Hemingway, Maugham, Mann, Bassani, Robertson Davies, to name a few springing to mind), how far back is "contemporary"? Mid-20th century forward? Besides Greene and Solzhenitsyn (both of whom qualify, I think; Murdoch can in no reasonable way be described as "anti-liberal", but she is very smart and enjoyable) I like Waugh, O'Connor, Faulkner, Bowles (he was on the 'progressive' side, but I think [i]The Sheltering Sky[/i] is very suitable for nationalist purposes) Mauriac, Huxley, Gironella, the adult short stories of Dahl, Golding, Junger (like certain radio stations, he spans 'classic to contemporary'), and Mishima (I'd throw in Lovecraft, every one of whose stories I've read, and Tolkien, but, in addition to not being contemporary, perhaps they aren't 'literary' enough?). More truly [i]contemporary[/i] (defined, say, as writers still alive) anti/non-liberal writers I like would include Raspail, of course, Naipaul, Eugenio Corti, and especially Cormac McCarthy (how should William Trevor be classified?). For some reason I'm really drawing a blank here. Any websites devoted to high quality literature? I'd like to review of list of authors, as I'm sure I'd have a lot more to recommend. Literature is a fairly big part of my non-professional life. One final rec. For sheer fun - and no one could possibly be more appreciative of this series than intelligent nationalists, especially British ones - you must read the Flashman novels of George MacDonald Fraser. Not quite great literature, but beautifully written and wonderfully non-PC. There are, I believe, 12 novels in the series. I've read 6, and absolutely will read the remainder, probably more than once, before I die.
11282351241313265421What a useless fucking country Britain has become! Graham Lister's tirades against Americans, set against the backdrop of Britons cowering and disrobing before their nigger masters, are simply pathetic. They might have some value if Britain were still the country it was in the war. But what about Britain today is worth defending - and anyway, who and where are the defenders? My view of Britain has undergone a sea change in the past week, not so much because of the virtually free pass given to violent Third World hooligans - with the ass-licking (Tory!) government debating whether water cannon and plastic (?!) bullets should be employed as riot control, as the police did nothing but sip tea - as because of my experience on that useless inspectorgadget blog. I pointed out that blacks were the cause of the riots, and wouldn't Britain be better off without them? Virtually every response was negative. These responses were from [i]anonymous[/i] posters, many describing themselves as cops. All manner of whining about "where's your armband?", and "brave black coppers are out there on the line", and similar crap. Where is the outrage over there, where are the anonymous demands for DEPORTATION NOW, return of public hanging, arming of the native British population, or just ending the immigration invasion? Britain is dead. The problem is not even or primarily the millions (tens?) of racial (and white ethnic) aliens colonized on your shores, who could yet be wiped out if Henry V, and Wellington, and Nelson and past generations of redcoats could be resurrected (or, more soberly, their spirit). It is not the fact that Christianity has disappeared from your land, or that with it the whole historic British culture in one or two generations has likewise been eviscerated (no connection there, is there? 'Course not. A culture and moral system can endure without the metaphysical superstructure supporting them - obviously!). It is the supreme spinelessness of the contemporary British people that is so shocking. The vast majority of whites have been utterly, to me shockingly, brainwashed. How did that happen? How could it? The white majority in the US, awful as we have become, is not remotely as supine. Europeans have the nerve to mock Americans, but we are much tougher than you are. We still have a spirit of rebellious independence (just go to the Vegas gun show, as I do every few years), that is reflected even in yahoo comment boards, where you will find far more conservative and racialist sentiment in a typical article about blacks, or even Obama, than I saw on any British news site at the height of the race war, including that ludicrous police blog. Britain is dead because no one will fight for it. No one will fight for it because most have been more thoroughly brainwashed into racial egalitarianism and universal brotherhood crap than the captive peoples of Eastern Europe were ever brainwashed into believing in communism - and because the rest are secularist bastards for whom life is accidental and meaningless, today is therefore everything, and the understandable attitude is thus to keep one's head down, and just carry on (in this exactly mirroring the attitudes of the peoples caught under communism). True British patriots should stop fooling themselves. Your only hopes are for a revived and racially renovated Church Militant, exactly as the old CE establishment was (at least wrt the colonized races), to act as the moral guide for a revived British patriotism which recognizes that Britain has been both invaded by foreign armies, and betrayed by its leaders. The goal must then be to foment a second civil war to drive the invaders into the seas (and to convict and hang the traitors - Blair, Brown, Benn, all of them - who facilitated the foreign conquest). While I have no doubt that earlier generations of Brits, if time-teleported and forced to live in the present, would respond in exactly this way, I admit civil war to save Britain seems far-fetched at best. Your other option is White Zion, where at least you can live out your days with racial and ideological compatriots, taking some solace in the knowledge that though your nation is gone (but where are the Celts? Franks? Goths? Vikings? mere ethnicities do inevitably transmogrify and disappear over long periods), your race will endure, with consciously created ethnic revivals always possible in the future. Face facts. The number of British patriots is too small to win back the land. But this is probably true for most if not all white nations. It is only by relocating to a common area that we will have any hope of becoming a majority, and hence of reconstituting society according to our values and prerogatives - which is necessary if our race is to endure, given, as I repeatedly argue, that all endogenous as well as exogenous trends are leading ineluctably to white extinction.
11284151241313313636That was very funny, Jimmy.
11286951241313359790Most white American [i]unoffical[/i] conservatives believe that 'real Americans' are white. That may be changing with the under 30 crowd, though I've encountered a number of young, nonwhite females who have referred to whites as "Americans", in the context in contrast to themselves and their 'communities', which they define racially. Certainly, blacks define themselves wholly racially, as "African-Americans" (they only emphasize the latter aspect when discussing, say, Caribbean immigrants with obvious accents). Likewise, Mexicans mostly see themselves as Hispanic, really Mexican, not American. It is only white leftists, including libertarians, evangelical spokesmen and neoconservatives, who desperately pretend that you can't tell an American by physical features. This is changing rapidly, however. My point is that white Americans are now better as whites than most West Europeans (and I think Canadians). You would have to go way out to the Far Left to find a discussion like the exchange with Starkey that GW posted. For example, the dysfunctionality of black 'culture' is now widely noted and openly discussed. Unfortunately, it is discussed in every way but the correct, biological one - but I doubt that someone making Starkey's rather mild comments would be jumped on in the way he was. Anyway, whites are headed towards extinction. I sensed this at least as far back as the very early 1980s, when I first became aware that the idiot Europeans were also allowing nonwhite immigration (why? why? I kept asking the adults). Crossing the line into anti-racism spelled the end of our civilization. I repeat: there is no hope beyond White Zion. Get used to it, and get onboard.
11283451251313290068Starkey - a sniveling leftist, lets himself get 'instructed' by some even worse traitors and an African. What the fuck is wrong with your country? I am amazed at how weak you people are. Really. How dare any European ever lecture a proud white American! Sure we have our share of race traitors and nigger-grovelers, but often they are Jews. What is it with this Owen Jones? How does someone like this get produced? That's what's most interesting. "Our children". Your children are NOT my children, bitch! Go home to Africa! "What chu mean by feez groups, David?" Ah, yes, the "organic" nation being lectured to by a genetic alien ... I am more convinced than I was a week ago of the absolute necessity of White Zion. To an British WNs: Get out while you can! Move to Oz, counteract the waves of Asians inundating it. Your country is unsalvageable.
11283551251313291665Submitted this to the Daily Mail talking about Starkey controversy (we'll see if it gets posted): Enoch Powell was right about everything. And no this was not simply about culture, or even black culture (as though the culture and the race can really be separated!). This was about a black race war being declared against traditional Britain - a WHITE, EUROPEAN nation, not some Third World, African toilet bowl. Whiggers merely joined in the terror. The British people need to understand that they have been invaded, colonized and conquered by Third World savages, imposed upon them by treasonous and cowardly leaders of all main political parties. Powell was the greatest British leader of the 20th century, who tried to save Britain from this fate infinitely worse than Nazi conquest. But you idiot liberals and commoners did not listen - and now look at the deleterious and hopeless state of your country. Only a second Glorious Revolution will save England. The alien peoples must all be deported. The racial traitors who imposed foreign colonization must be tried, convicted, and hung. ---------------------------- If any WNs here actually want to do something besides bellyache to each other (which is what I think the real purpose of most WN sites is - to provide a comfort zone for the dispossessed, as opposed to actually getting something done in the real world, like the EDL tries to do, for example), I invite you to copy and paste what I wrote above, and submit it widely across the news and blogsphere (but attach your own name, as it is important that there be a show of strength). WNs need to stop talking to each other, and start organizing in the real world. Frankly, we have all the theory we need. Debating Christianity and conservatism, Heidegger and Houellebecq is all very interesting, but finally irrelevant. We know what we want for now: stop immigration, deport illegals, crackdown on black criminality, end multiculturalism and affirmative action. Once accomplished, we will formulate new goals.
11286751251313358659Lurker (Mark II), Excellent comment. You have educated me. When I claimed to be a 'Powellite' on this site I was referring to Powell's race-and-culture-realism, his defense of private property and free markets, his opposition to the EU and euro, his anti-communism, his Christian traditionalism, and his obvious acknowledgment and embodiment of Western High Culture. That to me is real conservatism. I certainly support comprehensive, [i]uncompensated[/i] repatriation (I do think the aliens should be allowed to take bank accounts and personal possessions, and to sell their businesses and properties - though arguably there should be compensation to the indigenous for all the crime and disproportionate welfare dependency caused by or characteristic of the alien colonists), and agree that different races cannot be assimilated to each other (as ethnic groups can: a white German baby, adopted by an English family, will grow up to be as English as anyone; a nonwhite baby, never). I am a [i]uber[/i]-proponent of capital (and corporal) punishment, and did not know Powell was against it. That is a black mark. I wonder, though, if what he said re the Germans was not tactical and off-the-cuff, trying to soften his image in order that he not be rendered completely politically irrelevant. Even at the time, I thought his efforts on Ireland were largely a waste (though not being British or Irish, or knowing or caring much about the Irish Question, I did not attend to him closely on this). Unfortunately, the question now is what are you (and all white peoples everywhere) going to do about it - the "it" being that we have lost our countries? Face facts: Britain is now hopeless as a home for the British people. You can reside there, obviously, but not as traditionally British. The governing political and social ideologies, not to mention increasing numbers of your fellow citizens, are not your own. The problem is not just the enormous numbers of alien settler-colonialists, who will now wage violent insurrection (possibly with foreign (Muslim) military aid) if attempts are made to repatriate them. It is also that vast numbers of whites themselves are either endemic race traitors, or wigger-'chavs' (this latter phenomenon seems to be more common in Europe, esp Britain, than in the US). I'm not sure which of these three phenomena is more dismaying (that question is worth a good, long discussion). Foreign colonizers, race traitors, wiggers : how can the last British patriots fight these enemies, when it seems as though they outnumber you? It is not a coun[i]sel[/i] of despair to state baldly that you can't, at least not when the majority of the indigenous, who are neither race traitors nor wiggers, cannot bring themselves ethically to face what needs to be done. Take a nice 'Middle British', Tory-voting matron. She may be a true patriot, and not a race traitor; she may fear wiggers and want them disciplined; she may wish 'coloured' immigration had never been introduced; she may dislike the presence of her neighborhood mosque. But is she willing to accept, either ethically or personally, the massive destruction, not seen since WW2, and violence, probably not seen since the civil war, if then (I doubt it, btw), that will attend doing what must be done to reverse what she dislikes? Am I stating the obvious (because I have done so on many occasions, and it usually goes unremarked)? The only possibility for the recovery of Britain (and perhaps all of Western Europe) is [b]CIVIL WAR[/b]. Providing a strong, anti-liberal theoretical foundation, doing more racial science, etc is all worthless in the face of the numbers of settler-colonizers that keep piling up (mostly through immigration, perhaps also through excessive fertility). The problem of white survival is rapidly passing from a philosophical to a military one. And even if the indigenous majority could be persuaded that the ethics of nationalism supersedes the ethics of anti-racism (certainly a lost cause thus far - consider again my failed efforts on the police blog), that same majority may not agree to the destructive costs of 'saving Britain'. They may well prefer to maintain a 'stiff upper lip', and quiescently accept passive national euthanasia. If the past is any guide, that is certainly what they will do. Hence White Zion. The bringing together of racially patriotic whites from across the globe into one sovereign territory that we can potentially control. It will be our only hope, both for ordinary whites to live civilized, [i]white[/i] lives after about 2030-40, as well as for our race to avoid extinction via miscegenation or extermination.
11286851251313358766"The Yoof's Prayer" - classic!
11290551251313413587[i]White Zion? Give me a break. Of all the daft fantasies… So I have to run away from the only country I’ve ever known, because about one-tenth of its population is now a shallowly rooted, largely unintelligent coloured minority? To some unspecified destination, to rub shoulders with a bunch of assorted continentals? The way Enoch scarpered from Wolverhampton to the Six Counties! Grow a pair, Mr Haller. (Your name does not suggest much of an attachment to old England, btw.) All white defeatists are very welcome to hit the exit. But don’t expect to be let back in after a few years when your Utopian colony goes the way of all such projects. I may be uprooted by death, but nothing else will shift me.[/i] (Lurker MII) -------------------- Lurker (Mark II), I enjoyed your earlier comment, but this disappoints. You obviously did not understand what I clearly wrote (proved by your having made not the slightest attempt to refute it). I admire your resoluteness, however futile it will prove to be. I'm an American with only a slight bit of English blood, as I've said many times, btw. I repeat from above: [i]The problem is not just the enormous numbers of alien settler-colonialists, who will now wage violent insurrection (possibly with foreign (Muslim) military aid) if attempts are made to repatriate them. It is also that vast numbers of whites themselves are either endemic race traitors, or wigger-’chavs’ (this latter phenomenon seems to be more common in Europe, esp Britain, than in the US). I’m not sure which of these three phenomena is more dismaying (that question is worth a good, long discussion). [b]Foreign colonizers, race traitors, wiggers : how can the last British patriots fight these enemies, when it seems as though they outnumber you? [/b] It is not a counsel of despair to state baldly that you can’t, at least not when the majority of the indigenous, who are neither race traitors nor wiggers, cannot bring themselves ethically to face what needs to be done. Take a nice ‘Middle British’, Tory-voting matron. She may be a true patriot, and not a race traitor; she may fear wiggers and want them disciplined; she may wish ‘coloured’ immigration had never been introduced; she may dislike the presence of her neighborhood mosque. But is she willing to accept, either ethically or personally, the massive destruction, not seen since WW2, and violence, probably not seen since the civil war, if then (I doubt it, btw), that will attend doing what must be done to reverse what she dislikes? And even if the indigenous majority could be persuaded that the ethics of nationalism supersedes the ethics of anti-racism (certainly a lost cause thus far - consider again my failed efforts on the police blog), that same majority may not agree to the destructive costs of ‘saving Britain’. They may well prefer to maintain a ‘stiff upper lip’, and quiescently accept passive national euthanasia. If the past is any guide, that is certainly what they will do.[/i] --------------------------------------- You might try telling me how you plan to Take Back Britain. Perhaps you have insights for WNs in other countries. But why don't you begin by addressing what I bolded immediately above?
11290851251313416787[i]I agree that we need a philosophy, but I think many of us behave as if success will come to us when we refine a message capable of reaching masses of receptive Whites. It’s my experience that those masses do not currently exist. I have come to believe that increased violence (military and otherwise) is necessary to make them receptive. Sure. We lack a consistent message, and substantial media power to circulate it, but we also lack a target audience. They are not ready yet. Its still to easy for them to maintain themselves in a state of comfortable denial. They need to be the recipients of increased violence, starvation and increased systemic injustice. Military action can work for us, but not until larger numbers of people embrace WN philosophy. WN philosophy can work for us, but not until the people are starved and bloodied by the system. “Change must come through the barrel of gun”. Theirs. Not, ours.[/i] (Jimmy Marr) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yes, I agree with this 100%, and have stated such in my own words many times, including on this very thread. Let me be clear about something, because somehow I think I'm being misinterpreted or misrepresented as some kind of [i]advocate[/i], as opposed to neutral[i]analyst[/i], of racial warfare. 1. I condemned the Anders Breivik massacre, and said so here and elsewhere. I thought the killing of the youths was evil, and explained why (they only held misguided and treasonous [i]opinions[/i]; they had not had the power to impose any treason, and thus had not done anything legally (ie, post-Norwegian patriotic restoration) culpable from a Christian perspective - unlike the black terrorists of Britain last week, as many as possible of whom ought to have been shot by SAS and/or police snipers). I also thought it was strategically stupid. Breivik would have made his point much better had he vandalized a mosque, especially when it was empty so that no sympathy would attach to any "innocent worshippers" who might otherwise have gotten harmed. The physical structure of a mosque in white, Christian Norway is outrage enough, and attacking it gets the right message across. 2. Absolutely, the masses of whites are not receptive. They are BRAINWASHED. That's the whole point. They need deprogramming, as with any other weak minds under the grip of some evil cultishness. Of course, some whites are intelligent, and really don't understand the horrors going on around them (intelligence gets focused on different things: a brilliant filmmaker or engineer or fashion designer may really just not have considered the facts of race or politics as we have). That's where good quality arguments matter. My point, though, is that this is a race against time. We develop better and better arguments (much better, and MUCH better disseminated, even than what was on offer as recently as the 80s, I distinctly remember), but the alien colonizers keep pouring into our lands. We need to be operating on all rhetorical levels, from first philosophy to visceral, gut level messaging. 3. When I discuss the coming reality of racial violence, I am speaking analytically, not normatively. If whites in Europe (America is lost, and separation, not reconquest, is the only realistic hope) intend to restore their fatherlands, they must face the fact that they will almost certainly not do so absent bloodshed. I do not say that they should [i]initiate[/i] such violence (certainly they should not, as that would reduce white morale), merely that they will not recover their homelands without it. The aliens will start it once they are asked to leave, and see that the indigenous are serious (as we just saw, they are already pathologically violent, and this when the livin' is grand, and they receive only benefits, while being required to do nothing in return). The indigenous must make sure they have the physical firepower to finish it. 4. I certainly do not advocate any type of racial violence in America (except legit self-defense against nonwhite criminals). I would like to see Europe become white again, but America is ethically different. We had every right to keep out nonwhite migrants - and should have - and we should of course deport all illegal aliens. But we are a New World; we always had substantial nonwhite populations (Indians, black slaves); and I'm not sure how a Christian could tell a LEGAL immigrant to get out, when, even though whites did found, settle and build America, we ourselves originated elsewhere. Of course, if a race war should ever be launched against whites in America, then all bets would be off. But until that day, whites demanding legal nonwhite immigrants get out is tough to square with any Christian ethic, as I understand the faith. 5. That I think American racial cleansing would be unchristian in no way should be taken to mean that I think that there is anything immoral about WN, or a racial politics for whites. All minorities play race politics to their advantage, and whites' disadvantage, and we should not hesitate to band together to defend our own racial interests. Indeed, I wish we'd start doing so immediately. 6. Lastly, I am an apostle for White Zion, let's not forget. That is the very opposite of violence. WZ is simply doing to some country what minorities are doing to us: demographic colonization, followed by electioneering to achieve WN political dominance. Not only is this course morally unimpeachable, I also believe it is more likely to succeed than other options, esp wrt the New World Anglosphere (though so racially and morally degraded is Britain I have to make the same recommendation there).
11290951251313418282CS, You grasp my brutally realistic argument. I don't particularly like the idea of WZ. I wish the white nations had not allowed themselves to be colonized. I wish we had maintained racial and national pride. Even with these mistakes, I wish most whites were awakened and ready to politically reconquer our countries, and reimpose our cultures, legislative preferences and values, including, for Europeans, repatriation. But you are correct, even if it hurts to admit: most whites are racial losers. For decades I thought whites would gradually awaken to the horrors of what they'd done to themselves, and yes, there is glacial movement in that direction. But, like picking up girls (unless your name is Dicaprio), it's all "a numbers game". For every white we laboriously persuade of basic racial truth, 7, 10, 100(?) nonwhite immigrants pour in, everywhere. [b]The pace of awakening is just way too slow viz the pace of colonization[/b] (are you paying attention, GW?). And by the time a majority of our people in any given area are awake, they will be physically incapable of effectuating their recrudesced desire for racial apartheid. So it'll still be "stiff upper lip", "protect my portfolio", "carry on", the end. I absolutely agree about separation from the libtards, too. "The strength of the wolf is the strength of the pack." A WN state could be very powerful, even if not heavily populated. As long as we are racially united, and morale is high (as it would be for the first few generations), we could stand up to far larger enemies. We need to consider Israel in that regard. Yes, they suck off the US and overseas Jewish community. But I think they would be viable, at least for quite a while, even absent outside aid. As a real ethnonation, they are willing to make such sacrifices as are necessary for survival. I think a WN state would be similar. There is a lot to discuss re this WZ concept. A site specifically devoted to it is certainly needed. I need to figure out my schedule, talk to some experts in site construction, and pursue this further. To others: Stop saying this is cowardly! How do others propose saving the white race? The enemy of white preservation is not just the alien. It is also this widespread genetic defect in the psyches of legions of whites that makes us so susceptible to PC indoctrination. That scares me much more than 'wilding' Africans. The numbers of WNs will rise as objective conditions continue to deteriorate. But I think the ultimate "growth potential" of WN, no matter how awful things get, may be below 50% of the race, worldwide (maybe way below).
11295051271313482352Re the title question: They should be, and more and more of them are becoming so. But they are hampered by the heavy influence of Christianity at least on American conservatism (though I'd bet money with anyone that the Right in all historic white nations contains more genuinely religious persons than the Left). Christianity for the most part today has been ideologically polluted by liberalism, especially of the racial variety. IT IS AN ELEMENTARY THEOLOGICAL MISTAKE, BUT ONE PROMOTED BY CHURCHMEN INDIFFERENT TO WHITE SURVIVAL (and note: it is not the place of churchmen to be concerned with nationalist or really any political issues). 1. Christianity does not say that we must lie about empirically established racial differences, or that groups have universal rights to self-esteem and legal (let alone political or economic) equality with other groups. 2. Christianity does not say that Biblically understood "nations" (ie, ethnocultures) are somehow sinful and must be abolished through migration, miscegenation or multiculturalism. 3. Christianity does not condemn out of hand pride in one's heritage and ancestry (excessive pride, as excessive pride in anything, yes). Even atheist WNs make a huge mistake appearing hostile to Christianity. It is far more intelligent to do as I do, and hoep to do in detail in the future: demonstrate the moral compatibility of white survivalism and the historic faith (something our ancestors took for granted - I have only to reflect upon my own very Christian, very racialist (but not racist or hateful) grandfather to know this: he was open with his views, but the priests still loved him and came to our Sunday dinners, and apparently weren't 'horrified' on those occasions when my grandfather would 'go off' about black criminals, or '"too many Orientals", or liberals or whatnot, etc). GW talks about a deep revolution in white psychology being needed. I think I agree, but disagree wrt its content. The root of modern western Man's malaise is spiritual breakdown. Everything wrong with our societies has resulted from the decline of the old philosophical superstructure. All the old virtues - patriotism, chivalry, self-discipline, thrift, etc - have been (allegedly) discredited, with only 'tolerance' and environmentalism and equality to replace them. This was a long time coming, and the root problem - impiety - far antedates PC. I don't know how to recapture the mind and culture, other than through a racially renovated and renewed Christianity, not necessarily of the shallow Bible-thumper variety, but such as characterized both Reformation and especially Counter-reformation. But we can always go the fear route with conservatives specifically. Unless we develop white consciousness and end immigration, your interests and property will be at the mercy of future Obamas, or the savages marauding through London last week. Neither is good for business, to say the least.
11344251271314404031I tried posting the following comment at the nationalconservatism blogspot, re the "standing on firm ground" column; not sure if I succeeded. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for this excellent column. I am an American who has long wanted just such a brief summary of actual British patriots who opposed the "unarmed invasion" (great title) , along with the history of the issue as well as mentions of books which analyzed it. I am thinking of writing a book under the title "The Fall of White Civilization", delving into the exact history of how - not only legislatively, but also rhetorically - the white nations capitulated to racial universalist utopianism, which presumably will have destroyed them within a few decades, or by the end of the century at the latest. My only criticism of the column is that we needn't be so solicitous of the immigrants themselves. Some immigrate to better themselves in lawful and honorable ways (which does not mean that they do not still pose an existential threat to national survival). But many come simply because the 'livin' is good, because they can sponge off Western welfare states, or because they wish to criminally victimize the native born population. The other point is that race absolutely is central to the issue. As a Northern European American white man I could never truly become British in a cultural sense - though any white children of mine could indeed perfectly assimilate. But I am racially and behaviourly indistinguishable from many British, and thus I could more or less 'fit in' with your society. The same cannot be said of someone nonwhite, whose very race is a constant visible marker of his alienness.
11307651281313744051[i]If Platonism and Christianity are fundamentally opposed what was Plotinus saying?[/i] (GW) What are you getting at here? Did Plotinus say [i]anything[/i] about Christianity? I think what you meant to observe was that Plotinus (generally held to be the principal and founder of Neoplatonism) was the source from which many of the Church Fathers of middle antiquity came to know Plato - and to discover affinities between the Plotinian Plato and their own theology(ies).
11316851281313938638[i]Anyway I will not be posting anything on the blog for a while, as from this weekend I will be on on a much needed holiday (enjoying ‘La Dolce Vita’) so I’m sure that will be a relief for many[/i] (Lister) Europe had its little "dolce vita" for, arguably, about 55 years, say, 1953-2008, though the really wonderful years, assuming one wasn't too worried about what was long thought to be the impending Soviet invasion, were about 1955, by which time most of the rubble had been cleared, and basic rebuilding accomplished, to 1965, when the putrid Sixties really got underway, and the West began its descent. Ahh, to have been a single white man with some money in the years 1955-65 ... hardly surprising that was the period when the James Bond novels were published ... those days will not come again ... Anyway, it's "Austerity Europe" (probably Austerity Planet) from now on.
11316351291313922782All these WN strategists - what a waste! We cannot even stop an immigration invasion that very few white people (certainly not, as far as I can tell, a majority in any traditionally white nation, with the possible exception of Canada) actually want, at a time of near-record postwar unemployment and broader economic crisis (the objective economic situation is actually worse than that of the Great Depression, due to today's debt overhang, only it doesn't feel quite as bad, because the West is wealthier today than in the 30s), but yet we're going to get people to "hear the call of blood", "name the Jew", radically transform their economies and cultural tastes, etc etc. Get real, please. The West is 'meta-unstable' from a racial perspective, but not necessarily from economic and political ones. By this I mean that the white race is ineluctably going extinct, unless it consciously exerts itself to adopt a political program to reverse its racially deleterious situation, but white extinction does not necessarily entail the collapse of formerly white societies into WN fantasies of total barbarism along the lines of post-apartheid South Africa. California is very much NOT a part of Western Civilization anymore, and though it is, by my sterner standards, a very dysfunctional place, yet people, including white people, continue to live here, earn wages, dine out, go to ballgames, windsurf, enjoy their girlfriends, etc. With the exception of areas which get totally negrified, life post-white rule does chug on, albeit at an objectively lower civilizational level. Western societies may be far more stable than WNs want to admit, even if their overall racial and civilizational trend lines are relentlessly negative. The extinction process is simply not linear. The quality of American civilization, from my own Occidental perspective, took another huge tumble downwards during the first two years of Obama's presidency. Yet, that gave rise to resistance in the form of the Tea Party, and later in its concrete manifestation in aiding the GOP to retake the House - which in turn has now slowed the rate of decivilization. The point of all this is that strategic discussions (as opposed to tactical ones) are mostly unhelpful. It should be obvious to every patriot of race (apparently it isn't, however) that the first order of business is ending immigration. The more of Them, the harder it is for us to achieve any WN goal, including even that of reducing or ending further immigration. It is that simple. So all WN energies should be devoted to developing tactics for awakening our people to the facts of immigration, which even many intelligent persons don't know. A few months ago I had a conversation with one of my friends and attorneys, a smart, tough, successful, high income, racialist/conservative Republican, in which I denounced the outrage of continuing with generous US immigration policies of approx 140,000 per month, 99% nonwhite, at a time of such terrible unemployment for all racial groups. My friend knew immigration is mostly Third World (though not that it is nearly exclusively so), but he was shocked at the numbers: he thought we were admitting 'only' a few hundred thousand per [i]year[/i]! WNs have a lot of educational work to do. What I want to hear are not arguments of such abstruseness that few can even make sense of them, but the formulation of plain statements that can resonate with the white masses, and even more, discussions of what concretely we should be doing to reach the masses. Personally, I think WNs need to mute their more extreme, racialist, genetic determinist and pessimist views, and start forming patriotic associations, perhaps like the English Defence League, which can function first as networking and social organizations, so that lonely WNs (or even just non-ideological whites trapped in highly multicultural areas who want to meet other whites) can find each other (I'm not implying a dating service, though I know there are many WNs who would love to meet members of the opposite sex who share their ideology, so there's nothing remiss about that aspect), and develop friendships through shared interests and activism. I cannot stress how important this is! The Jews are strong because they form innumerable associational bodies which continuously reinforce their ethnic cohesion. WN will not rise to any power on the basis of its ideology alone. It must have a deep social structure undergirding it, and that structure must consist of local networks of whites who know each other personally scattered across the country (although one hopes that eventually these networks will exist in all cities of certain size), but who are institutionally united by a national organization which is [b]NOT[/b] WN, but which pursues an [i]implicitly[/i] pro-white agenda, beginning (but not in the least ending) with what is most important - agitation to end immigration. I'm thinking of something like white fraternal orders or clubs, whose purposes are as much social and professional as political, even if it's a politics of white protection that ultimately provides both their ostensible purpose, and implicit attraction.
11316651291313930357Mr. Parrott, Other than our both wishing the white race to endure, I suspect that our views not only of political processes, but even ultimate objectives, are extremely antithetical. For example, are you an Occidentalist, which I define as not simply a white racist, but as someone who wishes to preserve Western Civilization, which I understand to be the unique intellectual, cultural, scientific, and moral heritage of Europeans, essentially leavened by the blending of Greco-Roman scientific and juridical/administrative rationality with Christian metaphysics and morality, passed down almost as a kind of epigenetic inheritance (I speak loosely) of the white race, and which probably could not have been created, to paraphrase the late Samuel Francis, "apart from the genetic endowments of the European peoples"? The Occidentalist seeks to preserve the white race, in both blood purity and adequate numbers, because it is the progenitor and perpetuator of WestCiv, and because WestCiv is a uniquely beautiful entity worthy of and entitled to preservation - not because of some atavistic "white is might/right" tribalism. If I were an Australian Abo, but possessed my precise intellect and moral character (whatever their current flaws or inadequacies), I cannot imagine concerning myself with my own tribal preservation. Who cares if the Abos go extinct? It would be no great loss to mankind. My efforts in life would be concentrated on self-betterment. I'm a proud white man, but not in the vulgar way that so many nonwhites (and some whites) are racially proud, simply as an expression of exaggerated or unearned self-esteem. I'm proud to be white because of the great, unrivaled achievements of my race, the greatest of which is the superior collective civilizational character of the race itself. We have a duty to endure, because our existence raises humanity to a higher moral and cultural level. That is where I stand (not that anyone asked, but I thought I should clear some air anyway).
11321351291314026044Mr. Richards, You are genuinely dangerous to the cause of WN. I can perfectly understand a WN organization which aspires to a measure of intellectual respectability disassociating itself from you. This holds even if your wild conspiratorialism is empirically accurate (which I doubt; for example, the evil of the Fed is widely known by persons who care to understand monetary policy; that most people don't understand the harm caused by the Fed has nothing to do with the hidden machinations of some ostensible Jewish power structure - the great modern enemy of the Fed was the Jew Rothbard - but can be chalked up to the simpler explanation of massive intellectual apathy on the part of a genetically and educationally dumbed-down populace). Rightist conspiratorialism only harms the larger cause of white preservation. Note how you never saw/see the really intelligent people (Wilmot Robertson, Sam Francis, Jared Taylor) trafficking in such mostly errant nonsense. An apparent exception might be thought to have been the brilliant Revilo Oliver, though I think he had ulterior aims in occasionally indulging in (insincere) over-the-top rhetoric. Even if the conspiracy theories are right, people are disinclined to accept them - and this in no small part because the conspiratorialist mindset appeals to so many genuine nutters. This disinclination then carries over to anything outside the conspiracy theory with which the conspiratorialist has associated himself. Take your man John de Nugent. He seems like a good man, fighting to save our race. That our race is headed towards extinction is not some outlandish claim. It can be easily intellectually defended with empirical facts + reasonable deductions and extrapolations based on them. So why does de Nugent feel it necessary to promote the not totally implausible, but hardly conclusively established, "Solutrean Hypothesis"? I would love the SH to be true, but that is not the state of the science in question. Moreover, of what use is the SH to white survival, really? By not only promoting it, but acting as though something extremely controversial is widely taken for granted by anyone knowledgeable and honest, such that anyone who dissents must be assumed to have nefarious motives (the classic conspiratorialist outlook!), de Nugent is lessening his own credibility when discussing other issues, like white separatism, in which he is obviously correct. If WN is going to exert any real impact, it needs to work from its strongest and most widely accepted arguments (eg, "immigration is bad"), those for which we have massive evidence, and which are easily understood. The more you ask people to alter their perceptions of reality, the more resistance you will invariably encounter. Which is not good, because the invasion proceeds ever apace ... WN (at least in stable West European and Anglospheric nations) will build itself up through constant, [i]gradual radicalization[/i], dealing with one easily understood issue (eg, immigration) until victory is achieved, and then building on that to make further demands, inching us ever closer to the White Racial State (unless enough of us choose to end-run the expected political process by emigrating to an agreed upon White Zion).
11325051291314091095[i]These guys make Leon Haller look like a standup guy.[/i] (Jimmy Marr) I put the "standup" in standup guy, pal. I am and always have been extremely aggressive in defending and promoting my own brand of [i]moderate[/i] WN. Do not question my commitment to white survival simply because I have empirical disagreements with conspiratorialists, as well as moral ones with Nazis.
11336151291314263285Greg Johnson, Hunter Wallace, et al: How is someone like me - a 'lone wolf' blogger for many years, sympathetic to anything pro-white, trying to get the message about white persecution and impending extinction out there among alleged conservatives (with a multitude of lengthy comments here at MR, too - one of the few places I haven't been banned (thank you, GW)) - supposed to decipher the truth from all this "he said/she said" crap? For example, I met Sam Dickson once at an AR conference many years ago. I don't know him, but I do know of him - and that he has spent decades fighting for the white man's cause. Here he's disrespected. Whom ought I to believe? What Hunter says about appealing to conservatives is what I have been saying just recently here at MR, as well as for years and years and years and ... I think it's what Jared Taylor has believed, too. Politics is about power. In democracies, that obviously means roping in the largest number of people. The primary strategic question is always, therefore, [i]who is your base[/i]? The base of any movement to save the white race - the minimum of which in my view consists in stopping nonwhite immigration everywhere, followed by repatriating nonwhites from Europe, and, in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, 1) ending white judicial and legislative oppression, and 2) reestablishing white cultural hegemony - is going to be found among conservatives. Who else could it be? Occasional NS Euros think that some labourite working class somewhere will constitute it, but I think that view is decades out of date, if it was ever valid. Note by "base" I don't mean leadership, or "core", or theorists. I simply refer to the conventionally recognizable class or group which is most likely to respond favorably to pro-white (whether open or implicit) initiatives. Obviously, it's white people, but given the ideological, economic, cultural, religious and 'lifestyles' heterogeneity of whites, given, that is, that whites are variegated, and do not march in such lockstep as other races seem to, at least wrt ethnic and racial issues, white preservationists need to figure out the identifiable already existent group with which our message is most likely to resonate. Speaking as an American, though on this issue I can't believe matters would be much different in Canada or England (or perhaps any white nation today, given the postwar convergence of governing structures, economies and lifestyles), it is perfectly obvious to me that our base is among conservatives (I'm tempted to add, "duh"). The white Left today is very nearly defined by its commitment to 'diversity'. How many racist white Democrat ("hard-hat") working class voters are there anymore? I would say, strictly empirically, very few. Of course, there may be a few whites who vote Democrat, that is, against their racial interests, because they somehow benefit from liberal largesse (perhaps they are government workers with generous pensions; I have a disgusting neighbor like that, a quite racially/culturally conservative middle aged-white man who voted for CA Governor Jerry Brown strictly to protect his bloated, CA taxpayer provided pension). But the vast bulk of liberal voters I have met in my life have not, I think, been secret racialists voting Democrat for reasons of greed, like my neighbor. Most seem to sincerely support one or another aspect of the liberal agenda, the contemporary foundation stone of which is commitment to racial diversity and equality. These are not brainwashed persons, except in the most general sense. They are sincere race liberals, and they number in the millions (for Brits, recall my struggle on the English police blog: simply telling the racial truth about the recent riots triggered a groundswell of PC opposition - and this was a blog purportedly speaking for those on the 'front lines' of the racial attacks!!). My point is that white preservationists will only find allies, if at all, among conventional, as yet 'unawakened', conservatives. So the real question, for those who actually want to do some racial good in the world, for those, that is, for whom intellectual work is not an end in itself, but a guide to desired social change, is, how can we best appeal to the broader world of conservatives? As I have argued vociferously and [i]ad nauseam[/i], the answer to this question is "subtly" (not in terms of outspokenness, but intellectual content). In democracies whose (still) white majority populations are remarkably psychologically and thus politically stable, that which is seen as too far outside the mainstream will fail. But the "mainstream" comprises a number of different 'streams', so to speak. If we are going to challenge the racial status quo, which, if left unchallenged, will in the normal course of things destroy us, then we need to be as mainstream as possible in every other way apart from the foundational ideological challenge. People like David Duke and and especially Jared Taylor came to understand that unconventional grooming habits, wearing funny 'uniforms', indulging in strange gestures or forms of speech, or [i]adhering to bizarre or repugnant (conspiracy) theories and/or ideologies[/i], was simply less effective than appearing 'clean-cut' and as culturally and psychologically normal as possible. This emphasis on conventionality ought to extend to ideology. Thus, in assessing how to get a hearing for WP concerns from conservatives, our only possible mass base, we need to understand conservatives, and try to show that WP (and the policies it requires: ending immigration, ending the anti-white racial spoils system, building white consciousness as an aspect of conservative consciousness) is a natural outgrowth of conservatism (which, in fact, it is). This means in part, especially in America, demonstrating the ethical compatibility between Christianity (the belief system of a clear majority of American conservatives, extending far beyond just the noisier and narrower Bible-thumping Christian "Right") and policies of white preservation. (Hence my personal attraction and commitment to intellectual theories which seek to unify classical conservatism, Christianity (Bible-based or natural law-based), and modern racial science.) In much larger part, it means jettisoning (or at the very least muting) those aspects of WN which conservatives will find anathema. Insulting Christianity (especially in America), even if all forms of supernaturalism are in fact false (not my view, incidentally), is counterproductive in the extreme. (Force a conservative to choose between Christ and Hitler, and 99% of the time, he will choose the former. That is a fact that needs to be dealt with, even by atheist or NS WNs.) Excessive emphasis on genetic determinism is likewise not something conservatives, with their bedrock beliefs in free will as the necessary counterpart to moral responsibility, will find persuasive or appealing. Nazism, and even 'naming the Jew', simply will not get traction, at least for the foreseeable future. In terms of rigorously dispassionate analysis, I think only some form of fascism will save Europe (I think something very different is needed in America, more of a libertarian separatism or freedom-of-associationism). But even if racial fascism is where the Euroright needs to get to, the present paradox is that it will not get there by advertising this fact openly. The key for all white nations is, as I've stated previously, [i]gradual radicalization[/i], the insinuation of white consciousness and pro-white policy advocacy into conservative discourse. Of course, the nonwhite colonizers are pouring in, making ultimate victory ever more problematic, so we need to be aggressive about this gradualist process. We must all never relinquish any opportunity to spread the truth about race. But we must be as moderate as possible in our presentation, and limited in our agenda. For now, we want legal immigration terminated, illegals deported, and the anti-white spoils system dismantled (maybe also throw in 'law and order' and 'concealed carry'). When we have built up a critical mass of whites adhering to this agenda - and have actually, legislatively accomplished it - we can move our 'goal-posts'. But set those posts too far back initially, and you will find you can't even muster a team.
11349351291314491051Hunter, Great comments directed to me. I want to respond, am busy, perhaps late this evening.
11353351291314602512Chechar, Sorry re "WP". "White preservationist". I prefer that term to "White Nationalist" for two reasons. First, I consider nationalism, as an ideology, to be on the Left. I realize that this can get confusing, as I have called myself a nationalist, and even a WN, many times. But ultimately, I am simply a (true) conservative (and what makes labeling confusing is that most self-styled "conservatives" are not). I wish to preserve Western (European-Christian) Civilization. As I have stated many times over the years, WC is a phenotype of the Aryan genotype (to express the matter with the kind of sociobiological phrasing and outlook seemingly favored at MR), or as the late Samuel Francis put it, "our civilization could not have been created apart from the genetic endowments of the European peoples" - to which I would add, nor is there any reason to suppose that it will be perpetuated by non-European (Aryan) peoples. Racial particularity, imo, is an integral part of, arguably, any civilization, (perhaps Islamic Civ is an exception, though I'm not sure - it may be an ideological cover for Arab supremacism), but certainly it is of our civilization. (Note this should not be understood to imply that WC is wholly autochthonous; indeed, one aspect of the genius of the West has always been its ability to appropriate, assimilate, improve and often redirect to other uses ideas and achievements of other peoples.) Thus, if a conservative wishes to preserve his inherited traditions and way of life, he must seek to preserve his people. Preserving one's people is primarily a biological, and only secondarily a cultural, issue. It means first, maintaining a numerical preponderance of one's own ethnic group within one's historic territory, and, second, preventing outbreeding of one's people with members of other human populations too genetically dissimilar for their descendants to be nationally/culturally assimilable. Put another way, preserving one's people entails maintaining the racial purity of their blood (or 'ethnogenome'), and ensuring their overwhelming population dominance of a historic, sovereign territory. That most "conservatives" are hypocrites, cowards or fools, does not change the essential nature of conservatism. Given the bastardization of the term, however, perhaps true conservatives (ie, those who recognize the centrality of race/biology to the conservative's ultimate goal of preservation and perpetuation) ought to call their ideology Racial Conservatism. I am not an expert in the history of nationalism as an ideology (or political practice), but I do know that historically it has been a radicalizing and destabilizing force, and not one associated either with Christianity or conservatism. In essence the nationalist believes that an authentic nation (understood traditionally, as those who either share or believe themselves to share a common human/tribal ancestry) should be self-governing, either as a matter of morality, or social harmony and civic efficiency. WN, it seems to me, is a very modern ideology with two postulates: 1) whites should seek to live in sovereign, segregated and therefore white-governed, polities; and 2) where whites are caught by circumstance in multiracial societies, they should organize politically to defend and advance their own racial group interests. Now as I write those postulates, I find myself in agreement with them. So perhaps I am a WN after all. However, there is a third aspect of WN I find deeply troubling, which constitutes the second reason why I am reluctant to accept the label, even though, as a true conservative, I'm concerned with white preservation, and as a white man, and thus a member of a politically oppressed class, I want my fellow whites to resist our racial persecution (whether that persecution is by treasonous and/or ethnic-alien political elites, or violent nonwhites acting on their own). This aspect concerns the "[i]rasse uber alles[/i]" (if I got the German right) aspect of what is called WN in contemporary discourse. I don't mean to criticize white supremacism in historically white, but lately 'diversified', societies (ie/eg, while England is a white nation, and thus ought to return to a "whites-only" demographic status, within the present multiracial reality, it certainly seems morally obligatory that the indigenous should have superior legal status to non-indigenous, whether in school admissions, professional opportunities, public benefits, police protection, cultural recognition, etc). Rather, I do not share what appears to be the widespread, and perhaps dominant, WN view that race [i]qua[/i] race trumps all other metaphysical, moral, and ideological considerations. As with most persons, even seasoned scholars, I do not have a personal, comprehensive political philosophy (let alone an entire personal metaphysics), though elaborating upon my own ideological vision is a central ambition of my life going forward. I'm not precisely sure of where I stand on a host of political issues, other than as a matter of brute prejudice or preference. That said, I am sure I will never contemplate all issues from a standpoint of racial power alone, which is what WN seems to demand. Preserving the white race is, for me, simply one aspect (albeit a foundational, and today, perhaps dominant one) of a broader conservative agenda. Moreover, I am not, objectively, a racial radical. Yes, expelling all nonwhite residents from Europe is extremely radical by present regime standards. Yes, legislating fairly rigorous natalist and eugenicist policies is radical by today's standards. But today's standards are not objectively centrist, but highly radical, indeed revolutionary, in themselves, at least by modal historical standards or doctrines. So the fact that I want European nations to look as they did for millenia makes me not a radical, but an [i]undoer[/i] of radicalism. This conservative/reactionary stance is not what the Nazis exhibited or sought, nor how I interpret the goals of much of the WN movement.
11362351291314828086The only thing that matters for now is ending nonwhite immigration, however that is done, and in alliance with whomever (Jews, nonwhites, I don't care). All questions of race are finally military ones (ever heard of the "evolutionary arms race"?). What is physically defensible? To coordinate and maintain advanced militaries requires advanced economies. To utilize those militaries for racial defense requires sovereign racial homogeneity or else dominance. In democracies, dominance is achieved through voting. In mobocracies (one person, one ballot), demography is destiny. The more of THEM, the harder for US to effectuate our will. Commonsense is all that should be needed here, though apparently it remains as ever in short supply.
11362451291314828370Note please that there are plenty of persons who are against immigration, but are not and never will be WNs. Do you people understand that? Do you get it? Note also that there are many reasons to be against immigration that have nothing to do with race. Thus, the potential audience for an anti-immigration message is much larger than that for a hard WN message. "Gradual radicalization" is the key, as I keep reiterating.
11368751291315128329I really dislike all this infighting. It makes WN look unserious, which perhaps it is. White America is rapidly declining, and life under our new racially alien masters will not be pleasant for us. We need to stop the racial hemorrhaging, and end immigration. Once that has been accomplished, or actually concurrent with the struggle to end it, we need to build up a serious, morally upstanding American nationalist movement, one filled with high quality people. I've begun to realize that yet another reason to start with [i]American[/i] (and not [i]white[/i]) nationalism, besides WN being too hardcore for where whites are psychologically at this juncture in history, is that doing so will keep away all the neo-Nazis and general crazies, those who's fault it is that mainstream conservatives have been so over-sensitive about dealing with racial issues in a candid and manful manner. If I were building an AN movement, I would start by saying: "Nazis Not Welcome". Focus on what is perfectly 'respectable' (to conservatives), then build out from there over time (gradual radicalization in tandem with growing strength). The more I contemplate these issues the more certain I am of my strategy's essential soundness.
11371351291315192799[i]I submit that there are millions of White people in America, especially in the American South, who are (1) racially conscious and (2) who are pro-White, but who would never get involved with “White Nationalism” because of the perception that it is fixated upon Nazism, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and hatred of Christianity. Moreover, I will argue that there are a ton of people in the conservative movement who share our concerns about changing racial demographics and our national cultural decline, people who are both talented and gifted, but who would never get involved with “White Nationalism” for any number of reasons, above all else the kook factor.[/i] (HUNTER WALLACE) Yep, agree 100%, and have been saying as much for years on the net (decades in life). I repeat: "gradual radicalization" is the key. What we need (I speak to fellow Americans) is a reasonable, rational, moderate but tough-minded organization which speaks to and ties together issues of interest to the white community: immigration, alien deportation, affirmative action, crime and crowd control, multiculturalist school instruction, voter fraud, welfare fraud, etc. Above all, what we need are 1) actual political successes, and 2) public identification with those successes. Then we will grow still more (in this Linder is correct: everyone loves a winner - a fault of human nature surely, but in this waning epoch of Western life, we must always assess matters unsentimentally). And as this organization grows, it can keep 'upping' its demands on behalf of whites. Why is this not understood? Start too far out of the mainstream (regardless of how corrupt the mainstream might be), and you will not attract the average personality types we need in their millions. What is needed is a middle-ground pro-white movement situated between do-nothing conservatives who are just too cowardly to deal honestly with race, even at the cost of our nation and way of life, and the WN revolutionaries who are against 99% of everything, and thus simply demand too much psychological 'rejectionism' on the part of the masses they purportedly wish to awaken and empower ever to gain much traction. And all the while, the Third World pours in by the millions ...
11373251291315213450[i]Nationalists throughout the Internet are always saying “We need to do this. We need to do that. We should try this. We should try that. If only we did this...” and so on. But no one ever does it, even though the idea is often a good one, because the best ideas are impossible to implement without organization and Big Money. So, invariably, people coalesce around the Web sites that feature the contributors and commenters with interesting things to say because they have few other real choices[/i]. (LEW) --------------------------- Fair criticisms, Lew (btw, did you ever see my "apology" re Ron Paul and immigration, doubtless lost on one of these interminable threads (perhaps even this very one)? Apparently, I was really stuck in a 2002 time warp; he is now very bad on immigration - which annoys me no end, as I donated both money and time to him in 08, and go others to do so as well, based in part on what I had thought was his 'solidity' re immigration). However, did you see my lengthy comment on this issue on the "Struggling for Funds" thread? I am extremely disappointed that no one has answered my challenge, which is seeking to see what real interest there is for an American nationalist grassroots organization. I guess the answer is "not very much".
11373651291315216718[i]I might add, a philosophy based on an atheist foundation is sure to fail. It’s a waste of time[/i]. (THORN) [i]The time is ripe to articulate a Southern version of conservatism that is pro-White, pro-Christian, pro-American, pro-republican ... that addresses real perceived grievances like affirmative action, multiculturalism, immigration, crime, our declining standard of living, the centralization of power in Washington, our despoiled culture, our insane trade policies, mainstream media bias, etc.[/i] (HUNTER WALLACE) Thorn and Hunter Wallace, Yes, I agree so strongly that I am now formally studying Catholic Doctrine in a reasonably prestigious grad program specifically to follow through on my long-stated intention to 'harmonize' WP (white preservationism) with Christianity. I have for as long as I can remember been bothered by the way liberals have so thoroughly hoodwinked Christians on the issue of race - as though to be a good Christian one must pretend that black crime is nonexistent, that most terrorists are not Muslims, that most illegal aliens are not Mexicans, that scientifically established differences between the races which have social policy implications must be suppressed, that preserving your own nation in the face of demographic inundation is somehow unethical, etc etc etc [i]ad[/i] [i]freaking nauseam[/i]. It's really pathetic the way ordinary Christians go along with this nonsense, though it's despicable for those who know better but refuse to speak openly out of cowardice or malice (isn't one of the names of the devil "Prince of Lies"?). The problem, however, is that though there is nothing objectionable about a responsible race realism as well as white preservationism (nb, one could hypothetically be a race-realist without caring about WP) - indeed I think racial truth-telling, at least when the stakes are important, is actually morally mandatory for Christians - it must be admitted that there really are genuinely evil (as well as nutty) people out there who do disproportionately gravitate to things pro-white. Hitler and his henchmen were real people, and, though I admit that it would have been better for Western Civ, and even the cause of ethno-neutral morality, for them to have won the land war in Europe, at least as against the alternative of handing over the East to the verminous Bolsheviks, that does not mean that the Nazis were good, Godly people from our Christian standpoint. They were not. [Few anywhere seem to be able to understand my position on all this: Hitler was objectively evil, but it would have been better had he won the war in Europe. Had it been his regime that faced us in the Cold War, instead of the Soviets, it would have shifted the whole racial-ideological spectrum to the Right, and WC and the white race would not now be in imminent danger of extinction.] But even apart from the normal desire of Christians to wish to associate with other ethical persons, WN extremism is, purely from a coldly amoral perspective, extremely stupid, especially in the USA, but I think probably everywhere. Instead of trying to inject profoundly psychologically alien (to whites) doctrines like Nazism back into the Western political bloodstream, failing thereby to recognize the highly historically specific circumstances that narrowly enabled the triumph of Nazism in Germany in the first place, wouldn't it be smarter - again, forget ethics, this is Machiavelli speaking - to try to reconnect the white masses with their historic, millennia-old Christian roots, the metaphysical system in place when global white power and influence reached their greatest extent, and then show that contemporary "PC Christianity" is a doctrinal aberration, a "Devil's bargain" with secular (really, [i]unchristian[/i]) liberalism, and that humane measures to preserve WC and the white race are perfectly consonant (as they are, and as I will one day intellectually demonstrate them to be) with the historic faith? If nothing else, the long failure of WN to gain any traction anywhere (even as huge numbers of whites, perhaps even majorities in some countries, are aghast at immigration/multiculturalism and the unprecedented problems they bring) suggests that the psychological leap from everyday diversitarian propaganda to WN is just too great for most people, and that either objective circumstances will have to get literally unimaginably worse (eg, negroid flash-riots in a hundred US cities - or a thousand), or even the most ruthless neo-Nazi will have to accept that there must be a series of progressively more radical 'bridge-ideologies' for whites to walk across before they will be conditioned to accept WN. I am making an empirical claim, but I see no evidence undermining it.
11374151291315225644Mr. O'Keefe, I think baldness goes genetically through the mother's side. I hate that, as my dad in his 80s still has a decent head of hair, as do my mother and sisters. Alas, my mom's brother went bald in his 20s I'm told, and I, in my 40s, am getting there pretty quickly. Soon, I shall have to start close-shaving my head, which then will mean everyone will start identifying me as a middle-aged skinhead, which I'm not. I have a neo-Naziish friend who says I should go for that look, but he has his own agenda. Oh well. I'm not really sensitive about personal appearance, at least re the baldness, though it is annoying that we live in such an effeminate culture that that kind of thing actually has taken on such greater significance than in the past, especially so now, as society has been multiculturalized, and whites seem to have a greater propensity for baldness than other races (though Jews are even worse, I think).
11376351291315265245I just visited countercurrents website. It looks interesting. It was probably inevitable that something like this venture would be formed by someone. I shall be purchasing some of their books. That said, what really strikes me is the bone-deep anti-Christianity of Greg Johnson. Here is a gem: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Johnson Posted June 6, 2011 at 11:31 pm | Permalink [i]Let’s be perfectly clear about something: Collin Cleary’s book is not about White Nationalism. It is not a political book at all. The pagan gods have not been forgotten, and their worship was suppressed for one reason: Christians gained the political power to persecute pagans. The connection between neo-paganism and white racial preservation is simple: [b]Christian values are at the root of our racial decline.[/b] If Europeans had never adopted a universalistic religion that preaches the values of the Sermon on the Mount, would European peoples be allowing their nations to be overrun by our racial inferiors in the name of love and charity and inherited guilt? If Europeans had not adopted a religion in which the Jews play a privileged place in the salvation history of mankind, would Jews have any more power over us than they have in India or China today? The reason that so many racialists like William Pierce have reservations about working with Christian believers is that all too many of them think that Christianity is more important than our racial survival, thus when forced to choose between them, they will all say “our race be damned” and turn their coats. And until that point, a large part of their efforts within our camp will be to proselytize for their church and to work to suppress non- and anti-Christian thoughts and discourse through intimidation tactics, darkly muttering that we cannot afford to “antagonize” Christians. This is essentially the rear-guard action of a dying religion which has largely given up on inspiring new people to believe and contents itself instead with creating an atmosphere in which non-believers either remain silent or even pretend to believe in Christianity. The reduction ad absurdum of this path are the right-wing meetings in which rooms that contain a vast majority of atheists, pagans, skeptics, and the merely indifferent bow their heads to appease a tiny minority of Christians who are bound and determined to keep the non-Christians from discovering that they are the majority. Christianity is indeed one of the great historical achievements of our race. But appreciating it as such does not require believing that Christianity is true, any more than does appreciating ancient pagan art and mythology. I believe that Christianity is just a phase our race is going through, much like other religions. Eventually, it will pass away like Mithraism. But we will continue to admire the immense European genius that was mobilized by Christianity throughout its history, just as we wish we could admire all the works of genius from pagan antiquity that the Church did not see fit to save or even actively worked to destroy.[/i] ------------------------------ This is wrong on so, so many levels, from the historical to the political-tactical. On other levels, it might be right, maybe Christianity will be seen in future ages as just a phase, though who knows? But wrt this back and forth between Johnson and Hunter Wallace, and without personally being acquainted with either person or the controversy between them, or caring about it at all, it seems perfectly clear to me that someone like Johnson should never have been editor at TOQ. Christianity is at the heart of Occidental civilization. It is not the whole of it, of course, but it is now impossible to disentangle the historic faith from who we white men have become. Even if Johnson's atheism is correct (which I strongly doubt), the notion that post-Christian man's religious impulses can be fulfilled either by a recrudesced paganism, or a defecation of Heideggerian verbosity, is empirically laughable. Western Man, esp in Europe, is now a spiritual orphan, and the result was first, the political religion of communism (a far more Jewish "religion" than Christianity), and now, the post-Marxist turn to the new secular Cult of Diversity. Frankly, the white man does not seem able to handle his spiritual autonomy (divorce from Christ) very well. The Big Picture answer is to racially/ideologically reform the Church, to demonstrate philosophically and theologically that modern liberalism, esp its contemporary diversitarian element, is either incompatible with, or at least not morally mandated by, Christianity (as is, in fact, the case - only fools or ill-wishers equate Christianity with liberalism). Of course, this does not mean that Christianity is compatible with Nazism or extreme racism, either. The West will not be saved (in a secular, racialist sense) except by a return to just such a racially reformed Christianity. Religion motivates great sacrifice. In its absence, as modern Europe testifies, people only care about mundane matters, like their ridiculous state pensions, or what's on tv. A few men (Johnson's "aristocrats", no doubt) may find in them heroic motivations even without supernatural blessings or promptings, but they will always, strictly as a genetic matter, be rarities. The average bloke says "fuck it, too much trouble, what's for dinner". History suggests that great secular movements are of the Left. Some may offer the Nazis as a counterexample, but that merely shows historiographical ignorance. The Nazis came to power in very unusual circumstances, and never commanded the allegiance of a majority (and most who supported them did so for very practical reasons far removed from the esoteric beliefs and desires of Himmler and Rosenberg). And the notion that a return to NS is in any remotely foreseeable future is ludicrous. The West will be long demographically overrun before whites turn to Nazism (indeed, Nazi advocacy is more a symbol of desperation and impotence than power). Practical men work with what tools and men they have at hand. Countercurrents is an interesting venture; perhaps I'll comment from time to time (until I'm banned anyway, which Johnson seems rather quick to do to those who challenge him). But let no one be under any illusion that this type of activity will actually make one iota of difference to the survival or empowerment of whites. Jared Taylor's work - calmly presenting the facts of race - does advance white survival. So does David Duke's public activism. So might one day the work of the immigration-reduction organizations, if it finally pays off in legislation. Countercurrents, and the ideology it represents, will always remain a minority pursuit favored by a certain type of intellectual. It has a place in the firmament of the Racial Right, but it will never be dominant pragmatically. What we need to develop is a racialism that is congruent with the basic outlook of the white (American) majority, or at least, majority of conservatives. That outlook is profoundly Christian, and, given the fertility patterns of white Christians v white secularists, is likely to remain so. Basically, then, Countercurrents is just a platform for certain otherwise homeless intellectuals. [i]Contra[/i] Hunter, I don't think there is anything wrong with such persons wanting to get paid for their cogitations, esp when every worthless leftist intellectual has a cushy academic position subsidized by white taxpayers. But Johnson et al (this includes VNN's Linder et al) should not imagine that they what they are doing is actually advancing white interests in the real world. It isn't, and never will. We need responsible, normal, mainstream people recognizing that the white race is endangered, and that there are several simple steps we can take to neutralize these threats. You get such persons on your side by demonstrating the fundamental congruence between your views (and character) and their own. To that task, a "North American New Right" is irrelevant. But my main point is simply that someone openly antagonistic to Christianity should not be editing an academic journal devoted to preserving Western Civ, for tactical as well as principled reasons.
11376951291315276285I'm going to start reading countercurrents more regularly. Interesting stuff. What I said stands, however. When people like Jared Taylor are hounded for their 'racism', it is ludicrous to think you can reimagine the whole ideational culture, espouse a 'metapolitics', and expect people will go along with it. Your error, Johnson, is in forgetting what I always say about the "ripening harvest / encroaching jungle". What you are trying to do, even if ultimately effective - something I doubt completely, given your faulty metaphysical basis - will take decades or centuries. The White Awakening. You even scoff, in one of the posts you copied above, at the notion that just presenting the facts of white racial decline will motivate people. Hello? Absolutely correct! (It remains necessary to do so constantly, however, as part of "laying the ground", so to speak.) Most whites don't give a damn about racial survival, which is why I advocate White Zion (emigration of WNs to a demographically conquerable sovereign polity) as the realistic last hope for white racial perpetuity (of course, there is still the other issue of protecting the interests of whites stuck in increasingly nonwhite countries; not all white activism has to be a stage on the path to some ultimate utopian endpoint - after all, how many endpoints in politics are ever reached?). You want the White Republic. Actually, so do I, as long as it is understood simply to mean a nation of whites, kept solely white forever, with questions of economic or cultural or religious organization left to evolve in accordance with majority debate and decision. If it means fealty to some weird educational or cultural system opposed to Christianity, or indoctrinating children into pagan or Nazi crap, with a Death Metal soundtrack blaring in the background, then I pass, as would most whites ... (you'll have to get your sovereign republic, figure out to defend it, and then repopulate it with new generations of whites unaware of the 'old verities' ... good luck with that, btw ...). Your error is one of failing to recognize the physical/military dimension. While your NANR collective is twiddling its metapolitical fingers, the colonizers, those who will likely have to be expelled from some geographic area in order to instantiate the White Republic, and who know how to use weapons (and are seemingly lees reluctant to do so than whites), are pouring in by the millions. The title of one of AR's publications is aptly [i]A Race Against Time[/i] (I haven't read that volume, though I'm a near-original subscriber to AR, and suspect it deals with conquest by immigration + diversitarian ideology). So whatcha gonna do when the white masses are finally metapolitically awakened, and find that they comprise only 20% of adults under 40, maybe across the whole traditionally white world? Do you et al ever contemplate this question? The intelligent approach (and please don't assume that radicals like you are in any way necessarily better educated, more elite-schooled, more erudite or more intelligent than 'mainstreamers' like me) is to focus pro-white efforts on enlarging the circle of anti-immigrationists to the greatest extent. I say, Be Friendly To Everybody! Everybody who can be persuaded, by whatever rhetoric, racial or not, to call for the immigration moratorium. Because unless you stop the hemorrhaging, with each awakened white, you get 2, 3, 10 or more colonizers. Race Against Time. Once we have stopped immigration - a nearly unimaginable victory as things stand - we can always move the racial 'goal-posts', and indeed, will find it easier to do so. Understanding this is called 'wisdom'. This, however, I completely agree with: [i]An afterthought: The depressing truth I am struggling to come to grips with is that our race must be saved [b]in spite of itself[/b], and [b]against its will[/b]. No healthy organism needs to be provided with a moral justification for its survival. But white people do. From a biological point of view, this is morbid and decadent. But since we are not in a position to simply remove this weakness, we have to deal with it. That is the most important strategic question.[/i] (GREG JOHNSON) It will be much easier to save the race against itself if the traitors have fewer nonwhite allies to call upon than more. It's very simple.
11389251291315566068JM, Any other sites to avoid besides "free media productions" and "the phora"? I have visited the latter, but never registered or posted anything. Is that still a problem? I have visited Occidental Dissent a number of times. Is that a problem, malware-wise?
11394151291315646063What does "lulz" stand for? [i]If you want to get involved with the 4chan of White Nationalism, register an account at The Phora. Just don’t be surprised when some troll publishes your real name on the internet[/i] (HW) How is this technically possible? If somebody is using a pseudonym (like "Wintermute", whom I keep hearing about, but whose work I've never stumbled across), and registers to participate on a site with that pseudonym, how can the site's owners access "real world" ID info? Just curious. anon, are the anon from Belize? I repeat what I said a few hundred comments up: all this back and forth discredits WN and anything pro-white more broadly. Regardless of whoever was really at fault, let's tighten things up, and get the focus back on building the pro-white movement.
11395451291315667157anon, Glad you're back (missed the email - sorry). Were you serious re Linder? LH -------------------------------------------------------------------- [i]Hoi polloi Meaning The common masses. Origin This term is of Greek origin and a literal translation from the Greek ?? ?????? is 'the many'. There are many examples of it in print in its original Greek form, dating back to the 17th century. The earliest known is a 1668 essay by John Dryden - Of dramatick poesie: "If by the people you understand the multitude, the ?? ??????" Many believe that this term was adopted into English by the American writer James Fenimore Cooper. He did use 'hoi polloi' in his Gleanings from Europe in 1837, but before then it was in common use by those whom we might expect to have been familiar with classical Greek - scholars of Oxford and Cambridge universities. For instance, the various classes of degree of Cambridge's Mathematical Tripos were Wranglers and Senior and Junior Optimes (what we would now call First, Second and Third Class), followed by Hoi Polloi - also called Poll Men or Polloi Men. The first record I can find of this in print is from a listing of Cambridge degree awards in The Times, 22nd January 1833. Under a heading of Cambridge List of Honours and Degrees - Mathematical Tripos are listed the names of those who had been awarded various classes, including a rather long list under Hoi Polloi. There are two linguistic points of interest concerning hoi polloi. The first is whether or not to precede it with 'the'. Some argue that, since 'hoi' means 'the' in Greek, then 'the hoi polloi' translates as 'the the many', so we should omit the article and just say 'hoi polloi'. Others argue that this is merely pedantic, not to say inconsistent with other uses of articles inherited from others languages. For example, alchemist, which comes from the Arabic, where al means the - and yet no one complains that the alchemist is incorrect. Whatever your views on that, it's a fact that 'the hoi polloi' is so widely used (not least by Dryden, as we see above) that whatever grammarians say about it won't alter its general usage. The second point is that some believe hoi polloi to mean 'the upper classes'. For example, this from the Chicago Daily Herald, October 1984: "Brent Musburger, whose talks with WGN are continuing, was among the hoi polloi in the rich seats." This usage is possibly influenced by a mistaken association with 'hoity-toity'.[/i] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think I will avoid other WN sites, and stick with my long term goals re integrating nationalism and Christianity, on the theoretical side (shout out to Hunter: nudging conservatism in a more race-realist direction is exactly my interest and mission; much more useful, and certainly simpler, I think, than demanding a whole new ideology, let alone [i]ontology[/i]!), and promoting Middle American nationalism, on the practical side (with a side-biz trying to slowly awaken my internet fellows to the necessity and desirability of White Zion). As for this thread, all very confusing. Hunter speaks very sensibly about the general situation, but JM is impressively cogent in his specific indictment. I think it best to avoid swimming in these waters ...
11397351291315695660Silver (et al), At multiple places in this interminable thread, I have offered lengthy comments actually trying to address the issues raised in the original post. If you scroll down from the top, you may find some of them of interest.
11425051291315911889anon, YOu need a more identifiable moniker. How about "Belizean"?
11353551301314612209What We Are Up Against, America division: My girlfriend was using my laptop this afternoon. So, I decided to check the History section. Maybe that's wrong, but maybe she can bloody well get her own laptop. Anyway, I happened across this almost unbelievable gem, which most here will hate on numerous grounds, though for me it just reinforces my belief about "surrounding and disarming", as opposed to naming and confronting, the (self-)Chosen: ----------------------------------------- Heaven is for real, Mr. Simmons! Submitted by suzie on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 3:07pm Fellowship Gene Simmons Heaven Heaven is for Real Matthew 25:41 Romans 6:23 I sat down on couch yesterday afternoon to finish my leftovers from my Friday night out with my husband. I took this opportunity to do a little television surfing. The first show that I came to was the tail end of reality show Gene Simmons Family Jewels. I was just in time to catch the closing segment of Gene sitting on a couch with his girlfriend, Shannon Tweed. She turns to him and asks him, “Do you know what happens to us after we die?” He responds with, “Nothing. We become worm food.” Gene goes on to say, “That’s it and then it is someone else’s turn (to live). “Wow”, I said to my self. What a sad perspective for someone who seemingly has “it all.” As I finished my lunch, I reflected on his comments. I know that the “rich and famous” are human and loved by God, too. So, I said a little prayer for Mr. Simmons and his family. I vowed to myself that I would continue to prayer for him.[b][u] (Fact: Did you know he is a Israeli American? He is one of God’s chosen people!)[/u][/b] ---------------------------------------------- This is [i][b]not[/b][/i] a sentiment one finds among the true and only Catholic faith.
11327651311314137403Answer to the question is way over my head, which means either my cognitive limit has been exceeded, or the writing, like, ironically, so much from the Continent that gave us fascism, is needlessly opaque. That said, fascism, of one national specificity or another, is always a possibility. In general, fascism simply refers to any radical mobilization of the masses for secular, inegalitarian, and, usually, martial purposes. In common Western understanding, it would mean radicalizing the indigenous/white masses to resist, forcefully and potentially violently, their continuing national dispossession, immiseration, deculturalization, and loss of sovereignty. It would constitute a violent assertion of the claims and values of the particular against the encroachments of the universal. Why is this thought to be an impossibility for the European future? Given the accelerating rate of European racial, moral, cultural, and indigenous/dysgenic ("wiggers", anyone?) decline, it may very well be that ONLY a racist/fascist resurgence can save Europe now. Had Eurofools listened to Enoch Powell, or John Tyndall, this outcome could have been averted. But I suspect that things have gone too far. Does anyone think that Third World immigrants will be tossed out of Europe as a result of democratic voting? If the indigenes were united as regards race, then this would be possible, though blood would still end up being shed. But the entirety of the problem is that white majorities everywhere would rather commit slow-motion national suicide than be "racist" (I use quotation marks because it is hardly racist in the traditional sense to want to preserve one's culture and nation- ie, I don't [i]hate[/i] some stranger simply because I don't want to live with him in my own home). This is due to an obvious genetic defect in the white race. That may be oversimplifying a bit, but in essence that's it. I think fascism of some variant absolutely will be part of Europe's future, if it is to have one.
11327851311314141589Re Mormons: I know very little about them, except that their religion is emphatically not a recognized, legitimate version of Christianity. You can take some liberties of interpretation with the faith, but at some point a line gets crossed from Christian to cult. Mormonism certainly is a cult, though whether harmful to white interests I'm not sure. I've met a few Mormons over the years, and I have to say, they were all very "white", not only Nordic racially, but very Middle American, politically conservative, and family oriented. Mormons place considerable emphasis on having children. In these times of white fertility decline, isn't that something we want? Moreover, of the objection to Mormons, a branch mostly of white people (at one time they were exclusively white), that they are very Jew-centric (something I did not know; again, in the old days, the Mormons were anti-Semitic, as well as racist), I reply - who isn't? White evangelicals - who are often virulently anti-Mormon - are mostly Christian Zionists who proudly conflate Israeli interests with American ones. The whole reason for America's ridiculously expensive and one-sided "special relationship" with Israel is the influence of Jews, politically and intellectually, as well as financially, within the Democratic party, and the correlative (and corrosive) Zionism of the evangelicals within the GOP. And yet - if these aren't [i]our people[/i], who are? If WN is about saving the white race, and advancing white interests as against other races, then we probably should not be contracting our own side by being overly hostile to those whites who may not agree with us even ideologically, let alone religiously. Some small percentage of white anti-racists are so innately treasonous that they are deserving of ostracism or worse. But most whites need to be brought into our fold - or at the very least, we need always to keep the doors open. Politics is about addition, not subtraction.
11327951311314141867[i]This is due to an obvious genetic defect in the white race. That may be oversimplifying a bit, but in essence that’s it. Jews aren’t white—at least not in the context of the “white race”. [/i](Peter1) I wasn't referring to Jews, but to the quality in a seeming majority of whites which causes them to be suicidally solicitous of the (illegitimate) sensitivities of nonwhites. Anti-racism is a white racial trait/defect. If it were not , then Jewish cosmopolitan propaganda would have no effect.
11328351311314147348Mr. Renner, "I am stupid, and GW philosophically unintelligible" is indeed a logically valid third possibility. I stand corrected.
11330351311314173795Lew, I stated clearly that I know little about Mormonism (and frankly care less: life is short; any true intellectual has far more he wants to read than he has time to - ask anyone here; one must therefore prioritize; Mormonism just doesn't make it into my circle of interests). What little I do know comes from general reading I have done in American history, or in learned periodicals, of which I read many regularly. Mostly, though, it comes from one of my uncles, a retired career military officer (unlike my dad, who served in WW2, but had had quite enough of military life by 1945; incidentally, my dad was on the old side for his time when he finally got married, and my mom is much younger), who was stationed for a number of years in Utah in the 60s, I think before I was born or also around that time. Anyway, a few things of note. This uncle, like my dad, is both staunchly racialist and staunchly Christian (listening, GW?); unlike my dad, who's tougher on race, but more moderate on the JQ (like me, actually), he's also fiercely anti-semitic. What's interesting is how pathologically anti-Mormon both he and even his less rightist wife became after their Utah stationing - and still are to this very day, nearly a half-century later! Indeed, he got really angry at me last year when I expressed cautious optimism that a Romney presidency (Mitt Romney is Mormon, if you don't know) might at least help get our economy moving again. Evangelicals, to reiterate what I noted previously, are often very anti-Mormon. In the early 90s I was dating a girl whose mother was fiercely evangelical (the daughter was not, I assure you (heehee); more of a biker chick wannabee, as I remember). I distinctly recall once getting somewhat berated by the mother when I happened to say something good about a Mormon secretary of mine (a nice blonde girl, real good traditional values). But we in my family are not evangelicals, pentecostals, or any other type of new Protestants. My father's side is traditional Lutheran, my mother's Catholic. My uncle in question is on my mother's side, and is a serious, Church-attending Catholic. I've not known Catholics to be especially anti-Mormon (though of course we reject any claim of Mormonism to being a variant of Christianity). So my uncle developed his anti-Mormonism strictly as a function of his interpersonal experiences dealing with Mormons. My uncle did say one thing to me once directly bearing on your correction of my claim that Mormons used to be anti-Semitic. Some years back he did admit that the one good thing about the old LDS was that "they didn't like n------ and Jews". This was in reference to his having been "accosted" in Chicago by a couple of young Mormon "missionaries", one of whom was Oriental. Next time I see him I'll ask him about the racial and ethnic views of his fellow Utahans in the 60s. I'm pretty sure he's told me they (the Mormons) were good on race and Jewry. As human beings, however, they ranked pretty low for my very politically sound, morally solid and personally strong uncle. I always thought he was too harsh, but maybe not. I still tend to believe in maximum 'inclusivity' among whites (only), but again, I just don't have a lot of experience in this matter.
11330451311314174551Lew, BTW, what you said re Ron Paul and immigration is totally untrue. I asked Ron in person once what his views were on immigration (admittedly, this was 2002; maybe he's changed). He was very sound, not "loony libertarian" at all. He wanted the borders defended, with troops brought home from around the world (the "US Empire"); he thought legal immigration was too high, and that its basis should be changed from "family reunification" (reunify by GOING BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY!) to a high-skills-based orientation (which would indeed be a huge improvement, even if not racial); he said illegals should be deported; and best of all (if you know the issue in the American context) he wanted to end so-called "birthright citizenship", the insane and incorrect constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment whereby anyone born on US soil, including to a criminal alien, is granted automatic US citizenship. That latter position is the dividing line between those serious about ending the invasion, and mere pseudo-conservative poseurs. The only problem re Ron and immigration is that his heart just isn't in it, which means he just doesn't get it. His obsessions are sound money, the Constitution, free enterprise, and dissolving the US Empire (all good stuff, no doubt).
11330951311314181111Matt Parrott, I have nothing against Mormons personally, though my contacts have been limited. Mormons are obviously (mostly) white, though now they seem to be scurrying about after minority converts, so my respect gets lower by the year. The white Mormons did a fantastic job developing the otherwise inhospitable wastes of Utah, and as such, are really a model of what determined whites can achieve when traditionally disciplined. And, of course, one has to honestly wonder how many Mormon faithful [i]really[/i] believe their obvious theological nonsense ([i]The New Republic[/i]'s hit job on Romney back in 08 was perfectly fair in its depiction of the sheer nuttiness of Mormon theology - I hope you yourself don't actually believe the 'hard-core'), which contains none of the immense theological richness of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and some Reformed faiths (or so I was told by an intelligent ex-Mormon with whom I conversed on the subject at a paleoconservative conference some years back). When you mention that you converted to Christianity, I take it you mean to Mormonism. Of course, Mormonism is not recognized by serious Christians as Christian. So your conflation is telling. Your statement about a "positive birthrate" is suspicious. I think there are many serious Protestant churches with a positive (white) birthrate - including the evangelicals considered as a whole. I do admire the Mormon commitment to family, however. A point of genuine ignorance on my part: how could you have been fairly active in the church, and never seen the inside of a temple? As for the LDS being the only adults left in White America, I rather doubt such hyperbole. There are plenty of sound white men out there, indeed, just in my own family. The problem is that we are not grouped together in any way beyond just being white Americans. What is interesting is the adaptive advantage of possessing a rigorously adhered to minority faith (or even just consciousness) under conditions of general deracination and secular anomie. I've thought of the LDS before as a kind of white analogue to the Jews (though the former's decision to forego ethnic exclusivity is obviously lessening the similarity). This would be a fruitful topic for further consideration.
11334251311314228594To call Jimmy Marr a false-flag is ridiculous. He is as dedicated to opposing Jewry as anyone I have ever come across. I profoundly disagree with him on this, both ethically and especially strategically, but to suggest that he's not as committed to naming the Jew as Duke or Linder is nonsense. Anchorage Activist must be Mormon (not that there's anything wrong with that ... White inclusivity is very important).
11334351311314229502[i] I offered my own theory that one possible path to reconciliation was to move the philosophy into existentialism and the religion into esoterism ... at all times asking the question: what is true? Perhaps not surprisingly, what I found was that, by and large, the scientists saw the point quickly. The few philosophers I was able to talk to would not look beyond the famous “impossibility” of reconciling thought and experience. It was clear, though, that in reality they were hostile to any threat to the Weltenschauung they had carved out by their own hand from the bedrock of the Western canon. They were, I’m afraid, telling me that they did not possess the capacity of original thinking. I believe few original thinkers, even those given to Idealism, would be disinterested in a group endeavour to change the European Mind. [/i](GW) I really don't grasp your point(s) here. What was the "point" that scientists saw quickly? What is "the famous “impossibility” of reconciling thought and experience"? What is the world view "they had carved out by their own hand from the bedrock of the Western canon"? Nazism? Fascism? Old style American white supremacism? I don;t know what precisely is being referred to here.
11337351311314271547[i]Before that passage which you quoted I wrote: In the Anglosphere the thinking was, on one hand, essentially religious, meshing flawlessly with the 20th century fictions of a European spirit of race and mythic destiny, and, on the other, empirical, producing stone-cold certainties about human bio-diversity, sociobiology, gene interests, and so on. Is it not evident that a political actor responding with both empirical data and faith objects to the same question is saddled with a fatal inconsistency, and urgently needs to refine his thinking? I found that the people with scientific training to whom I spoke were a deal more interested in doing so than people with a background in the humanities. The problem of thought and experience is: what, if anything, does the result of our mental processes have to do with the world beyond the organism. Ultimately, thought and experience are two different commodities, and the first can never fully reflect the second. That is the rational gateway through which you yourself go when you argue that faith captures more of reality than reason. As for the customary worldview of the intellectual establishment of the radical right, it is Nietzschean and broadly fascist. Does that answer your questions?[/i] (GW) Not sure. 1. How are you certain that there is in fact no European spirit of race? Different men have different personalities, psyches, ambitions, dreams, etc. Why not races? I should think there is a European spirit, at least relative to the African spirit, Asian spirit, etc. In academic terms, "race spirit" might be something along the lines of modal personality combined with the most prominent intellectual and cultural emanations of the race. I think I understand the idea behind race spirit, even if I have difficulty articulating it. But I think rhetorically the term was used to convey not anything subject to scientific investigation, but rather an aspiration. To speak of race spirit is really to announce an ambition that the race should [i]become in fact[/i] as the speaker is describing it. Rather like talking about the "essence of America", or "British identity". Is there a British identity? Of course. Can it be fully described, or only ever approximately conveyed? And if the latter, does that make it only a fiction (especially if it compels men in some way, and thus becomes a reality)? 2. Even if you discern an inconsistency between discussing race in broad, metaphorical terms, as well as with reference to racial science, what is "fatal" about it? Why need this inconsistency be eliminated? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I fail to see why nationalists cannot employ both scientific/empirical and rhetorical/metaphorical modes of argument and persuasion. We speak both about what we know (scientifically), and what we feel (even if we cannot prove it yet through scientific methods). I think you have a tendency towards scientific reductionism, or to privileging certain modes of knowledge over possible others. At the most basic level, we all know things which we haven't necessarily established through empirical investigation. When I was young, teachers used to insist on racial equality in intelligence. Although I had had only a fairly small degree of contact with blacks, that was enough to convince me that they were less intelligent (my parents were never pro-black, but my dad's tirades were always directed towards their savage behavior, not to analyzing IQ, as far as I recall). Indeed, doesn't science begin with at least a tentative theory, later to be refined in light of empirically gathered data? 3. The problem of thought and experience as you describe it is an old one. I still fail to see its relevance for WN. 4. BTW, I'm not really big on "faith", which is mostly an intellectual cop-out. I suppose you could hang me on my belief in God, though as I've said before, I'm only a 60/40 theist. I'm willing to give God the benefit of the doubt, in part because many brilliant men have been theists, but also because of an intuitive belief that the cosmos is much less knowable and much (ontologically?) richer than we ordinarily imagine. I also do so because I accept the core truths about the divinity (or at least otherness) of Christ expressed in the New Testament. I do that because my 'gut' (the same gut that helped to see through the race-denial brainwashing of my schooling, and at a much deeper level than my parents' commonsense warnings and rational prejudices) tells me that Christianity would not have spread as it did without the fervor of apostles ultimately reaching back to Christ Himself - and I do not think that fervor would have been present had the events of the Christian narrative, esp the Resurrection, not actually occurred in historical time and geographical space. The Christian story is simply unlike any other, in its message and narrative. It strikes me as true - not as something I have to suspend my critical faculties to 'believe' in.
11349151311314490812Lew, My apologies to you re Ron Paul. Here is what I wrote earlier today on another thread: [i]Thorn, Thanks for that link. I have to leave in a bit, and so don’t have time to critique the methodology used in the rankings. What’s scary is that Roy Beck, with whom I once chatted at some length back in the 90s, is a liberal by my standards. And NumbersUsa is too liberal for my taste. I’m sceptical, however, of their rankings. Rick Perry is by light years the worst on immigration. They are flat out wrong. He has called for the erasure of the border between us and Mexico!! Romney in 08 was calling for illegal alien deportations. No way they are equivalent. And no way Paul is the worst but for Obama. NO way at all. Although he has softened his line on immigration since I spoke to him about it in the early 00s, Paul’s low number is reflective not of open borders libertarianism, but of a hostility to forcing businesses to act as law enforcement. Know what? I have been fighting immigration for 30 years (yes, since I was a teenager). I worked as a policy analyst for one of the anti-immigration orgs. I’ve written on the issue under a different name for several policy journals. And, I basically agree with Paul on that. It is government’s duty to stop immigration, not free market businessmen’s (of course, knowingly hiring illegals should bring serious punishment). A lot of what Paul is objecting to is enforcement mechanisms that intrude on property rights. I agree he’s not good, but he’s better than he’s ranked (ie, the methodology is somewhat flawed). Let me state publicly: I owe an apology to the commenter “Lew”. I spoke the other day without the recent facts. When I discussed immigration with Paul, he was really very good - against amnesty, birthright citizenship, for allowing states to enforce immigration policies, against welfare benefits for illegals, etc. Apparently, he has devolved considerably (although, again, the way Paul looks at the issue makes it difficult really to classify him by the methodology chosen; he’s not an open borders fanatic, at least within the present Big Government system). In the main, Lew, you were right, and I was wrong (which annoys me, as I have given decent money to Paul; I feel betrayed).[/i] Let me just add, this disclosure about Ron Paul has really been nagging at me this whole day. I'm getting in a fouler and fouler mood. I know several passionate Paul supporters, who are also staunch anti-immigrationists. We've all been under the impression that Paul was good on immigration, just not vocal about it. So whom to vote for? Paul or Bachmann? The latter is the best on immigration, but hardly great. She's also heavily identified with both the Tea Party (good) and the Christian Right (very bad; I'm Catholic and Right, but their obsessions over gays and God are just irrelevant to our present crisis, and over abortion positively harmful - abortion is not something a serious Catholic can support, but we are under no obligations to be fanatics about doing away with it, either). Voting for Paul, on the other hand, sends a pretty radical and proper message on the economy, to the GOP leadership as much as to Democrats, that we want the Fed abolished or curtailed. Until the latter happens, our wealth will never be even remotely safe, and the economy will never recover as it could.
11349251311314490940GW, I want to respond to you at greater length when I have more time, perhaps late this evening.
11353451311314604717PF, Good comment, but too optimistic at the end. The white race, composed of all the European peoples, and only them (hence there is a cultural as well as biological aspect to race; otherwise, we would have to admit the various white - brunette, redhead, even blonde - Muslims I have seen, and even met, into our fold; something which for many reasons we must not do), is going extinct, at least if we maintain our collective present course. Every exogenous trend is running hard against us. These include, minimally: a. the non-white global population bomb (fertility rates are thankfully mostly falling, but absolute numbers will continue to rise for most of the remainder of our lifetimes); b. the white DE-population bomb, especially amongst the hedonistic pansies over in Europe (less beer and soccer, more sex, perhaps?), is worsening, as Buchanan in DEATH OF THE WEST, and Mark Steyn (Jew? who cares?) in AMERICA ALONE, have discussed in polemical but depressing detail; even if our women suddenly start wanting lots of children, as a simple but inexorable mathematical matter, it will take quite a while for our population figures even to stabilize, let alone begin to rise even absolutely (and it would take centuries to get the global Europoid percentile of Earth’s inhabitants back up to where we were in 1900 - around 30% of the total population of the planet); c. the age differential between whites and non-whites, with non-whites everywhere but Japan substantially younger than whites, with all that that will mean for shifting demographic, and ultimately military, power (as more countries gain nukes, their value will decline, and the West’s technological advantages along with it - if Iran gets the bomb, what will declining Russia do if faced with military incursions by the far younger and soon to be more numerous Iranians?); d. intra- as well as interracial global dysgenics, by which I mean, that the biological quality of whites has massively declined in the last hundred years - and I believe that the rate of decline has been accelerating (eg, hardly any of the intelligent whites I know have kids); moreover, we all know that intelligence correlates with IQ, which correlates with income, at least in the contemporary West; unfortunately, it is a sociological fact that American women (probably not too different elsewhere) in the top income decile have the fewest kids (nearly half in that decile at age 40 have NO children), while those in the lowest income decile have the most kids (I think this holds for whites, though also for minorities); e. massive racial/territorial fragmentation due to the importation of tens of millions of immigrant invaders (ie, the walls have been pretty massively breached), every one of these diverse immigrant groups everywhere in the white world having higher than native-white fertility levels; f. ever increasing Jewish/leftist control over the media and academic (and financial, and legal) establishments throughout the white world; g. a constant legislative tightening of free speech wrt race, including the increasing criminalization of nationalist speech in the West; h. massive anti-(white)-racist / racial integrationist / miscegenationist propaganda having now penetrated every white mind everywhere (except possibly in parts of Eastern Europe, though I’m not qualified to say), such that the only white preservationists still existent are those of us who are sufficiently informed and independent-minded - always a minority of any large population group; i. steadily increasing rates of miscegenation, as well as interracial adoptions, everywhere (ie, white females not innately opposed to interracial coupling now have no ‘unnatural’ defenses, such as traditional lack of contact with non-whites, or legal/social prohibitions). Only we can save ourselves, and we will only be able to do so through a conscious act of political will. If we take no action, our race will go extinct (or, as I believe more likely, and have argued in various places in the past, be exterminated).
11371751311315197246Silver, I'd like to respond to you, and will. Am going out now for a while, but I've asked GW if I may post what I wrote a few comments back as a new, main post (I don't know how to post, as opposed to comment), after which I'd like to copy your comment, and then respond to it. I will note this: [i]PF seems to have performed quite the 180. As a reaction against catastrophist nutters preaching imminent doom that’s perfectly understandable. I’m not necessarily as sanguine about the prospects as he is, and some of what he’s come to believe is flatly wrong, but in general I agree with his view that things aren’t going to be nearly as bad as even what the usually fairly level-headed (by WN standards, anyway) Leon Haller seems to think ("extermination," yeah right).[/i] (SILVER) My point is not as outlandish as you may think. I'm now a middle aged man, and even if I live another 40 or even 50 years (completely possible, and without spectacular longevity increases, 'singularities', or other hypotheses as yet still science fiction), I do not expect to be [i]exterminated[/i] (murdered by street savages, or assassinated by leftists if I achieve some of my ambitions, are certainly possibilities). But is white extermination really far-fetched? I've explained at several times in the past why I think this likely, and it has to do with the confluence of the 'minoritization' of whites everywhere coupled with ever greater levels of miscegenation occurring in tandem with it. I hate having to repeat myself at length (I need to start some posts, so that I can then just refer people to past places where I already dealt with topics at hand), but in essence, the sequence is that as the numbers of whites in white countries fall, and numbers of nonwhites rise, there will be constant pressure (at first simply of numbers and availability, perhaps later political and/or social pressure) for some percentage of whites in each generation to marry nonwhites. These gene-lines will then be lost to the white race. Simplifying matters, eventually the only pure-blooded whites left on the planet, assuming no White Zion was ever established, will a) be living in territories in which they are heavily outnumbered by nonwhites, and b) will be those who are racially tough-minded; that is, whose personal psyches are such as to resist miscegenation (and probably interracial fraternity, too). In other words, in a century or so, I expect the last remaining whites to be 1) hugely outnumbered by (and thus powerless against) nonwhites, and this not simply considered planet-wide (as is the case right now), but within each sovereign nation-state or entity; 2) ever more racist (and thus not exactly endearing to their nonwhite demographic/democratic rulers), as over time only those gene-lines most psychologically predisposed to racism will endure in racially pure character; and 3) probably more economically and professionally successful than the surrounding nonwhites. Does this sound like any group we know? I recall as a child many times hearing from a family friend, a German Jew who got out of Germany towards the very end of the allowed emigration period, how surprised his generation of Jews were by the actual Holocaust (he was already an adult when he finally left Germany). He told me over and over that his fellow Jews in the 30s thought of Hitler as a madman, but genuinely never thought that extermination would be the outcome. It seemed too farfetched. Please recall further that whites are by far the most ethical race on the planet (that's our whole problem, as I never of repeating - an incorrect understanding of the requirements of racial justice), and that Germans in particular have been a people greatly characterized by moral rectitude, partial proof of which is the enormously disproportionate contribution Germans made to theology and ethical thought (and philosophy, more generally, of course). And yet, they descended into Nazism and Holocaust. You can't envision tiny white "islands", filled with relatively wealthy, civilized and better-looking people, and surrounded by seas of mongrel/negroidal/Islamified peoples seething with both natural race-jealousy and (liberal-indoctrinated) anti-white hate, being overwhelmed and butchered out of existence? Does that really require so much imagination? Current black flash-mobs are a foretaste, and they are happening [i]now[/i]. What happens when whites shall have idiotically allowed themselves to be put at these hateful peoples' mercy?
11346051321314451286Read this (taken off Amren site): [i]Other countries, often traditionally lands of emigration, have seen spectacular increases in foreign residents. According to Eurostat, [b]between 1999 and 2010 their numbers increased from 1.2 million to 4.2 million in Italy, from less than 120,000 to 420,000 in Ireland, and from 650,000 to 5.7 million in Spain.[/b] [/i] Now read it again. Now recall my favorite apothegm (reiterated constantly at MR): "Ripening harvest / encroaching jungle" Comrades, we do not have time and leisure to solve all the philosophical problems of white existence (which are really perennial problems of human existence, and thus perennially unsolvable), nor even to develop some optimal WN platform. Our harvest is coming on a skateboard; their jungle has a Lamborghini. We are being invaded, colonized and conquered. That is the message we need to get out to our people. Many whites don't understand the scale of the colonization because so much of it is densely concentrated in handfuls of cities or their near environs (this is even true in the US, though it's always changing). Thus, we still have our primary task. And that message is enough. We don't need elaborate historical or sociological analyses of who was behind this or how it happened (most of which are out there anyway). The raw fact alone should be enough to get our people stirred. If not, just add stats for the economic damage immigrants cause to middle class majorities (viz., wage and employment prospects, welfare services costs, and liberal voting habits). The WN movement needs much less philosophizing, meta-strategizing, and scientific discussion, and much more propaganda (ie, getting the core message about immigration, legislative oppression of whites, and nonwhite criminal victimization of whites, out as often and widely as possible). On discussion boards like MR, we should be figuring out how to spread our basic message, not how to refine it. What are really needed are legions of moderate, pro-white activists spreading our message everywhere: through pamphlet distribution in person and through mail boxes, commenting at non-WN internet sites (especially of a conservative type), mass callings into radio talk shows - even graffiti (this is extremely important - how many of you "generals" carry magic markers with you, so that whenever you use a public stall, you write something on the walls, like "Stop white genocide", "White race = Endangered Species", "Affirmative Action = Racism", "Why are blacks so violent?", "No More Immigrants!", "White America - Better America", "Aliens Out!", "White Power!" etc etc). (please create your own slogans - and use them!) We need to start looking at our cause as advertisers look at selling products. We must develop a short message (eg, like the wonderful NA sticker: "The White Race: World's Most Endangered Species"), and then plaster it millions of times everywhere, in real space and cyberspace. Movements that look successful become successful. Those that look successful are those that seem most ubiquitous. We must be perceived to be everywhere. In a word: less intellectualizing, more doing!
11346151321314451619Another relevant stat from amren: In USA: [i]Only 50.2% of babies under age 1 are white and not Hispanic, according to the 2010 Census—a sharp decline from 57.6% just 10 years earlier.[/i] RH/EJ ...
11346551321314458828Perry is an F- on immigration. I hate the Rick Perry types. Slick evangelicalism, not a shred of real conservatism - probably not a shred of real Christianity, either (maybe that's the ancient Catholic in me talking). I can't stand Rick Perry being described as a "conservative". He's Bush III. No way. If Perry gets the nod, I write in Buchanan - again. I'd rather have Obongo again than another Bush. Seriously. He's so incompetent and actually rather weak, that he'd ensure a very solid GOP lock on Congress by 2016. I'm not willing to sacrifice that in order to have an open borders fanatic like Perry, however good he is on tort reform. I like (not love) Bachmann. If she were an A on immigration, she'd get my vote. But if Numbers gives her a B-, and they're kinda liberal, I'd give her maybe a C. Why should I support a C on immigration, when the other main issue is the economy, and on that Ron Paul gets an A+? I'm not thrilled with the selection, but I'm voting Paul. I will then vote for whomever is the eventual nominee, except for Perry or the weirdo neocon Gingrich (it won't be Newt, however). Meaning, I am willing to vote Romney in the general. He's not great, but he has come to take a harder line on illegal immigration. And his economic recommendations are not as good as Ron Paul's, but they are pretty good. We'd be better off under Romney than Obama. I think it'll come down at the end to Romney or Perry. Romney is better.
11346751321314461264Here's the bottom line. We know that what WN stands for is this: non-diversity. We want whites to be able to live in their own segregated, sovereign polities. Barring that, we want to ensure that whites get the best deal possible in our own multiracialized homelands (groveling in our own fatherlands - pretty pathetic already). The [i]sine qua non[/i] to everything we want is stopping alien colonization. Anyone who doesn't recognize that commonsense on this is correct, that stopping immigration is the single most important issue of our age, is a buffoon, and should be ignored. Immigration is not popular, at least among our folk. It has special interest constituencies, but no large group of whites supporting it. The notion that halting it cannot be accomplished until some other goal, like exposing the Jewish power structure, or ending fractional reserve banking, is realized, is simply idiotic. What WNs need to do is form activist networks, just like the Left. These would be half-social, half-political. The goal is to make activism, like passing out leaflets, working for anti-immigrant ballot initiatives, engaging in discussions and consciousness-raising, as much social occasions as ongoing activist work. That's the way it has been arguably since the 18th century, and the same principles apply now. WNs need to make friends with each other in the real world. I cannot begin to express how important that is. Would I move even up to the Northwest Frontier, let alone a foreign country selected for WN colonization, by myself, or even just with my family? Probably not. I'm seriously considering relocating to Idaho sometime in my 50s, after I finish my new formal studies. But I would do so in part because I have a good friend and his wife up there, and they have a social network they could introduce me to. The point is that with WN social networks established in the real world, bold actions become possible (or at least less intimidating). There is strength in groups. I question all this internet chatting. It seems we all could spend the rest of our lives never actually advancing beyond the discussion stage. In that sense one could argue that allowing WN chatrooms actually acts as a kind of safety valve for the occupationist regime. Is being able to share our heretical opinions with likeminded others all that we really want? Just to know each of us is not alone in a world gone mad? It's not all I want. At some point, it's shiite or get off the can.
11347151321314462797The BEST slogan I think (for this particular moment in time)(OK, the best I can do off the top of my head): STOP Violence Against Whites What do others think? At this stage, it is important to establish the truth in white minds: that we are victims. Alex Linder, to whom I must respond for his "deconstruction" of a recent comment of mine, will hate this. His belief is that we must appear as strong as possible. Yes and no. WNs themselves should have their own shit together, and appear as such: strong, confident, articulate, take no crap (but not loutish) guys. But for laying the groundwork to change the masses' minds, we need to inculcate a sense of being victims, of being the injured party in modern America (and certainly this holds for Black Run Britain). We need to let the not totally brainwashed white masses know that their gut-sense (which they must have at some level; almost every white instinctively knows to avoid black neighborhoods) is widely shared. And we /they need constant reinforcement of this message.
11347651321314465262Thorn, Thanks for that link. I have to leave in a bit, and so don't have time to critique the methodology used in the rankings. What's scary is that Roy Beck, with whom I once chatted at some length back in the 90s, is a liberal by my standards. And NumbersUsa is too liberal for my taste. I'm sceptical, however, of their rankings. Rick Perry is by light years the worst on immigration. They are flat out wrong. He has called for the [i]erasure[/i] of the border between us and Mexico!! Romney in 08 was calling for illegal alien deportations. No way they are equivalent. And no way Paul is the worst but for Obama. NO way at all. Although he has softened his line on immigration since I spoke to him about it in the early 00s, Paul's low number is reflective not of open borders libertarianism, but of a hostility to forcing businesses to act as law enforcement. Know what? I have been fighting immigration for 30 years (yes, since I was a teenager). I worked as a policy analyst for one of the anti-immigration orgs. I've written on the issue under a different name for several policy journals. And, I basically agree with Paul on that. It is government's duty to stop immigration, not free market businessmen's (of course, knowingly hiring illegals should bring serious punishment). A lot of what Paul is objecting to is enforcement mechanisms that intrude on property rights. I agree he's not good, but he's better than he's ranked (ie, the methodology is somewhat flawed). Let me state publicly: I owe an apology to the commenter "Lew". I spoke the other day without the recent facts. When I discussed immigration with Paul, he was really very good - against amnesty, birthright citizenship, for allowing states to enforce immigration policies, against welfare benefits for illegals, etc. Apparently, he has devolved considerably (although, again, the way Paul looks at the issue makes it difficult really to classify him by the methodology chosen; he's not an open borders fanatic, at least within the present Big Government system). In the main, Lew, you were right, and I was wrong (which annoys me, as I have given decent money to Paul; I feel betrayed).
11347751321314467064Selous Scout, Solid comment! Interesting how you and I were thinking practically the same thoughts at the same time (see yours at 3:06, mine at 3:07). I;m in a hurry to go, but a few thoughts... 3) Basically, we are in agreement. I absolutely agree re the paramilitary, though I would use the other terms (rifle clubs, etc). I have long thought of that, as have some different friends scattered throughout the country (unfortunately, possibly for you or at least others here, several are Jews; honestly, many of the best racial nationalists I know are rightwing Jews - which is not to exculpate liberal Jewry, of course, but I can't be involved in anti-Semitism as I'm an honorable man, and won't betray friends or standup guys just because they're not white; my rightist Jewish friends, however, emphatically think of themselves as white, and I get along with them as well as I do my Nordic pals; I think I'm going to post something on this at some point). On the other hand, "change the culture" is a very tall order. Assuming persons reject White Zion (ie, moving away to an agreed upon place, preferably somewhere small and foreign), I think the approach must be a) networking (building those realworld WN 'cells'), b) cultural formation (which is already pretty advanced - just look at WN on the net), c) ideological agenda (we need some Ten Tenets of Nationalism, or, What We Want, etc - a widely agreed upon statement of principles and objectives, that can be passed around the net for people to e-sign, and forward on, d) PAC/lobby/legal services formation, e) pro-white political organization, same as pro-lifers, or anti-taxers, or environmentalists, etc, and f) shooting clubs (which also fit under (a)). What do you mean by "the longer I remain here"? Are you not American? Are you on a work visa? I'm curious about this statement: [i]I have a specific group in mind and have looked into incorporating it, but doing so would constitute ‘crossing the Rubicon’ and understandably I’m not yet in the position to do that.[/i] (SS) I'd like to know what you mean by that. If you want, please ask GW for my email address, and you can elaborate in private (unless you don;t mind doing so publicly).
11348151321314467871I'm not trying to reason with insane, evolutionarily maladapted liberals. I'm trying to change the ground for the vast white majority who, esp in America, are quite ethical, and have been both genetically programmed, as well as culturally conditioned, to think in a certain way, the essence of which is not hardcore PC, but ethical universalism. Whites are just very fairminded. I've seen it all over America. Anti-racism may have been planted by Jews (not really - who were all the Judeo-abolitionists, the Judeo-Quakers, the Judeo-Jesuit missionaries, etc), or better, cultivated and exported around, but only among whites could it have flourished as it has. We need to accept this. White Power only works in the artificial environment of a prison. It's the racially moderate Christians/conservatives whom we must bring to us. In the US, there just aren't a lot of conservative secularists or atheists.
11349051321314489700Gregor, I agree. I was responding to Thorn, [i]But how do you respond to the typical white-liberal-numbskull when they retort: Blacks have suffered violence at the hands of whites for 400 years. Why shouldn’t whites have a taste of it for awhile?[/i] not you, in my last comment. Sorry for the confusion.
11350851321314523131Nobody, With all due respect, ripping into liberal sites may be fun, but it is not the best use of scarce resources (eg, time). The best approach is to hit general news sites, and then to bring pro-white perspectives to as many non-racialist conservative and Christian places as possible. It's the white conservatives who are our natural targets for conversion to WN, or some variant of racialism.
11385551321315444612Such perfect symbolism! http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/02/05/article-0-034D5381000005DC-665_468x567.jpg
11359551331314751007[i]The whole edifice of WN, Regnerian or not, needs to face the people. Nationalism has no other way to really live. For it never does while it is confined to the cognitive elites, to the keyboard warriors, to us.[/i] (GW) And what if the people don't buy what we're selling? I used to think this: just go out boldly and tell the truth about the looming racial disaster for whites. The people are crying out for truth and leadership. Well, are they? USA 2000 - people could have voted for anti-immigrationist Pat Buchanan. He got fewer than 1/2 million votes (including my own; granted, I had friends who supported him, but still voted Bush - spectacularly stupidly, as I predicted at the time). France 2002 - The great Jean-Marie le Pen, after decades fighting for Free France, and a 1000% increase in black/[i]beur[/i] street crime over the previous two decades, makes it to a Presidential run-off!!! ... and gets less than 1/5 of the final vote. Britain 2010 - after the the worst immigration invasion in UK history, occurring during the preceding, odious Blair/Brown regimes, one consequence of which was the awful London bombings of 2005, perpetrated by 'homegrown' Muslims, Cameron the goofball blathers about a Big Multicultural Society, and the BNP barely registers. Understand: [i][b]we are too late[/b][/i]. We needed a fully articulated WN or racialist conservatism back in the 50s and 60s. We needed the kind of consciousness and intellectual defenses that are widespread today (though still not nearly sufficiently so in either numbers of adherents or even theoretical sophistication to make much difference). Up until possibly 1980, there were still heavy white majorities everywhere, many members of which were of a psychological disposition and cultural background that they would have responded to direct racial truth, whether biological or political (ie, about the state of the invasion, and its likely consequences). But today far too many of our own people have been thoroughly brainwashed for direct WN appeals to make much difference (we still need those appeals, however - we still need the "cutting edge" - but don't imagine that we'll be saved by some sudden awakening on the part of the indoctrinated masses). We have two not wholly mutually exclusive strategies. One is White Zion, or mass WN emigration to a "conquerable" sovereign polity (though even that must be conducted quietly at first). This is a last ditch strategy to save our race and civ from extinction (so Hunter, the WN ethnostate may still be too abstract now, but it is becoming more viable all the time, as the general decline, in absolute numbers and nationalist consciousness continues). The other is to form not [i]White[/i] nationalist, but plain old "national/nationalist" social groups and political parties, with the obvious understanding that immigration, racial spoils, multiculti, etc, harm the traditional nation. This is a kind of defensive nationalism, whose purpose is to help whites right now, but also to build consciousness for more ambitious agendas in the future.
11362151331314827263Some good suggestions, but most of you just can't handle reality. In the midst of the worst economic situation, and by light years most stomach churning volatility (except for the 60s race riots, but I was too young to remember), in my life, we (US) are still admitting north of 140,000 LEGAL immigrants EVERY MONTH. 98-99% of those are nonwhite. Have the colonizers ceased pouring into the UK? France? Do you people get it? Do you understand the implications of this?! Invasion, colonization, conquest. WNs cannot allow themselves to be suckered into a "turn to the local", or to pontificating about Jews, etc; that is, to any other task but political consciousness raising geared towards ending this invasion. I have been denouncing immigration to all and sundry for 30 years. Nothing has happened (actually the invasion has worsened). Yet, we have no choice, whether we are WNs or (European) ethnonationalists, but to keep up the educational efforts and general drumbeat about the need to end this catastrophe. Once we have ended the invasion, then (and [i]only[/i] then) can we begin turning to all other suggestions to build up white consciousness among the deluded masses now forced to live in 'diversified' societies. Any fool mouthing off economic collectivist nonsense is not only making the situation for whites economically worse (every diminution in private property rights, every bout of inflation, every increase in taxation, every needless regulation, etc, disproportionately harms white people!), he is needlessly muddying the waters, introducing extraneous conflict into what needs to be a united opposition to the invasion. There are powerful, sinister interests, as well as widespread popular support, for continuing immigration (especially, obviously, among Hispanics, but not only them; many white "conservatives" as well as liberals strongly support generous immigration). This policy disaster will never end until a loud and activist grassroots in the GOP (or among Tories) demands that their leadership stop it. There is no hiding from this task. Building white mutual aid societies, educational activities, alternative financial arrangements or institutions (which I strongly predict would not be viable; capitalism is the natural system of economic activity; where it is allowed to operate freely, it ineluctably bests alternatives), is all well and good - but absolutely worthless under conditions of foreign conquest. Wake the fuck up! This is more liberalism - always turning away from the hard task that needs doing to something more readily manageable. "Cultivate your own garden", say the paleoconservatives. What rubbish! When the orcs are descending upon you, let's worry about the quality of life in the shire? Here is what we need to do. Start local chapters of concerned whites (and maybe include nonwhites, if they are anti-immigrant) for purposes of coordinating anti-immigration (and anti-anti-white) activism. We need to formulate some sort of campaign-style fact sheet (say one page) about the disaster of immigration, and then we need to concentrate our efforts on distributing that sheet as widely as possible, plastering it in public places, putting it on car windshields, sponsoring at least little social get- togethers with friends to explain the disaster, etc. This does not require a huge investment. Hundreds of millions of xeroxed copies (in sufficient bulk, these can be gotten down in price to pennies per page), and, if not directly handed out or placed in mail slots, masking tape or staples. Even cheaper would be thick black magic marker pens to write "STOP IMMIGRATION INVASION" or "KEEP AMERICA AMERICAN" or similar slogans on every public wall and restroom stall across the Western world. Is this so much, or so difficult? There is still unbelievable ignorance out in the public. DO NOT ASSUME that because we talk about Heideggerian ontonationalism that it must be the case that everybody at least understands the scale of immigration. Not so! A few months ago, I mentioned to a highly intelligent, professionally successful, very rightwing, and 'law and order' friend about the scale of legal immigration. He was shocked. Of course, he was always against nonwhite immigration (and everything else nonwhite). He knew there were tens of millions of illegals in the USA. But he thought legal immigration amounted to only a few hundred thousand per year, and that the USA as a whole was still 70-75% white (and this guy is a fellow Southern Californian, Ground Zero of the immigration conquest!!). All WN activism must be oriented towards getting out the message re immigration, and to stopping it. Once done, as I keep saying, we take on new nationalist tasks.
11363151331314870044I tend to agree with Guest Lurker about white passivity, though I'm not sure that couldn't be changed more quickly than man imagine under the right conditions. Unfortunately, those have to be very bad ... EPWA, Unfortunately, you really do not understand how the American system works. Your ignorance plays into the hands of our enemies. Of course federal judges have way too much power. There does not even need to be a federal judiciary beyond the Supreme Court. But these adverse rulings on immigration (outrageous and impeachable, undoubtedly) always pertain to state level initiatives. The USSC has determined that immigration is a federal law issue. As long as we grant final judicial review power to the USSC (not something we must do - but changing that centuries-old practice is way more difficult than changing immigration law), there will always be some liberal judge to block enforcement of a state or local initiative he doesn't like. So what? The answer is grassroots demands for immigration termination. It is getting people to cast ballots based on how good a candidate is on immigration. When enough anti-immigrationists have been elected to Congress, and the president is on board, there is nothing a federal judge could do to block a duly enacted Federal immigration moratorium. Stop making excuses. Efforts must be comprehensively focused on immigration until victory has been achieved.
11366751331315013905[i]In fact Dr. MacDonald recently expanded on this strategy by concluding an article with the exhortation for whites to “Get rich. Buy media.” Yes, I read that too, Professor MacDonald has the right idea: practical aims, getting your hands dirty, making some money, gaining power and influence. Business and community involvement. These are two crucial activities, I suspect, that a lot of WNs avoid due to inaptitude, misanthropy, arrogance, etc. Intellectuals often think of themselves are “above it all”, but this would be a mistake. If you can establish and run a brilliant website such as MR or TOO, surely there are other business areas worth your time and effort...? We’re not going to win unless we start identifying and cultivating leaders. I spend much of my time out and about in the community, networking, speaking to groups, attending dinners, etc. I’ve long noticed that members of certain ethnic groups will only do business with other members of the same group. Asians and Indians are notorious for this. It is blatant. The Orange County chapter of the National Association of Asian American Professionals (NAAAP) regularly holds mixers in my area. NetIP (Network of Indian Professionals) is another one active in my community. Is there a National Association for European American Professionals (NAEAP) in my community? What about a Sons of Europe (SoE) chapter? When is the next meeting of the Midgard Shooting Club? Just asking.[/i] (SELOUS SCOUT) ------------------------------------------------ Selous Scout, This tracks my thinking except for the Kmac sentiment endorsement. Yes, of course we need wealthy whites to embrace WP and start doing things to save the race. But doesn't that rather beg the whole question: why aren't they doing so already? The genius of the existing system was hammered home to me in the mid-80s. I had just graduated from a reasonably prestigious boarding school, and was heading to the Ivies. I was already a precociously race-conscious proto-nationalist who had been constantly haranguing people since the end of the 70s about the need to end immigration (Good God! was it really 30 years ago?! and is it possible that not one damn change has come to US immigration in all that time? are we still accepting 1.5-2 million minorities every year?! am I dreaming? please let it be 1981 again!). A friend from high school cautioned me against being so racist in my new college. "You could really ruin your whole future", etc. Anyway, what I had already realized, quite apart from my concerned (and non-racialist "conservative") friend, was that the System was so structured, for reasons I literally still cannot fathom (the Jewish elite influence is an element, but neither the only nor most important one, which is internal to white thinking and psychology), as to "vacuum up" eugenic whites into a regime which allows individual betterment (at least for a while, though things are getting ever harder, as I long ago intuited they would) in exchange for passive acquiescence in collective racial harm. How and why the System operates as it does is extremely complicated. THERE ARE NO MONOCAUSAL EXPLANATIONS FOR IT - not Jews, "bankers", Christianity, liberal media ownership, economic globalization, or anything else. But suffice it to say, for individual whites of high quality, which you seem to want groomed for leadership, it is so, so much easier just to sell out the general race, and concentrate on one's own life, than to engage in racial truth-telling and activism. I doubt we will ever get many wealthy whites on board until white patriots have established a position of strength in society at large (in this - that we must be strong - if comparatively little else beyond the first principle of racial preservation, I agree with VNN's Alex Linder; we must be strong, but not weird or ideologically[i]extremist[/i], in the image we project - I think this is your position, too). Once a man has worked and worked to get wealthy enough to be a force in politics or activism, he generally becomes more concerned about wealth preservation, and passing it on to his heirs, than risking all he has achieved (including his own continuing profits) for the sake of something so remote and abstract as saving the white race from extinction (or even present persecution). We cannot rely on the wealthy or elite to save us. They are too cowardly and/or comfortable. Nor can we rely on the white masses themselves. They are too brainwashed, and passive (perhaps also untalented). What we must construct is a counter-elite (I think many here would fit the bill), intelligent, clear-headed, energetic and concerned persons who understand the need for (varying levels of) racialist activism. This will not arise through 'lone-wolf' activities (such as reading and blogging at MR - on the internet we are all 'lone-wolves'), but only through real-world networking, which must be built around an organization which appeals (sorry for that word, Mr. Linder, but I live in reality, not the 'virtual' sphere) to the sense of fairness and moderation in whites, but which is extreme enough to demand justice for our people. In unity there is strength (one of the secrets of the Jews).
11366951331315017656Selous Scout, To continue. There are two macro-issues here. The first is the survival of the white race in perpetuity. The second concerns how to advance white majority interests within specific nations today. The survival of the white race depends on two conditions: white national/racial defensive (military) power, and perpetual white psychological rejection of geographic integration and miscegenation. To obtain these national characteristics will, I believe, in turn require two further conditions: White Zion (a politically sovereign white nation-state), and, ultimately, a Racial State. Respecting the latter, the government of WZ must be teleological; that is, State and society must be structured for the official purpose of preserving a genetically pure white race in perpetuity. It will not be enough merely to establish WZ, as in two or three generations after the founding, there will, without rigorous racial education of the young, and a Racial State Constitution forbidding backsliding, again be a tendency towards wanting greater racial 'openness', immigrant labor, resettled 'refugees', interracial marriage, allowing one's Oriental or South Asian bride to come and settle in WZ, etc. Does the imperative of the first macro-issue conflict with that of the second? That is a very deep question, and I'm not sure of the answer. [It's the kind of topic we ought to be discussing here, but rarely seem to.] It might well be that establishing WZ is not congruent with advancing narrower white political and economic interests. Improvements in conditions for whites could further anaesthetize them to their macro-racial plight (inevitable extinction), rather as Reagan and Thatcher did objectively improve conditions for the majority of their countrymen, but without fundamentally eliminating any of the sources of their respective nations' decline. On the other hand, one could argue, as I have done, that the psychological propensities of whites at this juncture in history require a gradual reintroduction of white racial consciousness; that is, if we go "hard-core" all but the hard-core WNs will simply flee in terror, and our movement will continue to be a political nullity.
11367151331315035005Selous Scout, To finish up. I can speak with reasonable confidence only respecting the situation in the US. It seems to me that the answer to what we are looking for wrt advancing white interests within the diversified USA (as opposed to trying to separate ourselves from it, which is not immediately practical for most people) is to establish an American (not [i]white[/i]) nationalist organization, one which is [i][b]implicitly[/b][/i] white (very, very important!), and advocates a non-racialist agenda which, however, nicely parallels an overtly pro-white agenda (the Jews are masters of this) but otherwise keeps race-talk to a minimum. Thus, I particularly agree with this portion of your comment: [i]I spend much of my time out and about in the community, networking, speaking to groups, attending dinners, etc. I’ve long noticed that members of certain ethnic groups will only do business with other members of the same group. Asians and Indians are notorious for this. It is blatant. The Orange County chapter of the National Association of Asian American Professionals (NAAAP) regularly holds mixers in my area. NetIP (Network of Indian Professionals) is another one active in my community. Is there a National Association for European American Professionals (NAEAP) in my community? What about a Sons of Europe (SoE) chapter? When is the next meeting of the Midgard Shooting Club?[/i] (SELOUS SCOUT) I'm not sure the "European" prefix is needed or even useful, although the general idea is excellent (in fairness, I have been advocating something similar for a while now). Unfortunately, we need to stay away for the "moment" (ie, the next decade or so) from "white", and "European-American" to many whites sounds like it's describing European immigrants in America (seriously, if someone were generically described as "European-American" would you first think "white", or "naturalized European immigrant"? Knowing several immigrants from Europe, I would think "European-born with American citizenship"). Most white Americans think of themselves as "white", not "European". That may change as the USA gets ever more diverse, but for the moment we need a designation that is understood to mean "white" (and "real white" - ie, "Old Stock" or "heartland"), but does not actually use "white", which idiotically freaks whites out (all very confusing, I know, but no less true for that). What about "Middle American", Sam Francis's old favorite term? How does "The National Association for Middle American Professionals" sound? I think most people know "Middle America" has a connotation of "white America", or "heartland America". But it doesn't have the aggressive connotation that anything with "white" in it has. Some persons think the latter is the whole point for nationalists, but I strongly disagree. If too hardcore, nobody shows. A pro-white American organization, to really get off the ground, needs to be just slightly risque enough to interest persons who do want to meet others like themselves (anti-diversitarian whites), but not so belligerent that whites will think only a bunch of neo-Nazis will show up. As such a network grows, it can also over time grow more aggressive. Building anything pro-white must be understood to be a process of - I reiterate - [b][i]gradual radicalization[/i][/b]. So I ask you (and all other Americans here at MR) to put (hypothetically) your money where your mouth is. Supposing someone started a website for Middle Americans (I say this because I met some persons a few years back proposing just this idea). The purpose of this site is, initially, solely to act as a clearinghouse for Middle Americans (which we understand to be pro-white Americans) who want to meet other Middle Americans around the country (but especially in their own towns), first just to network and socialize and discuss issues pertaining to the nation's racial situation, eventually to begin pro-white activism, once a certain threshold of interest or membership has been reached. [b]Would you be willing to purchase a membership in such an organization, say at $10 per year (c'mon people ... if the wallets don't open, the talk isn't serious ...), even though initially there would be no service offered except the clearinghouse function - that is, the whole purpose of the money would simply be to further grow the organization[/b], until some threshold has been reached such that we could start paying people for fulltime white activism, paying legal fees to set up a pro-white PAC, paying for the creation of pro-white voter ballot guides, pro-white bumper stickers, etc? It seems to me that we need snowballs before we can start an avalanche. Unless there is someone out there with really deep pockets willing to fund all this upfront, we are going to have to make up in recruitment what we lack in wealth. If we could gather up 100,000 members at a crummy $10 per year, we could start having a real impact in getting the "white viewpoint" out in public. (If we could reach 100k, I think it would be but a few years until we could get 2 million, at which point the organization would be a serious political player on the Right, just like La Raza and the NAACP on the Left.) I seriously doubt we will ever find some WN to buy major media (that statement of Kmac's just shows how little he understands about either the rich, or current political sociology). What we need are white organizations just as there are Jewish, black, Asian, etc organizations. I hope to hear from y'all. Would [i]you [/i]give $10 per year to an IRS-recognized non-profit (501c3), the purpose of which would be to build up a critical mass of networked whites interested in issues of concern to the white community? Would you do it year after year, however long it took to get the first 50 or 100k dues-paying members? Put up or shut up.
11375851331315257653Lew, The point of such an organization is to try to get around the fact that Big Money isn't coming forward. Also, it is to tie people together into [i]something[/i]. Ten dollars is a pittance. Anyone who won't give that up to a national-patriot cause just isn't serious. But giving anything signifies a sense of being a "stakeholder" (one reason why I totally opposed Reagan's 1986 tax "reform" - which secured liberal Congressional votes through its removal of millions of the "poor" from the Federal tax roll - was precisely because removing persons from taxation, however meager, altogether removes any sense of having a stake in private sector prosperity and keeping taxes low). People need to recover that sense of concern for their nation. As to the need for professional persons, yes of course, though perhaps not in the beginning for this type of project. The goal is to develop a pro-white mass organization fighting for white interests, like the NAACP fights for black interests. But such an org can only get off the ground either with Big Money initially, or with a mass membership base (which still has to be built, however; it won't simply materialize of itself). If we could get 50000 whites paying $10 per year, that is certainly enough to hire a fulltime person or two, in addition to funding the informational/activist work for which the org would have been inaugurated in the first place. My question was not really pertaining to the willingness to pay $10, but rather, the willingness to pay it for several years mostly for the purpose simply of further building the membership base. Generally, when you pay for something, you expect to get something. If making a donation to an activist org, you expect them to be 'active'. My contention is that a pro-white org cannot be active until it reaches a certain level of membership and funding, so that in the initial stage, the 'activism' you're paying for is geared not to advancing white interests directly, but to building up a national network of whites (based on as many local chapters as possible) which will fight for white interests[i] in the future[/i], once it has reached a certain level. Does that make sense? And would you (and others! c'mon people, the response is underwhelming!) support it?
11371451341315193540Apologies to all for this question unrelated to the above post. For Yahoo mail users, does anyone know how to get out of the new Yahoo mail visual format, and go back to the yahoo format of the past however many years? I really hate the new, dark color format. They changed my Leon Haller yahoo mail account (the one I use for internet stuff like MR) against my wishes, and starting up a new account I wasn't even given the option of having the "classic" look.
11375951351315257745SELOUS SCOUT, I responded to you (but also everyone else concerned with practical issues) at some length over at the Struggling for Funds thread.
11381851351315368130Nice, thoughtful comment from Anne, but here's something really radical. At the risk of being a "one-note Charlie" (a note I've been sounding for decades), why don't we focus on ending the immigration invasion to the near-exclusion of everything else? If we don't stop adding minority (read: liberal) voters, we aren't going to be able to accomplish anything else - certainly nothing of permanence. I've seen California lost; soon America as a whole will find itself "Californicated". On the other hand, the very process of ending the invasion will in itself lead to a huge increase in white awareness, pride and determination. Nothing overcomes anomie like success. WE NEED SUCCESSES! Ending immigration will not be the end of white activism, but its launch into a whole new phase.
11385151351315442154CS, It's horrific, similar to what other European societies have done. But, it could help to polarize matters, and we have no other realistic option anyway. That the govt feels the need to do this is obviously in response to something, and that is heartening: [i]Research shows about one in 10 Australians have racial supremacist beliefs and about the same number oppose inter-marriage and believe races should be kept separate. A study by the Scanlon Foundation found about 9 per cent of Australians believed that “ethnic diversity erodes a country’s security”. [/i] As always, "a race against time". What is needed is for WNs everywhere to start building up local social and professional networks. This is eminently possible. For many years in the 90s-00s, until I turned 40, and had to by by-law exit, I was a member of a young professional/social network of 100 white men that was intentionally (not just accidentally) kept white (although it was not WN, and did not hold itself out as such - we just didn't want minorities). WPs (whether WN or pro-white conservatives) need to know each other in the real world. This is very, very important to longer term and larger agendas. We are all too isolated, "net jockeys" without core ideo-personal bases of support, outside of whatever friends of ours happen to share our values. That's not good enough, either for building ourselves up into a mass movement, or as protective measures for individually surviving in multiracialized shit-holes. With networks of live WPs, meeting regularly, even if only a few times yearly, we can keep up motivation and morale, while developing parallel social circumstances outside of the dominant, oppressive PC regime. Such networks can be the first steps in Northwest Front or WZ emigration (think of the Puritans, who emigrated as an entire community to the New World).
11385251351315442718ROBERT REIS, I am a strong supporter of traditional patriarchy, from a religious as well as sociological perspective. I submit, however, as an empirical matter (so perhaps I'm wrong), that it would be easier in the USA, my country, to build a mass mobilization against immigration, than one in favor of the restoration of patriarchy. The burden of proof I think is on you to prove the contrary. I've been fortunate to know a number of anti-immigrationist women. I can't recall ever meeting a female in favor of patriarchy, though I have known a few with basically traditional views on marriage and allied issues. In fact, I have found that explaining the immigration disaster resonates every bit as powerfully with culturally modern (but non-leftist) women, as with more affirmatively Christian ones. Many of these have been moderately feminist, as are most career women today. I can't see that changing unless men force the change - and I can't see that happening until after the Racial Armageddon. I'd like to prevent that catastrophe.
11394451351315647742If white men avoid committed relationships, how will we reproduce the race? If we do it illegitimately, how will we pas down the values of the West?
11394651351315648752The problem with whites is that the [i]hoi polloi [/i]basically parasite off their geniuses. A few brilliant whites drag the race forward, and WNs somehow think we're a Master Race. We're not. Most whites are losers, in modal possession of particular traits clearly recognizable as maladaptive for the environments in which we now find ourselves. I post some serious comments about strategy, trying to gauge what interest there is in small-scale group formation as the nucleus for a hoped-for larger future movement, with an emphasis on gradual radicalization - and I get zero responses unless I more or less solicit them. The internet generation of WNs are basically non-doers. To that extent the net is actually harmful. It acts as a kind of 'safety valve' for the racially disgruntled to excogitate harmlessly while actually avoiding doing anything productive (overarching conspiracy theories about omnipotent and/or omniscient Others perform a similar apathy-inducing function). Contrast WN impotence with the tremendous activism of Christians, gays, minorities, neocons, even libertarians - and especially Jews. We need less theorizing (except in ethics, as I've argued previously), much less whining, and much more organizing. Where are our "community organizers"?
11377051361315277034I have no idea what Mr. Richards is going on about, but I confess: I love that poster reproduced on the left. A death's head with the tattooed symbols of Islamism, communism, and Nazism and a stake representing a Christian cross driven through it. Perfect.
11377151361315277463From Breivik: [b]The badge of the Justiciar Knight illustrates a white skull, marked with the symbols of communism, Islam and Nazism on the forehead, impaled on the cross of the martyrs. The background is black. The badge of the Justiciar Knight illustrates our patriotic struggle/ opposition against all three primary hate ideologies of our time: Islam, Multiculturalism (Communism) and Nazism.[/b]
11385351361315444033DASEIN, Isn't 126 a fairly high IQ? What then was McVeigh doing in a lowly army job? I've had friends (and family of another generation) who are ex-military, but officer class, and their assessments of the intelligence and competence of the general soldiery were not high. I vaguely recall Murray in [i]The Bell Curve[/i] saying something to the effect that since the 70s or 80s pretty much anyone with an IQ over 120 was now going to college.
11389151361315565660I recall a Jared Taylor review of writings by or about Raymond Cattell (there was a great man, whose work has not been fully digested even by the Racial Right) in which Cattell used the 130 number as the threshold past which one would not succumb to senility (a questionable claim, imo, unless he was distinguishing between normal, age-related mental decline, the cognitive equivalent of loss of muscle and bone mass, and some specific genetic 'time-bomb', as Alzheimer's might be; certainly the late, brilliant novelist and Oxford-trained and published philosopher Iris Murdoch must have had an IQ vastly exceeding that of McVeigh, from what I've read of him). Do you have a good sense of IQ, Dasein, that is, of how it corresponds to published writings? What would be that of a typical historian or scientist or even WN writer?
11410151361315826386DASEIN, Thank you. That was interesting. I'm always sceptical of those who attempt to draw too tight a relation between IQ and commonsense notions of intelligence (that is, among those recognizably educated). I have stated in the past my belief that IQ scores are far more dispositive for those located on the left than the right side of the cognitive bell curve. If I may be permitted to borrow the form of Tolstoy's opening of [i]Anna Karenina[/i], stupidity is all the same, but intelligence is highly variegated. In my experience, while the correlation between intelligence and wisdom is reasonably strong, it runs in one direction: the possession of the former is no guarantee whatsoever of an equal possession of the latter. And the latter is what matters in the racial struggle.
11410251361315826438Italics were meant for Anna Karenina only.
11400251371315750199The white race will not survive unless it [i]chooses[/i] to do so. Even with a White Republic, it will not survive through time unless the WR is a teleological Racial State, one whose entire existence is bound up with a permanent mission of saving the race. This will affect every aspect of life (that is, all political and social decisions must be subordinated to the overarching goal of racial permanence). In this sense, the Racial State will somewhat resemble medieval Christendom, in which boundaries of action (at least in theory) were contained within Christian metapolitical parameters. Christianity is compatible with this vision. Freedom as it is understood in the contemporary West is not.
11409951381315824115Posted by Graham_Lister on September 12, 2011, 08:05 AM | # [i]@ J Richards OK so you would direct ordinary and everyday associates to hard-core Holocaust denial as your opening gambit!!! What ‘signal’ do you think that sends - nut-job/neo-Nazi/fruit-cake by any chance? No wonder normal people are seemingly uninterested as your approach massively raises the ‘psychological costs’ of engagement for them while simultaneously reducing your own creditability to zero. It would be career and personal suicide for a professional person to ‘recommend’ 9/11 conspiracy theories, let alone hard-core Holocaust denial to people in their circle. Shall we try keeping the discourse within the realms of what can be rationally and reasonably defended? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is sadly lacking in your 9/11 file. The other day there was a TV show about a group of British 9/11 ‘truthers’ - they talked about garbage like the ‘Illuminati’ being behind world events etc. They looked and sounded like deluded losers and kooks. Sensible people don’t fashion tin-foil hats at the drop of a hat (pardon the pun). Equally the world and human affairs are rather complex phenomena - why the obsessive focus upon a single ‘catch-all’ monocausal ‘explanation’ - hardly a very intelligent approach to any serious issue. I’m skeptical about many official accounts of events such as 9/11. Governments regularly lie etc., BUT, and it’s a massive but, that does not mean I’m ready to sign-up to any old conspiracy crap floating around in cyberspace. Yes we should be open to alternative ideas but not so open-minded that our brains slip out of our heads. And frankly even if you are right on 9/11 of what strategic importance is it with regard to the core issues that MR addresses - namely the insanity of hyper-liberalism and its most obviously pernicious effect upon European populations (3rd world mass-migration/multiculturalism)?[/i] ------------------------------------------------------------ Very well said, Graham. Couldn't have said it better myself (though, actually, I seem to [b]have[/b] said it all before, over and over ...)
11410051381315824552[i]Michael Polignano is Greg Johnson’s boyfriend.[/i] (OWEN) WTF? Serious? Oh yeah, my Christian-acceptable Middle American nationalism is going to be superseded by these people. Right. Get back to me when you start the Revolution.
11410551381315830748From a Christian leftist: Writes Fr. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy: Even the New York Times is syndicating Noam Chomsky's views on 911. This article about "what could have been, should have been, could be, might be" rests on Noam Chomsky's refusal from day one to even consider the possibility that the causes of 911 were something other than the impossible tale that the US Government began to put out an hour after those two gigantic buildings fell at free fall speed into their own footprints. What Noam Chomsky writes in the article is of little importance. What the article assumes without question, that the US Government's story is the truth, is of great importance. As one of the big time gatekeepers of the political middle-left to far-left consciousness and media, once Noam Chomsky bestowed his imprimatur on the US Government's 911 story indicating it was the truth of the matter, political left media and political left peace and justice organizations, including most Christian P&J;groups, closed their minds and doors as completely as Rush Limbaugh to consideration of the possible falaciousness of the Government's story. Indeed, the "establishment left" media, e.g., Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews. Lawrence O' Donnell, Ed Schultz, Amy Goodman, etc. regularly trashed the laborious investigatory work and detailed scientific work of 1500 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, Dr. David Ray Griffin and thousands of others—work that reveals gross, and impossible to reconcile, logical, scientific, and on the scene eye-witness evidence that put the lie to the 911 Commission Report—by referring to them in the derogatory contemporary nomenclature of "truthers" and "conspiracy nuts." Noam Chomsky's public life has been the pursuit of truth at an extraordinary level of logical cognition. He knows, perhaps better than 99.99% of the people on earth, when someone is trying to pass off 1+1=7 as the truth. So why, when a tsunami of 1+1+7 absurdities is washing over him does he continue to say, "The math seems right to me"? The issue is truth and only truth. Punishment of those who are responsible for 911, whoever they may be, does not interest me. Human beings have suffered enough punishment at the hands of other human beings to last for an eternity. Immunity from punishment for all involved is the only path to truth. And, truth is so important in the human situation, that such immunity should be granted without strings attached. The US Government's story as represented by the 911 Commission Report is rationally indefensible. It is because it is untenable that no one in authority or in the establishment media or in religion—right, left or middle—tries to defend it in open rational dialogue with those who have put in the intellectual labor to reveal the story as logically and scientifically impossible. Wouldn't it be proper, right, and good for humanity, if Noam Chomsky would sit down in a public forum, say on Frontline, for an open dialogue with Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin on who and what brought down those three WTC mega-structures at free fall speed in their own footprints, etc.? And if Noam Chomsky won't, you can be sure that the Lawrence O' Donnells, Rachel Maddows, Sean Hannitys, Amy Goodmans and Rush Limbaughs of the world won't. There are people who are too overwhelmed with personal problems, e.g., sickness, foreclosure on their homes, a child's drug addiction, unemployment, to care about the truth of who and what brought down the three WTC buildings. There are others who are temporarily on a joy ride through life for whom the truth about the 911 event is a non-thought. There are people utterly indifferent to what is or is not the truth of the 911 event because they are well-paid to say what they are told to say, to cover what they are told to cover. Then there are people who do not want to see and/or admit that the US Government's story concerning the human and physical causes of 911 cannot possibly be true because the implications of that are shockingly terrifying in the extreme. Noam Chomsky I believe is in the latter category. When a person of his intellect blocks out or feigns not to see evidence that anyone's eyes can see and proofs that are scientifically valid, and will not even address the issues involved when his entire adult life has been addressing just such issues, something is very wrong. What he is doing is comparable to his saying during the Vietnam War, "I believe the US Government's story that it was the Viet Cong that killed those innocent people at My Lai. All this talk about Lt. William Calley and those in his command doing it and the Government covering it all up is so ridiculous that I am not even going to address the issues being raised." When a person of Noam Chomsky's intellect and learning does this, that is denies the obvious, he is afraid of something. By this I do not mean in Chomsky's case that he fears for his personal survival nor for his reputation. His personal courage is clear beyond dispute. But then, what is it that he is so afraid of that motivates him to shut down such an exquisite mind in relation 911 and the evidence that has been accumulated by equally competent intellects which reveals grave falsehoods with equally grave implications in the US Government's story? Why must he posture and make believe that there is nothing to be investigated and possibly seen when he knows very well that there is a Mount Everest of prima facie evidence, if not conclusive evidence, that points overwhelmingly to there being something unbearably distressing to be investigated and possibly seen? Whatever it is, it is exactly the same fear that keeps all of the major networks, all the major cable operations, all the major newspaper organizations, indeed all the major media corporations, all the Congress and all the Executive Branch unanimously dead silent on the subject. It is the all that is telltale sign that something is going on below the radar. Imagine if those three WTC giant buildings were not, could not, have been brought to totally collapse in their own footprints by those two planes! What would be the implications to be derived from this one fact? The axial question then whose answer must be truthfully ascertained is this: Could those three buildings have been brought down, free fall speed and in their own footprints by those two planes? The scientific answer to date, 9/11/11, is a resounding, "No." It would be rational in light of his history, if Noam Chomsky specifically addressed that question, even if he did not want to address any of the other evidence that conclusively puts the lie to the US Government's Official 911 Commission Report. Truth has more power to save what he fears will be lost by revealing it, than does human existence operating under the continuing and ever intensifying gravity of lies, fear and murder. The extreme and dreadful problem with not pursuing the truth in such matters as the mass murder operation of September 11, 2001, as Noam well knows, is innocent victims, and more innocent victims, and still more innocent victims, and ever more innocent victims, and innocent victims without end at home and abroad until the third and fourth generation and even beyond. Such is the unspeakable power of contagion within an unaddressed socially orchestrated deception. An evil that is left unnamed will perpetuate itself with lavish zeal. Exposing lies that destroy is mercy. Ignoring lies that destroy is mercilessness. Supporting lies that destroy is murder. Emanuel Charles McCarthy Postscript: Let us also remember to pray today for the repose of the soul of Salvador Allende, who was murdered 38 years ago on September 11, 1973, by Henry Kissinger operating on behalf of the US Government and American multi-national corporations. www.centerforchristiannonviolence.org
11412851381315854504[i]I think JR’s earlier work at MR was good. I’m not a fan of his latest stuff. Obviously, he’s a bright guy, but he’s [b]adopted a mindset that shoehorns facts into existing narratives[/b] (conspiracies). For example, in his ABB essay, he finds it suspicious that the manifesto was written in English. If it was written in Norwegian, that would be suspicious. In his Duke thread, he says that because Duke is a ‘kosher’ Nazi, he avoids legal problems. But when Duke is arrested in Czech, that is to boost his book sales.[/i] (DASEIN) DASEIN, Very well said (I intend to plagiarize the bolded phrase - it's apt and perfect, a stiletto in the hearts of most conspiracists). You're one of the most levelheaded persons in these parts. I wish you would write more. If you (or GW) should ever find yourselves in my part of the globe, let me know, and I'd be happy to take you out for dinner and drinks. The conversation would be most edifying, at least for me, I'm quite sure.
11413151381315855906[i]The right way to go is define who we are, who’s our enemy, and keep the line indelible. Then attack the conservatives, polarize the nation until White and jews are seen as the only true and real political divide, and then fight it out until we win.[/i] (ALEX LINDER) Mr. Linder, Do you really believe this - or are you just trying to make a name for yourself as the most 'hardcore' of the WNs? How do you polarize the nation? Who exactly is your base, if not disgruntled conservatives (or by "conservatives" are you referring to 'movement' people, as opposed to the grassroots)? What's your timeline? I assume you understand that real, untainted Whites (like us) will be a minority of the US (and an older one) by 2020-25, unless the invasion is immediately stopped. Even from your own judeocritical perspective, wouldn't it make more (Machiavellian) sense to try to create a super-Big Tent against immigration - and then turn on our allies once that goal has been achieved? I am personally acquainted with several Jews who are hostile to immigration. What is the point of alienating them, at least before the invasion has been terminated? (NB - I'm not saying I would join you in such an endeavor. I'm loyal to my friends, as to my nation and race.) I'm always willing to give anyone openly pro-White the benefit of the doubt, but your positions seem very counterintuitive to me. We need to be vigilant against allowing personal animosities to cloud our strategic realism.
11413351381315856139Who the hell is "anon/uh"? The dude from Belize, the old "uh", or were "anon" and "uh" always the same person? The old phora problems notwithstanding, this site ought to register people with regular usernames.
11413551381315857074[i]There are millions of Whites in Dixie that are explicitly racially conscious and millions more who are borderline explicitly White. Less than 1 percent of them are involved in White Nationalism. The vast majority of them are involved in the conservative movement. There’s probably a reason for that. So, instead of interacting with the ideological descendants of George Lincoln Rockwell’s stormtroopers, who was seen as a clown in the 1960s when he came to Alabama, [b]we should instead focus our energies on making Southern conservatism more explicitly racial[/b], which is actually showing some promising signs given the sweeping changes in White racial attitudes in the region which are showing up in the polls.[/i] (HUNTER WALLACE) --------------------------------------------- Agree 100%. It's what I've been saying for two decades, only I would say it about all conservatives, not just Southerners. On the other hand, one point to consider is that Dixie really is a true ethnoculture, one aspect of which has always been racial realism. It's bred into you, so to speak. So you don't need WN, only traditional ethnonationalism (as in European nations: "Germany for Germans!", etc). But what about the rest of us in America? Outside of Dixie, I would say that our race is our nation. What defines us culturally is indeed our 'whiteness' (this is beyond obvious for cultureless Californians like me). We, especially in the West, have no analogue to the unique Dixie identity. I think non-Southern whites do need nationalism, but it should focus (for now) on (Middle) American nationalism. Eventually, this will transmogrify into a more openly racial nationalism, as times become ever more propitious for harder-edged movements.
11417251381315873315[i]911 is the Litmus Test. When the younger crowd starts to learn about White issues, they aren’t going to listen to the Crypt Keepers of dead ideologies telling us about Virgin Births, Golden Plates, Lone Gunmen,Six Million Gas Chambers, or their Glory Days of watching White Freemasons play Golf on the Moon while driving around in Moon Buggies. The up and coming White crowd are scientific minded, hostile to ideology in general, and unimpressed by religious or secular mythology. This is a GOOD thing. For the rest of you, grow up. Snap out of it. TV isn’t real. As an American, I’m sick of having to defending the White Tard crowd here in the US. Europeans outside of the Anglosphere know and openly call 911 for what it was, a coup.[/i] (911 Litmus) The "up and coming white crowd" are inattentive to detail, resistant to work, given over to trivialities, and unbelievably gullible. What is worse: believing in Christ the Lord, which apparently the early disciples did to the extent that otherwise highly intelligent men were willing to sacrifice their lives for His message, or believing in such obvious empirical inanities as racial equality, female soldiers, Keynesian economics, or utopian political projects exalting some collective over individual self-interest, and then expressing surprise when individuals behave as they always have? Jettison the discipline of belief in Christ, and you get Marxists, multiculturalists, miscegenators, upperclass English Hedeggerians, neo-Nazis, Earth worshippers, Star Trekkies, celebrity obsessives, 'gamers', chavs and sodomites. The younger generation, not clinging any longer even to (Paretoite) residues of the faith of our fathers, are spoiled, petulant, cowardly brats (see England, Greece), ill-prepared actually to survive in a world shorn of Church authority. But they will get theirs - in economic hardships, racial attacks, and the grim knowledge that life is not a Hollywood movie.
11424751381315910626[i]What do you suppose will happen when all those Boomers who have “invested” in Wall Street simultaneously decide it is time to cash out in the 2010s and 2020s to enjoy their “retirement”? Fortunately, our plan has always been that illegal aliens and blacks are going to prop up Social Security and Medicare and Wall Street too.[/i] (HUNTER WALLACE) My hope is that we have one more cycle of prosperity before the real SHTF. This is not altogether implausible; indeed, it was one of the reasons I told everyone NOT to vote for McCain, but to write in Ron Paul's name. I had a feeling Obongo would be highly polarizing, and that he would neutralize the Christian Right (I said the latter repeatedly)(by "Christian Right" I refer not to Christians who are Rightist, but to the slimy and/or deluded Zionist evangelicals who are mostly racial leftists, but neocon and sex-obsessed moralizers otherwise). I had hoped the GOP would get more hardcore - in which hope I was correct. I also had opined that we might take back one branch of Congress, though I had thought that would take two election cycles, not just one (maybe we get the Senate this time around). I think the GOP Congress will hold the line on new liberal bs for the rest of the decade. I don't think they will succumb to the same war-mongering, big-spending, pro-immigrationist neoconism that did them in in the Zeroes (unfortunately, I don't think they're going to be restrictionists, either). Thus, I am willing to hazard the prediction that once we do get back the White House, in '12 or '16, there will be put into place some genuine free-market legislation that does boost the economy (and stock values) for some period of time. I actually believe that such legislation could usher in a decade or so of real growth. To me, that is neither over- nor under-optimistic. Eventually, say by no later than 2025, the chickens of liberalism will all be coming home ... By that point I hope to either have moved to the whitest part of the country possible, or to some foreign White zion, or at the very least, to have started some type of (locality-based) American nationalist organization to help whites weather the coming storms. The sad thing is that, even at this late date, much could be done to save America, not as a white nation, but at least as a civilized and prosperous one. But even conservatives are just too weak to do the fairly moderate things that could prevent the apocalypse.
11424951381315911517[i]OK, Leon. November will be your chance to demonstrate some bravery with these young wankers. The city of Pomona has refused to issue a permit to NSM for a political demonstration, so we are going to go forward as a walking picket line (this is legal) in protest of illegal immigration. This is YOUR pet issue. This is YOUR neighborhood. Saturday, November 5th, 2011[/i] (JIMMY MARR) Fair challenge, Jimmy. It could be fun, too. Unfortunately, two points. First, though I still live in the OC technically, I have moved to another part of the country for a newly begun graduate program. I'm already there now (actually I'm home this minute, but I have to leave again tomorrow). It could be rather prohibitively expensive to travel all the way back to Socal just for a protest. Second, even if I were home, I'd have to think about this carefully. I'm really interested in helping build an immigration-and-anti-white-spoils-system-focused American nationalism (also, a get-tough-on-crime approach would be part of it). Basically, I want to develop an implicitly white, broadly conservative movement emphasizing American nationalist goals (which are perfectly coincident with WN goals, too). I've been careful to avoid involvement with NSM elements, not that they bother me, per se, though my ideology is less hard-core, obviously, but only that I possess an Ivy background, and mixing it with such elements could considerably lessen my cred with the stratum I hope eventually to influence. Ours is a long struggle. We need street toughs, but we also need polished activists who are unthreatening to normal (unawakened) white persons. The greatest service I could perform for the cause would fall into the latter category.
11425251381315913435Let me add, Jimmy, that my little foray into the WN world is coming to an end. I may still post comments occasionally, but for the next number of years, I'm interested in developing my own foundational political philosophy, in part to help the cause, but, to no inconsiderable extent, simply out of my own desire to work out the logic of certain principles I hold dear. I really believe that I can best play my part by pursuing my own interests in theology and the intersection of conservative philosophy and sociobiology. I'm becoming ever more interested in Christian thought, particularly moral theology and ethics; secular ethical philosophy; racial science; philosophy of science, esp as it pertains to evolutionary theory; the whole atheist/theist debate; and rightist ideologies in general. I am unsatisfied with all ideologies, and for some extended period I'm going to devote myself to formal (and extracurricular) study and writing. I want to write at least one ideologically neutral wok of scholarship before I start publishing more serious nationalist material.
11426351381315926202Apropos this discussion of 9/11, an excellent article from Srdja Trifkovic: 9-11, Ten Years Later: Islam’s Unmitigated Success by Srdja Trifkovic • September 12th, 2011 • Related • Filed Under [Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details]. On the morning of September 11, 2001, I thought that the Muslims had made a big blunder. At first I believed that they had scored an auto-goal: this was the sort of thing that would shake up the Western world, wake it up to the fact that the Islamic demographic deluge—a process that had been in full swing for some two decades prior to 2001—would now be subjected to some long-overdue critical scrutiny to which the politicians would have to respond. I hoped that the end-result might be the kind of formative, life-altering awakening that, particularly in the case of Western Europe, would prevent our further slide into self-destruction. This pretty illusion lasted for about 48 hours. It disappeared as soon as I saw President George W. Bush go into the mosque in Washington D.C. later that same week, dutifully taking off his shoes before declaring that Islam was the religion of peace and tolerance, that the perpetrators of 9-11 did not really understand Islam and were distorting the message of the Prophet. When in addition I saw identically intoned editorials in Le Monde, The Guardian, Corriere della Sera, The Independent, or the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, it became clear to me that the Western elite class was behaving in 2001 exactly the way it did in 1937 and in 1981. Why those particular years? Well, in 1937 the Moscow Trials were at their height. The trials of Comrades Kamenev, Zinoviev and others were followed by those of Marshal Tukhachevsky and a host of other Red Army officers. They were some of the most egregious misuses of the quasi-judicial process ever used in history. And yet, just as the Gulag machine was switching into high gear, the apologia of Stalin in the Western world was reaching a hysterical pitch. If you read Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon,” or—at the opposite end of the moral divide—Walter Duranty’s New York Times dispatches from Moscow, you’ll know what I am talking about. The lies, the inability or unwillingness to tell the truth about what was going on in Moscow in 1937 was a sure sign of a strange phenomenon: The more murderous, the more outrageously antihuman Communist behavior became, the more determined the Western elite class was to come to its defense, as subsequently witnessed by Mao, Tito, Che and Ho. Fast-forward to 1981, when the AIDS epidemic was officially recognized as such. Its direct link with promiscuous homosexuality was soon established and remains undeniable. Lo and behold, that same instant the grandsons and granddaughters of Walter Duranty & Co. suddenly discovered that the Gay Lifestyle is one of the most valuable contributions to our multicultural civilization, worthy of praise and emulation. Any attempt to link that particular “lifestyle” and its idiosyncrasies—such as hundreds of partners, randomly encountered—with the grim harvest of death was banned. Contrary to evidence it was asserted that AIDS could happen to all of us at any moment. It became a metaphysical evil unconnected to any particular form of human behavior, just like “terrorism” was to become two decades later. The aftermath of 9-11 proves that the spirit of celebrating death and depravity is alive and well all over the Western world. The events of that day triggered off an immediate and massive wave of officially sanctioned Islamophilia, akin to the elite class Sovietophilia at the height of the Purges and sodomophilia amidst the AIDS epidemic. It soon transpired that, far from committing a blunder, the Muslims scored an incredible coup on 9-11. They effectively tested the limits of “tolerance” of the Western elite class at an entirely new order of magnitude—and they found out that there are no limits! It became obvious to the Muslims that the more outrageous you are in your stated intentions—and nobody has been more frank in this respect than the founder of Islam, both in his alleged revelations and in the Hadith—the more determined your Western fellow travelers will be to assure their subjects that Muslim intentions are not like that at all. The geopolitical harvest for the Jihadists has been rich and rewarding. The biggest prize of them all was Turkey. Not only was it the most populous of the ostensibly secularized Muslim societies but it was also once ruled by radical reformers most determined to break with the Islamic mindset and tradition and to turn Turkey into a modern European nation-state. Already in the early 1990’s the late Turgut Ozal, first as prime minister and later as president, tried to reverse that legacy. He laid the foundation for the success in that endeavor by the AKP, the Justice and Development Party, over the past decade. The AKP came to power in February 2002 and for the past nine years Prime Minister Erdogan has pulled off a succession of coups. The first among them was his decision in early 2003 not to support the United States in the war against Iraq, not to allow the passage of U.S. troops across eastern Turkey to open the Western front, and yet to be praised and celebrated as the “essential partner” by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz during his subsequent visit to Ankara. The key AKP objective was to change the constitution and to neutralize the Turkish army as the legally sanctioned guardian of secularism, which they did in a stage-managed referendum exactly a year ago. And yet the masterminds of the project were congratulated for this giant step towards full democracy by President Obama and the European Union. In recent months the AKP regime imprisoned some two hundred senior-ranking Turkish military officers, both active-duty and retired, as part of the Operation Sledgehammer—a monstrosity on par with Stalin’s 1937 Moscow Trials which remains virtually unreported in the Western media. The significance of Turkey’s metamorphosis from Kemalism to post-Kemalism to anti-Kemalism cannot be overstated. Turkey is now a regional power in its own right and it is pursuing a neo-Ottoman strategy with three main thrusts. One is in the Balkans, one is in the former Soviet Central Asia and the Caucasus, and one is in the Arab Middle East. In all three of those regions Turkey is now conducting a fully autonomous policy. That policy is effectively helping each and every local Jihadist movement, such as the Bosnian-Herzegovinian SDA (the Party of Democratic Action) which is now headed by Bakir Izetegovic, son of the late author of the notorious Islamic Declaration, Alija Izetbegovic. Turkey is fully supportive of the radical religious leader of Bosnia’s two million Muslims, Mustafa Ceric, and his counterparts in the Sanjak region of southwestern Serbia and in Kosovo. Turkey, rather than Saudi Arabia, is sponsoring the Islamic revival of the Pomak community in Bulgaria. In the Middle East the Turks have gained popularity in the Arab Street by systematically and openly destroying their previously close relations with Israel. They did so without so much as a peep of protest from the United States, which indicates the limits of what the friends of Israel inside the Beltway can do. They are notably ineffective when it comes to criticizing this “essential bridge between the East and the West,” the tail is wagging the dog. And vis-à-vis the former Soviet Central Asia the Turks are pulling wool over Moscow’s eyes by pretending that they are the moderate barrier to the extremist Wahhabist influence emanating from the Arab world. At the same time the Turks have established a special relationship with Azerbaijan, Turkmenia, Kazakhstan etc. The exceptionally capable team of Prime Minister Erdogan, President Gul and Foreign Minister Davutoglu has brought this process of Turkey’s re-Islamization to the point of no return. It is no longer possible for the army to contemplate a coup, let alone to carry it out. The middle class Westernized Turks who were the backbone of the Kemalist order, feel like the Jews of Berlin in the last days of the Weimar Republic (as an American journalist living in Turkey put it to me in Istanbul last January). They see the writing on the wall but they are hypnotized by fear and can do nothing to affect the outcome. The second richest jewel in the crown of Islam’s geopolitical advance after 9-11 is of more recent origin: Egypt. It is no longer necessary to argue in detail why the Muslim Brotherhood will be the ultimate beneficiary of what has come to pass over the past eight or nine months. Suffice to say that the Brotherhood is so confident of its power that it is going to contest only one-half of all constituencies. It does not want to be too successful right away, so as not to alarm unduly the Army which still has a number of nationalist-secularists in its senior ranks. The Brotherhood already has a tacit understanding with the military, according to which the Army will run the transition in political terms while the Brotherhood will quietly be given an upper hand in cultural and educational areas. We can confidently expect the Islamic Republic of Egypt to come into being within three to five years. Why is the United States acting as if this was a great and glorious victory for democracy? Prima facie it does not make sense. Any sober analysis of the Egyptian political scene should have started with Mubarak’s brief experiment with democracy. In December 2005 he allowed the Brotherhood to contest a quarter of seats, and it swept the board in all of them, proving yet again that “democracy” in the Muslim world equals Islamization, or to be precise, re-Islamization, like in the case of Turkey. And yet Washington remains enthusiastic. The most significant result of the Iraqi war is that is has been made safe for the ayatollahs with close links to Iran. As soon as the last “Coalition” soldier leaves Afghanistan, it will revert to its Hobbesian ways or else to a Taliban-style Islamic dictatorship. One possible answer regarding American motives may be roughly as follows. The friends of Israel are developing a long-term Machiavellian ploy: they are pleased to let these previously secularist Muslim states revert to their Jihadist ways, so that our unsinkable aircraft carrier appears that much more valuable and indispensable as the only reliable ally in the region. The Muslims are just impossible, we supported their democratization—and now, look! The Jihadist veterans of Benghazi have replaced Qaddafy, the same thing has happened in Tunisia, and we were helping them bring down Bashar al-Assad in Syria… It is entirely possible that this is the broad agenda of some elements of the power structure inside the Beltway. On the other hand, within that structure there are still many people who do believe that all those English-speaking, tweeting yuppies from Tahrir Square protests last February will have an upper hand in Cairo and that the Arab Spring will go on from one triumph to another—but of course not to Saudi Arabia, not to Bahrein, not to the Emirates, because our friends there have warned us that things would get out of hand and that we would end up with some rather nasty Shiite dictatorships. The aftermath of 9-11 has not only displayed the geopolitical shortsightedness of the Western elite class. Above all it has unveiled the extent of its self-hate. This goes well beyond its inability to protect the citizens of the Western world. It reflects a pathological desire to enable the enemies of the traditional nations of Europe and of what used to be “the American people” to establish a physical, cultural and political foothold in those countries. The elite class has been facilitating this process every step of the way, to the point where it is no longer possible to have a meaningful debate on the character of Islam in the European Union or Canada. Effective criminalization of meaningful debate has reached the point where merely quoting Islamic sources can get you into trouble if the guardians of the multicultural grail determine that you had done so with hostile intent. What 9-11 has done for the Muslim world is enormously valuable. It has tested the will of the West and found it wonting. There is no need for further terrorist attacks, and if they happen it will be by some isolated self-starters disconnected from the “community.” Large-scale attacks are no longer necessary. The point has been made. What the Muslims need now is merely to continue on the long Gramscian road that will turn Dar-al-Harb into Dar-al-Islam. The shift is well under way and it is statistically predictable. In Britain, net immigration is greater than ever before, and much of it consists of Muslims from the Subcontinent, the Middle East and Africa. On current form the strategy of Riyadh and Ankara will continue to pay dividends because there is nothing in the way of changing the demographic transformation of Europe in particular. By the end of this century some of its oldest nations will no longer be able to reverse the process, and there will be no political will to make an attempt. What can save us? A miracle! Or else, as I said eight years ago at the JRC meeting in New Orleans, what can save us is a precipitous, drastic economic crisis that would remove all legitimacy from the ruling elite and end any credibility it may have in managing the crisis. For the time being people are still looking to governments for solutions, rather than perceiving them as part of the problem. What can help save us is the fact that the Muslims are not capable of thinking creatively and establishing harmonious and prosperous polities. If there is a belated recovery of the West in the wake of a global economic meltdown, and if the Muslim world is subsequently left to its own devices, the end-result will be the rediscovery of meaning and faith in the West—and yet another round of decline into moral depravity, intellectual decrepitude and material poverty in the Muslim world.
11426651381315929281THE REAL REASON OUR RACE IS DOOMED TO EXTINCTION, AND WN - APART FROM MY WHITE ZION PROPOSAL - IS NEVER GOING ANYWHERE: ------ September 12, 2011 Record-High 86% Approve of Black-White Marriages Ninety-six percent of blacks, 84% of whites approve by Jeffrey M. Jones PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are approaching unanimity in their views of marriages between blacks and whites, with 86% now approving of such unions. Americans' views on interracial marriage have undergone a major transformation in the past five decades. When Gallup first asked about black-white marriages in 1958, 4% approved. More Americans disapproved than approved until 1983, and approval did not exceed the majority level until 1997. The latest results are based on an Aug. 4-7 USA Today/Gallup poll, which included an oversample of blacks. Approval of black-white marriages is at a record high among blacks and whites. Blacks have always been more approving than whites of interracial marriage, going back to 1968 when Gallup first was able to report reliable estimates on each group's opinions. However, the gap in approval ratings has narrowed considerably, averaging 13 percentage points since 1997 but 32 points from 1968-1994. Wide Generation Gap in Views of Black-White Marriage Approval of black-white marriage is well above the majority level among all key subgroups, though slightly lower among Southerners, Republicans, conservatives, and those with no college education. Senior citizens are the least approving of black-white marriage among major subgroups, at 66%. Today's older Americans, those aged 50 and older, are much more likely to approve of black-white marriage than people of the same age a generation ago; 78% today vs. 27% in 1991, a 51-point shift. At the same time, there has also been a 33-point increase [b]among 18- to 29-year-olds (64% to 97%) [/b]and a 35-point increase among 30- to 49-year-olds (from 56% to 91%) between the two time periods. The increase in approval of black-white marriage among all Americans, however, is probably more the result of changing attitudes within the population than it is changes in the composition of the population with more socially progressive younger adults replacing less progressive older ones. This is evident from examining the same age cohorts in 1991 and now. Each cohort shows 30 point or more increases in approval of black-white marriage today compared with the same group's attitudes 20 years ago. However, generational replacement is still a factor as today's younger Americans, who were children or not even born 20 years ago and are nearly unanimous in their approval of black-white marriage, are replacing now-deceased Americans who were generally less likely to approve of interracial marriage when they were alive. Implications Americans' acceptance of marriage between people of different races continues to grow and is approaching unanimity, with 86% now approving of marriages between blacks and whites. Widespread approval of interracial marriage is a dramatic shift from roughly 50 years ago when 4% approved, and even 20 years ago, when about half as many approved as do so today. The trend mimics the growing support for gay marriage -- though Americans are still less likely to accept that practice than interracial marriage. It also follows the trend toward increasing racial tolerance on other measures such as voting for a black president and an increasing belief in progress and equality for blacks in the U.S. more generally. -------------------------- It's not the Jews, people, at least not anymore. Our own people have been irrevocably brainwashed. I've been saying this all along, please remember. There is only going to be ever greater levels of miscegenation, until the last white holdouts are simply impotent - at the mercy of Racial Others outnumbering us 1000 to 1. The time for WN, MR, etc etc was 50 years ago. We are too little, way too late. White Zion is the Last Hope.
11442251381316012199Jimmy, No offense intended, pal. You asked me re participation in a NSM led street protest on illegal immigration. That would not be good for me and the new career I'm working towards, one which already involves considerable financial losses (in outlays and lost income, both now and over the decades). I'm not opposed to meeting sometime in person, either when I'm home, or if I should ever make it to Portland, where I do have a college friend (he's very liberal, so we discuss philosophy and law, not politics). Graham, You ask questions far too large to be answered on a 'truther' thread. I have offered my opinions on this at other times (GW: please don't delete any threads for a while; I'd like to go back and copy some of my old comments, maybe going back as far as the past couple of years). I was raised Catholic. I was always a kind of 'intuitional' theist, though with a considerable degree of agnosticism mixed in. I tend towards a scientific outlook. I am scornful of anything "New Age". I am not remotely superstitious, and lead a very outwardly secular lifestyle, which is perhaps why I feel comfortable with WN. I now incline towards accepting the truth of generic Christianity (perhaps 60-40% pro). Am I a real Catholic? No, or, I don't know. I haven't studied enough theology or apologetics to know [i]exactly[/i] what I believe on religious matters, beyond the basics, which I accept (God, the historicity of Christ's physical resurrection, the soul's immortality and judgment). A knowledgeable Catholic friend thinks I'm really more of a Protestant by nature, and that may be where my 'heart' ends up (or not - there are aspects of both faith traditions I find ridiculous). I'll know in a few years. I've chosen to study Catholicism mainly because of the importance it places on philosophy as an additional mode of knowing, this in opposition to the Protestants' over-emphasis on the Word, which I find boring. Also, many conservative intellectuals have converted from atheism or Protestantism to Catholicism, whereas few have left the Catholic Church for other Christian denominations (there must be more than to coincidence to this). Given my bedrock belief that we (at least people like you, GW, and me; I'm not at all sure about Alex Linder, Greg Johnson, and many others) are not wicked men (from a Christian standpoint), I'd like to demonstrate that, philosophically and theologically. I happen honestly to believe that doing so in a competent manner would also be of great usefulness to furthering White and Western survival. Perhaps that's my familial or even American identity clouding my perspective, but that is how I view matters. As for your broader question : [i]Given the universalistic claims of Christianity – one radical example being Karl Rahner’s doctrine of ‘Anonymous Christianity’ – why, other than for tactical/PR purposes, do you wish to link this religion to particularistic (i.e. ethnocentric) politics?[/i] (GL) you are putting the cart before the horse. I am pro-White for many reasons (some noble - innocent, good white persons are victimized by multiculti; others not - I really dislike most aspects of negrodom, and want my race to fight back against the savages, not only as a matter of morality, but also pride). But for me the question is whether EGI politics is itself immoral, as so many across the ideological spectrum contend, not whether Christianity is good for EGI. My inclination is towards WN, but first I want to ensure that WN is not (necessarily) unchristian. Beyond that, however, I do think a traditionalist conservative politics, one which combines race realism with Christian metaphysics and ethnocultural concerns, is far more likely to succeed than some revolutionary politics cut from wholly new metaphysical cloth. Why I think that I don't have time right now to get into (I have discussed these matters in the past - I need to go searching through back threads gathering old comments of mine). Oh, as for the soul, I can no more explain the mechanism by which it interacts with the body than you can explain how consciousness arises from material substances. But yes I do believe there exists something which corresponds to what is commonly called 'soul'.
11453151381316085856With a few exceptions (on this thread, eg, Hunter Wallace, perhaps Graham Lister, odious though I find his mockery of the faithful), "you people" are so far removed from American normality (let alone the wet blankets in Europe) that these types of discussions remind me of the caged zoo scenes from the recent [i]Rise of the Planet of the Apes[/i] (fun movie if you missed it). Americans can't even get their [i]Republican[/i] leaders to demand that Obama stop procrastinating on deportation of [i]illegal[/i] aliens, and you think declaring war on Jews and conservatives is the path to victory. Oy vey!
11463551381316183915I repeat my own formulation: The white race will not survive unless it [i]chooses[/i] to do so. Even with a White Republic, it will not survive through time unless the WR is a teleological Racial State, one whose entire existence is bound up with a permanent mission of saving the race. This will affect every aspect of life (that is, all political and social decisions must be subordinated to the overarching goal of racial permanence). In this sense, the Racial State will somewhat resemble medieval Christendom, in which boundaries of action (at least in theory) were contained within Christian metapolitical parameters. Christianity is compatible with this vision. Freedom as it is understood in the contemporary West is not.
11463051381316181216[i]Decentralization is the only truly White politics there is. But the catch is, it only works for White internal politics. The other races have too much to gain from eating us—digger-wasping—us to allow us to go our own way. Notice how all the campaigns against racist evil never say anything about kicking racists out of the country, or putting them on reservations? That’s a hint that by racists they mean whites - all of them, as Whitaker is associated with emphasizing. It’s a dirty synonym. It also shows at some level they recognize no whitey no workee. Whole machinee come to stopee. The state is outmoded except for certain types of violence. The only things whites need out of government is collective racial defense. Nothing else. For the rest, private, voluntary arrangements are enough. Lewrockwell.com has proved this, and the quality of their contributors is higher than most of what we see in racialism. But of course their ideas can’t be tried until Whites run a White-exclusive state. So they are basically doing our intellectual interior decoration for free. [u]A nation in which a white man can be both a WHITE (social) and a MAN (individual). That’s what we’re shooting for. The combination of racial foundation and roof (in perpetuity), to use the house metaphor, combined with decentralized microstates for the rooms inside the White Manor, is the new social form we seek.[/u] Those who disagree will be dead or driven off; newcomers who didn’t sign up for the show will be forced at majority to make a formal decision. And yes, upon the founding of the new state, every citizen will formally agree to the RACIAL BASIS of the new state. Not just a theoretical contract, a real social contract. A symbolic formality, but binding and meaningful too. Race-mixing is a thing so dangerous and destructive, literally genocidal, to our posterity that violence to prevent it is beyond worthwhile, it is our collective racial duty. And that must be accepted by every man and woman in our society, or he cannot be a member of it. Government is outmoded. That’s the truth disguised by the racial strife of our times. No matter where you look in the west, government does nothing but create and exacerbate problems, and no, despite what some literal Nazis will tell you, that is not a racial or jewish matter alone and innately, but an intrinsic problem with it. That’s where true intellectual conservatism, which is my background, does have something to offer us. Microstates afford christian kooks, wigger-welfare-statists and fuck-off-my-lawners the chance to live apart together in freedom and racial unity, which is as good as can be gotten.[/i] (ALEX LINDER) ------------------------------------------------------ What's fucking scary is how much of this tracks my own thinking (esp the underlined portion). Where the hell were you, Linder, earlier in the year when the economic illiterates who predominate at MR were implying that I'm some kind of sellout because I note the (value-neutral) arguments favoring free markets? Of course, I repeatedly stated that wealth maximization must be subordinated to the larger value of collective racial preservation, but such disclaimers availed me nothing. I had been outed as a dreaded 'neo-liberal'. I disagree with you about LRC, however. I'm an Austrian economics supporter - have been since the 80s - but Lew gets a lot of unbelievably tendentious windbags penning for him (Mises.org is usually much better). Always the same topics: Ron Paul is the greatest American ever, gold will only go up, all wars are bad, Murray is now claimed to having written "tens of thousands" of articles, economic armageddon is a certainty (if they understood their own professed dogma, they would know how stupid that sentiment is - America has decades still to go economically downhill), formal medicine is all worthless, and, of course, every last problem besetting mankind is the fault of The State. Give some men a hammer, and the world becomes a nail ... (actually, that may be cutting it a bit close for you, eh, Alex? ...).
11463251381316182965Good points, Silver, though at risk of sounding pompous, haven't I been saying all that for quite a while (re mixing), including to you on a recent thread? Whites are being absorbed out of existence. The PC Left is right about a few matters, namely, that both traditional morality and racial discreteness or hierarchies are not necessarily 'natural' (alas, if only), but require legal supports. Old style conservatives (like me; a dying breed) have always understood this. Too many moral conservatives seem to think that The State (esp as controlled by the cultural Left) is the chief culprit in undermining traditional values, and that in its absence, they would recrudesce of themselves - a dubious contention. Similarly, WNs have all these theories pertaining to 'ecological niches', 'friend/enemy innateness', the 'evolutionary function of prejudice', etc, yet at best, such theories only seem to apply to nonwhites. Whites, and not only Christians (and not primarily Christians, Linder, but secularists) welcome the race aliens with open arms. If we wish to preserve the race, we have only two options: massive and permanent coercion to discourage racial backsliding (as Trainspotter says on this thread, and as I just said somewhere at MR within the past week - a "teleological Racial State", as I termed it), or White Zion (WN ingathering into a sovereign, demographically conquerable polity), with a WN population which over time might be expected to breed out the genes which incline our race to excessive xenophilia (we might also research eugenicist methods to speed up that winnowing process). Incidentally, if memory serves, in the separatist v [i]conquistador[/i] debate between McCullough and Francis, I don't recall Francis conceding anything.
11470251381316261331Gudmund, Thanks for the heads-up re NeoNietzsche. That's too bad. I will really be bummed if I croak at 60, especially if it's without warning. Massive heart attacks in people under 70 are really scary. I'm in my 40s, and I'm not positive I can get my main life's work written by then (though I'm going to try), given that I have a couple of smaller works to get out first. No way I can get read all my 'must-reads' by 60. Nationalists don't seem to enjoy very long lives, ever noticed that? (The exception was Revilo Oliver, of course, unless you also count Enoch Powell.) [GW: I hope you have made contingency plans for MR to carry on, should something unfortunate like this happen to you!] People should type some nice little condolences in the comments section on NN's website. I feel for the man's widow. Reading between the lines, I suspect they were childless; she was around his age or somewhat younger; he was probably strong-willed, and to her, the world; she planned her life around their having many more years together; and now, in her 50s, she's more utterly alone than most of us could imagine. Just a hunch, hope I'm wrong.
11470451381316263079[i]A successful post-liberal politics will look nothing fascism.[/i] (Graham Lister) A [i]civilized[/i] politics, anyway. If collapse or race war come, then all bets are off. What will it look like, incidentally? You neither want it to take, nor think it will take, at least in Europe, a Christian traditionalist form, though such seems eminently both desirable and possible to me. I have a hard time envisioning any post-liberal [i]rightist[/i] politics that is not at least somewhat internally socially/racially authoritarian, though I strongly doubt that 21st century whites would submit to anything fascistic or externally militaristic ([i]internally[/i], perhaps, to reconquer lost territory, or enforce social distancing between genetically dissimilar groups unable to expel the other from the territories in question). One low-key possibility for a realizable post-liberal politics that I can imagine is movement toward the reestablishment of freedom of association (and thus 'exclusion', as the case arises), in UK as well as US - perhaps even growing out of alliances of mutual interest between different ethnocultural communities (eg, one could imagine English ethno-separatists having a tactical alliance with those UK Muslims who wish for sharia to be applied at least within their own community, in order to mutually press Westminster for greater local/communal autonomy for all communities). Personally, I prefer total repatriation of noneuropeans from Europe, which might require fascism or something like it (certainly, there will be blood). But ethnocommunal autonomy from current central state-mandated multiculti integration might be the best you'll ever get. -------------- I think by "SLPC" you meant Southern Poverty Law Center (surprised you know about such parochial irritations 'across the pond'.)
11470851381316265704“white ADL” This is a very good idea, however. Some gentlemen with whom I am in contact are working on getting an organization off the ground that incorporates opposing the defamation of whites into its broader purpose.
11471351381316278626Immune system analogy is interesting and worth developing, but this [i]Any sane and sustainable post-liberal politics will be non-global, local, communitarian (the survival and health of our communities will be a core value), small ‘c’ conservative on many issues including the role of capital/markets, follow policies to build high social-capital and so on. Religion might be part of the mix, in America if she survives, but I doubt it will be part of European politics. Overall it is an Aristotelian reworking of the non-liberal ‘radical center’. Neither left nor right as defined within liberal political theory. [/i][i][/i] while nice-sounding, needs both greater theoretical elaboration, as well as some nitty-gritty fleshing out. What are the essential features of liberalism to which you object? What are the bases for your objections? What specific legislative changes would be enacted? How do you propose to build up the electoral support for your anti-liberal restructuring of society? Can this programme can be achieved without violence? It's easy to identify where improvements can be made, but politics in democracies is made difficult primarily by the inevitable heterogeneity of interests (which include psychic and emotional as well as material ones). I'm still thinking, btw, if and how (and when) I want to reply to your query re my views on methodological individualism as the bedrock of at least economic analysis, though the basic point is simple: it is individuals who will and act. While this point is always sound, even with reference to aggregates (like nations), it is especially germane in the context of a consumer driven economy. Economics is value-free in the sense that it simply seeks to determine the effects of given policies on material wealth. It does not seek to evaluate those policies in terms of their intrinsic 'worth' according to some exogenous moral or preferential standard. Shouldn't all social sciences be value-free? When discussing White Zion I am endeavoring to engage in politically dispassionate thinking. WZ is not my optimal choice as a means of preserving the white race (which is important to me as a necessary condition for the preservation and renewal of Western civilization). I simply do not think our race will survive over the long term without territorial seclusion and national sovereignty. I am not favoring WZ over other options, merely expressing my judgment that anything less is unlikely to work. You might say that wealth-maximization is itself a normative value in need of defense, but economics does not defend wealth-maximization per se. It merely attempts to discern what arrangements or policies most conduce to it. Whether society chooses to act on economic knowledge is a moral or other matter. But the knowledge of what effects derive from which policies is obviously not a moral issue.
11472151381316284290What post states that Chechar is a Jew? Anyway, I must rise to GW's defense. He is always a gentleman, and I think he does a good job with MR, though he perhaps ought to exercise greater editorial guidance, not re harsh comments, but to direct the conversation in racially useful ways. ================== Stay away from Nazism! Always bad for white conversions.
11480451381316324766Excellent discussion from everybody here. At the risk of seeming a fence-sitter, Linder, Hunter, Silver, Lister (reminds me of Snow White and the Seven - no offense, people), and others, are all offering hard truths that need to be seriously considered (except I don't agree with those now dumping on GW; if he runs MR with a light editorial hand, that is his prerogative, and we should therefore take comments presenting real-world truth claims with the proverbial grain of salt, and otherwise be grateful for his efforts on our collective behalf). The essence of the dispute as I see it comes down to this: Linder is correct that we need to be relentless, passionate and hard-hitting in our propaganda, as well as physical activist efforts, and that regular conservatism is overly concerned with respectability (even I, with all my early alienation of professors, and later many internet site-banishments, may be guilty here), and certainly is near-useless for dealing with racial issues, which, after all, are both the foundation of real conservatism (not Christianity, Alex: for the Christian his politics must be ethically acceptable to his religious tenets, but the faith is compatible with a wide range of ideologies, from social democracy to libertarianism, and from diversitarianism to racial separatism - though not with your Nazism, I'm afraid), as well as the most salient facing the West today. But Linder is completely incorrect regarding the current possible and likely future reach of his ideology (so much so that it is not inconceivable that he is either a kind of disinformation plant, used to 'pollute' serious discussions of white decline, and give such discussants a bad reputation through guilt-by-association, or, if genuinely Nazi, as I'm inclined to believe, the (perhaps even unknowing) recipient of SPLC or Soros money, as they surely recognize, as HW has pointed out, the enormous Left-Jewish fundraising appeal of a [i]real-life Nazi[/i] like Linder; certainly, we may say, in the manner of Voltaire, that if Linder did not exist, the ADL would be wise to invent him). Nazism is never going anywhere with any white majority. That is an empirical prediction, and events may prove me wrong. But the burden of proof is on those who think otherwise. Indeed, even if Nazism has a future, it likely won't be as Nazism - with the symbols, history, tactics, etc. It will 'confront the Jew' in some totally different manner, and under wholly different guise. Perhaps, as living standards fall, some neo-Inquisitional Christianity will sweep the white world, and determine that non-Christians cannot hold elective office, teach, own media, sit on corporate boards, or even profess or practice their religions in public. Many Jews might leave for Israel under those conditions, and anyway, their power and influence would be substantially neutered. I'm not predicting this turn of events, merely observing that such would accord with the fundamentally virtue-oriented white psyche far better than any recrudescent and now totally discredited Nazism. Linder's understanding of how the Nazis rose to power is almost comically false (as others have observed). Read some of the mainstream works: Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler, Evans's trilogy (esp volume 1), Burleigh, [i]The Third Reich[/i], etc. One widely shared conclusion is that the Nazis came to power not simply or even primarily as a function of the sheer charismatic quality of Hitler's rhetoric, but of all the unique and mostly unrepeatable circumstances of that particular time: the German experience of WW1 and the ensuing "stab in the back"; the large numbers of unemployed men with recent military experience; the psychological dislocation caused by the Kaiser's abdication; the reparations burden combined with global economic collapse; the inherent lack of political legitimacy accorded to the Weimar Republic; stories from Russian empire emigres about the horrors of the Judeo-Bolsheviks (further confirmed in the public mind by the insurgent, heavily Jewish-revolutionary Bavarian [i]raterepublik[/i] ('Red Republic'), formed in the immediate aftermath of WW1); the growing racialism, and increasing biological anti-Semitism, of the late 19th-20th centuries in Germany, especially (though the growth of eugenicist activism and legislation was global in the West at that time); the early establishment - especially military - backing for Hitler's propaganda forays; the genuine and rational fear on the part of the affluent that a communist revolution was imminent - and the negative factors that Germany had not been saturated with PC/multiculti crap for the previous half-century, and that Jewry was not nearly as powerful or organized as today. Despite all that, let us not forget, Hitler never won a true democratic majority. He became chancellor only due to the machinations of von Papen and Hindenburg. I can't say conditions will never be such as to allow the possibility of a Linder-style victory. But commonsense in light of current and foreseeable conditions suggests that in the meantime other approaches to saving the white race are likelier to succeed.
11480651381316329032In light of all this interminable strategic talk, here's a nasty little stinkbomb to consider: Perhaps the approach that will ultimately be proven correct in the real world is simply the one that an enterprising soul gets off his ass to try. He who is first serious about actually organizing whites in the real world will be the one with the most influence. On that score, my money is on neither Nazis, nor paleos, nor Southerners, nor bikers, nor Christians. I'd put my money on the Mormons. They're growing, both due to family-centeredness as well as proselytizing; they're organized across the whole range of life; they have a geographic base to launch from and return to.
11483851381316352498Silver, You put some serious effort into this: ======================================================= Posted by Silver on September 16, 2011, 05:56 PM | # Leon, [i]Good points, Silver, though at risk of sounding pompous, haven’t I been saying all that for quite a while (re mixing), including to you on a recent thread?[/i] Yes, Mr. Haller, yes you have. I’ll come back to this in a moment. [i]Incidentally, if memory serves, in the separatist v conquistador debate between McCullough and Francis, I don’t recall Francis conceding anything.[/i] Francis didn’t concede anything regarding reconquest, but McCulloch (what is it with people?) was given the last word, and with respect to the consequences of admxiture/extinction what could Francis possibly say when he was completely and utterly (and monumentally, when you consider the stakes) incorrect? He must have sat there pondering it like a stunned mullet (as they say here). [i]Good points, Silver, though at risk of sounding pompous, haven’t I been saying all that for quite a while (re mixing), including to you on a recent thread?[/i] Back to this. As “uh” pointed out, I’ve been saying it for years myself. The difference is you’re saying it because it’s affecting you and your race, and you make mention of it as part of your general commentary, not really emphasizing it more than any other aspect (crime, culture, dysgenics, etc etc). Now, it’s affecting me too (strictly speaking, it’s affecting the world) but because the peeps down my part of Europe are sortakinda already mixed to a certain degree and the people themselves are sortakinda aware of it, and because the degree of ethnocentricity runs a lot higher, there’s next to zero awareness of it as an issue. So when I refer to “mixing” I’m making a slightly different point, and that point is that awareness of the effects of admixture was for me, as I’ve put it before, the “game-changing realization.” It’s what finally made me stand up and say, you know what, whatever one makes of “the racists,” on this point, on this vital life issue, there’s no disputing that they’re correct; and they’ll remain correct (about the forces in operation) irrespective of what people choose or choose not to do. It wasn’t with any great joy that I conceded this point, I can assure you. It hit me like a ton of bricks: these fuckers are actually in the right. Never in a million years would I have imagined conceding that Adolf motherfucking Hitler (so to speak) was right about something, and yet there it was, for all the extraneous chatter there it was: assert your racial existence and live, or subdue it and perish. It cast a different light on everything. It doesn’t get more game-changing. You’ve mentioned discussions you’ve had with the Amren crowd. Perhaps you were at the conference in ‘94 when Fr. Ron Tacelli was invited to speak. Fr. Tacelli began with an anecdote about lying bedridden in hospital when a visitor dropped off some racialist material (Instauration, Liberty Bell, some others—hard-hitting stuff). As sick as he was, he said, reading through that material made him sit bolt upright. Fr. Tacelli essentially disavowed racialism at that conference (no big surprise; they all do! haha), but why would the material originally have had the effect that it did on him? Certainly, racialism tends to punch through a number of cherished myths, which is understandably disturbing. But my guess is that it also affected him on a personal level, that it made him reflect on events in his own life and placed a certain pressure on him to reevaluate their meaning, and perhaps even to question his individual worth, all of which can be very unsettling to the psyche. The reason I mention Fr. Tacelli is that he was presumably invited to speak at that conference because it was thought there was something he might have been able to say, a point of view that he might have been able to proffer, that, dire as the circumstances appeared and fraught with prospects of tremendous tumult as the future seemed, perhaps there was an overlooked factor that, if brought to light, could “make everything okay” (hey, why not, the man’s a priest!). But the truth is there is no such point of view, there is no such factor. And perhaps knowing this Jared Taylor invited Fr. Tacelli along to indirectly drive that point home. Or maybe not. But surely that is the realization that must emerge for any thinking man: that everyone is, plainly, full of shit; that everyone keeps talking around the central aspect of human existence— race. (Or if that’s too much for people, then “racial relatedness.") To exist as a human is to exist racially (or, again, “racially relatedly"). What the hell is the point of anything else? What the fuck am I supposed to do with a pack of blackassed hindoos or a bunch of ooger-booger niggers? And, no, not just a “pack” or a “bunch,” but endless numbers of them. For that matter, and for the sake of completeness, and to demonstrate that I’m not out to racially “one-up” anyone, what the hell is a Leon Haller, or better a yet Desmond Jones or an Alex Linder or a William Lucifer Pierce, to do with a pack of—I’ll admit it (but then I like it that way)—glib, smarmy, oily “Silvers”? (Sadly, there are not “endless numbers”—if only!) It’s the lie we’re all living, the lie that this “way of life” is in any sort of a way an improvement over conditions of “general homogeneity” ("general" in order to emphasize that mild (though measured) exceptions can always be made). Particularly galling is that, to my way of thinking, all that stands in the way of reordering our lives around this principle is a “mental block,” a mental block from which flow the torrents of BS excuses like no, not now, or no, it’s too soon, or no, it’s too late, or no, the economy, or no, Jesus, or no, I know this black guy, or no, the gas chambers, or no...well, you know. I had a sales manager once whose metaphor for the sales process was guiding a person through to the end of a corridor. Along the corridor are any number of doors. If the fancy strikes him the person you’re guiding will try one or more of the doors, and if unlocked, he’ll walk out on you and you’ll fail in your task to guide him to the end of the corridor. Therefore, it’s up to you to ensure that all the doors are locked, so that he has no way out. In real life, the “doors” are people’s objections. They’re not always particularly well thought out objections but, well thought out or not, those objections matter to people, and they will guide their behavior, so the onus is on the salesman to be prepared for those objections and to assist people in overcoming them—not to overrule people, because, as salesmen like to say, “a man convinced against his will/ is of the same opinion still.” The relevance to race is that most people know that “race matters,” but they will throw up any number of excuses as to why nothing should be done about it. And it just won’t do to denounce them, or scream obscenities at them or threaten them. The task is to make race as easy as possible, not as hard as possible, at least in the crucial fledgling stage. It may be as presumptuous as hell for me to say this, but if I’m to judge by the standards of Instauration or WLP or GLR or VNN or even Amren, then racialists have failed spectacularly to make race easy. (Geezus, Linder whines about Buchanan, but what about Joe Sobran? How many racialists sing his praises, yet what did Sobran have to say about race? He denounced racialism. When your own leading lights denounce you I’d say you’re in a slight spot of bother.) Can race be made easy? I believe that it can. This mightn’t be obvious given my propensity to indulge in racial epithets. I do it because I don’t see the same significance in my uttering those slurs as the significance they assume when they emanate from the mouth of, say, a Revilo Oliver. For racialists like Oliver, “nigger” is a claim to objective reality; this and this and this are the features and properties of this being (the nigger) and all who objectively examine him (including the nigger himself) must agree. Whereas for me, “nigger,” like “dago” or “gook” or “kike,” is “just a word,” one that I might use to refer to a member of a certain group with whom I am at present experiencing problems, but no claim to any greater objective reality is implied by its use; and that whatever my opinion of a “nigger” or a “paki” or a “gook” may be, there isn’t the slightest expectation that my opinion be taken seriously (ie as claim of objective reality) by a nigger or a paki or a gook etc; just because I may not like you, I’m certainly not suggesting that you ought not to like you. This may seem a minor point, but people don’t have to delve very deep into racialism before encountering the value judgment aspect of it. Indeed, for a large number of (often the most dedicated) racialists, the value judgment aspect is the sum total of what racialism is about. This point I emphatically do not concede. I’m not bothered by value judgment and I wouldn’t bother to attempt to extirpate it, but I’ll never agree that it’s “all there is” to racialism. “Making race easy,” in fact, consists in large part (perhaps in its entirety) in assisting people to learn to shrug off value judgments, to perfectly at ease with them. If this can be achieved then one of the main objections to racialism, often unspoken but no less forceful for it, vanishes in a puff of smoke; almost all the rest is logistics. ======================================== I read your remarks, but at the risk of seeming like an asshole, you kind of swamped me with the verbiage. In brief, what are you driving at? (and I thought you were a Southern European living in Australia, btw - actually, you have always struck me as an American, by your style of thought and expression - one can intuit these things; for example, it is very easy to see that Graham Lister or Lee John Barnes are not American, and that Hunter and Linder are, even beyond what they all profess). Let's clear the air, once and for all: where do you stand on the Race Question? What are your concerns? What specifically do you want to see legislated or changed? There are at least four types among us: 1. [b]Race-realists[/b]: those who merely accept the natural and social scientific data arguing for genetic differences between the races considered as aggregates (eg, Charles Murray, Arthur Jensen); 2.[b] Ethnonationalists[/b] (more commonly Europeans): those who wish to preserve or advance their historic ethnic groups, and do so for cultural or patriotic reasons, and for whom biological information is largely irrelevant (eg, Pat Buchanan, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Hunter Wallace, perhaps); 3. [b]Racialists[/b]: those whose patriotic attachment centers on their race, and who wish to organize politically in order to advance the welfare or power of such, usually by some form of separation from, or domination over, or resistance to, other races (Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, GW, most non-radical WNs); 4. [b]Racists[/b]: those who are haters of other races (or ethnic groups), in addition to belonging to other categories (Pierce, GLRockwell, Linder). This typology is no more than the briefest beginning towards the creation of a more detailed taxonomy of our movement and sympathizers. Obviously, there is a lot of overlap between the categories (eg, most racialists, and all [i]white[/i] racialists, are also race-realists, but many race-realists are not even racialists, let alone racists). Where do you fit in? (try to be disciplined in your response, avoiding excessive [i]inside[/i] metaphors, allusions, expressions, etc)
11484051381316353311Silver, Let me add: I'm about to break off from commenting until October, but I definitely will read any response to me you choose to pen. Linder, You are truly a master of invective. Very funny. Your presence definitely enlivens things in this particular neck of the White Woods. Out.
11484351381316355478Linder, A final point. You're a fairly intelligent guy (I don't see any evidence of brilliance, however, as you probably assume should be obvious). Why not use your talents in a more persuasive way than spending a decade of hurling abuse around the internet? I don't know how you support yourself, but you obviously have free time. Why not use that free time to gain some real, objective academic expertise in the field of Jewish Studies? Even if you didn't wish to return to grad school, as I've now done with Catholic Theology (and that PC world probably would not accept you), why not subject yourself to a disciplined course of study in Jewish political involvements (as Kmac did), and then write a book on your political strategy re dealing with Jewry and allied issues? If the book were sober, factual and free of invective, you might find a publisher (probably countercurrents). You could then sell it through VNN. It probably would not be a moneymaker, but at least it would boost your standing. Doing what you've been doing seems like a waste, merely talking to other talkers.
11487351381316388837OK, this is all getting to be a bit much. Personal attacks really have no place. The one advantage of strong, centralized organization is that troublemakers, lunatics and 'dissentionists' can be made to clean up their acts, or else held at bay. American WN needs just such a strong, confident movement of concerned citizens. But the movement itself needs to be sufficiently moderate in ideology so as not to scare off potential recruits and sympathizers. Defensive racialism (recall my suggested mantra: STOP Violence Against Whites, repeated endlessly, as well as the older, secondary mantra: Anti-Racist = Anti-White), focused on explaining and ending immigration as well as affirmative action, and getting the govt to adopt a hardline on crime, is the key for this moment in time. Focus on [b]gradual radicalization[/b]. People are sheep, and want visible successes before they sign up. As the movement is seen by more and more people to be serious, and if it starts achieving things, it will grow. As it grows, we can 'up' our demands without thereby losing membership. WN fools will see I am right. Why do so few of you study the Civil Rights Movement's history, and learn from its methods? If CRM had started out demanding affirmative action and the right to fornicate with white girls, they would have gone nowhere. Instead, they made appeals to the Majority's sense of Christian justice, stated that all they sought was the removal of state prejudicial legislation ("Jim Crow") - and then, once gullible Christian whitey gave in, immediately went on to greater demands (and once they got those have gone still further)? Why are Jews and Blacks cannier than WNs?
11488651381316399159[i]And we will end where we always end - with a discussion of Leon Haller’s bitches,[/i] (PF) I actually try to keep on topic mostly, only delving into personal matters as might be relevant to a point I'm making (or if someone asks me something). I do prefer tailored discussions with some particular goal in mind. I've made many suggestions to the effect that threads should be somewhat more tightly moderated, and focused on reaching pragmatic consensus on how to move the cause forward. But my plaints are usually rebuffed, or more often ignored.
11496351381316528849I don't suppose it occurs to people here that maybe the Taylorites et al really are simply more racialist than anti-Semitic? I know I am. I'm aware of the JQ, but I simply do not perceive the Jews as I do the nonwhite races, in no small part because the Jews (due to small numbers) are only powerful through hoodwinking whites, whereas the nonwhites are numerous and therefore powerful in themselves. Taylor et al seem to be implicitly following my own strategy of gradual radicalization. To repeat from above: [i]The one advantage of strong, centralized organization is that troublemakers, lunatics and ‘dissentionists’ can be made to clean up their acts, or else held at bay. American WN needs just such a strong, confident movement of concerned citizens. But the movement itself needs to be sufficiently moderate in ideology so as not to scare off potential recruits and sympathizers. [b]Defensive racialism[/b] (recall my suggested mantra: STOP Violence Against Whites, repeated endlessly, as well as the older, secondary mantra: Anti-Racist = Anti-White), focused on explaining and ending immigration as well as affirmative action, and getting the govt to adopt a hardline on crime, is the key for this moment in time. Focus on [b]gradual radicalization[/b]. People are sheep, and want visible successes before they sign up. As the movement is seen by more and more people to be serious, and if it starts achieving things, it will grow. As it grows, we can ‘up’ our demands without thereby losing membership. WN fools will see I am right. Why do so few of you study the Civil Rights Movement’s history, and learn from its methods? If CRM had started out demanding affirmative action and the right to fornicate with white girls, they would have gone nowhere. Instead, they made appeals to the Majority’s sense of Christian justice, stated that all they sought was the removal of state prejudicial legislation ("Jim Crow") - and then, once gullible Christian whitey gave in, immediately went on to greater demands (and once they got those have gone still further). Why are Jews and Blacks cannier than WNs? [/i] Why is it illegitimate to suppose that the JQ can be dealt with indirectly, as opposed to a full frontal assault? In this model we build up white consciousness by focusing on that which is most visible and threatening: black crime, and nonwhite immigration. We simply tell the facts, and agitate for legislative remedies. As we build up awareness on these issues, we are effectively also increasing a more diffuse sense of whiteness, a sense of solidarity that can be engendered without even mentioning WN ideology. This is the groundwork laying period before the next leap forward, which will involve raising awareness of racial biology, and the need for white living space. In democracies, this type of agenda is invariably gradualist (again, study the history of the civil rights movement). By the time whites are talking about [i]lebensraum[/i] to prevent racial extinction, the JQ will have taken care of itself. The Jews will know their antics will not be tolerated henceforth. And indeed, maybe the Jews will come to see that they should cast their lots with whites, instead of nonwhites (many Jews I know have already moved in that direction). Heretical as this will sound to Linder, I'm not convinced that Jews can't be brought to a new, more constructive relationship with Aryans. After all, more and more of them are coming to realize that we can survive [i]sans[/i] them, but they cannot survive without us. I see possibilities of tactical, eugenic alliances against the dysgenic mud armies of the future.
11496451381316529284[i]Leon, I would recommend This Time the World and this speech from the 60’s as good introductions to Rockwell. He was a man of enormous talent and courage[/i]. (DASEIN) Thank you. I actually have his book [i]White Power[/i]. Unfortunately, it's buried in my garage at home, and I've never read it. BTW, I like your calm, sober, empirical approach to these issues. If you're not German, you should have been.
11497151381316531769This is the problem (disgusting but funny): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXLTb5hqrg4&feature=related Black men, white women.
11502251381316605647[i]Yes, but the question that remains is how? If the Jewish strategy is examined, it shows that although Jews always took the lead, they never acted alone. They always engaged in tactical alliances with minorities and other political groups that held grievances against the dominant group. Currently, what groups hold grievances against Jewish power? Muslims, and Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam are two that come to mind. Why not try alliances with Farrakhan, Ahmadinajad and the Palestinians?[/i] (DESMOND JONES) See what I wrote above. This is completely wrong. Let me show you, who are normally quite reasonable (as well as the huge buffoon contingent here), how to think strategically. First, to save our Euro brethren we need to exacerbate conflict with Muslims. For example, right now the Jews, from NYT liberals to [i]Weekly Standard[/i] / WSJ neocons, are up in arms over Turkey's increasing Islamicization. Great! Then we (ie, rightists with power) should be using this opportunity to harass Turkey with escalating human rights 'concerns' and demands (which would also play well domestically with Greek and Armenian - and more generally, Balkan-derived - Americans), the ultimate purpose of which is twofold: to keep the Turks the hell out of the EU (with the open borders immigration that would imply), and, eventually, to boot them out of NATO. That would be a huge reversal in the ongoing NWO campaign to Eurabianize Europe. Second, to safeguard our people in America, we similarly have to protect them from their own stupidity. For one thing, we have our own Muslim immigration problem, which is a long term threat both in itself, as well as in Islam's potential capacity to organize and martialize a large segment (undoubtedly the most genetically vicious one) of the native negroid population. For another, the Jews have tremendous support among (hugely white and Middle-American) Christian evangelicals. Publicly challenging Jewry will only divide American conservative elements ... [b]at the very time when we need to rally them around stopping immigration - the greatest long-term danger, and the one problem we can never undo[/b]. First things first, please. There will be time to confront Jewry once the racial hemorrhaging has been terminated - and it will be far easier to do then as well. Sorry to all and sundry to seem pompous, but understanding this is called 'wisdom' - the possession of which marks the real dividing line among white preservationists.
11502351381316605924[i]Why is it illegitimate to suppose that the JQ can be dealt with indirectly, as opposed to a full frontal assault? Leon, The people who obsess about the JQ (e.g. Linder) don’t actually care about whites, if given the option between securing a white nation and implementing the final solution they would pick the latter without hesitation. The game that these people play is to co-opt those with healthy nationalist instincts into fighting a quasi-mystical war against a nebulous cabal of Jews, the ultra-simplistic conspiratorial narrative that they cultivate is crafted to resonate with certain simple-minded types who need to have all their problems reduced to an easily identifiable group of “bad guys” (e.g. Jimmy Marr). Nothing is as it seems in the clown movement.[/i] (UGH) Yes, as I said recently to Linder, we must never allow personal animosities to cloud our strategic realism. Jared Taylor seems very serious about trying to awaken whites, and that is why I have always preferred his approach to others in the pro-white movement.
11510651381316692391When I see the super-hardcore of WN emerge and display themselves in all their clown suits, I really find myself ever more inclined to prefer concentrating my own pro-white efforts on persuading Catholics and other Christians that immigration termination, and white resistance to cultural attacks and racial double standards, is morally acceptable from within our theological tradition. Believe me, there is, sadly, a lot of work to do in that arena. But at least you're working with civilized and mentally stable people.
11513851381316728088Matt Parrott is correct, though it amazes me how much of everything that is being said I have already discussed at great length over the years here at MR. Yes, 'conservatism' as currently [i]practiced[/i] (not in theory, which includes a racial component) is worthless. Yes, we need WN - that is, an ideology which puts narrow white political and economic interests and ultimately genetic preservation front and center. Yes, our final goal is the White Republic - though my argument for White Zion (emigration of racially conscious whites to a demographically conquerable sovereign polity, which, of course, the USA is not), sadly, is what I find most plausible as an ultimate solution (though, of course, I also favor 'in-migrations' and separatist activism, such as embodied in the Northwest Front). Yes, whites are miscegenating, though in CA it is not primarily with blacks, but with Hispanics and Orientals (unbelievably, wrt the latter, this includes a lot of white females, something unheard of before the 90s - and which I regard as a far bigger ultimate demographic threat than black criminality). Yes, it is completely alienating to other whites - involves forcing them to traverse too great a psychological distance - to approach them via NS symbolism. Yes, expecting whites to embrace unproven conspiracy theories (even if such are, finally, true - matters never settled to serious men's satisfaction, however) is a very unpromising approach to awakening whites to their racial dispossession (again, too great psychological distance). Yes, it is profoundly stupid for American WNs to attack EITHER Christianity or capitalism, two world views (properly) embraced by most white Americans - and note: for whatever genetic/psychological reasons, the vast bulk of whites who reject Christianity AND/OR capitalism are also racial leftists (an empirical point most of you simply refuse to acknowledge), even if the miniscule Far Right is anti-Christian and anti-capitalist (how any American could possibly disagree on this point is simply beyond my understanding). Yes, the WN movement does attract far too many intellectually, psychologically and morally marginal types. Yes, the 'Right' needs to be attacked from the race realist perspective - but it needs to be faulted for its intellectual inconsistency in refusing to face racial reality, not for all the other ways in which conservatism is correct, or, as in the case of limited government advocacy, advances white interests. Pro-whites need to demonstrate the ideological compatibility and/or necessity of their nationalism with or to other elements of life which are important to whites (eg, Christianity, limited government, economic prosperity). Why does anyone imagine that I am currently studying Christian (Catholic - my tradition) theology? Besides intrinsic interest, I understand that whites are more ethical by nature (and tradition) than other races; that Christians are more ideologically conservative than secularists; that conservatives are vastly more persuadable on race-realist issues than (psychologically degenerate) liberals; and that we advance our politics by addition, not subtraction (as Linder ridiculously imagines) - that is, that we demonstrate that supporting immigration or miscegenation is not mandatory for Christians, and that being concerned with racial and civilizational preservation is compatible with the faith. In other words, the intelligent approach is precisely NOT getting in the face of whites less advanced in their racial awareness, but gently telling the truth and thereby nurturing their natural racial instincts. I mean this: there is something mentally aberrational about those who fail to see that I'm correct (at least about how to advance whiteness among average whites; White Zion is a prognosticatory judgment call, about which reasonable fellows can and will disagree).
11513951381316729050Let me add: by "getting in the face" I am referring to ordinary non-committal (but especially conservative) whites, and to insulting aspects of their being, like religion, important to them. I am completely in favor of relentlessly attacking racial leftists everywhere. The latter must be made to know that we are out there watching them, and wavering whites must be bolstered by our courage (so I acknowledge the importance of the spirit of the Linder/Marr crowd, if not their precise formulation of the problems). Basically, here is what we need: a WN movement that aggressively attacks all racial leftists, that relentlessly insists on racial truth-telling and advancing legitimate white grievances (immigration, affirmative action, crime), but which otherwise conforms itself to (conservative, Christian) mainstream white symbols, behavior and outlook. Isn't that what Jared Taylor aims for?
11527551381316854195Why do some of you fail to see that it is perfectly understandable that Jared Taylor doesn't want to embrace anti-Semitism? I am a Taylorite myself. I don't think I've read anything by him with which I have substantively disagreed. There is a difference between responsible racial preservationism, and real racism. While I have no love for other races, or Jewry, I don't hate these groups per se, either. My racialism is born of a desire not to have diversity shoved in my face all the time; not to have my career (and that of all white men) retarded or ruined by affirmative action or "diversity" preferences; not to allow nonwhites to fornicate with or marry whites; not to be reduced to a demographic minority in my own homeland through unwanted immigration; not to be victimized by nonwhite criminals; not to have white children taught lies about their heritage (or not taught their cultural heritage at all); and not to be outvoted by a nonwhite majority electorate. These are all eminently conservative positions, not a single one of which violates traditional Christian ethics and social morality. If all of these policies were put in place, my interest in WN would probably substantially evaporate. So why is it so wrong for someone like me (or Taylor) to want to build a movement based on these principles? The reality of Jewry is that it's a mixed bag. I think most here will admit that the black presence in America, or the Muslim presence in Europe, bring no advantages to the indigenous white peoples of those countries. But Jewry does make a lot of contributions, whether you will admit it or not. To take only one example: after more than a decade of seeing my normal internist, I very casually and randomly discovered that he's Jewish (his family had thoroughly Anglicized its last name). What should I do about it? This gentleman is a wonderful doctor, and a wonderful man. Should I call hate down upon him just because he's a (I bet non-practicing) Jew? Doing so would frankly be beyond the moral pale for me (and probably for Taylor, too). I almost never invoke the concepts of racism or anti-Semitism, but sometimes they are valid descriptors (and when valid, bring moral discredit upon those of us who are trying to save our race by decoupling the morally acceptable from the objectionable). Just because the Left calls everyone to the Right of themselves "Nazis" does not mean that there are no real Nazis, or that Nazism is thereby morally acceptable. I suspect Taylor just wants to deal with what he sees as the main problems of our time: white dispossession through mass immigration, 'civil rights', diversity propaganda, negroid criminality, and denial of racial reality. There's more than enough there to fill a race-patriot's plate. That he does not wish to add the far more ethically and politically complex JQ may be strategic (deal with what's visible, build up white power, then later confront Jewry with a more racially awakened base of support), or merely personal (maybe he has a lot of Jewish friends). It is grotesquely irresponsible (and counterproductive) to accuse Taylor of being "false-flag" or controlled, etc, without very specific evidence to back up such charges. There is probably a reason why the more intelligent and educated among WN prefer AR to VNN or NSM. It really doesn't take a lot of insight to discern it.
11527251381316852062[i]My belief is supported by James Bowery’s theory of Jewish virulence: A theory of Jewish virulence put forth by James Bowery is that it evolves from horizontal transmission of Jews between nations, in the form of repeated migration, since at least Babylonian times. Moreover, since diaspora Jews have become dependent on virulence for survival they promote immigration and naturalization laws that are friendly to horizontal transmission more generally [http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/ABERNET3.PDF] – resulting in virulence evolving in other populations. This makes Jewish virulence more analogous to immunosuppression virulence, such as HIV creates. This theory of Jewish virulence is complementary to both Kevin MacDonald’s thesis documented in The Culture of Critique and to Richard Faussette’s Niche Theory. Under Bowery’s hypothesis, Jewish virulence evolved from the following horizontal transmission cycle (see Richard Faussette’s Niche Theory for a possible starting point): 1. Hyper centralization of net assets (communist, capitalist, monarchy—doesn’t matter) 2. Social breakdown as middle class (Yeomen) are unable to afford subsistence 3. Grab and convert wealth in easily transported forms (gold historically, diamonds more recently, etc.) 4. “virulent antisemitism” breaks out 5. Emigrate leaving behind less “savvy” Jews to take the heat 6. Cry out for help to elites at destination nation while offering concentrated wealth to enter new cycle (see step 1).[/i] (JIMMY MARR) ---------------------------------------------------------- It pains me to admit this, but this sequence is extremely insightful. Kudos to Bowery and Marr. Jewry acts less to intentionally destroy host nations than ineluctably to suppress their natural instincts, and thus, presumably, the ideology, and political and legal mechanisms, arising from them, for collective survival. Very intriguing.
11527351381316852476Alex Linder writes with a shotgun. Some of the pellets are made of steel; some lead; some cookie dough; and some shit.
11528251381316857036Good analysis, Hunter, and I hope you're right, but I'm less optimistic. I still think there's a lot of liberalism out there, and not only among the rapidly growing nonwhite peoples, obviously, but among whites, too. How did Obama take NC? That used to be a Jesse Helms state. Plus, don't forget that a lot of blacks are moving back to the South from elsewhere, and that the immigrant population of the South is exploding. I agree, and have long stated, that whites are getting, and will continue to get, more racially conservative. I told Jared years ago that the future of the Right would someday belong to him, and I still believe that. But we're operating from a continually shrinking base, which is why I'll harp till I'm dead on the need to place ending immigration at the top of the pro-white (and conservative) list. Everything else must be radically subordinated to ending immigration. Of course, once we have done that, there next comes the great battle to determine whose values and culture will be hegemonic in the USA, as well as to deal with negroid criminality, interracial marriage, the racial spoils system, multiculti, etc. But without the moratorium, all else is lost. If this means muting criticism of Jews, talking about immigration and jobs or the environment, or whatever else, we must do it. All that really matters is victory. And note that stopping immigration requires a national movement (here I agree with Linder). Beware excessive faith in localism. Local activism is correct for many issues, but it is revealed to be useless for immigration (at least in terms of legislation). We must work to change the GOP into an anti-immigration party, which is possible, but will continue to involve a great deal of education and outreach.
11528351381316857211[i]Haller reminds me of the commenter “Whiskey” who trolls Sailer’s and other “HBD” blogs to cover for the Jews. Just adjusted appropriately for a different audience.[/i] (dougal) I have never visited those sites, though I have been banned from many conservative ones for my staunch racial advocacy. You, however, remind me of the type of idiot who makes the work of responsible patriots more difficult than it need be. fuck off.
11537751381316951787I will, however, apply your kudos to some good news I received yesterday. My wife and I are soon to be grandparents. (JIMMY MARR) Yes, indeed, congrats, sir! All our talk re racial preservation is merely that unless it is accompanied by new white persons, a project to which, alas, I have made no contribution (and look increasingly like I never will). Best of luck to all concerned.
11541451381317020834How can you be so peripatetic, daniel? I thought you had a family.
11462851391316178850Who the hell is "anon/uh"? Is this anon from Belize? or the "uh" from years back? SELOUS SCOUT, Was the nose from cops? UK or American? What was the context: racial, or were you just being rowdy?
11471951401316283782[i]In August one of England’s most senior judges, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger[/i] Please explain. Member in good standing CofE?
11484651401316359184Again ... Single issue anti-immigration party along lines of UKIP ... build on that base ... stop immigration, increase demands ... gradual radicalization ... successes bring more successes ....
11527751411316855454Great to be getting back to this! As GW here links to a past euro-financial thread that petered out rather quickly due to the unanticipated (oh, I know, except, according to J Richards, for the Jews) Breivik shootings, I am re-posting some material from that previous thread that is relevant here, too. First, the original Oborne [i]Daily Telegraph[/i] article: [i]Many of the biggest losers from the Wall Street Crash were not those greedy speculators who bought at the very top of the market. There was also a category of investor who recognised that stocks had become badly overvalued, sold their shares in the summer or autumn of 1928, then waited patiently as the market surged onwards to ever more improbable highs. When the crash came in October 1929, they felt thoroughly vindicated, and waited for the dust to settle. The following spring, when share prices had consolidated at around a third lower than the all-time high reached the previous year, they reinvested the family savings, probably feeling a bit smug. Then, on April 17, 1930, the market embarked on a second and even more shattering period of decline, by the end of which shares were worth barely 10 per cent of their value at their peak. Those prudent investors who had seen the Wall Street Crash coming were wiped out. There was one crucial message from yesterday’s shambolic and panicky eurozone summit: today’s predicament contains terrifying parallels with the situation that prevailed 80 years ago, although the problem lies (at this stage, at least) with the debt rather than the equity markets. After the catastrophe of 2008, many believed and argued – as others did in 1929 – that it was a one-off event, which could readily be put right by the ingenuity of experts. The truth is sadly different. The aftermath of that financial debacle, like the economic downturn after 1929, falls into a special category. Most recessions are part of the normal, healthy functioning of any market economy – a good example is the downturn of the late 1980s. But in rare cases, they are far more sinister, because their underlying cause is a structural imbalance which cannot be solved by conventional means. Such recessions, which tend to associated with catastrophic financial events, are dangerous because they herald a long period of economic dislocation and collapse. Their consequences stretch deep into the realm of politics and social life. Indeed, the 1929 crash sparked a decade of economic failure around much of the world, helping bring the Weimar Republic to its knees and easing the way for the rise of German fascism. So we live in a very troubling period. The situation is very bad in the United States, where ratings agencies are threatening the once unimaginable step of downgrading Treasury bonds, and Congress is consumed by partisan wrangling over raising the nation’s debt limit. But it is desperate in Europe, because the situation has been exacerbated by a piece of economic dogma. The faith of leading European politicians and bankers in monetary union, a system of financial government whose origins can be traced back to the set of temporary political circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, and which was brought to bear without serious economic analysis, is essentially irrational. Indeed, in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard. Back in 1929, politicians and central bankers assumed that the convertibility of national currencies into gold (defined by the economist John Maynard Keynes as a “barbaric relic”) was a law of nature, like gravity. European politicians have developed the same superstitious attachment to the single currency. They are determined to persist with it, no matter what suffering it causes, or however brutal its economic and social consequences. There is only one way of sustaining this policy, as the International Monetary Fund argued ahead of yesterday’s summit in Brussels. Admittedly, the IMF should not be regarded as an impartial arbiter. Theoretically, its responsibilities stretch around the globe, but it has become the plaything of a reactionary European elite, of whom its latest managing director, Christine Lagarde (a dreadful and backward-looking choice), is the latest manifestation. However, the IMF was entirely correct when it pointed out that the only conceivable salvation for the eurozone is to impose greater fiscal integration among member states. This advice was finally being taken yesterday – and it is almost impossible to overestimate the importance of the decision which European leaders seemed last night to be reaching. By authorising a huge expansion in the bail-out fund that is propping up the EU’s peripheral members (largely in order to stop the contagion spreading to Italy and Spain), the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union. So long as the settlement is accepted by national parliaments, yesterday will come to be seen as the witching hour after which Europe will cease to be, except vestigially, a collection of nation states. It will have one economic government, one currency, one foreign policy. This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states. This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago – which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”. David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. The markets have rallied strongly, hailing what is being seen as the best chance of a resolution to the gruelling and drawn-out crisis. It is conceivable that yesterday’s negotiations may indeed save the eurozone – but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation. Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated; they face a future as vassal states, their role reduced to the one enjoyed by the European colonies of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They will provide cheap labour, raw materials, agricultural produce and a ready market for the manufactured goods and services provided by the far more productive and efficient northern Europeans. Their political leaders will, like the hapless George Papandreou of Greece, lose all political legitimacy, becoming local representatives of distant powers who are forced to implement economic programmes from elsewhere in return for massive financial subventions. While these nations relapse into pre-modern economic systems, Germany is busy turning into one of the most dynamic and productive economies in the world. Despite the grumbling, for the Germans, the bail-outs are worth every penny, because they guarantee a cheap outlet for their manufactured goods. Yesterday’s witching hour of the European Union means that Germany has come very close to realising Bismarck’s dream of an economic empire stretching from central Europe to the Eastern Mediterranean. History has seen many attempts to unify Europe, from the Habsburgs to the Bourbons and Napoleon. This attempt is likely to fail, too. Indeed, a paradox is at work here. The founders of the European Union were driven by a vision of a peaceful new world after a century of war. Yet nothing could have been more calculated to create civil disorder and national resistance than yesterday’s demented move to salvage the single currency.[/i]
11527951411316855702And now, my previous responses: Oborne is right, I think, that the EU’s current (mis)management of its financial crisis is inexorably leading the monetary union towards fiscal union. He is also correct that such union would lead to Northern countries’ assumption of Southern pension liabilities. Beyond that, he is not that “clear-sighted” at all. 1. [i]Most recessions are part of the normal, healthy functioning of any market economy[/i] Wrong. While minor, region-specific or sector-specific booms and subsequent busts are always possible in advanced economies, economy-wide recessions are ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE monetary phenomena (as Rothbard once put it) caused by central banks. 2. [i]the 1929 crash sparked a decade of economic failure around much of the world[/i] Wrong. It was the central government’s meddlesome responses (at least in the US, to my knowledge, though probably also elsewhere) that transformed what ought to have been a short, sharp recession, itself caused by the loose Fed monetary policies of the 20s, into a prolongued depression. 3. [i]The situation is very bad in the United States, where ratings agencies are threatening the once unimaginable step of downgrading Treasury bonds, and Congress is consumed by partisan wrangling over raising the nation’s debt limit.[/i] Not exactly. The economic situation is bad in the US mostly because of the actions of the Fed and especially the Obama admin since the 2008 crash (though we do face horrible, long-term fiscal imbalances in our useless ‘entitlement’ programs, but which are endogenous to these programs, and thus not Obama’s fault). Had the Fed simply allowed for a short, sharp depression, we would already be growing out of it. But by its insane, inflationist policy of money debasement ("quantitative easing"), the Fed has partially delayed the economy’s final reckoning with the badly distorted housing market (the root of our problems, again caused solely by a web of governmental policies, laws, and monetary actions). This, in combination with the huge, $814 billion waste of the 2009 Obama “stimulus”, whose purpose and effect was to transfer huge amounts of private sector wealth to state governments so that they could bail out various statist (and Democratic) constituencies which rely on govt paychecks and welfare checks, as well as Obama’s strident, anti-business, anti-capitalist rhetoric (strangely echoed to some extent around MR), is why our current economic performance is so anemic. The Congressional debt-wrangling is, long-term, a very good thing, however. The fundamental battle is always between the economic rationality and proper incentives to productivity of the for-profit sector, and the constant waste of socialism and chronic distortions produced by regulations of all varieties. What this debt battle is really about is stopping America’s further slide into a socialist economy. That outcome is far more important than even a realized debt downgrade. 4.[i] in many ways, the euro bears comparison to the gold standard[/i] Wrong. The only comparison is that both are seen to create large markets benefitting from avoiding the problems, costs and calculational uncertainties associated with doing business in different currencies. The euro (and the present dollar) is pure fiat money, its value totally at the whim of government officials. The gold standard was “the people’s money”, its ultimate value determined by freely transacting individuals. the “true euro” would be a market-determined, international gold standard, such as existed in the 19th century. 5. [i]the eurozone has taken the decisive step to becoming a fiscal union ... This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states.[/i] Correct - and a very bad thing - but not for Greece et al. 6. [i]This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago[/i] True? I don’t think so, though my EU history is not great. They wanted a common currency to facilitate trade, which in turn was assumed would bind the countries with economic incentives, and so avoid future wars. 7. [i]but it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of European fiscal union. First, it will mean the economic destruction of most of the southern European countries. Indeed, this process is already far advanced. Thanks to their membership of the eurozone, peripheral countries such as Greece and Portugal – and to an increasing extent Spain and Italy – are undergoing a process of forcible deindustrialisation.[/i] This is ridiculous. If Germany is required to bail out the pensions and many of the public costs of these unproductive Southern countries, that can hardly be called “economic destruction”. It’s more like a forced gift. China is helping to prop up the American welfare state. Without that Chinese investment in Treasury paper, we would either have to severely curtail our federal entitlement programs (which might actually be a good thing long-term, but not in a short-term economic sense), raise interest rates, raise taxes, or tolerate much greater inflation. China is helping us live beyond our means. And would southern deindustrialization be so bad? If the countries were all part of a single fiscal bloc, and Germany were so much more industrially efficient that it came to dominate manufacturing within the union, so what? How is that bad for Southerners? They will benefit economically from German productivity. The law of comparative advantage is lurking around here. 8. [i]Their economic sovereignty has been obliterated[/i] In what sense was their economic sovereignty a good thing? If German domination forces Southerners to run more efficient, less corrupt, less socialistic, and more transparent economies, so what? Southerners’ problems are mostly due to their own gross fiscal and economic mismanagement. Who could possibly argue with the idea that many black-run American cities and townships would be better off being stripped of their sovereignty, and then taken over and managed by more distant, white-run governing structures? 9. [i]Despite the grumbling, for the Germans, the bail-outs are worth every penny, because they guarantee a cheap outlet for their manufactured goods.[/i] Wrong. Germany doesn’t need such a “guarantee”. If their products are good, people everywhere will demand them. But the bailouts constitute real money being taken from German taxpayers, now or in the future. As always, German taxpayers will be the big losers here. European banks will win, as will southern populations, able to avoid reckoning with their profligate, statist ways. Finally, I understand why European ethnonationalists might oppose a European superstate. But where’s the problem for those of us who are [i][b]racial[/b][/i] nationalists?
11528651411316858995Your nationalist economic proposals are OK, but not great, beyond the obvious of ending immigration, and repatriation, which is as much political as economic. The point of a nationalist economic platform is to put economic arrangements in the service of ethnonational preservation and collective advance. We want an economy that moves the vast bulk of deserving people forward, and which is not skewed towards enriching the few at the expense of the many - especially when such enrichment occurs at the expense of longer term prospects for national survival itself (eg, as is the case with immigration and agriculture or construction in the USA, in which the benefits of paying lower wages, due to artificial increases in the national labor supply, are privatized, while the costs associated with said immigration are both socialized, in the form of taxpayer freebies, and nationalized, in the form of reductions in EGI and prospects for national survival). [Immigration is really a negative externality from the pov of the nation itself, perfectly analogous to a factory dumping toxic waste into a local estuary, thus not paying the full costs of production. I think this is an important insight, btw, that isn't sufficiently recognized or at least expressed among nationalists.] Of course, as befits the very idea of nationalism, there will be no one-size-fits all approach. Each nation will have its policy agenda which, though rooted in a correct understanding of value-free (scientific) economics, will reflect local conditions and priorities (for the nationalist, those begin with ethnonational perpetuity). For example, how should Norway handle its North Sea oil? Who should be allowed to profit from this? On whom or what should the proceeds be spent? Those are open questions, to which there are no right answers, per se (though many wrong ones). But a nationalist would reasonably object if foreign oil consortia (esp sovereign ones, like China's) were allowed to drill, with such profits as accrue to Norway then being used for foreign aid, or to resettle African refugees in Oslo or Trondheim (to take an extreme and obvious example). The nation's resources must redound to the (true) nation's benefit. [b]What the nationalist wants is maximum economic efficiency within the meta-economic parameters of perpetual ethnonational survival, ecological preservation, and material benefits for the deserving national majority.[/b]
11528851411316859332@Lister Are you sober at the moment? Really. You screech, and have the effrontery to criticize me for (alleged, but undemonstrated) "political and intellectual coherence"? Or was that Linder you were speaking to? Until you have something substantive to offer on the topic at hand, perhaps you should sit quietly in the corner, and learn from your betters.
11529351411316869165hehehe ... I meant to say INcoherence in my reply to Lister. Hail, Thanks for the reference (and the pdf from anon/uh - I have bookmarked that site - amazing how much great stuff is on the net). The problem with economic history is that it is mostly useless (or at best decriptive, as opposed to explanatory) unless based on the correct economic theoretical paradigm. Read Rothbard, [i]America's Great Depression[/i] (go to mises.org - they're having a slight sale this month). Of course, I did not say that the stock crash caused the Depression, though they had the same ultimate origin: Federal Reserve monetary policies in the 20s. What should have been a short depression became "Great" because of the asininity of the socialistic New Deal (ie, the kind of state-interventionist, anti-economic + anti-business nonsense favored by the likes of Graham Lister, Obama and their anti-capitalist ilk).
11529851411316873737Dr. Lister: Are you for real? I offer a serious opening salvo re the topic at hand (nationalist economics), and what I get is a bunch of near-unintelligible criticism-cum-[i]ad hominem [/i]from you (as though I were addressing you in the first place - what "bait" of mine are you rising to?! seems rather the other way, doesn't it?). I have addressed you re the sociology of religion. I addressed you at some length in the past on economic topics. I have not adequately addressed you re: the alleged normative assumptions of my methodological individualism, though I did mention something on that in passing recently, and frankly, I have nothing to contribute that is original on that particular subject. I follow Mises (type "meth/indiv" at mises.org, and search and read on the topic for yourself - why must I summarize someone else, to whom you can have your own access? my free time is limited). There is a distinct pattern to your mostly unrequested interactions with me. You offer up some very bold assertion, provide little to no argument in defense of it, and then both criticize me for not offering up my own "peer-review"-quality disquisitions on whatever topic is bothering you, while simultaneously implying that I am stupid or ignorant (and often lazily lumping me in with those with whom I am frequently at pains to point out my own disagreements or distance - and then acting like you've "discovered" something about me - eg I support free enterprise; ergo, I'm a Randian (totally untrue) or a Hayekian liberal (not true, either); I'm Christian, therefore some kind of Pat Robertson acolyte (no comment)). Where, btw, is your scientific critique of free markets, that I might be the one to criticize? And do you actually think that such comments of yours as you've offered here at MR are more insightful or more lucidly written that what I have posted? I swear, pal, you have some kind of weird 'hard-on' for me. I rarely criticize or even note you (except in response to critiques initially directed at me). I am reminded of something Rothbard once said in my presence about the mutual hatred of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks (the implication was that ideologues tend to hate most those who are closest to them, yet subtly different: neocons and paleocons, Greens and labor-socialists, Fabians and Marxists, etc). I think you particularly dislike me because I am: a theist (strike 1), a Christian (strike 2), a Catholic (I'm sure a particular strike 3), a free marketeer (strike 4), and, probably, an American (strike 5). That I am in fact well-educated (nb - I already have a graduate degree; and am currently back in school, as of this month), articulate, and more erudite than many, seems to irritate you still more. I'm not usually given over to psychoanalyzing others, but I suspect that you have a general dislike of "faithists", "laissez-fairists", and Americans, and probably resent their presence in nationalist fora. I don't care if you criticize my ideas, but stop implying intellectual incapacity on my part. I may think your economic views (which I can't recall your really having developed, incidentally; only that you reject free markets) nonsense, but I certainly haven't implied you're literally stupid (foolish, perhaps, in the manner of liberals - "often clever, never wise"). Anyway, feel free to refrain from interacting with me or not, as you prefer. I'm not going anywhere.
11530151411316874726Dr. Lister: Perhaps you would like to begin your voyage into economic understanding. Best to understand economic fundamentals before seeing how to rearrange the economy so as better to fulfill nationalists aims, wouldn't you agree? Here's a recent, simple little piece to help you to start thinking as an economist: http://mises.org/daily/5587/Economic-Warfare
11530251411316875125Dr. Lister: And here is a classic article, recently re-posted, by that "idiot" Hayek: http://mises.org/daily/5615/The-Use-of-Knowledge-in-Society You really could learn something.
11538051411316956825anon/uh, Thanks for your comments. No need for excessive (false?) modesty. Osborne and Oborne are different people. [i]This is curious to me: [u]This integration will be so complete that taxpayers in the more prosperous countries will be expected to pay for the welfare systems and pension plans of failing EU states. This is the final realisation of the dream that animated the founders of the Common Market more than half a century ago – which is one reason why so many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a “beneficial crisis”.[/u] How can paying for welfare and pensions be construed as the “dream” of the EU CM founders?? Sounds like a madness the author of the above is retro-projecting onto them. This seems to be confirmed by the next statement that: [u]David Cameron and George Osborne have both indicated that they, too, welcome this fundamental change in the nature and purpose of the European project. [/u] Huh? Is this same George Osborne whom [u]the Financial Times describes ... as “metropolitan and socially liberal. He is hawkish on foreign policy with links to Washington neo-conservatives and ideologically committed to cutting the state. A pragmatic Eurosceptic.”[/u] Soooo he’s “committed to cutting the state”, yet “has indicated” that he welcomes a European super-welfare state.[/i](ANON/UH) Without rereading the Oborne piece, I think he was referring to some original dream of the CM founders that Europe would eventually evolve into a European superstate, the (foolish) implication being that such a supranational entity would be governed along what we today call neo-liberal lines, a continent-wide free enterprise zone bound together by economic ties, and thus unlikely to devolve again into continental civil wars. I must say, I'm not altogether opposed to such a vision, though I always would have thought it dangerous (and for good 'classical' liberal reasons!). It is a cardinal tenet of all true libertarian thought that power should be restricted to the lowest possible administrative levels. I can understand the 'purist' vision - let's preclude warfare among European states by encouraging continental economic integration. Apart from particularistic ethnonationalist objections, there is a logic to this. Of course, the danger is that if the superstate should no longer remain committed to the original limited vision, there is little recourse through your own (no longer fully sovereign) nation. This seems to be what has happened, in addition to the now realized danger facing economically responsible countries yoked to irresponsible ones in a ([i][b]fiat[/b][/i]!!!) monetary union (there would be nothing wrong at all - quite the opposite - with a monetary union based on a shared commodity money standard, like gold, where each national currency would in fact be defined simply as a unit weight of gold, with complete intra-union convertibility). Excuse my verbosity. Essentially, I think what the CM founders wanted was a free-market Europe, tightly economically bound, with no ability for 'renegades' (the obvious concern, ironically, was with Germany; that is, the economically powerful, not the weak, like Greece) to go their own economic (and thus potentially political - and military) ways. I think they assumed that the superstate structure would always be governed according to sound monetary and free market principles, and that such principles could be imposed from the responsible center onto the more marginal countries. Didn't quite pan out, did it? I think what really did in the original vision was the failure to foresee the general leftwing drift of postwar Europe (and America, and everywhere). Anyway, the euro is dying, and soon thereafter the EU, I think and hope. But will that demise, and the recovery of sovereignty within the old nations, issue in a resurrection of ethnonationalist feeling? I hope so, but won't hazard a prediction. However British Dr. Lister may be, I think he dislikes me for the reasons I enumerated.
11538151411316957037When I responded immediately above to anon/uh, I hadn't seen the article posted by Foundation, which tracks my own thinking rather nicely (I had previously read that piece in the WSJ by chosenite neocon Brett Stephens). Amusing how thoughts get crossed like this.
11538351411316957777LH [b]What this debt battle is really about is stopping America’s further slide into a socialist economy.[/b] (HALLER) [i]No it isn’t. The central banking cartels are a financial crime syndicate run by people who have zero loyalty to the people of their nominal nations. They ran up trillions of dollars in bad debts and didn’t want to take the consequences of their actions so instead they bribed the politicians to offload the debt onto the tax payers. The consequent rolling crisis is a war between the banking cartels and everyone else. If you want to look at it in left-right terms it’s socialism for the rich. In nationalist terms it’s a bastion of power in the hands of people with no loyalty to the nation.[/i] (WANDRIN) --------------------------------------------- I don't disagree with what you have written, but you're confused about what I was originally referring to, which was the then ongoing US Congressional battle re raising the national debt ceiling. The GOP in that battle was properly insisting that any increase in the ceiling, which in the past was usually routine, this time (and with precedent, henceforth) be coupled to corresponding fiscal spending reductions, the purpose of that being to stop the constant increase in the public debt (and thus America's slide into socialism by default). The Republicans were correct. You have confused this micro-issue with the broader problem of debt throughout the West (and especially the sovereign debt crises of the PIIGS countries). Different issues.
11538451411316958457[i]P.S. Leon is clearly more intelligent than Lister, but Lister is not wrong when he says in not so few words than Leon is full of shit.[/i] (CAPTAINCHAOS) I'm not sure that is true. Lister is admirably well-read; he references all the apposite sources; and he has a higher level of education than I do (and in a hard science, which is always impressive). On the other hand, he is overly dismissive of whole traditions of (Western) thought, like theology, the truths of which are admittedly difficult to establish, especially to the overly scientistic intellect, as well as of other realms, like capitalist theory, whose truths can be and have been readily demonstrated to those willing to put in the effort to learn them. But in what areas exactly, sir, am I full of shit? My unwillingness to denounce Jewry as the [i]primary[/i] culprit in the fall of the white man, perhaps?
11539151411316964095[i]Leon, I estimate that in about a year from now you will come to the realisation that your pragmatic conservative revolution has no revolutionary meaning. You will come to this realisation by way of the prior understanding that, actually, you are advancing not conservatism at all, but the American liberal model. Awhile ago, in our occasional conversations, you stated that, actually, Christianity was not the bottom line for you. The preservation of our people is. That was a worthwhile development, for it acknowledged the true role of faith in service to genetic interests. But there is another question to which you might want to attend, and it is this: if the American liberal model, so wholly dedicated to the quest for liberty as it is, has no “conservative potential”, how can it be the foundation of a conservative revolution?[/i] (GW) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Two issues. First, I have never renounced my 60/40% Christian faith. I am aware of various anti-theist arguments (and will be much more cognizant of them, and of possible responses, in a few years, or sooner), but I still give the benefit of the doubt to God. My God is relatively purified, however, of various obviously human and historical accretions. I also don't believe in miracles, or petitionary prayer. After my doctorate in Catholic Studies, I may even find myself ending up some kind of Protestant (or perhaps not, for professional reasons). Still, as I've noted previously, my intuition, which I've always trusted, and which enabled me to see through the race-propaganda already being shoved down children's throats in the 70s (probably even earlier, before my time), leads me to think the New Testament is historically accurate (I've elaborated on this before). Of course, my awareness of secularist discourse, and my fundamental rejection of what most think of as "faith" (my faith in the resurrection of Christ is of the same type as your faith in the stand of Leonidas and the 300 at Thermopylae, or any historical event for which the 'sources' are limited), is what prevents me from being a 100% Christian. I'm on the fence, but will always 'throw in' finally with the Lord. When I stated that Christianity was not my bottom line, I meant that in a strictly [b]political[/b] sense. The preservation of the white race - understood as the permanent repository of the possibility of the spiritual/cultural renewal of Western Civilization - is indeed my political bottom line, the foundation of all further, lesser political interests, whether Christianist (eg, abortion, sexual morality, etc), capitalist, national security statist, or whatever. But saving my soul through ethical (Christian) behavior is my final [b]existential[/b] bottom line. My main intellectual (as opposed to personal, practical) interest in these political questions centers on establishing the moral parameters of racialist/WN activism from a Christian view, for I do not admit of the [i]effective[/i] possibility of a non-Christian morality (even though I also hold that morality, like math or logic, inheres in the nature of things, independent of God, although it is God alone which gives the pursuit of morality its intrinsic meaning- no, Graham, that is not self-contradictory). What must a man do to attain Heaven? and, what may a man do in service to his race, and still attain Heaven? These are the bottom-bottom line questions for the true Christian / true conservative. Answers to these questions do not yet, to my knowledge, exist to my satisfaction. Hence my current studies. As to the other issue. What do you understand by 'conservatism'? And by "the American liberal model"? Are you saying there is only a small ideological difference between Obama and Bush (agree) - or between Obama and Reagan or Thatcher (maybe, or maybe not) - or between Obama and Pat Buchanan or Enoch Powell (wildly disagree)? I think you and Graham rather confuse small government conservatism, such as existed for most US history, with modern liberalism, simply because both speak the language of individual rights (while arriving at totally different policy conclusions). But how would you classify Thomas Jefferson, who believed in individualism (one of the crowning glories of Western Civ, if you ask me), but who clearly articulated racial boundaries for communities, including the nascent USA? In other words, where does Jefferson, a libertarian and a racist, fit?
11539351411316965510GW states in the post that "this is the time to talk about economics". OK, I started off doing so. I offered the following formulation, as a foundation to criticize, or build upon: [b]What the nationalist wants is maximum economic efficiency within the meta-economic parameters of perpetual ethnonational survival, ecological preservation, and material benefits for the deserving national majority.[/b] Agree or not? Once we gather community sentiment, I will elaborate further (eg, yes, I know about the Distributists, Small is Beautiful, etc, and am in great agreement with them, but before you can build a political economics, or a moral economics, you first must understand the logic of human action, as Mises taught (his Jewishness, incidentally, is irrelevant to his value-free economics, which stands or falls on its own merits, as with Einstein)).
11540451411317005563How does one determine the number of a particular thread comment? I see no numbers listed.
11540551411317006584It is disappointing that few wish to rise to GW's challenge re developing a new nationalist economic paradigm. It is badly needed. I agree with the deficiencies of neoliberalism [i]uber alles[/i], in terms of racial and civilizational (and even national) preservation. I also understand the technical deficiencies of central planning and allied economic interventionist regimes (we're being ploughed under detritus from both failed models right now). What is needed is an economic paradigm which utilizes the knowledge, now empirically proven as well as deductively demonstrated, we have painfully garnered in the field of catallactics (the science of exchange), so as to advance the genetic collective, as opposed merely to advancing certain individuals at the expense of the larger group. This is a worthy intellectual pursuit. We must begin by answering the question: what is the purpose of a specifically nationalist economics, and how does it differ from both socialism and [i]laissez-faire[/i]? I suggest discussants begin with two seemingly unrelated concepts: efficiency, and sustainability. A nationalist economics is, I think, to be sought at their nexus. Ideas?
11540651411317006985Sorry to hear about your friend, Jimmy. Each WN's death "diminisheth me", even when I may have had particular strategic and/or tactical disagreements with this or that person and/or his tradition. We are too few in number, and the burden of our race, our civilization, and quite possibly humanity itself rests on our shoulders. I recall the ancient Anglo-Saxon poetic fragment 'Maldon', which is what we have left to commemorate the Battle of Maldon (993): [i]Thought must be the harder, the heart, the keener, Courage must be greater as our strength grows less.[/i] The Destiny of the West, [i]in embryo[/i].
11541251411317018898anon/uh, I'm too busy to read someone called mencius moldjew or whatever. As to blacks, that is a huge problem, though most did some form of work pre-welfare state. Granted, the welfare state has been terribly dysgenic, probably more so wrt blacks than any other group, for sociological as well as biological reasons. So the innate predisposition towards work ethicism may now be lower among at least today's underclass than among the general run of negroes in times past. Still, as Mises pointed out, in a free market there is no unemployment except among retards, who can be taken care of through private charity (or their own families), again as in the past. If we could lower wages enough, perhaps even the worst homey could find employment. But would he, even if the 'carrot' of welfare is removed, too? Or would he turn to crime? Mises had in mind normal whites. Today's underclass blacks may literally be economically obsolete. Mandatory eugenic sterilization is the only solution that comes to mind, perhaps to be accompanied with generous welfare bribes to placate weepy white liberals.
11541351411317020530GenoType, Beware the conflation of weirdo, ultimately philosophically incoherent libertarianism (despite what they would have you believe) with Austrian economics. Austrian economics is amazingly rigorous, and I believe a true analysis of reality. If I have garnered any measure of respect due to my comments here at MR over the years, then persons interested in economics should follow my advice and study that school of thought (go to mises.org). As noted, the conceptual gap that the Austro-libs blithely ignore is that between their value-free economic analysis, and their blatant normative assumptions and motives. Austrianism is economics; libertarianism is ideology (obviously). This simple distinction is always being ignored (usually by socialist types who wish to discredit markets by yoking economic rationality to repulsive 'moral' agendas, as you did above). Rothbard's [i]The Ethics of Liberty[/i] is actually a brilliant work, even if finally flawed. But read his [i]Man, Economy and State[/i] if you want a solid and thorough grounding in economic science. The latter in no way depends upon, or implies, the former. I'm familiar with the Catholic Social Thought books you cited, and intend to study that tradition as it applies to economic questions at greater length in the future. That said, I find the Catholic Austro-lib historian Thomas Woods's views as to the perfect compatibility between Catholicism and Austrianism to be more persuasive. I had some online debates years back with Medaille, and found him to be neither nationalist, nor well-versed in economics. He and Ferrara are more interested in theological defenses of Catholic economics (as they understand it, and, of greater importance, think it must be - in fact, the economic views of the Church are not set in scriptural stone, but have been amended through time, and could be so again, possibly favoring Austrianism as opposed to greater collectivism), than in economics per se. Of course, there is no reason why the Church (or nation or race) need back that system which is maximally efficient (in a global sense; ie, take all humanity as a whole, and unfettered global capitalism would maximize living standards to the greatest extent; arguments to the contrary are sheer ignorance). The Church will back that system it believes is most just; the nationalist, that which will best serve his EGI. My only point is that either group (or liberals, socialists, or anyone at all) should understand what is being sacrificed in terms of wealth maximization by adopting any particular economic ideology short of pure laissez-faire. Wealth is not the end-all for Christians, nor do I argue that it should be for nationalists. But it is important to understand the effects of any given policy approach, and Austrian methodology is superior for doing so.
11543251411317076637Dancing Jew-Perry: http://www.weeklystandard.com/daily/daily.asp I get the distinct impression Perry is dumb. Others? (Sorry for digressing from main topic.)
11556951411317383256I don't necessarily disagree with everything or even most of what GenoType has to say, but, like most here, he is deeply unsystematic. For the majority of you who really do not understand economics (God forbid if we started discussing finance or business theory), why don't you do yourselves a favor and read the literally incomparable Rothbard, one of the great men of our age, whatever his ultimate fallacies or inadequacies, on the greatest economist of all time, his mentor Ludwig von Mises. (Even Dr. Lister might just learn some things about the incontestably superior intellects he ludicrously presumes - without any demonstrated familiarity - to criticize). http://mises.org/daily/5697/Ludwig-von-Mises-Scholar-Creator-Hero I knew Rothbard slightly towards the end of his life, and I am good friends with a man who was good friends with him for over 30 years (and who is both a WN and an anti-chosenite). Rothbard was a fantastic intellect, phenomenally productive, a sparkling writer, a brilliant conversationalist, and a very, very politically incorrect fellow who was perfectly acquainted (and most in agreement) with all manner of race-theory, and who said once in my presence that he thought the Jews were too powerful in America, and were generally a malign force. A wonderful man (I disproved his position on abortion in a study group with him in 1990; the late Joe Sobran was there, and he congratulated me afterwards, saying it was one of Murray's rare weaker moments; Lew Rockwell got very upset for some reason).
11557051411317383687[i] Kindly remove my comments, seek Leon’s economic advice, and pay close attention to Hunter Wallace on political strategy[/i].(GT) He would be very wise to heed my economic thoughts. On the other hand, I suspect I have forgotten more about economics (and libertarian theory - I know Hans Hoppe pretty well) than you will ever know, GT, which is why my criticisms of radical libertarianism might actually prove fruitful (hint: one must start with sound knowledge of [i]wertfrie[/i] economics, before basing one's normative political economy on other than wealth-maximization grounds).
11560751411317448233re Greau (How does one do accents and other obscure punctuation at MR?): I'm going to read this article on "capitalist contrarian" Greau tonight, alone in a strange city as I am: http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2897 It does look promising. There are few tasks more important than the development of a nationalist political economics, to go along with a future nationalist political economy. Of course, one must try to learn the facts of economics before subjecting existing arrangements to normative critique. On that note, I hope some are reading the Rothbard eulogy of Mises that I linked to above. It would constitute a useful hour or so. I think I'll re-read that as well (as with so much else, I have the original in monograph form somewhere in book storage). Finally, bored, alone and needing a study break, I saw three movies last night: [i]Straw Dogs[/i] (a mediocre remake of the now-classic Peckinpah/ Dustin Hoffman film from the early 70s; notable in this context only for its almost reactionary-liberal portrayal of Southern rednecks; the director must think it's still 1971 (if not '31) out there);[i] The Debt[/i], a well-made and suspenseful film about - what else, when Germans are involved? - Jews and Nazis (which reminds me, like every third or fourth film I see, what a great PR boom the Holocaust was for advancing Jewish EGI); and lastly, the much more interesting [i]Contagion[/i] (about a global disease outbreak). The latter film was well-made, if less action-oriented than I had hoped (actually, the same indictment holds for all three movies). But it does graphically bring home a line of nationalist attack that I've had in the back of my mind for several decades: to wit, the dangerously easy transmission of disease in our neoliberal, borderless world. I think infectious disease, and biological (ecological) issues more broadly, is/are the Achilles heel of the liberal tradition. Strictly economic arguments against free markets are easy to defeat, as are challenges to autonomous individualism (though the latter are not impossible). But understand man's activities as embedded in a reality far larger than himself, and one bursts through to a standpoint from which human action can be more accurately assessed.
11559551411317417662TR, I'm pretty sure the Nazis thought they were copying their stiff-arm salute from the ancient Romans. anon/uh, Yes, the only Chinese who are favorably disposed to Americans and the white man generally are the (thankfully growing) number of Christians. It is disgraceful and treasonous that our neoliberal regime has encouraged so much American corporate development of China's economy. ABCs tend to be different, more anti-black than white in my experience, though they are now being multiculturalized into general victimhood and resentment by the PC regime. Mass interracial fraternity is a liberal utopian myth. At best, there can be global tolerance and trade. Dasein, No one has been more critical of Randian 'morality' than Christian traditionalist conservatives, though her depictions of the sinister motives so often lurking behind liberal 'do-gooderism' were spot-on. But when you use apt phrases like "moral vacuity", what is your normative standpoint? "Vacuity" in light of what ethical foundation? Lister, On the campaign trail in 1980, Reagan famously stated that "a nation which has lost control of its borders can scarcely be called sovereign at all". Reagan, it is true, was not a racist or even a racialist, and he did speak glowingly of immigrants - though whether he had in mind hordes of Third Worlders, and without thought to absolute numbers, was never clear. Reagan was hardly an intellectual, and his main concerns were defeating communism, and limiting government overreach in the economy. He was no radical libertarian, as Rothbard always pointed out, and his defense and foreign policies proved. I think Reagan could have done more to advance conservatism, but he did a lot nevertheless, especially given political constraints. It is the race problem which led me to reject mid-century American conservatism, despite all its attractions - though it is important to note race can handled within the intellectual parameters of traditionalist conservatism (as I shall be arguing in an article I hope to publish in TOQ in the future). Conservatives emphasizing the importance of maintaining traditions, and social harmony (not to mention national security), can hardly be indifferent to the science and sociology of racial differences. A whole book could and needs to be written on the subject of race and the Reagan presidency, and twentieth century conservatism more broadly. But there was a great deal of value in that political tendency, as indeed there is in Hayekian liberalism, too. The trick is to synthesize what is valuable with WN's deeper understanding of biology and its social and political implications. Thus is intellectual progress made.
11543651421317092240As I've been saying since the 80s, immigration + coercive integration is really a new form of imperialism, perhaps the characteristic form in the modern world. Alas, we will never be free until we are racially sovereign. The White Republic(s). But getting there is obviously the problem. I am ever more convinced of what I only intuited more than 30 years ago: that allowing nonwhites to settle in our midst (so much easier to have prevented for the Europeans), was the greatest and certainly most avoidable tragedy in the whole history of our race and civilization. Once done, it seems to be the only thing that cannot be undone. (PS-GW: some comments you might want to look at over on the nationalist economics thread which you started, but seem to have abandoned).
11544651421317120738"on mass"? ([i]en masse[/i]?)
11546251431317138535He provides neither explanatory mechanism, nor specific wealth 'hedging' strategy. Nor does he say which countries or companies will crash (we can guess, however - though the market has mostly already priced this assumption into current valuations). Of course the euro is going to crash. Radical free marketers denounced this monster from the beginning. It has nothing to do with capitalist "overproduction", but is the logical consequence of profligate central banking regimes untethered to any real store of objective value, like gold. There is nothing wrong per se with speculation - it can serve an important informational function as to the underlying health of companies (and currencies - and countries). The real problem again is central banking and the debt system &#40;fractional reserve&#41;. It pumps out all this fiat money, which goes to banks and big financial players first, before filtering down to ordinary people, who experience greater than otherwise inflation in consequence (eg, right now we should all be experiencing salutary drops in everyday prices, as a function of the global recession, from which we never really extricated ourselves- but we aren't; quite the opposite, in fact). There are other problems, too, as with the corporate model of capitalism, and failures in corporate law (in law school corporations classes, the first thing you learn is that "a corporation is a creature of the state" - a privileged legal entity). There has been a near-total divorce between the interests of management and that of shareholders (and often of workers). These problems are all easily remediable, at least in theory. They involve a return to real capitalism, not more market distorting regulation. In practice, elites like this system, as they benefit at the expense of commoners. When Rastani discusses the crash, I think he was talking more about Europe's stock markets, though given all the excessive global financial intermingling, it will certainly drag down the US, too. The real key is returning to sound economics. The first country that returns to capitalist discipline in a big way will reap huge capital inflows, provided foreign governments continue to allow capital mobility, something which cannot be assumed. ,
11546351431317138893I have a Persian immigrant doctor named Rastani. Actually, extremely competent. [I think in the US we could make a case for changing our immigration policy to favor specific skills sets, as opposed to the insane current family reunification preference ("reunify" by going home). Such would not be racially optimal, but it could be a politically palatable first step in reducing the size of the invasion.]
11546451431317139314I wonder how the euro crisis will affect the pound. Thoughts? I know little about currency trading (I hedge in that regard by investing in value companies in 'strong' foreign currencies, like the yen and swiss franc, but not in the currencies themselves, which really requires a lot of specific expertise, and constant attention). I don't even know how the pound is doing. I'd like to hear from someone knowledgeable in that regard. Certainly the Cameron government is making some smart fiscal moves, for the long term. It all goes back to the old war between capitalist efficiency, and inherent socialist waste. I still wish people were willing to discuss the specifics of a nationalist economics. Abolishing the effective legal preference for debt must rank high. I have some radical ideas, too, about why stock markets themselves are evil, though the real problem again is central banking.
11546751431317140883OK, now Dow is rising based on hopes re Greece. See, this is nonsense. Greece is a bottomless hole. If it doesn't default, it will drag down Europe (but why? who will explain the mechanism? c'mon, folks, what really is the problem with propping up the Greeks? That is the key to understanding everything).
11546851431317141852American holdings of renmimbis? I really don't know about that issue. I'm not a trader of any kind, just a regular investor. China's purchases of Treasuries are helping the US live beyond it means, as I've pointed out previously, and you noted. That won't last forever. US does reap a lot of benefits from its reserve currency status. What I meant re capitalist discipline was just that. Know how WNs complain about no White Zion (refuge)? Capitalists similarly complain about the lack of any true capitalist power (now, if only we could combine racial separatism with hardcore capitalism rooted in inviolable property rights and hard money ... we would upset Dr. Lister ... but we would also recreate over time the greatest power on Earth ... especially if combined with robust eugenics, and state-supported research into embryonic engineering ...). There are enormous amounts of private capital sloshing across the globe trying to preserve value. Where the hell do you invest today? Everywhere is screwed up. If a country showed a serious dedication to property rights, hard money, and extremely limited state interference in private markets (esp if it were found among a naturally superior (high-IQ) people), it would reap the dividend of "first past the post" in this era of global capitalist fear. Everyone would want to park money there, which would lead to enormous amounts of real capital available for business expansion - and hence rising living standards.
11550251441317200008Jimmy, [Did you or anyone see my ode to your dead NSM friend over at the nationalist econ thread? I thought it was very affecting,but it seems to have made no impression. Herewith:] Sorry to hear about your friend, Jimmy. Each WN’s death “diminisheth me”, even when I may have had particular strategic and/or tactical disagreements with this or that person and/or his tradition. We are too few in number, and the burden of our race, our civilization, and quite possibly humanity itself rests on our shoulders. I recall the ancient Anglo-Saxon poetic fragment ‘Maldon’, which is what we have left to commemorate the Battle of Maldon (993): [i]Thought must be the harder, the heart, the keener, Courage must be greater as our strength grows less.[/i] The Destiny of the West, [i]in embryo[/i].
11551351441317237657I was alive and extremely angry when Reagan got duped into betraying his principles and signing that 1986 illegal alien amnesty. It was the low point of his presidency, and completely unnecessary on even political grounds. The work of an evil alliance between Judeo-neocons and libertarians, two major elements in the broader GOP coalition. Reagan was terribly disappointing in many ways my parents can talk about for hours. He was less than optimal even as CA governor. But he was still by light years the best president in my lifetime, which only says how far left the whole Western world has grown over the past century.
11561851441317494107I strongly suggest reading the following article. The West failed to press its advantages when we had them, despite having had multiple opportunities throughout the 20th century to have done so. Even now, we build up our racial competitors, ideologically exculpating and "stiff-upper-lipping" our way into global senescence and extinction. This is the real problem with liberalism, of course. But the answer is not to be found in some re-racialized version of European social democracy. The West is falling behind because too many of our people refuse to contribute to the common civilizational project, being more interested in personal fulfillment than properly directed communal sacrifice, whether in building up businesses, engaging in activities which advance scientific knowledge and technology, or even just producing children. The constant question in human affairs is Who Will Rule? Our modern answer is that we in the West are only too happy to let others rule us. A foolish choice. --- QUARRY BANK MILL ... was built in 1784 by Samuel Greg, a merchant, who found profit in supplying cotton thread to Lancashire’s weavers. The raw cotton shipped from America’s slave plantations was processed on the latest machinery, Richard Arkwright’s water frame. Later Greg extended the factory and installed coal-fired steam engines to add to the water power from the Bollin. All this gave a huge boost to productivity. In 1700 a spinster with a pedal-driven spinning wheel might take 200 hours to produce a pound of yarn. By the 1820s it would take her around an hour. Greg’s mill was part of a revolution in industry that would profoundly alter the world’s pecking order. The new technologies—labour-saving inventions, factory production, engines powered by fossil fuels—spread to other parts of western Europe and later to America. The early industrialisers (along with a few late developers, such as Japan) were able to lock in and build on their lead in technology and living standards. The “great divergence” between the West and the rest lasted for two centuries. The mill at Styal, once one of the world’s largest, has become a museum. A few looms, powered by the mill’s water wheel, still produce tea towels for the gift shop, but cotton production has long since moved abroad in search of low wages. Now another historic change is shaking up the global hierarchy. A “great convergence” in living standards is under way as poorer countries speedily adopt the technology, know-how and policies that made the West rich. China and India are the biggest and fastest-growing of the catch-up countries, but the emerging-market boom has spread to embrace Latin America and Africa, too. And the pace of convergence is increasing. Debt-ridden rich countries such as America have seen scant growth since the financial crisis. The emerging economies, having escaped the carnage with only a few cuts and grazes, have spent much of the past year trying to check their economic booms. The IMF forecasts that emerging economies as a whole will grow by around four percentage points more than the rich world both this year and next. If the fund is proved right, by 2013 emerging markets (on the IMF’s definition) will produce more than half of global output, measured at purchasing-power parity (PPP). One sign of a shift in economic power is that investors expect trouble in rich countries but seem confident that crises in emerging markets will not recur. Many see the rich world as old, debt-ridden and out of ideas compared with the young, zestful and high-saving emerging markets. The truth is more complex. One reason why emerging-market companies are keen for a toehold in rich countries is that the business climate there is far friendlier than at home. But the recent succession of financial blow-ups in the rich world makes it seem more crisis-prone. The American subprime mess that turned into a financial disaster had the hallmarks of a developing-world crisis: large capital inflows channelled by poorly regulated banks to marginal borrowers to finance a property boom. The speed at which bond investors turned on Greece, Ireland and then Portugal was reminiscent of a run on an overborrowed emerging economy. Because there is as yet no reliable and liquid bond market in the emerging world to flee to, scared investors put their money into US Treasury bonds and a few other rich-country havens instead. So few are the options that even a ratings downgrade of American government debt in August spurred buying of the derided Treasuries. Indeed the thirst in emerging markets for such safe and liquid securities is one of the deeper causes of the series of crises that has afflicted the rich world. Developing countries bought rich-world government bonds (stored as currency reserves) as insurance against future crises. Those purchases pushed down long-term interest rates, helping to stoke a boom in private and public credit. Today’s faltering GDP growth is a hangover from that boom and adds to the sense of malaise in the rich world. Many households in America, Britain and elsewhere have taken to saving hard to reduce their debts. Those with spare cash, including companies, are clinging on to it as a hedge against an uncertain future. A new breed of emerging-market multinational firms, used to a tough business climate at home, seem keener to invest in the rich world than most Western firms, which have lost their mojo. People who grew up in America and western Europe have become used to the idea that the West dominates the world economy. In fact it is anomalous that a group of 30-odd countries with a small fraction of the world’s population should be calling the shots. For most of human history economic power has been determined by demography. In 1700 the world’s biggest economy (and leading cotton producer) was India, with a population of 165m, followed by China, with 138m. Britain’s 8.6m people produced less than 3% of the world’s output. Even in 1820, as the industrial revolution in Britain was gathering pace, the two Asian giants still accounted for half the world’s GDP. The spread of purpose-built manufactories like Quarry Bank Mill separated economic power and population, increasingly so as the West got richer. Being able to make a lot more stuff with fewer workers meant that even a small country could be a giant economic power. By 1870 the average income in Britain was six times larger than in India or China. But by the eve of the first world war Britain’s income per head had been overtaken by that of America, the 20th century’s great power. America remains the world’s biggest economy, but that status is under threat from a resurgent China. With hindsight, its change in fortune can be traced to 1976, the year of America’s bicentennial and the death of Mao Zedong. By then income per person in China had shrunk to just 5% of that in America, in part because of Mao’s extreme industrial and social policies. The average Indian was scarcely richer than the average Chinese. Both China and India had turned inward, cutting themselves off from the flow of ideas and goods that had made Japan and other less populous Asian economies richer. India’s economy, like China’s, was largely closed. Huge swathes of industry were protected from foreign competition by high import tariffs, leaving them moribund. China was first to reverse course. In 1978 Deng Xiaoping won approval for a set of economic reforms that opened China to foreign trade, technology and investment. India’s big liberalisation came a little later, in 1991. The GDP of China and India is many times bigger now than it was in the mid-1970s. In both economies annual growth of 8% or more is considered normal. Average living standards in China are still only a sixth and in India a fourteenth of those in America at PPP exchange rates, but the gap is already much smaller than it was and is closing fast. Moreover, the great convergence has spread beyond India and China. Three-quarters of biggish non-oil-producing poor countries enjoyed faster growth in income per person than America in 2000-07, says Arvind Subramanian, of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in his new book, “Eclipse: Living in the Shadow of China’s Economic Dominance”. This compares with 29% of such countries in 1960-2000. And those economies are catching up at a faster rate: average growth in GDP per person was 3.3 percentage points faster than America’s growth rate in 2000-07, more than twice the difference in the previous four decades. If emerging markets keep on growing three percentage points a year faster than America (a conservative estimate), they will account for two-thirds of the world’s output by 2030, reckons Mr Subramanian. Today’s four most populous emerging markets—China, India, Indonesia and Brazil—will make up two-fifths of global GDP, measured at PPP. The combined weight in the world economy of America and the European Union will shrink from more than a third to less than a quarter. Economic catch-up is accelerating. Britain’s economy doubled in size in the 32 years from 1830 to 1862 as increased productivity spread from cotton to other industries. America’s GDP doubled in only 17 years as it overtook Britain in the 1870s. The economies of China and India have doubled within a decade. This is cause for optimism. An Indian with a basic college education has access to world-class goods that his parents (who might have saved for decades for a sputtering scooter) could only have dreamed of buying. The recent leap in incomes is visible in Chinese cities, where the cars are new but the bicycles look ancient, and in the futuristic skyline of Shanghai’s financial district. China is still a fairly poor country but, by dint of its large population, it is already the world’s second-largest economy measured in current dollars. It may overtake America as the world’s leading economy within a decade (see box), a prospect that has given rise to many concerns in that country. More generally, there are worries about what the ascendancy of emerging markets would mean for jobs, pay and borrowing costs in the rich world. The first worry is about direct competition for things that are in more or less fixed supply: geopolitical supremacy, the world’s oil and raw materials, the status and perks that come with being the issuer of a trusted international currency. For most people, most of the time, their country’s ranking in terms of military power is not a big issue. The emerging world’s hunger for natural resources, on the other hand, has made rich-world consumers palpably worse off by pushing up the prices of oil and other commodities. The yuan’s increased use beyond China’s borders is a (still distant) threat to the dollar’s central role in trade and international finance, but if the dollar were eventually shoved aside, it would make Americans poorer and raise the cost of their borrowing. A second set of anxieties relates to job security and pay. Ever stronger trade links between rich and would-be rich countries will mean a reshuffle in the division of labour around the world, creating new jobs and destroying or displacing existing ones. Low-skilled manufacturing and middle-skilled service jobs that can be delivered electronically have been outsourced to cheaper suppliers in China, India and elsewhere (indeed, China is now rich enough to be vulnerable to losing jobs to Vietnam and Indonesia). The threat of outsourcing puts downward pressure on pay, though most American studies suggest that trade accounts for only a small part of the increase in wage inequality. A third concern, which is at odds with the first two, is that the emerging markets are prone to crises that can cause a still-fragile world economy to stumble. Sluggish GDP growth in the rich world means developing countries have to fall back on internal spending, which in the past they have not managed well. It raises the risks of the overspending, excessive credit and inflation that have spurred past emerging-market crises. Even if crises are avoided, emerging markets are prone to sudden slowdowns as they become richer and the trick of shifting underemployed rural migrants to urban jobs becomes harder to repeat. The rapid growth rates of the recent past are unlikely to be sustained. Few forecasters expect America to be a poorer place in ten or 20 years’ time than it is now. The present may be grim, but eventually the hangover from the financial crisis will fade and unemployment will fall. What rich Western countries face is a relative economic decline, not an absolute fall in average living standards (though a few of their citizens may become worse off). That matters politically, because most people measure their well-being by how they are doing in relation to others rather than by their absolute level of income. The effect of the loss of top-dog status on the well-being of the average American is unlikely to be trivial. Britain felt similar angst at the beginning of the 20th century, noting the rise of Germany, a military rival. It seemed stuck with old industries, such as textiles and iron, whereas Germany had advanced into fields such as electricals and chemicals. That Britain was still well off in absolute terms was scant consolation. The national mood contrasted starkly with the triumphalism of the mid-19th century, says Nicholas Crafts of Warwick University. A wave of protectionist sentiment challenged the free-trade consensus that had prevailed since 1846. It was seen off, but not before it had split the Tory party, which lost the 1906 election to the Liberals. No country, or group of countries, stays on top forever. History and economic theory suggest that sooner or later others will catch up. But this special report will caution against relying on linear extrapolation from recent growth rates. Instead, it will suggest that the transfer of economic power from rich countries to emerging markets is likely to take longer than generally expected. Rich countries will be cursed indeed if they cannot put on an occasional growth spurt. China, for its part, will be lucky to avoid a bad stumble in the next decade or two. Emerging-market crises have been too quickly forgotten, which only makes them more likely to recur. Education and social security will have to adapt to a world in which jobs continue to be created and displaced at a rapid rate. The cost of oil and other commodities will continue to rise faster than prices in general, shifting the terms of trade in favour of resource-rich countries and away from big consumers such as America. The yuan will eventually become an international currency and rival to the dollar. The longer that takes, the less pressure America will feel to control its public finances and the likelier it is that the dollar’s eclipse will be abrupt and messy.
11562251451317523792A couple of yeas ago I posted what I thought were some interesting and provocative comments to samizdata. Of course, they were removed without any real justification. Obviously, de Haviland is an excruciatingly PC fool. "Samizdat"? A better and appropriately ironic name for his site would be "Pravda".
11564051451317579910Not relevant to this post except generally, but I strongly suggest people read [i]The Economist[/i] article I pasted to the recent anti-jihadist thread.
11565351451317599379[i]Hayekian liberalism is a cause of the coming misery, since it makes man Economic Man, detaches him from his kin, his soil, his race, and offers not liberty but divestment of human meaning. The main cause, of course, is the swindle of sovereign debt. Greece owes nothing. The “debt” is created digitally and can be repaid in full this afternoon in five minutes at the computer keyboard. The swindle only stands because the Money Power rules politics.[/i] (Piggott) A good biographical essay on Ludwig von Mises, the greatest economist of them all, and teacher to Hayek, in an easier to read format than the link I posted to yesterday: http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard272.html Learn [i]something[/i], please. I, too, oppose the idolatry of [i]homo economicus[/i], and the privileging of man the consumer over other aspects of the full human being. But objectionably ideologizing economics does not annul economic truth! The coming misery is hardly the fault of those who wish for governments to live within their means, or who emphasize the commonplace point, understood by all men nearly instinctively before the coming of Keynesian and socialist fallacies, that production must precede and exceed parasitism. By all means, let us destroy central (government cartelized) banking, as well as private fractional reserve banking. These are the real swindles. We must return to a strict 100% gold standard (exactly as Ron Paul and the Misesians argue for), which will end all but localized inflation, as well as macroeconomic business cycles (it was Hayek who played the leading role in demonstrating this back in the 30s, Piggott!!). But doing so in no way obviates the real debts of Greece. The Greek government took enormous loans from Western bankers, often doing so on the basis of deliberately mendacious economic statistics. They then blew that money on current consumption through the mechanism of the pathologically corrupt Greek public sector, which employs half of the Greek "workforce". Thus far, there has been not the slightest public sector reform: not even a single Greek civil servant has been fired! Meanwhile, how will those loans be recouped? One way or he other, if not from the Greek parasites, then from other, more responsible peoples, very much including American investors in American financial companies which in turn hold European bank stock and debt. The mechanism can be direct investor losses; EU taxpayers; or EU citizens via inflation following and sovereign debt monetization (or even Americans, because our own stupid, globalist Fed has lent money to the Europeans). Because I have invested in various American insurance and bank stocks which themselves have invested in European bank debt, as well as Greek sovereign debt, therefore I should be stiffed of my (aliquot share of corporate) money? Are you a fucking communist? A precise moral accounting (in accordance with traditional bourgeois financial principles) of the Greek fiasco would be difficult to do. There are many culprits (governments at several levels, and maybe private lenders to some extent - if they were being insufficiently risk-averse due to expectations of eventual taxpayer bailouts). One thing is certain, however. The Greeks are guilty as hell - and they must be made to pay their debts themselves (and not Aryan taxpayers in Germany or America, whether through taxation, debt defaults, more loans, or inflation!!). What ought to be done is a basic confiscation of most of Greece. The islands can be privatized, and sold to foreign investors, as can all manner of state assets. Public sector pension schemes can be eliminated, with tax monies thus being diverted to debt repayment. The Greeks themselves might wish to confiscate the assets of, and hang, the politicians who allowed for this festering mess. Just think about it this way. A man maxes out his credit cards, then refuses to (or literally cannot) pay. Do you blame the lender - or the cardholder? And should the latter simply be allowed to keep all his purchases, free of charge as it were? What kind of ethics is that? Many of you here are very confused about not only basic economics, but basic morality. But then, not being Christians, who cares about ethics, right?
11566151451317614544The proper way to view money (and the Money Power)(italics mine): Moreover, Mises revived the critical monetary insight of Ricardo and the British Currency School of the first half of the nineteenth century: that while money is a commodity subject to the supply-and-demand determination of value of any other commodity, it differs in one crucial aspect. Other things being equal, an increase in the supply of consumer goods confers a social benefit by raising living standards. But money, in contrast, has only one function: to exchange, now or at some time in the future, for capital or consumer goods. Money is not eaten or used as are consumer goods, nor used up in production as are capital goods. An increase in the quantity of money only serves to dilute the exchange effectiveness of each franc or dollar; it confers no social benefit whatever. In fact, [i]the reason why the government and its controlled banking system tend to keep inflating the money supply, is precisely because the increase is not granted to everyone equally. Instead, the nodal point of initial increase is the government itself and its central bank; other early receivers of the new money are favored new borrowers from the banks, contractors to the government, and government bureaucrats themselves. These early receivers of the new money, Mises pointed out, benefit at the expense of those down the line of the chain, or ripple effect, who get the new money last, or of people on fixed incomes who never receive the new influx of money. In a profound sense, then, monetary inflation is a hidden form of taxation or redistribution of wealth, to the government and its favored groups and from the rest of the population.[/i] Mises's conclusion, then, is that, once there is enough of a supply of a commodity to be established on the market as money, there is no need ever to increase the supply of money. This means that any supply of money whatever is "optimal"; and every change in the supply of money stimulated by government can only be pernicious. - Rothbard
11566651451317632323Maunder, You are so confused I wouldn't know where to begin a response (what you are going on about has nothing to do with Rothbard's point in the passage I copied above). I did look at the mostly ridiculous blog you linked, and in one recent entry calling for more ([i]more[/i]?!?) "stimulus", I left this comment: All true, no doubt, but where are you headed with this? "Stimulus"? WTF is that? You mean Obongo's 2009 $814 billion giveaway of precious capital to the state level public sector unions, so they could keep on consuming, despite their total lack of usefulness? I don't think very many on this rather ridiculous blog really understand much about economics [nb -applies to MR, too]. We in the West are now experiencing what conservatives long predicted: the crisis of the welfare/Keynesian interventionist state. Too many parasites, too few net wealth creators. Admittedly, too much financialization (itself the product of our dysfunctional statist system), and too little real production. Our only hope is : a. massive deregulation; b. elimination of unions (at least in the public sector); c. firing of several million govt "workers" (including hundreds of thousands of worthless, tenured leftist professors, esp the ones teaching Marxism); d. abolition of Fed + fractional reserve banking, and return to 100% gold dollar; e. comprehensive privatization (eg, why do we have govt airports?); f. auction of extraction rights to federal lands and seacoasts (eg, drill, baby, DRILL!!!); g. massive elimination of govt spending at all levels, esp outside of basic scientific research, law enforcement, and national defense/homeland security; h. end to foreign aid, most foreign bases (let Europeans pay their own damn defense bills), US involvement in IMF, World Bank and allied institutions; i. elimination of market efficiency reducing affirmative action programs; j. elimination of federal subsidization of "education", esp the "higher" type (a huge, ongoing waste of money, taxpayer and parental - re-allow corporations to test hires for IQ); k. get US out of Iraq and Afghanistan; l. put repatriated troops on the border with Mexico; m. deport all illegal aliens, and end all legal immigration of anyone without a scientific PhD; n. eliminate all taxation of businesses, as well as investment; o. institute a much lower flat tax, and radically simplify the tax code; p. NO MORE HARASSMENT OF BUSINESSES WITH THREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING HORSESHIT LEGISLATION. I just wrote this list off the top of my head. I do not mean to imply that it is comprehensive, but, if implemented as is, the US would be well on its way to a massive economic boom, with accelerating growth into the future. The problem is not free markets - but the LACK of them.
11567451451317646943[i]The purpose of the link was to highlight the critique of Ricardo. Which is why it wasn’t merely linked but extensively quoted and bolded. It’s a sound critique and you completely ignored it. That’s a habit of yours, Haller. Austrian economics is parasite economics, it’s just that the parasites are the money powers rather than public bureaucrats.[/i] (maunder) ---------------------------------- I don't really know why I bother ... First, the passage I excerpted from Rothbard on Mises on money had nothing to do with debt - the subject on which you extensively quoted. So why would I have discussed it? Second, I am no expert on Ricardo, nor do I intend to become one. I do know that Rothbard was not a follower of Ricardo: he thought the latter's "labor theory of value" a disaster, paving the way for Marxism. Rothbard is simply noting that Ricardo understood that money differed from all other commodities in that an increase in its supply confers no general benefit (as money). Are you disputing this? Third, your diatribe about starving families and liquid assets and optimality was likewise irrelevant to the Rothbard passage, and extremely confused. R's point was merely than any supply of money can be optimal: there is nothing outside of the market to determine such optimality, and that increasing the amount of money does not increase real wealth (obviously). Fairly straightforward stuff, which you needlessly "complexified". Fourth, re-reading the excerpt on Ricardo, I completely fail to see its relevance to any comment of mine. I'm not a Ricardian, nor do I think that debt levels have no effect on national competitiveness. Nor would any Austrian. Fifth, honestly, your paragraph on the starving families is a masterpiece of confusion - a pure straw man argument. How did these families get in this situation? What has that fact to do with Austrian economics? In a word, what was your point? (Indeed, what exactly was the thesis of the critique of Ricardo you excerpted?) Sixth, explain this statement of yours [i]Austrian economics is parasite economics, it’s just that the parasites are the money powers rather than public bureaucrats[/i] in light of the fact that Austrians are the world's leading critics of central (and fractional) banking. I don't think you (and others bloviating on The Money Power) actually have the faintest idea what you're talking about . Lastly, just to see whether you are merely confused, or a true socialist, what in my list of policy changes a. through p. to improve the economy (which you ignored), do you disagree with?
11567551451317649045[i]f. [u]auction of extraction rights to federal lands and seacoasts (eg, drill, baby, DRILL!!!)[/u]; I agree with all your itemata save this one. Here, indeed, you seem to be contradicting your own stated concern for environmental welfare, Haller. But quite apart from the environment, pumping more crude from the earth for use by car-/plane-obsessed Americans will not help them mature politically in the least. Let’s be square — what you outline amounts to a sort of forced maturation of the American project. Feeding their petrol habit with more drilling will only your retard efforts. Rather force manufacturers to adapt more to hybrids and electric, with a view toward ultimate re-adaptation to localism, thus curtailing long-distance travel by private citizens. Or you have to attach conditions to f. such as elimination of car racing, monster truck shows, motorcycle gangs, RVs over x size tank, adoption of Oregon-style emissions testing, etc. etc. But those are austerity and not Austrerity measures, which disrupts “are freedumb”, at which Americans have little experience. [/i](ANON/UH) --------------------------------------------- I'm talking about getting the economy moving again. Ideally, you may be correct, and certainly any abstract nationalist economics will wish to preserve the nation's soil, as well as its blood. But I'm talking about the real world, which includes building political coalitions to do the right thing (don't think that's hard? look at the invincible idiocy displayed about things economic around this site; the ignorance of the average voter is still more egregious). The economy-killing Leviathan state will not be deconstructed overnight; desocializing the USA, which is the only hope a mature economy has for rapid improvement, will be a long process, if it even gets started. So anything to help smooth the transitional period has a use, even if ideally there does need to be a greater alignment between the market and the biosphere in which the former is embedded. Energy is a huge input into the economy, and we have a lot of resources that govt regs are preventing from getting extracted. The price of greater pollution or whatever now is worth it, if it helps to overcome political resistance to the discombobulating pro-market changes that must be implemented for long-term prosperity.
11569551451317679413[i]Usury is not a legitimate way of making money.[/i] (Voight) Of course it is. Why would someone take the risk, and accept the cost, of lending money, if not for interest? An interest charge is the price for a loan. Those who give loans need to be compensated. Despite my Catholicism, it is my understanding that the Church's refusal to allow for usury during the Middle Ages - a position the great Spanish Scholastics later revealed to be not at all an inherent part of theological doctrine - was a key element in holding back the growth and expansion (and power) of Europe. Amazing how old errors never seem to stay refuted.
11570951451317688400On Juan de Mariana: http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/fronts/frontdemariana.htm http://mises.org/daily/3937
11574551451317737106Glorious, corruscating economic rationality ... (learn something, please, people) ... (Thank you, Murray) ... The Fallacy of the "Public Sector" by Murray N. Rothbard We have heard a great deal in recent years of the "public sector," and solemn discussions abound through the land on whether or not the public sector should be increased vis-à-vis the "private sector." The very terminology is redolent of pure science, and indeed it emerges from the supposedly scientific, if rather grubby, world of "national-income statistics." But the concept is hardly wertfrei; in fact, it is fraught with grave, and questionable, implications. In the first place, we may ask, "public sector" of what? Of something called the "national product." But note the hidden assumptions: that the national product is something like a pie, consisting of several "sectors," and that these sectors, public and private alike, are added to make the product of the economy as a whole. In this way, the assumption is smuggled into the analysis that the public and private sectors are equally productive, equally important, and on an equal footing altogether, and that "our" deciding on the proportions of public to private sector is about as innocuous as any individual's decision on whether to eat cake or ice cream. The State is considered to be an amiable service agency, somewhat akin to the corner grocer, or rather to the neighborhood lodge, in which "we" get together to decide how much "our government" should do for (or to) us. Even those neoclassical economists who tend to favor the free market and free society often regard the State as a generally inefficient, but still amiable, organ of social service, mechanically registering "our" values and decisions. One would not think it difficult for scholars and laymen alike to grasp the fact that government is not like the Rotarians or the Elks; that it differs profoundly from all other organs and institutions in society; namely, that it lives and acquires its revenues by coercion and not by voluntary payment. The late Joseph Schumpeter was never more astute than when he wrote, "The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind."[1] Apart from the public sector, what constitutes the productivity of the "private sector" of the economy? The productivity of the private sector does not stem from the fact that people are rushing around doing "something," anything, with their resources; it consists in the fact that they are using these resources to satisfy the needs and desires of the consumers. Businessmen and other producers direct their energies, on the free market, to producing those products that will be most rewarded by the consumers, and the sale of these products may therefore roughly "measure" the importance that the consumers place upon them. If millions of people bend their energies to producing horses-and-buggies, they will, in this day and age, not be able to sell them, and hence the productivity of their output will be virtually zero. On the other hand, if a few million dollars are spent in a given year on Product X, then statisticians may well judge that these millions constitute the productive output of the X-part of the "private sector" of the economy. One of the most important features of our economic resources is their scarcity: land, labor, and capital-goods factors are all scarce, and may all be put to various possible uses. The free market uses them "productively" because the producers are guided, on the market, to produce what the consumers most need: automobiles, for example, rather than buggies. Therefore, while the statistics of the total output of the private sector seem to be a mere adding of numbers, or counting units of output, the measures of output actually involve the important qualitative decision of considering as "product" what the consumers are willing to buy. A million automobiles, sold on the market, are productive because the consumers so considered them; a million buggies, remaining unsold, would not have been "product" because the consumers would have passed them by. Suppose now that into this idyll of free exchange enters the long arm of government. The government, for some reasons of its own, decides to ban automobiles altogether (perhaps because the many tailfins offend the aesthetic sensibilities of the rulers) and to compel the auto companies to produce the equivalent in buggies instead. Under such a strict regimen, the consumers would be, in a sense, compelled to purchase buggies because no cars would be permitted. However, in this case, the statistician would surely be purblind if he blithely and simply recorded the buggies as being just as "productive" as the previous automobiles. To call them equally productive would be a mockery; in fact, given plausible conditions, the "national product" totals might not even show a statistical decline, when they had actually fallen drastically. And yet the highly touted "public sector" is in even worse straits than the buggies of our hypothetical example. For most of the resources consumed by the maw of government have not even been seen, much less used, by the consumers, who were at least allowed to ride in their buggies. In the private sector, a firm's productivity is gauged by how much the consumers voluntarily spend on its product. But in the public sector, the government's "productivity" is measured — mirabile dictu — by how much it spends! Early in their construction of national-product statistics, the statisticians were confronted with the fact that the government, unique among individuals and firms, could not have its activities gauged by the voluntary payments of the public — because there were little or none of such payments. Assuming, without any proof, that government must be as productive as anything else, they then settled upon its expenditures as a gauge of its productivity. In this way, not only are government expenditures just as useful as private, but all the government need to do in order to increase its "productivity" is to add a large chunk to its bureaucracy. Hire more bureaucrats, and see the productivity of the public sector rise! Here, indeed, is an easy and happy form of social magic for our bemused citizens. The truth is exactly the reverse of the common assumptions. Far from adding cozily to the private sector, the public sector can only feed off the private sector; it necessarily lives parasitically upon the private economy. But this means that the productive resources of society — far from satisfying the wants of consumers — are now directed, by compulsion, away from these wants and needs. The consumers are deliberately thwarted, and the resources of the economy diverted from them to those activities desired by the parasitic bureaucracy and politicians. In many cases, the private consumers obtain nothing at all, except perhaps propaganda beamed to them at their own expense. In other cases, the consumers receive something far down on their list of priorities — like the buggies of our example. In either case, it becomes evident that the "public sector" is actually antiproductive: that it subtracts from, rather than adds to, the private sector of the economy. For the public sector lives by continuous attack on the very criterion that is used to gauge productivity: the voluntary purchases of consumers. We may gauge the fiscal impact of government on the private sector by subtracting government expenditures from the national product. For government payments to its own bureaucracy are hardly additions to production; and government absorption of economic resources takes them out of the productive sphere. This gauge, of course, is only fiscal; it does not begin to measure the antiproductive impact of various government regulations, which cripple production and exchange in other ways than absorbing resources. It also does not dispose of numerous other fallacies of the national product statistics. But at least it removes such common myths as the idea that the productive output of the American economy increased during World War II. Subtract the government deficit instead of add it, and we see that the real productivity of the economy declined, as we would rationally expect during a war. In another of his astute comments, Joseph Schumpeter wrote, concerning anticapitalist intellectuals, "capitalism stands its trial before judges who have the sentence of death in their pockets. They are going to pass it, whatever the defense they may hear; the only success a victorious defense can possibly produce is a change in the indictment."[2] The indictment has certainly been changing. In the 1930s, we heard that government must expand because capitalism had brought about mass poverty. Now, under the aegis of John Kenneth Galbraith, we hear that capitalism has sinned because the masses are too affluent. Where once poverty was suffered by "one-third of a nation," we must now bewail the "starvation" of the public sector. By what standards does Dr. Galbraith conclude that the private sector is too bloated and the public sector too anemic, and therefore that government must exercise further coercion to rectify its own malnutrition? Certainly, his standard is not historical. In 1902, for example, net national product of the United States was $22.1 billion; government expenditure (federal, state, and local) totaled $1.66 billion, or 7.1 percent of the total product. In 1957, on the other hand, net national product was $402.6 billion, and government expenditures totaled $125.5 billion, or 31.2 percent of the total product. Government's fiscal depredation on the private product has therefore multiplied from four to five-fold over the present century. This is hardly "starvation" of the public sector. And yet, Galbraith contends that the public sector is being increasingly starved, relative to its status in the nonaffluent 19th century! What standards, then, does Galbraith offer us to discover when the public sector will finally be at its optimum? The answer is nothing but personal whim: There will be question as to what is the test of balance — at what point may we conclude that balance has been achieved in the satisfaction of private and public needs. The answer is that no test can be applied, for none exists.… The present imbalance is clear.… This being so, the direction in which we move to correct matters is utterly plain.[3] To Galbraith, the imbalance of today is "clear." Clear why? Because he looks around him and sees deplorable conditions wherever government operates. Schools are overcrowded, urban traffic is congested and the streets littered, rivers are polluted; he might have added that crime is increasingly rampant and the courts of justice clogged. All of these are areas of government operation and ownership. The one supposed solution for these glaring defects is to siphon more money into the government till. But how is it that only government agencies clamor for more money and denounce the citizens for reluctance to supply more? Why do we never have the private-enterprise equivalents of traffic jams (which occur on government streets), mismanaged schools, water shortages, and so on? The reason is that private firms acquire the money that they deserve from two sources: voluntary payment for the services by consumers, and voluntary investment by investors in expectation of consumer demand. If there is an increased demand for a privately owned good, consumers pay more for the product, and investors invest more in its supply, thus "clearing the market" to everyone's satisfaction. If there is an increased demand for a publicly owned good (water, streets, subway, and so on), all we hear is annoyance at the consumer for wasting precious resources, coupled with annoyance at the taxpayer for balking at a higher tax load. Private enterprise makes it its business to court the consumer and to satisfy his most urgent demands; government agencies denounce the consumer as a troublesome user of their resources. Only a government, for example, would look fondly upon the prohibition of private cars as a "solution" for the problem of congested streets. Government's numerous "free" services, moreover, create permanent excess demand over supply and therefore permanent "shortages" of the product. Government, in short, acquiring its revenue by coerced confiscation rather than by voluntary investment and consumption, is not and cannot be run like a business. Its inherent gross inefficiencies, the impossibility for it to clear the market, will insure its being a mare's nest of trouble on the economic scene.[4]
11574651451317737206[And Part 2 (notice also how to write properly, and with clarity and style) ...] In former times, the inherent mismanagement of government was generally considered a good argument for keeping as many things as possible out of government hands. After all, when one has invested in a losing proposition, one tries to refrain from pouring good money after bad. And yet, Dr. Galbraith would have us redouble our determination to pour the taxpayer's hard-earned money down the rathole of the "public sector," and uses the very defects of government operation as his major argument! Professor Galbraith has two supporting arrows in his bow. First, he states that, as people's living standards rise, the added goods are not worth as much to them as the earlier ones. This is standard knowledge; but Galbraith somehow deduces from this decline that people's private wants are now worth nothing to them. But if that is the case, then why should government "services," which have expanded at a much faster rate, still be worth so much as to require a further shift of resources to the public sector? His final argument is that private wants are all artificially induced by business advertising, which automatically "creates" the wants that it supposedly serves. In short, people, according to Galbraith, would, if let alone, be content with nonaffluent, presumably subsistence-level living; advertising is the villain that spoils this primitive idyll. Aside from the philosophical problem of how A can "create" B's wants and desires without B's having to place his own stamp of approval upon them, we are faced here with a curious view of the economy. Is everything above subsistence "artificial"? By what standard? Moreover, why in the world should a business go through the extra bother and expense of inducing a change in consumer wants, when it can profit by serving the consumer's existing, uncreated wants? The very "marketing revolution" that business is now undergoing, its increased and almost frantic concentration on "market research," demonstrates the reverse of Galbraith's view. For if, by advertising, business production automatically creates its own consumer demand, there would be no need whatever for market research — and no worry about bankruptcy either. In fact, far from the consumer in an affluent society being more of a "slave" to the business firm, the truth is precisely the opposite: for as living standards rise above subsistence, the consumer gets more particular and choosy about what he buys. The businessman must pay even greater court to the consumer than he did before: hence the furious attempts of market research to find out what the consumers want to buy. There is an area of our society, however, where Galbraith's strictures on advertising may almost be said to apply — but it is in an area that he curiously never mentions. This is the enormous amount of advertising and propaganda by government. This is advertising that beams to the citizen the virtues of a product that, unlike business advertising, he never has a chance to test. If Cereal Company X prints a picture of a pretty girl declaiming that "Cereal X is yummy," the consumer, even if doltish enough to take this seriously, has a chance to test that proposition personally. Soon his own taste determines whether he will buy or not. But if a government agency advertises its own virtues over the mass media, the citizen has no direct test to permit him to accept or reject the claims. If any wants are artificial, they are those generated by government propaganda. Furthermore, business advertising is, at least, paid for by investors, and its success depends on the voluntary acceptance of the product by the consumers. Government advertising is paid for by means of taxes extracted from the citizens, and hence can go on, year after year, without check. The hapless citizen is cajoled into applauding the merits of the very people who, by coercion, are forcing him to pay for the propaganda. This is truly adding insult to injury. If Professor Galbraith and his followers are poor guides for dealing with the public sector, what standard does our analysis offer instead? The answer is the old Jeffersonian one: "that government is best which governs least." Any reduction of the public sector, any shift of activities from the public to the private sphere, is a net moral and economic gain. Most economists have two basic arguments on behalf of the public sector, which we may only consider very briefly here. One is the problem of "external benefits." A and B often benefit, it is held, if they can force C into doing something. Much can be said in criticism of this doctrine; but suffice it to say here that any argument proclaiming the right and goodness of, say, three neighbors, who yearn to form a string quartet, forcing a fourth neighbor at bayonet point to learn and play the viola, is hardly deserving of sober comment. The second argument is more substantial; stripped of technical jargon, it states that some essential services simply cannot be supplied by the private sphere, and that therefore government supply of these services is necessary. And yet, every single one of the services supplied by government has been, in the past, successfully furnished by private enterprise. The bland assertion that private citizens cannot possibly supply these goods is never bolstered, in the works of these economists, by any proof whatever. How is it, for example, that economists, so often given to pragmatic or utilitarian solutions, do not call for social "experiments" in this direction? Why must political experiments always be in the direction of more government? Why not give the free market a county or even a state or two, and see what it can accomplish? Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. [1] In the preceding sentences, Schumpeter wrote, The friction of antagonism between the private and the public sphere was intensified from the first by the fact that … the state has been living on a revenue which was being produced in the private sphere for private purposes and had to be deflected from these purposes by political force. (Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy [New York: Harper and Bros., 1942], p. 198) [2] Ibid, p. 144. [3] John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958), pp. 320–21. [4] For more on the inherent problems of government operations, see Murray N. Rothbard, "Government in Business," in Essays on Liberty (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y: Foundation for Economic Education, 1958), vol. 4, pp. 183–87.
11578851451317817624Graham, You've written some interesting and insightful stuff around the last several posts, but I can't help feeling there is a lot of mutually incomprehensible barbs being bruited about ... talking at cross purposes ... ('apples and oranges') ... I'd like to respond (to you and a few others) on matters of economics as well as the philosophical status of the individual, but I'm not exactly sure what there is for me to grapple with, as you keep destroying "straw-men"; eg, that all espousers of free market doctrines are, at bottom, anthropological liberals who (must?) hold to a belief in "self-authorship" or radical individuality, which you find factually/ontologically preposterous (I happen to agree with your rejection of the 'autonomous self'; I disagree with the notion that love of individual liberty, or preference for juridical equality, or empirical recognition of the superior economic productivity of free (individual-directed) markets, necessarily commits one to this appropriately criticized adolescent ontological atomism). So I have some clear-the-air questions. 1. Can one be a non-liberal supporter of free markets? 2. How would you describe your preferred political economy, and in what concretely does it consist? 3. Do you believe in any juridical realm of individual liberty or autonomy? 4. Even assuming the socially constituted 'self', do you see any merit in centuries of classical liberal criticism against arbitrary government, against unequal applications of laws, and in favor of strong private property rights, and limited government? 5. Is there any rough percentage of government spending of GDP beyond which you would hesitate to go (outside of national emergencies; eg, the Battle of Britain)? I could probably come up with many more such boundary-setting inquiries, but I don't wish to be presumptuous. Answering these will give me a better sense of where exactly you stand in relation to those of us you dismiss as mere "classical liberal racists" (not that that's a bad position in itself - I have just described Thomas Jefferson, and many of America's Founders).
11582751451317865767Brilliant comment from PF, early on. Sorry I failed to note it before. danielj, Although I am not a particular fan of Gary North, I dissent from your criticism of him. He is certainly neither senile nor stupid. He has also explored the relation between Scripture and economics as much as perhaps any living person. More significantly, I dissent from your comment re God not being a "fan" of free markets. God is not a [i]fan[/i] of anything human, except exhibitions of moral excellence. Moreover, Christianity is highly ideologically elastic; one can be a good Christian, and nevertheless adhere to a wide (but by no means unlimited) array of political systems. As a theologically liberal Catholic, I happen even to believe that men can be saved absent fidelity to Christ, based on right will or charitable character (so perhaps GW or Dr. Lister might be saved - maybe even Jimmy Marr, too, ... [i]maybe[/i] ... Linder, however, is either headed to Hell, or at least, again per my Catholicism, a long spell in Purgatory). But there are some economic systems closer to the Christian spirit, as well as more conducive to both Christian charity (that is, more enabling of the conditions for the exercise of Christian virtue), as well as maximizing resource efficiency. The free market fits both descriptors. Finally, two Biblical points. First, I do not accept the OT as literally true. I am not a fundamentalist. Nor do I pretend to be competent to evaluate your claim re Ancient Israel's alleged socialism ("tribal collectivism" might fit better), though I must say your claim is unfamiliar to me. Second, the OT was superseded with the coming of Christ. Thus, for example, the Jews are no longer "the Chosen" (sometimes expressed as "the Church is Israel now"). And what may have obtained in the specific context of ancient Israel, especially outside the realm of fundamental moral theology, is largely irrelevant to post-OT peoples, living under very different circumstances.
11569351461317678626Actually, Serrano, from what I've heard of him, was a deeply learned man. Alas, the only great event that 2012 will bring is a further collapse in the world economy (thanks to inflationist and anti-capitalist policies espoused by many here). I would also note, with so many conservatives of times past, that those who reject the true faith of our ancestors seem to have a difficult time maintaining their level-headedness.
11570251461317682932[i]Have you seen the typical woman from the Indian subcontinent? The term fugly is highly appropriate. What self-respecting European man would be attracted to them? To put it crudely who on Earth would want to copulate with one of them, let alone marry one and have children with them?[/i] (Lister) When I've seen docs about India, their women always seem pretty unattractive. Yet, in CA, amazingly, the bulk of "South Asian" women I come across are [i]really[/i] hot. I was just talking to two who were eating their lunch near me a few days ago. One was decent looking, the other, truly gorgeous. Perfect white features, but with dark skin. I've pondered this question before. Perhaps there has been genetic selection occurring in India for some time, with higher class females also being better looking? And perhaps it is the upper classes disproportionately moving to CA? Are the subcontinentals migrating to UK disproportionately lower class? Anyway, the really hideous women are the negroid subspecies. I would rank as follows: 1. whites 2. hispanics 3. Middle Eastern 4. subcontinent 5. East Asian 6. African/Abo But maybe that's just me. I find most Orientals extremely unattractive.
11570851461317688029I've seen innumerable hot Latinas. Think even in Hollywood: Jessica Alba, Eva Mendes, Jennifer Lopez, etc. Latinas seem to have more white blood on average than subcons. Not that there aren't lots of uglies - but I've seen millions of ugly white chicks, too... Actually, most nonwhite (and many white) women are ugly, come to think of it. What's depressing is when I see a hot white woman with a nonwhite, which is now a daily or hourly occurrence in CA. Death of the West - by extermination, or miscegenation? I continue to predict the latter.
11574851461317741549who da hottie? new MR contributor, I hope?
11576451461317769138(Of course Jessica Alba is Latina. Look at her, or look it up.) There is no issue on which I am more of an extremist than in my opposition to white female miscegenation. We need to popularize the term "reproductive treason". This woman should be treated exactly the way decent white women (very much including native Dutch) who fraternized with German troops were treated in the aftermath of WW2 (see Dutch film [i]Zwartboek[/i]).
11576551461317769227[i]anyone else notice how Johnson not infrequently publishes the homosexual James J. O’Meara?[/i] Who is that? Do you mean Michael O'Meara? Is the latter queer? Isn't Johnson queer himself?
11581051471317844832[I posted this on another thread, which perhaps is petering out.] Graham, You’ve written some interesting and insightful stuff around the last several posts, but I can’t help feeling there is a lot of mutually incomprehensible barbs being bruited about ... talking at cross purposes ... (’apples and oranges’) ... I’d like to respond (to you and a few others) on matters of economics as well as the philosophical status of the individual, but I’m not exactly sure what there is for me to grapple with, as you keep destroying “straw-men”; eg, that all espousers of free market doctrines are, at bottom, anthropological liberals who (must?) hold to a belief in “self-authorship” or radical individuality, which you find factually/ontologically preposterous (I happen to agree with your rejection of the ‘autonomous self’; I disagree with the notion that love of individual liberty, or preference for juridical equality, or empirical recognition of the superior economic productivity of free (individual-directed) markets, necessarily commits one to this appropriately criticized adolescent ontological atomism). So I have some clear-the-air questions. 1. Can one be a non-liberal supporter of free markets? 2. How would you describe your preferred political economy, and in what concretely does it consist? 3. Do you believe in any juridical realm of individual liberty or autonomy? 4. Even assuming the socially constituted ‘self’, do you see any merit in centuries of classical liberal criticism against arbitrary government, against unequal applications of laws, and in favor of strong private property rights, and limited government? 5. Is there any rough percentage of government spending of GDP beyond which you would hesitate to go (outside of national emergencies; eg, the Battle of Britain)? I could probably come up with many more such boundary-setting inquiries, but I don’t wish to be presumptuous. Answering these will give me a better sense of where exactly you stand in relation to those of us you dismiss as mere “classical liberal racists” (not that that’s a bad position in itself - I have just described Thomas Jefferson, and many of America’s Founders).
11581151471317845266Interesting post, Graham, nice to see your pedagogical traditionalism on display. One lacuna: where does Christian instruction fit in - you know, the metaphysical superstructure which guided your land for a thousand years, and was the 'deep background' to the bulk of British (and European) achievement? BTW, I am appalled by your 'educational system' as you have described it. Thank God I was educated in private Christian (albeit 'lay') schools in the 70s and 80s, before attending my Jewish (Ivy) university (all the Ivies are essentially Jewish, and have been since, I believe, at least the 60s, in case anybody is wondering).
11582851471317866290What were these 'reforms' of Shirley Williams? I ask only because I believe she is a Catholic, who, though progressive, does take her faith seriously. Even fairly liberal Catholics in the US have, if only as a matter of institutional inertia, generally not been at the forefront of facilitating Marxist pedagogicaL infiltration or influence.
11583851471317895025GW, I invite you, too, to consider the 5 questions I've posed to Dr. Lister. I think you're groping your way forward, on the right track, more or less. One problem, however, is that you're analyzing the economy from a non-scientific perspective, as you mention, that of EGI (of course, one clarificatory question pops up immediately: are you referring to white racial GI, or truly ethnic GI, and if the latter, what happens when, say, English and French GI, or German and Polish GI, etc, conflict?). So you are considering the economy instrumentally, as something elastic or amenable to rearrangement based on an outside standard (EGI) without seeming to recognize that there is a definite structure to economic behavior, that, among other significances, renders it a fit subject for discerning regularities which can form a body of knowledge. That is, economics is not merely descriptive of any particular set of political/legal arrangements; it has real, permanent, and universal truths to teach us. If such truths exist, as I strongly believe they do, you can ignore them in order to pursue some objective other than wealth maximization, but I think it important at least to learn what economics has to teach, in order to be aware of what the real costs of any given set of market constraints are likely to be. I do indeed think the Austrian School is correct, at least as a matter of value-free economics (discerning that structure of human action). This in no way necessarily entails my adoption of wealth maximization as the final standard for assessing the worth of particular economic and political arrangements, let alone of rabid and rootless libertarian ideology (Dr. Lister seems incapable of recognizing this point).
11582651481317863876anon/uh, Where the hell do you find this stuff?! And how? Do you have a regular job?
11599451481318339815Thanks for the book recommendation. I don’t read as much fiction now as I used to. Hard to know, especially with modern stuff, whether it’s crap before you buy it. At least with non-fiction, you know whether the topic is interesting and can guess from reviews or previous work whether the author is competent. I noticed, by the way, that the Amazon (and MR?) Alaric said the book was ‘vomit’. (DASEIN) Dasein, I would spend the bulk of your fiction time on the appropriately immortalized classics of our race. What contemporary writer produces [i]Heart of Darkness[/i] or [i]Nostromo[/i], [i]Bleak House[/i] or [i]Little Dorrit[/i], [i]The Devils[/i] or [i]The Brothers Karamazov[/i], [i]The Magic Mountain[/i] or [i]Doctor Faustus[/i], etc [i]ad infinitum[/i]? We are close to living in a literary dark age, where 'intellectuals' seriously consider Philip Roth to be the greatest living writer! I like Graham Greene, Iris Murdoch, and Cormac McCarthy among contemporaries or near-contemporaries. I'd like to read more Raspail besides his ingenious [i]Camp of the Saints[/i].
11588451491318080860[i]If that were to be the case, the Tea Party movement will have been completely sidelined. Look at the historical irrelevance of its “non-negotiable core beliefs”: 1. Illegal Aliens Are Here Illegally. 2. Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable. 3. Stronger Military Is Essential. 4. Special Interests Eliminated. 5. Gun Ownership Is Sacred. 6. Government Must Be Downsized. 7. National Budget Must Be Balanced. 8. Deficit Spending Will End. 9. Bail-Out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal. 10. Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must. 11. Reduce Business Income Taxes Are Mandatory. 12. Political Offices Available To Average Citizens. 13. Intrusive Government Stopped. 14. English As Core Language Is Required. 15. Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged. [u]You see what I mean[/u].[/i] (GW) ----------- No, I most certainly do not. That Tea Party list is excellent, and if actually implemented to some extent, would go a considerable way to renewing America as at least a semi-desirable place for the now-second-half of my life. Each of 1-15 is proper, necessary and correct (1 is rather redundant, of course, and God knows we need a #16: STOP LEGAL IMMIGRATION NOW). These principles are timeless and true. I'm beginning to think you don't understand the evil of neoliberalism at all, which is simply this: at least in its pseudo-conservative ([i]Wall Street Journal[/i]) version, [i]it works[/i]!!! Suck it up and deal with it. Free markets work, strong American military produces great, if indirect, benefits for Americans, widespread gun ownership helps us deal with feral negroids, the bourgeois verities never grow stale, etc. The problem is that neolib contains the seeds of its own destruction, in its failure to recognize human differentiation, and its concomitant belief that humans can all be decultured and deethnicized and thereby transformed into homogeneous citizen-consumers. That is its core fallacy. If the foolish apostles of globalization could be made to support international non-immigration, then international free trade and capital flows would indeed greatly increase the world's net wealth (while continuing to depress the wages of the Western world's proletariats). Neolib must be destroyed because it is lethal to white GI. It also harms working and poorer (and increasingly middle) classes in Western nations, by forcing them to compete with extremely downtrodden Third Worlders. Learn something, please. Western laboring classes have been economically annihilated by four factors: immigration (worker insourcing), managed trade, the growth of socialism (size, cost, and regulatory intrusiveness of government), and (central-bank generated) inflation. Solutions? 1. End all nonwhite immigration (deport illegals, seal Mexican border with military). 2. End inflation (and macroeconomic business cycles) by abolishing Federal Reserve and criminalizing private fractional reserve (fraudulent) banking, and redefining the dollar as a unit weight of gold. Abolish legal tender laws, too. 3. Deregulate private economy, privatize government activities, simplify tax code, eliminate all business taxation, open up constrained resource extraction, end affirmative action, and limit tort damages. Watch greatest boom in US history follow. 4. Changing trade is by far the most difficult and complex of this already very radical list. One can discourage future outsourcing, but interfering with existing corporate investments would be enormously destructive, especially at this time. Anyway, Tea Party is on right track, but inadequate due to silence on LEGAL immigration. These Wall St protesters are nothing but multicultural rabble who want to steal private wealth and redistribute it through the mechanism of communist government. Just looking at news footage is enough to see ENEMY written all over them.
11588551491318081726Instead of attacking the private market, the Right needs to stigmatize immigration (which would be correct economically, as well as politically). Joining this type of protest would be strategically discrediting to an almost unimaginable degree. I am really amazed at how stupid so many people are around here. Not necessarily in terms of basic IQ (not that I'm much impressed there, either), but in terms of ease of being suckered, whether by wild-eyed conspiracist nonsense, simpleminded scapegoating, mindbogglingly wrongheaded predictions, or complete strategic blindness. Or perhaps it's just extreme alienation from the Middle American mainstream. The glory of the TP is that it's fairly close to the white mainstream (if too conservative compared to the whole country). If the neoliberal consensus is to be broken constructively, it must happen on immigration. That is one issue where the Far Right has huge potential scope for influence and real (and useful) change. Confronting or breaking neolib on economic lines will only benefit Obama and the apostles of ever greater white to nonwhite wealth redistribution. As such, the Far Right would lose any influence it might have with normal whites.
11588951491318084836OK, here we go, good stuff from the Ziocons on these idiot Occupy Wall St types: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/eyewitness-history_595200.html Exactly as I'd thought. The neocons are useless for teleology, but they can be good for reporting.
11589551491318113067On the foolishness of regionalist 'nationalisms': I disagree with Stormfront in its neo-Nazism, even though I acknowledge (as any honest man must) the heavily disproportionate role that disproportionately intelligent, and thus wealthy, and thus influential - in finance, media and finally government - Jews have played in the dispossession of both white and Christian America. America is increasingly secular and nonwhite directly because of the role of liberal Jews in pushing those agendas. There is no advantage to white/Christian/Aryan/Southern/American/ and/or Western patriots ignoring this. On the other hand, expressing too much hatred for other groups can cross the line into unChristian rhetoric and behavior; it is also tactically foolish. The White Man is Ethical Man, which I regard as our glory, not as a weakness (though today our moral superiority over all other peoples is being used against us; the answer, however, is not to reject Christian morality, as the Nazis and neo-Europagans do, but to reform/increase the faith's understanding of the rightness of biologically and culturally distinct peoples living autonomously on their own ancestral soils). The case for the survival of the White nations is perfectly congruent with traditionalist Christianity, and we should use that to our advantage, as opposed to throwing it away in fits of anti-semitic or racist pique (which only make us repulsive in the eyes of the bulk of our fellow whites, esp those who are neither quite with us yet, nor self-hating PC fools). On another note, while I would strongly morally support any Southern (or any other white American) secessionist movement, I do think that particular focus is foolish and distracting, however, for the same reasons enunciated by the late Southerner, Dr. Samuel T. Francis, around a decade and a half ago. The primary issue in America (and the Occident) today is white racial survival. I am not a Southerner by birth or culture, though I still have family there. I have known a number of Southerner transplants out here in CA. Rest assured, I had far more in common with them culturally than I do with my own "native" Filipino and Latino neighbors, people who in some cases grew up within a few miles of me. Race is rooted in real biology, and that (genetic) bond is far stronger than mere mass culture, shared experiences, or same geography. The white American problems are common to all white Americans, and as we are gradually transformed into a national demographic minority, we need to think in national/racial terms to organize to protect our interests in this diversified, dysgenic and therefore declining country. Regionalist movements like Southern nationalism are merely stopgap or 'feel-good' lesser alternatives to what's really needed, which is ALL-AMERICAN WHITE NATIONALISM: a nationally organized, morally responsible, defensively racialist movement to end immigration, affirmative action, and welfare-based interracial wealth transfers, support tough-on-crime and pro-gun laws, and fight to maintain the traditional cultural understanding of the US as an Anglo-European Christian country in the face of relentless anti-white, secularist and multiculturalist agitation. All white Americans must recognize themselves as a unique nation. Emphasizing intra-white differences merely weakens us all. (posted at southernnationalist)
11589651491318114603I suspect you are right, Jimmy - though a lot of those OWS types look Jewish to me (just like the faces of the Sixties). BTW, all this economic collapse talk is just so much (never properly explicated) idiocy. The dollar is not going to collapse (maybe if it did it might be a good thing, in terms of building race-consciousness - though maybe not; tough to say). This is all just a matter of overspending, and now the inevitable need to cut way back, like nursing a hangover after a party. Expenditures must be brought back in line with productivity. True economic collapse only comes in the wake of natural disaster (historically, mainly plague or famine), or war. The one factor that is truly worrying, and thus that all libertarians, goldbugs, survivalists, etc ignore, is the economically obsolescent, human parasite army (eg, welfare created and receiving dysgenic minorities) we have allowed to fester in our midst. What happens when the welfare checks run out? That's when you get insurrection (war), and ensuing economic collapse. But bank failures leading to food riots? Who cares if Greece defaults - that means General Foods or ConAgra or Microsoft or 3M or ExxonMobil go under? How? Are some of you people that stupid and ignorant (yes, unfortunately)? There are going to have to be writedowns. The longer this is delayed in order to protect the oligopolistic Money Powers, the worse it will be. Yes, the euro will have to go. So what? That's a good thing, economically as well as politically and racially. I am more worried about inflation. The Fed's QE has merely delayed the sharp mini-depression that was needed to clean out the state-created waste of the housing boom and bust. At some point, interest rates must be sharply increased, or inflation will take off badly. So the choice will be between necessary significant deflation, and still much greater unemployment, or unprecedented inflation (and longer delays in the malinvestment cleansing process). The one answer to this is monetary tightening to prevent inflation, combined with radical deregulation and return to [i]laissez-faire[/i] in order to pump up real economic growth as much as possible. I fear the politicians are not wise enough to understand this.
11590151491318118217The OWS people are their own worst enemies. They are attacking the PRIVATE sector - the source of wealth creation. Why aren't they attacking Washington, the White House, the Fed? This is a leftist movement of disappointed leftist assholes finding no job market for "gay youth coordinators" who want to loot the private wealth of people like me who have always lived responsibly and frugally. How dare they blame the wealth creators? Why not blame the real wealth destroyers in government regulatory agencies? Why not blame the Third World immigrants coming into the country in the millions, competing for precious jobs and lowering native born wage rates? Rightists had better transform this 'narrative' into one about the costs of socialism and diversity, or the Left will use this crisis as FDR did, to push the country further into socialism and ruin. Where is Pinochet when he's needed?
11590751491318122991[i]The Tea Party is party politics. It protests “Washington”, ie “the left”. That means it observes the usual political conventions. It is wrapped and bound in the default liberalism of the rest of the political system. The Occupy phenomenon is extra-political - it protests capitalism - but it is not metapolitical. That is, it functions outside the political system as a challenge to that system, but it is still situated within the liberal paradigm. Anarchism and anti-capitalism are rooted in the usual notions of radical individualism and fairness. Nationalism, however, is genuinely metapolitical. It does not exist within the liberal paradigm, is anti-liberal, anti-egalitarian, often anti-democratic. I only mention this to help you grasp why, to so many here, your economism is pointless and establishmentarian.[/i] (GW) -------------- I did not say "salvation lies with the TP", merely that it is a force for good that really would make America better if empowered. It would not, however, stop the immigration invasion, the [i]sine qua non[/i] (along with either white secession + sovereignty, or a renewed white supremacism) for saving traditional America. Studying Austrian economics is a wonderful way to avoid getting suckered by a lot of economic nonsense, as studying racial science is for multiculi crap. I think I'm going to have to start my own blog, just so my wisdom can be made easily accessible. Increasingly, I think my approach (classical conservatism, Catholic natural law, plus sociobiological insights) is correct (though pragmatically, the Taylor approach re publicizing racial facts is best). The really basic issue is whether saving the white race requires the complete destruction of existing Western Civ, and whether that would be worth it (and something I personally would want), or whether matters can be turned around with only a minimum of violence, based on white awakening and lawful politicking.
11598951491318324258Why do I have to keep repeating myself?! My estimation of the intelligence of contributors here is getting lowered daily. Dr. Lister: What exactly do you disagree with in the following reiterated comment of mine? Start with that, so I have something to critique, and I will see if I cannot convince you of the superior merits of my position. "I’m beginning to think you don’t understand the evil of neoliberalism at all, which is simply this: at least in its pseudo-conservative ([i]Wall Street Journal[/i]) version, it works!!! Suck it up and deal with it. ... The problem is that neolib contains the seeds of its own destruction, in its failure to recognize human differentiation, and its concomitant belief that humans can all be decultured and deethnicized and thereby transformed into homogeneous citizen-consumers. That is its core fallacy. If the foolish apostles of globalization could be made to support international non-immigration, then international free trade and capital flows would indeed greatly increase the world’s net wealth (while continuing to depress the wages of the Western world’s proletariats). Neolib must be destroyed because it is lethal to white GI. It also harms working and poorer (and increasingly middle) classes in Western nations, by forcing them to compete with extremely downtrodden Third Worlders. Learn something, please. [b]Western laboring classes have been economically annihilated by four factors: immigration (worker insourcing), managed trade (globalization), the growth of socialism (size, cost, and regulatory intrusiveness of government), and (central-bank generated) inflation.[/b] Solutions? 1. End all nonwhite immigration (deport illegals, seal Mexican border with military). 2. End inflation (and macroeconomic business cycles) by abolishing Federal Reserve and criminalizing private fractional reserve (fraudulent) banking, and redefining the dollar as a unit weight of gold. Abolish legal tender laws, too. 3. Deregulate private economy, privatize government activities, simplify tax code, eliminate all business taxation, open up constrained resource extraction, end affirmative action, and limit tort damages. Watch greatest boom in US history follow. 4. Changing trade is by far the most difficult and complex of this already very radical list. One can discourage future outsourcing, but interfering with existing corporate investments would be enormously destructive, especially at this time. Anyway, Tea Party is on the right track, but inadequate due to silence on LEGAL immigration. These Wall St protesters are nothing but multicultural rabble who want to steal private wealth and redistribute it through the mechanism of communist government. Just looking at news footage is enough to see ENEMY written all over them." All you ever talk about are the "classical liberal normative assumptions" of free markets. OK, so what exactly would your political economy look like? Let's get specific. How would you get your country or mine out of the economic doldrums? Heidegger and 'deep challenges' to liberal ontology are all well and good, but what actual legislative changes issue from them? Others who presume to criticize free markets feel free to join in.
11599051491318326103HAYEK NOT A RADICAL LIBERTARIAN (Lister and others might wish to read this): Why Mises (and not Hayek)? by Hans-Hermann Hoppe Let me begin with a quote from an article that my old friend Ralph Raico wrote some 15 years ago: [i]Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek are widely considered the most eminent classical liberal thinkers of this century. They are also the two best known Austrian economists. They were great scholars and great men. I was lucky to have them both as my teachers.… Yet it is clear that the world treats them very differently. Mises was denied the Nobel Prize for economics, which Hayek won the year after Mises's death. Hayek is occasionally anthologized and read in college courses, when a spokesman for free enterprise absolutely cannot be avoided; Mises is virtually unknown in American academia. Even among organizations that support the free market in a general way, it is Hayek who is honored and invoked, while Mises is ignored or pushed into the background.[/i] I want to speculate — and present a thesis — why this is so and explain why I — and I take it most of us here — take a very different view. Why I (and presumably you) are Misesians and not Hayekians. My thesis is that Hayek's greater prominence has little if anything to do with his economics. There is little difference in Mises's and Hayek's economics. Indeed, most economic ideas associated with Hayek were originated by Mises, and this fact alone would make Mises rank far above Hayek as an economist. But most of today's professed Hayekians are not trained economists. Few have actually read the books that are responsible for Hayek's initial fame as an economist, i.e., his [i]Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle[/i] and his [i]Prices and Production[/i]. And I venture the guess that there exist no more than 10 people alive today who have studied, from cover to cover, his [i]Pure Theory of Capital[/i]. Rather, what explains Hayek's greater prominence is Hayek's work, mostly in the second half of his professional life, in the field of political philosophy — and here, in this field, the difference between Hayek and Mises is striking indeed. My thesis is essentially the same one also advanced by my friend Ralph Raico: Hayek is not a classical liberal at all, or a "Radikalliberaler" as the NZZ, as usual clueless, has just recently referred to him. Hayek is actually a moderate social democrat, and since we live in the age of social democracy, this makes him a "respectable" and "responsible" scholar. Hayek, as you may recall, dedicated his[i] Road to Serfdom[/i] to "the socialists in all parties." And the socialists in all parties now pay him back in using Hayek to present themselves as "liberals." Now to the proof, and I rely for this mostly on the [i]Constitution of Liberty[/i], and his three volume [i]Law, Legislation, and Liberty[/i] which are generally regarded as Hayek's most important contributions to the field of political theory. According to Hayek, government is "necessary" to fulfill the following tasks: not merely for "law enforcement" and "defense against external enemies" but "in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided, or cannot be provided adequately, by the market." (Because at all times an infinite number of goods and services exist that the market does not provide, Hayek hands government a blank check.) Among these goods and services are "protection against violence, epidemics, or such natural forces as floods and avalanches, but also many of the amenities which make life in modern cities tolerable, most roads … the provision of standards of measure, and of many kinds of information ranging from land registers, maps and statistics to the certification of the quality of some goods or services offered in the market". Additional government functions include "the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone"; government should "distribute its expenditure over time in such a manner that it will step in when private investment flags"; it should finance schools and research as well as enforce "building regulations, pure food laws, the certification of certain professions, the restrictions on the sale of certain dangerous goods (such as arms, explosives, poisons and drugs), as well as some safety and health regulations for the processes of production; and the provision of such public institutions as theaters, sports grounds, etc."; and it should make use of the power of "eminent domain" to enhance the "public good." Moreover, it generally holds that "there is some reason to believe that with the increase in general wealth and of the density of population, the share of all needs that can be satisfied only by collective action will continue to grow." Further, government should implement an extensive system of compulsory insurance ("coercion intended to forestall greater coercion"), public, subsidized housing is a possible government task, and likewise "city planning" and "zoning" are considered appropriate government functions — provided that "the sum of the gains exceed the sum of the losses." And lastly, "the provision of amenities of or opportunities for recreation, or the preservation of natural beauty or of historical sites or scientific interest … Natural parks, nature-reservations, etc." are legitimate government tasks. In addition, Hayek insists we recognize that it is irrelevant how big government is or if and how fast it grows. What alone is important is that government actions fulfill certain formal requirements. "It is the character rather than the volume of government activity that is important." Taxes as such and the absolute height of taxation are not a problem for Hayek. Taxes — and likewise compulsory military service — lose their character as coercive measures, if they are at least predictable and are enforced irrespective of how the individual would otherwise employ his energies; this deprives them largely of the evil nature of coercion. If the known necessity of paying a certain amount of taxes becomes the basis of all my plans, if a period of military service is a foreseeable part of my career, then I can follow a general plan of life of my own making and am as independent of the will of another person as men have learned to be in society. But please, it must be a proportional tax and general military service! I could go on and on, citing Hayek's muddled and contradictory definitions of freedom and coercion, but that shall suffice to make my point. I am simply asking: what socialist and what green could have any difficulties with all this? Following Hayek, they can all proudly call themselves liberals. In distinct contrast, how refreshingly clear — and very different — is Mises! For him, the definition of liberalism can be condensed into a single term: private property. The state, for Mises, is legalized force, and its only function is to defend life and property by beating antisocial elements into submission. As for the rest, government is "the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisonment. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom." Moreover (and this is for those who have not read much of Mises but invariably pipe up, "but even Mises is not an anarchist"), certainly the younger Mises allows for unlimited secession, down to the level of the individual, if one comes to the conclusion that government is not doing what it is supposed to do: to protect life and property. And the older Mises never repudiated this position. Mises, then, as my own intellectual master, Murray Rothbard, noted, is a [i]laissez-faire[/i] radical: an extremist. ------------ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian School economist and anarchocapitalist philosopher, is professor emeritus of economics at UNLV, a distinguished fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and founder and president of The Property and Freedom Society.
11601651501318420974Along with the charge of genocide (leveled against Blair and Brown, of course, but who else? Major? Thatcher? (God, have some decency!), Cameron?), will there also be charges of treason?
11600151511318385293"We are called socialists." If the shoe fits ... EXTERMINATE THE FOOT WEARING IT! Actually, I think this evil OWS movement of multicultural communists will have two wonderfully invigorating effects: first, it will help to remobilize good Middle American Tea Party types, who may have found their energy flagging in recent months; and second, it will marginalize all the various "anti-capitalists of the Right" (racialists and Christians), as those of us white Americans who also have direct personal stakes in the free enterprise system start getting aggressive in its defense, and telling those who want to look for Third Ways, or to incorporate social (read "socialist") justice into critiques of the multiculti NWO, to go join the 'diverse' rabble and public union goons in downtown NYC, and stay away from the True Right. In the USA, white Americans bankroll the PC dispossessionist regime. We don't have to, and now white America is hurting economically as never before in my lifetime. Do not fuck with a man's woman, or his property. The war that is coming will pit the heavily white private sector, against the parasitic and disproportionately nonwhite public sector. White Capitalism v Multicultural Socialism. No middle ground, no Third Way. You are with us, or against us. I have been waiting for this conflict all my life. Yes!
11601851511318423505How little you European idiots understand America! (If Reloader or Shaw are Americans, they are simply beyond clueless - maybe inmates in an asylum or something similar. Come the rightist revolution, such types will be liquidated very quickly, I assure you. We, the great mass of Middle American patriots, the real Americans, cannot and will not have the white prison/criminal class polluting the nationalist movement, and marginalizing our growth potential. That has happened too much in the past, which is why even responsible anti-immigrationists have a hard time making headway.) In this country, people believe in private property. Of those who do not, [b]99.9%[/b] are also on the multicultural, anti-racist, anti-fascist Left. That is an empirical assertion. Go visit one of these OWS sit-ins, and start talking about white EGI. See how far you get before you are booed, threatened, or asked to leave the vicinity. In the USA, there is no place for a non-private property Right. Who, exactly, would your base be?! Where are the masses of whites who are both anti-capitalist fools, as well as racial nationalists?[i] They don't exist, suckers![/i] There is no possible alignment with these OWS hoodlums. Believe me, [i]they would not want any of you anywhere near them[/i]! This is the hardcore, public sector parasite Left, trying to distract the conversation away from working people (real ones, which very much includes private sector business owners, corporate executives, professionals of all kinds - and not you fascist buffoons) recognizing how badly the vampire government screws them over. The American government is the enemy of white America both racially and economically. While I am no friend of the Federal Reserve system, and believe in the return to a gold standard, I, and tens of millions of my fellow conservatives, have direct stakes in the corporate capitalist economy - the white economy! We have worked hard to achieve and amass what we have, and believe me, we are getting very tired of this shitty, leftist-enervated economy, and Obama-depressed equities market. I hate both the Fed, and the criminals at Goldman Sachs, who greatly harmed me in 2008. That said, there is a world of difference between the GS bloodsuckers, and the millions of hardworking Americans who enable our corporate economy to function, and who want it to be successful, so that we can rebuild our battered portfolios. These OWS cockroaches threaten the very integrity of the markets, and I, and many others (a broad cross section, apparently, as I was just speaking to a friend about this, who in turn had been discussing the OWS with some of his all-white shooting pals, some professional, others working class, this past weekend; absolute disgust and hostility were universal), really would have no objection to seeing them all arrested (or, my preference, crushed by APCs and tanks, in the manner of Tiananmen Sq, with maximum bloodshed). But anyway, you speak for dozens, I, for millions. I really hope these OWS protests get out of hand, polarizing the country, forcing people to choose sides. On one side, vast numbers of normal, conservative white people, worried over their investments, jobs, and futures. On the other, racial minorities of all kinds, socialists, public sector union thugs, permanent homeless bums, welfare parasites, underclass hoodlums, anarchists, homosexuals, feminists, liberal academics, and Democrat politicians - and a microscopic number of neo-Nazis ("hey, we're socialists, too!")! We'll see who hangs, we surely will. The only good socialist is a dead socialist.
11601951511318424432Lister, You have trouble understanding things, don't you? Most conservatives dislike Goldman (which heavily bankrolled Obama in 08), and hated the banker bailouts and TARP of 2008-9. The OWS protests have nothing whatsoever to do with those issues. They are conducted and coordinated by radical leftists and public sector unions trying to steer the public conversation away from ordinary persons noting how badly the private market economy has been crushed by government intervention, interventions favoring the Left, and paid for by the Right. OWS are trying to fundamentally challenge what's left of our free market economy, after 100 years of American socialist assaults (begun in 1913, the year which saw both the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the inauguration of the fed income tax) have left us impoverished and ruined. You don't respond to what I write because you either don;t understand the issues, or you do, and know I'm right, but hate to admit it. I will repost yet again what you flee from addressing.
11602051511318424574Why do I have to keep repeating myself?! My estimation of the intelligence of contributors here is getting lowered daily. Dr. Lister: What exactly do you disagree with in the following reiterated comment of mine? Start with that, so I have something to critique, and I will see if I cannot convince you of the superior merits of my position. “I’m beginning to think you don’t understand the evil of neoliberalism at all, which is simply this: at least in its pseudo-conservative (Wall Street Journal) version, it works!!! Suck it up and deal with it. ... The problem is that neolib contains the seeds of its own destruction, in its failure to recognize human differentiation, and its concomitant belief that humans can all be decultured and deethnicized and thereby transformed into homogeneous citizen-consumers. That is its core fallacy. If the foolish apostles of globalization could be made to support international non-immigration, then international free trade and capital flows would indeed greatly increase the world’s net wealth (while continuing to depress the wages of the Western world’s proletariats). Neolib must be destroyed because it is lethal to white GI. It also harms working and poorer (and increasingly middle) classes in Western nations, by forcing them to compete with extremely downtrodden Third Worlders. Learn something, please. [b]Western laboring classes have been economically annihilated by four factors: immigration (worker insourcing), managed trade (globalization), the growth of socialism (size, cost, and regulatory intrusiveness of government), and (central-bank generated) inflation.[/b] Solutions? 1. End all nonwhite immigration (deport illegals, seal Mexican border with military). 2. End inflation (and macroeconomic business cycles) by abolishing Federal Reserve and criminalizing private fractional reserve (fraudulent) banking, and redefining the dollar as a unit weight of gold. Abolish legal tender laws, too. 3. Deregulate private economy, privatize government activities, simplify tax code, eliminate all business taxation, open up constrained resource extraction, end affirmative action, and limit tort damages. Watch greatest boom in US history follow. 4. Changing trade is by far the most difficult and complex of this already very radical list. One can discourage future outsourcing, but interfering with existing corporate investments would be enormously destructive, especially at this time. Anyway, Tea Party is on the right track, but inadequate due to silence on LEGAL immigration. These Wall St protesters are nothing but multicultural rabble who want to steal private wealth and redistribute it through the mechanism of communist government. Just looking at news footage is enough to see ENEMY written all over them.” All you ever talk about are the “classical liberal normative assumptions” of free markets. OK, so what exactly would your political economy look like? Let’s get specific. How would you get your country or mine out of the economic doldrums? Heidegger and ‘deep challenges’ to liberal ontology are all well and good, but what actual legislative changes issue from them? Others who presume to criticize free markets feel free to join in.
11602151511318425807The worthless Left: The Left's Nervous Breakdown Obama has failed, and his supporters are turning to nihilism. By JAMES TARANTO The White House is "bracing for the defeat of President Obama's jobs bill," the Hill reports. That's hardly surprising, since Republicans control the House--except that it is the Senate, where Democrats hold a majority, that is expected to vote down the $447 billion Stimulus Jr. plan. Unnamed White House officials "emphasized their view that it is Republicans who are holding up the . . . plan, and they downplayed Democratic defections," the report adds. "And officials warned that Republican presidential candidates who follow the lead of Congress . . . will be painted with the same brush as a GOP Congress that voted against the jobs bill at a critical time." Run for your lives, Republicans! Obama's got a brush! In contrast with the Hill's anonymous swaggerers, Obama adviser David Plouffe is downcast, ABC News reports: "Plouffe said today on 'Good Morning America' that it would be 'a tragedy' if the bill fails to pass." HotAir.com's Howard Portnoy notes that the tragic view of Obama's presidency is catching on among liberal commentators: Why are so many columnists beginning to refer to his presidency using the past tense? It's worth noting that these references are not by conservative bloggers engaging in wishful thinking. Rather, they are emanating from the liberal commentariat. Portnoy's examples include Ezra Klein's interminable Stimulus Sr. apologia in the Washington Post, titled "Could This Time Have Been Different?" as well as Drew Westen's much-ridiculed New York Times op-ed, "What Happened to Obama?" and a blog post by Mother Jones's Kevin Drum describing Klein's piece, which "looks back at the Obama administration's response to the Great Recession and explains why it wasn't enough." Portnoy observes: "What I believe is happening is that the left is reading the handwriting on the wall and resigning itself to the harsh reality [that] the man they trusted to 'fundamentally transform America' is on the verge of being unelected." We'd go a step further. Not only does Obama's re-election look to be in serious jeopardy, but his presidency has been an almost unmitigated disaster for progressive liberalism, nearly every tenet of which has been revealed to be untenable either practically, politically or both. Stimulus Sr. discredited Keynesian demand-side economics--the notion that the way to produce employment and growth is through massive government spending. The real tragedy is that even after blowing hundreds of billions of dollars, Obama and many other Democrats failed to learn the lesson. ObamaCare proved a political fiasco, showing that there are limits to Americans' willingness to tolerate the expansion of the welfare state. Because most provisions have not yet taken effect, the policy disaster is delayed and may be averted if either Congress repeals it in 2013 or the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional next year. The latter case would mark a huge legal defeat for liberalism. It would be the first time since the New Deal that the court has recognized a serious limitation on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Even something as small as Bank of America's recently announced $5-a-month debit-card fee is liberal policy failure. The fee is intended to recoup money lost by price controls on merchant fees included in last year's Dodd-Frank law. The power of unions has diminished, with Wisconsin, the first state to establish so-called collective bargaining for government employees, having abolished it. "Card check," which would have enabled unions to take over workplaces without approval by secret ballot, couldn't even get past a Democratic Congress. Neither could "cap and trade," the administration's plan to combat global warming--a phenomenon increasingly many Americans suspect is a hoax. The administration's only major success has been in the area of terrorism. Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki are dead, and long may they rot. But their deaths were not the result of progressive liberal policies. Except in the area of interrogation, the current administration has largely kept its predecessor's antiterror policies, albeit often reluctantly. We can think of just one area in which liberalism has enjoyed unambiguous success during the Obama years: gay rights. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 would not have become law with a Republican in the White House. The left got what it wanted in 2008: a liberal president with a sweeping agenda and big Democratic majorities capable of enacting it. The result has been a great and failed experiment in progressive politics and governance. In due course, one hopes, the left will absorb some lessons--but for now, they seem to be suffering a nervous breakdown. That is one way to understand why so much of the liberal establishment is rallying behind Krugman's Army, as the "Occupy Wall Street" protests are known. Everything they believe in has failed, so they are turning nihilistic. Sometimes the nihilism is good-naturedly goofy. The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson: "Occupy Wall Street and its kindred protests around the country are inept, incoherent and hopelessly quixotic. God, I love 'em. I love every little thing about these gloriously amateurish sit-ins." Vaginal monologist Eve Ensler, at the Puffington Host: "What is happening cannot be defined. It is happening. It is a happening." But there are menacing themes and tactics too. "We may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people," wrote former Enron adviser Paul Krugman last week. Krugman's New York Times colleague David Brooks notes that Adbusters, the magazine credited with the idea of the protests, was "previously best known for the 2004 essay, 'Why Won't Anyone Say They Are Jewish?'--an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy." The demonization of "bankers," "plutocrats" and "the 1%" echoes age-old anti-Semitic tropes. Politico reports that troops from Krugman's Army "are planning to protest at the homes of J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, businessman David Koch, hedge fund manager John Paulson, real estate developer Howard Milstein and News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch." Harassing people at home was a favorite tactic of Saul Alinsky and was also used by the extreme antiabortion group Operation Rescue in the 1990s, as the Los Angeles Times reported then. The People's House is a target too, reports the Daily Caller: During an evening meeting at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., protesters discussed plans to storm Capitol Hill Tuesday and create chaos inside and outside House and Senate office buildings. "We will have people going in over time into all the different doors of all the different buildings," said one of the organizers of the "Stop the Machine" movement to roughly 100 assembled protesters. . . . "We will have all variety of creative actions including packing the elevators and pushing all the buttons and not getting out and stopping the hallways that connect the building to the other buildings and the banner drops and the song singing and don't let them in the bathrooms and all the rest of it," the aforementioned organizer said. The Caller notes that " 'Stop the Machine' . . . is distinct from the Occupy D.C. movement currently occupying McPherson Square," although it seems to us that such distinctions are likely to be lost if, as so many establishmentarian liberals seem to be hoping, the left-wing protest movement continues to grow. "Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party," reports the New York Times: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party's powerful House fund-raising arm, is circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to declare that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests." The Center for American Progress, a liberal organization run by John D. Podesta, who helped lead Mr. Obama's 2008 transition, credits the protests with tapping into pent-up anger over a political system that it says rewards the rich over the working class--a populist theme now being emphasized by the White House and the party. The center has encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities. . . . He said Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012. "What attracts an organization like CAP to this movement is the idea that our country's economic policies have been focused on the very top and not on the bulk of America," Mr. Legum added. "That's a message we certainly agree with." What's their slogan going to be, "Smash the system--re-elect the president"? One "senior House Democratic official" tells the Times: "That's the danger with something like this--that you go from peaceful protests to throwing trash cans." Throwing trash cans is an unlikely way to effect change, but it's an even unlikelier way of preserving the status quo.
11602251511318426082[i] Is it another of those difficult, real-world, empirical observations to note that median American wages/incomes have been stagnant for 30 years or so?[/i] (Lister) But why has this occurred? (No one on the Right disputes this, btw. Both Murray Rothbard and Pat Buchanan had/have spoken of it for years.) Which is the primary culprit: a. immigration b. globalization c. government growth d. inflation e. capitalism itself? Explain yourself, please.
11605751511318507139Instead of standing arm in arm with communists, trying to restart old debates about freedom v socialism that were long ago settled, perhaps patriotic Britons should be focused on the real issues surrounding race, immigration etc: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047069/200-suicide-bombers-planning-attacks-living-Britain-intelligence-chiefs-warn.html
11609351511318595734[someone needs to restore the font commands as they were previously] Calling someone with my views 'liberal' betrays monumental ignorance of that aspect of the Western intellectual tradition. Ditto conflating value-free economics with libertarian (or rather different, and still more objectionable, neoliberal) ideology. I do not agree with the ideological position defended in the following (though I would hardly reject all such allegedly 'liberal virtues' out of hand, either), but it might prove a useful read for purposes of better 'situating' the discussion: ------------------------------------------- Finding Forster From the NOV-DEC 2010 issue | More Ian Buruma | October 20, 2010 Part I IN 1935, the stakes could not have been higher. Hitler ruled Germany. Mussolini had been in power for thirteen years. Civil war was brewing in Spain. Stalin was poised to begin his bloodiest purges in the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, in Paris, Louis Aragon, André Gide, Ilya Ehrenburg and other intellectuals organized an International Congress of Writers for the Defense of Culture. For the stakes of culture, too, were high, not least in Paris, where Ehrenburg, a fervent Communist, was beaten up in the street by André Breton, the surrealist writer, for having denounced all art that was not suitably proletarian. The defense of culture at the writers’ congress was in fact synonymous with the defense against fascism. That is, it was a conference firmly of the left. Ehrenburg had his little moment of vengeance; Breton was excluded. The English novelist E. M. Forster, one of the speakers at the Palais de la Mutualité (others included Heinrich Mann, Isaac Babel, Bertolt Brecht, Boris Pasternak and Tristan Tzara), soon got bored with the overheated leftist rhetoric. Forster recalled having “to sit through many eulogies of Soviet culture, and to hear the name of Karl Marx detonate again and again like a well-placed charge, and draw after it the falling masonry of applause.” No wonder his speech on the importance of free expression failed to excite the crowd of fellow intellectuals. He must have cut a quaintly old-fashioned figure, dressed in his tweed suit, talking about literature in a soft, reedy voice. The leftists regarded him as a bourgeois individualist, hopelessly out of touch with the important struggles of his time. In the account of one sympathetic observer: “It was as if the audience considered Mr. Forster and all his kind . . . already as extinct as the dodo.”1 In truth, Forster was anything but an old fuddy-duddy. His defense of literary freedom was sparked by a strong desire for sexual freedom, in his own case, freedom for homosexuals. But he was undeniably a champion of individual liberty rather than something so abstract as the people’s revolution. Forster was a liberal. Perhaps the term humanist would be better. “Liberalism” is open to conflicting interpretations. In the United States it is associated with leftism, and the view that the state should play a powerful role in building a more equal society. In Europe, the classic sense of liberalism means the exact opposite—conservative, laissez-faire economics. But liberalism for Forster and others of his ilk is as much a state of mind as a political program, something that might be described best in three key words: (individual) freedom, moderation and tolerance—themes that are much under attack these days, not just from Islamist and other religious fanatics, but also from some of those who have set themselves up as defenders of the West against the Islamic threat. IN 1935, as now, this type of liberalism was under fire from both political extremes. Though in our current moment—in the wake of the death of Marxism—certainly more from the right than the left. But the lines of attack are similar. First of all, from the radical point of view, moderation—toujours, pas trop de zèle, in the phrase of Talleyrand, avoid zeal at all costs—is soft, wishy-washy and hopelessly inadequate in the war against fascism, for the rebirth of the race, the reconquista of the true faith, the proletarian revolution or whatnot. There appears to be nothing heroic about moderation or tolerance; on the contrary, they are antiheroic. The liberal temperament lacks Romantic appeal. And the stress on individual liberty, instead of collective progress or national vigor, smacks of bourgeois complacency. A radical cause demands sacrifice. The typical bourgeois is assumed to be too addicted to his comfort to sacrifice anything, least of all his own life. I believe it was Werner Sombart (1863–1941), a German thinker of the early twentieth century, who coined the phrase Komfortismus, and he did not mean anything positive. It was certainly the French radical lawyer Jacques Vergès who once described social democracy as disgusting and debased because of its banality, its lack of grandeur.2 The search for happiness, he said, is typical of bourgeois social democracy, thus despicable. A radical leftist himself, Vergès was inspired in this attitude by one of the extreme right-wing assassins of Walter Rathenau, the liberal German foreign minister in the Weimar period. In the words of the murderer, a young naval officer: “I fight to give the people a destiny but not to give them happiness.” Here is the antiliberal stance in a nutshell. But liberalism is also denounced by others as a fraud; to their mind, liberals pretend to be tolerant and moderate, with a real agenda of protecting their own elitist interests. Tolerance, such antiliberals claim, suggests an attitude of superiority. You tolerate, but are not prepared to engage seriously with people and views you consider to be beneath you. And moderation is a deliberate ploy to neutralize radical critiques of the status quo, or indeed anything that might challenge the Komfortismus of the liberal elites. In fact, as Forster’s speech in Paris made clear, the case for individual freedom need be neither bourgeois nor complacent, with his stress on the importance of pleasure and the freedom to enjoy life, physically, spiritually as well as intellectually. When the Rolling Stones performed in Prague in 1990, less than a year after the Velvet Revolution ended Communist rule, Václav Havel and more than a hundred thousand fans celebrated the event as a liberation—from official puritanism, from bureaucratic oppression, from a tyranny over the human spirit. Tom Stoppard wrote a beautiful play inspired by this occasion called Rock ‘n’ Roll, cast in the form of a debate. On one side were those, like Havel himself, who saw rock music as an essential tool of liberation in an oppressive society: Mick Jagger and Frank Zappa sticking their tongues out at the commissars. Others saw the sensual pleasure of rock records (smuggled into the country at some risk) as a form of frivolous individualism, politically meaningless, a naive illusion. Only direct, political action would do. Stoppard’s play nicely echoed the Paris writers’ congress of 1935. The reason, however, that rock and roll was not trivial for Havel was his liberal conviction, which matched Forster’s, that the freedom to enjoy pleasure was as much worth fighting for as the freedom of opinion or belief. And his fight did involve serious self-sacrifice; he spent years in prison for sticking to his liberal principles. THE ANTILIBERAL case has two more angles, which are actually contradictory. One is that liberals tolerate everything, but don’t believe in anything. Belief in pleasure doesn’t count. That is just a form of Komfortismus. Liberals, so the reasoning goes, are even prepared to tolerate intolerance. Since they don’t believe in anything strongly enough to defend it, let alone sacrifice their lives for it, they end up inviting more vigorous enemies to destroy the very liberties they claim to enjoy. The barbarians will triumph precisely because they do believe in something, unlike the decadent Romans at the end of their self-indulgent empire. This particular argument is often heard today from men and women who claim to be defending Western civilization from the Islamic barbarians. They attack Islam for its intolerance, its hatred of the West, its oppression of women; but they attack liberals for their languid indifference and their cowardly appeasement with equal, if not greater, zeal. One even detects a peculiar tone of envy in these polemics, envy of the true believers, as though we Westerners need our own form of submission to an absolute faith. The irony of this position is that the maquis of the West often claim to be fighting for so-called Enlightenment values, as though these were synonymous with Western civilization. But even if we were to grant them this self-congratulatory view of the West, much Enlightenment thinking, if anything, sets great value on individualism, skepticism, tolerance and moderation. Radical versions of the Enlightenment might have justified the burning of churches, the killing of priests and other forms of revolutionary terror, but I hope this is not quite what the anti-Muslim defenders of the West have in mind. THE HISTORY of antiliberalism is, of course, as much a part of European civilization as the Enlightenment. In fact, it has its roots in the anti-Enlightenment. Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821), a diplomat and philosopher steeped in classical European civilization, denounced liberals for their “indifference in the guise of tolerance.” Liberals, Protestants, scientists, indeed all men who believe in reason as a positive human quality, are the enemies of Maistre’s ideal state, whose perfect order is imposed by the authoritarian rule of Church and Monarchy. Anything that threatens authority, and thus unity, has to be crushed. The hero of Maistre’s utopia, a kind of nationwide concentration camp, is the hangman, to whom falls the distasteful but essential task of enforcing public order. In Maistre’s view, freethinking always leads to anarchy. Man needs the authority of the Church and God’s firm commands as much as he needs the hangman. The very idea that people should be encouraged to think for themselves is a threat to society. Tolerance signified to Maistre, as to all antiliberals, a lack of belief, hence the idea that tolerance means indifference. And lack of belief, more than anything, signifies the Fall of Man. ONE CAN go back much further, certainly, than Maistre’s counter-Enlightenment to find similar examples of loathing of the skeptic or the unbeliever. Disbelief has been associated with materialism since biblical times, and thus, quite logically, with merchants. Tolerance is an essential part of doing business. If there is money to be made, it does not pay to interfere in the beliefs or habits of others. One of the things Voltaire, as a fugitive from the Church and Monarchy of prerepublican France, admired about Britain was the relatively high status enjoyed in society by merchants. To him, businessmen and scientists were pillars of a society based on reason and enlightened self-interest. He took a positive view of the London Stock Exchange, where, as he put it, Jews, Christians and Muslims happily engaged in business together, and the only infidel was the bankrupt. Karl Marx had a different opinion of course; he described the stock exchange as the symbol of all that was rotten, and Jewish to boot: “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.” A strong dose of anti-Semitism always infected both left and right varieties of antiliberalism, because Jews, as a minority—or worse, a minority which had supposedly infiltrated the elites—stood in the way of unity. To the fascists, Jews were Bolsheviks who would destroy the organisms of nation and race. To the Communists, they were capitalist parasites who forged Zionist plots against the Soviet Union, or the united workers of the world. In all cases, the humanist (or liberal), the bourgeois individualist (or the tolerant believer in pluralism), is the enemy. Of course, taken to its logical extreme, the moral neutrality of business interests is not a good thing even to a devout liberal: we are rightly critical of businessmen, or indeed governments, who happily deal with mass murderers and dictators in search of a fast buck. But logical extremes are always noxious. There is no question, at any rate, that money loosens the bonds of tribe, race or faith, which is why those who seek to preserve, strengthen or revive those bonds are almost always opposed to commerce. Contempt for commerce also played a key role in early-twentieth-century German nationalism. The most famous antiliberal text expounding this view is Werner Sombart’s Merchants and Heroes. Businessmen, Sombart explains, prize moderation, law, discretion and other things that “vouch for a peaceful co-existence of merchants.”3 This he finds despicable, typical of such degenerate countries as France, the United States and England, where, to quote a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II, citizenship could be bought for two shillings and six pence by “every Basuto nigger.” The hero, by contrast, is a man of action, who is not crippled by doubt or reflection, and least of all by any effete leanings toward moderation. He is guided by instinct and faith. This type of hero, typically German in the eyes of Sombart and others of his persuasion, is the opposite of the free individual prized by liberals. There is no room in the heroic society for individual autonomy. The heroes, in this vision of the perfect order, are like the fascist sculptures of Arno Breker, or those outsize, socialist, realistic men of stone: all muscle and brawn, square jaws and piercing eyes, fanatical but without any real individual character, like soldiers marching relentlessly toward a distant but clear goal—the racially pure society, the Communist utopia. The heroic vision can be intoxicating, to be sure. One of the things antiliberals like to harp on is the banality, the mediocrity, the dullness of liberalism. Liberalism lacks a common dream, a vision of grandeur. But there are several things to be said about this. First, heroism doesn’t necessarily require the submergence of the individual spirit into a martial mass, or the victory of instinct over thought. The individuals who put their lives on the line to fight for the civil rights of black Americans, or indeed for freedom under Communism, seldom fitted Sombart’s notion of the hero, yet they were anything but complacently bourgeois.
11609451511318595930Part II The liberal disposition, then, need be neither mediocre nor boring. And some of those who have defended it in the face of harsh oppression, such as Havel or other dissidents, from Poland to China, have actually been more heroic than the warriors extolled by the likes of Werner Sombart, not in the least because their fights are usually lonely ones, demanding far more conviction than the instinctive heroes of the political Romantics. LIBERAL TOLERANCE is not the same as indifference either. Compromise, though almost always desirable in politics, has its limits, even for liberals. The civil-rights movement in 1960s Alabama was a case in point. The Israeli philosopher Avishai Margalit, in his book On Compromise and Rotten Compromises, argues that slavery is so cruel and dehumanizing that the refusal of the American Founding Fathers to abolish it should count as a rotten compromise, thus utterly unacceptable. Margalit defines the border that cannot be crossed as institutionalized inhumanity. He distinguishes two pictures of politics, the economic and the religious. The economic picture of politics, like all business transactions, is flexible, open to give-and-take. It is essentially about interests, often but not always material interests. There are rules and laws, but the business of this type of politics is negotiation. The religious picture is quite different. There, one is dealing in ideas of the sacred, literally in the case of religious practices, or metaphorically in the sense of absolute principles which cannot be compromised. An example of politics of the sacred is the uncompromising conflict over holy places in Jerusalem. Neither a devout Muslim nor a pious Jew finds it possible to negotiate in good faith about the Noble Sanctuary (to Muslims), or the Temple Mount (to Jews), because to give an inch of ground is to compromise the sacred. And to do that is to dilute the purity of the faith. If secular liberals—or humanists—had no absolute principles, given their skepticism toward the sacred, it would follow that they would indeed compromise on anything to further their material or individual interests. But of course liberals do have absolute principles, and thus a religious picture of politics, too. Rotten compromises were made before World War II (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) and afterward as well, but they were not usually forged by liberals. Hitler’s agenda—even before the Holocaust was set in motion—was already such an assault on civilized life, indeed a perfect example of institutionalized inhumanity, that by 1940 any negotiated settlement with him would have been a rotten compromise. Winston Churchill understood this, whereas otherwise perfectly decent British statesmen such as Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax, who wanted to make a deal, did not. About Britain, or the British “race,” Churchill was a Romantic, a man of action, a hero not a merchant. On matters to do with empire and colonial peoples, he was far from liberal. Nonetheless, Churchill’s use of religious politics, as it were, to defend the freedom of Britain and its allies was liberal. His idea of England, underneath all his bellicose growling and Romantic prose, was still one of a society based on tolerance, moderation and individual liberty. And it was his liberal supporters, not the Communists, let alone the radical Right, who first realized that compromising with the Nazis was not an option. A notorious postwar example of an intellectual rotten compromise was Jean-Paul Sartre’s refusal, for ideological reasons, to criticize Stalin’s institutionalized inhumanity, even though he was perfectly well aware of it. He did not wish to give critics of Communism any satisfaction: “It was not our duty to write about the Soviet labor camps.” Again, as in 1940, it was often liberals, such as Raymond Aron and Albert Camus, who were the more principled voices when the horrors of Communist dictatorships became known. In the early 1970s, when Maoism still had a wide appeal among the left-wing Western intelligentsia, it was the liberal scholar, Simon Leys, who had to take it on the chin in Paris and elsewhere for drawing attention to Mao’s atrocities. TODAY’S DEBATES on the dangers of Islam are becoming as intense as the debates in the 1930s about fascism or the 1950s about Communism. Parallels are also intentionally drawn. The term “Islamofascism” has gained currency among people who see 9/11 in terms of 1933, or 1938, or even Pearl Harbor, 1941. And liberals, who advocate moderation and tolerance, and argue that an effort must be made to accept Muslims as fellow citizens, are denounced as “appeasers” and “collaborators,” as though they are the Chamberlains and Halifaxes of our time, while the likes of Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Newt Gingrich, Pamela Geller and Sarah Palin are imbued with the bulldog spirit of Winston Churchill. The plan, approved by the mayor of New York City, to build an Islamic cultural center several blocks away from ground zero, led by a moderate Sufi imam who denounced the 9/11 attacks, was compared by Newt Gingrich to Nazis setting up a sign next to a Holocaust museum. Given the traditional animosity of radicals, from all political extremes, toward liberals, it is not surprising that Gingrich and his ilk have found allies among people who used to be proudly on the left. On the “Muslim problem,” the Left and the Right often see eye to eye. As the former-left-wing-journalist Christopher Hitchens put it to me: “The fascists are the only ones who are right about the Islamic threat to Europe.” Quite clearly, the stakes are high. The murderous attacks on New York’s Twin Towers, commuter trains in Madrid, a discotheque in Bali, a Dutch filmmaker, the London Underground and more were carried out in the name of the Muslim faith. There are revolutionary ideologues all over the world prepared to kill and die for a utopian Islamic state. And Iran, aspiring to be the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East, might be close to developing a nuclear bomb. None of this can, or should, be dismissed. Even a small number of terrorists can do untold damage. But is it true that liberals, calling for moderation, individual liberty and tolerance, are inadequate to face this challenge? Is a more radical form of heroism required? Is the threat of Islam to Western liberties so severe, for example, that the individual freedom to wear a veil should be sacrificed to the unity of social and cultural values within Western borders? Does the tolerance of religious orthodoxy spell surrender to a new form of fascism? Are liberal moderates “useful idiots” helping our enemies destroy Western values, Enlightenment principles or the West tout court? I believe that a liberal approach to Islam and Islamism is best, for both tactical and philosophical reasons. Tactically, it would be a disaster to view the problems posed by Muslim radicalism in the West as a “clash of civilizations.” The only way to fight the violent extremists, for whom their religion is a revolutionary ideal, is to keep law-abiding Muslim citizens firmly on the side of liberal democracy. If we decide that we are, in the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “at war with Islam,” we force allies and potential allies into a corner, creating more sympathy among alienated Muslims for the extremists. Philosophically, every person’s right to free thought and expression must be defended, and that includes the right to think in ways we might find distasteful, even abhorrent. The line must be drawn where behavior is in breach of the law. The French scholar of Islam Olivier Roy takes the view that citizens need not share the same values in pluralistic societies, but must abide by the same laws. Honor killings, even if justified by cultural or religious mores, cannot be tolerated. Nor can incitements to violence. But the wish to ban the building of an Islamic cultural center near ground zero, and to compare the peaceful, law-abiding Sufi Muslims who want to build it with Nazis, is illiberal, foolish and, in terms of defending our freedoms against extremists, counterproductive. Radical populists of the right, in Europe as well as the United States, claim that orthodox Muslims threaten our Western way of life, not only because of their different notions about social and sexual behavior, but because of their assaults on free speech. These assaults are aided and abetted by liberals who tolerate intolerance and fail to criticize Muslims with sufficient zeal. Freedom, to the anti-Muslim populists, means freedom to be as offensive as one likes about Islam. Any hesitation in this regard is quickly denounced as a form of appeasement. It is true that Muslims, like many believers, can be touchy when infidels attack or mock their faith. And intimidating critics of Islam is clearly a threat to free speech. So here, too, the law should apply. Death threats and other forms of violent intimidation are against the law and should be punished. But as long as people refrain from threatening or using violence to impose their views, they should be tolerated. Does this mean that freedom of speech means the freedom to offend? In terms of the law, especially under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the answer is yes. The liberal answer is more complicated. Since tolerance goes with moderation, as well as individual freedom, a certain degree of restraint is sometimes essential to maintain a civilized society. People may be legally entitled to claim that all Jews are greedy, and all blacks lust-filled criminals at heart, but in polite society they would not do so. Toujours, pas trop de zèle, therefore, is still the best guideline, especially at a time when hatred is being spouted with ever-greater intent to cause offense. The legacy of Forster is still to be preferred over the legacy of Ehrenburg. Whatever threats might yet come from radical Islamism, domestic or foreign, their impact will be made far worse by crass polemics against the faith itself, or by calls for heroic gestures in the war of civilizations. As always, I believe, the most effective defenders of liberal democracy are the liberals themselves. Ian Buruma is the Henry R. Luce Professor at Bard College. His latest book is Taming the Gods: Religion and Democracy on Three Continents (Princeton University Press, 2010). 1 Frances Stonor Saunders, “What Have Intellectuals Ever Done for the World?,” The Observer, November 28, 2004. 2 Le salaud lumineux (Paris: M. Lafon, 1990). 3 Aurel Kolnai, The War Against the West (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1938).
11610951511318676662Posted by Guessedworker on October 12, 2011, 07:36 PM | # <em>Leon, <u>We, the great mass of Middle American patriots, the real Americans, cannot and will not have the white prison/criminal class polluting the nationalist movement, and marginalizing our growth potential. That has happened too much in the past, which is why even responsible anti-immigrationists have a hard time making headway.</u> (Leon) You identify yourself as an American patriot. Nationalism is not patriotism. It is an unforgivingly liberal-hostile Weltanshauung. But your American patriotism, notwithstanding its superficial objection to “neolib”, falls squarely within the liberal paradigm. There is, for example, its allegiance to “the idea” of America, and its love of endless progress and other right-liberal desiderata. You could do a lot worse than read Sunic’s Homo americanus, which contains a straitening critique of Americanism. <u>In this country, people believe in private property.</u> (Leon) Only an essentially liberal mind could make this statement. Look, Leon, in another thread our friend anon/uh made the following assessment of Dr Lister: <blockquote>That is in no way to minimize the man, who is obviously brilliant in his field and rather beyond. But he does fly off the handle on this point, as against a sort of specter of Americanism shared, far more levelly, by Guessedworker. It is a sane thing to suggest that a state founded by and on the principle of unbridled mercantilism is inevitably corrupt and specious as a nation; it is somewhat insane (in a completely logical sense!) to dump on someone for merely speculating on how a free market can be adjusted to suit a renewed national interest. At bottom, then, I believe Graham’s gripe is the unacknowledged opinion shared with Guessedworker that America is not a nation in the organic sense at all, so any discussion of how it may be run as such is laughable and retarded.</blockquote> He is not wrong here. We on the old continent cannot be nationalists worthy of the name without knowing the people of our blood, and labouring for them at every intellectual and emotional level. For certain, politically this is the whole of us. When we encounter our American brothers we are apt to behave as though our blood values were the only values, and the old ceasura had never occurred. This places an unfair demand on you guys, but nonetheless the direction of travel we instinctivise in this way is a good one. Anon/uh can see this tendency well, I believe, because he is himself at a small distance, albeit a different kind of distance, from the northern European North American. In any event, he is right that the blood nationalism we can’t but help speak about posits a certain question to you, the answer to which is not anything to do with private property. That question is: Who are you? <u>Heidegger and ‘deep challenges’ to liberal ontology are all well and good, but what actual legislative changes issue from them?</u> (Leon) Tell me first who you are.</em> (GW)
11610651511318659589I don't know why I should care, but why is it that persons like Lister refuse to address my very simple and forthright assertions? To repeat: <em>Is it another of those difficult, real-world, empirical observations to note that median American wages/incomes have been stagnant for 30 years or so?</em> (Lister) But why has this occurred? (No one on the Right disputes this, btw. Both Murray Rothbard and Pat Buchanan had/have spoken of it for years.) Which is the primary culprit: a. immigration b. globalization c. government growth d. inflation e. capitalism itself? Explain yourself, please. My point is that there is a world of difference between supporting, say, free trade or free immigration, or even between internal free markets and economic globalization. What is it about the following assertion that is not understood? <u>Economics is a value free academic discipline, whereas neoliberalism and libertarianism are ideologies (that is, they have clearly indicated normative assumptions built into them; they are not neutral attempts to explain aspects of reality).</u> If someone disagrees with the above, then <strong><em>demonstrate</em></strong> its falsity (ie, no more vague and irrelevant <em>non-sequitur</em> talk about Americans worshipping the shopping mall , or Ayn Rand, or Europe's monarchical past, etc).
11610851511318664903To GW or other editors at this site: Might I suggest posting Ron Unz's appalling article from <em>The American (un)Conservative</em> magazine on the end of white America? I think it would be a good focus for discussion and critique. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-page1-003/
11611051511318680299Sorry about that. I meant to interpolate replies to GW's comments above. Let me try again, only copying GW's comments. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You identify yourself as an American patriot. Nationalism is not patriotism. It is an unforgivingly liberal-hostile Weltanshauung. But your American patriotism, notwithstanding its superficial objection to “neolib”, falls squarely within the liberal paradigm. There is, for example, its allegiance to “the idea” of America, and its love of endless progress and other right-liberal desiderata. You could do a lot worse than read Sunic’s <em>Homo americanus</em>, which contains a straitening critique of Americanism. <u>In this country, people believe in private property</u>. (Haller) Only an essentially liberal mind could make this statement. Look, Leon, in another thread our friend anon/uh made the following assessment of Dr Lister: <blockquote>That is in no way to minimize the man, who is obviously brilliant in his field and rather beyond. But he does fly off the handle on this point, as against a sort of specter of Americanism shared, far more levelly, by Guessedworker. It is a sane thing to suggest that a state founded by and on the principle of unbridled mercantilism is inevitably corrupt and specious as a nation; it is somewhat insane (in a completely logical sense!) to dump on someone for merely speculating on how a free market can be adjusted to suit a renewed national interest. At bottom, then, I believe Graham’s gripe is the unacknowledged opinion shared with Guessedworker that America is not a nation in the organic sense at all, so any discussion of how it may be run as such is laughable and retarded.</blockquote> He is not wrong here. We on the old continent cannot be nationalists worthy of the name without knowing the people of our blood, and labouring for them at every intellectual and emotional level. For certain, politically this is the whole of us. When we encounter our American brothers we are apt to behave as though our blood values were the only values, and the old ceasura had never occurred. This places an unfair demand on you guys, but nonetheless the direction of travel we instinctivise in this way is a good one. Anon/uh can see this tendency well, I believe, because he is himself at a small distance, albeit a different kind of distance, from the northern European North American. In any event, he is right that the blood nationalism we can’t but help speak about posits a certain question to you, the answer to which is not anything to do with private property. That question is: Who are you? <u>Heidegger and ‘deep challenges’ to liberal ontology are all well and good, but what actual legislative changes issue from them?</u> (Haller) Tell me first who you are. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is so much that is wrong here, as well as so many implicit issues unmentioned. How to begin? 1. I'm not sure your statement re the relation between nationalism and liberalism is necessarily historically or even philosophically correct. Your version of nationalism may be deeply inegalitarian and illiberal, but not all varieties, either in theory or practice, have been so. Many European nationalists were liberals of one type or another who wanted a world of self-governing nations, that is, one bereft of empires or aristocracies (eg, Mazzini), but with the constituent nations governed in accordance with liberal principles. Classically, nationalists were considered to be on the Left. I think you are best described as an "authoritarian ethnonationalist" - that is, one who believes nations are racially and often ethnically (as well as historically) delimited; that such entities should be self-governing; and that it is strategically necessary and thus morally appropriate to subordinate the autonomy of individuals to the longer term survival requirements of the collective nation. The irony here is that I agree with this doctrine as outlined above. (Like Sunic, btw, I too am against democracy and equality, as my many comments at MR over the years attest.) 2. As I reread your comment, I'm finding it less and less clear. What, exactly, are you asking me when you ask "who are you?" in this context. I am a man of the West, a white man who identifies strongly with my race and my civilization and, yes, my own nation, which very much does have an 'organic' component to it. To suggest otherwise, as Lister does interminably, betrays not only an ignorant, shallow and remarkably prejudicial leftist understanding of who and what is an American, but even a poor understanding of ethnonationalist theory: over centuries in the New World, whites have fashioned their own unique cultural identity, laid their own 'roots', as your own theory ought to lead you to suppose, an identity British-derived, but adapted to our own history and conditions. White Americans, after so much interethnic genetic mixture alongside cultural and linguistic homogenization, now truly constitute our own ethnonation, just like modern Brazilians. My EGI concerns focus on advancing universally justifiable interests of white Americans, the first of which being preserving the 'whiteness' (or slowing down the 'browning', if you will) of America, to the extent possible. Of course, I would also like to see Europeans preserve the whiteness (and glorious cultural heritage) of their own nations. 3. How can you say that "only an essentially liberal mind" could state that "in this country, people believe in private property"? For one thing, I was in part making a simple factual assertion. Most whites strongly support private property, and that is a fact of strategic political significance for even anti-capitalist WNs. If WN Americans come out against defending property and free enterprise, they will alienate a potentially receptive mass base, while , I assure you , making few if any recruits among leftists, for whom anti-whiteness is possibly <strong><em>the</em></strong> cardinal virtue. More broadly, are you suggesting that defense of property is in conflict with ethnnationalism? It certainly is not wrt conservatism, including British conservatism (recall Adam Smith's remark upon Burke, that he had little to teach the latter about the importance of markets and property). More to follow. Serious responses only.
11612351511318768988Here's something from AR on the OWS assholes: ------------------------------- Lori, Feministing, October 4, 2011 By now, I’m sure most of you have heard about Occupy Wall Street. Inspired by Adbuster’s call for action in July, protesters have occupied Zuccotti Park near Wall Street in New York City since September 17th. &#123;snip&#125; Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.” A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important. “Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking. This progressive stack has been inspiring and mind-boggling in its effectiveness. &#123;snip&#125; On October 1st, the Occupied Wall Street Journal, founded by Arun and Jed of Indypendent and supported by over $40,000 of Kickstarter funds was released. &#123;snip&#125; Hopefully The Occupied Wall Street Journal will abide by the zeitgeist of this movement, which is radical inclusivity. Anything claiming to represent the General Assembly should be subject to the same governing principles, which would include a progressive stack. If this is a revolution of white men, it will not succeed. In the words of Kevin Alvarez, a Latino blogger and activist who has been occupying wall street for over a week now: “Without the voices of the disenfranchised people of color, lgbtq, differently abled, and other marginalized groups then this will become a revolution of those with privilege against those with privilege. There is a difference between revolutionary change and just being allowed access to the power, status, and wealth of the dominant culture. And Occupy Wall Street should not be co-opted by those seeking a watered down version of this systematically murderous economic and political system.” -------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, let's join these creeps, that'll advance the White cause. God, you people are such idiots it's almost mind-boggling. You have no rejoinder to me, because there is none. In the US, anti-capitalism is firmly allied to anti-racism. Period. Whether that alliance is philosophically inevitable, as I believe, or merely a current sociological fact, is an interesting abstract issue. Pragmatically, however, no white movement in the USA that does not also defend private property, business, limited government, private wealth creation and entrepreneurship, as well as oppose welfare state socialism, will ever go anywhere politically. You have neither a mass electoral base, nor the possibility of one (plus your views are completely wrong, analytically as well as historically - and politically: Big Govt is the friend of liberals and nonwhites, not middle-income whites stuck paying for them). Those who continue to argue against me merely reveal their ignorance and embarrass themselves.
11612551511318774504This back and forth is not productive for me. There is a definite need to develop a specifically nationalist form of political economy. The content of such is not immediately ascertainable or at least obvious. What type of economic and legal arrangements would best suit the perpetuity of either a particular nation, or the whole white race? A case could be made for several versions, the viability of each in part depending upon local political and economic conditions. What type of economy is best for white GI in the US may well differ from what is best for white GI in the UK. The two main issues in political economics are wealth maximization and sustainability. What system will lead to the greatest national prosperity (most efficient use of resources) that is likely to endure over a very long period? I hold, for reasons adduced by Mises (economic calculation) and, to a lesser extent, Hayek (dispersed knowledge), that laissez-faire capitalism is the most efficient system. History bears this out. Given the complete economic (as well as moral and social) failures of all command economies in the 20th century (going right the way up to present day 'Obamunism', with its now widely-regarded as having totally failed 'stimulus' of 2009 - we free enterprisers predicted that failure, of course), I think it only fair to assign the burden of proof to those who claim that some other system is more efficient at generating prosperity than capitalism. If this burden cannot be met (as I believe it can't), that does not mean surrender to laissez-faire, let alone open-borders libertarian nonsense. It does mean, however, that any subsequent nationalist economics needs to justify its infractions of individual liberty and laissez-faire; that is, to recognize that pursuing nationalist economic aims will lower GDP, and then demonstrate that such lowering of material living standards is acceptable in light of other objectives.
11612651511318774887<em>My opinion: As long as Majority Rights grants Leon Haller Amazing Space, it’s difficult to get a bead on just where the MR target is. I mean, how does LH differ from the mainstream or the rapidly becoming mainstream?</em> (MOB) I differ in that I believe in extreme laissez-faire, while the mainstream consists of idiotic Keynesians. However, I believe in a laissez-faire that is delimited by national security concerns, the first of which is racial preservation. Thus, I completely oppose nonwhite immigration, even if it could be demonstrated that such immigration was economically beneficial to native-born whites. I believe in many other infractions of libertarian economic orthodoxy. But I recognize the reality of economic logic, as well as the morality of private property (though the latter is not fetishized or absolutized; infractions are acceptable when necessary to preserve the overall system).
11616451511318850947There is something very obtuse about most of you. I defend free markets as the most wealth maximizing form of economic organization, and in response I am accused of being a libertarian - despite endlessly repeated disavowals of that ideology. What is the inference to draw from such <em>non sequitur</em> responses? Obviously, that my accusers understand nothing of the relation between economics and political ideologies (eg, that one can defend economics as a value-free social science, while opposing free markets; or that one can support free markets, without embracing libertarianism). Apparently, distinguishing between a mode of analysis of social and exchange phenomena, on the one hand, and particular ideological advocacy, on the other, is too subtle a mental operation for many here at MR. My opponents here also exhibit an appalling lack of familiarity with the thinkers they overconfidently refer to, as well as with any relevant discipline (history, economic history, economics, polisci, etc). Consider the following from GenoType (apparently a critique of me), a monstrosity of forensic and factual error: <em>A value-free economy sabotages the social order and freedom Haller claims to value. It can’t help but do so. Both Hayek and Marx wished for a “withering away of the state.” Now shrinking government is a laudable goal. But Hayek’s theories have been tested as much as the theories of Karl Marx, and have yielded almost the same results: more government power, less economic freedom. Under neither theory did the state wither away, but rather it became an all-encompassing behemoth. Both Hayek and Marx delivered great leaps in government power.</em> 1) Note the elision of any distinction between an assertion of the 'value-free' nature of economic science (as, ideally, is the case with any academic discipline: what is sought is an accurate description of some aspect of social reality), and the imputation to me of supporting a "value-free economy". Where did I ever advocate <em>that</em>? 2) Is GT implicitly holding that a free market economy "sabotages social order and freedom"? You see, my interlocutors are invariably vague about what they are asserting, and (deliberately?, unlike me) slippery in their vocabulary choices. A "value-free economy", whatever that is, might indeed be subversive of liberty and order - or not. I'm not sure what I'm arguing against. If, however, what is really being asserted is that free enterprise sabotages freedom, then this statement needs to be proven. How does allowing men the freedom to hire and fire, buy and sell, and do what they will with their own persons and property subvert liberty? It might be possible to make that case, but it would have to be highly detailed and specific (eg, allowing military companies to sell nukes to terrorists). One cannot simply assert such nonsense as a general claim, leave it hanging, and expect agreement from those of us who really do know what we're talking about. 3) Moving right along ... Every statement in the larger paragraph if GT's excerpted above is incorrect. EVERY ONE. a. Hayek never stated he wished for a "withering away of the state". Just over on the "Occupying a Turning World" thread, I posted a lengthy critique of the semi-social democratism of Hayek by the militant libertarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe (did GT bother to read it? of course not) pointing out some of Hayek's many deviations even from the minimal statism of the old classical liberals (obviously, GT, probably like Lister, hasn't actually read Hayek, or Mises, but only caricatures of them by their opponents). b. Marx of course only <em>expected</em> (not per se, "wished for") a "withering" as an endpoint after mankind had passed through the stage of totalitarian communism. He was no libertarian. c. "Shrinking govt" is only a "laudable goal" when govt is too big. What is the standard to make that determination? I would go by this: govt should only perform those tasks necessary to the maintenance of the particular social order itself (mainly, this means national security, under which rubric I place keeping out genetically unassimilable immigrants, as well as military defense). Govt should not perform tasks that free markets can perform better. By that standard, there are indeed vast aspects of the govts of all Western nations that can be eliminated. d. Hayek's theories (I assume you really mean Mises's, given Hayek's rather weak and inconsistent libertarianism) have never been fully tested <em>anywhere</em> (GT's grasp of modern world political and economic history must be weak to nonexistent), let alone to the same extent as Marxism, and only substantially approximated in past centuries (esp the 18th and 19th) in Britain and the US, which experienced by far their most rapid economic growth during just those periods of near laissez-faire. In those advanced economies which did legislate very slight adjustments in favor of capitalism and at the expense of prior interventionism - the US, the UK, and New Zealand in the 80s - fairly significant and conventionally measurable economic improvements occurred in very short order. e. Oh wait, excuse me. There was indeed a place where something like Austrianism was implemented. I refer to the German economic miracle following WW2. Ludwig Erhard, the father of that miracle, had been heavily influenced by Wilhelm Ropke, who in turn had been a student of, and greatly influenced by, Mises. Erhard did not follow a bunch of Keynesian and social nationalist nonsense, and Germany prospered. Their rate of growth has gone way down precisely since they abandoned the moderate laissez-faire of the 50s (that Germany is the economic workhorse of Europe today is a testament to the basic biological and cultural superiority of us Germans - not to the incidental deformations caused by Germany's modern welfare/regulatory state, which we can logically infer substantially depress German growth rates). f. There were actually many places in the 20th century which did offer up 'experimental' examples of side by side comparisons between socialism and capitalism: North and South Korea, East and West Germany, Hong Kong (or Taiwan or Singapore) and China, China under Mao and China under Deng and his successors, Cuba pre- and post-revolution. In every case the comparative discrepancies in results were stunning in magnitude (do I really have to point this out?!). g. The notion that implementing quasi-Hayekian policies "delivered great leaps in governmental power" is so factually wrong, as well as counterintuitive, that such a claim, again, must be demonstrated. How would reducing the role of the state in regulating the economy, or lowering tax rates, or privatizing national airlines, etc constitute an increase in govt power? I know what you could argue (superficially; liberals make the argument all the time), but I'll let you do it (and you'd be wrong anyway in terms of your larger critique). Finally, to compare Hayekian doctrine with Marxism in terms of the loss of liberty is so absurdly stupid as to be beneath consideration. It is not counterintuitively clever, as this simpleton doubtless believes. Should I go on? Here's another paragraph: <em>Under the free-market rhetoric of “conservative” regimes, the government has not shrunk. It expanded, so much that now we have a government of near imperial power and privilege headed by an imperial presidency that ignores not only the laws of Congress and the Constitution, but even basic human laws such as the law against torture as an instrument of state policy. Government expenditures as a share of GDP are about the same as they were before the conservative ascendancy, but the cost of government has far exceeded its tax base. The result has been an increased dependence on borrowing. At the start of the Reagan administration the national debt was about $700 billion’ at the close of the Reagan-Bush era it tripled to $2.1 trillion. The debt has doubled again and again. In 2010 stood in excess of $12 trillion! Borrowing is taxing too. So this increased debt represents an effective tax increase shifted onto the next generation of white children.</em> (GenoType) I agree with most of this. Does GT think any libertarian would disagree? Obviously he is unfamiliar with libertarian critiques of the Reagan presidency. Does GT think that these stats constitute an argument against free markets? Or might it rather be the case that, eg, Reagan, talked about free enterprise, but did not, or was unable to, translate his rhetoric into legislative reality? huh? waddya think more likely? I could go on and on, dissecting everything written in response to me. But I'm dealing with persons who are unknowledgeable, unlearned, unintelligent and totally unable to make even slightly subtle forensic or academic distinctions. Thus I am wasting my time. I merely wish to reiterate my larger (totally unrefuted, or worse, unacknowledged) thesis. None of this matters because, at least in the US, my approach (also Jared Taylor's, I believe - he told me over 15 years ago that he is basically libertarian on economics) to saving the white race is the only one likely ever to gain any real political traction. The only possible base for genuine White GI advance in the US is to be found among conservatives. Liberalism today is virtually defined by its commitment to racial equality and 'diversity'. The old days of sizable numbers of racist 'hard-hat' Democrats - those who were both racists and opponents of free markets - are long gone. There are very few persons anymore who are supporters of both liberal/socialist Big Government, and white nationalism (or even just its more conservative aspects, like deporting illegals, and ending affirmative action). Defense of private property, economic growth through free markets, and much less government, esp in terms of the economy and taxes, are all bedrock principles widely shared among all types of conservatives: Christians, free marketeers, racialists. Who among the current crop of GOP candidates is not, at least rhetorically, a strong defender of capitalism? Who would advance in the primaries if he announced himself hostile to capitalism? What GT and XWPA seem to want politically does not exist -and there is no apparent possibility of creating it. All the momentum in the real world of conservatives/Republicans is towards a return to capitalism, not its rejection. On the other hand, there is unbelievable potential for the kind of conservative racialism I advocate. White Americans are being screwed, and the biggest culprit is not black street criminals, but the Federal Govt itself. It is the main dispossessor of Middle America, whether through 'civil rights', immigration, affirmative action, or enforced multiculturalism. Most Republicans at the grassroots are like me, only less extreme. They want both economic growth, and immigration termination. A mainstream conservatism that also embraced radical immigration reductions is what we can realistically hope for at this time. Tying anti-capitalist rhetoric to the pro-white agenda is a ticket to continued political irrelevance (and thus constant loss of racial status and power due to the ongoing invasion, which must be stopped at all costs, and beyond anything else).
11617451511318879637[I need to keep posting articles here in order to teach the ignorant some basic facts about our very un-free market fiscal disaster.] A Historic Flood of Red Ink Obama’s mind-boggling budget Jeffrey H. Anderson After proposing his third straight budget calling for more than $1 trillion in deficit spending—no other president has ever proposed even half that much (although, in his last year, President George W. Bush did end up spending that much)—President Obama complained to reporters, “You guys are pretty impatient.” In truth, Obama has gotten way too much of a pass on his deficit spending, which is so far outside of America’s historical norms as to be mind-boggling. In a fair accounting, President Obama is responsible (along with the then-Democratic Congress) for the $1.3 trillion in deficit spending in 2010 and the estimated $1.6 trillion in deficit spending in 2011. He is responsible for the projected $1.1 trillion in deficit spending in his recent budget proposal. He is also responsible for the approximately $200 billion that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that his economic “stimulus” added to the deficit in 2009. He should not get credit, moreover, for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year—loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally. The Treasury Department says that all but $5 billion of the TARP bank loans has now been repaid. The portion of repayments that was for loans issued in 2009 should be deducted from Bush’s deficit tally, not credited to Obama as deficit savings. Add it all up, and Obama is responsible for $4.4 trillion in actual or projected deficit spending in just three years in office. Let’s try to put that into historical perspective (the source for all of these figures is the White House Office of Management and Budget’s historical tables): * In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years. * In inflation-adjusted dollars, President Obama’s $3.8 trillion (in constant fiscal-year 2005 dollars) in deficit spending in just three years is nearly double our $2 trillion (in constant fiscal-year 2005 dollars) in deficit spending in the five fiscal years during which we were fighting World War II (FY 1942-46). It’s no small feat to nearly double the United States’ inflation-adjusted deficits during the largest conflict in human history, and to do so in less time than it took American GIs to fight that two-front war. * As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), President Obama’s average annual deficit spending is 9.7 percent of GDP. That’s higher than during any single year of the Great Depression, the Cold War, the Korean War, or Vietnam. In fact, the only deficits in more than 200 years of American history that have exceeded even 6 percent of GDP have all involved either the Civil War, World War I, World War II, or President Obama. * In average annual deficit spending as a percentage of GDP, the nearby chart shows how President Obama stacks up against other presidents who have served during the past four decades. * The Obama deficit legacy, moreover, will be felt well beyond his tenure in office, especially if that tenure extends beyond a single term. First, Obama’s spending through 2012 essentially doesn’t include Obama-care. The CBO projects that Obama-care will increase spending by more than $2 trillion in the overhaul’s real first decade (2014 to 2023). That’s more than $2 trillion that could -otherwise be used to pay down the debt, rather than allowing the debt to rise continually and then piling a massive new entitlement program on top of it. Second, President Obama’s gargantuan deficit spending will hamstring future efforts to make ends meet. Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually. Under his projections for 2018, interest payments on the debt will exceed all defense spending, including wartime spending. Think about that: In the first budgetary year after the next presidential term, our creditors are projected to get more money than our military. At the end of 2008, just before President Obama took office, the national debt was $9.986 trillion and 69 percent of GDP. Under his projections, eight years later it will be $20.825 trillion and 104 percent of GDP. That’s right: Our debt will soon exceed our national economic output for an entire year. And that’s even if you believe the president’s rosy projections of 4 percent real GDP growth over the next four years, considerably higher than the 2.7 percent achieved over the past quarter-century and the 3.2 percent over the past half-century. To correct our course, we need to advance real entitlement reform and repeal the looming entitlement that could be the boulder that breaks the camel’s back: Obamacare. House Republicans need to produce a serious budget that offers real entitlement reform, as they appear poised to do. Actually enacting entitlement reform, however, will require presidential leadership. The most effective champions of bold fiscal prudence on Capitol Hill and in the statehouses, respectively, have been Representative Paul Ryan and Governor Chris Christie. In the wake of President Obama’s wildly unprecedented deficit spending, such leadership is now needed at the presidential level. Jeffrey H. Anderson was the senior speechwriter for Secretary Mike Leavitt at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
11619751511318939166<em>It’s simply a mistake to view forms of government and society as “free” or “unfree”, or as relative manifestations of “liberty”; these quaint terms belong to a simpler age that could afford to fiddle with moral systems. <strong>The only true values are evolutionary values.</strong> Survival, reproduction, survival, reproduction, survival, reproduction ... and mastery of space. In an age of exponentiating fiatvoelker, it must be a response to the “Mumbai model” of Guessedworker’s latest post, or we go under.</em> (anon/uh) There's a lot of truth to this, though you make a very curious type of 'Marxist'. Of course, I emphatically disagree with the statement that the only true values are evolutionary ones (very, very curious for a Marxist). Morality has its origin in God, and without God, while moral propositions would continue to possess logical force, they would be without effect. Without God, morality is merely what is preferred or useful (ie, enhances survival possibilities), which is no morality at all. Liberty, too, as a moral value, has its origin in God, though only indirectly. It exists in the interstices of moral duties (the <em>thou shalt nots</em>). Of course, liberty is never seen by a Christian as an absolute value, as something never subject to justified abrogation or limitation. It is perfectly acceptable to forbid a private defense contractor from selling a nuke to al Qaeda, or to ban pornography. It is not acceptable for a majority of a nation to gang up electorally on a minority, and force the latter to pay for the former's housing, health care, education, etc. The standard for abrogating liberty is the security and long-term survival of the system itself. I favor many such abrogations, in light of my macro concern with the survival of the West (predicated in part on the survival of the race which created it and, I believe, alone will perpetuate it).
11620251511318947929Thanks for the lengthy comment, anon/uh, though I have difficulty discerning whether you are sincere or sarcastic, or in what proportions. I also have difficulty discerning your precise thesis. Free markets are not the answer to all of mankind's problems. They are only as good as the people comprising them (a point Mises made in his monograph <em>The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality</em>). The market is a structure maximizing efficient resource use. It does not guarantee any particular desirable social outcome. If we wish to save the white race, the free market in itself won't do that. One would be right to argue that restricting immigration can be seen as an infringement of free markets, though I would argue that NOT restricting unassimilable immigration would constitute an ultimate diminishment in the liberty of the native-born (that is a far more complex issue than normally perceived, even deontologically as well as consequentially: as Rothbard asked of the 'open-borders' libertarian lunatics back in the 60s, "On whose property does the immigrant have a right to trample?"). The purpose of a specifically nationalist political economics is to devise a system that maximizes efficient resource use, and hence prosperity, while also reinforcing (instead of undermining) white survival prospects. The problem with many here is that they associate free markets with cultural and racial liberalism, and condemn the former because they dislike the effects of the latter. That is simply poor reasoning. No matter what legions of market enemies may say, markets are culturally and racially and morally neutral. They simply set about satisfying the wants of the greatest number (I'm speaking metaphorically, of course; there is no creature called "market", just individuals going about their business). If those wants are corrupt, liberal, multiculti, etc, that's what profit-seeking entrepreneurs will cater to. The fault lies in the culture, not the exchange mechanism. My main theoretical point in all this is that economics is a true academic discipline, which can teach us about the phenomenon of exchange. There are true economic theories, and false ones. Following false ones, as Obama did with his 2009 'stimulus' (straight out of the idiotic Keynesian playbook), will lower the material standard of living (at the extremes, as with the Soviet period before Lenin's New Economic Policy, or China under Mao, especially in the late 50s-early 60s, they can result in complete immiseration, famine and mass death). Any particular type of political economy must be built on a correct theoretical, that is, free market, foundation. We may choose to reject enormous portions of what free market theory would tell us is the path to national wealth maximization, out of a desire to instantiate other, non-wealth maximizing goals. But we ought to understand what sacrifices in prosperity we are making in pursuit of those extra-economic goals. My main pragmatic point in all this mainly applies to the US (or it may apply across the West; I'm not sure; I am insufficiently familiar with the internal politics and political opinions of other countries). Here, it would be pathologically stupid for WNs to adopt anti-capitalist rhetoric or causes, and for reasons I have offered above. Our best issue, the place to start our political growth, is immigration reduction. The key is gradual radicalization (as I was arguing with Linder here last month). Success builds on success. You cannot, in a stable democracy, ask/expect people to overturn their whole belief-systems, and concomitant policy regimes, overnight. The center of gravity of the mainstream gets shifted fairly gradually. To build up white consciousness, we must start with the most egregiously obvious, and least morally problematic, issue, and that is immigration. Because that represents a huge change, we must be careful to be as thoroughly unthreatening, and 'modal', wrt other issues - at least those important to the larger group we think we can influence. As I mentioned, only conservatives as a large group are receptive to immigration reduction. Conservatives are, however, far more committed to capitalism than to ethnocultural or demographic preservation. Therefore, is it shrewd to attack one of their core beliefs (the other being support for Christianity), or is it better to embrace their core beliefs (as I do), but then insert immigration termination as part of the broad conservative policy mix? I think the answer is obvious. Unlike many racial extremists and fantasy warriors, I'm completely earnest and serious about actually trying to preserve the white race. Thus, I examine our plight as rationally and dispassionately as possible.
11632951511319175369J Richards, Have you or I been commenting at MR longer? I am hardly the only one posting lengthy excerpts, and I do so when in my judgment they are relevant and really ought to be read. I will continue to do so as I see fit. Rest assured, there are far more of me out there - ie, good conservatives, who do oppose immigration as well as affirmative action, but also support private property, and have market investments which we hope to see prosper - than there are of you. Many, many times more of me than you. Indeed, even in the nationalist conservative movement (among, say, Buchananites), my 'type' outnumbers your 'type' by many orders of magnitude. And we will FIGHT for our property and govt-eviscerated investments against anarchists, socialists, and general hooligans. Make no mistake about that. So against serious men like me, it is persons like you who will hang. If the white preservation movement wants to guarantee its irrelevance, attack private property and the free market, including the retirement portfolios of tens of millions. Or join with me, and keep the focus on race, in part by spooking those of means with the spectre of socialism (whether national or communist is irrelevant, to those with life's savings and businesses at risk). No, in the battle between white conservatism and white social nationalism (especially that tinged with weirdo conspiracist nonsense), we will crush you.
11633051511319176017A little something of relevance I posted shortly ago at <em>The Atlantic</em>: ---------------------------------------------------- The outrage people feel here is correct, but it is distressing to see so many economic ignoramuses. We have an unfair economy, as the OWS protesters sense, but people are (deliberately?) misunderstanding its causes. The working class, and its wage rates, have been destroyed in the US due to 4 factors: 1. mass immigration (worker insourcing) 2. globalization/'free trade' (jobs outsourcing) 3. Federal Reserve created inflation (despite seeming to have been "low" in the 80s and 90s) 4. the massive growth in the size, cost and especially regulatory scope of government at all levels, but especially the Federal level. The cure to get Americans working again, and at rising wages for most people, is: a. End the immigration invasion (legal as well as illegal) NOW! American jobs for American workers! b. Change the tax code to stop favoring corporate outsourcing. This is complex, but at bottom, tax law, combined with regulatory and union harassment of business, have effectively forced innumerable naturally profit seeking companies to move plants and jobs to foreign countries. c. Abolish the Fed, abolish inherently fraudulent fractional reserve banking, return to a 100% redeemable gold dollar. This will end the boom/bust business cycle, end macro-inflation, and end monetary policy instability and ensuing financial volatility. d. Restore capitalism, or something approximating it. Massive deregulation of business, privatization of government activities and assets, radical tax simplification, total business tax abolition (to make America maximally business-friendly), unprecedented downsizing of Federal Govt: abolish Depts of Interior, Commerce (except patent Office), Labor, Agriculture (along with all farm subsidies), HUD (give title to public housing to current tenants), Energy, Veteran's Affairs (which can be handled as previously by Pentagon), Education, Transportation (after total national privatizations of highways and airports); get rid of EPA, EEOC, OSHA, Obamacare, and much else (esp the grossly unfair EITC); begin long-term phase-out of Medicaid, unemployment comp, food stamps, federal welfare, and all other redistributionary programs except Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits; pass national torts limits. This list , particularly d., is not meant to be inclusive. But if we followed this, the US would experience one of the greatest economic booms of all time, we would get people back to work, working class wages would rise, and leftist social and/or political revolution would be averted. ---------------------------------------------- In what I have written above someone with brains can espy the lineaments of a Nationalist capitalism, and the beginnings of a true nationalist economics more broadly. We maximize free markets internally, for the sake of resource use efficiencies, while turning inward viz the rest of the world, which will lead to a peaceful and beneficent wealth redistribution from the financialized upper classes to the working classes - all without direct (and invariably costly and always inefficient) government intervention. The playing field can be more equitably structured, without interfering with the 'rules of the game'.
11635051511319198872<em>This is the most lucid post you’ve written in my memory, Richards. Is it your belief that Leon is of at least partial Jewish ancestry; and/or has family members who are of partial Jewish ancestry; and/or has business associates crucial to the maintenance of his wealth that are of Jewish ancestry? Or do you believe Leon is simply a Jewish activist on the payroll of some Jewish activist organization?</em> (CaptainChaos) Where does this monumental idiocy spring from? I am not Jewish at all. I am currently studying Catholic Theology (a few Protestants in my classes, no Jews that I can tell, either among the students or the faculty). I have no Jewish ancestry at all. I do have friends and associates who are Jewish. I have been consistently fighting for the white race for many years on the net, and many decades before that elsewhere. And no, that post from Richards, at least wrt the gold standard, is nearly unintelligible. If you want to learn some stuff, read what my comments at different points above.
11638751511319241361Here is something the OWSer idiots really need to read: http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/the-evil-1-percent194.html <blockquote>In the end, we end up with about 3 million people who constitute what is commonly called the State. For short, we can just call these people the 1%. The State is the only institution in society that is permitted by law to use aggressive force against person and property. It is the same with every tax, every regulation, every mandate, and every single word of the federal code. It all represents coercion. <strong>Even in the area of money and banking, it is the State that created and sustains the Fed and the dollar because it forcibly limits competition in money and banking, preventing people from making gold or silver money</strong>, or innovating in other ways. And in some ways, this is the most dreadful intervention of all, because it allows the State to destroy our money on a whim. Why don’t the protesters get this? Because they are victims of propaganda by the State, doled out in public school, that attempts to blame all human suffering on private parties and free enterprise. They do not comprehend that the real enemy is the institution that brainwashes them to think the way they do. They are right that society is rife with conflicts, and that the contest is wildly lopsided. It is indeed the 99% vs. the 1%. They’re just wrong about the identity of the enemy.</blockquote>
11638851511319242322J Richards is exactly the type of crank who prevents those (apparently few) of us serious about saving the white race from being able to make headway with the ideologically neutral white majority. He subscribes to a host of nutty views, and insinuates that those more clearheaded and intelligent than he can only be Jews, banksters, etc when they disagree with his inanities. More and more, I realize that what is needed is an isolating strategy of the Right. By this I mean, we need a white rights movement that emphasizes building up a mass base focused on the lowest common denominator of nationalism, which I argue is nonwhite immigration termination. The purpose of such would be not only to achieve the kind of initial victory (say, illegals deportation) that a movement needs really to get off the ground, and develop an enduring presence, but also to isolate and hermetically seal off the unrespectable fringe types who are attracted like flies to anything the liberal mainstream condemns as "extremist". I think this is what Jared Taylor and his people are trying to do, and he is correct. However that may be, I do take solace in knowing that my views (mainstream US conservative, + initial focus on immigration, affirmative action, and negroid crime control) do indeed have that white mainstream "breakout" potential, whereas the views of Richards et al will always be limited to the fringe.
11638951511319244434Tabularaza @135: Thanks for the info. These idiots are like the Nazis, who denounced "Jewish physics" (as though Jews can't be good scientists!) instead of appropriating it. Someone like Richards thinks that because Mises and Rothbard were Jewish, therefore their arguments cannot have universal validity. I virtually never use leftist terms like 'racism' and 'anti-Semitism' as ones of abuse, but here at last is an attitude that genuinely does qualify as anti-Semitic, and morally objectionable. The mental power behind the Austrians (many of whom I have personally known over the decades) is so much vaster than that of Richards and his fellow oddwads that this type of conversation is really not worth it (which is not to say that all of them are brilliant; that is certainly untrue). I am no libertarian, and have soberly and repeatedly pointed out the flaw that many Austrians make in jumping from correct, value-free economic theory to libertarian ideology. One can be a Misesian without adopting libertarianism. That most Misesians are political libertarians is immaterial to the soundness of the Austrian paradigm. Indeed, what is so strange is that I have repeatedly emphasized my agreement with the need to develop a specifically nationalist political economics (and ultimately economy). I have merely argued that one must understand neutral economics first - ie, one must get one's understanding of reality right - before one can intelligently set about legislatively renovating economic activity so that it both best serves white EGI, and maximizes prosperity (the purpose of economic study in the first place). Yet from that position, the idiots denounce me as a "libertarian gangster", or a Jew, or servant of Jews, despite my disavowals (there is a parallel here with the deliberately needling Lister, who keeps trying to associate me with the most ridiculous figures in American televangelism, when my Catholicism is light years removed, both theologically as well as in intellectual sophistication, from them).. There is a profound lesson here. It is not enough for some men to be wise. The wise must also be themselves the powerful.
11639151511319244747I note that no one responds to my comment @128, which attempts actually to advance the discussion (and happens to be correct).
11642951511319294215I need to respond at some length to GenoType, Silver, and Jrichards. I am just extremely busy now, between my continuing work and now school (not to mention discovery of a huge skunk attacking the back garden wall of my new rental home). If I can find the time ... That said, I have no idea what XPWA is talking about at #145. My comment @128 is too out of date, we needed it in 1981, something like that? (I don't totally disagree - nb all my many hyper-realist discussions of White Zion - but we can still, in theory, end additional immigration, end further outsourcing, abolish the Fed, and downsize govt ... Ron Paul has called for 1 trillion in reduced spending for 2013 ...) Added opensource to my huge blogs file. no idea what tinytech is. I'm not a Judeo-libertarian. I support free markets, so long as they don't harm national or racial security. If you have something to say, say it clearly, not (as is common here) through lots of allusions or (very) inside jokes or phrases.
11656451511319635000Silver, I'll reply when time permits. At so many places, even just here on this thread, I expressed my fundamental position re political economy: eg, <blockquote>There is a definite need to develop a specifically nationalist form of political economy. The content of such is not immediately ascertainable or at least obvious. What type of economic and legal arrangements would best suit the perpetuity of either a particular nation, or the whole white race? A case could be made for several versions, the viability of each in part depending upon local political and economic conditions. What type of economy is best for white GI in the US may well differ from what is best for white GI in the UK. The two main issues in political economics are wealth maximization and sustainability. What system will lead to the greatest national prosperity (most efficient use of resources) that is likely to endure over a very long period? I hold, for reasons adduced by Mises (economic calculation) and, to a lesser extent, Hayek (dispersed knowledge), that laissez-faire capitalism is the most efficient system. History bears this out. Given the complete economic (as well as moral and social) failures of all command economies in the 20th century (going right the way up to present day ‘Obamunism’, with its now widely-regarded as having totally failed ‘stimulus’ of 2009 - we free enterprisers predicted that failure, of course), I think it only fair to assign the burden of proof to those who claim that some other system is more efficient at generating prosperity than capitalism. If this burden cannot be met (as I believe it can’t), that does not mean surrender to laissez-faire, let alone open-borders libertarian nonsense. It does mean, however, that any subsequent nationalist economics needs to justify its infractions of individual liberty and laissez-faire; that is, to recognize that pursuing nationalist economic aims will lower GDP, and then demonstrate that such lowering of material living standards is acceptable in light of other objectives.</blockquote>
11663851511319800264Silver, You are owed a response from me. Please check back occasionally over this weekend (not before Saturday, USA time/date). JRichards, You are really obsessive. One question: Ron Paul, who authored <em>End the Fed</em>, and is a leading anti-Fed, hard money man, wants a gold standard (what he appropriately calls "sound money"). Is he an (unwitting?) agent of the banksters, too?
11663951511319801243anon/uh, Somewhere around here you asked me for some economics book recs. Tough call. Best place to learn real econ is with the voluminous materials at Mises.org and the Independent Institute (also good is the stuff at Liberty Fund). For particular items: Start with the classic Hazlitt, <em>Economics in One Lesson</em>. Despite being praised forever for having been well-written I thought it was a bit boring (which says something about pure economics: it ain't history or literature). Another simple collection is Mises, <em>Planning for Freedom and other essays</em>. Reisman, <em>Government Against the Economy</em> is also straightforward and useful. Then move to the somewhat more sophisticated Hayek, <em>The Fatal Conceit</em>. If you want to understand pure theory in depth, read Rothbard, <em>Man, Economy and State</em>. I prefer the 2 vol ed, as the inclusion of <em>Power and Market</em> makes it much more controversially libertarian. But that may be how it's sold at present. What else? Want to get really hardcore? Read the gigantic tome by Reisman, <em>Capitalism</em>, and then the greatest work of all, Mises, <em>Human Action</em> (which is much more than an economics treatise). Some variations are the works of Wilhelm Ropke, such as <em>A Humane Economy</em>. Conway, <em>A Farewell to Marx</em>, is an excellent short dissection of that hoary heresy. Schumpeter, <em>Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy</em>, is deep and interesting. Belloc,<em> The Servile State</em> is well worth reading, especially by Christian anti-capitalists. If nothing else, read Hazlitt, and you will never respect anti-market quackery again.
11664651511319820389I missed this gem: <blockquote>So Haller blames it on <em>Obama, who had nothing to do with the stimuli or bailouts except promoting and signing what the bankers asked him to do</em>.</blockquote> (JRichards) Read and reflect upon that statement. Reflect upon what type of deranged mind is capable of writing such a statement - and with such authority, such absolute confidence, as if he were merely stating the obvious. "Of course, Obama supports affirmative action! Of course, Obama is a socialist! Of course, Obama had no control over the stimulus plan!" Of course. Of course, there used to be a place for persons like this. It had rubber walls, and attendants in white labcoats ...
11664751511319824974Silver, See my comment again @100. One quick thought: real economics is not data-driven. All the classical economists understood that. Data alone is meaningless without the proper interpretive framework. Anyway, briefly skimming some of these exchanges on this thread, I am amazed that there is such virulent disagreement with me. I am really coming to understand why WN never gets anywhere politically, despite the outrages perpetrated on whites. There is something morally rotten at the core of WN. These people are like high-IQ Negroidal gangbangers (isn't that what the Nazis were?). No wonder they hate and mock my Christian ethical commitment (not that I'm any sort of thumper; I swear, booze and have 'lived in sin' much of my life). These are basically evil or deranged souls who want to build up their own power or at least egos by parasiting off the legitimate grievances of oppressed white people. Isn't that what David Duke did? He impugned his own reputation with needless tax evasion and criminal financial improprieties (and the gambling charge was true; I have a WN friend in Vegas who saw Duke twice at the tables, losing heavily). What these people fear is their own perpetual marginalization- even from their own cause. To repeat: a lot of WNs are bad (as well as maladjusted) people, who nevertheless see a road to influence for themselves precisely because the mainstream is so brainwashed on racial matters, the one area where the WNs are correct (at least in the broad sense that race differences are real, whites are victimized, Jews have too much media and political power, and the West is dying out). Many persons here over the years have appreciated my comments, though most of those have now left MR. As so often happens with WN endeavors, the bad drive out the good. But what the remainder fear in essence is the possibility of my approach stealing their thunder. Imagine you could start to convince millions of decent people that nonwhite immigration must end, affirmative action is wrong and unfair, races differ in IQ and behavior, and social policy must be race-realistic. Who would need WN? Basically, racial conservatism has the potential really to catch on among whites. But where would that leave the White Power types? Out in the cold, as always.
11666551511319883297The statement the idiot Joe quoted is precisely correct. To mock it shows a <strong>complete</strong> lack of understanding of the subject. Even in the natural sciences (which economics is<em> not</em> - that Genotype keeps imputing that view to me is all the proof needed that he actually has never read the methodological works of Mises, though he feels free to criticize Mises ... and then has the gall to accuse <em>me</em> of bad faith!), theory usually precedes data gathering (though the data in turn will often modify or even overthrow the initial theory). Pure economics is really a kind of branch of logic, yet with crucial applicability to the real world - thus, incidentally, making it a bridge over some Kantian difficulties, by giving statements both logically valid and necessarily true wrt the world. Mises was one of the great geniuses of the ages for his theorizing of praxeology. Silver, Briefly, I don't recall your mention of <em>Origin of Wealth</em>, though from Amazon's description, it looks interesting - though also somewhat tangential to economics proper. Econ growth evolves from scientific advance, from increases in man's control over material reality (at its most general). I'll reply to you this weekend. I can't believe you're defending anything Keynesian. People never learn, and have this infinite belief in the meliorist power of political activity, no matter how repeated the failures. Why don;t you read this short piece from yesterday's <em>WSJournal</em>? <blockquote>Four Reasons Keynesians Keep Getting It Wrong Concern over future tax rates is one of the main reasons for reduced investor confidence. By ALLAN H. MELTZER Those who heaped high praise on Keynesian policies have grown silent as government spending has failed to bring an economic recovery. Except for a few diehards who want still more government spending, and those who make the unverifiable claim that the economy would have collapsed without it, most now recognize that more than a trillion dollars of spending by the Bush and Obama administrations has left the economy in a slump and unemployment hovering above 9%. Why is the economic response to increased government spending so different from the response predicted by Keynesian models? What is missing from the models that makes their forecasts so inaccurate? Those should be the questions asked by both proponents and opponents of more government spending. Allow me to suggest four major omissions from Keynesian models: First, big increases in spending and government deficits raise the prospect of future tax increases. Many people understand that increased spending must be paid for sooner or later. Meanwhile, President Obama makes certain that many more will reach that conclusion by continuing to demand permanent tax increases. His demands are a deterrent for those who do most of the saving and investing. Concern over future tax rates is one of the main reasons for heightened uncertainty and reduced confidence. Potential investors hold cash and wait. Second, most of the government spending programs redistribute income from workers to the unemployed. This, Keynesians argue, increases the welfare of many hurt by the recession. What their models ignore, however, is the reduced productivity that follows a shift of resources toward redistribution and away from productive investment. Keynesian theory argues that each dollar of government spending has a larger effect on output than a dollar of tax reduction. But in reality the reverse has proven true. Permanent tax reduction generates more expansion than increased government spending of the same dollars. I believe that the resulting difference in productivity is a main reason for the difference in results. Third, Keynesian models totally ignore the negative effects of the stream of costly new regulations that pour out of the Obama bureaucracy. Who can guess the size of the cost increases required by these programs? ObamaCare is not the only source of this uncertainty, though it makes a large contribution. We also have an excessively eager group of environmental regulators, protectors of labor unions, and financial regulators. Their decisions raise future costs and increase uncertainty. How can a corporate staff hope to estimate future return on new investment when tax rates and costs are unknowable? Holding cash and waiting for less uncertainty is the principal response. Thus, the recession drags on. Fourth, U.S. fiscal and monetary policies are mainly directed at getting a near-term result. The estimated cost of new jobs in President Obama's latest jobs bill is at least $200,000 per job, based on administration estimates of the number of jobs and their cost. How can that appeal to the taxpayers who will pay those costs? Once the subsidies end, the jobs disappear—but the bonds that financed them remain and must be serviced. These medium and long-term effects are ignored in Keynesian models. Perhaps that's why estimates of the additional spending generated by Keynesian stimulus—the "multiplier effect"—have failed to live up to expectations. The Federal Reserve, too, has long been overly concerned about the next quarter, never more than in the current downturn. Fears of a double-dip recession, fanned by Wall Street, have led to continued easing and seemingly endless near-zero interest rates. Here, too, uncertainty abounds. When will the Fed tell us how and when it is going to sell more than $1 trillion of mortgage-related securities? Will Fannie Mae, for example, have to buy them to hold down mortgage interest rates? By now even the Fed should understand that we do not have a liquidity shortage. It has done more than enough by adding excess reserves beyond any reasonable amount. Instead of more short-term tinkering, it's time for a coherent program to start gradually reducing excess reserves. Clearly, a more effective economic policy would aim at restoring the long-term growth rate by reducing uncertainty and restoring investor and consumer confidence. Here are four proposals to help get us there: First, Congress and the administration should agree on a 10-year program of government spending cuts to reduce the deficit. The Ryan and Simpson-Bowles budget proposals are a constructive start. (Note to Republican presidential candidates: Permanent tax reduction can only be achieved by reducing government spending.) Second, reduce corporate tax rates and expense capital investment by closing loopholes. Third, announce a five-year moratorium on new regulations. Fourth, adopt an enforceable 0%-2% inflation target to allay fears of future high inflation. Now that the Keynesian euphoria has again faded, perhaps this administration—or more likely the next—will recognize the reasons for the failure and stop asking for more of the same. Mr. Meltzer, a professor of public policy at the Tepper School, Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author most recently of "Why Capitalism?" forthcoming from Oxford University Press.</blockquote>
11616551521318851690Oh, cmon, surely you are brighter than that, Graham?! How can you compare Switzerland and the USA - demographic apples and oranges, yes? Ditto ND and CA (how about white Far Northern CA with ND?).
11616651521318852334"Elder brothers" and all those kind words notwithstanding, under Catholicism today there is nothing special, or specially evil, about Jews. They are simply another set of people who have not been brought yet to Christ. We Catholics do not venerate Jews, nor are we allowed per papal bull especially to condemn them. I like shit-stirrers like Williamson, but sorry, he does not get to decide the content of Church doctrine on his own authority. The Church regards modern Jewry as neither uniquely special, nor malign. A good Catholic wants to bring a Jew to Christ to the same extent that he wishes to convert the Muslim or the atheist. Nothing more. I'm not that good of a Catholic personally, because I really am only interested in saving my own soul, not others', which I take to be each man's responsibility (and I have a rather liberal conception of salvation anyway). But at least I don't commit the sin of deliberately distorting doctrine under color of ecclesial authority.
11616751521318853797I watched the first 20min of the BHL vid. Rather interesting figure, definitely some strange exotic charisma, but also a weird guy, linguistic difficulties nothwithstanding. Is this man considered a serious intellectual, or just a <em>poseur</em>?
11618051531318900834I haven't read everything here, but the photos again recall for me a long-simmering question. Graham Lister et al like to criticize America's hyper-individualism in contrast to the UK's deep rootedness, millenia of shared history on the same sacred soil (we'll forget intramural bloodshed between Saxons and Picts, or Welsh and English, Scots and English, etc.), and greater ontological 'wholeness', if I may interpret various vague assertions in that way. OK, one would expect that to be the case. So why do ordinary Britons do no more than us rootless and individualized Middle Americans to resist this I presume mostly unwanted alien invasion? On an island the size of Louisiana, with deep, resonant history attached to so many places (unlike in the US), why aren't the British masses voting BNP in droves? Or at least registering massive anti-immigration sentiments (recall my adventure in July with the UK police chatroom - just pointing out that the UK looters were mostly black got me banned - this from a<em> <strong>law and order</strong></em> online community!!!!), even if BNP is considered too fascist, and the Tories too austerity-oriented, to get everyone's votes? I think that Europeans have nearly as little shared ethno-consciousness as white Americans.
11619451531318929181<em>Property developers have mounted a “huge” lobbying campaign backed by the rich and powerful to alter radically planning laws in favour of development, the head of the National Trust has said. Sir Simon Jenkins, the organisation’s chairman, said the “fingerprints” of rich builders were all over the reforms, which campaigners say will give developers carte blanche to build on large parts of rural England. “We are up against some very rich and powerful people,” he told MPs on a Commons committee investigating the planning reforms. His comments come amid growing concerns about the influence of lobbyists and business figures on ministers and government policy.</em> (Bill) -------------------------------------- This is exactly the type of "capitalism" I oppose. It is what gives the best economic system a bad name. There is absolutely nothing violative of capitalist norms in regulating immigration, or in regulating the extent of property development - provided that property exists in an original (undeveloped) state. There would be something wrong with a govt telling the owner of a building that he cannot demolish it, or cannot internally decorate it in accordance with his own choosing, or cannot rent or sell it, etc.
11621351531318986932Bill, Would you be prepared to support an authoritarian conservative or neo-fascist coup in Britain, with lots of mass arrests, immigrant deportations, secret executions of leftists, etc? Some <em>deus ex machina</em> act like that seems to be the only hope for UK renewal. As I've said many times, none of us should be under the slightest illusion that the Occident (esp in its Anglo-Saxon realm) can be saved absent serious violence. Once I get past my Catholic Thought studies basic requirements, I'm going to try to focus my later studies on issues pertaining to the theology of war, combat and resistance to oppression. I do not believe that the true line of Church thinking requires moral men to be as passive and politically resigned as the contemporary Church would have us all believe.
11621551531318988810What is "green-washing"? And which "Rangers" were you referring to, Dr. Lister?
11621651531318989784I'm going to try to respond later this evening to Dr. Lister's lengthy comment. One issue he doesn't address is the one I broached in the first comment on this thread: if Europeans have such deep rootedness, why have they succumbed to anti-racist/anti-nationalist and diversitarian nonsense so easily? This is a question my mother has been asking for decades (my dad and uncle both think Europeans born after the war are all "faggots", and that that simple explanation is all that's needed). My mother is fluent in French, is a francophile, and is just constantly flabbergasted whenever she hears or reads about some Muslim or African problem in France. She sounds rather like Lister, actually. She says she can understand sort of why Americans are so passive racially, but how can the Europeans surrender their deep Christian and Western cultural heritage so readily as to allow esp Muslims (<em><strong>Muslims</strong></em>??!!!) into their societies? Of course, being a staunch Catholic, she attributes this surrender to both the scandalous decline of Christianity in Europe, as well as the liberal ideological pollution of the modern Church. It hardly needs be said I think she's right. Anyway, the deeper point is that an ethnocommunitarian past is obviously, in and of itself, an insufficient bulwark against the ideological force of anti-racism, which itself represents an evolutionary defect in the psyche of white race (ie, that there is something wrong with us that so many whites are susceptible to such blatantly destructive nonsense).
11627151531319076832[I note some responses directed to me over at the "Octopi" thread, but I want to reply to Lister et al here first. The discussion at Octopi is starting to get academic, and I dislike such, mainly because I have neither inclination nor especially time (I'm in a full-time rigorous doctoral program now; also, I still work 15-20 hard hours for pay per week, in addition to other activities, like hitting the gym, monitoring investments, unfortunately extensive commuting, etc) to summarize huge tracts of theory and/or research written by established scholars; eg, I'm not going to correct all the errors of GenoType, when he ought to read, say, Rothbard, <em>Man, Economy and State</em>, for himself. On the other hand, Lister's comment here is more in the way of strategic prognostication, and in those matters, there can be only debate and proposals - ie, there are no easily discernible correct answers to how our race ought to proceed. Such an open-ended, 'opinionated' discussion is obviously to be preferred by someone operating under increasingly severe time constraints.] LH ----------------------------------------- Part I From Lister (my responses interpolated): <blockquote><em>Look the USA isn’t going to fail so badly that it ceases to exist, unless we all experience some genuinely global catastrophe, but it’s future increasingly looks very Brazilian and as such distinctly non-Western.</em> </blockquote> This is an old hypothesis, going back at least to the early 90s, which I personally can remember. Back then many of us were debating whether the future of the US would be Bosnia or Brazil (ie, civil race war v increasing racial amalgamation + lower quality of life and material economic success). I always opted for the Brazil thesis, mainly because I think whites have now been so enervated or weakened that they wish always to avoid conflict at all costs. If conflict is forced upon us, some portion of white Americans will fight back (in this unlike their even feebler European counterparts - during the recent UK riots, how many real English, as opposed to non-black alien communities, actually fought back against the negroid hooligans? And when the Mohammedans were running riot in France in 2005, where were the native-born vigilantes?). But white Americans will never <em>en masse</em> <strong>initiate</strong> racial conflict, and my suspicion (which may prove incorrect; no one can foresee this type of event) is that the 'managerial state' will always be able to quell local insurgencies. Never forget: most whites, being productive and decent persons, have a stake in the functioning of the basic mechanisms of society, even if those mechanisms have now been conquered by race traitors and enemies, and are being utilized, over the long term, to dispossess and destroy white America. In the long run, an extirpatory conflict might be just what Middle America requires to survive, but as one of modern history's greatest charlatans once put it (in the only true phrase he ever uttered), "In the long run we're all dead". Race war might be great for young whites, who will have the time to rebuild society (assuming victory shall be ours - something I expect, but which cannot at the outset be assured), but what about those without the time to rebuild their lives, properties, portfolios, etc? Which generation sticks its head on the chopping block? No, going the way of Brazil is so much easier, and therefore most likely. <blockquote><em>As the primary colonial adventure of Europeans in the modern period it would have fairly short life compared to our ancient European nations. Mark Steyn, who can be very sharp and witty but is a very superficial writer might have got his hypothesis from “America Alone” entirely the wrong way around. After all no Western society is so near to seeing its former majority ethnic group reduced to the status of simply being the largest plurality. In the long run is it possible for a non-European society (Euros as a non-majoritarian group) to remain truly Western?</em> </blockquote> I read the excellent <em>America Alone</em> in 2007, if memory serves. I can't remember the whole of his indictment, but it was persuasively damning in its portrayal of complete European spinelessness in the face of the immigration invasion + Muslim jihadism, and depressing in its reiteration of the data pertaining to European fertility declines. I understand, if cannot condone, the collapse in Euro births due to Western female careerism. But I still cannot account for what I asked at the outset, which was a serious question: why are Europeans so cowardly about defending their homelands? Lister is somewhat correct about a certain type of contemporary American (by no means the only or majority type, however) who idiotically thinks that anyone not actually Amerindian is an "immigrant", and thus that it is meanspirited to try to keep our nation white by restricting further immigration. This type does seem to predominate in the usual opinion-forming circles (abetted there, of course, by Jews pursuing of their own agenda). But with Europe's ancient history and "thick" culture, why do they ape us? Of course, America will no longer be Western once whites are no longer the majority. The more interesting question is how long whites will survive at all as a distinct minority community? From my experiences living at different points across the entirety of CA (the OC, Sacramento, and San Francisco, as well as in other places, like NYC), that is, in a state where whites are already a mere plurality, and within the decade will not even be that, Hispanics having captured that 'honor', what I have seen over the past decade is an unbelievable increase in interracial dating, marriage and miscgenation among whites. Our real enemy seems less to be extermination, than peaceful extinction via miscegenation. Moreover, this is becoming a national phenomenon among the young. My university publishes an alumni quarterly bulletin (for ultimate fundraising purposes obviously, it being a private institution), with,<em> inter alia</em>, a section devoted to wedding announcements and often accompanying photos. What I have seen in those pages just in the past 10 years has been shocking. It seems like every other wedding photo with a white bride in it has a nonwhite (and often incredibly UGLY Oriental or Subcon) groom. Over and over, I ask, WTF?! What can some of these not at all unattractive white females, Ivy grads with real futures ahead of them, possibly want with some greasy little (or sometimes tubby) Asian?! Note for emphasis: these women are not always (or even mostly) ugly themselves, and thus presumably without better prospects. No, they are <em>choosing</em> ugly, greasy Asiatic mates. I have argued elsewhere that this is a function of the loss of sexual status of white men, which in turn is a function of our loss of racial status, woman being always in essence a little whore who will try to 'marry up', if at all possible (trust me, I know about these matters). Clearly, for some of the most academically elite young women in America, marrying 'up' means marrying 'out'. <blockquote><em>Perhaps it is America alone that is uniquely vulnerable to the toxicity of hyper-liberalism. If my admittedly underdeveloped hypothesis is accurate there is probably no single mono-causal explanation as to why this is true but rather a series of interacting factors that together will precipitate the relative failure of the most ambitious colonial project of Europeans in the modern period</em>.</blockquote> But this isn't true empirically. The virus of liberalism seemingly has infected every European society, which is why we all succumb to the same anti-racist lies and legislative hysteria. Even South African whites voted 2-1 in 1992 to destroy their own living space (how I recall reading in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> at the time about that fateful measure for all-race elections, and being filled with much foreboding). While there probably is indeed no monocausal explanation (as I have been known to say here at MR) for the collapse in white pride and confidence, surely there will be a strong genetic component to any ultimately successful hypothesis. <blockquote><em>Even if some form of societal shock was to strike the US such that some radically different form of politics actually gained traction is it likely that any new political form would likely wrap itself in the language of the Constitution, American Patriotism, vulgar ‘televangelist’ Christianity and colour-blindness. We in Europe have some dangerous and daunting challenges but in my guts I just feel we are better equipped to genuinely resist and overcome those challenges.</em></blockquote> I don't know. I perceive this to be a race against time. White consciousness among conservative types is increasing; on the other hand, even vestigial traces of that consciousness among liberal types (of the kind that as recently as the 80s would have instinctively prevented elite white females from realistically contemplating marrying nonwhites) have now all but evaporated. Thus the white population is gradually psychologically bifurcating into those with no innate desire to miscegenate, and those potentially oriented that way, for whom the social and psychological 'costs' of doing so are no longer prohibitive. Those whites who are naturally racially weak face no obstacles to being reproductively disloyal, and therefore their racially defective genomes are gradually being removed from the ranks of the racially pure white population. Conversely, those whites who are naturally more inclined towards race loyalty are also gradually being culturally awakened, thanks to the ongoing and accelerating rise of racial knowledge and experience which contradicts official propaganda. The end result is an ever shrinking pure-blood white population, which, however, will also be ever more racially aware and innately race-patriotic. I think those aspects of modern 'conservatism' in the US that Lister finds repulsive or useless are attractive now, but will become less so in the future. By then, American patriotism will very much overlap with white patriotism. --------------------------------------------------------------------
11627451531319082865Part II From Lister (my comments interpolated): <blockquote><em>One reason for this asymmetry might be that, however attenuated and exhausted the contemporary political imagination is in our post-modern times, the European political imagination and memory really does have a wider set of horizons – both the possible and the actual has outstripped liberalism. For good and bad, we Europeans have not simply been a set of nations which define themselves primarily by their liberal foundations. However regrettable much of it might have been we do have the historical-cultural memory of non-liberal social orders/hierarchy and even in the living memory the direct experience of politically potent non-liberal ideologies and regimes. Liberal theory defines the American politico-cultural ‘event horizon’ in a way that no European society can quite match.</em></blockquote> True, but then why are Europeans so monolithically left-wing? Where are your successful, governing parties of the Far Right? Your collective memories of non-liberal orders are all relentlessly hostile! I think we're coming back to my hypothesis re White Zion. Most whites everywhere are race liberals. Some may be pro-capitalist; others pro-socialist. But as majorities they unite around opposition to (white) racism. <em>watchu gonna do</em>? The white race, as I argued at great length here at MR earlier this year, is headed towards extinction. The only solution is to have a reservation (nation-state) of our own, one where the majority <strong>is</strong> like us (absent a global catastrophe, like a virulent contagion situation, which forces different countries to hermetically seal themselves; of course, that still does not negate the internal miscegenation problem). The UK and other European societies are simply now playing catch-up to white American dispossession. Every trend destroying the US is also accelerating in the UK and Europe. Finally, 'liberal theory' in the US, even assuming Lister's assessment is accurate (itself highly debatable, and derived from shallow post-modern critiques of America's alleged hyper-liberalism; the American Burkean Russell Kirk's famous <em>The Conservative Mind</em> rather decisively challenges this notion of America as an "experiment" in Enlightenment liberalism), always has had a racialist component to it. Jefferson, the preeminent classical liberal among the Founders, was nevertheless an explicit racist and ethnochauvinist when it came to both Negro integration and immigration. As I've mentioned previously, the Founders thought it perfectly acceptable to discuss the "rights of man", the glories of liberty, the benefits of what were coming to be recognized as 'free markets', etc, on the one hand, and Negroid inferiority and the desirability of extirpating the Indian savages, on the other. So I still remain to be convinced why the best of liberal individualism, so clearly coincident with our race, cannot be harmonized with race realism. Why must a belief in liberty entail a rejection of racial honesty? <blockquote><em>Secondly, we recently discussed that Dutch survey which found a very large percentage of Dutch people openly admitted that mass migration had been the worst mistake in Dutch history. This is interesting as the Dutch like to think of themselves as very tolerant liberal people. Yet many can happily admit to such a non-liberal sentiment. Why? It might be that as an organic long-standing culture and society the Dutch, as some level, implicitly feel they form a ‘natural’ collective group. The sentiment that mass migration is a mistake in the Dutch context doesn’t necessary have to be couched in ‘racist’ terms. After all it could be millions of Poles or little green men they would still be unhappy/worried. Hence the ‘psychological costs’ of the position seem to be lower than one might observe in American culture. The difference in American cultural politics is that the objection to mass migration etc., cannot easily be couched in the implicit assumptions of an organic ‘natural’ ethno-cultural group which is in situ in a genuine homeland. Obviously every Euro-American is an immigrant or the product of immigration. Very obviously so in fact. Hence any objection to other forms of immigration is, ipso facto, a harder sell. The discourse does have a higher ‘psychological cost’ associated with it. Even the Jared Taylor homogeneity stuff, in the American context, has this higher politico-emotional barrier to entry.</em></blockquote> Again, Lister is describing modern, already mixed white-ethnicity and highly multiracialized America. Not too many decades ago (I know, because I know the views of my parents and many others of their generation: they are neither WNs, nor integrationists or multiculturalists), most whites did not find it much of a psychological barrier to say that the US is a white nation, and ought to be kept that way. It is harder today because America is now a highly mixed society. <em>But this has been a product of my own politically conscious lifetime!</em> When I began high school (in a foreign country) in 1979, no one thought of the US as other than a white nation, though by the time I graduated college in 1987, joyous paeans to 'diversity' were heard throughout the Ivy League (and were seeping into non-academic discourse). I clearly remember the adults talking amongst themselves in the 70s about the "Mexican invasion" (also "Cambodian dog-eaters" were an issue) and how immigrants were ruining the state, and I also remember how excited everybody was when Reagan won in 1980, in part because they assumed he was going to put troops on the border (to the younger readers: this is true; Reagan, the asshole who passed a major, 4-million Mexican amnesty in 1986 - which directly set the stage for our present, 30-million illegal alien nightmare - had campaigned on stricter border control, among other issues). Moreover, and this may come as a surprise to Lister as much as to the multiculturalists he's 'channeling', but most white Americans do NOT see themselves as 'immigrants'. Those who do are usually either immigrants in fact, or else either leftists or Jewish neocons (or their sycophantic supporters). Most white Americans also do not see themselves as "European-Americans", a label which I use in writing sometimes, but generally eschew, as it seems to connote naturalized Europeans (like some of my parents' friends, who variously come from Germany, Britain, Poland, Italy, etc - and sound like it!). Most white Americans have sufficiently deep roots here that we see ourselves as just plain 'Americans', or, in this multiculti age, 'white Americans'. If such real Americans feel uncomfortable with racialist appeals, it is because of the general cultural bias against discussing and acting on white EGI (which has its ultimate origin in misconceived morality - again, I am now studying Catholic moral theology because I feel the ultimate problem for the West is ethical; to wit, that we have been brainwashed into thinking that taking stands in defense of white preservation is somehow immoral, unChristian, etc). What Graham Lister is really doing here is superimposing his own beliefs about white Americans onto us, and then issuing a critique based on such hypothesized beliefs. <blockquote><em>The American ideological background is generally not, intra-societally, to think in collective or group terms so the first barrier to Mr Average is “isn’t this ‘narrow’ group-identity stuff all un-American and a remnant of our worst history not our best?” Next as an immigrant nation, the deeply and proudly inorganic ‘propositional nation’, a non-racist objection to non-Europeans becoming ‘Americans’ is also hard to sell. Can recent invaders reasonably and coherently object to more invaders?</em></blockquote> Some truth here, but a lot more 'buying into' PC discourse. First, it's only white Americans who are predisposed to thinking in strictly individualist terms, and more and more whites are coming to see this. Second, American history was traditionally not all that ethno-individualist, even wrt whites themselves. The great immigration restriction of 1924 was directed at non-Nordics, Asian immigration having been ended by the late 1880s. No American majority was ever predisposed to liking immigration (as the excellent Kevin MacDonald elucidated in his now classic article in <em>Population and Environment</em> on Jews and immigration, the 'chosen' were long the <strong><em>only</em></strong> group in America strongly supportive of mass immigration; this remains the case to some extent even today). Third, this "America as propositional nation" hogwash is purely a contemporary, <em>ex post facto</em> neocon attempt to define an inclusive Americanism for a mixed-race age. I don't speak that language; neither do my friends, family, their friends, etc. And fourth, isn't your own homeland starting to define itself (nb: that is already a treasonous act: nations don't 'define themselves' according to some external standard; they just <em><strong>are</strong></em>) in terms other than 'blood and soil' descent? So clearly, actually being an ancient blood-and-soil nation is no defense against multicultural assault.
11629451531319112824Does it ever occur to people that we are up against great forces in the world; that the tide of history is moving inexorably against white survival? I really think our race perished in WW2, and just hasn't yet realized it. Clearly, if you look at Roman Imperial history, at the time at which it is clear to us that Rome had begun her decline it wasn't at all apparent for many decades (even arguably centuries) to the people then living. I suspect the future will say that about WNs in this period. I could offer a couple more paragraphs in response to Lister's long comment, but the basic point is this: we are in a new situation, and the past is dead. Every trend is running against white survival. If we are to survive, it will involve totally new ways of thinking (eg White Zion), even if I find value (racial value) in a return to racially renovated forms of our civilization (like a Christianity that places ontological and moral value on cultural preservation, including Occidental cultures). There has been some fundamental disconnect with our own past. The fact that America's is shorter and thinner than England's or France's may be immaterial. All white nations have been transformed into historical orphans (dare I say 'Americanized?), and so we're all pretty much in the same situation. If patriotic appeals to St George or Henry V or "their finest hour" haven't been sufficient to awaken the British to what they are losing (have already lost?), and spurred them to defend it, then what does it matter that once upon a time the UK's sense of 'togetherness' may have been 'thicker' than America's? Multiply ten by zero, you get zero. Multiply a hundred by zero ... I think increasingly all that the white peoples have left are bare or base appeals to racial differences and racial fear. That it will be bad to allow one's own people to become a defenseless minority in one's own country; that other races are simply less ethical and sheerly behaviourly pleasant than our own; that most other peoples are less intelligent than we are, and thus more of an economic drag, esp in non-laissez-faire societies; and that peoples are generally most contented when living among genetically similar others. Those arguments are timeless and universal, and enable us to avoid pointless and distracting intraracial quarrels.
11635751531319206288No rejoinder, Graham? It's as though I spit in the sea around here...
11628951561319107544Dan Dare, Thanks for the translation. Very interesting stuff, even if this Aly seems, as you imply, like a typical German, abasing himself ethically in <em>Le grand suck-up</em> to Jewry. These Germans really need to get it over it, already! One certainly doesn't see endless (or any) hordes of ex-Soviets or present Russians (let alone Russian Jews) weeping over their countrymen's collective treatment of the East Europeans they conquered and oppressed over a far longer period than the Third Reich's existence. That said, I suspect there is more than a little truth to Aly's thesis. Ordinary Germans undoubtedly had a different mindset from the Jews, one which placed the former at a disadvantage in the new urban 'competition' unleashed by the Industrial Revolution, and its accompanying social and economic changes, for which the mercantile Jews seem to have been superbly prepared by both history and culture (perhaps also by religion and biology). Of course resentments would arise, especially in light of the Christian past, with its demonization of Jewry, as well as the newer racial theories. My suspicion is that the Holocaust really did occur (though why is Aly sticking with what I thought is the long-discredited 6 million figure?), and that it's not really all that hard to explain. It was the work of a comparatively small number of Nazi fanatics - true believers - abetted by wartime circumstances of tyrannical order-following combined with attendant chaos providing 'cover'. Modern German asslickers, and their Jewish masters, profess to be shocked, just shocked, that in wartime, faced with general military tyranny, economic hardship, accurate fear of (Judeo-)Bolshevism, and worries over personal and familial survival, regular Germans didn't stand up to the Nazi authorities to protest the 'discriminatory' treatment of the Jews (after all, very few ordinary Germans were aware of the actual workings of the concentration camp system, and there never was any final order authorizing the Holocaust). Yeah. Like lots of tenured professors in comfortable Western countries 'stand up' against the lies of PC, against the affirmative action persecution of white men, against the debasement of academic standards at the heart of multiculturalism ... yeah, so much easier to have stood up for Jewry under the Nazis ... Enough with these "how did it happen" narratives.
11629051561319108387BTW, what does this word mean: "whingeing"?
11635651561319206014<em>@Mr. Haller A rigorous doctoral program. Good for you. Now with wishing to appearing to be snide, if say physics, mathematics, biology etc., are at the top end of the scale for rigor in post-graduate studies and say various forms of ‘business studies’ near the bottom where precisely would theology be placed? Rigorous - more like rigor mortis. Theology is rather moribund surely? It rather lacks anything like a dynamic impulse if we are being kind. Most American ‘Christians’ couldn’t name a theologian let alone explain their arguments. And no Benny Hinn and Jack van Impe do not quite count in this context. I’m joking, of course the study of the past is useful and perhaps you will be Aquinas redux?</em> (Lister) -------------------- Alas, Mr. Lister, you keep lowering yourself in my estimation. Surely you know that theology is an extremely rigorous discipline - assuming one is studying it at a rigorous institution, as I am. Actually what I am studying is Catholic Thought, which has a huge philosophical component to it. If you think studying Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Ockham, and many other classical philosophers (eg, I have to do a required course on the German Idealists) right up to modern theologians like Rahner and other contemporaries is not rigorous, then you are far less intellectually aware than I had been giving you credit for. Theology is hardly moribund. You don't mean that, do you? Perhaps you meant 'useless'. Your own Oxbridge churn out large numbers of refined books in theology (not to mention, obviously, philosophy). My own program emphasizes Catholic philosophy/theology as a <em>living</em> tradition. I've made one new friend since starting my program. He was an undergraduate (chemical? I think) engineering major at Rice (one of the best universities in the US). Many of the professors here are European. What is the relevance of the theological ignorance of the American majority? (I'm sure the average Brit could easily distinguish between Hobbes and Hume; no, let's make it easier, between Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer? Of course, an impromptu lecture betwixt pints and darts ...) I've never heard of Beny Himm or van Impe (you do understand I'm Catholic, yes?). I've made clear why I'm here: to study the faith in order that I might better provide the correct ethical foundation to the cause of Western preservation. We shall just have to wait and see whose work is finally more useful.
11646851561319376868<em>the policy of concentrating Jews in slave labour camps always strikes me as containing a German joke. </em>(GW)\\ <strong>Arbeit macht frei</strong>? I always thought this had a German philosophical ring to it.
11650851561319444923Re Jimmy Marr and his race-specific God issues. I posted the following on the "banking elites" thread as part of a lengthy response to Graham Lister's denunciations of Christianity (to which of course he hasn't replied). It is apposite here, as the answer to your question is that we need a racially renovated Christian faith, the same one our fathers (or at least their societies) adhered to when they were out conquering New Worlds : <blockquote><em>But you ask me why I gently mock your Catholic faith and theism. Well there are a couple of reasons: (1) I intensely dislike American Christianity (it’s generally so vulgar in every conceivable way I find it ghastly);</em></blockquote>(Lister) I think by “American Christianity” you mean that which is either unique to (eg, Mormonism), or most closely identified with, the USA, this mainly being evangelicalism (though, of course, its modern origins are British). I am no fan of the evangelicals, either, especially due to the execrable views on race (and the ridiculous Israel-Zionism) of their leadership(s). The lay majority, however, is disproportionately white, even Nordic, and mostly conservative, including on immigration issues. These are our people, too, and there are a lot of them here. Thus your intense dislike of them is in the manner of an unhelpful personal hobbyhorse, and should be kept to appropriate (anti-fundamentalist) fora. <blockquote><em>(2) as a man of science I dislike the Roman Catholic church even more (with its litany of fake saints and phony miracles);</em></blockquote>(Lister) An unusually ignorant statement. The Roman Catholic Church played an important role in the growth and development of science (read books by science historian David Lindberg), and the notion that the Church was ever reactionary in scientific matters is pure anti-clerical prejudice. The Vatican today sponsors serious scientific research, and it employs many priest-scientists to keep abreast of the latest developments in the secular world. I, too, regard the Church as over-superstitious, though that may be due to my own mostly secular upbringing. I certainly maintain an open mind (unlike you) wrt claims of miracles, though I tend towards scepticism. I have no idea what you mean by “fake saints”. I do know that, again, there are vastly more white Catholics than white nationalists, and that allowing your personal dislikes to poison possible inter-white alliances is strategic folly. <blockquote><em>(3) you have both implicitly and at times explicitly claimed that somehow Christian theology is of massive, and positive, importance to the issues we discuss here - no it is not in any substantive manner - it’s an irrelevant sideshow other than the context of presentational/PR issues specific to the USA;</em> </blockquote>(Lister) This is the central and interesting issue. I do indeed believe as you contend, for many reasons, which I have discussed at greater length at other times: A) A majority of my racial countrymen and I are theists (overwhelmingly Christian). Respecting any fundamental moral issue, we would naturally want to know the “Godly” position. A racially conservative Christian theology is certainly important to innately racially conservative Christians, of whom there are millions (or tens - who, precisely, do you think comprise those white American majorities who routinely inform pollsters of their opposition to immigration ... atheists?). B) Racialism does indeed (superficially) seem to cut against the grain of Christian universalism. If falsely forced to choose between God and race, the vast bulk of whites in America will abjure racial survival (not sure what the excuse for racial abnegation is amongst your mostly unchurched fellow citizens). So it is vitally important that the incorrect but implicit and now guiding claim that white preservationism is morally wrong be theoretically refuted, because, I assure you, there will always be more white Christians than anti-Christian WNs. I happen to be of the sociological belief that modern secularism is not a permanent feature of the European future, but more of a present, passing phase. Of course, we shall see. But even if I am wrong on the matter of future theistic intellectual change, it is an undeniable fact, as I and Desmond Jones have variously asserted, that, among whites, committed Christians are seriously outbreeding secularists, at least proportionally. This is true in Europe as well as America. If one assumes a genetic component to the psychological propensity towards religious faith, then I expect that, over time, the West will return to religiosity (and, again, do not forget the well-established positive correlations between theism and conservatism, secularism and racial leftism, and general conservatism and moderate - ie, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, anti-crime - racial nationalism). C) If the West is to survive, even merely racially (let alone as a civilization), I believe that a return to traditional (which need not mean American Protestant fundamentalist) Christianity will be an aspect of its “survival strategy”. Secularism breeds anomie, far more today than a century ago at the dawn of the current secularist age. Why this should be so is immaterial to the observation, though I suspect the answer is very old-fashioned: the religious see life as meaningful striving, if only a striving after Heaven, and that attitude shapes the whole of one’s being, which in turn affects the non-spiritual elements of existence, too (Charles Murray made something like this case in his excellent <em>Human Accomplishment</em>). Those ‘dead to Heaven’, on the other hand, will incline towards selfishness, and meaningless hedonism (and, again, very low birthrates). I do not think that secularists as a dominant social group will prove willing to make the sacrifices in short term thinking and pleasures to reconquer and rebuild the West. Thus, I hold that a return to a ‘politically incorrected’ (de-liberalized) traditionalist Christianity is a necessary (though of course probably not sufficient) element in any Western/white renaissance. Faith impels some men to greatness; lack of it compels most men to focus on <em>la dolce vita</em> and preserving their pensions <em>uber alles</em>. D) Finally, I think the sheer coming awfulness of life in ever more multicultural societies, and especially in Europe’s increasingly, aggressively Islamicized ones, will also impel many whites to return to their historic churches in part as an implicitly white/European national community building tool, and as places of refuge from culturally alien forces. These functional elements of religion will play an important role in the return of many whites to their ancestral faith - and as more return, so still more after them will, too, the majority being lemmings, for good or ill. <blockquote><em>(4) you do not acknowledge the radically universalist kernel of Christianity. If Christianity has been less universalistic in previous times this is because other cultural/ideological factors constrained that impulse from being fully expressed (it is not a particularist doctrine);</em></blockquote> (Lister) This statement is utter nonsense. I have never denied, nor would anyone else with a smidgin of learning, that Christianity is not in some sense universal. Of course the aspirational Christian community includes all mankind, indeed, all sentient, morally willful beings. But you elide the distinction between Christian moral universalism - that all persons are potentially brothers in Christ - and liberal sociological or political universalism - that persons are sociobiologically and culturally interchangeable, and that ‘diverse’, integrated societies are somehow superior to, or more ethical than, traditional homogenous or ethnoculturally delimited ones. Nothing could be further from traditional Christian doctrine, whether Scriptural or theological. There is nothing in the logic of the faith which leads one to conclude that radically culturally alien foreigners have a ‘right’ to enter into settled homelands; that whites must economically oppress themselves in order to promote nonwhites to undeserved stations; that whites must ignore the policy implications derived from established data demonstrating statistically significant behavioral or genetic differences between population groups; or that whites must subordinate their historic cultures and traditions in order to accommodate persons of alien backgrounds. That is liberalism, pure and simple. Your assertion that today’s <em>uber</em>-liberal Christianity somehow represents the<em> real</em> (universalist) inner logic of the faith finally allowed to effloresce due to the collapse of white/Western cultural particularist confidence illustrates an abysmally shallow, let’s-believe-the-liberal-<em>Zeitgeist</em> understanding of the real Christian faith. Face it: you know very, very little about Christian thought, and are merely applying your own ‘commonsense’ interpretation of these matters as a complete outsider. You are fitting the modernist moral pollution (on race) of the Church within a narrative which you, as someone hostile to Christianity for your own scientific physicalist/atheist reasons, find personally satisfying, regardless of its intrinsic accuracy. When I have gotten much further in my studies, I will demonstrate formally exactly what is wrong with the liberal view on race as it has been imposed upon the faithful. [NB - of course, I do not mean to deny that racial imperialism, fomenting unjustified hatreds, or engaging in common criminality against persons of other races are condemned as sinful by the true Church. They are, and should be.]
11651651561319472191I'm familiar with Rahner, of course; indeed, as a liberal Catholic I intend to take at least one course on his thought over the course of my program. From what I've read by him, I do find him far more plausible as well as attractive than the more fundamental types. [BTW, I'm unfamiliar with - and not too interested in, I admit - the 'deep' theory of the Eucharist. I do know, however, that the doctrine of transubstantiation in its theological justification is more than a bit more sophisticated than 'magical' thinking, which the Judeo-Christian tradition helped to eliminate as much as any other historical force, including science (Habermas recently concurred in this interpretation). Recall, however, I've always said my specifically Catholic commitment, as opposed to general Christian one, is relatively weak, and I may end up a Protestant, like my conventional, not too religious father]. Your rendition of Williams et al was interesting, but I fail to see its relevance to the issue of Christian universalism, esp as it influences political universalism. You state: <blockquote><em>Now make of that what you will but what any of that has to do with wanting to secure a healthy future for Europeans and preserve the best of our local cultures and our collective high culture I do not know. But the commitment to universalism does not make Rahner or Williams some oddball fringe type figures. I could find many more examples of such ideas from Christian theologians. Leon are you really saying that the blacks in their churches across America are not your brothers and sisters in Christ?</em></blockquote>(Lister) But didn't I address that very question in my above comment? <blockquote>I have never denied, nor would anyone else with a smidgin of learning, that Christianity is not in some sense universal. Of course the aspirational Christian community includes all mankind, indeed, all sentient, morally willful beings. But <strong><u>you elide the distinction between Christian moral universalism</u></strong> - that all persons are <strong>potentially</strong> brothers in Christ - <strong><u>and liberal sociological or political universalism</u></strong> - that persons are sociobiologically and culturally interchangeable, and that ‘diverse’, integrated societies are somehow superior to, or more ethical than, traditional homogenous or ethnoculturally delimited ones. Nothing could be further from traditional Christian doctrine, whether Scriptural or theological. There is nothing in the logic of the faith which leads one to conclude that radically culturally alien foreigners have a ‘right’ to enter into settled homelands; that whites must economically oppress themselves in order to promote nonwhites to undeserved stations; that whites must ignore the policy implications derived from established data demonstrating statistically significant behavioral or genetic differences between population groups; or that whites must subordinate their historic cultures and traditions in order to accommodate persons of alien backgrounds. That is liberalism, pure and simple. Your assertion that today’s uber-liberal Christianity somehow represents the real (universalist) inner logic of the faith finally allowed to effloresce due to the collapse of white/Western cultural particularist confidence illustrates an abysmally shallow, let’s-believe-the-liberal-Zeitgeist understanding of the real Christian faith.</blockquote> (Haller) All men are finally brothers in Christ. But that does not make them brothers in blood. You are buying into today's hegemonic left-liberal 'read' on the faith in terms of race (and other political questions). Why assume that that particular, 'presentist' interpretation of the faith's implications for social and political questions is necessarily the correct one? I've known a number of much older Protestant as well as Catholic intellectuals (including priests in teaching orders) who think that current church doctrines are seriously perverted (and that quite apart from the "kiddie fiddler" issue). Let me make this simple (and a kind of apologia for my present course of study). The Christian churches are in need of racialist reform in their social theorizing, at least wrt intergroup relations. They have all too often been intellectually lazy, and morally cowardly, pretty much just adopting liberal race nonsense wholesale. The serious ecclesial elders with whom I have in years past discussed this matter have never disagreed with me, although, I must acknowledge, race relations was none of their theological specialties (but these were very elite figures, one even having spent nearly a decade in the Vatican working not too far from the Pope John Paul II- whom my acquaintance admitted was a very spiritual man, but not too conservative). My task is to tease out the authentic Christian 'line' on race, which will prove, I suspect, to be as I now intuit it, and have implied above. People have a right to preserve the social ecology of their own homes (I'm under no obligation to allow a stranger to move in with me and my girlfriend). Likewise, peoples are not forbidden from preserving the social ecology of their own nations and civilizations (we're under no obligation to admit into our homelands unassimilable aliens). Of course, this must all be intellectually demonstrated ... As to what this has to do with saving European cultures, I tried to deal with that, too, above. Of course, these issues require a large book to explore fully and or even adequately.
11652451561319493799TabulaRaza, In a word, no. Please do not substitute socialism for Christianity. It's a very common mistake.
11663651561319799759<em>The Theory of Moral Sentiments</em> was more important to Smith than <em>The Wealth of Nations</em> (it was also an even more penetrating work), which, as Murray Rothbard demonstrated, actually in some ways represented a step backwards in economic development from the Catholic Spanish Scholastics; eg, Smith promulgated a kind of labor theory of value which was something of a precursor to Marx.
11663751561319799883It's interesting how Lister never responds to my longer responses to him. It's always rather clear who gains the upper hand, isn't it?
11664251561319813942MOB, I probably should not respond to a nonentity like you (as with so many others here, can you point to any comment of real intellectual substance you have left here at MR? just one?). But there is a fascinating unintended sociological experiment going on here at MR. If one reviews just my comments over the last half-dozen threads, which hardly constitute the most extensive or detailed I have left overall in the past few years, it would be immediately apparent to any remotely discerning and dispassionate intellect that my thought processes far outshine those of my critics. It is not simply a matter of knowledge or ignorance on particular subjects, vocabulary choices, syntax, what have you. It is like reptiles and mammals, Africans and Europeans; the difference is categorical. And yet, I get routinely 'dumped' on, not just by the cranky Richardses or the needling and prejudicial Listers, but now by the lesser lights, like dc and MOB, who demonstrate not the slightest evidence of even being able to distinguish the points at issue. MOB is a good moniker here, because what we are witnessing is the formation of a mob mentality. Mobs dislike people who don't 'fit in', who are capable of higher-order individuality, and are willing to maintain that stance even in the face of pressures to conform to whatever group-think is operative at the moment. (An excellent literary study is the classic novel by Walter van Tilburg Clark, <em>The Ox-bow Incident</em>.) There is of course an evolutionary underpinning to mob psychology, and perhaps it even sometimes serves EGI. But the glory of the white race was never to be found among the jealous collective masses, with their inferiority neuroses, and concomitant egalitarian proclivities (I suspect some of this lurks in the Lister psyche, evidenced across an array of issues). It was located among those whom figures as diverse as Wyndham Lewis and E. M. Forster identified as "aristocrats of the spirit". It might be worthwhile to declaim on the qualities of such, but I doubt my efforts would be rewarded here. I rarely use the N-word, but I have not the slightest doubt that petty jealousies and resentments of others' (especially the Jews') superior achievements played a more than minor role in advancing Nazi power. This is why Christianity is so important to White preservation. Without that moral structure deriving from Christ, all that is left is the shifting fortunes of mob rule. Perhaps that would be enough to ensure white preservation, but of what character type would those whites be? Noble, ethical, rational, humane, inquisitive - the qualities which make the race worth saving? Or petty, envious, vindictive, closed-minded and conformative - like the majority (with some decent exceptions) here?
11639451571319245522So does that mean that because I have pittances with several of these firms, therefore I am one of the Masters of the Financial Universe? Please. BTW, if this was from 07, where is AIG? At the time, they were the third biggest capitalized company in the world.
11641651571319271766Fair points, Jimmy. Perhaps the general position of all white defenders should be "let a hundred flowers bloom". This is a world-historical struggle we are in, and I suppose that we need to hit the problem from a multitude of different angles. I'm quite certain my approach is correct, and will be devoting the bulk of whatever life I have remaining to demonstrating, propagandizing and political agitating for it. No one will stop me. That said, if others prefer to concentrate on differing areas of and approaches to the conflict, go for it! My only general point is that we need to keep intra-movement differences to a minimum, which is why I routinely advocate the development of a "nationalist minimum" agenda that everybody can agree on. To me, that minimum, both in terms of universality of agreement, as well as dire strategic necessity, is terminating nonwhite immigration. Nationalists should mute their differences on other matters of philosophy and policy until that objective is achieved. I'm sure at some level Graham Lister would actually like to save Britain and the West. So how does it profit him to insult me for my theism, and Catholicism? Without more, he's not going to change my mind on those beliefs, and what ought to be uppermost anyway is advancing the Cause - which insulting my beliefs obviously does not do. Likewise, J Richards, Reloader, Ryan, Mr. Voight, GenoType, XPWA and doubtless others I've forgotten presumably also would like to save the white race, and yet want to see me hung over a minor disagreement on monetary policy. I conclude that such persons are not genuinely serious about the broader objective. The "hundred flowers" strategy encourages all differing perspectives to do their utmost to advance their own positions, but to do so by engaging the apathetic and brainwashed majority, and not at the expense of other WNs. This way the common objective will be advanced the most ... plus I have not the slightest doubt that, over time, my firm but psychologically and even epistemically mainstream approach will prove the victor.
11642651571319291023<blockquote>Thank you for not including me on that list, Leon. I find saving the White race to be quite boring. For me, true joy comes only through making life hell for the Jews. It’s merely a happy coincidence that nothing accomplishes this more surely than White survival. Siege heil</blockquote>. (JM) Sorry if I've offended, but I cannot recall your <em>previously</em> having called for my hanging based on my views respecting monetary policy. Perhaps for other views of mine, of course ...
11646651571319376458<strong>@Graham Lister</strong> I think you rather missed my point above (hardly an uncommon occurrence around here). I didn't question whether you were in the movement's "mainstream", but rather the general wisdom (or lack thereof) of criticizing or antagonizing others over peripheral issues. Some things I have learned over the years are that self-styled 'libertarians' (which does not necessarily include those, like me, who place a high value on free enterprise, private property rights and individual liberty under a neutral rule of law) are basically leftists; that most mainstream conservatives, if genuine, and not merely false appropriators of the designation, are cowards, especially on race; and that WN, having such an odious reputation among the silent, unawakened majority, attracts a lot of morally (and psychologically) marginal people. Basically, there are evil people lurking amongst the responsible and upright race realists. It seems to go with the ideology (same on the Left of course: most communists and anarchists are genuinely bad people, according to traditional Western standards of ethics). If this movement is to thrive - and it must, or impersonal trends will smother and extirpate European civilization everywhere - the morally decent folk must keep the malevolent (and mentally ill) at bay, isolated, discredited and ignored. I'm sure this is something Jared Taylor has had in mind (I once overheard him saying that, in creating AR, he had wanted to produce a publication that a dignified and serious person could leave out in the open, on a coffee table). Anyway, besides the wicked, I think 'dissentionists' and troublemakers (and 'nutters') must also be segregated. What I have seen here at MR is that there are far too many persons who do not seem primarily interested in advancing nationalist understanding or strategy, but simply want a forum in which to ride their own ideological hobbyhorses. That is unhelpful, especially when the particular 'horse' in question is either objectively bizarre, or involves insulting beliefs, habits or attitudes held by large numbers of whites. WN must be seen to be congruent with the largest possible portion of the mental outlook of the white majority, or else it will continue to dwell in a dark, ideological ghetto, unable to break into the majority political conversation. It is this realization that, in part, has spurred me to pursue my new course of study. <blockquote><em>But you ask me why I gently mock your Catholic faith and theism. Well there are a couple of reasons: (1) I intensely dislike American Christianity (it’s generally so vulgar in every conceivable way I find it ghastly);</em> </blockquote> I think by "American Christianity" you mean that which is either unique to (eg, Mormonism), or most closely identified with, the USA, this mainly being evangelicalism (though, of course, its modern origins are British). I am no fan of the evangelicals, either, especially due to the execrable views on race (and the ridiculous Israel-Zionism) of their leadership(s). The lay majority, however, is disproportionately white, even Nordic, and mostly conservative, including on immigration issues. These are our people, too, and there are a lot of them here. Thus your intense dislike of them is in the manner of an unhelpful personal hobbyhorse, and should be kept to appropriate (anti-fundamentalist) fora. <blockquote><em>(2) as a man of science I dislike the Roman Catholic church even more (with its litany of fake saints and phony miracles);</em></blockquote> An unusually ignorant statement. The Roman Catholic Church played an important role in the growth and development of science (read books by science historian David Lindberg), and the notion that the Church was ever reactionary in scientific matters is pure anti-clerical prejudice. The Vatican today sponsors serious scientific research, and it employs many priest-scientists to keep abreast of the latest developments in the secular world. I, too, regard the Church as over-superstitious, though that may be due to my own mostly secular upbringing. I certainly maintain an open mind (unlike you) wrt claims of miracles, though I tend towards scepticism. I have no idea what you mean by "fake saints". I do know that, again, there are vastly more white Catholics than white nationalists, and that allowing your personal dislikes to poison possible inter-white alliances is strategic folly. <blockquote>(3) <em>you have both implicitly and at times explicitly claimed that somehow Christian theology is of massive, and <em>positive</em>, importance to the issues we discuss here - no it is not in any substantive manner - it’s an irrelevant sideshow other than the context of presentational/PR issues specific to the USA;</em></blockquote> This is the central and interesting issue. I do indeed believe as you contend, for many reasons, which I have discussed at greater length at other times: A) A majority of my racial countrymen and I are theists (overwhelmingly Christian). Respecting any fundamental moral issue, we would naturally want to know the "Godly" position. A racially conservative Christian theology is certainly important to innately racially conservative Christians, of whom there are millions (or tens - who, precisely, do you think comprise those white majorities who routinely inform pollsters of their opposition to immigration ... atheists?). B) Racialism does indeed (superficially) seem to cut against the grain of Christian universalism. If falsely forced to choose between God and race, the vast bulk of whites in America will abjure racial survival (not sure what the excuse for racial abnegation is amongst your mostly unchurched fellow citizens). So it is vitally important that the incorrect but implicit and now guiding claim that white preservationism is morally wrong be theoretically refuted, because, I assure you, there will always be more white Christians than anti-Christian WNs. I happen to be of the sociological belief that modern secularism is not a permanent feature of the European future, but more of a present, passing phase. Of course, we shall see. But even if I am wrong on the matter of future theistic intellectual change, it is an undeniable fact, as I and Desmond Jones have variously asserted, that, among whites, committed Christians are seriously outbreeding secularists, at least proportionally. This is true in Europe as well as America. If one assumes a genetic component to the psychological propensity towards religious faith, then I expect that, over time, the West will return to religiosity (and, again, do not forget the well-established positive correlations between theism and conservatism, secularism and racial leftism, and general conservatism and moderate - ie, anti-immigration, anti-affirmative action, anti-crime - racial nationalism). C) If the West is to survive, even merely racially (let alone as a civilization), I believe that a return to <em>traditional</em> (which need not mean American Protestant fundamentalist) Christianity will be an aspect of its "survival strategy". Secularism breeds anomie, far more today than a century ago at the dawn of the current secularist age. Why this should be so is immaterial to the observation, though I suspect the answer is very old-fashioned: the religious see life as meaningful striving, if only a striving after Heaven, and that attitude shapes the whole of one's being, which in turn affects the non-spiritual elements of existence, too (Charles Murray made something like this case in his excellent <em>Human Accomplishment</em>). Those 'dead to Heaven', on the other hand, will incline towards selfishness, and meaningless hedonism (and, again, very low birthrates). I do not think that secularists as a dominant social group will prove willing to make the sacrifices in short term thinking and pleasures to reconquer and rebuild the West. Thus, I hold that a return to a 'politically incorrected' (de-liberalized) traditionalist Christianity is a necessary (though of course probably not sufficient) element in any Western/white renaissance. Faith impels some men to greatness; lack of it compels most men to focus on <em>la dolce vita</em> and preserving their pensions <em>uber alles</em>. D) Finally, I think the sheer coming awfulness of life in ever more multicultural societies, and especially in Europe's increasingly, aggressively Islamicized ones, will also impel many whites to return to their historic churches in part as an implicitly white/European national community building tool, and as places of refuge from culturally alien forces. These functional elements of religion will play an important role in the return of many whites to their ancestral faith - and as more return, so still more after them will, too, the majority being lemmings, for good or ill. <blockquote><em>(4) you do not acknowledge the radically universalist kernel of Christianity. If Christianity has been less universalistic in previous times this is because other cultural/ideological factors constrained that impulse from being fully expressed (it is not a particularist doctrine);</em></blockquote> This statement is utter nonsense. I have never denied, nor would anyone else with a smidgin of learning, that Christianity is not in some sense universal. Of course the aspirational Christian community includes all mankind, indeed, all sentient, morally willful beings. But you elide the distinction between Christian <em>moral</em> universalism - that all persons are potentially brothers in Christ - and liberal sociological or political universalism - that persons are sociobiologically and culturally interchangeable, and that 'diverse', integrated societies are somehow superior to, or more ethical than, traditional homogenous or ethnoculturally delimited ones. Nothing could be further from traditional Christian doctrine, whether Scriptural or theological. There is nothing in the logic of the faith which leads one to conclude that radically culturally alien foreigners have a 'right' to enter into settled homelands; that whites must economically oppress themselves in order to promote nonwhites to undeserved stations; that whites must ignore the policy implications derived from established data demonstrating statistically significant behavioral or genetic differences between population groups; or that whites must subordinate their historic cultures and traditions in order to accommodate persons of alien backgrounds. That is liberalism, pure and simple. Your assertion that today's <em>uber</em>-liberal Christianity somehow represents the <em>real</em> (universalist) inner logic of the faith finally allowed to effloresce due to the collapse of white/Western cultural particularist confidence illustrates an abysmally shallow, let's-believe-the-liberal-Zeitgeist understanding of the real Christian faith. Face it: you know very, very little about Christian thought, and are merely applying your own 'commonsense' interpretation of these matters as a complete outsider. You are fitting the modernist moral pollution (on race) of the Church within a narrative which you, as someone hostile to Christianity for your own scientific physicalist/atheist reasons, find personally satisfying, regardless of its intrinsic accuracy. When I have gotten much further in my studies, I will demonstrate formally exactly what is wrong with the liberal view on race as it has been imposed upon the faithful. [NB - of course, I do not mean to deny that racial imperialism, fomenting unjustified hatreds, or engaging in common criminality against persons of other races are condemned as sinful by the true Church. They are, and should be.]
11646751571319376551<strong>@ Graham Lister Part II</strong> <blockquote>(5) <em>you strike me as being an unreconstructed Hayekian right-liberal (your default position as a blowhard Republican which comes through time and time again) that happens to dislike blacks and Mexicans - fine but it’s hardly a serious critique of why and how we collectively got to this point; </em> </blockquote> I've refuted this accusation before, many times, but you have ignored me. I shall be brief. Yes, I am a Republican (what else would I be here in the US?!). I am a classical (Aristotle/Aquinas/Burke/Calhoun/federalist) conservative. I am not a libertarian, though I do hold private property rights, the impartial rule of law, free enterprise, small, divided government of Constitutionally enumerated powers, and liberty in very high regard. I do not fetishize or absolutize individual freedom, however, and believe good governance is an art, not a science. I am neither a democrat nor an egalitarian, and I certainly believe that defending the West takes precedence over the rights and liberties of ontologically transient individuals. That said (and I could write hundreds of pages outlining my political philosophy<em> in toto</em>), what you mock as "racism (really race realism) + right-liberalism or libertarianism" is very much in fact the American Way. The combination of free markets + white supremacism (which I see as classical conservatism applied to particular American circumstances) built the wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth, pal. That is hardly something to sneer at. And what still has not been made clear to me is why some 'deep critique' of modernity is actually required. You seem to think that America's contemporary hysterical racial egalitarianism somehow is the true expression of the system's inner logic. Again, as with your critique of Christianity and race, this exhibits a very limited familiarity with US history. What we suffer from today is a situation wholly contemporary in origin, even if one can perhaps espy antecedents in the contemporaneously<em> unpopular</em> abolitionist movement. Yes, the US has always had leftist/utopian movements, but they were never hegemonic until the post-Sixties present. The US Cult of Diversity, which sadly has been exported to (but eagerly adopted by) Europe, represents a radical disjunction with the majority of American history, imposed upon us by Jewish media propaganda, certain treasonous politicians, greedy businesses, and conservative cowards who did not want to swim too far against the tide - and an American Majority, that always found it easier to be accommodative than hostile. The only real problem with the US, our Founding Flaw, was in not formally establishing the White Republic from the outset. The Founders simply assumed that would always be the case (though early naturalization statutes did limit US citizenship to free-born whites - but it should have been formalized in the Constitution). <blockquote>(6) <em>finally you supercilious fuckwit you’re not really anything like as clever as you think you are (deeply superficial might be an apt phrase) and I sort of object to being dubbed ‘ignorant’ ‘trash’ ‘retard’ etc. So I kinda like taking the piss from time to time. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out buddy.</em></blockquote> "Supercilious fuckwit"? Outstanding projection, couldn't have described you better. I am always polite here towards those who are polite to me. It was you, sir, who unprovoked starting implying ignorance, stupidity, etc on my part, simply because you have a petulant dislike of Americans, Christians and Thatcherites. Of course, I respond in kind. My cleverness needs no documentation, and you are certainly not sophisticated enough to judge me, anyway. But ... I graduated from one of the consistently top 5 most elite universities in the US. I had had no family connection to secure my admission, I'm not a racial minority or female, I'm not Jewish, and though a high school athlete, I was not good enough to be recruited on that basis. I graduated with honors. I have one graduate degree already, also from a good school. I am now in a serious doctoral program, the only one I applied to. I knew I would be admitted, as I had gotten a perfect 800 on the verbal portion of my GRE, taken last Fall. You claim to be a biological scientist, yet all you ever write are diatribes on your favorite <em>betes noires</em>. If you are what you say, why don't you spare us your vapid political, economic and metaphysical opinions, and instead elaborate on the latest developments in racial science, as others, like Dasein, occasionally do here, or as the late, lamented Glayde Whitney used to do at AR? You could educate us, and prove that you do possess genuine knowledge.
11654051571319558017<em>Leon, I consider you an ally but you are slightly demoralizing. I wish you could understand the points GT is making</em>. (danielj) Danielj, Thanks for the offer. I'm sure it would be a pleasure to converse with you over dinner or drinks, and I allow no one to pick up my tab, though I note the generosity, but at the moment, I am nowhere near LA (to the regret of my girlfriend, I hope!). That said, and at the risk of sounding petulant, why does everyone s--- on me? I have an iron rule: never slander any to my Racial Right, as long as they are not criminal, and are respectful of me. I honor this. If there are persons with differing opinions, but who are clearly honorable and loyal to race, then if I disagree with them, I do so gently, and in a spirit of assumed mutual intellectual discovery. For example, I disagree strongly, on tactical as well as ethical grounds, with Jimmy Marr's NSM stance. That said, I know and acknowledge his unswerving loyalty to the white man's cause, and thus do not attack him personally, except to the extent that he first attacks me. Same goes for everyone else. I frequently make harsh statements, but they are always directed outwards, towards those I deem enemies of the West (Muslims, the black hooligans terrorizing UK over the summer, the OWS crowds, etc), as I understand "the West". What amazes me, really, is how often I am then <em><strong>personally</strong></em> attacked and slandered - "libertarian gangster", "Jew" or "Jewish extended phenotype", "Christer", I exhibit "character deficiencies", "malice", etc - by those disagreeing with me (and invariably over issues tangential to the core WN concern with race, like religious affiliation, professional background, capitalism, etc). And now I'm the one you find somewhat demoralizing?! I'm the opposite of demoralizing (OK, White Zion could be construed as deflating, but I consider the theory behind it hyper-realistic, unfortunately). I'm always about trying to make WN intellectual and strategic progress, but my efforts are rarely appreciated (or their significance properly understood). The basic problem is that pro-whiteness attracts a lot of morally and psychologically problematic types. I wish it didn't, but I wish many things. It was to get away from such types, and emphasize the morally acceptable (arguably <strong>mandatory</strong>) elements in the White Agenda, that, I am certain, explains Jared Taylor's setting up AR as he did. I agree with his decisions. We need a <em>responsible </em>and <em>respectable</em> and culturally and religiously and ideologically <em>mainstream</em> WN, because the hour is late, and the West is darkening fast. Perhaps, though, I am really best suited not to persuading WNs of my own approach to our race problem, but rather, to bringing my fellow conservatives to a sounder race-realist and racialist position. I belong to the Far Right of conservatism, with Taylor and the late Sam Francis, more than I do to the environs of WN.
11653151571319515195Genotype, I've refuted many of these matters previously. Look through the comments on the last year's worth of threads. I might very well be willing to take up that bet. Why do you suppose you work harder (or is it that you simply don't understand the demands of doctoral study at quality institutions)? And why "investments"? Bully me all you want (and no, I don't think you would be able to do so in real life, not at all ... I am based in the OC, and will be back over Christmas, if not earlier ... though I fail to see the relevance of your being 2 inches taller to the topics under discussion). How hard you work is immaterial to me, and to what time I happen to have to rebut ill-read others. I read what you wrote on that thread, and found it borderline incoherent. If there were neutral parties reading my 'pennings' vs all the others you mentioned, there would not be the least doubt who would be seen to be the superior (or even just <em>normal</em>) intellect. Not ... the ... slightest. Indeed, I am one of the ever-decreasing number here who actually does have some things worthwhile to say. I'm familiar with Thurber's <em>Mitty</em> (though perhaps you aren't: it's a short story, frequently anthologized - I think I read it in high school - not a <strong>book</strong>[Ok, now I just clicked on your wiki link, so maybe you miswrote]), and it is comically inapplicable to me (possibly to you or others, I wouldn't know). I do like the ascription of intellectual and now character deficiencies to me, without proof. Very mature - not. When I get time I will revisit the Octopi thread, and rebut your nonsense. In the meantime, you, like so many here, 'impress' me as arrogant, poorly educated, limited in your reading, insufferably sure of yourself (without possessing the true confidence born of real learning, of which you have provided no evidence), and, rather ironically, based on the above, I think you almost certainly are a pronounced bully, probably the loudmouthed Big Dad type who towers over his neighbors and the parents of his children's friends, boring them with his unrequested opinions. Do what you will. I am neither intimidated nor, without much, much more, impressed. hmm ... Mitty ... 6'5" ... arm wrestle ... not a bully ... Another 'projectionist'. PS - I am about to be studying Aquinas in two separate classes. And I'm sure I would approve of any St. Thomas College loyal to its antecedents. That said, WTF are you linking it for me? Years ago, I was accepted at 4 Ivies, 2 of the little Ivies, U Chicago, and UCBerkeley, which was my low-cost safety school (ie place automatically admitted by virtue of SAT scores alone). I would not have considered this place, nor in the event did I.
11658851571319680373Jimmy, I am not now living in LA. I am attending graduate school elsewhere. That said, though, I must be careful. I have long intended to return to grad school as part of my own strategy for ultimate intellectual and political impact. You know damn well how leftist academia is. I have written a lot of extremely hard core stuff (especially by PC standards) over the last decade. Thus, I have been very careful over the years re identifying myself. Because "Haller" is not too uncommon (there are thousands in the US), I have felt it desirable and not imprudent to keep my last name in my writings, so that I can reveal my true identity at some future opportune time, when I am better established professionally (if my name had been, say, "Buckenholzer", I would have used a 100% pseudonym - like "Guessedworker" or "Genotype" or "XPWA" or "danielj" or "anon/uh" or "Lurker" or "Dasein" or "Captainchaos" or "Trainspotter" or "Wandrin" or "Thorn" or most others here; you and Soren and Linder and Lister (if that is in fact his real name, which I doubt) are exceptions). But "Leon" is not my first name. If I had used my real first name, then many persons from my university, or contacts from the greater LA business community, etc, might have recognized me (I fight for racial truth all over the web, not just at MR, though for the past couple of years, I have been leaving my longest comments here). I am not ready for that, professionally or financially. I have no objection to those activists, like you, working outside the System. Indeed, such are necessary and admirable. But absent collapse, after which recognized System opponents might come to power, real change occurs internally, a la Gorbachev. We need our people achieving recognized successes <em>within</em> the System &#40;eg, just imagine the impact, to take an extreme example, if the late Steve Jobs had come out a few years ago against further immigration&#41;. That is how they can be maximally effective in influencing unawakened others. And by "System", I'm not referring to bankers and businessmen, but to all professions. We need WN or at least racially conservative infiltrators across all spectra of society. Whatever the many fools around here think of me (and no implication towards those who are not fools), I have a good background and have had successes in the real competitive, non-WN world, which means that when I have discussed immigration or other issues with colleagues and friends, etc, they listen to me. Often, I have been able to change minds, in particular, in changing regular GOPers into becoming hardcore anti-immigrationists. I have long argued that if we do not stop immigration, even today, after America has been radically 'diversified', then all other options, like the ethnostate, will become impossible, due to the numerical imbalance. If I were to be identified with persons like you (let alone utter obsessive cranks like JRichards) - I do not mean to be offensive, but you are way the hell outside the mainstream, as I'm sure you would agree - it would dramatically undercut my long term effectiveness to the broader cause of Western preservation and renewal. Each person has to try to see where he best fits, in virtue of talents and temperament, in this world-historical struggle. I belong in the academically-oriented Hard (mainstream) Right. I'm high energy, good at speaking and debating as well as writing, and my goal is to try to break into the conservative media somehow, to try to drag its center more in our direction. Anyway, to each his own.
11650951581319445155Why does the BNP aspire to being a genuine, comprehensive party? I've asked this before. Why can't the BNP or a successor just position itself as a single-issue anti-immigration party. Isn't that what UKIP does re the EU question?
11659051581319681064<em>To cut to the core, there is only one programme with any hope of success: 1. Silence the jew. 2. Wogs out</em>. (dc) And how is this done, to cut to the core?
11661051581319707172dc, I have written much for several years. Show me something of substance you have written, and we will see who is smarter (unfortunately, there are so few subtle intellects around here that there really is no appropriate arbitrators to decide such matters. I like Treitschke btw, though I only know him second hand. I wouldn't mind reading him directly someday. I prefer his precursor Friedrich List.
11663551581319799238<blockquote>Yes of course Leon. GW et al., our genuine, kosher even, Übermensch has spoken. We are not worthy. BTW the economic data that was brought up on the other thread - of course one can find objectively better places to live both economically and in respect of a myriad of other quality of life indicators than the good old USA. I know Republican blowhards hate to hear that USA is not #1 but try for example; Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Singapore for starters. However general ignorance, let alone mere empirical evidence, have never got in the way of American self-delusion have they?</blockquote>(Lister) There is something slightly retarded about Lister. He keeps ascribing ridiculous opinions to me, and then refuting them. When have I ever said USA is #1? Of course we're doomed, but so are you in Europe (at least UK). Of course much of Europe for now is better - hello? You are WHITER!!! (We are still racialists, right, Graham? Or have you now completed your Long March to de Benoist-style acceptance of Third World ethnocommunitarianism within Europe, provided of course everyone agrees that the <em>real</em> threat is .... <strong>(right-Hayekian) Americanism</strong>?) USA is ever crummier because we are both increasingly nonwhite (but, Haller, forget immigration ... it's The Jews! The Jews!), and increasingly socialist (but Haller, that makes you a ... (gasp) libertarian!). But Britain will fall before America. If the s--- that was pulled this summer had happened in USA, at least outside of specifically black neighborhoods, there would have been a bloodbath (though I think the cops would have put an end to that ludicrous hooliganism before matters got so completely out of hand). Britain is in worse shape than USA in at least three ways: 1. you do not have a well-armed white sub-population 2. you have been invaded by the very worst of all nonwhites: Muslims (as well as an unhealthy share of Africans). We have terrible black problems, which we inherited; you imported yours. We also have a growing and dangerous Islamic presence. But ours is not as well established as yours, not nearly as large proportionally, and there is a lot of antagonism to Muslims generally - greater it seems than in UK. 3. For reasons I cannot wholly fathom, the kingdom which once produced the globe-bestriding redcoats today consists of some of the most culturally enervated, anomic, poorly mannered, racially obsequious and brainwashed whites to be found anywhere. What percentage of white Brits want the death penalty? the convict work gang? the restoration of gun rights? and end to immigration? closing down mosques? etc? The bottom line is that whites are dying off everywhere. White majorities are racially worthless everywhere (with the possible exceptions of small places like Serbia or South Africa). I do think that outside of perhaps Russia, the USA has the largest absolute number of tough, conservative, and survival oriented whites. Certainly, we have the largest absolute number who also have a degree of wealth and therefore the possibility of future survivalist activism. Anyway, intrawhite hostility and ethnic divisiveness ought to be banned from the site.
11670751621320063062Blair is a true believer in utopian race liberalism. I have met a number like this in my life; a few even called themselves "conservatives" (and several were self-styled "libertarians"). Why assume some hidden underlying motive? George W. Bush, conspiracists notwithstanding, had no real motive to try to shove an illegal alien amnesty down America's throat. I sense that he truly supported it, and mainly on what he perceived to be moral grounds. I think it's a mistake to underestimate the extent to which white people are suckers for racial idealism. I've seen it so very often. The real question is what the hell was the matter with the British people in electing this fool. The same question could be asked of Americans viz Obama, but at least he only garnered 43% of the white vote (though he got an alarmingly high proportion of young whites, which is what really matters), and he will get less next year. But how did Blair get elected - I forget now - 3 (?) times? Especially on the third go, after the immigration invasion was widely recognized? The white race is infected with the same global meme, and that infection is rapidly segregating white populations precisely along race-liberal v nationalist psychological lines. Unfortunately, all evidence suggests the liberals are winning, in terms of both the importation of nonwhites, and the brainwashing of whites. Only a thoroughgoing 'inorganic' solution like my favored White Zion offers any chance of preventing white extinction. Whites are going to have to <em>choose</em> to survive, and <em>fight</em> to survive.
11670851641320063858<blockquote>Haller will probably be on later telling us all how Cameron is a great conservative. Along with his Marxist inspired ‘theory-laden’ account of science. (Lister)</blockquote> Lister, Time for plain speaking. This falsely alleged "Hayekian right-liberal" favors the comprehensive re/expatriation of all nonwhites except diplomatic personnel from UK soil, unconditionally and immediately. Do you agree? (I'm in midterms; if I can find the time I shall demonstrate your shockingly ignorant understanding of the relation of theory to science - or at least your deliberate misconstrual of my "position" (which is neither mine nor un-mainstream).)
11676851651320227490Matt, Thank you for posting this. I hope it influences some, though the minds around here are pretty firmly shut (and incoherent on economic topics). I read <em>Meltdown</em> nearly 3 years ago - a slim but sound (and infuriating) read. The combo of CRA, strong-arming of lenders, Fannie/Freddie, and Greenjew's loose money (as with Bernanke now), did in the economy. I wish there were a smarter, stronger-willed and forensically more talented GOP candidate than Ron Paul to be making this argument publicly throughout the land. The Great White and Dwindling Middle Class is ripe for racial education, esp re how in the USA interfering with the free market always helps minorities, and hurts whites.
11694051651320525574Captainchaos, JRichards is an exceptionally confused individual. I would not look to him if you seek genuine understanding about anything. I can only wonder why GW has granted someone like that site admin privileges (what in the world were you thinking, btw, GW? want to lessen MR's credibility?).
11693951651320525315<blockquote> I, for one, hope you stay, accept instruction from people here who are very obviously <u>your intellectual equals and superiors</u>, learn some humility, eschew obfuscation and ideology and grow. (danielj)</blockquote> Really? And these are ...? <blockquote>I still challenge you, nay defy you, to find in Weaver and the broader republican (ancient conservative) tradition any praise for commercialism; especially of the Austrian kind. The family is prior to the market. (danielj)</blockquote> I have Weaver's books: <em>Ideas Have Consequences</em>, <em>The Southern Tradition at Bay</em>, a few others kept in print by the wonderful Liberty Fund (which likewise republishes Mises, Hayek, and others in that tradition, too). Of course the family is prior to the market. I am a conservative. And I don't particularly praise commercialism. I have merely asserted that the Austrian methodology represents the correct approach to understanding the economy; that it is value-free, as with any logic (or science); that capitalism maximizes wealth generation; and that recognizing the latter fact does not entail one's becoming a libertarian (let alone replacing God or Western tradition with the metaphysical sophistries of Ayn Rand). What is really interesting about my position is why it keeps being misrepresented here.
11692651651320503117 <blockquote>It starts from fraudulent [invalid] loans, and there’s not a shred of truth in the housing crisis resulting from giving lots of loans to people who weren’t qualified or likely to pay them off as not one of these loans was valid in the first place. (JRichards)</blockquote> That sentence is completely nonsensical. By Richards's 'analysis', what bank loan is ever NOT "fraudulent"? <strong>@JRichards</strong> You call the excerpts from Woods (a sound scholar as well as 'popular intellectual' writer, btw) "nonsense and propaganda". Are you saying Woods is dissembling? Or that you simply disagree with the thrust of Woods's case - that the "meltdown" was caused by the intersection of several different government policies (CRA, Fed monetary expansion, relaxed loan standards, etc)?
11692851651320505478<blockquote>Imputations of malice and disinformation are weak points. Someone might consider simply banning Haller. Not advocating that, but you are faced with a totally irreconcilable worldview in the person of a seemingly indefatigable exponent, so it makes strategic sense to be done with it — and have a Money FAQ. (anon/uh)</blockquote> Well, it wouldn't be a first. I've been banned at nearly every rightist-oriented site on the net. Why? My comments are usually more learned and better expressed than most others'. Often, there are individual commenters who respond quite positively to me. But always the same eventual result. Why? Apparently, I am the very last of a breed - a true conservative of the American 'old-school'. That is, I am an Occidentalist - someone who wishes to perpetuate traditional Western Civilization (European/North American Civ pre-1960s, the period of the "Great Disruption"), which I understand to be <em>both</em> white <em>and</em> Christian (and in the US context, essentially individualist/libertarian). Apparently my views, which were pretty much the mainstream of American thought (at least, conservative thought) for most of its history, are now universally anathema to the increasingly sectarian Right(s). Though I agree with libertarians on most matters, I am banned (eg, from CATO, Mises) because I stress the primacy of race (ie, that individualism, to endure, must have racial boundaries). Though I agree with Christians on most things, I am banned (eg, from First Things, various Catholic blogs) because I ask politically incorrect questions, which those 'conservatives' are too afraid to answer. Though I really primarily belong amongst the paleoconservatives, I am banned (eg, from takimag, and even Chronicles - despite being a 25 year magazine subscriber!) for stressing the racial element of the West (exactly as Sam Francis did), as well as for my excessive "biologism" (ie, demanding that behavioral genetic insights be incorporated into conservative theory). Each ideological tendency sees itself as wholly self-contained, and accordingly resents having outside insights brought to bear on its concerns. Thus, I would not be surprised to be banned here, too. WNs do not like Christianity, and many dislike free enterprise, too. Truth, however, is not comprehensively captured by any single ideology. Anyway, I've already begun exiting MR, and this due not only to my much increased work schedule of late, but also to the site's loss of most of its better commenters, and concurrent hijacking by much lesser elements (surely you, too, have noticed the cognitive decline?). What I need to do is to start formally publishing, perhaps transforming the occasional school paper into an article submission (I try to structure papers so as to further my eventual scholarship interests; eg, <em>contra</em> Lister, I'm not going to be taking a course or writing a paper on any aspect of Mariology, as that kind of theological issue has nothing to do with the Occidental political crisis, and thus is not what I came here to study).
11694751651320531972<blockquote>Your biologism, respectable for its pluck though it be, <strong>stops absurdly short of the ecological plenum</strong> in which we exist. (anon/uh)</blockquote> Please elaborate. <blockquote>history has surpassed that paradigm. It appears to be a “disruption” only in proximate view. In a longer view, encompassing the Industrial Revolution and other big avalanche effects, pre-1960s culture was foredoomed by its own technology (ditto)</blockquote> I've thought of that, though it is one of the Big Questions, perhaps unresolvable. I disagree, however. Ethical laws are eternal. For Christians, metaphysical truths are likewise timeless, as are physical laws for scientists. Moreover, cultures adapt to changing circumstance, whether technological, environmental, geostrategic, etc, without necessarily extinguishing their essences. Jews are still Jews, after thousands of years. Are modern Chinese so different from their ancestors? Are we (I mean non-PC whites)? Historians like to emphasize the reality of both change and continuity. Whites in 1960 lived in a world utterly different from that of whites a century earlier (by contrast, our world is not so very different from 1960; eg, I just saw <em>The Rum Diary</em>, set in '61; I suspect, even in historical time, as against cinematic imagination, life in that year would have seemed reasonably familiar to us). Yet in many respects their outlook would have been likewise reasonably familiar to whites on the eve of the Civil War. I have friends, by no means as Far Right as I, whom I believe would have been tolerably at ease conversing with a Jefferson or Hamilton. I myself would be able to 'relate' to one of those men more easily than I can to most PC CA whites of the present. No, I disagree that the triumph of race-liberalism and all its weird effects was inevitable. This was the product of a deliberate set of policies, themselves borne of particular power relations resultant from earlier struggles (eg, WW2 and its aftermath). Things could have turned out differently, and better. The question now, however, is whether these changes are irreversible, and on that matter, I venture no opinion.
11693851661320524508Lurker, I only examined some of the comments. Was not impressed. I cannot fathom ANY European who is not virulently opposed to immigration. I remember warning some English at Henley decades ago about what would happen if they didn't rise up and demand an end to immigration. These guys just didn't grasp the matter at all. My fellow Americans on tour thought that English-accented blacks were amusing. I thought they augured great evil. If you live long enough, you (all) will see that I am right about White Zion (though I hope I'm proved wrong). The combo of white liberals plus Third World colonizers will form majorities in all white countries, and the destruction of the white world will prove unstoppable. Only a great ingathering can prevent racial extinction ("No, Haller, you disinformation agent - the real issue is Jew bankers!").
11694851661320533583<blockquote>Unhappily this is but another thought model that cannot occur for the simple reason of entrenched human bias in favor of perceptions of their “own”. Whites, having had no cause to evolve a generalized in-group Lebensphilosophie and the consequent fitness gain anent other groups, cannot be asked now to abandon their remaining local allegiances for the sake of a metanational experiment. But if this really is a super-national biological threat we face, logically, the metanational manoeuvre is the right one. (anon/uh)</blockquote> Well, is it or isn't it a supra-national biological (racial) threat? It sure looks that way to me. The problem is that every international trend is leading towards the breakdown of old entities, and the formation of newer ones based on other than traditionalist criteria. I thus do not wholly reject GW's search for something new, a 'pure' racial philosophy, rooted in (from the human perspective) timeless biological fact (I happen to prefer that the new be philosophically linked to the timeless, and believe such to be possible). WZ would be such a new entity (some might reasonably argue America is one, too). WZ is no more improbable than San Francisco, a city that, beginning in the early 50s, was targeted by homosexuals throughout the US for colonization. Homosexuals are almost by definition transient, but whites, by virtue of both cultural deracination as well as technology (which constantly 'shrinks' the globe), are becoming ever more transient/mobile, too. I am not opposed to localist initiatives, nor to European nationalisms. All such activity must be encouraged, in no small part in order to develop the appropriate in-group/out-group psychology many more whites must evolve if our race is to endure. My only point is that the trends, not all of them premeditated, towards counter-ethnopsychic development are extremely strong, and I suspect they will always overwhelm occasional 'turns to the particular'. Only an ingathering of racialist whites determined to secure their future will actually do so.
11692951661320506315The comments at the DM site are esp idiotic. The Nazi salute really has little to do with the historical Third Reich, per se, but rather is used as a recognizable sign of white resistance everywhere. Anyway, let us hope these young Russians are more white nationalist than Russian nationalist.
11708151661320755109CS, Inspiring and insightful comment @8. Note also that the very planning of WZ is itself an act promoting white brotherhood, and a sense of accomplishment. This is not something that will happen overnight. It is a long process, but something which binds people together in a common cause. Too many white men exist in an atomized state, alienated from most of their peers, and without that sense of belonging which is very psychologically positive. WZ becomes a goal which helps to give lives meaning long before it is ever actualized. Thorn, I have not read much on GT's white microcommunities idea. Obviously, we need to develop greater intra-white attachments within our own lands. Yes, we need to develop Aryan clannishness in the manner of the Jews, both to make our lives better in the multicult, as well as in psychological preparation for WZ. But WZ is about <em>ultimate</em> matters. It is about really and truly realizing the 14 words. How exactly do microcoms do that? I imagine some little Amish-style shirefolk-community, happily minding its business ... within the belly of an expanding orc-world surrounding it?! Oh, please!! How long does that last? Frankly, I don't want whites to be transformed into the historical condition of Jews, always at the tender mercies of the larger tribes surrounding and ruling them. Indeed, Jews didn't like that condition, either, which was the original and final impetus for Zionism (whatever the ultra-orthodox might say to the religious contrary). What an irony it will be if in a century or less, Jews have their ethnostate, while whites have been numerically 'Jewified' throughout their own ancestral ethnostates! XPWA, <blockquote><em>And despite Judeo-Haller’s many Jewish acquaintances and his instinctive love of all Jewish thought,</em></blockquote> ??WTF??? <blockquote><em>he shows astounding (intentional?) ignorance on one Jewish topic. This is the Zionist history of the foundation of the kibbutzim and the entire 70 year process of colonizing Palestine and creating viable local and national institutions.</em></blockquote> I am not at all ignorant of the history of Zionism. I have not seen the need to delve into it here. I have books (at home in OC) on the history of Israel (Sachar, Gilbert), Zionism (Laqueur, Elon et al), and the Arab-Zionist conflict (Morris, Shlaim). First, the WN movement is analogous to these institutes you refer to. White consciousness has been building already for decades, and is set to grow exponentially in the future (though whether that will sufficiently offset immigration plus nonwhite over-fertility is doubtful). Second, to the extent that I can discern your essential criticism (your thought processes rarely proceed in linear fashion; they are like electrons, or a shotgun splatterfest), it is that nation-building is hard. Yes, but ... we are in a better condition than the early Zionists. The 19th century Jews truly lacked many of the necessary nation-sustaining skill sets, because it had been so long since they had had a nation, and they had been highly restricted for centuries in what they could do professionally, so to speak. We whites have workers already across the gamut of a modern industrialized society. Even if WNs are not evenly represented across all jobs or professions, WZ is not about creating a modern state out of some quasi-primitive territory! It involves WNs emigrating to an already tolerably (or highly) civilized country, with the intention of establishing an "outpost of whiteness" to which other whites can emigrate in turn. It is about peacefully, demographically/electorally 'conquering' a sovereign country, exactly as homos emigrated to San Francisco and shaped its politics to suit themselves; as Cubans did to Miami; as Mexicans are doing to the whole US Southwest. Why is this so hard to imagine, especially in an age of jet travel, internet, global banking and capital flows, etc?
11709651661320766364I and several friends like to joke about "The OC" wrt where we live. One started using that term several years ago, and now a bunch do.
11853451661322894232GGGRAK: Who the hell are you and what are you 'on' about? There are some really weird people out there ...
11699651671320665228Ha! Who are "we"? And what will we <em>win</em>? The US is gone. We will be a multicultural, non-Western nation henceforth, even if we stop immigration. We still must try to stop it, as increasing racial diversification is synonymous with civilizational lowering, as well as leftist politics, including of the socialist kind that some around here seem to sympathize with. With leftist politics comes national immiseration, greater criminality, and persecution of whites. But the trend, even if the invasion is halted, is towards constantly increasing racial integration at all levels of society, and in all places. There is also rampant and accelerating miscegenation. So unless whites can be persuaded to marry each other and reproduce at rates greater than the miscegenationist trend - a demographically dubious prospect; the sociological data run the other way - the restoration of what WNs want - White-dominant America, even if some nonwhites are also present, as always in the past - is already all but impossible (absent extreme and unforeseen events). This is not defeatism, however, nor a counsel of apathy. Whites more than ever must organize racially to protect themselves, their rights and their property. But "winning" for us will issue in nought but a cold peace, at best. As I've always said, the real battle for white survival is in Europe. Will you win? Rather doubtful, I should say. The problem there is not primarily the growing (and tough, ethno-religio-nationalist) nonwhite presence, nor the continuing racial pusillanimity of the white majorities (sure increasing numbers of European men are coming to dislike the alien presences, but what percentages of the total native populations do those numbers represent?). Nor is it even the exploding Maghrebi, Middle Eastern and Persian populations, which might one day involve themselves in any Euro-Disneyland "toy country"'s attempt to repatriate their ethnic expats (ie, soon the European peoples, including demographically dying Russia, will be dwarfed in numbers by the Southern Mediterraneam littoral peoples, and their co-ethnics slightly further afield). The real problem is the collapse in European birthrates (as Buchanan discussed in <em>Death of the West</em> a decade ago, and Mark Steyn a bit later in <em>America Alone</em>). <em>This collapse has already occurred</em>(though that does not mean that fertility is now picking up; it isn't). Virtually every European country is guaranteed to have a huge (native/white) population fall over the next few decades (the projections would be still worse absent higher fertility immigrant communities). I think Europe's future is similar to America's, if a bit behind, with one caveat: America will continue to be invaded, colonized and erased through regularized, peaceful invasions. I think Europe's destruction will come about with much greater rapidity, and through one of the following ways. Either your treasonous elites, having utterly failed to implement real FREE MARKET ECONOMICS, or at least to have instituted much stricter limits on welfare state expenditures and pension guarantees, will start admitting immigrants in the tens of millions annually in order to have the prime age workers needed to pay for Europe's old age entitlements, or ... after having made ever larger military cutbacks in order to preserve increasingly expensive labor/socialist (mainly health and pension) programs, you will be invaded and conquered in some new Islamic jihad. The collective stupidity of Europeans in the second half of the 20th century has really been mindboggling, much worse than America's. What are the majorities over there thinking? Your nations are (comparatively) wealthy, rich in water and arable land, and declining in population (and you have admitted a huge resident fifth column already). Geographically next door to you is a completely alien civilization, naturally resource-poor, exploding in population primarily due to its only and rapidly dwindling resource (oil), and which has waged war on you repeatedly and often successfully over the course of 14 centuries. But still the Europeans worry more about white racism than national preservation. Europe nationalists will not win in the ultimate sense of restoring the historic racial status quo <em>ex ante</em> (absent extreme upheavals). Eventually, all your nations will be multiculturalized and mongrelized, just like America (even if not military invaded by the Islamic crescent, which I think likely). The only realistic hope for white preservation is indeed White Zion, a sovereign country where committed WNs and white conservatives are the majority, and have the freedom of action to legislate policies to ensure white survival.
11709251671320762630<blockquote>Leon Haller wrote: <em>The real problem is the collapse in European birthrates (as Buchanan discussed in Death of the West a decade ago, and Mark Steyn a bit later in America Alone). This collapse has already occurred(though that does not mean that fertility is now picking up; it isn’t). Virtually every European country is guaranteed to have a huge (native/white) population fall over the next few decades (the projections would be still worse absent higher fertility immigrant communities).</em> It’s unclear why this hoary old chestnut continues to gain traction. Europe’s demographic “crisis” (intentional sneer quotes) and its immigration debacle are entirely unrelated phenomena which share only one common parameter: they are playing out in real time, right now. Only the charlatans in the Immigration Industry, their fellow travellers and sundry useful idiots claim there is any meaningful connection. Europe can resolve its immigration issues without entering into a Buchanan-esque rutting contest with its erstwhile colonisers.</blockquote> (Dan Dare) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously, immigration and falling birthrates are analytically distinct issues, and, yes, Europe could theoretically end the immigration invasion without doing anything to increase its native fecundity. In practice, however, these issues are related, for reasons I made clear in the same comment #3: <em>I think Europe’s destruction will come about with much greater rapidity, and through one of the following ways. Either your treasonous elites, having utterly failed to implement real FREE MARKET ECONOMICS, or at least to have instituted much stricter limits on welfare state expenditures and pension guarantees, will start admitting immigrants in the tens of millions annually in order to have the prime age workers needed to pay for Europe’s old age entitlements, or ... after having made ever larger military cutbacks in order to preserve increasingly expensive labor/socialist (mainly health and pension) programs, you will be invaded and conquered in some new Islamic jihad.</em> (LH) First, I am sceptical that today's unbelievably soft and rather lazy and decadent Europeans will choose national survival at the expense of their retiree programs, all predicated on larger (and certainly not dramatically shrinking) labour forces. The idea of much <em>greater</em> immigration to cover pension shortfalls has been bruited about for over a decade now. I hope you Euros resist the siren call of national suicide, but based on present, still-underwhelming nationalist political fortunes, I am sadly doubtful. Please prove me wrong! Second, even if nation comes to supersede pension, there is still the crisis of underpopulation relative to one's culturally alien and aggressive neighbors. Are you familiar with the population (as well as age-structure) disparities between Europe and the Middle East and Maghreb projected for 2050? And yet you see no security threat, especially in an era of continued military drawdowns (effectuated to continue propping up the socialist 'glories' of Europe which Graham Lister and his ilk find preferable to the discipline and rigours of the free market)?
11708651671320760295<strong>@Lister</strong> I was quite enjoying your comment #52, even if we've heard it all before from Dawkins, until I came across this gratuitous dig: <blockquote>It would be a cheap shot to suggest that in putting money before integrity and intellectual honesty Gould was displaying his Jewish roots. After all the love of money above all else sadly affects many of us goyim too (Mr. Haller how is grad school going – finished ‘Introductory Magical Thinking 101’ yet?).</blockquote> How cheap is that shot? Must I truly respond? Alas ... 1) Why is it implied that I put love of money above all else? Evidence (eg, like cutting my career in half to return to study Catholicism? a big money getter you think?)? 2) Intensive study (right now) in the history of Western ethics (Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, Kant, etc), along with early Church history (beginnings to 800 AD), and an overview of the history of moral theology, conducted by professors with impeccable degrees from US and Europe - this is all crap, right? mere pub-talk? Neo-Darwinism is going to man the racial barricades, yes? Or will Heidegger win it for us? I am bored.
11708351671320757408<blockquote><em>Leon, You should stop wasting your time arguing with people on this website and instead create your White Zion website and promote it on Stormfront and other such places.</em></blockquote>(CS) CS, Welcome back. You're probably right. Like Michael Corleone, whenever I think I'm out, they ... I do get tired of the ad hominems, misrepresentations of my position(s), and frequently invincible (and wide-ranging) ignorance directed my way. But there are occasional redeeming moments. In terms of activism, I have two interests, one parochial/national, the other, ultimate/global. The first is Middle American nationalism (MAN), for which I believe there exists a huge need right now. This is a 'bridge ideology' between Hard Right paleoconservatism (Pat Buchanan), and WN. Essentially, this ideological formation would emphasize agitation on behalf of political issues serving to preserve or increase white political and economic power (eg, immigration, deportations, affirmative action, multiculti, felon disenfranchisement, voter tests, reduction in size and scope of socialist and regulatory aspects of government, gun rights, crime penalties, etc), without involving itself in traditional WN modes of analysis. Hence, racialist discussions - of IQ, genetics, Jewish power structure - would be eshewed in favor of directly attacking policies which harm whites, but which are amenable to being opposed for other-than-WN reasons. Thus, for example, MAN seeks to end immigration, just like WN, but we welcome the efforts of all immigration opponents, regardless of race or religion, and we argue against immigration not in terms of its effects on whites, but on Americans generally. Likewise, we agitate against affirmative action not because it's bad for whites, but due to its inherent unfairness, the stigma it attaches to nonwhite achievements, etc. The basic idea is that a lot of white Americans dislike the effects of the leftist race agenda, but don't want to involve themselves with anything which can <em>justifiably</em> be called 'racist'. (This is a simple tactical consideration the import of which all too many WNs appear incapable of grasping.) The second and more profound area is of course WZ. WZ is necessarily internationalist, and is geared towards the ultimate matter of ensuring the actualization of the 14 words. I know the WZ website is a good idea (there is a website with that name, though the concept seems to be more "domestic secessionist-ethnostatist", as opposed to "international demographico-imperialist"). I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on that particularly. Right now, however, I am back in grad school, as well as continuing to work half-time, so my time is over-subscribed as is.
11708451671320759021<blockquote> <em>Leon, what is your definition of ‘capital’?</em></blockquote>(XPWA) Ahh, I'm sure you're aware that that is a very complex question, as capital is heterogeneous. But basically one might say that capital is a store of past production which is capable of producing future wealth or income. The value of capital depends upon its income generating potential, and is shaped by the intersection of objective characteristics and subjective valuations, so it is not amenable to absolute measurement, as are physical objects.
11709351671320763338<blockquote><em>Bhaskar has said that he reintroduced ontology into the foreground of philosophy of science at a time when this was almost heresy, arguing for <strong>an ontology of stratified emergence and differentiated structure, which supported the ontological reality of causal powers independent of their empirical effects</strong>; such a move opened up the possibility for a non-reductivist and non-positivistic account of causal explanation in the human and social domain.</em></blockquote> (Lister) Please explain especially bolded part in plainer language.
11709451671320765995Trainspotter, Great comment @40. I really want to respond, but no time now (I slightly responded in comment to Dan Dare). I may not be able to look at this again until tonight, so check out MR tomorrow (Wed Nov 9, American date). I note this only: my perspective is very American, even when I try to "go global". For as far back as I can remember (early 70s), my parents have been railing against immigration. Being white, 'Nordic', Southern Californians, this is hardly surprising. We were the front lines of the Third World invasion. Even when I and my sisters were kids, I recall my parents saying to us that "our generation" might one day have to "go back" to Europe (where we lived for parts of the 70s - I recall virtually no nonwhites in rural France, or Switzerland or Germany back then ... and I was very aware of 'diversity', per my SoCal childhood). Starting in the 80s my family was incredulous at what the Euros were doing to themselves re minorities, esp Muslims. And everything keeps getting worse, never better. And recall what I've said before: there have been chances: Haider, Le Pen, BNP, etc. When will the victories come? WZ is a pessimist's solution. Of course, Europe can be saved. Of course, committed WN Americans could secede from the Union. But how likely are those possibilities? The problem is not just The Other. It's us. As commenter Silver often says, lots of whites <em>like</em> 'diversity'. At least, lots don't care about it (except feral negroids - and a subset of whites likes them, too, savagery notwithstanding). I fear that whites who want to preserve whiteness represent a genetic type that is not majoritarian among psychologically evenly distributed collectivities (eg, nations). Yet, there are like-minded allies everywhere, but condemned always to exist as (powerless, and dwindling) minorities. Maybe WNs are like homosexuals. For whatever evolutionary reason [note to Lister: isn't that a tough genetic problem? how does homosexuality persist?], queers keep popping up. But they will never be a majority. There will always be anti-diversitarian whites. But we have to face the fact that there might be an upper limit to our number in any evenly distributed population (absent extreme events) - and that that number will never constitute a majority in such populations. I think we have to <em>create</em> an inorganic majority of WNs somewhere that is both sovereign politically, and small enough for us to have a shot at political dominance. Again (per another comment on the "Yo!" thread (I think), if the gays could do this wrt San Francisco, I think we can do it, too. (Out for now.)
11715051671320840016Danielj, I was referring to Jonathan Lear re the Freudian comment. ------------- CS, Noted. But I do enjoy 'butting' heads, in a non-'samwellian' vein, with some of the posters here at MR. ------------- Jimmy Marr, Good photo essay. I have nothing personal against your comrades, but is this kind of thing really the most effective way to save whitey? I repost part of my Middle American Nationalism comment from above: <blockquote><em>In terms of activism, I have two interests, one parochial/national, the other, ultimate/global. The first is Middle American nationalism (MAN), for which I believe there exists a huge need right now. This is a ‘bridge ideology’ between Hard Right paleoconservatism (Pat Buchanan), and WN. Essentially, this ideological formation would emphasize agitation on behalf of political issues serving to preserve or increase white political and economic power (eg, immigration, deportations, affirmative action, multiculti, felon disenfranchisement, voter tests, reduction in size and scope of socialist and regulatory aspects of government, gun rights, crime penalties, etc), without involving itself in traditional WN modes of analysis. Hence, racialist discussions - of IQ, genetics, Jewish power structure - would be eshewed in favor of directly attacking policies which harm whites, but which are amenable to being opposed for other-than-WN reasons. Thus, for example, MAN seeks to end immigration, just like WN, but we welcome the efforts of all immigration opponents, regardless of race or religion, and we argue against immigration not in terms of its effects on whites, but on Americans generally. Likewise, we agitate against affirmative action not because it’s bad for whites, but due to its inherent unfairness, the stigma it attaches to nonwhite achievements, etc. <strong>The basic idea is that a lot of white Americans dislike the effects of the leftist race agenda, but don’t want to involve themselves with anything which can justifiably be called ‘racist’. (This is a simple tactical consideration the import of which all too many WNs appear incapable of grasping.)</strong> The second and more profound area is of course White Zion. WZ is necessarily internationalist, and is geared towards the ultimate matter of ensuring the actualization of the 14 words.</em></blockquote> Bottom line is, are you trying to realize the 14 words, or are you and NSM just having a good time stirring things up? ----------------------- Graham Lister, Don't mock Studio 54. Circa 1979, that was definitely a place I would have liked to be, though my knowledge of pop music cannot begin to hold a candle to yours. ----------------------- Silver, I don't really disagree with your general sense of numbers and percentages. My point, here and forever, is always that every impersonal, exogenous trend in the contemporary world is militating against the biological perpetuity of the white race. Jews, WW2, etc notwithstanding, this may have always been inevitable, whites having reached egalitarian, low birthrate, 'open societies' first, as it were. In the absence of Jewish media propaganda, would whites have held on to their traditional racial consciousness? I don't think so. As GW and GL are wont to say (correctly I think), the problem is much deeper. My ancillary point is that, as things now stand, only some type of assertion of white will-to-endure will be sufficient to ensure we endure. If we drift, we die. Of course, that will must be intelligently packaged, or the game is forfeit at the outset (sorry, Jimmy, NSM probably won't cut it). I, somewhat regrettably, see WZ as the most feasible option for the 14 words, even if, at least in its earliest stages, its leitmotif is evasion and escape, rather than heroic ("Aryan") confrontation. (PS - I still have to go over your comments at the "Octopi" thread.)
11712651671320804795Graham Lister, You must spend an awfully large amount of time scanning Youtube vids. How <em>do</em> you find this crap, post after post? For the record, I'd never even heard of that queer Samwell. And the biology of homosexuality does present at least something of a conundrum for Neo-Darwinian supremacists, doesn't it? In a sexually reproducing species of two sexes, shouldn't any 'same-sex' mutation be self-defeating? Why is the responsible gene or constellation of such not bred out? Thanks for the book rec, I think I've seen it in the biology section of the now defunct Borders chain. But I doubt I will be able to read more than a couple of thousand books (if that) in the remainder of my earthly tenure, and a book on that particular subject just isn't worth it. I thought perhaps you could supply a short answer. <blockquote><em>I have never claimed or indeed privately thought that biology will be explicitly central to any modern ideological shift - (a) it is too complex for the man in the pub; and (b) gene-talk et al., in a political context really puts people off (especially educated middle-class people) with some good reason. They assume it’s proxy talk for Nazism etc. But is Jesuit style obfuscation and sophistry a good model for anything? Equally do not mix developing an intellectual framework with the practical reasoning of everyday political tactics and strategy. But the latter without the former is doomed to failure. Simply being angry in the pub/bar about ‘darkies’ isn’t enough, not by a very long shot.</em> (Lister)</blockquote> Of course, I don't disagree. The significance of biological arguments wrt race is to undercut the liberal "we're all equal and therefore interchangeable" nonsense, as well as the "minority failure is due to white racism" canard. But 'is' really does not get you to 'ought'. To save our race will require a substantial revision first in contemporary PC racial ethics, but ultimately, I believe, for reasons far too involved to just state here, that it will require a 'return to metaphysical meaningfulness', which I interpret to suggest Christianity, as well as a philosophical reformulation of (modern, misunderstood, and possibly even heretical) Christianity in order that the latter be made into an ally and not an enemy of white preservation. In other words, even if I were a Dawkinsian atheist, I increasingly think I would be studying exactly what I am at present. As for Jonathan Lear, I have actually seen that book at one point, and made a note of it. I've never read any of his books, but I have some of his essays in either (or both) <em>The New York Review</em> and <em>The New Republic</em> (I believe he writes for both, though in the latter case I might be confusing him with the historian of America, especially in the 19th century, Jackson Lears). Isn't he some kind of leftist psychologist, more Freudian than scientific? Of course, the book might still be worth reading. I myself have used the phrase "mode of being" to describe part of what whites are losing in their rush to racial integration and demographic minority status, at several past points here at MR. If Heidegger helps to flesh out the specifics of the white man's mode of being, then perhaps brining him to the discussion is indeed useful, though I still think the primary philosophical discipline implicated in our struggle is ethics. Our current dominant ethical discourse is what is leading us straight to extinction.
11711751671320791305I have this problem, too. Right side of page has come to take up half the screen space. Not an improvement.
11715151671320842033I invite MR readers to consider XPWA's comment #77. Does its content make sense to you, or do you see a series of <em>non sequiturs</em>, as I do? BTW, of course "people exist", so to speak, in the Austrian theory of capital (about which I don't claim expertise, just basic understanding - though thanks for the useful links). What does XPWA think was meant, exactly, by my use of the term "subjective valuations"? Furthermore, stop comparing economics, esp Austrianism, to the natural sciences. If critics here actually understood <em>anything</em> about Mises et al, they would never make such ludicrous claims or counterpositions. It was precisely one of Mises's major demonstrations that the proper economic methodology was radically distinct from the positivist approach to science (in other words, economics is not properly to be considered a 'science' in the naturalistic sense at all, but rather a branch of deductive logic, but one which has indubitable application to material reality; economic propositions are both logically valid, and empirically true; Hans-Hermann Hoppe has expounded on these philosophical points at great length). Moreover, you ignoramus, the Austrian approach is by far the <em>most</em> humanistic of any economic school of thought, for the Austrians examine human action, which they do not think can be adequately 'mathematized' (described by or reduced to <em>numerical</em> equations). I'm quite serious in saying that people here should not reject Austrianism simply because they dislike the racial/national effects of libertarianism. That most Austrians are political libertarians in no way implies any necessary connection between the mode of value-free analysis, and the ideology. I am an Austrian School Catholic paleoconservative philosophically, but basically a WN politically. I reject libertarianism, though I value the Anglo-Saxon heritage of liberties, and I want to live in a capitalist economy (far more than the mixed-socialist USA today). But the reach of capitalism ought to be stopped at the 'race's edge'. Is this too difficult for y'all to grasp?
11715751671320853252Trainspotter, I must be unpolished and hurried (though in part I agree with most of what you say, except that I think you underestimate the sheer lack of nerve, as well as unbridled selfishness, of the contemporary European). 1. Of course we're not going to take it all back (absent war, which we may win or lose: if Christian moderate white separatist, we might make it; if hard-edged WN, esp in a neo-Nazi or anti-Christian guise, we will be slaughtered with easy impunity; neither the fighting numbers, nor non-radical white sympathizers, will be present). 2. There will be no NA White Republic. I like the NW Front idea. I think more whites will be moving there over time (and they will be followed by more Mexican laborers). But as to racial <strong>sovereignty</strong>, which is what the WR is all about, that will never happen but through war (as in much else, I hope I'm wrong). White Americans are slowly being <em>Boerized</em>, that is, reduced to the status of System wage-slaves. I don't mean the Marxist shit about capitalism. I mean literal slavery. Boers are now economic slaves. Their productivity is mostly siphoned off to support a huge class of affirmative action African parasites. To a lesser but growing extent that is the new and future condition of white Americans viz nonwhites (and also white members of public sector unions, the great socialist blight of our age). We maintain the System; it cannot afford to let us go (and will be even less able to do so in the future), and it won't, except in the trivial sense of allowing emigration (and even that, at least if it involves transfer of currency or assets, cannot be assumed as a permanent option). White men disproportionately work in the private sector. I bet that goes doubly for WNs. The ruling class does not want us to leave; it would deprive them of too much revenue and useful talent. Even a peaceful local majority vote for <em>sovereign</em> secession (as opposed merely to seceding from particular local jurisdictions, but remaining within the USA) would not be honored. <blockquote><em>Even if German numbers were cut in half, that would still be 30 to 40 million Germans living in an area smaller than California. That’s hardly extinction. They can rebuild and grow from there. The Germans are only doomed if they do nothing; the choice is still theirs. The only thing that is “doomed” is an economy/pension system/welfare system that is predicated upon there being 80 million Germans. There won’t be…for at least a few generations. So what? Those systems are failing anyway, and something new has to replace them anyway. I see that as opportunity more than anything else.</em> </blockquote> (Train) 3. This begs a lot of questions, doesn't it? Yes, Germany <em>could</em> survive its impending demographic bottleneck, as could white America. But will they? Which (major) Western nation has ended nonwhite immigration? Which has formally renounced multiculturalism? And even if immigration is ended, will there be repatriation (certainly not in the US - that much I guarantee!)? Don't assume the latter will automatically follow from a people sufficiently awakened to have demanded the former. Think of the UK. Possibly a majority does not want the population to hit 70 million. Maybe immigration will finally be ended there on carrying capacity grounds. But do you think that desired outcome will then lead to further nationalist demands being translated into legislation - or do you think the nationalist cause will be deflated, and Middle Britons will worry about their economy and personal well-being? I opt for the latter. What happens then? For our lives, UK remains what it is, but with constant racial hemorrhaging, due to nonwhites having higher fertility (as in US), but especially to ever increasing miscegenation. What is a white? I think I recall that the Nazis put it at a minimum of 31/32 Aryan. Will Britain still be Britain in a century, when 60-80% of the inhabitants are more than 1/32 nonwhite? More to follow later, if I receive responses.
11715851671320853585http://mises.org/daily/5796/The-Clear-Language-of-the-Austrian-School Exactly.
11715951671320854039Let me put it all really simply. Between falling absolute and relative numbers of whites, and galloping interracially redistributionary socialism, life for whites on this planet in this century is going to get so bad so quickly that some type of White Zion, some planetary <em>laager</em>, a huddling together for defense and bare survival, will become necessary, even inevitable. The sooner we (esp white Americans) get this into our heads, the sooner we reject as ultimate possibilities anything but WZ, the better our chances of successfully creating this shelter, and surviving this coming evolutionary bottleneck.
11717751671320892908XPWA, I'm not sure if I should even try to respond to you. Regardless of ideological disagreements or political preferences, we're not speaking the same academic language at all. You keep insinuating your own empirical beliefs (not always correct, btw), as well as moral preferences, into issues like the logical status of economic propositions. Economics is not value-laden. It is simply a way of accounting for various social phenomena. For example, if the government sets a price ceiling on a good, eventually a shortage of that good (a gap between quantity demanded and quantity supplied, to use the somewhat pompous language of economics) will likely develop (unless of course the ceiling's price point is far above any equilibrium price). This is not a statement about whether the ceiling is a good idea for non-economic reasons. One can always allow non-economic concerns to override considerations of economic efficiency - especially when those concerns implicate the ultimate sustainability of the system itself (this is the area of <em>genuine</em> challenges - Christian, nationalist, ecological - to free market theory, the area I am interested in pursuing in greater intellectual depth in the future). The point is that economics informs us of the costs of various courses of legislative or commercial action, and it certainly seems like a good idea to know such costs. <blockquote><em>According to the Jew von Mises the natural sciences have nothing to do with economics. Now in a perverse way this has become true. Judeo-Austrian design “entrepreneurial firms” specializing in the paper money trading of Chinese non-free trade goods never produce anything and never will produce anything. Therefore the heat of fusion of aluminum and Avogadro’s Number are irrelevant to business and economics. Try taking that statement about the disconnection of economics and natural sciences to any steel mill, foundry or nuclear power plant. (I just say this because I want you humiliated, demeaned and treated like a horses’ ass in person).</em></blockquote> (XPWA) You just don't understand what the Austrians mean. Of course science is vital to economic development. It is the very foundation of it. The Austrian point is that the methodology of economics is not the same as the positivist one of the natural sciences. You must read Hoppe, <em>Praxeology and Economic Science</em> (I think that's the title; I read it two decades ago, and most of my library is at my house in LA; just go to the Mises.org website). I don't have time to regurgitate Austrian method here! <blockquote><u>I am an Austrian School Catholic paleoconservative philosophically, but basically a WN politically. I reject libertarianism, though I value the Anglo-Saxon heritage of liberties, and I want to live in a capitalist economy (far more than the mixed-socialist USA today).</u>(Haller) An excellent summary of the reasons you are persona non grata at all the libertard and “Austrian” sites. Not one of them agree with you on this. You are therefore a mutant speaking only for yourself. And what you speak makes absolutely no sense for white people.</blockquote>(XPWA) I was banned because of my PinC questions mainly pertaining to immigration. Yes, many Austrians are retarded open borders advocates. But not all by any means, and not many of the leading lights, like Hoppe and David Gordon. Often, when I have posted on racial topics from other internet addresses, like work and occasional friends' computers, many Mises.org commenters have staunchly agreed with me, especially re immigration (also blacks and crime). You generalize far too broadly. And my position, though mostly rejected everywhere I admit, will become dominant over time. You'll see, if you live long enough. De-PC'd Christianity, free enterprise, and racial realism represent the correct approach to the problems of the West. <blockquote><em>Repeat: the filthy Jewish philosophies of Libertarianism and “Austrian School” economics have absolutely no place in a healthy pro-white movement. The prevalence of this intellectual sewer sludge among WNs has been responsible for sabotaging progress for many decades.</em></blockquote>(XPWA) Really? It has been the prevalence of neo-Nazism within WN circles that more than anything else (certainly more than Austrian economics!!) has retarded the development of a morally responsible white preservationism, here as well as in Europe. And as long as WN is morally suspect in the eyes of white majorities, it will go nowhere, Alex Linder's and Jimmy Marr's and Kai Murros's beliefs in the attraction of lumpenproletariats to manfully striding fascist leathermen notwithstanding.
11727451671321016993Many responses called for. I'm a bit tired, but I'm game to reply out of politeness. <strong>Lister@103</strong> Well, that was interesting, sort of. My genetics knowledge is very weak. You certainly know more about all this than I ever will. It just seems like common sense that sexuality is a dominant aspect of an organism, and that if strict natural selection were the only variable determining evolution's course, a homosexual-orientation mutation would not have proven very adaptive. I thought it was a prime task of modern neo-Darwinians to demonstrate that every significant element in the modern person's genetic makeup had some sort of fitness aspect. [I really need to get up to speed in all this.] ---------------------------- CS, <blockquote><em>My favorite countries right now are Malta, Belize and Uruguay. All have way small populations than Australia. BTW, how do you feel about New Zealand? Australia 22.5 million Uruguay 3.4 million Malta 400 K Belize 300 K </em>(CS)</blockquote> Yes, but recall all my earlier commentary on this (I simply must go back and save past comments of mine - don't delete old MR posts, admin!). Choosing the right country is all-important, but we have to think of both ends: what country best works for racial goals, and what works best for WNs as individuals living in the here and now. The country must be small enough so that WN emigrants could reasonably expect one day to be able to shape legislation their way. It ought to be substantially white from the outset. Contrary to what some might think, I strongly believe it ought NOT to be in Europe. Ideally, Europe as a whole should be a WZ. More importantly, the Old World (everywhere, not just Europe) consists of organic nations with long and even ancient histories. It's possible that some European countries will remain majority-white for a very long time. The goal of WZ is ultimately the Racial State; that is, to create a genuinely white apartheid country which consciously seeks to instantiate the 14 words (though of course, this must be done gradually and at first even surreptitiously, like the ongoing Hispanic 'conquista' of the US Southwest). I think realizing all that will be far easier in the Americas or Aus/NZ than in Europe. The pull of tradition, even in these deracinated times, is so much stronger in the Old World. Just because, say, Italy or France have idiotically allowed some number of Muslims and Africans to reside there does not mean either that WN emigrants can necessarily gain admission themselves, or, of greater importance, that WNs will ever easily be able to impose our ideological will on such countries. Politics in those countries will remain in white but probably race leftist hands until the native-born themselves have been numerically overwhelmed by nonwhites. As you've pointed out, we need to escape large absolute numbers of white liberals, too. The country cannot be so small, however, that there is nothing there to attract the first contingents of WN emigrant-pioneers. Ultimately, people need to be able to support themselves. Granted, the very first pioneers, people like us, are likely to be highly motivated persons for whom simply engaging in the WZ project itself will be its own justification and reward. That is the way of all new imagined communities. But to prevent WZ from becoming just another in a rather long history of failed 'utopian' experiments, it has to be viable enough to attract a larger, Second Wave of emigrants (say, "immigrants" as opposed to "pioneers"). Here, quality of life is all-important. Let's face it: the white nations are being colonized because we create the most attractive societies, especially (but not only, and possibly not anymore) economically. (Perhaps it would be more accurate to say we have created hitherto the best societies.) If white nations were barbarous and impoverished, we would not be under demographic attack. If WZ is going to move beyond just the super-hard-core WNs (which it must to have an ultimate possibility of becoming a Racial State), it has to get persons like many of my own friends: racially solid whites, but guys for whom there is a lot more to life than saving our race. I know maybe two white guys who might be expected to be real WZ pioneers. I know a number of others who would be well-wishers, but for whom things Stateside just aren't so bad that they're going to up and relocate out of country. Even wrt North America, European colonization took a very long time. Ease of migration, and global communications, certainly make living abroad more viable for many than ever before. But it's still a leap. And to get people to make that leap, when frankly life today is not nearly as bad as it could be for whites - even for those of us trapped by circumstance in CA, which is further gone than most of America - will require that the place of relocation offer a great deal of the amenities of Western life. There have been white communities, almost always religious, which have set up in remote areas of South America, and which endure to this day. I'm sure the Paraguayan government would let white Americans settle there, too. But who wants to set up in some stinking jungle, just on some distant chance of possible sovereignty and RS status? Another issue to think about is language. I prefer English-speaking countries not only because that's my tongue, but also because, first, English is everybody's second language (would it even be possible to do WZ in, eg, Poland? Poland must be its own ethnostate for Poles; but for the rest of us, the language barrier is too great; only if whites were being butchered everywhere else might they descend on a Poland, or Hungary, etc), and second, I suspect WZ will appeal most strongly to New World, and especially, American, whites (of course, as we develop and grow, we can expect increasing numbers of Europeans to go there, too). I could say a lot more, but let me cut to your query countries. I dislike Malta because it's geographic size is too self-limiting. Also, what is its economic potential for supporting a substantially larger population? I also dislike its proximity to Muslim North Africa, one of the faster growing areas of the world. It could be "Camp of the Saints" swamped too easily. I know nothing of Belize. It is certainly a possibility, but again, its long term defensibility is not good. Too easily swamped. Too high an existent nonwhite population. What is its economic potential? What are its immediate economic opportunities for pioneers? Will whites over time become shiftless in that tropical climate? I think the best candidates for WZ are Australia, NZ, Uruguay, and the white provinces of Southern Brazil (which have a lot of Germans, and might one day be ripe for secessionist activities), in that order (though not sure between Aus and NZ). There are good and bad points to each. I will discuss later (and reply to Train), though I leave with one possibility: think hard about Tasmania. Tasmania's native Abos were all exterminated. Its only nonwhites are immigrants (and I believe the numbers are very small). It's climate and lovely physical geography are among the best in Australia. It is an island, self-contained and potentially self-supporting. It is gloriously removed from the bulk of the world. It is already English-speaking. The WN pioneers would not be moving to some crappy Third World country, without modern law, property rights, infrastructure, etc. It is not an 'organic' society with an ancient history. Whites have not been there from time immemorial. It is my understanding that the Aussie government wants more population, but there is resistance to too much nonwhite immigration from the average person, so immigration is not all that high by the standards of America and Canada other white nations, like Britain. What if 2 million global (but heavily North American) WNs moved there over 40 years, established a real sub-colony within Australia, and then declared for secession? Would the Aussies really invade to nullify it (let alone nuke it, per XPWA's ridiculous surmise)? Aussies are not great racially, but my limited experience suggests they are at least no worse than white Americans, and are better than either Canadians or British. As long as the WN pioneers were not belligerent neo-Nazis, I think we would be welcomed by both the government and the populace (many of the latter of whom might like their country becoming 'whiter', or at least having a counterweight stream of migrants to the Asians and Hindoos pouring in). Thoughts on Tasmania? (full disclosure: I've been theorizing with a couple of friends about Tasmania as the very last redoubt of the Aryan since the mid-80s)
11732351671321068893<em>Leon, your constant pessimism is tiresome. There will be a war and we will win. We have the numbers and the resources. There are thousands if not millions of Hard Men who are willing to do what it takes. Your pessimism, I think, comes from an inability to think the unthinkable, to imagine your own finger on the trigger. Please, stop underestimating the White man. We’ve been through this before.</em> (SELOUS SCOUT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wouldn't so much say "pessimistic" as realistic. The man who advances matters politically (and who wins militarily) is the one willing to subordinate his wishfulness to the coldest possible reasoning. Granted, on the field of battle those who win are often those best at inspiring their men to valor through convincing them of the inevitability of their victory ("God is on our side", "we have the best strategy", etc) even where, paradoxically, the very margin of that victory turns out to have been provided by the baseless inspiration itself. But the commander himself had better keep his eyes on the real world information streaming into HQ. Please tell me/us how you see this war igniting and then playing out. Are we speaking about civil race war in the West? Where? Europe, America, both? Do we indeed have "the numbers and the resources" (including human fighting quality) to win? Can you elaborate? Will the war take the form of the book by, I think, one Thomas Chittum, called <em>Civil War 2</em>, that I read in the 90s, whereby minority race riots trigger National Guard failures to control, which in turn trigger cleavages within the military along racial lines? That is certainly possible. But it's equally possible that the military will remain relatively united in simply carrying out its orders to maintain public order and control. Perhaps there are thousands or even millions of Hard Men out there. But how many are WNs, even if only by sympathy? I once, nearly two decades ago, faced off against, and nearly came to blows with (somehow the bartender managed to get some cops over very quickly), what was probably a fairly "hard" man in an otherwise quiet bar in Vegas. I was alone (I was with a girl, but she was still sick from way too much partying the previous night, and was in the hotel asleep), my antagonist was with his quite attractive girlfriend, and, I kid you not, we had started out as instant "friends". The big, blond guy had come in with the girl, and sat down right near me in a not too crowded bar. He was loudly declaiming on the virtues of - no, I am NOT joking, present thread context notwithstanding - liberty and the free market (the skinny dweeb at the other end of the bar grimacing whilst listening to us go on about the greatness of capitalism was probably XPWA), and what an asshole Clinton was. Well, at one point he sort of looked at me, and, being a race-conscious libertarian at that time (as opposed to free market paleocon, as I consider myself to be now), I nodded my agreement. Before long we started talking, and the three of us rather hit it off (his girl was smart as well as pretty). Indeed, very private person though I am, I was actually thinking of inviting the couple to join us at dinner that evening, if my girlfriend was better by then (this was only around 6-7pm). They were roughly same age as us, white, decently dressed, etc. Until the subject of immigration came up. If there has been one political constant above all others in my life, it has been hatred of nonwhite immigration. That is the uber-issue, the meta-issue, the transcendent issue, etc. I can't remember exactly what I said. Maybe something about all the Mexicans invading LA. Anyway, talk about someone turning on a dime. It was quite amazing. From an hour's <em>bonhomie</em>, it took all of maybe three minutes for this idiot to start loudly calling me "a fucking racist" because I wanted to halt immigration (I had used no epithets, and had merely pointed to the damage immigration was causing the country, including the political damage to the conservative cause), me in turn calling him a "fucking race traitor", and to both of us off our barstools, angrily taunting and threatening each other, with the girlfriend trying to broker peace between us - and then, amazingly, the cops came, and escorted both parties out of the bar, forcing the couple to drive away after administering breathalyzer tests (I was within walking distance of my own hotel). Moral? The white race is the only race in my experience which produces tough men who get angry at its own WN defenders. No other race except ours produces angry, militant, occasionally<em> fighting</em> anti-racists. I wonder how many of your "Hard Men" will actually defend their race, and not some other? On the subject of numbers of Hard Men, GW or Lister could probably draw an analogy with what we know about the genetic distribution of intelligence. To be sure that an intelligent man has intelligent children, it is often not enough for him merely to marry an intelligent woman. Due to 'regression to the mean', what he really wants to do is marry a smart girl from a smart family (assuming he himself is from such a family). I believe this is thought to account for why seemingly intelligent black parents so often have much less impressive children (the parents are usually genetic 'outliers', so the tendency is for the children to regress cognitively to their respective ancestors' normal levels of brainpower). Does this phenomenon apply to other characteristics? If so, we might be able to determine the accuracy of the merely hypothesized contention that there are "millions of Hard Men who are willing to do what it takes" by looking for other evidence of racial "Hard Manliness". For example, voting. If there are vast numbers of white racial tough guys out there, then surely that fact should be reflected in voting patterns, especially when there is a fellow 'tough guy' in a national election. That is, if there really are millions of Hard Men throughout the West "willing to do what it takes", then there ought to be tens of millions of Hard Men at least willing to <em>vote</em> their racial interests. Toughness, like IQ, surely can be plotted as a bell curve, and there must be more tough voters than tough trigger-pullers. As Graham "Man of Science" Lister might ask, what does the empirical evidence say? What it says is that every time an even vaguely WN candidate actually seems to have some real chance at an electoral breakthrough, the white lemmings turn around and deliver him a crushing defeat. THINK Buchanan, think Le Pen, think BNP, think the various Euronationalist parties. None ever breaks through (I forget exactly what happened in Austria, but Haider was never President, was he?). And as all our societies become more colored, with the coloreds voting, the possibility of breakthrough recedes still further. I doubt there really are millions of Hard Men who are geographically clustered and also even potentially racially committed. This is the whole <em>raison d'etre</em> of White Zion. Within all normal large white collectivities (esp nations), there are never enough WN types to take over. The psyche that leads an individual to WN politics is clearly a minority one within the Aryan race. And so everywhere we languish, despite there being millions of us worldwide (the point I think of your statement was that those millions of Hard Men could actually be an effective force to secure white survival, whereas in fact tens of millions would be needed; my point is that they are too geographically dispersed, and that within any single white polity, there are NOT millions of WNs or even potential WNs). A final two points. First, my pessimism has nothing to do with the lack of imagination you ascribe to me. During the '92 LA riots, I was armed and ready for war. Unfortunately, the savages never came back to my then area (Westwood) after that first night of some sporadic damage, which had caught me off guard, as it had many others. Every time I go target shooting, what is in my imagination is not a moose or mallard, I assure you. Speak for yourself, or save your Jewish psychoanalyzing for the real lunatics hunting MR. And when, exactly, have "we been through this before"? Thermopylae? Poitier? Lepanto? Vienna? Stalingrad? They were feats of arms, and thus nothing like the moral struggle we face today (with eventual military conflict a certainty, but one whose outcome will be determined by the aforesaid moral and intellectual struggle of our time). Our situation today is, rather, unique.
11732451671321069164“Things Merely are: Philosophy in the Poetry of Wallace Stevens” This book is an invitation to read poetry. Simon Critchley argues that poetry enlarges life with a range of observation, power of expression and attention to language that eclipses any other medium. In a rich engagement with the poetry of Wallace Stevens, Critchley reveals that poetry also contains deep and important philosophical insight. Above all, he agues for a ‘poetic epistemology’ that enables us to think afresh the philosophical problem of the relation between mind and world, and ultimately to cast the problem away. Drawing astutely on Kant, the German and English Romantics and Heidegger, Critchley argues that through its descriptions of particular things and their stubborn plainness - whether water, guitars, trees, or cats - poetry evokes the ‘mereness’ of things. It is this experience, he shows, that provokes the mood of calm and releases the imaginative insight we need to press back against the pressure of reality. Critchley also argues that this calm defines the cinematic eye of Terrence Malick, whose work is discussed at the end of the book. (Lister) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That reads precisely like a publisher's jacket blurb. Pitch perfect.
11732651671321074593<strong>XPWA@124</strong> You are incorrigible in your ignorance. Three matters. First, there is this: <blockquote>“Economics” is not a quantifiable science.</blockquote> Yes. Hello? Do you understand that I agree, that this is precisely what the Austrians believe? I don't think you do, which leads me to state that you are, in reality, totally unfamiliar with Austrian Economics, and are merely superimposing your understanding of neoclassical economics, with all its mathematical pretensions, onto Austrianism. Indeed, you assume that because Austrians are the most radical free enterprise supporters, they must therefore be the most extreme in their avowal of what you correctly identify as the (in reality, bullshit) scientific pretensions of modern (mainstream) economics. This is totally incorrect, as I keep pointing out. Austrians are the enemy of quantitative economics (except when doing basic numerical calculations; that is, econometric modeling and so forth is rejected). That you do not acknowledge this or show evidence of recognizing this is itself evidence that, in criticizing Austrianism, you are really just criticizing a certain hedonic calculus, or reductionist/materialist understanding of what economics analyzes. If you are really interested in critiquing what is most distinct in Austrianism, what sets it apart from other schools of economics, read the Hoppe monograph on praxeology I suggested. If you or others then have informed criticism of that particular methodology, I would be interested in considering it. But right now, we are not on the same page at all, regardless of ultimate ideological preferences or beliefs about the nature of society (or even exchange phenomena). That latter stuff is irrelevant until you actually understand the Austrian position (which, frankly, I, too, would like to be able to criticize from the conservative Right). Second, this: <blockquote>(Increasing experience inclines me to believe that the primary requirements for admission to any Ivy League college are a clinical diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder and ethnic nepotistic connections. There is no evidence that genuine excellence is a criterion either for matriculation or for tenure).XPWA</blockquote> Sorry, pal, I disliked most of the liberals I encountered in one of the better Ivies (but not best - MIT or Harvard), but at least in my day, for a white man to gain admission, unless he happened to be an alumnus child, awesome athlete, or have some other special connection, he had to be smart, period. Yes, around a third of my class was Jewish. But hasn't MacDonald (and Herrnstein/Murray before) shown that European Jews are the smartest ethnic group? In my experience, there were a lot of smart ones, ethnic nepotism or not ... Lastly, re tenure, I'd say liberalism is the most important qualification, then intellectual excellence. There are many top flight intellectuals in the Ivies, but they are almost all liberal. Third, I have other comments to make, but I'm ending with these questions instead: 1. What would your political economy specifically look like (mine is very simply, radical, deregulated free markets, but with zero nonwhite immigration; ideally, it would be an all-white Racial State, with almost no government interference in economic matters, except to ensure racial and environmental sustainability - so there would have to be anti-pollution laws, military defenses, border patrols, law courts, public disease measures, a few other things, but otherwise, leave the people free to conduct their affairs, especially economic ones, as they see fit)? 2. The most telling question of all. The OWSers are starting to get violent, smashing property, attacking police, etc. What should be done with them? I say, give them 24 hours to pack up and leave, then send in riot police with water cannon, etc, and force them out, ideally, breaking many bones in the process. You? That latter question is a great dividing line one, to see who is the patriot, and who the fool or traitor.
11733651671321088895<strong>@SELOUS SCOUT & JRICHARDS</strong> <blockquote>Do you believe more in your doomsday scenario or your White Zion scenario? (anon)</blockquote> ———————————————————————— You are asking a very difficult question of me, though your observation of my shifting tones is probably correct. Haven’t I stated the real issue many times (appropriating Wilmot Robertson’s metaphor): “ripening harvest / encroaching jungle”? I’m a great believer in ultimate physical reality (which in human affairs means brute force - the ability to impose one’s will on others: power). Ideologies are fine, but raw power finally is determinative. The West still has tremendous power (though it’s dwindling, both absolutely and relatively). Which WN was it in the past few years (Scrooby? Grimoire? some recognizable European?) who said that if 10% of whites were WN we’d be unstoppable? Certainly, we have the physical power to survive as a race and whatever kind of (technological) civilization we wish to be. But we are clearly headed towards extinction. Why? I have discussed this before, here at MR and elsewhere. We are dying due to a confluence of physical, political, economic, sociological, and above all philosophical/ideological trends. At base, at the very time in history when the white race most needs - for physical (power) reasons - to live by the Racial Principle (ie, that races differ at the biological level, and thus are neither interchangeable nor even compatible within the same ecological niches (or ‘countries’)), we have thrown it (and ancient caution) to the wind. Year by year, our racial power (ie, ability to control our racial destiny) correspondingly weakens. Our ideological insanity (a form of evolutionary maladaptiveness) is destroying our physical power. Past some (tipping) point of physical power diminution, our situation will be (physically) irreparable. So, the harvest/jungle metaphor. We must awaken our people from their multiracialist slumbers while there remains time to resurrect our racial power. Is this all clear? I cannot really answer your question, because you are asking me to prognosticate in an area (human desires and intentions) for which extrapolations are ineluctably highly provisional. Of course, that’s why we have a chance. Will our people awaken before our racial power is all used up, and unrecoverable? I honestly don’t know. I suppose it depends on how bad things get - and that is the Awful Paradox. For there to be true racial recovery, the raw quality of life for Western peoples might have to get very bad (eg, basic necessities of life might have to become scarce, or raw persecution of whites the order of the day). The problem (Paradox) is that as the effects of denying the Racial Principle worsen Western quality of life, Western peoples will constantly ‘turn Right’ to mitigate those effects. As those effects get mitigated, the ‘meta-euthanasia’ of the West (rising immigration, greater integration, increased blood pollution (miscegenation)) is able to resume its ‘extinctionist’ course. How optimistic you are wrt white preservation depends in part on your view of (or inversely correlates with) the competence and resilience and adaptability of The System. If they are incompetent and generate a macro-crisis which they cannot resolve, one which inflicts tremendous tribulations upon whites, then WN, responding to that which is physically real (and not merely ideational), could find a favorable political ‘space’ opening up quickly. If WNs are sufficiently organized, they could possibly find themselves in a position to achieve a shattering victory over our enemies. But if you think The System in the West is basically competent and therefore stable, there would seem to be no hope for the white man to end or avoid the meta-euthanasia unless: 1) we can change the New Morality of (a majority of) the people back to the older version wrt race (hence my emphasis on ethics and renovated Christianity, which I find more likely to recrudesce than ancient indigenous paganisms, or hyper-modern fascisms), at least in Europe, which is still physically recoverable, or 2) we can establish an Aryan analogue to Israel (White Zion), a sovereign state for the preservation of our people. White Zion is utterly, physically possible and even plausible, though “nothing is, but thinking makes it so”. Will we do it? I’m inclined to think whites will never quite do enough actually to secure their future, though they will keep mitigating diversity’s negative consequences right up and into their collective grave. In a hundred years, whites across the planet will find themselves reduced to the sorry condition of the European Jews pre-emancipation, hemmed in and ‘ghettoized’ by racist strictures enacted by nonwhite electorates. It is our duty and glory to prevent this. The key is changing the white man’s racial ethics (which may involve a great deal of philosophical reenvisioning).
11738051671321186639CS, Don't lose faith in the WZ idea. The notion that the alleged "Jew-SA" would nuke an Australia that re-enacted a Whites Only immigration policy is too fanciful even to be mocked. The Christian conservatives would be horrified, the left-environmentalists would scream about fallout, the libertarians would scream about interventionism, the corporate class about markets tanking, etc etc. The liberals in the "divestment" controversy of the 80s never suggested nuking South Africa. The notion that the USA would even press for sanctions as in the South African experience is hard to take seriously (and if it did, that might be a <em>good</em> thing, reinforcing a siege mentality, which would make the WN colony still more tribal and security-oriented, like Israel). The South Africa bulls--- was over a white minority 'oppressing' what was assumed to be a native black majority (in fact, most of the blacks were originally immigrants from elsewhere in Africa). Who in the past ever spoke about nuking Australia over its immigration or even aboriginal policies? The antagonists think they're being very cynical, macho, and hyper-realist, but they merely reveal their own limited purchase on the actual world. Same thing re The Jewish Conspiracy - there is no Jewish Conspiracy, only a probably genetic tendency to seek to exploit host nations and undermine expressions of white racial solidarity, as they know they don't really belong in Nordic lands. They are cosmopolitans, who therefore wish to 'cosmopolitanize' societies, especially as they are uniquely equipped to thrive ethnically under such conditions. Would we speak of a Black Conspiracy to terrorize whites through violent criminality, or are blacks, as a statistical aggregate, simply genetically crime-prone savages, expressing in behavior their innate tendencies? Always bear in mind my injunction re endeavoring to see reality clearly. What is less likely: what you call the "international white (nationalist) flight" to WZ, effected in order to live with our own kind of people (something which is going on all the time anyway; see the book <em>The Big Sort</em>, or at least Jared Taylor's review of it in <em>American Renaissance</em>, which argues that America is already <em>sorting</em> itself out, neighborhood by neighborhood, state by state, into areas where ideologically and culturally likeminded people congregate) -- or completely upending the Money Power, ie, the whole infinitely complex economic status quo, in order to dispossess Jews of their disproportionate wealth? There are many differences in scale and difficulty of the respective tasks, but perhaps the biggest one is this: we the WZ pioneers are in control of our own destinies; we make the decisions to relocate (especially if we are talking about places like Australia and Uruguay, both of which want immigrants). But in trying to destroy the Money Power (even assuming such a metaphorical categorization corresponds to anything real) one is talking about inflicting great harm, whether legitimate or not, and those on the receiving end of the destruction certainly won't take it lying down! In fact, it is JRichards who is the spreader of demoralization. He throws up assinine, unrealistic objections to that which is perfectly feasible: a bunch of committed WNs figuring out how to move to a place potentially electorally conquerable, like Melbourne or Montevideo, and then doing so - wow! what a Big Deal! Can you imagine WNs going to live in Sydney? What a conceptual leap! <em>C'est impossible!</em> On the other hand, Richards tells us that our only hope lay in completely overthrowing the existing US financial system, and seizing the money of Jewish financiers. That is simpler or more likely than WZ? How exactly will that be effected? (hint: dispossessing the Jewish bankers - unless Richards thinks a Nazi revolution is on the horizon ... this in a country which may <strong>re</strong>elect a failed<em> black</em> president ... will almost certainly require dispossessing the entire financial class, Gentile as well as Jew, and thus the attempt to do so will rile an almost infinitely larger number of (often highly influential) persons, who will not go down without a fight, I assure one and all, than would be involved in WZ, especially during the pioneer stage.) My WZ is a counsel of realism; sadly, the very most realistic option for securing a white future somewhere that is in current WN discussion. What Richards is peddling is so unrealistic that one must question either his credibility as a WN, or his sanity.
11741251671321278927<strong>Silver @163</strong> Interesting, lengthy comment. You like to hit this stuff from a psychological angle, don't you? 1. "<u><strong>Overcompensation</strong></u>" - Could be something to this. I don't know. I haven't thought about it in this way. I have NEVER experienced even the tiniest scintilla of "white guilt", and so have always found the phenomena completely perplexing. Then again, I find liberalism in nearly all its guises inexplicable, at least where I can't find real self-interest (obviously gays want sexual liberation, blacks affirmative action, public sector unions to rape taxpayers for as many benefits as possible, etc). I think whites are indeed "too good for their own good", the least innately racist group, and thus the most in danger from modern integrationist trends and technologies. For me, however, this problem, the susceptibility to which may well have genetic-psychological roots, is nevertheless a problem of philosophical ethics (which for me ultimately gets folded into theology). I've been saying this for a quarter century, which is why I always tactically (in addition to, ultimately, ethically) oppose the NSM or white supremacist types. The average white, especially American or Canadian (perhaps any member of an overseas British descended culture - within Britain proper, however, I don't think the people are especially moral or kind), is just basically a good person, as well as a gene-deep individualist. Thus, racism just seems wrong (more precisely, the younger generations have forgotten or never been taught the justifications undergirding the older prejudices). MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech was brilliantly calculated to resonate with white Americans, esp when he talked about being judged on character not color. That was pitch perfect in terms of the growth of liberal individualism over the course of US history (note: American society in early US history was in fact much more communitarian than it is today). If whites are going to survive, a new ethics of racial survival is needed to overcome the seeming 'naturalness' of white individualism. On question: how did you get from the train to a street in the 'hood. And why? I'm going to respond to your comment a bit more tonight, but I have a very early class today, and still have some preparation to do for it.
11741151671321276439<blockquote>Possibly overkill as the history of US subversion is South American is enough to send a chill down the bravest back even before factoring the current levels of ultra violence from the Mexican cartels and allied groups. The fact is ‘they’ are better financed, equipped and are world class at bloody subversion. Ask the ex-head of state who recently experienced a knife thrust up his rectum. (LIberal)</blockquote> Please. The US will have little reason to notice, let alone subvert or attack, WZ. For one thing, as our inevitable decline continues, the managerial class will be confronted with ever greater domestic crises born out of the inner contradictions of multicultural socialism. For another, post-Cold War USA/NWO subversion only really occurs in two situations: where the US has <em>sub rosa</em> interests, usually economic, or where liberals get their dander up over some (real or imagined) human rights violation. The former will almost certainly not apply to a WZ-Australia/Tasmania/New Zealand/Uruguay/Belize, etc. WZ will not be a terrorist state, will not invade its neighbors, will not harbor international criminals (except of the WN "thoughtcrime" variety) or pirates, and will not be a global environmental menace. The latter will not apply to the extent that the US has not hitherto involved itself in other countries' affairs out of pique with their immigration policies. The 'subversion' of South Africa, the great supposed example here, was, moreover, economic, and quite transparent. The ANC was not bankrolled by the US, but by the communists. Of course, the real concern is with the locals 'getting wind' of our plans. WZ pioneers must be very careful to avoid Far Right political conflict in the early years. Align with (and befriend) native conservatives, especially those who are anti-diversity, and pro-military (ultimately, WZ must acquire nuclear weapons, as Israel has) but otherwise stay aloof. The important point will be to get as many whites as possible imported into the designated WZ, and then ensure that those white immigrants are model citizens (as I believe most would be). Only when we've reached 10-20% of the population can we start getting active re stopping all nonwhite immigration, whilst supporting maximum white immigration. The USA/NWO in fact won't even notice WZ until it has already become a fact (the point at which WNs are >50% of the population). WZ is a long-term goal, one whose realization will span decades, decades of continuing American decay. Let's all remember that.
11753851671321446871CL (and Liberal Heresy), We call it "White Zion" precisely because we want exactly what the Jews have: our own country, where <em><strong>we</strong></em> decide how things are run, and which can ultimately serve as a similar base of operations against the occupationist governments of historically white nations, as well as a place of refuge for patriots of the blood fleeing ZOG/liberal/mud tyranny. This is really neither complicated nor remotely outlandish. History affords many examples both of whole peoples on the move, as well as, more relevantly, specific groups self-exiling to areas where they could have functional control (despite ultimate sovereignty residing in other, but remote, hands). Examples are the Puritans, the Mormons, the Voortrekkers, the German Mennonites of Paraguay, etc (and don't forget the homos politically taking over San Francisco, and the Jews, New York, or the Mexicans conquering the US Southwest as I write). As I keep emphasizing, our lot is far easier, given the ease of both communications (for keeping in touch with persons back home, including business colleagues, in some cases), as well as transportation. Good grief, it's not as though we're "crossing to America" circa 1720, when some of my Old Country ancestors arrived, knowing full well they probably would never return. If we set up in Uruguay, less than a day's traveling will get me home to LA to visit family. The world is shrinking, which is part of what is at the base of the mud invasions. Isn't it time we used that fact to our advantage? Anyway, the key point is "racial sovereignty". Unless the USA somehow collapses (a possibility, I admit), and whites can secure their own ethnostate (I'm less sure that would happen; the USA could fissure, but possibly only into all-black, all-Latino, and the remainder mixed, territories), the gradual conquest of whites in America (and Canada, and Britain, and France etc) will proceed apace. Even if we are able to stand up to short-sighted business lobbies, and end immigration, at least in North America (and probably England, too, it seems) all we will ever get is the shitty status quo, where whites are coercively integrated on a daily basis with aliens and savages, have their culture deliberately expunged from the media and schools, and suffer all manner of oppression - including the oppression of not being able to lead psychologically authentic, <em>white</em> lives, the kind of lives evolutionarily natural to us, and thus most conducive to happiness among us (or at the very, very least, most conducive to personal life satisfaction for anti-diversity whites, like us). The status quo is unacceptable as is, and the features which make it unacceptable are only growing worse everyday. Bottom line? We're never going to be collectively happy (nor will the white race even endure, except for some few more decades, perhaps a century at most, I argue), until we can lead the life we want, which won't happen without political sovereignty, and which in turn I don't believe can be realistically achieved in countries which are either too populous (US, UK), or otherwise too overrun with muds already (Canada, South Africa). WNs must quietly in-gather in one area in which they can have influence, at least over local affairs, and which is inside a nation which is mostly white already (and therefore First World), but which is relatively underpopulated, and thus potentially demographically/electorally 'conquerable' with enough WN or white conservative immigration. Sure, white flighters can for now keep 'flying' within formerly white countries like the US, Canada, and the UK, though it's getting harder by the year to find someplace still racially pristine (and even in such places one cannot evade the ever-tightening grip of central state power). But living in a still white English village, or rural part of the US or Canada, does not afford real racial independence, nor viability over the long term. It's merely a response or holding strategy, and that will never finally be enough. We need to take over a territory. Our realistic options are: Australia (if ambitious), Tasmania (with a goal of ultimate secession), New Zealand's southern island (ditto), Uruguay, maybe the southernmost provinces of Brazil (ditto). Heck, maybe Scotland could be considered (ditto), or even Ireland or Ulster (I just think Old World countries are harder to effectuate this kind of inorganic project than New World ones). But I do not see collapse, especially not racial armageddon, on the horizon. The West is far more stable than it used to be. I think things go on as is (racially) for a long time, with everything just getting continually worse. Eventually, there will be some kind of breakdown, but the point of no return may have been crossed when it occurs. If there has not been a WN reaction by this time, when the hell will it come? And when it does come will it be too little, too late? The key to WZ, however, is I think allying with local WNs in the country in question. The reason I push Australia is that they do want immigrants, but the white majority populace remains leery of Asians and Muslims. I think many Australians would welcome more white immigrants. And if WNs proceeded to make their way to low-population Tasmania, we could speed up the point of our reaching 'critical mass' (to push for secession and sovereignty). WZ is an example of thinking 'outside the box'. But I don't see any other way the white man, at least outside, perhaps, certain Slavic lands, actually endures in perpetuity. Outside of WZ, the combination of immigration plus miscegenation will eventually render remaining pure whites pitifully weak and persecuted minorities, possibly 'hanging on', but always subject to the cruel whims and vagaries of their new nonwhite masters. I don't want to live in that condition, and I don't want future whites to have to, either. WZ/14 words
11754251671321452785<blockquote>But look at the tremendous advantage we have compared to them, just in potential numbers. </blockquote>(CL) We used to have far greater numbers, and where did it get us? You don't understand. Whites are going extinct because of Us, not Them. Anti-racism is a meme to which whites are uniquely genetically vulnerable. Either that meme must be destroyed, or healthy whites must re-form in their own territory.
11765951671321697628The reference to <em>Romper Stomper</em> caused me to look it up on Google. I had rented it on videocassette in I think '94, though I don't remember too much of it. I found something about it on some obscure site (cinematrocity), and of course had to respond to the PC genuflection. Herewith: <blockquote>Man, are you ever an asskisser. I saw RS in '94, don't remember it very well, except for the Vietnamese savages scene, and the great line from Crowe: "This is not YOUR country." Exactly. Asians did not build Australia; white men did. By what moral system is it therefore OK for a bunch of lilly-livered liberals to hand over the keys to the country to a bunch of racially unassimilable foreigners? If that is not (race) treason, what is? Why is it "racism" (that is, something allegedly negative) to want to preserve your own country? The mere presence of the Viets is itself an aggressive act. They should have remained in their own country, or, if they wanted to leave, gone to another Oriental land, like maybe the Philippines. The real villains are the white liberals who have imposed this national travesty on every white nation - with the ultimate goal, obviously, being the extinction of the white race. To hell with them and their pathetically PC white supporters. </blockquote>
11766051671321702092Silver, I appreciate that you've directed a number of lengthy comments my way recently to which I mostly have not adequately responded (certainly not to the extent that I'd like to have). Please note: I am now just too busy to be doing commenting much anymore, at least until the Christmas holidays - and by that point, I may have lost the taste for these ideological chatrooms that I've acquired over the past decade. I'm back in school and have an enormous amount of reading, including extra-curricular stuff over holidays for my eventual dissertation. Also, some friends are putting together an American nationalism site (not WN, but with overlapping concerns) to which I might devote most of my online energies (such as they will be) in the future (I will probably spread the word about it here and elsewhere once I know it's up and running). And once that site is up, I remain interested in also possibly contributing to a White Zion site, if a decent one is already in existence, or creating my own, at least as an interactive blog, if that's the right term (ie, one where I will post material, and then allow for comments, as at MR). Basically, I'm getting less interested in what might be called "intermediate theoretical (WN) debates", such as we all partake in at MR. I want to conduct, in print, foundational discussions with high level intellectuals on issues of Occidental survival, but otherwise, my online-specific interests are moving more in the direction of practical organizing (which is the planned orientation of the American "national conservative" site), and this on two radically separate fronts, the first being defense of Middle (white) American interests (here, the issues would be similar to WN ones, but the emphasis would be on whites-as-victims, <em>sans</em> discussions of racial supremacism, the JQ, scientific race differences, WW2 revisionism, etc - basically all the stuff that brands WNs "extremists", and that is finally tangential to actually getting real legislation moved in our direction); and the second being a forum for practical discussions re WZ (in other words, the blog would assume that all are in agreement with the basic ideas of white preservation, race issues and WN foreign colonization, and that's it's time to start figuring out the feasibility of the project, and then the paths to transforming this vision into a reality). [BTW, Silver, re WZ: you live in Australia, yet I'm surprised that I cannot recall your weighing in on the WZ idea, at least wrt Australia, Tasmania, and/or New Zealand. I've broached these issues even here on this thread. What are the whites like in Oz? Specifically, is Australian national policy now to encourage immigration? And which option would the white Aussies prefer: no immigrants at all, more white immigrants, white immigrants in lieu of nonwhites, or nonwhites in preference to being seen as 'racists'? Basically, how easy would it be for lots of whites to move to Oz, and acquire citizenship there? And how easy once there to reside (or at least acquire property) in Tasmania? I'd appreciate any answers.] Bottom line is that I'm soon to exit MR (I've said that before, but real world time constraints are forcing my hand this time). My work here has, I think, also hit a wall. Before exiting, I would like to comment briefly, however, on this: <blockquote><em>I prefer the term “psychology” because I think it gets at the emotional aspect more so than does “ethics.” It’s at the level of emotion that people are moved to undertake an action or give their assent to an action being undertaken (or not undertaken). When people claim very forcefully that something is “wrong” (or “right”) it’s because it feels so wrong (or right) to them, and if you don’t accept or acknowledge their feelings all the philosophizing in the world won’t help you. It’s like me trying to convince you to strangle your mother (I presume you love her). What difference could any “reasoning” I provide possibly make? It’s flatly wrong and that’s all there is to it. When it comes to race, people simply feel bad about it. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They can feel so uncomfortable about it that they refuse to enter into any discussion. Dry, detached, distant ethical arguments simply do not get at the heart of what bugs people about race; people remain unconvinced and they refuse to tell you why they’re unconvinced, which often has nothing to do with any systematic ethical thinking on their part. </em> (Silver)</blockquote> I do think you're talking mostly here about the psychology of liberals, a group which I regard as nearly genetically lost (and which will be eventually). I said all this before, at some length. In fact, you know what really brought me to MR? Some years ago, I wrote a very lengthy comment on white extinction at takimag. Someone copied my comment here at MR, and then a WN friend who frequented MR back in the day told me about it. Anyway, I don;t propose to try to reach the white liberal, ever. Race is visceral. Either you get it ('it' being that whites are the true victims of multiculturalism), or you don't. This is not like, say, economics, where one can patiently explain the errors of socialism and Keynesianism, and possibly make converts to correct views. Granted, there are some specific policies on which openminded liberals (not a large group in the best of times) might be amenable to ideological change based on dispassionate scientific demonstrations of the reality of racial differences (eg, disproportionate black failures on a firefighters' entrance exam not being caused by racial test bias, or heavy black arrest rates not being due to police racism). But in general, a white who 'feels' that it's wrong even to discuss racial differences, or white survivalism, etc, is probably harboring some racially defective gene combination which will eventually result in his white gene line becoming racially polluted (and thus removed from the future white story). At some point, in a multiracial, integrationist context, all racially 'weak' white gene lines will eventually succumb to miscegenation. Over time, therefore, whites can be expected, <em>ceteris paribus</em>, to become more, not less, racist, even as they continually, again <em>ceteris paribus</em>, dwindle in numbers (this phenomenon is happening wrt Jewry right this very minute: only the most ethnocentric Jews - the really "Jewish Jews" - are for the most part continuing to marry Jews; most of my Jewish friends have non-Jewish spouses - another reason, incidentally, why the JQ may well never gain much traction in white American life: far too many whites in my generation and younger now have a Jewish 'relative'). No, my concern is with that group of whites who dislikes the 'diversification' of America (or other Western nations), who know in their hearts that races differ, and that generally whites are better (not to mention their preferred neighbors, colleagues, and friends), but who thinks that 'acting racially', that is, political organizing by whites, for whites, either to protect white interests, or to promote WZ or the ethnostate as a distant goal, is just plain morally wrong. In my life, I have known many, many persons like this. Scared of (white) racism, but anxious about nonwhites and their coming domination. I would even say that "psychology" is the dominant one among at least American whites (and maybe whites elsewhere). That is the group for whom I think changing the ethics of race is of vital importance.
11726951681321002148<blockquote>Streek talks of “the propertied classes now firmly entrenched in their politically unassailable stronghold.” What makes them unassailable? Their international position? The protection of the Establishment across the West? Fear of change and disbelief that it is possible?</blockquote>(GW) When leftists say "steal from the rich", it inevitably gets translated into "steal from the hardworking ordinary people in order to support the gold-plated pensions of hordes of government 'workers'". That is, the bourgeoisie recognizes that the Leninists who thrive on calls for revolutionary wealth redistribution will ruin their savings and futures as well. <em>And we won't tolerate that! </em> Far wiser for WNs to align themselves with the propertied, as Hitler did, against the socialist rabble, who these days are also fierce multiculturalists (and often nonwhite parasites themselves). Really, you people need to brush up on your pre-WW2 German history.
11748351701321375106To my dying day, I will never understand why you Europeans put up with this shit. Could a real Englishman please explain to me why the English tolerate feral negroids committing gross criminal acts on soil which so clearly, historically is not their own?! Has Orwell's nightmare of a world of constant historical rewrites become British reality? Do the British believe in the possibility of a black Englishman? These are real questions. I would like answers. What does the average Englishman think about the issue of blacks in Britain? Does he question why there are any on British soil (or subcons, Muslims, etc)? In America we know why we have blacks, and other minorities, though the notion of America as a white nation - widely shared among most (by no means all) of my generation - is rapidly fading. But how can any European possibly see someone who isn't white as anything other than a permanent foreigner? Or do they? Is it all just a game of "pretend" that will leave no lasting effects if the occupationist regimes are ever swept away?
11763451701321652485ex-uh, Why don't you try writing 'downmarket' sometime? That is, assume your audience is not erudite, does not grasp all your endless allusiveness, and <em>just say what you mean in plain language</em>. You, too, Captainchaos; well, you, also, GW; indeed, most here could heed that suggestion, to the profit of us all. I've rarely encountered so much straining after metaphorical effect as at this site. With great writers, this approach to writing can work. But with most, it's just tiresome, and does not remotely impress. Good writing need not be simple, and often isn't. But clarity is what ought to be sought. If you need a model (and a lot of you do), re-read some of the brilliant essays of the late nationalist Sam Francis, especially from <em>Chronicles</em>. He was a rare master stylist.
11765451701321692143danielj, Sorry, but I dissent. I read a lot of good periodical stuff - <em>New York Review of Books, Chronicles, TOQ, Journal of Libertarian Studies, First Things</em> - and I rarely, if ever, can't figure out what's being said. In fact, I can't think of a time. Here, on the other hand, I often find myself wondering what, exactly, people are 'on about'. I can smell out pseudo-intellectual horse<em>shiite</em> very easily, which is one reason I hated postmodernist crap from its beginning (for an excellent brief debunking of that whole ridiculous project, read <em>Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction</em>; how I wish that slim volume had been available to me in the 80s!). There exists a postmodernist style that is quite distinct from that movement's rancid leftist ideology, and that style (really, 'anti-style' or 'revolt against real style') has infected persons otherwise quite immune to PC garbage. There is far more pseudo than real intellectualism here at MR. To their credit, places like AR and other WN sites are usually filled with more straightforwardly expressed opinions. But then, they also tend to be less interesting. It is easier to demonstrate than explain proper writing. There is an 'ethics' of sorts involved, however. That ethics requires that terms used in untraditional ways be clarified, unless clear from the context. That requirement is routinely violated here. Consider <strong>ex-uh</strong> above in #64-5 (hardly the worst offenders, btw). I don't mean to pick on him, but I did address myself to him originally. Now, the relation between ecologism and nationalism is extremely important, and a discussion on that topic could be fruitful. Ecology is the Achilles' Heel of all forms of liberalism. Nationalism, or at least modern WN, being ultimately rooted in the implications of biology for human society and political organization, has a direct link to larger ecological concerns. So ex-uh is to be applauded (or at least not criticized) for broaching the issue. But why the clutter it up with all manner of both unfamiliar words (truly educated men know which words are their common inheritance, and which are technical or obscure, and hence in need of clarificatory notice or asides), and meaningless sentences? Examples: "beta sperg" - no idea what this refers to "fiatmenschen" - men created by decree? bureaucrats? The word "fiat" refers to something created by artificial decree, as opposed to something organic or spontaneous. Texas Rep. Ron Paul often speaks of "fiat money", by which he means money that the government simply has decreed must be utilized as legal tender in payment of debts or to facilitate exchange, as against whatever commodity would naturally be used as money by persons interacting freely, that is, without a legal/statist 'canopy' over them. I think ex-uh means something like "commoners" or "proletariat" or, perhaps, "mass-men". "the Northwest biome" - OK, <em>biome</em> is a geographical term, meaning something like a particular ecological niche. In this context I fail to see the need for it (ie, just say "in the Northwest"). “'cruelle necessitie'” - What does this mean? These words do not exist, unless ex-uh is straining for some neo-Hobbesian effect (in 17th century English, words were spelled <em>libertie</em> and <em>necessitie</em>; but <em>cruelle</em>? never heard of it). "( < farina lolzolzoz)" - What the hell is this?! Then there are various statements made with great assurance, but not a shred of proof. Examples: <blockquote>The anglophone Mayans there [in Belize] are quite dutiful in keeping things clean, living quite hygienically to start.</blockquote> 1. Are the inhabitants of Belize Mayans? I don't know. I thought they were mostly black (no, Soren, I have not bothered to Google it). 2. Are the 'Mayans' there in fact "Anglophone" (because Belize belonged to the British not to long ago)? 3. Are the natives unusually hygienic? I've never heard that. <blockquote>Perhaps my abiding disdain for nationalist purblindness comes from having spent much time in sprawling Latin American cities. It is an immensely gray, chaotic, noisy, smelly and utterly bewildering human nightmare, ignorance of which alone permits one to imagine revitalized national communities in the Northwest biome.</blockquote> 1. Yes, Latin American cities in my experience, too, were the way ex-uh describes them. But I see utterly no relation between their description and the rest of the sentence. Latin cities are shitholes, therefore one cannot imagine revitalized Nordic communities? non sequitur (unless the point is the obvious one that Latino migrants bring their crap folkways with them; yes, all WNs understand that). <blockquote>Believe it or not, the former Soviet republics are best off at present. They have the steppes, the oil, and the soil to weather the demographic storm in the short-term. Expect war in the region sometime this century.</blockquote> 1. Proof? <blockquote>the very scope of your ideology belies its teleological content, i.e. it occurs in a vacuum.</blockquote> 1. What does this mean? I think the concern is that nationalism's goal of a return to (or creation of?) truly <em>national</em> (genetic?) self-government may be impossible due to mankind's ever-increasing ecological 'footprint' (there is an untraditional term, but most know what it means). In other words, the scale of the human industrial assault on the biosphere is so great that there may be no realistic way to 'hide out' in particular areas (ie, nations), no escape from the need for supranational solutions. [I happen to agree with this to some extent - it's another version of the need-for-world-authority argument - though I'm less pessimistic about the possibility of major nonwhite enviro-criminals acting to reform their ways in their own self-interest. That remains a genuine concern, however.] 2. But how does the "very scope of [nationalism] belie its teleological content"? That is unclear to me. <blockquote>Solve the world problem or it’s camp of the saints every day of the week forever.</blockquote> 1. WNs can be expected to understand the "camp of the saints" reference. 2. Is this statement true? Solve overpopulation and resource depletion in the Third World, or there will be endless migration pressures on the West. This is true, though it doesn't have to be a major problem. The camp of the saints problem does not really refer to overpopulation-generated immigration pressure, but rather, to the dangers of Western pusillanimity in the face of it. The problem is our own racial gutlessness, not the fact that lots of alien parasites want to colonize our lands. <blockquote>the Aryans were an elite ... not “das Volk”. </blockquote> 1. They were? According to what authority? They became an elite in ancient Northern India vis a vis the conquered inhabitants. But the Aryans were a people. The term is ethnographic, not sociological (though today it is mostly political). I could go on, and not just with poor ex-uh (whose general observations here are worth considering or expanding upon). But I think my point has been made. I sense here, as I did with the postmodernists back in the 80s-90s, that a number of MR regulars write in a deliberately unclear fashion, as if the pursuit of linguistic obscurity were a virtue. It isn't, considered either intellectually or morally. The Christian man endeavors to live honorably and straightforwardly, and expresses himself accordingly, to the best of his abilities.
11765551701321692406[Well that turned out poorly. Everything jumbled together. Please delete previous comment.] danielj, Sorry, but I dissent. I read a lot of good periodical stuff - <em>New York Review of Books, Chronicles, TOQ, Journal of Libertarian Studies, First Things</em> - and I rarely, if ever, can't figure out what's being said. In fact, I can't think of a time. Here, on the other hand, I often find myself wondering what, exactly, people are 'on about'. I can smell out pseudo-intellectual horse<em>shiite</em> very easily, which is one reason I hated postmodernist crap from its beginning (for an excellent brief debunking of that whole ridiculous project, read <em>Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction</em>; how I wish that slim volume had been available to me in the 80s!). There exists a postmodernist style that is quite distinct from that movement's rancid leftist ideology, and that style (really, 'anti-style' or 'revolt against real style') has infected persons otherwise quite immune to PC garbage. There is far more pseudo than real intellectualism here at MR. To their credit, places like AR and other WN sites are usually filled with more straightforwardly expressed opinions. But then, they also tend to be less interesting. It is easier to demonstrate than explain proper writing. There is an 'ethics' of sorts involved, however. That ethics requires that terms used in untraditional ways be clarified, unless clear from the context. That requirement is routinely violated here. Consider <strong>ex-uh</strong> above in #64-5 (hardly the worst offenders, btw). I don't mean to pick on him, but I did address myself to him originally. Now, the relation between ecologism and nationalism is extremely important, and a discussion on that topic could be fruitful. Ecology is the Achilles' Heel of all forms of liberalism. Nationalism, or at least modern WN, being ultimately rooted in the implications of biology for human society and political organization, has a direct link to larger ecological concerns. So ex-uh is to be applauded (or at least not criticized) for broaching the issue. But why the clutter it up with all manner of both unfamiliar words (truly educated men know which words are their common inheritance, and which are technical or obscure, and hence in need of clarificatory notice or asides), and meaningless sentences? Examples: "beta sperg" - no idea what this refers to "fiatmenschen" - men created by decree? bureaucrats? The word "fiat" refers to something created by artificial decree, as opposed to something organic or spontaneous. Texas Rep. Ron Paul often speaks of "fiat money", by which he means money that the government simply has decreed must be utilized as legal tender in payment of debts or to facilitate exchange, as against whatever commodity would naturally be used as money by persons interacting freely, that is, without a legal/statist 'canopy' over them. I think ex-uh means something like "commoners" or "proletariat" or, perhaps, "mass-men". "the Northwest biome" - OK, <em>biome</em> is a geographical term, meaning something like a particular ecological niche. In this context I fail to see the need for it (ie, just say "in the Northwest"). “'cruelle necessitie'” - What does this mean? These words do not exist, unless ex-uh is straining for some neo-Hobbesian effect (in 17th century English, words were spelled <em>libertie</em> and <em>necessitie</em>; but <em>cruelle</em>? never heard of it). "( < farina lolzolzoz)" - What the hell is this?! Then there are various statements made with great assurance, but not a shred of proof. Examples: <blockquote>The anglophone Mayans there [in Belize] are quite dutiful in keeping things clean, living quite hygienically to start.</blockquote> 1. Are the inhabitants of Belize Mayans? I don't know. I thought they were mostly black (no, Soren, I have not bothered to Google it). 2. Are the 'Mayans' there in fact "Anglophone" (because Belize belonged to the British not to long ago)? 3. Are the natives unusually hygienic? I've never heard that. <blockquote>Perhaps my abiding disdain for nationalist purblindness comes from having spent much time in sprawling Latin American cities. It is an immensely gray, chaotic, noisy, smelly and utterly bewildering human nightmare, ignorance of which alone permits one to imagine revitalized national communities in the Northwest biome.</blockquote> 1. Yes, Latin American cities in my experience, too, were the way ex-uh describes them. But I see utterly no relation between their description and the rest of the sentence. Latin cities are shitholes, therefore one cannot imagine revitalized Nordic communities? non sequitur (unless the point is the obvious one that Latino migrants bring their crap folkways with them; yes, all WNs understand that). <blockquote>Believe it or not, the former Soviet republics are best off at present. They have the steppes, the oil, and the soil to weather the demographic storm in the short-term. Expect war in the region sometime this century.</blockquote> 1. Proof? <blockquote>the very scope of your ideology belies its teleological content, i.e. it occurs in a vacuum.</blockquote> 1. What does this mean? I think the concern is that nationalism's goal of a return to (or creation of?) truly <em>national</em> (genetic?) self-government may be impossible due to mankind's ever-increasing ecological 'footprint' (there is an untraditional term, but most know what it means). In other words, the scale of the human industrial assault on the biosphere is so great that there may be no realistic way to 'hide out' in particular areas (ie, nations), no escape from the need for supranational solutions. [I happen to agree with this to some extent - it's another version of the need-for-world-authority argument - though I'm less pessimistic about the possibility of major nonwhite enviro-criminals acting to reform their ways in their own self-interest. That remains a genuine concern, however.] 2. But how does the "very scope of [nationalism] belie its teleological content"? That is unclear to me. <blockquote>Solve the world problem or it’s camp of the saints every day of the week forever.</blockquote> 1. WNs can be expected to understand the "camp of the saints" reference. 2. Is this statement true? Solve overpopulation and resource depletion in the Third World, or there will be endless migration pressures on the West. This is true, though it doesn't have to be a major problem. The camp of the saints problem does not really refer to overpopulation-generated immigration pressure, but rather, to the dangers of Western pusillanimity in the face of it. The problem is our own racial gutlessness, not the fact that lots of alien parasites want to colonize our lands. <blockquote>the Aryans were an elite ... not “das Volk”. </blockquote> 1. They were? According to what authority? They became an elite in ancient Northern India vis a vis the conquered inhabitants. But the Aryans were a people. The term is ethnographic, not sociological (though today it is mostly political). I could go on, and not just with poor ex-uh (whose general observations here are worth considering or expanding upon). But I think my point has been made. I sense here, as I did with the postmodernists back in the 80s-90s, that a number of MR regulars write in a deliberately unclear fashion, as if the pursuit of linguistic obscurity were a virtue. It isn't, considered either intellectually or morally. The Christian man endeavors to live honorably and straightforwardly, and expresses himself accordingly, to the best of his abilities.
11765651701321692479OK, it happened again. No idea why. Good luck with posts.
11766651701321708914danielj, I'm not sure there is anything I wrote above (to the extent it can be deciphered without the many paragraph breaks I had had in it) that would cause you, or even ex-uh, to take offense, except to the extent that I have offered a general criticism of the MR community, and you are a member of that community. In fact, my stylistic criticism really was not written with you in mind at all. I'm not sure you're a literary offender at all; certainly not among the worst.
11766951701321714682Then perhaps you could enlighten me as to the meaning of "fiatmenschen"? (and "beta sperg" while at it)
11767851701321742535<blockquote>Leon, have you ever paused to reflect upon how utterly meaningless your intellectual meanderings are? (Savrola)</blockquote> How does one understand how to proceed otherwise than through investigation? This comment and its implications are especially unfair to me, as I'm very much in favor of a prepare-for-war approach. In fact, I'm one who often espouses a greater emphasis on practical political organizing (including that geared towards the development of 'peoplehood', a precondition to any other large-scale nationalist political activity - not that during the time of this development, we shouldn't also be practically trying to undermine the regime, such as by opposing immigration and multiculturalism) as opposed to endless theoretical debates. And even within the intellectual realm, I argue for what I perceive to be the most 'practical' concerns (reformulating Western ethics to accommodate the measures necessary for white survival), as against wallowing in the bottomless well of ontological disagreements, in which I think progress is difficult if not impossible. As for this <blockquote>anyone over forty is probably just going to be in the way</blockquote> they are the words of a true ignoramus (and that is quite apart from the issue of how really worthless the thoroughly multiculturalized crowd under forty is; my experience has been, the younger the white man, the weaker the man, in character, intellect, skills, and even physique - a worrying thought).
11769751701321790854Is there some reason why WN requires an overall philosophy of existence at all, or even any ethnocultural grandstanding? Perhaps this reflects my American (cultureless?) background, but why can't WN appeals be offered on the basis of race itself, understood in a wholly utilitarian fashion: ie, whites are more pleasant for whites to be around than nonwhites; nonwhites lower white living standards and qualities of life; therefore, we should keep our distance from integration with nonwhites to the extent feasible? The advantage of this, the Jared Taylor approach to WN, is that it is readily accessible to even the most deracinated white, who, unless an extreme PC leftist (and those types are in the unreachable grip of madness), at least knows to stay away from blacks, and that Muslims are a national security threat.
11769251701321769013That sounds like the way to go, Jimmy. Tread softly towards the ethnostate, but own a lot of guns ...
11775451701321934293frisbees, If we don't change the white ethics of race, a sudden crisis will only strengthen the anti-white forces. Face it, this is a great winnowing process. The problem is that whites are maladapted to multiracial conditions, at least at this stage of white philosophical and psychological evolution. We must change the ethics of race among whites, or we will go extinct.
11796551701322278210I agree with most of that, ex-uh, but there is certainly truth, as I have long argued, here and elsewhere, that a winnowing process is occurring whereby the racially strong (those for whom whiteness is important ideologically, or nonwhiteness is repulsive or offputting) are being separated from the racially weak or apathetic. Over time, whites as a group will come to be numerically dominated by those who are either racist or at least have a strong preference for the sexual companionship of their own race. Same thing is happening with American Jewry, much to the Zionists' consternation (ie, let me clarify: secular Jewry is shrinking, through both low fertility as well as out-marriage, but the Jewry of the future will be even more ethnocentric). Unfortunately, by the time a majority of whites are racially strong, it is likely that there will be no white electoral or demographic majorities. Our group will then be strong in love of race and heritage, but without the physical or political means to effectuate our wishes.
11763251721321651309A very confused rant. Some good stuff (re Vicki Weaver, excessive government regulation), some not (re Oscar Grant). The National Lawyers Guild, incidentally, is essentially a communist organization, whose members have consistently been at the forefront of the "(nonwhite) immigrant rights" movement.
11777351731321970382For those who would like to learn about the basis of sound money at the level of first principles, I suggest this very recent article: http://mises.org/daily/5802/A-Priori-Theory-and-Sound-Money#ref7 Warning: it is very dry. But also correct: sound money arises from consumer want for an optimum medium of exchange (not government fiat), which long ago the market determined to be gold. For those who<em> really</em> want to master "money, banking and related issues", the definitive text is: http://mises.org/store/Money-Bank-Credit-and-Economic-Cycles-P290.aspx Lastly, even if Richards were correct in his monetary understanding, he hasn't demonstrated that disempowering the banking establishment is the most important or first task for WNs, let alone the Key to White Survival. If it is agreed that only a white ethnostate is ultimately sufficient to guarantee the prevention of white extinction, then the first and most vital task is either ending nonwhite immigration (if that ethnostate is to be European), or launching the White Zion project (if the ethnostate is thought to be most likely to achieve outside of Europe - not, however, that European fatherlands and an extra-European WZ are necessarily mutually exclusive), and then ending n/w immigration to the future WZ colony. Sovereign territory (living space) is the key, not monetary arrangements. We could save the white race under socialist, Keynesian, monetarist, Austrian or any other type of political economy, provided our people are determined to maintain their blood-purity, and possess the physical/military means to do so. I prefer the free economy for reasons of justice and efficiency. But economic issues really are tangential to the main racial struggle(s) - immigration, integration, cultural deracination (denial of heritage), and miscegenation.
11782251731322058537It distresses me to see how far this site has been lowered in intellectual quality of late. Most of you are just pitifully stupid, and the further you range from core racial topics, the greater is your revealed ignorance. For the dwindling number of serious persons here who would like to understand monetary issues, here are some suggestions: Rothbard: <em>What Has Government Done to Our Money? The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar The Case Against the Fed The Mystery of Banking America's Great Depression A History of Money and Banking in the United States Man, Economy and State</em> (a total economic treatise - something desperately needed around here) Anderson, <em>Economics and the Public Welfare</em> Rockwell, <em>The Gold Standard: Perspectives in the Austrian School</em> Mises, <em>The Theory of Money and Credit</em> Griffin, <em>The Creature From Jekyll Island</em> Huerta de Soto, <em>Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles</em> (I was told by a leading Austrian that this is the best treatise on money matters ever written) And if these are too difficult for the likes of XPWA et al, there is always: Ron Paul, <em>End the Fed</em> (I have not read this one, but I'm sure it's sound and clearly written)
11782351731322060596Richards, I do not have the time to rebut your errant nonsense, nor would it be worth my while. I looked at some of the Money Masters stuff. They combine a lot of good history, and a correct sense that money matters are of course central to Western civilizational decline (but only indirectly to white racial collapse, probably via the mechanism of lowered middle class living standards reducing white fertility - though feminism is a far greater cause of low white fertility than working class immiseration), with often juvenile economic understanding, and complete idiocy wrt modern politics. As there is so much crap, here are just a couple of random examples: 1) central bankers do not privately own 70% of the world's gold, but even if they did, how much gold is in circulation is irrelevant to the usefulness of gold as an exchange medium (any quantity of a commodity money can be optimum) 2) bankers greatly <em>fear</em> a commodity money system without fractional reserve because that would wipe out much of their profit base - there would have to be actual tangible backing for loans made 3) your "solution" is beyond asinine: take fiat money creation away from the bankers and give it to ... democratically elected POLITICIANS?! This is supposed to be better than the real solution: restore a 100% reserves (no FRB) commodity money (gold standard)? Your prescription is basically ascribing modern monetary instability (and all the other monetary abuses, like Fed-created inflation) to the fact of who (allegedly) controls the money supply - bankers - instead of to the fact of fiat money. The issue is not who controls the money supply, but whether money is sound (arising from consumer wants, per Mises/Rothbard) vs fiat (arbitrarily created by government). Your tireless purveying of ignorance, carefully concealed by a blizzard of (occasionally false, often irrelevant) 'facts', is going to force me to take some time out of my Christmas holidays to post a formal piece on the correct theory (with some correct relevant history) of money... even though all this is finally very tangential to core white survivalist concerns.
11782451731322062375<blockquote>@Leon <blockquote>But economic issues really are tangential to the main racial struggle(s) - immigration, integration, cultural deracination (denial of heritage), and miscegenation. </blockquote> You make many wrong and idiotic statements in every thread. But this one is surely a candidate for this year’s Haller Prize For Exemplary Ignorance. The Judeo-Masonic importation of negro slaves to North America was entirely about economics. So is the Judeo-Republican Open Border policy for Mexicans. The contemporary collapse of birthrates among young whites is also highly correlated with concurrent economic deprivation. White girls - being “white” - have a more developed “instinct” not to just drop kids in the dirt irrespective of surrounding economic conditions. I will give you one back-handed compliment. You are well advised to move away from economics (deride it as ‘tangential’) since you demonstrably know absolutely nothing about the subject that wasn’t cut ‘n pasted from a Libertarian-Austrian website. fyi, your periodic attempts to parse Rothbard and other Austrian School writers into “libertarian” and “economic” compartments are laughable. Rothbard didn’t parse himself that way. His “libertarian” claim to a right to starve children was also an act of “Austrian” economics. The only place we find a rigid compartmentalization between “libertarianism” and the “Austrian School” is with you. iow you just make things up and try to apply nouns to your concepts that are already in widespread use. This reminds me of a tactic frequently used by a particular group of often condemned people. (XPWA)</blockquote> -------------------------------------------- Christ, you are stupid! What am I dealing with here?! Whether some GOPers support Mexican immigration for personal financial gain does not make monetary economics per Richards central to the racial struggle. The proximate issue is ending immigration. There may be all kinds of reasons for radically altering monetary arrangements, but they have nothing to do with white survival, except indirectly (and many, many policies have indirect EGI effects). We don't need to change anything about money in order to end immigration, either. We need to do the hard work that FAIR and Numbers USA etc are doing. We need to educate about immigration, build up a grassroots opposition to it, and then get anti-immigrationists elected. Not easy, but quite straightforward. The collapse in white fertility is extremely UNRELATED to economic deprivation. IT IS A SOCIOLOGICAL FACT THAT THE HIGHEST INCOME FEMALES HAVE THE LOWEST FERTILITY!! I would like to see white wages increased. But you are again putting the cart before the horse. Attack the problems that directly relate to white EGI. And within that subset, deal with those that are (relatively) easy - eg, deporting illegals - before trying to upend a long established set of arrangements, like modern finance, which have many vested interests defending them. I know so much more about economics (and most other subjects, as far as I can tell) than you do that it's not worth arguing about. This statement <blockquote>fyi, your periodic attempts to parse Rothbard and other Austrian School writers into “libertarian” and “economic” compartments are laughable. Rothbard didn’t parse himself that way. His “libertarian” claim to a right to starve children was also an act of “Austrian” economics.</blockquote> is a lie, and illustrates your complete ignorance or total misunderstanding of Rothbard (and, again, I'm not a libertarian, and not interested in defending that ideology). Rothbard most certainly made the distinction between ethical advocacy and <em>wertfrie</em> economics, and did so repeatedly. Recognition of that distinction was central to his whole corpus!!! You have either never read him, or read only a tiny bit of his work. The Rothbardian Walter Block once emphasized that one could be both an 'Austrian' and a Nazi. Economics is an intellectual structure for understanding exchange phenomena, or cost/benefit trade-offs. It does not advocate particular policy prescriptions. (Honestly, you and many others here need to do some really basic learning. I recommend you purchase the Economics course from the wonderful Teaching Company. Very basic principles, well presented.) Why don't you give an example of this: <blockquote>iow you just make things up and try to apply nouns to your concepts that are already in widespread use.</blockquote>
11790951731322223074Are "anon" and "ex-uh" the same?
11791751731322235204XPWA, Of course you did not address #16. However, your own comment 34 shows you are really quite close to the dreaded Austrian monetary position. Congrats! Now if you would just read the books I recommended @#14 you might yet develop a sound grasp of basic economic principles - which could then be your launchpad for the development of a specifically nationalist form of political economy.
11804151731322404946I agree, too, although I believe the evidence is for women <em>starting</em> to have kids then. Women who start young often can and do have lots of kids, way into their 30s and even 40s. It's my asshole generation of no longer yuppies who wanted to start having kids in their late 30s and 40s who are needing all the fertility treatments.
11789451761322183054Jewish women are not necessarily unattractive. There have been many hot ones in the movies (eg, right now, Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, others I can't remember). And there are lots of unattractive whites. Basically, it's the non-Caucasoids who are so ugly (beginning with the Negroid peoples, then Orientals or Indians, etc). If whites go extinct, the world will definitely be an uglier place. I can imagine some future mud owning thousands or millions of pictures of white women from the past, wistfully contemplating what has been lost ...
11791651761322234876Natalie Portman is "mediocre-looking"? Either you have some really weird infatuation with contradicting everything I say, or you must have a very, very beautiful wife or girlfriend. I mean world-class, super-model quality. Unfortunately for the latter hypothesis, persons with women so fine they would make Portman "mediocre-looking" (something I think literally impossible) are usually world-famous individuals, the kind who can access the world's best looking females. Those types do not have time to waste on sites like this (or any other blogging venues), nor the desire to do so. Anonymous internet chat is cheap. My current girlfriend is pretty hot, but of course I doubt many guys would choose her over Mila Kunis (although she's pretty enough that a small percentage who liked her unusual 'look' might). Be real.
11795451761322270093Silver, [I posted this reply to you on another thread, but you may not have seen it and the thread may have petered out, so I re-post here.] I appreciate that you’ve directed a number of lengthy comments my way recently to which I mostly have not adequately responded (certainly not to the extent that I would like). Please note: I am now just too busy to be doing commenting much anymore, at least until the Christmas holidays - and by that point, I may have lost the taste for these ideological chatrooms that I’ve acquired over the past decade. I’m back in school and have an enormous amount of reading, including extra-curricular stuff over holidays for my eventual dissertation. Also, some friends are putting together an American nationalism site (not WN, but with overlapping concerns) to which I might devote most of my online energies (such as they will be) in the future (I will probably spread the word about it here and elsewhere once I know it’s up and running). And once that site is up, I remain interested in also possibly contributing to a White Zion site, if a decent one is already in existence, or creating my own, at least as an interactive blog, if that’s the right term (ie, one where I will post material, and then allow for comments, as at MR). Basically, I’m getting less interested in what might be called “intermediate theoretical (WN) debates”, such as we all partake in at MR (I mean the serious persons; there is a lot of trash, here, too - see "Alaric"). I want to conduct, in print, foundational discussions with high level intellectuals on issues of Occidental survival, but otherwise, my online-specific interests are moving more in the direction of practical organizing (which is the planned orientation of the American “national conservative” site), and this on two radically separate fronts, the first being defense of Middle (white) American interests (here the issues would be similar to WN ones, but the emphasis would be on whites-as-victims, <em>sans</em> discussions of racial supremacism, the JQ, scientific race differences, WW2 revisionism, etc - basically all the stuff that brands WNs “extremists”, and that is finally tangential to getting real legislation actually moved in our direction); and the second being a forum for practical discussions re WZ (in other words, the blog would assume that all are in agreement with the basic ideas of white preservation, race issues and WN foreign colonization, and that’s it’s time to start figuring out the feasibility of the project, and then the paths to transforming this vision into a reality). [BTW, Silver, re WZ: you live in Australia, yet I’m surprised that I cannot recall your weighing in on the WZ idea, at least wrt Australia, Tasmania, and/or New Zealand. I’ve broached these issues even here on this thread. What are the whites like in Oz? Specifically, is Australian national policy now to encourage immigration? And which option would the white Aussies prefer: 1) no immigrants at all, 2) more white immigrants, 3) white immigrants in lieu of nonwhites, or 4) nonwhites in preference to being seen as ‘racists’? Basically, how easy would it be for lots of whites to move to Oz, and acquire citizenship there? And how easy once there to reside (or at least acquire property) in Tasmania? I’d appreciate any answers.] Bottom line is that I’m soon to exit MR (I’ve said that before, but real world time constraints are forcing my hand this time). My work here has, I think, also hit a wall, especially as the majority of intellectually respectable commenters at MR seems to have moved on. Before exiting, I would like to comment briefly, however, on this: <blockquote>I prefer the term “psychology” because I think it gets at the emotional aspect more so than does “ethics.” It’s at the level of emotion that people are moved to undertake an action or give their assent to an action being undertaken (or not undertaken). When people claim very forcefully that something is “wrong” (or “right”) it’s because it feels so wrong (or right) to them, and if you don’t accept or acknowledge their feelings all the philosophizing in the world won’t help you. It’s like me trying to convince you to strangle your mother (I presume you love her). What difference could any “reasoning” I provide possibly make? It’s flatly wrong and that’s all there is to it. When it comes to race, people simply feel bad about it. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They can feel so uncomfortable about it that they refuse to enter into any discussion. Dry, detached, distant ethical arguments simply do not get at the heart of what bugs people about race; people remain unconvinced and they refuse to tell you why they’re unconvinced, which often has nothing to do with any systematic ethical thinking on their part. (Silver) </blockquote> I do think you’re talking mostly here about the psychology of liberals, a group which I regard as nearly genetically lost (and which will be eventually). I said all this before, at some length. In fact, you know what originally brought me to MR? Some years ago, I wrote a very lengthy comment on white extinction at takimag. Someone copied my comment here at MR, and then a WN friend who frequented MR back in the day told me about it. Anyway, I don't propose to try to reach the white liberal, ever. Race is visceral. Either you get it (‘it’ being that whites are the true victims of multiculturalism), or you don’t. This is not like, say, economics, where one can patiently explain the errors of socialism and Keynesianism, and possibly make converts to correct views. Granted, there are some specific policies on which openminded liberals (not a large group in the best of times) might be amenable to ideological change based on dispassionate scientific demonstrations of the reality of racial differences (eg, disproportionate black failures on a firefighters’ entrance exam not being caused by racial test bias, or heavy black arrest rates not being due to police racism). But in general, a white who ‘feels’ that it’s wrong even to discuss racial differences, or white survivalism, etc, is probably harboring some racially defective gene combination which will eventually result in his white gene line becoming racially polluted (and thus removed from the future white story). At some point, in a multiracial, integrationist context, all racially ‘weak’ white gene lines will eventually succumb to miscegenation. Over time, therefore, whites can be expected, <em>ceteris paribus</em>, to become more, not less, racist, even as they continually, again <em>ceteris paribus</em>, dwindle in numbers (this phenomenon is happening wrt Jewry right this very minute: only the most ethnocentric Jews - the really “Jewish Jews” - are for the most part continuing to marry Jews; most of my Jewish friends have non-Jewish spouses - another reason, incidentally, why the JQ may well never gain much traction in white American life: far too many whites in my generation and younger now have a Jewish ‘relative’). No, my concern is with those whites who dislike the ‘diversification’ of America (or other Western nations), who know in their hearts that races differ, and that generally whites are better (not to mention their preferred neighbors, colleagues, and friends), but who think that ‘acting racially’, that is, political organizing by whites, for whites, either to protect white interests, or to promote WZ or the ethnostate as a distant goal, is just plain morally wrong. In my life, I have known many, many persons like this. <strong>Scared of (white) racism, but anxious about nonwhites and their coming domination. I would even say that “psychology” is the dominant one among at least American whites (and maybe whites elsewhere). That is the group for whom I think changing the ethics of race is of vital importance.</strong> (And let me add, the kinds of comments seen here, at Stormfront, and similar venues, are absolutely never going to resonate positively with white majorities, at least until those majorities have been reduced to powerless demographic/electoral minorities - a repeatedly demonstrated, "onto-phenomenological" fact that WNs fail to appreciate, and which will continue to consign them, and more importantly, responsible and necessary white preservationists, to political impotence - to the grave detriment of our race and civilization.)
11795551761322270973<em>Leon Haller is the most dullardly, gutter White trash moron on this website. This idiotic clown seriously thinks these yentas who spend all day at the plastic surgeons table are beautiful. Unbelievable. He apparently has never viewed before-after photos of these disgusting jew tarts, widely available on the internet.</em> (ALaric) I don't surf the internet checking out women. Frankly, little man, I don't have to. I mentioned Jewish women only because I clicked on the link ex-uh provided. Incidentally, what evidence do you have that Portman has had extensive plastic surgery? I still recall seeing her in the '95 or '96 film <em>Beautiful Girls</em> (I think that was the title; no, I don't do google checks for everything I say), and turning to my date that night and saying that she was going to grow up to be a very beautiful woman. Most of the normal world would (does) agree with me. Talk is cheap. Write something which demonstrates real intellect, or fuck off and go back to shaving your head and beating up pre-pubescent pakis (while shitting in your pants and cowering under your grandma's apron when the nigger-colonists go rampaging across "Great" Britain). Pathetic loser (and he's hardly alone).
11795651761322271444What is so pathetic here is the unwillingness even to acknowledge something undeniably positive about someone else simply because he/she belongs to a disfavored out-group. The cretins here calling into question the beauty of women like Portman and Kunis are either faggots, or kidding themselves. I can tell these jokers would not know what to do if Kunis walked over and sat in their laps. They would turn red and start blustering incoherently.
11795851761322272469Lister, Yes, yes, this is all standard conservatism, in your case directly filtered through Scruton. Nothing even slightly original. I wonder, though, whether Dr. Scruton would agree with your assessment of Portman's appearance; your casual (read: "utterly ignorant") dismissal of millennia of Catholic thought; your buffoonish characterization of a genius like Ludwig von Mises (of course, you and I both know, even if the crushingly ignorant <em>hoi polloi</em> lurking about here do not, that you have read either nothing or virtually nothing by him, and that you dislike the 'Austrians' because you incorrectly associate them with contemporary neoliberalism of the 'open borders' variety, which you know perfectly well I oppose as strongly as you); or your implication that non-Nordic women cannot be considered objectively attractive (there is a true howler, setting you against perhaps 99.9% of the planet). And I do not obsess over money (I would not have returned to grad school to study theology if that were the case - duh). (Oh, and "Zion" has a long history understood to connote 'refuge'. It also serves to highlight our case viz the hypocrisy of the Jews: if they can have a homeland, why can't we? Also, note that there are others on the web, with whom I have no affiliation or contact, who also speak of "White Zion".) Try to show some decent manners.
11796651761322279494ex-uh, I didn't mention those two on purpose, or as a result of visiting the jewess site. They were just the first two I thought of. I knew Portman was Jewish a long time ago. i was rather happy about the accuracy of my 'jewdar' wrt Kunis, however. I got dragged to the forgettable <em>Friends With Benefits</em>, and during the show I started to wonder if Kunis wasn't a seductive Jewess. A google check later, sure enough (mind you, I disagree with you there - I did think she looked Jewish - though not stereotypical, <em>Streisandish</em>, however), and I was wondering too about the name. Anyway, I've known many attractive Jewish girls, growing up, in college, and in business. Of course, Nordics are better looking on average - but I think Southern European women (especially Northern Italians) are the very best looking of all. To each his own. Hotness is hotness. Also, I;m not sure Jewesses are as big on ethnicity-expunging surgery as in the past. Yes, they get a lot of surgery, in part because they can afford it (and they don't have any lingering Calvinist guilt or family pressure about sinful 'vanity'). But it tends today to be more of the general correcting correctable flaws approach, rather than the elimination of the Jewish schnozz that was so common in upperclass LA back in the 70s and 80s of my youth. [I forgot to add earlier than anyone who didn't think Portman/Kunis were hot in <em>Black Swan</em><em></em> is definitely a homosexual, or sexual deviant otherwise.]
11796851761322280245Great Britain, or Lost Britain? Re Germany etc, check out these bastards at THE ECONOMIST: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dear leon haller, The attached comment, posted under the pen name Leon Haller, has been deleted from The Economist online. The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy: http://www.economist.com/legal/terms-of-use#usercontent We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online. Yours sincerely, Comments Moderator The Economist online Your comment: God bless Germania! May she rise to her true and proper preeminence again! The Southern nations are economic leeches and criminals. DESTROY THE EURO NOW! Germany should leave it at once. Become even more capitalist (but keep out all new immigrants, start repatriating non-Germans), export to Asia and rising Latin America, let the European parasites know that <em>la dolce vita</em> is OVER!!! Europe has been utterly disgusting in all its politics and culture since the 1960s. End everything, return to ancient basics, like racial pride, bourgeois ethics, and historic, hierarchical Christianity. Europeans must start WORKING again; no more southern corruption, but much more northern rectitude. Germany (a much more rightist Germany, admittedly) must take its rightful place as THE leader of Europe. It should beef up its military, enact tax law changes to encourage domestic white over-fertility, return to a goldmark, reestablish pre-war capitalism, encourage eugenicist legislation to combat IQ decline, and then refuse to help any other European nation in any way unless it too shall clean up its act. Europe is dying. But it could be saved by a hard turn to the RIGHT! -------------------------------------------------------------------- That's just disgraceful. Every worthless leftist peon comments at the site. Did I use epithets? Did I attack any other commenter personally? Britain may be an even more occupied nation than the US. But, says Graham Lister, Third World Labourism is still preferable to the real enemy - Darwin forbid! - American free markets (I think I understand now - you teach at a public university, and thus receive a government paycheck, don't you Graham?). 14 words
11800751761322354812I saw a copy of the latest <em>GQ</em>, with Kunis on the cover. If Alaric doesn't think she's hot, he's 100% queer. It would be excellent for the cause of white preservation if there were to be a Berlin/Moscow WN axis, even if anti-American, even if anti-Christian (though I would prefer militantly anti-liberal + traditionalist Christian - unfortunately I think the possibility of this is slim). The 'New Aryan Barbarians' can always be recivilized at a later date. What is always of maximum importance is the preservation of blood purity (on that point I think we can all agree, even snotty teen homos like Alaric). The Russians might be up for this, but Germania ain't what it used to be. There are a lot of combinations which would aid white survival. Easy to imagine, hard to actualize.
11801051761322356487The undying "Indian/Chinese IQ" thread is turning into a Hindu/Muslim/Chinese mudbath, but I remain struck by the following from the actual article: <blockquote><em>As a very criterion-oriented psychometrician And note that verbal ability is the core element in IQ. If you want a quick index of IQ, vocabulary size is the best available shortcut measure.</em>(jonjayray)</blockquote> Was the author of this now ancient post actually a psychometrician? And is it agreed that verbal ability is the core element of IQ? I would have thought math ability warranted that honor, but I’d be interested in hearing an explanation of this assertion from any of the more scientific chaps hereabouts.
11802351761322380168Who precisely is this young Constantin von Hoffmeister (name itself sounds most suspicious)? Does anyone know his background: verified ancestry, birthplace, schools attended, professional associations, bona fides vouched for? Regardless of what this man says about Israel, anyone advocating any form of Bolshevism must eventually be liquidated. Bolshevism is permanently (indeed, using fashionable MR cant, let us say, 'ontologically') at war with Western civilization. Everything the true Occidentalist defends - moral (Christian) hierarchy, racial and ethnic particularity, sexual differentiation, bourgeois rectitude, open intellectual inquiry, private property, inequality and the pursuit of excellence - has at one time been condemned by Bolsheviks. In the modern age, of course, Jewry has been the main purveyor of this ideological virus. I am not certain whether von Hoff is merely confused; a pursuer after the limelight; or a sower of discord and disinformation. He must be approached carefully. (Personally, re Israel, I subscribe to a middle ground: Israel is exactly what it appears to be, the Zionist homeland. It is not a truly Western nation, either racially, obviously, or culturally - and it is becoming ever less so, as the Orthodox rabidly outbreed the original secularist Ashkenazim. On the other hand, the great current enemy is the Islamic arc, which now extends deeply into Europe and even N. America. Israel needs the West far more than we need it. Perhaps we can make some use of it. But we must proceed with great caution.)
11803351761322401079<em>Whenever I hear someone calling for someone else’s liquidation because of some silly idea he entertains, I reach for my Likwidator 2000 Musheen and liquidate them instead.</em> ex-uh The liquidator of the liquidator of Bolshevism must himself be liquidated. "Likwidator 2000 Musheen" - wtf?!
11803451761322401225<blockquote>Leon, can you really not see why your comment was deleted at a site like that? Or why you encountered trouble at the English policeman’s blog with your glorious racial pronouncements? Bull in a china shop. (Voight)</blockquote> My battle at the police blog was conducted extremely moderately (at least at first, before the comment liquidations began). I simply pointed out that the looters were predominantly black, and wouldn't UK have been better off if it had followed Enoch Powell? Hardly radical.
11803651761322401455Re Winehouse: with max 'help', she could look OK: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2011/07/amy-winehouse-huffpo-.jpg Other net pictures of her are pretty hideous.
11803851761322402511<blockquote><em>Communism did a far better job on ensuring borders and ethnic integrity for the subject populations than capitalism. Removing incentives, the Kommi-Ostmark kept blood aliens out and everyone else in: a de facto racial state. Let’s forget theory, or what Trotsky wrote to Kautsky in a letter from Mexico about dissolving national loyalties, etc. Is this side-effect of Communism negligible merely because private property and free enterprise suffered? Or let me ask this way: If you had a lordly choice, would you take a state that encourages family, discourages Western pop kulchur, and negates the very grounds for immigration if it means keeping a race intact — or one such as we have now that allows free enterprise but which jeopardizes the integrity of the race?</em>(exuh) </blockquote> But this isn't true! The Soviets brought Mongolian and other savages into European Russia (and Eastern Europe) for purposes of maintaining control. They encouraged interethnic/racial marriages within USSR (not that all that many occurred). They and the East Europeans also brought hordes of communist nonwhites into both Russia and Europe, including East Germany, which had a sizable Vietnamese population discovered upon the fall of the Wall (I wonder what happened to them - still there?). The commies also were mostly brutally anti-family (Romania was an exception). Birthrates declined in the Warsaw Pact every bit as severely as in Western Europe (the exception being still-Catholic - thank God - Poland). You are purveying a myth. Our system does not of necessity jeopardize the race. That reveals typically myopic, modern-WN ignorance of history. We abandoned white-only immigration in the US in 1965. That had everything to do with race liberalism, nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism. The latter accusation grows out of a series of <em>ex post facto</em> rationalizations and/or opportunistic justifications (on the part of the neoliberal globalist business lobby). The Old America was white, Christian, and capitalist - the greatest system in the history of the world. In the 20th century white + Jewish liberals set out systematically to dismantle the 'Old Regime', destroying its Christian and capitalist and Constitutional and racial foundations. This was politically plotted and instigated. There was not a shred of 'historical necessity' about this, various 'ontologists' lurking about here notwithstanding.
11804051761322404728I've dated a Jewish girl, and screwed a couple of others. I know lots of them in real life. Like other whites (sorry, but the Jewesses I have known all looked very white), some are pretty, some not. "this little heuristic bias" -sure you're using that phrase correctly ("mistaking exceptions as representative")? I think it refers to extrapolating a general rule from a single instance (or too limited a sample) of something. Not necessarily 'exceptional'.
11811451761322483292exuh, There is too much for me to respond to. Too boring (no offense), too he said this/he said that. Just a few tidbits. <blockquote>It is probably true that Mongolians or Kalmyks were employed as police or whatever, and they were predictably brutal about it. But honestly, Leon, if you don’t know that Russians themselves are brutal enough to each other, you don’t know the first thing about the Russian character. (exuh)</blockquote> Irrelevant. My point was not about brutality, but the bringing of nonwhites into white areas under communism. <blockquote>They encouraged interethnic/racial marriages within USSR (not that all that many occurred)(Haller) Let our discourse not be so slippery — you brought up Bolsheviks, but I shifted perspective to Communism, which here you follow by referring to the USSR. Bolshevism and Stalinism / USSR are not identical, it should go without saying. exuh</blockquote> Bite me. A commie is a Stalinist is pig food in my book. The point does not interest me. <blockquote>There was simply no deification of the racial other nor state-enforced integration of races</blockquote> Yes to the first part (though commie propaganda routinely castigated white racism of all varieties as "fascism" and "Nazism" and endemic to capitalism - if you don't know that, you need to read much more on this topic) ,but No to the second. The Soviets were very big on ethnic integration (I knew that from reading, and my Russian ex-girlfriend confirmed all that for me: she was my age, and thus grew up under communism). The American Commie Party openly saw in the American Negro a possibly revolutionary proletariat (I forget who wrote "Communism and the Negro" - some Jew named Schactman?). American communists were intimately involved in the whole Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus scandal. I hope you know your American history (communism in USA = Jewish movement). <blockquote>certain Bohemian corporal</blockquote> Hitler was not Bohemian. The put-down phrase is "Bohemian Corporal" (pedantic, yes). <blockquote>It must also be said and emphasized that the “Russian” minorities are not the European and American minorities.</blockquote> Who said they were? Many were, however, nonwhite (Muslim nonwhites and Mongolians). T<blockquote><em>The commies also were mostly brutally anti-family (Romania was an exception).</em>(Haller) You’re just making that up, I’m sorry to say.</blockquote> Sorry, but I don't do that. Why don't you read about forced abortions (and of course the communist countries were pioneers in guaranteeing abortion rights)? The Nazis and fascists were very pro-family, both in terms of encouraging fecundity, as well as in terms of protecting the traditional family. The communists hated the family (Solzhenitsyn talks about that somewhere), promoted (at least in theory, but also in practice to some extent) "women's equality", above all poisoned family relations (kids encouraged to rat out parents) in order to further 'atomize' the population. I hate making yet another enemy here, but I don;t think you've actually read much about the history of communism, USSR, etc. (though I commend you for having slogged through <em>Das Kapital -</em> something I see absolutely no need ever to do myself). Would you like some book recs (I gave you some on economics, not sure if you ever saw them, though)? Start with the tiny Pipes, <em>Communism: A History</em> (very slim and good read), and work out from there. <blockquote> the real culprits in demographic decline are cities and Christian morality.</blockquote> Total nonsense. The culprits are feminism and the decline of Christianity (and, of course, modern contraception).
11826951771322565130OK, I don't know UK very well. What is the issue? Are you saying this woman is being prosecuted??!! For what? Speech? And Lister (accurately) thinks America is doomed? But UK isn't? And is that a white liberal bitch at the end, defending 'diversity'? Say what you will, the enemy isn't just Them, it's Us. White Zion is the only realistic proposal (you will acknowledge that, in about two more decades). We need to segregate from both nonwhites and their white liberal 'enablers'.
11835351771322651332<blockquote>Chavs are to the best of my understanding what we would call white trash in America. It’s main cause is a combination of government dysgenics policies and a policy of applying the least amount of punishment possible in dealing with disobedience at all levels of society except for white people who offend non-whites in any way or white people defending themselves from chav or non-whtie crime and dysfunction. The UK is basically the opposite of how I would run a country which is why it is falling apart and turning into a Third World shithole which is probably the real intentions of those behind it. (CS)</blockquote> Exactly. Though what I fail still to comprehend is why Britain, so long the home of highly admirably stiff-upper-lipped and well-mannered Englishmen (I knew quite a number through my parents when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s), seems to be the very worst of the at least West European lot. Why do Italians and Swiss and Germans and even the French (not to mention Australians and Canadians (however pussyfied the latter)) seem so much more civilized than the contemporary Brit? This is the kind of anthropological or sociological discussion I wish British commenters would launch here. It would certainly be enlightening for those of us out in the colonial hinterlands.
11842151771322740676<blockquote><em>And then ZOG will come and bomb you. End of happy experiment.</em> That’s why “White Zion” has to exist and flourish between our collective ears rather than at a physical geographical location. What say you, Leon? (THORN)</blockquote> Unlikely, even in the worst circumstances. Some persons here have way too conspiratorial a view of the NWO - thinks it makes them macho and 'sophisticated', perhaps. I've been subscribing to <em>Foreign Affairs</em> and the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> for a couple of decades. That of course is the in-house journal of the CFR - which is as 'establishment' as it gets (ditto WSJ). Nothing I've read remotely leads me to believe the NWO would launch an aggressive war (let alone a nuclear missile) against a nation gradually becoming whiter and more rightist, especially assuming there was no WN campaign of genocide against nonwhites. The trick is simply to keep a low profile for the first few decades as numbers of settler-pioneers are quietly built up.
11848551771322826745Randy, There are so few whites who accept racial reality, and still fewer willing to fight for the race. This I know: I have many friends who are loosely racialist, but who really just don't care if whitey goes extinct, as long as they get to keep their beemers and ocean-view properties - which they won't, of course (leastways not long-term), but most just don't <em>feel</em> the crisis. Thus, I'm really not interested in simply improving the lives of my fellow whites. I want to preserve white civilization, which requires a critical and empowered mass of racially conscious whites willing to struggle for collective racial goals. I'm only concerned with aiding that specific struggle. But thanks for the offer of your services. Perhaps you should focus your activism on persuading your colleagues and family of the unnecessity of continued mass immigration.
11844051771322769123White Zion is about a concerted group ideologically motivated to expatriate, doing so to one coordinated place, and then gradually 'whitening' or 'Wnationalizing' the place over time, just as boatloads of Mexicans have now Hispanicized (and effectively conquered) CA via immigration. This is not some huge deal, it really isn;t. The objections people offer are mostly ludicrous. Too many WNs have lurid but not vivid imaginations. I could move to Uruguay very easily. They badly want immigrants (though perhaps not of the wrong color). They would love a whole lot of white immigrants, I'm sure, to help them prop up their failed welfare state. That said, I've never advocated Uruguay as the ideal WZ location. I certainly disagree with CS's suggestion re Russia. The point is Racial <em>Sovereignty</em>: we will never be assured of safety and thus genetic perpetuity without our own version of Israel (which is part of why it is called "White Zion"). Just think Israel. Of course, in the intermediate term, think any American ethnic enclave - Jews in NYC (better, Hasidim in Crown Heights), Cubans in Miami - where the particular defined group has politically taken over the legislative area. Uruguay is a possibility, but I have argued at length on this site for Australia, esp Tasmania. Suppose over a two decade period a million WN immigrants from around the globe (but mostly the Anglosphere, I would suspect) move to Oz, acquire Aussie citizenship, gradually internally relocate to still very-white Tasmania, and then vote to declare sovereignty and secede from Australia (maybe even petitioning for UN recognition). Would Australian forces invade the island? American? Doubtful, but even if they threatened to do so, we would have created an ethnic/racial/ideological enclave of our own, perhaps something like Quebec. We would have created our own separatist bloc, which would constantly push for secession in the national parliament. At worst, we could maintain 'internal controls' (like the Mafia in various Italian immigrant neighborhoods in the old US), <em>sub rosa</em> making like very difficult for nonwhites who tried to set up there. Of course, leftwing journalists would pen exposes of the "new racist Tasmania", of its links to the old abo genocide, yada yada. But past a certain numerical threshold, it would only be a matter of time until we could succeed in seceding. And in the intervening decades, the early pioneers would have a decent quality of life, as well as the chance to invest in comparatively undervalued real estate, which they could all enjoy seeing appreciate in value over time as more WN colonists move there. Anyway, for whites outside Europe (and possibly there, too), what realistically is the alternative? As I have argued, we WNs will never be the majority anywhere (I hope I'm wrong re parts of Europe, but it's already happened to us - ie, the impossibility of our living white and free/sovereign - in Southern Africa and the US). Therefore, at best we face a slow but inexorable decline along three parallel vectors: 1) ever increasing numbers of nonwhites, through fertility as well as immigration; 2) ever greater miscegenation, and hence genetic loss or pollution; 3) ever increasing WN consciousness among the remaining unpolluted whites, but also ever decreasing political power, this, I believe, leading to ever greater resentment among the new nonwhite masters for the now dispossessed white Old Stock. Where will these trends ultimately lead? WZ is about defying those otherwise inexorable trends, while facing practical realities (eg, that it would be far easier to demographically/electorally conquer a smallish predominantly white country, like Australia, many of whose whites are not disposed to welcoming Third World immigration, than to secede as a racial community from a huge one like America). All the stuff about 'internal secession', 'microcommunities', WN consciousness raising, etc, applies to whatever roads we take, anyway.
11848751771322828554Gudmund, <blockquote>There is not any reliable data to suggest that, for example, race mixing has increased in frequency appreciably (it has to some degree but not even close to as much as the diversity-mongers would like). As it stands, whites still overwhelmingly seek the company of other whites and they are actually, furthermore, doing fairly well economically vis-a-vis other racial groups, at least here in America. I don’t know if doom scenarios are absolutely warranted here, it could be that there will be less of us but that we will do better. As for fertility, I don’t see that improving in the short run; even in places where it has been tried through government incentive to increase white fertility (i.e. Russia), it hasn’t been particularly successful. Again, this (falling birth rates) is an accelerating phenomenon and not limited to whites for that matter. </blockquote> Not sure about this. I think race mixing is skyrocketing. For example, I notice mixed race kids everywhere today. Certainly, my current school, which has an undergrad connected to it (such that I see lots of college students everyday), has a vastly greater number of mongrels than my university I attended in the 80s had. There are an especially large number of white/Oriental mixtures (like my young girlfriend, for that matter). I think Hispanic/white couples are also skyrocketing (good grief, I even have one of those pairings in my own (non-immediate) family!). And from what I've noticed in terms of 20-something couples, I think the 'mixed-race' category will grow exponentially in coming decades (just not the number of mulattoes). I'm not sure I agree about whites' economic status, either, especially if we remove Jews from that statistic. Most Americans have been getting poorer for a long time, though the feminist-inspired rise of dual income families (with attendant fall in white fertility), has mitigated that socialist + minority parasite-caused immiseration trend, until recently (and probably henceforth, too - the economic "shot in the arm" from 'liberating' Aryan womanhood and getting them into the workplace has largely dissipated [nb for anti-capitalists: the only "shot in the arm" America has left, other than the current new-technology driven but hardly indefinite domestic energy sector boom, is a radical return to laissez-faire capitalism]). Incidentally, I do not think white minorities in formerly white nations will be treated remotely as well by their new nonwhite masters as, for instance, Jews have been treated in the US. Do not assume that white minorities will be able to prosper under nonwhite regimes. The more usual course is for whites to be expropriated and then chased away. This, btw, is starting to happen finally in Latin America, too. The white minority rulership there was sociologically complex, but mostly based on the disempowerment of the native races (as with white control of Dixie before the Civil Rights movement), ratified by the Catholic Church, and enforced by white dominated militaries. All that is changing rapidly. Trust me: whites are only going to survive this century in places where they are the demographic majority.
11844951771322782976What Emma West Day rally? And where and when, exactly (not that I will be in Britain anytime, but I can pass the word...)?
11845051771322783159Seen this? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068148/Agassi-Odusina-Teen-rapper-spared-jail-pursue-music-career.html
11845451771322786201tc, WTF? I wish I could be there. But I live in the US, and am in no position to fly to UK at the moment. Best of luck, however.
11845551771322787313<blockquote>The one problem is immigration. Where their governments once promoted an exclusively white immigration policy, similar to what was done in America in the first half of the 20th century, they do not do so any longer. There is now a mass influx of Asians (of many varieties) into these lands and it will not abate any time soon. If that is not a problem for you, then by all means promote the idea. Honestly, I might prefer the company of slant-eyes and subcons to that of libwhites. They probably would not have a problem with at least implicit racial organization.(Gudmund)</blockquote> But why that Asian influx? I think the unpatriots in the corporate community simply want cheap labor (probably the real estate lobby likes them, too). Is Oz policy to prefer Asians to whites, or is it the case that few whites actually have applied to move there, so they take what they can get? Anyway, WNs need ever to be aware that Diversity is today a global white cult, a kind of new religion taking the place formerly held by Christianity. A lot of whites are brainwashed by the cult, and are essentially unrecoverable (ie, we should want their gene lines to go extinct; the strength of the wolf is the strength of the pack, and 'our pack' would be far stronger if culled of its weaker elements). Apparently these form majorities in all white nations, at least in the West. WNs are never going to be the majority anywhere, absent victorious civil war (which only a tiny number, even of WNs, want), and so we will be doing 30 years from now what we were doing 30 years ago - complaining about the latest nonwhite outrage, Jewish media control, lickspittle conservatives, cultureless whites, etc. Nothing will ever change. More and more whites will come to our side, but only in tandem with constant demographic shrinkage, both absolute (below replacement fertility + miscegenation), and relative (to the nonwhite invaders pouring in). I hate to be the prophet of doom, and I do hope I am wrong. I certainly strongly encourage local nationalist activism (which is psychologically satisfying in itself, and can produce in some good), as well as measures and movements (even if untraditionally religious - eg, Mormonism - or which I otherwise find bizarre, like evangelicalism) to increase white fertility. Maybe some of these initiatives will lead to more enduring successes. But WZ must be an option, and it must be pursued. A global Aryan ingathering is still, to me, likely the only hope for white perpetuity. I assert that the burden of proof to the contrary, demonstrating that some other focus of activism offers a realistic possibility for long term survival, rests with the opponents of WZ.
11849051771322829594CS, Yes, those are problems with OZ, but nowhere is perfect. And there are always ways to be subtle, while still advancing the agenda. Now is a great time to push to end immigration in the US, and Republicans should be doing so. But they shouldn't do so via our WN concerns. They should argue on the "jobs front" - "How can we be admitting 140k immigrants per month when the allegedly non-partisan NBER tells us that, <strong><em>at present population growth</em></strong>, we will not reach full employment until 2020, even without another recession, which looks increasingly likely?". They should not let on the real reasons to end the invasion (1. keep America whiter, and 2. nonwhites vote Democrat). I think that could be a hugely winning issue next year for the GOP nominee, unless they were to discuss the racial angle. Similarly, we can be subtle in Oz, too, in the beginning.
11848951771322829043from above: <blockquote>and probably henceforth, too</blockquote> This isn't clear. I meant dual incomes as a strategy for dealing with accelerating impoverishment has not been sufficient in the current Great Recession, and likely won't be enough in the future, either. Damn! This isn't clear, either: <blockquote>mostly based on the disempowerment of the native races (as with white control of Dixie before the Civil Rights movement)</blockquote> I meant that pre-Civil Rights, whites controlled nearly all of Dixie, but only because the sizable black population was disproportionately effectively disenfranchised. Sorry. Tired.
11848351771322825990exuh, You seem to have an interesting (personal) background and skill set. Multilingual, world traveler, well-read, etc, yet with a measure of proletarian in you, too. What is your precise background (age, ethnicity, nationality, education, career, etc), if you don't mind my asking? Obviously, I;m not expecting personal ID, just some general sense. Tattoos, Hegel, Uruguay, etc, it all seems rather eclectic, at the very least. Me, I'm 44, white mixed Euro-American (mostly German), Orange County upbringing, clean-cut, no tattoos or (ugh!) piercings, Republican, paleocon, Ivy League undergrad, JD/MBA from UC (I'm not going to say which schools), business management/sales/marketing career, some political work, never married, currently out of state and returned to school to do a doctorate in religious studies with main emphasis on Catholic Thought (this sounds like a personal ad, but whatever). I'm curious re others. How varied are the backgrounds of nationalists?
11854451771322916148<blockquote>My own thoughts are to re-invent the ‘radical centre’ – post-liberal, moderately green (critical of consumerism and its effects etc.), eschewing ‘extreme’ ideas (especially when entirely irrelevant to the core issues), anti-globalist, small ‘c’ conservative and communitarian and so forth. (Lister)</blockquote> This approach might work in a place like, I presume, Scotland, that is still overwhelmingly white/native, has deep organic roots, and especially in this case, has the added benefit of seeing the horrors of multiculturalism right next door in England (though I'm not aware that this confluence of encouraging facts has actually resulted in any huge surge in Scottish ethnonationalist/anti-immigrationist sentiment). And certainly, as I have been arguing here for some time, the Jared Taylor approach of eschewing highly controversial irrelevancies, like Holocaust denial, Odinist advocacy, skinheadism, etc - let alone the almost pathological folly of Christian-bashing - is virtually a necessity if we ever hope to stop the immigration invasion, which is the <em>sine qua non</em> of any further move towards increasing intranational white racial sovereignty. But I think nationalist advocacy needs to be tailored to local contexts (obviously). What might work in one place might not in another. Communitarian agendas in the US are overwhelmingly associated with the Left (as I keep arguing), which in turn is almost universally supportive of multiculturalism. Communitarianism in the US translates as "more taxes on whites to pay for minority benefits". And re 'extreme ideas' - wouldn't the core nationalist goal of repatriating nonwhites out of Europe count as one? I suppose one can pursue a strategy (again what I have repeatedly advocated) of gradual radicalization; ie, we accomplish one goal, like militarily sealing the US/Mexico border, or abolishing affirmative racism, and then immediately 'move the goal posts' to some other goal, like ending legal immigration, or restoring freedom of economic association. But for countries like England and France, whose very national existences are now at stake, a strategy of radical centrism probably won't be sufficient. In those places, I think nationalist leaders need to take whatever stance on non-racial issues like healthcare is most popular (or least unpopular, as things are today so contentious), but concentrate full fire - be radical, but <em>rightist</em> - on ending immigration, and defending national/cultural identity. The situations must be polarized, so that common people are forced to make a clear choice im favor of national preservation (or not, as I suspect would be the case - but then, once the suicide pact has received electoral ratification, we could get on the with the more important business of pursuing White Zion).
11855151771322920958<blockquote>Why not make repatriation of criminal aliens a consistent theme of political rhetoric in European political nationalism? (Chaos)</blockquote> That's very shrewd, assuming it's not standard procedure already. Or by "aliens", are you referring to any nonwhite, including ones born on European soil? Maybe start at the halfway point: any immigrant criminal (even if lawfully present in Europe, or, indeed, a naturalized citizen) gets deported. Once that is accepted policy, then move to any nonwhite at all who commits a crime gets deported. And then finally cut out the middle points, and just deport all nonwhites. But again we have the stubborn question: how many native Europeans actually would vote to expel nonwhites? I wish I could see some solid data on this. I fear it's not nearly as many as it should be.
11879951771323252866anon, Are you the expat in Belize?
11880151771323254844<blockquote>Whatever reason WNs have to be sour on S. Africa, blacks there have every reason to be hopeful. Contrary to typical WN doomsaying, S. Africa hasn’t ‘collapsed’ (how they love that word) since the end of apartheid; it has prospered. (Silver)</blockquote> A surprisingly untrue statement, at least from what I've heard and read. Crime through the roof; Jo'burg utterly ruined; tourism rapidly declining, and not fun like when my parents visited (unfortunately not taking the kids!) in the early 80s; affirmative action shading into outright property confiscation (from whites, of course), etc. SA is in an ongoing state of collapse, a reversion from civilization into African savagery. It hasn't totally fallen yet because there are still whites with the expertise to manage things, plus it has a lots of natural resources to sell on global markets (the USSR would have collapsed far sooner without its gold and oil to sell). But it's getting there, slowly but surely (and anyway, life has gotten awful for whites, which is what matters to a WN). Uh, I;m not sure you're right re repatriation. I think if Germany re-grew its national testicles, and began deporting Turks, I think Turkey would resettle them internally. Same for France and its Algerians, Britain and its pakis, etc. At worst, European countries could - if they had the means and the will (the real issue always) - simply deport their aliens in chains, in ships and cattle-cars, and deposit them on the beaches and at the borders of the relevant 3rd World homelands. Anyway, there is no other way. Not one nonwhite must be allowed to reside permanently on European soil. To get to that point, however, tens of millions (of white leftists as well as aliens) will have to die. Do not fool yourselves as to the possibility of any other outcome.
11881951771323266427Voight, Why is Oz a lost cause? They have fewer nonwhites than US (which admittedly may be a lost cause, too). Why can't Australian patriots put an end to immigration? And don't be so certain about Europe's future, either. England is gone, Belgium is gone, probably France, too. Others to follow.
11885751771323300978I'm on a few minutes break, so I will only add that whites have not yet fully accomplished even the very first step towards genetic preservation, namely, establishing the ethicality of the hard measures needed to ensure it. Still, many whites throughout the world are waking up rapidly. I believe, along (I think) with vast numbers of the leftist enemy, that once a first step, like deporting masses of illegals, has been made, further steps will become progressively easier. This is why the leftist enemy is so vicious about stamping out any signs of white racial resistance. Leftist metaphors are usually overblown, but the notion of a potential 'avalanche' or 'hole in the dike' is quite correct - but only once the proper moral/philosophical ground has been laid (and not everywhere, equally - whites in some places are more determined than in others - most of the Anglo-Saxon places, except the white American South, seem worthless). From my earliest comments here, I have pointed out that the fundamental issues were ethical (whites must be convinced that employing coercion to ensure our racial continuity is morally justified) and military (we must have the actual/physical power to be able to instantiate our racial policies). So we need to be moving along two tracks simultaneously. Develop the ethical arguments, but also try to stem the invasion as much as possible in the meantime. My worry is that by the time enough whites are finally awakened, we truly will no longer possess the physical means to effectuate our desires. But "uh" is wrong to suggest that we don't today. The Europeans, with some armed struggle and internal bombardments, could without too much difficulty effect mass deportations. Start with illegals, then criminals, then political activists, then recent arrivals, etc. What we lack right now is the will, and we are a very long way from having it (so fundamentally "uh" is correct that the West is 'toast', which is why I preach WN 'ingathering'; ie White Zion). "Ripening harvest/encroaching jungle". 14 words.
11885851771323302533PS - Let's be clear on what, exactly, I want. 1. EVERY nonwhite (to at least the 1/8 degree, if not preferably the 1/32) must be expelled from Europe. No exceptions. If 100 million white leftists resist violently, and thus need to be exterminated in the process, SO BE IT. They brought their deaths upon themselves. Treason will never be tolerated. 2. European/Ashkenazi Jewry must be expelled to Israel. This is not because Jews are savages or parasites, but because they are too politically dangerous over time to the maintenance of white preservation. 3. European security depends upon biological security, which means new laws or tax incentives A) encouraging racial fecundity, and B) mandating eugenics (one of my life scholarship goals is to demonstrate at least to my satisfaction that neither of these policies contradicts authentic Christian ethics). Outside of Europe (North America and Aus/NZ) is where the issues grow morally complex. The following is an acceptable <strong>minimum</strong>: 4. Terminate all nonwhite immigration. 5. Deport nonwhite illegal aliens. 6. Militarize borders and coastlines. 7. Allow all white immigration. 8. Eliminate racial preferences for nonwhites. 9. Eliminate antidiscrimination laws, which would allow for the (re-)formation of whites-only communities. 10. Eliminate multiculturalism in mandatory state supported education. Replace with white-positive instruction (ie, truth). 11. Broadly, end redistribution of white wealth to nonwhites, to the extent possible. 12. Allow for white racial secession and ethnostate sovereignty. [Note: none of these policies actually violates the individual rights (understood in the libertarian sense - the only philosophy which I believe credibly challenges WN on moral grounds) of nonwhites - while they all benefit white empowerment and thus EGI. There are many other policies I favor, which themselves broadly aid whites (no gun restrictions, public hangings, unregulated capitalism), but which are not specifically racial, and so are left unmentioned.] What am I leaving out?
11886351771323311253Randy, Are you totally joking? Seriously, you don't believe that nonwhites in Europe are the industrial backbone of those societies, do you? Or something similar in the US? You obviously aren't aware of the facts on parasitism - or else you read the WSJ far too uncritically. There is in fact no 'demand' for foreign laborers (especially not in structurally high unemployment Europe). That 'demand' comes from greedy businesses looking to make fast bucks by undercutting native wage rates - instead of by being clever and entrepreneurial and becoming more creative or at least efficient in the utilization of existing resources and structures (or simply accepting slightly lower profits in order to preserve their nations over time). Also, I forget, but aren't you American? And please recall that I am as well. Voight, Re Tasmania - I assume you're being facetious? Having never been to Australia, I don't know the on the ground truths of the place. The Aussies I've met in the US have almost all been surprisingly solid, however. Tasmania does remain overwhelmingly white, no? 14 words
11887851771323325608Voight, By "facetious", I was referring to your second sentence: <blockquote>I’ll just note that when I speak of Australia, I do not include Tasmania.<u> I have great confidence that it has the birth rate and family-culture to thrive</u> (Voight).</blockquote> I can't tell now if you were being serious with that sentence. What do you think of Taz as a possible location for mass WN migration (White Zion)?
11888451771323328431<blockquote><em>I’m saying they’re currently essential, and I’ve yet to hear of any plan to allow them to be less so. Right now there are tech firms in Silicon Valley hiring new-grad CEs for $80k with plump benefits packages. Not too shabby for 22 year old kids with a 4 year degree. These companies are loaded with immigrants. Go to your nearest medical center and do a provider lookup. Parse the surnames for ethnicity, then stroll to the doctors’ parking lot and take an educated guess as to whether or not they’re being forced to live rough by “greedy businesses” paying “undercut” wages. In my wife’s field, companies are unable to fill open positions and so headhunters regularly call offering signing bonuses. These are just a few examples of essential, skilled, non-white value creators helping to keep the west afloat. Who exactly would take their places were they to depart? There’s certainly no exogenous reasons why natives can’t fill all of these jobs except that they don’t appear to want them, despite the high incomes, job stability, and the social respect which they provide. As for the “western culture” whose preservation you’ve stated is among your top concerns, zip down to your local performing arts center and take a look at who is actually patronizing the arts, buying the instruments, supporting the instructors, performing the classics.</em> (GARVER)</blockquote> Randy, You don't read vdare.com enough. I've lived much of my life in CA, indeed, greater LA, the Ground Zero of America's immigration invasion, and I can tell you that what you say is pure neoliberal propaganda (Sheesh - where the fuck is Graham Lister, or XPWA, the 'intellectuals' always accusing me of fealty to neoliberalism, when they could actually have something useful to say?!). I have personally heard white men with technical computer programming expertise complain to me about the Asian invasion of Silicon Valley, and how unnecessary and dirty dealing it is. So many problems (I do not have time for more than a couple)... First, do you recognize the distinction between the skilled foreign worker issue in America v Europe, as well as the general truths wrt the divergent numbers between H1B visa seekers, and family reunification immigrants? Most immigrants are NOT skilled workers - this is PURE IMMIGRATIONIST MYTH!! You're buying into the Bill Gates / <em>Wall Street Journal </em>crowd's bullshit (probably for personal reasons)! The educational levels of the vast bulk of immigrants to the US, and especially to Europe, are low relative to the native born (especially when you compare to whites only), precisely because the bulk of them are NOT admitted based on skills (as I believe is disproportionately the case in Canada; perhaps Australia, too). Second, I'm not talking about removing all nonwhites from the US (only about not allowing additional ones to settle here). I said Europe. Europe has far fewer nonwhites than the US, and they are heavily overrepresented among criminals, welfare parasites, and those performing menial tasks which do not produce enough in taxes to compensate for the public benefits they, as a class, collect. Same is true on America. The notion that nonwhite immigrants in their ghettoes are essential to the maintenance of European economies is ignorance that is beyond laughable. I agree - and have said so like a zillion times here at MR - that Third World immigrants <em>could</em> be an economic blessing were we to cherry-pick them based only on greater-than-native-born, economic-value-added skill sets (ie, all those computer experts, surgeons, etc). [I would still oppose bringing them in, however, purely for racial reasons, which I hold trump economic concerns - do you hear that Richards, Lister, XPWA, and all their ilk? I have always said this, and I am remarkably consistent in my views.] But that is not what most Western nations, esp the US, actually do. For the record, just as I support total abolition of the Federal Reserve, but would also accept, if that proved impossible, the elimination of the Fed's alleged "dual mandate", which stipulates that it should concern itself with both inflation and unemployment when formulating monetary policy (and which only dates to the 70s), returning it to its ostensible earlier sole concern with price level stability (which I don't ideally support, either; in a real free market economy, most industries would be characterized by persistent, mild deflation), so, too, do I want the total abolition of all future nonwhite immigration - but if that fails to pass, then I think a second-best demand would be to replace existing, dominant refugee and family reunification criteria with an enlarged emphasis on economically valuable skills. Anyway, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that immigrant doctors have it rough, but that artificially expanding the labor supply through immigration necessarily leads to lower native-born wages. This is praxeologically certain - as well as empirically demonstrated (recall my argument re the truth behind the Occupy Wall Street's correct claims about rising income inequality - that such inequality is due to Fed created inflation, economic globalization, mass immigration, and the general growth of parasitic Big (wasteful, overregulatory) Government). With the right electoral will, we can easily eliminate the Fed and mass immigration, and at least start pruning back the overhang of too big government (stopping America's participation in economic globalization may in fact now be impossible, as too many companies, and hence citizen-shareholders, have too much money invested overseas, and make too much from foreign sales; we could slow the growth of continued globalization, however). To reiterate, I myself have immigrant medical specialists. I also have many American doctors. If fewer Americans are going to med school, this itself is in part due to mass immigration (and also, the often correct belief among white men, now challenged by circumstances, that greater wealth was to be had from finance than scientific professions - in part because of the perception of greater competition from immigrants in the latter). But get rid of the immigrants, and I assure you, the nations would adapt accordingly (and salutarily). And no, it's not my responsibility to show some precise mechanism for dealing with the problem (if Richards understood economics or public policy, he would know this). If all immigrant dentists were suddenly expelled from the US (not something I have advocated), then the price of the services provided by American dentists would increase, their wages would go up - and more American students would be attracted to dentistry. Really, I'm surprised and disappointed at these kinds of responses at a place like MR.
11888551771323329055Richards, I feel no need to reply to someone who thinks it's easier to expel Jews from sovereign, nuclearized Israel, and set them up in Siberia, than to expel nonwhite colonists in Europe.
11889551771323342288Capn, Just read 'Austrians' Mises and esp Rothbard on money (or Ron Paul's very simple <em>End the Fed</em>). Don't worry about them being Jewish - so was the discoverer of thr polio vaccine that I'm sure runs somehow in your blood. Richards is about 90% correct, but for a number of incorrect reasons. In sum: 1. Abolish central banking. 2. Require 100% reserves (that is, end fractional reserve banking and the ensuing debt-driven economy, a move which is independently justifiable on Christian, conservative, libertarian, nationalist, and even environmentalist grounds - and for once all strains of non-leftist ideology are correct, if for different reasons). 3. Those reserves should be a commodity money ideally determined by the free market, but in the transition back to monetary rationality, the commodity will have to be initially legislated (after an "acclimatizing" period, during which people become used again to economic calculation based on commodity money pricing, we can simply repeal remaining legal tender laws, and just let the consumer decide his preferred medium of exchange). The best commodity money is the historic one: gold. Thus, we must eliminate any state role in money, except that of detailing the initial dollar-weight conversion into gold (ie, stating that "one dollar = 1/1000 or whatever of an oz of gold" - monetary experts will have to determine this unit wt so as to cause the least disruption to regularly established market prices). 4. What Richards essentially advocates is a deprivatization of the quasi-private/quasi-public Fed, an end to fractional reserve loans by bankers, and the lodging of the ability to print money in the hands of democratic representatives (I guess, Congress and the White House). I'm not sure this would be better than the existing system, but it damn sure would be worse than just getting the State the hell out of money printing, period! Do not doubt for one minute that the parasites in DC would like nothing better than to 'solve' their self-inflicted national debt problem by monetizing it; ie, inflating it away (that is, looting savers and bondholders - extracting the value of their money - by debasing the currency, as Bernanke has also been doing in order to help reelect Obama). The only ultimately just as well as maximally efficient monetary system is one established by the consumer driven free market, with the traditional criminological understanding that lending out money you don't actually possess is FRAUD, and should be properly criminally prosecuted (and not made into the very basis of your economy, as now!!!). To reiterate, the Austrians are correct re pure, value-free economics. Study them. But remember, supporting free markets does not in itself lead one to the nonsense of libertarianism. That is an unwarranted conceptual leap.
11894951771323433345<blockquote>Can’t wait to find out what erupts when someone tells them they all have to go home, with guns leveled at their faces, as you allow. But by then the “foreigners” will have been replaced with second, third and fourth gens born in the West, like Garver’s multiculti kewpie dolls. Old story. There’s nowhere for them to go. They are home. No European nation — with their 5,000 cheeses and weird women with spiked haircuts & blue turtleneck sweaters — has the will to tell them otherwise. (UH)</blockquote> Nonsense! Do not confuse the practical issue, which I always acknowledge (will we have the physical power to effectuate our desires? increasingly doubtful - hence, by several logical steps, the need for White Zion), with the moral one (nonwhites, by virtue of their racial unassimilability, have no right to reside on European soil). Also, you just might wish to study the history of Third World decolonization, esp wrt places like Algeria, India, Vietnam, Rhodesia, and soon, South Africa - the worst outrage of all. Whites resided in some of these places for generations, too, but the natives (who were <em>inferior</em> to the European settlers, unlike today's Europeans confronting their present immigrant communities) felt no compunction about throwing them out - and did so, most unceremoniously. We will do the same to today's Third World "settler-colonialists" of Europe. They will be returned to their ancestral nations,exactly as I stated somewhere above.
11894751771323432349Desmond, I get into arguments with liberals - <em>and even libertarians</em> - all the time on this point, and, for reasons I just don't want to expound upon at length right now (I've done so previously at MR), it does have some moral validity. The answer, however, lies in the concept of 'homesteading' (so important to natural rights libertarians, which I why I italicized mention of them above). Basically, very simply, but correctly ... <strong>we whites built the fucking country</strong>!!!!!! That's the whole answer. There were original (pre-white) inhabitants of N. America and Australia, but they didn't establish <em>property</em> in those lands. That is, they did not bring them within cultivation and civilization. They simply lived off of them. The Indian could, under the white man's own jurisprudence, claim property rights in his bow, spear, animals he killed or husbanded, crops he planted, etc. But such property constituted an infinitesimal fraction of the material composing the N. American landmass. Thus, the Indian could hardly lay claim to the entirety of the continent, simply because he happened to be standing on a tiny piece of it before any white man set foot on a similar piece. Of course, when some paki filth talks about Canada as though it were still virgin territory, he is neglecting the historical fact of the infrastructure (in the largest sense, beyond roads, sewers, grids, etc) already and originally laid down by whites. Whites founded and built Canada. Thus they have a right to be aggrieved (and to legislate their grievances) re current or future immigrants that Indians, who hardly did anything productive with "their" land, never had vis a vis whites. Think of it this way. Americans were first on the moon. But supposing the Chinese are the first to build some kind of lunar mining operation. Can Americans later say the Chinese mine is morally illegitimate, simply because we happened to have stood on lunar soil before any Chinaman? What would our justification be? Note I am arguing <em>within</em> the liberal individualist tradition. Of course, maybe we should try to keep other races off the moon as a matter of Darwinian conflict / white racial EGI. But that undercuts at least mainstream Western morality ("might is right" is not a moral argument).
11895451771323438588Randy, What WNs want is gene+culture survival. For myself, I do not believe that, over the long haul, Western Civ (or any civ) will be perpetuated by persons who were not of the civ's founding genetic stock. Chinese have a unique civ, yes? Would hordes of whites moving to China, and learning Chinese, be sufficient over time to 'continue' Chinese civ, even assuming rough cognitive and capabilities equality? Doubtful. And Chinese are far closer to whites behaviorally and mentally than Latinos, Muslims or blacks. And anyway, why should we whites chance it? If I never interacted with another nonwhite again, including my part-Asian girlfriend, my one Chinese-American friend, and my one Hispanic friend, believe me, I'd live (I do admit I'd miss my many Jewish friends). Moreover, nonwhites do not play important roles in Europe. Yes, there are some powerful Jews there, and<em> their </em>roles are almost universally subversive of white EGI. And just because we now have lots of Asian dentists in CA, doesn't mean we originally had to have them - or that we would now forever require them in the future. Your thinking is very static and 'presentist'. In terms of brute realism, I of course agree that minorities will never be expelled en masse from the US. Here we WNs (I mean the 'mainstream' of us; not the radical fringe (fringe of a fringe, so to speak)) want an end to further immigration; deportation of illegals; end to affirmative racism; and a white rights movement to protect our people in the new, multiracial shithole of democratic America. If we whites don't organize to defend our political and economic interests, our dispossession and immiseration will proceed apace. Note this organizational effort is vital and worthy, even if what we finally want in someteleological sense - the White Republic - is never likely to be realized, and whites in NA will ultimately be mongrelized or murdered out of discrete existence.
11896051771323442158UH, You are making several radical and far-reaching claims, which we will/can not resolve here. 1. You imply that morality is not ontologically independent (I'm not sure if that exactly states what I have in mind, but I think it does). I disagree, precisely because I'm not an atheist (if I were then I would not be like GW, earnest and worried about something - in his case, whitey - but would simply laugh at the gullible; the ghetto pimp or drug dealer is the purest atheist). The moral law exists, is given effect by God, and is at the very center of reality. 2. Even if God does not exist, and hence morality is simply delusional (esp when maladaptive, as Western universalism clearly is), the psychological 'hold' that (this putatively false) morality exercises on the white mind is, indeed, a 'real' (material) fact. Even if you think Christianity is nonsense, others do not, and thus there is power-value to demonstrating that the faith does not mandate race replacement, or racial indifference (this applies of course to any religion whose adherents act in ultimately deleterious ways - 'deleterious' determined by your preference for how you'd like society arranged, of course). 3. Our civ is indeed contracting, as Burnham pointed out a half century ago. There is nothing inevitable about this process. History could have taken a different path, and we still have the power to save ourselves. Communism was inevitable, until it wasn't. 4. <blockquote><em>Morality is a Northern European disease.</em>(UH) </blockquote> Now you're getting there, Uh, congrats. This is not empirically true - morality is nearly universal - but you are so right that whites are the most moral race (which is precisely the supreme justification for their survival - why the hell do you think I'm studying theology now, instead of making money or at least staying by my lady?). This may be a fact of biology (which still would not invalidate the concept or ontological reality of morality). Certainly, we have to take it into account as we try to awaken our people. Our people will not be awakened by mere appeals to power. There must be a moral dimension (again, I am studying what I am studying, why ...). 5. "Driven", "thrown" - <em>ach</em>! The point is that whites created property in these places, which was then stolen from them by the native parasites. India was militarily and politically conquered by the Brits; Britain is being demographically conquered by its subcons. The Anglo colonisers of India were vasty less relatively numerous than the subcon colonisers of Britain, but they were also far more comparatively physically powerful. Britain today could easily do what India in the 18th century apparently could not: keep free of foreign ethnic rule. The issue there (unlike here in US) is still simple willpower. That is true across Europe (though it won't be for that much longer). 6. Lastly, the Europeans did so much for the colonised, from infrastructure, to law, to therapeutics - the only imperial powers that really did make life better for their colonised (the Romans would be another example; though I think they were still less conscientiously generous than the Europeans). Certainly, life got much shittier for the native peoples of most colonies once the Euros packed up and exited. Also, almost every line of this <blockquote>All I can say is back at you, for it seems you’ve read some really dubious and one-sided shit if you missed all the havoc wrought by Europeans and Americans abroad (you approve of the Indochina debacle??). The French were genuinely monstrous to the Algerian natives, from start to finish. It was all over the European press and the denouement of the long infamy is portrayed in films like Pontecorvo’s La battaglia di Algeri and L’Ennemi intime. I am not the side of state torturers of any people, sorry. I don’t know what prompts you to be so — capitalism I suppose. The most I can say is that I am behind every people that rises to throw off a foreign yoke, be they kaffir, muzz, dink, kike, or cracker. (uh)</blockquote> is balderdash (the true horrors of Indochina came mostly after the US got out; the French did their best to civilize and integrate - big mistake - the native Algerians - they were not Nazis; you mean the "mendacious, communist, self-hating, Jewish dominated European press"; Pontecorvo was a very talented director, as well as a propagandistic communist; the French authorities in Algeria were too merciful, as their generals in the theater pointed out; I do not support Third World liberation movements, but the expansion and global domination of the white race- of our right and destiny to shape the world to serve our purposes - that's what is properly called "rightwing", friend - and yours truly defines it ...). But enough. I have work before an early class.
11897251771323472599Is the comment at 262 directed to me? Why? Those block quotes are not mine.
11899451771323511916Jimmy, And a blessed Yule (or is it "Wolfmoon"?) to you! PS - I couldn't stomach even 60 seconds of that vid. How low the country has sunk!
11833451781322624367GW, Do you think the nationalist struggle will ever win politically - ie, apart from violence of some kind? (of course, I continue to be as bleak as anyone - WZ is the only option for true survival - everything else is`merely delaying inevitable white gene-ocide, or making the best of it as it 'goes down') just asking.
11836351781322661909<em><blockquote>And <u>Mr. Haller and others seemingly assert that this utter bullshit (contemporary American Christianity) is front and center in the serious intellectual efforts required.</u> So should I and everyone else start to genuflect before the Christian Zionists? What next? Why not take Mormon ‘theology’ and their ‘magic underwear’ seriously as an intellectual paradigm (rather than as a sociological phenomenon to be understood)? Intellectually serious theism is very, very marginal to American life as to be almost non-existent from a socio-cultural point of view. Mega-churches don’t ‘do’ Aquinas (if anyone doubts that visit one of them for a service and have one of the most banal experiences possible)</em>. (LIster)</blockquote> Could you possibly elaborate on this criticism? I actually have no idea what you're 'on' about, at least wrt anything I have said. I am not a Christian Zionist, and have never praised such movements. In fact, I really can't stand evangelicals politically (I dated the daughter of one once, and inspected that movement a bit, mainly out of anthropological interest), though they are mostly white and conservative, and do make decent neighbors, workers and citizens. My ideological opposition to them is that they are weak on race (intellectually; pragmatically, most evangelicals are moderately conservative wrt racial issues: eg, the grassroots are generally against immigration, multiculti, etc), and that their shallow 'Christianist' agenda is irrelevant if not harmful to the Occidental cause to which I am loyal. I have never visited a true mega-church. Intellectually serious theism is arguably marginal to every society, and certainly to all Western ones today. It is not at all marginal among the American Right, however (nor, to a lesser extent, to other 'Rights' around the Occidental world), nor should it be marginal to rightist discourse. I think the decline of traditional Christianity is intimately related to the decline of the West (and I'm hardly alone in thinking this). And as I always aver, the crisis of Western Man is really an ethical one - and at the base of ethics is God, whether you like it or not (morality exists apart from God, but is only made meaningful by Him). So I hold it is indeed quite important to reconceptualize the racial struggle so as to render it morally compatible with Christian belief. BTW, I believe that what is here called "American Christianity" is actually expanding around the world. Can the same be said for CofE?
11854551781322917109off-topic a bit, but why does it seem like only Aryans ever do stuff like this? http://dailypicksandflicks.com/2011/11/30/michael-kemeters-tightrope-walk-above-yosemite-park-video/ This racial concentration of physical extremists must be telling or significant in some way.
11855051781322920499I am much too sedentary for something like this even to appeal to me theoretically. I like to hike in the wilderness maybe once per year, and go hunting maybe twice a decade. That's enough nature for me (except for skiing twice a year, of course). As for extreme sports, never had any interest (I did enough regular sports in high school and college). Reading books, socializing with friends and ladies, exercising moderately, making money - and worrying about the future of the white race. That's me.
11856651781322951436I need to read Occidental Observer more. They have some good stuff. BTW, is anyone at MR going to review Ricardo Duchesne’s <em>The Uniqueness of Western Civilization</em>?
11859351801323020766The responses to that Guardian piece were sickening in their sheer lack of patriotism. Honestly, it does make even the most civilized think a bit differently about the 'insane' Norwegian shooter, doesn't it? (BTW, up against this kind of voluble race treason, why has some blogger named "JRichards", a one-note money crank, been allowed editorial privileges on this site? Could this be explained to the general readership, please? 'Money' is most certainly NOT the issue in the decline and fall of white civilization.)
11860951801323056790Speaking of our heroine, how did Friday's nationalist rally on her behalf go? Anyone from here attend? Some group I think called British Resistance has an online petition on West's behalf that every UK patriot should sign. Are nationalists doing anything else for this unfortunate Ms. West? We cannot allow our own to be hung out to dry, so to speak.
11859451801323022662There was nothing even slightly "right-wing" about the female idiot journalist's article. How is it possible to describe the English as anything but white? How is it possible that at least technically sane British would not describe the English as such? I understand not describing Americans as white (though I certainly think that way), but a European people? My point as always is to note the sheer mental defectiveness of whites. We are the problem - not Jews, not other races, not even greedy businessmen or treasonous politicians. Normal (psychologically modal) whites are the problem. They are collectively insane. We are the sane ones, but we are minority members of an insane race. Therefore, we must segregate ourselves from the insanity to the extent possible, and try to then breed up a new white race which is sane.
11861751801323067274WW, Scottish independence would be outstanding. Perhaps Scotland would be more likely to remain an ethnostate, as it would not have to suffer the UK's immigration policy (correct me if I'm wrong, but Scots are very leftwing wrt the economy, but are they necessarily multiculti as well?). What would Scotland's likely immigration policy be upon independence? At the same time, and again correct me if I err, England would be much better off ideologically. The Tories would become the natural governing party of the UK (what, btw, would happen to Wales and Ulster?), and perhaps that would open up some political space for English nationalists. Without Scotland idiotically chaining itself to the race traitors in Labour, I can't help but thinking the Tories would be pushed to the Right, including on immigration, national security, cultural issues (as well as economic ones). I'd like to hear more analysis from UK residents.
11863451801323090818Also, for how long would the Scots themselves tolerate an SNP govt going on an immigration binge, esp after the obvious disaster in England? The SNP leadership may themselves be good little PC wankers, but does that mean they would immediately seek to "Blairize" Scotland?
11879751801323252532<blockquote>I don’t have to tell you what you claim to be. You know as you’ve made the claims, and they’re recorded. (Richards)</blockquote> Pretend you're a man, and spell it out. I don't know what you're referring to.
11879851801323252796How come no one ever provides anything useful here? I don't need to hear the ruminations on Hitler or US history or whatnot, but I'd really appreciate some British natives speculating on what the <strong>current</strong> Scottish political climate portends re immigration policy post-independence. That would be educational for me. Is Salmond going to pull a "Blair/Neather", or what?
11866951801323154515<blockquote>@Leon Haller I’m surprised you haven’t figured out why I have editorial privilege here. It’s to piss off people like you [not what you claim to be].</blockquote> What do I claim to be?
11867151801323155308Foundation, Good work. Intellects are fine, but boots on the ground are better. I'm all in favor of developing the deepest foundation (no pun) for our cause, but in the end, it's only justifying intellectually what any healthy white man already knows instinctively (this goes just as much for my own work and approach as others'). It's sad how much the police everywhere seem to have deteriorated ideologically. Some might think this began in the 60s (and maybe it did to some extent), but I have an ex-LAPD friend who served in the 80s and 90s, and he claims that cops even then were still pretty hardcore, anti-black especially, anti-anarchist, generally pretty rightwing, understood, as one might expect, in the "law and order" sense. But starting seriously in the 90s attempts were made to indoctrinate the police (and military) into politically correct attitudes (in the 60s-80s the emphasis was more on 'understanding' and 'cultural sensitivity'). I think these indoctrination campaigns have succeeded to a dismaying extent (not to deny that there still are good, ideologically and attitudinally healthy men in the forces, but these no longer seem to dictate the general 'service culture').
11876251801323215291MR needs a better spam filter. Good luck to the Scots! What will be post-independence immigration policy? Answers, please.
11879551811323251718What I find maximally frightening is that this sort of thing is even news, let alone a prosecutorial matter. I've been drunk a few times and gone off on very public rants (admittedly and fortunately, pre-you tube and cell phone cameras) that were far more racist than anything Ms. West said (and even then they were far less racist than rants I've witnessed on several occasions in public by out of control groids). Usually these were at parties where I'd had enough (of some PC liberal crap), but sometimes they were in bars, and a few times in the street. Of course, in America you don't get arrested for telling someone to go home to their own country, or how tired you are of minorities and their shit folkways (so to speak). Britain is really a pathetic place.
11879651811323252426Posted on Diversitysucks blog: Diversity sucks! Endless tensions, absolutely not the slightest benefits (except for nonwhites who get to enjoy the benefits of white-built societies, institutions and nations). We whites are being erased from the planet. We are going to have to fight for a space in which we can live in accordance with our own folkways, our own nature. "Diversity" is a cult, the goal of which is white extinction. But, I assure you, a lot of whites are finally awakened to this truth, and we are getting angrier and angrier. We do not want diversity. We want our own homelands, for our people alone to live. And we are going to fight for them. The cause of white survival is THE sacred cause of our age. (I'm keeping my comments simple these days.)
11882051811323266934Is Britain hopelessly PC? From <em>Economist </em>comments to Bagehot columnist: Leon Haller Nov 25th 2011 12:26 GMT Nonsense! Immigration is literally destroying Britain. The survival of the real nation comes first! UK can have both national survival AND economic growth. The former is achieved by ending all immigration, deporting all illegal immigrants immediately, and gradually repatriating all non-Europeans foolishly allowed into UK in the first place. The latter is achieved by a massive return to real capitalism: privatisations, deregulation of every industry, ending all foreign aid and wars, keeping out of euro, exiting EU, elimination of all business taxation, abolition of Bank of England and return to 100% pound 'sterling', and maintenance of pro-private property police protections (eg, the orgy of looting over the summer should have been quelled with SAS snipers). We need to get very tough, very Old School Tory, very right-wing, or Britain is finished! Recommend 2 ReportPermalinkReply phebius in reply to Leon Haller Nov 25th 2011 14:47 GMT Leon Holler, more like, 'cause you are a scream! Recommend 1 ReportPermalinkReply Juan Ocazionez Nov 25th 2011 15:39 GMT Leon Haller,I voted for the COnservatives in the last election and I am still inclined to vote for them at the moment. <u>Getting non-Europeans to leave Britain would be daft. They've done so much to enrich us and contribute lots to Britain.</u> My mother was born in a completely diferent continent and culture. Would you advocate getting her to leave? Would my brothers and I have to leave as well, especially as some of us weren't born in Britain or would we be exempt since we're white? If that's the Tory Party you want then I won't be voting for that. I voted for a Conservative Party led by David Cameron. Recommend 3 ReportPermalinkReply guest-iijaawo in reply to Juan Ocazionez Nov 28th 2011 16:04 GMT Leon Haller is expressing mainstream conservative views. David Cameron is on the fringe of the party.
11885551811323299003Lurker, I know, but these were comments ... plus, it is intelligently written wrt many things, rather like the<em> Wall Street Journal</em>. Good publications, completely nutty on immigration. It does make one start to wonder about conspiracies and hidden agendas ...
11902251821323566081Interesting that I have been banned for racism from so many other sites, variously conservative, Christian and libertarian. I tell the truth about race, and persons can't handle it. There is something wrong with whites, seemingly of all backgrounds and persuasions. On the other hand, it's interesting that here a faction (invariably composed of the less intelligent, if not deeply mentally disturbed), also wants to see me banned, perhaps because I'm insufficiently anti-Semitic (though a Zionist would surely disagree), or because I think persons should criticize economic structures or social trends from a position of actual understanding, as opposed to ideology. To those who wish me banned, who admittedly aren't very bright, even to the extent of attending to and grasping what I actually say, I have to ask, why. Nothing you say will alter anything I have to say, but I ask in an anthropological spirit. I'm curious about the type of person led to WN (esp in Britain, as they seem to dislike me more than others, with exceptions like NSM Jimmy Marr and money crank JRichards). Anyone with the slightest psychic ties to the ideological mainstream would regard my racial traditionalism (or "biological Occidentalism", as I think of it) as raging racism. Many of my comments are far more extreme than those of the majority of those wishing to ban me. It's all very strange. I think the answer was inadvertently stated by GW. UK Nationalists seem to dislike the free market (which has not generally been something I've noticed at the race-realist conferences I've attended in the US; Jared Taylor has called himself an economic libertarian in person to me) - which then gets translated into hostility towards even those of us who insist on the truths of economics. Ditto for Christianity. I never realized the deep undercurrent of hostility among nationalists towards the historic faith. This is interesting as some leading nationalists, such as Enoch Powell and David Duke, have publicly professed themselves Christians (others, like Revilo Oliver, were atheists and anti-Christians). In the US, Christian conservatives are far more likely to be anti-immigration and miscegenation than those calling themselves secular. All very strange. Anyway, little Ms. Helvena, I'm not so sure a plebiscite voting to ban me would run to your favor. After all, I'm one of the minority who has something to say, and who can say it properly, unlike so many of the 'lessers' like yourself. Generally, a proper person for banning would be one who attacks others personally, while contributing nothing intellectually. Sounds familiar?
11900451821323529507http://www.economist.com/node/21541388 <blockquote>The world today is better placed to cope with disaster than it was in the 1930s. Then, most large economies were on the gold standard [nb: not a perfectly pure one]. Today, the euro zone represents less than 15% of world output. In developed countries unemployment, scourge though it is, does not lead to utter destitution as it did in the 1930s. Then, the world lacked a global leader; today, America is probably still up to the job of co-ordinating disaster response in troubled times [nb: really?]. International institutions are much stronger, and democracy is more firmly entrenched. Even so, prolonged economic weakness is contributing to a broad rethinking of the value of liberal capitalism. Countries scrapping for scarce demand are now intervening in currency markets—the Swiss are fed up with their franc appreciating against the euro. America’s Senate has sought to punish China for currency manipulation with tariffs. <strong>Within Europe the turmoil of the euro crisis is encouraging ugly nationalists, some of them racist.</strong> Their extremism is mild when compared with the continent-wrecking horrors of Nazism, but that hardly makes it welcome.</blockquote> A lot of bad (non-Austrian) monetary economics throughout the larger article, but the end is of interest. I wonder what use nationalists across Europe will be able to make of a real shock viz scapegoating (and prompting removal) of nonwhite immigrants?
11900551821323530457DT article is horrifying: <blockquote> <em>it is gross immigration that matters. Last year, this stood at 575,000 and it has been running at more than half a million since 2004. Some are British people returning home but four fifths are non-UK nationals. At the same time, the number of foreign nationals going back to their homelands in 2010 declined to around 185,000; so the annual addition to the country’s foreign-born population is about 250,000 – by far the largest influx of overseas citizens in our history. Moreover, nearly 200,000 non-EU immigrants obtained British citizenship last year and the number granted settlement – a precursor to a full passport - grew to a record 241,000. Many of these are families rather than students or unattached workers: one child in four is now born to a mother from outside the UK.</em></blockquote> These numbers may proportionally worse than in US. I have long advocated a single-issue anti-immigration party for UK. Could Cameron just stand up and say END ALL IMMIGRATION - and survive in Parliament?
11900251821323524633I'm sure Cameron is just another pseudo-conservative, but what precisely do you expect him to do? Supposing he were a secret Powellite - how would he proceed? make a big stink about immigration, perhaps? Not being British, I'm not sure where people are ideologically. <em>The Economist</em> reported that a third of Brits polled during last summer's wildings thought the police should use live ammunition to quell the looters. That seems to be a good sign. On the other hand, how widespread is support for Emma West? How many persons now see Britain as a multicultural country? In America it is a huge majority (that sees America that way) - even among whites. My point is to wonder to what extent Cameron could simply come out as Enoch Powell (not that Powell was perfect on nationalist issues, either) and survive in office for very long. How much nationalist sentiment is there? Is it fair to castigate Cameron because he maintains a low nationalist profile - esp insofar as there are other issues besides racial ones that he must attend to, and nationalist concerns don't seem to be uppermost among even Tories? The fair test is whether he moves things deliberately in a bad direction. GW Bush actively supported mass nonwhite immigration, and tried repeatedly to shove an amnesty for illegals down people's throats. Those actions disqualify him from being honored for any of his positive accomplishments (which were very few -like the tax cuts). Has Cameron done things to worsen white EGI in the UK?
11899651821323513907<blockquote>In this respect globalisation presents a particular challenge. It continues to exercise its baleful influence upon us (GW)</blockquote> What exactly does this mean? What would you have Britain do wrt globalisation? What can it do, esp in the new pseudo-austerity (I would like to see real austerity, in UK and US)? I say good for Cameron. I liked what he stressed in an interview I saw: staying out of the euro (not a tough call anymore); UK's independence on setting borders policy; and treating "Europe" more as a common market, and not as a political integrationist project. My respect for him, not previously high, has increased a bit. <blockquote>turning his back on national interest as every other British Prime Minister has, finally, over the last thirty-five years.(GW)</blockquote> Utter rot, of course - though if one graciously exempts the only decent PM postwar, the woman who saved Britain from Labour installed communism, depressingly true. Incidentally, in the interview I saw, Cameron appears more intelligent than I had hitherto given him credit for being. Cameron is no Enoch or even Thatcher, but you are still damn lucky to have him, as against the alternatives. Push to get UK out of EU; encourage sovereignty for Scotland (and Wales - maybe Ulster would then demand it, too?); and then England just might have a chance to elect some nationalists, and save itself. I think if I were English, I would be an English ethnonationalist and secessionist (and WN, too, of course). Along with Tory capitalist, and Christian traditionalist of course.
11900651821323530976I do however think only violent revolution will now be sufficient to save most of Europe (or else fascist takeovers - but that would amount to the same thing; I mean that Europe may not be salvageable through democratic means, properly passed legislation, etc). The purpose of nationalists and their parties is to prepare the groundwork for this: first, by trying to delay or lessen the continuing immigration invasions; and second, by providing the public justifications or national 'mythologies' necessary as intellectual 'conditioning' so the native populations come to accept the need for violent patriotic measures of national salvation (something which at present is not remotely the case).
11903851821323590994<blockquote>I don’t want Haller banned but there isn’t enough room for both of us so someone please email me when he goes back to where he came from. (danielj)</blockquote> Too bad you feel that way, Daniel, but, with lulls due to work and school issues, I'm not going anywhere until such time as I am banned. On that note, a tip of the hat to GW for being a gentleman in the face of pathetic louts who truly have <strong>nothing</strong> to say. Where is the evidence of any worthwhile contribution by the likes of aging idiot "dc", or gynopropagandist "Helvena"? Show me a <em>single</em> intelligent, erudite comment from either of these utter fools. I will exempt Lister from the "idiot" category, though he is much less intelligent than he apparently thinks he is (I would love to read any non-scientific academic or journalistic article or book by this chap, if he has any available on the internet (or, for sale); note a superficial search finds nothing); certainly, vastly less knowledgeable, at least outside of his specific academic specialty, on which I can venture no opinion (and, Graham, throwing around ill-(or worse, self-) defined postmodernist or Continental verbiage doesn't count for much with those of us taught to honor intellectual and lexical precision); and he is exemplary in deliberately misstating my positions, creating 'straw men' of them that he can more easily knock down than anything I have actually said. (Oh and GL, please note that the disrespectful back and forth began with you, not me - sometime early this year, I believe ... perhaps around the time I started discussing White Zion - a perfectly serious scenario, hardly unique to me, whether you agree with it or not. I am invariably fair minded and courteous to those who behave similarly towards me.) Incidentally, I did not discover MR on my own. I rarely scroll through the WN blogosphere in my free time, and I have never been big on commenting on WN sites. I find it more useful to 'spread the word' on non-nationalist rightist-oriented sites, and I prefer that type of intellectual sparring. A large number of persons (sadly, virtually none of whom any longer seems to write here at MR, with the possible exceptions of Captainchaos and Guessedworker himself (though I cannot recall precisely if they encouraged my visiting MR, so I may be wrong)) <em><strong>invited</strong></em> me to come here and contribute - which was certainly before the appearance of Lister and JRichards, and perhaps others. After getting banned at both <em>takimag</em> and <em>Chronicles</em> (among other places), I did start commenting at MR. Initially, and for some considerable time thereafter, my presence seemed to be mostly appreciated. [Note, too, that on a couple of occasions some years ago, GW asked if I should like to post formal pieces, instead of only extensive comments.] I have enjoyed this site, despite its very considerable deterioration in 2011, mainly because there used to be a wide number of intelligent (eg, among others, Notus Wind) and/or fun and interesting (eg, among others, Fred Scrooby) persons regularly contributing here. Most of these better sorts are now gone, or appear at best infrequently. Also, I like MR because GW edits with an appropriately light hand (as Soren Renner once stated), as well as, perhaps of greatest importance to me, that posted comments appear instantly, and thus real conversations can occur. I also like the simple but effective layout. What I do find bewildering is why those who dislike my world-view don;t simply ignore my comments. There are regulars here who do wish to engage with me; why not leave matters at that? I suspect the answer is quite the same as it would be for more PC sites. Despite claims concerning my low IQ, lack of erudition, limited education (hehe hahaha)(Graham, what precisely is your education? make it up if you must, but do tell something - Eton/Harrow?, Oxbridge?, etc), and so forth, in reality there is a dim sense even among the self-satisfied morons that in fact my ideological positions are extremely powerful, or, at the very, very least, that they are attuned to the views of many persons throughout our Western societies, though especially in America (but not only America). My attempt to extract and unify the truths from, variously, Christianity, nationalism, sociobiology, Western history, free market economics, and modern politics, precisely because it is synthetic, represents something anathema to ideological purists (sorry, Graham, but I am in fact far less ideological than you are, though you have proved yourself repeatedly incapable of recognizing that fact; part of your ideology is unthinking dismissal of Christianity - which is understandable, if regrettable - as well as the possibility that the great economists, especially Mises, actually have some things to teach you - which is even more contemptible, as there is no supernaturalism - only relentless logic - in Mises). Christians don;t want their "brotherhood of manism" challenged by Darwinian truths. Libertarian fetishists of the allegedly ontologically autonomous, rights-bearing individual - something I have NEVER NEVER NEVER claimed to uphold, here or elsewhere, so be a fairminded chap and stop attributing that view to me - don;t want to face ecological or tribalist challenges; and WNs don't want to hear an historically literate person calling attention to the cold fact that The Jews are not primarily responsible for all the white race's problems, or the entirety (or even majority) of current structures and power relations; or that God exists, and thus that white racial options for survival have moral limits; or even (and this I've only ever experienced among MR-WNs) that free markets work better in enhancing economic prosperity than any other form of economic organization, and that this superiority is part of the very nature of reality. As someone who is genuinely openminded, and is always seeking out the method and moral justifications for white/Western preservation, I find such closed-mindedness extremely tiresome. But I will continue to struggle on, until my views are the majority (or until, as Pat Buchanan likes to say, "the Lord Himself calls me home").
11904151821323600069<blockquote>It just doesn’t matter Leon. There are more important things. (danielj)</blockquote> Not if you have to struggle to meet basic needs - one of which, at least for me, is having a comfortable level of savings or investment such that I don't have to live day to day in a state of anxiety re the future. I don't like living in a world where the wealth I accumulate through hard and fair work is always at the mercy of whatever socialistic parasites happen to get elected, or, in the case of the Federal Reserve and its current inflationist thievery, appointed, or else at the mercy of violent or greedy savages and aliens I never wanted to be integrated with, or have imported into my country. A reasonable degree of security of wealth and property was one of the supreme achievements of Western, and especially, Anglo-Saxon civilization, as well as sources of its prosperity and ultimately racial/civilizational power, and it must be defended at all costs - against nationalist ignoramuses as well as greedy leftists.
11904251821323600174danielj, Good luck however with your website. What will its focus be? And what kinds of respondents are you hoping to attract?
11904651821323613204danielj, I'm not opposed to children, obviously. I'd like to have a couple. But not everyone is lucky in love, especially in the "Bluest" areas (LA and SF) of blue-state CA. I've dated many women, but none were ever adequate in intellect, personality, character or politics for me to want to commit for life to them. I'm willing to troll lower on physical appearance, too, if that is what it takes to find a decent person (though, of course, I'm not going to sacrifice hotness for second rate minds or personalities or, worst of all ... PC liberal politics). Where in LA are all the nice, respectful, white, Catholic (or at least secular non-Jewish), intelligent, conservative, non-money grubbing women? If they be legion, why do I never come across any specimens? "Judge not" and all that. From the facts that I'm over 40 (hardly "<em>late </em>middle age", Graham - does that mean GW or Jimmy Marr are old geezers? ... with white men routinely, healthily living into their 80s-90s now, 50 is the "new 40" anyway ...), unmarried, and childless, really nothing much can be fairly inferred. My hatred of socialism is deep and ancestral. Best not to go there with me. (Of course, this does not mean I oppose sacrifices for the common good. But such should be for that which is truly common - like national defense, or environmental preservation - and not a smokescreen for egalitarian leveling, which is the essence of socialism.) I'd like to see some stuff by this legendary Wintermute, whom I've never read. I hope you smoke him out, and get him writing (assuming he's not insufferable like the seemingly departed James Bowery, or the late NeoNietzsche, or a cranky one-note like JRichards). As for me, what I said above notwithstanding, my commenting here is getting scarcer, and will continue to be so. I'm much busier now than in the recent past, and have to adjust my time accordingly. But I will not let louts silence me, so expect occasional "game" appearances ...
11905151821323617588<blockquote>So only leftists are greedy eh? Are you sure? (Lister)</blockquote> Did I say <em>only</em> leftists are greedy? Is that how you interpret a reference to 'leftist greed' in the context of a condemnation of socialism? Not much for logic, are you? And yes, there is something quite a bit more morally repulsive in those who would use state power to loot the justly acquired property of others, than in persons who do not so utilize state coercion, but merely have an inordinate fondness for wealth. And that view perfectly accords with Catholic traditionalist thinking. As Aquinas recognized, and Augustine before him, the State may not do what is forbidden to the individual. Publicly organized theft is rightly condemned alongside the private mugger. (I grant you that a lot of Catholics, as well as other Christians, are deeply confused on these matters.) Of course, the implication that the Goldman people are <em>not</em> leftists shows factual (as against the more usual interpretive) ignorance. Seemed to have hit a nerve with Lister, though, what? Telling, yes?
11905251821323617691btw, wasn't this 'genius' Wintermute outed as an FBI informant or something?
11905351821323619031I was looking for something I wrote, so I googled myself. Here is something I wrote in October (actually, not only had I forgotten this, I post so many comments so quickly in so many places, I still don't remember writing this - though I completely agree with all points): <blockquote><em>This article [nb: about how we're all doomed, or some such] is ludicrous. Yes, things are bad and getting worse. But some of the problems are eminently correctable - if and only if we had the right type of, yes, CONSERVATIVE political leadership. We are being destroyed in the US due to : 1. Third World immigration 'diversity' (do I have to explain this?) 2. badly behaved domestic diversity 3. Government at all levels spending vastly too much money 4. Too much economy-killing government regulation of business 5. the dysgenic trend (US IQ has been falling for a century). There are other problems, but there are solutions, too. For starters: Stop immigration. End affirmative action. Hang violent criminals en masse (and make every convict do productive and hard physical labor, like road repair - bring back the chain gang). Legalize the right to carry firearms. End foreign non-security aid. Militarily seal the border with Mexico. Abolish the Fed and return to a 100% gold dollar. Radically privatize and downsize govt at al levels. Radical tax simplification. Radical deregulation of economy. End harassment of energy producers. Restrict job-killing EPA. End animal rights nonsense. Raise age of eligibility for SS and Medicare to 70, in line with longevity increases. Revamp public schooling, to focus relentlessly on the basics - reading and math. Recognize that most people DO NOT BELONG IN COLLEGE. Encourage high school vocational training for the unintelligent (bottom 90%) instead. End welfare for non-disabled. Bring back loud, public support for traditional morality and mentality (whose foundation is criminal punishment). We need to get seriously rightwing - economically libertarian, socially authoritarian - and fast.</em> Posted by: Leon Haller | 10/26/2011 at 09:00 PM</blockquote> Now look at the far-leftist (and totally inapposite) responses I get: <code>Leon Haller, you are a fascist, please F-O-&-D. Everything you believe in will lead to a dead, cratered, and smoking world filled with miserable and possibly violently revolting people. Posted by: Mulligan | 10/27/2011 at 12:01 AM Leon Haller obviously considers himself in the 10%. Not for him hanging, the chain gaing, nor dead end jobs, but one who owns and wields the whip hand. Horrary, we're saved. PS Do us 90% get to wear medieval sack clothe? Will work houses have cold running water, or is that being too soft on the unworthy? Posted by: raintonite | 10/27/2011 at 03:26 AM</code> Now here's the thing. What I wrote would have been completely unexceptionable to whites across the European world a century ago. Indeed, it would have been considered dangerously left-liberal by Americans (SS? Medicare? welfare? concepts rightly decried as communist pre-New Deal). And yet I wonder how much <em><strong>dis</strong></em>agreement my recommendations would generate here, among the so-called 'Far Right'? There is nothing so infuriating and bizarre as racists who are not rightists (except rightists who are not racists).
11909551821323686590<strong>@Lister</strong> <blockquote>The more subtle point is that the market is not the measure of all things for any remotely civilised or intelligent person who is being honest.(Lister)</blockquote> Just for the record: is it your contention that I have ever made the counterclaim (that the market<em><strong> is</strong> </em>the measure of all worth)? I'd like to respond to all the outrages, but no time at the moment. [I hope and trust GW won't let the jackals ban me until at least I have offered my <em>apologia</em>. ]
11911451821323714844Guest Lurker @ 57, Yeah, Newport's still OK demographically. I grew up there. Parents are still there. Some richer Asians are starting to move in, mostly Orientals (though my dad has seen some kind of raghead - Sikh? - now living about a quarter mile from them, but he drives a big benz or something). Not like Irvine, where I have my cookie-cutter home, with my girlfriend but not me in it. She fits in better than I do I think (she's half Asian). I hear ya re the women. Maybe I should have gotten married in the early 90s, but I was still too young (and had no interest in settling down then). That's when a lot of the white girls I knew growing up got hitched (at least the stable and hot ones; the unstable and hot have been partying with me and old friends for two decades non-stop, some making desperation marriages over the past 5 years; I never paid attention to the non-hotties, except to be polite). The world has changed in recent decades. I mean our world, whiteyland. Sure, LA (and the whole Socal, according to my parents; Dad fought in the Pacific (not crazy about my seeing a part-Jap girl), stayed out here postwar) has been utterly overrun by race aliens and savages. I can truly imagine being a Boer. OC is very different from when I was a kid in the 70s, too (Newport's gotta be among the last holdouts; I think Beverly is still pretty white (OK, Jewish - but no shortage of them in Newport, either)). But what has changed for me so noticeably (and leads me to White Zion musings) is the<strong> attitudes among whites themselves</strong>. I've always been the leading racialist among my friends. And yes, we had pre-PC crap shoved down our throats even in schools in the 70s (but not nearly to the extent today; I have friends with kids, and I am horrified at the sheer ubiquity of references to Martin Luther King, Jr, that pervades their worlds, schoolwork, etc - so what do the critics of White Zion think we'll be saying in 20 or 30 years?). But among my friends, we were all, at least by today's standards, racists. We did not think ghetto groids were cool (maybe in the 70s-early 80s some people liked Jimi Hendrix and OJ Simpson and Eddie Murphy, but that was really it), and we had total contempt for Asians and Mexicans. We certainly didn't view them as "Americans". Those were the years of the "preppies", and that's really my background. LA/OC were still cool in the early 80s, even if my dad correctly thought the place was becoming a shithole. Crime was exploding (since the 60s, but then we had the crack 'epidemic' in my time), but even so - and this is my point - whites, while not exactly racist, let alone WN, still thought of themselves as white, as not interchangeable with minorities. Even into the 80s, you might fuck a minority girl (only sluts or losers would date nonwhite guys; I recall a party in I think Huntington Beach (I was so wasted, because not driving) when I was home from boarding school over Christmas '83, in which two white chicks got into an actual bare-knuckles catfight because one had accused the other of having a "Chink" boyfriend ... you can't make this shit up ... would be a perfect scene for a time capsule Hollywood teen flick ... can you imagine that happening today? I see white chicks publicly making out with their greasy chink boyfriends on my old Veteran Ave where I lived at one time), but only a loser would marry one. And I do not recall ever getting upbraided for my racism by other whites (that happened at my Ivy university later in the 80s, but never among my 'homies', including persons who just didn't ever think about race systematically as we do). That's all changed (except among my hardcore friends in the 40s crowd - and some of the general age group voted Obama! - something those same people would not have done in the 80s). Each 5 year younger white female cohort is noticeably more PC than its predecessor. I've been dating a long time, not to mention observing behavior, esp around race. White girls today are just much shittier human beings than they used to be (oh, and get my dad started!! we REALLY missed out on the good old days ...). Maybe not in less 'advanced' rural areas, but where we are, it's Ground Zero of race degeneracy. What guys like you and me really need (I think increasingly throughout the whole urban US, not just LA) is a kind of organization/club centered around networking and socializing for our kind. I don't necessarily mean WN (you can always go sieg heiling with Jimmy Marr's crew), but something for non-PC whites, ordinarily conservative whites who may not be 'haters' or even ideologues, but who are racially normal as we would define it. People who want a place to be traditionally white - GW might say "to be ourselves" (though he would say it with far more obscure and obscurantist verbiage) - without having to genuflect before 'diversity'. I once belonged to a social group like that, for quite a while actually, which was intentionally white, but not political. (I left when I got too old for it; it was for the 20s-/mid-30s crowd.) I have a vague idea for something like this, which will become more necessary as America continues its diversification, and whites their attendant social atomization. Anyway, all I'm saying is that the nuptial problems we face are worse than at any time probably in history (unless you were a gold miner in the late 19th cent. Yukon, though then it was just ratios, not attitudes). As against my dad's day, we have to deal with poaching (white chicks hooking up with aliens), declining numbers of whites, feminism raising expectations (plus making girls independent), higher (minority caused) living costs putting a greater premium on wealthy men, to the detriment of the majority - and the crappy, nauseating PC attitudes of so many white girls themselves. Plus, the worst of all: I cannot prove this academically (at least, I have no research), but I have the distinct impression that white women just don't have much respect for white men anymore. I have really noticed a change over the years (and I'm not my dad's age!! I still look, feel and live young; my dad has lived through the collapse of America, as he puts it - never "white America" - just "America"). It's like a white guy is 'yesterday's news', not exciting, definitely not 'hip' (unless he's a goofball faggot who is hip). Why have I dated so many nonwhites in recent years (or white foreign born)? Because I wanted to? Because my looks have declined? They have, but that's not it. It's because white women in urban areas are not psychologically attractive. They possess female looks, but not feminine virtues. And I find it hard to stomach PC shit from the mouth of an otherwise disrespectful, unappreciative, often celebrity-obsessed white cunt. At least my Iranian, my Russian, my (very secular) Hindu, my Brazilian - they thought it was <em><strong>The Shit</strong></em> to be dating a tall, confident, Nordic American man, with good clothes, car, etc. When do I get that from a 30-something white woman? They act like they're favoring me by <em>allowing</em> me to drop bills on them, while talking about "Barack", and how much they hated growing up in Middle America. It is not an easy thing, being even just a conservative (let alone WN), in LA - or, pretty soon, America.
11910751821323707585That's it. I was just writing a long comment, including a very lengthy paragraph answering Richards' request for my justification for the Austrian theory of commodity money - and I lost it somehow. can the admin retrieve what I was just working on? I cant fucking beliebve this. what a ficking waste!! bye
11910951821323709205Richards, Make you a deal. I am sick over what I just lost. Although I was writing quickly, I liked how it was coming together, dealing with you on money, Silver on Angus Madison, Graham a bit on his ludicrous misrepresentations. I have not the time to rewrite it. In fact, I really don't have any time for blogging, and should not be doing it. I get sucked in too easily. I'm busier now than in the recent past. You mentioned a special (trash) file. Can you go through MR somehow (I mean do you have the program to do this automatically, not would you troll through back posts yourself), and make copies of all my past comments over several years, and put them in one Haller file, as you've threatened/promised? I could then easily copy all of them to my own computer. If you could/would do this, and leave the Haller file up for a while (I'm super busy now), I will cease commenting here at MR immediately (except I would like to offer a few observations directed to Silver and Lister, and perhaps to a couple of others). Mind you, I do not give my permission for my past comments to be removed from their present locations (GW, please do not allow this to happen). If you lack the means to do this, then please refrain from removing any of my comments, as I will scroll through past posts myself over the holidays, extracting and copying what I deem worthy of saving. I'm going to be involved with another website devoted to specifically American nationalist issues at some point in 2012, when the persons I know doing this finally get their site up. Blogging here for me is not leading to anything productive. It is simply a hobby, and I can no longer afford to engage in idle activities.