|
|
Who Burns First: England or U.S?
Predictably, as Mr. Auster comments, Steyn entirely misdiagnoses the reasons for our decline; and there is disagreement on another matter: it is the U.S. which is doomed, Britain shall survive. Here’s the case:
English* institutions, though now horrifically mutilated, are part of the soul and soil of the English or British ‘thing’. Whether this intangible ‘thing’ is a Kingdom, as she is now; a Republic, as she was for a short time under Cromwell; or a ‘thing’ which lived in the woodlands of Arthurian legends, or her status as Roman province it matters not. Her language is another such a ‘thing’ being bound to that locality. America has no such complexity or depth, even the continued use of the English language is in question. If the folks of the British Isles can muster their strengths they can forestall the doom which shall, excepting a miracle, strike the United States. For the folk of the British Isles (which I have unfairly blended and defined) have a conception - currently submerged - of themselves as something other than or beyond identification with the state. If the U.S. constitution was burned and the government dissolved what would it mean to be an American? What would we defend? True our founders were part of the English ‘thing’, but the American people and their governing system are at least one full step removed from the English ‘thing’. Unlike the English we are the product of a calculated political revolution, and all revolutions are subject to counter-revolution. Importantly, the raison d’être of America is solely based in the Enlightenment; and this Enlightenment has become a noose around our necks, the knot of which being the death-wish called equality. [1] The English and the other folk of the British Isles also suffer from the Enlightenment platitudes. Perhaps the cancer of ‘progress’ is more advanced there, than here, yet they can reach beyond 1776 to other sources of strength, if they can only muster that latent strength. We have no other well springs. We were becoming an organic society, like that in England, but two disastrous events intervened: World War I and the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. World War I ended the tradition of isolation which saved us from foreign intrigues; the war also bloated the size of government, to which it has never returned. Later the 1965 Immigration Act forever denied us a clear understanding of America as a ‘thing’ of European expression. Post 1965 immigration has denied to us a commonality or unity, and when combined with an undisciplined government, the immigrant invaders and their masters, can foist their alien notions upon us. After WWII we had a second chance to solidify our culture around a positive mythology built on the victory, instead we squandered it on slaying monsters overseas, as in Vietnam and now Iraq. We had nearly achieved unity but along came the 1965 Immigration Act [2]. How Preposterous Contrast the position of the American with an Englishman, Welshman or Scot. The latter can, if he cares to think about it, refute a foreigner’s claim to be his kin [3]. How preposterous it is for some creature from Nigeria or Pakistan to call himself a Scotsman. But just who is an American? The Warrant to the Land The multiculturalists are having a turkey shoot with American culture and their arguments are made easier by our brief history. We have no metaphysical warrant to occupy the soil of North America, unlike the English of England, or the Welshman of Wales. Our warrant to the land is a bill of sale [4], collateralized by warfare; there is nothing illegitimate about such things, as long as we diligently assert our will over the land. Whereas the English have a historical claim to the land that reaches through the medieval period perhaps, even, into classical times. Importantly Americans only had time to put a thin veneer of civilization upon a barbarous land. [5] Now those we suppressed and enslaved in the name of Enlightenment are regrouping and seeking to return the favor – minus the idea of progress. The North American insurgency is comprised of Mexicans and Africans and they are rolling back the thin veneer of European civilization our fathers established – without a peep of protest. [6] Alas their wild independence will be short lived. They lack even the capacity to govern even themselves. After turning America into Haiti: burning the cities, looting the treasury, and raping our women nothing will be left. Who rules North America after the White man? Surely it shall be the plaything of foreign powers e.g. China, India, and Latin America, Europe being too hobbled to play the power game. Perhaps Murray’s ‘cognitive elite’ will emerge unscathed, making a profit from the destruction itself? Perhaps they may even call themselves American? We do have a foreshadowing of things to come; both S. Africa and Zimbabwe demonstrate what happens when whites are dispossessed. I don’t wish to mitigate the threat to the folk of the British Isles, especially England which seems to be ruled by degenerates and populated by Muslims, Africans, and Mulattoes. Yes, indeed, they face the same horrors as we Americans. If they survive this century the loss of North America will be a crippling blow, like losing an eye. [1] Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 , by Charles Murray [2] The Culture of Critique , by Kevin MacDonald. See the chapter on the 1965 Immigration Act. [3] My university history teacher, who specialized in 16th century English history told of an early encounter an Englishman had with an African. The Englishman, part of a sailing expedition, was so startled by the features of the African he wondered if the creature was a fellow human. [4] Most of the original 13 colonies were crown chartered business enterprises. After the revolution the Mississippi basin was purchased from France. The Gadsden Purchase acquired parts of the Southwest. The rest was taken by force. [5] The Coming Anarchy : Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War , by Robert D. Kaplan. See the Chapter on St. Louis, Mo., American Southwest. [6] T.S Eliot said the world would ‘end not with a bang but a whimper.’ *I must rely on these definitions and distinctions from an English acquaintance: English v. British: The immigration problem is an English problem. The vast majority of immigrants settle in England, especially London of course. “English” refers to a people a language and a country. All talk of souls and soils refers to the countries and peoples of the British Isles, but not Britain. Britain is a political state. State institutions like the BBC or the Army are British. British is a nationality with a passport. Moral institutions, on the other hand, like emotional discipline or an instinct for fairness are English. So these terms are given to various conflicting interpretations that, in the end, owe more to their organic arising - that is, they have to be judged individually - than to a generally applicable template or system of meaning. Same is true of Wales and Scotland. They are our brothers AT arms, though, not IN arms. Until the French or Germans get too difficult, when we bond. The Irish (ie not the Scots-Irish of Ulster) bond with none of us. Good luck with figuring it out, mate! Posted by leslie on Saturday, February 19, 2005 at 11:23 AM in Globalisation Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on February 19, 2005, 05:38 PM | # Geoff, You linked to an article on SA which has been posted at Amren. One of the thread commenters writes this, which I take to be the right attitude:- The first step for whites world wide is to exorcise the superstitions of liberalism out of their souls, primarily the white guilt factor, the second step is to rid themselves of the hateful profiteers of white guilt the white liberal themselves. Mr. Roodt writes a great story, very informative but completely passive, these kinds of articles and there are thousands of them produced every year ought to be labled our death chants. I would like to see writers who can introduce us to the problem(s), inform us as to why we should NOT accept this as the status quo, and in conclusion outline a better more productive path for our destinies. Posted by D M Simmons at 5:25 PM on February Mr Simmons is right. Let’s not any of us “burn”. 3
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 19, 2005, 05:58 PM | # > Let’s not any of us “burn” Sure. By restoring and seeking to understand our pre-Modern era ancestors we can re-invigorate the Western tradition. Reading de Benoist I’m convinced he is wrong: we must be a “backward looking” society: chauvanistic, judgemental, skeptical, particularist, confident, paternal, prejudiced. Though not without virtue and mercy. Explicit calls to racialism will never succeed in the West. We are too inquisitive. But we certainly can instill in our children a benign but pervasive sense of superiority and chauvanism, which will achieve much of the same goals as the so called racialists. Again… James Q. Wilson: The great achievement of Western culture since the Enlightenment is to make many of us peer over the wall and grant some respect to people outside it; the great failure of Western culture is to deny that walls are inevitable or important. Rebuild the walls! We must acknowledge nothing positive can be created in a degenerate age as ours. We must slough-off modernism with its emphasis on liberation, freedom, and anomie. In its place we must restore familial piety and paternalism, and hierarchy - not of course in the oriental sense but rather in the Western sense. As a conservative I would not scrap all of the last 500 years of modern life. But we must be very selective about what we allow into our bloodstream: ideology, methodology, psychology, and many aspects of the social sciences must be buried, for example. Practically speaking: strong men need to marry submissive females and have more babies. That would be a good start. Abolishing mass public education would also be a step towards real progress. 4
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 19, 2005, 06:48 PM | # Geoff, GW, A minor point: Auster’s criticism of Steyn is fair but incomplete. Steyn’s article is actually quite good - as far as it goes. I don’t think he misses the wood for the trees in its entirety. It is true that Steyn does not talk about the aliens within. But the truth is, the rot goes further than simply a presence of aliens within. His illustrations are quite good: comparing Bush with Hitler, for example. Also, setting free a terrorist because prison might cause him to become “depressed”. Those examples illustrate a disease. The disease is there. As they say, to cure a disease, you need to diagnose it first. Our first problem here is that it is impossible to even talk about the disease in the media. If it never gets talked about, the cure shall never come. The White Liberal is our greatest and gravest enemy. Living within the confines of a prosperous and free society, he is a parasite. He lives off us, lives among us and digs our graves as well. Without these insidious beings among us, the West’s problems would disappear almost overnight. Any “cure” must first deal with the White Liberal. This must start with a complete smashing of the Liberal tyranny in the media. And it is not as hard as it seems. Not many expected the Soviet Union to disappear overnight and the wall to suddenly become distant memory. It did. It did because these were artificial creations - they set men against their own, created artificial nations which had no basis in nature and created an artificial economic system that was completely hollow on the inside. The only thing that kept it together was tyranny. The white Liberal’s last hope is to use the law against us. To use the power of the state against us and shove us all off to Gulags for opening our mouths. The earlier commissars couldn’t last for ever and nither will these. 5
Posted by MD on February 19, 2005, 07:20 PM | # “Perhaps Murray’s ‘cognitive elite’ will emerge unscathed, making a profit from the destruction itself? Perhaps they may even call themselves American?” I think many of them already fail to identify as “American.” We could call them “transnational progressives,” or “stateless,” or whatever, but many condescend to those of simple American identification. This attitude, or construction of self, is viewed as sophisticated, and is nearly mandatory among certain crowds. Thus, Rifkin can, with a straight face, write a book extolling the economic and spiritual future of Europe, and compare it positively with the supposed decline of the US. It also explains their total disinterest in immigration; they view themselves, and their interests, as invulnerable, and therefore immigration is hardly a concern of theirs. It is merely one more arena in which to make some ideological points. Phil makes some very interesting points. The liberal elite is a thin crust on the hide of society, secure within itself, contemptuous of those on the other side of the pale. Through history, liberal elites have never demonstrated much backbone, and despite their bleating, they are all bark and no bite. This is becoming apparent with the emergence of new media, and the laughable response of the liberal elite to the competition: “It’s ruining the neighborhood!” Yes it is, and a good thing too. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 19, 2005, 07:48 PM | # “The earlier commissars couldn’t last forever and neither will these.” —Phil Peterson That’s right. Furthermore, the reigning liberal tyranny could collapse as abruptly as the reigning Eastern European Communist tyranny did, suddenly and completely without warning between 1989 and 1991, where one minute what were some of the world’s most entrenched strongmen and dictators seemed to have not a care in the world and the next they’d been hauled off to trials and prison or were found lying dead in some courtyard, simply machine-gunned. The question is, how much damage will the liberals have caused before they and their régimes of evil are overthrown? Geoff, that Amren article on South Africa which you linked was just a horror to read. All South African and Rhodesian whites should be offered immediate citizenship by the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand with all moving/travel expenses paid and full living-expense stipends on arrival here, help and financial grants for purchasing farms here if that was their livlihood there, etc., until they and their families can get established, however long it takes. It’s an outrage that we’re letting four million Mexican illegals walk across the border each year while totally ignoring these Boers and other white Southern African folk, Rhodesian as well as South African. That nothing like that’s even being talked about in the States is a heinous moral crime. Finally, note that liberals can’t even begin to account for these Negro violent crime rates (except to somehow blame it all on whites) because they deny the existence of racial differences, even denying races themselves of course. There just is no limit to how morally degraded liberals are. 7
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 19, 2005, 07:55 PM | # MD: If I disagree with you I do so respectfully. I think the manifestation of this transnational elite is reflection of the weakened state of the Western man, a devil’s bargain. By surrendering our traditions and pride we have been rewarded with food, circuses, entertainment, beer, sports. Unless there is a political or economic earthquake Western man will be watching TV in his underwear with a big spoonful of ice cream in his mouth when the barbarian’s mechanized caravan arrives at his door. Hell, he may even watch his own execution on CNN! 8
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 19, 2005, 07:59 PM | # Fred: I spoke to a most polite South African lady the other day. I carefully steered the conversation to current affairs in S. Africa. In summary what you just read she said is accurate. Futhermore, isn’t it odd there is A TOTAL NEWS BLACKOUT on this issue? Guessedworker: We need a South African blogger on MR. We got Aussies, English, and American. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on February 19, 2005, 08:16 PM | # Fred, I looked through all the SA blogs but only found people painting their world with optimism. I would be very interested to hear from an MR reader in SA just to get a local’s ideas on how to find the right individual. “Mail us Here” it says on the sidebar. 10
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 19, 2005, 08:52 PM | # GW, I have a white South African friend at work. He makes for an interesting case. He’s an interesting case. He ran away from the country more than ten years ago. His family is still stuck there and they live in their homes as though under seige. He admitted to running away because he was frightened by the skyrocketing crime rate. BUT, he spends countless man hours speaking against “racism”, says race doesn’t really exist, considers himself a “conservative”, prefers the borders open, doesn’t care if Europe has a white majority left in 50 years (or the US in 25 years), is pro-homosexuality, anti-Christian (though comes from a devout Christian family back home). The only explanation I can find is VANITY. Having moved into Liberal English circles, having accumulated wealth and found the good life, hypocrisy appears to be cheap (and you get a nice warm feeling in your heart too). He would consider all of us as reprehensible racists in need of an education and some enlightenment. Quite amazing. 11
Posted by Matra on February 19, 2005, 09:14 PM | # Phil, Is your white South African friend an Afrikaner or a Uitlander (English-speaking white)? The Uitlanders always considered themselves morally superior to Afrikaners and they totally dominated the white side of the anti-Apartheid movement. Of course, once Apartheid ended these Uitlanders were the ones more likely to flee the country. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 19, 2005, 11:01 PM | # “I have a white South African friend [whose] family is still stuck there and they live in their homes as though under seige. He admitted to running away [from S.A.] because he was frightened by the skyrocketing crime rate. BUT, he spends countless man hours speaking against ‘racism,’ says race doesn’t really exist, considers himself a ‘conservative,’ prefers the borders open, doesn’t care if Europe has a white majority left in 50 years (or the US in 25 years) [...] ([He] comes from a devout Christian family back home.) [...] He would consider all of us as reprehensible racists in need of an education and some enlightenment.” —Phil Peterson, 12:52 AM Needless to point out, of course, we have here the fundamental reason the white-Euro gentile world is in the post-60s fix it’s in. The reason is staring us in the face. That world is dying because of gentiles like this. The incompatible-immigration, open-borders-type damage inflicted on gentile society by the mischief of a certain segment of the Jewish Community is of course considerable and is to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. But it’s not a patch on the damage done by gentiles of this swine’s ilk. (I dare anyone here to deny that, if there were more perfect justice in this world, this insect would be sent packing right back to South Africa. I DARE them. Tens of thousands of white people have died HORRIFICALLY there because of their race, or been raped, maimed, robbed, etc., and he hasn’t the humanity even to acknowledge what’s going on, he who knows perfectly well, having fled that place for exactly that reason which he now disgustingly pretends doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist? If it doesn’t, he should go back on the first plane. Let GnXp blogger Randy MacDonald go with him, by the way.) 14
Posted by Effra on February 20, 2005, 01:13 PM | # A study of the Jewish contribution to English-speaking liberal progressivism in South Africa (not to mention Jews’ role in Communist subversion) would make interesting reading. No other imperial possession had so many rich and powerful Jews calling so many shots from so early on, when they dominated the Kaffir Circus. Harry Oppenheimer of De Beers functioned as a kind of George Soros figure during the apartheid era. 15
Posted by Svigor on February 20, 2005, 07:38 PM | # Fred: as I’ve said before, as a WN my hatred is reserved solely for the non-Jewish fifth column within the white race. Actually, it’s reserved for the liars who for personal gain make the destruction of western civilization possible, whether Jew or non-Jew, whatever their race. That’s why I accept the appellation of “racist” but not of “anti-Semite.” The fact that a wildly disproportionate share of these people are Jews does not make me an anti-Semite. John Sack, Norman Finkelstein, Israel Shahak, and Michael Levin are just a few of the Jews I love. 16
Posted by ben tillman on February 21, 2005, 08:56 PM | # Those examples illustrate a disease. The disease is there. As they say, to cure a disease, you need to diagnose it first. Our first problem here is that it is impossible to even talk about the disease in the media. If it never gets talked about, the cure shall never come. The White Liberal is our greatest and gravest enemy. Living within the confines of a prosperous and free society, he is a parasite. But from an evolutionary perspective, what is the upside for these liberals? How can this behavior be considered adaptive from their standpoint? The liberal’s actions, and thus the actions of our communities, serve the interests of another group. In the words of evolutionary biologist George C. Williams: As a general rule, a modern biologist seeing an animal doing something to benefit another assumes either that it is being manipulated by the other individual or that it is being subtly selfish. 17
Posted by democracyisabluff on January 06, 2008, 08:07 PM | # “By restoring and seeking to understand our pre-Modern era ancestors we can re-invigorate the Western tradition. Reading de Benoist I’m convinced he is wrong: we must be a “backward looking” society: chauvanistic, judgemental, skeptical, particularist, confident, paternal, prejudiced. Though not without virtue and mercy.” I couldn’t agree more! I’ve learnt to laugh at modernist madness and to follow common sense and instinct right in the face of this suicidal, ridiculous egalitarism. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 06, 2008, 08:38 PM | # Democracyisabluff, it sounds as if you have a good country. Which one is it? As for your comments about Christianity making race-replacement worse, you are right. It’s a major problem which I for one haven’t resolved in my own mind but am thinking about quite a bit. You’re right too to name the Catholics as the worst of the Christians in this regard. 19
Posted by democracyisabluff on January 07, 2008, 12:14 PM | # Fred Scrooby, I come from Italy, still largely a white nation rich of tradition and with strong roots. 20
Posted by Voice on January 07, 2008, 03:12 PM | # Thank God for Mediterraneans! My lot that is! I can only dream of this living in the the Great White Scandanivian North here in Minnesota..Gunnar Myrdal would feel right at home 21
Posted by torgrim on January 07, 2008, 09:04 PM | # Svigor; “Actually, ,it’s reserved for the liars who for personal gain make the destruction of Western Civilization possible, whether Jew or non-Jew, whatever their race.” I must say, it’s not a “Jew thing”, for me, either, it’s about anyone or anything that seeks my larger folk’s destruction. Be it conscious or otherwise. 22
Posted by torgrim on January 07, 2008, 09:52 PM | # Fred Scrooby; “As for your comments about Christianity making race-replacement worse, you are right. It’s a major problem which I for one haven’t resolved in my own mind but am thinking about quite a bit.”
The constant clamour by Hagee and his cohort, claiming that America is a Judeo-Christian Nation is false. Mr. Hagee’s form of Christianity is but a few generations here in America. Folk traditions such as mores concerning, oath, marriage, inheritance, social structure of community, as in the ancient Indo-European model of, noble, yeoman and serf were incorporated into Anglo-Saxon Common Law. Much of our traditions are embedded in Anglo-Saxon Common Law. There is much more of our traditions that survived and until recently we did not even have to think about those traditions we just lived them. The rural folk with their conservative traditions have been a store house of culture. The Church Law was added after the fact and is considered Civil Law. Christianity is relatively a newcomer to the people of Europe, especially in the north. 23
Posted by captainchaos on January 07, 2008, 10:46 PM | # America is going under? Please! When 170 million whites collectively decide to clean house these muds won’t stand a chance. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 08, 2008, 12:54 AM | # Torgrim, thanks for the reminder about that book. I’ve seen others recommend it as well. 25
Posted by democracyisabluff on January 08, 2008, 05:54 AM | # Hello Voice, by the way I wouldn’t classify myself as a Mediterranean. For some reason, most people outside Italy, even here in Northern Europe, think most Italians are dark haired with olive skin and dark eyes. Torgrim is right that Christianity has been adapted to European native culture. It has also evolved and adapted over time. 26
Posted by torgrim on January 08, 2008, 01:40 PM | # Excerpts from; “The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity” by Dr. James C. Russell. “To successfully develop a general model of religious transformation for the encounter of folk-religious societies with universalist religious movements, it is important, first, to avoid attributing preconceived Christian notions of religion to non-Christian religions,2 and second, to consider the categorization of religions into two types based upon fundamental structural differences. These two types may be described as “folk,” or “historical” religions.3 Indo-European religions may be placed in the category of folk religions, whereas, for the purpose of this inquiry, the category of universal religions will comprise Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and the mystery cults of Isis, Cybele, Sarapis, Mithras, Eleusis and Dionysus. By placing the Christianization of the Germanic peoples and the Germanization of Christianity within the larger context of the relationship between Indo-European folk religions and the universal religious movement that developed in their midst, one may carefully draw analogies regarding the development and expansion of Christianity. The sociohistorical analogies and hypotheses drawn from Indo-European studies and the sociology of religion, which are advanced in this chapter and elsewhere,are intended to contribute toward a deeper insight into the ideological and cultural transformations that accompanied Christianization efforts among the Germanic peoples. Also, in those areas where serious lacunae occur in the historical record, carefully drawn analogies and inferences from the fields of Indo-European studies and sociology of religion may a least provide a reasonable interpolation of what may have transpired, not, of course, insofar as actual historical events are concerned, but rather as regards ideological and cultural transformations. In this way, certain patterns derived from the study of the Indo-European religions of India, Persia, Greece, Rome, Scandinavia and Ireland may be carefully applied to the Indo-European religion of the Germanic peoples.4 When they pertain to the interaction of Indo-European religion with proto-Christian or early Christian religion, they may be particularly valuable. They are not intended to substitute for the historical record, but to supplement and enhance it, when it is beneficial and possible to do so. The responses to non-Christians to Christianization efforts have only recently become the focus of scholarly analysis. Claiming that Adolf von Harnack’s classic study, “The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries”, contains no reference “to a pagan to a pagan source and hardly a line indicating the least attempt to find out what non-Christians thought and believed,” Ramsay MacMullen comments that “to ignore the prior views of converts or to depict the Mission as operating on a clean slate is bound to strike an historian as very odd indeed.“6 The first step in studing the interaction between a folk-religious society and a universal religion is to acknowledge that the fundamental distinction between a folk religion and a universal religion is one of kind, and not merely of degree. The next step is to devise a comparative methodology that recognizes this distinction. Rudolf Otto’s pioneering approach to the study of religion through the study of that which manifests a sacred character in a particular culture is helpful in this regard.9 It appears that the primary sacral locus of most folk religions, including Indo-European religions, is the folk community itself. The sacrality of the community is expressed in ritual ceremonies that celebrate its relationsip with its own exclusive gods and that “promote a strong sense of in-group identification and loyalty.“10
One rejects biology, the other embraces it….no question about which one is more adaptive. When Europeans were seperated due to pre-industrial modes of travel, Christianity was probably not nearly the problem it has become, today. The univeralist, (revealed) religion, is also prone to those revealing the orthodoxy. Whereas, a folk religion is a decentralized, experencial, ceremonial, in-group, community. 27
Posted by D.E. Johnson on January 08, 2008, 11:53 PM | # Russell’s book explains - in a fashion - how a strong ethnic identity may respond in a positive adaptive manner to alien intrusions. It is not difficult to extrapolate from there just how and why the Germanic adaptive version of Christianity became undermined to the extent that we see today. Russell’s book should be required reading for any Western man, before he is considered qualified to criticize any religion at all. It’s all about EGI, at bottom. 28
Posted by democracyisabluff on January 09, 2008, 08:34 AM | # We all agree on the perverse effect of Christian religion on our kin. Therefore I think the core of the problem is this: the primary destabilizing factor in white hegemony was… technology! 29
Posted by ben tillman on January 09, 2008, 02:54 PM | # Therefore I think the core of the problem is this: the primary destabilizing factor in white hegemony was… technology! Exhibit A: television 30
Posted by rustymason on January 09, 2008, 06:02 PM | # Therefore I think the core of the problem is this: the primary destabilizing factor in white hegemony was… technology! Exhibit A: television Fargin’ A, Sonny Boy, right on all the way. Simple (not easy) solutions for those just now “waking up”: 1) Limit TV viewing and computer gaming to 30 minutes or less per day. 2) Homeschool your children (in the Classical style, if possible) 3) If you have no children, help teach in a homeschool co-op. Our children are our future. I’m appalled at the large percentage of White men who say this but do absolutely nothing about it. Even in homeschooling, men are largely absent. 4) Become active in your own community, even if it’s just the local homeowner’s association or water board. Join a folk dancing or foreign language group—something. You need to know what’s going on in real time and you need to be an example and contact point for others like you who are searching for real men with the same concerns. Get off your couch and into your neighborhood. 5) Make some goals for yourself and some promising children you know, such as getting 5 bright young men into law or medicine. More people are getting “the message.” Now those who know (dear readers) need to get physically busy in their own communities. All of the old institutions have been corrupted or contaminated and new ones must be constructed from the ground up. This sounds so obvious, but all around me I see dispair and inaction. If you know the problems and do nothing about them, then you’re no better than the cattle who don’t even know. Too many men want large, sweeping changes. They are going to be very disappointed. If the entire system is going to crash, then one man cannot stop it; don’t worry about “saving the world.” Simply (but not easily) be a part of the Remnant that survives and prospers in spite of it, and work to improve yourself, your family, and your own little corner of the world. 31
Posted by rustymason on January 09, 2008, 06:12 PM | # 1) Limit TV viewing and computer gaming to 30 minutes or less per day. Having only one TV and one computer helps enforce this rule. It’s cheaper, too. 6) Learn to shoot, hunt, garden, cook, and sail better than most people you know. You’ll attract more friends than you know what to do with. 32
Posted by ben tillman on January 09, 2008, 08:47 PM | # Rusty, it’s good to know you’re finding ways to make a difference. 33
Posted by torgrim on January 10, 2008, 02:40 AM | # Rusty Mason; “2. Homeschool your children. You need to know what’s going on in real time and you need to be an example and contact point for others like you who are searching for real men with the same concerns.” You are target locked, Rusty! Here is an example of just why we must be engaged at the local level…... http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=282505
34
Posted by democracyisabluff on January 10, 2008, 07:04 AM | # Luckily homeschooling is still allowed in the USA. Next entry: Gay gene or gay virus? Previous entry: When death comes nigh our dwelling |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. NHryasysyas commented in entry 'This thread business' on 02/09/12, 02:33 PM. (go) (view) Desmond Jones commented in entry 'Sunic interviews Fraser' on 02/09/12, 02:20 PM. (go) (view) MOB commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 02:17 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 02:12 PM. (go) (view) Helvena commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 01:27 PM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Sound principles of money, by Arthur Kitson' on 02/09/12, 01:26 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:44 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:16 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:04 PM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:54 AM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:45 AM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:19 AM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:18 AM. (go) (view) Michael commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 11:11 AM. (go) (view) Ron Trisner commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:10 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:51 AM. (go) (view) Michael commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:46 AM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:05 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 09:00 AM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:37 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:10 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:05 AM. (go) (view) Helvena commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:04 AM. (go) (view) Hyman commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 05:47 AM. (go) (view) Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 19, 2005, 12:14 PM | #
BTW, Steve Sailer has an interesting insight into African family patterns. Of course we are busily importing these folks into our land. Mother Africa keeps giving gifts:
The NYT finally tells some truth about Africa
The simplest explanation is because husband’s enjoy less certainty of paternity. That, not coincidentally, is the same reason there is so much AIDS—because African husbands are less likely to do what it takes to keep their wives sexually faithful, such as working hard to provide for them. So, they get cuckolded a lot. In turn, they don’t put much effort into providing for their wives’ children, since the odds that they are also their own children are not all that high.