|
|
Radio ChimeraThere is an exciting new show on our radio page: an interview with Kai Murros. I hope that you enjoy listening to it as much as I enjoyed its creation. Posted by Søren Renner on Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 02:12 PM in Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on March 31, 2007, 06:42 PM | # That was a very informative interview. Kai explains that presentation and principle are different things. But he also confirms their connectivity. His presentational Marxism is a figure for revolutionary principles. Kai, like Constantin I think, is camped closed to the anticipated point of action, where he can perhaps work with the unfolding of events, of history really. In other words, Constantin’s comment that “racialism is inseparable from socialism” is less a comment on socialism per se than on the exigencies of revolution. The reality, of course, is that racialism is not inseparable from socialism. It is inseparable from ethnocentricity - the understanding and application of ethnic interest. If we then ask what ethnocentricity is inseparable from, we get the answer: an evolutionarily adaptive collective way of life. Socialism might be a condition for revolution. That is something worth bearing in mind. But that isn’t what Constantin claimed. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on March 31, 2007, 06:58 PM | # James: If there is a good attack on individualism it must be founded upon the State of Nature. Yes, correct. It is perfectly possible to differentiate between individualisms on grounds of cost to ethnic solidarity. A society stabilised at the level of ethnic interest can afford individual interests to be pursued pretty freely. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2007, 07:33 PM | # Put it this way: 1) socialism can’t work without racialism; 2) racialism, if it be tried without at least partial restraint of unfettered free-wheeling capitalism along socialistic lines will sooner or later be thoroughly rooted out and eliminated by capitalism which cannot conceive of a reason to distinguish between races when it views all workers and employees equally as slaves, in principle. Unfettered capitalism will never support the racialist principle but will root it out as soon as its hand is free. Its hand must not be free if there’s to be hope of preserving the racialist principle. Neither slavery in Dixie nor apartheid in South Africa was a counterexample. Slavery in Dixie did not respect the racialist principle (which opposes the making of Negroes one-half of a Euro country’s inhabitants; in the case of SA, more than one-half) but was, in effect, very similar to the present importation of slave-wage Mexican scab labor to serve imagined near-term sectional or narrow economic benefit (slave-wage Bantu labor imported by Jewish diamond-and-gold mining interests in South Africa) at the surrounding nation’s longer-term peril. That’s why many Northern racialists passionately opposed slavery. I look forward to hearing the follow-up interview with Kai Murros which I think Soren said was planned. This whole interview series has been outstanding, a real treat! Soren and James are to be congratulated on a wonderful job! 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2007, 07:35 PM | #
Good point. 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2007, 07:45 PM | #
Another excellent point. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2007, 08:40 PM | # On the subject of the interviews, Constantin mentioned in his interview that he’d just recently visited Königsberg for the first time and, among other things, paid his respects at the tomb of Immanuel Kant. I hope he also sought out representatives of the tiny German community still living there after all the rest of the inhabitants of this ancient German nation-state (East Prussia, German for a thousand years, four times longer than the United States has existed) were snuffed out or sent fleeing for their lives to Germany exactly according to the Roosevelt-Stalin plan for the post-war “changes” to be wrought in Central Europe. Their community numbers around ten thousand if memory serves. I hope Constantin discussed his plans for making Königsberg (and the rest of the northern third of East Prussia currently under criminal Russian occupation) a free city and symbol of Imperivm Evropa to see what they thought of that idea. Several years ago Putin offered to hand Königsberg and the “Oblast” back to Berlin in exchange for cash, and Hans-Dietrich Genscher and the chancellor — Schimdt was it? — no it was the other guy, I can’t think of his name — actually turned Putin down!!! Genscher said, “If East Prussia is to come back to Germany it should be on its own, not us buying it back.” Can it be believed??? The moral criminality of what he did is just staggering beyond words! Kohl, was it? Helmut Kohl I think it was, that moral degenerate! 8
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 31, 2007, 09:01 PM | # Scroob, you’re right that capitalism must be subordinate, but I don’t know that this truth leads only to socialism. Consider ingroup morality; collectivism vs. the outgroup, individualism vis-a-vis the ingroup. The only way to protect western individualism is via this dual code. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2007, 10:13 PM | # I also think sending a MajorityRights.com “delegation” to the June conference in Moscow is an excellent idea. And I agree with Soren that “it” has already begun: the actual stirring-awake of our side has now taken place, our thinkers are roused out of their slumber, are watching carefully what’s going on and not liking what they see, our activists are getting suited up and planning serious engagement, and there’s a growing momentum on our side which is palpable and feels unstoppable while the other side, which peaked years ago and got its knife into our back while we were asleep, is stagnating or declining. Svy I see the point you are making and I agree it’s a valid one. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2007, 10:46 PM | # A new blog, RaceBlind.org, which started a week ago, posts the following mission statement:
11
Posted by arlette baldacchino on April 01, 2007, 09:00 AM | # A very good interview with far too many interesting points to raise in a short comment such as this. Kai Murros knows what he is talking about and despite being a great thinker and a well read man, has his feet firmly on the ground, with no delusions of grandeur. Hugely refreshing to hear the likes of Kai. Thanks again to Soren and Majority Right. A word of thanks also to Constantin for the introduction. 12
Posted by Question on April 01, 2007, 09:38 AM | # Although it may appear to be a “left-handed” compliment, it is sincere nonetheless: this interview was much better than I had expected, and Murros was considerably more reasonable that I expected as well. It may be that Soren is better when left to discuss what he wishes with the guest, without first asking the commentariat for prospective questions. Sticking to the important points also helps, rather than going on the more personal tangents, as in the CvH interview… I appreciated Murros’ emphasis on the practical. I particularly appreciated his endorsement of the “blood”, materialism and racial genetics, as against Evolian stupidity of “spiritual race.” “I also think sending a MajorityRights.com “delegation” to the June conference in Moscow is an excellent idea.” Indeed, if it comes to pass. Soren and Kai are correct that the system is doomed, the major point is whether we are doomed first. But the guys at gnxp are just whistling in the dark if they really believe the future is going to be a forever-growing technocrat’s paradise of Eurasian “cognitive elistists”, protected from thr black/hispanic underclass. When the system “goes to a lower level of complexity”, attitudes toward the gnxpers may reflect those shown by the Spartans toward the Persian army in the movie, “300.” One point: where are the troops for Kai’s postulated “revolutionary army” going to come from, given low native European birthrates and the demographic expansion of the aliens. Birthrate needs to be a key factor. 14
Posted by ben tillman on April 01, 2007, 01:01 PM | # Scroob, you’re right that capitalism must be subordinate, but I don’t know that this truth leads only to socialism. It depends on what we mean by “socialism”. 15
Posted by Billy Joe Daniels on April 01, 2007, 01:32 PM | # “I also think sending a MajorityRights.com “delegation” to the June conference in Moscow is an excellent idea.” [Fred Scrooby] This is a good idea, but I long to see the day when we send a delegation to Algeria to see how they did what they did. Assuming white liberation is to be managed by concentric rings of theoreticians, the innermost ring surely must be thinking about an Algerian Solution. 16
Posted by D.S. on April 01, 2007, 02:09 PM | # If Kai wishes to actually publish his book in English, have him contact me (via GuestWorker) ... I can at least give him some pointers and ideas for doing so. Another informative interview on M.R. 17
Posted by norman lowell on April 01, 2007, 02:14 PM | # Karl Murros is above the dichotomy of Left and Right. A synthesis of what is good in either. http://www.kolumbus.fi/aquilon/intindex.htm “There are not enough lamp posts for all the traitors”. “We are living in a chaotic system that is bound to collapse – And who will inherit the world, after the system’s collapse? The masses will beg to be led – Evola. Resurgence everywhere – spots, sparks, glowing embers of resistance. Regionalism not nationalism of the Nation States. Norman Lowell 18
Posted by Question on April 01, 2007, 04:36 PM | # Norman, quoting Willian Pierce and Julius Evola is not exactly an endorsement for your program. The more you distance yourself from lunatics, the better. 19
Posted by Guessedworker on April 01, 2007, 04:58 PM | # I agree with Constantin that one of the few good things about the E.U. The concept of Regionalism in the EU was pretty much kicked into touch when the German Lander, who had been big supporters of the idea, discovered that a strong Federal voice in Europe was more useful to them than their own little voices shouting in competition with dozens of others from 24 countries. 20
Posted by a Finn on April 02, 2007, 06:08 AM | # Having been in Finnish nationalist movement about 7 years and having seen everything there is to see, I haven’t heard in practically meaningful way anything about Kai Murros and his revolutionary program, or about a group associated with them. I have read his book in English through a link a nationalist once provided, but he was commented only shortly in conversation. I live in the same town as him and I know the area he is living in, so I am aware also of local events here. What strikes me as odd is the discrepancy between his world shattering revolution and it’s non existence in practice. It is said about fringe groups, that smaller they are and less power they have, the more enormous their visions and fantasies become. The way the world is chancing might mean there indeed is some kind of revolutionary war in the future. But the best way to prepare to ANY future situation is to start building our own communities, their functions and to influence the world as much as possible culturally, scientifically, economically and politically in practical ways. By the way, straight translation of Kai Murros to English is “probably rupture” or the surname could also be translated figuratively to “revolution”. It is possible that someone has that kind of name but it is very rare and that kind of names have only been taken by fervent socialists and communists. So it might be that it is not his real name. Trivial information. His book was published in Finland by Like -publisher. It is a communist-socialist-green company, that publishes mostly books that are politically parallel to it’s ideology and nothing against it. Despite it’s nationalistic and ethnic elements the book was published. I guess (supposing Kai Murros is honest in his ideology) there is at least two possible reasons for this: 1. They were so raptured and hypnotized by the books socialism and working class rhetoric, that the ethnic nationalist elements did not bother them. 2. They thought that it could serve as revolutionary guide to the internationalistic and cosmopolitan leftists, while at the same time they, if questioned about it in the media, could say the books exhortions to violence etc. are all the fault of ethnic nationalists, not them and they don’t condone anything like that. Remember this method. Some adaption of it you can use with your own liberals and leftists. Sidenote, Jussi Halla-aho’s article: 21
Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on April 02, 2007, 06:35 AM | # “I appreciated Murros’ emphasis on the practical. I particularly appreciated his endorsement of the “blood”, materialism and racial genetics, as against Evolian stupidity of ‘spiritual race.’” Indeed! I agree wholeheartedly!: http://www.ateney.ru/eng/eng016.htm#c Constantin von Hoffmeister RACIAL MATERIALISM Curzio Malaparte, THE VOLGA RISES IN EUROPE Julius Evola is not a role model for people that are serious about preserving the White race. If one wants to save the White race, one needs to adopt a staunch materialist outlook. Only through the thorough application of materialist principles can Europe be saved. Materialism dictates that spirituality stems from matter. Both Evola’s and Francis Parker Yockey’s notion of a “spiritual race” is therefore a contradiction in itself since race is matter and not spirit. A race may possess a higher or lower degree of spirituality but this does not change its physical make-up. Spirituality is a direct result of the workings of the brain which in its turn is a part of an organism that varies according to the race it belongs to. What good does it do if various non-Europeans possess “Aryan attributes” (whatever that might be) but are incapable of passing these on through procreation without diluting the European gene pool? The notion of a “spiritual race” is an abstract and meaningless, if not downright hostile to European preservation efforts, concept. Therefore, Dr. HT Hansen (who wrote the introduction to Evola’s MEN AMONG THE RUINS) is right when he argues that Evola espouses a peculiar brand of anti-racism through his peculiar “racial” theories. Actually, Evola seems not interested in any kind of racist theories per se but more in formulating an unnecessarily obfuscating concept of aristocracy that uses race as a pretext but is really more concerned with essentially universalist matters of hierarchy. Evola is a universal humanist because his theories postulate that a “spiritual race” is open to all members of “humanity.” Lest we forget that this supposedly global community has already been discredited (because of its non-existence) by serious racist thinkers. Finnish National Bolshevik (or maybe Racial Bolshevik would be more accurate) Kai Murros says, “One must understand the nation as a product of material forces in history - this is the cornerstone of the progressive nationalism and progressive socialism.” Murros is right when he argues that “progressive nationalism” (or racism) must be strictly materialist in its outlook. Only in this manner can any kind of historical success be achieved. After all, one has to remember that history itself is driven by the constant flux of dialectical materialism. Murros also argues that “[f]or practical reasons, metaphysics must always be subordinated to physics.” In a rude manner of speaking, mental masturbation should be secondary to real sex. One can theorize all one wants about the importance of “racial spirituality,” if the race does not produce children, then the race is doomed to die. Right now, fucking is more important than thinking. The luxury of metaphysics can only be afforded in a society that is content with itself and secure in its continuing existence. Nature has no will. Man has will. Aryan man has the Faustian will. Paganism is a dead-end street. Being is the key, not believing and/or worshipping. The gods die when the race (that created them) dies. The gods are not eternal. Old Paganism was a temporary manifestation of the Race’s mood at a particular time. The Race willed Paganism into existence. The Race can be without ascribing its being to forces beyond itself. The solace of the Race today is science and not religion. Rockets will propel us to the place where the gods once lived. The gods will be replaced by us. Thor is dead, long live the Astronaut! While Thor once hurled lightning FROM the sky, we will propel like lightning INTO the sky. 22
Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 06:48 AM | # Another reason for the nonsense of “spiritual racism” is a misunderstanding of “biological race” that existed at that time (and among some on this blog as well). For example, the idea that Germans are a “race”, completely distinct from, say, French and Poles, another species of humanity completely. Given certain theories that would say that only Germans possess certain positive attributes, how can one explain a Pole with the same attributes? How can the German and the Pole share the same biological attributes if they are completely distinct entities, far different from each other? Gee, state that “race” is “spiritual” and that the Pole is a “spiritual German”, and that it is the “spiritual” that is important. Of course, it never crossed the minds of “intellects” like Evola and Yockey that maybe these specific theories of biological race (and assertions that traits like “honor” and “nobility” were the sole preserve of certain of these “races”) were wrong, rather than the materialistic concept of biological race itself. No need for “spiritual racism.” While the average German genepool is somewhat different from the Polish, the two peoples are (relatively) closely related and do not constitute different “races” (as the term is commonly used), and certainly not different species of humanity. One is not “superhuman”, while the other is “subhuman”, and “nobility” and “honor” are not concepts carried specifically in the genepool of any one ethnic group. 23
Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 08:27 AM | # My right arm is a different race than my left arm. Lowell’s left nostril is not only a different gender than his right, but a different race as well. Your left nut is a different race than your right. Deal with it! Long live the differences! Look, “race” can be defined in different ways. But since most people use “race” to mean continental level groups, AND since it has been shown that members of these groups have zero genetic overlap with members of other such groups, that’s a good, practical starting point for a definition of race. I’d like to see evidence that North vs. South Vietnamese have enough differences to even be justified in calling them different ethnic groups, let alone races. “True Euros and True West-Central African Negroes are different species” what are False Euros and False Negroes? 24
Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 08:48 AM | # On the one hand, arguments over semantics are a waste of time, on the other, that Asian cognitive elitiist Confucious did have a point in which he said that the proper naming of things is one of the most important jobs of society. Now, assuming that genetic gradients, on average, exist between ethnic groups - and they do - one cannot objectively critique the use of the word ‘race’ to distinguish them. On a practical level though, it is confusing and obfuscates reality - since we have one set of people using “race” to describe a genetic distance of 20X, and another person uses it to describe a distance of X. Then there is kinship overlap, and other assorted problems. But if Fred wants to use “race” to distinguish a English Londoner from an English Liverpooler, who are we to say nay? Every man a race! 25
Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 09:29 AM | # “Comrade, what’s going on is the pre-molecular common-sense criteria for judging race have to take precedence.” Right. You still haven’t given me your classification of German Nordics, Polish Nordics, German Alpinids, and Polish Alpinids. ” It’s those and only those that allow us to judge in a way that makes sense in a given context.” So, judge. Who is right: you or Coon, and why? I’m not sure why you are so eager to quote Coon, who would have considered an “English Mediterranean” as the being in the same racial group as a “Yemeni Mediterranean.” “All Risch did was look at race through glasses that see molecules instead of arms and legs and heads and skin.” And when the conclusions of Risch are different than, say, those of Coon, or of you, why should the latter take precedence? How exactly do you think paternity should be established? “Aristotle could have refuted Lewontin. It didn’t need Risch for that.” Too bad no one did so, at least formally, until Edwards wrote his article. ” You’re going to sputter and come back at me with some Salterian argument but neither Salter nor Cavalli nor Risch has a leg to stand on without Coon, Linnaeus, and Aristotle: it these go, they go” Wrong, as, for example, Salter’s arguments are based, ultimately, on the genetic data. “He didn’t need molecules to refuse to see race: he could’ve looked at a Negro and Chinaman standing next to each other and refused to see it just as firmly, stupidly, and politically — which was exactly what he did, of course.” No, he would have acknowledged the obvious physical differences, but chalked those up to “superficial skin-deep modifications.” He would have been wrong of course, but do not presuppose his argument. 26
Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 09:53 AM | # “Look, I’m not continuing this sterile dispute and no one is interested in seeing it carried on in these threads. I’m sorry if I irritate you. Now, Deal with it.” Sure. I’m dealing with the fact that, when confronted with an actual example to use youur racial “judgement” for classification, you refuse to do so. 27
Posted by advanced racial science on April 02, 2007, 10:09 AM | # Belloc: “Behold, my child, the Nordic man, “And here we have the Alpine race. “The most degraded of them all After that, who needs crap like Risch, Salter and the like? All we need to know is listed above. 28
Posted by Alex Zeka on April 02, 2007, 10:45 AM | # Would Questionable indulge a question from a non-geneticist that’s been bothering me increasingly recently. Essentially, is there any room for will or decision-making in a genetical schemata? Or is it all just DNA-programmed impulses sending us this way and that? Should man be seen as a genetically constructed being or as a collection of vector-like impulses? Thanks, and apologies if I’m not being clear enough. 29
Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 11:01 AM | # Alex, although I am a “genetic determinist”, I do not believe that hardcore genetic determinism precludes the function of free will, in most cases. It does, however, predispose certain types of behavior in certain peoples. It is more difficult, for example, for a person of African descent to refrain from criminal violence than it is for a person of European descent, given differences in brain size and structure, IQ, hormone levels, etc - genetically determined traits. However, the Negro in question still has the choice whether to commit the crime or not; I do not think we can give them a “pass” and say that they had “no control over their actions.” People often act against natural impulses, the “determination” in not 100%. But it would be foolish to pretend that it is 0%. 30
Posted by Questionable on April 02, 2007, 12:14 PM | # Alex’s question brings up the point I was trying to make before the thread got sidetracked into my debate with Fred about the definition of “race.” This nonsense of “spiritual racism” has been so time-wasting that it is useful to attempt to track down its origin. In my opinion, as stated, I see it as an illogical reaction to the excesses of illogically inflated biological racism from the pre-WWII period. A common “style” then was to consider relatively closely related groups as virtually different species with no overlap whatseover, each with particular, predetermined characteristics - mocked by Belloc in that poem. So, the reaction was to invent an alternate view of race that stressed the “soul”, the “spirit”, “horizonal” rather than “vertical” race, etc. etc., all all such nonsense. Even the Nazis - in a sense “hoist on their own petard” - sometimes dabbled in spiritual racism (see Coogan’s “Dreamer of the Day”, page 484). These people - perhaps because they lacked an empirical, materialist spirit, or just that they lacked the expertise - never attempted to readjust biological racism to accord with facts, and instead reacted to nonsense with even greater nonsense. That is why it is so important to be careful and conservative when discussing race and ethnicity, and not engage in excessive rhetoric that in not based on evidence. Excess of one kind may provoke excess of the opposite, and decades may be wasted before enough factual evidence is accumulated to stop the pendulum from swinging from one extreme to another. So, yes, “spiritual racism” is utter stupidity and a monumental waste of time, but it likely originated because biological racism was allowed to descend into crackpotism. 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 02, 2007, 12:52 PM | #
The DNA doesn’t control things such as will, decision-making, or behavior directly but serves to make proteins which, once made and interacting with each other in certain biological liquid environments, carry out the life functions. The proteins, once made, do it on their own without further input from DNA. The DNA just makes them (serves as a guide to their assembly). After they’re made the DNA doesn’t tell them what to do: they know what to do, and they do it all by themselves. The result is life. 32
Posted by Al Ross on April 02, 2007, 06:31 PM | # We learn from Edward O Wilson that the brain is not a ‘tabula rasa’. Rather, it is like an photographic negative, with the developing process equating to environment , i.e., important, but still being unable to change what appears on the original. 33
Posted by arlette baldacchino on April 03, 2007, 08:01 AM | # “After that, who needs crap like Risch, Salter and the like? All we need to know is listed above. Posted by advanced racial science on Monday, April 2, 2007 at 02:09 PM | #” first of all apologies for not using the proper method of “replying to quote” - if there is one. I don’t have much to add to Murros’s interview - i’ve already posted a short comment earlier. However as a “degraded” mediterranean woman, i find the Belloc poetry very lacking in anything remotely related to race. I believe in europeans, whether they come from nordic countries or “swarthy” mediterranean ones. I suffer no inferiority complex for my mediterranean location, and much less for my temperament have a nice day all. 34
Posted by advanced racial science on April 03, 2007, 08:12 AM | # Arlette, Belloc’s poem was meant to be sarcastic, mocking the extreme “biological” (sic) racism of his day. The comment quoting the poem was in the same spirit as the poem. It was not meant to be taken seriously. 35
Posted by ARS on April 03, 2007, 08:56 AM | # Fred: ” You’re beautiful, Arlette! Gorgeous! I love you! You make my day every time I see you!” To add to Fred’s excitement: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/images/teaser/lowell%20and%20baldacchino.jpg “I’m very happily married, by the way — just couldn’t keep that in though, had to tell you!” That’s good - Norman Lowell is a martial arts expert, after all…... 36
Posted by arlette baldacchino on April 03, 2007, 09:47 AM | # awww that’s way sweet of you all! you made my day naturally i realise that Belloc was put here in jest, but like i said, i make no apologies for my mediterranean temperament. I’m outstpoken whether in cyberspace or on TV or wherever I happen to be airing my views. Now whether that comes from the maltese part of me, the german or the scottish, is debatable. Probably a mix of all 3 which is, after all, the beauty of being european. Just a small clarification, although Norman and I are good friends and have various convergent political views, I am neither his wife, nor his mistress. Its platonic thus more real and lasting. That picture of moi, which appeared on the local press and subsequently did the rounds on cyberspace often labels me as “norman’s partner” which is incorrect. 37
Posted by cladrastis on April 08, 2007, 08:44 PM | # If you click on the link, you will also view info about where “users” of the site hail from. After the U.S., most MR “users” are from India, Chile, and Turkey…interesting, eh? 38
Posted by Bo Sears on April 08, 2007, 10:12 PM | # Contentinental Origins Is The Way To Go After 16 years of a variety of local activities, many outdoors, on the Left Coast, we agree with Questionable on the first prong of his two-part definition on 4/2/07, “But since most people use “race” to mean continental level groups, AND since it has been shown that members of these groups have zero genetic overlap with members of other such groups, that’s a good, practical starting point for a definition of race.” We consistently refer to continental origins as opposed to race, partly because that is how ordinary society on the West Coast defines its demographic differences, and because we have found it to be an effective way to have a voice. That’s why we use European American as our principal label, and insist on recognition of the inherent diversity (national origins, ethnic origins, languages, histories, cultures, etc.) within the term. 39
Posted by Steve Edwards on April 09, 2007, 02:30 AM | # The latest David Cameron outrage: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/28/ntory28.xml Can anyone possibly deny that this man is a Marxist stooge? 40
Posted by Guessedworker on April 09, 2007, 05:31 AM | # Fred, The Alexa rankings are determined by gathering toolbar data. I, for one, don’t import spyware unless I can help it, and then I block it from connecting to the web. I don’t think I am alone among nationalist-minded white people in that, by any means. I would expect nationalists to be among the most wary as to what data on their surfing activities escapes to the purview of others. I would, therefore, expect nationalists to be seriously under-reported by Alexa. In my Bluehost “awstats” Canada is the sixth in country of origin ranking. India is 15th. Next entry: Austin Chronicle: The US Heartland’s Fury Seethes Previous entry: Black Athlete, Jesse Owens, Received Greatest Ovations of His Career From Nazis |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. AryanInside commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 05/25/12, 06:21 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Immigration: The individual matters most' on 05/25/12, 06:21 AM. (go) (view) ovephorie commented in entry 'Book review of “Breeding between the Lines” by Alon Ziv' on 05/25/12, 05:19 AM. (go) (view) BroowlorCliEf commented in entry 'Why the Germans? Why the Jews?' on 05/25/12, 05:00 AM. (go) (view) DateSoaxiaDot commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/25/12, 04:28 AM. (go) (view) UK Dissertations Help commented in entry 'A small anecdote and some reflections on race and culture' on 05/25/12, 02:14 AM. (go) (view) Roof Leaks commented in entry 'YOBS' on 05/25/12, 01:16 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/25/12, 12:41 AM. (go) (view) pletcheroka commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/25/12, 12:36 AM. (go) (view) Graistetrisog commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/25/12, 12:19 AM. (go) (view) BomeDeddell commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) indernMix commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:42 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 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 James Bowery on March 31, 2007, 06:34 PM | #
The definition of State as monopoly on legitimate use of force is of course central to the issues raised by socialism. The joke I like to tell about the likes of Ayn Rand is that she would last less time in a real society of individual sovereignty than would John Galt who, himself, would probably be made short work.
This is made even more obvious when one considers the definition of “Individual Sovereignty” used by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Moog in their book “The SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL: MASTERING THE TRANSITION TO THE INFORMATION AGE”. The “individual sovereigns” of their ideal would live even shorter lives than John Galt under the ideal named by their book’s title. (An aside: My wife and I recently mused about what we should name our new puppy—I liked “John Galt” so when people ask “Who is John Galt?” I can answer “He’s my dog!” but we continue to muse.)
None of this is to say that I am opposed to true “individual sovereignty” since it would let me go to war with the vectorists within my reach before they could do more harm. But let’s be clear—the faux “individualism” foisted upon us by cowards should not form the basis of “Statism”. If there is a good attack on individualism it must be founded upon the State of Nature.
It is from this basis that I think we should be very circumspect when we remove from individuals the moral power of force embodied in the traditions of single combat.