|
|
Rapidly Changing Human Evolution.Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran’s recent book, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, puts to rest the Left’s anecdotal assertions that genes don’t matter and that evolution ceased prior to humans leaving Africa 50~100 thousand years ago. In addition, they expound on Kevin MacDonald’s work on the history of Jewish culture and traditions that created the eugenic program of the Ashkenazi Jews in the Diaspora. They also explain the correlation between the recessive genes that contribute to modern Ashkenazi Jews’ high intelligence and genetic disease—genes that were beneficial in the highly literate niche that Jews dominated for hundreds of years. They assert, “Stephen Jay Gould’s position that 50,000 or 100,000 years is an ‘eye blink,’ far too short a time to see ‘anything in the way of evolutionary difference,’ is simply incorrect. We are surrounded by cases in which selection has caused big changes over shorter time spans, often far shorter; everything from the dog at your feet to corn on the cob is the product of recent evolution.” And, there is no difference between natural and artificial selection—they both change gene frequencies within populations under varying ecological conditions. The mechanisms are identical whether breeding dogs, humans, or urban rats. They point out that “evolution has taken a different course in different populations. Over time, we have become more and more unlike one another as differences among populations have accumulated.” Humans have increasingly differentiated themselves into specialized ecological niches—from new cults to occupational specialization to radical differences in exposure to technology versus exposure to deprivation. Humans both within nations and between nations are exposed to ever increasing differences in how they go about conducting their lives, with genetic changes following closely behind. For example, “Dog breeds vary greatly in learning speed and capacity. The number of repetitions required to learn a new command can vary by factors of ten or more from one breed to another. The typical Border collie can learn a new command after 5 repetitions and respond correctly 95 percent of the time, whereas a basset hound takes 80-100 repetitions to achieve a 25 percent accuracy rate.” And the same is true of human racial differences. Humans, those who understand the consequences, can now make decisions about how evolutionary changes will impact their offspring’s ability to compete in the global rat race. Genetic interests can be directed with more precision towards racial dominance—White privilege means little if we cannot expand on it and secure it for our future generations. They address one of the most overused canards against racial differences: “It turns out that although the distribution of genetic variation is as Lewontin said, his interpretation was incorrect. Information about the distribution of genetic variation tells you essentially nothing about the size or significance of trait differences. The actual differences we observe in height, weight, strength, speed, skin color, and so on are real: It is not possible to argue them away. Genetic statistics do not tell you what sort of differences in size, strength, life span, or disposition you can expect to see between populations.” Population genetics studies racial differences, these are real, and it is irrelevant if other genetic differences also exist within racial groups—racial differences between groups are still the driving force of conflict between the races. They conclude that, “Recent studies have shown that many genes are currently being replaced by new variants, most strongly in Eurasians—and that those genes favored by recent selection are for the most part different in different populations. The obvious between-population differences that we knew of a few years ago were only the tip of the iceberg.” And as the genetic basis for high intelligence or conscientiousness are located, genetic testing can help drive selection for these advantageous traits—those who embrace winning rather than compassionate capitulation to the “others,” will derive increased gene frequencies for success in future generations. So how do they know that the rate of genetic change is increasing? Genetic studies are uncovering numerous tools to determine genetic changes. “Recent studies have found hundreds of cases of long haplotypes indicating recent selection: Some have almost reached 100 percent frequency, more have intermediate frequencies, and most are regional…. The rate of change over the past few thousand years is far greater than this long-term rate over the past few million years, on the order of 100 times greater. If humans had always been evolving this rapidly, the genetic difference between us and chimpanzees would be far larger than it actually is.” Innovation/creativity—unleashed in Europeans 30~40 thousand years ago—opened up the gateway towards increased rapid changes in genes. New genetic enhancements were pushing Europeans into an internal arms race that altered both culture and intelligence. “With the advent of modern humans in Europe, innovation was bustin’ out all over.” Harpending and Cochran also speculate that Europeans may have acquired Neanderthal genes, which may have allowed for larger brains. Though this highly speculative contributing factor is unnecessary to explain European innovation, it does suggest the possibility of Europeans eventually acquiring the select Ashkenazi Jewish genes for high intelligence (see below). Culture today is increasingly fragmenting as people select their location, associates, marriage partners, worldviews, occupations, etc. from an ever increasing cornucopia of lifestyles. In addition, the sheer number of humans allows an ever increasing number of mutations to occur, and these can either spread randomly or be sequestered by genetically aware groups interested in genetic enhancement—so that favorable genes will be increased in frequency and possibly protected from spreading to competing groups. As for race deniers: “It’s time to address the old chestnut that biological differences among human populations are “superficial,” only skin-deep. It’s not true: We’re seeing genetically caused differences in all kinds of functions, and every such difference was important enough to cause a significant increase in fitness (number of offspring)—otherwise it wouldn’t have reached high frequency in just a few millennia. These were not just superficial changes affecting things like hair color, skin color, and the shape of the nose, although even those apparently superficial differences sometimes had important consequences. Some of these differences were far from being superficial or insignificant and profoundly affected the populations in which they appeared, sometimes in unexpected ways. They had a major influence on history; some continue to shape the course of events today.” Intelligence remains the most significant psychometric trait for human advancement, and the new genes responsible occur in highly differentiated frequencies among differing races. For example, “Efforts to teach Bushmen to become herders frequently fail when they eat all their goats. People can learn new traditions, but genetic differences must make this kind of self-denial easier for some people than it is for others. It takes a certain type of personality—with traits including patience, self-control, and the ability to look to long-term benefits instead of short-term satisfaction—and natural selection must have gradually made such personalities more common among peoples that farmed for a long time.” Science and innovation simply does not exist in sub-Saharan Africa for this reason—the hunter-gatherer society did not have the environmental conditions needed to drive higher intelligence. This also includes the Islamic world that managed to lose what may have been a more advanced civilization at one time, but was eventually sunk back into a primitive state with increased sub-Saharan African genes from the slave trade (my causal speculation). Harpending and Cochran then discuss the most politically contentious aspect of their research: the enhanced intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews that came about as a result of eugenics and economic necessity in Eastern Europe for hundreds of years—eventually reaching an average IQ of about 115. “So why are the Ashkenazim especially intelligent? To solve this puzzle, it may be useful to look at what we know about the DNA of the Ashkenazi Jews, because it turns out that they have another interesting characteristic. Namely, they have an unusual set of serious genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs disease, Gaucher’s disease, familial dysautonomia, and two different forms of hereditary breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2), and these diseases are up to 100 times more common in Ashkenazi Jews than in other European populations.” For about 1,000 years, the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe were primarily managers and financiers, requiring high intelligence and literacy. In addition, the high IQ of Jews is not like that of other races. They have an exceptional asymmetry, as reported by Kevin MacDonald (as well as Harpending and Cochran), where their performance IQ is normal, but their verbal and mathematical IQ is closer to 125. This was driven by Talmudic studies according to MacDonald, where debate was an important aspect of proving one’s intellect and suitability for marrying a wealthy businessman’s daughter. Harpending and Cochran attribute it to the comparative irrelevance of visuospatial ability for businessmen. However, this Jewish asymmetry in intelligence is mostly ignored: the nature/nurture debate continues to focus primarily on the Black/White IQ gap. Harpending and Cochran’s explanation of Eastern Europe Jewish eugenics is rather abridged compared to Kevin MacDonald’s account, outlined in A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, 1994. The eugenic strategies changed over time and encompassed many aspects not covered by Harpending and Cochran. Still, there is no better proof for a genetic basis of intelligence than a link between known genetic markers for intelligence—in this case genetic diseases if not the actual genes—and the professional success of those who have the targeted phenotypic condition. To sum up this important book on the IQ debate: “Evolutionary stasis requires a static environment, whereas behavioral modernity is all about innovation and change. Stability is exactly what we have not had. This should be obvious, but instead the human sciences have labored under the strange idea that evolution stopped 40,000 years ago.… [H]uman nature [has been] unchanging and thus predictable, and many scientists today believe that human nature stopped changing tens of thousands of years ago. Historians seem to make the same assumption. In so doing, they’re ignoring tremendous opportunities: not just in decoding the past, but in shaping the future as well.” Posted by Matt Nuenke on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 07:36 AM in IQ and Heredity Comments:2
Posted by Sam on June 29, 2009, 06:20 PM | # There is a whole website made only to discuss the future of humans and what are they evoloving into ! Check it from here: 3
Posted by Euro women miscegenating with Muslims on June 29, 2009, 10:13 PM | # “Interestingly, according to EnlightenNext magazine, some northern European women are reportedly eschewing their progressive northern European male counterparts and dating Muslims, who are more like “real men.” - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce/4 4
Posted by Joe Smith on June 29, 2009, 11:07 PM | # “. . . contribute to modern Ashkenazi Jews’ high intelligence and genetic disease.” Do not conflate high intelligence with high IQ. The Jews have a higher average IQ than gentiles, not a higher “intelligence”. IQ tests measure the cognitive COMPONENT of intelligence, not any of the other elements whihc make up a person’s intellect. They do not, for instance, measure creativity, will power, mental effort, etc. Therefore, the mere fact that Jews have a higher average IQ does not mean that they have a higher intelligence. It may reasonably be speculated, for instance, that their will power and artistic creativity are somewhat inferior. 5
Posted by Walknut on June 30, 2009, 12:52 AM | #
There can be no doubt that this is true. White populations have a history of producing outliers of incredible ability - the Da Vincis, Beethovens, Goethes, and so forth - but jews do not. The best they can do is Maimonides and Einstein (whose reputation is already being assailed in our quarters). They may have higher avg IQ but don’t have the genetic potential to obtain truly brilliant specimens. Even with all of their “gene theft.” 7
Posted by Dasein on June 30, 2009, 04:26 AM | #
That’s one of the great things about this book. It avoids the most contentious nature/nurture issues. Somewhere on the blogosphere someone referred to this as a highly subversive book. It really is. You can recommend it to (or buy it for) nearly anyone in the multicult and not have to worry that you’ve outed yourself as a ‘racist’. It’s been a while now since the Ashkenazi IQ paper was published. I’m wondering when we’ll finally see some data testing the hypothesis; the experiments are relatively simple. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 30, 2009, 09:10 AM | #
Henri Poincaré was the towering giant of the Special Theory of Relativity, not Einstein. Poincaré is the man who first did all the theoretical/mathematical work on it and brought it to completion — in all its details without exception (building on Hendrik Lorentz’s foundation). Einstein was a Johnny-come-lately and in fact had a shallower understanding of it than Poincaré. The Special Theory of Relativity was discovered by Poincaré, not Einstein. Einstein was the discoverer of the General Theory of Relativity, with lots of help from, I would say mainly, Herman Minkowski (who was Jewish) as well as David Hilbert (who wasn’t), in that order. Einstein was of course a great scientist who made great discoveries in physics including explaining the Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, and General Relativity. Poincaré (building on crucial foundational work by Lorentz which he always fully acknowledged) was the discoverer of Special Relativity. Period. Full stop. End of story. The following adjustment in terminology should be made: the Special Theory of Relativity should henceforth be called either that or the Poincaré-Lorentz Theory of Relativity. The General Theory of Relativity should henceforth be called either that or the Einstein Theory of Relativity. 9
Posted by Q on June 30, 2009, 11:04 AM | # The Darwin devotees may be interested in this - or maybe not: Making a Monkey Out of Darwin 10
Posted by Adam West on June 30, 2009, 01:59 PM | # Why should I read what a politician (not a scientist) has to say about Darwinism, you creationist piece of shit? 11
Posted by Dasein on June 30, 2009, 03:16 PM | # Buchanan is totally hit or miss. His last essay on California was excellent, this is complete rubbish. So many straw men, so much guilt by association, I just don’t know where to start. You have to wonder why he’s writing this, since the Catholic Church has largely made its peace with Darwinism. Hasn’t Pat heard? 12
Posted by Desmond Jones on June 30, 2009, 03:22 PM | # Does Pat suggest a link between Darwinism and David’s sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites? Was David’s belief founded on an underlying, crude, might-makes-right, social Darwinism? Darwin was no social Darwinist. 13
Posted by Q on June 30, 2009, 08:09 PM | # Re: Pat Buchanan’s article. I especially liked the comments section; in particular this comment:
Atheists/Darwinists believe existence sprung out of nothing. Intelleigent design asserts there is a creative force outside the realm of existence that acually created the existence we reside in. Which of the two is more rational? 14
Posted by Jon Diamonds on June 30, 2009, 11:40 PM | # Q: To be fair, Creationism/intelligent design is for shitheads. There’s no getting around. Stop peddling your creationist idiocy here. 15
Posted by Robert Reis on July 01, 2009, 01:42 AM | # “This also includes the Islamic world that managed to lose what may have been a more advanced civilization at one time, but was eventually sunk back into a primitive state with increased sub-Saharan African genes from the slave trade (my causal speculation).” Living where I do, in the heart of the Arab world, visual inspection has shown that a very small proportion of the local population has distinctively Negro features. 16
Posted by Edwards on July 01, 2009, 04:19 AM | # Robert Reis: No asked for your opinion, jewboy. [Reis is a jew last name. get out of this website. Find your home somewhere else, you aint welcome here] 17
Posted by Steven E. Romer on July 01, 2009, 05:47 AM | # I found that the comments posted by “Jews Try to Steal ‘Good Blood’ of Non-Jews ” were excellent. I though of much the same thing you did—but I thought that the intense emotions and drives of jews easily envolop and use the superior genes of other peoples as weapons against them in concert with the Jewish genes and patterns. It is like gathering genetic “intel” in their war on other people’s. Part of their genetic strategy. Emotional genes driving slave genes if you want to view it that way. 18
Posted by Lurker on July 01, 2009, 06:58 AM | # Who are all these guys popping up who are so worried about Creationism. Really from our pov in everyday life it doesnt matter whether its 100% true or completely false. Its only liberals who get upset about Creationism normally, then they get to act the tough guy on evolution. When I see someone getting red faced and upset about creationism I usually see a race denying liberal. 19
Posted by Q on July 01, 2009, 09:11 AM | #
The only idiocy around here are those that don’t know the difference between Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design. I’m a subscriber of the later, not the former. 20
Posted by Dasein on July 01, 2009, 09:48 PM | # KMac has a post up at TOO replying to Buchanan’s nonsense. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Windchy.html One thing I noticed though is that KMac seems to be conflating Darwinism and Mendelian inheritance. The competing methods of inheritance were Mendelian and Lamarckian (inheritance of acquired traits), with Mendelian inheritance winning out early in the last century. Lamarckism is making something of a comeback today, due to interest in epigenetic inheritance (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_specter_of_genetic_communism/). KMac says:
This is not true, as IAC is compatible with natural selection, and in fact Darwin considered this as a possible explanation. 21
Posted by Q on July 01, 2009, 10:19 PM | #
Yes, Buchanan is nonsensical ... but only in the opinion of the the nonsensical. 23
Posted by Garbage on July 02, 2009, 01:28 AM | # Creationist trash. This is a blog for INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION. Don’t post your anti-Darwinist filth here. Get out. Go back to Jewtown or wherever the fuck you came from you kike-a-like. 24
Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 07:55 AM | # Would you mind intelligently explaining the origin of the universe to me? 25
Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 08:09 AM | # Or the divergence of the sexes and how exactly it happened simultaneously and conferred advantage? Or perhaps the Roche Limit? Or perhaps you could explain how creatures went from cold blooded invertebrate to simple hearted amphibians to three chambered alligators? Do you know how complicated an alligator heart is and why it doesn’t really “fit” in the evolutionary scheme? Did cows evolve placentas then turn into cows or did they lay eggs for a period of time? You obviously know nothing and nobody really can because organs don’t fossilize you fool. 26
Posted by Friedrich Braun on July 02, 2009, 08:45 AM | # I’ll add my two cents. If you’re a creationist knucklehead, you’re not polite company. To me an anti-Darwinist is the closest thing to a subhuman. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on July 02, 2009, 09:02 AM | # Daniel, If you are looking for God, you must first grant evolution its full sway. Look for the law-giver, but grant the law. None may break it, even the Giver. By extension, religion as the impulse to worship falls within the evolutionary ouerve. It’s there for fitness gain. God is not in the place you expect Him to be. He is not where He can be interested in you personally, can judge you, set behavioural standards for you, demand your belief, and transport you elsewhere when your brain dies. There is no one to worship, no one to serve, no one to fear, no one to obey. We are alone, living in conformity with Nature’s laws. On the other hand, whether a man (not Man) is complete and all that he might be is another question, and whether as all that he might be he may fulfill some other purpose - say, a creative purpose, even in relation to the divine - is another. But about both of these questions popular religion has simply nothing to say. And nor, of course, does evolution, unless one grants that man as creator (not Creator) could bestow gain upon all his people. 28
Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 09:26 AM | #
And only an asshat fool would beleive with absolute certainty in a THEORY devised by a flawed man [Darwin]. 29
Posted by Fr. John on July 02, 2009, 09:31 AM | # ‘Why should I read what a politician (not a scientist) has to say about Darwinism, you creationist piece of shit?’- Adam West Thanks Batman. Quite erudite. ‘Buchanan is totally hit or miss. His last essay on California was excellent, this is complete rubbish. So many straw men, so much guilt by association, I just don’t know where to start. You have to wonder why he’s writing this, since the Catholic Church has largely made its peace with Darwinism. Hasn’t Pat heard?’ – Dasein That may be, but Romanism is not the Catholic Church. Just ask the millions of Orthodox Christians in Russia, who lived through 70+ years of forced Darwinian evolution as the ‘state religion’, and are now in droves coming back to True Christianity - in short, repudiating their religious Lysenkoism, if you will….. Do they know something y’all in the West are too damn dumb to figure out- perhaps that Darwinism is not, nor cannot be ‘science,’ but is mere cult? “To be fair, Creationism/intelligent design is for shitheads. There’s no getting around. Stop peddling your creationist idiocy here.” – Jon Diamonds “Creationist trash. This is a blog for INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION. Don’t post your anti-Darwinist filth here. Get out. Go back to Jewtown or wherever the fuck you came from you kike-a-like.” – Garbage “I’ll add my two cents. If you’re a creationist knucklehead, you’re not polite company. To me an anti-Darwinist is the closest thing to a subhuman.” – Friedrich Braun Looks like it’s a religion to me, what with such ‘devout believers’ as Batman, Trash man, and Mr. CZ weighing in…. And you know what they said about things “Brown”, don’t you? “If it’s brown, flush it down.” Clearly, these men all are vulgar, very low on the ‘evolutionary ladder,’ one could say, to ‘hate on CHristians so,’ to have to use such blatant pornographic speech (instead of ‘Intelligent Discussion’), and more nearly exhibit the very sort of ‘knuckle-dragging trailer trash’ that Liberals condescendingly ascribe to red-state inhabitants. In short, the very obverse of ‘survival of the fittest.’ On another front, we read: “Darwin was no social Darwinist.” – Desmond Jones I think I’d beg to differ, as my blogpost showed. “Its only liberals who get upset about Creationism normally, then they get to act the tough guy on evolution. When I see someone getting red faced and upset about creationism I usually see a race denying liberal.” – Lurker Good one, L. They have the most to fear when Truth shines under their worldview rocks. They usually run like cockroaches. Which is about where they are on the ‘evolutionary ladder.’ YHWH God, on the other hand, says that His Creation is godlike, and was created perfect. Adam was so unique, God sent His son to be the Second Adam to restore a fallen Creation, brought about by Satan. Now, seeing how ‘evolution’ advocates act, and seeing how ‘Christian’ advocates act in a non-moderated discussion, which one is less apt to ‘push the button’ in a nuclear holocaust? Truly, the world needs the sanity of Christian minds, whether the pagans like it or not…. 30
Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 10:58 AM | # If you are looking for God, you must first grant evolution its full sway. Look for the law-giver, but grant the law. None may break it, even the Giver. I’m looking for someone to intelligently answer my questions. The most militant evolutionists are unable to convince they know anything about the subject. I’m willing to discuss it with someone civil like you GW, but the rest make it evident that those of us White folks blessed with the faith gene will be forced into killing off those unencumbered after the revolution. Temporary allies we are with only transient EGI. 31
Posted by Darwinism would've stopped WW II on July 02, 2009, 11:01 AM | #
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Windchy.html 32
Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 11:05 AM | # I’ll add my two cents. If you’re a creationist knucklehead, you’re not polite company. To me an anti-Darwinist is the closest thing to a subhuman. First you defend Jew blind, sanitized White Nationalism and then, in the very next breath, declare the religious your very own untermensch. Inspiring commentary. Good luck in Deutschland Frederick and thanks for the hand of friendship to a brother in the struggle. 34
Posted by Dasein on July 02, 2009, 11:52 AM | #
Tell me what you liked in his article. Was it the attack on Darwin’s character? Attempting to refute a theory by suggesting (however tenuous the link) that some bad guys liked it? This was not a serious critique of Darwinism. Pat is playing political games. The same type of useless distraction that has people devoting all their energy to fighting gay marriage while the country is turned into a Thirld World cesspool.
The significant thing is that in 150 years the theory has not been invalidated. The fossil evidence collected so far (no matter how incomplete) is consistent with Darwin’s theory. Gaps are being filled, and not by the hoaxes Pat mentions. I’ve got nothing against people trying to defend YEC or ID. I’m not a materialist; there is plenty of room for God without having to create a God of the scientific gaps. Some things will never be known and will be a matter of faith. But this is just not a good argument that Pat is making here. 35
Posted by Dasein on July 02, 2009, 11:53 AM | # First quote was from Q, second was from Pat’s essay. 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 02, 2009, 01:07 PM | #
Evolution does. Ironically, war is proximate as Darwin suggested. 37
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 02, 2009, 01:22 PM | #
Fr. John, That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day!! Chuck can’t win. Klinghoffer , Stein and Auster are aghast because Master Charles wrote that the civilized races will exterminate the savage races over time…
and now you suggest that his grand theory was miscegenation. WOW!! 38
Posted by Dasein on July 02, 2009, 02:34 PM | #
Funnily enough, this is the conclusion that some race-mixing enthusiasts may draw from the 2nd chapter of this book, which deals with Neanderthal introgression (i.e. the incorporation of Neanderthal genes into the European sapiens genome). The Neanderthal introgression theory is interesting and seems plausible on the surface. They suggested that some of the increases in European brain size might have come from limited mating between the two species. Now, if we got good genes from mixing with Neanderthals, the race-mixer will say, what could possibly be wrong with mixing with every possible race and producing one massive, diverse gene pool that can produce a higher form of human. Maybe it could be called degenerate eugenics, because it would ignore EGI. And the current environment our Westen elites have given us makes dysfunctional behaviour adaptive. So there are a number of reasons why it’s a bad idea, but I can see some race-mixers holding it up as a historical precedent (even if not proven yet). 39
Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 02:43 PM | # Dasein, The fact is, gaps have not been filled. There isn’t anymore physical evidence today that links the evolution of one species into another (macroevolution) than there was 100 years ago. However fossil records prove there is intra-species evolution(microevolution) - there’s plenty of that. I do beleive the Theory of Evolution is credible science; but the last time I checked, it has yet to be proven. That said, I look at Intelligent Design as the synthesis between Creationism and Darwinism. Darwin bases his theory on random natural selection. Intelligent design asserts order in the physical world is not random, but has its basis in intelligent cause, or intelligent design. This makes allot of sense due to the fact that there is a great deal of order in nature particularly at the molecular level ... mathematics too. See here: 40
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 02, 2009, 03:29 PM | #
Science does not gains theory status by proof but by falsifiability. It is scientific theory because it has the potential to falsified.
First law of intelligent falling is not to fall upon your head. 41
Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 04:24 PM | # It is scientific theory because it has the potential to falsified. It doesn’t really. It also rest upon the purely and entirely philosophical notions of empiricism and materialism. 43
Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 05:33 PM | #
Impressive, Desmond, but it dosn’t compare in magnatude to Dr Morgus’ discovery of “the speed of dark.”
44
Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 06:56 PM | #
Frank Beckmann asks Jack Lousma, Astronaut, about 45
Posted by Q-not on July 02, 2009, 07:15 PM | # Intelligent Design is Creation Science through the backdoor. Intelligent design is the assertion that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design’s leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. – Wikipedia X-ray image of an atavistic tail found in a six-year old girl.
“A radiogram of the sacral region of a six-year old girl with an atavistic tail. The tail was perfectly midline and protruded form the lower back as a soft appendage. The five normal sacral vertebrae are indicated in light blue and numbered; the three coccygeal tail vertebrae are indicated in light yellow. The entire coccyx (usually three or four tiny fused vertebrae) is normally the same size as the fifth sacral vertebrae. In this same study, the surgeons reported two other cases of an atavistic human tail, one with three tail vertebrae, one with five. All were benign, and only one was surgically “corrected” for cosmetic reasons (image reproduced from Bar-Maor et al. 1980).” “Numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes have been found in southern and eastern Africa.” 46
Posted by ... on July 02, 2009, 07:29 PM | # WJR personalities include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ken Brown, and Dr. Laura.
47
Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 07:38 PM | # Daniel, you’re drifting into solipsism. No, materialists are just camped out in the Objectivist Forest. (Not being contrary with you either. You’re entirely respected by me, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment.) 48
Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 07:40 PM | # All that matters is whether or not ID is falsifiable. 49
Posted by Captainchaos on July 02, 2009, 07:59 PM | # I take it as axiom that, as C.S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, even were all known regarding the material universe, that would still not allow one to definitively disprove the existence of God. 50
Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 08:14 PM | #
Q- not, If you want to make your case, provide some peer reviewed papers by credible experts in the field of evolutionary biology. Unsubstantiated assertions of a dubious website doesn’t cut it.. 52
Posted by Captainchaos on July 02, 2009, 08:56 PM | # Furthermore, the Mormons of Utah seem to be the only Nordic people in the world interested in reproducing themselves. I think that not a coincidence. And Mormon fundamentalists are racists. Come what may, they will never cede Utah, which they believe was given to them, people of their racial stock, by God. 53
Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 09:30 PM | # Although I must admit I was initially repulsed by the abrasiveness of the filthy Kraut he makes more and more sense every time he puts down his thoughts. God bless me with his curse. Lest it be confused for simple flattery let me make it explicit that this is another call for the Cap’n to log some main entries. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on July 02, 2009, 10:08 PM | # Even Nietzsche had his self-avowed spirituality (creativity and probity) and his dogma (the will to power). The faith-gene, linked to memes that boost inclusive fitness, provides “sanctification” to subsistent nature. That belief is important, because, really, our nature, in the grand scheme of things, is not really all that subsistent. So if not that, why not then transhumanism? 55
Posted by bob on July 02, 2009, 10:55 PM | # “Would you mind intelligently explaining the origin of the universe to me?” Sure. A bearded, berobed man - meaning, a “god man” - who lives in the sky made it. Ditto with cows, etc… 56
Posted by Matra on July 02, 2009, 11:41 PM | # I’ll add my two cents. If you’re a creationist knucklehead, you’re not polite company. To me an anti-Darwinist is the closest thing to a subhuman. Friedrich used to be a fanatical fanboy of Hitler now he loves philosemites like Geert Wilders. A year or two from now he’ll suddenly conclude that Christians are more pro-white than the fashionable Richard Dawkins/SWPL crowd and suddenly denounce his anti-Christianism. The entire WNist online ‘community’ is filled with such people. Instead of humbly accepting where they have been wrong they jump from one certitude to another. 57
Posted by Matra on July 03, 2009, 12:05 AM | # Furthermore, the Mormons of Utah seem to be the only Nordic people in the world interested in reproducing themselves. I think that not a coincidence. But Mormons are both religious and (for the most part) Anglo-Saxon. Those are two vices WNists cannot accept. I mean, like, what about all the poor excluded Irish Catholics, Poles, and Greeks? My God, we can’t have anything like that. 58
Posted by the Narrator... on July 03, 2009, 04:49 AM | #
As of 2007 Utah was *officially* 82.3% “non-hispanic White”. What the unofficial percentage is (and what the percentage of actual White people are there) is anybody’s guess.
That article is a year old. So it looks like the White Mormons have already ceded their state just as the Whites in other states ceded theirs. Just wait till after the new census info starts coming in next year and analyzed.
59
Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 07:19 AM | # Sure. A bearded, berobed man - meaning, a “god man” - who lives in the sky made it. Ditto with cows, etc… So you also know nothing about evolution but believe it based on blind faith in “experts” then don’t you? It is an honest question. What is a transitional form between a cold blooded, egg laying reptile and a warm blooded mammal that gives birth to live young? These are, in engineering terms, “complete systems” and I find the notion that there is anything in between them utterly ridiculous. Evolutionist materialist believe “there must” be something in between them even though they have no fucking clue what it is. I’m sure we could figure it out by picking out something from the “numerous transitional” forms couldn’t we? Perhaps there isn’t “numerous transitional” forms but “punctuated equilibrium” and then we can explain away the Cambrian Explosion too?! Fucking hypocrites all. The entire WNist online ‘community’ is filled with such people. Instead of humbly accepting where they have been wrong they jump from one certitude to another. Extreme certainty is just a sickly manifestation of the faith gene. It is repulsive. A human being that has no room for doubt is no fun to drink with. So it looks like the White Mormons have already ceded their state just as the Whites in other states ceded theirs. My instincts tell me you are right about this. Idaho and Montana will be next. 60
Posted by bob on July 03, 2009, 09:53 AM | # “A human being that has no room for doubt is no fun to drink with.” Good luck with your movement. These stirring words encapsulate the socio-political theory that will rally your people and drive you onward to victory. 61
Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 09:58 AM | # Good luck with your movement. These stirring words encapsulate the socio-political theory that will rally your people and drive you onward to victory. The bar is the third world in between home/hearth and work/church and it is important. The two oldest bars in my country, the Bell in Hand and The Green Dragon were essential for stirring up Boston Patriots. Regardless, that wasn’t my point. My point was that the extremely certain are dangerous, true believer types that are exhibiting a particularly exaggerated form of the faith gene and have some Cartesian Sickness they got as a result of bouncing back from the extreme of Satre’s Nausea to another even more sinister extreme. OUR people will never be rallied. Welcome to the New Dark Ages. 62
Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 11:40 AM | #
Ridiculous.
If all was known, there would be no reason to think.
a. Old Testament 63
Posted by Svigor on July 03, 2009, 11:42 AM | #
I dropped the WNist label a while back, but I think that unfair, at least the religious part. I suppose it depends on how you define WN, I guess. The narrower (and more radical) the definition, the truer that becomes. But as an ethnic nationalist, I sure don’t have a problem with religious racialists as long as they reciprocate my live and let live attitude. Why would I? A man who believes in a higher power and an afterlife is far more likely to sacrifice for his race than an atheist or agnostic, ceteris paribus. Man, where does all the fucking BAGGAGE come from? I just want freedom for my people for crying out loud! NOT COMPLICATED. 64
Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 11:48 AM | #
Impossible. It is also one of the fundamental tenets of liberalism. A healthy raico-cultural entity will defend its central positions with vigor and punish those that do not adhere to the imposed interdicts. Forceful, Mosaic Law and all that jazz is the tie that binds the ties that bind. 65
Posted by Svigor on July 03, 2009, 11:49 AM | #
You’re CERTAINLY right about that Matra ( 66
Posted by Svigor on July 03, 2009, 11:52 AM | #
Its central positions? What, all one of them? Pretty short list there. “Uhm, yeah, like, we’d like to survive and be free and stuff.” 67
Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 11:56 AM | # Oh Captain, Our Captain! A “Filthy” (Non-Believing) Kraut Is Needed To Defend Our Stupid Belief System!
Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale. A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale. B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A). C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A. (Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.) 68
Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 12:10 PM | # No evidence for macroevolution? Human fetus
“Early embryos of various species display some ancestral feature, like the tail on this human fetus. These features normally disappear in later development, but it may not happen if the animal has atavism.” 69
Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 12:35 PM | # No evidence for macroevolution? Snakes
“Snakes are elongate legless carnivorous reptiles of the suborder Serpentes that can be distinguished from legless lizards by their lack of eyelids and external ears. Like all squamates, snakes are ectothermic amniote vertebrates covered in overlapping scales. Like lizards, from which they evolved, they have loosely articulated skulls and most can swallow prey much larger than their own head. In order to accommodate their narrow bodies, snakes’ paired organs (such as kidneys) appear one in front of the other instead of side by side, and most have only one functional lung. Some species retain a pelvic girdle with a pair of vestigial claws on either side of the cloaca.” These are the immediate, top of first-page results of a simple Google search. Almost all results contained links to substantive material. Above-average intelligence and perseverance were not required to locate this information. Yet Majority Right’s pre-eminent cutnpaster, Q, writes the following:
70
Posted by the Narrator... on July 03, 2009, 12:56 PM | #
Of course I hope I’m wrong. And things can (and do) change. ... 71
Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 12:58 PM | # No evidence for macroevolution?
“An experiment with chicken embryos found that with the stimulation of a recessive trait, chickens could grow teeth just like their ancestors did.” Imagine MR’s proponents of Creationism and its red-haired step-brother, Intelligent Design, scrambling frantically to refute this easily acquired information with cutnpaste content from “peer reviewed papers by credible experts in the field of evolutionary biology.” Hysterical, isn’t it? It is almost as hysterical (and exploitive) as asking the “filthy” non-believing Kraut, CaptainChaos, to defend them for the sake of a non-existent political unity. Scientists Find Chickens Retain Ancient Ability to Grow Teeth
Scientists from the universities of Wisconsin-Madison and Manchester, U.K., have reason to rejoice after a successful experiment, which caused hens to grow conical, saber-shaped teeth. This curious experiment was carried out by researchers studying the ancestry of birds and their evolution from flying, nonavian reptiles to the feathered creatures we now know. “I was looking for feathers on the head of a mutant chicken embryo, and I noticed these formations along the edge of the beak that looked like alligator teeth,” said lead researcher Matthew Harris, who specializes in the study of evolution and development. The mutant chicken embryos that Harris studied possess a recessive and lethal trait called talpid2. As embryos, they can survive in eggs for as long as 18 days, but they never make it to the hatching stage (chickens normally hatch after 21 days). During their incubation, these mutant embryos begin to grow nascent teeth, like those found in ancient bird fossils. When Harris and his colleagues “turned on” the talpid2 gene in the oral cavity of a normal chicken embryo, they found that the mutation caused the tissues in the embryo’s jaw to initiate the formation of teeth, very much like those belonging to the bird’s ancestors. What makes this experiment unique is the fact that, unlike earlier experiments, it involved no grafting or tissue transplants from a mutant chicken. John Fallon of the University of Wisconsin, who oversaw the project, said “These results provide clear evidence that these chickens possess the memory of the past; they have retained the ability to make teeth, under certain conditions. What I am describing is evolution.” Fallon’s specialty is developmental biology, particularly vertebrate limb development and pattern formation. The scientists discounted the possibility of this experiment having any direct medical application (to stimulate tooth regrowth in humans, for example). But they insisted on its importance to the human understanding of evolution, with Harris arguing that “the results of this experiment hit home, highlighting the potential in our genes to re-form what once existed. “There are so many examples of such atavistic traits—snakes with vestigial limbs, horses with three toes, even human beings who have hair growing all over their body and face,” he said. “As far as I am concerned, this experiment vindicates the theory of evolution as it exposes the evolutionary history of birds. Supporters of intelligent design will have to scramble to explain this one!” 72
Posted by Q on July 03, 2009, 01:22 PM | # Q-not, Where are the fossils Darwin said would be forthcoming? Oh wait…I know, they’re in an undisclosed location (a micrcommunity), still being cooked up in a home made kiln. 73
Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 02:21 PM | # No evidence for macroevolution? There is greater affinity between the skeletons of whales and camels than between whales and fish. Whale skeleton
Camel skeleton
Fish skeleton
For evidence ignored there is the Darwin Award. 74
Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 02:54 PM | # with the stimulation of a recessive trait Yeah I wonder who did the stimulating? Probably wasn’t mother nature… They didn’t fucking survive anyway. Read your own ridiculous attempts at “proof” before you “cutnpaste” from Google searches. There is greater affinity between the skeletons of whales and camels than between whales and fish. Similarity is obviously in the eye of the beholder because none of those three fossils look similar. Regardless, “similarity” doesn’t “prove” anything. Show me the “countless” and “numerous” transitional forms in between a horse and a whale and describe how something goes from living outside the water to living in deep water. Complete systems in between each stage, all conferring evolutionary advantage every step of the way. You’re a dreamy retard to believe that shite with absolutely no evidence. 75
Posted by Q on July 03, 2009, 04:03 PM | #
LOL! This is clear evidence of microevolution; i.e. evolution within a species. Try again, Geno. 76
Posted by Svigor on July 03, 2009, 11:03 PM | # The problem with asking for transitional stages is that you’re kinda asking for evolution to stop working so it can prove itself to you. It makes more sense for a “transitional” stage to continue its transition and better adapt to its environment. The “transitional” stages you’re looking for are everywhere, but they’re still in transit. As for evidence of these less progressive transitional stages in the fossil record, well, I don’t know how sure a thing fossils are (be delighted to be informed); that is, how likely is such a creature to be a) fossilized and b) recovered? Given we may be talking about a very small population, i.e., size of population might well be correlated with its evolutionary age (as measured from beginning of “transition”). Or I might just be full of it, I’m only speculating. 77
Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 06:47 AM | # Fossils are just unlikely period. Organs fossilizing are even more extraordinary. It just doesn’t happen. 78
Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 06:48 AM | # Additionally, the only thing you know from a fossil, is that something died and we already know that everything does. 79
Posted by Captainchaos on July 04, 2009, 10:20 AM | # Q-not,
Centaurs are not posited as the conscious, non-material, uncaused first cause, but a mythic or perhaps real part of the created material universe. Semantics is important for clarity of thought.
My contention, along with Lewis, is that thinking about the physical universe vis-a-vis the physical universe can only really lead to definitive knowledge regarding the physical universe - in a strictly scientific mode of thinking. But, let us assume all relevant to the “music of the spheres” were made manifest to us, there would still be the pleasure of beholding the harmony and beauty of the divine creation.
LOL! 80
Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 11:05 AM | #
I’ve heard this before, but I never thought I’d hear it from you. I’m impressed. I more or less suspect the races were created separately somehow out of Adam and Eve in a way that isn’t recorded - or at the least it’s taken so many thousands of years that it’s a rich genetic tradition beyond comprehension. So to me the races are almost holy and diversity of nations intended. With all certainty How is it you value the Nordic race so much and yet still cling to evolution?
Exactly! Even though politically I’m so furiously opposed to your approach, culturally you understand the pressing issues of our day. Reg. the Mormons, I’ve heard they’re going PC - ah their mainstream institution/church seems to have been taken over by the race mixers. - Reply from our other debate regarding why a person puts a child first over a superior member of the race: because that’s how our nature works. The indirect route is best for the race overall - man can’t take the logic to do otherwise. However, the state ought to ensure a system is designed for the benefit of all as a whole that takes this nature into account. So, the family continues to put its children first within a system designed by the state. That’s my reply. In response to Chronicles I opposed Dr. Fleming’s localism out of concern it would undermine national identity and interests, btw. So, I’m not a wacko localist even if I think localism serves the nation best - that is a balance of the local and the rooted with the power of modern society. Too much of either is unhealthy for the nation for various reasons which you could probably see on your own. 81
Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 11:16 AM | # Maybe I praise you too highly. I’ve been obsessed with the threat of transhumanism for years, and anyone who notices the threat I tend to see as a brother, haha. Only a nation that declared itself unwilling to mix out would be capable of resisting the coming transhumanism, which realistically we have very little chance of surviving against. People won’t perceive the moral threat it poses until there are already designer babies in our midst - the moral threat being that men will no longer be viewed as having souls or otherwise being of value and similarly that the bounds that we stand upon will be opened and a much more chaotic reality will arise as man’s very nature is even altered.* People too often dismiss this as sci-fi fiction as if because they can’t imagine such thing it could never happen. Does it require some level of IQ to see the obvious moral threat? Or perhaps it’s too scary for people to face so their minds shut down. Anyway, I’m really impressed. No matter how much I rant on the subject, few seem to ever take it seriously, assuming I fear bioengineered monsters and diseases when those are nothing compared with the moral threat you mention in your post.
82
Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 11:21 AM | # Hungry Catholic Writer has written on it for awhile too, though you’d probably dismiss him as a “religious nut”. He doesn’t seem to mind my views btw. We religious folks aren’t as anti-Nordic race as you might think. I say I’m religious, but I fear I might be somewhat of a heretic. I have my own views on some things, and I haven’t hashed everything out yet… 83
Posted by Captainchaos on July 04, 2009, 12:41 PM | #
Frank, I’ve respected you as a thinking man dedicated to his people since I became aware of the depth of your thought on these matters. Whatever gamesmanship I engaged in was not intended as a personal affront but for the benefit of the peanut gallery at other blogs. Sometimes it is necessary to verbally flog the nonsense out of the lemmings.
Our affinity for our own kind is evolved or created, depending on how you care to look at it - it is adaptive or arguably “sanctified”. A man does not suppress his own inclination if it be “noble” or adaptive, in light of reason and evidence.
For good or ill, I felt the need to shake up faileocon major, and then faileocon minor. GW does it often in the comment sections of London rags. Seemed like fun, and sometimes productive.
Yes, I was and am aware. I qualified my mention of Mormons helpful to racial preservation as “fundamentalists.” Warren Jeffs may be a nut, and his polygamy system is inherently unstable, yet despite all that, he ran a pretty tight ship consistent with racial separation and preservation. Dare I say a “microcommunity.” “The indirect route is best for the race overall - man can’t take the logic to do otherwise.” Never denied that. As Desmond Jones has repeatedly pointed out, for that to be our altruism, which makes our congenial civilization possible, would have to be self-defeatingly degraded were it rendered so.
A system to the benefit of all, the ethny, must guard against dygenics - perhaps best done at the esoteric level. Yet, in extremis, all those loyal are expected to form up in defence of the one best man, the Leader, and fight to the last. That is an indispensable principle, as the Greeks understood, as did Hitler, as he demanded of his men, as the best of the Germans remained loyal to the end.
It obviously takes the intelligence to comprehend the material, and, as GW has pointed out to me, the manly courage and integrity to face it and oppose it. Takimag and Chronicles is were the lemmings and the effete congregate, Frank. I should think that would be no place for you. 84
Posted by Captainchaos on July 04, 2009, 01:09 PM | # Further, you wonder why I so often dwell upon National Socialism. I’ll explain. Because it is the most resent, pure, and maliciously strategically pathologized manifestation of the heroic ideal of society. If a White man cannot at least understand, cannot sympathize with to a degree, if not celebrate and seek to embody that, he is not a White man in any ideal sense as the best of us have always postulated. Now, obviously, from the perspective of statecraft, this must be balanced by prudence, by realpolitik. Yet, if the best of us lack even a hint of that, they are not their better selves. And if they lack the potential for it, they are not the best of us. So, a bit of a litmus test then. That is why I so often asked at Takimag, “are you a White man?”. Dasein, whose fine feathers are ruffled by my “abrasiveness,” heeded the call. Y’all niggas be feelin’ me now? 85
Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 01:10 PM | # Frank, have you seen this: Adam and Eve as Mulattos, First Word critiques Ken Ham’s “One Blood.” I think you will find it worthwhile. 86
Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 01:55 PM | # “For good or ill, I felt the need to shake up faileocon major, and then faileocon minor. GW does it often in the comment sections of London rags.” I too do this - it’s very effective depending on the site. My approach and target audience for this are a little different though. I focus on the Republican drones and those being misled by neocons for this, and a lot of people do this too. The Internet is not an Orwellian technology, so it is important that we make good use of it by undermining the TV and Radio prop. “depth of your thought on these matters” I have depth, but I can’t rise up to be of much use atm - I have a Scarlet A brightly emblazoned on my chest, haha. I used to say Francis didn’t start writing until he was 30, but I never thought it might actually take me until 30 before I made a worthwhile impact. I’ve still a few years to beat him though. 87
Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 03:18 PM | # DanielJ, races do naturally arise out of nonhuman species and seek to maintain this separation. So, it isn’t any surprise that humans do this too. Without question this was intended. I don’t think an Aryan coming from a mulatto over 100000 years upholds “The mulatto is genetically unto something else, not an end in itself” because both the white and the black are of the same species and would have produced like from like over time. Pagan myths of origin abound and were popular all over stating that various peoples and clans were distinctly descended from some ancestor or source. Christianity reveals that we all came from Adam and Eve, entertaining row B is too radical, but I wonder if there isn’t another part of the story that was left out. Before Babel we were tribally organised, but how did we get like that? And would it be surprising to learn that each preexisting race was given a different language? And how did Aborigines get to Australia from Babel? I don’t know that we even need to know each of these answers. We can derive from nature that it’s natural to separate into races, and we can derive from Babel that God approves. The Jews upheld their purity as best they could, Jesus was pure; and Christ did not go against this natural order. The only other question of interest seems to be Row A v. Row B, but again that’s too radical of a question. 88
Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 03:24 PM | # What I mean by this: “And how did Aborigines get to Australia from Babel?” is “Was every race truly united at Babel or were only those from a single area there?” That might not even be that interesting of a question though. It’s in the same vein as “Was the entire Earth covered by the flood?” and that row B question: “Were there others in addition to Adam and Eve?” 89
Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 03:34 PM | # I don’t think an Aryan coming from a mulatto over 100000 years upholds “The mulatto is genetically unto something else, not an end in itself” because both the white and the black are of the same species and would have produced like from like over time. I think he was assuming a young Earth, although I might be mistaken. I also think he meant that creating simply reproducing mulattoes in order to achieve something else violated principles of Godly order and the principle of “equal yoking” would either ensure the Aryan never arising if followed or would allow allow for his arising by violation of Godly principle. Pagan myths of origin abound and were popular all over stating that various peoples and clans were distinctly descended from some ancestor or source. Sometimes a god. Before Babel we were tribally organised, but how did we get like that? The Bible, through revelation seems that although being tribally organized we were probably mono-racial. And how did Aborigines get to Australia from Babel? Before the dividing of the Earth in Peleg’s day. Pangea. We can derive from nature that it’s natural to separate into races, and we can derive from Babel that God approves. This is definitely the hammered nail. 90
Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 03:36 PM | # would either ensure the Aryan never arising if followed, or would only allow for his arising by a violation of Godly principle.
91
Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 04:00 PM | # You write:
Outside Young Earth, I don’t see this. I wrote:
I was thinking here that the flood didn’t cover the entire Earth… If the flood did cover everything and if this event is as ancient as you say “Before the dividing of the Earth in Peleg’s day. Pangea.”, then it isn’t difficult to piece together. 92
Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 04:38 PM | # You went over my head a bit. Sorry. I tried. Outside Young Earth, I don’t see this. Why not? Is it necessary that the Mulatto give rise to the Aryan? Also, do blacks have the genes to give rise to the Aryan given enough time? Racial diversification is really genetic loss when you get down to brass tacks. If the flood did cover everything and if this event is as ancient as you say “Before the dividing of the Earth in Peleg’s day. Pangea.”, then it isn’t difficult to piece together. I take a young Earth position (approx. 13,000 years old) so even Pangea, in my scheme, was only disrupted recently. I’m leaning toward assuming that the miraculous division of languages at Babel also included some miraculous genetic division. 93
Posted by Bob on July 04, 2009, 06:41 PM | # “The bar is the third world in between home/hearth and work/church and it is important.” For expendable whites, unable to learn from their betters or adapt to reality, I imagine that’s right. 94
Posted by Q-not on July 04, 2009, 08:39 PM | #
Posited. Oxford/Harvard semantics and leather armchair lolz. Let’s have tea, shall we? I hereby “posit” centaurs as the conscious, non-material, uncaused first cause of the material universe. The authority/number of subscribers to the statement is irrelevant. The statement is non-scientific. It cannot be falsified. Consciousness is awareness of something which preceded one’s conscious awareness of it. The authority/number of subscribers to the statement is irrelevant. The statement can be falsified. The statement is either true or false. Evidence supports the former.
Your evasion of the point regarding centaurs is as obvious as this politically-motivated defense of the idiotic Q’s belief system and the nose on your face, although I suspect ego is involved as well. Is the intelligent believer fooled by your condescending attitude toward him? Of course not. Your service to him is tolerated merely for reasons of expedience - it saves him the time/trouble of refutation. Why expedience? Because God trumps race. Always. Past, present, and future. Belief trumps non-belief. Always. Past, present, and future. The intelligent believer despises you, but is perfectly happy having you serve him. You’re not a fool. Quit acting a tool. 95
Posted by Q on July 04, 2009, 09:11 PM | # Posted by Q-not on July 05, 2009, 12:39 AM | # GT, you’re totally, socially, weird! 96
Posted by Captainchaos on July 05, 2009, 08:08 AM | #
Yup, thought I made that clear. Nietzsche also made clear that the scientist is rightly a tool in the hands of the philosopher, the value creator, or at least most adept value discerner.
Civility amongst ourselves is one of the great glories of our race and its civilization. The Spartans did not appreciate Athens, yet the Athenians could appreciate the virtues of Sparta. Both went into the ash can of history, as did NS Germany and Victorian England. The racial stock of the latter two hangs by a thread.
Your assuming that consciousness cannot also be projected into the future, and that consciousness necessarily need be time-bounded.
My service to him is predicated upon his service to the race. I don’t doubt Frank’s or DanielJ’s dedication to their people. And if Solzhenitsyn were still kicking around I wouldn’t be inclined to tell him to piss up a rope either.
There must be acted upon belief in the ultimate sanctity of our race that mandates its preservation. You believe our race should be our religion. So, for you too, belief always trumps non-belief.
Yet there must be cooperation in attaining goals held in common - racial preservation. I do not believe that said is impossible, as you seem to. A system, a zeitgeist that puts racial preservation in a position of importance, which will necessarily entail a materialist mind set to achieve it, puts non-believing (in the transcendent) materialists in the driver’s seat. That is unless you desire a civil war between faith-geners and non-faith-geners.
If Nordic people are still around a century from now, with all of their lands still to their name, I’ll not consider my meager efforts to securing that end toolish. 97
Posted by danielj on July 05, 2009, 10:29 AM | # For expendable whites, unable to learn from their betters or adapt to reality, I imagine that’s right. Close up the bars! No more softball or Golden Tee either! No fun for anyone dammit! Budweiser is the evil corporation that is standing resolutely in the way of our Stoically ascetic, racially aware utopia filled with philosopher kings! Do you despise all those “expendables” or just the ones that imbibe? 98
Posted by danielj on July 05, 2009, 10:32 AM | # Oh Captain, Our Captain! A “Filthy” (Non-Believing) Kraut Is Needed To Defend Our Stupid Belief System! I don’t think he was doing that. I think he was defending the idea that we can and should work together. 99
Posted by Q on July 05, 2009, 11:35 AM | #
That’s exactly correct DanielJ. We all should be working together. The battle line is drawn between white preservationists vs. white destructionists. Anyone that is for white preservation is on our side. That means anyone and everyone regardless of race religion or creed. Geno Freak thinks he will be judged as more sophisticated by his WN peers if postures himself an uber-atheist. Well, I personally don’t care if you’re an atheist or A theist as long as you’re a white preservationist. But Geno Freak wants it his way or no way. That’s okay Geno Freak, when we band together under the white preservationist cause and win this war, we’ll allow you to live away in your microcommunity ... in fact we will insist on it. 100
Posted by Captainchaos on July 05, 2009, 01:06 PM | # Q-not’s fear of a resurgent theocracy riding the tide of racial awareness in which the “secular” will be “drawn and quartered” for their apostasy is misplaced. DanielJ, Frank and Q do not subscribe to a vision of their religion that entails that. Also they in fact believe their faith demands racial preservation. Q-not just doesn’t like Christers. So long as it can be agreed that each get their own sandbox, much ado about nothing then. Besides, wasn’t it Q-not’s idea for a new committee of correspondence? Chances are some of those correspondences would be with Christers - just sayin’. 101
Posted by Frank on July 05, 2009, 01:42 PM | # “You went over my head a bit. Sorry. I tried.” I probably muddled the discussion and went under your head. I’ll look at it again shortly. CC, I wanted to reply quickly to you after thinking on this: “Our affinity for our own kind is evolved or created, depending on how you care to look at it - it is adaptive or arguably “sanctified”. A man does not suppress his own inclination if it be “noble” or adaptive, in light of reason and evidence.” You have no conscious higher value though - it amazes me. True beauty and value is found in the sense of the Holy and godly. You speak of the “faith gene” as some sort of adaptation that allows for a deluded construct within an otherwise valueless, fluid existence; but what of the cynic gene that dismisses all as if having no value? You look at the world and see dust, and you even dismiss your own attachment to the Nordic race as merely a meaningless genetic drive that you’re slave to. In truth though you have a stronger drive than some mulatto because you semi-consciously believe in a mystical beauty of the Nordic race. It isn’t merely that it’s the strongest and thus most worthy of serving until some superior (strong being the only source of value) race comes along. It isn’t that. You find beauty in that the origins of the Nordic race drift off into the mists of time where it might have been created by God Himself. And this amazing force wandered the Earth building cities and holy sites (pyramids and stonehenges and such), worshiping forgotten gods, paving the way for civilisation. No one could find beauty in a purely social darwinistic existence. Even if you think you live in such a world, your values speak otherwise. You’re driven by the same mystical faith that every other Nordicist is drawn to. It might be the Jews were the Chosen, but they don’t hold a candle to the early Nordics and Old Europeans in civilisation building. 102
Posted by danielj on July 05, 2009, 01:43 PM | # DanielJ, Frank and Q do not subscribe to a vision of their religion that entails that. To be fair, Rushdoony and his brand of Postmillenialists would subscribe to that. They are explicity for a new little Geneva. They would also execute adulterers, Pagans, disobedient children and whatnot. Myself, as of right now, would not endorse or support such a vision. 103
Posted by Frank on July 05, 2009, 02:03 PM | # And to top it all, Nordics are beautiful. We can undermine this gift from God by theorising that “it was the natural result of living in a difficult, monogamous environment where only beautiful women were chosen to support and raise the children of”, but the northeast Asians aren’t as beautiful. And their eyes are adapted for possibly resisting snow blindness. They admittedly don’t have as much body odour as we do, and they might well be more intelligent on some level; but they didn’t adapt in the same way. To dismiss these things as just being worthless, random mutations is dismal and founded upon a poor basis. What if God created (or directed the evolution of…) these two races out of love? I acknowledge that this goes against the Genesis Creation story somewhat, but what if we’ve simply lost a later event? Perhaps God simply didn’t think it necessary to include that in there. We understand that He created us, and we see that there are clear, distinct racial divides. Perhaps… that’s all we need to know. And that’s really where part of my heresy comes in: I have trouble accepting that we all just evolved from one source. I accept it, and yet I don’t - meaning I just dismiss it and don’t think about the contradiction. Even if we did evolve (microevolution), from the same human source; why could that not be directed evolution? There is beauty in a hundred thousand years of fairly distinct heritage, or perhaps more than that, but when you define it like that it loses its beauty somewhat. Having a mystical origin is more beautiful because it brings with it a sense of the Holy and the unknowable. It exists because it is meant to exist, and it is meant to exist because God made it that way. It’s not to be questioned - it is because it is, and it is beautiful because it’s Holy and made by the hand of God. We are Created to serve Him, and there’s no need to think further. Anyone with any sense of beauty has at their core I think some concept of Holiness. A tree is beautiful because it inexplicably strikes beauty into your soul. If you analyze it and come to believe that it’s merely a being in a fight for survival that exists as it does in order to exist with no higher purpose, then it loses its value. But if it’s seen as having been created for a concept of Beauty, then it gains beauty and value. And similarly, there’s beauty in mathematical equations that seem to exist from the Ether in a sort of purity Created by God. It’s not merely unpleasant and unnatural to view the world as meaningless dust, but it’s in part unfounded. We see that survival of the fittest does exist, but then we derive from this that there is only survival of the fittest and nothing more? Why? Do we then acknowledge that all is delusion, find that we need delusion to give us a project to work our energies through, and then embrace this delusion as a way of escaping from our guiding moral center which is pure nihilism? How cynical! What a leap of faith! And then do we dismiss all who can’t take such a simple-minded leap of faith as suffering under the “faith gene”? Who then is truly the zealot?! It takes a great deal of faith to embrace the world as dust. There are still mysteries as yet unsolved and still places for God to reside in. We don’t know all there is, and to embrace that it is all mere dust with no value is foolish and baseless. 104
Posted by danielj on July 05, 2009, 02:39 PM | # We see that survival of the fittest does exist, but then we derive from this that there is only survival of the fittest and nothing more? Survival of the fittest is a meaningless tautology. We should exorcise it from our vocabulary. Even if we did evolve (microevolution), from the same human source; why could that not be directed evolution? That was sorta what I was getting at earlier. Miraculous division of the races. 105
Posted by Frank on July 05, 2009, 02:56 PM | # “Survival of the fittest is a meaningless tautology. We should exorcise it from our vocabulary.” It exists within microevolution I think - a sort of fluctuation that maintains Creation within a bounds (e.g. The Peppered Moth that is frequently cited which within its genetics had the ability to adapt a little.) A part of the system we live in is that we do mutate a little, though it’s not enough to lead to macroevolution. Most of these mutations have to be weeded out lest our DNA grow corrupted. Vocabulary is powerful and carries with it connotations and assumptions - so perhaps there’s a better phrase to use. But at least a similar phenomenon exists I think. That’s not to say that God does not actively involve himself in this world. He does. But in addition to this, there are predictable cause and effect events that can be understood on their own. 106
Posted by danielj on July 05, 2009, 03:00 PM | # (e.g. The Peppered Moth that is frequently cited which within its genetics had the ability to adapt a little.) That is really a bad example. No novel information was added to the gene pool. The frequency of already existing DNA just changed to reflect specific environmental conditions. 107
Posted by Frank on July 05, 2009, 03:09 PM | # It didn’t gain a new trait, but the frequency of that trait did at least increase. It changed through survival of the fittest. The original two moths might have been fully one or the other though. Perhaps that trait was later gained through a tiny mutation. Fruit flies are used in a lot for studies, or used to be - I could probably find some mutation there, though you don’t seem to doubt that mutations happen. - CC, perhaps you’d be less of a nihilist were you not raised to believe religion an enemy to what you value and a perversion of the natural good you sense as True within yourself. 108
Posted by Frank on July 05, 2009, 03:16 PM | # danielj, What you seem to object to is macroevolution which introduces new complex traits. New traits in themselves aren’t macroevolution. 109
Posted by Captainchaos on July 05, 2009, 03:27 PM | #
In what way am I a nihilist? 110
Posted by Dasein on July 05, 2009, 03:52 PM | #
I like your style, CC, don’t know that I’ve ever said otherwise. I’m sure there were many more who were impressed by your work at Takimag. It was the first time I’d seen a debate between WNs and respectable conservatives. They shut down their comments section. That about says it all. 111
Posted by Frank on July 08, 2009, 12:37 AM | # “In what way am I a nihilist? “ Don’t you… deny there’s a God? I don’t understand how you can establish any absolute values then. Our concept of highest values come from the unknowable which if not fully a Holy concept is at least very similar. - Reg. CC @ Takimag, many WN debated there and only CC caused problems, well actually several were banned/censored including myself at times (fellist, Old Atlantic, Fade the Butcher, and probably others) but that detracts from my case. CC also drove people away from the WN stance. Just the same there was a commenter, Sid Cunduff, who was an anti-racist moron who was so ridiculous that he pushed readers to become much more racialist. I whupped him with actual quotes from the *gasp* racist Aristotle when he was citing Aristotle as being an anti-racist, and plenty of others showed him up too. It was great having such a fool there. Then CC entered, lol, though admittedly CC isn’t a fool, just bound to unpopular attachments. Takimag had several articles btw that were pretty dang racial, they were just hidden in intellectual-speak. 112
Posted by Frank on July 08, 2009, 12:53 AM | # CC, I’m only just now replying to your earlier comments - things were hectic before. “Further, you wonder why I so often dwell upon National Socialism. I’ll explain. Because it is the most resent, pure, and maliciously strategically pathologized manifestation of the heroic ideal of society. If a White man cannot at least understand, cannot sympathize with to a degree, if not celebrate and seek to embody that, he is not a White man in any ideal sense as the best of us have always postulated. Now, obviously, from the perspective of statecraft, this must be balanced by prudence, by realpolitik. Yet, if the best of us lack even a hint of that, they are not their better selves. And if they lack the potential for it, they are not the best of us. So, a bit of a litmus test then. That is why I so often asked at Takimag, “are you a White man?”. “ I honestly don’t see the value in NS. Maybe I just don’t understand it - that is fully possible. I asked a NS (virtual poster) before what to read on economics, and he told List of all people… Who couldn’t like List, even if he is too much of a liberal/individualist statist. “Yet, in extremis, all those loyal are expected to form up in defence of the one best man, the Leader, and fight to the last. That is an indispensable principle, as the Greeks understood, as did Hitler, as he demanded of his men, as the best of the Germans remained loyal to the end.” I don’t understand this. When at war, the most efficient system is to unite under a single leader. But after the war this surely isn’t the best system. A small aristocracy, a true rule by the best, is the ideal I think. “Frank. I should think that would be no place for you.” I actually learned a great deal there. That’s where I was taught the ideas of the far right. I always thought Chronicles was a closet WN site - Dr. Fleming even told me when I was first posting there one time that we had a common interest. I read his Morality of Everyday Life thinking he was esoterically a WN. Fleming is brilliant if you imagine him as an esoteric racialist - his arguments work extremely well for a racialist case, at least relative to what others I was aware of at the time had to offer. Chronicles was for a time the very nexus of the American right, though I realise today there are other sites. And one thing that damns the Euro New Right is the atheism. It’s fine to reject Christ, burn in Hell it’s your choice, but to reject the complete existence of God is very dangerous. There is no hope for any movement founded on atheism. I have yet to see evidence that anything can grow from it. Religion does not = rigid belief system. It’s possible to be open to the existence of God or to believe in Him without a firm, developed system. Similarly, I think some concept of man having a soul is vitally important. Despite its shortfalls, Chronicles is Christian. Similarly, I’ve been attracted to the kinist writers. The Monitor is convinced I’m a Deist btw, lol. I’m not though - I’m just an, ah, anti-atheist. 113
Posted by Frank on July 08, 2009, 12:59 AM | # “That is why I so often asked at Takimag, “are you a White man?”.” Even this type of thing is too blunt, and you’d ask that at the wrong times, lol. Person A: I worship Austrian school, blah, blah, blah. Person B: I’m a protectionist, List said blah, blah. CC: White men united! Final Solution! Conquest! Muahaha! Person C, D, E: Holy crap. Maybe racial identity is dangerous. Person F: That doesn’t even remotely relate to the current topic. CC: Are you a white man?! Let’s form a million man militia and reconquest!! NS and Hitler ftw! Person A, B, C, D, E: Holy Crap. I don’t want to kill anyone… This is scary. OK, we’re now anti-racists. CC: Damn. This is all the fault of the Jews. Person F: Someone ban this ‘tard. Paging Sid Cunduff. Paging Sid Cunduff. Where’s our anti-racist moron when he’s needed most? 114
Posted by Frank on July 08, 2009, 01:13 AM | # CC: NS and million man militia doesn’t mean killing anyone. I just want a Final Solution to drive out all the nonwhites… You’re putting words in my mouth. Person X: Wouldn’t people be hurt? CC: I don’t have to answer that. Person X: Does the entire US have to be conquered? Why not settle for some portion of it. CC: Only traitors ask such questions. Final Solution, muahaha! Person X: Whenever I think of Hitler, I think of the horrible things he did. Aside from the Holocaust in which millions (not just Jews) died and suffered, he lost the war and fought enemies he didn’t want to. Had Hitler never been elected, Germany wouldn’t have suffered as it did. He was a complete failure. And the other Axis leaders weren’t much better than the Allied Leaders. There’s not really a good side in that war. CC: The Holocaust is a Jewish myth. Communism would have triumphed anyway. No other historical event is of any relevance aside from WWII. Person X: So I mayn’t be a WN unless I embrace Hitler, NS, and deny the Holocaust? I’m more interested in current events and the future, and I don’t like NS ideology - that happened in another country and in the past. CC: You’re a traitor otherwise. Let’s march! All real white men solute Hitler! Person X: OK. I guess nationalism really is too dangerous. Babel here I come. CC: Damn, how do the Jews keep doing this to me? - That’s more or less what it looked like to me Feel free to do a similar parody of me - haha. I didn’t post there often when you were there though. 115
Posted by Armor on July 08, 2009, 07:58 AM | # CC: ” you wonder why I so often dwell upon National Socialism. I’ll explain.” In another thread, I think GW asked CC the right question : “Why don’t you write a post for the blog setting-out those features of National Socialism that you consider would be acceptable and executable in the conditions of today, and those that would not. My judgement is that the positives are economics (executable) and racial consciousness (probably executable only in Germany). But I am open to argument.” There must have been good things in the nazi movement as in any political and social movement. Nazism was part of a number of movements with similar political orientations, and I’m sure there were many internal contradictions between the ideals of nazism, as in any large political movement. But if we are going to defend some ideals that we share with nazism, or communism, or any other “infamous” ideology, we don’t need to say that our ideals are specifically nazi, because they are not. It is all right to say that the Nazis were not incarnations of the devil, whatever wrong they did. And I think it is unacceptable to claim that racial conciousness and the cult of beauty (for example) have been discredited by nazism. But no one in the 21st century should call himself a nazi: it would be counterproductive! 116
Posted by Frank on July 08, 2009, 02:02 PM | # Armor, I tend to fully agree with what you say. National Socialism is the preferred term over Nazism btw, or so I’m told. I suspect the majority of true NS (as opposed to paid pretenders and shock-seeking punks) are simply Germans who are attached to Germany or who believe the Germans deserve to be honoured for their service in the war. They then try to take this historical view and expect us to all declare ourselves NS, which of course doesn’t seem at all likely since we all tend to associate unpleasant things with NS. At best NS is a foreign seeming movement that happened in the past. Communism is the ultimate evil though, not NS. I do think NS is too left wing though - it’s been described as extreme center. I’m more traditional and nationalistic than NS I think - I suspect I’m more right wing than the “Nazis”. 117
Posted by Frank on July 08, 2009, 02:08 PM | # On a related note. Since we’re the ones being attacked right now, I think it very important to reveal just how dangerous Marxist and nonwhite ethnic groups are, and to remind that white ethnic groups are overwhelmingly friendly and morally upright relative to these monsters and barbarians. The “Final Victory” talk really undermines this accurate portrayal, and it chases people away I think who’d otherwise be receptive to being proud of what they are. At this point, we simply want to be left alone. We’re the victims who are being attacked and discriminated against. The media and education system portrays the far right as closet Nazis who wish to mass murder and drive out all nonwhites, and this is largely what keeps people away from the far right. If we can demonstrate that we’re friendly, sane people in sharp contrast to the true monsters who are on the left, we can then win over more people. I can’t think of a more Marxist approach then CC’s NS drivel. CC might have anti-Marxist intentions, but his results are surely Marxist as best I can see. 118
Posted by Frank on July 08, 2009, 02:13 PM | # And similarly since most right wing Americans are Christian, it’s ridiculous to attack all forms of religion as he does. This is especially true because NS are often feared for being pure nihilists who see no immorality in pursuit of their racial objectives. CC says he has morality, but he’s yet to explain it beyond that his genetics give him some sort of morality, as if a higher value could come from such a source - a point I don’t think he and I are yet connecting on. It’s understandable that he might not like Christianity, but to attack all forms of religion is absurd. Instead he ought to simply not mention religion if he’s so opposed to it. When you tell Christians that Christianity calls for Babel, they’ll believe you somewhat and be more prone to accept their racial views are somehow evil and unChristian, which is simply not the case. 119
Posted by Guessedworker on July 08, 2009, 05:09 PM | # Frank, Morality, be it derived from common prejudice, social conservatism or religion, is an evolutionary product. It models adaptive behaviour for the tribe (by “common prejudice”, btw, I mean social stigma, racism, that sort of thing). Religious observance - lots of singing and dancing, lots of peyotl ingestion, etc - does not, of course, please the spirit of the wind or whatever, and does not lead tribal members to the happy hunting ground when brain-activity ceases. Belief to the contrary may be very sincere and very, very strong, but all the same it is wrong. This is not to say that we are, as men, all that we might be, or even very much at all, and it is not to say that our consciousness is all that it might be either. Fragments of thought about that may be embedded in religious myth, in texts and in forms of worship. The sixty-four thousand dollar question for a faithless person like me is what fitness gain could possibly attach to the getting of human substance or the experience, however fleeting, of a higher consciousness. 120
Posted by Captainchaos on July 08, 2009, 06:36 PM | # Frank, you have made statements in the past that amount to your professed belief that Whites, if we are so numerically overwhelmed at some not too distant point in the future, if we lose the power to determine our own fate, we may well be exterminated. You tell me just what is a commensurate response to that, and what we are justified in doing to prevent it? Btw, your equation of disbelief in God with nihilism is laughable. Are you telling me that if you didn’t think the sky fairy was looking over your shoulder you’d do all the nasty things you’d always wanted to do? LOL! Didn’t know that about you, Frank. 121
Posted by Captainchaos on July 08, 2009, 06:42 PM | # And just once, Frank, I would dearly love to see you man the fuck up and debate the merits of the Holohoax. You are a party to history’s filthiest blood libel, a libel which is used by the Jews as justification to push our race to extinction. Shithead. 122
Posted by Captainchaos on July 08, 2009, 07:24 PM | #
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Windchy.html 123
Posted by Frank on July 08, 2009, 07:42 PM | # GW, It’s arguable genetics inclines us towards a sense of the Godly or Holy and from this we derive values. But, upon the embracing of there being nothing Holy or Godly the genetic effect is surely null except where in denial and thus hypocrisy. “Cognitive dissonance” and probably other fancy psych terms exist to describe this. “This is not to say that we are, as men, all that we might be, or even very much at all, and it is not to say that our consciousness is all that it might be either.” This is admitting there might be more to us. Simply leaving this possibility open is all I really ask for as opposed to the firm belief that there is nothing more. I tend to view this life as in part a competition for honour, honour being won by how we serve our people and by extention God. I also tend to view Creation as it is as something somewhat Holy and thus worth preserving, as opposed to eugenically progressing away into something “superior”.
“Btw, your equation of disbelief in God with nihilism is laughable. Are you telling me that if you didn’t think the sky fairy was looking over your shoulder you’d do all the nasty things you’d always wanted to do? LOL! Didn’t know that about you, Frank. “ Try this: you didn’t understand what I said. It seems to take a while to communicate this type of idea, so maybe it’ll click later on. It’s not just you - I think in general people have trouble grasping the idea. I very likely did too. “And just once, Frank, I would dearly love to see you man the fuck up and debate the merits of the Holohoax. You are a party to history’s filthiest blood libel, a libel which is used by the Jews as justification to push our race to extinction. Shithead. “ Who cares about the Holocaust? Damn. I don’t care about Germany as much as I do about America - screw Germany. Germany might be a white state, but it’s different enough from America that Americans view it as foreign. If you want to be a historian, then be one rather than an activist. You’re too in denial to see the obvious that you can’t be both. You’re still blocking the fact that you can’t win people over to NS and that by associating pro-white movement with NS you only undermine the movement. Your immature attachment to that damned war is undermining the war that is going on right now for whites. You just refuse to accept that. Repeat this fifty times: America is not Germany; WWII is over. I may defend the South with positive results because I am a Southerner living in the South. I’m defending the people who live here and still think as I do. Damn Krauts should go back to Germany if they can’t be Americans. 124
Posted by Frank on July 08, 2009, 07:49 PM | # The foreign-appearing German is portrayed repetitively as the ultimate enemy. This emotion is ingrained into people’s minds. It’s more productive to portray the current American government as NS and also as Communist than to attempt to win people over to a NS identity. Sure, everyone outside the South and many inside the South hate Southerners just as much and view us as retarded evil backwards racists, but we actually exist here in America. Germans live in Germany. I live in the South and am interested in saving the South. If you’re too German to be American, then go back home. You can’t win over non-Krauts with the stomper appeal. You’re more terrifying than al Qaeda to most whites. - Regarding reconquest, that won’t win anyone over atm. It’s not a matter of choosing what you’d like. The reconquest is simply not going to happen. It undermines current objectives of simply stopping the undermining of white power and invasion of aliens. Embracing a delusion because you can’t handle the truth, which is what your reconquest calls are, is counterproductive to the interests of real white Americans who are living now in 2009, as opposed to this fictional WWII German populace praying for a leader. 125
Posted by Captainchaos on July 08, 2009, 08:30 PM | #
Let me get this straight, the “foreign-appearing German?” LOL! Don’t you feel ridiculous just typing that? If that be so, how can you let such nonsense pass?
It is not more productive. It propagates misinformation, blurs and bastardizes categories, and continues the exile of our people’s minds in a foreign zeitgeist. There is just something inveterately cowardly about you faileocons that binds you from fighting for the truth, and hence fighting for the salvation of our people.
Say “White racial consciousness”? They will say “Holocaust!” Say “I want my people to live”? They will say “Holocaust!” That needs to be counteracted until the truth pervades the liberated minds of our people.
Screw you. 126
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 09, 2009, 12:59 AM | # Pro-white movement? What pro-white movement? Germans are aliens. How can there be a pro-white movement? No doubt Duke’s association with the Klan and his views on the Jewish holocaust ruined his chances for election. Not so says Jewish author Leonard Zeskind.
The same shtick gets replayed over and over again. WNs complain that all will be peaches and cream if the Nordicists would just shut up. The all we need is racial love crowd are sure an amicable end will be met if only the hard core will shut up. Again, like a broken record, we hear that all be be right with the white, if only we stopped talking about NS. Play it again, Sam. 127
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 09, 2009, 01:20 AM | # You can have Chamberlain and Halifax, but I’ll defend Winnie. 1. War is proximate. It’s almost a fundamental rule of evolution. 2. Winston declared the war folly.
3. He clearly voiced the consequences of such action.
4. The fight was on and like Alfred before him, who did not embrace the Danes because of their genetic proximity, he fought because sometimes fighting is all that is left to do.
128
Posted by Dasein on July 09, 2009, 03:54 AM | # Desmond, have you read the comments section at CBC for that incident you pointed out at Prozium’s? The brainwashing of the Canadian masses is on full display. From the article:
That’s the Canadian identity. It’s a sly way to get Canadians to try extra hard to be suicidal. 129
Posted by Q on July 09, 2009, 08:47 AM | #
. That was then, this is now. Demographics and attitudes have changed since the late 80’s and early 90’s. The older, more conservative white voters, that supported Duke and Buchanan have been replaced by young whites whom, for the most part, subscribe to anti-racist nonsence. Ian Jobling addressed that in this essay: http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/the_rise_of_racial_conservatism/ I seriously doubt if David Duke could garner 65% of the white vote in Louisiana today like he did when he ran for Governor in 1991. We’ve got allot of work/rehab to do. 130
Posted by Q on July 09, 2009, 09:34 AM | #
I think it’s a safe bet those brainwashed white-liberals in Canada (do liberals come in any color than white?) would have the same degree of sympathy for these victims: Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family 131
Posted by Frank on July 09, 2009, 02:57 PM | #
I meant the foreign appearing NS. Celebrating German culture is fine, including the Swastika provided it isn’t too brazen and done in NS style. Speaking German though would probably appear foreign. - You don’t even seem interested in Germany. It’s all NS that interests you. I’m more Anglo-centered, but I don’t march around playing British imperialist soldier or anything else folks might react to like that, though really there’s no British equivalent to how ~99% of Americans feel about NS. 132
Posted by Frank on July 09, 2009, 03:09 PM | #
When they say Holocaust, normal white activists simply reply: “who said anything about the Holocaust?” No one has problems with the Holocaust, because we don’t dress up and play NS soldier. When they accuse us of being Nazis, we just laugh it off. And it’s rarely a problem.
You’re in America? What part of that don’t you understand? Rather than defend America, you seek to associate white Americans with the monsters they see on the TV screen. How does that help America? You don’t even care about America. Forget Germany or move back there. You’re in America; you have to focus on achievements here. You march around destroying America and blaming the Jews because you can’t face reality. You’re an ally of Mexico and SPLC. You don’t even know what the term faleocon means if you apply it to me. You just enjoy throwing the term around so you can dismiss someone who doesn’t care about NS. The term refers to those who reject race in favour of cultural remnants or ideology - that doesn’t apply to me. Who isn’t a faleocon in your book? How many WN groups don’t march around playing NS soldier? Everyone is a faleocon then? What does NS ideology even stand for? You never offer much info. All you’re interested in is playing NS soldier. You just like the idea of NS soldier, which is the very thing that Americans don’t like. It’s one thing to chip away at the stories of WWII, but it’s quite another to declare oneself an NS soldier in this day. You’re incapable of understanding what I write though, so I give up. Maybe the blame is on my end for writing badly, but the end result is you never understand what I say. 133
Posted by Frank on July 09, 2009, 03:11 PM | # I’m probably more of a racialist than you are, and I’ve always been such. Race isn’t the issue though. Only those who bravely dress up in NS costumes and attack white Americans are of any value… 134
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 09, 2009, 03:42 PM | # As a Southerner are you ashamed of the Klan, Frank? Dressing up in white robe and pointy hood must be embarrassing to a genteel Southerner and no doubt “bad” for the “movement”. Do you feel Duke’s association with NS and the Klan makes him toxic? Should we just let the Klan continue to be smeared perpetually? Or should we be proud of those men and women who stood and fought for the survival of the founding Americans? 135
Posted by Frank / Mr. Hyde on July 09, 2009, 04:07 PM | # The original Klan did some good, but I’m not going to dress up in a costume and scare people. I never admired Duke as I did Francis, though I don’t know of any reason not to like him other than his former stance on abortion. Associating with the Klan seems to have really undermined his reputation. Whenever Duke goes somewhere, he’s the “former head of the KKK”. Surely he regrets the association. CC isn’t merely defending the NS. He’s proclaiming himself to be one. I admire those who dress in traditional Scottish attire for formal and cultural events, and I’d probably respect Germans who sought to do the same too, though I’m not all that familiar with German dress outside of beer festivals which aren’t even popular in my area. - My only experience with someone identifying as NS was in freshman year of college when a Serb (or maybe Croat) marched around to an american history x song and cursed Jews all day long. I was one of the few people on the hall to be nice to him and to try to get him to be less offensive, and then I discovered he was a race mixer who only wanted to be “superior” as an individual. His attraction to NS was only to scare people. I flew a little Confederate flag in my room, but otherwise I didn’t stand out, though I refused to date any minorities which the NS didn’t refuse. I don’t know if there are refined NS who help old ladies across the street, remain devoted to their wives and families, and who generously help those in need; but I suspect there are many who just embrace that identity for the shock value. - One clarifying point: while chipping away at the WWII myths, it can simultaneously be beneficial to associate the government with some point of NS ideology simply because the government doesn’t want the association. The BNP has used this by portraying its Marxist government as fascist and NS, and I really think this has worked. The BNP doesn’t talk up the myths, it just points out this similarity. I’m getting mad too easily at CC and he’s only been nice to me…, and that’s also counterproductive. That’s why in the past I’ve apologised often. I’ll just let y’all debate it with him instead - I’ll go take my anger out on [insert Klan stereotype victim]. 136
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 09, 2009, 05:36 PM | # Well, Frank, maybe one day they’ll romanticize the “primitive” people of the South, and then the white robe, like the Highland garb banned because of its Jacobite association, will be viewed with romantic nostalgia. 137
Posted by Captainchaos on July 09, 2009, 06:57 PM | #
Stick around and add your incites to the mix. I can’t believe you don’t want to, this site is light years ahead of any other I know of with regards to the sophistication of its commentariat and main posts. 138
Posted by Dasein on July 10, 2009, 04:09 AM | # This is what I meant by Buchanan blowing hot and cold. His last piece was rubbish. Now, he’s back on his game:
139
Posted by Q-not on July 10, 2009, 01:57 PM | #
That is not the assumption, of course. You’re grasping again. The idea that consciousness (God) precedes matter is as ridiculous as The Big Bang (metaphysically equivalent to God’s material manifestation as Jesus). You know this. In the “pro-White Movement” we rightfully identify The Big Bang Theory’s secular origins and criticize the theory’s inconsistencies with observation. We cannot, unfortunately, identify The God Theory’s secular origins or criticize its inconsistencies with observation. Two “competing” theories, firmly in Plato’s camp, and both are wrong. We behave as if these are our only alternatives. I reject this thinking as firmly as I reject Plato. You are grasping for the sake of (a) political(ly expedient) unity with a group of shallow hypocrites who would readily exploit your children once the blood of others has (temporarily) secured the existence of their white-tinted Christianity. Decades ago the platonic Party of The Holy Trinity and its easy money dupes were bought by jewry. Among us, White nationalists, the Party’s remnants have lost the right to lead the next offensive. They may, however, borrow whatever is useful to them. Once again I shall reiterate the meaning of the white-tinted Trinity to White nationalism: God trumps race. Watered-down whiteness advocacy. Working-class Eurokids must die to resurrect their status. End of story. ——————— Ever hear of Ian Jobling? Jobling’s function is to sell Taylor’s white-tinted idea of western traditionalism to suckers, thus the inclusion of jews in “pro-White advocacy.” Jewish inclusion trumps race. Watered-down whiteness advocacy. Jobling would also reject the notion of a genetic difference between risk-tolerant and risk-averse Whites. For fun, a platonic prediction: When push comes to shove Jobling would have working-class Eurokids die to preserve his privileged status as an easy-money sycophant of jewry. ——————— A Committee of Correspondence comprised of sociopolitical entrepreneurs is one thing. Committees of Correspondence comprised of easy-money leather armchair-types, low testosterone pensioners, and truckling JBS-archiving morons are something else entirely. Behavior is the price for admission to the White pool. DNA, ancestry, IQ, and white-tinted skin are merely pre-qualifiers. I reject a Jeffersonian Committee of Correspondence comprised of an “elite” unwilling to implement and otherwise share risk where it matters – on the ground. 140
Posted by Q on July 10, 2009, 02:55 PM | #
That’s very good, Geno. You acually stumbled onto the truth for a change. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Pool-Boots-Kids-Who-Might-Change-the-Complexion.html LOL 141
Posted by Q-not on July 10, 2009, 04:14 PM | # The resident JBS-archiving moron writes:
Lolz. I’m surprised you can spell it. The word truth, that is. 142
Posted by Q on July 10, 2009, 04:28 PM | #
Unlike yourself, Geno Freak, not all pensioners are delirious weaklings. Pictured: The battered and bruised face of a burglar who got on the wrong side of a 72-year-old former boxer 143
Posted by Dasein on July 10, 2009, 05:13 PM | # I don’t know, Q. You might want to check GT’s entry here: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/07/how_i_saw_the_l.php It’s #52. (he also manages to get a reference to the JQ past the Amren moderator, no easy feat) 144
Posted by Q on July 10, 2009, 05:49 PM | #
So, Geno Freak, was a juvenile delinquent; no surprise there. He also mentioned here at MR that he used to belong to The National Alliance and as a result, got into some sort of legal problem - he never elaborated as to what happened. Pattern of criminal behavior? I dunno ... 145
Posted by Q-not on July 10, 2009, 06:52 PM | #
I have wondered why the illiterate Q is tolerated at MR. Then one day the Lord God came to me and said, “All my critters serve a purpose. Q the Onlooker was sent to make GenoType look good!” Thank you, Lord. Thank you very much. 146
Posted by GenoType on July 10, 2009, 07:47 PM | #
You spend much time newsreading. Cybering pensioners born in the late 1950’s are typically disabled or lazy, loaded with vestigial fat and in search of that first heart-attack. I was born in the late 1950’s, myself. If we met, you would be civil. There’s no doubt about it. 147
Posted by Captainchaos on July 11, 2009, 12:29 AM | # And yet there is this, an undercurrent of sadism that is palpable to the NS outlook that always gives me pause: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=369WqEJ6ChA David Irving’s own beloved daughter, who suffered from schizophrenia and committed suicide, would have been liquidated by the National Socialist regime. He is well aware of that. 148
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 11, 2009, 02:52 AM | # “Sadism is the derivation of pleasure as a result of inflicting pain or watching pain inflicted on others.” Is there really evidence of gleeful expectation? 149
Posted by AD on July 11, 2009, 06:44 AM | # Evolution. Creationists demand evidence for transitional forms between A and Z. If you give them ‘M,’ they want a transitional form between and A and M. If you give them G, they want a transitional between A and G, and so on. In reality, everything is a ‘transitional’ form. God. The religious experience is real enough and could well result from a poorly understood aspect of reality—some sort of “higher power”—and is reason enough to “practise faith.” But “Yahweh”? To hell with him. CaptainChaos We may never learn why he is such an uncomprehending asshole. We’ll just have to settle for knowing that he is. GT Class envy is unattractive. So you missed out on all the ‘easy money’; it’s better to get over it. 150
Posted by danielj on July 11, 2009, 07:44 AM | # In reality, everything is a ‘transitional’ form. Like what? What is in between a horse and a whale? 151
Posted by Q on July 11, 2009, 09:46 AM | #
Even if Darwin is entirely correct, does that necessarily negate the existence of a divine Creator? Couldn’t the Creator be using the process of macro-evolution as His means of creation? +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Re: David Irving, Irving and Weber to Address IHR Meeting, July 25 David Irving and Mark Weber will address an IHR meeting on Saturday, July 25, in Orange County, southern California. The British historian will speak on “Hitler, Himmler and `Enigma’: Re-Writing World War II History Using Nazi Messages Decoded by the British Secret Service.” The IHR director will speak on “An `Unknown Holocaust,’ and the Hijacking of History.”
152
Posted by Captainchaos on July 11, 2009, 03:05 PM | #
Silver, it is a rare thing in a particular human being to achieve a lofty detachment from the vicissitudes of his own emotions and external circumstance for a time, much less all the time. Of course it is hardly necessary to tell you that. GT is motivated by, if any “low” motive be accurately ascribed, a desire for revenge against the “sub-humans” who brutalized him when young, and the money-grubbing, status-seeking “race traitors” who failed to protect one of their own in favor of non-Whites because it was in their material acquiring interest to do so. So, there is the simultaneous sense of victimhood at having been exposed to the brutal nature of life as struggle by those that hypocritically profess to end all that - the desire to go back to real moments when he was safe and carefree, and to create a place in which he and those like him (the naturally honest, peaceable and decent) can have lasting peace in future - and contempt for, and a desire to punish, those he perceives as being too stupid, too soft, too genetically defective, to face the awful, hard truth, and assert one’s (genetic) superiority over the (genetically) inferior dross in joyful combat. Or course struggle, red in tooth and claw, against the unthinking brutes of the Third World, is “immoral” only in the sense that it fails to live up to our White standard of magnanimity for the weaker in that were we to take the gloves off, enough of us, it would be an unmitigated, one-sided slaughter in our favor. But to what degree is magnanimity just another hypocritical “bourgeois” construct that is only the prerogative of those aforementioned hypocrites who need not lift a finger to secure the actual conditions in which it is rational from the perspective of survival to pursue said as Virtue? To my mind, that is the fundamental question which divides the outlooks of GT and GW; and the fundamental question which divides English “moral superiority” and from the NS outlook. Is magnanimity nothing but a construct which enables material acquisition and status seeking or is true Virtue which is an end unto itself for the noble man? Should Plato be flushed? We know GT’s answer. What is your answer GW? Silver, just what is it I don’t comprehend, you greasy little bastard? LOL! 153
Posted by GenoType on July 11, 2009, 03:26 PM | # Thanks CC. My reply to Mr. Accidental Dissent: The Experts Agree…
Class Envy Is Unattractive. Get Over It. 154
Posted by Guessedworker on July 11, 2009, 04:58 PM | # CC, Magnanimity, like all altruisms, is an evolved behaviour which must have offered a fitness gain in the EEA, or it would not exist. It is not possible to divest ourselves of it anymore than it is possible to grow our white epidermis purple. Any attempt to ignore European altruism will do greater harm than doing nothing. Self-evidently, today European altruism has lost its moral reference point of reciprocity. But that is a product of modernity. It would be possible to recover equilibrium with a philosophical framework that included the principle of reciprocity. As for virtue, it is not an end in itself, no matter that Christianity and liberalism may make it so. All one man (or an entire people) can really do is to live by his own truths, and virtue will come to live in his house or she will not. It is praxis, not method. The attempt to turn it into method always produces monstrous outcomes because then it becomes action in service of a principle, meaning an ethic, which is again reified over the natural order, and is therefore false. 155
Posted by GenoType on July 11, 2009, 05:11 PM | #
A damn good question, phrased better than I’ve ever managed, and certain to make foundational conservatives – the risk averse – wince. Wincers capable of thinking about the question will experience an “Ah ha!” moment upon realizing that magnanimity may be easily masked, rhetorically, as altruism. If altruism is White, then White becomes a cover for cons having livelihoods dependent upon practicing a faux magnanimity. This is one very important reason why ancestry, DNA, IQ, and white-skin are mere pre-qualifiers for admission to the White pool. Past behavior is the deciding factor. Our task is to discover local, behavioral means of exposing these white-tinted poseurs. 156
Posted by Dasein on July 11, 2009, 05:24 PM | #
The truly sadistic ones were those opponents Irving mentioned in the interview who sent him flowers mocking his daugther’s death. These are the sorts of creeps that Robert Lindsay considers to be the ‘good guys’. 157
Posted by Dasein on July 11, 2009, 05:29 PM | #
Maybe this behaviour could be exposed like Candid Camera. Create a scenario where the status-based response is to betray a White. Published on YouTube, it would make great propaganda. 158
Posted by Captainchaos on July 11, 2009, 06:34 PM | #
That those who wish the destruction of their own people rejoice in the suffering endured by those who wish to save said is not news to me. I wish to flesh out NS, warts and all, at least for myself, and those who care, to see if can be of any use to us, or at least which bits of it can be of use to us. But the proposition that those that planned, organized and carried out the extermination of the mentally ill, at no time, and none of them, were motivated by sadism does not pass the smell test. And any man who would hand over his own “defective” child to the butchers, or take another man’s child from him, because he had his Gauleiter’s dick too far down his throat, was vile trash that deserved to be shot in his pig face.
Local activism could entail discovering and exposing the ways in which specific race traitors betray. Of use for where to look would be a general psychological model of who to look for (I recall, not in detail, that GT has already provided something along that line). But the response to all that from the lemmings may well be, “Who cares?” Perhaps a better question, How to get people to give a shit? I guess that is the question GW’s philosophy penchant seeks to answer. 159
Posted by Lurker on July 11, 2009, 07:29 PM | # I suspect that the “who cares?” response is a cop out. Translation - “I don’t want to continue this line of conversation because I know, deep down, that I don’t want to face what it means.” 160
Posted by GenoType on July 11, 2009, 08:55 PM | #
My view is this: The (risk tolerant) warrior genes of continental Northwestern Europe have been expunged from history, which is fundamental to the question of why they are committed to national solutions – national elections, military coups, and revolution fantasies – which are commensurate with taking control of the easy money judeoeconomic system, and are guaranteed to fail or be of temporary duration at best. Add to this the effect of US economic and military power, and continental Northwestern Europe has zero chance of national resurrection at the hands of a committed minority of indigenous warriors. In the United States warrior genes are found in the Irish and to a lesser extent the Scots, both of whom survived our fratricidal conflict of the mid-19th century – the former due to its having fought on the winning side, the latter due to large families in the South. In addition to these we have the descendants of Italian, German, and Eastern European immigrants from the late 19th and early 20th centuries to add to the warrior pool. The rule is this: Euroman’s salvation begins and ends in the United States. Western Europe’s survival ultimately rests in the hands of American Irish, Scots, Italians, and Eastern Europeans. Be nice to them folks – be very, very nice. If we fail here then all of North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand are gone to us. The risk averse will survive for a while, but with no hope for salvation. They’ll be slaughtered like lambs by Third World immigrants, a little at a time. In time they too will be gone, for they haven’t the cohesiveness of jews. Frankly, the assholes don’t deserve better. 161
Posted by GenoType on July 11, 2009, 09:45 PM | #
Yes it would make great propaganda – for the Internet and in local situations conducive to airing the flick. Unfortunately, I’m not a camera/video person. Furthermore, I suspect that most camera/video people presently in our ranks are extremely unsympathetic to exposing status-based responses. Why? White nationalism is rife with risk-averse, foundational conservatives wishing to preserve their status as Internet talking-heads of “superior” intellect, cult-safe opinions, and damn little of anything useful beyond newsreading and general agreement with the present zeitgeist. They would, in effect, be undermining themselves. 162
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 11, 2009, 09:52 PM | #
And what that does not happen today? There’s not one single dickweed that gets a giggle from the sucking the brain out of a Down Syndrome foetus? Show us the money? Smell test my ass!
So what excuse does today’s hero have. What you don’t think today’s “defectives” are not left in hospitals to die? Hospitals spend a million bucks to save them and then release them to a system that doesn’t care sweet fuck all for their well being. You don’t think parents don’t leave their “defective” children alone so they can drown in there own puke? Schizos are released as outpatient because nobody cares. Even Sweden’s socialized medicine boots them out of the hospital and stats confirm the increased mortality rates not only from suicide but other morbidity issues. Don’t start preaching this morality shite when you haven’t got a fucking clue! 163
Posted by Captainchaos on July 11, 2009, 11:02 PM | #
All we have to base our “morality” upon is what we have evolved. I think you can understand the difference in the effect upon the sensibilities of a morally normal person in aborting a foetus and, er, aborting a much more physically developed person post birth.
That was NS regime policy, indisputably. It came about as a product of the character of the regime. It was perverse, no decent person could have submitted to that policy in good conscience. Some Germans protested, and it was officially disbanded as a result, but carried forward on the sly.
So what? Immoral behavior cannot be used to justify other examples of immoral behavior, at least in my book, I don’t know about yours.
I don’t think NS Germany was a panacea in all respects, sorry. Yet, all things considered, it would have been better if it had won the war. _____________________________
If true, that is quit depressing. I had been thinking about the contrast in strategies and came to the conclusion that perhaps the “national solution” in Europe is more achievable there because they have true ethnys, as opposed to the “polyglot” of Europeans here in America. But if their malaise of not acting on whatever racial consciousness they have can be explained by an emasculated gene pool, why cannot that explanation also be applied to American Whites? The BNP is doing more than all of American WN combined - they risk much. 164
Posted by Captainchaos on July 11, 2009, 11:40 PM | # Further, it is you Desmond, who has consistently stressed the importance of a withered altruism that enable cruelty, and hence breakdown group cohesion, within our race. I can accept GT’s tribal warrior ethos as morally justified in the context of what we all believe is waiting for us not so far down the line, as is readily on display in South Africa and Rhodesia, as defensive in nature, but can never accept the contention that non-Whites as wholly exterminable “sub-humans” as anything but morally bankrupt. Why are you so invested in NS that you need to defend it to the extent that you dismiss what was regime policy to exterminate members of its own people. After all, even the best warriors for Germany would have been elderly one day, and what use would they have been then? So why not just snuff them to save a few bucks that would have gone to their care and could have been spent better elsewhere? No, magnanimity cannot be dispensed with. 165
Posted by Desmond Jones on July 12, 2009, 12:35 AM | # What is evident is that you haven’t spent five fucking minutes with the disabled and those who care for them, yet you somehow feel qualified to pronounce on their “morality”. You make charges of sadism without one fucking iota of evidence except an obtuse “smell test”. You allege that the father whose child initiated the T4 programme was a “cocksucker”. And if amniocentesis was available then, and the severe disability identified, then killing of that child via abortion is morally excusable, because there’s a difference, right? The disabled are killed all the time, mostly because their caregivers are in despair. No doubt their killers find pleasure there, at least according to know-nothings like you. And no, Darwin’s assessment of altruism had nothing to do with racial cohesion. Why don’t your take this Nazi identity crisis and shove it up your ass. 166
Posted by Captainchaos on July 12, 2009, 02:44 AM | #
Those who actually do the job of caring for the disabled, and not killing them, are moral.
Well now, I do contend there is a major moral difference in aborting a foetus and killing a ten year old child, yes.
And that is a moral failing on their part. Or is it not in your opinion? Nor is it regime policy. Those in power (in a regime) typically like wielding power, and they wield their power in ways that they like, if they can get away with it. They chose to exterminate the mentally ill, so what does that tell you?
The expansion of altruism beyond the bounds of our ethnys, our race, has nothing to do with racial cohesion? Nor would the contraction of altruism below the level of ethny, to say only immediate family, not have consequences for the cohesion of a whole ethny? Just how would NS have worked in the latter scenario?
Why don’t you stop being such a prissy little cuss every time your sacred cow gets gored. I believe part of reclaiming the legacy of NS from our enemies, so they can no longer flog us with it, is to come to an honest assessment of what morally laudable and morally unacceptable consequences flowed from it. David Irving, in my opinion, does a pretty decent job of identifying the good and the bad. ______________________________________________________ Btw, I think the best service we can do our kin in Europe is to attempt to break up the US by encouraging balkanization and succession, thereby fracturing its power. 167
Posted by Captainchaos on July 12, 2009, 03:03 AM | # Irving says he is a stone cleaner, a sincere National Socialist should be, in addition, a stone chiseler. There is no good reason, and every reason not to, shove that up one’s ass. 168
Posted by Fr. John on July 12, 2009, 10:09 AM | # “Fr. John, That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day!! Chuck can’t win. Klinghoffer , Stein and Auster are aghast because Master Charles wrote that the civilized races will exterminate the savage races over time… and now you suggest that his grand theory was miscegenation. WOW!!” Desmond- I was not suggesting it. I was merely referring to an English news article that suggested it. You can find the link over at my blog, under the post ‘Charles and Harriet sittin’ in a tree’. 169
Posted by Fr. John on July 12, 2009, 10:14 AM | # “Funnily enough, this is the conclusion that some race-mixing enthusiasts may draw from the 2nd chapter of this book, which deals with Neanderthal introgression (i.e. the incorporation of Neanderthal genes into the European sapiens genome). The Neanderthal introgression theory is interesting and seems plausible on the surface. They suggested that some of the increases in European brain size might have come from limited mating between the two species. Now, if we got good genes from mixing with Neanderthals, the race-mixer will say, what could possibly be wrong with mixing with every possible race and producing one massive, diverse gene pool that can produce a higher form of human. Maybe it could be called degenerate eugenics, because it would ignore EGI. And the current environment our Westen elites have given us makes dysfunctional behaviour adaptive. So there are a number of reasons why it’s a bad idea, but I can see some race-mixers holding it up as a historical precedent (even if not proven yet).” Dasein, I know of no one that is touting this idea, except two Jews who said taht Jews are basically Neanderthals. http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/of-adam’s-seed-and-david’s-line/ Frankly, if Jews want to see themselves as Neanderthals, I’m all for it. I see myself as Adam’s kin, and the Mosaic writings clearly say we are not to mix with the ‘nations round about’. That mentality sufficed until the [sic] Enligtenment. From then on, (and with Darwin’s and Huxley’s help) all hell broke loose. The record of White hegemony and achievement far outweighs any a-theistic religion, such as Darwinian Evolution. 170
Posted by Dasein on July 12, 2009, 02:52 PM | # GenoType, Digital cameras are dirt simple to operate, the hardest part would be to come up with good scenarios. There would also be the issue of anonymity, presuming you would want to preserve it. But there are lots of opportunities for this sort of thing. It would be great if it caught on with the younger generation. A cool prank that just happens to be adaptive. Another potentially useful thing would be to get signatures (and filmed statements) for 2 different petitions. For each, you would need a fake newspaper clipping to give the interviewee the staged background. For one case, you would have a White colleague who had attacked a Negro colleague and there was suspicion of racial motivation. It would be some petition to get the union involved or get the guy suspended (e.g. pretend he’s a public servant). Then do the exact same thing with White and Negro reversed. Just one example of the sort of thing that could generate data for WN propaganda. 171
Posted by Dasein on July 12, 2009, 03:31 PM | # CC, I would be interested, once you have found more of the answers you’re looking for, to get your take on NS. I don’t understand it myself. I doubt few really do. Most of what we know is from what the NSDAP did during their brief tenure. There was the stuff they did in the mid-late 30s, which for many Germans was the high point of the last century. They did an interview here on a national station a couple of years back where they had some fellow who was in his 90s. They asked him what was the greatest period that he lived through. I think they were expecting him to say just after the war, during the ‘economic miracle’, because they’d spent some time talking about this. But then he told them it was the 30s. The interviewer looked a bit rattled, didn’t really know what else to say, and then just carried on with some other topic. Hitler was still popular in Germany years after the war was over. NS was probably the last great anti-liberal movement in the West. Heidegger was very enthusiastic about NS early on, but became disenchanted with the version being practiced by the NSDAP. I’d like to understand more of how he understood ‘real’ NS should be (I’m reading a book by Charles Bamberg at the moment that discusses this). So there was that part of historical NS that impressed ordinary Germans and intellectuals in the 30s. Then you had the war, all the crimes committed on both sides, and the devastation of the country. It’s like you were preparing some gourmet dish, taking your time. You and your staff sample as you’re going along, everyone agrees it tastes great. Then, in a rush at the end, you turn up the heat and the thing burns and is caramelized. Is it because there was too much sugar? Or was it just circumstances? Was there some fundamental flaw in NS? Was this something Heidegger foresaw? What are the implications of his rejecting their racial biology. I don’t know the answer to these questions yet. I am searching for a philosophy that will shatter liberalism. 172
Posted by Captainchaos on July 12, 2009, 05:18 PM | # Dasein,
Sounds like full-blown investigative journalism to me.
Heidegger was an essentially religious man whom I suspect could not countenance something so “crude” as drawing all value, and valuing only, the material. He has my sympathy. Salter, commenting on Hamilton, says:
So, are domain-specific mental capacities for pursuing EGI a necessary condition for a philosophy of European salvation to take root? I don’t know. Perhaps it is only necessary to replace liberalism with racialism in the realm of explicit processing. 173
Posted by Guessedworker on July 12, 2009, 05:55 PM | # CC, I read Salter’s passage about Hamilton and these “domain-specific mental capacities” as referring to Jewish-style hyper-ethnocentrism, which we do not possess, but missing our remarkable capacity for “fairness”. This sense of what is fair is the gate through which our ethnocentrism, such as it is, walked out. It is also the gate through which it can, with the right moral encouragement, walk back. Remember that the walk-out was attended by guilt at European colonial and plain racial aggressivity against the Other. Now the boot is on the other foot, which pleases the 10% of liberal-leftists amongst us, but nobody else. In defence of our existence we can and will apply the concept of “fairness” in a very different and more healthy way. All that is needed is the right ideological framework to oppose the liberal dictat. I agree with Dasein that you should offer what you find in NS, good, bad and different, for publication - preferably here. 174
Posted by Andrew Bell on March 08, 2011, 07:55 PM | # After reading a percentage of the comments made here I’m convinced that obviously the missing links in Human evolution are making comments here, Oh I’m sorry your in some crack pot religious community. Next entry: The English Defence League march in Birmingham, 4th July 2009 Previous entry: The Moral high ground? |
|
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 |
). Everybody seems to think he’s the second coming. I mean, I consider myself an opinionated, cantakerous, stubborn S.O.B. but I’m a wallflower compared to what seems the average Stormfronter. Man you should see some of the crazy shit to come out of their keyboards (most here have probably seen their share). Just gets old sometimes. Hell I’m sure half the commenters at Sailer’s site would like to throttle me for similar objections.
Posted by Jews Try to Steal 'Good Blood' of Non-Jews on June 29, 2009, 11:37 AM | #
Don’t forget about torsion dystonia, which is another Ashkenazi genetic disorder and has been proven to directly correlate with very high intelligence.
Jews have been using the eugenic strategy of ‘gene theft’ for a long time. Everywhere they have settled they have sought to infiltrate the native non-Jewish upper-classes and intermarry with them, thus in effect stealing the best genes away from a particular group or nation and attempting to incorporate them within the Jewish gene pool.
Jewry has managed to genetically infiltrate the elite upper-echelons and middle/upper-middle classes of many White societies. This means that, in effect, Jews have managed to steal many of the best/elite White genes for themselves over the years, hoarding them and enriching the Jewish gene pool at the expense of the native/non-Jewish gene pool. Hence a nation is infiltrated and slowly destroyed from within as Jews become the new hostile elite of a people or nation as the old leaders are replaced, die off, or (preferably for Jews) marry or breed in to the Jewish gene pool.
Jewish gene theft has been a recurring Jewish pattern - like vampires, Jews constantly need ‘fresh blood’ to stay on top of the parasitic pyramid. It also helps them to blend in a bit more physically with the surrounding native population which they seek to dominate and exploit. It goes like this: Jews move in to a society, and slowly they acquire wealth, influence, and power therein. With this newly gained wealth/influence/power they are able to in effect buy their way in to the elite upper-echelons of non-Jewish societies. They then encourage many of these elite non-Jews to marry or otherwise breed in to the Jewish gene pool using all of their wealth and power along with massively indebting the non-Jewish elite classes (remember how many different European nobles and monarchs had all kinds of debts with Jews?), bribing them, deliberately causing political and economic problems in the country so they relent, etc. Many times throughout history I’m sure that Jews have agreed to totally erase the ever-mounting debts of many White European nobles/aristocrats in exchange for one of their young noble/aristocratic (non-Jewish) daughters. This noble/aristorcratic White child would have been brought in to the Jewish community when she was very young, and then eventually paired with the most accomplished local Jew(s) and forced to bear as many children as possible.
Wealthy and powerful Jewish males have also been known to impregnate beautiful and elite non-Jewish women from good non-Jewish families by enticing them with money/power and all of the personal pleasures it can buy; similarly, Jewish women have been known (and have been encouraged by fellow Jews) to flirt endlessly with elite/powerful/wealthy non-Jewish men until they relent and either impregnate or marry them…sometimes Jews have even deliberately used nubile young teenage female Jews in some circumstances to tempt or entice elite/powerful non-Jews in to inadvertently breeding in to the Jewish gene pool - yes indeed, Jews are that sneaky.
Jewish gene thievery has the added bonus of eliminating anti-Jewish feelings from the people most likely to be anti-Jewish (the native non-Jewish upper classes and middle/upper-middle classes) due to the fact that Jews are essentially replacing them in the elite portion of society - if Jews cannot manage to infiltrate their way in to a nation’s leadership class through slow gene theft, bribery, wealth enticement, and/or plain acceptance, they then resort to using crime, wars, revolutions or political unrest, economic collapses, and other deliberate Jew-caused instability to attempt to dislodge the native elite ruling classes so that they can take their place - this happened in Russia and lead to the Jew-dominated USSR, and seems to currently be happening in modern America as Jews use the current economic collapse to further cement their absolute centralized economic control over American society and eliminate or identify any potential competition which they will assiduously work to absorb and/or eliminate.
—-