A conversation with Alex Linder

Posted by john fitzgerald on November 19, 2009, 02:05 PM | #

Niche market really. And too earnest for many I think. Contrast with Simon Darby with Jim Giles. Saying that, he’s woken up many with his uncompromising writing.
KMac in his writing and interviews is doing more to frame the issues clearly.

Posted by PW on November 19, 2009, 02:44 PM | #

GW—the interview with Linder was good.

However, you made one major mistake in saying that we humans control Nature.  We do not and never have controlled Nature...we have merely managed to tame it in a very partial way.

I’m not a Nazi or rabid Hitlerist, but read some of what he said about this exact topic—READ ALL OF THE INFO IN THIS LINK; here is a small excerpt:

“Man’s effort to build up something that contradicts the iron logic of Nature brings him into conflict with those principles to which he himself exclusively owes his own existence. By acting against the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leads to his ruin.

Here we meet the insolent objection, which is Jewish in its inspiration and is typical of the modern pacifist. It says: “Man can control even Nature.”

There are millions who repeat by rote that piece of Jewish babble and end up by imagining that somehow they themselves are the conquerors of Nature. And yet their only weapon is just a mere idea, and a very preposterous idea into the bargain; because if one accepted it, then it would be impossible even to imagine the existence of the world.

The real truth is that, not only has man failed to overcome Nature in any sphere whatsoever but that at best he has merely succeeded in getting hold of and lifting a tiny corner of the enormous veil which she has spread over her eternal mysteries and secret...” - http://www.wise.virginia.edu/history/wciv2/kampf.html

Also, regarding the atheism of yourself and Linder; Spengler on atheism: ”Atheism comes not with the evening of the Culture but with the dawn of Civilization.” (from DECLINE, Chapter X)

Posted by Gorboduc on November 19, 2009, 06:20 PM | #

Sauce for the goose:

http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/11/that-new-lets-kill-goy-book.html

Posted by apollonian2nd on November 19, 2009, 06:39 PM | #

Alex Linder: Most Insidious, Deceptive, Satanic Tool Of The Jew
(Apollonian, 19 Nov 09)

For goodness sakes--what’s this bullshit?--Alex Linder/VNN (VanguardNewsNetwork.com) is not merely a non-Christian--he’s an ANTI-Christ--he’s a joke--and therefore he’s NOT loyal or sympathetic to white folks or gentile anti-semitic movement/cause.  Linder, as anti-Christ, effectively works for Jews, can’t u see?--even if he ostensibly curses Jews.  For note Jews will make use of anti-semites as long as they work against gentile unity--which unity is only possible under a rationalist Christianity.

For observe this anti-Christianity of Linder, who insists upon lie that Christians are mere versions/variation of same basic Judaism, is essentially same claim of “Judeo-Christian” (JC--see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists who say Christ was Jew (hence Talmudist), which confuses Jews (followers of Pharisees and Talmud) with Judeans, most of whom were NOT followers of Pharisaic murderers of Christ who stood for TRUTH (hence objective reality, necessary criterion to truth) against Jew lies, subjectivism, moralism, fascism, and conspiracy, in accord w. Gosp. JOHN.

CONCLUSION: Further, note Linder is truly malignant double-minded sort of liar who first pretends to criticise Christianity on supposed, professed basis of reason--BUT consider Linder is NOT an advocate of reason, rather asserting a Nietzshean-type emotionalist kind of mysticism of his own.  Linder is truly a convoluted, muddled piece-of-work, indubitably, and his only practical effect is to ISOLATING whites against all others, allowing Jews to pretend they champion humanity against whites who are fascists.  Honest elections and death to the Fed.  Apollonian

Posted by sirrealpolitik on November 19, 2009, 11:34 PM | #

dear apollonian,

but...don’t you know? chri$tianity is just irrational jewish bull$hit. i don’t care how you slice it. it comes out brown. it has (that have) stained the occident for 1.5k yrs.

“bow down and obey thy anthropomorphic gawd! and while yer down there, smooch this ring.”

but no more.

ancient greeks and 18th and 19th century germans: THERE are some rationalists for you.

s.r.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 19, 2009, 11:52 PM | #

PW,

Are we not materially secure?  You know ... Peak Oil, the Cote d’Azure, the obesity crisis, crop rotation, the rise of the towns in the Middle Ages, the Perpendicular style ... do not these things argue for a remarkable freedom from the existential struggle of the deep European past.

Since there is no disputing that European peoples evolved physical characteristics and behaviours that were fitted to that struggle ... fitted to survival in the eight months of annual cold and food-scarcity ... there should not be any either that these characteristics and behaviours constitute a certain posture, a certain line of attack peculiar to us.  That posture did not go away because of our material security.  It is in us and of us.  So what happened to it ... where did it go when the struggle itself was no longer pursued?  That is the question I am raising.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 19, 2009, 11:52 PM | #

Oh dera. SR, bang goes the neighbourhood…

Posted by BryanVP on November 19, 2009, 11:55 PM | #

Apollon - Christianity is just a crock of jewish bullshit used to control Whites.  That’s what it always has been. If people weren’t trying to be ‘christ’ like, do you think we ever would have allowed jews and millions upon millions of mexicans into America?  Do you think the early Americans would have even kept the injuns alive if they weren’t trying to convert them to score brownie points for their jewish god?

Unite under a rationalist christianity? That’s an oxymoron. Christians have been killing white men in the name of Jeboo since the inception of Christianity.  Anti-Christian is a compliment. You can cling to that Arabic garbage all you want, just get ready to start pitching many a hissy fit, because more white men are writing it off as just that, Arabic garbage.

Posted by Observing Jack on November 20, 2009, 12:26 AM | #

The main problem with the interview is that you didn’t ask him any hard questions about his absurd belief in the Single Jewish Cause.

Posted by Gorboduc on November 20, 2009, 12:27 AM | #

Oh dear, the standard of argument here has plumetted AGAIN. Can it go much lower?

LOOK: several people have blown upon Linder, and no-one is really sure if he’s an honest and reliable man, or a stooge, traitor, police spy or whatever.

BUT: he’s anti-Christian. Seems that’s QUITE sufficient for others to admire, succour and follow him.

In other words, some proportion of the readership here DOESN’T MIND whether he’s a crook, just as long as he can make the anti-Christian noises they like to hear.

So even if the Star of David flag is hanging out of the Pied Piper’s breeches, BryanVP and SR will go merrily dancing after him, wherever he may lead them. Silly guys.

The energy expended in stating these and similar convictions is in direct inverse proportion to the strength of the actual arguments deployed: and indefensible prejudices often triy to hide their weaknesses behind a torrent of malodorous abuse.

It’s a shame that having invoked ‘rationalism’, sr isn’t up to wielding it: I suppose it would be pointless asking him/her for a definition, or an example or two. And,WHAT a shame it is that the equally forthright and equally clueless Bryan VP has to resort to the babyish abuse of ‘Jeboo’.

Posted by Alex Linder on November 20, 2009, 12:41 AM | #

Posted by Observing Jack on November 20, 2009, 12:26 AM | #

The main problem with the interview is that you didn’t ask him any hard questions about his absurd belief in the Single Jewish Cause.

Well don’t hold back, budger. If you’re capable of producing a question worth answering, I surely will.

I’ll kick things off with two observations:

1) SJC is a strawman. The neutral and accurate term would be Main Jewish Cause.

2) Nobody gets thrown in jail for criticizing liberals or liberalism. By contrast, men who blame jews for their actions get smeared, jailed or murdered - worldwide.

Posted by Selous Scout on November 20, 2009, 12:49 AM | #

I really enjoyed this interview. It was like eavesdropping on a discussion between two far-right intellects--exactly what we need more of, IMO.

The momentum for WNism is growing.

I understood the conversation and the issues discussed, but I’m not sure I would be able to make a vaulable contribution. It’s clear I need to do more reading. To that end, if one were to compile a list of the Top 10 or Top 20 WN Classics, what would they be?

Posted by Captainchaos on November 20, 2009, 12:54 AM | #

Consistent with your speculation that the Promethean will to overcome in European Man has now been turned inwards and is devouring him with no new frontiers left to conquer, GW, would it not suit him well to channel that muscular drive to the struggle for his survival, perhaps concordant with Jonathan Bowden’s exhortations to pursue glory?

Posted by Alex Linder on November 20, 2009, 01:23 AM | #

would it not suit him well to channel that muscular drive to the struggle for his survival, perhaps concordant with Jonathan Bowden’s exhortations to pursue glory?

If I might answer too, the answer is YES!

The appeal of our cause is that it is difficult. We seek the men Shackleton sought via his famous ad.

Our cause is in the spirit of JFK’s statement:

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard.”

Too many see our cause as appealing to people, like waiters pitching specials to bored housewives. No, no, no. There is no way for us to out-compete the paid-for parties when it comes to pandering. Our cause is far more like a religious crusade than an election campaign.

As I have written repeatedly, the man who defeats the jews will go down as the greatest man in the history of the world. That is a powerful incentive to the type we seek.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 20, 2009, 01:28 AM | #

Nice try, CC.  You do realise that in aiming us basterds at the glourious you would be feminising us, don’t you?  Look, glory is an unintended and unsought after side-effect.  Regardless of what any clever people think, it isn’t a stable basis for human activity - and certainly not a stable principle for the European life.  We should do certain things because it is right that we should do them, and for no other reason.

Do you know the rather well-made Redford movie, Jeremiah Johnson?  JJ went into the Rocky Mountains to be a mountain man, and so stripped away from himself all the ways of the townspeople he had hitherto moved among.  In the mountains and the cold, he went back to the struggle to survive - which in due course was accompanied by a struggle to survive a succession of assaults by Crow would-be assassins.  There was recognition from the Indians and the scattered white men in the mountains for his deeds in surviving the onslaught, but it was not sought by him.  His purpose in the mountains remained to be a mountain man, because that was what satisfied his soul.

Plainly, we do not want to return to the uncertainties of the deep European past, and we cannot uninvent our technologies or resile from our history.  But we do need satisfaction from the life that we live.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 20, 2009, 01:46 AM | #

I enjoyed the interview.

I have a few quick questions:

GW, you’ve said that you were more advanced philosophically/intellectually than the folks at T.O.Q. (you specifically mentioned Sunic). Could you please expand? How are you more advanced? In what way? Maybe I don’t follow M.R. and T.O.Q. closely enough to see this advantage.

What book on Rockwell are you reading, A.L.?

I’m used to hearing your hostility to German National Socialism (and just Germans in general...you couldn’t have picked a more fitting partner than DD!), GW, but I’m curious to know if there are aspects of German National Socialism that would be beneficial and salutary for the survival of the English; and what parts of German National Socialism could be adopted by the English, if any. If we follow MacDonald’s thinking that atomistic individualism is what distinguishes Northern Europeans, then one is tempted to make the argument that any collectivist movement goes against that Northern European nature. If we accept that line of reasoning, it will take a non-European solution to a European problem.

I can’t accept MacDonald’s position on National Socialism, collectivist movements have continually been produced by North Europeans during their history - National Socialism being just one of them - and National Socialism wouldn’t have been as successful and popular among Germans if it weren’t already in their bloodstream, so to speak. I also think that he generalizes too much: Northern Europeans aren’t a undifferentiated blob. I think MacDonald’s views Germany through an American individualistic, pioneering prism that colors his estimations of a piece of real estate he doesn’t really know. Germany and Germans were never particularly individualistic in their organization, if National Socialism were foreign to their inner being they wouldn’t have taken to it like ducks to water in such a short span and held on to it for so long. It took a massive programme of indoctrination at gun point to effectuate societal change. Of course this in turn has produced a massive psychosis in Germans and an unnatural and imposed xenophilia.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 20, 2009, 01:53 AM | #

Excellent interview — I just listened to it for the first time.  Excellent on both their parts, interviewer and interviewee.  As good as it gets, in fact:  top rank stuff.

Posted by Dan Dare on November 20, 2009, 02:13 AM | #

... perhaps concordant with Jonathan Bowden’s exhortations to pursue glory?

Or even something as mundane as weaning himself off petroleum?

A couple of observations on the talk ...

I thought Mr. Linder acquitted himself very well and came across in person as a much more-rounded individual than his uni-dimensional cyber-persona would suggest. He is surely correct about the effectiveness of Goebbelsian ‘multi-level’ propaganda as well as in noting that much of it during the NS era had little if anything to say about Jews. I thought his remarks on the Anglo-Saxon propensity for individualism and the Teutonic for collectivism to be spot on and in line with my own empirical observations. More time might have been spent on exploring the reasons behind what, given the genetic commonality, appears to be an anomaly.

I was a little disappointed though that GW didn’t take the opportunity to correct some of the misperceptions about Griffin and the BNP. It might have been worth noting that public figures have far less room for manoeuvre in the UK than in the US, as Griffin’s three prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred demonstrate. The BNP stance on Israel also seems to have been misunderstood.

It was interesting to hear GW expound on Christianity and its contribution to our present malaise. He put the case eloquently but unpersuasively and, although he indicated there is a self-imposed taboo on the matter, I for one would like to see a more complete exposition of his views and the rationale behind them.

I’ve just noticed FB’s comments to GW at 01:46. Assuming that DD refers to yours truly, I would like to assure him that I have no hostility towards Germans, in fact quite the opposite. And any hostility towards NS Germany arises purely from its aggressively militaristic attitude towards other Europeans.

Posted by Alex Linder on November 20, 2009, 02:18 AM | #

What book on Rockwell are you reading, A.L.?

“Hate: GLR and the American Nazi Party,” by William Schmaltz. Don’t know if he’s a jew. I think it came out in 1999. It’s nothing special, but it is a solid rundown, year by year, of GLR’s activities.

http://www.amazon.com/Hate-George-Lincoln-Rockwell-American/dp/1574882627

Posted by Captainchaos on November 20, 2009, 02:24 AM | #

GW, we’ve got the domain-general shit in spades, it is the relatively weak, if present at all, domain-specific specifics we are found wanting in with regards to the task at hand.  The question has always been how to put some meat on those Salterian bones that the lemmings might be tempted to bite it.  If that be a call for Krautic palingeneticism, then so be it.  Consistent with your ruminations on the essentials of manliness, I always found JWH’s additions a bit, er, lavender.  The Kraut’s simple and rugged jackboot is more in keeping with Northern European masculinity, even if it does tend to telegraph somewhat more theatrically his intent than the Limey’s more subdued approach to ethnocentrism.  Perhaps the Englishman’s enemy will not know his he slated for termination until he hears steel knocks flint, that is if the former ever gets around to pulling the trigger.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 20, 2009, 02:34 AM | #

“Schmaltz”...how do they come up with their names?

And any hostility towards NS Germany arises purely from its aggressively militaristic attitude towards other Europeans.

Yeah...I assume that if burglars breaks into your house, rapes your wife, kills your children, and takes everything you have you’ll show at least some aggression and go after them.

Posted by Dan Dare on November 20, 2009, 02:40 AM | #

I don’t intend to rise to the bait, FB, but good try anyway.

Posted by Q on November 20, 2009, 02:45 AM | #

My guess, CC, your not much of a fan of ‘my man’ Lothrop Stoddard?

Posted by Captainchaos on November 20, 2009, 03:05 AM | #

In a recent interview with Jim Giles, Bowery said in response to Giles’ questioning him about Linder’s preferred solution to the Jewish Question, “I don’t agree with that, I think that’s wrong.” I agree.  But, if the Jews are given either, or all, of southern California, Florida or New York how will we effect total reconquest of the North American continent consistent with the Founder’s vision?

Bowery also expressed his fondness for puppies.

Posted by PF on November 20, 2009, 04:03 AM | #

Great to hear more of your philosophy expounded, GW.

I particularly liked the discussion of this strange principle in European man - CaptainChaos above calls it The Promethean, which seems fair enough - this striving, restless survival instinct which causes endless innovation and stirring. Perhaps this is why we are such slaves to the intellect, and to thought.

Also appreciated the discourse on the two-fold nature of religion.

Your ideas come across more clearly in spoken word than they do in writing GW. Perhaps because you tend to use certain abstract words which have a specific and clarified meaning and force for you - as is evident when you say them - which is not properly conveyed in text. The 21st century reader may go to sleep when hearing these abstract words, not realizing that you have earned the right to use them and that you actually mean what you say in specific ways that are clear to you. In some sense for me unless I hear them spoken with clarity and presence of mind, I’ve been so deadened to the use of abstract words that I can scarcely hear them properly.

cheers

Posted by Alex Linder on November 20, 2009, 04:33 AM | #

The question has always been how to put some meat on those Salterian bones that the lemmings might be tempted to bite it.

You lead. There’s no other way. Can’t expect the public to be braver or bolder than leaders. There are plenty of indications the public supports our positions. It votes against ‘affirmative action’ and open borders; ‘white flight’ indicates desire to live among whites.

There’s no clever or easy way out. That’s where the problem comes in. People try to act like there is a way to slick it or nice it. There is not.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 20, 2009, 07:50 AM | #

Do you know the rather well-made Redford movie, Jeremiah Johnson?

Well, well, a Sydney Pollack fan. First Three Days of the Condor and now Jeremiah Johnson. JJ was a miscegenator punished after forsaking his new found path and aiding his people, white men and women. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnR3BBqlFck&feature=related

Posted by danielj on November 20, 2009, 11:04 AM | #

this striving, restless survival instinct which causes endless innovation and stirring.

Well then, it isn’t a “survival” instinct at all is it?

It is more like an “innovation” instinct and it ain’t nothing special.

ancient greeks and 18th and 19th century germans: THERE are some rationalists for you.

There are plenty of Christian rationalists proper if that is your bag; neo-scholastics, Thomists, Catholics, etc. A lot of ancient Greeks weren’t really rationalists and the fucking Krauts are almost as far away from the position as you can get. Pick up some books dummy, or just read Captain Chaos’ comments.

1) SJC is a strawman. The neutral and accurate term would be Main Jewish Cause.

I think it is more important to actually etch out the position in more complete relief and all of its logical corollaries. Fighting about the name is pointless since to describe is to name. However you slice the theory, I would submit mostly that it should drive its adherents to despair since the combination of genetic determinism and Main Jewish Cause seems to compel one to believe that an irreversible victory has been won over white Christians by Kikedom and that our genetic structure is compromised and therefore stumblin’ down the road to extinction.

2) Nobody gets thrown in jail for criticizing liberals or liberalism. By contrast, men who blame jews for their actions get smeared, jailed or murdered - worldwide.

There is no argument here. Not a single one. Maybe this is some kind of nthymemeI’m just not smart enough to pick up on? Come let us reason together and try to put together an argument here…

1)Nobody gets thrown in jail for criticizing liberals
2)Men who criticize Jews justly are thrown in jail
3)Therefore, Jews are the main cause of civilizational decline

Come back when you have a real argument and clean up your act. You’re a fucking joke with a Jewish disease which reminds me that God loves irony. Thanks for damaging our cause beyond belief.

Posted by danielj on November 20, 2009, 11:06 AM | #

Maybe this is some kind of nthymemeI’m just not smart enough to pick up on?

That should read “...some kind of enthymeme...”

Posted by Sam Davidson on November 20, 2009, 01:41 PM | #

The interview highlights two causes of our decline - A survival instinct gone bad or an external group undermining our civilization?

As an American I cannot comment on the internal politics of European nations with the same familiarity as the United States.  But, in the United States, the Jews spearheaded efforts to introduce massive non-White immigration. (Celler and Javits) The Jews have also been the vanguard of ‘civil rights’ in America.  The presidents of the NAACP were Jews until the 1970s. (Springarn and Kaplan) They also pioneered movements of ambiguous benefit to our culture such as ‘feminism.’ (Steinem and Friedan) The Jews also utterly dominate the Western mass-media and utilize it to cover up non-White criminality and racial differences. (Google Jews + Hollywood) Jewish anthropologists and scientists also denied the existence or meaningfulness of race (Boas, Montagu, Gould) Even more disturbing are the various Jews who call for the “abolition of the white race” and describe it as “the cancer of history.” (Ignatiev, Sontag) And let’s not even get into the Jewish political movement of Marxism!

While there are certainly some unique behavioral traits in Europeans that contribute to our decline, I must agree with Mr. Linder that the primary cause of our decline is external, i.e. the Jews.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 20, 2009, 02:50 PM | #

I think the Third Reich should have declared war on Britain in 38 for occupying Ireland and on behalf of the long-suffering Irish people.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 20, 2009, 03:20 PM | #

Friedrich: GW, you’ve said that you were more advanced philosophically/intellectually than the folks at T.O.Q.

There are a couple of sides to this.  First, as you well know, intelligent commentary on the radical right begins with a meta-analysis of the ills of our age.  This is what separates the, in my view, people who are serious about rebuilding European life from conservatives and from Jewish Causers, Single or Main, both of whom assume that some kind of default setting for social health is ready and waiting right now to kick in.

Meta-analysis, however, is only analysis.  It is nothing in itself.  It generates reactionary and non-reactionary or original thinking.  And so we arrive at the second (and really critical) aspect here, and that is the distinction between all the proposals and theories that flow from reaction, in which I include 19th century romantic nationalism and the fascisms of the 20th century, and those which attempt to found something in what is beyond reaction.

What is beyond reaction is the eternal nation, Man, Nature, being.

It is this line of advancement towards a theory of what we are in ourselves and what life is in itself that I find most interesting and absorbing, and also least valued and understood among my peers.  That is the sense in which I used the word, Friedrich.

Posted by Frank on November 20, 2009, 04:12 PM | #

CC,

I’m a fan of Bronze Age weaponry so far as imagery goes, and appeals to a more American-oriented militarism (rugged outdoorsman with a shotgun).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 20, 2009, 05:07 PM | #

“This is what separates the, in my view, people who are serious about rebuilding European life from conservatives and from Jewish Causers, Single or Main, both of whom assume that some kind of default setting for social health is ready and waiting right now to kick in.” (—GW)

Put me down as “Main.” And yes, I do think “a default setting for social health is ready and waiting right now to kick in” once the post-WW-II (especially post-’60s) Jewish hegemony in the U.S. is overthrown.  (The “Sixties” in the U.S. were simply a Jewish revolt; what they were elsewhere, like France, England, and Jewrmany was partly homegrown Jewry acting up, partly a ripple effect from the revolt’s epicenter, the States.) Astronomers can’t see all heavenly bodies but must deduce some from puzzling gravitational effects.  Some Europeans haven’t yet made the deduction of a black hole they can’t see (the U.S. is the Black Hole of world Jewry) exerting gravitational effects on their countries. 

How do we know “a default setting for social health is ready and waiting right now to kick in” once external coercion is lifted?  Same way we know a golf ball stays put when it’s not whacked by a golf club:  individual golf ball atoms may be jiggling this way and that but the ball — a nation — doesn’t suddenly fly off in some crazy, weird, eccentric way by itself, uncoerced by a golf club in the one case, the Jews tilting the balance in the other (not acting alone but tilting the balance by allying with all the crazies and degenerates who without the Jews would be insignificant).  When left alone a golf ball does what golf balls do when left alone, that’s how we know:  thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, the Law of Large Numbers, stuff like that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 20, 2009, 05:10 PM | #

Excellent summary by Sam Davidson, a few above, of what’s going on.  Good job.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 20, 2009, 05:24 PM | #

“the U.S. is the Black Hole of world Jewry”

The Jews here put their numbers nationwide at some 5.5 million.  Since there are way more than that many Jews in the New York City-Long Island-Westchester County-adjacent-parts-of-New-Jersey-and-Connecticut area alone (the general area I’m originally from), that would have to mean there are negative numbers of Jews elsewhere.  So we’re into imaginary census numbers now — “The ADL says there are 5,400,000 Jews in the U.S., total.  Since we know there are between 1.5 and 2 times that many on the Eastern Seaboard alone, the number of Jews in Chicago, LA, and San Francisco must total minus three to minus five million.” (Next the ADL demographers will introduce the square roots of negative numbers, complex analysis, and many-valued logics into the census.)

No, I’m afraid a conservative extimate of the number of Jews in the U.S. is twelve million, absolute rock-bottom.  Those countries that are already suffering with only a couple hundred thousand can try to imagine what upwards of twelve million can do to a place — to that place, and to wherever around it its gravitational effects will reach.

Posted by Trainspotter on November 20, 2009, 08:12 PM | #

Excellent interview. Guessedworker did a great job, as did Linder. I could certainly quibble with a few things, such as the concept of human sacrifice. As whites, can we not come up with a better way of testing the Defenders (white elite) and separating the wheat from the chaff than engaging in cold blooded murder of our own? I haven’t given a great deal of thought to the matter, but I suspect that we can weed out the grasping and the corrupt without doing an impersonation of some four foot Mayan or Aztec, ripping the heart out of someone and tossing them down the steps.

But, distasteful though the idea may be, it does raise the issue of how best to ensure that the government of the coming white nation (hopefully, many white nations as we reclaim all of our homelands) is based on honor, duty, and loyalty to the white citizenry. The goal must be to establish a nation where the government has an explicit duty of loyalty to the tribe/citizenry, not just the other way around. More thought needs to be dedicated to this.

Covington has mentioned, but as far as I know has not really fleshed out, the idea of an Honor Court that could handle duels amongst citizens. He has said something along the lines of, “In America, there was no penalty for being an asshole. There needs to be.” I couldn’t agree more. We absolutely need a culture of honor and integrity. And yes, there must be direct and personal consequences for white leaders who fail in this regard. I suspect that we can achieve this in a way that is more consistent with our European heritage and sensibilities than some death lottery.

Anyway, lots of a great food for thought in this interview. No doubt the usual suspects will continue their assault on Linder, but it is interviews like this that plainly establish that the guy is worth listening to, despite going over the top now and again. And again, to Guessedworker, wonderful job.

Posted by Justin Huber on November 20, 2009, 08:49 PM | #

I’m glad to see Friedrich Braun posting. If I’m correct, you used to have some sort of blog (Civic Platform) that I used to visit daily. I miss it. Hope all is well with you.

Posted by sirrealpolitik on November 20, 2009, 09:09 PM | #

danielj, gorby,

Looks like I confused you by my use of “rationalism” and I admit it is a term fraught with trouble and inconsistency. My use relates to the way historians of the development of Greek medicine (and, by extension, philosophy) distinguish the breakthrough of the Greeks from the prior pre-rational age, where natural phenomena were attributed to the machinations of the gods.

In this I align with one of the dictionary definitions of rationalism “3. the belief that knowledge and truth are ascertained by rational thought and not by divine or supernatural revelation.”

An example of the way Greeks were rationalist in this sense, then, would be: The rationalist Empedocles claimed sleep was caused by a shift of body temperature, whereas before him the ancients may have thought, as per Nonnus’ Dionysiaca, that Hypnos put people to sleep by a wave of his magic wand. (For more on this, you might consult Longrigg, James. Greek Rational Medicine: Philosophy and medicine from alcmaeon to the alexandrines Routledge. London. 1993.)

Considering this def, can you see how I would characterize the rejection of Christianity as a similarly non-supernaturalist, rationalist leap?

But you were right to bring it up because many now see the term as a Cartesian antithesis of empiricism. I did not mean it in this way.

Another example of how I might use a related term, though, might be something like: Gorbaduc seems to have an irrational disdain for Alex Linder, an irrational assumption that I, who have never heard him until this interview here posted on MR, want to sniff his jock, and an irrational desire to worship a Jewish carpenter and bow to a Talmudic hodgepodge of a slave-culture mythos.

Are those good examples?

Posted by Errigal on November 20, 2009, 09:15 PM | #

I listened to the interview and enjoyed it but I have to wonder about people like Linder, GW and Sunic who say we have to dump Christian civilization because it is an alien faith that drags us down. Are they not confusing Christianity with liberalism? How can Christianity be the cause of our current problem when we’ve been Christian for 1,500yrs? Did we go off the rails around the time of Charlemagne and if we did, what is this imaginary Europe they advocate supposed to look like?

Saying the way forward for Whites is to abandon our Christian civilization is like saying the whales never would have been hunted by the Japanese if they had stayed on land. It’s funny how three smart men can’t see how stupid their suggestion is.

Posted by Captainchaos on November 20, 2009, 09:34 PM | #

It’s funny how three smart men can’t see how stupid their suggestion is.

It’s a nonstarter.  Which is more likely, that the Christers will give up Jeboo, or that they can be sufficiently ginned up to turn on niggers and Jews?  I suspect the latter, which is all we need from them anyway.

Re English vs. Krauts: I’d be willing to accept any resolution arbitrated by Apollonian.

Posted by sirrealpolitik on November 20, 2009, 09:35 PM | #

To Selous Scout:

I think it isn’t a matter, really, of having a 10-point “best of” reading list. That tactic might give one a meager start, I suppose. One could read MacDonald, Mencken, and Brooks Adams, and these are useful, but we should not just be reading books that tell us how or why to name the joo. Doing ONLY this would only make us (and make us come across as looking like) narrow-minded nutters. Of course we are bound to come across looking like nutters whatever we say, so long as we are positioned against the gangster culture of the New York/Hollywood/C of L nexus.

I think we would be far more convincing if you (we) had an understanding of the scope of “our” Occidental lit, reclaim Locke, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Darwin, Pound, Heidegger (not that these theorists necessarily agree with--or even talk with--one another), RECLAIM them from the libby leftist red abraHAMfisted kooks in the academy who appropriate our cultural canon to make the world safe for their ruby-eyed Trotsky idol trinket.

I don’t by any means mean they (Hegel, Nietzsche, etc) need to be slavishly AGREED WITH or reverentially bowed before, of course. No. I simply mean that we should be able to speak or write in a way that suggests that we have working knowledge of our intellectual forbearers. I further (and more emphatically) mean that I do not distinguish between intellectual productions that overtly describe our war (MacDonald, Mearsheimer, et al) and intellectual productions that describe the world in more general terms, scientifically, geologically, politically, historically. Both types can be useful to us. In short: Read everything you can of “serious” lit (even if it’s hilarious). It ALL applies to our cause. If this seems like a tall order and a lifelong commitment, so was druidry.

Surreal pol.

Posted by Kasimir on November 20, 2009, 09:36 PM | #

I listened to the interview and enjoyed it but I have to wonder about people like Linder, GW and Sunic who say we have to dump Christian civilization because it is an alien faith that drags us down.

What else would you call a religion (with virtues antithetical to those of indigenous European faith and culture) from West Asia imposed upon Europe by a traitorous Roman elite in a Faustian Pact?

Are they not confusing Christianity with liberalism? How can Christianity be the cause of our current problem when we’ve been Christian for 1,500yrs?

Come on, guy.  Think about it a little.  Christianity paved the way for Liberalism.  The Universal Church was, and remains, an Oriental parasite, and paved the way for the rise of International Jewry.

Did we go off the rails around the time of Charlemagne and if we did, what is this imaginary Europe they advocate supposed to look like?

Well, if we did, that only strengthens the idea that Christianity is no good, since Charlemagne was a Christian fanatic.

Saying the way forward for Whites is to abandon our Christian civilization is like saying the whales never would have been hunted by the Japanese if they had stayed on land. It’s funny how three smart men can’t see how stupid their suggestion is.

Our “Christian” civilization.  The implication here being that all the good which came of the West must be inextricably linked with Christianity.  In fact, much of the good came about thanks to people who worked around the unctuous Christian morality.

Posted by danielj on November 20, 2009, 09:41 PM | #

Are those good examples?

Yes sir.

I’m very impressed with the post and tone which was well written and respectful, respectively.

Considering this def, can you see how I would characterize the rejection of Christianity as a similarly non-supernaturalist, rationalist leap?

Yes, but I really don’t think there are modern Christians that are opposed in any meaningful sense to scientific “progress” or the reigning epistemology. It is also quite sad in my opinion that most white nationalists seem to buy into the notion that materialism + scientific progress + abandonment of Christian cosmology = advancement for our race. It is the same formula for liberalism and I’m hard pressed to find the benefit in such a wrongheaded philosophy.

Gorbaduc seems to have an irrational disdain for Alex Linder, an irrational assumption that I, who have never heard him until this interview here posted on MR, want to sniff his jock, and an irrational desire to worship a Jewish carpenter and bow to a Talmudic hodgepodge of a slave-culture mythos.

I do not have an irrational disdain for him. I think he is consistently working out his principles and deserves credit for that. I don’t buy into the false dichotomy that suggests that slave-culture Christianity and Promethean Euro-superman are our only two options and find it a particularly offensive kind of fallacy since it fails to adequately characterize the nature of my religion.

Posted by danielj on November 20, 2009, 09:47 PM | #

Christianity paved the way for Liberalism.

Uh huh. Because the Enlightenment was a Christian thing that grew outta the Reformation which grew outta Catholicism which grew outta the alien Kike’s faith imposed on us by Roman dictators. It is all so ridiculously easy to see when one is blinded by quasi-reflexive bigotry.

The European gene pool paved the way for Christianity.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 20, 2009, 09:50 PM | #

“How can Christianity be the cause of our current problem when we’ve been Christian for 1,500yrs?” (—Errigal)

For 1,500 years only men could vote.  Suddenly women are voting.  It used to be Christian civilization barely squeaked by, the 51 to 49 odds favoring its survival just slightly enough so that over thousands of years it kept in a net forward direction, lurching two steps forward one step back but keeping its nose on average pointed forward. 

Women voting changed those odds of Christian civilization surviving from 51-49 in favor to 75-25 against (not to mention how women instantly bought into what the Jews were peddling to them specifically, just like in the old days of itinerant Jewish peddlars knowing exactly how to hawk their wares to the goyische farmwives so they would be taken in and buy —) whence the current total collapse of Christian civilization. 

Christianity by itself, with only men having the franchise, is handicap enough but it still allows civilization to advance ever so slowly on average in a forward-moving direction.  But it leaves only minuscule margin for error.  The margin Christianity affords is so slim that women casting votes swamp the boat completely and push things into the net-negative column. 

You either must get rid of Christianity or get rid of women’s suffrage (or, third alternative, remove from the electoral table every one of civilization’s pillars which women-combined-with-their-Jewish-Svengalis can completely fuck up if allowed to vote on it.  Simply don’t let Jew-controlled women vote on that stuff.  Decide it once and for all at the outset of the country you’re setting up, then consider it graven in stone and forever immutable, unalterable by any process, one example being insistence on all immigration being racially/ethnoculturally compatible, that compatibilty being determined by test devised by J.W. Holliday.  Make that graven in stone.  No voting on it, no way to change it, you don’t like it here’s your one-way ticket to Port Moresby, “Running Man” explosive collar included)

Posted by Errigal on November 20, 2009, 10:02 PM | #

Christianity by itself, with only men having the franchise, is handicap enough but it still allows civilization to advance ever so slowly on average in a forward-moving direction.  But it leaves only minuscule margin for error.  The margin Christianity affords is so slim that women casting votes swamp the boat completely and push things into the net-negative column.

Okay now we’re starting to get at least some sort of tangible idea: things were alright before but aren’t now. If we had stuck with Thor worship we would have been walking on the moon by the 1100 AD (or whatever Hobbit calendar we’d be using). Now I have something solid to work with.

Posted by Bill on November 20, 2009, 10:17 PM | #

Has this thread gone ‘Dump Christianity’ by way of VFR (GOV) or has VFR latched on via MR?

Does the darkest hour come right before the dawn? VFR 18 November 2009.

This discussion is, (at last) filtering down to what it’s always been about from the beginning.  End of civilisation.

http://amnation.com/vfr/

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 20, 2009, 10:52 PM | #

What else would you call a religion (with virtues antithetical to those of indigenous European faith and culture) from West Asia imposed upon Europe by a traitorous Roman elite in a Faustian Pact?

Adaptive.

MacDonald argues that the Christian emphasis on monogamous relationships, especially for elite, wealthy European men, (who were previously as polygamous as their Asiatic counterparts) enabled population control, the accumulation of wealth and ultimately produced a massive technological advantage for Europeans.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/West-TOQ.htm

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 20, 2009, 10:54 PM | #

imposed upon Europe by a traitorous Roman elite

Charlemagne, a Roman?

Posted by danielj on November 20, 2009, 11:12 PM | #

imposed upon Europe by a traitorous Roman elite

Sorry. I was thinking earlier than that and not of one particular ruler. I guess I was thinking about the concessions made by the Roman culture at large. We’ll go with “imposed on Europe by Frankish warmongering and domination” instead. How does that strike you? Does my general point still come through and stand?

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 20, 2009, 11:34 PM | #

Does my general point still come through and stand?

There’s a bounty of evidence that Christianity was adaptive for Europeans. It is interesting to note that Constantine and subsequently the Germanic chieftains were Arians, (pre-Charlemagne) who did not necessarily accept the divinity of Christ (I’m not arguing against the divinity of Christ) which gives pause to the claim the Germanic elite (or even Roman elite) were some JC “jock-sniffers”.

Posted by Al Ross on November 20, 2009, 11:35 PM | #

Desmond, if the wealthy indigenous elite possessed, in many cases, superior ability (translation - IQ) why would it be regarded as maladaptive if, through the ignoring of monogamy, their fecundative activities resulted in the transmission of superior genes?

Posted by Q on November 20, 2009, 11:46 PM | #

If Christianity is what caused Euros to be susceptible to Jewish inspired race-replacement—“or is dragging Western Civ down”— then how come Jewish supremacists and committed Marxists spend so much time and energy trying to subvert Christianity? Particularly white Christians?

The answer, in part, can be found here:

{snip}

The most influential product of Studies in Prejudice was The Authoritarian Personality, published in 1950. This book was edited by Max Horkheimer and authored by Theodor Andorno, an original member of the Frankfurt School, together with other American Jewish social psychologists who referred to themselves as the Berkeley Public Opinion Study Group.

This work on prejudice against Jews, coupled with Trotsky’s hatred of white prejudice against blacks, can be seen as forming the ideological basis for what would become a massive national campaign against prejudice, bigotry and discrimination, eventually encompassing Betty Friedan’s feminist revolution, directed against white males, who would be charged with racism, sexism and anti-Semitism if they did not submit. This national campaign was greatly aided by the efforts of the Anti-Defamation League and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution was buttressed by something known as “Critical Theory"— in Horkheimer’s rendition, social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it. This destructive criticism was specifically aimed and Christianity, capitalism, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, culture, sexual restraint, loyalties, patriotism, masculinity, heredity and ethnocentrism as well as conservatism.

Both these theories had revolutionary practice as their real objective. The campaign against prejudice, bigotry and discrimination directed against white males eventually led to what might be called the “Feminization of America”, whereby traditional gender roles would be totally obliterated in all sectors of American life so that women could be placed in every position that was formerly reserved for men. This is the visible face of the social revolution. In effect, women, along with blacks, were to be the vanguard of social revolution in America.

{snip}

http://www.vdare.com/misc/091116_raehn.htm

and here:

{snip}

The oppressive nature of the older Communism was noted by Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), a committed Marxist with a new approach to bring about cultural and social change. In order to capture democratic nations, a new model would have to be developed. Like the revolutionary Marxists before him, Gramsci considered Christianity to be the “force binding all the classes-peasants and workers and princes, priests and popes and all the rest besides, into a single, homogeneous culture. It was specifically Christian culture, in which individual men and women understood that the most important things about human life transcend the material conditions in which they lived out their mortal lives.”[5] Gramsci broke with Marx and Lenin’s belief that the masses would rise up and overthrow the ruling “superstructure.” No matter how oppressed the working classes might be, their Christian faith would not allow such an overthrow, Gramsci theorized. Marxism taught “that everything valuable in life was within mankind,”[6] but this unbridled secularism was rejected by Christians.

{snip}

http://www.americanvision.org/article/has-the-ghost-of-antonio-gramsci-returned

Posted by danielj on November 21, 2009, 12:19 AM | #

There’s a bounty of evidence that Christianity was adaptive for Europeans. It is interesting to note that Constantine and subsequently the Germanic chieftains were Arians, (pre-Charlemagne) who did not necessarily accept the divinity of Christ (I’m not arguing against the divinity of Christ) which gives pause to the claim the Germanic elite (or even Roman elite) were some JC “jock-sniffers”.

I don’t know enough about early Germanic heresies to comment with any certainty and, therefore, certainly not with any authority.

Anywho, I was being sarcastic. My point was the whole chain of logic that lays blame for empire contraction/collapse at the feet of Christianity is faulty. There is an entire historical field dedicated to the problem and many of these heaps of rubble that were once empires collapsed on their own without Jews or Christianity. The Jews/Christianity are neither sufficient or necessary explanations for our decay - they just happen to thrive here.

Our shitty genes are the problem according to the materialists (even though they are often times too inconsistent in the expression of their philosophy to acknowledge this reality), historical inevitability according to all kinds of historians and the lack of proper reverence for Christ according to some Christian types.

Regardless, that is it from me. I’ve got important things to attend to so my MR time is limited.

Posted by danielj on November 21, 2009, 12:21 AM | #

Desmond, if the wealthy indigenous elite possessed, in many cases, superior ability (translation - IQ) why would it be regarded as maladaptive if, through the ignoring of monogamy, their fecundative activities resulted in the transmission of superior genes?

Doesn’t excessive polygamy result in excessive inbreeding rendering it maladaptive?

Posted by Errigal on November 21, 2009, 12:26 AM | #

I just thought of a new pan-Aryan hymn for you guys who think it’s all been downhill since around the 5th century or so. Here’s France Gall singing about “darned Charlemagne”, who introduced schooling to the Franks. “Sacré Charlemagne” could be a new White Nationalist anthem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvlBlSeYDFw&feature=related

Posted by Kasimir on November 21, 2009, 12:26 AM | #

Because the Enlightenment was a Christian thing that grew outta the Reformation which grew outta Catholicism which grew outta the alien Kike’s faith imposed on us by Roman dictators. It is all so ridiculously easy to see when one is blinded by quasi-reflexive bigotry.

Honestly, danielj, I don’t really have a problem with Christianity as practiced by you or any number of other pro-whites.  It is a matter of how it was/is used by elites.  And yes, the same could be said of materialism, liberalism, whatever “ism” you care to name, whatever chink there is in the human character to exploit.  “Relax bruh.”

The European gene pool paved the way for Christianity.

That’s interesting, would you care to expand upon this point?

Charlemagne, a Roman?

There was a progression from Constantine > Theodosius > the Franks, with Christianity steadily expanding from one to the next.  Sorry I wasn’t clear enough.

Posted by Dan Dare on November 21, 2009, 12:40 AM | #

If memory serves GW indicated that the wheels started to come off at the latter end of the Plantaganet era, so rabbiting on about Charlemagne is barking up the wrong tree. I blame Henry II myself, red hot poker up the jacksie’s too good for the likes of him.

Posted by Errigal on November 21, 2009, 12:46 AM | #

Christianity started going wrong when most educated men couldn’t believe in it and so it was just hypocrites and fairies who liked to wear dresses in public who showed up for the casting call. It only went really badly in the last 50yrs.

Posted by danielj on November 21, 2009, 12:48 AM | #

It is a matter of how it was/is used by elites.  And yes, the same could be said of materialism, liberalism, whatever “ism” you care to name, whatever chink there is in the human character to exploit.

Indeed. Hear, hear!

Relax bruh

I am. Sorry if it doesn’t always sound that way. Nobody here really irks me.

That’s interesting, would you care to expand upon this point?

I was just taking a stab at genetic determinism. I’ve brought it up before in this venue that MacDonald (and perhaps others) have suggested that Europeans are more individualistic and more apt to project their high value on “fairness” to others due to their genetics. I would argue individualism and universalism are central tenets of liberalism and therefore Euros are more predisposed to accept a “brotherhood of man” style, universal religion that has strong emphasis on individual responsibility to a “personal” God which is what Calvin and the Reformers offered us in the 16th century and what was passed down, metastasized, to us in its present incarnations.

Posted by Dan Dare on November 21, 2009, 12:57 AM | #

Oops. That should have read Edward II.

Posted by Dan Dare on November 21, 2009, 01:20 AM | #

Christianity started going wrong when ...

I’d date it slightly earlier. Around the time that the protestant churches started to develop a keen interest in taking Africans, Chinese and others into their flocks. The catholic conversions in Latin America don’t count in the same way since no pretence was ever made that it was being done in the spirit of the universal brotherhood of man.

Posted by john on November 21, 2009, 01:46 AM | #

The early christians didn’t dump paganism. Changing christian churches into Pagan ones would be a small step compared to the godless liberalisation that has happened to them recently.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 21, 2009, 02:10 AM | #

Liberalism is the grandchild of Christianity. In that sense, it’s the source of our misfortune. However, the good news is that intelligent White men have completely abandoned these stupid and childish fairytales, the bad news that liberalism is Christianity’s aftertaste. While Christianity is dead, I don’t see liberalism undergoing to same fate anytime soon.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 21, 2009, 02:40 AM | #

The cost outweighed the benefit, Al. Think Afghanistan, Pakistan or even China.

MacDonald:

The eradication of large, powerful kinship groups was in the interests of both the Church and the aristocracy.  A higher degree of centralized state power by itself has a tendency to lessen the importance of extended kinship relations, especially if that power protects the interests of individuals.  From an evolutionary perspective, extended kinship groups have costs and benefits.  The benefits accrue from the protection and support provided by the wider kindred, but these benefits entail costs in terms of: 1.) increased demands by kin for reciprocated services; 2.) the fact that kin will tend to prevent any individual from rising too much above the others in the kinship group; and 3) the difficulty of establishing oneself in a kinship structure which is far from egalitarian.  As a result, individuals are expected to avoid becoming enmeshed in extended kinship groups when their interests are protected by other institutions i.e., the benefits of extended kinship are removed, but the costs remain.  In general individuals tend to seek the protection of the extended kinship group when centralized power fails, and they correspondingly flee the extended kinship group when state power is sufficient to protect their interests.

Posted by Q on November 21, 2009, 02:45 AM | #

Liberalism is the grandchild of Christianity.

Too bad SOME people around here refuse to understand the origin of, or can’t grasp the reality of those whom propagate the anti-white “liberal” atmosphere we SUFFER under.

Hint: It’s organised Jewry.

Posted by Desmond Jones on November 21, 2009, 02:49 AM | #

Liberalism, (a term whose meaning was adapted and perverted, like gay or queer) is the grandchild of Anglo-Saxon law, Hengst and Horsa. The Saxonist Jefferson thus argued it was pagan in origin. The Anglo-Saxon, in America, were the chosen people.

Thomas Jefferson held that the basis of the common law was shaped in the immediate aftermath of the arrival of Hengist and Horsa in the mid-fifth century. Since England was not converted to Christianity until two centuries later, the common law is by definition pagan.

Jefferson sought to give these ideas visual form in his proposal for the design of the Great Seal of the United States. One side was to bear the images of Hengist and Horsa. The other was to depict a pillar of fire leading the Chosen People into the Promised Land. The racial character of this combination is unmistakable. Those of English heritage must predominate on the new continent because of the primordial excellence of the Anglo-Saxons, personified by Hengist and Horsa. The pillar of fire designates the collective side. It belongs to what is termed the theory of manifest destiny, the idea that the original settlers of British North America were entitled to exercise supremacy over the whole continent--and beyond.

Anglo-Saxonism and the construction of social identity

Posted by Friedrich Braun on November 21, 2009, 02:53 AM | #

Christianity makes one irrational and stupid. See this video: Darwin’s theory of evolution because Darwin was racist and sexist and Hitler was a Darwinist. Powerful arguments to counter a scientific theory, no?

CNN: Former Teen Idol Kirk Cameron is on a Crusade to Debunk Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TO5mjKrfr8&feature=sub

Posted by Al Ross on November 21, 2009, 02:56 AM | #

Yes I take your point, Desmond. Thank you.

Posted by a Finn on November 21, 2009, 02:58 AM | #

FB: “Christianity is dead”

It is probably good that it is quite dead here (not elsewhere). Understanding of Chistianity too. Christianity is more ethnocentric than you will ever be or can be. Christianity is not an “outdated science” and can’t be compared to it on scientific terms.

Posted by Dan Dare on November 21, 2009, 03:07 AM | #

It’s unfortunate that so many people continue to be confused about the difference between ‘liberalism’ and ‘universalism’.

Posted by Al Ross on November 21, 2009, 03:31 AM | #

“Christianity is more ethnocentric than you’ll ever know” - A Finn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDoQaCDMtuo

Makes one relieved to know that the old Jew God doesn’t exist.

Posted by Robert Reis on November 21, 2009, 04:14 AM | #

Should we shoot Protestants or Koreans?

Posted by Al Ross on November 21, 2009, 04:27 AM | #

Perhaps, Mr Reis, you might consider, instead, the Roman Catholic etiology of Christianity’s Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome when viewing mere symptoms such as those of the youtube obscenity.

Posted by SUCH on November 21, 2009, 04:39 AM | #

Alex Linder is a joke.  Uncompromising writing?  It’s a shtick, the “Alternative Aryan”, his advocating of violence, and his “City on a Hill” moralizing.  Anyone who rails that hard against jews is exhibiting text-book symptoms of Semetic Heritage cover-up.  He’s better off being Kanye West’s hype man.

Posted by a Finn on November 21, 2009, 05:24 AM | #

Al Ross, God’s existence was never and will never be dependent on you.

Posted by a Finn on November 21, 2009, 05:30 AM | #

And Ross, don’t distort what I wrote.

I make a prediction. Ten years from now this site has not progressed politically or communally what it is now.

Posted by sirrealpolitik on November 21, 2009, 05:45 AM | #

danielj

“I’m very impressed with the post and tone which was well written and respectful, respectively.”

Ah thanks kindly. And sorry to deride your religion. I was really just meaning to get a rise out of Gorby (grin).

But I am glad you were not too offended. Our people don’t get easily offended, I think, unlike “them.”

I really have no gripe against anyone’s beliefs in and of themselves. People’s theological leanings or lack thereof have really little bearing on our cause.

But let me qualify that: I am inclined to agree with Alex that people like the FLDS in some ways have the right idea, as far as a group survival or reproductive strategy is concerned. This is why they’re so hated by the U.S. mainstream and feds. Surely 35 children per white male cannot be a bad thing when Italy’s birthrate is in the gutter at 1.2 births per couple? What happened to that vaunted Italian machismo? Machisisis-sissy-mo? No? Now, I know some of these FLDS people are hayseeds and all that, but not all of them. I know a few. You would be surprised.

This is not to say that our current plight is merely a birthrate issue, of course. But it is part of the equation.

Yes. I do see beyond the false Slave Christian/Heroic Promethean dichotomy you describe. Our situation doesn’t have to be seen as such. But from my perspective, I prefer to empathize w/ and emphasize native European culture’s lovely heterodoxy of beliefs, ranging from Stoicism and materialist monism, to the wood lore and horned man (Cernunos) animalism of the bronze age Celts, even to the Indo-Aryan Vedic texts (and of course approving all the gifts that scientific investigations have birthed after Harvey, Willis, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mach, Tesela, Edison, and the like). I know that western Platonism and much of the earlier eurocultural material has been assimilated into Christianity over the years. I mean, it had to have been for the Germanic tribes to buy into it. This is why Easter coincides not with the imagined birth of JC but with the old festival of Ēostre...but at the same time, the do-good doggy dogma was often historically forced upon the native European people at spear-point, or, more often, was foisted upon them by trickery and by the selling-out or buying-off of their tribal chieftains or nation-kings. Thereafter it served to homogenize and make generic the wonderfully various prior systems. I simply find it a little on the sad side. One can find good stuff in it if one puts it there with one’s heart, or makes the necessary connections with the ol’ ‘ead. But surely lots of people have weaponized JC against us for a long time. When people point to the gothic cathedrals as proof of how wonderful it all was, I say that the cathedrals (beautiful, surely) were built despite and not because of it. You’ve been to the Pantheon in Rome, right? It makes my point for me.

But, as my “admiration” for the FLDS would indicate, I have a more utilitarian view of these things than anything. I have my own aesthetic preferences, surely. But at the end of the day, I embrace Jefferson’s idea that diversity of opinions is a benign and inevitable consequence of a literate populace. I don’t want to consign anyone to the bed of Procruses or anything.

sp

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 21, 2009, 05:45 AM | #

“I make a prediction.  Ten years from now this site has not progressed politically or communally from what it is now.” (—A Finn)

You need to start officially blogging here, Finn, to help assure we’ll be in the best possible position ten years from now.

Posted by Al Ross on November 21, 2009, 05:55 AM | #

I apologise, Oh Flappable Finn, for typing “know” instead of “be” and for claiming that old Yahweh’s existence depended on me, although my memory of this claim is uncertain.

Carry on as usual then; lying for Jesus and polluting MR with arrant nonsense about airborne Jewish spirits.

Posted by sirrealpolitik on November 21, 2009, 05:57 AM | #

oops i meant to say easter doesn’t necessarily coincide with the DEATH/resurrection of JC…

but nor does Xmas coincide w/ his birth, as much as it does the winter solstice…

but this is all kindergarten stuff…

xo

Posted by Al Ross on November 21, 2009, 06:04 AM | #

Oh Christ no, Fred. Not him. Your proprietorial attitude to GW’s blog is surely inappropriate at times. You are a far more worthy candidate for the blog - owner to consider in terms of posting articles. Irrational rubbish and Middle - Eastern derived mythology is unlikely to be the main feature of your contribution.

Posted by Observing Jack on November 21, 2009, 08:17 AM | #

The main problem with the interview is that you didn’t ask him any hard questions about his absurd belief in the Main Jewish Cause theory.

Posted by a Finn on November 21, 2009, 09:05 AM | #

Fred, thank you. According to strategist John Boyd, when a group’s communication is detached from the outside reality, it becomes increasingly irrational, dysfunctional and/or extreme, and it will be one of strategic factors in it’s downfall (artifically induced or spontaneously created by the group itself). The signs of it can be seen in this site. Because the reality and product of this site are almost exclusively letters in the screen, the downfall might be limited just to staying small, strange and extreme oddity in the cyberspace.

Fred, I tried to explain in the following article’s comments a little bit how my views differ from the Jew-centric/ Jews only -explanations, etc. Some repetition to you, but something new also. Maybe there is something useful to you. I probably comment in the future mostly at Mangan’s site in English language.

http://www.toqonline.com/2009/11/implicit-white-communities-2/#comments

I thank Ross for finally contributing something; I learned a new word, flappable. I think your definition was a bit overconfident. I am not the worrying type; including some pejorative comments in the internet.

Posted by h.kalervo on November 21, 2009, 09:28 AM | #

Ah, the old dispute between old Wagner and mature Nietzsche, between Christ and anti-Christ. “Let’s have faith in our heavenly friendship even though doomed to be enemies here on earth”? No, let’s rather remember that Wagner had an intelligent wife and many children and incredibly much positive influence on culture (and I don’t mean his music), while you, Nietzsche, died lonely and your pan-European rhetoric, although aesthetically unsurpassed, has always been rather weak in terms of its final effect on the world compared to Wagner’s similar efforts even when you take into account your dead-hand influence from beyond the grave. It was you who broke the friendship, too.

Let’s not forget - mocking Christianity is stupid. Wagner learned this, in his old age, and one might almost say - converted. Nietzsche never did, because he died young.

Or to quote a man with a clinically tested IQ of 183:

I believe your irrational irreligious zeal and dogmatic conviction that Christianity is by nature bad is clouding your judgement on the irrational dogma of Christianity due to its irrational zeal.

Remember, if there is anything crazier than believing God is the only thing that can save us, it’s believing that the State or human nature can save us. Now that’s really baked-in crazy.

What was good enough for our ancestors is good enough for me, too. I figure I better hold my judgement on who had balls until my generation gets their first taste of real life. Our ancestors seemed to believe their faith was worth keeping and I am not letting any consumer units talk me out of mine. You can tell me more after you prove you can build and maintain a civilization instead of just living in the ruins.

(I would have added that the Third Reich was devoutly Christian in terms of its population.)

Posted by a Finn on November 21, 2009, 09:30 AM | #

Addition: I explained my views on Christianity in recent thread about religion in this site, so I will not repeat myself. These recent two comments might give additional points:

Steven E. Romer (commenter) wrote eloquently and in different times he probably would have been a priest. However, as it is so often with beautiful scientific ideas, at the last moment a fly flies into the teleportation machine with destructive consequences (The Fly [1986], Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis; directed by David Cronenberg). It is my unfortunate responsibility to humbly and shortly point to some of the problems with my slightly dyslexic English.

* In essence, with minor eugenic variation, Romer is offering us the refrain of atheist liberals, Frankfurt School intellectuals, managerial “elites”, socialists, big government pseudo-conservatives, etc.; “Religion was a science in the old times. it produced progress and order to the human universe. Now we have advanced science, which surpasses and replaces the old religion. Come and join our atheist science religion, we, the elites, will micromanage you to the glorious future!”

* Science can’t surpass religion. They are different entities. Although e.g. Christianity contained elements of old science (surpassed by the modern science, of course), it contains also poetry, norms, governing principles, history, mythic tales, community principles, ethnocentric and endogamy principles, etc.

At the core of religion is the striving towards God. Our interaction with God and our understanding and interpretation of God will always be limited by our human inadequacies. 5000 years from now we will look like a primitive people. God accepts us with our limitations and errors, if our religious principles are sound and striving towards God sincere. Thus errors in the worldview of prophets doesn’t reduce their religious importance; they relayed and interpreted with their limited understanding and knowledge God’s messages to us.

We will always fall short compared to God.

* It is a false dichtonomy to present religion and science as substitutes to each other. They are complementary things. Atheist scientists sometimes try with religious fervor to destroy religion, because they see it as a block on the path towards their new scientific religion and obstruction to their ascendancy to pseudo god status.

* Modern science is shaky foundation to ethics and morality. There is nothing in the atoms and molecules to give us obligations. E.g. if Romer posits that the purpose of life is to follow eugenic principles, a liberal can posit with equal justification that the purpose of life is to enjoy, party and have pleasure purpose sex as much as possible before we die, who cares about this or that position of a Dna molecule or what comes after us. Like Michel Foucault, mr. postmodern leftist said, particular psychiatric illness is not nothing ontogically, it is something, but we can manipulate it to express itself in widely diverse forms (thus they in essence ignore the present ontology [like ethnic and racial Dna differences] and hope to create the desired reality). 

* Materialistic, atheist, science is amoral, and it is an open invitation to insect eat insect -morality to the ruling “elites”. The practical consequences of this can be seen in the mass murders of communist regimes; intraracial slaughters in the European world wars; stealth, almost invisible super manipulation, deception and exploitation practiced by modern liberal “elites” in the Western countries (It is beyond the scope of this reply to describe the methods of liberal scientific system, but the basic principle is to make people believe in their freedom, while in reality they are micromanaged and exploited. Rat in a scientist’s labyrinth feels itself to be free when it is searching food placed there by scientist. The scientist knows almost everything about the rat, knows it’s statistical tendencies, instincts, needs, biochemistry, psychology, etc.. By manipulating it’s environment, time scales, food, water, obstacles, incentives, social interaction, stimuluses, punishments, expected and unexpected, rest, activity, etc. scientist governs rat although rat feels itself to be free. Scientist’s aim is to make the rat voluntarily to internalize to it’s own will what the scientist wants. At the same time that this cements the power of the scientist over the rat, it makes this power invisible); etc.

* Science is a good servant, but bad master. If allowed to develop untrammeled, science has a natural tendency towards increasing stealth soft totalitarian micromanagement of people’s lives; bureaucratic big government resource wasting; bureaucratic interest formation, that separates scientists interests and loyalty from their own people; predisposition to increase the system complexity unnecessarily and wastefully (thus increasing the need for scientists), and liberalism and immigration (to increase all kinds of bureaucratic, commercial etc. consumption of their services); etc.

* Science is divided between numerous fields. They have different symbols, formulas, languages, tenets, etc. They have lacking communication and coordination between them. This is made worse by bureaucratic territoriality and competition between them for resources, prestige, power, etc. This increases their selfishness and indifference towards their own people. Ethnic diversity among scientific groups further erodes the understanding of ethnic loyalty. The science as a whole is a reification. People created it, but it has become so complex that it can’t be properly managed as a whole. Unintended, the system has started to rule humans.

* Here in the end I would like to point out that we have here one man, Romer, talking about universal morality of eugenic science (presumably compelling principles), but in the reality we see that as a result of societal evolution and competition liberal cosmopolitan morality, global capitalists, managerial “elites”, immigrants and swelling states has won in every Western country and they have infiltrated, incorporated and subverted other competitors. Clearly something is lacking in the inherent power of eugenic scientific universal morality and principles.

Thus, a profound analysis of society is needed.

********

Before we can answer who should rule, we should ask what is power, what is rule, what are it’s goals and methods? Now we have here confused alternatives sharing an imaginary cake, which none of them can bake.

We could start like this:

1. What is the proportion of liberalism and traditional conservatism in society? Liberalism commercializes (business, market), bureaucratizes and directs to ngo’s everything that is in humans; needs, normal, abnormal, all kinds of foreigners, strangers etc. The “good” part in this is that it generates a lot of commerce and clientilism, thus support jobs, but it degenerates, overtaxes, creates exogamy, depletes, atomizes and eventually destroys society. Traditional conservatism supports austere and dynamic work and public morality, protects Europeans/natives and gives society endurance, but when less of what is in humans is commercialized and clientilized, it produces less consumption in the home market. Thus society would have to export more or it would have to settle for slightly less (This is the price we have to pay for society’s endurance).

2. System complexity. Large cities are complex systems, that require or spawn large numbers of specialized experts; water purification chemists, sewage system engineers, modern art producers, art critics, air ventilation experts for large buildings, tolerance bureaucrats, pet physicians etc. Existence of complexity in itself creates pressure towards liberalism. Also, because in big cities large numbers of strangers constantly meet and interact with each other, management of this creates pressure towards tolerance and liberalism (to ensure the productive uninterrupted flow of people, things, services and capital). In little towns systems are less complex, so less specialists are needed. E.g. compost outhouse toilet might be enough and modern art critics are a rarity. Small towns are also more independent of outside systems. Their inhabitants can more easily produce their own food, energy, housing etc. than big city residents. Unemployment is less threatening. In small towns often similar people who know each other meet in peaceful pace. Thus there is not need for nor pressure towards tolerance for strangers and liberalism. Conservative morality works well. The structure of areas decide much of their cultural content or pressure towards certain cultural content.

Etc.

P.s. No soft or hard dictatorship for me.

Posted by danielj on November 21, 2009, 09:33 AM | #

It’s unfortunate that so many people continue to be confused about the difference between ‘liberalism’ and ‘universalism’.

Am I missing something Dan?

I had stated that I believed universalism to be a tenet of liberalism. Am I wrong there? Maybe you could expand on your point a little bit.

Posted by danielj on November 21, 2009, 09:41 AM | #

I really have no gripe against anyone’s beliefs in and of themselves. People’s theological leanings or lack thereof have really little bearing on our cause.

I still believe that despite everything that has been said by people of all theological persuasions that consider themselves nationalists.

No? Now, I know some of these FLDS people are hayseeds and all that, but not all of them. I know a few. You would be surprised.

This is not to say that our current plight is merely a birthrate issue, of course. But it is part of the equation.

Indeed. The media frames white fecundity as morbidly fascinating and net negative. They have declared siring children to be a waste of time and restriction on personal liberty that is not worth the trade off of continuing one’s line.

When people point to the gothic cathedrals as proof of how wonderful it all was, I say that the cathedrals (beautiful, surely) were built despite and not because of it. You’ve been to the Pantheon in Rome, right? It makes my point for me.

The commenter the Narrator often makes this point and I’ve essentially attested to its validity. Europe has its own Christianity that the rest of the world is incapable of recreating. I wouldn’t argue that Christianity hindered the building of grand buildings and temples and thus the cathedrals were built despite, but rather, that they would have been built anyway so the general thrust of the sentiment I can agree with.

Posted by h.kalervo on November 21, 2009, 10:06 AM | #

It seems to me if the pre-Christian era of enlightened aryan barbarism was so good and productive we should be able to find ancient Greek and Roman bases on the moon and their satellites still orbiting the earth.

What? Didn’t the pre-Christian Whites have thousands, tens of thousands, of years to reach the orbit? What gives? Did Christianity appear out of nowhere like the devil to spoil their efforts just when they were about to begin their first moon mission?

Sure. Christianity bad. Whatever you say. On the other hand, I have a TV set that keeps saying the same thing, so not sure why you feel the need to repeat it.

I can just imagine Ceasar speaking to his legions his voice raised to a carrying pitch, “Just a few more conquests boys, and then we’ll head back home so we can start building that moon rocket thing my wife wants to see finished by the end of the year. Yeah, our boys are flying to the moon, any time now. We’re edjumafacated and so on and so forth.”

Then came Christianity and spoiled all that, made people like Newton spend their time trying to understand God by understanding God’s universe. Without Christianity befuddling his thoughts, Newton would have spent his spare time much more productively by marching to Gallia with his penis erect.

Posted by Anonymous jew blogger claims he is smarter than Hi on November 21, 2009, 01:08 PM | #

the jew blogger mendacious jewbug claimed that he is smarter than Hitler:

Have you read Hitler? I have. (The Table Talk is the Hitler to read.) Frankly, Hitler reads a lot like me, if I lost 25 IQ points from drinking lead soda, and also had a nasty case of tertiary syphilis. I may have some of Hitler’s talents - I will be the first to admit it.

from http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/11/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html

Posted by Guessedworker on November 21, 2009, 02:19 PM | #

Ah, Mencius the mischling.  Visited him once, when Tanstaafl out up a post on him.  The thread is here:

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 21, 2009, 04:27 PM | #

Finn, your very interesting post above at 9:30 AM reminds me a lot of James Kalb’s thinking.  In many passages it’s almost identical.  If you don’t know him, here’s his overall web-site,

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/ ,

and here’s his blog,

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node .

He had greatly slackened off in his blogging for a while, but he’s just announced he’ll be picking up the pace again, whereof here’s an example,

http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2824 .

Here’s a comment containing a few Kalb links of potential interest,

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/clash_of_the_titans/#c84610 ,

and here’s Kalb’s highly praised book about liberalism,

http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Liberalism-Understanding-Administered-Inquisitorial/dp/1933859822/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258819799&sr=1-1 .

I remember reading at his site somewhere that a few of his essays have been translated into the Finnish language (I forget which ones).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 21, 2009, 04:39 PM | #

(Remember, if when ordering a book from Amazon.com you enter Amazon through the Amazon.com logo on Vdare.com’s home page [left-hand margin, not far from the top] Vdare will automatically receive a small commission at zero extra cost to you.  I purchase all my Amazon books by entering through Vdare.com.)

Posted by Dan Dare on November 21, 2009, 08:56 PM | #

@danielj - the simple point I am putting is that liberalism, in the Lockean sense, was never intended to be of universal application. It had a specific geographic, even ethnic, connotation. The social contract was not for export.

Acting in a ‘liberal’ manner towards one’s extended kinsmen, that is dealing with them fairly and sympathetically is, as Desmond notes, the default Anglo-Saxon model. It is not necessarily a mode of behaviour that has to be adopted towards others, which is what the dogma of universalism requires.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Welfare State, in fact it is one of European civilisation’s crowning achievements. It just doesn’t scale awfully well beyond an identifiable and ethnically-common population. That’s why Sweden is a welfare state and the US is not.

We’ve seen this before but it’s quite germane to the point.

Diversity and the Welfare State

Posted by Metal Gear / Iceman on November 21, 2009, 09:58 PM | #

I’m smarter than Hitler too and will take an IT test online with all of you watching to prove it.

Posted by danielj on November 21, 2009, 11:33 PM | #

@danielj - the simple point I am putting is that liberalism, in the Lockean sense, was never intended to be of universal application. It had a specific geographic, even ethnic, connotation. The social contract was not for export.

That was my assumption. I just thought perhaps you were misreading me and were leveling a charge at me.

Posted by Captainchaos on November 21, 2009, 11:35 PM | #

I’m smarter than Hitler too and will take an IT test online with all of you watching to prove it.

How would that prove it?  Hitler is not present to be tested for comparison.  Btw, Hitler was noted for his near photographic recall of statistics relevant to the war effort.  No one ever ascribed such a talent to Goring, who tested at IQ 138 at Nuremberg.

Posted by Mark on November 22, 2009, 01:49 AM | #

“Friedrich Braun on November 21, 2009, 02:53 AM | #

Christianity makes one irrational and stupid. See this video: Darwin’s theory of evolution because Darwin was racist and sexist and Hitler was a Darwinist. Powerful arguments to counter a scientific theory, no?

CNN: Former Teen Idol Kirk Cameron is on a Crusade to Debunk Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TO5mjKrfr8&feature=sub”

They showed a picture in that book showing Adam and Eve as Northern Europeans, which is considered racist and Eurocentric.

Posted by Kasimir on November 22, 2009, 02:24 AM | #

I’m smarter than Hitler too and will take an IT test online with all of you watching to prove it.

TJB

Uh huh, which is why you and Mencius are a couple of anonymous internet proles while Hitler went from being a humble provincial to being the Leader of one of the most powerful countries the world has ever seen.  Keep jacking off. 

Gawd!  Is there any creature more narcissistic than the Jew?