Posted by h.kalervo on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:47 | #

Men might be able to live with dignity without God, but women have shown themselves to be unable to. Once you “liberate” them from their God, you liberate them from life. And the civilization is soon to follow them into ruin.

Posted by PF on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:26 | #

Does anyone else get the feeling that our little cling-clang dialogue confirms the sensibility of GWs stance on Christianity as a non-debatable issue? Who is being convinced, specifically, and of what?

Its also ingenuine in some sense to debate Christianity on terms of

1) political expediency to white causes
2) overall impact on white culture over time

because anyone deciding for or against Christianity would have to do so because of deeper felt reasons, or have no intellectual conscience. If one were in possession of these *deeper reasons*, one would naturally have to prioritize them above political expediency and argue from the deeper reasons to the political expediency. Finding examples pro and con in 2,000 years of history is easy. A complete analysis is not possible unless your view is colored by deeper reasons, which will make a complete analysis quite easy, emotionally speaking.

Nietzsche, Wagner and Christianity

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.

This is grubbing around in the historical graveyard for pro-Christian evidence of the enlightened Wagner and supposedly childish deracinated (?) Nietzsche, judging both based on their apparent posthumous influence - a very difficult set of variables to measure. If Wagner having children and an intelligent wife makes him “better” than Nietzsche, than my father also stands above Friedrich Nietzsche.

Wagner’s positive influence on culture is a simple reading of something massively complex. He helped to foment a great deal of nationalism, which ultimately drove Germany to court destruction at the hands of us anglos. Hitler listened rapturously to his operas, and there is evidence of Hitler viewing and listening to them many, many times. I don’t think the huge build-up of nationalism in Germany resulted in much practical good for Germany, although thats arguable. But don’t talk to me, talk to any historically literate German, who is almost certain to see the issue as much more ambiguous than you are making it appear. Nationalism certainly was a two-edged sort on which Germany cut herself pretty bad, i.e. an idea for which many many millions of Germans went to the grave semi-unnecessarily. Germans at least understand this, although their more nuanced understanding is underwritten by some anglosphere WNs as ‘brainwashedness’ or ‘lack of dedication to cause’.

You don’t understand the dynamics of that friendship (not saying I do 100% of course, I wasnt there) if you think that Nietzsche broke the friendship off. There was from the beginning a semi-sycophantic master-pupil dynamic to that relationship, with Nietzsche basically copy-editing and acting as propagandist for “Wagner as Renaissance man and figure of German cultural instauration” (roughly how he conceived of himself). This was fine while Nietzsche was the fatherless, alienated Seeker in search of a social milieu, but after his ideas ripened this sort of respect and uncritical audience which Wagner, himself much less a Seeker much more an established Guru with his own vision, actually required. Not being able to share enthusiasm over Schopenhauer, The Spirit of Tragedy, the rebirth of German music, and whatever else they had raved about in the early decade (half decade?) of their friendship…. it probably was more the irreparable loss of common ground due to growing apart, rather than a simple dismissal of Wagner on Nietzsche’s part. Nietzsche for his part most likely simply perceived that this has happened clearly enough to break it off… in my experience friendships, especially intellectual ones, tend to fall apart mutually after a time. After a certain period people stop ‘getting enough out of it’ to merit maintaining the friendship.

If you actually decided in favor of Christianity because of the difference between Wagner and Nietzsche, you would be a fool, so why put that forward as evidence.

Nietzsche will go down in history as a first-tier thinker (whatever that means in the future context of books and literary prestige), and Wagner as a second or third-tier thinker. Eventually Wagner will be primarily mentioned only as a composer, or in the context of his connection with Nietzsche. Being burdened with a heavier truth-load is what alienated Nietzsche and prevented him from properly mating and reproducing, as a normal man does (among other psychological dynamics which I mentioned in a prior most likely completely forgotten comment).

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:57 | #

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

Well, I will admit to having a little dig, but it wasn’t at you.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:23 | #

Who is being convinced, specifically, and of what?

Racialist Christians of the inability of “white nationalism” to satisfy their ecological needs.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:36 | #

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

He’s only half Jewish or so going by another post of his (from my memory), but that sort of narcissism isn’t appealing…

Deeds are more impressive than success, and IQ tests aren’t accurate if one has trained for them. Also, savants aren’t usually high functioning - a race of Rain Men isn’t going to be a happy lot.

Wagner’s positive influence on culture is a simple reading of something massively complex. He helped to foment a great deal of nationalism, which ultimately drove Germany to court destruction at the hands of us anglos.

So Germany would have fared better weak? What of the Russian bear?

The Norns spun Germany’s fate - it’s surely not so easy to know what might have happened had a thread run differently.

It’s pleasant to cheer the winners and condemn the losers though!

Posted by PF on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:18 | #

Christianity and the English/British cultural cannon

..my musings..

Placing this ossified, unintelligible Eastern scripture as the bedrock of our culture means we are perpetually forced to encounter in our most intimate mystical moments - or even more importantly, all our ancestors were forced to encounter and use as a tissue of interpretation - something that speaks in a foreign tonality, something which speaks ‘Desert’ and, reiterated a thousand times, will never and can never speak ‘Forest’ or ‘Heath’, which is our language. Thats why it doesnt draw, thats why it doesnt seduce, thats why magical stories from the past become with us enforced pomp that puts us to sleep! It doesnt resonate and it never can, but with a rare few, and but by those who are championing its social effects and psychological effects for them.

Our culture (British Christian culture) is built on an ancient self-betrayal. Thats one of the reasons our children are instinctively trying to destroy it, because in the mustiness and dankness of Hebraicized Anglodom they sense a foreign pong. We are adventurist, sportive, brusque and slightly fatalist, with a martial history, unfolding in northern European scenery: and that is totally inadequate but its the best description I can render. This goat herding stuff and all the goody-goody Jane Eyre nonsense of us trying to embody middle eastern goat-herder morality, doesn’t reflect our nature.

The Vikings accepting Christ had as little idea what was being done as when our fathers accepted Political Correctness, they could not have known, it was sold to them in the most innocent colors and they didnt have the abstract understanding to see its implications. The same people sold it to us, the ancient artisans of ideas!

We now have the choice to suffer the loss of religion and its benefits (also a self-betrayal) or try to cram our foot for the thousandth time into an ill-fitting shoe, justifying the great struggle because spirituality ... is meant… to be difficult.. (?).  It doesn’t work, it didnt work back then, it doesnt work now, and IF it did work, there would be no John Lennon because he couldnt draw crowds with a simple tune if we had built a house for the artists and dreamers of all our past ages to live comfortably in and be united by, as opposed to them experiencing our supposedly unifying principles of religion as an ongoing denial of their being. There is no anchor because all of our freest hearts desperately want out of this contraption, and now we are punished for wanting out, because we hate the smell, with the reprimand: “Christians have more babies”. Behold the Christian with his gaggle of children. Why not also be poor, since the poor likewise have more children? Each of us could conceive children tommorow if we made some poor decisions, is the recommendation seriously to abandon bettering one’s lot in order to become pawn-statistics in a putative WN battle which is not even happening? Or to get the approval of anonymous internet posters? How much more insane to surrender what spiritual independence one has, in the name of out-birthing the non-European Other. That idea makes sense on paper but is nuts in reality, like so many ideas that one encounters.

Regarding all our creative men of past ages and the chaotic disunity of voices in our history…

As is, we crammed them into our schizophrenic borrowed Hebrew house, and the more gracious of them obliged us because they were wise enough not to take it seriously and their grandeur of spirit made that possible. No coherent whole has ever emerged from this and the strongest part of the Western cannon, the least ambiguous part, is still pre-Christian Greek and Roman letters. And I say that as someone who in no way wants this to be true.

For me, British children being given names taken from Hebrew scripture is also a part of our dispossession. We may only now have the sense to realize this, and we are inured to it by eons of experience. Not reclaiming that most important spiritual space, and knowing that your children face an eternity of reiteration of Hebrew scripture, why do you even want your neighborhood back? If I name my kid ‘Josaiah’ and teach him that the Psalms are his guiding star, why do I even care what kind of girlfriend he brings home?

The Bible was MTV and Hollywood version 1.0.

Posted by PF on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:23 | #

.oops… ranting…

and my implication at the end was exaggerated. I’d prefer to imitate a bastardized Hebraic culture than be completely dispossessed.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:46 | #

Traditional conservative values evinced by the National Socialist Krautess Getrud Scholz-Klink that may be of interest to Christians and Englishmen:

The next year, we showed our women that Bolshevism is the incorporation of evil in the world, calling them to be servants and fighters for the good.

[...]

We have, therefore, focused this year’s women’s mass meeting not on formal reports, but rather have made an attempt to place what has to be said under a theme that is the command of the hour for us all:

Tradition does not mean stagnation, but rather obligation!

The Führer has taught the citizens of the German nation that the individual cannot be at the center of events if the state is to be healthy and strong, but rather that the eternal laws of strength and order require bonds to a community.

He has further taught us — in contrast to the surrounding world — that such bonds can never be temporary, but rather that they must be firm and unbreakable.

[...]

Through these measures, we want to ensure that each young girl who enters one of these professions has proven that she can serve the community for a year before she can herself make demands of the community.

We must use this opportunity to speak to some mothers. If your daughter wants to, or must, participate, do not do anything that will reflect unfavorably on your honor, or on that of your daughter, for example, a newspaper advertisement along these lines: “Seeking a position for my daughter’s service year. Requirements: central heating, hot water, no children!”

If a people is guided by a worldview that puts its faith in the future on a banner, and this people does all in its power to ensure this future, then the source of its future has every right to protection and help: mothers who have many children. Therefore your daughter, who perhaps is your only one, should learn about this so that she will have a richer and perhaps more honorable life than in the past.

In discussing the labor service, I would like briefly to remember the achievements of the last year in the area of assisting neighbors, harvest help, caring for children in NSV camps, and also caring for wives and children of prisoners. This is all done quietly, from the knowledge that our movement’s faith can only achieve its goals if people join in from every side.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/scholtz-klink1.htm

The effect of Bolshevist “freedom” was:

Helpless women and wretched children, worn out sick women as the result of heavy labor and abortions, a rapid fall in the birthrate, and growing complaints from the women themselves that finally led the Soviet government to make proposals on 25 May 1936 for improvements in these areas.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/pt36frau.htm

Filthy Krauts.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:30 | #

Our culture (British Christian culture) is built on an ancient self-betrayal. Thats one of the reasons our children are instinctively trying to destroy it, because in the mustiness and dankness of Hebraicized Anglodom they sense a foreign pong.

Wrong. They are buying the Jew and the atheists bull shit because it is easy to live without claims on one’s existence, without acknowledging the complete and utter contingency of their position. They like MTV and cheap and easy sex. You might sense a foreign pong, but I doubt that that is the case for your abandonment of the religion of our fathers. If it is the reason, you yourself are guilty of violating the criteria you set forth for examining the claims of Christianity.

All that matters is whether or not it is true and I can rest assured that it is. Acknowledging that you are a contingent creature and renouncing your autonomy is simple and won’t change your genetics in any way.

because anyone deciding for or against Christianity would have to do so because of deeper felt reasons, or have no intellectual conscience. If one were in possession of these *deeper reasons*, one would naturally have to prioritize them above political expediency and argue from the deeper reasons to the political expediency.

I have an intellectual conscience and I can’t do violence to it by accepting an empiricist materialism that cannot account for the intelligibility of the universe.

Nationalism certainly was a two-edged sort on which Germany cut herself pretty bad, i.e. an idea for which many many millions of Germans went to the grave semi-unnecessarily.

Yes! Germany certainly cut herself on the sword of English nationalism! Pity it wasn’t the London stock brokers left defeated and filthy, starving in piles of rubble rather than all those filthy Krauts.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:10 | #

Fred, thank you for the link. Interesting, and clearly Kalb is knowledgeable. He has all the necessary dots and juggles them skillfully in the air, but it seems that he might have not made the last connections between them to produce the view of liberalism as maximal resource acquisition for the “elites” and the facilitation of consuming and productive flows by liberal principles. Very useful still.

To the atheists: One of the many good parts about religion is that it is not scientifically provable. The certainty of belief in God without scientific proves flies violently against atheists’ requests of them, and I love it. I love religion. I love God. God and religion will always prevent the controlling attempts, actions and productions of man and humiliates their overconfident fumbling “rationality”. Everlasting life can’t be reached through micromanagement, liberal or darwinist materialist.

Think about your own death, it is good for you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:44 | #

”Racialist Christians [are being convinced] of the inability of ‘white nationalism’ to satisfy their ecological needs.”  (—Desmond)

Could you explain that, Desmond?  I’m not sure I understand.

”[The Iceman is] only half Jewish or so going by another post of his (from my memory), but that sort of narcissism isn’t appealing…”  (—Frank)

The Iceman isn’t Jewish or a narcissist (he’s too dense for narcissism).  He claims to have a Russian-Jewish grandfather, which no more makes a man Jewish than a Salonika-Jewish grandfather (Sarcoma is 100% Catholic).  (and 100% malignant.)  (The Iceman is a 100% non-entity.)

”Each of us could conceive children tommorow if we made some poor decisions, is the recommendation seriously to abandon bettering one’s lot in order to become pawn-statistics in a putative WN battle which is not even happening?  Or to get the approval of anonymous internet posters?  How much more insane to surrender what spiritual independence one has, in the name of out-birthing the non-European Other.  That idea makes sense on paper but is nuts in reality, like so many ideas that one encounters.”  (—PF)

As a general thing, Euro-race men should strive toward marriage with Euro-race women leading to the founding of Euro-race families with children.  PF’s attack there on this notion is so shallow it’s almost not even worth noticing.  In that attack, moreover, PF shows himself in a few ways to be no particular friend of the aims of this web-site. 

”Not reclaiming that most important spiritual space, and knowing that your children face an eternity of reiteration of Hebrew scripture, why do you even want your neighborhood back?”  (—PF)

For PF, a Christian identity for Eurodom is so horrible that until it’s done away with there’s zero reason to question the wisdom of changing Eurodom racially from white to Negro.  Does that sound like someone who is in sympathy with the aims of this web-site?
 
”If I name my kid ‘Josaiah’ and teach him that the Psalms are his guiding star, why do I even care what kind of girlfriend he brings home?”  (—PF)

PF’s son (this is purely theoretical, as, disdaining procreation, PF will never have a son) marrying a Negro, extinguishing PF’s line from the white race and assisting in the white race’s extermination, is no worse than his son being a Christian and valuing the wisdom of the Psalms.  No comment needed there, I trust.

Yes Al Ross disdains Christianity as much as you, PF, but he doesn’t imply, like you, that he’d rather have Negro than Christian posterity.  At the rate you’re going you’ll likely wind up with both rolled into one:  Negro Christians.  Are you sure you’re commenting at the right blog?  Did you mix us up with the Daily Joss House or the Puffington the Magic Negro Post?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:50 | #

I just saw the following by PF after posting my comment above:

”.oops… ranting…

and my implication at the end was exaggerated. I’d prefer to imitate a bastardized Hebraic culture than be completely dispossessed.”  (—PF)

OK he’s exonerated himself.  But something tells me PF will turn out to be a “wet” on race-replacement.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:10 | #

Finn: I love religion. I love God.

But what loves religion?  What loves God?  In this love, who are you, Finn?

And if the answer is not “I am” ... if the answer still contains subject and object, then you are merely expressing an emotional need (albeit one that is of consuming importance to you).

As I said to Alex, faith is adaptive.  Faith is good.  Faith will exist no matter what.  Those in whom the genes are either absent or unexpressed are not better men for being more rational, or for the questions that exist inside their heads in the place where faith is not.  Criticism of faith per se is unhelpful.  But criticism of the utility, of the adaptiveness of a particular religion is proper.

For that reason and contrary to Fred’s view, the only really provocative thought on this page is PF’s.  Perhaps, because he is a more sensitive and intellectually gifted person than I am, he can walk into the cool, damp air of an old Norman church and find something more than the touching, ossified sincerity of our betrayed forefathers.  But he cannot know precisely what life-gifts the true European faith bestowed.  None of us can.  The earth was scorched too well and too deeply by those who took so hard against it, and took no thought of the consequences to those who came after.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:12 | #

My favorite part of the interview was the proposal that there be a lottery for a public blood sacrifice of those who would presume to occupy positions of public trust and authority.  An interesting idea.  To avoid dysgenics, there needs to be an associated guarantee that the individual so sacrificed is propagated genetically in a nurturing environment.  The sacrifice of the sacred king is of course called to mind and was discussed quite a bit in my interview with Andrew Fraser. 

However, I prefer nature’s way:

Unobserved single combat in a state of nature resulting from a formal challenge (with public statement of the reason).  By “state of nature” I mean a territory large enough for the use of strategy and tools/weapons and tools/weapons standardized to represent those an individual would be able to make from nature and carry himself such as a 10 inch sword and 15 meters of strong cordage.

We need men like Andrew Jackson unencumbered by a dysgenic code duello.

Posted by Euro on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:10 | #

I recommend reading The Pagan Temptation by Thomas Molnar for a keen analysis of the problem of Christianity in the West.Molnar writes from a traditional Catholic perspective.However,he is erudite and is not fanatic.

Though I haven’t read it in some time,Molnar’s thesis is this: Christianity introduced the concept of the supernatural.In so doing it demoted the status of the natural world.In paganism the natural world is supreme.Since supernaturalism is difficult for the human mind to grasp,it requires a medium or symbol through which it may be approached.Mediums and symbols can only be provided from nature and naturalistic religious antecedents.Christianity consequently absorbed and assimilated a fair amount of ancient paganism.Meanwhile it’s anti-naturalistic supernaturalism undercut paganism and with it the naturalistic underpinnings of it’s own assimilated pagan elements.Thereby shooting itself in the proverbial foot.

So now Jews are raping thirteen year old girls* (White,of course),Muslims are gang raping European women all over the continent;and Christers are yammering about anti-Semitism,ecumenism and Western pornography.

Here’s the book: http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Temptation-Thomas-Molnar/dp/0802802621

* See Roman Polansky

Posted by Frank on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:58 | #

CC,

have you ever met someone other than a Jew or homosexual or Marxist who didn’t like Krauts?

It’s always NS I hear denounced, not Germans themselves.

The world hates Southerners though, but that’s a different story. We’re truly oppressed and hated; y’all have it easy

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:26 | #

”PF’s [hypothetical son …] marrying a Negro, extinguishing PF’s line from the white race”  (—from my comment)

I wonder if one motivation for white miscegenation with Negroes could conceivably be the instinctual wish that one’s personal bloodline not be eliminated over time through competition other whites?  (See footnote below for explanation of this mechanism, as illustrated through the female/mitochondrial-DNA line.)  Take a white woman who willingly miscegenates with a Negro:  her personal bloodline, now passed on through her mulatto child, would be disfavored among whites (because passed on as mulatto now) but thanks to the one-drop rule she, in miscegenating, will have left the white population and taken her personal bloodline with her, so now in the new population she’s entered the competition is weaker because inferior to whites, and her personal bloodline will be favored over the long term in the competition for survival among all individual Negro female bloodlines making up that Negro population which she’s decided to enter.  Thus will her personal female bloodline stand a better chance of becoming, let’s say, some future “mitochondrial Eve,” so to speak, since it’s superior to the Negro lines.  If this might he a mechanism it hearkens back to Desmond’s often pointing out underlying white self-interest, either at the group or individual level, in doing things that at first glance appear harmful/unadaptive.

Obviously, humans are not at the low end of the genetic diversity spectrum, particularly in relation to other mammals.  We might wonder how humans could have accumulated so much genetic diversity when we are such an evolutionarily ‘young’ species, but this assumes that the human species arose by an extreme founding event — a time at which the entire species’ diversity resided in just a few individuals — and that all humans today are descended from those few founders.  This supposed event is often conflated with the concept of “mitochondrial Eve,” a woman who lived roughly 200,000 years ago and is the most recent common ancestor of all human mtDNA.  This conflation is incorrect, however, because the coalescence of mtDNA to a single ancestor back in time does not imply a demographic bottleneck, but is expected even in a population of constant size.  Avise (2001) has noted that in a hypothetical population with 15,000 breeding females (about three times the long-term human estimate), reasonable variances in reproductive success would likely see mtDNA coalesce to a single founding lineage in 300,000 years (~15,000 human generations), without any change in population size.  Thus, the coalescence time of human mtDNA doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a population bottleneck or speciation event, but rather is more or less a function of long-term effective population size, with a large standard error.  Variants of nuclear autosomal genes, having a four-fold greater effective population size than mtDNA, generally coalesce in the neighborhood of 800,000 years ago.  This indicates that a substantial amount of our existing genetic variation originated in the population ancestral to modern humans.”

[ http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html ; scroll down to “How Genetically Diverse Are Humans?”]

Posted by Frank on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:36 | #

Fred,

I like the one drop rule in theory, but if you applied that… you’d eliminate nearly all the white activists.

Strength through purity is strong in theory, but I’m doubtful whites even exist anymore. That said, even if I turned out to be mulatto I’d still be a sort of Nordicist, would still be serving the same people; but most are nationalist out of a sort of vanity - they love what they are. Though once they have children, they’re going to also love whatever those children are.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:37 | #

Perhaps a small bit of succor for the sufferings of Southerners, Frank: In Gottfried’s recent interview with Sunic he said it was niceness which destroyed WASP America, that Southerners should be nasty in resisting giving up their Confederate flags and their heritage, and that America is insufficiently anti-Semitic.  Of course, we all knew he knew the truth all along.  Still, I doubt he’ll be throwing his support behind NS any time soon.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:51 | #

It is all there, just waiting to be fleshed out: GW has concluded that European Man is possessed by a drive to master his external environment, a drive which if not outwardly-directed turns in on and devours himself - yet he baulks at the obvious, that European Man, particularly Nordic Man, is the Master Race.  So much so, that he credits PF for his sensitivity and precision of thought for thinking in a way which rationalizes PF not striving to pass on his own genes; instead of rebuking him for foolish navel-gazing which is surely not the intellectually and morally sensitive accent PF thinks he is taking.  All to keep from admitting that European Man in all his other parts is best served by being in the beneficent orbit of Germanic Man.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:17 | #

It is has been posited in the past that Joseph Goebbels, considered an intellectual heavyweight, did not truly buy the National Socialist line in its entirety because if he did, then by definition he was not an intellectual heavyweight, and he was an intellectual heavyweight, therefore he didn’t buy National Socialism in its entirety.  But does not the way in which Goebbels actually behaved belie such a contention?  Well, Goebbels, discernible by the way he actually behaved, was absolutely loyal to Adolf Hitler, the man he acknowledged as his Fuhrer; so much was Goebbels bound to Hitler that he willed his own death that Hitler’s side, and even the lives of his own children there too.  Those are not the actions of a man who was not utterly sincere, and utterly devoted to his principles.  And, if intellectual heavyweight he indeed was, perhaps we should consider the possible correctness of his beliefs and actions.

Also, the idea that to stand for one’s people and against their enemies in as muscular terms as one can muster is the mark of effemination is a risible absurdity that if taken seriously leads straight to the grave.

Posted by Frank on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:31 | #

I honour pre-NS Germanic man. I’m still wary of NS Germanic man. Actually believing in or valuing someone or something makes Goebbels a light weight?

I’ve got to print out Gottfried’s latest now to read. You read more at Takimag than I do.

Posted by Bob on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:34 | #

Linder: ~~ “We could be 50 countries!”

Yes! The KikeJew’s ultimate wet-dream… a ‘divide&conquer;’ nirvana ...

——————————————————————————————————————-

Big is Good… If WE are the BIG ONES!

BIG BOB

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:42 | #

I’m ignoring the religion stuff

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?

Space. Sooner or later a big rock will smash into the earth and that will be that. Alternatively eventually the sun will burn out. Our descendents need to be on some other planet somewhere with an English pub before either of those two things happen. Obviously we need to survive the current attempted genocide and rearrange a few things first but sooner or later we need to go up there.

Selous Scout

To that end, if one were to compile a list of the Top 10 or Top 20 WN Classics, what would they be?

Not quite what you asked but i’d say first on any list would be the classics. Almost anything sensible ever written was said first and in clearer language by the Ancient Greeks and Romans. After that the various mythologies and then MacDonald.

Captain

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.

Quite.

Posted by Fascist on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:38 | #

I believe that Jews were one of several causes for white racial decline in America.  But Linder blames the Jews way too much.  He seems to think that just about everything wrong with America and the world stems from Jews.  Indeed, at one point in the interview he even stated that there is “nothing fundamentally wrong with white people!”

In my opinion, this line of thinking is absolutely ridiculous.  I don’t know the kind of white people that Linder hangs around, but any white nationalist who interacts with white Americans on a daily basis should know that there is something extremely wrong with white people.  Outside of cyberspace, practically no whites share our views, the vast majority being extremely hostile to them.  Moreover, race-mixing has become totally mainstream and I see interracial couples on a daily basis.  In fact, there have been studies done that have found that more than one out of three white Americans have dated someone of another race.  No amount of Jewish propaganda should be able to make white people act like that.  Jewish influence may have been extremely important in white racial decline, but by far the most important reason white America was destroyed is the nature of whites themselves.  To put it bluntly, the vast majority of them simply just don’t care too much about their race.  That’s just their nature.  And the ones that would care if they lived in a healthy society are too dumb and too lacking of the ability to think for themselves to resist the multiracial propaganda.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:41 | #

No amount of Jewish propaganda should be able to make white people act like that. Jewish influence may have been extremely important in white racial decline, but by far the most important reason white America was destroyed is the nature of whites themselves.  To put it bluntly, the vast majority of them simply just don’t care too much about their race.  That’s just their nature.

And yet their “nature” was the exact opposite of this within living memory.

Humans are programmed to copy what they see.

Hollywood. Television. jews.

Posted by Fascist on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:40 | #

Wandrin,

You make a good point.  However, I just don’t see how any amount of propaganda could make whites in America (or most other places) act the way they do today.  Not only do practically all of them disagree with any notions of white racial solidarity, but they are extremely hostile and derisive towards it.  Moreover, even if you are right and it’s all because of indoctrination then that just further shows how stupid they are and how much they can’t think for themselves.

Also, it’s possible that past racialism is exaggerated.  There was always a strong cosmopolitan and anti-racist streak throughout the entirety of American history.  For example, the desire to free blacks was the main reason for the bloodiest war in American history: the Civil War.  Furthermore, after that war the North attempted to impose black equality on the South just as they would more successfully do in the 1950s and 1960s.  And there was fairly significant Asian and Hispanic immigration to America during times when you would have thought that whites wouldn’t have stood for it.

Here’s a link to a study that found that more than one out of three white Americans have dated outside of their race:

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/USAttitudesTowardInterracialDatingAreLiberalizing.aspx

Even if that study overestimates the prevalence of race-mixing, it can’t be that far off.  I would say that at least 1/5 or 1/4 of whites have dated outside of their race.  I just don’t think that people are such lemmings and that indoctrination can make them act like that.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:03 | #

However, I just don’t see how any amount of propaganda could make whites in America (or most other places) act the way they do today.

The multicult is a religion. Religion can make people do anything.

The multicult religion says being white is racist and bad.

The multicult religion says having mixed relationship is how you prove you’re non-racist and good.

So that’s what people do - or at least the most suggestible - the ones that hypnosis would work on.

The multicult is a religion. jews are the priesthood. Television and Hollywood are the pulpits.

The irony is this religion of anti-racism is genocidal jewish racism in disguise.

Posted by Mark on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:35 | #

I agree with Fascist.  Although it’s not something specific to whites, it’s more of a human condition.  We bond with those around us.  Unless you have religious and ethnic pressures that exclude outsiders like Jews do.

Jewish organizations have gone to great links to dismantle our ability to segregate ourselves.  The best we can do now is live in white enclaves and home school or pay for private schools.

From that link the study showed that an integrated school more than anything else increased interracial relationships the most.

Posted by Mark on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:37 | #

*Jewish organizations have gone to great lengths to dismantle our ability to segregate ourselves.

Posted by AD on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:04 | #

Wandrin,

Those factors are just accelerators.  It would have eventually happened anyway.  Prohibitions against the practice would have delayed (and can only delay) the inevitable—by many centuries, depending on the numbers involved—but time changes everything; resistance first weakens, then, as relations between various differentiated types grow warmer, collapses, and what was previously unthinkable becomes unquestionable.  Of course, absent those accelerators there might have been more time for a more effective reaction.  As we know, the reaction that did occur was pathetic, an epic joke.  And it still is.  (See Captain Crudheap recently bemoaning the Amerian partition scenario that offers the only genuine ray of hope because it would make the reconquest of America that much more ‘difficult’—as though the continuation of present trends instead makes it easier.) 

Hardest for the racial activist to accept, I think, is the lack of racial revulsion among the populace, something he has forever overestimated.  This is an important question, as the answer to it will in large part determine what the most appropriate course of action is, and I could be dead wrong, but my guess is that most people out there are not quietly suppressing their racial revulsion; they have instead simply largely lost it.  To expect, then, that racial appeals, be they direct or indirect, will touch people’s innermost racial yearnings is to be continually disappointed.  If that’s the case, you’ll have to restrict yourself to defensive racialism, which is still quite potent.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:55 | #

Fascist is correct. The real culprit is close racial proximity and not the Zhoos, to the chagrin of simpletons, sociopaths, and known liars like Linder. The exogamy rate for Jews during the Weimar republic was similar to the current rate in the U.S. Racial mixing occurred in apartheid South African (remember, South Africa has a “mixed” population), not because Whites - the poor mindless lemmings without a will - fell victim to Jewish propaganda but because racial proximity = race mixing. Therefore, the only solution that will work is complete racial segregation. Now, there’s no doubt that the there’s truth to what Wanderin is saying and popular culture, and political correctness accelerates race mixing and makes is not only socially acceptable but in some cases socially desirable - it’s a way to prove that one is not racist but progressive and open-minded, and racism is the greatest of crimes, of course. However, I would agree with Fascist that in the real world any hint of White Nationalism or even of race consciousness on the part of Whites has you marked for extreme opprobrium and personal and professional ruin. Never mind Linder’s genocidal speech about exterminating all Jews. This type of banter does more to turn Whites away from White Nationalism than a million Frankfurt School Jews working overtime. The quicker we isolate and exclude the Linders from polite company, the better off all of us will be and the idea of building a White biosphere might yet stand a fighting chance. In ten years of activism the only thing that Linder has accomplished is a small forum with a handful of low I.Q. sociopaths. American White Nationalists won’t have anything to do with him. Duke? Nope. Black? Nope. They won’t even talk to him. His rhetoric turns 99.9999% of Whites away. Why would a sane White person be attracted to a morally repulsive individual and his one-note solution to all of our problems? No matter the question “Jews” is ALWAYS the answer. That might work with his tiny coterie of mental defectives on VNNForum but is a loser in the general population. His Jewish monomania is not only empirically false but a poor propagandistic strategy. The J.Q. is too complex to be readily understood by the average White person. You’ve got to be able to reach folks who don’t read T.O.Q. or MacDonald, i.e. practically everyone.

I don’t mind a discussion of the Jewish role if it’s done in a nuanced and scholarly fashion, but that’s obviously not what we’re talking about with Linder and his approach. I actually believe that White Nationalists should make a case study of Linder to see what not to do and doesn’t work.

The path that I pointed out a few days ago in my little essay is the only way that can actually offer concrete results. I believe that Wilders will be the first anti-liberal politician to be elected as the head of a European country since W.W. II. I want to imitate want works and not what fails. He’s not perfect, but he needs to be carefully studied.

Posted by Obvious on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:16 | #

Fascist:“In fact, there have been studies done that have found that more than one out of three white Americans have dated someone of another race.  No amount of Jewish propaganda should be able to make white people act like that.”

You must not watch much Jew-produced American TV and movies then (which is good). 

However, most Americans of all races (especially Whites) watch hours of TV a day [plus movies a few times a week too], and the Jewish owned American mass media is totally filled with pro-race mixing propaganda produced by Jews.

Posted by Obvious on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:24 | #

A view from a Jew who converted to Orthodox Christianity: Jewry’s War Against White America - http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=466

Posted by Fascist on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:12 | #

Yes, the multicult is definitely a religion and the American mass media is filled with race-mixing propaganda.  There’s no doubt that that has a huge effect on people.  However, the only point that I was making was that the vast majority of white people must have little instinctive racial loyalty for things to be the way that they are today.  In my opinion, as I said before, if whites naturally cared about their race in any significant way then no amount of propaganda should be able to make them as hostile to our message and as prone to race-mixing as they are now.  Even if Jews could practice Jedi mind control 1/3 (or even 1/4 or 1/5) of whites shouldn’t be dating outside of their race unless they were already naturally predisposed to it.  I know that a lot of people can’t think for themselves, but most whites aren’t mindless lemmings.

There is no doubt that Jewish influence has had an extremely devastating impact on white America.  However, proponents of the single Jewish cause, like Linder, often grossly overestimate how naturally receptive whites are to our message.  I used to make this same mistake.  As depressing as it is to admit it, I think that we should acknowledge that when it really comes down to it most white people just don’t care too much about their race.  It’s definitely true that if we lived in a healthy society a lot more would care.  But most naturally wouldn’t care all that much.  The only way to turn most regular white people into white nationalists is to raise them in a culture that artificially instills upon them the importance of race, just like in Nazi Germany.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:25 | #

Fascist, you’re right about Whites but I don’t think that other races are necessarily any more ethnocentric or endogamous (about 50% of Jews in the U.S. marry out…they’re getting hoisted on their own petard). The only difference is that only Whites in our culture are constantly demonized and made to feel guilty. Self-hatred ensues.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:32 | #

A Finn’s advice to atheists is probably intended to concentrate our minds on the merciful, if invisible, Christian CEO’s eternal punishments, which will, he doubtless believes, be meted out to to us when we shrug off this mortal coil.

My advice to A Finn is that, to borrow the words of his co - religionist, Oliver Cromwell, he should “consider it possible that you may be wrong”.

Dying is a scary business and anyone who isn’t scared of dying is either a liar or a Ghurka, but the Christian attempts to scare intelligent people regarding the state of actually being dead should be treated with the same casual contempt as the rest of the Middle Eastern tall tales.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:58 | #

However, the only point that I was making was that the vast majority of white people must have little instinctive racial loyalty for things to be the way that they are today.

I come from a non WN background so it is very noticeable to me how people on the racialist right have a much more extreme attitude to race-mixing than the average person. This is true. And i suppose to someone who has that atitude then the current situation must seem very depressing because to them the gap between their view and what is happening is so extreme.

My experience is the average person’s natural resistance is nowhere near as strong as the average WNs but it is still naturally very strong. Importantly the average person’s resistance is not so much to do with mixed dating but mixed *marriage* and mixed *children* and if you look at all the damage deliberately done to western culture over the last 60 years including all the forced integration, sex education, decline of marriage, parental authority etc it has all helped create the situation we are now in where dating leads to far more children than it did in the past.

Simply put i have seen BBC vox pops from the 1960s of very ordinary people in the streets citing race-mixing as one reason for being anti-immigration and no one was arguing against them. Although the average person is not as extreme on this issue as WNs are they were *vastly* closer to the WN position within living memory.

Also the idea that proximity makes people less racist is not true. Proximity to black people makes eveyone, not just whites, more prejudiced against them, partly unfairly. For example Sailer’s match of high white percentage votes for Obama being in states with the least black people.

My view is simply that diversity kills. People find it easier to do evil things to people who are physically different. My descendents were and hopefully will again be safest in an ethnically homogenous group on their own soil. I’ve also come to believe democracy, mutual aid and military security will only ever be truely guaranteed within an ethnic demos. It is therefore in my interest to have an ethnically homogenous English homeland preferably within a British union, preferably within a mutually supportive anglosphere, preferably within a mutually supportive collection of white nations, preferably within a cooperative collection of white and south and south east asian nations.

jews have the opposite interest everywhere except Israel. The more homogenous and united a host population is the more likely they are to exclude jews as the “other”. It is in their interest to weaken the host’s sense of “us”. They always do it. They’ve been doing it for thousands of years. They can’t stop themselves doing it because they can’t stop putting themselves in situations where they are a nation within someone else’s nation.

Obviously it’s not *just* jews but jews will *always* behave as a catalyst for social and national disintegration because it is in their interest to weaken the hosts sense of “us”.

How you approach saying that is a question of tactics. Personally i don’t say it except here. I think it is counter-productive in mainstream politics *but* i certainly want someone saying it somewhere so when one group of “moderate” activists pull people from the mainstream into a half-stage WN position those people will eventually get exposed to more radical ideas.

nb People need to realize the jews have messed up very badly. Their destruction of western civilization is going to take them down with it and pretty much nowhere on the planet is going to end being safe for them except maybe south-east asia. A few will realize this early and try and hijack or create some kind of WN movement that is still pro multicult and pro jewish supremacy but anti mozzie. My belief is the one and only WN negotiating position with jews should be that they belong in their own homeland away from us.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:17 | #

about 50% of Jews in the U.S. marry out

So they say.

I think the way to understand jews is to imagine yourself in their situation i.e imagine yourself as an agent for your nation behind enemy lines. If you imagine how you’d think and behave if you were some kind of spy in an enemy country i think you’ll get an understanding of how the rootless jews see the world.

Dying is a scary business and anyone who isn’t scared of dying is either a liar or a Ghurka, but the Christian attempts to scare intelligent people regarding the state of actually being dead should be treated with the same casual contempt as the rest of the Middle Eastern tall tales.

People have a natural predisposition to believe in some kind of God or religion. Secularism is pointless because people will just create new religions - environmentalism for example. If WNs want to do away with Christianity then they need to replace it with something they consider more suitable.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:40 | #

That article linked by “Obvious” was quite good:  “Jewry’s War Against White America” by Brother Nathanael Kapner, here:

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=466 .

What little I’ve read by Brother Kapner has been quite good.  I plan on sitting down one of these days and reading his entire site, everything in its archives plus related links, when I have the time.  It ought to be a very useful education.

Posted by Jim Giles on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:45 | #

There is some brilliant commentary going on here at Majority Rights and perhaps you intend it for only a limited group of individuals because it’s too buried and not conspicuous enough.

I’m trying to figure out how to create the best environment for discussion amongst as wide a public as possible on my website, i.e., forum or blog and if blog what type blog.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Not to be hyper critical but VNN Forum, Stormfront, Majority Rights, etc. all suffer from a lack of Excellent Presentation.  Sure, you can find the material but the presentation is less than ideal.  There is too much clutter and not enough focus on the essence in my opinion.  And I admit my website is far from ideal.  But I’m trying to improve it.

Another constructive criticism here is that you cannot subscribe to a thread and be notified when there is a response.

BTW, thank y’all for suggesting Arthur Kemp to me; I interviewed him yesterday and was very impressed with what he had to say.  There is a real and deep divide between European Nationalists and American White Nationalists that I did not know existed.  Mr. Kemp did not wish to discuss the Jewish Question with Alex Linder.  Do y’all know of anyone he might be willing to discuss it with?  Is there only one Alex Linder?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:10 | #

“I think the way to understand jews is to imagine yourself in their situation i.e imagine yourself as an agent for your nation behind enemy lines. If you imagine how you’d think and behave if you were some kind of spy in an enemy country i think you’ll get an understanding of how the rootless jews see the world.”  (—Wandrin)

Correct.  That is, in part, exactly how you do it.  Or instead of imagining yourself, imagine how someone feels, someone of an ethnicity/religion/nationality/whatever that traditionally loathes, hates with a white-hot hatred a particular other ethnicity/relgiion/nationality/etc., who must live submerged in that hated other society.  A good one is a nationalistic Ulster Catholic living among Ulster Prods in Ulster.  How will that Catholic feel, what will he do, how will he vote, what will he favor for that society, etc.?  That’s, in part, a picture of the Jews in Eurochristian society.  That nationalistic Ulster Catholic living in Ulster Prod society will not like the people he must live among, will not like the society surrounding him, will have no intention whatsoever of identifying with or celebrating the surrounding society’s heros but will privately spit on those national heroes, will intensely loathe seeing any and all manifestations of the surrounding society’s religion especially any public ones, will want to weaken and if possible destroy that society, and so on.

That’s the Jews in Eurochristian society but not as bad as the Jews (Jews do tons of things that are a lot lower than anything this Ulster Catholic would do to the Prods:  even with all his hatred for the Prods he wouldn’t stoop that low.  He wouldn’t make whole industries, for example, of encouraging Prod women to fornicate with and procreate with Negroes.  Jews are willing to stoop lower in their expressions of racial/ethnocultural hatred and desire for revenge; they’re more diabolical.  The Ulster Catholic might shoot his Prod enemy in the kneecaps and be done with it.  That’s kindergarten stuff for the Jews.  They’re going to be way more elaborately sadistic than that.  They’re going to crush and humiliate in ways far more devastating than the Ulsterman would think up).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:29 | #

Braun’s figure of 50% Jewish outmarriage (11:25 AM) has been convincingly debunked here by Ben Tillman and others.  I don’t have the links at my fingertips; Braun can do a site search if interested.  The real figure is much lower, less than half that.  It gets inflated by Jewish sources for purposes of alarming Jews who may be unconcerned about activist claims of an outmarriage threat to Jewry.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:48 | #

Wandrin:

My descendents were and hopefully will again be safest in an ethnically homogenous group on their own soil.  […D]emocracy, mutual aid and military security will only ever be truly guaranteed within an ethnic demos.  It is therefore in my interest to have an ethnically homogenous English homeland […].

Jews have the opposite interest everywhere (except in Israel).  The more homogenous and united a host population is the more likely it is to exclude Jews as the “other.”  It is in their interest to weaken the host’s sense of “us.”  <u>They always do it</u>.  They’ve been doing it for thousands of years.  They can’t stop themselves doing it because they can’t stop putting themselves in situations where they are a nation within someone else’s nation.

Obviously it’s not *just* Jews, but Jews will *always* behave as a catalyst for social and national disintegration because it is in their interest to weaken the host’s sense of “us.”

How you approach saying that is a question of tactics.  Personally I don’t say it except here.  I think it is counter-productive in mainstream politics *but* I certainly want someone saying it somewhere, so when one group of “moderate” activists pull people from the mainstream into a half-stage WN position those people will eventually get exposed to more radical ideas.

nb People need to realize the jews have messed up very badly.  Their destruction of western civilization is going to take them down with it and pretty much nowhere on the planet is going to end being safe for them except maybe south-east asia.  A few [Jews] will realize this early and try and hijack or create some kind of WN movement that is still pro multicult and pro jewish supremacy but anti mozzie.  My belief is the one and only WN negotiating position with jews should be that they belong in their own homeland away from us.

I wouldn’t have put that last paragraph quite the way Wandrin did, but overall a lot of very good points in the above.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:40 | #

Mr. Kemp did not wish to discuss the Jewish Question with Alex Linder.  Do y’all know of anyone he might be willing to discuss it with?

It is the policy of the BNP not to engage in full range discussion of the Jewish Question for reasons of electoral viability.  So long as Kemp is associated with the BNP he would not even be willing to discuss it from a purely scholarly point of view with Kevin MacDonald himself.  I’m sure Kemp is well-enough versed on the topic though, he just won’t talk about it.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:46 | #

Braun’s figure of 50% Jewish outmarriage (11:25 AM) has been convincingly debunked here by Ben Tillman and others.

Why should we believe a Judeo-obsessive like Tillmam and not the scientific literature? Yeah, Jew Scrooby, EVERYTHING Jews say or do is a fabrication, you fucking moron.

Is 40% or 30% any less tragic from the perspective of the ethnic genetic interests of a people?

Posted by White Preservationist on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:54 | #

Jim: learn a bit about Kemp’s personal view of Jews in his book The March of the Titans:

- http://www.white-history.com/hwr63.htm

- http://www.white-history.com/hwr61.htm

- http://www.white-history.com/hwr17.htm

As Captainchaos says, Kemp and other bigwigs of the BNP do not openly discuss the Jewish problem in public because they do not want to ‘tarnish’ their image with the squeamish British masses.

Your interview with him was good even though Kemp was evasive regarding a lot of issues of supreme importance, especially regarding the glaringly obvious Jewish problem in The West.

Posted by White Preservationist on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04 | #

JG:“I’m trying to figure out how to create the best environment for discussion amongst as wide a public as possible on my website, i.e., forum or blog and if blog what type blog.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.”

Jim - if you are looking to start another website ir blog in addition to your radio-show website/archive, you can’t really go wrong with WordPress: it is quick, free, and very easy to start a blog there—-> http://wordpress.com/

Posted by Ivan on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:43 | #

Mr. Kemp did not wish to discuss the Jewish Question with Alex Linder.  Do y’all know of anyone he might be willing to discuss it with?  Is there only one Alex Linder?

Making predictions is always a tricky business because there is a good chance that the predictor will make a fool of himself. Anyway, I’ll take my chances. There is no honor in the desire to play sure games only. People like Kemp and Griffin are trying to play sure game, they are trying to oversmart the Jew and oversmart circumstances. You cannot do that, you cannot oversmart the Jew, you cannot overtalk the Jew. The desire to play smart, safe, and sure games only is a sure way to guarantee that you will lose. What needs to be done is break the discourse wide open, the discourse where the terms and the subjects are absolutely independent of what the Jew and the public is willing or ready to accept. I believe that’s what Jim is trying to do. That’s the strategy that has an enormous chance of success, not now, maybe not in the near future, but that is the right direction. Nothing will happen until the real crisis breaks out, but when it does people will start craving for a leader, a genuine leader, a natural leader. The over day, when Jim was relentlessly grueling Covington with his question “Where are the leaders” I couldn’t suppress the emotions it stirred up in me. We want to have leaders like Linder speaking overtly, calmly, intelligently about the JQ, but we don’t want them to be dragged into courts, we don’t want them to be destroyed financially, we don’t want them to go jail, we don’t want them to be killed. But we can’t have both, can we? Yes, we can (my God, I cringed at the thought of the bastard who came up with that slogan). And the only way you can have both is to have 10 Linders, 100 Linders, 1000 Linders. And that is exactly what Jim is trying to accomplish. Jim, forgive me if I read you wrong, lest somebody will assume Ivan=Giles, like somebody already suggested Ivan=Linder.

My prediction is: when the hell breaks lose, some revolutionary will immerge on the scale of Lenin, utterly ruthless, who will shove aside all smart intellectuals, and declare them not the brain of the nation but the shit of the nation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:23 | #

Ivan’s comment above makes the true point that leaders for our side are prevented from emerging by the entrenched Jewish demonization/disciplinary/punishment apparatus.  Were that apparatus not in place, leaders for us would have arisen long ago (to very little fanfare since what we want is ordinary, perfectly centrist, and universal; what makes it appear to be a big deal is Jewish demonization of it) and would long since have begun working on moving the country in a different direction, a normal direction.  What the Jews are doing by clamping the lid down, not permitting leadership to emerge naturally, is raising the energy of activation, so that when the correction comes it will be in the form of an explosion instead of the perfectly ordinary, calm, gradual, normal political process we should have been allowed to have, but weren’t.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:27 | #

Captain Crudheap

It’s good to see that Slither’s venom ducts are working at peak efficiency again, a world with that would be like Disney Land without Mickey, not essential but just not the same - it just wouldn’t feel right.

recently bemoaning the Amerian partition scenario that offers the only genuine ray of hope because it would make the reconquest of America that much more ‘difficult’

I don’t recall making that argument Slather.  Do I think a partition is the best final disposition of our race (that also includes Meds, you know) on the North American continent, a maximization of our interests?  No, total reconquest is.

as though the continuation of present trends instead makes it easier.

Well, in a sense, yes.  The more the lemmings suffer at the hands of muds the more open to listening to our ideas they will be.  I mean, what, they will be set pining for a partition because they just love Sambo and Jorge so much it kills them?  No, because Sambo and Jorge are, er, killing them.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:28 | #

As Ivan points out, that’s the answer to the question, “Where’s our leadership?”:  it is continually, methodically strangled in the cradle the instant it appears.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:51 | #

Something that would at least be entertaining, if not enlightening, would be a joint interview including Silver and Lee Barnes.  The theme: “A GEed Future, Not a Jewed Future”. 

The next episode: an interview with Icegear/Kanemetal and his partner in crime, The One Who Shall Not Be Named, as they instruct the audience in how to hack opposing websites.  Also, paint-by-number website design.

Posted by Obvious on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:34 | #

FS:“As Ivan points out, that’s the answer to the question, “Where’s our leadership?”:  it is continually, methodically strangled in the cradle the instant it appears.”

Strangled indeed, and not just metaphorically.  As the Jewish Talmud says in Sanhedrin 59: “KILL THE BEST GENTILES”

Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:36 | #

Assuming that FB’s claim that 50% of American Jews marry out, then the obvious question to ask is: does that result in more Jews or fewer?

Everybody seems to assume the latter, but is that really the case? On a purely anecdotal level, it seems that at least as far as trophy shiksas are concerned, they invariably tend to convert. Are there any stats that might settle the matter?

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:08 | #

Jim,

A minute ago I finished listening to your interview with Arthur Kemp. Mr. Kemp started very good, like a real English gentleman, no surprise there, he is British. When he got to the point where he identified Dr. Pierce as “do nothing, defeatist mentality” crank, he completely lost me. Even the Jew could hardly come up with a better distortion of what Dr. Pierce is all about. It always amazed me - what a difference between British and American mentalities. Anyway, I continued listening and when he refused to debate Alex Linder I thought what a pathetic little wizard. The culmination came when Mr. Kemp answered your caller’s question about 9/11. At that point, I didn’t know what was more appropriate - to laugh or to cry.

You did good Jim, but the prize goes to your first caller - it is amazing how much can be accomplished simply by asking a question.

I suggest everybody to listen to the interview, you’ll enjoy it folks.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:24 | #

Fascist writes:

For example, the desire to free blacks was the main reason for the bloodiest war in American history: the Civil War.

This was because most of them had never met blacks.

We in the South know blacks, and increasingly the North (to the extent it even still exists) is getting to meet them too :D

Racial nationalism in the US has also always been strong though. The nativists in America split over the Civil War…, but they were powerful before that split. There’s a good history of nativism in the US; it just hasn’t been successful in the long term.

It’s apparently very difficult to make oneself act for the long term interests of one’s nation. We too easily fall into temptation.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:28 | #

This country was founded on whites pushing Amerindians back. They died largely of disease, but… we helped them move out too. Just as much as this is a Christian country, the roots of this country are white racial: it was founded on racial strife.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:32 | #

1. Iranian lawmaker: Iran could leave nuclear treaty
2. Russia will deliver S-300 to Iran in 2 months: Russia has assured Iran’s envoy to Moscow that it will deliver the delayed transfer of the air defense system within the next two months.
3. And this reads like it jumped out of “The Turner Diaries”:
A Radical’s Diary.

It seems things are accelerating with a frightening speed.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:32 | #

People like Kemp and Griffin are trying to play sure game, they are trying to oversmart the Jew and oversmart circumstances. You cannot do that, you cannot oversmart the Jew, you cannot overtalk the Jew. (—Ivan)

The media are controlled by an alliance of Jews, loony leftists, and more or less brainwashed normal people. It isn’t a monolithical, rigid, faultless system. Jewish activists will remain race-replacement advocates, and the BNP can never befriend them, but maybe the BNP will sound more legitimate to non-Jews if it does not dwell on the Jewish question. People need to be told about Jewish activism, but it should no longer be the role of the BNP to do so. It should be the job of smaller, less mainstream organizations, with the help of the internet.
Still, I wish it was possible for the BNP to say that the Jewish overrepresentation in the media needs to be corrected. I don’t think the French “Front National” ever said something should be done about the problem.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:00 | #

Jewish activists will remain race-replacement advocates

For god’s sake, can we at least in WN forums call a spade a spade. You could say “Israelis will remain ethnic-replacement advocates” with the same technical accuracy of the language - they want to replace Palestinians with Jews by whatever means necessary. Yes, “Jewish activists will remain race-replacement advocates” is technically correct statement. But human language is more than linguistics, it’s more than logic, human language is emotions, it’s desires, it’s hopes, human language is a struggle. We should not concern ourselves with technicalities of the language, this is not about linguistics, leave linguistics masturbation to Chomsky. If you want to procreate you have to f*** not masturbate.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:51 | #

Ivan, you’re saying Armor’s way of putting it was too sanitized, too polite?  What do you propose, something like “Jewish activists will keep working to genocide us”?  Don’t worry, we say that here too.  Plenty.

Posted by Ivan on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:12 | #

Ivan, you’re saying Armor’s way of putting it was too sanitized, too polite? (-Fred)

No, Fred, that’s not what I’m saying. Don’t be too linear. I believe Alex mentioned somewhere that you are his favorite commentator at majority rights (or one of his favorites). I second Alex. Nevertheless, I’m almost certain that Friedrich Brown understands what I’m talking about better than you do, even though Friedrich is my least favorite commentator ever. You have won every argument against Friedrich. And still he baits you and you keep failing for his baits. Why are you doing that? What is your purpose? Is it to convince him (or anybody else) that taking Jews in the leadership positions (or any positions for that matter) in the WN movement is the most stupid idea one can come up with? Shouldn’t that be obvious to anybody who knows anything about JQ? That’s what I call masturbation (this time logical, rather than linguistics, masturbation - it gives you a pleasure to feel smarter than the next guy (Goebbels), but bears no fruit). Don’t your instincts tell you who Friedrich is and what’s the agenda he is pushing. You cannot oversmart Friedrich even though you are 100 times more intelligent than he is, you cannot overtalk him. There is no need to.

I’m not worried too much what Armor says or how he says it, I just used what Armor said to say what I wanted to say. I’m worried about what people like Arthur Kemp say and how they say it. Did you listen to Jim’s interview with Kemp?

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:37 | #

@Fred

A good one is a nationalistic Ulster Catholic living among Ulster Prods in Ulster.

That a perfect example of exactly the point i was trying to make - warring tribes who share the same living space.

@Ivan

You cannot do that, you cannot oversmart the Jew, you cannot overtalk the Jew.

That’s not the reason. If you start talking about jews to people who are just starting to coming out of mainstream politics they switch off straight away - literally within nano-seconds. Once they’re half-stage radicalized they start asking “why?” and that’s the point where i want people like Linder and Duke or this site either on the web or as a separate organisation because it’s only at that point that people will listen.

Obviously some people get to that half-stage radicalization on their own but it’s too slow - for every new recruit there’s a veteran who gives up because of the lack of progress. There needs to be one group of fake moderates like me pulling people from the mainstream towards a very vague third position and then other groups who pick up those half-stage people and complete the process.

Which is what the Reds have always done btw.

Posted by Selous Scout on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:57 | #

Giles’s interview with Arthur Kemp was really good.

But, I think Kemp might be expecting too much from American WNs. American WNs seem content to worship self-proclaimed cyber-Führers who sit on mountain-tops and issue threats and warnings. This is a “defeatist, do-nothing mentality” indeed. It hasn’t worked for the past 30 or 40 years. Time to try a new approach.

Kemp slammed the conspiracy nuts and costume clowns, so no wonder the conspiracy nuts and costume clowns don’t like what he had to say.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:29 | #

Wandrin November 29, 2009, 06:37 PM

Once they’re half-stage radicalized they start asking “why?”

Absolutely true!  People are not stupid, their thought process inevitably sifts the reasons given and (eventually) rejects them.  They reason mass immigration is not continuing through government incompetence or stupidity, or the jobs that the British will not do,  or the skills gap, the pension gap, or emptying our bed pans or for whatever any other reason, each and every reason has been endlessly examined and none are seen as plausible any more and are subsequently rejected.

I saw a comment on the BNP website only the other day, a distraught mother was in anguish as to why immigration was being allowed to continue unhindered - Why oh why?  There was no response to this comment (that I could see) and so presumably the poor woman was still left wondering and utterly perplexed.

To tell her that it was all the fault of the Jews would be a no brainer and only confuse her even more, she would recoil in disbelief at such a suggestion.  Personally I have always advocated blaming everything (and I mean everything) on the politicians and the ruling class, as it is these people who they can readily identify on their screens every night, it is these people who will shortly be pleading with them to entrust them with their votes.

Tell them the political class has declared war on them and are using immigration to get rid of the British nation and it’s people.  The people will still ask ‘why’ but at least they will have an answer that they can no longer ignore as it is the only plausible explanation they’ve heard so far, not only that, they can see it unrolling before them with every passing day.

Maybe blaming it on the soon to be NWO might work.

I think when a critical mass reaches this point then the subject will be openly being discussed.  This is the way things have unraveled right from the start of this business, the process of peeling the onion of genocide will continue and will soon arrive at its truthful destination, the only question is - how long will this process take?  I would suggest not long. 

Do I see signs that perhaps the BNP are moving in this direction?

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:04 | #

Bill

Personally I have always advocated blaming everything (and I mean everything) on the politicians and the ruling class

Sorry for slow reply.

Agree absolutely. I’m the same with immigrants. I never attack them directly. I attack one or more of the consequences of immigration but focus all the anger at the ruling class for betraying their own people and allowing it to happen. I think this is the best way to avoid triggering people’s brain washing while still mentioning what i want to mention.

Possibly counter-intuitively it’s also why i’m very much in favour of there being much more radical elements “out there” somewhere as the compromise position neccessary to draw people out of the mainstream may not be radical enough on its own.

(Although a moderate position may turn out to be radical enough on its own if enemy attacks do the radicalizing but that’s not guaranteed.)

Posted by Igor Alexander on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:09 | #

Alex Linder wrote:

“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.”

And what, in practical terms, does that mean? What is your proposed solution to the problem?

That’s something I’ve noticed about Linder—that he never goes beyond generalities. Press him for details and you aren’t likely to get any.

Posted by Igor Alexander on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:14 | #

SUCH wrote:

“It’s a shtick, the ‘Alternative Aryan’, his advocating of violence, and his ‘City on a Hill’ moralizing.”

There’s certainly cause to be suspicious of someone who advocates violence but doesn’t act on his own advice. I suppose Linder, like Soviet intellectuals of old, expects others to roll up their sleeves and do all the dirty work while he sits back and lectures.

Posted by Igor Alexander on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:27 | #

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.

I have to confess that I liked Jeremiah Johnson as well. The actress who played the squaw was a white woman in face paint, if that makes it any better (on second thought, probably not, since casting a white woman as an injun just makes it all the more effective as race-mixing propaganda).

Posted by "Narrative" on Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:38 | #

In this reading of Revilo Oliver (which is, of course, good):

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/Massive/AudioBooks/Oliver-TJS-Ch3-4.mp3

..during this reading, Alex Linder makes the furtive remark that anyone who uses the word “narrative” is against the objective truth and trying to deceive people.

That is Not true.

Narrative is a corrective means of working hypotheses for putting the facts together in their coherent patterns in a broader sense than might otherwise hold together in concept, but rather be susceptible to manipulation for having too arbitrary, myopic a focus on empirical objects divorced from social responsibility.

It is one of the advantages of hermeneutic process.

And this represents a positive difference of The White Left. Whereas the Right tries to focus warrant on singular objective and anti-social facts, the White Left looks at the broad patterns of White social interest, which include more or less objective facts, but not to the exclusion of the relative interests of the broad European social pattern, its parts, its “social capital” and accountability. 

That is to say, narrative is one way of talking (with focus on sequential feature) that can reconcile particular facts by collating them with broader patterns not practically available for empirical inspection in a moment.

It is, of course, a means by which we can conceptualize the speculative organization of ourselves, as a group/groups, and of course, as such, why the Jews have made the hermeneutic concept of narrative didactic.

Posted by Alex reads Libido Dominandi on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 21:48 | #

Alex reads E. Michael Jones’ Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/Massive/AudioBooks/Jones-LD-P1-Ch1.mp3

Posted by lets not seperate, lets let Alex teach on Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:28 | #

Alex Linder interviewed (try not to let the Australian accent of his interviewer bother you).

file:///C:/Users/Admin/AppData/Local/Temp/Renegade-TCTA-2016-02-12.mp3

There is or can be a misunderstanding.

- that I simply want to refrain from going ahead and killing Jews et al. on principle and for petty moral reasons.

- that I and we could not be content nor ever recognize that we’d be better off if they were gone.

But that is not the case.

It is the case rather that it is generally not a good idea to announce that you want to get them all whether you think it is necessary or not.

It would be hard to realize but worse, might work to our detriment if not conceived and promoted properly.

It is not only a strategic matter but a theoretical matter: for what we want ultimately is separatism (killing is a species thereof).

Separatism can be argued not only by broader and more practical metrics, but if it is achieved, it is more feasible for the purpose of killing - as opposed to taking the stance that even while they remain tangled up in our hair, we might succeed in the complex affair of teaching people to know, psychologically, what to do just because Alex says so…

And, as opposed to Alex just saying so, if they are to be killed it would be for the broadly understood (therefore possible to facilitate) and operationally verifiable reason that they will not leave us alone but insist on their imposition to our exploitation and long term extinction - a verifiable consequence and reason for their imposition - to eliminate us as a people, therefore a highly assertable warrant to preempt it.

This could be demonstrable even in their refusal to allow our benign and fair act of separating and deporting them from our people.