A conversation with an intellectual at the Guardian - Updated 16.06.08 One of the pleasures of our politics is the wondrous clarity it affords in assessing the interests and, often, ethnicity of those professing European ethno-suicide. When the facts are known and the assessment is in, it can be very difficult to resist taking a wee bit of advantage. Now, of course, it goes without saying that I observe to the letter the Rules of Posting at Comment is Free, especially the one about creating multiple identities (my previous five - all banned - in no way imply contempt for this Rule, naturally). Anyway, some non-liberal poster going by the name of Recititive obviously caught a whiff of something rotten in a conversation between an interesting rightist with anti-immigration and libertarian credentials, and a penchant for mysticism, styling himself “withdrawn” and an academic sociologist, I would say, called Lester Jones. The headline article to which both were responding was an average-to-simplistic offering about identity by Genevieve Maitland Hudson - plainly a deliciously English “identity” herself:-
And so forth. Not incredibly illuminating. The thread is a good one, and opens with what appears to be a cracking and beautifully reactionary first entry - a link to this fluttering world of identities. Unfortunately, it transpires later that the guy was not being critical at all. Four comments in “withdrawn” appears, grumbling about “the chattering classes discussing multiculturalism”, which he expands a few comments later with:-
Lester Jones arrives on the thread a few comments later, making it plain in addressing Genevieve that he conflates ethnic awareness with That Bastard Idea Nazism:-
Now “withdrawn” gathers up his intellectual energies and rides into the attack.
Now the unwritten rule of the house at CiF is to lay claim to the intellectual high ground. This is important, you see, because the house of cards which is liberal intellectualism is shot through with deceit. As ever, the only way to win an argument is to bully the opposition. Like Lester Jones does now:-
This is arrant nonsense to a race-realist and Salterian. I already know I can fillet this guy. All he is doing is plotting a few key equations on “withdrawn’s” comment - “connections”, “influence”, “internal construct”, “identity” of course, and the idea of fluidity - which define the subject matter in what, for him, is a winning formula. “Withdrawn” makes another comment about working class racism (and, sadly, how he deplores it). Then the lepidopterist from Comment 1 butts in with a remark of such fatuity, I cannot pass over it. For some reason, he is a fan of the Harvard “trait psychologist” and classic teleologist Gordon Allport, a man who studied prejudice, among other things. It shows:-
Full humanity! The white working class reaching out to Africans! Lester Jones, though, approves, “Nice post as usual”. “Withdrawn” struggles on, losing ground continually to Lester. It is at this point that Recititive makes his first foray into the thread:-
This didn’t work, and “withdrawn” and Lester Jones continued their battle of wills. Finally “withdrawn” re-stated his bottom line argument:-
It wasn’t enough. Lester owned him, and pressed home the Marxist point: “it ain’t immigrants ... immigrants it ain’t ... it’s free enterprise”:-
Well, by now, as I said at the beginning, the “facts were in” about Lester, and Recititive was in a position to up the anti, suck him in and change the rules of his little game.
Obviously, Lester doesn’t know where this newcomer is coming from. How could he?
Recititive applies some pressure:-
It didn’t occur to me that our friend would not know who Pitt the Younger was, or that Pittite Conservatism was the nature of Tory politics prior to Reform. But La Petite Conservatism? Yep, Lester knows all about that!
Lots of this is good. There has to be a balance between community and the individual just as within the self there has to be a balance between family and individual. But that’s the nationalist case against neoliberalism. In the self the balance is achieved organically, without any politician passing laws. In a polity based on an organically structured society the need for regulation will be lightened to the extent that connectedness and those beautiful markers of social stability, custom and tradition, inform the process. That is the answer to the (from a liberal viewpoint unanswerable) question at the end of Recititive’s reply below. It is the last entry on the thread at the time of posting to MR. It may well get removed in the morning for obvious reasons. But if it doesn’t, and if Lester replies, I shall add that reply to this post.
Update - Monday 16th June This morning our social democratic multiculturalist picked up the baton. At least he is a determined fellow.
After lunch I posted this, essentially the end-game, in reply:-
He won’t have much time to reply. Guardian threads close after three days, and this is the third day already. But I hope that he has at least served as a proponent of the best arguments the other side has got. ... Ah, one more response, timed 5.30 this afternoon. A withdrawal from the fray:-
To which I just had time to answer in valediction:-
Well, respect is owing to the man for not screaming the usual epithets once he realised the way things were going. This was not an ordinary adversary. Comments:2
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:49 | # We need not be in ANY doubt about the Righteousness of our cause. “They” intend to murder Righteousness itself or the only basis thereof. They intend to murder our people while they “sleep”, in their “beds.” SWINE! Yes, a few more decades of this nonsense and a different kind of “dialogue” will be appropriate. 3
Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:25 | # One can only hope. I look forward to this ‘dialogue.’ Let’s stop pretending that we’re engaging in democratic debate and conversation. Let’s have an open, honest ‘dialogue.’ Very impressive, GW’s discussion (above). 4
Posted by John on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:00 | #
If Obama wins, I think he’s already got dibs on Fred for INS Director. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:17 | # Selous Scout, Not really. Once the terms of the debate are changed, he’s left holding an imaginary air rifle: race equality. I’ve got a Bren gun: race replacement. I have never met an adversary of the left with the marbles to even the score after that. The commonly stated notion that the left has no ideas with which to combat our analysis is wholly and completely true. Some leftists have heard us make the claim too publicly, and they hate it. But there’s nothing they can do about it. 6
Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:55 | # Have you encountered a leftist who actually will admit to advocating Race Replacement, of whites that is? I have had discussions with Hispanic supremacists who smugly tell me this is their aim. I’m a WN who works with high net worth investors and entreprenuers. Most of my client conversations focus on economics. I point to the changing demographics in my state, and the US as a whole, and tell them this will have a negative impact on the economy and therefore they should plan accordingly. Invest abroad, is usually my recommendation. They can agree with that. But, when I mention that throughout the West whites (like them and their children) are being replaced, via a deliberate policy, they invariably have zero response. 7
Posted by .357 on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:30 | # “If Obama wins, I think he’s already got dibs on Fred for INS Director.” That’s funny too, John. Imagine Fred Scrooby interviewing B. Hussein, Morris Dees, McCain, Nadine Strassen, Reverend Whigger (Phleger). etc. etc. It’d be great. In the last segment of the show, they could have a round-table discussion with Jared Taylor, David Duke, Tom Sunic , and guest appearances by some of the more intelligent MR commentariat such as GW, and James Bowery, et al. Of course they’d have to change the name of the program from “Meet The Press” to “The House of Shock.” Hell, they could make it a ‘pay per view event’. I’d sure fork out some cash every Sunday morning to watch Fred in action! LOL P.S. Sorry for veering off topic, GW. 8
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:29 | # GW, I don’t believe that Lester has the courage to go any further. Even assuming he could face the truth that once our genes die so will any incarnation of his precious ideals that can be realized would have blown away as ashes in the wind I suspect he would shrug his shoulders and say, “Oh well, what can I do? It is tragic, but I won’t be around to see the worst of it. Life has been good to me but everything must end. Now, if you’ll excuse me I believe I have a table booked at my favorite ethnic restaurant.” I am forced to recall the scene in Braveheart where Robert the Bruce confronts his father on his betrayal of William Wallace. Father: “All men betray, all lose heart.” Robert: “I don’t want to lose heart, I want to believe, as he [William Wallace] does! Your not a man, and your not my father! I will never be on the wrong side again.” Lester is not a man, he is a coward. The love of our people is not in his soul. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:58 | # Selous, Yes, I have come across leftists actively proposing race-replacement. Two, notably, who were both married to non-white women and had non-white children defining their genetic interest. But that is something that we can rationalise away easily enough. Have I come across others who were not admitting to such ties? I am trying to think. Possibly not, which would suggest that genetic interest retains a widespread influence even at the height of the fever. Interesting. I had not really considered that before. Captain, Intellectuals like Lester often exhibit a scarifying penchant for reducing human life to accountancy. It is harder to impress upon an intellectual the value differentials we propound than it is to educate a manual worker to the entire racialist ouevre, because it is, as you say, about love. I see the likes of Lester as men belonging body and soul to the zeitgeist. Even though they probably think they are rebellious spirits, I see them as conventionalists. In this, people of my generation have a bit of an advantage, because we witnessed in youth the spectacle of an entire generation of conformists ardently professing their rebellion! They haven’t a clue. 10
Posted by .357 on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:06 | # When Nazi Germany lost. We lost. It’s as simple as that. Bye Bye white race…...unless we can reconstitute Nazism. 12
Posted by .357 on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:35 | # Hitler is the white messiah. When he comes back, their will be no more “mister nice guy.” 13
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:40 | # “...for the Germans of 1939-1945 gave proof of a heroism and courage unsurpassed in all history and unmatched in modern times. They were also the only nation that had a rational perception of the realities of the modern world and the exigencies they impose—the only nation that dared to perceive and confront the deadly danger that impended over all civilized mankind—the only nation on whom there does not now rest the inexpiable guilt of the Suicide of the West.” -Revilo Oliver 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:36 | # And yet Lebensraum made the declaration of war by Britain and France just. None here would have praised the violence towards Poland’s and Czechoslovakia’s peoples, and all would have stood up to fight it. The Nazi state was totalitarian and murderous towards its own internal opponents. None here would have found justice in its courts and its piano wire, and most would have fallen foul of its bright-eyed ideologues. The guiding principle of aryan supremacy was fatuous and offensive to all men. The possession of a brown shirt turned moral pygmies into demi-gods, and arrogance - always a Prussian trait - into Lidice and Oradour-sur-Glane. The moral ugliness and excess of ambition in Nazism was incompatible with the right to life itself. Do you think Poles and Czechs, Ukrainians, Russians ... do you think they should have thrown flowers to the invader, and welcomed their own slavery? No, you would have fought alongside them. You would have escaped to England to fly a Lanc, or to train with explosives and returned home via a Lysander one night. Be realistic. Find a place in your love of people for love of freedom. It was not in Nazism. 15
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:21 | # First, my sense of justice, right, and honor were inculcated in me in childhood when my mother read to my brother and I J.R.R Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. My sense honor is that of Western Christianity: self-sacrificial love and never to do evil that good may come of it. Often times though it seems that decency is too seldom met with like in this world. Nice guys often finish last. It is no less in the macro-sense. It seems that jews and other assorted non-whites laugh at and spit on our kindness. I don’t want to cast aside my honor, but I also want to win. Are these two mutually exclusive? As for the Nazis and WWII: these are things that might be instructive for Buchanan to hear. He carps about the fecklessness and folly of the Brits for opposing Hitler and not giving him what he wanted, a free hand in the east. He doesn’t mention, although I’m sure a man as intelligent has he has thought of it, that Hitler could have been stoped earlier; before his hand was so menacingly strong. Why? What darkness lurks in the heart of Buchanan? He admired many of the qualities of Hitler, that is plain; and it is also plain that he doesn’t care much for jews. Perhaps he conceives of Hitler as a man with a will of iron, implacable, a will that only death could break. A force of nature. This is surely true. But the above question remains, why does Buchanan not advocate that those who could have stopped him have done so. What darkness lurks in the heart of Buchanan? Does he really hate the jews and the communist butchers so much that he would throw away his Christian honor? Is winning that important to him? Is that sacrifice necessary for victory? And what of our own honor? The British and the Americans? Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. It was Churchill who first instigated bombing of civilians. Why should we feel guilty for what our ancestors did? Why should we Americans feel guilty for enslaving blacks? Afterall it was not us who did it, it was them. Alexander Solzhenitsyn suggests that we should. The life of our people is so much, perhaps all, of what we are. If we are to cheer and revel in the actions of our ancestors we think honorable doesn’t it seem hypocritical and self-serving that we will not also take their guilt upon us? Britain ostensibly declared war on Germany to protect Poland, and yet we delivered her up to that butcher Stalin. Where is the honor in that? General Patton, who inicially hated Germans with a passion, saw through many of the jewish lies about them when he was there in that conquered and castrated country. He wanted desperately to take the Soviets when they could have been had. We did not. Why? Where is the honor in that? What was wraught by an allied victory in WWII? Britain was ruined, never to be a great power again. My own country, America, rode high on the hog for awhile but the jew, those eternally despicable mischief makers, have enthroned for perhaps all time the ultimate symbol of White guilt. The Holocaust. The propagandistic noose around our necks that causes our people to slowly choak on our own guilt. Perhaps we have our honor (truncated as it is), but at what price? 16
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:25 | # Britain tried to bluff Hitler over Poland, he called it. There was nothing Britain could do at that stage to stop Hitler (or Stalin) taking Poland. Its not just that Hitler could have been stopped earlier, its that we should never have allowed many of the pre-conditions to arise in the first place. Its said we should have opposed the German re-occupation of the Rhineland, that was where the rot set in, well we shouldn’t have been occupying it in the first place. The Sudaten Germans and their territory should never have been lumped in with Czechoslovakia, they should have been part of Austria. if not Germany itself. Talking of which I believe in 1919 the Austrian parliament voted for union with Germany, vetoed by France, yet in retrospect would that have been so bad? 17
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:32 | # Re: slavery Fair enough. We cant take pride in our past collective achievements without accepting some responsibility for things like slavery. I would argue the rise of industry, science and engineering make slavery pointless, its not some lovely liberal change in human nature so much as designing out of existence. Something the world has Europeans to thank for as we know there is scant evidence that industry would have arisen anywhere else. Not to decry the western Christian morality that did for slavery too. Something that, like the genesis of industry, is very thin on the ground in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. 18
Posted by Revolution Harry on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:37 | # .357, I can’t make my mind up as to whether you’re ill, insane, evil or just stupid. ‘Heil Hitler’, ‘white messiah’, reconstitute Nazism’? Nazism #2 would be every bit as dangerously malign and doomed to failure as the #1 version. If nothing else it shows a staggering lack of imagination as to how to solve the current problems with such as immigration and multiculturism. I’m only an occasional reader of this blog but I do find things of interest even if I sometimes find some of the content a little ‘esoteric’. I’m left wanting, if possible, a few questions answering. I can’t help but notice that much of the blame for the parlous situation we find ourselves in is laid, by some, at the door of ‘the Jews’. Do you mean all Jews? If not please say so explicitly as clarity is very important if the war of words is to be won. The BNP state they’d like to reduce the number of ethnic minorities to around 2 to 3% of the population. Is there a general agreement with this? The reason I ask is because if it was it would have an influence on possible strategies. Appeals to the ‘better nature’ of the, possibly, more anglo-centric minorities might be of value. 19
Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:04 | # Lurker: “We cant take pride in our past collective achievements without accepting some responsibility for things like slavery.” Lurker, Are you saying that Whites are “guilty” for something? Are you saying that slavery is inherently “wrong”? Based on what? Why do you say that? Just curious. Lots of people take it as a given that slavery is morally wrong but don’t know why. 20
Posted by .357 on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:35 | # “.357, I can’t make my mind up as to whether you’re ill, insane, evil or just stupid.” I was just being stupid; that’s what drinking too many brewskis does to me. BTW— There is no way Britain is EVER going to reduce the number of ethnic minorities to around 2 to 3% of the population. Unless of course, force is used. I can’t foresee white people ever using force again to remove non-indigenous populations from their midst. I don’t know much about the BNP, but my gut feeling tells me their limited opposition to white dispossession will eventually wither and die. 21
Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:35 | # “I can’t help but notice that much of the blame for the parlous situation we find ourselves in is laid, by some, at the door of ‘the Jews’. Do you mean all Jews? If not please say so explicitly as clarity is very important if the war of words is to be won.” I get the feeling you’re a Jew, Harry. But because I’m a nice guy, I’ll answer your question. It’s not all Jews. It’s the ‘Jewish supremacists’ that are at the center of causing the genocide of whites. http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Supremacism-My-Awakening-Question/dp/1892796058 22
Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:00 | # I foresee civil wars in Britain and Europe, easy. European history is rife with revolution and war. Blood will be shed on the continent again in massive quantities, I’m certain of it. A low-level insurgency against the West is already underway in Europe; the natives, restrained by the power elites, have not begun to react. Same thing with the US. Americans tend to forget the bloody years of settlement, conquest, and war required to settle the country, in the early days. Some day, we will be required to start the process all over again. Are we so naive and arrogant to believe that modern-day Europeans and Americans are above war? That our essential character has changed, that we are somehow immune to human nature? I highly doubt it. 23
Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:38 | # “A low-level insurgency against the West is already underway in Europe; the natives, restrained by the power elites, have not begun to react. Same thing with the US.” OH LORD!!! If what you say is true, then how the f**k can you explain the fact that John McCain and Barrack Obama are the two candidates for President? The only insurgency going on aganist the West, is a leftist insurgency! 24
Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:22 | # I was referring to a left-wing insurgency (“against the West” etc.). 26
Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:35 | # GT, Aren’t you the guy that is promoting micro-communities, i.e., quasi hippie communes, as the solution for the salvation of the white-race? How’s that working out for you? 27
Posted by GT on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:53 | # A straight yes or no would have sufficed, Onlooker. Why the change in your handle? 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:08 | # Harry, since I probably do most of that generalizing you refer to, I’ll reply a bit. There’s nothing wrong with “generalizing” when the “generalization” is an accurate reflection of some aspect of the vast majority of a group’s members. It goes without saying there are exceptions. Among the only Jews that are visible to us (the sole exception being the Jewish Task Force, http://www.jtf.org) essentially all not only want race-replacement of Euros but want it with a passion, LOVE the idea, and are prepared to fight and fight hard to see it to completion. You can’t say, “But all these Jews we see don’t claim to want race-replacement of whites. They only want open borders, multiracialism, multiculturalism, white-non-white miscegenation, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, denial to whites of the right of free-association in any sphere of community life, general subordination of whites to non-whites through preferences given to non-whites in hiring, promotion, renting, university admissions, bank loans, generous welfare benefits given to non-whites paid for by taxing struggling young white men and women who as a result are prevented from starting their own families while the non-whites, using the tax money confiscated from struggling whites, bear all the children they want, all Hollywood movies, TV series, TV commercials, and media advertisements showing only non-whites plus white women, never white men except as undesirables, harsh anti-hate laws for any who question any of that, and so on. Jews only want those things, not race-replacement of whites.” You can’t say that, because all of those things in combination lead inevitably to the race-replacement of whites and it’s obvious they do. So to want them is to want race-replacement of whites, and since Jews want them (all Jews visible to us do, at any rate — if any don’t, they must be in hiding), Jews want race-replacement of whites. (“Whites” here refers to Euros, not Jews. Jews don’t want race-replacement of themselves. When Jews hyped the “Whites are the cancer of history” idea for forty years they intended “whites” as a code word for their age-old ethnoracial enemy, Eurochristians. They weren’t hyping the idea that Jews were part of that cancer of history. Definitely not.) 29
Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:09 | # GT, I’m not going to engage in silly games with you. 30
Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:41 | # Professor MacDonald contends: “Jewish intellectuals have advanced important intellectual movements throughout the twentieth century and beyond.” He says: These movements, which include Freudianism and the Frankfort School, have been “covertly designed to advance specifically Jewish interests, often at the expense of larger non-Jewish populations.” He also exposes the important Jewish role in Marxism/Communism and neo-conservatism. MacDonald says: Self-deception and rationalization are central elements of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. He also cites how Jews have worked to transform the racial demographic character of the USA to make it a more multicultural and less European. In this regard, he documents the important Jewish role in changing US immigration policy. He says: One of the constants of twentieth century Jewish intellectual movements has been to lessen the power of Europeans in America because Jews feel that power represents a threat to them. 31
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:04 | # Rusty Mason: “Are saying that slavery is inherently “wrong”? Based on what?” It seems to me that a serious morality must at least transcend self-interest sometimes, this includes the “self-interest” of the group. Is slavery wrong? Work all day in Master’s fields, if you refuse its the whip for you, boy! Want a small farm of your own one day? Want your kids to be able to learn how to read? NO, keep your head down and pick that cotton, nigger! I don’t know, Rusty, it all just seems kind of cruel to me. How would you like that shit done to you? How would you like that shit done to your children? Is slavery wrong? Was it wrong as practiced in the south? Yes, that seems like a no-brainer to me. 32
Posted by GT on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:30 | # Pot, kettle and black, Onlooker. Silly games are your specialty. I’ll add self-contradiction, easy online racialism, general stupidity, and alcoholism to the list as well. Did my past posts re: easy online racialism and dysfunctional behavior strike too close to home? Was your handle change to .357 a quick means of re-establishing credibility and attaching a sense of “badass” to your easy online person? Just curious. 34
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29 | # Slavery just seems plain wrong to me. Are you willing to be a slave? Your family slaves too. If there is a moral argument for it you would have no objection to be amongst the first batch down at the slave auction. 35
Posted by silver on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:49 | # The slavery practised in ancient societies doesn’t strike me as particularly abominable. Most often, as I understand it, those enslaved were those defeated in battle. The conqueror’s only other alternatives were to set the enemy free to fight again or kill them. Given those choices, slavery seems reasonable. With the limited economic knowledge of the period, it provided livelihoods for those who otherwise would have faced great difficulty providing for themselves in the conquered environment; provisions for manumission were a staple feature of such systems; the moral teachers of the day encouraged ethical treatment of slaves; and the time spent as slaves certainly served to acculturate the aliens into the new society (no multiculti for the ancients). By the time of the trans-atlantic slave-trade, economic systems had evolved sufficiently that slaves were unnecessary and the forward-thinking could have probably foreseen the burden that large numbers of them might prove to be. Unfortunately, the trans-atlantic period coincided with civilizational and racial self-confidence strong enough to brush aside such concerns. 36
Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:39 | # Captainchaos: “I don’t know, Rusty, it all just seems kind of cruel to me.” So, slavery is inherently wrong or evil simply because you don’t like it? Captainchaos: “How would you like that shit done to you? How would you like that shit done to your children?” Your comment reminds me of a cartoon I saw. It had an old lady chastising her cat, which had a freshly caught mouse at its feet. The old lady pointed her finger at the cat and said, “How would you like it if the mouse did that to you?” Lurker: “If there is a moral argument for it you would have no objection to be amongst the first batch down at the slave auction.” That is completely illogical. Captainchaos and Lurker, personal preferences are irrevelent to my question, irrevelant to a moral principle. My question is, On what basis is slavery wrong? Consider that some people are better than others. That’s just a fact. It is also a fact that some people are incapable of running their own lives. If allowed to act freely, they will destroy themselves and those around them; they are a menance to society. These types are actually better off when they are not free. Why should they not be slaves? I am not arguing for or against slavery, simply wondering why you think slavery is wrong. We have millions of people in debt slavery—they can move about freely, but they owe more than they can ever pay. They work forever for someone else and pass their burdens onto their children. Is that inherently wrong too, simply because you don’t personally like it? 37
Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:06 | # I find the very idea of one human being OWNING another human being to be morally repugnant. There aren’t any mitigating circumstances that could ever justify the vile practice of slavery. None. 38
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:10 | # Rusty Mason, If you know where the touchstone of morality is you let me know, alright? Is it in your backyard? 39
Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:10 | # In 1913, the international bankers staged a coup on the entire US population and all their descendants. Until we break free, we are effectively owned—lock, stock, and barrel—by foreign interests. Is that wrong, too? Why? Again, I don’t want opinions, I want principles. 40
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:34 | # I assume by “international bankers” you mean “the jews”. I guess its “wrong” (in our opinion) because it screws with our EGI mojo, is that the answer you’re looking for? But if that is the only basis for morality, the advance ment of EGI, why was it wrong for Hitler to pursue Lebensraum? Were he successful that certainly would have advanced German EGI. Guessedworker, you chastised me for flirting with Nazism, what do you think of all this? 41
Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:48 | # Captainchaos: If you know where the touchstone of morality is you let me know, alright? Is it in your backyard? .357: I find the very idea of one human being OWNING another human being to be morally repugnant. There aren’t any mitigating circumstances that could ever justify the vile practice of slavery. None. Jeff Bridges as “The Dude”: Well, that’s like, your opinion, Man… Including Lurker, we now have three confirmed radical invidualists who can apparently only argue this issue using their own personal feelings. We also have more insistence that slavery, per se, is inherently wrong, and one wild accusation that I am a Nazi. But unfortunately there is still no answer to my question from the anti-slavery preachers. On what principle is slavery wrong? 42
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:06 | # Indentured slavery appears maladaptive because of the threat of insurrection. By it’s very nature slaves must outnumber masters in order to be profitable. It strikes at the heart of ethnic genetic interest. A large homogeneous foreign population competing for resources, with a founding people, portends disaster, at least for the yeomanry. George Fitzhugh’s CANNIBALS ALL! OR SLAVES WITHOUT MASTERS is an interesting comparative examination of wage and indentured slavery. 43
Posted by Revolution Harry on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:15 | # ‘I get the feeling you’re a Jew, Harry’. Sorry to disappoint .357, I’m not. Although a confirmed methodist (aged 12) I soon saw through literalist Christianity. I’m far more attracted to the Gnostic version but in general I avoid any of the organised religions. I posed my questions because I’m keen to see progress made and as I said the war of words needs to be won. Generalising about ‘Jews’ leaves open the accusation of anti-semitism which, as I’m sure most here will agree, is up there with ‘racist’ as one of the worst of all possible crimes in these days of political correctness. I don’t think for a second that all Jews have, for example, ‘worked to transform the racial demographic character of the USA to make it a more multicultural and less European’. It’s therefore far more accurate to say that, it seems to me, given all the available evidence I have at this moment, that some (or a significant number) of Jews have etc. You may say this is just semantics and you’d be right but it’s no less important if you’re to avoid giving your enemies easy ammunition and the chance to assume an imagined moral high ground. Of course you then have to explain the evidence for your assertion in order to win the argument. In my own small way I’m trying to imagine a strategy for ‘doing something’. Halting immigration is the obvious start, followed by enforcing the law regarding illegal immigration and deportation of foreign criminals. If this could be done the wave will have broken. The next step would be working out how to encourage as many as possible to return home. Reduction in welfare benefits, generous grants and encouraging educated ethnic minorities to return as part of foreign aid programs designed to improve the condition of their home countries are just a few of the possible methods. If the wave can then begin to roll back it remains to be seen if it could ever reach the 2 to 3% envisaged by the BNP. Surely anything would be an improvement. The key to making the above possible is public opinion and the only way of changing public opinion is through dissemination of information. If the source of that information can easily be vilified as anti-semitic then it’s power is greatly diminished. That’s why it’s important be to specific and careful in what is said. The challenge than is devising a successful method of widely distributing information in order to ‘wake people up’ to the consequences of current policies. With the greatest respect some of the stuff I read on here is quite difficult to follow and as such is of little direct value to most people. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate it’s importance in part of the wider ‘struggle’ which is why I make the suggestions regarding the careful use of words. 44
Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:23 | # “On what principle is slavery wrong?” Rusty, other people cannot be your property.
Richard Overton, 1646:- “To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one, as he is himself, so he has a self-propriety, else could he not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive any of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature and of the rules of equity and justice between man and man. .... No man has power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man’s. I may be but an individual, enjoy my self and my self-propriety and may write myself no more than my self, or presume any further; if I do, I am an encroacher and an invader upon another man’s right .... every man by nature being a king, priest and prophet in his own natural circuit and compass, whereof no second may partake but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose natural right and freedom it is.” 45
Posted by elitist on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:50 | # Is that a serious question Rusty? Generally speaking, ethical arugments against slavery rest on one of two ethical systems. 1. Utilitarianism, which seeks to minimize human suffering and maximize human happiness through a sort of emotional calculus. Most people do not accept that the suffering of the enslaved can be adequately counterbalanced by the happiness of enslavers when you are talking about enslaving a race of people anyway. Defining certain groups as sub or unhuman and therefore unworthy of having their happiness/suffering considered is also (deservedly) unpopular. 2. Ethics of reciprocity or the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would prefer to be treated were situations reversed. How would you like it if I came over and enslaved you simply because I could and it would please me to see you lick my boots? Others mentioned this, but you failed to understand that they weren’t just expressing their personal feelings, they were making an argument from the golden rule or the categorical imperative if you want to be more academic about it. A more interesting question would be: Is interracial marriage unethical? For all the complaining about race replacement and racial mixing here, no one is making you personally go out and marry interracially. Most individuals in the wider culture are increasingly in favor of interracial marriage, is there an ethical argument for them not to be? And please, state your assumptions and reasoning, repeating EGI, EGI, until you’re blue in the face is not an ethical argument. 46
Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:04 | # “Generalising about ‘Jews’ leaves open the accusation of anti-semitism which, as I’m sure most here will agree, is up there with ‘racist’ as one of the worst of all possible crimes in these days of political correctness.” Agreed. And sorry about suspecting you of being something that you’re not. 47
Posted by elitist on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:13 | # Two minor clarifications: By the public being increasingly in favor of interracial marriage I mean taking a neutral view, seeing them as no different from a intraracial marriage. I think the data is pretty clear based in interracial marriage rates and Things to consider in making your argument: If you are arguing net costs to society from a Utilitarian perspective, will it outweigh the costs of not allowing people to marry whomever they choose or censuring people for marrying whomever they want? (this slope, it’s pretty slippery) If you are making an argument based on the ethics of reciprocity keep in mind this type of argument is based on an internal morality. While it be possible for you assert that two people should only consider marriage if they are of the same race, you can’t impute that belief to others and then assert that they must ethically accept that two people should only consider marriage if they are of the same race. 48
Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:41 | # .357:Rusty, other people cannot be your property. I’m not saying they should be. But Overton’s is a gentleman’s agreement between men who would consider themselves equal. What about those who are not considered such? What about those who cannot or will not rule themselves? Even men such as the American Founders, the radical liberals of their day, did not really think ALL adults to be the same. They thought that men were better at ruling, that only Whites (NW Europeans) could really rule themselves properly, and that some people were only fit for servitude. The excerpt even admits that some men, even good men, may put themselves into slavery or endentured servitude by their own actions. By this, some slavery is morally justifiable. So, the argument against slavery per se really comes down to the Golden Rule, doesn’t it? A perfectly natural personal fear of being enslaved. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course, I was just wondering. Now I know your aversion it is based on enlightenment philosophy; now I know where you are “coming from.” Given the fervor with which so many people preach against it, one would’ve thought it was a law of the primordal universe. 49
Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:58 | # I suspect that the White Man will need to revisit this brotherhood-of-all-mankind philosophy once he becomes a minority in all of his own lands and sees that the gentleman’s agreement is not honored by the new rulers. He may continue to believe it himself, but he will have to come to realize that he is the only one who does. 50
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:02 | # elitist, Slippery slope be damned. Just try for a moment to apply your observations to a healthy, normally ethnocentric society. It may call for an act of the imagination! Why? Because the societies in which we live in postmodernity are not historically normal or healthy. They have been made sick with hyper-individualism. There is no moral guidance to be got from self-estrangement and ethno-suicide. Basically, you are too unaware of our value system to pass a worthwhile judgement upon us. We can see you, and we know you well. But you cannot see us. You only think you can. When you become like us, then you may discriminate between us and make all the moral judgements you please. But that time is not yet, evidently. 51
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:04 | # What about a lineage of caste slaves? What about those blacks (as an example) such as Shelby Steele and Clarence Thomas who can rule themselves? What if your slave refuses to obey your orders? What if he keeps running away? Would you be prepared to torture him into submission? If not, why not? He is your property, just like your coffee table. If you want to smash your coffee table who will object? 52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:28 | # What if your slave refuses to obey your orders? What if he keeps running away? Would you be prepared to torture him into submission? What if he commits torturous criminal acts against you, your family and your community? If you want to smash your coffee table who will object? Civilized man.
53
Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:50 | # .357: If not, why not? He is your property, just like your coffee table. If you want to smash your coffee table who will object? One could argue from a traditionalist point of view that owning coffee tables in one’s realm is permissible. Masters have had coffee tables working for them since pre-historic times. Master and table have managed to get along quite well, excepting when Master stubs his toe on said table or Master possesses more tables than he can handle. However, smashing coffee tables or scarring them without just cause is not only repugnant to every member of civilized society, it is contra the decrees of the gods. Coffee tables, although not as good as Masters or even most serfs, nonetheless have feelings, hopes, and desires, just like all normal furniture. People, especially good masters, have a natural, built-in sense about this. Damaging a coffee table unjustly damages others’ souls as well; the whole society suffers a little. There is received, time-tested ancient wisdom against abusing coffee tables, but not against owning them. We are only now beginning to recognize the folly of assuming coffee table consciousness and ability to be equal to our own. Only when enough men realize the proper relation of Master to coffee table will Midgard have a chance at normalcy, safety, and real freedom once again. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:23 | # Here is a little scenario, Massa Rusty: Lets say my brother is a little slow, he is just not responsible. He gets himself in trouble alot. He often borrows money from people and doesn’t pay it back. This happens once too often with regards to Mr. X. Mr. X, through the proper legal channels, obtains a legal writ which will render my brother his personal property until such time as my brother can work off his debt. I know that my brother will not be capable of doing this. So the balance of his life will be spent in the custody of Mr. X. I do not know Mr. X, I do not know if he is a decent man. I am fraught with worry about my brother’s welfare for what will be the balance of his life. The day arrives, Mr. X shows up, along with officers of the law, to take custody of my brother and take him to Mr. X’s personal debtor’s gulag. My brother is crying, screaming, begging me…not to let them take him. I try to comfort him, choaking back my tears, knowing that it is a lie. ENOUGH! They grab him. He tries to fight back. They begin beating him to subdue him to their malign will. “Please, don’t let them take me, don’t let them hurt me!” Enough, I run back into the house. I grab my gun. I shoot each one of those bastards in their pig faces and spit on their filthy corpses! YOU GOT THAT MASSA RUSTY?!?! 55
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:46 | # I just dont think we have anything to gain from arguing for slavery, even from the standpoint of an intellectual exercise. I bore people I know by pointing out that the only unique aspect of white people and slavery is that out of all cultures/races we are the ones who ended it. Both from a moralistic standpoint - just not liking it and from a technological standpoint. We made it obsolete at least in the common form of one person owning another. Sure there are other forms. The whites of South Africa have been turned into a kind of slave caste after all. 56
Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:28 | # White people tried to end slavery. Non-whites are perpetuating it. 57
Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:35 | # Captainchaos, you have the wildest delusions I’ve ever seen! Thank you, that was LOL funny!!! But seriously, folks ... It’s interesting: Whites fought for the end of slavery based purely on modern “laws” and rights of their own devising which were mainly designed to fend off attacks from each other. Feeling good about their new mastery over the universe, they then, godlike, extended those new-found rights to the Other. But the Other did not and does not recognize these fresh new “laws.” Now reality is back to bite die neuen Ubermenschen for this gross ignorance of real truth and for the rebellion against real natural law. 58
Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:02 | # LOL, Me thinks, Rusty, is a proponent of my man, John C. Calhoun. 59
Posted by GT on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:40 | # Step back from yourself for a moment, Onlooker .357. Beer with friends is one thing, beer at the keyboard is pathetic.
More likely rolling on the floor drunk. Easy online racialism 24/7/365 and afffirming jewish stereotypes with “Heil Hitlers” from the keyboard is no way to go through life. Have you considered AA?
Not altogether true. Drunk, dense, and childishly disingenuous blightwingers who think they are fooling folks by changing their handle from Onlooker to .357 are perpetuating it. 60
Posted by eliteist on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:57 | # I think that you want to return to a period and a culture that never existed. My understanding of your position is you reject both the “GW: hyper-individualistic” materialistic/scientific worldview and any religious worldview in favor of your ideal non-individualistic ethnocentric culture. (I know there is one christian priest type poster here, but he is so far away from any consensus view of christianity that referring to him as a christian just confuses matters, it’s as if I referred to myself a a physicist when what *I* meant by physicist was fortune teller and then got upset when this confused people) To get to any sort of ethnocentric European culture you would have to be talking about prechristian Europe, throwing out basically all of the fruits of western civilization. After the arrival of Christianity, the worldview in Europe was fundamentally religious and Christian, not ethnocentric. There was little interracial marriage, it’s true, but mostly because there was little opportunity. Populations were generally stationary which led to pretty stable ethnic groups, but there never existed firm lines between one ethnic group and another living in close proximity (Why do you think Italians are darker skinned than Norwegians…) Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all dissaprove of interfaith marriages, but not interracial marraige per se. (In general, in any huge movement you can find splinter factions advocating arbitrarily strange things) For a hilarious modern day example check out: Kalman Packouz aka Kenneth Packouz In cases where interracial marriage itself was discouraged there was generally a particular historical/cultural reason for it. (e.g. slavery in America). The main stream of Christianity has always supported the conversion of other peoples and opposition to intermarriages wasn’t a matter of principle, but usually a matter of geography. (The Spanish didn’t exactly refrain from interbreeding with natives of South America) The last 400 years have seen a gradual shift from a religious worldview to a scientific materialist worldview, but that is equally alien to your ethnocentric worldview. (As you understand, labeling these people (me) homo economicus) It is a biological law that populations that can interbreed will interbreed. The only way to maintain distinct popluations is through geographically or otherwise isolating those populations. (Judaism is a big topic on here, in America the jewish interracial marraige rates are over 50%, well above those of whites, they are of course much lower in Israel due to the artificial (and I personally doubt sustainable) barriers put in place.) Given we have the transport technology to render geographical barriers impotent, any social barriers you try to erect in a mixed population will eventually fall before the power of the human sex drive, given time and a lack of genocide. Scientists generally don’t buy arguments about greater intelligence in one race or another because to do that you have to argue, basically, that some places would be less selective for intelligence than others. This is hard to imagine, intelligence is all we have going for us, and evolution is pretty good at selecting for it. Evolution isn’t going to up and decide to do a worse job in one location, the human animal, like all animals is fantastically optimized for it’s environment, which is human cultural groups where intelligence and cunning is a pretty damn good predictor of mating success. You want people to reject the two worldviews, Christian and secular/scientific, that have been dominant in the western world for the last 1700 years, do you believe that any sort of ethnocentric worldview could dominate without a complete collapse of our technological society and a return to small villages of hunter gatherers? If you had to assess where most people’s worldviews lie, could you honestly not place 99.9% of the population in either the religious or secular scientific category? I don’t see how you could ever hope to recruit more than a vanishingly small percentage of the population to your ethnocentric views in the absence of a complete cataclysm. 61
Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:41 | # A glimpse into GT’s micro-community/micro-economics—rare footage:- 62
Posted by GT on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:07 | # The mis-characterization of ideas involving competence and work is typical of dense, alcoholic, “Heil Hitlering” easy online racialists such as Onlooker 357 who is limited to “onlooking” as real men work. Onlooker “activism”: Sieg Heil, sieg heil, sieg heil, sieg heil! Drunk and on the Internet, of course. There is a place for alcoholics like Onlooker. It is called VNN Forum. There, one may post 4,500+ inconsequential posts since January 2007, call it “activism,” and have your ass scratched by other alcoholics, felons, fat chicks, and what-have-you. 63
Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:28 | # And you’re the epitome of class and virtue? LOL. My interaction with you, GT, is over. I’m not going to waste my time fending off a disturbed half-wit like you. 64
Posted by GT on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:25 | # Many “racialists” are socially dysfunctional in the real world and consider easy online racialism to be a safe outlet due to it’s remote, electronic nature. All that’s required to join the White nationalist “chat” community, for example, is a drunken Heil Hitler, advocacy of GLR’s failed strategies, adopting a badass handle/avatar, and “naming the jew” by blaming the jew for personal deficiencies in judgment and character. Buy the excuses, throw ‘em a beer and a few dollars and you’re “In Like Flynn.”
Right. The favor is not returned. I reserve the right to address your stupidity on this board at any time. Your best bet is a return to VNN Forum, where it’s always a drunken easy online Oktoberfest 24/7/365. 65
Posted by GT on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:04 | # One more thing Onlooker before I’m finished for the day,
Alcoholics typically invoke childish, Platonic standards against their accusers. No, you’re not “laughing out loud.” You’re a drunken, easy online racialist with absolutely no concern for anything beyond drink and the electronic “social” acceptance that can just as easily be found at the local “Click & Connect.” This thread was interesting until you inserted the “Heil Hitler” crap and childishly attempted to justify your behavior by attributing it to alcohol. That straw broke the camel’s back. When I asked a simple question regarding cyber identity you failed to answer forthrightly. Instead, you played silly mindfuck games on the computer. Okay, I’m game, although I would prefer to ban you in a heartbeat if it were in my power to do so. Take your onlooking .357 persona to VNN Forum. 66
Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:09 | # “I reserve the right to address your stupidity on this board at any time.” Okay, GT, since to pretend to be so smart, surly you can (in your own words) answer this “stupid” question: Why are so many people of European decent engaging in many forms of ethno-suicide? 67
Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:47 | # Well, I guess little Charlie “GT” Manson Jr. is too busy to answer my question. He’s probably with his “Family” planning a new “Helter Skelter War” out at the ranch? 68
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:09 | # I will answer your question. “Why are so many people of European decent engaging in many forms of ethno-suicide?” There are several suspects who were close to the scene of the crime: Jewry, liberalism, the left, the NWO, managerialism ... But the chief suspect, the one that really deserves the rap, is the hyper-individualism to which we have dedicated our energies over the last sixty years. Here are a few descriptive phrases drawn from a video on Rudolf Steiner, as it happens, that someone posted on a forum elsewhere. They explain the score pretty well:-
Plainly, the kind of devotion that trapped Europe’s young men in the trenches of the First World War, and brought them obediently back at eachother’s throats again little more than twenty years later, would scandalise the precious, rarified European beings who walk the Earth today. But this is no more than the inevitable trajectory of liberalism, and its end is nihilism as the European world collapses into a demographic disaster. How else could it possibly end. Free men don’t ... can’t love and won’t care. Of course, if you would rather believe it’s those world-class Middle-Eastern opportunists ... 69
Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:43 | # I think that’s a very reasonable explanation. I’ve noticed the phenomenon, in my conversations with young people (my step children and their friends). Every one believes that he or she is absolutely, utterly unique (“special”) in the world, in every aspect, so the notion that one belongs to a race or a tribe, or probably even a family in some cases, is offensive to them. The idea that they are part of something much larger than themselves, doesn’t even cross their mind. They don’t like to be reminded that they exhibit features and traits of relative and ancestors, that they are the current representatives of a line. This attitude seems to be especially prevelant among whites, for some reason, but members of other races do exhibit it too, though on a lesser scale I think because it is politically, economically, and morally advantageous to be identified as a member of a protected ‘victim class’. 71
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:03 | # I hope we are not going to have any more futile theoretical justifications for slavery though. Any moral justification for slavery - no, none that are going to convince more than a handful of people. Any economic justification for slavery - no, none Im aware of given the current level of technological development. We want to win arguments, win people over dont we? Any stray undecided strolling through here and seeing some WN arguing for slavery. Yeah, great, thats really going to go down a storm and its bound to circulate around other sites. And that helps how exactly? 72
Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:40 | # For what it is worth, I generally sympathise with Aristotle’s view of slavery. I find slavery neither unnatural nor morally offensive. However, I would not base a political platform or manifesto on it, and I certainly would not waste time here arguing its (supposed) merits, or lack thereof. Surely there are other matters more pressing. 73
Posted by Bill on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:08 | # HyperIndividualism. Hyper individualism and the way we live, is simply an adaptation of life only made possible by the technological civilisation we have fashioned. This civilisation has only been made possible due to the ability of man to release enormous amounts of locked up energy in the form of fossil fuels. It is this which has enabled us as human beings - to live the way we live. Our current way of living is rapidly coming to an end, the abundant energy we have enjoyed is abundant no longer, it is to all intents exhausted, and by extension so is the way we live. Just ask yourselves, would liberalism and all that it spawns, be possible be to flourish in the conditions which humans are shortly to face? It’s back to the future. 74
Posted by Bill on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:18 | # Just an example of what I mean. It is after lunch, my dog’s enquiring look says it’s time we were gone , I unwind from my chair and and shake off my nap, it’s time to go. Two minutes is all it takes and we are are in the world that I love best., It’s an ancient cart track and is part of the village local footpaths, that criss cross this ancient land. I vary our route according to whim, I slip through a barred gate a down the side of a hay meadow, already I have transgressed, but I’m on speaking terms with the farmer, luckily he’s not around today. We make our way down to the river, hugging the hedgerows so not to trample the grass, here, on a clear breezy summer’s day we might catch site of a pair of buzzards soaring the thermals, I actually saw two the other week disappear into the wispy clouds - what a site! We walk the river bank, hoping to see the Barbel spawning, sorry not today, maybe tomorrow. I am alone with my thoughts, the turmoil of our once stable world is never far from my mind, I try and picture the yeoman stock that once tilled these fields, what would they think I wonder? On top of the mound, I can see for miles across the river valley, an isolated church spire rising from the green foliage, perhaps tomorrow we shall walk that way and pay a visit. Two days later we are are on the same route but something is different now, it takes me a moment to figure what it is, of course! they’ve mown the hay, not only have they cut the grass (and of the two adjoining meadows) but have carted away the bales, only the cropped grass, looking like a new mown lawn remains. How could this be? When I was a boy, what we take for granted today would not have been possible. To mow, dry, bale. and cart away three fields of hay would have taken the farmer and his hands more than a week of hard work. One shire horse pulling a mowing machine, labourer’s turning the hay for drying, followed by a horse an hay cart to transfer to the farmyard, to stack and thatch - all would have taken a small group of men days to accomplish what can be achieved in two days today. 75
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:09 | # Dorset or Wiltshire, Bill? Don’t tell me it’s not a chalk stream. 77
Posted by GT on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:36 | # After reading Bill’s description of his day in rural Britain, who could think comfortable social associations of family and friends striving for economic independence - microcommunities - are not possible in the 21st century? The mischaracterization of rural microcommunities as “hippie communes” or “Charlie Manson Enterprises” by America’s easy online “racialist” blightwing underscores the poverty of their tactical and strategic position —— Re: GW’s post. The fat, poorly-conditioned man is more susceptible to disease and illness than the conditioned man. Europids are susceptible to jewish virulence because too many are moral slobs, blightwingers included. This is an issue the majority of us evade and some passively accept. No, it is not “overlooked.” Evasion is encouraged and the idea that Europids “were fundamentally healthy before the sickness” is promoted. One response to calls for self-examination is silence. The other response is, “You’re a jew or Anti.” Why? Because a) we lack the courage for it, b) it threatens our “leadership” and dysfunctional “members,” and b) our enemies exploit the weakness in argument. 78
Posted by Bill on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:27 | # Ten men went to mow…. Did you know, that one 42 gall. barrel of oil contains the equivalent of 25000 of man hours labour? Not a lot of people know that, as Michael Caine would say. 79
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:46 | #
How does the golden rule oppose slavery? Blacks would have no problem putting whites in chains if they could. This has little to do with history, and a lot to do with behavioral genetics and resulting black psychology. So there goes the “do unto others as they’d do unto you” aspect of the golden rule. Then there’s the “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.” Well, that’s pretty obviously stupid when dealing with a group like blacks. Hell, it’s pretty stupid when dealing with humans generally. It amounts to unilateral surrender; morality becomes synonymous with weakness. I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the Hebrews meant what Christians say they meant with TGR, originally. Traditional Judaism is a fairly explicit dual moral code. For all the complaining about race replacement and racial mixing here, no one is making you personally go out and marry interracially.</blockquote> No, they’re just lying about the consequences and pretending laying down with negros is a mitzvah (for goys, anyhow). Not much of a distinction, morally; they’re just doing as much as they can get away with, but no more. <i>Most individuals in the wider culture are increasingly in favor of interracial marriage, is there an ethical argument for them not to be? And please, state your assumptions and reasoning, repeating EGI, EGI, until you’re blue in the face is not an ethical argument. Why bother? You’ve decided to be obtuse, so what can we possibly do with you? Short form: an organism’s primary interest is in seeing itself replicated; ethics follow from interests. As for my arguments against slavery, I say because it’s not good for whites. Whites don’t have the intestinal fortitude (in other words, they’re too nice) to carry it off, and wind up doing monumentally stupid things like turning slaves loose on their own populations. This is more or less the ingroup morality version of your utilitarian argument. I mean, I find slavery repugnant but that isn’t much basis for an argument. Post a comment:
Next entry: Hutchinson on the murder of US manufacturing
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by .357 on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:23 | #
This is way off topic but as everyone has already heard: Tim Russert (of Meet The Press, fame) passed away last Friday. The NBC executives are searching for his replacement. They’re are floating names like David Gregory, Chris Matthews, Andrea MitcHELL, etc.
I nominate Fred Scrooby. It’s high-time we get some genuine “fair and balanced” coverage of political issues….