A further conversation with my pal Lester ... updated 30th June

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 00:13.

Remember Lester Jones, the interesting social constructionist who troubled to engage with “Recititive” at the Guardian’s “Comment Is Free”? Alas, shortly after that conversation Recititive was despatched to the gulag by the Guardian mods. They do like to preserve the intellectual purity of their thought-world, and poor Recititive was judged altogether too polluting.

However, some very similar right-wing swine named “unsanctimonius” is playing with the fire of the mods instead, and today he had an encounter with the aforementioned Lester Jones. As there are one or two half-useful pointers to debating technique in it I will reproduce the goalmouth moments here:-

The thread followed on a very fine and interesting piece of writing about the illusion of leadership by the (I think) Marxist intellectual Jeremy Seabrook. It finished with this splendid observation:-

Power and privilege will always find ways round efforts to create economic and social justice. And so it has been in our time. The principal participants in the global theatre are increasingly masks of some gigantic harlequinade or Noh play. The script is pasted in the wings. It is their business to offer prospectuses of freedom and constant improvement to the people, to receive acclaim, to fail, and be scorned and repudiated for their venality and dishonesty. They know this. This is why they tend to expend so much effort providing against the time of their downfall; sometimes corruptly, usually within the loose limits placed upon their right to accumulate and prepare for the day when they will be hounded from power in defeat.

It is the ignoble shabbiness of their role that has created a highfalutin language of “governance”, “high office”, “senior politicians”, “veteran leaders”, “statesmen and women”; as well as the global babble about “transparency”, “accountability” and of course, the “empowerment” and “participation” of the people. The grandiose words are merely decorative. No one should be under any illusion about the emancipatory potential of Barack Obama, and nor should we be quite so vengeful over the shambling figure of Gordon Brown who strings together cliches much as our grandmothers knitted kettle-holders. Their destiny is to strut and fret their hour upon the stage, to exit and not mess with the decor.

“Unsanctimonious” duly praised Mr Seabrook thus (trolling ever so slightly, you understand):-

An informed and eloquent article in a desert of wrong-headedness. Thank you, Mr Seabrook.

However, you omit to mention that the power elite are not merely corporatists but are also coldly determined anti-nationalists whose primary assault on our lives is not economic but racial. The power elite is bound to attempt to kill the most stubborn and salient point of resistance to its absolutist ambition, which is the ancient European state tied to and defended by its people.

Nation-killing and race-replacement immigration - all wildly applauded by the dumb and self-loathing, universalist left - is a power elite crime against humanity. When are you, Mr Seabrook, going to break with your universalist principles and defend your people and their homeland against this attack?

And off we went. Lester Jones, defending his ideological turf next in the thread:-

unsanctimonious

Blaming this thing you call the “Left” is applying antique argument to modern complexities.

The problem is that in fact it is the economic policy of those who traditionally inhabited a mish-mash of political ideology referred to as the “Right” that drives what you fear, a breakdown of national identity. It’s a smokescreen when this “Right” postures a defence of nationalism (and pretends policies with racially divisive overtones) because the only economic idea the right has these days necessitates globalisation driven by economic liberalism.

Of course this means the far right and the nationalists and the racists are left spluttering their fury at their old enemy the “left” because they have really been spurned by their old bedfellow, the “right” and have yet to see it.

Interestingly enough the right is going through the kind of fragmentation they often accuse the left of having experienced, and seem to be as equally confused as the left have been, as to how to approach this new hybrid of political thought. I see the line your pushing as standard self-delusion and part of the ongoing difficulty many on both the left and the right are having with coming to terms with a globalised liberal world. This is not a value judgement.

Besides, whenever has the “power elite” drawn it’s motivation from leftist thinking?

Three quick explicatory comments from “unsanctimonious” followed:-

1. I don’t blame the left. I think it has been a very useful idiot to turn against its own people and chase after a purely abstract equality. That was a treachery, no doubt about it.

But the reality of power elitism is that left and right are of no objective significance. The great issues - the ones we are not allowed to vote upon - are beyond the left-right axis and simply proceed as required. As long as left and right jointly demonise European peoples who will not give up their birthright - which they do - they serve their purpose, and the great theft can continue.

Neither do I use the term “national identity”. I am an English ethnocentrist. My feeling of kinship is not a social construct. It does not reside in the thinking mind alone. It is in the emotions and in the genes. Same as with any other mentally healthy human being.

Terms like “far right” and “racist” are simply hate-fest words used to shore up an ethno-suicidal worldview - the thing is not to see what the hate-object is actually saying, in case it is true.

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

2.

I would say, Lester Jones, that you are a clever enough man but you are still caught up in the conventional.

The line I am pushing is Nature’s heritage. The line you are pushing is European suicide. Which of us stands in the light, and which of us is a fool?

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

3.

Lester: “I see the line your pushing as standard self-delusion and part of the ongoing difficulty many on both the left and the right are having with coming to terms with a globalised liberal world ... Besides, whenever has the “power elite” drawn it’s motivation from leftist thinking?”

The power elite, my innocent friend, is the product of liberal ideological hegemony. Liberalism is the parent of an elite, as feudalism and theocracy were before it. There is always an elite. It is just a matter of the character of the wider ideological milieu. If we had a healthy ethnocentric milieu - healthy enough for Europeans to reclaim their birthright - the present power elite would be destroyed.

Perhaps if you thought more in terms of nationalist <> internationalist and Nature <> anti-Nature you might get the gist. But I doubt it. You are too much in the thrall of conventionalism.

At this point someone with the handle “followtheoil” remarked that “there IS NO society, only individuals and groups of individuals working together for their interests.” “Unsanctimonious” responded:-

No, there is the group - at the level of ethny - and group loyalty. Only a prisoner of postmodernity would claim otherwise. Are you such?

It turned out that not only was he a prisoner, but he was “an anthropologist of the not-po-mo kind” who saw fit to inform me that “community bonds are ‘imagined’ ... check out the brilliant book on nationalism ‘Imagined Communities’ by Benedict Anderson ... What is no longer possible is to return to the ethnically-based ‘England’ of previous centuries - it’s too late for that.”

Actually, I think this guy was pretty harmless. But the immediate need was to destroy this damned “reality as social construct” argument which is such a winner for the other side. There is, though, a line of attack in ethnic interests:-

Two points that need to be made clear. First there is nothing whatsoever constructed or imagined in familial connectivity. Frank Salter’s expansion of Hamilton’s work on genetic group dynamics has this simply definition of genetic interest: the number of copies of your genes in the world. The concentration of these genes, as we can all now know if we have the will, accords with self-identified ethnic groups. In other words, the constructed and the imagined is, in this instance physically real. Ethnies and races exist, and we do not need to undercut their existence in any way with neo-Marxist philosophy.

The second point is that it is NEVER too late for a people to choose life. It just becomes harder to achieve the necessary conditions. Degree of difficulty is not a commendation to die. It is a commendation to steel oneself to do what must be done.

This was too much for Lester Jones, an arch-constuctionist, who responded:-

unsanctimonious

Have you noticed the way “English ethnocentric’s” are morphing into pseudo-religious soothsayers?

Your whole approach draws from Millenarianism with your perceived persecution, your preaching of a promised land that can be reached only through following the “English ethnocentric’s” handbook, devised through the “English ethnocentric’s” own more incisive interpretation, your protectionism of an imagined and static identity, the appeals to nature with it’s chosen people overtones etc etc.

My feeling of kinship is not a social construct

All feelings of kinship are social constructs, you’re confusing emotions with content, as you say “It is in the emotions and in the genes”, I agree, but where you direct those genetic impulses are socially constructed and your belief in their inherent specialness is also socialy constructed

There is always an elite. It is just a matter of the character of the wider ideological milieu. If we had a healthy ethnocentric milieu - healthy enough for Europeans to reclaim their birthright - the present power elite would be destroyed.

And presumably replaced with another more to your liking, after all “There is always an elite”? Of course nationalism itself is a construct of an elite.

Anyway we could go on and on, but I wonder which period of English history (or even European if you prefer) you see as the time you wish for all social evolution to be forcibly halted, and corralled into your arbitrary cultural distinctions?

By the way, I am not totally convinced I have not had a discussion similar to this with you before, although you were posting under another name then…you do seem uncannily familiar, or do you just share the same hymn book?

Oh dear, another ban on the way. “Unsanctimonious” will be number six ... or seven. I forget now. Actually, under the new system at CiF nobody is liquidated anymore. It’s an administrative death, whereby one’s comments are not posted on the thread but submitted to the mods for clearance. Invariably, they disappear into the memory hole, of course.

Anyway, “unsanctimonius” is still striving to kill off social construction:-

Lester,

Again you are far too conventional in your thinking. You use the phrase “static identity”. Have you been reading from the c-theory bookshop?

“Identity” is a neo-marxist concept which has as its answer ... neo-marxism. The acquisition (not construction) of personality in early childhood is unconscious, and is a result of a laying-down of hundreds of thousands of external impressions upon a genetic endowment. The mere exercise of choice much later in life does not alter it. The only available and very difficult and fleeting escape from personality, from the sum of the acquired, is by conscious transcendence.

In other words, without a philosophy of a heirarchical consciousness no statement on absolute human potential is valid, and neo-marxism has no such philosophical content. You are not offering a valid critique of what we really are, and I urge you to look elsewhere for more informed ideas.

In any case, Man is NOT personality, and neither is his understanding of himself - his “identity” - all that he is. If you restrict Man to the engineerable you are losing him. Ethnicity and ethnic fealty are part of his genetic endowment. They are not merely configured in his thinking mind - a slow and clumsy instrument that functions by association and by representation, and offers convenient hand-holds for race-denial by people such as yourself.

There is a very good test doing the rounds for race-deniers, whether constructionists or not. It’s this: if your child is in a burning building who do you want to see bought out first? Genetic interests are the highest life interest, and ethnic genetic interests are the highest human interest - the continuity of your genes wherever they are most highly concentrated. Read Frank Salter if you are at all interested in the meaning of genetic interests.

If genetic interests are the highest or ultimate life interest, others such as equality, progress, freedom etc are plainly secondary or proximate interests.

Strictly-speaking, the function of Nationalism is the advancement of ethnic genetic interests. It exists as a different political unverse to liberalism, and on a different axis to the traditional libertarian <> authoritarian axis. Its axiality is volkishness <> palingenesis.

I know you want be familiar with this. Three centuries of liberalism have provided the modern, conventional thinker with no tool for analysing nationalism. We few nationalist intellectuals in the West, on the other hand, have to live in the liberal polity, and well understand its character and flaws.

On your charge of millenialism, I think you are guilty of the same sort of activity as anti-racists who scream “Nazi” every five minutes. European Man is not reproducing and is allowing the importation into his midst high-reproductive aliens. Richard Lynn, a brilliant pessimist, wrote:-

“This phenomenon raises what is perhaps the most baffling problem of the present age, which is why the European peoples are so complacent about being dispossessed in their own countries by the influx of non-European peoples. Normally, people resist invasion by alien peoples and it seems natural for them to do so. In England we have the Norman conquest of 1066 seared in our national consciousness as the last time we were invaded, and we are equally conscious of our successful resistance to the threat of invasion by the French under Napoleon and the Germans in World War II. Yet in the last half century we have been invaded by non-Europeans, and most of us are quite complacent about this. It is the same with the European peoples in Continental Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. There seems to be something profoundly unnatural about this complacency and it defies explanation.”

There IS no argument to the contrary that we non-Slavic Europeamns are a dying people. Liberalism IS the principal cause.

As to who I am, it is of no consequence to the truth of my argumentation.

Lester has a dangerous memory ...

unsanctimonious (or Recicititve (or something like that))

Yeah…so anyway which era would you have us confined to, you still haven’t said.

Well, what’s his game? I haven’t figured it out yet.

Lester,

The eternal present. What does that mean? Man’s life needs to be “anchored” - good word - in that which is true in him, principally adaptive social mores (which include a pursuit of individual freedom).

Liberalism, otoh, is teleology in the same way that palingenetic nationalism is (for example, National Socialism). It is anchorless but not, sadly rudderless. It is a journey to an abstract state, and is incapable of completion - not least because it demands struggle against the struggle for existence. It is anti-natural.

But he’s not telling ...

unsanctimonious

You’re barking up the wrong tree, unsanctimonious. Liberalism is your dark fiend, not mine.

Anyway, have a go at answering the question, which period of English/European history best suits your desires, at which point do you suggest we pull the plug?

I have an inkling as to why you refuse to answer…Oh what a wicked web we weave…when first we practice to deceive.

This is shaping up for a shake-down along the lines of “racist! ... “Nazi!”. You can tell because he thinks he knows all about me. So here’s an old problem: how to evade the smear, and keep the attack on social construction going?

No, you have no inkling. Otherwise you would not try to force upon me a false analysis. OK, I understand that you need to do so in order to take control of the discussion on your own terms. I have seen you do this before. Very smooth. I respect your skill. But I am not your patsy. We are equals, and you are going to have to do a lot better than dragging me within smearing range. You are going to have to debate the heirarchy of interests if you really want score a victory for liberalism over nationalism.

So how about this one:-

Has any interest that has been dragged to the centre of English national life in the last few decades - and that would include all the equalities, for instance, as well as economism and elitism - been of greater human import than English genetic interest?

But that didn’t wash. Here’s his most determined attempt to line me against the wall:-

sanctimonious

Still side stepping? Well, if your going to be pedantic about it I have to say I did ask first…besides as I insinuated to you in my last post I have no interest in scoring victories for liberalism, it is you that demands that foil…

...but lets not bother with the posturing eh? The problem you face is that to achieve your nationalistic/ethnic/racial demands of the “European Peoples” you would necessarily have to adopt the kind of draconian authoritarianism you profess to detest…and you would have to admit that behind all your smoke and mirrors of persecuted cultures and your posturing about acceptably wanting to defend some as yet unstated European cultural download, behind all this (what you imagine is seen as the acceptable face of English Nationalism) is the age old (never changing) motor of racism. Of course if you want to enable your hope into legislation you will have to win over people, and you see a thrust against Liberalism, at a time when Liberalism is understandably suffering a backlash in the terrifying face of Globalisation as a way in to peoples dissatisfaction, so you need to position yourself as a anti-liberal to achieve any hope of establishing a foothold in mainstream politics, and you can only do that by heavily playing down your essential racism. But that’s your problem isn’t it, because the merest of scratches reveals that cursed vote loser, that achilles heal, and your carefully constructed disguise becomes a hilarious folly weighing you down…

...and if you don’t follow mainstream political channels what are you left with, mimicking the extremes, the cursed Left or the cursed Right by enforcing an authoritarian sledge hammer onto the heads of all those, the vast majority, who do not suffer the same obsession with what your now delightfully calling “genetic endowment”.

I don’t ask you the question about which period of European history you most admire in order to draw you up some path, your philosophy, however neatly packaged is anathema to me , but what drives individuals into it I do find interesting, so actually I ask it out of genuine curiosity. I have chatted to people who think like you do many times and they are always very vague about what they actually want from their island of “European People”, bar some vague references to life being somehow emancipating, harmonious and stable or some such thing, and when asked about which period they most admire the same vagueness engulfs them, from I imagine an unnerving feeling of ridiculousness, after all, even you know there is never any going back, and faux constructions of the past just seem, well, ridiculous.

So Mr Jones has banged heads with other nationalists and emerged having make them look ridiculous. And, of course, racist. And political failures. And ...

Lester,

I am not side-stepping your question. The lack of reference between the nationalist and liberal zeitgeists makes it impossible to answer directly. You might as well be asking a 7th century Christian monk which past period of English life he would most like to confine Englishmen to. I am, for my pains, a revolutionary, not a sentimentalist, and I am not at all vague about my philosophy. You are.

In consequence of that, you reify racism again. Of course, I am used to hearing it. I have been a “racist” in the mouths of the suggestible for thirty years. But I remember the 1950s before the fashion was transmitted from Nuremburg into what is now Western consciousness. My father’s generation thought as his father’s, and his father’s before him. Indeed, they did not have to think about their ethnic interests, which were properly an unspoken directive of the heart. What time has ennobled in the instincts of Man let no captive of postmodernity belittle.

The battle then, Lester, is not to “do” racism but normality. It’s to return to a healthy and normal pursuit of our own interests, as they informed all the generations of Englishmen, and all Europeans, in the centuries - millenia even - before our self-estrangement and ethno-masochism took hold.

But such is the pathology of our times, agitating for normalness among those of European descent (and only among them) is a revolutionary act. In truth, it would not need the name Nationalism, save that the damage has gone so deep ... and there is no vehicle to hand in the “respectable” mainstream to reverse it. For example, Conservatism, which was good enough for the task certainly until Liverpool’s time and probably Salisbury’s, is just right-liberalism today, and is as maladaptive as neo-Marxism.

You write that my views are anathema to you. I know that. But you are saying that the normal, healthy pursuit of ethnic interests which informs the lives of every non-European people everywhere in the world is anathema. Jews, Arabs, Japanese, Zulus, Turks, Tibetans, Mexicans, Chinese ... you name it, all of them are committed by Nature to their own survival, and it is anathema to you.

How did you come to such an extreme position? This is what I mean when I say you are a captive of postmodernity. You are not a free man.

So, how to free you. You are right that some authoritarianism is unavoidable, but wrong in thinking that the politics of ethnic interest requires it in itself. The degree of authoritianism is a function of the damage that liberalism has wrought in us. Think back. The axiality of nationalism is not libertarian <> authoritarian. It is volkishness <> palingenesis. You cannot analyse the politics of life from the standpoint of the politics of the unfettered will. There is no other way but to ease yourself into the unfamiliar surroundings - unfamiliar today, that is - of this other philosophical universe.

You criticise the the language I use - “genetic endowment”, “heirarchy of interests” etc. It is, of course, tailored for intellectuals like yourself. It is not for the man in the supermarket queue. But you would be surprised how much he understands about his natural rights and interests as an Englishman, if one takes the trouble to gain his trust and explain carefully.

Of course, he is self-estranged, and thinks it is “racist” for an Englishman to possess rights and interests. He still believes in boundless progress and the desiderata of hyper-individualism. But he came to this station through a combination of direct and indirect coercion. He did not understand the consequences of philosophical and political ideas, and did not have a choice. The revolutionary act consists in giving him one.

Which I hope to see done before I quit this life.

So has a combination of Salterism and Scroobyite normality warded off the danger? Well, that’s it for this evening CiF-wise. And the thread will close tomorrow, I guess. But it would be interesting to know what else Lester, as a liberal guinea pig, can do to prosecute his anti-nationalist argument. If he tries, I will add it to this post.

UPDATE, 30TH JUNE

And here is what he did, dropping the battle of ideas and becoming more personal.

unsanctimonious

You can play to the crowds as much as you want my “nationalist” friend but your zealous interior belies you. I realise you need a platform, and you hope that CIF offers you such (but it’s a bit like talking to a scripted recording), but what you cant see, lost in your obsessive maze as you are, is that your spin and manipulation reveal your sophistry.

I am amused by your appeals to the ordinary and your faux battle against “intellectualism”. You make a lot of assumptions, unsanctimonious, about your perceived enemies, all of which are necessary for spouting your script…anyway this is by-the-by.

I have seen your website, where you and your like-minded pals are more free with their intentions and desires, so pretending to be advocating a racist-lite just does not wash. When it comes down to it unsancitmonious your views will never be popular amongst anyone but those obsessed like yourself with genes which you imagine determine your imaginary (and still unstated (come along!)) perfect tribe.

However you spin it, what you want is to tell people how to think, who to love and what parameters they must adopt, parameters devised by you based on ideology and twisted “studies”.

Good luck with that, unsanctimonous!

You call yourself a revolutionary, well you would, because only through subversion and aggression can you possibly hope to influence anyone else. It’s one way of describing a revolutionary, a typically self-serving way.

Now if you cant get off script I shall give up on this conversation and you can find some other “patsy” to use as a hand up to your soap box.

So he has noted the many thought-crimes at MR, and thinks we are making an effort not to speak of our real beliefs! His position is now plain to see. It is uber-libertarian, but our desire to save our people naturally implies the reining-in of the agencies of harm, of which his own pursuit of the unfettered will is one. Yes, Lester, I would rein you in for the greater good. Any objection to that?

What crowds? This thread is dead, Jeremy’s piece is gone from the CiF page, and it’s just you and me and the mod working behind the bar in this joint.

“However you spin it, what you want is to tell people how to think, who to love and what parameters they must adopt, parameters devised by you based on ideology and twisted “studies”.”

I am not spinning. I am explaining. And, yes, perhaps I am making assumptions about my opponents. Here is another:-

I suggest that what you are afraid of is majoritarianism. You are not willing to submit your personal foibles and tastes to the will of a majority constituency. It is offensive to you to be restricted in any way by the will of other men, even if your freedom means their death. You do not want to care about that ... you do not, actually, want to love. Instead, you talk about the authoritarianism of telling you “who to love”. On top of that you do what you can to remove validity from love of kind, reducing it to “genetic impulses” which, you apparently believe, can be directed.

They cannot. I think I explained to you once before about the American research - “twisted”, I suppose - into implicit and explicit racism, in which avowed racists and convinced anti-racists exhibited the same brain responses when presented with an image of a black male.

The social construction upon which you insist is not there! Which is why you will not answer whether you can construct a desire for some other child but your own to be brought from the burning building. You can’t, but to admit it would compromise the suzereignty of your own will - and that you cannot allow.

Which of us, then, is the ideologist?

We began by discussing power. Let’s finish on that. Jeremy’s article goes a good way towards explaining where power lies, and it isn’t with you or me. We both know that, of course, and you are very probably right that people like me will remain on the fringes, denied the means of a wider address.

But at least I am moved to protest the consequences of power elitism for my own people. You are very like a puppy pleased to be able to sniff around the lamp posts of your personal affairs and tastes, and claiming that no higher interest in life can exist. You do not seem to see how very obedient this puppy is from the elite point of view, and how agreeable its self-imposed horizons are. It is a canine consumer of hyper-individualism every bit as much as the Big Brother audience is a consumer of broadcast shallowness and prurience.

Since there is no one but you and me in this joint, Lester, I’m calling on you - just you - to throw over your shackles and think new thoughts. And if you think that’s spin and sophistry, there’s no hope for you.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:05 | #

Priceless stuff.

But I’m not so sure I agree with one of the points <strike>GW</strike> <strike>Recitative</strike> <strike>John Standing</strike> Unsanctimonious concedes in the exchange:

“You are right that some authoritarianism is unavoidable [if we are to set things to rights],”

As I see it, the authoritarianism has been entirely one-sided, and that side hasn’t been us but them. If there had been an honestly-worded referendum preceded by honest, unfettered public debate before excessive immigration of the racially/ethnoculturally unlike was first implemented as national policy there can be no doubt but that it would have been rejected by the people.

There can be no doubt, moreover, that were such honest unfettered public debate held today, followed by an honestly-worded referendum on whether to continue the present race-replacement policy or humanely phase it out and take whatever reasonable, fair, financially-reimbursed measures would undo the decades-long mistake and put things right again, the people would reject continuing of the present course.

Would holding a public debate and referendum along these lines now, today, be “authoritarian”? I fail to see it. Would continuing the present course of forcing, literally, what is a national change of race on the unconsulted, unwilling people of the country be authoritatian? Clearly yes.

So, which side is authoritarian? Not us.

Furthermore, Unsanctimonious goes on to say as much himself, in his rejoinder’s very next sentences:

”[...Y]ou would be surprised how much [the ordinary man in the supermarket queue] understands about his natural rights and interests as an Englishman, if one takes the trouble to gain his trust and explain carefully. Of course he is self-estranged and thinks it is ‘racist’ for an Englishman to possess rights and interests. He still believes in boundless progress and the desiderata of hyper-individualism. But he came to this station through a combination of direct and indirect coercion. He did not understand the consequences of philosophical and political ideas, and did not have a choice.’

Exactly. Now, who coerced him? The other side, clearly. And who didn’t give him a choice? Ditto. Are coercion and withholding a choice authoritarian? By definition, yes. So, it would seem the other side are the ones acting like authoritarians.

“The revolutionary act consists in giving him [a choice]. Which I hope to see done before I quit this life.”

Exactly again. Are the ones who merely wish to give him a choice the authoritarians? Or does that appellation belong to the ones wanting to take his choices away; indeed who’ve already taken them away and wish to continue depriving him of them?

So, I respectfully question the claim that setting things to rights by our side makes authoritarianism “unavoidable.” Quite the contrary, in fact: it would be authoritarianism’s opposite.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:43 | #

Postmodern Liberalism has rendered traditional Western governance a no brainer, just look around you. It is a destroyer, a bulldozer leveller with the single goal - the end game.

Something will be left of course, there always is. It’s back to the drawing board but not from the same start position, that’s gone.

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:48 | #

“....but I wonder which period of English history (or even European if you prefer) you see as the time you wish for all social evolution to be forcibly halted, and corralled into your arbitrary cultural distinctions? “

I’ve dealt with a kind of this argument before in a post on my blog called ‘What It Means To Be uncle Frank’. There are counter arguments to it of course, but at least it might give some people a direction in which to head, perfecting it’s flaws to their own style along the way.

Here are a few exerts which get to the point,

“Billy Johnson loved to set around listening to the entertaining tales his great-Uncle Frank would spin…..Uncle Frank was a big (standing 6’ 2” in his youth) yet gentle man. His aged and weathered face, highlighted by his white hair and beard, still seemed jolly, as his cheeks would flush red with laughter while regaling a visitor with a comical yarn from his past.

He would often sit next to his fireplace, his large hands clasped around his cane revealing his gnarled knuckles and scared fingers, and tell of of his early years growing up on the old family farm and how they struggled to survive during the Great Depression.

Lighting up his pipe, he would go into detail about the various characters and events he knew throughout his life, as well as the sorrows and joys he had partaken of.
His grey-blue eyes would often grow somber when reflecting on the friends he’d seen killed fighting in WWII, or the brother he lost working on the railroad.
He would often set staring out the window when a sudden shift in the weather (rain, wind etc..) would seem to trigger some forgotten memory that had been lost in a sea of experiences.

The following week, on Uncle Frank’s birthday, Billy rushed home from school and went straight for Uncle Frank’s apartment.
...he rushed into the room and, much to his surprise, a strange looking man was setting in Uncle Frank’s chair.

The man was in his thirties, short, with black beady eyes and coal black hair. His face, brown and covered with pock marks, seemed to be held in a constant mocking snarl, as his eyes darted around, examining Billy up and down.
He set hunched over in the old chair, puffing on a cigarette, slightly bobbing his head to a strange music that Billy suddenly became aware was blasting throughout the small apartment.
“Hola” croaked the the little dark man.

It was then that his parents emerged from the kitchen accompanied by a woman named Judith, who identified herself as a state official.
Billy was too confused to get the specifics, but the person claimed to be a Representative of a Human Rights And Equality Agency of some kind.

“What’s going on?”, Billy asked “Where is Uncle Frank?”

“He’s right there”, answered the official, pointing to the strange little brown man humped up in Uncle Frank’s Chair.

“That’s not Uncle Frank!”, protested Billy.

The official frowned. “Sure it is”, she said. “Frank, show the young man your identification.”
“Si, si,” croaked the little brown man, reaching into his pocket and producing a drivers license.

Examining it, Billy saw that indeed it was a picture of the little brown man and that he was identified on the card as Frank Johnson.

“THIS IS NOT UNCLE FRANK!” Billy shouted. “For one thing Uncle Frank is 85 years old. For another thing he is White. And he..”
It was at this point that his parents protested his continuing, and the state official drew a stern look.
“Billy. Do you know what a Hate Crime is?”, the official asked.

“What does that have to do with this?” Billy asked incredulously.

“Your parents and I have already had this conversation”, the official continued. “You see billy, Uncle Frank is, really, just an idea. A name given out and recognized by the state.
Let me ask you Billy, was uncle Frank a Human? Of course he was. Well, so is Juan here. And what you need to ask yourself Billy, is why do you believe that only a White person can be Uncle Frank.”

I apologize for the length and hope the point can be seen. I’m not sure how to better articulate it, but when these “can a nation be defined” type of arguments are thrown out, they need to be met with an individualized rebuttal.

I mean, after all, why on earth couldn’t a recently arrived Pakistani be Lester Jones? Get his job, home, family etc..

Which period of Lester’s history does see as the time he wish’s for all social evolution to be forcibly halted, and corralled into arbitrary cultural (legal) distinctions?

...

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:26 | #

“In other words, without a philosophy of a heirarchical consciousness no statement on absolute human potential is valid, and neo-marxism has no such philosophical content.”

Oh, bravo! What a sentence.

Or, to put it another way, “In the Beginning, God….”

As Gilbert said (in the Mikado) “So glad to have my opinion backed by a competent authority.” lol

Bravo.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:46 | #

From a commenter named Whitenights:

...what used to be called journalism is now derided as ‘conspiracy theory’.

Classic.

Posted by silver on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:20 | #

Suzerainty. Hate to mention trivialities that only solidify my reputation as an unserious time-waster, but this about the fifth time I’ve seen you use this unusual word, so it’s clearly a favorite. You might want to get it right, then.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:37 | #

Silver, never wish infallibility on anyone. Most of all me.

Narrator, thank you for the being so Frank. I can’t entirely decide whether it’s an RDNE story or a social construct story. It shares something of both, but I think it’s probably RDNE. Judith the social constructionist would not have needed Juan. She would have proved that the 85 year-old white Frank only existed as a mental construct, and could be changed to the chain-smoking Mex by a postmodern exercise of the will.

At bottom, of course, RDNE is simply a stratagem to force other races on Europeans. But our thinking apparatus really does function by association and by description using language, and that’s why social construction is a “construction” of a certain externality - what our thinking apparatus represents to us - in its own right. The gist is that our thinking apparatus can only represent externality to itself, and that representation can never actually be that externality.

Of course, this is where the Marxian imagination sets to, undoing all the ethnic certainties it doesn’t like. It is a perilous undertaking because it can be hoist on its own petard, if its victim is as unscrupulous as it is. But this is not necessary. Ethnic interests and loyalties are not communicated by the thinking apparatus but by the emotions, and these are not associative in function and do not employ language. Lester Jones tried to get around this by claiming that ethnic interests and loyalties are “directed” by the thinking apparatus - something I quashed with reference to implicit/explicit racism.

Another thing he said, to which I did not bother to respond, was that we ethnocentrists ascribe a belief in the inherent specialness of our own ethnic interests. First, there is no requirement for such an ascription. An interest is an interest whether we acknowledge it or not, and whether we inflate it into something “special” or not. We need not place any construction upon it to follow it.

Second, I think Lester was falling into employing the old white supremacism smear here. Taking that apart is such a basic procedure in WN, frankly I couldn’t be bothered to stoop to it. Perhaps I should have done.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:14 | #

GW,

If you had your druthers just how much and by what means would you rein in the will to individuality of people like Lester?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:50 | #

cc,

That is an excellent question. Lester gives very little away about what “people” like him actually are. The only clue he gives here is that “who to love” remark, which rather suggests a miscegenator or a homosexual. But, obviously, one must begin by setting aside that sort of speculation and dealing at the abstract, ideational level.

Ideationally, Lester is insisting on the core principle of the radical wing of liberalism, which is the freedom to do anything that doesn’t harm or restrain another sovereign individual. This position lies hard up against the libertarian pole of the libertarian <> authoritarian axis (I don’t mean libertarian in a Popperian or Randian sense, of course - all this is liberalism).

Now, the interesting thing about this position of absolute individual sovereignty is that when one decouples it from liberalism and examines it in isolation, it is immediately clear that it’s not really a problem. Indeed, the only reason there is a problem of sovereignty is because uber-libertarians bring a certain note of fierceness and fervour to their “independence”. They are permanently frozen into a fighting posture. Why? For what purpose are they fighting?

Carl Schmitt, the German jurist and philosopher, wrote “liberalism changed all political conceptions in a peculiar and systematic fashion” and “liberalism not only recognizes with self-evident logic the autonomy of different human realms, but drives them towards specialization and even towards complete separation”. In this instance what it has done, this curiously aggressive liberal analysis, is to force out group dynamics and group adaptiveness from the life of Man, leaving only the individual. Obviously, if the energy of separation is switched off, the component parts - individualism and the group - are attracted towards one another again. This is inevitable and mete because individualism is part of the selected or genetic endowment (of European Man in particular). Its political excision and its setting upon a pedestal as the unique life-value is unnatural, and requires all that tremendous and tremendously wasteful energy just to maintain it there - energy that is expressed in all the hatred that abounds among liberals for people like us.

So what, for Lester and his personal soveriegnty, is the meaning and consequence of reuniting the individual and the group? What does he have now that he will he lose? Well, certainly something because measures to restore an adaptive communal life are bound to be “harder” and more radical at the outset. Nationalism, for me, is the necessary politics of such change. In a secured future time, however, we don’t want radicalism to hang around to curdle into state oppression. Instead, it must be allowed to mature into conservatism - a difficult word for Americans, I know, but that can’t be helped.

Today, though, we must be radical. The emphasis has to be changed from the individual to the group thus: “the freedom to do anything that doesn’t harm or restrain another sovereign individual” becomes “the freedom to pursue any interests that do not damage the interests and integrity of the group.”

So let’s suppose that Lester is indeed a homosexual. His liberty to practise homosexuality must, it seems to me, be inviolable. But the liberty of the group to maintain the adaptive effect of its laws and customs - essentially, proximate interests - must also be inviolable. A deal has to be struck, and in the case of homosexuality the one I have suggested in the past is the trade of discretion for tolerance. Lester as a homosexual would lose his liberty to be careless towards the group, and the group would take no interest in his sexuality.

But what if Lester is not a homosexual but a miscegenating heterosexual? There are both ultimate and proximate ethnic genetic interests damaged through exogamy, and we should be in no doubt that measures to weigh against it - and especially its promotion - are necessary.

What these might be and how they would engage with the problem is a difficult moral issue. People fall in love, and I think it is effectively impossible to follow an absolutist EGI line. The state has available many handy tools, however, in the form of immigration laws and procedure, citizenship laws, repatriation programmes, censorship and broadcasting law, the prosecution of merchants of miscegenation (political and cultural), the appointment of responsible persons to roles of cultural and religious leadership, and so on.

Cultural leadership is obviously very important and influential indeed, and would go a great distance towards repairing public attitudes. Of course, in the past white society had - and, to some degree, still has - the powerful and highly adaptive mechanism of social stigma to price and contain miscegenative behaviour by its own members. Quite apart from the effects of cultural leadership, the encouragement of group awareness generally would strengthen this a good deal. “Miscegenative Lester” wouldn’t like it, but his liberty to miscegenate would be, if not curtailed in toto, certainly subject to powerful normalising currents - and a serious reduction in opportunities.

In essence, all this is only the reversal of the trends to the contrary - towards maladaptive exogamy - that have characterised public life for the last five decades. I don’t doubt that it sounds extreme to the liberal ear, but the modern liberal dispensation is utterly extreme to anyone who has survived it with his own ears still working.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:34 | #

For all Western Europe’s more extreme liberalism I think it is a nut more easily cracked than America. People there, I dare say, still have a consciousness (however weak) of being English or French or German. This is a tribal/national consciousness. The clock is ticking, but a nationalist government can still be had at the ballot box.

The machinery of government censorship and approbation are already in place: get power and flip the script.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:40 | #

The other way to understand Lester Jones is as a “white person” in the sense lampooned by the blog “Stuff White People Like”:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/

(check out some of their log entries, any string of them — I just skimmed a couple of pages of them, #87 through #103 — you’ll get the idea. Here are a couple more, excerpts that happen to be posted over at Steve Sailer’s today:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/07/my-contribution-to-stuff-white-people.html )

This blog’s crew (headed by someone signing as “Christian Lander,” I think) have a got a book out which will surely be a huge best-seller thanks to … you guessed it, thanks to “white people.” In the States “white people” in this sense is mainly, I would say, a West-Coast phenomenon, places like San Francisco and Seattle, though of course it’s found everywhere. In the U.K. it might be referred to as “Guardian readers,” let’s say — something like that. This Lester Jones specimen fits the Stuff White People Like stereotype to perfection.

Posted by Exmajor on Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:44 | #

Very depressing for those of us on the right to see this poster ‘LesterJones’ so comprehensively destroy our position. I guess we have to concede that the liberals are right and that we are a bunch of brain-dead imbeciles talking crap. It’s pretty depressing for me to admit it, but there’s no point in being dishonest - he’s obviously a clever guy and people like the poster ‘unsanctimonious’ haven’t really got the arguments to undermine him.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:41 | #

Guess so, major. We’ll just give up, then, and celebrate that vibrant ole diversity like Lester does.

After you, of course, sir ...

Posted by Englander on Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:27 | #

Mr. Major must have been reading a different exchange to the one I was reading.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 01:00 | #

Englander, I think Exmajor was being sarcastic and sees things as we do.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:16 | #

Svi,

I didn’t respond to Fred’s criticism of the authoritarianism comment, but since you have mentioned it too I will do so now, in a manner of speaking.

It is certainly not my understanding that any partial corrective ... anything that falls short of a total and ruthless replacement of liberalism will change, or even very much ameliorate, the range of possibilities which liberalism allows. I understand Fred’s championing of “germ theory”, and I can quite see that many Americans, caring little for the meaning of their own Enlightenment-based, national submission to equality, boundless material progress and individualism, honestly believe that a return to white racial consciousness will suffice.

But white racial consciousness was not driven out of our hearts by ethno-aggressive Jews, just like that. It was not neatly substituted with ... what, exactly? Holocaust guilt in the Appalachians? Adoration of negroes in Alabama? We do not have Holocaust guilt and love of negroes enough to answer for our self-estrangement. The case for the Jewish causative has not been made in detail terms. All the energy poured into it has been intellectually negative. Rise above the negatives and it does not convince. It does not add up.

Certainly, it does not add up in Sweden or Ireland, or in Prague now and Belgrade tomorrow.

No, white racial consciousness is incompatible with the only system of ideas in operation in the Western world and has, over a passage of centuries and in the very entrails of 20th Century war, weakened and waned to its present pathetic state. Our self-estrangement is a signal of liberalism’s universality and power.

Not taking that universality and power seriously, difficult and demanding though it is, amounts to an intellectual dereliction. This is something that needs to be understood by all thinking nationalists, such as we are.

As it is, we are in perpetual danger of becoming political froth ... just objects on the surface of a reactionary effusion. It is not enough merely to separate in that manner, and be satisfied with it, expect something to follow on from it. Nothing will follow on. This is only the beginning. Those of us that can, have to travel further.

If we don’t, and just continue to “wake our people up” and “go through the Jew” we will, I promise you, look back in anger one day and ask what more we might have done to bodily haul our foolish, sleeping people away from their fate.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 03:03 | #

GW, you subscribe to exactly the same explanation of what’s gone wrong as Lawrence Auster, Jim Kalb, Mark Richardson, to a large extent Paul Gottfried, and many others of course, including myself as of a few years ago. (I recently needed to look something up in the Turnabout archives and unexpectedly happened on the exact thread over there in which I first grappled with the beginnings of the transition I’ve undergone, away from blaming generic “liberalism” to fixing way more blame on the Jews as Jews, not as generic non-denominational liberals: it was around Christmas, 2005 [it was a thread on “The War on Christmas, 2005,” something like that], so a little more than a year after MR.com began I first began to change my view.)

Obviously there’s also a deep flaw in ourselves. The flaw isn’t that we’re so manipulable (the non-élite classes can’t be blamed if they’re manipulable: being manipulation-proof and standing guard against this sort of attack we’re being subjected to was never supposed to be their responsibility; it’s an élite responsibility), the flaw is that the élites we produce refuse to defend us. That’s some kind of grave flaw in our people, that we produce traitorous élites like the Bushes, backstabbers of the nation. It’s like a person whose body doesn’t produce white blood cells to defend against infection: a grave flaw.

But it takes two to tango: without either our deep flaw or the Jews — or the Jews — this almost inconceivable nightmare wouldn’t be upon us.

As I’ve said, I view “liberalism” as a miasma theory and false. “Liberalism” is actually created as part of the disease process itself. It’s a manifestation of the disease, not its cause. The British government created the chavs. The British people didn’t. The U.S. political string-pullers created Barack Obama. The American people didn’t.

If someone has the measles the spots all over him correspond to liberalism. The spots aren’t the cause of his measles. Something else is.

In pathology there’s disease with its symptoms and signs, and there’s pathogenesis, the cause of disease. Disease and pathogenesis are two entirely different things.

Liberalism is a symptom and a sign, not a cause. Furthermore, liberalism, in addition to being a miasma theory, is to an extent a mirage, a mirage created by those who control the media, since the ordinary people don’t agree with liberalism but aren’t given a chance to protest except by getting their deer rifles and spilling into the streets, and protesting that way, which they don’t want to do naturally. What’s going on gets blamed on liberalism but the people aren’t liberal. How does that work then? “Liberalism” is a mirage. The string-pullers have assigned “liberalism” to the people, the way you color an apple red or a leaf green in a coloring book. It’s not real.

That’s all I’ll say, except I think the main mechanism by which the Jews pull it off (the main one among a number of them) is, as I heard David Duke tell someone after his latest speech, through their monopoly control of the media (there are others but that’s the main one, the crucial one, the decisive one).

Right about here in the conversation JJR would typically say, “Their monopoly control of the media? You seem to know nothing about Jews: where there are two Jews there are five trillion different conflicting opinions and eighteen quintillion different conflicting pressure groups that immediately form and start pressuring government.” That’s right, except where certain issues are concerned: where certain issues are concerned those five trillion opinions and eighteen quintillion pressure groups that immediately form and start pressuring the government are not conflicting but uniformly in total agreement, every one of the five trillion and every one of the eighteen quintillion. On those issues there’s no internal Jewish-group disagreement, no internal conflict. One such issue is race-replacement of Eurochristians. With the countable-on-the-fingers-of-one-hand exceptions we all know and repeat often (Rabbi Meyer Schiller, Lawrence Auster, Chaim ben Pesach, and three others or something), race-replacement of Eurochristians is not only supported by Jews across the board (I’m talking about Eurosphere diaspora Jews, not Israelis, who of course don’t concern themselves with our immigration policies), it’s supported with an intensity, a fervor, comparable to the intensity and fervor associated with religion. I’m not saying our race-replacement is part of their religion (which one reader misunderstood me to be saying at one point), I’m saying the intensity of their support for our race-replacement is comparable to religious intensity — it’s my way of illustrating how intense their support for it is: it’s something which is very impressive to behold.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 03:31 | #

“Certainly, it does not add up in Sweden or Ireland, or in Prague now and Belgrade tomorrow.” (—GW)

Who runs the U.S. massively influences those countries the way who ran the Soviet Union massively influenced the USSR satellite countries.

Who runs the U.S.? And who runs the humungously powerful U.S. based NGOs such as Soros’ multiple tentacles, the big foundations such as Ford with immense international reach and influence, etc.? Whoever it is, that’s who runs Sweden, population eight million, Ireland, population three million, Prague, and Belgrade, in the sense in which Moscow ran Prague, East Berlin, Belgrade, Budapest, Warsaw, Riga, Vilnius, etc.: certain leeway is permitted, and certain leeway isn’t. Leeway on race isn’t. It’s coming from the ‘Kwa.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 04:02 | #

Forget who’s in charge on communism the way the Hungarians did in ‘56? That’s OK, a sharp reminder in the form of your boss’s tanks pulverizing your capital will be swift, to both sort you out and be a lesson to anyone else who might get funny ideas.

Forget who’s in charge on race (who’s in charge on the requirement that countries henceforth be multiracial/multicultural) the way the Serbians did in 1999? That’s OK, a sharp reminder in the form of your boss’s warplanes pulverizing your capital will be swift, to both sort you out and be a lesson to anyone else who might get funny ideas of having a monoracial monocultural nation.

The U.S. enforces race-replacement on Europe the way the USSR enforced communist theory and practice on its satellites. 1999 in the skies over Belgrade was the same as 1956 in the streets of Budapest and 1968 in those of Prague. You’re seeing the same thing, all three places: the power in charge whipping subordinates into line and in so doing keeping anyone else from pulling the same shenanigans, namely deviating from communism or deviating from race-replacement.

Are these subordinate countries controlling themselves? No, they’re being controlled. Are the other subordinate countries, the ones that weren’t directly bombed by warplanes or invaded by tank armies but saw what happened to those that were, controlling themselves? No, they understand what the threat is and are careful henceforth to conform and not make waves, be it on communism or on race-replacement.

Prague ‘68: The boss wants communism, so communism it is. Belgrade ‘99: The boss wants race-replacement, so race-replacement it is.

The naïve onlooker thinks they’re all doing it because they honestly want to, and are at liberty to change policy.

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:48 | #

Something to think about department:

The Jewish Criticism of Gentile Culture: A Reprise

“Do you remember, he asked me, what Lueger, the anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna, once said to the municipality of Vienna when a subsidy for the natural sciences was asked for? “Science? That is what one Jew cribs from another.” That is what I say about Ideengeschichte, history of ideas. (Isaiah Berlin, reflecting on a conversation with Lewis Namier; in Efron 1994, 13)

The material in the previous four chapters indicates that individuals who strongly identified as Jews have been the main motivating force behind several highly influential intellectual movements that have simultaneously subjected gentile culture to radical criticism and allowed for the continuity of Jewish identification. Together these movements comprise the intellectual and politi-cal left in this century, and they are the direct intellectual ancestors of current leftist intellectual and political movements, particularly postmodernism and multiculturalism.
Collectively, these movements have called into question the fundamental moral, political, and economic foundations of Western society. A critical feature of these movements is that they have been, at least in the United States, top-down movements in the sense that they were originated and dominated by members of a highly intelligent and highly educated group. These movements have been advocated with great intellectual passion and moral fervor and with a very high level of theoretical sophistication. Each movement promised its own often overlapping and complementary version of utopia: a society com-posed of people with the same biological potential for accomplishment and able to be easily molded by culture into ideal citizens as imagined by a mor-ally and intellectually superior elite; a classless society in which there would be no conflicts of interest and people would altruistically work for the good of the group; a society in which people would be free of neuroses and aggression toward outgroups and in tune with their biological urges; a multicultural paradise in which different racial and ethnic groups would live in harmony
214 The Culture of Critique
and cooperation—a utopian dream that also occupies center stage in the discussion of Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy in Chapter 7. Each of these utopias is profoundly problematic from an evolution-ary perspective, a theme that will be returned to in Chapter 8.

The originators of these movements were all vitally concerned with anti-Semitism, and all of the utopias envisioned by these intellectual and political movements would end anti-Semitism while allowing for Jewish group conti-nuity. A generation of Jewish radicals looked to the Soviet Union as an idyllic place where Jews could rise to positions of preeminence and where anti-Semitism was officially outlawed while Jewish national life flourished. The psychoanalytic movement and the Frankfurt School looked forward to the day when gentiles would be inoculated against anti-Semitism by a clinical priest-hood that could heal the personal inadequacies and the frustrations at loss of status that gentiles murderously projected onto the Jews. And the Boasians and the Frankfurt School and their descendants would prevent the develop-ment of anti-Semitic ideologies of majoritarian ethnocentrism.

Continued…

Posted by skeptical on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:51 | #

Guessedworker,

I took note of this quote from Lester Jones:

“However you spin it, what you want is to tell people how to think, who to love and what parameters they must adopt, parameters devised by you based on ideology and twisted ‘studies’.”

Ironically, this is precisely what a hegemonic liberalism is doing right now. Telling people what to think. Reminding us about who we can (and should!) now love. Justifying an ideology on fraudulent science while ruthlessly repudiating even the mildest hints of dissent (see James Watson).

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:59 | #

Fred,

First of all if you think Auster, Gottfried, Jim or Mark would approve of the direction of my ideas, you would be wrong. Auster, for example, has already condemned me. Mark left MR all that while ago because we are insufficiently conservative, to which I responded that he was stuck in a rut!

My thinking, which is a work in progress (and, given my limitations, is likely to stay that way), is more radical by orders of magnitude than the anti-semiticism of Alex Linder. If you read this MR thread you will see that Alex describes himself, without much conviction, as a libertarian - by which I presume he means a small-government and, no doubt, anti-federal conservative rather than a Popperian or anarcho-capitalist or whatever.

Almost every American WN one encounters seems to fit into that general category. What they cannot see is that the ideas which form American postmodernity also informed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and are the same ideas which found expression in revolutionary France and in the long-run, socialising politics of Whiggish England. Ultimately, they are derived from the continental rationalists and English empiricists of the 17th Century, and found their way into the revolutionary fervour of the Enlightenment through Kant and the German Idealists.

By way of an entertainment, I guess you could say that my argument here draws from a fairly “hard” rationalist approach, since it insists on deductive reason both to explain the present and plot a path into the future. Your argument draws from empiricism in that it insists on drawing conclusions from the experience of Jewish ethnocentric behaviours. Nothing, but nothing, is new.

The question for both of us is whether the political products and causes in which Jews have been active [and they are legion: Classical Marxism (1867), Critical Theory (1937), Postmodernism (1967), Freudianism (1900), Second-wave Feminism (1963), Second-Wave Libertarianism (1947), LBGT Rights (1969), American Civil Rights (1955), White Privilege (1990), White Abolitionism (1994), Open Borders and Immigration (1965), Neoconservatism (1979), Holocaustism (1970s), academic race denial (1910), promotion of miscegenation (1981), internet pornography(1990s) ...] are sufficient to explain the postmodern West by themselves, or whether those products and causes fit within the historical narrative and are dependent, albeit parasytically perhaps, upon its inherent dynamics of liberty, equality, justice and progress.

This is too large a question for a comment. I will give it some thought, and see how it might form the subject of a post.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:03 | #

By way of a synthesis of the post above and the direction the thread has taken, “unsanctimonious” tested the Guardian-reading left’s committment to Jewish ethnic interests today.

A young lady, apparently of Polish extraction, had written an article about Polish anti-semitisim. “Unsanctimonious” made a one-line comment: “Anti-semitism is reactive.”

A number of Jewish or liberal-left muscles went into spasm, and the usual insults, some more veiled than others, flew. All of them were against Talk Policy, but that didn’t seem to matter. “Unsanctimonious” made a few measured but detailed responses, quoting MacDonald and Nathan Abrams. None are now standing. More than that, every sign that “Unsanctimonious” had ever visited the thread was completely removed - a scorched earth policy extending even to the ID line:-

unsanctimonious

Aug 05 08, 2:37pm (11 minutes ago)

I test-commented to see whether another ban was in place. Yep ...

Thank you for your comment. This has been submitted for moderation

The problem is deep. I get the strongest feeling that it is impossible for Guardianistas to read a pro-European comment in the context of Jewish ethnocentrism. They simply cannot control Mr Pavlov. The emotional identity with Jewish ethnic interests is religious.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:45 | #

Their amygdalas have been reprogrammed.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:47 | #

“My thinking…is more radical by orders of magnitude than the anti-semiticism of Alex Linder.” -GW

That’s good to hear. If we can manage to take control of the system that our organizational and inventive genius gave birth to we can reinvigorate our people into the healthy, vital, confident race we ought to be. A race with its feet planted firmly on the ground yet with its eyes fixed on the horizon. Building micro-communities out in the woods, ultimately, ain’t going to cut it. If we can succeed in pulling our people back from the precipice’s edge there is no reason our new order should not last a thousand years. That will be our finest our.

Posted by Robert Reis on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:26 | #

From Ireland

Had enough of immigrants?

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=eiBPIHEAmig

The state of Ireland

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=dDy_hRR09zc&feature=PlayList&p=340C4265B6542C75&index=0

Answer Ireland’s call?

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=g4yPBO1KoNw

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:01 | #

Truly EXCELLENT videos posted above by Robert Reis! Everyone should watch AT LEAST the first one (watch all three if you’ve time!). Warmest congratulations to the Irish comrades who put those out!!! By the way, who cut the Catholic Church’s balls off? They’re an important force in Ireland and normally would be opposing at least that country’s Islamization if not its Negrification (we all know know they’re a lost cause on Negrification). Where are they? Not a peep out of them. Is it that they’re all homos now, and on board with the International Homintern where these issues are concerned (i.e., pro-nation-erasure)? Are they scared of the Jews? Have the Jews castrated the Catholic Church? What’s going on? And you’d think some saner faction in Sinn Fein would be setting off bombs by now. Where are the bloody Irish patriots who’ve just spent the last forty years bombing the English??? They’re infatuated with Negroes now??? What’s up, Sinn Fein??? Don’t you have a country to protect??? Incidentally, I don’t want just any goddamn immigration moratorium for Ireland. No. An immigration moratorium would leave all the partial race-replacement that’s already been accomplished by the George Soros NGO Kike-intern, and whoever the hell else is running this (Prof. Ferdinand von Whatsisname is in there, let’s not leave him out), in place as a fait accompli. Forget that shit. I want an immigration moratorium of all racial/ethnocultural incompatibles COUPLED WITH, YES, MASS EXPULSIONS: I want every man, woman, child, old person not of Irish or closely compatible blood sent packing back where he came from. AND I WANT THOSE IRISHMEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ATTEMPTED GENOCIDE ARRESTED AND CALLED PROPERLY TO ACCOUNT, AND LAST I HEARD, THE PRECEDENT SET FOR THAT CRIME AT NUREMBERG WAS THE GALLOWS.

“Had enough?,” the video asks. GOD DAMN STRAIGHT I’VE HAD ENOUGH. Irishmen knew how to throw off the English, they ought to know how to throw off the Jews, communists, and internationalists.

Posted by Guest on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:48 | #

Sinn Fein for some unfathomable reason does not see genetics. Maybe it was all that early Marxist babble that seems to have sunk in over the years.

When you have negroes as Norwegians competing in Olympics, well…

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments