|
|
|
False identity A few thoughts about an imaginary problem “Identity” is not a word that need ever pass our lips - not if we have zero respect for the liberal analysis, and wish to be free of its formative power. For this is a word of the left, and like all words of the left it pressages on us a modern conception of Man which is fatally light and relativistic. How so? Well, shouldn’t it be a grave and weighty responsibility for a man to define who and what he is? After all, modernity places the highest possible value on the individual, denying all bonds, all blood their primacy. To use the Schmittian formulation, “None but the individual shall dispose of the life of the individual.” Surely, then, that life should be sufficiently valued by its owner to imbue the exercise with a high seriousness and a desire for some specificity. Yet in practice the reverse is the case. We live in the Age of the Left. It is an age when realization of the Self, once the preserve of the religious and Chivalric orders, has been democratized and, in democratization, has been relativised. When the measure of a life is mere personal taste all claims are equal. There is salience but there is no depth. There is “progress” but there is no movement. Something vital, something authentic and original has fallen out of the equation. In the sociological sense what remains is the modern us and the meaning of us. For well over a century nationalist and traditionalist thinkers have judged that meaning in historical terms and found it wanting. The ineluctable conclusion is that we are moving away from our truth as men, and putting on the cloth of an increasingly artificial self. And we are doing this, most of us, because we are ignorant of politics and of ourselves, and we are weak and suggestible. Artificiality in the modern conception of Man (modern in the context of an industrialised and, later, consumerised society) is precisely a sign of lost being. It seems improbable, somehow, that the men and women of pre-industrial European societies, filled as those societies were with brothers to the ox, with men listed in the Orange and the Blue, and their widows in the pews, and the widows of the sea, would have had any reference point at all to the narcissism of a self-ascribed “identity”. Geoffrey Chaucer’s pilgrims assuredly did not define themselves according to their fascinations with the Self. They were fixed by their relation to kin, to the soil and the seasons or the tides and the wind, to the economy as manor, town or village, to Nature and to God. These were givers of riches aplenty for all but the high elites of the Court and Barony, of the Church, and of learning. Liberalism arose as a revolt against that order. By the time of Jane Austen, the first novel-writer and chronicler of the new leisured class, the constituency of the Self was already in evidence. Modernity can be interpreted as the process of that constituency’s democratization. It has spread out in our time to encompass even the human tragedy of transsexualism. That, too, can be an “identity” no less “valid” than any other, and no less worthy of our, of course, always assiduous non-judgementalism. There are a few liberal adventurers hoping that the democratization process won’t stop there. Within the EU, for example, a paedophile ramp is clothing its self-advocacy in a call for the reduction of the age of homosexual consent to sixteen. In the Guardian there have been articles advocating the legal extension of the principle of human rights to all animal life. But it seems to me that the confused chromosome is the constituency’s limit. Together with the elites’ distaste for political entanglement with paedophilia and animal rights extremism, it marks the boundary of our self-estrangement and the point where Nature makes its stand. Now, a moment ago I made the point that traditionalist thinkers have long revolted against modernity and sought to make their stand in the idealised dream-scape of an order of a reborn European spirit overseen by an ascetic, natural aristocracy. Obviously, if such an order was ever realized that would do for liberalism good and proper. No more constituency of the Self, no more non-judgementalism. But I firmly believe that beauty leads only to beauty, and to nothing else. This beautiful vision would produce more artifice, more reification of “identity”, more hollow “personality”. None of these things would be quite as harmful as the version we are living as children of liberalism. But neither would they be as good as a European order of the true! So, that’s the contribution of Idealist philosophy dealt with, basically. I can see no active continental European philosophy elsewhere - in de Benoist, for example. And I confess to puzzlement at Dugin. So what has American empiricism to say? Well, here is the leading empiricist in racial consciousness in America, talking to Tom Sunic at Voice of Reason radio last week:
MacDonald goes on to argue in this interview that the sense of racial consciousness is rising among America’s whites. “And it has to,” he says. That may be the case - Nature is making its stand. But I, for one, see insufficient agency in this very late development (by dint of insufficient philosophy, of course). I am also puzzled as to why such an able psychologist doesn’t do more to communicate his model of Man. Why the confusion over the relationship of our acquired personality and our natural being? How difficult can it be to elicit understanding of these, even over the radio? Something like:
Comments:2
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:43 | # Shall we call you Il Duce?
3
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:05 | # The beginning of legal harassment of the B.N.P. by the system. The fundamental freedoms of association, contract, speech, and conscience have been taken away from Britons in the name of diversity and tolerance… but let’s worry about those nasty fascists. Well, it looks like Britons already have full-blown fascism…how much worse could things get with the B.N.P. in authority? Well, a reasonable reply could be that since we already have fascism, let’s have pro-Briton fascism instead of having an anti-Briton fascism. At least the B.N.P.‘s fascism - if we accept their enemies’ hype - would safeguard the ethnic genetic interests of the natives. BNP faces legal threat over membership policies Equality watchdog accuses far-right party of three breaches of Race Relations Act Afua Hirsch and Matthew Taylor The BNP is facing the threat of an injunction from the official body on race discrimination, in what is believed to be the first such action against a political party. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the independent watchdog on discrimination, wrote to the BNP today stating that it believes the party is in breach of the Race Relations Act on three counts. “The legal advice we have received indicates that the British National party’s constitution and membership criteria, employment practices and provision of services to constituents and the public may breach discrimination laws which all political parties are legally obliged to uphold,” said the commission’s legal director, John Wadham. The letter gives the BNP until 20 July to provide written undertakings in response to the allegations, including a statement that it will not discriminate in party recruitment. Currently, BNP recruitment is open to members of the party who, according to its constitution, are of … “‘indigenous Caucasian’ and defined ‘ethnic groups’ emanating from that Race”. “The commission thinks that this requirement is contrary to the Race Relations Act, which outlaws the refusal or deliberate omission to offer employment on the basis of non-membership of an organisation, ” a statement released by the commission says. “The commission is therefore concerned that the BNP may have acted, and be acting, illegally.” Other potential breaches of the law raised in the letter include concerns that the BNP’s elected representatives may not intend to offer or provide services on an equal basis to all their constituents irrespective of race and their membership criteria. After the BNP won two seats in the European parliament earlier this month, the Guardian reported numerous grounds for legal challenge against the party. Lawyers said the BNP’s rise in public office would have increasing legal significance, including a possible investigation by the commission. The action by the commission is likely to have serious implications, and could lead to further measures, including an injunction against the party and possible legal challenges in court. “We await a response from the BNP to our letter before deciding what further action we may take, ” Wadham said. “Litigation or enforcement action can be avoided by the BNP giving a satisfactory response to our letter.” The controversial move is the first time the commission has used against a political party new enforcement powers it obtained after taking over from the former race watchdog, the Commission for Racial Equality, in 2007. The BNP said it had passed the letter on to its legal team. “We were expecting something like this but we are not too bothered. We are quite happy with our position,” a spokesman said. http://www.guardian .co.uk/politics/ 2009/jun/ 23/bnp-membershi p-policies- legal-threat/ print 4
Posted by Tanstaafl on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:10 | # MacDonald said:
I wouldn’t have said it before, but I do now. Confronted with such thoughts I would have changed the subject. Now I relish it. My biology didn’t change, it was my mindset. For lack of a better word I discovered my “identity”. “Identity” may be a neoliberal term, but the phenomenon it describes is real and powerful. With it “people of color” have been galvanized and united. Without it Whites have been weakened and divided. As MacDonald mentioned elsewhere in the interview: we are attacked as Whites, so it makes sense for us to organize and respond accordingly. Schmitt might say we don’t have to construct an “identity”, our enemies have already selected one for us. 5
Posted by Frank on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:16 | # You’ll notice GW followed that statement up with
Our identities are not chosen by us was his point, though I think in this day we almost have to play as magicians because we’ve been born into the abyss. As best we can we must gather up what’s left and make do… I realise we have Christ, but man doesn’t live by faith alone. 6
Posted by Frank on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:19 | # CC, my reply was to you. I was searching for an example of a pagan Gallic tribe that would kill the elderly and sick, but I gave up… What you say is outside man’s nature. It’s too much to expect of man except in the most extreme situations, unless of course you want to create a religion and bind him with a false faith, which of course seems very wrong. Outside of a false faith, I doubt you could get people to go that far in times of plenty. 7
Posted by Bo Sears on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:55 | # We Euro-Americans know who we are, but what most don’t know is how it happened and what to do to create a wedge in the dominant discourse, opening up the propaganda bubble we all live in. Every day in the newspaper, we read stories about different demographics including the diverse white American peoples. Every time we complete a job application, we are required to claim an identity (or, better yet, to re-state our best description of our genetic-based authentic self), we are required to state that we are white. The American census every ten years is particularly brutal, legally forcing everyone to declare their ethic identity. Applications for private high school, college, university, and scholarships force even an unwilling “white person” to declare their demographic identity. America, at least, is completely opposite from the thesis advanced above by MacDonald, “MacDonald goes on to argue in this interview that the sense of racial consciousness is rising among America’s whites.” There has been no time in the past 50 years when racial or demographic labels have not been imposed on us, and most usually to our detriment. Even those white persons who don’t want to advance an idea of a genetic-based authentic self have it rubbed in their faces every day. They just don’t know how it happened, and what to do about it. MacDonald, by the way, has recently advanced the theory that it is white persons who are responsible for the deleterious effects of the last five decades, but that is a claim falling into the category we call, “We’re Losers And We’re To Blame.” Shades of Steyn, Auster, Gottfried, and Sailer. MacDonald is not “the leading empiricist in racial consciousness in America,” he is the leading empiricist in Judeo-centric thought. Almost all his writings are about Jews (negative to be sure), but not white persons and histories. He is not a Euro-centric thinker, he is a Judeo-centric thinker and provides much to think about, but he has only the most confused ideas when he thinks about authentic Euro-Americans. Thinking about Jews and their histories does not necessarily develop sound ideas in thinking about European Americans. Instead of theory, we need everyday techniques for educating our kin and offering them a new vocabulary and new ideas through which they can represent themselves most authentically. If this involves words like “identity,” or techniques like deconstruction, all the better. 8
Posted by Bill on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:20 | # It’s summer, in Britain the tennis circus has hit town - it’s that Wimbledon time again. Why is it that the very liberal BBC is drumming up the customary hype of a British player becoming the first Wimbledon male champion since the 1930’s? The BBC are ritually hyping up the Scottish player Andy Murrary, who has just got through to the second round, and as, (and if) Murray progresses in the tournament, then the scale of hype and hysteria will increase accordingly. Why is it ok for us to fervently identify with our own type, white British male, in fact one would be classed as a traitor by the BBC for not cheer leading for Murray and Britain. I don’t get it. PS Note. Just take a good look at that (opulent) Wimbledon crowd, hideously white (liberal?) I would say. 9
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:38 | #
Actually it might be more accurate to say the opposite has happened. From around the 16th century up until the first couple of decades of the 20th, Europeans became increasingly conscience of their particular identities both within Europe and in context to the other races. Historically it is tyrants and despot hell bent on world domination who long to see a world where all races are equally subject to themselves.
Well, yes and no. It is psychological in that it require the ability to acquire information and process it in order to act upon it. In being psychological, it is the need or ability or encouragement to perceive that which is true in a biological, physical sense and consciously acknowledge it. In the inverse, if a plumber in New York chooses for himself the identity of Napoleon, he gets sent to the funny farm rather than formal acknowledgment by the UN and the people of France. ... 10
Posted by Bill on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:36 | # BNP faces legal threat over membership policies Nick Griffin talking John Snow - Channel 4 11
Posted by To:GuessedWorker on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:55 | # Hey GW - what do you think about the following article?—-> http://www.toqonline.com/2009/06/the-myth-of-our-regeneration/ 12
Posted by danielj on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:19 | # For a time, at least, there was a rational pursuit of a way to curtail a percentage of them Wars were also raged with rules and were limited in scope and objectives. 13
Posted by Frank on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:40 | # Dog, Cat, and Rat identify as a group and decide they’re all of one species… If they were ever to play together, they could really hurt each other, especially the rat. And they likely misinterpret each others’ behaviors frequently. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:11 | #
The basic point being made there by The Narrator is an excellent one. Furthermore, what is commonly referred to as “modernity” is fifty-percent simply Jewish-preferred degenerateness forced on people who’d rather be normal but are brainwashed not to be; are in the last analysis made to understand they are not permitted to be. The Walt Disney Company was normal. Michael Eisner’s Jewish Walt Disney Company is not, but it is “more modern.” More “modern” means simply more Jewish, more “the way the Jews like it.” It doesn’t mean more modern. Modern may well be how the Jews don’t like it, for all we know. It may well be how The Narrator in the excerpt just above says things were which got called retrograde by the “modernizers” but were really modern. Exactly who were those “modernizers” who called what was modern “retrograde”? Who were they? The Lord of the Rings movies are normal. The Jews consider them “anti-Semitic.” (They of course are no such thing.) If the Jews had made them in a way they considered “not anti-Semitic” the result would have been abnormal, painful, unwatchable, and “more modern.” “More modern” there would mean “more the way the Jews like it.” So “modern” isn’t modern, it’s just the way Jews like it. Jews who don’t like it will reply, “But I’m a Jew and I hate it.” The response to such Jews is, “I’m on your side, but Jews who love it and insist on it and will accept nothing else are 99.999999999999999999% of your tribe. If a giraffe is found that has a short neck or a Chinaman who has matte blonde wavy hair we still say ‘Giraffes have long necks’ and “Chinamen have glossy black straight hair.’ ”
Another excellent point. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:39 | # My main concern with MacDonald is his apparent view that Jews are more indoctrinable than us. I, on the contrary, have long held that indoctrinability is a characteristic of cultures that are more subject to selective pressures of frontiers of the human ecological range. Indeed, indoctrinability is a characteristic of Man as the Moral Animal for the simple reason that Morality and Technology are indistinguishable. There is nothing Moral about the animal’s behavior—there are merely degrees of genetic adaptation. Technology, on the other hand, requires understanding and following vital rules—rules that may mean life or death for the self and for kin within environments of evolutionary non-adaptation—rules that simply have not been around long enough for them to be encoded into our genes. Returning to MacDonald and the Jews, it is more plausible in my world view than in MacDonald’s that one of the reasons Jews have placed matriline above patriline in the definition of who is a “Jew” except in the priest lineage is that Europeans are more indoctrinable than Jews, and so it is important to keep the more indoctrinable alliances of their genes under indoctrination. Now, having said all that, there is the real question for Man: What Technology—what Morality—has Value? 16
Posted by Q on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:46 | #
Here in the USA, B’nai B’rith International and its “civil liberties” enforcement arm, ADL, are, as we speak, pushing for “hate crimes” legislation that would extend protection to pedophiles: http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/foulhbhearingrigged.htm http://www.truthtellers.org/index.html Call your senitors and voice your opposition today! 17
Posted by notuswind on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:39 | # GW,
One of the primary reasons for our confusion is that Euro-Americans lack the requisite language needed in order to talk about our primeval identities. And on the rare occasion when the average American White considers such things what is most likely to come to mind are the usual implanted phantasms symbolizing pure hate (Nazi Germany et al). It is in this way that an ideologically hegemonic liberalism has been able to hold American society together, which is to say by tightly constricting allowable discourse and by placing fabricated bogeymen as psychological roadblocks in front of the mental highways that lead to liberalism’s escape (not to mention knowledge of our primeval nature). 18
Posted by ABC on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:01 | # JB: “What Technology—what Morality—has Value?”
D-load Man and Technics for free.
19
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:20 | #
James, what part of MacDonald’s work do you think suggests this? Is it that Jews are apparently more willing to adopt a group evolutionary strategy? We’ve been indoctrinated to completely give up any group strategy we had and effectively vaccinated against any new forms, however mild in historical terms. I’m not sure who’s more indoctrinable. 20
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:31 | #
Isn’t that proof of James point. From at least Deuteronomy to now Jews, despite constant efforts (the Maccabees etc.), have never given up their group strategy. However, I’m not sure about his point regarding technology. If we fix the end of the Malthusian trap at the Industrial revolution, the well-spring of technology, we potentially see, per Clark’s replacement argument, selective non-group pressures that led to the evolution of a people who were evolved to apply the rules. 21
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:53 | # Great post, GW.
But the neural basis of implicit attitudes on race suggests it is inborn (MacDonald himself wrote about this). Accepting it (as Tan describes) is opening oneself to the ground of our racial Being. Heidegger calls this the event of appropriation whereby man and Being reach each other in their nature. GW, if you don’t have it, you should get a hold of ‘Identity and Difference’. I think it will resonate with you. 22
Posted by Dasein on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:01 | #
Sure, I just don’t know that MacDonald suggests anywhere that Jews are more indoctrinable. I’d like to hear James’ reasons for saying that. 23
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:55 | # In CHAPTER SIXTEEN from Indoctrinability, Ideology, and Warfare: Evolutionary Perspectives Book by Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Frank Kemp Salter; Berghahn Books, 1998 MacDonald appears to suggest that Jewish indoctrination has an evolutionary component. In addition, he writes that the existence of such a group strategy will create a response from out groups, (anti-Semitic movements). Maybe it’s not more or less able to be indoctrinated but one has an evolutionary component and one has not. It’s why Auster rejects MacDonald. 24
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:46 | # I agree with MacDonald’s observation regarding the tendency to deify rabbis and that it has an evolutionary component since rabbis had the power of life and death over Jews in enough of their history for it to produce genetic predispositions. I don’t call this “indoctrinability” though. Indoctrinability isn’t focused on a person but on a doctrine. Jews are morally nimble—they can adapt and flex their interpretation of any doctrine to suit what is “good for the Jews”—not through power of reason, but through the power of sophisticated rationalization in service of adaptive instinct. We aren’t that way—doctrines can be far more deadly to us. 25
Posted by GenoType on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:51 | #
They’re in captivity, much as we are. 26
Posted by Q on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:22 | #
But joining a microcommunity is freedom? Sounds Orwellian to me. 27
Posted by Q on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:49 | # But on second thought: If joining a microcommunity insulates your psyche from the lunacy of white liberals, then I’m all for it! 28
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:27 | # Maybe I didn’t read closely enough, but I don’t share McDonald’s somewhat grim view of the plasticity of identity. Euros haven’t had their identity dissolved - they’ve had it subverted. American whites aren’t actually devoid of racial identity - their racial identity is self-abnegation. In other words, the first rule of being white is, you don’t talk or think about being white (but in a certain context). We don’t need to grow a new limb here, just take the restraints off the perfectly good one we already have. 30
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:20 | #
Brilliant. I’ve been in a transition period lately and that was a timely link. Thank you very much.
To add to Mr. O’Meara’s (brilliant brave Paddy that he is!) thoughts:
The peoples of the world deserve to be free from genocide, be it swift and loud or slow and quiet; if European men fail to secure their own freedom, then the efforts of all other men, be they Jews in Israel or blacks in Africa or yellows in Asia, to do the same are doomed to fail as well. European man’s struggle for freedom and sovereignty is that of every human being on Earth. We have work to do. European man’s destiny is to take the human race to the stars, but we can’t do this until we get our house in order. Otherwise civilization will collapse and mankind will be thrown into a dark age. 32
Posted by Frank on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:25 | #
It’s good to stay away from cultists, perverts, and losers; but staying within the system is truly Orwellian. We’re in 1984 right now. 33
Posted by Q on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:28 | # Newsflash! The world will carry on without European men. 34
Posted by Q on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:36 | #
1984 on steroids ... but only in the Eurosphere. 35
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:14 | #
Newsflash! If European man doesn’t secure his own freedom and security, he’ll take them from the rest of the world, too. 36
Posted by Q on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:32 | #
Ask any Chinaman or Bantu or Arab or Mestizo etc. and see if he/she cares. 37
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:07 | # Frank, the only thing that really defines a “cult” in the sense you mean the word is keeping adults from leaving with their children. 38
Posted by Q on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:23 | # More Jewish inspired malfeasance: http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Housing/idUSTRE55L39120090622 39
Posted by Frank on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 06:43 | # James Bowery, That would raise an alarm with me. There might be other things to fear if some idealist is secretly dreaming of fulfilling some desire - ah maybe a mystic or again a pervert or someone who just wants to boss people around via religious authority (e.g. Masons). I don’t have a problem with Asatru or any other groups seeking to rediscover their lost pagan roots even if I don’t find God there myself. But I’d probably be very wary of someone attempting to create a new religion, unless at least it was built on reality and not lies. There’s lots of things to watch out for, but it’s probably all common sense. - Btw, I very much like the TOQ article linked by “To:GuessedWorker”. I wonder if a work of fiction portraying characters building such an ideal society wouldn’t be potent. Maybe we should all work on our writing and drawing ability, eh? 40
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:34 | # Frank, maybe it would help a bit if I better defined my terms. What I mean by “keeping adults from leaving” is to include making leaving impractical as, for instance, most governments do today by monopolizing all land and promoting uniform international law. 41
Posted by Warm Evolution on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:35 | # - “Evolution faster when it’s warmer” - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8115464.stm Could explain why there us so much more genetic diversity amongst equatorial Africans as opposed to White Europeans and Asians who live in colder northern climates. 42
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:23 | #
I have not and do not advocate that, Frank. Shame on you for insinuating that I do. 43
Posted by Multiracial societies = more conflict on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:23 | # READ: http://www.globalpolitician.com/25700-multiculturalism-ethnic-minorities-human-rights 44
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:04 | #
Selection pressure is much greater in colder climes. Lower selection pressure and you get more diversity. 45
Posted by Please help me set up pro-White Wiki website on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:50 | # Hello - I am wondering how I should go about setting up a pro-White Wiki website focused on gathering raw data about Jewish people, Jewish statistics, articles about Jews, etc? What server(s) should I use where the Wiki will not be eventually be censored or deleted? (should I use the same server majorityrights.com or other non censored websites is based on?) Where do I buy or get the domain name from? How do I install the Wiki software on the website that I buy? It’s getting the foundation laid for the website I don’t know how to do, but once it is up and running using the Wiki is very easy. Can anyone here help? If so, please respond here or email me at freespeechforever76 [at] yahoo [dot] com. Thanks for any assistance that you can provide. 46
Posted by Q on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:42 | #
You can do that right here at MR. Just go up to the top right hand corner and click on WIKI ... then get to writing. 47
Posted by Frank on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:52 | # “I have not and do not advocate that, Frank. Shame on you for insinuating that I do. “ I didn’t insinuate that you did… 48
Posted by Frank on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:22 | # CC, it benefits the group to kill the elderly and sick. Logically, such a policy would be beneficial under a society with poor understanding of medicine and limited resources to give to the elderly. However, acting on such logic would be difficult and would require a hardening of the heart that few could do during times of plenty. 49
Posted by Dasein on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:50 | # Frank, this is naive social Darwinism. Having a heart can be adaptive. 50
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:29 | #
Frank, it is good that you come here and take advantage of GW’s open door, free speech policy so that you can fully empty your spleen of its misconceptions of WN. That opportunity would not be granted at a, er, other blog I could mention. Just men need not God to be just. 51
Posted by Frank on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:52 | # “Having a heart can be adaptive. “ I know that… I was talking about specific circumstances. “misconceptions of WN” Nationalism doesn’t necessarily stand for harsh policies. I was responding to your particular post - which you instigated. I don’t seem to ever be able to communicate with you - for me to write something is for you to misunderstand me. 52
Posted by Frank on Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:54 | # “take advantage of GW’s open door, free speech policy” If I’m ever in breach of GW’s policies, I’ll shape up as best I can. It’s not my desire to be a bother, and I have no rights here as a commenter and a guest. 53
Posted by Frank on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:16 | #
A man with a keyboard had this to say on the Inuit:
That doesn’t mean the Eskimos had no hearts. I’m not saying that at all. 54
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:32 | #
Nationalism stands for what is necessary to preserve the nation, otherwise it is meaningless.
What is the point then of bringing up the slaughter of the weak and elderly in connection with my post if you don’t fear my brand of nationalism will lead ineluctably to that? You are a Nordicist (and just because you don’t call yourself that doesn’t mean it ain’t so), Frank. You hinted at the possible repatriation of the Black descendants of slaves to Africa, Frank. What? Are you trying to instigate something, Frank?
I see no substantive disagreements between us. Now that you are here, and you allow yourself the leeway to speak more frankly (pun intended), you will find that WN, or whatever you care to call it, was where you should have been all along, which is what I have been trying to communicate to you all along. Whatever deprecations you may see fit to adorn yourself with, you obviously have a brain, why not use it to full advantage and do your part for your people? Faileoconservatism is a death sentence, and everything you yourself have typed here leads me to believe you have read the writing on the wall. 55
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:39 | #
And Adolf Hitler mused about instituting polygamy for the benefit of the continuity of the German people near war’s end after all the German men had been slaughtered, assuming Germany could managed to halt the advance of the barbarians. Martin Luther suggested polygamy would be acceptable under some circumstances as well. So what? 56
Posted by Frank on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:55 | # “What is the point then of bringing up the slaughter of the weak and elderly in connection with my post if you don’t fear my brand of nationalism will lead ineluctably to that?” It was a particular example of acting to serve the group interest. It just came to mind - I wasn’t intending to associate it with you. My intended point was if you tried to act in the group interest at the expense of the individual it would be difficult in times of plenty. When you said “Also his life, when not in service of the kinship group, is arguably valueless. ” - that sounds pretty harsh. I was compelled to point out that people don’t like that sort of view except when in harsh circumstances where the group really is threatened. It’s common sense, sure, but everything I post is and probably the same for 95% of posters here too… - “you will find that WN, or whatever you care to call it, was where you should have been all along, which is what I have been trying to communicate to you all along.” I’ve posted the same sort of views since around ah 2001, maybe earlier, at Chronicles. If my earliest comments are available in some archive there you’ll find me taking a very strongly racial view, and a very pro-South view. I haven’t changed, not even progressed (learned more) I fear. I behave myself when posting at friends’ blogs… I’m just not as blatant about my views, but everyone knows where I stand. “leads me to believe you have read the writing on the wall. “ I read the writing a long time ago. I declared to myself in college that my purpose was to live as R. E. Lee and serve the South as best I can. And I don’t see much hope - things look very dire, and yes the South = the white South, though I honestly wish to treat the blacks humanely. I am in need of further study, and I do benefit from reading sites like majorityrights with so many bright minds; but I’m fully “awake” to the reality at hand I think. Most every sane Southerner sees the approaching problem. Were it not for the flood of white Yankees, we’d already be in deep trouble because the blacks are out breeding us rapidly. Also, Mexicans/other Latins are pouring in. I understand what this means and what these people will do to me and my kin, and what they’ve done in other parts of the world. I and every other sane, competent native white in the South understand this. I might be slaughtered, but I’ll be slaughtered having at least seen it coming. 57
Posted by Frank on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:06 | # Only part of paleoconservatism is problematic. Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, Tom Piatak, Dr. Trifkovic, Middle American News, etc. - lots of people who aren’t even coming to mind right now. There is a part of the paleos that are very much on America’s side even if they find themselves among others. I actually learned a great deal from Dr. Fleming even though I obviously didn’t embrace his view of race. There’s a lot of value even among those who would oppose a more racial movement. I understand how those who are more racially oriented would quarrel with Fleming, but I don’t understand quarreling with other paleos. Conservatism was very racial, and “paleoconservatism” is simply “old conservatism” before the neocons entered the scene. If anything, it’s the more liberal paleos who aren’t paleo. 58
Posted by Race on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:25 | # CaptainChaos:Nationalism stands for what is necessary to preserve the nation, otherwise it is meaningless. Historically, it has stood for well in excess of that. Frank:I am in need of further study, and I do benefit from reading sites like majorityrights with so many bright minds; but I’m fully “awake” to the reality at hand I think. Racialist discussion takes place on many other sites than dedicated racialist ones. I fail to see any substantive difference between the racialist discussion that takes place at the communist Robert Lindsay’s from the racialism that takes place here. Posters to dedicated racialists sites believe that their racial constitution and racial passion endows them with special insight into the issues and confers special value on those insight, but the truth is neither is the case. Of course, they don’t see it that way and they “ban” you—as though banning you from their own little neck of the woods can ban discussion of them elsewhere or has any effect on the value of the ideas you have put forth. 59
Posted by Frank on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:53 | # “Of course, they don’t see it that way and they “ban” you—as though banning you from their own little neck of the woods can ban discussion of them elsewhere or has any effect on the value of the ideas you have put forth. “ Well, we don’t all to have to agree on everything to find common cause, and on certain issues to learn from each other. Though at the same time, it’s sometimes best to have a membership where everyone agrees on some level. More would get accomplished if there were more individual action and less finger pointing and complaining. Rather than asking others to act differently, each person ought to act on his own, with his own friends and resources. Part of the problem might be the nature of blogging. I know if I blog a lot during a day my concentration diminishes for whatever reason. 60
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:39 | # On the subject of naive Dawinism: a naive Darwinist might suggest that a woman who is about to ovulate should have sex with several men, as the strongest sperm will fertilize the egg. In beetles, at least, such behaviour would be maladaptive: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5935/1705 It’s very easy for eugenecists to concoct breeding schemes, but we should be skeptical of naive Darwinism. Traditional ‘best practice’ is a better guide for WNs. 62
Posted by James König on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:27 | #
“Negroids” are not a race, but highly diverse group of hybrids between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus which arose from migrations of Homo sapiens into Africa. There is as much genetic variation between populations of “Negroids” as there is between your so-called “races” for this reason. Negroids are not only not a race, they aren’t even human. 63
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:10 | #
Im really not sure thats true and if it isnt - its no help to us to propagate such an idea. 64
Posted by Frank on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:07 | # “Traditional ‘best practice’ is a better guide for WNs. “ If referring to me, I’ve never supported anything else. I was previously talking in hypothetical in response to CC. However, in unique circumstances it is possible for the scenario I described to arise. Depending on the circumstances, there can be varying best responses. I… have never dreamt of killing sick people, nor the elderly. Going down the same vein, while every part of the state ought to serve the state, I fully understand this does not necessitate socialism, and that socialism can actually be a naive oversimplification that assumes only centralised control can ensure all parts are best serving the whole when the reality is not so. Because of this, I am not a socialist even though I’m a nationalist. And returning the original topic, I don’t support naive social darwinism even though I do generally support eugenics to the extent it preserves a population from genetic decline, or at least a euphemism meaning the same thing as eugenics. 65
Posted by Jews Hoisted on Their Own Petard on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:25 | # Jewish school broke race laws by barring boy whose mother ‘was not a Jew’ By Laura Clark A leading Jewish state school broke race rules by refusing admission to a child who was not officially Jewish, judges said yesterday. The landmark ruling will force dozens of Jewish schools to tear up their admissions policies to avoid breaching race laws. It will also be studied by other faiths after claims that the judgment could have implications for all schools which select pupils on the grounds of religion. The heavily over-subscribed orthodox Jews’ Free School, now known as JFS, stipulates in its admissions policy that it will give priority to children whose mothers are Jewish or who have converted under the Chief Rabbi’s rules. Judaism is passed on through the maternal line, or through conversion. But it refused admission to a 12-year-old boy because his mother was not born to the Jewish faith. She had converted - but the conversion was not recognised by the Chief Rabbi because it had been in a progressive rather than an orthodox synagogue. The Appeal Court judges ruled that this amounted to racial discrimination, saying it was illegal for Jewish schools to reject pupils on the grounds that their mother was not Jewish. The school, which was backed by the Government and the United Synagogue, insisted its admissions policies have ‘nothing to do with race and everything to do with religion’. But Lord Justice Sedley, sitting with Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Rimer, said: ‘The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or by conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act 1976.’ They said the school would be within its rights to prioritise practising Jews because the law allows faith schools to select pupils on the basis of their religion. JFS governors said they intend to appeal to the House of Lords. Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks criticised the judges’ ruling, saying: ‘The principles underlying membership of the Jewish faith have been maintained consistently throughout Judaism’s long history, as has our duty to educate our children in the principles and practice of the faith itself. ‘Ethnicity is irrelevant to Jewish identity, according to Jewish Law.’ The United Synagogue, which has spent £150,000 on legal fees, said it would have a ‘very serious effect on all Jewish schools’. There are fears that pupils previously rejected on similar grounds could now sue schools that refused them. Nearly all other Jewish schools operate similar admissions policies. There are 40 in the state sector alone. JFS, whose president is Lord Levy, a close ally of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, moved five years ago from Camden, North London, to Kenton, Harrow. Mr Blair opened the new buildings. The case against it was brought by the father of a 12-year-old boy identified only as M. He was born to a father of Jewish ethnic origin as well as Jewish faith and an Italian mother who was born a Catholic but converted to Judaism before his birth. The parents are now divorced and M lives with his father. Both are said to actively participate in the local Jewish synagogue. M’s solicitor, John Halford, said: ‘JFS admits the children of atheist or practising Christian parents whose mothers happened to be born Jewish, but denies entry to children like M who practise Judaism, but whose mothers’ conversions are not recognised by the office of the Chief Rabbi. ‘The ending of this practice, which has caused great distress to many families, is long overdue.’ http://www.dailymai l.co.uk/news/ article-1195499/ Jewish-school- broke-race- laws-barring- boy-mother- Jew.html# 66
Posted by Dasein on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:44 | # Frank, it was just an open comment, not directed at anyone in particular. 67
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:15 | # Lurker: Im really not sure thats true and if it isn’t - its no help to us to propagate such an idea. It’s not at all true. Fossilized remains of Homo Erectus are found all over, the largest cache being in China. Modern Africans are the youngest race anywhere. Finds attributed to them are only 15,000 years old, and the age of the race is put at not much more than 20,000 years. Not too many Homo Erectus surviving in Africa 20,000 years ago. What Mr Koenig’s remark does is to illustrate one important point, which is why it’s still on the page. As an expression of negative emotion it leads us absolutely nowhere, as Lurker says. It can be disproved in seconds, it can damage the image of white survivalism in less. It’s on the page still for one reason only: people who read it will read the remarks which follow. 68
Posted by Jewish Lies on Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:27 | # Quote from that above article…more Jewish lies:
69
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:20 | #
Keep that in mind the next time you see fit to criticise National Socialism and total reconquest of the North American continent. You do realize that with a racial partition all of our extant American Negroes will be deposited there. Leaving Southerners with what? That’s right, nada, as far as any of your ideals are concerned. Are you willing to see the South conceded like that? I doubt it, although I seriously doubt your own personal courage in being prepared to fight to the last man to ensure your continued possession of it. Without total reconquest, and the cleansing of North America of the vast majority of non-Whites the preservation of the South is not viable. And yet you see fit to hamstring me in my tenacious advocacy for that idea. What are you thinking? When presented with the specter of open extermination of our people, we will have all the justification we need to galvanize our own people to act to accomplish what I propose. At that point, we can be satisfied with nothing less than total victory even if the total destruction of our enemies be necessary. If that makes you flinch, if that makes you cower, just remember, remember what you yourself have said, they want to or don’t care if we are exterminated. If they want to play that game they should be prepared to pay in kind. 70
Posted by Q on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:57 | # WOW! Captainchaos, with that last post, you’ve just earned a promotion to Generalchaos (five star). My saying that in no way should be construed as criticising Frank. 71
Posted by Q on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:05 | # ‘Cap and Trade’ just past in the House. HELLO THIRD WORLD AMERICA!!!! 72
Posted by Q on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:11 | # Amnesty for 30 million aliens is next. Plus the destruction of our health care system to boot! 73
Posted by Frank on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:03 | # Part of the South can survive. It is not an all or nothing issue. Survival is all I’m focusing on. I see no benefit from talking of reconquest and national socialism - that approach is guaranteed to fail. 74
Posted by Frank on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:19 | # CC, “If that makes you flinch, if that makes you cower, just remember, remember what you yourself have said, they want to or don’t care if we are exterminated.” It’s possible to secure a part of the US to survive on. Right now we need to promote European-American pride in all its flavours, the deportation of illegals, and the end to affirmative action and prevention of hate speech and gun laws. Any message that will win people over is worthwhile, and reconquest blathering (which could even land someone n prison) isn’t going to win people over - nor will delusions of NS becoming popular. - 1950 came and went. 1865 came and went. We can’t return to the past or pretend the situation is different than it is. We’ve lost so much, we’re continuing to lose more at a rapid rate, and we can’t just have a tantrum and demand our parents give it back. What’s lost might be gone forever - survival is the goal. The way to lose right now is to portray American nationalism (that is white American nationalism) as somehow violent and unpleasant. We’re the one’s on the defense, not the offense. We’re the ones seeking to restore sanity, to uphold morality, to restore order and peace, etc., etc. The South Africans sought out apartheid, and we can as well. There’s no need for the nonwhites of America to unite against us - they can see us as the natural leaders, and as trustworthy neighbors who simply want a piece to survive on. If they unite against us, we could be run out. - “Frank, it was just an open comment, not directed at anyone in particular.” Glad to hear it. Haha, I didn’t want to come across as being a monster. 75
Posted by Frank on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:32 | # I’d said previously that we oughtn’t criticise those on the right, but there are exceptions - when those who disagree really are in the wrong and really need to be criticised. Worse than apathy, worse than doing nothing, would be to broadcast a desire for reconquest and NS. The only thing worse than this would be to actually attack some nonwhite. People who do that type of thing are greater enemies of white Americans than La Raza, Obama, the SPLC, and all the other anti-American types. The SPLC wants these violent right wingers so badly that it works to create them. Similarly, this Canadian Jewish Congress used Nazi claims to pass hate laws. Is the Jewish Congress secretly part of the white reconquest too? They must be because they’re pursuing the same strategy you seem to like. - I don’t think badly of you, but I do think it’s vital to strongly oppose you here. 76
Posted by The Jews are a Highly Ethical People on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:28 | # In Canada, organized Jewry funded and organized a bogus Nazi party to pass anti-free speech legislation. Why did the Jewish Congress build up the Nazi Party? http://ezralevant.com/2009/04/why-did-the-jewish-congress-bu.html 77
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:00 | # This Ezra Levant log entry posted in the comment above is instructive and a good read: http://ezralevant.com/2009/04/why-did-the-jewish-congress-bu.html . The realization one comes to after reading it (if one didn’t realize this already) is all organizations of a certain type must be riddled with federal agents and agents working for the Jews (ADL, $PLC, AJC, etc.), and that includes the top leadership of such organizations. And if the top leadership of such organizations is riddled with agents working for the feds and the Jews it means the “threats” by which the federal government (pushed by the Jews) justifies its manifold totalitarian overreach are created by the federal government and the Jews themselves and never really existed, or not nearly to the degree claimed. 78
Posted by Q on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:48 | # More Jewish attacks on free speech cloaked in “tolerance” http://www.truthtellers.org/index.html The journey into Thirdworldism in leaps and bounds ... thanks to you know who: 1) Brown v Board of Education 2) Civil Rights act of 1964 3) Immigration Act of 1965 4) Roe v Wade 1973 >soon to come< 5) Cap and Trade (i.e. massive tax increase) 6) Amnesty for 30 million non-white illegal aleins - plus the multiplying factor of chain migration 7) Orwellian Hate Speech laws 8) Socialized health care 9) Ban on private ownership of firearms. —————————- There’s much more that can be added to the list, but you get the picture. Those bastards conquerd us without even firing a shot! 79
Posted by fellist on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:13 | # Memo from Adorno and Horkheimer to a colleague describing their plans for a film:
Memorandum on a motion picture project, April 27, 1943, Max Horkheimer-Archiv, II, 10, 397 80
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:11 | # RR - That ebay link goes nowhere. I tried using the item number and again, no deal. 81
Posted by GenoType on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:36 | #
They built a faux-nazi party to secure donations from alarmists (both jew and gentile) and to control the opposition, much as they have done in Amurrica over the past 55 years.
Given a choice between social racialism and capitalist multiracialism, paleos choose the latter. They are exercised about multiracialism, but racialism is secondary to preserving social status and access to easy money. That is why paleo solutions to multiracialism are limited to a combination of two or more of the following: 1. Persuading whites to vote us out of this mess at the national level. ‘Taint gonna happen. 1. There can be no overthrow of the two-party system without “grass-roots” political organization. 82
Posted by GenoType on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:34 | # Q the drunken Onlooker writes:
Intentional communities are voluntary associations. The microcommunity is a voluntary association of family, near-kin, and long-term friends. People estranged from family and without genuine friends in the real world have trouble understanding this. Orwellian is joining a military organization to “fight for freedom.” Orwellian or not, such a thing is often necessary. 83
Posted by Q on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:13 | # Clayton Bigsby, white black-supremacist writes: “People estranged from family and without genuine friends in the real world have trouble understanding this.” As he eats a bowl of his own BS and washes it down with kool aid laced with wishful thinking ... at a table for one. Heh heh heh 85
Posted by Frank on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:52 | # GenoType,
Not all of them. Which would Buchanan choose I wonder? There’s no sense in attacking “paleos” as a group as CC does when the attacks truly only apply to a part, and a minority part at that. Paleos are not analogous to the faux right Tory Party - there are faux rightists who call themselves paleo, but the entirety is not so. (By “rightist” I mean a sort of nationalist, even if it’s the sort who rejects the term “nationalist” even while largely embracing the concept.) 86
Posted by Q on Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:14 | # Frank, when Pat Buchanan is no longer with us, how long will the paleo list be? I bet you could write the names on a 1/4 inch by1/4 inch peice of paper. So what’s all this talk about Paleos for? 87
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:54 | #
That will never happen. They do not want to cooperate with us, they want to dispense with us. Recognize us as their racial superiors and grant us White supremacy? LOL! You must be kidding. GT does not come out in support of total conquest as blatantly as I, but he has made statements in the past that amount to his support for actualizing the idea when realistically achievable. A rump ethno-state wherein we will cram a hundred million or so Whites, destroying the wilderness areas and quality of life of said which is dependent upon low population density, simply will not do. I do not reject the tact of not speaking on total reconquest just so long as when we can, we do it damnit, and by any means necessary. Give up vast tracts of North America to the muds and actually honor the agreement in perpetuity? That is an abomination. That is to spit in the face of all that is noble and civilized - which is dependent upon the protection of our blood and living space. 88
Posted by Frank on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:02 | # “So what’s all this talk about Paleos for? “ In addition to PJB you have Chilton Williamson, Jr. and Peter Gemma, Peter Brimelow, Tom Piatak as I’d said (no trade protectionist isn’t a nationalist at heart), Jim Kalb, Dr. Trifkovic (though a Serb he’s pretty solid), and many others. They all tolerate racial orientation - Fleming was running an ad for Francis’s last book in Chronicles - even if they disagree. Their impact is not all that large that they compete for mass appeal as CC seems to believe. And you’ve got EconomyInCrisis and NumbersUSA which both do a lot of good as activist organisations even though they’re not racial. Only a complete nut would say these organisations are not effective. The BNP responded (in a TV broadcast) to Peter Hitchens by trying to win him over rather than attacking him because they saw in him an ally. I mean really, what about the BNP does Hitchens (not his brother) actually have a problem with? We (a more racial right) are the future of the American right, no one doubts that; but there’s no sense in dividing and being conquered. If the right is to continue to grow and make an impact, it cannot chase away would be supporters. There’s no word for it but insanity. Frank Roman (not me) recently wrote: “your method absolutely has to fire on all eight cylinders (wherever you are with what you have) or you might as well just park it”, and I think that’s very much the truth. Linder was recently attacking Buchanan, which makes me wonder if Linder hasn’t… read Buchanan’s books. Buchanan is a [euphemism for white American nationalist]. It’s fun to blame other people, but what has Linder accomplished relative to Buchanan? Would the US actually be better off had Buchanan never entered the scene? Nonsense. Reagan, Nixon, and Goldwater did damage but not Buchanan. It’s as if Nick Griffin were attacking Enoch Powell. Margaret Thatcher was an evil witch, but Enoch Powell is deserving of high honour. It shouldn’t be all that difficult to distinguish between witches and patriots. 89
Posted by Frank on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:19 | # Roman might have meant that with regard to putting everything one has into the fight rather than what I intended which was clear thinking… - CC, ideal strategies change with circumstances. Whether a policy is right or wrong or otherwise best depends on all the various particulars. I don’t expect blacks to be won over easily, and obviously winning over whites is vastly more important; but how have the Jews acted up till now? The “priestly tribe” as some call them attack with quasi-religious appeals, and we must respond with our own. Whom do the blacks serve politically? Often Jews. Who began the NAACP? Politics is not a place for honour. It is a dirty plane of war fit for demons and savages, men who at best have sold their very souls for the people and God they serve, and at worst serve only pleasure. Dishonesty is the rule. If you dream of reconquest, my sincere advise is to not talk about it. Politics is no place for Christians and noble pagans, and anyone else who values his soul and honour. At the front of I. Kristol’s 1983 book Reflections of a Neoconservative, he has the following quotes:
GenoType wrote:
That’s a VERY good point. - Kristol writes in the intro of the same book (these are my own quotes btw):
Reconquest is an abomination in breach of the present best ideology, which is religious in nature. 90
Posted by Frank on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:41 | # I’m not saying I secretly dream of reconquest but that in either case the best strategy right now is to not talk about such things. Anyone who secretly dreams of something like that must learn not to talk about it… Those who do openly talk of such things are not mentally sound, are green/new, or are on the payroll of the SPLC. - I’m not involved in politics (unless posting here counts), so I haven’t sold my soul to the devil… But if you look at the guys who are up there in Washington, they’re nearly all demons. The nature of the game necessitates that even men like Tom Tancredo aren’t going to be entirely forthright. 91
Posted by Robert Reis on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:48 | # http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102370 92
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:36 | #
The ultimate aim is to extirpate the existing ideology and replace it with one of unmitigated service to the interests of our people. Bearing that in mind, the question every racially aware White man of sufficient probing intellect comes to ask himself eventually is, When the mice of politics who “represent” the interests of our people today are contrasted with the warrior-chieftains of NS of yesterday, was the last best hope for our race ended at ‘Ragnarok’ (the Battle of Berlin), or will they once again rise from the ashes to lead their people to salvation as their beloved Fuhrer prophesied? There will not be even survival ultimately for any of us unless hard been, loyal men, men who put honor before their own lives - White men - elevate themselves to positions consequence. If you want total reconquest Frank, and you know that you do, that is what it will take. So let it be that every White man of loyalty, which is his honor, pledge to himself, if only in the inner most chambers of his heart, that he is a National Socialist - if that be what it takes for him. I have already made a case for total reconquest that you know you cannot counter, consistent with what you value. North America must go to our race, and that is that. I will continue to reemphasize the necessity of that in future as I see fit. Just as you will, no doubt, continue to stand for the cowards of faileoconservatism who will seemly never lift a finger in defense of their people.
For the last time, take your filthy allegation and put it back where it was shat out from. 93
Posted by Frank on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:29 | # Yes, the cowards of paleodom and nearly all of WNdom too… I’ll give up quarreling, but talk like this is the greatest enemy of white Americans. 94
Posted by Jewish Organizations and Their Neverending Struggl on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:07 | # Jewish, Latino groups to unite in hate crime fight BOSTON — A national Jewish organization and a Boston-based Latino group The Anti-Defamation League of New England and the Latino Professional The groups cited recent derogatory statements about Mexicans by Boston The new partnership grew out of ADL’s recent “A Nation of Immigrants” 95
Posted by Jews Gang Up w/ Blacks&Hispanics;Against Whites on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:29 | # - from a weekly Israeli Cabinet meeting held Sunday, 22 February 2009: They noted that at the beginning of 2009, the State of Israel and the Jewish people are facing a range of complex and severe challenges and threats, and called attention to the change of administration in the US, geopolitical uncertainty, a continuing erosion in the US’s global position and the slide toward a multi-polar world, the strengthening of Iran, Israel as a pretext for the dissemination of a new anti-Semitism, the risk to Israel’s image as a refuge for the Jewish people against the background of growing calls for its destruction, the economic crisis and the severe below to Jews’ economic status, the impairment of the ability to maintain community life and education systems against the background of growing competition vis-a-vis eroding philanthropy and the diversion of contributions to outside the community, and changes in the traditional family structure. The JPPPI’s recommendations are as follows: * Periodic cooperation exercises between the government and Jewish organizations in order to strengthen Jewish people crisis management; - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/Cabinet-commmunique-22-Feb-2009.htm 96
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:38 | # The fundamental law of U.S. politics is: the Jews always side with non-whites against whites, and if non-whites don’t happen to be actively opposing whites at any given moment, the Jews will stir them up until they do, then ally with them against whites. 97
Posted by The World is Safe Again! on Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:45 | # * World safe again - German supreme court upholds ban on three words - fines man $2,400 for T-shirt reading “die Fahnen hoch” - raise high the flags. (Some specialised knowledge of Nazi marching anthems is required to half-see why)
It really is the Absurdistan! Arguably the stupidest nation in the world. What are they afraid of? I thought that nobody wants a return to the days of the Third Reich! Hmmm….could the truth be a little different? This level of paranoia and judicial totalitarianism certainly sows suspicion…Well, what can one expect of an illegitimate, artificial entity. The Reich was kidnapped by the Allies with the help of German traitor. What we have today is a totalitarian, anti-German gulag state that bans t-shirts and heavily fines their wearers. These nervous nellies and treasonous lawyers dressed up in spiffy robes are sweating bullets at the thought of what is customarily done to treasonous pond scum (or as Sylvia Stolz preffers to call the German judiciary: “tools of foreign oppression”). 98
Posted by Kunthjol on Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:28 | #
Jeez reading this almost makes one think that Captainchaoses call for National Socialism is entirely Justified!!! 99
Posted by PF on Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:28 | # As one puzzles through this many-layered structure of a person’s identity, it becomes clear that each individual “chosen” content-unit - e.g. the choice of a certain kind of music - is contained within a frame defining and biasing that “choice” such that the frame basically determines the content-unit chosen. Yet the salient fact for individuals in considering their identities is always the content-unit. This is because they are unaware of the frame which biased the choice of the content-unit, so the act of choosing is imagined as an unbiased selection process from a list containing all possibilities - i.e. the illusion of “freedom”. Not knowing about the existence of the frame which biased the choice, they conceive of themselves as the agent, rather than as simply a mechanical process. In reality, there was no choice, given the framework, the content-unit had to be chosen (an oxymoron). This is why its always more interesting to parse personality structures in terms of pre-established frameworks and paradigms, rather than pseudo-chosen content-units. The facets of identity and personality structure which can be consciously manipulated - i.e. those content-units which one believes oneself to be “choosing” - are subject to awareness and thus can be changed on a whim. Frames and paradigms where there is no awareness, persist over time because they cannot be evaluated. That’s why asking someone to describe themselves is inevitably non-incisive and boring, because people lack insight into their most permanent traits, which is what makes the traits permanent. Much more interesting is to hear them describe the dimensions of other’s personalities with a view to ascertaining what is possible in man. Because in this case they give an accurate rendition as to what possibilities of human development they can see - and seeing these possibilities, one gets a sense for what possibilities they are also able to realize. Perhaps Kevin MacDonald ventures no statement about being, and perhaps the TOQers long so much for romanticism, because Americans are those least able to speak about ontology or have a sense of the shared and abiding. Americas existence, historically, represents a huge upsurge in the possibilities of choice - and a continuing upsurge. American culture is oriented around the channels where one can choose content-units, with much wider possibilities than those of a medieval Englishman. One enters into this American life as a manipulator of variables and a self-made man; what exists does not emerge - it is arranged, industriously and with forethought. The more something is made to serve a specific functional role, the more it is rationalized. In the case of the empowered American life this is true of social contacts. Something being rationalized curtails the channels on which one is willing to listen; one has a purpose and one demands results. There is no way to experience something as a total phenomenon when it has been assigned a rational functional role and listening has been limited only to getting out of it what one thinks one needs. Yet this is the state of Empowered social relations for most. That appears to me to be the end of organic society.
This is really brilliant. It is an idealized dream-scape. There is no real way the thinkers you allude to could have generated anything else, reacting negatively as they did to present developments and positing value in the past. Its particularly informative to read Nietzsche’s vacillations, and pathetic, to realize that he must have thought he himself had some stake in shoring up people into the proper categorical delineations - according to character, pedigree, or meme-set? - and eliminating in a theoretical model of the future, whatever core weakness he could plausibly pin his otherwhere-sprung discontent upon. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Moral high ground?
|
|
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 Captainchaos on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:20 | #
Then why is it just to execute those who foment the will to refuse to fight as “traitors” in time of war? No, the life of the individual is ultimately disposable or not by his kinship group, for his life is ultimately of less value and therefore subordinate to the continued life of his kinship group. Also his life, when not in service of the kinship group, is arguably valueless.