A monk came to Master Constantine and asked: My dog died. My dog did not die. How does he smell?

The Master answered quite slowly: There is no dog.

CVH, can you write back again when the acid wears off?

"“I do not admit (...) that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race has come in and taken their place.” - Winston Churchill”

Ok, but from the point of view of the Australian Aborigines, I think it’s pretty clear that something VERY wrong has happened to them. I’d say that nomadic peoples would prefer to be left alone rather than be forcibly placed on reservations, even separated from their families, and have their age-old cultural traditions disrupted forever. These policies were in operation during Churchill’s lifetime. Nowadays, their culture is so dilapidated (through violence, drug-abuse, etc) that the survival of the Indigenous people is actually under threat. Apparently, the Kalahari Bushmen are now suffering from the same terrible effects on their culture.

How could this be anything but “wrong”?

How could this be anything but “wrong”?

Evolution doesn’t measure “right” or “wrong” or “truth”. It measures success through reproductive fitness. However, the difference between Darwin and the social Darwinist Churchill is, IMO, linearity. It’s not a straight line up for civilized man.

Darwin:

“The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope . . . the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

However, there are caveats:

“We civilized men . . . do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. . . . Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

Interestingly, the very development of human compassion which serves to mark the Europeans as more civilized also appears to work against the principle of enhancing fitness. Or does it? Adam Smith wrote of the paucity of children in the upper classes, with women in that group barely able, it seemed, to produce even three. In comparison to the Highland lass to whom twenty births in her lifetime were not uncommon. The problem facing the Highlanders, was that they were fortunate to see even two of their offspring survive to the age of reproduction.

“The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting,
ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.”

Who has really prevailed? The less populous powerful wealthy Saxons or the multitudinous impoverished impotent Celts?

Maybe he does it to keep a foot in the mainstream camp.

I get the feeling he throws an anti-white statement in here and there in a rather too deliberate manner, dont worry folks, we are all as bad as each other etc.

I often like his stuff, though I question his rating of the Chinese military as a force to be reckoned with - apart from its size. What have they really managed? Stalemate in Korea through sheer weight of numbers, bloody defeat at the hands of battle hardened Vietnamese and the jewel in their crown; occupation of Tibet, a country populated by Bhuddists, you know, pacifists.

His schtick is “toughness” and “whatever happens, be a man; for God’s sake don’t whine,” and crying over losing the battle to see whose tribe gets race-replaced — a battle against the Jews this country’s Euros won in 1924 and lost in 1965 — isn’t toughness and being a man, it’s whining.  “Don’t do that.  Don’t whine.  You’ve lost, 1965 has come and gone, now take it like a man, suck it up and learn to love it and whatever you do, don’t complain, don’t act like girls.” That’s The War Nerd’s schtick. 

OK, but how tough is a man who wants us to believe “Hey you’ve lost, it’s over, the Jewish 1965 stealth stab in the back, and the race-replacement defeat that followed it exactly as planned, was the final chapter, there are no second acts” when maybe we haven’t lost, maybe the final chapter hasn’t been written, and maybe it’ll be written by us if we play our cards right? 

How tough is the guy who tells us to give up when we can still fight, in fact haven’t really started to fight but are only beginning right now? 

How tough is a man who won’t touch the issues behind these events he pretends to think are happening all by themselves but knows are carefully orchestrated by forces he doesn’t want to name because either a) he’s scared to, or b) he thinks confronting them isn’t hip, which he wants above all else to appear?  “No I won’t name them because that’s whining and in war you don’t whine!  However you lost, you lost:  suck it up and let the victor bask in the glory he’s earned.”

But maybe we haven’t lost quite yet?  What’s his rush? 

How tough is a man who won’t deal with the Jews or their globalist Euro élite traitor allies like the “New-World-Order” Bushes?  Not very tough.  Jürgen Graf is tough.  Robert Faurisson is tough.  CvH is tough — no, CvH doesn’t apportion blame the way I and others do where Jewry is concerned but that’s not because he’s afraid (he who doesn’t even have the cover of a pen name as “Gary Brecher” does) and not because he’s striving to appear hip. 

The War Nerd knows he can’t get around the Israel counter-example so he talks about the high birth-rates of the Ultra-Orthodox as if that’s what’s maintained Israel Jewish demographics rather than the fact that Israel doesn’t have the open borders the Jews forced on us and it never will; he doesn’t talk about the wall they’re building that makes the Berlin Wall look like his backyard fence in Bakersfield, or the fact that the Palestinians (Mexicans, Moroccans, Chinamen, whoever) can have all the birth rates they want, if the border isn’t open they’re not getting in, sorry, and the Jews (white Americans, Europeans, Japs, whoever) don’t get race-replaced. 

He says the problem is we don’t fire on border-crossers but that’s been imposed on us politically and he shows no interest in the reasons behind it or who’s imposing it. 

He talks about Serbia losing Kosovo because of birth rates then grudgingly admits it was really because Clinton bombed them, supposedly because “Clinton naïvely thought they were the bad guys,” without admitting 1) Clinton isn’t naïve and furthermore couldn’t care less who were “the bad guys” or 2) asking who was pulling Clinton’s strings? 

About six paragraphs from the end where he started talking about Kinshasa and Paris, rapid onset of nausea stopped me from reading.  So I didn’t finish but I’d read enough to know this column will be the beginning of the end for The War Nerd:  a slide toward oblivion begins for him today.  He’ll turn out to have been a flash in the pan.  No substance, it turns out, just adolescent war-fetish. 

Bye, War Nerd!  No one will trust a man who glibly strives to be hip more than he strives to shine light on truth, or who’s afraid to touch certain subjects even under cover of a pen name.  And no one will trust a man who gets his jollies from war itself while ignorant of the noble motivations behind war.  That’s what’s known as a fetishist.  You see something like Stalingrad and instead of honoring the motivations of the men on both sides who struggled and died there you honor the tanks and rifles they fought with, exactly as another kind of fetishist worships the girl’s foot or panties instead of the girl.  The themes that motivated men to clash on that battlefield — nation, family, traditions, culture, race — the weapons which war-weapon fetishists have no notion of (which explains how a war-weapons fetishist like The War Nerd can glibly give whites looking into the yawning chasm of their own planned genocide the kiss-off) — are the real story, the story MSM-benumbed people want to know; the story The War Nerd can’t or won’t give them.

You’re right, GT — I have no idea who “John Dolan” is but that 2001 column you linked, which I just read in its entirety, is obviously written by the same guy who signs as The War Nerd.  As for The War Nerd, that Taki column of his reveals him as a zero who happens to have a knack with words.  Mark Steyn, for example, is another one.

“yes, hes gone right off the (multi-culti) deep end there, though still looks kind of like an attempt to appease the mainstream” (—Lurler)

Except no one on the planet considers The eXile and now Taki’s blog, the outfits he writes for, to be “mainstream”:  his readership isn’t “mainstream” so what’s he “appeasing”?  No, that was him.  Him alone.  That’s what he thinks (or conceivably what he says because he’s afraid to say what he thinks).  No excuses for the worthless bastard.

It seems to me that freedom of speech is what optimally resonates with the ethnic genetic interests of northwestern Europeans.  Being shut up and shut out of the public debate is a large part of what has allowed our people to be indoctrinated to the detriment of their EGI.

Guys like “war nerd” are just extended phenotypes of guys like Lewontin.

Fjordman gives a rundown, complete with naming names, of the sorts of Swedish degenerates influencing Sweden these days, forcing race-replacement on it, blocking opposition by Swedes who are psychologically and morally normal, and so forth. 

The question (in Sweden as elsewhere in the Eurosphere) is how did degenerateness acquire the whip hand over normalness? 

Jewish control of the Swedish media is part of it of course, probably a huge part.  And no, hostility toward Israel and expressions of sympathy for Hezbollah and Hamas don’t contradict this thesis whatsoever:  the Jewish media owners promoting these marxoid creeps and clinically-depressed mal-baisées women and using them as tools are carefully weighing the positives and negatives for Jewry and clearly feel the positives outweigh the negatives — in other words, expressions of hostility toward Israel and support for Hamas on the part of these clueless communist creeps are deemed no threat to Jewry and well worth putting up with, considering all the goy societal destruction and Euro race-replacement wreaked by these same sicko Jewish and globalist stooges who don’t even understand they’re on a Jewish leash attached to a Jewish collar around their necks and the instant some Jewish media owner gives the word they’re history. 

This stuff is promoted by the media.  That’s how it gets its power.  Who owns the media?  The Jews.  Is it hard to think of things that will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever get promoted by the Jewish media come what may? 

No it’s not hard.  Norman Lowell, for example.  And there are tons more.

Fred - fair enough, Im not going soft on him mate! But I think he’s made some good points in his columns over time and he seems (seems) to have it in for neo-cons like Victor Hanson.

‘Lurler’ was me btw Fred, bad typing skills.