Let’s finnish what others have begun.

Posted by Jupiter on May 26, 2009, 11:30 PM | #

I do not want a dictator. The democracy he hates should be put in quotes. I am for radical bottom up democracy. America is a “democracy”.  Putting aside ther racial dimension to post-1965 immigration policy, you wold think White Americas would have nightmares over the inevitability of a billion “Americans”. America will be unlivable place for a majority of Native Born Whites. Simple math:if you decide that a billion is enough at a billion..a another...4-5 million will be added to the US population at a bare minimum. White Americans should have night mares about this. Ask any White American if the want o live in a nation with 1.5 billion humans mostly nonwhite and they will so no. But we are getting there very rapidly. Nah, go watch multimillioniare young coons in tight spandex chasing a dead piece of animal skin...who hang a certain taerier breed from trees.... remeber Petey from the little rascals..thats the breed....watch it all in front of your white wife and daughter.

Posted by Mossydottir on May 27, 2009, 12:51 AM | #

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/marienbad.jpg

Posted by cladrastis on May 27, 2009, 03:17 AM | #

Does Linkola really advocate killing “defectives” or does he suggest that those who cannot survive birth without technological assistance should be permitted to die?  Most births involving children with hereditary defects can be prevented via prenatal diagnosis.  If Linkola’s sentiment is that defectives should be killed, his extremism is useful in the same way that Linder’s is - as Soren has explicated in the past.

Man is by nature a(n) hierarchical being (given to dominant and submissive behaviors); chimpanzee and bonobo societies are ruled by alpha males and gorillas live in harems (dominated by the male).  In every instance (including primitive human societies) females rank below males in terms of political power (i.e. matriarchy is a myth).  Triangulating backward from chimps, bonobos, gorillas and primitive humans, we can reasonably conclude that the common ancestor was given to hierarchical structures and female submissiveness.  Boehm argues that the few hunter gatherer societies that appear to exhibit egalitarianism (having a primus inter pares) are expressing an inverted hierarchy in which the submissives dominate the potentially dominant male or male coalitions within the group.  Such an organization often requires the assassination of assertive male leaders.  Because we likely did spend much of the last 70,000 years in such inverted hierarchies (and those of us descended from agriculturalists spent much of the last 3000-5000 years in traditional hierarchies), one must wonder what our optimal social organization is at present.  How much selective pressure was exerted by the last 70,000 y; by the past 5000?  I prefer the idea of rule by the magni inter pares, anyone of whom may lose his position or face execution by popular vote; such is equivalent to a non-hereditary aristocracy and is the most reasonable arrangement for a large, organized society.

BTW, what is the antithesis of modern humanist plutocracy?

Posted by CullTheDumbest on May 27, 2009, 05:14 AM | #

It is more useful to stick with the main points because they have many hidden helpful side effects. It is less useful to deeply speculate on one linear, narrow detail.

1. Far less people.
1a. A life of harrowing adventure and freedom is again possible.
1b. Explorers rediscover planet Earth minus the convenient malls, pavement and crowds.
1c. Good bye nanny state.

2. Local culture overtakes commerce.
2a. Our mercantile caste falls from globalist superclass planetary dominion.
2b. Mass immigration disappears.
2c. Hand crafts, storytelling, music and religions. Take your pick.
2d. An ethos of merit replaces that of sheer quantity.
2e. Men and women have less diversions, more time for family and community.

3. Less industry much of which is allocated to entertaining, subduing and perpetuating teeming masses.
3a. Pollution reduced. Birth defects reduced.
3b. Independent homesteaders return.
3c. Mass timeclock labor and company store feudalism vanishes.

Linkola fan website and writings
Publisher of Linkola’s 2009 book

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 07:05 AM | #

I just read the first couple of chapters of Pentti Linkola’s “Could Life Win and on What Conditions?” linked in the comment above.  These Finnish people are poetic, strong, and close to their inherited traditions.  Look at the powerfully poetic writings of Kai Murros.  Look at this man Linkola.  He’s like Knut Hamsun in ways and like Henry David Thoreau in ways, men so extremely real that they become, paradoxically, ethereal.  No wonder JRR Tolkien drew much inspiration from these folk, their myths, their misty traditions, their language.  And these are men’s men — look how strongly and capably they fought off the Russians in the Winter War. 

This is a strong, good, rooted nation. 

With that said, there are several things I disagree with among those Linkola is said to advocate. 

I’m no fan of eugenics, for example.  I would no more advocate “culling the weak or defective” than I would forced race-replacement. 

Eugenics is unchristian.  “The strong protect the weak” is christian.  Also, apart from the morality, I simply don’t see a need for eugenics, only for the abnormal influences on modern life to end.  Let those influences end and there’ll be no more problems of the sort that lead men to invoke eugenics as the cure. 

I know, I know, I know what Soren means in saying it’s also wrong for the strong to misguidedly do what amounts to committing suicide “for” the weak. 

What about Mother Theresa?  Was she a saint or misguided?  Well, she didn’t commit suicide did she?  She served, in her saintly way. 

For society at large to commit suicide “for” the weak isn’t saintly but nihilist and cannot be what God wants.  Such behavior is not moral but a perversion of morality, Soren’s right and of course it’s christian, it is christian, to draw the line somewhere, otherwise, for example, we have the spectacle we see around us of “christians” rushing to embrace race-replacement which is genocide.  Such “christians” are unchristian.

It needs thought.

Posted by DRS on May 27, 2009, 08:53 AM | #

Regarding this “cull the stupid” concept that’s been around for donkey’s years.

Who’s more likely to save the British from race replacement?

Stephen Hawking?

Or the angry youths at Luton who want their country back?

Posted by Dasein on May 27, 2009, 10:49 AM | #

Eugenics is unchristian.  “The strong protect the weak” is christian.  Also, apart from the morality, I simply don’t see a need for eugenics, only for the abnormal influences on modern life to end.  Let those influences end and there’ll be no more problems of the sort that lead men to invoke eugenics as the cure.

It’s hard to separate the strong’s protection of the weak from its encouraging the weak to reproduce.  In the Middle Ages, the Church, which was strong, protected the genetic interests of peasants by enforcing monogamy.  But it didn’t prevent the aristocracy from having larger families.  Today, Western governments force working people to subsidize the high birth rates of the weak (one link in the race-replacement process).  One of these seems fair, the other does not.  Secular Christianity knows no bounds.  Anyone can be a priest, politicians vie to be cardinals, and Obama is the pope for the unwashed (brain excepted) masses.  Eugenics programs have always existed, it’s only a question of who is strong and what they deem good.

Posted by Jupiter on May 27, 2009, 11:28 AM | #

In practical terms, the reclamation of Native Born White America would start with this:mass deportation of 20 million mostly hispanic illegal aliens,2)shutting down of all non-white LEGAL IMMIGRATION to 0,2) deprtation of the asians and muslim fift columns, This means most asians and all muslims have to go.

No doubt the darkies will resist. At this point in time Native Born White Americans would have to consider the very likely consequences of not deporting the darkies. The consequences of not fighting back would be:1) total replacement of Native Born White Amerians at the hands of post-1965 asians,muslims,hispanics and africans and 2) the darkies will keep expanding their numbers exponentially-with the approval of the major environmental oganizations. Eventually there would be a collapse of the human population within the borders of the former “America”. Not that I would care.

I believe that Christianity is going to be thoroughly discredited. The ecological catastrophes will be self-inflicted. No amount of praying at the last minute will stop it. How infantile can you get. During the mini-ice age in Europe, they sent the stupid priests out to go pray thinking this would stop the approaching glaciers..the glaciers kept comming. People starved by the thousands..mothers murdered their infants.

A violent race war between Native Born White Americans and post-1965 asians,muslims,hispanics and africans is inevitable.

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on May 27, 2009, 01:45 PM | #

I do not really like Linkola. He wants to kill off the majority of humanity, but he does not differentiate between races. I would have no problem with killing off inferior races and thus creating living space for the superior ones. Clearly, Linkola is not one of us. I also do not like his tree-hugging aversion to technology. We need technology to exterminate our enemies and colonize space.

Posted by Darren on May 27, 2009, 02:01 PM | #

Constantin is a racial marxist. How surprising.

In short: being white is not sufficent. Being white and being worthy of society (i.e. being of sound mind, character, and body) is. We must have standards.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 02:13 PM | #

“I would have no problem with killing off inferior races” (—Der Hoffmeister)

Hoff, philosophically and morally you’re a bigger man than that, as we know from everything you’ve written.  I’m sure you typed that out fast, unthinkingly, and in some sort of “hyperbolic mood.” I’m certain you really join me and everyone here in separating ourselves absolutely from that kind of idea.  We want to stop the race-replacement genocide of whites and we wish all others only well.

Posted by Constantin von Hoffmeister on May 27, 2009, 02:21 PM | #

I was speaking in the spirit of Linkola.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 02:24 PM | #

“I also do not like his tree-hugging aversion to technology.” (—CvH)

I like his tree-hugging.  Tree-hugging is obviously overdone by some fanatical and destructive political Degenerates but there’s not nearly enough of it among our side, the political Normals.  Way too many Norms would be perfectly content to see every farm, tree, and blade of grass paved over into a giant parking lot from one end of the land to the other and every river, stream, and lake polluted.  There’s no reason the Degens should have a monopoly on concern about preserving the environment.  We Norms need to aggressively stake out our own position there.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 27, 2009, 02:25 PM | #

“I was speaking in the spirit of Linkola.”

OK.

Posted by CullTheDumbest on May 27, 2009, 04:23 PM | #

DRS asks:

Regarding this “cull the stupid” concept that’s been around for donkey’s years.

Who’s more likely to save the British from race replacement?

Between the antipodes of this false dichotomy, we find the very real Nick Griffin who is not a reasonably bright cripple who would never offend anyone or an ordinary working class angry man bobbing like flotsam in a sea of disorganized, ineffective peers.

In a modern liberal democracy, the effete academic and the aimless rebel are each effectively dormant on race survival.

Posted by Ecosocialist on May 29, 2009, 01:55 PM | #

Why ecofascism?  Why not a form of ethno-nationalistic ecosocialism?

Posted by Ecosocialist on May 29, 2009, 02:38 PM | #

Fred Scrooby: “There’s no reason the Degens should have a monopoly on concern about preserving the environment.”

Exactly.  The vast majority of people in modern times don’t know that it were traditionalists (often ‘conservatives,’ ‘rightists,’ agrarians, Luddites, and the like) who were the first CONSERVationists, environmentalists, naturalists, and advocates for long-term environmental protection and sustainability.

The Italian and German fascists of the 20th Century were especially engaged with environmental issues, both of those countries of course being particularly concerned with issues surrounding the native ‘blood and soil.’ After WWII ended many of the anti-Axis countries actually started copying many of the pro-environmental policies practiced by National Socialist Germany because they were so clearly superior to ALL other nations in the world - those ‘horrible Nazis’ were literally decades ahead every country in the world in terms of environmental policy and sustainability even as they built one of the mightiest industrial powerhouses/war-machines in the history of humanity at the same time.

The brilliant American Nordicist/naturalist/zoologist/lawyer/writer/historian/eugenicist/anthropologist Madison Grant (The Passing of the Great Race, etc) was a major conservationist and pro-environmental activist during his lifetime - and he is only one racialist among many who have recognized the extreme importance of environmental issues.

Regarding green/environmental issues and pro-White activism, it is beyond dispute that Whites care more about the world’s environment, the world’s animal species, environmental conservation, and other related pro-environmental matters than any other racial/ethnic group - just notice the cleanliness of Europe, the USA/Canada, and Australia compared to the countries in Asia, Africa, or Latin America even though most of Europe has been advanced and industrialized for well over a century now and those other places are just now starting to fully industrialize.  In Pakistan for instance they recently banned plastic bags because they were constantly flying around all over the place due to the people there littering indiscriminately.  In Mexico, most of the cities there are utterly disgusting and are totally filled with litter and trash everywhere you look...like so many of the other Third World inferiors, the Mestizos are soiling their own nest.  Why?  Because the ‘future-time orientation’ of non-Whites is absolutely terrible when compared to Whites - in fact, it isn’t even close.

There is no doubt that Whites have done more to alleviate environmental degradation, save endangered species, and preserve/protect the environment than any other racial/ethnic group. 

Pan-White ecosocialism + White-ethnic/country specific ethno-nationalism = the future of the White race [hopefully]

Posted by Ecosocialist (White Preservationist) on May 29, 2009, 03:14 PM | #

An idea...we can start incorporating pro-environmental slogans in to the fabric of the pro-White/White nationalist movement; for instance, on our websites have infoboxes/advertisements containing these slogans and at rallies carry signs that say things like: ”SAVE THE WHALES!  OK...but lets SAVE THE WHITES FIRST!” or ”PRESERVE AN ENDANGERED SPECIES: CONSERVE THE WHITE RACE” - does anybody here who good or witty in terms of sloganeering have more to add? 

Maybe GW or SR or someone else here could initiate a sort-of mini-contest on this website (similar to the ‘snappy refutations exercise’ series) to see who can come up with the best pro-environmental + pro-White slogan?

Instead of “White nationalists” we could start calling ourselves “White conservationists,” “White preservationists,” “pro-White environmentalists,” etc. 

Stuff like this would likely help to win over many pro-environmental (ostensibly ‘leftist’ or Green Party-type) Whites on to our side or at least force them to pay attention and lend us their ears long enough for us to make our very convincing case for the permanent preservation, protection, and conservation of the White race.

- commenter White Preservationist

Posted by Ecosocialist & White Preservationist on May 29, 2009, 03:39 PM | #

A brilliantly haunting video.

However, did anyone else find it extremely ironic that very hardcore industrial/electro-techno music was used in this video tribute to a radically anti-technological/anti-industrial philosopher? 

Posted by Eugenicist on May 29, 2009, 05:43 PM | #

Also, apart from the morality, I simply don’t see a need for eugenics, only for the abnormal influences on modern life to end

That’s the problem.  Only the smart and forward-looking understand the need for it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2009, 06:02 PM | #

“Only the smart and forward-looking understand the need for it.” (—Eugenecist)

The need for eugenics?  My forte must not be smartness or forward lookingness then, because I deny the need for it.  More than that, I see it as potentially doing much harm.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on May 31, 2009, 09:19 PM | #

With a comma and semi-colon here and there I can sign up to that great Finn’s program with joy and enthusiasm. There’s a lot to be said of barbaric vitality.

You’re thoroughly civilized, domesticated, and effete, Fred. Things would be a great deal better for us if more Whites adopted his uncompromising, hard, and masculine outlook. I find him positively Nietzschean (Verily, verily I say onto you: be hard!).

That video has put a song in my voice and a dance in my stance for an entire week. Thank you for posting it.

Posted by danielj on May 31, 2009, 09:29 PM | #

In a modern liberal democracy, the effete academic and the aimless rebel are each effectively dormant on race survival.

They are only aimless because of lack of education, not lack of ability.

We don’t need to “cull the dumbest” but encourage the smartest to breed faster than the dumbest.

“Dumbest” is an extremely relative term anyway.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on May 31, 2009, 09:44 PM | #

- “Dumbest” is an extremely relative term anyway.

Obviously.

The world would be better off if we took those 90 and below. No doubt amount it. We would immediately have less crime and societal dysfunction, and more peace, order and social cohesion. Anything else is Christian dysgenic babble or misplaced liberal sentimentality. It’s hard to know what’s worse.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on May 31, 2009, 09:45 PM | #

Correction: “No doubt about it.” Don’t write and listen to t.v. at the same time.

Posted by q on May 31, 2009, 10:00 PM | #

Anything else is Christian dysgenic babble or misplaced liberal sentimentality. It’s hard to know what’s worse.

Wrong. Leave Christianity out of this, it’s all about liberalism and the Jews an fags that promote it.

BTW, the best thing that could begin to restore Western society is to ban TV sets.

Posted by danielj on May 31, 2009, 10:06 PM | #

Or have alternating and repeated showings of Die Erwig Jude and The Birth of a Nation…

The world would be better off if we took those 90 and below.

If we culled them or kept them?

I’m in the middle so I guess I’m fucked if the aimless rebels take over or if the effete intellectuals take over.

Posted by danielj on May 31, 2009, 10:09 PM | #

BTW, the best thing that could begin to restore Western society is to ban TV sets.

Television can be a tool used for good - despite the rambling writings of Mcluhan - although a temporary ban would serve as a nice stop-gap measure to plug up the hole in our collective soul.

Posted by q on May 31, 2009, 10:29 PM | #

The content of T.V. programing is controlled by - fill in the blank ____; and is used to effectively brainwash the gullible, naive, white masses to turn in on themselves.

Posted by danielj on May 31, 2009, 10:41 PM | #

fill in the blank ____

Armenians? Italians?

Don’t keep me in suspense!

Posted by q on May 31, 2009, 10:55 PM | #

Armenians? Italians?

Don’t keep me in suspense!

It’s those pesky Amish, don’t you know?

Posted by Captainchaos on May 31, 2009, 11:20 PM | #

With a comma and semi-colon here and there I can sign up to that great Finn’s program with joy and enthusiasm. There’s a lot to be said of barbaric vitality.

It all seems infantily misanthropic to me.  Not even the National Socialists, who arrogated to themselves to right to rule other European peoples, would go so far.  Although environmental preservation is important, for it is the temple that houses our being.  Which I believe should be worked into any over-arching new outlook of ours.

Posted by q on June 01, 2009, 12:05 AM | #

Is the killer of this murderous creep a hero or a villain?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090531/ap_on_re_us/us_tiller_shooting

Posted by danielj on June 01, 2009, 12:17 AM | #

Not even the National Socialists, who arrogated to themselves to right to rule other European peoples, would go so far.

Apologies for derailing, but the more I read the more I think the filthy Krauts just learned their lesson about how “International Law” worked the first time around and were just going along with the English interpretation of the aforementioned law.

Total war, unlimited in scope with no chance of accepting anything less than total surrender.

Posted by q on June 01, 2009, 01:01 AM | #

GW, You’ve got to be shaking your head in disgust, right?

Posted by danielj on June 01, 2009, 01:41 AM | #

GW is perfectly aware of the Brits mining operations and disruption of the German food supply.

I’m not placing blame on a particular nation, I’m saying the “doctrine” of total war is at fault.