Posted by Catuveluni on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:19 | #

“regressive thought patterns such as tradition, social conformity, fatalism, and spirituality.”

Is not the lack of such thought patterns the reason the west is in such a mess in the first place?

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:02 | #

GW: “So this picture is perhaps more mixed than it might at first glance appear to the romantic nationalist.”

Romantic nationalism is what the heart yearns for; or maybe it’s just a German thing.

“Incidentally, in his definition of exceeded carrying capacity Frank Salter includes the lost values of privacy, access to open space, and sustenance.”

I suppose that European Man’s romantic concern for environmental preservation was selected for because it motivates him to secure the above things that are of importance to furthering his genetic interests.  But if the evolved romantic must always take a back seat to the furtherance of genetic interests, then I guess Hitler is blameless - he was just furthering Germanic genetic interests, everything else be damned.

Posted by cladrastis on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:27 | #

Are we really the most intellectually gifted?  I think the Jews and E. Asians might disagree.  Anyway, that’s beside the point.

To answer this question indirectely:
Do nationalists believe we should rob the wealth of our descendants to make ourselves slightly more comfortable today?  Do we believe we are as wise and thoughtful as our hypothetical descendants (brought into existence with the aid of eugenics) shall be?  That is certainly short-term thinking, and I thought we Northern races were supposed to be equally predisposed to plan for the future. 

Here is another question:  Is a tree, such as a Cladrastis or a Cornus, wasteful when it sheds its copious blossoms in the spring?  One organism’s waste is another’s food.  This is what ecology has taught us (among many other things).  We would be wise to take the lesson to heart and model our industrial systems after it. 

The entity that bears the most blame for natural despoilation (and it saddens me greatly) is the international banking cartel and its treasonous system of interest.  It is this system that requires infinite growth to appease the selfish desires of foolish men.

This planet is the cocoon of heliocentric man; it’s time to treat it as such.  The universe has abundant energy and resources, but until we get out there, let’s exercise a little self-restraint.

Posted by Cobbett on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:34 | #

As Henry Williamson - arguably England’s greatest writer of the previous century - made clear, thoroughly capitalized and hebraized Britain hasn’t given a shit about the environment for a long, long time. Of course, he, like many of the far-thinking Brits who did actively agitate for an ecological arighting of the situation, were made pariahs for having had too much admiration for the evil men in the heart of Europe - those who GW, a more typical Englishman, loathes.

“I’m not 100% sold on the notion that membership of a healthy and self-conscious organic society necessarily implies care for the land.  It never did, down all the years when the crises of our people and of our environment were nightmares of the imagination, and nothing more. “

This statement exemplifies the gulf between the revolutionaries who sought (and seek) a total reform of life itself, and something called a “conservative”.

Posted by Dante on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:38 | #

Hasn’t the white of nature and the yolk of pollution already been whisked? What use trying to halt or even reverse ecological damage?

All this neuroticism over genetically modified food - what use preserving original strains adapted to their local environment? How reactionary! Surely it makes more sense to replace them with more economically viable crops, even if the long-term results are unknown and potentially disastrous?

As for the environment, well, the majority may decry their shrinking habitat and eroding quality of life, but it behooves them to accomodate the industrialist minority responsible. And though statisticians insist our current governmental policies and selfish behaviour spell doom for our future generations, how is that today’s problem?

Posted by Diamed on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:16 | #

All environmentalism is meaningless without population control.  The greatest ‘act’ of pollution is having a child who will then require horrendous amounts of space, water, resources, etc to be kept alive and healthy.  Overpopulation is the highest pollution possible, and we find the greatest overpopulation and birth rates among 3rd world nations.  Immigration should be considered an act of pollution reaching across borders and thus a foreign aggression.  Like any other ‘tragedy of the commons’ if there are no borders people who claim more of the earth for their personal use are wasteful and damaging to those who conscientiously claim less of it, open borders gives a free pass to polluters of the ‘commons’ of the Earth so that people can overpopulate all they like.  Or like unscrupulous capitalists you can consider it an issue of a race making EGI profits by overpopulating with the negative consequences much higher but affecting someone else (ie wherever they immigrate to) which is again forbidden by law worldwide.  Like other international pollution rules, whites should ban all overpopulation and immigration worldwide since it has immediate adverse impacts on the whole world.

Industrial countries produce comparatively little pollution due to their small populations and birth rates relative to land.  Canada, Australia, Russia, and the USA can consider themselves practically pristine.  Europe is doing a fine job of emptying itself out via below replacement birth rates and even in highly dense areas does not create population above carrying capacity save for the recent incursion of 3rd world immigrants, due to their high productivity and efficient use of raw materials.

Global warming either A) is a myth and isn’t even happening.  B) has such a minor effect it doesn’t matter, or even has a beneficial effect.  C) has a bad effect but in a timeline so distant that no current action is advisable and pales in significance to the much direr timeline facing whites currently, 3rd world births and immigration, and thus no action makes any sense at all until this far direr problem is solved.

Clean air, water, renewable energy and the like has already been achieved by most of the western world or could be easily implemented ie nuclear power whenever we want, no pollution other than the fabricated ‘co2=pollution’ even currently exists.

Basically environmentalism can only mean one thing, to stop all 3rd world births and immigration.  There is no other meaning to sane rational thinkers.  A genuine environmentalist would have zero policy differences with a racist, both true believers should be trying to stop immigration and lower birth rates in the worst polluted areas of earth, ie the places with the highest people to carrying capacity ratio, ie poorest, ie worst maintained.  Liberals have been admirable in their pushing of birth control, abortion, and women’s lib (which lowers birth rates dramatically) on the 3rd world—in this sense they have done more for the racial cause than conservatives 100 fold.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:26 | #

Environmentalism is merely responsible technology.

Sometimes we don’t understand how technology impacts our ecology and are therefore too ignorant to wield it responsibly—ignoring those who do understand those implications:

Aviation, Geography, and Race

Charles Lindbergh

Aviation has struck a delicately balanced world, a world where stability was already giving way to the pressure of new dynamic forces, a world dominated by a mechanical, materialist, Western European civilization. Aviation is a product of that civilization, borne on the crest of its outlook. Typical also of its strength and its weakness, its vanity and its self-destruction—men flung upward in the face of God, another Icarus to dominate the sky, and in turn, to be dominated by it; for eventually the laws of nature determine the success of human effort and measure the value of human inventions in that divinely complicated, mathematically unpredictable, development of life at which Science has given the name of Evolution.
Aviation seems almost a gift from heaven to those Western nations who were already the leaders of their era, strengthening their leadership, their confidence, their dominance over other peoples. It is a tool specially shaped for Western hands, a scientific art which others only copy in a mediocre fashion, another barrier between the teeming millions of Asia and the Grecian inheritance of Europe—one of those priceless possessions which permit the White race to live at all in a pressing sea of Yellow, Black, and Brown. But aviation, using it symbolically as well as in its own right, brings two great dangers, one peculiar to our modern civilization, the other older than history. Since aviation is dependent on the intricate organization of life and industry, it carries with it the environmental danger of a people too far separated from the soil and from the sea—the danger of that physical decline which so often goes with a high intellectual development, of that spiritual decline which seems invariably to accompany an industrial life, of that racial decline which follows physical and spiritual mediocrity.

A great industrial nation may conquer the world in the span of a single life, but its Achilles’ heel is time. Its children, what of them? The second and third generations, of what numbers and stuff will they be? How long can men thrive between walls of brick, walking on asphalt pavements, breathing the fumes of coal and of oil, growing, working, dying, with hardly a thought of wind, and sky, and fields of grain, seeing only machine-made beauty, the mineral-like quality of life. This is our modern danger—one of the waxen wings of flight. It may cause our civilization to fall unless we act quickly to counteract it, unless we realize that human character is more important than efficiency, that education consists of more than the mere accumulation of knowledge.

But the other great danger is more easily recognized, because it has occurred again and again through history. It is the ember of war, fanned by every new military weapon, flaming today as it has never flamed before. It is the old internal struggle among a dominant people for power; blind, insatiable, suicidal. Western nations are again at war, a war likely to be more prostrating than any in the past, a war in which the White race is bound to lose, and the others bound to gain, a war which may easily lead our civilization through more Dark Ages if it survives at all. In this war, aviation is as important a factor as it has been a cause—a cause due to its effect on the balance of strength between nations, a factor because of the destruction and death it hurls on earth and sea. Air power is new to all our countries. It brings advantages to some and weakens others; it calls for readjustment everywhere.

If only there were some way to measure the changing character of men, some yardstick to reapportion influence among the nations, some way to demonstrate in peace the strength of arms in war. But with all of its dimensions, its clocks, and weights, and figures, science fails us when we ask a measure for the rights of men. They cannot be judged by numbers, by distance, weight, or time; or by counting heads without a thought of what may lie within. Those intangible qualities of character, such as courage, faith, and skill, evade all systems, slip through the bars of every cage. They can be recognized, but not measured. They lie more in a glance between two men than in any formula or mathematics. They form the unseen strength of an army, the genius of a people.

Likewise, in judging aviation, in its effect on modern nations, no satisfactory measurement of strength exists. It is bound to geography, environment, and racial character so closely that an attempt to judge by numbers would be like counting Greeks at Marathon. What advantages will they gain? What new influence can they exert? To judge this, one must look not only at their aviation but at them, at the geography of their country, at their problems of existence, at their habits of life.

Mountains, coastlines, great distances, ground fortifications, all those safeguards of past generations, lose their old significance as man takes to his wings. The English Channel, the snow-capped Alps, the expanses of Russia, are now looked on from a different height. The forces of Hannibal, Drake and Napoleon moved at best with the horses’ gallop or the speed of wind on sail. Now, aviation brings a new concept of time and distance to the affairs of men. It demands adaptability to change, places a premium on quickness of thought and speed of action.

Military strength has become more dynamic and less tangible. A new alignment of power has taken place, and there is no adequate peacetime measure for its effect on the influence of nations. There seems no way to agree on the rights it brings to some and takes from others. The rights of men within a nation are readjusted in each generation by laws of inheritance—land changes hands as decades pass, fortunes are taxed from one generation to the next; ownership is no more permanent than life. But among nations themselves there is no similar provision to reward virility and penalize decay, no way to reapportion the world’s wealth as tides of human character ebb and flow—except by the strength of armies. In the last analysis, military strength is measurable only by its own expenditure, by the prostration of one contender while the other can still stagger on the field—and all about the wolves of lesser stature abide their time to spring on both the warriors.

We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our civilization. And while we stand poised for battle, Oriental guns are turning westward, Asia presses towards us on the Russian border, all foreign races stir restlessly. It is time to turn from our quarrels and to build our White ramparts again. This alliance with foreign races means nothing but death to us. It is our turn to guard our heritage from Mongol and Persian and Moor, before we become engulfed in a limitless foreign sea. Our civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western Wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German air force, a French army, an American nation, standing together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength, dividing influence.

Our civilization depends on peace among Western nations, and therefore on united strength, for Peace is a virgin who dare not show her face without Strength, her father, for protection. We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races.

We need peace to let our best men live to work out those more subtle, but equally dangerous, problems brought by this new environment in which we dwell, to give us time to turn this materialistic trend, to stop prostrating ourselves before this modern idol of mechanical efficiency, to find means of combining freedom, spirit, and beauty with industrial life—a peace which will bring character, strength, and security back to Western peoples.

With all the world around our borders, let us not commit racial suicide by internal conflict. We must learn from Athens and Sparta, before all of Greece is lost.

Reader’s Digest, November 1939

Posted by the Narrator.. on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:43 | #

Depends on how drastic the procedure is.
Ever heard of Mountaintop Removal?

I do support preserving the environment to a point. 
There is the more natural loss of land such as a Dad giving Jr. a few acres in a field to put his home on and raise his family or start a business. Then there is the less natural where mountains are flattened for easy/cheap access to coal or several acres of woodland are wiped out to make way for a new mall that is only slightly more convenient than the old shops.

Unfortunately White “activists” only act to preserve land if it is populated by some near extinct critter or non-Whites.

Kind of ironic that White people are the biggest promoters of preserving everything except White people and their environment.
From ancient civilizational ruins to Civil War reenactments, White people lead the way in ‘keeping the traditions alive’, yet when it comes to present-existing Whites and their culture, they know them not.

And most of what a lot of non-Whites now know about their own ancient ancestors/societies are things White people dug up out of sand, rock, ash and earth to re-discover and preserve.
Archaeology is pretty much a White invented and White dominated field. A few non-Whites have been persuaded to join in but their underlying motive seems to be more of a self (tribal)-adulation than the desire to simply discover and preserve ancient things.

And it’s not a little hypocritical that Whites will gather, raise money and move in political activist mode to preserve the natural habitat of the Red Crested-Web Footed Lake Loon, yet raise not an eyebrow as Jolly Old England mutates into Eurabia.

Activists, take note; the key ingredient to the continuation of Environmentalism is White people. No White people, no Natural Preserves.

...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:50 | #

Catuveluni: Is not the lack of such thought patterns the reason the west is in such a mess in the first place?

Only if you take the the parch’s view that the mass pursuit of self-interest through capitalism was intrinsically evil and condemned to hellfire and damnation.  It might be more accurate to say that we lost something of our better nature when we traded our naturalistic old faith for a conquest-driven, monotheistic desert religion.  Abrahamism is a not a derivative of the relationship of Man and Nature.

CC,

Our relationship to Nature is not romantic.  It is exploitative - always was, always had to be.  How else were our forefathers to survive in a world in which food was scarce for eight months in the year?

I would expect that the rather feminine, romantic view of Nature arose with the Rennaisance.  It is absent from Germanic mythology, the Icelandic Eddas and Sagas, and from Beowulf, which portray the relentless struggle of gods and men.  But the Elizabethan poets had Jehovah the jealous god, and there was no place for others.  Instead, they gave us nature spirits, of which the leafy denizens of A Midsummer Night’s Dream are plain examples.  By the time of the Pre-Raphaelites the spirits had retired deep into nature itself.  It was all of 1939 when Lady Raglan coined the term “Green Man” in an article for The Folklore Journal.

Cladistris,

Jews have built no civilisation, for which any cattle who might have been caught up in it should be mightily grateful.  East Asians have more people of an intelligence appropriate to managing a shop.  Such people, however, do not invent modernity.  We did that.

Blame Christianity for the international banking cartel.  It exists because Florentine Christians were forbidden by their bishops from charging interest on loans.  Having no such religious restraints, Jews were asked to perform this service so the city could trade and prosper. 

Cobbett,

In 1801 the total population in Britain was 10 million, by 1901 it was 38 million.  In a normal society, genetic interests trump everything.  A revolutionary Man of Letters who, in his ignorance, sought to curb them would rightly have been derided.

As for “the evil men at the heart of Europe”, no one on the British political right of the 1930s would have cared about them but for their designs on other people’s land, and the cheapness in which they held other people’s lives.  I take it you think it’s OK to launch a war of extreme violence in order to ethnically-cleanse the lands to the east?

But all that is very boring today.  The more interesting issue for a 21st century revolutionary is how, post-1963, genetic interest has, in fact, been curbed. Quality of life for the individual has been raised above it in the public’s estimation - which argues eloquently for our confusion and self-estrangement.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:13 | #

“How long can men thrive between walls of brick, walking on asphalt pavements, breathing the fumes of coal and of oil, growing, working, dying, with hardly a thought of wind, and sky, and fields of grain, seeing only machine-made beauty, the mineral-like quality of life.”

Charles Lindbergh is the man.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:08 | #

The Peoples of European Descent lay nominal title to around 40% of the world’s land area including the most desirable temperate regions with the most favourable climatic conditions, and containing much of the most desirable agricultural land. At present we represent, by the most generous estimate, around 14% of the global population. That figure will diminish to around 10% by mid-century, largely as a consequence of the population explosion in the third world. We’re then looking at a situation in which 10% of the population is in possession of half or more of the most desirable real estate. It does not take a great intellect to imagine what the reaction of the other 90% is going to be. They will want what to have we have, to live where we live.

As ecological disasters multiply throughout the developed world – the failure of the green revolution in India, drought in Central Africa and the Nile watershed (where the population is expected to double by 2050), inundations in Bengal, and so on – the present trickle of environmental refugees will swell into an annual flood of many millions. All of these will have an expectation that they will be welcomed into our living space, an expectation nurtured by current liberal attitudes in the West.

In my view, the environmental argument that needs to be added to our rhetorical armoury is not limited to philosophical debates about global warming, or about habitat preservation for the Lesser Red-throated Grebe, to paraphrase one respondent, nor even about industrial pollution. It is about territoriality. It is about holding what we have and repelling all prospective boarders.

Part of the argumentation entails developing a cogent response to the nonsense that the Eurosphere is underpopulated, a theme often put forward by the charlatans of the Immigration Industry in an attempt to justify ongoing mass immigration. We need to be able to apply well-researched data, such as that developed by the Optimum Population Trust, to (re-)awaken atavistic fears in the public at large about the long-term consequences of continuing immigration. Migrationwatch UK attempts to do this at present by issuing bleak prognostications about a new Birmingham being needed every five years to accommodate new migrants. But that largely falls on death ears because most people think Birmingham is a dump anyway, and avoid going near the place if at all possible. It’s too easy to shut one’s mind to it, more vivid imagery is necessary. If only every voter could visit Bombay, Jakarta or Lagos just once in their lifetime, and come away with the awful realisation that that is what their own town is likely to look like in a generation or so. 

I suppose what I am arguing for is really that we need to develop a Festung Großeuropa mindset, and learn how to communicate what that means to a broader public.

Posted by JPS on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:48 | #

Hello:

In the US, the National Park Service formerly collected data on what races frequent National Parks.  But it didn’t take long for them to realize the data was very much un-PC.  Whites, basically, go to these places.  Interest in conservation seems to be localized in our people.

There is a religious aspect, too.  If creation is God’s work, then how to consider its wanton destruction?  Not use, mind you, as in Christian faith we are given dominion.

As for the gent who discusses mountain-top removal, this is really only used in places like West Virginia.  It’s a very messy process, but you might be surprised how well the restoration process works.  True, it won’t be very “natural” for a hundred years.  But it is not a disaster.  In WV, I will remind you, it will be the only flat land around!  It is a situation to be closely regulated, and used only after careful planning.

I prefer Nuclear to Coal-generated electric…meaning if I had my way there would be quite a bit less mountain-top removal. 

My$0.02.

Posted by the Narrator.. on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:43 | #

The Peoples of European Descent lay nominal title to around 40% of the world’s land area including the most desirable temperate regions with the most favourable climatic conditions, and containing much of the most desirable agricultural land. At present we represent, by the most generous estimate, around 14% of the global population. That figure will diminish to around 10% by mid-century, largely as a consequence of the population explosion in the third world. We’re then looking at a situation in which 10% of the population is in possession of half or more of the most desirable real estate. It does not take a great intellect to imagine what the reaction of the other 90% is going to be. They will want what to have we have, to live where we live.
Posted by Dan Dare on Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 07:08 PM

If things continue as they are, by mid-century Whites will no longer have nominal title over North America, leaving just (nominally) Europe, Australia and New Zeeland. Assuming we hold on to Russian Asia, that would leave us with about 11 million sq. miles of titled soil vs. around 40+ million sq. miles for non-Whites….

As for the gent who discusses mountain-top removal, this is really only used in places like West Virginia.  It’s a very messy process, but you might be surprised how well the restoration process works.  True, it won’t be very “natural” for a hundred years.  But it is not a disaster.  In WV, I will remind you, it will be the only flat land around!  It is a situation to be closely regulated, and used only after careful planning.
Posted by JPS on Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 07:48 PM

Yeah I would be!

I’ve seen a lot of mountains laid waste and left looking like the surface of Mars, valleys and meadows turned into waste fills and sludge ponds and creeks and steams go completely missing.
And the whole process does wonders for a lot of people’s drinking water, turning it into something that looks like it should be approached in hazmat suits. 

Yeah a lot of it is left flat…...and completely useless as it is just rock with a chemical grass sprayed on it. The “grass” certainly grows fast but I wouldn’t walk on it without shoes on.

And in two hundred years it will still be just a rock pile. Completely useless and barren at best. Toxic at worst.

In short, it’s kinda like what you would expect to see if a nuke went off in Yosemite Park.

“closely regulated”?
Bwahahahaha….

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:46 | #

Catuveluni:

Is not the lack of such thought patterns the reason the west is in such a mess in the first place?

...and the reason for much of the good we’ve wrought?  Obviously we need to add dual morality to the list.  I’m hoping it isn’t a package deal, joined at the hip to the rest of the Levantine pastorialist behavioral set.

cladrastis:

Are we really the most intellectually gifted?  I think the Jews and E. Asians might disagree.  Anyway, that’s beside the point.

The Jews will disagree, then assault you when you mention that Jews seem to have the same need as blacks for proximity to whites (this must be a really nasty observation, because Steve Sailer regularly censors it).  Their case is a strange one, a head always in need of a host body.

Asians are at least an orange to orange comparison.  Let’s just say they have no recent record of leadership in innovation.  Europeans do.  Mean IQ is essential to orderliness, but doesn’t say a whole lot about innovation.

Dante:

Hasn’t the white of nature and the yolk of pollution already been whisked? What use trying to halt or even reverse ecological damage?

All this neuroticism over genetically modified food - what use preserving original strains adapted to their local environment? How reactionary! Surely it makes more sense to replace them with more economically viable crops, even if the long-term results are unknown and potentially disastrous?

As for the environment, well, the majority may decry their shrinking habitat and eroding quality of life, but it behooves them to accomodate the industrialist minority responsible. And though statisticians insist our current governmental policies and selfish behaviour spell doom for our future generations, how is that today’s problem?

Haha, brilliant!

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:56 | #

William’s introduction of the Royal forest laws after the conquest was a constant source of conflict, according to some historians, between ethnic groups (Norman/Saxon), class (aristocracy and commoner, made famous by the stories of Robin of Loxley and his battle with the evil sheriff, protector of the King’s forests) and knights of the realm (Scott’s Ivanhoe). The forest laws are also mentioned in the Magna Charta, apparently a source of controversy between the English barons and King John.

Madison Grant -

Man is the most cosmopolitan of animals, and in one form or another thrives in the tropics and in the arctics, at sea level and on high plateaux, in the desert and in the reeking forests of the equator. Nevertheless, the various races of Europe with which we deal in this book have, each of them, a certain natural habitat in which each achieves its highest development.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:09 | #

I take it you think it’s OK to launch a war of extreme violence in order to ethnically-cleanse the lands to the east?

The Cousin’s Wars, definitely an Anglo-Saxon penchant it appears. First the Northern War of Aggression and then Anglo-Saxon Wars of Aggression, intended to ethnically cleanse the Germanic tribes to the east.

Neither future commitment of U.S. troops to Europe nor a wartime alliance with Britain—repressor of Ireland, foe of Germany—would have seemed possible as late as 1875 or 1880. Emigrants from Kildare or Cologne would have had no reason to expect either development. Lubell himself contended that both world wars were like civil wars to large parts of the U.S. population.  63 To be sure, most Americans, even those with battered homelands, were unaffected or strained only marginally. In 1940, for example, with Denmark and Norway occupied by Germany, the ethnicity of Danish- or Norwegian-Americans in Iowa was touched—some precincts showed a small shift to Roosevelt—but hardly traumatized.

Strongly Yankee coastal peripheries of New England, places where twentieth-century linguists still found traces of Devon or Cornish speech, showed a pro-Roosevelt, which is to say a proBritish, trend. So did Canadian-Americans, particularly in Maine. The South had a handful of heavily English coastal counties—also old-country speech-pattern sections in Virginia and the North Carolina Outer Banks—where the percentage of support for Franklin D. Roosevelt and his interventionist policies rose between 1936 and 1940. 64

Yankee, Congregationalist, and Episcopal activism on behalf of Britain was itself considerable in both wars. During the First World War, one religious historian has noted how support for pro-war groups like the American Defense Society and the National Security League"flourished especially in the East among Americans of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ descent, and they won increasing support from clergy of the denominations with strong and clear British rootage-Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists and, most outspokenly, Episcopalians.” The Congregationalist minister at Henry Ward Beecher’s old Plymouth Church in New York went so far as to call for “exterminating the German people . . . the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the women.” 65

The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America

Book by Kevin Phillips p. 556

via KMac

Posted by cladrastis on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:14 | #

The Jews will disagree, then assault you when you mention that Jews seem to have the same need as blacks for proximity to whites (this must be a really nasty observation, because Steve Sailer regularly censors it).  Their case is a strange one, a head always in need of a host body.

Asians are at least an orange to orange comparison.  Let’s just say they have no recent record of leadership in innovation.  Europeans do.  Mean IQ is essential to orderliness, but doesn’t say a whole lot about innovation.

I appreciate this response to my comment.

As for mountain top removal, that’s one issue our old friends Hillary Hosta and the Ku Klutz Klownz were on the right side of.  Too bad they’re so wrong about everything else.

Remember?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLjs08ykI8w
http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/people_in_action/2007/03_16/index.html
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/anti_chick_2/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRPRioh-aOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUj_PGOFZNk&feature=related

Posted by Englander on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:26 | #

DanDare - We need to be able to apply well-researched data, such as that developed by the Optimum Population Trust, to (re-)awaken atavistic fears in the public at large about the long-term consequences of continuing immigration. Migrationwatch UK attempts to do this at present by issuing bleak prognostications about a new Birmingham being needed every five years to accommodate new migrants. But that largely falls on death ears because most people think Birmingham is a dump anyway, and avoid going near the place if at all possible. It’s too easy to shut one’s mind to it, more vivid imagery is necessary.

I think the ‘New Birmingham’ warning fails because it makes it sound as if the addition to the population is to be housed somewhere else, somewhere new, out of sight and out of mind. But Migration Watch are talking about numbers, and those numbers are going to be spread around. They need to make it clear that your town is going to be the new Birmingham.

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:03 | #

Narrator ...If things continue as they are, by mid-century Whites will no longer have nominal title over North America, leaving just (nominally) Europe, Australia and New Zeeland. Assuming we hold on to Russian Asia, that would leave us with about 11 million sq. miles of titled soil vs. around 40+ million sq. miles for non-Whites….

My trusty ‘Economist’ Desk Reference confirms that you are essentially correct, if a little over-pessismistic. Peoples of European Descent currently hold sway over around 20 million sq miles of the total 52.6 million (excl Antarctica), or about 38%. The loss of North America, i.e. USA and CDN, reduces that to 12.7 million, or 24%.

In the larger scheme of things, perhaps that might be an acceptable trade if they could be persuaded to refrain from settling elsewhere in the Eurosphere. As you state, the region is essentially fucked anyway.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:39 | #

The key misunderstanding is that “nominal control of territory” is anything but “pseudo control of territory”.

If your females won’t bear your children because they hold you in contempt for not holding onto your territory, and your population crashes, it is reasonable to state that “nominal control” is worse than no control at all—since at lest once you recognize and are recognized as a people without ANY territory, there might be some who would offer you refugee status.

Posted by anon on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:21 | #

“Environmentalists” (communist race-replacers) will not discuss what a disaster immigration is to the US environment.  The Sierra Club was bought off by Jewish money.  No matter how much leftist “environmentalists” profess to love the earth, they love non-whites more.  That trumps all, every time and no matter what the issue.

http://www.vdare.com/walker/050202_sierra.htm

No surprise there…

Posted by Jupiter on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:15 | #

Good idea to focus on the environment. Very important to link it with Native Born White American racial interests. Trick the leftist “environmentalist” into admiting that more population growth is crazy-within the borders of America. Then get him or her to admit on National TV that Native Born White Americans must carry the ful burden of population reduction by having an even lower level of fertility then they currerntly have-replacement level- while at the same time adovocating the importation of high fertility darkies. A golden retriever and a home in the suburbs for the predatory hindu thief. For young Native Born White American males:childless and no wife. How do you think this will go over with White Mothers with young White Male children? Will there be a dramatic increase in the raping of investment banker’s wives and daughters?

MY own view:Native Born White Americans need to increase ther fertility even if it means more sprawl and paving over state and national parks…or expulsion of a majority of post 1965 non-whites. This really is the only choice.

Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:58 | #

WNs need to focus as much or MORE on the things that we love as on the things that we hate.  That is the only way our meme will have any chance of gaining traction with the masses (or at least with an important sector of the masses).  This is also why videos of turd worlders being beaten up or beheaded will never gain any traction among our folk from any but the most deranged individuals.

So we need to shift the focus onto the things that we love.  What are those things?  For starters: clean air and water, open spaces, low crime rates, communities where people know and trust each other (i.e. kinship based), and freedom (political, economic, and social).  How are the powers that be restricting or diminishing these assets, and who are the powers that be?  We also need to declare what we are willing to do to preserve these things that we love.  This is a justification for violence - out of love rather than hatred (similar to the way a parent justifies spanking a child who plays with matches in the living room).

Is race primary or secondary in this shift of focus?  Perhaps it is neither, for sociobiologically it is wrapped up in the things we value (with some deviations from the average - perhaps a result of interbreeding as much as anything else).  Just a thought.

Posted by Diamed on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:57 | #

I think there is plenty of space in WN for both love and hate.  Anything that inspires anyone to action is good.

However I took a page from advice by Resisting Defamation and GW’s “conversation with Homo Deracinatus” and left this comment in the Baltimore Sun, a major mainstream newspaper over here:

“Wonderful comments, I’m inspired by the number of people waking up to the vast sea of truth hiding beneath the media-manufactured lies of the world.

Here are some more incredibly important facts:

Whites today make up only 10% of world population, by 2100 the UN has predicted we will only be 1% of world population. Massive third world immigration and disproportionate birth rates will within our children’s/grandchildren’s lifetime finalize the worldwide extinction of the white race. Whites are facing a worldwide genocide of territory loss, economic enslavement, demoralization and demonization, and ultimately criminal/terrorist violence against our people.

Everyone please stand up for the rights of white people and our basic right to life and liberty. Say no to genocide.

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

I am proud as a plump pigeon with my sheer brilliance and tact.  I never mention another race, nor concern myself whatsoever with them.  The focus always stays on white people and what is befalling us.  I appeal to universal human rights like ‘life and liberty’ and forge as laconic a slogan as possible: “Say no to genocide.”  As a cherry on top, I introduce the baltimore sun readership to david lane’s 14 words, which not only is the best possible phrasing existent, but also exists as a secret hand-sign to those in the know that I am a ‘member’ of ‘the resistance.’

Due to Fred’s suggestion I’ve been reading Dissecting the Holocaust and though I’m not done yet (page 401 out of 617) I am already convinced and I’m furious at how I’ve been lied to in so many ways about everything in this world.  Just wanted to give credit to Fred, GW, and the rest for being the best minds out there.  Of course, none of you are to blame when I disagree with you and don’t follow your advice! 

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:35 | #

An excellent first initiative, Diamed!

I do hope you won’t take it amiss, however, or find it churlish, if one were to suggest raising your sights ever so slightly on your next outing.

I mean, the Baltimore Sun! It doesn’t have much of a ring to it, does it? Somewhat redolent of the Doncaster Evening News or the Wuppertaler Anzeiger, if you get my drift.

Posted by White Activist on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:37 | #

With the massive economic downturn currently underway, NOW is the time to start agitating for the rights of White people and White workers over the Jewish financial overlords and the hordes of immigrants who are taking up all of this room in the workforce at the expense of White workers.

With unemployment among Whites increasing rapidly, we need to seize this moment and begin to try reaching more disgruntled Whites who are more receptive to our message now more than ever.

Posted by silver on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:21 | #

do hope you won’t take it amiss, however, or find it churlish, if one were to suggest raising your sights ever so slightly on your next outing.

I mean, the Baltimore Sun! It doesn’t have much of a ring to it, does it? Somewhat redolent of the Doncaster Evening News or the Wuppertaler Anzeiger, if you get my drift.

It was probably in response to the recent tentatively pro-white article they published.

Bob Whittaker’s mantra (“Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for everybody etc..”) is about as terse as it gets if you want to the mainstream comment-dropping route.

With unemployment among Whites increasing rapidly, we need to seize this moment and begin to try reaching more disgruntled Whites who are more receptive to our message now more than ever.

Exactly.  The prospects are excellent for racial reform to arrive from the left.  How many liberal sheeple oppose racism because they think it’s the conservative or republican thing to do?  You should be scooping up working class whites by the hundreds of thousands. 

Articles like this should rile them royally: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec02/0,4670,EUWorldMigrationReport,00.html

(The above’s an example of the commie, not the jewish, factor.  The former, for reason I can’t quite grasp, receives comparatively scant attention.)

Posted by WA on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:12 | #

Look at the picture at the top of this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/business/economy/06jobs.html?em

What a pathetic sight.  It’s from a job fair in Florida—filled with Hispanics, Blacks, and assorted muds, barely any Whites to be found, all scrambling for the same $9 dollar an hour job at some shitty Jew-owned retail store just so they can barely afford the rent payed to their Jew landlord and buy some overpriced food from the Jew-owned grocery store.

As this economic crisis deepens ethnic conflict and suspicion will increase dramatically.  In fact, it’s already happening.  This is a good sign that shows some American Whites are beginning to rediscover that they too have ethnic interests.

Posted by cobbett on Sat, 06 Dec 2008 02:31 | #

“As for “the evil men at the heart of Europe”, no one on the British political right of the 1930s would have cared about them but for their designs on other people’s land, and the cheapness in which they held other people’s lives.  I take it you think it’s OK to launch a war of extreme violence in order to ethnically-cleanse the lands to the east?”

LOL. I heard this same summation in my 10th grade history class.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:30 | #

Answer the question, cobbett.  Was it OK to launch a war of extreme violence in order to ethnically-cleanse the lands to the east? Or do you think peoples other than Germans have rights to their land?

Posted by cobbett on Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:07 | #

Is that really a “question”, or more hypocritical, Puritanical, ahistorical, all too typical, moralistic British goading? Why, you’ve even gone and given me the proper reply I should give you. “Or do you think peoples other than Germans have rights to their land?”

Yawn. Are you really incapable - seriously - of asking how any nation, from the dawn of time has risen to greatness? That includes your vaunted England. Kindly explain what the phrase “their land” means, when discussing the various races of the world and their migrating ebb and flow over the course of time? What’s your starting point, chap? 500 years ago? 3,000? Maybe some of those Celts who were butchered in wars of “extreme violence” and now fringe your island want you and your ilk to shove off across the Channel and head back where you came from. Do you have no perspective, old boy? 

Oh well. You have the upperhand morally. After all, you must be right - you won a great war.

Or did you?

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:44 | #

“After all, you must be right - you won a great war.

Or did you?”

Sorry to butt in, but may I recommend Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe to any who have not read it.  Military and political aims are not the same, as the English found out not long after 1945.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:47 | #

Revolution to protect and reinvigorate what is of value is in order, not revolution for revolution’s sake.  Pursuing “ultimate interests” in uninhibited fashion at the expense that which sustains said and makes said worth striving for in the context of the life lived is nihilism.  I’m with Lindbergh.

Posted by Good news on Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:50 | #

Good news: “U.K. Cuts Immigration as Economy Slows Down” - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122852785519884739.html#articleTabs=article

Posted by danielj on Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:55 | #

Oh well. You have the upperhand morally

If not us, then who?

Should we throw up our hands in despair at the utter incomprehensibility of it all?

Should we throw Shakespeare at it?

“Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there’s nothing to be afraid of.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 00:03 | #

cobbett,

So it was just fine and dandy by you for Germany to launch an all-out war of aggression against its neighbours to the east in the cause of the “new order of ethnographical relations”!

But it wasn’t fine, was it?  Under Himmler’s two plans for the East, more than 50 million Slavs beyond the Urals would eventually have been driven out.  Of the Poles, only about 4 million people were to be left residing in their ancestral homeland, and then only to serve as slaves for German settlers.

We cannot return to that militarist brutalism.  In Europe we no longer live in a socially darwinist time.  We did not do so, actually, in 1939 and, excepting the Balkans, have not done for many centuries.  Himmler’s plans were an abomination, and had to be opposed.

I already know that you would have understood that, had you been a child of the time, as you grandfather understood it.  What you need to understand now is that between Europeans today the principle of reciprocity known as Universal Nationalism is the only basis on which any resurgence of nationalism can be morally justified.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:19 | #

Good News,

Not that good actually.  From your link:-

The system is expected to cut the number of positions available to foreigners by 20%, to 800,000 annually.

We cannot survive that.

Dan,

Thinking back to your original suggestion that environmentalism must have a place in nationalist discourse, it seems to me that the appropriate one is in direct and deliberate opposition to the GDP-based view of economic purpose.  Growth is the generator of migration flows, and is cited by all apologists for increased or continued immigration.

To quote the globalisation specialist, Saskia Sassen:-

There are often multiple actors involved in producing a migration flow, beyond the immigrants themselves. Some of the actors in the international migration story are not usually recognised as such. Among these actors are, for instance:

# Multinational corporations through their role in internationalising production, with the associated displacement effects of local small-scale producers and the establishment of linkages between the capital receiving and capital sending countries involved.

# Governments through their military operations, with the associated displacements of people and ensuing flows of refugees and migrants.

# IMF austerity measures through their role in mobilising the poor into a desperate search for survival strategies that include migration, whether domestic or international, as one option.

# Most recently, the role of free-trade agreements through their strengthening of cross-border flows of capital, services and information, which include as one key component the cross-border circulation of professional workers. A key issue in the case of immigration policy is the absence of any recognition that immigration may often be one of the trade-offs in these processes. There are a whole range of trade-offs, positive and negative, in all of these flows—in direct foreign investment, in off-shore manufacturing, in IMF austerity measures, in free trade agreements. Frequently these trade-offs are recognised and formalised into the policy framework. But immigration is never seen as one of the trade-offs—it simply is not part of the map. Immigration policy continues to be characterised by its formal isolation from other major policy arenas, as if it were possible to handle immigration as an autonomous event.

Migrations are embedded in larger dynamics and they often are initiated through the actions of key actors in receiving countries, whether governments or corporations.

Environmentalism is certainly a large enough dynamic with which to counter those Sassen lists.  So I will cede you the point.  Now what are you going to do with it?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:07 | #

“A new points-based immigration system, parts of which [the U.K.] introduced last week, raises hurdles for all but the most highly skilled workers.  The system, modeled after one in use in Australia, grades workers and students hoping to enter the U.K. on criteria including education, age and need for their skills.  The system is expected to cut the number of positions available to foreigners by 20%, to 800,000 annually.”  (—from the article linked above by “Good News”)

I do not believe Britain needs 800,000 foreigners entering per year — that’s per year when per century would already be hard to believe:  per year!!! — in order to fill positions which Brits supposedly can’t be found to fill.  Does anyone actually believe Brits can’t be found to fill them?  What do the men in government take us for, that they actually expect us to believe that???  These foreigners and incompatible races are being brought in in order to biologically dilute the British races and to lower wages.  Of that there can be no possibility of a doubt.  What could conceivably be another reason?  No other reason is conceivable, since Brits are well able to fill all 800,000 positions.  Who exactly is it who wants to do this, change Britain’s races and lower wages?  Who exactly are the men behind the scenes giving the government its orders to do this?  And who are the men behind the scenes dumbing down British school educations so that instead of studying useful curricula that actually prepare them for these employment positions, the next generation of Brits are forced to study Kenya, Martin Luther King, and The Holocau$t, so that all they’re fit for when they leave school is to become ignorant, hopeless, useless, drug-using chavs?  That’s deliberate and calculated, make no mistake.  Whose filthy paws on government’s throat are forcing that on the nation?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:00 | #

So it was just fine and dandy by you for Germany to launch an all-out war of aggression against its neighbours to the east in the cause of the “new order of ethnographical relations”!

So you’re saying that Chamberlain declared war against Germany, in 1939, to halt “Himmler’s” plans. Evidence would be nice. Moreover, the concept of pan-Germanism developed through lebensraum did not originate with Himmler.

Moreover, during the years immediately preceding World War One, the focus of this colonialism shifted from the settlement of overseas colonies to the idea of conquering territory in eastern Europe, and of settling it with German peasants. The leading advocate of this notion was the influential chauvinist pressure group, the Pan-German League, and its associated propagandists.

Of these perhaps the most notable was the retired general and radical-conservative publicist, Friedrich von Bernhardi. In his notorious book Germany and the Next War, published in 1912, Bernhardi used many of Ratzel’s ideas to advocate using a victorious war to gain space in eastern Europe for the settlement of peasant farmers.

Or possibly you’re advocating Lloyd George declared to halt von Bernhardi’s plan?

If in fact the stiff lips in Westminster declared to halt the morally depraved men of the East, then why not declare against Soviet Bolshevism. They knew the score, yet they let millions be murdered by Stalin’s Jews. Why the Germans and not the Bolsheviks?

The crucial turning-point in the development of the Lebensraum programme occurred when German armies conquered Poland and western Russia after 1914. A German military regime (Oberost) was established in the Baltic provinces and in part of White Russia, under the command of General Erich Ludendorff. The situation became formalised with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed by the new Soviet regime in March 1918.

Operating under the slogan of ‘German Work’, Oberost aimed to introduce a modern form of bureaucratic, technocratic, rationalised government in an area which the German occupiers regarded as semi-barbaric. In the process this region came to be seen not as a complex mix of ethnic groups located in specific territories, each with its own distinct history and culture, but simply as ‘space’ (Raum).

Many of the large numbers of people involved in this massive programme came to acquire a sense of fulfilling a German mission in the east and, through propaganda, this perception was transferred to the German homeland, where it achieved some resonance. Popular journalists wrote articles with titles such as ‘To the East! New Land’, and ‘German Deed and German Seed in the Russian Badlands’.

Even after the end of the war, German irregular troops, the so-called Free Corps, continued to operate in the Baltic states in a guerrilla war against the Bolsheviks, fought with exceptional brutality on both sides. The post-war German government, hoping to dominate the new Baltic republics, encouraged this process and promised land to the troops.

What you need to understand now is that between Europeans today the principle of reciprocity known as Universal Nationalism is the only basis on which any resurgence of nationalism can be morally justified.

The problem is that universal nationalism from a practical military perspective, cannot be defended. Who expels the Russians from Georgia or the Georgians from South Ossetia? Who among the European nations is willing to spill their blood for that cause?

Posted by anon on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 04:44 | #

The problem is that universal nationalism from a practical military perspective, cannot be defended. Who expels the Russians from Georgia or the Georgians from South Ossetia? Who among the European nations is willing to spill their blood for that cause?

It seems the short answer is nobody. I am a “live and let live” nationalist.  But the fact is that peoples like the Georgians, Ossetians, etc..live on the borders of the Russian Empire(or whatever name you want to give it these days).  They are going to have a rough time of it when the czars get restless(or when stupid Westerners stick their nose in their business).  I don’t know what the solution is, but having the US (or anyone else involved) only seems to make things worse.  What a fucking mess…

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 17:53 | #

“What a fucking mess…” - anon

The intervention of the White race will be necessary to preserve important ecosystems and biodiversity, particularly in Africa and South America.  Salterian universal nationalism is most suited to and enforceable in the Eurosphere.  We have the ability to preserve the unique peoples of the White race and to preserve the natural treasures of this world; a world suited for White people to live in.  Russia and America are the natural poles of power within the Eurosphere because they have control of the most territory/resources and the most White people united under one national/ethnic identity. 

There will be no setting aside of the White man’s burden.  Russia and America, primarily, will have to shoulder it.  What other races and peoples can expect from us is a measure of concern for the existence and well-being of their people; but this cannot come at the expense of the destruction of the natural world.

Posted by Dasein on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:11 | #

Captainchaos,

One crucial element will be preventing technology trickle-down into those non-Western societies.  Complicating this will be countries like China, which are able to produce those items which 3rd worlders will use to despoil their habitats and which will likely not share the White man’s desire to preserve them.  I’m sure there are ways to deal with this…

BTW, thanks for recommending this site.  It was sad, and annoying, to see your posts getting deleted over at Takimag (I was posting as James Houston on the Narrative Too Far article).

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:50 | #

Dasein: “I’m sure there are ways to deal with this…”

Yes, other east Asian peoples, like the Koreans and Japanese, will assist us in containing China.  I don’t think it an exaggeration that the very existence of their people may depend upon the protection of the White race.  The Chinese can be brought to heel and be made to cooperate.  What is needed is the unabashed reassertion of the manliness of the White man.

“BTW, thanks for recommending this site.  It was sad, and annoying, to see your posts getting deleted over at Takimag (I was posting as James Houston on the Narrative Too Far article).”

I appreciate it.  What I am trying to do there is to wake up those who can be woken up.  What our people need is to see examples of White men who will stand steadfastly for their people.  We have all the facts we need to make our case and our big guns are refining ways to make our message palatable; what too many Whites lack is courage.

Posted by Dante on Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:35 | #

We must apply ourselves not only to our people’s survival, but to their wants and needs. A livable environment is a primary concern, and one which meshes well with genetic survival in the form of immigration control. As for the people’s wants, I’m convinced a lot of the romantic nonsense surrounding polar bears and plankton is a backlash against the ugliness of the modern city. I believe people are crying out against Mr. Lindbergh’s “despoiling of the Shire.”

A point perhaps unconsidered is that Sauron the Capitalist is not the only ravager of the natural world. Sauron the Communist has (arguably) visited far greater destruction - despite the deafening silence from the Red Vegans on such as Chernobyl and China. More particularly, Social Constructionist Saruman, that Many-Coloured voice of persuasion, has played a key role as well.

Economic forces may have led to the creation of the modern urbanity, but who else besides a Social Constructionist would try to remould mankind through architecture? Who else but an exponent of Authoritarian High Modernism, LeCorbusier in this case, would design “machines for living” in which “mankind will be reborn”? Who else would expect humans to adapt themselves - their arbitrary, socially-constructed selves - to the built environment, rather than the other way around? Who’d subject people to drab, monotonous grids of endless gray towers, and housing projects devoid of natural light, communal spaces and vegetation? Well yes, a Marxist… But there never was anything but a difference of degree between Sauron and Saruman.

I think we’re far better suited to catering for our people’s natural desire for beauty and harmony in their living space. We understand that people have evolved certain tastes and proclivities, and that they suffer when these are ignored or “re-engineered.” I’d like to see artistic and architectural movements, a compassionate “new” aesthetic, form around our movement’s ideas.

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:26 | #

Captainchaos,

I guess that’s why the moderators there had to expunge your posts.  It seems Takimag is trying to market itself as being the far outer fringe of respectable conservatism (without, as far as I can tell, an explicit ethnic foundation).  Perhaps their fare would excite those recovering from neocon delusions (happy to report that I am fully healed), but in the end without an explicit racial message it is just so much hot air.  Having completed the path to recovery (whose landmarks were The Bell Curve -> Race, Evolution and Behaviour -> Culture of Critique -> Imperium), my worldview is, I think,  pretty similar to yours.  There’s some refining of positions (would recommend New Culture, New Right to anyone who hasn’t yet read it), but the basic foundations are set.  Sites like this are crucial for keeping us sharp.  Thanks again for casting your net over there.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:33 | #

Dante: “I’d like to see artistic and architectural movements, a compassionate “new” aesthetic, form around our movement’s ideas.”

Sounds good to me, but let’s leave some room for polar bears and plankton.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:06 | #

Guessedworker

Dan,
Thinking back to your original suggestion that environmentalism must have a place in nationalist discourse, it seems to me that the appropriate one is in direct and deliberate opposition to the GDP-based view of economic purpose.  Growth is the generator of migration flows, and is cited by all apologists for increased or continued immigration.
To quote the globalisation specialist, Saskia Sassen:-
…
Environmentalism is certainly a large enough dynamic with which to counter those Sassen lists.  So I will cede you the point.  Now what are you going to do with it?

GW:

My own view is that we need to box a little clever on this theme. Even the term ‘environmentalism’ might itself be something of a misnomer for our purposes. It’s a term that I did not employ, and on purpose, given its normative association with simpering, limp-wristed tree-huggerdom. That is surely not what we are about. At this point then it might be instructive to ask what it is we are about, and as a plain-speaking Northerner I hope I will be excused if my views are expressed a little too forcefully, but basically I view the overall mission as follows:

1.  To stop the influx of darkies
2.  To cause as many as possible of those already here to go away
3.  To reverse the Long March

Given that context, the question then becomes how might the potential of ‘environmentalism’  best be channeled in pursuit of our overall objectives? I’d suggest that it would be best deployed along the vector of finite global resources, and linked to the extremely worrying prospect of future inter-regional conflicts for control of those resources. From our perspective, the most valuable resource that we (Peoples of European Descent) possess is, as I claimed earlier in this discussion, real estate to which we collectively hold title.

But to bring that to the fore immediately exposes a crucial fault-line that confronts ‘White Nationalism’, viz: the diametrically opposed mindset with respect to living space that characterises the population of Europe, and particularly Western Europe, from the populations of the white settler countries in North America and Australasia. In the latter there is still, amongst the general public at least if not amongst ‘WNs’, a common belief that many millions more third-world incomers can be accommodated, more or less painlessly. If, say, in a place like San Francisco or Sydney, the presence of such incomers proves in time to be uncomfortably irksome – perhaps local crime rates ramp up, pollution and traffic become more troublesome, the schools deteriorate, and so on – it’s really of no great import, since we can always move on somewhere else. There’s ample space for a retreat in depth, at least for another generation or two at least.

In places like London or Paris, on the other hand, flight is no longer really an option. People there already have their back to the wall, and any desirable potential bolt-holes – such as the northern littoral of the Mediterranean - are already experiencing their own Camp of the Saints moment. Western Europeans are already having to confront their demographic reality, in a way that Americans, Canadians and Australasians are not, and I feel it is in such circles that the benefits of ‘environmentalism’ – really a euphemism for a complete halt to immigration, and a managed population decline (focusing initially on ‘foreign elements’) will find the most fertile ground.

Posted by cobbett on Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:15 | #

“In Europe we no longer live in a socially darwinist time. “

Again, LOL. Yet another bizarre statement by someone of your advanced years. We’ve always lived in a socially darwinist time, chap. We always will. I can’t believe this even has to be stated.

As for your typically arrogant assumption about how my grandfather would have viewed things, what makes you presume that all Americans are WASP-descended, or that this whole nation was gung-ho for fratricidal war? I’ve watched over the years, marveling at your lacunae in both history and logic, but this new type of omniscience regarding the thoughts of someone’s dead relatives is a sight to behold.

It’s really fantastic how you use the Slavs the way an East Coast liberal uses “blacks”, as some type of cipher proving what a good person you are. Which Slavs are you talking about, exactly, when you hurl out the term? Is it the Slavs in Vlasov’s Army you’re so concerned with, those men who fought on the side of the evil Germans, or the ones your drunken Churchill “repatriated” to the Bolsheviks after the war?

As for the Slavs of Poland - well, again, I ask, when does history begin for you? The day the Germans invaded? Was there nothing happening before this? Do you watch your old Black Adder episodes starting at the fifteen minute mark?

Finally, I’m a big fan of your latest hyperbolic and tautological term, “War of Extreme Violence”. I’m currently in Lousiana, as you might know, which has a large Acadian, or “Cajun” population. Guess how they got here, from all the way up in Canada? Englishmen A) throwing pies at them B) hitting them with pillows C) shouting at them to leave D) other

There are no moral phenomena, chum. Just moral interpretation of phenomena.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:03 | #

cobbett,

I will put up a post especially for moral bankrupts who can only emotionally distinguish Germans from the rest of Mankind.

Dan,

I’ll refine your thumbnail sketch (which I realise is all it was intended to be) of a nationalist “mission”.

1 & 2. The repatriation of some or even all blacks and browns will fall short of offering the necessary protection.  The threat to Europe’s peoples is, ultimately, to our genotype.  The existing and future alien gene-flow, which is mostly negroid genes, is already not a trivial outcome for us.  If we wish to remain ourselves, and not be changed into something else, this gene-flow would have to be isolated geographically and socially.

That’s an impossible case to make in any kind of liberal milieu.  And we don’t have any non-political protections (for example, in Israel they have preserved the white Jewish gene pool from negrification semi-officially by placing rabbinic obstructions on marriage between black and white).  The milieu, therefore, would have to be changed.  We are talking about a revolution of the most fundamental kind.

3. The works of the Gramscian or “institutional” left and the Marxised liberal-left in general also cannot be undone without revolutionary change.  They are central to the dynamic of a global system of “justice”, “equity” and so on.  Why else do the foundational money-spouts of the elites feed leftism with all the cash it can use?  If we want to live we have to sweep away the whole structure, and leave nothing.

On environmentalism, for want of a better word, I can see its applicability for evangelising population decline (and for the concomitant of a more qualitative approach to the economy than the mad merry-go-round of limitless growth and consumer spending).  But where do population and economic issues fit within a nationalist revolutionary philosophy?  Not in the first tier of argument, I think, but in some subsidiary place offering completion.

Posted by cobbett on Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:29 | #

“I will put up a post especially for moral bankrupts who can only emotionally distinguish Germans from the rest of Mankind.”

You must at times bore yourself with these strawmen you set up to furiously knock down with your keyboard pecking. It seems to me that one of the primary people on this board who “emotionally distinguish Germans from the rest of Mankind,” is you, guv’nah, vis-a-vis the events of the Good War. You’re so adept at this technique that you conveniently leave out millions upon millions of Italians, Hungarians, Spanish, Rumanians, French, Norwegians, Danes, Swedes, Dutch, Wallonians, Ukrainians, Flemish, Croats and Japanese who fought for the same cause. 

When you do put up that devastatingly insightful and world altering post, do you think you can find it in yourself to abstain from using the word “moral” or any of its cognates? It’d make it much more palatable to those who view the world through a biological prism. Oh, while you’re at it, be sure to include this line: “Europeans are the most intellectually gifted and, therefore, creative of all great peoples…” (cue outraged sputtering) Why, why…what type of “morally bankrupt” person would distinguish others from the rest of Mankind on such a basis, GW?

Posted by Bill on Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:39 | #

The road to insanity - aka Global Warming and low carbon sydrome.

We’re all aware of the mantra of our age is Global Warming or climate change as some might prefer.

I wonder how many are aware that according to some ether pundits, Global Warming is the anvil upon which the NWO is to be forged.

The story goes that Global Warming is man made and carbon emissions are largely responsible.

To combat this, the PTB are shoulders to the wheel, pressing full steam ahead (pun intended) with a programme to reduce carbon emissions over the coming years.

I can’t say I’m overly preoccupied with all of this, you might easily say I’m not much interested at all, other than it gives me further insight into how our elites view the future of the world.

The ether pundits reckon Global Warming (GW) is the ultimate weapon of control, the ultimate false flag,(other than an alien threat from without) and as such, it will be used to cattle prod us into the NWO.

There has lately been a flurry of political announcements and pontification here in the UK, with hard announcements of targets and policy agenda for the next half century or so.  Given that new Labour are already toast and heading for the exit, it defies credibility at what they’re saying has any relevance at all, save that Dave (Cameron) is of similar ilk (Globalist) and will obediently pursue the carbon emission road map -  down the yellow brick road.

All of which brings me to this piece by Brendan O’Neill in Spiked Magazine ” Low carbon’ is code for low ambitions.
 
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7160/

As those who do not habitually scroll past my jottings maybe aware,  I’ve been banging on lately about mass immigration and it’s impact on the exponential demand for new houses, and how the population is to go through the graph to anywhere up to a hundred million souls this century.  All of which, I doubt has been taken into account when compiling their figures and will grossly inflate the carbon emission figures of future Britain.

It’s as O’Neil says, the emphasis is upon upgrading existing housing stock to conform to new emission standards, not (presumably) taking into account the millions of new homes which will be required.

The reduction of carbon emission in the coming years is, (according to the pundits) a smokescreen (pun intended) to mask the low expectations of economic future growth in the Western world.  IOW’s, Britain’s (along with Western civilisation’s) living standards, are to be merged with that of the third world.

When trying to keep track of what is happening in this crazy world I lose touch with reality.

It is forecast that tens of millions of Southern worlders will soon be heading North, which is bound to distort any behavioral projections, how can any of these government predictions be taken seriously?

Is it any wonder that conspiracy theories abound?  Swine flu, culling of world’s population by 80%-90%, elimination of white race, a scientific Brave New World, serfdom and elites, a multicultural world, - you name it.

Long ago there was a comedian, (Arther English) whose stage act was to tell a simple story which sooner or later would became more intricate and complex.  At this juncture his rhetoric would become agitated and with ever increasing speed would become ranting incomprehensibly.  His finale would be pleading insanity and yelling to be let out of the cage - before staggering exaggeratingly off stage.

I’m beginning to feel a bit like that.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:44 | #

I’ve been reading Polly Toynbee in today’s Guardian lamenting the lack of an agreement at the end of the Climate Change summit which has just concluded in Copenhagen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/18/gutless-planet-future-copenhagen-leaders

Polly is the doyen and darling of the progressives at the Guardian and is as loony as they come.  She is in despair at the calamity that is the Left at play whose 190 odd nation states have followed their instinctive tribal interests by voting for what is best for them.

Polly is Liberalism writ large. We are all equal, there’s no difference between the tribes of the world, her Utopian dream is the Coca Cola choir singing ‘It’s the Real Thing.

Liberals like Polly reviles the nation state and has reduced their societies to atomised individuals with no other thought but Me, Me, Me.  She is mortified that the heads of the nation states have voted in favour of their own people’s interests - how could they be so thoughtless?

She is still shaking her head.

Posted by Bill on Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:27 | #

Only the other day, (see) above 19th December 2009 10.44am.  I referred to the liberal Me Me Me that had Pollyanna Toynbee of the Guardian shaking her head.

Here is another example, this time it’s George Mombiot’s jottings that elicit this post.

Rushtojudgement
21 Dec 2009, 8:23PM

George, you raise the point (and its worth asking ) where are the public? We are back here in the real world , snow on the ground , central heating cranked up with most of the benefits that an advanced capitalist civilisation can bestow upon us… We like this world , we are not political ideologues with axes to grind , we simply work hard and expect a decent standard of living in return. The MMGW brigade has rarely attempted to engage with us beyond the silly stunts of groups such as Plane Stupid. What we have are such groups indulging in stunts , then crying to polticians/the state to do something on their behalf. That approach is explicitly anti democratic , elitist and self serving. There is no political “will of the people ” behind any of these “protests” , which is why come election time , they fall on deaf ears. As someone who was unemployed most of the eighties and into the nineties , i must say that i have only recently arrived at what would be the average lifestyle accorded most Britons, i am not about to give up my recently accquired car , ability to fly off on holiday , turn up the central heating etc . I am no different from the majority of people , we arent rich , just getting along nicely thank you , and we look askance at rich people ( not including you in this ) who tell us we are “overconsuming” , well let me tell you and the rest of the anti consumption brigade . I have only just started consuming , its great and i intend to continue until my dying breath. There is so much still left to do and see , and i dont feel an ounce of guilt in doing it , nor do most people. If you need a reason why your particular brand of politics hasnt caught on with us voters , its because we love the life we live , were going to live the life we choose , you have to understand ...youre walking in the shadow of the blues : )

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests

Posted by Aid to Africa is environmental terrorism. on Thu, 17 Sep 2020 07:29 | #