Posted by Bo Sears on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 06:55 | #

GW, it is true that my response was more related to WM’s comments than to yours.  (By the way, the “we” below relates to positions taken by members of Resisting Defamation.)

However, we still want to philosophically contest the notion you advance as follows: “I do want to say that even the best understanding of the C-word that the thinking American right can offer does not include my meaning - which, anyway, is less political than metapolitical, less to do ‘conserving’ than according with our nature.”

That’s fair if you use conservative with a special meaning so long as you make it clear what your meaning is. We cannot speak for the “thinking American right” because we have been separated from that silly group in too many ways. We do claim to be “thinking,” but not “the American right.” They stand aside for abuse against our young European Americans. The American right, thinking or not, does not care to protect the European Diaspora in North America.

However, and with all due respect, we are troubled by your comment that: “If you have concluded, given all the evidence put before you in life and through your contact here and elsewhere with radical right thinking, that European Man has a duty to his children and to Mankind to work in his own interests and to survive, then you are fundamentally a conservative.”

We reject the idea of “radical right thinking,” and simply accept “radical thinking” about nature and cultures and continental origins as a sound basis for understanding “that European Man has a duty to his children and to Mankind to work in his own interests and to survive…” We don’t see how this is a particularly conservative position under any definition of the term. And we don’t see how you can make an identity out of “radical right thinking” and “conservative.”

We also disagree with this sentiment: “The past holds a key.  Something happened one time that, were it to happen again, would put an end to liberalism and would replace it with another functioning system.” We believe that the past offers only a few concepts and functions from which we can pick and choose, but that most will disappear. The future at this intersection of technology and hatred is almost completely unknowable, and it is impossible to discern the resurrection of some political theory that died with its final practitioner in the first decade of the 1900s. 

Let’s face facts while seminarizing. Nationalism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Constitutionalism, Citizenism, Lincolnism, Washingtonism, Pittism, Thatcherism, Churchillism. Gladstonism, and Disraelism have all died. Any future structures of thought, governance, and economy will be so different from much that has gone before, that our best thinkers will be hard pressed to name and identify the shape of the future.

For the European Diaspora at least, it will be either disappearance or some kind of supra-state governance, borderless, quasi-global, stateless, and highly defensive with a new economic & militant apparatus. Pitt wouldn’t recognize it. Pray it isn’t totalitarian.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:48 | #

Making something clear which is really no more than an invititation to think anew is, it seems, fraught with difficulty.  The root of the problem appears to be the literalness of thinking that is being applied by my readers.

Here’s the deal, Bo.  A complete and functioning system of new philosophical and political references, beliefs and goals is truly necessary, so that the current, absolute ascendency of liberalism can be challenged.  Without this wholesale change other lesser changes more familiar in our discourse will not, even if some extremis grants them their day, be able to sustain.

Now, this statement won’t be welcome to those like the BNP who think they only have to get the punters to the ballot box, or those who think they have only to banish Jewry for the sun to shine everyday.  But such it is.

There are, in the broadest terms, really only two foundations upon which a new system of thought can be constructed.

One is predicated on tradionalism and, for want of authenticity, tends towards a misty, occultic vision of the European spirit.  It can be expressed in poetic emotional terms that are often extremely rousing (in relation to French identity, for example, Jean Marie Le Pen says an immigrant may begin to feel French when his parents’ bones have disintegrated into dust and mixed with France’s sacred soil).  It is very much the trajectory of European New Right philosophy and, all in all, it is rather impressive.  But it is also alien to the Anglo-Saxon temperament (I think it may appeal more, though, to the Prussian and Slavic imaginations, if that is not being too general).

The other foundation is regularly disparaged by the spirituality boys as heavy, blunt-edged and uninspiring materialism.  It is the Salteresque and Rustonian reliance upon “what is” and “what works”.  It rests upon its scientific understanding of a Nature from which we cannot in any case escape to any healthy purpose, as we have discovered to our cost today.

Its problem is that it has no political clothing - the opposite of European Traditionalism, which is all bloody clothing.

They cannot be melded together, IMO.  Alain de Benoist simply denies race realism outright on grounds of his anti-determinist principles.  He is not typical.  Most New Righters accept the general materialist propositions on IQ, crime and so on, but relegate them to a place below “the power of the will” or whatever - where, in fact, they have scarcely more influence than that accorded by anti-racist leftists.

Now, I am an Anglo-Saxon and a stonecold disbeliever in misty visions of our Greco-Roman destiny, etcetera.  I am with the materialist, “what works” crowd.  But I recognise that “what works” must have political expression.

To my mind, there is no doubt whatsoever as to what expression that must be, since all the materialists’ Darwinian truths lead directly to two words: social conservatism.  Our evolved way of life is - or, most certainly, ought to be - maintained in a stable form through an instinctual conservatism.  This is how we live true to ourselves.

Now it should be possible, Bo, for you to see that the Traditionalists - who most often call themselves Revolutionary Conservatives - have attempted to extrapolate from their vision of the distant past, with all its gold-encrusted patina of age, the very stability required for a large-scale anti-liberal zeitgeist which is seeded all through simple social conservatism.  It isn’t necessary to pursue racial glory and greatness like some pseudo-politician strapped to the back of a mad Valkyrie.  Simple but genuine political Conservatism WILL do the same damned thing.  Which isn’t that surprising.  Because it’s done it before!

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:54 | #

From Andrew L, a fine example of American “Conservatism”:-

Caucus for America is an organization and media outlet dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the historic American culture and civilization, both of which are rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic and the unique American ethos and perspective.

Our PROJECTS include: Clarifying and fighting for what Americanism is.

Unmasking the true intentions and motivations of a cynical, elitist corps working to transform America into a variant of European secularism and socialism.

Bolstering the spirits of those beleaguered by blame America first political correctness and its never-ending attacks on beloved American institutions and traditions.

Hear Rabbi Spero’s speech, “It’s Time to Regain Our Culture,” to the New York State Conservative Party. Click here (27 minutes)

I can see why it might be a tad difficult for racial loyalists in white America to stomach the C-word.  However, objection to Rabbi Sperro and his friends does not constitute objection to the native original.

Posted by Frank Mcguckin on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 02:21 | #

Bo Sears

With all do respect, Your post is defeatist bullshit.

Either Euro-Americans kick out the asian,muslim and hispanics invaders or they will kick us out.

Real White MEN will stay and fight. RUNNING TO Idaho and montanna IS A DEATH SENTENCE FOR WHITE AMERICA FOR SEVERAL VERY GOOD REASONS. IF you and James Bowery knew anything about the ecology of these two states, you would both understand why the running away option is not really an option.

Posted by Bo Sears on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:07 | #

Frank, I think you’ve got the wrong guy. We do not advocate leaving the cities and countryside we’ve created. We advocate staying everywhere we are.

However, your statement (“Either Euro-Americans kick out the asian,muslim and hispanics invaders or they will kick us out.”) is very interesting.

I would like to hear your suggestions as to how this is to be done, and what actual on-the-ground efforts you are doing today to bring this about.

Posted by GT on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:58 | #

Patrick,

“RUNNING TO Idaho and montanna IS A DEATH SENTENCE FOR WHITE AMERICA FOR SEVERAL VERY GOOD REASONS. IF you and James Bowery knew anything about the ecology of these two states, you would both understand why the running away option is not really an option.”

I’m all ‘ears’ about this Alamo plan.  Please explain why taking control of the breadbasket of the northern hemisphere (north, northwestern, midwestern ‘Kwa and Canada), and the water and hydroelectric resources for the entire southwest (Aztlan) is a death sentence for North American Whites.  Also, I’m very interested in learning how we can ‘hold the land,’ marry and raise our children in anything remotely approximating normalcy by staying in the natural desert of southern California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and much of Tejas outnumbered by the mud, surrounded by filth and disease, and without any logistical support whatsoever.

Posted by GT on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 05:59 | #

The above should have been addressed to Frank McGuckin.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:03 | #

Bo Sears

The real question underlying your comments is this:Would a majority of White Americans live with the complete take over of several very large Amerian states to Mexico and several other nations.

When the period of cognitive dissonance is over, I beleive reality will sink. The situation will be seen for what it is…. an invasion.

Both parties will have no legitimacy(for many Whites the already the democratic party has no legitamcy). A majority of Whites will no longer obdy the Republican party.

It is far from obvious that even if there was a complete seperation that violent racial conflict could be avoided.

Borders would have to be enforced with extreme violence if necessary.

A very lethal military infrastructure will fall ito the hands of China, India and Mexico.

A very strong case can be made that Whites will literally be surrounded by China,India Mexico.

Liberal James Kumstler in his book about peak oil laid at a plausible assumption about how easily a race between Whites and Mexicans could break out unbder the right circumstances.

Chiitum’s book in my opinion is the blueprint as to how things will unfold.

Montanna and Idaho are lands of rock and ice incapable of sustaing a large white population

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:20 | #

Frank: Both parties will have no legitimacy (for many Whites already, the Democratic Party has no legitimacy)

If it isn’t too objectionable to ask, should you not support Obama for the White House?

Posted by Frank Mcguckin on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:01 | #

Guessedworker

I do not vote. Not voting is one way to delegitimize the beltway consensus.

Worse is better is another option. Obama in a very important way is worse.

Amesty will make sthings much worse….and at the same time speed up the long ovrdue revolt of White Amerca.

To the comrade previous to Guessedworker

I have been to the Midwest several times over the past two years. The breadbasket of America is increasingly growing nice middleclass homes for the Whites who have voted with their feet against diversity. This is not ecologically sustainable.

I’m in a rush take care

Keep this in mind, when Californnia,Texas, Arizona and Southern FLorida are competley conquered, the invaderes will continue to do what they excell at. They will continue apace to breed like cockroaches.

This will force them to make a move on the White areas of the country.

Vilolent racial conflict is inevitable.

Posted by CONservative on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:39 | #

“Salteresque”

Hey!, I thought the “proper” term is “Salterian.”

“Because it’s done it before!”

And obviously failed to be evolutionarily stable.

It’ll be nice to see both Guessedworker and Wintermute spell out their conflicting visions of what a proper society should be.  And, let us be “concrete” and “materialist” about it - no sematics and philosophical debates about the meanings of “conservatism.”

Posted by Bo Sears on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:33 | #

Frank,

Your statement (“Either Euro-Americans kick out the asian,muslim and hispanics invaders or they will kick us out.”) is very interesting.

I would like to hear your suggestions as to how this is to be done, and what actual on-the-ground efforts you are doing today to bring this about.

Is this hard for you to answer?

Posted by GT on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:14 | #

Frank,

I’ve been to Montana and Idaho.  Both states are an important part of the northern hemisphere’s granary and water supply, and along with Washington and Oregon are excellent locations for the regrouping of our people in preparation for the comeback tour.

Newsflash: Nobody expects us to extricate ourselves from this mess without bloodshed!!  However, taken by surprise 45 years ago and continuously disappointed by incompetent or FBI/ADL-bought “leadership” a regrouping and change in battle plan is imperative.

Despite what some say a retreat and regrouping is not “running away” if there was no organized resistance to the invasion in the first place.  Let the roaches breed and repopulate the natural deserts of the northern hemisphere, I say, for we can control their water, bread and energy supplies.  They shall cooperate with us in attacking the Jews or die from mass rioting, starvation and heat stroke before our first show.

Our objectives should be the acquisition and consolidation of economic and community-state level political power throughout the North, Northwestern and much of Midwestern ‘Kwa and all of Canada to the Arctic Circle.  We must develop micro-economies based on barter and participate in local politics.

No political solution, you say?  Well you’re partly right. There is no political solution at the federal level.  But failure to recognize and promote the innumerable advantages of acquiring legitimate civil authority at community and state levels is downright treasonous to our Cause.

Posted by John Ironicshire on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:12 | #

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=6582&sec_id=6582

John Derbyshire, conservative.

How’s that for irony - Debyshire bemoaning the fact that today’s British no longer have “racial pride” and a “contempt for lesser breeds.”

Let’s see.  An Englishman full of “racial pride” and “contempt for lesser breeds” would _not_ be cohabitating with a Chinawoman in some legalized facsimile of western marriage, and certainly would not be implanting his “seed” into the womb of that lesser breed.

Derbyshire’s entire private life, his family, is itself a symbol of capitulation and the death of the west, and then this guy - who mocks MacDonald and his work because of its personal implications - has the gall, the nerve, the chutzpah (to coin a word from Derbyshire’s favorite group) to actually write an essay like this?

The guy either has no concept of self-analysis whatsoever, or he is a hypocrite of monumental proportions.

“Scorn for lesser breeds”, indeed!  Look at the family photos from the Derbyshire website and see how well Johnny is following in the proud British tradition.

Posted by Count Sudoku on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:23 | #

For those who would like to download a free copy of Civil War II, you can get it here http://www.timebomb2000.com/misc/

It recommends among other things that you not be living in Los Angeles or any other areas blessed with diversity when the SHTF.

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:42 | #

John Derbyshire, conservative.

I agree that Derbyshire is a good example of a British Conservative, but I think the the award of ‘most emblematic’ must be awarded to Lord Aldington. No man is an island, of course, so the behavior of the conservatives around him and throughout society must be factored into the analysis. Taken together, they are conservativism’s natural terminus ad quem; a social old boy’s network to which the concept of ‘moral atrocity’ cannot even exist, except as a weapon to destroy other Whites, in this case Germans and Eastern Europeans.

December 19, 2000

LORD ALDINGTON: DEAD, BUT NO R.I.P.
by Srdja Trifkovic
Lord Aldington, 86, a former British trade minister and Conservative Party vice chairman who filed one of Britain’s most famous libel cases against a man who labeled him a war criminal, died of cancer Dec. 8 at his home in Kent, southern England. In 1989, Lord Aldington was awarded $2.2 million in damages after winning a libel suit against historian Count Nikolai Tolstoy, a distant relative of Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, who had written a pamphlet accusing Lord Aldington of war crimes. As a British army officer in Austria at the end of World War II, Lord Aldington — then known by his given name, Toby Low — oversaw the repatriation of thousands of Cossack and Yugoslav refugees. Many were subsequently killed or interned in prison camps. At the libel trial, Lord Aldington agreed that the refugees’ fate was “ghastly” but said he had not known that many faced execution if returned to their homelands. (The Washington Post, December 9, 2000)

An obituary sometimes begs a thousand words. Well worth doing in this case, especially since it’s been over a decade since we wrote about Aldington, Tolstoy, and one of the greatest untold tragedies of World War II (cf. “Writing in the Tolstoy Tradition” by Sally Wright, Chronicles, April 1989). This is a story of heinous crimes that went unpunished and establishmentarian conspiracies to cover them up, of miscarriage of justice, of one man’s quixotic efforts to tell the truth and another’s quiet campaign to keep it suppressed.

The story starts at Yalta in February 1945, when the return of all Soviet citizens that may find themselves in the Allied zone was demanded by Stalin — and was duly agreed to by Churchill and FDR. Accordingly, hundreds of thousands of Soviet POWs liberated by the Allies were sent back home, regardless of their wishes, and regardless of what Stalin had in store for them. In addition, in May and June 1945 tens of thousands of refugees from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union — unarmed civilians escaping communism, as well as anticommunist resistance fighters and assorted collaborationists — were rounded up by the British in Austria, and forcibly delivered to Stalin and Tito. Most of them were summarily executed, sometimes within earshot of the British. Forced repatriations were known as Operation Keelhaul — the “last secret” of World War II, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn called it. Men, women, and children were forced into boxcars headed for the Soviet zone in the east, or for Slovenia in the south.

Non-Soviet and non-Yugoslav citizens and Serbian royalists were supposedly exempt from the deportation order, but key military officials in the British chain of command surreptitiously included them, too. As a result émigré Russians waving French passports and British medals from the World War I were all rounded up and delivered to Stalin.

There was panic in the camps when the inmates realized what was going on. The British lied to some that they were to be taken to Italy, or some other safe haven; if the subterfuge didn’t work they used rifle butts and bayonets as prods. Some refugees committed suicide by sawing their throats with barbed wire. Mothers threw their babies from trains into the river.  To its credit one British regiment, the London Irish, refused: they went to war to fight German soldiers, they said, not to club refugee women and children. (Americans proved willing to open the gates of refugee camps and look the other way as the desperate inmates fled.)

In late June 1945 the original policy of screening the would-be deportees was reinstated, but it was too late: most of them were already dead, or in the depths of the Gulag. The tragedy would have remained little known outside obscure émigré circles were it not for British historian Count Nikolai Tolstoy, who has dedicated his life to exposing the truth and identifying those responsible. This great-grand-nephew of Russia’s famous novelist — and heir to the senior line of the family — has written three books on forced repatriations, each more revealing than the previous one, as more suppressed information came to light. In 1977 his Victims of Yalta was published, followed by Stalin’s Secret War in 1981, and then his most controversial book, The Minister and the Massacres (1986).

In his books Tolstoy argued that refugees not covered by the Yalta agreement — émigré Russians and royalist Yugoslavs — were forcibly repatriated because Harold Macmillan, “minister resident” in the Mediterranean and later prime minister, wanted to advance his political career by appeasing Stalin. He persuaded a British general whose 5th Army Corps occupied southern and eastern Austria to ignore a Foreign Office telegram ordering that “any person who is not (repeat not) a Soviet citizen under British law must not (repeat not) be sent back to the Soviet Union unless he expressly desires.”

Enter Lord Aldington, then a politically well-connected 30-year-old brigadier called Toby Low, who was the Fifth Corps chief of staff. He was also an aspiring Tory politician, hopeful of being nominated as a candidate at the forthcoming general election in Britain. Low had no qualms about acting upon Macmillan’s suggestions. On May 21, 1945 he issued an order to 5th Corps officers as to how to define Soviet citizenship: “Individual cases will NOT be considered unless particularly pressed ... In all cases of doubt, the individual will be treated as a SOVIET NATIONAL.” The émigrés’ fate was thus sealed. Tolstoy named Aldington in his last book as the chief executor of the policy of forced repatriation on the ground, the man who went way beyond the call of duty in carrying out Macmillan’s instructions, and who did so in contravention of orders.

The charges were serious, by British standards quite scandalous in fact, but Aldington was reluctant to sue Tolstoy over the book. He did sue one Nigel Watts instead, however, an obscure property developer who distributed a pamphlet — written by Tolstoy — in which Aldington was called a war criminal. The pamphlet included the following statements:

As was anticipated by virtually everyone concerned, the overwhelming majority of these defenceless people, who reposed implicit trust in British honour, were either massacred in circumstances of unbelievable horror immediately following their handover, or condemned to a lingering death in Communist gaols and forced labour camps. These operations were achieved by a combination of duplicity and brutality without parallel in British history since the Massacre of Glencoe ... The man who issued every order and arranged every detail of the lying and brutality which resulted in these massacres was Brigadier Toby Low, Chief of Staff to General Keightley’s 5 Corps, subsequently ennobled by Harold Macmillan as the 1st Baron Aldington ... The evidence is overwhelming that he arranged the perpetration of a major war crime in the full knowledge that the most barbarous and dishonourable aspects of his operations were throughout disapproved and unauthorised by the higher command, and in the full knowledge that a savage fate awaited those he was repatriating ... a major war criminal, whose activities merit comparison with those of the worst butchers of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

As the author of the text Tolstoy felt honor-bound to include himself as Watts’ co-defendant. At the trial Aldington freely acknowledged signing the repatriation orders, but claimed that there was “no way” he could have known the refugees would be killed: “We were told that international law would be obeyed.”

His mission in Austria accomplished, Brigadier Low returned to England on some unknown date in May 1945 to be selected as the Conservative MP for Blackpool — the beginning of the slow rise that would see him ennobled (by Macmillan!) and ushered into the boardrooms and elite gentlemen’s clubs of Britain. The exact date of his return is highly significant: Tolstoy argued that Low did not leave Austria until after the key order on indiscriminate deportations was issued, and therefore it was he who — contrary to the orders issuing from Yalta — was personally responsible for the crime.

When the trial came it should have been possible, easy even, to prove the order of events and name the man who had issued the orders. The British are efficient administrators, and the Public Record Office should have contained the answer. Some of the relevant documents Tolstoy had copied when he researched his books, but when he went back he found that the old boy network had done its work. All key documents related to the case had been sent to various government ministries — notably to the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence — and duly “misplaced.” When Tolstoy’s researcher asked for these documents, including reports and signals relating to Aldington, she was told they were “not available.” Only after the trial had started was Tolstoy given a photocopy of the most important of the files, but four-fifths of the contents were missing.

Lord Aldington had no such problem: the files were not only readily available to him, but delivered to his office by government couriers. “Dear George,” he wrote to George Younger, the (then) Defence Secretary, on March 8, 1987, “you are a friend who will understand my distress ... if the files can be brought to the Westminster area in a series of bundles, that would be very helpful.” “Dear George” duly obliged. Aldington’s mind eventually clarified as to the date on which he had finally left Austria — he gave three dates in three interviews — but there were no records by which these could be confirmed.

Heavily influenced by the trial judge, the jury found against Tolstoy and awarded Lord Aldington astronomic damages — a million and a half pounds sterling — in November 1990. Tolstoy, who declared bankruptcy, was denied the right to appeal. Aware that Tolstoy was penniless after the libel verdict, Britain’s High Court ruled that he had no right to appeal unless he came up with almost $200,000 in advance to cover Aldington’s legal expenses. The court further denied Tolstoy access to a $1m defense fund that had been set up in his name, and to which Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the late Graham Greene had contributed. The British establishment, and in particular the grandees who were friends of Aldinton — the man on first-name terms with ministers in every Tory government since the war — got the desired verdict. As far as they were concerned, a crank — and a foreign crank at that — had received his well-deserved comeuppance.

L’affaire Tolstoy proved yet again that British libel laws are flawed. The machinery of the British government seemed to tilt the scales of justice, and the state apparently interfered in a private court case. The Human Rights Court at Strasbourg ruled in a unanimous judgment that the failure to permit an appeal was “unfitting for a democratic society” and “constituted a violation of the applicant’s right ... to freedom of expression.”

A recent reminder of the travesty of justice perpetrated under British libel laws concerned two ITN journalists who successfully sued the LM Magazine (see “News & Views,” April 20). Free speech was damaged both times, and — in the absence of the First Amendment equivalent — free speech is not so strong in Britain that it can take such damage. But, as Cambridge historian Michael Stenton points out, for as long as the rich have all the legal advantages, the chance of constitutional reform is poor indeed: “When historical truth becomes intensely politicized it is possible to get trapped on the wrong side of the factual fence by sympathies and first impressions. All we can do, and must do, is promise to climb over the fence if the evidence demands it.”

Lord Aldington’s remarkable claim that he had had absolutely no idea what the fate of these people would be was a lie. Everyone knew, and Aldington’s awareness of the draconic nature of his orders was reflected in the official name of the operation — “Keelhaul.” Keelhauling was a disciplinary measure on English ships in the old days: a seaman guilty of some grave offence would have a loop of a rope attached under his arms, to be thrown into the water and dragged all the way from the stern to the bow of the ship before being hauled out again. (This had the advantage that some of the barnacles would be scraped from the ship’s bottom, but few survived such treatment.)

After Tolstoy’s trial his Minister and the Massacres was banned from British libraries and universities. Although the British government would like to silence Tolstoy and any reference to forced repatriation, the issue will never go away. Ever the idealist, Tolstoy hopes that sooner or later it will have to come clean and apologize for the crimes of its agents in occupied Central Europe in that awful spring of 1945. He recalls that Prime Minister Tony Blair recently issued an apology on behalf of Britain for the 19th century potato blight in Ireland, “though many historians and members of the public found it hard to envisage in what way that tragedy could be regarded as a direct responsibility of the government of the day, let alone its late 20th century successor.” He also points out that the British government “pressed consistently and successfully” for German and Japanese governments to compensate British victims of their wartime atrocities.

Lord Aldington won his court case thanks to the twisted British libel laws and thanks to the Kafkaesque nature of Britain’s power structure, but wherever he is now he may be wondering if it was a victory worth having. That flawed man, disdainful of the suffering of such lesser breeds as Slavs, cynically manipulative and devoid of any capacity for moral distinctions, is beyond human judgment now; but one hopes that a much higher court will take a dim view of his life and times. May his name live in infamy.

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:44 | #

Because it bears repeating: “the overwhelming majority of these defenceless people, who reposed implicit trust in British honour, were either massacred in circumstances of unbelievable horror immediately following their handover, or condemned to a lingering death in Communist gaols and forced labour camps. Of how many people and nations, I wonder, may this be truly said?

You’ll also note how Aldington attempted to cow the publisher of the pamphlets; a man one might consider small in the grand scheme of things but who proved to have the heart of a lion. Also the behavior of Count Tolstoy makes an instructive comparison to archetypal British Conservative Aldington.

People here like to imagine that because I am a colonial, and therefore a provincial, that I couldn’t possibly understand the intricacies of ‘conservatism’ on the continent, to which I reply: I can recognize all the signs of personal smallness, petty advantage seeking, and criminal shortsightedness, even when they occur in sophisticated Europeans. 

Obviously, I will have more to say on this topic. GW’s piece above: “Everything that is good is conservatism and everything that is bad is not”, I think, deserves due consideration before it recieves a definitive reply. I think what we are seeing here is a conceptually unsound worldview collapsing into a cloud of abstractions, girt about with some references to Darwin in order to make an unexamined prejudice seem like a defensible or useful worldview, when it has demonstrated, time and again, that it is not.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:57 | #

It is horrifying to contemplate the complete ecologocal destruction of CALIFORNIA.

this past summer there was a conflict between white liberal/left environmenaist and non-white immigrants. Covered in last august issue of wall street journal.

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:05 | #

Our objectives should be the acquisition and consolidation of economic and community-state level political power throughout the North, Northwestern and much of Midwestern.

Ridiculous.  Those places have no advantages over the South.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:52 | #

Bo Sears

Here is the main point:this society is on a trajectory towards a state of spontaneous combustion.

Here is a question for you:how would it be possible for this society to avoid violent racial conflict? This is one of those questions that answers itself.

The point of no return has already been reached.

Are you familiar with the Putnam study?

The gas has already been poured into the basement.

Posted by Lorcan on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 03:19 | #

This site has improved greatly with James Bowlery who is truly good to read but the smell of old tory tweed attracting moths in the corner still keeps me away. That said I had to comment as the critique is even by Guestworkers admission dead on.

“The last traces of it disappeared from English politics with the retirement of Lord Salisbury in 1902.”

The very same Lord Sailsbury who presided as Prime Minister over the Boer war killing how approximately 50,000 women and children in the first major use of concentration camps? All so Cecil Rodes could get his gold in violation of existing treaties.

A shining example of conservatism alright.Its amusing as Alington and Sailsbury are serving the same master if not cut from the same cloth here(Sailsbury at least could be genuinely benevolent at times). Not to mention his friendship with the Disraeli.Gold,Jews and genocide do conservatives get any better than that?

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 03:59 | #

“Alain de Benoist simply denies race realism outright on grounds of his anti-determinist principles.”

This is inaccurate, as far back as the early 1970s de Benoist addressed such questions as race, I.Q., and culture. His literary vehicule, Elements, was the only periodical in France to publicize Arthur Jensen’s research on innate racial differences in I.Q.

http://www.grece-fr.net/textes/_txtWeb.php?idArt=464

Posted by GT on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 04:04 | #

“Ridiculous. Those places [North, Northwestern, Midwestern ‘Kwa & Canada] have no advantages over the South.”

Absurd.

Still, nobody’s forcing you to leave the old place, Tyrone, or Manuel.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:41 | #

Friedrich,

I will repeat and augment my meaning in respect of AdB, and perhaps achieve more accuracy for your satisfaction.

Unlike you, and I am in touch with someone who actually knows AdB extremely well personally, stays with him and talks to him at great depth.  I am assured that he will NOT defend La France Blanche on racial grounds because he is such a determined anti-determinist ... a believer in the will.  Therefore, he is led to deny outright that difference holds suzereignty over will.

In effect, this is probably much closer to the libertarian/leftist “race exists but does not matter” rather than the more absolutist “race does not exist”.  My actual statement was that AbB “simply denies race realism outright on ground of his anti-determinist principles”, so you can judge for your yourself where it falls.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:55 | #

Wintermute,

My oft-stated understanding is that what came to be called Conservatism had its beginnings in 1485 and its final throes can be dated to 1902 ... a 417 year span during which, obviously, many events, ignoble as well as noble, occurred.  One of those, IMO, was the Second Boer War.

Aldington has no connection to my argument whatsoever, and I see no reason other than pure destructiveness why you would want to raise his spectre him now.

My thumbnail definition of what action qualifies as conservative was “acting from and for what is good in us.”  It was not “everything that is good is conservatism and everything that is bad is not”.  If you are going to critique what I said, please do exactly that.  Don’t shift my meaning for the convenience of your own argument, a la Aldington.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 08:58 | #

GT: They shall cooperate with us in attacking the Jews

I assume you mean “Jewish power”.  The other has been tried, alas, and been found to be immensely self-harming.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:04 | #

Lorcan,

I am not defending the Boer Wars, particularly the Second.  I would have though that the considerable support for the Boers at this website left no doubt about my sentiments.

But do please try to understand that I am not here praising British governments led by Tories.  I am pointing out that powerful strands in English intellectual and political history have a very great value for defeating liberalism.  Can you please try to operate at the level of ideas and then, if you still wish to criticise me, at least we will be talking about something I have actually said.

Posted by wintermute on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:19 | #

The very same Lord Sailsbury who presided as Prime Minister over the Boer war killing how approximately 50,000 women and children in the first major use of concentration camps? All so Cecil Rodes could get his gold in violation of existing treaties.

Salisbury and Rhodes were of course, not alone:

The ten leading Jewish merchants in London, fearing that the market would be flooded with South African diamonds, quickly formed a syndicate to buy up all of the production from these new mines. A number of the merchants in this syndicate had also acquired large stock holdings in the De Beers monopoly itself. One of the merchants who took the lead in arranging the deal with Cecil Rhodes was Dunkelsbuhler. Dunkelsbuhler brought into his London company a sixteen years old apprentice from Friedberg, Germany. He was Ernest Oppenheimer, and he would complete the diamond invention.

More:

The syndicate in London to which Rhodes contracted to sell De Beers’ entire production of diamonds in 1893 was made up of ten firms. These were Wernher, Beit & Company, Barnato Brothers, Mosenthal Sons & Company, A. Dunkelsbuhler, Joseph Brothers, I. Cohen & Company, Martin Lilienfeld & Company, F. F. Gervers, S. Neumann, and Feldheimer & Company. All these firms were interconnected by marriage and family ties, and all were owned by Jewish merchants.

From: http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/diamond/chap8.htm

A more detailed examination of Guessedworker’s “Golden Age of Conservatism” - which you accurately sum up as “Gold, Jews, and Genocide” - would have to include an closer look at that sorry business with the Chinese and all that Opium, with one eye on the Sasoon fortune at all times, as well as the question of the financing of the Dutch East India company. A whole chapter of the report would have to be set aside to consider Disraeli’s influence on Queen Victoria as versus that of Gladstone.

In other words, the “real conservatism” that GW is proffering in the hopes of sidestepping my critiques, is nothing more than orgiastic moneygetting on a global scale, instigated, theorized, financed, abetted, purveyed, and finally, covered up, by Jews. This is the “healthy”, “real world”, “conservative” alternative he is presenting. Don’t like moronic Texan executives and marauding Americans murdering and plundering the world on account of Jewish advisers and Jewish press and financial power? Then why don’t we turn back the clock to when England, rotted out by the very same group of agitators, ruled and ruined the world? They say all conservatives care about is turning the clock backwards, and in this case at least, it’s true.

The distance between Disraeli’s “Conservatism”, which GW pronounces the real deal, and the conservatism in evidence in Washington these last seven years, right down the methods (court Jews plus financial and press power) and goals (“benevolent global hegemony”) is nil. It’s not even conservatism GW is advocating for - it’s neoconservatism.

Or,  as Lorcan more rightly calls it, “Gold, Jews, and Genocide”.

All of this was said first, and better, by Ezra Pound:

Your infamy is bound up with Judea. You can not touch a sore or a shame in your empire but you find a Mond, a Sassoon, or a Goldsmid. YOU HAVE NO RACE left in your government.

God knows if it can be found still scattered in England.

IT must be found scattered in England. The white remnants of England, the white remnant of the races of England must be FOUND and find means to cohere; otherwise, you might as well lie down in your grave yards.

This was from a Pound broacast in 1942. His matchless insight is even more keen with the advantage of hindsight, as we are able to actually confirm Pound’s ability to see the future.

Here is how he described the last of England in that same broadcast:

Now the address is altered. Main office in Wall Street and Cohen in London. You send Willie over to spy on us. You send 5000 usurers’ pimps over to Washington and give special passports, diplomatic, to inveigle the United States into your plans to get cannon fodder from Idaho and from Iowa to weld your slaves collar on Europe. And this time you get dumped into the ash can.

“Dumped in the ash can” pretty well sums up the treatment (well deserved) of Britain by the senior partner in the firm “Yankee-Judea” after the war - world decolonization followed by sweating out every penny of lend-lease that allowed the war in the first place.

For those interested, Britain made its final payment on these loans in December - of last year.

An expensive war, to be certain, but who can put a price to the noble goal of murdering millions of Germans and destroying civilization in order that half of Europe be turned over to the Gulag?

Pound again: “The supreme betrayal of Europe is inherent in the alliance of Anglo-Jewry with Moscow.”

A shining example of conservatism alright.[. . . ]Gold,Jews and genocide do conservatives get any better than that?

No. That is about their par.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:42 | #

WM: The distance between Disraeli’s “Conservatism”, which GW pronounces the real deal

I have specifically and repeatedly stated that Disraeli wrote Coningsby, in the best traditions of Jewish linguistic warfare, to sever the intellectual history of Conservatism from its roots and graft it onto a Whiggish tree.

How can your long arguments be taken seriously when you either do not read what is said beforehand or you use a very Disraelian piece of slate of hand and, presumeable, hope that neither I nor the reader notices.

Really, I am astounded that you operate in this way.  It does you no justice because I know you to have a fine mind and to be a scholar non pareil in your own specialism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:53 | #

WM: the “real conservatism” that GW is proffering in the hopes of sidestepping my critiques, is nothing more than orgiastic moneygetting on a global scale, instigated, theorized, financed, abetted, purveyed, and finally, covered up, by Jews. This is the “healthy”, “real world”, “conservative” alternative he is presenting.

Your “critiques” are based on misrepresenting me.  That’s one thing.  But when you misrepresent my pointing out your misrepresentations as “sidestepping your critiques” that’s something pretty special, WM.  Really, if I didn’t know you better I would probably conclude that you were a trifle obsessive, and just perhaps monomaniacal.  But let that pass.

Posted by wintermute on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:09 | #

Aldington has no connection to my argument whatsoever, and I see no reason other than pure destructiveness why you would want to raise his spectre him now.

Aldington and the philosophical and social networks which spawned and protected him are in fact, completely relevant to the topic at hand. Though you see the raising of his spectre as purely destructive, it is only so inasmuch as it tends to destroy the legitimacy of conservatism.

Consider: you are assuming that your “true Scotsman” definition of conservatism, 1485-1902 inclusive, is true. I am positing that it is false. It is utterly hypocritical of you to blame race replacement, feminism, the destruction of the family and so forth on Liberalism, when a Liberal could just as easily turn around and try to artifically delimit his end of the spectrum to Voltaire, John Locke, and Adam Smith.

Just as I present you with the awful spectre of Lord Aldington, I would present our hypothetical liberal with FDR and Gloria Steinam. In fact, you do this everyday. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

My thumbnail definition of what action qualifies as conservative was “acting from and for what is good in us.” It was not “everything that is good is conservatism and everything that is bad is not”.

My translation is an honest restatement of what is essentially mere cant. “acting from and for what is good in us” does in fact equal “conservatism is goodness itself” once translated out of newspeak.

If you are going to critique what I said, please do exactly that.

That is what I am doing.

Don’t shift my meaning for the convenience of your own argument, a la Aldington.

Don’t flatter yourself that your formulation is a rigorous or honest one. No meanings have been shifted as you imply.

Let’s replace the reference in your prime claim to see how slippery it really is:

“Religion is acting from and for what is good in us.”

“Masculinity is acting from and for what is good in us.”

“Charity is acting from and for what is good in us.”

“Nationalism is acting from and for what is good in us.”

and so forth. I leave as an exercise for the reader, a full investigation as to the ultimate flexibility of GW’s phrase.

Since this extremely vague and abstract formulation essentially boils down to, “Conservatism is goodness”, the implication, “everything that is bad is not” also holds.

Therefore my critique is sound. I would point out that your defense of conservatism has led you to produce inanities worthy of a politician.

I find especially offensive and banal the following formlations:

If you have concluded, given all the evidence put before you in life and through your contact here and elsewhere with radical right thinking, that European Man has a duty to his children and to Mankind to work in his own interests and to survive, then you are fundamentally a conservative.

Note: here, in an instance of naked Humpty Dumpty imperialism, words are made to mean just what GW wants them to mean and nothing else. If you are a racialist, then you are a conservative. If you think Europeans should work to survive, you are a conservative.

This is outrageous, unsupportable, and unworthy of GW as a man. When the defense of a thing leads you to lie about a thing, then men of good conscience must stop and re-examine their presuppositions.

I think GW is a man of good conscience, but he is stubborn. And shown the contradictions and failures inherenct in conservatism, he has retreated into babble. “Anyone who cares about the future of European man is a conservative”. What could drive a good man to state such a bald faslehood?

I’ll be honest: I don’t think GW is a conservative and he hasn’t been for some time. I think it is only now occuring to him that conservatism and the preservation of Europe and Europeans are at loggerheads. Hence these campaign speech platitudes, designed more to insulate him from the horror of our situation than to persuade, which they cannot.

Does one single person here accept the statement that anyone who plans for the future of European mankind is a conservative? Would you still do so after examining enough literature from the Progressive era, by self-styled World Government Liberals like Wells, regarding the importance of the White Race? Is GW actually saying that Margaret Sanger and H.G. Wells were ‘fundamentally conservative’?

If you stand by your statement, GW, say so. Type out the following sentence and sign your name to it:

“H.G. Wells and Margaret Sanger are fundamentally conservative.”

I think seeing the contradictions in your claims stated so baldly will lead you to more quickly resolve your confusion.

They were not fundamentally conservatives. And, even if you yourself have a ‘conservative temperament’, you are now a man of conservative temperament among Racial Nationalists, not a “conservative” and certainly not a conservative among conservatives. That game is over.

If you think that our particular European nature, evolved as it is, has been profoundly influential in the way we have lived, in our mores, our relationship with the material world and so on, and that this influence is both inevitable and for the good, you are a conservative.

I feel silly dignifying such a statement with a response.

If you wish to hold to it, I will produce figures who are not conservatives who hold to the ideas above.

I must say, GW, that your Humpty-Dumptyism with the word conservative marks a new low in moving the goalposts. I urge you to reconsider the doctrine or emotional attachment which has brought you to this low place.

The above claims, foggily stated and with less than honest intent, do not fairly represent you morally.

In contrast to your statement that whomever accepts evolutionary psychology without political qualm is a conservative, I offer the following observation:

Your committment to the survival of Europe and Europeans - our Race-Culture - seems to me to be honest. I believe you will find that, ultimately,  it will prove to be incompatible with your petty nationalism, your conservatism, and your atheism.

Rather than, through struggle, attempt to preserve what you have already tossed aside, hold these things more lightly; they will then fade away of their own accord. Your behavior on this thread is sufficient to demonstrate that, far from being a stable strategy, conservatism is something morally beneath you, proved by the fact that you must make outrageous and unsupportable claims - as well as tendentious definitions - in order to defend it.

The change you are fighting is already behind you. Accept your new destiny with grace.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:21 | #

WM,

I take back any suggestion that you intentionally misrepresented me.  You are a literal thinker.  That’s the problem.  Unless you can elasticate your conceptual processes somewhat I think it will be very hard for you to understand what others - not just me - are actually saying.

Anyway, I will put up a post later on the “orgiastic moneymaking” thing, because that is relavant to what I am attempting to say.

Alex,

I have not read Ludovici.  I will now.

How did you come across these quotes?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:30 | #

I think Russians might out-do the English in some of those qualities that Ludovici ascribes to my lot.

Posted by Razib critiques DS Wilson on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:13 | #

India’s Edge Goes Beyond Outsourcing
Anand Giridharadas, New York Times, April 4, 2007

Outsourcing is breaking out of the back office.

For years, most service industry jobs that were moved to countries like India were considered relatively low-skill tasks like answering customer inquiries. But that has been changing in recent years, and increasingly the jobs of Western white-collar elites in fields as diverse as investment banking, aircraft engineering and pharmaceutical research have begun flowing to India and a few other developing countries.

In the view of most specialists on the phenomenon, the kinds of jobs that cannot be outsourced are slowly evaporating.

Boeing and Airbus now employ hundreds of Indians in challenging tasks like writing software for next-generation cockpits and building systems to prevent airborne collisions. Investment banks like Morgan Stanley are hiring Indians to analyze American stocks, jobs that commonly pay six-figure salaries on Wall Street.

The drug maker Eli Lilly recently handed over a molecule it discovered to an Indian company, which will be paid $500,000 to $1.5 million a year per scientist to ready the drug for commercial use—work that would be significantly more costly if carried out by Americans.

With multinationals employing tens of thousands of Indians, some are beginning to treat the country like a second headquarters, sending senior executives with global responsibilities to work there. For example, Cisco Systems, the leading maker of communications equipment, has decided that 20 percent of its top talent should be in India within five years; it recently moved one of its highest-ranking executives, Wim Elfrink, to Bangalore, the center of the Indian industry, as chief globalization officer.

Accenture, the global consulting giant, has its worldwide head of business-process outsourcing in Bangalore; by December it expects to have more employees in India than in the United States.

This is not a zero-sum game, in which every job added in India comes at the expense of an American or European one.

In many ways, the shift reflects a changing view at multinational companies as they find it easier to meet growing demand by taking advantage of the improved skills of newly educated people in the developing world. And some companies are returning certain jobs to the United States, finding that the work in India and elsewhere is not up to snuff.

But there are trade-offs as well. As Indian back offices become more sophisticated, Western companies are finding that large parts of their work, even high-end tasks, can also be done from India. From the consumer perspective, India has emerged as a pool of 1.1 billion potential customers for companies seeking faster growth. And so many companies are shifting their energy to where they see their futures being written.

{snip}

Alan S. Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve and economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, recently described outsourcing as a “third Industrial Revolution” that, by his estimate, poses a risk to the employment of as many as 28 million to 42 million workers in the United States.

“We have so far barely seen the tip of the offshoring iceberg, the eventual dimensions of which may be staggering,” he wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs .

But Mr. Blinder, who teaches at Princeton, added that the consequence should not be large-scale unemployment but a shift in Western job markets.

The West, he argued, would shed jobs in easily outsourced fields, like accounting, and increase work among jobs like police officers and doctors, which must be done in person.

{snip}

Posted by Razib critiques DS Wilson on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:16 | #

“The West, he argued, would shed jobs in easily outsourced fields, like accounting, and increase work among jobs like police officers and doctors, which must be done in person.”

Sure, with increased immigration and high colored birthrates, and with large numbers of Americans becoming unemployable, we’ll need more police to control exponential increases in crime, and more doctors to treat patients with drug-resistant Third World diseases.

How about outsourcing economic advisors, lawyers, and politicians as well?

By the way, what stops the establishment from “insourcing” imigrants to do the police and medical work “cheaper?”

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:42 | #

How about outsourcing economic advisors, lawyers, and politicians as well?

But wait ... no, why ... are you serious??  That’s impossible.  Unthinkable.  Unethical.  There are members of Mr Blinder’s own ethnicity in those groups.

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:05 | #

Wintermute, please elaborate on why GW’s atheism matters.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:29 | #

Contents of a recent daydreaming experiencing:

The worlds largest croc resides at a animal park in SC. The fucker is slighly over twenty long. Head looks like a heavy chunk of grey concrete.

I’ve deprived him of food for six months. I grab Blinder and Greenspan by the back of the collar and toss them into this large croc’s swimming area.

I film their dismemberment and consumption by this large croc. Wait a few days for ther croc to evacuate the remains of these two distingusihed economists. Film the this also.

Repeat the process with Paul Krugman. Then go through every professor of economics of in America. Film it.
Show it to every high school student who aspires to be a professor of neo-classical/neoliberal economics

Cheers

Posted by death to the congoid republic on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:06 | #

That plan sounds powerful Frank.

So is it agreed that when the time is ripe for battle, the ‘Them’ should go before the congoids and mestizos?

Is the whole rotten structure only being held up by ‘those radicals’ and their theocracy? And once they are disposed or thrown into the sea.. the “rest” will be easy?

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:11 | #

GW, I have always find your personal acquaintances to be very impressive (I also have an uncle who has a brother whose sister has a friend whose cousin’s cousin knows Alain de Benoist really, really well…now, if that doesn’t settle it, I don’t know what will!).

Alain de Benoist is about as removed from individualism and libertarianism as one can.

Maybe if you spoke French, instead of being a unilingual Anlgo, you could have read the interview I posted (conducted in 1974) that Alain de Benoist holds the following:

1) races exist;

2) races are unequal in IQ and in their innate capacities to create culture; and

3) opposes race mixing.

So, we can take your friend’s word or we can consult de Benoist’s writings and interviews.

Here’s a recent tome by de Benoist that might be of interest, since it’s in English, you might be able to read it.

Alain de Benoist, The Study of Intelligence and the IQ Controversy. A Bibliographical Introduction, 1869-1997, Institute for the Study of Man, Washington 1998, 152 p.

Posted by Frank Mcguckin on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:52 | #

UTAN KING OF THE CROCS!!!!!!!

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:26 | #

Friedrich,

My acquaintance is an extremely well-respected intellectual and author whose name you know well and whose writings you have read.  I trust his judgement implicitly.

I do think one has to face facts about the Traditionalist/culturalist tendency in European New Right philosophy.  You and I are of one mind in that we are both racial nationalists.  We understand the defence of our homelands as being, first, a genetic defence.  It is our respective peoples we seek to preserve.  And if they throw over all the cultural artifacts that we love, still we would not mind if that is, for some reason unforeseen by us, their true path to survival.

This is Faye’s position, too, I believe.  Perhaps you can produce for my benefit the passage in de Benoist’s writings where he makes the same clear and unconditional committment.

Beyond de Benoist, my own experience of other, less exalted NR folk is not that different.  They are invariably softer than you or I on the race issue.  As I said before, they accept Rushtonism et al but tend to downgrade it because it is, to them, grossly material, whereas the “true” basis for defending the West is more refined and spiritual.  Our present weakness is a weakness of the spirit, and can be ameliorated or overcome by an exercise of the will.  If, however, genetic determinism holds sway the basis for action in this way is thought to be much more limited, even lost.

Posted by The putrid stench of gnxp on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:48 | #

“If, however, genetic determinism holds sway the basis for action in this way is thought to be much more limited, even lost.”

If the “New Right” is unable to distinguish genetic interests from “genetic determinism”, then they are beyond hopeless. 

By analogy, I would assume they would object to the following: John is Tom’s son and has been proved as such by paternity testing.  Tom has strong paternal interests, kinship interests, in John’s well-being.  These interests are independent of whether John has the same ‘cultural’ interests as Tom.

Yes, they would object because they “think” it implies that John is “genetically determined” to act and behave, in robot-like fashion, just like his father Tom.

Genetic interests, ethnic interests, racial interests are completely independent of determinism.  Or, they _should be_, if one accepts that these interests are ultimately based on kinship, rather than on a hierarchy of characteristics thought to be, or known to be, inherited.

Consider the difference.

“You are I are of one mind in that we are both racial nationalists”

Is this the first time that GW has openly identified as a “racial nationalist?”  In any case - good news.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 18:51 | #

I normally describe myself as an English nationalist.  Careful scrutiny will reveal that this is crucially different from being an English Nationalist (scroll down).

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:22 | #

I respect Sunic, too, GW.

There’s a tendency to devalue Benoist in the Anglo-Saxon world because of his well-known hostility toward the “materialistic” and “pedlar” spirit of the Anglosphere, in many ways close to the Jewish Weltanschauung.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:14 | #

The very same Lord Sailsbury who presided as Prime Minister over the Boer war killing how approximately 50,000 women and children in the first major use of concentration camps? All so Cecil Rodes could get his gold in violation of existing treaties.

Yes, the British should have left the bankrupted vulnerable Transvaal Boers to the Zulus who were quite happy to beat the brains, literally, out of the white wizards.

It’s always remarkable and quite funny really, to see those so eager to deny the German atrocities during WWII, happily exagerate the deaths in the British “concentration camps” of South Africa. The usual suspects, typhoid, dysentry, and measles, so readily embraced by the denial crowd,  are jettisoned by the Anglophobes when it comes to criticising the English. This attack on GW is not really about his “conservatism” but his Englishness. The very same critic who, not more than a few days ago, questioned slavic whiteness because of their oriental admixture, now invokes Germanic/Slavic brotherhood in the face of English atrocities. How endearing. Are the National Socialists now willing to ressurrect the Slavs from their pig styes? Are we really suppose to believe the alleged Aldington war crime rises to the level of Eichmann and Kaganovich?

Posted by Matra on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:31 | #

The last time I read de Benoist he sounded like a Third World activist. Going by memory he had accepted multiracialism. If there is evidence to the contrary I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong.

Does anyone know if de Benoist is openly supporting Le Pen in the upcoming election? I’m guessing he’s all for the pro-race replacement Greenies.

As Fred suggests those who oppose the repatriation of alien races are collaborators and thus enemies of the white race. There is nothing for us to discuss with such people.

Posted by Matra on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:48 | #

Desmond,

Though obviously whoever said 50000 Afrikaner women and children died in British concentration camps is a an anti-British hatemonger such exaggeration doesn’t excuse British actions which were by all accounts horrific. To me it was the single most shameful event in the history of the British Empire - not that there’s much to be ashamed of. But don’t expect Tony Blair to apologise for it as he shamefully did for Ireland’s self-inflicted potato famine.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:14 | #

As far as I know, Benoist thinks that in masse repatriations are a pipe dream and won’t happen. He proposes something like a loose confederation of distinct cultural communities; and that’s why he likes and promotes all kinds of particularistic movements or groupings: racial, religious, etc. Now, Le Pen is a centralist by temperament and political inclination, and, hence, anathema to de Benoist. Just beside me on my desk I have Benoist’s Critiques Theoriques (2003), if you want to know more, you can buy his book. I’d like point out that in today’s France any type of overt racialist discourse will get you in trouble with the law; hence, people like Benoist must be extremely careful in what they say or write. You have to read between the lines.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:27 | #

GW, I think that you might be interested in this little bit of English history:

...

In the spring of 1940 the bombing of London had not begun, and Hitler had used several channels to inform leading Britons that he had no interest in destroying their Empire—which was true.

At that time there was a powerful peace movement in the Cabinet. Several ministers predicted that the British Empire would be ruined by fighting a needless war against the Nazis to benefit, not the British, but their recent immigrants from Germany who were the ones pushing hardest for war in 1938 and 1939. As Machiavelli wrote, Never heed the advice of immigrants. (Ironically, in May 1940 the British interned most of them as dangerous aliens. But the damage had been done).

Most outspoken for peace (behind the closed doors of No., 10 Downing Street) were the former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, whom Churchill had replaced by underhand tactics on May 10; Lord Halifax, the foreign minister (whom Churchill sent into exile in July, as ambassador in Washington); and Lord Beaverbrook, the press magnate. The Cabinet was thus evenly divided. Halifax argued the most powerfully for accepting Hitler’s peace offer, calling it most reasonable.

Churchill had only just come into office however, and had a lifetime of political failure behind him. To accept peace now would have marked the end of his personal ambitions. While stating in one Cabinet session that he too felt it would be wrong to jeopardize the Empire needlessly, the next day he came back and stated that there could be no question of “surrender”—the loaded word he chose. Halifax walked him out into the garden at No. 10, and continued the argument, but Churchill would not be talked out of it.

In mid June 1940, R A Butler of the Foreign Office—later a deputy prime minister, who nearly found himself giving me Hitler’s Mein Kampf at our school prize day in 1956—confided to a Swiss diplomat that the British wanted to accept, and they would not allow their mad prime minister to do otherwise. But Churchill was in the position that George W Bush and Tony Blair are in now: the whole world wanted disengagement and peace, but he saw it as his own personal ruin.

To kill off the peace movement Churchill did two things: he ordered the bombardment of the French fleet at Mers el-Kébir early in July, and he provoked the bombing of London by deliberately attacking Berlin in the last week of August, on a pretext. (He himself hid out in Oxfordshire every time Intelligence sources told him London was going to be bombed). The archives leave no doubt.

After the first raid on Berlin, Hitler hurried back to his capital and secretly instructed Hess to make one final attempt to establish contact with his high-placed friends in Britain, to halt the madness. Hess fumbled; the war continued, and the Empire was lost. As I stated in “Churchill’s War”, vol. i: “Struggle for Power”, Winston was the destroyer of two empires - one of them his own.

THE new edition of “Churchill’s War”, vol. i: “Struggle for Power”, which will be much updated, contains an extraordinary revelation (the work of researcher David Pounder, not myself)—that the admirals were plotting, with Queen Elizabeth, to overthrow Winston later that June. I myself revealed that King George VI told several American visitors including Sumner Welles and Harry Hopkins and the Canadian prime minister Mackenzie King that he disliked Churchill as prime minister and preferred Lord Halifax. Captain Ralph Edwards wrote in his diary on June 19, 1940:

“Sir W. Monkton’s Secretary telephoned and asked me to see Sir W [Walter]. I went at 18:00 and told him the whole truth or rather corroborated Bill T.‘s story. He promised action and told me [Leo] Amery + Beaverbrook + his own minister were ready to act. It seems likely that they’ll do it thro’ the Queen, who seems to be the power behind the throne.”
Bill T was Captain William Tennant. One 1940 file of Sir Walter Monkton, the queen’s lawyer and adviser, in the Bodleian Library at Oxford is still sealed because it is known to contain references to her belief that Hitler’s peace offer should be accepted. Pounder concludes that this was clear evidence that the plot (to replace Churchill and to conclude a negotiated peace with Berlin) was being managed by Monckton and powered by Queen Elizabeth.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History_07/Rufo_070407.html

Posted by GT on Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:51 | #

Fred,

“No one who favors accommodation to the current forced-race-replacement régime — who counsels acceptance of it, even in part, as an irreversible fait accompli — is fundamentally on our side.”

I assume this was directed to me.

In northern North America there are vast, under-populated regions with tremendous water and agricultural resources in which we can exert considerable economic and political influence while building micro-powered micro-economies to sustain micro-European communities. This is the path we must follow to build a new nation on this continent.  I am looking for visionaries with the technical, legal, and business competence to assist in its development and implementation.

Despite my advocacy the idea does not define my loyalties and I think you know that.

“No compromise on forced race-replacement!  We are not consulted or consenting and never were, but this was all carefully mounted behind our backs then thrust on us and forced down our throats.  We will never accommodate ourselves to it!”

We are presently without a solution and must depend upon the Kwa for sustenance.  The beast snickers at us.  The idea I advocate, however, is a solution that could lead to independence and that, for the beast, is an altogether different matter.

“We are raising a standard here for others to flock to.  If we equivocate we’ll inspire no one.”

Once again the standard we’ve raised has been without solution except for the passive, long-awaited “economic crash followed by race war in which Mexicans and niggers set upon each other, and we are free to go after Jews and retake the country.”

At this moment the Southwest is lost and the South follows it.  No White nationalist should die – outnumbered and without logistical support – fighting to reclaim what has been lost before securing the existence of a new nation on this continent.  Furthermore, no sentimental attachment to “the old place” or selfish desires masquerading as sentiment can justify opposition to this goal. 

Without a new nation we cannot recover the old lands in North American, much less those lost in Europe.

Nation-building and the prospect of the ‘Kwa’s dismemberment inspires, whereas the defiant noise and physical passivity accompanying the long-awaited economic crash and race war does not.

Assuming your comments were directed to me, I believe in time we’ll come to a mutually agreeable understanding.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:29 | #

“Fred, I assume this was directed to me.”  (—GT)

It was directed at Alain de Benoît, comrade. 

The additional explanations you include in your comment are very interesting.

Posted by GT on Tue, 10 Apr 2007 07:14 | #

Okay, Fred, it’s my bust.