Posted by Andrew on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:50 | #

People are beautiful, the world stinks
Sorry about the size, but I could not find the link; but in context of the argument, it sounds familiar.

If you love goodness and hate evil, this is a tough time to stay sane.

Israel has killed Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas terror leader, and almost every nation in the world and the nations’ theoretical embodiment, the United Nations, have condemned Israel for doing so.
World leaders and the world organization have said almost nothing about Communist China’s ongoing destruction of one of the world’s oldest civilizations, Tibet. World leaders have said almost nothing about the Arab enslavement and genocide of non-Arab blacks in Sudan. But they convene world conferences to label Israel, one of the most humane and decent democracies on earth, a pariah.
In order to retain my sanity, I ask the reader’s indulgence as I use this column to express personal thoughts.
I have contempt for “the world.” I cherish and admire countless individuals, but I have contempt for “the world” and “world opinion.” “The world” has never cared about evils inflicted on human beings. The Communist genocides meant nothing to humanity. The Holocaust meant nothing. With almost no exception, the mass atrocities since World War II have likewise absorbed humanity less than the Olympics or the Miss World Contest.
I have contempt for the United Nations. It is one of the great obstacles to goodness and decency on this planet. Its moral record—outside of a few specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization—is almost entirely supportive of evil and condemnatory of good. It is dominated by the most morally backward governments in the world—those from the Arab and Muslim worlds, the Communists during their heyday and African despots. It appointed Libya, a despotic, primitive state, to head its Human Rights Commission, whose members include China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Neither the United States nor Israel sits on the Commission.
I regard the European Union with similar revulsion. With little opposition, Europe murdered nearly every Jewish man, woman and child in its midst, and a half-century later provides cover for those in the Middle East who seek to do to the Middle East’s Jews exactly what the Nazis did to the European Jews. For the European Union to condemn Israel’s killing of a Hamas leader, when Hamas’s avowed aim is another Jewish genocide, is so loathsome as to board the incredible. For Germany and France (who, unlike America, have almost never shed blood for the liberty of others) to do everything they can to undermine America’s attempt to liberate Iraq is similarly repugnant.
As for the international news media and journalists, I regard most of them as aides to evil.
This is not new. The 1932 Pulitzer Prize, American journalism’s highest award, was given to Walter Duranty of the New York Times for reporting from the Soviet Union. In his reports, Duranty repeatedly denied Stalin’s forced starvation of Ukrainians that led to the murder of more than 6 million of them. The same “newspaper of record” deliberately toned down reporting on the Nazi annihilation of Jews 10 years later so as not to appear “too Jewish.”
The Soviet decimation of Afghanistan was so little reported in the international media—especially radio and television—that when I talked about its scope and horror on my radio show in the 1980s, listeners kept wondering if I was telling the truth—they had never heard anything about it.
In the last years of the Saddam Hussein regime, according to John Burns of the New York Times, major news reporters refused to write stories about Iraqi mass murder and atrocities lest the Saddam regime remove their press credentials. For most journalists, and their newspapers and television stations, it was better to lie for Saddam and have a bureau in Baghdad than to tell the truth but have no Baghdad bureau.
And not one international news organization calls Hamas or any of the other Palestinian terror organizations “terrorists.”
I love learning and revere the title of “professor,” but with few exceptions, universities, too, merit contempt. The vast majority of professors who take positions on social issues are moral fools. They teach millions of students that America and Israel are villains and that the enemies of those decent societies are merely misunderstood victims who are often justified in their hatred. And they loathe the American Judeo-Christian value system that has made the United States the world’s land of opportunity and beacon of liberty.
In sum, I feel that I am living in a world that is morally sick. Good is called bad, and bad is called “militant,” “victimized,” “misunderstood” and “the product of hopelessness,” but rarely bad. Only those who fight the bad are called bad.
I am kept sane by the knowledge that there are hundreds of millions of individuals who can still tell the difference between good and evil; by the knowledge that there was never a time that humanity was particularly decent; and by a strong belief that a good God governs the universe even though He allows evil many triumphs. And I believe this God will judge Osama bin Laden and Jacques Chirac appropriately.

Posted by calyen on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:06 | #

“More supportable than a critique of our society as utterly feminised and its once confident, creative males de-balled and pussified?”: Guessedworker.

Ancient Greece is not on the horizon. Your allusions to male sexual prowess and ‘creativity’ as being dependent on the absence of women in public life says more than the rest of your post.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:42 | #

Calyen you’re a woman, I think—right? 

May I ask you, are there different human races, ones that differ genetically (meaning they differ to at least some extent in ways environmental influences can’t change) or is there only one undifferentiated race, known as “the human race”?

Is there such a thing as the white race? 

Are the difficulties which white people in their aggregate and Negroes in theirs have in getting along with each other as groups due in part to unalterable genetic differences that emerge clearly at the level of the group?  Or are said difficulties due entirely to other causes, such as white racists insisting on talking about so-called “racial differences” which would stand a much better chance of vanishing if only everyone would stop talking about them? 

Is there such a thing as forced excessive incompatible immigration?  If so, what is your opinion of it? 

Is there such a thing as race-replacement immigration forced by government on unconsulted, unwilling populations of Europeans? 

Do you feel there is currently a major crisis pertaining to forecd excessive incompatible immigration affecting most of the West?

Thank you for answering.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 02:46 | #

I can accept that Europeans might have more of an out-group sympathy than other peoples. I can’t accept, though, that the level of out-group sympathy explains our current predicament.

In my own country, Australia, all classes agreed at our foundation to build a European nation. The liberals of today have trouble finding any prominent figures who disagreed with this policy back in 1901.

So in-group sympathy was a much stronger force amongst Anglo-Australians in 1901 than out-group sympathy. This is especially true amongst the working-class, who rioted against any foreign immigration as late as the 1920s.

The intellectual mood changed, it “modernised” for the worse, during the 1930s (the timing, perhaps, was similar in Britain too: Rudyard Kipling in 1936 said to a younger man “I hate your generation”; when asked why, he replied “Because you are going to give it all away”).

In short, the Australians of 1901 had sufficient in-group sympathy to maintain their own separate existence. The problem, therefore, is not primarily one of a longstanding, biologically embedded quality.

Like GW, I believe a better explanation involves changes in intellectual climate - changes which can occur in the course of decades, rather than, as the Darwinian explanation would suggest, over a great number of generations.

Posted by Andrew on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 04:49 | #

This counters the teensiest, who would rather believe in The Darwinian Hypothesis; which for all intensive reasoning could never be scientifically proven, even to a point where other Darwinian apologists have tried, admit its total crap; Un scientific way of explaining it, but so is there Ideas.
Happy reading……..http://www.tccsa.tc/books.html
I can feel the pain from here:

Posted by Andrew on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 05:06 | #

That should be Trendies;
And the link again: http://www.tccsa.tc/books.html

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 07:36 | #

Why can’t we all just come out and say-I,as a White some-what Christian,do not want my daughters miscegnating with Congoids,I don’t want my living space and job “resourced"to someone who can’t [and won’t]  speak English,my paycheck constantly decreasing in terms of buying power.and an overall decrease in lifestyle? To HELL with diversity,multiculturism,and “we all are equal"bullshit.I’m an old Marine[67],fought and bled for this country,and think it is time for the “thoughtful intrlligentsia"to step up to the plate,and espouse something other than historical platitudes.You are the guys who can effect a change-get to work,if you REALLY believe what you write.Cheers & Semper Fi !

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 08:15 | #

...is it not more powerful and harder-wired than our instinct for group survival?

IMO, you’re missing Darwin’s point GW. He appears to imply, though he doesn’t explain how, that it enhances group survival. The civilizing of the lesser or uncivilized peoples, enhances survival of the civilized, he suggests. However, is it true?

Up to the point of the national interest, he is Salterian. Ethno-state, ethnic nationalism and sacrifice enhances reproductive fitness. Outgroup sympathy, clearly an evolved trait re-inforced by public opinion works.

The Celts brought Christianity to the invading English. Arguably it was their salvation, but also that of the warring Germanic tribes. It enhanced the Celts chance for survival.

It is also apparent, the more highly developed sympathy trait in the West, upon examing the article JJR posted regarding the rat people or Chua of Pakistan. Neither the disabled nor the elderly are treated this way in Western society. Why?

In fact, white nationalism is an outgrowth of outgroup sympathy. Nordics should join with Meds and other white groups, even though not entirely in their ethnic interst to enhance their chance of survival in the face of a more serious threat.

Darwin simply posits that that growth of sympathy will not stop at the border or on the continent. He may be wrong but the question is why will it stop? Some say you can provide a prescription to end it.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:32 | #

Desmond,

I said at the top of the critique that Darwin was darwinising The White Man’s Burden, and that it can’t enhance group survival for Europeans because it is, as a modern-day Galton would argue, a false tennet.  TWMB had no results in terms of civilisation in Darwin’s time and LiveAid or whatever has no results today.

Sorry that wasn’t clearer.

No results = no pay-back for the benefactor = a personal-political motive for high out-group sympathy among European elites.

The Celts, btw, did not civilise the English, as they already were, for reasons of group enhancement.  All over Europe the old faith was being wiped out, with Churches planted on every sacred site.  The Abrahamic wave reached Britain via Ireland, but unless you are going to apply the same evolutionary rule to the rest of the wave I think you are guilty of, at the very least, being selective with your facts.

In our private correspondence on this issue, some months ago, I wrote:-

It is not necessary to stretch everything on an evolutionary frame.  It might be intellectually possible to systematise everything in that way, but that does not make it true.  Bear in mind that we are all seeking our humanity, even if we have only the vaguest moral directives as to where to look.

The issue nets down to one question: Why would I help a non-sympathetic being?  The answer doesn’t lie in sympatico.  The answer lies in our constant search for value in the self.

This search is a bastardisation - the best we can do, given our frailties - of the path to perfectionment which I mentioned earlier, which itself is a corollary of the Darwinian impulse among males to trade status and females beauty.  Nobility of soul, selflessness, the willingness to submit to danger are all connectivities of the reciprocal evolutionary impulse.  Why would not these things attach to wider actions when Man is ignorant of their proper purpose?  He has knowledge of them but not of their Nature-given boundaries.

I still stand by that.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:03 | #

In any case, Desmond, to make the theory stick you’ve still got to come up with a formative environmental circumstance, like cold weather food scarcity or, indeed, poisonous snakes.

Posted by Sally Bowles on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:09 | #

Urbanization

I may have missed part of the on-going discussion about why the white peoples seem to have lost their sense of a shared destiny, but I have not seen urbanization identified as a leading cause.

Every culture and demographic suffers from loss of edges, boundaries, and identities when it is collapsed into large urban centers. History teaches us that from every example known.

Agitprop

In addition, a ruthless campaign of agitprop has been carried out in schools (public and private) to demean our white peoples and to deligitimize our causes and goals.

A market-dominant minority has seized the reins of USA media, entertainment, and other propaganda centers, and has churned out hate screeds to our children for the last 50 years, with the turning point around 1973 after which no school texts have been published in the USA that show us in a positive light.

That the purveyors of the agitprop know it is agitprop may be seen on the local public channel in north California which regularly features wonderful films about nature and good-looking white people doing interesting things around the time of the pledge drive. Once the pledge drive is over, we are treated to World War II every day. Curious what Hitler looked like? Tune in public TV after pledge drive…any time, any day.

Hard-wired

We white peoples are as hard-wired as ever to defend our selves, our children, and our rights, but as leading voices rise up against the agitprop, they are smashed down by the self-appointed “elites” of our society. The viciousness with which this is done from the township level to the global level shows that our obtaining a voice again is seriously feared.

We have not changed. Our urban environment and our immersion in the world of agitprop have muted our voice and disoriented us.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:19 | #

I agree, Sally, that we are as we always were, and that coercion - which includes agitprop - is the only means our political, educational, legal and cultural leaders have of keeping us from expressing our natural interests.

Desmond’s question, however, turns on whether the sacrifice of our interests by said leaders for those of alien peoples the better fits them or, indeed, us to our environment.

Desmond asks why wouldn’t sympathy go on for ever, further and further afield from ourselves?  I ask: what environment?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:33 | #

I would add that nationalism is a pretty good match for adaptive behaviour.  It occurs to me that, to quote Fred, Marxism and liberal-leftism alike can be interpreted as Jewish nationalism - and, therefore, adaptive behaviour for Jews.  The out-group sympathy which Desmond identifies, being restricted to our anti-nationalist elites, is a maladaptive adoption of Jewish ethnic interests.

Therefore, Darwinism can be dragged into the equation, if one must, but only in terms of the adoption of competitive interests at the moment sympathy “crosses the border”.

I think James’ GOD theory has something to add here.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 04:39 | #

GW, Darwin does come up with a cold weather theory, fitness.

A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection.

The same sympathy, then, in civilized man becomes incidental.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused.

It is not a trait seen in savages, according to Darwin. For the last 5 centuries, western man has, if you will, dominated the other tribes of the globe. Therefore Darwin’s logic, “as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.” And if the number of well-endowed men increase, the incidental nature of sympathy, will naturally be wider spread and far gentler.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 05:01 | #

BYe,people-I won’t be posting my drival anymore.I will continue to read the blog,but will not embarass any further the lofty intellects who feel calling each other “cunts"is acceptable,but my use of “nigger"is not.GW,Fred S.,and Dr. Ray have my utmost respect,along with Svy and most of the other regulars,but not in the sense any solutions are offered for the imminate demise of the White race.We are in a battle for our identityánd losing;while blathering fools talk about Celtic historyand Nordic Blondes.They[Celts], knew what to do -Try to KILL all the fucking invaders before they lost their homeland. Oh well,have fun with your mental masterbation,and Semper Fi!

Posted by On Holliday on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:42 | #

”  An attempt by a small ethic group to preserve its distinctive ethnic or cultural identity in such an environment would be tantamount to suicide, since the naff ill-educated coffee-coloured majority would wipe it out. Maybe we’re just seeing pre-emptive adaptation here.”

Or maybe we are seeinh a hand-waving justification for miscegenation here?

Very well.  There is one small ethnic group which should lead the way in this endeavor.

Let us find a nice black woman for Elliot Abrams and await the results.

Posted by On Holliday on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:45 | #

“This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.”

Relative differences in genetic distance (as well as phenotype) which are not smoothly continuous and which correlate to differences in EGI, are not an “artificial barrier”, but one based upon nature.

Darwin was not god, and his writings a century before the discovery of DNA are not the gospel.

One should consider the possibility that some things he wrote are, if not wrong, then not completely correct.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:17 | #

Desmond,

OK, let’s follow Darwin’s idea that environment is secure and one of the cooperative strategies previously employed by Europeans is released to just go ploughing on, sans ethnic limit.  It has become a rogue programme.

By what environmental mechanism is this programnme restricted in its action to the liberal elite?  Are you saying that liberalism IS the programme, as I concluded you must be in my original piece?

I sense that Martin is moving towards this position.  But in doing so he inadvertently nails its weakness.  Natural selection does not look ahead but is purely reactive ... and it is slow-moving.  So liberalism, if it is in some way a product of natural selection, must be an offshoot of many centuries of selection of genes which tend towards its formation as a direct result of some other environmental pressure.  But what?

In fairness, JJR has posted/pasted here on the heritability of political persuasion.  But it doesn’t hold because liberalism isn’t a product of “sympathetic genes”.  It is a product of the pursuit of individual freedom.

Anyway liberalism can’t be both father and son.

Much thought still required, my friend.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:25 | #

On the plausability of any connection between natural selection and liberalism one should, of course, never forget the advice of PJ O’Rourke.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:33 | #

While I’m at it, let’s murder the Nords/Meds issue.  I am not American but I care about the future of white America.  The problems in that regard apply equally to all European-origin Americans, and if you follow McCullough and split north from south you make the chance of success much less, since you are fighting on too wide a front with, after so many years of inter-mixing, too few clear distinctions.

Nordicists must choose between their love of America - and Canada, though I believe it is already lost - and their love of kind.  If that love of kind is as absolute as it seems, the place for them is at home in Europe.

Let white America - and white Canada if it is able - preserve itself as a whole.

Posted by Tom Peters on Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:33 | #

“If it is inevitable (absent nuclear holocaust) that the human species is going to live in rabbit warrens of 15 billion people”

Nuclear holocaust is just one threat.  There will be other weapons that will make nuclear weapons look like toys - including biological, chemical, nano, and other machine-driven ones.  Humans will soon start merging with machines parts including at the mental level.  AI will become a real threat, we may launch an intelligence that is may be more powerful than we can imagine today (human-merged or not).  Evolution is not stopping.

“the correct adaptation for such a world might by heavy interbreeding in order to make oneself as inconspicous as possible from the multitude, which by that stage will be impoverished and feral.  An attempt by a small ethic group to preserve its distinctive ethnic or cultural identity in such an environment would be tantamount to suicide, since the naff ill-educated coffee-coloured majority would wipe it out. “

There will be no ‘coffee-majority’ triumphing.  This is a fairly-tale that coffey-colored people like to tell white people so that white people don’t feel bad about losing their gene pool to coffey-colored people.  That ill-educated majority will never mount a challenge to technology-enhanced, civilized nations.  One person will be able to take out thousands, if not millions, if not the whole earth.  Screw the coffey majority - that is not the future.  The chinese/japanese/korean will not become coffey-like, neither will the Jews.

The question is: will Euros?  Because if we do become coffey-like, then we will just become cannon-fodder for the smart.  We need to secure our gene pool before tackling the real issues facing us and other humanity.  Otherwise we become just another threat to the civilized.