|
|
|
The Unnecessary Faith By The Narrator There is today probably not a more destructive presumption, even faith, than the notion of Equality. For its sheer baselessness and capacity to harm, and be it racial, cultural, societal, gender, etc, the modern notion of intrinsic or inherent “equal-ness” among human beings resides in a historical class by itself. From a racial perspective, pondering why Whites and non-Whites are not civilizationally, morally or temperamentally equal or why there is a socio-economical gap between the races, is about as necessary (and forced) as asking why dogs make better household pets than Grizzly bears. All about us we see inequality as a natural condition and reality. Within sets and subsets, disparity in quality and ability is the norm. Be it among men or animals, fowl or fish, we see systems where this normative condition is nature’s engineering, and obviously not the outcome of prejudice or bigotry. Of course, when we look at groupings of distinct classes of Man, animal or plant we can instantly recognize similar qualities distinct to each group or sub-group. We observe, for example, that fish swim and birds, by and large, fly. We can test this for the validity of labelling them by their distinctiveness. Yet not all fish are the same or equal, nor are birds without a variety of differences. Even when similarities are more relevant (yet still greatly divergent in degrees), differences in quality, ability, adaptiveness and so on, are undeniable … such as, for instance, the fact that flight is a quality common to both butterflies and eagles. Yet the ultimate and distinguishable inequality between the two, in any given circumstance they may happen to share, is self-evident to all but the wilfully blind. And so we come to the unnecessary predicament that the wilfully blind Equalitarians create with their presumption for Equality and their grievous vexation by the lack of it. If the races are equal, then it is unfair that some live in squalor while others live in skyscrapers. If men and women are equal, then it is unfair that women do not hold as many positions of power as men. If all men are equal, then it is unfair that some live longer, healthier lives than others. And, of course, since the Equalitarians presume for equality and find everywhere a superabundant absence of it (to coin a phrase), then they must concoct some reason to explain it. This they achieve through the assertion of prejudice and bigotry on the part of the “more equal”. But it is a tactic that is as unscientific as it is comical. Is it bigotry and prejudice on the part of birds that explains why cats can’t fly, and “institutional prejudice” on the part of pine trees that explains why maples cannot stay green all year round? Or maybe it is the “racist act” of excluding different groups from your own. Maybe one group has kept another from assimilating into its own matrix as a way to discriminate against them and “keep them down”. But this assimilation canard is just as comical and preposterous. Four hundred years of close contact with Whites in America has not helped blacks to assimilate towards White standards of civilization. And why should it? Why on Earth should we believe that different races must or can assimilate to one another’s innate (genetic) societal tendencies? This is why the reality of racial groupings and their varying genetic dissimilarities is so important. Because if you take the Occam’s Razor route and eliminate the most convoluted theories in regards to the ongoing civilizational disparity of the races, then you will be left with the most logical explanation for those disparities ... the races are simply different. Add to this the fact that these different groups of peoples diverged tens of thousands of years ago and continued to evolve in wildly varying environments and circumstances (that will never be repeated), and the notion of “equality among the races” is, on its face, ridiculously unscientific, illogical and wholly unnecessary in its presumption. Put it this way. Imagine dropping off a group of alligators in the North Pole, then blaming the “deep rooted prejudice” of the Polar Bears for the alligators’ inability to assimilate and prosper. It’s an absurd assertion, but when you assume a notion without regard to observable facts, then you are compelled to twist those facts and invent others to accommodate that assumption. In regards to “race relations” the same obviously holds true. Remove the silly and baseless notion of universal standards of intelligence, morality and civilizational ability among the various races, and it will take about a month to solve the “race relations” problems. How? Because there is no universal standard of Intelligence, morality or even what constitutes a civilization. Each race has its own definition of these things and each definition is valid to that race. Thus, what is civilization to us, is not civilization to them. What is moral for us, is not necessarily so for them. What is poverty for us, is not poverty for them. What is Quality of Life for us, is not the same for them. And so on. But when races are mixed in societies that assume “Equality” as a prerequisite for behavior then (falsely) perceived injustices and inequality ensue, and chaos soon reigns. Not to mention the fact that the pursuit of equality in a world that is naturally unequal is simply a waste of valuable and (often) unrecoverable time and resources. How much money has been thrown at programs intended to close racial gaps in education, that essentially just went down a black hole? How many neighborhoods have been irrevocably disturbed or destroyed through efforts to integrate races into communities once prosperous and peaceful due to their homogeneity? How much death and destruction has been unleashed by those who (believing in equality) changed laws to criminalize Freedom of Association? And don’t forget that the presumption of equality is now used as the current justification for America’s war on terror. By assuming “we’re all the same” we can find ample justification for “bringing democracy to the oppressed throughout the world” in the form of unending invasions and occupations! Ultimately the belief in equality (like every other notion embraced by modern liberalism) is a destructive force. One which tears down without leaving anything (better or worse -the worse is left by default-) in its place. It simply creates an infinite vacuum of contempt and disdain for the natural state of things. Worse still, the desire for, or pursuit of , “equality” is the proverbial two-edged sword; those who pick it up to wield it against others are often wounded by it themselves. For if you embrace “Equality”, then you must reject, increasingly, all forms of difference. If you embrace the notion that race is a social construct, you will in turn embrace the notion that gender is a social construct as well. If you endorse interracial marriage today, then you WILL endorse homosexual marriage tomorrow ... and on it goes. Once you except, partially or wholly, the notion of Equality, you have immersed yourself in a world of lies. And the more lies you tell yourself, and the more lies you allow yourself to believe in, the more detached you become from reality, until it gets to the point that reality itself become the enemy. Already today we can see segments of our society which, by embracing Equality, have plunged into such a state of mental anarchy that they can no longer (as in, are willing to) distinguish between black people and White people, male and female, humans and plants, tress and animals, terrorism and civility, history and propaganda, (in art) beauty and ugliness, Christianity and Islam, science and dogma, good and bad, Truth and Lies ... The cult of Equality strips people of their ‘soul’ because it engenders an apathy (and eventually a hostility) towards the ability to place value and assess worth. It rips the very heart out of such truths as Nation, Community, Family, Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Child and Friend, because it denies the very nature of their distinctiveness. And in the end it destroys such “divisive” concepts as Devotion, Loyalty and Love, because those are three things that you can never apply equally to all places, things and people. That is why today, as our depraved society plumbs the depths of “Equality”, we see anarchy, nihilism and violence escalating by a factor of ten from one year to the next. Unless and until we all learn to live within the limitations of Truth, and to forego the pleasure of those warm but ultimately empty fuzzy feelings, we are going to continue driving our long-fought-for civilization down to the third level of societal hell. The belief in Equality is a faith whose unnecessary premise is currently working hard to rival Judaism, Christianity and Islam (all together) as a civilizational wrecking ball. Tragically for the West, it is only Whites who are pursuing Equality - and doing so out of a contempt for their own natural state in the world which formed their distinctive attributes to begin with. We are like birds who, having had a false sense of guilt engendered in them for their ability to soar through the heavens, sever their own wings and plunge to the earth to make those that walk or crawl upon the land feel better about their own (distinct) natural state. Thus the pursuit of equality is really just a pathological contempt for self rather than a reverence for the other. It is the face of hate locked in an asylum of mirrors desperately in search of a conformational “Amen” that it will never find. To sum up succinctly, the unnecessary presumption of Equality casts yet another stumbling block before a great civilization, and its nations and peoples, that has already strayed far off course and is in danger of falling. Comments:2
Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:04 | # UNIVERSALISM REJECTED
“Because there is no universal standard of Intelligence, morality or even what constitutes a civilization. Each race has its own definition of these things and each definition is valid to that race. Thus, what is civilization to us, is not civilization to them. What is moral for us, is not necessarily so for them. What is poverty for us, is not poverty for them. What is Quality of Life for us, is not the same for them. And so on.” While it is philosophically impossible to say that “universalism” is the only ideological acid that dissolves civilizations, it is a component that since the French Revolution has empowered the most anti-human ideologies in the world today. Careless Euro-American thinkers often embrace self-destructive categories of discourse, and fail to see that they incorporate ersatz universalism. Congratulations to the author. 3
Posted by skeptical on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:45 | # We are indoctrinated into Equality because such is necessary if we are to become a multiracial, globalist civilization. The Left wants to create such a society because they believe it to be morally superior to any nationalist (or ethnocentric) alternative, not because they believe in Equality per se. The unstated belief is that a reinvented global society will be free from the logic of human warfare and will allow for the peaceful transition of human lives as global economic units. The Left only reserves hatred for White people because only we can reclaim the civilization that they have stolen from us, and by so doing obstruct the moral ideal that have worked so hard to create. 4
Posted by Fr. John on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:49 | # Egalitarianism is the new (old) Antichrist religion. And so are the denominations of this cult- feminism, Judeochurchianity, and holocaustianity. From http://www.spiritwaterblood.com- “Christians get worked up about the religious pluralism they hear from Obama and his impostor-pastors, but they will never be able to conserve Christian faith and sound doctrine in the polyglot world they have helped to create. In the words above, Obama is describing the non-people of a non-nation, just as he is the non-child of a non-family. No one of this non-kind worships the Most High God. If he pretends to do so, his children will certainly not follow him, because they have no legacy, succession, or continuity. Yet these are all innate desires of the human heart. No man wants to be cut adrift from a true heritage, and so he invents one that has no basis in reality, such as Obama’s appeal to “common humanity.” and this: ‘You know about heroic Bishop Williamson, who is the Mel Gibson of 2009. German bishops have actually banned him from entering “their” churches. Hoffman writes that this ban has been “placed on no other category of person, not even active sodomites or Satanists; only on the bishop who called into question certain claims about the secular history of World War II… These bishops are crypto-rabbis, not Christians.” From http://www.cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com As with all modern innovations, we must ask who is being served by feminism? Are Christian men and women benefiting from feminism? Certainly not. Are the feminists benefiting? Of course not. Nothing, not the right to kill their children in the womb or the right to hold jobs formerly reserved for men, will appease them or make them happy. They denounced their souls when they became feminists, and only a ‘road to Damascus’ experience can release them from the feminist hell in which they live and in which they expect others to live as well.”
“Judeo-Christianity may be described as an ecumenical Christian sect created by the International Trade Cartel (ITC) [the Jews] to dissolve Christian religious objections to the presence of the international merchant. This has been done by giving media access, and its accompanying riches, to Christian ministers who favor ITC policy… Here are some of the things they are permitted to do and some things they are not permitted to do. They are permitted to solicit money. They may use Biblical parables, illustrations, and terminology. They must incorporate Dharma [the Hindu principle of tolerance, inclusiveness]. They may NOT refer to the Laws, Statutes, and Judgments contained in the Scriptures since the Commandments represent a different God from the one followed by the owners of the media (i.e, they may not say that the penalty for murder, kidnapping and homosexuality is “death”). They are also required to refer to the Khazar-Turk merchants living in their midst as being “Israel.” This gives wolves free passes into the Saxon sheepfold…. This new cult, costing nothing more than allowing certain preachers to profit from the media, has persuaded tens of millions of Christians from opposing the International Trade Cartel [again, the Jews]. As a result, the Christian West has crumbled into a nation having many gods.” Excerpted from In The Beginning: The Story of the International Trade Cartel But, as I have noted, not all who say “Lord, Lord” are going to enter the kingdom…. 5
Posted by Homelander on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:30 | #
But this is exactly what is needed. In 1900 the white race was about 30% of humanity, in approximately the same borders we claim now (save for South Africa). Today we have declined in relative terms to about 13% of humanity, and are headed - probably irreversibly - toward about 10%...where we might be able to level off and begin regaining our numbers. Obviously the lands claimed before now will be challenged by newcomers who have (if nothing else) outbred us. It is unreasonable to expect otherwise. The choice is to either mix with non-whites within the old national boundaries - or create new and smaller national boundaries for all-white homelands appropriate for reduced white numbers. This is simple realism. 6
Posted by Outsider (Theta) on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:43 | # I frequently see on this blog the neat assumption that people in the West have “choice” (frequently voiced by women) while other nations — we poor, unwashed suckers — smart under the absence of that blissful thing. Note that those most vocal in emphasizing choice (especially in contexts of disowning any responsibility in duping betas) are basically women. “Choice” is of course a very cute word, indeed. And a synonym for “freedom” — which most refrain from overusing since words that are direct instantly betray the intent behind (like calling killing an unborn baby “terminating an unwanted pregnancy”). That wymmyn in non-Western societies don’t have much “choice” is generally coupled with another, equally juvenile, assumption that in those societies, since they are mostly ruled by patriarchy, it’s men who “choose.” What a sociologically unimaginative speculation. A conceptualization of “dominance” totally corrupted by the ultra-affluent West’s natives: dominance equated with having higher number of choices, or — worse — getting “what you want.” It’s suffers from the same silliness of thinking about individuals atomically, rather than molecularly. Choice is a very modern, luxury term. It’s been made possible only in the West after generations of heroic Western males broke their backs to create the abundance you are now mired in. For most of human existence, there was hardly anything like “choice” as an embodiment of the “meaning of life.” Life, as it was understood (pretty sensibly by people who had to fight practically every day of their lives with unrelenting elements), was more or less “fate.” In patriarchal societies, it’s not men who get whatever they want. Hardly anybody — other than the richest — gets much of anything they want. They’d be lucky if they had the luxury to fantasize about things they want — and therefore develop a sickening addiction to fantasies or “things I want.” Men or women, everyone has to follow the traditional norms — norms that took millennia to evolve, through bitter human experience. The weak’s survival strategy, as Nietzsche correctly observed, is guilt-tripping and manipulation. No wonder women obsess so much with “choice” because it’s a tacit way of supporting giving individuals more leeway in manipulating others. Heck, I’d even claim “choice” is a womanly, effeminate concept through and through. Dominance is not getting what you want. Only pampered American kids can obsess with getting everything you want. Dominance, in traditional societies, is measured in “getting things done” — which is hardly forcing others, with no regard to tradition, religion, morals, norms, etc., to do your bidding. Do you honestly believe, for instance, that a Pashtun warlord can just walk into any Afghani neighborhood, pick up any young and sweet thing, pump her and dump her and go her merry way? Without hell being literally raised as an all out intra-tribal, inter-clanal warfare? If getting what you want was the measure of dominance, a 10-year old brat raising hell just to get the toys he wants and makes her parents bend to his will would be the most dominant person in the room. Choice is an effeminate concept since it’s people addicted to their own desires who use it as a tool to achieve ends. It’s a time honored adage what an old (and brave) Roman general said: If I can’t rule myself (my desires, my fears) how can I rule others? Genuinely dominant people are least obsessed with their “desires.” Every desire is a weakness for a man, a security breach that can easily be exploited to corner him. Which is why those “alphas” in traditional societies are almost criminally cold and aloof, callous and unrelenting. Exactly because they know that the lives of countless dependents depend on their iron rule which cannot be squandered by fluff like “getting all the women you want.” In all traditional societies, even in polygamous ones, alpha males and multiple women do not marry just so they can have all the fun they want. That’s sadly the figment of the circumcised modern Western male’s imagination. To the contrary, all marriages are arranged to control social rank/status, to manage scarce economic resources (so that they stay within the family/clan), to make truce and end inter-tribal warfare, etc. Fun is the bottom item on the list. – A side note: Every wannabe Western evolutionary psychologist seems to make the assumption that since women are more status conscious, they must have always been *the* agents of choosing. It never seems to occur to anyone that I breathe oxygen not because I choose to but because I have no choice. Same thing for women in all traditional settings. Which means, throughout the human evolutionary path, women hardly ever chose males. Rather, they were chosen. Which is why the moment the traditional control mechanisms were lifted they run amok and became so creepy. Exactly because unlike men (who, with their “hunters” brain, are way better at “calculated decision making”) their decision-making wiring is defective. Once the traditional mechanisms — which provided safety to everyone — are gone, they started self-destructing by seeking what-they-perceive-to-be the big shots in the room. And they are failing — as you all can see. Miserably. That’s because, in a social environment where traditional structures have disappeared, the biggest shots are Pashtun-like warriors but parasitic dipstick dippers like Elvis — since their success is measured in not how much they can get things done but how many women they can fuck. (End of Detour.) – What modern liberalism and feminism did wasn’t just that it reduced the fate of betas (the majority of males in every society) to a pathetic state — that’s the issue between men and women. The worst thing it did is IT DESTROYED CAMARADERIE BETWEEN MEN. The whole purpose of so-called “oppressive” sexual norms is to reduce inter-male rivalry so that they can collaborate more effectively to deal with “hunting” challenges. A society drowning in “affluence” (most of which is masturbatory entertainment created by Keynesian, consumerist, debt-/spending-driven policies that mis-allocate scarce and valuable capital to short-term oriented, unproductive endeavors), one where “choice” rules supreme, is one that inevitably becomes deluded that most men are not needed any more — since under normal weather conditions, choice is a joke, and you need men to fight the elements, a purpose to which intra-gender rivalry of males is fatally detrimental. Your fathers, many of them such daring and hard-working men, have created this wealth, this illusion that “choice” is your birth-right for you. Nice work you’re doing now, thanking them by eating your corn seed. There’s one thing you can do to kill a man without so much as pulling the trigger of a gun: reduce him to uselessness/redundancy level. Make him lose his job, productive status, and all else will follow. He’ll first lose his woman, along with her his kids, and… well, that’s all it takes. He’ll find a way to slowly finish the job himself. The most effective way of creating the atmospheric conditions to destroy ordinary males in a society is corrupting its women. The civilization wreckers of the West seem to have pulled that off. What a feat. What they don’t understand, of course, (like those ultra-liberal Jews who support Muslim immigration to the West since they still equate “White” with “Nazi”) is they are wrecking the very system that made their ultra-powerful elite rule possible. When the whole structure becomes so rotten — like a house eaten away by bugs inside out — that it can’t support its weight anymore, it’ll finally hit them what they’ve done with all this liberalism shit the flagship of which is the crap called “wymmyn’s rites” and “choice.” 7
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:10 | #
There is essentially a state enforced dogma of “equality” in The West. And unfortunately what intellectuals or experts believe to be true based on their research and findings is subjugated to, and filtered through, that state enforced dogma and not informed opinion or science.
That is basically what the article is addressing. We have to present a worldview that clearly asserts (as a reasonable conclusion) that there is no common morality or standard of ethics amongst the various Homo sapien groups. Which is to say, we must cease the act of projecting our own morality and ethics onto non-Whites, assuming that what would be offensive or unjust to us is necessarily the same for them. As a hypothetical, We could say that the forced removal of all Irish from Ireland by the English is immoral and un-ethical. We could also say that the forced removal of non-Whites from Europe or North America is moral and ethical.
Most people do not live in “the world”. They live in places called China, Mexico, Chad, Syria etc… The concept of “world peace” is of the same vacuous quality as equality. If not, why not? Most Westerners already have international peace since, outside of conflicts like Northern Ireland and the Balkans, no two Western nations are currently at war with each other. But there have been, and will be, those who lived their lives in times without war yet saw no peace in this life due to personal conflicts, financial problems or physical ailments. World and Peace are two words that should just have never been placed together. The reality/concept behind the phrasing lacks logic or coherence. . I believe our job now is to lay the foundation for a worldview that will remove such recently concocted philosophical impediments as the notions of “equality” “brotherhood of man” or “world peace”, so that future generations can go about their tasks with a sense of rightness and certainty in what they will need to do to secure an existence for themselves and their posterity.
We can look to Spain as an example. It took centuries to reclaim their country from invaders, but reclaim it they did… . 8
Posted by Rollory on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:15 | # This has been said before, but I just want to put in a note here thanking The Narrator for the invaluable service he provides with Signals From the Brink. 9
Posted by skeptical on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:21 | # Diamed,
It is important to remember, at least in my opinion, that some of the Left’s success can be explained as a natural reaction (on the part of Westerners) against the various fratricidal and colonial wars that characterized much of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Especially in the wake of WWII, the Western mind was all too eager to entertain a certain ideological pablum as expressed in John Lennon’s, “Imagine”. This desire to reorganize the world on moral principles that preclude the primordial aspects of human nature (as noted by Kai Murros) has forced the Left to create the most unnatural societies. For them it is better to live a lie and deny human nature then it is to give up on the dreams of world peace and international justice. Of course, we all seek for mankind to live in true harmony with on another, as well as planet Earth, but this project requires us to take into consideration certain aspects of our humanity (i.e. ethnic families) that the Left would rather ignore. 10
Posted by Armor on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:50 | # the Narrator…: ” no common morality or standard of ethics amongst the various Homo sapiens groups / we must cease the act of projecting our own morality and ethics onto non-Whites “ As I see it, morality is morality and doesn’t depend on race. Africans are not as good as we are at sticking to morality. They are more violent and show less concern for others. But it doesn’t mean they are more comfortable than we are at being the victims of violence. I suppose in France, there is more cheating than in Norway or Switzerland. But I wouldn’t say that moral rules are different in France, only that they are less strictly adhered to. 11
Posted by Goal on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:55 | # Buchanan on ethnonationalism vs. multicultural globalism - http://buchanan.org/blog/2009/01/pjb-globalism-vs-ethnonationalism/ Also check out the following blog: might want to recruit this writer for Majority Rights - http://freiboden.blogspot.com/ 12
Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:02 | # Thanks Rollory.
Most White people have, over the past 50 years or so, become accustomed to this way of thinking. They don’t necessarily believe it, but they feel compelled to, at the very least, pay it lip service. And of course from doing that they place themselves in a position of not being able to object to policies implemented by those who wish us ill. There is a percentage of Whites who genuinely presume that their own instincts, desires, intuitions, ethics, moral worldviews, etc…. are universal and thus project them onto people who quite obviously don’t share them. But Presumption is the mother of all catastrophes. “White Flight” is a testimony to this. California going bankrupt is a testimony to this. The current state of Detroit is a testimony to this. The current state of South Africa is a testimony to this. Etc…......
13
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:33 | # Goal, thanks for the link to Andrea Freiboden’s blog. Interesting. I left a comment inviting here. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:09 | #
This girl knows what she’s talking about — or, at least in these couple of paragraphs I’ve alighted on literally at random she does (am rushing to get into the shower, will come back and read the rest of this very long entry of hers later):
(Now I hope when I do check it out closer there’s not some passage in there that gets it all wrong. That happens all too often — look at the high hopes I once had for Takuan, only to see them utterly dashed on further inspection.) 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:10 | # Forgot the URL: http://freiboden.blogspot.com/2009/01/time-to-lay-gop-to-rest.html 16
Posted by RR on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:23 | # If you’ve got some time, get on over to this NYT board which defames the anti-immigration movement and VDARE and leave a comment: http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/the-nativists-are-restless-continued/ 17
Posted by Goal on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:00 | # Though this blogger could use a copyeditor they are aware of many core issues: the futility of the modern GOP; the dispossession of White Americans; the immigrant tide which threatens to overwhelm White lands; the Jewish Question; media and cultural issues; etc.
Also see the comments which this person left on P. Buchanan’s latest blog entry: http://buchanan.org/blog/2009/01/pjb-globalism-vs-ethnonationalism/ 18
Posted by Goal on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:46 | # Lot of good posts by the aforementioned blogger on Slate too - http://fray.slate.com/discuss/members/Andrea+Freiboden.aspx Race realism: http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2186146.aspx—http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2154866.aspx Jewish Question: http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2225347.aspx—http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2225358.aspx—http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2328930.aspx Politics: http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2217000.aspx—http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2200623.aspx etc. Definitely a writer to look in to for this website. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:30 | # There’s something uncanny about the impressive range of pure knowledge on display in Andrea Freiboden’s stuff and the accuracy of her interpretations of a great many issues which it’s not easy to interpret accurately (unless you’ve “been around” a while, doing lots of reading and thinking, and even then it’s not). (See excerpts of her stuff in some of the comments above.) Stuff which it took high-calibre thinkers many years of hard reflection to even begin to figure out, this girl rattles off effortlessly in one continuous almost-stream-of-consciousness without pausing to take a breath and it goes on, and on, and on. How does she figure all this stuff out? If she’s genuine, this is very impressive but I wonder if she’s what she seems on the surface? Post a comment:
Next entry: The Limits of Politics
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:25 | #
Good log entry.
Jim Kalb’s Anti-Inclusiveness FAQ is à propos, quite nicely complementing the current log entry and an excellent read in its own right:
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/5
Start at the top and just read your way one-by-one down the list of “answers to frequently asked questions.” Many of the “answers” will delve into exactly what the current log entry is grappling with.