Category: Liberalism & the Left
In response to “Flippityfloppity’s” concern regarding definitions
I may have deserved a barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony’s proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor (our legacy being the hereafter). That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him.
However, introducing Christianity into the mix, with its propensity for a myriad of definitions, including liberal and universal, non-accountability thereof, is problematic.
Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WN, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically because they are following an “official” (i.e., convenient to Jews) definition of “the left”, which fluctuates between being liberal and open to all; or specifically open to unions of non-Whites or unions of people with problems; imposed in special admission, inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation.
The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast.
Those who accept the rightist altercast and endeavor its position are to blame as much if not more than Jews for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is even worse theoretically than it is descriptively. For as White Leftists, we would be basing discrimination mostly on an assortment and disbursing of qualitative differences, which would be a symbiotic, largely non conflictual basis; not subject to the false comparison that lends to conflict as the phoney “equality non equality” issue engenders. Equality/non-equality is neither sufficiently descriptive or prescriptive - unless, perhaps, you want to instigate what is likely to turn out to be mutually destructive conflict.
We might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites, their equality and imposition on Whites because it has had currency through Jewish media. Then oppose that for obvious reasons, as has been the strategy of almost all WN. However, staying with that definition, just because it has wide currency - despite the fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews (for the reason that it is confusing and disingenuous as they want us to be “rightists”, to scare people, our own included) and turn people off, our own included, as such, by reflecting that disingen -uousness and confusion through disorganization and denial of accountability - is neither sufficient reason nor compensation for the price paid. It is like saying we should continue to trade in currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to circulate to our confusion and detriment.
It is obvious enough that plutocratic, traitorous and well, elitist pigs of any stripe, will conveniently cite “The left” as the great enemy.
I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). Nevertheless, I maintain that the aim here is not about ego but theoretical accuracy, viz. theory which serves White interests. I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so.
These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike.
We must not be so averse to terms and concepts Jews have abused as to fall into the trap of their being didactic as the Jews may want, for us to rebel against what is good for us. This has happened with social constructionism and hermeneutics for example. To where even the Heideggerian notion of hermeneutics would be looked upon as Jewish and Marxist, such that we would not admit of that part of the non-Cartesian process which provides orientation on scientific focus, to allow for that tad of narrative speculation of the not-at-all-times-observable social classificatory boundary of the European biological system and its history (to allow for Heidegger’s admission of the form of the people as necessary as well, an observation by GW that I had missed).
The White Left as:
A social classification and classifying of a people (specifically native European people), legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within; both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and in a negative sense against those would-be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to our universal obligation to include in (our) vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. This is discrimination against individuals of classifications based on warranted prejudice of the pattern of which they are a part. The White Left would take the White Class as synonymous with the distinct genus of the native European race and its distinct sub-classifications. It is a social taxonomic classifying necessary to accountability and human ecology.
It focuses on qualitative and symbiotic differences while keeping to a minimum false, quantitative comparisons (as opposed to equality/non equality it focuses more on qualitative sameness or difference).
It is decidedly not against private property (may in fact work with the land tax / exemption scheme laid-out by Bowery)
It does not aspire to equal wealth (there can be some people who are significantly more wealthy than others), but does strive after some balance, a middle class and shared leverage on some basic necessities. The point is that the boundaries are maintained. More or less socialism or free enterprise can be flexible according to the particular state.
As a rule, it applies the silver rule to out-groups as opposed to the golden rule.
Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to non-Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.”
Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.
Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. This separatist discriminatory motive is more than generally advisable, it is necessary for accountability, human ecology and biodiversity.
The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another, the denial of their freedom of and from association.
As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.
This issue probably is worth this main post, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems.
In my next post, I will attempt to show how modernity, as a pejorative term, does not contradict but contributes to the articulation of what Bowery sees as negative in his definition of “civilization.”
In that regard I would point them to Harré‘s suggestion that there are two vital aspects to self, and thus to authentic self and individuality, which are 1, the corporeal, embodied, genetic self, having biological requirements, potentials and limits (which you three are concerned to approximate in description of its authentic functioning as closely as possible, un-borrowed from non-native influence) and 2, a narrative self, which is crucial for the matter of coherence, orientation, connection with the systemic whole and history. Now, that narrative self can deviate, even terribly, from the authentic biological interests of the self and system. It is obviously better if it accords well with our biological interests and historical form. I believe the Jewish abuse of hermeneutics is why GW has been a bit averse, and surprisingly, as it is one necessary side of a would-be Heideggerian, hermeneutic process; but then, even MacDonald was averse, apparently for the same reason of Jews having made it didactic.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, White Nationalism
I am one who tends to think that concern regarding homosexuality is exaggerated beyond its true importance in WN circles.
Perhaps because I was at one time confronted directly and from a complexity of different angles with the implication to myself, but having no doubt that I wasn’t, and wanting to be unburdened of any accusation’s tedium, I was forced to make efficient intellectual work of putting aside any such accusation, to master the ways in which the issue could be deftly set aside as it is - largely irrelevant.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 03:09 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, Awakenings, Conservatism, Feminism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Health, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Social liberalism
In citing Yockey’s definition of liberalism, I do believe Tanstaafl captures some of the “it’s a bit more than that” to the definition of liberalism that GW advised over and against the one that I was proffering in the interview with Metzger.
Fortunately for me (and for us as a race), it is not really contradictory of the definition which I would venture as most useful. Though it is, I admit, more articulate in some significant ways that GW would/does appreciate.
I would have liberalism be defined primarily as permission of the violation of the classification - which is the parameters of the group systemic organism of race.
Yockey, like GW, focuses even more meticulously on the individual (as well), to where liberalism would be the experimentation with going beyond the normal parameters of our biology as individuals as well.
That would have several “more than that” interesting implications which provide clues as to where GW was going.
One implication would indicate why GW focuses so much on the Ontology of who we authentically are as European group and individuals. We cannot even know what liberalism is, entirely, until that is settled…
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, June 11, 2014 at 03:07 AM in Anthropology, Conservatism, Liberalism & the Left, MR Radio, Psychology, Social liberalism, The Ontology Project
That Hitler and the Nazis were not White/European nationalists, nor can they represent the interests of White/European peoples.
I would like to clear the way further for Majority Rights as a place of sanity for White interests.
Indeed, if a former head of state where I am from had the attitude toward Germans and Germany that Hitler had, for example, toward Slavs and Eastern Europe, frankly, I would not boast of this man, but would be eager to leave him in the past as an embarrassing expression of overcompensation. I am frankly surprised that this is not the default position of every self-identifying White nationalist.
Hitler’s was a position which could only have led to inter-European fighting and diversion from our proper organization.
On the other hand, the Germans I meet in my travels, by sharp contrast, are very fine people; I am eager to help them, as I might, to ensure the flourishing of their particular native European form and ways; as well as to unburden them of undue guilt and foreign impositions. This generation had nothing to do with World War II, for better or worse. I am sure that there are sufficient many of them who see fit to participate in our mutual and discreet survivals as European nations and peoples.
I was ready to dive right-in with this frame of mind years, in fact decades, ago. One of the crucial issues obstructing this has been, and is, the absurd position of some self-proclaimed White Nationalists that we somehow need Hitler or to redeem Hitler. We need nothing of the kind. We need Europeans deeper and wiser. Let there be no mistake, those who insist upon Hitler and Nazism are Not White Nationalists.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 20, 2014 at 01:37 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, European Nationalism, Far Right, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism
It’s all rather reminiscent of those far-off days when a constituent of Enoch Powell was talking about the black man having the whip hand over the white man. Indeed, on the second of those two Telegraph pieces (both with comments open, which was odd) somebody helpfully posted the video of David Frost’s hour-long interview - cross-examination, really - of the great man in which that very matter is explored. Frost considered it risible that Powell could consider such an event remotely possible. Now we know better. But in 1969 the liberal classes were only just learning how to impose their value system on the rest of us:
Their great fear was that speaking too truly and, certainly, too plainly might “stir up racial hatred” among the English. The African and Asian colonisations must not be thought about too much because “hate” would be worse by orders of magnitude than anything else that could possibly happen.
Things haven’t changed much. The same shallow attitudes prevail. The liberal-left still thinks that “immigration” takes place in a consequential vacuum while dissent among the natives indicates the presence of “hate” - obviously, an irredeemably shocking and just not liberal state of affairs. This, of course, is a deeply irrational point of view. It is emotionally rooted. It is faux-moralistic. It does not respond in any way to facts or to reasoned argument. I know from personal experience in the thread-war that it does not respond to proofs of liberal guilt or even total humiliation. Nothing seems to touch it. What, then, will? What, if anything, are we missing?
Along with White Leftism, The White Class and other useful theoretical tools that Jews abuse and obfuscate as they direct White identity into the foibles of the Right.
This discussion will have a fringe benefit of provoking and flushing-out those who are not truly concerned with our people.
This essay is to be something of a summing-up and clarification:
“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility”
Thus, in background to this essay:
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 07:42 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration and Politics, Journalism, Liberalism & the Left, Race realism, Social Sciences, The American right, The Proposition Nation
by Michael Kuehl
Lamentably, what happened to Cassandra was not a one-time travesty much less an aberration. Only five years later, another young white teacher, Melissa Bittner, was charged with “sexually assaulting” a black predator who sexually assaulted her. As with Cassandra, her “victim” was the aggressor. And, in some ways, this case is even more sickening, more execrable, more appalling, more iniquitous than Sorenson-Grohall. Unlike Cassandra, Melissa wasn’t raped by her de jure “victim” and de facto victimizer. But, also unlike Cassandra, she was totally innocent, a victim of false accusations, and she never assented, willingly, to coitus or fellatio or any other sex-acts with her tormentor.
And on June 25, 2002, also in Milwaukee, the 22-year-old ex-music teacher was sentenced to a year in prison for allegedly initiating and/or consenting to 15-20 acts of “sexual contact” with the 16-year-old delinquent who assaulted her. First, let’s quote the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the same reporter who covered the Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall case:
The specific crime for which she was convicted and imprisoned was “sexual assault of a student by school staff.” Under Wisconsin law, in punishing sex between adults and teenage “children,” violent and/or recidivist male criminals who have sex 50-100 times with 16-year-old girls in non-criminally abusive and coercive relationships are guilty of misdemeanors, but women teachers who engage in even one act of “sexual contact” with 17-year-old male students are guilty of felonies.
by Michael Kuehl
Even if roughly half of these sexual assaults are not violent penile-vaginal rapes, or penile-anal rapes, that still means that black males rape over 40-50 white females a day, on average, and have raped some 700-800 thousand white females since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Conversely, white-on-black rapes are rare by comparison. And, moreover, it’s possible that most of these crimes are in fact committed by nonwhite “Hispanics” who, surreally, are classified as “white” when they commit rapes and other felonies but as “Hispanic” when they’re the victims of serious crimes. So when “Hispanics” who are wholly to partly Amerindian rape or sexually assault black-mulatto and Mestizo-Amerindian females, such crimes are defined as white-on black or white-on-“Hispanic” rapes and sexual assaults. Most absurdly, when “Hispanics” who are purely to partly black rape or sexually assault black females, such offenses are classified as white-on-black rapes or “sexual assaults.” *
As for gang-rapes: the peremptory hysteria and outrage of blacks and white leftists over the Duke rape hoax and their urgency to believe the unbelievable, to exploit this hoax as symbol and evidence of white “racism” and malevolence, is explained by the paucity of such enormities. Lamentably, for purposes of activism and propaganda, white-on-black gang-rapes are exceedingly rare. And, statistically, virtually nonexistent. And what percentage of these “white-on-black” gang-rapes were in fact committed by nonwhite “Hispanics,” including those who are wholly or partly African, who are classified as “white”?
White-on-black sex crimes are so rare, comparatively, that from 1996 to 2002, in Milwaukee, it’s conceivable that the only white-on-black sex crimes were in fact black-on-white sex crimes; it’s possible that over a span of 5-6 years only two whites were convicted of “sexually assaulting” blacks and, as incredibly as ironically, both were women teachers, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall and Melissa Bittner, who were raped and/or molested by their definitional “victims.”
From the editors of National Review, a dire warning to women who visit the Islamic world:
On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.
At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Global Elitism, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, New Right, Political analysis, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social liberalism, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
by Daniel Sienkiewicz
When our advocates call our enemies the Left, they are making a crucial mistake: obfuscating our two greatest problems and the means of solution at the same time.
In an interview with Dr. Sunic, Professor MacDonald says, “these neocons, their only interest is Israel. [Otherwise] they tend to be on the Left [?]. They still are on the Left [?] when it comes to immigration. All these things are just really leftist.” [?]
Dr. Lowell says that “the Left” [?] has shipped industry and with it, jobs, to China.
In his article Women on the Left, Alex Kurtagic discusses some of the same subject matter that I had dealt with in a previous article, and to which I have given some consideration over the years – among that, sorting out different kinds of feminists in relation to White interests. In concluding that these “leftists” [?] have nothing to offer women, he places feminists in the same category: de Beauvoir, who did indeed fashion herself a leftist of sorts (taking women as her advocacy group, and Marxism as her guide), but was not Jewish; and Friedan, who was Jewish, but more liberal than a leftist.
In an interview for Alternative Right, Kurtagic goes on attacking “the leeeft, the leeeft, the leeeeft,” and I cringe, not for the reasons that he may think; ie, he may think that I am lamenting an attack on a centralized economy, or open borders multiculturalism, PC “enrichment”. Maybe he would think that I am waxing nostalgic for the Soviet Union where he and Sunic had the misfortune to grow up, or that I want to take away private property? Maybe he thinks I am cringing because I want to jealously limit his horizons, tell him what kind of art and architecture that he can have? Maybe he thinks I want everybody to be equal or treated equal? No, I am cringing because another perfect Jewish trick is being promoted to the detriment of White people.
These counterproductive ambiguities are circulating among our best advocates – hence the need of clarification and definition emerges salient. It is not about competing with them and showing them up; it is about getting the framework of our advocacy correct.
Last November Daniel Sienkiewicz published an article at VoR criticising the tendency, prevalent in much WN intellectualism, to target “the left” rather than Jewish activism. We agreed that I would reproduce the article with some minor revisions at MR and I would offer a commentary on it. Daniel’s article will be published separately on our page immediately after this first part of my essay. Here, I am going to put forward my own, no doubt idiosyncratic and shamelessly provocative view of the central problem here, which is the foundation of Jewish thought in the Western religious and secular intellectual canon, and the open doorway that offers Jewish ethnocentric activism.
I am English. My beautiful, brave, precious people are, today, suffering a vast and shocking physical colonisation by, to my northern eyes, unbeautiful and utterly alien peoples. These peoples are unadmired, unwanted and unloved by the overwhelming majority of us. Our will in the matter is clear and is known, and is, on all historical evidential bases, perfectly justified. But because the power of choice in the matter has been taken from us, and our dissent delegitimised, we can do absolutely nothing in our own defence. As things stand, the colonisers will minoritise us within the normal lifespan of anyone in his or her early forties today, and beyond that tipping point lies only one foreseeable outcome for us: an increasingly dark and vertiginous descent to the hell of a despised and threatened rump minority. My child will see the first, my unborn grandchildren the second.
By any reckoning, and notwithstanding the extended temporality of the process, this is a genocide event. But it is a genocide that nobody is interested in talking about, which is odd because we are given to believe that the decent, educated liberal abhors genocide above all crimes, and strives mightily to eradicate it from the life of Man. As a creature much given to moral crusades, to non-aggression and opposition to colonisations, to sniffing out any injustice, to empathising with victims, to human rights, and to peace in perpetuity you might think he would have some sympathy for the English, and for all Europe’s children who face this same terrible and final existential disaster. But he cannot. He just can’t do it. Prior considerations exercise too much, in fact, vastly too much control over him.
Right on cue this morning Mary Riddell, one of a clique of left-liberal journalists working at the DT, has produced an article titled, Now the stage is set for some sensible immigration policies. “Sensible” for Mary means more - in whatever form the masses will accommodate - because Mary is a moralist par excellence of the universalist persuasion.
I might not contribute much to the thread myself. The postings have started to sky-rocket, and it is always tiresomely difficult with DISQUS to maintain contact when that happens. However, I did get an early swipe in against Mary’s universalism, for which she references Shakespeare, no less, and the influential Oxford academic Marc Stears ...
I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey. Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science. But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.
It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history. Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos). Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion. But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel. One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.
Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance. It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant. Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race. In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.
I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument. Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know. But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.
I doubt it somehow.
My reply is reproduced below the fold.
by Graham Lister
In the Anglophone world, in particular where it has been picked up by cultural studies, the term ‘body’ is a fairly reliable warning of hot air to come: a flashing sign for the sensible and time-poor to stay well away. But there are exceptions. One of which might well be The Coming of the Body by Hervé Juvin, in which premonitions of a new and radical regime of individualism under the aegis of the human body, as life distends and capital mutates to meet it, emerge (somewhat incongruously) from the French insurance industry.
Social agendas in the West are in flux, as new kinds of issues gain salience - pension provision, immigration policies, reproductive rights, marital arrangements. Juvin’s contribution belongs to the genre concerned with such issues; illustrated with an abundance of striking data, and delivered with an intellectual mordancy and crisp literary style that remain, even today, peculiarly French. The author might also be regarded as a very particular and local phenomenon. In the Anglophone world business and culture are typically strangers, yielding at best, earnest middle-brow apologetics at the level of Adair Turner’s “Just Capital”; but in France the intellectual executive is a not unfamiliar or strange figure. Operating within the insurance world, Juvin writes without any overt political attachments.
“The Coming of the Body” announces a time when the human body has started to pre-empt all other measures of value in the West, separating the experience of contemporary generations from that of all predecessors, and the rest of the world. The basis of this sea change lies in the spectacular transformation of life expectancy. When the Revolution broke out in 1789, the average span of life in France was 22. By 1900 it was just under 45. Today, it is 75 for men, and over 83 for women, and continually increasing. Quoting Juvin; “We have every reason to hope that one girl out of two born in France since 2000 will live to be a hundred years old”. This prolongation of life is “the present that a century of blood and iron has left us - the present of a life that has doubled”. It amounts to “the invention of a new body, against need, against suffering and against time; against the world too - the world of nature, which was destiny”. The gift is restricted to the rich. “An entire generation will soon separate Europe from its neighbours to the south, when the median age of its population passes 50 (towards 2050), while that of the Maghreb remains under 30”. If we were from the developing world we too would be desperately doing everything within our powers to make it to the West.
… against the pathological left, anyway.
I have spent a few days discussing golf and football with a dozen or so folk at the Telegraph online. They were hardly committed sports fans, unless you count screaming “racist” at every slightly “incorrect” white man a sport. Perhaps they do.
They are certainly not very sporting themselves. They never answer questions. With the more capable anti-racists who gather at British Democracy Forum to plague BNP members I always felt that the wriggling was at least partly strategic. But now I think the lot of them are probably constitutionally incapable of answering anything. The answers just aren’t there.
The same feeling that the multiracialist ideology can’t answer the questions of the present-day runs through this article in the Guardian today:
The rest of the article is worth a browse. The original Demos report, which is less lurid in tone than the article above, is here.
Next stop Cool Britannia?
This piece in Saturday’s Daily Mail could not be allowed to pass without comment here, even at the very real risk of re-igniting the Cock-up or Conspiracy debate that inflamed passions around these parts not so long ago. Has there been a single confirmed Scrooby sighting since?
While the Mail article succeeds in its obvious aim of getting the readers stoked up (almost 600 overwhelmingly hostile comments so far) it fails to add any real context or search for greater meaning, taking the opportunity to slag off Tony Blair being apparently an end in itself.
But, we perhaps we need to probe a little deeper ...
Der Struwwelpeter is one of the most famous German children’s books. Written in 1844 by Heinrich Hoffmann, it consists of 10 illustrated rhyming stories, most of which depict children being subjected to fantastic punishment for misbehaviour. One such story is “Die Geschichte von den schwarzen Buben” (The Story of the Black Boys). In it, 3 boys are punished by St. Nicholas for teasing a negro kid passing the city gates. What follows is my translation of the German. It might sound a bit awkward, but I wanted to keep as much of the original meaning as possible (the English translation changes the story somewhat).
by Christian Miller ©
Most violence and violent rhetoric is leftist in origin. As the left has a firm grip on the reins of mainstream media, it should come as no surprise that the right is the scapegoat for the sins of the left. The irony is that the left is guilty of what its favorite leftist psychologist, Sigmund Freud, coined “projection.” The left denies its own violent actions and rhetoric and instead ascribes it to its chief political opposition - the right. The left projects its own violent tendencies upon the right through extensive use of media propaganda. “Right-wingers” are immediately blamed for any outburst of random violence perpetrated by isolated and disturbed individuals, yet the entire history of leftist aggression, angry rhetoric, and physical violence is swept into the dustbin of history. Leftist riots, leftist terrorists, leftist serial bombers, leftist calls for genocide - all of these sink down the memory hole, purposefully eclipsed by a barrage of stories about right-wing violence. Reality is quite different.
Worldwide, the left-wing forces of communism are responsible for more than 100 million civilian deaths in the Twentieth Century. Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and other communist-controlled nations became killing fields in the name of social progress - a favorite term of the left. America mistakenly believes that Marxism and leftism largely died with the fall of the Soviet Union, but the parasite merely changed hosts.
In the dawn of the new century, the American left and incognito left - neoconservatives who infiltrated the Republican Party to subvert it toward leftist ideas - pounded war drums that led to the second invasion of Iraq. The mainstream media conveniently places the blame for this war upon the right, covering up the fact that neoconservative ideology is merely leftism in strategic disguise. The neoconservative infiltrators of the Republican Party were the catalyst for the second invasion of Iraq and these leftists-in-disguise were aided and abetted by most mainstream leftists in government and media. The elite leftist press and Democratic Party politicians were firmly in favor of invading Iraq. Combined with their neoconservative compatriots at the spear’s point, there seemed to be a “consensus” regarding Iraq - but few understood that it was a leftist consensus. Nation-building, foreign intervention, and pre-emptive war are not genuine conservative values. They are the hallmarks of a leftist, a person who wishes to impose ideologies upon the rest of the population by force, all in the name of “progress.
The two dominant racial stories currently on the Daily Mail website are the pursuit and stabbing of Nicholas Pearton in South London by six negro gang-members and the lift from The Times about the “tidal wave” of Muslim grooming of white girls in the North. They are both very emotive stories. They are both completely ignored by the left-wing press and the BBC. Google has removed all links to the original Times story and the Daily Mail version. It is completely clear that white lives do not mean anything to the people involved in those decisions. What does matter is the progress of the MultiCult. At all human costs, if those humans are white.
Now, I think it unlikely that all or even very many of the journalists and editors involved are Chosen. They are white liberals. The political malice and detachment from reality, the evident unwillingness to comprehend that but for honesty and responsibility among journalists like themselves these terrible events and thousands of others like them might never have happened ... all that belongs to the liberal mind. My question is: how did that mind come to this vile and complicitous estate? How did it arrive not just at the point where it is content that the lives of hundreds of young girls and their families be ruined and young boys be murdered, but where it actually chooses it as a preferred outcome? Consistently, over a period of years?
I don’t have a real answer. But here are what seem to me to be a few clues.
1. Psychologically, the willingness to submit strangers to harm is associated with an exaggerated respect for authority. The Milgram experiments of the early 1960s demonstrated exactly this. Liberalism in its philosophical conception was a retort to the power of the Catholic Church, and it retains the teleological essentials of religion. Indeed, its ultimate meaning is the replacement of God with Man the Creator. The liberal is a religious. Would he not, then, invest his politics with religious authority, and find therein the need for a religious obedience?
2. The very essence of obedience is the objectification of one’s own role as an instrument of authority, rather than as a fully human being responsible for his own choices. The liberal no doubt believes he is only “following orders” to do good, and if one day he is brought before due process that is exactly what he will plead.
3. We observe liberals projecting loathing onto others on a daily basis. Projection is obviously a significant factor in the psychology of the liberal. It is also very apparent to us that liberals, in their desire to demonstrate their doctrinal purity, can be extravagant in their denial of humanity to their own people, as well as their approbation of it in others. How difficult can it be, then, for these people to view white children as objects of no account?
4. Not every person has the right psychological profile to inflict harm in this mechanical way upon other people. It seems likely to me that part of that profile must involve a strong capacity for self-delusion. We, of course, are well aware that the radical, self-authorial individualism which energises liberal politics is a fiction. Yet I have encountered scores of ordinary, little liberalistic people who insist on their own peerless sovereign individualism. They are fooling themselves, every one.
By contrast, nationalists have to hack their own truths out of the political rocks, and withstand the gale of ideological hatred while they do it. They are genuinely independent of mind (as well as often quite eccentric). They tend to argue a great deal with one another too - something liberals are not noted for.
That’s about it. It aggravates my soul that there are people in this world who would conspire to remove news about negro youths and Pakistani males for the sake of white dispossession. That they have the power to do it, too, is almost too much. Sometime someone is going to have to pay.
UPDATE - THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE MOSLEM CHILD GROOMING, BUT BEGINS TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE TERMS OF DEBATE
Dear Have Your Say contributor,
Thank you for contributing to a Have Your Say debate. Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your content below.
Posts to the BBC website may be removed if they are considered abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, disablist, homophobic or racially offensive, or disruptive to discussion. For more information, please visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#house
You can read the House Rules in full here:
Please do not reply to this email. For information on appeals visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#canappeal
Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.
The BBC Moderation Team
URL of content (now removed):
Subject: Should schools teach pupils about the dangers of weapons?
Posting: If we cannot even be honest enough with ourselves to acknowledge on the BBC that gun and knife crime is substantially a pathology of black youths, how on earth can we do anything about it?
In short, it is no longer even capable of honestly confronting the massive problems that it’s creating nor can it make due on its many promises. It is characterized by cowardice, exhaustion, and fear. The Sword of Damocles is starting to wobble a bit.
But we’re only going to consider this in microcosm right now, which means - yes - another clip from Bloggingheads.tv.
Comes now Mr. Adam Serwer who is a young and up-and-coming lefty that writes for The American Prospect, I believe he is Jewish with a shade of Black blood - a real man for our time. His interlocutor is Mrs. Amy Wax who is here to discuss with Adam her new book, “Race, Wrongs, and Remedies”. And here is where things get interesting, Mrs. Wax happens to be a liberal who is really concerned about the hopelessly dysfunctional state of the American underclass (both Black and Hispanic), she is worried that their situation is quickly going from bad to worse and that we - the collective liberal elite - have abandoned these people. Of course, she is right; the liberal elite have abandoned these people because they don’t give a damn about them, the colored underclass is just a voting farm and an object to be manipulated for the left’s benefit.
But they are a growing problem, and I think Mrs. Wax senses that we can’t continue to ignore their dysfunctionality forever because, well, eventually we won’t be able to.
Mr. Serwer - the future of the left and a man for our time - is having none of this, with his gaze always shifted to the side he spits out the standard retorts and the mindless babble that passes for conventional thinking. Mrs. Wax won’t have any of it in return, which means an entertaining spectacle for the likes of us is about to take place. Enjoy.
Mr. Serwer is, for me, just another piece of evidence for why the left is finished and exhausted.
Nietzsche said that after euroman lost Christianity, he would go searching for other things. Big N propounded the Overman as a conduit for his effort, dreaming, and aspirations.
In the West we had less teleological furore to become an archetype of greatness and accomplishment, I think it was Germany’s scatteredness, comparative powerlessness and unsuccessful self-assertion that kept these fires burning so brightly there. But in the west we had the beginnings of a different kind of cult: the religion of the end of suffering. Its a kind of noblesse oblige which, as best I can imagine, began to form in western Europe after it had become clear that we had ‘beaten the game’ - i.e. enjoyed centuries of technological and cultural flowering.
It coincides with man turning inward, and a forward development in sensibility. The question is posed if a society can concentrate on these things without losing its ability to weaponize, etc. Its an open and many-sided question.
But there is no doubt that we have an incipient religion which is the religion of the end of suffering. According to this religion, the bounty of white sociobiology and technological progress should be not just used but used up, if required, to heal the ills of everyone.
The belief is that suffering is unnecessary and has no place in the world, that it has no lesson to teach us. Suffering is “a wrong outcome” and is just that: simply wrong. Starving in Africa? Wrong. People not able to afford things which you view as being prerequisites of human existence? Wrong. People living with a lower living standard than you could tolerate? Wrong. Disease? So wrong. Dying children? Utterly wrong.
To me the arrogance of it is pretty breathtaking since, to my mind, suffering is a part of life that is as meaningful and has as much to teach us as happiness does. Potentially much more. Suffering is a lesson for man.
But rather than critique, I just want to hold up for your perusal one of the most beautiful expressions of this religion. It is Pink Floyd’s song On the Turning Away:
White Nerd: You know, I really like rap music, because the singer is talking about his struggle. And I really identify with that. Like, I have my own struggle, you know, each of us has our own struggle.
Black security guard: Struggle? What do you know about struggle?
White Nerd: Like my struggle to fit in with my peers, find out what I want to do with my life, find companionship, get out of my parent’s control, etc.
Black security guard: You call that a struggle? How can you call that a struggle?
White Nerd: What do you mean?
Black security guard: You know what a struggle is, not having enough money to have a new pair of shoes.
White Nerd: um ...
Black: Finding out your baby sister just got knocked-up by a crack head!
White: uh ...
Black: Growing up not knowing who you’re daddy is! Thats a struggle!
White: ull ...
Black: Havin’ your mom killed by a drug dealer when you was two! Thats what a struggle is!
White: uff ...
Black: Every day hearing shots and not being sure, if your friends is out there dyin’! Thats a struggle!
White: utt ...
Black: What’choo want to tell me about a struggle? What’choo know about a struggle?
White: udd ...
Black: You means to tell me, when you’se in your pretty white house, that you sometimes ride around in your nice car, and feel sad about yourself, because you’ daddy didn’t understand you? Is you sad because your friends don’t understand you? Is that your struggle?
White: urr ...
Black: Cuz let me tell ya somethin’ son, that aint’ nothin’.
- End of fake discussion -
This is a question, open-ended, for your consideration, stemming from debates with liberal friends ...
A recurring picture-argument is that of the possibility of a universal Renaissance, conditioned on the possibility that all people everywhere get a middle-class white upbringing. Essentially this scheme would graft onto the private lives of numberless ghetto-dwellers the kind of nurturing, loving, book-reading childhood enjoyed by upwardly-mobile middle class whites. This is justified because the liberal formulating the argument understands that patterns of behavior are given their first impetus by parents when the child is young. That component of non-genetic variation which is formed by imprinting in childhood is the wiggle-room they need to make everyone theoretically conformable to European standards of behavior.
A person adept at truth search would have to detect in themselves, were they to find themselves arguing in this way, the existence of a cherished hypothesis beating a hasty retreat into a shadowy corner of plausibility where its premises can evade inspection ... for the moment. Realizing that one cherished a hypothesis, which is a sin in the truth search, one would have to take steps to remedy it. But since our liberal friends might not be tainted by that degree of enthusiasm, we have to encounter this argument on its own terms and not point out how suspiciously it resembles certain things you might have learned to recognize from elsewhere ...
Its not clear which entity would ‘reach in’ at the appropriate time to prevent the inappropriate behavior while the non-whites are being upbring-ated. Who would shop for them, and choose healthy groceries? Who would prevent the Dad from drinking? Who would prevent the mother from spending 20+ hours watching television? Who would allocate the spending of money which resulted in enough money being left over for cultural events such as attending art museums? Who would attend to the thousand little details (time allotted? car keys? everyone present? enough gas? directions?) which in the absence of real motivation to go to the art museum, give birth to myriad rationalizations about why it need not happen. In the absence of the DNA-sprung desire to see art, explore and understand the world, who would explain to the children the context of what was being seen, and tie it into a larger narrative emerging from adult experience and knowledge? Who would prompt the natively-uninterested person to bring up the same issues later at the dinner table, sustaining a living interest in what had been experienced? Are government entities going to do this? Individual concerned citizens?
by Potential Frolic
Perhaps morality consists in individual rules or Sententiae stored somewhere in the mind. These would be abstract image-calculation algorithms, where one plugs in the images of other people and things to get the result. Then again perhaps morality consists in matrices containing perspectives of other people with whom one is close. We could imagine a matrix like this:
father, mother, sister, brother, friend1, friend2, teacher, neighbor1, neighbor2, neighbor3 ... etc, etc.
Each item in the matrix represents a perspective that one has acquired or modeled; the word ‘modeling’ reflects accurately the action but implies more consciousness than the matrix-former actually possesses. A more accurate term might be “absorbing other people’s evaluations”. Each perspective contains a list of weighted evaluations of things. Father’s evaluations of doing drugs may be -5, but friend1’s evaluation of doing drugs is +0.5 and friend2’s is 2.5, so friends may prevail with a young person to try drugs. When the young person inhabiting this matrix makes a decision about whether to try drugs, they cross-check each perspective in the matrix for evaluations and arrive at some form of weighted average, which guides their behavior.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa