Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:08 | #

That was an enjoyable interview.  Frosty is very good value.  Thanks, Daniel, for setting it up.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:26 | #

You’re welcome GW.

And thank You Frosty.

Part of why I would have done a little introduction is to solidify MR’s position - focused on Europeans and recognizing Jews as a hostile other - without our having a genocidal agenda toward them (It is necessary to be explicit about that, as it is that we are not supremacists in order to be free to talk critically) - to put such criticisms aside efficiently and also to protect Frosty - I guess there are going to be people who are going to accuse him of being impervious to the J.Q. Thus, I wanted to connect with the fact that he does see the 1965 Immigration Act as a central event.

I’ll post that intro below, as I still believe it is valid.

.......

But now, Into the content of the interview…

First, I would not want to merely concede the Southern States to blacks. Maybe that will have to happen but it is not good and they don’t deserve it.

I believe it is a significant point to extend fully that blacks can be strong on basic levels as a result of their long pre-evolution in situ, which can make them rather impervious to environmental/social destruction, at least to an extent that Europeans are not. The social/environmental sensitivity of Europeans in that regard would be a good thing, a precursor to sufficient intelligence to steward ecological matters, but corresponding with a vulnerability.

The next thing is a bit more important.

That competition is overvalued by European peoples, and that it is part of what is our fault. Our valuation of objectivism’s power irrespective of how it corresponds with human social interests. Darwinism is taken for granted in objectivism - which would correspond with the Right properly understood - manifest in corporations, plutocrats and sociopaths. This has us wreaking havoc through the false assumption that competition is necessary and good through and through.

But more importantly, while it is a good and I believe incisive point that the Jews are deploying the conflict model to keep themselves atop and others under control, it does not necessarily correspond with “The Left.”

In fact, a left for European peoples would be its unionization as a whole people - not a conflict model at all. It would maintain accountability on elites and rank and file to guard against betrayal, but that is modeled on the maintenance of cooperation, not conflict.

We need to shed what has been accepted by Whites from Jewish and objectivist interests as the definition of “The left”, as it is not a unionization for Whites, but unionizations for non-Whites and anti-Whites against Whites. For Whites, what ours have accepted as “the left” is what Jews have had us calling “The Left” and that is not our left, it is liberalism - the busting of our unionization.

Our traitorous elites will say, disingenuously, that Darwinism and competition is an objective fact as it serves their narrow interests. While Darwinism is true on a certain level, in the human world, most of what is going on is cooperation and it is accountable or potentially accountable in a way that competition treated objectively, whether by corporations, plutocrats or Jews concerned only with their own, are not.

If we don’t take control of a VERY USEFUL definition of the left then the Jews…or yes, the F-heads, will.

.........................................................................................................................

Posted by Introduction/Audience on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 06:51 | #

Introducing Frosty to MR’s target audience a bit. We have to understand a few things about them. Animals are great, important, a serious concern, but a focus toward ecological systemic impacts even more to our point - and MR is most concerned for that part of systems designated European human ecology – the preservation of the genus, otherwise known as race, and the species, otherwise known as national and regional types of Europeans. We value them as much, in fact more, than rain forests and animal species and oceans; though we recognize of course that these concerns are not at all mutually exclusive. Quite to the contrary, the species that destroys its habitat and means of life, destroys itself.

We hold a broad view characterized by pervasive ecology.

Nevertheless, we are concerned for European peoples first. We are separatists in defense of these genus, species and their habitats. We are separatists, not supremacists. We are not supremacists, we represent the defense of all Europeans and their national kinds, and that distinguishes us from Nazis. However, we do see ourselves as a different people and having different interests from Jews, who are antagonistic to us and occupying powerful niches in society from which they largely control the determination of how events come to count; and have escaped detection through a form of crypsis, their appearance camouflaged as similar to ours – they can look very “White.” Even so, they are not native European.

We are also distinguished at MR in that we see objectivist/capitalist growth and the neo liberalism promoted in its interests as a huge problem also, not just Jews. However, as that is objectivist, it is somewhat more happenstance and amenable to change, whereas group conflict is more tricky, more manichean. They may not want to let go, and they may change only still to our detriment where we solve one of their riddles.

Nevertheless, our goal is autonomy, separatism from them and other non-Europeans, it is our purpose not to eliminate them and take their habitats but to save our kinds and our habitats.

You mention the 65 immigration act, so you must have some familiarity with Jewish power and influence and interaction with European interests. As they are familiar with you, obviously, seeing the ADL blog above. In your travels, you may have some first hand experience with their own separatist efforts as well – theoretically, projects, whether Israel or Birobidzhan, are more in alignment and potentially less conflictual with European nationalism than their projects of globalist and liberal imposition which are in alignment with corporate and plutocratic influences – liberalization of European boundaries. That Immigration Act would be an event highly relevant to both your project and ours therefore. Your travels would give you a unique perspective on its points of impact…

Corporatism’s growth agenda is a political beast, liberal individualism is characteristically used by the mercantile culture that grew in the wake of mercantile classes taking over with the Enlightenment overthrow of monarchic rule and aristocratic classes (classification) along with traditional religion; PC has been promoted and adopted as a de facto religion in its wake, a religion which makes no sense to Whites, as it is sheerly counter to our interests, capitalizing on the Enlightenment’s naivete and Christianity’s self destruction (we see that you are familiar with its rupture of natural cause and effect) - it is tantamount to obsequious, self sacrificing liberalism for Whites. American’s Puritan strain of liberal universalism is susceptible to be transformed into overdrive as it has been, like a virus perhaps..

The cognitive dissonance of which you speak would seem to be able to operate there, with this Judeo-Christian world view that separates cause and effect and self interest in this world and our children’s future from the eternal hereafter.

But at bottom, this cognitive dissonance is enabled by the Cartesianism also of the empirical end…this “anti-social classification which began in The Enlightenment on behalf of individuals against artistocratic classification has been taken by Jewish interests and transformed into anti-all social classification, including anti national and racial (for Europeans, anyway). Anti-racism is its sine qua non. It is the ultimate in non-unionization of European peoples. This is all liberalization as applied to Whites. What is called “The left” may be a union for anti-Whites, but what is called the left is not a union of Whites in any comprehensive way of EGI. 

Any organized defense of Whites is a form of unionization - it calls for a re-defining of what a comprehensive unionization of White nationals, a white left, would mean, and how it would differ from other lefts, but particularly the Jewish spin, which is liberalism against all social classification in White interests.

Posted by Jackdaw on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 19:56 | #

Frosty’s too long winded. Applying Occams razor, the message is
White people want; need; demand their own homeland.

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 10:13 | #

Upon subsequent listening to this interview, I think it was rather good.

I had to delete large parts of my first comment, with apologies for its having been written in expression of fatigue of Internet flame wars. Some mean critics out there, but I am rested-up and recuperated. Ok now.

The interview was a good one, and I look forward to more of Frosty at MR. James would do a good one.

................................

elaborating on the intro bit…

The cognitive dissonance of which Frosty speaks would seem to be able to operate there, with this Judeo-Christian world view that separates cause and effect and self interest in this world and our children’s future from the eternal hereafter.

But at bottom, this cognitive dissonance is enabled by the Cartesianism also of the empirical end…this “anti-social classification” which began in The Enlightenment on behalf of individuals against artistocratic classification has been taken by Jewish interests and transformed into anti-all social classification, including anti national and racial (for Europeans, anyway). Anti-racism is its sine qua non. It is the ultimate in non-unionization of European peoples. This is all liberalization as applied to Whites. What is called “The left” may be a union for anti-Whites, but what is called the left is not a union of Whites in any comprehensive way of EGI.

Any organized defense of Whites is a form of unionization - it calls for a re-defining of what a comprehensive unionization of White nationals, a white left, would mean, and how it would differ from other lefts, but particularly the Jewish spin, which is liberalism against all social classification in White interests.

Posted by TheLineBetween on Sat, 29 Nov 2014 13:12 | #

Wise men see lines and therefore they draw them.

While we acknowledge systemic interrelation and pervasive ecology, the other extreme of doing away with social classification and necessary discrimination on its basis has been taken to absurd extremes by Europeans - the Grizzly man providing one such absurd example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8MjDyfcMmU

Posted by Clarification on Fri, 05 Dec 2014 02:57 | #

I believe that Frosty is speaking of the ADL hit piece on him; it was posted only to show what he was up against, not to share-in or endorse its (ironic) defamation of him. I took for granted that it was understood, proven, as Frosty says, for any reasonable person that Frosty is reasonable, not an extremist, and respects all of humanity’s kinds.

For our audience, The ADL saying something negative about an activist is nearly the Good House-Keeping Seal of approval. Not quite, but we certainly don’t think they have European interests at heart, and therefore do NOT take their accusations of fanaticism and extremism as proximately granted - more likely the opposite is true, as in Frosty’s case.

Dear Daniel,

Thank you for the interview and I hope several more in the future.

Please understand that I am NOT an extremist.  I am a logical, free thinking, responsibly acting and peaceful human being.  My interview with you should have proven that fact out. 

I have always followed the law and live life rather peacefully and quietly.  If not for the overpopulation predicament facing America, I would never have started writing and speaking out on illegal immigration. I am the author of 12 books. I would rather be writing new books than having to write hundreds of commentaries on overpopulation, environment and immigration.  As to my work on illegal immigration; It’s illegal and against our laws. That does not make me an extremist to speak up against illegal immigration. 

Additionally, I speak up to reduce legal immigration from 1.2 million annually into the USA to a sustainable 100,000 annually.  Why? Because 100,000 egress the country annually. That would create a net zero in population.  I also state that all Western countries should stop immigration because the line never ends and they are overloading their countries.  It’s futile and useless and senseless.

What I hoped to accomplish in the interview:  we Western thinkers used our intelligence to average 2.0 children per woman to maintain and sustain our societies since 1970 with birth control.  Mass immigration continues to explode our populations because the third world adds 80 million net gain annually.  Additionally, I am very aware that multiculturalism doesn’t work and becomes violent as you see its results all over the world.  Norway and Sweden have become wrecked with Muslim immigration as well as UK, France, Belgium and Holland.  At some point, Austria, Italy, Spain and Germany may very well explode in race riots.

I stand for intelligent, peaceful and lawful dialogue in order to bring solutions to our predicament.  That does not make me a fanatic or extremist.  I respect all races and colors and ethnic groups as I said on the interview because they are all doing the best they can to live their lives.    I certainly don’t care for the activities of certain violent religions like the Muslims.

Hopefully, you could delete the words “extremist” and “fanatic” in describing me.  I am a logical, rational, reasoned, highly intelligent and highly educated man who speaks up and writes up in order to bring understanding.  I am a “Galileo” of the 21st century as to human overpopulation.

Frosty, I don’t describe you that way, The ADL did. I perhaps wrongly assumed that its absurdity would be obvious to all. I have deleted it lest there be any doubt - with apologies for anyone who could possibly misunderstand its absurdity

Posted by FatherOf30 on Tue, 09 Dec 2014 02:26 | #

Tennessee brother, er, father of 30 children:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNohGQv9o9g#t=93

But oh Carissa Loethen - the reporter - is hot:

Posted by Anthropocene epoch on Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:34 | #

Anthropocene epoch

An appropriate term for our human, Euro-Cetered, world view…

The world entered a new epoch on July 16 1945 when humans detonated the first atomic bomb, scientists have concluded.

By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor - 15 Jan 2015

Human behaviour now has such an enormous impact on Earth that it has even altered the geology of the planet and tipped us into a new era, the Anthropocene.

Although humans have been leaving traces of their actions for thousands of years, it was not until the mid-19th century that they began to affect the entire globe, in what scientists have termed ‘the Great Acceleration.’

Since then the world has experienced a huge boom in population, environmental upheaval on land and in the oceans and global connectivity.

Scientists chose the start of the nuclear age for the birth of the new epoch because the fall-out from atomic bombs is detectable in the geological record, through radioactive isotopes.

Frosty should be talking to us again in February, btw.

Posted by 6th extinction on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:47 | #

In The World’s ‘Sixth Extinction,’ Are Humans The Asteroid?

Scientists think an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. In today’s extinction, humans are the culprit.

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/23/379117018/in-the-worlds-sixth-extinction-are-humans-the-asteroid

The book begins with a history of the big five extinctions of the past and goes on to explain how human behavior is creating this sixth, including our use of fossil fuels which has led to climate change. Climate change was the subject of Kolbert’s previous book “Field Notes From A Catastrophe.” Her research for the new book took her around the world, to oceans, rain forests and mountains, as well as a place nearly in her backyard where scientists are studying disappearing plants and animals. She spoke to Terry last year when “The Sixth Extinction” was published in hardback.

TERRY GROSS, HOST:

Elizabeth Kolbert, welcome to FRESH AIR. So when we’re talking about the sixth extinction, what are we talking about? What are the species that are likely to become extinct or that have already become extinct? What is dying off?

ELIZABETH KOLBERT: Well, when you’re talking about an extinction event, the definition I suppose would be many, many organisms across many, many different groups. And, you know, that is really what we are seeing, and that is what makes scientists fear, I suppose you’d say the word, that we’re in a mass extinction. You’re seeing mammals, about a quarter of all mammals are considered endangered, for example; about 40 percent of all amphibians are considered endangered, but we’re also seeing organisms - invertebrates, for example, are endangered; for example, reef-building corals, many species of reef-building corals are now considered very, very endangered.

So you’re seeing extinctions across a wide variety of groups, and that I think would have to be, you know, one of the defining characteristics of a mass extinction.

GROSS: I think of carbon emissions as affecting the atmosphere. But you write about how it’s also affecting the oceans and life within oceans. How are greenhouse gases affecting the acidity of oceans?

KOLBERT: Well, that’s the thing, as I said, that I think is not as fully appreciated as it should be, and it’s sort of one of the reasons, even, you could say that I wrote the book. And that is people are pretty aware now of what CO2 emissions, you know, tailpipe emissions do to the atmosphere. They warm the atmosphere. The Earth is getting warmer. There’s, you know, no doubt about that.

But what happens when you put CO2 into the air is that you’re also effectively pumping it into the oceans because wherever the surface of the oceans and the atmosphere meet, there’s just an exchange of gases. So about a third of the CO2 that we put up every year, and that’s on the order of, you know, 10 billion metric tons, is making its way into the oceans.

And when CO2 dissolves in water, it forms an acid. It’s called carbonic acid. It’s a very weak acid, and you’re drinking it, for example, when you drink a Coke. And it’s that little bit of acidity that gives soft drinks what’s sometimes called their zest, you know, and it’s one of the reasons we don’t like to drink soft drinks that are flat, that they taste very treacly.

But you do that on a massive enough scale, and you are changing the chemistry of the ocean. You’re turning the water more and more acidic - for those who remember their high school chemistry, lowering the pH of the water. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. And if you’re a marine organism, and you think about it, you’re in the water, you’re completely - everything that - your whole environment is the water.

And then when you change the chemistry of the water, that can have very, very profound effects.

GROSS: Which is why you say ocean acidification is sometimes referred to as global warming’s evil twin.

KOLBERT: Yeah, global warming’s equally evil twin, exactly. And from the perspective of, you know, the broad expanse of life, there have been a few moments in time where the oceans have become acidified, not necessarily acidic but acidified, so more and more acidified, and they are associated with some of the major crises in the history of life.

GROSS: To help you understand the impact of the acidification of the oceans, you went to a tiny island that has naturally occurring gas bubbles, and there’s carbon dioxide in those gas bubbles. So what kinds of experiments are going on in this island?

KOLBERT: Well, that’s a really interesting story, and it involves a great guy whom I went out with named Jason Hall-Spencer, who’s a British marine biologist. And he came to this idea, just sort of almost by chance. He went swimming off of this tiny island, as you say, and it - which is in the Bay of Naples. It’s off of Ischia in Italy.

And there’s CO2 - this is an area of a lot of volcanic activity - and there’s CO2 just coming naturally out of the bottom of the water, just bubbling up. And people like to go swimming there because it’s very cool, and it’s like sort of swimming in fizzy water or champagne. And some people took him swimming there, and he realized wow, this is a natural experiment in ocean acidification. This is CO2 being pumped into the water from below, and it’s very similar to what we’re doing, sort of effectively pumping CO2 into the water from above.

And if I look at what’s happening around here, I will be able to look - effectively look into the future and see what’s going to happen if we continue to pump CO2 into the air. And so he did a census around this island of marine creatures as you were far away from these CO2 bubbles and as you got closer and closer. And what he found, and I went out with him, and we went swimming in this frigid water, and you see this amazing tableau where when you’re far away from the vents, you’re seeing a very vivid, you know, underwater world with sea urchins and barnacles and corals and all - fish and all sorts of things that you expect to see in the Mediterranean.

And then as you get closer and closer to the vents, you see less and less until you get to this landscape that looks really like a lunar landscape, where very, very little can survive. So this is sort of like this interesting underwater time machine where we can look into the future of the oceans.

GROSS: So if our oceans ended up looking like the area where there’s these naturally occurring gas vents are, what would our oceans end up looking like?

KOLBERT: Well, his experiments suggest that if we continue, you know, at our present rate of CO2 emissions, then by the end of this century, ocean pH, ocean - will have dropped, or ocean acidity will have increased, depending on how you want to say it, to the point where roughly a third, in his - in this particular ecosystem roughly a third of the organisms drop out when you get to that pH.

So you’re looking at eliminating a third of the creatures in the ocean for - as a very, very rough estimate. And then as you go on, as you get closer and closer to the vents, so even beyond, you know, what we expect at the end of this century if we just sort of continue beyond that point, then you’re getting to a point where, you know, your oceans really start to look sort of like the underwater equivalent of a vacant lot.

GROSS: So, you know, if we just want to look at it in a very selfish way, this is going to affect what we eat.

KOLBERT: Well, I think that, you know, already, obviously, long before you get to sort of the end of this century and the effects of ocean acidification that he saw, we’re already seeing tremendous effects to the ocean from a variety of causes, you know, overfishing, bottom trawling. Global warming is really changing where the oceans are warming very quickly. It’s really changing where things can live, what things can live.

So yeah, we’re definitely seeing changes to what we as people can eat, absolutely.

GROSS: Now, you also went to the Great Barrier Reef, off the coast of Australia. What were you looking for there?

KOLBERT: Well, that was an amazing place, perhaps the most amazing place I’ve ever been in my life, and I also went with a great group of scientists there. A scientist out of Stanford named Ken Caldeira was running a series of experiments off of this tiny, tiny little island that just sort of pokes up out of the reef. You’re essentially on the reef, and every 12 hours, basically at low tide, people would walk across the reef and just go to collect water samples, from which they were trying to tease out the question of how corals are responding to these changes in ocean chemistry.

And to walk across the Great Barrier Reef in the middle of the night is a wonderful, wonderful experience. So one of the sort of ironies of writing this whole book and of this whole project was I got to go to these amazing places and see the most amazing creatures in the process of looking at how humans are affecting the world.

So you’d sort of go to the ends of the Earth, and yet still what you were looking at was how humans are affecting this place.

GROSS: So how are humans affecting the Great Barrier Reef?

KOLBERT: Well, humans are affecting the Great Barrier Reef. In this particular case what they were looking at was how this input of CO2, so how the changes in ocean chemistry, people had measured the rate at which the reef was sort of you could say putting on weight, so growing, a couple decades ago, back in the ‘70s.

And they were looking at the rate at which the reef was growing now. And one of the impacts that’s predicted from ocean acidification, just due to sort of basic, you know, chemistry, you don’t even have to do any experiments really, is that it’s going to be harder and harder for any organism that makes a shell or an external skeleton like a coral out of the mineral calcium carbonate. It’s going to get harder and harder for them to do that.