Euro-DNA Nation

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes separatism through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (see Note 1 below). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities would be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. Rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are apparently optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

 

 

The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.

This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.

We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods?  This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well.

Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, July 13, 2012 at 07:37 PM in
Comments (304) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by Hanger on July 13, 2012, 10:33 PM | #

If enough White people did this, it would be declared illegal in one fashion or another. Leftists hate freedom of association. Leftists hate freedom of speech. Heck, Leftists hate pretty much everything, especially freedom. Pity they run the world.

2

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 12:59 AM | #

Behold the difference. This is the White Left.

3

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 03:48 AM | #

.. what you talk about isn’t Leftism for Whites. It is imposed liberalism upon Whites.

4

Posted by Silver on July 14, 2012, 04:03 AM | #

Good stuff, Daniel.  Work along these lines should have begun decades ago.  The reason it hasn’t can be attributed, I believe, to some form of the “four fallacies” I outlined, which in turn results in a “Gresham’s Law of racialism” effect—bad racialism driving out good. 

Hanger, if leftists thought that way they never would have achieved what they have.

5

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 04:16 AM | #

Thanks, Silver

6

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 06:59 AM | #

Too bad “Clamoring for war against Syria Part 4”, complete with its tabloidish imagry, could not have waited another day. I wouldn’t begrudge the significance of its discussion, but in being forefronted after just a few hours of this being posted, it buries this discussion some.

7

Posted by James Bowery on July 14, 2012, 08:14 AM | #

Daniel, I’ve made the story the top for a few days. 

As is known, it is my belief that The Laboratory of the States (strategically targeting counties in the face of globalist hollowing out of the nation states and their enslaved clients such as the several States of the United States) will help continue the process begun by the opening of land made possible by the New World:

Re-discovering who we are.

There are different modes of preservation:

1) The obvious aspects preserved endemic to indigenous lands.
2) The refuges offered by frontiers to those who are displaced by foreign impositions on indigenous lands.

Examples of the former are well known and regarded.

Examples of the latter are less well-recognized:

For example, one of the main Gaelic language schools was preserved in Canada while in Great Britain Gaelic was deliberately attacked.  Some traditions were also transmitted to the Appalachian Mountains in the US that were lost among the Scots and Irish that remained.

Re-discovery is another feature of frontiers:

As Man encounters Nature directly it brings forth essentials.  For example, it is my belief the folks associated with Sovereign Press rediscovered some key aspects of the eugenic culture that produced Euroman’s unique individualism and that this rediscovery was a direct result of being left to go relatively “feral”.  Of course, the results of going “feral” are not always, nor even usually, desirable since so much cultural damage has been done.

One needn’t share my opinion of the merits of the Sovereign Press folks to see how allowing freedom of association—radical freedom of association—may be necessary to allow recovery of what might be called “genetic memory” of eugenic culture.

8

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 08:26 AM | #

Good, thanks.

9

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 08:59 AM | #

...I should say this, that in re-editing, the word “control” sneaked-in there, for better or worse - as in, “controlling” territory. My original version stated the objective as “covering” territory.

I’m not sure how much that word’s introduction had you emphasizing the potential value of “feralness”, but I see your point, nevertheless.

10

Posted by ffss on July 14, 2012, 11:35 AM | #

Well, this is dumb—and already explicitly banned by the EU in all Member States, if not already enforced against by the security forces as in all Western countries. Are Americans so broken and deracinated that they think the proper pieces of paper for a weird cult are the issue, or that they will pull a fast one on the hostile elites who would apply beep-boop-beep libertarian “logic” and think it beyond their remit to crush such a movement? If so, you should have specified the planet where you think your ideas should be considered. No wonder Silver thinks them brilliant.

11

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 11:58 AM | #

You wish it was dumb, FFSS, then your cynicism would seem to have merit. But you haven’t bothered to understand it, so it does not matter what you think.

12

Posted by ffss on July 14, 2012, 12:42 PM | #

Oh, I understand it. Using genome testing or similar criteria for such group membership has been pre-empted and banned in the EU (evidently as a move against less dumber nationalist purposes).

I am not as cynical as to claim “explicit Whiteness does not work”, the ultimate sort of defeatism by any measure, though this may very well be true for broken liberal Americans who would come up with your horseshit.

13

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 12:53 PM | #

Posted by ffss on July 14, 2012, 12:42 PM | #

Oh, I understand it. Using genome testing or similar criteria for such group membership has been pre-empted and banned in the EU (evidently as a move against less dumber nationalist purposes).

I am not as cynical as to claim “explicit Whiteness does not work”, the ultimate sort of defeatism by any measure, though this may very well be true for broken liberal Americans who would come up with your horseshit.

No you don’t understand it, FFSS. Because there is no membership - there is an expressed wish, only.

The notion is conceived with oppressive laws against White association in mind.

You don’t want to believe in its possibility (nor care that it is voluntary - neither you nor anyone else has to participate), you only want to bemoan the loss of Nazi Germany.

I thought we agreed that you were going to go somewhere where you could endlessly bemoan WWII and not bother with this anymore?

 

14

Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 01:29 PM | #

You don’t want to believe in its possibility (nor care that it is voluntary - neither you nor anyone else has to participate), you only want to bemoan the loss of Nazi Germany.

Isn’t this basically the same thing Nazi Germany would have accomplished? The Nazis wanted to leave Western Europeans and North Americans alone and relatively autonomous. They wanted greater living space for Germans in the east, but this wouldn’t have entailed the wholesale destruction of the Slavs. Much of that land to the east had been Germanic territory in the past when it was occupied by the Ostrogoths. And it wouldn’t be that unjustified given that they would have been expending the blood and treasure to secure territory for others.

15

Posted by ffss on July 14, 2012, 01:39 PM | #

I apologise for being sceptical of your whisper-based implicit white nationalism. Upon further consideration, this clearly has a good shot of defeating the extant security apparatus of, e.g., the United States.

16

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 01:59 PM | #

Ulf on July 14, 2012, 01:29 PM | #

  You don’t want to believe in its possibility (nor care that it is voluntary - neither you nor anyone else has to participate), you only want to bemoan the loss of Nazi Germany.

“Isn’t this basically the same thing Nazi Germany would have accomplished?”

No. It is very dissimilar from the aims of Nazi Germany. Although it does provide for the hope (and aim) of sovereign German territories; not only Germany as it is now outlined, but also German states, counties, on other continents.

“The Nazis wanted to leave Western Europeans and North Americans alone and relatively autonomous. They wanted greater living space for Germans in the east, but this wouldn’t have entailed the wholesale destruction of the Slavs. Much of that land to the east had been Germanic territory in the past when it was occupied by the Ostrogoths. And it wouldn’t be that unjustified given that they would have been expending the blood and treasure to secure territory for others.”

Whatever they wanted, it is history. I do see a difference between Nazis and Germans. As I have said, I think Nazis had their motives, but where they were not kind of sick - like the clip Bowery added, showing the beetle committing suicide to rid itself of the parasitic worm - they over compensated. I conceive of the Nazis as a regime, while not without some legitimate motives, also expressing and mirroring symptoms of a pathogen. Whereas the Germans are a recovered or recovering body who can and mostly do live in symbiosis with other Europeans.

Germans are probably still the largest group in America (more than English). It’s far better now to cooperate toward the securing of German ecologies in other contents (as well) than re-fighting WWII.

There are much more productive things to talk about now.

Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, places in Brazil, Argentina, etc.

17

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 02:01 PM | #

Posted by ffss on July 14, 2012, 01:39 PM | #

I apologise for being sceptical of your whisper-based implicit white nationalism. Upon further consideration, this clearly has a good shot of defeating the extant security apparatus of, e.g., the United States.

Ok. No sweat. I’ll take that at face value.

18

Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 02:26 PM | #

It is very dissimilar from the aims of Nazi Germany.

The stated aims are different. But I meant in effect.

I conceive of the Nazis as a regime, while not without some legitimate motives, also expressing and mirroring symptoms of a pathogen. Whereas the Germans are a recovered or recovering body who can and mostly do live in symbiosis with other Europeans.

Why do you say they had a “pathogen”? Because they made war?

“Symbiosis” doesn’t simply mean lack of conflict or war.

19

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 02:38 PM | #

Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 02:26 PM | #

  It is very dissimilar from the aims of Nazi Germany.

The stated aims are different. But I meant in effect.


No the effect is very different. In fact, it is very indeterminate as to land claims to begin - it is a DNA based nation.


I conceive of the Nazis as a regime, while not without some legitimate motives, also expressing and mirroring symptoms of a pathogen. Whereas the Germans are a recovered or recovering body who can and mostly do live in symbiosis with other Europeans.

Why do you say they had a “pathogen”? Because they made war?


Because they waged war that had too many enemies; too many fronts; and it failed in being headlong.


“Symbiosis” doesn’t simply mean lack of conflict or war.

To me it does.

I like a Europe with the nations it has now. The sizes and shapes are fine to me. Maybe the Basques and others could use their territories defined a little more clearly..and certainly satellite nations for Europeans elsewhere is a desirable aim..


But talk of WWII could go on and on. I can’t believe that I am having to talk it along with this essay. What a fucking bore!

 

 

 

20

Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 03:27 PM | #

You’re the one talking about the actual war.

So the effect would be even more drastic and depart further than the effect of the Nazis - which would be to keep most European populations and the Anglosphere more or less in place?

How would you prevent conflict or war without a dominant power or state? In which case we’re back to the Nazi example where Nazi Germany is the dominant European power and state and keeps European populations generally in place.

21

Posted by Silver on July 14, 2012, 03:28 PM | #

Himmler,

Well, this is dumb—and already explicitly banned by the EU in all Member States, if not already enforced against by the security forces as in all Western countries. Are Americans so broken and deracinated that they think the proper pieces of paper for a weird cult are the issue, or that they will pull a fast one on the hostile elites who would apply beep-boop-beep libertarian “logic” and think it beyond their remit to crush such a movement? If so, you should have specified the planet where you think your ideas should be considered. No wonder Silver thinks them brilliant.

I commended the kind of thinking taking place here, not this very plan specifically (it’s still so vague it doesn’t even qualify as a plan).  But by thinking alone these lines clearer objectives and plans of actions may present themselves.  I don’t know what planet you’re on, but back on Earth it’s pretty clear that at this stage of liberal society’s evolution naked racial appeals to whites don’t appear to accomplish very much.  Even worse, they backfire.

Just as some things about human nature remain true whether liberals want to acknowledge them or not, some things remain true about racialism whether diehard nazis want to acknowledge them or not.  Surely someone as versed as your good self in nazi history will remember that the nazis barely achieved electoral victory even while operating under historically optimal conditions.  We all saw what followed.  As Dubya might have put it, fool me once shame on me, fool me twice…well there’s not gonna be any getting away with that stunt again.  And the reason isn’t merely “brainwashing,” though that of course figures prominently.  A huge part of the reason is also that even people with strong racial feelings rebel against having the supposed implications of their feelings spelled out to them.  Their reaction, both in my own experience and from what I’ve read, is along the lines, “well, fuck, hang on, I don’t hate these people that much!!”, followed later by reflection and a diminished—not augmented—sense of racial identity, or at least a diminished political racial will.  Hence the necessity of proceeding slowly and cautiously.

Slowly and cautiously is what the thinking outlined in the post you mock would accomplish.  People would have something to be for, with real and measurable objectives to pursue.  The traditional approach merely amps up racial feeling and arms people with facts, leaving those few who can be reached in this way all dressed up with no place to go.  But what do I know?  Maybe another thirty years of intense revisionism coupled with intimate knowledge of the biology and evolutionary psychology of honey bees is what is actually needed.

 

22

Posted by Silver on July 14, 2012, 03:45 PM | #

Isn’t this basically the same thing Nazi Germany would have accomplished? The Nazis wanted to leave Western Europeans and North Americans alone and relatively autonomous. They wanted greater living space for Germans in the east, but this wouldn’t have entailed the wholesale destruction of the Slavs. Much of that land to the east had been Germanic territory in the past when it was occupied by the Ostrogoths. And it wouldn’t be that unjustified given that they would have been expending the blood and treasure to secure territory for others.

I hate nazis.  What Kevin MacDonald says of Jews—that no communication is possible—is even more true of nazis.  Their racial hatred, their spite and loathing, is off the charts and drives them insane.  They lack all ability to communicate with out-groups and I can’t imagine any out-group wanting to communicate with them.

That said, I’ll grant that others could quite possibly have benefited from nazi expansionism and that the price of territory may well have been worth paying—in fact, may even have been a trifle.  Unfortunately, the nazis failed to make it a priority to secure the cooperation necessary to achieve such grand designs.  Imo, it’s not so late yet to make learning something from this mistake pointless.

 

23

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 03:45 PM | #

Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 03:27 PM | #

You’re the one talking about the actual war.

No I am not. And I will stop talking about it.


So the effect would be even more drastic and depart further than the effect of the Nazis - which would be to keep most European populations and the Anglosphere more or less in place?

No. It would be aimed at maintaining and extending all discreet European populations. With the addition of some blended European categories.

How would you prevent conflict or war without a dominant power or state? In which case we’re back to the Nazi example where Nazi Germany is the dominant European power and state and keeps European populations generally in place.

It is you who cannot conceive of anything but Nazis being the leaders…

Where is Norman Lowell, somebody… Help!

24

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 03:48 PM | #

I commended the kind of thinking taking place here, not this very plan specifically (it’s still so vague it doesn’t even qualify as a plan).


Silver, this plan is not as vague as you think. In its parameters it is clear.

This stuff about who will be in charge is jumping the gun.

25

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 04:16 PM | #

Regarding clarity, there was a change made in the editing that I should not have let go.

Specifically, this sentence:


The task at hand for White Nationalism is to coordinate them.


I had originally written:

This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.


That would have been better, because the sentence that the editor provided misguides the reader that there are two tasks at hand.

When in fact there are three matters of coordination that the piece is concerned with:

freedom from association for Whites (within the life span)

the ancient European territories and native inhabitants

and a large enough nation to provide for a sufficient economy. I did not have Germany in mind, but a more neutral and optimal conglomerate DNA “nation” of Europeans.

 

26

Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 04:24 PM | #

You can’t seem to rationally discuss the Nazis because of your insecurities.

This isn’t even about the Nazis and their particularities per se. Their example is relevant because their general, practical effect would have been somewhat similar to that of an overarching power ruling over various populations.

If talk of the Nazis makes you uncomfortable, we can look at other historical examples like the Catholic Church.

27

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 04:50 PM | #

Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 04:24 PM | #

You can’t seem to rationally discuss the Nazis because of your insecurities.

This isn’t even about the Nazis and their particularities per se. Their example is relevant because their general, practical effect would have been somewhat similar to that of an overarching power ruling over various populations.

If talk of the Nazis makes you uncomfortable, we can look at other historical examples like the Catholic Church.

You don’t know my motives. It is not insecurities that has me not wanting to discuss the Nazis, it is the obviously poor example that they provided as opposed to what might inspire trust, confidence and cooperation.

But you’re right that it is not about the Nazis. You and ffss brought them up and I wish you had not. They are irrelevant enough - no thanks to their over arching power rule; they didn’t manage to think in terms of symbiosis as opposed to superiority, dominance, master slave, etc.

When I failed to be specific, I did not realize that the Nazi model would be proposed to fit the bill.

I think talk of the Nazis makes most people uncomfortable for good reason.

Besides, most would think of it as a decidedly losing hand for WN leadership - again, for good reason.

Personally, I’d rather not talk about Catholic Church. Christianity of any kind may be more disastrous than anything for Whites. I know, I know, you are talking about its structure…

Well, let me let the cat out of the bag…when it came to the White nation big enough to have a sufficient economy, Mike had in mind a White American nation, but I wanted to leave it a little more open ended than that for strategic reasons - because frankly, its Whites that I care about. If America is White, fine. If not, well, sorry, I have no allegiance…and would look for some other way and place to structure the great White nation - but definitely not Germans and Germans only despite their economic and other prowess - the historic evidence is clear that there needs to be some balance.


But I speak with a clear conscience as I like Germans fine and will cooperate and fight for their health, distinction and happiness.

28

Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 05:14 PM | #

They are irrelevant enough - no thanks to their over arching power rule; they didn’t manage to think in terms of symbiosis as opposed to superiority, dominance, master slave, etc.

You said your definition of “symbiosis” is lack of conflict or war. You also said that discrete and blended European populations should be maintained and extended, and that Germans (and presumably any other group) shouldn’t dominate. You don’t think that would require some sort of dominant authority?

29

Posted by James Bowery on July 14, 2012, 05:37 PM | #

daniel, “This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.” it is.

Also “control” -> “cover”.

30

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 05:49 PM | #

Posted by Ulf on July 14, 2012, 05:14 PM | #

  They are irrelevant enough - no thanks to their over arching power rule; they didn’t manage to think in terms of symbiosis as opposed to superiority, dominance, master slave, etc.

You said your definition of “symbiosis” is lack of conflict or war. You also said that discrete and blended European populations should be maintained and extended, and that Germans (and presumably any other group) shouldn’t dominate. You don’t think that would require some sort of dominant authority?

First of all, this essay does not propose an administrative authority yet.

It proposes genetic categories of Europeans, some more distinct, some blended.

It suggests that a separatist nation based on DNA can be a means to coordinate three goods: individually, freely chosen white human ecologies, the ancient human ecologies of Europe and the DNA nation having a size big enough to provide sufficient economy for space travel, to hold up to China, etc.

I said nothing about a governing power. That is premature.

I might only reluctantly sketch - because it is premature and not the subject of this essay - that the initial notion was prompted by a hope for a White state in north America large enough to do x, y and z…

Wherever it is, I would hope that it be comprised by different kinds of native Europeans, representing their vested interests as a mutual concern. 

31

Posted by daniel on July 14, 2012, 06:10 PM | #

Posted by James Bowery on July 14, 2012, 05:37 PM | #

daniel, “This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.” it is.

Also “control” -> “cover”.

Thanks, Jim

That sentence is better there.

Regarding the sentence that uses the word control, I did rewrite it a bit (from how it had been edited), softening it into a goal.

“it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate the goal of controlling a protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory”

It could stay that way if it is too much trouble, but the original may have been better.

The original version was like this (no mention of control):

it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

32

Posted by Captainchaos on July 15, 2012, 01:41 AM | #

Bowery, while controlling for physical prowess, at around what IQ level do you believe killing efficiency would begin to plateau out or decline within the rules of single deadly combat as you define them?

33

Posted by daniel on July 15, 2012, 05:24 AM | #

Upon farther clarification, there should be no objections, of course, to participation from Germans among leadership groups concerning the well being of Whites overall. Just as obviously, they should not be the only participants among White leadership.

34

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 15, 2012, 07:51 AM | #

All very well but…American identity has always had at the heart of its being a model of identity which is hybrid, non-autochthonous, deracinated etc.

It’s the John Coltrane question - why is his music and Coltrane himself not deeply and properly - authentically if you will - American? I’ve not yet seen an American on here tackle the question let alone provide a sensible boundary condition that works within American ideological norms.

However much the modern world assaults the various forms of European linguistic-cultural identity no-one, not even a Frenchman, deep down at the heart of their being things being French is simply a matter of living in France and adopting certain ideas. Let alone would a Basque think along those lines, nor a Catalan, nor a Dane, nor an Irishman etc. Sure few can admit to such instincts under PC norms but they are lurking in our being. European history, geography, politics is steeped in such non-cosmopolitan ‘tribalism’. Our collective ideological imaginations are both deeper and wider than those of the vast majority of Americans.

Jonathan Meades - a liberal TV figure in the UK - can state on one of his shows (about France) that Arabs and other non-Euro incomers to French society are profoundly “in but not of France”. Honestly could anyone say that in mainstream public life about any group within America - the Poles are in America but not of America etc?

The trouble is this chaps - Americans are in foreign soil - it was never your beloved, autchthonous, authentic homeland.

There is a price to be paid for thinking that Europe can be recreated and sustained by fiat in such a way. Either Euro-Americans are in but not of America (but then too this must be true for Blacks, Latinos etc.), or they are all equally part of this ideological and social experiment in starting an inorganic social-order from scratch that welcomes individuals and groups to bring an ever wider set of cultural norms, experiences, perspectives to the show (pluralism especially in religion was one of the most profound and radical impulses of the new social-order). Thus America is enriched by these many socio-cultural accretions and metabolising them within the body Americanus represents a radical, ongoing reworking of what America is but with the foundational commitments solidity in situ. Individual freedom and liberty for all that want it - the ‘universal’ nation. Individual liberty as an ideological acid that unites those that otherwise could not be united.

No European could ever think that our often tiny, marginal, obviously limited, particularist nation(s) could possible be ‘universalist’ in this way - or if they do/have then reality soon bites as other Europeans say “hang on a minute dear boy think you’re wrong on that score”.

Now of course people will pipe up - but all this liberalism, Enlightenment folly etc., is born of the European mind - yes it was and as someone else put it America might be regarded as representing the unbounded expression of some of the very worst of European ideas. A warning that over the longer-term such ideas, unchecked by any common sense, not restricted by real ideological alternatives etc., have the utterly dreadful quality of being the ideological equivalent of an auto-immune syndrome.

The game dear Americans is up. Even if American went fascist (not a sensible idea by the way) what form do you think it would take? A pseudo-Christian ‘inclusive’ form no-doubt. Americans are an out-group - culturally, geographically, politically, imaginatively to Europeans. Sad perhaps but true. America versus Europe from our side of the divide - well it’s like looking in one of those distorting mirrors - one is both oddly recognisable yet very different in appearance - bloated and ugly.

This reminds me one that splendid old duffer Auberon Waugh once wrote a piece for ‘The Spectator’ in which he questioned if Americans had immortal souls (Waugh was a Catholic). Waugh’s answer was a resounding no! Not being a Voodoo/Juju type myself I don’t really accept the concept but philosophical zombies might be the equivalent - no wait we have many of those types here in the UK.

No the concept of a political or ideological zombie might be better - the individualist ‘liberal undead’ unaware of their state perhaps?

35

Posted by daniel on July 15, 2012, 08:33 AM | #

Hi Graham,

From what I glean of your objections, this is yet another case where my original version may have headed off a perceived problem.


The editorial process changed the original sentence to what now appears as this sentence:

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons.

The original sentence that I had written was this:

However, D.N.A. without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be a Cartesian objective as well, problematic for a number of obvious reasons.

What reason the editor had for rejecting the term Cartesian I can only speculate - perhaps too critical of science, perhaps appearing snobbish and not easily apprehended by the average reader.

Whatever the case, separation from the land, particularly the land of our evolution, would be Cartesian - in other words, English, Scots etc, are in a crucial respect, in their evolution, inseparable from their land.

I understand this. When I propose flexibility it is only in service of tactical retreat and long term survival.

John Coltrane may be American, but he cannot not a part of a White nation - which is the concern here.

There are some arguments to be made that The U.S. as a political entity was established to be a White nation - the word White is used in the Articles of Confederation as well as other founding discussions; in which I imagine its being a White nation for its posterity was taken for granted.

Nevertheless, I do not hold the boundaries of the Unites States in the same kind of reverence as I do the political bounds of Europe as ensconcing the context of our profound evolution.

Nor do I believe that most White Nationalists hold American political demarcation in similar esteem as Europe - take the example of the North West Front, which is prepared to let go the entire rest of the present day U.S. in order to secure 3.5 states for Whites.

However, I do, of course, believe that it is wise to forge and coordinate White states, counties, communities, if you will, in diaspora as well.

36

Posted by James Bowery on July 15, 2012, 11:22 AM | #

CC asks: “Bowery, while controlling for physical prowess, at around what IQ level do you believe killing efficiency would begin to plateau out or decline within the rules of single deadly combat as you define them?”

About the time that clairvoyance evolves so that one can divine the other’s future actions in response to one’s own, rendering intelligence superfluous.

By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?

Oh, I’m sorry, that question is prejudicial.  It presumes you have stopped beating your wife.

I should have asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” 

There, that’s better.

37

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 15, 2012, 01:54 PM | #

Look, I my view, playing conceptual jujitsu between differing versions of liberal ideology, playing off negative and positive forms of individual liberty, ‘freedom to choose’ etc., is all well and good but it’s still taking the radically deflationary liberal ontology of the autonomous ‘unencumbered’ self seriously and making it foundational. As such it’s a very stupid premise for reasons that have been previously discussed at MR, albeit at not all that deep a level of analysis, for quite some time.

But I’m not here to disturb anyone, so do carry on.

38

Posted by daniel on July 15, 2012, 03:27 PM | #

Look, I my view, playing conceptual jujitsu between differing versions of liberal ideology, playing off negative and positive forms of individual liberty, ‘freedom to choose’ etc., is all well and good but it’s still taking the radically deflationary liberal ontology of the autonomous ‘unencumbered’ self seriously and making it foundational. As such it’s a very stupid premise for reasons that have been previously discussed at MR, albeit at not all that deep a level of analysis, for quite some time.

But I’m not here to disturb anyone, so do carry on.


Hi Graham,


I am looking toward DNA exactly as it may have less liberal weasel and wiggle room

Freedom to choose a particular White European ecology (in diaspora, not in Europe) is only one feature of three matters in need of coordination.

There are important reasons for maintaining this aspect, however - most importantly, freedom from association with non-Whites forbidden in America’s version of liberalism - I imagine to a large extent in Europe - we are not allowed to separate from non-Whites. However, underscoring the matter of free choice is hard for the “liberal” opponents to argue against. It is our free choice to associate with other Whites. Thus, it is an implicit strategy. More, to allow some options for Whites in diaspora, for different kinds of communities is rather nice, wouldn’t you say, as a communitarian?

We are not talking about a facile experiment with Scotland.

In fact, there are two other matters to coordinate -  the next one being most important of all: our long evolved European human ecologies, as they have been historically bounded.

And lastly, the establishment of a unit big enough to be economically viable for necessary projects and other-wise viable against antagonistic non-White nations.

In this model, one is not free to choose an ancient European grouping (one would not have the option to choose Scotish, if they are not Scottish genetically), they must match it genetically. They might opt, however, to propose themself for an alternative Euro-grouping in diaspora.

Those who opt not to participate in the White nation, to the point where they would intermarry with non-Whites would, hopefully, be compelled to stay out of our White backed community and suffer the consequences.

I don’t understand how you see this as liberal. I am quite sure that I am not one of those!

For me personally, coming to see expulsion from the White community as potentially sufficient punishment was a step, and rather a concession. Perhaps that is not your issue.

But I tell you this. It is the aim with this DNA based nation to see places like Scotland become the homeland of Scots in genetic make-up - beyond 95%.

That’s the idea.

I am skeptical of over valuation of individualism - but Bowery’s appreciation for individualism heads toward community at any rate.

While making modest concessions to liberalism*, I cannot for the life of me see how the plan and motive here is liberal.

* I have reservations about he scientific metaphor of freely chosen and experimental communities.

It seems to me to be playing fast and loose with our evolution.

A myriad of abuses can obtain pseudo justification under the rubric of testing, experiment.

Thus, your suspicions being aroused are well founded in my opinion.

And perhaps the control variables need to be shored up a bit regarding these experimental White communities.

That is why the deep, European component is so significant.

However, I believe you are not as far apart from Bowery as you may think - he is motivated to establish freedom from association with non-Whites; which at present is prohibited in The U.S.

More, I have no doubt that he would not object to some of those laboratories being Scottish and the Scottish homeland being for Scottish. In fact, I’m sure he’d encourage it.

39

Posted by daniel on July 15, 2012, 03:59 PM | #

Here is another non-liberal understanding of this DNA coordination: the notion of “internal relation” as advanced by continental philosophers, and perhaps copied by Wittgenstein with his notion of “depth grammar”.

40

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 15, 2012, 04:01 PM | #

That last post of mine should have started “Look, in my view”.

Typo on my part but I’m sure the meaning of the comment wasn’t too difficult to understand.

41

Posted by daniel on July 15, 2012, 04:15 PM | #

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 15, 2012, 04:01 PM | #

That last post of mine should have started “Look, in my view”.

Typo on my part but I’m sure the meaning of the comment wasn’t too difficult to understand.

There is no liberal ontology to European categories - on the contrary.

People electing to participate in a Euro-DNA Nation must come to terms with one another; ultimately learn and assist one another. There is a particular need for communal negotiation in the more experimental communities.

There is no conflict with those who would stand their ground. There is, however, additional flexibility, places from which to assist endangered and embattled communities.


At any rate, the concept is voluntary.

Nobody has to participate - though I would recommend it.

42

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 15, 2012, 04:20 PM | #

@Daniel

OK fair enough hopefully some others will contribute to the thread. On the identity point I’m a British person with a Celtic ancestry. I couldn’t really choose to become Basque or Catalan now could I? Nor can I choose to become Chinese. I’d be a very bad actor.

How precisely, from the melting-pot of even just Euro-Americans, can you/they de-Americanise themselves and ‘pick’ a form of European ecology/identity (stricto sensu) without it being a poor simulacrum?

I don’t know if that’s what you’re suggesting they do, but it might be a case of an evolutionary hysteresis. Or in other terms an asymmetrical phenomenon - easy to go one-way (into melting-pot and the abstract universalism of Americanism) and almost impossible to go in the other direction (the concrete particularities of highly specific European identities).

43

Posted by Kyeh Khatah on July 15, 2012, 04:33 PM | #

We spend far too much time arguing and far too little time acting. This whole treatise is based on the presumption that our enemies are going to let us have what we want, just because we ask them nicely for it.

They will not.

You know what this will ultimately come down to, so prepare.

44

Posted by daniel on July 15, 2012, 04:51 PM | #

Posted by Kyeh Khatah on July 15, 2012, 04:33 PM | #

We spend far too much time arguing and far too little time acting. This whole treatise is based on the presumption that our enemies are going to let us have what we want, just because we ask them nicely for it.

They will not.

You know what this will ultimately come down to, so prepare.


No, this is not about asking them, this is about telling them and a (crucial) matter of preparation indeed.

45

Posted by daniel on July 15, 2012, 05:27 PM | #

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 15, 2012, 04:20 PM | #

@Daniel

OK fair enough hopefully some others will contribute to the thread. On the identity point I’m a British person with a Celtic ancestry. I couldn’t really choose to become Basque or Catalan now could I? Nor can I choose to become Chinese. I’d be a very bad actor.

As it is stated in the post and as I have reiterated in the comments, no - you cannot choose these things.


How precisely, from the melting-pot of even just Euro-Americans, can you/they de-Americanise themselves and ‘pick’ a form of European ecology/identity (stricto sensu) without it being a poor simulacrum?

I don’t know if that’s what you’re suggesting they do, but it might be a case of an evolutionary hysteresis. Or in other terms an asymmetrical phenomenon - easy to go one-way (into melting-pot and the abstract universalism of Americanism) and almost impossible to go in the other direction (the concrete particularities of highly specific European identities).

Hysteresis sounds like a relevant element for consideration. And it is not my purpose to duck potential problems in this proposal.

Still, I did not really have in mind for European diaspora to return to Europe. Though if one is of a particular strain and they would like to return to their homeland, I don’t have an objection, personally (providing they are otherwise decent and meet the existential requirements of the homeland). This is what I have done (with some difficulty, admittedly). More, this is not an absolute purist notion - a modicum of European admixing should not be negative if sufficiently controlled. Nevertheless, it is mostly the objective for a person to identify a category for themself which factually is the case. We are not looking toward altering these categories but rather providing options for deepening their support and expanding them in space.

If one is a blend they might opt for one or another variant, perhaps a mixed category. Nevertheless, they would be constrained in accordance with their genetics. A few hundred years is not all that much difference but we are not looking to de-Americanize people. Remember, this is an endogenous process. We are looking for those people who want to participate in a White Nation, not for those who do not want to.

46

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 15, 2012, 06:40 PM | #

On the identity point I’m a British person with a Celtic ancestry. I couldn’t really choose to become Basque or Catalan now could I?

You may be if you buy into the Sykes/Oppenheimer saga. Celtic is not a bloodline. Celtic peoples do not share a single genetic-inheritance. It is a language and a culture. Freedom of association is not a European concept. At its greatest extent it is Nordic and probably more specifically, as Fraser has discussed at length an Anglo-Saxon extended phenotype. It was destroyed in N/A in the early 20th century by white ethnic groups that resented being excluded by the Anglo-Saxon founding people. White multiculturalism is what suceeded it.

47

Posted by daniel on July 15, 2012, 11:30 PM | #

re Desmond Jones # 46

Freedom of association can be the point of emphasis for those who want to exercise that option to its fullest - whether participating in a new category of European or opting out of the White race entirely.

Those “ethnics” who resent freedom of association can stay with their own category.

48

Posted by daniel on July 15, 2012, 11:42 PM | #

And it is clear that within this scheme, the Aglo-Saxons are free to maintain their category.

49

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 16, 2012, 02:06 AM | #

The ‘Anglo-Saxon political exended-phenotype’, freedom of association, is in fact the sum total of all previous permutations of political organization which this people have lived under…an evolutionary process foreign to all other Europeans.

50

Posted by daniel on July 16, 2012, 03:38 AM | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 16, 2012, 02:06 AM | #

The ‘Anglo-Saxon political exended-phenotype’, freedom of association, is in fact the sum total of all previous permutations of political organization which this people have lived under…an evolutionary process foreign to all other Europeans.

Fine. Let them do their thing.

Advocating freedom of association was not the chief point of this essay, not by a long-shot.

The coordination of these White human ecologies, chosen within the life-span (Anglo-Saxon or not) along with the deep human ecologies ensconced in our European habitats, and a White nation big enough to fund projects and defense is the point.

51

Posted by Silver on July 16, 2012, 05:50 AM | #

At its greatest extent it is Nordic and probably more specifically, as Fraser has discussed at length an Anglo-Saxon extended phenotype. It was destroyed in N/A in the early 20th century by white ethnic groups that resented being excluded by the Anglo-Saxon founding people. White multiculturalism is what suceeded it.

So it was resentment/pursuit of self-interest that contributed to its destruction, not some inherent aversion. 

The ‘Anglo-Saxon political exended-phenotype’, [racial] freedom of association, is in fact the sum total of all previous permutations of political organization which this people have lived under…an evolutionary process foreign to all other Europeans.

Which is why Anglo-Saxons to this day fight so hard to preserve it, rofl.  Hey Desmond, is Anglo-Saxons’ world-beating ethnomasochism also part of the same evolutionary process?

Look, either the concept is comprehensible and rated favorably or it isn’t.  That’s what will decide the issue, not the concept’s evolutionary provenance.

52

Posted by James Bowery on July 16, 2012, 10:34 AM | #

An obvious mechanical problem with sign-up is authentication—not whether the person is actually “Euro” (that is ultimately dealt with under some operational definition based on DNA) but whether the person actually IS.

Then there is the practical problem of coming up with the operational definition of “Euro”.  Obviously, that would be a point of attack—particularly if it were to be based on some sort of plebiscite since Euros constitute such a small minority of the world’s population of real “persons”.

In the case of the Laboratory of the States, there is also the allocation of territory which is a point of attack.  One option for addressing it (perhaps an operational definition of “county” as the locale from which jurors are drawn) in the “BTW” of this comment:

BTW:  The way assortative migration occurs here is trial by jury determining environmental damage.  If a vectorist (eg: a Jew who considers “the politics of exclusion” to be “hate”, blah blah) decides he wants to bid a huge amount for a piece of real estate in the middle of a working human ecology so that the owner of that piece of real estate has to pay exorbitant tax or turn over ownership, he risks the owner actually taking his money and then immediately having lawsuit brought against him by his neighbors claiming environmental damages. The jurors, selected from the environment, would then most likely agree and demand punitive damages be paid to the neighbors for his malicious attempt to violate their working ecological hypothesis, thereby bankrupting the vectorist.  Meanwhile, the normal monopolistic games played by Jews etc. are taxed out of existence since their liquid value is equal to the monopoly value—so they don’t have the money to even try buying their way into an environment they want to exploit.  Mockery by Jews of the phrase “There goes the neighborhood!” would have an entirely new connotation and consequence.

53

Posted by daniel on July 17, 2012, 12:26 AM | #

Thanks for running the article and for comments..

Being happy with the essay, and not all that sensitive, I have to force myself a bit to see why it was misapprehended where I believe that it was. One colleague, who is actually well known in the struggle, commented through personal email and gave me some really surprising “feedback.”

Surprising to me, as I know this man to be very smart, to be one who keenly parses critical issues and to write brilliant essays.

First, I think that I am seeing that even very smart people can rather see, in a quasi imagined, perceptive sense, the issues that they want to see in an essay, and go on attacking staw men.

Aside from that, which may always be to some extent beyond the control of a writer, I go on to consider my part.


My first guess is that in fore-fronting the first of three matters to coordinate, in essence, freedom of and from association in the form of Bowery’s Laboratory of The States Platform, I may have sent the wrong cues and created some cognitive dissonance as to to what this essay is about for some.

However, I take for granted that whatever individualism we have, is born, constructed and maintained out of the social.

I had thought that would have been clear enough on the basis of my White Left essay; but if not, certainly on the basis of previous essays as a point of mere and easy verification (as in, not expecting people to pour over my essays in meticulous detail).

There are corporeal aspects to individual selves, as well as autobiographical aspects which can be adopted and cultivated - this tends to be valued in western cultures in particular. That is not an altogether bad value. However, it does conflict with the most important project at hand for White nationalism, which is coordinating, if not organizing our collective defense.

Speaking for myself, to whatever extent I value individualism, it is within the context and service of the native European race - what I call the White Class.

Valuing individual liberty constrained as such, is called “paradigmatic conservatism.”

That is, the border of a culture, a race, a group, would be conservative, while individual ways and communities would be fairly free to pursue various projects, provided they did not violate the group’s parameters. Naturally, they would be free to form groups more conservative than the group’s norms as well.

Ok, so taking that stuff and more for granted, I provided some background of the laboratory of the states, which I believe to be well considered project - in need of some fleshing out and correction here and there, but basically fine and good.

As I have said, I have a problem with the scientific metaphor as testing and experiment can potentially be used to justify a myriad of abuses and transgressions; playing fast and loose with long, precious and context contingent evolution.

Nevertheless, we do not want to be the enemy of freedom anymore than we want to be the enemy of sex. So, we’ve got to use the notion of freedom to our best.

One of the places where freedom hurts us most is where people breed outside the race. Bowery and Renner, being the gentlemen that they are, would probably suggest that they be banned from the White Nation for that and left to the consequences of that way of life as opposed to forcing the rest of us to deal with its ramifications. That sounds reasonable to me, a bitter concession, but more practical than burning at the stake.

Thus, we needn’t be the unnecessary enemies of freedom, within parameters, we can allow for our creative side, our various ways of life and communities in experimentation - protecting this most precious, creative aspect of ourselves as European.

Now then, in expulsion, I believe that we have one practical answer, coming from a liberal mindset, as to one of the liberal short comings - that problem again, is allowing individuals, within their life-span, to play fast and loose with long, historical evolution.

Just as we do not want to be the unnecessary enemies of freedom, neither do we want to betray the very source of whatever individualism, freedom, use and enjoyment that we may have, which is the deep ecologies of our European peopled, land nations - obviously as worthy as any rain forest, of course, more-so.

I thought the essay would have been more clear as to how crucial I consider these peopled land nations as a matter to coordinate.

Maybe the prejudice that some have toward Jim and his predilection for individualism and empiricism caused some cognitive dissonance against seeing the point that I was endeavoring to coordinate variegated communities with the ancient homelands and more, with a viably large White state in their service.

I also believe that some have seen talk of DNA and they react rather immediately that I have in mind a rather puritanical and cruel eugenicism. I certainly do not.  One colleague commented that he thought he might be excluded because he was 1/16th American Indian or something - I was shocked. Whatever one is, there can be categories devised to fit them and those who might wish to participate. There should be a category for those who have traces of non-European and do not want to be made uptight about it. More, there may be those who are more pure, but don’t particularly mind participating with people who may have 1/16 Amerindian and so on.

Another objection raised was that I was parceling out organic and existential criteria. That the DNA criteria was sterile and would leave people cold. My answer is, not if they understand it correctly.

I would rebut by once again pointing to my previous essays in addition to my actual intentions. Moreover, it is not either/or. It is both, and. If one is a Christian, a satanist, a well, etc. the matter is more or less addressed by the laboratory of the states/counties - different communities may be formed, but not merely - they may be supported within the scheme of my essay. More, particularly in the more “liberal”, experimental communities, people would be forced to interface more and negotiate their ways in a more fully existential sense. And don’t criticize me about organicism - that’s my baby, ensconced within the notion of The White Class and in stark contrast to the rupturing technology of empirical, individual rights.

Having said all that, I am happy with the idea and the essay

Maybe the idea hasn’t taken off quickly for the reasons I have suggested or maybe it is summer and people are up to other things. Perhaps it will never be well popular. Perhaps it will and is settling the background of consciousness..

I am happy with it as it is, and am grateful to Soren Renner and Prof. Kevin MacDonald for help in editing. I take it they see its merits and that means a great deal. I also thank James Bowery for being not only a good sport, but actually allowing for some changes to the essay in midstream and for putting it back as the leading article for a few days.

If there are any White friendly genetic testing labs, technicians out there, I would like to know about them - it would be nice to form a cooperative endeavor on the basis of this project and the White Nationalist struggle overall.

54

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 17, 2012, 01:01 AM | #

People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders.

Or not, especially if they’re Slavs. LOL

Which is why Anglo-Saxons to this day fight so hard to preserve it, rofl.

Today’s lesson, boys and girls, is about the cricket and the parasite. LOL

I shouldn’t gloat, as I’m you’re suffering, but what the hell, it IS fun to watch; keep it up.

Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste?  Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you?  Even now.  Especially now.  They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin.  Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl.  But think of the progeny of such unions.  Darker skin AND more caucasian features.  Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT.  Face it white boy, your end is nigh.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_jews_white_revised#c48537

If you’re gonna play for keeps, so am I.  And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_jews_white_revised#c48580

55

Posted by daniel on July 17, 2012, 01:02 AM | #

...ahh, and another thing: some have charged the notion with being naiive.

I believe this too, stems from a kind of cognitive dissonance which did not allow them, as reader, to make it to the end of the essay before forming a position.

This project is voluntary, it is an expression of a wish and discretion is advised.

I don’t know if it would be illegal to declare, in Germany for example, that “I might wish to be a part of genetically White separatist nation one day”, but I trust people to have feel enough of their situation, their local, state living regulations, to know how much of risk it might be and how much risk they might be willing to take.

I should think that in many cases, signing a petition saying that one might wish to be a part of a White separatist nation would not be very dangerous.

However, as TT Metzger sagely cautions with his lone-wolf strategy, any sort of visibility on a list can be a liability. Enemy lawyers can be imaginative, with anything from R.I.C.O. laws to merely having a convenient list for their agent provocateurs to investigate and set upon.

Thus, there should be lone and ghost wolves. ZOG has huge money at its disposal and for its agents, roping White Nationalists into illegal activity is just a job for which they are well paid to do.

Nevertheless, while for some people there are well considered reasons not to participate even to the level of “declaring a wish”, I believe that for most people it would be cowardly not to participate that much.

Even Metzger, one of the major proponents of covert, independent agents, acknowledges that some people need to be above ground advocates and adherents.

56

Posted by daniel on July 17, 2012, 01:25 AM | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 17, 2012, 01:01 AM | #

  People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders.

Or not, especially if they’re Slavs. LOL

  Which is why Anglo-Saxons to this day fight so hard to preserve it, rofl.


Desmond, Slavs do have their bad elements, their bio-powered alpha male assholes and so on. Still, I am not convinced that it is characteristic of their pattern overall to wish to impose unwanted upon western Europeans; where they do, they would be wrong according to this scheme. The throngs in the UK are largely a phenomenon of The EU and would have no right to be there in such numbers according to the scheme proposed in this essay.

I grew up in the era of the Polish joke, when Poland was behind the iron curtain. I believed that it was a sad, gray place with pathetic, hunched backed people. Its women, like Russian women were thought to be ugly (can you believe it!).

That’s how heavy the American (Germanic and Jewish influenced) propaganda was.

When I first saw Poland I was infuriated. As a matter of percentages, the women certainly were prettier than western women. The people were mainly normal and technologically sufficient. I am not one to study men, but they were bigger than I am and seemed all too viable - not easy competition for me when it came to women - that is going to bring me to my next point, which I will go into as a remark upon this:


Today’s lesson, boys and girls, is about the cricket and the parasite. LOL

  I shouldn’t gloat, as I’m you’re suffering, but what the hell, it IS fun to watch; keep it up.

  Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste?  Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you?  Even now.  Especially now.  They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin.  Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl.  But think of the progeny of such unions.  Darker skin AND more caucasian features.  Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT.  Face it white boy, your end is nigh.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_jews_white_revised#c48537

  If you’re gonna play for keeps, so am I.  And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/are_jews_white_revised#c48580


You may be convinced of niggers and mulattoes being the answer to answer to women’s ideal of men, but the fact is, Slavic men cover some things that women look for which niggers and mulattoes do not have. If you add Southern Europeans to the equation along with our Irish and other Nationals, you are getting a ecological collective of men that White women are going to have a hard time forsaking - indeed, when it comes to Slavic men, to some extent society may not have a choice. They do have enough bio-power and virility to potentially impose their will - which, while not acceptable to impose against western Whites, against mudshark standards, would a good thing for WN.

 

57

Posted by daniel on July 17, 2012, 01:44 AM | #

Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl.  But think of the progeny of such unions.  Darker skin AND more caucasian features.  Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT.  Face it white boy, your end is nigh.

There is no compelling reason to acquiesce.

Most of us White men prefer our women; certainly we mainly prefer our way of life; and we find our men more easy and enjoyable to deal with.

The increase in mulattoes, compelling though they may be, will not mitigate their typical nigger behavior altogether, but more importantly, will not diminish the throngs of Blacks proper, along with their Black behavior “proper.”

Thus, there is no good reason for White men to acquiesce. And there is compelling reason for them to continue to attempt to educate women that Blacks and mulattoism are not in their interests as women. Failing persuasion, there is every legitimate reason for White men to expel these women and their offspring - to not allow them to impose the harrowing effects of their choices upon a successive generation of White children who have no choice as to the world they come into.

 

58

Posted by Silver on July 17, 2012, 02:01 AM | #

Lol, there’s nothing unusual about nazi types getting under your skin so much you’ll say anything to annoy them.  Go to any race board and you’ll see the same thing occur over and over again (people who follow this sort of thing will be surprised by how far “whitewards” racial discussions have shifted in recent years, but this has also created something of a backlash).  More mature people can accept that sometimes people say things they don’t mean, but not nazi dinosaurs like desmond—who goes even further and insists you do mean things you haven’t even said, which is why, Daniel, he’ll never accept that you’re sincere about wishing his kind well or being willing to part ways with them.  No point getting upset by his silliness, though, that’s one thing I’ve learned.  His posts for me contain only entertainment value, even (or especially) when he’s bearing his fangs.

59

Posted by Leon Haller on July 17, 2012, 04:12 AM | #

Why must we be so sophisticated? If we cannot stop nonwhite immigration, it’s all over anyway. Why be radical? Why not build outwards from small victories? First, we persuade a majority of our people to demand the deportation of illegals (do we have a ‘rule of law’ or not? in the US under Obama, we do not, as even mainstreamers understand). Once that is on its way to completion (for logistical reasons we literally cannot get rid of all 20+ million illegals overnight), we demand an end to legal immigration, whilst simultaneously turning up the heat on affirmative action. And so forth, constantly building up the ideological consciousness of our people as we move from incremental victory to victory.

In the US, this is the only path forward. Anything else is mere fantasy, or personal agendas of various sorts.

60

Posted by daniel on July 17, 2012, 04:21 AM | #

No, Leon. This is not either/or. You and others are free to try traditional and mainstream means to organize and fight immigration. I do not have much faith in the political/economic process as they are to achieve that efficiently enough. Hence, I seek an alternative means of organizing defense and separatism - which, in effect, is what you seek in halting immigration and controlling the borders.

I just see this as a more flexible and efficient means to work toward that end, the end of separatism, at this point.

However, as I have said, this does not preclude coordination with those who would hold their ground.

61

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 17, 2012, 02:02 PM | #

More mature people can accept that sometimes people say things they don’t mean…

Like Hitler…he didn’t really mean those nasty things he said…the Slavic Underman…no really it was a joke…so much sanctimonious mendacious parasite…so little time…LOL

62

Posted by daniel on July 17, 2012, 02:31 PM | #

Of all the things we need to do, you want to pick a fight between Germans/Anglo-Saxons and Slavics?

Desmond, I remember your showing me a picture of a “Ukrainian” who looked suspiciously like a Jew, whom you were using to illustrate a resentful ethnic activist against the Anglo-Saxon power structure of Canada.

Those who have a proclivity to sort out the Jews and the Jew thinkers do not have a bad habit in looking toward that as a first hypothesis of whom to take issue with.

Some of the Germans are blaming Anglo-Saxon elites for complicity with Jewish bankers - now ready to let the Jews take all of the heat. No doubt there would be complicit Slavics as well….and Germans…

A traitor is a traitor.

63

Posted by daniel on July 20, 2012, 06:46 AM | #

“However”

One other way in which the original version may have been more clear would be that this sentence began with the word, “However”, thereby providing a turn signal, away from the idea of individual prerogatives and into a different and serious consideration for our deep, historically situated evolution.

Therefore, this sentence:

This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats.


Is better written as:

However, this freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats.

64

Posted by Silver on July 20, 2012, 12:17 PM | #

Like Hitler…he didn’t really mean those nasty things he said…the Slavic Underman…no really it was a joke…so much sanctimonious mendacious parasite…so little time…LOL

He probably felt that way at the time, but who’s to say that twenty years on, had he not taken the country to war, he might not have come to feel differently about it?  Only the most irrational diehard genetic determinist dolt could believe that people never change their minds about anything.  What a hearty LOL that deserves.

There’s nothing to be gained from discussing anything with national-saxonist screwballs like you. You will have to be sidelined, for the good of all.  Out of the way, nincumpoop.

 

65

Posted by daniel on July 20, 2012, 01:28 PM | #

This sentence was a frustrated slip:

“...would look for some other way and place to structure the great White nation - but definitely not Germans and Germans only despite their economic and other prowess - the historic evidence is clear that there needs to be some balance.”

I would have meant to say:

would look for some other way and place to structure the great White nation - but definitely not Germany and Germans only despite their economic and other prowess - the historic evidence is clear that there needs to be some balance.

And clarified my point with this comment.

“Upon farther clarification, there should be no objections, of course, to participation from Germans among leadership groups concerning the well being of Whites overall. Just as obviously, they should not be the only participants among White leadership.”

I can understand Pilsudski’s Polish nationalism and his not trusting Hiter, despite Hitler’s proposal of alliance. Hitler himself would come to have second thoughts as to the Reich’s designated in/out group upon visiting parts east and seeing the blonde children there…

Nevertheless, Pilsudski’s pragmatic stance of welcoming Jews into Polish nationalism to fight for it, would have been problematic.

The transfer agreement and a settlement of the border would have been ideal.

66

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 20, 2012, 09:07 PM | #

Of all the things we need to do, you want to pick a fight between Germans/Anglo-Saxons and Slavics?

Daniel, The nematode is you and no matter what legerdemain is employed, to convince your host otherwise, your presence portends racial death. If you had a moral bone in your body you would return to the Slavic homelands and encourage other Slavs to do the same to aid and abet their survival. All those beautiful Polish women await you. Imagine the power a self-determined mass exodus of Slavs would have to embolden the cause of EGI.  But you won’t, because like the mendacious Silver, you pretend to care, but in reality you are driven by self-interest.

67

Posted by daniel on July 20, 2012, 10:16 PM | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 20, 2012, 09:07 PM | #

  Of all the things we need to do, you want to pick a fight between Germans/Anglo-Saxons and Slavics?

Daniel, The nematode is you and no matter what legerdemain is employed, to convince your host otherwise, your presence portends racial death.

Desmond, I had not realized yet what a shit head that you are - Ok, now it is established what kind of shit lies behind the legerdmain (what an asshole).

If you had a moral bone in your body you would return to the Slavic homelands

I have already done this, and have abandoned you to your hubris. I nevertheless offer sincere concern and help to persons of European extraction as I did when in The U.S.

(I have never been to the U.K., and I have said repeatedly now, that I think it is wrong for so many Poles to be there. I’ve always been against the E.U.)

and encourage other Slavs to do the same to aid and abet their survival.

However, with ethics in mind, I would not encourage any Whites to live with a nemantode like you. Nor among the niggers with whom you mingle of your own hubris (how much of a problem can that be? You are so much better than everyone?), the mudsharks adoring the arrogant homo that you are..you, in turn worshiping adonis, don’t you? So riveting your love of big strong men, isn’t it? Gay masochist at bottom. Good riddance.

I am here in the homeland and actually, Slavs need help less at this point than do the western Europeans.

All those beautiful Polish women await you.

Indeed.

Imagine the power a self-determined mass exodus of Slavs would have to embolden the cause of EGI.

No need for a mas exodus, there is a mass presence.

But you won’t, because like the mendacious Silver, you pretend to care, but in reality you are driven by self-interest.

Now I know that these false accusations about my motives were circulating among clique of shit-heads - ok, who is going to try these smear cards now?

I’m so vain, I don’t care about not wanting to see White women and men fucked over…

No, I recognize the health of all Europeans as corresponding to my own. Thus, it is rather you who is acting like the nemantode unconcerned for its host.

You seemed like a nice guy at one time Desmond, what happened? Is this a different person? a nemandtode functioning under the same ledgerdmain?

I encourage you to care for and maintain your own people, to have friendly relations with your neighbors, extending a plan as such - but you prefer strife, acting like a Jew agent. Are you a Jew?

 

68

Posted by Silver on July 21, 2012, 12:16 AM | #

Desmond, I had not realized yet what a shit head that you are - Ok, now it is established what kind of shit lies behind the legerdmain (what an asshole).

He’s not so much a shithead as he is a lovesick fool.

“Oh my race, my race, by poor, lovely race; pristine and unblemished, now befouled by vile hordes of genetic gunk; how I weep for thee.”

And that’s it. He’s stuck in that mental loop and it’s all he can think about. 

But for whom does he really weep?  Is it for some fat, freckle-faced pig in track pants queuing at Walmart?  Of course not!  It’s a sublime image of racial perfection he has in mind that he seeings being besmirched, being wiped from the earth, being transmogrified, and that’s what causes him to lash out at people the way he does.  If it wasn’t for that he wouldn’t be so unreasonable.  He’d concede that his racial views and his racial feelings are not the only possible views and feelings.  He’d see the bigger picture. He’d recognize mistakes as mistakes and work to rectify them and welcome support in rectifying them, rather than moan endlessly about how wronged he’s been.  He’d actually have something of value to contribute.  As it is, he has nothing.

 

69

Posted by daniel on July 21, 2012, 01:00 AM | #

I don’t mind Desmond being concerned for his category of Whites - on the contrary. In fact, I do not even mind if he cares for his category of Whites only, if he wants to be such a narrow shit head - but to pick fights with people who want his and his people’s well being doesn’t make sense.

Thus, I wonder, rather find tedious his lack of judgment in clouding the discussion with this contentiousness.

rolleyes

70

Posted by Silver on July 22, 2012, 03:00 AM | #

I don’t mind Desmond being concerned for his category of Whites - on the contrary. In fact, I do not even mind if he cares for his category of Whites only, if he wants to be such a narrow shit head - but to pick fights with people who want his and his people’s well being doesn’t make sense.

See, that’s not allowed in his view of the world.  If you were really concerned about his kind’s wellbeing you’d haul your ass back to Poland—or maybe even put a hollowpoint through the roof of your mouth, you know, just to make up for all the trauma and heartache you’ve caused him.  And hmm, even then it’s touch and go whether he’ll lay off, because, in his words, his kind are “qualified by excellence” to rule over others.  (Might that upset someone to the point he’ll make some untoward remarks?  That’s no excuse, according to Desmond.)

I’ve said it before and it bears repeating, there’s really no communication with people like him. Whatever you say, all he can hear is the rumble of a globe resolutely intoning Fee-fi-fo-fum, we smell the blood of the Englishmen, today they live, tomorrow dead, for reasons which best left unsaid. 

 

 

71

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 23, 2012, 02:03 AM | #

What’s wrong with Poland? All these hot Polish chicks no doubt yearning for “the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin”. No doubt Daniel and his Polish pals will love to have Silver and his Pakistani brethren compete for this bounty of Polish pulchritude. What say you Daniel? Unquestionably a bro like Silver, full of compassion and caring for the ‘white’ man, is welcome in Slavland?

72

Posted by daniel on July 23, 2012, 02:38 AM | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 23, 2012, 02:03 AM | #

What’s wrong with Poland? All these hot Polish chicks no doubt yearning for “the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin”. No doubt Daniel and his Polish pals will love to have Silver and his Pakistani brethren compete for this bounty of Polish pulchritude. What say you Daniel? Unquestionably a bro like Silver, full of compassion and caring for the ‘white’ man, is welcome in Slavland?

No, Desmond. My own ideal is that each of the indigenous European Nations would be comprised of more than 95% of their native peoples. In fact, Poland is one of the few European nations that is comprised of more than 95% of its native own. Why would you want to instigate any White women to miscegenate? Are you evil or just sick?  Are you Al Goldstein? Why would you want to instigate non-White immigration upon any Europeans?

Most Jews that remained in Poland after the war left for Israel in the late 60’s. From historical experience with them, Poles have long been better versed in the J.Q. than Americans. Poles are verifiably one of the homogeneous native genetic groups of Europe. Poles are a distinct people from Jews - Jews would mark their own distinction from Poles irrespective.

73

Posted by Silver on July 23, 2012, 03:38 AM | #

Desmond, I guess the attempt to get under your skin was wildly more successful than I ever thought possible, lol. If you go on race forums you’ll see that sort of thing being said all the time.  I get it too, from other groups.  People simply do not take kindly to being racially sneered at, while others fear the implications of political racialization, and try to hit back with whatever they can.  On the other hand, some appear to be stumped by what all the commotion could be about since they seem to genuinely not care about racial physical difference per se.  Making racial contempt the centerpiece of racial politics is such an obvious loser’s game that your reversion to it time and again only confirms to me what a doofus you are.  I have no trouble believing that of the two of us I’m the only one really LOLing here.

Now, your taunts do appear to have affected poor daniel though, and sent him into some kind of apologetic tailspin.  So bravo, Desmond. You’ve really struck a blow for the White Man there, pal.

 

74

Posted by daniel on July 23, 2012, 03:55 AM | #

.
..
...
No apologetic tailspin. My conscience is clear - I have good will toward all native Europeans. I can apply the silver rule (no pun intended) for non-native Europeans - i.e., as a matter of practicality, not actively seeking to harm them so long as they do not impose upon Europeans.

Desmond is actually doing a favor in making a perfect example of himself of what a right-winger is like - viz. an asshole.

....
.

75

Posted by Leon Haller on July 23, 2012, 04:37 AM | #

Making racial contempt the centerpiece of racial politics is such an obvious loser’s game (Silver)

This is clearly correct tactically, as a matter of PR. It’s nearly as stupid as walking around in white robes or with swastikas.

But let us remember, however, that the ultimate justification for the hard, authoritarian measures that will have to be implemented and enforced if the white race is to endure are rooted less in notions of vive la difference, than in the superior rights of the, well, superior.

Do the Abos in your country have the same survival rights viz the Anglos, as the Anglos have viz avoiding inundation by Asians? I think not. It’s not just a nice, egalitarian matter of Scotland for the Scots, and Iboland for the Ibos, etc. The Scots have a greater moral claim to keeping Abos out of Scotland than the Abos do in keeping Scots out of Oz, and this is because Scottishness - the heritage, history, culture, society and past and potential accomplishments of the Scottish ethnie - is so incomparably superior to any element of the Abo heritage or prospects. It would be a great loss to the world, to the progressive advance of mankind itself, if Scotland, or Holland, or Middle America, were to be submerged under a demographic tsunami, and erased as a living presence in the world. If all the Abos disappeared or died, would you or anyone else really give a shiiite? What would be mankind’s real loss?

So if racial contempt towards outsiders helps to bind a given white society, thus giving that society a greater likelihood of perpetuating itself, then a case can be made for it, even if objectively it remains morally unattractive. 

We must never forget what really matters - advancing white EGI. This is the supreme task of whites (and even of all mankind, if everyone correctly understood the value of white civilization). This advance ideally should be effectuated in commonly, ethically acceptable ways. But that cannot always be assured, and where there is a conflict, we must always ask and defer to what is best for whites.

76

Posted by daniel on July 23, 2012, 05:52 AM | #

Leon, the rule of respecting discreet White living spaces being discussed here is meant primarily to be an inter-European matter.

I am not David Duke. I do not pretend to care about non-Whites just the same as Whites. Though I can see the practicality in not highlighting an aggressive campaign against them, I do not pretend to care about non-Whites as much as anyone else.

I am not applying the same rules to ancient Indian claims on the Americas or aboriginal claims on Australia and New Zealand - rather, I take for granted these places being validly maintained as White if not entirely, then in large parts. One should not apply the same moral consciousness of a few hundred years ago to the people of today. Today’s Whites are not to “blame” and punishable for taking these lands. It’s history.

This deference to the “superior” might be necessary as a retrospective argument on behalf of those who took those non-White inhabited lands, but is misstated when applied to White survival at present - which, with updated thinking, ought to be looked upon systemically.  “Superior” Whites would recognize interrelatedness and indebtedness enough to the systemic whole of Europeans to be in cooperative alliance (providing their space and well being is not diminished); respecting each other’s territories and not wanting to weaken our effort overall with infighting. America’s current predicament is not helped by the hubris of an overly narrow in-group/out-group (enemies) concept, to where some Europeans would would be looked upon as enemies, even where they would respect the territories of other Europeans and even help in their retaking.

77

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 23, 2012, 09:51 AM | #

OK I’m not going to comment further upon the issue that is presently alive at MR. It’s ultimately GW’s show and at his discretion to act as he thinks best.

Seriously I don’t which of my posts have or have not survived so just let me say. MR should be meta-political site open to any reasonable and semi-plausible perspectives. We should collectively look to always improving both the content and tone (something I’m guilty of not always doing - mea culpa). Even if we can get frustrated at times with the other dramatis personae civility should generally be the norm (but there are exceptions to every rule).

Moreover it should not be a tiresome ‘echo-chamber’ of what is so readily available elsewhere.

78

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 23, 2012, 10:11 AM | #

Just some longer thoughts.

If our task is ultimately philosophical in nature and it is the case that philosophy can be claimed to be a ‘conceptual science’, then like any science it ought to be able to tell us something we did not already know: to surprise us. To make explicit what is already presupposed by the activities in which we engage; or when to put it another way, it shows the conditions of their possibilities and any putative alternatives. If nationalism (of any type) is a class of doctrine whose outcome and implications are as unpredictable as everything else human, then the mindset of sceptical and ancient historian may be a better guide to its polyvalent character than the sensibility of the ‘hyper-rational’ and very modern political scientist.

@Leon Haller

Thanks for the praise of Scotland! But seriously let me say that many Americans have contributed in many different and excellent ways to the world and indeed many Americans are of good moral instincts and character in their personal interactions with others, but as an outsider that has observed it first hand and a some length I do find it really very different to Europe in many regards. And the American people, in part and sometimes in whole, have some very odd ideas about the world. I hope to write more about this at some point especially on the religious front. The cultural politics of religion and psychological economy of contemporary American religiosity, if you like.

Let’s not forget H.L. Mencken’s view that: “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” Sometimes one’s critics are also one’s truest friends.

I disagree on the superiority question insofar as it implies that if say the Japanese or Chinese or indeed Little Green Men are/were in some way genuinely better than Europeans (or even just thought themselves to be) we should be OK with any dispossession of our autochthonous homelands. I really cannot agree. Obviously as the world became smaller and people with very different forms of life, technological development etc., would encounter each other some form tragedy was always on the cards. I’m not sure we should revel in it. After all something similar could be our fate too.

Having said that my own change from bog-standard liberalism was started during my sojourn as a slightly younger man in the Netherlands. One key moment was when I was visiting Delft mainly to see the wonderful Vermeers but as I rested on a bench and had a sandwich I noticed a Dutch mother and her young child at one of the upper story windows which was open in one of the beautiful period buildings opposite me. They were looking out upon all the people below in the market square. The boy most have been around two. He had bright blue eyes, full of curiosity and that spark of active engagement with the world he was in the process of exploring. The mother held her son in her arms and looked upon him with obvious love. An everyday scene.

And a thought came into my head. “What a tragedy if all of this, the people, the buildings, the art ceased to be”. I do not know why that thought came into my head, but it did all the same.

Suicide is not generally considered a moral good – life is sacred – it is a gift, at least of the genetic river of time. A fierce ethos of life must be foundational.

Really in one sense our task is to dismantle the key paradigm of liberal thought (from top to bottom) as expressed in the world and so key in shaping every aspect of modernity, while also offering an outline of a morally and politically defensible (and sustainable) non-liberal alternative – so at least to set robust ideological boundaries on our present state of unbounded liberalism (one of the most inflationary ideologies in human history). To show the profound problems we are storing upon for ourselves by becoming Voltaire’s unloved and unlovable bastards. After all the prospect of one’s descendants having to live in a Cormac McCarthy style nightmare is not a good one (coincidentally everyone that is remotely interested in culture should read McCarthy’s “Blood Meridian” - it’s a ‘new classic’ of Western literature).

In an odd way the central problématique of MR is illustrated somewhat by Wittgenstein’s intellectual trajectory. The contrast was between what might be called the ‘atomic-universalist-individualist vision’ and the ‘communal-cultural-particularistic vision’. Wittgenstein can be portrayed as trapped within this opposition, veering unwittingly from one pole to the other. His early logical atomism expressed the solitude of the transcendental ego seeking an account of what the world looks like to a solitary individual reflecting on the problem of how his mind, or language, can possibly “mean”, i.e. reflect, the world. By contrast, his later philosophy transplanted the populist idea of the authority of each distinctive culture to the problem of knowledge, concluding that mankind lives in highly specific and particular cultural communities or, in Wittgenstein’s terminology, “forms of life”, which are self-sustaining, self-legitimating, logically and normatively final.

Obviously much more can be stated on these themes and what the limits and faults in them might be (for example real scientific knowledge is universal in scope). Just because some Bible bashers think that evolution via natural selection does not occur doesn’t make it so. Even the most passionately held and sincere beliefs can be wrong!

79

Posted by daniel on July 23, 2012, 11:30 AM | #

I appreciate your thoughts, Graham - particularly on the superiority issue…

Also appreciate your remarks against liberalism, as always..

...and how tragically liberal that places France, the U.K. and The Netherlands, are…

However, your personal moment of recognition in The Netherlands, of its preciousness..reminds me very graphically that we really can be after the same thing despite differing perspectives and means to getting there…

Thanks

 

 

80

Posted by Silver on July 23, 2012, 02:09 PM | #

But let us remember, however, that the ultimate justification for the hard, authoritarian measures that will have to be implemented and enforced if the white race is to endure are rooted less in notions of vive la difference, than in the superior rights of the, well, superior.

So you keep saying.

Do the Abos in your country have the same survival rights viz the Anglos, as the Anglos have viz avoiding inundation by Asians? I think not. It’s not just a nice, egalitarian matter of Scotland for the Scots, and Iboland for the Ibos, etc. The Scots have a greater moral claim to keeping Abos out of Scotland than the Abos do in keeping Scots out of Oz, and this is because Scottishness - the heritage, history, culture, society and past and potential accomplishments of the Scottish ethnie - is so incomparably superior to any element of the Abo heritage or prospects.

You “think not.”  Now there’s a knockdown argument if I’ve ever heard one.  Leon Haller thinks not!  Spread the word.

Kidding aside, you’re obviously very focused on making this an ethical issue. You’re making a claim to objective, universal ethical reality to which everyone who considers the question must, if you’re correct, agree.  When you get down to it, it’s tantamount to a demand that the world lay down and die in order to make room for the Great White Race.  I’m having trouble deciding which is more outrageous: that you’d come up with such an idea or that you’d expect anyone else to see any merit in it.

I prefer to take a different tack, one based on pragmatism and reciprocity.  Start where you are, get your bearings, decide where you want to go and figure out the best way to get there, using whatever help you can find along the way. 

It would be a great loss to the world, to the progressive advance of mankind itself, if Scotland, or Holland, or Middle America, were to be submerged under a demographic tsunami, and erased as a living presence in the world. If all the Abos disappeared or died, would you or anyone else really give a shiiite? What would be mankind’s real loss?

You’re asking me a trick question (of sorts).  Abos aren’t just going to disappear or die spontaneously.  There would have to be a cause behind it and my answer to your question would depend entirely on what that cause was.  If they were hit by an epidemic of some sort I really couldn’t see myself campaigning to deny them aid.  But if aid were provided and they happened to perish anyway, well, lol, I don’t think I’d lose any sleep.  If the cause behind their death were something like a Haller-led military campaign to exterminate them (sorry to use your name there, but you were asking for it) then I must admit I would feel quite aggrieved for the poor bastards, even though I have no use for them myself whatsoever. In that case, I’m afraid it’s you would I hate and wish to destroy. (Does any of this click with you, Haller? It’s somewhat surreal to even be discussing this, I must say.) 

So if racial contempt towards outsiders helps to bind a given white society, thus giving that society a greater likelihood of perpetuating itself, then a case can be made for it, even if objectively it remains morally unattractive.

It’s the expression of contempt, not contempt itself, that bothers people.  I don’t see anything morally unattractive about disliking racial others.  I dislike (to varying degrees) the vast majority of racial others and am quite happy to have them dislike me right back. Provided we’re able to recognize and respect each other’s “racial rights,” though, none of this need be a problem; indeed, it can form the basis for cooperation in rearranging our world to better reflect the importance of race in our lives. Not all groups will be as immediately amenable to such cooperation, thus the necessity of identifying and winning the support of groups most likely to participate.  The alternative is really you against the world, which is the same mistake the nazis made.

We must never forget what really matters - advancing white EGI. This is the supreme task of whites (and even of all mankind, if everyone correctly understood the value of white civilization). This advance ideally should be effectuated in commonly, ethically acceptable ways. But that cannot always be assured, and where there is a conflict, we must always ask and defer to what is best for whites.

I don’t think I can agree that advancing EGI is the supreme task.  If such advances can only come at the expense of other groups’ EGI that would seem an obvious breech of the very pact I consider essential.  Why is owning the world so important to you?  That’s where all this is going, isn’t it?

81

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 23, 2012, 03:48 PM | #

@Silver

I think you have articulated something very important about the notion of superiority/inferiority – it is a terribly toxic concept and embedded within a nexus of some of the worst episodes in human history. Like you say I doubt anyone sane wishes to defend slavery as an institution, or wishes to promote some form of neocolonialism. The superiority/inferiority talk invites people to assume some form of moral turpitude in regard to those promoting it.

But the idea of differentiation is a less morally problematic starting point. Do communities have a right to be different from others? Do communities have a right to preserve and pass-on their particular ethno- linguistic, cultural, artistic etc., inheritance? Or are differentiated communities under some moral obligation to acquiesce to the cosmopolitan vision that Schmitt dubbed “spaceless universalism”?

Moreover the communitarian perspective is about allowing for nations to be be themselves; the freedom to be Catalan, or Greek or whatever, so promotes homogeneity at the local level but ultimately maintains heterogeneity at the global level, in that not everywhere and everyone will be exactly the same in all of their particulars. In contrast, the cosmopolitan view promotes maximal local diversity or heterogeneity while being at global level a force for homogeneity in that everywhere will be identikit “multicult” societies. The question can be asked who are the authentic multiculturalists?

Equally one doesn’t overturn the egalitarian plateau by denial of the concept of moral commitments as such, rather moral commitments are context dependent, filtered by notions of proximity and proportionality. Their quality of thickness and thinness will also vary. Some people quite legitimately have more call upon me in a moral sense and in turn also owe me more in moral commitments than they do to others.

However, it would be an odd person that upon seeing a tourist visiting their nation suffering a heart attack in front of them, that declined to assist or call the emergency services for the reason that they ethically owed the stranger literally nothing at all. There are some moral minima that no civilised person would wish to see abandoned in their own society. Ordinary people rightfully become very nervous when people hint at or suggest that such minima be abandoned. But that doesn’t mean we owe the entire population of Africa a passport of choice to an EU nation.

For any society to survive, let alone flourish, it has to imagine itself in terms of some form of moral community to which one is obligated – no-one is an “unencumbered self”. It must have collectively enforced boundaries upon moral duties and obligations. Far too much “free-riding” on such matters, at the expense of social-capital, is presently tolerated. Obviously there is scope for reasonable moral disagreement but not a total “free for all”. Building such forms of moral consensus, especially if different from present norms, is the very hard ideological work of politics. It is better to start on some type of common ground. It would be hard to find too many liberals that would not agree that communities of indigenous people around the world have a right to self-determination and autonomy. Well if that doesn’t apply to Europeans in our ancestral homelands then it’s a massive slice of bad faith or hypocrisy on the part of the liberal. Neutral-ish onlookers will notice the double standard.

Admittedly that line of thought might have much less force in the New World.

82

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 23, 2012, 04:59 PM | #

Silver mentioned that people generally dislike open displays of contempt.

Which reminded of Theodore Dalrymple and this article on the tricky issue of snobbery.

“Of Snobbery and Soccer”

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/66894/sec_id/66894

Slightly off-topic but not completely so.

Couple of highlights:

“. . . anyone who knew France only through its national football team would place the country somewhere between North and Equatorial Africa. One prominent white in the team, a spectacularly ugly and thuggish-looking man, so ill-educated that he could barely string a few words together, let alone a sentence, in his native language, had converted to Islam.”

&

“It is also true that if you compare the faces of the English football team of, say, the 1950s with those of the team today, you will see the decline in civility of English society as a whole.”

83

Posted by Silver on July 23, 2012, 05:24 PM | #

Lister,

I think you have articulated something very important about the notion of superiority/inferiority – it is a terribly toxic concept and embedded within a nexus of some of the worst episodes in human history. Like you say I doubt anyone sane wishes to defend slavery as an institution, or wishes to promote some form of neocolonialism. The superiority/inferiority talk invites people to assume some form of moral turpitude in regard to those promoting it.

It’s always been something of an Achilles heel, I believe.  It’s really the root of ‘white guilt.’  The reason that it’s so easy to shut your people up is that most feel some sense of superiority, or if they don’t feel it personally, they can understand only too easy how others would.  In an egalitarian age, that’s awkward enough as it is.  To then hear WNs carrying on about Whites are the greatest this, Whites are the greatest that etc… must be quite embarrassing for the average liberal.  What then seems to happen is that rather than remain neutral or stay out of the way on race, they actively take the anti-white side; not out of malice, but out of compensation, of wanting to be fair or nice.  They’re simply not thinking about the costs to themselves.  Or by the time do think of the costs, they’re already committed and find it psychologically too difficult to turn back. 

All that said, it’s important not to make too much of this.  I have to believe there are plenty out there like me who either don’t care about being on receiving end of superiority/inferiority distinctions, or genuinely see themselves differently (they put you on the receiving end), but are good at playing wounded.  Appearances can be deceiving.

As for defending or excusing slavery or conquest, some do wish to do precisely that.  It seems very important to them that the actions of their predecessors not only were justifiable in the context of their own age, but are justifiable even now.  For them, White makes right. I find these people highly problematic, and worse, highly threatening. 

But the idea of differentiation is a less morally problematic starting point. Do communities have a right to be different from others? Do communities have a right to preserve and pass-on their particular ethno- linguistic, cultural, artistic etc., inheritance? Or are differentiated communities under some moral obligation to acquiesce to the cosmopolitan vision that Schmitt dubbed “spaceless universalism”?

Stressing difference rather than superiority is an obvious and, I believe, highly effective work-around to the problem. 

I would emphasize that “rights to difference” be granted as part of the simple recognition of the superiority of life under conditions of organic homogeneity.  In other words, it’s not merely a case of communities possessing these rights.  If they possess them they may opt to squander them and what then?  Their possession should be stressed because the life they safeguard or promise is superior to that which otherwise obtains.  I mention this because it’s not clear to me that there is an enormous constituency out there that longs to assert group interests, although you or Haller may disagree. If I’m correct, people beyond that constituency will need to be enticed.

 

84

Posted by daniel on July 23, 2012, 09:21 PM | #

I agree and have held that the whole equality/non-equality paradigm is a huge “epistemological” blunder. It probably stems in large part from the quest for quantifiability and measurability, the universalisms of physics being misapplied to social studies - “physics envy.”

I imagine it also comes from a reaction to certain Marxist literature which advocates equality. I do not know how literally that literature or those people take the concept of equality, as I have never engaged the literature nor the people very seriously - despite having adopted the term “White Left” for its socially organizing efficiency.

What I do know is that the White Nationalist right continuously harps on the notion of inequality. I am sure that it is very counterproductive. And I understand Silver’s concern that it is also dangerous. It narcissistically compares everything between cultures and what would otherwise be ecologically disbursed endeavors; rendering vain comparisons (perhaps pseudo-license to impinge upon and exploit) which must breed contempt and reciprocally escalating diatribe - perhaps worst of all, needlessly so.

This is why I have continuously tried to emphasize the notion of paradigmatic differences and incommensurability, not only between cultures, but also within our European culture: looking at things this way, we avoid the false comparisons that breed jealousy and contempt; and sensitize to the appreciation of qualitative differences - differences that make a difference in symbiotic functioning.

* I’m sure there are things, stylistic matters in particular, that I would correct here, given the chance, but this was my effort to flesh this issue out:

http://reasonradionetwork.com/20111203/non-equality-or-incommensurability

85

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 24, 2012, 12:47 AM | #

I have no trouble believing that of the two of us I’m the only one really LOLing here.

It’s a characteristic of inveterate liars, they actually believe their own lies.

LOLing

86

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 24, 2012, 01:38 AM | #

As for defending or excusing slavery or conquest, some do wish to do precisely that.  It seems very important to them that the actions of their predecessors not only were justifiable in the context of their own age, but are justifiable even now.  For them, White makes right. I find these people highly problematic, and worse, highly threatening.

Is conquest defendable if it ends the practice of Abos sacrificing and eating their children? Is conquest defensible if end ends the brutal savage ritual of Mesoamericans sacrificing and cannabalizing their children? Is conquest defensible if it furthers the well being of most of the world’s population…bringing a continual stream of food, medicine, education and carry capacity to deprived and depraved populations? Is there a slave populaton anywhere in the history of the world that advanced so drastically in numbers, wealth and intelligence than that which sprung from the Anglo-Saxon slave system of the American South? What is the price of freedom? The annual rape of 35,000 White women.

So please gentleman, before you grovel to the sweet intonations of love and reciprocity whispered by mendacious racial aliens who are only concerned about advancing their own self-interest, think again.

87

Posted by Silver on July 24, 2012, 03:08 AM | #

So please gentleman, before you grovel to the sweet intonations of love and reciprocity whispered by mendacious racial aliens who are only concerned about advancing their own self-interest, think again.

By “racial alien,” of course, you really wish to say “parasite” or “shithead,” but at least the term you chose can be defended on technical grounds, so I guess that’s progress.  Good on you, Desmond. There’s hope for you yet.

Is conquest defendable if it ends the practice of Abos sacrificing and eating their children? Is conquest defensible if end ends the brutal savage ritual of Mesoamericans sacrificing and cannabalizing their children? Is conquest defensible if it furthers the well being of most of the world’s population…bringing a continual stream of food, medicine, education and carry capacity to deprived and depraved populations? Is there a slave populaton anywhere in the history of the world that advanced so drastically in numbers, wealth and intelligence than that which sprung from the Anglo-Saxon slave system of the American South? What is the price of freedom? The annual rape of 35,000 White women.

Yes, I’m familiar with this humanitarian interventionist justification.  I’d even give it a pass were it not for the fact that humanitarian intervention was the furthest thing from the empire-builders’ minds.  But I don’t know why you bring this up with me since I’ve never been one to argue that misdeeds of the past justify racial dissolution today.  As far as I’m concerned, the British and others of that era acted according to the universally accepted principles of the day, no differently to anybody else, and that’s justification enough.  The crucial point for me is the distinction between then and now. Even if I can’t quite bring myself to believe in a “New Man,” with all the attributes a communist or a post-modern dreamer assigns him, I can certainly believe in a “New Era,” which we can date back to 1945.  “Racial rights,” as I understand them (and as McCulloch defines them, although I’d go further and deeper and prefer the perhaps awkward but explanatory term “enlightened groupism”), fit into this new era hand in glove. 

Secondly, just think what you are doing when you play the role of racial aggressor today.  Multiracialism is hardly without its faults, but it’s far from true that everyone is as depressed by it as you.  If it doesn’t work perfectly, it’s not to say it doesn’t work at all.  Your aggression is so total that, fundamentally, you can be considered to be arguing against love itself.  Before you scoff, think—if the thought doesn’t revolt you—of Brazil.  What chance the centuries of mixing could be politically unraveled today?  Next to none. And why?  Because people feel too close to one another.  Not “perfectly” close, but too close to allow their differences to divide them to the extent a racialist as strict as you deems essential.  Parts of Anglo-Saxondom today are fast approaching such a state and your approval of it matters not.  In this, a humorous analogy can be drawn with a kidnapped wife in Tajikistan: not the future she would have chosen for herself and she dreams idly of what another life may have been like, but the fellow turned out better than she might have thought and now she loves him or is at least comfortable enough that thoughts of terminating the arrangement are dismissed out of hand.

88

Posted by daniel on July 24, 2012, 09:03 AM | #

.
..
...
....
I was listening to a discussion between Severus Niflson and Carolyn Yeager on the issue of White Nation building efforts. He criticizes many concepts as pie-in-the-sky - and so they may be.

Niflson argues that a White nation must be cultivated with people with real life practical skills, militarized and unified in accordance with traditional military structures - I would imagine, therefore, that he would assume that the proposal here, Euro-DNA based Nation, is impractical.

He does concede that those with practical skills might come along and be added spuriously.

However, I would counter farther that he is focusing only on one aspect of the plan - the voluntary freedom of/from association in the form of different communities, counties, states - immediately saying that they would be impossible to coordinate, when the whole purpose of this essay is to discuss how they might be coordinated - in recognition of shared genetics.

Next, this would have a marshaling effect on whatever inherent and positive aspects of that first feature, our life-span freedoms: it would provide incentive for different, otherwise conflicting groups of Whites to participate and cooperate.

In addition, it would enhance flexibility and the means for guerrilla tactics - whereas Niflson seems to be conceiving of warfare only in an older, WWII era manifestation. 

A key purpose of featuring this notion of freedom from association is that it is the hardest argument for the liberal hegemony to contend openly without showing its true face - revealing most clearly that they are the “bad guys.” Nevertheless, knowing that the powers that be have no qualms with such hypocrisy (providing they can get away with it) it is set out as a largely implicit strategy, or a mere show of hands for those who want separatism, not a vow of open rebellion against the state. Hence, the primary reason for discussing this feature, freedom of/from association, is to coordinate its variegated expression into a unified effort over all. Whereas that would be in service of an overall coherence of life-span choices (providing that they stay within the parameters of genetically European), the same principle would be used to coordinate the ancient human ecologies of Europe, the discrete nations as evolved over tens of thousands of years - in service of maintaining their freedom from association with non-natives of their ancient ecologies.

Finally, these two matters would be coordinated with the large White state in order to organize sufficient economic and military power to help defend the nations, states, counties and communities of Whites. However, it would have the additional dimension of flexibility for facilitating unconventional warfare. How to keep the state from over-stepping its bounds on the parts is an important technical question which I do not seek to avoid. I merely say that it is premature to the concern of this essay.

And from the others side, what requirements, if any, each component would have to contribute to the greater White Nation in its collective defense and re-takings is no small detail either, but one not addressed in this piece as its question, “who are we and what do we defend?”, has been preliminary to that, even - the essential matter of the Euro-DNA Nation.

89

Posted by uh on July 24, 2012, 11:33 AM | #

In this, a humorous analogy can be drawn with a kidnapped wife in Tajikistan:

HEY FAGGOT.

Tajiks don’t kidnap their wives. Uzbeks / Kazaks / Kyrgyz do.

There is no terminating of arrangements in any case. Exactly like the shotgun marriage of white & black.

Fuck I loathe you.

 

90

Posted by Silver on July 24, 2012, 12:16 PM | #

Lol, I knew I should check that before posting. But I’m pretty sure everyone got the point, and that’s what matters.

Fuck I loathe you.

Okay, fine. But why?  You don’t have to like me, but loath is a very strong word. I don’t get it.

 

91

Posted by HW on July 24, 2012, 11:45 PM | #

Desmond,

Is there a slave populaton anywhere in the history of the world that advanced so drastically in numbers, wealth and intelligence than that which sprung from the Anglo-Saxon slave system of the American South? What is the price of freedom? The annual rape of 35,000 White women.

Very true.

Where does the negro thrive in this world? The American negro has a much higher standard of living than his African counterparts. In fact, the most civilized and successful negroes in the world tend to be the ones who lived in areas that were the most blessed by slavery and white supremacy.

Aside from the American negro, I believe that Barbados, Bermuda, Martinique, and Guadeloupe - all former slave societies, which were also blessed with over three centuries of European colonialism and white supremacy - are the most successful negro countries in the world. Isn’t it strange that slavery is blamed for the failure of the negro when the most enslaved areas tend to produce the most successful negroes?

In Haiti, half the slave population that revolted in 1791 had been born in Africa, which is why Haiti is so much more backward than other black countries in the Caribbean. Slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism was brought to end much faster in Haiti than in Jamaica and Barbados which gained their independence in the 1960s.

Bermuda remains an overseas dependency of Britain. Guadeloupe and Martinique are overseas departments of France. In Guadeloupe and Martinique, slavery and white supremacy were restored, whereas the blacks in Haiti won their independence.

If you were a negro, would you rather live in Chad or South Africa, Haiti or Guadeloupe?

92

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 25, 2012, 02:01 AM | #

Not “perfectly” close, but too close to allow their differences to divide them to the extent a racialist as strict as you deems essential.

Geez, dude, do you ever stop with the lies.

http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/afrolatin/part3/

I’d even give it a pass were it not for the fact that humanitarian intervention was the furthest thing from the empire-builders’ minds.

So what? There is no interplay between morality and self-interest?

93

Posted by uh on July 25, 2012, 03:51 AM | #

Okay, fine. But why?  You don’t have to like me, but loath is a very strong word. I don’t get it.

“CAR C’EST LES ENFANTS DE LA TERRE CONTRE LES ARMÉES DE VEAU D’OR.”

Your cult of progress at any price. Your smarmy sophistry. Your absolute failure to show yourself a human worthy and capable of personal allegiance after YEARS of commenting. You are just not likable. Do you understand that? Even Daniel, whose intellectual pretensions I despise, is likable as a man. BUT YOU ARE NOT LIKABLE.

You’ve written things that I have copied by hand and committed to memory. And one thing that almost made me cry it was so beautiful. Yet you seem to value your cleverness more than other men with similar worries and values. This is wrong. Perhaps it’s because you’re so far from the rest of us. Perhaps you are really that smug in real life. I dunno. But has anyone EVER said, man, I sure like “Silver” as a person?

Made worse by your style. Like I saw you some weeks ago yammering about some bullshit, totally laughable RELIGIOUS notions you were having—- ho ho ho!! what a hoot!! How about what you do for a living instead?

It’s like that song I linked told you:

Geh mir aus dem Weg, erspar mir Deine Lügen! Was Du sagst, kannst Du nicht wissen, warum sollte ich mich fügen? Erlaube Dir kein Urteil über die Welt von einst und rede nicht von “Freiheit”, wenn Du dein Wohlstand meinst!

94

Posted by daniel on July 25, 2012, 05:47 AM | #

Even Daniel, whose intellectual pretensions I despise, is likable as a man.

It’s not intellectual pretense that you see in me, it is intellectual apparatus - which I admit to not always wielding with the flair that others do - that I use to make honestly held beliefs. Therefore, again, it is not pretense. If you want to say that I do not have the greatest facility, am occasionally stilted in using intellectual structures to take matters seriously that I consider to be serious, I can cop to that.

However, I like the way that you are you are advocating and defending ordinariness in White men lately. I don’t know if you know that it corresponds with my reasons for proposing that being and selfhood be installed as equal requirements to socialization and actualization.

But with that, you may be undervaluing socialization and actualization - hence, your tendency to see me as pompous where I endeavor to try to change things with ambition perhaps beyond my talent; and willingness to socialize with people outside and perhaps above or below my station.


Nevertheless, your seizing upon Silver for this point was incisive:

  “In this, a humorous analogy can be drawn with a kidnapped wife in Tajikistan - HEY FAGGOT.”


It does indicate prejudice in his position which is not fully conducive to White interests; nor is it a prejudice accounted for by an explicit declaration of his person position. You are correct to indicate that it brings to the fore the issue of his not fully declared person-position - in particular, his racial make-up. However, I don’t know that he is all that unlikeable. He seems to care as much about Whites as a non-White can. And it is understandable that non-Whites would care about Whites.

95

Posted by Silver on July 25, 2012, 10:21 AM | #

Desmond,

Geez, dude, do you ever stop with the lies.

Please. I could get off the plane tomorrow and make my way around Rio without a hassle because I know the neighborhoods, the thoroughfares and the landmarks by heart I’ve researched it so much.  That one silly article isn’t going to teach me anything I don’t know the basics of.  So the question isn’t “do I ever stop with the lies”; the question is “can you freakin read?”  Because if you could you’d understand that I said, loud and clear, to the extent you deem essential.  I never said there’s “no racial friction.”  Of course there is. How could there not be?  But it’s not_______________ (You fill in the blank.  Yes you’re back in school.) 

If it were not as I say, if it were instead as you say, then we’d be reading about mass movements claiming that it’s impossible, utterly impossible, to live alongside these people and, moreover, the graves of our forefathers cry out in anguish over the harm done our EGI!  We just don’t see anything like that.  I talk to these people (internet, obviously) all the time.  There’s just nothing like that occurring. 

So what? There is no interplay between morality and self-interest?

HEY FAGGOT.                                                                            (Lolzz)

Isn’t that exactly what I am suggesting to you?  Doesn’t the whole concept of “racial rights/enlightened groupism” as I talk about it rest on there being an interplay between morality and self-interest?  (Uh-huh, is that a light bulb I can see beginning to flicker?)

 

 

96

Posted by Silver on July 25, 2012, 12:40 PM | #

“CAR C’EST LES ENFANTS DE LA TERRE CONTRE LES ARMÉES DE VEAU D’OR.”

“The men who can manage men manage the men who can manage only things, and the men who can manage money manage all.”—Will Durant, The Lessons of History.  (Note to J Richards: that’s manage money, not “control the money supply.”  Though Durant was a Jew so who knows what he meant…[*twilight zone music*])

Your cult of progress at any price. Your smarmy sophistry. Your absolute failure to show yourself a human worthy and capable of personal allegiance after YEARS of commenting. You are just not likable. Do you understand that? Even Daniel, whose intellectual pretensions I despise, is likable as a man. BUT YOU ARE NOT LIKABLE.

I can appreciate your forthrightness, Lentini.  Look, I’m sorry I may have misled you.  I didn’t come here to make friends.  We do share certain political objectives but you people are still the enemy (or an enemy of sorts).  Not only do I not trust you, I cannot trust you.  There’s not a single one of you I wouldn’t betray if the situation called for it; so because I genuinely respect you people—grudgingly, it’s true, but genuinely, even the likes of a Crapandchaos—I can only hope such a situation never arises.  These are not pleasant thoughts to entertain about one’s putative allies, but it’s best to acknowledge them and bring them into the light, rather than to leave them lurking in the shadows. 

You’ve written things that I have copied by hand and committed to memory. And one thing that almost made me cry it was so beautiful. Yet you seem to value your cleverness more than other men with similar worries and values. This is wrong. Perhaps it’s because you’re so far from the rest of us. Perhaps you are really that smug in real life. I dunno. But has anyone EVER said, man, I sure like “Silver” as a person?

You’re encroaching on very personal territory here.  But okay, I guess I owe you an explanation. 

It’s not that I value cleverness so much; it’s more a coping mechanism than anything else, although at times I get carried away. 

“Race” hit me at a very bad time in my life.  If you’ve been “hit” by it, I think you’ll understand why I say “race” rather than “racial issues” or “the racial question” or anything else.  It’s so powerful a force that that one word will collect all the issues and ramifications of issues associated with it better than any other term.

I was already feeling morose at the time.  I was ruing missed opportunities (“I shoulda been the greatest”), cursing regretfully at misguided actions (“You idiot, how could you”) and glumly lacking for purpose (“Whadda I do now?”).  To distract myself I would think of the future.  Thoughts of the future would play on my mind constantly.  I had already developed an inchoate and troubling awareness that all was not well with our world, and that race had more than a little to do with that, when driving alone late one night I was asking and answering a question recommended by psychologist Nathaniel Branden (his work is outstanding):“If I were willing to see what I see and know what I know, then_______________”.  I was struck by the following terrible answer: the fucking nazis were right.  (There was actually another realization that hit me moments before that, but that I’m afraid is too personal, and while it’s certainly related the story doesn’t suffer by my leaving it out.)  The fucking nazis were right.  I couldn’t believe it.  I didn’t think they were right about everything, but for the first time in my life I believed they were right about far more than I would ever have wished to be true.  Of course, this didn’t sit well with me at all.  I was completely stunned.  But every time I looked, there it was: “...see that I see, know what I know, then…” 

Now, if you’ve been whacked by race like that you don’t recover from it overnight.  Some people don’t recover from it ever.  But somewhere over the course of…I’m not even sure how I’d date it… I decided that I could no longer allow myself to be tormented by what I knew to be true of this world, its people, its lies, its degeneracy, its trajectory.  I had been a happy child. I had had a wonderful childhood.  I had dreamt the most beautiful dreams. At the age of four or so I dreamt a dream so beautiful it literally made me cry to recall it—I cried all day, and was only made sadder at being unable to explain to my questioning mother why I was crying. So I knew what beauty was and I wanted to see it achieved in this world, or at least see the world brought closer to it.  Couldn’t I again experience life that way? I decided that I could; despite everything I knew, I could. 

So far, it’s been working well.  Humor and cleverness have been essential, however.  But don’t blame me for that—you people are sitting ducks.  You stake out the most extreme position, way out to the right of anything justified by the facts of reality alone, alternately menacingly patting your palm with your nightstick, just to let everyone know that YOU’RE WATCHING, and tapping your foot impatiently, waiting for the world to catch up. 

Made worse by your style. Like I saw you some weeks ago yammering about some bullshit, totally laughable RELIGIOUS notions you were having—- ho ho ho!! what a hoot!! How about what you do for a living instead?

Well, you know, religion’s a funny old thing, so you’re probably not wrong to smirk.  But I don’t think I said anything so outlandish that you’d laugh nearly so hard if you didn’t hate me as much as you do.  (When you get down to it, my view of religion really isn’t much different from your Great One’s.) 

It’s like that song I linked told you:

Geh mir aus dem Weg, erspar mir Deine Lügen! Was Du sagst, kannst Du nicht wissen, warum sollte ich mich fügen? Erlaube Dir kein Urteil über die Welt von einst und rede nicht von “Freiheit”, wenn Du dein Wohlstand meinst!

A bit of French I can handle.  Not this.

 

97

Posted by Silver on July 25, 2012, 12:58 PM | #

You are correct to indicate that it brings to the fore the issue of his not fully declared person-position - in particular, his racial make-up. However, I don’t know that he is all that unlikeable. He seems to care as much about Whites as a non-White can. And it is understandable that non-Whites would care about Whites.

Hey, thanks, dan.  Few who know me would describe me as “unlikeable.”  At times jovial, spirited, intense; at times distant, detached, withdrawn.  I think that’s what most would say.  But, heh, you know, that’s “Uh” for ya.  Considering the hatchet-jobs he’s done on others I think I got off pretty lightly.

 

98

Posted by daniel on July 25, 2012, 01:14 PM | #

Silver, may I ask how you were hit by the racial issue?

99

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 25, 2012, 01:37 PM | #

@Silver

“but you people are still the enemy”

What? Are you going all Schmittian on my ass?

A tendency to supercilious wankerism can’t be that serious an offence can it?

At least I don’t have “Paranoid Android” on repeat on my portable gramophone or whatever those IPoddy things are called by the yoofs these days. No names, no pack-drill.

How does it go again?

Please could you stop the noise, I’m trying to get some rest.
From all the unborn chicken voices in my head. . .

100

Posted by Silver on July 25, 2012, 02:25 PM | #

Graham,

Calling me paranoid isn’t going to change reality.  Hop over to counter-currents and you’ll see that it’s considered quite appropriate to ponder whether extermination or deportation is the more appropriate route.  By all appearances you’re an understanding and accommodating sort of a fellow, but that’s not a difficult thing to be when your back is against the wall.  What assurance can anyone possibly have that the accommodationists won’t get swept up in the tide of enthusiasm if the hardliners get the edge?  That may seem an unfair question to you, and I’m not really expecting any sort of answer to it, but the doubts and suspicions swirling around my head can’t help but give rise to it.

daniel,

I always knew it mattered to some degree; I just believed the difficulties could be surmounted (had to be surmounted).  Like everyone else, I saw things during my life that made me doubt the wisdom of mass and/or official mulitculturalism and mass multiracialism.  Later on I began reading about them and about heredity, immigration, race etc.  It all seemed a very distant and abstract to me, though, and for many years I didn’t think it all appropriate to view life through those lenses (I had more immediate concerns).  Until at some point it all began to coalesce and then in that one moment I finally acknowledged to myself that I now possessed answers to the sorts of questions I had been asking my entire life.  (Not all the answers, but very much answers to so many of the questions I had long pondered.)

101

Posted by Graham_Lister on July 25, 2012, 02:55 PM | #

@Silver

It was a joke. I was not really calling you paranoid but some people around are. Tone is hard to convey online. Like you suggest ‘WN’ (which I am not) is full of total whack-jobs that I would not allow to run a whelk stall.

102

Posted by daniel on July 26, 2012, 01:45 AM | #

“The stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” - Kenneth Burke

103

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 26, 2012, 02:36 AM | #

Isn’t that exactly what I am suggesting to you?

No because you offer nothing but harm. Migration is justified by enhanced carrying capacity and moral uplift but you offer, unlike the white men you despise, neither. The only moral gesture you and your people can offer, if you believe what you say (which you don’t) is departure…but you won’t.

Not “perfectly” close, but too close to allow their differences to divide them to the extent a racialist as strict as you deems essential.

Clearly they are restricted by law.

If it were not as I say, if it were instead as you say, then we’d be reading about mass movements claiming that it’s impossible, utterly impossible, to live alongside these people

Except of course they are restricted by law and public disapprobation and punished severely should they dare engage in such activity.

104

Posted by Silver on July 26, 2012, 04:50 AM | #

No because you offer nothing but harm. Migration is justified by enhanced carrying capacity and moral uplift but you offer, unlike the white men you despise, neither. The only moral gesture you and your people can offer, if you believe what you say (which you don’t) is departure…but you won’t.

Stop making things up as you go.  The point was there can be an interplay between morality and self-interest.  I’m not sure what the sociobiology textbooks which you pretend to understand have to say about this but it’s obviously possible for at least one man to take such a position otherwise I wouldn’t be able to post what I do here. 

Departure isn’t the only possible moral gesture.  Separation is another, much more genial, workable, attractive option… but you won’t have a bar of it. 

Except of course they are restricted by law and public disapprobation and punished severely should they dare engage in such activity.

They aren’t prevented from speaking anonymously online. 

The fact is you chose the greatest human racial disparity—black and white—with which to make an example.  But racial gradations exist all the way in between those extremes.  So even if some there wish to separate “macro-racially,” there’s nothing like a mass desire expressed to sort all the way through those gradations to the extent that a hardnut like you deems absolutely essential.

105

Posted by daniel on July 26, 2012, 05:25 AM | #

The point is that there should be categories allocated and provided for those who would elect to maintain purer forms (for example Scandanavians, who have no African admixture since differentiation from Africa began significantly some 41,000 years ago). Those who are a part of some gray areas might be afforded other categories, as they are predominantly European (such as Italians, who have a very small percentage, 1-3% of African admixture). Those out-groups who do not wish to be pushed into categorization with Blacks and therefore have incentive to cooperate with native Europeans could provide another discreet category.

106

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 26, 2012, 06:23 PM | #

Separation is another, much more genial, workable, attractive option…

For you, but for the host it is merely theft of territory.

They aren’t prevented from speaking anonymously online.

LOLing

 

107

Posted by daniel on July 27, 2012, 08:38 AM | #

It seems worthwhile to speculate farther on how to operationalize the DNA Nation - how points of responsibility to the local (freely chosen/anciently evolved) White cultures and to the larger White nation might be worked out mathematically and qualitatively.

108

Posted by daniel on August 01, 2012, 04:52 AM | #

One thing that I am learning from having posted this essay is that you can set out a pretty tight theory and yet people will tend to see straw men and fight against them, setting the theory aside for that reason. For example, there are some people who are prejudice against the importance that Bowery sees in individualism as an empirically based phenomenon. Thus, believing individualism is closer to our problem than our solution, as I do, they may not get beyond the first few paragraphs before forming a negative opinion - a straw man argument that this essay is about defending individualism. I wonder how much this has to do with natural proclivities of readership and how much is my responsibility as writer.

Individual freedom is only of particular importance to White separatism inasmuch as it provides freedom to disassociate from non-Whites and also to provide opportunity to form White associations of different kinds - so that they can avoid inter-White conflict over these different ways and cultivate different sorts of White communities to their fullest .

Now, to a normal White person, that should be more than valid. Nevertheless, that as a value of itself is Not the central issue of the article. In fact, the central issue is how to coordinate that value with the ancient, situated, human ecologies of our European peoples - undoubtedly a profound White value, but a very different as it is not placing so much importance on choice within the lifespan; moreover, there is the matter of how to coordinate these White values with a larger White National organization overall, such that the White nation can fund a space program and hold up to nations such as China.

Another straw argument that I sense - “oh, the nation will never fall apart and relinquish territory to secession movements.” However, this straw man is to exaggerate the literalness by which I mean by the nation state going into its “death throes.” How much and what form the nation’s decline takes is not really the matter - especially not since this is just a preliminary stage, a voluntary expression of assent. And how much and what form the death of the state is necessary for White communities to be explicit can be answered tautologically - when the Nation’s antagonistic delegation is weak enough and the communities organized resistance is strong enough.

That answers another straw man, that I am being naiive in thinking that the nation will just let us do these things - we haven’t gotten to the matter of defying them particularly. This is about preliminary organization.

The next straw man is that I am being reductionary and sterile in focusing on DNA. But no, this straw man is answered in the first values’ communitarianism, the historical roots of the second value (the ancient human ecologies), and the real world complexity of organizing an over-arching state - one will be reckoning immediately on the powers that be and how to deal with them, whether to enlist their cooperation, work around them or finding realistic methods to bring them down.

That is to say, these straw men: “naiivete”, reductionism, a state falling apart in a necessary way in the relative short term, requiring a short term military strategy to deal with that, reduce of themselves the time span of this project and the various forms that decline of the anti-White Nation State will take, as well as the form of its oppression and White separatism.

109

Posted by James Bowery on August 01, 2012, 03:44 PM | #

daniel writes: “Thus, believing individualism is closer to our problem than our solution, as I do, they may not get beyond the first few paragraphs before forming a negative opinion - a straw man argument that this essay is about defending individualism.

Ironically, I experience exactly the same thing regarding my ideas about individualism:

People simply cannot hear my statements that individualism yields dysfunctional behavior within civilization because civilization (or more accurately, group selection) is war.  All they know is that I value something that, in the current context, means crucifixion for those expressing it, and cannot set aside their reaction long enough to even consider whether the current context is a proper one for Euroman.  Even more ironically, this reaction seems to come from those who consider themselves “conservative” to my “liberalism” when, in fact, it is the upstart idea of civilization that is liberal and what I am recommending is recovering a respect for our natural origins that is far deeper than theirs.

Now, I will admit that the laboratory of the states—with intentional associations based on assortative migrations utilizing modern transport and habitation technologies—may be seen as “liberal” (after all, capital punishment and even prisons would be all but replaced by migration except for cases of sabotage) and that it does permit individualism to express, but the two should not be conflated.  If people choose the kind of environment I see as consistent with individualism, they will be choosing a very radical return to our origins as sexual beings—rejecting our eusocial great ape* heritage which is a very leftist influence on the human condition.

*not all great apes exhibit this tendency toward eusociality of course, but it does appear to have originated around the time of the advent of bipedalism.

110

Posted by daniel on August 02, 2012, 02:12 AM | #


Hmmm…

I have to give this remark some consideration as I perceive large agreement in it and utility in doing so.

However, as you might guess, of course, I am not going to concede the term leftist to our enemies, as in this sentence:

“rejecting our eusocial great ape* heritage which is a very leftist influence on the human condition”

While I believe that leftism is indeed, about classification and concede that it can be abused as a concept, just as individualism and individual rights can be abused, I wish White Nationalists might understand that classification can be speculative, in a good sense, for the purpose of organizing the group conceptually with minimal control and regulation over individual and community prerogatives.

It is the borders of the White Nation that I would not be at all liberal about.

In concession to the notion of freedom of association, if people want to leave and interbreed with other populations, banishment is a prerogative of the White Nation in response.

For all you’ve said, and I have to read some of your back-links still, if the concept of challenging interlopers to a duel were applied to non-Whites, I’d be a bit less averse. But even there, I do not see why shifts, specific years of service, some specialists (not eusocialized) and requirement that just anybody step up if the situation requires defending against interlopers cannot do even more effectively than the notion of natural duel. Perhaps I should not open this can of worms since the chance of disabusing you of it are nil.

But perhaps you might consider that point at which you would seek recourse in natural duel is where one might look toward the second liberation, the hermeneutic turn.

Whereas empiricism provided a liberation from superstition, irrelevant religious myths and mere tradition, the hermeneutic turn provided a second liberation, from mere facticity.

With that, one would not be denying individual merit and courage, but seeing that point where empirical, corporeal self meets narrative, autobiographical self along with its historical, social indebtedness

With this reasoning, one would not abdicate their individual corporeal and autobiographical responsibility to defend their women, people and land, would willing seek to serve and distinguish their individual merit, as such: but would not take on unreasonable and (likely ineffective) responsibility as a mere individual, ex nihlo - rather, it would assume this individual responsibility to inherited manliness and responsibility to one’s people in fair (fairness in relation to and negotiated with the group) shifts or stepping up as need be in an emergency.

Why, after all, should we not enjoy the fruits of our evolution and ways, less encumbered by the need for vigilance and the responsibility thereof at most times? That would seem to correspond very exactly to authenticity - and White authenticity at that.

111

Posted by daniel on August 02, 2012, 02:22 AM | #

I don’t want this comment to seem like I am anti-Kevin MacDonald, because I am not at all. In fact, he is largely why I came into the struggle. I have tremendous respect for him and his work; am in agreement with the vast part of it; and where in disagreement, it is largely veneer - I wish that could be understood.

I think that adherents to his view have taken his line that “leftists” would be critical of Israel for its ethnocentrism. Well, not really. The truth is that liberals would be critical of Israeli ethnocentricsm.

That it is a veneer that I speak of is clear in the fact that all I have to do is change the word left for liberal and I see that we are talking about the same thing.

You know where I am coming from, I want the word left for us, The White Left for its organizational utility.

But trumping the notion of Israel being a leftist classification even, I believe that Lee John Barnes made an outstanding point that Zionism is passe - it is Jewish imperialism. Thus, they are not only not leftist, they are not only not liberal, but they are right-wingers: with all the elitism, injustice and imperviousness that that implies.

112

Posted by James Bowery on August 02, 2012, 11:34 AM | #

Daniel writes: “For all you’ve said, and I have to read some of your back-links still, if the concept of challenging interlopers to a duel were applied to non-Whites, I’d be a bit less averse. But even there, I do not see why shifts, specific years of service, some specialists (not eusocialized) and requirement that just anybody step up if the situation requires defending against interlopers cannot do even more effectively than the notion of natural duel. Perhaps I should not open this can of worms since the chance of disabusing you of it are nil.

You’re doing it again, Daniel.

I have repeatedly stated that civilization (because it is a form of group selection) is war and that individualism has no place in the waging of war.  I’ve described the specific means by which individuals, in service of a leader, give up their individual will to the leader so that a

group with integrity

—indeed greater integrity than the enemy group—can be formed:  A leader declares a military objective he will lead (the original “Declaration of War”)—the accomplishment of which will result in the dissolution of the group and the failure of which will result in his own execution (the original “Sacrifice of the Sacred King”) and forms an army from the resulting hierarchy of subgroups.  Clearly, since civilization (because it is a form of group selective pressure) is perpetual war, the structure thus obtained must be perpetual in some sense.

In proposing the laboratory of the states, I have already offered my compromise:  Since we are in a state of perpetual war, and we simply cannot express our natural authenticity in such a heightened state of unnatural vigilance, there needs to be some sort of accommodation.  That is what “The Hundred” were all about in their original form:  Those who sacrifice their humanity to become part of a group organism with high integrity for the purpose of defending the people—living as individuals in peace—from the sneak attacks of the serpent peoples—the people evolved to be mere parts of group organisms that, in E. O. Wilson’s apt book title, are bent on “The Social Conquest of Earth”.  The Hundred provide enough time for others to transform themselves from free individuals into TEMPORARY parts of a high-integrity counter-“serpent” (or, in the case of military action, “dragon”) to “slay the dragon” so they may return to live the authentic life.

And to be clear about this compromise:  It in no way prohibits individuals from forming group entities—serpents—if that is their preference IN THEIR OWN COUNTIES.  However, it guarantees that those choosing to live in counties where serpents are banned will not be forced to live in a state of unnatural vigilance.

You don’t like the natural vigilance this implies and you don’t need to live within a county where that is the way of life.

Is the Compromise understood?

113

Posted by daniel on August 02, 2012, 01:14 PM | #

Bear with me while I talk about civilization my way for a minute. Because I think that you are using ‘civilization’ as I would use “modernity”

Let’s see, civilization would imply persons with civic responsibility to the populace; an agreed upon moral order which enabled cooperation to rule over force.

It would seem to implicate a certain amount of specialization, which can be unfortunate, quantifying, alienating from one’s natural balance under certain circumstances - but not necessarily.

Obviously, you’ve thought about this, but I am trying to understand how civilization is synonymous with war. Ok, the individual cannot make war, fine. But why must the civilization?

As I recall Plato’s definition of civilization, he viewed it as the gradual advance of persuasion over force. That works fairly well for me as a definition, though I would add the increased cooperative element of the civilization’s moral order.

Now then, there will in all likelihood be antagonists, who are not going to play by our rules, will try to take advantage and use force against us; both outsiders and traitors. Ok, but do the civilized need to seek them out and start a war with them? Wouldn’t they be satisfied to beat them back and hope perhaps, that they will shrivel up and go away?

I guess I am not seeing your definition of civilization and what is so necessarily unmodifiable, irreconcilable with White nature. This anti-civilization talk that I hear strikes me as modernist wailing for empirical grounds and with it, a return to a simpler, more self sufficient way of life. I think that is a valid option that ought to be taken up by whomever would wish it and that the civilization ought to cooperate with them in setting up that way of life.

Now, technology, capitalist growth, overpopulation as a result of corporate farming and obsolete, universalistic moral orders (let alone Jewish exploitation of these), these kinds of things could perpetuate runaway indeed, and I can see conflict arising a little more necessarily.

But I would equate these things more with modernity than with civilization. It is where modernity transforms civilization indeed to become disordered and unaccountable - uncivilized.

You say that civilization is a form of group selection. I don’t see what is stopping women from choosing highly individualistic men, even in civilization - I think they rather like them.

While I would not begrudge them that choice it can leaves us vulnerable. I know you try to address that in the natural duel.

But let me wait to hear what you have to say about civilization (I am not seeing the necessary connections that you make there)

Agreed, the group with integrity might allow for a great deal of individualism.

“Clearly, since civilization (because it is a form of group selective pressure) is perpetual war”

Maybe rather modernity, in its quest of progress is group selective pressure?

You see, I am beginning to sense that your argument would do well to substitute modernity for what you are calling civilization.

...it follows when you say:

“civilization is perpetual war, the structure thus obtained must be perpetual in some sense”

Now try, modernity is perpetual war, the structure thus obtained must be perpetual in some ways.

Modernity is on a reflexively reconstructing loop in its valuation of the “new, progress” its obliviousness to what it may wreck along the way to the foundational truths of empiricism or say, maths.

Because it values progress as good then what is old and traditional is bad and change is necessarily good. Once what is “new” has been established its celebration is over almost as soon as it began as it is no longer new and change must be sought on behalf of more progress, in perpetuity etc. This valuation will necessarily lead into conflict with traditional, ethnocentric peoples - hence will tend to lead to war, yes.

But I would not call that civilization’s proclivity but modernity’s.


In proposing the laboratory of the states, I have already offered my compromise:  Since we are in a state of perpetual war, and we simply cannot express our natural authenticity in such a heightened state of unnatural vigilance, there needs to be some sort of accommodation. 

Ok…


That is what “The Hundred” were all about in their original form:  Those who sacrifice their humanity to become part of a group organism with high integrity for the purpose of defending the people

As I have said, I like this idea; border camps, service for 18-20 year olds and 64-65 year olds. But ideally, only sacrificing part of their lives to this service.

—living as individuals in peace—from the sneak attacks of the serpent peoples—the people evolved to be mere parts of group organisms that, in E. O. Wilson, are bent on “The Social Conquest of Earth”.  The Hundred provide enough time for others to transform themselves from free individuals into TEMPORARY parts of a high-integrity counter-“serpent” (or, in the case of military action, “dragon”) to “slay the dragon” so they may return to live the authentic life.

Yes, I can see that. That might function to coddle individualism as a post-modern alternative for a particular community, state, society, civilization whatever one might call it.
Y
And to be clear about this compromise:  It in no way prohibits individuals from forming group entities—serpents—if that is their preference IN THEIR OWN COUNTIES.  However, it guarantees that those choosing to live in counties where serpents are banned will not be forced to live in a state of unnatural vigilance.

I presume then you mean serpents are something like gangs, cartels, organized crime groups…

You don’t like the natural vigilance this implies and you don’t need to live within a county where that is the way of life.

Fair enough; the options of going to various states takes care of many issues; the border camps and the natural vigilance that remain once the moral rules can be taken for granted enough among the people to pursue an authentic way of life sounds fine.

Is the Compromise understood?

Fairly. I’m just wondering if there cannot be additional ways of implementing The Hundred, so that only parts of life or qualitatively necessary moments were necessarily devoted to border defense; while a good part of life might be devoted to other pursuits.


I think rather these serpent gangs might form as an atavistic result of modernity’s disorder - though you may have a point that civilization’s naivete, if it is on too great a scale might play a rife host for these serpents. Nevertheless, that’d likely be where civilization over-expanded through modernity’s universalizing - hence, modernity would once again be the culprit.

114

Posted by James Bowery on August 02, 2012, 02:24 PM | #

Daniel defers to Plato thus: “As I recall Plato’s definition of civilization, he viewed it as the gradual advance of persuasion over force. That works fairly well for me as a definition, though I would add the increased cooperative element of the civilization’s moral order.

Plato had no conception clearly specified of evolutionary pressure let alone evolutionary pressure applied to different kinds of aggregations such as individuals or groups of individuals. 

If we choose persuasion over force then what we are really saying is that if an individual can persuade a larger and/or more powerful group than can another individual, the former wins and the latter loses.  It is clear what this selects for:  The loss of communication as a biological capacity.  The verbal capacity becomes mere armament.  This, in fact, is most prominently represented by the high verbal intelligence of Jewry and is now further being realized at a new level of evolutionary sophistication by the motion picture industry (although this has been slowly evolving since the first alien story tellers got control of the education of children (academia)—not just the old art of theater (media)).

You raise a number of issues but lets try not to confuse things by throwing out too many things at once.

Civilization—all civilizations—are forms of group organisms that arise due to group selective pressure exposing the capacity for eusociality within the widely ranging capacities of Man.  This wide range of capacities may have even, in part, arisen as a result of group selective pressure since “theory of mind” as cognitive psychologists call it, tended to promote high degrees of complexity in empathizing with, understanding of and communication with others in the group.  It also arose in part due to the high degree of perceptual intelligence required by a primate that had spent a large amount of evolutionary history in the canopy where visual intelligence became paramount, as that primate descended to become a ground dweller whose primary strength (in addition to having “hands”) was a high degree of complexity in empathizing with, understanding of and communication with other species.  It also arose in part due to the advent of tools which can be traced back at least to our common ancestry with the genus Pan (including chimps and their subspecific relatives the bonobos). 

But once having arisen, from whatever source, the ability to extend perception with abstract reasoning becomes a new regime of perceptual capacity coupled with a new regime of action: Man.  This new regime, encompassing as it does, formal systems of infinite flexibility (practically limited in extent by the finite extent of the organism), allows explosive malleability which can take a vast array of forms including new forms of group selection that are a direct derivative of the group selective pressures that produced eusocial tendencies among our great ape relatives (war parties of young male chimps, etc.).

So we should expect that war, being as ancient as our common ancestors with chimps, is an inescapable aspect of group selection and that civilization is no exception.

One might point to the condition in which the two opponents I describe above degenerate into an individual man vs a man with a group at his command—and say this is not “war” because we have another name for that conflict which is “criminal prosecution” but we see the futility of that rhetorical maneuver the moment we find ourselves enforcing the “law” against two men who have combined their forces in some way. 

No, whenever a group forms to exert greater power than can an individual, group selection obtains and all of the evolutionary consequences, including specialization, war, accumulations of capital and power with attendant corruption, follow.

115

Posted by Matthias on August 02, 2012, 02:29 PM | #

moreover, there is the matter of how to coordinate these White values with a larger White National organization overall, such that the White nation can fund a space program and hold up to nations such as China.

Wouldn’t German victory in WWII and its subsequent land empire in Eurasia have accomplished this?

116

Posted by Silver on August 02, 2012, 03:04 PM | #

Jonesy,

For you, but for the host it is merely theft of territory.

Well, in a manner of speaking, yes.  But, lol, open your eyes feller. It’s not as if we just alighted yesterday. It’s not as if bonds—real bonds, genuine bonds, no matter what a WN hardass thinks of it—haven’t been formed. You can’t just expect people to, as they say, “turn on a dime” and discard all that. (Which is what WNs have traditionally demanded, and which looms large among the reasons they’ve gotten absolutely nowhere.  Think of it: absolutely nowhere; that’s how bad it is.)  Better to work around it, to work with the hand you’ve been dealt.  To me, this is so obvious it barely requires any further explication. But for hardasses like you, well, it’s such an an aggravating experience attempting to discuss anything with you that let’s just keep it short and say that in topsy-turvy times such as these you might think of it as “fair is foul and foul is fair.”  Fair enough? Or, alternatively, we’re all a bunch of thieves squabbling over how to divvy up the loot.  (And of course, we can always kill each other later.)

117

Posted by daniel on August 02, 2012, 03:08 PM | #

Jim, while I may agree that nature has since had a great deal to teach us, I don’t know that I am deferring to Plato. But then again, I might prefer his definition, as an intelligent human, of what constitutes civilization to that of observations about less advanced social practices among prehistoric humans, let alone animals

No, whenever a group forms to exert greater power than can an individual, group selection obtains and all of the evolutionary consequences, including specialization, war, accumulations of capital and power with attendant corruption, follow.

I wouldn’t be so optimistic about being able to realize this ideal of individualism nor am I so pessimistic that people cannot be fairly cooperative and reasonable in group interests.

If one looks around, there is probably more cooperation than fighting going on in the day to day; could be better, no doubt. Are there staunch competitors looking for the sucker born every minute, no doubt. But I see many if not most (White?) people can be satisfied.



Posted by Matthias on August 02, 2012, 11:29 AM | #

  moreover, there is the matter of how to coordinate these White values with a larger White National organization overall, such that the White nation can fund a space program and hold up to nations such as China.

Wouldn’t German victory in WWII and its subsequent land empire in Eurasia have accomplished this?

What I do know is that its history. For the sake of not getting caught up in backward looking tedium, I’ll avoid the matter that they were apparently trying to eliminate neighboring cultures, their elite representatives and hence there would have been ongoing resistance. Thus, I would say that Germany probably would have contributed heavily toward such projects had they been satisfied with the lands that they had in Europe and America and not prosecuted a hot war at all. I understand that may not have been possible from their point of view, but again, it’s history.

 

118

Posted by James Bowery on August 02, 2012, 03:21 PM | #

Daniel writes: “Jim, while I may agree that nature has since had a great deal to teach us, I don’t know that I am deferring to Plato. But then again, I might prefer his definition, as an intelligent human, of what constitutes civilization to that of observations about less advanced social practices among prehistoric humans, let alone animals

Nature created us with our hyper-perceptual capabilities.  We now co-create in accord with our projections so visualized. 

The real conflict boils down to this:

Do we turn our hyper-perceptual capabilities toward Nature so that our creations are in accord or do we pursue a deracinated vision—“free” from such encumberances?

119

Posted by Graham_Lister on August 02, 2012, 03:32 PM | #

@James Bowery

Well let’s leave the ‘left-wing’ nature of ants and termites to one side.

OK so you think that the division of labour and the attendant specialisation of skills/knowledge etc., is bad or has negative effects. However what do you propose as an alternative? I can only raise two cheers for Adam Smith and his ‘invisible hand’ (and always have one eye on the ‘invisible backhand’) but the extent of the division of labour (in all modern societies) would suggest that your ideal community (with a much more attenuated division of labour) would have to live at a much reduced level of technologically grounded comfort/existence, or have I misunderstood?

Just on that topic what do you think your ideal form of community would look like in terms of size? What would be the maximal size such a form could cope with?  Does it aim for autarky? How autonomous would it be or is it one small part of a larger set of communities?

120

Posted by Matthias on August 02, 2012, 03:51 PM | #

I’ll avoid the matter that they were apparently trying to eliminate neighboring cultures, their elite representatives and hence there would have been ongoing resistance. Thus, I would say that Germany probably would have contributed heavily toward such projects

What should they have done? Instituted affirmative action or quotas or something? Acquiring more land and resources would have helped them pursue such projects. The “neighboring cultures” would have been reduced but not “eliminated”.

121

Posted by daniel on August 02, 2012, 04:11 PM | #

What should they have done? Instituted affirmative action or quotas or something? Acquiring more land and resources would have helped them pursue such projects. The “neighboring cultures” would have been reduced but not “eliminated”.

First of all, maybe the neighboring cultures did not want to be reduced (though Himmler stated elimination), and fought, just as Germans might. Affirmative action…right…how about not aiming to eliminate their intellectual elite, to burn their books, trying to demolish ancient culture. I don’t know what they should have done - perhaps worked something out with those Germans living in The US (where they were already a majority in its “living space”) Canada, South America and elsewhere, but it does not sound like you are going to be persuaded that the policies that they pursued then were anything but perfect, so what’s the point in talking? Finally, this is not really a historical thread - it’s irrelevant.

122

Posted by daniel on August 02, 2012, 04:36 PM | #

Do we turn our hyper-perceptual capabilities toward Nature so that our creations are in accord or do we pursue a deracinated vision—“free” from such encumberances?

I invoke a false either/or.

It would certainly be best to be in sufficient accord with nature, that is true; and we certainly do not want to be deracinated; however, non-human nature follows a stricter notion of necessity. Humans, White humans, can and should make use of the more freely linking forms of necessity that are available to us where it is adjudged to our benefit.

For example, I see no absolute reason why we as humans cannot say that in our White civilization, eusociality is cruel and inhumane. We will work to correct it where it, or its instigators, seem to arise.

123

Posted by Matthias on August 02, 2012, 04:43 PM | #

It’s relevant because it was a White regime that pursued such projects and would have pursued them further subsequent to victory.

I never said it was perfect.

Any sort of modern regime pursuing such projects is going to disrupt ancient cultures.

“Elimination” is a loaded word. Various cultures would have been disrupted since it was unavoidable but much of them would have been preserved.

124

Posted by daniel on August 02, 2012, 05:15 PM | #

..
It seems that when a large White nation was spoken of to enact far reaching projects that you could not help but think of anything but Nazi Germany and its territorial designs on particular living space; and only Germans and this Germany occupying that role of a large White nation.

Of the three “White goods” to coordinate (1, freely chosen white communities 2,  ancient human ecologies of Europe 3, a large White nation), I really had in mind the coordination of the large nation as a facet that might benefit in particular from the fact that the DNA Nation is not altogether land contingent, but rather flexibly coordinated, perhaps even from different parts of the globe.

The interests of Germany and Germans was something that would be protected under the second matter to coordinate - the ancient human ecologies of Europe; these are, of course most crucial to protect. Just as obviously Germany would contribute mightily to any large and sophisticated White endeavor - as in Wernher von Braun’s contributions to The NASA space program.

But Germans would also be protected by laboratory of the state/county communities in diaspora as well.

125

Posted by daniel on August 02, 2012, 05:29 PM | #

that you could not help but think of anything but Nazi Germany

accidental double negative there…


should have read -

that you could not think of anything but Nazi Germany

126

Posted by Matthias on August 02, 2012, 05:38 PM | #

That’s because it was an example of a White regime that pursued and would have pursued such projects.

If Germans are most capable and do most of the work, why shouldn’t they disproportionately benefit?

As far as “ancient human ecologies of Europe” go, migration and conquest have a long history in Europe, with Germans playing a predominant role: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkerwanderung

127

Posted by daniel on August 02, 2012, 11:54 PM | #

Posted by Matthias on August 02, 2012, 05:38 PM | #

That’s because it was an example of a White regime that pursued and would have pursued such projects.

You might discuss it with someone who is interested.


If Germans are most capable and do most of the work, why shouldn’t they disproportionately benefit?

It’s a question which is both too abstract and irrelevant for this discussion.


As far as “ancient human ecologies of Europe” go, migration and conquest have a long history in Europe, with Germans playing a predominant role: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkerwanderung

Just as one may regret Cesar’s conquest of the Gauls, the loss of its cultures and variety of European, so too this Germanicization can have its regrettable aspects.

With good reason, reasons that Germanophiles may tend to overlook, not every European is ready to fall on their sword before them.

 

 

128

Posted by daniel on August 03, 2012, 12:51 AM | #

* Just a note to say that I am not an equalitarian. I do not object to people having different levels of reward; obviously, there comes a point where some might unjustly and unnecessarily be excluded from sufficient resource to build a fruitful, productive, actively contributing life; other instances where individual “merit” is arbitrarily distinguished and rewarded beyond reason. There are qualitative differences between peoples which can be important contributions to overall systemic health - contributions which to some may (errantly or disingenuously) not read as “work”, or valuable contribution.

equality/non equality is an “epistemological” blunder of the right; perhaps of the non-White Left too.

The White Left as I see it, rather than talking in terms of equality/non-equality, would tend rather to talk in terms of qualitative sameness or difference in logics of meaning and action - looking for whether those logics are commensurate - whether sufficiently matching to function on the same project or, if not on the very same particular project, then in overall symbiosis; if not, then they are considered incommensurate - of an entirely different quality.

129

Posted by Silver on August 03, 2012, 03:18 AM | #

daniel, you like to speak disparagingly about kikes and niggers, but I notice you’re not so tough when the shoe’s on the other foot, lol.

Look, admitting it would have been better for all concerned had the nutzis won doesn’t mean liking the nutzis or believing their every action correct or appropriate.  It just means that all things considered, at this point in time in the 21st century, with all the lunatic idiocy you see all about you, it would have been better.  By the time I ever arrived on the scene thirty-five years would have passed and by the time I even began to get a clue about anything, forty-five.  That’s plenty of time for the extraneous nutzi bullshit to have been sorted out (and there was a lot to sort out, for while they were right about a great deal of what is good and important in life, they were hardly right about it all), so while I might not have been perfectly pleased with the world I was born into, fixing that world would have been a much simpler proposition than fixing this one.

 

130

Posted by daniel on August 03, 2012, 04:19 AM | #

..
Posted by Silver on August 03, 2012, 03:18 AM | #

daniel, you like to speak disparagingly about kikes and niggers, but I notice you’re not so tough when the shoe’s on the other foot, lol.

Silver, I advocate all Whites. I am not against any native European people and that is why it is for me an unfortunate but necessarily more nuanced argument when it comes to Nutzis. I.e., because I am not against Germans but I am against the Nutzi program - especially because it is history and was not altogether successful. Why emulate its failures?


Look, admitting it would have been better for all concerned had the nutzis won doesn’t mean liking the nutzis or believing their every action correct or appropriate.


I “admit” no such thing. That is your position.


Himmler stated “All Polish specialists will be exploited in our military-industrial complex. Later, all Poles will disappear from this world. It is imperative that the great German nation considers the elimination of all Polish people as its chief task.”

How is that, for example, best for everyone?

Ask the Czechs and the Slovaks if they don’t want their countries, etc.

Ask the Belarusians, the Ukrainians and the Russians if they would not have the same position as mine - i.e., sympathizing with wanting to get the Jews out of Europe but rather preferring a different means for its realization and its perceived corollaries on the part of the Germans.

To me, your blind spot to these perspectives and more, stems from not being White. There are non-Whites, like Farrakhan, who think Hitler was a great man. And why wouldn’t he? What problem would he have with a war where tens of millions of Whites were being killed, ancient White treasures destroyed?


It just means that all things considered, at this point in time in the 21st century, with all the lunatic idiocy you see all about you, it would have been better.

It’s history. With a better considered plan the war would not have to be fought (or not in that way) and we would have our racial sovereignty. That didn’t happen. Hindsight is 20/20. I’m not looking to lay guilt trips on Germans nor do other Whites need guilt trips. Other European nations were defending themsleves. I don’t think its reasonable to expect anything else.

I really believe World War II is irrelevant to this discussion and those who want to re-fight it as an inter-European battle, the last thing Whites need.

By the time I ever arrived on the scene thirty-five years would have passed and by the time I even began to get a clue about anything, forty-five.  That’s plenty of time for the extraneous nutzi bullshit to have been sorted out

I agree that in the long run, had they won, their dominion and influence would have been beaten back; but that is the point - the neighboring countries wanted their life, their countries, their culture. The didactic over-reach of the Nazis not only indicates why other Europeans did fight back, why they would fight back in the long run, but also provides clues as to where the Nazi concept was not well conceived to begin.

In the example of Poland’s hundred year absence from the map, I’ve heard that Polish women wore black when posing for paintings as a gesture in prayer to regain their nation. If the Nazis thought a Pilsudski would have gone along with them, in truth it would have been only a provisional alliance against the Soviets. He was a Polish nationalist and he and his kind would never have agreed to have their nation subsumed. Nor should they have. Nor should they have had to.

Maybe the Natzis could not figure out another way to do things but to kill neighboring peoples and to destroy all memory of their culture, but I think there are and were other ways which would have us in far better racial condition than WWII as it was prosecuted by the Nutzi side as well.

(and there was a lot to sort out, for while they were right about a great deal of what is good and important in life, they were hardly right about it all), so while I might not have been perfectly pleased with the world I was born into, fixing that world would have been a much simpler proposition than fixing this one.

Sorting things out was not an either/or with Nutzism. But most of all, it is history. With this essay, the DNA Nation, I am talking about now and wanting the best for Germans and Germany as with all native Europeans.

..and seeing the potential means of cooperation with non-Whites, such as yourself, along side the borders of The White Nation.

131

Posted by Matthias on August 03, 2012, 05:19 AM | #

You might discuss it with someone who is interested.

You’re interested in White regimes of a certain scale pursuing certain projects, aren’t you?

It’s a question which is both too abstract and irrelevant for this discussion.

It’s not abstract and irrelevant at all. It’s very practical. As it happens, Germany is still the dominant industrial power in Europe. Any future White regime involved in significant industrial projects is likely to disproportionately involve Germans. The EU has depended on German effort and industry.

132

Posted by James Bowery on August 03, 2012, 05:53 AM | #

daniel writes: “For example, I see no absolute reason why we as humans cannot say that in our White civilization, eusociality is cruel and inhumane. We will work to correct it where it, or its instigators, seem to arise.

E. O. Wilson is what some might call a definitive authority on eusociality—the kind of person to whom the Oxford Dictionary folks might turn for the definition of the word “eusociality”.  He says, in “The Social Conquest of Earth”, page 16:

“Even by strictly technical definitions as applied to animals, Homo sapiens is what biologists call “eusocial.” meaning group members containing multiple generations and prone to perform altruistic acts as part of their division of labor.  In this respect, they are technically comparable to ants, termites, and other eusocial insects.  But let me add immediately:  there are major differences between humans and the insects even aside from our unique possession of culture, language, and high intelligence.  The most fundamental among them is that all normal members of human societies are capable of reproducing and that most compete with one another to do so.  Also, human groups are formed of highly flexible alliances, not just among family members but between families, genders, classes, and tribes.  The bonding is based on cooperation among individuals or groups who know one another and are capable of distributing ownership and status on a personal basis.”

So the issue for your notion of civilization is what kind of eusociality you consider cruel and inhumane.

133

Posted by daniel on August 03, 2012, 06:08 AM | #

Posted by Matthias on August 03, 2012, 05:19 AM | #

  You might discuss it with someone who is interested.

You’re interested in White regimes of a certain scale pursuing certain projects, aren’t you?

I’m interested in a governance that seeks to secure, maintain and foster the interests of all native Europeans. That would include managing a size and scope - therefore sufficient inter-White cooperation - to defend their existence and well being overall against large non-White nations and to foster space and other far reaching programs.

- Why shouldn’t Germans disproportionately benefit is a question which is both too abstract and irrelevant for this discussion.

The concreta of negotiating these issues is beyond the scope of this essay. You say

It’s not abstract and irrelevant at all. It’s very practical. As it happens, Germany is still the dominant industrial power in Europe. Any future White regime involved in significant industrial projects is likely to disproportionately involve Germans. The EU has depended on German effort and industry.

That it would involve Germans has never been in question. The proportion and disposition of those German representatives among leadership another matter: Many, probably most, Germans are reasonably disposed to overall ecology of native Europeans (which would always see to German well being, of course). Some are not. I have also seen that it is possible for the capacities and contributions of other European peoples to be underestimated, undervalued and under-rewarded.

For its devastation, West Germany did have the marshal plan; while Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, “Yugoslavia” etc etc, were saddled with communism.

etc.

134

Posted by daniel on August 03, 2012, 06:18 AM | #

..
So the issue for your notion of civilization is what kind of eusociality you consider cruel and inhumane.

To adumbrate, the kind that would not provide sufficient occasion, discussion, recourse to a fair partner and one or two children for any native European individual relatively normal and cooperative toward native European group interests.

135

Posted by James Bowery on August 03, 2012, 06:41 AM | #

Graham Lister asks: “suggest that your ideal community (with a much more attenuated division of labour) would have to live at a much reduced level of technologically grounded comfort/existence, or have I misunderstood?

A better statement changes your “would” to “might”.  The point being that “comfort” is a subordinate value and can therefore be sacrificed to whatever degree necessary.  Even ignoring the hedonistic failure mode, there is a question of why Nature chose to create in sexual being the necessity of death.  Being toward death, as some would inaccurately call sexual being, subordinates “comfort” of even the most rational kind.  We are all, as sexual beings, born into the world to be sacrificed—to be “crucified” if you will.  It is an essential aspect of our being.  The question for Man then becomes not for what comforts do we live but for what do we offer ourselves in sacrifice?  It is a choice rendered meaningful by our hyperception, if I may be permitted to coin a neologism with, I believe, defensible etymology.

Ultimately, the “comforts” might exceed those available to advanced technological civilization depending on how one defines “technology” and “comfort”.  In short the myth of Arcadia may not deserve the ridicule and scorn heaped upon it by the sophisticated.

GL further asks: “Just on that topic what do you think your ideal form of community would look like in terms of size?

The primary unit of polity—of human ecology—I’ve offered as definition for the laboratory of the states is the “county” which I’ve further, operationally, defined as “the domain from which jurors are selected”.  I am satisfied that the origin of the notion of “county” is sufficiently well grounded in Nature to take what we currently define as “counties” (in Switzerland it may be a “canton”) as the practical size of such a domain.  In more naturalistic terms a county is defined as a territory, not overlapping with other counties, that can be routinely traversed in a day’s ride on horseback.

This does create pathology at the border which must be dealt with in the traditional manner:  Vigilant watch to control border crossings and trade-route traversals through the county to the highways—which may be a necessity under the compromise embodied in the laboratory of the states.

GL: “What would be the maximal size such a form could cope with?

Ideally, if jury selection could be defined in more flexible terms, where a given court being convened would draw jurors from within a day’s ride of the court, the size of territory dedicated to a naturalistic polity could be unlimited by allowing there to exist agreements between individuals that would bind them to service under conditions of war as defined by what I’ve called a “declaration of war” which is essentially a declaration, understandable to all who enter into it, of the conditions under which the group organism, so formed, is no longer necessary and its parts become individuals again.

That is essentially the mode of organization of the Germanics that succeeded in holding off the Roman Empire.

GL: “Does it aim for autarky?

Since it aims for individual sovereignty it, by implication, aims for autarky.

GL: “How autonomous would it be or is it one small part of a larger set of communities?

Except for ecological impacts on other counties, peacetime conditions of individual sovereignty would, again, imply autonomy of the county.  Other counties could have radically different cultures of course.  When I talk about “serpent” cultures being allowed within the laboratory of the states, I’m simply saying that some, perhaps even the vast majority of the, counties would cultivate Man-like beings that cannot survive apart from the group organism—they are biological parts of group organisms called by the ancients “serpents”.

136

Posted by Silver on August 03, 2012, 10:30 AM | #

Himmler stated “All Polish specialists will be exploited in our military-industrial complex. Later, all Poles will disappear from this world. It is imperative that the great German nation considers the elimination of all Polish people as its chief task.”

How is that, for example, best for everyone?

That’s just one sick idiot’s opinion. There’s no guarantee it would have played out that way. 

To me, your blind spot to these perspectives and more, stems from not being White. There are non-Whites, like Farrakhan, who think Hitler was a great man. And why wouldn’t he? What problem would he have with a war where tens of millions of Whites were being killed, ancient White treasures destroyed?

Lol, I guess I touched a real sore spot.  It’s incredible how dumb otherwise ostensibly intelligent people can become once their buttons are pushed.  That’s why daniel hits back with what he figures are the “big guns,” calling me non-white and suggesting I just don’t understand (“blind spot”)—as if Greece and Yugoslavia weren’t likewise overrun or don’t form part of Europe (whether you want to call them “white” is another issue, that region being very much a racial fault line). 

I don’t know where in the world you get this idea that I think positively of Hitler or his party. I hate the motherfuckers.  I’ve always hated them and I probably always will, and not just a little bit, but a lot.  Nevertheless, having thought about it, I have to admit that in the long term it may very have all been for the better had they won, despite the human, territorial and cultural cost. (That’s not to say I want to invite them to try again, which is what I think you fear, and what the neos who hang out blogs like this positively itch for.)

 

 

137

Posted by daniel on August 03, 2012, 11:01 AM | #

When I speak of White, I am using the shorthand American political designation for people of native European extraction.

By that designation, native Greek and Yogoslavian (anachronism polity, no?) are considered to be native European.

Because there can be confusion and conflict with northern Europeans over the term White, I would prefer to use the term “European,” having it understood that I mean native European. And in the long run, I will do so (While always careful to note that I do not wish to see their kind of European blended away or otherwise go extinct).

Providing all other evidence corroborates “native European”, olive skin and dark hair do not cast one out of Europe anymore than light skin, blonde hair and blue eyes make a Jew into a European.

Some claim that our people can be confused for a political entity as opposed to an evolutionary taxonomy, but I think that is disingenuous or playing into the hands of the disingenuous.


 

138

Posted by Silver on August 03, 2012, 12:23 PM | #

I don’t think that that does anything but shift the debate over to the proper definition of “European” or terms like “native.”  At the end of the day, no matter how you cut it, if you’re going to insist that a racial polity consist of one sole race or racial type, the boundaries of that race or racial type are always going to be up for debate.  This may not matter very much if a racial government is in power, since those who disagree with official policy would be largely powerless to do anything about it, but it’s a formidable stumbling block when attempting to take power, not simply because you have the powers-that-be and cultural inertia (“that’s racist!”) working against you, but also because of the oftentimes overwhelming emotional baggage racial issues carry—even when people understand the need for change.

Now, if you want to play the whiteness game (for whatever reason), go right ahead.  Imo, you’ll be forever dealing with the above, and dealing with it with people who are not well known for being open-minded about it (there are really only two types of WNs, from what I can tell: nordicists and those who deny it, no matter what their own background), but that’s your call.  I sure do resent this unaccountable arrogance of yours, though, that seems to believe it can dismiss my opinions—no matter how grounded in reality they may be—by mere virtue of their being mine.  Maybe that goes down well on stormfront but I doubt people with the ability to think for themselves are going to be swayed that easily.

139

Posted by daniel on August 03, 2012, 12:43 PM | #

I don’t think that that does anything but shift the debate over to the proper definition of “European” or terms like “native.”  At the end of the day, no matter how you cut it, if you’re going to insist that a racial polity consist of one sole race or racial type, the boundaries of that race or racial type are always going to be up for debate

I did not say the borders of native European were not debatable. I have always said that they are. But there are, in fact, advantages to Europeans not being conceived of as a closed system - not the least of which is dealing with the reality that they are not.



Now, if you want to play the whiteness game (for whatever reason), go right ahead.  Imo, you’ll be forever dealing with the above, and dealing with it with people who are not well known for being open-minded about it (there are really only two types of WNs, from what I can tell: nordicists and those who deny it, no matter what their own background), but that’s your call.

Not true, Silver. While there are Nordicists who do not even recognize the Europeanness of those below the 40th parallel, a survey of the struggle will reveal that most people can accept the native European criteria. More, the wishes and concerns of particular European peoples are provided for in the framework of the DNA Nation.


I sure do resent this unaccountable arrogance of yours, though, that seems to believe it can dismiss my opinions—no matter how grounded in reality they may be—by mere virtue of their being mine.

I don’t dismiss your opinions. I misunderstood you as speaking on behalf of non-native-Europeans.

Though I have looked at Stormfront a few times, I haven’t been there in years.

Still, I’m not on board with the Hitler thing. And many WN’s who can think for themselves are not. That is not to be construed to mean that I want to see any native Europeans lose their lands and people to non-Europeans.

 

 

 

 

 

140

Posted by Matthias on August 03, 2012, 04:06 PM | #

daniel,

You have a very simplistic, one-sided view of the affair, similar to the mainstream one.

Those eastern European populations were turned into slave armies for the Bolsheviks that threatened Germany and western Europe.

141

Posted by Matthias on August 03, 2012, 04:11 PM | #

I’m interested in a governance that seeks to secure, maintain and foster the interests of all native Europeans.

Would it be purely negative i.e. no European nation can violate the borders of any European nation or do anything to reduce the territory or population of any European nation? Or would it be positive as well i.e. the spoils must be shared at such a rate, etc.?

That would include managing a size and scope - therefore sufficient inter-White cooperation - to defend their existence and well being overall against large non-White nations and to foster space and other far reaching programs.

This is a matter of cooperation between Europe and White areas outside of Europe. Since for Germany (or any other nation that would be the dominant power in Europe), all of Europe would be its sphere of influence and it would have an interest in defending its sphere of influence which extends beyond its own territorial boundaries to cover all of Europe.

142

Posted by daniel on August 04, 2012, 01:07 AM | #

Posted by Matthias on August 03, 2012, 04:06 PM | #

daniel,

You have a very simplistic, one-sided view of the affair, similar to the mainstream one.

Mathias, I am not interested in going into World War II. But you don’t come across as anyone who should accuse others of being one sided and simplistic - simplistic in the sense that predictably, you will always talk about WWII and only see Nazi Germany as correct, good, victims, etc.

Those eastern European populations were turned into slave armies for the Bolsheviks that threatened Germany and western Europe.


As I said, that is a simplification on behalf of the Nazi POV.

But of more utility now is the fact that these eastern nations were interested in maintaining their national sovereignty and there was a high level of anti-Jewish sentiment. How it may be relevant now is that we might build upon these peoples’ wishes for their national sovereignty. In fact we build upon the wishes of any who would seek sovereignty for their people.

143

Posted by Captainchaos on August 04, 2012, 01:41 AM | #

The point being that “comfort” is a subordinate value and can therefore be sacrificed to whatever degree necessary.

...

It is a choice rendered meaningful by our hyperception, if I may be permitted to coin a neologism with, I believe, defensible etymology.

If your philosophy possessed sufficient motive power to move men to subordinate themselves to it you would not need to play at semantics and word coinage for its expression in common language would do just fine.  To procede in that vein can only accomplish to cement the understanding in the minds of those you wish to convince that you are motivated, at least unconsciously, not by laying out those brutal yet needed things for Northern European racial salvation but instead what you need to believe in order for your own zerrissenheit to be healed.

To wish to live out one’s full life and see the seeds planted in one’s prime productive years come to full flower cannot -

will not

- be casually dismissed as so much unmanly decadence by your use of belittling quotation marks.

You have been made subject to humilation by men naturally inferior to yourself in the course of your life.  Haven’t we all, at one time or another; and so what?  We move on in the understanding that we have been made stronger and better men for having gracefully endured the lamentable products of human weakness.  It is only this example that in the end ennobles, not the childish indulgence of revenge fantasy mascarading as profound thought.  But perhaps that is what you really aspire to, not to ennoble but merely to kill.  What sane man could subordinate himself to that?  No man at all, I say.

144

Posted by Captainchaos on August 04, 2012, 02:57 AM | #

The primary unit of polity—of human ecology—I’ve offered as definition for the laboratory of the states is the “county” which I’ve further, operationally, defined as “the domain from which jurors are selected”.

The social unit most in accordance with Nature to coalensce around the sovereign individual would be a group of around 150 people as is consistent with Dunbar’s Number.  This, along with the territory the group would occupy, is presumably what Bowery must mean, if he has his thinking cap on, by “county”.  It is hard not to imagine something resembling “socialism” being practiced amongst them.  The sovereign individual, this hero, this Fuhrer, would effectively function as absolute dictator to those under his protection; with disobedience being punished by him throwing them to the wolves, er, other sovereign individuals.  What was it I said?  Ah yes, sovereign individualism as enforced by single deadly combat is Nazism for (eccentric) individualists.  Every man capable of winning a knife fight gets to be his own tin-pot Fuhrer.  LOL

145

Posted by daniel on August 04, 2012, 06:42 AM | #

I’m rushing this answer a bit, but here goes:

Posted by Matthias on August 03, 2012, 04:11 PM | #

  I’m interested in a governance that seeks to secure, maintain and foster the interests of all native Europeans.

Would it be purely negative i.e. no European nation can violate the borders of any European nation or do anything to reduce the territory or population of any European nation?

This essay - Euro-DNA Nation - is not concerned centrally about land masses to begin, but rather organizing native Europeans on the basis of DNA. After that, it would be more relevant to talk about the particular land masses that can be aimed for through negotiation, to be taken or retaken, whether traditional territories or new.

Or would it be positive as well i.e. the spoils must be shared at such a rate, etc.?

I don’t know what must be shared. Must is a strong word, which I would tend to use primarily with regard to border defense against non-European peoples. A question that I had asked before was regarding the optimal level of mutual obligation that component parts of the great White Nation would have, especially with regard to that function of overall border defense. I imagine obligations and requirements fulfilled would bear upon reward as well.

I am always concerned to be fair. Though there are some nuances regarding justice in negotiation (sometimes people can be operating on valid but different premises of justice), I believe weasel tactics can be avoided amongst White people.

The short answer is, I don’t know exactly how it would be worked out yet. But it is a worthy consideration, a conversation that is more relevant. Again, I think these matters can be sorted out to a fair extent.

  That (the large Euro-DNA Nation) would include managing a size and scope - therefore sufficient inter-White cooperation - to defend their existence and well being overall against large non-White nations and to foster space and other far reaching programs.

This is a matter of cooperation between Europe and White areas outside of Europe. Since for Germany (or any other nation that would be the dominant power in Europe), all of Europe would be its sphere of influence and it would have an interest in defending its sphere of influence which extends beyond its own territorial boundaries to cover all of Europe.

We all have (or should have) an interest in defending native European peoples, obviously including Germans, in Europe and elsewhere

146

Posted by daniel on August 04, 2012, 10:42 PM | #

The concept of “borders” emerges differently -

Note: at this point in time and development of The Euro-DNA Nation, “the borders” would be primarily and literally be around peoples voluntarily expressing a wish to be in the Euro-DNA nation.

147

Posted by daniel on August 05, 2012, 12:38 AM | #

It is a key matter for all Native European peoples and nations that Jews (and liberal cohorts) have made discrimination against non-European peoples illegal; thereby putting into runaway the female tendency to incite genetic competition.

148

Posted by James Bowery on August 05, 2012, 01:32 AM | #

Dunbar’s Number is eusocial.  Moreover, it is not practical to limit jury selection to such a small number/territory.  Simple transportation by something as inescapably desirable as horseback dictates the territorial range of disputes should be on that order.  This is also a reasonable area from which females can be drawn to avoid inbreeding or outbreeding depression.  Yes, it does mean that population densities will be lower than in some areas such as New York City and othe rmetro areas.

PS:  CC’s belittling (not to mention mischaracterization) of northern Europeans reminds me of the characterization I’ve heard from Jews of northern Europeans of the pre-Christian era:  adolescents.  At least they didn’t say “Childish”.  It also reminds me of the attitude so many have toward masculinity, honor, valor and the kind of passionate love experienced by the “naive” young.  However, all of these things are the very stuff of life that is gutted by the “maturity” represented by civilization.

149

Posted by daniel on August 05, 2012, 02:19 AM | #

I would say the “maturity” represented by modernity (modernity’s universalizing).

150

Posted by auroch on August 05, 2012, 02:50 PM | #

Would the Pilgrims have successfully settled New England without civilization hence eusociality?

Wasn’t it civilization - agriculture, greater population density, the diseases of civilization, etc. - that allowed the Pilgrims to push and wipe out the Indians?

It wasn’t a matter of individual Pilgrims engaging in natural duel with individual Indians.

Would the Pilgrims have been able to settle New England if they had to engage in individual natural duel with the Indians? The Pilgrims were preachers, merchants, traders, etc. while the Indians were hunter-gatherers used to running around the forests.

151

Posted by cladrastis on August 05, 2012, 08:49 PM | #

CC’s belittling (not to mention mischaracterization) of northern Europeans reminds me of the characterization I’ve heard from Jews of northern Europeans of the pre-Christian era:  adolescents.

Yes, this stands in contradistinction to Nietzsche’s assessment of the “blonde beast” as the precursor to the sickly, pathetic, Judaized N. European following the Christian conquest of his psyche.  Then again, why wouldn’t Jews prefer a caged animal? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62DzFV_xLjQ

152

Posted by James Bowery on August 06, 2012, 07:11 AM | #

auroch, even if the settlement of the New World was by a people not so divorced from their environment of evolutionary adaptedness that they had little clue who they were, there is nothing in the historic record of JudeoChristian civilization’s conquest of the indians that reflects anything like the formalized natural duel described by the Romans in their history of their attempts to conquer the Germanics.  As I keep saying (what… 10 times now?) individualism is maladaptive in a eusocial environment since the ESSENCE of the eusocial environment is group selection—which is to say a Hobbesian “war of all against all”.  You don’t win a war by being individualistic.  You win a war by being a more powerful group.  There is nothing “fair” about war.

The only place for human individualism is in an environment segregated from eusocial competition, designed for individual selection and to suppress group selection baggage from the great apes.  That segregated environment was uniquely created and maintained by northern Europeans prior to JudeoChristianization and was lost when the two-sided coin of JudeoChristianity, wielded by kindly priests most adept at flipping it side for side at the demands of the moment, so confused the ideals and instincts of the northern Europeans that they were conquered by words where swords and armies had failed.

The butcher of Tarsus had a stroke of absolutely diabolical genius on the Road to Damascus that transitioned Rome’s strategy against the northern Europeans from the sword to the word.  Oh, and the absolute chutzpah of going from the butcher to leader of the same people through “religious conversion” of the leader was what made it necessary for a Jew to conceive and execute this strategy.  There may be no people more morally nimble and therefore more uniquely qualified to execute that transition in strategy.  There was some serious fall-out from that shift of responsibility for strategy from Rome to the Levant.  Its still going on to some extent but we now see the transition of authority almost entirely complete, especially since Vatican II.

153

Posted by daniel on August 07, 2012, 03:07 AM | #

“Considering the problem in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.”

should add, it also provides a highly practical means of coordinating a sizable population, and like white nationalists disbursed throughout the world

154

Posted by daniel on August 19, 2012, 09:57 AM | #

.
.
...
Harold Covington says:

“Another variation on the idea that we will somehow be allowed to build Beaver Cleaver-ville in little towns and counties and never be compelled to confront the United States and its armed men, but this one is pretty well-written. - HAC”

Other comments on his blog:

Anonymous John Norman Howard said…

  How did that “freedom of association” thing work out for Alabama back in the late fifties?

This is to misunderstand freedom of association as it is being advanced here - taking it as being particularly land based from the outset, which is almost the opposite of the idea to begin - the idea to begin here is an association of DNA interests.


Anonymous John Norman Howard said…

  “Discretion is advised”... “Implicit rather than explicit”... all the same ol’, same ol’ mealy-mouthed crap that puts Whites in a defensive, apologetic mode… seeking moral approval from those who wish White males gone from the face of the earth.

No. It means that a man has to use of his judgment with regard to how much of a risk he is willing to take - and how much his personal situation will allow. For example, Germany has different constraints from Idaho. I would imagine that for most, joining a DNA petition would not be much of a risk. For others it might - but that is the point, it is a free choice. It is quite proactive. This person obviously did not read this essay with an eye toward seeing it favorably.

  1:36 PM
Anonymous Dave said…

  Yet one more piece of advice on how to put back together a pot that has shattered into a thousand pieces.

  Better to sweep it up, throw it in the trash, fire up the potter’s wheel, and start over.

Nor is it an effort to put anything back together, it is a new start…

There is no motive to go back to “Beaver Cleaver Ville” with this plan. It does not dispute those who wish to take a stand in the “North West Front.” People who take the angle that the Feds or the Jews won’t let us do this, and that we ought have no part in facilitating the dismantling of oppressive state apparatus, have made their mind up what the essay is about before getting through the first two paragraphs. That is, they do not understand the point - which is preparatory coordination of White interests.

..

155

Posted by daniel on August 21, 2012, 06:03 AM | #

Perhaps I should not see it that way, but for the nature of resistance encountered, I wonder if the below statement is a contradiction and rather a projection?  The words of a thirty something motivated to be the eminent progenitor of solutions? toward that end, willing to move others and solutions already extant aside? interjecting straw men and willful misunderstanding because he wanted to be the purveyor?


“And even if a tsunami of White Advocates did topple this regime, what would they do afterwards? Instantiate Linder’s cowboy libertarianism inside with a militant force of ruthless militants standing vigil on the perimeters? Add a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to Freedom From Association and carry on with business as usual? The Fourth Reich? Confederate States of America 2.0? LDS theodemocracy (don’t laugh, it’s more likely than the others I listed…)?

I’m working on answers to those questions, which involves reading, pondering, and occasionally throwing an idea or proposition out here or there for feedback and perspective.

What’s been really startling to me, more than the (entirely expected) resistance to the very taboo ideas I presented…was how many people who were capable of verbalizing the stuff about our impending oblivion/genocide would then blink and…do nothing.

Most people are rather risk-averse, unintelligent, and lacking in curiosity. I get that, and I never got frustrated about that. Most people don’t think. That’s just how it is. What’s crawled under my skin and frustrated me is the inaction and indifference of those who allegedly got it. Of course most people are going to dismiss you when you claim that the sky is falling, but what about those who fully agree with you that the sky is falling and can repeat the assertion as clearly as you…and yet are not motivated to act or seek a solution?

That’s what baffles me. It seems to be the result of some deeper spiritual or psychological problem and getting to the bottom of that mystery, rather than engaging in street activism, will be the focus of my work for the meantime.”


Nevertheless, along with Euro-DNA Nation that was misunderstood and rejected with straw men, I might also offer this:


Mono-cultural society = all people are seen as pretty much the same - therefore, those not fitting in the world view are less than human - worthy of the communal stew pot. ..or in the present situation, as we move toward globalization, ‘one world’, “racists” might be thought of as less than human

Traditional society = ethnocentrism, in and out groups. The king and god looks-after one’s own people. There are other groups and they have different ways.

Modernity = a quest for universal foundations; seeing all people as pretty much the same, change is a necessary hazard on the way to its progress -

Tended to be oblivious to good coordination with other people because of its narcissistic propensity to see all peoples as being essentially the same.

held inherent contradictions - “be different so you can fit in”

and a pernicious cycle - work to change - celebrate change - this is no longer new - work to change -  grinding away at traditional forms in perpetuity.

Post Modernity = recognition that change does not necessarily lead to progress, good things or unshakable foundations; one of those negative effects is profound disorder, hyper relativism and the lack of accountability that goes along with that (incl. destruction of Whites); therefore post modernity tries for an optimal balance between reconstructing tradition (and one’s people) where beneficial and also gauging and making changes where positive. It has the ability to reconstruct traditional practices without “the pangs of self loathing” for the appearance of conformity, since where it participates in traditional practices it does so knowingly. It can also disengage from traditional practices to make modernist changes where advantageous.

Now, Jews wouldn’t do anything so dishonest as to try to misrepresent these ideas so that Whites could not understand them properly and use them effectively, would they? They would never promote liberal modernity to the detriment of Whites instead, would they?

Of course they would: Jewish and Jewish approved academics have been promoting a hyperbolic form of Modernity (at least as it concerns Whites) as if it were “Post Modernity”.

I don’t know what is so hard to understand or why the value of this to Whites is hard to perceive.

156

Posted by daniel on August 22, 2012, 08:35 AM | #

Science has been an integral part of a first liberation - from mere religion, superstition, tradition, custom and habit. But unlike matters of logic and technology (theoria, and techne), the complex biological necessity of agentive human involvement (praxis) and concerns entails the necessity of practical, agentive judgments (phronesis) in response. Along with this added complexity of agentive social interaction, it is also the case that the factual lines of theory and reasoning can quickly and hazardously become divorced from context and relevance. Given the concerns of the social realm and the tendency of logic to outstrip context, a second liberation becomes necessary, a liberation from mere facticity – which takes form in the hermeneutic turn.

Obviously science is good and important; of course it can demarcate racial bounds that normal people need not dispute. However, as it is the case that all humans can breed with one another, there is a modicum of arbitrariness to those bounds - which I have taken to calling classifications - that require, therefore, argumentation. Since these classifications are not merely closed, self-corrective systems, we seek ways to argue on behalf of Whites (native Europeans).

As good and important as science is, I am sure you will agree that there can be such a thing as bad science or scientific application. That can be called “scientism.” For example, where a scientist may say, “oh, racial distinctions are not important, they are just a matter of skin tone and a few other relatively minor genetic markers”. Another example of bad science would be a scientist advocating race mixing because he thinks it would necessarily improve offspring - onward and upward in the impervious change of modernizing “progress,” any “traditional” human forms (e.g. European) wrecked along the way be damned.

Hermeneutics provides the second liberation, from mere facticity through a narrative release from necessarily close, lineal readings of the facts, and into the capacity for protracted (“narrative”) conceptual organization of the facts (e.g., of race; its history and breadth). It thereby allows for contextual orientation on proper application and relevance of facts to the patterned expanse of the group (interests) in historical and systemic process. Hermeneutic process also provides for, and recommends a return to close readings of the facts where necessary – e.g., scientific verification.

Unlike modernity, which had a basic orientation toward lineal progress, Post Modernity, properly understood, would manage a back and forth process: between reconstructing traditional practices and genetic legacy of the group on the one hand, and allowing for modernizing progress on the other; moderating the introduction of technological, scientific and other changes where evaluated to be of true advance in group interests.

Therefore, (White) post modernity it is not anti-science. It is anti bad science or anti bad scientific application. Nor is it ant-genetic reconstruction or anti-tradition - particularly as it concerns us, post modernity would not be against traditions where they foster genetic interests. On the contrary, the key move of post modernity was a rejection of Modernity where and when its universalisms were culpable of riding roughshod over ethnocentric traditions and human differences.

..


Context of true White Post Modernity (Post Modernity in accordance with White interests) and its misrepresentation:

Mono-cultural society = all people are seen as pretty much the same - therefore, those not fitting in the world view are less than human - worthy of the communal stew pot. In the present situation, as we move toward globalization, i.e. ‘one world’, “racists” might be thought of as less than human.

Traditional society = ethnocentrism, in and out groups. The king and god looks-after one’s own people. There are other groups, they have different ways and are treated differently than insiders.

Modernity = a quest for universal foundations; values objectivity and is prejudice against prejudice - tending to see all people as pretty much the same; change is a necessary hazard on the way to its progress -

tended to be oblivious to good coordination with other people because of its narcissistic propensity to see all peoples as being essentially the same.

held inherent contradictions - “be different so you can fit in” (as it valued change and non conformity to tradition).

and a pernicious cycle - work to change - celebrate change - this is no longer new - work to change - grinding away at traditional forms in perpetuity.

Post Modernity = recognition that change does not necessarily lead to progress, good things or unshakable foundations; one of those negative effects is profound disorder, hyper relativism and the lack of accountability that goes along with that (incl. destruction of Whites); therefore post modernity tries for an optimal balance between reconstructing tradition (and one’s people) where beneficial and also gauging and making changes where positive. It has the ability to reconstruct traditional practices without “the pangs of self loathing” for the appearance of conformity, since where it participates in traditional practices it does so knowingly. It can also disengage from traditional practices to make modernist changes where advantageous.

Now, Jews wouldn’t do anything so dishonest as to try to misrepresent these ideas so that Whites could not understand them properly and use them effectively, would they? They would never promote radical individualism and liberal modernity to the detriment of Whites group interests instead, would they?

Of course they would: Jewish and Jewish approved academics have been promoting a hyperbolic form of Modernity (at least as it concerns Whites) as if it were “Post Modernity”.

I don’t know what is so hard to understand or why the value of this to Whites is hard to perceive.

157

Posted by James Bowery on August 22, 2012, 12:22 PM | #

Speaking of praxis:

What is the petition we are to consider signing?

158

Posted by daniel on August 22, 2012, 01:18 PM | #

.
Posted by James Bowery on August 22, 2012, 12:22 PM | #

Speaking of praxis:

What is the petition we are to consider signing?

It’d be great if you’d consider helping to devise that petition - providing that you have leisure and would take pleasure in devising it. Among the basics, I guess, would be cooperation with a genetic testing lab. But its taxonomies and anticipation of various problems in implementation might be sketched right away…You’d be a terrific contributor to its framing.

159

Posted by James Bowery on August 23, 2012, 11:07 AM | #

I consent to live in a federated body politic, and on a corresponding territory, shared exclusively with other Europeans.  By “Europeans” I mean people predominantly of indigenous European ancestry.  I do not consent to present conditions.  Moreover, I recognize the value of the individual.  Therefore, I consent only to a body politic that materially recognizes, as taking priority over all other rights, the right of any adult individual to migrate and join with mutually-consenting others to form exclusive communities.  By “materially” I mean land adequate for community self-sufficiency must be provided as part of this primary right.  In the event that irreconcilable conflicts arise over land-use, preference should be given to those consenting to more indigenous ways of life.

Implied by “consent” is that each body politic, including the federation and each subordinate body politic, must have only one body of law—always completely contained in one document. I reject any argument that things have become too complicated for one body politic to have only one body of law contained in one document. There can be no government by law, and consequently no law-abiding citizens, unless the law is clearly stated. To satisfy the condition of clarity there must be a completely self-contained document which can be fully reproduced, widely distributed, held in the hands, and be understood by any individual over whom it claims jurisdiction. One document - and one document only - must be recognized as the supreme law of any body politic that claims legal (de jure) status.

160

Posted by daniel on August 23, 2012, 12:48 PM | #

This is just a draft, but what comes to mind

In farther clarification,

We the people interested in being a part of a nation of confederated European peoples, understand the signatories wish to be of a political unity of persons of native European extraction, separate from non-European natives; and further recognize the prerogative for its consenting peoples to maintain discreet, smaller political divisions (states; counties) conforming to their genetic interests.

While the fundamental requirement for inclusion will be evidence of predominant native European DNA (predominant to be defined), categories will be freely chosen provided DNA matches the requested group category. The DNA Nation recognizes that some land masses, particularly ancient European and Russia, are not negotiable as a choice beyond a certain agreed upon percentage from their ancient inhabitants.

While DNA is fundamental, many may have different priorities and ways of life besides. Some may value a particular ancient homeland and people above all. Others may value a particular religion, economic system or life-style.

There will be categories a bit more mixed European, some more pure - and while those more pure categories may correspond with ancient European homelands, pure communities may form elsewhere as well; mixed ones might also form elsewhere; or perhaps among particular areas of the ancient nations, granted overall consent.

Coordination may also be sought with states of non-native Europeans who also wish to maintain their genetic form.

While the Euro-DNA Nation is genetic based to begin and to some extent always, we nevertheless see relation to lands (especially lands of our ancient evolution) as naturally fundamental; and the lack of sovereign habitat as problematic in many regards; therefore, we will address matters of land acquisition in days to come.

Signatories are under no legal obligation nor expressing anything other than a wish that there be such an entity as a European DNA based nation, with a confederation of indigenous European subcategories from which they may choose, should they match.

161

Posted by James Bowery on August 23, 2012, 01:05 PM | #

A common form for such public declarations is clarifying language written in the form of an ontology.  For example, I adhered to that strategy in reifying “Europeans”, “materially”, and “consent”.  In routine legislative language, there is almost always a “Definitions” section separate from the overall language that serves this purpose, but we need to find a happy medium between common language and legalese.  Toward that end I would probably rework some of your further clarifications a similar form of ontology.

We have to be very careful about length as well as adequacy.

Words have frequencies of usage, eg “Dog” is more frequently used than “canine”. So what if you scored two passages, saying the same thing, by adding up the frequency-ranking of their words? Fewer words and more plain words, lower score. Of course, “saying the same thing” would be problematic but its an interesting way to measure how plain the language is of, say, a contract or scientific paper.

It would be necessary to take the sum the logs (or some similar function) of the frequency rankings rather than the rankings themselves so that what is represented is closer to the actual information theoretic complexity of (ie:  how many “bits” of data are contained in) the document.

162

Posted by daniel on August 24, 2012, 07:05 AM | #

...

Striking a balance between ordinary, understandable language and language which commands sufficient rigor and respect to represent a compelling document is a worthwhile objective - a non-Jewish aim.

Providing definitions of some pivotal words would seem to be a next step indeed - with a caveat: that serious conflict may stem from overly ambiguous or overly tight definitions. Of course, serious conflict may happen even with reasonable definitions.

Having said that, of course I believe it is possible to come up with sufficient definitions.

Native European = predominantly evolved in the context of Europe over x thousands of years.

Predominantly = having a genetic quality and quantity distinguishing it as native European.

Freedom from association = ability to expel those who violate state or national consent.

Terms of expulsion = violation of established rules - Presumably, some terms of expulsion would apply to the whole nation and others only to particular states.


Some concerns that I have with regard to the balance of too much ambiguity and too narrow a circumscription:

That some native Europeans may have qualities that require protection from other kinds of Europeans even, if they are to maintain their kind; i.e., might makes right probably should not be allowed to run roughshod over all qualitative distinctions, in an expansive sense against other Europeans. where there is no threat of loss of numbers or habitat to the “mighty”.

That if gray areas on the inside of the White class are recognized - for example, states allowing for some people with 1/16 Asian admixture - would they provide a potential conduit for still more influx of non-Europeans as they would have more empathy for mixed people?

It could be a good idea to coordinate with some groups who are not European, but probably wanting to maintain their distinctions say, from Blacks and Jews: for example Iranians and Caucasian peoples.

We run the risk of unnecessarily pushing semi-White people into alliances against us.

Perhaps a key matter of coordination with non-pure groups is agreeing on percentages of acceptable admixture.

I imagine the same principle would hold true of inter-European negotiation - that if the line is drawn too narrowly and some “compartments of the ship” are not allowed for, it might push them into unnecessary antagonism and even non or semi-White alliance; or, it may break them off whereas they might have been a helpful buffering group; perhaps leaving the entire group more susceptible.

I imagine this forced alliance with non-Whites would be even more a concern even where the line is reasonably drawn: say, people who are 1/4 Black being excluded. They would contain a large measure of White ability, but would be forced into alliance with whomever might ally with them in indifference or antagonism to White interests.

Worse, I think, is the possibility of these mixed groups, ostracized though largely White, would provide a pleasant enough haven for White traitors. Hence, their violation of White interests and banishment would not be a sufficient punishment for betrayal; but the mixed group may even be strengthened against us if we do not handle the situation well. I’m not exactly sure how to resolve that. Maybe it is not a big problem.

In principle, freedom from associate and the right to banish anyone who breeds outside the race and otherwise works against its separatism, would seem to be a minimum punishment. It also seems to be clearly our prerogative - we ought not be forced to endure the consequences of those who act with indifference or antagonism to the 41,000 years of European peoples, the struggles and triumphs that have gone into our making.

163

Posted by Silver on August 24, 2012, 08:29 AM | #

It could be a good idea to coordinate with some groups who are not European, but probably wanting to maintain their distinctions say, from Blacks and Jews: for example Iranians and Caucasian peoples.

HEY FAGGOT

Nobody is interested in maintaining racial distinction from Jews. 

Sorry to put it so forcefully but it’s clear your loathing is clouding your judgement. 

See ya when get back down to earth.

 

164

Posted by daniel on August 24, 2012, 10:33 AM | #

Hey Silver,

Nobody is interested in maintaining racial distinction from Jews?

No problem, they will do us the favor as they are interested in maintaining racial distinctions from us - those with real concerns, here on earth.

I had given you the benefit of the doubt, Silver… maybe you are a quadroon or something. LOL

165

Posted by daniel on August 24, 2012, 10:35 AM | #

...Octaroon, perhaps..

What category would you select as an Octaroon?

166

Posted by daniel on August 24, 2012, 10:49 AM | #

If you are not one of those really bad octaroons, the kind with the big lips and all, you might be well placed in the Turkish half of Cyprus..its not too far from Israel, etc.

167

Posted by daniel on August 25, 2012, 02:50 AM | #

‘Practical Politics Seminar’

“There is this phenomenon of White grandparents taking care of mulatto* grandchildren and we don’t want to offend the grandparents”

“These mulattoes are a tragedy to themsleves (not to us); most of them will elect to not have children.”

Right.


* In fact, we should not use the word “mulatto” because it might not be the proper term - might offend somebody.

168

Posted by daniel on August 25, 2012, 03:03 AM | #

...and “these White grandparents are raising these mulatto children in White communities.. because they know how bad it is to live in Black communities.”

“So we don’t want to offend these White grandparents, because they know the score.”

169

Posted by daniel on August 25, 2012, 03:33 AM | #

Once racial classifications are undone (by the right and liberals) normal men cease to become normal and optimal men, but rather become “mediocre and inferior.”

This is the bullshit to which Right, new or otherwise, is all too susceptible:

Mulatto Supremacism

170

Posted by daniel on August 25, 2012, 04:27 AM | #

Once racial classifications are undone (by the right and liberals) normal men cease to become normal and optimal men, but rather become “mediocre and inferior.”

This is the bullshit to which the Right, new or otherwise, is all too susceptible:

Mulatto Supremacism -

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/epistemology-and-the-new-right/

 

 

 

171

Posted by daniel on August 25, 2012, 11:21 AM | #

European DNA Nation: a Declaration of Independence from non-European peoples, basing the nation on European genetics and in quest of sovereign homelands.
.........

I consent to live in a federated body politic, and on a corresponding territory, shared exclusively with other Europeans.  By “Europeans” I mean people predominantly of indigenous European ancestry.  I do not consent to present conditions.  Moreover, I recognize the value of the individual.  Therefore, I consent only to a body politic that materially recognizes, as taking priority over all other rights, the right of any adult individual to migrate and join with mutually-consenting others to form exclusive communities.  By “materially” I mean land adequate for community self-sufficiency must be provided as part of this primary right.  In the event that irreconcilable conflicts arise over land-use, preference should be given to those consenting to more indigenous ways of life.

Implied by “consent” is that each body politic, including the federation and each subordinate body politic, must have only one body of law—always completely contained in one document. I reject any argument that things have become too complicated for one body politic to have only one body of law contained in one document. There can be no government by law, and consequently no law-abiding citizens, unless the law is clearly stated. To satisfy the condition of clarity there must be a completely self-contained document which can be fully reproduced, widely distributed, held in the hands, and be understood by any individual over whom it claims jurisdiction. One document - and one document only - must be recognized as the supreme law of any body politic that claims legal (de jure) status.


...

In farther clarification,

We the people interested in being a part of a nation of confederated European peoples, understand the signatories wish to be of a political unity of persons of native European extraction, separate from non-European natives; and further recognize the prerogative for its consenting peoples to maintain discreet, smaller political divisions (states; counties) conforming to their genetic interests.

While the fundamental requirement for inclusion will be evidence of predominant native European DNA (predominant to be defined), categories will be freely chosen provided DNA matches the requested group category. And while DNA is fundamental, many may have different priorities and ways of life besides. Some may value a particular religion, economic system, language or life-style. Others may value a particular people and ancient homeland above all. Nevertheless, the DNA Nation recognizes that some landmasses, particularly ancient European and Russia, are not negotiable as a choice beyond a certain agreed upon percentage from their ancient inhabitants.

There will be categories of mixed European, some more pure - and while those more pure categories may correspond with ancient European homelands, pure communities may form elsewhere as well; mixed ones might also form elsewhere; or perhaps among particular areas of the ancient nations, granted overall consent.

Coordination may also be sought with states of non-native Europeans who also wish to maintain their genetic form.

While the Euro-DNA Nation is genetic based to begin and to a large extent always, we nevertheless see relation to lands (especially lands of our ancient evolution) as naturally fundamental; and the lack of sovereign habitat as problematic in many regards; therefore, we will address matters of land acquisition in days to come.

Signatories are under no legal obligation nor expressing anything other than a wish that there be such an entity as a European DNA based nation, with a confederation of indigenous European subcategories from which they may choose, should they match.

 


I haven’t made many changes and none yet in accordance with the frequency-ranking of its words ; though written with some formalistic style the vocabulary, if anything, it tends to err in the direction of being too ordinary - for example, where I say: “many may have different priorities and ways of life besides.”


That may be a bit too casual for a proposed document such as this.

 

172

Posted by James Bowery on August 25, 2012, 12:43 PM | #

I took the liberty of going back and editing the third sentence to read:

“I do not consent to present conditions.”

The purpose of that sentence is to make clear that change is required in order to satisfy “consent of the governed”.

173

Posted by daniel on August 25, 2012, 01:26 PM | #

great

I wonder about this sentence of mine:

“While the Euro-DNA Nation is genetic based to begin and to a large extent always,”


I had rather shyly said, “to a large extent,” for concern that in complete detachment from land that we might become the virulent.

Nevertheless, I think that recognizing the necessity of attachment to land and the danger of horizontal transmission without it could be enough.

Therefore the sentence should probably read:

While the Euro-DNA Nation is genetic based to begin and always, we nevertheless see relation to lands (especially lands of our ancient evolution) as naturally fundamental;


I wonder about this sentence of yours:

“In the event that irreconcilable conflicts arise over land-use, preference should be given to those consenting to more indigenous ways of life.”

While that would make sense in Europe, should there not be some distinction as such so that it is not confused with claims from non-Whites in America?

I might suggest:

In the event that irreconcilable conflict arises over land-use in Europe/Russia, preference should be given to those consenting to the more indigenous ways of life; whereas on other continents, the concern will be based on the more practical efficacy of White separation.

174

Posted by daniel on August 27, 2012, 12:53 AM | #

There are some small changes to the original post which I believe represent an overall improvement:

Adding this sentence:

“More, it has the distinct capacity to gather disbursed peoples into a large mass under one rubric.”


This sentence has been changed (I think it make it more clear).

“However, he has modified this notion some since its inception, with state-sized units being set aside provisionally for county-sized political units as they are apparently optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.”

While adding However to the beginning of this sentence helps in transition of ideas:

“However, this freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats.”


I will post it in its entirety as another comment below

175

Posted by daniel on August 27, 2012, 12:55 AM | #

Euro-DNA Nation

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes separatism through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (see Note 1 below). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities would be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. However, he has modified this notion some since its inception, with state-sized units being set aside provisionally for county-sized political units as they are apparently optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.

However, this freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.

We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well.

Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be Cartesian as well and problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory. More, it has the distinct capacity to gather disbursed peoples into a large mass under one rubric.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

DanielS.

176

Posted by uh on August 28, 2012, 10:22 AM | #

DNA [...] land,

We’ve come a long way from “Blut und Boden”, comrades.

177

Posted by daniel on September 02, 2012, 01:18 PM | #

..
.............
I have recently been engaged in an argument with Matt Parrott.

Naturally, I pursued this argument because I felt that there were important issues to address.

I recognize Matt as an intelligent man, wonderful writer and dedicated advocate of Whites - and largely competent.

To begin, I have enjoyed his efforts as one among our talented advocates. Hence, I have been inclined to mostly ignore what I think are some bad ideas that he is promoting: 1) that we ought to be Christians - in my estimation, this is like advocating mental retardation and suicide for Whites (BTW The 14 Words works wonderfully as a new and organic religion - since Matt is hip on that word). 2) We should not ever, on any of our forums, use the word “nigger.” While there are tactical reasons aplenty not to use that word in many instances, there are also places where it is just right - it others a people who should be othered, because they have been “samed” so profusely for so long.  It is bad enough that TOO, VoR, CC and other sites (maybe this site too, of legal necessity) do not use that word - I respect their tact and do not attempt to use it there, but to say that it should never be used, anywhere? Because it will “dehumanize them”? This is Matt’s argument. There are nice Blacks. I told him honestly, that those “nice blacks are a bigger problem because they bring the bad ones along with them.” Matt responded with the head slap icon, as if I were incorrigible. How many White people have to be raped, murdered, how many cities destroyed, etc, before we are free to refer to them as pejorative others, not worthy of respect, as a pattern? Matt’s contention - along with other movement figures, whom I disagree with strongly, is that when we do this we play into the enemies hands by appearing like ignorant skin heads. Of course, it all depends upon how and when you use the word. Moreover, the real dangerous stereotype that we are up against is the nerdy wimp, too cowardly to call a spade a spade. It is a more accurate and pervasive stereotype by far than “the skin head” - I personally, have never known any. Have encountered a few, briefly - were fairly pleasant to me, actually. Now then, this brings me to the third thing that I had let ride with Matt’s perspective (since he was saying that I jumped on his case all of a sudden just because he did not like the DNA Nation idea), that is we should kindly take mudsharks back…I have softened a little on that one - vis a vis Renner’s and Bowery’s advice that they might be banished and that could be punishment enough. More, there is something to the argument that these women have been subject to torrents of brainwashing, and we need to show some compassion - for now. Once matters are understood and promulgated better, we need not be forgiving in the least - away with them! However, I still think that a hard line with regard to mudsharks is necessary - we need to scare these women and to show that there will be punishment for their acts. This goes to the main thrust of what became a problem for me in Matt’s view. He tends to close off other views, at times, better than his, with straw men arguments; and to suggest that there is universally no place for them in the struggle. 

I did not expect to find this personality trait and it had been irrelevant until he commented on the DNA Nation in personal correspondence - which I will publish here shortly (having been given his permission). I did not respect his criticisms as well considered; and I began to suspect that there was some bad motivation too: Ego and immaturity seemed to be clouding his judgment - the kid is only 30 and is being looked upon as a major leader by some - he should be the prime purveyor of information and set other thinkers aside at his leisure?

This still did not pique my concern until some other things started factoring in - he is a moderator at TOO and CC? I don’t know, but it seems so, and that is a bit of power.

Ok fine. I saw Joe Webb complaining about him and I rather agreed with some of Joe Webb’s criticism, but it still did not occur to me that I might need to air this out until I saw these remarks:



“And even if a tsunami of White Advocates did topple this regime, what would they do afterwards? Instantiate Linder’s cowboy libertarianism inside with a militant force of ruthless militants standing vigil on the perimeters? Add a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to Freedom From Association and carry on with business as usual? The Fourth Reich? Confederate States of America 2.0? LDS theodemocracy (don’t laugh, it’s more likely than the others I listed…)?

I’m working on answers to those questions, which involves reading, pondering, and occasionally throwing an idea or proposition out here or there for feedback and perspective.

What’s been really startling to me, more than the (entirely expected) resistance to the very taboo ideas I presented…was how many people who were capable of verbalizing the stuff about our impending oblivion/genocide would then blink and…do nothing.

Most people are rather risk-averse, unintelligent, and lacking in curiosity. I get that, and I never got frustrated about that. Most people don’t think. That’s just how it is. What’s crawled under my skin and frustrated me is the inaction and indifference of those who allegedly got it. Of course most people are going to dismiss you when you claim that the sky is falling, but what about those who fully agree with you that the sky is falling and can repeat the assertion as clearly as you…and yet are not motivated to act or seek a solution?

That’s what baffles me. It seems to be the result of some deeper spiritual or psychological problem and getting to the bottom of that mystery, rather than engaging in street activism, will be the focus of my work for the meantime.”


Ridiculous. Nobody has thought about these matters. It should be he, primarily. Matt Parrott is going to take on all these things and dismiss others with straw men arguments. We should all get Jesus and be nice to N***ers and mudsharks.

No thanks.

So, that is where I start this conversation: I will address some of our correspondence below - as it appeared in email and on a chat board where we talked…

178

Posted by daniel on September 02, 2012, 01:29 PM | #

Before I commence, as an aside, it occurs to me that while what Metzger says about Blacks - that they are a weekend operation - is true in terms of conventional warfare, that they might not be so easy a problem in psychological an other contemporary forms of warfare.

179

Posted by daniel on September 02, 2012, 02:35 PM | #

Email exchange with Matt Parrot regarding Euro DNA Nation


Jul 16, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Matt Parrott wrote:
Daniel,

I apologize for my tone getting a bit terse. I respect you, your support, and your volunteer contributions. We should be able to freely throw about ideas amongst one another without any of us (including myself) getting agitated.

That being said, I continue to believe the proposal is unlikely to be successful. I certainly wouldn’t and won’t stand in the way of it. I certainly get that it’s based on a voluntary model. If it works, then that’s great. I’m just skeptical about its prospects.

Daniel wrote: Ok. Thanks.


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

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Matt Parrott wrote:
Daniel,

“Freedom from association” is not a central matter because whether or not we’re ideologically consistent is beside the point. Of course “freedom of association” implies freedom from association. Of course forced integration is tyrannical, unjust, inconsistent with Enlightenment ideals, and even genocidal.

A parasite whose very survival depends on being attached to a host while do whatever it takes to remain attached to the host, even brooking cognitive dissonance and ideological inconsistency. To propose that we’ll be allowed to peacefully detach ourselves from the host because we’re doing it in an indirect social and apolitical way rather than with a more formal political secession is grossly naive.


Daniel wrote: Matt! There is no legal commitment and no reason not to try that much. If people are so cowardly that they cannot be bothered to declare, “yes, I might wish to be a part of a White separatist nation” then they do not have to!!!!

I’m willing to bet that there are those who would be willing to go that far on a limb (i.e. not very far).


Matt wrote: Our enemies are not kind and they’re not gullible.


Daniel: That’s not the point. It is voluntary and not a legal status.

Matt: If you’re proposing something other than that, then please spell it out for me.

Daniel: I have just made my points - it is not a legal status.. Maybe you should have a look at the version and discussion on Majority Rights. Your objections would be welcome. Maybe they could be better addressed there.http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/euro_dna_nation

I understand that you do not tend to like the site for its commentators and such - but as far as I am concerned, your input would be welcome.

If not, I will try to answer your questions via email

180

Posted by daniel on September 02, 2012, 02:39 PM | #

...
Matt: Furthermore, the organic dimension, which you purport to be accounted for in a discarded aside is, in my estimation, the central matter. Even if the aside hadn’t been redacted before it landed in my inbox, its relegation to a tertiary matter beneath both genetic testing and ideological framing (freedom from association) is unacceptable to me.


Daniel: The central issue is coordination of these organic concerns: freedom of association in smaller communities; reconstruction of ancient White nations; the large White nation big enough to fund major projects.

It is impossible to detach people from the land and interaction with others in any complete way and it is not the objective. The organic measure is completely central and accounted for more thoroughly in my other essay now in revised form on MR: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/leftism_as_a_code_word_part_1_the_white_left

You cannot talk about everything at once.

I think your emotions are clouding your thinking Matt. I am not against you.


I hope people do not pay too much attention to your opinion on this one.

You didn’t understand it; and argued against straw men

181

Posted by daniel on September 02, 2012, 02:41 PM | #

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Matt Parrott wrote:
Daniel,

The theory behind “going tribal” is solid. But tribes are not theoretical things, they’re organic things.

Daniel wrote: There was a phrase, taken out in KM’s edit, which would address the notion of organicism a bit more.

Specifically, the original sentence:

“However, D.N.A. without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be a Cartesian objective as well, problematic for a number of obvious reasons.”


That is to say, it cannot be free floating indefinitely. Moreover, it is an objective to secure land, clearly stated.

Matt: Saying that the proper solution is a decentralized tribal solution is well and good. I agree. I’ve seen plenty of agreeable theory on this from National Anarchists like Troy Southgate, Keith Preston, and others. What I haven’t seen is much in the way of realistic or promising models or proposed implementations.

Daniel: Well, it is eminently realistic to ask people if they would like to express a wish to be in a White DNA category of a White Nation.

Matt: Of course, the big problem is that it would necessarily be subversive or wait until the state’s decline is farther along.

Daniel: It is not particularly subversive, because it does not require a change in one’s legal status nor a change in location, even.

Matt: Currently, I doubt the state would have much patience for the ideologically consistent but threatening proposition that a bunch of Whites are going to split off from American society and pursue their own destiny.


Daniel: Again, it is an expressed wish. There is no legal standing for them to challenge. It is merely an organizational tool.

Matt: As you may know, this was attempted once by a rather large and eager faction of White Americans in 1861, with decidedly unsatisfactory results.

Daniel: No. That was an entirely different thing!

We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods?  This is where a Euro-D.N.A. based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

Matt: Organizing on the basis of Euro DNA is decidedly austere and unattractive.

Daniel: Not necessarily. Maybe at first blush, for some. At any rate, it is voluntary. Nobody has to do it. They may see its merits later on. DNA is the essential requirement, but after that, people would have the option to organize on a number of matters - language, religion, life style, economic system, etc.

Matt: As a White American who (along with tens of millions of other White Americans) (who is not necessarily a thousand percent White), I’m also unsure whether I’m even invited.

Daniel: For me you would be. This is not a purist concept. While there could be some rather pure categories, there would be other categories for less pure Whites.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large.

Matt: The world is increasingly divided between a handful of super-oligarchies: China’s Mandarin inner party, Russia’s Ortho-KGB network, the West’s Judeo-Masonic clique, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc… To merely subvert the Judeo-Masonic clique which reigns in the West without replacing it with something approximating its military and economic position on the world stage is to invite our Continent being divided up among the other global oligarchies…a situation which is arguably as shitty as our current one.

Daniel: Well, I am not inviting that – and that is why The White Nation as big as possible is one of the three major components. First things first. We need to be organized and we need a common basis for that organization – DNA is most consistent.

The Indigenous Euro-D.N.A. Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

Matt: Nothing else in common? Just our DNA? Child molesters? White Muslims? White Satanists? White Marxists? White converts to Judaism?

Daniel: Sure, there is plenty else in common (or not) – that is the very idea of the laboratory of the states, so that people would have freedom of and from association to form communities in which they are comfortable.

The DNA nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.


Matt: Signing up for a list of people who wish to found a separate nation-state looks pretty damn subversive to me. Given that many White Americans on the far right are being rounded up by the government for treasonous and subversive activity while clutching an American flag and a pocket constitution, I strongly doubt your suggestion that signing onto the list would be legally advisable and safe to do.

I find Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” idea to be a typical example of unhinged and useless theory with no potential for application. I find your proposal to be a variation on it which doesn’t address my principle concerns with it.

Daniel: I’m sorry that you think that and I do not understand why you think freedom of and from association is not a central matter.

Matt: I respect and appreciate the time and work you put into sketching this up. You’re evidently bright, knowledgeable, and sincere. But I depart in my own thinking from this framework at nearly every major consideration.

Daniel:
First of all, I don’t think that you’ve understood it. Secondly, it is not either/or to other means.

182

Posted by daniel on September 02, 2012, 02:52 PM | #

...........
It all had the tone of getting a pink slip from the boss man - perhaps wielding authority to an extent that age and experience do not merit..

I saw in this more of putting ego and position before the best interests of our people than I would have expected…

and so I aired my grievances and will discuss the ensuing chat that I had with Matt and a few others.

183

Posted by daniel on September 04, 2012, 10:28 AM | #

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

To sum up from what I gather of the rather long chat that ensued:

I wish well Matt well with the Counter Currents audio project as well as his other projects.

- obviously very talented writer and advocate of Whites:

I thought his response to Uh’s contention that “when one wakes up, walks around, eats, they are hardly engaged in narrative” was brilliant - Matt said something to the effect of, yes, but these are largely private and custodial matters, not of the sort of protracted concern for the race that would call for narrative extension.

excellent.

That’s the kind of incisive thing that can be expected of him. With a caveat of the aforementioned foibles; and, for all the good things, a tendency and facility to immediately construct elaborate straw man arguments, to impugn motives (then project that motives are being imagined of him); and finally to try to universalize the “good cop” while asserting that there should be no “bad cop”, not even on other web sites. Maybe these would not be concerns, but he’s got something of nodal position in the struggle.

I guess these foibles come from a bit of youthful ego and inexperience. Perhaps he is nervous about other people’s motives and that has more to do with why he would rather quickly see negative things where they did not exist; wanting to be the central purveyor instead. Whatever. Now that I am aware that he can be that way, I can let the matter rest.

Some conclusions:

We should disagree
That the word “nigger” never has a place and is always dehumanizing.

That mudsharks should merely be forgiven. Whereas, I would say that given the torrents of propaganda in particular, there may be good cop situations to show compassion to mudsharks. However, by and large the bad cop is needed to protect Whites from the consequences of bad mudshark choices; first there ought to be preventative incentive by fear motive (and they ought not be comfortable that they’ll be forgiven). We need to scare them a bit; and follow through - we ought not have to endure those consequences; and conversely, by and large, they should have to endure them with expulsion: Just as rape and pedophilia may be an inclination for some but are nonetheless prohibited by social norms in defense of the populace, so too, while miscegenation may be an inclination among some, it ought to be rejected in defense of the populace - calling for the banishment of practitioners.

It is very important that WN’s who cannot find it in themselves to ascribe to Christianity have Christian free places where they are not yoked with this anachronistic tradition, but rather free to work out a new moral order centering on the 14 Words.

Finally, I strongly disagree with his assessment of the Euro DNA Nation but that misunderstanding may stem from having not read some of my prior essays (which I do not expect, but may be necessary to know what I am and am not saying)

It is valid to call attention to the possibility that youth and ego may be wrongly pushing aside significant ideas.

184

Posted by James Bowery on September 04, 2012, 11:04 AM | #

A primary concern I have is whether the encompassing declaration should be the laboratory of the states or DNA nation.  There needs to be some kind of delineation between humans and sub-humans and that delineation cannot be “white” vs “non-white” or “European” vs “non-European”.  The delineation I see as relevant, and the reason the “unhinged theory” as MP describes it, is central to practical action, is that the definition provided by the Laboratory of the States is essentially this:

If you agree that we humans have a right to exclude you, then you are a human.  If not, you are a subhuman.

The practical implication of this “unhinged theoretic” delineation is declaration of war. 

Indeed, any goal that does not provide a moral basis for war does not provide the morale required to win and is unhinged from the fundamental conflict besetting us.

With that delineation of human vs sub-human, you can be inclusive of all races of human and can form practical insurgencies with plausible promise.

The only question remaining then becomes the one I’ve been trying to raise here at MR regarding base hypocrites like E. O. Wilson who are on the one hand proclaiming their preeminent valuation of the preservation of indigenous diversity and on the other hand proclaiming eusocial “human” masses that are engaging in “the social conquest of earth” as the next “higher” stage in biological organization.

I have my answer, that very few accept, but no one has offered anything better.

185

Posted by daniel on September 04, 2012, 11:29 AM | #

1. If you agree that we humans have a right to exclude you, then you are a human.  If not, you are a subhuman.

2. The practical implication of this “unhinged theoretic” delineation is declaration of war. 

3. Indeed, any goal that does not provide a moral basis for war does not provide the morale required to win and is unhinged from the fundamental conflict besetting us.


Not surprisingly, very well considered, Jim. In my estimation, you’ve provided an answer: that any declaration of war is premature. The Euro DNA Nation is an organizational device, a basis for morale in preparation of defense against a right that would be recognized by humans - to sovereignty, the freedom form imposition by outsiders so assessed.

186

Posted by uh on September 04, 2012, 11:46 AM | #

daniel,

It isn’t polite to indulge in speculation about someone when they’ve apologized to you. Try to be honorable, at least.

187

Posted by James Bowery on September 04, 2012, 12:07 PM | #

Good.

So now let me address the “DNA Nation” goal from the standpoint of the definition of “indigenous peoples”.  A defining characteristic of an indigenous people is the presence of genetic correlation structure at the population level—not just its cultural traditions.  When an indigenous people has been under genetic attack these correlation structures are destroyed and people like Graham Lister down-play the significance by referring to the result as “outbreeding depression” as a counterpart to “inbreeding depression”.  However, the real damage is to the genetic correlation structure—damage that does not occur with inbreeding but does occur with outbreeding—even if that outbreeding gives rise to heterosis (hybrid vigor) rather than adaptive depression.

Does a people lose its indigenous rights just because genetic warfare has been waged against it by civilization and great harm done?  According to folks in the United Nations the answer is, yes, they do lose their indigenous rights because they are no longer defined as “indigenous peoples” and must, therefore, open their borders to all under the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.  Of course there are other interpretations of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” but we must keep in mind the reality of selectively enforcement bordering on, if not directly achieving genocide, of that vague laundry list of “rights”.

However, modern DNA technology gives allows us to piece together fragments of DNA as damaged as that found in very ancient remains such as Neanderthal or Denisovians.  No work has yet been done to attempt to recover genetic correlation structures of highly damaged indigenous peoples, but this is clearly a theoretic possibility that is now within practical reach.  If we then define “indigenous rights” as belonging to such genetic correlation structures at the population level, we can begin to reconstruct the value produced by evolutionary creation over vast stretches of time and provide people who fit the profile with preferred “indigenous” status.  To the extent that these structures correspond to particular natural ecologies, they also prescribe territorial allocations for nature preserves containing indigenous human ecologies.

How does this work out in places like the New World* and Australia?

The preservation of European situated human ecologies—indigenous people of Europe—outweighs the right of Europeans to lands recently occupied with the power of civilization.  Indeed, the proper place for those peoples, who do not wish to or are excluded from returning to their European homelands, is at the frontiers of humanity, be those frontiers on the ocean, beneath or beyond the biosphere.

*I am ignoring here the Solutrean hypothesis—not because I discount it, but simply for the sake of getting to the central point.

188

Posted by uh on September 04, 2012, 12:09 PM | #

ps-

Matt’s a brilliant writer, much smarter than me, and one of the most valuable exponent of our thing — despite your

tiresome

tireless efforts to be the most valuable — but a few of the presuppositions of his thought are surprisingly flimsy.

Exaggeration of the importance of “narrative” is one of them. All he’s done is absorb academy-speak and regurgitate it for a different audience. He even admitted he went too far in stating the “primacy of narrative”, so you’re not grasping much of anything against me here.

I don’t see what is ‘negative’. I see language as irrationally ‘positive’ by biological necessity. The Optimism Bias is very real. It lives in your brain. A consequence of this is that people use language as a kind of magic wand against reality, and have, for many eons now, exaggerated its importance in everyday human affairs. It is the archetypal ghost in the machine, for it relentlessly introduces indeterminacy where cause and effect have us locked in the real state of affairs that we confront in our daily lives.

This will be where Silver pops in with one of his usual potshots at my “mental health”. Let’s step back though and remember who’s proposing a “DNA nation” and who is merely making a point about neuroscience and its relation to belief systems.

189

Posted by James Bowery on September 04, 2012, 12:42 PM | #

And so it begins, with whites in George becoming “unhinged”:

Cityhood is a contentious issue in metropolitan Atlanta, one rooted in and shaped by politics and race. Wealthier, largely white communities on the city’s north side, which watched for years as their tax dollars were spent in poorer, mostly minority areas elsewhere in the two counties, had sought for years to break away and incorporate as cities with more local control.

But with Democrats wielding power in the statehouse and the governor’s office, those efforts were rebuffed for years. “It used to be considered local legislation,” says William Boone, [Email him] a political scientist at Clark Atlanta University here.[VDARE.com note: a black political scientist—at a black university.]

“The majority forces in the legislature would go along with the local legislators.”

That all changed after the elections of 2002 and 2004, when Republicans—who tend to be white and from suburban or rural districts—gained control of the Legislature and the governorship and promptly passed laws allowing the creation of new cities.

Sandy Springs, which had been trying to incorporate since the 1970s, was the first new city, in 2005. The other four soon followed.

The majority-white new cities absorbed lucrative commercial areas [Emphasis added] that had been vital revenue producers in the two counties, which have African-American leadership, Boone says. “It’s a definite trend in the metro area,” he says. “It’s picked up momentum. Pretty soon what you could have is a county like Fulton or DeKalb not having enough revenues to support those still in it.”

[Georgia scraps over creation of new, mostly white cities, by Larry Copeland, USA Today, July 31, 2012]

190

Posted by Matt Parrott on September 04, 2012, 01:41 PM | #

Movement Pro-Tip:

If you receive an unsolicited “theory” in your inbox, then read that theory, then find it problematic, do not respond honestly and openly about your misgivings unless you can confirm that you’re communicating with a serious man. Respond in a vaguely positive, encouraging, and evasive manner. Find that optimum level of positiveness which will leave him feeling like you’re supportive, but not so much that he has an expectation of receiving any actual support.

Should you err in this regard, you will rue the day for months to come. He will badger you in private message. He will badger you in your chat forums. He will spread rumors about you and your friends. He will cough up an endless stream of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about you, your projects, your friends, and your ideas. For every sentence you can respond with, he’ll have a dozen paragraphs of new critique for you to wade through. And if you don’t respond with Talmudic precision, your responses will create new opportunities for fractal responses to responses in a geometric explosion of asinine responses.

191

Posted by daniel on September 04, 2012, 02:13 PM | #

So what we have here is Ad Hominem. I am a stalker who will never leave him alone will badger him to the ends of the earth. And I am supposed to be the one who is smearing…


Should you err in this regard, you will rue the day for months to come. He will badger you in private message. He will badger you in your chat forums. He will spread rumors about you and your friends. He will cough up an endless stream of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about you, your projects, your friends, and your ideas. For every sentence you can respond with, he’ll have a dozen paragraphs of new critique for you to wade through. And if you don’t respond with Talmudic precision, your responses will create new opportunities for fractal responses to responses in a geometric explosion of asinine responses.


Oh my god, Matt, this is exactly the kind of bullshit that I mean.


Should you err in this regard, you will rue the day for months to come.

Days and months to come? Where did you get that shit from?

He will badger you in private message.

When did I do this? And who is smearing whom? Stop it.


He will badger you in your chat forums.


I’m done with the issue Matt - you make my point.


He will spread rumors about you and your friends.

All is out there in public Matt. No rumors spread. It is you who is slandering by saying that I am doing these things. Really bad. Stop it Matt.

He will cough up an endless stream of fear,


Endless right? good concept.


uncertainty, and doubt about you, your projects, your friends, and your ideas. For every sentence you can respond with, he’ll have a dozen paragraphs of new critique for you to wade through.

It’s finite and finished as I am concerned. And I am glad I did it. Needed to be done, because you are like a straw man argument machine.

And if you don’t respond with Talmudic precision, your responses will create new opportunities for fractal responses to responses in a geometric explosion of asinine responses.

Forget it, Matt. We disagree. Have a fun time at Counter Currents. It’s a good site. Your a good writer, I just don’t go for your straw men in particular, the way you attack when someone disagrees with your great assessments, attributions of motives and deeds. Drop it, I will.

192

Posted by daniel on September 04, 2012, 02:17 PM | #

The Euro DNA Nation is an organizational device, a basis for morale in preparation of defense against a right that would be recognized by humans - to sovereignty, the freedom form imposition by outsiders so assessed.

Typos in this one


in preparation of defense of a right that would be recognized by humans…


from imposition by outsiders so assessed.

193

Posted by daniel on September 04, 2012, 02:23 PM | #

He even admitted he went too far in stating the “primacy of narrative”, so you’re not grasping much of anything against me here.

I know that he did that Uh. I was calling attention to the fact that I would have provided a different answer.

194

Posted by Graham_Lister on September 04, 2012, 02:38 PM | #

I think perhaps Mr. Bowery and Mr. Haller should combine their ideas in an act of synthesis.

White Zion in outer space! Or on the moon, or Mars perhaps? Or even vingt mille lieues sous les mers?

Jesus wept as the saying goes.

I’m very glad to be a bona fide European.

I cannot even start to imagine how ghastly it would be to be an ersatz version from the ‘land of the free’.

I know from personal experience that not all Americans are ‘philosophical zombies’ but I do wonder just what proportion of the population are in that unfortunate category?

Bring on the deadly pairwise contests I say!

195

Posted by daniel on September 04, 2012, 02:47 PM | #

Posted by uh on September 04, 2012, 11:46 AM | #

daniel,

It isn’t polite to indulge in speculation about someone when they’ve apologized to you. Try to be honorable, at least.


Uh, the apology occurred in the context of disagreement over Euro DNA Nation.

I was disappointed by his response but over it (though he seems to think it is the issue)

But I became troubled again by the juxtaposition of that and this later post that began..


“And even if a tsunami of White Advocates did topple this regime, what would they do afterwards? Instantiate Linder’s cowboy libertarianism inside with a militant force of ruthless militants standing vigil on the perimeters? Add a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to Freedom From Association and carry on with business as usual? The Fourth Reich? Confederate States of America 2.0? LDS theodemocracy (don’t laugh, it’s more likely than the others I listed…)?

I’m working on answers to those questions”


Am now more than willing to drop it

Lets drop it.

196

Posted by daniel on September 04, 2012, 11:19 PM | #

The only question remaining then becomes the one I’ve been trying to raise here at MR regarding base hypocrites like E. O. Wilson who are on the one hand proclaiming their preeminent valuation of the preservation of indigenous diversity and on the other hand proclaiming eusocial “human” masses that are engaging in “the social conquest of earth” as the next “higher” stage in biological organization.

I have my answer, that very few accept, but no one has offered anything better.


Jim, would not “rotating shifts” serve to take on challengers and eusociality both? That is, people would, at some points, to some extent, have to be individually courageous and capable enough to take on enemies to the class. This would the added benefit of not expecting that this role has to be acted into at all times, making for a more human, more humane, less fretful existence.

More, it serves the mentoring process

..and allows for organic turning and integrating of various abilities throughout the life span, making for fuller individuals and more complete experience.

It seems to me that this shift taking would actually reduce the possibility of eusocial type compartmentalization.

197

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 05, 2012, 01:20 AM | #

“And so it begins,”

Kersey is wrong. This is about the centralization of wealth not about race. It’s more apartheid than secession because cheap labor is soooo addictive. It appears Jewish virulence has its benefits.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/depression_wealth_and_moral_depravity

198

Posted by Graham_Lister on September 05, 2012, 04:34 AM | #

Fly me to the moon
Let me swing among those stars
Let me see what WN spring is like
On Jupiter and Mars

In other words, hold my hand
In other words, baby, kiss me
But if you ever disrespect me
It will end in lethal combat!

I don’t know how Mr. Bowery continually comes up with such excellent suggestions. Why aren’t all Americans so insightful?

To quote Mr. Bowery himself - “I have my answer, that very few accept, but no one has offered anything better.”

Quite.

Now I have a very important game of ‘D&D’ to finish. It’s at a crucial junction – some eusocial elves are attacking me – it’s not fair as they don’t respect the honourable one on one pairwise fight, but what can one do? Now roll the die please GM!

199

Posted by daniel on September 05, 2012, 05:08 AM | #

Fly me to the moon


It is also necessary to coordinate a large nation for the purpose of defense - against the growing power of China, for example.

200

Posted by Leon Haller on September 05, 2012, 08:32 AM | #

Unfortunately, no one in the WN world wants to deal with the awful question: what do we do if most whites just don’t care about collective survival? It seems obvious to me that the burden of saving the race will have to rest with those who affirmatively wish its salvation. “In the natural course of human events” we’re toast. In other words, we’ve lost our ‘organicity’, and all exogenous trends seem to point in the direction of an accelerating intensification of that loss. The white race survived in the past because of environmental and endogenous mental conditions which no longer obtain. Some creatures (I think the coelacanth is the famous example) can endure far past their evolutionary place, simply because the world has, in effect, left them ‘uncontacted’. But once contact has occurred (say, exposure to the antiracist meme), there’s no going back - or at least, the going back is itself conscious, ‘constructivist’, and therefore inorganic. 

There may be any number of arguments against White Zion, but I think the biggest is that the scheme might functionally be an argument for merely the ‘Americanization’ of the entire white race. I would rather have a “Europa of (ethnic) fatherlands”, or at least a White Zion of mini-European fatherlands. I don’t want to lose the ethnocultural diversity of the European peoples (though much past regional diversity was already sacrificed to the rise of modern nation-states). But I fear that most whites will never favor WN, or even just race-realism, and thus without some intentional activism geared towards white preservation through secession and sovereignty, WNs will continue to be noisy but ineffectual ‘Cassandras’.

(BTW, I finally got around to reading Never Let Me Go. Beautifully realized work, even if I found much about the plot sociologically unconvincing. Anyone interested in revisiting Graham Lister’s essay on it, and continuing the discussion?)

201

Posted by daniel on September 05, 2012, 10:03 AM | #

One of the good things about the Euro-DNA Nation is that it is not asking gloomy questions as to why nobody cares. It begins with those who do care, from the inside out.

Jim is making some important points in post 187 regarding ways to identify native European and to deepen its warrant for existence, in its aboriginal, native territory and beyond.

Though extending European territories to some places beyond Europe should not be all that problematic in reality, he is onto a deep way of considering these matters.

On the more abstract level, regarding those who will respect freedom from association (or not) being the litmus test for their worthiness of having human rights is significant.

However, to repeat, regarding defense of the borders and against eusocializing:

Perhaps “rotating shifts” would serve to take on challengers and eusociality both. That is, people would at some points in their life, to some extent, have to be individually courageous and capable enough to take on enemies to the class. This would have the added benefit of not requiring that this role be acted into at all times; thus, allowing for a more human, more humane, less fretful existence.

It serves the mentoring process. In addition, it allows for organic turning and integrating of various abilities throughout the life span; this would make for fuller individuals and more complete experience.

It seems to me that this shift taking would actually reduce the possibility of eusocial type compartmentalization.

202

Posted by James Bowery on September 05, 2012, 11:06 AM | #

Daniel, I may not have adequately communicated what I meant when I said:

The only question remaining then becomes the one I’ve been trying to raise here at MR regarding base hypocrites like E. O. Wilson who are on the one hand proclaiming their preeminent valuation of the preservation of indigenous diversity and on the other hand proclaiming eusocial “human” masses that are engaging in “the social conquest of earth” as the next “higher” stage in biological organization.

To expand on the problem statement:

When we regard human ecologies as the primary group entities, even when they are formed by ruthlessly enforced individual choice and mutual consent, we are still dealing with group selection.  The iron law of group selection is that the group with the most power will overpower groups with less power—hence evolve group integrity over individual integrity.  The ruthless enforcement of individual choice in mutually consenting formation of human ecologies, is the best one can do on behalf of individual integrity against the demands of group integrity, given that one is going to uphold civilization over honoring the individual’s right to demand satisfaction against other individuals in deadly force.  In those circumstances, birth control is mandatory but more importantly, it must be applied across all human ecologies in a manner that is not subject to corruption of central authorities.

I see this as an intractable problem for all proposed group selection systems.

I have other things to say about the idea of rotating responsibility for border defense, but that is a distraction from this—more fundamental—iron law of Malthusian group selection.

203

Posted by Randy on September 05, 2012, 12:16 PM | #

Leon Haller:

Unfortunately, no one in the WN world wants to deal with the awful question: what do we do if most whites just don’t care about collective survival?

Off the top of my head…how about “give them a reason to care”?

Allow me to suggest that you immediately embark on a program of grassroots outreach, mentoring, career counseling, networking, and the like to demonstrate the value of that which you worry has lost its perceived value. Religious organizations utilize this methodology to great success. A hot meal wins more converts than either a dismissive scolding or the whinging of frocked, cloistered elites.

Appalachia is probably an ideal place to begin, owing to demographics and political orientation. Take lots of pictures and keep us updated.

 

204

Posted by Graham_Lister on September 05, 2012, 02:04 PM | #

@Daniel

To move the discussion on from the possibilities of colonies under the sea or in outer space do you mean by a fuller, more balanced life-experience something like parecon - otherwise known as participatory economics?

The underlying values that parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, workers’ self-management and efficiency. (Efficiency here means accomplishing goals without wasting valued assets.) It proposes to attain these ends mainly through the following principles and institutions:

workers’ and consumers’ councils utilizing self-managerial methods for making decisions;
balanced job complexes;
remuneration according to effort and sacrifice;
participatory planning.

Albert and Hahnel stress that parecon is only meant to address an alternative economic theory and must be accompanied by equally important alternative visions in the fields of politics, culture and kinship.

No doubt Mr. Haller et al., would hate the whole concept - which is another point in its favour. Hayekian liberals would hate the very notion of parecon - in any format.

Read more at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

Now are such ideas amenable to some reformulation in an ethno-communitarian fashion - i.e. drop the spurious commitment to ‘diversity’ (which doesn’t seem particularly central to it and is rather tacked on) and so on?

205

Posted by Captainchaos on September 06, 2012, 12:50 AM | #

Indeed, the proper place for those peoples, who do not wish to or are excluded from returning to their European homelands, is at the frontiers of humanity, be those frontiers on the ocean, beneath or beyond the biosphere.

LOL!

Bowery, you seriously have no idea how retarded this sounds?  You say this without the slightest hint of irony?  You truly believe this most unhelpful suggestion contains even one scintilla of motive power?  Are you really that much of a far gone kook?

206

Posted by daniel on September 06, 2012, 02:57 AM | #

....
@Daniel

“To move the discussion on from the possibilities of colonies under the sea or in outer space do you mean by a fuller, more balanced life-experience something like parecon - otherwise known as participatory economics?”

What I had in mind was loosening up the boundaries between (what I refer to as) organic being, inextricable social concern, practical routines and disciplines of selfhood, and ambitious projects of actualization. The boundaries would be loosened up some conceptually and in reality to the extent necessary to rotate these functions for the individual and society so that an optimal balance could be achieved in aversion of toxicity and runaway.

There are two reasons why I bring the obnoxious human potential term, “actualization” into the four-way equation. First to include its valuation as it is impossible and wrong to thwart human aspiration. Secondly, to bring it under control as it is valued in order to bring it into optimal balance with social, being, and selfhood (which are enjoyable too, we might add) and mitigate actualization’s runaway effects and the reflexive effects of its toxicity as a requirement – the stress, the disorder, lack of social accountability that it is prone to create, as these things are in American and Americanization’s overvaluation beyond the social (and being and selfhood) which you rightfully despise.

I do believe there should be negotiation between former specializations, even some hard ones – for example re: male/female, males should be granted and honored more being and selfhood; in order to mitigate toxic runaway of their being instigated to actualization quite so. Conversely, female being and selfhood ought to come under more criticism – especially where they pursue more actualization in themselves and a partner. That, however, requires invoking the class.

Regarding free enterprise - work, business and economics, it is problematic as to where there can be more or less flexibility and participation. I have not given a great deal of consideration as yet, not being anything like an economist.

Nevertheless, it would seem this recommended flexibility of practices would obtain not only to these four essential qualities of individual and social well being, but to disciplines and activities as well – though it is problematic – for now, it is just to say, that there can and should be more exchange in participation. There will be some activities that can afford more negotiation than others.

The problem is to mitigate toxic quantification of certain activities, over-reward of some individuals, over punishment of others, without hampering talent, its just rewards and rewarding incompetence and non-merit.

“Parecon might reduce efficiency in the workplace. For one, expert and exceptional workers (e.g. exceptional surgeons and scientists) would not be performing their tasks full-time. Participatory economics would expect them to share in “disempowering work” and would not offer opportunities to seek additional compensation for their high ability or finding solutions to problems.”

That’s a problem that I anticipate but may be more or less solvable within sympathetic groups of Whites.


The same holds true for private property. I would not be for doing away with private property. But it too is problematic in that it is interactive and what one does with private property effects others. Clearly some property in quality and probably some in a certain percentage should not be private. It would seem to be partly solved with the idea that James is working up, wherein people might have enough for a homestead tax free, but after that properties would be assessed taxation incrementally – a revenue perhaps providing 13K a year per family. If the families had more children than that could bear, then, since they had as much as anyone else, they would have to generate more income or move somewhere where the people were more sympathetic to the maximization of their kind.

“The underlying values that parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, workers’ self-management and efficiency. (Efficiency here means accomplishing goals without wasting valued assets.) “

At first I balked when I read this – perceiving equity as “equality”.  As you may recall, I don’t like the equality non-equality paradigm as it runs universal criteria rough shod over important qualitative differences. But given that it says, “equity”, it all sounds ok. Nevertheless, if it is to hang together in any organic way of real solidarity, it would require biological, racial backing. Do the races in-fight? Yes. That’s another problem – but I suspect not as destructive as the fighting that occurs between races. Valuing diversity is an excellent idea for valuing different, non-comparable qualities within the class. It is a shame that it has been perverted by Jewish interests to mean accepting and tolerating people from without the class.

“It proposes to attain these ends mainly through the following principles and institutions:

workers’ and consumers’ councils utilizing self-managerial methods for making decisions;

balanced job complexes;

remuneration according to effort and sacrifice;

participatory planning.”

All sounds fine to me. Where it is or isn’t more or less, according to some, perhaps they could opt for different communities/states where the formulation is a bit more to their liking. That is ducking the question a bit. I suspect you are talking also about the macro-state. I guess that would require discussion over the concreta and circumstances.

“Albert and Hahnel stress that parecon is only meant to address an alternative economic theory and must be accompanied by equally important alternative visions in the fields of politics, culture and kinship.”
Yes, well, I have paid more attention to culture and kinship and look forward to discussion of the economics and politics of which I am inarticulate. I’ll need to read in more.

“No doubt Mr. Haller et al., would hate the whole concept - which is another point in its favour. Hayekian liberals would hate the very notion of parecon - in any format.”

Well, every sane person that I listen to agree that the capitalist growth model will destroy us all, not only Whites, left unabated. Containing third world population and migration is also imperative. Evens so, I would like to maintain my private property, be able to have a wife and two kids (or at least one), without too much concern that tomorrow’s events may leave us desperate; I would like to travel and enjoy a few months of every year free from toil. A five-day workweek only if it is work that I really want to be doing.
That this might leave society only better. I believe it is possible.

“Read more at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics”

Ok. I have skimmed it but will give it a more careful read.

“Now are such ideas amenable to some reformulation in an ethno-communitarian fashion - i.e. drop the spurious commitment to ‘diversity’ (which doesn’t seem particularly central to it and is rather tacked on) and so on?”

My cursory assessment would say that such ideas might be amenable to re-formulation and use, sure. My concern is for their implementation among the class of Whites. And that those “communities” which would participate with any appreciable number of non-Whites, not be admitted as White union members (who would be accorded something more like the golden rule, while outsiders, the silver, provided they will allow for freedom from association from them and not other wise overpopulate and overgraze?) However, again, I would not drop the valuation of qualitative diversity within the class; i.e., while not introducing other races within the class, qualitative diversity within the class is a way of conceptually valuing incommensurate (as in Not equal/non-equal thing) contributions, symbiotically negotiating the various logics of meanings and actions that some are practicing, maintaining.

207

Posted by Leon Haller on September 06, 2012, 04:04 AM | #

Lister@204

Why don’t you spend some time actually reading Hayek first, before referencing such idiocy? I skimmed the wiki article, and find the whole notion ridiculous. Trying to realize such “rationalist constructivist” schema would so bureaucratically stifle and ‘enbog’ the natural economy that the current Obama mess would look like roaring growth.

This type of utopian nonsense has no place in proper racialist discourse. There is a need to work towards a specifically nationalist political economy, one in which the inherent efficiencies of capitalism are harnessed to the cause of racial preservation. It really isn’t that difficult, and I have mentioned the outlines on many occasions. We want maximum capitalism, up to the point at which it threatens the very racial goals themselves (eg, selling weapons to our racial enemies; allowing foreign colonization under cover of ‘guest worker’ programs; excessive outsourcing of jobs leading to internal disquiet and fragmentation, etc). That point beyond which the capitalist may not go because he would be jeopardizing the race can be criminalized or otherwise legally disallowed (eg, no immigrants, no sales of military technology, etc). 

Capitalism within racial boundaries. Pretty clear, no? Let us not try to sneak in tendentious personal agendas under spurious cover of race patriotism.

208

Posted by daniel on September 06, 2012, 05:11 AM | #

I do agree that model is sounding too Marxist and too prone to multiply inefficient bureaucrats; but…

209

Posted by daniel on September 06, 2012, 08:02 AM | #

I guess this comment didn’t make it through the Counter Currents sensor, so I’ll post it here:

While it is true that the left-right paradigm is phoney as it has been misconstrued, it is not true that it cannot be reconfigured in our interests as Whites. Moreover, the notion that we should jettison the left-right paradigm in its entirety obstructs our organizational abilities as Whites. In fact, the White left, the White Class, provides a deft organizational tool to sort these matters out from prior abuse.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/09/robert-stark-interviews-chuck-baldwin/

210

Posted by James Bowery on September 06, 2012, 11:51 AM | #

CC, if E. O. Wilson cannot recognize how ridiculous an expanding technological civilization within a finite biosphere is then certainly I recognize how ridiculous it sounds to try and address that reality—at least it sounds that way to the ignorant and stupid.  However, not all words uttered need be addressed toward the ignorant and stupid in hopes of motivating them toward one’s own power.  Sometimes, words can be used to discuss rather than manipulate the masses.  In those situations it may, from time to time, be appropriate to discuss what is of value so that when one sets about to use power, one has some reasonable chance of achieving a result worth the sacrifices that inevitably accompany the wielding of power.

PS:  I am quite aware of how ridiculous it may be to address the above to a person such as yourself.

211

Posted by Captainchaos on September 06, 2012, 07:47 PM | #

how ridiculous an expanding technological civilization within a finite biosphere is

We can save civilization for ourselves by depriving non-Whites of civilization.  This is WN’s main selling point.

But wait, no, can’t have that.  Because…why?  Because for Bowery living in civilization is “torture”.  LOL

212

Posted by James Bowery on September 06, 2012, 08:17 PM | #

Yeah its really humorous the way exponential growth suddenly disappears and flat-lines when whites take over technological civilization in the biosphere—sort of the way Captain Clown’s brain flat-lines when he tries to deal with reality.

213

Posted by Captainchaos on September 06, 2012, 09:21 PM | #

What is truly humorous is that Bowery, for all his self-claimed intelligence, becomes seemingly spontaneously blind to the understanding that the clear trend of technology to develop in ever more subtle and efficient forms could be conciously nutured so as to lessen its ecologic impact.  Of course step number one to lessening the ecologic impact of technological civilization is, no, not calling it quites on earth and blasting off to the fucking moon, but ceasing to give away the largesse of our civilization to muds whose numbers are grotesquely artiifically inflated thereby and letting them regress back to their natural stone age savagery.  Perhaps then Bowery would feel less “tortured” with many fewer “subhumans” to serve as an eyesore to his oh so refined visual palate.

214

Posted by uh on September 06, 2012, 10:43 PM | #

Captain,

While not as insane as the resident cosmonauts, your belief that civilization itself can be “seized” (which you once envisioned as “seizing all the arable land and starving them out”), as though it were a discrete thing to begin with, is so immoderate and technically impossible as to rival the great blast-off.

Also ...

We can save civilization for ourselves by depriving non-Whites of civilization.  This is WN’s main selling point.

Seriously, to whom? You seem to be trapped in the past, broski. They’re not just a bunch of dumb wogs anymore. They have factories and such. They can make do. And much of what sustains us, by the way, comes from their parts of the world. No one has the will to stand on their necks while drawing upon their resources. It’s so far gone it’s incredible you’re even talking about it.

215

Posted by Rooster on September 07, 2012, 01:55 AM | #

Yeah its really humorous the way exponential growth suddenly disappears and flat-lines when whites take over technological civilization in the biosphere

In Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf, Hitler discusses his Malthusian beliefs and talks about how since European countries had already taken the good non-European land, European countries would have to be attacked to get land, and that if you were going to attack European countries, it would be more practical to do so to acquire more land in Europe than abroad:

http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/politica/hitla002.htm

The annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost 900,000 souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens must grow from year to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe, unless ways and means are found which will forestall the danger of misery and hunger.

...

It is certainly true that the productivity of the soil can be increased within certain limits; but only within defined limits and not indefinitely. By increasing the productive powers of the soil it will be possible to balance the effect of a surplus birth-rate in Germany for a certain period of time, without running any danger of hunger. But we have to face the fact that the general standard of living is rising more quickly than even the birth rate. The requirements of food and clothing are becoming greater from year to year and are out of proportion to those of our ancestors of, let us say, a hundred years ago. It would, therefore, be a mistaken view that every increase in the productive powers of the soil will supply the requisite conditions for an increase in the population.

...

In the nineteenth century it was no longer possible to acquire such colonies by peaceful means. Therefore any attempt at such a colonial expansion would have meant an enormous military struggle. Consequently it would have been more practical to undertake that military struggle for new territory in Europe rather than to wage war for the acquisition of possessions abroad.

...

Of course people will not voluntarily make that accommodation. At this point the right of self-preservation comes into effect. And when attempts to settle the difficulty in an amicable way are rejected the clenched hand must take by force that which was refused to the open hand of friendship. If in the past our ancestors had based their political decisions on similar pacifist nonsense as our present generation does, we should not possess more than one-third of the national territory that we possess to-day and probably there would be no German nation to worry about its future in Europe.

216

Posted by daniel on September 07, 2012, 02:59 AM | #

..
....

Seeing how that narrowly ethnocentric, European infighting worked out, and in the name of turning the fight outward, lets try for the broader vision:

  It still seems that modernity serves well as an adversarial term in place of civilization:

  By addressing the pejorative logic of modernity’s narcissism, we begin to question the extension of our life expanding technologies to non-Whites.

  We might also reject modernity’s narcissism by not necessarily depriving life sustaining technology for ourselves just the same.

  Jim’s reticence to claim only European lands may be a casualty of modernity’s universalism. Claims of non-Whites to all of the America’s, Australia and New Zealand are not unassailable. What a dumb move it was to bring Blacks to North and South America, to the Caribbean. But how can Whites assume universal blame? Does the fact that crass slave-traders and masters brought them there give them an unending right to ruin what would be island paradises? Haiti? Who the hell are they? Mulatto supremacists?

  Understood, it is not something we are going to be merely allowed to do by those imposing monoculturalism, but it may provide a conceptual break for ourselves, for our own warrant to survival, in looking at the matter of non-White population explosion and in establishing White states beyond Europe.

 

Rooster, Why don’t you check in with Craig Cobb? He seems to be doing well in forming a community there in North Dakota - it is a state which is half German by the way.

217

Posted by Rooster on September 07, 2012, 03:25 AM | #

the clear trend of technology to develop in ever more subtle and efficient forms could be conciously nutured so as to lessen its ecologic impact.

Wouldn’t the “clear trend of technology” while maintaining civilization involve controlling people “in ever more subtle and efficient forms” ala Huxley’s Brave New World?

218

Posted by Rooster on September 07, 2012, 03:47 AM | #

but ceasing to give away the largesse of our civilization to muds whose numbers are grotesquely artiifically inflated thereby and letting them regress back to their natural stone age savagery.

A fundamental feature of civilization seems to be that the largesse doesn’t go to those who make it. Civilization has been described as “macroparasitism” before.

219

Posted by daniel on September 07, 2012, 04:39 AM | #

A fundamental feature of civilization seems to be that the largesse doesn’t go to those who make it. Civilization has been described as “macroparasitism” before


Try substituting the word modernity for civilization….and modernity’s rules being disingenuously distorted by Jewish interests.. to extend not only sameness, but obsequious over compensating help to non-Whites.

...Christianity and disingenuous objectivism would also be contributing factors.

220

Posted by James Bowery on September 07, 2012, 09:34 AM | #

Rooster brings up three good points and daniel’s answer to one of them is key to understanding the relevance of frontiers outside the biosphere when daniel says:

Seeing how that narrowly ethnocentric, European infighting worked out, and in the name of turning the fight outward, lets try for the broader vision

Here’s the rub:

Civilization is a pre-sexual organism.  That means its component parts replicate exponentially to the maximum extent.  If we are responsible stewards of civilization it won’t consume and destroy the biosphere but will “turn the fight outward”.

Regarding Rooster’s quote of Hitler:  Hitler at least had the good sense to understand that when we’re talking about such a pre-sexual organism, it is all about will to power.  He simply followed up that understanding with integrity.  Like all men with exceptional integrity, he was, as a consequence a “madman”.  Daniel (and, to the extent we can take anything he says seriously, Captain Clown) wishes to produce a pre-sexual organism with a will to power that will be more inclusive than that which Hitler sought.  But the same “madness” will be required.

Captain Clown’s techno-optimism being leveled at me as though it were a critique is perhaps the most hilarious of all his jokes as will be revealed in due course.  Suffice to say, that even if I were Norman Borlaug, Haber-Bosch and Jethro Tull wrapped up in one, all I would be capable of doing is forestalling, perhaps by mere decades, the inevitable collision of the pre-sexual organism’s will to power with the biosphere—a collision that is already too far along for we, who invented most of its carrying capacity, to be called good stewards of the resulting civilization.

daniel’s optimism about pre-modern civilization’s ability to avoid macroparasitism is not shared by W. D. Hamilton in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:

The incursions of barbaric pastoralists seem to do civilizations less harm in the long run than one might expect. Indeed, two dark ages and renaissances in Europe suggest a recurring pattern in which a renaissance follows an incursion by about 800 years. It may even be suggested that certain genes or traditions of pastoralists revitalize the conquered people with an ingredient of progress which tends to die out in a large panmictic population for the reasons already discussed. I have in mind altruism itself, or the part of the altruism which is perhaps better described as self-sacrificial daring. By the time of the renaissance it may be that the mixing of genes and cultures (or of cultures alone if these are the only vehicles, which I doubt) has continued long enough to bring the old mercantile thoughtfulness and the infused daring into conjunction in a few individuals who then find courage for all kinds of inventive innovation against the resistance of established thought and practice. Often, however, the cost in fitness of such altruism and sublimated pugnacity to the individuals concerned is by no means metaphorical, and the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity (see also Eshel 1972).

221

Posted by daniel on September 07, 2012, 10:14 AM | #

daniel’s optimism about pre-modern civilization’s ability to avoid macroparasitism is not shared by W. D. Hamilton in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:


I can admit to being an optimist. But it is rather the post modern turn away from narcissism toward out groups which I believe would be a possible avenue toward unburdening non-White parasitism and population explosion.

As for forming a defensive union welcoming of all native Europeans and unleashing the madness outward, in whatever cunning ways and for whatever it takes, I’m all for it.

However, the separatist alliance of European peoples would seem pre-requisite to concrete initiatives, delegation, recognizable heroism and measurable success.

As for W.D. Hamilton, that is the same sociobiologist who had the modernistic tendency to view species, humans included, as having something like universalistically interchangeable parts; whereas E.O. Wilson’s team at least took the measure of looking upon some species and members as being incommensurate.

With quite such a lineal view, Hamilton would be more pessimistic indeed.

222

Posted by Rooster on September 07, 2012, 03:26 PM | #

Try substituting the word modernity for civilization….and modernity’s rules being disingenuously distorted by Jewish interests.. to extend not only sameness, but obsequious over compensating help to non-Whites.

I’m saying that it seems to be a fundamental feature of civilization itself, not restricted to certain times and places. Though it does seem to vary in degree and salience under different circumstances.

The term “civilization” has positive connotations among most people so there is a mental resistance to conceiving it in an obviously negative term like “macroparasitism” even though ecologically that may be all that it is.

 

223

Posted by Rooster on September 07, 2012, 03:30 PM | #

In Hitler’s discussion of his Malthusian views, he assumes a European world. He doesn’t choose “European infighting” over “turning the fight outward” against non-whites since in his view non-whites don’t exist for all practical purposes. Hitler’s reasoning would still apply in an actual all European world so if you wanted to avoid “European infighting” you’d have to prevent and suppress it.

224

Posted by Rooster on September 07, 2012, 03:49 PM | #

As for W.D. Hamilton, that is the same sociobiologist who had the modernistic tendency to view species, humans included, as having something like universalistically interchangeable parts; whereas E.O. Wilson’s team at least took the measure of looking upon some species and members as being incommensurate.

I’m not really sure what you mean here. Hamilton seemed to hold and express more politically incorrect views than Wilson.

225

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 07, 2012, 07:11 PM | #

What a dumb move it was to bring Blacks to North and South America, to the Caribbean.

Even dumber was allowing the other races of Europe to migrate to N.America, because unlike the Africans founding Americans interbred widely with the European other and that, as Grant understood,  “gives us a race reverting to the more ancient and lower type.”

JB labels it erocide.

226

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 07, 2012, 07:29 PM | #

A fundamental feature of civilization seems to be that the largesse doesn’t go to those who make it.

Clark’s, “A Farewell to Alms” argues to the contrary. Clark advocates that “The middle-class values of nonviolence, literacy, long working hours and a willingness to save” lay the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution in England.

227

Posted by Rooster on September 07, 2012, 08:07 PM | #

Clark’s, “A Farewell to Alms” argues to the contrary. Clark advocates that “The middle-class values of nonviolence, literacy, long working hours and a willingness to save” lay the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution in England.

I think the macroparasitic load can vary from light to heavy but doesn’t go away. If Clark’s account is correct, I think it would be an example of the macroparasitic load being low enough that a good deal of the spoils are returned to its creators. I don’t think the macroparasitic load is completely absent in the period Clark examines. You still had taxes, rents, the great land enclosures across the British Isles, etc.

228

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 07, 2012, 10:14 PM | #

This is a contradiction, if you will, of the original point.

A fundamental feature of civilization seems to be that the largesse doesn’t go to those who make it. Civilization has been described as “macroparasitism” before.

It’s not necessarily a ‘fundamental feature’ of civilization that the ‘largesse’ goes to other than the creators. Civilization may mitigate this “macroparasitism”.

229

Posted by Rooster on September 07, 2012, 11:09 PM | #

I agree that the macroparasitic load can vary. Macroparasitism seems to be the essence of civilization. Some degree of it is always present.

The reason that a group of men get together to establish a monopoly on violence or to replace those who control the monopoly on violence in a given civilization seems to be to collect taxes and rent.

230

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 08, 2012, 12:20 AM | #

The reason that a group of men get together to establish a monopoly on violence or to replace those who control the monopoly on violence in a given civilization seems to be to collect taxes and rent.

Or possibly an advent of civilization employed to mitigate the impact of continual unending violence. 

Limiting as a social mechanism.

Since feud by its nature tends to continually escalate, involving more and more members of a society in its bonds of hatred and bloodshed, it is to the benefit of a society to develop limiting mechanisms to protect not only its individual members and families, but also the society as a whole from death and dissolution. “According to Járnsíða, feud should be eradicated because it robs society of its best men and the king of his best subjects .... This may be (the law points up the tendency in feud societies in general for retribution to fall not on the killer himself but on a member of his family), but it can hardly be the main reason for the suppression of the practice. In Iceland no less than in other feud societies, feud was a form of clan law and it was in the interest of the state and [later] the Church to reduce the power of the clan” (Clover, “Hildigunnr’s Lament,” 144). The dominant concern of Viking society as reflected in the sagas was “to channel violence into accepted patterns of feud and to regulate conflict’, (Byock, Feud, 1). The first step in limiting feud is to narrow the circle of those directly involved in each battle. One way to do this is to develop the duel of honor between two men as a socially accepted means of redress for injury.

231

Posted by daniel on September 08, 2012, 12:27 AM | #

  Try substituting the word modernity for civilization….and modernity’s rules being disingenuously distorted by Jewish interests.. to extend not only sameness, but obsequious over compensating help to non-Whites.


Posted by Rooster on September 07, 2012, 03:26 PM | #

I’m saying that it seems to be a fundamental feature of civilization itself, not restricted to certain times and places. Though it does seem to vary in degree and salience under different circumstances.

The term “civilization” has positive connotations among most people so there is a mental resistance to conceiving it in an obviously negative term like “macroparasitism” even though ecologically that may be all that it is.

Yes, civilization has positive connotations - and well it should. Whereas more and more, modernity does not and should not, in its essential functionality and in even more so as that function, to narcissistically see all peoples as being basically the same, has been perverted by Jewish interests

Desmond, I don’t think you know very much about Eastern Europeans, but I can agree with you on this point:

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 07, 2012, 10:14 PM | #

This is a contradiction, if you will, of the original point.

  A fundamental feature of civilization seems to be that the largesse doesn’t go to those who make it. Civilization has been described as “macroparasitism” before.

It’s not necessarily a ‘fundamental feature’ of civilization that the ‘largesse’ goes to other than the creators. Civilization may mitigate this “macroparasitism”.


Yes, and this is well illustrated by Ellen Brown’s latest article, in which she discusses how Japan’s state generated and circulated currency is part and parcel of their civilization’s fiscal health. I am sure it is not coincidentally a part of their racial homogeneity as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/myth-japan-is-broke_b_1855125.html

 

232

Posted by daniel on September 08, 2012, 12:37 AM | #

I’m not really sure what you mean here. Hamilton seemed to hold and express more politically incorrect views than Wilson.

He may be more politically incorrect, pessimistic and theoretically aligned with racial mixing at once.

233

Posted by Rooster on September 08, 2012, 12:48 AM | #

Or possibly an advent of civilization employed to mitigate the impact of continual unending violence.

If you want to control and extort people, you want a monopoly on violence.

234

Posted by Rooster on September 08, 2012, 01:02 AM | #

Yes, civilization has positive connotations

My point was that people tend to conceive of civilization solely in vague, emotive terms or in terms of things that may only be incidental to it, rather than think about it as what it might fundamentally be.

Yes, and this is well illustrated by Ellen Brown’s latest article, in which she discusses how Japan’s state generated and circulated currency is part and parcel of their civilization’s fiscal health.

I don’t believe that would be an example of a complete absence of macroparasitism. Brown discusses Japan’s financial system which is based on fiat currency. Fiat currency depends on the state’s power to tax.

235

Posted by Rooster on September 08, 2012, 01:08 AM | #

He may be more politically incorrect, pessimistic and theoretically aligned with racial mixing at once.

What do you mean by “pessimistic” and “theoretically aligned with racial mixing”?

I don’t really understand your comparison of Hamilton and Wilson. I don’t see why Wilson is better or if it even makes sense to say that one is “better” than the other.

236

Posted by daniel on September 08, 2012, 01:27 AM | #

//
What do you mean by “pessimistic” and “theoretically aligned with racial mixing”?

I don’t really understand your comparison of Hamilton and Wilson. I don’t see why Wilson is better or if it even makes sense to say that one is “better” than the other.

Hamilton can be pessimistic in that he might believe that the avoidance of race mixing is difficult, because he conceives of groups (e.g., of humans) as being fairly interchangeable, in theory. At the same time, he may not like it and publicly express what he sees as pejorative effects.

Whereas Wilson’s theory would be “better” in that it provides more theoretical backing for the scientific legitimacy of separatism - even though he endorses race mixing.


“I don’t believe that would be an example of a complete absence of macroparasitism”


An example is not complete by definition.

237

Posted by daniel on September 08, 2012, 01:39 AM | #

An example is not complete by definition

238

Posted by Rooster on September 08, 2012, 01:58 AM | #

Hamilton can be pessimistic in that he might believe that the avoidance of race mixing is difficult, because he conceives of groups (e.g., of humans) as being fairly interchangeable, in theory.

I may misunderstand what you mean here , but I don’t think Hamilton saw groups as interchangeable.

Whereas Wilson’s theory would be “better” in that it provides more theoretical backing for the scientific legitimacy of separatism - even though he endorses race mixing.

I’m not sure Wilson’s theory would be “better” since he seems to view groups as being arbitrary and to favor ever bigger groups and altruism just for the sake of ever bigger groups and altruism themselves, whereas Hamilton emphasized kin altruism.

239

Posted by daniel on September 08, 2012, 02:34 AM | #

  Hamilton can be pessimistic in that he might believe that the avoidance of race mixing is difficult, because he conceives of groups (e.g., of humans) as being fairly interchangeable, in theory.

I may misunderstand what you mean here , but I don’t think Hamilton saw groups as interchangeable.

From what I gather of the argument in Wilson’s article, he looks upon Hamilton’s notion of sociobiology as being composed of building blocks which are more interchangeable than Wilson’s more recent theory would hold - that is supposed to be one of its important findings. Whereas Wilson is detecting a greater level of incommensurability between species.

I am far from a scientist, but whether this particular application (the difference between Hamilton and Wilson) is even true or not, is not nearly as important for our purposes as what we would have to look for - incommensurability - in order to underscore the important qualitative (paradigmatic) differences that warrant separatism

The alternative leads to assimilation.


  Whereas Wilson’s theory would be “better” in that it provides more theoretical backing for the scientific legitimacy of separatism - even though he endorses race mixing.

I’m not sure Wilson’s theory would be “better” since he seems to view groups as being arbitrary and to favor ever bigger groups and altruism just for the sake of ever bigger groups and altruism themselves, whereas Hamilton emphasized kin altruism.

Well, that may be true, as I am only familiar with Hamilton’s work as briefly referenced by Wilson. Nevertheless, I would refer back to my previous point.

240

Posted by daniel on September 09, 2012, 07:29 AM | #

In the first hour of the most recent Political Cesspool (Saturday, September 8th)

http://www.libertyroundtable.com/radio-archives/the-political-cesspool/

James Edwards proudly asserts that he and his stand for objective standards, best man for the job.

...period, not comma, not context, no history, no circumstances?

If a Black or Mulatto has an I.Q. of 106 and a White has an I.Q. of 105, that view is going to give the nod to the Black or Mulatto and ignore the pattern of Blacks, Mulattoes and Whites as it relates to White interests as a pattern?

It will ignore the ebbs, flows and hidden qualities of patterns?...no matter how precious overall, it is only the “objective” best at that point in time that matters?:

Patterns - what is it with right-wingers that they cannot get it?.

241

Posted by daniel on September 09, 2012, 08:29 AM | #

If a Black or Mulatto does something better, he should be able to have the women co-evolved with Whites through millennia?

242

Posted by daniel on September 10, 2012, 12:52 AM | #

Perhaps “yoked” would have been the more normal term: as in White Rightists are yoking us with objective standards while Jews and other non Whites are looking after the relative interests of their group.

243

Posted by daniel on September 13, 2012, 12:18 AM | #

Do the races in-fight? Yes. That’s another problem – but I suspect not as destructive as the fighting that occurs between races.


If I am going to say something like this, Dr. Lister’s observation should also be quickly interjected because it is important:

That while it can be natural for siblings and relatives to compete, even to the death, with one another, it is an important distinction of human parents that they might stop this from happening and render symbiotic if not cooperative relations among relatives.

244

Posted by daniel on September 15, 2012, 04:28 AM | #

I realize that one paragraph had gotten confused, so I have sorted it out into two, the first beginning with:

“Thinking about”..the second beginning with “Once coordinated as such”..

Euro-DNA Nation

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes separatism through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (see Note 1 below). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities would be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association. However, he has modified this notion some since its inception, with state-sized units being set aside provisionally for county-sized political units as they are apparently optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

The right of dwelling, association and doing business within a county is granted by the consent of the people established in that particular county. Members would have the prerogative to deny association with anybody they deem unwanted. People who tried to impose themselves on that group, and insisted upon violating their non-consent, could be treated as serious criminal offenders.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly White characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this White characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.

However, this freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen White state/county-sized ecologies derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses White Nationalism on the task of coordination.

We would not really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a White nation is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, a White nation is to hold up to the growing power of China, it will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller White States/Counties, both freely chosen and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing its larger manifestation as well.

Given the anti-White hegemony that Whites are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of White separatism.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing a White separatist nation, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other White nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of White separatism. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

The indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be Cartesian as well and problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, The White nation would seek to re-establish its traditional territories as White, particularly those in Europe, but also North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. More, it has the distinct capacity to gather disbursed peoples into a large mass under one rubric.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Indeed, considering the problem finally in terms of how to coordinate a White nation of the largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for separatism from non-native Europeans, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this separate Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular categories as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

DanielS.

245

Posted by daniel on September 28, 2012, 12:55 AM | #

Dugin’s notion of returning to pre-modern, eternal verities, sounds too much like the modernist quest for foundational truths.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/09/dugin-the-fourth-political-theory/

I might accept it somewhat as one option among an array of post modern choices, but I don’t hear him emphasizing the most important premodern reconstruction of all: our native European peoples (which we, with modernist hindsight, would recognize as the organization of our DNA).

To assert a pre-modern tradition other than that, to cover all in defiance of modernity will not suffice; this is a sort of foundational quest that assimilates and therefore takes us back to modernist pursuit. It is rather not some premodern essence other than the race (what I call the White class) that we should be focused to protect and advance. The White race, as a classification, admittedly draws lines, but encompasses and is accountable to its empirical grounding while it partakes of a hermeneutic transcendence of the myopic, empirical focus of modernity. Also in defiance of modernity, it stays within nature and human concern by turning back from Cartesian and Archimedean notions which would transcend nature.

Hence, the White class protects our ecological flexibility, qualitative disbursements and developmental processes within the life-span and in our evolution.

More, it fosters our culture and creativity. As we protect and advance the White class (race) on the basis of its/our interest, there is no reason for us to be quite so limited by one way of negotiating our traditions and advances.

Just as not all premodern traditions were pejorative, so too, not everything modern and not all tendencies of modernity are negative and destructive to our race.

The key is to gauge modernization only inasmuch as it serves the interest of our race in its various contingents.

Dasein, there being, is certainly an important notion in undoing the Cartesian notion of individual, detached self, but even more articulate of a guiding need, is Midt-Dasein, as O’Meara has pointed out. There-being-amid the White class and White sub classifications (by classifications I do not mean economic hierarchies but horizontal delimitations among the White class much like regions of the White biological Nations) is a meaningful reward and freedom for different White ways of being in the world, in the White class, for those who adopt this post modern project of the White class.

246

Posted by daniel on October 01, 2012, 02:04 AM | #

I thought Matt’s response to Uh’s contention that “when one wakes up, walks around, eats, they are hardly engaged in narrative” was good - Matt said something to the effect of, yes, but these are largely private and custodial matters, not of the sort of protracted concern for the race that would call for narrative extension.

“All he’s done is absorb academy-speak and regurgitate it for a different audience. He even admitted he went too far in stating the “primacy of narrative”, so you’re not grasping much of anything against me here.”

Of course, the answer to this is semantic.

When we are talking about things like getting up, walking around and finding something to eat, we are talking about logics of action and meaning which, being sequential and having their own coherence, are analagous in form and structure to narrative. More, as it is never the case that one lives wholly in isolation and without shared language, when these actions are communicated to others, they would start to connect and become more literally a form of language and narrative. Further still, narrative is a particularly good metaphor as it allows for the hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity and a conceptual expanse over the empirical, maintaining coherence over long term processes and various, arbitrary contingencies; and also the flexibility to return to empirical verification. Now then, this disconnect has been remedied.

That is why when narrative is used to describe these sorts of private activities, it is not invalid, so long as it is understood as metaphoric – viz. metaphoric for logics of action and meaning.

247

Posted by daniels. on October 30, 2012, 07:34 AM | #

.
When I think of civilization, a place that is ordered in reasonable way comes to mind. With that, if we speak of our civilization, it can be said that since its members are co-evolved over 41,000 years, that their collective and individual existences are warranted (as innocent until proven guilty) and accountable - in particular, to do no significant harm to the group, its individuals; and to defend against outside groups. Otherwise, expulsion may be a minimal penalty.

A civilized ordering might state, for example, that native European class members are required to serve ages 18-20 and again ages 67-68 in focused effort to prevent and reverse dwelling of non-Europeans in the habitats we target and designate for European dwelling only.

Even outside of those service periods, all would be expected to contribute where they might, and may be found guilty of gross negligence where they might have contributed; or where they have aided and abetted incursion.

Civilization may establish criteria to facilitate pairings of appropriate partners since lethal competition within the class, for a partner, may not be sufficiently respectful of this 41,000 years and its circumspect offerings.

Fights against non-Europeans, Augustinian devils (death by way of non-human nature) and good done on behalf of the European class can do much to parcel out survival and merit.

etc.

I.e., I see civilization as being to our benefit.

Now, if one talks about blocking the access to our civilization so that outsiders cannot gain entry and exploit it, that makes sense. (I think Jim called that disintermediation).


Sorry for the off topic digression in response to Bob’s comment.

I really had nothing special to add to this post; but since I’m here, I’ll just comment that the post raises a valid concern.

Perhaps we would not want every post to be of such a specialized concern, but it is not overly speculative and the deployment of genetic targeting technology certainly is an important consideration.

248

Posted by James Bowery on October 30, 2012, 01:53 PM | #

daniel writes: “When I think of civilization, a place that is ordered in reasonable way comes to mind.”

Civilizations in decline are not ordered in a “reasonable” way and civilizations in decline are clearly among things that matter.  Unless there is good reason to depart from etymology, the conservative approach to ontology is to avoid redefinition.  What “good reason” is there that justifies rendering the phrase “civilization in decline” meaningless?  One of the primary ways Jews abuse their high verbal intelligence is in precisely such redefinitions so that words like “culture” cease to exist in their original sense and vital concepts are practically inexpressible.  In the case of “civilization” we are clearly talking about cities.

One can try to justify your ontology by saying that what is “declining” is “reasonable order” but I take issue with that.  Civilizations are founded on an existing “reasonable order”.  They advance and grow only so long as that “reasonable order” remains in place.  Once the reasonable order decays, we see a change in the derivative of civilization.

Think about sine vs cosine:

The cosine starts declining long before its integral, the sine.

Your failure to make this distinction is exactly what invaders count on when they try to take credit for “high civilization”:

They’ve merely shown up in time to reap the fruits of “reasonable order” and point to the continuing “rise” despite their invasion as evidence that “you would have been so much better off if only you’d had us around earlier.”

Your ontology of “civilization” is poison.

249

Posted by daniels. on October 30, 2012, 03:05 PM | #

daniel writes: “When I think of civilization, a place that is ordered in a reasonable way comes to mind.”

To my mind, that is just sloppy ontology.

Civilizations in decline are not ordered in a “reasonable” way.  Moreover, unless there is good reason to depart from its etymology, the conservative approach to ontology is to avoid redefinition.  One of the primary ways Jews abuse their high verbal intelligence is in precisely such redefinitions so that words like “culture” cease to exist in their original sense and vital concepts are inexpressible.  In the case of “civilization” we are clearly talking about cities.

One can try to justify your ontology by saying that what is “declining” is “reasonable order” but I take issue with that.  Civilizations are founded on an existing “reasonable order”.  They advance and grow only so long as that “reasonable order” remains in place.  Once the reasonable order decays, we see a change in the derivative of civilization.

Think about sine vs cosine:

The cosine starts declining long before its integral, the sine.

Your failure to make this distinction is exactly what invaders count on when they try to take credit for “high civilization”:

They’ve merely shown up in time to reap the fruits of “reasonable order” and point to the continuing “rise” despite their invasion as evidence that “you would have been so much better off if only you’d had us around earlier.”

Your ontology of “civilization” is poison.

I don’t think that I am guilty of what you say. My notion of civilization is a very fresh organization and has nothing to do with what infrastructure that already exists. I am not talking about high civilization at all. Some rules to organize our defense, some incentive to provide for fair pairings. That’s pretty basic.

If a word other than civilization were insisted upon, I can live with it.

Its just that the word has always had positive connotations for me and I think for anybody I’ve ever known who has used it in conversation.

As I’ve said previously, I thought it had to do with Plato’s notion of force giving way to persuasion. To me that implies social organization - at any rate, I believe we need at least some social organization.  I did not conceive of cities being a necessary part of it. Nor did I know moderate sized cities were necessarily bad from an ecological standpoint. I thought they were actually a means to allow for more arable land. I happen to live in a White city. One with a pedestrian zone in the center. I believe these are two features sorely lacking in American civic engineering.

Anyway, sorry, it is not my purpose to be a trouble maker. I understand that you see civilization as the means by which parasites affix to Europeans. I understand you see civilization in that negative sense, developing necessarily in line with EO Wilson’s theory that beginning with the campfire a division of labor is spawned leading to ever more specialization; an evolutionary trajectory other than distinctly European evolutionary character of individual self sufficiency. Ultimately this leads to parasitism and the destruction of Europeans.

However, I still believe that that definition of civilization has more to do with the problem of linking infrastructure through modernity’s technology and universalizing, thus linking rules (as you sought to disintermediation with cold fusion, making the individual independent from that primordial civilizational, communal source) rather than with wise social organization that European folk tend to associate with the word, “civilization.” By contrast, White post modernism might be able organize on our own behalf, of our class, and that is what I mean by our civilization; disintermediation would be a problem of how to deal with modernity in a post modern way - how to separate from this modernist linking of non-Europeans with Europeans: we simply cannot absorb their populations and must defend ourselves. I think its best to have at least some organization in preparation, and I am calling that social agreement, “civilization.”

Hence, a European man might be defined as one one who, say, is a man of European genetics who disintermediates on the whole and in focus for specific periods from non European dwelling in European designated lands.

Since my ontology is a bit loose, let me have yet another try at distinguishing what I mean by civilization from what you may mean (I don’t think you’ll find it satisfactory, but well, if I were the singular guiding light then god help us; so, feedback and criticism welcome):


Civilization, that which might be called liberal modern, is civilized only by carry-over from previous civilization, its rules susceptible to imposition of uncontrolled integration of migrants leading to disintegration:


  universal integration through interconnecting rules, energy, communication and transport infrastructure,

  social disorganization,

  on very broad levels growing permanence in divisions of labor and roles

  and war of all against all.


  Civilization as White post modern, organized for the first time ever on behalf of native Europeans

  separation of classes (races),

  social organization

  alternation of roles

  and allocation


You know how I would commence its organization - through the Euro DNA Nation.

250

Posted by James Bowery on October 30, 2012, 06:11 PM | #

daniel writes: “Its just that the word has always had positive connotations for me and I think for anybody I’ve ever known who has used it in conversation.

He who builds his ontology on connotation engages in politics rather than philosophy.

A fruit tree ripe for the picking also has “positive connotations”.  The failure to discriminate between the function and its derivative is poison to an ontology independent of my particular preferences in dispute resolution.

251

Posted by James Bowery on October 30, 2012, 07:10 PM | #

Here are Webster’s 5 senses of of “civilization”:

civ·i·li·za·tion
   [siv-uh-luh-zey-shuhn]
noun
1.
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.
any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome’s civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.

Clearly Daniel’s definition of “civilization” must be limited to sense 4.

Bob’s usage referred to sense 1, so Daniel’s response to Bob was inappropriate.

252

Posted by Fortis on October 30, 2012, 07:16 PM | #

One of the primary ways Jews abuse their high verbal intelligence is in precisely such redefinitions so that words like “culture” cease to exist in their original sense and vital concepts are practically inexpressible.  In the case of “civilization” we are clearly talking about cities.

He who builds his ontology on connotation engages in politics rather than philosophy.

You may be right about such redefinitions.

Most people would be confused if you told them that “civilization” means cities. I think only maybe ecologists and environmental scientists would define “civilization” as cities. If you asked most people, they would probably define “civilization” in terms of vague, positive connotations, and in terms of some of the trappings of civilization like toilets or something. There is a vague, almost religious conceptual framework that people hold and that informs their definitions of “civilization”. It is a sort of Manichean view where “civilization” is all that is good, and non-civilization is bad and barbarism, savagery, etc.

253

Posted by Captainchaos on October 30, 2012, 07:43 PM | #

Bowery, do you live in a place with indoor plumbing?  Do you shop at a supermarket?  Do you like being able to make a living tapping on a keyboard?  If you hate civilization so much why don’t you man the fuck up and go live in a shack in the woods like Ted Kaczynski?

254

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 01:03 AM | #

/.
1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

4. the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome’s civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.

Clearly Daniel’s definition of “civilization” must be limited to sense 4.

Bob’s usage referred to sense 1, so Daniel’s response to Bob was inappropriate.


Wrong in more ways than one.

Yes, I knew that Bob’s (and yours to date) notion of civilization is more like number one. I readily acknowledged that but disputed the definition for important and good reasons; not to impose Roman civilization on “barbarians.”

Rather than leaving collapse to chance, I believe that it is important to prepare our defense by coordinating a modicum of organization in defense, accountability and fair allocation.

Coordination is a key word, it is unlike Roman imperialism trying to subjugate “barbaric” tribes. So, no, my definition of civilization is not like number 4 in crucial ways.

Coordination between native Europeans implies the identification of common, non-conflictual aims.

Central to the post modern idea of coordination is the concern that the paradigmatic structures of the various European groups be maintained - including your beloved Germanic states and their sovereign, self sufficient individual ways. It is about Europeans helping each other to maintain their kinds and territories. The objective is coordinating their efforts so that they do not conflict with one another but are able to defend against the common antagonist - viz. non-Europeans.

The optimal extent which a White nation commits help to other White nations is something that can be formulated. It probably has to do with how much it can comfortably spare and how much it needs to contribute with a view that it might otherwise lose buffering nations, allied numbers and qualities.

My response to Bob was therefore teasing apart a radical definition of civilization, lets say with a Heideggarian-type pursuit, from modernist definition.

I believe that this is a crucial matter, if not the crucial matter.

The pejorative that you (and Kaczynski LOL) see is in modernity’s universal linkages through rules and infrastructure.

What we have here is a problem and a wail against modernity’s linkages that is ultra legitimate and calls for a post modern response.

I believe that the different kinds of genetic Europeans can maintain their distinctions and coordinate on this goal of disintermediation from non-Europeans as definitive of themselves as the genus, European man.

Rather than my notion of civilization being poison, the Cartesian notion of individualism is poison. It is toxic beyond a doubt. Some osmosis, certainly to the extent of accountability, between kinds of roles and divisions of labor is the non toxic answer to the pejorative evolution that you see, culminating in the sci fi scenario of our eusociality. Some terms of duty for the young and old, where they focus on defense, for a time, not specializing for a life time, is conducive to each individual developing a fuller set of skills and relative independence; and not becoming subserviant specialists. Their being killed in battle or by non human nature, should tragically satisfy your concern for the selection of sufficiently strong and intelligent individuals. Your state, where individualism is an overwhelming preoccupation, is a focus that can take care of the rest: “Warning, enter Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota, North Holland etc. at the risk of natural duel.”

In the service of avoiding the confusion that could lessen our chances to coordinate in our defense, it was appropriate to tease apart a definition of civilization, with the conceptual aid of post modern White separatism distinguishing that which is healthy and distinctly European from modernity and its universal linking.

255

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 01:24 AM | #

The pursuit of distinguishing foundational characteristics of Europeans, or Northern Europeans, and holding that they are to be found in a strong measure of individual autonomy is not a wrong pursuit; it is not wrong to want to defend - except, of course, where it does not allow for overall defense of Northern Europeans. I think you recognize that.

This is a characteristically modernist quest, a quest of modernist “wailers” who are despondent of modernity’s ramifications. Not knowing quite what to do, they push in the modernist way of pursuing unassailable foundations with all the more determination.

That is not altogether wrong, but what I want to say is that this way of pursuing foundational truths does run the risk of myopia, of losing sight of patterns and their qualities.

I saw a criticism of empirical method - or bad empirical method, since you and Graham will correctly, no doubt, show that contemporary empiricists are not so lame:

Using the analogy of American football - bad empiricism has tended to focus on the left tackle and its procedures, while losing overall sight of the team and its various members necessary positions, functions and procedures.

256

Posted by E.M. Pirical on October 31, 2012, 04:23 AM | #

The objective is coordinating their efforts so that they do not conflict with one another but are able to defend against the common antagonist - viz. non-Europeans.

The problem with this view is that the common antagonist is not non-Europeans but other Europeans and their institutions and entities. Thus the enemy of the serf in arenda Poland was ultimately not the Jew but those who protected the Jew.

http://www.culturewars.com/2003/RevolutionaryJew.html

257

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 05:00 AM | #

Posted by E.M. Pirical on October 31, 2012, 04:23 AM | #

  The objective is coordinating their efforts so that they do not conflict with one another but are able to defend against the common antagonist - viz. non-Europeans.

The problem with this view is that the common antagonist is not non-Europeans but other Europeans and their institutions and entities. Thus the enemy of the serf in arenda Poland was ultimately not the Jew but those who protected the Jew.

http://www.culturewars.com/2003/RevolutionaryJew.html+


Well, what a surprise that you would make a comment like this, as if there are not traitors among all European peoples.

Traitors are outside the White class.

258

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 06:46 AM | #

P.S. This pattern of traitorous elites is a key reason why it is best to characterize The White Class as leftist, so that it will maintain vigil in that regard.

259

Posted by James Bowery on October 31, 2012, 10:23 AM | #

Daniel writes: “Yes, I knew that Bob’s (and yours to date) notion of civilization is more like number one. I readily acknowledged that but disputed the definition for important and good reasons; not to impose Roman civilization on “barbarians.””

No, Daniel, it is not “notion”—not definition—that is at issue here, it is “sense”.

Sense 4 refers to the derivative of sense 1.  Bob’s usage of “civilization” was in the “sense” of 1 and you criticized it as though its usage was commensurate with sense 4.  Velocity is not commensurate with distance.

Sense 4 embodies your usage of “civilization” as consisting not simply of “order” (one can point to the “order” of high civilization’s manifestations) but specifically of the processive ordering character of sense 4.  I don’t disagree with that sense of “civilization” as a process of manifesting order, resulting, ultimately, in a manifest order of sense 1.  Indeed, it is my contention that such a process is the transfer of integrity (ordered internal relations toward Being) from the individual to the society resulting in the loss of the integrity of the individual as one approaches “high civilization” (sense 1).  At the extreme, Being is transferred from the individual to civilization, just as Being is transferred to the individual from his or her cells with the transfer of integrity from the cells to their “civilization”.  At the point of an Individual’s Being, the cells are no longer beings.  Some believe that at the point of death, this process is reversed and Being (very temporarily) reverts to each cell, as the individual disintegrates.

Therefore your criticism literally made no sense.

What I am referring to as “poison” is not the idea that “Rome’s civilization of the barbarians is admirable.” but the idea that 100meters is a velocity.

260

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 11:14 AM | #

Daniel writes: “Yes, I knew that Bob’s (and yours to date) notion of civilization is more like number one. I readily acknowledged that but disputed the definition for important and good reasons; not to impose Roman civilization on “barbarians.””

No, Daniel, it is not “notion”—not definition—that is at issue here, it is “sense”.

Sense 4 refers to the derivative of sense 1.  Bob’s usage of “civilization” was in the “sense” of 1 and you criticized it as though its usage was commensurate with sense 4.  Velocity is not commensurate with distance.

Therefore your criticism literally made no sense.

What I am referring to as “poison” is not the idea that “Rome’s civilization of the barbarians is admirable.” but the idea 100meters is a velocity.

This is poison for the same reason that the conflation of wealth (distance) and income (velocity) are commensurate is poison to political economy:

The “wealthy” becomes “people with high income” in the vicious word games played by Jewish inspired political economics and lead to FDR’s transformation of Normal Lowell’s genuine wealth tax into FDR’s Wealth Tax of 1935 that protected the wealthy and inhibited economic activity and class mobility.

Someone once said of this kind of conflation of incommensurate terms, “The devil is the author of confusion.”


Jim, understand: I am not criticizing what you and Bob want to take-down. I am proposing and I maintain that it is better described as modernity’s linkages rather than civilization (understood in the classic, European way) that is the source of consternation.

What I am proposing is Not like definition 4 because I am not proposing homogenizing the different European peoples, rather I am proposing a minimum of coordination so that we are not at conflict with each other but rather with non-Europeans and traitors where they emerge as the relevant front.

If you understand the way people apprehend the word civilization, it usually corresponds to normalized social procedure: “as in, oh he or she is so uncivilized” etc.

This ordinary understanding of civilization is important.

When talking to people, we do not talk to them as a scientist does, that there is a mammal or a mixed Beagle/Welsh Terrier on the porch, we say there is a dog on the porch. We talk in human sized terms.

It is not poison to suggest that civilization is about organization and thought of by Europeans in positive terms whereas it is generally understood that modernity and its technological, high speed, bringing together of cultures has negative consequences.

Nevertheless, I have said that if you insist on maintaining civilization as the word corresponding to that which you describe that I can live with it. I just don’t think it is a good choice for ordinary usage.

I am not criticizing Bob or you; I am proposing that modernity and its linkages are better notions (and no, “notion” is not a bad word; I believe Hegel used it) and words to use than civilization - because civilization has positive connotations in terms of cooperative, non conflictual conduct among people: which are precisely things we need to grapple with in anticipation of collapses - some of which we might hope to instigate - disintermediation.

It is social organization that we are talking about. Who is trying to make chaos and confusion?

I have happily introduced the notion of incommensuration in my discussions.

It makes perfect sense to recommend that the discussion be cast in terms of modernity/post modernity rather than the terms of civilization, especially since you would be ostensibly wishing to take down something that has positive connotations - not the greatest public relations move.

You accuse me of proposing just what Jewish interests want. On the contrary. What the Jew wants is for Europeans to look like fools, to be disorganized and to be fighting each other by the likes of “E.M. Pirical’s” comment. 

261

Posted by James Bowery on October 31, 2012, 12:52 PM | #

So would you say Rome’s multiculturalism leading to its decay and downfall was due to modernity?

262

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 01:58 PM | #

...
Posted by James Bowery on October 31, 2012, 12:52 PM | #

So would you say Rome’s multiculturalism leading to its decay and downfall was due to modernity?


Something more like that than civilization, yes.*

We’re talking about the same kind of pejorative, inadvisable integration and mixing of peoples.

More, it was done largely by force, not by persuasion (contrary to Plato’s definition).


* While that pejorative integration of cultures would not normally be cast in terms of modernization for the Roman times, modernity (as opposed to post modernity) and its penchant for universalistic integration would, nevertheless, be an appropriate negative metaphor for today.

I.e., modernity take down

would be better than civilization take down

263

Posted by James Bowery on October 31, 2012, 02:03 PM | #

Don’t skirt your own ontology, Daniel.

Don’t say “something more like that than civilization”. 

Say what you mean:

Was Rome a modern society or not?

264

Posted by Leon Haller on October 31, 2012, 02:48 PM | #

The only real long term hope for the white race is for a return to nationalism (maybe National Socialism) in Europe. In the New World, outside of a conscious, White Zionist secessionism, the conditions for white survival will never exist again.

The innate lack of ethnocentrism on the part of whites is an evolutionary disadvantage it may prove impossible to overcome. This is the heart of the White Zion idea (again, WN geographic ingathering within a sovereign polity small enough that we could eventually become the majority, and proceed to transform that polity into a WN/Racial State). In absolute numbers, there are many ethnocentric whites, just as there are many ethical blacks. But in comparative terms, those numbers (in both examples) are small relative to other races.

And, of course, they exist in moral gradations. Thus, there were doubtless huge numbers of whites in the 70s/80s (I know, I remember) who were easily persuadable that nonwhite immigration (perhaps masked under simple “immigration”, as better than 90% of all post-1965 immigrants to the US have been nonwhite) should be terminated. I distinctly recall my parents and their friends complaining about the “invasion” as far back as the late 70s (and they probably did so earlier but I was just too young to be taking notice). But once the alien colonizers have settled here, had “American” children, bought homes, “built lives”, etc, the number of whites who could be persuaded to endorse the colonizers’ forcible repatriation drastically plummets. It was always (and continues to be so today) so much easier to keep out alien settlers than to try to reverse course post-arrival, and this is true morally as well as physically/militarily.

I don’t want to sound too conceited or “I told you so-ish”, but at least for New World whites (and quite possibly for Europeans, too, the way matters are unfolding), White Zion is our only real hope for ultimate racial survival (perhaps some form of domestic, intra-national White Zionist movement is possible, but I doubt it; if/when the Northwest Front starts looking more viable, I’ll change my tune).

 

 

 

265

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 04:18 PM | #

Just as Platonic forms and aspects of Christianity were antecedents of Modernity, if you insist on me making the connection between Rome’s campaigns and modernity, yes, ok. I could. There was an essential connection. It had modernizing aspects. Rome practiced Stoicism which saw all aspects of the universe as as necessary to accept - the relation to modernity there is clear; they also practiced Epicureanism - a distinct precursor to empiricism and positivism - hence, related to modernity too. Later Christianity predominated in Rome. Its relation to modernity and the enlightenment have been noted by many scholars.

Its aggressive campaigns and integrative infrastructure linking Europe the Mediterranean and Middle East are very much an antecedent to modernity.

But was Caesar’s attack on the Gauls civilized? I should say not.

Was the Roman scattering of the Israeli virus into Europe civilizing? No.

Were the Roman legions being defeated by the Germans an act from a civilization, in accordance with its civilization, I would say, yes.

Rome is not customarily cast in terms of modernity, no; it would not be called modern, but it is not important when addressing the essence of the phenomenon that we are concerned about - imposed integration. Rome may have taken a certain amount of pride and lasted quite long in part as a result of encouraging nations to retain their local customs and ways, but the fact is, it was an aggressor and generally an imposer of forced integration and servitude.


P.S. It almost seems as if you are trying to re-write the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (not a good idea).

266

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 05:22 PM | #

Leon, pursuit of White secession and ethnostate(s) is a perfect objective. I’m all for it.

However, I’ve heard it said that the N word evokes shut-off response. The term White Zion does that for me.

The term “Zion” in the context of our pursuit is unbearable.

Maybe a carry over from CI.

267

Posted by Hesper on October 31, 2012, 05:31 PM | #

Was the Egyptian New Kingdom a forerunner to “modernity”?

Was the Assyrian empire a forerunner to “modernity’?

Was the Magadha empire of India a forerunner to “modernity”?

Was the Han empire of ancient China (huge Sinicization campaigns of the southern area now termed part of China proper and massive canal and road building works) a forerunner to “modernity”?

Was the Islamic caliphate from Fez to Lahore a forerunner to “modernity”?

Was the pan-Mexican Amerind Aztec empire a forerunner to “modernity”?

Was the Western Euro (largely Protestant Northern European driven) industralization and democratization a forerunner to “modernity”? (LOL)

In the above, I notice a pattern of recurrent and spontaneously arising human social development and logistical organization constraints that are constant and intrinsic in this process.

*******************************

Guys, I just finished thumbing over a leftie’s history of White settlement of North America. Oh boy, it’s got me upset and mad.

Between 1607 and 1890’s (closing of the frontier), Whites - mainly of Northern European extraction - in the course of grabbing other people’s land and forming highly complicated, stratified and environment-exploiting (while producing little, only pollution) urban aggregations, rounded up the strictly honour-code governed and clan-based individualist American Indian tribes and committed genocide and force integration on them.

This has resulted in the virtual extinction of this once proud and freedom-loving people, a people of simple, blessed Stone Age capabilities which the White man’s demonic resources-lust and manipulation of nature easily - and haughtily! - overcame. The Whites stigmatized native American society and mores as “primitive”, “backward”, and criticized them for not doing whatever the Whites wanted.

Do you think Yahweh is mad at us?

268

Posted by Hesper on October 31, 2012, 06:16 PM | #

I lack the time, and patience, to enter into corrective expositions of the more extravagantly inaccurate opinions about Antiquity here, or peruse each comment.

However, as someone with a Classics education, who won State-wide prizes, at both high school and university level, for his Classical studies essays and orations, I must tell you all that your knowledge of ancient Greco-Roman cultural development and polity is contemptible.


Maybe Hesper should promise to forbear intruding into scientific assays and theories, and other gasbags refrain from humiliating themselves making preposterous and unfactual assertions about Rome and such.

The Livian tradition, corroborated lately by concrete archaeological discoveries, posits a legendary foundation of Rome the city in 753 BC (settlement, from diggings research, appears as early as the middle of the tenth century BC however).

Rome fell to Germanic marauders (the latter acting the part of Mexican gangs in contemporary “America”) in AD 476 (in truth the infiltration was earlier, but Odovacar or Odoacer consciously forbore elevating another puppet of the Germans to the Imperial purple in the West in that year).

Is it rational to speak of Roman society as presaging stages of “modernity” (by which, surely, is meant this late period of Pax Americana Western Zivilisation)  when it endured for above 1200 years (753 BC-476)?

Was it “modern” in the 350’s BC when “formalized natural duels” were still current in the daily mores of the Roman and other Italic nations? (Witness the challenge of the Horatii and others in the pages of Livy; this is confirmed by late Etruscan, Oscan and early Roman sepulchre murals and potsherd daubs, as well as weapons hoard discoveries in coffins or elsewhere).

Yes, that’s right, every people in the “barbaric” and tribal stage of their culture (pre-culture actually) has exhibited these traits because in a setting of stringently local and kindred cohabitation, where everything is visible in immediate terms (no faraway castles or villages) of physical propinquity (think Tolkien’s Hobbit Shire) and cousin consanguinity, “honour” (maintaining in the eyes of your brethren your worthiness to keep your inherited place and property) is jealously guarded and valorously asserted.

Long-term settled people, many showing fellaheen characteristics of mass historically-inert peasantries and carbon-frozen culturally stagnant (but imitatively traditionalist) aristocracies, such as the Egyptians - both the later Pharaonic and now Arabo-Islamized - the Chinese, the Hindus, the *Jews*, the Iranians, the Balkan, southern and more recently northern Western Europeans, also have come to lose this instinct for honour. Because honour in our present cultural environment has no meaning and meets only with ridicule.

History is tragic, as Spengler remarked, and furthermore he said Nordic history will be the most tragic of all cultures’ efflorescences and declensions.

But it is the result of natural processes (processes which we have often mismanaged, misconceived and failed to adequately profit from largely owing to the inherent unreal/reality-distorting values of our Christian pseudomorphosis and the Renaissance Classicizing pseudomorphosis wherein by the latter a culturally Germanic hereditary monarchy-and-aristocracy in Western Europe, from Norway to Spain, was gradually replaced as the political ideal by the ancient Pagan Mediterranean city-state democracy of the Greco-Roman culture. A catastrophic change because we misunderstood both the innate racial, geographical and historical foundations of the Classical, and of our own Western culture’s natural potentialities).

269

Posted by Hesper on October 31, 2012, 06:27 PM | #

Have any of you been to Scandinavia?

Do you know how ridiculous the Viking-as-immanent-ethos argument is when describing the industrious and unspiritual bourgeois consumerism of the modern Scandinavians?

Do you walk around your American cities with open eyes to see that this vaunted individualism, in places like Vermont or rural Tennessee, is mainly hot air?

Rural eastern Tennessee (few blacks or other non-founding stock whites) has counties with some of the highest rates of Fed. Government disability pension and long-term unemployment benefits addiction.

Is this “evil”? No. Nothing wrong with it. They are what they are. Old men become senile and decrepit and then die. Old cultures become atomized and socially dysgenic and then collapse.

270

Posted by James Bowery on October 31, 2012, 09:34 PM | #

Hesper, is it not Spengler’s view that the final stage of decay—money—is overcome by the only power capable of overcoming it:  blood?

Do you agree with his assessment?  If so, is there any historic precedent for blood taking the form of a culture of individual integrity—natural duel, honor, physical propinquity, consanguinity, etc.—rather than merely a replay of the mass integrity of a Caesar’s armies mobilized against the power of money giving rise to another cycle?

271

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 11:03 PM | #

Posted by Hesper on October 31, 2012, 05:31 PM | #

Was the Egyptian New Kingdom a forerunner to “modernity”?

Was the Assyrian empire a forerunner to “modernity’?

Was the Magadha empire of India a forerunner to “modernity”?

Hesper, it is widely acknowledged that the things that I cited had set direct precedents for modernity: Plato’s forms, epicureanism, Christianity. The line and the essence is clear.


You seem to be trying to bury the point. That a modicum of social organization and cooperation (persuasion) is important to distinguish from technological and then social assimilation of formerly differing peoples. That (even in trying to be cute by taking it to a logical extreme with the examples you cite) is more characteristically a facet of modernity than civilization, yes.


is there any historic precedent for blood taking the form of a culture of individual integrity—natural duel, honor, physical propinquity, consanguinity, etc. rather than merely a replay of the mass integrity of a Caesar’s armies mobilized against the power of money giving rise to another cycle?

The German’s defeat of the three Roman legions would have involved significant social cooperation, including women participating in the fight - that innovative social organization in response to a threat to their people was not a poison of natures laws.

 

 

272

Posted by Hesper on October 31, 2012, 11:15 PM | #

Comrade Bowery (you’ll overlook the strained, raspy tone of my earlier comments I’m sure. Slept terribly last night),


is it not Spengler’s view that the final stage of decay—money—is overcome by the only power capable of overcoming it:  blood?

Yes. As the conclusion of two *decades* of both private lucubrations and formally preparatory systematic research into all branches of human history, that was Spengler’s judgment. Blood (i.e. personal or hereditary ties, of both a vertical and horizontal distribution) alone had the strength to defy the strait-jacket tyranny of Money (i.e. contractual and impersonal ties).

Do you agree with his assessment?

Indeed I do sir (isn’t my constant, and increasingly shrill, promotion of his theories proof of that? LOL at myself).

Commercial relationships (e.g., You, otherwise a stranger, trade with me and we associate as one together against the world) are insufficient for the long-term macrocosmic governance of a polity of any size or complexity. 

This is because financial interests are shallow, attract to the top the worst passions of the worst individuals in a culture, and any compact grounded on rationalist materialism (self-choosing voluntarism instead of ancestral involuntarism dictating how one disposes of one’s self in politics, friendships, marriage and livelihood) eventually breaks apart as those financial interests become unequally lucrative/detrimental to one of the parties involved or one discerns the advantage to be gotten by stabbing the other in the back, e.g. Jews using the Anglosphere only in so far as they could rely on Anglosphere strategic interest to weaken growing German hegemony on the continent.

If so, is there any historic precedent for blood taking the form of a culture of individual integrity—natural duel, honor, physical propinquity, consanguinity, etc.—rather than merely a replay of the mass integrity of a Caesar’s armies…

Not in recorded human history. Only a Hitler can defeat a Stalin. Though, theoretically, once the competing Caesars have cleared the board by mutually obliterating each other, the surviving individuals, composed of both the lucky refuse of the old megalopolitan conurbations and the few heroic nonconformists who resisted and withdrew from degenerate society, crawl into the light of a desolated landscape, political interaction is radically reduced to the ambit and dynamic of single individuals arranging themselves over a few hectares of pasturage and farm cottages.

273

Posted by Hesper on October 31, 2012, 11:28 PM | #

Continued:

When *internal* convulsions end a culture’s late period political form (empire), the individual is the basic unit involved (not family or clan). But these are masses of individuals, anonymous, rootless, pedigree-less, indifferent to honour or self-sufficiency (indeed, communist utopian redistribution of income or property is their motive) and often mongrelized. The Yellow Turban and Five Pecks of Rice rebellions in the last century of the Han empire’s existence were of this character: millions of communist individuals, but not one honour-driven individual.

By this stage of a culture, the hoi polloi are “liberated” from the old cultural restraints (which were initially rural and religious in formation) and therefore give free rein to their materialistic appetites. But the elite by this time, an amoral and nepotistic bureaucracy of placemen and overly-specialised technocrats, cannot provide for the excessive wants of the populace and mostly wastes or plunders what scarce resources are being drained from the ever-decreasing genuine industry that is going on.

Individualism is re-introduced into a decayed culture by the cultural intrusion of “barbarians” (technologically/socio-politically less complex peoples but whose hierarchies, crudely patriarchal rather than grandly political, are more instinctive and pertinacious). There is paradox involved here. The Gallo-Roman priest (typical liar and exaggerator - lying for the Lord as they always do) Salvianus wrote a short book, that is still extant, in the 410’s on the Germanic piecemeal invasion of Gaul called, in English, “On the Government of God”. Here he fervently praises the Germans as more chaste, abstemious, honest, religious and greatly less debauched than the Roman provincials - these are the same Germans who spent the past century in sustained thievish border raids on Roman farms, villages and outposts (thievish because these depredations lacked political designs of conquest and settlement) and were habitually raising obscure usurpers in the field to be emperor in competition with the reigning incumbent only to then murder them (German mercenaries assassinated a majority, but not all, of the failed emperors and generalissimos between Constantine and 476.

These are also the same Germans who in the year 410 were abysmally assaulting the walls of Treves (Augusta Treverorum) which swords and arrows, being entirely ignorant of basic Roman siegecraft and the making of siege engines to effectively batter stonewall fortifications.

Sound familiar? The Moslems of today?

The Moslems are more virtuous than we are. We all can see that, as it regards sexual, social, family and even ethnic morality within their colonies in the West. Yet, paradoxically, these Moslems rape and pimp White women, steal and rob White businesses and welfare systems with ravenous hunger, and though immune to PC are, the university educated at least, the first to bleat about “racism” and “prejudice” and (my favourite) “Islamophobia” when they are, as any honest and vigorous ascending group is, the greatest “bigots” on the planet.

Again paradoxically, and like our German forbears, the Moslems are both highly *ingroup* moral whilst highly *outgroup* amoral/immoral. Honour killing of careless sluts on the one hand, and bringing in uncle Zafar on a visa fraud scheme on the other.

Morality is not a universal law but a kaleidoscopic perspective. Morality is a means to an end. The question is: What end?  And whose end?

The most clannish and inbred of Western immigrants, the Moslems, are the same destined to reacquaint us with the example and practice of individualism (have you seen how firmly/violently they react to anyone “disrespecting” them or their religion? Snorri Sturluson’s heroes would applaud such love of Honour!).

274

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 11:39 PM | #

Hence, the reason to interpose the word modernity instead of the word civilization is that it is both more descriptive of what is afflicting us and it corresponds with a turn toward post modernity which has the established conceptual moves that warrant separatism, including White separatism (though these conceptual moves need to be more widely understood as yet).

 


P.S. That Bob had put quotes around “civilization” is so noted.

275

Posted by daniels. on October 31, 2012, 11:49 PM | #

Hesper, I hope you can dump your long winded stuff elsewhere. This thread has done much to clarify matters.

Until it became a dumping ground for the history of how wonderful German individuals are and how poison social organization is, it ended like this:


I thought Matt’s response to Uh’s contention that “when one wakes up, walks around, eats, they are hardly engaged in narrative” was good - Matt said something to the effect of, yes, but these are largely private and custodial matters, not of the sort of protracted concern for the race that would call for narrative extension.

“All he’s done is absorb academy-speak and regurgitate it for a different audience. He even admitted he went too far in stating the “primacy of narrative”, so you’re not grasping much of anything against me here.”

Of course, the answer to this is semantic.

When we are talking about things like getting up, walking around and finding something to eat, we are talking about logics of action and meaning which, being sequential and having their own coherence, are analagous in form and structure to narrative. More, as it is never the case that one lives wholly in isolation and without shared language, when these actions are communicated to others, they would start to connect and become more literally a form of language and narrative. Further still, narrative is a particularly good metaphor as it allows for the hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity and a conceptual expanse over the empirical, maintaining coherence over long term processes and various, arbitrary contingencies; and also the flexibility to return to empirical verification. Now then, this disconnect has been remedied.

That is why when narrative is used to describe these sorts of private activities, it is not invalid, so long as it is understood as metaphoric – viz. metaphoric for logics of action and meaning.

276

Posted by Hesper on November 01, 2012, 12:10 AM | #

The honoured Comrade Bowery,

...giving rise to another cycle?

We can’t stop time. It’s no different than a mother giving birth to a child but, the child having reached 6 years of age, she wishes that it develop and grow old no further. The Kultur cycle must proceed as will also its more transparently physical counterparts, the Nitrogen Cycle or Oxygen Cycle, proceed and will always proceed. No messianic intervention to avert decay and death is possible.


Hesper, it is widely acknowledged that the things that I cited had set direct precedents for modernity: Plato’s forms, epicureanism, Christianity. The line and the essence is clear.

On the contrary Daniel, I alluded to these (howsoever faintly) in my treatment of pseudomorphosis. Having studiously mined the Classical canon (what little was left) we seized upon what gratified and reflected our own innermost aspirations and biases.

We didn’t “catch” decadence from reading Classical texts, no more than the culturally Hinduised Javanese and Malays did from the extremely degenerated post-Buddhist Indians and their culture. But classical and Christian ideas influenced the path our decadence would follow: its peculiar forms and slogans.

The assorted infirmities and terminal cessation of brain activity/locomotive power brought on by old age are not infectious. The “germ” of natural decay is inherent in the matter of a body not something “acquired”.

Epicureanism (elegantly upper-class hedonism, and sceptical scientism) are present in the history of all High Cultures as are religions like (but not as bad) as Christianity.

Plato’s forms didn’t lead to Baconian empirical science and the 19th century explosion in industrial output which demanded the subjugation of Afro-Asiatic countries for both resource-extraction and location of new markets for sale of industrial product.

”...is important to distinguish from technological and then social assimilation of formerly differing peoples.”

No it isn’t. You’re confusing your (and our) interests and wishes with the course of natural processes. It may be both my interest and wish to never die, but I will die nonetheless. “Racial purity” has never been maintained, not even by the Jews, however strong cultures with strong elites make policy determinations about how to stratify the newcomers and subject races: Equality or Servitude? “We” chose to integrate as brothers rather than dominate as masters.

The very purpose of a Culture is expressing artistically, politically and militarily a people’s spiritual and psychological ideals in will-to-power. This involves appropriating land and the “differing peoples” who indigenously inhabit it.

...is more characteristically a facet of modernity than civilization, yes.

Faustian Western culture is the first, and hitherto only, world-encompassing culture. Evidence for this, and its basis for global supremacy, is the technical mastering of coal, electricity, wind, sun, even the atom by fission. So the number and extent of “differing peoples” we encountered, subjugated and are now absorbing is greater than the other empires. But hardly unique.

Unlike some of the more crazed race-patriots I realize that though Humanity is an abstraction, common human characteristics abound and these characteristics are not slight. We are interfertile. This suggests, and daily experience reinforces, that there is sufficient likeness in face and form for inter-racial pairs to be attracted to one another (heightened during rank-abolished, undifferentiated and decadent times of lost race-instinct), to couple and to bring forth viable human offspring of mixed breed.

Many don’t appear to understand what “natural” means when they say “miscegenation is unnatural”. It’s akin to the preaching of the Cath-tard clerics against those acts which contradict “natural law”. A law is only a law if there is some third party around to enforce it and punish transgression.
“Natural” in this context means something is physically possible. Homosexual coitus is “natural” because possible (and not self-punishing), likewise miscegenation is “natural” because there is no bodily impediment to coupling with a racial alien.

277

Posted by Captainchaos on November 01, 2012, 01:28 AM | #

Many don’t appear to understand what “natural” means when they say “miscegenation is unnatural”.

Merely because something is possible does not necessarily make it optimal.  Clearly, as I’m sure you know full well, “natural” is meant to be synonymous with optimal when the former is used normatively.  Homosexuality and miscegenation are not adaptive life choices as relates to one’s reproductive fitness; which is precisely why most people instinctively avoid them.

But you have not come here to enlighten, nor conduct an honest debate, have you, jewboy?

You see, instead of engaging with whatever florid diatribe you happen to trot out I simply satisfy myself with cutting your balls off.  Everytime, kike.  Maybe it’s because I’m German. 

 

278

Posted by daniels. on November 01, 2012, 01:36 AM | #

Hesper - please spam elsewhere.


We didn’t “catch” decadence from reading Classical texts


Wrong, there are logics and consequences.


The “germ” of natural decay is inherent in the matter of a body not something “acquired”


It may be imposed.


Epicureanism (elegantly upper-class hedonism, and sceptical scientism)


Epicureanism was not about hedonism. It was about a proper ordering and valuing of pleasures - rational thinking being utmost as opposed to superstition.

Plato’s forms didn’t lead to Baconian empirical science

Wrong, Plato’s forms and his idea of substance were forerunners of enlightenment era science.

It is important to distinguish civilization from technological and then social assimilation of formerly differing peoples.

No it isn’t

 

Yes it is and it is also important to distinguish from campaigns of aggression. I don’t see you trying to do any good for Whites, for native Europeans, with this obfuscating muck of yours.


You’re confusing your (and our) interests and wishes with the course of natural processes. It may be both my interest and wish to never die, but I will die nonetheless

I am not confusing anything. Perhaps YOU have an absurd, detached notion of necessity in which there is nothing that we can do.


It may be both my interest and wish to never die, but I will die nonetheless. “Racial purity” has never been maintained, not even by the Jews, however strong cultures with strong elites make policy determinations about how to stratify the newcomers and subject races: Equality or Servitude? “We” chose to integrate as brothers rather than dominate as masters.


Who said anything about racial purity around which you put quotes? Why do you try to anesthetize against agency in our defense with this fatalism? I am concerned to preserve and advance our European patterns, yes. And there are some European patterns that are more distinct than others.

Did we always choose to integrate as brothers? While I might hope so as well, and I might also suggest that you are engaging in wishful thinking.


The very purpose of a Culture is expressing artistically, politically and militarily a people’s spiritual and psychological ideals in will-to-power.

Ah yes, I rember that you are a Nietszche head: ecce homo, the gay science and more pander to puerile females

 

Unlike some of the more crazed race-patriots I realize that though Humanity is an abstraction, common human characteristics abound and these characteristics are not slight. We are interfertile. This suggests, and daily experience reinforces, that there is sufficient likeness in face and form for inter-racial pairs to be attracted to one another (heightened during rank-abolished, undifferentiated and decadent times of lost race-instinct), to couple and to bring forth viable human offspring of mixed breed.

I have been quick to note that unfortunately, we can breed with non Europeans.

Whether they are viable or not is not the concern here: our concern here is to defend and foster our European kinds. If that is Not your purpose here, and it seems it may not be, then you are either in the wrong place or an enemy aggressor.

Many don’t appear to understand what “natural” means when they say “miscegenation is unnatural”. It’s akin to the preaching of the Cath-tard clerics against those acts which contradict “natural law”. A law is only a law if there is some third party around to enforce it and punish transgression.
“Natural” in this context means something is physically possible. Homosexual coitus is “natural” because possible (and not self-punishing), likewise miscegenation is “natural” because there is no bodily impediment to coupling with a racial alien.

I never said miscegenation was unnatural.

However, I will say that the prohibition of White men from defending against it, using the means at their disposal to defend their co-evolution is unnatural.

I never said miscegenation was unnatural. Homosexuality*, pedophilia and rape are natural inclinations for some too. But we impose social constraints on them. With regard to rape, pedophilia and certain kinds of miscegenation, we impose these prohibitions for very good reason.

These distinctions are why it is important to get away from scientism and the modernist notion of necessity.


Hesper, it is plain to see that your arguments are an obtuse but overbearing diversion. Are you Jewish?

 


*With regard to fudge-packers, provided that they do not try to promote their views to the young and flexible, go discreetly to their bars and are generally accountable as anyone else, I am willing to leave them alone.

279

Posted by Captainchaos on November 01, 2012, 02:12 AM | #

Perhaps Hesper isn’t Jewish, but he definitely sucks Jewish cock.

280

Posted by daniels. on November 01, 2012, 02:25 AM | #

Posted by Captainchaos on November 01, 2012, 02:12 AM | #

Perhaps Hesper isn’t Jewish, but he definitely sucks Jewish cock.


Indeed he does. And he brought one of his partners Posted by Antifascist on November 01, 2012, 01:54 AM | here to spew more lame obfuscation, disinformation.

281

Posted by Hesper on November 01, 2012, 06:23 AM | #

Posted by daniels. on November 01, 2012, 02:25 AM | #

Posted by Captainchaos on November 01, 2012, 02:12 AM | #

Perhaps Hesper isn’t Jewish, but he definitely sucks Jewish cock.


Indeed he does. And he brought one of his partners Posted by Antifascist on November 01, 2012, 01:54 AM | here to spew more lame obfuscation, disinformation.

LOL.

I see that I’ve missed an incomparably witty and patrician exchange between these two cocktail party wags.

Such repartee! Accusing those we disagree with of sexual peccadilloes. Excellent, excellent!

Today indecent prole profanities and innuendos and no doubt tomorrow CNN interviews or C-SPAN televised discussions at the Kennedy Centre to spread White-wing views.


***************

Of course such behaviour (miscegenation and permanent lifetsyle sodomy) is not optimal but it happens regardless, and it clearly has a natural basis, as do all forms of sickness.

As I’ve remarked repeatedly I think a political solution (only a government/military force can close the borders and enact police measures) is the sole way to mend a political problem. Prole-level racial hatred won’t motivate the desperately needed, better sort of people with access to power and money , and besides, the social apathy to racial differences I think in large part is due to a cyclically inevitable lessening of these impulses. Jewish Marxism further befouled this already drying-up well.

Yes I do subscribe to “fatalism” (past actions retain consequences for future generations), perhaps superstitiously, but that does not mean that I counsel passive resignation to our fate. Intellectual comprehension of what is occurring and why, conjoined with steadfast activity is what I recommend (internet commenting hardly qualifies as activity).

Sir Francis Bacon speaks of Plato’s cave in his Novum Organum but his heritage is Ockham, Roger Bacon and Nicholas Oresme not the Ancients who despised and never developed a real empirical practice (make-believe attributions by enthusiastic Classical fetishists be as they may).

Western Europeans (the elite corps thereof) spent every hour at ritualised prayer or contemplating the “sublime truths” of the Christian message: yet this did not blunt the desire for jousts, honour feuds, wars of conquest and usurpation, bloody executions and the infamous Crusades. Clearly Instinct exercised an overruling power above the incessant gibbering in that echo chamber of ours known as the Mind.

282

Posted by Hesper on November 01, 2012, 06:39 AM | #

Addressed to the superlatively eloquent and commanding Captain,

“Chapter II: A Realistic Appraisal of the Jews: Their Unparalleled Achievements

Passionate hatred of the Jews is almost certain to be futile,
for violent emotions prevent rational thought.
Berserkers are
excellent shock troops, if they are under competent command,
but in all wars, victories are won by generals who lucidly and
objectively study the capacities and resources of the enemy and as
objectively measure their own.

If our race is ever to be liberated from its present masters,
our independence will not be won by tirades against the Jews,
wild declamations about their wickedness in serving their own
interests instead of ours, idle and tautological boasts of our supe-
riority in terms of our own values, or frantic diatribes about a
“synagogue of Satan” and a hope that some supernatural power
will kindly do for us what we refuse to do for ourselves. We must
begin with a rational understanding of our own situation and of
ourselves.

We must, first of all, understand that in the real world the
only test of biological superiority is the ability of a species to sur-
vive and extend its power, necessarily at the expense of other spe-
cies.
It thus becomes immediately apparent that the international
race has very solid grounds for its confidence that it is vastly supe-
rior to all other races. Despite the obscurity of their racial origins,
it is certain that at one time the Jews must have been a small tribe
of barbarians, practicing disgusting sexual mutilations and cus-
toms, observing strange taboos, and otherwise resembling mere
savages. But that seemingly despicable tribe, by arduous, intelli-
gent, and indefatigable work for more than twenty-five centuries,
has, through its own efforts, made itself the major world power

today and is not far from its great objective, total ownership of
the entire globe. History provides no parallel for that stupendous
accomplishment. It must be regarded with respect, even awe.


Chapter II, pgs 5-6 of The Jewish Strategy by Revilo P. Oliver.

You see Captain, the big boys (Great men think alike, is that not the adage?) are not timid in confronting facts in the face. Nor do they begrudge a rival his due out of niggardly rancour or consuming envy.

Untruth is not bad because it is a sin. Untruth/false witness are bad because they dangerously distort reality. Do that and you’re playing with fire.

*********************

Daniel,

Men reared in the Classics have a pronounced bent toward verbosity. Other than that I would not characterise my insistence upon the cyclical nature of material existence and therefore the waxing-and-waning sequence of human culture (what expands must someday contract) as overbearing. These are Darwinian positions stripped of the Progressivist teleology which Herbert Spencer resolved to impregnate into the science to justify robbing working class English of a decent living wage.

Really, blaming the Romans for urbanisation and unavoidable oligarchy in societies of that sort. How could a Classicist not but forcefully interject?

283

Posted by James Bowery on November 01, 2012, 12:40 PM | #

Daniel, Spengler’s ontology uses the word “culture” where you use “civilization” and leaves “civilization” as the accumulated manifestation of “culture”.  In his view, culture gives rise to civilization and exhausts itself in the manifestation.

While I agree with this sort of ontology in two ways:

1) It distinguishes the derivative from the function (culture from its accumulated manifestation in civilization),
2) It recognizes that civilization corrodes its own foundations.

What I object to is Spengler’s characterization of this cycle as entirely “natural” hence inevitable.  The founders of the culture can learn from history—although the evidence is that they do not.  Consequently I object to the fatalism that says we, at this stage of the Spenglerian cycle, should find it hopeless to try to help the founders of the next culture, learn from history.

284

Posted by James Bowery on November 01, 2012, 12:46 PM | #

Hesper, I’m curious as to your opinion of W. D. Hamilton’s diagnosis of civilizational renaissance and decay in “Innate Social Aptitudes of Man”:

The incursions of barbaric pastoralists seem to do civilizations less harm in the long run than one might expect. Indeed, two dark ages and renaissances in Europe suggest a recurring pattern in which a renaissance follows an incursion by about 800 years. It may even be suggested that certain genes or traditions of pastoralists revitalize the conquered people with an ingredient of progress which tends to die out in a large panmictic population for the reasons already discussed. I have in mind altruism itself, or the part of the altruism which is perhaps better described as self-sacrificial daring. By the time of the renaissance it may be that the mixing of genes and cultures (or of cultures alone if these are the only vehicles, which I doubt) has continued long enough to bring the old mercantile thoughtfulness and the infused daring into conjunction in a few individuals who then find courage for all kinds of inventive innovation against the resistance of established thought and practice. Often, however, the cost in fitness of such altruism and sublimated pugnacity to the individuals concerned is by no means metaphorical, and the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity (see also Eshel 1972).

(I presume the two invasions Hamilton is referring to are the Dorians of the Greeks and Germanics of the Romans.)

285

Posted by daniels. on November 01, 2012, 08:32 PM | #

/
Jim, I just want to interject a quick comment for now:

I understand your concern about the apprehension of civilization as ripe fruit for our enemies to plunder and for our own people to lazily divide upon. Hamilton makes some points there too.

For that reason I’d be willing to use another word than civilization as the positive word for our social organization - I wasn’t in the habit of calling it civilization anyway.

However, I still maintain that it is inarticulate, too inarticulate to use as a negative term.

(internationalist) Modernity works better as a negative term especially because it implies that White post modernity (separate national and regional ecologies) as the remedy.


I have not read Spengler. From that which I glean in my as yet cursory glance of yours and Hesper’s comments, he seems a bit rigid, almost in a Hegelian sense (that’s not good; an old fashioned kind of thinking - not useless, but dated).

We’ve talked about the word culture before in a positive sense.

I like the notion of a cultivated turning back toward the replenishing and fostering source of one’s people, their systemic pattern. That is an organic thing, and I appreciate your concern for organic organization.

Remember, I am anti-Cartesian, so when I talk about taxonomic classifications, it is not exogenous imposition - it is merely a concession to that very small margin of arbitrariness; and in order to avail ourselves of relative transcendence to provide agency and orientation on the patterns.

However, I am not sure that culture does it as a word for the modicum of social coordination that we need, either. I am sure that the best term will emerge in a moment of “lucidity” LOL.


If I address Hesper, I need to do it later. He makes me tired. I find most of what he says disingenuous. His posts are mainly a waste for my purposes because, in their abundance, there is no particular concern for the form of European peoples - on the contrary, there is just this sort of prescriptive fatalism by which he might hope to anesthetize us to the death he may wish to administer to us (his kind is encouraged by bad women to do so). So, I do not eagerly enmesh in the soporific logic of one who tediously pursues pseudo justifications for our destruction.

286

Posted by Des Picable on November 02, 2012, 06:24 AM | #

Of course such behaviour (miscegenation and permanent lifetsyle sodomy) is not optimal but it happens regardless, and it clearly has a natural basis, as do all forms of sickness.

Miscegenation is not natural. It does not occur in the animal world with any regularity even between those animal groups that are fertile. It occurs in humans when males are separated from their females for a long duration. It appears to be a product of civilization…war, conquest, exploration or trade.

Permanent lifestyle sodomy (homosexuality) is unnatural because it is inauthentic. Individuals and groups do not naturally construct identities based solely upon their sexuality. Per Foucault, “Sodomites were recidivists, homosexuals are a race”.

All forms of sickness are natural? Even the highest primates do not naturally contract mesothelioma, for instance.

Western Europeans (the elite corps thereof) spent every hour at ritualised prayer or contemplating the “sublime truths” of the Christian message: yet this did not blunt the desire for jousts, honour feuds, wars of conquest and usurpation, bloody executions and the infamous Crusades. Clearly Instinct exercised an overruling power above the incessant gibbering in that echo chamber of ours known as the Mind.

The Crusades were a Christian meme not an act of instinct. There is no group instinct for war. It’s the construction of a meme and its constant iteration that ascends the natural individual instinct to protect self and family. The propagandizing before the First Crusade was intended to unleashed a collective wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury. This is the incessant gibbering that filled the mind of Christians. Instinct is innate and lives in the silence of the subconscious.

287

Posted by Sue Perior on November 02, 2012, 06:40 AM | #

We must, first of all, understand that in the real world the
only test of biological superiority is the ability of a species to sur-
vive and extend its power, necessarily at the expense of other spe-
cies.

Species don’t extend their power. It’s is the reproductive differential that accrues to individuals in the group that provides a group benefit incidentally. Even Adolf understood the fact that the group advances nothing. It is the individual within the group that is the biological superior. Thus if “Jews” are special it is something other than their superiority that makes them powerful. If, hypothetically, it is criminality that accrues power to individual Jews who perpetuate an ethnic meme that is self fulfilling, then must it still be regarded with “respect and even awe”?

288

Posted by George on November 03, 2012, 03:27 AM | #

@ daniels

Can you explain what you mean by “Cartesian”?

I’m not sure what you mean by it. “Cartesian” generally refers to the major ideas of Descartes, such as mind-body dualism, Cartesian coordinates, and “cogito ergo sum” or methodological skepticism. You seem to use it differently.

289

Posted by antifascist on November 03, 2012, 03:46 AM | #

@George the confused white supremacist nazi


Cartesian belief is that the entities that physically exist in animals such as organs, bones, veins and arteries, are separate from mental processes, such as thinking, dreaming, and planning.


Obviously Cartesian, religious belief is just as foolish and obnoxious as white supremacism, and racism.

290

Posted by daniels. on November 03, 2012, 04:09 AM | #

I want to clarify this statement a little and then connect with the Des Picable’s comment.

I had said:

I never said miscegenation was unnatural. However, I will say that the prohibition of White men from defending against it, from using the means at their disposal to defend their co-evolution is unnatural.

While I never said miscegenation was unnatural, homosexuality, pedophilia and rape are natural inclinations for some too. But we impose social constraints on them. With regard to rape, pedophilia and certain kinds of miscegenation in particular, we impose strong prohibitions for very good reason.

These distinctions are why it is important to get away from scientism and the modernist notion of necessity.


..........

I would welcome the comment below as a hermeneutic circling back to something more empirical, a closer reading of what might be called more natural; and would, in fact, like more empirical data. Unfortunately, I doubt that miscegenation is wholly unnatural, however that it may be much less natural than loyalty is believable:


Posted by Des Picable on November 02, 2012, 06:24 AM | #
Miscegenation is not natural. It does not occur in the animal world with any regularity even between those animal groups that are fertile.It occurs in humans when males are separated from their females for a long duration. It appears to be a product of civilization…war, conquest, exploration or trade.


On this point, however,

The Crusades were a Christian meme not an act of instinct. There is no group instinct for war.

I am not sure that there are not shared genetic patterns circulating amongst groups which would elicit a collectivizing, militaristic response to threatening groups. I rather think there would be.

I guess Jim would say that German individual men and women coming to fight the invading Roman legions are not collective, but the sum result of German individuals.

German individualism may be an all important distinction for him, but for me it is a matter of degree. I believe that German individualism’s systemic basis can be operationally verified.

Nevertheless, that there is a difference that makes an important difference, one that ought to be maintained, I can be eager to agree, even if I am not perfectly sure.

That more cooperative sorts should automatically qualify as evil - I very much doubt it. On the contrary. I would be eager to disagree.

These more cooperative and ethnocentric Europeans may just be expressions of the more primitive forms of Europeans, the non “Aryans.”  They need not be in necessary conflict with more individualistic types - may rather be symbiotic, the two ways providing buffering, source and replenishing material for one another.

291

Posted by daniels. on November 03, 2012, 04:27 AM | #

Posted by George on November 03, 2012, 03:27 AM | #

@ daniels

Can you explain what you mean by “Cartesian”?

I’m not sure what you mean by it. “Cartesian” generally refers to the major ideas of Descartes, such as mind-body dualism, Cartesian coordinates, and “cogito ergo sum” or methodological skepticism. You seem to use it differently.

George, first of all, pay no attention to anti-fascist. It is a strange bird.


By Cartesianism, I basically mean a tendency toward separatism by means transcendent of nature as opposed to acknowledging our interactive, engaged relation to the world, people, and natural consequence, suggesting therefore, that we ought not look toward the supernatural for answers, but rather look for important relations, symbiosis in interaction as well as important (qualitative, paradigmatic) differences to maintain.

This view would suggest that it is important to apply ecological and biological metaphors to human relations as opposed to quantity and physics metaphors.

292

Posted by daniels. on November 03, 2012, 07:28 AM | #

Among the important reasons to get away from Cartesian type arguments is that they pursue causal explanations beyond significant human involvement, forces and impacts, which neither reflect our agency nor call for accountability.

293

Posted by George on November 03, 2012, 02:31 PM | #

@ daniels

By Cartesianism, I basically mean a tendency toward separatism by means transcendent of nature as opposed to acknowledging our interactive, engaged relation to the world, people, and natural consequence

Do you mean Descartes’ mind-body dualism?

294

Posted by daniels. on November 03, 2012, 04:30 PM | #

Do you mean Descartes’ mind-body dualism?


In a sense, yes: a separation of individual mind (thinking) from nature and interaction.

295

Posted by James Bowery on November 03, 2012, 10:10 PM | #

Causal explanations do the opposite of separating the individual mind from nature and interaction.  Agency and accountability require “separation”.

296

Posted by daniels. on November 04, 2012, 02:28 AM | #

.
Posted by James Bowery on November 03, 2012, 10:10 PM | #

Causal explanations do the opposite of separating the individual mind from nature and interaction.  Agency and accountability require “separation”.


It depends upon the concept of causality. There are different ones.

In the “enlightenment”, or modernist notion of causality, “mind”, for example, is said to be detached from nature and lineally connected to Archimedean points beyond nature. Whereas in a post modern notion of causality, mind is interactive, taking on input from its interaction. Or, we might say, one acknowledges interaction more than the other.

297

Posted by daniels. on November 04, 2012, 03:58 AM | #

Of course there are degrees of separateness and autonomy (and yes, agency and accountability depend upon that, as well; though it is less generally acknowledged that they depend upon interaction) but they are not pure, as the Cartesian model would have it.


It is important to think in terms of important qualities and differences.

298

Posted by daniels. on November 04, 2012, 05:28 AM | #

There are differences that make a difference.

Since Hesper is probably waiting to dump three long, obfuscating paragraphs, we might say that

Charlemagne’s military campaigns are related to this conversation, but not very much.

299

Posted by James Bowery on November 04, 2012, 09:23 AM | #

Daniel, when you bring up “Cartesian” continually and there are virtually no scientists that indulge in the corresponding error, let alone me with my proposals put forth in “Secession From Slavery to Free Scientific Society” wherein ecological hypotheses as the basis of religious communities are accomodated to deal with the problems of extended phenotypic corruption of human thought, will and action—and then it takes literally months to get the truth out of you about what you even mean—it renders communication very low return on investment with you.  Indeed, the return is negative.

This brings up a problem with the philosophical enterprise in general:

The focus on the names of philosophers as keys to conveying their ideas—“Hegelian”, “Cartesian”, etc. is symptomatic of the way Jews treat rabbinic authorities.  Each rabbi is a cult who stands in stead between the acolyte and God.  The Rabbis make reference to other rabbis writings (going back to the Talmud and Torah) in terms of “authorities”.  The trick is to always play the ambiguity and connotations in such a way as to avoid ever being pinned down to anything where one can be downright wrong about anything while making convincing sounding noises based on those ambiguities about absent “authorities” that one’s opponents are “wrong”.

Its all sound and fury signifying nothing but the selection for minds adept at using words as weapons at the expense of the very foundation of the human genome—as it selects genes that are incapable of genuine articulation of any truth.

300

Posted by daniels. on November 04, 2012, 02:43 PM | #

..
Posted by James Bowery on November 04, 2012, 09:23 AM | #

Daniel, when you bring up “Cartesian” continually

Yes, Jim. Antii-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudiced. It is hurting and it is killing people.

That is a very important point as are the ones about Locke and rights as it denied the value of classifications. etc.

It is also important to demonstrate that the premises of anti-racism are an absurd conceptual blunder, destructive for a number of reasons that I have discussed.

and there are virtually no scientists that indulge in the corresponding error,

I am surprised that you make such a stink about this and are talking about it as if what I am doing is negative.

It was demonstrated explicitly, for example, that Locke certainly did make this error in a post that Desmond made. More, that is highly relevant as his notion of rights was written into the US Constitution; many others would be shown to be making this kind of error as well, in line with the Newtonian physics; prior to non-Euclidean geometry, Godel’s theorem, Bohr/Heisenberg, the failure of a the Vienna positivist school to trace trace a language free of metaphor, the contention that there is no private language and more.

Plato’s notion of substance was a forerunner of englightenment era science til then.

let alone me with my proposals put forth in “Secession From Slavery to Free Scientific Society” wherein ecological hypotheses as the basis of religious communities are accommodated to deal with the problems of extended phenotypic corruption of human thought,

It could be that I would read this and believe that it is not well characterized as Cartesian. I did not say that you were an idiot and did not take ecological matters in to consideration.

I suggested that some of your arguments, which place such enormous importance in individualism, are running perilously astride Lockeatine individualism, reflecting a predilection for Cartesian quest - it is farther suggested with god talk and pure Euro man types of ideas (that are simply beyond words). Because I believe that Locke’s notion of individual rights as opposed to classification is so central to our problem of what is considered “racism” and what we need to do to defend ourselves, I undertook the daunting and unenviable task of suggesting that some of your ideas can use a little modification.

will and action—and then it takes literally months to get the truth out of you

I have been plain all along, Jim. I thought it was clear that by Cartesian, I meant separation or a tendency to isolate mind and thought from nature and interaction.

about what you even mean—it renders communication very low return on investment with you.  Indeed, the return is negative.

Jim, I groaned before I came to this post. Because I could anticipate that you would depict what I am saying in an antagonistic sense; when I can and have done everything I can to show that the kinds of things that I am saying can be conducive with your projects.

Even this latest discussion, in which I propose modernity as the negative term as opposed to civilization, is well considered as it implies a post modern turn, the essential aims of which are the legitimacy of distinct groups and therefore their maintained separation.


This brings up a problem with the philosophical enterprise in general:

Well, Wittgenstein thought he had ended philosophy with both his Tractats Logico Philosphicus, where he thought he’d identified an “unassailable” logic of the world, which was later disconfirmed by the aforementioned people; and then he thought he put an end to philosophy as a “mental disease” which required “therapy”, with his Philosophical Investigations.

That turned out to be as Jewish and modernist as it gets.

What is philosophy really, but a discussion of how life should be lived. In our case, with a specific focus on how European life should be lived in relation to antagonistic others, who would deny our existence, even. To say that philosophy is an utter waste would correspond very well with the notion that we do not really exist or that there is nothing that we can do to save ourselves.

The focus on the names of philosophers as keys to conveying their ideas—“Hegelian”, “Cartesian”, etc. is symptomatic of the way Jews treat rabbinic authorities.

I don’t think so. There are some elemental considerations which can be normally taken away when we say Hegel - a rigid logic of process. Cartesian, a separation of mind from and nature and interaction. I’m sorry if I expected that to be obvious to you. I did not expect you to be quite so defensive. And I thought it might be understood that we are talking about a matter of degree.

Yes, we are talking about a relative degree of separateness and interaction when we talk about agency and accountability. Teasing apart the differences that make a difference would be something you are well suited for, that is why I did not hesitate to put my thinking at risk and discuss it with you.

Each rabbi is a cult who stands in stead between the acolyte and God.  The Rabbis make reference to other rabbis writings (going back to the Talmud and Torah) in terms of “authorities”. 

I have no idea. I will take your word for it.

What I do know is that I am talking to you and others here. I am not expecting people to accept my word as an intermediary of god’s word.

The trick is to always play the ambiguity and connotations in such a way as to avoid ever being pinned down to anything

That might well be their game.

It is not mine. Show me one place where I have not been pursuing the interests of Europeans.

Because I do not believe that science is always the best means to approach a problem? Hell, it is necessary to be sure, we place it at one end of a necessary and ongoing process of our defense.

Because I do not believe that words are for Jews only? And I do not think scientific demonstration is the only valid way of social negotiation?

where one can be downright wrong about anything while making convincing sounding noises based on those ambiguities about absent “authorities” that one’s opponents are “wrong”.

Like saying Locke’s notion of rights and his motivations are irrelevant?

Its all sound and fury signifying nothing but the selection for minds adept at using words as weapons at the expense of the very foundation of the human genome —as it selects genes that are incapable of genuine articulation of any truth.

Jim, have I sought to exclude you? I was asked by Stark to be guest on his radio show but worked to have you be the guest instead. I have done everything I can to coordinate your views with the most up to date thinking that I am aware of; I have done this with good will, not with an intent to do harm to you or the genome which you seek to protect - on the contrary!

The only difference seems to be that the view I am taking can accommodate yours: if you have a kind of European people and way that you see as different and important to maintain separately I not only understand, but approve. I never favor amalgamating the kinds of Europeans - and not if one kind is more individualistic either.

However, you seem to be saying that if some Europeans whose values and skills are somewhat different from that, say if they have some verbal skills, and prefer cooperative organization among their group, that they are necessarily at odds with you.

I am defending European people. For me that means defending a group. I understand where you are coming from: you are saying that authentic individuals arise naturally to come to the defense of their kind.

My words are always aimed at defending European peoples and their distinctive manifestations, including more individualistic kinds.

I say there is no contradiction. I have tried to show some of the subtle distinctions and you seem to say that I am bullshitting. I am not a bullshitter. I do not use words for decorum or to deceive.

301

Posted by James Bowery on November 04, 2012, 04:14 PM | #

Bottom line:

You are never going to be successful in clearing Europe of its invaders and traitors without finding a way to get most Europeans behind the idea that it is ok to kill the invaders and the traitors if that is necessary.  It is crystal clear the invaders and the traitors are inhuman beasts who have absolutely no regard for individual rights even as they mouth their support for individual rights. 

I have dealt with this practically by specifying that there is precisely one individual right that must be upheld above all others and that is the right to share territory under mutual consent with others—consent implying the option not to consent to the entry of some would-be immigrants.  The litmus test as to whether a creature should be treated as a human or as a mere force of nature is the simple question put to them by a human:  “Would you oppose the formation of a society that excluded from its territory you and people like you in some sense, including possibly race and/or ethnicity?”  Answer “No” means potentially human.  Answer “Yes” means right to kill it.

This is a simple, straightforward individualist position.

You attack it by smearing it with ridiculous ideas of historical figures and expect me to sit calmly by as you, thereby, participate in the destruction of our people.

It would be one thing if the European New Right listened to me about taking over Parliamentary governments via the citizen’s dividend—I might be able to cut you some slack.

But, as it stands, you and the entire New Right have exactly nothing to offer our race but pedantic obstruction.

302

Posted by daniels. on November 04, 2012, 05:09 PM | #

..
Bottom line:

You are never going to be successful in clearing Europe of its invaders and traitors without finding a way to get most Europeans behind the idea that it is ok to kill the invaders and the traitors if that is necessary.

No argument with that. I agree.

I have dealt with this practically by specifying that there is precisely one individual right that must be upheld above all others and that is the right to share territory under mutual consent with others—consent implying the option not to consent to the entry of some would-be immigrants.

Great idea. It is for that kind of thought that I am always interested in what you have to say.


The litmus test as to whether a creature should be treated as a human or as a mere force of nature is the simple question put to them by a human:  “Would you oppose the formation of society that excluded from its territory you and people like you in some sense, including possibly race and/or ethnicity?”  Answer “No” means potentially human.  Answer “Yes” means right to kill it.

Brilliant.


You attack it by smearing it with ridiculous ideas of historical figures and expect me to sit calmly by as you, thereby, participate in the destruction of our people.

I don’t attack those ideas at all.

It would be one thing if the European New Right listened to me about taking over Parliamentary governments via the citizen’s dividend—I might be able to cut you some slack.

But, as it stands, you and the entire New Right have exactly nothing to offer our race but pedantic obstruction.


Jim, Where have I ever identified as a rightist? New European or otherwise?

I thought your article about Parliamentary take over was a good one too.


I think you misapprehend me as antagonistic, when in fact, I propose some adjustment here and there.

303

Posted by James Bowery on November 04, 2012, 06:11 PM | #

Let me coin a neologism to deal with confusion:

sortocracy:  government by sorting migration where a “sort” is determined by shared causal hypotheses in human ecology formulated as a concise statement of law governing the territory for those mutually consenting to that law.

Any DNA nation would be one sort of sortocracy.  The Euro DNA nation would be one sort of DNA nation.

In the current environment, where most Euromen are indoctrinated and intimidated into being self-alien, if you try to get Euromen to sign onto the right of indigenous Europeans to their native lands before you get them to sign onto sortocracy, you’ll lose.  If you get them to sign onto sortocratic principles as preeminent over democratic principles, you’ll win for the same reason hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year in a futile flight from diversity.

Moreover, once sortocracy is accepted as the primary individual right, all other discussion of “individualism” can be deferred to the group sharing whatever law they agree to.

Most importantly, once sortocracy is accepted as an alternative governing paradigm, grand juries can form to indict individuals for violation of the basic human right to territorial exclusion.  This means a real United Nations exists with real moral authority to condemn individuals if not regimes, corporations, etc.  Such condemnation would not require any recommendation of specific action but, perhaps, admonition that anyone who respects the humanity of others, should they sit on a jury, vote to acquit anyone being prosecuted for doing harm to the condemned.

304

Posted by daniels. on November 04, 2012, 06:42 PM | #

I can agree to that. It corresponds with what I have thought and hoped for this proposal.

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: Clamoring for war against Syria: Part 4

Previous entry: Alliance of European National Movements

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

Guessedworker commented in entry '30 euros a day, accommodation, food, and cigarette voucher' on 12/19/14, 06:49 AM. (go) (view)

SouthernNationalism commented in entry 'Forced Integration of remaining White flight neighborhoods by Obama Administration' on 12/19/14, 01:25 AM. (go) (view)

FrankDesilvaAtRI commented in entry 'MR Radio - Tom Metzger, Jimmy Marr, Daniel ... and me' on 12/18/14, 02:35 PM. (go) (view)

BlackImpulse commented in entry 'Officer Wilson Interview' on 12/18/14, 12:42 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/17/14, 10:11 PM. (go) (view)

Mummy commented in entry 'An Exhortation From Stanistan' on 12/17/14, 09:38 PM. (go) (view)

MarkH commented in entry '"The Necessary War" - a film by Max Hastings' on 12/17/14, 09:20 PM. (go) (view)

Max Hastings commented in entry '100th Anniversary of World War I' on 12/16/14, 05:12 PM. (go) (view)

Question Time commented in entry 'Hyperbolic Neo-Liberal Immigration Policy Misnamed "Leftist" By YKW Media (Be Even More Afraid)' on 12/16/14, 04:06 PM. (go) (view)

SnowManDreaming commented in entry 'Ferguson Burns' on 12/16/14, 07:45 AM. (go) (view)

Italian"FarRight" commented in entry 'Comments On Vico by Enza Ferreri, Greg Johnson, et al.?' on 12/16/14, 07:06 AM. (go) (view)

Ashlea Harris commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on 12/16/14, 06:05 AM. (go) (view)

Saul commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 12/16/14, 05:56 AM. (go) (view)

ItaliansWarOnImmigrants commented in entry 'Comments On Vico by Enza Ferreri, Greg Johnson, et al.?' on 12/16/14, 04:45 AM. (go) (view)

Yes, it happened. commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 11:28 PM. (go) (view)

Peter commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 10:25 PM. (go) (view)

AnthonyOnBasicIncome commented in entry 'MR Radio: Migchels, Bowery Address Malign Economics' on 12/15/14, 02:07 PM. (go) (view)

? commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 11:31 AM. (go) (view)

Firepower commented in entry 'Helplessly Hovering' on 12/15/14, 09:48 AM. (go) (view)

Mick Lately commented in entry '(What would have been) questions for Dr Frank Salter' on 12/15/14, 06:27 AM. (go) (view)

Stan'sExhortation commented in entry 'Poland' on 12/14/14, 11:55 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 12/14/14, 04:36 PM. (go) (view)

Stan Hess Alert commented in entry 'Ferguson Burns' on 12/13/14, 10:50 PM. (go) (view)

UkrainianNationalism commented in entry 'Pensions and Basic Services Denied to People of Eastern Ukraine' on 12/13/14, 01:05 PM. (go) (view)

Bob in DC commented in entry 'James Watson Doesn't Exist' on 12/13/14, 11:59 AM. (go) (view)

MakingSenseOfHeidegger commented in entry 'Apollo&Dionysus: Were Hippies Protesting the Moon Landing, Ayn?' on 12/13/14, 08:56 AM. (go) (view)

Ricardo commented in entry '(What would have been) questions for Dr Frank Salter' on 12/13/14, 02:36 AM. (go) (view)

Radix commented in entry 'Are Jews White?' on 12/13/14, 01:59 AM. (go) (view)

Patricia commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on 12/12/14, 03:59 PM. (go) (view)

PI commented in entry 'Poland' on 12/12/14, 01:03 PM. (go) (view)

Stan Hess Alert commented in entry 'Ferguson Burns' on 12/12/14, 12:44 PM. (go) (view)

namedroid commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 12/12/14, 12:29 PM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Poland' on 12/11/14, 10:18 PM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Officer Wilson Interview' on 12/11/14, 01:41 PM. (go) (view)

Stan Hess Alert commented in entry 'Officer Wilson Interview' on 12/11/14, 06:20 AM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone