Individualism and America

Leon Haller has asked a question on Graham’s latest thread which perfectly expresses the plaint of the mournful right-liberal white American.  He asks: why can’t we have again what we once had: political orders which secure individual rights to life, liberty and property, but recognize that the liberal order must be racially bounded?

Meanwhile, James has posed the question of America’s historical meaning - or, at least, Iowa’s.  But I thought I would venture elsewhere to throw a light on Leon’s question, and raise the possibility (going on probability) of differentials in the populations of North America and Europe, both in the sense of deep, formative cultural influence and trait selection.  For it seems to me that it might not be so easy to speak of America and Americans in terms of Europe and Europeans.  It is akin to a question which, as a descendent of groups who, almost in their entirety, left their own soil along the north German sea coast and sailed for the east coast of Britain, I have often pondered: what does a mass migration mean for the ones who undertake and survive it, and how does such an absolute human statement colour the generations which follow?  In the English and lowland Scottish case, of course, the question is unanswerable.  Almost all the parent Germanic populations of the north German coast migrated as their lands became uninhabitable, and once in Britain interbred with the native British.  But in the case of white America we can get closer to some sort of conclusion.

The first peopling of the New World drew the full measure of the personal and collective resources of the English Dissenters who gave themselves to it.  As an act of religious nonconformism it was staggering in its commitment.  As an act of the human spirit it was one of luminous beauty and courage.  By my reading - a psychological reading - the heart of white American exceptionalism in the European context, usually considered to be the political goods of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, still lies there, inviolate in its purity.

Later emigrants embarked for the New World with a different (but related) kind of faith – in opportunity, in (usually materialistic) personal realization, and reinvention.  Democratised to all Christian faiths and none, and to all the British, then all Europeans, its congregation of frontiersmen and small farmers was swelled by every variety of tradesman, by teachers, soldiers, and the builders of communities, businesses, and government, all believing in the power of an undiscovered landscape to bestow upon them a life unbounded not only in space but in inner space ... a New World order of the self.

But if this America is the inevitable product of nonconformism and individualism, and everything in the narrow space between, still there is an American shadowland, an America of ceasura.  To be precise, the psychological positive of the American individual, self-reliant, self-confident and optimistic, visionary and energised, resilient, courageous and opportunistic, has the relationship of obligate symbiosis to the negative of self-alienation.  Indeed, it is intellectually negligent to take the commonly flaunted goods of individualism, blindingly, explosively brilliant as they are, without standing on the rim of the caldera and wondering what was there before the fireworks.

What was there before was “being English” and, after that, the sum of British and then European characterfulness.  Ancestry and rootedness, familiarity and belonging, that quiet finding of self in the faces of the people; national feeling invested in the person of the monarch, in the place of the sea in the imagination, perhaps, or the sacredness of landscape; the encrustments of history, its times of peril and deliverance, its long, hard passages to freedom … all this and a thousand memories, a hundred social and behavioural idiosyncracies too subtle to vocalise, and a score of others not ... all this was dispensed with forever and without equivocation, and it was no small loss.  The new American was ripped by his own hand from Europa’s womb, and that event has never ceased to reverberate beneath his self-proclaimed individualism.

From this perspective one can readily propose as a psychological history of white America not merely the history of American individualism with its endless material progress and universal ambition, but the history of a constant will to overcome the self-alienation and to return to blood.  The anti-bellum south, with its reverence for the soil and for what it knew as tradition, was the prime example.  But any Englishman will recognise in the eponymous American tourist this reaching for antiquity as the place where something authentic, something belonging to him too, is to be seen and touched and known, however fleetingly.

At the same time, of course, the other American imperative, through the offices of its politics, its corporate activity, and its cultural exports, engages with Europe wholly on its own terms, and without any tolerance at all for its own antithesis in Nature.  There is a frightening zeal in its reforming mentality, as though vandalism could be a mission.  The irony of it all is that the individualisation of Europeans represents the most grotesque process of homogenisation.

So, to recap ...

It is held by psychometrists that migration is a filter for intelligence, and generally accounts for about a standard deviation of IQ.  My thesis, obviously, is that from the very beginning certain qualitatively positive and negative traits were present in Americans as conditions for and consequences of migration.  I do not discount the possibility - indeed, I think it is probable - that these traits proved highly adaptive in the challenges of life in early America, and were therefore privileged for selection.  On that basis, early American individualism would have had some sociobiological underpinning, at least.  And while regression to the mean accounts for those early gains in IQ, and white Americans are quite as dumb, on average, as their European relatives, these early qualities have lived on even when conditions became more secure, perhaps because their selection was reinforced by the developing American cultural self-image.  American individualism, then, is not simply a cultural artifact.

Taken together, it may not stretch things too far to propose that the modern American is a distinct and truly novel member of the European race, rather than a mere almalgam of all Europeans.  Were that to be the case, the ongoing implications for American society are that, while white Americans exercise cultural (if not political) power, it will continue to reflect their individualism and, just visible in the shadows, their self-alienation in all its works.  The implications philosophically are that the liberal Weltanshauung will continue to appeal to “individual Americans” because it appears to them as perfectly indistinguishable from the natural order.  It is the philosophical absolute, whereas for Europeans it is all relative - liberalism appearing to Europeans as a more benign ideology than Nazism or communism.

White Nationalism has an extraordinarily difficult task on its hands.  Its historical function is to lead white Americans towards a peoplehood that individualism does not tolerate.  But white America may never be ready to contemplate setting individualism aside.  To answer Leon, there is no going back to yesterday’s politics.  Liberalism is a moving feast, because its object of the unfettered will does not and cannot exist in the world of men.  It is a religious ideal.  WNs could reflect much more profitably on individualism, as they could reflect on the subtler question of the conflictedness and self-alienation that individualism portends.  Quite a lot of effort at this blog is put into commending that.  It hasn’t paid off yet.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, February 1, 2013 at 08:33 PM in The Ontology ProjectWhite Nationalism
Comments (67) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by Thorn on February 01, 2013, 09:27 PM | #

Thank you very much for giving this particular Americano a headache, GW.

Until you’ve been fully immersed in niggerdom (AmeriKWA) for a long period of time, you could never possibly understand what it’s like to be a white American.

2

Posted by Thorn on February 01, 2013, 10:39 PM | #

Oh And BTW, the record reflects white Americans are SO much better than the Brits WRT innovation. Surely that couldn’t have anything to do with individualism, right?

3

Posted by d_taber_minneapolis on February 01, 2013, 10:52 PM | #

Watch it, pal.

4

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 01, 2013, 10:53 PM | #

The writer deserves an ‘A’ for a very imaginative rendering of history, however, the historical record is quite clear in placing the origins of non-conformity and individualism in the English (Anglo-Saxon) garden, long before it was transplanted to America.

Phillips (1999) traces the egalitarian, anti-hierarchical spirit of Yankee republicanism back to the fact that East Anglia was settled by Angles and Jutes in pre-historic times. They produced “a civic culture of high literacy, town meetings, and a tradition of freedom,” distinguished from other British groups by their “comparatively large ratios of freemen and small numbers of servi and villani” (Phillips 1999, 26). East Anglia continued to produce “insurrections against arbitrary power”—the risings and rebellions of 1381 led by Jack Straw, Wat Tyler, and John Ball, Clarence’s in 1477, Robert Kelt’s rebellion of 1548, which predated the rise of Puritanism. President John Adams, cherished the East Anglian heritage of “self-determination, free male suffrage, and a consensual social contract” (Phillips 1999,27).

http://www.geocities.ws/race_articles/macdonald_puritans.html

The answer to Haller’s question is to be found in the writings of Mill; freedom may only exist in homogeneity.

Henry Cabot Lodge, Immigration Restriction League opining upon America’s racial origins…

And so this Germanic people of one blood, coming through various channels, dwelt in England, assimilating more or less and absorbing to a degree their neighbors of the northern and western Celtic fringe, with an occasional fresh infusion from their own brethren who dwelt in the low sea-girt lands at the mouths of the Scheldt and Rhine. In the course of the centuries these people were welded
together and had made a new speech and a new race, with strong and well-defined qualities, both
mental and moral.

  ...the illiteracy test will bear most heavily upon the Italians, Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, and Asiatics, and very lightly, or not at all, upon English-speaking emigrants, or Germans, Scandinavians, and French. In other words, the races most affected by the illiteracy test are those whose emigration to this country has begun within the last twenty years and swelled rapidly to enormous proportions, races with which the Englishspeaking people have never hitherto assimilated, and who are most alien to the great body of the people of the United States.

The descendents of the English Dissenters, in America, were well aware of their racial origins.

 

5

Posted by d_taber_minneapolis on February 01, 2013, 11:07 PM | #

till there is an American shadowland, an America of ceasura

jokes aside, what ? obligate symbiosis to the negative of self-alienation.  Indeed

Interesting, but can hardly deal. Speak to your audience.

6

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 02, 2013, 02:23 AM | #

There is also, of course, MacDonald’s theory of Nordic ecological individualism which the writer of this essay is fully aware. Which makes the proclamation of self-proclaimed individualism even more puzzling when per KMac it was the product of an adaptation to an extremely harsh environment.

This perspective is consistent with ecological theory.  Under ecologically adverse circumstances, adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse physical environment than at competing with other groups, and in such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups.38 Evolutionary conceptualizations of ethnocentrism emphasize the utility of ethnocentrism in-group competition.  Ethnocentrism would thus be of no importance at all in combating the physical environment, and such an environment would not support large groups.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/West-TOQ.htm

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Individualism-Collectivism.html

7

Posted by daniels on February 02, 2013, 03:16 AM | #

“White Nationalism has an extraordinarily difficult task on its hands.  Its historical function is to lead white Americans towards a peoplehood that individualism does not tolerate.  But white America may never be ready to contemplate setting individualism aside.  To answer Leon, there is no going back to yesterday’s politics.  Liberalism is a moving feast, because its object of the unfettered will does not and cannot exist in the world of men.  It is a religious ideal.  WNs could reflect much more profitably on individualism, as they could reflect on the subtler question of the conflictedness and self-alienation that individualism portends.  Quite a lot of effort at this blog is put into commending that.  It hasn’t paid off yet.”


This was an excellent essay, making vivid through close articulation the case of America’s cultivated stock individualism.

The culminating paragraph at once sets the central problem on an inspirational path. Then it ignores the tradesmen who have who have lent adequate wares to its navigation, whether through maps which sufficiently problematize the course ahead or through relative solutions proposed.

“White Nationalism has an extraordinarily difficult task on its hands.  Its historical function is to lead white Americans towards a peoplehood that individualism does not tolerate.”

This is an inspirational statement of the problem. Not capitalizing “White” only serves to underscore the problem.

“Paradigmatic conservatism” is the only articulated position that I know of that has been made for bounded and highly conservative borders to allow for a large measure of individual freedom within. I don’t know of any examples of this in reality. While it does not necessarily represent an ideal for me personally, I would not attempt to thwart its possibility as James or Leon might hope to realize different state variants thereof.

”Liberalism is a moving feast, because its object of the unfettered will does not and cannot exist in the world of men.  It is a religious ideal.”

That’s an interesting view on individualism, one that I’d not considered. It makes the stuff of problematization highly ambiguous, resolution elusive, though probably the best hope in the thoroughgoing amalgamation of what union might be available, to whom it may concern.

That audience, to whom it may concern, is being ignored here, however. As we are necessarily, continually throwing out “to whom it may concern” messages we should be tautologically unwilling to devote more than the occasional testing exercise in trying to convert the White who is intransigently indifferent to White social interests - whether because of individualism, a foreign religion or some other reason.

What we might do, however, is cater to interests that Whites organically have, and show how they are connected to our program.

There are ways to make our message more appealing by engaging the concerns of to the whom it might concern. I believe that I have hinted at some and I will suggest more.

We have got to appeal to grounding premises and incentives to participate that the Right has traditionally ignored.

“WNs could reflect much more profitably on individualism, as they could reflect on the subtler question of the conflictedness and self-alienation that individualism portends.  Quite a lot of effort at this blog is put into commending that.  It hasn’t paid off yet”

If we begin to make sound use of the complementarity of narrative, autobiographical self as it corresponds to the corporeal, pheno and genotypic self, we will see yields.

The autobiographical self allows for the sufficient negotiation and amending of contradiction, paradox, hypocrisy and so on, in addition to the reconstruction of coherence even in situations where a mere corporeal being may be without authentic social guidance. The two, the hermeneutic and the corporeal self need not and indeed, should not, be at odds.

In my first post, I perhaps ill advisedly used the word “selfhood” where I might have used autobiography.

This perhaps led those uncharitable to my analysis to believe that I was looking to retrieve old forms. That was not what I was trying to do at all. However, I did not want to use the more current term, “autobiography”, in place of the older term, selfhood, there, because autobiography can capture anything from the most fundamental to the most fantastic. Rather, I was looking for a narrative arrangement that would ennoble the achievement of being an ordinary person. Why? of course, because America has held up extraordinary, self-transcending achievement as the be all and end all. That valuation, which I call “self actualization”, I have sought to deconstruct by pointing to its dark sides.

While the terms that I propose do run the risk of being misapprehended, as if I might be proposing them as something more bad, good or real than they actually are, I believe the overall program is part of what it takes to re-arrange the motive structure to gain participation from Whites.

Firstly, it does require that socialization, or the social, be recognized as the inextricable context: viz. our to whom it may concern is the White social - those concerned for the 14 Words. The 14 Words go directly to the religious realm, paying reverence to the martyrs, the good and inspirational White people that we have known along the way, taking that which we like about our people, transcending individualism and the treachery, the horrors of our own people in reality.

Next, it means that we must somehow uncover and force recognition of (what, anyway I call) the intrinsic value of Being. I do believe this could be helped along in social recognition with something approximating James’ notion of distributism; of course, not only to land (though our European brothers, in particular, recognize that as essential as well) and money or material resource, we are talking in terms corresponding more to genetics.

8

Posted by daniels on February 02, 2013, 03:18 AM | #

I believe the project to deconstruct the over reverence for actualization, to where it has been valued beyond the social, is on target in terms of a project for getting White Nationalists to recognize the social, the White social, as the pre-eminent reality and imperative that it is. I believe that I’ve provided some useful suggestions that we might do that and how we might do that. I should think that it would be rather fun, even, to take down the pompous overvaluation and move it, achievement, into but one potential ingredient of four parts* of a good life – I guess that it would be valued as it serves the White social or at least does it no harm directly or by implication. 

* I favor quaternary systems because they are complicated enough to serve as topoi on the social and yet too complicated to be easily subject to reification and runaway application.

I’d appreciate help to this project of deconstructing lineal pursuit of actualization as it disrupts the White social, the White foundations of enjoying the ordinary foundational processes of life, the value and enjoyment of routine practices and the organic Being.

None of this is understood if it is believed that I am trying to do liberalism or to promote liberalism, to go back to something past, to put the horse back in the gate.

Rather, I am trying reconstruct anew, the motivational and incentive structure to participate in the White social as circumscribed and based on an optimal management of that social.

This will require a better, more conscious allocation of reward and resource – such that White men who have traces of ordinariness might actually be able to have a fair wife and children. Also unlike the Right’s ill equipped worldview, it will also require better negotiation of gender relations.

It will also require a critique not only of actualization, but of the normal – viz. of the draconian demand that one must be working. It is not that we should not be working, of course, but there has to be some balance and proper valuation. For one thing, so as not to didactically strip it of its authentic and organic enjoyment. I believe that the over valued work ethic has also served to provide cover for some bad deeds, if not bad people – just as the family can: “look he is a hard working family man.” Aren’t we so happy about that. Really, aren’t some of the sharp elbows and giant egos that workers pass-off for their merit and entitlement accounting for some of our most obnoxious experiences?

I will attempt to address this perhaps not in my next post, but before long.

“Selfhood” especially, might have been a bad word to choose, as it suggests going back and reconstructing the static and monadic notion of self prior to the advent of the autobiographical notion self. Though I posed the term selfhood in deconstructive scheme, adopting it deliberately as a term sufficiently clumsy so as not to be too precious, it may be too distracting. Perhaps I should just use the term “routine practices.” I don’t know yet, could use some help and suggestions there.

However, that ordinary routines might be ennobled as a worthy project to re-arrange the incentive structure to participate in the social remains likely an important, though subtle and difficult task. On the other hand, the devaluation of actualization seems a little more obvious as a need and not quite as hard a task. However, re-channeling a correspondence between achievement, in an optimal (as opposed to maximal) negotiation of understandably valued motives, to serve the White social good (as Aristotle might have it) is perhaps a massive project that might take a few decades of Whites marching through the institutions.

That it hasn’t “paid off yet” does not detract from the accuracy of the program. It requires application, dissemination, marketing, promulgation, enculturation, normalization, institutionalization, etc.

Finally, as GW started off his concluding paragraph:

“White Nationalism has an extraordinarily difficult task on its hands.  Its historical function is to lead white Americans towards a peoplehood that individualism does not tolerate”

To channel whatever rules and cultivated genetics of individualism into the interests of The White social is the fundamental and daunting task, yes. Part of it may be achieved by recognizing that we are sending to whom it may concern messages and part of it may be achieved by increasing awareness that we are born into the social and its responsibilities – there is no life without relationships, there are no White people without other White people to whom we are indebted. How to become more articulate and to enjoy the fact?

None of this is merely going back. While it retrieves historical elements and practices, maintaining what is fine, its formulation and pursuit is new.

9

Posted by daniels on February 02, 2013, 03:38 AM | #

..another relevant criticism to be made of work, the workers, their over valuation, of course, is their part in keeping the anti-White system running.

10

Posted by daniels on February 02, 2013, 03:54 AM | #

Moreover, this management of a circumscribed and optimizing process for the White social is conscious and deliberate in its motivational allocation - decidedly unlike Mises and Hayek’s motivational structures.

11

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 02, 2013, 08:36 AM | #

I have to say that still being forced into posting from a proxy is quite annoying as I lost my last post.

OK what did I have to say?

@GW

A very thoughtful and excellent piece raising very important topics.

I had planned on tackling some of these issues myself over the next few weeks. Alienation, the nature of change with socio-political systems, the ‘sources of the self’, the nature of the political imagination, and whatever the precise mix of genetics and culture (we after all a bio-cultural animal) produces and reproduces American ‘individualism’, what consequences this might have for understanding the quite profound differences between Europe and the ‘New World’ is the key issue.

As a European that had a sojourn of a few years in America I embarked upon a project of amateur anthropology. No opportunity to speak with ‘the natives’ was passed over (I deliberately did not restrict my encounters to only those within the university system) and indeed I pro-actively searched such opportunities out. Being something of a hard-core materialist/physicalist, an agnostic going-on atheist and with my background in the biological sciences it was of course the religious question which first interested me. With all the ‘creationist’ chit-chat and, being even more of an arrogant dick than now, I had only one question in mind: “how can people believe in something so obviously wrong?”.

I did have some extraordinary experiences (no not of a religious sort) and conversations in mega-churches, science and ‘faith’ forums, local (non-university) philosophy and book discussion clubs, even encounters with African practitioners of Voodoo!

What eventually dawned on me, beyond any immediate ‘culture shock’, was to this European anyway, was how deeply foreign the ‘order or things’ was in the USA compared with Europe. This despite the lack of an language barrier. I do feel more ‘at home’ in the Netherlands or Italy or Denmark, even if the language is an issue in all those nations, than in the mid-West which was the location for the majority of my stay (so again I’m talking about the ‘homeland’ and not merely the major coastal cities of the USA). It’s very hard to fully explain the ‘discomfort’ but it is something I spoke about to various Dutch people that had spent a few years in America (in a professional context), and they all said that there basically was something ‘not quite right’ or disagreeable about the place etc., and they felt obligated to return to Europe even if that wasn’t their initial plan. Of course my sampling methodology could be biased as by definition those people did come back to tell me about it!

But Danny has done the reverse journey (America to Europe) perhaps he could tell us what he thinks the differences are in the ‘texture’ of lived experience (if any).

Just a note on terminology and McDonald. His ideas are not theories – which has a special meaning within science. Rather they are hypotheses. Ideally scientists should test to destruction any hypothesis to see if it can bare the weight of genuine explanation. Robust knowledge of brute reality – that ontologically independent, intransitive realm of reality - is not best served by a ‘supermarket epistemology’ in which only convenient facts are picked-up and less convenient ones ignored (the habit of sophists of every age and their modern day equivalents in the ‘infallablist’ and intellectually-dishonest ideologue - a persona that I genuinely loathe). McDonald is a psychologist, not an ecologist, not an evolutionary biologist, nor even a behavioural ecologist (a hybrid of the two former categories), so his ideas here may not be anything like the ‘last word’ on the topic eh little Desmond? The guy (Desmond), let us be reminded, that thinks enslaving masses of Europeans was/is(?) OK – so probably not the most intellectually or emotionally trustworthy source of ‘insight’. A life founded in hate is not a pleasant site. But to be fair to Desmond he is right in that liberal-modernity has its origins in Europe, but I would argue (and will in due course) it found its fullest and highest expression in the New World, specifically the USA. In short, Europe simply has too much history to fully take liberal ontology that seriously – to naturalise it so fully and completely.

Just returning briefly to McDonald, because I often observe many people rather naively quoting kin-selection (more properly inclusive-fitness theory) in the context of politics without seemingly knowing that the theory robustly predicts circumstances under which inclusive-fitness results in little or no behavioural modification/evolutionary difference in the selection of traits. For example, in the phenomena of parent-offspring conflict and sibling rivalry, the pay-off from ‘selfish’ competition between individual progeny can result in lethal sibling rivalries (and also decreases parental fitness). Even within the highly related circumstances of the familial setting the precise outcome between the forces of competition and cooperation is complex.

The ecological details really do matter, but again the idea that mere harshness of the environment will fix for all time a trait like ‘individualism’ (whatever one means by that concept) seems a bit of a fairy-tale to explain the persistent lack of ethno-centric subjectivity on behalf of white America. It’s almost as if the argument goes like this: white Americans should be ethno-centric or becoming more so, yet we observe the opposite. The only possible explanation is it (individualism) is ‘genetically hard-wired’ into them.

Really is that the only possible explanation? Leave aside, in its own terms, the school-boy model of phenotypes which brings in the environment when convenient but ignores it otherwise. Let alone the issue of phenotypic plasticity (how, at its most simple one genotype can produce an array of phenotypes dependent upon the precise environmental conditions). Before any Richard Dawkins fans pipe up this is not Lysenkoism (or leftism) but an empirically well-verified phenomena with regard to 100s upon 100s of traits in 100s upon 100s of species. Not all traits are like this but many are. Just Google the term ‘norms of reaction’ or ‘phenotypic plasticity’ if you think I’m ‘bullshitting’. A naive understanding of ‘genetics is all’ is a very impoverished form of political and social analysis. Ultimately the genetic, in this ultra-reductionist reading of it, could be part of the story - maybe even the key element of it, but if so and individualism is so hard-wirded then one’s fate is predetermined and a meta-political fait accompli, yes?

As a politico-social environment liberalism might just have changed the ‘pay-off matrix’ such that ‘siblicide’ is a rational strategy (at least for those that think they can eventually buy their way out of the negative downsides). But if all politics ultimately and finally is local, American ‘solutions’ might be of no use to Europeans in Europe. I cannot envisage any way in which becoming more ‘American’ can possibility be of positive advantage to Europeans societies.

BTW I recall sending GW a basic scientific review (minimal equations) on the general scientific issue (kin-selection: fact and fiction) some time ago.

Which I hope he still has and found useful!

P.S. I see little conceptual difference in creating ‘hard A.I.’ and being able to simulate human consciousness to such an extent it is virtually indistinguishable from the real deal – or is fact is superior to the baseline phenomena. Of course, as Leon rightfully pointed out, that little word ‘assume’ can make an ass out of anyone.

12

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 02, 2013, 08:44 AM | #

Forgive the typos - I’m ‘enjoying’ a bout of flu and had to type the damn thing out twice.

13

Posted by Thorn on February 02, 2013, 10:08 AM | #

Thorn the mediocre is going to take another stab at this.

Basically, the problem with white Americans is the result of conditioning. American Whites have been fed a steady diet of anti-White messages for at least 70 years now, maybe longer. Whites have had it pounded into their heads that racism is the worst of all evils; coupled with the message that only Whites can be racist. The anti-White propaganda is constantly being reinforced from every direction in society. This, of course, to put it in an ontological term, greatly affects how White people “Be”. 


As we all are well aware: anti-white language is ubiquitous, hence it creates a toxic environment from which Whites are constantly trying to escape. Moreover, the environment shapes or misshapes Whites’ “Being”. This manifests in a go along to get along mentality. Or worse, it manifests in an “anti-racist” mentality. Most Whites think if they adopt the “anti-racist” (read:anti-White) ideology then they can escape social ostracism. The glaring problem there is it’s leading us straight down the path of White genocide.

So, is individualism the cause of the deformed sence “Being” in White Americans? Is it individualism that makes most whites susceptible to brainwashing?

Individualism might be a contributing factor but it certainly isn’t the main cause. “Anti-racist” propaganda is the poison that is causing American Whites’ demise, IMHO.  Political Correctness/anti-racism are the main culprits killing us, pure and simple.

14

Posted by Leon Haller on February 02, 2013, 11:00 AM | #

A ‘meaty’ essay, to which I’m slightly afraid to start responding (despite my having indirectly prompted it), if only because it implicates so many and variegated topics. Also, I need to think about it a bit more.

The first thought that popped into my head was similar to the sentiment in Thorn’s first comment. Is the problem of America individualism - or ‘groids’? I hate to sound a dreaded “reductionist” note, but maybe the problem is the bare reality of interracial psychological and behavioral differences (whatever their evolutionary and/or historical causes) - and nothing more. That hypothesis would seem to undermine the fundamental purpose of “The Ontology Project”, but can it be readily dismissed?

Recall the statements Wilmot Robertson made in the preface of his seminal racialist tome, The Dispossessed Majority (I think they were at the beginning - my copy is back in LA) (Have the Europeans here read this book? I read it in the early 90s, and occasionally reread sections of it; though published in 1972, it has held up remarkably well). He questioned whether the political and legal arrangements of the US, which he deemed to have been the product of a particular people (frankly, the New World Anglo-Saxons as they had evolved culturally by 1776), and which had served that people well over a long period (OK, the Civil War implicitly notwithstanding), could be successfully transposed to and then maintained by ethnoculturally different peoples. 

The fundamental racial problem of the US has two aspects (a third, if you throw in Jewish elite class domination over Middle Americans). The first is that whites produce the best societies (for whites, at least - though I actually argue that whites produce the objectively/universally best societies, without qualification), and thus forcibly integrating us with other races ineluctably lowers our quality of life, like ruining a fine wine by mixing it with cheap stuff. It’s not just that most whites would rather live in Scotland or France than in any African nation. One suspects most Asians, and even most Africans, would as well.

The second aspect of America’s race problem is that, beyond being forced to tolerate objectively shitty behavior by nonwhites, we are literally handing over our futures - in terms of personal security, economic opportunity, cultural forms, and political power - to nonwhites, via the mechanism of unending (and mostly undesirable) nonwhite immigration, and these nonwhites, moreover, have proven themselves committed to using their increasing political clout to dispossess, disempower, marginalize, and, I prophesy, eventually legally persecute whites (that is, beyond the regular persecution effectuated by private nonwhite criminals).

So: ‘minorities’ suck, and we’re letting them take over our country. Therefore, our national future will be even crappier. That’s the race problem, ‘in a nutshell’. It’s not that complicated. (And the same thing is happening to Europe.)

What, then, is the relation of American individualism to all this? Is American individualism problematic in itself - or only insofar as American whites persist in extending the same presumption of an individualistic psychology to nonwhite groups, who, on the contrary, are themselves highly ethnocentric?

Recall Robertson. America’s foundational liberal constitutional arrangements may well have been admirably ‘organic’ (and thus psychologically suited) to the WASPs who set them up. But they were never intended (as occasionally verbalized by the Founders themselves) to be extended to nonwhites (or even to non-British settlers). Doing so, first in the form of the 13th Amendment and Reconstruction, and later in the “Second Reconstruction” (“Civil Rights”) period, and then secondly, in the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act changes which radically transformed our immigration law and ensuing demographic flows, was not a realization of the Founders’ vision, as generations of Left-liberals have tried to prove, but a rank betrayal of it.

I could literally go on for pages on this point. GW has offered an interesting and poetic anthropological examination of an aspect of (white) Americans. But has he really addressed my original question?

why can’t we have again what we once had: political orders which secure individual rights to life, liberty and property, but recognize that the liberal order must be racially bounded?

 

America, unlike European nations (but like the EU!), was ‘rationally constructed’. We came into existence one day, by formal fiat. I see no philosophical or jurisprudential or historical reason why we cannot be ‘rationally reconstructed’ along race-preservationist lines (I see huge political and military obstacles), at least in some breakaway white/WN territory. The real problem is less white Americans’ allegedly individualistic modal mentality, than moral confusions among whites themselves as to the ethical legitimacy of racial nationalist politics and policies, as well as continuous, Jewish-led, pop cultural plus academic PC brainwashing.

And anyway, it’s much shrewder to work within your people’s modal mentality, showing in this case that, eg, racial separatism is a traditional part of The American Way, or is compatible with Christianity, etc, than to attempt to delegitimate and transform that mentality in toto

There is a lot more to say about all this.

15

Posted by James Bowery on February 02, 2013, 11:09 AM | #

Substitute “Africa” for “Europe”, “Europe” for “America”, and the time frame tens of thousands of years ago rather than hundreds of years ago in GW’s post.

Then look to GW’s statement:  “Its historical function is to lead white Americans towards a peoplehood that individualism does not tolerate.” and ask one’s self :  “If an individual is not free to express his innate predisposition toward peoplehood, however attenuated by circumstance, then how can he be declared a free individual in the first place?”

16

Posted by Hail on February 02, 2013, 12:00 PM | #

GW wrote:
The new American was ripped by his own hand from Europa’s womb, and that event has never ceased to reverberate beneath his self-proclaimed individualism.

This may have some truth in it, but is unfair because—ultimately—every nation begins this way, with people “ripped by their own hands” from a previous place ‘nationality’ to the new. Consider Iceland. Do Icelanders suffer a neurosis about having ancestors who “abandoned Scandinavia”? I find that a bit difficult to believe. England itself is, as GW mentions in passing, can be an example of the same phenomenon. By this reasoning, then, England has no sound identity.

The creation of the nation of ‘England’ (as we understand it today) occurred not-that-long-ago, itself. The inhabitants of England were creating a new nation, the English nation, in Chaucer’s day (or pick your era of choice). The White inhabitants of North-America were creating a new nation in the 1600s and 1700s. Is it so different? The continent is different but the principle is the same. Early Americans viewed themselves as creating a new nation (or new nations) within the White world, and were proud and optimistic, not neurotic, about doing so.

17

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 02, 2013, 12:15 PM | #

Someone said this “Mill - freedom may only exist in homogeneity”

What an utterly bizarre take on Mill and his doctrine of maximal heterogeneity of values, lifestyles and behaviour. Mill the secret ethno-communtarian. Give it up already - Mill is a blockhead as someone once observed.

@Thorn

Propaganda does much to shape the sense of ‘the possible’ with regard to the socio-politico imaginary. But why are American so vulnerable to the latest mutation of liberal thinking (PC/multi-cult)?

Is not that they have all been eating individualistically flavoured fruit from the tree of liberty for so long? One cannot make ideas such as men are created equal with such and such ‘inalienable’ individual rights etc., central to a social-order and then to be shocked that over time people take the claim very seriously indeed (to the effective exclusion of all other concepts of ‘the self’ and its relationship to others).

Of course the Founding Fathers where paradoxically both ‘cutting edge’ liberals of their time as well as being good old racists, sexists, snobs etc. In fact it’s not that uncommon many figures of the Enlightenment were similar. However, that ‘secondary’ cultural matrix which informed the context in which those documents were written (implicitly by ‘all men’ we mean property owning WASP’s of a certain social standing) was always opened to change over time. Abstract principle eventually become ‘de-contextualised’ from the precise historical circumstances in which they were written down. I hope to take up this theme – lets call it ‘Plato contra Jefferson’ - in more detail and at a later time.

However, one consequence is that we see many Americans arguing over the precise lexical ordering of individual rights. Thus “my individual right to free-association trumps your individual right not to be discriminated against” to which the more sophisticated liberal can cogently argue “no because that breaks a much more important individual right or premise of the liberal order – namely that all persons should equally enjoy their individual rights (as individuals) upon an equal basis with all other individuals, thus discrimination against individuals (and a denial of the full scope of their ‘properly basic’ rights) on the basis of unchosen ‘secondary’ group-based classifications such as ethnicity/racial origins, gender, disability etc., is wrong”. But note the entire argument takes place upon the background terrain of individualistic liberal ontology and what might be termed its individualistic, but in being ‘an individual’, egalitarian plateau.

In contrast by taking the notion of a ‘social whole’ or group seriously the egalitarian plateau can be reshaped thus – distinct groups (and the individual people that make up such ‘social wholes’) have equal rights to be distinct groups. One should not be hypocritical in this. Africans have the right to be Africans in Africa, the Japanese in Japan etc., and should not generally be interfered with upon the basis of some form of spurious ‘universality’ chit-chat or generally hypocritical human-rights talk. In this perspective, the autochthonous European (Europeans in Europe) has a very strong moral/ethical and political claim (normative even) to the right to distinctive group existence (that individuals within that group all equally wish to enjoy). However, the ‘invading species’ Homo americanus would seem to have a far-less compelling claim in this regard (for obvious historical reasons).

P.S. On individualism versus collectivism. It’s a false and sterile debate in many ways. In Aristotelian mode both the parts and whole have ontological validity (reflecting the ontological stratification of reality as such) but equally in Aristotelian mode there may be forms of individualism and collectivism which result in genuine human flourishing and other forms which are pathological or radically deform that flourishing (at both levels of social reality). One might even conceptualise such an idea in terms of phenotypic plasticity. Not all forms of individualism nor collectivism are precisely, in their concrete particularities, the same thing. The ‘environmental context’ in which they are expressed is of the utmost importance.

18

Posted by James Bowery on February 02, 2013, 12:51 PM | #

GL:

However, one consequence is that we see many Americans arguing over the precise lexical ordering of individual rights. Thus “my individual right to free-association trumps your individual right not to be discriminated against” to which the more sophisticated liberal can cogently argue “no because that breaks a much more important individual right or premise of the liberal order – namely that all persons should equally enjoy their individual rights (as individuals) upon an equal basis with all other individuals, thus discrimination against individuals (and a denial of the full scope of their ‘properly basic’ rights) on the basis of unchosen ‘secondary’ group-based classifications such as ethnicity/racial origins, gender, disability etc., is wrong”. But note the entire argument takes place upon the background terrain of individualistic liberal ontology and what might be termed its individualistic, but in being ‘an individual’, egalitarian plateau.

Oh good grief.  Such odoriferous logic renders MR noxious if not toxic. 

The outlawing of “classification” per se has a simple reductio ad absurdum:

If one is not allowed classification then one is not allowed perception because that is exactly what perception consists of:  classification of sense data.

One might say that Locke, Descartes, or whoever, made an argument which can be reduced to this absurdity but to then smear those who have not appealed to the authority of these historic figures, with the same sh*t is base and offensive.

19

Posted by Hail on February 02, 2013, 12:53 PM | #

There was no English-speaking Canadian population to speak of before the 1780s, I’m told. Anglo-Canada was essentially founded in one fell swoop by a tens-of-thousands-strong emigration by “Tories”—former-‘American’ loyalists-to-the-British-Crown who fled the new USA when the British abandoned the military effort in the early 1780s. In all, several percent of Whites in the new USA fled to Canada because of their strong loyalist beliefs.

Surely we’d have to say that those “Tories” are more likely to have tended to GW’s posited neurosis, the one about this whole “being ripped away from Europe” thing. They were unwilling to commit to the founding of a new nation in North America.

20

Posted by Hail on February 02, 2013, 01:02 PM | #

This talk about the USA’s “Founding Fathers”, and so on—there may be a “forest for the trees” thing going on here. A clear majority of ancestral-blood of the 200-million non-Hispanic White Americans (as of the 2010s) arrived after 1800.

Breaking down this 200-million number: Some millions of these are non-European ‘Whites’ (Armenians, Turks, some Arabs… in effect non-Europid Caucasoids, to use the technical term); perhaps 10 million more are Jews or partial-Jews with strong Jewish sympathies and identity (e.g. Tim Wise). Discounting these, perhaps half of the remainder’s ancestral pool arrived after 1800.

A large share of these arrived from 1882-1914, the Ellis-Island Wave. Those with Ellis-Island backgrounds are much more likely to suffer “ripped away from Europe” neurosis than those of Colonial-stock.

So, I’d concede GW is right, but perhaps not because of the reasons he intended.

21

Posted by Lurker on February 02, 2013, 01:42 PM | #

Graham - I may have fixed your problem. Try commenting without using proxy. Otherwise its back to the drawing board.

22

Posted by Guessedworker on February 02, 2013, 01:42 PM | #

OK, let’s offer a few responses.  I will begin with an easy one to Hail at 16.

When the peoples of the North German sea coast left their waterlogging land for Britain they did so as people of their tribes.  They did not do so as, primarily, religious dissidents or, later, individual economic migrants unifying only on the basis of agreed ideas.  It is the tribal element which is facilitating, because tribal units bear upon the indigenising process as a whole, and the vestigial tribal thinking re-focuses as the sense of common identity and destiny, developing a common narrative to accommodate the facts on the ground (or in the womb).

Just as millions of individual birds cannot replicate the unity of a flock of starlings, so millions of individual men and women cannot so easily conceive of a common identity and destiny outside of the tribal way of thinking.

The Saxon ingress began, btw, some time after the departure of the Romans in 410, and had produced successful settlements by 440 at least.  There were important and recorded battles won and lost against the British, and then a long process of indigenising which had concluded by the reign of Athelstan (the Mercian King of the English) or, certainly, Edgar (crowned King of all England in 953).

So this was a process of 500 years or more.  I am reminded that, when he was asked by some surly interlocutor how long an immigrant has to live in France before he can be called a Frenchman, Jean-Marie Le Pen replied, “When his ancestors’ bones have lain in French soil for five hundred years.”

Regarding Hail’s comment at 20, my speculation - and, obviously it is only speculation - is that American individualism is unique in the European context, quite likely sociobiological, and was present as such (as a necessary trait, above the English average) from the very beginning.

23

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 02, 2013, 02:36 PM | #

Come on this ‘James Bowery’ character has got to be a spoof, yes?

I mean the whole ‘the essence of the individual is the voluntary contracts they enter into or resile from’? That’s it. Oh and sexual reproduction will end as we all become eusocial worker ants. Of course the difference with real worker ants is that the arrangement is to their indirect genetic interest. Still such small facts never confuse the intellectual titans of the world famous Sovereign Press.

Next he will say we all must read the ‘essential’ techo-utopianism of Ray Kurzweil. What then don some special tin-foil hats and have a special session of Cyberpunk 2020 or even Dungeons and Dragons. Hmm role the die!

Used somewhat out of context the only judgement upon Bowery can be nihil dicit - yes he speaks but says nothing.

As for his solution to ‘end war’. Well I tend to agree with Cormac McCarthy.

Cormac McCarthy told Richard B. Woodward in an interview for the New York Times Magazine: “There’s no such thing as life without bloodshed.” The author added: “I think the notion that the species can be improved in some way, that everyone could live in harmony, is a really dangerous idea. Those who are afflicted with this notion are the first ones to give up their souls, their freedom. Your desire that it be that way will enslave you and make your life vacuous” (Richard B. Woodward, “Cormac McCarthy’s Venomous Fiction,” the New York Times Magazine, 19 April 1992).

There is no human order that exists without the potential for violence, bloodshed and war. The notion that some form of ‘perfect’ political arrangement can permanently eliminate these features from the human condition is a fantasy of the very worst type.

24

Posted by James Bowery on February 02, 2013, 02:48 PM | #

Typical:

I present a devastating argument against a particular fallacy presented by GL in the present context and GL comes back with a broken sewage main rather than admitting I have him dead to rights.

25

Posted by Silver on February 02, 2013, 03:14 PM | #

The writer deserves an ‘A’ for a very imaginative rendering of history

Oh, he’s not the only one, not by a long shot.

http://www.geocities.ws/race_articles/macdonald_puritans.html

Oh gawd, what unsubstantiated, utterly lolzy bullshit. 

But keep it up, Desmond. Keep it up by all means. Every misstep that discredits you is a win for those opposed to your nonsense.

26

Posted by Silver on February 02, 2013, 03:26 PM | #

or generally hypocritical human-rights talk

Wait a minute.  “Human rights” patter is certainly helping ease the way towards white (and other, if they stop and think) racial elimination (or race-replacement or genocide, if one prefers), but the charge of hypocrisy is something else.  How precisely is it “hypocritical”?  No bs-ing or tapdancing, just a straight answer, please, if you can.

27

Posted by Silver on February 02, 2013, 03:40 PM | #

The Saxon ingress began, btw, some time after the departure of the Romans in 410, and had produced successful settlements by 440 at least.  There were important and recorded battles won and lost against the British, and then a long process of indigenising which had concluded by the reign of Athelstan (the Mercian King of the English) or, certainly, Edgar (crowned King of all England in 953).

Only to begin anew with the Norman conquest (regardless of the actual numbers involved). 

Look, race is race is race.  That’s a baseline anthropological fact (as much as anything else is).  But it’s a fact that lacks sufficient mass appeal.  Lament that if you will, but unless a workaround is found, in a few short decades we’ll all be doomed.  You can be a Desmond dumbshit about it and accusingly wave your forefinger but that won’t change a thing.

28

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 02, 2013, 04:32 PM | #

Hypocritical perhaps isn’t the right term - duplicitous might be better.

Something along these lines:

G. W. Bush says something like: “Freedom is a gift from God to all, we are invading Iraq to deliver them from tyranny and to give them their freedom” or some such cant. Basically we are acting for ‘universal values/rights, individual freedom and democracy’ etc.

Of course they aren’t really acting for their own geo-political goals, nor for Israel’s interests, nor for the nice oil (or control by proxy thereof), nor to give their corporate cronies corrupt contracts to ‘rebuild’ the place. No it was all for the love of the universal ‘right’ to individual freedom.

And of course the Saudi regime (pretty vile by the same universal human rights standard) is the best of friends with the Bush administration (along with nearly all other US administrations - yes they might be bastards too but they are on ‘our side’, right?).

Believe that the second Gulf war was genuinely fought for ‘universal values’ or ‘individual freedom’ and I have some magic beans I can sell you for $1,000,000 or so.

Next you’ll be saying, like Tony Blair, that WW2 was fought and I quote “to save the Jews”.

If wars really are to be fought on the premise that the USA is to bring these universal human rights such as ‘individual freedom’ to all then the USA will be at war, with a great many other states, for a very, very long time.

29

Posted by Guessedworker on February 02, 2013, 08:26 PM | #

Daniel,

“Paradigmatic conservatism” is the only articulated position that I know of that has been made for bounded and highly conservative borders to allow for a large measure of individual freedom within.

This is true.  Conservativism as paradigm does oppose liberalism (if not orthogonally like nationalism), and the first three and half years of MR’s existence was given over to the testing of Conservatism for practicality.  I changed the water in the tank five years ago for the reasons set out in this piece, which is still relevant as a comment on the very large gap between the words “conservative” and “paradigm”:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/on_traction_and_a_farewell_to_a_political_friend

That’s an interesting view on individualism, one that I’d not considered. It makes the stuff of problematization highly ambiguous, resolution elusive

I was not referring to individualism per se, which is a human trait, but the paradigm of breaking all the bounds as the pre-condition for self-authoriality.  This is the actual paradigm on which liberal individualism of the American type is engaged.

What we might do, however, is cater to interests that Whites organically have, and show how they are connected to our program ...

Of course we can do that.  But that is method, while I am more concerned to have the ontology in place.  This is why I was encouraged by James’ recent interest in addressing foundation - to which I hope we shall return.  In that event, I will see whether I can shift him from his search for intellectual rigour to a rigorous approach to the primary dwelling place (which is what I take foundation to mean for us).

The autobiographical self allows for the sufficient negotiation and amending of contradiction, paradox, hypocrisy and so on, in addition to the reconstruction of coherence even in situations where a mere corporeal being may be without authentic social guidance. The two, the hermeneutic and the corporeal self need not and indeed, should not, be at odds.

I believe we can do better than that, but to talk about it without having everything we need in place will only confuse.  I would say that the divisions of self one can most profitably make follow a single movement from or to presence to being.  Everything is there.

Rather, I was looking for a narrative arrangement that would ennoble the achievement of being an ordinary person.

That is a beautiful ambition, but let us acknowledhe the spirit of the age.  It is no great shakes to be ordinary in a damaged and damaging psychological environment.  But to be normal, now that’s something!

Nationalism needs to have a place for the very human interest in status - a sexual preoccuption of all mammals, and something connected also to the simple (even ordinary) process of gathering experience and wisdom along life’s way.  The search for status is normal and, what’s more, real, unlike self-authoriality.

The 14 Words go directly to the religious realm, paying reverence to the martyrs, the good and inspirational White people that we have known along the way, taking that which we like about our people, transcending individualism and the treachery, the horrors of our own people in reality.

Again I am interested in the revelation of self through presence.  No mediator required.  But we are not yet at the point where a discussion about this is useful.

As to the horrors of our people, these are the horrors of the self-estranged, the possessed, the maddened.  There is no conscious evil.  All evil, all vice belongs to unconsciousness.

Next, it means that we must somehow uncover and force recognition of (what, anyway I call) the intrinsic value of Being. I do believe this could be helped along in social recognition with something approximating James’ notion of distributism; of course, not only to land (though our European brothers, in particular, recognize that as essential as well) and money or material resource, we are talking in terms corresponding more to genetics.

OK.  Develop that idea.  Let’s see it on the page.

30

Posted by Guessedworker on February 03, 2013, 08:10 AM | #

Apologies for the down-time.  Bluehost had a “known server issue” which took several hours to rectify.

31

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 03, 2013, 08:19 AM | #

Brief thought - perhaps the better polarity to discuss is the autonomy/heteronomy one. The modern liberal project is, above all, the attempt to realise a radical form of human autonomy evermore completely and fully, which requires breaking all the possible bonds/boundaries of heteronomy.

Of course, some form of autonomy is both necessary and a good required for human flourishing, properly understood, but the present ‘form’ of it on offer is something like a very self-destructive and dangerous mythology. The whole ‘unencumbered self’ which if one acts as if this is what you actually are, results in the self becoming more like this model of ‘the self’ and then experiencing and developing ever deeper and various forms of moral, imaginative and political ‘blindness’ in a type of self-alienation. But even, in extermis, a human being might come to act as if they are only a radically ‘unencumbered self’ that was never actually the true situation.

But delusions, even dangerous ones, are not easy things to throw off.

32

Posted by CS on February 03, 2013, 10:46 AM | #

Silver @ 27,

Alas you are right. Most white people don’t give a shit if their countries turn non-white over the next 100 years and they aren’t going to do anything to stop it.

The only non-violent workaround is going to be international white flight to one small ethnostate.

33

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 03, 2013, 11:33 AM | #

“Mill - freedom may only exist in homogeneity”

On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, And Humanity in an Age of Mass ...
By Frank Salter p.196

One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do, if not to determine, with which of the various collective bodies of human beings they choose to associate themselves. But, when a people are ripe for free institutions, there is a still more vital consideration. Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities…If it be said that so broadly marked a distinction between what is due to a fellow-countryman and what is due merely to a human creature, is more worthy of savages than of civilized beings, and ought, with the utmost energy, to be contended against, no one holds that opinion more strongly than myself. But this object, one of the worthiest to which human endeavour can be directed, can never, in the present state of civilization, be promoted by keeping different nationalities of anything like equivalent strength, under the same government.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=234&chapter=16602&layout=html&Itemid=27

34

Posted by daniels on February 03, 2013, 01:18 PM | #

/.
.....
Posted by Guessedworker on February 02, 2013, 08:26 PM | #

I was not referring to individualism per se, which is a human trait, but the paradigm of breaking all the bounds as the pre-condition for self-authoriality.  This is the actual paradigm on which liberal individualism of the American type is engaged.

Ok, I think I basically understood you.

You had said this, which is thematic of the post:

“White Nationalism has an extraordinarily difficult task on its hands.  Its historical function is to lead white Americans towards a peoplehood that individualism does not tolerate.  But white America may never be ready to contemplate setting individualism aside.”

It seems to me the central challenge, the task you propose, was to ask how to bridge the gap between individualism and group organization of American Whites. That seems to me largely a motivational issue.

and I said..

“What we might do, however, is cater to interests that Whites organically have, and show how they are connected to our program” ...

You responded..

“Of course we can do that.  But that is method, while I am more concerned to have the ontology in place. 

It is not only method, because it is proposing important motivations for European-Americens - and proposing these topoi for operationalization in some sort of cybernetic governance. Though I concede a little more refinement (or understanding of what I mean by them) is necessary of those topoi.

I am a bit uncomfortable at the moment that relationships are not mentioned explicitly in those four topoi, but that is taken for granted as part of the social.

“This is why I was encouraged by James’ recent interest in addressing foundation - to which I hope we shall return.  In that event, I will see whether I can shift him from his search for intellectual rigour to a rigorous approach to the primary dwelling place (which is what I take foundation to mean for us).”

The rigor of the closest reading possible is a worthy project, including its correspondence to habitat. I see no contradiction - only perhaps the fairly obvious caveat that rigor by itself is paralytic death, a balance of imagination is necessary as well - which, by itself is insanity, on the other hand.

I am sure that if England were to be covered once again by glaciers that you would not want to the people to die along with it.


As for actualization being a pursuit of status that is not self authored but socially recognized, good point. That is in keeping with the descriptive rigor that your ontology project maintains. After all, I am seeking to align actualization with social interests.

Thus again, is it not problematic to the critique that I propose.

I hasten to add that I do not aspire to do away with actualization, pursuit of status, esteem needs, but to critique those aspirations inasmuch as they are destructive to the White social and to try to align them with White social interests.

The thing about us being able to do better than autobiography, well. ...

Autobiography is a decided advance as it has marked advantages over the static monadic notion of self. More, it is not in competition with the biological, corporeal self or “better” descriptions of their proper, authentic, functions. On the contrary, freedom from many difficulties and for many good possibilities come with this liberation from mere, and at times fairly arbitrary, facticity.

Nevertheless, just as I appreciated your clarifying of Heidegger’s notion of identity as one which recognizes form as essential, I do look forward to understanding better what you mean by this:

I would say that the divisions of self one can most profitably make follow a single movement from or to presence to being.  Everything is there.

and this

As to the horrors of our people, these are the horrors of the self-estranged, the possessed, the maddened.  There is no conscious evil.  All evil, all vice belongs to unconsciousness.

great.
 

OK.  Develop that idea.  Let’s see it on the page.

“Next, it means that we must somehow uncover and force recognition of (what, anyway I call) the intrinsic value of Being. I do believe this could be helped along in social recognition with something approximating James’ notion of distributism; of course, not only to land (though our European brothers, in particular, recognize that as essential as well) and money or material resource, we are talking in terms corresponding more to genetics.”


Ok, we’ll do our best.
...


Graham, I do think that freedom from association trumps freedom not to be discriminated against.


Jim, I liked your post number 18

Posted by James Bowery on February 02, 2013, 12:51 PM | # 18

It is a refined level of what I might say myself and shows that you do not only rest on your strong points, but can improve your game elsewhere as well.

35

Posted by James Bowery on February 03, 2013, 01:48 PM | #

DanielS, I had “improved my game” 21 years ago yesterday.

36

Posted by daniels on February 03, 2013, 02:02 PM | #

Posted by James Bowery on February 03, 2013, 01:48 PM | #

DanielS, I had “improved my game” 21 years ago yesterday.

Ok, keep up the good work smile


will have a closer look at that in a second..


...but first, I wanted to say that Norman Borlaug’s Nobel Laureate is a perfect example of “Self Actualization” which might be subject to critique for its pejorative implications for the White social, as it feeds third world population runaway, which in turn, impacts White peoples and habitats.

37

Posted by daniels on February 03, 2013, 02:13 PM | #

OK, well it was about 21 years ago for me too, that I was clued onto the notion that categorization is necessary to making sense. It has since become a central matter in my approach as can be seen not only in
“theory of White separatism” but in earlier posts as well.

38

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 03, 2013, 02:48 PM | #

@Danny

You said - “I do think that freedom from association trumps freedom not to be discriminated against”.

OK you might well do but try telling that to the Supreme Court of the United States and I think you will get precisely nowhere.

I know for everyone in this epoch it is very difficult to think outside the ‘liberal box’. Now if you are of the view that the problems of modernity consist only in some nefarious Jewish activity plus Bill Clinton and ‘diversity talk’ then of course such a person would see no problems whatsoever in the work of Locke, Mill, Kant etc.

However, if one is minded to take the longer historical optic then one can say it’s civilisation itself which is to be faulted in that it produces a fatal mismatch between white ‘individualism’ (whatever people mean by that - it is not at all clear) and the social (or eusocial) environment they must now live in.

Or one can say that the issue lies in modernity itself or rather in this particular model of modernity and primarily in our own follies and the precise structures or ‘anatomy’ of self-alienation this form of modern society seems to breed over time.

To put it very simply the first is in this form - innocent whites/evil outsiders - which is usually found to be shaped by some weird theological belief on the ‘demonic’ nature of everyone’s favourite ethnic group. Monocausal, simple-minded tosh for weirdos and oddballs. History is ‘nothing but’ a massive conspiracy.

The second is basically the ‘bad genes’ explanation, but this view often also comes with the idea that the relationship between genotype and phenotype is extremely simple, fixed and hence fundamentally invariant. Which is a very odd understanding of biology and just seems at odds with actual human historical experience (really are the monks of a 7th century French abbey and the shoppers at the Mall of America in 2013 individuated to the same extent and in precisely the same ways?). And finally, it’s also more or less a counsel of despair (after all the ‘individualism’ alleles are so all-powerful then that’s that).

The third idea might be the most painful to admit to - our own bad ideas are - in a rather complex way - at the root of things, but equally it suggests that this present ‘order of things’ is not the end of history as such. That men do make history even if it’s not in circumstances of their own choosing. That is there are always boundary conditions, trade-offs etc., and we cannot remake the world from ‘year zero’ - history shapes the future but human agency has some ability to determine its course. Otherwise why even bother with politics or political ideas?

I think you’re probably nearest to the third position - if so to be a serious non-liberal (in a liberal age) one doesn’t start with Hayek, Mill, Locke or Kant (to name four liberal thinkers) as being in any way ‘foundational’ to one’s thought.

And of course there are other issues such as the nature of Christianity and it’s place in all of this. Ironically many of the monocausal crowd think that Christianity is the most wonderful thing ever - this despite its very obvious origins as a Jewish sect. But that’s cognitive dissonance for you.

39

Posted by Ous on February 04, 2013, 01:23 AM | #

@Hall:
        Correct. By the writers sound reasoning, England has no identity. They are neurotic about doing so. Perhaps Norman invasion was the cause, whereas they became serfs in their own land - for these false beliefs about their ‘individualism’, as compensation, for they never were anything of the sort. The wound of 1066 has never healed, for which they constantly need to overcompensate….continually creating new fictions, eventually becoming tired as their imagination strains for new variations… the fictions become threadbare and degrade from folk tales to fairy tales.

Like the Polish, they are prone to inventing history at any opportunity - where they are forever noble and all others wicked.

Witness the writers statement:
“Almost all the parent Germanic populations of the north German coast migrated as their lands became uninhabitable”

When did the lands become inhabitable in such a way that would not also make Britain inhabitable? Never in known history. This is fabrication. Why is the writer suggesting the entire population of Angles, Jutes, Frisians, Saxons and Danes, or any one, encamped to Britain? The level of ignorance here is staggering. How is it they still exist along the North Zea?

How can anything this person says be trusted?

Those who migrated to the British islands were the 3rd, etc. sons debarred from inheritance. Why would they choose Britain? Because they did not have the wealth to found an expedition to the richer south. Why did they not return to their homeland? Because they had no inheritance to return to.
These are how things worked, quite logical. Why does the writer fantasize something contrary to reality and known history?

Later the purpose for this fantasized recreation of history is revealed….

“It is held by psychometrists that migration is a filter for intelligence, and generally accounts for about a standard deviation of IQ.”

Because the writer wishes to validate himself eligible for a default higher standard deviation of IQ?

The farcical elements of this blog are quite interesting.

40

Posted by Ous on February 04, 2013, 02:29 AM | #

Reading these comments and thinking about it. It occurs to me the British neurosis most of all resembles the Slavs, excepting their (non-mutually) beneficial association with Western Europe.
Particularly the Poles, in the genocidal hatred of their own ancestors. As I must assume the writer is uneducated and has no knowledge of Slavs, the Slavs were the OstroGoths who remained to suffer under the yoke of the Hun,(ie: Cassidorus: Rise Of the Amals)) for which they earned the term ‘slav’, eponymous to ‘slave’, earned for their indigence, lack of pride, re-invention of history and jealous appropriation of others accomplishment and wealth.

Unlike the Poles, the British were uncontested masters of the seas for a century and some, while on land they were swept away by a rag tag group of rebels we know as Americans… and left to find lesser foes, or those they could battle by proxy. Perhaps this martial shame is the source of this attempt to pretend to analyse the American as their superiors…. and the brutal, yet non-chalant way in which, without thought they descend to the inhuman and unEuropean massacre of civilians as war by proxy (an English trait the Americans reluctantly inherited…for the effect is a degradation of the soul for which there may be no cure) Again reality contests the writers point - no sane person would in any measure pretend the English are superior in any endeavour to the Americans - even in vanity the contest is uneven, and the English do not do well. One would think the British saved America twice in the 20th century, and again in the 21st. Since it was in America’s strategic interest to destroy the pillars of Europe so they could rule a sea of Africans and Asians.
As to the claim American accomplishment is English accomplishment… if one is reduced to this argument, one has no argument. For then the Americans could thank England for their black president…. as it was the English who kickstarted the importation of Africans to America, as well as the abolitionist movement, which led to the civil war. Some have suggested the American civil war was a recap of 1066 - yet this time the Anglo’s triumphed over the Normans…with the Puritan North enslaving the Norman south. When I read this theory I found it remarkably formed and coherent.

41

Posted by daniels on February 04, 2013, 03:42 AM | #

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 03, 2013, 02:48 PM | #

@Danny

You said - “I do think that freedom from association trumps freedom not to be discriminated against”.

OK you might well do but try telling that to the Supreme Court of the United States and I think you will get precisely nowhere


Graham, of course.

I was merely stating what ought to be the trump in ideal judgment of freedom.  We ought to pursue that line of argument with those of our own whom we hope to persuade to help effect changes.

As for the causes of liberalism destruction that you cite, of course I recognize our own philosophical/religious blunders and genetic tendencies (I do not talk about that specialized kind of genetic research as much, but acknowledge such influences where they hold up). However it is evident that philosophical/religious ideals we’ve set forth and engender, naiive and imperviously destructive though many of them were to begin, have also been perverted by Jewish influence.

Spending time with Jewish academics provided graphic illustrations of the very process for me.

I think we basically agree, but while your philosophical/genetic understanding is more broad and deep, I tend to be a bit more ready to add Jewish blame to the mix than perhaps you are. I believe sufficient recognition of where they are playing a pejorative role is a part of non-Cartesian explanation and agency as well.

Yes, we have agency in the matter, both in terms of what has been our fault and where we have been subject to disingenuous distortions of what were dubious principles and religious ideals to begin.

Some problems do not sound “cool” to cite (if not being dangerous to cite).

For example, it does not sound cool to cite feminism as the heart of certain problems, though there are times when that’s it.

Similarly, it can sound like one is merely whining, complaining and blaming when citing Jewish influences. I had this experience last night when I decided to experiment with talking to a (fucking gorgeous like walked out of some 1940’s Hollywood film!) blonde about the Jew thing. She was extremely averse to begin, even ran away to have a cigarette, but I chased her down to run through all my list of seven choke points. When it was time to leave, I shook her hand and she responded with a smile, saying it was very nice to meet me too.

Nevertheless, be assured, I have not abandoned liberal influences of our own which we have cited right along. On the contrary, I love taking those issues on and I very much appreciate the expertise with which you do so as well.

42

Posted by daniels on February 04, 2013, 03:50 AM | #

typo, sorry:

liberalism destruction

should be

liberal destruction

43

Posted by fred on February 04, 2013, 04:11 AM | #

Particularly the Poles, in the genocidal hatred of their own ancestors. As I must assume the writer is uneducated and has no knowledge of Slavs, the Slavs were the OstroGoths who remained to suffer under the yoke of the Hun,(ie: Cassidorus: Rise Of the Amals)) for which they earned the term ‘slav’, eponymous to ‘slave’, earned for their indigence, lack of pride, re-invention of history and jealous appropriation of others accomplishment and wealth.

The term “Slav” does not derive from “slave”. And the Ostrogoths were not Slavs. The Ostrogoths were a Germanic tribe.

44

Posted by daniels on February 04, 2013, 04:44 AM | #

...and of course, another reason why addressing these issues, such as feminism and the JQ, can seem un-cool, is because quite often less than competent individuals are espousing such denunciations.

45

Posted by daniels on February 04, 2013, 05:00 AM | #

...going to those as the problem all too quickly.

46

Posted by daniels on February 04, 2013, 05:38 AM | #

Posted by Ous on February 04, 2013, 01:23 AM | #

@Hall:
      Correct. By the writers sound reasoning, England has no identity. The wound of 1066 has never healed, for which they constantly need to overcompensate….continually creating new fictions, eventually becoming tired as their imagination strains for new variations… the fictions become threadbare and degrade from folk tales to fairy tales.

Well, the English don’t need fairy tales to establish their identity. Firstly, I’ve never heard one who doesn;‘t acknowledge unashamedly that they are a mixture of a few things - but that mixture does make them somewhat different than Germans. Just take one example: look at the beautiful organicism of English architecture as opposed to the rigidity of German designs and you have a clear sign that there are a qualitatively different people behind them.

It’s funny, really, a clear case of projection. It is rather what I’ve found to be a typical Nazi way of arguing, exactly like the Jews (I don’t know who came first in arguing with such absurdly simplistic unanimity), they are always right, always victims, everyone else is evil.


Like the Polish, they are prone to inventing history at any opportunity - where they are forever noble and all others wicked

Is that so? Maybe they have speculate a bit after two world wars wherein German armies burned their libraries and plundering heirlooms and antiquities. But is taking their own side in an exaggerated from really a distinctly Polish characteristic (and not a German one?)?

Witness the writers statement:“Almost all the parent Germanic populations of the north German coast migrated as their lands became uninhabitable”

When did the lands become inhabitable in such a way that would not also make Britain inhabitable? Never in known history. This is fabrication. Why is the writer suggesting the entire population of Angles, Jutes, Frisians, Saxons and Danes, or any one, encamped to Britain? The level of ignorance here is staggering. How is it they still exist along the North Zea?

How can anything this person says be trusted?

I cannot attest to the veracity of this particular example, but if you want to write GW off entirely go right ahead and take your wonderfully cogent arguments along with you LOL

Those who migrated to the British islands were the 3rd, etc. sons debarred from inheritance. Why would they choose Britain? Because they did not have the wealth to found an expedition to the richer south. Why did they not return to their homeland? Because they had no inheritance to return to.
These are how things worked, quite logical. Why does the writer fantasize something contrary to reality and known history?

Later the purpose for this fantasized recreation of history is revealed….

“It is held by psychometrists that migration is a filter for intelligence, and generally accounts for about a standard deviation of IQ.”

Because the writer wishes to validate himself eligible for a default higher standard deviation of IQ?

If he were to do that, he would have had to migrate to America.


The farcical elements of this blog are quite interesting.
40

Posted by Ous on February 04, 2013, 02:29 AM | #

Reading these comments and thinking about it. It occurs to me the British neurosis most of all resembles the Slavs, excepting their (non-mutually) beneficial association with Western Europe.

Particularly the Poles, in the genocidal hatred of their own ancestors. As I must assume the writer is uneducated and has no knowledge of Slavs, the Slavs were the OstroGoths

On the contrary, the genetic maps of Europe reveal the Poles to be one of , if not the most homogeneous people in Europe. That would correspond to a faith in their ancestry. They have a greater concentration of R1a than anybody. I don’t believe that it is generally considered Ostragoth, as their tribes, firstly the Pomeranians encountered Goth tribes on the Baltic coast around 600.

who remained to suffer under the yoke of the Hun,(ie: Cassidorus: Rise Of the Amals)) for which they earned the term ‘slav’, eponymous to ‘slave’, earned for their indigence, lack of pride, re-invention of history and jealous appropriation of others accomplishment and wealth.

And you accuse GW of farcical and wishful fabrications of history?


Unlike the Poles, the British were uncontested masters of the seas for a century and some, while on land they were swept away by a rag tag group of rebels we know as Americans… and left to find lesser foes, or those they could battle by proxy. Perhaps this martial shame is the source of this attempt to pretend to analyse the American as their superiors….

bla bla bla

and the brutal, yet non-chalant way in which, without thought they descend to the inhuman and unEuropean massacre of civilians as war by proxy (an English trait the Americans reluctantly inherited…for the effect is a degradation of the soul for which there may be no cure)

Yes, we are overwrought with guilt.

Again reality contests the writers point - no sane person would in any measure pretend the English are superior in any endeavour to the Americans -

Of course they are better at some things.

even in vanity the contest is uneven, and the English do not do well. One would think the British saved America twice in the 20th century, and again in the 21st. Since it was in America’s strategic interest to destroy the pillars of Europe so they could rule a sea of Africans and Asians.

Who was the pillar of Europe? Uncle Adolf? You will never get over the fact that he was not perfect.

As to the claim American accomplishment is English accomplishment… if one is reduced to this argument, one has no argument. For then the Americans could thank England for their black president….

A brilliant deduction. And Jews had nothing to do with it?

as it was the English who kickstarted the importation of Africans to America, as well as the abolitionist movement, which led to the civil war.

And it was the Jewish bible which under-girded such hubris, even in its later abstracted, rationalist expressions.

Some have suggested the American civil war was a recap of 1066 - yet this time the Anglo’s triumphed over the Normans…with the Puritan North enslaving the Norman south. When I read this theory I found it remarkably formed and coherent.


..Ous “continually creates new”, convenient and self serving “fictions, eventually becoming tired as his imagination strains for new variations… the fictions becoming threadbare and degrade from folk tales to fairy tales.”

47

Posted by Ous on February 04, 2013, 07:11 AM | #

@fred

‘Slave’ is a word derived from the word Slavic. Slavic is a Teutonic word for ‘captive’, from which it passed into Latin. The Slavs were the Ostrogoths who fell captive to the Hun - hence, the slavs - Poles, Czech, Russian, etc. are genetically Germanic…however they are not Germanic psychologically or culturally, and elements within their corpus suppress any identification thereof.

The word was initially used for the captive Ostrogoths who once defeated, unsuccessfully fought as forced conscripts for the Hun in delivering their countrymen into captivity. Witnessing the squalor of the Poles, (an offshoot of the Amal Ostrogoths) it gained the derogatory element and transmuted to those who were servile -  hence the association with the Anglo British…who were servile to the Normans. but once untethered, became complicit in the captivity of their racial family, similar to the slavs.

@Daniels
              Your comments on architecture amuse me. So your as much a patriot as an architect. I find references to Jews childish, while there is no doubt they act to encourage and fix the proclivities of others, it is the weak minded who are satisfied with this explanation alone, which is why you are traction-less and dumbfounded. Yet you disparage ‘Uncle Adolf’. You are too simple to see the contradiction?

The rest of your comments are hysterical, like a woman shrieking, they contain as much sense.

I came to this blog from a url in an article discussing the pathology of various nativist groups to discredit themselves and their cause with the sheer idiocy of their ideas and conduct.

Reading this blog, I find this an understatement.

48

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 04, 2013, 07:38 AM | #

Somebody said “no sane person would in any measure pretend the English are superior in any endeavour to the Americans”

Really? Have you attempted to eat the plastic that is American cheese compared to a fine English cheddar? A real English ale as opposed to the fizzy muck called beer in America? Is there an American dramatist of the stature of Shakespeare? All subjective perhaps but there you go.

OK you don’t like this corner of cyberspace - that’s fine. Toodle pip then dear boy!

49

Posted by daniels on February 04, 2013, 10:26 AM | #

This sentence was grammatically screwed-up too.

“Maybe they have speculate a bit after two world wars wherein German armies burned their libraries and plundering heirlooms and antiquities”


It should have been:

Maybe they have to speculate a bit after two world wars wherein German armies burned their libraries and plundered their heirlooms and antiquities.

I notice that in sentences that deal with subject matters which are both emotive and of issues I’d rather not deal with, I am even more prone to grammatical oversights.

50

Posted by Leon Haller on February 04, 2013, 06:07 PM | #

What is the background (absent secret bribery) which animates a man like The Economist‘s “Bagehot”?

Bagehot
An unwelcoming nation

The government is pandering to anti-immigration feeling. It should be trying to reduce it
Feb 2nd 2013 |From the print edition


A SMALL, dark-eyed man blows on his hands and contemplates another long night. He is Romanian—let us call him Andrei—and he works in New Covent Garden Market on the south bank of the Thames, hauling sacks of vegetables destined for the capital’s restaurants. Andrei earns £55 ($87) for an 11 or 12 hour shift—a criminally low wage. But he is, of course, illegal: Romanians, with Bulgarians the newest members of the European Union, will not get free access to its labour market until the end of the year. So, most likely, are his Iraqi and Pakistani co-workers—fellow low-paid bottom-feeders of the British economy.

Andrei is willing to talk. There is an understanding, almost trust, between those who meet by night in the market; and, at the age of 29, he is battle-hardened. Since leaving Romania nine years ago, Andrei has schlepped and skivvied in Italy, Spain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. He came to London last year, joining some 94,000 Romanians working or studying in the country legally and thousands more who are thought to be working illegally. This makes him as qualified as anyone to answer what is, suddenly, a big question in British politics: how many Romanians and Bulgarians will come to Britain next year?

Not many, the Conservative-led coalition government hopes. Curbing the “uncontrolled mass immigration” allowed by its Labour predecessor (in the words of Theresa May, the Tory home secretary) was one of the government’s big promises. On coming to power in 2010 it vowed to bring annual net immigration—then running at a record high of 255,000—below 100,000 by 2015. It has tightened visa controls across the board, making it harder to study, work and join relatives in Britain. Net immigration has fallen by a quarter. But delivering the promised cap looks hard; if many Romanians and Bulgarians come it will be impossible. Though it is not certain that they will—Romanians have less cultural affinity with Britain than Poles, over a quarter of a million of whom settled in Britain between 2004 and 2006, after their country joined the EU—the government is worried.

It is right to be. Though rarely racist, Britons are exceptionally hostile to immigration—more so than Germans, French or the Dutch. According to recent polling by YouGov, 80% backed the government’s cap and 69% want zero net immigration. A combination of recession and a decade of high immigration rates have exacerbated this antipathy, which is common to all colours and classes. In recent weeks Bagehot has heard anti-immigrant griping from a senior officer of the guards and a Pakistani newspaper seller. Yet the hostility is also long-standing. When in 1968 Enoch Powell, a Tory MP of eccentric brilliance, accurately predicted that immigration was on course to turn 10% of the population non-white by the end of the century and, further, warned that this could cause social unrest, he was sacked from the shadow cabinet and vilified by the polite press. Still, 74% of Britons told pollsters they agreed with him; only 15% disagreed.

This constitutes a state of national unhappiness and the government is right to tackle it. A justified sense that politicians ignore concerns about immigration—because they are too liberal, too complacent or too captured by the pro-immigration business lobby—has long magnified these worries. The Tories also came to government with a rare opportunity to win support on the issue. Labour, which famously expected no more than 13,000 Poles a year, was discredited. And in a slowing economy, the high rates of economic migration it had overseen were anyway bound to subside. Yet the Tories are blowing their chance.

British hostility to immigration has roots in real concerns—including over its possible effects on social cohesion and an asylum system that was, formerly at least, incompetent and rotten with fraud. The magnitude of these problems is often exaggerated, however, and the cultural and economic benefits of immigration downplayed—evidence, perhaps, that the antipathy owes more to irrational anxieties, over globalisation, cultural change and Britain’s shrinking prestige, than to more concrete worries. Labour’s big error was to accentuate the positives of immigration and downplay the negatives. The Tories, while admirably attacking abuses in the system, have done the opposite. Thus, last December, Ms May made a thunderous speech on immigration that included alarming claims about the extent to which it suppresses wages. If this is really a problem, which is contested by economists, the effect is probably more modest than she suggested.

Enoch was partly right

The government’s net migration cap has done worse damage. It has led to a clampdown on the visa-seekers most easily deterred—notably foreign students—who are also the migrants Britain needs most. The cap has also created an expectation that the government will struggle to satisfy. Indeed, public disillusionment has already set in. According to YouGov, 77% of people think the government will miss its target; only 15% think it will succeed. United as they are against immigration, Britons are equally sceptical of politicians vowing to get tough on it.

No wonder the prospect of a Bulgarian-Romanian influx is causing such concern. Some right-wing Tories say the government should simply deny work permits to such arrivals, in defiance of EU rules. The coalition is, less drastically, looking to discourage them from coming by making it harder for new settlers to claim benefits and use some public services. It has even considered launching an advertising campaign in Romania and Bulgaria to spread the word that drizzly austerity Britain is not all beer and skittles.

Good luck with that. Andrei’s nightly pay is around 25% below Britain’s legal minimum wage, but still over five times the Romanian equivalent. Asked whether he thinks many more Romanians will follow him to Britain, he shrugs. “Romania is no good,” he says. “Wherever there are jobs, Romanians will go.

51

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 04, 2013, 06:41 PM | #

@Leon

Maybe he’s a true-believer in the cult of the ‘free-market’. Perhaps the most destructive theology of the present age? The free-market, profits, ‘efficiency’ über alles.

52

Posted by Poor Suffering Soul on February 04, 2013, 09:35 PM | #

A small point but an important one to this American:

Please, do not confuse “America” with the “United States” of America.  Before there was a U.S. there was an A. as some wag puts it.

Americans are a people whose good name was absconded by charlatans and usurpers but even U.S. law does not call its subject persons “Americans”.  It calls them United States persons.  (Or citizens, a legal technicality.)

Thorn is correct in his import to propaganda.  Since WWII—and I despise Nazis for kicking this off with their half-baked war prosecution—Americans have been soaking in Soviet inspired anti-Nazi and subsequently anti-American propaganda.  Today it is merely anti-White.  None the less, many billions of dollars have no doubt be expended to promote this objective, and it permeates all levels of U.S. society.  It is the reason for KMac’s implicit whiteness, after all.

What (authentic) Americans need above all else is a means to discuss being American without the straight jacket of anti-White propaganda that threatens to destroy us now, immediately, starving our children if they survive that long. 

Ironically, it is adherence to the literal meaning of the 14 words that forces “prisoners’ dilemma” choices that ensure immediate survival at the expense of tomorrow.

And kicking the can down the road until tomorrow is something all U.S. persons do exceeding well.

53

Posted by Leon Haller on February 06, 2013, 03:11 AM | #

Who rules in Merrie Olde England?

Dear leon haller,


The attached comment, posted under the pen name Leon Haller [what the hell do you mean “pen name”?], has been deleted from The Economist online.  The comment was removed because it breaks our comments policy:

http://www.economist.com/legal/terms-of-use#usercontent

We remind you that repeated violation of our comments policy may result in your being blocked from posting comments on The Economist online.


Yours sincerely,

Comments Moderator The Economist online

Your comment:

What about the rights of the indigenous, the actual British people who have
an ancient, ‘thick’ way of life and don’t wish it polluted by culturally
alien (let alone racially unassimilable) foreigners? You liberal traitors
simply don’t understand (or don’t care about) the value of the nation and
nationality in forming the full, human person.

Of course the issue is RACE, and, to a lesser extent, culture, though there
are literally 100s of other reasons for opposing alien immigration: from
social services parasitism to Socialist/Labour/Democrat (leftist) voting,
from tropical disease importation, to Third World criminality, both
disorganized and gangster, from national security concerns viz either foreign
powers with their nationals inside our countries or foreign terrorism, from
overpopulation and ecological destruction, to suppression of native wage
rates, etc etc etc etc.

There is no greater curse all the Western nations have needlessly, idiotically,
suicidally inflicted upon themselves than that of immigration-driven
“Diversity”. There is no policy any Western nation can pursue that would be
of greater “slam-dunk” benefits than ENDING THE ALIEN INVASIONS!

We don’t want more nonwhites in our lands (actually, we want repatriation,
and someday we will have it, though only after a sure to come civil war). We
are tired of being forced to pay for our own racial, cultural and economic
dispossession. I think Bagehot and all other immigrationists must be getting
some kind of secret bribes by wealthy, evil persons who actively wish to
destroy the uniqueness of white civilization. There is no other explanation
for their incessant refusal to face the horrible problems brought by
nonwhites to white lands.

54

Posted by Thorn on February 06, 2013, 07:56 AM | #

Who rules in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

High school football coach gets suspended for saying Michele Obama is overweight in front of students.

Further discipline is pending:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/michelle-obamas-posterior-again-the-subject-of-a-public-rant/2013/02/04/c119c9a8-6efb-11e2-aa58-243de81040ba_story.html

55

Posted by Silver on February 06, 2013, 06:55 PM | #

Haller,

Not the most ‘incrementalist’ comment I’ve read, to put it mildly.  Have you really learned so little over all these years that you’re sincerely dismayed by that comment being rejected?

Okay, so you’re mad, frustrated, anguished, whatever.  Understood.  But if you’re going to make an effort to post in ‘enemy territory’ why not post the most effective sorts of comments that force people to rethink, rather than angry drivel that they shrug off on autopilot?

56

Posted by Guessedworker on February 06, 2013, 07:39 PM | #

Leon,

The Economist is a globalist publication, and as such cleaves to the neoliberal view of people as interchangeable economic cyphers.  I have challenged that shibboleth rather more subtly than you did, and received exactly the same missive in my mail box.  They are incorrigible.

57

Posted by Thorn on February 06, 2013, 08:55 PM | #

“people as interchangeable economic cyphers”

Yes, I have a brother-in-law that is an executive in one of the fortune 500 companies. He believes the Mexicans are going to assimilate just like all the European immigrants have assimilated.

When I pointed out to him the fact that Mexicans are not like those that immigrated from Europe, he got very upset with me. He thinks I am a racist. He thinks every human-being is an interchangeable work unit. Mind you, he has a PHD in Business Administration. My sister who’s married to him has a Masters Degree in Education. She’s very intellectually gifted. too.

As an aside,  I gave her a copy of the Bell Curve. She refuses to read it; so does her Irish/Catholic husband. F’ing brainwashed liberals!

 

 

58

Posted by Leon Haller on February 07, 2013, 07:12 AM | #

Silver et al,

I need to sound off sometimes, to be honest. The above was not one of my better comments; I was just too angry, with fingers furiously flying.

I guess I’m changing my internet MO. Over the past 7-8 years, I’ve developed a minor, unhealthy addiction to web commenting. I must force myself to break it off. I prefer one of my mantras for short bursts after race-based Yahoo news stories I might skim. Beyond that, I need to focus my activism in either dense intellectual articles (the kind that I feel advance fundamental theory, and that I can also reasonably hope eventually to recycle into future book chapters), or else real world racial consciousness raising. I really think we (at least in the USA) desperately need to build some type of non-Nazi but pro-white political activist and social networking organization, something like the NAACP or the mass membership National Rifle Association (a great group to which I belong, but I’m thinking of something comprehensive and social as well as political). I really wish something like this existed into which I could pour some extraprofessional energies.

59

Posted by Thorn on February 07, 2013, 09:09 AM | #

Leon,

The purpose of my comment @ 57 was to illustrate the mindset of professional white people in AmeriKWA. My sister and brother in-law consider themselves conservatives. They, like what is so typical of white upper middle-class whites, are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. From my POV I see that combination of FL/SL as a contradiction. I beleive it’s the socially liberal policies that cause fiscal problems. For example: it’s the socially liberal polices that created the Welfare Queen and all the pathologies she subsequently breeds. Another example is it’s social liberal policies that swelled the ranks of the Federal government’s bureaucracies. Of course the list of examples can go on and on but I think you get may point.


My contention is if whites voted for pols that are socially conservative, the fiscal problems would dissipate. But brainwashed white professionals refuse to acknowledge the connection between being socially liberal and the fiscal problems it causes, so they continue to support and vote for Republicans that advance socially liberal policies. Who can honestly beleive that both Bushes, Nixon and even Reagan advanced the liberal social agenda? The fact is both parties embrace the socialist agenda and ignore the resulting deficit spending required to support it.

PS,

Good luck trying to organise a white civil rights activist group. American Renaissance has been around for how long now?

PPS,

If you have time, this ordinary Joe figured out the con job WRT “conservative” talk radio and the Republicans’ faux opposition to the Democrat Party’s socialist agenda.

Conservative Talk Radio Ratings Plummet

http://verydumbgovernment.blogspot.com/2013/01/conservative-talk-radio-ratings-plummet.html#!/2013/01/conservative-talk-radio-ratings-plummet.html

60

Posted by Leon Haller on February 07, 2013, 10:04 AM | #

Thorn,

I know the mindset of the professional white classes very well. All we can do is keep on pushing forward.

AR is an educational org. It has never to my mind focused on developing a white American social network, along the lines theorized politically by Sam Francis.

There are thousands of nonwhite professional organizations (eg, Association of African-American Accountants or Engineers or Police Officers, etc). I think something white would grow very quickly, as long as it wasn’t advancing a racist agenda.

Anyway, people need to stop being so ludicrously and self-fulfillingly pessimistic.

61

Posted by James Bowery on February 07, 2013, 12:54 PM | #

Thorn writes: “F’ing brainwashed liberals”

The same response comes from “respectable” “conservatives”.

62

Posted by Silver on February 07, 2013, 06:17 PM | #

As an aside,  I gave her a copy of the Bell Curve. She refuses to read it; so does her Irish/Catholic husband. F’ing brainwashed liberals!

It does no good to write them off as brainwashed liberals.  It neither helps prepare you to more effectively hand them or someone else next time, nor does it help them change their thinking.  You’re obviously not washing your hands of racial issues because here you are commenting (and will be again and again), so if you’re going to keep it up with the racialism you may as well learn the most effective means for ‘making the case for race’. You may have thought to yourself “I’m white and I care about race therefore any comment I make about race is automatically endowed with value” but that’s just not true; you must dispel any such ideas.

The two related reasons highly educated types respond so poorly to being urged to think more deeply about racial issues are (a) they believe you’re wrong but fear what the consequences of you being right are, but rather than engage in serious thought and risk disturbing their repose they opt not to think, or (b) they know you’re largely correct but have serious reservations about the consequences of attempting to do anything to rectify the racial state of affairs. Very little meaningful discussion can occur under these circumstances.  You have to get a foot in the door first.  You’re not going to get anything like immediate agreement, but if you can inject a point of view that nags at them, that puts them on the back foot (for once!), then you’ve made a start, you have a foundation (however shaky). 

The best way to get your foot in the door is to allow them to think as they do but inform them that change is on the way. As understandable as it may be that they think as they do—millions of people think likewise, after all—thinking that way is unsustainable; it carries real costs that in the long run cannot be and will not be ignored; at some point the refusal to consider those costs will simply have to be characterized as anti-white. 

That doesn’t sound like much, I know.  No one’s going to leap out of the sofa proclaiming his whiteness and demanding an ethnostate right this very minute on the basis of being informed that change is on the way. But people are much less likely to walk away feeling morally superior to you than they were before, when you were ‘trying to induce them to hate Mexicans’ (which is how they would have interpreted it).  You’ve got a foundation now. And brick by patient brick, who knows what may yet be built?

63

Posted by John on February 08, 2013, 02:00 AM | #

“To put it very simply the first is in this form - innocent whites/evil outsiders - which is usually found to be shaped by some weird theological belief on the ‘demonic’ nature of everyone’s favourite ethnic group. Monocausal, simple-minded tosh for weirdos and oddballs.”

Straw man argument. Do you understand the difference between a single cause and a sine qua non?

64

Posted by Thorn on February 08, 2013, 06:23 PM | #

Silver,

I pretty much agree with everything you said up to the point where you said I was trying to induce hatred for Mexicans. Trust me, I would never take that tact even if I hated Mexicans (Which I do not. I’m very fond of Mexicans especially when they are located in Mexico.) If I tried to induce hatred for Mexicans or any other group, they’d see right through that in a nanosecond. What I’m trying to do is get them to see reality for what it is. However it’s not like they are completely blind to what’s happening, they’re just too comfortable to do anything about it; they just don’t want to take on the burden of joining in and helping correct what the multicult has wrought.

Bottom line: they, like most everyone in the UMC, value their lifestyle and social life more than they value the long term well being of the White race. Unfortunately we live in a day and age where being pro-white or anti anti-racist is universally frowned upon to the max. OTOH, being anti-White is all the rage amongst the glitterati and literati ... and most whites get their cues from the glitterati and literati on how to form the “correct” social opinions…. which of course makes pro-White activism all the more difficult.

65

Posted by Thorn on February 08, 2013, 06:56 PM | #

UMC - upper middle class

66

Posted by Bill on February 09, 2013, 01:47 AM | #

Thorn @ 64

Better red than dead.

It’s so incremental, so softly-softly, drip-drip.

It’s not so bad really, at least we’re alive.  We’ll learn to love our servitude, we’re infinitely malleable you know… like plastic, apply a little heat and we’re any shape you like.  zzzzz!

67

Posted by Thorn on February 09, 2013, 09:10 AM | #

Psychology of White Self Hatred (Video #1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIS19La8W8&feature=player_embedded

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: Wholesight and the Ontology of Frederick Parker-Rhodes

Previous entry: Money As a Shining Beacon of Nihilism

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Animal faith' on 09/18/14, 03:32 PM. (go) (view)

melba peachtoast commented in entry 'Animal faith' on 09/18/14, 02:42 PM. (go) (view)

Guest commented in entry 'Sir Gerald Howarth stands by letter: Time for England to fight back' on 09/18/14, 12:44 PM. (go) (view)

Guest Blogger commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/18/14, 01:26 AM. (go) (view)

Guest Blogger commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/17/14, 11:55 PM. (go) (view)

Guest Blogger commented in entry 'Sir Gerald Howarth stands by letter: Time for England to fight back' on 09/17/14, 11:23 PM. (go) (view)

Reginald Thompson commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/17/14, 02:48 PM. (go) (view)

Reginald Thompson commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/17/14, 02:40 PM. (go) (view)

Dude commented in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/17/14, 06:52 AM. (go) (view)

norman lowell commented in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/17/14, 04:56 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Professor Kai Murros Speaks in Oxford ~ September 13th 2014' on 09/17/14, 03:16 AM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/16/14, 10:22 PM. (go) (view)

Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Professor Kai Murros Speaks in Oxford ~ September 13th 2014' on 09/16/14, 08:57 PM. (go) (view)

Dude - FAO British and Euro Based Readers.. commented in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/16/14, 12:11 PM. (go) (view)

XPWA commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/16/14, 09:28 AM. (go) (view)

XPWA commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/16/14, 09:19 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/16/14, 08:59 AM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/16/14, 05:38 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/15/14, 11:24 PM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/15/14, 08:43 PM. (go) (view)

Guest Blogger commented in entry 'Son of Stepford Wives' on 09/15/14, 02:15 PM. (go) (view)

rahul commented in entry 'The Indian/Chinese IQ puzzle' on 09/15/14, 08:32 AM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 09:00 PM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 05:14 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 02:38 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 06:58 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 05:23 AM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/14/14, 12:36 AM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/13/14, 10:22 PM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/13/14, 12:16 PM. (go) (view)

wvs commented in entry '“Right-Wing Extremists like The Order”' on 09/13/14, 11:55 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/12/14, 11:35 PM. (go) (view)

Desmond Jones commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/12/14, 03:11 PM. (go) (view)

Wolf commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/12/14, 01:56 PM. (go) (view)

uKn_Leo commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/12/14, 11:21 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