|
|
Interview by Counter-Currents.As a result of the CMS article I received a request from Greg Johnson for an interview. In turn, I requested a QA format because that allows me to think about my replies at leisure, and avoid a few of those inevitable foot-in-mouth moments. Greg sent the first question this evening, to which I have replied as below. I am going to build up the interview on this post, as we progress with it. Question 1: Have you had any dealings with William Regnery? If so, what transpired? In the Anglosphere the thinking was, on one hand, essentially religious, meshing flawlessly with the 20th century fictions of a European spirit of race and mythic destiny, and, on the other, empirical, producing stone-cold certainties about human bio-diversity, sociobiology, gene interests, and so on. It was (and is) a barren coupling. I wanted to find some basis for reconciling the unreconcilable ... science and philosophy, truth and beauty, the New World and the Old, because then we might have a foundation on which others could build intellectually. And we might, if we were lucky, come into possession not just of a reactionary critique of liberalism à la de Benoist but something shattering, something epochal and renewing. Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, August 22, 2011 at 06:45 PM in No particular place to go Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on August 23, 2011, 06:44 AM | # Actually no, I haven’t considered inviting Greg to join MR. 3
Posted by Barbara on August 23, 2011, 09:31 AM | # If we were still an Anglo Saxon Protestant nation all the efforts at intellectual purity would benefit and strengthen our nation and us as a people. However since there is this relentless cancer eating away at our most vital organs what is the point of being so noble? Buy a tv cable channel and counter the jew propaganda with lots of flash and whatever else is required to get the attention of the public. The Tea Party is evidence that the people are chomping at the bit for a leader. We don’t have to be as intellectual as you are, we already get it in our simple minded way. We need a leader and Ron Paul is the only one I see so join and help him. History was written with blood, not ink. Efforts to uplift our people with a firm foundation of intellectualism and thoughtfulness cannot work when the jew is tearing the foundations of Western civilization out from under us. Open aggression against the jew, declaring war upon international jewry is what I desire, all of this other stuff has been tried and none of it works. Making laws against them, tossing them out and trying to keep them out, committing a holocaust against them - it doesn’t work. They were even trying to do something about them back in 1315 as they are mentioned in the Magna Carta. Recently in the news there was a story about a woman in Great Britain who worked in immigration dept. She visited her parents over the weekend and returned home to find Romanian gypsies has moved into her home and trashed it. All her belongings were in the back yard under a carpet they had ripped out. The plumbing in the bathroom and kitchen was destroyed. The gypsies had a document saying the childless, unmarried woman’s son had rented the house to them because his Mother was dead. Most perps cover their heads as they do the perp walk in complete shame. These gypsies smiled for the cameras. They have no shame. Over centuries they have never seen the need to change their ways. So what do you do with people like these who are more like animals then civilized humans. You can’t take them out and shoot them but you can’t allow them into your country either. This is what we face in dealing with jews. They can’t change, its bred in their bones, wired into their brains, its in their DNA. I admire your intellectualism. But we have to act. Put your brainy heads together and figure out what we can do. Like helping Ron Paul get rid of the Fed which is the basis of their power and wealth and of our economic decline. Do something. Sue every jew organization in this nation for treason and for money because of their support of non White immigration. Sue jews for taking control of all media and using it to bring in more non White immigrants who are destroying us. The evidence is there. Western civilization has a right to exist and Mexicans are saying they wish to push us into the sea and take our country. Sue every jew organization in the country. Sue jew media moguls for lying to the people. Do something. You’re debating is like playing the violin while Rome burns. 4
Posted by Hunter Wallace on August 23, 2011, 10:45 AM | #
The situation will spiral out of control before any of this happens. As a historian and political analyst, I saw it coming a year ago. Instead of getting their act together, White Nationalists will sit around arguing about things like esoteric versions of National Socialism, who gets to be an aristocrat in the warring books clubs of cyberspace, who is controlled by the Jew, etc. GW has been miffed with TOQ ever since that essay contest two years ago. Meanwhile, blacks will burn down the United Kingdom, hundreds of blacks will savagely assault Whites in Milwaukee and Philadelphia, racial taboos will erode in parts of the Heartland, Obama will become a racial pinata, but none of the “WN intellectuals” will even notice because they are lost in their own galaxy of philosophy and ideology where the real world never changes. They don’t pay attention to what is going on around them anymore. When the opportunity finally arrives to take down the status quo, the train will pull into the station of history and will pull out before they even notice it has arrived. Instead, it will be the opportunists who hijack the massive White backlash which is leading us to only God knows where. Here in the South, I can say with absolute certainty that the fall of the liberal establishment and the economic chaos which will eventually befall us will empower hardcore religion and radical versions of conservatism, which will thrive in such conditions, not any secular fantasy ideology. No one is going to care about esoteric fascism when flash mobs that are thousands strong are rampaging through our cities and the economy has fallen off the cliff. 5
Posted by Lew on August 23, 2011, 11:32 AM | # The CMS and by extension William Regnery appears to a hand in the entire American scene. Although it’s not standard practice for 501(c)3 non-profit corporation to keep its membership confidential, certainly there are good reasons in the case of the CMS to do so. The only issue that puzzles me how a person (Matt Parrot) whose Mormon faith seems to require reverence for Jews and extreme philo-Semitism ends up as an admin / mod at TOO of all places, and a prolific writer for CMS affliated publications where huge majorities of the audience regard the JQ as important. It’s a reasonable question, and I assume there is a straightforward answer. Maybe it’s common knowledge in nationalist circles that Mormons are extreme philo-Semites who do things like incorporate the Star of David into their architecture. It was certainly news to me. 6
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 23, 2011, 12:44 PM | # Mormons are not merely philo-Semitic, Lew. They are carefully groomed proxy-Jews. It’s a longstanding practice with LDS to use their children as proxies for Jews who were alleged to have disappeared in the Hoax. The Elders then take these little pretend-Jews and baptize repeatedly under various Jew names, so that when the resurrection comes, all the tribes of Israel can be re-united in Jew-Heaven. After doing this enough times, the little kids qualify for magic underwear which protects them from losing their elite status as proxy-Jews and backsliding into the goyitude. 7
Posted by Lew on August 23, 2011, 04:14 PM | # Jimmy, Thanks for the clarification. Your points about Mormonism have been very eye opening. The problem for me is that I lack direct experience with Mormons and feel the need to reserve judgment before going as far as you do in making an assessment like that—proxy Jews versus philo-Semites. I don’t know enough about Mormon theology or practices to reach definite conclusions at this time about the compatibility of Mormonism and opposition to Jewry. Certainly there seems to be a massive conflict there worthy of inquiry. That said, there might be nothing to it. Perhaps there is some aspect of Mormon theology that makes it compatible with opposing Jewry. Nationalists that follow other strains of Christianity often find ways to bend their theology into compatibility with racial nationalism. Many either explicitly or implicitly simply ignore the problematic parts of Christian doctrine. 8
Posted by anon12 on August 23, 2011, 04:22 PM | # What Barbara and HW said. We need fewer intellectuals, at this point, and more warriors. Be patient. When the SHTF—and it will—rest assured natural leaders will make themselves known, by deed. Hard men who are willing to do execute the plans that others are not. As things fall apart, and as more of our men find themselves with nothing to lose (no wife, no family, no job, no home, no country, no God), someone will act. It’s inevitable. 9
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 23, 2011, 05:07 PM | #
Yes, Lew, some explanations could easily clarify things, but for some reason, Matt remains silent. Its been suggested by a proxy that Matt was just conducting some kind of experiment with LDS, and isn’t a true believer. But why can’t Matt say this himself? Hell, I did the same the same thing with Islam, and I’ve talked about on MR radio and written about it here at MR. I have no trouble renouncing it, now. I have no trouble referring to Muslims as filthy camel-fucking idiots with neurotic fixations about other people’s sex lives. You see my point here, Lew. It’s an easy thing for me defame a stupid religion like Islam, for which my primary interest was polygyny and resistance to Jew infiltration. But it was so stupidly literalistic, and its adherents so small-minded that I immediately gave up on it and can now mock it without any reservations whatsoever. I can do this very easily and with relish myself. I need no proxy to issue explanations for me. I’m a man of few words, and yet I can easily dispel any suspicions about my loyalty to a religion that is harmful to White people. But where, is the loquacious Mr. Parrott when we have a question about a passing religious experiment he may or may not be, or have been, involved in? It would also be helpful if one or more of the elites who have enlisted Mr. Parrott’s assistance would take the trouble to respond to Lew’s query:
I agree with Lew, It’s a reasonable question. 10
Posted by Leon Haller on August 23, 2011, 05:10 PM | # Answer to the question is way over my head, which means either my cognitive limit has been exceeded, or the writing, like, ironically, so much from the Continent that gave us fascism, is needlessly opaque. That said, fascism, of one national specificity or another, is always a possibility. In general, fascism simply refers to any radical mobilization of the masses for secular, inegalitarian, and, usually, martial purposes. In common Western understanding, it would mean radicalizing the indigenous/white masses to resist, forcefully and potentially violently, their continuing national dispossession, immiseration, deculturalization, and loss of sovereignty. It would constitute a violent assertion of the claims and values of the particular against the encroachments of the universal. Why is this thought to be an impossibility for the European future? Given the accelerating rate of European racial, moral, cultural, and indigenous/dysgenic (“wiggers”, anyone?) decline, it may very well be that ONLY a racist/fascist resurgence can save Europe now. Had Eurofools listened to Enoch Powell, or John Tyndall, this outcome could have been averted. But I suspect that things have gone too far. Does anyone think that Third World immigrants will be tossed out of Europe as a result of democratic voting? If the indigenes were united as regards race, then this would be possible, though blood would still end up being shed. But the entirety of the problem is that white majorities everywhere would rather commit slow-motion national suicide than be “racist” (I use quotation marks because it is hardly racist in the traditional sense to want to preserve one’s culture and nation- ie, I don’t hate some stranger simply because I don’t want to live with him in my own home). This is due to an obvious genetic defect in the white race. That may be oversimplifying a bit, but in essence that’s it. I think fascism of some variant absolutely will be part of Europe’s future, if it is to have one. 11
Posted by Peter1 on August 23, 2011, 05:33 PM | #
Jews aren’t white—at least not in the context of the “white race”. 12
Posted by Leon Haller on August 23, 2011, 06:19 PM | # Re Mormons: I know very little about them, except that their religion is emphatically not a recognized, legitimate version of Christianity. You can take some liberties of interpretation with the faith, but at some point a line gets crossed from Christian to cult. Mormonism certainly is a cult, though whether harmful to white interests I’m not sure. I’ve met a few Mormons over the years, and I have to say, they were all very “white”, not only Nordic racially, but very Middle American, politically conservative, and family oriented. Mormons place considerable emphasis on having children. In these times of white fertility decline, isn’t that something we want? Moreover, of the objection to Mormons, a branch mostly of white people (at one time they were exclusively white), that they are very Jew-centric (something I did not know; again, in the old days, the Mormons were anti-Semitic, as well as racist), I reply - who isn’t? White evangelicals - who are often virulently anti-Mormon - are mostly Christian Zionists who proudly conflate Israeli interests with American ones. The whole reason for America’s ridiculously expensive and one-sided “special relationship” with Israel is the influence of Jews, politically and intellectually, as well as financially, within the Democratic party, and the correlative (and corrosive) Zionism of the evangelicals within the GOP. And yet - if these aren’t our people, who are? If WN is about saving the white race, and advancing white interests as against other races, then we probably should not be contracting our own side by being overly hostile to those whites who may not agree with us even ideologically, let alone religiously. Some small percentage of white anti-racists are so innately treasonous that they are deserving of ostracism or worse. But most whites need to be brought into our fold - or at the very least, we need always to keep the doors open. Politics is about addition, not subtraction. 13
Posted by Leon Haller on August 23, 2011, 06:24 PM | # This is due to an obvious genetic defect in the white race. That may be oversimplifying a bit, but in essence that’s it. Jews aren’t white—at least not in the context of the “white race”. (Peter1) I wasn’t referring to Jews, but to the quality in a seeming majority of whites which causes them to be suicidally solicitous of the (illegitimate) sensitivities of nonwhites. Anti-racism is a white racial trait/defect. If it were not , then Jewish cosmopolitan propaganda would have no effect. 14
Posted by Søren Renner on August 23, 2011, 07:12 PM | #
Why not both? 15
Posted by Leon Haller on August 23, 2011, 07:55 PM | # Mr. Renner, “I am stupid, and GW philosophically unintelligible” is indeed a logically valid third possibility. I stand corrected. 17
Posted by J Richards on August 23, 2011, 08:57 PM | # Barbara, Sorry to disappoint you, but Ron Paul isn’t the one you’re looking for. He’s controlled opposition. Last time he ran for President, before the primaries, he was the leading Republican candidate and John McCain was at the bottom. When the votes came in, McCain was on top and Paul at the bottom. Paul didn’t complain one bit about voting fraud. And what did he do with all the money he received? Did he use the millions to lavishly fund his “efforts” to have the Federal Reserve audited? Nope, he let his Jewish manager take care of it. And have you noticed that he’s promoting a gold standard for money? The money changers have used and discarded a gold standard to their benefit. They remain in control with a gold standard. I’d still recommend voting for Ron Paul, not because I have any illusions that he’d help, but because when he becomes President and the status quo remains pretty much the same, more people will awaken to what “choices” we have and better understand controlled opposition. It’s true that history’s been written in blood, not ink, but we’re in the 21st century where we have deadly weapons, including those that can easily lead to Armageddon, that humans didn’t have through most of their history. You’re looking at unacceptable levels of collateral damage in many contexts. Consequently, 90% of the battle will involve disinformation and hence the pen. Guessedworker is therefore fundamentally correct in focusing on the pen. Just look at the recent Norwegian massacre. The number dead stands at 77, which hardly registers numerically, but the impact overwhelmingly results from the spin on it that Jews have disseminated via the mainstream media and controlled opposition. Indeed, expulsions of Jews didn’t work in the past because they were local events; expelled Jews peddled their wares elsewhere and eventually returned with a vengeance. But now there’s awareness spread across the globe and we have DNA tests that distinguish Jews and part Jews from non-Jews with 100% accuracy. Accordingly, we live in exciting times because as the Jews inch closer toward their ultimate goal of global domination and servitude of humanity, we also inch closer toward the possibility of the permanent exclusion and containment of Jews. Buying a TV channel is a tall order, and even if you had the funds, Jews would make it a high priority to target it. Look at what they did to Ted Turner. They went after him even though he didn’t exhibit any “anti-Semitic” attitudes. For now the tool readily available is the internet. Take it away and I wouldn’t hesitate to resort to cruder tools such as guns. Do your part to spread awareness among family, friends and acquaintances, let Guessedworker do what he does best, I’ll do my part, others will do theirs; our efforts will converge, and it’ll be to the detriment of Jews. 18
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 23, 2011, 09:18 PM | # Well, this is a relief. With the help of only two new proxies, I’ve learned that Matt Parrott is morally unable to respond to any of the questions I’ve posed to him here at MR. You see, Mr. Parrott has very high personal standards, and has foresworn interaction with anyone who wears a costume which, by association, would reflect poorly on his own refined image. This seems a bit harsh at first glance, but upon further reflection reveals the unquestionable depth of Mr. Parrott’s character. Alas, if I could find one of these to wear under my kilt I’d be guaranteed an immediate rise out him. 19
Posted by Matt Parrott on August 23, 2011, 11:36 PM | # The history of my relationship with LDS is a complicated one, Jimmy. First, I’m not culturally or “ethnically” Mormon. My family got mixed up with them when I was 8 and they loaded us up with free food, free clothes, and genuine Christian kindness. I ended up getting baptized by them, but the family drifted out of the church a few months later. One parent bounced around from church to church, souring me on religion while the other parent was a skeptic. Having been baptized, I remained on the list of folks to be bothered by missionaries and always welcomed them in for company, hospitality, and polite debate. They’re a welcome alternative to the coarse, vapid, dishonest creatures masquerading as “White men” in contemporary America. A few years ago, I converted to Christianity. Having done so, it only seemed appropriate that I attend the only church that was there for me in my time of need, the only contemporary church with a positive birth rate and an authentic spirit of stewardship. I became relatively active in the church, but became increasingly uncomfortable with some of the theology and some of the politics. I’m still uncomfortable with the mistakes which are being made about ethnic and national identity and their cozy relationship with Jewry. As things stand right now, I haven’t attended in months and am just sort of lost and confused about the whole thing. One thing I’m not confused about is that I have nothing but respect for them, their beliefs, and their rites and rituals. Their temple garments are the butt of childish jokes, but I have more respect for a man like Brigham Young—sacred underpants and all—than I have for any other American alive or dead. I’ve never seen the inside of a temple. I don’t even have the Melchizedek Priesthood. I smoke. I drink. I drink coffee. I don’t have the temple garments. Your hysterical concerns about me being some sort of slick Mormon Mafia operative infiltrating WN are entirely baseless. The movement would be so lucky to have their leadership and discipline. I do believe they as a people are making serious mistakes, but I don’t have a legitimate voice as an insider to challenge those decisions. I’m also not in a position to challenge their mistakes as an outsider, as it would be dishonorable of me to turn on them after all they’ve done for me. When I was hungry and in dire poverty, they helped me. More recently, they were there for me when my wife was in the ICU, I was working overtime on a critical project at work, and I had two kids at home. They are the only “adults in the room” left in White America when it comes to civic and organizational leadership, integrity, and reliability. It’s not surprising that Jewry and global capitalism would turn to them as the ideal middlemen to make sure the trains run on time at ADP or anywhere else. Our fate may well hinge on whether or not they make the right decision, and I pray that they do. They’re no more subverted or confused than the rest of White America. They’re only more dangerous and more powerful because they’re the most competent and serious people left. You claim to have experience with them. Try to imagine them being knowledgeable about a fraternal organization then running off and blabbering about it in public like scorned schoolgirls. Try to imagine them engaging in the sort of wild-ass speculation and baseless public accusation that we see in full force around here. Try to imagine them cannibalizing their own for the idiotic reasons being offered around here. Try to imagine them being as convinced that something terrible is happening and then failing to mobilize against it. You think the magic underpants are foolish? I think what’s going on around here is foolish. 20
Posted by Lew on August 23, 2011, 11:39 PM | # RE: This remark by Leon Haller:
No, this information is not entirely correct. While it can be clearly shown that the Mormons were racist until pretty recently (which speaks well of them), the Mormons have never been anti-Semitic as far as I can tell. The exact opposite appears to be true. A foundational Mormon religious text—the Book of Mormon first published in 1830 – denounces anti-Semitism. Nationalists totally unfamiliar with Mormonism (as I was until the other day) ought to read up a bit on this topic, starting with the Wikipedia article “Mormonism and Judaism,” and then drill into the citations for the documentation that supports the statements made in the article. For nationalists unfamiliar with Mormonism, it might be an eye-opening read, and it does seem to prove that the Mormons have a very different view of the Jews than the other contemporary Christian factions. Some elements within the Mormon community, for example, have historically “baptized” deceased individuals they regard as their ancestors, including Jewish people, and, in some cases, Jews who allegedly died in the holocaust. When organized Jewry discovered this particular practice in 1994 – apparently the Mormons baptizing the dead Jews were keeping it a secret from the living Jews—Jews were outraged and went on the attack against Mormons. (As with the Christian Zionists, the Mormon love for Jews does not seem to be reciprocated.) According to the account that I read, the Mormon authorities responded by telling the Jewish authorities that they would ban the posthumous baptism of dead Jews, but, interestingly enough, this seems to have been untrue. Despite being made aware of the organized Jewish community’s objections to Mormons’ baptizing deceased Jews, some Mormons resumed the practice of baptizing dead Jews anyway, apparently in secret, and didn’t stop the practice until the organized Jewish community learned of the practice again. One Jewish authority said this:
Now, I realize that the Jews are a hyper-paranoid and dishonest people, but even the most brazen Jew is not going to make a claim that “there are thousands of Jewish names in a Mormon index” when all it would take to disprove the lie would be to open the index??? For a change, it looks like the Mormon authorities were the ones being disingenuous not the Jewish ones. It also appears to be an example that demonstrates the willingness of high-level Mormon authorities to be misleading.
But, even putting aside this matter of dead Jew baptisms by a particular segment of the Mormon community, the differences between Mormonism and the other forms of Christianity seem pretty blatant in terms of 1) how Jews are viewed and 2) in the general secrecy surrounding Mormon practices and rituals. At an absolute minimum, the Mormons in general seem as slavishly pro-Israel, philo-Semitic and Jew-centric as the Christian Zionists. There are always exceptions to every rule of course, and it is not my intent ascribe any “guilt by association.” The vast majority of Christians of any variety are philo-semitic and anti-racist, but not all of them are. And many of the best and most committed nationalists are Christians. Again, nothing personal against Matt Parrot, and no offense intended toward him or anyone else. I am starting to get the feeling there is some personal enmity going on here between Matt Parrot and Jimmy Marr. However, whether there is personal enmity here or not, Jimmy Marr made a factual claim on another thread that was open to verification: Mormons are Jew sycophants. I was quite frankly skeptical about this blanket characterization, looked into quickly out of curiosity, and found to my surprise that there seems to be a lot of truth to it. 21
Posted by Wandrin on August 24, 2011, 12:16 AM | #
Obviously untrue as the briefest glance at history shows. Jews may have started, dominated and profited most from Atlantic slavery but White people were okay with it as long as there was a commonly accepted reason why black slaves were exempt from that that aspect of universal morality (and partly because White people were getting more out-bred throughout this time so universal morality was becoming a stronger component of White cultures, especially England, because of the agricultural and industrial revolutions pushing people into the cities (and the city population becoming less of a genetic dead end with improvements in sanitation etc)). .
Jewish propaganda relies on manipulating White universal morality (which is a natural and automatic side-effect of out-breeding in my opinion*). Their success in using White morality - which they themselves *do not* feel at all (except among Jews) - is primarily the result of their Pearl Harbour attack on the media and education system before the main war began. Their strategy *requires* *absolute* control of the media and education. The smallest crack creates a risk their mountain of lies will crumble hence the targeting and downfall of Murdoch as a result of Beck.
22
Posted by Lew on August 24, 2011, 02:28 AM | # Barbara:
My impression is that that is what the A3P is supposed to be on the American side of the Atlantic, an on the ground, practical, activist arm for explicit White advocacy. Although we won’t vote our way out, the A3P does a good job increasing public awareness that an organization focused on promoting White political interests actually exists. Supporting Ron Paul is a complete waste of time, and for a very good reason. Keep in mind that supporting Ron Paul means working for his goals, which include open borders for Mexicans, not WNist goals*** While ending the Fed would strike a blow against Jewish power, Ron Paul already has a strong following working toward that objective. I am on the A3P mailing list and can say for sure that someone there is doing an excellent job writing e-mail newsletters that cover non-intellectual issues. The emphasis is on raising issues that are important to ordinary Whites with no interest in higher philosophy or theory, and on figuring our ways for people who want to to hit the streets to do so productively. ***Greg Johnson’s phrasing. 23
Posted by Leon Haller on August 24, 2011, 03:16 AM | # Lew, I stated clearly that I know little about Mormonism (and frankly care less: life is short; any true intellectual has far more he wants to read than he has time to - ask anyone here; one must therefore prioritize; Mormonism just doesn’t make it into my circle of interests). What little I do know comes from general reading I have done in American history, or in learned periodicals, of which I read many regularly. Mostly, though, it comes from one of my uncles, a retired career military officer (unlike my dad, who served in WW2, but had had quite enough of military life by 1945; incidentally, my dad was on the old side for his time when he finally got married, and my mom is much younger), who was stationed for a number of years in Utah in the 60s, I think before I was born or also around that time. Anyway, a few things of note. This uncle, like my dad, is both staunchly racialist and staunchly Christian (listening, GW?); unlike my dad, who’s tougher on race, but more moderate on the JQ (like me, actually), he’s also fiercely anti-semitic. What’s interesting is how pathologically anti-Mormon both he and even his less rightist wife became after their Utah stationing - and still are to this very day, nearly a half-century later! Indeed, he got really angry at me last year when I expressed cautious optimism that a Romney presidency (Mitt Romney is Mormon, if you don’t know) might at least help get our economy moving again. Evangelicals, to reiterate what I noted previously, are often very anti-Mormon. In the early 90s I was dating a girl whose mother was fiercely evangelical (the daughter was not, I assure you (heehee); more of a biker chick wannabee, as I remember). I distinctly recall once getting somewhat berated by the mother when I happened to say something good about a Mormon secretary of mine (a nice blonde girl, real good traditional values). But we in my family are not evangelicals, pentecostals, or any other type of new Protestants. My father’s side is traditional Lutheran, my mother’s Catholic. My uncle in question is on my mother’s side, and is a serious, Church-attending Catholic. I’ve not known Catholics to be especially anti-Mormon (though of course we reject any claim of Mormonism to being a variant of Christianity). So my uncle developed his anti-Mormonism strictly as a function of his interpersonal experiences dealing with Mormons. My uncle did say one thing to me once directly bearing on your correction of my claim that Mormons used to be anti-Semitic. Some years back he did admit that the one good thing about the old LDS was that “they didn’t like n———and Jews”. This was in reference to his having been “accosted” in Chicago by a couple of young Mormon “missionaries”, one of whom was Oriental. Next time I see him I’ll ask him about the racial and ethnic views of his fellow Utahans in the 60s. I’m pretty sure he’s told me they (the Mormons) were good on race and Jewry. As human beings, however, they ranked pretty low for my very politically sound, morally solid and personally strong uncle. I always thought he was too harsh, but maybe not. I still tend to believe in maximum ‘inclusivity’ among whites (only), but again, I just don’t have a lot of experience in this matter. 24
Posted by Leon Haller on August 24, 2011, 03:29 AM | # Lew, BTW, what you said re Ron Paul and immigration is totally untrue. I asked Ron in person once what his views were on immigration (admittedly, this was 2002; maybe he’s changed). He was very sound, not “loony libertarian” at all. He wanted the borders defended, with troops brought home from around the world (the “US Empire”); he thought legal immigration was too high, and that its basis should be changed from “family reunification” (reunify by GOING BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY!) to a high-skills-based orientation (which would indeed be a huge improvement, even if not racial); he said illegals should be deported; and best of all (if you know the issue in the American context) he wanted to end so-called “birthright citizenship”, the insane and incorrect constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment whereby anyone born on US soil, including to a criminal alien, is granted automatic US citizenship. That latter position is the dividing line between those serious about ending the invasion, and mere pseudo-conservative poseurs. The only problem re Ron and immigration is that his heart just isn’t in it, which means he just doesn’t get it. His obsessions are sound money, the Constitution, free enterprise, and dissolving the US Empire (all good stuff, no doubt). 25
Posted by Leon Haller on August 24, 2011, 05:18 AM | # Matt Parrott, I have nothing against Mormons personally, though my contacts have been limited. Mormons are obviously (mostly) white, though now they seem to be scurrying about after minority converts, so my respect gets lower by the year. The white Mormons did a fantastic job developing the otherwise inhospitable wastes of Utah, and as such, are really a model of what determined whites can achieve when traditionally disciplined. And, of course, one has to honestly wonder how many Mormon faithful really believe their obvious theological nonsense (The New Republic‘s hit job on Romney back in 08 was perfectly fair in its depiction of the sheer nuttiness of Mormon theology - I hope you yourself don’t actually believe the ‘hard-core’), which contains none of the immense theological richness of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and some Reformed faiths (or so I was told by an intelligent ex-Mormon with whom I conversed on the subject at a paleoconservative conference some years back). When you mention that you converted to Christianity, I take it you mean to Mormonism. Of course, Mormonism is not recognized by serious Christians as Christian. So your conflation is telling. Your statement about a “positive birthrate” is suspicious. I think there are many serious Protestant churches with a positive (white) birthrate - including the evangelicals considered as a whole. I do admire the Mormon commitment to family, however. A point of genuine ignorance on my part: how could you have been fairly active in the church, and never seen the inside of a temple? As for the LDS being the only adults left in White America, I rather doubt such hyperbole. There are plenty of sound white men out there, indeed, just in my own family. The problem is that we are not grouped together in any way beyond just being white Americans. What is interesting is the adaptive advantage of possessing a rigorously adhered to minority faith (or even just consciousness) under conditions of general deracination and secular anomie. I’ve thought of the LDS before as a kind of white analogue to the Jews (though the former’s decision to forego ethnic exclusivity is obviously lessening the similarity). This would be a fruitful topic for further consideration. 26
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 24, 2011, 07:30 AM | # Hi Matt, Thanks for responding to my concerns about having you, a Mormon, acting in the capacity of gatekeeper at sensitive White Racialist websites. Thanks also to Lew for research confirming an objective basis for the anecdotal evidence I presented. After reading your reply, I feel happy and satisfied that you have a sufficient understanding of the challenges ahead in attempting to integrate White Nationalism and Mormonism, and I agree that great potential inheres in the LDS constituency. By way of contrasting my early life with yours I would like to highlight what I see as the biggest risk in this endeavor. As a child, I suffered greatly from my mother’s infidelity and an illegitimate sibling that arose from cuckoldry. While I didn’t realize, until I was 50 years old, that my younger sister was not my dad’s, I knew from early childhood that something was wrong in my family. By puberty I suspected my mother was having an affair. I tried to tell people about my suspicions; relatives, family members, my mom and ultimately, after no one else would believe me, my dad. He didn’t believe me either. A psychiatrist was consulted and it was determined that I was suffering from an unresolved Odepal Complex. In looking back now, I realize that they all knew I was right, but they couldn’t endure the pain of acknowledgement. Unable to bear the situation at home, I took to the streets and tried to support myself through crime. I was arrested, declared incorrigible and incarcerated. I spent what would have been my freshman year of high school in a juvenile facility in Alexandria Virginia where 95% of the inmates were Black. After converting to Christianity in jail, a missionary persuaded my family and the court that I was no longer incorrigible. I went back home. I made it three years before I was arrested and incarcerated again at the age of 18. This time it was in El Paso County Jail where 95% of the inmates were Meztizos. At 19, I was free again and had the equivalent of a PhD in race relations. The point I want to make with this is that while I suffered at the hands of Negroes and Meztizos, Blacks and Browns would have had no capacity to hurt me if my family had been invulnerable to the original crypsis. To my mind, my childhood plight is analogous to our racial predicament vis a vis the Jews. As long as our White brothers and sisters are allowed to imagine that Jews are White people with Yarmulkes, we’re in severe danger. Blacks and Browns can’t fool us. We know what they are. Only Jews can cuckold us, and they are unGodly skilled at doing it. For me, this problem towers over our other racial issues by a full order of magnitude. What I’ve said may seem obvious, but I’m often amazed to find people on our boards who place top priority on the Obvious Other while abetting the Cuckold. Conservatives are particularly prone to this. Leon Haller, bless his heart, is a prime example, which is why I never miss an opportunity to poke him in the ribs. The two issues of lesser importance that I’d like to discuss with you are your long standing habits of insulting Holocaust deniers and NSM members. As you probably suspect, a higher than normal proportion of NSM members and supporters have served time behind bars. It’s not a pleasant experience, and since Whites are often in the minority in a setting with a high potential for violence, racial bonds and racial loyalty take on a new dimension. When you live for while in an environment where you can’t shit without racial help, you become very unconcerned about your brothers’ wardrobe choices, and might even tend to get a little testy if someone else started making a big deal out of it. I’d like it if you could try to see this issue as being similar to Mormon underwear. It’s silly, but dwelling on it is equally silly. If you don’t like the uniforms, don’t wear one. For someone like myself, who was forced to live in a family based on a false history, its impossible to overstate the importance of learning the truth about the past. I forfeited my share of my family’s estate for the privilege of learning my mother’s blood type. I’d do it again in a heartbeat. It was one of the most fulfilling moments of my life. Our race is suffering under the de-moralization of a blood libel by the Jews. This is a matter in which the truth can be determined through procurement and analysis of forensic evidence. It seems fairly obvious to me the Kosher narrative is not only false, but largely inverted. I think its a serious insult to refer to those of us who take an interest in this matter as buffoons. 27
Posted by Matt Parrott on August 24, 2011, 07:30 AM | #
I’m not getting into a theological debate.
Temples are not the routine places of worship. Those are “stakes”...which are equivalent to church buildings.
I failed to clarify. I meant that as a group. Plenty of White American men have integrity, but they aren’t organized as such. A band of men, three of which can keep a secret, promise, or commitment, and one of which is either GuessedWorker or is chatty with GuessedWorker is just as useless as GuessedWorker. This is nothing personal against him, and most White Americans both in here and on the street are similarly misguided. In formal logic, it’s the Byzantine Generals Problem of attempting to communicate or coordinate activity when there are defective nodes in the chain. 28
Posted by Matt Parrott on August 24, 2011, 07:49 AM | # Jimmy,
I’m not a gatekeeper. I virtually never moderate comments.
I’ve not been especially coarse in my condemnation of either category. My position on the Holocaust is that it’s not an especially effective advocacy angle—not that every bit of the establishment narrative is true or that those who question the establishment narrative are morally defective or something. Can somebody find one example of me insulting the NSM? I don’t emulate a lot of their strategies, but they indubitably keep active.
I more or less do wear a uniform. I don’t know where this is coming from.
We already extensively talked this out. I’m not calling you a buffoon. I’m not even calling Holocaust Denial buffoonish. What I called buffoonish is the notion that it’s an effective topic with which to reach people. I disagree with you on that, for reasons which we argued into the ground over a year ago. I don’t discuss the topic much, both because I’m not especially versed in WWII history and because I don’t see it as relevant. Perhaps you see how it’s relevant in a way that I don’t. So be it. 29
Posted by Selous Scout on August 24, 2011, 08:07 AM | # Thanks for responding to my concerns about having you [Matt Parrott], a Mormon, acting in the capacity of gatekeeper at sensitive White Racialist websites. I second James Marr’s concerns. This arrangement would probably explain why several of my comments at TOO have been deleted in recent days. Isn’t there someone else at YWC or A3P who could take on this role? 30
Posted by Barbara on August 24, 2011, 08:48 AM | # There seem to be several people who are shut out of the comment section at TOO. Perhaps Matt P or Greg J would like to explain why this is so. If they have nothing to do with the monitoring perhaps they can talk to the person who does this job and get some answers for us so we can drop this subject and come together to discuss more important things. 31
Posted by Barbara on August 24, 2011, 09:03 AM | # Also I think you should look at Ron Paul on the issues - go to his page and click on “issues” If Greg Johnson has a point he wishes to make about GW judging William Regnery whom he has never met I would like to hear it. The discussion went off in the direction commenters wanted to go as it always does. Its amazing that intellectuals have not figured out a way to keep average IQ people, who can sit for hours watching reality tv and soap operas, interested for five minutes. Who is this Regnery guy? Is he cute as Gerard Butler? Is he charming as George Clooney? If not then you better figure out how you can make him interesting to us. With all those brains you should be able to find a hook. Lets see it. 32
Posted by MOB on August 24, 2011, 11:26 AM | # GW: As a result of the CMS article I received a request from Greg Johnson for an interview. Rick: Maybe this is an interview to determine whether or not to invite you into the elite. GW: Actually no, I haven’t considered inviting Greg to join MR. MOB: A logical surmise by Rick, and an amusing but dishonest comeback from GW. Alas, GJ needs no invite to post to Majority Rights, whereas GW does require an invite to enter “the elite,” as its being used here to encompass the CMS inner circle that gets to go to secret meetings. There’s the rub. The CMS article in question is the thread posted by GW that asks, “Elitism, Secrecy, and Deception . . . the Way to save white America?” GW attributed his motivation in posing the question to his sympathy for MOB. In fact, MR regulars will recognize these thorns in GW’s side from multiple references and discussions over the past few years, sans MOB. Twas the thorn of secrecy—exclusion—that stung the worst. Relief arrived in darkness: a secret visit by a member of the elite. GW: I requested a QA format because that allows me to think about my replies at leisure, and avoid a few of those inevitable foot-in-mouth moments. Greg sent the first question this evening, to which I have replied as below. I am going to build up the interview on this post, as we progress with it. GJ: Question 1: Have you had any dealings with William Regnery? If so, what transpired? GW: . . . I was interested in identifying and bringing together in a virtual but real-time environment a small group of people distinguished by the capacity for originality. MOB: Oh dear! How completely similar this sounds to the oft-repeated goal of The Elites!!! Talk about taking candy from . . . no . . . talk about grabbing the orange team’s football and running with it. GW: . . . there was nothing that I could see that was newly culled from a modern understanding of Man and Nature, and that opened out into an expansive and creative enquiry into the truths of who we are and how to live. Leon: Answer to the question is way over my head, which means either my cognitive limit has been exceeded, or the writing, like, ironically, so much from the Continent that gave us fascism, is needlessly opaque. Soren: Why not both? Leon: Mr. Renner, “I am stupid, and GW philosophically unintelligible” is indeed a logically valid third possibility. I stand corrected. GW:What is not clear to you, Leon? MOB: I don’t know if Leon is stupid (aka cognitively limited) or if GW’s philosophizing is unintelligible in and of itself, but since Leon has not responded and if I might presume to offer an impression: having just worked my way through an IEP paper entitled German Idealism, I have to wonder if newly culling from a modern understanding of Man and Nature and opening out into an expansive and creative enquiry into the truths of who we are and how to live is the best use of GW’s formidable gifts of intellect, articulation, and persuasion for saving white America at this particular time, given present circumstances—in the halls of Congress, Parliament and Ivy, in the museums, galleries and concert halls, in the streets of the cities, at gates of the states, on the shores of the nations—especially when so many men of renowned erudition have pursued similar bedevilments before and before again - certainly to my humble satisfaction and most likely to Leon’s and many more good-hearted, strong-backed, high-minded, nobly driven, though, more’s the pity, non-elite, brothers under the skin - and sisters, but on a lower rung, of course, with Mormons perhaps . . . . Note: See above in thread for Leon on likelihood of fascism in Europe’s future, with which I agree. MOB 33
Posted by Hunter Wallace on August 24, 2011, 12:28 PM | # There is certainly an element of comedy to it. Is Greg Johnson the Duke of San Francisco or something? Who exactly recognizes his elite status? Just what are they fighting about? It looks to me (as it did last year when I pointed this out) like a bunch of intellectuals quarreling among themselves over competing interpretations of fantasy ideology and who gets invited to participate in a book club. GW has been on a jihad against TOQ for two years now ever since the O’Meara essay contest. As for Kevin MacDonald, everything he believes about the Jewish Question is plainly discussed on The Occidental Observer and in his books. Similarly, James Edwards gives his point of view on The Political Cesspool. Jared Taylor has always presented his point of view at American Renaissance. Anyone who wants to follow them can tune into their websites. Meanwhile, while all this WN stupidity was going on, the “flash mobs” burned down GW’s own country (which we had spent months warning about), the racial taboos in the U.S. started to crack, Barack Hussein Obama assumed dictatorial powers, Cornel West was warning of a racial war of revenge, the VP called the Tea Party a bunch of “terrorists,” etc, etc. Here at “Majority Rights” the discussion rages on about Greg’s wounded ego, the insanity of yours truly, Soren’s elite status, JR Richards’ theory that David Duke is a false flag, Matt Parrott’s Mormon conspiracy, GW’s wounded pride, etc. Such is WN. 34
Posted by Hunter Wallace on August 24, 2011, 12:40 PM | # As far as I know, William Regnery is an old man who used his wealth to help finance The Occidental Quarterly. It remains something of a mystery why that would be a bad thing. Then again, in the MR universe David Duke and Kevin MacDonald are not “hardcore enough” on the Jewish Question. Duke is not as “hardcore” as J Richards after having gone to prison. KMac is not “hardcore enough” after having to put up with all that harassment at his workplace. Here at MR, Matt Parrott (who I have crossed swords with in the past) is engaged in a Mormon conspiracy. Last year, idiots on the internet were spreading the absurd idea that I work for the SPLC, when I have only attacked that organization over 20x times in the last month. Latest attack here: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/08/23/intelligence-report-fall-2011/ William Gheen of ALIPAC acknowledges the race war being waged by the SPLC on White America here: http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2011/08/24/congratulations-william-gheen/ 35
Posted by John on August 24, 2011, 01:26 PM | # “A logical surmise by Rick, and an amusing but dishonest comeback from GW. Alas, GJ needs no invite to post to Majority Rights, whereas GW does require an invite to enter “the elite,” as its being used here to encompass the CMS inner circle that gets to go to secret meetings. There’s the rub.” I read his witty answer different from how you read it (and self-evidently not dishonest). Anybody can post here but Greg Johnson or anyone else does indeed need an “invite” determine the topic by having his writing posted as a thread here. 36
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 24, 2011, 02:08 PM | #
Matt, We can agree to disagree, but I want to communicate an idea that I have about this. The priorities you claim are “effectiveness” and “relevance”. Mine, at this point in my life, is Truth. Not effective truth. Not relative truth. Absolute Truth. This probably sounds strange coming from a someone with my background, but my highest idea of Truth is that “All truth is half-Truth”, and by this, one might assume that I sit around all day smoking dope, but that could only be half true. The Truth is, if I wanted to sit around all day smoking dope, I’d be perfectly entitled to do so, and perfectly entitled to kill anyone who tried to interfere with me, because the Truth is that my truth is just as True as anybody else’s. Anders Breivik understood this. That’s why the world’s half-truth worshippers are awestruck by his resolute action. The hand of the saint is empowered by the same force which squeezes the assassin’s trigger, regardless of whether its effective or relevant. History will determine that. Aryan truth is every bit as True as Jew truth (lies). The Aryan man has every right to pursue his truth with the same methods the Jew uses to enforce his truth (lies). Failure to do so is, by definition, non-Aryan and an abomination in the eyes of the Absolute. At 88, James von Brunn realized this truth on the steps of the Liar’s Memorial. You are entitled to choose efficacy and relevance as the cardinal points of your morality if you like, but in my opinion, as long as you persist in so doing, you will be destined to behave like a boy in short pants. Half-pants. 37
Posted by Anchorage Activist on August 24, 2011, 04:10 PM | # Jimmy Marr - it’s obvious you are no genuine white nationalist, but a false-flag operative who peddles anti-Mormon bigotry under the protective cover of “white nationalism”. Why else would you come here and repeatedly stalk a genuine activist, Matt Parrott, about his Mormon connections? Conspiracy wankers like you are the cancer of our Cause. You hijack the Cause and steer people down ideological dead ends. Your purpose is to polarize, divide, and disable. The real problem is NOT the Mormons, the Masons, the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Koch Brothers, or any of those other false fronts you put up. The real problem is the Jew; namely, Jewish supremacism. People like Dr. David Duke and Alex Linder have the courage to name the real problem. We will no longer humor people like you in our Cause; we will fearlessly expose and confront your ilk.The white nationalist tree has many sick branches in need of pruning, and yours is the sickest of all, because it appears healthiest on the surface. 38
Posted by Guest Lurker on August 24, 2011, 04:47 PM | # Jimmy Marr wrote:
I’m confused, Jimmy. You state that your priority is one of Absolute Truth, not relative Truth. Yet you then state that your highest idea of Truth if that all truth is merely half-Truth. How are these two reconcilable in your mind? Are you saying that there is an Absolute truth, but that since man’s intellect is finite, we can merely grasp a portion of it? Or are you claiming, like certain Buddhist sects, that there is no Absolute underlying the phenomenal world? P.S.: Did you write that last post after taking a bong hit? 39
Posted by Objective reporter on August 24, 2011, 04:58 PM | # Sounds to me like Jimmy’s thinking is a bit muddled by postmodernism. How jewish! Oh well, we’re all entitled to an occasional off day.
40
Posted by danielj on August 24, 2011, 05:21 PM | # Jimmy just sounds like a human being. Maybe that’s why I find White National*ists* so boring. They all pretend to be Aryan Superman instead of just being the actual human beings they are. 41
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 24, 2011, 05:32 PM | #
Yes. But the minute you understand that, you’ve grasped the Whole of it. 42
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 24, 2011, 05:46 PM | # To clarify the forgoing, I’m attempting to use the word “Aryan” in something of the way I imagine Evola as thinking about it; “Noble”. I’m trying to hint at my conception of the Aryan Idea. If it appeared in the brain of an Australian Aborigine, it would still be the Supreme Idea. 43
Posted by Leon Haller on August 24, 2011, 06:29 PM | # To call Jimmy Marr a false-flag is ridiculous. He is as dedicated to opposing Jewry as anyone I have ever come across. I profoundly disagree with him on this, both ethically and especially strategically, but to suggest that he’s not as committed to naming the Jew as Duke or Linder is nonsense. Anchorage Activist must be Mormon (not that there’s anything wrong with that ... White inclusivity is very important). 44
Posted by Leon Haller on August 24, 2011, 06:45 PM | # I offered my own theory that one possible path to reconciliation was to move the philosophy into existentialism and the religion into esoterism ... at all times asking the question: what is true? Perhaps not surprisingly, what I found was that, by and large, the scientists saw the point quickly. The few philosophers I was able to talk to would not look beyond the famous “impossibility” of reconciling thought and experience. It was clear, though, that in reality they were hostile to any threat to the Weltenschauung they had carved out by their own hand from the bedrock of the Western canon. They were, I’m afraid, telling me that they did not possess the capacity of original thinking. I believe few original thinkers, even those given to Idealism, would be disinterested in a group endeavour to change the European Mind. (GW) I really don’t grasp your point(s) here. What was the “point” that scientists saw quickly? What is “the famous “impossibility” of reconciling thought and experience”? What is the world view “they had carved out by their own hand from the bedrock of the Western canon”? Nazism? Fascism? Old style American white supremacism? I don;t know what precisely is being referred to here. 45
Posted by Lew on August 24, 2011, 07:04 PM | # Leon Haller:
I love Ron Paul and have for years. A true old right libertarian. Much to my disappointment, however, he has radically changed his position on immigration. He now takes the traditional libertarian stance; he supports immigration levels so high the net effect would de facto open borders. Leon Haller:
This is an example of the iron law of WNist in-fighting. At some point in the debate, invariably, somebody will accuse somebody of being a Homo, Jew or Fed. 46
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 24, 2011, 07:24 PM | #
Oy vey! Just because I wear a skirt, have 6’s on my nose and no visible sources of income? 47
Posted by Guessedworker on August 24, 2011, 08:14 PM | # Leon, Before that passage which you quoted I wrote:
Is it not evident that a political actor responding with both empirical data and faith objects to the same question is saddled with a fatal inconsistency, and urgently needs to refine his thinking? I found that the people with scientific training to whom I spoke were a deal more interested in doing so than people with a background in the humanities. The problem of thought and experience is: what, if anything, does the result of our mental processes have to do with the world beyond the organism. Ultimately, thought and experience are two different commodities, and the first can never fully reflect the second. That is the rational gateway through which you yourself go when you argue that faith captures more of reality than reason. As for the customary worldview of the intellectual establishment of the radical right, it is Nietzschean and broadly fascist. Does that answer your questions? 48
Posted by TabuLa Raza on August 24, 2011, 08:19 PM | # “How jewish!” Then Objective Observer quotes from Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology. . . 49
Posted by danielj on August 25, 2011, 12:25 AM | # Then Objective Observer quotes from Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology. . . Which I also found strange but he is obviously trying to make some point over my head. He did simple quote her as “-Alice” and not Ayn. Perhaps he will enlighten us. 50
Posted by Leon Haller on August 25, 2011, 06:25 AM | # Before that passage which you quoted I wrote: In the Anglosphere the thinking was, on one hand, essentially religious, meshing flawlessly with the 20th century fictions of a European spirit of race and mythic destiny, and, on the other, empirical, producing stone-cold certainties about human bio-diversity, sociobiology, gene interests, and so on. Is it not evident that a political actor responding with both empirical data and faith objects to the same question is saddled with a fatal inconsistency, and urgently needs to refine his thinking? I found that the people with scientific training to whom I spoke were a deal more interested in doing so than people with a background in the humanities. The problem of thought and experience is: what, if anything, does the result of our mental processes have to do with the world beyond the organism. Ultimately, thought and experience are two different commodities, and the first can never fully reflect the second. That is the rational gateway through which you yourself go when you argue that faith captures more of reality than reason. As for the customary worldview of the intellectual establishment of the radical right, it is Nietzschean and broadly fascist. Does that answer your questions? (GW)
1. How are you certain that there is in fact no European spirit of race? Different men have different personalities, psyches, ambitions, dreams, etc. Why not races? I should think there is a European spirit, at least relative to the African spirit, Asian spirit, etc. In academic terms, “race spirit” might be something along the lines of modal personality combined with the most prominent intellectual and cultural emanations of the race. I think I understand the idea behind race spirit, even if I have difficulty articulating it. But I think rhetorically the term was used to convey not anything subject to scientific investigation, but rather an aspiration. To speak of race spirit is really to announce an ambition that the race should become in fact as the speaker is describing it. Rather like talking about the “essence of America”, or “British identity”. Is there a British identity? Of course. Can it be fully described, or only ever approximately conveyed? And if the latter, does that make it only a fiction (especially if it compels men in some way, and thus becomes a reality)? 2. Even if you discern an inconsistency between discussing race in broad, metaphorical terms, as well as with reference to racial science, what is “fatal” about it? Why need this inconsistency be eliminated? I’m not trying to be difficult, but I fail to see why nationalists cannot employ both scientific/empirical and rhetorical/metaphorical modes of argument and persuasion. We speak both about what we know (scientifically), and what we feel (even if we cannot prove it yet through scientific methods). I think you have a tendency towards scientific reductionism, or to privileging certain modes of knowledge over possible others. At the most basic level, we all know things which we haven’t necessarily established through empirical investigation. When I was young, teachers used to insist on racial equality in intelligence. Although I had had only a fairly small degree of contact with blacks, that was enough to convince me that they were less intelligent (my parents were never pro-black, but my dad’s tirades were always directed towards their savage behavior, not to analyzing IQ, as far as I recall). Indeed, doesn’t science begin with at least a tentative theory, later to be refined in light of empirically gathered data? 3. The problem of thought and experience as you describe it is an old one. I still fail to see its relevance for WN. 4. BTW, I’m not really big on “faith”, which is mostly an intellectual cop-out. I suppose you could hang me on my belief in God, though as I’ve said before, I’m only a 60/40 theist. I’m willing to give God the benefit of the doubt, in part because many brilliant men have been theists, but also because of an intuitive belief that the cosmos is much less knowable and much (ontologically?) richer than we ordinarily imagine. I also do so because I accept the core truths about the divinity (or at least otherness) of Christ expressed in the New Testament. I do that because my ‘gut’ (the same gut that helped to see through the race-denial brainwashing of my schooling, and at a much deeper level than my parents’ commonsense warnings and rational prejudices) tells me that Christianity would not have spread as it did without the fervor of apostles ultimately reaching back to Christ Himself - and I do not think that fervor would have been present had the events of the Christian narrative, esp the Resurrection, not actually occurred in historical time and geographical space. The Christian story is simply unlike any other, in its message and narrative. It strikes me as true - not as something I have to suspend my critical faculties to ‘believe’ in. 51
Posted by Something Said on August 25, 2011, 06:59 AM | # Lew asks
Probably because a while back, MacDonald put an entry on his website complaining about technical issues, and I complained on another site about the lack of cooperation within this “movement” and how someone like MacDonald was messing around with his blog settings, a waste of his time. Evidently, Parrott stood up to the plate and volunteered, and now the TOO website is much easier to use. I have a very hard time believing that Parrott is censoring comments. Just for the record, I don’t know Parrott except from reading his articles and comments, have never met him, don’t like him very much, and I’m not a Mormon. But I can’t imagine anything more unproductive than complaining about Parrott’s volunteer effort to make the TOO website better. 52
Posted by John on August 25, 2011, 07:08 AM | # @Leon: Could one not make a similar ad populum argument using the current fervour and ubiqity (in the West, anyway) of Frankfurt School ideas and especially the anti-racial aspects? The narrative has many similar moral elements to those of Christianity. And, the source is largely (almost wholly, in fact) the same tribe as the one that brought us Christianity. In Christianity, I see ín the meekness/poverty elevation, universal altruism and concern for the souls of racial others the “malign encouragement” that Kevin MacDonald talks about. 53
Posted by Bill on August 25, 2011, 09:00 AM | # Guardian 25th August 2011 UK net migration rises 21% http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/25/uk-net-migration-rises-21 White’s replacement proceeds apace. 54
Posted by Lew on August 25, 2011, 10:25 AM | # @Something Said I was not aware of those details until yesterday, and just to clarify I have never accused Matt of censorship. There are some other people floating around here claiming censorship at TOO. Not me. Matt later cleared if up in subsequent posts, and I told him so in another comment buried in another thread. It’s case closed for me. If I could zap the comment you quoted I would, and if there is admin here who wants to do it, it would be fine with me. I also realized—too late—that it was a serious misjudgment on my part to raise the issue in public in the middle of this “secrecy and deception” discussion. My policy in the future will be to raise questions privately. 55
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 25, 2011, 11:53 AM | #
I can neither affirm or deny allegations of pro- Jew censorship made against Mr. Parrott, but I can CERTAINLY imagine less productive activities and I have witnessed Matt Parrott using his position on racialist websites to engage in them. 1) Defending the Jew’s blood libel against the White race. 2) Ridiculing White activists for trying to refute the Jew’s blood libel against White people. 3) Ridiculing White activists for their clothing choices. 4) Ridiculing White activists who dare to associate themselves with Aryanism’s most potent symbol. Whether of not this White bashing and Jew exculpating is related to Mr. Parrott’s association with the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, is an open question. Personally, I doubt it. Judging from his own words, I tend to think Mr. Parrott is simply a confused young man. He has my best wishes in his future pursuits as long as they do not include the 4 activities enumerated above. 56
Posted by Objective reporter on August 25, 2011, 03:39 PM | #
T’was only a bit of irony, danielj. Jimmy, apparently, was having a difficult time in his quest to grasp the truth, i.e., reality. I saw it fitting/ironic that a Jewess could help him out in that regard. That’s all. 57
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 25, 2011, 04:51 PM | # With the assistance of Guest Lurker, I think my perspective was made quite clear in this exchange: Are you saying that there is an Absolute truth, but that since man’s intellect is finite, we can merely grasp a portion of it? Yes, but the minute you understand that, you’ve grasped the Whole of it. If, like Mr. Parrott, one is looking for efficacy or relevance, I concur with Objective Reporter in his recommendation of objectivism. 58
Posted by Guessedworker on August 25, 2011, 06:27 PM | # Leon,
The better question is: what has the common nature of, say, northern Europeans to do with the aesthetic of “spirit of race”? Very little, I think. The common nature of northern Europeans is real. It is not simply “Promethean” or “heroic” or “glorious”, or striving to be any of those things. It is quite remarkable in itself, and is all there is. It cannot be improved (as Jews know of their own common nature). A race or a man cannot be two things - this and something else or something better - and be authentic at the same time. Authenticity is perfect. Of course, human personality can be a hundred things, but then it is always what we are not.
It is the inconsistencies in that position which are fatal.
Because inconsistency is indicative of internal disagreement. This is why the desirability of synthesis arises in the greater context of WN/New Right philosophical thinking. It’s about having a stronger position.
Science reaches its conclusions by the process of falsifiability. You can’t just chuck in a few religious convictions along the way and emerge with a coherent finding.
I remember wintermute once lecturing me some years ago now on the matter. It is never far away from the surface for those who rely, ultimately, on faith.
I had the advantage, in retrospect, of considering that I knew better than my teachers. Every path to freedom is valid.
I have no argument with belief as such, except that there is too much of it. But that, really, is an argument with Christianity - and I have a few of those. 60
Posted by RS on August 25, 2011, 07:31 PM | # > That said, fascism, of one national specificity or another, is always a possibility. In general, fascism simply refers to any radical mobilization of the masses for secular, inegalitarian, and, usually, martial purposes. In common Western understanding, it would mean radicalizing the indigenous/white masses to resist, forcefully and potentially violently, their continuing national dispossession, immiseration, deculturalization, and loss of sovereignty. This is what people have always done. It’s what Jean d’Arc did, along with a million other leaders. Referring to it as fascism is really shooting yourself in the foot. It would be nice to get people to recognize that fascist horrors of the 40s were not categorically different from communist or Ottoman or Mongol ones, and that Hitler was a nasty amoral actor among others and not some supernatural Satan. However that is a fairly esoteric issue, and ‘casualizing’ the word fascism is not really the way to go about it. We should be staking out a distinctly anti-fascist approach to things like Gypsy overpopulation. Our task is to resolve this kind of thing coolly, using things like economic incentives for fertility reduction—without resorting to inhuman acts, or even brutal non-acts such as just letting people starve if they can’t support themselves. Several other aspects of fascism should also be soundly rejected, such as one-man absolute rule. It’s better to have a mixed constitution where much power goes to an aristocracy and a good deal is reserved for the upstanding citizenry. The ‘new fascism’ should not be very fascist at all. It is obviously going to have to be more radical, energetic, and somewhat more authoritarian than brezhnevian sclero-bureau-government, but that’s no reason to call it fascism. 61
Posted by Guessedworker on August 25, 2011, 07:43 PM | # RS, Fascism is something quite specific. It is not simply being “martial” or firmly resisting trespasses against us. Without getting bogged down in definitions, the issue here is that fascism, as a strain of nationalism, is anti-liberal in the widest sense, destroying liberal ideas, liberal values, and replacing them with a more or less coherent fascist whole. This replacement action is common to any nationalist form, not just fascism. Nationalism is wholly antipathetic to liberalism, and vice versa. 62
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 25, 2011, 09:33 PM | # RS, Here’s Linder’s take on the issue: The divide here is temporal: strongman through the struggle and refoundation; libertarian devolution afterward. No point in mixing the two prematurely in political discussions, it just confuses people. Just reassure them that AFTER we win, and clean up the racial problems, we are NOT going to be totalitarian tyrants. I do agree it is better when discussing with Americans to emphasize, IF YOU AGREE, as you and I probably do, that we WN respect markets (as Hitler did), and we do NOT like centralized power (so we’re not truly nazis, altho always called that by enemies, which is not to distance ourselves from or to disrespect historical NS, just to explain our different position). I don’t think anyone believes we can go straight from jewish tyranny today to white Constitutional freedom tomorrow. Too much has been lost or permanently messed up. We will have to fix up the ol’ plantation before we get down to parceling things back out. 64
Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 25, 2011, 10:02 PM | #
That Kirkvillan will be the end of Pleasantville yet! Kirk is Gaelic for church 65
Posted by Wandrin on August 27, 2011, 03:08 PM | # Another thought. Say political positioning ranges from 0 to 10 with mainstream at 4. I think, with a lot of experimental evidence, that most people will reject opinions out of hand if they are too far away from their current position. People may or may not agree with this but i’m taking it as the premise for this thought. Let’s say if an individual is more than 2 positions away from the advocate talking to them they reject it out of hand. Communists at position 0 couldn’t reach mainstreamers at 4. They had to create false front organisations at position 2 to attract people from 4 to 2 who would then listen to the people at 0. The same applies to WN (or whatever you want to call it). The people at position 10 can’t reach anyone except those who have self-radicalized to position 8 and in the past that was a slow trickle of people (although the rate of radicalizing now will be much faster as the economy crumbles and faith in the ruling elite crumbles with it). If true then what is needed is people who take positions purely to act as stepping stones. It needs some to take position 6 and work to pull mainstreamers from 4 to 6 and some who take position 8 to pull people from 6 to 8 where they are in reach of those at 10. If that is the correct system then should the people taking the right-most positions constantly attack those to their left even if they’re effectively on the same side? I was thinking it was counter-productive but actually if you’re consciously being a stepping stone then maybe it is actually more effective to let attacks from the right go by. If an individual has genuinely taken a position at 6 or 8 then they will want to defend that position but if you’re consciously being a stepping stone then there’s no need - just keep attacking to the left and ignore attacks from the right. 67
Posted by Leon Haller on August 27, 2011, 07:20 PM | # Lew, My apologies to you re Ron Paul. Here is what I wrote earlier today on another thread:
Thanks for that link. I have to leave in a bit, and so don’t have time to critique the methodology used in the rankings. What’s scary is that Roy Beck, with whom I once chatted at some length back in the 90s, is a liberal by my standards. And NumbersUsa is too liberal for my taste. I’m sceptical, however, of their rankings. Rick Perry is by light years the worst on immigration. They are flat out wrong. He has called for the erasure of the border between us and Mexico!! Romney in 08 was calling for illegal alien deportations. No way they are equivalent. And no way Paul is the worst but for Obama. NO way at all. Although he has softened his line on immigration since I spoke to him about it in the early 00s, Paul’s low number is reflective not of open borders libertarianism, but of a hostility to forcing businesses to act as law enforcement. Know what? I have been fighting immigration for 30 years (yes, since I was a teenager). I worked as a policy analyst for one of the anti-immigration orgs. I’ve written on the issue under a different name for several policy journals. And, I basically agree with Paul on that. It is government’s duty to stop immigration, not free market businessmen’s (of course, knowingly hiring illegals should bring serious punishment). A lot of what Paul is objecting to is enforcement mechanisms that intrude on property rights. I agree he’s not good, but he’s better than he’s ranked (ie, the methodology is somewhat flawed). Let me state publicly: I owe an apology to the commenter “Lew”. I spoke the other day without the recent facts. When I discussed immigration with Paul, he was really very good - against amnesty, birthright citizenship, for allowing states to enforce immigration policies, against welfare benefits for illegals, etc. Apparently, he has devolved considerably (although, again, the way Paul looks at the issue makes it difficult really to classify him by the methodology chosen; he’s not an open borders fanatic, at least within the present Big Government system). In the main, Lew, you were right, and I was wrong (which annoys me, as I have given decent money to Paul; I feel betrayed). Let me just add, this disclosure about Ron Paul has really been nagging at me this whole day. I’m getting in a fouler and fouler mood. I know several passionate Paul supporters, who are also staunch anti-immigrationists. We’ve all been under the impression that Paul was good on immigration, just not vocal about it. So whom to vote for? Paul or Bachmann? The latter is the best on immigration, but hardly great. She’s also heavily identified with both the Tea Party (good) and the Christian Right (very bad; I’m Catholic and Right, but their obsessions over gays and God are just irrelevant to our present crisis, and over abortion positively harmful - abortion is not something a serious Catholic can support, but we are under no obligations to be fanatics about doing away with it, either). Voting for Paul, on the other hand, sends a pretty radical and proper message on the economy, to the GOP leadership as much as to Democrats, that we want the Fed abolished or curtailed. Until the latter happens, our wealth will never be even remotely safe, and the economy will never recover as it could. 68
Posted by Leon Haller on August 27, 2011, 07:22 PM | # GW, I want to respond to you at greater length when I have more time, perhaps late this evening. 70
Posted by Guessedworker on August 28, 2011, 04:05 PM | # OK, Leon, whenever you like. Greg, here’s a question for you: What is your personal objective within the struggle of our movement. 71
Posted by PF on August 28, 2011, 10:14 PM | # The view from in front of my hacked and souped-up m*therfucing Wii: I see MR 2005-present as a really honest and amazing intellectual adventure - but perhaps thats just how I personally view it. Those for whom it means less might not think so. I understand people will want to constantly grade efforts in terms of producing reliable results for ‘our movement’ and for the playing out of events which they deem certain, and reiterate continually on here. Anyone with the insight to do so is invited to consider the possibility that the assumptive framework producing much of this thought is wrong on multiple levels. For example, something is definitely happening, but to interpret it as a racial crisis because we have mass non-European immigration into our homelands might be incorrect. That might be only looking at one angle of it, which one may be compelled to do because of obsessions whose nature is personal. Then you look up and realize these thoughts are not shared, and so the whole idea of ‘crisis’ is really a matter of perspective. We can throw around big words and try to force our perspectives on others, “proving” them to be the only valid ones.. by saying we take the long-term view, etc. etc., but that actually doesnt jive with the truth. All that is backwards rationalizing. I see no profound argument produced here beneath which I couldnt make out the smell of a profound personal attachment. But this “immigration is doomsday, lets strive for racial survival” framework is so comfy. At any rate, I see no one granting the validity of an alternative view - hence cherished hypotheses - hence slavery to a lie. Its entirely possible for example that the zero-sum tendencies projected on all groups on here dont play out - it *is* after all purely imagination in the minds of those who *know* for example that SHTF will happen. From the prognostications I’ve seen on here over the years, you would think anyone with ‘Nationalism’ issues was a frigging clairvoyant. The number of doomsday predictions on nationalist websites must tally in the millions at this point - there are 3 or 4 in the thread above alone. Disintegration may happen, but it may not vindicate nationalism or racialism. Often the events we presage are accurate in outline but completely ambiguous in meaning, whereas we like to assign them certain meanings ahead of time. A ‘soft islanding’ system may emerge for example, where islands of genetic information are kept intact next to merged ‘mix-breed’ islands. For example, 40% of the English may choose to remain purely english/british, and stay amongst themselves. 20% may merge with various other EUropean nationalities. The remaining 40% may merge with various African and Asian subgroups, forming islands of ‘anglicized Punjabis’, ‘anglicized Arabs’, anglicized ‘chinese’, etc. etc. I guess my question would be, given that all the players in this system are acting voluntarily (I refuse the casuistry which says that a race-mixing television campaign abjures human beings of choice, FYI) and given its happening on a scale that defies control (the possibility of central control of these things is really only alive in nationalist’s imaginations IMO) - what the heck could anyone do about it? At that point we have to acknowledge the functional equivalency of our ‘movement’ with a luddite anti-technology revolution: out of powerless obscurity, “we” are supposed to resist a universal sea change. At the end of the day, everything comes back to Danielj and uh, the latter of whom I admittedly have a belated man-crush on. These guys are anglo-whops, they’re Brit-Whops, they’re Whopping Dago-Anglo Whoppers. They represent a loss of ‘integrity’ theoretically, of the Anglo-saxon (welsh in uh’s case?) bloodline. So who among us is willing to stand up and say that these brilliant, spirited, pugnacious men represent a loss? Or that they are to be classed as lesser? Or that they have lost some fundamental attribute which we possess? Or that they are to be treated differently and excluded from things based on the origins of their ‘gear’? Its one thing to affirm it on the internet, but when we try to live these ideas out, everyone feels the impossibility of it, the senselessness of it. Because we are in fact close together even with those who are genetically distant, only our fractured imaginings and pent-up anger make us feel different. So a mixed race world is here, but that doesnt mean that the vengeful portrait of whites dying out or fading into cafe-au-lait nothingness need hold true. A series of intact volitional islandings - based on preference rather than decree - will keep the pure whites thriving and surviving alongside the new mixtures that spring up. And all this will arrange itself automatically - just as white women who prefer not to date non-whites naturally segregate themselves, and people choose their neighbors, etc. There really is nothing to worry about, unless you want something to worry about. People who are afraid of this change will grasp out for the handrail of state to support them, but thats a dream. We are living in a different era now, past paradigms will only confuse. Anyway thats just my opinion!!! MR is the brass balls of white nationalism!!!!!!!! 72
Posted by Leon Haller on August 29, 2011, 02:58 AM | # PF, Good comment, but too optimistic at the end. The white race, composed of all the European peoples, and only them (hence there is a cultural as well as biological aspect to race; otherwise, we would have to admit the various white - brunette, redhead, even blonde - Muslims I have seen, and even met, into our fold; something which for many reasons we must not do), is going extinct, at least if we maintain our collective present course. Every exogenous trend is running hard against us. These include, minimally: a. the non-white global population bomb (fertility rates are thankfully mostly falling, but absolute numbers will continue to rise for most of the remainder of our lifetimes); b. the white DE-population bomb, especially amongst the hedonistic pansies over in Europe (less beer and soccer, more sex, perhaps?), is worsening, as Buchanan in DEATH OF THE WEST, and Mark Steyn (Jew? who cares?) in AMERICA ALONE, have discussed in polemical but depressing detail; even if our women suddenly start wanting lots of children, as a simple but inexorable mathematical matter, it will take quite a while for our population figures even to stabilize, let alone begin to rise even absolutely (and it would take centuries to get the global Europoid percentile of Earth’s inhabitants back up to where we were in 1900 - around 30% of the total population of the planet); c. the age differential between whites and non-whites, with non-whites everywhere but Japan substantially younger than whites, with all that that will mean for shifting demographic, and ultimately military, power (as more countries gain nukes, their value will decline, and the West’s technological advantages along with it - if Iran gets the bomb, what will declining Russia do if faced with military incursions by the far younger and soon to be more numerous Iranians?); d. intra- as well as interracial global dysgenics, by which I mean, that the biological quality of whites has massively declined in the last hundred years - and I believe that the rate of decline has been accelerating (eg, hardly any of the intelligent whites I know have kids); moreover, we all know that intelligence correlates with IQ, which correlates with income, at least in the contemporary West; unfortunately, it is a sociological fact that American women (probably not too different elsewhere) in the top income decile have the fewest kids (nearly half in that decile at age 40 have NO children), while those in the lowest income decile have the most kids (I think this holds for whites, though also for minorities); e. massive racial/territorial fragmentation due to the importation of tens of millions of immigrant invaders (ie, the walls have been pretty massively breached), every one of these diverse immigrant groups everywhere in the white world having higher than native-white fertility levels; f. ever increasing Jewish/leftist control over the media and academic (and financial, and legal) establishments throughout the white world; g. a constant legislative tightening of free speech wrt race, including the increasing criminalization of nationalist speech in the West; h. massive anti-(white)-racist / racial integrationist / miscegenationist propaganda having now penetrated every white mind everywhere (except possibly in parts of Eastern Europe, though I’m not qualified to say), such that the only white preservationists still existent are those of us who are sufficiently informed and independent-minded - always a minority of any large population group; i. steadily increasing rates of miscegenation, as well as interracial adoptions, everywhere (ie, white females not innately opposed to interracial coupling now have no ‘unnatural’ defenses, such as traditional lack of contact with non-whites, or legal/social prohibitions). Only we can save ourselves, and we will only be able to do so through a conscious act of political will. If we take no action, our race will go extinct (or, as I believe more likely, and have argued in various places in the past, be exterminated). 73
Posted by Wandrin on August 29, 2011, 05:45 AM | # So you’re Silver,
No it isn’t. I can understand how educated people might think that if their only experience is with other educated people of other ethnic groups. Anyone who’s grown up in a blue collar area that went from white majority to white minority has already experienced a diluted version of what will happen. South Africa bad as it is, is still only a diluted version of what will happen. The proof of the pudding is already visible in the US flash mobs. When the stupider minorities realise white people have lost collective power and cannot institutionally defend themselves anymore they will attack. The first ripples are already showing. There is zero chance of a slow dwindling or “islanding.” Jews will be using the MSM to incite direct genocide at that point - rather than indirectly through films like “Django” and “Machete” - but even if they weren’t it would still happen. And it won’t be “black people” or “hispanics” doing it, it will be 5-10% of them but any attempt at collective white defence will be prevented by the Jews. .
The argument that any of this is voluntary while at the same time claiming to be on the same side would only be made by Silver. Immigration pressure exists independently and doesn’t need to be centrally controlled. However people naturally resist immigration into their living space - even from very closely related groups - for simple reasons of resource competition. The active part of this genocide has simply been the cultural war waged primarily by Jews aimed at preventing white people following their natural instincts to defend their terriotory. It’s not remotely voluntary. 74
Posted by Dasein on August 29, 2011, 09:33 AM | #
Although the looks and style are more Linder than GW 75
Posted by Greg Johnson on August 29, 2011, 07:50 PM | # GW: Can you rephrase your question? I am not sure what you mean by personal objective. Do you mean my personal vision of what I would like to see happen for the movement? Or do you mean what do I want to get out of it for myself? GJ 76
Posted by Guessedworker on August 30, 2011, 04:55 AM | # I mean, Greg, what do you personally seek to achieve within the movement. 77
Posted by daniel on September 03, 2011, 01:18 PM | # Is this interview article going to continue, GW and Greg - was looking forward to it - or will it remain only in the form of this thread? 78
Posted by daniel on September 03, 2011, 02:24 PM | # Why not do a radio interview? The ones on MR are good, but infrequent.- 79
Posted by Lew on September 03, 2011, 08:15 PM | # Good idea. Many people would likely find listening time for such an interview sans comments from the peanut gallery. 80
Posted by Silver on September 04, 2011, 07:19 AM | # Wandrin,
You don’t have to like me, Wandrin, but that doesn’t mean whatever you say about me is automatically true. Now, this particular statement is silly even by your abysmal standards. Personally, I don’t even claim to be on your side (not strictly, but read on) but there’s no obvious reason why someone who truly is on your side would definitely not characterize the bulk of the actions that have led and are leading to dispossession as generally voluntary in nature. Other factors apply to be sure, but you want to remove the voluntary factors from consideration completely. I’m guessing you have no idea how dumb that makes you sound—which mightn’t matter as much as it does if you didn’t bill yourself as a mind-changer extraordinaire. PF seems to have performed quite the 180. As a reaction against catastrophist nutters preaching imminent doom that’s perfectly understandable. I’m not necessarily as sanguine about the prospects as he is, and some of what he’s come to believe is flatly wrong, but in general I agree with his view that things aren’t going to be nearly as bad as even what the usually fairly level-headed (by WN standards, anyway) Leon Haller seems to think (“extermination,” yeah right). Going back to whose side I’m on, I’ll put it this way: “On the side of race.” There’s a scene in the excellent film Shogun (one of those rare films to do justice to the excellent novel it’s based on) in which the Portuguese Jesuit Father Alvito, up to his eyeballs in political intrigue, explains how Japan’s political factions line up and the dynamics which affect their allegiances to stranded English pilot John Blackthorne. When he’s done, Blackthorne asks him, “And whose side are you on, priest?” Alvito’s reply (although I considered it insincere as it related to the plot) stuck with me since I first watched the film as a child: “On the side of peace.” My young brain was excited by the prospect that, rather than being forced to choose between two alternatives, either for or against one party or another, it was possible to dedicate oneself to working towards a third option that, if successful, would obviate the need to choose between the two previous alternatives at all. And so it is here, with race. I’m not “for” you (not in the way that you are) nor am I “against” you (the way your “enemies,” some more real than others, are alleged to be); I’m for the principal that, if adhered to, would (a) obviate the need for conflict (certainly for the most bitter sort) or at least substantially diminish any that does flare up; (b) eventually result in the sort of “race-based society” in which I believe the best sort of living is done. PF,
How is this “landing” any different to what already obtains? There’s already a significant proportion (a slight but aging majority?) of, say, English who, as you put it, “choose to remain purely english/british, and stay amongst themselves.” There are already “islands” of blacks (particularly in America) that other groups don’t feel the slightest inclination to attempt to penetrate. The Islamites already have their own peculiar ways of warding off outsiders. So, if all this exists today, how will you ever tell that you’ve “landed”? More than that, though, you say everything is occurring on a scale that “defies control.” If it defies control today, when you’re still the great majority, it’s hard to see how it will be more controllable in the future, when your majority is severely diminished (or non-existent). The “islands” you’re seeing take shape are nothing than more than temporary stages along the road to complete amalgamation. Consider this:
That’s how it happens. It doesn’t seem to matter how promising or alluring “preservation” or nationalist striving is, sooner or later, always come the exceptions. Being a purist is easiest when you’re the vast majority, because there are so few others that displeasing them isn’t a concern. But because there are so few others few of one’s own feel the need for anything drastic. As the numbers of others grows the need for something drastic becomes more apparent, but it’s tempered by a growing concern over displeasing the (growing number of) others. The need for drastic action doesn’t go away, however, so eventually the PFs begin making exceptions—well, sure, the niggers and the pakis are bad news, but come on, these anglo-dagos, who could possibly have a problem with them? The twin benefit of this attitude is the feeling of being absolved of the charge of racial absolutism—one is “no purist,” you see, he’s more than open to a bit of racial variegation, provided it’s contained within reasonable limits. (This is all quite fair enough, btw.) Thing is, it’s no longer just your opinion that counts. You (quite understandably) are open (be it sincerely or strategically) to the anglo-dago. The anglo-dago, in turn, is open (in this case more sincerely than strategically, I would hazard) to the, er, straight/pure/original dago; the original dago (to whatever extent he has racial feelings) is open to a still further degree of admixture, perhaps coming to encompass the Levant or certain S. American admixed types; and so down the line. And of course there’s then the nagging issue of superiority/inferiority, which some go out of their way to emphasize, with the result that some of those sold on its tenets either truncate their allegiances in such way as to racially “upgrade” themselves or go scurrying into the arms anti-racism, all of which adds to the existing confusion and doubt. For all that, I still believe there’s a way out of the mess. One of the major French parties is named “Union for a Popular Movement.” A “union”—a coalition of alliances of varying strengths (rather than an isolated coterie of purists)—for a “popular movement”—ideas and policies that will appeal to a normal majority (rather than an alienated minority)—is precisely what racialists (and nationalists) require if the sorts of changes they wish to institute are ever to receive mass consideration. Who are the groups who’d benefit from separation, from the legally constituted right to create social and spatial distance, from the right to exclude others (in various ways—all of which fall far short of anything a GW or a Captainchaos could gin up enthusiasm for, granted)? Either such groups exist or they don’t. If they don’t, you’re left relying on an every dwindling majority to stop what they’re doing, turn on a dime, and embrace a racial disposition they’ve spent their lives periodically justifying their avoidance of; all of which is possible, but, I think, bloody unlikely. My contention, of course, is that such groups (amenable to separitism) do exist; or if not, could quickly come to. Who they are, how they could be reached, what could be offered, are all interesting questions, but here and now isn’t the time or place to discuss them; for now, it’s just food for thought. 81
Posted by Silver on September 04, 2011, 08:27 AM | # Haller, A bit of self-control, please. You’re at your best when you write calmly and dispassionately (as difficult as that might be to do). Your alarmist posts always leave me wondering about you. (And that’s coming from someone who understands you. Just because I don’t like you—or, rather, am wary of you—doesn’t mean that I don’t understand you. If our causes were identical you’re exactly the kind I’d want on my team; you’re head and shoulders above your average detractor.) Every one of the points you list has a something of a silver lining to it (if not, it will after I’m done with it!).
It’s far and away worst among blacks, representing a dramatic rise in the total number of blacks who will seek to move abroad (even if present emigration rates are maintained). Fortunately, however, they’re the least welcome of immigrants, and in a world in which racial issues become heavily politicized (which they’d have to if there’s any hope for racialists) keeping blacks out is a policy that countries the world over would benefit from cooperation and coordination; the beggar-thy-neighbor alternative will ensure we all lose. Secondly, African economies have been growing at a torrid pace the last decade. Ultra-high “pre-transition” birthrates obscure this growth on a per capita level (children don’t contribute much), but even measured per capita output is rising relatively quickly. We saw this is in the 60s and 70s only for it to fizzle, but there’s a much greater appreciation of markets (or at least a distancing from marxist nonsense) this time around so the fundamentals are sounder. Of course, even by my most optimistic calculations, Africa will remain mired far behind the rest of the world even one hundred years from now, so it will be important to emphasize the change (the total change and the rate of change) in African standards of living compared to what they were only recently. On the bright side, hereditarian doomsayers have a way of communicating the issues that tend to suggest they believe no improvement is possible for Africa, so if appreciation of genetic issues continues to gain in popularity we’ll be able to point to Africa’s success (relative to itself) that genes aren’t all doom and gloom.
True. But now the only way is up. “Stabilizing” the population isn’t nearly as important as raising the TFR to at least 2. Financial incentives should be able to see to that—we’re talking about less than one more child per woman (on average). What is lacking is widespread understanding and political will. With will, this issue’s a cinch. (The sooner we start, the better, though. My crude but reasonably accurate Excel simulations have Euro populations begin to seriously fall off the cliff after 2040-2050. While demographic momentum means that raising the TFR won’t have much effect before then, but it will help enormously in preventing the population plummeting after 2050.)
Look, Iranians aren’t going to be more numerous than Russians any time “soon.” The Iranian TFR is already under 2. And Russia’s already aware of demographic issues at the political level and has already taken steps (necessarily tentative) to redress the decline. Regarding military issues in general, do you seriously see technology losing its edge over manpower? And whence the assumption that the first thing growing countries do is invade their neighbors? I think race has gone to your head, Haller. Whites aren’t the only peaceniks on earth. (Hardly peaceniks at all, from today’s muslim perspective.)
The worst in this regard has likely passed. Again it’s a case of the only way is up. With the internet, no lying, bedwetting, race and heredity-denying liberal shitbag has a chance in open debate with a “neo-eugenicist”, and we’re only going to see more such debates, not less. Ultimately, what I’d like to see emerge is a consensus that since demography almost literally is destiny, it’s a government’s duty to acquire or adopt and employ the most effective tools of “demographic management” available to it. That doesn’t mean becoming “crazed” with anticipation of eugenic glory (the way a certain segment of eugenicists is); at bottom, it’s simply represents recognition that we need (and deserve, dammit!) these sorts of systems in place.
This “bright side” isn’t directly related to WN issues, but looking at it from a global (though not “globalist”) perspective, it “had to be done.” It had to happen, Haller. With the dynamic technological and economic expansion that took place during the 20th century it was inevitable this world was going to “come together” to a greater degree than ever before. There was no avoiding it. But now that it’s happened, now that we’ve gotten a sense of who we are and what we’re like, there’s little point in pretending that we’re all better off intimately involved with each other. Seen this way, the prospects for a more cheerful (“inclusive,” even) racialism appear quite good—and that’s true whether or not the sort of conflict you insist will be necessary will, in fact, be necessary.
Ever-increasing? If it hasn’t peaked already surely it’s bound to soon. And at some point unless it becomes responsive to changing mass demands no amount of control will help. Whites swallowed NYT-style liberal bullshit in large part because it’s what they wanted to hear. It’d be a mistake to assume it’s what they’ll always want to hear.
Good thing if it instills message-discipline. Has American freestyle blather really helped more than it has hindered? Something to ponder.
Mixers have always been there. It’s the absence of controls (like the simplest and most effective, territorial exclusivity, but also others, like social strictures) more than it is the presence of “propaganda” (don’t you think it’d be just a TAD freaking weird to see ONLY whites in ads or movies) that has seen the increase in mixers’ activities.
This last point’s a little different, and I can’t really claim any “bright side” to it. Fundamentally, it’s the entire issue. A “bright side” is an aspect of a issue that contributes to confidence in the success of the ultimate objective. In this case the “bright side” would synonymous (or near enough to) with having secured racial existence (or the conditions for it, which amounts to the same thing), which is the ultimate objective. (To reiterate what I said to Wandrin. Strictly, these aren’t my issues. I’m just commenting on them in a way consistent with what someone siding with you on them would.) 82
Posted by Leon Haller on September 04, 2011, 11:34 PM | # Silver, I’d like to respond to you, and will. Am going out now for a while, but I’ve asked GW if I may post what I wrote a few comments back as a new, main post (I don’t know how to post, as opposed to comment), after which I’d like to copy your comment, and then respond to it. I will note this: PF seems to have performed quite the 180. As a reaction against catastrophist nutters preaching imminent doom that’s perfectly understandable. I’m not necessarily as sanguine about the prospects as he is, and some of what he’s come to believe is flatly wrong, but in general I agree with his view that things aren’t going to be nearly as bad as even what the usually fairly level-headed (by WN standards, anyway) Leon Haller seems to think (“extermination,” yeah right). (SILVER) My point is not as outlandish as you may think. I’m now a middle aged man, and even if I live another 40 or even 50 years (completely possible, and without spectacular longevity increases, ‘singularities’, or other hypotheses as yet still science fiction), I do not expect to be exterminated (murdered by street savages, or assassinated by leftists if I achieve some of my ambitions, are certainly possibilities). But is white extermination really far-fetched? I’ve explained at several times in the past why I think this likely, and it has to do with the confluence of the ‘minoritization’ of whites everywhere coupled with ever greater levels of miscegenation occurring in tandem with it. I hate having to repeat myself at length (I need to start some posts, so that I can then just refer people to past places where I already dealt with topics at hand), but in essence, the sequence is that as the numbers of whites in white countries fall, and numbers of nonwhites rise, there will be constant pressure (at first simply of numbers and availability, perhaps later political and/or social pressure) for some percentage of whites in each generation to marry nonwhites. These gene-lines will then be lost to the white race. Simplifying matters, eventually the only pure-blooded whites left on the planet, assuming no White Zion was ever established, will a) be living in territories in which they are heavily outnumbered by nonwhites, and b) will be those who are racially tough-minded; that is, whose personal psyches are such as to resist miscegenation (and probably interracial fraternity, too). In other words, in a century or so, I expect the last remaining whites to be 1) hugely outnumbered by (and thus powerless against) nonwhites, and this not simply considered planet-wide (as is the case right now), but within each sovereign nation-state or entity; 2) ever more racist (and thus not exactly endearing to their nonwhite demographic/democratic rulers), as over time only those gene-lines most psychologically predisposed to racism will endure in racially pure character; and 3) probably more economically and professionally successful than the surrounding nonwhites. Does this sound like any group we know? I recall as a child many times hearing from a family friend, a German Jew who got out of Germany towards the very end of the allowed emigration period, how surprised his generation of Jews were by the actual Holocaust (he was already an adult when he finally left Germany). He told me over and over that his fellow Jews in the 30s thought of Hitler as a madman, but genuinely never thought that extermination would be the outcome. It seemed too farfetched. Please recall further that whites are by far the most ethical race on the planet (that’s our whole problem, as I never of repeating - an incorrect understanding of the requirements of racial justice), and that Germans in particular have been a people greatly characterized by moral rectitude, partial proof of which is the enormously disproportionate contribution Germans made to theology and ethical thought (and philosophy, more generally, of course). And yet, they descended into Nazism and Holocaust. You can’t envision tiny white “islands”, filled with relatively wealthy, civilized and better-looking people, and surrounded by seas of mongrel/negroidal/Islamified peoples seething with both natural race-jealousy and (liberal-indoctrinated) anti-white hate, being overwhelmed and butchered out of existence? Does that really require so much imagination? Current black flash-mobs are a foretaste, and they are happening now. What happens when whites shall have idiotically allowed themselves to be put at these hateful peoples’ mercy? 83
Posted by A. Linder on September 06, 2011, 12:13 PM | # Please recall further that whites are by far the most ethical race on the planet (that’s our whole problem, as I never of repeating - an incorrect understanding of the requirements of racial justice), and that Germans in particular have been a people greatly characterized by moral rectitude, partial proof of which is the enormously disproportionate contribution Germans made to theology and ethical thought (and philosophy, more generally, of course). And yet, they descended into Nazism and Holocaust. Yeah…they were ahead of the world in almost every other area. But they were backward on jews. How likely is that? Of course the truth is the opposite. The NS policy jews was of a piece with German superiority in other areas. My god, that ought to be obvious to see today. Do we not face pretty much the same enemies the NS did? And how far have we gotten in opposing them? As Dr. Phil would say, how’s that Anglo-Christian conservatism working out for ya, white man? 84
Posted by danielj on September 09, 2011, 09:03 PM | # So who among us is willing to stand up and say that these brilliant, spirited, pugnacious men represent a loss? Or that they are to be classed as lesser? Or that they have lost some fundamental attribute which we possess? Or that they are to be treated differently and excluded from things based on the origins of their ‘gear’? Almost everybody that frequents MR is willing to go on the record stating as such. I’m sure not too few would assent to it privately. What to do with me and Uh are the least of our worries though. Next entry: A history of intellectual tyranny Previous entry: The Irrepressible Right Sprouts in Brussels |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. zhrcwuwmkq commented in entry 'The end of Mel Gibson's career?' on 05/23/12, 11:46 PM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/23/12, 11:11 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/23/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) Cockouche commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 09:40 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/23/12, 08:41 PM. (go) (view) GlablePax commented in entry 'University official sentenced for child porn, blackmail' on 05/23/12, 08:23 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:19 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Rick on August 23, 2011, 12:22 AM | #
Maybe this is an interview to determine whether or not to invite you into the elite.