Radio - Matt Parrott

Posted by Notus Wind on August 14, 2010, 05:24 PM | #

You’re hilarious with your BDSM-stream-of-consciousness style Mr. Renner!  It may not have been the best interview but it was performance art.

Matt’s accent threw me back though, I guess it’s just a false myth that people from Indiana lack an accent.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 14, 2010, 05:40 PM | #

For any newbies, to listen go to the home page’s left-hand margin not far from the top, where it says “Majority Radio” and click on that.  The Matt Parrott interview is the first one on the page that comes up.  Click where it says MP3 or Stream (I’ve never tried Stream, I always use MP3), make sure your sound is turned on, and listen.

Good interview, I very much enjoyed listening.  Lots of jokes, I got a good laugh several times.  It wasn’t as devoted as it could have been to serious stuff and giving listeners an opportunity to become better acquainted with Matt Parrott’s views on a range of subjects, but Matt did generally come across positively, I strongly feel, and on a number of occasions did get a few examples of his thinking out before Soren hit him with his next joke, pun, droll anecdote, or double-entendre.  I don’t know if Soren strove for this, but another pleasant vibe one got was plain ordinary camaraderie, warm and easy-feeling, like meeting someone in person over a beer or two, which can be as important to communicate as formal explanations of specific views.  Maybe that was one of Soren’s aims?  If so, he achieved it.

Matt Parrott is a good thinker and writer and a patriot.  His web-sites are Hoosier Nation, http://www.hoosiernation.us/ , and Fair and Delightsome, http://delightsome.wordpress.com/ .

(For non-Americans, “Hoosier” is a nickname for people from Indiana, the way Geordie, Scouser, and Brummie in England are for people from Newcastle, Liverpool, and Birmingham respectively.  As with the word Yankee, no one over here really knows the etymology of the word Hoosier.  It just popped up, almost two hundred years ago I believe.)

Posted by Guessedworker on August 14, 2010, 06:08 PM | #

For Matt’s information, over the last few months the blog had been under attack from at least two sources, one just spamming the threads in the usual manner, which is not much of a problem, and the other engaging full-time in adding members to the forum.  I had to wipe away 9,000 of them a few days ago, and Fred also keeps an eye on what goes on there.  In fact, attacks have been going on in one form or another for most of the blog’s life, and this is the reason why some of the facilities and plug-ins have been de-activated along the way.

Maybe I will restore some of them and see how it goes.

Posted by Notus Wind on August 14, 2010, 06:59 PM | #

One of the reasons that Matt gave in the interview for wanting to start a new blog was to explore the ideas surrounding racial nationalism in a distinctly White American context.  I don’t know about anyone else around here but I immediately found myself rejecting this point of view; if anything, the struggle of nationalist ideas (both in substance and opposition) seems remarkably uniform across different Western countries and especially in the Anglophone world.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 14, 2010, 08:57 PM | #

Notus,

the struggle of nationalist ideas (both in substance and opposition) seems remarkably uniform across different Western countries and especially in the Anglophone world.

It’s a question of intellectual scale.  The nationalist world is divided beween those who apprehend the death of the West in political terms and those who apprehend it in metapolitical terms.  For the politicals, large ideas are imponderable and unnecessary.  For the metas, the micros are destined never to be able to effect the fundamental change they really need.

In Europe the metapolitical is generally understood well on the thinking right.  But among Americans the liberal totality goes unchallenged, or certainly moreso than than in any European country.  It is difficult to tell Americans this.  They do not want to know that, in the most general sense of the term, the defining influence in their lives is also the force from which they must liberate themselves.

Posted by Matt Parrott on August 14, 2010, 09:07 PM | #

Notus Wind,
Most people from Indiana don’t have an accent. Indiana’s comprised of two White American sub-groups, the top two-thirds being blue-collar Rust Belt farmland and the bottom third, “Southern Indiana” being of almost exclusively Appalachian extraction, with the culture and Midland accents derived from that. I’ve actually lost most of my accent, having previously had such a “hoosier twang” that I pronounced “wash” as “worsh” and “toilet” as “torlit”.

Fred,
I appreciate the kind words and the traffic. I believe Soren had to strike a balance between covering everything we had to talk about and covering things in depth. Perhaps a sequel is in order!

GuessedWorker,
I believe the latest versions of WordPress and Drupal have some very effective modules that help one handle cracking and abuse. At the least, I believe you might want to explore the idea of migrating away from ExpressionEngine and toward a superior CMS.

As for taste, there’s no accounting for taste.

Notus Wind,
I’ll engage your criticism in depth in a follow-up post on Delightsome within the next few days.

Posted by Notus Wind on August 14, 2010, 10:24 PM | #

Matt,

Thank you for the explanation, I take it you’re from the Southern portion of the state then.

I’ll engage your criticism in depth in a follow-up post on Delightsome within the next few days.

I’ll be looking forward to it.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 14, 2010, 10:46 PM | #

Most people from Indiana don’t have an accent. Indiana’s comprised of two White American sub-groups, the top two-thirds being blue-collar Rust Belt farmland and the bottom third, “Southern Indiana” being of almost exclusively Appalachian extraction, with the culture and Midland accents derived from that.

I won’t presume to speak for the bottom third of Indiana, but I suspect it is Germanic, and for that I offer my respect. I am Scotts-Irish from Appalachia, and “sure as y’er born”, and a rat always knows when it’s in with weasels.

In my opinion, Soren Renner has exposed Matt Parrott as a charlatan. If Matt Parrott is not a charlatan, he is either a numbskull or a deluded Mormon, (excuse my redundancy). Either way, it’s the same to us; Forbidden Fruit.

Posted by Matt Parrott on August 14, 2010, 11:15 PM | #

Jimmy,

I’m sorry you feel that way. I can’t really tell what you were getting at about my heritage, but I’m pretty sure you were implying that I’m a weasel who lacks your Scots-Irish Appalachian credentials?

As for the final three insults, I may well be guilty of the last two, but I am a true believer in the cause. I’m not exactly sure what part of the interview suggested I might be a charlatan. As you recommend, those with an aversion to Mormons and numbskulls would probably do well to avoid me.

Posted by Notus Wind on August 14, 2010, 11:22 PM | #

GW,

It’s a question of intellectual scale.  The nationalist world is divided beween those who apprehend the death of the West in political terms and those who apprehend it in metapolitical terms.  For the politicals, large ideas are imponderable and unnecessary.  For the metas, the micros are destined never to be able to effect the fundamental change they really need.

I suppose my remark was coming from a very birds-eye view metapolitical perspective then.  The overarching ideological framework that constrains our identity seems to be almost identical spanning as it does from Australia to the heart of Europe.  My eyes were opened to the uniformity of our struggle when I heard Kai Murros talk about the situation in Finland; it really amazed me that I, as an American, could immediately relate to the effects of liberalism in a country that seemed otherwise to be quite different from my own.  It still amazes me.

In Europe the metapolitical is generally understood well on the thinking right.  But among Americans the liberal totality goes unchallenged, or certainly moreso than than in any European country.  It is difficult to tell Americans this.  They do not want to know that, in the most general sense of the term, the defining influence in their lives is also the force from which they must liberate themselves.

Of course, the divergence will come when the metapolitical transitions into the political.  There is a great deal of difference across Western societies and I would expect the appropriate political forms to follow suit in this regard.  To state the obvious, I would expect European societies to capitalize on the kind of ancient [indigenous] heritage that doesn’t exist for us in either North America or Australia.

With respect to America, the extreme nature of our liberal heritage does blind our eyes but is not without unique benefits of its own, which I won’t elaborate on right now.  In any event, a good portion of this heritage could be salvaged but it needs to be married to a more substantive and primordial sense of identity and in order to do that Whiteness needs to be jettisoned.

Posted by Notus Wind on August 14, 2010, 11:43 PM | #

On a related note, I always enjoy Jonathan Bowden’s more political speeches (for the BNP) because it is invariably the case that more than half of the outrages that he’ll discuss have direct parallels in the United States.  Sometimes these parallels occur even on the sorts of minuscule matters that you would least expect and can only be recognized by a politically-minded American listening in on the conversation (via YouTube).  It’s the minuscule parallels that I look for because they always make me laugh at the absurdity of our tragedy.

Posted by Wandrin on August 15, 2010, 12:40 AM | #

@Notuswind
“the struggle of nationalist ideas (both in substance and opposition) seems remarkably uniform across different Western countries and especially in the Anglophone world.”

I’m in two minds about this. Currently i’m leaning to people boiling down to the lowest and most unadorned root of their identity. In UK terms for example, an English National Party, Welsh National Party and Scottish National Party under an umbrella federal British National Party - mostly for psychological reasons. I think forced unity might actually be counter-productive and instead very particular organisations that then federate might be better. Not sure though.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 15, 2010, 01:49 AM | #

Matt Parrott

I can’t really tell what you were getting at about my heritage, but I’m pretty sure you were implying that I’m a weasel who lacks your Scots-Irish Appalachian credentials?

You’ve implied that you’re of Appalachian extraction, and you’ve attached a racial significance to it. Ideologically, I think you’re a Mormon, which in my opinion, is as useless to the European racialist cause as tits on a boar-hog.

but I am a true believer in the cause.

Like most of the fifties-clad young men who pedal their bicycles into my neighborhood, boasting “Elder” nameplates on their chests, you seem deserving of compassion. But, we Europeans are at a time in our development when we can no longer afford to continue indulging the follies of our youth.

Would you please cut through The Reign of Quantity, and state your “cause”, in fourteen words or less?

Posted by Matt Parrott on August 15, 2010, 07:43 AM | #

Jimmy,

We White Americans are at a time in our development when we can no longer afford to continue indulging the hateful fever-dreams of swastika-fetishists who rabidly attack fellow activists for coming to the same struggle and doing the same work from a slightly different direction.

David Lane defined the cause very well in exactly 14 words.

Posted by Bill on August 15, 2010, 08:04 AM | #

Posted by Notus Wind on August 14, 2010, 10:59 PM | #

One of the reasons that Matt gave in the interview for wanting to start a new blog was to explore the ideas surrounding racial nationalism in a distinctly White American context.  I don’t know about anyone else around here but I immediately found myself rejecting this point of view; if anything, the struggle of nationalist ideas (both in substance and opposition) seems remarkably uniform across different Western countries and especially in the Anglophone world.

Britain (and by extension Canada, Australia, N.Zealand) is up to it’s neck with America in this War on Whites.  I don’t know how this came about but it is obviously true.  Joint wars, joint globalisation, immigration etc, both are in lockstep with each other.

America is the pebble in the water and for over two hundred years has steadily and stealthily advanced toward toward what we are grappling with today.  The elimination of the white race.

The problem for the elites is, (and it is a problem and for the receiving nations elites also) is that the nations involved are not all starting the race to the bottom from the same start-line.

What I’m saying is, America has got off to a flying start in the race war simply because they’ve had years of practice to run the plan out so to speak and iron out all the problems before implementation.

Britain (Europe) OTOH, have been issued with a fait accomplis.  Starting from 9/11 the British people have been hit around the head with a baseball bat in the shape of mega increases in immigration, loss of freedom, police state, political correctness, liberalism in all it’s glory, and much more all aided by a aggressive media onslaught against its own people.

In other words, what America/ns had decades (since the end of WWII) to slowly evolve catchee catchee monkey incrementalism, Britain has had to absorb in less than a decade.  (the bulk of it anyway)

It is interesting to see how American whites are now speedily waking up to the reality of what the last fifty years has been all about.  They are fitting all the pieces together and the can already see the big picture emerging.  They have only been able to do so because they have lived all of their lives on the receiving end, it is only now the elites have taken off the gloves (9/11) the American people have cottoned on.

Meanwhile back in Britain, the mass of the population is still in shock and awe, the people are dazed and unaware of the significance of what they have been hit with.  Sad really, as an effective BNP would not have allowed it to happen, it only by not telling it as it is to the British people that they are still comatosed.

Ten years wasted.

The globalists are in a rush and are pushing even faster, which means the British are even more punch drunk and nearly through the ropes.  The BNP are in free fall and there’s nothing on the horizon.

The thrust here being the American problem is not the same as the European problem.  Our histories are different and our prescriptions will be tailor made to suit.  What’s source for the goose maybe not source for the gander.

Does it matter? The globalist are determined to drag us all kicking and screaming or (some more likely half asleep) to a destiny mapped out many years ago.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 15, 2010, 08:15 AM | #

You’ve come many a mile, Bill.

Posted by Leon Haller on August 15, 2010, 09:15 AM | #

a good portion of this heritage could be salvaged but it needs to be married to a more substantive and primordial sense of identity and in order to do that Whiteness needs to be jettisoned.(Notus)

What does that mean practically?

Posted by Leon Haller on August 15, 2010, 09:18 AM | #

In Europe the metapolitical is generally understood well on the thinking right.  But among Americans the liberal totality goes unchallenged, or certainly moreso than than in any European country.  It is difficult to tell Americans this.  They do not want to know that, in the most general sense of the term, the defining influence in their lives is also the force from which they must liberate themselves. (GW)

Could you elaborate (esp on “liberal totality”)? I’m unclear as to what precisely you are referring to.

Posted by Leon Haller on August 15, 2010, 09:41 AM | #

Ahh, we appear to be back to what I’ve been saying all along: our only hope is foreign demographic conquest. The hard fact is that many whites are self-hating race traitors, much larger numbers are idiotic race ‘idealists’, and the vast bulk are racially unenlightened (and at least some perpetually so by virtue of their inherent stupidity). Meanwhile, non-white immigrant settler colonialists (and new liberal voters!) pour in by the millions, every goddam year (recall that excellent “Third Demographic Transition” article).

This is a race against time, and normal processes of education may never be enough (as The Narrator argued in a recent post) - at least if we cannot slow down the foreign colonization. Thus, we must prepare for our passive extinction through race replacement (and ultimate extermination). Well, more precisely, for how we are going to perpetuate our race and civ after having been transformed into minorities in all our ancient and modern homelands. I do not believe the Jewish ‘clannish’ strategy will then work for us. The muds, after a certain numeric threshold has been crossed, will not allow us to practice what will be vilified as “marital apartheid”. Given their well known verminous lusts after our aesthetically superior white females, does anyone really think that it is beyond the realm of possibility that non-white majorities will disallow white/white marriages? 

No, our sole hope for collective genomic survival resides in the ethnostate. We must have a politically sovereign territory where whites are either the sole residents, or at least form an unassailable, and, after proper pro-natalist legislation is passed, growing majority. What legal or constitutional form such a racial state should take, and what policies it should pursue, and in what proportion, would make for interesting, but finally irrelevant, discussion. Our only task now is to figure out how we should go about acquiring such an ethnostate. Though I would prefer many white states, I just don’t think we will have the time to develop the numbers necessary to secure more than a few, if any.

(BTW, if my comment above still suggests that I have yet to properly emancipate myself from the “liberal totality”, I’d like to know where I’ve fallen short.)

Posted by Notus Wind on August 15, 2010, 09:44 AM | #

Leon,

What does that mean practically?

Keep in mind that this idea that I’m developing privately - moving beyond Whiteness - is still in a very undeveloped and tentative state.

Practically, it would mean that those of us who call ourselves White Americans recognize our own uniqueness and decide to jettison the idea of Whiteness for the purposes of explicitly developing our own ethnic identity (tailored to our uniqueness).  Generations would grow up thinking of themselves in ethnic terms that are specific to us and not in terms that are exclusively ideological or racial.  Of course, there would be a Western racial component to our ethnic identity but this new identity would [ideally] be able to accomplish certain things that a racial identity alone could not accomplish.  In any event, I do want to get rid of this vague colorist notion of Whiteness.

The problem that I am trying to combat here is this phenomenon of our people describing themselves as hopelessly mixed up mutts and bereft of any meaningful form of biological identity.  They know that they are “White” but they also know that being White is not a unique attribute.  If we fostered amongst them a unique biological identity of their own it would fix the problem.

Remember, all of this thought is extremely tentative!

Posted by danielj on August 15, 2010, 10:15 AM | #

In any event, I do want to get rid of this vague colorist notion of Whiteness.

“I’m a White American” isn’t vague at all bro.

Posted by Angry Beard on August 15, 2010, 10:39 AM | #

Well, for one reason or another the much prophesied Powellite Wars never came to pass, and it’s very reasonable to assume that they’ll never come to pass.That’s not to knock the great man’s achievement, of course, Enoch is always right.
It comes down to brute demographics and birth-rates, the calculus upon which all theories and predictions either come to pass or crash.I often get coated-off here by some with my ever chipper assertion that around 50% of births in England are black and brown.Personally I cannot square the fact (even admitted to by the bald-face liars at HM Gov’s stats dept.) that 25% of births are to foreign born women, with any other possible scenario - others vehemently disagree,
It’s very tempting to smugly declare ‘Game Over!’ and pick up one’s lego set and walk away, but it ill-behooves me to be so churlish, so I’ll do my humble best.
The secret protocols of New Labour (alias NEATHERGATE), were the coup de grace, tthe ritual piercing of the heart of the man broken on the wheel.The last, disastrous New Labour administation, which famousl nailed its colours firmly to the mast of the clever-clever shit-cunts at ‘The Economist’ and took all their foul, sulphurous guff abot ‘free immigtaion builds economies’ knowingly and willingly did the damage but kept it secret from the electorate, whom they knew to despise the very name of ‘immigration’.In those disatrous 10 years following Blair in his pomp (and all the other clever-clever free market lite dog shit that followed in the wake such as super casinos, on line poker and all day drinking), the die was cast irrevocably, the rubicon was crossed.Sheer force of numbers combined with rapid speed knocked the breath out of resistance.
So to ‘Griffin vs. anti-Griffin’. Love him or loathe him, he fact is that all effective Briitish nationalism in these dark and pivotal days has been linked directly and personally to one Nick Griffin.Griffin did his level best.The fault lies with an apathetic public.

Posted by Wandrin on August 15, 2010, 11:40 AM | #

In any event, I do want to get rid of this vague colorist notion of Whiteness.

I don’t think people should aim to get rid of what other people see as their root identity.

On the other hand if people don’t really see whiteness (or whatever else) as their root identity then forced unity can be counter-productive. Two or three people who are on the same wavelength can get a lot more done than twelve people who under the surface are split into four semi-hostile sub-tribal factions who are constantly pulling against each other. So instead of people arguing over trying to make everyone be in one thing people should organize along lines of how they see themselves at root and then each grouplet can federate on the basis of having the same enemies.

Posted by Bill on August 15, 2010, 12:03 PM | #

Taking Fred’s cue, August 14, 2010, 09:40 PM. I nipped over the Atlantic to Indiana to pop in and have a peek at Matt’s blog - Fair and Delightsome.

http://delightsome.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/taking-up-serpents/#comments

Skimming through, I came across a piece entitled ‘Taking up Serpents’ where in the comment section a poster by the name of Randy Garver (August 4, 2010 at 1:44 pm) says:-

Help me to understand why non-Jews dislike Jews. Do they think the Jews are acting according to a long-term secret plan, or that the sum total of independent Jewish actions are collectively working against the interests of non-Jews?

In a lengthyish reply Matt included this:-

I don’t know of any secretive plan, and I believe Jewish influence over gentile institutions can be explained by their giftedness as a people, their persistent ethnic networking, and our own complete disarmament in these ethnic conflicts.

Posted by Sam Davidson on August 15, 2010, 12:17 PM | #

Ahh, we appear to be back to what I’ve been saying all along: our only hope is foreign demographic conquest.

I was disappointed when you chose to not discuss this topic with me.

Posted by Matt Parrott on August 15, 2010, 12:27 PM | #

Bill,

Congratulations, you skimmed through hundreds of paragraphs of a man’s work, arriving at one single sentence which, when taken out of context, kind of sort of sounds a tad favorable toward Jews.

Do you actually dispute that Jews are a gifted people, that they persistently network ethnically, or that we Whites are completely disarmed in ethnic conflicts?

Posted by Guessedworker on August 15, 2010, 12:33 PM | #

Matt,

Do you actually dispute that Jews are a gifted people, that they persistently network ethnically, or that we Whites are completely disarmed in ethnic conflicts?

The problem is that two quite germaine facts are missing:

1. An implacable ethno-religious hostility.

2. A messianic supremacism.

Without these, no description of the Jewish engagement is worth a dime.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 15, 2010, 01:10 PM | #

Matt,

In trying to understand the riddle of your American identity, is it relevant to consider the LDS belief that America was colonized by Jews in pre-histrory, and that Native Americans are actually a lost tribe Israel?

Posted by Armor on August 15, 2010, 01:51 PM | #

Notus Wind: “I would expect European societies to capitalize on the kind of ancient [indigenous] heritage that doesn’t exist for us in either North America or Australia.”

Our enemies’ official position is that European nations are not subgroups of the European race: “Englishness has nothing to do with blood. An African can be as much of an Englishman as anyone else. It’s racist to say otherwise.” Of course, this is nonsense. As I read on a well known blog: blood is thicker than bullshit!

I think every European nation should try to preserve its identity and avoid immigration from other white countries. In the bargain, some of us hope such a policy would help resist the war on Whites without being explicit: if one takes the position that non-English Whites who move to England do not become English, it means that Africans can not become English either. But I think it still has to be said explicitly. There is no way we can avoid the racism charge.

Notus Wind: “Generations would grow up thinking of themselves in ethnic terms that are specific to us and not in terms that are exclusively ideological or racial.”

Race is not everything, but everything else depends on it. A hundred years ago, we used to think that many national characteristics of the European nations were heritable. They were in our blood. I’m not sure if that view was entirely correct. Is there really a treachery gene in the English? But is was funny. Now, we are not supposed to point to any differences, even between white people.

Posted by Wandrin on August 15, 2010, 01:51 PM | #

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/11-23.htm

Deuteronomy

then hath Jehovah dispossessed all these nations from before you, and ye have possessed nations, greater and mightier than you;

“Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth”.

They have a master race mentality which leads them to consistently behave in certain ways because any kind of master race mentality has an automatic tendency to lead people to become identical to sociopaths in their dealings with out-groups.

So i don’t believe in any big plan but i do believe they are consistently hostile to non-jews and the sum total of these individual and small-group activites has the same overall effect as if it was a concerted attack.

(I think it being a side-effect of a sociopathic attitude to non-jews and not a big plan is why it always goes wrong for them in the end. The bahaviour isn’t wholly rational.)

I think most of their sociopathic behaviour takes the form of simple discrimination and financial fraud rather than seeking to destroy all the nations of the earth and possess them as god’s chosen master rats - but some of it is consciously supremacist and on a global scale.

However this is a trait and like all human traits it exists on a spectrum so at the worst end of the spectrum you get jewish supremacist groups like ADL and SPLC but at the same time at the other end of the spectrum there will also be fishing-obsessed jewish dentists in Idaho who has nothing to do with any of it.

Also, i think people who are involved in public political activity should be cut some slack if they want to leave themselves some wiggle room when it comes to being explicit.

Posted by Armor on August 15, 2010, 02:17 PM | #

Wandrin: “i don’t believe in any big plan but ...”

It is many small plans! It can not be a big plan, but there is certainly much unity and much dissimulation in Jewish efforts. They push in the same direction and try to silence anyone who notices it is a Jewish thing. Even if we don’t name the Jews, it is a fact that a small minority is waging war on white people. They use deceit, intimidation, and censorship.

I think that 1) our institutions have been infiltrated by leftist activists, and 2) the leftist activists have been infiltrated (and partly created) by Jewish activists.

Someone who believes in (1) but not in (2) could still be derided as a fan of plot theories.

Posted by Wandrin on August 15, 2010, 02:35 PM | #

It is many small plans!

Yes. I think it is effectively the same as a big plan in the same way that if you had a group of people who all individually hated carrots it would have the same effect as a conspiracy against carrot farmers but it’s not actually a big plan.

Posted by Matt Parrott on August 15, 2010, 03:07 PM | #

GuessedWorker,

That’s what was so insidious about his attempt to smear me by taking that quote out of context. I’m firmly on the side of truth and justice on those two points you bring up:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/05/16/why-cant-we-be-friends/
http://delightsome.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/taking-up-serpents/

Jimmy Marr,

Our scriptural canon, an open scriptural canon, needn’t be taken so literally and is not an anthropology textbook. While I am happy to engage anybody with critical questions about my faith, I’m done responding to your childish attacks. In fact, I believe I’ll offer one in return: Do you ascribe deep spiritual significance to a geometric shape, one most commonly found scrawled on the walls in gas station restrooms?

Posted by Bill on August 15, 2010, 03:43 PM | #

Matt Parrott on August 15, 2010, 04:27 PM

Matt.

As I said in my comment I was in a hurry, I had received summon, lunch was being served.  I broke off and decided to abandon my comment.  Later, I revisited the comment under discussion.

I read and re-read your comment reply several times and wondered what it was I was missing, as the sentiments you expressed were at variance to many I had heard elsewhere.

I decided to go ahead with the comment (without adding further comment) as I was unsure of how to interpret what I was reading.

I’m truly sorry if my taking your reply out of context compromises the integrity of your reply to Randy Garver, for that was surly not my intention.

I truly respect your reply was genuine, and now wish I hadn’t returned to my unfinished business.

It is important to understand that In Britain the JQ barely exists in the public sphere, (ably abetted by a compliant media) for we have partaken of the new religion since the end of WWII.  Having said that, there are unmistakable signs this paucity of information is being redressed.

Perhaps I should have added this to my list of differences (above comment somewhere?) between the American situation and the British, as it ranks high in the scheme of things.

I would have much preferred such a discussion aired on radio interview.  Then maybe such misunderstandings would be spared.

Incidentally, may I ask you.  Who do you think is behind the flooding of Western civilization by third world immigration and for what motives?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 15, 2010, 04:29 PM | #

Do you ascribe deep spiritual significance to a geometric shape…?

Yes. I attach spiritual significance to geometric shapes. I believe that there are likely subtle differences in the geometric shapes of DNA molecules which vary among the human races, which make them resonant to different frequencies, some with harmonic sympathies, others more discordant.

I further suspect that there are symbols which may have the capacity to function as geometric mandalas which are aesthetically more attractive to certain genetic compositions than others.

I happen to be aesthetically attracted to Swastikas. This is unsurprising given the frequency and duration of their association with Aryan peoples. What’s surprising to me, is that people like yourself are so willing to allow Jews to circumcise them of their innate artistic sensibilities, and thus the potential for cultural galvanization.

If, by your question, you are suggesting that I have a specific interest in Nazi swastikas, you are mistaken. I don’t possess any. I have never possessed any. I never want to possess any. But, neither do I disparage groups, such as the NSM, who have incorporated Nazi symbolism in their artwork. I respect their aesthetic choices and their right to express them. I become defensive when I hear other WNs denounce them as clowns. I dislike that almost as much as I do the labeling of Holocaust revisionism as “Buffoonery”.

In regard to my “childish attacks” on you, please try to interpret them as attempts to establish resonance. Some of what you say and write creates a dissonant reaction in me. I want to know why. My response is to “ping” you back and see what happens. I’ll try to be more nuanced about it in the future.

Let’s behave as if our diametrically opposed viewpoints are potentials at antipodal positions on a swastika which has the capacity to synthesize them into constructive torsional energy for our cause?

Posted by Matt Parrott on August 15, 2010, 04:30 PM | #

Bill,

I’m guilty of presumption and I apologize. Jimmy’s comments got me all defensive.

I believe that Europe’s martial elite (the nobility) and managerial elite (Catholic Church) fell into dereliction, with the ascendant indigenous mercantile elite and the invasive Jewish/managerial elite coming to the fore. The French and American revolutions that were the hallmarks of that transition. The Jewish oligarchy has cleaned up in the wake of our fratricidal situation, and have largely exploited the mercantile elite’s flawed ideologies and weak command structures to arrive at a virtually complete hegemony. The flood of third world immigrants has been a team project, with both the mercantile elite exploiting the cheap labor and the Jewish elite engaging in deliberate blood poisoning of a race they bear a deep ressentiment toward.

Posted by PF on August 15, 2010, 04:40 PM | #

great job Soren, it really is performance art, and a hell of an informative interview as well.

Posted by PF on August 15, 2010, 05:42 PM | #

I just listened to the Weev interview - I wonder is it possible for a human being to be more ‘meta’ than you Soren?

Your analysis of how Weev ‘chaffles’ (?) by throwing in all kinds of content he doesn’t really believe was brilliant. This seems to be a tactic younger people are using, probably because they grow up with discourse being so free and cheap and easy - so they say all kinds of shit, but if you can imagine their view of their own belief structure - they know what they believe 10% or 5% and what they believe 80%+. This is established by them and is rarely articulated because they arent pursuing serious goals right now and dont need to explicitly state anything. So they make 10 statements, but only their own group knows which statements are the most heartfelt. All the rest is trash designed as camouflage.

This pertains to the doctrine. The aesthetic is to ‘junk it up’ by alternating rhetorical exertion with extreme laziness - one minute making the effort to fully express an idea, the next minute using an abbreviated phrase from pop culture which doesn’t express any idea clearly. Cutting edge writers on Game and social dynamics whom I’ve read also use the same style.

From the point of view of a connoisseur of eccentricity, this interview is a goldmine. There is also the beginnings of what sounds like a university lecture on graphical ray-tracing over networks, forced on a compliant Weev. This is IQ 140+ personality porn, for those who appreciate all the intermingling of jokes, seriousness, viewpoints and counter-viewpoints, meta-realizations and meta-shifts, and for people who get kicks from seeing an IQ 140+ personality attempt to move through all its amazing degrees of freedom, to the glazed perpetual non-recognition of a wider world which doesnt understand its meanderings. Bravo. I have to say it took me some time to appreciate everything that is going on in these interviews, which is more than simply a discussion of whatever issues are overtly being discussed.

Posted by Bill on August 15, 2010, 05:57 PM | #

Matt Parrott 08/15/10, 08:30 pm.

Matt

Thank you for that.  No apologies necessary.

Good luck with your blog, I’ll pop over occasionally and maybe even post a comment or two.

Next time your own radio, insist to your inquisitor you are given the opportunity to answer the question.  graciously of course.

Posted by Matt Parrott on August 15, 2010, 06:02 PM | #

Jimmy,

I don’t really get the symbolic stuff, but I can respect it.

I hesitate to respond to this, because I don’t want to go there, but I stated that denial, not revisionism is buffoonery. I define denial as denying that the German treatment of Jews rose to the definition of genocide. Much of revisionism is serious scholarly work and I don’t accept the institutional narrative verbatim. I believe the numbers are inflated; I believe the episode was not exceptional by 20th century standards; and I definitely do not frame it as a blood libel against the German people.

But the general point of that post was not to rake the good German people over the coals yet again. It was in response to what I believe to be a misguided attempt to push the Holocaust episode to the fore of our efforts to influence and persuade. I’m not a historian, can’t keep up with a detailed historical debate, and don’t really care for them. I’ll probably never be caught breathing a word of it again unless I see somebody else attempting to rip it from its historical context and insert it into marketing and outreach initiatives.

Posted by Bill on August 15, 2010, 06:24 PM | #

Angry Beard August 15, 2010, 02:39 PM

Well, for one reason or another the much prophesied Powellite Wars never came to pass, and it’s very reasonable to assume that they’ll never come to pass.That’s not to knock the great man’s achievement, of course, Enoch is always right.

Mention of Enoch Powell reminds me of a question I’ve often meant to ask, but never seemed to have got around to it.

Well here goes then.  Has anyone read, seen, heard, whether Enoch ever alluded to dark forces at work over immigration.  It does seem political correctness was acknowledged among the cognoscenti even back then.

Is it possible that a politician as smart as Enoch Powell was unaware of what it was all about?

I’ve never seen any reference to such mutterings.  Perhaps he was a safe pair of hands after all.

Posted by Søren Renner on August 15, 2010, 07:07 PM | #

From the point of view of a connoisseur of eccentricity, this interview is a goldmine. There is also the beginnings of what sounds like a university lecture on graphical ray-tracing over networks, forced on a compliant Weev. This is IQ 140+ personality porn, for those who appreciate all the intermingling of jokes, seriousness, viewpoints and counter-viewpoints, meta-realizations and meta-shifts, and for people who get kicks from seeing an IQ 140+ personality attempt to move through all its amazing degrees of freedom, to the glazed perpetual non-recognition of a wider world which doesnt understand its meanderings. Bravo. I have to say it took me some time to appreciate everything that is going on in these interviews, which is more than simply a discussion of whatever issues are overtly being discussed.

OMG! You DO care! Thank you! All of you! I .... I never knew would it BE like this!

Posted by zunc on August 15, 2010, 07:42 PM | #

Bill on August 15, 2010, 09:57 PM

Has anyone read, seen, heard, whether Enoch ever alluded to dark forces at work over immigration.  It does seem political correctness was acknowledged among the cognoscenti even back then.

Bill, I know of Enoch making passing reference to “dark motives” and “design” in at least one speech, in Manchester in 1977:

In all this suppression more than one powerful motive can be seen at work. On the one hand there is the primitive but widespread superstition that if danger is not mentioned, it will go away, or even that it is created by being identified and can therefore be destroyed again by being left in silence. ... On the other hand there are at work the dark motives of those who desire the catastrophic outcome which they foresee. All round the world in various forms the same formula for rending societies apart is being prepared and applied, by ignorance or design, and there are those who are determined to see to it that Britain shall no longer be able to escape. I marvel sometimes that people should be so innocently blind to this nihilism.

http://seanbryson.com/articles/action_england_enoch.html

Posted by Jimmy Marr on August 15, 2010, 07:54 PM | #

Matt,

While I admit to the childish bellicosity of my comments, I think I may also have asked a potentially interesting question:

In trying to understand the riddle of your American identity, is it relevant to consider the LDS belief that America was colonized by Jews in pre-histrory, and that Native Americans are actually a lost tribe Israel?

While this question is undoubtedly challenging, I think it has the potential to be developed into an interesting essay. One that you would be uniquely qualified to explore. What is the unique relationship between Mormons and Jews? How do Mormon views of the ancient Hebrews differ from those of the European Christian denominations?

I continue to sense the faint trace of an occulted dimension to your handling of the Jewish question. Could there be something about assimilation of LDS theology that would account for a skewing of perspectives between Mormon and non-Mormon racialists?

I don’t ask these questions lightly. Some of the best WN prospects I encounter are the young missionaries who routinely come to my door. I don’t let them leave without pitching some aspect of WN philosophy. To date, I’ve had no converts.

I’d love to be able to tap into this huge reservoir of potential.

Posted by Guessedworker on August 15, 2010, 08:05 PM | #

Leon,

Could you elaborate (esp on “liberal totality”)? I’m unclear as to what precisely you are referring to.

From which sources does a new life acquire its personna?  Obviously, inherited traits intrude into the process.  But the great preponderance of influences are from without, as described in this comment to another Notus Wind thread here:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/announcing_a_new_series_the_ontology_of_mind/#c97675

This world of extraordinarily powerful and quantitatively unlimited psychological influences is temporalised and highly charged with the prevalent belief structure (which, in our time, is liberal).  As the principle author of human personality, it is what divides you from your great, great grand-father and, in another direction, from your own truth.

Posted by Dr Graham Lister on August 15, 2010, 08:11 PM | #

The destructive effects of liberalism are not usually felt by the liberals themselves—not immediately, at least. The first victim of liberal immigration policies is the indigenous working class. When the welfare state was first conceived, it was in order to provide insurance for poorer members of the indigenous community, by taxing their income in exchange for the benefits which they may one day need. The rights involved were quasi-contractual: a right of the state to levy contributions in exchange for a right of the citizen to receive support. The very term used to describe the deal in Britain—“national insurance”—expresses the old understanding, that the welfare system is part of being together as a nation, of belonging with one’s neighbors, as mutual beneficiaries of an ancestral right. The liberal view of rights, as universal possessions which make no reference to history, community, or obedience, has changed all that. Indigenous people can claim no precedence, not even in this matter in which they have sacrificed a lifetime of income for the sake of their own future security. Immigrants are given welfare benefits as of right, and on the basis of their need, whether or not they have paid or ever will pay taxes. And since their need is invariably great—why else have they come here?—they take precedence over existing residents in the grant of housing and income support. Those with a handful of wives are even more fortunate, since only one of their marriages is recognized in European systems of law: the remaining wives are “single mothers” with all the fiscal advantages which attach to that label. All this has entailed that the stock of “social housing” once reserved for the indigenous poor is now almost entirely occupied by people whose language, customs, and culture mark them out as foreigners.

more at

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Should+he+have+spoken?-a0151845514

Imagine if the British radical right could have such an articulate public face?

Posted by Dr Graham Lister on August 15, 2010, 08:19 PM | #

The fact is that the people of Europe are losing their homelands, and therefore losing their place in the world. I don’t envisage the Tiber one day foaming with much blood, nor do I see it blushing as the voice of the muezzin sounds from the former cathedral of St. Peter. But the city through which the Tiber flows will one day cease to be Italian, and all the expectations of its former residents, whether political, social, cultural, or personal, will suffer a violent upheaval, with results every bit as interesting as those that Powell prophesied.

What a brilliantly captured thought; all that we may hold dear be as individuals and a community is ultumately at risk by race-replacement and the poisonous doctrine of multiculturalism.

And I thought Scruton didn’t touch upon these questions?

Posted by Matt Parrott on August 15, 2010, 08:44 PM | #

Jimmy,

While plenty of the problematic patterns were emerging well before Pharisaic Judaism took root, I draw a distinction between Biblical Hebrews and Pharisaic Jews. Christ’s rebellion created a rift with Europeans taking ownership of the best of that ancient Tradition and reinventing it in their own image. The Pharisees spiraled into the depths of hypocrisy and ressentiment, becoming what they are today. So even if a hardy band of Ancient Hebrews did make an implausible voyage to the New World, I wouldn’t feel it would be accurate to equate them with contemporary Jews.

The Amerindians appear to be descended entirely from both a very ancient Australoid substrate and a more recent North Asian (Clovis) superstrate that overwhelmed the indigenous negrito pygmies. No Jewish admixture to be found. I’m open to interpreting the scripture in a variety of ways, but not in a way that directly contradicts observable reality. I don’t believe sacred texts should be read in the manner one would need to read them in to take the whole journey literally and continue to believe that particular narrative even after it’s been proven false.

I’ve explained my position on the Jewish Question in detail several times, in a manner that I believe to be pretty comprehensive. If I left the church tomorrow, it wouldn’t affect my views on that subject. I believe you’ll begin to see where I’m coming from and be less concerned about my beliefs if you take the time to read the Delightsome blog very carefully.

As for reaching my brethren on bicycles, you might do well to pluck their book from them and ask them if some of the following verses connect with their own life experiences…

2 Nephi 5:20-25

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/5/21d

Posted by Thorn on August 15, 2010, 10:22 PM | #

“OMG! You DO care! Thank you! All of you! I .... I never knew would it BE like this!”

As opposed to:

“You like me, you really like me,” trilled Sally Field in 1985, accepting her second Oscar in five years.”

LOL!

Posted by Dan Dare on August 16, 2010, 01:02 AM | #

And I thought Scruton didn’t touch upon these questions?

That is, regrettably, the received wisdom in these parts.

Posted by Bill on August 16, 2010, 03:26 AM | #

zunc August 15, 2010, 11:42 PM

Bill on August 15, 2010, 09:57 PM

Has anyone read, seen, heard, whether Enoch ever alluded to dark forces at work over immigration.  It does seem political correctness was acknowledged among the cognoscenti even back then

.

zunc

I know of Enoch making passing reference to “dark motives” and “design” in at least one speech, in Manchester in 1977:

http://seanbryson.com/articles/action_england_enoch.html

Thanks for that.  A real eye opener.  The lengths to which the power elite resort to keep politicians and public alike from the motives of the programme is breathtaking.  Even Enoch new his limits.

I am still digesting.

Posted by Leon Haller on August 16, 2010, 06:10 AM | #

I posted this on the Lee John Barnes thread, which is obviously finished (what follows is the last comment).

I obviously think it’s worth some consideration (it may in fact not be, but no man is the best judge of his own case…), so I herewith repost.

______________

Posted by Leon Haller on August 15, 2010, 01:08 PM | #

My plan would pave the way for the rebirth of an English, Welsh, Anglo-Irish and Scottish indigenous ethnic identity and cultural rebirth.

Finally a generation of children would be raised with an ethnic consciousness or a nationalist consciousness.
(LJB)

No, it wouldn’t. It would not be allowed to reach any sort of fruition. Any pro-indigenous teaching would immediately be labeled “hate-mongering”, and outlawed or discredited.

Your plan also would not solve the fundamental problem, which GW (excellent post at 9:14pm above, btw!) understands, but you do not: cultures are precisely the products of race (even though a race can produce multiple national cultures, based on the vagaries of geography, language and unique histories), and cannot be expected (ie there is no historical evidence) to be perpetuated by those of different racial types from the original creating race. Someone might appear to be (psychologically) assimilated, but there is no guarantee (indeed, there is almost certainly a guarantee the other way) that his descendants will remain assimilated. This has been the case with many non-white groups in the US. Filipinos of the older generation (born pre-1960, and especially pre-WW2) are far more culturally American (and favorably disposed to whites) than young Filipinos today, who are increasingly race/ethnicity conscious despite often having few if any personal ties to their ancestral islands.

What I’ve just said is an extremely important point that I’m not sure I have ever seen either here at MR (though I am not a perfectly consistent reader, especially of comments), or elsewhere in the white race patriot world. I think it is the key justification for a “never say surrender” racialist approach. There is always eventually a reversion to racial type.

I also second what another gent above mentioned (which I have reiterated numerous times here and elsewhere), that the sumum bonum is to halt new legal immigration. While I would prefer that to be effected for racial reasons (“Defend Our White Realm!!”), politically it really doesn’t matter what the justifications or slogans are - as long as it is accomplished. Most readers would agree.

My particular argument is that rabid anti-immigrationism can be its own justification. That is, while I wholeheartedly endorse GW’s genetic nationalism (though I would never end there - my support for racial nationalism is based on a positive and a negative: love of white civilization, and a recognition that it can only be perpetuated and continued by racially pure or near-pure whites, as well as fear for my and my family’s physical security and material well-being if my white racial group should end up as a minority in any given sovereign territory), discussions of race/ethnicity do not necessarily have to be brought to the fore in nationalist (immigration-cessation wing) activism. Immigration has brought so many obvious and increasingly well-recognized problems to Western nations, that I fail to see why it cannot be opposed merely on its own terms, without recourse to the affective sentiments behind GW’s poetic eloquence (“British land for British people”, “that our people might sing the songs of their ancestors”, etc).

Please explain to me why a British party devoted solely or mainly to stopping immigration, and using as its justifications a huge bevy of non-racial arguments pertaining to unemployment, overpopulation + environmental degradation, budget deficits + immigrant services overuse, immigrant crime stats, even immigrants being more likely to vote socialist or EU internationalist ... cannot, if not win national power, at least represent enough of a threat to the Tories that it forces them to address immigration termination? Why is it thought that the British require a whole recovery of traditional ethnonational consciousness, historic Christianity (sorry, GW, but the one is conjoined to the other - you can’t resurrect any but the most shallow simulacrum of British culture without bringing back the ancestral religion), and classic patriotism, simply to be awakened to and demand an end to an objectively festering problem like immigration? I don’t get it. Just give the facts, costs, etc - relentlessly.

Once legal immigration has been halted (and illegal, but the latter involves no changed principle, only a commitment to law enforcement), then we can start upping the ante, attacking ‘positive racism’, multiculturalism, and special benefits for immigrants, as well as rebuilding British ethnicities, patriotism, etc, eventually leading to non-white repatriation. But all these sentimentalist suggestions are worthless or will prove too slow, unless the invasion is ended.

Posted by Leon Haller on August 16, 2010, 07:06 AM | #

Posted by Notus Wind on August 15, 2010, 01:44 PM | #

Remember, all of this thought is extremely tentative!

______________________________

Notus,

I still do not wholly grasp your point, but I have a general sense of what I think you’re driving at, though if I’m correct in that surmise, then you should amend your descriptive vocabulary, as evidenced above.

Am I correct in ascribing to you the concern that what we white Americans lack is the kind of historic ethnonational identity characteristic of Europe, and to a lesser extent, to whites everywhere else - Canada, Quebec, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Argentina, Uruguay and the white elites of Latin America?

[Though it should be noted that the traditional ethnonational identities of the colonial Anglosphere, America excepted, were really just generic British, with a new ethnic overlay of “Canadian”, “Aussie”, “Kiwi”, or African expat identities (except for the Boers, a genuinely new white ethnicity); similarly, les Quebecois hew to the traditional French identity, again with a “Canadian” overlay; les pieds noirs would likewise have been part of the Francosphere, but with an “Algerian” overlay, had they not been racially cleansed (your antennae should be up right now, people, after that last comment - there have been precedents for racial expatriation in living memory ... or, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander ...).]

You are superficially correct that white Americans, perhaps along with white Latin Americans (or perhaps not - the latter mostly seem to be content considering themselves to be members of transplanted Iberian ethnicities, or at least, if white/non-Iberian, to have assimilated themselves into the Hispano- or Lusospheres), do not see themselves as a new ethnicity, but continue to define themselves either in terms of race (“white”) or nationality (“American”). If your point is that whiteness is too general, and Americanness is too inclusive, I agree wholeheartedly, and indeed, have argued for a similar understanding for many decades. Specifically, I hold that “White American” is a new white ethnicity, just as is Afrikaner. We white Americans cannot be reduced to the ethnonational identities out of which we originally came, and we have had sufficient history (both in timespan and depth of content) to have created our own unique ethnoculture on this planet.

We White Americans are not simply ‘white’, though, like the British, French, etc, we are that. We are racially white, civilizationally Western, but ethnoculturally and nationally American, an identity now as unique as German, Russian, Italian, etc. (I don’t think you mean “biological identity” as you use it above; I think you mean “ethnic identity”.)

Had we not experienced the post-1965 Third World invasion, “American” would have had a similar connotation to “German”, “Dane”, “Serb”, etc. I suspect it still does, for white Americans. When you hear the word “American”, of whom do you think: Obama? Justice Sotomayor? a black? an Asian? Of course not. When whites hear the word “American” they envision someone like you or me (I think this is true of non-whites, too, though I have no data on that point).

Anyway, I think your general idea of creating and politicizing an American ethnic consciousness is utterly sound. I have long had that idea myself, and am actually advising someone in the early stages of founding an organization for that purpose (I’m not going to say more, until the org is formally existent, which may still not be for a while). But the term that should be used cannot be ‘American’, as that increasingly encompasses any race or ethnicity, but rather, we should remember the heroic work of the late Samuel Francis, and employ the term Middle American.

Middle American ethnoculturalism nationalism, as Sam envisioned, will be the bridge to an eventual harder white (American) racial nationalism, when times get tough, and thus more propitious for our anti-diversitarian message.

Posted by Leon Haller on August 16, 2010, 07:17 AM | #

Posted by Sam Davidson on August 15, 2010, 04:17 PM | #

I was disappointed when you chose to not discuss this topic with me.

____________________

My apologies, Mr. Davidson. I cannot recall the specific thread you’re referring to, but that’s to be expected in my case, as I do not access MR every day (sometimes not for many days). I often pop in with a comment, and then fail to check later responses.

Anyway, I will be checking this thread tomorrow, so I’ll be happy to read any of your thoughts on my assertion.

Posted by Leon Haller on August 16, 2010, 07:42 AM | #

Posted by Guessedworker on August 16, 2010, 12:05 AM | #

This world of extraordinarily powerful and quantitatively unlimited psychological influences is temporalised and highly charged with the prevalent belief structure (which, in our time, is liberal).  As the principle author of human personality, it is what divides you from your great, great grand-father and, in another direction, from your own truth.

___________________________________

Yes, I see this. But I should like some greater specifics. From what aspects of the ‘liberal totality’ are we American WNs not succeeding in emancipating ourselves? Is it that many of us still believe in the dignity and worth of individuals? That we happen to like professional sports (I don’t, but I’m not typical of any group, anywhere)? That we are not particularly at odds with the modern standard workweek? That we value our Constitution? Capitalism? Christianity? fast food?

To what extent does white survival require rejection of modernity? How much of modernity? I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m still exploring, though between a revolutionary racial nationalism and a reactionary racial conservatism, I’m fairly certain I would fall on the latter side. I’m not interested in a wholesale rejection of the modern world (like some religious fundamentalists). But I’m also not disposed to overlooking the hard won wisdom of the past.

In a word, I am a true (Burkean) conservative. The problem is that hardly any self-styled conservatives are in fact true conservatives anymore. Race (genetic purity and territorial homogeneity) is not the whole, or even the chief part, of conservatism. But it is a necessary element of it.

We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, as it were, however, to reach racial sound thinking. We simply need to disprove modern false understandings.

Posted by Leon Haller on August 16, 2010, 07:45 AM | #

our only hope is foreign demographic conquest (me)

I’m surprised this assertion repeatedly generates so little response.

Posted by Notus Wind on August 16, 2010, 10:48 AM | #

Leon,

We’re on the same page.

The analogy of the Boer as a new Western ethnicity best describes what I would like to achieve as a replacement for Whiteness - think of all the meaning captured within the term Boer that cannot be replicated through the idea of Whiteness.

You and I are Americans, we are who we are and we know who we are and others know who we are.  But this is only at the implicit level, something that is understood amongst people, for we do not have an explicit political language that does our identity justice.

Posted by Gudmund on August 16, 2010, 11:20 AM | #

I’m surprised this assertion repeatedly generates so little response.
>Leon Haller

It is not a bad idea, Leon, but it would take some kind of centralized decision-making to reach all of those who are needed for such a thing.  Whites are not like Jews with their Rabbinate which makes the most crucial decisions regarding the survival and wellbeing of the race for them.  That’s the key.  Whites are atomized and the realization of your plan would require at the minimum some sort of real-world leadership urging this particular course of action.

Posted by Wandrin on August 16, 2010, 03:40 PM | #

@Leon Haller

No, it wouldn’t. It would not be allowed to reach any sort of fruition. Any pro-indigenous teaching would immediately be labeled “hate-mongering”, and outlawed or discredited.

I think that’s the nub of it. They want genocide and anything that hinders them in any effective way will be labelled racist. There’s no way to somehow stealth past the media. The only way out, if there is one, is to smash through them. The moral authority of the media needs to be destroyed so people no longer listen to them when they say “racist”.

Posted by Bill on August 16, 2010, 04:32 PM | #

Telegraph. 16.08.2010

The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown.

Nile Gardner 12 August 2010.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/

Ground breaking stuff for the MSM.  Obama - Three wheels on my wagon.

Nearly 2000 comments and counting.

Posted by Thorn on August 16, 2010, 05:43 PM | #

The House of Bush is more intimately involved with the House of Saud than the House of Heb.

What can I say? A picture or three is worth a thousand words:

[IMG]http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_kiss.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.hermes-press.com/BushKiss2.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_saudi7.jpg[/IMG]

Posted by Dasein on August 17, 2010, 05:41 PM | #

our only hope is foreign demographic conquest

One big problem is that there aren’t many of us, and even fewer of us willing and able to move to foreign countries.  I’m trying to remember where you’d discussed this before- I seem to recall you talked about taking over Australia democratically.  Getting people to move within a country alone is hard enough.  According to Covington, there are very few people moving within the US to get to the Northwest for the migration plan he’s promoting.

Posted by pollution on August 19, 2010, 12:55 AM | #

What can I say? A picture or three is worth a thousand words

The first two are obvious photoshops.

Posted by Robert Reis on August 19, 2010, 01:15 AM | #

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9vEGyX7CLM&feature=related
saga - free my land -lyrics - Brittania

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM-ySLHUMd0&feature=related
saga -nation’s fate -lyrics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di4M_Pwwz7k&feature=related
saga-tomorrow is always too late

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpJlrsBH4_g&feature=related
saga -goodbye david lane

Posted by Thorn on August 19, 2010, 07:41 AM | #

The first two are obvious photoshops.

Obviously my post was in jest. It was in response to another commenter(Angry Beard) whose comment had subsequently been removed.

Anyway, he alleged: (paraphrasing) G.W. Bush ef’ed up the USA and was being sodomized by the Zionists, or something to that effect.

I contend the record reflects Georgie Bush was less the victim of Zionist sodomizing, rather he was a willing whore who’d been repeatedly SAUDIomized.

It’s no secret the House of Bush and the House of Saud have a very cosy relationship.

I suppose ‘pollution’ considers that conspiratorial thinking too?

Posted by Unfashionable Observations on August 30, 2010, 11:55 PM | #

Things are getting heated between Hunter Wallace and Matt Parrott

Posted by Hadding on December 23, 2010, 12:05 AM | #

Matt Parrott said: “... I stated that denial, not revisionism is buffoonery. I define denial as denying that the German treatment of Jews rose to the definition of genocide.”

This is an extremely ill-considered statement.

What is “the definition of genocide”? Etymologically it should mean killing an entire race, but the definition adopted by the UN includes actions that fall far short of that. Probably many governments are guilty under the UN’s definition of genocide, which means “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Under that definition the retaliatory execution of Jewish hostages on the Eastern Front in an attempt to suppress guerrilla activity, based on the assumption that Jewish communities supported that activity, is genocide, even though killing all Jews was not the purpose.

But is a minimal qualification for the UN’s definition of “genocide” the same as what is generally meant by “the Holocaust”? No, it is not. What is generally meant by “the Holocaust” is an attempt to kill all the Jews of Europe.

In the words of Professor Robert Faurisson, “No holes, no Holocaust.” In other words, if the gas-chambers are invalidated then all you have are a lot of shootings and hangings for reasons not specifically aimed toward killing all the Jews in Europe.

The obvious fallacy in Matt Parrott’s statement is that genocide is something very vague while “the Holocaust” is something much more specific. “Genocide” is necessary but not sufficient for “the Holocaust.”

Posted by Jimmy Marr on December 23, 2010, 01:04 AM | #

Hadding,

As you can see from my comments in this thread, I have suspected that there is some sort of complex co-dependent relationship between the mythic identities of Jews and Mormons.

Matt has not been very helpful in revealing this co-dependency, and I am not willing to read through an embarrassing long and nonsensical cannon of literature to understand it.

Since this post I have had two occasions to discuss this matter with excommunicated Mormons who later became White Nationalsist. Both concur with me that there is a co-dependency between the two superstitions. The best summary I can recall was something to the effect that there is general belief among LDS that their “nation” will be “grafted unto the tree of Israel”.

Aside from that, I was also told that the Book of Mormon was an excellent primer for racialism because it is basically nothing more than the story of a massive race war. One of the races is called “Lamenites”. I’m not sure if they’re the Mormons or not. But the feeling I get is that the protagonist race, with which the Mormons identify themselves are some variation of Jews and will eventually be re-unite with them.

This, more than anything else, probably accounts for what you have correctly identified as an “extremely ill-considered statement”.

Matt is no dummy. When he says something that sounds dumb, it’s prudent to suspect a hidden agenda.