Silver’s Manifesto

And back in the real world, it’s going to matter increasingly less what white liberals want. Neither white liberals nor WNs are the future of America. People like me are the future of America: “white” but not, you know, White. Latino immigration and latino+white miscegenation virtually guarantees it.

I don’t care at all for sissy white liberals’ pet causes. Gullible white liberals were useful once (in getting WNs off my back) but they’ve outlived that usefulness and the unreality they swim in is becoming highly problematic. Racism doesn’t bother me; racism is life, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. Of all the people I know I can think of only two (both race-mixers) who would freak out about “racism” (but never about anti-white racism) and one who occasionally pipes up about it but I don’t think his heart is really in it; the rest of us, happy little racists. Why should I settle for a crappier-than-necessary life lived around hordes of ludicrously racially unlike people, whose lives I have no interest in, whose very presence is often an irritation, when I could be open about my racial feelings, support “racial reform” and achieve a real racial community enjoying real racial bonds?

WNs need to give up their fantasies about “taking back” America and get on board with the one movement that offers them genuine hope for a racial future: the movement that offers a racial future for all.

There. That’s my little mini-manifesto.

From this Steve Sailer thread.

Just so we know.

Posted by Lurker on Friday, April 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM in
Comments (94) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by daniel 3 on April 06, 2012, 07:33 PM | #

Choo choo! All aboard the glorious, quasi-racialist express!

Next stop, half-nationalist utopia administered by muchified half-Asian elites!

Heaven forbid anything get in the way of Silver’s investments!

2

Posted by Republicrat on April 06, 2012, 08:21 PM | #

Does Silver have himself a mesitzo girlfriend now? He wouldn’t be the first.

It’s all making sense now.

3

Posted by Robert Reis on April 07, 2012, 12:49 AM | #

Extremely important article from Taki’s Mag
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire#axzz1rKKWZN4D

4

Posted by erg on April 07, 2012, 10:29 AM | #

Former HBD believer claims to have debunked (to his sorrow)  HBD as it relates to IQ:
http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/a-gaping-hole-in-the-masters-evolutionary-theory/

5

Posted by Guessedworker on April 07, 2012, 07:09 PM | #

Thanks erg.  I have asked this font of knowledge some questions about his findings.

6

Posted by Hymie in Afula on April 07, 2012, 11:21 PM | #

Silver is calling y’all out on the fact that to have a White Nation, you have to define White in a way that will function in a bureacracy. Which you haven’t yet.

Or are you gonna go with the “japanese are guest Aryans” that Hitler ended up having to do?

7

Posted by Silver on April 07, 2012, 11:26 PM | #

Lol, I don’t think this one’s worthy of front page attention, but thanks all the same, Lurker.

To those of you claiming it’s “all becoming clear,” hold on. Let me remind you of one thing.  I’ve never claimed to be a WN.  Nor have I ever “claimed whiteness,” so to speak. You’ll search my posts in vain for such claims.  I have, on the other hand, identified as (southern) European (in the sense of looking European and actually being from Europe) and described myself politically as a racialist and sympathetic to WN goals in “the dominions.”  “Purity,” or something approaching it, is a legitimate political criterion for WNs, but it’s never been a concern of mine, and I have argued that it’s an inappropriate and unfeasible criterion for the broad swathe of Mediterranean Europe.  My support for WNs (in the broad sense) is based on the desire for racial peace and the belief that victory for WNs would lead, directly or indirectly, to victory for all racial groups desiring preservation (Whites win, we all win; Whites lose, we, in time, all lose); this, in turn, establishes the basis for a “pro-race” political alliance.

It’s with that in my mind that enunciated the realist impromptu “mini-manifesto.”  Latinos in combination with White/Latino hybrids factually are the rising racial power in America.  That’s cold, hard fact, whether anyone likes it or not. My point was not that WNs should accept this burgeoning racial group into their own ranks.  My point was that it offers WNs the possibility of a mutually satisfying racial alliance.  American WNs can resist the reality of the rising “Med” (for want of a better term) and risk snapping against it, or you can bend like a reed until you achieve a position of racial security, from which may later grow a position of racial strength. 

The positive attributes possessed by this rising racial power are: lack of racial guilt; the existence of racial pride among many and comparative lack of obstacles to racial pride among the rest; willingness to assert racial values; culturally western based on ancestry, history and present living conditions (ie grown up “American,” like it and willing to stand up for it—think Springsteen “Born in the USA”); similar racial grievances (niggers suck, asians are alien, muslims a cultural catastrophe). 

The obvious factor differentiating this group from Whites is the racial divergence between the two groups and the occasional racial conflict/tension it gives rise to.  Compensating for this is the tremendously attractive possibility it opens up for settling the agonizing “who is white?” question.  It settles this question by providing an attractive outlet for the marginal cases (ever increasing in number, recall) who find mass multiracialism underwhelming yet are too insecure to politically racially assert themselves—racial political assertion runs the risk of racial rejection, leading to a fear that pro-white political developments will see them marginalized and “run out of the country.”  Such fears, I believe, are paralyzing.  At best, they result in inaction, and a devotion to abstract political philosophies rather than to real people.  At worst, the result is amplified anti-whitism—pro-whitism is perceived as potentially destructive, so they determine to destroy it. The unfortunate effect is that it’s not merely pro-white politics that is destroyed; it is white people themselves. 

Long time activists are aware that the hopelessly conspiratorially-minded scrutinize every statement for evidence of impending racial betrayal,and that no words uttered by man hope to dissuade them from their convictions, but those people genuinely interested in the possibilities outlined here can peruse the already infamous Derb “Talk” thread at Takimag and witness the arguments I make while operating from this mindset.  The thread has generated a tremendous amount of commentary, but you can Control+F and search for my comments under “silviosilver.”  They are mostly in the form of admittedly simplistic talking points, but they contain enough “meat” that for skeptics to determine whether I’m “walking the walk” in terms of dedication to the political position I’ve summarized here.

Lastly, if all this seems like “bullshit” or “we don’t need people like you,” that’s quite permissible.  But you should be able to explain—to yourself, not to me—what better ideas you have and why they stand a better chance or energizing the masses than mine.  It may seem the height of arrogance for me to presume to be able to talk down to men obviously many times more learned, yet I do dare to so talk down.  I charge your (would-be) leaders and thinkers with having singularly failed to create a politics palatable to the public: (1) sufficiently agreeable to the moral tastes of the day, (2) sufficiently responsive to the economic ambitions made possible by the tremendous growth of the post-war period, (3) sufficiently inspirational in the prize it offers, (4) sufficiently demonstrative of the tribulation it would avert.  The reasons are the twin forces of racial passion and racial despair.  On (1) their racial passion has unfailingly overwhelmed their better judgment, allowing them to be portrayed as moral monsters; on (2) their racial passion has misled them into imaging that the masses would be content to “live on breed alone”; on (3) in the grips of racial passion they have falsely assumed that visions of racial glory would provide sufficient motivational power alone; on (4) their racial revulsion and despair have been so strong they have constantly overstated the negative repercussions of multiracialism, or declared those repercussions present prematurely, and they have severely overestimated the degree of racial revulsion shared by the masses and relied too greatly on the masses’ presumed resistance to the course of racial transmogrification the multiracial society inevitably commits them to, all to the severe detriment of their credibility.

8

Posted by Silver on April 08, 2012, 12:17 AM | #

Hyman,

Silver is calling y’all out on the fact that to have a White Nation, you have to define White in a way that will function in a bureacracy. Which you haven’t yet.

I hadn’t quite thought of it in those terms, but now that you mention it, yes, that’s an intelligent way to put it.  Not only haven’t they, they can’t see the need to, they can’t bring themselves to do it.  They believe they shouldn’t have to.  They believe “White makes right,” often on the basis of the absurd assumption that every other race-kind thinks in such terms.  In reality, none except perhaps the negro does; most are knee-deep or higher in racial compromise. (Else, where are the racial expulsions, people, where?)

Or are you gonna go with the “japanese are guest Aryans” that Hitler ended up having to do?

Ah, but is “righteous among the gentiles” any less insulting?

Truthfully now, Hyman, with the benefit of hindsight and the vantage of point of post-war moral evolution, were the Germans of Hitler’s day wrong to express a desire to be, to live on as evolution had fashioned them, in command of their own destiny, subservient to none?  In itself, does that represent an immoral striving?  We can bellow forever about their excesses—God knows I’ve done my share—but can you, can I, can any of us condemn the desire to exist to the fullest of one’s potential as wrong, in and of itself? 

And if, today, we are the transgressors (“we” meaning we who are not them) don’t we owe them at the very least a modicum of restitution?  If the gift of life is ours to bestow on what moral basis can refuse to bestow it?  Fear, perhaps, or the lack of trust?  Trusting them is no mean feat, certainly.  As a child, my mother and I used to walk past an old German’s house. My mother assured me he was an escaped nazi and forbade me to even look at the house.  One day, as a kid might, I gave a Roman salute as we walked past.  My mother almost ripped my ear of the side of my head she twisted it so hard.  And for what? Because I might arouse the octogenarian’s racial passion?  Fear’s a funny thing.

 

9

Posted by Dan Dare on April 08, 2012, 01:24 AM | #

It’s with that in my mind that enunciated the realist impromptu “mini-manifesto.”  Latinos in combination with White/Latino hybrids factually are the rising racial power in America.  That’s cold, hard fact, whether anyone likes it or not.

But, is it not the case that America is, in the grand scheme of things, ultimately a sideshow? Just as is Australasia.

The loss of such outliers will certainly be painful but not, I’d suggest, necessarily terminal.

Shouldn’t those of us of recent European extraction, amongst whom I understand you include yourself Silver, be more concerned with matters of greater concern to the Heartland, or should we not? Whether North America becomes subsumed within Latin America and whether Australasia becomes a subsidiary member of the New Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere are obviously pertiment questions, but if that is what their inhabitants collectively express a preference for, then good luck to them.

In the meantime, Europeans have other, more pressing, concerns closer to home.

10

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 08, 2012, 01:33 AM | #

you have to define White in a way that will function in a bureacracy.

No need. Just define Jewishness in the halakha perspective. Defintions are not the problem.

 

11

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 08, 2012, 01:37 AM | #

why they stand a better chance or energizing the masses than mine.

Where’s the evidence that this trite nonsense is energising anything but your inflated ego?

12

Posted by Leon Haller on April 08, 2012, 03:14 AM | #

methinks thou dost protest too much…

Silver,

Do you support the physical expatriation of every non-white resident from Europe?

Do you support deportation of all (nonwhite) illegal aliens from the Outer Provinces of Europa?

Do you support the end of all nonwhite immigration to the Outer Provinces?

Do you support the legal right of whites to disassociate from nonwhites (in housing, employment, entertainment and all other areas of life) within the Outer Provinces?

Do you support the formation of political parties explicitly devoted to white interests within the Outer Provinces?

Answering in the affirmative to each question constitutes the sine qua non of modern nationalism.

13

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 08, 2012, 05:00 AM | #

Echoing Dan - autochthony matters. If Europeans don’t legitimately belong in Europe the game is up.

14

Posted by Trainspotter on April 08, 2012, 05:09 AM | #

Silver,

Dan alludes to an important point above: the demographic rise of hispanics is largely an American issue, whereas the threat to our people is world wide. 

The real issue is how to energize our folk (more precisely, enough of our folk to achieve a given objective), here and across the world.  I agree with you that we have failed to provide a palatable alternative, which to me means a worldview that satisfies not only our racial requirements, but also fulfills a host of aspirations, including but not limited to the spiritual, cultural, economic, and environmental.  To achieve what is needed will require a revolutionary movement, and by that I mean a fundamentally revolutionary worldview that offers a prize worth struggling for.  Tactical strategies will follow. 

Otherwise, if all we stand for is “whites only,” it will always be easier for someone to simply move to a whiter neighborhood than to go for a political struggle that promises much in terms of hardship and sacrifice.  Of course, while it makes sense for the individual to simply engage in white flight, we’ve seen what it does to the nation as a whole: demographic and cultural destruction.  Running away while your people as a whole decline is a short term strategy, not a long term one. 

Unless we have something powerful enough to motivate people to put aside a short term and self-centered strategy of retreat and flight, and replace it with a cohesive and assertive group strategy, our present path toward marginalization and de facto extinction will continue unabated.  Again, I agree with you that we have failed to create a compelling vision of the future, but I’d also add that the intellectual wing of the movement is developing nicely, and it is most likely from there that the vision will be created and honed. 

As to the hispanic issue per se, and mindful of the fact that it largely applies to the United States only, I’m not convinced that there is any real potential for an alliance.  Frankly, from their point of view, they don’t need us.  Why should a rising demographic touch us with a ten foot pole?  The way they see it, they are set to inherit the country if present trends continue.  In that sense, they are wedded to the status quo. We, on the other hand, are by definition hostile to the status quo. 

However, it is quite likely that the growing legions of hispanics will play a role in some sort of balkanization process, and may even indirectly open the door to the coming White Republic.  But this will not be an intentional favor to us, or any alliance with us, but rather the result of other forces and trends that they are unleashing. 

Finally, and however things turn out, in many ways the Hispanic Model is the antithesis of what we want and require.  The hispanic blurs racial lines, and seems to operate on a model of a fairly white upper class lording it over a vast army of mongrel peons.  Even that “fairly white” upper class ends up absorbing a lot of non-white genes, as miscegenation is widely accepted.
The resulting mongrelized societies tend to be ugly, ridiculous, and barren of accomplishment.  They are dysfunctional on a good day.

The Hispanic Model is not only something that we don’t want to emulate, it is in fact highly respresentative of just what it is that we are struggling against.

15

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 08, 2012, 06:02 AM | #

Slightly off-topic but how many people are aware of cultural jamming?

Culture jamming, coined in 1984, denotes a tactic used by many anti-consumerist social movements to disrupt or subvert mainstream cultural institutions, including corporate advertising. Guerrilla semiotics and night discourse are sometimes used synonymously with the term culture jamming.

Culture jamming is often seen as a form of subvertising. Many culture jams are intended to expose apparently questionable political assumptions behind commercial culture. Common tactics include re-figuring logos, fashion statements, and product images as a means to challenge the idea of “what’s cool” along with assumptions about the personal freedoms of consumption.

Culture jamming sometimes entails transforming mass media to produce ironic or satirical commentary about itself, using the original medium’s communication method. Culture jamming is usually employed in opposition to a perceived appropriation of public space, or as a reaction against social conformity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming

So on that topic why not adopt certain cultural items - for example popular songs of liberation?

As Silver hints at the idea that the struggle must be infused with positivity - an atmosphere of something noble, morally courageous and life-affirming.

For example imagine adopting this song at social and political events/gatherings and for propaganda purposes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQv77rA1iF4

Something inside so strong
I know that I can make it
Tho’ you’re doing me wrong, so wrong
You thought that my pride was gone
Oh no, something inside so strong
Oh oh oh oh oh something inside so strong

The more you refuse to hear my voice
The louder I will sing
You hide behind walls of Jericho
Your lies will come tumbling

Deny my place in time
You squander wealth that’s mine
My light will shine so brightly
It will blind you
Cos there’s…...

Something inside so strong
I know that I can make it
Tho’ you’re doing me wrong, so wrong
You thought that my pride was gone
Oh no, something inside so strong
Oh oh oh oh oh something inside so strong

Brothers and sisters
When they insist we’re just not good enough
When we know better
Just look ‘em in the eyes and say
I’m gonna do it anyway . . .

Or perhaps this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6GXV0FNEeI

...Are you ready?
Are you ready for the time of life?
It’s time to stand up and fight
So alright
So alright
Hand in hand we take a caravan to the motherland
One by one we gonna stand up with pride
One that can’t be denied
Stand up
Stand up
From the highest mountain to valley low
We’ll join together with hearts of gold
Now the children of the world can see
This a better place for us to be
The place is which we were born
So neglected and torn apart

Every woman every man
Join the caravan of love
Stand up, stand up
Stand up
Every body takes a stand
Join the caravan of love
Stand up, stand up
Stand up

I’m your brother
I’m your brother don’t you know?
She’s my sister
She’s my sister don’t you know?

We’ll be living in the world of peace
And the day when everyone is free
Bring the young and the old
Won’t you let the love flow from your heart?

I suppose there might be better possible examples but cultural jamming is, at its best, a form of intellectual, cultural and rhetorical jujitsu. Take the ideas and tropes of others and rework them for an alternative meaning and purpose. For example, a good liberal would easily and readily assert the right of native indigenous peoples to autonomy and their way of life being protected - so agree yes of course! - well who on Earth are the indigenous peoples of Europe? - certainly not Africans!

Happily agree that Eurocentrism is bad - yes European attempts to ‘universalise’ their cumulative historical experience and way of being in the world (by fiat) is a disaster and an act of monstrous hubris and folly - the European way of being is not universal - it’s particular to us and us alone, in the same way as the Japanese way of being is particular to them…etc.

 

16

Posted by uh on April 08, 2012, 06:50 AM | #

Shouldn’t those of us of recent European extraction,

ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE
ENGLAND IS NOT EUROPE

choo-choooooooooooooooo!

17

Posted by uh on April 08, 2012, 06:56 AM | #

They are dysfunctional on a good day.

ALTA FUNCIÓN = POCOS NIÑOS

The Hispanic Model is not only something that we don’t want to emulate, it is in fact highly respresentative of just what it is that we are struggling against.

FERTILITY and EXPANSION?

18

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 08, 2012, 07:07 AM | #

uh - I’d have thought cultural jamming was something you might have an interest in as MR’s resident hipster?

Newsnight report on developments in German politics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bMw_2nMzqE

I had no idea this type of thing was going on in Germany!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bMw_2nMzqE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkU6KTjLTYU

Certainly those ‘Immortals’ look rather scary don’t they? 

What are they saying in the second video?

19

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 08, 2012, 07:39 AM | #

Picked up this for my to read list:

Discourse on Thinking - Martin Heidegger

...an indispensible work if you are interested in discovering what Heidegger was thinking towards the end of his career. “Discourse on Thinking” can be seen as a succinct statement of his thinking on thinking in relation to the onslaught of global technology and the concomitant nihilism that follows close behind.

In the face of the domination of global technology, what is to be done? In terms of “Letting-Be” (Gelassenheit) thinking must overcome its preoccupation with instrumental reasoning which is based on representation and rationality. It is in “meditative thinking” that we are able to arrive at a proper relationship with technology.

An important work related to this is Heidegger’s “Question Concerning Technology” in which he sets up the structure of this domination - the world is presented as a “standing resource” and we become “standing resources” in an indirect way.

 

20

Posted by Leon Haller on April 08, 2012, 07:40 AM | #

I suppose there might be better possible examples but cultural jamming is, at its best, a form of intellectual, cultural and rhetorical jujitsu. Take the ideas and tropes of others and rework them for an alternative meaning and purpose. For example, a good liberal would easily and readily assert the right of native indigenous peoples to autonomy and their way of life being protected - so agree yes of course! - well who on Earth are the indigenous peoples of Europe? - certainly not Africans!

Happily agree that Eurocentrism is bad - yes European attempts to ‘universalise’ their cumulative historical experience and way of being in the world (by fiat) is a disaster and an act of monstrous hubris and folly - the European way of being is not universal - it’s particular to us and us alone, in the same way as the Japanese way of being is particular to them…etc (Lister)

All true, but I doubt this “multiculturalism of the white” strategy will ever work for very many liberals, except the most scrupulously fair minded of them (most of whom in my experience are Christians, who then will present a whole other set of arguments against “white indigenism”). Race liberalism of any beyond the chirpy “let’s recognize the humanity of everyone and treat them equally” variety is clearly a mental disorder. Its adherents are animated not by justice, but a type of extreme self-hatred. The repulsive Eric Hobsbawm (ethnically not one of us, I admit) worried a generation ago that (non-Marxist) multiculturalist arguments could be turned around in precisely this manner and used by those wishing to maintain racially pure nations (which should be no surprise, as he wrote extensively on nationalism and “invented traditions”).

A task as broad as saving the white race will involve many vectors of activity, and necessitate a host of tailored rhetorical and political strategies. White indigenism is another arrow in the quiver, but there are sturdier ones, philosophically as well as politically.

21

Posted by daniel 3 on April 08, 2012, 08:00 AM | #

Uh…. Hipster!

Fucking classic.

If there is a resident hipster it’s me.

22

Posted by Leon Haller on April 08, 2012, 08:16 AM | #

Trainspotter @14

You captured all the points. I could not have said it better. I would only allude, for the millionth time, to the “ripening harvest / encroaching jungle” metaphor from The Dispossessed Majority. More and more whites everywhere are awakening, but will they awaken in sufficient numbers in time to prevent their extinction, should a large number actually choose to do so? As I’ve also said repeatedly, the race problem is rapidly mutating from a philosophical to a military one. It’s not clear to me that white Americans actually could Take Back America, even if we chose to. As recently as 1990 I believe we could have, electorally or militarily (which was why I was so fanatically anti-immigration then, and used to get in huge and relentless rhetorical struggles against the fools who saw “confronting the Jew” as the key to white survival: stopping immigration was/is the key to confronting the Jew, rather than confronting the Jew being the key to white dispossession).

But today? Nonwhites are too numerous and powerful for whites to reimpose our will, and the individual costs of attempting to do so would not be attractive to whites as a whole. To most, it is better either to avoid thinking about the issue, or to come to terms with “good minorities” (like Hispanic neighborhood watch shooter George Zimmerman, the product of a white/Latino coupling, and a seemingly decent guy to have around) and accept a miscegenated future. How many whites today would be willing to put at risk their families, their property, their investments, and their lives to prevent a future America that looks and behaves like George Zimmerman? (To prevent a Trayvon Martin future, maybe there are still enough whites with sufficient future oriented concerns for their descendants to get racially/politically motivated.) At best, a much smaller version of white America might one day live on in a breakaway White Republic, though even that WR will look nothing like what Michael O’Meara and his allies want: it will be overwhelmingly conservative/Christian, and thus its whiteness will have to be justifiable in those terms. 

The battle to prevent white (and thus Occidental) extinction is finally (and perhaps fittingly) a European one. First philosophically, then politically (or militarily), there must be nationalist revolution in Europe. As an outlier American, my heart and hands are with my homeland, but my head is with Old Europe.

23

Posted by Leon Haller on April 08, 2012, 08:17 AM | #

“daniel3” = “Uh”?

24

Posted by uh on April 08, 2012, 08:32 AM | #

I’d have thought cultural jamming was something you might have an interest in as MR’s resident hipster?

Yea, when I was 17 going to hardcore shows with Crimethinc kiddies. Adbusters grows old after three or four issues.

I had no idea this type of thing was going on in Germany!

That’s funny because I’ve posted links to these videos here before.

Second video — platitudes, but first in the speaker’s list of complaints is ‘KINDERLOSIGKEIT’.

À bon entendeur.

25

Posted by uh on April 08, 2012, 08:37 AM | #

A task as broad as saving the white race will involve many vectors of activity,

It’d better involve many broads, or there won’t be much activity beyond finger-dancing.

and necessitate a host of tailored rhetorical and political strategies.

“yon yon yon yon yon yon WAAAHHHH!!” - il ragno

“daniel3” = “Uh”?

Nope.

26

Posted by ATBOTL on April 08, 2012, 10:54 AM | #

Everything Silver has ever written is incoherent nonsense.  Stop feeding him.

27

Posted by Hymie in Afula on April 08, 2012, 11:01 AM | #

>>  to define White in a way that will function in a bureacracy.

>    No need.


i can see I’m not going to have any problems infiltrating Mossad people into your country.  i’ll have fewer problems getting them in, than homoii Africanus have in getting in to your-alls daughterii’s ovulations.

 

>  Defintions are not the problem

you really think that?  Now I want to emigrate and become a Liberal American Jew.  I’ll make more money off of you, than they do off of “American Indian Owned”  casinos.

 

> Truthfully now, Hyman, with the benefit of hindsight


You haven’t seen myself complaining about the Germans of 65 years ago.  Kievsky pretends I do, to avert his eyes from the fact that we have a more self-assured & self-respecting White Russian community here in Afula, than y’alls do anywhere in North America.  ==Our== russian kids get invited to work IN RUSSIA because they speak PERFECT Russian (on top of Hebrew and English).

 

28

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 09, 2012, 04:51 AM | #

==Our== russian kids get invited to work IN RUSSIA because they speak PERFECT Russian

Second prize, two invitations to work in Russia. LOL

29

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 09, 2012, 05:02 AM | #

No wonder there is no complaints about the Germans, they’ve been paying for Israel since its inception. LOL

30

Posted by Silver on April 13, 2012, 03:55 PM | #

Dan Dare,

Shouldn’t those of us of recent European extraction, amongst whom I understand you include yourself Silver, be more concerned with matters of greater concern to the Heartland, or should we not? Whether North America becomes subsumed within Latin America and whether Australasia becomes a subsidiary member of the New Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere are obviously pertiment questions, but if that is what their inhabitants collectively express a preference for, then good luck to them.

In the meantime, Europeans have other, more pressing, concerns closer to home.

<.blockquote>

Europeans in Europe should be more concerned with matters in Europe, certainly. Nothing I’ve said here should be understood to apply to Europe.  That said, it seems obvious to me that what occurs in “the dominions” matters.  It’d clearly be advantageous to Europe if political developments in the dominions supported actions necessary in Europe, if for no other reason than it being better than the opposite.  Maximize your friends, minimize your enemies: words to live by. (WNs are notorious for maximizing opposition.)

 

31

Posted by Silver on April 13, 2012, 04:02 PM | #

Desmond Jones,

Where’s the evidence that this trite nonsense is energising anything but your inflated ego?

There really isn’t any.  I do think I have reason and pragmatism on my side, though.

Haller,

Do you support the physical expatriation of every non-white resident from Europe?

Do you support deportation of all (nonwhite) illegal aliens from the Outer Provinces of Europa?

Do you support the end of all nonwhite immigration to the Outer Provinces?

Do you support the legal right of whites to disassociate from nonwhites (in housing, employment, entertainment and all other areas of life) within the Outer Provinces?

Do you support the formation of political parties explicitly devoted to white interests within the Outer Provinces?

Answering in the affirmative to each question constitutes the sine qua non of modern nationalism.

(1)  No, not every.  The vast majority, yes.

(2)  Of course. 

(3)  Well, duh.

(4)  Of course.

(5)  Well, duh.

Did you really have to ask?  Wouldn’t you by now be able to simply intuit my responses?

 

32

Posted by Silver on April 13, 2012, 05:38 PM | #

Trainspotter,

Thank you for your input.  Even though I fear we are on opposing sides (to some degree), your posts always cause me to carefully consider them.  In this case, however, I think you’ve grossly misunderstood my position.

Dan alludes to an important point above: the demographic rise of hispanics is largely an American issue, whereas the threat to our people is world wide.

Obviously I’m well aware of this.  In order to avoid having to hammer out the basics time after time could I ask that you simply assume I’m aware of them?  Desmond Jones accuses me of having an inflated ego, but there is such an extreme paucity of quality racial thought and strategy that, although I’m ordinarily only too happy to defer to superior thinkers (that’s how one learns), I can’t help but think that my own offerings usually plug some rather conspicuous holes.  In any case, inflated ego or not, a reasonably intelligent man thinking intensely about racial issues for five years straight is likely to have an opinion worth hearing out.

With that out of the way, I was specifically addressing America here.  I believe developments in America to be of supreme, perhaps decisive, importance to developments elsewhere so I take great interest in what occurs in your country.

Again, I agree with you that we have failed to create a compelling vision of the future, but I’d also add that the intellectual wing of the movement is developing nicely, and it is most likely from there that the vision will be created and honed.

As I commented today at Counter Currents (not sure if it was posted), race is complex: factually complex, morally complex, and normatively complex.  The intellectual wing is factually competent; and, as far as facts go, has the opposition so thoroughly whipped they dare not contest the issue on factual grounds.  But the opposition has ample opportunity to adulterate the conclusions of the intellectual wing, such that by the time they filter down to the masses, racialism tends to founder on moral grounds.  It’s not dissimilar to the atheism debate: atheists typically beat the stuffing out of theists on rationality, yet theists are still able to sway the masses with appeals to moral/emotional concerns. Rather than taking racial moral/emotional issues head on, my approach attempts to avoid pressing “hot button” concerns by making (basic) racialism as easy to initially agree with as possible, relying on being able to fill in the gaps later.  (I’m not suggesting this is the only way, simply that it’s one way.)  My post attempted to briefly make a normative case: given the facts of racial reality (ie racial reality in all its aspects, not merely specific issues like IQ or whatever) and given that racial action is morally acceptable (or at least morally plausible) what should that action be, what should people do?

As to the hispanic issue per se, and mindful of the fact that it largely applies to the United States only, I’m not convinced that there is any real potential for an alliance.  Frankly, from their point of view, they don’t need us.  Why should a rising demographic touch us with a ten foot pole?  The way they see it, they are set to inherit the country if present trends continue.  In that sense, they are wedded to the status quo. We, on the other hand, are by definition hostile to the status quo.

That’s true.  My position is premised on their being underwhelmed by mass multiracial existence.  There is evidence that this is the case, viz the conflict that arises from their tendency to live nearby large numbers of blacks.

However, it is quite likely that the growing legions of hispanics will play a role in some sort of balkanization process, and may even indirectly open the door to the coming White Republic.  But this will not be an intentional favor to us, or any alliance with us, but rather the result of other forces and trends that they are unleashing.

One must play the hand one is dealt.  Lemons, lemonade.  The opportunity exists to make the unintentional intentional.

Finally, and however things turn out, in many ways the Hispanic Model is the antithesis of what we want and require.  The hispanic blurs racial lines, and seems to operate on a model of a fairly white upper class lording it over a vast army of mongrel peons.  Even that “fairly white” upper class ends up absorbing a lot of non-white genes, as miscegenation is widely accepted.
The resulting mongrelized societies tend to be ugly, ridiculous, and barren of accomplishment.  They are dysfunctional on a good day.

The Hispanic Model is not only something that we don’t want to emulate, it is in fact highly respresentative of just what it is that we are struggling against.

This is the misunderstanding I referred to above.

I was not arguing for the “Hispanic Model.”  I was claiming that the result of the massive hispanic presence will be massive miscegenation with hispanics.  Of all non-whites they are often (but certainly not always) the closest to whites in appearance (virtually none are the classic northern european, but many are actually white), come from a social tradition of valuing whiteness (though not necessarily nordicness—which is the face of the hated “gringo”), and are, in many ways, cultural familiars (namely a tradition of Christianity).  That a great deal of miscegenation is bound to occur with them, however dispiriting or depressing you may find it, should not come as a surprise.  My point, however, was not that you should therefore accept such offspring as “white.”  My point was to suggest that such people could (not will, could) form a potent pro-racial-separatist demographic block —if they are guided and provided the appropriate incentive.

There are three reasons for my thinking so.  The first reason is that people of mixed ethnicity (not merely race) typically think about questions of race and belonging much more than other people.  Today’s anti-white culture and climate encourages them to side against whites, but they would probably do so anyway if, after pondering racial issues, they came to fear that a pro-white climate would disadvantage them.  When that occurs, a group that is potentially useful becomes as useless the rest.  The second reason is that, while I think it’s tremendously impolitic to acknowledge it, whiteness has value.  People the world over value the European phenotype over other phenotypes, even when they’re not aware it’s the European phenotype they are valuing.  Thus these people have an added reason to value racial belonging—racial belonging is important and valuable in life regardless of one’s race or racial traits (in cases of mixedness), but European-looking types have slightly (or greatly, depending on the individual) more reason again to value racial belonging.  The third reason—and this may be the most important—is that some way of encouraging people at the “margins of whiteness” to positively self-select out of whiteness is of tremendous value.  The typical response to rejection from whiteness is what?  To rebel against whites!  “Not white, eh? Well fuck you then!”  Right? 

Now, speaking for myself only (although I’m sure that many millions would agree), I have always self-selected away from whites (Anglo-Saxons, nords, germanics, and the like), ever since I was a teen and perhaps even before.  It was always abundantly obvious to me that I and people like me were of a significantly different racial type to northern europeans, and just as obvious the company of my racial familiars was overwhelmingly more preferable.  In fact, I could barely contain my shock when I first stumbled across Stormfront to find southern Europeans (or “meds” if you prefer) attempting to argue for inclusion into “the white race.”  (Later it became apparent that the main reason was not so much a belief in sufficient racial likeness, rather it was more an attempt to avoid classification as “inferior,” given that racial science attributes greater intelligence and civilizational attainment to nordic stock.)  This is the basis on which I stated that miscegenation between whites (meaning northern europeans) and hispanics (depending of course on the type of hispanic) created people who are sufficiently like me that I view them as racial familiars.  The suggestion was not, as some have interpreted it, to therefore include them, me, and you, all of us, under the common banner of “the white race.”

Assuming a pro-racial movement that achieved the support of other races was able to play a decisive role in American affairs, what the result be with respect to your racial interests?  The result would be widespread awareness of racial issues (why what has happened has happened) and racial security (legal and stable racial apartness).  Apartness, as I envision it, can occur at the local level cities; it can occur across counties or multiple counties; and it can occur across states or vast geographic regions.  The last of these is my preference, but legal and stable apartness at any level achieves at least minimal racial security (in contrast to today: no racial security).  Whether you consider that satisfactory is for you to decide.  For my part, I am willing and eager to work towards achieving that as a lasting arrangement.  If sufficient numbers of you remain unsatisfied, well, we can kill each other later.  But for now, the aim should be to create a critical mass of people (of whatever race) who value racial belonging and who can see something for themselves in a racial “rearrangement” and are willing to stand up and say, “Yes, I like the sound of this.  This I can agree with.”  Ultimately, whatever reasons people give or whatever rationalizations they make, this “rearrangement” will come about by enough people feeling either that the pain of continuing on the present racial course is greater than the pain caused by racial upheaval or that the pleasure of racial upheaval is greater than pain of racial upheaval; but for so long as they feel the pain of racial upheaval is greater than the “pain” (for many it is not painful at all) of continuing along the present course no attempt at rearrangement will be made.

 

33

Posted by Silver on April 13, 2012, 05:39 PM | #

Please excuse my sloppy formatting above.

34

Posted by Dan Dare on April 14, 2012, 12:52 AM | #

Silver noted:

Europeans in Europe should be more concerned with matters in Europe, certainly. Nothing I’ve said here should be understood to apply to Europe.  That said, it seems obvious to me that what occurs in “the dominions” matters.  It’d clearly be advantageous to Europe if political developments in the dominions supported actions necessary in Europe, if for no other reason than it being better than the opposite.  Maximize your friends, minimize your enemies: words to live by. (WNs are notorious for maximizing opposition.)

Well quite so. However it seems to me that the Dominions (and I hope I will be excused for including the United States amongst their number, at least for present purposes) have, individually and collectively, decided that their own interests are best served by aligning themselves as closely as possible with their principal customer base which, it seems to be increasingly the case, lies in the resource-hungry nations of South and East Asia rather than their own ancestral heartland. That this is clearly the case is easily demonstrated by the eagerness with which each of them extends an open-door welcome to immigration from their new friends rather than from their traditional sources in ‘Old Europe’.

Given this state of affairs it’s somewhat unclear why Europeans should pay any regard whatsoever to what goes in the ‘Dominions’. They have set themselves their own path, and we should follow our own.

35

Posted by Leon Haller on April 14, 2012, 01:48 AM | #

Given this state of affairs it’s somewhat unclear why Europeans should pay any regard whatsoever to what goes in the ‘Dominions’. They have set themselves their own path, and we should follow our own. (DAN DARE)


Alas, too true.

Would it be better for Europe were Americans (and any other ‘Dominionists’) to remove their troops from Europe, and possibly even leave or disband NATO? I’m inclined to say yes, though I’m not sure. Without the US defense presence, would Europe be more likely to raise its own defense expenditures compensatorily, or would that move just leave Europeans still more vulnerable to neighboring Islamic demographic (or even military) aggression? I really don’t have a firm opinion on this.

Given that US military budgets have a life of their own quite apart from actual, specific threats, I’d just as well like to keep Europe sheltered under them. The issue is whether the US presence would aid nationalism, by allowing European governments to be bolder (assuming any chose to be so) in confronting and repatriating unwanted Muslims, through having lessened or removed fears of Muslim state military or terrorist backlash, or, conversely, impede it, by our bulky multiracial presence (with its many Jews lurking in the shadows) acting as a kind of implicit threat to (and hence brake upon) any actual nationalist government that might somehow attain power.

I don’t know how to read this one. I think it would be better for all parties if we went home, but I’d hate for the Europeans to then allow themselves to be further ‘Eurabianized’ (or whatever the neologistic analogue is to Soviet-era ‘Finlandization’).

36

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 14, 2012, 05:06 AM | #

Given this state of affairs it’s somewhat unclear why Europeans should pay any regard whatsoever to what goes in the ‘Dominions’.

Jobs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/03/28/f-vp-stewart-immigration.html?cmp=rss

37

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 14, 2012, 06:31 AM | #

Silver,

It’s not dissimilar to the atheism debate: atheists typically beat the stuffing out of theists on rationality

If you’re ever bored: Bahnsen Stein Debate Wilson Hitchens Debates

Jobs.

There is supposedly a conduit into Silicon Valley for French Talent too. Around 40,000 every few years is what I’ve read.

38

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 14, 2012, 06:32 AM | #

Silver,

It’s not dissimilar to the atheism debate: atheists typically beat the stuffing out of theists on rationality

If you’re ever bored: Bahnsen Stein Debate Wilson Hitchens Debates

Jobs.

There is supposedly a conduit into Silicon Valley for French Talent too. Around 40,000 every few years is what I’ve read.

39

Posted by Hesper on April 14, 2012, 08:33 AM | #

I fancy greater, clearer exposition is in order to elucidate what we mean precisely by race: primarily typology (what one looks like regardless of lineage and nationality, the foregoing often indicated by language, adherence to a Christian demoninational sect, onomastics, customs, etc whereas typology is eye, hair and skin colour as much as skeletal anatomy - these being very conspicuous and sensible ‘signs’) or primarily genealogy (from which ancestors one arises, this very often agrees with typology yet, especially in the white/darker white Caucasoid races and especially those indigenous to Europe since near pre-history, does not always coincide but is confused, seemingly promiscuous and random, and frequently exhibits throwbacks - atavisims - or strange freaks of nature).

I mention this as although I largely concur with Silver’s opinion and measure of the situation as it truly is, particularly as respects the British Protestant (America following the Ellis Island inundation being now more simply Germanic Protestant not limitedly British or Anglo-Saxon) extra-European states, I wonder what he would prescribe for the southern European states as their own rule of inclusion. “That should be obvious Hesper, you blockhead” some may retort. But actually it is far from obvious as despite the too often violent imputations of a tarnished and radically incompatible origin to southernerns, the case (I can testify to its validity having visited all these countries, some more than once) does admit latitude for qualification and more exact, as against general, discrimination.

That said the Germanic and European ‘Mediterranean’ races are wholly distinct and have their own proper faculties at the same time as sharing an immemorial history of co-operation and common travails and endeavours, and an indissoluble tie of defence against the Barbarians of Asia and Africa (not to be sentimentalist about it but until the Spanish, Italian and Greek peninsulas are severed from the trunk of the continent geography impels a friendly adjustment between the two camps - or more than two as Spaniards and Portuguese have virtually no past of Turco-Levantine intercourse, the southern Italians and Greeks none of Moorish; by ‘intercourse’ I mean interaction not massive interbreeding it’s not a gibe!). The problem is there exists no uniform Mediterranean ‘type’; the stereotype given by the Jewish news and entertainment media doesn’t hold even in the same families where Alpine, quasi-Alpine, Dinaric and, yes, Nordic, types all appear. Moreover similarities in colouring of eyes and hair aside (even the purest Mongoloids have uniformly dark brown eyes and black hair whereas Mediterraneans exhibit light variations here, particularly those on that sea’s northern shores, i.e. southern Europe) the anatomy of the true Mediterranean-type (without traces of Alpine or Nordic conformation) in that part of the world is proper to its sphere and can be distinguished from Berber- and Turco-Semite varities across the sea and those as far as Iran, Afghanistan and the Caucasus.

It’s mixed and it’s complicated but geopolitics demands a ‘truce’ (within Europe itself) and/or North ‘conquering’ South or the reverse, or either systematic or casual colonisation from North to South to homogenise the peoples and thus aid European unity - this would only occur over centuries, and if your care to study the signs, is occurring now - (such colonisation has happened about half a dozen occasions since 2500 BC and it will continue to happen - the discovery of the New World diverted a majority of Germanic colonists away from Spain, France, Italy, etc for the first time, well, since the end of the Ice Age but that shan’t occur again; e.g. 8 million Germanic settlers - far from being all of retired age - dwell in Southern Europe including 1,000,000 Anglo-Saxons in the South of France and 500,000 Anglo-Saxons on the Tyrrhenian and Ligurian coasts of Italy. When I last travelled to Barcelona there were Swedish ‘enclaves’ of expatriates with their own schools and this exists as easterly as the Swedes of Crete. Rural northern Greece is chock-a-bloc full of Germans and northern Slavs. Europe isn’t like the New World America or Australia which are from-the-bottom-up new and thus open, integrated societies; in Europe one can live separate from the state and civil society in half-deserted or forgotten towns, villages, mountaintops devoid of State interference. If you’re a middle-aged Brandenburger accoutant living with the wife and two kids on your substantial savings in a ‘summer-home’ in the foothills of the Chalcidice peninsula the wage riots or hunger demonstrations of the native proles in Salonica don’t affect you unless the farm produce of the local villagers who supply you is confiscated or their crops destroyed by urban marauders. But this is inly the beginning, Germanic migration southward commenced 170 with the Quadi and Marcomanni and was still gushing forth in 570 with the Langobards into Italy, previous Paleolithic ‘Nordic European’ dispersals southward took a long time too as the prior civilisations withered and faded away (that’s indisputably happening today to the Germanic-Catholic ‘West’ as the Classical died before it too and the Minoan-Mycenaean, and…).

Silver is not so deceitful or prevaricating as has been alleged of him (his acknowledgment of Jewish ascendancy, even over ‘his’ ancestral countries, does him credit although it’s just stating the clear-as-day truth)

40

Posted by Hesper on April 14, 2012, 09:00 AM | #

To resume my thoughts (pardon the error in including text intended for this comment box in the above)...

Silver is not so deceitful or prevaricating as has been alleged of him (his acknowledgment of Jewish ascendancy, even over ‘his’ ancestral countries, does him credit although it’s just stating the clear-as-day truth) and I sincerely would like to know whether for what he perceives as “his community”, be they inhabiting the mother-countries or the Anglosphere dominions, if his rule is typology or genealogy or both. Will light, even Nordic, kin of “his sort” be excreted into the Anglo-Saxon community where there is greater unity of appearance; is full-blooded ethnic Spaniard (of Catalan extraction) David de Gea to be thrown out of the brotherhood because his appearance suggests a Viking about to jump off his long-boat?

Without being rude I’m sure you can guess my point Silver. What if southern Europeans not of the true Mediterranean type, Alpines, Nordics or Alpine-Nord, Med-Nord hybrids, etc reject their assortment into one camp? Is the adamant refusal to adjust yourselves to the Germanic majority, or conceivably Slavic majority elsewhere, a secret indication of the darkest members of the southern European nationalities feeling their oddness in a cause emphasising ‘whiteness’ and forcing their near relations or compatriots to choose a side that does not exclude themselves?

I’m trying to be helpful but I acknowledge that Mediterranean Europeans typologically Med, or Euro-Med, are in a bit of a bind. There’s no easy answer, maybe no answer at all; that’s life - the Greeks, so full of wisdom they were!, said that in a world where everything is foreordained by fate (atomistic chance) and the past (ancestor’s deeds, genetics) freedom of choice is a delusion. How right they are.

41

Posted by Silver on April 14, 2012, 10:13 AM | #

Dan Dare,

Given this state of affairs it’s somewhat unclear why Europeans should pay any regard whatsoever to what goes in the ‘Dominions’. They have set themselves their own path, and we should follow our own.

There’s no contradiction between paying regard to what goes on in the dominions and following your own path.

The reason to pay regard is that the dominions, whether they will forever contain Europeans or not, are going to continue to exist as political entities for quite some time (the architects of their race-replacement, of course, expect them to continue to exist in perpetuity).  Given that, it’d be beneficial if these political entities regarded it as proper that Europeans not be erased from their ancestral homelands, perhaps to the point of rendering aid to their efforts to prevent that erasure.  The alternative is that the dominions join the rest of the world (so it seems) in issuing angry demands that Europeans submit to extinction (or “soft genocide”) no matter where in the world they are found.

This is so patently obvious to me I have to wonder whether your bitterness towards your colonial coethnics’ indifference isn’t causing you to cut your nose off to spite your face.

 

42

Posted by Silver on April 14, 2012, 10:41 AM | #

Danielj,

If you’re ever bored: Bahnsen Stein Debate Wilson Hitchens Debates

Let me briefly sum up my views on religion.

Even if there is a God, why care what God wants?

Fear that he’ll punish you if you don’t.  This is why I’m grateful to atheist philosophers, even though I believe religion—defined here as the “practice of faith”—as well as Christianity—defined here as “the Christian spiritual tradition”—to be a fundamentally good thing.  Disbelieving religious dogmas doesn’t prevent one from experiencing “the Transcendent.”  I have no problem being a “Christian atheist.”  Attending church for the spiritual and social experience is great fun, as is participating in Christian rites.  The Bible is mostly boring and there is no good reason to consider it the “word of God,” but I enjoy reading the works of Christian thinkers.  Men may have made God rather than the reverse, but that is a reason to keep him.  Atheists are wrong to the throw the baby out with the bath water. 

 

 

43

Posted by Randy Garver on April 14, 2012, 12:08 PM | #

Silver:

Atheists are wrong to the throw the baby out with the bath water.

The manner in which that metaphor is understood hinges on differing opinions regarding how much of religion is baby, and how much is bathwater. While Hitchens argues that it’s all bathwater, Sam Harris suggests that the baby at the heart of the bathwater, that is to say the capacity for transcendence, can and should be preserved, but in such a fashion as to slough away remnant traces of dogma.

As for the relationship between religion and Silverism, I would suggest that if you walk back both sets of beliefs you’ll likely discover that they’re incompatible. My understanding is that Silverism advocates racial separation as being ultimately beneficial to all parties, and therefore should be promoted in that manner as the method most likely to succeed.

Such a belief strikes me as a Spinozan type of argument which is founded on natural law and reason. Religion, particularly organized religion, is ultimately anchored to a bedrock of obedience to exogenous authority rather than the cultivation of one’s rational understanding of natural law, the latter being vulnerable to political whim by those who have self-appointed themselves as keepers of the doctrine.

44

Posted by Randy Garver on April 14, 2012, 12:13 PM | #

...the former* being vulnerable…

45

Posted by Silver on April 14, 2012, 12:41 PM | #

Hesper,

I’m trying to be helpful but I acknowledge that Mediterranean Europeans typologically Med, or Euro-Med, are in a bit of a bind. There’s no easy answer, maybe no answer at all; that’s life - the Greeks, so full of wisdom they were!, said that in a world where everything is foreordained by fate (atomistic chance) and the past (ancestor’s deeds, genetics) freedom of choice is a delusion. How right they are.

Yes, that’s right: there may be no answer at all.  But that’s no way to live, so we have to press on.

Without being rude I’m sure you can guess my point Silver. What if southern Europeans not of the true Mediterranean type, Alpines, Nordics or Alpine-Nord, Med-Nord hybrids, etc reject their assortment into one camp? Is the adamant refusal to adjust yourselves to the Germanic majority, or conceivably Slavic majority elsewhere, a secret indication of the darkest members of the southern European nationalities feeling their oddness in a cause emphasising ‘whiteness’ and forcing their near relations or compatriots to choose a side that does not exclude themselves?

Undoubtedly it plays a part.  Although I don’t think this class of behavior is peculiar to southern Europe; it seems to be the case the world over.  For example, blacks in America are happy to bemoan the “one drop rule” when it enables them to guilt-trip whites but are otherwise some of its most enthusiastic adherents. 

I sincerely would like to know whether for what he perceives as “his community”, be they inhabiting the mother-countries or the Anglosphere dominions, if his rule is typology or genealogy or both. Will light, even Nordic, kin of “his sort” be excreted into the Anglo-Saxon community where there is greater unity of appearance; is full-blooded ethnic Spaniard (of Catalan extraction) David de Gea to be thrown out of the brotherhood because his appearance suggests a Viking about to jump off his long-boat?

I think typology is far more important than genealogy.  Genealogy only matters insofar as it creates types.  But if it were somehow possible to produce an ‘in-group phenotype’ without regard to the genetic input I wouldn’t pay the slightest attention to genotype.  Back in the real world, though, genotypes matter and attention needs to be paid—although, it should be said, the question really only arises when large numbers are in play.

As for the question of “excreting” people, my approach is to begin with Richard McCulloch’s concept of “racial average is racial destiny.”  If it were possible to assign a mathematical value to phenotype then we could calculate a geographic region’s population average, and if that average comes in at a value equal to or lower than the “definitional” value for the racial group in question, the existence of that racial group out into the distant future, despite “aberrant” types at the extremes, can be assumed secure.

However, humans aren’t mere mathematical abstractions.  We have feelings.  We want to be valued members of our communities, or at the very least we don’t wish to have the propriety of our existence in those communities open to doubt.  Talk of “racial destiny,” even in the prosaic, metrical (not “fascistic”) sense inevitably raises such doubts and anxieties.  The suggestion that a recognized and accepted member of an ethnic group be “thrown out” on account of a mathematical abstraction can only succeed in raising racial anxiety and insecurity to fever pitch. 

I return again to the point that my personal concern is what happens in the dominions.  A racialist of David de Gea’s appearance, who has lost touch with his ethnic roots and ethnic community members, is, I believe, more likely to side with nords, so “throwing him out” is something of a moot point.  On the other hand, while that may be the rule, I’m sure there would be plenty of exceptions to it.  In that case, I wouldn’t consider it appropriate at all to exclude such a person.  The advantage that lighter types hold here is that they are much more easily assimilable into darker groups than vice versa, and whatever changes their assimilation creates tend to be aesthetic improvements more often than not (though again, I think it’s impolitic to mention this). 

 

46

Posted by Dan Dare on April 14, 2012, 01:06 PM | #

Silver @41

The alternative is that the dominions join the rest of the world (so it seems) in issuing angry demands that Europeans submit to extinction (or “soft genocide”) no matter where in the world they are found.

This is so patently obvious to me I have to wonder whether your bitterness towards your colonial coethnics’ indifference isn’t causing you to cut your nose off to spite your face.

It’s not bitterness, Silver, but rather Realpolitik.

The United States already makes such demands as exemplified by, for example, its call for Turkey to be admitted to the EU. I take it as axiomatic that such open and blatant hostility will become more and more frequent as the Atlanticist age recedes into history, and that the other ‘Dominions’ will in time follow suit. Demography provides for no other outcome.

Europeans, collectively, have to recognise that they will become increasingly isolated in an ever more unfriendly world and must arrange their own affairs to suit. It might be cheering to hope for the best, but it is far more prudent to plan for the worst.

47

Posted by Griffin's Union of Fascists. on April 15, 2012, 02:44 AM | #

Silver - you write a lot of shit.

Firstly, it’s better that we don’t use this term ‘white’ in any serious discussion of physical anthropology - people like you (deliberately) misuse and bastardize the term causing contention, so we better leave it out. I don’t like the term caucasoid either, since it includes subcons, a race that I firmly reject and will never accept as ‘one of us’. Perhaps the correct term to use as a catch-all for the peoples of Europe (yes they differ markedly phenotypically) is the term ‘europid’. Despite the phenotypic variations, genetically, the sub-races of Europe (your nordid, alpinid. mediterranid, what have you), all pretty much cluster together on gene maps and cluster distinctly from peoples of other continents.
In actual fact it was the mediterranid sub-race that contributed most to the genesis and progress of human civilsation, think of Greece and Rome, the Greek pilosphers and mathematicians, the Roman jurists and administrators. Would the peoples of north Europe had ever have developed writing, civilsations, stone buildings etc if left alone on their own devices? I doubt it. Remember before the Romans came to Britain there probably was nothing more substantial than a wattle and daub conical thatched hut standing in the whole country as the most substantial habital building, the archaeologists haven’t found anything more substantial.
Did you know that there was a substantial mediterranid contribution to the peopling of Britain, detectable mostly in north Wales, through blood groups and genetics, that preceded even the Celtic invasions?
As far as I’m aware, only a minority of the WN movement wishes to exclude southern Europe, most would rather claim it and its civilisation.

48

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 15, 2012, 04:07 AM | #

issuing angry demands that Europeans submit to extinction (or “soft genocide”)

Europeans, in particular the English, at least according to Master Dare’s dissertation on immigration, are the masters of their own house (i.e. no Jewish or American influence apparently) in authoring policies toward engineering their portending extinction. Now, after fifty years of failed home grown policies, it’s the Yanks who will be the principal force for their demise. Too funny.

49

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 15, 2012, 04:35 AM | #

forcing their near relations or compatriots to choose a side that does not exclude themselves?

Thin end of the wedge, but Silver will forever deny it because his “altruism” is mendacious. It does not matter if the “behavior is peculiar to southern Europe” it matters only that the mass migration of a group(s) effects the destruction of the freedom to exclude (the freedom to discriminate) in the founders homelands because, to use Silver’s words, it’s hateful (i.e. irrational).

50

Posted by Leon Haller on April 15, 2012, 05:12 AM | #

I’m rather disappointed that my comment #35 has been ignored. That is a substantive issue, and I am genuinely curious how Old World nationalists view the matter.

Re religion: there’s no halfway point men of honor can accept (unless perhaps it’s a resigned agnosticism). Either the fundamental metaphysical claims of Christianity (or any form of supernaturalism) are true, or they are false. Their truth or falsehood each has profound sociological and moral implications.

I suppose one can be a “Christian atheist” in one of two senses: first, if as a matter of ancestry, one is Christian, but does not actually believe in the faith’s tenets; or second, if one is an atheist, but appreciates the intellectual and cultural achievements of Christianity (as I do of the Greeks and Romans, despite disbelieving in their cults).

The problem with this idea is that, contrary to lots of liberal types, esp non-Jewish atheists, the moral system of Christianity is hard, but without the reality of God, meaningless (as, I hold, are all moralities). I would go further: without a return to Christianity (but a racially renovated one; that is, one disinfected of liberal ideological intrusions), WNs will never get large numbers of whites to risk their lives to resurrect the West (or Europa, if you prefer).

Why would a white atheist risk his only life for the abstract goal of saving his race, especially if he has other life options (as most of us do in fact have)? The brutal truth is that the personal costs of racialist activism still heavily outweigh the personal benefits; or even more, they clearly outweigh the costs of simply avoiding diversity altogether. I realize the latter becomes harder by the year, and thus only a foolish or insane white would not be WN, at least in his heart and in his voting habits. But pragmatically, I can still lead a very good life despite the accelerating horrors of coercive diversification, and the costs of doing my part for the Race vastly outweigh the costs of my ‘negotiating’ diversity. So why bother?

I bother out of a sense of Christian piety; that is, I believe it my moral duty to fight to save the West, especially as I am both awakened to the threat, and more capable than the average white of awakening other whites. But would I fight without the belief that I’m doing the Lord’s work? Probably not. I would just lead the standard life of maximizing hedonic happiness.

51

Posted by Randy Garver on April 15, 2012, 08:48 AM | #

Leon Haller:

But would I fight without the belief that I’m doing the Lord’s work? Probably not. I would just lead the standard life of maximizing hedonic happiness.

Theists have be making the claim for years that the product of an atheistic moral framework would invariably be the shallow pursuit of hedonic gratification. Hogwash.

Consider the matter from a zoological frame. Based purely on science, modern biologists have a refined sense of the ideal habitat for a given species in order to maximize wellness, addressing physical, social, and depending on the subject, cognitive and emotional needs. None of this requires the belief of a supernatural boss figure who commands obeisance of his creations.

To believe that the success of your desired political movement depends the intellectual enfeeblement promoted by organized religion suggest that either your case lacks a rational intellectual grounding, or that you’re incapable of persuasively offering one.

 

52

Posted by Silver on April 15, 2012, 09:44 AM | #

Desmond,

Thin end of the wedge, but Silver will forever deny it because his “altruism” is mendacious. It does not matter if the “behavior is peculiar to southern Europe” it matters only that the mass migration of a group(s) effects the destruction of the freedom to exclude (the freedom to discriminate) in the founders homelands because, to use Silver’s words, it’s hateful (i.e. irrational).

I’m not really sure you’re talking about the same thing here.  I suppose you thought it best to just take a dig at me anyway—never know, it might stick.

Sigh. There’s just no pleasing hardline cakers like you, is there.  In fact, I think you should “formally” admit that.  That would save everyone a lot of time.  Go on, lay out the basics of your racial-political views and objectives and outline your plan for achieving them.  It’d be a real eye-opener to see you justify your stance of “no rapprochment.” 

Haller,

I suppose one can be a “Christian atheist” in one of two senses: first, if as a matter of ancestry, one is Christian, but does not actually believe in the faith’s tenets; or second, if one is an atheist, but appreciates the intellectual and cultural achievements of Christianity (as I do of the Greeks and Romans, despite disbelieving in their cults).

Speaking for myself, both of those apply, but it’s more than just that.  I’m more of an “agnostic” than an strict atheist.  I’m an “atheist” in the sense that I find the classic ideas about “God” intellectually underwhelming, particularly when they’re presented to me as dogmas, as in “if you believe in God then this what you must believe: a, b, c… etc.” No, thanks; that stuff I reject.  But some forms of theistic reasoning strike me as plausible, and the “practice of faith” has an effect on the practitioner that is real enough, so I’m inclined to think that there very could be something to all this spiritual business.  “Being a Christian” (going along with it, “pretending” sort of) is just my preferred way to access that spiritual world, for reasons of familiarity, family, nation, history, etc, yes, but also because in its most simplified, essential form (the “good news”) it is a very pleasant and mentally/psychologically rewarding religion. And I’m certainly not going to sign up to some weirdo “new age” cult to smoke drugs with anti-racists in dreadlocks.

I bother out of a sense of Christian piety; that is, I believe it my moral duty to fight to save the West, especially as I am both awakened to the threat, and more capable than the average white of awakening other whites. But would I fight without the belief that I’m doing the Lord’s work? Probably not. I would just lead the standard life of maximizing hedonic happiness.

Those are your reasons, but I don’t think you can assume from that that they’re going to be everybody’s.  Commie guerrillas probably weren’t motivated by a sense of Christian duty, so there’s clearly more than one way people can be inspired to act.

 

 

53

Posted by Dan Dare on April 15, 2012, 12:03 PM | #

It’s rather curious that Desmond appears unable to distinguish between the foreign policy stance of a solidly Atlanticist, mid-twentieth century US government, and that of an Afro-Asiatic oriented mid-21st century one.

Is he being perverse, or perhaps just a little thick?

54

Posted by Dan Dare on April 15, 2012, 12:12 PM | #

Leon Haller @35

I should have thought it self-evident that NATO is long past its sell-by date and should be disbanded forthwith. That would entail the Imperial levies returning home from Europe and Europeans taking the responsibility for their own defence.

It’s not that Europeans collectively invest too little in their own security - the EU is second only to the US in overall military expenditure - rather that it is all poorly coordinated with much duplication. We need an arrangement in which the major individual countries take the lead in areas where they are likely to provide the most added value (and yes, I do know the old joke about the French running the Catering Corps and the Italians providing the uniforms). Those countries which don’t have anything particular to contribute, including current freeloaders like Ireland, will participate through payment of a defence levy.

We should also of course develop the closest possible ties with Russia in military matters, something which will only be possible once the US has departed.

55

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 15, 2012, 06:41 PM | #

Silver,

I hope by “underwhelming” you don’t mean illogical or (even the classic theological treatises) lacking in intellectual rigor. You are far too intelligent for that so I’ll assume you are expressing a personal prejudice.

My suggestion was made merely to contend that the pattern I see for distribution of intelligence puts a lot of the one-above-standard-deviation types (the standard MR commenter) in the atheistic category and it is usually these “types” trouncing the God-as-cosmic-grandfather, average IQ folks.

It seems to me though, that extremely high-iq systematizers and thinkers tend to transcendentalism in some form as in general.

My recommendation of Greg Bahnsen and Douglas Wilson (and John Frame while I’m at it) wasn’t an attempt at proselytizing proper, but merely a suggestion toward examining your idea about who has a proper grasp of the subject.

56

Posted by Walt on April 15, 2012, 07:09 PM | #

Dan Dare,

I fail to understand the added value of coordinated security forces at a time like this, unless you in fact welcome the multiracial hell they would greatly help maintain.

57

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 15, 2012, 07:57 PM | #

I’m with Dan. Increased European security and intelligence coordination are essential. Primarily for undoing Pax Americana but also for many other reasons. After the inevitable collapse of American hegemony the sea lanes will still need to be secured and the Euro security force will probably prevent further immigration due to the likely economic chaos based strictly on pragmatic concerns that the will veil, somehow, with humanitarian covering.

Aluminum, oil, copper, cobalt, magnesium, semi-conductive material (germanium), etc. isn’t really a product of continental mining operations. The projection of military power will be absolutely critical. And, enhance military ties will ensure that those wogs (that start at Calais) with the breadbaskey and the funny accent are incentivized properly since feeding the troops will ensure they have troops to keep the riots contained in the Parisian suburbs and Marseille.

58

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 15, 2012, 08:53 PM | #

After all… There ain’t no coals left in Newcastle…

Hat in hand to Russia we go…

59

Posted by X on April 15, 2012, 09:38 PM | #

Let’s hope there are Britons still around in 2050 ... 48 percent of them want to emigrate to America and the dominions:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4257682/48-of-Brits-want-to-get-out-of-Britain-says-new-Sun-survey.html

ALMOST half of all Britons are “seriously considering” moving overseas, an exclusive survey for The Sun has found.

Australia is top of the relocation wish list followed by the US, Canada and New Zealand.

The cost of living, weather, unemployment and crime are the most common reasons for wanting to quit Britain.

Pollsters YouGov quizzed 1,650 adults after The Sun told last week about Dave and Jackie Jones who emigrated to Australia with their 12 kids.

The family from Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria — who have never claimed benefits — quit in despair at what they see as soft-touch Britain’s emphasis on state handouts instead of opportunities.

Dave, 42, said: “I have to do the best for my kids and I feel the opportunities I want for them will not be in the UK.”

60

Posted by X on April 15, 2012, 09:42 PM | #

Native Britons are pouring out of Ol’ Blighty to move to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Spain, and the United States:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/23/net-migration-britain-record-levels

It is getting crowded fast in small countries like Britain and the Netherlands. This produces an influx/outflux effect which is not true of the dominions. Australians and Americans are not pouring into the UK. It is the British who are moving abroad.

61

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 16, 2012, 04:15 AM | #

Go on, lay out the basics of your racial-political views and objectives and outline your plan for achieving them.

Don’t fuck mestizos like Silver because it solves nothing. His racial rapprochment is bullshit.

http://www.isteve.com/HowLatinoIntermarriageBreedsInequality.htm

62

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 16, 2012, 04:34 AM | #

Right, the big fear is a shift in US foreign policy from “solidly” Atlanticist to Afro-Asiatic. LOL.

Turkey is a country of 70 million, plus 3.4 million Turks and their children abroad. By the time it enters the EU, Turkey is likely to be more populous than Germany, now the largest EU country. An Allensbach Institute poll found that 46 percent of Germans reported their greatest worry was that “more and more foreigners are coming here.”

 

63

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 16, 2012, 06:47 AM | #

Someone mentioned Greg Bahnsen.

From my time in America someone said I should check him out as an ‘intelligent theist’.

Good grief, he (Bahnsen) could give anyone a run for their money in the logic-chopping/sophistry stakes. He wasn’t a serious philosopher or theologian just another 3rd rate hack dealing in very tired rhetoric.

The difficulty for all theists is that there position is more or less untenable upon evidential grounds and almost so upon logical ones, but a friend of mine who is a Professor of Religious Studies suggested that rather than attacking the obvious ‘crazies’ and the worse representations of theism that I engage with the best representations for that world-view. Look there are intellectually serious and sophisticated theists but they very rare on the ground.

Let’s be brutally honest popular arguments on both sides of this question tend to be awful, sloppy and very ‘mid-brow’. Richard Dawkins is no philosopher.

I’d recommend these titles as rather better sources of discussion than what is typically on offer:

Pascal’s Wager: Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God

The Infinite

Faith, Reason and the Existence of God

Faith Within Reason

The Face of God

Of course all of these ideas are quite marginal to everyday life in the West - as for the radical superficiality of everyday American religiosity don’t get me started on that pile of garbage. A serious culture really does not consist of little more than bumper-sticker style bon-mots of ‘wisdom’.

But some may disagree - see Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture

64

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 16, 2012, 07:02 AM | #

Don’t listen to “Professor” Lister Silver.

Bahnsen’s systematization of Cornelius Van Til is an achievement.

His take-down of almost every Western Epistemology is impressive and worth reading even as a non-theist. Bahnsen (quite successfully) in my opinion takes down everyone from Aristotle to Zerzan with ease.

Lister is a fucking Amazon/Google creation. It’s obvious more and more with every post.

This Atheism: A Philosophical Justification is the only truly comprehensive account I’ve ever seen offered. He takes the arguments seriously and the arguments of Frame, Plantinga, Bahnsen, Aquinas, etc. deserve to be taken seriously. Not waved off as “logical magic” or trickery as Lister has done.

Lister,

Bahnsen got a phD at a fucking secular university (USC) dick. Shut the fuck up. You’re outta your element.

Look there are intellectually serious and sophisticated theists but they very rare on the ground.

Confirmation bias. Additionally, the jewniversities create jews. I don’t have a hard on for credentials like you do.

If you promise to read it and deconstruct it, I’ll send a copy of Bahnsen’s book your way. You handily dispatch his arguments from chapter 5 about the failure of non-Christian epistemology and I’ll concede the point. You won’t though because you’re the fucking hack.

Of course all of these ideas are quite marginal to everyday life in the West - as for the radical superficiality of everyday American religiosity don’t get me started on that pile of garbage. A serious culture really does not consist of little more than bumper-sticker style bon-mots of ‘wisdom’.

I’ll guess we’ll just have to do this then, all across Europe and the Dominions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I

Fuck you. Self-righteousness was supposed to be the exclusive province of theists but you seem to have combined that and all the worst traits the technocratic and faithless.

65

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 16, 2012, 08:58 AM | #

Classic Sparkle

You can think whatever you want of me - try to play the ball not the man - argumentum ad hominem doesn’t generally cut it as an argument.

Fair enough you can have your views - but really hyper-Calvinism? As if some logic-chopping can ‘prove’ its take on reality to be true beyond any and all doubt. Sorry but that brand of hard foundationalism is bullshit all the way down.

But if you want to go with presuppositionalism and the Christian reconstructionism nut-jobs be my guest - please don’t inform us this has anything do to with authentic European being - it’s only suitable for Americans.

To be fair I find most ‘expressions’ of formal religiosity to be loathsome and/or downright silly (speaking in tongues anyone?) but for the record I’m an agnostic - for, in my view, very good reasons.

66

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 16, 2012, 09:15 AM | #

According to wiki (so I don’t know how reliable this is)

Bahnsen is perhaps best known for his debates with such leading atheists as George H. Smith, Gordon Stein, and Edward Tabash [who are these famous atheists???]. The debate with Stein marked one of the earliest uses of a transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG).

What is this TAG?

The argument

The TAG is a transcendental argument that attempts to prove that God is the precondition of all human knowledge and experience, by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary; in other words, that logic, reason, or morality cannot exist without God. The argument proceeds as follows:[3]

If there is no God, knowledge is not possible.
Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
Therefore God exists.

Cornelius Van Til likewise wrote:

We must point out that reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well… It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions.

— (A Survey of Christian Epistemology [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969], p. 204).

Therefore, the TAG differs from Thomistic and Evidentialist arguments, which posit the probable existence of God in order to avoid an infinite regress of causes or motions, to explain life on Earth, and so on. The TAG posits the necessary existence of a particular conception of God in order for human knowledge and experience to be possible at all. The TAG argues that, because the triune God of the Bible, being completely logical, uniform, and good, exhibits a character in the created order and the creatures themselves (especially in humans), human knowledge and experience are possible. This reasoning implies that all other alternatives such as Buddhism and Islam, when followed to their logical conclusions, descend into absurdity, arbitrariness or inconsistency.

Wow what brilliant reasoning – and is it just me or is the God of the Bible not exactly Mr. Morally Perfect - you know with all the raging, anger and violence etc.,? No inconsistency to be found in Christianity – at all!

http://www.amazon.com/Drunk-With-Blood-killings-Bible/dp/145366291X

67

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 16, 2012, 09:18 AM | #

Disguise it how you wish but the reality is you despise your own kind. You’ve internalized the culture of critique. Here on this side of the pond, snake-handling, holy-rolling tongue-speakers are considered “authentic” and organic. Hence the foxfire phenomenon.  Which is it?

As if this shit hasn’t been around since the Oracle at Delphi was huffing volcano vapor and speaking “in tongues”

You’re just a neo-parochial bigot whose horizon stretches as far as the Oxford University Press will push it.  We know Graham. Everything offends your tea-drinking, Stephen Fryesque sensibility. Nothing is organic enough. Nothing is human enough. The good news is your kind is dying out because fucking-to-cum is just too disgusting an affair for your trepidation souls! Nature, The Great Bitch, The Original Fascist, draws out her revenge and draws you cancerous pseudo-whites from the Earth in one fell swoop. Thank God almighty for regression to the mean!

In your case, I have a problem with the man. He’s the only argument you’ve made (and continue to make like some ethnocommunitarian Haller constantly reminding us of his pecadillos.)

68

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 16, 2012, 09:22 AM | #

Like I said Graham, I’ll send you a copy of the book.

Say the word.

Unlike you, I consider the opposition. I’m reading every book on evolution you recommended and then some. Found a bunch on theoretical biology. Dudes trying to incorporate the insights of information theory to molecular biology.

69

Posted by lozlozlz on April 16, 2012, 03:38 PM | #

Let’s hope there are Britons still around in 2050 ... 48 percent of them want to emigrate to America and the dominions:

Ugh. Stay the fuck out.

70

Posted by Arch Stanton on April 16, 2012, 08:38 PM | #

After all… There ain’t no coals left in Newcastle…

Most British mines have closed, true CS. But the UK has massive coal reserves in the ground, possibly the biggest in Europe, easily enough to cover our electricity generation needs. But we aren’t using it.

71

Posted by Captainchaos on April 17, 2012, 01:42 AM | #

Native Britons are pouring out of Ol’ Blighty to move to Australia

As is only sane; sunny Australia is a paradise compared to the cloudy, damp shithole that is England.

 

72

Posted by Leon Haller on April 17, 2012, 01:53 AM | #

In your case, I have a problem with the man. He’s the only argument you’ve made (and continue to make like some ethnocommunitarian Haller constantly reminding us of his pecadillos.) (Classic Sparkle)

Care to elaborate on what exactly you’re referring to? And then please point to anything of intellectual substance you’ve written.

This is not the first time I’ve noticed an implicit egalitarianism at MR. Considerable resentment against education and erudition often rears its head. Not sure why. 

Graham Lister,

Thanks for that list @63. I’ve seen (but not read) the Moore and Scruton works, but the others were wholly new to me. I for one do not sneer at the finest of British publishing (even if I do believe that the modern academy is inherently, even anti-intellectually, hostile to theological arguments and religious modes of knowing, except, of course, as objects of anthropological or historical study).

Bahnsen is often recommended by hardcore Protestants, especially of the extreme Reconstructionist minority. You wouldn’t like them, nor having once considered some of their writings, did I find them persuasive (their deeply anti-empiricist worldview will make converts only of those already committed to some form of Biblical inerrancy). In fairness, I haven’t read Bahnsen, and probably won’t for some time, if ever. As you point out, there are much richer resources to study first.

For those really wanting an excellent and comprehensive overview of the burgeoning philosophy of religion field, I’d look at :

http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Philosophy-Religion-Blackwell-Companions/dp/0631213287/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334645361&sr=8-1-spell

73

Posted by Captainchaos on April 17, 2012, 02:23 AM | #

You’ve internalized the culture of critique.

Internalize this: if you had been inculcated to a religion other than Christardianity as a child you would now place your faith in that other religion like some ditzy twat who still carries a torch for the guy who took her cherry.  LOL

74

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 17, 2012, 05:35 AM | #

Stunning biological insight! Did you figure that one out with a microscope?! Was the microscope made out of atoms? Are you made out of atoms? There might be some implications resulting from The Uncertainty Principle there.

I was never “raised” in any sort of transcendental system and was never indoctrinated into any faith until well into my adolescence. That is in fact my problem.

You used to be funny. I used to enjoy your “shots” as it were. Now you are just wooden. Did your parents die? Or did your girlfriend leave you? Maybe you need to lay off the fucking sauce.
.

75

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 17, 2012, 05:53 AM | #

Arch,

The only sensible comment besides (and I can’t fucking believe I’m saying this) Desmond and Dan.

I’m not sure about the reserves. But, I would ask you to define “your” even if we assume it’s true. I would also think we’d like to consider the implications of burning all that in coal-fired plants and the effect of that kind of a mining operation. We need to think long term. By we, I mean White folks. By long term, I mean 1,000 years at least.

76

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 17, 2012, 05:54 AM | #

Define *our*

77

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 17, 2012, 09:00 AM | #

Who knew Captain Chaos was into *developmental* psychology!

Lolozzzlolzies!

78

Posted by Silver on April 17, 2012, 02:24 PM | #

danielj,

I hope by “underwhelming” you don’t mean illogical or (even the classic theological treatises) lacking in intellectual rigor. You are far too intelligent for that so I’ll assume you are expressing a personal prejudice.

I find their arguments unconvincing, and in light of the alleged momentous import of their claims I thought the term “underwhelming” better expressed my feelings.

This Atheism: A Philosophical Justification is the only truly comprehensive account I’ve ever seen offered. He takes the arguments seriously and the arguments of Frame, Plantinga, Bahnsen, Aquinas, etc. deserve to be taken seriously. Not waved off as “logical magic” or trickery as Lister has done.

I have a copy.  The impression I had at the time I read it was that Martin didn’t take their claims particularly seriously, and was merely going through the motions.  I pulled it off the shelf again meaning to flip through it briefly but ended reading for a good couple of hours.  Martin is more respectful than I recalled (as he should be), and even though I still believe theistic arguments are mostly sophistry and nonsense, I’m reminded that some arguments do indeed work well to establish the plausibility of belief in God. 

I think you should content yourself with plausibility.  There’s really no need for any more than that.  If you’re honest with yourself you’ll admit that you read Bahnsen and whomever else you mentioned not so much because you’re seeking the truth, but more to find confirmation for what you already believe.  Personally, I think William Lane Craig is the best of the bunch for that purpose.  He is a very competent debater and annoys the hell out of a lot of atheists.  Check him out if you haven’t already.

 

 

79

Posted by Classic Sparkle inn on April 17, 2012, 03:38 PM | #

The truth generally seems to have a funny way of impressing itself upon me against my will.

If you knew me personally, I think you would have a much different understanding. I wake up in the middle of the night racked with guilt and terror. I wish Martin was right. Although my symbolic logic isn’t great so perhaps I’ve missed something.

Or maybe I have just contracted a memetic virus from the jews… Or maybe it’s genetic. Lord knows I’m the most irrational creature in these parts.

80

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 17, 2012, 04:40 PM | #

I agree that William Lane Craig is an interesting thinker (even if his cosmological argument is badly flawed in my view). The likes of Bahnsen are hideously disingenuous hacks that belong in the same camp as Dr. Dino et al.

It seems the religious, especially the uber-Protestant kind, are deeply unhappy to admit that to be religious is to be a mystic of some sort, in that should God be real he/it/she/whatever is a mystery beyond human comprehension and to assert that one is beyond doubt with regard to such realities and their veracity (such that everyone is rationally compelled to embrace them) is to go way beyond the available evidence - equally ‘strong atheism’ i.e. that God is ‘impossible’ goes way beyond the available evidence. Unless one is going beyond the evidence why would one even need faith if everything is so ‘obvious’?

We all have our hunches as to the truth of such claims - but it is all more or less well-informed guesswork. No-one ‘knows’.

See for example Anthony Kenny’s lovely little book of essays ‘The Unknown God’

As one review puts it - “With lucid writing and careful examination of past arguments for the existence of God, Kenny succeeds in presenting agnosticism not as an indecisive idea but a deeply philosophical belief system that combines rationality and humility.”  I concur.

Another ‘religious’ writer I like is John Cottingham especially his ‘The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value’ even if I have not yet had time for little more than a cursory reading of it. But I will read him properly someday.

Humility is not a concept or way of being that I typically associate with any form of American Christianity. Ignorance, arrogance, vulgarity in equal parts yes - but humility no not really.

I suppose if I were ever to become a theist my vague sympathies are in the Thomism tradition (not itself unproblematic) if only due to its engagement with Aristotle.

81

Posted by Classic Sparkl on April 17, 2012, 04:45 PM | #

Bahnsen is *above* evidence. It is metalevidential theorizing. It’s about justifying presuppositions. You haven’t read it closely.

82

Posted by Randy Garver on April 17, 2012, 05:46 PM | #

William Lane Craig is a gifted Christian Apologist, but that’s akin to being a gifted homeopath. Youtube hosts videos of his debates with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, who both effectively expose the groundless basis of the apologetics philosophy.

The very concept of apologetics is rather a priori absurd in that one proposes that the divine can be understood through evidence and reason, except of course when a little hocus pocus is required, at which point the dependency on empiricism is rendered null and void.

83

Posted by Classic Sparkl on April 17, 2012, 06:43 PM | #

So watch the Hitchens Wilson debates.

84

Posted by Graham_Lister on April 17, 2012, 07:50 PM | #

Well debates are performative exercises in rhetoric not truth seeking but on Craig versus Hitchens this debate is quite interesting - neither is brilliant (I could think of many objections to what each said) but Hitchens does flounder badly.

Hitchens was a talented journalist - that doesn’t make him a first-rate intellect or philosopher. He wasn’t either. Craig is pretty poor too. Both seem completely ignorant of the ontology of science (why and how scientific experiments actually work) and what it implies about reality as such for one issue.

But nevermind what one does get from philosophy, in general, is a sense of just how brittle and problematic most philosophical arguments actually are - very few cannot be critiqued or be thought to be immune to substantive criticism - frequently it really is picking the least worst option.

But on the question of why there is something rather than nothing I did read Bede Rundle’s account. A standard ‘deflationary’ account in the analytical style of why the question is a non-question - hence don’t worry. But his arguments are largely evasive and even risible - it made me far more interested in intelligent answers from the other side of the debate.

BTW Bahnsen uses evidence all the time - I watched him on Youtube quoting the Bible constantly to ‘prove’ his presuppositions and in his mind provide evidence for their validity. Really the notion that he has a world-view of any substance that also totally disregards all forms of evidence is too silly. Sure one can misrepresent, misinterpret, misconstrue, ignore various forms of evidence. But let’s move on from the banal sophistry of Dr. Dino with a philosophy dictionary.

85

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 17, 2012, 08:08 PM | #

Graham,

since you’re too fucking lazy and/or scared to take me up on my offer I’ll just transcribe all of chapter 5 and post it.

We can discuss it further there. Other than that I’m done.

86

Posted by Leon Haller on April 17, 2012, 10:26 PM | #

Who or what is “Dr. Dino”? (WIKI suggests a “Young Earth” idiot. Correct?)

87

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 18, 2012, 05:31 AM | #

Yeah.

He’s friends with this rocket scientist:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v2i2f.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v4i2f.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v5i5f.htm

Of course you can believe these guys if you want Leon:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html


88

Posted by Leon Haller on April 18, 2012, 09:24 AM | #

Sparkle,

Why would I be interested in a Young Earther? I strongly support traditional science.

89

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 18, 2012, 10:49 AM | #

Well dumb ass…. Classical mechanics still applies in the essentials to the movement of celestial bodies.

You don’t need to know second order equations to figure out the argument he’s making is extremely sound. And since he was a fucking rocket scientist, I imagine his math is correct since even I can plug the numbers in the equations.  Or is he using some Christian version of angular momentum, acceleration, mass, force, etc.?

What a bunch of closed-minded bigots.

90

Posted by Ward Kendall on April 18, 2012, 11:09 PM | #

Silver has cogently expressed many carefully reasoned points as to why people of Northern and Southern European extraction should get along when it comes to white racial unity. His comments about “white” Hispanics are also insightful, since some of them certainly are white, and therefore our potential allies.

For anyone who has read my novel, Hold Back This Day, they will recall that unity between Nordids and Meds is clearly to our advantage. Never should we allow it to be otherwise.

Relax…and enjoy a good book!

91

Posted by Erik on April 19, 2012, 12:42 AM | #

His comments about “white” Hispanics are also insightful, since some of them certainly are white, and therefore our potential allies.

By traditional North American standards of hypodescent, “white” Latin Americans are black:

http://anonym.to/?http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/the-anglosphere-exception/
http://anonym.to/?http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/the-case-of-the-white-cubans/

Iberians, Italians, and Ashkenazi Jews are black as well. It’s not until you reach the Swiss-Germans that you find populations free of sub-Saharan African admixture and thus white-by-hypodescent. Even the Swiss-French and Swiss-Italians are black. I don’t know about the French, but since we see the admixture among the Swiss-French it’s probable that it exists among the French as well. Though some sub-populations in France such as the Bretons may be free of it.

Of course this doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be unity or alliances. But it should be considered. Even intra-European mixing can introduce sub-Saharan admixture into populations that had previously been white-by-hypodescent. It would be a shame if there weren’t any more populations that are white by traditional standards of hypodescent.

92

Posted by Silver on April 19, 2012, 03:30 AM | #

Erik,

By traditional North American standards of hypodescent, “white” Latin Americans are black:

Iberians, Italians, and Ashkenazi Jews are black as well. It’s not until you reach the Swiss-Germans that you find populations free of sub-Saharan African admixture and thus white-by-hypodescent. Even the Swiss-French and Swiss-Italians are black. I don’t know about the French, but since we see the admixture among the Swiss-French it’s probable that it exists among the French as well. Though some sub-populations in France such as the Bretons may be free of it.

So what should give way here: traditional North American standards of hypodescent, or reality itself?

It’d be one thing if you said “non-white”—in large part I’d agree—but black?  How is it possible to say that with a straight face?  I have to suspect that we have here a case (another case) of the sort of extreme revulsion I referred to in the mulattoes thread.  The condition not only gives rise to tremendous disgust, but tremendous frustration as well.  So because “the system” prevents him being able to physically pursue his racial goals, he takes out his frustrations on the hated racial other verbally, with what he imagines is the mother of all racial insults.  (I’m sure there are plenty of members in the ethnic sub-sections of stormfront—somebody stop them before they reach stormfront tamil nadu—who’d be absolutely furious, so the thrust of Erik’s insult is not entirely without merit.)

Of course this doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be unity or alliances. But it should be considered. Even intra-European mixing can introduce sub-Saharan admixture into populations that had previously been white-by-hypodescent. It would be a shame if there weren’t any more populations that are white by traditional standards of hypodescent.

Crazy at it may sound, I agree wholeheartedly with that last sentence: it really would be a shame.  More than once I’ve seen WNs ask if conservationists are so concerned about preserving various animals (like the “spotted owl,” which is a favorite reference) why aren’t they concerned about preserving the White Man?  But the question is posed rhetorically and it’s obvious their hearts aren’t in it—as if anyone could possibly care about whether they live or die. No, non-whites are all hellbent on destroying them; they only wish to take, take, take.  In reality, it’s WNs themselves who frame the issue as all-or-nothing, who allow for no possibility of anyone agreeing their cause is just, whose outrageous hate-the-world dogmas create their own opposition. This is why I said above the goal of racial salvation is too important to leave to WNs; imo, if salvation is accomplished it’ll be despite WNs’ best efforts, not because of them. 

Of course, there are conditions attached.  First and foremost are assurances of being left alone.  WNs are commonly savagely indignant, and they often have good reason to be, but the instance on refighting WWII frightens people and helps perpetuate the anti-white system.  An adherence to “racial golden rule” ethics solves the problem but a racial movement committed to such ethics would have to lead with this rule, not relegate it to the back pages.  I’m happy to announce to the world, “Let there be White.”  For your part, you have to break us niggers awf a lil’ sumpin’ sumpin’. 

Ward Kendall,

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Anything I may have wished to say in reply is contained in the above response to Erik’s comment.

93

Posted by Leon Haller on April 19, 2012, 04:27 AM | #

Sparkle,

I’m a dumb-ass because I am dismissive of “Young Earth” advocates? Are you serious? I read a popular science book (and for the life of me I cannot remember either title or author, though I believe he is famous) early in the last decade which dealt with modern scientific illiteracy (I do not currently have access to the bulk of my library, which remains in CA). I recall an entire chapter on Young Earth theory which eviscerated that nonsense, pointing out just how much of foundational modern science would have to be overturned in order to believe the Earth’s age was in the thousands or tens of thousands of years. 

Are you asserting that the Earth is only some thousands of years old? Please be honest, that I might then redirect my comments towards saner persons.

94

Posted by Classic Sparkle on April 19, 2012, 06:11 AM | #

Um. No. You are a finn ass because you can read it and see that it’s completely feasible but your response is instead to say that “I red a books onze buts it’s 3000? Miles aways! It totally evisceratedz dat nonsense though.”

The equations put a maximum time limit on the Earth moon system of two billion years.

Yes. I think the Earth is only about 13,000 years old or so.  I’m not the insane one who’s afraid of equations. Fucking pussy.
You have to believe that the continents were together in a pangea and concentrated at the North Pole or on the equator in ridiculous shapes and also that the uneven mass concentration close to the core was even more concentrated and uneven and that plate tectonics essentially were inactive and left this arrangement untouched until the current period in geologic time to even make up complicated, unparsimonious computer models that come close to providing the “right” age moron. That’s not even beginning to take the subject of moon *formation* into consideration.

All of a sudden the past is radically different from the present! You people are a sick joke. You don’t give two squirts of nigger’s piss about science because if you did you would realize I just Occam’s Razored the fuck outta that shit.
Boo ya. don’t worry, the neo-Lamarckians and pan-environmentalists will have destroyed the neo-darwinists pretty soon here too and there will be nothing left in your tiny little brain that makes sense except Aristotle’s Four Causes.

I was going to buy you dinner if you were in Massachusetts but I suppose you can’t eat with crazy

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: Forests. And trees.

Previous entry: Immigration and Politics 3: The Shape of Things to Come ... The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 03:21 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 06:14 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 03:44 AM. (go) (view)

Leon commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 03:15 AM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 01:43 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 01:25 AM. (go) (view)

TJ commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/25/14, 12:59 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/25/14, 12:58 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 11:58 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 09:11 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/24/14, 05:13 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Definitions' on 07/24/14, 02:15 AM. (go) (view)

Gordon McRobert commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 07:17 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/23/14, 04:00 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 11:22 PM. (go) (view)

Mr Nill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 09:34 PM. (go) (view)

Lawrence Newman commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 02:36 PM. (go) (view)

Gordon McRobert commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 12:54 PM. (go) (view)

Lawrence Newman commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 10:29 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 07:05 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 05:44 AM. (go) (view)

Lawrence Newman commented in entry 'Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker' on 07/22/14, 04:26 AM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry '"Opponents" to the New "Ukrainian" Regime' on 07/21/14, 09:07 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"Opponents" to the New "Ukrainian" Regime' on 07/21/14, 12:42 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 1' on 07/21/14, 06:55 AM. (go) (view)

Bob in DC commented in entry 'Carolyn Yeager's Gas Chamber - a stink to politely ignore, while MOB's concerns are discussed' on 07/20/14, 07:37 AM. (go) (view)

neil vodavzny commented in entry 'Friends & Enemies – Part 5' on 07/19/14, 08:39 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Friends & Enemies – Part 5' on 07/19/14, 06:04 AM. (go) (view)

Thorn commented in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/18/14, 06:32 PM. (go) (view)

J.Prentiss commented in entry 'Oh for G-d's sake: insane miscegenation propaganda' on 07/18/14, 10:04 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry '"Opponents" to the New "Ukrainian" Regime' on 07/17/14, 02:41 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Don't Send A Boy To Do A Man's Job: Hitler Worshippers Versus TT' on 07/16/14, 01:56 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/15/14, 02:52 PM. (go) (view)

Robert in Arabia commented in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/15/14, 02:29 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'MR Radio: Guessedworker speaks with Tanstaafl' on 07/13/14, 10:41 PM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone