|
|
|
Standing Corrected on the “It’s More Than That” to Liberalism’s Definition In citing Yockey’s definition of liberalism, I do believe Tanstaafl captures some of the “it’s a bit more than that” to the definition of liberalism that GW advised over and against the one that I was proffering in the interview with Metzger. http://age-of-treason.com/2014/06/10/yockey-on-liberalism-part-2/ https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8oaBXD8l-58Z01FZ3RKb3drbzQ/edit?usp=drive_web Fortunately for me (and for us as a race), it is not really contradictory of the definition which I would venture as most useful. Though it is, I admit, more articulate in some significant ways that GW would/does appreciate. I would have liberalism be defined primarily as permission of the violation of the classification - which is the parameters of the group systemic organism of race. Yockey, like GW, focuses even more meticulously on the individual (as well), to where liberalism would be the experimentation with going beyond the normal parameters of our biology as individuals as well. That would have several “more than that” interesting implications which provide clues as to where GW was going. One implication would indicate why GW focuses so much on the Ontology of who we authentically are as European group(s) and individuals. We cannot even know what liberalism is, entirely, or what is inauthentic response to liberaism, a reaction, until that is settled… Another matter is that unlike what I was saying, a focus would be drawn on some behaviors which, while not necessarily extending beyond the race, the class, would have implications for its ill health - hence violating of its parameters even though not necessarily enacting an interpersonally engaged betrayal on the order of say, miscegenation, but rather of personal behavior, exotic philosophical musings, religious outlook, appreciation of exotic forms and ways, etc I am interested to know what GW meant by liberalism being the problem and that it resides in our nature. I guess he would mean it resides in our experimental nature. I would be fairly liberal myself by that definition. But the framework of “paradigmatic conservatism” does act as a corrective to some important extent, wherein the borders/bounds of the race are carefully maintained - conservative - while individuals are allowed a good deal of liberalism, freedom to pursue different ways of life within. Nevertheless, the bounds remain the crux of the matter, though one must admit that that liberalism within might have a corrosive effect that calls for the attention that GW seeks to bring to bear. However, I would still strongly disagree with Tan that it can mean whatever the powers that be want it to mean, that there is no underlying consensus to the meaning of liberalism - at least for whatever race loyalty/ disloyalty we may be capable of sensing, it would generally mean the freedom to experiment with our classificatory bounds, perhaps including promotion of out groups to the point of interbreeding with them; or supplying resources to out groups perhaps to the detriment of our own. Even so, GW’s definition would be more thorough in its pervasiveness. Liberalism would in fact, be more even than “the water in which we swim”, it would be more than the social rule structure as I have been inclined to see it as being, but also an expression of our biological constitution as European individuals. ............ (July 7) The monetary side of man is not bound (delimited and accountable, as I would normally say) by his clear and prominent representation of state interests as the statesmen is; by contrast, his corruptors, the money powers, thrive anonymously and better, beyond the limits and forms of state interests. In fact, while those state forms exist as a means of accountability and have representatives, the money interests are motivated to promote corruption of these state loyalists, buying them off as politicians and promoting liberalism to the masses to rupture limits and expand their wealth. This would connect with the quote from Rothschild that Migchels cites as key - “give me control of the money and..” .............. Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:26 | # ..and the water is poisoned - good one, Bill. That takes the metaphor yet another descriptive step further. Poisoned…probably clouded, muddied and rife with sewage, undertow and precipitous rushes as well. 3
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:41 | # Correction: In service of an accurate understanding of GW’s meaning, I realized that I had over characterized the direction of liberalism’s influence as coming strictly from without in saying that it “permeates” our individual biological constitution. I correct it (hopefully) thus: “but also an expression of our biological constitution as European individuals.” 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:35 | # The best person to comment on the characteristics and meanings of liberalism would be Graham, who has spent all those highly productive hours studying critiques of it - much of that plainly from the Western Marxist tradition. As we all know, he is especially sharp on its hyper-individualistic American manifestation. And this tells us right away about a significant difficulty with pinning it down - it has a great deal of definitional width. Many thinking nationalists - me included - would position Marxism of any stripe within it, but Marxists themselves make a distinction that is perfectly valid within their own terms. So what kind of beast have we really got here? Its positive attribute is that it gives political form to some factors which actually exist within the European psyche, these being, principally, the sense of the individual self, and the sense of, and feeling for, the collective Other. I say “actually exist” not just because they do (as the third liberal principle of endless progress might also be said to reflect something real in us), but because the fourth, universal brotherhood, appears to me to be an interloper, and one of the two great distortions which occur in the human personality under the liberal regimen. These distortions are initiated at the very beginning, transmogrifying the sense of the individual self into the pursuit of individualism; and the sense of the collective Other into a truly religious devotion to universal brotherhood. What is happening in both cases is a blank denial that we can know and be what is. Instead, it becomes the Judaic assessment of it – no value, distinction or specificity is ascribed to the European nature and being, which is broken down and re-presented as a negative … mere constraint, bounds to be overstepped. In this way we emerge into the 21st century living in a Jewish project, and this thing is the only existence on offer to us, and is in our very personalities as they are drawn from time and place. What liberty for us could ever reside there? Only the liberty from self which, as distinct from material and technological progress, can never be attained except at the cost of life. Liberty in any true sense of the word would start with liberation from this, and would return us to the way of knowing and being, and vivification. In this respect, European nationalism, if it adopts an ethnic and existential focus, IS liberty. 5
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 03:42 | # http://age-of-treason.com/2014/06/17/yockey-on-liberalism-part-3/ Tan’s pointing out via Yockey that liberalism contains a partly non-sensible “rationalism” (that by itself explains a great deal, doesn’t it?), in addition to a material, centralized, Lockeatine empiricism, is helpful; but his citation of the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of rationalism in contrast to empiricism, which claims that empiricism is not universal by contrast to rationalism, is misleading. In the important sense to us, as racialists, empiricism is universal in the rule structure it applies to investigate the world - it is extended to all nature, people and indeed, the universe. That is, it is universalist in the way that matters to us, in making other people and ways of life the same by commensurable criteria. However, that the “rationalist” side of the Cartesian divide facilitates the liberal program in what would otherwise mandate a return to its senses (beyond materialism where it is personally opportunistic) is a helpful detail in understanding some of their otherwise inexplicable behavior.
6
Posted by Tanstaafl on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:46 | #
Indeed. I see the truest sense of the term liberalism in its apparent contradictions and meaninglessness. And not just for the current judaized regime, but some of its critics as well. This is not to say that it has no more specific meanings, or that it is futile to tease apart their origins and interplay. Yockey was a philosopher, and thus focused on the aspects he saw as emerging from Western philosophy, i.e. from the European mind. This is also the general thrust of many contemporary less philosophic critics, who see liberalism as a White thing, even if only implicitly. In this sense the term “White liberal” is redundant, but at least it calls attention to the fact that the supposedly liberal jew is a completely different animal. My criticism of a narrow, White-specific critique of liberalism is that however correct it may be, unless it explicitly recognizes that it is narrow it is missing the point, and perhaps deliberately so. It plays to our egos (in an essentially liberal, navel gazing way) by discounting the agency of the archetypical Other, the jew. You can find jewish influence within jew-empowering/European-effacing liberalism as far back as you care to look. Well before Marx (or the USA) there was Spinoza. The crucial point is that the current regime is not governed by White liberals or their thinking. It is governed by jews and their thinking. Whatever their rationale, the Whites who really believe in “freedom”, “equality” and “brotherhood” are increasingly powerless and irrelevant trucklers. Ironically, they also increasingly serve as scapegoats, not only for the current thouroughly judaized regime but also for those of its critics who wish to excuse the jews. 7
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:43 | # “it can mean whatever the powers that be want it to mean - Indeed” I don’t think so I have been aware of contradictions in liberalism for a long time. That does not mean that it can mean just anything. One can locate is meaning in a way similar as the way in which I looked for a pattern from the way people use the world “leftism.” In ordinary, everyday use one can determine that its meaning in utility is one of two things: 1. A social classification of people, which implies a unionization of efforts and accountability to resources shared by the group; including genetic history; and members prerogative to discriminate on that basis. There can be equivalents, more or less, to scabs and elite traitors to that unionization. Or 2. When people are trying to follow what “the specialists” mean by it, as a Marxist term, what they really see as the offending rule is “liberalism” as applied to Whites, as in the breaking of their union. It is going against White leftism and yes, it is usually instigated by Jews or those adopting Jewish rules naively or disingenuously. Of course the ordinary definition of “racism” is much the same as “leftism” - discrimination based on a social classification - and that’s the point. Thus, in Jews’ manipulation of the language games, it is “leftism” which becomes the scapegoat in lieu of Jews and that is exactly what the Jews want - for us to be rightists, to be inhumane (“objective”), disorganized and unaccountable to a unionized effort. So, when you say “Ironically, they also increasingly serve as scapegoats, not only for the current thouroughly judaized regime but also for those of its critics who wish to excuse the jews.” Liberals becoming the scapegoat in order to distract from Jews isn’t the case here. Liberalism is instigated by Jews and a susceptibility of Whites (often in the appeal of objectivism). Liberalism has a useful definition which I maintain as ever, a definition to maintain if one cares about Whites as a group and subgroups. Liberalism in its most definitively important sense would be openness to concerns outside the group patterns of Whites, including interbreeding with non-Whites and compliant rendering of resources and territory to non-Whites. A non-vigilant disposition regarding the reconstruction and maintenance of the pattern of Whites. The rest is detail, can be fairly important detail, I concede - I have gotten some important additional information from your discussion of Yockey. In part two the idea that liberalism could be an openness to be a bit loose in willingness to experiment beyond time tested individual practices; and also to experiment with breaking traditions more or less within the pattern - that is, liberalism does not necessarily go beyond and violate the pattern altogether; though it can be a little less careful and may start a process of putting resources at risk to going beyond the White pattern’s parameters. In part three, I enjoyed the fleshing-out of “rationalism”, its showing the “rationalization” of that side of the Cartesian divide of liberalism which can allow it to take leave of its senses. That is certainly an observable phenomenon and another opening to a smoke and mirror game that Jews will take advantage of. Jews will take advantage of any of these language games. Jews are adversary number one to White interests. White traitors are a close second. The rule that Jews are promoting for Whites and which Whites are adopting naively or disingenuously is liberalism - the rupturing of accountability to the classification of Whites. Jews are not promoting “leftism” (unionization) of Whites. Just the opposite. They are promoting liberalism for Whites. They are promoting “leftism” for themselves (when it suits them, which it generally does) and for non-Whites as group classifications advocated against Whites.
8
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 07:42 | # “Trade Unions were openly hostile, claiming that the newcomers’ lack of English made them a danger at work; the Glasgow Trades Council declared the Lithuanians in Glengarnock as “an evil” and wrote to the TUC [Trades Union Congress] demanding immigration controls to keep them out. The potency of the issue isn’t lost on Miliband. Labour lost a million voters between 2005 and 2010. Research by Professor Geoffrey Evans and Dr Kat Chzen at Oxford University suggests that those people may have gone elsewhere not because of the economy or Gordon Brown’s unpopularity, but because of immigration. Ed Miliband has no ties with or concern for the White working-class. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a Belgian Jew who sought asylum in the U.K. in 1940. He then became a leading Marxist academic here and re-paid his hosts by hoping that their society would be swept away. But the “dictatorship of the proletariat” didn’t arrive in Britain as Marx predicted it would. That’s why Ralph’s sons David and Ed didn’t openly espouse Marxism. Instead, they entered the Labour party and became part of the traitorous cabal that opened Britain’s borders to the world. They then competed for the leadership of the party. Ed won and David left politics to help do to America what he had already done to Britain: David Miliband is the President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. He oversees the agency’s relief and development operations in over 40 countries and its refugee resettlement and assistance programs throughout the United States. In addition, he leads the IRC’s advocacy efforts in Washington, Geneva, Brussels and other capitals on behalf of the world’s most vulnerable people. … Miliband graduated from Oxford University in 1987 with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics, and received his master’s degree in political science in 1989 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which he attended as a Kennedy Scholar. (David Miliband, President and CEO, International Rescue Committee) The Miliband brothers are part of a rootless international elite loyal only to itself and to the hybrid of predatory capitalism and cultural Marxism that now governs all Western nations. While bankers’ profits keeping on rising, the Whites who built those nations see their wages stagnate and their cities flooded by non-Whites from the Third World. And parties formed to champion the White working-class, like Labour in the U.K. and the Democrats in the U.S., are fully in favour of both the bankers and the non-Whites. It’s a sick situation, and the disease starts at the top. The British working-class need to recognize Labour for what it has now become: a plague, not a party.” Tobias Langdon: “A Plague for the Proletariat: How the Workers’ Party Betrayed Its Own” 9
Posted by Bill on Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:15 | # Daniel @ 7
What really gets me is this whole ball of wax is a fake, there’s nothing substantive from beginning to end, post modern liberalism was designed from the start as a pandemic as in germ warfare, the whole of the west has succumbed to the disease. It drives me to distraction the deception of it all, it really started for me with Tony Blair’s New Labour. (1997) I deliberately lost interest in politics (after voting Tory all my life) as life was too short anyway, but a few years of Blair’s New Labour was too intriguing to ignore, my gut was telling me something was terribly wrong, a different sort of interest took hold and that’s why I finished up at MR. My instincts were soon confirmed and from that moment on - it’s been a roller coaster ride. It’s the lies, the deceit, the hubris, the sophistry, I’m a straight sort a guy Blair, trust me! It’s the wholesale political shifting sands of deception, corruption, there’s just no end to it all. And that is what makes me so mad because they’ve gotten away with it, they’re laughing at us, whilst all the time sowing the seeds of destruction for our people. Blair never told us his New Labour was postmodern liberalism, all those Scots in the cabinet stamping the boot into the English face. Throwing their core support under a bus - utterly evil. Same with Cameron’s modernised Tories, being cavalier describing former conservatives as racist fruitcakes. It’s the treachery, it’s the BBC, it’s the Telegraph, they’re all in it for chrissakes, it’s the people that make me incandescent, why can’t they see it, what the hell’s the matter with them? Isn’t there any way this treachery can be made more widespread? Dot connecting is all I’ve ever tried to do - without much success it seems. Here endeth the rant, worse thing is all the readers here know this and much more, I’m preaching to the converted. 10
Posted by flippityfloppity on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 02:40 | # Danuel: “it can mean whatever the powers that be want it to mean - Indeed” “I don’t think so” “Jews will take advantage of any of these language games.” this is the point ... the powers that be control and manipulate the language. whether the language game defines a philosophical term or changes the meaning of “rose” to mean “turd” is the one of the battles being waged. If we do not arrest control of the language, we will not be able to muster liberty.
11
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:15 | # This comment was repeated by in next comment, but in better form; and better form still in a main post. 12
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:24 | # Flippityfloppity, regarding definitions, let me say this first I probably deserved a little barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony Migchels proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor. That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him. Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WNs, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically the definition they use fluctuates between Whites being liberal and open to all; or non-Whites having group unionization which imposes and enforces their inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation. The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast. The right, as much as Jews, however, is to blame for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is worse theoretically than it is descriptively. Now, we might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites and their equality because it has had currency through Jewish media. However, staying with that definition because it has currency - despite that fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews for the reason that it is disingenuous, confusing and for the fact that they want us to be “rightists”, i.e. to reflect that disingenousness and confusion (through disorganization and denial of accountability) - is not a good reason but not sufficient. It is like saying we should continue to trade in the currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is a counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to be circulated to our confusion and detriment. I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). However, I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so. These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike. The White Left as: A social classification and classifying of a people; legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and negatively against those would be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to or universal obligation to include in vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.” Liberalism - beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications. Racism Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. Anti-Racism The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another. Modernity/Post Modernity As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms. This issue is probably worth a main post eventually, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems. 13
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:25 | # Liberalism does not boil down to equality. “Equality” from a liberal standpoint may be sought by some as a relief from the stress of objectivism’s quantitative comparisons which harshly and obnoxiously proclaim “a better and a worse”, a winner and a loser, and even crass death penalty along with it; whereas the “liberal” may be correctly sensing that the comparison is false, crooked - prone to disingenuousness. This quest for equality would be just one “excuse” for liberalism; liberalism being the exceeding of, or auguring to exceed, the normal biological patterns and practices of the group, subgroup or individual, in this case a fleeing in defense against disingenuous, pseudo warrant for exploitation and supremacism. Liberalism is also not by contrast to authority. It is by contrast to conservatism. “Authority” as to what counts as conservative can be very diffused among consensus of its rule structure. But again, reaction against the pseudo and unaccountable authority of objectivism may be another motive for liberalism.
14
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 02 Jul 2014 03:07 | # http://age-of-treason.com/2014/07/01/yockey-on-liberalism-part-5/ This definition of liberalism as strictly negative and rebelling against authority does capture an aspect, “the who”, of the rule structure conserving the systemic organism: “This is a reiteration of what we found earlier in Yockey’s description of political organisms, the friend-enemy disjunction, and the Laws of Totality and Sovereignty: liberalism is opposition to authority, a disintegrating force with dissolves political organisms and kills them dead.” But not fully enough, probably because it does not animate a distinction between the Jewish who and our who. The “who” is always a relevant question to ask, but more than authority, liberalism would be a motion perhaps only ostensibly away from conservation of the system, its rule structure, largely depending upon who. It is not strictly negative, as there can be such a thing as liberalism which does not exceed the possibility of reconstructing the system’s rule structure, but rather sees the motion as an irrelevantly benign or legitimate variation, a controlled experiment, if not providing new resource for growth and expansion; nevertheless also providing for reconstruction of its characteristic rule structure. Liberalism, an expression of our experimental and independent nature, is a susceptibility preyed upon by Jewish interests (and others), distorted and transformed into runaway by Jewish manipulation of our rule structures - but it is important to tease apart the “who”, i..e, their manipulation of rules as opposed to our natural experimentation - it is thus not necessarily and merely a means of avoiding the J.Q. It is rather a part of asking what the authentic parameters of our system are/IS - questions GW has been asking in the ontology project. The ontology project would thus be a means to strengthen the authentic rule structure against Jewish manipulation of “the who”, against their appeals to rebellion against a vilified “authoritarian personality” in pop media, psychology, etc. Perhaps again “accounts requested” would be in order for the liberal, asking them “who told you that was ok?” 15
Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 03 Jul 2014 03:03 | #
Yes. Well put. I’d add the predilections for objectivity and sympathy (which are connected) to the list of traits the jews take advantage of. 16
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 03 Jul 2014 05:25 | # Thanks. “I’d add the predilections for objectivity and sympathy (which are connected) to the list of traits the jews take advantage of.” ...and…it is Definitely true that objectivity and sensitivity would be predilections of ours that jews take advantage of. However, I’m not sure how connected that these two qualities always are. I think sometimes that there would be an inverse relation between the two as with confidence and empathy. 17
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:22 | # Tanstaafl renders a brilliant, pithy assessment of pejorative implications of Freud and Marx for Whites in this discussion of Yockey on race. However… http://age-of-treason.com/2014/08/12/yockey-on-culture-and-race-part-4/
It may stem from tan going too much to the right-wing position of “if Jews are against it, must be good” Darwinism is objectivist and as such, is no guarantee of White interests. Jews are concerned with the relative interests of their group, and thus will oppose Darwinism when and where it goes against their group interests. If Whites are to defend themselves as a group, they will make exceptions to intervene against its mere scientific laws where necessary in order to survive as a people. More, it is not wholly unnatural nor immoral in some natural sense to make such judgments, as it can correspond with deep ecology.
Of course we are not arguing that Darwinism, Evolution, etc, are to be disputed as factual, but whether and to what extent these scientific laws should be intervened with by human agency. Plainly, Darwinism does not necessarily care for race or the best kinds by human standards. Particularly as our racial patterns, systems and ecology, occur on a more protracted developmental process, they are susceptible to opportunism as crass, law-like, narrow, episodic and momentarily conceived Darwinism might make-for within the disordered mix of modernity. The ecological and historical responsibility would suggest the need to intervene against puerile interpretations of Darwinism. Permit me to indulge in juxtaposing: Evolution - Ecology Natural Selection - Humane Selection, the agency that contingency, social and otherwise afford. Survival of the Fittest - Survival of the sociopaths (pyramid scheme musical chairs, etc) or Survival of the socially responsible and fair. Struggle/Competition - cooperation Stress - basic security of evolutionary capital Survival - Flourishing Variation – qualitative concerns Selection - with some joint assistance and feedback as need be. Of course it is not the matter to dispute evolution, Darwinism, natural selection as factual, but to question the degree of determinism, sovereignty and perhaps even an ecological duty to intervention. If sovereignty is, as Carl Schmitt brilliantly argues, the ability to determine the exception, this would offer a view to turn one of liberalism’s proclivities on its head, as the Jewish style liberalism of Derrida et al, of PC times, cares only for the exception and not the pattern. Plainly, Darwinism does not necessarily care for race or the best kinds by human standards. Corrected against Jewish perversion then, the exception to Darwinist natural selection would be the humane determination as to who should survive even though they might not otherwise by means of law-like Darwinism. Post a comment:
Next entry: The DT’s enlightenment
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) |
Posted by Bill on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:19 | #
“The water in which we swim”, has been systematically poisoned (and continues to be) by very sophisticated means, deception on a unheard of scale. Add to that the analogy of the boiling frog just about sums it up.
Our peoples are being shafted with lies, deception, psychology, threats, misrepresentation, trickery, a hostile media, hostile judiciary, is it any wonder our people are on the ropes, the result of the recent election in Newark confirmed for me (not that I needed confirmation) that the majority of our populations have no concept of what they are being subjected to.
Until the average person in the street is convinced that the waters in which we swim is poisoned and intended to kill us - nothing will change.
I posted years ago that our society must be sick not to resist what to me had become obvious. And how did our society become so incapable of resisting. Are we sick or have we been made sick overtime? No wonder Auster could blame liberalism for its woes.