The deep irrationality of the Left

Posted by John S Bolton on June 09, 2006, 02:55 AM | #

Of course, you’re quite right that some leftist propaganda is being made here. This is a new left specialty, to make war propaganda against one’s own country in wartime.
The danger of underqualified soldiers and officers being sent out, actually occurs with minorities promoted on a quota basis. Colin Powell was reported in the NYT to have tested only around 100 IQ.
Soldiers in general cannot be recruited under 90 IQ, with some rare exceptions, which are today becoming less rare.
In the last decade racial quotas have been emphasized more and more, and this is ominous in its implications.

Posted by Tom Peters on June 09, 2006, 03:07 AM | #

I used to have left-leaning, socialists type views (and I would still have them in a sane, white society).  It was passages like the one above that cured me of that.  I realized that the the left in the West has very little to do with what’s good for my group, but instead much do with tricking the majority into taking destructive actions - ranging from attacking moral values to attacking our institutions (indluding the army) to attacking our leadership to even such extremes cases as race replacement (western Europe) and physical annihilation (eastern Europe). 

The leftist agenda today serves as a way for foreign racialists to attack our society.  That’s why I don’t find it surprising at all when I see racial language such as ‘cracker’ in their rhetoric.  The left may have multiple pursposes for different people, but its alignment with those that seek to harm us is very clear (even in a purely racial way).  The unfortunate part is that the ‘leftist’ anti-white psychological warfare has been so succesful that all our mainstream parties (left and right) have adopted their platforms.  White nationalists, white defenders, and even race-neutral true conservatives need to figure out how the language of the anti-white left became the langauge of the mainstream.  I for one try to speak out against this, but there is so much igorance out there.  I don’t understand how so many smart white people can act so dense and slow when it comes to these issues - and that is my greatest dilemna.

Posted by John S Bolton on June 09, 2006, 03:16 AM | #

Here is some evidence in support of the above, from the Naval Submarine School’s website:
Submariners today are becoming a more diverse lot.

Among recruits 10 years ago who attended the Basic Enlisted Submarine School at the naval base here, about 80 percent were white, 8 percent black, 7 percent Hispanic and 4 percent Asian.
In the past year, the percentage of white students dropped to 70 percent, while black recruits increased to 14 percent, and Asian recruits doubled to 8 percent. The percentage of Hispanic students remained about the same.
The minority representation in the submarine forces is still less than the Navy’s total enlisted force, which is 42 percent minority.
...the black % of the total population having scarcely changed during the period, this looks like a prima facie case of quota usage.
They’re using sensitive military services for grossly corrupt programs of racial patronage in wartime, and the people are all but silent on these points!

Posted by John S Bolton on June 09, 2006, 03:31 AM | #

That there is some considerable, blind unreason on the left, and in this particular way, was also shown in their failure to realize the grave difficulty that many would have in voting for Kerry, who, while holding a military commission, had accused his fellow soldiers of atrocities, and a pattern thereof.

Posted by rustymason on June 09, 2006, 08:00 AM | #

I just interviewed a recent college graduate from Burkeley, which Commie Central here in the US.  She told me that she believed that people were basically the same and were at their core good, that there was no reason at all in the world for anyone to ever own a gun, immigrants just want a better life (she was Latino), Europeans were simply the beneficiaries of good weather and natural resources (She was reading Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel), blah, blah, the usual stuff.  Very typical liberal claptrap.

We talked at length about politics and about the power structure of the world, and she impressed me as being intelligent and having a wide (not deep, unfortunately) knowledge of all the big issues. 

What struck me was that she had no reasons at all for radical liberal beliefs; she apparently had never questioned a single one of them.  My simple questions about her beliefs stumped her time after time.  And, as you would expect, instead of talking about my question, she simply changed the subject.  I was left with the distinct impression that Liberalism was her religion.

Posted by john on June 09, 2006, 10:15 AM | #

Anyone can act liberal, only whites can be liberal. It’s a specifically white disease. Name one non white country that is liberal, there aren’t any, and never will be.  I doubt she’ll be adopting cute babies outside of her ethnic group or going against the interests of her own people. For non whites it’s a no risk way of persueing ethnic interests.

Posted by perroazul del norte on June 09, 2006, 10:16 AM | #

Colin Powell was reported in the NYT to have tested only around 100 IQ.
-John S Bolton
Hard to believe that -even in these degraded times -someone with a 100 IQ could become a four-star General, Chairman of JCS and US Secretary of State. When I was in the US Army (1965-68) a 110 IQ was required for simple entrance into Officer Candidate School.  Of course, Powell was an ROTC guy.  But still….a 100 IQ?

Posted by L Stewart on June 09, 2006, 11:14 AM | #

A “lack of interest in rational argument”, and indeed an apparent belief that “a constant spew of hate-speech suffices as an argument” together sum up the approach adopted in the UK by nearly all opponents of the British National Party, from hysterical, foul-mouthed individuals and violent marxist groups such as Searchlight and the Anti-Nazi League, to the major political parties and their media hacks.

As a former Conservative I was warned that I should personally be prepared for a quite shocking change in response from supposedly rational politicians, journalists, etc, once I indicated support for the BNP; and so it proved.
Polite and reasoned argument was met with astonishing abuse completely off the subject, and bereft of all logic, and facts which disproved entirely false & quite ludicrous allegations were completely ignored, and responded to with insults, and what I knew could now only be deliberate lies.

At first it is disconcerting to find oneself a target for utterly inappropriate vituperation, and
labelled as ‘vile’, ‘disgusting’, unspeakable’, ‘evil’, etc, etc. Outrage tempts one to respond similarly, and to point out that if such terminology is to be used at all, it applies to those with a perverted hatred for their own kind. How else could one describe people who have set out to systematically destroy their nation’s racial & cultural identity and everything good & decent that once symbolised Britain, and have created the heartbreaking mess which is our poor country today ?

However, it really is a case of ‘take it from whence it comes.’ Future analysts may ascribe a variety of reasons to this phenomenon: a conscious (sometimes perhaps unconscious) awareness that their policies are indefensible; a fear that major political change is just round the corner, which could reveal to an awakening public the full truth of what is in store for us unless we act decisively; affronted arrogance, that their intellectual sterility, ignorance,  and half a century of obedient conformism are being revealed for what they are;  and, of course, the knowledge that one day they may be called to account for their role.

Posted by Sigurd on June 09, 2006, 12:59 PM | #

Jeff Jacoby is a neo-con propagandist.  He reacts with much the same “lack of interest” in rationality to all arguments critical of Israel. The gay marriage issue is a subterfuge issue, a way for politicos to appear conservative, as a means of channeling, and explaining, the anger Americans have about the destruction of American society in general.  Obviously the acceptance and coddling of homosexuals is a sign of degeneracy, but in a non-degenerate, homogeneous European society, it can’t emerge as a “serious” issue.  It is a symptom only. Let’s guess what Jacoby’s views on immigration are.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 09, 2006, 02:24 PM | #

Sugurd, you don’t have to guess.

Posted by Sigurd on June 09, 2006, 03:46 PM | #

“Sugurd, you don’t have to guess.”

Haha.  He exceeded even my expectations of him.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on June 09, 2006, 04:47 PM | #

The gay marriage issue is a subterfuge issue, a way for politicos to appear conservative

Bingo.  You can throw stem cell research bans on that barbie too.

Posted by Steve on June 10, 2006, 01:47 AM | #

L Stewart wrote:
“Outrage tempts one to respond similarly, and to point out that if such terminology is to be used at all, it applies to those with a perverted hatred for their own kind.”

I say go with the temptation and fight fire with fire. Being pro-white, you also get the bonus of being logical. For example:

Immigration is racism.

What’s wrong with immigration and open borders?

Answer: Racism. Specifically, anti-white racism.

Racism is discrimination or prejudice based on race. Those who favor immigration do so only with regard to white countries. This is discrimination based on race.

They NEVER question the moral legitimacy of ANY non-white country retaining their identity. For example, they NEVER question the moral legitimacy of asian countries being asian. In contrast, they ALWAYS question the moral legitimacy of white countries being white. This is discrimination based on race.

The question isn’t what’s wrong with immigration, the question is: What is wrong about white countries?

That’s all there is to it.

And what motivates those who advocate immigration and open borders?

Answer: Hatred. Specifically, anti-white race hatred.

What motivates someone who demands that, for example, Japan open its borders until it ceases being Japanese and who insists that it is wrong for Japan to remain Japanese? Answer: Anti-Japanese race hatred.

What motivates someone who demands that white countries open their borders until they cease being white and who insists that it is wrong for white countries to remain white? Answer: anti-white race hatred.

The question is not what motivates anti-immigration activists, the question is: Why are pro-immigration activists motivated by anti-white race hatred?

That’s all there is to it.

The Turning Tide

Posted by Sigurd on June 10, 2006, 07:31 PM | #

Fred,

The interesting aspect of it, however, is this sort of breathless feeling on their part, that if this country doesn’t become a non-white country, the Jews will eventually be thrown into ovens.  In other words a terror of their own genocide, not simply a spiteful desire to ruin the future of others, lies at the base of it.

It’s this crazed feeling they have, presumably drilled into them by rabbis and “serious Jews” via Holocaust propaganda, that appears to be the primary thing that drives them against our interests, basically the idea that we goyim are all mass murderers waiting to happen (interestingly no stereotype we have of Jews is as cruel as this.)  In other words, they’ve been deceived into their conflict with us.  This is the very tragic aspect of it.

Posted by Sigurd on June 11, 2006, 06:11 PM | #

Fred, thank you for your comments, I think you made interesting points.  Frankly I think its impossible to ever know how much a Jew actively fears the white gentile or how much he simply views him as an enemy whom he must constantly deceive to gain his own perceived advantage (which naturally also includes security.) 

MacDonald makes the kind assessment that they are self-deceived, and unconscious of their animus toward non-Jewish whites.  Of course, in terms of our survival, the question of their unconsciousness or consciousness in our destruction is purely academic: if a bear wishes to eat you, his “feelings” about you are meaningless.  So perhaps we are engaged in a bit of impractical wondering (though your comments were appreciated and certainly no more speculative than my own.)

But to speculate further, nevertheless , while I agree there is definitely a we-against-the-world ethos in Judaism, and there are the Jews and everyone else (which, frankly, is a healthy position for a people to have, the Greeks and Romans at their healthiest had it), it does appear that they have a special place in their heart for we European descended people. 

Perhaps, whether they would acknowledge it even to themselves (after all they’re superior, what do they have to fear from anyone, providing things are “just”?), they view us as their greatest rival whom history has pitted against most often. Their greatest and most recent suffering has been at our hands-and though we have an almost perverse aversion to complaining-our greatest suffering has been at their hands and when not at their hands directly by every misguided and half-mad philosophy they’ve breathed into the air. 

Besides it doesn’t seem likely they would desire to, or would even be allowed to, live among other populations in significant numbers.  So they are always among us, to the extent we haven’t thrown them out, and therefore in conflict with us.

Perhaps its for this reason they’ve allowed Muslim immigration into European lands.  Though maybe its changing now.  Maybe even-though it might seem wild to many here-there might at some point be an alliance between white gentiles and Jews, as American Renaissance seemingly envisions, however temporary. 

Its a model that in any case will be given its chance.  Though its a model that can only exist while other models, like David Duke’s model, grow up beside it, essentially scaring the Jews into it via a little good cop bad cop.

Every national party that’s seeing gains in Europe has essentially disguised its Anti-Semitism.  And it may also be the painful question in politics of what is ideal vs. what is possible. Of course once the possible is achieved other things become possible. 

I doubt many of us consider ourselves “Anti-Semites”, we simply see organized Jewry working against our interests.  If in the future they work for it, if only for themselves, then we should allow it, whilst remembering always who we are, and who they are, because the answers to those questions, they never forget. 

Though of course it is likely that only the tiniest minority of Jews could ever be of use to us as is the case now. Most will always oppose us, as will sadly, the majority of our own people.  Until the day they follow us.

Posted by Al Ross on June 11, 2006, 07:20 PM | #

Much of what I find objectionable in Jewish conduct resides in their incessant attempts to enforce belief in the unbelievable (eg The Holohoax, but much else as well)) and the concomitant doctrine which declares that Gentile disbelief in whatever they choose to tell us is a blood libel on the Jewish people.

Of course, for Jews, ‘normal’ ethical standards are irrelevant in this regard, as they are in so many other human fields(especially in Jew-invented pseudo-sciences), and I’m sure that Gentile interest in the establishment of historical truth is regarded by the Chosen as a strange manifestation of our inferior mentality.

Posted by Sigurd on June 11, 2006, 08:21 PM | #

“That’s not being anti-Jewish.”

Certainly not.  I guess what I meant was: Every national party that’s seeing gains in Europe has essentially disguised its “Anti-Semitism” (w/ Anti-Semitism in quotation marks.) 

Politically, there is an advantage it seems in simply not discussing the Jewish question which also seems to be the tact these parties have taken. 

If you’re not a Jew, noticing Jewry at all, as a distinct and important political phenomena that isn’t entirely positive to ones own interests, is by it self “Anti-Semitic.” 

I can’t imagine that this slur will retain much of its weight for much longer except, perhaps, as unintentional praise.  The Abe Foxman’s of the world are really making them selves into laughing stalks. 

Sorry if my post was unclear.  I’m probably guilty of trying to fit too many ideas into too small a space.