|
|
Comments:2
Posted by daniels on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 05:49 | # J.B. Campbell on Christianity being an essential problem of the White race. “The purpose of this essay is to prepare the reader for a life of struggle against Jewish rule in this country.” “The problem is Christianity, which is Judaism for gentiles. Christians cannot deal with Jews because they believe that Jews are god’s chosen people.” “I think it is the problem, the basic problem we have, yeah.” “To become a Christian is to deny yourself the right of survival… It assures the Jew that the enemy will not fight back.” “Yeah, those whom the Jews destroy they first make Christian.” “It is so simple to see what I’m talking about looking at Russia after 1917. What happened to all the Christians in Russia, I don’t even know how many millions. There are wild numbers, at least twenty million Christians were slaughtered by the Jewish Bolsheviks and maybe more than that.” “To become a Christian is to deny yourself your right of survival in the deadliest struggle on earth. Those whom the Jews destroy they first make Christian, because it assures the Jew that the enemy will not fight back.” - J.B. Campbell 3
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:33 | # The Hayekian liberal that believes in power of his special ‘magical’ underpants lost in a rather humiliating fashion. Too bad. Really what can America teach Europeans other than by being held up as a radically awful example of what not to do or be? “Anyone who wants to rule men first tries to humiliate them, to trick them out of their rights and their capacity for resistance, until they are as powerless before him as animals,” wrote Elias Canetti in “Crowds and Power.” “He uses them like animals and, even if he does not tell them so, in himself he always knows quite clearly that they mean just as little to him; when he speaks to his intimates he will call them sheep or cattle. His ultimate aim is to incorporate them into himself and to suck the substance out of them. What remains of them afterwards does not matter to him. The worse he has treated them, the more he despises them. When they are no more use at all, he disposes of them as he does excrement, simply seeing to it that they do not poison the air of his house.” Our masters rely on our labour to make them wealthy, on our children for cannon fodder in war and on our collective chants for adulation. They would otherwise happily slip us rat poison. When they retreat into their inner sanctums, which they keep hidden from public view, they speak in the cold words of manipulation, power and privilege, words that expose their visions of themselves as entitled and beyond the reach of morality or law. The elite have produced a few manuals on power. Walter Lippmann’s “Public Opinion,” Leo Strauss’ work and “Atlas Shrugged” by the third-rate novelist Ayn Rand express the elite’s deep contempt for the sans-culottes. These writers posit that the masses are incapable of responding rationally to the complexities of power. They celebrate the role of a tiny, controlling elite that skilfully uses propaganda and symbols to, as Lippmann wrote, “manufacture consent.” The elite’s systems of propaganda are designed to magnify superficial emotionality and destroy the capacity for critical thought. Kafka was right: The modern world – profoundly shaped in the image of the American ideology - has finally made the irrational rational. 4
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:45 | #
It’s not about being inferior it’s about their proven track record of distorting science for ethno-centric political ends e.g. Boas, Gould, Lewontin and blank late theory. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:49 | # Daniel S, Here is the Catholic journalist and DT blogs editor Damian Thompson’s immediate reaction to the Obama victory: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100188256/the-religious-right-is-dead/ I agree that this election, like 2008, says something about white America’s emerging faith in Jewish-authored political teleologies. Those remarks by JB Campbell, though superficial in themselves and lacking the proper context, are quite correct. It is as though whites have no element in their faith to protect them from such a shift. I have been playing with putting up a piece on Second Temple Judaism and Paul, EP Sanders, grace and law for some time, in advance of a larger essay I am trying to bring forth. We have some readers who are greatly more knowledgeable on the Christian antecedents than I am, and I am hoping that they will help me understand this issue. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:12 | # Graham, All five of the writers you listed were Jews, and all of them wrote from a particular angle on the Elite Question. The fascination with the manipulation of the masses is very much a Jewish phenomenon, for obvious reasons. Sam Francis, who was strongly critical of the Single Jewish Cause, held that Jewish philosophers, writers and activists served as intellectual janissaries for the WASP-Jewish elite, rather than for Jewry as such. To what extent he was right that the modern elites are definitively an ethnic duopoly, rather than a vehicle useful to (and largely created by) the highest Jewish elites for ethnic as well as personal purposes, none of us can say. We may eventually find out the hard way, of course. 7
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:00 | # Lister@19 Would that Romney had been a Hayekian - he might have won! He was a weakling, a very socialistic liberal Governor of Mass., and he ran a terrible campaign until the end. He was too white for the New America, but not seen as sufficiently conservative to really inspire conservatives (I know lots of people who did not vote for him - including me! - but also those, unlike me, in swing states where their votes mattered; I told them they were foolish not to support Mitt, but my words made little impact). Recall I’ve been predicting for two years that Obama would win in a squeaker; as I write, Obama has 303 EC votes - a bit better than “squeaker”, but hardly a decisive win as in his first time. Romney was not “humiliated”. 8
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:38 | # GW, This election was an utter disaster for America, and a particular embarrassment for all the GOP buffoons who seemed to be sincerely predicting a Romney victory. The results are bad in nearly every way - but there is also a lot to be said about them. I wouldn’t mind doing up an essay on “Loser America” (for that’s what we are), in a few days, after all the results are confirmed, if you would agree to put it up as a post (I’m not going to do up a comment, as it would go on interminably). 2008 was the true End of America, and the beginning of the Next America. But the past four years have been a kind of interregnum, a time when we weren’t sure if Obama was a fluke (a perfectly rational surmise in light of the groundswell of immediate opposition, culminating in his midterm “shellacking”). Now we know. Obama, had he been white, would, I believe, have been defeated. His record is so poor that his reelection has shattered all past presidential reelection bromides (eg, “no Prez with approval below 50% gets reelected; “no Prez with no reduction in unemployment over 4 years gets reelected”; etc literally bloody etc etc). Obama was elected because he was black- not in spite of it. And now he has been reelected because he is black. There is no other realistic way to spin this. America, my America, the nation that has existed from early colonial times until the collapse of the USSR in late ‘91, is now dead. America will never be white again. Even though it is still majority white (albeit dwindling rapidly), it is not America anymore. We now have definitive confirmation of what WNs have long predicted, and recently suspected - THIS IS PERMANENT. Or, put another way, IT HAS HAPPENED. America has been transformed. We may still have an objectively white majority, but WE ARE NO LONGER A WHITE NATION. The population of America now has an absolute majority which is comprised of politically (if hardly racially) cohesive, bloc-voting nonwhites + whites who are either race traitors or brainwashed fools. Dr. Lister is exactly right: European patriots must save themselves. America is not a model for you (if it ever was). The New World is clearly lost to “Magna Europa”, even if the Overseas Colonies will continue to contain many millions of her sons and daughters for the remainder of this century. The battle to preserve Western Civilization, and prevent white extinction, has now, appropriately, moved to Europe. One cannot help but feel the blackest despair and pessimism at our prospects, given how racially and culturally (let alone morally and economically and militarily) suicidally Left the Europeans have become. But Europe is our race’s true home, and the Last Battle will surely be fought in her ancient lands. I am long removed from the Old Country(s). My ancestors in the US can be traced to the early 18th century. The very last arrived in the late 19th century. This was meant to be my home. My ancestors could surely not have imagined that one day it would no longer be mine, and not through violent conquest, but peaceful dispossession. A Dispossessed Majority soon to become a persecuted minority. America is no longer my home. I am filled with almost indescribable shame - not that 80-90% of race aliens voted their hatreds (this was only to be expected: the muds aren’t white, and they never will be, and even as a California youth I was aware of a deep racial resentment minorities felt for whites, whom they know to be their superiors, even if we no longer do), but that 40% of whites are so easily awed, misled, or cowed. I hate what America has become, but I am far more ashamed at what whites have become. America is no longer my nation. The white race is not my nation. White Zion, the land of racially conscious whites, proud of their blood, their history, their civilization, their way of existing in the world - that is my nation now, and forever.
9
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:33 | # @GW Well of course the global elite is happily multicultural - they real colour they care for is green (as in $s). It’s the height of naivety to assume our ‘own’ present political and economic elites would be magically transformed into decent types full of Aristotelian philia for kith and kin left to their ‘own’ devices. In fact its almost as bad as the belief that special underwear ‘protects’ one from evil. But everyone’s favourite ethnic group does play a highly prominent in every area of American life (perhaps the military, as such, is an exception?) and in its own way it’s pretty funny - in a black comedy sort of way - to see the political class of still the world’s most powerful nation go out to some nonentity of a nation in the desert, without a drop of oil to its name etc., and genuflect before them in what is almost a religious ceremony. To cite another Jew - and sometimes odd snippets of truth can came from the oddest of places - one Timmy Wise: the Republican party is the party of elderly rural whites. Tick tock, tick tock. I watched the coverage on CNN - which did a pretty decent job of explaining on a county by county basis the what and why of the results in the key states - far better coverage on the details that the truly awful BBC. Well every talking head, especially of a Republican nature, in the CNN studio basically said “it’s the demographics” and so on. It’s obviously true that the Republican’s cannot win without reaching out from their own base. They’ll eventually sideline the Palin/Beck wingnuts and reformulate themselves in accordance with the new demographic realities. Electoral politics is all about having a support that’s a mile wide and an inch deep, not the reverse. I think there is a Q and A session with Bowden from some London club on youtube. In it he stated that in his view America and Americans might come up with odd good idea etc., but that the struggle will not occur there. It’s in Europe that the political struggle will be won or lost. America is not Europe and it will never be Europe. It’s on the cusp of post-Western status if not already there. Obama’s first victory was not a fluke nor anomalous. 10
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:34 | # America is no longer my home. I am filled with almost indescribable shame… I hate what America has become, but I am far more ashamed at what whites have become. America is no longer my nation. The white race is not my nation. White Zion, the land of racially conscious whites, proud of their blood, their history, their civilization, their way of existing in the world - that is my nation now, and forever.
There are still a great number of well attended Catholic churches and some people who are able to practice Christianity with enough irony to be Jew-wise and White nationalist. I personally see it as too convoluted and costly a route - on the other hand, it might be reckless to shun engagement entirely, as I do. This man and his colleagues might be of interest to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Rydzyk Perhaps more Catholics can be led to unanimity and WN. 11
Posted by danies. on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:04 | # Republican’s cannot win without reaching out from their own base. They’ll eventually sideline the Palin/Beck wingnuts and reformulate themselves in accordance with the new demographic realities. Electoral politics is all about having a support that’s a mile wide and an inch deep, not the reverse.
It would seem rather, that the Republicans did not win and have lost any organic mandate precisely because they did not serve the base of White working class and poor. It is typically backwards that the Republican plutocrats and their neo-con, Zionist handlers would blame their failure on Whites. 12
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:14 | # @Danny But Mr. Haller has often and vociferously told us all about greatness and robust nature of America and the American way of life - especially in contrast to we pitiful Europeans in our Glenn Beck style ‘socialist hellholes’ like 90%+ white Denmark etc. Now he’s renouncing it? Will he give any thought to why the land of ‘rugged individualism’ and ideological of maximally imagined - indeed foundationally so - ‘individual liberty’ was so vulnerable to its own collective ‘destruction’? As someone once remarked one would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh. And as for Republicans ‘serving’ the interests of the poorer and less prosperous section of Euro-America. Pull the other one it’s got bells on it. Mitt Romney and his magic underpants crowd of globalist, Hayekian liberals don’t really want to nor have any interest in doing so. They have done very well out of economically attacking such people – they are not about to stop any time soon. 13
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:19 | # Quick comment posted at The American “Conservative”:
14
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:21 | # Leon@24 Excellent comment as usual. I agree with all of it.
15
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:22 | # Posted by danies. on November 07, 2012, 09:04 AM ‘Graham, jeez what a grouch - I thought only the French could hate Americans so’
You get used to it after a few centuries. 16
Posted by Silver on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:24 | # Leon Haller sat hunched over as he dejectedly ruminated on the day’s events, feeling as cold and used up as the icy mush at the bottom of the empty glass he twiddled in his lap. “It has happened. It is permanent. America has been transformed. We may still have an objectively white majority but we are no longer a white country. America is no longer my nation…” His voice trailed off forlornly as the weight of the realization sunk him deeper into despair. Again and again the same thought delivered the same sickening blow: “America is no longer my nation.” Then Leon Haller abruptly planted his feet into the ground, thrust back back his seat, slammed his empty glass on the table, stood up and, with no trace of the desolation that seconds before marked him a defeated man, spoke with newfound determination. “The white race is not my nation! White Zion, the land of racially conscious whites, proud of their blood, their history, their civilization, their way of existing in the world - that is my nation now, and forever!” he solemnly vowed as he gazed into the eyes of his Chinese girlfriend. Okay, okay. I’m sorry. I couldn’t resist. Please pardon that. I’m just trying to liven things up a bit. You’re aware, aren’t you, that you’re far from the first person, far from the first American or far from the first White man to feel that way? How many before you must have experienced the same numbing dejection when the stunning finality of the predicament finally became apparent to them. For some, I suppose, the feeling never leaves them. I’m sure WLP was feeling it as he delivered his “Out of the Darkness” speech. Even though I despise everything he stood for (beyond preservation, that is) I could commiserate with him there. Although I’m an eternal optimist, I too once felt that way, momentarily, when I realized that the trends in place left unchecked would in the fullness of time devour all I loved, making pointless my hopes and dreams. That’s the way the world ends, I told myself, not with a bang but with a nigger. There’s a great deal separating us—racially, too, I mean—but I think even the gladiators enjoyed a camaraderie of sorts. This thing’s far from fully over just yet, and I’m certainly going to do my bit to see to it that things are put right. What else is there to do?
17
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:28 | # Lister, The American way of life was magnificent - when it was WHITE, as the Founding Fathers intended. What ruined us was nonwhite racial integration, and immigration. There is a long story as to how this happened (and then you can enlighten us as to how the UK managed to avoid being swamped by ‘coloureds’ - perhaps you can ask GW or “Bill” for the facts as to how Britain managed to remain so British). But please don’t conflate your ‘foundational’ anti-Americanism with the actual causes of American decline - which are probably rather similar to those of Britain’s decline. As I have pointed out repeatedly, whites are genetically maladapted to existing realities. We can’t “handle” race properly, for what I would argue are ethical misunderstandings. Anyway, USA today, UK tomorrow, Scotland next week - or year, it doesn’t matter. The mental or spiritual disease is the same everywhere. You’ll get yours. 18
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:28 | # Leon, white Europe is your home too. It always was. Your family is perhaps bigger than you realise. Please don’t despair. 19
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:51 | # And as for Republicans ‘serving’ the interests of the poorer and less prosperous section of Euro-America. Pull the other one it’s got bells on it. LOL 20
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:16 | # But please don’t conflate your ‘foundational’ anti-Americanism with the actual causes of American decline - which are probably rather similar to those of Britain’s decline.
21
Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:47 | # We’re far past the stage of a peaceful political solution. You know it, I know it. Perhaps these political circuses may encourage other white Americans to see it that way, too. But I won’t hold my breath. I suppose one of the benefits of subscribing to the ‘worse is better’ view is that these political scenarios don’t leave one feeling down, as apparently they have with my neighbour Leon. Silver’s comments here are very good: Although I’m an eternal optimist, I too once felt that way, momentarily, when I realized that the trends in place left unchecked would in the fullness of time devour all I loved, making pointless my hopes and dreams. That’s the way the world ends, I told myself, not with a bang but with a nigger. There’s a great deal separating us—racially, too, I mean—but I think even the gladiators enjoyed a camaraderie of sorts. This thing’s far from fully over just yet, and I’m certainly going to do my bit to see to it that things are put right. What else is there to do? Indeed. Life is good. 22
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:51 | # Oh I have no doubt that Europe too is in the grip of the profoundly destructive ideology of hyper-modernity namely neo-liberalism with a dose of globalisation on the side. BUT the European political imagination is both deeper and wider. The echoes of history with regard to the idea of being an organic collective ‘whole’ is in our political DNA. From feudalism, to aristocratic and clerical hierarchies through to various nationalists struggles, religious wars and even political experiments in fascism, radical socialism etc., to mass trade-unions etc., the idea of thinking and politically acting in collective ways is not alien to us. History matters more deeply in Europe than the colonies. Hence it is more probable that such an ‘ontology’ will revive within European politics and culture. The status of Europeans as being authentically autochthonous is key. Whatever ever Greg Johnson and his acolytes might prattle on about our indigenous, ‘organic’ rootedness in people and place is the greatest assets Europeans have. White Americans only have at base “we don’t like blacks” to fall back on. Terribly thin gruel to sustain a culture and collective identity upon, I’m sure most sensible people would agree. Sure Americans do have the ‘thin’ concept of American patriotism but that is a superficial paper tiger only wrapping up yet more liberal-individualist ontology in a cheap piece of cloth – the propositional nation etc., along with that other feature of the American political imagination – being the ‘universal exception’. That is that America is somehow the exceptional nation that all others wish to ape in every regard and also the universal nation defining the very horizon of social, cultural, political etc., possibilities. Inevitably such idiotic hubris destroys those that seriously believe such mythologies. One of West’s worst follies in its pretence to universalism – that our way of being in the world is universal and can and should be applicable across space and time (a regime of ‘spaceless universalism’ in Schmitt’s telling phrase) regardless that we and our ways of being are deeply non-universal and particularistic in nature. Of course America most embodies the cult of ‘spaceless universalism’ more that any European nation – even France with its universalistic ideology of the Revolution cannot, due to linguistic brute realities, seriously think of itself as the ‘universal’ nation – it is but one amongst many. Unfortunately several centuries of radical Lockean ideology severely limits the political imagination of the land of the free. Of course there are many intelligent and thoughtful Americans that can see beyond the banalities of the liberty cult – Christopher Lasch for one – but such voices are marginal and have no traction. The political subjectivity of America, tout court, is defined and shaped by liberal theory. A figure like Lasch simply speaks in an incomprehensible idiom to those ensconced within the liberty cult. Why is it ‘hateful’ to tell the truth – an obvious truth to anyone with an IQ above room temperature and the ability to pay attention for more than 5 nanoseconds? Sure it’s a shorthand version of the matter and the precise twists and turns of history etc., matter but is anyone seriously in doubt that America is the quintessentially liberal nation? Never-mind you can all cheer yourselves up by watching some Glenn Beck and have a lachrymose rally to restore ‘honor’ or some such trivia. Or even pop alone to the local mega-church and pretend as if such activity is fit for adult human beings. Or even read up on the way, somehow in mysterious fashion, the ‘free-market’ will ride to your collective political and cultural rescue. America - the subliminal mind-fuck! Now on this particular issue I’m with Schmitt – against any ideological regime of ‘spaceless universalism’. Enjoy being a richer version of Brazil. But remember you are NOT your brother’s keeper – you owe no gratitude or loyalty to kith and kin, there is no intra and inter-generational ‘moral economy’ – why that’s evil collectivism! Or worst still ethno-socialism! No ‘sovereign individualism’ is definitely the way to go. In a word carry on collectively being politically illiterate fuckwits – an oxymoron of individualists. P.S. I have many America friends and enjoy some American thinkers, writers, artists etc., so I don’t ‘hate’ Americans per se, but I seriously loathe the ideological formation summed up as ‘Americanism’. A people and the regime they live under are not one and the same are they? What self-respecting European patriot could possibly subscribe to the American ideology? 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:30 | # I’ve been fighting across the blogsphere all day, and have posted nearly 100 random comments, most short, some rather long. I just wrote this one, and I think I hit on a good mantra here to awaken American conservatives. Please copy/paste (esp the part in bold caps) across the internet.
24
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:01 | # Laibach are an interesting bunch. Banned by old communist regime in the then Yugoslavia, post-modern jokers along the lines of “are they or aren’t they fascists” and so on. I had the great pleasure of seeing them in concern a few months ago at the somewhat incongruous venue of the Tate Modern gallery in London. Well from their 2006 ‘Volk’ album we have their take on America and her ‘spaceless universalism’. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGQCUoafFI8& Oh, the Land of the Free/and the Home of the Brave/Are you heaven on Earth/or the gloom of the grave. . . The people of the United States/Did you form a perfect union/Establish justice/Ensure tranquillity/Secure the blessings of Liberty/To yourselves and your posterity/How blind can you get. . . America/The melting pot. . . Praise the Lord/and Praise the Holy Spirit/To save us from your/Freedom, Justice, Peace/Accordance and Illusion. . . America/The end of History/The end of Time. I rather like them. 25
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:24 | #
Clearly he did not win the White vote. Demographics is destiny. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, (Pittsburg et al) is 84% White but the ethnic makeup is “20.0% were of German, 15.0% Italian, 12.7% Irish, 7.5% Polish and 5.1% English ancestry” as opposed to Somerset County, Pennsylvania, which went heavily for Romney, is 97.39% White of which “41.5% were of German, 10.4% American, 7.4% Italian, 6.4% Irish, 6.4% Polish and 5.8% English ancestry”. Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, heavily supported Obama. It’s 96.65% White, however, ethnically “22.5% were of Italian, 21.2% Irish, 15.4% Polish and 10.2% German ancestry”. It’s clear that Whites in Vermont Rhode Island and his home state Massachusetts did not vote in the majority for Romney. Whites in these states ID as Catholic and are predominantly loyal to Dems at least back as far as JFK and probably to the origins of the Second Klan and their battle with the Irish Catholic Al Smith for control of the Democratic party. So much for the RCC’s battle with O to secure their religious freedom. It also proves once again that White Nationalism is folly. 26
Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:26 | # The German band, Rammstein, are a jolly bunch. I had the great pleasure of seeing them in concert this past May at the Honda Centre in Anaheim, Orange County, CA, in Leon’s neighbourhood. Here are the lyrics of one of their smash singles, ‘Amerika’: AMERIKA - AMERICA We’re all living in America, When I’m dancing, I want to lead, We’re all living in America… I know steps that are very useful, We’re all living in America, This is not a love song, We’re all living in America, 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 23:56 | # Franklin County, Massachusetts…“The racial makeup of the county was 95.40% White, 0.89% Black or African American, 0.29% Native American, 1.04% Asian, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 0.75% from other races, and 1.61% from two or more races. 1.99% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 16.2% were of English, 12.2% Irish, 12.0% Polish, 10.2% French, 7.0% French Canadian, 6.7% German, 6.1% Italian and 6.0% American ancestry according to Census 2000.” According to NYT exit polls voted 72% for Obama. Neighboring Berkshire County, “The racial makeup of the county was 95.02% White, 1.99% Black or African American, 0.15% Native American, 0.99% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 0.59% from other races, and 1.23% from two or more races. 1.69% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 16.5% were of Italian, 16.4% Irish, 10.8% French, 10.3% English, 8.0% Polish, 7.1% German, 5.8% American and 5.1% French Canadian ancestry according to Census 2000” with a marginal difference in the demographic, leaning further southern and eastern European ancestry raises Obama win percentage to 76%. 28
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:17 | # Tariq Ali on the US election… Obama’s victory was no surprise. Agitated liberals, fearful that their man might lose or trying to save what was left of their depleted consciences, chose to paint Mitt Romney in garish colors, a satanic monster had to be kept out of the White House. How lucky for liberals that Obama gave the Presidency the power to execute any US citizen without recourse to law. Had it been Bush, the Democrats would have been baying for blood in the NYRB and the NYT. As the debates showed there were hardly any differences between the two men. Both products and defenders of the Reagan consensus, they had to fight a testy campaign in order to spend the billion dollars they had raised: the electoral stimulus that is much more generous proportionately than the other kind. Nothing could disguise the fact that it was a painfully dull election, a tribal conflict at which little was really at stake. Obama, with his Wall Street chums giggling hysterically, pretended to defend the poor by denouncing Mitt as a rich ‘un. Romney, desperate to win, denouncing Barry as a radical, when, as Wall Street honchos acknowledge, he has done nothing that might make them apprehensive. I hoped in vain for some non-political excitement that might liven things up a bit. A Biden faux-pas? A sex-scandal involving Ryan and a giraffe, Romney unveiled by a Mormon lass from yesteryear? No such luck. From beginning to end it was a numbers game and, unlike in Europe, the incumbent won. And then came the dreaded clichés: ‘We are not red and blue states, we are the United States.’ This was bad even by Obama’s low standards. In the real world business will go on as usual… http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/07/the-triumph-of-conservatism/ I like Tariq - the line about Ryan fucking a giraffe was laugh out loud funny. 29
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:28 | # I am breathless at the stupidity - the sheer PC - of most MSM (including among “conservatives”) commentary so far. Anything to avoid noticing the elephant in the room: RACE. RACE is electoral destiny. We lost because of demographic change brought about by mass immigration. That’s it. In the Senate we had some losses because of the fanatic wing of the prolife movement. (Prolife is politically “correct”, so to speak - it brings in more votes than it costs - and morally correct. We Republicans will do worse if we jettison those good people. I say this even though abortion is, paradoxically, good for America: it has both a racial effect - keeping down the nonwhite population - as well as a eugenic one - most women having abortions are, er, “low income” [read: “low IQ”].) Romney decisively won the white (aka - “American”) vote. Romney is the President of (Real) America. Enough said. End immigration (or start bringing in lots of whites - good luck with that), or America dies. End race denial, or America dies. IMMIGRATION = DIVERSITY = DEMOCRATS = SOCIALISM = DEATH OF USA Yes, take it from a Californian. It really is that simple - and every bit of empirical data backs me up. No one sees this, but the result of this election will be the Death of America, the Death of American Conservatism, but also the Birth of a New White Nationalism. There are a lot of conservative whites who don’t like Obama, who are not racists, but who also dislike racial socialism. They are ripe for racial nationalists’ plucking. We whites are not just going to fade away. America is our country, and we are going to START fighting for it now (especially as the economic catastrophe and continuing antiwhite outrages render social conservatism and neoconservatism increasingly irrelevant). 30
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:31 | # Desmond Jones, um, and your point is ...? Some whites vote Democratic. Come out to LA or San Francisco. Yes, and ... Romney won the white vote nationally, decisively. He is the President of George Washington’s -> Ronald Reagan’s America. Obama is President of Post-America. 31
Posted by Hail on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 02:55 | #
Leon Haller is exactly right. The exit-poll breakdown by race is striking: 3-to-2: White-gentile margin of victory for Romney, and easy and decisive win. (White-gentiles: 70% of voters). Hispanics and ‘Asians’ both voted nearly 3-to-1 against Romney. That even Asians would vote solidly for Obama is just an obvious racial bias at work—they are opposed to a White man being president of the USA, if given the choice. Call it the in-earnest Lee-Kuan-Yew-ization of American national politics. Among Blacks, the margin for Obama was 16-to-1. The overall Nonwhite bloc vote: 46-to-10 for Obama. We can also not neglect to mention those 2 of 5 Whites who voted for Obama: Some significant share of those, too, will have voted for Obama because he is Black, too:
I like to call the type of White described above as ‘Racially-Naive’. The Obama coalition: An aggressive Nonwhite bloc vote + a minority of Whites (mostly the racially naive, with gays and some feminists) 32
Posted by Hail on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 03:02 | #
If the ‘American’ electorate has a 30% (and growing) Nonwhite voting bloc, one that gives a Nonwhite-Democrat a 5-to-1 margin against a White-Republican, then there may never be another White president of the entity we now know as the USA. It looks that way. Republicans will have to field a Nonwhite candidate, or be overwhelmed by an Anti-White bloc vote that will suffocate the life out of the campaign headed by a White man. It’s still possible for a White to be elected as a Democrat. He/she would still get most Nonwhite votes, but Nonwhite turnout would be lower and less-suffocating. (WASP-seeming Democrat Kerry managed perhaps not even 60% of the Hispanic vote [Steve Sailer says it was 60%, though the original report was 56%). But, then again, the Democrats, as a party, are probably about half Nonwhite by this point. The viciously-fought primary campaign of 2008, shows that Whites will have a harder time getting the nomination of the Democrats. We’ll recall that Hillary Clinton lost in 2008, essentially because she was White (again, an absolutely-overhwelming Nonwhite bloc, even more important in a Democrat-Only voting setting, gave many delegates to Obama, and the Nonwhite and many SWPL ‘Superdelegates’ supported Obama because of his glorious diversity, and agitated for all to support him for the same). The result is, plausibly, never again seeing a White person leading the USA. 33
Posted by Hail on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 03:23 | #
The Historic American Nation Has Ended. When Did it End?
The seeds were sown earlier than this grey area between 1960 and 2000, but that the transition occurred then is obvious. I doubt you could have found even one Founding Father of the USA who would have been anything but utterly disgusted at the prospect of a ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ being President of the United States. 34
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 03:56 | # Graham - good to see Laibach getting a mention and you’ve seen them too. Im jealous! Check these out people. This is their classic track I suppose: Life is Life. Got it on vinyl many years ago. This is great too: Across the Universe 35
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 04:11 | # Selous Scout - Rammstein are a jolly bunch and I think they owe more than a little to Laibach, dont know if they have ever publically acknowledged that. 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 04:18 | #
Stupid is as stupid says…? If the White Catholic vote turned out for Romney in the manner they turned out for Obama, it’s a Romney landslide.
Except of course that it wasn’t. JFK won with an alliance of Catholics (78%) and Southerners. Two years later he was forcing integration upon residents of Birmingham Alabama schools at the point of a gun. For almost a century after the end of the Civil War Birmingham was a liveable Southern city for Whites despite the likes of Thaddeus Stevens. Now, it is virtually abandoned by Whites. Iowa City gave Obama 66% of their vote. Johnson County is 42% (majority) Catholic.
Compare Sioux County, Iowa of which 84% of the vote was cast for Romney.
The difference…“As of 2011 80% of Sioux County residents were descendants of Dutch immigrants.” 37
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 05:06 | # That’s the way the world ends, I told myself, not with a bang but with a nigger. I can’t believe you beat me to that one. Fucking classic mate. Classic. 38
Posted by Silver on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 07:26 | #
It depends on what you’re referring to. Much of it doesn’t seem all that “particularistic in nature” at all, both because it hasn’t always existed in the west—it had to be invented/discovered—and because it’s so eagerly absorbed by others as they become aware of it. I have in mind here such things as methods of production, governance systems, legal systems, rationality, universal education (and the narrow band of alternatives associated with all these that are actually effective). People the world over find all this to their liking. Name one people that appears not to. On the other hand, if you’re talking about concepts like extreme individualism, race-replacement immigrationism, self-abnegating diversity-worship or the infusion of faggotry into all cultural spaces, then you’ll find very few willing takers.
Because of the—I think as Haller put it—unseemly glee with which you go about it.
39
Posted by Silver on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 08:00 | #
As far as Australia goes (and this may hold true for America and elsewhere as well), the 1980s were the last “great white decade.” I base this on my observations of the “WASPs” (in American-speak) I grew up around. The institutions had all been infected with self-abnegation by then, but the average man on the street was consciously white and proud of it and the surrounding culture mostly supported this identity. For instance, it was still possible to crack ethnic jokes with impunity on national television at this time; my school sung both the Australian national anthem as well as “God Save The Queen” at assemblies; the Salvation Army band would march down residential streets playing Christmas carols, confident that its product was to the liking of all. The transition to cultural self-doubt that swept the country took place remarkably quickly. By the mid-90s signs that a new era may be dawning were everywhere, and by the end of that decade few were any longer willing to voice resistance to it and the country seemed to settle into an uneasy peace with it. Fast-forward another ten years and all resistance seems to have collapsed, the only holdouts being a tiny handful of ideological resistors hopelessly confused as to the way forward from here on out. The thinking among the rest of the formerly resistant set is probably best described by the attitude of “if we have to live with these fuckers, if there’s not going to be any deporting them, then fuck it, we may as well be friendly.” The thinkers among them might add, ”—and that way we might at least win some support on the cultural issues.” (The last a position represented by “cultural nationalists” like Britain’s Paul Weston.) 40
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:04 | #
It’s obviously untrue. Romney won where white voters vote as a racial bloc in the same way the other racial groups vote as a racial bloc. That’s the only they can win. 41
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:10 | # P.S. I have many America friends and enjoy some American thinkers, writers, artists etc., so I don’t ‘hate’ Americans per se, but I seriously loathe the ideological formation summed up as ‘Americanism’. A people and the regime they live under are not one and the same are they? What self-respecting European patriot could possibly subscribe to the American ideology? Hi Graham, The fact is that I am in large agreement with your criticism of America, its politics and the philosophical underpinnings thereof – even the pejorative characterization of adherent segments of its population. uKn_Leo You get used to it after a few centuries. LOL However that, ironically, touches upon a point that I might make: that there is a deep connection with European Americans. They might get used to you as they have only been there for a few centuries – not enough to breed out their Europeanness, certainly not altogether. And some of us would like to get used to a few more centuries of our Scottish neighbors (from wherever in the world), maybe literally as European neighbors, or maybe as more distantly located neighbors. There is another point that I want to go into a little. It has to do with radical skepticism behind liberal American philosophy and ideology. You touch upon this here: Indeed, for people like me, and I am not alone, this logic of skepticism, disengagement, unwillingness or modern forbidenness, its-not-cool-ness, to be engaged with our people, to be anything but different, an individual, did lead not only to our alienation and isolation, not only from other Europeans, but in ultimate irony, from America, as you suggest. For someone like myself, inadvisably weaned on the cynicism of Frank Zappa music, the logical consequence of skepticism was laid bare (its consequence is to outstrip the supportive context of the skeptic) such that I could never really suspend disbelief in American politics and philosophy enough to enmesh in its ways, nor derive great personal reward. I would listen: Mister America Walk on by Your schools that do not teach Mister America Walk on by The minds that won’t be reached Mister America Try to hide The emptiness that’s you inside When once you find that the way you lied And all the corny tricks you tried Will not forestall the rising tide of Hungry freaks, Daddy . . . They won’t go For no more Great mid-western hardware store Philosophy that turns away From those who aren’t afraid to say What’s on their minds (The left-behinds of the Great Society) Hungry freaks, Daddy . . . Mister America Walk on by Your supermarket dream Mister America Walk on by The liquor store supreme Mister America Try to hide The product of your savage pride The useful minds that it denied The day you shrugged and stepped aside You saw their clothes and then you cried: THOSE HUNGRY FREAKS, DADDY! They won’t go For no more Great mid-western hardware store Philosophy that turns away From those who aren’t afraid to say What’s on their minds (The left-behinds of the Great Society) While there are the kinds in America that you portray: the Glenn Beck Rally types and the Christian Zionists, there are also many who do not take America so uncritically, but view it a bit ironically – on a deeper level they Must feel themselves some kind of European who happens to have found themselves in America, where they do the best they can. At its best, America provided a haven for Europeans who were morally conscientious, circumspect, who had been trashed by corrupt elitists in Europe. Of course, it became clear that America was not going to work out that way, in humanitarian circumspection – as they’d get trashed there too. Nevertheless, the Glenn Beck viewer type and religious types will sometimes turn out to be those kind, the nicest people of all. Sometimes not, its true, and that is why I tend to enjoy your criticisms, only wishing for our own interests that the overall characterization might be refined a bit regarding European American people. You are right, there can be some stubborn knots there; one of the last times I was in the States, I broached an issue that I was sure to resonate with some of the working class guys that I talked with: “don’t athletes make too much money?” I couldn’t believe it – they almost violently defended the athletes right to make millions because the owners were making millions (some how, it seems to me that neither deserve quite so much for that, but anyway) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hKHQM-xed4 I supposed they would defend Lawrence Taylor and other Negro athlete’s “right” to have harems of White women, too. There are these Americans who deserve derision – Glenn Beck, Christian Zionists who support Israel’s and the military industrial complex’s wars; sports fans and their color blindness; the Rush scumball types, etc. who, as you say, will even read up on the way, somehow in mysterious fashion, the ‘free-market’ will ride to your collective political and cultural rescue. Never-mind you can all cheer yourselves up by watching some Glenn Beck and have a lachrymose rally to restore ‘honor’ or some such trivia. Or even pop alone to the local mega-church and pretend as if such activity is fit for adult human beings. America - the subliminal mind-fuck! Now on this particular issue I’m with Schmitt – against any ideological regime of ‘spaceless universalism’. No ‘sovereign individualism’ is definitely the way to go. In a word carry on collectively being politically illiterate fuckwits – an oxymoron of individualists. There was a generation of patriotic Americans, like my father, who identified as an American, appreciated the ability to elevate his status, did indeed, make decent money honestly enough, while having started out poor, did not appreciate European snobbery, who chided the French (“how quick they forget they’d be speaking German if not for us”). But some among a later generation began feeling the consequences of America’s susceptibilities, and simply could not be quite so patriotic as my father’s generation – the deterioration had gone too far. More, I think that many, if not most Americans do identify with Europeans and their interests – if not in entirety, then with one or a few European countries. The reason why I go into this, is not only because I am quite sure that European Americans, if they know what’s good for them, are fighting an allied cause with European Europeans, and not only because I see you as underestimating the extent to which many European Americans already see no conflict between their view and say, a Scottish nationalist view, and not only for the most meaningful reason perhaps, that it is therefore unnecessarily divisive, but because I have personally experienced being trashed as an American, by a European, post-Marxist mindset: how well meaning I was, how much good could have been all around and how much cruel destruction instead – largely because of misplaced jealousy and largely because there is not an understanding of the bitter (nightmarishly bitter!) challenges that American face, how hard working that they can be and the genuine good will (toward fellow Europeans) that can exist in many of them. Instead of being open to that, all many Europeans want to hear is what a great opportunity that Americans have, how merely lucky they are, how uncultured and crass they are, how they should be punished for everything the Jew media says that they should be punished for. Talk about crass – Europeans think Jew media portrays Americans and American reality. 42
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:14 | # I found, just as you have noted, that the American liberal political philosophy is destructive; that the notion on the lips of so many, “that it does not matter where you come from, or what color you are” is an evil farce. So much so that in the mid nineties, I made my mind up to return to one of my two homelands: Italy or Poland. Poland turned out to be more feasible, especially economically. My motives were and are good. I sought the protection and well being of the people and all Europeans. True, I was not fully articulate as yet: though I had serious misgivings about Jews (esp. media and academia) I did not fully understand as yet the full basis for their mistrust of Jews; I could not understand why they were Not more worried and angry about Germans than they were; I did not understand the intense concern about Turks among some; I was sorry that they liked America as much as they did – and tried to warn them and prepare them. Nevertheless, I was accountable – and I always cared about Europeans and always wanted the European nations to be for the European peoples – so, I was corrigible as to pejorative influences and emphases. They were neo-capitalists, having emerged from Marxism. Ok, I knew the drawbacks, but had a little to invest from my share of my father’s house – not very much, but enough at the time so that if invested wisely, it could have become substantial enough to think about a family, a good life – and here is the point: a means to help good and loyal Europeans (in this case, Poles, financially). It could have been so good all around. Instead the community (and yes, this is where I began to become really skeptical of the notion of communitarianism) put me up on a pedestal as an American, so that they could take me down to show me that they were better, I was set upon with a hornets nest of gossip about my being a racist, being all about money and promiscuous (I will only cop to being a racist). While the locals went around and had sex with fair regularity (and yes, I saw it as their prerogative and not exactly mine, so I was a bit shy), I sought an appropriate wife for myself, but was really not sure who was right, and needed to date some. I was also shy because I had not had sex in years (I was grossed out by American woman – to me, any woman who would even want to stay there became suspect), so I did, indeed, visit four or five prostitutes for the first and only time in my life – because any normal woman who was close enough to my age would have had way more sex than me and I did not want them to say that I was trying to make them feel guilty. (ok, it was tactless of me to not realize gossip might get out about that, to not realize that something that might be looked upon as a forgivable transgression for local guys might not be quite so for me, but still my motives were basically obsequious and I was amenable to account). My father had died 8 months before and I was having to fight my siblings for a modest share to invest, was there to talk about possibilities with my cousins, who were just as poor and Polish as anybody: but no, I was the evil American and the local girls knew what it was all about from the Hymiewood movies they watched, so I should be plundered – and man did the “defenders of their virtue” (read criminals, who will conjure any excuse to steal, and slander) torture me with their Hegelian dialectic. Didn’t I need a I guess that what I am saying is that European Americans do have a connection to Europe and European peoples; even if it would not be a good idea for a large percentage of European Americans to return to Europe and an even worse idea for them to bring liberal American philosophy and politics to Europe. Anti-American sentiment taken to an extreme, has devastated my capacity to be generous and cooperative with the European peoples whom I genuinely care about and wanted to help – their willful skepticism about my motives, wanting to believe I was a selfish, individualist capitalist pig, had an exponential negative impact on me and the means I have to help my cause. While it further radicalized my already radical view and brought me into open activism a few years back, I am not yielding much for myself personally. It’s sad that an abundance of wonderful win-win opportunities – which I had to wait a life time to act upon -devolved so largely into an either/or: my personal interests or activism on behalf of Europeans. It didn’t have to but for some techno nerds and “honest workers” (as if I was not honestly working and did not deserve to invest the money from my father’s house with my cousins) disingenuously, perhaps (to cover up their baroque jealousy), conflated theoria (which worked well to isolate and find the truth behind technical problems), with the multi-interactive praxis of the social world that needs largely to be negotiated with words to cover necessary factors in space and time. Notice how it became unfashionable, how we were all supposed to move beyond words, at the time in PC’s onslaught when it would have been more than appropriate for White men to defend themselves rhetorically? No, I do not believe words are the domain of Jews only; I think they are adept at playing both sides of a Hegelian dialectic, as usual.. 43
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:56 | # Desmond Jones @36 Why don’t you state your point in plain language? 44
Posted by Jannik on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:52 | # Havent posted much on this site. But I will applaud Guessedworker for making an interesting website which i have visited many times in the last 5-7 years. All this talk about americanization, and the artistic reaction to it, made me think of a particular song that I havent heard for years. I really think that he nailed it with the scathing sarcasm. Americanos (Holly Johnson 1989) There’s a place where a kid without a cent Americanos - Blue Jeans and Chinos Movies and heroes in the land of the free They know how to advertise Take no bull from anyone we just wanna have some fun Americanos - Blue Jeans and Chinos Low riding Chicanos in the land of the free Satellite stations across the nation Americanos - Blue Jeans and Chinos… 45
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:22 | # Since some folks are posting song lyrics wrt an F’ed up U.S.A., I thought post one of my faves: WAYLON JENNINGS & WILLIE NELSON - THE YEAR 2003 MINUS 25 LYRICS Welcome to 2003 minus 25 Oh, say can you smell her for the smoke God’s still up there laughin’ so He’s gotta be alive Who says He can’t take a dirty joke Power isn’t, power does and power slips awayIt’s so easy to abuse Who’d've thought them Arabs would’ve boughtThe USA just to give it to the Jews (HEH!) Singin’ crime still don’t pay just like it used toAnd you know that time slips away till you die And you know that I don’t give a damn when I choose toAnd you know that it don’t hurt so bad when you’re high Oh, say does the future of the homesickAnd the brave even matter anymoreThere ain’t no more reason for them boysTo run away than there was to fight before Would you tell me why the hell we’d try to win back in a warWhat we wasted in the last?Might just ain’t as righteous as it used to be beforeWhen your army’s out of gas Singin’ crime still don’t pay just like it used toAnd you know that time slips away till you dieAnd you know that I don’t give a damn when I choose toAnd you know that it don’t hurt so bad when you’re high Singin’ crime still don’t pay just like it used toAnd you know that time slips away till you die And you know that I don’t give a damn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c3eCnWTAMo
46
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:10 | # No, I do not believe words are the domain of Jews only; I think they are adept at playing both sides of a Hegelian dialectic, as usual.. It doesn’t make much sense to play one side… 47
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:12 | # What are David Duke and James Edwards doing with this equal rights for everyone crap? Duke is saying best man for the job, he “does not want ‘African Americans’ discriminated against either if they are the ‘best’ qualified.” Edwards has been taking that line as well… right wingers, uhg! Is that combination for real? When was the last time in 100,000 years that a Black gave birth to a White woman? 48
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:17 | # Posted by Classic Sparkle on November 08, 2012, 02:10 PM | # No, I do not believe words are the domain of Jews only; I think they are adept at playing both sides of a Hegelian dialectic, as usual.. It doesn’t make much sense to play one side…
is just one way of formulating “the dialectic process” 49
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 22:34 | # As I remarked in an email to GW far too much intellectual and political energy is spent on America at MR. Europeans simply have to accept the working hypothesis that we are moving into a multi-polar world; very much a ‘post-Atlantic’ world. I’m not sure that Europeans would or should accept a deluge of Americans. Americans that would bring with them, no doubt, their societally disastrous witches brew of Locke, Hayek, Nozick et al., accompanied with an insistent, even fanatical, but terribly earnest preaching of how we need more individual liberty etc., or more zealous and dogmatic ‘free-marketry’ in the same mode as Mr. Leon “I know the price of everything and the value of nothing” Haller. All while the very same ideological framework moves towards its own autoteleological terminus in the land of the free. Moreover whatever ideological themes shapes the American experience and political imagination they do seem woefully inadequate don’t they? After all the USA was 90%+ Euro and now minority status rapidly beckons. Now this will be a controversial suggestion – but Euro America must be considered primarily culpable for allowing this state of affairs to occur. Using an aetiology derived from immunology, it is rather as if a deadly virus (along the lines of HIV/Aids) is in the environment and certain people engage in every possible dangerous activity conceivable (in terms of contracting the imaginary virus) and then on learning they are almost certain to be killed by the consequences of their own behaviour ‘blame’ the virus. That would amount to a very simple-mined view of the casual nexus in operation. The virus might have been a necessary element in the story but it was hardly a sufficient condition by itself. Indeed, if the patient, as well as behaving in quite idiotic and risky ways, had also already suffered from a weak immune system (for whatever reason) then the casual weighting of the virus in their premature death would be even lower. The virus might be the final straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, but not by any means the only straw. Which Catalan, Basque, Dane, Finn, Italian, Serb, Greek et al., with a political IQ above room temperature, could possibly look at the USA and judging it in its totality subsequently think “we need to become more like those guys?” Seriously why should they look to ape such disastrous failure? Still I’m sure life will be bearable and comfortable enough in the near future. The Hallers of the future can make enough money speculating in credit default swaps and God know what else to buy a very cozy place in a high-class ‘gated community’; the Bowerys of the future can all find a nice quite spot in the Black Hills of South Dakota and practice as ‘individual sovereigns’ their duelling skills; and the Renners of the future can tell anyone that will listen of the immediate ‘inevitability’ of the Ogygian deluge and call such banality ‘meta-politics’, yes? I doubt ‘civil war’ will be observed; rather most people will just ‘get on’ with life, work and leisure - recreational drugs and sex, the Playstation and the Xbox etc., and other forms of joyless hedonism in a sub-Nietzschean ‘last men’ modality: the cry was “Give me convenience or give me death!”. Incidentally, I noted that two states have voted in referenda to make marijuana 100% legal (with no ‘for medical use’ qualification). It will be cocaine and heroin next – the Borkian ‘deviancy constant’ will kick in. In this regard those states are now ahead in policy terms of the ultra-liberal Netherlands (which in drug policy terms is actually moving in the opposite way). Of course the population of the USA is the largest per capita consumers of illegal recreational drugs on the planet and in absolute terms the USA is also, I believe, the worlds largest market for such drugs. I’ll leave others to tell me what it says about a society when the favoured pastime of very large proportion of its population is to radically alter or temporarily obliterate their consciousness. Returning to my theme of the future, in the slightly longer perspective we might well be writing and reading the history of having attempted various ‘inorganic’ simulacra of European societies in the ‘New World’ and view such as monstrous follies and/or historical curiosities. However, Europe existed before America and it will be here long after it has ‘gone’. If I believe in one socio-political ‘certitude’ it is that. Now frankly as Rufus Wainwright sings I’m so tired of America. Extremely tired. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtVyl402W5s& P. S. “problem - reaction – solution” - oh no do we have yet another Ickologist at MR now? I do believe the “problem – reaction – solution” phrase and wider trope is one of Mr. Icke’s favourites. 50
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 23:59 | # If one were to take the energy GL spends on trash-talking individuals and cultures and divert even half of it to his own ideas on how to proceed with restoring Europe, there might be a prayer for MR in two ways: 1) It would become much less a ghetto. However, it is apparent that he has nothing of substance to offer and manages to avoid facing his own vacuity by substituting energetic flame wars for contribution. 51
Posted by daniels on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 06:29 | # P. S. “problem - reaction – solution” - oh no do we have yet another Ickologist at MR now? I do believe the “problem – reaction – solution” phrase and wider trope is one of Mr. Icke’s favourites. No, Graham, The only place I have ever heard of David Icke is from you. I gather he is a conspiracy theorist. I do not like them either. I have seen your criticisms of Marxism, so I know that when we speak about leftism we are not drawing cartoons, but talking about a soft (except with regard to demographics - there, not soft), ethno-leftism. In distinction from other forms of the Hegelian dialectic, I was suggesting that that is the way Marxists use it do defraud outsiders: they create a problem, look for the overcompensating, imbalanced reaction, then propose a solution that is easy for them to exploit. Coming out of my situation, I always had a burning desire to cooperate and loved the idea of it. As luck would have it, I discovered (as it was described to me by an anthropologist of American and English parentage) that the communist mindset had the ironic upshot of making people more competitive and individualistic than ever (because you had to steal in order to survive). Therefore, I was subject to an elaborate version of the prisoner’s dilemma beautifully described by Bowery. Pila, Poland, was where the Polish version of the KGB’s former members went and took over local government after the fall of communism - unbeknownst to me. Unfortunately, that is where I found myself because that is where my cousins happened to live. Ironically, I thought I’d be safe from organized crime because they were there and I sought to invest with them. However, being the only American in town, I was treated to lovely KGB style games as a reality not as a conspiracy theory. They knew who I needed, how to turn them against me etc, etc. it was horrible. Moving on.. Once again, I basically agree with your criticism of American political philosophy but not European Americans. In terms of biology, as opposed to European Europeans, American Europeans may have greater peaks and valleys, very smart, very stupid, very weak, very strong, but America’s potential to allow for different, creative expressions of European ways of life was a strong point, in my estimation - a very good possibility. Something like the laboratory of the states would carry on with that possibility. That is to address its positive side, however. Maybe it is necessary to be strongly anti-American, as you are, precisely because it is such a powerful beast. I trust also, that is why MR deals with America as much as it does, because there is no escaping its influence for the time being, unfortunately (that is what I found, the hard way, as you saw - the influence of America’s hymiewood movies!). However, if Lockeatine individual rights left America and Americans susceptible, is the virus to blame? Well, as you know, I have been addressing both issues as problematic, and I am pretty sure that the “virus” is agentive - it knows what is doing. As a hyper-ethnocentric agenda, its workings are far more verifiable than the standard conspiracy theory. Moreover, my experience tells me to trust my experience and my experience backs it up. However, I am convinced that you are right, that Lockeatine rights are a disaster - lately, Duke and Edwards are saying they want equal rights for all, best man for the job (and best comedian, Eddy Murphy, for our women too?)! I thought they were supposed to be advocating separatism and the protection of our qualities, not a quantity of rights! Yes, Americans can be stupid - not that Duke and Edwards don’t do some fine work but that?! I hope you don’t stop calling me Danny. It is a good feeling to have such a cool guy and learned man as Dr. Lister address me in friendly terms and to take my side. I do respect you and I have respected the Scots since I can remember. Before he finally resigned to become a truck driver in order to take care of his kids, my father apprenticed with Scottish pattern-makers. I remember him commenting: “I couldn’t shine those guys shoes.” My student’s report on Dr. Lister is in the high nineties, and it is daunting to address those few points, as it is with Mr. Bowery, that maybe could use some adjustment. I am trying desperately to get European peoples to fight on the same side, no matter where they are - I believe they do not have to be in conflict. No good European person, wherever they are, would want Scotland to be less than 95% native Scottish - and it should be a higher percentage than that, even. 52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:43 | #
Popular vote in 2000 50,456,002 50,999,897 Bush/Gore Popular vote in 2004 62,040,610 59,028,444 Bush/Kerry Popular vote in 2009 69,456,897[2] 59,934,814[2] Obama/McCain Popular vote in 2012 61,112,143[2] 58,122,514[2] Obama/Romney If Romney had Bush’s 2004 turnout (R + 3) he beats Obama. The issue for Republicans is turning out their vote. Or in 2016, when the Obama team is gone, will the Democrat nominee be able to turnout the vote in the same numbers Obama did? If the Dems can only get Gore numbers then Republicans may take back the Whitehouse.
53
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:03 | #
It’s obvious they didn’t for anyone with eyes to see. It’s the entrenchment and protection of group rights that is the issue. Non-discrimination is not a principle of Locke’s. Group rights, protection from discrimination because of race, creed, religion et al is not is not part of Locke’s philosophy. It is founded in Jewish/Catholic rejection of the freedom of association. Is it really surprising that Edwards is pushing merit? We’ve seen the result of an open racial message from the BNP. It is wholly and completely rejected. They hope merit will play to Whites in a fashion racial consciousness does not because it is a message for the individual. Merit is advantage Whites, end affirmative action, hire police fire etc. forces based upon their ability not some racial quota. 54
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:37 | # Non-discrimination is not a principle of Locke’s. It absolutely was a principle of his: all individuals had the same perceptions therefore they should not be discriminated against on the basis of social classifications - viz., his concern as to not be discriminated against by the English Aristocratic class. However, he abstracted that to the sense that all social classifications were a fiction of the mind. Group advocacy, such as found in the he civil rights act of 1964 was a reversal of individual rights in favor of Black group advocacy (later gays, women, disabled, etc). The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act also advocated discriminatory immigration on behalf of non-European groups. Brown vs. Board of Education’s using “individual rights” to prohibit White group discrimination of Blacks from White schools was apparently the initial move, however. There, Jewish interests used the susceptibility of Lockeatine individual rights to transgress White interests. After that, Jewish interests turned Locke on his head - the 64 and 65 Acts not having to do with Locke but with group advocacy as you say. Group rights would not be a bad if they are allowed for White groups, but they do not, as per Jewish power. Individual rights are a very flawed concept as I’ve gone into, in several places, but they’d be better than nothing if Whites could have them. I supposed that it what Duke and Edwards are hoping for - but it is a bad strategy. They should not advocate playing games with non-Whites. If they want to advocate something commonsensical and visceral, they should be advocating freedom of (from) association and separatism as a necessity to avoid exploitation and death - that would be qualitative and take us feasibly in the right direction. Arguing equal rights takes us into quantitative arguments that will make us look bad and entail terrible casualties before it becomes clear to all Whites that it is a failed strategy. They will not care about our rights. They might understand that we need and want to be separate if we abandon them and give them an offer they cannot refuse if they insist on transgressing our separatism.
55
Posted by whitacre on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:02 | #
There may also have been a “Ron Paul effect”:
56
Posted by Bill on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:20 | # @49 @51 David Icke. Asset or liability to the cause? Let our readers decide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nMq6gc1yMg I’m saying nowt! Note. Wogan is a long time institution at the BBC. He is now retired. 57
Posted by daniels on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:19 | # /. @49 @51 David Icke. Asset or liability to the cause? Let our readers decide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nMq6gc1yMg I’m saying nowt! Note. Wogan is a long time institution at the BBC. He is now retired.
Liability. His style of argumentation, lineal, sensational and speculative, coupled as it may be, with important insights, can make an important cause look ridiculous and distract from the proper measures to be taken in its organization. He does come close to naming the Jew in that clip. But that just may illustrate the point. Perhaps some would associate sober minded people with having become critical of Jews through ridiculous, lineal and singular arguments like David Icke’s - I suppose Icke sees this all as a grand battle of good and evil in which evil is prevailing? - that kind of universalism is indeed, a New Age-headed liability. No, I prefer normal experience, learning from evolutionary psychologists such as Dr. MacDonald, and the corroborating insights of many non sensational others. That’s all I’ve seen of Icke. As conspiratorial as I’ll go: Perhaps people such as him and McGowan (another conspiracy theorist, whose efforts I have seen for the first time) are under the influence of post hypnotic suggestion to make advocates of European peoples look ridiculous by associating key moves with absurdities. - project for the new American Century = ancient Babylon, etc. Liability.
Duke, Linder and MacDonald would be the closest White advocates that I know of to being monocausalists, but that would be distorting of them to suggest that they are perfectly simple and quite so lineal as Icke seems to be from that clip.
Primarily because I have not found them to be necessary. Even if you take 9-11: it does matter if Mossad was behind it, but not to the point where it is an indispensable argument for building a case that Jewish interests and international banking are poison to White interests. There would be a clear connection there, whether it was Mossad, Al-Kaida or CIA behind that particular incident. Even if it were just Al-Kaida behind it, angry with the US for having Soldiers in Saudi and for taking Israel’s side in all matters of relevance, 9-11 would still point to Israel as a pejorative influence - very difficult to believe Arabs would be that angry at the Israeli/US connection for no reason, as if they were angry with Israel because it was so pure and innocent in its motives. Bottom line: conspiracy theories are more likely to serve as diversions than an incisive insight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCBV-GhyINY
58
Posted by Bill on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:48 | # All aboard! Next stop Syria. Obama - Cameron wasting no time after the election. Did you see Cameron on the Syrian Turkish border on last nights BBC news?
Justin Raimondo http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/11/08/next-stop-syria-2/ 60
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 12:38 | # uknleo, Nice comment from you I saw somewhere in the recent comments. Europe my eternal home. Unfortunately, I fear Graham Lister (et al, perhaps) don’t want me and mine returning to the Old Countries. Better the Muhammads and Akbars than the Americans! 61
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 13:13 | # A comment I tried to leave to an article by Yuval Levin at National Review (couldn’t do it; kept getting a pop up saying I had to “authenticate the user”, but with nothing to click to do so - any ideas what that means?):
62
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 13:45 | # On the subject of dialectics, we mustn’t overlook the elephant in the room: Cultural Marxism. The cultural Marxists gained power by forming a coalition of dissimilar groups and pitting them against a common enemy. That common enemy is White Christian heterosexual males… along with his traditional nuclear family. It’s really that simple. The cultural Marxists seem to be an invincible foe for us White Christian heterosexual males; however, the good news is, given the Left’s lustful quest for power, it is making a foolish but fatal mistake by forming alliances with Mooslines thus including them in their coalition of the damned. That move, for the obvious dialectical reasons, will result in the Left’s downfall, IMO. Clearly it amounts to Faustian Man writ large. BTW, no doubt the cultural Marxists see White Nationalism (as it stands now anyways) as no threat to them at all. ZERO threat. How could they see WN as a threat when WN is rife with anti-Christians/anti-Capitalists/anti-Americans etc. within its ranks? If anything, the cultural Marxists probably regard the WN movement as an unaligned force—albeit a weak force—pushing in the same direction as themselves. IOWs, the aim or goal is to install a global communist system. They correctly assessed that Christianity practised by people of European decent is the ONLY force strong enough to prevent their grand plan from coming to fruition. There IS overlapping common cause between the Marxiods and anti-Christian/anti-capitalist WNs. One need not be a Christian to see that! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cultural Marxism 63
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:40 | # If The Stupid Party thinks they can ingratiate themselves with Hispanics by granting illegal aliens amnesty, thus in return expect to garner a much greater share of the Hispanic voting block, then they are truly deluded and whistling past the graveyard. The reason >70% of Hispanics vote Democrat is the Democrats give out more “free stuff”. Granting amnesty will only serve to increase the Democrats’ base. +++++++++++++++++++++
November 7, 2012 12:20 P.M.
Read more>> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald 64
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:09 | # /. It won’t happen by way of Christianity because, for one, too many people simply don’t believe it - particularly in Europe. That does not mean they are not amenable to moral considerations, there is no avoiding that for anybody. There is a catch 22 with regard to Christianity that has been part of what has kept Europeans stuck for centuries (if not in its plainly self destructive prescriptions then in its intellectually thwarting mandates): identify as a Christian in order to prove you are not a Jew/practice Christianity then you really are operating under a Jewish rubric and worshiping a Jewish master.
65
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:55 | # Never said Christianity in and of itself is THE way out of the racial mess whites find ourselves in. My point is attacking Euro-Christians is counter productive to the nth degree. Trust me, Christians are some of the fiercest advocates for securing a future for White people. Their the most effective too. IOWs, Euro-Christians can walk and chew gum at the same time. Lastly, DO NOT conflate Christianity with liberalism. Most whites that purport to be Christians are actually liberals operating under the banner of Christianity. Secular liberalism, pop culture, and leftist memes dominate their thinking…...and throw in a strong dose of peer preasure into the mix.
Now I’m off to the gun show. Gonna stock up big time on .380 and 38+p ammo. 66
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:50 | #
And just think, if TPTB get their way, that border with Syria will be our border with Syria. And why not Syria in the EU one day too? 67
Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:59 | # @Thorn ‘Now I’m off to the gun show. Gonna stock up big time on .380 and 38+p ammo.’
Frozen peas can cause real nasty bruising if thrown with sufficient force. England sucks. 68
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:46 | # A legal pair-wise duel filmed in Seattle with Police in attendance. Unfortunately the black guy wins (with a sucker punch of course). https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lVLvAOsX95M 69
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:25 | # This sort of definition of “duel” is even worse than the JudeoChristian concession to European aristocracy that rendered the culture of Euroman dysgenic and then proceeded to render European aristocracy nothing but an obscene howler to the enemies of Euroman. Nowadays, guys like CC and GL are joining in on the laughter. 70
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 06:02 | #
Yes, but not because of discrimination but because of obligation. There is a duty, per Locke, not to kill, steal or enslaved. Brown vs. Board of Education was a verdict passed upon a state’s right to pass laws segregating its population, not individual rights.
No they didn’t. They used the gnawing resentment of other minorities (including ethnic whites) to pathologise individual discrimination.
71
Posted by daniels on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:32 | # by Desmond Jones on November 10, 2012, 01:02 AM | # his concern as to not be discriminated against by the English Aristocratic class. Yes, but not because of discrimination but because of obligation. There is a duty, per Locke, not to kill, steal or enslaved. If you see a useful distinction there, be my guest. I don’t. It rather sounds like Jews saying they are obliged by a duty to marry only amongst themselves in accordance with their religion (not in accordance with racism). Brown vs. Board of Education was a verdict passed upon a state’s right to pass laws segregating its population, not individual rights. There, Jewish interests used the susceptibility of Lockeatine individual rights to transgress White interests.
Yes they did. They were making a civil rights argument. If you want to say it was disingenuous, and that they had a group agenda behind the argument, of course, I can agree. The kinds of psychological argumentation introduced into the court about the black girl’s self esteem, how she chose the White doll to play with and so forth, that kind of argument moves deftly between group and individual rights.
and ALSO to pathologize group segregation by portraying it as a violation of civil (individual) rights.
72
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:19 | #
LOLZ! F’ing hilarious! That reminds me of a common saying at Americano gun blogs: “I carry a gun because I can’t throw a rock 1250 feet per second.” I guess frozen peas could apply too. BTW, uKn_Leo, does your sign in name/acronym translate to unknown (UKN)_ law enforcement officer (LEO)? If so, it’s good to see their are still cops on our side. 73
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:37 | # How defining was 2012? I think this recent US election is extremely important to global WN in one sense. It brutally clarifies first, that the war for Western survival has now, appropriately, finally ‘come home’, as it were; and second, that, insofar as the US will only become more of a force for mandatory, imperialistic racial integration, we must all push for a decisive divorce between Europe and the New World (which has been almost thoroughly reduced to the Anglosphere). Yes, Canada is doing reasonably well these days, due solely to its modestly fiscally conservative government, as is Australia, due to its natural endowments. But the Dominions are, in future discounted reality, all lost. It’s only a matter of time. Oz will be absorbed into Asia; tiny New Zealand will be ‘Hawaiianized’, as its natives, in league with Asian migrants, gradually dispossess the descendants of the whites who built it; and Canada is on the road to being fully as multiculturalized through immigration as the US. Of greatest importance, however, are the different ethical ‘spaces’ in which Europe and her colonies are respectively situated. Europe is organic and autochthonous, and the New World is not. No one can speak of Europe as multiracial except aspirationally or treasonously. Europe has had such a long, varied and eventful history. It is somehow more real than North America. Of course, this can be exaggerated: the Real America has a fairly long and ‘thick’ history, too. But the white man can’t be said to come from here, even if we, as the founder and builder race, will always enjoy moral ownership of the USA. That ownership claim, however, will never be remotely as philosophically powerful, or as emotionally resonant, as those of our European cousins. Anyway, global WN needs to develop a common agenda based on white perpetuity, even if the political specifics will vary widely by country. I think MR should launch a discussion on one aspect of this agenda - this asserted need to widen the official gap across the Atlantic (even as WNs on both sides need to work and share ideas more closely). I think a good opening gambit would be to make the total withdrawal of US troops from European soil(s) something we can all work towards. RESOLVED: It is better for white preservation that the American military be wholly removed as well as institutionally severed from Europe. Thoughts?
74
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:49 | #
No, sorry Thorn. It’s just just an old internet name I use for convenience. Should change it to be honest. You will find lots of UK police harbouring nationalist views and sentiment at this blog. I would never, ever join the UK police force. They are protectors of the enemies of my people, unfortunately. 75
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:59 | # Miss B breaks it down for us. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Economic Presentation in 8 Parts Posted by Ann Barnhardt - November 9, AD 2012 9:23 AM MST Here is the link to the workbook in PDF. Here is the link to view vids: Part One Topics: Part Two Topics: Part Three Topics: Part Four Topics: Part Five Topics: Part Six Topics: Part Seven Topics: Part Eight Topics
76
Posted by antifascist on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:44 | # So, Majority rights commenters, you have expressed your vehement hatred of Obama on over 70 comments on this discussion thread. I have 5 questions, for you, GW, daniels or whoever else, feel free to respond. 1. What is your plan, dealing with the American political system, do you believe that Bill O’Reilly and Pat Buchanan are right, in suggesting that the Republican Party, and the “white majority” will never be able to elect another president of the USA? 2. Do you want to see the states in the USA, break-up from the union, and secede, if the Republican Party cannot win another US presidential election? 3. What states do you believe should/ or could secede from the union? 4. If you managed to secede from the union, in states, such as Montana, North Dakota and Utah, would you except, and/or want these white nationalists, to kill or deport non-whites from the state? 5. Is your only option to use violence, to secede, if you cannot use the US political system to win a Presidential election with the Republican party, or a third party , to leave the union voluntarily? <u> How can you organize, a political or violent revolution, when your white nationalist believers, are socially and economically conservative, and individualistic, not collectivist, generally speaking. 77
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:00 | # Thorn@76 Be careful re that stuff. I visited her site. First, it really messed with my mac. Little rainbow pinwheel almost nonstop. Second, and more importantly, while her heart is obviously in the right place, she indulges in a lot of wild overstatement about factual matters. People like her never seem to be able to deal with reality clearly and in appropriately nuanced fashion. There is a difference between my saying, eg, the Elites governing us have slated Western Civ within the USA for termination (a poetic way of pointing out the hostility our elites have for our traditional values), and her saying Obama had the Libyan ambassador murdered (getting into JRichards territory here). I would like to have looked at her econ presentation, just to see how rational she is, but the site was not responding well (I understand real economics - I studied bulls—- Keynesianism at one of the best universities in the Ivy League - not Harvard is all I’ll say, and correct Austrianism at length on my own, and thus often use economic ideas as a metric to assess someone’s worthiness of being taken seriously). if you want to study real economics just go to the Mises site. 78
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:09 | # Antifacist, Let’s be perfectly clear: it’s not our side that seeks to initiate violence, it’s your side. It’s always your side. In order for the leftist/Marxist system to succeed, it requires 100% participation. So given that fact, it begs the question: What happens to those that refuse to participate? Answer: Archipelagos of Gulags/reeducation camps pop up concomitant with millions slaughtered. I suggest you read the following piece: http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2012/11/musings-after-midnight-i-wouldnt-bet.html
“Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.” ― André Gide 79
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:19 | #
That said, I’m sure all the content in Miss B’s presentation is old hat for you. I say that with all due respect. 80
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:20 | #
1. No, I don’t believe that, though I do believe that the US is no longer a white nation, however much we once were. Romney could have won if he’d had me advising him. He ran a poor campaign, even though he himself was a very credible candidate. Republicans can win the Presidency at least until 2024, if, contrary to the idiot media, they are conservative enough. And if the next Repub Prez/Congress ENDS THE IMMIGRATION INVASION (and restores the free market), the GOP could win permanently. But they will now predictably draw all the wrong conclusions from their loss, so the USA’s decline will be hastened. 2. Yes. 3. The Northern tier, plus the Old South. Or three areas: the Upper Pacific Northwest; the Old South; and Northern New england, though the latter would be really liberal, and thus not viable for long. Note: if some states actually seceded successfully, a lot of whites in the non-seceding states (like me in CA) would gradually move there. 4. I think life could be made sufficiently unpleasant for them that they would “self-deport”. If a bunch of ideologically aggressive nonwhite nationalists moved to my area, how long would I remain there? (oh wait - bad question, I’m an Angeleno ...well, OC-ite). 5. Dude, we ain’t nearly there yet. Such speculation is worse than idle. We need to raise white consciousness by about a thousand degrees. We need to gradually coalesce in the same agreed upon area - like the gays did wrt san Francisco. And then we need to take over the statehouses in the affected area - and only then are we ready to push for secession and real sovereignty. Violence hasn’t entered the picture yet. What we want is the White Republic, a sovereign, biologically bounded nation for our own people, where we can live free in the true, ancient sense: in self-governing communities ruled by persons genetically similar to us. We will achieve this some day (not sure if any of us will live to see it, however).
81
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:32 | # Leon, try this link: Part One Topics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7dFVFJ0iRRA Note: I think she does an excellent job explaining what money is, and how ALL money is fiat. 82
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:32 | # Antifascist, you do understand that homo sapiens are an evolved species of primate, don’t you? The use of violence to compete for finite resources against members of our own species is inevitable as it is instinctively ingrained in us. (The only reason chimpanzees, for instance, do not inflict more carnage against their fellow chimpanzees is because they do not possess the intelligence to stategize marshally as groups against other groups of champanzees.) So then, it is not us, not the ideas we espouse, which you in fact rail against, but human nature itself. Did you not know that? 83
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:18 | #
vDare is doing some useful “follow the money” post-election coverage. One need only understand the extent to which the GOP, and its auxiliary Beltway Conservative think tanks and media, are financially dependent on Jewish bosses like billionaire casino operator Sheldon Adelson to understand why they are reacting as they are now and even why they approached this campaign as they did. Adelson wants cheap non-white labor, low taxes and pro-Likudnik policies. Therefore his shabbos goy dogs like John Boehner bark on command; “No new taxes” and ‘growth’ on immigration amnesties. The fact these policies will likely cost them their ‘majority’ in 2014 is irrelevant. And it doesn’t really matter. They aren’t a ‘majority’ in a real sense and do not author the policies they’re ordered to support. They’re a collection of mediocre hirelings whose bosses choose to assign them deceptive common labels. The common denominator of the current crop of GOP “national” leaders is they can’t carry their own states at election time. Romney (MA), Ryan (WI), Christie (NJ), Boehner (OH), Cantor (VA), Rubio (FL) and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus (NJ-FL-WI) all illustrate this phenomenon. McConnell of KY was the semi-exception. But even here as Senate minority leader he presided over a -2 performance. 2014 will likely see the GOP recede back below 40 Senate seats again since they’ll be defending so many more than the Dems. The false front character of the GOP has never been plainer. 84
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:37 | # The inhuman monster who should be put to death, “antifascist”, thinks there has been a “Republican” president in recent history. Eisenhower violated the state powers when he called up the national guard to violate a state’s own preferences in how it would provide equal access to education. Nixon failed to even attempt to repeal the monstrous Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Reagan gave us the 1986 immigration amnesty that doomed the “Republican” party. George Bush Sr. and George Bush Jr. started a Hispanic political dynasty in the US and set the stage for another amnesty this year. 85
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:15 | # Leo @ 75
About 2 years ago I posted to (Police) Inspector Gadget in the context of policing street unrest and the limits of force the police would go to. My message was to the effect that in the not too distant future he himself would be uncomfortable with methods being used. His brief reply was to the effect he couldn’t see it happening. Gadget’s blog. http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/ I’ve always said the police will do what ever is required of them in order to keep up the mortgage payments. As things get progressively worse then up will go the ante. The bottom line is from my stand point the police are defending the indefensible, when the elites turn their backs on their own people the police should withdraw their support. One only has to look at what is happening in Greece (the whole EU in fact) to see the police are sustaining a corrupt undemocratic political regime. I have read where police/military? rapid response teams have been formed to deal with civil unrest in countries other than their own, the connotations being, live ammunition will be used. Host nation police/troops will not be expected to shoot on their own tribe. (This was not the case in N. Ireland in 1971 when British paratroopers shot 13 rioters dead.) Violent unrest involving mainly non whites have, up until now, (from instances I have seen on YouTube,) have been given a free pass. Political correctness, non-discrimination and victim status forbids police oppressive counter measures. Only proportionate response can be applied, presumably after an on the spot risk assessment has been made. Oh what a tangled web. Political correctness/non-discrimination is exacting a terrible toll on British society, and yet there are no signs of any public resistance. The writing was writ large when social services were given the go ahead to hand over children in care to same sex couples. The response from the public on-line was in record numbers but Blair ignored the protest and steamrollered the legislation through parliament. Handing vulnerable children to same sex couples had become law (EU?) under Blair without any meaningful resistance from political conservativism. This was the final straw. If confirmation was ever needed of what we all knew, political conservatism was dead. Stone Dead. Liberal political correctness ruled. OK! Yet our liberally correct media see no problem with handing our children over to homo sexual couples on a daily basis.
86
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:14 | #
Possibly this one Bill? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBtct-z9JS8 Then their response to English people trying to protect their neighborhoods during the London riot 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWEV4p6hcRw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ITAEsbpilGg&feature=endscreen Run from Muslim protesters and black rioters. Attack whites defending their homes with truncheons, shields and dogs. I notice a marked difference in the kit and equipment used to deal with the whites too. Their ‘best’ men are sent to deal with the whites whilst their fat, unfit donut munchers and female officers are left to deal with the rioters burning our cities to the ground. These orders coming from top down of course. 87
Posted by uKn_Leo on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 21:34 | # http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miRT873B-QE&feature=endscreen&NR=1 We will defend our streets. Our homes. Our communities. Our land. Our blood.
88
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:01 | # Leo @ 87 Possibly this one Bill? <blockquote></blockquote> Yes, that’s the one. Thanks. 89
Posted by Bill on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:19 | # I wonder why we feel like we do? Imagine if you will. One morning you come downstairs and find an alien group of people seated around your breakfast table, tucking in to the contents of your fridge. What do think you’re doing? We were brought here. By whom? Him. (Pointing to a policeman sat watching TV.) But you’ve no right…. He says we have. (Nodding in the direction of the TV. Is that correct constable what he says? Yes sir, I’m under strict orders to see they’s gets their rights. But what about my rights? Order is orders Sir. Them at the top have invited ‘em here and I’m ‘ere to see everyfinks lawful like. But…but…. No buts about it sir. Them’s more of ‘em coming, you’d better get used to it. More of them? Oh yes sir, millions of ‘em. Orders ‘ave come down, they ‘ave all the rights that you ‘ave and more. It ain’t got hardly started yet. What hasn’t? This mass immigration mullarky. But why? It’s madness…. Careful what you say sir. Only doin’ mi job you understand. Sorry constable. How long is this going to go on for? Dunno sir. Until we’re all gone I suppose. We? Whose we? All gone? Gone where? Everybody I reckon. All them’s what’s white. But this is where I live….. it’s madness…. Watch it sir! (Raised eyebrows) But what about this lot? (Sweep of hand towards table.) Social’ll be round shortly, they’re moving ‘em into them new 5 bedroomed ‘ouses round the corner. Well I’m….! Tut-tut sir! And it came to pass millions more did come…. But what about our chappie here, what happened to him. Oh he had his house taken off of him by the council and they gave it to some newcomers who they reckoned was in greater need. Last I heard the chap was living under the bridge down by the river. But that’s dreadful. Did he kick up a fuss? Didn’t he complain? No. Why not? He was scared. Scared? Why? Because they said it was racist and if he complained they’d have him down the station. What happened then? Heard somebody reported him down the pub, police had him for hate crimes. He had to see a psychiatrist. Not seen him since. Poor bugger! They’ve got us by the gulags. I’m voting UKIP next time. 90
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:20 | #
It seems astounding that a Pole of all people cannot see the distinction here. Yes, a conquering aristocracy has the right to discriminate in marriage for whatever reason, including race, but has a duty/obligation not to kill or enslave the conquered, with one exception, per Locke.
Now you’re just making shit up. Faux rights. There is no individual right to self esteem.
Not true.
Not true.
Where is the claim of psychological damage? Even if it existed there is no right to advantage. Thus there is no violation of their “Lockeatine” individual rights.
91
Posted by daniels on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:02 | # First of all, in addition mixing Canadian and American issues, you changed the sentence that I was commenting on, which was this: Brown vs. Board of Education’s using “individual rights” to prohibit White group discrimination of Blacks from White schools was apparently the initial move, however. and to which I said: There, Jewish interests used the susceptibility of Lockeatine individual rights to transgress White interests and you wrote Brown vs. Board of Education was a verdict passed upon a state’s right to pass laws segregating its population, not individual rights. and left my quote there, still saying:
Here goes:
If you see a useful distinction there, be my guest. I don’t. It rather sounds like Jews saying they are obliged by a duty to marry only amongst themselves in accordance with their religion (not in accordance with racism). It seems astounding that a Pole of all people cannot see the distinction here. Yes, a conquering aristocracy has the right to discriminate in marriage for whatever reason, including race, but has a duty/obligation not to kill or enslave the conquered, with one exception, per Locke. What does this have to do with civil individual rights as they played out in American legislation? The kinds of psychological argumentation introduced into the court about the black girl’s self esteem, how she chose the White doll to play with and so forth, that kind of argument moves deftly between group and individual rights. Now you’re just making shit up. Faux rights. There is no individual right to self esteem.
and ALSO to pathologize group segregation by portraying it as a violation of civil (individual) rights. Absolutely true.
At that point, 1954, individual rights would have been the much harder argument to deny, and therefore that (Lockeatine) susceptibility is where they would begin. Not true.
Where is the claim of psychological damage? Even if it existed there is no right to advantage. Thus there is no violation of their “Lockeatine” individual rights. Look up the Brown Board of Education Case - psychologists were brought in to show that discrimination hurt the esteem of Black girls; there was an example given of them choosing to play with White dolls. The case could only be argued in terms of rights. Rights came from Locke. What is your problem Desmond?
Now you are going to attribute a quote from a Jew and their argument to me? What the hell are you doing? when left unchecked, not only damaged its direct victims,[meaning they weren’t hired based on their group identity] It was still translated into a violation of civil rights. the racial minorities, it also affected the minds of the general population, setting an example of what was right and acceptable. Prejudice, therefore, was not just a disease but a contagious disease, and it set up a vicious circle of prejudice leading to discrimination and of discrimination leading to prejudice. Antisemitism was understood as an example of prejudice, as a special case but not a distinct phenomenon: discrimination against Jews was considered part of this general syndrome. That is the Jewish motive, it is not the legislative application.
However, Civil Rights argumentation was attempted prior to WW2 “Watts (taking over for Liebowitz, who remained on as adviser) moved to have the case (Scotsboro boys) sent to the Federal Court as a civil rights case, which Callahan promptly denied. He set the retrials for January 20, 1936.” Perhaps they were not successful in pursuing Civil rights argumentation prior to WWII, but I didn’t say they were. The Brown decision was in 1954
Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that had held that black people could not be citizens of the United States.[1] Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights. Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
92
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:27 | #
It can now be revealed that GL is actually the spawn of alien technology. See this English documentary here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxDJMn-534Y&feature=related “Man Turns Into Scotsman”. Shocking but true. 93
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:33 | # Hey! No one has even noticed my comment, let alone taken the bait. But this is the discussion we should be having at MR post-US election:
94
Posted by Bill on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:56 | # Liberal unprincipled exception. Peadophile/Homosexual/Gay = Victim. Child = ? (victim or oppressor.) Why do paedohile/Homosexual rights overide rights of child which they must in order to allow children to be handed over to homosexual couples. What if the child is female (=victim) On unprincipled exceptions.
http://collapsetheblog.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/on-unprincipled-exceptions.html Paedophilia in high places. 95
Posted by Bill on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:19 | # @ 3 How defining was 2012? Very defining. This the first real ‘Oh my God moment’ for the useless idiots. There will be more. 96
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:29 | # .......\ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs
Jewish interests have been effective in getting White advocates to identify as “rightists” only, which leaves Whites disorganized. In fact, our organization, our defense of our interests as a group would be leftist by definition. We might have more right wing interests and leanings within the class - but any sort of coordination is a manifestation of White leftism - which is not wrong, it is correct. The problem is that they’ve got Whites confusing Jewish imposed liberalism upon Whites (which is meant to break the union of Whites) as THE Left. It is not THE left, it is the Jewish left, if anything. The remedy to this confusion is very simple - to place the word “White” prior to “left”, The White Left, in order to distinguish just who is included in the union and who is not. Jews are not White, only native Europeans may be included. Further subdivisions of the White class are not only not discouraged, they are encouraged; these subgroups fighting one another is discouraged and alliance against non-Europeans encouraged. The White Left, the White Class, is for people of Native European descent only. I am convinced that a sufficient moral order can crystallize around the 14 Words. Bowery and GW might be averse to this, saying that the borders should emerge more purely, more naturally, more organically, without deliberate coordination and instead, out of our biology - anything else might only perpetuate the collectivist sickness which has alienated us from our true nature along with our abilities in self sufficiency and self defense, but I don’t think so. The White Left, as I see it, may allow for private property, free enterprise, wide individual and community differences, wide differentials in wealth, minimal safety nets, larger safety nets, etc - all provided they do not violate the White Class. In a word, creation of borders or boundaries must be a form of leftism, however minimal, necessary to maintaining the union of Whites (while there may be various forms of rightism within). I will try to have a better understanding of what people like Bowery, Lister, Ellen Brown and GW, (when he goes into that), have to say about economics.. I am comfortable that our White circumscribed defense and economic systems need not proceed in tandem with international capitalism nor with Marxism, but I am inarticulate of the details as yet. 97
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:50 | # Lister-watch: a new MR feature Didn’t Dr. Lister, some months back, relay from one of his favorite neomarxist sources that Argentina was a stellar economic success of late? How inconvenient no one has informed the Argentinian people of this fact!
————————————————————————————- “There is only capitalism and barbarism.” - Leon Haller
98
Posted by daniels on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:34 | # “Exponential growth is unsustainable. In nature, sustainable growth progresses in a logarithmic curve that grows increasingly more slowly until it levels off (the red line in the first chart above). Exponential growth does the reverse: it begins slowly and increases over time, until the curve shoots up vertically (the chart below). Exponential growth is seen in parasites, cancers . . . and compound interest. When the parasite runs out of its food source, the growth curve suddenly collapses.” Ellen Brown 99
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:37 | # “How to Recapture the Interest: Own the Bank The implications of all this are stunning. If we had a financial system that returned the interest collected from the public directly to the public, 35% could be lopped off the price of everything we buy. That means we could buy three items for the current price of two, and that our paychecks could go 50% farther than they go today. Direct reimbursement to the people is a hard system to work out, but there is a way we could collectively recover the interest paid to banks. We could do it by turning the banks into public utilities and their profits into public assets. Profits would return to the public, either reducing taxes or increasing the availability of public services and infrastructure.” Ellen Brown 100
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:40 | # “By borrowing from their own publicly-owned banks, governments could eliminate their interest burden altogether. This has been demonstrated elsewhere with stellar results, including in Canada, Australia, and Argentina among other countries. In 2011, the U.S. federal government paid $454 billion in interest on the federal debt—nearly one-third the total $1,100 billion paid in personal income taxes that year. If the government had been borrowing directly from the Federal Reserve—which has the power to create credit on its books and now rebates its profits directly to the government—personal income taxes could have been cut by a third. Borrowing from its own central bank interest-free might even allow a government to eliminate its national debt altogether. In Money and Sustainability: The Missing Link (at page 126), Bernard Lietaer and Christian Asperger, et al., cite the example of France. The Treasury borrowed interest-free from the nationalized Banque de France from 1946 to 1973. The law then changed to forbid this practice, requiring the Treasury to borrow instead from the private sector. The authors include a chart showing what would have happened if the French government had continued to borrow interest-free versus what did happen. Rather than dropping from 21% to 8.6% of GDP, the debt shot up from 21% to 78% of GDP. “No ‘spendthrift government’ can be blamed in this case,” write the authors. “Compound interest explains it all!” “
101
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:41 | # “State and local governments could do it too.” ibid 102
Posted by john on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:17 | # The Irish find a voice? 103
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:59 | # commondreams.org is a neomarxist site. Their understanding of how the economy works is nonexistent. There is really only one basic principle to know: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Although I prefer: “Production must precede parasitism.” Leon Haller 104
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:39 | #
.
For example, look how Texas Govenor Perry is “persuaded” to go hands off on the illegal aliens in Texas. Here’s but one smoking gun:
And here is Hotze’s email:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62564.html#ixzz2BvICW4En</blockquote> BTW, I’m not trying to diminish the role that organised Jewry play in our dispossession; I’m contending the problem we’re facing is MUCH wider in scope, and involves MANY more moving parts than “The Jews are doing it to us” explanation. Moreover, I’m NOT assuming, or even infering, YOU subscribe to “it’s all the Jews fault” line of thinking. I’m just calling it like I see it. 105
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:50 | # “Money is a fungible proxy for man’s ability to reason, labor, create, and produce.” “ALL currency is fiat, even gold.”—Ann Barnhardt 106
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:06 | # Sounds like Bowery might be a “neomarxist” too then.. If a system can provide for subsistence, I don’t see what is to stop people from doing more. For example, if you take Bowery’s model of distributism, each couple would get what, 13K?, and perhaps credit for a site value necessary to start a family. If they wanted more than one child, or a better life, they’d have to earn more, somehow, rather than resting on their subsistence amount. Leon, I’m sorry but you believe in Christianity and in the Free Market to an unequivocal extent that no person I trust to listen to does. There seems to be no talking to you, and so I don’t bother. How many millions is enough before you contribute some incremental taxes to the common good? I am not even against millions. If, After 100k, the earner starts to be taxed 1%? After a million, 10%? Is that really such a hardship? I know, I know the church is supposed to take care of it. Well, sorry, the bible is insanity - I’m not trusting people who rely on those books as their text to provide an accurate representation of the common good, the capital of our inherited genetics. “Production must precede parasitism.” Leon Haller That statement sounds like you are rubbing your hands together waiting to get to the parasite stage.
“Exponential growth is unsustainable. In nature, sustainable growth progresses in a logarithmic curve that grows increasingly more slowly until it levels off (the red line in the first chart above). Exponential growth does the reverse: it begins slowly and increases over time, until the curve shoots up vertically (the chart below). Exponential growth is seen in parasites, cancers . . . and compound interest. When the parasite runs out of its food source, the growth curve suddenly collapses.” 107
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 16:18 | #
That there could be one of the most unsupported “statements of fact” WNs make. Yes it’s true that some white leftist Jews do not identifying as white (e.g. Susan Sontag). But isn’t that due to their buying into cockamamie Marxist theories? such as the one created by Dr. Bozo Ignatiev? The convoluted “white are a social construct” con game I get. Of course it reject it, but I understand the con. So, daniel, are you saying just because some white Jews don’t identify as white, that, ipso facto, is proof that “Jews are not white”? I seems to me that most Jews alive today are biologically white. Or are my eyes lying to me? Are not most descendants of Europeans that converted to Judaism during the Roman Empire white? Are not the descendants of the pagan Khazar tribe who converted to Judaism in 740 AD white-Caucasian? Add to that all the converts in the Euro-sphere since 740 AD. and voila! It adds up to around 90% of the Jewish population today being white-Caucasian.
108
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:15 | # ..........
http://reasonradionetwork.com/20120106/the-stark-truth-frosty-wooldridge-on-overpopulation “Exponential growth is unsustainable. In nature, sustainable growth progresses in a logarithmic curve that grows increasingly more slowly until it levels off (the red line in the first chart above). Exponential growth does the reverse: it begins slowly and increases over time, until the curve shoots up vertically (the chart below). Exponential growth is seen in parasites, cancers . . . and compound interest. When the parasite runs out of its food source, the growth curve suddenly collapses.”
Posted by Thorn on November 11, 2012, 11:18 AM | # Jews are not White That there could be one of the most unsupported “statements of fact” WNs make.
My father was in the brewery workers union, does that make him a “leftist”? It goes beyond being silly when you come here and try to say that Jews are White. You are making yourselves into enemies of our cause: unwittingly at best, but a ball and chain, a trojan horse - I’m not sure what the appropriate metaphor would be - it isn’t good.
There is no con game. I tried to explain to you that social constructionism was meant to be realist, not idealist. Then the notion was abused and misused by Jewish academics for anti-White ends. Never mind - you can’t or won’t believe it. No, I am saying it is in the genes and in how they act as a pattern - part of which is to not identify as Whites and to antagonize White interests. Are you that determined to include Jews amongst us, Thorn?
Yes, your eyes are not discerning their underlying genetic patterns well enough. They look fairly White but have a different genetic make up, a different metabolism.
I don’t know. If they were Europeans and converted to Judaism, did not intermarry with Jews, then they might be White. But I would imagine after such a long time practicing their faith, that they would be intermarried with them pretty thoroughly.
That area is a gray area, genetically speaking - I’m not sure.
I look to MacDonald and corroborating sites, which have Jews being about 30% European on average. Add to their being 4-15% African, more than any native European nations (except maybe Portugal, but I think even more than them). Then take note of the patterns of their behavior, their aims and concerns- no, they are clearly not White. 109
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:01 | # http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/a-white-nationalist-memo-to-white-male-republicans/ Anyway, if you haven’t already, you guys should see this article for recovering Republicans: it’s a good one 110
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:12 | #
I’ve never seen any peer reviewed studies that prove what you’re saying is true. In any event, is it not true that whites resided outside the artificial boundaries of Europe for thousands of years? They may not have share exactly the same genotype as Scandinavians but nevertheless were biologically/genetically white, no? That said, I’m NOT going to let the Jews off the hook like you are. Leftist Jewish intellectuals are largely responsable for the vilest of anti-White ideology. An ideology and sentiment that has spread worldwide in its scope. Again, if we are to suffer under the “anti-racist” hostile environment the JEWS CREATED for whites, then it is my assertion, from now on, THE JEWS ARE THE WHITEST OF ALL WHITES! Have at ‘em niggers! Hows that for ya?!? Daniels, doesn’t realize he is unwitting playing into their hand. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that logic isn’t daniels forte. 111
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:45 | # And it’s even more obvious proof reading is not Thorn’s forte. 112
Posted by daniels on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:23 | # That said, I’m NOT going to let the Jews off the hook like you are. Leftist Jewish intellectuals are largely responsable for the vilest of anti-White ideology.
It is you who is playing into their hands with your jeeboo and your absolute refusal to hear what I am actually saying. It is obvious that reading is not your forte. Don’t criticize about logic, yours is bereft. It’s a waste of time to talk to you. 113
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:37 | # Unlimited growth, Jesus rises from the dead and Jews are White: good logic 114
Posted by Dude @ Haller on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:54 | # “15 States including Texas have filed a petition to secede from the United States” Early days, will come to naught but to suggest it should not be a strong consideration for political propaganda and action is foolish. 115
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:02 | # Oh no I’m on Haller watch – scary stuff for sure. The problem is that liberals, particularly of the libertarian type, is that they perceive and assert a strong moral continuity from taxation, to forced labour and ultimately to slavery. This no doubt is a product of a Lockean liberal ideology that claims ‘inalienable rights to property’ - where these invariant ‘rights’ came from no-one knows (oh that’s right they are entirely made up). But Mr. Haller and others of the same ideological outlook really do believe that public collective action is a form of radical evil. OK Prof. Nozick et al., wanted a minimal ‘night-watchmen’ state that has just enough power and resources to enforce his view of property rights and nothing else (how convenient, yes?). But such people really do think, at heart, a fire-fighter is a ‘parasite’. Mr. Haller and I have a very different conception of who and what are genuinely parasitical upon the social body. For example, the $700 trillion financial derivatives market and other financial products are in largely unregulated markets (hence ‘free’) which I happen to view as the biggest ‘parasitical’ racket in human history. Mr. Haller thinks quite the opposite I’m sure. Justice is not only about the right way to distribute things. It is also about the right way to value things. However, ‘free-market’ ideologues (propounding a deeply liberal ideological formulation coincidently) do not think that anything has an intrinsic worth. Everything is up for grabs in the ebb and flow of supply and demand. In medieval times, philosophers and theologians believed that the exchange of goods should be governed by a ‘just price’, determined by tradition or the intrinsic value of things. But in market societies, the economists observed, prices are set by supply and demand. There is no such thing as a right or wrong price (or value) associated with anything or anyone. All things have a price and all things eventually become fungible. However, in letting the market invade every aspect of life and viewing everything via logic of market exchange is extremely damaging. Firstly, in letting the ‘free-market’ maximally loose we inevitably increase economic inequality massively. Why is this societally disastrous in the longer term? Well too great a gap between rich and poor eventually undermines the solidarity that any notion of collective identity and group loyalty requires. Here’s how: as inequality deepens, rich and poor live increasingly separate lives, practically, culturally and most importantly in terms of imaginative and moral sympathies. The bonds that bind, that maintain and even allow for the flourishing of reciprocal bonds of solidarity and in-group loyalty become stretched to breaking point. Witness for example Mr. Haller’s attitude – he really does think of poor white Americans as a sub-species of ‘scum’ and wonders why they might distrust him and his type? Loyalty is a reciprocal phenomenon fostered by a collective vision of solidarity and mutual obligation. All mass societies are marked by hierarchies and some level of socio-economic stratification but a wise society would not let the inter and intra-generational ‘moral economy’ to be gravely damaged by maximally widening any key sociological cleavage, let alone perhaps the most important of all. It’s not like we are even discussing anything approaching real economic equality – rather promoting a minor increase relative economic equality for the common good/as a mechanism for binding people together. In Denmark there are still very wealthy individuals but rather less extremely poor ones. And which European nation has actually had an ethnocentric party in government (i.e. has demonstrated high levels of implicit in-group loyalty in a way that actually might matter)? Now market ideologues like Hayek tell us they aren’t really in favour of economic inequality because they are uncaring, self-serving scum-bags – no it’s justified so long as the worst-off still benefits from the overall arrangement – but even if this is true what if the arrangement undermines the social ‘whole’ such as the social parts eventually do not even recognise themselves to be a social ‘whole’? And again those promoting the benefits of maximal socio-economic inequalities (even if it is at the cost of in-group loyalty) strangely are also those that disproportionally benefit from those inequalities. But that’s not a real concern is it? After all as that robust ‘conservative’ and realist about the human condition – Mr. Haller – has told us only ‘leftists’ are greedy so that’s the end of the matter over the motivations of free-market ideologues. Returning to the main issue, in maximally free-market societies, individualism (with regard to all things – all forms of life) is promoted very much at the expensive of ALL collective or communal concepts. Life becomes increasingly only concerned with ‘I’ questions and viewpoints and ‘we’ questions, of every possible type, are marginalised. Another problem is a ‘free-market’ society is that money becomes the only measure of success or worth. All other forms of human excellences or human flourishing or virtue, particularly those around which morally virtuous hierarchies might be moulded are again marginalised to almost the point of invisibility. GDP does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our families, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. It cannot tell us, nor even recognise, if we are part of a ‘beloved’ community free to be itself. Again the USA is a far richer nation than Denmark (in terms of money) but it’s a far more improvised society in everything that actually counts. Yet ‘intellectuals’ such as Charles Murray are simply dumbfounded and indecently silent of why Denmark has the highest reported levels of contentment and happiness in the world and also generally tops the human welfare index (i.e. has the best quality of life). It simply doesn’t compute with Prof. Murray or Mr. Haller; it’s not a ‘real’ fact about the world. After all America is a far richer nation and Americans are far more religious and should therefore be the happiest people in the word, right? It’s a shame but not a shock that American political, cultural and even empirical horizons do not reach beyond the land of the free (market). Aristotle teaches that justice means giving people what they deserve. And in order to determine who deserves what, we have to determine what virtues are worthy of honour and reward. Aristotle maintains that we can’t figure out what a just community is without first reflecting on the most desirable way, or forms, of life. So yes let money be one’s highest goal - the only civilisational (I use the term loosely in this context) hierarchy that really ‘counts’. Making money as the primary, indeed only, virtue. OK fine, but then watch as the machine will ‘eat itself’ as all manner of toxic ‘negative externalities’ slowly but surely destroys key parts of both the physical and social environment - even better if a decent profit for some ‘free-rider’ can be made from such processes. Yes the age of liberal-capitialism (modernity as such) has brought enormous material benefits, but the notion that such a revolutionary historical phenomena can only bring positive change is the height of utopian naivety. A globalist/deracinated planet of multicultural slums under the rule of cosmopolitan liberal-capitalist elite strata isn’t part of my political vision. The free-market as the primal institution of a regime of ‘spaceless universalism’; market exchange as the universal ‘lingua franca’, dissolving all ‘artificial’ differentiation, distinctions and particularist forms of life; profit and loss as the measure of all things. This is very much the future regime that Mr. Haller and his ilk would bring forth. In Mr. Haller’s case it’s perhaps unwittingly so, as he’s not terrible bright, nor self-evidently a deep thinker. After all he thinks Thomas Jefferson was a substantive political thinker, rather than an incoherent and buffoonish 3rd rate liberal. And with regard to Argentina since when did one year of economic data discredit an economic policy Mr. Haller? What is the long-term rate of economic growth in the USA since 1979 to now compared say with 1945-1979? Even you should be able to find out. 116
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:04 | # Daniels said: I hate Jews, Christians, capitalists, liberals, homos, right-wingers and conservatives….. and I hate anyone that DOESN’T hate Jews, Christians, liberals, homos, right-wingers, and conservatives…........
Hardly a winning strategy. Smarten up Danny boy.
And of course, Jewess Liz Claman is not white.
Damned lying eyes of mine! 117
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:22 | # I don’t know why but Mr. Haller reminds me of the central character from ‘American Psycho’. And he’s by no means the worst that MR has to offer. Anyway even if he’s not quite Patrick Bateman he is at the very least a Hayekian neoliberal that has some racial prejudices – what a big fucking deal, yes? I rather think not. 118
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:38 | # Off topic slightly. . . I wonder what all those ‘natural rights’ theorists would say to the Judge? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIQynsWpBpQ Blood Meridian - The Judge on War I’m too tired right now to get into why I don’t totally agree with the Judge. . . 119
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:40 | # /.,,, Daniels said: I hate Jews, Christians, capitalists, liberals, homos, right-wingers and conservatives….. and I hate anyone that DOESN’T hate Jews, Christians, liberals, homos, right-wingers, and conservatives…........ That is a lie, Thorn. I did not say that. It is highly unethical to say that I did. Character assassination. I think you should talk to Ramzpaul, he’s peddling your trip of late - “and what ‘people’ really care about in the ‘real’ world”...(Jeeboo and ignoring genetic interests) as if he, or you, know what people, Whites, care about. You don’t.
Smarten up Danny boy.
Damned lying eyes of mine! Its in the genes and the cultural patterns. I have no trouble believing that woman is Jewish and not White. Thorn’s winning strategy: limitless growth, Jesus arises from the dead, Jews are White. 120
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:11 | # Graham, Your post number 116 was great, thank you very much. There are other matters that I’d like to reflect on more but this part, particularly the second paragraph here, jumps out at me. For example, the $700 trillion financial derivatives market and other financial products are in largely unregulated markets (hence ‘free’) which I happen to view as the biggest ‘parasitical’ racket in human history… Justice is not only about the right way to distribute things. It is also about the right way to value things. However, ‘free-market’ ideologues (propounding a deeply liberal ideological formulation coincidently) do not think that anything has an intrinsic worth. Everything is up for grabs in the ebb and flow of supply and demand. That is what I meant by “innocent until proven guilty.” We’ve got this 41,000 years of evolution with all of its wonderful expressions and yet, it seems in a free market economy, we have no intrinsic value - that would seem to be a critical part of why our co-evolutonary women could be commodified and given to beasts, for example. *
* And overcompensating modernist males - like Bill Clinton - who would push even harder in the direction of Actualization.
121
Posted by daniels. on Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:36 | # Of course, it is not that there should not be sexual differentiation, but as you point out at another point, when the moral economy is disrupted by the differences becoming too vast, then there is the most horrible alienation of becoming the enemies of those we are deeply born to love. The prohibition of (racial) classifications (by their being called racist, or the anathema of ‘rights’), the prohibition of their boundaries, disrupts systemic accountability and ecology, unleashes the disorder of modernity, the one up position of (often puerile) females emerges with increased significance; along with that, their natural tendency to incite genetic competition as they are pandered to from more angles. This perpetuates discord between the sexes and their mutual estrangement becomes a reciprocally escalating diatribe to runaway, breaking down intraracial concordance; and leaving it susceptible to opportunistic outsiders - since the situation is disordered, the opportunistic outsiders that the broken class is particularly susceptible to is to be found at the lowest common denominator of more primitive forms - Africans, in particular. There is little reason to doubt that Jewish interests are not basically aware of this and are not pandering to young girls’ incitement (with feminism, the evils of racism, the “unearned privilege of White men” etc) 122
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:42 | # Despite the prohibition against classifications (prohibition via the technology of individual rights and classification being called “racism”), people still need to classify in order to make coherent sense of the social world. As a result, gender (read, women) and other more distinct categories, such as Blacks, tend to become the de facto classifications and hegemonic as such.
123
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:51 | # These factors all tend to feed in one direction to create a charmed loop between a kind of Hegelian dialectic (sorry Graham) of defacto classifications, the “solution” to which tends to be Mulatto Supremacism - an ecologically destructive and invasive species category.
124
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:48 | #
No it’s not. Over the course of the last few threads you’ve managed to unequivocally express your disdain for all the groups I’ve listed. All I did was consolidate them in one sentence for ya. That said, maybe the word ‘hate’ is too strong. Perhaps I should have used the word disdain. Anyway you went so far as to express exasperation for what you perceived as heresy by the “right-wingers” David Duke and John Edwards. LOL! Obviously, daniels, you need to sit them down and give them a good talking to. HEH! And moving on. You are correct about Jews not wholly being genetically European. I just did a quick google search and found out Ashkenazi Jews are actually Middle-Eastern and European hybrids. It appears that when the Jews migrated into Eastern Europe, allot of intermarriage took place over the centuries. Hence, phenotypes such as Liz Claman. Source: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2009/12/ashkenazi-jews-are-middle-eastern-european-hybrids/
Good news on that front. Diaspora Jews have EXTREMLY high intermarriage rates. For example, at present 75% of Russian Jews intermarry. 45 to 55% of Americano Jews intermarry. IOWS, their gene-pool is rapidly becoming diluted. It remains to be seen what effect the dilution will have on their “different metabolism”. Sources: http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=46253 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3984935,00.html If you assert that the Jews are not white due to the fact their genetic makeup is Middle-Eastern with European admixture, how should we classify Spaniards, Sicilians, southern Italians or other southern Europeans? What about the admixture of Middle Eastern and North African genes to their genetic makeup? Are Meds White? Maybe we should open that can of worms on another day? Lastly I NEVER said I was for “unlimited growth”. That is a lie, daniels. It is highly unethical to say that I did. Character assassination.
125
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:18 | # No it’s not. Over the course of the last few threads you’ve managed to unequivocally express your disdain for all the groups I’ve listed. All I did was consolidate them in one sentence for ya. That is your interpretation and it is wrong.
I did not say they were heretics. I suggest rather, that their right-wing position has blind spots which, unwittingly, does a disservice to Whites.
No, they are loyal advocates. Duke purveys much useful information on the J.Q. and The Political Cesspool, particularly Keith Alexander, provides many a brilliant insight: that’s what clued me into the particular significance of the Brown decision. But do I think they are perfect? - no. High scores, nevertheless, particularly Alexander. Suggesting that I could sit him down and lecture him is a bit like saying that I can sit Lister or Bowery down and lecture them. The best I can hope for is to make a suggestion here or there where I think they might be missing something.
If you assert that the Jews are not white due to the fact their genetic makeup is Middle-Eastern with European admixture, how should we classify Spaniards, Sicilians, southern Italians or other southern Europeans? What about the admixture of Middle Eastern and North African genes to their genetic makeup? Are Meds White? Maybe we should open that can of worms on another day? All of these groups that you mention, are (unlike Jews), on balance, of European genetics. I believe the Portugese have the largest amount of African admixture, some 9%, Italians have some 1-3% of African, also a minority percentage of stuff in common with middle easterners, particularly in the south. But again, on balance, European. If you don’t like them, don’t go there and don’t breed with them. Regarding concerns about cross “contamination”, I never favor large scale mixing of Europeans. And there should be purer groups maintained: Bowery is an expert on husbandry, not me. However, yes, I would say that the groups you mention are European. There were also a lot of Jews intermarrying with Germans, hence phenotypes like Liz Claman (note that it is hardly a Slavic type name).
Ok, I withdraw that attribution - Thorn is not for unlimited growth..he just calls anybody who tries to propose an alternate system a communist, Marxist, leftist - and he hates them!
126
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:04 | #
Tsk tsk. 1) Isn’t it a fact that many Jewish immigrants change their surnames? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Claman#Early_years
127
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:25 | # Posted by Thorn on November 12, 2012, 09:04 AM | # There were also a lot of Jews intermarrying with Germans, hence phenotypes like Liz Claman (note that it is hardly a Slavic type name). Tsk tsk. 1) Isn’t it a fact that many Jewish immigrants change their surnames? Yes. It is also a fact that there were a great number of Jews in Germany and intermarriages between those peoples as well. Nevertheless, a genetic European is a European and a genetic Jew is a Jew.
2) Liz Clamen’s family originates from Russia. Well, her family may well have been Russian Jews, but Jews did not originate from Russia. Isn’t Russia classified as a Slavic nation? Yes, but I believe there would have been some Viking ancestry in the Russians’ original make-up as well.
128
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:34 | # Daniels, Noticed you didn’t address the fact that there are extremely—repeat, EXTREMLY—high intermarriage rates amongst Diaspora Jews. That fact kinda goes contrary to KMac protéges’ assertion that Jews are the most cohesive and exclusionary group on the planet, dosen’t it. Wussup wit dat, huh? Daneils said: “...your eyes are not discerning their underlying genetic patterns well enough. They [Jews] look fairly White but have a different genetic make up, a different metabolism.” Sources: http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=46253 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3984935,00.html
129
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:24 | # First, take a look at this bit by Bill Mahr, who is probably half White half Jewish. You will see what I mean by the pattern of Jewish behavior = its extreme antagonism to White interests.
Daniels, Noticed you didn’t address the fact that there are extremely—repeat, EXTREMLY—high intermarriage rates amongst Diaspora Jews. As I said, while they may see this as problematic, they have their core purist groups in Israel and elsewhere.
As I just explained. (you shouldn’t resort to ghetto talk, its unbecoming to talk like a wigger).
Daneils said: “...your eyes are not discerning their underlying genetic patterns well enough. They [Jews] look fairly White but have a different genetic make up, a different metabolism.” Thorn said:Good news on that front. Diaspora Jews have EXTREMLY high intermarriage rates. For example, at present 75% of Russian Jews intermarry. 45 to 55% of Americano Jews intermarry. IOWS, their gene-pool is rapidly becoming diluted. It remains to be seen what effect the dilution will have on their “different metabolism”. That’s not they way it works, Thorn; their hybrids are all too sympathetic and defensive of Jewish interests, antagonistic of Europeans; and their core group remains intact. In the meantime, the damage is being done, steadily, to White interests; in significant part, as a result of Jewish policies. 130
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:42 | #
YES SIR!!! Now dig dis: Yo werd up daneils, iz it possible fo’ you ta consider da possibility dat Duke an’ KMac is wrong sometimes? Or mo’ importantly can you ever consider you be wrong? Sho, it could be argued uh =dat uh certain amount o’ intermarriage could be pimp-tight fo’ Jewish interests, but 75%? is you kidding? Outmarriage at da rates dat Diaspora Jews engage in iz hardly uh strategy fo’ anvancing they EGI. On da contrary, it be uh path ta ethnic suicide ... Jus’ like Orenthawl James dead beotch wife. 131
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:30 | # /. Unfortunately, I would not be kidding. My experience tells me that people who are even one quarter Jewish are too sympathetic to Jews, too liberal or too antagonistic to Whites. I imagine that this would not always be the case; but I will adopt the working hypothesis: that one quarter Jews/ three quarter Whites are generally too liberal, indifferent to, or antagonistic to Whites. There is another factor that is not genetic, but cultural: people who are enculturated to think like Jews, i.e., antagonistic to Whites. Of course, Jewish genetic interests are the source of that affectation. I do not have an exact formula as yet, that is a working hypothesis - to play it safe, one quarter Jews are too Jewish for White interests. .... This discussion reminds me a bit of the misplaced vigilance (read, paranoia), of a White activist who might have thought that I’d try to allow only for participation from ultra-pure Whites, such that I might try to exclude somebody who is 1/8 AmerIndian from White activism. So much so would that be alleged to be where I was coming from, that they’d disagree at every turn with a proposal to look after and coordinate our people’s genetic interests, a proposal that they would not bother to carefully read or understand. Or is the concern that the predominant gate-keeper of White activism must see to it that all who enter must be ok with Jeeboo? Or is it rather that that nobody better step on the toes of the gatekeeper or…oh, I’ll let them create the straw men, since that is their cottage industry. Jesus will arise from the dead to save White people! Jesus is comin’! Jesus is comin’! Put yer faith in the hereafter! Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesussssssssssss is comin! Hey sinner, if you have eyeballs to look at Dyal it is proof that you are a hell-bent purist. You have eyes, you see? I knew you were discriminating! What an extremist to think fudgepackers are not beyond criticism! ....doesn’t matter that he has repeatedly said that he does not recommend persecuting them, that they do not represent a pressing problem, that some of them probably do have a strong genetic proclivity. He thinks people should be able to be critical of them - that is disdain I say! Heal thyself! Jeeeeesusssss is comin’!
As I have been saying, I do think they are mistaken sometimes: for one example, KMac was saying to Duke just today that Jews’ big thing is to hate Christians (that that is more the issue in their antagonism than Europeanness per se) - implying that we ought to be Christians in order to defend ourselves from Jews. Obviously, I think that is not the best advice as it is untenable for many who can’t find it in themselves to condemn themselves to self sacrificing Thorn in the side logic of Jesus arising from the dead; giving up care for their life in this world in favor of the hereafter… But.. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesusssssss is a comin’!!!! 132
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:47 | #
I’m not sure if you suffer from mental heath issues or you’re woefully ignorant of why Jews hate/fear Christians. - SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIANS OF EUROPEAN DECENT. I don’t know if I should feel empathy for whatever the hell is going wrong between your ears or stand back and enjoy a good dose of schadenfreude? Seriously. For now it’s the latter. LOL!
That said, I didn’t hear the Duke-KMac interview, but I’m certain the message conveyed in the following entree is what KMac meant.
133
Posted by daniels. on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:07 | # /. Nice try, dirt bag.
I am not unaware of the reasoning and the strategy, it has historical backing but there are a great number of people looking for another way. I respect them as you do not. I recognize the reality that there are many, too many drawbacks to it - to begin, too many people in Europe don’t believe it, and with good reason. It is self destructive and absurd.
Your reading comprehension is not very good, is it? Seriously. For now it’s the latter. LOL! Go and wait for the second coming of Jesus since you are well adjusted. I am sure that is going to scare the hell out of Jews. Or maybe they are afraid of quarter Jews (maybe you?) being converted and converting others to Christianity? Jesus is comin’! 134
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:03 | # Well looky here: “Mark Alan Siegel, the Palm Beach County Democratic chairman, spoke with Scottie Hughes of Patriot TV on Wednesday shortly after Democrats reinstated the words “God” and “Jerusalem” into their official platform, where he proceeded to go on a hateful anti-Christian rant, claiming all “fundamentalist Christians” want Jews to die to bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ. Watch video: http://cofcc.org/2012/09/dnc-florida-boss-goes-on-vicious-anti-christian-tirade/ ++++++++++++++++++++++ Aien’t much difference in the hate level/message between Danny (jew)boy’s anti-Christian tirades and Mark Alan Siegle’s, is there. 135
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:17 | # You can have the last word, daniels. I’m moving on…... Post a comment:
Next entry: My Letter to Congressman-Elect Latham
|
|
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— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:23 | #
OK, I posted this under GW’s OP, but it seems to have gotten swamped, and may be more relevant here anyway.
———————————————————————
BTW, I was wondering when someone at MR was going to notice that there is a rather globally significant election today.
GW, I think you ought to post right now and in its entirety Gregory Hood’s interesting article from yesterday’s Counter-Currents on why “Mitt Romney Must Lose”. I found myself in agreement with most of his assertions, even though I profoundly disagree with the overall thesis.
If not in a swing state, I encourage my fellow Americans to vote for 1) Virgil Goode, or 2) Thomas Hoefling (whoever is on your ballot). Not WNs, but decent conservatives not enamored of mass immigration or ‘diversity’.
But if in such a state, you should vote Romney, imo. Maybe post-election I’ll explain my thinking, which is strategic, and not only based on my own short term self-interest, which so clearly favors Romney. Obama has already done what “good” he can for our Cause. His election has definitely been good for WN, as I predicted it would be four years ago. Whites, at least conservatives, have gotten acclimated to criticizing a ‘person of color’. That is an important psych barrier broken.
But he has been terrible for the long term health of our nation and economy, and I suspect that he, being a principled man (albeit of the PC Far Left), will shift much further to the Left in a second term - esp wrt racial matters. There is no chance the GOP will lose the House, so it is unlikely that Obama will have any great (er, significant - everything he’s done has been awful) domestic accomplishments to pursue, except maybe mass alien amnesty via executive order. He will also continue filling up our judiciary with the worst possible judges.
Going out on a limb here, I think instead what he will do, beyond guarding his first term ‘legacy’, quietly pushing leftism via the Federal bureaucracy, and dealing with inevitable foreign policy issues and fallouts, is to spend a lot of time in public speaking, going around the country “talkin’ race”. I think he’s going to keep himself in the limelight, build up his lasting base among black America (so that he has an influential post-presidential career), and rekindle some of the goodwill from the brainwashed progressive whites who flocked to him in 08. There will continue to be hard limits as to what he can actually get through Congress, and he’s kind of lazy anyway. I think he’s going to go around the country “community organizing” on a national scale, pushing a Race and Anti-Poverty agenda which will not be good for Republican whites at all. It is not a conversation non-WNs are yet equipped to have. Because he cannot do much legislatively, he’s going to try to transform America by doing what’s he’s best at - hectoring and speechmaking.
He may leave office again quite beloved by the Left.