|
|
|
Tony Lecomber on the future of nationalism in Britain Below the fold I am reproducing Tony Lecomber’s interesting and exhaustive overview of British nationalism’s past and clouded future, with a rather confused recommendation for a new party at the end. It makes a number of good points. English, not British, nationalism, Tony says, is the wave of the future. That’s true, and certain, of course, if Alex Salmond wins his referendum on Scottish independence in three years time. Tony then speculates that as such a victory would deprive the Labour Party of seventy Scottish MPs at Westminster and deliver power to the Tories in perpetuity in the remains of the UK, indiscipline on the right must, in time, set in. Such indiscipline he sees as a precondition for the rise of nationalism in England. Perhaps, but nationalism has to make its own future, and can’t rely on charity from its political foes. Overall, Tony’s message is bleak. The sense of embattlement on every front is very palpable, culminating in the despairing admission that “the multiracial state is here to stay”. Well, if that is the case, what’s the point of nationalism? To slow down our genetic dissolution and demographic replacement to a speed white people won’t find quite so unsettling? To delay our minoritisation by one generation? In such an admission is the false assumption that: (a) the English people think it moral and right for Africans and Asians to continue living in England and to continue displacing, replacing and deracinating them, and will vote for that if ever the issue is forced to the front of electoral debate, (b) anything and everything must be thrown overboard by nationalists to escape being labelled as “racist”. This mindset is surely the product of a lifetime of political failure allied to a paucity of creative thinking - not least on the wider political issues, particularly economics, but also on the great, undergirding question of the war of discourse. Obviously, Tony is right that, short of the state jailing Nick Griffin (and why would it do that), political nationalism must find itself a new vehicle. He is right about the risks. I don’t think he is right to be so focussed on the party question. No nationalist party can effect the vast change in the English public’s values and attitudes necessary for the embrace of such a revolutionary politics. But perhaps that is work for other kinds of political animal. Whither nationalism in 2012? by Tony Lecomber After the British National Party had gained election to the London Assembly in 2008 and then subsequently gained two representatives, Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, in the European Parliament in 2009, the party was on a high with its largest ever membership at around 14,000 and morale at stratospheric levels. Who could have foreseen that just 2 years later, the party would have been reduced to a half of what it had been with the effective damage even more disastrous having lost roughly 80% of its activists and 90% of its councillors in the most comprehensive wreckage ever to befall nationalism and all completely self inflicted with just one man primarily responsible – its leader, Nicholas John Griffin. Other commentators have noted that given the external circumstances and the mass the party had gained that the results the party should have been getting just prior to the European Elections weren’t being realised and that when the European election came along instead of winning handsomely, the party merely limped over the finishing line. There is a lot of truth to this observation and the primary reason is that while the party had become increasingly professional in its outlook and campaigning the media, which has always held nationalism back, was doing it again and the party had not responded adequately. Inadequate managerial oversight of performance is also partly to blame since had there been sufficient oversight, this failure to ‘fly’ would have been spotted in a timely fashion, but there was no such system in place. What was needed at this time was a thorough appreciation of the reasons for the party’s lack of traction through sampling. At around this time, there was indeed a brief experiment with polling, but it was not developed. In hindsight, the party would have been well served with a re-launch at around this time. The party was still polling well, was topical and such a re-launch would have connected with the people. Having the benefit of seeing nationalism and the media work at first hand for 34 years on the front line of nationalist activity, it is my view that the broad mass of liberal left opinion will attack nationalism regardless of whatever PR measures and substantive policy measures that the party (any party, it must be stressed!) may adopt to distance itself from outmoded extremism and any embarrassing vestiges from its past. Having said that, the media is fond of attacking other parties too and from time to time, the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour have all suffered from media scrutiny. Nevertheless, as experience bears out, the media will always go harder against nationalists than against system politicians. Accordingly, therefore, however good a leader is that leader will, over time, accumulate such a baggage of bad feeling courtesy of the press that for the good of the party that leader will need to step down for someone without that heavy weight of opprobrium to more fully realise the party’s potential. Looking back at the BNP and its predecessor organisation, we find only two Chairmen in its entire history from 1982 to the present day. John Tyndall was its first Chairman from 1982 to 1999 and Nick Griffin from then until now, some 17 and 12 years respectively and, in Nick’s case, he is assured of another four years taking his tally up to 16 years. Both men had their good points. Tyndall ensured a stable party that grew slowly to the point where, chiefly because its main rival - the National Front - disintegrated, the BNP became the predominant nationalist party in Britain. Griffin presided over the growing professionalism of the party and a more moderate appeal which led to rising votes, elected office and a growing organisation. Unfortunately both men shared two characteristics. Firstly, they both believed that the only they could run the party and sought to extend their tenure in power and this is a tendency common among those that have been in power too long. Secondly, while having their positive aspects and being their party’s best asset, they also acted as the party’s biggest handicap. In Tyndall’s case this was his PR failings and also his distinct lack of managerial flair and political nous. In Griffin’s case, it was also his PR failings and, in the end, the evidence of the truism that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Internal Democracy Chiefly because of the disaster over the last year or so of Griffin’s damaging wrecking of the party alongside the strengthening of the powers of the party Chairman, there has been an understandable reaction against the whole idea of a strong Chairman and a leaning towards a more democratic internal party structure. While understandable, this is a dangerous tendency as the most democratic internal structure of any nationalist party (for example, the National Front in the 1970s & 1980s suffered an average of one split every 2 or 3 years. Since there are so few people around now who experienced that time, it is natural that those without first hand knowledge will be unaware of the dangers. The problem the party has had over the last ten years or so is that since it began to improve its organisation and began to become more professional and present, for the first time, an electable face and organisation it has come under increasing external assault. From dirty tricks operatives like Searchlight and the BBC with leftist agent Andy Sykes taking over the running of Bradford BNP from 2004 – 2006 and thereby neutralising it for a while to the concerted effort to get both Nick Griffin and Mark Collett gaoled for speaking at party meetings in 2005 and 2006. Then latterly, the assault from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in 2009 – 2010. Under this onslaught, it is not surprising that the party stood shoulder to shoulder to see off these threats. At the same time, however, this led to the membership giving the Chairman way too much freedom and power. My view is that a democratic structure of the type that the NF possessed in the 1970s and 1980s would already have led to internal schism given these external threats because some party movers and shakers will always hold the view that the Chairman isn’t doing enough to deal with the threat of the day. Until Nick Griffin totally hijacked the Constitution to make himself ‘Leader for Life’, the Constitution was changing gradually and would have benefited greatly from having adopted Arthur Kemp’s proposals which were accepted at the party’s Annual Conference in December 2010. It was a careful blend of central authority, separation of powers and democratic control, which would have satisfied bottom up views reaching the top with the power to do the job at the top being preserved. My only modification to Arthur’s suggestions would have been to retain a yearly Leadership challenge and limit the Chairman to, perhaps, a five years continuous stretch following which he couldn’t return to the post of Chairman for two years. The phenomenon of yearly leadership challenges only became bothersome when Nick Griffin was manifestly failing and some members sought to highlight such failings by standing for election. Even so, a yearly leadership challenge is surely a worthwhile handicap for a party to burnish its democratic credentials. Nationalists need to learn the winning lesson of standing aside When one looks at political parties facing an image problem, aside from the BNP, one can immediately think of Labour under Neil Kinnock. For all his detractors, Kinnock removed the more overt and loony Trots from the party and made it basically electable again at least in terms of its organisational structure. Unfortunately for him, his public persona had been so besmirched that he, and therefore Labour, had been rendered unelectable. Kinnock did for Labour what Griffin has not been able to do for the BNP and stood aside allowing another to benefit from his good work. It is a salutary lesson that while Kinnock may be a political reptile, as a man he was able to see his PR limitations and put his Cause before self, showing more honour and dedication to Cause than our own Nick Griffin. The reason I touch upon this is because it is my view that whoever shoulders the burden of leading our Cause will, over time, accumulate such baggage and a negative PR reputation that they will, at some stage, have to stand aside for another for exactly this reason and this will have to be understood by everyone in the party and anyone taking on the role of Chairman. The BNP’s Leadership Contes As we all know, Griffin’s disgraceful manipulation of the Constitution and squalid dirty tricks put paid to Eddy Butler’s leadership bid last year in 2010. So much so that it looked as if another leadership bid was out of the question. As we all know, Richard Edmonds announced his intention to stand against Griffin and Griffin, who knew that he would easily best Edmonds, altered the Constitution again to make such a challenge a possibility. Then, once the changes were announced Andrew Brons, MEP, announced his candidature and Richard bowed out. Again, there can be no doubt that Nick Griffin would have won this contest fairly comfortably owing to his control of all party communication channels, but for the intervention of Jim Dowson, the party’s previous fund raiser. Dowson financed a glossy booklet that was mailed to every single party member able to vote. For those who could remember Griffin’s unseating of Tyndall in 1999, it was eerily reminiscent. In the end, Brons came within just nine votes of taking the party off Griffin. The salient point of the election was that it became apparent that Brons had won the broad mass of the activist base. The Constitutional shenanigans that allowed this election to go ahead also gave the winner – Nick Griffin – a 4 year period of unchallengeable leadership, after which there will be no one left to challenge him further. Sadly, the BNP has become a cult surrounding the personality of Nick Griffin. In these circumstances and having lost most of the party’s more able talent, Griffin has to make do with what he has left. I do not believe it is constructive to attack those party members immediately surrounding Nick Griffin now because most of them are honestly doing their best to fulfil the brief given to them by the Party Chairman. It may be true that some of them are having difficulty fulfilling their roles perfectly, but that is wholly down to Nick Griffin. He is ultimately responsible for the conditions they are having to work in and he is also the man who makes the appointments. The ‘winners’ Pyrrhic Victory Conference Not long after the BNP leadership contest, both Griffin’s BNP and Andrew Brons’ BNP Ideas group held separate meetings. The BNP’s 2011 Annual Conference was a disastrous flop and attracted less than 100 people and that included paid functionaries and family members. Brons’ BNP Ideas Annual Conference meeting saw 170 people present, nearly all activists and former Organisers. And it is the fact that although Griffin ‘won’ the BNP leadership contest, he has done so with perhaps just 10% – 20% or so of the existing activist base, never mind of those who have dropped out over the last year that gives the clue as to why he has not moved to discipline Andrew Brons. The fact is that if Brons goes a lot of people will follow him, although not all the people who voted for him would do so. Andrew Brons’ intentions are hard to follow. At the end of 2010, he ruled himself out of standing for the party leadership – a fact that no doubt encouraged Griffin to change the rules to make it easier for Richard Edmond’s much heralded attempt. Just months later, Brons was a candidate! Brons clearly realises the dangers of launching a split – the vast majority end in failure and that brings me to the meat of the BNP Ideas Conference. People attending the BNP Ideas meeting were going with the full expectation that a new party was going to be announced and formed. Indeed, a new party name (British Democratic Party) has already been registered with the Electoral Commission and is being kept ‘warm’ by former Freedom Party leader Adrian Davies. However, in contrast with a number of others who have grown restless and wanting to be ‘doing something’, Brons has (so far) resisted the idea of striking out with a new party. In doing so, he has recognised that any new party could well face eclipse by the BNP. This was the fate of the National Party in 1976-1977 at the hands of the National Front. The NF policy at the time was to stand candidates wherever the NP stood to take enough votes to stop the NP progressing. As a result, the National Party which contained the brightest and best of the NF folded despite winning a couple of council seats in Blackburn. The seats were subsequently lost when the NF deliberately stood against them which left the NF to outdistance the NP by virtue of its bigger base recruiting proportionately more new members and the NP members becoming disillusioned and dropping out. Much the same thing happened to the Front National in 1998 – 1999 when the talented Bruno Megrét struck out independently of the FN with many of the talented and bright young things of the FN into a new party called the Mouvement National Républicain (MNR) who saw that Jean Marie Le Pen had been its leader for perhaps a little too long. This included former FN MEP Carl Lang, who has since become the leader of his own party and plans his own bid at the French Presidency next year against the FN’s new leader, Marine Le Pen. Somewhat surprisingly, the MNR is still going, but it failed to surpass theFN even with many of the FN’s Organisers behind it. Reasons for this included established voting patterns (people had become used to voting FN) and the broad mass of the membership (the ‘armchairs’) stayed with the main party. A similar situation could well arise in Britain in any split unless Griffin becomes indisposed. Griffin faces a number of different investigations, including one very serious police investigation that will undoubtedly result in his imprisonment if it goes to trial and he is found guilty. In addition, there are also various large scale money problems with people pursuing Griffin through the courts for monies owed – and all against a backdrop of a falling membership and plummeting donations. Moreover, there is a serious possibility that if Griffin isn’t hauled into court and gaoled, he could very well be declared bankrupt instead, although he would still remain ‘leader’. It needs to be understood that there is no requirement for Griffin to be solvent and party leader. For those who might argue that such a humiliation would surely result in his resignation, they have not studied Griffin’s past form. Over the past two years, he has been caught out in the most disgraceful behaviour that would have resulted in an honourable man resigning four or five times over. But that’s the point, for Nick Griffin has no shame and he has no honour. And while it can be argued that such a humiliation would weaken Griffin’s position, the fact is that all that would happen, as can be attested to over the past year or so, is that while Griffin would undoubtedly carry on without a care, it would be the members who would become so disgusted that they could bear it no longer and leave. The Calculation These possibilities have no doubt weighed heavily on Andrew Brons’ mind as he urged the BNP Ideas Conference attendees to stick with the BNP. However, while there are signs that Griffin is being made to pay up, however slowly, there is little likelihood that the rozzers will be feeling Griffin’s collar until at least the next Euro election. There seems little appetite for the State to come speedily to grips with the multitude of sins that Mr Griffin is accused of. One of the reasons the State is in a ‘go slow’ mode is because it suits the government to have the BNP continue to implode. If readers think I exaggerate political interference in the judicial process, I would remind readers of the government reaction from the first free speech trial of Griffin and Collet in 2006 where it was declared within half an hour of the end of the first trial that there would be definitely be a retrial (at which the pair were acquitted). This is something that the CPS normally takes days or even weeks to decide. Clearly, that was a political decision. I see no reason why the same cannot be happening now. On the other hand, simply waiting is not much of an option for Andrew Brons either. Disillusioned nationalists are walking away in considerable numbers. If Brons wishes to take a part in saving nationalism from the ruin that Nick Griffin has inflicted upon it, then he must act sooner rather than later. For those who might think that the BNP is finished, I would suggest this question needs looking at on more than one level. All those who have pronounced the BNP dead are wrong. Furthermore, those dismayed by the BNP’s collapse need to keep watching because the party has not touched bottom yet! The BNP still has a membership base of at least 6 or 7 thousand, most of whom are relatively new members and so have no idea of the scale of betrayal that Nick Griffin has perpetrated. This is still a considerable and worthwhile prize to fight over, although perhaps for not much longer. I saw a few friends before Christmas and over general chin wagging, one old fighter said that he thought that Brons may make his move in a new party some time in the New Year. Assuming he does, the questions are as follows: a) Will he have enough new members to make a new party a going concern? b) What will be the likely drop out rate for the BNP and thus the funds available to it to hinder the new party’s progress? c) Depending upon the join up pattern, what will be the main areas of strength for any new party? To take the second question first, it is expected that the drop out rate this year (2011) to the next will be horrific, possibly leaving the BNP with just 2,000 – 3,000 members (down more than 10,000 from just 2 years ago). The party will also have to contest the London GLA elections in 2012 without a hope of winning a seat as it did last time and possibly without even saving its deposit. It is bound to throw some money at this even if the real goal, as opposed to the stated one, is to simply save the Mayoral deposit of £5,000 – returnable with 2½% of the vote. The first question is in the lap of the gods, although to turn the question around, the implosion of the BNP can be gauged from the December members’ bulletin wherein the party congratulated itself on remaining a ‘going concern’! This is highly relevant. If the BNP in its weakened state is in no position to effectively oppose a rival party, then providing a new party has a sufficiently large seasoned nucleus to be able to conduct election campaigns – and win them, then the BNP’s days could be numbered. It is important to note that so comprehensive has been the wreckage of the BNP that whole regions have ceased to exist. Wales, the South West and Eastern England have gone barring an odd group. Every other region has suffered a catastrophic collapse of numbers, effectiveness and morale. London was destroyed personally by Nick Griffin when he suspended every single London official because he could not be certain how many of them were supporting Eddy Butler’s leadership bid in 2010. From covering nearly the whole capital at borough level with a group or branch covering each borough, the party now has ‘sub regions’ within London to try and scrape enough activists together in each part of London accomplish basic activities because the branch system was destroyed along with its active base. Whether a new party can take enough members to make it a going concern is uncertain, but given the BNP’s declining membership and ability to oppose such a new party, the numbers needed to make a new party viable might be less than might be supposed. If the BNP dips to, say, 3,000 members in early 2012 and the vast bulk of those being ‘armchair members’, then I would suggest that a bare minimum of 700 – 800 would be necessary and only if the a high proportion of that number were activists and skilled elections practitioners. The third question as to where might the areas of strength be for the new party is also one that is in the ‘Lap of the Gods’, although avoiding the problem associated with one small party that broke away from the BNP and finding its strongest area located in the worst performing area for nationalism in England would be beneficial. The Midlands – east or west, Yorkshire and the North West would be the best areas and only Brons can know the likely disposition of any new force if he is keeping a careful check on things. Where Now? Given the state of the party today with a collapsing membership, activist base and slide in the party’s vote and professional standards, the question to be asked is where now? On any objective measure, if nationalists wish to swing behind the biggest and most effective party around today, they’d have to join UKIP with its eleven MEPs. It also has 110 councillors, although 82 of those are town, parish and community councillors where no election was likely required. That still gives UKIP 28 County and borough/district councillors, although it’s uncertain as to how many of these were actually won by UKIP and how many are defections. On previous form, half of these will be defections. The big flaw with UKIP, as everyone knows, is that it is seen as a one-issue party: i.e. to vote for in EU elections and has almost no grass roots campaigners and, as a result, few councillors considering the size of its EU vote. That problem is unlikely to be rectified since UKIP won’t accept known BNP members. That leaves the English Democrats and the new party of Andrew Brons, assuming it does get going. Several high ranking and effective BNP personnel have already joined the English Democrats including several entire BNP branches, including Cheshunt, Southend and Leeds. Two of these branches have previously won election at council level for the BNP. The advantage of the English Democrats is that they are already a party in being. In addition, they have a reputational shield to deflect from accusations of ‘racism’, although how long that might hold up given literally hundreds of defecting BNPers is hard to say. It is for this reason, of course, that UKIP won’t entertain any known BNP member at all and there is a certain logic to it. One thing that does hinder the English Democrats is their lack of activism and lack of good quality Organisers over the country. If you want a leaflet, you have to go to head office for it. Local initiative and leaflet production is almost unknown, although I am sure that Eddy Butler will want to change this. Of course, while it is true to say that practically all BNPers accept that, in some degree or another, the multi-racial state is here to stay, that will not satisfy the liberal left media which will harass every known BNP member in any new party. Assuming Andrew Brons does make the break with the BNP in the New Year as the only credible challenger to Nick Griffin within the BNP, the names British Democratic Party and even the already existing, but small, Democratic Nationalists are names to watch in the New Year. My belief is that the word ‘British’ is redundant. Scotland will be independent within a few years. What of ‘Britain’ then? Or indeed, the ‘British’? England and the English is the new wave of patriotism and even the BNP have been playing that tune in recent years. For that reason, the word ‘British’ is a bad idea, indeed the most high profile supporters of ‘Britain’ and the ‘British’ are now system politicians and second generation immigrants! However, there are a lot of unionist nationalists around and, as a result, an attachment to ‘Britain’. I myself have fond feelings towards my fellow Britons north of the border, but British Nationalism has always struggled there. Indeed, it is seen by many Scots as being some kind of Westminster-rule-on-steroids tendency. As a result and also because Labour are always helped into power by a disproportionate number of Scots MPs, I have always held the view that, in the end, England and the struggle for race and nation would be better off without Scotland, as much as I like them personally. A Westminster without Scots Labour MPs would also have another effect. The Conservative party hangs together because of the huge power of Scottish Labour MPs. But without its Scots MPs, Labour would be out of power for a generation. That would, in turn, encourage tendencies within Conservatism to become more pronounced, possibly leading to a split and as every nationalist knows, for nationalism to succeed the Conservative Party must, ultimately, be destroyed. A Conservative split would start things off nicely. All the external factors are present in Britain for nationalists to make hay. On the economy, on the EU, on immigration and on foreign affairs. The winners within nationalism will be the ones to get their act together quickest. An initiative by Andrew Brons will mean the instant formation of groups nationwide with practised Organisers and skilled elections practitioners far in excess of that which can be disposed of by the English Democrats or even the BNP, which is why the lack of an armchair membership will not be too much of a hindrance at least at first. Should such a party start to build, then by the time it loses all vestiges of EU support (through wages), it should have gathered to itself sufficient casual financial support to keep going and make the gains that will enable it to overtake the BNP and become Britain’s (or more precisely - England’s) premier nationalist party. It is this much larger reservoir of practised Organisers and skilled elections practitioners still within the BNP that could support Brons that makes the already pre-existing English Democrats with their scant resources of the same not the dead certainty that it might be. What will happen in the New Year, I cannot predict. Which party will emerge strongest likewise. But with the BNP continuing to decline the opportunity is fast approaching for a definitive break and time of decision. Comments:2
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:57 | # This is the solution ; A political party is the tip of the spear. The spear can only penetrate into power with the support of a community behind it propelling it into power. That means before any political party can take power, the social struggle to create a community with A CONSCIOUSNESS OF BEING PART OF A COMMUNITY MUST PRECEDE IT. No nationalist party, English or British, will take power UNLESS WE FIRST ENACT THE SOCIAL STRUGGLE TO CREATE IN OUR COMMUNITIES NATIONALISTS ! WE MUST FIRST NATIONALISE THE MASSES BEFORE THEY WILL VOTE FOR NATIONALIST PARTIES ! That means we must build a street level community based social / civil rights / legal campaign - and we already have the tools at our disposal. We copy exactly the 1960’s civil rights struggle in America and use the techniques of Saul Alinsky in his book Rules For Radicals. NATIONALISTS MUST COPY THE FAR LEFT METHODOLOGY THAT TOOK THEM FROM THE DESPISED MARGINS OF SOCIETY INTO THE POLITICAL MAINSTREAM. The primary struggles we need are ; Legal These are the bare minimums. No more politics or new parties until the social struggle has been undertaken and is operating. Unless do this we will fail. A political party is the tip of the spear - only a community that is prepared to vote for that party can propel it into power.
l 3
Posted by anon on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:48 | # ditto ljb A political party shouldn’t aim to win as it can’t under the current conditions. It should aim to change the conditions such that it can win. It’s a subtle distinction but critical. 4
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:03 | # @Lee John Barnes
Not a valid proposition as this movement was essentially a Jewish enterprise and had Jewish money power behind it (your recommendation, Alinsky, was a Jew). In contrast, nationalism will have the full weight of Jewish money power against it. Anon @3 has the answer: attempting electoral victory under current conditions is a waste of effort; aim to change the conditions and victory may come. The chief condition that should be targeted is the control of the money supply. Return this power to an elected government and you have the basis for victory, without even needing a nationalist party, as most people naturally prefer to live among their own and not have their homeland overrun by aliens. 5
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:08 | #
Well said. 6
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:54 | # Nobody would argue with Lee’s prescriptions for success, insofar as they go (the manner in which they are bawled out is another matter), however I believe he is missing two key elements. The first would be the absence of any proposal to compensate for the almost total lack of support by public intellectuals for a nationalist programme of any description. The second is the reluctance to honestly acknowledge that, assuming unforeseeable economic, environmental or political catastrophes do not cause a truncation of the timeframe, it will take at least as long to reverse the effects of the Long March as it has taken for us to reach our current state (i.e. two to three generations). In seeking to reverse that process, it is necessary to properly understand the historical processes that underlie it and not succumb to the temptation to pick on easy targets or resort to facile, panacea solutions. I also believe he is basing his proposition on incorrect role models. The American Civil Rights movement has little relevance in the British, or European, context, being focused as it was on the acquisition of rights by a relatively small minority, which had been historically oppressed by a dominant majority, not just by the managerial elite, as we are today. What we are concerned with are Majority Rights, and a more useful model can be found closer to home in the form of the struggle of the working class to secure full economic and political rights during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Rather than studying the agit-prop of Jewish-American radicals, a close reading of contemporary socialist, and especially Fabian, texts might be more rewarding. Also, but only if it could be done without laying unnecessary trails, another fruitful avenue of enquiry might entail a forensic review of the electoral strategy and tactics employed by the NSDAP after 1926, particularly with respect to their appeal to women, who voted in very large numbers for the NSDAP in 1930 and 1932, despite historically fighting shy of the ‘scarier’ political factions. As for Tony Lecomber’s piece, I think he is right in highlighting the role that the liberal media played and still play in the demonisation of nationalist politics, but it is disappointing that he was not able to honestly confront (and atone for) his own role in the PR disaster that made picking apart the BNP such an easy wicket for them.
7
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 01:41 | # @Dan Dare
The Fabian society was formed when Karl Marx (Jew) died, and the intention was to achieve Marxist goals without a bloody revolution, i.e., propaganda and altering the educational curriculum, which required lots of money. This is the sister society of the Frankfurt School. Not much of utility will come from studying the Fabian Society unless you intend to trace their history and expose their workings with original references to the works of members of this society, and then obtain lots of money for counter-propaganda work.
There’s not much to it. Runway inflation caused by the bankers brought the nation to its knees, and not long ago the nation had lost WWI, suffered mass starvation deaths, lost some of its territory and was supposed to pay compensation far exceeding its wealth… high time for a revolution… and this revolution was aided by the international bankers because at the time there was a special problem for them, namely that the person they wanted to lead Russia, Leon Trotsky (Jew Bronshtein), had been sidelined and later expelled by Stalin, and the bankers were thus funding a group that could potentially take care of Stalin if he got out of hand. 8
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 01:58 | # Jews under every bed, or if not them, then commies at least! “There’s not much to it” No, I suppose not. At least not in the comic-book version of history favoured by Americans. By the way Richards, was it you who blocked access from my IP address? 9
Posted by FB on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:21 | # If I were an English nationalist, I’d surround myself with a cadre of Right-wing Jewish advisers, Kahanists. British nationalism is a joke and a failure in comparison to what’s happening on the continent. When all else fails, let’s study and copy what works. As the post-war European experience shows, any nationalst party must be loudly Zionist, pro-Jewish, and culturalist. (very recently Marine Le Pen’s Jewish adviser Aliot made a trip to Israel). The old alternative purist path leads to political irrelevance and oblivion, ie 4 decades of British nationalism. The reasons for this strategy are manifold but neither dishonest nor deceptive. If they are, they won’t work. J Richards is either a total wackjob (Duke and Linder as Zionist agents anyone?) or there’s something far more sinister at work, as I suspect. In either case, the fact that GW gives him front page posting privileges, denotes a lack of seriousness and judgment. He really hurts MR’s credibility. 10
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:31 | # @Dan Dare
Think again. Here’s an excerpt: It makes no real difference which party is in office, the Sanhedrin is always in power. They all pursue what is fundamentally the same policy of destroying Great Britain and the British Empire. Look at the way we have been running away from our responsibilities of Empire all over the world during the last ten years under the pressure of the hidden forces working on the lamentable figureheads in office. It appears to be impossible to rise in any party without making suitable obeisance to Judaeo-Masonry. It is significant that such organisations as the Fabian Society, the London School of Economics, P.E.P., and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) were richly endowed by Jewish finance and have been largely guided by Jewish influence in instilling the Fifth Column doctrines of Socialism and Internationalism into our body politic. The Fabian Society, with its associated organisations, is the fountainhead of Socialist ideas in English-speaking countries. Socialist Movements all over the world were dominated by the influence of the Jew Fabian, Harold Laski. After discussions with Stalin, late in 1946, Laski made the very important statement that the English Socialists and the Russian Socialists were approaching the same objective by different roads. Karl Marx, the Jew, had said that the British would never make their own revolution and that foreigners would have to make it for them. But the horde of German and Russian-speaking Jews who poured into this country for the purpose have managed to find a large number of Gentile dupes to work for them. The Society had been formed under the leadership of Professor Thomas Davidson, "an ethical Anarchist Communist", in the winter of 1883-84. But he was superseded by the Webbs and George Bernard Shaw.
From Lyndon LaRouche, Jr.: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/larouche-the-poison-in-Britain.pdf (1956) LaRouche, Jr. also wrote on the one solution that will work, which is monetary reform; we the people need to have the control of money in the hands of a government elected by us: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/larouche-remedy-for-Britain.pdf (1956) As for your I.P., the only reason it could’ve been banned as a routine matter was that a spammer used it to spam MR. 11
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:48 | # @Friedrich Tell your Jewish handlers that they’re wasting their time by forcing you to comment here. 12
Posted by FB on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:10 | # No, J(ew) Richards, it is you who should ask your Jewish handlers for a break. Everyone can see through your stupid & tiresome bullshit. 13
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:22 | # “FB” went from worshiping Hitler to advocating extermination of the people of central Asia so that Jews could colonize their land. What a malevolent fruitcake. 14
Posted by FB on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:46 | # I don’t care what Israelis do to Iranians or Arabs. Why do you care, affected American teenager? Rule #1) A cartoonish American Nazi shouldn’t call his superiors “malevolent”. It’s bad form. 15
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:36 | # Lyndon Larouche! Well quelle surprise I’m sure, there’s a non-partisan source if ever I saw one. What else ya got? As for my IP, both my ISP and GW’s host declare their innocence, so it must have been somebody with access to MR’s admin panel who banned my IP. This happened over a year ago and is still the case today. 16
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:44 | # FB noted:
Not sure what the last actually refers to, but it’s fair to note that J.N. Griffin was as loudly Zionist and as pro-Jewish as it’s possible to imagine for a non-mainstream pol - just ask those who like me resigned from the party when he catapulted Jewish candidates into council elections in 2004-5 - but then, as we’ve since seen, a fat lot of good it it did him or the BNP. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that the best possible strategy for a nationalist party with respect to the JQ is to maintain a studied indifference, as well as complete neutrality on the Izzy-Pally imbroglio. 17
Posted by CS on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:04 | # Let’s cut to the chase. The problem is that WE are vastly outnumbered by white liberals, white lemmings, and non-whites in our own countries and I don’t see how that is going to change short of an economic collapse or civil war that may or may not come and if does come will probably be used as a pretext by THEM to install dictatorship and make things even worse. However, if all functional white people from all over the world started to move to one small country we might eventually have the numbers to take over and run things or at least influence things enough so that in the long run we will. Think of it as international white flight. Think of the advantages if we could pull this off. We would be the ones in power so we can control the education system. We get to decide what is taught in the schools and what books will be used. We will be able to control the media in that country. Moreover we will actually be the media producers and we will have no problem selling our product because a huge percent of the population will agree with us. No more hate speech or hate crime laws. No more worrying about losing your job, career and kids because you said the word “nigger”. No more affirmative action. No more mudsharks flaunting their negro thug boyfriends and mongrel kids in your face every time you leave the house. No more negro crime. No more of your taxes being used to support some welfare mammy with five idiot kids from five different fathers. No more non-white (or white) scumbags being let into the country to leech off the taxpayers. No more bullshit refugee claimants scamming your tax dollars. No more Jews and other non-whites swindling your money every way they can. No more having your white daughter being harassed by blacks in school. No more worrying about your daughter coming home with some spook out of some act of youthful rebellion. When we take control we can also do all sorts of fun things like hand out citizenship and the right to vote to our people who don’t even live in the country. We can start harassing antis in our country with impunity which will motivate them to leave. We can control government spending and have it spent on projects worthwhile to our cause. We can start practicing eugenics. We can deal harshly with career criminals and motivate them to leave. We can control the education system and teach our kids what we want instead of what liberals want. We can start producing white children for adoption to other countries. We could basically “gentrify” an entire country thereby making those who move there first rich by increasing the value of the land they own there. There are probably many other fun things we could do once we are in control of our own country but the problem is getting into control. Your choice white racialists. You can be the hated minority everywhere or be with people like yourselves and the majority somewhere. 18
Posted by FB on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:25 | #
I’m surprised you would offer this as a refutation. One may accuse Jews of many things but not of being stupid. Griffin had a Nazi history and a track-record of Holocaust-denial. He was rightly viewed as opportinistic and double-talking. Any nationalist politician must come with clean hands. The political and media elites will brand any nationalist politician as a Second Hitler, sometimes the charges will stick (Griffin), sometimes they won’t (Wilders). Culturalist means non-racial. In the current climate it’s impossible and suicidal to speak about race. However, appeals to culture are in fact a dog whistle. We all know how to translate. 19
Posted by danielj on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:31 | # However, if all functional white people from all over the world started to move to one small country we might eventually have the numbers to take over and run things or at least influence things enough so that in the long run we will. Think of it as international white flight. I propose Latvia, Estonia and Belarus. I like Latvia the best. 20
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:36 | # <h2>Friedrich Braun and the Civic Platform</h2>
He didn’t transform but was forced to outwardly become the opposite. Use some critical thinking. The kind of transformation he underwent is drastic, something along the lines of somebody losing his mind, but if one loses his mind, one doesn’t end up with a coherent diametrically opposed viewpoint. Friedrich Braun was operating out of Canada. He was active at websites that unbeknownst to him were run by controlled opposition. A combination of insufficient tech savvy and not having a sophisticated jewdar led to the demise of his online persona… they got him, and they had to get him when his website, the civic platform, started attracting more than a few hits. Now they could charge FB under hate speech laws, but what would they get for it? If the case got publicity, they’d give publicity to his arguments. And if they had him convicted, Braun would be out of action for a short while only, and they couldn’t deport him like Zundel as he’s a citizen. A Canadian school teacher, James Keegstra, taught the truth about Jews to his students for years and was convicted of hate speech. He was initially fined $5,000, which was later reduced to a one-year suspended sentence, one year of probation and 200 hours of community service. Correspondingly, they couldn’t get much out of FB’s conviction. And once his sentence was over, FB could leave the civic platform intact and he couldn’t be charged again because that would be double jeopardy. FB could also be active again under a different name. So what do Jews do with someone like FB? Find something to blackmail him with and get him to work for them—in his case it could be something as simple as the threat of prosecution and financial ruin. It’s just that FB’s redirected efforts aren’t working at MR. You’ve called him a malevolent fruitcake, and many others have called him nasty names, but you won’t see GW and me call him names because it’s obvious what happened to him. 21
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:40 | # @Dan Dare If your I.P. was banned a year ago, that couldn’t have been me as I was under extended leave at the time. If it’s still banned, it means that you either have a dedicated I.P. or someone used wildcards to block all the dynamic I.P.s your service provider could assign you. Send GW the banned I.P. and I’ll look into the problem. Don’t dismiss LaRouche Jr. because he’s partisan. A clear understanding will make you chose sides; consider the evidence. Since LaRouche Jr. arrived at the right solution, monetary reform or acquiring control of the money supply to ensure the welfare of the masses, you know he has intensively investigated the issues and is a wise man whose wisdom we can enlighten ourselves with. Even Keegstra (see previous post) was active in efforts to bring forth financial reform, which made him dangerous to Jews as he was a teacher who knew what was going on, how to fix it and was imparting the knowledge to school children. 22
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:56 | # @FB You are assigning a valence to Jewish influence in contemporary European affairs that is completely unwarranted. A common error, if I might say so, on the part of many members of the North American kommentariat. That would not in itself be of any great import, but unfortunately too many of our more impressionable young ‘uns have come to treat anything that wafts eastward across the Atlantic as being the gold standard, given that so many of their cultural references are regrettably non-European (that is, American) in origin. 23
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:04 | # I curious as to why danielj would be calling for non-European whites to flock to Latvia when, for North Americans at least, Utah is so handy and has more than four times the land area, with more or less the same population. 24
Posted by CS on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:09 | # Danielj, Dan Dare, Estonia and Latvia are good choices. Belarus is a communist dictatorship and won’t let us in. America is no good as non-whites will eventually flood into every single area of the country and the government will never allow us to run things the way we want. We need to control land at the national level so we can keep non-whites out and control the media and education system. 25
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:40 | # 1) will the idiot that keeps trying to derail threads by saying we should all emigrate to Latvia fuck off back to the mental asylum. 2) will the idiot that keep saying we should all convert to Judaism and become Kosher Nationalists subservient to Zionists fuck off back to Israel. 3) The Fabian Model re Gramscianism infiltrationism re the Long march through the instoitutions will take too long to get us into power on its own - we can do it but we cant rely on it. Yes we need people to infiltrate institutions, media, academia etc - but it will take at least a decade to even begin to work - in the meantime the social struggle is required. 4) Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals is the best model we have. Alinsky has a proven result - ACORN and OBAMA - the community group Obama run and his getting to be POTUS. It is far easier to get an opporessed MAJORITY radicalised and into power, than an oppressed minority. That is what our people are - we are an oppressed majority. The majority wishes on everything from immigration to the death penalty, Islam, positive discrmination etc etc are all nationalist - the problem is that nationalist POLITICS repulses those people as the media attacks the POLITICAL PARTIES that stand in elections. Hence we need to work at the comunity level below the media radar to contact, educate and radicalise the masses into becoming ACTIVE NATIONALISTS who will then vote for nationalist parties, regardless of what the media says, as opposed to them being PASSIVE NATIONALISTS who support nationalism but who wont vote for nationalist parties as they believe media propaganda. We need to turn PASSIVE NATIONALISTS ( the majority of people ) into ACTIVE NATIONALISTS (who will ignore the media and vote for us ). We do that by nationalising the masses at the community level via the social struggle. Alinsky tells us how to Agitate - Indoctrinate - Recruit. Thats what we need to do exactly ; AGITATE - we go into communities and then seek out issues in communities that affect the majority and which are caused by minorities eg crime, muslim rape gangs, political correctness, positive discriminations etc and then highlight those issues and use them to create social anger in communities and amongst the majority INDOCTRINATE - we go into those communities and use those issues to radicalise the majority and to highlight the injustices of multi-culturalism RECRUIT - We turn radicalised members of communities into nationalists who will vote for nationalist parties - we create a ‘ground up’ revolution rather than putting all our hopes on a top down revolution via a political party taking power.
The social struggle is the only way to defuse the power of the media conditioning that alienates the PASSIVE NATIONALISTS from voting for nationalist parties and hence becoming ACTIVE NATIONALISTS.
26
Posted by CS on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:04 | # Lee John Barnes, This is the greatest insult in all of history and I am declaring war on you forever! Or not. My guess is that most white people don’t give a shit about what is happening otherwise they’d be voting BNP already. You would think after all those niggers rioted all over the UK the BNP would show some improvement in the polls regardless of who is leading them. 27
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:14 | # for the most perfect example of the technique espoused by Alinsky in order to agitate, radicalise and recruit I have seen for decades then watch this video here ;
One man triggers a social revolution. This is what nationalists need to be doing, not fucking about wasting time with politics. Note also this most important social history fact - The fight for male sexual equality in society is the prelude to the fight for white racial equality in society - just as the struggle for racial equality followed the struggle sexual equality - the struggle for white rights in our liberal fascist society will follow the struggle for male sexual equality. One myth at a time the liberal system will fall as its core myths are exopsed and revealed as based on lies and sexism and racism. This is what we need to be doing, not fucking about wasting our time with politics. WATCH THE VIDEO - WAKE UP ! 28
Posted by CS on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:09 | # Lee John Barnes, Your idea does make sense. However, it is my experience that talking to the average white person is about as useful as talking to a brick wall. This is not just my opinion. Tom Metzger came to the same conclusion. Too many white people are either too apathetic or too willing to bend over for non-whites. Britain is run by lunatics yet somehow most of the population keeps voting for them. That’s why we need to take what few white people in Britain who have half a brain and relocate somewhere where they aren’t outnumbered ten to one by retards. Trust me, I’ve done plenty of agitation on the internet. I post black crime stories in the hope that more and more white people will come to the conclusion that they dont’ need or want blacks in their countries and vote accordingly. I’ve had some success but it is an uphill battle. I’m not the only one doing this either. 29
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:45 | # CS, you have to boil the frog slowly. First you deconstruct the founding myths of liberalism via actions such as the guy taking the LSE to court to expose sexual discrimination against men. A myth at a time we deconstruct the liberal bastion. Boil the frog slowly. I call it LIBERAL DECONSTRUCTIONISM. First we undermine myths like the ‘women are sexually oppressed’ and then radicalise and recruit men to fight sexual discrimination against men. Thats the first step towards boiling the frog. You start on the edges and move in, destabilising then entire structure by attacking and destroying a myth at a time. You cant change decades of media / academic brainwashing in schools / propaganda overnight or by a direct confrontation as regards the issue of white rights. First you deconstruct the founding myths of liberalism to undermine the entire edifice itself, so that once on section of the edifice has been brought down - the entire thing then begins to fall down. First we target things like ; sexual discrimination against men
we undermine the structure at its weak points before we attack its most powerful and well defended myth - that whites are racists and oppress minority groups in society etc first undermine the structure by attacking its other founding myths - then target the race myths. LIBERAL DECONSTRUCTIONISM VIA SOCIAL ACTIVISM. Its not about internet activism, which has a massive role to play in reinforcing the cognitive dissonence and cognitive dissidence when it starts to impact in the community, its about direct action social activism - agitation on the streets, legal cases taken on, civil rights campaigns to get publicity in the community, people on the streets confronting people in their work places / universities etc SOCIAL ACTIVISM IS DIRECT ACTION. Remember where you read the name for it first. It is the future of nationalist strategy and tactics in the 21st century.
30
Posted by CS on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:52 | # I’d like Silver to respond to Lee’s last post because he writes better than I do, is willing to put more time into his answers and I usually agree with what he says. 31
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:54 | #
If Jews are so harmless to nationalism in Europe then why did you quit the BNP when Griffin decided to run Jewish candidates? 32
Posted by Helvena on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:21 | # a friend wrote this to me: I) the commentators even on MR are afraid to grasp the nettle of race reality (this is where Haller’s efforts are really destructive; The situation is that of Christians who realize that universalist moral principles are incompatible with reality, but who are unwilling to draw the consequence that their religion is bollocks. Grasp the nettle! Silence the Jew and wogs out! 33
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:27 | #
WTF?? “Destructive” in what precise way? I’d obviously say quite the opposite. 34
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:53 | # I refer you, gentlemen, to those nine little words from the OP: the great, undergirding question of the war of discourse. Slowly, by stages, the realisation dawns that we require a paradigm shift out of liberalism as the dominant ideational model before - well before - we can achieve the downstream effects we desire! Why? Because liberalism spawns everything that takes our people away from our own nature and collective interests, and delivers our destiny into hostile hands. Not the focus on black crime or the JQ, or WW2 history, or Islam will ever deliver this paradigm shift. Lee will find that he cannot agitate against a declension that is in the very ideational air we breathe. What seems effete and detached to so many will, in the end, prove to be the only possible starting point: the building of a life-affirming, race-affirming, anti-liberal thought-world - an alternative way of thinking about ourselves, the life we have, and the world we inhabit. 35
Posted by Helvena on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:54 | # your free market/economics BS assumes a universalism, an equal playing field. Equality doesn’t exist in reality. Reality isn’t good for the Jews. The worm is turning Haller, time for you to return to under your rock. 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:56 | #
Where have I ever opposed this? Indeed, it makes a damn good slogan. 37
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:10 | # I have stated, repeatedly, that before we can rebuild our nations we must bring down the dominant ideology of our time that represses nationalism = LIBERALISM.
I say the chap in the video is doing just that - and winning. He stood in the street, spoke to men walking past & they agreed with him - regardless of the years of media conditioning and academic brainwashing, they agreed with him. One man with one conversation using pure logic managed to subvert the conditoning of a lifetime in the men he met at the most left wing university in Britain. Thats the method - it works. As I stated above - the most powerful and well defended myth of Liberalism is around race. You cannot storm the fortress without first undermining the foundations. A weaker army cannot storm the well defended liberal castle - all it can do is lay seige to it whilst undermining its foundations so that it begins to collapse. We need to target every weak point in the foundations of the liberal fortress - as by so doing we begin the process of its collapse. You know I am right and that strategicaly and tactically its the only way to bring down the liberal fortress. You dont wave the red flag of ‘race’ and storm the fortress so the enemy can shoot you down before you even get to the main gate - thats the suicide tactics of idiots. Instead you lay seige to the fortress, undermine its foundations by targeting the weak points in its defences, seek to spread dissent amongst the ranks of its supporters, send in your trojan horses inside the fortress to spread dissent inside its walls and once the structure starts to fall - then you press the frontal attack. FFS GW its not rocket science is it. Anyone who has ever watched a few war films knows how to do this - we just need to apply the same tactics and strategy to bringing down an ideology as our ancestors did to bringing down castles.
38
Posted by danielj on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:10 | # I curious as to why danielj would be calling for non-European whites to flock to Latvia when, for North Americans at least, Utah is so handy and has more than four times the land area, with more or less the same population. He said international White Flight. Latvia would be my choice. Empty spaces. Only about 2 million people. It is already a heavily mixed population. I’m not leaving America though Dan. Here I would say New England and the Pac N.W. are our best bets. 39
Posted by danielj on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:11 | # I have stated, repeatedly, that before we can rebuild our nations we must bring down the dominant ideology of our time that represses nationalism = LIBERALISM. Well done you fucking moron. 40
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:13 | #
1) What is the timeline for achieving this, and how does it relate to the [nota bene: Helvena!] reality problem: to wit, the requirement of sufficient physical/military power actually to effect repatriations (without, say, completely obliterating the physical land (not to mention economy) of England)? 2) “ripening harvest / encroaching jungle” - shouldn’t the focus of nationalism be on first ending immigration, for as long as it continues, nationalism’s chances further recede? 3) Forget timelines for the moment. What is the ‘ontological’ sequence? That is, do we do nothing in the real world of politics while the philosophers are constructing their new race-realistic “thought-world”? Do thought-worlds automatically issue in new political forms? Do new thought-worlds produce new political paradigms - or do new political paradigms lead to new thought-worlds? Or do they co-evolve in some sort of dialectical relationship? 41
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:20 | #
Seeing a woman talk plain good sense is really effing with my head! From this day let that single dictum be my invariable response to all interrogators. “Reality isn’t good for the Jews.” And re blacks — “The Law of Gravity keeps black men down. The Law of Gravity is racist!” 42
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:25 | # daniel j, I just looked at your blog - it appears that you are another of the ‘negro’ obsessed wank socks involved in nationalism due to an obsession about the puny size of your pizzle. ‘Negro’ this, ‘negro’ that. Are you Captain Chaos’s catamite ? Fucking twat. 43
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:25 | #
Why can’t someone do this on the more important issue of immigration? The point is to stop it, Who cares on what grounds? Why does it have to be race-replacement? Why not overcrowding (or in the US, unemployment competition)? Why does no one but me ever address the military dimension in all this? Nationalists want back their nation-states. This may require much beyond race/ethnicity, but it must begin with ending immigration (assuming immigration continues to be overwhelmingly nonwhite). Eventually, you must be in possession of sufficient physical (military) power to remove the genetically incompatible elements. The more immigrants you allow in, the harder will be the repatriationist struggle (and hence the less popular among the native masses - the ordinary blokes who, having been dereligionized, only care about saving their own skins and creature comforts). Undermine liberalism as comprehensively as you want (personally, I think the best way is in conjunction with a revival of a kind of traditional/national Christianity), but you must start by focusing efforts on ending immigration.
44
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:30 | #
Rubbish! Economics is simply a way to understand a part of reality. It does not assume any universalism or equal playing field. Reality is extremely unkind to those who blithely ignore economic law.
I am an arch-inegalitarian! 45
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:30 | # Silence the Jew and wogs out! (Helvena) Where have I ever opposed this? Indeed, it makes a damn good slogan.
We have the ‘Lets all go and live in Latvia’ loon Daniel J and the ‘wogs out slogan will get us elected’ loons like Haller all busy peddling their own particular version of pseudo-intellectual loony shite. Somewhere in the world, an asylum is missing its inmates. Is it ‘day release day’ ? 46
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:36 | #
Analogy fail. Discourse “is not” war. You goys need to step back and rethink your commitment to this metaphor that you seem to have accepted into the ranks of identity. Isn’t there something about this in the Nicene Creed — ὁμοούσιος vs. ὁμοιούσιος?
A specter is haunting Europe .... the specter of dissatisfaction under the New Discipline. I foresee positive developments in Europe, none in Blighty. The essence of the place has changed. The fortress is that essence itself, and it cannot be “stormed”. 47
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:41 | #
I did that months ago. You must have missed it. Also have a look through my departed friend NeoNietzsche’s blog for insistence on the military dimension. It isn’t “no one but” you, Hallerio. They ignore it because they have no real answer. Haven’t you figured that out yet? Realia are too imperious for the thought-world. There they stand ... like a Colossus ... they doth bestride the narrow world ... while we petty man ... erm, walk under his package and peep around ... 48
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:42 | # It appears that the lesson learnt by Hitler has never been learnt by nationalists. You cannot win a war on two fronts against a more powerful enemy. We cannot bring down liberalism at the same time as seeking to impose in its stead a new nationalist ideology which conflicts completely with the residual conditoning which will remain in the minds of the masses. We need to bring down liberalism before we do anything else. Then once the power of liberalism has been nullified, we then begin to press forward with seeking to spread new nationalist memes in the minds of those who have rejected the liberal conditioning. We cannot defeat liberalism at the same time as seeking to replace it with a new ideology. We must target liberalism and bring it down - and then in the ideological vacuum that will arise we can then begin to disseminate nationalist memes. In terms of a Darwinian analogy - You bring down the big lion that controls the territory. Then the other smaller predators can start to dominate the territory it has vacated. You cant have all the smaller predators fighting each other for territorial dominance whilst the lion is still alive. The smaller predators must all work together to bring down the lion that dominates the territory, and then the fittest predator (nationalist memes) will rise to dominate the territory. At the moment the lion is still in power and the smaller predators spend all their time attacking each other instead of attacking the lion. The nationalists at the moment think being the top predator sitting on top of a tiny dung heap in the far corner of the lions territory = success. Thats how truly, epically fucking stupid even the most ‘intelligent’ nationalists are. Pathetic.
49
Posted by danielj on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:44 | # Stupid English Faggot, Captainchaos really fucked you up faggot. I can’t wait to come to England again, eat some real Indian food and fuck you in the ass Barnes while some Polish day laborers hold you down mate. 50
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:44 | #
One thing Barnes has going for him — he speaks the nihilistic gutter language of the British everyman. An Englishman referring to another Englishman as “kinsman” will receive a puzzled look; whilst an Englishman referring to anyone else as a “wank sock” inspires the feeling of kinship. 51
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:46 | # Analogy fail. Discourse “is not” war.
A ‘discourse’ is the battle for supremacy between competing memes in the constant Darwinian war of memes that is underway in our societies. http://dyneslines.blogspot.com/2009/11/memes-and-mimetics.html 52
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:49 | # More analogy fail from Barnesy-warnesy.
You know what’s funny — there are wild cats that actually collect their feces into a mound and sit on it to broadcast their presence to females and competitors. Domestic cats bury their feces not to be demure but so as not to provoke the perceived alpha cat in their territory, the human owner. Cool huh?? You have to morally unimpeachable to defeat Big Jew. Be very liquid, very safe. You wank socks!!! 54
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:55 | # Stupid English Faggot, Captainchaos really fucked you up faggot. I can’t wait to come to England again, eat some real Indian food and fuck you in the ass Barnes while some Polish day laborers hold you down mate.
They would like those homosexual rape fantasies like yours.
—————————————————————————————————————————- One thing Barnes has going for him — he speaks the nihilistic gutter language of the British everyman. An Englishman referring to another Englishman as “kinsman” will receive a puzzled look; whilst an Englishman referring to anyone else as a “wank sock” inspires the feeling of kinship. Uh is completely right here - the only thing that truly terrifies middle class, anti-white, self hating , white liberals is a white working class male with the ability to take the piss out of them. They fear the angry, mocking working class male more than anything else. We are the Liberals Nemesis, their ultimate nightmare. At the same time the white working class blokes like me lalso ike blokes who can swear better, take the piss better and mock people better than they can. The working class English are like the Australians in that way - we like real men who act like men and who dont fuck about with pseudo-intellectualism, verbosity & effete rhetoric to get the fucking point across.
55
Posted by uh on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:59 | # ‘Tis true. If you can’t take the piss like a pro, you’re a hopeless wanka to the average Briton. Personally, people like this do inspire me with a similar rage: http://www.middleclasshandbook.co.uk/the-periodic-table-of-the-midd/ 56
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:00 | #
- The enemy is not the ‘Big Jew’ - thats just a symptom of your psychosis. The enemy is liberalism that has allowed ethnic minrotiy groups to dominate politics / media / economics etc. ———————————————————————————————————————-
I love this shit.
- scientists do say that lunacy runs i n families, hence that would explain your ‘lets all go and live in Latvia’ lunacy. It would also explain your sublimated homosexual rape fantasies. Is your uncle a crazed, homosexual rape fixated sodomite as well ?
57
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:03 | # ‘Tis true. If you can’t take the piss like a pro, you’re a hopeless wanka to the average Briton. Uh is bang on the money with that statement. If you cant handle being taken the piss out of, or are not able to take the piss out of other people, dont ever move to England and live in a working class area. 58
Posted by danielj on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:03 | # Amen!!! That’s what I’m talking about! Fuck the pussy ontology shite. Especially in England. (they aren’t repressed Barnes… But you and I both know that your fetish for the Working Class is blatantly homoerotic I’m ok with that though bud. I should say, “I can get behind you on that!”) 59
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:12 | # That’s what I’m talking about! Fuck the pussy ontology shite. Especially in England. (they aren’t repressed Barnes… But you and I both know that your fetish for the Working Class is blatantly homoerotic I’m ok with that though bud. I should say, “I can get behind you on that!”)
Hence the dominant dynamic in humour revolves around homosexuality hence ‘you faggot’ being the most popular insult amongst the working class. The working class arent homo-erotic, we are homophobic - primarily as we were the prey of the rich, upper class sodomites for so long in the past. Never get behind a working class englishman without first warning them - they will kill you if you do out of pure instinct. 60
Posted by danielj on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:13 | # Barnes, the Latvia shit is a joke mate. I’ve been fightimg the White Zion meme for weeks here… 61
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:14 | # Why is it that English can be very tough on the rugby field or in the pubs, but then they vote for such asslickers as Blair and Cameron? I’ve come across a few tough guy Democrats stateside, but they were never real liberals (just public union parasites wanting to preserve their crony setups). 62
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:22 | # Daniel J Okay then thanks for clearing up the Latvia issue, and so you are now removed from my ‘loon list’. What about the rape fantasy stuff ? - do I still have to have you listed on my ‘Potential Anal Violator List’ or not ?
They vote out of habit and cowardice. Its a class thing - if you are working class you are supposed to vote Labour. Not that most of the working class give a flying fuck about labour policies as they are too thick to understand them and too idle to bother to read them in the first place. They just vote out habit - like the way salmon return to spawn in the same pond. The English are the bravest people in the world on the battlefield, but call them a racist in the street and most will weep like lost children - unless when they are pissed. If they are pissed they will hurl racist abuse about in the street like confetti at a wedding. It takes alcohol to allow the English to speak the truth about what they really feeel about our country.
63
Posted by danielj on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:53 | # What about the rape fantasy stuff ? - do I still have to have you listed on my ‘Potential Anal Violator List’ or not ? Always. The threat of buttfuck is a useful arrow to maintain in one’s quiver. Arrow in quiver… Ha! Like a good Thomist, I say act and potency divide being just like my cock. But if you learn to not fear it Barnes, you can say with the prophet, “Oh buttfuck! Where is thy sting?! Where is thy victory?” Because they are idle and stupid. Bingo. Get a job. Get educated. It takes alcohol to allow the English to speak the truth about what they really feeel about our country. A lot of alcohol. Becuase the only time they are speaking truthfully is when they are expressing vomit. 64
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:51 | # The Cap’n queried:
Because (a) it was a cheap and ineffective political stunt and (b) it created a precedent which would make it impossible to exclude ethnics from party membership in the future. 65
Posted by Bugger Off on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:57 | # Sounds like a breeze, Lee. Since “leaving” the British Freedom party you’ve had some time on your hands to prove your theory with some much needed local practice. Tell us, what successes do you have to report from the Alinsky front-line in Kent?
66
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:59 | # The Cap’n queried:
I should have thought that would have been obvious to someone as erudite as your goodself, but anyway: (a) because it was a cheap and ineffective political stunt and (b) it created a precedent which would make it impossible to exclude ethnics from party membership in the future. 67
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:07 | # Lee’s new-found fixation with Saul Alinsky as the saviour of British nationalism is somewhat reminiscent of the 1980s B-school fad for Sun Tzu as a curative fix-all for whatever was ailing a failing corporation. 68
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:21 | # I have been doing that one thing that you find impossible Dan - its called creating a new social activism model. I have also been busy on a number of writing projects. All you do is defecate your opinion on the internet and do fuck all in real life, you halfwit. Keep reading Mein Kampf in your ledershosen and using your crusty wank sock for onanistic pleasure when you watch the Hitler…sorry, History.. channel and plan your lederhosen clad Aryan legions sweeping you to power. Fucking tool. 69
Posted by Bugger Off on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:23 | # The Alinskyites would have been able to rely on support from a well entrenched political undercurrents and many well placed people already in positions of power plus significant financial resources. They were working with the current not swimming against it. The suggestion above is to waste good organisers and talent generally and have them toil in hundreds of parish councils trying to energise a limited number of eccentric locals while the vast majority look in the opposite direction. Run for the Anderson shelter, we are about to be carpet bombed by the “You Fucking Idiot” squadron. 70
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:33 | # The Alinskyites would have been able to rely on support from a well entrenched political undercurrents and many well placed people already in positions of power plus significant financial resources. They were working with the current not swimming against it. The suggestion above is to waste good organisers and talent generally and have them toil in hundreds of parish councils trying to energise a limited number of eccentric locals while the vast majority look in the opposite direction. Run for the Anderson shelter, we are about to be carpet bombed by the “You Fucking Idiot” squadron. - Many well placed people in power - oh yeah nationalism has so many of them dont they dan, you fucking idiot. Griffin expelled them all you prick. The only well placed people in power that support the present cabals of halfwits that run the nationalist parties, are the ones that exist in your idiot imagination. Not that you would know that of course, as you know as much about the real off internet inationalist movement as I know about yak herding in Tibet. - Political undercurrents - oh yeah, those undercurrents that require a nationalist political party organised to exploit them but that is not run by fucking idiot factionalists like all the nationalist parties are at the moment.
- Who said anything about parish councils you cretin - any political role is a total waste of time. But you would know that if you ever knew any real nationalists who had ever obtained any seats in a real public body. But you dont. Hence you know fuck all about real politics. - A cat is cat. A dog is a dog. And you truly are a fucking idiot non-entity, know nothing, keyboard warrior, lederhosen loving, Aryan boy adoring, Hitler fetishist tool.
71
Posted by Bugger Off on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:46 | # Logic much Lee? Additionally, you might notice that the comments from Bugger Off are not authored by Dan Dare, more attention required. From what I understand your political experience of nationalist activism is limited to stabbing the doughty but ineffectual post-war nationalist leader John Tyndall in the back and replacing him with a sociopathic con-man in a period while many other parties on the continent have surged ahead with a watered down political programme but have made their own national zeitgeists more receptive in our favour. By your own admission your time influencing British nationalist politics has been an unmitigated failure and now you suggest turning the troops around as the fault is all in the process and not the personalities. Incoming! The horny handed son of toils expletive-laden squadron is approaching the white cliffs again. 72
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:02 | # Dan - talking in the guise of third person is a sign of madness. I never stabbed Tyndall in the back - I was never close to him enough to do that. Did I support Griffin at the time of the leadership when Tyndall left - yes. Tyndall was an idiot who liked being photographed in swastika armband and nice nazi outfits. At the time I was simply a member & medway organiser - which meant I had about much influence on the leadership election as you do on the present nationalist movement. = Zero influence. You mention the continent - which for a myriad reasons has fuck all to do with British Nationalism. The only political movements on the continent doing well are Kosher Nationalist, Zionist abasing movements who go crawling to Israel & abase themselves before the Knesset & ask for the zionist blessing - such as Geert Wilders. Even Marine Le Pen has got in on the Zionist crawling act - which means that the FN is no longer nationalist. If you seek the support of Zionists, then you are no longer nationalists. Nationalists dont abase themselves to the Zionists, they seek to hand power back to the people - not allow the zionists to control the media / politics/ economics etc. The euro-nationalists are not nationalists - they are kosher pseudo-nationalists. And as the la6test election results show, they are starting to fade away as a result of the post-Brievik effect and their association with his zionist adoring ideology and actions. As for my time in Nationalism, I spent my time taking on legal cases - all of which I won for the party or managed to get what I wanted for the party from those cases. I did not run the BNP, that was Griffin. But as dumb yank you wouldnt know that as you are a halfwit keyboard warrior fuckwit. Actually idiot - the process and the people are both flawed. I wouldnt waste a fly past on you, I could destroy you with a single squirt of my luke warm piss. 73
Posted by Bugger Off on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:25 | # For an example of a Kosher nationalist party we might look at the BFP - civic (‘culturalist’ ha, ha) party that you had a fundamental hand in forming and guiding before your recent ouster. Now I see you are also busy saying that Islam isn’t the problem, just Islamism. You will keep watering down your suggested policies until even a Homeopathist wouldn’t have the front to sell it. Some European nationalist parties extend different levels of support for Israel, it is true. I see the BFP posts positive articles on Wilders, Israel and those sort of issues. So to suggest that the party you were most recently associated with was somehow a true nationalism or Jew (or Israeli)-wise party is untrue. The FN has only recently turned to their more positive stance on Israel. What do you think Lee, sincerity or tactic? Was the BNP sincere in this regard? Was its membership? Once again I am not DD. He is also not a Yankee. I do hear that you like to post as different characters depending on the position of the stars. Usually some mythological fantasy character such as “Herne the Hunter”. So, by your own suggestion that must make you insane, my bipolar friend. Save your own piss for drinking, you read a book on it once.
74
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:53 | # I’m wondering whether Lee might consider putting his planning for the re-enactment of the Selma to Montgontery Marches to one side for the moment and see his way clear to giving us the benefit of his current thinking vis-a-vis ‘cultural’ nationalism? Some readers may recall the last time we had a chinwag on that particular topic; if not it can be enoyed here: Lee John Barnes pulls the ripcord. On that occasion Lee enlightened us as to the true nature of the cultural nationalism being proposed, which included a sort of The Kumars at No. 42-style subdivision for resident darkies who agreed to ‘go native’, as well as a firm rejection of any notion that the indigenes should simply ignore them (the darkies) in the hope they’ll go away, on the grounds that “[W]e are British and we hate bullies.” Perhaps Lee could update us on current cutting-edge thinking in this fascinating field. 75
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:58 | # I think anyone with an IQ above the level of an amoeba is able to read the thread Dan and gain an insight into the issue for themselves. I know that excludes pond dwelling tards like you Dan, so I suggest you buy a child’s dictionary and spend a few months looking up the big words until you approximate an understanding of it. By the way - the only people who use the word ‘the darkies’ are those who are in the pay of the state. So now we know why you are such a retard in public - you are paid to be in order to discredit nationalism. F*** you very much. 77
Posted by Bugger Off on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:38 | # That’s correct Dan, isn’t it obvious you f******g amoebic dysentery swab? We just need to pick up the Alinsky playbook as truly revealed for us by LJB, then once we have built up our counter-cultural network to overcome all of our enemies our reward will be to still be a minority, but we’ll be happily surrounded by all the races of the world all mimicking Lee’s idea of British culture: taking the piss out out of your neighbour, throwing invective at each other and laughing all day and drinking all night. God save the Queen! 78
Posted by anon on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:21 | #
.
They chose the Alinsky method because it was the most effective. It would have been less effective without money behind it but so would any other option. Similarly all options will have the full weight of Jewish money power against it so that’s moot also.
My answer is the same as ljb’s mostly, except i think a political party can be used to do the same thing. The Greens are the perfect example of a party using electoral politics without expecting to win but purely to change the underlying conditions. Sinn Fein or some of the other Northern Ireland parties that are combination community activist and electoral are another example. I think that could work fine as long as people remember that winning elections isn’t the primary aim. The valid counter-argument to a party imo is that people can start to get hooked and fixated on the electoral process in itself rather than as a tool which is a fair point but in itself not winning is irrelevant if winning isn’t the aim. DanDare
Winning the moral high ground.
Winning the moral high ground.
Winning the moral high ground.
Winning the moral high ground. Ljb’s sexism example - winning the moral high ground. The entire western world is the target of a slow genocide - winning the moral high ground.
79
Posted by danielj on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:47 | # Having the moral high ground just means screaming the loudest. 80
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:09 | # Barnesy wrote:
LOL! It appears Barnesy has a talent for ontological writing to match GW’s. No wonder the English always get their asses handed to them by Krauts.
81
Posted by anon on Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:51 | #
It means having a more logically consistent universal morality. If that whole thing grates then go the vanguardist route instead and ignore it but if you’re going down the political route you can’t ignore the fact that most White people are at least partially motivated by universal morality.
82
Posted by uh on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:08 | # YOU ARE ALL FULL OF SH**. LEE JOHN BARNES HAT EIN TAUSEND MAL DAS RECHT. BRITISH NATIONALISM MUST EAT THE MIDDLE CLASS ALIVE. GOLDEN SHOWERS FOR THE KATES AND ROSSES. MORAL AUTHORITY IS MOOT IN A NATION OF DRUNKEN YOBS AND MULATTOES. LUMPEN AUTHORITY COMES FROM BRASS BA**S. 83
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 04:45 | # <h2>Is liberalism the problem?</h2> @Lee John Barnes Someone who dismisses others in the foul and highly arrogant manner you’ve exhibited above better have substance to offer. Your substance is revealed thus:
So liberalism is to blame. Let’s see. The distribution of liberal and conservative attitudes has been extensively studied and the analysis published in peer-reviewed journals. So your claim can be checked. I’ll focus on NW Euro populations (British and Australian). It turns out that liberal—conservative attitudes have a Gaussian distribution, also known as a normal distribution or a bell-curve distribution. This means that most people cluster in the middle. So there goes your blaming liberalism as most people don’t harbor attitudes characteristic of the liberal extreme, and democratic voting didn’t lead to the problem. The data show strong genetic influences underlying liberal—conservative attitudes. So there’s an upper bound to the extent to which you can change people’s political attitudes. The data also show that the one personality trait that is associated with attitude toward out-groups (immigration, multiculturalism, etc.) is neuroticism, but the correlation is small (0.2; more neurotic means more liberal attitudes toward out-groups; the relationship is accounted for by genetics as reported in a study cited below). Neuroticism is the tendency to experience some negative states. Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely to experience anxiety, anger, guilt, depression, inferiority, unhappiness, hypochondria, guilt, emotional instability and obsessiveness. Neuroticism is also normally distributed. Some references for your verification: Martin, N. G., L. J. Eaves, A. C. Heath, et al. 1986. ‘‘Transmission Verhulst, B., P. K. Hatemi, and N. G. Martin. 2010. ‘‘The Nature Hatemi et al. 2011. “A genonme-wide analysis of liberal and So there you go. The problem couldn’t have been caused via vote and it won’t be solved by voting. Since few harbor liberal-extreme sociopolitical attitudes, there’s no need to attempt to change these attitudes via education and there’s an upper bound to the extent to which education can bring about such change. The problem is caused by the group you’re protecting. Here you’re saying that blaming this group is an illustration of psychosis. Earlier you were protecting this group from the accusation of having orchestrated 9/11. This group controls the money supply, and as long as it does so, it doesn’t matter who one votes for as this group’s wishes will continue to be satisfied because those that control money have the real power. If genuine opposition attempts to use the electoral process to effect change focused on immigration and other issues you’ve mentioned, and survives media vilification, sabotage via infiltration, and vote fraud, a tall order, the group is bound to be outlawed on some pretext. Social agitation won’t be fruitful unless the agitation is focused on taking control of money out of the clutches of this group, and it’s easy to agitate toward this purpose while avoiding the charge of anti-Semitism by focusing on bankers and financial corporations. 84
Posted by Silver on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:14 | # I hate to say this—because I suspect my saying it will come across as a ringing backhanded endorsement—but granting J Richards front page posting privileges represents an appalling, utterly appalling, lack of judgment on GW’s part. 85
Posted by CS on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:27 | # Silver, I consider you one of the best posters on this website. Could you give me your opinion of posts 25,27,29 in this thread? 86
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:07 | # J. Richards, Liberalism is not genetic based. It is an ideology. Liberalism is a system of power relationships. The reason why Jewish groups dominate the liberal power structures is due to their ethno-communalism. The reason why the white majority have allowed this is because the white community are divided on the grounds of race, religion, class, economics, politics etc. The white majority no longer have a consciousness or sense of identity that allows them to transcend the political, class, religious differences between them. That means we must start to create an ethno-centric consciousness that allows the white majority to see themselves as a community united by their race / ethnicity. That cannot be a political project, as any political ideology that seeks to impose / peddles a racial identity merged with political policies will automatically further factionalise the white community - not unify it. POLITICS CANNOT UNITE US, IT CAN ONLY DIVIDE US. The solution is not to further divide / factionalise the white majority - the aim is two fold ; 1) to use Liberal De-Constructionist Methodology to undermine and weaken the dominant liberal ideology that allows ethnic groups with ethno-communal identities to dominate the liberal society AND THE WHITE MAJORITY 2) to work to create at the community level a sense of community, identity & a consciousness of being a community in the white majority. Those that think pushing any form of politics to the white PASSIVE NATIONALIST majority will assist in unifying them is a fucking idiot. All politics dodes is further divide us. Therefore we must abandon politics and concenctrate on community building via social activism. Active Nationalists can only be created via focusing on social issues / community campaigns at the level of the community - and below the radar of the media. Politics will not succeed because of the constant media attacks and because it divides us even further. WE HAVE TO START WORKING TO UNIFY OUR COMMUNITY NOT PEDDLE POLITICS WHICH DIVIDES US ! FOR FUCKS SAKE THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE IS IT ! Once the white majority have a consciousness of being a community, then nationalist memes can spread amongst them - and once that begins we can get the electoral mandate we need from those nationalised masses to reverse the multi-cultural experiment. THE SOCIAL STRUGGLE MUST PRECEDE THE POLITICAL STRUGGLE. We undermine and bring down liberalism via Liberal Deconstuctionism at the same time as we nationalise the masses via community and social activism. A nationalised white majority will then support reversing the multi-cultural social experiment - which will include the deportions of millions of immigrants / colonists / foreign criminals. Until the liberal structure is weakened and brought down, and the masses nationalised, politics is a total waste of time. The only people who will disagree with this methodology are those fucking idiots with a political agenda to peddle and those who are working for the enemy whilst pretending to be our comrades within our camps.
87
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:17 | #
Silver, You are getting better and better, I really must say. The quality of your judgment has improved immensely in the past year or so, imo. I keep wondering if GW is JRichards, despite the greatly differing styles and subject matter of the two. But that is ridiculous. GW seems to want an open venue, without ideological litmus tests, whereas Richards has an extremely cramped view of the world, such that anyone who doesn’t share that view is not merely a dissenter, or even a stupid dissenter, but a malicious dissenter (confusing outlook and motive is virtually a hallmark of the unbalanced conspiracist mentality). Please. 88
Posted by CS on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:23 | # “Liberalism is not genetic based. It is an ideology.” It may very well be genetically based. Don’t identical twins usually have the same political opinions even if raised separately? Here’s an idea. The BNP should test run your idea in a couple voting districts and see if they can win them. My guess is they can’t but I’d like to be proven wrong. 89
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:54 | # Liberalism is not genetic - altruism is. Liberalism perverts altruism to impose its ideological goals. It takes advantage of the genetic based altruism inherent in our society & turns it against us. It does this easily as we are divided on the grounds of politics, class etc and because we have not defended our communal identity. Political differences in a racially homogenous society with a consciousness of ethno-communalism is not a problem, for the consciousness of being a homogenous community ensures the political differences do not destroy that society. In a homogenous society people may have inbuilt genetic preferences re politics, but it doesnt matter - as they retain a sense of ethno-community & hence political differences, even if innate, add to the strength of that society. The problem begins when people lose the sense of ethno-community & IMPORT IN ALIENS WHO DO HAVE A SENSE OF ETHNO-COMMUNALISM. That gives them an edge in that society & allows a minority to over power and control the disunited majority. The BNP cannot roll out this process and win for three reasons ; 1) the BNP is not a political party - it is a money making scam and a cult of personality run by amateurs who fear most of all winning elections, for by so doing it reveals their utter ineptness and incompetence to the wider public. 2) The BNP promotes a political ideology and hence merely ensures political divisions factionalise our community. Politics cannot unify our community, only further factionalise it. 3) The Liberal Deconstructionist programme has not begun & the social activism has not begun. 90
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:57 | # There is a huge hereditarian contribution to one’s adult ideological views, even if precise genes determining political affiliations have not to my knowledge been identified. On the other hand, there is also a substantial environmental component, especially from early childhood. Richards is right when he points out the limited extent to which adult ideology is amenable to reasoned modification (yet another reason to be worried about importing socialistic nonwhites into the US). 91
Posted by danielj on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:27 | # It means having a more logically consistent universal morality. If that whole thing grates then go the vanguardist route instead and ignore it but if you’re going down the political route you can’t ignore the fact that most White people are at least partially motivated by universal morality. Do you believe we are more or less consistent than the left? If we are more consistent then we already have the moral high ground. What good is it doing us? I can feign huge indignation about our genocide by screaming the loudest. The idea isn’t really morally repugnant to me. It is a power struggle. Like everything. 92
Posted by danielj on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:28 | # Richards is right when he points out the limited extent to which adult ideology is amenable to reasoned modification (yet another reason to be worried about importing socialistic nonwhites into the US). It doesn’t matter what economic and political ideals the imports have you fucking moron. *Sigh* 93
Posted by Papa Luigi on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:19 | # Lee John Barnes on December 26, 2011, 11:57 AM
LJB is largely correct in the above post, but that is not the whole storey. Lee advocates ‘social activism’ as the key tactic in delivering this remedy, however we will require more than that. Social activism in the form demonstrated in the video that Lee directed us to, demonstrated how to deconstruct liberal tenets using logical argument, but it will have only effected a temporary suspension of subservience to the liberal paradigm in those members of the public featured. Lee is correct that we must deconstruct liberalism before nationalists can win in elections sufficiently often to gain power over the state. However we cannot rely solely on social activism in the form of political direct action, we must also build conscious and enduring communities that are immune to liberal arguments and devoid of liberal tendencies. Helvena on December 27, 2011, 07:21 AM
Helvena hits the nail on the head. We White nationalists cannot build an enduring community upholding racial nationalist principles if at the heart of our organisation we have people worshipping a Jewish God and subordinating themselves spiritually to a religion predicated upon universalism and an infantile mythos. Our deconstruction of liberalism must begin with the fundamental components of human belief systems and we must be systematic and thorough in our purging of liberal notions. This is why our revolution must be more than political and social, it must fundamentally take place on a religious level, and the agents of change must be an army of ‘community activists’ providing pastoral care, welfare advice and moral and spiritual guidance for the White communities within their local area, in addition to providing advocacy and political representation. Our activists must be there when their children are born; provide spiritual enlightenment in their schools; join their hands as they marry; care for them in old age and deliver the final blessing as they lay on their death-beds. In short, our activists must occupy the role of the Parish Priests of old so that our world-view is with them, occupying their minds, beating in their hearts and guiding their actions from the cradle to the grave. This is how atomised individuals are welded into a conscious and enduring community. The deconstruction of liberalism must begin with the deconstruction of Christian universalism and with the progressive replacement of that infantile paradigm with new religious tenets for racially conscious adults living in the scientific age. 94
Posted by anon on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:30 | #
nb: don’t forget almost all this testing is done on white people. other ethnic groups are different. Bell curve: Punnett square: http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/mendel_2.htm Assume two sorts of altruism one based on relatedness, rB, and one based on empathy, e. If they are the two components of a Punnett Square the population will then divide into three segments (I’m not saying it’s actually as simple as this but i think it illustrates the truth.) The 2rB people are motivated by relatedness and are the strong conservatives. They can be either the socialist or capitalist variety usually dependent on social class. The 2e are the liberals with the universalist morality. The main bulk are in the middle with a bit of both.
The genetic influence simply decides the engine people use to make decisions. It doesn’t decide what those decisions will be. The decisions are determined by the inputs fed into the engine. If a 2rB person is persuaded that x is good for their blood then they’ll support x. If they’re persuaded y is better they’ll support y. Persuading a 2e person requires appeals to universal morality or emotional manipulation. rB + e requires a mixture of both. You see this in action all the time. The media mixes distortions of the truth designed to manipulate the rB component e.g. bogus economic arguments about immigration, with emotional and empathic appeals designed to manipulate the empathic component e.g. sympathetic portrayals of crying illegal kids, with the latter being the main driving force. If the media gave the exact same proportions of airtime to the white victims of black crime as vice versa then the whole of politics would change overnight. They overload the empathy component by focusing solely on black victims and ignoring white victims because they have to.
It can if people’s base attitudes are a function of both the (genetic) decision engine they’re using and the inputs they’re receiving from the cultural power (media, education). Whoever controls the cultural power controls the inputs. Before WWII the two main elements of the cultural power were the church and newspapers and the sort of people who controlled there. Afterwards it gradually shifted to academia and television and the sort of people who dominated those - whatever you want to call them.
I do think this should be a major component of agitation, especially as the economy gets worse. In the end the two pincers are the money power and the cultural power and both need to be beaten and it’s hard to get people motivated over the banking cartels except in an economic crisis.
95
Posted by anon on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 13:59 | # danielj
I think the genuine left is much more consistent but it’s founded on the belief that everyone is 2e or can be motivated by 2e principles and they’re not and they can’t, so it’s consistent but fatally flawed by a false premise. They also believe in functional equality which is another false premise. You could construct a left without those premises imo but you get to the same place via a biological right path anyway (also imo). The capitalist conservative right works better in practise not because it’s more consistent but because it doesn’t try to be. It just is. The non-genuine i.e. Jewish left is disguised racial-right, completely consistent underneath, completely dishonest on the surface. The White racial-right hasn’t been consistent at all. If they truely believed in racial superiority and might makes right they’d bow down and worship the Jews for effectively conquering and colonizing a superpower without most people even realising there was a war. However as the Jewish way to power is honorless and based on deceit and betrayal most white rightists can’t admire it so they’re left promoting power-morality while complaining about it being used on them.
I don’t think we are but you’re right i was overstating. You need to shout too.
That’s the other aspect. Horses for courses. In my 2rB, rB + e and 2e terms there’s actually three paths: - There’s a consistent 2rB path based on collecting the already mostly tribally minded people together in some way. I think white people wired this way are a minority so that path has to take some kind of vanguardist form like Pierce’s National Alliance or PLE. I don’t think that way can win without a collapse when all the rB + e people would join a nucleus if it was already there but it could work under those circumstances and it improves survival chances either way. The problem with it is when people think it will work on the majority and get disheartened when it doesn’t. - The political path needs to take into account the large bloc of rB + e people. It doesn’t actually have to be consistent, just appear to be, but it has to recognize that the appearance of moral consistency is half the battle and do it better than the enemy. It’s relative moral consistency so just constantly attacking the other side’s double standards should be enough as the aim is simply to to neuter that side of the equation. Once you’ve done that you’re left solely with the ethnic interests or rB side of the equation which is a no-brainer. - It’s only if you’re focused on undermining the 2e people that you need a more consistent universal morality. All three need a certain amount of shouting also.
96
Posted by anon on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:36 | # addendum
Potentially four. Attacking the banking cartels can be done in any of the three paths or separately as a fourth path unconnected with ethno-nationalism. 97
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:03 | # @Dan Dare I too have had my IP blocked on MR for the last few months - neither GW nor myself know what the source of this problem is. Perhaps someone with access has been pissing about? Using proxies to comment/post is not ideal. 98
Posted by Bugger Off on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:05 | # Excellent post, anon. Psephological trends and working with the underlying psychology are a vital area.You should consider turning in a full post here on the topic. Can’t say the same for SwearBox Barnes. The advice seems to rest on the assumptions of near unlimited time and near unlimited campaigners all working semi-independently in the field for a number of years. Yes we need a multi-faceted approach, a wide range of talents lending their abilities where best suited, but a broad based movement needs to harness this, not local mole hills each staffed with undercover agents working by Fabian degrees to convert the type of quirky campaigner who makes up the bulk of local single issue campaigns, while the bulk of the local citizenry continue on wholly unawares. I thought Lee, you claimed the credit for some of the social organisations that grew out of the BNP - Civil Liberty & Solidarity among them? They have demonstrated limited appeal and while the ructions within the BNP and the character of the leadership can be partly blamed for their slim successes, surely that is not the only reason. There are many groups outside of this little party in the UK - charities, societies and a wide range of single issue groups. If all these were joined in a loose mutually supporting confederation then they would instantly contribute a wide range of talents, manpower and assorted resources as well as a local presence in most areas of the country. A minimum political programme could be agreed, whether for political campaigning purposes or awareness building and could gently wean the population away from the two party pendulum system. In this way a Fabian approach would be better suited to turning some of the already politically committed into more nationalist oriented resources and exerting a pull on the mind of the public at large. Identity. Money. Sovereignty. Defence. Environment. Immigration. Liberty. Within these grand themes and others a level of agreement could fairly quickly be reached. Just a ‘political minimum,’ a tactical starting point to break the pendulum. What two angles are death to the system we have? The creation of money and direct democracy, specifically national referendums. Even moving the debate to the point of a national commission to evaluate one or both of these would be a significant step.
99
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:27 | # Yes Graham, my problems started about a year ago and I am still unable to access (even for reading) using my normal IP address, so have to resort to a proxy. I strongly suspect that some individual with access to the admin panel has been buggering about. 101
Posted by uh on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:21 | #
Alex Linder has been shouting the opposite for ten years. There is no way forward, and you cannot prove that there is reason to be “very optimistic”. Fantastic comments though. 102
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:07 | # I love to say this - because I suspect my saying it will come across as a resounding straightforward endorsement - granting J Richards front page posting privileges represents a reanimating, utterly reanimating, show of sound judgment on GW’s part. Good work, gentlemen! 103
Posted by Revolution Harry on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:52 | # “...worshipping a Jewish God…” Sigh, you clearly know nothing about Christianity. What escapes me is why the need to make things so much more difficult by alienating the large number of Christians who have no desire to live in the new ‘Tower of Babel’ currently being built by the ruling elite. Seriously, if you don’t understand the game being played you have no chance of doing anything about it. “...spiritual guidance…” And what form will this take? What exactly is the ‘spiritual’ nature of this ‘guidance’? 104
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:54 | # Well apart from the gremlins with IP bans etc., all I can say about these thread is wow! Something about brings to my mind this little song… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiRTH7sD7ZU “Mr. Horrible “Is this Horrible? 105
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:55 | #
Of course, you’d say this - as a false-flag (probably Jewish, even Israeli). Though you call yourself a Muslim, which would be just as bad if true. 106
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:59 | #
Really? I am quite surprised, as I myself have never had a commenting problem, and I am certainly not popular among at least a few I know to possess posting/admin privileges (eg, JRichards, SRenner). 107
Posted by Revolution Harry on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:07 | # To be honest I’m more than a little bemused as to why anyone would think that someone with such a chequered and dubious history is anything other than a liability where the salvation of the British people is concerned. Then again, I probably shouldn’t be surprised. 108
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:24 | #
So terribly wrong, and tactically, not only metaphysically. Of course, the “deconstruction of Christian universalism” is the most vitally important task of all. But your presumption is that Christian universalism is identical with liberal universalism. Nothing is further from the truth. The former simply holds that all, regardless of race or other forms of identity, are God’s creatures and are entitled to decent treatment, and a certain minimum of concern. It is the latter which has infected all too many churches, I admit, and which holds that scientifically established group differences in ability or behavior must be neglected in formulating public policies; that Western (and only Western) nations must open themselves to immigration imperialism; and that, ceteris paribus, showing preference in wealth or opportunities distribution for your own kind is morally impermissible. Why must you throw out the baby with the bathwater? Wouldn’t a Christianity cleansed of its (in fact, heretical; I use the “Tower of Babel” metaphor, too) racial liberalism be a smarter goal to pursue than ... what? trying to construct a new race-religion whole cloth? There will be no new religions, except among fools and mentally unbalanced persons. Either Christianity is true (as I and many tens or hundreds of millions of whites already believe), or all religion is false. In either case, it would be far easier to resurrect and evangelize a racially realistic Christianity than to try to invent a new ‘myth’ more conducive to racial survival. White majorities are not seriously going to embrace Wotan and Thor, or newly manufactured deities, even ideational ones (the ‘new ontology’). Our choice is Christ, or the hard soil of atheistic meaninglessness. 109
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:36 | # Or in the style of uh… “Hooray! The Butt Monkey has finally had something go right for once in their unhappy life! And with twenty minutes to spare, we’re sure to see their new joyful existence play out for the rest of the episode… right? That, right there, is the feeling and painful acknowledgment by the Genre Savvy viewer that Failure Is the Only Option. Why? Because The Woobie is not going to get to keep her money and move out of Perpetual Poverty. James Bond will not stay Happily Married to the Girl of the Movie because of the Cartwright Curse. The home that The Drifter has been accepted into will promptly become a Doomed Hometown. Samurai Jack will give up the most recent Phlebotinum to return to his home time and Set Right What Once Went Wrong in order to save the helpful villagers nearby. Ash Ketchum will make it to the Top 4 of the Season Finale’s Tournament Arc only to lose to a random Canon Sue who owns Olympus Mons. Lucy will yank the football away once again just as Charlie Brown is about to kick it. And deep down, we know it and expect it. The Trix rabbit will never get the Trix because Kids Are Cruel. While the permutations are endless, the result is the same: writers Yank the Dog’s Chain, keeping the bone just out of reach, making even the simplest goals seem like Tragic Dreams. Lozlozlozloz ad nauseum.” Geez what can one say about the amateur muddled-headed genetic modeling of altruism? Or the banality of pointing out most people define themselves as ‘mainstream’ despite, at a minimum 80%+, of people giving no serious thought as to what the particulars of ‘the mainstream’ of the time actually are. What the fuck that trite, rather generic insight has to do particularly with ‘the Jews’ and their ‘all-powerful’ Machiavellian machinations is beyond my understanding. We just need the old Murros revolutionary fashion tips and the play list for the once proposed Neo-Nazi raves to make it a near perfect thread. And finally perhaps Mr. Haller offering up a suggestion of a free-market in human organs just so long as the Church approves. Can we not get back to discussing something slightly more interesting and rigorous like say mereological nihilism? Remember kids nothing is a proper part of anything. Sounds about as succinct a description of liberal philosophy as one is likely to get. Or perhaps the Monadology as applied politics is more apt? As the song goes… “I never knew what everybody meant 110
Posted by uh on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:44 | #
Did I bring that up here? Was just reading about it ... 111
Posted by Ivan on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:55 | # Leon, You don’t leave any options for me to be a good man, do you. If I am Jewish - I am bad; if I am Muslim - I am just as bad. And what is so incredible about me thinking that J Richards is a genuine item. His pointed and concise comments on each and every subject hit the nail in the head. He is consistent, he is logical, he is patient, he never goes ad hominem. I think he is a good and honest man. Don’t you? Don’t you think money is THE issue? Don’t you agree Jews are the ones who control the issue of money in the entire Western world? Don’t you agree the rule of the Jews is not good for gentiles? Why are you so difficult, Leon? Why are you so illogical, so intolerant, so bitter? Why are you so Jewish? 112
Posted by uh on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:13 | #
You are aware that even the most rigorous logic can serve an extra-logical end? 113
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:55 | # Not really wanting to start another boring argument but the modal possibilities of either Christianity being true (which particular version I wonder? The one were people openly speak gibberish? Or Calvinism perhaps?) or that of all religions being false is hardly exhaustive of the options. All human forms of religion might simply be an outgrowth from our evolutionary past with regard to cognitive biases/processes and our need for functional/socially useful organising myths and yet ALL be wrong in all their particulars. Yet also there could still be a mysterious ‘prime mover’ behind the universe, of which we cannot and will never know anything. Or we could all be characters in a virtual reality machine. Maybe the Voodoo guys have got it right? Or the Buddhists? As an important sociological force traditional Christianity is rapidly waning in the West (for good or bad) and the new Christianity will very much be orientated toward the ‘global south’ and expressed via the medium of Pentecostalism. Not terribly promising territory for the grounding of even a very moderate ethnocentric/nationalist politics in my view. Even in God-fearing America most Christians are simply signalling their status; i.e. they are ‘mainstream’ and ‘normal’ without any deep or serious consideration of what the signal is actually about. It’s a mile wide but an inch deep phenomenon. The true religion of America is liberty/freedom and American exceptionalism in this regard (“we are great because we are truly free”). I’m an agnostic and when I lived in America I talked to lots of Christians in my attempts at amateur anthropology. Most of them were nice people but woefully ignorant about even the basics of Christianity/theology and even what’s actually in the Bible let alone say, for example, knowing what the arguments of David Hume, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, Jurgen Moltmann, Karl Rahner, Thomas Aquinas or Rudolf Bultmann are for and against particular forms of religiosity. Drop one of those names into the conversation with the typical American Christian and watch the bemusement spread across their faces. Which reminds me I once explained the basics of Hume’s arguments on this subject to a Christian whilst in America – he told me David Hume must be the most evil man in history to produce such wicked ideas and that I was almost equally evil in spreading them! There might be practical and pragmatic political reasons to genuflect before the banal sensibilities of such people but please don’t suggest anyone should take their ‘insights’ seriously. However, none of that rules out the possibilities of a generalised, non-specific ‘spiritual’ turn in European culture similar to that experienced in the Romanticism that was the dominant cultural movement of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. 114
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:59 | #
Why should we, exactly? I’m sure there are places sprinkled throughout the internet where one can discuss anything. But why should we discuss that here? Of what possible relevance is it to preventing white extinction, ostensibly the focus of MR?
Undoubtedly, Dr. Lister thinks what I have underlined above could be useful in developing the new racial ontology, whose widespread acceptance as a thought-world will usher into being a more racially satisfactory life-world. We shall see. I think it more useful to detail the ethical absurdities of race-liberalism from within older ontologies. To each his own. Incidentally, a free market in body parts is at least as defensible as one in bubble gum, and I support both. I also, however, favor a coercive market in such parts. I am a very vigorous supporter of widespread capital punishment, and I have for decades advocated routine extermination of violent criminals, and the subsequent harvesting (and resale, or ‘privatization’) of their organs, where feasible, in part to recompense the state for its various criminal justice outlays.
115
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:06 | # uh, Very illuminating observation. I didn’t realize that, thank you very much. But have you noticed by any chance that I was looking at the whole package, so to speak. One cannot exercise rigorous logic, be consistent, sound honest, and have a hidden and dishonest agenda at the same time. Not if the audience is paying close attention. A liar and dishonest person will blow up sooner or later. It is true, though, if that person is a Jew, he is likely to last longer. 116
Posted by uh on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:12 | #
By an extra-logical end I meant logic can be quite finely-tuned to give the appearance of proving absolutely anything — from logical propositions to the Trinity. There exist motives and memes prior to the logic which snakes after them, fitting them into a sequence that is pleasing to the mind’s preference for coherence and regularity. The premise can be dishonest or wrong while the logic spun around it can be entirely right. Crazy, but true. Logic is often just another “caucasian chalk circle”. 117
Posted by Adrian Peirson on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:30 | # There is another powerful weapon we have at our disposal, that is British Constitutional Law, if the Constitutional groups will not work with Nationalists, we can at least profit from their findings about how our Common Law is being undermined. The British Constitution Group All these Groups should work together with Nationalists, we don’t have to like each each other, If we help put one of theirs into power in one area, they can help out one of ours elected in another area, ED, UKIP, BNP need to stop diluting their votes by campaigning against each other at election times. 118
Posted by Adrian Peirson on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:35 | # Can I suggest Nationalists, indeed any one challenging the Status Qu look into TOR 119
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:45 | # <h2>For the love of God, Jesus was not a Jew!</h2>
Acquaint yourself with the facts. During the time of Jesus, no people anywhere in the world were known as Jews. The precursors to Jews existed but these weren’t of the tribe Jesus descended from. A Canaanite-Edomite people known as Idumeans had been defeated and captured by the Judahites, and incorporated in Judea. Judahite ways were forced upon the Idumeans but they never fully adopted them, and later sided with the Romans against the Judahites. At the time of Jesus, the ruling class comprised of the Idumeans whose priests were known as Pharisees. Centuries after Jesus, the Pharisees evolved their beliefs into the Mishnah, Midrashim and the Talmudim, their belief system known as Talmudism, which a few centuries later was adopted by the Khazars of southeast Europe and later re-labeled Judaism. Jesus called the Pharisees the sons of the devil who’ll lie and murder like the devil (John 8:44); serpents, generation of vipers, devourers of widows’ houses, extortionists, full of dead men’s bones, unclean, concerned with gold and baubles but not law, judgment, mercy, or faith (Matthew 23:14-33); and satanic blasphemers lying that they’re Judahites (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). And to think that someone would call Jesus a Jew! Jesus was Yeshua bar Joseph. Yeshua is Jesus in Aramaic. The letter J wasn’t present during Jesus’ lifetime, and has come into existence only in recent centuries. Correspondingly, Judahite was Yehudite in Aramaic. Note also Jesus being referred to as son of Joseph rather than son of Mary, a Judahite. The Judahites traced lineage through the father, unlike the Canaanite-Edomite Idumeans who traced it through the mother. Whereas Christians don’t believe that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, this is about the historical matter regarding how Jesus was referred to. Jesus and his followers referred to Jesus as an Israelite (the Israelites were the group to which he belonged), a Galilean (he spent most of his life in Galilea), and a Nazarene (he was born in Nazareth), but not a Judean. The only people who called Jesus Ioudaios (Ιουδαιος) (i.e., Judean) were outsiders (e.g., Romans or Greeks) who used Judean to describe all residents of Judea. On top of this, neither Judean nor Judahite translates to Jew: John H. Elliott. Jesus the Israelite Was Neither a ‘Jew’ Nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature. Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 2007. Vol. 5.2 pp. 119-154. Steve Mason. Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History. Journal for the Study of Judaism. 2007. Vol. 38 pp. 457-512.
Whereas there are some universalist passages in Galatians, there are also passages favoring segregation and those opposing race mixing: Gen.28:1; Deuteronomy 7:2-3, 7:6, 23:2, 32:8… it’s a matter of which passages one emphasizes. As to “infantile mythos,” you either believe in it or you don’t; the religion is neither the problem nor the solution. 120
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:46 | # uh, I can’t think of a better proof of what you are saying is true than what you have just said and the way you said it. You take a small piece out of context and exercise your “caucasian chalk circle”. I am wondering, why is that you don’t leave the impression J Richards leaves on one’s mind. 121
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:47 | # Anon @94
This isn’t a rough Gaussian distribution, but a chi-squared distribution with two variables. You need many more variables to approximate a Gaussian distribution, i.e., your biallelic model is inapplicable. Think of an additive genetics model with many more alleles. I’ll be back to address the rest. 122
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:09 | # J Richards, Could you explain to me in simple terms one thing that I cannot wrap my mind around. One hears often that Jesus throw the money changers out of the temple. How is it possible that someone who has no position in the government, no army, no radio or television or newspaper, no money, virtually no nothing could just throw out the most powerful social force out of the temple. I can understand how somebody in the position of Hitler, or Stalin, or even Putin can deliver such a blow to such a formidable foe. But Jesus ... I don’t get it. Do you really believe Jesus had the power of God? If he had, why couldn’t he defend himself against the same entity that crucified him? 123
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:14 | #
Full Circassianism? 124
Posted by CS on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 07:09 | # Ivan, I can answer your question on post #122. As far as I can tell, Jesus could have destroyed all his enemies in a variety of “magical” ways but he didn’t to set an example for his followers. Jesus set the example that we must be willing to sacrifice our own lives to please God. This will probably at some point in the future involve refusing to accept the “Mark of the Beast” even though execution is a certainty if you don’t. 125
Posted by CS on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 07:29 | # Ivan, J Richards, I just wish to express my agreement with what J Richards posted in post #119. The new introduction at this website is useful reading for those who wish to know more. This article to is very useful. The Bible and Race 126
Posted by CS on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 07:39 | # I was going to say this earlier, but J Richards may have a good point when he says we should target the modern day “money changers” he talked about in post #83. 127
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 07:45 | #
That is an apt description of Uh’s own worldview which perhaps explains why his highest aspiration has always been to go live in a filthy shack in the woods like his omega idol Ted Kaczynski; cuz it’s all fucked anyway. LOL 128
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:01 | #
You’re thinking of the event, assuming it actually happened, in too grandiose terms. I’ve never seen Jesus’ driving the money changers from the temple portrayed on film as Jesus having levitated them out with something like telekinetic powers at his disposal. He basically just charges in and starts pushing the money changers away and kicking over their tables. Furthermore, it is easily imaginable that Jesus’ reputation as a man who had performed miracles preceded him in the minds of the money changers. Their reaction could well have been, “Oh shit, it’s Jesus! The man who can perform miracles. He looks pissed. Best run!” Sometimes the perception of power can be as intimidating as actual power. 129
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:17 | #
This is apparently Lister’s preferred tack for relating to Mr. and Mrs. Average - talking down to them like the stupid crackers they are. Bang-up job so far, Grahamy. LOL 130
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:24 | #
Now, now, Papa. Surely Richards’ christlicking can be excused so long as he remains a devoted Anglophile. 131
Posted by leejohnbarnes on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:39 | # 1) Yes I did set up civil liberty and the solidarity trade union - and what happened ? As sson as they were established to be autonomus and independent organisations that fucking halfwit Griffin took them over and used them as fund raisers and agents of the BNP. He destroyed their integrity by turning them into BNP front groups - which was what they were sey up to be.
What we need to do is campaign for / and set up in our communities Local Currency Networks, Regional Economies and Credit Unions. We get people to take their money out of the banks and put them into credit unions anbd that do not indulge in fractional reserve banking. At the same time we create networks of local currencies to lock capital into communities and outside the hands of the bankers. Regional Economies based on local currencies and credit unions cannot be taken over by the bankers, speculators or the government. Then when the fiat currency system falls we have local currencies to allow us to surivive amidst the global economic chaos - and local markets and economies to keep local communities alive through the crisis. 3) Re Christianity - we need to create secular and religions alternatives to liberalism - that means reforming christianity as a post-liberal national christianity which as we have the Church of England should not be too difficult - and also creating schools for pagan religions and secular schools that repudiate liberalism. I want to so Free Schools for Odinists and Druids to teach our heathen folk religions. Also schools for nationalist christians that preach a christian ethos that rejects multi-culturalism etc Also schools for secular nationalists. 132
Posted by uh on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:02 | #
I don’t pander to your confirmation bias, probably. 133
Posted by uh on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:04 | #
I wanted to just say “after I finish f***ing your mother”, but it is obvious to me that you lacked motherly solicitude in childhood, and therefore would not be phased.
134
Posted by danielj on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:26 | # Drop one of those names into the conversation with the typical American Christian and watch the bemusement spread across their faces. As if Mr. and Mrs. Average are ever going to understand anything. It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that they are Christians and has everything to do with the fact that they are average. C’mon Graham. Don’t be a retard. I like the anecdote. It confirms my suspicion that you get off on name dropping and not the truth. 137
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:01 | #
Perhaps
Perhaps
Sometimes we get exactly what we ask for. I’ve ask for an explanation in SIMPLE TERMS, and I got one. So I can’t complain, but I think it is too simplistic. I like to think of things logically, even though while thinking of the nature of Jesus’ power, human logic maybe not exactly what it calls for. Still. What is the most significant fact we “know” about Jesus, which is almost impossible to subject to doubt? The fact that he was crucified. Who did that, or, shall we say, who was behind the drive and desire to do so. They say - the Jews. For reasons I have neither time nor space to go into here, I find it extremely plausible. Why did they do it? He must have pissed them real hard and/or posed a real, existential threat to them. What could be the nature of a threat coming from a SINGLE man, who has no power of his own, to a powerful minority who gained that power by deceit, thievery, and cunning? The threat of exposure of the nature and the truth behind their power THAT HAS THE VERY REAL PROSPECT OF GAINING MOMENTUM AND GO VIRAL. Without this prospect, telling the truth, even if it is coming from the “son of God”, is no threat to them for it cannot attain power without people out there not only willing and ready to listen to that truth, but literally starved for that truth and have been eagerly awaiting for some bright and charismatic person to come and articulate that truth for them. In other words, for the words and actions of a single man to have an enormous impact on the society, that society must be at the point of bifurcation. If you are scientifically inclined person, think of so-called “butterfly effect”. If you prefer to think in terms of history, think of Weimar Republic effect. The nature is non-linear, especially when it comes to the organic forms of matter. Life itself, the human society in particular, is the apex of non-linearity. Evolution is a sequence of bifurcation points following one another. It looks like humanity is rapidly approaching another such point - the big one. 138
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:57 | #
141
Posted by uh on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:51 | #
So the suggestion that logical procedure can be guided by extra-logical motivation, and feed directly into extra-logical peer orthodoxy creating an ideological echo chamber, merits only a “perhaps” .... ... while you feel free to invoke a logic that does not arise from humanity. Anyone else catch this bit of mumbo-jumbo? 142
Posted by uh on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:58 | #
If human society is “non-linear” then human society as we know it can be made to revert to a previous form
Let us not hold our breath with Ivan and anon.
THAT “SOCIETY”, 2011, CAN BE ALTERED BY WHITE NATIONALIST FIAT ARE ASSERTIONS THAT “SOCIETY” IS NOT NECESSARY I.E. FULLY DETERMINED BY ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS
YOU IMPLY THAT “SOCIETY” IS NOT NECESSARY YOU ENDORSE E.G. THE FEMINIST LIE THAT GENDER IS SOCIAL AMONG OTHER NONSENSE IDEAS DID U KNOW, IVAN, THAT FEMINISTS ALSO BELIEVE “LINEARITY’ A “PATRIARCHAL TOOL OF HEGEMONIC OPPRESSION”? 143
Posted by Bugger Off on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:59 | # Graham “amateur muddled-headed genetic modeling of altruism” Maybe so. Maybe also a very simple outline of a population’s voting trends. What undeniably required though is to develop a deeper understanding of our people’s voting preferences, voting trends and the underlying factors involved if we are ever to win through via that method. Therefore, it’s to be welcomed not disdained especially without any counter analysis being offered. If you can improve on it at even at an elementary level I’d be very interested to read it. ~~~~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/12/britain-ruled-by-banks Attacking the position of the banks: This Guardian subcon journalist’s article makes some interesting points.
http://www.cresc.ac.uk/news/news-from-cresc/researching-the-financial-crisis
144
Posted by Bugger Off on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:11 | # And through the above, a discussion of monetary creation / fractional reserve banking. 145
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:12 | #
I got the sense that Ivan was acknowledging this, himself, when he linked to “We’ve Been Robbed” video. I felt he was tacitly referring to the robbery of any premise from which to logically triangulate. That’s the utility of monotheism. It provides a hypothetical fixed point from which to navigate. 146
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:41 | #
You are almost there, Jimmy. For the slowwitted: I was referring to your attempt to stifle a meaningful discourse by monkey giggling. 147
Posted by Ivan on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:00 | # Does anyone here know why Putin dubbed the protesters “condom revolutionaries”? Here is a plausible explanation: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/27/putin-protesters-are-receiving-their-funding-from-the-west/ 148
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:02 | # @danielj OK true yes Mr & Mrs Average might struggle with any serious idea - however many of the Christians I spoke to were those in and around the universities I worked at, so perhaps you might have expected some of them to be a little more serious about their faith and secondly my David Hume story is 100% true. As for name-dropping - me??? Never! Look there is something a little disgusting about the attitude of know-nothing “All the knowledge I need is in the good book” so often expressed in the Bible belt - it’s the willful ignorance of it that offends. Let alone such people telling me that evolution is baloney and their tiresome, piss-poor ‘arguments’ to that effect. And to the other chap (Bugger Off) sorry I wouldn’t know how to start ‘improving’ upon your attempts at theoretical genetics/politics. That might be an almost impossible task. 149
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:03 | #
For this you can thank Danielj, who was supposed to be sending me a large tome on the moral necessity of monotheism, but decided instead to go whoring in South Beach with Uh. Then, just as I was prepared to accept one God, they re-appeared here proclaiming themselves to be twin deities, and wrathful ones at that! 150
Posted by anon on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:21 | # uh
I never said “very optimistic” i said “more optimistic”. There are four ways forward. People need to pick the one that suits them as an individual and target the right audience with it.
Keyword: rough.
It’s perfectly applicable for my purpose. Anyone who’s been actively involved in face to face politics will know you can divide people into three broad groups. Obviously there’s not really three distinct blocs with sharp edges. As you say there’ll be more than two alleles involved in this and that will smooth the curve into a Guassian distribution where one bloc shades into the rest but the key point is there are two distinct components to the decision engine people are using: the blood component (rB) and the empathy component (e). That’s the critical point. Secondly, anyone who’s spent time dealing with people in multi-ethnic areas will recognize if they’re honest that there are *massive* differences between different ethnic groups in the proportions of the three blocs. On average most other ethnic groups are more like 64/32/4 i.e. the majority are 2rB, while white people it’s more 36/48/16 i.e. the majority are rB + e. It’s a fundamental genetic difference caused by out-breeding imo and if so can’t be changed any time soon. However an individual having an rB + e decision engine doesn’t neccessarily limit the decisions that can be reached. It just limits how those decisions can be reached. Bugger Off
As it’s political funding from the banking cartels that created and maintain the neocon wars muslim groups ought to be heavily involved in the anti-banks stuff.
151
Posted by Bugger Off on Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:05 | # @Lister You recall is faulty. You criticised someone elses comment as an amateur work, not mine. You did so in a cavalier fashion from behind a perfumed hankerchief, as so often. I merely suggested you may want to give reasons for the criticism. I see that you do not. 152
Posted by danielj on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 01:42 | # For this you can thank Danielj, who was supposed to be sending me a large tome on the moral necessity of monotheism, but decided instead to go whoring in South Beach with Uh. Then, just as I was prepared to accept one God, they re-appeared here proclaiming themselves to be twin deities, and wrathful ones at that! Man! Shaming me in a public forum! (Your book is on the way! Remember… Chapter 5 first. The Epistemological Failure of Unbelief) 153
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 01:59 | #
loolzolzozllzlz
lozlzoozozzozozozoozzozoozoz 154
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:37 | #
Not true. Someone who dissents could be ignorant without prejudice, too stupid to understand, well-meaning but mislead, or knows the truth whereas I am wrong, or malicious. I don’t describe someone as malicious frivolously.
In your case Haller, it’d be an easy matter to compile all my responses specifically directed to you and let the reader observe that I’ve not confused your outlook with your motives. I’ve inferred your motives based on the nature of your comments and certain patterns, and have provided plenty of documentation to support my conclusions. Just consider the final warning I gave you to not promote the Austrian School here without justifying its fundamental premise for starters. This final warning was preceded by multiple warnings that you shouldn’t do this, which in turn were preceded by multiple requests for the justification. Since you’ve been addressing a variety of other issues at length instead of proving the fundamental premise, one must conclude that you have no justification. If it were a matter of outlook, your response would’ve been along the lines of “I see your position but I respectfully disagree and believe this…,” but you’ve been arrogantly, without justification, dismissing and ridiculing my arguments on money, resorting to lies [all on record], and you’re not stupid or someone with little education. This leaves a narrow range of inferences, including maliciousness, which is also suggested by your behavior on other counts, and the most probable conclusion therefore is of maliciousness. 155
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:39 | #
Apparently you have no understanding of how heredity affects higher order functions such as the mind. The “precise genes” will never be found. From Hatemi et. al. (2011) (pdf linked above): It is highly unlikely that there is any reason for certain genes to directly influence political preferences. Identifying which biological processes are related, however indirectly, to political orienta- tions, is one plausible avenue to better understand how and why individual differences are accounted for, to any substantial degree, by genetic variance.
Apparently you mean to imply that the environment is more relevant to liberal—conservative attitudes in adulthood if the influence dates to early childhood. The data show that among children, the shared family environment entirely explains individual differences in liberal—conservative attitudes and that heredity doesn’t make a significant contribution. This environment effect is largely lost by adulthood as among adults, heredity and other factors unrelated to the shared family environment explain the majority of individual differences, with the shared family environment having a significant [minor] effect only on women [in data from 30,000 individuals analyzed; the contributions in the table below add up to 1 or 100%.]:
Anyone interested in understanding why the social environment influence is substantially lost by the time one becomes an adult, the answer is genetic amplification, and here’s about as plain an explanation as possible of this phenomenon: http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/iq-and-genetic-amplification/ 156
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:43 | # @Lee John Barnes
It doesn’t matter whether you call it an ideology or attitude or something else. The fact is that the majority of humans don’t harbor liberal-extreme viewpoints and couldn’t possibly have appointed liberal-extremists to powerful positions via democratic vote. It’s also documented that in adults heredity has a substantial effect on this count. You can ignore it but you can’t deny it.
And why would the ethno-communalism be in the direction of liberal extremism as surely there aren’t any human populations with the majority at this extreme? It’s because the policies implemented are for others and not them. And how has it been possible for Jewry, numbering in the millions only, to implement such policies for the much more numerous others? Because they have acquired control of the money supply and reaped the power this brings, which is the issue you can’t bring yourself to address.
The white majority hasn’t allowed (it surely wouldn’t knowingly allow)... it has had no choice in the matter because of lack of power, which stems from losing control of the money supply to a hostile minority. Speaking of divisions on the grounds of… which community has earnestly been promoting these divisions, including those bound to arise from alien immigration, to keep the masses occupied with things other than who is controlling the money supply and not mount resistance against the community of the international bankers?
So now you’re singing a different tune. This claim can be examined, and one need look no further than the American Mosaic Project Survey, a survey of a nationally representative sample of Americans that assessed 2,081 individuals. Croll, Paul R. 2007 “Modeling Determinants of White Racial Identity: Results from a New As you can see, almost 40% of whites reported that their white racial identity is very important to them, whereas only 9% indicated that their whiteness was of no importance, and 77% of whites were interested in preserving white/European culture. This was a telephone survey and the actual proportions of whites for whom whiteness and white culture are important should be a little higher as some whites are likely to give more politically acceptable answers. So again, your baseless claims are seen for what they are, and your arrogant and foul dismissal of those who disagree with you is doubly emphasized. I see that you’ve come back with a barely coherent piece on credit unions and local currencies to appear credible. Get the matter straight for the kind of agitation needed: take the control of money away from Jews, put it in the hands of a government elected by the people. A more politically correct statement is: prevent banks from creating money and have the government create debt-free money for the exchange of goods and services. Read and understand: http://www.majorityrights.com/money 157
Posted by danielj on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:08 | # Hope you have espresso handy, Jimmy. Go fuck ya self Duh. 158
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:12 | #
Sorry, Danielj. That was impolite of me. Since I seldom make substantive comments, I often exploit tangential means of affirming my presence here. I hope you didn’t really feel shame, but fully expect to pay voluminous literary karma on account of my comment. 159
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:51 | # 1) Daniel j - for an intelligent man, you can be truly thick as pig shit. The reason why a white person can care about their race / culture but still allow other races / groups to dominate them is because, AS I STATED, we are DIVIDED BY CLASS, IDEOLOGY, RELIGION, POLITICS ETC. That means the more that nationalists seek to proffer political solutions to the white majority, the more we become factionalised. We must seek to create cohesion, not more schisms. As I stated FOUR FUCKING TIMES above - THE MAJORITY OF WHITES ARE PASSIVE NATIONALISTS who want to save / support our culture / racial community - the problem is that we are divided on the grounds of politics, class, etc and hence they do not become ACTIVE NATIONALISTS. I stated FOUR TIMES that the majority of whites are PASSIVE NATIONALISTS nationalists who agree with us on racial / cultural issues but that they do not become ACTIVE NATIONALISTS. I know that you like to talk a lot about a load of inconsequential bollocks to make you appear pseudo-intelligent - but before you critique what I write in future do two things ; 1) READ WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN b) I have provided a coherent model for the establishment of a counter banking system I was pushing it on Twitter for months as an way to stop people wasting their time at the occupy protests and do something to actually change the system. If you go on my twitter feed and read it, you will see that my ideas were endorsed by Max Keiser. As a result of my spreading the ideas above they were taken up by a women in America who started a facebook campaign - link here - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/04/us-usa-banks-protests-idUSTRE7A36U820111104 As a result of the campaign billions of dollars were shifted from the banks to the credit union. Thats result activism that generated real change in the world. As for your pathetic idea of ‘take the money from the Jews’ - in order to do that we would need to be IN POWER with an electoral mandate to do that. Thats not going to happen unless the Liberal Deconstructionism and social activism plans take place. Therefore all you are saying is ’ we need to keep talking shit about ze jews and do nothing until we are swept to power in our lederhosen waving the swatsika’. Daniel j - you are not a fuckin idiot. Therefore your motives for peddling the fucking idiot ideas you are pushing has to be suspected as something far worse. You are either mad or a mole - which is it ?
160
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:16 | #
Mole. All the way. 161
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:52 | #
I was actually being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I am sceptical of what I see as the excessive biologization of racialist social theories, esp in MR threads. I am not very knowledgeable in genetics, but I’ve read around the topic enough over the years to know that evolution obviously would not have produced a gene for, say, liberalism. I suspect, however, that there are genes or gene-combinations for various personality attributes, which in turn statistically predispose one to one or another ideological position. For example, I am a passionate death penalty advocate. I did not arrive at that position neutrally (ie, through a dispassionate consideration of the empirical evidence of different approaches to reducing crime). My ‘gut’ (hardwired brain/personality) wants violent criminals exterminated. Part of that is a function of my sense of ‘just deserts’ (itself probably hardwired), another part, of my disliking feeling threatened by the unpredictability of criminal violence (I think this, in conjunction with the nonwhite/crime correlation, more than anything, is what has lead me to WN). Do I think there is a combo of genes directly leading to my support for capital punishment (as there surely are for my height, IQ, propensity to male pattern baldness, etc)? Of course not. But indirectly? Almost certainly. 162
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:08 | # BTW, I cannot resist noting that the wild Nietzschean “uh” appears to be an extremely bad influence on people, a kind of nihilist Svengali. Witness the downward transformation of danielj under his malign influence. 163
Posted by danielj on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:34 | # 1) Daniel j - for an intelligent man, you can be truly thick as pig shit. Lee… I’m not J-Richards. You’re fighting with a different dude! Witness the downward transformation of danielj under his malign influence. You see this shit Uh?! You were an influence on me! Leon you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. You keep running your mouth you little faggot and I’ll find you. 164
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:45 | #
This isn’t the Christian interpretation as Jesus is also God. Christianity doesn’t require sacrificing one’s life to please God. Ivan @122 Here’s the explanation you’re looking for. The Idumean-descent people, although the ruling elite, were a numerical minority and Jesus had a popular following. Jesus didn’t go to the Temple alone, but was greeted by a large number of his admirers when he arrived in the city and was accompanied to the Temple by many of his disciples. He didn’t just immediately start throwing out the money changers but gave them a lecture first, exposing their iniquity. The money changers had no valid counter-response and knew that Jesus’ followers, who numerically exceeded them, would side with Jesus. No miracles were needed. As to why Jesus didn’t defend himself against the people who would crucify him, the only explanation that will make sense to you is a secular one. If you survey religions, a common theme is that salvation requires some sort of pain and suffering before it’s attained. In some cases this has to be experienced by the adherents of the religion and in other cases it was or is experienced by a holy being. In Christianity, the holy being suffered pain and died for the sins of humans, thereby saving humanity, and humans no longer have to suffer in a similar manner to go to Heaven; they simply have to follow Jesus’ teachings. So God in Christianity took a human form, Jesus, and this included the ability to feel human pain and suffer due to it, and the human form being mortal, God felt human pain when he was crucified… till the point the human body died, but God doesn’t die and there was a resurrection. 165
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:49 | # anon @150
The purpose itself is flawed. Your genetic model of altruism assumes two types of altruism related to genes. The problem is that genes associated with altruism tend to be eliminated from the population. The only types of genetics associated with altruism that can survive in any substantial numbers will be those that don’t diminish fitness (e.g., not having two children but helping a brother or sister have two additional children). When it comes to altruistic behaviors that diminish fitness, the prevalence of the behaviors and associated genetics will be low and couldn’t be relevant to the problems faced by contemporary white people that are being discussed. You even say that “most other ethnic groups are more like 64/32/4 i.e. the majority are 2rB, while white people it’s more 36/48/16 i.e. the majority are rB + e.” This is demonstrably false. Alarmed by immigration of too many [for comfort] southern and eastern Europeans from 1880 to 1920, northern Europeans voted to maintain America a northern European nation in the 1920s. Jews tried their best to defeat the measure but lost. Four decades later, the Jews won. Do you think there was a substantial change in genetics, that northern Europeans went from trying to keep southern and eastern Europeans out to welcoming all? What happened was that a decade before the 1920s immigration restriction, the Jews had their private central bank. Add five decades of fractional reserve banking, the loot resulting from the Great Depression, two world wars and you understand why immigration policy did an about face in the 1960s. It was a straightforward case of losing power to a hostile minority. Examine the studies I cited in response to Lee John Barnes. Even documentation from recent years shows that no significant problems could’ve resulted or could result from the liberal extreme or those to whom their whiteness or white culture aren’t important.
Your typology is overly simplistic and intended to fit a flawed model. People range from the sociopath (couldn’t give a damn about anyone other than themselves) to the Gaia types (don’t see any reason why they should emphasize humans over animals and other organisms in nature). Your three types are a mere subset of this range. 166
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:54 | # Graham_lister @109
This would be a reference to anon’s model @94 as elaborated @150. Considering the relevance of the issues underlying the modeling, surely you as a geneticist/biologist can offer an improvement or criticism… e.g., my criticism of the mathematical modeling @121 and the theoretical assumptions @ 165.
This doesn’t apply to any of the studies I’ve cited. 167
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:02 | # <h3>To those complaining about banned IP addresses</h3> The IPs of spammers are routinely banned. If this IP happens to be a proxy then anyone using this proxy won’t be able to comment. If the IP may have been banned by an administrator for some reason, then unless this IP is known, the matter can’t be investigated further; use the contact form to send the IP (find out your IP by going to whatismyip.com). If the investigation reveals that the IP isn’t blocked by an administrator and MR is inaccessible, then the possibilities are your firewall, hosts file, filtered internet or malware. You can rule out an internet filter if another computer works with the same IP. You can rule out the firewall, hosts file and MR-specific malware if the same computer provides access using a different internet connection. Banned IPs are only prevented from posting comments, not accessing the website, although a few weeks ago the setting was at blocking access to the website and had been this way for a while (not my work). To those complaining about being forced to use proxies, such as TOR, think again. Whereas this slows you down, you may be forced into protecting yourselves. When commenting at websites such as MR, you should assume that at least one person with administrative access is malicious, i.e., collecting IPs and email addresses for Jews. Why make it easier for such individuals? 168
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:40 | # Misc: @JRichards Your analytical abilities are much improved of late. Is this a real person? Only one? The same person insisting on 9-11 conspiracist shit, as though it were proven? It really seems like there are several JRichards’s. Re IP blocks: I am amazed (and strangely grateful) that I have never had any problem. But what in the hell is this?
How would someone “malicious” gain admin access? @danielj
Apart from my really not being gay, I judge you on the basis of recent comments, which suggest a severe mental or moral deterioration of late. How do you account for it? And how do you propose to find me? And if you do, what do you suppose you would/could you do? 169
Posted by uh on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:02 | #
Thanks — one for my headstone.
You are overthinking it. Higher primates also punish deviance in coalition. The instinct to punish deviants / defectors is not “indirectly” genetic if it is genetic at all. If it is the valence of your personality, then your personality has an evolutionary background, or it has not. If it has not, then personality does not relate to evolved behaviors, and there are no evolved behaviors. There are no free-floating “personalities” not shaped by deep ancestral conditions. This is why men are more passionate defenders of the death penalty than women: men are those with objects to protect and those who constitute the coalition; women, as subjects, aren’t able to grasp the full scope of the danger, so their punishment is meted to those perceived to be defecting from the group, e.g. white nationalists. Punishment, not reciprocity, is the strongest motive in establishing morality. Reciprocity is not morality; it establishes a social bond long predating morality. A coalition formed to punish defection is not a symbolic protocol (“morals”). Morality is a symbolic interpretation of evolutionary protocols.
Yea Daniel, remember — Leon was on the roof of his building with a [some impressive caliber] rifle ready to defend his turf from the dark horde. You can’t butthex a religious butthexer. 170
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:31 | #
I’ve read this a couple of times, and I’m still not sure what exactly you’re saying, though it seems interesting (esp the final sentence, though not sure I agree with it). Perhaps you could express the matter differently? 171
Posted by anon on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:00 | # J. Richards
Game theory analysis of altruism is wrong***. In certain relationships the free rider “problem” isn’t a problem i.e. mother-child. The child gets the free rider bonus. In that context a certain amount of selflessness *increases* the average fitness of the mother and child as a unit. That’s where empathy altruism comes from in my opinion. It can spread through the population because e altruism makes people sexually attractive. It’s in your interests to mate with someone who has e altruism because you and your future offspring get the free rider bonus. So e altruism may reduce an individual’s fitness in one direction but increases it in another. In an inbred population (the norm in human history) where r is very high then rB altruism is more efficient. However if a population begins to outbreed e.g. because of a religious ban on cousin-marriage, then the r value will drop. In those circumstances the average e value in the population will increase to compensate. (nb: e altruism applies to your relatives also. In the context of a medieval village with no television if your cousin and a stranger both need help getting in the harvest your cousin gets the e altruism added to the rB while the stranger only gets the e so you help your cousin. The only difference between it and the inbred rB version is you say “sorry i have to help my cousin” to the stranger instead of telling him to **** off.) I think the rB + e model is more efficient in a homogenous population because of economies of scale i.e. without cloning you can only get very high levels of r with very small groups of people. The problems with it are
172
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:14 | #
I find this remark to be astounding with respect to MR. Guessedworker, what is your reaction? 173
Posted by anon on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:15 | # uh
Alternately, women (on average) have more empathy altruism than men because empathy altruism initially developed for the mother-child relationship (imo) hence why women (on average) are more vulnerable to empathy manipulation.
Obviously i have no way of knowing what the exact numbers are and they’ll vary between different white populations, class and gender but it illustrates the core difference.
174
Posted by Silver on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:22 | #
Reminds me of the time the mighty Cap’n showed up at Takimag… Still, your effect was probably a net positive. They’ve certainly come a long way since the days you had to mind your PCs and IQs lest “Sid Cundiff” pissed his pants.
175
Posted by anon on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:41 | # Missed a bit
There was a substantial change in their ability to manipulate e altruism among people who had little or no experience of diversity - almost everyone outside the American South, South Africa and Rhodesia -thanks to Hollywood and television e.g. films like, To Kill A Mocking Bird. I agree that money - simply buying politicians, church leaders and union leaders - is the other half of it.
176
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:02 | # 1) Daniel j - for an intelligent man, you can be truly thick as pig shit. Lee… I’m not J-Richards. You’re fighting with a different dude! My apologies old chap - I was in a hurry earlier and fucked up my target for abuse. Sorry.
177
Posted by Papa Luigi on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:13 | # I am grateful to Leon Haller and J Richards for their invitation to me to discuss the flaws that exist within the Christian religion. J Richards asserts that Jesus was not a Jew and then proceeds to go through a number of ‘historical’ contortions in an attempt to establish that; either (a) Jesus was not an Israelite and therefore not a Jew; or (b) that the Jews were not the Biblical Israelites. In point of fact however, both of these arguments are irrelevant. The Pentateuch, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament form the Jewish Torah and are believed to predate the birth of Jesus, having been written around the same time that Jewish scholars were codifying the Talmud. Therefore the Pentateuch/Torah is not an originally Christian tract, but a tract pertaining to the peoples of Palestine that predate Christ, including the people that now call themselves Jews. In fact the Jews are the earliest surviving people to hold the Pentateuch/Torah as an historical, genealogical religious scripture and therefore the God referred to in the Pentateuch/Torah is most definitely a Jewish God as he was considered by the Jews to be their God long before Christ was born. However it is not the Jewish origins of the Torah/Pentateuch that are the primary reasons to regard Christianity as an aberrant religion, Christianity, like Judaism and Islam are infantile religions in that they are predicated upon the notion of a paternalistic, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful God who has a special relationship with mankind. All three Abrahamic religions assert that God has always existed, but that relatively recently, after apparently living in solitude with nothing to occupy his mind for Eons, he suddenly decided to create the heavens and the earth and mankind, so that we might come to know him and love him and spend the rest of eternity in the blissful worship of him. Christian theologians do not seem to consider the monumentally vanity of a God that would create an entire world simply so that the inhabitants of that world might spend eternity worshipping him. In that the Abrahamic religions assert that there is only one God, who is the ‘one true God’ and therefore the God of all mankind, these religions therefore assume a basic universalism, except of course for the Jews whose universalism is qualified by their claim that they have been chosen by God to be a light for, and to rule over the rest of humanity. Once one accepts as Christians mostly do, that we are all ‘God’s children’, then irrespective of any references to the need to live as nations, it creates a moral onus upon each Christian nation to assume responsibility for the wellbeing of all other nations and it therefore demands that Christians adopt an internationalist, and therefore a multicultural and/or multiracial outlook. I periodically have Christians knocking on my door, bringing me the ‘good news’ about Christ and the coming ‘Kingdom of God on Earth’ and they hand me twee leaflets featuring pictures of what this paradise on Earth will look like. Invariably the illustrations depict multiracial groups engaging in a joyous pick-nick, in a clearing between a mixture of tropical and deciduous forests. There is always a toucan in the trees and a bunch of grapes, and in the distance, we can see a lion frolicking with a lamb. These Christian callers talk about a time when there will no strife and no antagonism between people, a time in which everyone will love everything and everyone else irrespective of race or ethnicity, and when there will be no hunger and no poverty, and blissful contentment will prevail everywhere. This is an infantile vision of the kind that leads people to sing that they, “wish it could be Christmas every day”, when in fact every adult knows that it would be completely impractical to attempt to celebrate Christmas every day. Similarly, it would be completely, mind-numbingly, monotonous, tedious, irksome, tiresome, humdrum and boring to live in a world in which everyone loves everything and everybody; in which no-one holds an opinion that antagonises anyone else; in which no-one ever argues and everyone always agrees with everyone else. Any adult will recognise that far from being a paradise, such a ‘kingdom’ would mighty soon turn into a hell on earth in which anyone with any brains would be driven mad by the sickly, sweet monotony. The reality is that one cannot experience love without experiencing a similar intensity of hatred for the opposite of that which one loves. A world without hate is therefore a world in which ‘we wish it could be Christmas every day’, and in which we all dance around like childishly, happy-clappy morons, waiting for the ‘magic fairy father figure’ to make everything wonderful. The whole premise of Christianity is therefore alien, illogical, incongruous and infantile. It is a religion based upon Jewish folk law, it is predicated upon the notion that an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, conscious, sentient God just suddenly decided to create a world full of people so that they might flatter his monumental vanity be singing praises to him throughout eternity, and it offers mankind a reward for our trouble that insults our intelligence. In short it is unbecoming of adults living in a scientific age and completely unsuited as a religion to bind our people together and inspire us in our struggle for future survival. 178
Posted by Silver on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:16 | # CS,
Thank you for that flattering remark. Unfortunately, it says more about the posters than it does about the quality of my thoughts. Okay, I’ll give you my opinion, but I fear you’re not going to like it. Let’s get that out of the way first. You’re impatient. You want results—white revolution, white society, white life— right now. How can people not see what’s going on? How can they not see these niggers for what they are and what their presence implies? You’ve posted crime stories, stats, etc over the internet and people still just do not seem to get it. What to do then? Flee! Flee to where clueless/brainless/gutless white liberals will no longer be an impediment, and there regroup. John Lee Barnes’ insistence on fighting the good fight right where he stands obviously frustrates this desire of yours. Some things in this world, I believe, simply cannot be rushed, and for this reason I think Barnes has the basics of how to proceed quite correct. (Agitation plus community-building plus moral uprightness. Though I don’t care for them, Hezbollah has enjoyed great success with this model.)
Or, as I think Milton Friedman put it, “one man and the truth is a majority.” But what is that “truth”? What is the nationalist’s truth that, we must hope, will move mountains? For me, (white) nationalists have been operating on the basis of half-truths. Yes, “race matters,” and IQ, and crime, and heritage, and race-replacement, and anti-white jewbabble, and all the sorts of themes that WNs harp on about it; it’s all essentially true. The fundamental reason, however, that it all remains but a half-truth for me (and, I’m certain, millions of others) is its deplorable tendency to culminate in an utterly false hate-the-world complex: race, therefore war (ie perpetual war). Now, along will come a Desmond Jones’ with his contrived Darwinian concoctions assuring you that such hatred is perfectly justified, and better yet, virtuous, because it aids survival. Hate with all your heart and all your soul for then you’ll live on. There is, of course, an entire world out there that he misses, but even within the confines of his Darwinian tunnel-vision he is indubitably wrong. Hatred may be virtuous if it did indeed necessarily aid survival. But how is it possible to believe that in the present day global and globalized context hatred of the world would aid survival? It doesn’t even begin to make sense. John Lee Barnes has clearly struggled with race, with what race “means.” That much is evident from his efforts earlier on this year (perhaps 2010 also) to decouple race and nation. And I’m willing to believe he was sincere in this effort. I’m willing to believe that in his heart he felt that, yes, my people have been lumped with “friends” (of sorts) that they never requested and, in large part, do not want, and yet, for all that, they’ve now got them. Lumped with people who are clearly not of the same kind, yet in other respects are so much alike, he has struggled to shake the feeling that to treat them as foes would be a corruption of some moral standard (however ill-defined it may be). Even if he no longer feels that way, I’ll acknowledge that he has done his bit to be accommodating, and so I will do mine. Though I look at the peace and understanding towards Others, and the desire to treat them with respect and dignity, that has taken hold in so many across the world over the past fifty years with some admiration, mass multiracialism, for me, has failed so totally to deliver (or make available) the basic life goods (as identified by nationalists) that I’m willing to risk unmaking that world I admire in toto in order to put right what it has gotten so terribly wrong (though I hope nothing quite so drastic will be necessary). White nationalists do not seem to consider this sentiment a resource to be tapped. Were they willing to, they might find millions upon millions of ethnocentrists (or “race-centrists” or “race-kind-centrists”) who, realizing their own plight, could be willing to faddishly (but effectively) announce to the world, “Today we are all Englishmen. And tomorrow. And the day after. And we’ll keep being Englishmen until such time as the world is prepared to emphatically proclaim: Racial rights are human rights; and human rights are racial rights!” If you could achieve that, more than half the battle would already be won; the rest is sorting out the details.
180
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:18 | # That worked. The old one was banned in the MR system. GW? Whodunit? Who has/had the necessary access rights to do that? 181
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:36 | # 1) Jesus was not a Jew, but a Judean Levite Samaritan.
182
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:43 | # Silver, As Horst Mahler of the NPD once wrote ’ A little salt in the soup is not a problem’. As long as the indigenous people of Britain remain in perpetuity the racial / ethnic majority of Britain then a tiny number of immigrants can integrate into British culture. I would expect the population number should remain always 95 % indigenous British. That way the indigenous population can never be re moved via demographic race replacement. We can show good grace and respect those who came here to integrate into our culture, who love Britain, who have served civil society eg by being in the army or as nurses and doctors and who have not sought to impose their way of life upon us. We are British - that means we dont like bullys. Those who ask for the forced deportation of all immigrants are despised by the British people as bullys - and hence will never get an electoral mandate. 183
Posted by Patton on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:50 | # Has it not occurred to you, Mr Luigi, that these Christians knocking at your door every so often have been influenced by Marxist thinking just like anyone else has been over the past few decades, and that these relatively new and liberal views of nationhood/race neither negate the fact that Christ called upon them to baptise ‘nations’ and ‘tongues’, nor erase centuries of one Christian (nominally at the very least) nation waging war against the other in spite of their shared faith? Christianity is not anti-nationhood or anti-race but I will grant you that many denominations or groups of individuals within certain denominations have bought into colour blindness, of which Graham Lister’s example of the popularity of Pentecostalism in Africa is but one example. Most other Evangelicals and mainstream Protestant denominations apply, and so do many within the Roman Catholic Church due to the Marxist Liberation Theology and their submission to the Jews since the 2nd Vatican Council. It should be noted, however, that this in no way represents traditional Christianity and exists only due to Liberalism and Marxism. The missionaries converting Africans in the colonies weren’t particularly Pentecostal and though often critical of the abuses of the colonists towards the indigenous people, few if any advocated miscegenation and looked upon their native cultures as barbaric - which is why they were there in the first place. However, eternal truth trumps temporal realities. If the fact that Christianity is a religion open to all nations and races is such a problem to you, perhaps it indicates you believe attach too much importance to the contemporary world. That is your good right, by the way, but I believe the quest for spiritual truth transcends any allegiances and bodily qualities we may have in the present world. 184
Posted by Gudmund on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:52 | #
-Haller J Richards has always been an intelligent man with good analytical abilities. Some smart people believe in fringe theories. It’s along the same lines as that prize-winning physicist who told people that vitamin C cures cancer.
-Silver Racialism is too parochial. It falls apart because it doesn’t begin to take into account the complexity of life - people may value race, as J Richards’ study shows, but that’s not all they value. I sympathize with racialists to some degree, mainly for the sake of societal stability (the mass migration from the third world has had disastrous consequences in some ways, and I want the cause slowed down or stopped completely), but it’s difficult to buy into mid-20th century fascist-oriented propaganda about race as an all-important concern (which is unfortunately the norm in American WN circles). Ultimately, though, special interests have dominated Western states for so long that, even if there were anything near a consensus among the populace about shutting down PC/multiculturalism/mass immigration, it would not be accomplished due to the great demand among the elite for votes, cheap labor, etc. 185
Posted by Patton on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:53 | # The native cultures being those of the indigenous people, not the Western cultural background of the missionaries - just to be clear. 186
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:32 | #
Assuming that this also includes the 3-4% of the population which is white, but not indigenous, how would you propose to go about reducing the non-white population to ‘tiny numbers’, which has not been the case for almost 60 years? If not deportation, then how?
187
Posted by J Richards on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:59 | # Papa Luigi @177
I didn’t invite you. I critiqued your description of Jesus as a Jew.
Wrong. I asserted that Jesus was not a Jew and then proceed through historical facts, supporting them with citations from peer-reviewed journals that (a) Jesus was an Israelite and therefore not a Jew, and (b) that the Jews aren’t descended from the Biblical Israelites. Don’t confuse Jewish religious beliefs (your citation-less statements) with what can be inferred from historical facts (see citations). What you call the Old Testament or the Jewish Torah is a reference to some holy books that were part of the Judahite religious beliefs that were forced upon the Edomites by the Judahites that had conquered and incorporated the Edomites into Judea. The Judahites were an Israelite people. There were no people in the region or anywhere else at the time that were known or describable as Jews. The Edomites didn’t exactly adopt the Old Testament beliefs, and by the time of Jesus, there were some variants of the belief system stemming from the Old Testament, such as the Edomite-derived Pharisee version; the original belief system was practiced by the Judahite Essenes. Why do you think Jesus condemned the Pharisees? This is because the Pharisees had perverted the holy books. It’s only centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus that the Talmud appears (I’m taking history, not Jewish religious beliefs), and the Talmud is the work of the Pharisees. You can’t talk about Jews and Judaism before the Talmud appears. Meanwhile, the Essenes developed their beliefs into Christianity. So you have Judaism derive from Pharisee beliefs, which were characteristic of the priests of the Canaanite-Edomite Idumeans that had been incorporated in Judea and forced to adopt Judahite ways, which they did only superficially. So yes, there’s a common base to Judaism and Christianity, which is the Old Testament or Torah, but these religions developed in an antagonistic manner. As to the rest of your criticism of Christianity, it’s not my concern except for the distortions.
Who says that god was living for eons without doing anything? If God exists and that’s the way it is, he can exist in a timeless dimension. The human concept of time doesn’t have to apply.
God can be vain if he wishes and maybe that’s what he is. Whether this is a valid reason to worship him or not is your choice.
Wrong. The moral onus is in spreading the word of the Lord and helping the fellow human being, and this doesn’t require the presence of different races in the same region or the mingling of the races, and is fully compatible with geographic segregation and the absence of race mixing, as inferred by the passages I cited.
This would be the Jehovah’s Witnesses doing their work… not indicative of an endorsement of multiracial living in Christendom.
Christianity developed antagonistically to Judaism. Don’t mislabel the common base as Jewish folklore because when there was the common base and nothing further developed, Judaism, Jews, Christianity and Christians didn’t exist [this is history, not religious beliefs]. 188
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:25 | # @bugger off I really do not want to ‘show off’ in any way but I am peer-reviewed scientist in the broad field of evolutionary biology/behavioural ecology with published work in the area of social evolution/inclusive-fitness theory including both empirical studies and theory (mathematical models) focused upon genetics. So I think I might have some clue as to what I’m talking about. I don’t have time to correct every bit of foolishness I encounter in quite the detail you seem to require. Much of what passes for ‘gene-talk’ here is, at best, massively over-simplified (witness at the drop of a hat the naïve invoking of ‘heredity’) or down right wrong. The attempt to model some mix of genetic altruism/political voting behaviour seems rather daft if for no other reason than the person doing it seems to have based their attempt on the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium which assumes that both allele and genotype frequencies in a population remain constant - that is, they are in equilibrium - from generation to generation unless specific disturbing influences are introduced. Those disturbing influences include non-random mating, mutations, selection, limited population size, ‘overlapping generations’, random genetic drift, gene flow and meiotic drive. It is important to understand that outside the lab, one or more of these ‘disturbing influences’ are always likely to be in effect. That is, strictly defined, the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium is just about impossible in nature. Thus building an evolutionary model upon it is bit of a non-sequitur. It’s not what people do. Rather in this context they model simple evolutionary stable strategies (ESSs) which generally examine stabilising versus directional selection; i.e. under what circumstances can a novel allele/phenotype ‘invade’ a population etc. Even then these models are themselves highly simplified. Once relatedness becomes involved we are in the territory of frequency-dependent selection, the precise details of population structure, hierarchical selection theory etc. And that’s all assuming the genetics are as simple as they possibly could be. On top of that relatedness has not got a fixed meaning – if the population structure at a particular phase of a life-cycle results in only competition between relatives then the ‘r’ factor can be reduced to zero thus having no effect upon the evolution of social traits (cooperation/altruism etc.). But further complexity arises if at during one phase of the life-cycle competition is only between relatives but at another stage of the life-cycle is between all members of a population. Relatedness is also a statistical ‘on average’ concept, so again is further complicated. It only relates to the precise alleles concerned and not to some general genomic wide notion of relatedness. Now there are some very good books available on Darwinian social evolution – if you want to learn more then I suggest you read them. Inclusive-fitness theory can be useful as a heuristic rule – why do people generally care more for their own children as opposed to some random child in China (and vice-versa), but such insights don’t have to expressed in a particular mathematical model. Returning to your question. As for why I am not building such a model – well I think attempting to precisely define voter behaviour in term of genetics is politically irrelevant and a folly. Just on this topic of heredity and political attitudes. I can accept that their might well be a genetic element in risk-taking/risk-adverse personalities, in selfish/altruistic personality traits and any other number of personality traits that help shape one’s ‘small p’ political sensibilities but heredity is a slightly tricky concept in evolutionary biology. If allele X in environment Y always produces phenotype Z then the heredity of the trait will be very high – but if allele X in environment W does not facilitate the expression of phenotype Z then the heritability of the trait will be near to zero. Phenotypic evolution is complex. Now once we get onto humans the complexity is ramped up. We have these rather sophisticated phenomena of language and culture. Obviously we only have languages and cultures because of the type of organisms we are (so ultimately our capacity for such is genetic) but the precise particulars are not hard-wired by our genes. Let’s take a simple example: language. Despite idiots like Steven Pinker insisting upon language being an entirely ‘hard-wired’ Darwinian phenomenon it isn’t. People in Portugal tend to have infants that learn to speak Portuguese, and people in Japan have infants that go on to speak Japanese. Now imagine a terrible mix up and the Portuguese baby is whisked off to Japan and vice-versa – the infants will mimic their adoptive parents and learn the language of their adoptive parents. Rather amazing for such a ‘hard-wired’ phenomenon, yes? There are no specific alleles for ‘learn Portuguese’ or ‘learn Japanese’ and even the generic ‘learn the language you hear’ genes are not all-powerful. Please recall there have been a small number of tragic cases of children locked away from infancy and deprived of any substantive human contact: they do not, when rescued, emerge speaking any recognisable language and furthermore if they are beyond a certain age/stage of cognitive development that have very little chance of ever learning to be a competent and normal user of any language. Contra Pinker the environment is rather important in the formation and expression of linguistic phenotypic traits. So returning to politics frankly I’m pretty sceptical about an ‘anarcho-capitalist’ allele or an ‘anarcho-syndicalist’ allele et al., floating around the gene pool. The transmission of knowledge, culture, world-views etc. between the generations seems to have a rather Lamarckian edge to my eyes. Equally the precise particulars of a culture seem extremely plastic (read an introductory book on anthropology or history - people have embraced all sorts of rather different cultural practices). Even if, say religious behaviours, have some very general features in common and a ‘family resemblance’ not even I would argue that in their precise particulars Catholicism and Voodoo are the same thing (even if one was to argue at base they are the same ‘type’ of phenomena). It’s obvious that the texture of and lived experience of being a member of devoutly Catholic society and that of being in a devoutly Voodoo orientated one is rather differentiated. The details are important, at least some of the time. So when such things mattered the most ‘hereditary’ social attitude was religiosity. Protestants had Protestant children and Catholics had Catholic children. And it gets worse – Calvinists had Calvinists children, Presbyterians had Presbyterian children, the offspring of Anglicans were general also Anglicans and amazingly the children of Quakers were also Quakers! No-one is surely foolish or ignorant enough to suggest specific genes for ‘being Quaker’ etc. Again at certain points in European cultural history it was the social norm to be ‘religious’ and to be found expounding anything other than such a view was generally forbidden and so just about everyone in such a society was religious (at least in public). The easy ‘default’ or ‘let’s not try thinking too hard because I can’t be bothered’ option was to unproblematically acquiesce to parental and wider societal authority on such matters. Then came the rise of modern knowledge, science, the Enlightenment blah blah blah and as Nietzsche observed we all collectively, as a sociological phenomenon, ‘killed’ God. Religion, of whatever variety, could no longer be assumed as the ‘natural’ foundational premise of a culture and society. Now all of this cultural evolution has occurred, in the terms of evolutionary biology, within the blink of an eye. It is hard to account for by the rise and fall of some generic ‘faith gene’ within European populations. Now one can be totally mainstream and be part of the social norm in most European societies without being religious at all (so guess what the non-thinking majority of sheeple do – that’s right, by and large passively drift towards the mainstream social norms that have been shaped by others). Something which was a ‘catch-all’ phenomenon is now sociologically and culturally irrelevant in the lives of most Western Europeans. Hate to break the bad news but there you go. The average English person might be vestigially CofE for the purpose of having a nice building to get married in (if they even bother with marriage) or for getting their kids into a half-decent school but beyond that it means very little culturally or sociologically. Most people in England don’t have a copy of the King James Bible or the Book of Common Prayer in their homes let alone actually read them (I have both because I think they are important and valuable parts of my cultural inheritance). If you asked the ‘man in the pub’ or even the middle-class ‘gastro-pub’ what the ‘Westminster Confession’ was about they would in all likelihood think it referred to some sex-scandal from the 1960s. OK so let’s return to Richards rather angry but lamentable and risible attempts to keep his favoured ‘hypothesis’ from being falsified – that most people aren’t ‘extreme liberals’ and the subtext of “it’s all the work of all-powerful evil Jews” etc. In what context are people not extreme liberals? Historically we are now all radical liberals. In a modern context very few people wish to define or think of themselves as being non-mainstream or extreme anythings. But take a similar survey 200 years ago and you would no doubt find a spectrum of opinion/attitudes along an axis of ‘conservative’ and ‘radical’ polarities. The only trouble is that 200 years ago the idea of a universal franchise of all adult males would be the absolute height of radical thought, let alone votes for women. Yet fast forward today and such things are entirely ‘normal’ and how many people would suggest they should be abolished when asked? Probably a percentage of the population so small they would be well within the margin of error of any opinion survey. Another example back in the day with Athenian democracy – again among the citizens no doubt a rather narrow ‘bell-curve’ of views would have existed along an axis of conservative to radical views. But if asked them if slavery should be abolished and they all would all think you as a raving lunatic. Today anyone suggesting that slavery is a wonderful thing and should be our number one public policy is the lunatic. So yes if one takes a static, ahistorical snapshot most people are not ‘extreme’ anything in their own self-understanding and self-description but understood diachronically we are all ‘extreme’ liberals. We are all Voltaire’s bastards so to speak. The notion that the overall topology and precise contours of liberal modernity are only be the handy work of ‘the Jews’ is so childish that it’s beyond asinine as a theory of history – influence yes, but complete control, no not at all. Was John Locke a Jew? Immanuel Kant perhaps? John Stuart Mill? No didn’t think so. In terms of different self-identifying groups in competition with each other there is little doubt that Jews have solved the ‘intra-group coordination problem’ rather more effectively than most; thus maximizing their collective leverage upon the system. Collective Jewish mendacity and quite legendary hypocrisy are there for any reasonable person to see. But that reasonable claim isn’t half as sexy as some bonkers ‘conspiracy’ view of universe now is it and the self-serving delusion that you are one of the privileged elite that are ‘in’ on the big secret? Now I’m quite sure I will now be dubbed a ‘Zionist stooge’ to go along with Mr. Haller’s fruity description of me as “socialist scum” from a while back (but fondly remembered all the same). 189
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:18 | # Leon Haller to Danielj: “how do you propose to find me?” I’ve had the good fortune to physically meet a couple of commenters here at MR, and Danielj is one of them. Danielj, in turn, has met personally with several others, and has vouchsafed their physical existence to me. This real-world network lineage means more to me than the brilliance of any comment ever will. To borrow a phrase that I detest, this IS “White Zion”. This IS as good as it gets for me. A racialist community composed of incorporeal beings is nonsensical. Therefore, anyone who makes no effort to facilitate physical confirmation, is not acting in good faith with a racialist cause. Leon Haller has done and continues to do everything possible to conceal his physical identity, while systematically bloating his artificial identity. This contributes to existential inflation, which is the natural enemy of ontological nationalism. Como viva Danielj, como viva la Raza. Captcha = society46 190
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:02 | #
Please list some.
First, hate to be ‘small’, old chap, but the author of, inter alia, How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate is hardly an idiot, even allowing for normal literary license. Second, I’ve not read Pinker’s books (let alone any peer-reviewed articles) on language, but I suspect you are misconstruing what Pinker means by “hard-wired”. Of course, what you say re Portuguese/Japanese is true, and I cannot imagine Pinker (or anyone else) saying otherwise. Why is it wrong to say humans are “hard-wired” to learn language, or even that there might be a “universal grammar”, even if “the formation and expression of linguistic phenotypic traits” is environment-dependent? Must the term “hard-wired” only be used of phenotypic traits with (I presume) zero chance of non-expression regardless of environment (eg, eye color)? Certainly, height is genetically (ie, not culturally) determined, but there can be variation in how the genes get expressed depending on environment (eg, inadequate nutrition in childhood).
Yes, as I noted above in my less technical way.
Speaking rather loosely (metaphorically) here, no?
Well, yes, the “precise particulars”, but perhaps not the general features? Negroid cultures everywhere seem to produce similar types of “phenotypal expression” (violence, promiscuity, low intellectual achievement), despite often very different cultural backgrounds. Isn’t that the whole gist of racialism?
This sounds very world-weary and commonsensical, but I think it is in fact a highly culturally conditioned view (ie, a product of a generic member of a contemporary Western intellectual establishment speaking outside his area of expertise). There is no historical evidence that I am aware of that past generations of Europeans were brimming with implicit but politically and socially oppressed atheists (not that such oppression hasn’t existed, obviously). Once, the vast bulk of whites were religious believers. Today, they are not (or at least, they are not fervent Christians; I believe the sociological data show that most whites throughout the world are vaguely theistic, acknowledging some sort of Higher Power or similar guff, but not sure whether that corresponds to the Christian conception of God).
True, but it seems likely that some people are more genetically predisposed to faith or its lack, and that, given differential fertility patterns between religionists and secularists, as well as that a universal allowability of faithlessness has been achieved, over time, there will come to be relatively more faithists than atheists among whites, especially if it is the case (as I believe) that secularist whites are more likely to marry outside their race than Christian ones (why this might be so is interesting, given that modern Christianity per se does not condemn miscegenation; attitudes to tradition may play a role, or differing levels of a more diffuse piety).
191
Posted by Papa Luigi on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:02 | # J Richards on December 30, 2011, 03:59 PM
I never stated that Jesus was a Jew, that was your ‘straw man’ argument that you introduced in order to appear to counter me without having to address the issue of Christians worshipping a Jewish God. The ‘Christian’ God is the God of the Pentateuch, i.e. the Jewish Torah
Would you care to comment on this Mr Richards? As for the your assertions regarding the tribe that Jesus allegedly belonged to, I will read the sources that you have cited and will post again. 192
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:12 | #
Agree with the dismissal of Richards, but, without being an expert on Richards (or, frankly, bothering to read all his posted stuff), I think his argument is that whites by nature are not as race liberal as they are made to seem as a function of pervasive Jewish-controlled media leftism (which, incidentally, is hardly a flattering portrait of the modal white intellect; WNs favoring notions of white supremacy based on our alleged superiority had best interpret that superiority as ethical or historical, not contemporary-cognitive). I think this is true, though Richards carries the point too far. Without Jewry, white civilization would not suddenly revert to some healthy tribalism (and even before the post-WW2 advent of Judeo-dominance, whites were never as racially healthy as WNs would like; the seeds of future dissolution were there, in embryo (to mix metaphors); let us recall the very non-Jewish Abolitionists, the various “Rights of Man” types, the missionizing impulse, white man’s burden, etc). But Jewry has undoubtedly pushed us further racially than we would otherwise have gone.
Speak for yourself, Mr. National Health Service. Contrary to how Lister describes me, I quite believe in inegalitarianism, authority, and sexual as well as racial hierarchy. Indeed, a return to old-fashioned understandings of private property such as I hold would constitute a very hard-edged Foucauldian “disciplinary project”. Most self-styled ‘libertarians’ (really, ‘market liberals’, as the CATO Institute refers to themselves) have no idea of the authoritarianism embedded in their own notion of property absolutism.
True, but Richards is interpreting “extreme liberals” as PC race liberals, and neither Locke nor Kant nor Mill nor Acton nor Spencer nor anyone else before WW2 (perhaps not even William Lloyd Garrison!) wold have fit that description. As to most whites today being PC race liberals (as opposed to well-meaning persons terribly confused about the racial requirements of correct ethics), I think Lister’s own phrase fits best: the commitment of most whites to the PC regime is “a mile wide and an inch thick”. Yes, there are far more PC whites than PC nonwhites. And yes, whites are risibly easily brainwashed on racial issues. Still, the hysterical PC public culture is more a reflection of Jewish manipulation than innate white proclivities.
EXCELLENT criticism. Hits the nail on the head.
193
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:32 | # Papa Luigi @191 I don’t see how I made a straw man out of “Jewish God.” Since Jesus is God, a Jewish God is a Jewish Jesus. A Jewish Jesus will be interpreted as Jesus being Jewish. An alternative interpretation could be that Jesus is Jewish as in created by Jews but not Jewish himself, but it’s unlikely that this what would come to mind to the typical person when he hears of the “Jewish God” in the context of Christianity. On the excerpt you want me to comment on, I already have. I agree that from a historical perspective one can’t talk about the Old Testament as being something Christian during or before the time of Jesus because only centuries after Jesus would the Judahite Essenes end up with Christianity. But what I’m also saying is that nothing about the Old Testament during or before the time of Jesus could be described as Jewish either because only centuries after Jesus would the Edomite Pharisees come up with Judaism. I’m also saying that the original version of the Old Testament was associated with the Judahites, not the Edomites (forced to adopt Judahite ways). I’m also saying that it’s a mistranslation to see Judahite or Judean referred to as Jew because Jew is a practitioner of Judaism that evolved from the Edomite Pharisee beliefs. 194
Posted by Bugger Off on Sat, 31 Dec 2011 12:09 | # Mr Lister Interesting, thoughtful and occasionally condescending reply but thank you for producing it. Without having time to flesh out a fuller response though as we load the car and wash the faces of the small before leaving for a New Year’s event I thought I owed you a reply. The format of MR is that once a few threads have been placed above an earlier one, comments added at a later date go largely unnoticed. They don’t ‘bump’. Provided a person doesn’t wear their learning like a Sherman tank, there’s no reason to be concerned with ‘showing off’. With our dire political position we need educated and evidence based analyses rather than endless ‘opinionating’. I take your point regarding the variables that would need to be brought into a consideration of this subject for the purpose of developing some predictability of voting patterns across time. One issue I take with your post is that you seem to be suggesting that anyone is arguing that there are genes for particular political or religious positions and also that their reactions are likely to be fixed across time and different social environments. As far as I can see no-one is, just tendencies that will react to social stimuli in that time and place. The practical political aspect is likely a study that needs to happen at a few levels above biological processes, perhaps more rooted in the field of psychology. There is though an army of professionals who service the political groups in our societies, crunching data by postcode and tightening up the pitch via focus groups. No doubt some of it is self-promoting smoke and mirrors but not all. Much of it also is admittedly moving policy positions that have been crafted elsewhere into and out of prominence. But in more general, everyday banal terms we also do need to see more clearly and understand in more detail why our populations vote against their long term interests for perceived short term (every 5 years) security. There are a range of commonsensical explanations already but increased confidence in these would allow for a better political response. In less banal terms, we do also need to understand (eventually) more of who ‘we are’, what is our essential nature as far as it can be understood while also taking cognizance of the social interactions that will cause it to be expressed in different ways. I will consider your points again and no doubt offer an additional, more detailed response towards the first week of January. I hope MR readers look away from the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in for a few moments this evening to participate in the bonhomie of the hour. Happy New Year to all. 195
Posted by Octalia on Mon, 02 Jan 2012 03:52 | # Motivating native Whites at ground level in the manner Lee has templated only has a hair’s chance of working providing there is no accelerated non-White swamping of that native White community over a short period of 4/5 years, for example, as has happened in mine. How would it be possible to galvanise Whites and re-educate them in the ways of racial and cultural preservation in defence of both their own survival and that of their present and future progeny when all long-standing homogeneous communities that have so far managed to prevail at all in spite of the Marxist Liberal genocidal agenda against the White race(s), are also being deliberately targeted on a perpetual basis by the Marxist Liberal brigade for the purpose of ongoing enrichment in order to maintain the tactic of divide and conquer for as long as it takes? New ideas and procedures are further required on this score too! 196
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:38 | # More immigration = the faster Liberal Deconstuctionism and Social Activism will work. In fact the more immigration accelerates into the UK, the easier it will be to radicalise communities and people. Thats because the problem becomes more visible and impacts harder in communities. The more our communities are targeted, the easier it becomes to recruit and radicalise them. 197
Posted by danielj on Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:14 | # The more our communities are targeted, the easier it becomes to recruit and radicalise them. Bingo. Tyranny deposes itself. Bring on the NDAA in America I say! 198
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:44 | # Lee John Barnes @159
A potty-mouth creature such as yourself doesn’t understand that idiosyncratic terms aren’t suitable for commentary. What I could comment on were your claims on the liberals and racial consciousness. And if it’s documented that neither liberalism/liberal extremist beliefs held by people nor a lack of racial consciousness are to blame, then pray what’s preventing the “passive nationalists” from voting their way out of the mess, thus becoming “active nationalists”? I can tell that you won’t like the answer… vote doesn’t matter as it has something to do with the Juden.
What a joke! I’ve myself recommended that people shift their money from the big banks to small ones or credit unions, but this isn’t a solution as it only delays, to some extent, the bankers’ schemes. The solution requires some background knowledge and abstract reasoning that I don’t see in your writings and it’s apparently beyond you.
“Pathetic”! You don’t need to be in power to take away the control of money from Jews. Start here for what needs to be done: http://majorityrights.com/money#implementation
So educating people about the nature of the Jews is doing nothing? You said a similar thing about Tyndall, that he liked to be messing around with Swastikas. Tyndall knew the first thing about running a nationalist organization: Jews OUT! The corollary is that when people like you try to protect Jews from being blamed for very serious crimes, such as 9/11, whose widespread knowledge would help awaken a lot of people and prompt them to take away their control of money, then they should also be kept OUT!
Here’s what it is. You’re trying to butt in into a discussion that your education hasn’t prepared you for. Have some respect for people with a very different level of education and not join in their conversation. 199
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:46 | # anon @171
I didn’t give you one. I gave you a kin selection explanation. anon @175
Needs to be proven. Humans can’t be conditioned any which way.
Again, look at the data on how many endorse liberal extreme viewpoints… money/control of money isn’t half the equation; it’s practically all of it. 200
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:54 | # Dr. Graham_Lister @188
It’s great to have such a personality here, but curiously, no such individual should be talking about
as the interpretation of genetics influencing political orientation. [see comment @155] Nor would one expect something like this…
In so far as extreme liberals go, the documentation speaks for itself. If it’s risible, that’s your problem. My concern is with the facts, which you haven’t countered. On the topic of Jews, I don’t indulge in the straw man. I focus on Jews because this group is a major source of global trouble, including Western trouble, which doesn’t mean that only they are to blame for a given problem or that all problems are caused by them or that they’re all-powerful. I just don’t see it wise at this time to focus on problems other than those caused by Jews.
This reveals your failure to understand the find. Liberal and conservative orientations aren’t defined by the specifics of the stances one takes but how one arrives at the stances. Studies spread over decades show the same normally distributed liberal-conservative variation, in spite of changing attitudes, and this underlying variation in adults has little to do with the social environment.
You indulge in a straw man and then conveniently refute it! As the data show, we have our share of liberal extremists. The question is what harm would they cause by themselves? Democratic voting wouldn’t place them in the positions of power they need to be in to wreak havoc because most people don’t harbor their viewpoints. But with control over money, Jews can place the dupes in the right positions and work behind the scenes. Superficially, people like you get to blame the non-Jewish dupes or otherwise, but the key is how they got into their positions of power. This is something you’re not interested in discussing.
When the Jewish mendacity is so obvious that any reasonable person can see it, one has to wonder why you don’t seem able to process the facts pertaining to, say, 9/11, which are on videotape and in the public domain, and still be among the first to express your disapproval at its discussion and then describe my view on this as a bonkers conspiracy theory! As if the official conspiracy tale, that fails to provide any video evidence in support of it, is more reasonable! And on the “self-serving delusion,” why does someone of your alleged education have to resort to strawmen? 201
Posted by Colonel Order on Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:30 | # The weakness in Lee’s argument is that liberalism was taken over in the 60s by the new left. What we now have is called Cultural Marxism but is not liberalism. There is a liberal reaction by Ron Paul in the States and Civitas in England but that is no longer the dominant ideology. 202
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 08 Jan 2012 18:57 | # @Richards Richards states:
Really decades you say? Are you aware of the time-scales that natural selection typically works over with regard to most traits? Nevermind. But let’s leave aside discussion of what heritability is and the associated topics of phenotypic plasticity and norms of reaction et al. Just to note you seemingly have no explanation for the previous ultra-high ‘heritability’ of specific religious denominations and the very widespread fidelity to them (observed across nearly all the populations found in Europe 300 years ago) to the almost total irrelevance of religiosity today; precisely how widespread is the ‘inheritance’ of religions denominations today? It should be noted that the typical ‘average’ American Protestant will change which precise version/denomination/church they are part of several times during their lifetime. Hardly looks a ‘hard-wired’ phenomenon to my eyes. Let’s instead go back to basics. Your argument seemingly is thus: most people are not extreme liberals as there is a normal distribution of variation in political attitudes ranging from conservative to non-conservative. Rather trivially most people are in the middle of the distribution. Secondly, following on from this observation, therefore ‘extreme’ liberalism is being exogenously foisted upon Western populations by another agency (the J word is your preferred explanation) and is not an endogenously generated phenomenon. OK so let’s examine this in more detail. (1) How precisely does one establish such variation in outlook unless it is by accounting for some specific values/attitudes? Your initial argument implies that it is all about precise and very specific political values (i.e. contemporary people not being ‘extreme’ liberals). (2) Then the argument switches and it is not about specific values at all but instead about some very generalised responses and a normal distribution in being risk-adverse/risk-taking (or negative responses to novelty versus positive responses to novelty) or some such. I am more than happy to concede that there is likely to be some genetic contribution to such personality traits but it’s hardly the entire story. (3) You then go on to imply it is even more vague and general topic under consideration – namely that liberal and conservative orientations aren’t defined by the specifics of the stances one takes but rather how one arrives at those stances. So it’s now about what? Cognitive style? What on Earth might that mean? This is a very long way from your original point about how people are not ‘extreme liberals’ in the specifics of their politics. So you think there is a transcultural and transhistorical invariant and fixed pattern of the expression of ‘conservative’ to ‘liberal’ attitudes. But your fixed and ahistorical account is inadequate (the social-cultural environment apparent doesn’t have anything to do with what social and political attitudes people express – a rather amazing ‘scientific’ finding there) and hence your willfull ignoring of the diachronical and inflationary nature of liberal theory which leaves your little bit of pseudo-science falsified. The best that could be said for your claim is this – there is a very general and non-specific spectrum of risk-adverse to risk-taking attitudes (or whatever) but this is trivial and trite. After all one could have found ‘conservative’ members of the Soviet politburo but are Marxists ‘big C’ conservatives? Hardly. So most populations have a normal distribution/variation of ‘small c’ conservative personalities. Not Earth shattering news to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. Alternatively your claim is that the precise particulars of political attitude are specified as you suggested – which of course has been demonstratively falsified. Are conspiracy theorists aware of falsification? Look it up. In say 1790 the ‘radical edge’ of ‘extreme liberal’ attitudes would have been the establishment of the universal male franchise let alone votes for women. Both are totally normal now – if you wish to abolish them in 2012 you would be dubbed an extreme reactionary. So whilst the ‘underlying’ distribution of variation in conservative to liberal attitudes might be fixed, what those attitudes come to represent in concrete socio-political terms is not fixed. And that the 2nd order ‘ideological superstructure’ is open to rapid and quite radical change is obvious from any historically informed account. By any historical measure we are all radical and ‘extreme liberals’ – ipso facto your claim that in a contemporary snapshot people do not self-describe themselves as such (and therefore are not) is again falsified (or rather revealed for the superficial nonsense it is). I wonder is all of psychology made up of such piffling pseudo-science?
203
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:37 | # Dr. Graham lister @202
Completely irrelevant. The point wasn’t about natural selection but documentation over the past couple of decades. The kind of studies cited weren’t done 200 years ago, let alone millennia ago.
Again, doctor, you don’t seem to have noted that in the literature I cited, the heritability of a specific religion is zero whereas the heritability of religiosity is non-zero and significant [comment @155]. If you’re unable to understand the difference between following a particular religion and religiosity, then I’m afraid I can be of no help in this matter.
I’ve cited the literature and linked to the articles in many cases. You’re a doctor and can surely read the articles and understand how the dimension was extracted from the responses. Some of the analytical tools in such cases include principal components analysis and factor analysis, which you should be familiar with as a doctor, and if, for some strange reason, not, then you can look it up. In a simple example, one’s stance on the death penalty is either in favor of it or not. Yet, one’s choice could result from one of at least six levels of moral reasoning, hierarchically arranged from a lower state of moral development to higher. So the question is, how does one assess one’s level of moral reasoning based on stance on the death penalty and other such choices? If you can answer this question or investigate the matter to learn more about it, you’ll get some insights into how the liberal—conservative dimension is extracted and what it means.
Sorry doctor, my argument doesn’t switch. The assessment is based on specific responses to questions (e.g., as in the example of the death penalty above), the analysis reveals what’s underlying the variability of the answers… something generalized.
What on Earth it means is something that escapes you doctor, and this isn’t a shortcoming on my part since I never went more vague [the literature is about specific responses to questions and what underlies the variability] and never specifically brought in “cognitive style” [you’re surely aware of liberals and conservatives who are highly intelligent].
Of course not doctor! Who having read the literature would come to this conclusion, and who even without reading the literature would come to this conclusion? After all, the leftists who decry eugenics today were the champions of it in the early twentieth century. The expression has changed, the underlying orientation hasn’t.
Not so fast doctor… you’re falsifying a strawman.
Why bring in risk? Novelty is closer, and this isn’t a trivial issue. Can there be a significant number of people who crave the novelty of importing large numbers of cultural and racial aliens, and can they be democratically voted into positions of power such that their craving for novelty of this type is satisfied? This isn’t a trivial question.
As usual, you’ve falsified a strawman.
The anachronism is noted. If a democratic vote meant the same thing in 1790 as it does today, then indeed endorsement of universal franchise, commonplace today, would be radical in the past, but it simply isn’t the case that votes have the same meaning today as in the past (go back far enough and the very concept of votes doesn’t apply).
First of all, the analysis I presented isn’t about how people describe themselves but about how they answer some simple questions and what underlies the variation. Second, it’s again an anachronism to regard present humans as radicals or extreme liberals on some measures compared to the past when equivalence isn’t established with respect to the relevant phenomena.
Gee doctor, I don’t recall citing psychological literature. I cited the behavior genetics literature, which should be close to home for someone of your background.
Here’s the bottom line. If the extreme liberal policies in vogue are of indigenous origins, you owe your critics a reasonable explanation of how the proponents got into positions of power as these individuals are numerically matched by those with diametrically opposed views and vastly outnumbered by the masses who don’t endorse extreme views. I’ve made an effort to cite all sorts of verifiable data, spread over this website, showing that the imposition of liberal extreme policies is due to exogenous factors alone as the internal element couldn’t have come anywhere close to achieving it on its own [note that this isn’t the argument that the internal element is completely lacking] and can make a much better case, but if you’re going to dismiss it as a conspiracy, not respond to the facts and refute straw men, then I don’t think a meaningful discussion is possible. 204
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:01 | # As no one noticed my comment @ 192, but it seems somewhat apposite to this interesting debate between Richards and Lister, I re-post:
Agree with the dismissal of Richards, but, without being an expert on Richards (or, frankly, bothering to read all his posted stuff), I think his argument is that whites by nature are not as race liberal as they are made to seem as a function of pervasive Jewish-controlled media leftism (which, incidentally, is hardly a flattering portrait of the modal white intellect; WNs favoring notions of white supremacy based on our alleged superiority had best interpret that superiority as ethical or historical, not contemporary-cognitive). I think this is true, though Richards carries the point too far. Without Jewry, white civilization would not suddenly revert to some healthy tribalism (and even before the post-WW2 advent of Judeo-dominance, whites were never as racially healthy as WNs would like; the seeds of future dissolution were there, in embryo (to mix metaphors); let us recall the very non-Jewish Abolitionists, the various “Rights of Man” types, the missionizing impulse, white man’s burden, etc). But Jewry has undoubtedly pushed us further racially than we would otherwise have gone.
Speak for yourself, Mr. National Health Service. Contrary to how Lister describes me, I quite believe in inegalitarianism, authority, and sexual as well as racial hierarchy. Indeed, a return to old-fashioned understandings of private property such as I hold would constitute a very hard-edged Foucauldian “disciplinary project”. Most self-styled ‘libertarians’ (really, ‘market liberals’, as the CATO Institute refers to themselves) have no idea of the authoritarianism embedded in their own notion of property absolutism.
. True, but Richards is interpreting “extreme liberals” as PC race liberals, and neither Locke nor Kant nor Mill nor Acton nor Spencer nor anyone else before WW2 (perhaps not even William Lloyd Garrison!) wold have fit that description. As to most whites today being PC race liberals (as opposed to well-meaning persons terribly confused about the racial requirements of correct ethics), I think Lister’s own phrase fits best: the commitment of most whites to the PC regime is “a mile wide and an inch thick”. Yes, there are far more PC whites than PC nonwhites. And yes, whites are risibly easily brainwashed on racial issues. Still, the hysterical PC public culture is more a reflection of Jewish manipulation than innate white proclivities.
EXCELLENT criticism. Hits the nail on the head.
205
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:02 | # Dr. Lister: I don’t believe I acknowledged the following from another thread, for which I now express gratitude:
Third and more substantively, it may surprise you to know that I am in substantial agreement with the part of your comment I bolded, esp the part underlined. I have never claimed to be a ‘liberal’, including of the Right. I have always specifically rejected libertarianism, though I admit I do begin with the individual as a normative starting point ... but I don’t end there. I think that interferences with a maximal individual liberty and autonomy do have to be justified (I would say that liberty in the sense of Mill and Hayek is my ‘default position’). But unlike ‘Hayekians’ (I use the term as you would, though your understanding is, strictly speaking, deficient: Hayek was more of a right-wing social democrat than an ultra-rigorous anti-statist like Spencer or Mises, let alone anarcho-capitalist like Rothbard), I accept many infringements on individual liberty, though my justifications are always racial nationalist, or even just of the national security variety - never socialist. Even as a youth, I disagreed with PM Thatcher’s curt comment that “There is no such thing as ‘society’” (ie, that what is called ‘society’ is no more than a collective noun denoting an agglomeration or sum of individuals). Of course, one must be endlessly careful when talking about collective entities. As generations of libertarians have sagely noted, lofty appeals to “social” interests and justice and the like often serve as masks for the illegitimate acquisition of wealth and power benefitting very specific and identifiable individuals (and often at the expense or to the detriment of the larger, ‘abiding’ society). Anyway, I, too, seek to be an Aristotelian on this topic. A middle way between libertarianism and socialism is what I intend to try to formulate. I think such a middle ground will rest on a Christian foundation, but, I suppose, European non-Christians might seek to develop such a view by looking to the evolutionary nature of mankind, that we evolved neither as autonomous, rights-bearing individuals, nor as undifferentiated drones within some socialistic insect colonies, but rather, in and as tribes, and that those societies will be the happiest which most closely resemble that for which evolution fitted them. Frankly, I consider this view to be at the root of traditional conservatism. But let us not dismiss ‘methodological individualism’ too soon. My point has never been that “MI” is the only acceptable prism through which to observe and study man the social being, only that it is the correct and necessary starting point for the study of economics. It is individuals who act, not social wholes, and economics studies those decisions and their effects. That the English nation is indeed something more than the mere 40 million or so unique persons comprising it (obviously, I refer only to historic or real Englishmen, not the alien UK passport holders) does not mean that it is NOT individuals who make economic decisions. You should not be so dismissive of the tremendous insights of persons like Mises and Hayek. Recognizing that there exists a logic to human action such that central economic planning schemes will nearly inevitably prove less effective in maximizing the gains from given levels of resources than allowing for the unleashing of individual, entrepreneurial initiative, does not require buying into the whole liberal ‘project’. Nor does it imply surrendering all human concerns to some drive for economic growth. “Man does not live by bread alone”, etc. But when we do interfere with the natural workings of markets (say, for some higher good, like genetic continuity) we ought to do so fully aware that there will be costs, and the extent of those costs. And understanding free markets (ie, real economics) will also keep us from boondoggles based on simple theoretical ignorance (eg, the Obama 2009 ‘stimulus’, the idiotic notion that government central planners know better how to utilize $800 billion of precious capital than all the myriad and diverse economic agents from whom the money was stolen, or will be, as most of the spending was just added to our colossal national debt, thus depriving future generations of that capital). 206
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:00 | # Some useful excerpts of Mises on economic calculation: http://mises.org/daily/5733/The-Problem-of-Economic-Calculation 207
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:08 | # @Leon Haller Yes it was a typo – blame New Year drinks and my over officious spell-checker. Just look in Amazon for Stearns and the word evolution. Regarding methodological individualism (MI) I would recommend an essay by O’Meara on Heidegger. In it he makes the point that modern thought has reduced the ‘life-world’ to that which is most easily measurable – and if it is difficult or near impossible to measure something it gets excluded. So this is my problem with MI – of course individuals exist as discrete social-actors and are by far the most accessible part of social reality to measure – MI can be (and is) a powerful and useful working method. But values like social-capital, community etc., (collective public/social goods) are very difficult to measure hence under MI they are generally excluded from consideration (let alone consideration of feedback loops etc.). So this is the ‘switch and bait’ of MI from a limited but powerful working model to ideology. Well ‘society’ doesn’t exist – collectives (of whatever type) are myths and only the aggregate sum of their parts. For MI, as ideology, the only true parts are individuals and they are properly the sole focus of politics, life etc. Thus a serious limitation of MI is turned around to be its largest strength – by the denial of what it cannot track easily as being non-existent in any substantive sense. Hence MI is thought virtuous for not ‘seeing’ such false phenomena. As I suggested MI (as ideology) is applied mereological nihilism (nothing is a proper part of anything) as social theory. There are negative consequences to this model of self-understanding and its underlying ontological commitments. All collective communities/phenomena are a mix and balance of independence and integration between the parts – we are drunk on the brew of independence (i.e. maximal individual liberty/freedom) regardless of how damaging this might be in the long-term. 208
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:21 | # Haller @204 Don’t repost your comments. I’ve told you before that if someone wishes to respond to your comment, it’s up to this person. If you must insist that someone respond to it, link to it or point out its number; don’t repost it. Your comment @204 partly addresses Dr. Lister, and it’s up to him to respond. To the extent that you agree with his attempt to dismiss my arguments, I’ve responded to his straw men and other points and hence don’t specifically need to respond to you. But there are a couple of other things that I might as well respond to.
This is news to me.
Most whites aren’t terribly confused about the racial requirements… Let’s see… the following types of white racial consciousness have been described. Avoidant (no exploration of racial issues); Dissonant (confusion about racial attitudes); Dependent (superficial and unreflective position on racial issues highly influenced by others); Dominative (a strong ethnocentric perspective which places Whites in a dominant and superior position); Conflictive (competing perspectives of equality among races vs. maintenance of White privilege); Reactive (compelling need to respond to racism, primarily at an intellectual level); and Integrative (realistic and complex views on race issues and how to address them). Of these, three are unachieved (avoidant, dependent, and dissonant), four are achieved (dominative, conflictive, reactive, and integrative). So how many in your estimation are of the terribly confused type?
Proof? Notice the data cited above @156 (salience of racial identities and racial culture, in spite of all the “brainwashing” ). 209
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:28 | # Haller@205 I’ve told you not to promote the Austrian School here without justifying its fundamental premise for starters. Aside from #205, you also included in #206
in spite of being repeatedly confronted with the fact that the decision wasn’t the government’s. The $800 billion in capital never existed before it was borrowed to provide the stimuli… an illustration of money being created as debt… so how can one talk about depriving future generations of this capital? Such capital would never come into existence without borrowing it from bankers who create it out of thin air. Again, you’ve promoted the big Austrian School lie that the government is to blame when nearly all money is issued and controlled by private banks. Last time I gave you a pass after you violated a final warning and told you that there may not be a second time. I’ll give you a second pass though because of your comments @204—206. People can see what you’ve done here. @203 I make it difficult for Dr. Lister to provide a reasonable response; you know that whatever he comes up with, I’ll easily be able to handle it, and Dr. Lister on this count is doing something dear to your heart, which is pinning the blame on intrinsic faults of whites, not the Judaic factor. So @204 you repost a big comment of yours, @205 you bring in an issue from a separate discussion and leave a lengthy reply here instead of where it belongs, and @206 you send the reader to a verbose essay from von Mises. For further exposing yourself in this manner, I’m pleased at you and thus you have a second pass, but be warned that there may not be a third pass. 210
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:16 | # @Richards I didn’t read any response to my last comment directed at you - about the strong and weak versions of your favourite ‘hypothesis’. It doesn’t matter as such but I don’t really think I am attacking a straw man when I correctly assert that by the standards on say 1812, we in 2012 are all ‘radical’ liberals. The inflationary nation of liberal ideology has, in a very short historical period, been observed as an empirical phenomena. Do you seriously dispute this? If baseline attitudes are so hardwired, invariant and not determined by the social environment (as you insist upon) why are Western Europeans seemingly quite so vulnerable to your favoured explanation/primary causal ‘environmental factor’ (the J word)? Seems to be something contradictory in the ‘strong’ version of your notion of hardwired/inherited specific political/social attitudes and Jewish activity collectively wiping all that out (at least functionally, if not expressively) merely with some movies, TV and financial institutions, yes? Dare I suggest your explanation is somewhat incomplete. 211
Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:04 | # If baseline attitudes are so hardwired, invariant and not determined by the social environment (as you insist upon) why are Western Europeans seemingly quite so vulnerable to your favoured explanation/primary causal ‘environmental factor’ (the J word)? They are hardwired to be corrupted by their environment! 212
Posted by danielj on Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:45 | # Some useful excerpts of Mises on economic calculation: Here are some more useful measures than “prices” to measure the health of the economy: Number of well kept houses surrounded by white picket fences with an 1/8 of gardening space on 1/2 acre lots per 1,000 families The ratio of non-working mothers to working mothers The average number of White children born to White mothers by age 35 The average age of the cars of White folks The projected durability of the houses owned by White folks The percentage of White folks that own their houses compared to those with a lien on them The debt to income ratio for White folks The ratio of liquor stores to churches and voluntary and fraternal organizations A market free enough to give you everything you want is free enough to enslave you and your posterity in perpetuity. 213
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:11 | #
Liberal ideology has indeed become more radical in its explicitly articulated ambitions and what is “liberal” per se has become more widely diffused. So, people who had not had an opportunity to have their, more or less, intrinsic resonance with such ideas put to the test are now given that opporunity. It is nothing more mysterious than a possibility that had not yet been made an actuality. But now, now that the cork as been springed and the wine has spilled onto the floor, we are in a position to know just which carpet fibers will be stained and which shan’t.
It is just the kind of studies that Richards cites and you ridicule that could reveal the relative contribution of genes and social environment to political attitudes. This cannot be known a priori nor devined by deductive reasoning. It is a matter properly investigated empirically. 214
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:36 | #
You seem to be conflating outer capitulation for inner aggreement. The next time you see a liberal who favors seeing your people mongrelized out of existence why don’t you go grab a pistol and shoot him in the face? Why not, is it because you actually agree with him? No, that is not the reason, is it. 215
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:11 | # Lister @207 I thought Prof “Jockstrap” was perhaps Dutch or something. No matter. Your thoughts on MI as ideology are insightful provided my admonishment about MI as the proper starting point for analyzing economic issues is kept in mind. I started out as a libertarian, and my studies in the Austrians have convinced me that they are correct, at least wrt to microeconomics. I continue to place a high personal and moral value on individual freedom. Race (more broadly, national security) is what led me away from a facile libertarianism. It is not simply that, in addition to liberty rooted in property, I have a parallel attachment to preserving Western Civ, which I see as the unique product of the white race, and which I doubt will be perpetuated in the absence of whites. I also came to understand that maximal liberty could threaten the long term viability even of the system of liberty itself. This is evident in simplest terms in the immigration dilemma. Individualists talk about their alleged “rights” to allow in whatever immigrants they choose (or worse, claim idiotically that the foreigners themselves have rights to enter other peoples’ homelands per their wishes, irrespective of the wishes of the native-born). Carried to an extreme, the individualists could simply be facilitating the alien colonization of their land - and by aliens who themselves are anti-libertarian (eg, Muslims)! What nonsense is that! Over time, I came to be interested in the ‘meta-political’ conditions of the libertarian system I cherished, and this led me to a rejection of ‘antinomian libertarianism’, and to an embrace of a ‘bounded libertarianism’ (ie, I favor maximal individual liberty subject to such restrictions as are necessary to the long term preservation of the libertarian system itself, one of which is white racial preservation). Of course, I don’t think our race should be preserved only to the extent that it is libertarian. There are other noble values we embody as highly or more so than any other subset of homo sapiens. But I question the ecological imperative perspective by which any life is seen to be its own justification; that is, that morally problematic measures may be taken to secure its existence merely because it exists. If Aussie Abos were on a path to extinction as a function of the voluntary suicidal tendencies (eg, alcoholism, miscegenation, delinquency, cultural forgetting) of a majority of the tribe, I don’t believe that Abo elders would have the moral right simply to impose whatever restrictions on individual behavior (eg, coercively confining Abos to reservations culturally inoculated from outside influences) were needed to preserve the tribe. To my mind, it depends on the tribe’s value from some extrinsic, absolutist perspective - and I think the Abos would fail any such test. In the case of whites, however, I think coercion on behalf of preservation is perfectly appropriate and morally justifiable. Anyway, these are large issues which I am still studying and reflecting upon, and will be for some time. There are innumerable quotidian reasons for us to oppose immigration, PC tyranny, etc, without our having to solve all the large questions of philosophy (even the political or social variety).
216
Posted by Silver on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:32 | # Richards,
I think a better question is how many at the “very” and “somewhat” important levels of white identity are in the dominative category vs how many in the conflictive, reactive and integrative categories (all of which are functionally anti-white to one degree or another)? If you read the Croll study you cited you’d know that “very important” isn’t synonymous with “pro-white” (in the WN sense), since some proportion of those (I don’t know what proportion) are actually anti-racist. I think Haller’s correct that most whites are easily “brainwashed” regarding racial issues—it’s just that what being brainwashed actually entails probably differs significantly from what Haller imagines. Ultimately, the form “brainwashing” takes for the “achieved” non-dominative attitudes come down to is a refusal to confront the terrible price being exacted (including the ultimate price, extinction) for all their dithering, wavering, excuse-making, celebrating, and back-patting. Why does this occur? Because all three non-dominative attitudes contain a strong element of reaction (predominant in the reactive attitude); they are all reactions to “racism.” All that is required for the brainwasher is to suggest a way in which the problem that racists point out could be mitigated and the non-dominatives will immediately clutch it and cling to it for dear life. Racist: “Problem x, y, z blah blah” Non-dominative: “Yes, but this, but that, but this, but that, and anyway, you’re a fucking racist!!” End of conversation. (Please note: the “but this, but thats” often involve highly complex, deeply intellectual reasoning, not uncommonly going to extravagant lengths to gather and present (pseudo)evidence; it’s not necessarily a case of brainwashed ignorance at all.) I don’t believe the solution lies in better ethical/moral arguments per se. Morality is a surface-level phenomenon (although it’s understandable that some would prefer not to reveal this or to reveal that they themselves think so). If you only attempt to address the question in moral terms without getting at the underlying hang-up a person has you’ll just go around in circles with him. But if you successfully address his underlying hang-up then the moral language you use will hardly matter to him (whether it’s moral reasons x,y,z or moral reasons p,q,r it’s all the same to him). Haller,
This may be the finest examples of self-interest masquerading as principle I’ve ever seen (though I recall some howlers from Desmond Joens that might compete). Abos totally lack any intrinsic human worth, so much so that not only shouldn’t their extinction be considered problematic (not even for abos themselves), but it’d in fact be immoral for abos to attempt to stave off that extinction. Not so for whites, though. I’m surprised you didn’t go a step further, Haller, and claim that it’s morally imperative for non-whites to do all in their power to ensure whites survive (and, why not, flourish). Anyway, on the assumption that you really are seriously studying and reflecting upon these issues, maybe my little contribution could help. What if I were to amend that “ecological imperative” to read that morally problematic measures may be taken to ensure existence if/because that existence is valued? I exist and I value my existence and that is justification enough for my wanting to continue to exist, and this so regardless of whatever value I have to anyone else. My existence may anger some, and they may wish to end my existence, but I cannot be faulted for wanting to exist or for doing my all to foil their attempts to end my existence. The same reasoning should apply to groups, particularly biological groups. It’s justification enough that a group exists and values its existence. No further questions should be asked. Indeed, the burden should be on those who would insist on a group’s extinction, or who would prevent it taking the steps necessary to ensure survival, to explain themselves. Turning to the issue closest to your heart, the question shouldn’t be “why should whites survive?” but “why must whites perish?”
217
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 06:21 | #
Yours, Graham, is a mental style which demands a narrative framework (i.e., “theory”) in which to place data before you can arrive at comprehension of the latter. Richards’ mind works much the opposite. He will shower you with data and expect his favored interpretation to pop out as self-evident. He apparently has some reluctance, if not difficulty, in reducing his presented data to an accessible narrative (sarcasm and gibes are no substitute, although these may be useful in breaking down the barrier of simple-minded, haughty scepticism). I have generously bridged the gap. P.S. I have a theory: When you say we ought present ourselves and our views in a manner which lowers the psychological “cost” of encountering them you were not merely speaking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Average but for yourself as well. At some level you resist Richards rather outre interpretation of reality as this would tend more to vindicate a National Socialist worldview; and that is some scary shit. Only hopelessly eccentric unpersons believe shit like that, right Graham? Step through the looking glass and you have become one such. Scary shit. Bad juju, man. 218
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:12 | # Hey Richards, where have the Jews hidden GW? LOL 219
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:10 | # Dr. Graham_Lister @210
I’m not surprised. As any behavior geneticist could tell from your manner of argument, at the very least you don’t understand the issue.
Again, you have no understanding of the matter. Apparently, an analogy is the only way you may be made to understand. There was a time when the Catholic Church opposed treatment for a variety of illnesses because these were supposedly brought upon by God to punish the afflicted for their sins. Now the Catholic Church doesn’t do so. Does this mean that Catholics have become far less religious or non-religious compared to the past on this count? You can’t answer this question in the affirmative because the understanding of diseases has changed. When the treatment of diseases is no longer a religious issue, one’s religiosity can’t be assessed by stance toward the treatment of diseases. So why apply an anachronistic criterion of religiosity to assess religiosity today? As in the past, even today, people raised into a religion since early childhood will grow up to range anywhere from atheism or agnosticism to one who’s a very observant practitioner. The religiosity dimension, shown to be genetically influenced, persists, but the specifics don’t. And you insist on applying anachronistic criteria of liberalism in the past to the present and say we are radical liberals in comparison!
Since an underlying dimension is beyond your understanding, you’re talking specific positions. So yes, the ideology has changed. But anachronistic criteria may not be applied to label a particular ideological stance liberal or conservative. If you knew factor analysis or principal components analysis or latent variables or behavior genetics you’d understand this.
You’re repeating the same straw man. None of the data show or suggest any sort of hardwiring of the expression [baseline attitudes]; they’re talking about an underlying dimension.
Jews play exceedingly dirty, don’t follow normal human rules, regard non-Jews as animals, and they are persistent. If you insist on describing non-Jews as vulnerable in comparison, then this is because non-Jews are normal humans.
I have three things to say. 1) On the Jews wiping out… Captainchaos said it; you’re conflating outer capitulation/superficial statements for inner agreement. 2) On the mere use of TV, movies, financial institutions by Jews for success: Jews have waged terrible wars and indulged in exceedingly treacherous acts to establish financial institutions… TVs, movies come much later. 3) On an incomplete explanation… it’s incomplete to you because you don’t see points 1) and 2). Incidentally, it’s also incomplete to me but because I haven’t cited enough data. I’ll add a considerable amount with time. The conclusions will be unmistakable. As illustrations of the kind of data for documentation purposes, let’s consider points 1) and 2). Point1 If superficial answers to questions were what mattered rather than underlying dimensions or actual attitudes/inner agreement, why do you think psychologists would resort to things such as implicit stereotype bias and implicit evaluation bias to assess racial attitudes instead of simply asking whites questions about how they view other races? Here’s more about these tests: IMPLICIT STEREOTYPE BIAS The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a measure of nonconscious race bias in the accessibility of category-based stereotypes (the stereotype IAT from Amodio & Devine, 2006). It measures the accessibility of physical and mental concepts stereotypically applied to White and Black Americans (e.g., ‘‘math,’’ ‘‘brainy,’’ ‘‘athletic,’’ ‘‘strong’’) by measuring participants’ reaction times in associating Black and White targets with physical- and mental-related words in ste- reotype-congruent word pairs (e.g., African American with physical) versus stereotype-incongruent word pairs (e.g., White American with physical). Reaction times for incongruent versus congruent pairings are scored as individual difference scores using the scoring algorithm described in Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji (2003), with higher values denoting greater stereotyping IMPLICIT EVALUATION BIAS This test measured the accessibility of evaluative concepts (e.g., ‘‘agony,’’ ‘‘horrible’’) that have high affective valence but are not typically associated with racial stereotypes. Evaluative bias has been shown to predict behavioral race bias more consistently than either explicit attitudes or implicit stereotypes, has high predictive validity for behavioral race bias (e.g., physical proximity preferences) and is correlated with activation in the amygdala brain area implicated in fear and aggression. Why do you think such tests are used doctor? Point 2 Here’s American history and some English history showing how the Jews acquired control: http://www.majorityrights.com/money/american-history Here’s French-Canadian history: http://globheu.blogspot.com/2007/10/ch-29-qubec.html There’s much more where it comes from. It’s a matter of time… to track it down and put it into a coherent whole. Luckily, in many cases others have already worked on the issues and I’ll simply cite them. 220
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:16 | # Silver
I asked Haller the right question based on his comment, which he obviously won’t respond to; your question isn’t the right one in this case. But speaking of your question, most white identities in question aren’t anti-white racially because they pertain to cultural aspects, social behaviors and history of the white race, not [biological] race, and most whites would rather be biologically white than something else. If there are conflicts on the topics of culture and history, there’s lots of Jewish disinformation to get the people riled up, apologetic, etc…. the Holy hoax, the phony Muslim threat (Jews do 9/11, blame Muslims), slave trade (Jews were responsible for the transatlantic slave trade of blacks, whites get blamed), etc. And what do the anti-whites want preserved when they say they wish to preserve Western/European culture (77% in favor of preservation)?
There’ no WN sense. Even if the malicious individuals are excluded, what exactly is a WN sense? The bottom line is some sort of white [biological] race preservation, and the anti-racists would usually rather be racially white than non-white; their objections are to behaviors. There are some white dupes with a strong sense of justice and fairness. Fed Jewish lies about all the atrocities allegedly perpetrated by their ancestors, some are bound to be ashamed. Jews place some of them in positions of power and then malicious people like Haller get to blame the white people themselves for being weak!
Except that he can’t prove it. It’s only in pop psychology where we find the concept of brainwashing. Following numerous controversies where psychologists were acting as expert witnesses in court cases of alleged brainwashing, the American Psychological Association investigated the matter and declared twice in 1987 that “the theory of coercive persuasion is not scientific” and that it “lacks scientific rigor.” As far as I know, this stance hasn’t changed. Unless Haller can document the phenomenon, which doesn’t mean showing that people inclined toward a certain way of thinking gravitate toward an ideology promoting such thinking, he’s got no argument.
This is a non-issue. People have no choice in the matter when the seat of the power (control of money) is in the hands of hostile aliens.
Why it occurs: Juden in control. The dupes are mislead, not brainwashed. 221
Posted by Silver on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:22 | # Richards,
I called them “functionally” anti-white because the (inadvertent) function of their attitude is anti-white in effect. Am I wrong about that? If they shout you down, swear you off, anticipate your moves and work to block you, isn’t that functionally/effectively anti-white? I think you’d be better off finding away around that effect rather than pretending it doesn’t exist or hoping it will go away on its own. Based on my reading of the range of white racial attitudes there is something fundamental in whites that leads them to react so negatively to perceived anti-other racism, so I think this effect is going to be around (and creating obstacles) for a long time yet.
I guess this is your attempt to counterbalance that lopsided telling of history, eh? *Sigh* You know, if I were to behave as you do I’d accuse you of maliciously trying to link kooky conspiracies and half-truths to a sincere endeavour like WWII revision, because there’s no way the quality of questions raised and evidence adduced by the latter approach that of revisionism. (In my eyes, Ernst Zundel is a Hitler-worshipping POS, but he shouldn’t have to languish in prison for questioning the particulars of Jewish suffering under the Nazi regime—I’d have him swap places with the slimy, mendacious Elie Weasel any day.)
Er…Western/European culture itself, maybe? It’s not certain that preserving a culture requires preserving the race that created it and/or is the main practising element of it. Personally, I happen to believe it’s required, but that’s exactly the sort of thing a non-dominative white identity would compromise on.
As per the list you cited, in a word, “dominative.” <blockquoted> The bottom line is some sort of white [biological] race preservation, and the anti-racists would usually rather be racially white than non-white; their objections are to behaviors.</blockquote> I think it’s more correct to say their objections are to both behaviours as well as attitudes that are considered at risk of producing those behaviours. The bottom line (in the long-term), I’m afraid, will not be some sort of biological race preservation. Their attitudes are likely to stave off extinction for a good while longer, but the passage of time brings greater cultural convergence, and cultural convergence lowers barriers to mixing, and vanishingly few people are aware that mixing leads to extinction. Arguments that fifty years ago white identity was considered good and normal already fall on deaf ears (fifty years may as well be five thousand); it’s unlikely to change for the better in the future.
I guess my placing the term in quotes failed to tip you off that I’m aware of this.
I’m not talking about the masses. I’m talking about the “achieved” attitudes of white racial consciousness. These are people who’ve thought the issues through—whether they were inclined to think them through on their own, or whether they’ve been forced into doing so via debate with racists. They’re far from mindless dupes. As for control of money, I’ll reply to a few points in the public schools thread.
But the predecessors of these people (HW goes on at length about them at OD) displayed a similar sort of inability/unwillingness to think their positions through logically and foresee what could so easily have been foreseen well before the Juden were anything like “in control.” You yourself seem to have an inability or unwillingness to confront something: the existence of these white racial attitudes. My guess would be it’s because you’re a “revulsionist”—your political racial stance stems from your feelings of racial revulsion towards non-whites (including certain breeds of “whites”/“quasi-whites”). (What proportion of your total racial attitude would you say your revulsion contributes? 50%? 75%? 90%?) In my experience, revulsionists are the most intransigent racists, the most likely to feel totally overwhelmed and aggrieved by the racial situation/challenge, the most likely to wildly exaggerate the undesirability or inferiority of racial others, the most likely to buy hook, line and sinker into the wildest of conspiracy theories, and the least willing to consider other points of view or engage in debates over their merits. Your scientific fluency sometimes obscures this propensity in you, but it doesn’t take much digging to uncover it. 222
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:07 | # @Richards This will be my last comment on this. I do know what PCA is etc., but what precisely is this hidden ‘underlying’ component? What does it correspond with in the real empirical world? It’s no good producing a phenomenological ‘model’ which cannot be translated into real empirical details/generative mechanisms/robustly identified causes. Is it genetic? Developmental? What precisely? Vague statistical hand-waving does not cut it. So now your talking about implicit bias test etc. Fine people have underlying biases – as if anyone needs a PCA plot to know that or indeed that there is a very generalised variation in how ‘small c’ conservative people are. Profundity indeed! But you started this whole topic with you assertion that “most people are not extreme liberals”. Perfectly reasonable for people to ask what do you mean by this term. Furthermore your discussion then segued into how fixed and heritable such traits are. Heritability is a more subtle phenomenon than some vague PCA plot can show or indicate – read up on what precisely phenotypic plasticity is if you don’t believe me. My historical comparison was to mock the general approach – collect a lot of data, plug into a PCA and go on what is termed a ‘fishing trip’ looking for some form, any form, of correlation between the variables. Then if any statistical inference can be made assert that this ‘beyond doubt’ proves your point. It is not the place or time to critique the limitations of the methods you mention nor discuss or both their explicit and implicit assumptions. But moreover you have a damn cheek taking about my irrelevant and ‘anachronistic’ historical examples – you are the one that claims you have via your PCA plots (or whatever factor analysis, generalised linear modelling et al.) to have found a ‘deep’ and invariant, underlying truth about humans and how they work – surely that finding/observation must be trans-historically robust then? Now no doubt on the topic of ‘heritability’ of social attitudes had Richards and friends been on a ‘fishing trip’ back in the days of 1712 they would declaring just how heritable Anglicanism etc., were. Then secondarily discussing about how this represented a deep ‘underlying factor’ at work in human affairs. However, equally one could have found many small-c ‘conservative’ Marxists in the Soviet Union. So what precisely is the Richards hypothesis? As far as I can make out it is that liberal modernity is awful – specifically in its liberalism - and that most people are not ‘extreme’ liberals. Hence the problematic is how did all this liberalism get foisted upon us? But let’s note that this claim is not about the specifics or particulars of liberal political theory; it only refers to some form of ‘generic liberalism’. Leave aside how generic liberalism is defined or identified - it just ‘is’. And all of this is due to a mysterious ‘deep’ force or factor as identifiable via a PCA (what immensely rigorous science!). Furthermore the ‘catch-all’ explanation for the general direction of travel in historical-cultural terms is the J word. Jonathan Swift and something about sunshine and cucumbers comes to my mind. And John Locke and other liberal thinkers have NOTHING to do with this issue. So let’s leave aside the ‘science’ – do yo think your historical hypothesis is robust? What is that hypothesis? That Europeans are not capable of dreaming up quite damaging and self-harming ideas by ourselves? It’s one thing to suggest certain groups might work maximize their collective leverage within a society (perfectly reasonable) to a monomaniac obsession added with a false reduction of all of political and social history to one single mono-causal force. I wonder were you a Marxist in a previous political life? Do you note the deep, underlying structural similarities between their explanations and your approach? As a scientific chap would Prof. Richards perhaps outline what evidence would legitimately count against his ‘J word’ hypothesis? Or more subtly result in his downgrading of the ‘all-important’ nature of his favoured historical ‘force’. In all seriousness I’d like to know his falsification demarcation. Or is he involved in an open-ended, asymmetrical discourse in which anything that fits the hypothesis is cherry picked and pushed to the hilt, whilst anything which contradicts it is ignored? After all you would have to admit that if my characterisation of your ‘cognitive methodology’ is correct, it hardly represents, scientific, or even general intellectual ‘best practice’, does it? It would not really ‘cut it’ as rigorous historical scholarship? Perhaps it would but I’m not a professional historian. That history, culture and society are complex phenomena with many causal forces/agencies at work (even if some are stronger than others) seems a thought too subtle for many people. But I’m a kinda of oddball in seeing shades of grey in things I guess. Does that make me a generic conservative or generic liberal? P.S. Hope GW will be back ASAP and some form of sanity can return to the site. 223
Posted by danielj on Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:18 | # I think the one thing we should agree upon is that Jews are the main impediment to our success. Whether or not they are the single or overriding or main cause of our decline is irrelevant to this most important fact. There is no way out except thru the Jew! 224
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:33 | # Silver @221
Take off the masks of the antifa crowd and many will be Jews. The whites will be dupes prone to violent behaviors, a very small percentage of whites who couldn’t get the white community in trouble on their own. A violence-prone white person, raised to fear and loathe Nazis, who volunteers to participate in a crowd that heckles Jared Taylor and physically removes him from the podium can’t be said to be acting anti-white because as far as he’s concerned, he’s trying to prevent the horrors of Nazism from taking root again. Even if his behavior is effectively anti-white, this isn’t because there’s something intrinsically deficient in him regarding own-race attitudes, but because he’s been misled.
Read again. There’s nothing wrong with opposing prejudice and discrimination. But facts aren’t prejudice and fact-based inferences not racist. When someone mistakenly believes that certain facts are baseless instances of bigotry, and opposes racism, any deficiency this person has has no bearing on whether the person has an anti-white attitude or a deficiency that makes him prone to harm his own race because he’s misled.
This is your response to my mentioning the Holy hoax, the phony Muslim threat (Jews do 9/11, blame Muslims) and the slave trade (Jews were responsible for the transatlantic slave trade of blacks, whites get blamed). You’re in no position to be making a statement like this because you refuse to engage in the facts. 9/11 is a crime that was extensively recorded on video tape and in photographs. This evidence suffices to refute the official explanation: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ And it’s easy to arrive at the identity of the perpetrators: http://www.majorityrights.com/911.who On the topic of slavery, the Nation of Islam published a book on Jews being the driving force behind the transatlantic slavery of blacks. They anticipated in advance that Jews would accuse them of anti-Semitism. So what did they do? They made their best efforts to get as close as possible to exclusively citing Jewish sources. Here’s their fact-rich, extensively documented book: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/The-Secret-Relationship-between-Blacks-and-Jews.pdf And whereas you seem to have some respect for WW2 revisionism, I’ll still mention this volume on the Holy hoax: http://vho.org/GB/Books/dth/ So there you go. Is the existence of whites ashamed of their ancestors for enslaving blacks, horrified at the acts of the “evil Nazis,” angry at white politicians for provoking Muslims into orchestrating 9/11, and motivated to prevent such horrors from repeating, evidence of a deficiency in these whites in so far as healthy racial identity goes or is it evidence of a normally healthy sense of justice and fairness that has been misled by Jewish lies?
The white folks who don’t care whether the white race is preserved are usually the type that have respect for other cultures and aren’t the types who hope or would rather have non-whites adopt European culture. So the 77% who wished for white European culture preservation are effectively synonymous with those wanting to preserve the white race.
As per the list you cited, in a word, “dominative.”</blockquote> Your idiosyncratic use of “WN sense” isn’t equivalent to a sociologist’s idiosyncratic labeling of a type of identity.
The bottom line I talked about in reference to your idosyncratic use of WN sense is that there is no such thing as this sense and the one thing that could be said to be common to WNs is the bottom line, which is racial preservation. You digress into whether racial preservation is likely. But white racial preservation isn’t threatened in the foreseeable future because the numbers are in the hundreds of millions; the declining economic status in Western nations will put a brake on immigration (you could see an America that’s 30% white, but you won’t see one that’s 5% white because a massive racial cauldron with such a low white percentage couldn’t possibly exist and would disintegrate before it comes anywhere close); immigration is very asymmetrical (much more in the Anglo-Saxon nations, little in Eastern Europe); rising racial conflict that must result from different races living in the same region is a barrier; in places such as America, decades of integration and race-mixing propaganda has still left low rates of miscegenation involving whites; the driving force behind immigration, the Juden, are being increasingly exposed, etc.
Haller didn’t put it in quotes and it’s his usage that I was responding to. You mentioned these words 4 times in a paragraph, putting them in quotes only twice… in any case an idiosyncratic use compared to what Haller was trying to get at.
Again, this is a non-issue in so far as any intrinsic white deficiency goes. The people who’ve thought through the issues aren’t aware that the issues presented are Jewish lies. So they are dupes, though not mindless dupes. An anti-racist response following being duped isn’t indicative of an innate defect.
What is this? Cite the links.
If you want to convince me of any significant number of white people who have racial attitudes injurious to whites, then you need to find them among those who have these attitudes in spite of being aware of the Holy hoax, Jews doing 9/11, who really was behind the transatlantic slave trade of blacks, etc. Don’t bring up dupes. I know of white people who know that blacks are less intelligent and more prone to violent crime, yet donate to starving or deprived black people. Is there something odd or wrong about this? No, this is within the range of humanitarian instinct because one cannot hate a people for being naturally dumber and being naturally more prone to crime and one feels sorry for a fellow suffering human being. But most such whites won’t invite blacks en masse in their own neighborhood. Some may feel sorry and try to accommodate, say, black refugees, somewhere other than their neighborhood, but they’d be countered by others, and you wouldn’t see anything close to large-scale immigration of racial and cultural aliens. The take home message of the entire discussion I’ve had above with you and others is that there’s no evidence that intrinsic faults or deficiencies among whites are behind some of the major problems being faced by Western societies, which doesn’t mean that there are no deficient individuals.
My attitude toward race has nothing to do with revulsion. I conceive of race as a biological phenomenon. Most of race doesn’t involve appearance or behavior, the two things that could be the basis for revulsion. So why should I find any race repulsive? Speaking of behavior, behavior isn’t race, and even if behavior differences are entirely genetic, the difference between groups is much smaller than the difference within groups, which means that the issue is a higher frequency of undesirable behaviors in some groups, not the undesirability of the behaviors of each member of this group, and the appropriate response isn’t disliking the entire group because of the behavior of a subset of it but to keep a safe distance from the group because of the frequency differences in undesirable behavior. On the topic of appearance, why should I have anything against a race because of the way it looks as they didn’t chose to be born with their looks? My only issue regarding looks is that I find anywhere from disagreeable to repulsive northern Europeans miscegenating with others, but this has nothing to do with the race of the child born from such a union as it has no race, and because I respect freedom of choice, you won’t see me recommending outlawing such unions, i.e., at its worst, revulsion from a particular kind of union, my attitude is relatively harmless and has nothing to do with the things you bring in: supremacism, conspiracism, intransigent racism, etc. On the topic of conspiracies, people like you promote the most ludicrous conspiracies and call me a conspiracy theorist for presenting a handful of conspiracies well-supported by the evidence! Your behavior on the 9/11 discussion is on record. People like you couldn’t be bothered with providing any video footage placing the alleged hijackers and passengers of the doomed flights at the airports even though all the airports were under video surveillance, nor be bothered with the alleged hijackers who were supposed to have died but were found alive, yet promote the Muslims-did-it conspiracy, calling me a conspiracy theorist for including tons of verifiable evidence to make a case! To Hell with people like you. 225
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:50 | # Dr. Graham Lister @222
If you knew you wouldn’t ask. Look it up. You’re a doctor. There’s nothing hidden for all capable of understanding the matter.
The factors or dimensions correspond to real-world attitudes. After all, an assessment of the attitudes led to the discovery of the underlying factor structure.
Doctor, I cited science, not postmodernism [antithetical to science]. As you very well know, phenomenology is a postmodernist specialty and outside the scope of science. At the same time, the science addresses a lot about the attitudes being assessed, which you will understand if you make an effort to read the articles I provided to you.
Doctor, I referenced implicit bias to point out that superficial answers or stances don’t necessarily reflect internal endorsement. Incidentally, this didn’t involve any PCA plots.
I backed my assertion with evidence that you either didn’t care to read or couldn’t understand. If the former, please read; if the latter, don’t waste your time trying to understand it.
If you took the trouble of reading the articles doctor, you’d note that none of them use PCA to assess heritability, and I’m unaware of people using PCA for this purpose. Things like PCA and factor analysis partition the variability into a few components or factors that may provide some insights, which I thought I might bring to your attention to help you understand what a liberal—conservative dimension factor means, but you don’t seem interested in furthering your understanding by reading the literature.
As anyone can observe doctor, none of the studies I’ve cited have engaged in this methodology, and it’s telling that you’ve again referenced a PCA plot because none of the studies I’ve cited on the topic did a PCA in the first place. So you’ve critiqued the studies without reading them. A fine scholarly approach doctor!
If you took the trouble of reading the literature doctor, you’d notice that your anachronistic examples have no meaning, and I illustrated this in terms of a change in the understanding of diseases and how an anachronistic standard for assessing religiosity on this count conveys no information about religiosity today. On the notion of a deep and invariant truth, I didn’t talk about “depth” and as you very well know, alleles are in flux at any given time. Don’t assign concepts to me I didn’t propose.
Sorry doctor, as already noted, the heritability of a specific religion is zero. Back in 1712, the concept of heritability didn’t exist, but people had some understanding of heredity, not to be confused with heritability. And as you know, the Anglican folks wouldn’t be too fond of the notion of heredity affecting behaviors and attitudes as how could one be properly morally culpable for sinful behaviors and sinful thoughts if these are influenced by heredity? Nor would the Anglican folks be content with teaching their children their religion and leaving it to heredity as the devil posed an ever-present threat of leading people astray. These people didn’t believe in the hereditary transmission of religion nor did any others living at the time, nor do any scientists today. So why would I be the exception?
I didn’t give you hypotheses. I gave you data. I also cited the inferences from the data, not any hypotheses for future examination.
Don’t mistake your inability to understand for a lack of rigor in the scientific approach.
Yet again, you indulge in and repeat a straw man, in spite of my explicitly pointing out to you that the internal element isn’t lacking. Now you’re being clearly malicious. My position is that the internal element couldn’t have brought about the major problems of Western societies such as the immigration problem.
Again doctor, I didn’t give you hypotheses. I gave you the data that show a small minority of individuals at either the liberal or conservative extreme. Whichever of these extremes you find damaging or self-harming, it’s clear that there are some people at this extreme. So your assertion that I’ve argued that “Europeans are not capable…” is demonstrably false and a straw man yet again.
Again, you bring in a straw man. I’ve already told you that I prefer to focus on Jews because problems caused by the Jewish community are more important in my estimation than most others I’m aware of, which doesn’t mean that all problems are caused by Jews or that no non-Jews cause problems or that all Jews cause problems. No single mono-causal force has been presented.
I’m not presenting you with a vague or general Jewish hypothesis, but specific claims. An example is the claim that Jews caused 9/11: http://www.majorityrights.com/911.who If you read what I wrote on the matter, it should be obvious that the argument is falsifiable. Since all the airports where the doomed flights took off from were under video surveillance, you could start with providing video footage featuring both the alleged hijackers and the passengers of the doomed flights. You can also explain how fires that brought down the towers left humans in the neighborhood of the impact point alive and well. You can explain how is that when one heats the red flakes in WTC dust to a temperature far below the melting point of iron, the iron inside melts… are these red flakes paint chips, or rust, or some sort of highly engineered thermite? You can explain how the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 were initiated. You can explain the large volume of insider trading that occurred shortly before 9/11. You can explain the large numbers of Israelis arrested on or around 9/11. There are lots of other things for you to explain as you can see in the article and the links, and the same can be said of my other specific claims, but sadly doctor, you seem to only be interested in straw men and accusations of conspiracy but never the evidence.
Nobody would dispute complexity or multicausality, and most see shades of gray. None of this has anything to do with being a conservative or liberal.
You don’t have to depend on GW doctor. Considering your straw men, and unwillingness or incapability of understanding the scientific issues presented, notwithstanding your doctorate in the biological sciences, you can return sanity to this website on your own by making a quick exit from here. 226
Posted by Helvena on Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:59 | # The idea that Whites have brought the present situation on themselves is the old Jewish ploy of blaming the victim and excusing the tribe. Kindness and tolerance is never wrong but neither is justice and at some point Jews will be held accountable. Post a comment:
Next entry: Government Cheese
|
|
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 Angry Beard on Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:12 | #
Yes, yes, yes GW, but the facts are these:
Recent statistics tells us that some 60% or so of schoolchildren in the old GLC area are non-whites.In inner London, that figure gets even more ridiculous.In places suchas Brent, Newham and Tower Hamlets it exceeds 90%.
Considering that the ethnics have only been here, en masse, for 50 years, and in historical terms were still at the beginning, then it is a damn nigh certainty that the Great Wen, London to you and me will be overwhelmingly ethnically populated (here I’m talking about 95% + ethnic) within the space of another 50 years, the few whites remaining being unpreposessing stragglers.
The words ‘seismic’ and ‘geological’ terms used to describe aeons of ground shifting geological time - time out of reason - are the only terms that can do justice to the magnitude of this change.
Despite your many musings and expostulations this epochal change will grind on with the earth scraping unstoppable momentum of the glacier.And who is GW to put his hans up to tell the glacier to stop whilst reciting another philosphically laden wordy denunciation?
Time nor tide neither tectonic plates or glaciers wait for no man.