|
|
Why the left is finished, in microcosmIn short, it is no longer even capable of honestly confronting the massive problems that it’s creating nor can it make due on its many promises. It is characterized by cowardice, exhaustion, and fear. The Sword of Damocles is starting to wobble a bit. But we’re only going to consider this in microcosm right now, which means - yes - another clip from Bloggingheads.tv. Comes now Mr. Adam Serwer who is a young and up-and-coming lefty that writes for The American Prospect, I believe he is Jewish with a shade of Black blood - a real man for our time. His interlocutor is Mrs. Amy Wax who is here to discuss with Adam her new book, “Race, Wrongs, and Remedies”. And here is where things get interesting, Mrs. Wax happens to be a liberal who is really concerned about the hopelessly dysfunctional state of the American underclass (both Black and Hispanic), she is worried that their situation is quickly going from bad to worse and that we - the collective liberal elite - have abandoned these people. Of course, she is right; the liberal elite have abandoned these people because they don’t give a damn about them, the colored underclass is just a voting farm and an object to be manipulated for the left’s benefit. But they are a growing problem, and I think Mrs. Wax senses that we can’t continue to ignore their dysfunctionality forever because, well, eventually we won’t be able to. Mr. Serwer - the future of the left and a man for our time - is having none of this, with his gaze always shifted to the side he spits out the standard retorts and the mindless babble that passes for conventional thinking. Mrs. Wax won’t have any of it in return, which means an entertaining spectacle for the likes of us is about to take place. Enjoy. Mr. Serwer is, for me, just another piece of evidence for why the left is finished and exhausted. Posted by Notus Wind on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at 12:42 PM in Liberalism & the Left Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on October 12, 2010, 02:12 PM | # I strongly suspect Amy Wax is Jewish and she is fighting the problem Jews face more forthrightly than most. If so, we are treated, yet again, to the long-enshrined routine spectacle of two Jews deciding the fate of the rest of us. My expectation: The more realistic Jews lose. Jews created an Emperor Frankenstein. 3
Posted by Notus Wind on October 12, 2010, 02:29 PM | #
But they’re so bad at it that the spectacle becomes a dark omen (literally). How would you like it if Mr. Sewer was your standard-bearer going into the 21st century? Can’t be a good feeling, eh. 4
Posted by torgrim on October 12, 2010, 02:37 PM | # quotes from video; “Whites follow cultural script, finger wagging, Whites follow life of the 50’s talk the 60’s” From James B. “If so, we are treated, yet again, to the long-enshrined routine spectacle of two Jews deciding the fate of the rest of us.” It’s like watching a critique of a failed experiment, the sheer arrogance, and disconnect of what this “experiment” has wrought upon the America…. is just, over the top! “Jews created an Emperor Frankenstein”....Excellent! 5
Posted by Dasein on October 12, 2010, 03:29 PM | #
I would have put it another way As regards the entry’s title, this also shows why ‘conservatives’ are finished. Why are negroes failing? “Habit, outlook, cultural norms” (31:17). No mention of heritable differences between races. The mulatto jew is correct on one point: there won’t be any collective conversion experience for negroes to become high-achievers (8:35). 6
Posted by Notus Wind on October 12, 2010, 03:37 PM | # Dasein,
They’re all liberals to me. We are broadly ruled by the left, it has two pedals that serve as the gas and the brakes.
True enough. 7
Posted by Thorn on October 12, 2010, 03:40 PM | # The lesson we can learn from this is: White middle class solutions do not, repeat do not, solve problems that spring out of black culture…especially black underclass culture. Furthermore, the egalitarians really need to take IQ into account when they approach the crime problem. Although low IQ is not the sole cause of crime, low mean IQ and high crime rate in a given community do correlate. Given the fact blacks have a mean IQ one standard deviation point below whites, we can infer from that as to why there are wide disparities in the areas of scholastic achievement, violent crime rates, infidelity, out of wedlock births and income. But after all, we are talking about negroes here; a stone age people thrust into the white man’s world. A couple centuries living in the modern world isn’t going to cause a 100,000 year leap in evolution, is it? At this point all we can hope for is the Left (and most so-called conservatives) to finally come to grips with reality. Billions if not trillions of tax dollars thrown at the problem only made it worse. In order to solve this problem, first an honest assessment of the situation is needed. In order to do that, IQ differences MUST be factored into the equation. Denying reality—a hallmark of liberalism—is NOT going to make the problem go away. It’s been tried a thousand different ways and each and every time it failed….miserably!!! 8
Posted by Guessedworker on October 12, 2010, 03:56 PM | # Thorn, You are assuming that the outcome sought here is the racial equality of leftism rather than the racial blending of Olam Ha-ba. 9
Posted by Dasein on October 12, 2010, 03:57 PM | #
Sorry, I’d forgotten your description of her by the time I finished the video. I guess I thought she was officially a conservative because she sounds a lot like Heather MacDonald, Charles Murray, and sundry others I’ve read from the the Manhattan Institute or AEI. Which reinforces your point- they’re two sides of the same coin. 10
Posted by Al Ross on October 12, 2010, 05:46 PM | # Jews such as Amy Wax are unlikely to have their writing featured on the following website which contains this excellent piece by Charles Murray : 11
Posted by BOMBkangaroo on October 12, 2010, 06:49 PM | # I’m surprised to be hearing some of the things mentioned in this video. She’s half right when she says “you have no answer”. I’m hopeful that she and others like her will progress beyond seeming to be on the verge of realising that they don’t either. 12
Posted by Tanstaafl on October 12, 2010, 08:08 PM | # Two jews talking about what’s best for blacks. Early on Wax argues emphatically that blacks should be conscious of and concerned about their group interests. No doubt she’d say the same about jews and the exact opposite about Whites. Differences aside, these two apparatchiks operate under the same totalitarian premise that everyone absolutely must live together, under judeo-bolshevist rule, and thus we all have to care what causes other people’s problems because they are inevitably made into our problems. 13
Posted by Drifter on October 12, 2010, 11:05 PM | # Wax dances with the cultural group norms concept but the problem with each of them (and the liberal left overall) is the avoidance of a group biological basis for such norms. She is at least the more experienced and honest of the two if not also the more intelligent half. Serwer struggles with the group norms idea because he believes egoism or social ladder climbing must cause the emergence of such norms. He is projecting his own type of drive as an individual and unaware that there could be other causes. He may be a bit of a narcissist. 14
Posted by Al Ross on October 12, 2010, 11:10 PM | # Tanstaafl is correct in his assessment of Jewish overlordship. Jews are vociferous warriors in the ruinous struggle for “Human Rights” due to the fact that the Holy Talmud repeatedly reminds them that only Yahweh’s Chosen are actually human. Thus they possess a God - given right to do anything they like with Goyim and other vertebrates. 15
Posted by Frank on October 13, 2010, 01:03 AM | # Al Ross, is there an English translation of the Talmud readily available online that you can cite? I don’t mean to put you on the spot, rather I’m hoping there is one up now that hasn’t been censored. Regardless, most Jews are probably like most whites: irrational. They act in their perceived interests without realising it. Those who feel superior as the Chosen, don’t even need a solid foundation on the Talmud. 16
Posted by Frank on October 13, 2010, 01:05 AM | # I mean to say that whites would act in their interests under more normal circumstances, especially without the mass media and mass education system which both work tirelessly to prevent and redirect such emotions. 18
Posted by John on October 13, 2010, 03:21 AM | # “Furthermore, the egalitarians really need to take IQ into account when they approach the crime problem. Although low IQ is not the sole cause of crime, low mean IQ and high crime rate in a given community do correlate.” I would lay 5/1 that at any given IQ level, blacks commit more crimes than whites. 19
Posted by Leon Haller on October 13, 2010, 07:48 AM | # John is right, as Michael Levin has noted, and, quietly, me, too - I long suspected that all this IQ talk was itself a PC distraction from the real issue: why are such disproportionate numbers of blacks violent and immoral savages? Although, ironically, my personal interactions with blacks are usually positive (undoubtedly because the ones I come into contact with are generally civilized - ie, they work - and not uppity or pushy in a leftist/multiculti way, perhaps because I’m not in academia or government), my impersonal interactions (ie, ‘on the street’) are mostly negative. But low IQ is hardly the real culprit. I’ve known low IQ whites who are fine people. Intelligence is less valuable than character - even to our racial survival (well, to a point - if whites degenerate to moronism, we will not survive).
Brilliant metaphor; makes me fell like the first Huxley - why the hell didn’t I think of that? 20
Posted by Leon Haller on October 13, 2010, 08:07 AM | # I haven’t watched this yet (and may not, due to more pressing matters), but I’m not sure the Jewish leftist pictured above has a bit of black in him. A lot of Jews look like he does. Does that mean Jews have a bit of black in the collective genome? But if yes, how did it get there, given their tremendous ethnocentrism and its concomitant emphasis on endogamy? And why has that bit of black neither lowered their collective intelligence, nor improved their collective athleticism? 21
Posted by Dasein on October 13, 2010, 08:08 AM | # Controlling for IQ eliminates almost 3/4 of the black-white gap in incarceration rates. http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-explains-racial-differences-in.html It could be that IQ itself is tightly correlated with something else that is as yet unknown. But at the moment, group IQ difference looks to be the best single explanation. 22
Posted by John on October 13, 2010, 10:23 AM | # “It could be that IQ itself is tightly correlated with something else that is as yet unknown. But at the moment, group IQ difference looks to be the best single explanation. “ IQ, or whatever it’s a proxy for, doesn’t account for the entire difference. Psychopathology or relative absence of empathy is not entirely correlated with IQ, otherwise, there should be little significant difference in criminality between NE Asians and Nordics. 23
Posted by Thorn on October 13, 2010, 11:07 AM | #
Well, another factor is blacks’ lack of emotional restraint. It’s not an exaggeration to say negoes, in general, are emotionally unpredictable. One minute they’re laughing an whooping it up, the next minute they’re in a homicidal rage. That’s how unstable they can be. What we are facing is a propensity for unpredictable emotional outbursts combined with low IQ. That combo, sooner or later, translates into violent behavior i.e. TNB. Moreover, the innate trait that causes lack of emotional restraint provides further understanding as to why negroes, at all IQ levels, are more likely to become violent than Euro-whites or east-Asians. 24
Posted by Notus Wind on October 13, 2010, 11:42 AM | # I’m somewhat skeptical of the idea that Mrs. Wax is Jewish, while her appearance may be iffy her behavior in this conversation is highly uncharacteristic of that group. The odds of a Jewish person arguing for White upper middle class cultural superiority in a confrontational way and without any sense of irony has to be vanishingly small.
Yeah, I prefaced that claim in the main entry with “I believe” because I couldn’t find any conclusive evidence for it. However, I strongly suspect that such is the case for the following reasons: (1) He volunteers the fact that he comes from a biracial family during the conversation. (2) It is suggested by some of his blogging activity. (3) He struck me as looking a little Black before I knew that he came from a biracial family. 25
Posted by Notus Wind on October 13, 2010, 12:48 PM | # Just to restate my main point. One of the ways that the left has entrenched itself in power is by using the colored underclass as a voting farm; they reward its dysfunctionality and growth with monetary benefits and political power in exchange for their votes. Of course, this nifty little trick creates (in the long-term) all kinds of problems for society that will need to be addressed, which up til now the left has been content to ignore and live off the cultural capital of the past. However, if they want to stay in power and not have society give way beneath them they will have to confront these problems eventually, but (as Adam Serwer demonstrates) they are completely incapable of doing so thus ensuring their own end. 26
Posted by Thorn on October 13, 2010, 01:45 PM | # Notus, I’m not at all convinced the left will lose power due to the reasons you state. I say the left will indeed remain in power even if the current system collapses. And collapse it will if the underclass continues to grow at its current pace. In that event, the current system of government will be replaced with a totalitarian custodial state run by the cognitive elite under the direction of the very affluent. Q: What type of people makeup the cognitive elite? A: Mainly Left leaning SOBs. 27
Posted by Mario on October 13, 2010, 02:08 PM | # Yeah, higher IQ people average out to being much more liberal. Another point to ponder is this: If 9/11 gave us the Patriot Act, what would a larger attack on US Soil lead to? 28
Posted by torgrim on October 13, 2010, 02:15 PM | # “However, if they want to stay in power and not have society give way beneath them they will have to confront these problems eventually, but (as Adam Serwer demonstrates) they are completely incapable of doing so thus ensuring their own end.” Notus Wind Hence the apparent attempt by Amy Wax to enlighten Serwer, and his/her cohort. She sees the future and she is in a panic. 29
Posted by Dasein on October 13, 2010, 02:53 PM | #
To me, it’s typical of what comes out of right-wing jewish think tanks. Gertrude Himmerlfarb (jewess, wife of Irving Kristol) also focuses on marriage as a panacea for underclass/negro behaviour. Like you said, these people are the brakes on the system. They see the jewish left trying to drive the car off the cliff at full speed, and they want to slow them down. There is a 3rd way
30
Posted by PF on October 13, 2010, 03:13 PM | # Look at how many of Mrs. Wax’s conundrums would have parsimonious explanations if she could acknowledge genetic differences. Mrs. Wax is a serious person who obviously takes the problem she is talking about quite seriously. Its ironic that pursuing liberalism’s program has now accumulated so much evidence of black failure that - in order to protect the core truth of no meaningful genetic differences - we have to double back and assert that white middle class culture is a SUPERIOR culture. Yes, superior. We gain forcefulness from casting aside other evaluative frameworks. Everyone wants to be successful and have a stable family life - that is the theory. Why do they “want” that? Because they verbally assert that they would like some of its visible outcomes. However to actually want something it is not enough to want the end result, but to want the entire process that births that outcome. The outcome doesn’t exist without the process. To want the outcome without the process is not to want the outcome, effectively; even though we dont hold ourselves to such standards of consistency. I think this is the meaning of the line “Everyone gets exactly what he wants.” What he really wants, not what he says he wants. So who wants middle class life? Not blacks, they just want the SUV and extra cash. White culture is inferior if your sensory system, appetitive drives and thought-apparatus are pushing you towards a life of immediate gratification. From a long-run (neocortex) perspective it might appear to be superior, but remember the people making the decision dont have access to that knowledge, and the decision has to be arrived at with the ‘gear’ that one actually has. You don’t get to take on a nordic brain by virtue of living in the same “country” along with 100 million nordics. Black people want their lives to explode into a riot of color like confetti-fireworks until it fizzles out into a gradual ruin by their 30s. If the point is to live on a rollercoaster of excitement and despair, hurried along by drugs, raw sex, constant rhythmic music, violent confrontations with other people, and eating to get sugar-high and fat-induced-opioid-high, then of course our cultural tools are not useful to them. We can talk up or talk down various sets of cultural tools all day, the central fact is the nordic brain and african brain, and their different structures, and the different societies that flow from these things. When you focus on the laments at all the dysfunction, you’re choosing to notice only one side of the phenomenon…. but the central fact is: when they start complaining, the party is already over. “The party” is the violent explosion of black life from ages 14 to 24, which is the central locus of meaning in their culture. The African brain is set to pursue this party and Amp Up The Jams until things get Outta Control, in other words to craft the ultimate sensory explosion - and this is all it can manifest. Afterwards they complain and ask us to clean up. There is no superior/inferior without an evaluative framework. Post-deconstructionism we are advised that somehow we are not allowed to have or author our own evaluative framework as a society, even though people do this de facto every day. Once we do author this, though, we can put whatever we want into it. Meaning once you are ready to declare that you like stable households over unstable ones, you might as well say you prefer European noses to African ones. In reality the pretence to not be able to author and enforce an evaluative framework was an act of Jewish Theoretician’s aggression against whites, established on the basis that no evaluative framework could be decided upon which would be sufficiently objective or which could be verified by all perspectives. It was a powerplay based on meta-discourse: we were coerced to abandon the possibility of effective action or consensus with the philosophical equivalent of a shrugging gesture. Look at how Serwer’s main tactic is to offer up alternative perspectives on Wax’s points. Yet when pressed by Wax about the conclusions one would reach if one held these views - he was shown later to not actually believe himself in their conclusions. Meaning he is searching The Achilles heel was the belief in objective knowledge and respect for the truth. These swindlers come from ancient civilizations and that is where they learned not be naive like we are. 31
Posted by jimmy Marr on October 13, 2010, 04:29 PM | # My dear, dear Notus Wind,
If you can’t immediately recognize Amy Waxman as a Jewess, how do you expect your readers to avoid asking themselves a very serious question about your powers of observation? Was the Brown Bear a chipmunk? 32
Posted by Notus Wind on October 13, 2010, 06:24 PM | # Jimmy, Does the name alone really make it so obvious? I’ve never lived anywhere close to these people so I wouldn’t know.
In the words of Erasmus, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”
Touche. I’m a little bit more familiar with the natural world than I am the Jewish one and hope to keep it that way. 33
Posted by Svigor on October 13, 2010, 06:33 PM | # I strongly suspect Amy Wax is Jewish The name screams Jewish. 34
Posted by Thunder on October 13, 2010, 06:36 PM | # You are almost all class Notus. If you would just substitute that herbal tea for Johnnie Walker Blue and those chocolate morsels for smoked and pickled treats I would shamelessly believe whatever you say. 35
Posted by Svigor on October 13, 2010, 06:36 PM | # If so, we are treated, yet again, to the long-enshrined routine spectacle of two Jews deciding the fate of the rest of us. Which is another argument in favor of her being Jewish - goyim can’t be trusted to know the “rules.” 37
Posted by Svigor on October 13, 2010, 06:54 PM | # They’re all liberals to me. We are broadly ruled by the left, it has two pedals that serve as the gas and the brakes. Given the fact blacks have a mean IQ one standard deviation point below whites, we can infer from that as to why there are wide disparities in the areas of scholastic achievement, violent crime rates, infidelity, out of wedlock births and income. I think it’s time we admitted that “IQ” has been carrying the banner for “behavioral genetics” for too long. Blacks have many “problems” (i.e., problems for egalitarians) beyond IQ: short time horizons/present-orientation, impulsiveness, attention span, conscientiousness, aggression, low empathy, etc. 38
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 13, 2010, 07:42 PM | # Notus,
Apparently not, because I got her name wrong, but I would still nominate her for the Wax museum of Jewry.
They may be blessed with greater numbers than you realize. Try tweaking the subject matter of your lectures and see if you can’t draw some out? 39
Posted by Tough guy on October 13, 2010, 08:32 PM | # Hunter Wallace: “I work out at the gym six days a week with machines and free weights for over an hour. I run at least an hour every day. I’ve been doing this since January 22. I’m not bullshitting you either. ... By January, I will be ripped, with hardly a trace of body fat left. I already have massive arms and shoulders from strength training over the past six months. I took up boxing in September. If I wanted to hit someone now, I could knock their teeth out easily. ... Maybe I should write a post this week comparing the principles of body building to the White Nationalist movement?” 40
Posted by Robert on October 13, 2010, 08:52 PM | # So that’s Hunter Wallace, the editor of Occidental Dissent, the formerly White Nationalist website now shilling for the GOP? 41
Posted by Captainchaos on October 13, 2010, 09:05 PM | # PF should minister to Wallace and Trainspotter both on the ultimate futility of palingenetic machismo as it flows from a place of inauthenticity - it is Judaised. The only glimmer other than gold is to be an extended-phenotype of morally superior English nationalism which will secure the existence of our race unto millennia (nothing Judaised about that). 42
Posted by danielj on October 13, 2010, 09:28 PM | # I work out at the gym six days a week with machines and free weights for over an hour. Unless you are on steroids, that is unnecessary and counter-productive. 43
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 14, 2010, 09:19 AM | # PF should minister to Wallace and Trainspotter both on the ultimate futility of palingenetic machismo as it flows from a place of inauthenticity - it is Judaised. Captain, How might we then avail ourselves of an authentic machismo - one that represents an expression of our true-blooded Aryan self-hood? How many kg will I need to bench, and do I bring it down to my nipples or to the junction of my pecs with my upper abs? NN 44
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 14, 2010, 10:14 AM | # NN, Quit idolizing the Captain, and pay attention to your Jewish masters. Bench press is a heroic gesture, and therefore worthless. Devote yourself to the raising of the masses to middling, (dead lift). Or most noble of all, collapse beneath them in a full squat. All else is vanity. 45
Posted by Silver on October 14, 2010, 10:30 AM | # I haven’t watched this yet (and may not, due to more pressing matters), but I’m not sure the Jewish leftist pictured above has a bit of black in him. A lot of Jews look like he does. Does that mean Jews have a bit of black in the collective genome? But if yes, how did it get there, given their tremendous ethnocentrism and its concomitant emphasis on endogamy? And why has that bit of black neither lowered their collective intelligence, nor improved their collective athleticism? What a clown you are, Haller. “How did it get there?” 46
Posted by Leon Haller on October 14, 2010, 10:55 AM | # I don’t follow you, Silver. The issue of possible Negroid admixture in the Jewish genome is a true conundrum, as far as I know. I’ve heard this claim over the decades, but it doesn’t square with the heavy emphasis Jews historically have placed on intra-ethnic marriage (something I’ve seen firsthand, though it’s rapidly breaking down now). 47
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 14, 2010, 10:57 AM | # Supercilious vanity versus hardcore conviction - which of them is more “authentic”?: “Sargant connected Pavlov’s findings to the ways people learned and internalized belief systems. Conditioned behaviour patterns could be changed by stimulated stresses beyond a dog’s capacity for response, in essence causing a breakdown. This could also be caused by intense signals, longer than normal waiting periods, rotating positive and negative signals and changing a dog’s physical condition, as through illness. Depending on the dog’s initial personality, this could possibly cause a new belief system to be held tenaciously. Sargant also connected Pavlov’s findings to the mechanisms of brain-washing in religion and politics.” ... “Though men are not dogs, they should humbly try to remember how much they resemble dogs in their brain functions, and not boast themselves as demigods. They are gifted with religious and social apprehensions, and they are gifted with the power of reason; but all these faculties are physiologically entailed to the brain. Therefore the brain should not be abused by having forced upon it any religious or political mystique that stunts the reason, or any form of crude rationalism that stunts the religious sense.” 48
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 14, 2010, 02:26 PM | #
Due to the frequency of human-bear encounters, the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife recommends that outdoorsmen wear little noisy bells on clothing so as to give advance warning to any bears that might be in the area. They also advise carrying “Pepper Spray” in case of an encounter with a bear. Outdoorsmen should also be on the watch for signs of fresh bear activity, and be able to tell the difference between brown bear feces and grizzly bear feces. Brown bear feces is smaller and contains lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear shit has bells in it and smells like pepper. 49
Posted by andy on October 14, 2010, 09:48 PM | # A Grizzly bear is a Brown bear. Subspecies, imo. 50
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 15, 2010, 07:50 AM | # “Grizzly bear shit has (dinner) bells in it and smells like pepper.” 51
Posted by Silver on October 15, 2010, 08:47 AM | # I’ve heard this claim over the decades, but it doesn’t square with the heavy emphasis Jews historically have placed on intra-ethnic marriage (something I’ve seen firsthand, though it’s rapidly breaking down now). They don’t have to have bred with blacks themselves. Look at where they lived. Could have been any of the other ethnic groups living in those regions that initiated the process. Make sense now? (Unless you want to pretend that Jewish strictures on mixing actually have been policed to the letter, which is something no one else actually believes. Check out the anthrocivitas forum some day. Plenty of threads there depicting Jews from various parts of the world that display unmistakable signs of having mixed with the local population.) Maybe Instauration never touched on this but it’s all really elementary, anyway, isn’t it? If you can’t even provide a basic account of the essentials, Haller, I’m going to have to think twice about picking up a copy of your forthcoming book. Consider whether you’d profit from working this angle into it: Jesus’ admonition to love your enemy finds no finer political expression than racialism. The various races and tribes (sub-races) of men are “natural enemies,” not simply in the inclination of their members to war on each other, but in the sense that their intermingling causes their coalescence into new wholes that initially dilute and risk eventually bringing about the extinction of their respective racial identities (and the various life goods that flow therefrom). Loving one’s enemy thus requires one to love and value the existence of other tribes, or other ‘race kinds’, provided the existential threat they pose is mitigated by their requiting the same love and value. 52
Posted by Notus Wind on October 15, 2010, 12:19 PM | # Thunder,
Thank you for the kind words. Chocolate morsels are a rarity for me as I hardly ever touch sweets. I’m more of a coffee, cheese, butter, eggs, and nuts kind of guy. All my best work is done on a high-fat diet, long-term consequences be damned. 53
Posted by Notus Wind on October 15, 2010, 12:35 PM | # Thorn,
I’m familiar with this line of reasoning but don’t accept it because if our society were to give way then it would enter a state of relative chaos that could not be overcome by simply imposing more of the same with ever more tyrannical force. The same principle that brings us to chaos cannot be used to get us out of chaos. If we were to successfully transition out of collapse into a totalitarian custodial state then it would have to be of a fundamentally different character than what we are living under today. Modern society is composed of a complex interdependent network of activity that requires lots of natural resources and some measure of cooperation from its participants, we are not orcs bound together by the will of a leftist Sauron (which can presumably endure forever). 54
Posted by Notus Wind on October 15, 2010, 12:59 PM | # PF, Speaking from my own experience, the culture of critique is not an intellectual affair nor a search for truth of any kind; it is a relentless nihilistic critique that calls into question traditional values, ideas, and norms with irony, sarcasm, and allegations of hypocrisy. The bread and butter of Stewart and Colbert’s nightly shtick. It follows the pattern of Nietzsche by raising suspicions and acting as if those suspicions were an argument (or refutation) of some kind, which is an increasingly common tendency amongst college kids these days. The alternative is not presented intellectually, as a system of truth claims that can be independently evaluated, but aesthetically (through propaganda) and in moral terms. The alternative is meant to be culturally absorbed with taboos put in place in order to prevent any questioning of its underlying assumptions, which are almost never explicitly formulated. The process couldn’t be more dishonest in its critique of the main and in its attempt to propagate an alternative. 55
Posted by PF on October 15, 2010, 02:05 PM | # Notus I like your characterization of the culture of critique. Allow me to be the devil’s advocate, as I (obviously) very much like certain elements of the culture of critique and have imbibed hugely of it.
I don’t think its fair to say that either strand of the culture of critique - goyish (Nietzschean) or Jewish (Derrida, etc.) - is not an intellectual affair. Also that irony, sarcasm or allegations of hypocrisy constitute its sole methods or weapons. These things really represent the birth of perspectivism into our culture. Perspectivism is: the philosophical view developed by Friedrich Nietzsche that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively “true”, but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid. Its motivations are often against the structures under investigation. In that sense its nihilistic. I nevertheless do not see how that can get us away from the above italicized realization.
Instead of raising suspicions, I would say ‘proposing alternative perspectives to view from’. Even sarcasm and irony have the effect of showing that something can be seen in another light. This should have the result that at least the absolute nature of the prior judgment receives a caveat - not always valid from all perspectives. This is important because the way a human’s belief structure is arranged, it is very important what is believed with 100% and what with 95% certainty. The openness to the realization of the impermanence of a ‘truth’ has profound effects for later reorganizations and flexibility of the structure.
Fair enough, but a lot of the issues under discussion are of such a fine nature that they exceed the user’s ability - not to perceive - but to formally explain and explore the intellectual aspects of. So there is literally no way for someone to have an intellectually formal discussion about how a certain style of Indie-rock self-presentation correlates to snobbishness, but this language of perspective sharing allows the perspective to be alluded to from which it appears in this way, perhaps through sarcasm. In this way it facilitates discussion of things that are perceived, yet for which there are no adequate intellectual frameworks. You know with me already that this would be important, since I don’t think our intellectual frameworks are adequate for a discussion about life - and I think precisely this formalism and linearity of approach leads us forever into false interface with the world, because of certain nonlinearities in our perceptual system which I described in the post called Acquired Self as Digital Signal Processing Algorithm. You are certainly right however in the fact that the ability to express oneself by using perspectivist tricks like irony does allow for the individual to hide beneath it. For example, uh recently wrote in quotes something like “I hate these fucking goyim next door”. Is that his real opinion? Its in quotes, suggesting that he both wants to affirm and in some sense deny that he feels this way. However this is not unique to perspectivism, because of the nonlinearities described above, even the formalist is already in hiding, in some (significant!) sense.
OK, but that is Jewish intellectual conquest, not something inherent to the nature of critique. They put a brake on the critique because it would immediately invalidate itself by more critique. In a society which is EGI-united, theoretically at least in my mental model, we would resolve the chaos of perspectives in a way which would further group survival.
OK. Not in disagreement. I think a lot of the Jews who worked on the culture of critique were massively self-deceived - meaning that, in some weird way, they were actually not being that dishonest. Or they were dishonest first with themselves and then with us. This comes from working with Jewish brains and watching biographies of them on TV - the moral fervor predominates over self-awareness, in some at least. They really believe what they are saying, many of them. I also think, confining ourselves to the world of us goys - that people on both sides of the Nietzschean divide are also largely self-deceived about the nature of their truth. I mean the established traditional truth - such as Gorboduc or Grimoire carries a torch for - and the Nietzschean truth - both fail Guessedworker’s criterion for the real. I do however believe that critique carries the force of life and has the potential to initiate movement by the destruction of intellectual structure. In a society which is EGI-shattered and under the judaic fist, we know this as a purely destructive force. This is because after each perspectival ‘flowering’ and exchange, when the time comes to resolve what we half believe, quarter believe, what perspectives we hauntingly inhabit and those we want to actually own - it is resolved not in our favor. It is resolved in such a way that the far left genocidalist perspective is somehow allowed increasing relevance with each round. Anyway, obviously I love the liberating potential of critique so I was bound to defend what I love. 56
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 15, 2010, 03:14 PM | # Notus, It follows the pattern of Nietzsche by raising suspicions and acting as if those suspicions were an argument (or refutation) of some kind To my recollection, Nietzsche performs as you describe with his unfortunate epistemological musings (mainly in BGE). My impression of him otherwise, particularly with regard to his political pronouncements, is of a firm and articulate stance that does not rely upon or arouse mere suspicions. Perhaps you would illustrate your point with reference to his performance in other than the epistemological arena? 57
Posted by 000 on October 15, 2010, 03:31 PM | # A friendly southern European writes:
58
Posted by Notus Wind on October 15, 2010, 03:59 PM | # NN, You’re correct, for the purposes of making a rough analogy I’m only bringing into this discussion a subset of Nietzsche’s work and am aware of the fact that it is precisely that part of his writing that you find most troublesome. However, it is a fair move because I’m referring to that part of Nietzsche that resonates with the left and the spirit behind their culture of critique.
I trust you on this. 59
Posted by uh on October 15, 2010, 06:08 PM | # PF, That was an embarrassingly fruitful comment. I mean it; have some modesty for Christ’s sake! Your bough hangeth so slow it striketh me on the head. Alarms went off in that head too when I read that critique (and you rescue Nietzsche from the company of the rest at least) is “not an intellectual affair”, a hogging of status only a Notus Wind could make. For all the subtle irony in Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory for example it is clearly not a book in which irony, etc. are used in the pursuance of its goals—whatever those are for I barely understood it. Lyotard’s books are scarcely ironic or anything frivolous or mean, yet where would we be without his rhetoric; every discussion on this website would look different if his ideas had not been absorbed by mainstream discourse. I would say ‘proposing alternative perspectives to view from’. Minor point of style, bear in mind that “perspective” means “view from / through”. Even sarcasm and irony have the effect of showing that something can be seen in another light. I love how postmodernism seems to wonder in from some egghead wilderness of the mind and affects to explain the obvious more fully than the obvious can speak for itself. ... it is very important what is believed with 100% and what with 95% certainty. The openness to the realization of the impermanence of a ‘truth’ has profound effects for later reorganizations and flexibility of the structure. And this, in conversation, would have the very amusing effect of sending the uninitiated straight into the wilderness. I’ve begun writing your words down on scraps of paper to carry in my pocket to consult on choice occasions, or simply to memorize. “So lemme guess, ya don’t believe the holocaust happind?”—And out, the above. since I don’t think our intellectual frameworks are adequate for a discussion about life - and I think precisely this formalism and linearity of approach leads us forever into false interface with the world, And yet Nietzsche says this a hundred times from at least Menschliches onward. This is why I can’t help seeing as arbitrary attempts here to discard Nietzsche or exaggerate his flaws. I think a lot of the Jews who worked on the culture of critique were massively self-deceived For me this is the most critical feature of Jewry, and one least explored. I don’t believe MacDonald has ever dipped his toe into it. There isn’t too much one can say about it, but it’s so relevant in accurately describing the phenomenon “Jews” that someone ought really to try. The only time you see Jews described as self-deceived is by Jews, and always in that tone of “oh those quirky Jews, let me tell you why we’re a weird bunch”—then saying more or less what we would about them, but affirmatively. the moral fervor predominates over self-awareness, in some at least. They really believe what they are saying, many of them. Nah, they’re sitting in rooms plotting our doom, fully conscious of what they’re doing! Everyone knows that. Can’t be that they’re not as super-intelligent as we convince ourselves. That first sentence by the way is very handy—“moral fervor predominates over self-awareness”. both fail Guessedworker’s criterion for the real. Maybe, but I am skeptical. If I only were sharp enough to “prove” it. It is resolved in such a way that the far left genocidalist perspective is somehow allowed increasing relevance with each round. I think it only feels more relevant, as an affirmation of the genocidalist perspective, to those uncomfortable with “critique”. To us it’s nothing, it’s the air we breathe; which makes us suspect if we frame it for them wrongly. I’ve probably read more yiddim than goyim, yet I would never say The Authoritarian Personality is the sort of book from which one should proceed in the reordering of society. Jews have infinite value as debunkers of cherished nonsense. And as it is with people who cherish nonsense we have to deal in standing against Jews, we’re caught having to justify ourselves. Unfortunately that spirit of debunking carries over into everything—whatever the Jew does not like is “debunked”, dethroned, stood on its head, shattered. It’s very easy to enjoy and profit from reading Marx or André Green, yet know that someone like SJ Gould was nothing but a propagandist. For our fellows it sometimes not so easy to separate the thresher from all that is threshed. Anyhoo, fine comment there, brah. 60
Posted by GoyAmongYou on October 15, 2010, 06:08 PM | #
Sure ... 61
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 15, 2010, 06:11 PM | # PF, There is no superior/inferior without an evaluative framework. Post-deconstructionism we are advised that somehow we are not allowed to have or author our own evaluative framework as a society, even though people do this de facto every day. Once we do author this, though, we can put whatever we want into it. Meaning once you are ready to declare that you like stable households over unstable ones, you might as well say you prefer European noses to African ones. In reality the pretence to not be able to author and enforce an evaluative framework was an act of Jewish Theoretician’s aggression against whites, established on the basis that no evaluative framework could be decided upon which would be sufficiently objective or which could be verified by all perspectives. It was a powerplay based on meta-discourse: we were coerced to abandon the possibility of effective action or consensus with the philosophical equivalent of a shrugging gesture. Please suggest the evaluative framework that could be decided upon which would be sufficiently objective or which could be verified by all perspectives. 62
Posted by PF on October 15, 2010, 07:11 PM | # NeoNietzsche, quote]Please suggest the evaluative framework that could be decided upon which would be sufficiently objective or which could be verified by all perspectives. You do go right to the heart of things sometimes, dont you? This is to my mind the central conundrum of thinking. Our proof consists in seeking confirmation from allied perspectives. You have a human sensory system - I hold up my hand and say: “Is this a hand?” And you answer “Yes”. Voila, absolute truth. There is always a perspective from which the truth will not hold, however. We are fooled into believing the opposite by something I will describe now. Our agreement about ‘facts’ is based on the fact that we all share a sensory system that represents things in certain ways. There is no possibility of an alternative view of the meaning or content of a physical fact, because there do not exist among us vocally-endowed alternative sensory systems which can seriously represent the viewpoint: “That is not a hand to me.” We only have the human sensory system, and so we believe that our shared blindspots stemming from this fact constitute some kind of absolute knowledge currency: “This is, was, and forever shall be, a hand!”. But if you study sensory systems, especially at two important levels (1) genetics and (2) neurobiology, you see the different parameter ranges through which sensory systems could be made to evolve. Understanding the arbitrary nature of evolutionary constraint on the arising of these systems births the understanding that a different trajectory would produce a different sensory system. For example, the range of colors we can perceive is an artifact of our evolutionary trajectory. The speed of our visual processing in our nervous system is another. We actually have very complex mental circuits that decode image movement and bind perceived features into a coherent whole - so something so simple as assembling a “cube” in your mind, is actually hugely complex. It took billions of years of evolution before the existence of a ‘physical fact’ like a “cube” could be distilled into a mental perception. Yet people seem to think that we are ‘seeing reality’ relatively bare-assed, as it were. By no means. When you consider the huge variety of possible sensory and nervous systems that *could* exist, its clear that ours is just one. My point is that the eye, for example, but really any sensory organ - isn’t a portal through which ‘Truth’ enters unaided and unprocessed. It is more like an assembly point for something that is already unreal. Why is this important to me? Does it mean that I seriously think you, or cubes, or hands, do not exist? Not really, but it means that they don’t exist as we conceive them to. That our perception of them is determined through an arbitrary evolutionary process whose only goal was “keep going”. Once we grant that we are working within this relative framework, the truths can have something like an absolute* validity (*within a relative framework - meaning their relations are in some sense fixed or quasi-absolute). Truth-domains are qualified by the putative perspective battery to which they would be subjected. Widen the putative perspective battery -i.e. demand confirmation from less allied and more divergent perspectives - and you strengthen the truth criterion, and raise the bar. There is always a failure point. Now all that is just for what we take to be concrete physical facts - do you have a ‘hand’, is that a ‘cube’, etc. When we consider complex phenomenon, and phenomenon over time, and phenomenon which induce natural error in our sensory system, and especially phenomenon which we are actually evolved to interface with emotionally (but in this case are doing mentally) - now we are entering a realm where categorization and discretization (the splitting/lumping problem) are so damned difficult that even we perceive the impossibility of the task of naming and sorting. You know that a few drops of a drug in a person’s mouth can so alter the functioning of a human nervous system, that they will lose even the basic sense of surety that we have based on our lack of access to non-human sensory perspectives. They will start to hallucinate - now when your visual cortex is exploding with entheogens (shrooms) - the question of what is and is not a ‘hand’ takes on a whole new meaning. But our perception of higher-order phenomena and phenomena-in-time are always hallucinatory to some extent. Take CaptainChaos - he thinks he knows something about English and Germans, and the meaning of their history. Do you see how much more ‘English’, ‘Germans’, ‘What should have happened’ - have the propensity to take on hallucinatory properties - than ‘hand’ and ‘cube’ do? One probably does not know 100 English people, yet one will unabashedly use the word ‘The English’ in authoring some statement. From what authority? Newspaper articles? Look at how our pictures of all these things differ, yet contain elements that are both similar and different. Anyway, thats the beginning of an article I’ve been trying to write for 4 months now, so thank you NeoNietzsche. 63
Posted by PF on October 15, 2010, 07:22 PM | # uh wrote:
Thanks… I think? I’m glad you’re writing more than one-liners these days. Whenever you’ve swooped down you show uncanny understanding and über-refinement of sensibility - so I was always hoping we would hear more from you. 64
Posted by Al Ross on October 15, 2010, 07:46 PM | # Silver seems to believe that the separated segment of the Jew - god Yahweh, viz., old Jesus, meant Jews to love their Goyim enemies. This is almost as preposterous as attributing to that Semitic Shaman a wish to see Heaven teeming with Niggers, Pakis and Chinamen. When Jesus said “Love thy neighbour” or “Love thine Enemies” he articulated those precepts in the Jewish sense of fellow feeling towards his own ingroup just as Talmudic instruction dictates. 65
Posted by uh on October 15, 2010, 09:19 PM | # PF, Thanks a lot. My reserve stems from bad eyes, and awareness that I’ve not learned to order and express my thoughts as clearly as you do, for example. So, propaganda-value aside, I enjoy seeing how it’s done. Your frustration with “higher-order signaling” is not lost on me (“skweeee”). Looking forward to the article, if that won’t be all. 66
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 15, 2010, 09:24 PM | # PF, Thank you for your preliminary thoughts. I hope we would agree that the essential challenge is not, however, refining our grasp of the notion of objectivity - rather, that our terrible task is deriving the subjective from the objective - that of deriving generally-agreed-upon societal values from mere facts about society or nature in general. The Left has been able to exploit this obstacle to ordered existence because of a foundational flaw in the present regime. The pretense of which I have written in discussing LAW, ETHICS, MORALITY: PRETENSE AND ILLUSION, is the product of the doomed attempt to create, or to pretend the existence of, a cosmopolitan society (an oxymoronic phrase, in fact) - on this continent, in particular, and in the West, in general - in alignment with the notion of having attempted or established a tribeless “propositional nation” (another oxymoron) that ought to be emulated by, or imposed upon, the rest of the world. We find to our misfortune that bourgeois society, to the extent that it has an ideological rationale and a pattern of behavior, is already intrinsically cosmopolitan and propositional - all are welcome to enter and to do business in the great shopping mall that is the occupying regime. Everything is for sale - land, labor and capital are all migrant. But the great shopping mall is thus intrinsically subject to domestic and global class warfare, and cannot long endure in necessary reliance upon a consistent and complete formulation of commercial and property law that does not (and, I submit, cannot) exist. The immediate implication of this impasse is violent conflict and the dissolution of the ersatz “society” - not merely out of distaste for it as such, as present company would “evaluate” it - but simply out of the logic of political economy as confirmed by the repetitive history thereof. Hence the challenge to provision of a framework for societal values in which general acquiescence can be expected amongst people of increasingly diverse and alienated backgrounds. I submit that strictly objective criteria do not exist therefor, hence the success of the subversive Leftist agenda. The traditional answer to this difficulty has been Mastery of the Lie through priestcraft, and collaterally the forceful stratification of society by armed men who are, or are the descendants of, those of us who are inclined to a violent dominance hierarchy and so are naturally given to the formation of an army pursuing organized conquest, systematic exploitation, and societal stratification (i.e., the enforced domestication/civilization to which the cosmetics of the priesthood are applied). As it happens, the Master of the Lie presently governs Greater Judea with an elaborate web of material misrepresentations, past which we of present company are able to see, but we are yet sadly at a loss for a forward-looking and workable alternative that is, in sufficient measure, the implication of the requisite “objective” observations about the nature of human society. 67
Posted by Notus Wind on October 16, 2010, 12:13 AM | #
Before I get around to writing a more substantial response I’d just like to second these sentiments. 68
Posted by Captainchaos on October 16, 2010, 04:07 AM | #
This verbosity of yours, lost in its labyrinth, your doing it again PF. You really should stop! You cannot with intellectual consistency play the essentialist “ontology” card as suits you then attempt to fog up the issue in a miasma of verbiage when it does not. That will eventually produce a loss of credibility on your part. Of course I ascribe essential differences to (the) English and (filthy) Krauts as I believe the cultural differences consistently manifested between the two are an expression of their respective Beings. That is to say, those differences are racial. You lived amongst the Kraut-collective yourself, learned their filthy pig latin of a language, and came away feeling stifled, nay claustrophobic, by it all. You have said as much. 69
Posted by Notus Wind on October 16, 2010, 11:08 AM | # This is only a partial response, as what I have to say concerning the challenge of perspectivism is still forthcoming.
Well, that is the only culture of critique that I have any experience with, either directly or abstractly, which makes it the only object in my crosshairs. Whatever idealized “goyish” culture of critique that you might internally subscribe to is another matter.
Point taken. I exaggerate slightly.
In my estimation they have debunked nothing, in that sense their culture of critique is intellectually vacuous. What they have done is cleverly direct an abundance of scorn, sarcasm, and suspicion against our society. It only seems convincing because they have captured the major instruments of propaganda and with them have been able to marginalize the competition and shape mainstream thinking. But penetrate their manufactured fog of suspicion and you’ll be amazed at how little substance there is to it all. 70
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 16, 2010, 11:46 AM | # These things really represent the birth of perspectivism into our culture. Perspectivism is: the philosophical view developed by Friedrich Nietzsche that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively “true”, but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid. Let me mention that the mature Nietzsche of Ecce Homo left this mischief behind (i.e., his failure to distinguish between the psychology of knowledge and the epistemology of knowledge) when he wrote prescriptively therein of “conceiv(ing) reality as it is”. He was in transition to this “mature” position, in writing, in GM, of the desirability of exploring as many different perspectives and affects as possible, thus “the more complete will…our ‘objectivity’ be”. 71
Posted by PF on October 16, 2010, 04:24 PM | # uh
The culture of critique always existed in the upper echelons of white culture - because The difference between natural culture of critique and what we have now, is that now You either have to clarify your thinking to reveal the contradictions in it or own up to the anti-white 72
Posted by NeoNietzsche on October 16, 2010, 05:06 PM | # You [uh] either have to clarify your thinking to reveal the contradictions in it or own up to the anti-white Since Brother uh shares with the rest of humanity a bit of joy in the comeuppance of “conceited morons”. 73
Posted by Al Ross on October 16, 2010, 07:00 PM | # These Semitic masterpieces of Yahweh of whom the Frankfurt School and its votaries are comprised seldom trouble to debunk or deconstruct the cherished nonsense of anything relating to Zionism, Judaism or Marxism. Now, why might that be the case? 74
Posted by Notus Wind on October 17, 2010, 12:44 AM | # PF, My position is that we can discern objective truth within the bounds imposed by our natural limitations, which includes those of our sense experience in addition to the limitations of whatever cultural framework we happen to inherit. Granted, we do not experience reality bare-assed; however, I believe that there is an abundance of evidence for this position by virtue of the fact that there are many truths of an essentially analytic, scientific, metaphysical, and even ethical nature that seem to transcend the limitations of culture and sense experience. In some respects, this is nothing other than the conviction held by Enlightenment thinkers that science worked and that it provided epistemological tools that allowed us to overcome some of these limitations within certain contexts.
What is his criterion?
A very fine observation on your part. 75
Posted by 000 on October 17, 2010, 12:59 AM | # Our southern European friend continues:
76
Posted by Frank on October 17, 2010, 09:01 AM | # Captainchaos, English is based on German, and Latin, Celtic, and German are all Indo-European. Germans are simply not all that distinct from English. The Celts have this suspicious curly hair (my hair’s wavy…), and Germans have slightly darker skin. This is just how Nordics are - we’ve taken on some outside genes. To the extent southern Germans are looked down upon by an Englishman, every other ethnic group save for the Scandinavians are looked down on even further - the southern French have taken on some Moorish blood. Germany is a part of northwest Europe - the relevant Genetic barrier is around the Germans rather than excluding them. Germans and English are practically the same ethnic group. This is absurd how you see some vast difference. If Germans were betrayed during a war, it was a betrayal by their own kind. There’s not a vast genetic difference. 77
Posted by Frank on October 17, 2010, 09:12 AM | # It’s funny the English keep the German white dragon and reject the British red dragon, and those who are part Celtic insist they’re Germans. Really, if the English look down on Germans, it’s the southern Germans they look down on. The northern Germans they see as themselves, as the highest ethnicity. How a Celt-mixed “Anglo-Saxon” could see Anglos and Saxons as inferior is a great mystery. 78
Posted by PF on October 17, 2010, 10:55 AM | # Frank wrote:
Epiphany! You’re right, this is the mark of the beast. 79
Posted by Frank on October 17, 2010, 10:56 AM | # Ask a Southern WASP whom they hate the most, and it’ll be Northern WASPs. Ask a Celt, and it’ll be English. Ask a German and it’ll be English. Ask a Korean or Chinese, and it’ll be Japanese. Norwegians often complain of Swedes. A better question might be: what distinguishable ethnicity is closest to your own? Past wars are over. Every people have the ability to do great evil. In this day we’re being invaded by aliens. Our lands, the lands many English thought they were fighting to defend from the Germans (even if false such was the perceived rational for fighting), are being taken. This is Nordics v. aliens. English & Jewish & Russian v. German is over. Regardless, it’s natural for great powers to conflict. In the past most of the world’s power was in northwest Europeans’ hands. Today this is increasingly not the case due to immigration into the West and the rise of Asia. 80
Posted by Frank on October 17, 2010, 10:58 AM | # Lol. Dark skin and Asiatic features are marks found elsewhere. The beast is in us all, except perhaps some 1% of the holy Germans. 81
Posted by uh on October 17, 2010, 11:33 AM | # This is Nordics v. aliens. Isn’t that a video game? The beast is in us all, except perhaps some 1% of the holy Germans. Yea, it’s really bursting out of you, Alien-stylee, with that curly hair. 82
Posted by Sal on October 17, 2010, 11:43 PM | # Our southern European friend continues: I would like to see Northern Europeans go the way of the dodo for 2 reasons. A. They are a capable people and used to have power that could harm us. Just a hundred years ago a North European confederation could have taken over the world, but obviously you all were very short sighted, and controlled by Jews, anyways. B. Of all the people on the planet, no people are more anti-Southern European and create more anti-Southern European propaganda. I simply do not see us capable of merging with you. And yes, I delight in how Jews are biologically related to us, and how Jews are now in complete control of the United States, Great Britain, and the puppet government in ‘Germany’. Heil Heidi Klum! 83
Posted by Captainchaos on October 18, 2010, 02:29 AM | # Frank,
The English are in my opinion more individualistic, more materialistic, less idealistic and more morally vain than Germans. Something which is consistently reflected in the development arc of their respective cultures. I believe this is sociobiologically based, although only a matter of degree. You decide.
My German forebears were Protestants from northwest Germany. Btw, according to Richard Lynn Austria and Germany both have slightly higher average national IQs than the UK. 84
Posted by Al Ross on October 18, 2010, 02:50 AM | # Captainchaos, you are correct but you do the UK too much credit. The (White) German average is 107, which is not far from being half an SD higher than the UK average. 85
Posted by Al Ross on October 18, 2010, 02:57 AM | # Even that erstwhile establishment newspaper, The Times lapses into racial veracity from time to time : 86
Posted by Leon Haller on October 18, 2010, 06:40 AM | # I’ve heard this claim over the decades, but it doesn’t square with the heavy emphasis Jews historically have placed on intra-ethnic marriage (something I’ve seen firsthand, though it’s rapidly breaking down now). (Haller) They don’t have to have bred with blacks themselves. Look at where they lived. Could have been any of the other ethnic groups living in those regions that initiated the process. Make sense now? (Unless you want to pretend that Jewish strictures on mixing actually have been policed to the letter, which is something no one else actually believes. Check out the anthrocivitas forum some day. Plenty of threads there depicting Jews from various parts of the world that display unmistakable signs of having mixed with the local population.) Maybe Instauration never touched on this but it’s all really elementary, anyway, isn’t it? If you can’t even provide a basic account of the essentials, Haller, I’m going to have to think twice about picking up a copy of your forthcoming book. Consider whether you’d profit from working this angle into it: Jesus’ admonition to love your enemy finds no finer political expression than racialism. The various races and tribes (sub-races) of men are “natural enemies,” not simply in the inclination of their members to war on each other, but in the sense that their intermingling causes their coalescence into new wholes that initially dilute and risk eventually bringing about the extinction of their respective racial identities (and the various life goods that flow therefrom). Loving one’s enemy thus requires one to love and value the existence of other tribes, or other ‘race kinds’, provided the existential threat they pose is mitigated by their requiting the same love and value. (Silver) Of course, this is obvious, as well as known by me. Without ever having visited (or heard of) anthrocivitas, I’ve always thought Jews have done mixing in centuries past, as I/we have all seen representatives ranging from natural blondes, to more stereotypically swarthy ones. But Kevin MacDonald has stressed their endogamy, and I seem to recall reading in some very mainstream venue that population studies of the Jews showed great genetic continuity over time, and little intermixing. Moreover, most of the Jews I have known have all claimed to be “100% Jewish” going back as far as they were aware, which in at least a few cases was remarkably far. Finally, if Jews did extensive interbreeding in the remote past (as they are very much doing in the present), why has there been perpetuated a “Jewish look”? I can often identify a Jew simply by facial observation. No, I continue to think this an issue worthy of investigation. And if such investigation has been done, I’d like to learn about it. On a related note, I was never very familiar with Instauration (I subscribed for a year, late in its history, found it boring, and did not renew), nor do I spend much time trolling racialist sites, or studying the science of racial differences. As a matter of fact, I do/will need to do more studying in this field before I publish anything of a foundational nature (under a different name I have published already on racial politics and legislation). However, my perspective is one in which the actual biology of racial differentiation is not all that important. As I’ve stated at MR previously, I am less a ‘pure racist’ than what might be called a ‘biological Occidentalist’. I was led to racialism because of my primary concern with preserving Western Civilization, which was obviously created by whites, and which my own observations of non-whites as well as the behavior and racial mores of whites living in racially integrated environments suggest to me will not be perpetuated in the absence of whites. Basically, the burden of proof is on those who allege that (unwanted) race-replacement will not result in “civilization-replacement” as well. I can see no reason why it wouldn’t, and certainly common sense suggests that a white national culture (eg France) will not have its essence perpetuated by those of different races (I say ‘essence’ as cultures are always changing, but it is within limited parameters: the culture embodied by Celine or Camus was not the same as that of Balzac or Lamartine, which in turn was different from Corneille and Racine, but it is all recognizably French). The biology of race is, for me, important, but hardly the central issue. Is Obama black or white? What if it turned out that his DNA was more European than African? Would that really matter? The bottom line is that Obama not only looks black (and is therefore regarded as such), but despite a ‘white’ upbringing, he feels no affinity for whites, or for the preservation of our cultural (and legal/institutional) heritage. While I obviously recognize that race is a valid bio-taxonomical category (as Rushton has put it), my own work centers on race as a political category and cultural artifact, as well as on the renovation of Western/Christian ethics that I argue will be necessary to justify the physical measures that will have to be implemented if the white race is to endure. I have neither the ability nor inclination to try to advance the science of racial differences, nor is that science directly relevant to what I see are the central racial dilemmas. The struggle to save the West, which must include white racial preservation, really has very little to do with differential IQ scores, or whether Italians are ‘white’ or mestizo. As to your suggestion re Christ, His refrain about ‘loving one’s enemy’ was indeed an implicit condemnation of irrational racial or tribal hatred, a plea to recognize common humanity, and bring to a conclusion ancient hatreds and blood-feuds (eg, just because the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor 70 years ago doesn’t give me the moral sanction to go beat up a Japanese tourist). Of course, it had nothing to do with totalitarian states ignoring their own citizens’ needs and wishes by resettling undesirable and unwanted immigrant aliens into settled, historic nations and polities. 87
Posted by Leon Haller on October 18, 2010, 06:46 AM | # Rereading what I just posted, I notice several grammatical errors. Apologies. It’s late, and I’m winding down from a long weekend. 88
Posted by Frank on October 21, 2010, 08:32 AM | # CC, I’ve got some French blood in me, though I doubt it’s southern and either way it’s very little. Though I’d love to return to 1790 where 80% of America is English, today our ethnic group is northwest European I believe (which very much includes German as well as French if they’re not too mixed). I don’t think there’s a significant distinguishable English ethnicity remaining in the US today - we’ve all melted into the English. In 1790, America was more English than England is today, or soon will be (official demographics are intentionally underestimated). IQ can vary somewhat according to environment. It’s an approximation. The English would have been hit hard by brain drain too due to colonies. Whites are most impressive for their potential IQ, not overall IQ. I think this is because we’ve been barbaric for so long after the previous civilisations collapsed. Regardless IQ isn’t ethnicity. If you want to breed a “Strider” from some “Hobbits”, a little East Asian and European for mind and beauty and a hint of black for, ah, *profane joke*... Breeding the superman has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. A manic desire for the best does not a nationalist make. Nationalism is a love for one’s own as they are. Personally, I especially love the Celtic even though I’d said I found the curly hair suspicious. Northwest Europeans are among the most distinct ethnic group(s) on Earth. Excluding the German or some other component for an American ethnicity would surely be folly. And the English and Germans today ought to see themselves as kindred, but separate, nations. The Celts are even less individualistic than the English. If the English aren’t ethnocentric, it’s the German in them to point at. Personally, I think the difference in character is primarily due to environment. Posters at this site in general seem to underestimate the impact of metaphysical and other environmental forces on a people. Genetics alone is not enough, and a people who only focus on genetics is destined to lose their genetic heritage. That’s not to say the genetic isn’t important but rather that it alone is incomplete. I was clearly joking when I said 1% of the Germans is holy, though at the same time it’d be wonderful for me to find a distinct and pure remnant from ancient civilisations past. 89
Posted by Frank on October 21, 2010, 08:35 AM | # Regarding southern Europeans: atm environmental forces make them see northern Europeans correctly as kindred races. It’s absurd that southern Europeans would have an animus against northern Europeans, but at the same time they should respect a desire to remain separate. I find southern Europeans to be very mixed relative to northern, but I don’t want them removed… Ethnicity loses its value when everyone is the same. Too much diversity causes economic inefficiency, but nation-states are large enough to provide both value / identity and efficiency / economy of scale. 90
Posted by Wandrin on October 25, 2010, 03:18 AM | #
Nature creates nurture. Take an environment where 50 white people live on each side of a river. One of those two groups of 50 contains 5 who are stupidly violent. The other 45 on that side of the river will develop a culture with a higher propensity for violence because if you live in a group that contains some stupidly violent people everyone has to be more inclined to defend themselves. Blacks are the same except it’s more like 20% instead of 5%. Black gang culture isn’t psychopathic because all the members are psychopathic. Black gang culture is psychopathic *in itself* because of the critical mass of stupidly violent people in the areas where it developed. There are lots of people within that culture who act stupidly violent and psychopathic who aren’t that way naturally. It’s possible to get individuals who are intelligent and entirely reasonable who act stupidly violent and psychopathic because the proportion of stupidly violent people creates an environment where not being stupidly violent makes you a target.
(I’m not saying any of this is conscious but the internal logic comes out through layers of What do jews want? At heart what they want is to create the only kind of situation where aristocracy is inherently stable i.e one where the top layer is very intelligent and the bottom layer is entirely made up of stupid people. They want their layer to be IQ 140+ and the peasantry to be all <90. It’s a kind of biological warfare they’ve been waging against their competitor groups since Ancient Greek times and if they manage to succeed against white people the next target will be orientals. (A more charitable version of the motivation is their raging paranoia over their security but it comes to the same thing.) How have they been trying to achieve this? They’ve been trying to breed us with stupider people. What is their main problem? White flight. Black folks stampede the white folks. It is in their interests to calm the black cattle down enough to stop them stampeding the white cattle. Most of them won’t accept that line because it requires allowing a chink in the wall of attack that makes up cultural marxism. Personally i think they’re about to ditch black people almost completely and focus on hispanic and asian. Next entry: A Slender Reid Previous entry: The last of the bandwagons plays on |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Notus Wind on October 12, 2010, 01:47 PM | #
This whole conversation is Steve Sailer bait. I’ll be watching to see if he has anything to say about either Sewer or Wax or (even better) this clip from Bloggingheads.