|
|
|
Why we will win … against the pathological left, anyway. I have spent a few days discussing golf and football with a dozen or so folk at the Telegraph online. They were hardly committed sports fans, unless you count screaming “racist” at every slightly “incorrect” white man a sport. Perhaps they do. They are certainly not very sporting themselves. They never answer questions. With the more capable anti-racists who gather at British Democracy Forum to plague BNP members I always felt that the wriggling was at least partly strategic. But now I think the lot of them are probably constitutionally incapable of answering anything. The answers just aren’t there. The same feeling that the multiracialist ideology can’t answer the questions of the present-day runs through this article in the Guardian today:
The rest of the article is worth a browse. The original Demos report, which is less lurid in tone than the article above, is here. The Guardian piece mentions an “expert on the politics of racism in Europe” called Gavan Titley. He’s recently published a book with a Jewish anti-racist academic called Alana Lentin. It is titled The Crisis of Multiculturalism, and again there is the sense that the world is asking new questions and answers are just not there any more. Not only the answers. The very utopianism which has sustained the radical left over the last half-century is corroding under the acid of Islam’s cultural intransigency. New facts left intellectualism cannot accept, and new antagonisms it cannot resolve are rising. To demonstrate the left’s growing intellectual sclerosis before these, here is the sole review for Lentin and Titley’s book from its page at Amazon.
Indeed, can the entire canon of left intellectualism, which has shaped the social debate since Adorno and Marcuse washed up in America, be forgotten, its relevance over, its energy sapped, its function superceded by history, and a history of race at that? Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:27 | # Mr Voight, Three years ago, when the left was still in power in the UK and the Guardianistas had their mojo, I wrote a piece here about the enviable traction of radical left intellectualism on politics and the making and remaking of society. But that was then. It is clear now that the genie of human difference and, especially, of Islam is out of the bottle, and the left does not know what to do. The plan on paper is still only on paper. The real world is doing something else entirely. Things are moving very fast in many directions, and the left is only just coming to terms with this fact. Ultimately, of course, all that Jewish philosophy was only intended to submerge European Man in the bottomless seas of the Third World so that Olam Ha-ba might become a reality. But the left does not know that. It expected a post-racial utopia. It is getting something it never bargained for. The Guardian threads are hardly worth our time, in my view. The traction is gone. The flow of bright Jewish ideas has dried up - nothing has replaced the postmodernist-deconstructuralist paradigm. They are all just discovering their own redundancy - many of them literally - and the usefulness of the Guardian threads now is really only to observe their growing pain and confusion. 3
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:27 | # Ha! Who are “we”? And what will we win? The US is gone. We will be a multicultural, non-Western nation henceforth, even if we stop immigration. We still must try to stop it, as increasing racial diversification is synonymous with civilizational lowering, as well as leftist politics, including of the socialist kind that some around here seem to sympathize with. With leftist politics comes national immiseration, greater criminality, and persecution of whites. But the trend, even if the invasion is halted, is towards constantly increasing racial integration at all levels of society, and in all places. There is also rampant and accelerating miscegenation. So unless whites can be persuaded to marry each other and reproduce at rates greater than the miscegenationist trend - a demographically dubious prospect; the sociological data run the other way - the restoration of what WNs want - White-dominant America, even if some nonwhites are also present, as always in the past - is already all but impossible (absent extreme and unforeseen events). This is not defeatism, however, nor a counsel of apathy. Whites more than ever must organize racially to protect themselves, their rights and their property. But “winning” for us will issue in nought but a cold peace, at best. As I’ve always said, the real battle for white survival is in Europe. Will you win? Rather doubtful, I should say. The problem there is not primarily the growing (and tough, ethno-religio-nationalist) nonwhite presence, nor the continuing racial pusillanimity of the white majorities (sure increasing numbers of European men are coming to dislike the alien presences, but what percentages of the total native populations do those numbers represent?). Nor is it even the exploding Maghrebi, Middle Eastern and Persian populations, which might one day involve themselves in any Euro-Disneyland “toy country”‘s attempt to repatriate their ethnic expats (ie, soon the European peoples, including demographically dying Russia, will be dwarfed in numbers by the Southern Mediterraneam littoral peoples, and their co-ethnics slightly further afield). The real problem is the collapse in European birthrates (as Buchanan discussed in Death of the West a decade ago, and Mark Steyn a bit later in America Alone). This collapse has already occurred(though that does not mean that fertility is now picking up; it isn’t). Virtually every European country is guaranteed to have a huge (native/white) population fall over the next few decades (the projections would be still worse absent higher fertility immigrant communities). I think Europe’s future is similar to America’s, if a bit behind, with one caveat: America will continue to be invaded, colonized and erased through regularized, peaceful invasions. I think Europe’s destruction will come about with much greater rapidity, and through one of the following ways. Either your treasonous elites, having utterly failed to implement real FREE MARKET ECONOMICS, or at least to have instituted much stricter limits on welfare state expenditures and pension guarantees, will start admitting immigrants in the tens of millions annually in order to have the prime age workers needed to pay for Europe’s old age entitlements, or ... after having made ever larger military cutbacks in order to preserve increasingly expensive labor/socialist (mainly health and pension) programs, you will be invaded and conquered in some new Islamic jihad. The collective stupidity of Europeans in the second half of the 20th century has really been mindboggling, much worse than America’s. What are the majorities over there thinking? Your nations are (comparatively) wealthy, rich in water and arable land, and declining in population (and you have admitted a huge resident fifth column already). Geographically next door to you is a completely alien civilization, naturally resource-poor, exploding in population primarily due to its only and rapidly dwindling resource (oil), and which has waged war on you repeatedly and often successfully over the course of 14 centuries. But still the Europeans worry more about white racism than national preservation. Europe nationalists will not win in the ultimate sense of restoring the historic racial status quo ex ante (absent extreme upheavals). Eventually, all your nations will be multiculturalized and mongrelized, just like America (even if not military invaded by the Islamic crescent, which I think likely). The only realistic hope for white preservation is indeed White Zion, a sovereign country where committed WNs and white conservatives are the majority, and have the freedom of action to legislate policies to ensure white survival. 4
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:34 | #
GW is totally correct. The Zionist takeover of our nations re politics / economics / media and the Jewish led post-modern decostructionalist paradigm have created nothing except a vaccum. For the Jews / Zionists they have the Holocaust as their defining mythos to fill the vaccum, and the fear of another Holocaust which was the essential driving force of their pathological need to deconstruct western societies. By deconstructing the societies that created the Holocaust, the Jewish intellecttual elite, the Zionists, the Christian Zionists and their gentile / non-zionist political puppets they hoped to ensure another one never happened again. But the problem has been that a vacuum has been created in the West. The Zionists are attempting to fill the vacuum with their ‘Anti-Islamism Agenda’ so as to ensure that the Nationalist ‘Far Right’ do not fill that vacuum - hence we have Geert Wilders and the EDL all espousing pro-Zionist positions to the masses. The aim of the Kosher Nationalist movement that includes the EDL and Geert Wilders is to create a new clash of civilisations focused on Islam. That way they hope the old ‘distraction technique’ will work and the European people who have been robbed of their cultures, identity, nations and future by the Zionists, Jewish intelligensia and their political puppets will not wake up and realise who is actually responsible for creating the social conditions we exist in. They hope that anti-Islamism will stop the masses becoming anti-Zionist. As Nationalists we must oppose Zionism as much as we oppose Islamism. To oppose Islamism whilst abasing ourselves to Zionism is treason. The nationalist movement must start educating our people to focus on the PROBLEM, as much as the SYMPTOM. The PROBLEM is Zionism, the symptom is Islamism. It was the Zionists who brough the muslims into our nations to act as cheap labour / cheap votes and to dilute nationalism and destroy the cultural / social cohesion of our nations. At the same time the Zionists knew that at some point in the future, when their deconstructionalist paradigm had worked, they would need to create a new ‘menace to society’ on which to focus the attention of the alienated, disenfranchised and angry masses. Hence why Al Qaeda / Osama Bin Laden and the Islamists have all been run and funded by the Zionists and the system - to ensure they became a problem. Then the Problem / Reaction / Solution Paradigm could be imposed. Once the Islamists became a threat, the masses could be focused on them and not the people really responsible for creating the problem - the Zionists. 1) to educate nationalists as to who, how and why the Zionists destroyed our nations and societiies 2) to ensure that any political organisations that adopt the Zionist Kosher Nationalist position are shunned and marginalised 3) We must each become transmitters of the truth and constantly reveal the truth about the Zionists and what they have done and are doing every single day so as to ensure the message gets out to the masses and they are made aware of who is the real menace to our societies 4) That we create a New Mythos for our people to fill the vaccum.
We must create an archetypal new vision for our people based on the symbols and myths of our pasts to speak to them at a subconscious level direct to the collective racial unconscious. That way we subvert the conditioning process of the media and educational system and its propaganda. That means we must concentrate OUTSIDE politics, for the political awakening will only happen when the spiritual / archetypal awakening has begun. This means we must dig deeper than christianity for our symbols and myths - we must dig back into the archetypal symbolism of our pagan past - to the Celts and Norse, Druidism and Odinism. We must re-connect the unconscious with the ego. We must re-connect the myths to the mind. 5
Posted by CS on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:41 | # Leon, You should stop wasting your time arguing with people on this website and instead create your White Zion website and promote it on Stormfront and other such places. 6
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:48 | # We must start to call Geert Wilders and the EDL what they are - which is Kosher Nationalists. Kosher Nationalism is the zionist run / controlled and defined pseudo nationalism that has taken root in Europe. Anders Breivik was a Kosher Nationalist Chrsitian Zionist who served the interests of the Zionist elite. Read here for info on the Zionist EDL ; 7
Posted by Helvena on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:08 | # To support Wotan, this video demonstrates how our rulers in the West use Islam (and by extention Muslim immigration) to war against us. Lets not let ourselves be fooled again by the cry, “the Hun are at our door”, only this time carrying a Koran. Of course immigration must be stopped, but our main problem is who *leads* us in all of our institutions. 8
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:12 | # The real problem is the collapse in European birthrates (as Buchanan discussed in Death of the West a decade ago, and Mark Steyn a bit later in America Alone). This collapse has already occurred(though that does not mean that fertility is now picking up; it isn’t). Virtually every European country is guaranteed to have a huge (native/white) population fall over the next few decades (the projections would be still worse absent higher fertility immigrant communities). You are correct. Why has the population crashed. CONDITIONING. The masses have been prgrammed via media conditoning and propaganda to put consumerism before community, to adopt selfishness and put themselves first and because mass immigration has smashed our communities apart and destroyed families. In order to subvert the conditioning we must start to reach out to people below the level of the ego consciousness, the same as advertising does. Advertising links to primal drives. Eg sex, hunger, lust, status We must do the same - but appeal to archetypal symbols, not primitive drives. The answer is not to promote Christinaity, as Christianity is now run by Cultural Marxists and leftists. Chrstianity serves our enemies. We must either create a new Christianity that serves our people or dump it. I suggest we we start to use the symbols, symbolism, myths, images, language, ideas, legends, art, culture, etc etc of our pagan past - especially as in a post-christian society such as the one we live in now, we have in effect been paganised by the masses rejecting Christianity. In the vaccum that has replaced Christianity, the final obstacles to an archetypal revolution have been cleared away. Now the masses are ready for the return of our ancestral myths and faiths. It is to Wotan they will return as the system begins to break down - just as they did once before ;
[Originally published as the Vorwort to AUFSATZE ZUR ZEITGESCHICHTE
We are living in times of great disruption: political passions are aflame, internal upheavals have brought nations to the brink of chaos, and the very foundations of our Weltanschauung are shattered. This critical state of things has such a tremendous influence on the psychic life of the individual that the doctor must follow its effects with more than usual attention. the storm of events does not sweep down upon him only from the great world outside; he feels the violence of its impact even in the quiet of his consulting-room and in the privacy of the medical consultation. As he has a responsibility towards his patients, he cannot afford to withdraw to the peaceful island of undisturbed scientific work, but must constantly descend into the arena of world events, in order to join in the battle of conflicting passions and opinions. Were he to remain aloof from the tumult, the calamity of his time would reach him only from afar, and his patients’ suffering would find neither ear nor understanding. He would be at a loss to know how to talk to him, and to help him out of his isolation. For this reason the psychologist cannot avoid coming to grips with contemporary history, even his very soul shrinks from the political uproar, the lying propaganda, and the jarring speeches of the demagogues. We need not mention his duties as a citizen, which confront him with a similar task. As a physician, he has a higher obligation to humanity in this respect. From time to time, therefore, I have felt obliged to step beyond the usual bounds of my profession. The experience of the psychologist is of a rather special kind, and it seemed to me that the general public might find it useful to hear his point of view. This was hardly a far-fetched conclusion, for surely the most naive of laymen could not fail to see that many contemporary figures and events were positively asking for psychological elucidation. Were psychopathic symptoms ever more conspicuous than in the contemporary political scene? It has never been my wish to meddle in the political questions of the day. But in the course of the years I have written a few papers which give my reactions to current events. The present book contains a collection of these occasional essays, all written between 1936 and 1946. It is natural enough that my thoughts should have been especially concerned with Germany, which has been a problem to me ever since the first World War. My statements have evidently led to all manner of misunderstandings, which are chiefly due, no doubt, to the fact that my psychological point of view strikes many people as new and therefore strange. Instead of embarking upon lengthy arguments in an attempt to clear up these misunderstandings, I have found it simpler to collect all the passages in my other writings which deal with the same theme and to put them in an epilogue. The reader will thus be in a position to get a clear picture of the facts for himself.
[First published as WOTAN, Neue Schweizer Rundschau (Zurich). n.s., III “In Germany Shall diverse sects arise, WOTAN En Germanie naistront diverses sectes,
With such goings on in the wide world it is not in the least surprising that there should be equally curious manifestations on a smaller scale in other spheres. In the realm of philosophy we shall have to wait some time before anyone is able to assess the kind of age we are living in. But in the sphere of religion we can see at once that some very significant things have been happening. We need feel no surprise that in Russia the colourful splendours of the Eastern Orthodox Church have been superseded by the Movement of the Godless—indeed, one breathed a sigh of relief oneself when one emerged from the haze of an Orthodox church with its multitude of lamps and entered an honest mosque, where the sublime and invisible omnipresence of God was not crowded out by a superfluity of sacred paraphernalia. Tasteless and pitiably unintelligent as it is, and however deplorable the low spiritual level of the “scientific” reaction, it was inevitable that nineteenth-century “scientific” enlightenment should one day dawn in Russia. But what is more than curious—indeed, piquant to a degree—is that an ancient god of storm and frenzy, the long quiescent Wotan, should awake, like an extinct volcano, to new activity, in a civilized country that had long been supposed to have outgrown the Middle Ages. We have seen him come to life in the German Youth Movement, and right at the beginning the blood of several sheep was shed in honour of his resurrection. Armed with rucksack and lute, blond youths, and sometimes girls as well, were to be seen as restless wanderers on every road from the North Cape to Sicily, faithful votaries of the roving god. Later, towards the end of the Weimar Republic, the wandering role was taken over by thousands of unemployed, who were to be met with everywhere on their aimless journeys. By 1933 they wandered no longer, but marched in their hundreds of thousands. The Hitler movement literally brought the whole of Germany to its feet, from five-year-olds to veterans, and produced a spectacle of a nation migrating from one place to another. Wotan the wanderer was on the move. He could be seen, looking rather shamefaced, in the meeting-house of a sect of simple folk in North Germany, disguised as Christ sitting on a white horse. I do not know if these people were aware of Wotan’s ancient connection with the figures of Christ and Dionysus, but it is not very probable. Wotan is a restless wanderer who creates unrest and stirs up strife, now here, now there, and works magic. He was soon changed by Christianity into the devil, and only lived on in fading local traditions as a ghostly hunter who was seen with his retinue, flickering like a will o’ the wisp through the stormy night. In the Middle Ages the role of the restless wanderer was taken over by Ahasuerus, the Wandering Jew, which is not a Jewish but a Christian legend. The motif of the wanderer who has not accepted Christ was projected on the Jews, in the same way as we always rediscover our unconscious psychic contents in other people. At any rate the coincidence of anti-Semitism with the reawakening of Wotan is a psychological subtlety that may perhaps be worth mentioning. The German youths who celebrated the solstice with sheep-sacrifices were not the first to hear the rustling in the primeval forest of the unconsciousness. They were anticipated by Nietzsche, Schuler, Stefan George, and Ludwig Klages. The literary tradition of the Rhineland and the country south of the Main has a classical stamp that cannot easily be got rid of; every interpretation of intoxication and exuberance is apt to be taken back to classical models, to Dionysus, to the puer aeternus and the cosmogonic Eros. No doubt it sounds better to academic ears to interpret these things as Dionysus, but Wotan might be a more correct interpretation. He is the god of storm and frenzy, the unleasher of passions and the lust of battle; moreover he is a superlative magician and artist in illusion who is versed in all secrets of an occult nature. Nietzsche’s case is certainly a peculiar one. He had no knowledge of Germanic literature; he discovered the “cultural Philistine”; and the announcement that “God is dead” led to Zarathustra’s meeting with an unknown god in unexpected form, who approached him sometimes as an enemy and sometimes disguised as Zarathustra himself. Zarathustra, too, was a soothsayer, a magician, and the storm-wind: And like a wind shall I come to blow among them, and with my spirit shall take away the breath of their spirit; thus my future wills it. Truly, a strong wind is Zarathustra to all that are low; and this counsel gives he to his enemies and to all that spit and spew: “Beware of spitting against the wind.” Part 2 follows 9
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:15 | # Part 2 And when Zarathustra dreamed that he was guardian of the graves in the “lone mountain fortress of death,” and was making a mighty effort to open the gates, suddenly A roaring wind tore the gates asunder; whistling, shrieking, and keening, it cast a black coffin before me. The disciple who interpreted the dream said to Zarathustra: Are you not yourself the wind with shrill whistling, which bursts open the gates of the fortress of death? In 1863 or 1864, in his poem TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, Nietzsche had written: I shall and will know thee, Unknown One, Twenty years later, in his MISTRAL SONG, he wrote: Mistral wind, chaser of clouds, In the dithyramb known as ARIADNE’S LAMENT, Nietzsche is completely the victim of the hunter-god: Stretched out, shuddering, This remarkable image of the hunter-god is not a mere dithyrambic figure of speech but is based on an experience which Nietzsche had when he was fifteen years old, at Pforta. It is described in a book by Nietzsche’s sister, Elizabeth Foerster-Nietzsche. As he was wandering about in a gloomy wood at night, he was terrified by a “blood-curdling shriek from a neighbouring lunatic asylum,” and soon afterwards he cam face to face with a huntsman whose “features were wild and uncanny.” Setting his whistle to his lips “in a valley surrounded by wild scrub,” the huntsman “blew such a shrill blast” that Nietzsche lost consciousness—but woke up again in Pforta. It was a nightmare. It is significant that in his dream Nietzsche, who in reality intended to go to Eisleben, Luther’s town, discussed with the huntsman the question of going instead to “Teutschenthal” (Valley of the Germans). No one with ears can misunderstand the shrill whistling of the storm-god in the nocturnal wood. Was it really only the classical philologist in Nietzsche that led to the god being called Dionysus instead of Wotan—or was it perhaps due to his fateful meeting with Wagner? In his REICH OHNE RAUM, which was first published in 1919, Bruno Goetz saw the secret of coming events in Germany in the form of a very strange vision. I have never forgotten this little book, for it struck me at the time as a forecast of the German weather. It anticipates the conflict between the realm of ideas and life, between Wotan’s dual nature as a god of storm and a god of secret musings. Wotan disappeared when his oaks fell and appeared again when the Christian God proved too weak to save Christendom from fratricidal slaughter. When the Holy Father at Rome could only impotently lament before God the fate of the grex segregatus, the one-eyed old hunter, on the edge of the German forest, laughed and saddled Sleipnir. We are always convinced that the modern world is a reasonable world, basing our opinion on economic, political, and psychological factors. But if we may forget for a moment that we are living in the year of Our Lord 1936, and, laying aside our well-meaning, all-too-human reasonableness, may burden God or the gods with the responsibility for contemporary events instead of man, we would find Wotan quite suitable as a casual hypothesis. In fact, I venture the heretical suggestion that the unfathomable depths of Wotan’s character explain more of National Socialism than all three reasonable factors put together. There is no doubt that each of these factors explains an important aspect of what is going on in Germany, but Wotan explains yet more. He is particularly enlightening in regard to a general phenomenon which is so strange to anybody not a German that it remains incomprehensible, even after the deepest reflection. Perhaps we may sum up this general phenomenon as Ergriffenheit—a state of being seized or possessed. The term postulates not only an Ergriffener (one who is seized) but, also, an Ergreifer (one who seizes). Wotan is an Ergreifer of men, and, unless one wishes to deify Hitler—which has indeed actually happened—he is really the only explanation. It is true that Wotan shares this quality with his cousin Dionysus, but Dionysus seems to have exercised his influence mainly on women. The maenads were a species of female storm-troopers, and, according to mythical reports, were dangerous enough. Wotan confined himself to the berserkers, who found their vocation as the Blackshirts of mythical kings. A mind that is still childish thinks of the gods as metaphysical entities existing in their own right, or else regards them as playful or superstitious inventions. From either point of view the parallel between Wotan redivivus and the social, political and psychic storm that is shaking Germany might have at least the value of a parable. But since the gods are without doubt personifications of psychic forces, to assert their metaphysical existence is as much an intellectual presumption as the opinion that they could ever be invented. Not that “psychic forces” have anything to do with the conscious mind, fond as we are of playing with the idea that consciousness and psyche are identical. This is only another piece of intellectual presumption. “Psychic forces” have far more to do with the realm of the unconscious. Our mania for rational explanations obviously has its roots in our fear of metaphysics, for the two were always hostile brothers. Hence, anything unexpected that approaches us from the dark realm is regarded either as coming from outside and, therefore, as real, or else as an hallucination and, therefore, not true. The idea that anything could be real or true which does not come from outside has hardly begun to dawn on contemporary man. For the sake of better understanding and to avoid prejudice, we could of course dispense with the name “Wotan” and speak instead of the furor teutonicus. But we should only be saying the same thing and not as well, for the furor in this case is a mere psychologizing of Wotan and tells us no more than that the Germans are in a state of “fury.” We thus lose sight of the most peculiar feature of this whole phenomenon, namely, the dramatic aspect of the Ergreifer and the Ergriffener. The impressive thing about the German phenomenon is that one man, who is obviously “possessed,” has infected a whole nation to such an extent that everything is set in motion and has started rolling on its course towards perdition. It seems to me that Wotan hits the mark as an hypothesis. Apparently he really was only asleep in the Kyffhauser mountain until the ravens called him and announced the break of day. He is a fundamental attribute of the German psyche, an irrational psychic factor which acts on the high pressure of civilization like a cyclone and blows it away. Despite their crankiness, the Wotan-worshippers seem to have judged things more correctly than the worshippers of reason. Apparently everyone had forgotten that Wotan is a Germanic datum of first importance, the truest expression and unsurpassed personification of a fundamental quality that is particularly characteristic of the Germans. Houston Stewart Chamberlain is a symptom which arouses suspicion that other veiled gods may be sleeping elsewhere. The emphasis on the Germanic race—commonly called “Aryan”—the Germanic heritage, blood and soil, the Wagalaweia songs, the ride of the Valkyries, Jesus as a blond and blue-eyed hero, the Greek mother of St. Paul, the devil as an international Alberich in Jewish or Masonic guise, the Nordic aurora borealis as the light of civilization, the inferior Mediterranean races—all this is the indispensable scenery for the drama that is taking place and at the bottom they all mean the same thing: a god has taken possession of the Germans and their house is filled with a “mighty rushing wind.” It was soon after Hitler seized power, if I am not mistaken, that a cartoon appeared in PUNCH of a raving berserker tearing himself free from his bonds. A hurricane has broken loose in Germany while we still believe it is fine weather. Things are comparatively quiet in Switzerland, though occasionally there is a puff of wind from the north or south. Sometimes it has a slightly ominous sound, sometimes it whispers so harmlessly or even idealistically that no one is alarmed. “Let the sleeping dogs lie”—we manage to get along pretty well with this proverbial wisdom. It is sometimes said that the Swiss are singularly averse to making a problem of themselves. I must rebut this accusation: the Swiss do have their problems, but they would not admit it for anything in the world, even though they see which way the wind is blowing. We thus pay our tribute to the time of storm and stress in Germany, but we never mention it, and this enables us to feel vastly superior. It is above all the Germans who have an opportunity, perhaps unique in history, to look into their own hearts and to learn what those perils of the soul were from which Christianity tried to rescue mankind. Germany is a land of spiritual catastrophes, where nature never makes more than a pretense of peace with the world-ruling reason. The disturber of the peace is a wind that blows into Europe from Asia’s vastness, sweeping in on a wide front from Thrace to the Baltic, scattering the nations before it like dry leaves. or inspiring thoughts that shake the world to its foundations. It is an elemental Dionysus breaking into the Apollonian order. The rouser of this tempest is named Wotan, and we can learn a good deal about him from the political confusion and spiritual upheaval he has caused throughout history. For a more exact investigation of his character, however, we must go back to the age of myths, which did not explain everything in terms of man and his limited capacities, but sought the deeper cause in the psyche and its autonomous powers. Man’s earliest intuitions personified these powers. Man’s earliest intuitions personified these powers as gods, and described them in the myths with great care and circumstantiality according to their various characters. This could be done the more readily on account of the firmly established primordial types or images which are innate in the unconscious of many races and exercise a direct influence upon them. Because the behavior of a race takes on its specific character from its underlying images, we can speak of an archetype “Wotan.” As an autonomous psychic factor, Wotan produces effects in the collective life of a people and thereby reveals his own nature. For Wotan has a peculiar biology of his own, quite apart from the nature of man. It is only from time to time that individuals fall under the irresistible influence of this unconscious factor. When it is quiescent, one is no more aware of the archetype Wotan than of a latent epilepsy. Could the Germans who were adults in 1914 have foreseen what they would be today? Such amazing transformations are the effect of the god of wind, that “bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth.” It seizes everything in its path and overthrows everything that is not firmly rooted. When the wind blows it shakes everything that is insecure, whether without or within. 10
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:16 | # Part 3 Martin Ninck has recently published a monograph which is a most welcome addition to our knowledge of Wotan’s nature. The reader need not fear that this book is nothing but a scientific study written with academic aloofness from the subject. Certainly the right to scientific objectivity is fully preserved, and the material has been collected with extraordinary thoroughness and presented in unusually clear form. But, over and above all this, one feels that the author is vitally interested in it, that the chord of Wotan is vibrating in him, too. This is no criticism—on the contrary, it is one of the chief merits of the book, which without this enthusiasm might easily have degenerated into a tedious catalogue. Ninck sketches a really magnificent portrait of the German archetype Wotan. He describes him in ten chapters, using all the available sources, as the berserker, the god of storm, the wanderer, the warrior, the Wunsch- and Minne-god, the lord of the dead and of the Einherjar, the master of secret knowledge, the magician, and the god of the poets. Neither the Valkyries nor the Fylgja are forgotten, for they form part of the mythological background and fateful significance of Wotan. Ninck’s inquiry into the name and its origin is particularly instructive. He shows that Wotan is not only a god of rage and frenzy who embodies the instinctual and emotion aspect of the unconscious. Its intuitive and inspiring side, also, manifests itself in him, for he understands the runes and can interpret fate. The Romans identified Wotan with Mercury, but his character does not really correspond to any Roman or Greek god, although there are certain resemblances. He is a wanderer like Mercury, for instance, he rules over the dead like Pluto and Kronos, and is connected with Dionysus by his emotional frenzy, particularly in its mantic aspect. It is surprising that Ninck does not mention Hermes, the god of revelation, who as pneuma and nous is associated with the wind. He would be the connecting-link with the Christian pneuma and the miracle of Pentecost. As Poimandres (the shepherd of men), Hermes is an Ergreifer like Wotan. Ninck rightly points out that Dionysus and the other Greek gods always remained under the supreme authority of Zeus, which indicates a fundamental difference between the Greek and the Germanic temperament. Ninck assumes an inner affinity between Wotan and Kronus, and the latter’s defeat may perhaps be a sign that the Wotan-archetype was once overcome and split up in prehistoric times. At all events, the Germanic god represents a totality on a very primitive level, a psychological condition in which man’s will was almost identical with the god’s and entirely at his mercy. But the Greeks had gods who helped man against other gods; indeed, All-Father Zeus himself is not far from the ideal of a benevolent, enlightened despot. It was not in Wotan’s nature to linger on and show signs of old age. He simply disappeared when the times turned against him, and remained invisible for more than a thousand years, working anonymously and indirectly. Archetypes are like riverbeds which dry up when the water deserts them, but which it can find again at any time. An archetype is like an old watercourse along which the water of life has flowed for centuries, digging a deep channel for itself. The longer it has flowed in this channel the more likely it is that sooner or later the water will return to its old bed. The life of the individual as a member of society and particularly as a part of the State may be regulated like a canal, but the life of nations is a great rushing river which is utterly beyond human control, in the hands of One who has always been stronger than men. The League of Nations, which was supposed to possess supranational authority, is regarded by some as a child in need of care and protection, by others as an abortion. Thus, the life of nations rolls on unchecked, without guidance, unconscious of where it is going, like a rock crashing down the side of a hill, until it is stopped by an obstacle stronger than itself. Political events move from one impasse to the next, like a torrent caught in gullies, creeks and marshes. All human control comes to an end when the individual is caught in a mass movement. Then, the archetypes begin to function, as happens, also, in the lives of individuals when they are confronted with situations that cannot be dealt with in any of the familiar ways. But what a so-called Fuhrer does with a mass movement can plainly be seen if we turn our eyes to the north or south of our country. The ruling archetype does not remain the same forever, as is evident from the temporal limitations that have been set to the hoped-for reign of peace, the “thousand-year Reich.” The Mediterranean father-archetype of the just, order-loving, benevolent ruler had been shattered over the whole of northern Europe, as the present fate of the Christian Churches bears witness. Fascism in Italy and the civil war in Spain show that in the south as well the cataclysm has been far greater than one expected. Even the Catholic Church can no longer afford trials of strength. The nationalist God has attacked Christianity on a broad front. In Russia, he is called technology and science, in Italy, Duce, and in Germany, “German Faith,” “German Christianity,” or the State. The “German Christians” are a contradiction in terms and would do better to join Hauer’s “German Faith Movement.” These are decent and well-meaning people who honestly admit their Ergriffenheit and try to come to terms with this new and undeniable fact. They go to an enormous amount of trouble to make it look less alarming by dressing it up in a conciliatory historical garb and giving us consoling glimpses of great figures such as Meister Eckhart, who was, also, a German and, also, ergriffen. In this way the awkward question of who the Ergreifer is is circumvented. He was always “God.” But the more Hauer restricts the world-wide sphere of Indo-European culture to the “Nordic” in general and to the Edda in particular, and the more “German” this faith becomes as a manifestation of Ergriffenheit, the more painfully evident it is that the “German” god is the god of the Germans. One cannot read Hauer’s book without emotion, if one regards it as the tragic and really heroic effort of a conscientious scholar who, without knowing how it happened to him, was violently summoned by the inaudible voice of the Ergreifer and is now trying with all his might, and with all his knowledge and ability, to build a bridge between the dark forces of life and the shining world of historical ideas. But what do all the beauties of the past from totally different levels of culture mean to the man of today, when confronted with a living and unfathomable tribal god such as he has never experienced before? They are sucked like dry leaves into the roaring whirlwind, and the rhythmic alliterations of the Edda became inextricably mixed up with Christian mystical texts, German poetry and the wisdom of the Upanishads. Hauer himself is ergriffen by the depths of meaning in the primal words lying at the root of the Germanic languages, to an extent that he certainly never knew before. Hauer the Indologist is not to blame for this, nor yet the Edda; it is rather the fault of kairos—the present moment in time—whose name on closer investigation turns out to be Wotan. I would, therefore, advise the German Faith Movement to throw aside their scruples. Intelligent people who will not confuse them with the crude Wotan-worshippers whose faith is a mere pretense. There are people in the German Faith Movement who are intelligent enough not only to believe, but to know, that the god of the Germans is Wotan and not the Christian God. This is a tragic experience and no disgrace. It has always been terrible to fall into the hands of a living god. Yahweh was no exception to this rule, and the Philistines, Edomites, Amorites and the rest, who were outside the Yahweh experience, must certainly have found it exceedingly disagreeable. The Semitic experience of Allah was for a long time an extremely painful affair for the whole of Christendom. We who stand outside judge the Germans far too much, as if they were responsible agents, but perhaps it would be nearer the truth to regard them, also, as victims. If we apply are admittedly peculiar point of view consistently, we are driven to conclude that Wotan must, in time, reveal not only the restless, violent, stormy side of his character, but, also, his ecstatic and mantic qualities—a very different aspect of his nature. If this conclusion is correct, National Socialism would not be the last word. Things must be concealed in the background which we cannot imagine at present, but we may expect them to appear in the course of the next few years or decades. Wotan’s reawakening is a stepping back into the past; the stream was damned up and has broken into its old channel. But the Obstruction will not last forever; it is rather a reculer pour mieux sauter, and the water will overleap the obstacle. Then, at last, we shall know what Wotan is saying when he “murmers with Mimir’s head.” Fast move the sons of Mim, and fate How fare the gods? how fare the elves? Now Garm howls loud before Gnipahellir; From the east comes Hrym with shield held high; O’er the sea from the north there sails a ship 11
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:30 | # If we apply are admittedly peculiar point of view consistently, we are driven to conclude that Wotan must, in time, reveal not only the restless, violent, stormy side of his character, but, also, his ecstatic and mantic qualities—a very different aspect of his nature. If this conclusion is correct, National Socialism would not be the last word. Things must be concealed in the background which we cannot imagine at present, but we may expect them to appear in the course of the next few years or decades. Wotan’s reawakening is a stepping back into the past; the stream was damned up and has broken into its old channel. But the Obstruction will not last forever; it is rather a reculer pour mieux sauter, and the water will overleap the obstacle. Here we see that Wotan cannot die, he merely sleeps. As Jung forecast, the Berserker aspect of Woden that took possession of the German people in the 1930’s would be replaced by a new aspect of Wotan, his ecstatic, prophetic, mantic nature. That is the next stage of the process - to assist in the unleashing of that archetype in the vaccum left by the ebb of Christianity from the West. I forsee a new form of Green Nationalism - ecological, based on preserving indigenous cultures, pagan, with Druidic / Odinic mysticism a strands within it - a new form of the Wandervogel but with nationalist leanings. This is our challenge - to create the New Mythos. We must set the sacred streams of our racial consciousness running once more along the river bed of our ancestral archetypes. 12
Posted by helvena on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:27 | # You may very well be right Wotan and it gives me hope…Hans Syberberg, the new German? One of our people. 13
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:33 | # Wotan,
I agree with you. The Judeo-Austrian School working in parallel with the Judeo-Frankfurt School has wreaked immense damage. But it is the Austrian School that does more. This is the one that promotes consumerism, the exaltation of self uber alles. It justifies the importation and exploitation of non-white labor to further the pursuit of materialistic hedonism. It creates the short term economic conditions necessary to implement the genocidal racial and sexual subversion of the Judeo Frankfurt School.
Personally I’m in the Adolf Hitler School on this. His private comment upon observing a new pagan SS “Yule” night ceremony was to snicker, “This will never replace “Silent Night”. More seriously as GT pointed out, these are matters of faith about which scientific evidence by definition cannot be produced. And unfortunately I have to observe that even your own Wotanism contains many avowed Wotanists who renounced David Lane specifically on the basis of his “racism”. In doing so they sounded just like any other modern Marxist clergy. There are no modern clergies or creeds without sin on this matter. I think it’s better identify and promote existing beneficial strains and then provide them a safe evolutionary path. I think “Social Nationalism” can be this path. It already commands a strong interest among many priests. Clearly the modern Roman Catholic Church needs a vast personnel purge of Stalinist scope. After this it needs a new form of “Papal Stool” test to detect renewed Jewish attempts at re-infestation. In its present degenerate condition it is overrun by demonic legions of apostate Judeolators. Just look at the teeming hordes of shameless sodomite pederast priests and monks, lesbian feminist nuns and Judeo-Austrian economists. The Lutheran Churches’ only hope is to get back to Luther’s sound anti-Jewish doctrines. The Church of England should obviously be completely uprooted (“ausrotten”). The modern “fundamentalist” pre-millenial dispensational churches following Darby & Scofield are clearly apostate cults. They are not Christian in any sense that would be recognized by 19 preceding centuries of mainstream Christianity. They are Judeolatrous deceptions that were demonstrably set up and promoted by the forces of world Zionism working through its subsidiary masonic influence network. The mere fact that an uneducated fakir and known perjurer like C.I. Scofield could get his mutilated “Study Bible” published by the Oxford University Press is evidence of this. So is the fact that he found it necessary to go to Switzerland to conduct a final editing of his satanic book. He sojourned there at the same time as V.I. Lenin, Theodore Herzl and the other infamous international Jewish war criminals. Otoh clerics like Bishop Williamson and Catholic political-economists like G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc and E.F. Schumacher have infinitely more to teach on local economics for the congregation than do recent generations of the non-Movement. Many branches of Eastern Orthodoxy are also proving highly resilient and beneficial. The Judeo-Marxist liars and falsifiers of Fleet Street labeled this “Nazi”; Judging from the symbolism Eastern Orthodoxy was at least as dominant among the marchers. We see both Eastern Orthodox processional crosses and Russian Imperial flags. In the minds of the Russian nationalists that imperial flag is another symbol of Eastern Orthodoxy. The empire of the Czars was joined at the hip with the Russian Orthodox Church. I think attempting to declare a new general persecution on Christianity is counterproductive and will prove as self-defeating now as it always has in the past. 14
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:39 | #
Very unsporting indeed. Thanks for reminding me. Leon, what is your definition of ‘capital’? 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:03 | # Myths are for the suggestible, Wotan, and I do grant that the majority of our European kind are suggestible. Exoteric religion, by definition, is the catch-net for faith-folk who cannot process that statement. It is a morality vehicle for them as well as a faith vehicle. The problem is that you can’t just manufacture this kind of thing. For a faith (or God-myth) to be true it must connect, if only tangentially like Christianity, to the esoterism which is the kernel of all true faiths (and myths). There should be an active theory, practise and philosophy of a way to self-perfectionment and union with the All. Otherwise, the inauthenticity of the thing will pull it down. 16
Posted by Bill on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:18 | #
Chicken and egg. Frankfurt School - Early 20th century. Postmodernism - late 20th. century. Where the twain shall meet? 17
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:33 | # EX-WHITE ACTIVIST, I agree with all your points. The Eastern Orthodox tradition would be a useful Christianity to unite Nordic and Slav communities, and also it remains uncontaminated by Marxist Liberation Theology. Plus as a result of the Eastern European fall of the soviet empire and the Balkans War it understands Communism and Islamism. If you are a Christian then either get active in your own church or get active in an Eastern Orthodox one. Wodenists that renounce their race, renounce their faith. Yes their are some Wodenists that adopt the anti-racism line, but anti-racism is not to be anti-our own race. Many renounce racism, but still love our race and folk. Be careful to understand the difference between anti-racism and pro-race. One can be anti-racist and pro-our race. The movement must also understand the difference. Too many people associate racial pride with race hate, just as too many people associate anti-racism with being anti-our race. The most powerful racial revolutionary does not speak about race hate, they talk about anti-racism as a way to promote our race. That way they can get our ideas into a mainstream discourse. Re Hitler and the SS. The role of the SS as Hitler saw it was to be the breeding stock for a higher race - that via the purfication of the Aryan blood lines via generations of controlled breeding via the SS, eventually a higher racial type would arise. The Nordic mysticism of the SS was from Himmler, not Hitler. Hitler wasnt interested in religion, he was interested in eugenics. For Hitler the culmination of his faith was not religious, it was when the first child of the Higher Race was born. His faith was in the race that would come. Re GW. Myths are what motivates us all, they are expressions of archetypes and as such represent eternal aspects of the unconscious. They are beyond time. Wodenism has its own holy books, myths , legends, stories, cosmology, morality, social models, psychology, esoteric spirituality, its own culture, art, archeology, history etc etc It is all there, waiting to be reborn. The essential reality of Wodenisn can be encapsulated in the following from The Havamal ; Odin’s Quest after the Runes 137. 138. 139. 140. ” From a word to a word. I was led to a word, From a deed to another deed. “
Seek the words, that will lead you to the deed. I suggest you start here - and then move on from it and seek your own path ; http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/odin/odin-hp.htm Once you understand the depths of the faith, you can then seek out your own path and commence your own journey towards enlightenment, such as that of Svipdag in the lays of Grogaldern and Fjolsvinns Ordskifte ; 18
Posted by Multi-Racialism Breeds Unexpected Foes on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:01 | # The translation of the quoted remarks goes as follows. Oops, we thought we could erect a new political and social world that could rule calmly and forever as a 21st Century order, and we see now that we overlooked the fact that the diverse white American, European, and Atlantic Islander peoples lacked the plasticity we thought we understood because the of success of our 50 year campaign to denigrate and legitimatize the diverse white men. But now it looks like all we did was usher in an age of renewal for our foes. Even though we plied them with porno and TV sitcoms and lying print media, they turned out to have sterner stuff in their nature than we thought. And now they have learned a new kind of dispensation called “We Have To Take Care Of Our Own.” We targeted white men with so much abuse that we created a new category of humanity that is hostile to us. They are beginning to understand that multiculturalism was always a fraud and was only a phrase to exclude white men from fully participating in the society they created. Multiculturalism was just an extension of our earlier doctrine of pluralism (that was a great piece of wool to pull over their eyes a century ago), but all multiculturalism really meant was multi-racialism…after all it worked on the Egyptians, the Palestinians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. The new paradigm belongs to those we worked hardest to crush and demoralize. 19
Posted by FB on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:17 | # Immigration probably sits at the very top of the public’s concerns. Yet it’s the Is this not curious? In a democracy, pressure from the public generally runs the The reason is the iron grip on the political psyche of the belief that upholding 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:27 | # Jungian psychology is an incoherent cul-de-sac. The archetypes are sociobiologically impossible! We will not create a new mythos. We know sufficient about the world to tell the truth to each other. What is lagging behind is the capacity to be moved by truth. Since we cannot go back to floor-flopping at the say-so of the priests of some fiery imaginings, we must go forward into the light of knowledge. 21
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:14 | # Now that GW is an opinion. Not being confrontational, but you are GW and he was Jung. You get the point. Your opinion is irrelevant to what Jung said. Sure you may disagree with it, but frankly thats irrelevant. Jungian archetypes are not sociobiologically impossible, its justs your opinion that they are. If you honestly dont think Myths are important, then it appears you are in denial. Christianity was a myth, Islam was a myth - yet they have moved billions of people to achieve feats that we regard as astounding. Faith in myths motivates men more than faith in science. George Orwell understood this when he wrote on H G wells and Hitler ; http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/english/e_whws
They empower individuals to rise above their own limitations and seek something higher - they transform an individual into something above themselves. Knowledge doesnt motivate people to fight and die - myths and faith do. The light of knowledge has its own priesthood - the scientists in lab coats hunched over microscopes and computer screens like the monks and priests of the Biblical scholastism hunched over the Bible for their truth. Now they have a new faith as impossible to prove as the one in the Bible or Koran - one that mutters of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Zer Point Energy, Higgs Bosons, the God Particle. None of which, like articles of faith of religions, are provable by science as they exist beyond the realm of cause and effect, empiricism, determinsim and measurability. Hence they articles of faith. Truth is not just objective, it is primarily subjective. The power of truth is not measured with a ruler - it is measured by how it motivates men to act. Truth is what changes the world. And for that faith is the most powerful truth of all. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:28 | # Wotan, Please stop talking religiously. On Jung,sorry but I have a better grasp of evolutionary theory than he did. In that post I linked to there is a passage taken from an on-line debate with some Jungian advocates, to whom I said this:
You need to get away from things that aren’t true, and objective memory is just not true. Untruths do not become true because they are subjectively held as such. They are objective falsehoods. 23
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:30 | # The new science of Cultural Neuro-Science is at this moment proving the validity of the Jungian theory of archetypes and the falsehood of the Tabula Rasa theory ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_neuroscience Our brains resemble old museums that contain many of the archetypal markings of our evolutionary past. … Our brains are full of ancestral memories and processes that guide our actions and dreams but rarely emerge unadulterated by cortico-cultural influences during our everyday activities. (Panksepp, Affective Neuroscience, p. 75) 24
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:37 | # Leon Haller wrote:
It’s unclear why this hoary old chestnut continues to gain traction. Europe’s demographic “crisis” (intentional sneer quotes) and its immigration debacle are entirely unrelated phenomena which share only one common parameter: they are playing out in real time, right now. Only the charlatans in the Immigration Industry, their fellow travellers and sundry useful idiots claim there is any meaningful connection. Europe can resolve its immigration issues without entering into a Buchanan-esque rutting contest with its erstwhile colonisers. 25
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:42 | # You don’t get it, do you? Gene selection requires a phenotypic marker accessible to the senses and cognitive structures of the mind. If it is impossible for such a marker to be selected, the gene will not be transmitted. That’s the problem with Jung’s cowbells as phenotype. There is no possibility of selection ... never was. Wotan did it, as Troy Southgate stated on that thread. It is a religious belief - actually a pseudo-religious belief. I do not doubt that many religious Jungians active in neuroscience will endeavour to press their beliefs into the canon. They will still not be able to explain the means of selection. 26
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:45 | # GW, you are the one talking religiously when you insist on the supremacy of science and its new articles of faith based on impossibilities beyond scientific measurability eg Dark Matter and Dark Energy. If you refute the idea that archetypes exist - then where do instincts come from ? Or do you refute the idea of inherited instincts as well as archetypes ? Re Jung and the Cow Bells - you misunderstand what an archetype is. Jung did not associate the cow bells with an archetype, the archetype associated itself with the cow bells. All Jung did was articulate the fact that in his mind the archetype and the cow bells were associated. The cow bells are not a phenotype, the ability to associate cow bells with an archetype is via the genotype which carries the archetypes. Thats where you went wrong - you sought to associate cow bells with a phenotype when Jung never stated that - you did. Jung said that the dreams of cow bells were his mind taking the cow bells and associating them with an archetype. The same is true of the Holy Grail symbolism. Culture provides the symbol but the brain connects it to an archetype. The fact that the archetype is immortal doesnt mean it has to have utility - the utilty of an archetype may not be present in todays world. As for the issue of how an archetype is passed on / inscribed into the genotype - I think the latest research on The Dutch Famine Cohort Birth Study shows us that inherited characteristics acquired during the foetal stage are passed on to suceeding generations - thereby proving a mechanism exists for the inheritance of acquired characteristics and hence a possible biological mechanism for the formation of archetypes ;
The Dutch famine of 1944-1945 winter provides an example of an epigenetic change that was both acquired by the parent and inherited. Near the end of the Second World War, during the 1944-45 winter, there was a famine in the Netherlands. Children born after the hunger and exposed to it during pregnancy were found to have more cardiovascular diseases and higher cholesterol levels. A group of women affected by the hunger was used to test if the phenotype can be inherited to the next generation or not. When the grandchildren of the women that were pregnant during the hunger were checked they were found to be in poor health relative to children whose grandmothers didn’t experience the hunger while being pregnant, however, not to the same extent as the first generation. The research, made by Painter RC et al. was published in 2008 in the BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, entitled ‘Transgenerational effects of prenatal exposure to the Dutch famine on neonatal adiposity and health in later life’. This research shows that changes made by the mother can be transferred to her children. Read more at Suite101: Lamarck’s Evolution Theory Revival: In Some Cases Adaptation Seems to be Deliberate Rather Than Random | Suite101.com http://asaf-peer.suite101.com/lamarcks-evolution-theory-revival-a145753#ixzz1d2xInnwA 27
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:47 | # So YOU alone know better than Jung, the Cultural Neuro-Scientists and the latest genetic research. Amazing. With that level of faith in ones own genius you prove entirely the thesis that faith matters more than science. 28
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:07 | # Wotan, Instincts are normal adaptive traits. The cow bells are an acronym for archetypes. The levity of my remark to Gwendolyn should be a clue in that respect. I don’t mean bells ringing! I read Jung’s writings as a young man. I do understand him, and rejected him. Of the three, Adler was the most interesting and true. Epigenetics is understood currently to be about gene suppression. It does not overcome the problem of zero phenotypic markers for archetypes. There is no way to overcome the problem of zero phenotypic markers for archetypes. It is killing. Jung made it up literally out of his own head. 29
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:32 | # I think you are trapped in an impossible paradox here mate - you state that science must lead the way. Yet your position vis a vis archetypes existing is predicated solely on our present, almost stone age, understanding of genetics. There is no way you can say archetypes do not exist, as that can only be positied and declared once we understand entirely the genetics of the human genome and how they work / interact. You can say ’ as far as I am concerned the scientific evidence does not support the existence of archetypes’ but you cannot say definitevly supported by evidence that archetypes do not and cannot exist - that can only be stated conclusively once the entire systems of human genetics are defined, explained and mapped as per functions. So you say that instincts exist and are inherited as adaptive traits - so where and what is the mechanism for that ? Why cant the mechanism for instincts carry archetypes ? What if an archetype is an aspect of instincts eg the archetype is merely a type of instinct ? You cannot say there are no phenotypic markers for arhcetypes - as the evidence to assert that is not available at the moment. Even if there was no phenotypic markers for archetypes, that doesnt mean archetypes do not exist - there may be a myriad other mechanisms for archetypes to occur / imprint. I think the problem exists that you think a phenotype has to exist in order for an archetype to exist - but archetypes do not need a phenotype, for the fact that an archetype may be anicent means that the phenotype may no longer exist. Culture evolves, just as humans do. Therefore a phenotype marker need not exist in realtion to an acrhetype. The phenotype is transient and relates to culture, the archetype is immortal and relates to a culture that may not exist anymore. When we associate something with an archetype we do so subjectively via the archetype - that doesnt mean the archetype and phenotype are DIRECTLY linked - they dont have to be - the archetype merely makes us think they are. Epigenetics provides a mechanism for the transcribing of transmissable phenotypes onto the genotype - and remember that the science of cultural neuro-science and epigenetic transmission of inherited characteristics is a brand new science. We cannot say ‘we must be led by the science’ and then refute the existence of archetypes. You can only say ‘I believe they do not exist until such time as they are proven not to exist or evidence is provided to prove they exist’. 30
Posted by Wotan on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:48 | # Heres an interesting answer to the question where and how are instincts formed and transmitted - note that the answer does not have to rely on the genes themselves, but other mechanisms existing at a far deeper level than the mere mechanism of genetics itself. You seem to think the physically observed mechanics of protein / enzyme creation / DNA itself has to explain where archetypes exist or are formed - but thats just YOUR subjective opinion on the issue of archetypes - and seeing as science cannot explain how instincts are created / operate then it cannot refute the existence of archetypes ; http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080515234718AAEFi7z Great question! And the answer is unknown. It’s not hard to imagine DNA holding instructions for construction of a material object like a protein, but it’s very counterintuitive that a protein or any other physical substance that a protein as an enzyme could generate would dictate behavior. It seems too coarse, too crude a medium. I have a personal suspicion - and there is no evidence that I am aware of for this, just an intuition - that the DNA or some other biochemical carries information in a second way, different from the material sequence of base pairs, perhaps as a standing wave (energy) in the electron shell surrounding some part of the DNA molecule, perhaps the DNA’s deoxyribose - phosphate chain, where the spine that is recreated in new strands as they are constructed during the S phase of interphase adopt the idiosyncrasies of the original wave by resonance. Or an alternate model would be that the instincts are contained in a biological field (as yet undiscovered), analogous to Rupert Sheldrake’s morphogenic field(s), which DNA interacts with the DNA strand like an antenna receiving information, a different field for each species, with the species specific data received only by the right DNA “antenna”. What I like about it is that it is Lamarkian - we would be contributing to the energetic substrate while still living. It’s energetic (bosonic) and on a much smaller and finer scale than base pairs. Just wild speculation borne of an inability to wrap my head around instincts and other psychic phenomena being directly coded in proteins. What would be reading them? The brain? I doubt it. An external field like this that could affect the mind could serve as the depot for any paranormal phenomena that are actually real (and I believe some amount of telepathy occurs, as between identical twins - aha - identical DNA receivers!), or even to explain things like homosexuality or gender dissonance states, where perhaps a man is receiving impulses normal tapped into by women, or a female dog is humping for the same reason. Or how about to account for such things as the hundredth monkey effect? Or the miraculous window of language acquisition - both why it exists and then later doesn’t - and universal grammar, the form of which may reside in such a field and serve as a template for the brain’s linguistic structures development.The idea has so robust with potential explanatory capability that I can’t help but believe that there is some validity or partial truth to it. Very intriguing stuff! Let’s not be so quick to attribute all of DNA’s information content to base pairs alone, or for that matter, that all information is stored withing the double helix as opposed to being in part at a common, remote depot that DNA accesses. It’s admiitedly unorthodox, and pretty much way out there - highly speculative and short on evidence, but to me, something that shouldn’t bedismissed out of hand. I may, however, be overlooking some logical or physical obstacles apparent to smarter people, such as maybe some inevitable dampening of the waves (if they are on the DNA rather than received by the DNA acting as a type of antenna) that may be implied by suggesting a resonance mechanism for their copying in the absence of an energy source to amplify the signals. Or the implied relationship between bioinformative fields and distance of an organism from them. Where would such a field be located? What protects it from pertubation by other fields, like electromagnetic or gravitaional fields. Is there some sort of inverse square law involved? If the field idea has any merit, perhaps these interactions should weaken far from earth. Perhaps they do. Perhaps that accounts for some of the mental illness of prolonged space travel. And do such fields and forces require new qualities of matter, like quantum fields did (color, spin), or new particles or bosons (is there room for them in quantum theory, which as I understand it, doesn’t have room for any new forces or particles, or can this be done with the existing and known qualities of matter, energy and force? I don’t know. I just think that wildly creative speculation like this is necessary, even if it leads to dead ends much of the time, because occasionally, it is fruitful. I’d be interested in any expert or other feedback, by email or by posted comment. And I’m so glad that you asked! 31
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:21 | # Demos: “This paper would not have been possible without the generous support of the Open Society Foundations” 32
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:29 | # Wotan, Any geneticist worthy of the name will tell you that human traits that have been persistent over a long period will be very likely indeed to be there by way of natural selection. The onus is therefore on the Jungians to explain the transmittability of genes for archetypes. Until such time as an explanation appears, is peer reviewed, and accepted by the scientific fraternity, archetypes remains just an interesting but non-real theory of a very engaging and creative mind. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:35 | # Liberal Heresy, good spot. Mr Soros is very generous when it comes Jewish interests. 34
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:40 | # GW I noticed that report in the Guardian and was going to email you about it but you already had it up on the front page. Let’s be brutally honest yes? Carl Jung produced pseudo-scientific trash. As for epigenetics - even if this sometimes occurs what is its place in the overall scheme of things? Very marginal - the key phenomenon acting within evolutionary history (phenotypic evolution) is Darwinian natural selection as conventionally understood by the scientific community. Of course things like random genetic drift etc., can occur but the role and importance of such secondary factors in understanding the evolution of adaptations is effectively zero. Darwinian natural selection is one of the best empirically supported and most robust theories within science. Does this really need to be stated ad infinitum? Please enough with the half-baked references to ‘information’ and the ‘crude’ nature of DNA - it’s dull and wrong headed. I’m thinking about religion and liberalism and kicking some ideas around. If I think there are semi-interesting I’ll post them but Wotan and others might I suggest you try engaging with Heidegger? Even if his project is problematic it is hard to deny that he is one of the key philosophical figures of the 20th century and was a serious thinker. Carl Jung is not. Even someone like Karl Rahner is more interesting than Jung. And if your feeling very brave and want to learn something about a philosophically rigorous approach to the background conditions that allow science to be so successful you could try Roy Bhaskar’s “A Realist Theory of Science”. Bhaskar’s main strategy was to argue that reality has depth, and that knowledge can penetrate more or less deeply into reality, without ever definitively reaching the ‘bottom’ (we might asymptomatically approach it in my view). Bhaskar has said that he reintroduced ontology into the foreground of philosophy of science at a time when this was almost heresy, arguing for an ontology of stratified emergence and differentiated structure, which supported the ontological reality of causal powers independent of their empirical effects; such a move opened up the possibility for a non-reductivist and non-positivistic account of causal explanation in the human and social domain. One simple example: obviously how insulin physiologically works can be reduced to mere biology (indeed it is biology/biochemistry) however the question as to why we have a diabetes epidemic in the West (especially the Anglophone nations) cannot simply be understood as being only a biological question. The problematic of diabetes includes biology but is not reducible to it - rather it also involves culture, sociology, economics etc. 35
Posted by Revolution Harry on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:07 | #
I’d love to hear some more details on this ‘esoterism’. This sort of stuff is usually reserved for the elect few.
Sounds intriguing. What exactly do you mean by ‘self-perfectionment’ and ‘union with the All’? 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:06 | #
Nice two step and no one caught it, including me. Sacrificing and eating your children may be the form that the spiritual tendency takes but is not necessarily dependent on the tendency for its coming into being, yes? The tendency toward spiritualism will allow for the rise of cold-blooded pyshopathic killers, a form that will run contrary to the inherit tendency to be spiritual and thus adaptive, yes? And even though the form runs contrary to the tendency, selection for the genetic encoding of faith, said gene will still arise through a reproductive differential, correct? 37
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:17 | #
Also consider British Orthodoxy Yet, unlikely political battalions. 38
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:46 | # Wotan, do you really need religion to tell you that nigg[ Jeez, CC,]pid, viol[ are you]imals and that [ on the moonshine again? GW ]ikes wish to see our race mongrelized by the former? 39
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:14 | #
If the tendency didn’t too often result in an unadaptive form, sure it would. 40
Posted by Trainspotter on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:25 | # Leon Haller: “The only realistic hope for white preservation is indeed White Zion, a sovereign country where committed WNs and white conservatives are the majority, and have the freedom of action to legislate policies to ensure white survival.” Leon, my own political thought has been evolving in this area. I’ve found myself moving away from the idea of “taking it all back” and more toward the establishment of a White Republic, even if of fairly modest size. (just to note, my idea of taking it all back was never literal and did not envision recovering every square foot, but certainly more than I now believe to be workable). This can be a very, very complex subject, but I’ll list some of my reasoning: 1) America is just too damn big. It’s not simply that there are well over 100 million non-whites here now, but that the nation is so big that there are very real regional differences among the white population itself. I realize that even small European nations have these differences as well, but In America the various subregions are themselves so huge and populous that they can’t simply be ignored or steamrolled over. This doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a White America, as some have simplistically claimed. But it does mean that the regional/cultural differences are real, and White America has too often been divided on the most important racial issues. 2) America’s confused identity. By this I mean, on the one hand, America’s founding stock was extremely racially conscious and clearly envisioned America as a fundamentally white nation. On the other hand, America is a child of classical liberalism, which tends to work against notions of blood and soil. This schizophrenia has plagued us from the start. Who are we? What is our story? Where have we been, and where are we going? It’s now clear that liberalism, in both the classical and modern sense, has triumphed in this war of personality. This land is no longer ours, even though we founded it. It is not ours culturally, politically, but most important psychologically. Our forebears did not put us on a solid enough foundation. 3) Degeneration of the white population. Huge numbers of American whites would be nothing but a liability in a future White Republic. They are too far gone. Yes, there is still a huge amount of quality racial stock out there, but again, it’s a huge country. That is to be expected. There is also a ton of useless garbage, and this in every subregion. We are going through an evolutionary bottleneck, and it’s clear that a very large percentage of white Americans just aren’t going to make it. They are simply too susceptible to the machinations of our enemies. In a different era, most would have probably been fine, but not now. It’s not simply that they would never help us, it’s that they would either actively tear down what we wish to accomplish, or at the very least would dangerously dilute the project of white survival. We can’t save them, because they don’t want to be saved. We can’t afford them, because their real cost is too high. We have to face the fact that a significant chunk of our people simply aren’t going to survive the forces of modernity. They have been completely separated from any attachment to blood and soil, in the way such was traditionally understood. Modernity has that effect on many people. Not all, but many. In a nation the size of America, “many” becomes a force unto itself. If, on the other hand, a White Republic could be established on the North American continent, this would facilitate a healthy evolutionary process among the continent’s white stock. Those that have healthy racial instincts and an aversion to the American cesspool would tend, over time, to find their way to the White Republic, where a pro family policy would lead to their natural increase. Meanwhile, those that prefer to wallow in the mud would dwindle, suffering from everything from low birthrates to outright murder at the hands of non-whites, and the rest will miscegenate themselves into a sloppy and degenerate form of Brazil. Even if the White Republic starts out fairly small, I’d bet that it wouldn’t take all that long before most white babies born on the continent were from the Republic. The demographic evolution could happen pretty fast, and with it the balance of power on the continent. Down the road, the White Republic may be able to expand across the continent, but that is getting far too ahead of ourselves. This is not to say that I don’t retain serious reservations about feasibility, proper location, etc. It’s just to say that I don’t think we can recover the entire country. We’re goint to have to start smaller, much smaller. However, I think we differ on some important points, especially as concerns Europe. Globalization is straining and creaking. The present policies pursued by the Western world are failing. I don’t see the disastrous trends of the last several decades continuing much longer, for the simple reason that they can’t. I also don’t see Europe as being nearly as far gone or doomed as you do, if I understand correctly. Being smaller nations, their problems are smaller in scale (kind of the whole point of the White Republic). Many European nations have very small non-white populations. Their problems are still at a scale that are manageable, if they chose to manage them. While their birthrates are disastrous, they would still be very densely populated even if their numbers were cut by half. It’s always irritated me when demographers, and even people like Buchanan, say something to the effect that “it’s too late for Europe, they are doomed because of their low birthrates. It’s not possible to turn it around.” O.K. Why? Even if German numbers were cut in half, that would still be 30 to 40 million Germans living in an area smaller than California. That’s hardly extinction. They can rebuild and grow from there. The Germans are only doomed if they do nothing; the choice is still theirs. The only thing that is “doomed” is an economy/pension system/welfare system that is predicated upon there being 80 million Germans. There won’t be…for at least a few generations. So what? Those systems are failing anyway, and something new has to replace them anyway. I see that as opportunity more than anything else. Europe is far from doomed. Even Russia is far from doomed. Will Russia very likely lose some territory as a result of its disastrous birthrates? Yes. But it can afford it (other European nations can’t). Do the Jews say, “Oy vey, there are only 14 million of us, we are doomed?” Hell no. Instead, they went to work making babies. If I’m not mistaken, Israeli Jews have one of the highest, if not the highest, birthrates in the developed world. Far over replacement. So why do people say that Europe, with many hundreds of millions of people, is doomed? All Europe’s low birthrates mean, to a certainty, is that the next couple of generations of Europeans are going to be significantly smaller than the current one. There is no way around that, as we can’t go back in time and cause more white Europeans to have been born in 1995. 1995 is over and one with, just like every other past year. But beyond that it is a matter of choice. Europe is going to be the main battleground for our people. A White Republic in North America would be vitally important as well, not only for its own value, but in how it would indirectly assist our kinsmen in Europe. The multicult empire must at least be weakened, and preferably broken entirely. The formation of a White Republic would certainly signal as much. I guess what I’m saying, Leon, is that I agree that we can’t save everything. But we can’t give up on everything, or almost everything, either. It’s just not what we are. We are particularists, we are blood and soil types. We can’t give up on all or even most of our ancestral homelands, and it’s not necessary to do so. But I do agree that we have to look, with a much more realistic eye, at what is actually achievable. I’d be curious as to what your take on this is. 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:28 | # Desmond,
No need to appeal to such an extreme example. Since asceticism necessarily attracts only those with a powerful faith, the same man, relatively speaking, attended to his monastic duty of prayer, obedience, poverty, chastity, and fasting after the coming of Christianity as attended to the rituals, devotions, auguries, divine honours and so forth before. His putting down of one discipline and picking up of another did not change the man. What a different faith form can change is reproductive fitness. You have in the past produced some interesting numbers on the increase in fertility that attended the arrival of Christianity (and I have made the point that Christianity’s emphasis on belief as sufficiency has increased faith-associated genes in the European genotype - while also effecting a dysgenisis by removing the academically able to a life of chastity). Some faith forms are fitter than others. But the fitness is surely accidental. It is the precise narrative and the nature of the solemnities that matter to the faithful. On faith in general, it is not a pre-requisite to the will to experience being - we should get that clear. 43
Posted by CS on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 03:33 | # Trainspotter, Excellent comments. A lot of white people are simply useless or counterproductive to our cause. We need to separate from them just as much as we need to separate from non-whites. —————————————- 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. 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. That is when the fun begins. We will get to 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 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 or career 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 non-white refugee claimants scamming your tax dollars. No more Jews and other non-whites swindling your money every way they can. 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. 44
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 05:14 | # Guessedworker, It’s the ascetic then, that has the hankering for a tasty morsel of human flesh because he was the guy eating pig before the form changed and the tribe started eating humans? And if the form is the thing that does or does not enhance fitness then what value is the tendency? Indeed why is the tendency needed at all? No, the ritual/spiritual follows the hunger, not the reverse. A man eats another man because he is starving and then the devoured comes to him in a dream and the form is born. The belief is established that the dead are immortalized in their eating and the ritual continues despite the maladaptive (consumption pf prions are universally fatal) impact it has upon the tribe. No tendency is required. In fact the behavior, if not curtailed, will portend extinction over a few generations. 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 05:20 | # But Cap, what is the purpose or even need of the tendency if the form will always rise randomly from it? This by definition is not natural selection which is non random. 46
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 05:40 | # I don’t know Jung from dung, however, if the race memory is a recessive gene why would you expect a marker? 47
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:17 | # A tendency to genetic memory is buncombe because unlike the tendency to the spiritual it does not display a phenotype and thus cannot have a genetic origin, yes?. What if, as in female sexuality, the tendency is unconscious and so subtle as to be indiscernible, will we deny the existence of the tendency in sexuality? What if it’s simply a vague readiness to respond to certain stimuli, that may unconsciously alter behavior, must it be denied a genetic component? After all, that is what we are told a faith gene consists of, a vague readiness to respond to certain stimuli. 48
Posted by Wotan on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:42 | # Graham Lister, Darwinianism is one of the best supported theories - well you are a bit behind the time on that issue as Darwinism is undergoing some serious renovations ; The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[61][62] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, “Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false.”[63] It is often incorrectly assumed that he insisted that the rate of change must be constant, or nearly so, but even the first edition of On the Origin of Species states that “Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms… The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus”. Lingula is among the few brachiopods surviving today but also known from fossils over 500 million years old.[64] In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that “the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.”[65] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin’s conception of evolution.[63] According to early versions of punctuated equilibrium, “peripheral isolates” are considered to be of critical importance for speciation. However, Darwin wrote, “I can by no means agree ... that immigration and isolation are necessary elements…. Although isolation is of great importance in the production of new species, on the whole I am inclined to believe that largeness of area is still more important, especially for the production of species which shall prove capable of enduring for a long period, and of spreading widely.”[66] The importance of isolation in forming species had played a significant part in Darwin’s early thinking, as shown in his Essay of 1844. But by the time he wrote the Origin he had downplayed its importance.[63] He explained the reasons for his revised view as follows: Throughout a great and open area, not only will there be a greater chance of favourable variations, arising from the large number of individuals of the same species there supported, but the conditions of life are much more complex from the large number of already existing species; and if some of these species become modified and improved, others will have to be improved in a corresponding degree, or they will be exterminated. Each new form, also, as soon as it has been improved, will be able to spread over the open and continuous area, and will thus come into competition with many other forms ... the new forms produced on large areas, which have already been victorious over many competitors, will be those that will spread most widely, and will give rise to the greatest number of new varieties and species. They will thus play a more important role in the changing history of the organic world.[67] Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin’s ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.
Re the Archetypes - here is a neuro-scientist redefining how the archetypes are defined - which opens a whole new realm of explanations in relation to a scientific analysis of archetypal theory which accord exactly with Jungs theory; CC - the usual Hollywood Nazi / rabid hater crap drools from your lips. Biting the carpet again are we ? 49
Posted by Wotan on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:43 | # http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/this-is-how-israel-runs-the-british-press.html Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: The following is a glimpse into the Israeli Hasbara’s/Mossad’s/Sayanim’s operation in the UK. It explains how Israel and its agents manage to dominate news coverage in Britain and beyond. It seems from the following leaked email as if BICOM (British Israel Communication & research Centre) runs the News desk for the BBC, Sky and the FT. I guess that last week the Guardian also joined the party. It is now an offical Israeli propaganda outlet. Shockingly enough, not a single British paper was brave enough to report the story or publish the leaked email. Surely they know who their masters are. The message is pretty clear. British press is not trustworthy. It is as Zionised as our political system. Bicom ‘embarrassed’ by misdirected email Source http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/c-16955/bicom-embarrassed-by-misdirected-email/ There were red faces at Bicom this week when an email from its The email, sent by Lorna Fitzsimons, the director of the organisation, She added: “Bicom has one of BBC News’ key anchors on a bespoke Most embarrassing, however, was the revelation that Fitzsimons – a She noted Bicom had “regular contact with the Editor at Large of A Bicom spokesman told the Jewish News that this “administrative —–Original Message—– ████████████████ Please find the correct analysis attached. I thought you would be interested to hear of BICOM’s response to Events over the weekend * Over the weekend, BICOM’s rapid response to the unfolding events in BICOM Analysis: Israel-Turkey relations after the Palmer Report * Throughout the weekend, BICOM staff were in contact with a whole This Week * BICOM has one of BBC News’ key anchors on a bespoke * My second article for the Huffington Post UK entitled ‘How to make September & the UN * I briefed Jonathan Ford, the Financial Times leader writer for his * BICOM had regular contact with the Editor at Large of Prospect I hope you find this of interest. Yours, Lorna Background Sophie Long:- Sophie Long is one of the main presenters on the BBC News Channel. She has covered many big stories and can regularly be found anchoring During the last General Election she was on the road with Nick Clegg She regularly presents bulletins on BBC1. After graduating from King’s College London with a degree in War The BBC of course are impartial. They say so themselves. excerpt The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we End 50
Posted by Helvena on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:49 | # The way to kill a man or a nation is to cut off his dreams, the way the whites are taking care of the Indians: killing their dreams, their magic, their familiar spirits. There couldn’t be a society of people who didn’t dream. They’d be dead in two weeks. Dreams go where science can’t. - Helvena 51
Posted by Wotan on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:21 | # Helevena, Spot on Helevena, It appears that the spiritual problem of modern Europeans is one completly missed by the materialists amongst our ranks. We have become what we are today due to the collapse in faith - faith in ourselves, christianity, our pagan past religions, our history, culture and future. European people no longer have faith either in themselves or their future. Hence they do not reproduce and fight against race replacement. The materialists think science can save us - when science offers nothing but ‘truth’. Truth doesnt win wars. Truth doesnt inspire people to fight. Truth doesnt inspire people to have faith in themselves or their future. Only a SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION can do that. Hence why truth is not as important as mythos. Without the former, there will be no latter. Only when European Man has armed and armoured himself with a New Faith, can we defend ourselves from the barrage of lies, media conditioning and propaganda fired at us and only then can we begin the fight back against our foes. Men are not inspired by truth - they are inspired by legends, myths, symbols, visions and dreams. 52
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 12:47 | # Wotan I’m behind the times with regard to evolutionary theory? Really are you sure? (1) Terminology is important - modern evolutionary biology - Neo-Darwinism - is rooted in the ‘modern synthesis’ of Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian inheritance (and quantitative genetic variation). R.A. Fisher is a key intellectual figure in the modern synthesis. The point being is that pinheads on the internet like American ‘creationists’ that go on about Darwin getting something ‘wrong’ imply in that criticism that all modern evolutionary scientists do is sit around performing hermeneutic analysis of Darwin’s writings. Nothing could be further from the truth (we are not theologians) – there is a massive body both of experimental and empirical work along with a very well developed body of theory (mathematical models) that certainly builds upon Darwin but far exceeds his initial work. The modern-synthesis is therefore extremely robust to minor errors, such as they are, in Darwin’s original work. Science is a cumulative ‘ensemble’ phenomenon not simply the efforts of one or two geniuses. (2) Which brings us to the next point. Punctuated Equilibrium (PE). PE does not challenge Neo-Darwinism in the slightest. All evolutionary biologists have long acknowledged that rates of phenotypic evolution and rates of speciation will differ and vary in nature (and stasis in the fossil record does not indicate the absence of natural selection but rather the action of stabilising selection). I think you have fallen for the Gouldian ‘bait and switch’ tactic which so characterised Prof. Gould’s career. Let me explain how the Gouldian modus operandi worked. Gould finds an ordinary phenomenon from the data and repackages it in a new and radical way (with new terminology) and announces it to the world. For example Gould did initially claim PE was a fundamental challenge to the modern-synthesis. People responded by saying basically “what are you on about?” A faux-controversy is generated in the scientific literature, amplifying Gould’s profile beyond its natural level (obscurity). People realise what Gould has done and take him to task and Gould’s responses is one of “you misrepresent my position and I never claimed it was a radical challenge to Neo-Darwinism etc.” What you need to realise about Gould is that he was an expert in the morphology of snail shells. His everyday scientific work was worthy but dull and obscure – and was never going to find him a place at the top table of evolutionary biology. So he changed his game-plan with the rhetorically outrageous pseudo-claim/faux-controversy stratagem. It worked in the narrow sense to gaining him a reputation and prominence he would never otherwise achieve but at a heavy cost. Most biologists (99.9%) eventually considered him a long-standing joke and the professional community grew to ignore him (collectively everyone woke up to his game). Of course Gould moved on to become ‘America’s biologist’ and a ‘public’ intellectual. He then devoted most of his time and effort in his ‘popular’ essays (he wrote one every week for 20+ years I believe). Reading them one is struck by two facts about his popular work: (i) most of his observations are either trivially true/banal or are based on omissions, evasions, half-truths such as he misrepresents the professional literature or is completely ignorant of it; (ii) they are very intellectually undemanding (hence I think the enormous popularity in America). It should be noted that Gould was quite wealthy by the end of his life through his popular books etc. It would be a cheap shot to suggest that in putting money before integrity and intellectual honesty Gould was displaying his Jewish roots. After all the love of money above all else sadly affects many of us goyim too (Mr. Haller how is grad school going – finished ‘Introductory Magical Thinking 101’ yet?). Gould was diagnosed with terminal cancer and rushed to finish his self-described master-work “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory”. This vast tome comes in at over a thousand pages and it’s a monument to self-absorption, vanity and egotism. It should be called “The Structure of Stephen Jay Gould’s Evolutionary Theory” which is a different proposition altogether. I did take a very brief look at it. Lots of hot-air about how the latest findings of ‘evo-devo’ (work on the evolutionary origins of developmental systems) challenged the Neo-Darwinist paradigm (nothing could be further from the truth – how precisely did such developmental systems come into existence if not by the ordinary processes of natural selection? Magic perhaps?). In addition I looked up in the index how many entries there were for important evolutionary theorists (was Gould being serious about discussing evolutionary biology or not?). To my non-surprise the name of W.D. Hamilton (easily the most influential post-WWII evolutionary biologist) had only 3 or 4 entries and when I looked them up they seemed to be nothing more than passing references. Anyone that wanted to write about modern evolutionary biology in toto would have to devote a lot of space to Hamilton and his work. Even facing death Gould was intellectually unserious. Gould’s idee fixe was to always downplay the important of natural selection within evolutionary history. Sorry but that view is untenable. Natural selection is by far the most important phenomenon acting within evolutionary history – that’s just the way it is and no amount of silly wordplay by Gould, or American ‘creationists’, idiotic Marxists or whoever is going to change that. And the gene is ultimately the unit of selection (alleles are selected for or against within a population due to the differences in fitness they produce as expressed in phenotypic traits). (3) You refer to the ‘importance’ of isolation for Darwin’s theory. I presume you refer to geographic isolation? Wrong – totally wrong. Google the term ‘sympatric speciation’. (4) As for your handful of hippy neuroscientists and their fondness for Jung might I suggest (i) they are probably deeply ignorant about evolutionary biology (most scientists know almost nothing about disciplines out-with their day to day work beyond a very basic understanding – science at the highest levels is hard work that’s why most scientists are narrow specialists); and (ii) if you or they wish to overturn Neo-Darwinism not only do you have to produce a more robust, coherent, predictively powerful etc., theory, you and your neuroscientists have to also offer retrospectively a better explanation for all the observations and millions upon millions of data points previously accounted for by Neo-Darwinism. Do you think that’s likely? I would not hold my breath if I were you. 53
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:03 | #
(CS) CS, Welcome back. You’re probably right. Like Michael Corleone, whenever I think I’m out, they ... I do get tired of the ad hominems, misrepresentations of my position(s), and frequently invincible (and wide-ranging) ignorance directed my way. But there are occasional redeeming moments. In terms of activism, I have two interests, one parochial/national, the other, ultimate/global. The first is Middle American nationalism (MAN), for which I believe there exists a huge need right now. This is a ‘bridge ideology’ between Hard Right paleoconservatism (Pat Buchanan), and WN. Essentially, this ideological formation would emphasize agitation on behalf of political issues serving to preserve or increase white political and economic power (eg, immigration, deportations, affirmative action, multiculti, felon disenfranchisement, voter tests, reduction in size and scope of socialist and regulatory aspects of government, gun rights, crime penalties, etc), without involving itself in traditional WN modes of analysis. Hence, racialist discussions - of IQ, genetics, Jewish power structure - would be eshewed in favor of directly attacking policies which harm whites, but which are amenable to being opposed for other-than-WN reasons. Thus, for example, MAN seeks to end immigration, just like WN, but we welcome the efforts of all immigration opponents, regardless of race or religion, and we argue against immigration not in terms of its effects on whites, but on Americans generally. Likewise, we agitate against affirmative action not because it’s bad for whites, but due to its inherent unfairness, the stigma it attaches to nonwhite achievements, etc. The basic idea is that a lot of white Americans dislike the effects of the leftist race agenda, but don’t want to involve themselves with anything which can justifiably be called ‘racist’. (This is a simple tactical consideration the import of which all too many WNs appear incapable of grasping.) The second and more profound area is of course WZ. WZ is necessarily internationalist, and is geared towards the ultimate matter of ensuring the actualization of the 14 words. I know the WZ website is a good idea (there is a website with that name, though the concept seems to be more “domestic secessionist-ethnostatist”, as opposed to “international demographico-imperialist”). I’d be interested in hearing others’ thoughts on that particularly. Right now, however, I am back in grad school, as well as continuing to work half-time, so my time is over-subscribed as is. 54
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:30 | #
(XPWA) Ahh, I’m sure you’re aware that that is a very complex question, as capital is heterogeneous. But basically one might say that capital is a store of past production which is capable of producing future wealth or income. The value of capital depends upon its income generating potential, and is shaped by the intersection of objective characteristics and subjective valuations, so it is not amenable to absolute measurement, as are physical objects. 55
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:34 | # Desmond. If Jung’s archetypes are the phenotype of recessive genes, they must always be dominants because they are expressed, apparently, in our dreams, out of the “objective memory”. In turn, the memory cannot be “objective” (ie universally extant) if it is only ever coded in a heterozygous genotype. No, you’ve got to explain how genes for archetypes can be selected from their appearance or detectability in sleep. Good luck with that. 56
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:51 | # @Lister I was quite enjoying your comment #52, even if we’ve heard it all before from Dawkins, until I came across this gratuitous dig:
How cheap is that shot? Must I truly respond? Alas ... 1) Why is it implied that I put love of money above all else? Evidence (eg, like cutting my career in half to return to study Catholicism? a big money getter you think?)? 2) Intensive study (right now) in the history of Western ethics (Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, Kant, etc), along with early Church history (beginnings to 800 AD), and an overview of the history of moral theology, conducted by professors with impeccable degrees from US and Europe - this is all crap, right? mere pub-talk? Neo-Darwinism is going to man the racial barricades, yes? Or will Heidegger win it for us? I am bored.
57
Posted by Wotan on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:54 | # GW, You seem to think the science we have today is the science we will have for all time. Thats your mistake. You are cast in stone. You cannot evolve. Hence you embrace what you are told is ‘truth’ as a fetish. Yet again you ignore the article I linked too above - which shows that you are unable to refute it ; Re the Archetypes - here is a neuro-scientist redefining how the archetypes are defined - which opens a whole new realm of explanations in relation to a scientific analysis of archetypal theory which accord exactly with Jungs theory ;
Re Graham, Yet again, like GW - you ignore the above article. It appears that GW you are also made of stone and hence unable to evolve. Re Darwinism - my point was that Darwinism was not the be all and end of all of evolutionary theory. It is having to evolve to account for new scientific facts. The question is then - can you and GW also evolve ? 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:59 | # Wotan, Graham is a geneticist. You’ve got to stop pretending that you understand his discipline better than he does. Show some humility and listen to what you are being told. 59
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:25 | # Leon you do seem to have very little by the way of a sense of humour. I’m only teasing you but you know you do come across as being a bit too obsessed with your investments etc. And you are seemingly unwilling to hear even mild criticism of ‘free-markets’ no matter how culturally toxic of even physically toxic their operation may be. Money isn’t everything - one of the problems of the West is that we have been sold the myth that it is. I have never claimed or indeed privately thought that biology will be explicitly central to any modern ideological shift - (a) it is too complex for the man in the pub; and (b) gene-talk et al., in a political context really puts people off (especially educated middle-class people) with some good reason. They assume it’s proxy talk for Nazism etc. But is Jesuit style obfuscation and sophistry a good model for anything? Equally do not mix developing an intellectual framework with the practical reasoning of everyday political tactics and strategy. But the latter without the former is doomed to failure. Simply being angry in the pub/bar about ‘darkies’ isn’t enough, not by a very long shot. And I just wanted to put Wotan straight, nothing more. OK Ah missed those comments about dreams etc., yes man does not live by mere facts alone. Of course not – anyone how thought so would be a very odd person indeed. Even ‘rational’ liberals have a mythos and non-reality based cosmology underpinning their system of thought (or rather its premises go way beyond the available evidence). But mention of the native Americans reminded me a a very interesting book “Radical Hope: Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation” by Jonathan Lear. It is a brief, complex, erudite and fascinating work. What is this book about? Well it’s broadly a philosophical anthropology based around the figure of Plenty Coups, the last great Chief of the Crow Nation and the the history of the destruction of the Absaroke Indian tribe (also known as the Crow) as a prototype for cultural devastation, and looks to the ensuing behavior of the Crow to show the possibility of survivors building a new way of life. Shortly before he died, Plenty Coups, the last great Chief of the Crow Nation, told his story - up to a certain point. “When the buffalo went away the hearts of my people fell to the ground,” he said, “and they could not lift them up again. After this nothing happened.” It is precisely this point - that of a people faced with the end of their way of life - that prompts the philosophical and ethical inquiry pursued in “Radical Hope”. In Jonathan Lear’s view, Plenty Coups’ story raises a profound ethical question that transcends his time and challenges us all: how should one face the possibility that one’s culture might collapse and disappear? The issue is not genocide. Many of the Crow people survive; but their culture is gone. The rich tapestry of meaning, concepts, virtues – their house of being – utterly devastated. Now Lear is Jewish I believe and praises Plenty Coup for accommodating himself to the new reality (obviously the dumping of authentic being in the world is acceptable for native Americans, and others, but would never be a Jewish option I suspect). I take the opposite view that the wholesale embrace of a new inorganic and inauthentic way of being was the final nail in the metaphorical coffin for those people. Of course it was, I suppose a fait accompli, but I have much more sympathy with those figures discussed in the book that to the bitter end fought against this fate. All cultures are open to change over time but what happened to the native Americans was effectively the complete destruction of their way of being in a historical blink of an eye. The change to their way of being was so rapid that their culture could not metabolise it – the basis for what had been their authentic way of being was gone and gone forever. I knew some native Americans when I lived state-side and they all seemed to have a peculiar melancholia about them. Hard to pin down but in retrospect perhaps it was because they are not at home in the world, and cannot fully deal with the lost of being ‘beloved’. They are now like driftwood floating in a vast sea without purpose or meaning, or any form of phenomelogical map with which to make deep-sense, a like-giving sense, of their being in the world. That their ‘map of the world’ has become unreadable to them, well it is their profound and collective tragedy and let it not become ours. The point is however Lear offers a fascinating synthesis of Aristotle and Heidegger in understanding how culture and being interact. It’s a shame he ultimately uses that learning to justify terrible conclusions. But I still would recommend reading it, even if you have to ‘read against the grain’ of the work.
60
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:30 | #
(Dan Dare) ————————————————————————————————————————— Obviously, immigration and falling birthrates are analytically distinct issues, and, yes, Europe could theoretically end the immigration invasion without doing anything to increase its native fecundity. In practice, however, these issues are related, for reasons I made clear in the same comment #3: I think Europe’s destruction will come about with much greater rapidity, and through one of the following ways. Either your treasonous elites, having utterly failed to implement real FREE MARKET ECONOMICS, or at least to have instituted much stricter limits on welfare state expenditures and pension guarantees, will start admitting immigrants in the tens of millions annually in order to have the prime age workers needed to pay for Europe’s old age entitlements, or ... after having made ever larger military cutbacks in order to preserve increasingly expensive labor/socialist (mainly health and pension) programs, you will be invaded and conquered in some new Islamic jihad. (LH) First, I am sceptical that today’s unbelievably soft and rather lazy and decadent Europeans will choose national survival at the expense of their retiree programs, all predicated on larger (and certainly not dramatically shrinking) labour forces. The idea of much greater immigration to cover pension shortfalls has been bruited about for over a decade now. I hope you Euros resist the siren call of national suicide, but based on present, still-underwhelming nationalist political fortunes, I am sadly doubtful. Please prove me wrong! Second, even if nation comes to supersede pension, there is still the crisis of underpopulation relative to one’s culturally alien and aggressive neighbors. Are you familiar with the population (as well as age-structure) disparities between Europe and the Middle East and Maghreb projected for 2050? And yet you see no security threat, especially in an era of continued military drawdowns (effectuated to continue propping up the socialist ‘glories’ of Europe which Graham Lister and his ilk find preferable to the discipline and rigours of the free market)? 61
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:42 | #
(Lister) Please explain especially bolded part in plainer language. 62
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:26 | # Trainspotter, Great comment @40. I really want to respond, but no time now (I slightly responded in comment to Dan Dare). I may not be able to look at this again until tonight, so check out MR tomorrow (Wed Nov 9, American date). I note this only: my perspective is very American, even when I try to “go global”. For as far back as I can remember (early 70s), my parents have been railing against immigration. Being white, ‘Nordic’, Southern Californians, this is hardly surprising. We were the front lines of the Third World invasion. Even when I and my sisters were kids, I recall my parents saying to us that “our generation” might one day have to “go back” to Europe (where we lived for parts of the 70s - I recall virtually no nonwhites in rural France, or Switzerland or Germany back then ... and I was very aware of ‘diversity’, per my SoCal childhood). Starting in the 80s my family was incredulous at what the Euros were doing to themselves re minorities, esp Muslims. And everything keeps getting worse, never better. And recall what I’ve said before: there have been chances: Haider, Le Pen, BNP, etc. When will the victories come? WZ is a pessimist’s solution. Of course, Europe can be saved. Of course, committed WN Americans could secede from the Union. But how likely are those possibilities? The problem is not just The Other. It’s us. As commenter Silver often says, lots of whites like ‘diversity’. At least, lots don’t care about it (except feral negroids - and a subset of whites likes them, too, savagery notwithstanding). I fear that whites who want to preserve whiteness represent a genetic type that is not majoritarian among psychologically evenly distributed collectivities (eg, nations). Yet, there are like-minded allies everywhere, but condemned always to exist as (powerless, and dwindling) minorities. Maybe WNs are like homosexuals. For whatever evolutionary reason [note to Lister: isn’t that a tough genetic problem? how does homosexuality persist?], queers keep popping up. But they will never be a majority. There will always be anti-diversitarian whites. But we have to face the fact that there might be an upper limit to our number in any evenly distributed population (absent extreme events) - and that that number will never constitute a majority in such populations. I think we have to create an inorganic majority of WNs somewhere that is both sovereign politically, and small enough for us to have a shot at political dominance. Again (per another comment on the “Yo!” thread (I think), if the gays could do this wrt San Francisco, I think we can do it, too. (Out for now.) 63
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:15 | # Helvena, I am not convinced that Anglo-Saxons dream at all in the secular realm. All that we have done has been done without such confabulation. Even the taking of America was done for small reasons (inflated as Manifest Destiny, but not changed in motivational scale). In any case, as I have said many times, great myth holding eternal truth cannot be made to order by political people. 64
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:54 | #
They like it for other people, its been observed countless times that they dont actually like it much for themselves, voting with their feet etc. The like the idea of it, they like a handful of well behaved non-whites amongst them as trophies. They dont like the real thing, very few of them anyway.
65
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:16 | # Desmond: we are told a faith gene consists of, a vague readiness to respond to certain stimuli. Who by? Not me. I’ve observed the question and concluded that faith, as a human trait, binds and attentuates a range of very fundamental emotions such as fear, awe, humility, desire, hope, ethusiasm, etc, producing a behavioural landscape characterised by belief, devotion, piety, moral stricture, and so forth. It is the dominant part of many people’s lives. Forms of religious practise are only clothes upon their faith-body. They can, and quite often do, change their clothes, and the reproductive fitness associated (largely) with the moral element will increase or decrease - exactly as it will with different socio-economic forms which our lives inhabit. I am uncertain what you are driving at, or whether you understand faith at all. 66
Posted by danielj on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:40 | # I am not convinced that Anglo-Saxons dream at all in the secular realm. All that we have done has been done without such confabulation. Even the taking of America was done for small reasons (inflated as Manifest Destiny, but not changed in motivational scale). The Puritans weren’t building a shining city on a hill?! Italians dream through sculpture and paint while the Anglos dream by way of words. That particularly English logos (and some Jewish financing) led to the building of the greatest Thalassocracy the planet has even seen. Would you reduce everything your people have done to mere money getting? 67
Posted by Silver on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:49 | # Haller,
Really? I don’t recall saying it “often.” But it’s certainly true, especially with respect to not caring too much about it. It must be stressed, however, that these statements about likes and dislikes can’t be made independently of the question of numbers. Who? How many? And in what size territory? Numbers are of the essence. It’s one thing to have a fondness for a few percentage points reasonably closely racially related Others (related, that is, but different enough to be visibly noticeable) in a large city (say Adelaide, Aus fifty years ago). It’s quite another thing indeed to have such affection for a fifty percent distribution of drastically different racial types spread evenly throughout an entire region of a country (southern USA today). Since there are all sorts of various combinations in between those two “extremes” (they’re not really extremes) it’s very difficult (and silly) to generalize too much about what people think. But if I had to generalize independently of context, I’d say roughly half of whites “don’t care” much about diversity. They don’t seek it out but won’t necessarily flee if it’s there, and profess acceptance of and willingness to engage in race-mixing . This figure could be as high as 70% or low as 30%, but 50% is probably a good rule of thumb. I’d guess that 10-20% actually like diversity and will seek it out, and will actively challenge those who speak negatively of it. In addition, I’d put the number who are deeply invested in diversity—who view it philosophically and experience it profoundly satisfyingly, and who are active in promoting it (the green-haired lesbians with eyebrow piercings types)—at no more than 5%. (I would hate to think it’s any higher than this. Eek.) That leaves some 50% of whites (again, could be higher, could be lower) who are basically disdainful of diversity. They structure a significant portion of their lives around the avoidance of diversity and will flee it if it unexpectedly encroaches. Within this 50% (or so), there is that much smaller proportion who are militantly opposed, numbering some 5-10%, with the militancy increasing as we travel down the scale until we reach the hardcore, the ‘WN’—typically grounded in stern biologism and anti-semitism, and keenly racially discerning.
This is true, but, as I said, it’s hard to put a number on how many feel this way, and it depends a lot on what you mean “liking” it. By my definition of “liking,” virtually no one outside that 5-10% core of true believers actually “likes” it. That’s because the view I have of what the relationship between members of a polity should be departs significantly from what a majority of both whites as well as non-whites apparently believes it should be. Whereas I (along with you nationalists, although I don’t think of myself as one) believe people should enjoy a sense of common purpose and common identity and share common cultural assumptions and practices, and that political life should in large part consist of discussing, defining and pursuing such things, most people appear to care rather little about any of it, and prefer to pursue their own individual ends independent of any consideration of what the larger group ‘should’ be doing. So, seen from this perspective, I have a very hard time believing any really “likes” associating with people different from themselves; that is, in the sense of experiencing a true ‘bond’ and feelings of unity and camaraderie. But I have to face reality. And the reality is that far fewer people seek such bonds (much less demand them) than I ever thought possible. Apparently, they’re content to merely transact business, cheer on the local sports team, enjoy the odd spot of drunken (or drugged out) revelry and debauchery, and describe all this as diversity ‘working.’ 68
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:56 | # Love, properly understood and correctly focused, can cure our present ills because it is the force that makes us the particular humans that we are and makes the particular communities we live in. Love of oikos, grounded in gratitude to all that made it possible to be ‘at home in the world’ is the key. The Western tradition is not a universal one (even when espousing various manifestations of universalism) and we must stop pretending it is. As Roger Scruton has observed oikophobia is “the repudiation of inheritance and home” and by definition that inheritance is always a local and particularist phenomenon. Scruton acknowledges that okiophobia is “a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes”, but sadly that it is a key feature of some radical political impulses and ideologies, particularly in my view the radical liberal ontology of the self-authored ‘individual’ and the politics and culture which flow from this misunderstanding of the human subject. As I have commented previously the underlying psychological ‘texture’ of liberalism is seemingly that of the angry toddler: “me, me, me; now, now, now!” with both left and right liberals chafing against any restrictions upon their so-called ‘freedom’ (they just differ in what they think it is most important to be free about; money or cultural values/life-styles). We post-liberals are the grown-ups and children often don’t like the grown-ups saying “no” to them even if it is in their best interests. But history is full of examples of unexpected and rapid socio-political change. The challenge is formidable but the task is not yet hopeless. And Leon if you really are concerned about the biology of homosexuality I could write something about it but perhaps you might be satisfied to check out this: ‘Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity’ by Bruce Bagemihl. I can’t honestly say I’ve read it myself but horses for courses as they say. As for Bhaskar and ontology it is rather complex material so I’ll get back to you on that.
69
Posted by Helvena on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:02 | # Well, maybe the Anglo-Saxon don’t dream GW but I’d put this in the secular dream category and some of the comments as well. 70
Posted by W LindsayWheeler on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:06 | # I would like to know why your website of the hundreds I visit all day long, YOURS is the ONLY one that DOES NOT fit my window!! Why doesn’t your website put all the content in the screen! Why Why Why. I use IE9 and I like it. Don’t tell me to change. What is wrong with your website. Why do sentences stream for miles out to the right field? Seriously, can something be done about this. 71
Posted by Helvena on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:50 | # Fits my screen just fine. Also GW, your saying that Anglo-Saxons don’t dream reminds me of this poem by Pound, the woman England. October 13, 2008 at 10:10 pm (Poems) (Poems) THE GARDEN 72
Posted by W Lindsay Wheeler on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:16 | # Thanks. Things changed now. It needs a slight tweaking. The column at the left is one half of the page. If you could tweak that parameter just a little, I think you guys will have it. Thanks. 73
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:28 | # I have this problem, too. Right side of page has come to take up half the screen space. Not an improvement. 74
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:44 | # Same here with the page layout. OK Hey guys maybe we should lay of LH? I’m sure he is a thrusting metrosexual rather than a homosexual. Leon you are obviously a man of the world did your ever get along to ‘Studio 54’ in NYC or the West-coast equivalent in your younger days? On that topic are you more of an ‘Erasure’ man? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSnLGdpjWf4 Or a ‘Pet Shop Boys’ guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NZ04BG7TfA Sorry my apologies as a proud American you would go for something more authentically native and home-grown. Maybe this? 75
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:59 | # Apologies for the rendering of the page. Someone must have changed a value somewhere in one of the templates. Not me. Seems to be OK again now. 76
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:13 | # Graham Lister, You must spend an awfully large amount of time scanning Youtube vids. How do you find this crap, post after post? For the record, I’d never even heard of that queer Samwell. And the biology of homosexuality does present at least something of a conundrum for Neo-Darwinian supremacists, doesn’t it? In a sexually reproducing species of two sexes, shouldn’t any ‘same-sex’ mutation be self-defeating? Why is the responsible gene or constellation of such not bred out? Thanks for the book rec, I think I’ve seen it in the biology section of the now defunct Borders chain. But I doubt I will be able to read more than a couple of thousand books (if that) in the remainder of my earthly tenure, and a book on that particular subject just isn’t worth it. I thought perhaps you could supply a short answer.
Of course, I don’t disagree. The significance of biological arguments wrt race is to undercut the liberal “we’re all equal and therefore interchangeable” nonsense, as well as the “minority failure is due to white racism” canard. But ‘is’ really does not get you to ‘ought’. To save our race will require a substantial revision first in contemporary PC racial ethics, but ultimately, I believe, for reasons far too involved to just state here, that it will require a ‘return to metaphysical meaningfulness’, which I interpret to suggest Christianity, as well as a philosophical reformulation of (modern, misunderstood, and possibly even heretical) Christianity in order that the latter be made into an ally and not an enemy of white preservation. In other words, even if I were a Dawkinsian atheist, I increasingly think I would be studying exactly what I am at present. As for Jonathan Lear, I have actually seen that book at one point, and made a note of it. I’ve never read any of his books, but I have some of his essays in either (or both) The New York Review and The New Republic (I believe he writes for both, though in the latter case I might be confusing him with the historian of America, especially in the 19th century, Jackson Lears). Isn’t he some kind of leftist psychologist, more Freudian than scientific? Of course, the book might still be worth reading. I myself have used the phrase “mode of being” to describe part of what whites are losing in their rush to racial integration and demographic minority status, at several past points here at MR. If Heidegger helps to flesh out the specifics of the white man’s mode of being, then perhaps brining him to the discussion is indeed useful, though I still think the primary philosophical discipline implicated in our struggle is ethics. Our current dominant ethical discourse is what is leading us straight to extinction. 77
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:32 | # @Leon,
http://blog.mises.org/14387/capital-is-heterogeneous/ And this: http://www3.druid.dk/wp/20020001.pdf
I expected a 100% academic-monetarist answer. And you didn’t disappoint me. You provided one encased in gooblydegook. And I am unsurprised that people don’t exist anywhere in your concept. The Judeo-Austrian views goy cattle as being at least as fungible as UNC specification nuts and bolts. The Judeo-Austrian in fact rates inanimate machinery as being of infinitely more importance than human beings. And unfortunately for you, Leon, this is not merely another of my gratuitous digs against you (enjoyable though they are). Quoting from the cited “Austrian” paper on “heterogeneous capital”:
Put another way, in the Austrian view an individual who buys with paper money a collection of imported Chinese equipment from the Manhattan Supply Company is an entrepreneur owning an entrepreneurial firm. But a group of people designing and building their own “capital assets” such as production tooling are….nothing. I’ll hazard one further statement. Not one of the mechanistic “Austrians” holding forth that way has the slightest knowledge of real science, engineering and technology. If they did they wouldn’t write such idiotic drivel. However, I will agree that virtually all of the Chinese marketing front ends active in North America meet the “Austrian” definition of an entrepreneurial firm. These entities are just institutionally incapable of ever physically producing anything. The starting and ending point of every organization is trained people. Numbers are never a substitute for individual quality. It is natural that a society shot through with the toxins of the Austrian School finds it necessary to import the most basic machine tools and industrial equipment.
78
Posted by CS on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:42 | # Leon, Once again I suggest you stop wasting your time knocking heads with some of the other posters here and set up your White Zion website. If queers can take over parts of major cities, WN can take over a small country like Belize. 79
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:51 | # Guessedworker
It’s the forms then that are adaptive, not the tendency. And yet you say everything innate is selected, including a tendency, yet how can that be if the tendency, according to your last statement, does not provide the fitness benefit? Why is the tendency selected, if it provides no fitness benefit? Why isn’t the form selected, because in your view it provides the benefit? The only conclusion to draw is that the forms are memes, replicators that care not at all for the genetic pool they inhabit but simply for their own survival. In conclusion, there can be no faith gene, only faith memes. 80
Posted by danielj on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:55 | # Isn’t he some kind of leftist psychologist, more Freudian than scientific? Freud has provided a useful framework. We must know it and use it. Lears was pretty much a Laschian Communitarian type. I read his Fables of Abundance once a year. 81
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 04:20 | #
Why can’t there be a genetically underpinned tendency to be infected with faith memes? 82
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 04:43 | # Hey guys, sorry to go off topic, but please check out my latest attempt to impersonate Matt Parrott (4:42 min) in an interview with NBC. 83
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:56 | # Graham, I worry about you, how did you even know that ghastly samwell thing existed? Yes, I started watching. Yuk. 84
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:00 | # Danielj, I was referring to Jonathan Lear re the Freudian comment. ——————- CS, Noted. But I do enjoy ‘butting’ heads, in a non-‘samwellian’ vein, with some of the posters here at MR. ——————- Jimmy Marr, Good photo essay. I have nothing personal against your comrades, but is this kind of thing really the most effective way to save whitey? I repost part of my Middle American Nationalism comment from above:
Bottom line is, are you trying to realize the 14 words, or are you and NSM just having a good time stirring things up? ———————————- Graham Lister, Don’t mock Studio 54. Circa 1979, that was definitely a place I would have liked to be, though my knowledge of pop music cannot begin to hold a candle to yours. ———————————- Silver, I don’t really disagree with your general sense of numbers and percentages. My point, here and forever, is always that every impersonal, exogenous trend in the contemporary world is militating against the biological perpetuity of the white race. Jews, WW2, etc notwithstanding, this may have always been inevitable, whites having reached egalitarian, low birthrate, ‘open societies’ first, as it were. In the absence of Jewish media propaganda, would whites have held on to their traditional racial consciousness? I don’t think so. As GW and GL are wont to say (correctly I think), the problem is much deeper. My ancillary point is that, as things now stand, only some type of assertion of white will-to-endure will be sufficient to ensure we endure. If we drift, we die. Of course, that will must be intelligently packaged, or the game is forfeit at the outset (sorry, Jimmy, NSM probably won’t cut it). I, somewhat regrettably, see WZ as the most feasible option for the 14 words, even if, at least in its earliest stages, its leitmotif is evasion and escape, rather than heroic (“Aryan”) confrontation. (PS - I still have to go over your comments at the “Octopi” thread.)
85
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:33 | # I invite MR readers to consider XPWA’s comment #77. Does its content make sense to you, or do you see a series of non sequiturs, as I do? BTW, of course “people exist”, so to speak, in the Austrian theory of capital (about which I don’t claim expertise, just basic understanding - though thanks for the useful links). What does XPWA think was meant, exactly, by my use of the term “subjective valuations”? Furthermore, stop comparing economics, esp Austrianism, to the natural sciences. If critics here actually understood anything about Mises et al, they would never make such ludicrous claims or counterpositions. It was precisely one of Mises’s major demonstrations that the proper economic methodology was radically distinct from the positivist approach to science (in other words, economics is not properly to be considered a ‘science’ in the naturalistic sense at all, but rather a branch of deductive logic, but one which has indubitable application to material reality; economic propositions are both logically valid, and empirically true; Hans-Hermann Hoppe has expounded on these philosophical points at great length). Moreover, you ignoramus, the Austrian approach is by far the most humanistic of any economic school of thought, for the Austrians examine human action, which they do not think can be adequately ‘mathematized’ (described by or reduced to numerical equations). I’m quite serious in saying that people here should not reject Austrianism simply because they dislike the racial/national effects of libertarianism. That most Austrians are political libertarians in no way implies any necessary connection between the mode of value-free analysis, and the ideology. I am an Austrian School Catholic paleoconservative philosophically, but basically a WN politically. I reject libertarianism, though I value the Anglo-Saxon heritage of liberties, and I want to live in a capitalist economy (far more than the mixed-socialist USA today). But the reach of capitalism ought to be stopped at the ‘race’s edge’. Is this too difficult for y’all to grasp? 86
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:03 | # Yes the Samwell thing is totally ghastly…as for my knowledge of it blame ‘South Park’ - they had the character Butters sing it in one episode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_On_Strike Still I hear that the Samwell creature is thinking of becoming a Catholic priest… 87
Posted by Wolfman J's ghost on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:34 | #
HAHA! I think the best of the worst youtube vids Graham Lister posted was this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HHT_V294Co Remember that, Lister? —- After listening to that atrociously infectious piece, I couldn’t get it out of my head for two freakin’ days! It was a cruel form of torture on GL’s part. For that I say: Dang you Lister! 88
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:58 | # @Leon,
Everyone get that? According to the Jew von Mises the natural sciences have nothing to do with economics. Now in a perverse way this has become true. Judeo-Austrian design “entrepreneurial firms” specializing in the paper money trading of Chinese non-free trade goods never produce anything and never will produce anything. Therefore the heat of fusion of aluminum and Avogadro’s Number are irrelevant to business and economics. Try taking that statement about the disconnection of economics and natural sciences to any steel mill, foundry or nuclear power plant. (I just say this because I want you humiliated, demeaned and treated like a horses’ ass in person). No one should be surprised that the Jew von Mises would make such an assertion. Jewish owned businesses almost always focus on buy low - sell high arbitrage of pre-existing “assets”.
An excellent summary of the reasons you are persona non grata at all the libertard and “Austrian” sites. Not one of them agree with you on this. You are therefore a mutant speaking only for yourself. And what you speak makes absolutely no sense for white people.
I propose stopping it well short of extended families and neighborhood communities. Again, you speak only for yourself. The Jews and their rabble will always seek ways of reducing everything to mere commodities with monetary prices they can arbitrage. And this includes labor, women, children and sex.
This is mere assertion that is directly contradicted by the Judeo-Austrian discussions on “heterogeneous capital” that I cited. Both National Socialism and Social Nationalism are far more humanistic. In the minds of the Austrian authors I cited the “entrepreneurial firm” and its “heterogeneous capital” only contains one complete human being. This is the “entrepreneur”. This mindset actually decodes to 100% Talmudic compatibility. One of the fundamental precepts of the Talmudists is that only Jews are really human. Now the image is finally focused. What is under discussion in the Judeo-Austrian paper and in Judeo-Austrian theory generally are models of Jew-owned businesses. These almost never produce anything tangible. Therefore “economics” really has no connection to hard physical sciences. This is not shocking to me and it ought not to shock anyone else. This is just as internally consistent as Jew Rothbard’s “logical admission” that his philosophy morally justifies starving one’s children to leverage personal hedonistic ambitions. Repeat: the filthy Jewish philosophies of Libertarianism and “Austrian School” economics have absolutely no place in a healthy pro-white movement. The prevalence of this intellectual sewer sludge among WNs has been responsible for sabotaging progress for many decades. 89
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:40 | # Trainspotter, I must be unpolished and hurried (though in part I agree with most of what you say, except that I think you underestimate the sheer lack of nerve, as well as unbridled selfishness, of the contemporary European). 1. Of course we’re not going to take it all back (absent war, which we may win or lose: if Christian moderate white separatist, we might make it; if hard-edged WN, esp in a neo-Nazi or anti-Christian guise, we will be slaughtered with easy impunity; neither the fighting numbers, nor non-radical white sympathizers, will be present). 2. There will be no NA White Republic. I like the NW Front idea. I think more whites will be moving there over time (and they will be followed by more Mexican laborers). But as to racial sovereignty, which is what the WR is all about, that will never happen but through war (as in much else, I hope I’m wrong). White Americans are slowly being Boerized, that is, reduced to the status of System wage-slaves. I don’t mean the Marxist shit about capitalism. I mean literal slavery. Boers are now economic slaves. Their productivity is mostly siphoned off to support a huge class of affirmative action African parasites. To a lesser but growing extent that is the new and future condition of white Americans viz nonwhites (and also white members of public sector unions, the great socialist blight of our age). We maintain the System; it cannot afford to let us go (and will be even less able to do so in the future), and it won’t, except in the trivial sense of allowing emigration (and even that, at least if it involves transfer of currency or assets, cannot be assumed as a permanent option). White men disproportionately work in the private sector. I bet that goes doubly for WNs. The ruling class does not want us to leave; it would deprive them of too much revenue and useful talent. Even a peaceful local majority vote for sovereign secession (as opposed merely to seceding from particular local jurisdictions, but remaining within the USA) would not be honored.
(Train) 3. This begs a lot of questions, doesn’t it? Yes, Germany could survive its impending demographic bottleneck, as could white America. But will they? Which (major) Western nation has ended nonwhite immigration? Which has formally renounced multiculturalism? And even if immigration is ended, will there be repatriation (certainly not in the US - that much I guarantee!)? Don’t assume the latter will automatically follow from a people sufficiently awakened to have demanded the former. Think of the UK. Possibly a majority does not want the population to hit 70 million. Maybe immigration will finally be ended there on carrying capacity grounds. But do you think that desired outcome will then lead to further nationalist demands being translated into legislation - or do you think the nationalist cause will be deflated, and Middle Britons will worry about their economy and personal well-being? I opt for the latter. What happens then? For our lives, UK remains what it is, but with constant racial hemorrhaging, due to nonwhites having higher fertility (as in US), but especially to ever increasing miscegenation. What is a white? I think I recall that the Nazis put it at a minimum of 31/32 Aryan. Will Britain still be Britain in a century, when 60-80% of the inhabitants are more than 1/32 nonwhite? More to follow later, if I receive responses. 90
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:46 | # http://mises.org/daily/5796/The-Clear-Language-of-the-Austrian-School Exactly. 91
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:53 | # Let me put it all really simply. Between falling absolute and relative numbers of whites, and galloping interracially redistributionary socialism, life for whites on this planet in this century is going to get so bad so quickly that some type of White Zion, some planetary laager, a huddling together for defense and bare survival, will become necessary, even inevitable. The sooner we (esp white Americans) get this into our heads, the sooner we reject as ultimate possibilities anything but WZ, the better our chances of successfully creating this shelter, and surviving this coming evolutionary bottleneck. 92
Posted by Bill on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:58 | # Things are getting bad, quick. We’re all in this together! This sound-bite is beginning to hit home to people like Frank Field and Nicholas Soames (even Guardian readers) who notice the incoming tide around their feet. These people might live in gated country homes but they have to venture out into the wider world at sometime. (I’ve heard white elites in Brazil live like that) It’s taken a long time for such people to realise they will be caught in the inevitability of it all The world situation has notched up a gear or three in a very short period. According to the fear factory the global (EU) economic crisis is about to blow, exactly what that means I haven’t a clue, (and the media doesn’t expand) but it won’t be nice. The Anglo American war party is beginning to dance to a familiar tune. A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s on Iran’s nuclear technology capabilities, (which, according to those whose job it is to understand such things,) say the report is ambiguous in the extreme, containing many a could, should and might. I say what does it matter anyway, it didn’t stop them attacking Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Libya, and it won’t stop them attacking Iran or anywhere else for that matter. (Russia and China looming in the cross hairs.) Simmering immigration is another hot button issue and closer to home, but is of a less concise nature. It is the simmering pot of white survival due to mass non-white immigration. The problem I have had from the beginning of my raised consciousness, (thought I’d throw that one in) is the time scale of it all. How long would it take before the realisation of the inevitability’s of it all would hit home to most folk? Trouble is, the control of this timescale has been in the hands of the elites from the get-go. It is by regulating the immigration discourse spigot that has enabled the media to determine the speed or otherwise of the immigration debate. (Imagine what a focussed nationlist party could have achieved during this period) During the five years or so years I’ve been posting on the subject, the flow has bee erratic, but overtime the volume of debate has expanded beyond imagination of a few years ago. Who could have imagined an email petition sanctioned by the elites in the name of Migration Watch? How big a breakthrough or sea change this e-petition proves to be in the scheme of things - only time will tell? From the beginnings, (2005’ish) the elites have gradually opened the spigot of heavily censored comment, and over this period much has been achieved, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, this expansion of debate has been confined mainly to national newspapers online comment, and individual blogs and websites. in short, the immigration debate has, and continues to be, confined to the Internet bubble. There is no real evidence (from my viewing platform) that in the outside world of the general public is there is no boiling concern over immigration, although sporadic surveys show 80% + of the population consider immigration to be high on their list of concerns. There are no protests (that I know of) outside of the Internet of massive concern over immigration. It is extraordinary, that whenever I allude to concern over immigration to my friends and neighbours they shy away and change the subject. It is these people who constitute the majority of our population, what I have found is they simply do not want to be taken out of their comfort zone, and to be honest I don’t think they ever will. Events are gathering apace, the media is ramping up the fear factor, more corruption, more inefficiency, more chaos, more decay, more not fit for purpose is revealed each day, whether it be unhealthy hospitals or abandoned border checks, crime or corruption. Britain is fast heading for failed state status. The stakes are high, The global EU economic shambles, the Middle East powder keg, and the slowly, slowly catchee monkey immigration couldron, are all simmering to the boil, it’s a brave person who calls where they’re all heading We will win. But what will victory look like? 93
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:17 | #
Fortunately, Leon, your bottom line parameters are not mutually exclusive. We have a wonderful time stirring things up under the auspices of the 14 words, and we are getting better at it. Our reputation for cooperation with law enforcement agencies grows with each successive rally. The key to our success lies in drawing out and illuminating the dichotomy between those who respect law and order and those who oppose it. At the end of the day, the police and military are naturally on our side. You continue to labor under the illusion that our success is proportional to our ability to reach the masses. I think not. The masses, after all is said and done, admire power. They want, more than anything else, to be on whichever side appears strongest. They respond more readily to wowing than to wheedling. That’s what we do. It’s a ton of fun, and I’m sorry you missed it. We’ll be at it again, big time, by Hitler’s birthday. Until then, Siege Heil! 94
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:48 | # @Leon. I noticed some similarities in a quote in GW’s thread leader and your #54. Here’s the quote from Jewess Alana Lentin:
Let’s contrast Lentin’s belch with your Judeo-Austrian School based #54:
95
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 22:08 | # Dispatches Channel 4: Britain’s Sex Gangs - Global Link not dependent on location More here. 96
Posted by CL on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:19 | # Leon said:
The Jewish menace can be seen as a very fortuitous happening in this light, making an acute crisis of what would have been a chronic dissipation. 97
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:12 | # @Leon http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html
We can see the influence of this particular scripture at work in the Judeo-Austrian School’s entire adversarial approach to white labor and white labor replacement via the agency of “free trade”. The Judeo-Austrian School have been the noisiest proponents of offshoring industrial production to non-white dictatorships. This simultaneously destroys white incomes and families while transforming their former trade goods into assets that can be purchased with paper and then marked up in classic “buy low sell high” fashion. The concept of a workforce’s skills constituting a firms most valuable assets doesn’t exist because the Judeo-Austrian generally can no longer legally sell them on. We can consequently read idiotic statements like depreciable machinery constituting core assets for an “entrepreneur” while entirely ignoring the existence of engineers and highly skilled technologists. There is a partial exception. They have managed to convert a good part of college education into fungible intangible assets in the form of lifetime student debt that is immune to even bankruptcy. And the Judeo-Austrian responds in fail-safe manner about the “sanctity of (monetary) contract” and similar cultic mumbo-jumbo when this subject is even raised.
98
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:29 | # @GW
Yes this is a critical point. They create idealogies designed to make the host self-harm but the people who adopt the self-harming idealogies don’t know that. Most of them believe in it. This creates a lot of scope for cognitive dissonance.
Guerrilla cultural warfare is fun. 99
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:43 | # @Leon Haller
If it was (at least partly) related to twins then the overally reproductive effect might still be positive. 100
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:41 | # XPWA, I’m not sure if I should even try to respond to you. Regardless of ideological disagreements or political preferences, we’re not speaking the same academic language at all. You keep insinuating your own empirical beliefs (not always correct, btw), as well as moral preferences, into issues like the logical status of economic propositions. Economics is not value-laden. It is simply a way of accounting for various social phenomena. For example, if the government sets a price ceiling on a good, eventually a shortage of that good (a gap between quantity demanded and quantity supplied, to use the somewhat pompous language of economics) will likely develop (unless of course the ceiling’s price point is far above any equilibrium price). This is not a statement about whether the ceiling is a good idea for non-economic reasons. One can always allow non-economic concerns to override considerations of economic efficiency - especially when those concerns implicate the ultimate sustainability of the system itself (this is the area of genuine challenges - Christian, nationalist, ecological - to free market theory, the area I am interested in pursuing in greater intellectual depth in the future). The point is that economics informs us of the costs of various courses of legislative or commercial action, and it certainly seems like a good idea to know such costs.
(XPWA) You just don’t understand what the Austrians mean. Of course science is vital to economic development. It is the very foundation of it. The Austrian point is that the methodology of economics is not the same as the positivist one of the natural sciences. You must read Hoppe, Praxeology and Economic Science (I think that’s the title; I read it two decades ago, and most of my library is at my house in LA; just go to the Mises.org website). I don’t have time to regurgitate Austrian method here!
(XPWA) I was banned because of my PinC questions mainly pertaining to immigration. Yes, many Austrians are retarded open borders advocates. But not all by any means, and not many of the leading lights, like Hoppe and David Gordon. Often, when I have posted on racial topics from other internet addresses, like work and occasional friends’ computers, many Mises.org commenters have staunchly agreed with me, especially re immigration (also blacks and crime). You generalize far too broadly. And my position, though mostly rejected everywhere I admit, will become dominant over time. You’ll see, if you live long enough. De-PC’d Christianity, free enterprise, and racial realism represent the correct approach to the problems of the West.
(XPWA) Really? It has been the prevalence of neo-Nazism within WN circles that more than anything else (certainly more than Austrian economics!!) has retarded the development of a morally responsible white preservationism, here as well as in Europe. And as long as WN is morally suspect in the eyes of white majorities, it will go nowhere, Alex Linder’s and Jimmy Marr’s and Kai Murros’s beliefs in the attraction of lumpenproletariats to manfully striding fascist leathermen notwithstanding.
101
Posted by CS on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:57 | # Leon, I figured you enjoyed “knocking heads” with the other posters. However, as fun as that is, it isn’t particularly productive. As you said yourself, the sooner White Zion gets started, the better. So lets pick some countries, some cities in those countries and start creating some microcommunites in them. My favorite countries right now are Malta, Belize and Uruguay. All have way small populations than Australia. BTW, how do you feel about New Zealand? 102
Posted by CS on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:02 | # Australia 22.5 million Uruguay 3.4 million Malta 400 K Belize 300 K 103
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:15 | # Do all phenotypic features of organisms need to be adaptive? The terms dominant and recessive refer to the interaction of alleles in producing the phenotype of the heterozygote. If there are two alternative phenotypes, by definition the phenotype exhibited by the heterozygote is called “dominant” and the “hidden” phenotype is called “recessive”. The key concept of dominance is that the heterozygote is phenotypically identical to one of the two homozygotes. That trait corresponding to the dominant allele may then be called the “dominant” trait. Dominance is a genotypic relationship between alleles, as manifested in the phenotype. It is unrelated to the nature of the phenotype itself, e.g., whether it is regarded as normal or abnormal, standard or nonstandard, healthy or diseased, stronger or weaker, or more or less extreme. However, many genetic conditions (which reduce fitness) are recessive in nature, hence far more people can and do carry a ‘silent’ copy of the recessive allele than individuals that unfortunately have two copies of the recessive allele and hence express the given condition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Autosomal_recessive_disorders There are also some possible models of homosexuality as being adaptive, (helpers at the nest) but it’s really something I don’t really think about or consider to be an important topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helpers_at_the_nest And that’s before we even discuss wider cultural norms/values, development/maternal hormonal levels in the womb, early psychological experiences/problems etc. And the evidence on the precise genetic basis - if any - for homosexual behaviour in humans is pretty scant unless I’ve missed something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation - more info for those interested in this topic. 104
Posted by Trainspotter on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:40 | # Leon, thanks for the reply. Long post here, throwing a few other ideas into the mix: One of the problems with liberal democracy is that it encourages the idea that everything in a society is up for debate. Of course, we white nationalists know quite well that this is not literally true, or even close to being true. Still, the dominant liberal culture encourages the notion that all is up for grabs, that nothing is timeless and transcendent. We are presently witnessing, under the guise of freedom and liberal self expression, the literal giving away of our countries, both within Europe and without. The idea that a single generation, or perhaps a few consecutive generations, have the right to give a nation away (forever) is treated as…perfectly normal. The decision to convert us into a mongrelized “universal nation” that will curse all of our descendents in perpetuity, and that by defintion the descendents are not currently around to have their say, is treated as being every bit as legitimate as having a debate over a local bond issue or whether or not to build a light rail system. Hey, we’re “free,” right? It’s all on the table. Liberal democracy encourages this type of thinking. That same “freedom” allows us to consider it perfectly legitimate to impose, if we can prevail at the ballot box or by taking over some of the key cultural institutions, our values on our fellow citizens. Liberal democracy has become nothing but a perpetual cage match in which one side tries to undermine and slaughter everything held dear by the other. We aren’t a community, we are an arena. The fact that Jews are disproportionately the umpires is quite important, but doesn’t particularly alter the basic problem. What kind of white community, worthy of the name, would have let them enter in the first place, much less allow them what was essentially a cakewalk to economic, cultural and political domination? They went from street peddlars to our cultural and political masters in not much more than a generation. Our community folded like a cheap suit, or to keep the cliche meter running, talk about a glass jaw. Knowing that the game is rigged is important, but ultimately, it’s the game itself that is a disaster. In other words, we’ve got to reject the broad liberalism (of course encomassing the faux opposition of conservatism) and replace it with real tribal community. The Amish have a few things to teach in this matter. Nobody is forced to remain within the Amish community. In fact, they’ve ritualized a time of choice through the rumspringa. You get to make your choice, but if you choose to remain in the tribe, you agree to follow the ways of the tribe. Otherwise, you are shunned. This approach works. A White Republic has to clearly establish that certain things are eternal and not subject to challenge, and that those who wish something different are free to leave (or to be exiled by force, if they insist upon remaining and playing the role of the termite). Even a very healthy and successful White Republic should always be, however slowly, cleansing itself of the degenerates. Let them leave. A country that pursued such a policy would, as the generations passed by, become more and more of a real tribe - but only if it is willing to shed the detritus. In our own society the detritus piles higher every year, and a future white ethnostate must not make that mistake again. If one accepts my position, then not only must one accept that liberalism should be rejected entirely, but also that not all whites are part of our tribe in a meaningful sense. If this is so, and I believe that it is, then our task is simplified immensely. The replacement philosophy must reject the liberalism of our age and instead facilitate the survival of our people into perpetuity. Also, our target market becomes smaller. How many whites do we really need to get a White Republic going? As the United States weakens and goes into its terminal phase, I can’t believe that we would require much more than five or ten percent support. That’s ten to twenty million. Perhaps our secondary target market might be up to fifty percent of the white population…but I’ve concluded that we DO NOT WANT the other half. If we bring in the dregs, we’ll just be creating a society that can’t shake liberalism and, like the one we live in now, will fold like a cheap suit somewhere down the line. All of this implies that we need a spiritual message targeted to the minority of our people who are capable of responding to such an appeal. For example, I’m no longer interested in “convincing” someone that a white girl bedding down with an African is at best rather disgusting, but really a tragedy on many levels. If a white can’t figure that out on his own, or better put if he doesn’t already sense it and feel it at some level…do we really want him? I don’t. Or if someone doesn’t feel, deep in their gut, a sense of hurt as our culture is being degraded and reduced, can he ever really be a valuable part of the tribe? Is it worth it trying to convert him? I doubt it. This is not to say that people can’t evolve and learn. Of course they can. While always racially conscious, I was a libertarian at one time. If I’m not mistaken, men like Macdonald and Taylor were liberals. I’d be very surprised, however, if they were ever comfortable, on a spiritual/gut level, with some of the more disgusting behaviors in our society. Point is, it is not unusual for even good people to believe foolish things, especially when they are young. But, particularly if they have access to information and competing schools of thought, they may see the error of their ways in time. But here is the take home point: we can give a person facts and figures along with cogent argument. But we can’t give them a soul. If they look at ugliness and are fine with it, if they are comfortable with the disgusting as opposed to being repelled by it, then not only is there nothing we can do for them, but there is nothing they can do for us except to hurt our goal. To put it another way, we can’t give people that innate spirit, but only appeal to those who already have it, or manage to develop it. Yes, it’s getting ahead of ourselves to say something like this, but the greatest danger to the White Republic will be when it is fully established and successful….and whites with no racial soul begin wanting to move there for the economic opportunities. Oh, and of course for the “good schools.” To make a buck. Where have we seen this before? Once one understands that this is primarily a spiritual battle, one can then focus on the appropriate target market and appeal to it in the only way that matters, which is to say the only way that can form a meaningful tribe. The future white ethnostate(s) will probably draw heavily from some ideas that are currently more associated with the left: walkable communities, sustainability, environmental stewardship, etc. Of course, free market ideas (tempered by distributism) are important as well, as is privacy. A white ethnostate based on a sound foundation would become quite prosperous in time, but that must not be its purpose. A nation of materialist, gluttonous white skinned feeders will only ruin us. Yes, we can appeal to some of those types by pointing out how if they go with us they will no longer be taxed to support niggers and such, but someone that is only concerned with money will find no shortage of ways to sell us out down the line. We need to start thinking of these people as soulless zombies, not as part of our target market. This is why I say that I’d happily trade a hundred white nationalist writers in exchange for one good artist. That’s the battlefield that really matters. As to viability, I would say that as the United States heads toward the flatlining endgame, establishing a White Republic in North America may become possible, though of course I have serious concerns on that score. I don’t know the specifics of your WZ idea, and am interested in learning more. But unless it is animated with some sort of spiritual momentum, I doubt it will go very far. It’s sort of like Orania: it’s very cool, and seems to be doing well. But very few Afrikaners have actually moved there, despite the deteriorating situation in SA. I’m sure there are any number of reasons for this. As I mentioned earlier, we are particularists, attracted to blood and soil. The idea of abandoning our homelands is very painful for us. I suspect other reasons are far more banal but no less important: even in South Africa, and much more so in Europe and the Anglosphere, it is still entirely possible to live in an almost entirely white neighborhood. While the 100 percent white neighborhoods of my youth (not so long ago) are rapidly disappearing, the predominantly white neighborhood is still a real possibility. So why move to a little town with minimal opportunity to support oneself, when you can get a job elsewhere and more or less be able to live amongst your fellow whites, even in a multiracial city? On the other hand, if Orania were actually becoming a country, building the full range of institutions from hospitals to universities, from their own military to their own space program, it would be different. Point is, a country with a purpose and real sovereignty is one thing. Just hanging out in a small white enclave is quite another. Most won’t bother to do that. As the status quo deteriorates, things could change rapidly, but I see this as a problem with WZ, unless it has a spiritual basis that is attractive to our target market. The reason is that even our target market is not going to abandon their country, normal living, their existing family and support networks, etc., just to move to a distant small community that is all white. The location that they are moving to has to offer something else other than the practical benefits of living in a small all white town, because as long as people are being appealed to on the basis of practicality and/or monetary gain, there are going to be a thousand practicalities in their lives that argue for not making such a move. . I’m not endorsing the Northwest Front or Covington, but his idea of getting that “first 1000” as a prelude to some sort of armed resistance is probably more realistic than millions of WN types or fellow travelers actually being able to demographically swamp an area of any significance. So form all the micro communities that people can, but that’s what they will remain - micro. And they will remain this way until, probably with considerable violence, a sovereign nation can be formed with a powerful spiritual purpose and control over its own institutional framework. 105
Posted by CS on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:25 | # Trainspotter, I agree 100% with your comments. I had argued elsewhere that any white person that speaks in favor of non-white immigration in WZ would be exiled immediately. I agree things would have to get much worse to motivate white people to leave their country. 106
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:49 | #
It’s because memes, we are told, are fundamentally transferred non-genetically via vertical (parent to child) and probably more commonly, horizontal (other tribesmen by persuasion or coercion) transmission.
This is where the tendency is found. Darwin:
Why the old boy stated that the dog reasoned in an unconscious way is curious (except possibly to explain the concept to simpletons like me). Dogs don’t reason. The movement without apparent cause ignites fear in the dog. Initially the tendency in savage man was more closely related to fear of the unknown, fear of movement without cause. It makes sense that fear may play a major role in survival and thus those animals with a heightened sense of anxiety will more likely show a reproductive differential. The dog, however, must live in the world of fear without any means to mitigate or clothe, to use that analogy, their fear in the rationale of spiritual agency. Why not? They have no power of imagination, wonder, and curiosity. The savage man too would not tend to the explanations of animated living essences if he did not have a more fully developed intellect. Thus Darwin concludes:
Thus savage man would be left growling, like Charlie’s dog, at the wind blowing the parasol, fearful of motion without origin, until a very significant level of reason had enveloped him. 107
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:30 | # Jung’s parents may be carriers of the recessive allele which offers little to no phenotypic effect. If Jung’s was a heterozygotic genotype poosibly the resulting phenotype is the dream. It’s probably far-fetched, however, genetic memory, is interesting. It’s defined as “a memory present at birth that exists in the absence of sensory experience, and is incorporated into the genome over long spans of time.” by Wiki. Moreover, the same source suggests “Genetic memory is invoked to explain the racial memory postulated by Carl Jung. In Jungian psychology, racial memories are posited memories, feelings and ideas inherited from our ancestors as part of a “collective unconscious”.[2] It’s interesting IMO because it appears a reasonable explanation for aspects of changed female behaviour that occurs, unconsciously, during ovulation. Recent research suggests that females avoid male kin during those times when they are fertile. The strange thing is that human females have no idea when they are actually ovulating and yet something triggers an unconscious behaviour that changes their feelings during that period. Some theorize it is practised to avoid incest. It appears to be a behaviour that is unlearned and thus might it reside in genetic memory? Darwin reasoned that habit persisting over many generations will become inherent. Thus we may have a genetic memory, that invokes unconscious feelings that are shared by all women. In other words a collective unconscious. It seems plausible to extend the analogy to racial memories. The theory may be posited but to be scientifically reasonable it should be falsifiable. Suggestions? 108
Posted by CS on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:29 | # Trainspotter, Reasons to move to WZ. 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. 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. That is when the fun begins. We will get to 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 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 or career 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 non-white 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. 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. 109
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:35 | # Desmond, Interesting. Of course, it would be adaptive to avoid sexual attention of male kin at all times. Males also have a powerful aversion to incest. So I am not sold on that one. I read an article somewhere quite recently about the difference in the way women walk during ovulation. Apparently, all month long they swing their hips - until ovulation when the hip-swinging stops, the idea being that they do not want to attract further male attention but want to assert their judgement and choose from the males already attracted. I’d like to know if there are racial differences in this tendency, but no doubt the research has never been done. I suspect that it is part of cold-climate adaption, in the same way that brain size, genital size, female hip width, and child maturation are, among other biological phenomena. 110
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:56 | #
...we will provide ideal concentrated targets for weapons of mass destruction. But there is still be great merit in this proposal. We need some effective mechanism to purge the non-Movement of the many dysfunctionals now attached to it as firmly as barnacles to a ship’s hull. The White Zion program could be it. Clearly the A3P will be the single political party. And its high leadership will compose the Supreme Council of White Zion. Harold A. Covington will be the Minister of War. Dr. Greg Johnson will be the Minister of Media. The Charles Martel Society can finally emerge from the shadows and move into a gated & walled hilltop community in White Zion. Much of White Zion’s economy will consist of providing household services to the CMS members residing in their vast palaces. The rest of the population will be serfs on their latifundium. And Leon Haller will be the Minister of Economic Affairs. I am 100% confident that under his guidance White Zion will permanently end the plague of chronic obesity among whites.
111
Posted by Selous Scout on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:27 | # Leon, your constant pessimism is tiresome. There will be a war and we will win. We have the numbers and the resources. There are thousands if not millions of Hard Men who are willing to do what it takes. Your pessimism, I think, comes from an inability to think the unthinkable, to imagine your own finger on the trigger. Please, stop underestimating the White man. We’ve been through this before. 112
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:30 | # Desmond,
It is the tendency which is the adaption, and the exercise of the tendency which is selected.
Yes, all traits present in the genotype over a very long period will very likely be there as a result of natural selection.
Of course it does.
OK, here is my view. The faith tendency is not always selected. It is possible that the gene is always present in the European genotype and expresses as a dominant or recessive, and in the latter case just gets passed on with the DNA. I think this is unlikely, and the reality is that it is missing from a substantial part of the population. I have put it at around a third to a quarter. I say this because of lifelong observation of a very small sample - my parent’s families. My mother is one of twelve children, none of whom had the religious impulse, and only one of whom produced children (my cousins) with it. As you can imagine I have many cousins. My father’s family is also completely without religious feeling. I myself married a girl with zero religious feeling from a family also with zero religious feeling. I cannot know, but I strongly suspect that intra-religious selection is a norm for faith folk. In times of very strong or very weak public religious expression the selection mechanism would operate in a divisive fashion, cleaving the familial lines of believers and non-believers. We are living through a period of record weak religious expression, with left-liberalism and anti-racism drawing off faith-geners, but likely still causing them to inter-marry. So the general dispensation between the two camps remains more or less stable. Just my theory.
Faith and specific faith-forms are very closely tied through exercise. It is not a two-part play, thus: “What is your faith, sir?” “Why, my faith is Christianity?” “No, sir, your faith a phenotype.” The third part is the exercise of faith, and it is the faith-exercise which is cognised and selected. The form is not selected because it is common to both parties, no different to vegetarianism or rambling. Think it through. 113
Posted by CS on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:18 | # “...we will provide ideal concentrated targets for weapons of mass destruction.” I think it unlikely they will drop nuclear weapons on WZ simply because we forbid non-white immigration. And if they are willing to go to such extremes it is game over for us anyway. 114
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:41 | #
I think you have a lot to learn about World War II history.
They are but it isn’t. 115
Posted by CS on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:43 | # Last time I checked Germany invited their own destruction by invading their neighobrs. 116
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:45 | # They’ll nuke you with sanctions. Have you people never heard of South Africa? 117
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:49 | # So it was ok to invade the rest of the world? Was England’s Empire an invitation to Hitler to firebomb the English citizenry? That’s a really simple minded interpretation of WWII fit only for children and the blindly bigoted Englishman. 118
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:53 | # Technically every feature is “selected” for under a naturalist understanding of the universe. But hey. Don’t let logic get in your way… 119
Posted by buzz on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:06 | #
Not necessarily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution 120
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:09 | # Many responses called for. I’m a bit tired, but I’m game to reply out of politeness. Lister@103 Well, that was interesting, sort of. My genetics knowledge is very weak. You certainly know more about all this than I ever will. It just seems like common sense that sexuality is a dominant aspect of an organism, and that if strict natural selection were the only variable determining evolution’s course, a homosexual-orientation mutation would not have proven very adaptive. I thought it was a prime task of modern neo-Darwinians to demonstrate that every significant element in the modern person’s genetic makeup had some sort of fitness aspect. [I really need to get up to speed in all this.] —————————————— CS,
Yes, but recall all my earlier commentary on this (I simply must go back and save past comments of mine - don’t delete old MR posts, admin!). Choosing the right country is all-important, but we have to think of both ends: what country best works for racial goals, and what works best for WNs as individuals living in the here and now. The country must be small enough so that WN emigrants could reasonably expect one day to be able to shape legislation their way. It ought to be substantially white from the outset. Contrary to what some might think, I strongly believe it ought NOT to be in Europe. Ideally, Europe as a whole should be a WZ. More importantly, the Old World (everywhere, not just Europe) consists of organic nations with long and even ancient histories. It’s possible that some European countries will remain majority-white for a very long time. The goal of WZ is ultimately the Racial State; that is, to create a genuinely white apartheid country which consciously seeks to instantiate the 14 words (though of course, this must be done gradually and at first even surreptitiously, like the ongoing Hispanic ‘conquista’ of the US Southwest). I think realizing all that will be far easier in the Americas or Aus/NZ than in Europe. The pull of tradition, even in these deracinated times, is so much stronger in the Old World. Just because, say, Italy or France have idiotically allowed some number of Muslims and Africans to reside there does not mean either that WN emigrants can necessarily gain admission themselves, or, of greater importance, that WNs will ever easily be able to impose our ideological will on such countries. Politics in those countries will remain in white but probably race leftist hands until the native-born themselves have been numerically overwhelmed by nonwhites. As you’ve pointed out, we need to escape large absolute numbers of white liberals, too. The country cannot be so small, however, that there is nothing there to attract the first contingents of WN emigrant-pioneers. Ultimately, people need to be able to support themselves. Granted, the very first pioneers, people like us, are likely to be highly motivated persons for whom simply engaging in the WZ project itself will be its own justification and reward. That is the way of all new imagined communities. But to prevent WZ from becoming just another in a rather long history of failed ‘utopian’ experiments, it has to be viable enough to attract a larger, Second Wave of emigrants (say, “immigrants” as opposed to “pioneers”). Here, quality of life is all-important. Let’s face it: the white nations are being colonized because we create the most attractive societies, especially (but not only, and possibly not anymore) economically. (Perhaps it would be more accurate to say we have created hitherto the best societies.) If white nations were barbarous and impoverished, we would not be under demographic attack. If WZ is going to move beyond just the super-hard-core WNs (which it must to have an ultimate possibility of becoming a Racial State), it has to get persons like many of my own friends: racially solid whites, but guys for whom there is a lot more to life than saving our race. I know maybe two white guys who might be expected to be real WZ pioneers. I know a number of others who would be well-wishers, but for whom things Stateside just aren’t so bad that they’re going to up and relocate out of country. Even wrt North America, European colonization took a very long time. Ease of migration, and global communications, certainly make living abroad more viable for many than ever before. But it’s still a leap. And to get people to make that leap, when frankly life today is not nearly as bad as it could be for whites - even for those of us trapped by circumstance in CA, which is further gone than most of America - will require that the place of relocation offer a great deal of the amenities of Western life. There have been white communities, almost always religious, which have set up in remote areas of South America, and which endure to this day. I’m sure the Paraguayan government would let white Americans settle there, too. But who wants to set up in some stinking jungle, just on some distant chance of possible sovereignty and RS status? Another issue to think about is language. I prefer English-speaking countries not only because that’s my tongue, but also because, first, English is everybody’s second language (would it even be possible to do WZ in, eg, Poland? Poland must be its own ethnostate for Poles; but for the rest of us, the language barrier is too great; only if whites were being butchered everywhere else might they descend on a Poland, or Hungary, etc), and second, I suspect WZ will appeal most strongly to New World, and especially, American, whites (of course, as we develop and grow, we can expect increasing numbers of Europeans to go there, too). I could say a lot more, but let me cut to your query countries. I dislike Malta because it’s geographic size is too self-limiting. Also, what is its economic potential for supporting a substantially larger population? I also dislike its proximity to Muslim North Africa, one of the faster growing areas of the world. It could be “Camp of the Saints” swamped too easily. I know nothing of Belize. It is certainly a possibility, but again, its long term defensibility is not good. Too easily swamped. Too high an existent nonwhite population. What is its economic potential? What are its immediate economic opportunities for pioneers? Will whites over time become shiftless in that tropical climate? I think the best candidates for WZ are Australia, NZ, Uruguay, and the white provinces of Southern Brazil (which have a lot of Germans, and might one day be ripe for secessionist activities), in that order (though not sure between Aus and NZ). There are good and bad points to each. I will discuss later (and reply to Train), though I leave with one possibility: think hard about Tasmania. Tasmania’s native Abos were all exterminated. Its only nonwhites are immigrants (and I believe the numbers are very small). It’s climate and lovely physical geography are among the best in Australia. It is an island, self-contained and potentially self-supporting. It is gloriously removed from the bulk of the world. It is already English-speaking. The WN pioneers would not be moving to some crappy Third World country, without modern law, property rights, infrastructure, etc. It is not an ‘organic’ society with an ancient history. Whites have not been there from time immemorial. It is my understanding that the Aussie government wants more population, but there is resistance to too much nonwhite immigration from the average person, so immigration is not all that high by the standards of America and Canada other white nations, like Britain. What if 2 million global (but heavily North American) WNs moved there over 40 years, established a real sub-colony within Australia, and then declared for secession? Would the Aussies really invade to nullify it (let alone nuke it, per XPWA’s ridiculous surmise)? Aussies are not great racially, but my limited experience suggests they are at least no worse than white Americans, and are better than either Canadians or British. As long as the WN pioneers were not belligerent neo-Nazis, I think we would be welcomed by both the government and the populace (many of the latter of whom might like their country becoming ‘whiter’, or at least having a counterweight stream of migrants to the Asians and Hindoos pouring in). Thoughts on Tasmania? (full disclosure: I’ve been theorizing with a couple of friends about Tasmania as the very last redoubt of the Aryan since the mid-80s)
121
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:14 | # There is no mechanism save successful reproduction. The drift theory doesn’t change that. Calling some of it “selection” and some of it merely underscores that somebody has been selected for the cognitive dissonance gene. It’s all laughingly speculative and wrapped up in teleological language which isn’t supposed to be available to the naturalist. 122
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:25 | # Leon, Any white, anywhere, that expresses racial solidarity is a Nazi according to our enemies. Republicans who think maybe after an amnesty, they might consider putting a bill to force employers to use E-verify on the table are Nazis. Anybody who even hints that races have innate abilities and disabilities and that this might have important implications for policy, is a Nazi. Anybody with white skin who isn’t sufficiently prostate before the gods of equality is a Nazi. 123
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:29 | # Actually, they are naziswhowanttomurdersixmillionjews and they will be subjected to an onslaught of sanctions and rendered defenseless if not bombed outright. Methinks you don’t reeeeeeally understand the mindset of the enemy. 124
Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:26 | # Leon,
You definitely should not if you want to continue pretending to yourself and others you are some kind of economic savant.
“Economics” is not a quantifiable science. And it never was despite bald attempts to dress it up in mathematical symbolism. I was reminded of this yet again this past week while shoveling through “Austrian School” fertilizer on “heterogeneous capital”. This reminder came in the form of a very mendacious graphic geometric cube labeled with meaningless algebraic equations. This purported to prove that the “Austrian School” was truly 3D in its thinking while “Keynesians” were only 2D. In reality the entire question should be marked “false”. These equations are comparable to the moons, stars and wiccan symbolism one might see on a doorway curtain leading into a gypsy fortune teller’s inner sanctum. The moment the constants are assigned discrete values it will be discovered all these equations do not equate. The original Adam Smith considered himself a “moral philosopher”, not an “economist”. “The Wealth of Nations” is strewn with hundreds of pages of value judgments and moral preferences. One thing his book does not contain are any mathematical equations. I just checked my copy again. In fact it only has a couple of very brief tables of statistics. And this was not for lack of contemporary mathematical technique. Probability theory, geometry, algebra, trigonometry and calculus were already in recognizably modern forms by Smith’s time in the late 18th Century. The tedious Harvard MBA, Judeo-Feminist and Soros asset Susan Webber (a/k/a “Yves Smith”) is far ahead of you here. She understands this and wants to return “Economics” to an openly subjective basis. That’s why she chose the pen name “Yves Smith”. Her hallucination is she’s a female foil to “Adam Smith”. What she means is she intends to make her Judeo-Feminism the arbiter of that subjective basis. (Increasing experience inclines me to believe that the primary requirements for admission to any Ivy League college are a clinical diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder and ethnic nepotistic connections. There is no evidence that genuine excellence is a criterion either for matriculation or for tenure).
For general information, “The Austrian School” did not originate either “Supply Demand” theory or its subsequent pictorial reduction to a two-axis graph illustrated with two hand-drawn curve functions. As with the Austrian graphic I mentioned earlier, these fortune telling props do not contain discrete values on the x & y axes. Nor are the curves ever labeled with real parabolic equations that can be tested and falsified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand#History Adam Smith and medieval Muslim academics wrote on this topic. I believe the concept was well understood far back in classical antiquity. Roman legionaries no doubt noticed that when the numbers of whores outside the camp were few a night’s entertainment cost more denarius (and later solidus). It’s a straightforward empirical observation. Your problem is economists generally (and you specifically) have an inadequate grasp of the underlying mathematics, no way to collect enough accurate data, exceedingly few empirically derived and proven equations and no underlying evidence the few equations you do have apply to everyone or even to a large minority.
The translation of this goobledeygook is “quantified” versus “non-quantified”. The reason Leon’s pseudo-science can never make a discrete prediction is virtually of the factors lie in the realm of religion, morality and fundamental biological urges not susceptible to “supply demand”, “marginal utility” and similar mumbo-jumbo. Example. We presently have a pregnant cat that’s been hanging around our house. Her status is “yard cat”. One of my college sons took pity on that cat’s skinny body last summer and began feeding her with dry Special Kitty from WalMart. She subsequently turned up pregnant. A practical example of welfare in action. As she has swelled with her kitties she has become increasingly worried over finding a safe place to have them and nurse them. I never thought cats could “look” worried and anxious until now. Being a softy I’ve provided a box in the garage lined with rags and started leaving the garage door open 12 inches. (I’m not so soft the kittens aren’t going directly to the shelter along with momma to get fixed). My n-s minded wife observed that she felt precisely the same ‘nesting’ urges shortly before the birth of our youngest son. She was seized by a compulsion to clean and organize everything in the house, over and over. These kinds of instinctive biological drives are not influenced by money, either paper or metallic. They instead dictate monetary flows. Your comments about the superiority of “theory” over “empirical” observations are simply laughable, Leon. Archimedes, Newton and von Leibniz didn’t develop their math and then make theoretical predictions. They made observations first and then developed calculus as a tool to help explain what they were seeing. They weren’t even mathematicians in their own minds. They were engineers and physicists. And for your information Archimedes was indeed first to derive the fundamental theorem of Calculus. This is the way real engineering and science functions. And it is precisely by this test that economics as a science fails. As a discipline it is better placed in the same buildings as LGBT, Womens, Latino and African studies. Your pseudo-science of the “Austrian School” remains as I described it. It’s merely a collection of the prejudices and financial arbitrage experiences of grumpy old Jewish men. It just masquerades as a systematized academic discipline. My ultimate test and bias for all “political-economic” and “socio-economic” issues are the 14 Words. It is a non-quantified moral and value judgment. The difference between us is I recognize this. You do not. 125
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:52 | #
I have come to recognize this as well, and I think as more of us adopt this perspective, we will become more formidable. This realization, possibly more than anything else, is “why we will win”.
127
Posted by buzz on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:29 | #
It’s not about arbitrarily calling some molecular changes “selection” and others not. Determining whether a change has been random or not is based on the mathematics of probability which is ultimately based on logic, which you seem to see yourself championing against empiricism and “naturalism”.
128
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:02 | # What obtains then, genetically, is the difference between what “scientists” sheerly speculate is random and what they sheerly speculate to be “selection” which amounts to randomness since a random something multiplied by a non-random something still just randomness. That is a somewhat more logically consistent interpretation that at lest acknowledges that everything is random and there is ultimately no controlling process that organizes life and information in ever increasing complexity and there can not be such a process under a naturalistic understanding of the universe. 129
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:09 | # the mathematics of probability What’s the mathematically probability of something evolving from nothing? What the probability of life evolving from an alleged chemical soup? Both next to nothing. Probability only works one way for these idiots. No matter how absurd and remote the probability, it must have occurred. Just like Leon’s market. The market is never crying out for higher wages, only more immigration. 130
Posted by buzz on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:37 | # If there are a bunch of boxes containing various randomly assorted candies, and you like chocolates, so you only select the boxes with chocolates and discard the others, then you’ll likely be left with a greater than random distribution of chocolates. The other candies that you didn’t select for will likely be more randomly distributed. Some of the other candies may exhibit a greater than random distribution, suggesting some sort of relationship with the chocolates. Perhaps the candy factory always loads caramels with chocolates or something. 131
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:52 | # We are the chocolate factory. Nature is the confectionery, not the consumer. Putting caramel in chocolate doesn’t translate to anything truly random. That would be analogous to distributing the same exact gene in a population, i.e. selection. I’ll give you what I believe to be my superior analogy after I take my boy to see Puss in Boots. 132
Posted by buzz on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:54 | # An individual is a package of genes. The fact that an individual reproduces and passes on a package of genes, rather an individual gene or subset of genes somehow leaving the individual body and reproducing on their own or something, doesn’t mean that certain genes aren’t selected for, while others are selectively neutral or random. The individuals, packets of genes, will vary in their distribution of genes. A particular environment will select for certain genes which are differentially distributed in packages of genes called individuals. Over time the non-random proliferation of these certain genes will reflect that they have been selected for, while the more random distribution of other genes will suggest that they likely haven’t been. 133
Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:04 | # Maybe it just means some have been selected for for a longer period of time or any other of a myriad of possibilities 135
Posted by CS on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:57 | # Leon, I hadn’t seen the earlier posts. You made some good points about WZ needing to be economically viable in order to attract enough white people. I guess the problem with Tasmania would be the necessity of separating from the rest of Australia which may be probelmatic. Others, Nazi Germany was attacked because they persecuted the joooooooooooooos and started invading their neighbors. If that idiot Hitler had left Poland alone Nazi Germany would probably still be around and other white countries might not be committing racial suicide. Hitler probably did more damage to the white race than all the jews in history combined. 136
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:22 | # Genetic variation is generated randomly or quasi-randomly via mutation and genetic recombination - hence random variation in phenotypes, BUT natural selection is a distinctly non-random ‘local optimization’ with regard to selection for phenotypic fitness/adaptations in the given environment. But obviously there are all sorts of subtle factors to take on board, in understanding such processes. BTW just to clear up; recessive alleles are not phenotypically expressed at the same frequency as dominant alleles, hence are not completely purged from a population. Why? Most carriers of a recessive allele will NOT have any reduction in fitness as they ALSO have a copy of the dominant allele (therefore as an individual express the normal ‘fit’ phenotype), unless they produce offspring with two copies of the recessive. I’d suggest “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins - he is generally good at explaining basic biological ideas for the general public. 137
Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:23 | # If that idiot Hitler had left Poland alone Nazi Germany would probably still be around and other white countries might not be committing racial suicide. Hitler probably did more damage to the white race than all the jews in history combined. Trafficking in philosophical counterfactuals is fun but useless. I could come up with a million or more that end up with England laying prostrate before the Jews, with them as empowered as they are now, with “Empire” and “slavery” standing in for the Holocaust and Germanic overreach for lebensraum. The Jews would have capitalized on some other fabrication. It isn’t Hitler’s fault. It’s our fault for not marginalizing the kikes. 139
Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:31 | # Genetic variation is generated randomly or quasi-randomly via mutation and genetic recombination The only significant change we generally observe is due to recombination. Speciation or variation seems to occur based upon a loss of genetic variation as far as I can tell; e.g. dog breeds are the result of the elimination of genetic material tell recessive traits dominate a part of the initial population. natural selection is a distinctly non-random ‘local optimization’ with regard to selection for phenotypic fitness/adaptations in the given environment The environment is random. It’s a cosmic traffic accident. There is no optimizing going on. That’s something that engineers do. 140
Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:34 | # Don’t worry Jimmy. They don’t plan on total extermination of the White race. After all, somebody has to pay retail. 141
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:21 | # Counter-factual history soon veers into the fatuous and only demonstrates the prejudice of the counter-factual ‘historian’. As the Irish say “If my Aunt had balls she would be my Uncle”. Look I say this about markets – yes they are important and useful, as is private property but not as some fetishized ‘God’ to be the measure and value of all things, or to be worshipped as sacrosanct in all conceivable circumstances. Of course the birth of modern free-market ideology and the theory behind individualistic liberalism have common and interdependent roots in early modern English political thought and develop in the Enlightenment. For example I am thinking of Locke’s account of the mixing of an individual and his labour with his property etc. It is hardly a shock that the key ideological rhetoric of a deeply liberal age is all about how the market is everything and cannot be questioned. But the neoliberal position of market idolatry is pure ideology albeit with real-world consequences. They are many non-liberals whom for one reason or another do not think being a corrupt charlatan working for Goldman Sachs dabbling in credit default swaps is the highest form of human excellence. There are many differing forms of market exchange and forms of capitalism. No-one thinks a ‘Mom & Pop’ store represents some sort of evil but I’m not prepared to be quite so sanguine or willfully naive about the rapacious global corporations that now bestride our world. Anyone maintaining that they are one and the same (isomorphic) phenomenon, well I would simply call ‘bullshit’ on them. I’m trained in science but as a younger man I was obsessed with politics and lived and breathed it – I can ‘smell’ ideology at 100m. As the article I sent to GW states:
What is ethnocentric communitarianism other than, primarily, a moral economy between the past, present and future of one’s people and their particular collective way of being? Liberal theory and free-market ideologues reject this primacy of non-market relationships and restrictions upon market relationships arising from such social obligations. For the liberal ‘free-market’ disciples actually propose their own (anti)-social ontology in which the individual and their market based relationships are the highest and indeed only ‘rationally’ defensible set of commitments. This monad-style individual only truly exists as a nexus of present and future contracts – a ‘social’ vision in which, of course, all things (tradition, culture, the family and the nation) are to be used, removed and abused as required in the name of profit and all individuals are, in principle, fungible and interchangeable. And of course any of the cultural, social and physical externalities generated are a problem for someone else: “Hey illegal Mexican are just cheaper – no need to pay health insurance for them etc., – the general taxpayer can perhaps pick up the tab while I enjoy my extra profits?” Or perhaps “Not my concern that my mining companies ‘shale fracking’ has poisoned your communities water source, after we made a wonderfully large profit from the whole thing. Goodbye!” Many non-liberals are concerned at how the contours of hyper-liberal modernity are shaping up. From a true ‘deep-blue’ conservative like Roger Scruton and his thoughtful insights into the destruction of social-capital. Or the ex-liberal Chris Hedges on the dangerous cultural and political turn from reality of America into wish-fulfilment, delusion and grotesque post-modern spectacle as it enters its death throes. Or the potentially devastating destruction of various ecological/environmental ‘services’ and the potential unsustainability of much of our present activity which drives the concerns of sensible environmentalists (as a holder of a postgraduate degree in ecology I am happy to be amongst this group), all the way through to analytically powerful dissection of the sham and hypocrisies of liberal ‘international law’ by old Marxists like Perry Anderson and the, at times, intellectually dazzling and brutally honest Danilo Zolo. Or even the concerns of communitarians, nationalists and Heideggerian ontologists for the continuity and value of collective forms of life. Or even intellectually serious religious people concerned by a love of Mammon so total that we now put a price on everything but as a culture the West increasingly knows the value of nothing. What then divides the present day liberal and non-liberals? Primarily the liberal asserts the primary and foundational value of individual liberty and individualism as understood both in market terms and socio-cultural form. The non-liberals reject this highly damaging, but for some very profitable (financially, politically and in other ways) world-view and in their own disparate, but inter-related ways insist upon ultimately the primacy of other values. If indeed liberal modernity is producing radically toxic effects then only a radical examination of it can give us insight into the precise source of the toxicity. By radical I do not mean ‘left-wing’ but the true meaning of that word, the re-examination of foundational questions and premises. Why on Earth should the operation of Wall Street or the City or the behaviour of global multinational corporations be off the agenda whilst governments are most certainly on it? Unless, of course, a profound ideological bias is at work. This leads on to the fundamental importance of respecting empirical evidence. As ‘They Might Be Giants’ playfully sing “Science is Real”. (Which other pop group would quote Carnap???) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw&NR=1 Science is real because it deals with and respects ABOVE all else data from the ontologically independent, actually existing world (and not some preconceived fanciful notion of it which we might have dreamt up). On this theme Denmark enjoys far less incidents of social pathologies and enjoys far better quality of life indicators than the USA. This is just a brute empirical observation about the state of the world. Now perhaps our Scandinavian cousins might have something to teach us? Not that they live in utopia or have solved all the problems of human existence (and no society ever will) or are without societal problems but if one had to choose before birth either to be an average (median or even modal) contemporary American or a contemporary average Dane I doubt anyone in full possession of the facts would plump for being the progeny of Uncle Sam. Perhaps Americans, many of whom are completely ignorant about the rest of the world, could try to think ‘outside the box’ and acknowledge the social experiment in ‘individualistic liberty’ is in real danger of ending very badly indeed (and rather quickly too) and that America isn’t a very good model for just about anything, other perhaps than being a quasi-colony of Israel. Note - I’m not saying the UK is a good model either - it isn’t! Final couple of thoughts. I did pop over to the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The tag-line of the website? “Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian school” Guess what? I’m not a liberal in the tradition of Hayek, Locke or any other damn liberal theorist. I am not a liberal because I reject their implicit ontology of human subject and the nature of relationships between those subjects (both on scientific and philosophical grounds) but perhaps more relevantly I reject that liberty is the primary political value above all others or the highest possible good. Sure liberty is an important secondary value, but the attempt to base a sustainable culture and society upon a foundational mythology of a radically and maximally understood notion of individual liberty and personal freedom is, in my view, a profound folly. Distributism – I’ve briefly been reading up on this. You know what struck me was that it has a similarity to economic models developed by the ‘Analytical Marxists’ school of economists in the late 80’s. They recognised the failure of the old-style Soviet system, both economically and politically and so wanted to develop a rigorous but still ‘socialist’ alternative. They came up with the idea of ‘market socialism/token socialism’. Basically, and at risk of oversimplification, they suggested that all shares in an economy be distributed equally among the population (hence being distinctly collectivist/socialist in promoting a genuine, but one-off redistribution of economic ownership), whilst maintaining market-based exchange and valuation of goods, post redistribution. In some versions it was suggested that government should retain large shareholdings in strategically important sectors but to act as sleeping shareholders (outside of any emergency situation). Obviously this is rather far from present concerns but worth mentioning.
142
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:29 | #
Yeah, but when it comes to buying a gift for my son, I’m not going to scrimp this year. 143
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:33 | # @danielj OK you’re either trying to bait me on natural selection or are being willfully stupid. Is everything random then? Physics, chemistry, geology, biology? If the environment is really totally random why isn’t it jumping around in some sort of weird quantum physics style-way every nanosecond? It’s late here and I’m off to bed but honestly…BTW can you think of genuinely random mathematical sequence? 144
Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:43 | # Counter-factual history soon veers into the fatuous and only demonstrates the prejudice of the counter-factual ‘historian’. That’s what I should have said. OK you’re either trying to bait me on natural selection or are being willfully stupid. I’m not trying to bait. I don’t do that. We just have a genuine disagreement. Which is fine. We agree on plenty of other essentials. Is everything random then? Physics, chemistry, geology, biology? If the environment is really totally random why isn’t it jumping around in some sort of weird quantum physics style-way every nanosecond? You tell me. I don’t have a problem on my understanding of the universe. God did it. Very simple. Beautifully economical. I don’t think anything is random at all. I’m a strict determinist. It’s late here and I’m off to bed but honestly…BTW can you think of genuinely random mathematical sequence? No I can’t. It’s Fibonacci all the way down 145
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:24 | # @danielj Fair enough we will get into the onto-theology another time, let alone the philosophical meaning/status of randomness! Just had to leave you all with this lovely little song (for kids but I still like it). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy0m7jnyv6U ‘Meet the Elements’ Iron is a metal, you see it every day Come on, come on and meet the elements Neon’s a gas that lights up the sign for a pizza place Come on, come on and meet the elements Team up with other elements Balloons are full of helium And who let in all these elephants? Elephants are mostly made of four elements Come on, come on and meet the elements Team up with other elements Come on, come on and meet the elements Isn’t the majesty and beauty of the natural order wonderful? Along with its ‘mere’ brute status. The periodic table is beautiful. Oh that reminds me for any Wallace Stevens and/or Heidegger fans out there I discovered this book which might be of interest. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Things-Merely-are-Philosophy-Wallace/dp/0415356318 “Things Merely are: Philosophy in the Poetry of Wallace Stevens” This book is an invitation to read poetry. Simon Critchley argues that poetry enlarges life with a range of observation, power of expression and attention to language that eclipses any other medium. In a rich engagement with the poetry of Wallace Stevens, Critchley reveals that poetry also contains deep and important philosophical insight. Above all, he agues for a ‘poetic epistemology’ that enables us to think afresh the philosophical problem of the relation between mind and world, and ultimately to cast the problem away. Drawing astutely on Kant, the German and English Romantics and Heidegger, Critchley argues that through its descriptions of particular things and their stubborn plainness - whether water, guitars, trees, or cats - poetry evokes the ‘mereness’ of things. It is this experience, he shows, that provokes the mood of calm and releases the imaginative insight we need to press back against the pressure of reality. Critchley also argues that this calm defines the cinematic eye of Terrence Malick, whose work is discussed at the end of the book. OK bedtime for me now. 146
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:34 | # Leon, your constant pessimism is tiresome. There will be a war and we will win. We have the numbers and the resources. There are thousands if not millions of Hard Men who are willing to do what it takes. Your pessimism, I think, comes from an inability to think the unthinkable, to imagine your own finger on the trigger. Please, stop underestimating the White man. We’ve been through this before. (SELOUS SCOUT) —————————————————————————————————————— I wouldn’t so much say “pessimistic” as realistic. The man who advances matters politically (and who wins militarily) is the one willing to subordinate his wishfulness to the coldest possible reasoning. Granted, on the field of battle those who win are often those best at inspiring their men to valor through convincing them of the inevitability of their victory (“God is on our side”, “we have the best strategy”, etc) even where, paradoxically, the very margin of that victory turns out to have been provided by the baseless inspiration itself. But the commander himself had better keep his eyes on the real world information streaming into HQ. Please tell me/us how you see this war igniting and then playing out. Are we speaking about civil race war in the West? Where? Europe, America, both? Do we indeed have “the numbers and the resources” (including human fighting quality) to win? Can you elaborate? Will the war take the form of the book by, I think, one Thomas Chittum, called Civil War 2, that I read in the 90s, whereby minority race riots trigger National Guard failures to control, which in turn trigger cleavages within the military along racial lines? That is certainly possible. But it’s equally possible that the military will remain relatively united in simply carrying out its orders to maintain public order and control. Perhaps there are thousands or even millions of Hard Men out there. But how many are WNs, even if only by sympathy? I once, nearly two decades ago, faced off against, and nearly came to blows with (somehow the bartender managed to get some cops over very quickly), what was probably a fairly “hard” man in an otherwise quiet bar in Vegas. I was alone (I was with a girl, but she was still sick from way too much partying the previous night, and was in the hotel asleep), my antagonist was with his quite attractive girlfriend, and, I kid you not, we had started out as instant “friends”. The big, blond guy had come in with the girl, and sat down right near me in a not too crowded bar. He was loudly declaiming on the virtues of - no, I am NOT joking, present thread context notwithstanding - liberty and the free market (the skinny dweeb at the other end of the bar grimacing whilst listening to us go on about the greatness of capitalism was probably XPWA), and what an asshole Clinton was. Well, at one point he sort of looked at me, and, being a race-conscious libertarian at that time (as opposed to free market paleocon, as I consider myself to be now), I nodded my agreement. Before long we started talking, and the three of us rather hit it off (his girl was smart as well as pretty). Indeed, very private person though I am, I was actually thinking of inviting the couple to join us at dinner that evening, if my girlfriend was better by then (this was only around 6-7pm). They were roughly same age as us, white, decently dressed, etc. Until the subject of immigration came up. If there has been one political constant above all others in my life, it has been hatred of nonwhite immigration. That is the uber-issue, the meta-issue, the transcendent issue, etc. I can’t remember exactly what I said. Maybe something about all the Mexicans invading LA. Anyway, talk about someone turning on a dime. It was quite amazing. From an hour’s bonhomie, it took all of maybe three minutes for this idiot to start loudly calling me “a fucking racist” because I wanted to halt immigration (I had used no epithets, and had merely pointed to the damage immigration was causing the country, including the political damage to the conservative cause), me in turn calling him a “fucking race traitor”, and to both of us off our barstools, angrily taunting and threatening each other, with the girlfriend trying to broker peace between us - and then, amazingly, the cops came, and escorted both parties out of the bar, forcing the couple to drive away after administering breathalyzer tests (I was within walking distance of my own hotel). Moral? The white race is the only race in my experience which produces tough men who get angry at its own WN defenders. No other race except ours produces angry, militant, occasionally fighting anti-racists. I wonder how many of your “Hard Men” will actually defend their race, and not some other? On the subject of numbers of Hard Men, GW or Lister could probably draw an analogy with what we know about the genetic distribution of intelligence. To be sure that an intelligent man has intelligent children, it is often not enough for him merely to marry an intelligent woman. Due to ‘regression to the mean’, what he really wants to do is marry a smart girl from a smart family (assuming he himself is from such a family). I believe this is thought to account for why seemingly intelligent black parents so often have much less impressive children (the parents are usually genetic ‘outliers’, so the tendency is for the children to regress cognitively to their respective ancestors’ normal levels of brainpower). Does this phenomenon apply to other characteristics? If so, we might be able to determine the accuracy of the merely hypothesized contention that there are “millions of Hard Men who are willing to do what it takes” by looking for other evidence of racial “Hard Manliness”. For example, voting. If there are vast numbers of white racial tough guys out there, then surely that fact should be reflected in voting patterns, especially when there is a fellow ‘tough guy’ in a national election. That is, if there really are millions of Hard Men throughout the West “willing to do what it takes”, then there ought to be tens of millions of Hard Men at least willing to vote their racial interests. Toughness, like IQ, surely can be plotted as a bell curve, and there must be more tough voters than tough trigger-pullers. As Graham “Man of Science” Lister might ask, what does the empirical evidence say? What it says is that every time an even vaguely WN candidate actually seems to have some real chance at an electoral breakthrough, the white lemmings turn around and deliver him a crushing defeat. THINK Buchanan, think Le Pen, think BNP, think the various Euronationalist parties. None ever breaks through (I forget exactly what happened in Austria, but Haider was never President, was he?). And as all our societies become more colored, with the coloreds voting, the possibility of breakthrough recedes still further. I doubt there really are millions of Hard Men who are geographically clustered and also even potentially racially committed. This is the whole raison d’etre of White Zion. Within all normal large white collectivities (esp nations), there are never enough WN types to take over. The psyche that leads an individual to WN politics is clearly a minority one within the Aryan race. And so everywhere we languish, despite there being millions of us worldwide (the point I think of your statement was that those millions of Hard Men could actually be an effective force to secure white survival, whereas in fact tens of millions would be needed; my point is that they are too geographically dispersed, and that within any single white polity, there are NOT millions of WNs or even potential WNs). A final two points. First, my pessimism has nothing to do with the lack of imagination you ascribe to me. During the ‘92 LA riots, I was armed and ready for war. Unfortunately, the savages never came back to my then area (Westwood) after that first night of some sporadic damage, which had caught me off guard, as it had many others. Every time I go target shooting, what is in my imagination is not a moose or mallard, I assure you. And when, exactly, have “we been through this before”? Thermopylae? Poitier? Lepanto? Vienna? Stalingrad? They were feats of arms, and thus nothing like the moral struggle we face today (with eventual military conflict a certainty, but one whose outcome will be determined by the aforesaid moral and intellectual struggle of our time). Our situation today is, rather, unique. 147
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:39 | # “Things Merely are: Philosophy in the Poetry of Wallace Stevens” This book is an invitation to read poetry. Simon Critchley argues that poetry enlarges life with a range of observation, power of expression and attention to language that eclipses any other medium. In a rich engagement with the poetry of Wallace Stevens, Critchley reveals that poetry also contains deep and important philosophical insight. Above all, he agues for a ‘poetic epistemology’ that enables us to think afresh the philosophical problem of the relation between mind and world, and ultimately to cast the problem away. Drawing astutely on Kant, the German and English Romantics and Heidegger, Critchley argues that through its descriptions of particular things and their stubborn plainness - whether water, guitars, trees, or cats - poetry evokes the ‘mereness’ of things. It is this experience, he shows, that provokes the mood of calm and releases the imaginative insight we need to press back against the pressure of reality. Critchley also argues that this calm defines the cinematic eye of Terrence Malick, whose work is discussed at the end of the book. (Lister) —————————————————————————————————————————- That reads precisely like a publisher’s jacket blurb. Pitch perfect.
148
Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 04:11 | # Isn’t the majesty and beauty of the natural order wonderful? Along with its ‘mere’ brute status. The periodic table is beautiful. This is where we part ways. I agree it is beautiful but I don’t agree that it is brute. Brute facts are mute facts. All facts are pre-interpreted by God or they are stunned into silence where they speak and mean nothing to us. 149
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 05:09 | # XPWA@124 You are incorrigible in your ignorance. Three matters. First, there is this:
Yes. Hello? Do you understand that I agree, that this is precisely what the Austrians believe? I don’t think you do, which leads me to state that you are, in reality, totally unfamiliar with Austrian Economics, and are merely superimposing your understanding of neoclassical economics, with all its mathematical pretensions, onto Austrianism. Indeed, you assume that because Austrians are the most radical free enterprise supporters, they must therefore be the most extreme in their avowal of what you correctly identify as the (in reality, bullshit) scientific pretensions of modern (mainstream) economics. This is totally incorrect, as I keep pointing out. Austrians are the enemy of quantitative economics (except when doing basic numerical calculations; that is, econometric modeling and so forth is rejected). That you do not acknowledge this or show evidence of recognizing this is itself evidence that, in criticizing Austrianism, you are really just criticizing a certain hedonic calculus, or reductionist/materialist understanding of what economics analyzes. If you are really interested in critiquing what is most distinct in Austrianism, what sets it apart from other schools of economics, read the Hoppe monograph on praxeology I suggested. If you or others then have informed criticism of that particular methodology, I would be interested in considering it. But right now, we are not on the same page at all, regardless of ultimate ideological preferences or beliefs about the nature of society (or even exchange phenomena). That latter stuff is irrelevant until you actually understand the Austrian position (which, frankly, I, too, would like to be able to criticize from the conservative Right). Second, this:
Sorry, pal, I disliked most of the liberals I encountered in one of the better Ivies (but not best - MIT or Harvard), but at least in my day, for a white man to gain admission, unless he happened to be an alumnus child, awesome athlete, or have some other special connection, he had to be smart, period. Yes, around a third of my class was Jewish. But hasn’t MacDonald (and Herrnstein/Murray before) shown that European Jews are the smartest ethnic group? In my experience, there were a lot of smart ones, ethnic nepotism or not ... Lastly, re tenure, I’d say liberalism is the most important qualification, then intellectual excellence. There are many top flight intellectuals in the Ivies, but they are almost all liberal. Third, I have other comments to make, but I’m ending with these questions instead: 1. What would your political economy specifically look like (mine is very simply, radical, deregulated free markets, but with zero nonwhite immigration; ideally, it would be an all-white Racial State, with almost no government interference in economic matters, except to ensure racial and environmental sustainability - so there would have to be anti-pollution laws, military defenses, border patrols, law courts, public disease measures, a few other things, but otherwise, leave the people free to conduct their affairs, especially economic ones, as they see fit)? 2. The most telling question of all. The OWSers are starting to get violent, smashing property, attacking police, etc. What should be done with them? I say, give them 24 hours to pack up and leave, then send in riot police with water cannon, etc, and force them out, ideally, breaking many bones in the process. You? That latter question is a great dividing line one, to see who is the patriot, and who the fool or traitor. 150
Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 05:22 | # NOBODY HAS COMMENTED ON THE EDGAR J STEELE CASE YET. HE JUST GOT SENTENCED TO 50 YEARS. SOMEBODY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS GOING SHOULD DO A WRITE UP. 151
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 05:41 | # <h3>Haller’s malice take….</h3> @Selous scout Haller isn’t being pessimistic. His comment [@ 3] is a classic illustration of an attempt to demoralize, which naturally falls flat as regulars here are more educated than Haller thinks they are. The context of this comment’s that I’ve been turning the heat on Haller by exposing his lies and forcing commenting etiquette on him. So Haller decided to start exiting MR. But he won’t do it in a graceful manner. He’ll seek opportunities to disinform———a recent example: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/sir_andrews_e_petition#c117271———and demoralize before he leaves. Notice what he blames for the white man’s problems: treasonous elites, lack of true free market economics, lax welfare state expenditures, reduced birth rates, generous pension guarantees, Muslims, miscegenation, non-white immigrants and the “collective stupidity of Europeans.” This is the same person that’s on record for stating that Wall Street creates wealth whereas it’s the government that issues debt! Haller’s left a trail of comments unambiguously showing that by true free market economics, he means that money creation and controlling its supply should be in the hands of the malicious private parties that create money as debt, which is why the world’s drowning in debt. This creature blames spending in the form of welfare and pensions, but a government’s gotta spend, and if the only money it creates is coins, it has to borrow money, no matter how little it spends, which’s created by the bankers out of nothing. Because of money woes and bleak future prospects, some whites are unable to have the number of children they want, or by the time they’ve earned enough and attained financial security, it’s too late to have children. This is overwhelmingly a result of bankers creating money as debt. And Haller tells us that the problem’s that these malicious bankers haven’t been given more freedom! Haller doesn’t tell us that treasonous Jews were responsible for the first major long-standing Muslim occupation of Europe when they betrayed the Visigoth rulers and invited Muslims armies to invade Spain so that the Jews end up acquiring control. And he omits that it’s the Jews that have played the instrumental role in opening the floodgates of immigration: http://majorityrights.com/uploads/Jews-and-immigration-MacDonald.pdf ... he just blames Muslims and non-white immigrants.
I dare Haller to cite this data as even in America, notwithstanding a large non-white population and massive race-mixing propaganda, 90% of whites don’t miscegenate. Haller’s comment @3 is a succinct illustration of his modus operandi: disinformation, deflection of blame from bankers/Jews and demoralization. 152
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 05:54 | # @Haller @146 was a lengthy response to Selous scout. If you can take the time to write so much on a trivial issue, and you have left such lengthy comments recently, then surely you can respond to more serious criticism of your arguments, such as your claim that “it’s the government that issues debt.” Of course, you don’t have an answer for this. Your strategy is to move on and bring back the same points later, hoping that people have forgotten and that new readers don’t know that the issues were addressed previously. Example
Why don’t you hasten your exit from MR? The white zion project awaits you eagerly. If you can’t even set up a white zion website, how in the world do you hope to contribute to a white zion region? If you persist with your malicious behaviors for long, I might gather your arguments and responses to them [with links so that they can be verified] where you were exposed as spreading lies/disinformation/strategies that benefit bankers, to which you didn’t respond, and then insist that you respond to them first before leaving more comments or just make an exit. 153
Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 06:21 | # That latter question is a great dividing line one, to see who is the patriot, and who the fool or traitor. No it isn’t. 154
Posted by J Richards on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 06:31 | # <h3>On Edgar Steele</h3> danielj, Since you brought up Edgar Steele, his case is worse than Matt Hale’s. In Hale’s case, it was Hale’s response [not affirmative] to a provocative suggestion by a Federal informant that got him 40 years. In Steele’s case it was a concoction, taking words from his speeches and stringing them together on a computer, that got Steele convicted, even though his wife stated as such, rejected that he wanted her killed and claimed to be in a loving relationship with Steele. The insurance payout that Steele allegedly stood to gain was a non-issue as the insurance had been cancelled. Hale had been trained as a lawyer, and the Jews prevented him from practicing his profession, but his leadership of the WCOTC was worrisome for the Jews. Steele was prominent among nationalists and a lawyer, also worrisome for Jews. Then Matt Hale came close to linking Jews to 9/11 as he had written that Jews were clearly aware that it was going to happen, and Steele had concluded that 9/11 was a Jew job. As you can imagine, Jews had to get these two. So they got two more, but there are millions aware of what Jewry’s up to, and the number’s increasing daily. 155
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 07:12 | # “What is your faith, sir?” “Why, my faith is the ritualistic sacrifice and cannibalism of my children. I rip out the child’s heart and offer it, still beating, to my deity, in the hope that this “sweet incense” of life will continue the cycle of night, day, the seasons of fertility and the everlasting beneficence of this great deity. I then consume the remainder of my human sacrifice to honour the God who will looked down upon this feast approvingly. “No, sir, your faith a phenotype.” Thus in your view this faith-exercise, purely a morphological expression of its genotype, will result in a reproductive differential. Honestly, do you really believe that this faith-exercise is selected and advances the replication of the genotype? The level of fear that motivates these people to sacrifice and eat their own children must be inconceivable. It is simply unimaginable and in some fashion comprehensible only to those few , motivated by unconscionable fear, who leapt from the flames of the Twin Towers to a certain death. There is no tendency to faith, there is only the tendency to fear and the need to mitigate it is so grand it is unfathomable. This is where the memetic of religion lives; it preys upon a fear of the unknown that cannot be understood in the modern world. As a replicator it cares not for the gene pool in which it lives, it only cares for its own survival and may or may not, like syphilis, evolve to be more benign in order to survive. 156
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:08 | # @SELOUS SCOUT & JRICHARDS
———————————————————————— You are asking a very difficult question of me, though your observation of my shifting tones is probably correct. Haven’t I stated the real issue many times (appropriating Wilmot Robertson’s metaphor): “ripening harvest / encroaching jungle”? I’m a great believer in ultimate physical reality (which in human affairs means brute force - the ability to impose one’s will on others: power). Ideologies are fine, but raw power finally is determinative. The West still has tremendous power (though it’s dwindling, both absolutely and relatively). Which WN was it in the past few years (Scrooby? Grimoire? some recognizable European?) who said that if 10% of whites were WN we’d be unstoppable? Certainly, we have the physical power to survive as a race and whatever kind of (technological) civilization we wish to be. But we are clearly headed towards extinction. Why? I have discussed this before, here at MR and elsewhere. We are dying due to a confluence of physical, political, economic, sociological, and above all philosophical/ideological trends. At base, at the very time in history when the white race most needs - for physical (power) reasons - to live by the Racial Principle (ie, that races differ at the biological level, and thus are neither interchangeable nor even compatible within the same ecological niches (or ‘countries’)), we have thrown it (and ancient caution) to the wind. Year by year, our racial power (ie, ability to control our racial destiny) correspondingly weakens. Our ideological insanity (a form of evolutionary maladaptiveness) is destroying our physical power. Past some (tipping) point of physical power diminution, our situation will be (physically) irreparable. So, the harvest/jungle metaphor. We must awaken our people from their multiracialist slumbers while there remains time to resurrect our racial power. Is this all clear? I cannot really answer your question, because you are asking me to prognosticate in an area (human desires and intentions) for which extrapolations are ineluctably highly provisional. Of course, that’s why we have a chance. Will our people awaken before our racial power is all used up, and unrecoverable? I honestly don’t know. I suppose it depends on how bad things get - and that is the Awful Paradox. For there to be true racial recovery, the raw quality of life for Western peoples might have to get very bad (eg, basic necessities of life might have to become scarce, or raw persecution of whites the order of the day). The problem (Paradox) is that as the effects of denying the Racial Principle worsen Western quality of life, Western peoples will constantly ‘turn Right’ to mitigate those effects. As those effects get mitigated, the ‘meta-euthanasia’ of the West (rising immigration, greater integration, increased blood pollution (miscegenation)) is able to resume its ‘extinctionist’ course. How optimistic you are wrt white preservation depends in part on your view of (or inversely correlates with) the competence and resilience and adaptability of The System. If they are incompetent and generate a macro-crisis which they cannot resolve, one which inflicts tremendous tribulations upon whites, then WN, responding to that which is physically real (and not merely ideational), could find a favorable political ‘space’ opening up quickly. If WNs are sufficiently organized, they could possibly find themselves in a position to achieve a shattering victory over our enemies. But if you think The System in the West is basically competent and therefore stable, there would seem to be no hope for the white man to end or avoid the meta-euthanasia unless: 1) we can change the New Morality of (a majority of) the people back to the older version wrt race (hence my emphasis on ethics and renovated Christianity, which I find more likely to recrudesce than ancient indigenous paganisms, or hyper-modern fascisms), at least in Europe, which is still physically recoverable, or 2) we can establish an Aryan analogue to Israel (White Zion), a sovereign state for the preservation of our people. White Zion is utterly, physically possible and even plausible, though “nothing is, but thinking makes it so”. Will we do it? I’m inclined to think whites will never quite do enough actually to secure their future, though they will keep mitigating diversity’s negative consequences right up and into their collective grave. In a hundred years, whites across the planet will find themselves reduced to the sorry condition of the European Jews pre-emancipation, hemmed in and ‘ghettoized’ by racist strictures enacted by nonwhite electorates. It is our duty and glory to prevent this. The key is changing the white man’s racial ethics (which may involve a great deal of philosophical reenvisioning). 157
Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:57 | # You are asking a very difficult question of me, though your observation of my shifting tones is probably correct. I was just about to bring that up. 158
Posted by CS on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:41 | # If there was a White Zion for Steele to move to, he wouldn’t be spending the rest of his life in jail. 159
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:26 | # Still with the white Zion.. oi vey Let’s please consider this from a Devil’s advocate position: Will Belize or any of the other suggested destinations be welcoming to hundreds of thousands of white nationalist immigrants? The first hundred would constitute some sort of vanguard. Might they be noticed locally, such that bells start to ring in certain basements? What type would be represented by these early adopters, these new Pilgrim Fathers? if its hard to even achieve a basic PLE in Montana where are the numbers to come from? —- On a separate note, now we are in a more revealed age of aggressive globalism, are there not some financial opportunities for WN development that emanates from those remaining nations most likely to suffer directly, or within their traditional spheres of influence, from this aggression ? Might Russia, Iran, Syria and similar nations, or groups within those nations, consider extending financial resources towards building the opposing sovereignty based and traditionalist case against this developing global hegemony? If foundations (propaganda outlets) were created within some of the leading nations where the local elites are driving this global effort (USA, UK, France, Germany and also smaller nations) it would have a much greater impact than if it was done in some backyard of the axis of evil. The left have very little quid pro quo to offer here, their arguments against Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya barely made the mainstream’s radar nor found any agreement when it did. A3P and other national equivalents would be able to use the research and faculty of such organizations without having to have above ground ties protecting both from media onslaught. 160
Posted by CS on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 19:57 | # Liberal Heresy, They will not be welcome if they show up all at once. The first ones should keep a low profile until there is enough WN to actually do something What do you think muslims are doing in Britain? It is hard to form a PLE in Kalispel Montana because there few economic opportunities there. 161
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 21:12 | # CS, in our theoretical example of Belize it is certainly a beautiful spot, citizenship is straightforward and your buck travels a long way, but to get to even 5% of the population would take 15,000 people. That’s quite a number. Meantime your kids would have the danger of socializing with halfbreeds who constitute 90% of the population, and violent crime rates are high off the back of the drug culture. Ethno-culturally defences would need to be put in place before long that situation occurs. On Muslims, they have some well placed backers. We on the other hand have some powerful antagonists. Kalispel : funds could be invested to purchase a share in land while working outside of the area, other areas are not quite so deprived, the service economy offers some options for business development as do other sectors. I am not trying to shit on your doorstep & ringing your bell, I just sadly can’t see it. 162
Posted by CS on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 21:50 | # Liberal Heresy, It is fine to point out problems with the White Zion concept. If it won’t work for some reason, we want to know now before we invest enormous time and money into it. The problem with Belize is that it is full of non-whites. However, that can be overcome if enough white people move there. I am in the process of accumulating wealth so that one day I may bring it to White Zion and create jobs there by spending and investing it. Basically what we’d be doing in White Zion is acting like the jews do it our countries until we have numbers where it won’t be necessary i.e. we are the majority. As our countries are turned to shit, it will become easier and easier to persuade others whites why that is and to move to our White Zion. My favorite country now is Uruguay because it is mostly white already. One problem is the official language in Spanish. If we go there, we’ll have to create an English speaking ghetto for ourselves. 163
Posted by Silver on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:14 | # Haller,
The response you received doesn’t surprise me at all. But why does it occur? If you take a ‘historicist’ approach to it you’ll cite factors like the newness of America or the well-established (by the close of the 20th century anyway) creedal concept of nationhood (and if your name is Dan Dare you’ll go further and tease out all the endless details in the hope of striking gold). Those probably always have something to do with it. But I think understanding the vicious reactions mentions of race so often evoke requires peering into the psychology of racial attitudes. For me, the key aspect is ‘overcompensation.’ That fellow you were talking sounds unlikely to have been a habitual racial self-abnegator. In all likelihood he was ‘happily white’—happy to be white, happy to live around and associate with whites, happy to laugh at (or even tell) nigger jokes etc. But the moment you politicized race (even obliquely) he exploded. Politicizing race demanded more of him racially than he was comfortable giving. But rather than merely decline your ‘offer’ (so to speak) he lashed out at you. Why? Perhaps he’d mulled over racial issues himself. Perhaps he was aware of certain problems. Perhaps he had racial feelings of his own (pro-self, aversion to others, however slight). Your mention of race suggested (again, indirectly) that those feelings be made explicit, and that they form the basis for political action. That was more than he was prepared for, so as part of his defense he attacked you. I call this overcompensation. These sorts of overcompensations occur in numerous other areas besides race. Imagine relating to a friend a spat you had with your mother which resulted in you smashing her vase. Generally, if your friend empathizes you feel satisfied and let the matter drop. But what if the friend suggested “boy, you must really hate your mother then!” or told you “good on you, your mother’s a real bitch!” You would likely angrily protest that that is decidedly not how you feel about it and how dare your friend think so. And you’d probably do so even if, deep inside, you had at times thought of your mother as a bit of a bitch. Your anger at your friend is thus in part a way of compensating for negative thoughts you’ve had about your mother. Another example. Jim and John both dislike Bob. But if Jim suggests to John that they kill Bob (because they dislike him so much), John is liable to become very angry with Jim, and in his anger suggest that perhaps it’s Jim who should be killed. Isn’t race similar? How many people must there be who believe blacks are difficult? How many people must there be who believe themselves plainly ‘better’ than blacks? How many people must there be who regard blacks as a troubling presence? But when you suggest something be ‘done about it’ the rage and the denunciations—the ‘overcompensations’—come at you thick and fast. “You think blacks suck, do you? Well, you suck, buddy, you suck!” This, I think, is the root of ‘white guilt.’ It’s not so much guilt about anything whites ever did. It’s guilt about pro-self and anti-other thoughts and feelings they have themselves entertained. Given the barrier that this attitude creates towards even minimal progress on the racial front, you could very well conclude that whites are ‘too good for their own good.’ This doesn’t explain why integration and multiracialism where ever pursued in the first place, of course. For America, I put that down to “prosperity and propinquity.” It’s easier to be generous when prosperous. And the nearness of blacks meant that in good times people would eventually begin to take pity on them and look at ways of both ameliorating the conditions they lived in as well as bettering relations with them. But once efforts were made in this regard (based on tragically flawed reasoning, of course) it is anti-racial psychology that forms the greatest barrier to getting the ball rolling on reforms (or revolutions).
I think your LA experiences go a long way towards explaining your racial anger and fears. You’ve certainly taken the brunt of both the racial and cultural collapses there. I lived in Vegas for a while and was astounded at how many Mexican-types there were there (and just as much astounded at how many could barely speak a word of English). I befriended a guy from LA who invited me to visit him there. He lived around Hermosa/Manhattan so I didn’t see much of what the ‘other LA’ was like. But I took a train once, for the fun of it, through south LA. Good God, Vegas was nothing. Jared Taylor’s quip about parts of America being like maps from the olden days that were marked “here be dragons” was spot on. I was carrying a laptop with me (idiot!), and these niggers kept eyeing me off. I think the ‘oily dago’ appearance and the summer sun saved my ass that day. This nigger started following me and although it infuriated me so much I wanted to clock him I didn’t want to cause a scene with all those niggers around. I told myself if he does anything I’ll scream out to the mexicans “this pinche mayate is trying to steal my computer!” and count on them jumping in on my side. Luckily the nigger gave up following me after I crossed to the other side of the street (though I noticed he kept staring at me with this dopey, vacant nigger frown). How the hell anyone could have lived through LA’s transformation and not be racialized by it is beyond me. So I don’t blame you for being one royally pissed off WN, Haller. But how do you relate that to someone who doesn’t quite yet get it? Surely experience suggest that racial exhortations, crime and IQ stats, dendograms, history and Jews all have very little effect unless the person is first willing to accept that a ‘white point of view’ is possible and permissible, or in short, as I put it, that ‘whites are people too, you know.’ Imagine that racial activists had spent the past forty years making the point that ‘whites are people too’ instead of trying to inflame racial passions by attacking other groups. Man: “Hey, that’s fucking racist!” Man: “Hey, that’s fucking racist!”
Two more miscellaneous points that I’ve wanted to put to you: (1) You’d agree that not all whites who make anti-racist statements really believe in what they’re saying. So why do they do it? Political expediency and CYA for one thing, sure. But anti-racism is also a ‘place-holder’ strategy. WN-ish responses strike them as inconceivably drastic but they don’t quite know what approach would be appropriate. So they stick with anti-racism by default. Their hearts aren’t really in it but they see themselves as telling the necessary lies to prevent society coming apart at the seams. Examples of hardline racism comes as a relief to them because they can tell themselves that their stance is correct (“See? Without our anti-racist, pro-diversity stance just look at what we’d be facing.”) (2) Your fears of “extermination” are way overblown. Your perceptions are probably warped by your LA upbringing. It’s highly doubtful that all other races hate whites so much they want to exterminate them. Whites (true whites) are a small minority in many places across South America. I’m not aware of any attempts to harm them, much less exterminate them. The trend is to look up to whites, to emulate whites and to ‘whiten’ oneself. Unchecked miscegenation will result in extinction, true, but that has the effect of mitigating exterminationist tendencies (if they’re present), not of exacerbating them. The only group conceivably anti-white enough to wish to exterminate whites is blacks. And although they’re largely powerless today, there could well be three billion of them in a hundred years time, and the assumption should be that that would lead to greater political power (in ways that perhaps aren’t clear today). I see racialism as being pro-self and pro-other (in the sense of helping the other be pro-self) rather than anti-other, but to the extent that it must be anti-other, the basis for being anti-other must be anti-black. Every race on earth has a vested interest in being anti-black, even today, but much more so in 50-100 years time when blacks’ numbers and black proliferation will that much greater. Why in the world you consider it a good idea to rail against groups who could plausibly take your side or cooperate with you is a mystery to me. I hope it’s no more than a vestige of 80s/90s era ‘angry aryans’-style scare propaganda. If so, please snap out of it, Mr. Haller. This world’s big enough to hold all of us, and if we play it right, hold all of us—all of us—it will. And what the hell, a third miscellaneous point while I’m at it. (3) Re GT/EXPWA (one and the same person, obviously). An associate of his, ‘Maguire’ (who used to post here) or Robert Frentz (of FAEM fame), one of those two, critiqued the efficiency of capitalism on the basis of the ‘overpriced’ office furniture some company he’d worked for had splashed out on. That’s the sort of mentality you’re dealing with. Why bother? 164
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:41 | # The Fourth Man: Man: “Hey, that’s fucking racist!” 165
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 00:52 | # @CS, hmm Uruguay.. For me such things are medium term at best on the priority scale BUT perhaps one way to make it work might be to create a global organization for European survival and civilisation with some heavy weights at the head and taken from many nations not just the AngloSaxons and their wayward offspring. Monthly membership fee based. Just don’t refer to it as ‘pan-Aryan’ or ‘World Union of National Socialists’, with a wider radius than the ultras. There are millions of us globally, but only hundreds locally. Be the best way to create a war chest for R&D and also to explore WZ options. Steering committee based rather than a single crooked careerist. Ripe for infiltration and being corrupted but…......................... 166
Posted by danielj on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 00:59 | # Whites don’t like hurting people. One just needs to convince them that multiracialism is far more detrimental to all our well being than the present arrangement. 167
Posted by Silver on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 01:54 | # danjay,
I don’t believe any race of people, taken as a whole, can be said to like hurting people, not in the modern world with its ubiquitous instantaneous communications technology which acts to amplify sympathy and empathy tremendously relative to what was possible in the past. However imperfectly (particularly with regard to attitudes towards whites), the antiracist ideology really has taken hold all across the globe. Nowhere is there any group baying for blood over racial differences per se within a whiff of power. Now, groups certainly have hurt other groups throughout human history, and while it’s questionable how much they enjoyed doing it, that whites were second to none in laying the smack down is not up for debate. Whites here are in no way special. But I’m not talking about whites as a group. I’m talking about WNs. How can you tell me with a straight face that hurting others hasn’t been a core tenet of WN as propounded by its leading lights over the past half century? I’m to believe William Lucifer Pierce was only kidding in Turner Diaries and Hunter. People weren’t to take the ‘day of the rope’ literally. It’s all just a big misunderstanding. WLP never meant to hurt anyone. He just wanted to show people the error of their ways.
Multiracialism is the present arrangement. But I think I know what you meant: convincing people that multiracialism is far more detrimental to their wellbeing than the alternative arrangement of achieving monoracialism, or ‘racial particularism.’ If I’ve got that right, then yipee, I couldn’t agree more. I would simply add that if it’s true for whites it’s true for a whole bunch of other people too, and the sooner they become aware of it the better. Jimmy,
And during the course of his research he stumbles across the following: “Respect white existence or expect white resistance.” Excellent, he tells himself. That’s impeccably fair-minded. Now, he asks himself, how shall we know whether white existence is being respected? Would the author of that fine formulation care to elucidate? 169
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 03:10 | #
Hmn. I’m not an expert on Jewish holidays, but I was under the impression that celebrating the hurt they have caused other peoples was pretty much the singular focus of their jubilation. 171
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:13 | # @CS
Technically correct, but because Steele would be in Heaven, following the nuking of the white Zion state. Considering how they act when they come across a Steele, a Matt Hale, or Kevin Strom, or Martin Lindstedt, etc., the very idea of a white Zion is stillborn. There can’t be a white homeland unless the money power of the bankers/Jews is taken away, and if this money power’s taken away, then there won’t be a need for white Zion. Just look at Japan. Do they have a Japanese-only policy? No. Yet they’re overwhelmingly Japanese and this is how they’ll remain for the foreseeable future. In the natural course of affairs, people prefer their own and there can’t be any significant internal pressure to shift immigration policies toward changing the ethnic status quo. But with the money power in the hands of hostile aliens, immigration policy shifts in favor of undermining ethnic solidarity/cohesion among the host population lest a unified host population expel the hostiles that’ve acquired control of the monetary system. This is why when people like Haller promote economic policies that keep hostile aliens in charge of the money supply, I have to identify them as enemies. Haller’s wasting his time if he thinks he can establish rapport by calling for a white Zion as this is neither necessary nor sufficient for a credibility assessment. And what’s up with the inclusion of Zion? The term’s unsuitable. Zionism was created in the late 1800s as a movement to return Jews to a mythical homeland, whereas most whites are living in their real homelands. 172
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:37 | # @Silver The person researching the J.Q. comes across “Respect white existence or expect white resistance.” And you wish to know how this man will be guided. Man: How do we know that white existence is being respected? Teacher: Respect is earned, not demanded. Our people produce the goods and they produce the services. All we need is debt-free money to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and we prosper. If we don’t have control over our money supply, our prosperity is threatened; if we do, we thrive. Thus you know the test for whether our existence is secured and what really to aim for. Man: But how’s this related to my being mugged and robbed by the African-American? Teacher: You can take the Negro out of the jungle but you can’t take the jungle out of the Negro. We harbor no hostility toward Negroes as they’ll do what naturally comes to them. We just keep a safe distance from them. Our ancestors knew this and so did the Jewish slave traders who brought the Negroes to our shores. But the slave traders acquired control of our money, and to prevent us from possibly acting in unison against them, they’ve used their money power to weaken us, among other things by integrating the Negroes among us. The Negroes have thus gone from “Yes Massa” to “I’ll ice yo muhfuggin’ cracka ass,” which you’ve experienced first hand. Now go forth and don’t waste time on Negro criminality. Target the money changers. Take away their money power and Negro criminality accompanies the Negroes on their way to Africa, and stops from coming to our shores the refugees starved by or scarred by the conflicts caused by the slave traders-cum-money changers. 173
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:56 | # So called anti - racists are often just guys who, when confronted with some White who won’t govern his (and our) natural instincts to tell the truth about Niggers, resent the fact that they had to govern theirs. 174
Posted by CS on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 07:11 | # J Richards, I would love to see Jewish control of the money supply ended everywhere. I don’t care if the term “White Zion” is used or not. Call it YT Land if it makes you happy. How would you propose ending Jewish control of the money supply everywhere which I would fully support? 175
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:53 | # Purchasing currency at interest is the monetary equivalent of overcoming Judaism through Christianity. It’d be funny if the attempt hadn’t been ongoing for two thousand years. 176
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:03 | #
Possibly overkill as the history of US subversion is South American is enough to send a chill down the bravest back even before factoring the current levels of ultra violence from the Mexican cartels and allied groups. The fact is ‘they’ are better financed, equipped and are world class at bloody subversion. Ask the ex-head of state who recently experienced a knife thrust up his rectum. 178
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:17 | # CS, Don’t lose faith in the WZ idea. The notion that the alleged “Jew-SA” would nuke an Australia that re-enacted a Whites Only immigration policy is too fanciful even to be mocked. The Christian conservatives would be horrified, the left-environmentalists would scream about fallout, the libertarians would scream about interventionism, the corporate class about markets tanking, etc etc. The liberals in the “divestment” controversy of the 80s never suggested nuking South Africa. The notion that the USA would even press for sanctions as in the South African experience is hard to take seriously (and if it did, that might be a good thing, reinforcing a siege mentality, which would make the WN colony still more tribal and security-oriented, like Israel). The South Africa bulls—- was over a white minority ‘oppressing’ what was assumed to be a native black majority (in fact, most of the blacks were originally immigrants from elsewhere in Africa). Who in the past ever spoke about nuking Australia over its immigration or even aboriginal policies? The antagonists think they’re being very cynical, macho, and hyper-realist, but they merely reveal their own limited purchase on the actual world. Same thing re The Jewish Conspiracy - there is no Jewish Conspiracy, only a probably genetic tendency to seek to exploit host nations and undermine expressions of white racial solidarity, as they know they don’t really belong in Nordic lands. They are cosmopolitans, who therefore wish to ‘cosmopolitanize’ societies, especially as they are uniquely equipped to thrive ethnically under such conditions. Would we speak of a Black Conspiracy to terrorize whites through violent criminality, or are blacks, as a statistical aggregate, simply genetically crime-prone savages, expressing in behavior their innate tendencies? Always bear in mind my injunction re endeavoring to see reality clearly. What is less likely: what you call the “international white (nationalist) flight” to WZ, effected in order to live with our own kind of people (something which is going on all the time anyway; see the book The Big Sort, or at least Jared Taylor’s review of it in American Renaissance, which argues that America is already sorting itself out, neighborhood by neighborhood, state by state, into areas where ideologically and culturally likeminded people congregate)—or completely upending the Money Power, ie, the whole infinitely complex economic status quo, in order to dispossess Jews of their disproportionate wealth? There are many differences in scale and difficulty of the respective tasks, but perhaps the biggest one is this: we the WZ pioneers are in control of our own destinies; we make the decisions to relocate (especially if we are talking about places like Australia and Uruguay, both of which want immigrants). But in trying to destroy the Money Power (even assuming such a metaphorical categorization corresponds to anything real) one is talking about inflicting great harm, whether legitimate or not, and those on the receiving end of the destruction certainly won’t take it lying down! In fact, it is JRichards who is the spreader of demoralization. He throws up assinine, unrealistic objections to that which is perfectly feasible: a bunch of committed WNs figuring out how to move to a place potentially electorally conquerable, like Melbourne or Montevideo, and then doing so - wow! what a Big Deal! Can you imagine WNs going to live in Sydney? What a conceptual leap! C’est impossible! On the other hand, Richards tells us that our only hope lay in completely overthrowing the existing US financial system, and seizing the money of Jewish financiers. That is simpler or more likely than WZ? How exactly will that be effected? (hint: dispossessing the Jewish bankers - unless Richards thinks a Nazi revolution is on the horizon ... this in a country which may reelect a failed black president ... will almost certainly require dispossessing the entire financial class, Gentile as well as Jew, and thus the attempt to do so will rile an almost infinitely larger number of (often highly influential) persons, who will not go down without a fight, I assure one and all, than would be involved in WZ, especially during the pioneer stage.) My WZ is a counsel of realism; sadly, the very most realistic option for securing a white future somewhere that is in current WN discussion. What Richards is peddling is so unrealistic that one must question either his credibility as a WN, or his sanity. 179
Posted by CS on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:51 | # Leon, I think you’re right Leon. The idea that ZOG would nuke Australia because they returned to a whites only immigration is something I don’t buy. I agree that ZOG would love to see every white person die immediately but there are limits to what they can do. If it was up to ZOG, every American would be stripped of their guns except maybe for cops and the military and everyone who posted something anti-jew or pro-white would be put in death camps. Perhaps Australia is a good choice because it is simply too big for ZOG nuke all of. Hell, why even do that? Why not create a virus that only kills Europeans and spread it all over the place. If we pretend our enemies are omnipotent it just leads to defeatism and surrender. 180
Posted by CS on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:56 | # Leon, I do disagree with you about the jews though. They would love to see every white person on the planet disappear. 181
Posted by danielj on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:52 | # But I’m not talking about whites as a group. I’m talking about WNs. How can you tell me with a straight face that hurting others hasn’t been a core tenet of WN as propounded by its leading lights over the past half century? I’m to believe William Lucifer Pierce was only kidding in Turner Diaries and Hunter. People weren’t to take the ‘day of the rope’ literally. It’s all just a big misunderstanding. WLP never meant to hurt anyone. He just wanted to show people the error of their ways. I’ve never read any of that shit. No modern White Nationalists are bloodthirsty ropers. 182
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:26 | #
Sorry, Daniel, but the imp in me can’t resist a play on words from the unbiased folks at SPLC: “Billy Roper is the uncensored voice of violent neo-Nazism… In His Own Words
183
Posted by danielj on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:03 | # I did of course mean that essentially none of us were bloodthirsty. Obviously there are vociferous nut bags out there. But they also serve a useful purpose in enabling us to shift the Overton Window. 184
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:41 | #
I dont think the total destruction of whites is desired, what ‘they’ want is a pampered technocrat/miltary slave class - think Ottoman Empire. Isnt South Africa heading that way. whites are tolerated up to a point as long as they understand they are allowed no political power. 185
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:35 | # The mingi children…
villager Bona Shapo
The ancient Kara tribe… prototypically ethnocentric? More likely profoundly fearful of welcoming evil spirits into the village. A faith based or fear based strategy to preserve the tribe from the evil of animated essences? http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/05/world/africa/mingi-ethiopia/ P.S. The Ross is back in the house. 187
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:13 | #
Please. The US will have little reason to notice, let alone subvert or attack, WZ. For one thing, as our inevitable decline continues, the managerial class will be confronted with ever greater domestic crises born out of the inner contradictions of multicultural socialism. For another, post-Cold War USA/NWO subversion only really occurs in two situations: where the US has sub rosa interests, usually economic, or where liberals get their dander up over some (real or imagined) human rights violation. The former will almost certainly not apply to a WZ-Australia/Tasmania/New Zealand/Uruguay/Belize, etc. WZ will not be a terrorist state, will not invade its neighbors, will not harbor international criminals (except of the WN “thoughtcrime” variety) or pirates, and will not be a global environmental menace. The latter will not apply to the extent that the US has not hitherto involved itself in other countries’ affairs out of pique with their immigration policies. The ‘subversion’ of South Africa, the great supposed example here, was, moreover, economic, and quite transparent. The ANC was not bankrolled by the US, but by the communists. Of course, the real concern is with the locals ‘getting wind’ of our plans. WZ pioneers must be very careful to avoid Far Right political conflict in the early years. Align with (and befriend) native conservatives, especially those who are anti-diversity, and pro-military (ultimately, WZ must acquire nuclear weapons, as Israel has) but otherwise stay aloof. The important point will be to get as many whites as possible imported into the designated WZ, and then ensure that those white immigrants are model citizens (as I believe most would be). Only when we’ve reached 10-20% of the population can we start getting active re stopping all nonwhite immigration, whilst supporting maximum white immigration. The USA/NWO in fact won’t even notice WZ until it has already become a fact (the point at which WNs are >50% of the population). WZ is a long-term goal, one whose realization will span decades, decades of continuing American decay. Let’s all remember that.
188
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:55 | # Silver @163 Interesting, lengthy comment. You like to hit this stuff from a psychological angle, don’t you? 1. “<u>Overcompensation</u>” - Could be something to this. I don’t know. I haven’t thought about it in this way. I have NEVER experienced even the tiniest scintilla of “white guilt”, and so have always found the phenomena completely perplexing. Then again, I find liberalism in nearly all its guises inexplicable, at least where I can’t find real self-interest (obviously gays want sexual liberation, blacks affirmative action, public sector unions to rape taxpayers for as many benefits as possible, etc). I think whites are indeed “too good for their own good”, the least innately racist group, and thus the most in danger from modern integrationist trends and technologies. For me, however, this problem, the susceptibility to which may well have genetic-psychological roots, is nevertheless a problem of philosophical ethics (which for me ultimately gets folded into theology). I’ve been saying this for a quarter century, which is why I always tactically (in addition to, ultimately, ethically) oppose the NSM or white supremacist types. The average white, especially American or Canadian (perhaps any member of an overseas British descended culture - within Britain proper, however, I don’t think the people are especially moral or kind), is just basically a good person, as well as a gene-deep individualist. Thus, racism just seems wrong (more precisely, the younger generations have forgotten or never been taught the justifications undergirding the older prejudices). MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech was brilliantly calculated to resonate with white Americans, esp when he talked about being judged on character not color. That was pitch perfect in terms of the growth of liberal individualism over the course of US history (note: American society in early US history was in fact much more communitarian than it is today). If whites are going to survive, a new ethics of racial survival is needed to overcome the seeming ‘naturalness’ of white individualism. On question: how did you get from the train to a street in the ‘hood. And why? 189
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:28 | # Mr Haller, with apologies in advance for any discourtesy coming up, but I am amazed at the extent of your staid and conventional mindset. After that response above it draws for me a picture of a 1950s conservative schoolteacher who thinks “segregation is great and America’s role in world is greater.” Like a refugee from a gilded age, where the writings of R.P. Oliver & Archibald Roosevelt’s Veritas Foundation have not placed any clouds into the blue sky. Long before Wikileaks became a controversial neologism on the block revealing some shady diplomatic corners, there has been a long and consistent trail of evidence showing the tentacles of American interventionism and (contemporaneously) deniable hands-off direction all playing a wide range of keys on the political piano: direct diplomatic pressure, quasi governmental agencies (e.g. the National Endowment for Democracy), secret services, globalist meeting points, education of foreign elites, financial sponsorship of political and cultural initiatives, foundations, legal international organisations, fake casus belli, insurrection and probably half a dozen other sources I’ve not included. You may choose to overlook both the long historical record as if it is all all in the rear view mirror, and we’ll play along, but then you also wish to deny something that truly amazes me: the direct and essential threat to the progressive globalist agenda that nationalism in even etiolated form encapsulates. When you also suggest regarding full blown racial nationalism that
you really must be eating the wrong sort of mushrooms in the canteen on your campus. You generously allow two types of national interest that might conceivably trigger some form of US intervention: economic threat and progressive sensibilities. Yet almost every fiber of nationalist discourse is a direct attack on these two areas. Every instinct within nationalism makes it the deadliest foe of progressive globalism, in fact the only real existential threat to this zeitgeist of our age. And that’s considering a form of nationalism that has arisen in its own historical homeland. When instead we are considering a cuckoo-in-a-nest stratagem that is being employed to disinvest the native population by a non indigenous people, to then suggest that this would not trigger progressive hysteria and globalist enmity would even strain the credulity of Forrest Gump. That is before we come on to consider the ill considered naivety inherent in the statement
Every nation has a citizenship process and a civil service who track societal developments. Even overlooking for one moment the hundred other immediate practical objections to this fantasy process the idea that many thousands of politically radical whites can migrate to a sovereign nation and not alert the elites there to the intention to disinherit them is truly ridiculous. You then suggest
Even in tiny Belize that would be 150,000 people. 150k members of one of the most infiltrated, spied upon, quarrelsome political factions on the planet. To partner this explicit caveat with the suggestion that
” suggests we attempt to make friends with elements of the local elites who we hope to one day supplant and to top this with the idea that we also ‘eventually’ develop nuclear weapons would even make the little baby Jesus weep. So I’d like to finish up and attempt to get more positive by putting a slice of bread on the bottom layer of this shit sandwich and try to see whether we can turn it into something worth eating. We agree on the not-too-distant fall (or advancing obsolescence) of the American empire, we agree on the increasingly likely resegregation of the American populace as you yourself mentioned on a post elsewhere here, and yet in this fracturing, segregated society where citizens can still freely travel from one end to another, where the federal state is retreating and where the bulk of the modern chapter of your national history and kin reside you do not consider proactive measures that could create a positive outcome from this fall. Moves toward secession and the development of strong white enclave within the current territory of the USA would seem a real possibility. There are also many white African, east and central European nations whose politically engaged members would very likely migrate in significant numbers to help you build it even if enough white Americans have forgotten their frontier spirit in this age of obesity, crudely satiated desires and omnipresent cable television. Every single white American nationalist could marry one of these as a political (not always an emotional or cohabiting) act. Thousands could be in the US, farming, building, doing the grunt work if you like and helping lay the bedrock by next summertime if the desire was there. WZ might have some merit, I am not trying to napalm the idea, in fact Belize for one option looks idyllic, just to become more convinced if there is some merit to the idea. I haven’t been as yet. 190
Posted by CL on Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:06 | # WN congregating (ie, easily identified and eliminated) in some god-forsaken hell-hole on the other side of the planet is just about the dumbest idea ever. Do our enemies hate us and want us dead or not? If this were 1900, maybe, sure. Decentralization is the name of this game. Instead of WZ, how about WD: White Diaspora? That’s the concept, anyway. Want a ‘Zion’ component? How about Detroit or Baltimore, where one can buy-up centralized property, reap the long-term rewards (as with cities like Charleston and Savannah), take advantage of local in-group/out-group hostility and still avail oneself of civilization, ie, the suburbs? And one would still be under American law, which—bad though it be—is still exponentially better than Belize or Uruguay. Detroit might be preferable to Baltimore as the latter is in the Black Belt while the former is not. Heck, how about a city where it isn’t freezing half the year? Surely there’s some place that qualifies. . .Memphis maybe? New Orleans? LA or San Diego? Why not Oakland? As horrid as these places are, they’re better than moving off-shore. Maybe similar thinking would apply in some of the larger European countries. 191
Posted by CS on Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:37 | # CL, Any Third World shithole that has been demographically transformed by white people will no longer be a Third World shithole. White people could turn Haiti into paradise if all the blacks were moved out and only quality white people were there. Think of it as gentrification on a national scale. Furthermore, we already have white dispora and it sucks balls. 192
Posted by ex-uh on Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:06 | # By the bye — hey, literally! — neither “overcompensation” nor “resentment” power the anti-racist steam engine. Anti-racist narrative and the emotions provoked thereby do not arise from a psychological weakness in the individual; it is not debility; precisely as a mob of Christians have no personal stake in the symbolic order introduced by Christian narrative, yet would and do act upon it as a group in the neutralization of internal threats, white anti-racists obviously have no personal stake in enforcing the symbolic order of equality, yet act upon it. Very, very few anti-racists are “in denial”. They do not possess the correct data to deny. Non-whites are irrelevant. Anti-racism is a mask for the white leftist’s will to power over white defectors from the received norm. Interpreting it as anything else tells one more about you than the leftist. No leftist is quivering in denial, going red in the face to hide his secret guilt for knowing spades are worthless. They’re quivering with rage because they are an “Us” and we are their “Not Us”. Got it now? 193
Posted by CL on Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:11 | #
Just not necessary to go out of the country (any Euro-ish country). Everything you said could be said of Detroit or Manchester, etc, with exponentially more ease.
Only in the most literal, basic sense of the word. We don’t have a diaspora. The idea is more than just some unaffiliated fellows, hither and yon, who share, roughly, a political opinion. There is no cohesion. There is no animating. . .zeitgeist. We’re just slush, not jello. The glue is in the realm of religion—or at least spirituality—imo.
194
Posted by CS on Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:23 | # CL, Any White Zion created within a ZOG country would eventually be overrun with muds. The White Zion inside a ZOG country would still be subect to hate speech and hate crime codes and the million other things we hate about our countries. Aside from that, let’s pretend Detroit could be taken over by WN if we all moved there and pushed the niggers out. What would be the point? It would be surrounded, outvoted, and taxed by all the niggers and white liberal faggots outside of it. That strategy is about as useful as considering your house a White Zion. I want a white country that exists for functional white people only. No non-whites and no white liberal faggots either. 195
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:34 | # CL (and Liberal Heresy), We call it “White Zion” precisely because we want exactly what the Jews have: our own country, where we decide how things are run, and which can ultimately serve as a similar base of operations against the occupationist governments of historically white nations, as well as a place of refuge for patriots of the blood fleeing ZOG/liberal/mud tyranny. This is really neither complicated nor remotely outlandish. History affords many examples both of whole peoples on the move, as well as, more relevantly, specific groups self-exiling to areas where they could have functional control (despite ultimate sovereignty residing in other, but remote, hands). Examples are the Puritans, the Mormons, the Voortrekkers, the German Mennonites of Paraguay, etc (and don’t forget the homos politically taking over San Francisco, and the Jews, New York, or the Mexicans conquering the US Southwest as I write). As I keep emphasizing, our lot is far easier, given the ease of both communications (for keeping in touch with persons back home, including business colleagues, in some cases), as well as transportation. Good grief, it’s not as though we’re “crossing to America” circa 1720, when some of my Old Country ancestors arrived, knowing full well they probably would never return. If we set up in Uruguay, less than a day’s traveling will get me home to LA to visit family. The world is shrinking, which is part of what is at the base of the mud invasions. Isn’t it time we used that fact to our advantage? Anyway, the key point is “racial sovereignty”. Unless the USA somehow collapses (a possibility, I admit), and whites can secure their own ethnostate (I’m less sure that would happen; the USA could fissure, but possibly only into all-black, all-Latino, and the remainder mixed, territories), the gradual conquest of whites in America (and Canada, and Britain, and France etc) will proceed apace. Even if we are able to stand up to short-sighted business lobbies, and end immigration, at least in North America (and probably England, too, it seems) all we will ever get is the shitty status quo, where whites are coercively integrated on a daily basis with aliens and savages, have their culture deliberately expunged from the media and schools, and suffer all manner of oppression - including the oppression of not being able to lead psychologically authentic, white lives, the kind of lives evolutionarily natural to us, and thus most conducive to happiness among us (or at the very, very least, most conducive to personal life satisfaction for anti-diversity whites, like us). The status quo is unacceptable as is, and the features which make it unacceptable are only growing worse everyday. Bottom line? We’re never going to be collectively happy (nor will the white race even endure, except for some few more decades, perhaps a century at most, I argue), until we can lead the life we want, which won’t happen without political sovereignty, and which in turn I don’t believe can be realistically achieved in countries which are either too populous (US, UK), or otherwise too overrun with muds already (Canada, South Africa). WNs must quietly in-gather in one area in which they can have influence, at least over local affairs, and which is inside a nation which is mostly white already (and therefore First World), but which is relatively underpopulated, and thus potentially demographically/electorally ‘conquerable’ with enough WN or white conservative immigration. Sure, white flighters can for now keep ‘flying’ within formerly white countries like the US, Canada, and the UK, though it’s getting harder by the year to find someplace still racially pristine (and even in such places one cannot evade the ever-tightening grip of central state power). But living in a still white English village, or rural part of the US or Canada, does not afford real racial independence, nor viability over the long term. It’s merely a response or holding strategy, and that will never finally be enough. We need to take over a territory. Our realistic options are: Australia (if ambitious), Tasmania (with a goal of ultimate secession), New Zealand’s southern island (ditto), Uruguay, maybe the southernmost provinces of Brazil (ditto). Heck, maybe Scotland could be considered (ditto), or even Ireland or Ulster (I just think Old World countries are harder to effectuate this kind of inorganic project than New World ones). But I do not see collapse, especially not racial armageddon, on the horizon. The West is far more stable than it used to be. I think things go on as is (racially) for a long time, with everything just getting continually worse. Eventually, there will be some kind of breakdown, but the point of no return may have been crossed when it occurs. If there has not been a WN reaction by this time, when the hell will it come? And when it does come will it be too little, too late? The key to WZ, however, is I think allying with local WNs in the country in question. The reason I push Australia is that they do want immigrants, but the white majority populace remains leery of Asians and Muslims. I think many Australians would welcome more white immigrants. And if WNs proceeded to make their way to low-population Tasmania, we could speed up the point of our reaching ‘critical mass’ (to push for secession and sovereignty). WZ is an example of thinking ‘outside the box’. But I don’t see any other way the white man, at least outside, perhaps, certain Slavic lands, actually endures in perpetuity. Outside of WZ, the combination of immigration plus miscegenation will eventually render remaining pure whites pitifully weak and persecuted minorities, possibly ‘hanging on’, but always subject to the cruel whims and vagaries of their new nonwhite masters. I don’t want to live in that condition, and I don’t want future whites to have to, either. WZ/14 words 196
Posted by CL on Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:44 | # CS, My contention isn’t that a ‘domestic White Zion’ should be pursued, just that it’s a less dumb idea than moving to some Chimpistan (or even Tazmania). The bottom line is there is nowhere to run. The old Euro inclination to pull up stakes and move to the other side of the mountain is no longer realizable. That age is over and it isn’t coming back.
I do, too. We’re going to have to work from the inside out. Numbers will grow much more quickly in this scenario than being in Belize or Tazmania, as there will be more and more disaffected Whites here (in the UK, continental Europe, or the US) to join. But there has to be something tangible, visible. There has to be something to grow. And it’s got to be more than a political platform of lower tax rates, though that would necessarily be part of it. One more thing: The vaguely perfectionist notion of all or nothing is going to have to go. That is, we may not within our lifetime reclaim the entirety of the current boundaries of the US. We’re going to be a faction—like the jews, chinese, indians (dot), indians (feather), mestizos, blacks, faggots, et al. But look at the tremendous advantage we have compared to them, just in potential numbers. Plus, as things get worse, it can only benefit us—if there’s something to grow. That’s not something to run from; it’s something to run to. 197
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:13 | #
(CL) We used to have far greater numbers, and where did it get us? You don’t understand. Whites are going extinct because of Us, not Them. Anti-racism is a meme to which whites are uniquely genetically vulnerable. Either that meme must be destroyed, or healthy whites must re-form in their own territory. 198
Posted by CS on Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:15 | # CL, Thankfully Leon takes the time to write out lengthy answers which cover your points and others and does so with better writing than I am capable or willing to put enough time into. You would think that after the niggers and pakis rioted all over Britain last summer that we would finally be getting some traction in Britain yet I don’t see it. As Leon said, (sic) What the F is it going to take to get these retards on our side? 199
Posted by danielj on Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:22 | # Those people think they were rioting because of institutional disadvantage created by an inherently racist system. 200
Posted by CS on Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:01 | # danielj, Exactly. The solution is not to stop non-white immigration and deport all the niggers, the solution is more affirmative action and handouts to non-whites and more non-white immigration. That is the sort of mass stupidity we have to deal with and it is beyond our capabilities to solve. The only solution is to leave and congregate in one small country. The only problems with this strategy is interference from other countries or the locals. As long as we keep a low profile we might be able to pull it off. 201
Posted by ex-uh on Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:20 | #
Wrong. Whites interfere more with each other than “locals” or their governments would ever care to bother with a gang of white refugees. Why do you think your plan will never come to fruition? Whites block each other incessantly. Colonia Dignidad, in Chile, was invaded by the state only in ‘05, and that after an arms cache was discovered and rumors of child abuse were circulating. You need to shake the non-white bogeymen from your head. They’re a problem not because they’re utter savages, but because there are simply too many of them. It may come as a shock, but whites are not the only civilized people on the planet. The advantage of a corrupt quasi-white government is that, while penalties are stiff where one does encounter it, it will generally leave one alone. Latins (or the Spanish, or the Greeks) don’t have the vicious mania for micromanaging the affairs of their subjects that Europeans, Anglos and Americans have. Part of the bigger problem, but as we can’t correct that anyhow, might as well go with it. 202
Posted by CS on Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:37 | # ex-uh, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Yes white people themselves are the main problem. If they all thought like I did there would be no Jews or non-whites in white countries and we’d be worrying about something else. We are separating from these defective whites just as much as we are separating from non-whites. Now perhaps what you mean is that even among “us” that we will just end up fighting each other over stupid shit that doesn’t even matter (like on this board for example) and sabotage our own efforts but even then you need to be more specific. I don’t know anything about Colonia Dignidad. I will look it up. We should all agree we want a whites only country. If you don’t agree with that then fuck off. If you do agree then have enough sense to know that everything else is open to debate. Capitalism, socialism, religion, eugenics, we’ll worry about that stuff later. If we’re lucky we will establish multiple whites only countries which will be different from each other and one of them will be perfect for you. In the mean time we don’t have the luxury to fight over bullshit or exclude anyone who would be of help to us. 203
Posted by CS on Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:25 | # ex-uh, Colonia Dignidad, A bunch of retards running a cult. This is not the model we hope to emulate. 204
Posted by Mr Voight on Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:42 | # Thoughts on Tasmania? I holiday there. Great food, natural beauty and nice people. Size of Ireland with similar climate. Above replacement birth rate. Can be boring for people used to big city life. Populace is a mix of social conservatives and Greens. Extremely eco-conscious place which would probably get on your nerves. Over the last decade or so, a number of Christian churches have brought in African refugees…but they don’t last and tend to move over to Melbourne. Not as much industry as the mainland, so quite hard for jobs. Good for retirees, people into agriculture or who can work remotely. I would move there in a heartbeat if it wasn’t for my work. When the Japanese were planning on invading Australia, the NSDAP had a deal allowing German-Australians and sympathisers to relocate to Tasmania which Japs would leave alone. Some Jews tried to start a colony on West Coast of Tasmania pre-Israel. Didn’t catch on. No need to declare a White Zion, it kinda already is. Just get an Australian visa and move there. 205
Posted by ex-uh on Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:03 | #
Really? Retards can form successful expatriate colonies? That’s one for serious sociology research! You do understand that charges of “child abuse” are the stock-in-trade of the establishment’s war against healthy white communities? and that deferred motherhood is bad for the latter? 206
Posted by CS on Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:36 | # ex-uh, I didn’t look into this colony too closely. If as you say Latin America has a hands off approach to its population, then these guys must have really Fcuked up to get busted. So which is it? Is Latin America a police state like America where no one can opt out of the system (Waco, Ruby Ridge) or were these guys a bunch of clowns who even being pretty much left alone managed to F up so badly that the state had to intervene? You have said if we go to Belize the government pretty will leave us alone as long as we don’t break the law and don’t do anything too dumb like march on the streets dressed up in Nazi uniforms. BTW, will the non-white government of Belize just sit back and watch Belize grow whiter and whiter through white immigration until non-whites become the minority? Somehow I think the answer is no. Pity, because I moved Belize ahead of Malta for several reasons. 207
Posted by Silver on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 01:19 | # Haller,
It’s paramount.
I’ve long been amazed by (white) liberals too. Here are two memorable incidents that impressed upon a young, apolitical me that “white liberals” (I had no term for them at the time, just “weird, alternative people”) may well be terminally fucked in the head. I was sitting in a cafe and the subject of aborigines and their dispossession came up. From the very youngest I have never been able to understand the Australian fascination with abos. Few things would make my heart sink in school like the teacher announcing we were going to be studying something about abos. (”Again with the freakin abos. Why can’t we study real history?” I’d say to myself.) So when a friend made the remark about abos having been ripped off something inside me groaned, and in an effort to kill the topic as quickly as possible I said something to the effect that the abos weren’t really doing anything with the country anyway, so it’s not really that big a tragedy. Well, this white guy from another table who was sort of listening in to the conversation took objection to what I said, did he ever. Just what in the hell did I mean the abos weren’t “doing anything”? Look at them, I said. They’re the same way today. They don’t do anything except complain about the “white man come took everything.” Do they really think that if the brits didn’t come no else would have ever discovered the land mass and, seeing how the abos lived, decided to take over? This really set him off. Look here, they had a culture, a way of life, that was perfectly attuned to their habitat. Whites came and….blah blah blah. One of “those” people, I thought to myself. On another occasion I was on the train, seated three abreast facing another three, an aisle separating a ‘2 x 2’ seating arrangement on the other side. This local movie “Romper Stomper,” about skinheads and asian immigrants, had recently come out and a friend asked had I seen it and what I thought of it. A load of crap, I said. The three of us agreed that it was a silly movie, not remotely justifying the attention that had been lavished on it. Just then a man seated across the aisle, who must have overheard us, pompously intoned that he had been involved in the production and he was—brace yourself—“offended” by our remarks. He was preparing to lecture us further but my friend cut him off by saying okay, you made it, we watched it, and we didn’t like it and that’s that. That took him aback and he looked away. A girl seated across from him smiled at him admiringly and said “well, I loved it.” The two of them then got into a conversation and we ignored them. The gentleman didn’t seem like the sort of “freak” I would have imagined would produce a film like that. That he did brought home to me how deep the self-abnegating obsession with anti-racism ran among these people (I was a teen and very naive at the time). (Of course, I too thought that racism was an ugly thing and that efforts to tone it down were only fair, but I never would have thought to go to the lengths that the freaks did, or to demand of them that they go to such ridiculous lengths.)
You’re taking that to mean “too kind,” or too nice or too generous. That’s part of it, but I had another meaning in mind. I meant whites are “too superior” for their own good. “Too superior to survive.” Why? Because of how flat appeals to that superiority fall. They’re not rallied by such appeals; they’re embarrassed by them, and feel impelled to apologize for them. The crudeness of certain strains of racialism means the tendency among whites is to assume any and all appeals to racial group interests are coded rallying cries for “supremacism.” But unless racial group interests are recognized and understood as legitimate and vital the group won’t survive. If fear of or disdain for superiority prevents whites coming to an understanding of vital group interests then whites are “too good for their own good.”
I think we may mean different things by the term “psychological.” I’m not a hard determinist. I believe heredity endows us with certain proclivities but “thinking” or “believing” (or “coming to believe”) is capable of overriding whatever our innate tendency may have been—not necessarily on every occasion, but for the most part yes. So the “psychology” I’m referring to is “learned psychology,” no matter that it may in large part result from innate proclivities. In this sense, it’s quite similar to what you mean by “ethics.” I prefer the term “psychology” because I think it gets at the emotional aspect more so than does “ethics.” It’s at the level of emotion that people are moved to undertake an action or give their assent to an action being undertaken (or not undertaken). When people claim very forcefully that something is “wrong” (or “right”) it’s because it feels so wrong (or right) to them, and if you don’t accept or acknowledge their feelings all the philosophizing in the world won’t help you. It’s like me trying to convince you to strangle your mother (I presume you love her). What difference could any “reasoning” I provide possibly make? It’s flatly wrong and that’s all there is to it. When it comes to race, people simply feel bad about it. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They can feel so uncomfortable about it that they refuse to enter into any discussion. Dry, detached, distant ethical arguments simply do not get at the heart of what bugs people about race; people remain unconvinced and they refuse to tell you why they’re unconvinced, which often has nothing to do with any systematic ethical thinking on their part.
Right, it was brilliantly calculated. But as you note it couldn’t have been made a hundred years earlier, when life was still generally understood to be a struggle for survival. It’s prosperity that changed all that. (I suppose this another way in which whites are “too good for their own good”—in this case, too prosperous.)
True, but its “everyday” version/reduction—the way they common joe grasps it—will have to hit the correct emotional note. It has to “feel right.” It’ll do no good at all to merely be philosophically correct (or plausible). Feelings is where it’s at. That’s why I say that if activists had spent the last forty (or one hundred or whatever) years spreading a message that “feels right” to people things would be vastly more advanced. Word of mouth is one of the few tools activists have, considering that the mass media has been closed off to them. But they’ve squandered it by an ungodly emphasis on historical and biological esoterica. Fortunately, this is changing. “The mantra,” and the characterization of policies and events as “anti-white” (as well as the accusation “anti-white”) are tremendous memetic leaps. I would add the phrase “white are people too” or “whites are people, too, you know” to these.
I didn’t. I switched trains and got out at the financial district. Still nogs all about though. Ex-uh,
I can’t quite tell whether you were being facetious or you really believe you were straightening me out.
208
Posted by danielj on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:20 | # On another occasion I was on the train, seated three abreast facing another three, an aisle separating a ‘2 x 2’ seating arrangement on the other side. This local movie “Romper Stomper,” about skinheads and asian immigrants, had recently come out and a friend asked had I seen it and what I thought of it. A load of crap, I said. The three of us agreed that it was a silly movie, not remotely justifying the attention that had been lavished on it. Just then a man seated across the aisle, who must have overheard us, pompously intoned that he had been involved in the production and he was—brace yourself—“offended” by our remarks. Really? Reeeeeally? Me and Edward Norton were on a bus together after American History X. I didn’t. I switched trains and got out at the financial district. Still nogs all about though. The Financial District is the Hood. Always. In every city. Or it is surrounded by hood. Los Angeles is one giant “Financial District”. Take note capitalists. I can’t quite tell whether you were being facetious or you really believe you were straightening me out. That which is crooked cannot be made straight and that which is lacking cannot be numbered. 209
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:13 | # The reference to Romper Stomper caused me to look it up on Google. I had rented it on videocassette in I think ‘94, though I don’t remember too much of it. I found something about it on some obscure site (cinematrocity), and of course had to respond to the PC genuflection. Herewith:
210
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 11:28 | # Silver, I appreciate that you’ve directed a number of lengthy comments my way recently to which I mostly have not adequately responded (certainly not to the extent that I’d like to have). Please note: I am now just too busy to be doing commenting much anymore, at least until the Christmas holidays - and by that point, I may have lost the taste for these ideological chatrooms that I’ve acquired over the past decade. I’m back in school and have an enormous amount of reading, including extra-curricular stuff over holidays for my eventual dissertation. Also, some friends are putting together an American nationalism site (not WN, but with overlapping concerns) to which I might devote most of my online energies (such as they will be) in the future (I will probably spread the word about it here and elsewhere once I know it’s up and running). And once that site is up, I remain interested in also possibly contributing to a White Zion site, if a decent one is already in existence, or creating my own, at least as an interactive blog, if that’s the right term (ie, one where I will post material, and then allow for comments, as at MR). Basically, I’m getting less interested in what might be called “intermediate theoretical (WN) debates”, such as we all partake in at MR. I want to conduct, in print, foundational discussions with high level intellectuals on issues of Occidental survival, but otherwise, my online-specific interests are moving more in the direction of practical organizing (which is the planned orientation of the American “national conservative” site), and this on two radically separate fronts, the first being defense of Middle (white) American interests (here, the issues would be similar to WN ones, but the emphasis would be on whites-as-victims, sans discussions of racial supremacism, the JQ, scientific race differences, WW2 revisionism, etc - basically all the stuff that brands WNs “extremists”, and that is finally tangential to actually getting real legislation moved in our direction); and the second being a forum for practical discussions re WZ (in other words, the blog would assume that all are in agreement with the basic ideas of white preservation, race issues and WN foreign colonization, and that’s it’s time to start figuring out the feasibility of the project, and then the paths to transforming this vision into a reality). [BTW, Silver, re WZ: you live in Australia, yet I’m surprised that I cannot recall your weighing in on the WZ idea, at least wrt Australia, Tasmania, and/or New Zealand. I’ve broached these issues even here on this thread. What are the whites like in Oz? Specifically, is Australian national policy now to encourage immigration? And which option would the white Aussies prefer: no immigrants at all, more white immigrants, white immigrants in lieu of nonwhites, or nonwhites in preference to being seen as ‘racists’? Basically, how easy would it be for lots of whites to move to Oz, and acquire citizenship there? And how easy once there to reside (or at least acquire property) in Tasmania? I’d appreciate any answers.] Bottom line is that I’m soon to exit MR (I’ve said that before, but real world time constraints are forcing my hand this time). My work here has, I think, also hit a wall. Before exiting, I would like to comment briefly, however, on this:
I do think you’re talking mostly here about the psychology of liberals, a group which I regard as nearly genetically lost (and which will be eventually). I said all this before, at some length. In fact, you know what really brought me to MR? Some years ago, I wrote a very lengthy comment on white extinction at takimag. Someone copied my comment here at MR, and then a WN friend who frequented MR back in the day told me about it. Anyway, I don;t propose to try to reach the white liberal, ever. Race is visceral. Either you get it (‘it’ being that whites are the true victims of multiculturalism), or you don’t. This is not like, say, economics, where one can patiently explain the errors of socialism and Keynesianism, and possibly make converts to correct views. Granted, there are some specific policies on which openminded liberals (not a large group in the best of times) might be amenable to ideological change based on dispassionate scientific demonstrations of the reality of racial differences (eg, disproportionate black failures on a firefighters’ entrance exam not being caused by racial test bias, or heavy black arrest rates not being due to police racism). But in general, a white who ‘feels’ that it’s wrong even to discuss racial differences, or white survivalism, etc, is probably harboring some racially defective gene combination which will eventually result in his white gene line becoming racially polluted (and thus removed from the future white story). At some point, in a multiracial, integrationist context, all racially ‘weak’ white gene lines will eventually succumb to miscegenation. Over time, therefore, whites can be expected, ceteris paribus, to become more, not less, racist, even as they continually, again ceteris paribus, dwindle in numbers (this phenomenon is happening wrt Jewry right this very minute: only the most ethnocentric Jews - the really “Jewish Jews” - are for the most part continuing to marry Jews; most of my Jewish friends have non-Jewish spouses - another reason, incidentally, why the JQ may well never gain much traction in white American life: far too many whites in my generation and younger now have a Jewish ‘relative’). No, my concern is with that group of whites who dislikes the ‘diversification’ of America (or other Western nations), who know in their hearts that races differ, and that generally whites are better (not to mention their preferred neighbors, colleagues, and friends), but who thinks that ‘acting racially’, that is, political organizing by whites, for whites, either to protect white interests, or to promote WZ or the ethnostate as a distant goal, is just plain morally wrong. In my life, I have known many, many persons like this. Scared of (white) racism, but anxious about nonwhites and their coming domination. I would even say that “psychology” is the dominant one among at least American whites (and maybe whites elsewhere). That is the group for whom I think changing the ethics of race is of vital importance. 211
Posted by CS on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:41 | # http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/021044.html If we conclude that America cannot be brought back, what do we do? Contemporary American conservatives, possibly in concert with their brethren in Canada and the European nations, might want to start thinking in the same long term as the first-century Christians and begin considering how they might order their “internal emigration” from liberal society so as to constitute a “survival colony.” The “survival colony” might be entirely ethical, not identified with a locus, but with explicit convictions and an insistent way of life; or it might, through the actual movement of people, take hold of a place, a region or a state, where conservative ideas would form the basis of law and policy. 212
Posted by J Richards on Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:14 | # <h3>Which first: international bankers or a white homeland?</h3> I was asked above how can the money power be taken away from Jews. Start here: http://www.majorityrights.com/money#implementation Haller accused me of demoralizing others by dismissing the possibility of a white homeland unless the money power’s taken away from Jews. A history lesson’s apt here. America was practically created as a white homeland [the pre-existing natives were to be conquered and displaced; and for a while, citizenship was limited to whites]... a nation born of battle, in a war of independence from the money changers [mostly Jews]. The money changers didn’t give up. They won after five bank wars. Today, America’s drowning in debt and projected to be majority non-white within three decades. Here’s the history of how the money changers won America: The history lesson unambiguously reveals that it’ll be foolish to attempt to create a white homeland without taking the money power away from Jews: expect violent opposition for starters and continued attempts, at terrible cost to the natives, at sabotage. The notion of demoralization doesn’t even remotely apply. Some people thought that the nuking of a white homeland is too extreme of a possibility. Australia was brought up in this regard, as a hypothetical white homeland. Think again. One doesn’t have to attempt to nuke all of Australia to devastate its population as most parts of it are uninhabited and the majority lives in the southeast, particularly the coastal regions. Killing a substantial proportion of a population at random is sufficient to devastate a nation. And Jews don’t have to have the world witness a mushroom cloud on TV. Australia’s an island. It’s a simple matter of sending submarines with nuclear payloads, dropping off the payloads in critical locations… then boom, boom, boom… the initial devastation will be caused by Tsunamis and earthquakes. It’ll be a “natural disaster.” Then they’ll send a “humanitarian mission” where their agents will infect people with especially engineered microbes and make a quick exit. When there’s an epidemic, the island will be quarantined, the clueless, hapless U.N. workers left to fend for themselves. When the epidemic subsides, they’ll send aid packages. The survivors will have to take on a lot of debt to rebuild their societies, and Jews will use this debt to ensure that the economy of the nation comes under their control, and it’s not going to be a white homeland for long. I initially mentioned nuking in the context of the Steele case. Here, nuking shouldn’t necessarily be taken literally but can be taken as an allegory for large-scale devastation [by any of a number of means]. The point’s clear. Work on destroying the money power of international bankers before thinking of a white homeland or foolishly waste your efforts. 213
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:22 | # “We are all about freedom, I am a classical liberal” http://britishfreedom.org/the-theocracy-of-islam/ God preserve us. 214
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:28 | # An analysis of attitudes to immigration conducted by Oxford University and using various large scale surveys that are periodically conducted in the United Kingdom.
All exactly as we would expect, but not so for liberal opinion formers. 215
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:14 | # Some of the references in the above led to the “Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies” a world where terms such as ‘white privilege’ ‘power’ and ‘the other’ are an everyday part of the lexicon. Still I found the abstract below interesting because where we can show that opposition to immigration follows a sketchy EGI then EGI demands a place in any discussion of immigration (and of the settled population.) If it is begrudgingly accepted as a factor by our ideological enemies when the discussion is also being viewed by a wider audience then of course it can then be expanded out elsewhere as a logical consideration. For instance, determining the best national composition (opposition to a fractured society; prioritising nations from whom we might accept economic migrants if circumstances demand); general association between nations or between individuals within those nations (which has relevance for what is classified as ‘discrimination’). Not news to MR’ers but harder for our enemies to brush such things aside when it comes from within their own camp.
Is the tolerance of youth noted in the final sentence a ray of light for the left or just a temporary outcome from the fact that they are closer to the ideological fountainhead and that will diminish as they get further away from the source and closer to reality?
216
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:42 | # Some discussion of secession themes as opposed to the White Zion option suggested here. Not had a chance to more than skim read. Guess I should stick it here. 217
Posted by Liberal Heresy on Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:57 | #
Ditto
National Conservative types but the net should be widened outside of the usual suspects. Post a comment:
Next entry: Sir Andrew’s e-petition
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) |
Posted by Mr Voight on Mon, 07 Nov 2011 04:35 | #
The comments section in the Guardian article are ridiculous. Even those somewhat sympathetic argue like morons. We need to go in.