Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:37 | #

And if they are born, why?

In the extreme cold of the European environment of evolutionary adaptedness the genes which coded for extreme altruistic punishment of co-ethnics were selected for as these were to the benefit of not only the individual carriers of these genes but to the group as a whole in that they enabled the stamping out of free riders.  The persons in the video are being punished for free riding on the alleged collective benefits which flow from the greater sacrifices of enthusiastic participants.  And, based upon what is truly adaptive and what isn’t, who is to say they are wrong?  Better that some are hung by piano wire from meat hooks than the nation die.  “But…but…that is hardly what a morally normal man would consider optimal.” it may be objected.  Well, extreme conditions which merit such harshness are hardly optimal themselves.  Although, had our ancestors not been subject to such harsh conditions, we would not be what we are.

Posted by ronery asian guy on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 14:43 | #

“Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves. “

“Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. “

“We lie loudest when we lie to ourselves. “

- Eric Hoffer

It’s been awhile since I’ve read any of True Believer or any of Hoffer’s other books but to me these three quotes best answer your question. Climate change and race issues aside, I personally think that white, intellectual establishment types in the West are emotionally and psychologically empty. Materials like these are proof of that, not to mention your art as well as your sense of values.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:25 | #

Bowery’s single combat model also serves the function of making free riders pay a heavy price.  Individual sovereigns are intended to challenge to deadly combat those that dare also assume the status of sovereign yet gainsay the racialist principles held in common by the former.  This would be an act of altruistic punishment on the part of a individual sovereign in effect representing his racialist sovereign cohorts; an act of punishment meted out at the individual level yet implicitly punishing the gainsayer for free riding on the status-class of “sovereign” and the common racialist principles they hold in common and give coherence to their collective status as sovereigns.  Only the instrument of death is a ten inch blade, not a fiery stake or wire noose.  Does moral “debasement” adhere to the latter yet not the former?

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:18 | #

The question is, are violent zealots born or made?  And if they are born, why?

I vote for born.  The, “Why?” question is much harder to answer.

For we must assume that the kind of people who involve themselves in such extremism are the same kind that populate anti-racism, and the same kind of people who have availed themselves historically of opportunities for violence against dissent.  They were the servants of the late Inquisition and the witchburners in Puritan dress.

Perhaps a hint is to notice that in each of these examples Westerners did their deed while under the conviction that it was in the service of truth and justice.

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:30 | #

On a more personal note, I can’t deny the puritanical impulse in myself either, as I left a highly lucrative industry because I thought its practices were morally reprehensible.  Perhaps this is a distinguishing feature between ourselves and the Far East, as I can’t imagine any of them doing such a thing.

Posted by Notus Wind on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 16:49 | #

What’s incredible about this film is that its message is simply, “Go along with us or die.”  Is this really what its creators had in mind during the production process?  Hard to believe if true, and yet what other explanation is there.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:20 | #

Perhaps a hint is to notice that in each of these examples Westerners did their deed while under the conviction that it was in the service of truth and justice.

I don’t take it for granted that extreme altruistic punishers of the Right, or those more genetically disposed towards ethnocentrism, are inherently less extreme in their penchant for dealing out punishment to free riders as they see it than are those of the Left (those less genetically disposed towards ethnocentrism).  “Truth and justice”, or the European tendency to will the universal validity of their world view, is found in both.  On the Right, ingroup members are expected to adhere to the group strategy, and those not in the ingroup are expected to subordinate themselves to the ingroup, these not obtaining punishment will be meted out; whilst on the Left all of humanity is expected to be subordinated to a group strategy which encompasses all of humanity.  White liberals, as my phrasing adumbrated above, are not however wholly lacking in ethnocentrism.  They prefer the company of fellow White liberals.  And their punishment and criticism is reserved mostly, and most vehemently, for co-ethnics.  An element of status jockeying amongst those they themselves sense are their own, then, though they identify with them less.  Perhaps the will of White liberals to inflict more extreme altruistic punishment than White ethnocentrists on their co-ethnics, if this is indeed the case, can be found in the fact that White liberals identity with their group less; and that more extreme measures are needed to subordinate co-ethnics to their world view because this cuts against the grain of ethnocentrism - which is in opposition to the universalist scope, embracing all humanity, of White liberal aspiration.  It has also been suggested that White liberals suffer from self-hatred which they project onto those they implicitly identify with, their co-ethnics.  Perhaps this self-hatred, or implicit self-criticism which may rise to the level of masochism if not projected, evolved not only so that they would adhere to standards they think high but those around them as well.

Posted by Captainkraut on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:47 | #

CC wrote:

Perhaps the will of White liberals to inflict more extreme altruistic punishment than White ethnocentrists on their co-ethnics, if this is indeed the case, can be found in the fact that White liberals identity with their group less; and that more extreme measures are needed to subordinate co-ethnics to their world view because this cuts against the grain of ethnocentrism - which is in opposition to the universalist scope, embracing all humanity, of White liberal aspiration.

A brilliant incite, CC.  And of course the correlate of that is White ethnocentrists, those on the Right, identify with their co-ethnics more, and have an easier time of getting them to conform to their world view as their co-ethnics also tend to ethnocentrism, hence inflicting less extreme altruistic punishment on their co-ethnics.

It has also been suggested that White liberals suffer from self-hatred which they project onto those they implicitly identify with, their co-ethnics.  Perhaps this self-hatred, or implicit self-criticism which may rise to the level of masochism if not projected, evolved not only so that they would adhere to standards they think high but those around them as well.

Yes.  And the correlate: White ethnocentrists are in fact the shit (of high quality), and know it.  They need no implicit self-flagellation to show that their shit don’t stink.  And their shit smells all the better when the co-operation of their co-ethnics is engendered.

Posted by Lurker on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:48 | #

The question is, are violent zealots born or made?  And if they are born, why?

A bit of both surely and in varying degrees with different people.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 19:27 | #

They were the servants of the late Inquisition and the witchburners in Puritan dress.  Violent zealotry is always with us.

This is textbook liberalism no?

Puritanism is simply the proper response to decadence and confusion. Puritanism is a reach for purer truth and an externalized conservation of the spirit. Idealogical purity and racial purity are one star seen from two different times of day. Holiness (separateness) serves as an orientation for more than just wandering Jews. A continuity of vision will require careful consideration of who’s hands the torch will be passed to.

The Inquisition was just a proper response to Jewish infiltration of the church. Besides that detail, I fail to see the difference between your faith-gene witch hunt and the Inquisition anyway. We all have our very own malleus we are intent on brandishing.

The question is, are violent zealots born or made?  And if they are born, why?

The real question is whether or not the complacent and knowingly cynical, those comfortably deluded by their perceived omniscience, understand that this line that bifurcates humanity - the line that divides the zealot from his fellows - is about much more than adaptability and that the race is at stake. If one has truth in one’s hands, one should hold fast to it with the same passionate intensity with which one grasps one’s children.

Posted by danielj on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 19:28 | #

who’s hands

whose hands

Posted by PF on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:29 | #

damn that video is scary. I turned it off after two minutes.

Captainkraut wrote:

Yes.  And the correlate: White ethnocentrists are in fact the shit (of high quality), and know it.

You can’t help but feel sometimes like a prince - I mean this with near total seriousness, by the way - when you realize that everyone around you is braced in a constant gesture of subtle apology towards the world, and yet you are not.

You are entirely free from that burden - a burden most aren’t aware that they carry.

And the freedom from burden consisted in this: that I, we, WNs, were aware in the distribution of our sympathies. The rest of the white world (those who swallowed the pill) opened the spigot of their sympathy indiscriminantly - a dying child, a suffering old man, be they of whatever tribal affiliation whatsoever, one’s heart was open to them. Not mine. We honor our prior obligations which we received as part of our massive, invaluable inheritance. Not being whorish with your heart-caring was the wisdom we received (from somewhere). Mankind’s suffering is limitless, and the more unconscious (i.e. stupid) man is the more of it is available - but we are obliged to limit ourselves in this, out of an awareness that unregulated sympathy for suffering is a death sentence to anyone with a heart that can feel and a mind that can see another’s condition. Thus in our moments of thriving and succeeding and living there is no implicit apology. The suffering of the world is just, to disagree with it is meddling, and change can only be effected in your immediate sphere of proximity, which means relatedness.

Posted by PF on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:45 | #

its the sympathy rebellion - because our culture believed that any sympathy was good, any heart-openness was good, and that all this would be repayed in world peace and brownie points. For a white man to cordon off a part of his heart or all of it and give it only to his people is the deep act that they want to prevent. Because a large number of people live off the largess of our government-enforced sympathies, they fear a white man’s heart when it has the ability to be strategically cold.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:47 | #

Human culture of humans has been going on long enough that whatever the original tendency toward altruistic punishment—and I think it was substantial among pre-neolithic Euromen—it has been enhanced by organized religion and governments as sovereign over men.  CC is absolutely correct that one of the main points of individual mortal combat in the state of nature is to clear out the evolutionary dross—including not only those who would endanger the tribe’s fragile adaptations to a harsh environment—but dross resulting from breeding for ill-founded altruistic punishment. 

I like Prof. Andrew Frazier’s phrase “moral vanity” when it comes to these civil dysengics.  They make a mockery man’s moral facility and a mockery of god as in “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” or “This thou art.”

Having said that, there is also something to be said for (as well as against) application of altruistic punishment over the global warming “religion”:

Any rational man must be a global warming “agnostic”—and that means being not only an artificial global warming skeptic but also a natural global warming skeptic.  The question then becomes, where is the “presumption of innocence” to reside?  Who has “the burden of proof”?  That is the only real question worthy of debate in the application of altruistic punishment. 

One thing seems clear to me:  There is no legitimate “burden of proof” placed upon individuals in the absence of global enforcement of the purported planetary altruism.  To do so is to promote the dysgenics of virtually all moralizing: “Since genes don’t matter, you can sacrifice your bloodline on the altar of altruistic actions necessary to compensate for the immorality of others, and no harm done.”

PS:  When watching this video I hadn’t yet read GW’s description of it and was under the impression, from its content, that it was a particularly intelligent attack on global warming’s zealous nature—most probably funded by the fossil fuel industry.  I was shocked to see it was actually by the global warming zealots!  What brilliance if it had been their adversaries!

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 00:07 | #

James,

What brilliance if it had been their adversaries!

It is the accuracy of the observation which is so arresting.  That it turns out to be self-observation unconsciously done is amazing but, given the pathology of altruistic punishment, also satisfying.

“Since genes don’t matter, you can sacrifice your bloodline on the altar of altruistic actions necessary to compensate for the immorality of others, and no harm done.”

But here we have slipped into discussing the deceptions of the Rothschildeans and their political whores who run the AGW show.  We can easily speculate about their motives.  But they are not the punishers.  What of them?

Daniel said of zealotry:

If one has truth in one’s hands, one should hold fast to it with the same passionate intensity with which one grasps one’s children.

So let’s turn that around a bit:

If one has been granted or, perhaps, thinks one has discovered a special truth, a really, really world-changing truth which confers rightness in all actions upon its holder, and that, by its very urgency and enormity, demands said action NOW - action consisting, let it be said, in the withdrawal of moral admissability from the life or life-style of the “other”, no matter whether he is merely irreligious or insufficiently Roman, a white-skinned racial advocate or an SUV driver - then one should hold fast to it with the same passionate intensity etc, etc.

You see, it’s one thing when, say, Jehovah’s Witnesses (i) offend against us by presuming that their revealed truths are actually truths, and (ii) offend against me personally when they assume their revealed truths are superior to my own truths.  But it’s quite another when these already fanatical creatures’ forebears are granted power in their conviction by a Catholic queen - power over the illegitimate “other” - then every limit to human bestiality shall be stepped o’er and no later break on it shall be found.

This is very different, Daniel, to the moral extent of your belief.  You find it necessary to defend not the beast, exactly, but the Jehovah’s equivalents from whom the beast sprang.  But you are not one such, and therefore you could become the object of their bestial attention as easily as any of us.

I fail to see the difference between your faith-gene witch hunt and the Inquisition anyway.

Does the demand that men and women live free of religious evangelism in the public sphere - my minimum position on faith-genes - constitute a witch-hunt?  A restraint of trade, OK.

Posted by Ralph Watson on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 00:39 | #

?10-10 must now cease to exist , and go gracefully to the “dustbin of history”. 10:10 has forfeited the right..to speak of ethics in any form. Their continued presence will not be tolerated, any more than we would tolerate the Nazi SS. They must leave now, forever…and for good..

Posted by michael mazur on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 01:05 | #

In the 1st and 2nd scenes there is a token black person amidst a large number of white persons, and not either black person is disintegrated.

But in the 3rd sporting scene of 3 black and 3 white, and by a white person here being disintegrated is close to saying that a black person wouldn’t be, even if the mix was 4 black and 2 white.

Notice in this 3rd scene that the white man marked for disintegration has a continental accent. Wouldn’t do for the English accented white man to be disintegrated instead.

To underscore that this is actually racist against white people, we see that in the 1st and 3rd scenes it is a black person who vocally shows they are with the program.

That a white person in the 1st scene is suggesting an idea is put there to mask the anti white racism of the promo.

What would surprise, because it couldn’t happen in this promo by global warming types, would be a black person being disintegrated.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 01:39 | #

Plenty to see in this film:

0:10 Who is bored and disinterested? He doesnt care. That would be a white boy.

0:14 White kid sitting next to non-white kid. More importantly its a white girl, with a non-white boy. Never too soon to start encouraging the right attitude.

0:24 A black boy is, of course, asking the intelligent question. And Miss talks about getting his dad to insulate the loft. His dad? Really? What are the chances his dad is still with mum?

0:37 A white girl is very gung ho for the project, but no white boy is.

0:46 Miss calls for a show of hands, who is going to do the right thing?

(As a bonus we get…

0:49 Black boy sitting with white girl.)

0:51 That show of hands, now we see who is bad. A white boy, the bored kid at 0:10 and white girl (not as pretty as the one at 0:37). Note how the shot is framed to make them look alone and isolated. Ugh, who wants to sit with those losers! No friends for them and certainly not every child’s dream - a black friend. Never mind the obvious negative connotations of their failure to go along with group think.

1:29 White girl, we know she has some brilliant ideas! Again no white man has managed to come up with anything. How different the advance of science might have been had any white men ever shown an interest in it.

1:39 Who wants to get involved? Centre screen asian man, white girl. Thats a twofer, juxtaposition of mixed pair and they want to do the right thing.

1:46 Girl who isnt quite convinced, who seems less attractive that the brilliant girl at 1:29.

1:47 Two white men who arent convinced. They arent bright eyed and bushy tailed.

1:51 Blink and you’ll miss him, another white man who isnt convinced.

After that we are onto the celebs, obviously its the white ones who get to die, but the impact is gone by then. Just a bit of a joke. The important messages are in the first two scenes. Oh and some old bollocks about climate change as well.

And nothing to do with anything…

Richard Curtis who made this film just happens to be jewish. He’s married to Emma Freud who just happens to be jewish too. She has a brother, Matthew. He owns Freud Communications. He’s married to Elisabeth Murdoch. She obviously isnt jewish because her dad is Rupert Murdoch, who as everyone knows is not jewish at all, no sir.

Posted by Calvin on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 01:44 | #

Remember when the commies used to post glowing reports about industrial and agricultural production as the Russian people shuffled in endless queues for sparse and shoddy goods, to take back to their slipshod crumbling concrete apartments? The most laughable thing about that inept video is the “Just William” school scene. Have these morons actually been in a modern comprehensive? Wherefore the slightly dizzy, attractive, Laura Ashleyesque, School Miss, the neat, respectful children, the negro child more interested in paying attention to his lesson than to humping anything white, where are the teen slut Vicky Pollards and the brat-chav wiggers? Talk about the rose tinted glasses of liberalism….give me a f*****g break!

Posted by cladrastis on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 01:44 | #

Shocking!  Disgusting!  Immoral!  Twisted!

On a related note, I recently saw a greenpeace advert that was divided into two halves - one half containing a windmill with the word “love” scrawled above it, the other half having a nuclear power plant with the word “hate” above it.  Seems like a great template for propaganda.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 01:54 | #

That a white person in the 1st scene is suggesting an idea is put there to mask the anti white racism of the promo.

Its important its a girl not a boy.

White women are often portrayed positively, in contrast to white men who rarely are. Certainly not white men of an age where they might effective fighters, leaders, innovators, parents of young children etc.

The coach in the 3rd scene is an actor, Phil Nice, he is hardly in his prime and is safe and non-threatening. Hence he gets to survive. Just as white women are non-threatening.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 02:23 | #

Does the demand that men and women live free of religious evangelism in the public sphere - my minimum position on faith-genes - constitute a witch-hunt?  A restraint of trade, OK.

If the truth or religious system under question demands proselytizing then how could your restraint be seen as anything other then devilish impediment by the faithful?

There is no “neutral” public space.

Posted by danielj on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 02:24 | #

how could your restraint be seen as anything other then devilish impediment by the faithful?

...how could your restraint be seen, by the faithful, as anything other than…

Posted by PF on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 02:25 | #

Calvin wrote:

Have these morons actually been in a modern comprehensive? Wherefore the slightly dizzy, attractive, Laura Ashleyesque, School Miss, the neat, respectful children, the negro child more interested in paying attention to his lesson than to humping anything white, where are the teen slut Vicky Pollards and the brat-chav wiggers? Talk about the rose tinted glasses of liberalism….give me a f*****g break!

Wow, in that little comment you’ve painted a portrait from life. I too wonder what sort of Britain-in-the-Clouds these scenarios are taken from. And how can we go there?

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 03:33 | #

0:37 A white girl is very gung ho for the project, but no white boy is.

Yeah, right. Did you happen to catch her name?

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 04:38 | #

Good call Jimmy.

When its time for Nuremberg: The Sequel, the people who made this film will be in the dock.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 04:55 | #

GW asks: “But here we have slipped into discussing the deceptions of the Rothschildeans and their political whores who run the AGW show.  We can easily speculate about their motives.  But they are not the punishers.  What of them? ”

When I refer to “altruistic punishment” in the context of “burden of proof” I am speaking of legitimate hence, adaptive, altruistic punishment.  The AGW crowd is clearly not interested in debating the burden of proof because they’re in a lose-lose position:

If they win the argument, it will have to be on the grounds of taking responsibility for global risks inherent in technology.  The direct consequence of that line of reasoning is to take responsibility for the global risks of artificially amplified global migrations with the same kind of “Lets push a button and detonate the bodies of everyone who is for the levels of migrations higher than pre-neolithic.”  Of course, that is the heart and soul of their ecological “niche” if one is to indulge in a fantasy that it is “natural”:  Virulent exploitation and leaving behind the empty husks of nations.  <a >Horizontal transmission.</a>

If they lose the argument, well, they don’t have an excuse to centralize global authority via control of any activity that affects the air.  This isn’t as bad as losing their horizontal transmission “niche” of course, but it is their “manifest destiny” to trash the entire planet, leaving a dry husk of a biosphere, before moving on to… oh I don’t know… another planet?  Its not like they really think that far ahead.

Posted by Cornell on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 09:27 | #

James Bowery said:

This isn’t as bad as losing their horizontal transmission “niche” of course, but it is their “manifest destiny” to trash the entire planet, leaving a dry husk of a biosphere, before moving on to… oh I don’t know… another planet?  Its not like they really think that far ahead.

Isn’t their goal to gradually depopulate the world’s population and have robotics furnish their labor needs?  I don’t see why they couldn’t achieve this, considering their success so far.  Sure, a good deal of the planet might be trashed but I think they might be able to squeak by.  It’s foolish to rely on the false hope that they will definitely destroy themselves.

Posted by Hamish on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 13:03 | #

For we must assume that the kind of people who involve themselves in such extremism are the same kind that populate anti-racism, and the same kind of people who have availed themselves historically of opportunities for violence against dissent.  They were the servants of the late Inquisition and the witchburners in Puritan dress.

GW,

At least the inquisitors and witch burners believed that they were killing people who were consorting with Satan.

I could understand someone thinking that someone consorting with Satan made them a serious threat to the community.

But someone refusing to cut their carbon emissions by 10%?

WTF!?!?!?!

So if one mofo makes 900 pounds of carbon a month, that’s crescent fresh, but if he makes 990 pounds let’s kill him?

Might as well kill everyone, given that a 10% difference is so small and meaningless.

Posted by Ran on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:39 | #

Woo, you neo-cons absolutely kill me with 1) your incredibly self-congratulating comments, and 2) your establishment twist on history. Not that I am surprised, however; if I had the republican track record of supporting death squads (Nicaragua, e.g.), trading drugs for guns (Ollie North), being an in-closet gay while denying gays the marriage rights of heteros (too many republicans to count!), racist acts, ad nauseum, I would twist history to fit my world view, too.  After all, there’s a reason why the neo-cons are an incredibly pasty bunch.

Violence against dissent? Hmmm…..I wonder who ordered the Kent State massacre? And wasn’t it just the last US administration that had protestors, or dissenters, put in special areas for protest activities, while surrounded by armed police? And what country, run by an authoritarian regime, recently killed 9 innocent people (including an American) in international waters after hijacking their boat? Hint: the UN called this country’s action illegal and an act of war. A separate country demanded apologies and compensation for its countrymen who were killed in the attack.

But violence against dissent has always been your mark - psychology has recently determined there is a big “looking for daddy” issue for neo-cons. That is why you twist history, forgive pedophilia, overlook murder, and other issues as long as you believe the guy you like will get you through whatever problems you believe exist. E.g., Bush jr. - narcissistic as the day is long; had incredible issues; but you neo-cons thought he would get you through the terrorism crisis. You voted for him, loved him in fact, out of fear, and he was the strong “daddy” figure you needed so you could sleep at night.

And how did that work out for you?

I wish you all the best - you’re going to need it.

P.S. Please don’t breed. I don’t want more of my tax money going to support retarded individuals like yourself.

Posted by cladrastis on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:57 | #

Congratulations fellow cryptics.  Our abstruse dialogue has been taken for that of “pasty” neo-cons!

Posted by danielj on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 17:45 | #

I had the republican track record of supporting death squads (Nicaragua, e.g.), trading drugs for guns (Ollie North), being an in-closet gay while denying gays the marriage rights of heteros (too many republicans to count!), racist acts, ad nauseum, I would twist history to fit my world view, too.  After all, there’s a reason why the neo-cons are an incredibly pasty bunch.

Despite having a substantial hatred for Democrats, my burning hatred for Republicans is even greater but I nevertheless feel like I should defend them after reading your comment.

War: Between the Civil War and the first Gulf War, pretty much every war was a Democrat affair and they had their own death squads.

Drugs/Guns: Bill Clinton and Mena. Do some research.

Gays: Gays already have the exact same right to marry as the rest of us. They want a special “right” above and beyond the rest of us to marry somebody of the same sex.

Ran, I just don’t think you really understand what we got going on here at MR. It’ll take a long time for you to get up to speed if we are to judge solely upon your first comment.

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 18:29 | #

Cornell asks: “Isn’t their goal to gradually depopulate the world’s population and have robotics furnish their labor needs? ”

The evidence does not point that way.  Why deindustrialize the West in preference for immigration of cheap labor?

Recall that “Zero Population Growth” has been renamed to “The Population Connection” because population control sentiments are now being directed to “the demographic transition” lightning rod.

What they want is something more akin to dynastic Egypt.

They jones for bossing slaves around and being worshiped as beneficent and all-wise gods.  It tickles their limbic systems.

Posted by Cornell on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 19:59 | #

James Bowery said:

The evidence does not point that way.  Why deindustrialize the West in preference for immigration of cheap labor?

Recall that “Zero Population Growth” has been renamed to “The Population Connection” because population control sentiments are now being directed to “the demographic transition” lightning rod.

What they want is something more akin to dynastic Egypt.

They jones for bossing slaves around and being worshiped as beneficent and all-wise gods.  It tickles their limbic systems.

I agree with you that this is what they want, but I think you’re too focused on what they consciously want instead of looking at how things are developing around them and how they’re likely to react and exploit these developments.  The world’s population is urbanizing very rapidly and this is likely to lead to global depopulation.  Labor replacement robotics are being developed: http://www.physorg.com/news203756368.html

When these developments become exploitable I don’t see how or why these control freaks par excellence won’t exploit them. 
Also, are the scenarios we’re proposing really mutually exclusive?  Look at the SWPL and hipster classes.  They’re comprised of mindless Euro men and women who for the most part do no productive work nor form families but rather spend all their time status-displaying how hip they are and how faithful they are to the reigning ideologies.  Most of the men are emasculated, if not outright homosexual.  In other words, they are mindless slaves who spend most of their time worshipping their beneficent and all-wise gods.  Their gentrified urban enclaves are like monasteries and convents devoted to this sterile worship of their Jewish overlords.  Why couldn’t these things develop simultaneously: - depopulation, robotics, and sterile SWPL/hipster “ascetic” classes?

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:29 | #

True, the dystopian scenarios are of a great enough risk-adjusted net present cost that my casual dismissal of possibilities other than elite self-destruction should not inform responsible actuarial thinking.  Pardon my excessive literary license.  Of course, the same can be said for the risks of AGW and artificially amplified migrations.  The risk-adjusted net present (actuarial) costs of those are comparable.  The AGW crowd depends on the same type of actuarial argument you put forth and it is quite tenable—but they will never make it due to the problematic (to them) consequences attacking their most cherished values.

Posted by calvin on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:04 | #

Hello Ran!

I know that people who post “such is my contempt for your worldview, I will post only this and never return to your laughable forum” always sneak back and fervently look to seek the devastating effect of their self-righteous lambasting has had.

In order that you might fine tune your string of acquired cliches (don’t worry, no one is expecting you to actually think about the issues) i feel it’s my duty to inform you that on this site Neoconism is regarded as a Zionist conspiracy to usurp the Republican party and direct its foreign policy in the interests of Israel. You could possibly get away with “paleocon”, but in point of fact the people here are ethnic nationalists. With regard to your point about a “daddy complex”, i think that’s a case of seeing the mote in our eye whilst ignoring the beam in thine, or, in liberalese, I think your suffering from a bad case of “projection”. One things for sure, if I as a white anglo-celt were looking for “daddy”, I’d not be dumbassed enough to think I’d found him in a Kenyan negro.

Posted by michael mazur on Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:50 | #

Lurker,`Its important its a girl not a boy`.

True, i had focussed momentarily on the race war against white people, and not on the skin lightening subtext aspect, which is had by retaining the white women.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Mon, 04 Oct 2010 00:19 | #

I haven’t seen such a graphic depiction of anti-White violence since the Redhead Roundup of Romain Gavras.

Posted by Top on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:15 | #

The threat of violence is a weapon used against white people in their dispossession.  When the Euro society is weak in protecting itself the threat is left implicit.  Were WNs to ever make gains that threat would become more explicit.  The fact is our enemies have no boundaries in how they fight and would try any tactics to win.  They have no (universal) morals to speak of - that much is apparent.  Vast majority of white people vastly underestimate the psychological force with which semites fight.  Even WNs are sometime guilty of this.  Most Jews understand that a conversation between them and WNs is impossible.  Violence is naturally embraced by them to resolve any such conflicts.  The fact that they can mobilize such large numbers in such coordinated, focused, and deadly ways is amazing - our tragedy of course.  The only way out is via sacrifice, clear-headed ruthlessness, and determination.

Posted by AgainsTTheWall on Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:40 | #

This is surely a send-up of all things eco-PC.

It makes me laugh anyway

Posted by Z.O.G. on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 04:28 | #

Who is Behind the Global Warming Hoax and Carbon Tax Scam?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t742998/#post8538575

Posted by Z.O.G. on Sat, 09 Oct 2010 05:15 | #

Curtis who made this film just happens to be jewish. He’s married to Emma Freud who just happens to be jewish too.

Thanks, Lurker.  I didn’t know that Richard Curtis was a Kike.  I should have known there was a Jew behind this garbage.  By the way, here’s the proof that Curtis is a Jew:

1 Richard rules the Empire: It was a good night for SJ’s favourite Jewish writer-turned-director Richard Curtis at this year’s Empire Awards, voted for by the readers of the best-selling movie magazine. His comedy hit Love Actually nabbed a trio of trophies, including Best Newcomer for Martine McCutcheon, Best British Actress for Emma Thompson and Best British Film (accepted by the man himself). That gave it the same number of awards as the night’s other big winner, Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King. Which probably had some Jewish people in it as well. So congrats to everybody!

http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/801_sj_super_7.htm

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:49 | #

Calvin -

School Miss, the neat, respectful children, the negro child more interested in paying attention to his lesson than to humping anything white, where are the teen slut Vicky Pollards and the brat-chav wiggers?

Vicky Pollard is a character from the Little Britain stable. Funnily enough Matt Lucas who plays Vicky turns out to belong to a certain ethnic minority. Which has no baring on the parade of unpleasant, dysfunctional white characters portrayed in the series. Obviously.