|
|
|
A call for a radical right intellectual schwerpunkt
From the Blair-Schroeder Third Way document issued 6th August 1999.
From an internal memo leaked from Philip Morris during the “junk science” wars of the 80s and 90s.
And yet, in my heart I know that that would not be the most productive use of their time. In matters of elite communication, productivity is measured by weight not volume. Speaking to power is the duty and privilege of an intellectual elite, and that is no less true of ours than of any other. The difficulty, of course, is that the present bearers of political office would rather dine on Lenin’s uncooked cadaver than learn anything from our best people. They have set their face against us. In Britain, for example, only Migrationwatch has gained sometime admittance to the gilded halls of power. But here’s Wikipedia’s list of approved British think-tanks. It’s seventy strong and, according to Wikipedia, incomplete. That’s true enough, since Migrationwatch isn’t even on it! Think-tanks are not the whole story, of course. There are individual academics. There are business, professional and labour organisations. There are commercial interests and their lobbyists. There are government-annointed experts. There are favoured special interests groups, some of them privateer hucksters, some of them government-funded hucksters. Some are shills inside the system, some are latched on outside it. There must be several thousand such opinionisers in this country alone, all of them ready and willing to plead their case to government, to opposition parties and to the media. Together they constitute a quite phenomenal knowledge bank on which government draws, and sustains its ideological vigour. It is a far cry from the dogged work of our best people, atomised as they are in their university departments, writing their books and articles, occasionally being interviewed by people like us. Is it remotely possible that the great engines of government in the Western world can be memetically challenged by our scattered “300”? And never mind the prospects for a political challenge from our, for the most part, wholly marginalised parties. The answer to that, it seems to me, is that it has to be possible. Failure is not an option. The stakes are far too high. We urgently need, then, to improve our way of doing things. If you look at how the mainstream system operates, it is modelled as a political core comprising the policy-makers of the mainstream political parties, with an advisory ring outside it. The ring does not particularly communicate within itself, though that may happen from time to time on an ad hoc basis. It is directionally focussed wholly on the core, and offers its intellectual products like a bird feeding its young in the nest. In this model, real-world power attracts intellectual services, and there is no difficulty for the former in acquiring the volume or quality of ideas and advice that it needs for governance. In the separate and competing nationalist sphere, tiny and powerless as it is, the scale is evidently inadequate to a parallel informational task. Our resources, intellectual and political, are spread too thinly and operate too accidentally. Thus we find that American racialists make competing appeals to their countrymen on all too predictable grounds, relying to various degrees on the empirical studies of a few race-realists and students of Jewry. In continental Europe it is a little better, perhaps, with at least some philosophy entering the political equation, and quite a bit of electoral “nous” on tap even if it doesn’t. But empiricism is lacking, and it shows. Alain de Benoist, the leading New Right philosopher, will simply not accept race as a line of defence. So, of course, race would not be defended in heavily non-white France were his ideas ever to penetrate the Elysée. This disconnect needs to be addressed. Lowell’s Imperium holds thinkers and researchers enough to form a serviceable advisory ring. They just need to be brought together, and situated adjacent to a core comprised of political parties and activists - including, crucially I believe, activists from mainstream parties who are interested in radical right ideas. This bringing of nationalist thinkers to the consumers of nationalist thought really has to be as comprehensive as possible, and from across all the white world. For political progess to be made an intellectual critical mass has to be achieved. That is the vital point. As the Phillip Morris quote above makes clear, the concentration of maximium force in one place at one time is the only way for a weak party to strike a telling blow against a stronger and larger foe. Now, a decade ago people might have expected the world wide web to facilitate such a concentration. I think it is clear today that the web is a general outreach medium. For sure, loose political groupings based on shared interests can arise through it. MR is an example of that. But the kind of model or association I have in mind is not general in reach. It is not directed towards Everyman. It is private. It is exclusive. In terms of a platform it will need something far more designed, more flexible and layered. It is to the next generation of internet technology that we must look for that. For now, that is as far as I am going to go with this idea. But I hope to return to it again in the not-distant future. Comments:2
Posted by PF on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:54 | # If we can create over the next five years a synthesis of MacDonald, Fraser, Rushton, Salter, Hamilton, Dawkins, Francis, hopefully some elements of Nietzsche and the other authors who have something new to say- whether we can discover new things by adding ideas together, or developing our own, or whether we just demonstrate that we have understood them - then we will have created a philosophy whose explanatory and predictive power vastly outstrips all competitors. Nationalism will have unanswerable arguments behind it; it wont be merely the gut-feeling, common sense appeal of our grandfather’s generation, but it will appeal itself to ‘reason’, the thinking man- and also gut-feeling. As far as evangelizing and spreading the word, increasing our share in the market-place of ideas, thats a practical matter, dependent on concrete plans. Its also a function of the explanatory power of the philosophy, because it attracts ‘stray minds’ and appeals to them by virtue of it’s truth and inner consonance with itself. Once all these stray-thoughts, studies, and observations are built together into a philosophical edifice, so to speak, people of more intellectual inclination can devote themselves entirely to strategic evangelism, the intellectual work being finished. (only tentatively, of course) 3
Posted by gnxp stinks on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:13 | # Gee, GW, do you think that “we” need to actually read and understand the works that we are supposed to incorporate into this focused, evangelizing worldview? Or, should a prerequisite for commenting and interpreting someone’s work be that no prior knowledge of that work is allowed? And, more to the point, is anyone listening? Is there a competent audience? Are even those in “leadership” positions an openminded and competent audience for this, or do we have instead, “red roasting rodents”, “male and female nostrils”, and the rest of it? 4
Posted by Andy Wooster on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:23 | # If we can create over the next five years a synthesis of MacDonald, Fraser, Rushton, Salter, Hamilton, Dawkins, Francis, hopefully some elements of Nietzsche and the other authors who have something new to say Dawkins? Was that a typo? What does Dawkins have to offer? 5
Posted by PF on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:25 | # gnxp stinks, I’m sorry for writing the post about EGI without having read On Genetic Interests. I read the paper and thought EGI was easily understandable. That mistake wont happen again. I do wonder sometimes how big the audience really is. Both for this blog, and for WN-related sites in general. Do you ever get the feeling you hear crickets chirping? 6
Posted by PF on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:29 | # Dawkins ideas are important, I think. The selfish gene paradigm as opposed to the selfish organism paradigm. The extended phenotype. (before you ask, yes, I did read it.. ) 7
Posted by Anon on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:42 | # Good points about the action of regular, working class people who are fed up. After all they have been on the front lines of this wra that is going on in Europe and the US too. My dad was was involved in the hardhat riot in 1970 in NYC. Construction workers joined forces with people from the financial industry to beat up hippies, communists, traitors and other trash in the street (who says labor and capital can’t work together?. They forced the cops to stand aside and went to work. They NY Times called it a riot (of course), and the name unfortunately stuck (when blacks, stalinists or other types riot and loot it is called fighting oppression). It was people who were fed up doing something about it. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:50 | # gnxp repelis, “They” - the politicos - manifestly do not understand. That said, “they” are unlikely to be the best or most intelligent leaders we could possibly have. “They” are simply the most courageous, most thick-skinned, most determined, most angry ... “They” are the ones who, today, are willing to put their necks on the line. For that I am grateful. I would not disparage them as you do. Of course, I’m talking about European nationalists here as well as American WNs ... Griffin and the three musketeers as well as Duke and Taylor. I don’t think for one moment that we should write them all off. I think we should encourage them and those who will come after them, who may be watching from the wings today. All I am saying here is that the way the mainstream works is not accidental. Our side does not work that way, primarily because it is so divorced from the incentivisation of power that has encouraged developments in the mainstream. With our people, individuals have certain intellectual interests of their own they wish to pursue - and that’s it. Politically-speaking, there is no general pull towards the refinement of understanding. That is simply not good enough. You offer nothing but dissatisfaction and cynicism. Let’s see what we can actually squeeze out of this strange nationalist animal before we consign it to the tender mercies of the butcher. 9
Posted by Andy Wooster on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:53 | # My apologies. I do agree with you. It’s too early in the morning for me to posting here, as my brain is not quite firing on all cylinders. I recently read that Dawkins had endorsed Sam Harris’ red-state/blue-state crime argument. This argument is so idiotic that it temporarily blinded me to the fact that not everything Dawkins writes is so mind-numbingly stupid. 10
Posted by grouchy gnxp stinks on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:08 | # I won’t answer Fred; I stand by my comments. My disagreements with GW - he knows them, no need to go into it endlessly. A comment about Dawkins. Dawkins’ idea of the extended phenotype, and some of his other work, is of some value. But be very careful with Dawkins. His “arguments” against group selection are childish strawman “arguments”; the one quoted by Salter is so absurd it can be part of a biologically-oriented comedy routine. Apparently, Dawkins doesn’t quite grasp the concept that something arising from selection needs to actually be selected for; there needs to be selective pressure at that particular level. Besides which, of course, Salter’s ideas do not depend on “group selection”, which is made clear in “On Genetic Interests.” But to highlight Dawkins’ stupidity, it is instructive. Dawkins also made a moronic comment, if I am not mistaken, concerning the fact that Queen Eliz II would not share any actual genes, by descent from, say, William the Conquerer, trying to delegitimize long term kinship. To which, identical by state is “identical” to identical by descent, and one must consider the relative genetic similarity to discern genetic interests. Yes, QEII may not have any of WTC’s actual genes (by descent). But I can say with some confidence, that if it were possible to genetically analyze all involved, WTC would be far more similar to QEII than he would be to, say, Alan Dershowitz or Confucious or Chaka Zulu. Indeed, one may find some genetic identity by state, to a far greater extent, between QEII and WTC, than between any of those individuals and some Nigerian. That should be obvious. But “hip” metrosexual “scientists” have their own criteria for truth-telling, it appears. 11
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:16 | # Dawkins and Hamilton both were derailed just when their work became “dangerous”. Hamilton got derailed by Trivers and Axelrod (both Jewish I believe) “reciprocal altruism” right after Hamilton’s seminal Innate Social Aptitudes of Man, which brought group selection of humans to the forefront of thought. Dawkins got derailed by the Jewish-dominated “humanist” and “skeptics” organizations right after he published his insightful and highly “dangerous” “The Extended Phenotype”. These are not random occurances. 12
Posted by Stanley Womack on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:25 | # Guessedworker says, “Lowell’s Imperium holds thinkers and researchers enough to form a serviceable advisory ring. They just need to be brought together, and situated adjacent to a core comprised of political parties and activists - including, crucially I believe, activists from mainstream parties who are interested in radical right ideas.” I would like to respectfully quarrel with several things. 1) Why is what we are doing inherently or legitimately either conservative or right wing? The discourse categories, liberal and conservative, hold no energy for us to harness except for denouncing left-wing racialists, for example. This is 19th century thinking, and the global reach of corporations, non-Arabic Semites, and the Internet necessitate the abandonment of such labels as conservative or liberal for new memes and new categories. 2) And why is what we are doing related to existing national entities? The discourse category of nation, nationalism, and state have become such a jumble of notions that it is difficult to see how new wine could be poured into such old bottles. 3) An intervening step will be the creation of a large scale and well-edited news agency, one like a “European & European Diaspora News Agency.” That will be the only way to create new discourse arguments that reach college kids so they don’t have to thrash around with old ideas. 4) We really need to create new narratives (even competing ones) that explore our history and nature positively, and as something in which our children and grandchildren can have a decent sense of self-respect. But to saddle these new narratives with old concepts is probably a non-starter. Although re-defining old and abused concepts in a new way is fun and useful in a seminar sense, we are pushing a large rock up a steep hill and we ought not re-define concepts, if we can craft new slogans, concepts, ideas, songs, stories, poems, images, arguments, and memes. 13
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:29 | # Robert Trivers profile from the UK Guardian:
14
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:34 | # Wikipedia’s list of Ashkenazi Jews contains a link to Robert Axelrod. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:48 | # All of the images displayed for “Humanist of the Year” at their website:
16
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:02 | # The top pictures at the Skeptics Society website are of Jewish men. Carl Sagan (who is the cover story for this months issue of their journal):
Dr. Michael Shermer, Executive Director: 17
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:21 | # I just realized the “humanists” may change the images in response to my links. So, here are the names, in order, as they appeared when I posted the above images: Carl Sagan (J), Isaac Asimov (J), E. O. Wilson, Alice Walker, Edwin H. Wilson, Betty Friedan (J). That’s 50% Jewish. 18
Posted by PF on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:49 | #
Whenever he talks about group selection, Dawkins suddenly becomes flighty and quick-stepping in his explanations. In every other instance, he goes in baby-steps and at a turtle’s pace (I’m full of idiomatic expressions, today!). Should group selection come up, he speeds up his writing and starts leaving out essential connections. While I dont trust myself to refute what he is saying (yet), one gets the feeling that he is ‘skittering’ over the top of something deeper. 19
Posted by W.LindsayWheeler on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:15 | # Definitions Definitions Definitions. Radical Right means to be a Monarchist. I believe half of our problems is that we are all democracies now controlled by business, corporate, ideological interests. The Monarchy is the Leader of the Racial group. All European nations had monarchy. The Monarch is the Father of his people. At leas they have a concern about their nation that businesses and corporations don’t have. Neither does Ideology have concern. Ideology is concerned about Ideology. A Monarch cares for his People. (Granted some in the Monarchy are affected by pc and socialism now.) A Return to religion. St. Thomas Aquinas said, “The more one loves God, the more one loves his nation”. Love of God and Love of Nation go hand in hand. It is God who created Nations and it will be God that defends them—-Of course we humans have got to put our backside into it. Prayer. What happened to Spiritual Warfare. God Answers prayers. Evil is a spiritual thing not physical! How can you fight evil with riots? First pray, and then go out and do physical battle. Prayer comes first. Education and Virtue. Only the good can speak the Truth and Manliness in order to take a stand against pc. My two cents. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:35 | # Stanley, Your Question 1 exemplifies my thesis very well. Among American “Euro-loyal” activists there is insufficient understanding that liberalism is EVERYTHING, and that conservatism in the accepted sense is liberalism of the right. There is even less understanding, therefore, that conservatism of a traditional kind may be revolutionary. Further than this, I have argued since the inception of this blog that all classical Pittite conservatism, which died in Britain after 1832 and has never been known in America, IS a revolutionary politic in the most literal sense: it cannot come into being except that it slits the throat of the liberal “incumbent”. Of course, what I think does not matter, I am no one ... not an intellectual of note, not a voice that carries to the furthest nationalist shore. My interest is in constructing a platform on which those intellectuals, those voices can distill their ideas and nationalist politicians can perfect their strategies. As Blair-Schroeder said, “We will establish a network of experts, farsighted thinkers, political fora and discussion meetings. We will thereby deepen and continually further develop the concept of the New Centre and the Third Way.” Question 2: Why is what we are doing related to existing national entities? Because we are for our peoples, who are the possessors, today at least, of their sacred homelands. Blood and soil. Question 3: An intervening step will be the creation of a large scale and well-edited news agency, one like a “European & European Diaspora News Agency.” Magnificent. How? Write the blueprint. Cost it. Find a way of competing with Reuters and AP, who dominate the global news-supply market. Question 4: New narratives I am proposing a conference in perpetuum of the loyal intellectual and political elites, on a global basis, conducted in VR. Narratives such as those you would like to see may be fed from thinker to activist. But evangelising those narratives to our people would be the latter’s task. That is not the subject of my post. 22
Posted by uberto on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:29 | # I don’t think Michael Shermer is Jewish (athough he does look it)—of course, he’s from Southern California, so there’s no telling what he is. He spoke at my school once about the Skeptics’ Society and mentioned his Church of Christ (which has a history of being ultra conservative and Anti-Semitic) upbringing. Anyway Christianity/Judaism…same disease, different virulence. 23
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:50 | # I don’t think Michael Shermer is Jewish (athough he does look it)—of course, he’s from Southern California, so there’s no telling what he is. He spoke at my school once about the Skeptics’ Society and mentioned his Church of Christ (which has a history of being ultra conservative and Anti-Semitic) upbringing. Shermer denies being Jewish, but he does rather look Jewish in the photograph above. As for the Church of Christ affiliation, your understanding is diametrically opposed to mine. My experience is that the Church of Christ is full of Jews. I don’t know that many Church-of-Christers, but most of the ones I’ve met are of Jewish descent. And on the internet, I often come across Church of Christ preachers who are or appear to be of Jewish descent. 24
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:55 | # A comment about Dawkins. Dawkins’ idea of the extended phenotype, and some of his other work, is of some value. But be very careful with Dawkins. His “arguments” against group selection are childish strawman “arguments”.... My thoughts exactly. Regarding “group selection”, we are re-inventing the wheel. Darwin had it right already in 1871:
That is not to say that this idea has not been built upon. A number of recent works on group cohesion and groups as adaptive units are essential to our understanding of our situation. These works include MacDonald’s case study on the Jewish community as an adaptive unit and, equally important, David Sloan Wilson’s books: Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society Also: Christopher Boehm’s Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation From a different perspective: Robert Nisbet’s Quest for Community http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Community-Ethics-Freedom-Self-Governance/dp/1558150587 25
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:21 | # One more: R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism 26
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:42 | # Well, I admit I was a bit lazy when I went for the evidence that the “Skeptics” were Jew-dominated. This is partially because my personal experience with them at the local chapter level in the Silicon Valley area was dominated by Jews, and whenever I saw them addressing genuinely controversial areas such as Holocaustian dogma, they all of a sudden got religion. It was really quite nauseating and was one of the things that reinforced my belief that “the Jew” must be reified. In particular I remember going to a rather ordinary party in SV where the Jewish then head of the Skeptics Society showed up in bondage and discipline attire exhibiting a particularly obnoxious strut and attitude toward anyone who entertained slightly “unorthodox” views. It reminded me of some kind of sick religious ritual. Anyway, continuing the investigation of the “Skeptics” Jewish dominance: Their introductory page: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html They have only two authorities they quite inset from the main body text: Alberg Einstein and Baruch Spinoza References to Carl Sagan abound with quotes sprinkled about as though he were some patron saint of “skepticism”. There is no one more quoted so far as I see. Moreover, the primary source of funding for “studies” in “skepticism” is “Institute for Humanist Studies”, which is absorbed in secular Jewish views. These may not be objective metrics rigorously presented but I’m not going to strive forever with the heart of the obstinate. Sometimes very difficult to convey the hard-won wisdom of a lifetime wasted giving “the benefit of the doubt” to those who least deserve it but one cannot be compassionate without wishing in earnest that those younger than one’s self—or those more vulnerable to exploitation because of their guilelessness—may be spared. 27
Posted by Bend Ovar on Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:47 | # Can one imagine just what vast sums of money have been spent by Jewish establishment over the last 50 years to engineer their particular view as the view? Disregarding for the moment where that money came from, it is not truly amazing to consider that how a little “consciousness raising”, starting with our young and working up, can quickly bring to nought the value of that prodigious work. 28
Posted by yllica on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 03:05 | # Fred: They’ve wasted vast sums of their own (and other people’s) money which could’ve been way more intelligently spent for the betterment of Jews and Israel, sums wasted because, it seems, Jews lack certain genes necessary for perceiving the world around them in normal fashion the way normal races do. Normal? It may be true that Jews, like us, have wasted treasure, but the Jews at least wasted theirs in misguided attempts to advance their own interests. If any group misperceives the world around them - it’s us. The respective Jewish and White failings in realistic worldviews are quite different, but ours is the more dangerous I think. 29
Posted by Bend on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 03:42 | #
That’s got to be right. If Christians and Muslims formed an alliance that could be bad news for Jewish interests. The war in Iraq is instructive. If the Christian soldiers (mainly from the south—anglo-celts even now still ridiculed by the Jewish establishment) figure out that they’re pawns used to protect Israel, they not be so inclined to protect them again. As the world shrinks who knows. I’ve got a feeling the wheels are starting to fall off the Jewish cart. 30
Posted by Pax Judaica on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 06:12 | # Dear Goys: You are defeated already spiritually, physically, and most important, strategically. Do not resist further for your own sake. As a defeated wolf supines to express subservience, so must you. Further resistance only forces our hand, you understand; we do not actually seek your total annihilation as our dominion must have slave-men for physical labors and slave-girls for as we please, but goy strains susceptible to anti-Semitism will be eradicated. The site proprietors are to cease resistance operations immediately and replace the current site with a notice of apology. Thank you. That will be all. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:39 | # Maybe you had it right the first time, Fred. I would certainly like to know the ethnicity of Fjordman’s extended family. That BJ article quotes Theodore Dalrymple, Robert Spencer, Bat Y’eor, an “American” named Jonathan Friedman, and a “Frenchman” film-maker named Pierre Rehov. That’s a lot of sympathy-going-on-advocacy for Jewish ethnic interests. I mean, it’s one thing to insist on European self-determination when all the sound and fury is anti-Moslem. But European self-determination cannot be achieved without the same separation from Jewry. How’s Fjordman’s record there again? 32
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:53 | # Guessedworker: “I would certainly like to know the ethnicity of Fjordman’s extended family. That BJ article quotes Theodore Dalrymple, Robert Spencer, Bat Y’eor, an “American” named Jonathan Friedman, and a “Frenchman” film-maker named Pierre Rehov.” - As far as I know, T. Dalrymple (not his real name) is an Englishman, Robert Spencer is middle eastern Christian, financed largely by jews in his work, Bat Y’eor (not her real name) is Jewish and rest’s ethnicity you surely know. “That’s a lot of sympathy-going-on-advocacy for Jewish ethnic interests. I mean, it’s one thing to insist on European self-determination when all the sound and fury is anti-Moslem. But European self-determination cannot be achieved without the same separation from Jewry. How’s Fjordman’s record there again?” - Who cares what Fjordman does or doesn’t do. It is not his job to look after our ethnic interests, it is ours. Muslims are real problem in Europe, along with other immigrant groups Fjordman doesn’t talk about. If we can get useful information from Fjordman, we should use it and then disregard the rest. You can add “pro-jewish” before Fjordman to tell the other useful information. Your article was good and important, but I would add something. You wrote about breakthrough by concentrating powers. This should be one of the methods. But other is finding point of views that supports our views without being them. We don’t change our basic views, but offer milder views for e.g. timid politicians and citizens whose thoughts have been fed by media. Immigration causes problems with environment, increases criminality, worsen the schools etc. Migrationwatch is somewhat like that. Then after people have got used to the idea, we tell that ethnic interests are legitimate concerns and explain it from this point on. We don’t try get people accept the idea to their own politics, just to accept it in others. That is easier for people. Then much later move forward from this point on. This or some other similar weak spot we should use in a gradual and slow manner. This is in the end more important than sudden breakthroughs. Also the paradigm thoughts of society doesn’t change quickly, it takes long time. It is like huge ship, with tiny rudder. Anyway, the most important and precious things are often in minority like White nationalists and diamonds. 33
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:34 | # “As a defeated wolf supines to express subservience, so must you. Further resistance only forces our hand, you understand; we do not actually seek your total annihilation as our dominion must have slave-men for physical labors and slave-girls for as we please, but goy strains susceptible to anti-Semitism will be eradicated.” Posted by Pax Judaica on Saturday, March 17, 2007 at 05:12 AM - Trolls should not be fed, but I knock this one slightly. Old talmudian dream and goal is that jews rule the world and every jew will have 20 000 non-jewish slaves. And sorry, there is not anyone susceptible to anti-semitism. Your own destructive (both to Whites and jews) politics creates resistance to those very same jewish politics. 34
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:41 | # “Things are moving. They are not standing still. Things are moving in our favor. The pace, hitherto snail-like, is going to pick up. We’re going to start seeing more open resistance.” - Sometimes there are breakthroughs and Netherlands’ could be a big one. The long term effects are decisive when evaluating the effects there. Important psychological border has been crossed. 35
Posted by PF on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:24 | #
36
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:14 | # Writers such as Martin van Creveld and William Lind have pointed out that states are increasingly unable to protect their citizens. Are they joking? States *can* protect their citizens—they simply don’t want to. And for good reason. Protection against immigrants amounts to protection against the state, since the immigrants are *part* of the state’s ruling apparatus. What state is going to punish itself? Post a comment:
Next entry: Why “The Political Compass” Is Inherently Vectorist and How to Correct It
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Proofreader on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:51 | #
I´m all for riots provided they target the police and authorities. Hit them where it hurts, challenge their authority, and avoid direct confrontation with the foreign interlopers, which would brand you as “racist”.
But any course of action has to be preceded by a political and intellectual effort such as GW describes.