|
|
|
A conversation with Alex Linder The Linder interview, which took place on Tuesday afternoon, is now on the Radio Page. It is long, having been closely edited as such so it would make a single podcast, and I hope quite stimulating. I’m pleased to see that Alex has answered a couple of questions on the earlier thread, which I did not raise with him in our conversation. Comments:2
Posted by PW on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:44 | # GW—the interview with Linder was good. However, you made one major mistake in saying that we humans control Nature. We do not and never have controlled Nature…we have merely managed to tame it in a very partial way. I’m not a Nazi or rabid Hitlerist, but read some of what he said about this exact topic—READ ALL OF THE INFO IN THIS LINK; here is a small excerpt:
Also, regarding the atheism of yourself and Linder; Spengler on atheism: “Atheism comes not with the evening of the Culture but with the dawn of Civilization.” (from DECLINE, Chapter X) 3
Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:20 | # Sauce for the goose: http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2009/11/that-new-lets-kill-goy-book.html 4
Posted by apollonian2nd on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:39 | # Alex Linder: Most Insidious, Deceptive, Satanic Tool Of The Jew For goodness sakes—what’s this bullshit?—Alex Linder/VNN (VanguardNewsNetwork.com) is not merely a non-Christian—he’s an ANTI-Christ—he’s a joke—and therefore he’s NOT loyal or sympathetic to white folks or gentile anti-semitic movement/cause. Linder, as anti-Christ, effectively works for Jews, can’t u see?—even if he ostensibly curses Jews. For note Jews will make use of anti-semites as long as they work against gentile unity—which unity is only possible under a rationalist Christianity. For observe this anti-Christianity of Linder, who insists upon lie that Christians are mere versions/variation of same basic Judaism, is essentially same claim of “Judeo-Christian” (JC—see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists who say Christ was Jew (hence Talmudist), which confuses Jews (followers of Pharisees and Talmud) with Judeans, most of whom were NOT followers of Pharisaic murderers of Christ who stood for TRUTH (hence objective reality, necessary criterion to truth) against Jew lies, subjectivism, moralism, fascism, and conspiracy, in accord w. Gosp. JOHN. CONCLUSION: Further, note Linder is truly malignant double-minded sort of liar who first pretends to criticise Christianity on supposed, professed basis of reason—BUT consider Linder is NOT an advocate of reason, rather asserting a Nietzshean-type emotionalist kind of mysticism of his own. Linder is truly a convoluted, muddled piece-of-work, indubitably, and his only practical effect is to ISOLATING whites against all others, allowing Jews to pretend they champion humanity against whites who are fascists. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian 5
Posted by sirrealpolitik on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:34 | # dear apollonian, but…don’t you know? chri$tianity is just irrational jewish bull$hit. i don’t care how you slice it. it comes out brown. it has (that have) stained the occident for 1.5k yrs. “bow down and obey thy anthropomorphic gawd! and while yer down there, smooch this ring.” but no more. ancient greeks and 18th and 19th century germans: THERE are some rationalists for you. s.r. 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:52 | # PW, Are we not materially secure? You know ... Peak Oil, the Cote d’Azure, the obesity crisis, crop rotation, the rise of the towns in the Middle Ages, the Perpendicular style ... do not these things argue for a remarkable freedom from the existential struggle of the deep European past. Since there is no disputing that European peoples evolved physical characteristics and behaviours that were fitted to that struggle ... fitted to survival in the eight months of annual cold and food-scarcity ... there should not be any either that these characteristics and behaviours constitute a certain posture, a certain line of attack peculiar to us. That posture did not go away because of our material security. It is in us and of us. So what happened to it ... where did it go when the struggle itself was no longer pursued? That is the question I am raising. 8
Posted by BryanVP on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:55 | # Apollon - Christianity is just a crock of jewish bullshit used to control Whites. That’s what it always has been. If people weren’t trying to be ‘christ’ like, do you think we ever would have allowed jews and millions upon millions of mexicans into America? Do you think the early Americans would have even kept the injuns alive if they weren’t trying to convert them to score brownie points for their jewish god? Unite under a rationalist christianity? That’s an oxymoron. Christians have been killing white men in the name of Jeboo since the inception of Christianity. Anti-Christian is a compliment. You can cling to that Arabic garbage all you want, just get ready to start pitching many a hissy fit, because more white men are writing it off as just that, Arabic garbage. 9
Posted by Observing Jack on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:26 | # The main problem with the interview is that you didn’t ask him any hard questions about his absurd belief in the Single Jewish Cause. 10
Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:27 | # Oh dear, the standard of argument here has plumetted AGAIN. Can it go much lower? LOOK: several people have blown upon Linder, and no-one is really sure if he’s an honest and reliable man, or a stooge, traitor, police spy or whatever. BUT: he’s anti-Christian. Seems that’s QUITE sufficient for others to admire, succour and follow him. In other words, some proportion of the readership here DOESN’T MIND whether he’s a crook, just as long as he can make the anti-Christian noises they like to hear. So even if the Star of David flag is hanging out of the Pied Piper’s breeches, BryanVP and SR will go merrily dancing after him, wherever he may lead them. Silly guys. The energy expended in stating these and similar convictions is in direct inverse proportion to the strength of the actual arguments deployed: and indefensible prejudices often triy to hide their weaknesses behind a torrent of malodorous abuse. It’s a shame that having invoked ‘rationalism’, sr isn’t up to wielding it: I suppose it would be pointless asking him/her for a definition, or an example or two. And,WHAT a shame it is that the equally forthright and equally clueless Bryan VP has to resort to the babyish abuse of ‘Jeboo’. 11
Posted by Alex Linder on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:41 | # Posted by Observing Jack on November 20, 2009, 12:26 AM | # The main problem with the interview is that you didn’t ask him any hard questions about his absurd belief in the Single Jewish Cause. Well don’t hold back, budger. If you’re capable of producing a question worth answering, I surely will. I’ll kick things off with two observations: 1) SJC is a strawman. The neutral and accurate term would be Main Jewish Cause. 2) Nobody gets thrown in jail for criticizing liberals or liberalism. By contrast, men who blame jews for their actions get smeared, jailed or murdered - worldwide. 12
Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:49 | # I really enjoyed this interview. It was like eavesdropping on a discussion between two far-right intellects—exactly what we need more of, IMO. The momentum for WNism is growing. I understood the conversation and the issues discussed, but I’m not sure I would be able to make a vaulable contribution. It’s clear I need to do more reading. To that end, if one were to compile a list of the Top 10 or Top 20 WN Classics, what would they be? 13
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:54 | # Consistent with your speculation that the Promethean will to overcome in European Man has now been turned inwards and is devouring him with no new frontiers left to conquer, GW, would it not suit him well to channel that muscular drive to the struggle for his survival, perhaps concordant with Jonathan Bowden’s exhortations to pursue glory? 14
Posted by Alex Linder on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:23 | # would it not suit him well to channel that muscular drive to the struggle for his survival, perhaps concordant with Jonathan Bowden’s exhortations to pursue glory? If I might answer too, the answer is YES! The appeal of our cause is that it is difficult. We seek the men Shackleton sought via his famous ad. Our cause is in the spirit of JFK’s statement: “We choose to go to the moon in this decade. Not because it is easy, but because it is hard.” Too many see our cause as appealing to people, like waiters pitching specials to bored housewives. No, no, no. There is no way for us to out-compete the paid-for parties when it comes to pandering. Our cause is far more like a religious crusade than an election campaign. As I have written repeatedly, the man who defeats the jews will go down as the greatest man in the history of the world. That is a powerful incentive to the type we seek. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:28 | # Nice try, CC. You do realise that in aiming us basterds at the glourious you would be feminising us, don’t you? Look, glory is an unintended and unsought after side-effect. Regardless of what any clever people think, it isn’t a stable basis for human activity - and certainly not a stable principle for the European life. We should do certain things because it is right that we should do them, and for no other reason. Do you know the rather well-made Redford movie, Jeremiah Johnson? JJ went into the Rocky Mountains to be a mountain man, and so stripped away from himself all the ways of the townspeople he had hitherto moved among. In the mountains and the cold, he went back to the struggle to survive - which in due course was accompanied by a struggle to survive a succession of assaults by Crow would-be assassins. There was recognition from the Indians and the scattered white men in the mountains for his deeds in surviving the onslaught, but it was not sought by him. His purpose in the mountains remained to be a mountain man, because that was what satisfied his soul. Plainly, we do not want to return to the uncertainties of the deep European past, and we cannot uninvent our technologies or resile from our history. But we do need satisfaction from the life that we live. 16
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:46 | # I enjoyed the interview. I have a few quick questions: GW, you’ve said that you were more advanced philosophically/intellectually than the folks at T.O.Q. (you specifically mentioned Sunic). Could you please expand? How are you more advanced? In what way? Maybe I don’t follow M.R. and T.O.Q. closely enough to see this advantage. What book on Rockwell are you reading, A.L.? I’m used to hearing your hostility to German National Socialism (and just Germans in general…you couldn’t have picked a more fitting partner than DD!), GW, but I’m curious to know if there are aspects of German National Socialism that would be beneficial and salutary for the survival of the English; and what parts of German National Socialism could be adopted by the English, if any. If we follow MacDonald’s thinking that atomistic individualism is what distinguishes Northern Europeans, then one is tempted to make the argument that any collectivist movement goes against that Northern European nature. If we accept that line of reasoning, it will take a non-European solution to a European problem. I can’t accept MacDonald’s position on National Socialism, collectivist movements have continually been produced by North Europeans during their history - National Socialism being just one of them - and National Socialism wouldn’t have been as successful and popular among Germans if it weren’t already in their bloodstream, so to speak. I also think that he generalizes too much: Northern Europeans aren’t a undifferentiated blob. I think MacDonald’s views Germany through an American individualistic, pioneering prism that colors his estimations of a piece of real estate he doesn’t really know. Germany and Germans were never particularly individualistic in their organization, if National Socialism were foreign to their inner being they wouldn’t have taken to it like ducks to water in such a short span and held on to it for so long. It took a massive programme of indoctrination at gun point to effectuate societal change. Of course this in turn has produced a massive psychosis in Germans and an unnatural and imposed xenophilia. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:53 | # Excellent interview — I just listened to it for the first time. Excellent on both their parts, interviewer and interviewee. As good as it gets, in fact: top rank stuff. 18
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:13 | #
Or even something as mundane as weaning himself off petroleum? A couple of observations on the talk ... I thought Mr. Linder acquitted himself very well and came across in person as a much more-rounded individual than his uni-dimensional cyber-persona would suggest. He is surely correct about the effectiveness of Goebbelsian ‘multi-level’ propaganda as well as in noting that much of it during the NS era had little if anything to say about Jews. I thought his remarks on the Anglo-Saxon propensity for individualism and the Teutonic for collectivism to be spot on and in line with my own empirical observations. More time might have been spent on exploring the reasons behind what, given the genetic commonality, appears to be an anomaly. I was a little disappointed though that GW didn’t take the opportunity to correct some of the misperceptions about Griffin and the BNP. It might have been worth noting that public figures have far less room for manoeuvre in the UK than in the US, as Griffin’s three prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred demonstrate. The BNP stance on Israel also seems to have been misunderstood. It was interesting to hear GW expound on Christianity and its contribution to our present malaise. He put the case eloquently but unpersuasively and, although he indicated there is a self-imposed taboo on the matter, I for one would like to see a more complete exposition of his views and the rationale behind them. I’ve just noticed FB’s comments to GW at 01:46. Assuming that DD refers to yours truly, I would like to assure him that I have no hostility towards Germans, in fact quite the opposite. And any hostility towards NS Germany arises purely from its aggressively militaristic attitude towards other Europeans. 19
Posted by Alex Linder on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:18 | # What book on Rockwell are you reading, A.L.? “Hate: GLR and the American Nazi Party,” by William Schmaltz. Don’t know if he’s a jew. I think it came out in 1999. It’s nothing special, but it is a solid rundown, year by year, of GLR’s activities. http://www.amazon.com/Hate-George-Lincoln-Rockwell-American/dp/1574882627 20
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:24 | # GW, we’ve got the domain-general shit in spades, it is the relatively weak, if present at all, domain-specific specifics we are found wanting in with regards to the task at hand. The question has always been how to put some meat on those Salterian bones that the lemmings might be tempted to bite it. If that be a call for Krautic palingeneticism, then so be it. Consistent with your ruminations on the essentials of manliness, I always found JWH’s additions a bit, er, lavender. The Kraut’s simple and rugged jackboot is more in keeping with Northern European masculinity, even if it does tend to telegraph somewhat more theatrically his intent than the Limey’s more subdued approach to ethnocentrism. Perhaps the Englishman’s enemy will not know his he slated for termination until he hears steel knocks flint, that is if the former ever gets around to pulling the trigger. 21
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:34 | # “Schmaltz”...how do they come up with their names?
Yeah…I assume that if burglars breaks into your house, rapes your wife, kills your children, and takes everything you have you’ll show at least some aggression and go after them. 22
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:40 | # I don’t intend to rise to the bait, FB, but good try anyway. 23
Posted by Q on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:45 | # My guess, CC, your not much of a fan of ‘my man’ Lothrop Stoddard? 24
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:05 | # In a recent interview with Jim Giles, Bowery said in response to Giles’ questioning him about Linder’s preferred solution to the Jewish Question, “I don’t agree with that, I think that’s wrong.” I agree. But, if the Jews are given either, or all, of southern California, Florida or New York how will we effect total reconquest of the North American continent consistent with the Founder’s vision? Bowery also expressed his fondness for puppies. 25
Posted by PF on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:03 | # Great to hear more of your philosophy expounded, GW. I particularly liked the discussion of this strange principle in European man - CaptainChaos above calls it The Promethean, which seems fair enough - this striving, restless survival instinct which causes endless innovation and stirring. Perhaps this is why we are such slaves to the intellect, and to thought. Also appreciated the discourse on the two-fold nature of religion. Your ideas come across more clearly in spoken word than they do in writing GW. Perhaps because you tend to use certain abstract words which have a specific and clarified meaning and force for you - as is evident when you say them - which is not properly conveyed in text. The 21st century reader may go to sleep when hearing these abstract words, not realizing that you have earned the right to use them and that you actually mean what you say in specific ways that are clear to you. In some sense for me unless I hear them spoken with clarity and presence of mind, I’ve been so deadened to the use of abstract words that I can scarcely hear them properly. cheers 26
Posted by Alex Linder on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:33 | # The question has always been how to put some meat on those Salterian bones that the lemmings might be tempted to bite it. You lead. There’s no other way. Can’t expect the public to be braver or bolder than leaders. There are plenty of indications the public supports our positions. It votes against ‘affirmative action’ and open borders; ‘white flight’ indicates desire to live among whites. There’s no clever or easy way out. That’s where the problem comes in. People try to act like there is a way to slick it or nice it. There is not. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:50 | #
Well, well, a Sydney Pollack fan. First Three Days of the Condor and now Jeremiah Johnson. JJ was a miscegenator punished after forsaking his new found path and aiding his people, white men and women. 28
Posted by danielj on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:04 | # this striving, restless survival instinct which causes endless innovation and stirring. Well then, it isn’t a “survival” instinct at all is it? It is more like an “innovation” instinct and it ain’t nothing special. ancient greeks and 18th and 19th century germans: THERE are some rationalists for you. There are plenty of Christian rationalists proper if that is your bag; neo-scholastics, Thomists, Catholics, etc. A lot of ancient Greeks weren’t really rationalists and the fucking Krauts are almost as far away from the position as you can get. Pick up some books dummy, or just read Captain Chaos’ comments. 1) SJC is a strawman. The neutral and accurate term would be Main Jewish Cause. I think it is more important to actually etch out the position in more complete relief and all of its logical corollaries. Fighting about the name is pointless since to describe is to name. However you slice the theory, I would submit mostly that it should drive its adherents to despair since the combination of genetic determinism and Main Jewish Cause seems to compel one to believe that an irreversible victory has been won over white Christians by Kikedom and that our genetic structure is compromised and therefore stumblin’ down the road to extinction. 2) Nobody gets thrown in jail for criticizing liberals or liberalism. By contrast, men who blame jews for their actions get smeared, jailed or murdered - worldwide. There is no argument here. Not a single one. Maybe this is some kind of nthymemeI’m just not smart enough to pick up on? Come let us reason together and try to put together an argument here… 1)Nobody gets thrown in jail for criticizing liberals Come back when you have a real argument and clean up your act. You’re a fucking joke with a Jewish disease which reminds me that God loves irony. Thanks for damaging our cause beyond belief. 29
Posted by danielj on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:06 | # Maybe this is some kind of nthymemeI’m just not smart enough to pick up on? That should read “...some kind of enthymeme…” 30
Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:41 | # The interview highlights two causes of our decline - A survival instinct gone bad or an external group undermining our civilization? As an American I cannot comment on the internal politics of European nations with the same familiarity as the United States. But, in the United States, the Jews spearheaded efforts to introduce massive non-White immigration. (Celler and Javits) The Jews have also been the vanguard of ‘civil rights’ in America. The presidents of the NAACP were Jews until the 1970s. (Springarn and Kaplan) They also pioneered movements of ambiguous benefit to our culture such as ‘feminism.’ (Steinem and Friedan) The Jews also utterly dominate the Western mass-media and utilize it to cover up non-White criminality and racial differences. (Google Jews + Hollywood) Jewish anthropologists and scientists also denied the existence or meaningfulness of race (Boas, Montagu, Gould) Even more disturbing are the various Jews who call for the “abolition of the white race” and describe it as “the cancer of history.” (Ignatiev, Sontag) And let’s not even get into the Jewish political movement of Marxism! While there are certainly some unique behavioral traits in Europeans that contribute to our decline, I must agree with Mr. Linder that the primary cause of our decline is external, i.e. the Jews. 31
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:50 | # I think the Third Reich should have declared war on Britain in 38 for occupying Ireland and on behalf of the long-suffering Irish people. 32
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:20 | # Friedrich: GW, you’ve said that you were more advanced philosophically/intellectually than the folks at T.O.Q. There are a couple of sides to this. First, as you well know, intelligent commentary on the radical right begins with a meta-analysis of the ills of our age. This is what separates the, in my view, people who are serious about rebuilding European life from conservatives and from Jewish Causers, Single or Main, both of whom assume that some kind of default setting for social health is ready and waiting right now to kick in. Meta-analysis, however, is only analysis. It is nothing in itself. It generates reactionary and non-reactionary or original thinking. And so we arrive at the second (and really critical) aspect here, and that is the distinction between all the proposals and theories that flow from reaction, in which I include 19th century romantic nationalism and the fascisms of the 20th century, and those which attempt to found something in what is beyond reaction. What is beyond reaction is the eternal nation, Man, Nature, being. It is this line of advancement towards a theory of what we are in ourselves and what life is in itself that I find most interesting and absorbing, and also least valued and understood among my peers. That is the sense in which I used the word, Friedrich. 33
Posted by Frank on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:12 | # CC, I’m a fan of Bronze Age weaponry so far as imagery goes, and appeals to a more American-oriented militarism (rugged outdoorsman with a shotgun). 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:07 | #
Put me down as “Main.” And yes, I do think “a default setting for social health is ready and waiting right now to kick in” once the post-WW-II (especially post-‘60s) Jewish hegemony in the U.S. is overthrown. (The “Sixties” in the U.S. were simply a Jewish revolt; what they were elsewhere, like France, England, and Jewrmany was partly homegrown Jewry acting up, partly a ripple effect from the revolt’s epicenter, the States.) Astronomers can’t see all heavenly bodies but must deduce some from puzzling gravitational effects. Some Europeans haven’t yet made the deduction of a black hole they can’t see (the U.S. is the Black Hole of world Jewry) exerting gravitational effects on their countries. How do we know “a default setting for social health is ready and waiting right now to kick in” once external coercion is lifted? Same way we know a golf ball stays put when it’s not whacked by a golf club: individual golf ball atoms may be jiggling this way and that but the ball — a nation — doesn’t suddenly fly off in some crazy, weird, eccentric way by itself, uncoerced by a golf club in the one case, the Jews tilting the balance in the other (not acting alone but tilting the balance by allying with all the crazies and degenerates who without the Jews would be insignificant). When left alone a golf ball does what golf balls do when left alone, that’s how we know: thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, the Law of Large Numbers, stuff like that. 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:10 | # Excellent summary by Sam Davidson, a few above, of what’s going on. Good job. 36
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:24 | #
The Jews here put their numbers nationwide at some 5.5 million. Since there are way more than that many Jews in the New York City-Long Island-Westchester County-adjacent-parts-of-New-Jersey-and-Connecticut area alone (the general area I’m originally from), that would have to mean there are negative numbers of Jews elsewhere. So we’re into imaginary census numbers now — “The ADL says there are 5,400,000 Jews in the U.S., total. Since we know there are between 1.5 and 2 times that many on the Eastern Seaboard alone, the number of Jews in Chicago, LA, and San Francisco must total minus three to minus five million.” (Next the ADL demographers will introduce the square roots of negative numbers, complex analysis, and many-valued logics into the census.) No, I’m afraid a conservative extimate of the number of Jews in the U.S. is twelve million, absolute rock-bottom. Those countries that are already suffering with only a couple hundred thousand can try to imagine what upwards of twelve million can do to a place — to that place, and to wherever around it its gravitational effects will reach. 37
Posted by Trainspotter on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:12 | # Excellent interview. Guessedworker did a great job, as did Linder. I could certainly quibble with a few things, such as the concept of human sacrifice. As whites, can we not come up with a better way of testing the Defenders (white elite) and separating the wheat from the chaff than engaging in cold blooded murder of our own? I haven’t given a great deal of thought to the matter, but I suspect that we can weed out the grasping and the corrupt without doing an impersonation of some four foot Mayan or Aztec, ripping the heart out of someone and tossing them down the steps. But, distasteful though the idea may be, it does raise the issue of how best to ensure that the government of the coming white nation (hopefully, many white nations as we reclaim all of our homelands) is based on honor, duty, and loyalty to the white citizenry. The goal must be to establish a nation where the government has an explicit duty of loyalty to the tribe/citizenry, not just the other way around. More thought needs to be dedicated to this. Covington has mentioned, but as far as I know has not really fleshed out, the idea of an Honor Court that could handle duels amongst citizens. He has said something along the lines of, “In America, there was no penalty for being an asshole. There needs to be.” I couldn’t agree more. We absolutely need a culture of honor and integrity. And yes, there must be direct and personal consequences for white leaders who fail in this regard. I suspect that we can achieve this in a way that is more consistent with our European heritage and sensibilities than some death lottery. Anyway, lots of a great food for thought in this interview. No doubt the usual suspects will continue their assault on Linder, but it is interviews like this that plainly establish that the guy is worth listening to, despite going over the top now and again. And again, to Guessedworker, wonderful job. 38
Posted by Justin Huber on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:49 | # I’m glad to see Friedrich Braun posting. If I’m correct, you used to have some sort of blog (Civic Platform) that I used to visit daily. I miss it. Hope all is well with you. 39
Posted by sirrealpolitik on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:09 | # danielj, gorby, Looks like I confused you by my use of “rationalism” and I admit it is a term fraught with trouble and inconsistency. My use relates to the way historians of the development of Greek medicine (and, by extension, philosophy) distinguish the breakthrough of the Greeks from the prior pre-rational age, where natural phenomena were attributed to the machinations of the gods. In this I align with one of the dictionary definitions of rationalism “3. the belief that knowledge and truth are ascertained by rational thought and not by divine or supernatural revelation.” An example of the way Greeks were rationalist in this sense, then, would be: The rationalist Empedocles claimed sleep was caused by a shift of body temperature, whereas before him the ancients may have thought, as per Nonnus’ Dionysiaca, that Hypnos put people to sleep by a wave of his magic wand. (For more on this, you might consult Longrigg, James. Greek Rational Medicine: Philosophy and medicine from alcmaeon to the alexandrines Routledge. London. 1993.) Considering this def, can you see how I would characterize the rejection of Christianity as a similarly non-supernaturalist, rationalist leap? But you were right to bring it up because many now see the term as a Cartesian antithesis of empiricism. I did not mean it in this way. Another example of how I might use a related term, though, might be something like: Gorbaduc seems to have an irrational disdain for Alex Linder, an irrational assumption that I, who have never heard him until this interview here posted on MR, want to sniff his jock, and an irrational desire to worship a Jewish carpenter and bow to a Talmudic hodgepodge of a slave-culture mythos. Are those good examples? 40
Posted by Errigal on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:15 | # I listened to the interview and enjoyed it but I have to wonder about people like Linder, GW and Sunic who say we have to dump Christian civilization because it is an alien faith that drags us down. Are they not confusing Christianity with liberalism? How can Christianity be the cause of our current problem when we’ve been Christian for 1,500yrs? Did we go off the rails around the time of Charlemagne and if we did, what is this imaginary Europe they advocate supposed to look like? Saying the way forward for Whites is to abandon our Christian civilization is like saying the whales never would have been hunted by the Japanese if they had stayed on land. It’s funny how three smart men can’t see how stupid their suggestion is. 41
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:34 | #
It’s a nonstarter. Which is more likely, that the Christers will give up Jeboo, or that they can be sufficiently ginned up to turn on niggers and Jews? I suspect the latter, which is all we need from them anyway. Re English vs. Krauts: I’d be willing to accept any resolution arbitrated by Apollonian. 42
Posted by sirrealpolitik on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:35 | # To Selous Scout: I think it isn’t a matter, really, of having a 10-point “best of” reading list. That tactic might give one a meager start, I suppose. One could read MacDonald, Mencken, and Brooks Adams, and these are useful, but we should not just be reading books that tell us how or why to name the joo. Doing ONLY this would only make us (and make us come across as looking like) narrow-minded nutters. Of course we are bound to come across looking like nutters whatever we say, so long as we are positioned against the gangster culture of the New York/Hollywood/C of L nexus. I think we would be far more convincing if you (we) had an understanding of the scope of “our” Occidental lit, reclaim Locke, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Darwin, Pound, Heidegger (not that these theorists necessarily agree with—or even talk with—one another), RECLAIM them from the libby leftist red abraHAMfisted kooks in the academy who appropriate our cultural canon to make the world safe for their ruby-eyed Trotsky idol trinket. I don’t by any means mean they (Hegel, Nietzsche, etc) need to be slavishly AGREED WITH or reverentially bowed before, of course. No. I simply mean that we should be able to speak or write in a way that suggests that we have working knowledge of our intellectual forbearers. I further (and more emphatically) mean that I do not distinguish between intellectual productions that overtly describe our war (MacDonald, Mearsheimer, et al) and intellectual productions that describe the world in more general terms, scientifically, geologically, politically, historically. Both types can be useful to us. In short: Read everything you can of “serious” lit (even if it’s hilarious). It ALL applies to our cause. If this seems like a tall order and a lifelong commitment, so was druidry. Surreal pol. 43
Posted by Kasimir on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:36 | #
What else would you call a religion (with virtues antithetical to those of indigenous European faith and culture) from West Asia imposed upon Europe by a traitorous Roman elite in a Faustian Pact?
Come on, guy. Think about it a little. Christianity paved the way for Liberalism. The Universal Church was, and remains, an Oriental parasite, and paved the way for the rise of International Jewry.
Well, if we did, that only strengthens the idea that Christianity is no good, since Charlemagne was a Christian fanatic.
Our “Christian” civilization. The implication here being that all the good which came of the West must be inextricably linked with Christianity. In fact, much of the good came about thanks to people who worked around the unctuous Christian morality. 44
Posted by danielj on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:41 | # Are those good examples? Yes sir. I’m very impressed with the post and tone which was well written and respectful, respectively. Considering this def, can you see how I would characterize the rejection of Christianity as a similarly non-supernaturalist, rationalist leap? Yes, but I really don’t think there are modern Christians that are opposed in any meaningful sense to scientific “progress” or the reigning epistemology. It is also quite sad in my opinion that most white nationalists seem to buy into the notion that materialism + scientific progress + abandonment of Christian cosmology = advancement for our race. It is the same formula for liberalism and I’m hard pressed to find the benefit in such a wrongheaded philosophy. Gorbaduc seems to have an irrational disdain for Alex Linder, an irrational assumption that I, who have never heard him until this interview here posted on MR, want to sniff his jock, and an irrational desire to worship a Jewish carpenter and bow to a Talmudic hodgepodge of a slave-culture mythos. I do not have an irrational disdain for him. I think he is consistently working out his principles and deserves credit for that. I don’t buy into the false dichotomy that suggests that slave-culture Christianity and Promethean Euro-superman are our only two options and find it a particularly offensive kind of fallacy since it fails to adequately characterize the nature of my religion. 45
Posted by danielj on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:47 | # Christianity paved the way for Liberalism. Uh huh. Because the Enlightenment was a Christian thing that grew outta the Reformation which grew outta Catholicism which grew outta the alien Kike’s faith imposed on us by Roman dictators. It is all so ridiculously easy to see when one is blinded by quasi-reflexive bigotry. The European gene pool paved the way for Christianity. 46
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:50 | #
For 1,500 years only men could vote. Suddenly women are voting. It used to be Christian civilization barely squeaked by, the 51 to 49 odds favoring its survival just slightly enough so that over thousands of years it kept in a net forward direction, lurching two steps forward one step back but keeping its nose on average pointed forward. Women voting changed those odds of Christian civilization surviving from 51-49 in favor to 75-25 against (not to mention how women instantly bought into what the Jews were peddling to them specifically, just like in the old days of itinerant Jewish peddlars knowing exactly how to hawk their wares to the goyische farmwives so they would be taken in and buy —) whence the current total collapse of Christian civilization. Christianity by itself, with only men having the franchise, is handicap enough but it still allows civilization to advance ever so slowly on average in a forward-moving direction. But it leaves only minuscule margin for error. The margin Christianity affords is so slim that women casting votes swamp the boat completely and push things into the net-negative column. You either must get rid of Christianity or get rid of women’s suffrage (or, third alternative, remove from the electoral table every one of civilization’s pillars which women-combined-with-their-Jewish-Svengalis can completely fuck up if allowed to vote on it. Simply don’t let Jew-controlled women vote on that stuff. Decide it once and for all at the outset of the country you’re setting up, then consider it graven in stone and forever immutable, unalterable by any process, one example being insistence on all immigration being racially/ethnoculturally compatible, that compatibilty being determined by test devised by J.W. Holliday. Make that graven in stone. No voting on it, no way to change it, you don’t like it here’s your one-way ticket to Port Moresby, “Running Man” explosive collar included) 47
Posted by Errigal on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:02 | #
Okay now we’re starting to get at least some sort of tangible idea: things were alright before but aren’t now. If we had stuck with Thor worship we would have been walking on the moon by the 1100 AD (or whatever Hobbit calendar we’d be using). Now I have something solid to work with. 48
Posted by Bill on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:17 | # Has this thread gone ‘Dump Christianity’ by way of VFR (GOV) or has VFR latched on via MR? Does the darkest hour come right before the dawn? VFR 18 November 2009. This discussion is, (at last) filtering down to what it’s always been about from the beginning. End of civilisation. 49
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:52 | #
Adaptive. MacDonald argues that the Christian emphasis on monogamous relationships, especially for elite, wealthy European men, (who were previously as polygamous as their Asiatic counterparts) enabled population control, the accumulation of wealth and ultimately produced a massive technological advantage for Europeans. 50
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:54 | #
Charlemagne, a Roman? 51
Posted by danielj on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:12 | # imposed upon Europe by a traitorous Roman elite Sorry. I was thinking earlier than that and not of one particular ruler. I guess I was thinking about the concessions made by the Roman culture at large. We’ll go with “imposed on Europe by Frankish warmongering and domination” instead. How does that strike you? Does my general point still come through and stand? 52
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:34 | #
There’s a bounty of evidence that Christianity was adaptive for Europeans. It is interesting to note that Constantine and subsequently the Germanic chieftains were Arians, (pre-Charlemagne) who did not necessarily accept the divinity of Christ (I’m not arguing against the divinity of Christ) which gives pause to the claim the Germanic elite (or even Roman elite) were some JC “jock-sniffers”. 53
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:35 | # Desmond, if the wealthy indigenous elite possessed, in many cases, superior ability (translation - IQ) why would it be regarded as maladaptive if, through the ignoring of monogamy, their fecundative activities resulted in the transmission of superior genes? 54
Posted by Q on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:46 | # If Christianity is what caused Euros to be susceptible to Jewish inspired race-replacement—“or is dragging Western Civ down”— then how come Jewish supremacists and committed Marxists spend so much time and energy trying to subvert Christianity? Particularly white Christians? The answer, in part, can be found here:
and here:
/ 55
Posted by danielj on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:19 | # There’s a bounty of evidence that Christianity was adaptive for Europeans. It is interesting to note that Constantine and subsequently the Germanic chieftains were Arians, (pre-Charlemagne) who did not necessarily accept the divinity of Christ (I’m not arguing against the divinity of Christ) which gives pause to the claim the Germanic elite (or even Roman elite) were some JC “jock-sniffers”. I don’t know enough about early Germanic heresies to comment with any certainty and, therefore, certainly not with any authority. Anywho, I was being sarcastic. My point was the whole chain of logic that lays blame for empire contraction/collapse at the feet of Christianity is faulty. There is an entire historical field dedicated to the problem and many of these heaps of rubble that were once empires collapsed on their own without Jews or Christianity. The Jews/Christianity are neither sufficient or necessary explanations for our decay - they just happen to thrive here. Our shitty genes are the problem according to the materialists (even though they are often times too inconsistent in the expression of their philosophy to acknowledge this reality), historical inevitability according to all kinds of historians and the lack of proper reverence for Christ according to some Christian types. Regardless, that is it from me. I’ve got important things to attend to so my MR time is limited. 56
Posted by danielj on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:21 | # Desmond, if the wealthy indigenous elite possessed, in many cases, superior ability (translation - IQ) why would it be regarded as maladaptive if, through the ignoring of monogamy, their fecundative activities resulted in the transmission of superior genes? Doesn’t excessive polygamy result in excessive inbreeding rendering it maladaptive? 57
Posted by Errigal on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:26 | # I just thought of a new pan-Aryan hymn for you guys who think it’s all been downhill since around the 5th century or so. Here’s France Gall singing about “darned Charlemagne”, who introduced schooling to the Franks. “Sacré Charlemagne” could be a new White Nationalist anthem. 58
Posted by Kasimir on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:26 | #
Honestly, danielj, I don’t really have a problem with Christianity as practiced by you or any number of other pro-whites. It is a matter of how it was/is used by elites. And yes, the same could be said of materialism, liberalism, whatever “ism” you care to name, whatever chink there is in the human character to exploit. “Relax bruh.”
That’s interesting, would you care to expand upon this point?
There was a progression from Constantine > Theodosius > the Franks, with Christianity steadily expanding from one to the next. Sorry I wasn’t clear enough. 59
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:40 | # If memory serves GW indicated that the wheels started to come off at the latter end of the Plantaganet era, so rabbiting on about Charlemagne is barking up the wrong tree. I blame Henry II myself, red hot poker up the jacksie’s too good for the likes of him. 60
Posted by Errigal on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:46 | # Christianity started going wrong when most educated men couldn’t believe in it and so it was just hypocrites and fairies who liked to wear dresses in public who showed up for the casting call. It only went really badly in the last 50yrs. 61
Posted by danielj on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:48 | # It is a matter of how it was/is used by elites. And yes, the same could be said of materialism, liberalism, whatever “ism” you care to name, whatever chink there is in the human character to exploit. Indeed. Hear, hear! Relax bruh I am. Sorry if it doesn’t always sound that way. Nobody here really irks me. That’s interesting, would you care to expand upon this point? I was just taking a stab at genetic determinism. I’ve brought it up before in this venue that MacDonald (and perhaps others) have suggested that Europeans are more individualistic and more apt to project their high value on “fairness” to others due to their genetics. I would argue individualism and universalism are central tenets of liberalism and therefore Euros are more predisposed to accept a “brotherhood of man” style, universal religion that has strong emphasis on individual responsibility to a “personal” God which is what Calvin and the Reformers offered us in the 16th century and what was passed down, metastasized, to us in its present incarnations. 63
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:20 | #
I’d date it slightly earlier. Around the time that the protestant churches started to develop a keen interest in taking Africans, Chinese and others into their flocks. The catholic conversions in Latin America don’t count in the same way since no pretence was ever made that it was being done in the spirit of the universal brotherhood of man. 64
Posted by john on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:46 | # The early christians didn’t dump paganism. Changing christian churches into Pagan ones would be a small step compared to the godless liberalisation that has happened to them recently. 65
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:10 | # Liberalism is the grandchild of Christianity. In that sense, it’s the source of our misfortune. However, the good news is that intelligent White men have completely abandoned these stupid and childish fairytales, the bad news that liberalism is Christianity’s aftertaste. While Christianity is dead, I don’t see liberalism undergoing to same fate anytime soon. 66
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:40 | # The cost outweighed the benefit, Al. Think Afghanistan, Pakistan or even China.
67
Posted by Q on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:45 | #
Too bad SOME people around here refuse to understand the origin of, or can’t grasp the reality of those whom propagate the anti-white “liberal” atmosphere we SUFFER under. Hint: It’s organised Jewry. 68
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:49 | # Liberalism, (a term whose meaning was adapted and perverted, like gay or queer) is the grandchild of Anglo-Saxon law, Hengst and Horsa. The Saxonist Jefferson thus argued it was pagan in origin. The Anglo-Saxon, in America, were the chosen people.
69
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:53 | # Christianity makes one irrational and stupid. See this video: Darwin’s theory of evolution because Darwin was racist and sexist and Hitler was a Darwinist. Powerful arguments to counter a scientific theory, no? CNN: Former Teen Idol Kirk Cameron is on a Crusade to Debunk Evolution 71
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:58 | # FB: “Christianity is dead” It is probably good that it is quite dead here (not elsewhere). Understanding of Chistianity too. Christianity is more ethnocentric than you will ever be or can be. Christianity is not an “outdated science” and can’t be compared to it on scientific terms. 72
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:07 | # It’s unfortunate that so many people continue to be confused about the difference between ‘liberalism’ and ‘universalism’. 73
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:31 | # “Christianity is more ethnocentric than you’ll ever know” - A Finn http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDoQaCDMtuo Makes one relieved to know that the old Jew God doesn’t exist. 74
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:27 | # Perhaps, Mr Reis, you might consider, instead, the Roman Catholic etiology of Christianity’s Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome when viewing mere symptoms such as those of the youtube obscenity. 75
Posted by SUCH on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:39 | # Alex Linder is a joke. Uncompromising writing? It’s a shtick, the “Alternative Aryan”, his advocating of violence, and his “City on a Hill” moralizing. Anyone who rails that hard against jews is exhibiting text-book symptoms of Semetic Heritage cover-up. He’s better off being Kanye West’s hype man. 76
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:24 | # Al Ross, God’s existence was never and will never be dependent on you. 77
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:30 | # And Ross, don’t distort what I wrote. I make a prediction. Ten years from now this site has not progressed politically or communally what it is now. 78
Posted by sirrealpolitik on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:45 | # danielj “I’m very impressed with the post and tone which was well written and respectful, respectively.” Ah thanks kindly. And sorry to deride your religion. I was really just meaning to get a rise out of Gorby (grin). But I am glad you were not too offended. Our people don’t get easily offended, I think, unlike “them.” I really have no gripe against anyone’s beliefs in and of themselves. People’s theological leanings or lack thereof have really little bearing on our cause. But let me qualify that: I am inclined to agree with Alex that people like the FLDS in some ways have the right idea, as far as a group survival or reproductive strategy is concerned. This is why they’re so hated by the U.S. mainstream and feds. Surely 35 children per white male cannot be a bad thing when Italy’s birthrate is in the gutter at 1.2 births per couple? What happened to that vaunted Italian machismo? Machisisis-sissy-mo? No? Now, I know some of these FLDS people are hayseeds and all that, but not all of them. I know a few. You would be surprised. This is not to say that our current plight is merely a birthrate issue, of course. But it is part of the equation. Yes. I do see beyond the false Slave Christian/Heroic Promethean dichotomy you describe. Our situation doesn’t have to be seen as such. But from my perspective, I prefer to empathize w/ and emphasize native European culture’s lovely heterodoxy of beliefs, ranging from Stoicism and materialist monism, to the wood lore and horned man (Cernunos) animalism of the bronze age Celts, even to the Indo-Aryan Vedic texts (and of course approving all the gifts that scientific investigations have birthed after Harvey, Willis, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mach, Tesela, Edison, and the like). I know that western Platonism and much of the earlier eurocultural material has been assimilated into Christianity over the years. I mean, it had to have been for the Germanic tribes to buy into it. This is why Easter coincides not with the imagined birth of JC but with the old festival of ?ostre…but at the same time, the do-good doggy dogma was often historically forced upon the native European people at spear-point, or, more often, was foisted upon them by trickery and by the selling-out or buying-off of their tribal chieftains or nation-kings. Thereafter it served to homogenize and make generic the wonderfully various prior systems. I simply find it a little on the sad side. One can find good stuff in it if one puts it there with one’s heart, or makes the necessary connections with the ol’ ‘ead. But surely lots of people have weaponized JC against us for a long time. When people point to the gothic cathedrals as proof of how wonderful it all was, I say that the cathedrals (beautiful, surely) were built despite and not because of it. You’ve been to the Pantheon in Rome, right? It makes my point for me. But, as my “admiration” for the FLDS would indicate, I have a more utilitarian view of these things than anything. I have my own aesthetic preferences, surely. But at the end of the day, I embrace Jefferson’s idea that diversity of opinions is a benign and inevitable consequence of a literate populace. I don’t want to consign anyone to the bed of Procruses or anything. sp 79
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:45 | #
You need to start officially blogging here, Finn, to help assure we’ll be in the best possible position ten years from now. 80
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:55 | # I apologise, Oh Flappable Finn, for typing “know” instead of “be” and for claiming that old Yahweh’s existence depended on me, although my memory of this claim is uncertain. Carry on as usual then; lying for Jesus and polluting MR with arrant nonsense about airborne Jewish spirits. 81
Posted by sirrealpolitik on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:57 | # oops i meant to say easter doesn’t necessarily coincide with the DEATH/resurrection of JC… but nor does Xmas coincide w/ his birth, as much as it does the winter solstice… but this is all kindergarten stuff… xo 82
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:04 | # Oh Christ no, Fred. Not him. Your proprietorial attitude to GW’s blog is surely inappropriate at times. You are a far more worthy candidate for the blog - owner to consider in terms of posting articles. Irrational rubbish and Middle - Eastern derived mythology is unlikely to be the main feature of your contribution. 83
Posted by Observing Jack on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:17 | # The main problem with the interview is that you didn’t ask him any hard questions about his absurd belief in the Main Jewish Cause theory. 84
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:05 | # Fred, thank you. According to strategist John Boyd, when a group’s communication is detached from the outside reality, it becomes increasingly irrational, dysfunctional and/or extreme, and it will be one of strategic factors in it’s downfall (artifically induced or spontaneously created by the group itself). The signs of it can be seen in this site. Because the reality and product of this site are almost exclusively letters in the screen, the downfall might be limited just to staying small, strange and extreme oddity in the cyberspace. Fred, I tried to explain in the following article’s comments a little bit how my views differ from the Jew-centric/ Jews only -explanations, etc. Some repetition to you, but something new also. Maybe there is something useful to you. I probably comment in the future mostly at Mangan’s site in English language. http://www.toqonline.com/2009/11/implicit-white-communities-2/#comments I thank Ross for finally contributing something; I learned a new word, flappable. I think your definition was a bit overconfident. I am not the worrying type; including some pejorative comments in the internet. 85
Posted by h.kalervo on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:28 | # Ah, the old dispute between old Wagner and mature Nietzsche, between Christ and anti-Christ. “Let’s have faith in our heavenly friendship even though doomed to be enemies here on earth”? No, let’s rather remember that Wagner had an intelligent wife and many children and incredibly much positive influence on culture (and I don’t mean his music), while you, Nietzsche, died lonely and your pan-European rhetoric, although aesthetically unsurpassed, has always been rather weak in terms of its final effect on the world compared to Wagner’s similar efforts even when you take into account your dead-hand influence from beyond the grave. It was you who broke the friendship, too. Let’s not forget - mocking Christianity is stupid. Wagner learned this, in his old age, and one might almost say - converted. Nietzsche never did, because he died young. Or to quote a man with a clinically tested IQ of 183: I believe your irrational irreligious zeal and dogmatic conviction that Christianity is by nature bad is clouding your judgement on the irrational dogma of Christianity due to its irrational zeal. Remember, if there is anything crazier than believing God is the only thing that can save us, it’s believing that the State or human nature can save us. Now that’s really baked-in crazy. What was good enough for our ancestors is good enough for me, too. I figure I better hold my judgement on who had balls until my generation gets their first taste of real life. Our ancestors seemed to believe their faith was worth keeping and I am not letting any consumer units talk me out of mine. You can tell me more after you prove you can build and maintain a civilization instead of just living in the ruins. (I would have added that the Third Reich was devoutly Christian in terms of its population.) 86
Posted by a Finn on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:30 | # Addition: I explained my views on Christianity in recent thread about religion in this site, so I will not repeat myself. These recent two comments might give additional points: Steven E. Romer (commenter) wrote eloquently and in different times he probably would have been a priest. However, as it is so often with beautiful scientific ideas, at the last moment a fly flies into the teleportation machine with destructive consequences (The Fly [1986], Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis; directed by David Cronenberg). It is my unfortunate responsibility to humbly and shortly point to some of the problems with my slightly dyslexic English. ******** Before we can answer who should rule, we should ask what is power, what is rule, what are it’s goals and methods? Now we have here confused alternatives sharing an imaginary cake, which none of them can bake. We could start like this: 1. What is the proportion of liberalism and traditional conservatism in society? Liberalism commercializes (business, market), bureaucratizes and directs to ngo’s everything that is in humans; needs, normal, abnormal, all kinds of foreigners, strangers etc. The “good” part in this is that it generates a lot of commerce and clientilism, thus support jobs, but it degenerates, overtaxes, creates exogamy, depletes, atomizes and eventually destroys society. Traditional conservatism supports austere and dynamic work and public morality, protects Europeans/natives and gives society endurance, but when less of what is in humans is commercialized and clientilized, it produces less consumption in the home market. Thus society would have to export more or it would have to settle for slightly less (This is the price we have to pay for society’s endurance). 2. System complexity. Large cities are complex systems, that require or spawn large numbers of specialized experts; water purification chemists, sewage system engineers, modern art producers, art critics, air ventilation experts for large buildings, tolerance bureaucrats, pet physicians etc. Existence of complexity in itself creates pressure towards liberalism. Also, because in big cities large numbers of strangers constantly meet and interact with each other, management of this creates pressure towards tolerance and liberalism (to ensure the productive uninterrupted flow of people, things, services and capital). In little towns systems are less complex, so less specialists are needed. E.g. compost outhouse toilet might be enough and modern art critics are a rarity. Small towns are also more independent of outside systems. Their inhabitants can more easily produce their own food, energy, housing etc. than big city residents. Unemployment is less threatening. In small towns often similar people who know each other meet in peaceful pace. Thus there is not need for nor pressure towards tolerance for strangers and liberalism. Conservative morality works well. The structure of areas decide much of their cultural content or pressure towards certain cultural content. Etc. P.s. No soft or hard dictatorship for me. 87
Posted by danielj on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:33 | # It’s unfortunate that so many people continue to be confused about the difference between ‘liberalism’ and ‘universalism’. Am I missing something Dan? I had stated that I believed universalism to be a tenet of liberalism. Am I wrong there? Maybe you could expand on your point a little bit. 88
Posted by danielj on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:41 | # I really have no gripe against anyone’s beliefs in and of themselves. People’s theological leanings or lack thereof have really little bearing on our cause. I still believe that despite everything that has been said by people of all theological persuasions that consider themselves nationalists. No? Now, I know some of these FLDS people are hayseeds and all that, but not all of them. I know a few. You would be surprised. This is not to say that our current plight is merely a birthrate issue, of course. But it is part of the equation. Indeed. The media frames white fecundity as morbidly fascinating and net negative. They have declared siring children to be a waste of time and restriction on personal liberty that is not worth the trade off of continuing one’s line. When people point to the gothic cathedrals as proof of how wonderful it all was, I say that the cathedrals (beautiful, surely) were built despite and not because of it. You’ve been to the Pantheon in Rome, right? It makes my point for me. The commenter the Narrator often makes this point and I’ve essentially attested to its validity. Europe has its own Christianity that the rest of the world is incapable of recreating. I wouldn’t argue that Christianity hindered the building of grand buildings and temples and thus the cathedrals were built despite, but rather, that they would have been built anyway so the general thrust of the sentiment I can agree with. 89
Posted by h.kalervo on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:06 | # It seems to me if the pre-Christian era of enlightened aryan barbarism was so good and productive we should be able to find ancient Greek and Roman bases on the moon and their satellites still orbiting the earth. What? Didn’t the pre-Christian Whites have thousands, tens of thousands, of years to reach the orbit? What gives? Did Christianity appear out of nowhere like the devil to spoil their efforts just when they were about to begin their first moon mission? Sure. Christianity bad. Whatever you say. On the other hand, I have a TV set that keeps saying the same thing, so not sure why you feel the need to repeat it. I can just imagine Ceasar speaking to his legions his voice raised to a carrying pitch, “Just a few more conquests boys, and then we’ll head back home so we can start building that moon rocket thing my wife wants to see finished by the end of the year. Yeah, our boys are flying to the moon, any time now. We’re edjumafacated and so on and so forth.” Then came Christianity and spoiled all that, made people like Newton spend their time trying to understand God by understanding God’s universe. Without Christianity befuddling his thoughts, Newton would have spent his spare time much more productively by marching to Gallia with his penis erect. 90
Posted by Anonymous jew blogger claims he is smarter than Hi on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:08 | # the jew blogger mendacious jewbug claimed that he is smarter than Hitler:
from http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/11/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html 91
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:19 | # Ah, Mencius the mischling. Visited him once, when Tanstaafl out up a post on him. The thread is here: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist.html 92
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:27 | # Finn, your very interesting post above at 9:30 AM reminds me a lot of James Kalb’s thinking. In many passages it’s almost identical. If you don’t know him, here’s his overall web-site, http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/ , and here’s his blog, http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node . He had greatly slackened off in his blogging for a while, but he’s just announced he’ll be picking up the pace again, whereof here’s an example, http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2824 . Here’s a comment containing a few Kalb links of potential interest, http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/clash_of_the_titans/#c84610 , and here’s Kalb’s highly praised book about liberalism, I remember reading at his site somewhere that a few of his essays have been translated into the Finnish language (I forget which ones). 93
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:39 | # (Remember, if when ordering a book from Amazon.com you enter Amazon through the Amazon.com logo on Vdare.com’s home page [left-hand margin, not far from the top] Vdare will automatically receive a small commission at zero extra cost to you. I purchase all my Amazon books by entering through Vdare.com.) 94
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:56 | # @danielj - the simple point I am putting is that liberalism, in the Lockean sense, was never intended to be of universal application. It had a specific geographic, even ethnic, connotation. The social contract was not for export. Acting in a ‘liberal’ manner towards one’s extended kinsmen, that is dealing with them fairly and sympathetically is, as Desmond notes, the default Anglo-Saxon model. It is not necessarily a mode of behaviour that has to be adopted towards others, which is what the dogma of universalism requires. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Welfare State, in fact it is one of European civilisation’s crowning achievements. It just doesn’t scale awfully well beyond an identifiable and ethnically-common population. That’s why Sweden is a welfare state and the US is not. We’ve seen this before but it’s quite germane to the point. 95
Posted by Metal Gear / Iceman on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:58 | # I’m smarter than Hitler too and will take an IT test online with all of you watching to prove it. 96
Posted by danielj on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:33 | # @danielj - the simple point I am putting is that liberalism, in the Lockean sense, was never intended to be of universal application. It had a specific geographic, even ethnic, connotation. The social contract was not for export. That was my assumption. I just thought perhaps you were misreading me and were leveling a charge at me. 97
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:35 | #
How would that prove it? Hitler is not present to be tested for comparison. Btw, Hitler was noted for his near photographic recall of statistics relevant to the war effort. No one ever ascribed such a talent to Goring, who tested at IQ 138 at Nuremberg. 98
Posted by Mark on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:49 | # “Friedrich Braun on November 21, 2009, 02:53 AM | # Christianity makes one irrational and stupid. See this video: Darwin’s theory of evolution because Darwin was racist and sexist and Hitler was a Darwinist. Powerful arguments to counter a scientific theory, no? CNN: Former Teen Idol Kirk Cameron is on a Crusade to Debunk Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TO5mjKrfr8&feature=sub” They showed a picture in that book showing Adam and Eve as Northern Europeans, which is considered racist and Eurocentric. 99
Posted by Kasimir on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:24 | #
TJB Uh huh, which is why you and Mencius are a couple of anonymous internet proles while Hitler went from being a humble provincial to being the Leader of one of the most powerful countries the world has ever seen. Keep jacking off. Gawd! Is there any creature more narcissistic than the Jew? 100
Posted by h.kalervo on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:45 | # This is why the Jew hates Christianity: http://news.aol.com/article/teen-birth-rates-higher-in-bible-belt/674301 Perhaps there is something to the old proverb: “All those that hate me love death.” And I’m making this suggestion as a convinced atheist. 101
Posted by h.kalervo on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:47 | # Men might be able to live with dignity without God, but women have shown themselves to be unable to. Once you “liberate” them from their God, you liberate them from life. And the civilization is soon to follow them into ruin. 102
Posted by PF on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:26 | # Does anyone else get the feeling that our little cling-clang dialogue confirms the sensibility of GWs stance on Christianity as a non-debatable issue? Who is being convinced, specifically, and of what? Its also ingenuine in some sense to debate Christianity on terms of 1) political expediency to white causes because anyone deciding for or against Christianity would have to do so because of deeper felt reasons, or have no intellectual conscience. If one were in possession of these *deeper reasons*, one would naturally have to prioritize them above political expediency and argue from the deeper reasons to the political expediency. Finding examples pro and con in 2,000 years of history is easy. A complete analysis is not possible unless your view is colored by deeper reasons, which will make a complete analysis quite easy, emotionally speaking.
This is grubbing around in the historical graveyard for pro-Christian evidence of the enlightened Wagner and supposedly childish deracinated (?) Nietzsche, judging both based on their apparent posthumous influence - a very difficult set of variables to measure. If Wagner having children and an intelligent wife makes him “better” than Nietzsche, than my father also stands above Friedrich Nietzsche. Wagner’s positive influence on culture is a simple reading of something massively complex. He helped to foment a great deal of nationalism, which ultimately drove Germany to court destruction at the hands of us anglos. Hitler listened rapturously to his operas, and there is evidence of Hitler viewing and listening to them many, many times. I don’t think the huge build-up of nationalism in Germany resulted in much practical good for Germany, although thats arguable. But don’t talk to me, talk to any historically literate German, who is almost certain to see the issue as much more ambiguous than you are making it appear. Nationalism certainly was a two-edged sort on which Germany cut herself pretty bad, i.e. an idea for which many many millions of Germans went to the grave semi-unnecessarily. Germans at least understand this, although their more nuanced understanding is underwritten by some anglosphere WNs as ‘brainwashedness’ or ‘lack of dedication to cause’. You don’t understand the dynamics of that friendship (not saying I do 100% of course, I wasnt there) if you think that Nietzsche broke the friendship off. There was from the beginning a semi-sycophantic master-pupil dynamic to that relationship, with Nietzsche basically copy-editing and acting as propagandist for “Wagner as Renaissance man and figure of German cultural instauration” (roughly how he conceived of himself). This was fine while Nietzsche was the fatherless, alienated Seeker in search of a social milieu, but after his ideas ripened this sort of respect and uncritical audience which Wagner, himself much less a Seeker much more an established Guru with his own vision, actually required. Not being able to share enthusiasm over Schopenhauer, The Spirit of Tragedy, the rebirth of German music, and whatever else they had raved about in the early decade (half decade?) of their friendship…. it probably was more the irreparable loss of common ground due to growing apart, rather than a simple dismissal of Wagner on Nietzsche’s part. Nietzsche for his part most likely simply perceived that this has happened clearly enough to break it off… in my experience friendships, especially intellectual ones, tend to fall apart mutually after a time. After a certain period people stop ‘getting enough out of it’ to merit maintaining the friendship. If you actually decided in favor of Christianity because of the difference between Wagner and Nietzsche, you would be a fool, so why put that forward as evidence. Nietzsche will go down in history as a first-tier thinker (whatever that means in the future context of books and literary prestige), and Wagner as a second or third-tier thinker. Eventually Wagner will be primarily mentioned only as a composer, or in the context of his connection with Nietzsche. Being burdened with a heavier truth-load is what alienated Nietzsche and prevented him from properly mating and reproducing, as a normal man does (among other psychological dynamics which I mentioned in a prior most likely completely forgotten comment). 103
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:57 | #
Well, I will admit to having a little dig, but it wasn’t at you. 104
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:23 | #
Racialist Christians of the inability of “white nationalism” to satisfy their ecological needs. 105
Posted by Frank on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:36 | #
He’s only half Jewish or so going by another post of his (from my memory), but that sort of narcissism isn’t appealing… Deeds are more impressive than success, and IQ tests aren’t accurate if one has trained for them. Also, savants aren’t usually high functioning - a race of Rain Men isn’t going to be a happy lot.
So Germany would have fared better weak? What of the Russian bear? The Norns spun Germany’s fate - it’s surely not so easy to know what might have happened had a thread run differently. It’s pleasant to cheer the winners and condemn the losers though! 106
Posted by PF on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:18 | # Christianity and the English/British cultural cannon ..my musings.. Placing this ossified, unintelligible Eastern scripture as the bedrock of our culture means we are perpetually forced to encounter in our most intimate mystical moments - or even more importantly, all our ancestors were forced to encounter and use as a tissue of interpretation - something that speaks in a foreign tonality, something which speaks ‘Desert’ and, reiterated a thousand times, will never and can never speak ‘Forest’ or ‘Heath’, which is our language. Thats why it doesnt draw, thats why it doesnt seduce, thats why magical stories from the past become with us enforced pomp that puts us to sleep! It doesnt resonate and it never can, but with a rare few, and but by those who are championing its social effects and psychological effects for them. Our culture (British Christian culture) is built on an ancient self-betrayal. Thats one of the reasons our children are instinctively trying to destroy it, because in the mustiness and dankness of Hebraicized Anglodom they sense a foreign pong. We are adventurist, sportive, brusque and slightly fatalist, with a martial history, unfolding in northern European scenery: and that is totally inadequate but its the best description I can render. This goat herding stuff and all the goody-goody Jane Eyre nonsense of us trying to embody middle eastern goat-herder morality, doesn’t reflect our nature. The Vikings accepting Christ had as little idea what was being done as when our fathers accepted Political Correctness, they could not have known, it was sold to them in the most innocent colors and they didnt have the abstract understanding to see its implications. The same people sold it to us, the ancient artisans of ideas! We now have the choice to suffer the loss of religion and its benefits (also a self-betrayal) or try to cram our foot for the thousandth time into an ill-fitting shoe, justifying the great struggle because spirituality ... is meant… to be difficult.. (?). It doesn’t work, it didnt work back then, it doesnt work now, and IF it did work, there would be no John Lennon because he couldnt draw crowds with a simple tune if we had built a house for the artists and dreamers of all our past ages to live comfortably in and be united by, as opposed to them experiencing our supposedly unifying principles of religion as an ongoing denial of their being. There is no anchor because all of our freest hearts desperately want out of this contraption, and now we are punished for wanting out, because we hate the smell, with the reprimand: “Christians have more babies”. Behold the Christian with his gaggle of children. Why not also be poor, since the poor likewise have more children? Each of us could conceive children tommorow if we made some poor decisions, is the recommendation seriously to abandon bettering one’s lot in order to become pawn-statistics in a putative WN battle which is not even happening? Or to get the approval of anonymous internet posters? How much more insane to surrender what spiritual independence one has, in the name of out-birthing the non-European Other. That idea makes sense on paper but is nuts in reality, like so many ideas that one encounters. Regarding all our creative men of past ages and the chaotic disunity of voices in our history… As is, we crammed them into our schizophrenic borrowed Hebrew house, and the more gracious of them obliged us because they were wise enough not to take it seriously and their grandeur of spirit made that possible. No coherent whole has ever emerged from this and the strongest part of the Western cannon, the least ambiguous part, is still pre-Christian Greek and Roman letters. And I say that as someone who in no way wants this to be true. For me, British children being given names taken from Hebrew scripture is also a part of our dispossession. We may only now have the sense to realize this, and we are inured to it by eons of experience. Not reclaiming that most important spiritual space, and knowing that your children face an eternity of reiteration of Hebrew scripture, why do you even want your neighborhood back? If I name my kid ‘Josaiah’ and teach him that the Psalms are his guiding star, why do I even care what kind of girlfriend he brings home? The Bible was MTV and Hollywood version 1.0. 107
Posted by PF on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:23 | # .oops… ranting… and my implication at the end was exaggerated. I’d prefer to imitate a bastardized Hebraic culture than be completely dispossessed. 108
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:46 | # Traditional conservative values evinced by the National Socialist Krautess Getrud Scholz-Klink that may be of interest to Christians and Englishmen:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/scholtz-klink1.htm
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/pt36frau.htm Filthy Krauts. 109
Posted by danielj on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:30 | # Our culture (British Christian culture) is built on an ancient self-betrayal. Thats one of the reasons our children are instinctively trying to destroy it, because in the mustiness and dankness of Hebraicized Anglodom they sense a foreign pong. Wrong. They are buying the Jew and the atheists bull shit because it is easy to live without claims on one’s existence, without acknowledging the complete and utter contingency of their position. They like MTV and cheap and easy sex. You might sense a foreign pong, but I doubt that that is the case for your abandonment of the religion of our fathers. If it is the reason, you yourself are guilty of violating the criteria you set forth for examining the claims of Christianity. All that matters is whether or not it is true and I can rest assured that it is. Acknowledging that you are a contingent creature and renouncing your autonomy is simple and won’t change your genetics in any way. because anyone deciding for or against Christianity would have to do so because of deeper felt reasons, or have no intellectual conscience. If one were in possession of these *deeper reasons*, one would naturally have to prioritize them above political expediency and argue from the deeper reasons to the political expediency. I have an intellectual conscience and I can’t do violence to it by accepting an empiricist materialism that cannot account for the intelligibility of the universe. Nationalism certainly was a two-edged sort on which Germany cut herself pretty bad, i.e. an idea for which many many millions of Germans went to the grave semi-unnecessarily. Yes! Germany certainly cut herself on the sword of English nationalism! Pity it wasn’t the London stock brokers left defeated and filthy, starving in piles of rubble rather than all those filthy Krauts. 110
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:10 | # Fred, thank you for the link. Interesting, and clearly Kalb is knowledgeable. He has all the necessary dots and juggles them skillfully in the air, but it seems that he might have not made the last connections between them to produce the view of liberalism as maximal resource acquisition for the “elites” and the facilitation of consuming and productive flows by liberal principles. Very useful still. To the atheists: One of the many good parts about religion is that it is not scientifically provable. The certainty of belief in God without scientific proves flies violently against atheists’ requests of them, and I love it. I love religion. I love God. God and religion will always prevent the controlling attempts, actions and productions of man and humiliates their overconfident fumbling “rationality”. Everlasting life can’t be reached through micromanagement, liberal or darwinist materialist. Think about your own death, it is good for you. 111
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:44 | #
Could you explain that, Desmond? I’m not sure I understand.
The Iceman isn’t Jewish or a narcissist (he’s too dense for narcissism). He claims to have a Russian-Jewish grandfather, which no more makes a man Jewish than a Salonika-Jewish grandfather (Sarcoma is 100% Catholic). (and 100% malignant.) (The Iceman is a 100% non-entity.)
As a general thing, Euro-race men should strive toward marriage with Euro-race women leading to the founding of Euro-race families with children. PF’s attack there on this notion is so shallow it’s almost not even worth noticing. In that attack, moreover, PF shows himself in a few ways to be no particular friend of the aims of this web-site.
For PF, a Christian identity for Eurodom is so horrible that until it’s done away with there’s zero reason to question the wisdom of changing Eurodom racially from white to Negro. Does that sound like someone who is in sympathy with the aims of this web-site? PF’s son (this is purely theoretical, as, disdaining procreation, PF will never have a son) marrying a Negro, extinguishing PF’s line from the white race and assisting in the white race’s extermination, is no worse than his son being a Christian and valuing the wisdom of the Psalms. No comment needed there, I trust. Yes Al Ross disdains Christianity as much as you, PF, but he doesn’t imply, like you, that he’d rather have Negro than Christian posterity. At the rate you’re going you’ll likely wind up with both rolled into one: Negro Christians. Are you sure you’re commenting at the right blog? Did you mix us up with the Daily Joss House or the Puffington the Magic Negro Post? 112
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:50 | # I just saw the following by PF after posting my comment above:
OK he’s exonerated himself. But something tells me PF will turn out to be a “wet” on race-replacement. 113
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:10 | # Finn: I love religion. I love God. But what loves religion? What loves God? In this love, who are you, Finn? And if the answer is not “I am” ... if the answer still contains subject and object, then you are merely expressing an emotional need (albeit one that is of consuming importance to you). As I said to Alex, faith is adaptive. Faith is good. Faith will exist no matter what. Those in whom the genes are either absent or unexpressed are not better men for being more rational, or for the questions that exist inside their heads in the place where faith is not. Criticism of faith per se is unhelpful. But criticism of the utility, of the adaptiveness of a particular religion is proper. For that reason and contrary to Fred’s view, the only really provocative thought on this page is PF’s. Perhaps, because he is a more sensitive and intellectually gifted person than I am, he can walk into the cool, damp air of an old Norman church and find something more than the touching, ossified sincerity of our betrayed forefathers. But he cannot know precisely what life-gifts the true European faith bestowed. None of us can. The earth was scorched too well and too deeply by those who took so hard against it, and took no thought of the consequences to those who came after. 114
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:12 | # My favorite part of the interview was the proposal that there be a lottery for a public blood sacrifice of those who would presume to occupy positions of public trust and authority. An interesting idea. To avoid dysgenics, there needs to be an associated guarantee that the individual so sacrificed is propagated genetically in a nurturing environment. The sacrifice of the sacred king is of course called to mind and was discussed quite a bit in my interview with Andrew Fraser. However, I prefer nature’s way: Unobserved single combat in a state of nature resulting from a formal challenge (with public statement of the reason). By “state of nature” I mean a territory large enough for the use of strategy and tools/weapons and tools/weapons standardized to represent those an individual would be able to make from nature and carry himself such as a 10 inch sword and 15 meters of strong cordage. We need men like Andrew Jackson unencumbered by a dysgenic code duello. 115
Posted by Euro on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:10 | # I recommend reading The Pagan Temptation by Thomas Molnar for a keen analysis of the problem of Christianity in the West.Molnar writes from a traditional Catholic perspective.However,he is erudite and is not fanatic. Though I haven’t read it in some time,Molnar’s thesis is this: Christianity introduced the concept of the supernatural.In so doing it demoted the status of the natural world.In paganism the natural world is supreme.Since supernaturalism is difficult for the human mind to grasp,it requires a medium or symbol through which it may be approached.Mediums and symbols can only be provided from nature and naturalistic religious antecedents.Christianity consequently absorbed and assimilated a fair amount of ancient paganism.Meanwhile it’s anti-naturalistic supernaturalism undercut paganism and with it the naturalistic underpinnings of it’s own assimilated pagan elements.Thereby shooting itself in the proverbial foot. So now Jews are raping thirteen year old girls* (White,of course),Muslims are gang raping European women all over the continent;and Christers are yammering about anti-Semitism,ecumenism and Western pornography. Here’s the book: http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Temptation-Thomas-Molnar/dp/0802802621 * See Roman Polansky 116
Posted by Frank on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:58 | # CC, have you ever met someone other than a Jew or homosexual or Marxist who didn’t like Krauts? It’s always NS I hear denounced, not Germans themselves. The world hates Southerners though, but that’s a different story. We’re truly oppressed and hated; y’all have it easy 117
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:26 | #
I wonder if one motivation for white miscegenation with Negroes could conceivably be the instinctual wish that one’s personal bloodline not be eliminated over time through competition other whites? (See footnote below for explanation of this mechanism, as illustrated through the female/mitochondrial-DNA line.) Take a white woman who willingly miscegenates with a Negro: her personal bloodline, now passed on through her mulatto child, would be disfavored among whites (because passed on as mulatto now) but thanks to the one-drop rule she, in miscegenating, will have left the white population and taken her personal bloodline with her, so now in the new population she’s entered the competition is weaker because inferior to whites, and her personal bloodline will be favored over the long term in the competition for survival among all individual Negro female bloodlines making up that Negro population which she’s decided to enter. Thus will her personal female bloodline stand a better chance of becoming, let’s say, some future “mitochondrial Eve,” so to speak, since it’s superior to the Negro lines. If this might he a mechanism it hearkens back to Desmond’s often pointing out underlying white self-interest, either at the group or individual level, in doing things that at first glance appear harmful/unadaptive.
118
Posted by Frank on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:36 | # Fred, I like the one drop rule in theory, but if you applied that… you’d eliminate nearly all the white activists. Strength through purity is strong in theory, but I’m doubtful whites even exist anymore. That said, even if I turned out to be mulatto I’d still be a sort of Nordicist, would still be serving the same people; but most are nationalist out of a sort of vanity - they love what they are. Though once they have children, they’re going to also love whatever those children are. 119
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:37 | # Perhaps a small bit of succor for the sufferings of Southerners, Frank: In Gottfried’s recent interview with Sunic he said it was niceness which destroyed WASP America, that Southerners should be nasty in resisting giving up their Confederate flags and their heritage, and that America is insufficiently anti-Semitic. Of course, we all knew he knew the truth all along. Still, I doubt he’ll be throwing his support behind NS any time soon. 120
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:51 | # It is all there, just waiting to be fleshed out: GW has concluded that European Man is possessed by a drive to master his external environment, a drive which if not outwardly-directed turns in on and devours himself - yet he baulks at the obvious, that European Man, particularly Nordic Man, is the Master Race. So much so, that he credits PF for his sensitivity and precision of thought for thinking in a way which rationalizes PF not striving to pass on his own genes; instead of rebuking him for foolish navel-gazing which is surely not the intellectually and morally sensitive accent PF thinks he is taking. All to keep from admitting that European Man in all his other parts is best served by being in the beneficent orbit of Germanic Man. 121
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:17 | # It is has been posited in the past that Joseph Goebbels, considered an intellectual heavyweight, did not truly buy the National Socialist line in its entirety because if he did, then by definition he was not an intellectual heavyweight, and he was an intellectual heavyweight, therefore he didn’t buy National Socialism in its entirety. But does not the way in which Goebbels actually behaved belie such a contention? Well, Goebbels, discernible by the way he actually behaved, was absolutely loyal to Adolf Hitler, the man he acknowledged as his Fuhrer; so much was Goebbels bound to Hitler that he willed his own death that Hitler’s side, and even the lives of his own children there too. Those are not the actions of a man who was not utterly sincere, and utterly devoted to his principles. And, if intellectual heavyweight he indeed was, perhaps we should consider the possible correctness of his beliefs and actions. Also, the idea that to stand for one’s people and against their enemies in as muscular terms as one can muster is the mark of effemination is a risible absurdity that if taken seriously leads straight to the grave. 122
Posted by Frank on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:31 | # I honour pre-NS Germanic man. I’m still wary of NS Germanic man. Actually believing in or valuing someone or something makes Goebbels a light weight? I’ve got to print out Gottfried’s latest now to read. You read more at Takimag than I do. 123
Posted by Bob on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:34 | # Linder: ~~ “We could be 50 countries!” Yes! The KikeJew’s ultimate wet-dream… a ‘divide&conquer;’ nirvana ... ——————————————————————————————————————- Big is Good… If WE are the BIG ONES!
124
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:42 | # I’m ignoring the religion stuff
Space. Sooner or later a big rock will smash into the earth and that will be that. Alternatively eventually the sun will burn out. Our descendents need to be on some other planet somewhere with an English pub before either of those two things happen. Obviously we need to survive the current attempted genocide and rearrange a few things first but sooner or later we need to go up there.
Not quite what you asked but i’d say first on any list would be the classics. Almost anything sensible ever written was said first and in clearer language by the Ancient Greeks and Romans. After that the various mythologies and then MacDonald. Captain
Quite. 125
Posted by Fascist on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:38 | # I believe that Jews were one of several causes for white racial decline in America. But Linder blames the Jews way too much. He seems to think that just about everything wrong with America and the world stems from Jews. Indeed, at one point in the interview he even stated that there is “nothing fundamentally wrong with white people!” In my opinion, this line of thinking is absolutely ridiculous. I don’t know the kind of white people that Linder hangs around, but any white nationalist who interacts with white Americans on a daily basis should know that there is something extremely wrong with white people. Outside of cyberspace, practically no whites share our views, the vast majority being extremely hostile to them. Moreover, race-mixing has become totally mainstream and I see interracial couples on a daily basis. In fact, there have been studies done that have found that more than one out of three white Americans have dated someone of another race. No amount of Jewish propaganda should be able to make white people act like that. Jewish influence may have been extremely important in white racial decline, but by far the most important reason white America was destroyed is the nature of whites themselves. To put it bluntly, the vast majority of them simply just don’t care too much about their race. That’s just their nature. And the ones that would care if they lived in a healthy society are too dumb and too lacking of the ability to think for themselves to resist the multiracial propaganda. 126
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:41 | #
And yet their “nature” was the exact opposite of this within living memory. Humans are programmed to copy what they see. Hollywood. Television. jews. 127
Posted by Fascist on Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:40 | # Wandrin, You make a good point. However, I just don’t see how any amount of propaganda could make whites in America (or most other places) act the way they do today. Not only do practically all of them disagree with any notions of white racial solidarity, but they are extremely hostile and derisive towards it. Moreover, even if you are right and it’s all because of indoctrination then that just further shows how stupid they are and how much they can’t think for themselves. Also, it’s possible that past racialism is exaggerated. There was always a strong cosmopolitan and anti-racist streak throughout the entirety of American history. For example, the desire to free blacks was the main reason for the bloodiest war in American history: the Civil War. Furthermore, after that war the North attempted to impose black equality on the South just as they would more successfully do in the 1950s and 1960s. And there was fairly significant Asian and Hispanic immigration to America during times when you would have thought that whites wouldn’t have stood for it. Here’s a link to a study that found that more than one out of three white Americans have dated outside of their race: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/USAttitudesTowardInterracialDatingAreLiberalizing.aspx Even if that study overestimates the prevalence of race-mixing, it can’t be that far off. I would say that at least 1/5 or 1/4 of whites have dated outside of their race. I just don’t think that people are such lemmings and that indoctrination can make them act like that. 128
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:03 | #
The multicult is a religion. Religion can make people do anything. The multicult religion says being white is racist and bad. The multicult religion says having mixed relationship is how you prove you’re non-racist and good. So that’s what people do - or at least the most suggestible - the ones that hypnosis would work on. The multicult is a religion. jews are the priesthood. Television and Hollywood are the pulpits. The irony is this religion of anti-racism is genocidal jewish racism in disguise. 129
Posted by Mark on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:35 | # I agree with Fascist. Although it’s not something specific to whites, it’s more of a human condition. We bond with those around us. Unless you have religious and ethnic pressures that exclude outsiders like Jews do. Jewish organizations have gone to great links to dismantle our ability to segregate ourselves. The best we can do now is live in white enclaves and home school or pay for private schools. From that link the study showed that an integrated school more than anything else increased interracial relationships the most. 130
Posted by Mark on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:37 | # *Jewish organizations have gone to great lengths to dismantle our ability to segregate ourselves. 131
Posted by AD on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:04 | # Wandrin, Those factors are just accelerators. It would have eventually happened anyway. Prohibitions against the practice would have delayed (and can only delay) the inevitable—by many centuries, depending on the numbers involved—but time changes everything; resistance first weakens, then, as relations between various differentiated types grow warmer, collapses, and what was previously unthinkable becomes unquestionable. Of course, absent those accelerators there might have been more time for a more effective reaction. As we know, the reaction that did occur was pathetic, an epic joke. And it still is. (See Captain Crudheap recently bemoaning the Amerian partition scenario that offers the only genuine ray of hope because it would make the reconquest of America that much more ‘difficult’—as though the continuation of present trends instead makes it easier.) Hardest for the racial activist to accept, I think, is the lack of racial revulsion among the populace, something he has forever overestimated. This is an important question, as the answer to it will in large part determine what the most appropriate course of action is, and I could be dead wrong, but my guess is that most people out there are not quietly suppressing their racial revulsion; they have instead simply largely lost it. To expect, then, that racial appeals, be they direct or indirect, will touch people’s innermost racial yearnings is to be continually disappointed. If that’s the case, you’ll have to restrict yourself to defensive racialism, which is still quite potent. 132
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:55 | # Fascist is correct. The real culprit is close racial proximity and not the Zhoos, to the chagrin of simpletons, sociopaths, and known liars like Linder. The exogamy rate for Jews during the Weimar republic was similar to the current rate in the U.S. Racial mixing occurred in apartheid South African (remember, South Africa has a “mixed” population), not because Whites - the poor mindless lemmings without a will - fell victim to Jewish propaganda but because racial proximity = race mixing. Therefore, the only solution that will work is complete racial segregation. Now, there’s no doubt that the there’s truth to what Wanderin is saying and popular culture, and political correctness accelerates race mixing and makes is not only socially acceptable but in some cases socially desirable - it’s a way to prove that one is not racist but progressive and open-minded, and racism is the greatest of crimes, of course. However, I would agree with Fascist that in the real world any hint of White Nationalism or even of race consciousness on the part of Whites has you marked for extreme opprobrium and personal and professional ruin. Never mind Linder’s genocidal speech about exterminating all Jews. This type of banter does more to turn Whites away from White Nationalism than a million Frankfurt School Jews working overtime. The quicker we isolate and exclude the Linders from polite company, the better off all of us will be and the idea of building a White biosphere might yet stand a fighting chance. In ten years of activism the only thing that Linder has accomplished is a small forum with a handful of low I.Q. sociopaths. American White Nationalists won’t have anything to do with him. Duke? Nope. Black? Nope. They won’t even talk to him. His rhetoric turns 99.9999% of Whites away. Why would a sane White person be attracted to a morally repulsive individual and his one-note solution to all of our problems? No matter the question “Jews” is ALWAYS the answer. That might work with his tiny coterie of mental defectives on VNNForum but is a loser in the general population. His Jewish monomania is not only empirically false but a poor propagandistic strategy. The J.Q. is too complex to be readily understood by the average White person. You’ve got to be able to reach folks who don’t read T.O.Q. or MacDonald, i.e. practically everyone. I don’t mind a discussion of the Jewish role if it’s done in a nuanced and scholarly fashion, but that’s obviously not what we’re talking about with Linder and his approach. I actually believe that White Nationalists should make a case study of Linder to see what not to do and doesn’t work. The path that I pointed out a few days ago in my little essay is the only way that can actually offer concrete results. I believe that Wilders will be the first anti-liberal politician to be elected as the head of a European country since W.W. II. I want to imitate want works and not what fails. He’s not perfect, but he needs to be carefully studied. 133
Posted by Obvious on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:16 | #
You must not watch much Jew-produced American TV and movies then (which is good). However, most Americans of all races (especially Whites) watch hours of TV a day [plus movies a few times a week too], and the Jewish owned American mass media is totally filled with pro-race mixing propaganda produced by Jews. 134
Posted by Obvious on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:24 | # A view from a Jew who converted to Orthodox Christianity: Jewry’s War Against White America - http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=466 135
Posted by Fascist on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:12 | # Yes, the multicult is definitely a religion and the American mass media is filled with race-mixing propaganda. There’s no doubt that that has a huge effect on people. However, the only point that I was making was that the vast majority of white people must have little instinctive racial loyalty for things to be the way that they are today. In my opinion, as I said before, if whites naturally cared about their race in any significant way then no amount of propaganda should be able to make them as hostile to our message and as prone to race-mixing as they are now. Even if Jews could practice Jedi mind control 1/3 (or even 1/4 or 1/5) of whites shouldn’t be dating outside of their race unless they were already naturally predisposed to it. I know that a lot of people can’t think for themselves, but most whites aren’t mindless lemmings. There is no doubt that Jewish influence has had an extremely devastating impact on white America. However, proponents of the single Jewish cause, like Linder, often grossly overestimate how naturally receptive whites are to our message. I used to make this same mistake. As depressing as it is to admit it, I think that we should acknowledge that when it really comes down to it most white people just don’t care too much about their race. It’s definitely true that if we lived in a healthy society a lot more would care. But most naturally wouldn’t care all that much. The only way to turn most regular white people into white nationalists is to raise them in a culture that artificially instills upon them the importance of race, just like in Nazi Germany. 136
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:25 | # Fascist, you’re right about Whites but I don’t think that other races are necessarily any more ethnocentric or endogamous (about 50% of Jews in the U.S. marry out…they’re getting hoisted on their own petard). The only difference is that only Whites in our culture are constantly demonized and made to feel guilty. Self-hatred ensues. 137
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:32 | # A Finn’s advice to atheists is probably intended to concentrate our minds on the merciful, if invisible, Christian CEO’s eternal punishments, which will, he doubtless believes, be meted out to to us when we shrug off this mortal coil. My advice to A Finn is that, to borrow the words of his co - religionist, Oliver Cromwell, he should “consider it possible that you may be wrong”. Dying is a scary business and anyone who isn’t scared of dying is either a liar or a Ghurka, but the Christian attempts to scare intelligent people regarding the state of actually being dead should be treated with the same casual contempt as the rest of the Middle Eastern tall tales. 138
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:58 | #
I come from a non WN background so it is very noticeable to me how people on the racialist right have a much more extreme attitude to race-mixing than the average person. This is true. And i suppose to someone who has that atitude then the current situation must seem very depressing because to them the gap between their view and what is happening is so extreme. My experience is the average person’s natural resistance is nowhere near as strong as the average WNs but it is still naturally very strong. Importantly the average person’s resistance is not so much to do with mixed dating but mixed *marriage* and mixed *children* and if you look at all the damage deliberately done to western culture over the last 60 years including all the forced integration, sex education, decline of marriage, parental authority etc it has all helped create the situation we are now in where dating leads to far more children than it did in the past. Simply put i have seen BBC vox pops from the 1960s of very ordinary people in the streets citing race-mixing as one reason for being anti-immigration and no one was arguing against them. Although the average person is not as extreme on this issue as WNs are they were *vastly* closer to the WN position within living memory. Also the idea that proximity makes people less racist is not true. Proximity to black people makes eveyone, not just whites, more prejudiced against them, partly unfairly. For example Sailer’s match of high white percentage votes for Obama being in states with the least black people. My view is simply that diversity kills. People find it easier to do evil things to people who are physically different. My descendents were and hopefully will again be safest in an ethnically homogenous group on their own soil. I’ve also come to believe democracy, mutual aid and military security will only ever be truely guaranteed within an ethnic demos. It is therefore in my interest to have an ethnically homogenous English homeland preferably within a British union, preferably within a mutually supportive anglosphere, preferably within a mutually supportive collection of white nations, preferably within a cooperative collection of white and south and south east asian nations. jews have the opposite interest everywhere except Israel. The more homogenous and united a host population is the more likely they are to exclude jews as the “other”. It is in their interest to weaken the host’s sense of “us”. They always do it. They’ve been doing it for thousands of years. They can’t stop themselves doing it because they can’t stop putting themselves in situations where they are a nation within someone else’s nation. Obviously it’s not *just* jews but jews will *always* behave as a catalyst for social and national disintegration because it is in their interest to weaken the hosts sense of “us”. How you approach saying that is a question of tactics. Personally i don’t say it except here. I think it is counter-productive in mainstream politics *but* i certainly want someone saying it somewhere so when one group of “moderate” activists pull people from the mainstream into a half-stage WN position those people will eventually get exposed to more radical ideas. nb People need to realize the jews have messed up very badly. Their destruction of western civilization is going to take them down with it and pretty much nowhere on the planet is going to end being safe for them except maybe south-east asia. A few will realize this early and try and hijack or create some kind of WN movement that is still pro multicult and pro jewish supremacy but anti mozzie. My belief is the one and only WN negotiating position with jews should be that they belong in their own homeland away from us. 139
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:17 | #
So they say. I think the way to understand jews is to imagine yourself in their situation i.e imagine yourself as an agent for your nation behind enemy lines. If you imagine how you’d think and behave if you were some kind of spy in an enemy country i think you’ll get an understanding of how the rootless jews see the world.
People have a natural predisposition to believe in some kind of God or religion. Secularism is pointless because people will just create new religions - environmentalism for example. If WNs want to do away with Christianity then they need to replace it with something they consider more suitable. 140
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:40 | # That article linked by “Obvious” was quite good: “Jewry’s War Against White America” by Brother Nathanael Kapner, here: http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=466 . What little I’ve read by Brother Kapner has been quite good. I plan on sitting down one of these days and reading his entire site, everything in its archives plus related links, when I have the time. It ought to be a very useful education. 141
Posted by Jim Giles on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:45 | # There is some brilliant commentary going on here at Majority Rights and perhaps you intend it for only a limited group of individuals because it’s too buried and not conspicuous enough. I’m trying to figure out how to create the best environment for discussion amongst as wide a public as possible on my website, i.e., forum or blog and if blog what type blog. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Not to be hyper critical but VNN Forum, Stormfront, Majority Rights, etc. all suffer from a lack of Excellent Presentation. Sure, you can find the material but the presentation is less than ideal. There is too much clutter and not enough focus on the essence in my opinion. And I admit my website is far from ideal. But I’m trying to improve it. Another constructive criticism here is that you cannot subscribe to a thread and be notified when there is a response. BTW, thank y’all for suggesting Arthur Kemp to me; I interviewed him yesterday and was very impressed with what he had to say. There is a real and deep divide between European Nationalists and American White Nationalists that I did not know existed. Mr. Kemp did not wish to discuss the Jewish Question with Alex Linder. Do y’all know of anyone he might be willing to discuss it with? Is there only one Alex Linder? 142
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:10 | #
Correct. That is, in part, exactly how you do it. Or instead of imagining yourself, imagine how someone feels, someone of an ethnicity/religion/nationality/whatever that traditionally loathes, hates with a white-hot hatred a particular other ethnicity/relgiion/nationality/etc., who must live submerged in that hated other society. A good one is a nationalistic Ulster Catholic living among Ulster Prods in Ulster. How will that Catholic feel, what will he do, how will he vote, what will he favor for that society, etc.? That’s, in part, a picture of the Jews in Eurochristian society. That nationalistic Ulster Catholic living in Ulster Prod society will not like the people he must live among, will not like the society surrounding him, will have no intention whatsoever of identifying with or celebrating the surrounding society’s heros but will privately spit on those national heroes, will intensely loathe seeing any and all manifestations of the surrounding society’s religion especially any public ones, will want to weaken and if possible destroy that society, and so on. That’s the Jews in Eurochristian society but not as bad as the Jews (Jews do tons of things that are a lot lower than anything this Ulster Catholic would do to the Prods: even with all his hatred for the Prods he wouldn’t stoop that low. He wouldn’t make whole industries, for example, of encouraging Prod women to fornicate with and procreate with Negroes. Jews are willing to stoop lower in their expressions of racial/ethnocultural hatred and desire for revenge; they’re more diabolical. The Ulster Catholic might shoot his Prod enemy in the kneecaps and be done with it. That’s kindergarten stuff for the Jews. They’re going to be way more elaborately sadistic than that. They’re going to crush and humiliate in ways far more devastating than the Ulsterman would think up). 143
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:29 | # Braun’s figure of 50% Jewish outmarriage (11:25 AM) has been convincingly debunked here by Ben Tillman and others. I don’t have the links at my fingertips; Braun can do a site search if interested. The real figure is much lower, less than half that. It gets inflated by Jewish sources for purposes of alarming Jews who may be unconcerned about activist claims of an outmarriage threat to Jewry. 144
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:48 | # Wandrin:
I wouldn’t have put that last paragraph quite the way Wandrin did, but overall a lot of very good points in the above. 145
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:40 | #
It is the policy of the BNP not to engage in full range discussion of the Jewish Question for reasons of electoral viability. So long as Kemp is associated with the BNP he would not even be willing to discuss it from a purely scholarly point of view with Kevin MacDonald himself. I’m sure Kemp is well-enough versed on the topic though, he just won’t talk about it. 146
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:46 | # Braun’s figure of 50% Jewish outmarriage (11:25 AM) has been convincingly debunked here by Ben Tillman and others. Why should we believe a Judeo-obsessive like Tillmam and not the scientific literature? Yeah, Jew Scrooby, EVERYTHING Jews say or do is a fabrication, you fucking moron. Is 40% or 30% any less tragic from the perspective of the ethnic genetic interests of a people? 147
Posted by White Preservationist on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:54 | # Jim: learn a bit about Kemp’s personal view of Jews in his book The March of the Titans: - http://www.white-history.com/hwr63.htm - http://www.white-history.com/hwr61.htm - http://www.white-history.com/hwr17.htm As Captainchaos says, Kemp and other bigwigs of the BNP do not openly discuss the Jewish problem in public because they do not want to ‘tarnish’ their image with the squeamish British masses. Your interview with him was good even though Kemp was evasive regarding a lot of issues of supreme importance, especially regarding the glaringly obvious Jewish problem in The West. 148
Posted by White Preservationist on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04 | #
Jim - if you are looking to start another website ir blog in addition to your radio-show website/archive, you can’t really go wrong with WordPress: it is quick, free, and very easy to start a blog there—-> http://wordpress.com/ 149
Posted by Ivan on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:43 | # Mr. Kemp did not wish to discuss the Jewish Question with Alex Linder. Do y’all know of anyone he might be willing to discuss it with? Is there only one Alex Linder? Making predictions is always a tricky business because there is a good chance that the predictor will make a fool of himself. Anyway, I’ll take my chances. There is no honor in the desire to play sure games only. People like Kemp and Griffin are trying to play sure game, they are trying to oversmart the Jew and oversmart circumstances. You cannot do that, you cannot oversmart the Jew, you cannot overtalk the Jew. The desire to play smart, safe, and sure games only is a sure way to guarantee that you will lose. What needs to be done is break the discourse wide open, the discourse where the terms and the subjects are absolutely independent of what the Jew and the public is willing or ready to accept. I believe that’s what Jim is trying to do. That’s the strategy that has an enormous chance of success, not now, maybe not in the near future, but that is the right direction. Nothing will happen until the real crisis breaks out, but when it does people will start craving for a leader, a genuine leader, a natural leader. The over day, when Jim was relentlessly grueling Covington with his question “Where are the leaders” I couldn’t suppress the emotions it stirred up in me. We want to have leaders like Linder speaking overtly, calmly, intelligently about the JQ, but we don’t want them to be dragged into courts, we don’t want them to be destroyed financially, we don’t want them to go jail, we don’t want them to be killed. But we can’t have both, can we? Yes, we can (my God, I cringed at the thought of the bastard who came up with that slogan). And the only way you can have both is to have 10 Linders, 100 Linders, 1000 Linders. And that is exactly what Jim is trying to accomplish. Jim, forgive me if I read you wrong, lest somebody will assume Ivan=Giles, like somebody already suggested Ivan=Linder. My prediction is: when the hell breaks lose, some revolutionary will immerge on the scale of Lenin, utterly ruthless, who will shove aside all smart intellectuals, and declare them not the brain of the nation but the shit of the nation. 150
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:23 | # Ivan’s comment above makes the true point that leaders for our side are prevented from emerging by the entrenched Jewish demonization/disciplinary/punishment apparatus. Were that apparatus not in place, leaders for us would have arisen long ago (to very little fanfare since what we want is ordinary, perfectly centrist, and universal; what makes it appear to be a big deal is Jewish demonization of it) and would long since have begun working on moving the country in a different direction, a normal direction. What the Jews are doing by clamping the lid down, not permitting leadership to emerge naturally, is raising the energy of activation, so that when the correction comes it will be in the form of an explosion instead of the perfectly ordinary, calm, gradual, normal political process we should have been allowed to have, but weren’t. 151
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:27 | #
It’s good to see that Slither’s venom ducts are working at peak efficiency again, a world with that would be like Disney Land without Mickey, not essential but just not the same - it just wouldn’t feel right.
I don’t recall making that argument Slather. Do I think a partition is the best final disposition of our race (that also includes Meds, you know) on the North American continent, a maximization of our interests? No, total reconquest is.
Well, in a sense, yes. The more the lemmings suffer at the hands of muds the more open to listening to our ideas they will be. I mean, what, they will be set pining for a partition because they just love Sambo and Jorge so much it kills them? No, because Sambo and Jorge are, er, killing them. 152
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:28 | # As Ivan points out, that’s the answer to the question, “Where’s our leadership?”: it is continually, methodically strangled in the cradle the instant it appears. 153
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:51 | # Something that would at least be entertaining, if not enlightening, would be a joint interview including Silver and Lee Barnes. The theme: “A GEed Future, Not a Jewed Future”. The next episode: an interview with Icegear/Kanemetal and his partner in crime, The One Who Shall Not Be Named, as they instruct the audience in how to hack opposing websites. Also, paint-by-number website design. 154
Posted by Obvious on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:34 | #
Strangled indeed, and not just metaphorically. As the Jewish Talmud says in Sanhedrin 59: “KILL THE BEST GENTILES” 155
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:36 | # Assuming that FB’s claim that 50% of American Jews marry out, then the obvious question to ask is: does that result in more Jews or fewer? Everybody seems to assume the latter, but is that really the case? On a purely anecdotal level, it seems that at least as far as trophy shiksas are concerned, they invariably tend to convert. Are there any stats that might settle the matter? 156
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:08 | # Jim, A minute ago I finished listening to your interview with Arthur Kemp. Mr. Kemp started very good, like a real English gentleman, no surprise there, he is British. When he got to the point where he identified Dr. Pierce as “do nothing, defeatist mentality” crank, he completely lost me. Even the Jew could hardly come up with a better distortion of what Dr. Pierce is all about. It always amazed me - what a difference between British and American mentalities. Anyway, I continued listening and when he refused to debate Alex Linder I thought what a pathetic little wizard. The culmination came when Mr. Kemp answered your caller’s question about 9/11. At that point, I didn’t know what was more appropriate - to laugh or to cry. You did good Jim, but the prize goes to your first caller - it is amazing how much can be accomplished simply by asking a question. I suggest everybody to listen to the interview, you’ll enjoy it folks. 157
Posted by Frank on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:24 | # Fascist writes:
This was because most of them had never met blacks. We in the South know blacks, and increasingly the North (to the extent it even still exists) is getting to meet them too :D Racial nationalism in the US has also always been strong though. The nativists in America split over the Civil War…, but they were powerful before that split. There’s a good history of nativism in the US; it just hasn’t been successful in the long term. It’s apparently very difficult to make oneself act for the long term interests of one’s nation. We too easily fall into temptation. 158
Posted by Frank on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:28 | # This country was founded on whites pushing Amerindians back. They died largely of disease, but… we helped them move out too. Just as much as this is a Christian country, the roots of this country are white racial: it was founded on racial strife. 159
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:32 | # 1. Iranian lawmaker: Iran could leave nuclear treaty It seems things are accelerating with a frightening speed. 160
Posted by Armor on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:32 | #
The media are controlled by an alliance of Jews, loony leftists, and more or less brainwashed normal people. It isn’t a monolithical, rigid, faultless system. Jewish activists will remain race-replacement advocates, and the BNP can never befriend them, but maybe the BNP will sound more legitimate to non-Jews if it does not dwell on the Jewish question. People need to be told about Jewish activism, but it should no longer be the role of the BNP to do so. It should be the job of smaller, less mainstream organizations, with the help of the internet. 161
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:00 | # Jewish activists will remain race-replacement advocates For god’s sake, can we at least in WN forums call a spade a spade. You could say “Israelis will remain ethnic-replacement advocates” with the same technical accuracy of the language - they want to replace Palestinians with Jews by whatever means necessary. Yes, “Jewish activists will remain race-replacement advocates” is technically correct statement. But human language is more than linguistics, it’s more than logic, human language is emotions, it’s desires, it’s hopes, human language is a struggle. We should not concern ourselves with technicalities of the language, this is not about linguistics, leave linguistics masturbation to Chomsky. If you want to procreate you have to f*** not masturbate. 162
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:51 | # Ivan, you’re saying Armor’s way of putting it was too sanitized, too polite? What do you propose, something like “Jewish activists will keep working to genocide us”? Don’t worry, we say that here too. Plenty. 163
Posted by Ivan on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:12 | #
No, Fred, that’s not what I’m saying. Don’t be too linear. I believe Alex mentioned somewhere that you are his favorite commentator at majority rights (or one of his favorites). I second Alex. Nevertheless, I’m almost certain that Friedrich Brown understands what I’m talking about better than you do, even though Friedrich is my least favorite commentator ever. You have won every argument against Friedrich. And still he baits you and you keep failing for his baits. Why are you doing that? What is your purpose? Is it to convince him (or anybody else) that taking Jews in the leadership positions (or any positions for that matter) in the WN movement is the most stupid idea one can come up with? Shouldn’t that be obvious to anybody who knows anything about JQ? That’s what I call masturbation (this time logical, rather than linguistics, masturbation - it gives you a pleasure to feel smarter than the next guy (Goebbels), but bears no fruit). Don’t your instincts tell you who Friedrich is and what’s the agenda he is pushing. You cannot oversmart Friedrich even though you are 100 times more intelligent than he is, you cannot overtalk him. There is no need to. I’m not worried too much what Armor says or how he says it, I just used what Armor said to say what I wanted to say. I’m worried about what people like Arthur Kemp say and how they say it. Did you listen to Jim’s interview with Kemp? 164
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:37 | # @Fred
That a perfect example of exactly the point i was trying to make - warring tribes who share the same living space. @Ivan
That’s not the reason. If you start talking about jews to people who are just starting to coming out of mainstream politics they switch off straight away - literally within nano-seconds. Once they’re half-stage radicalized they start asking “why?” and that’s the point where i want people like Linder and Duke or this site either on the web or as a separate organisation because it’s only at that point that people will listen. Obviously some people get to that half-stage radicalization on their own but it’s too slow - for every new recruit there’s a veteran who gives up because of the lack of progress. There needs to be one group of fake moderates like me pulling people from the mainstream towards a very vague third position and then other groups who pick up those half-stage people and complete the process. Which is what the Reds have always done btw. 165
Posted by Selous Scout on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:57 | # Giles’s interview with Arthur Kemp was really good. But, I think Kemp might be expecting too much from American WNs. American WNs seem content to worship self-proclaimed cyber-Führers who sit on mountain-tops and issue threats and warnings. This is a “defeatist, do-nothing mentality” indeed. It hasn’t worked for the past 30 or 40 years. Time to try a new approach. Kemp slammed the conspiracy nuts and costume clowns, so no wonder the conspiracy nuts and costume clowns don’t like what he had to say. 166
Posted by Bill on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:29 | # Wandrin November 29, 2009, 06:37 PM
Absolutely true! People are not stupid, their thought process inevitably sifts the reasons given and (eventually) rejects them. They reason mass immigration is not continuing through government incompetence or stupidity, or the jobs that the British will not do, or the skills gap, the pension gap, or emptying our bed pans or for whatever any other reason, each and every reason has been endlessly examined and none are seen as plausible any more and are subsequently rejected. I saw a comment on the BNP website only the other day, a distraught mother was in anguish as to why immigration was being allowed to continue unhindered - Why oh why? There was no response to this comment (that I could see) and so presumably the poor woman was still left wondering and utterly perplexed. To tell her that it was all the fault of the Jews would be a no brainer and only confuse her even more, she would recoil in disbelief at such a suggestion. Personally I have always advocated blaming everything (and I mean everything) on the politicians and the ruling class, as it is these people who they can readily identify on their screens every night, it is these people who will shortly be pleading with them to entrust them with their votes. Tell them the political class has declared war on them and are using immigration to get rid of the British nation and it’s people. The people will still ask ‘why’ but at least they will have an answer that they can no longer ignore as it is the only plausible explanation they’ve heard so far, not only that, they can see it unrolling before them with every passing day. Maybe blaming it on the soon to be NWO might work. I think when a critical mass reaches this point then the subject will be openly being discussed. This is the way things have unraveled right from the start of this business, the process of peeling the onion of genocide will continue and will soon arrive at its truthful destination, the only question is - how long will this process take? I would suggest not long. Do I see signs that perhaps the BNP are moving in this direction? 167
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:04 | # Bill
Sorry for slow reply. Agree absolutely. I’m the same with immigrants. I never attack them directly. I attack one or more of the consequences of immigration but focus all the anger at the ruling class for betraying their own people and allowing it to happen. I think this is the best way to avoid triggering people’s brain washing while still mentioning what i want to mention. Possibly counter-intuitively it’s also why i’m very much in favour of there being much more radical elements “out there” somewhere as the compromise position neccessary to draw people out of the mainstream may not be radical enough on its own. (Although a moderate position may turn out to be radical enough on its own if enemy attacks do the radicalizing but that’s not guaranteed.) 168
Posted by Igor Alexander on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:09 | # Alex Linder wrote:
And what, in practical terms, does that mean? What is your proposed solution to the problem? That’s something I’ve noticed about Linder—that he never goes beyond generalities. Press him for details and you aren’t likely to get any. 169
Posted by Igor Alexander on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:14 | # SUCH wrote:
There’s certainly cause to be suspicious of someone who advocates violence but doesn’t act on his own advice. I suppose Linder, like Soviet intellectuals of old, expects others to roll up their sleeves and do all the dirty work while he sits back and lectures. 170
Posted by Igor Alexander on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:27 | #
I have to confess that I liked Jeremiah Johnson as well. The actress who played the squaw was a white woman in face paint, if that makes it any better (on second thought, probably not, since casting a white woman as an injun just makes it all the more effective as race-mixing propaganda). 171
Posted by "Narrative" on Fri, 27 Feb 2015 09:38 | # In this reading of Revilo Oliver (which is, of course, good): http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/Massive/AudioBooks/Oliver-TJS-Ch3-4.mp3 ..during this reading, Alex Linder makes the furtive remark that anyone who uses the word “narrative” is against the objective truth and trying to deceive people. That is Not true. Narrative is a corrective means of working hypotheses for putting the facts together in their coherent patterns in a broader sense than might otherwise hold together in concept, but rather be susceptible to manipulation for having too arbitrary, myopic a focus on empirical objects divorced from social responsibility. It is one of the advantages of hermeneutic process. And this represents a positive difference of The White Left. Whereas the Right tries to focus warrant on singular objective and anti-social facts, the White Left looks at the broad patterns of White social interest, which include more or less objective facts, but not to the exclusion of the relative interests of the broad European social pattern, its parts, its “social capital” and accountability. That is to say, narrative is one way of talking (with focus on sequential feature) that can reconcile particular facts by collating them with broader patterns not practically available for empirical inspection in a moment. It is, of course, a means by which we can conceptualize the speculative organization of ourselves, as a group/groups, and of course, as such, why the Jews have made the hermeneutic concept of narrative didactic. 172
Posted by Alex reads Libido Dominandi on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 21:48 | # Alex reads E. Michael Jones’ Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/Massive/AudioBooks/Jones-LD-P1-Ch1.mp3 173
Posted by lets not seperate, lets let Alex teach on Sat, 13 Feb 2016 02:28 | # Alex Linder interviewed (try not to let the Australian accent of his interviewer bother you).
There is or can be a misunderstanding. - that I simply want to refrain from going ahead and killing Jews et al. on principle and for petty moral reasons. - that I and we could not be content nor ever recognize that we’d be better off if they were gone. But that is not the case. It is the case rather that it is generally not a good idea to announce that you want to get them all whether you think it is necessary or not. It would be hard to realize but worse, might work to our detriment if not conceived and promoted properly. It is not only a strategic matter but a theoretical matter: for what we want ultimately is separatism (killing is a species thereof). And, as opposed to Alex just saying so, if they are to be killed it would be for the broadly understood (therefore possible to facilitate) and operationally verifiable reason that they will not leave us alone but insist on their imposition to our exploitation and long term extinction - a verifiable consequence and reason for their imposition - to eliminate us as a people, therefore a highly assertable warrant to preempt it. This could be demonstrable even in their refusal to allow our benign and fair act of separating and deporting them from our people. Post a comment:
Next entry: Radio Free Mississippi interview of James Bowery
|
|
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 john fitzgerald on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:05 | #
Niche market really. And too earnest for many I think. Contrast with Simon Darby with Jim Giles. Saying that, he’s woken up many with his uncompromising writing.
KMac in his writing and interviews is doing more to frame the issues clearly.