A conversation with an intellectual at the Guardian - Updated 16.06.08

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 15 June 2008 23:36.

One of the pleasures of our politics is the wondrous clarity it affords in assessing the interests and, often, ethnicity of those professing European ethno-suicide. When the facts are known and the assessment is in, it can be very difficult to resist taking a wee bit of advantage.

Now, of course, it goes without saying that I observe to the letter the Rules of Posting at Comment is Free, especially the one about creating multiple identities (my previous five - all banned - in no way imply contempt for this Rule, naturally).

Anyway, some non-liberal poster going by the name of Recititive obviously caught a whiff of something rotten in a conversation between an interesting rightist with anti-immigration and libertarian credentials, and a penchant for mysticism, styling himself “withdrawn” and an academic sociologist, I would say, called Lester Jones. The headline article to which both were responding was an average-to-simplistic offering about identity by Genevieve Maitland Hudson - plainly a deliciously English “identity” herself:-

Identity is a contemporary buzzword. It has filtered into public consciousness in a wide variety of contexts. A quick search of this very website on June 13 produced 27,139 hits for articles which featured identity, including a special report on “Islam, race and British identity”, an interactive guide on “Multicultural Britain: the world in one country” a story about the redesign of the union flag to include a Welsh dragon and a number of reports on the controversial issue of ID cards. In each case, identity featured as the central conceptual focus of the article. Identity, both individual and collective, is everywhere. This reflects the extent to which it has become unavoidable for the alert citizen, a subject that we are expected to consider and reconsider daily in regard to others and ourselves.

The everyday meaning of identity is never entirely fixed but there are successful definitions that have particular influence in particular contexts. There are two general definitions of identity in the articles featured in the Guardian. The first appears in articles on ID cards and identity fraud and encapsulates the notion of an individual’s possession of official characteristics, a recognised legal identity to which a bundle of rights (political, economic and social) can be attached. The second is primarily concerned with culture and is often tagged with a national, ethnic or religious complement, “British identity” and, “Muslim identity” being by far the most common. In both cases, identity is construed as a recognisable object, a specific something with a given content that can be tagged with an appropriate label. This in itself is not uncontroversial, though it is not questioned as often as it ought to be.

And so forth. Not incredibly illuminating.

The thread is a good one, and opens with what appears to be a cracking and beautifully reactionary first entry - a link to this fluttering world of identities. Unfortunately, it transpires later that the guy was not being critical at all.

Four comments in “withdrawn” appears, grumbling about “the chattering classes discussing multiculturalism”, which he expands a few comments later with:-

The article confuses personal identity and multiculturalism.

If you study the history of your local area, you will find that it had a much stronger sense of identity fifty years ago. There were local business, bus companies, accents, customs football teams and so forth. In other words, a local culture. Due to changes in business, film. TV and radio, that sense of place has been slowly eroded.

However multiculturalism has been imposed and is generally unwelcome but it bestows no advantage to most people, quite the reverse. The middle and owner classes generally welcome multiculturalism because they instinctively know it benefits them financially and the reverse is true for the working classes. The BNP are villified, not as fascists but as genuine class enemies.

Life being what it is, the BNP is no more than a heavily monitored arm of the security services that allows the rulers to paint all opposition to immigration as neo nazi.

Lester Jones arrives on the thread a few comments later, making it plain in addressing Genevieve that he conflates ethnic awareness with That Bastard Idea Nazism:-

Interesting article.

Your definition of the second conception of identity (that which is primarily concerned with culture) is questionable, but might more acceptably be described as an adaptable tribal identity that is effectively limited groups of humans who define themselves in opposition, and it’s this abstract concept of group identity that is so easily manipulated to disastrous ends.

In modern Western states like Britain most if not all constructed group identities have almost nothing to do with the day to day experiences of the people who cling so desperately to them, which explains why all kinds of reprehensible, or as you say “narrow and painful definitions” are so easily internalized. But where community norms and community expectations were once either a buffer against or a breeding ground for such dangerous divisive philosophies like those offered by the far right, now in a fragmented society ... people are free to create their own, or more usually be easily manipulated into connecting themselves to false and constructed environments.

... But the mistake made by the far right (amongst others) is to blame multi-culturalism for the ease of manipulation of populations, believing (as they wrongly do) that people are articulating their political will by turning against diversity, and that this feared diversity is the result of multi-culturalism.

It is of course the free-market that fragments societies and alienates communities internally from themselves and externally from each other.

Now “withdrawn” gathers up his intellectual energies and rides into the attack.

Hatred of suspicion of strangers has a much longer history than the fragmentation of modern capitalism. The world has very often been in a state of warfare in which people died in their own homes at the hands of invaders.

... One aspect of diversity, perceived class differences are becoming less and less clear cut as the years go on, however the complexity of the economy has indeed caused complete fragmentation of mutual interest. The deliberate importation of large numbers of cheap workers is a direct threat to those they compete with. I recently moved to a working class area and was shocked by the hostility to immigrants but I now realise the attitude is (in economic terms) completely rational. They also don’t want to work beside people who don’t speak the language or share common interests.

For middle class socialists to defend multiculturalism or immigration would be a betrayal if the working class cared what they thought which they absolutely don’t.

Now the unwritten rule of the house at CiF is to lay claim to the intellectual high ground. This is important, you see, because the house of cards which is liberal intellectualism is shot through with deceit. As ever, the only way to win an argument is to bully the opposition. Like Lester Jones does now:-

Interesting that you characterize your apparent opponents as “economic invaders” thus agreeing that modern capitalism is the defining feature and overriding structure that enables and encourages the competition you describe, yet you still ,as I suggested in my first post, prefer to blame the goat so to speak.

I’m afraid your third paragraph also clearly flags your political “identity”, even to the extent of the political collocations you employ.

... Anyway, the point I was making was that identity is a construct that is easily manipulated because people connect with fragmented environments. You then went on to prove my point so cheers for that at least.

But as far as discussing the merits of what you refer to as multiculturalism and it’s relevance to your identity that might be interesting. What are the connections that you make between yourself as an individual and the nation state of Britain (keeping in mind that both yourself and Britain are fluid entities that appear different and are defined differently to and by each and every person that come in contact with them). And by connections I mean in what way do you recognize or understand the influence that the concept of the Nation state of Britain has on your internal construct of your own identity? Where doe the one begin and the other finish?

This is arrant nonsense to a race-realist and Salterian. I already know I can fillet this guy. All he is doing is plotting a few key equations on “withdrawn’s” comment - “connections”, “influence”, “internal construct”, “identity” of course, and the idea of fluidity - which define the subject matter in what, for him, is a winning formula.

“Withdrawn” makes another comment about working class racism (and, sadly, how he deplores it). Then the lepidopterist from Comment 1 butts in with a remark of such fatuity, I cannot pass over it. For some reason, he is a fan of the Harvard “trait psychologist” and classic teleologist Gordon Allport, a man who studied prejudice, among other things. It shows:-

They knew that if there was to be any hope at all, they had to reach out to the Irish, to the Poles, to Indoo and the African, and look for that common interest or to create it if it wasn’t there. What you’re describing is a defeated surly crew who withdraw from the struggle. Perhaps that’s what they look like to you today, perhaps that’s what they say to you when you chat with them. But they can *become* something else, and Allport suggests that it is in the possibility of their becoming that full humanity lies.

Full humanity! The white working class reaching out to Africans! Lester Jones, though, approves, “Nice post as usual”.

“Withdrawn” struggles on, losing ground continually to Lester. It is at this point that Recititive makes his first foray into the thread:-

I disagree fundamentally with Allport, and so does genetic science. The ontological approach to self INCLUDES the will to become, which is inherent in self-maximisation for the purposes of mate selection, for example. There is no division at this primal level of the self. There is only the reflection of Life’s sole purpose: to transmit itself through time.

Later in the story of individual development, as personality is formed by external impression, the will to become appears to be something detached from being. But it is only an appearance.

This didn’t work, and “withdrawn” and Lester Jones continued their battle of wills. Finally “withdrawn” re-stated his bottom line argument:-

As things stand, the future is in the hands of a tiny elite who now have the power to manipulate through the massive dumbing down and control of the media and education system. That for me is the crucial issue of today.

It wasn’t enough. Lester owned him, and pressed home the Marxist point: “it ain’t immigrants ... immigrants it ain’t ... it’s free enterprise”:-

The point I’ve been wanting to clarify is that there are forces within the media who are happily manipulating public opinion to believe that migration is the root of the fragmentation within societies that so many perceive, rather than a necessary side effect of the unregulated free-marketeering. This is the essential contradiction I’ve been wanting to highlight in the presentation of your views, and if addressed your left with little option but to accept that is the system and not those subject to it.

Well, by now, as I said at the beginning, the “facts were in” about Lester, and Recititive was in a position to up the anti, suck him in and change the rules of his little game.

Lester,

The neoliberal Homo americanus is a more perfected product of liberalism than Homo sovieticus. But essentially, liberalism’s false teleology of the free individual is the dynamic they share.

In other words, you are shilling ever so slightly for leftism. The case for it does not exist.

Otherwise your critique of capitalism is very sound.

Obviously, Lester doesn’t know where this newcomer is coming from. How could he?

Recititive

Although I agree in principle that the differences between the essential character or the left or right of liberalism are minimal, I would still veer to the left for the simple reason that, as a means of organising large scale complex societies a lefty orientated social democracy with a regulated economy will always deliver a more balanced society.

In terms of today, a less consumption orientated economy that provided citizens the means to live and explore the human condition in a more satisfying and complex manner, the left has more likelihood of delivering. Needless to say this is not in any way a support for the kind of idiotic and demoralizing left that has been delivered by Homo sovietideologicus, but more along the lines of Homo Swedidemocracticus.

In terms of identity, it’s a subtle but important distinction, the feeling of belonging to a community as opposed to being owned by one.

Recititive applies some pressure:-

Interesting, and I can respect your choice. However, what if the sense of belonging is other than economic? What if it is biological ... that is, what if the sense of being owned by the community is also a sense of ownership? Does it matter then if the social democratic writ runs, or is biological ownership a sufficient basis on which to release men into their own hands economically, a la Pittite Conservatism?

It didn’t occur to me that our friend would not know who Pitt the Younger was, or that Pittite Conservatism was the nature of Tory politics prior to Reform. But La Petite Conservatism? Yep, Lester knows all about that!

Recititive

It is that sense of ownership of the community by right of membership, by right of, as you put it, biological integration between external community and internal identity that is provided by the Soc Dem model in a way that can never be so in a free-marketeering model. Of course identity is a many-layered phenomena that isn’t so easily defined, and is if you want, a kind of spaghetti like fixture from self to community to nation to religion to layers of ethics and numerous other human constructs, and back to self again. But the point is that a mere economic model will always fail to allow the complexity of the possibilities of these infinite connections, and instead retard them into the most defining connections necessarily being economic. In that sense I didn’t want to imply that the sense of belonging is economic at all, but instead far more fluid and intangible.

Even the La Petit Conservatism promotes the idea of rational thoughtful beings making informed and sensible economic decisions within a framework (the economic system) that has been designed to accommodate these sorts of beings. I’m suggesting that these sorts of beings are a myth that is perpetuated by the framework itself, by the economic system. Markets do not respond to people and people do not respond to markets. Instead communities and markets are the product of the (more realistic) being which is irrational, emotional, thoughtless, impulsive etc.

Should men be released into their own hands economically? Of course, but within the parameters that societies and communities take precedent over individuals of a society, so all the necessary infrastructure of a society, all cultural phenomena of a society, all the things that enable fairer and more homoginised experiences within societies, that hold communities together through shared identity be held by the communities themselves rather than in private hands. That way the biological ownership you mentioned is held intact for all by dint of membership.

One of the fascinating phenomena of today’s West is the way identities are constructed. I don’t really believe in some golden age in the past where communities were more righteous because they held deeper traditional beliefs or were held together by stronger (and more simple or noble) bonds. These depths of belief and strength of identity are as strong today, but what is lost is the sense of the importance of the community ethic over that of the individual, and this is a result of the economic framework that determines our interactive behaviour. As @withdrawn was mentioning, the idea that relationships are determined by competition rather than working for a shared goal and that there is some “natural” behaviour that proves this. At least the social democratic model with a regulated economy (even a regulated capitalist economy) holds the balance between community and individual in a more shall I say healthy way?

Having said all this of course we are talking merely about the organisation of large scale populations through legislation. The complexity of identities that are constructed exclusively or outside of this are not in any way going to be affected. Its a strange and worrying factor of many commentators here that they believe their identity to be intrinsically intertwined with the ideology of their chosen organisational path, otherwise known as politics.

Frankly it makes me smile.

Lots of this is good. There has to be a balance between community and the individual just as within the self there has to be a balance between family and individual. But that’s the nationalist case against neoliberalism. In the self the balance is achieved organically, without any politician passing laws. In a polity based on an organically structured society the need for regulation will be lightened to the extent that connectedness and those beautiful markers of social stability, custom and tradition, inform the process.

That is the answer to the (from a liberal viewpoint unanswerable) question at the end of Recititive’s reply below. It is the last entry on the thread at the time of posting to MR. It may well get removed in the morning for obvious reasons. But if it doesn’t, and if Lester replies, I shall add that reply to this post.

Lester,

First, I think it is important to be clear that the notion of a purely socially constructed “identity” is sociology, not psychology and certainly not neurology, and is informed by the very Jewish culture of 20th century neo-Marxist critique of the European host. The racist element in it is the denial of shared specificities, whereby “everything” is conveniently reduced to a hegemony of prejudice, and nothing is from the eternal European reality ... nothing from the genes.

By this means a kind of original sin can be inferred upon the host - and, therefore, a destructive reverse palingenesis applies: “Renounce thy socially-constructed sins, embrace Otherness, and thou shalt free Others and thyself”. It is a travesty, and pure self-serving deceit. I am always amazed that otherwise intelligent people fall for it. But on the left it is accepted uncritically - as, apparently, you accept it.

So I find often myself having to quietly debunk this nonsense, and direct attention to the story of self which we tell over the workings of our brains, and which rationalises what we, as men, always were and will be into a ghost of modernity. The ghost is superficial and unimportant. What is real in us, and what we do not acquire from without, includes what we share as co-ethnics - most particularly, our deepest and most fundamental interests (in continuity).

Do those interests and that reality, then, have implications for social organisation? Silly question. Of course they do. The social democratic model, for the reasons provided by Dench and Gavron, is unworkable without common interests and a common ontological reality.

You mentioned Sweden. Jens Orback, the former Democracy Minister in the Social Democratic Swedish government, actually said, “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” Notwithstanding the obvious naivety and ethnic suicidalism in this astonishing statement, it should be blindingly obvious to all that Mr Orback’s social democratic Sweden would not survive the demographic change he so enthusiastically anticipates.

The question of the suitability of social democracy, therefore, hinges on that common ontological reality. With disconnectedness, everything resolves into an ethic spoils system, varying only by its viciousness. There is no way over or around this fate precisely because the socially constructed “identity” is a fiction.

So I return to my question, a little more nuanced this time. Since, in the absence of a totalitarian police state, co-ethnicity is THE pre-requisite for a stable and just society, and since, anyway, freedom can only materialise out of social stability, what political organisation will maximise equality without compromising individualism, and vice versa?

Update - Monday 16th June

This morning our social democratic multiculturalist picked up the baton. At least he is a determined fellow.

Recititive

Well, a more realistic appraisal of humans is not to categorise them according to the traditional domains of social sciences in claiming socially constructed identities are purely sociology and not psychology etc, but to accept that these disciplines are restricted in how they understand the world by their very self imposed areas of authority. In fact all the more interesting thinkers of recent decades have necessarily blurred the boundries between these disciplines, think of Zizek or Lacan or Freud for that matter and ended up with more focused understandings, or at least more worthy.

Besides I was not suggesting that identity is purely socially constructed, and even if it were the diverse influences affecting each perpetually dynamic identity would make the deconstruction of the identities pointless.

I also disagree with your neat and tidy but nonetheless false frame, partially because I do not see all identities as macro-socially constructed necessarily (although even neurobiology has no idea where and how identities are formed if your suggesting there is a racial identity, there is even contention about sexual identity, so the validity of the argument that we are innately determined, when this innateness is undefinable, will only bring us back to ideology), but more obviously because the process of embracing “otherness” is what has and will happen within human cultural relationships since they began and until they perish. What I suspect you mean is a kind of false and forced embracing within an enforced time frame for the benefit of whomever is manipulating this process. That is a wholly different thing and is once again ideologically rooted.

If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be placing a great importance on the ethnic make-up of shared identity groups and once again I must disagree with your analysis. For this argument to fly you will have to provide incontrovertible evidence of an innate shared racial identity that is not affected by social consequences. As your not going to be able to do this we are left once again in the domain of ideology.

Concerning the workability of a Social Democratic model in the face of diversity , and for the sake of argument lets assume this diversity is innate as well as externally determined, I don’t agree with you nor Dench and Gavron that it’s unworkable without common interest. To really decide this we must decide what common interest means. I think you are being too ontological in your thinking, Social democratic models are as I already mentioned merely organisational methods, meaning the common interests need only be for the system to continue. But within the system there can happily exist diverse groups that have conflicting interests. That is the reason why we have law, all we need do is agree to abide by the laws and interest of the system over and above that of the individual groups and the individuals within them. So we can see that all European states that have undergone enormous demographic changes have thus far survived through a duel process of integration of the “other” and influence by the “other” on themselves. that is merely the process of cultural phenomena that we humans have experienced forever.

Of course there will be a time when all of the common modern political frameworks are considered obsolete, but the underpinning drives that form them stand firm, we have seen this happen throughout modern civilisations for the last three thousand years. There are no anchors to be thrown out to halt the march of change and growth through time.

As to your question, with the proviso that we are in disagreement as to the nature and formation of group identities, I would say that there need not be the ubiquitous totalitarian police state to guarantee social harmony and stability. We have a disagreement in the nature of the way people interact and what are the driving forces behind cohesive societies, and we have a disagreement as to how the social and economic environment affects peoples behaviour. I would say that people are able to behave in a cooperative manner despite diversity within a community when the downloading ethics of the society are shared, so that they will behave in the interests of the whole despite their differences. Modern unregulated free-marketeering fragments societies in such a way as to set them against each other and encourages them to see the whole as inferior to the subset. Hence the process your advocating.

By the way, I’d not set too much store on what individual politicians say at any time. Jens Orback is not the only politician to come out with reams of idiocy and he wont be the last.

After lunch I posted this, essentially the end-game, in reply:-

But I find the Freudian line deeply flawed. You know he was a racist in private life. His intellectual child has pathologised the European male. Doubtless it was the only child he could, or would have wanted to, conceive. I do not see him as a seeker after truth at all, but as another who dwells alone and is fated to critique. In the genes.

If there were no other alternatives, I would prefer Adler’s startling Nietzcheism (which, of course, was received somewhat cooly by the Viennese Establishment) and even Jung’s very fey but at least not culturally critical “Individuation”.

However, there ARE other alternatives, and seriously scientific ones. I find Hamilton, Sloane-Wilson and Salter valuable, and to a limited extent Dawkins, because these are not fictionalists but functionalists who are telling us what life’s foundations are, and what human bio-diversity really means.

The solidity of their findings are inconvenient in this slippery, uncertain Postmodern age (indeed, it could be said that Dawkins’ work has inconvenienced his own liberal sensibilities throughout his career, and caused him to travel a shorter scientific distance than his talents might have permitted). Nonetheless, we must be brave enough to see that ontology is, so to speak, the stepping-off point for teleology - in the same way that individualism, as an evolved faculty of the human mind (very strong in Europeans, as it happens), “steps-off” from the sense of the collective or tribe. Individualism exists solely because it offered a fitness gain - it served the foundational collective purpose of continuity. It does not exist so that we exciting Postmoderns can challenge terrible daring boundaries and author terribly free selves. All that, frankly, is rubbish.

I will quickly deal with the Allportist nonsense of self-authoriality which so intrigues our Bullfrog friend.

We are never active principles, choosing in the creation of Personality. By “Personality” I mean the rationalised product of the great rain of external impressions which (during childhood, actually) colour our ideas of self without ever eroding our genetic essentialism. The problem, really, is the quality of waking consciousness, which is too mechanical to render us active in regard to these externally generated formational influences. To be active would mean we have lifted ourselves out of the “acquired”, out of Personality entirely, and into a place where politics is gross materialism - literally untouchable - and this discussion becomes something done in sleep.

So I’m afraid that you are I are dualling in the darkness - a place where attempts to “become” a good multiculturalist are never more than vanities, sham inventions. There has been some very good research into racism, for example, which demonstrated its implicit/explicit duality, whereby explicit white racialists, when showed images of black males, exhibited enhanced pulminary and brain activity. Explicit white anti-racists, shown the same images, exhibited identical responses. In a nutshell, at best the good multiculturalist is deceiving himself and others. Nature - ontology - is indefatigable and will not be denied.

Now, you predetermine a test for me, and then you predermine the outcome. That is unfair, because I am not proposing that social democracy stands in opposition to the ethno-state. I am saying that Multiculturalism - or multiracialism, to give it an honest name - does. I am saying that there is no self-authorial basis on which the implicit can be despatched. I am saying that the optimum basis for kindness - and the only genuine, demonstrable basis for it - is kinship. The onus of proof lies with you to demonstrate that:-

a) white self-authoriality is both possible and a proven basis for social cohesion with genetically-distant immigrant populations, and

b) such an attempt is not simply liberal decadence and an invitation to white ethno-suicide.

If I asked you what kind of ethnic composition your ideal state would contain, my impression is that you would affect an explicitly race-blind preference for diversity. In other words, you are an ideologist, and not an evidential thinker. It is the same ideology that killed 20 million Russians. I, on the other hand, am interested in life.

Last point. You claim that “change” - meaning regnant multiracialism in our European homelands - is irreversible. It isn’t. If we want to live, we can choose life. We would, after all, treat the incomers to nothing worse than a return to their own homelands. We cannot choose your self-authoriality because that is to choose the alien in place of our own child. That is to choose those Four Horsemen of the European Apocalypse: marginalisation, displacement, dispossession, deracination.

Given that awful truth, which already awaits our children and grandchildren, I will put to you one last question: What interest exceeds in human value that of ethnic survival?

He won’t have much time to reply. Guardian threads close after three days, and this is the third day already.

But I hope that he has at least served as a proponent of the best arguments the other side has got.

... Ah, one more response, timed 5.30 this afternoon. A withdrawal from the fray:-

Recititive

I can see we have reached the point at which we shall never see eye to eye. I fundamentally disagree with your entire hypothesis and having spent enough time on these threads (being a little overly keen on entertaining argument) I now realise the life has gone out of this discussion.

I also now realise the true reason for your tendency toward genetics as opposed to culture and find our impasse insurmountable. I can only once again say that there is no preferable time nor any desire to throw out an anchor, whether it be to halt the march of cultural evolution, or more sinisterly to halt the evolution of mankind through an obsession with genetics as they stand.

I could go on disagreeing but to honest I no longer have the will considering the angle at which you prefer to take the conversation.

It has been interesting.

To which I just had time to answer in valediction:-

Lester,

I am glad you think so. I’ve enjoyed it.

Of course, I am disappointed that you will not tread where I am leading you. But lift your eyes sometime from your intellectual extrapolations, and look ahead two or three decades to the Orbackian future of our beautiful, benighted people. Pity them, for they did not deserve it nor did they ask for it, nor were ever told the truth about it. Not by you or by withdrawn’s elites, not by anyone.

How decadent will your commendations to self-author some fantastical social justice seem to them then. And how tragic that now, in this moment, you will not lend yourself humbly to their service, while there might still be time.

Good luck to you anyway, and thanks for your patience.

Well, respect is owing to the man for not screaming the usual epithets once he realised the way things were going. This was not an ordinary adversary.

Tags: No particular place to go

Comments:

Posted by .357 on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:23 | #

This is way off topic but as everyone has already heard: Tim Russert (of Meet The Press, fame) passed away last Friday. The NBC executives are searching for his replacement. They’re are floating names like David Gregory, Chris Matthews, Andrea MitcHELL, etc.

I nominate Fred Scrooby. It’s high-time we get some genuine “fair and balanced” coverage of political issues….

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:49 | #

We need not be in ANY doubt about the Righteousness of our cause. “They” intend to murder Righteousness itself or the only basis thereof. They intend to murder our people while they “sleep”, in their “beds.”

SWINE!

Yes, a few more decades of this nonsense and a different kind of “dialogue” will be appropriate.

Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:25 | #

One can only hope. I look forward to this ‘dialogue.’ Let’s stop pretending that we’re engaging in democratic debate and conversation. Let’s have an open, honest ‘dialogue.’

Very impressive, GW’s discussion (above).

Posted by John on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:00 | #

I nominate Fred Scrooby. It’s high-time we get some genuine “fair and balanced” coverage of political issues….

If Obama wins, I think he’s already got dibs on Fred for INS Director.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:17 | #

Selous Scout,

Not really. Once the terms of the debate are changed, he’s left holding an imaginary air rifle: race equality. I’ve got a Bren gun: race replacement. I have never met an adversary of the left with the marbles to even the score after that.

The commonly stated notion that the left has no ideas with which to combat our analysis is wholly and completely true. Some leftists have heard us make the claim too publicly, and they hate it. But there’s nothing they can do about it.

Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:55 | #

Have you encountered a leftist who actually will admit to advocating Race Replacement, of whites that is? I have had discussions with Hispanic supremacists who smugly tell me this is their aim.

I’m a WN who works with high net worth investors and entreprenuers. Most of my client conversations focus on economics. I point to the changing demographics in my state, and the US as a whole, and tell them this will have a negative impact on the economy and therefore they should plan accordingly. Invest abroad, is usually my recommendation. They can agree with that. But, when I mention that throughout the West whites (like them and their children) are being replaced, via a deliberate policy, they invariably have zero response.

Posted by .357 on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:30 | #

“If Obama wins, I think he’s already got dibs on Fred for INS Director.”

That’s funny too, John.

Imagine Fred Scrooby interviewing B. Hussein, Morris Dees, McCain, Nadine Strassen, Reverend Whigger (Phleger). etc. etc. It’d be great. In the last segment of the show, they could have a round-table discussion with Jared Taylor, David Duke, Tom Sunic , and guest appearances by some of the more intelligent MR commentariat such as GW, and James Bowery, et al.

Of course they’d have to change the name of the program from “Meet The Press” to “The House of Shock.”

Hell, they could make it a ‘pay per view event’. I’d sure fork out some cash every Sunday morning to watch Fred in action! LOL

P.S.

Sorry for veering off topic, GW.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:29 | #

GW,

I don’t believe that Lester has the courage to go any further. Even assuming he could face the truth that once our genes die so will any incarnation of his precious ideals that can be realized would have blown away as ashes in the wind I suspect he would shrug his shoulders and say, “Oh well, what can I do? It is tragic, but I won’t be around to see the worst of it. Life has been good to me but everything must end. Now, if you’ll excuse me I believe I have a table booked at my favorite ethnic restaurant.”

I am forced to recall the scene in Braveheart where Robert the Bruce confronts his father on his betrayal of William Wallace.

Father: “All men betray, all lose heart.”

Robert: “I don’t want to lose heart, I want to believe, as he [William Wallace] does! Your not a man, and your not my father! I will never be on the wrong side again.”

Lester is not a man, he is a coward.

The love of our people is not in his soul.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:58 | #

Selous,

Yes, I have come across leftists actively proposing race-replacement. Two, notably, who were both married to non-white women and had non-white children defining their genetic interest. But that is something that we can rationalise away easily enough.

Have I come across others who were not admitting to such ties? I am trying to think. Possibly not, which would suggest that genetic interest retains a widespread influence even at the height of the fever. Interesting. I had not really considered that before.

Captain,

Intellectuals like Lester often exhibit a scarifying penchant for reducing human life to accountancy. It is harder to impress upon an intellectual the value differentials we propound than it is to educate a manual worker to the entire racialist ouevre, because it is, as you say, about love.

I see the likes of Lester as men belonging body and soul to the zeitgeist. Even though they probably think they are rebellious spirits, I see them as conventionalists. In this, people of my generation have a bit of an advantage, because we witnessed in youth the spectacle of an entire generation of conformists ardently professing their rebellion!

They haven’t a clue.

Posted by .357 on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:06 | #

When Nazi Germany lost. We lost. It’s as simple as that. Bye Bye white race…...unless we can reconstitute Nazism.

Posted by .357 on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:15 | #

Heil Hitler!

Posted by .357 on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:35 | #

Hitler is the white messiah. When he comes back, their will be no more “mister nice guy.”

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 03:40 | #

“...for the Germans of 1939-1945 gave proof of a heroism and courage unsurpassed in all history and unmatched in modern times. They were also the only nation that had a rational perception of the realities of the modern world and the exigencies they impose—the only nation that dared to perceive and confront the deadly danger that impended over all civilized mankind—the only nation on whom there does not now rest the inexpiable guilt of the Suicide of the West.”

-Revilo Oliver

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:36 | #

And yet Lebensraum made the declaration of war by Britain and France just. None here would have praised the violence towards Poland’s and Czechoslovakia’s peoples, and all would have stood up to fight it.

The Nazi state was totalitarian and murderous towards its own internal opponents. None here would have found justice in its courts and its piano wire, and most would have fallen foul of its bright-eyed ideologues.

The guiding principle of aryan supremacy was fatuous and offensive to all men. The possession of a brown shirt turned moral pygmies into demi-gods, and arrogance - always a Prussian trait - into Lidice and Oradour-sur-Glane.

The moral ugliness and excess of ambition in Nazism was incompatible with the right to life itself. Do you think Poles and Czechs, Ukrainians, Russians ... do you think they should have thrown flowers to the invader, and welcomed their own slavery?

No, you would have fought alongside them. You would have escaped to England to fly a Lanc, or to train with explosives and returned home via a Lysander one night.

Be realistic. Find a place in your love of people for love of freedom. It was not in Nazism.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:21 | #

First, my sense of justice, right, and honor were inculcated in me in childhood when my mother read to my brother and I J.R.R Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. My sense honor is that of Western Christianity: self-sacrificial love and never to do evil that good may come of it.

Often times though it seems that decency is too seldom met with like in this world. Nice guys often finish last.

It is no less in the macro-sense. It seems that jews and other assorted non-whites laugh at and spit on our kindness.

I don’t want to cast aside my honor, but I also want to win. Are these two mutually exclusive?

As for the Nazis and WWII: these are things that might be instructive for Buchanan to hear.

He carps about the fecklessness and folly of the Brits for opposing Hitler and not giving him what he wanted, a free hand in the east. He doesn’t mention, although I’m sure a man as intelligent has he has thought of it, that Hitler could have been stoped earlier; before his hand was so menacingly strong. Why?

What darkness lurks in the heart of Buchanan? He admired many of the qualities of Hitler, that is plain; and it is also plain that he doesn’t care much for jews.

Perhaps he conceives of Hitler as a man with a will of iron, implacable, a will that only death could break. A force of nature. This is surely true. But the above question remains, why does Buchanan not advocate that those who could have stopped him have done so. What darkness lurks in the heart of Buchanan?

Does he really hate the jews and the communist butchers so much that he would throw away his Christian honor? Is winning that important to him? Is that sacrifice necessary for victory?

And what of our own honor? The British and the Americans? Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. It was Churchill who first instigated bombing of civilians.

Why should we feel guilty for what our ancestors did? Why should we Americans feel guilty for enslaving blacks? Afterall it was not us who did it, it was them.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn suggests that we should. The life of our people is so much, perhaps all, of what we are. If we are to cheer and revel in the actions of our ancestors we think honorable doesn’t it seem hypocritical and self-serving that we will not also take their guilt upon us?

Britain ostensibly declared war on Germany to protect Poland, and yet we delivered her up to that butcher Stalin. Where is the honor in that?

General Patton, who inicially hated Germans with a passion, saw through many of the jewish lies about them when he was there in that conquered and castrated country. He wanted desperately to take the Soviets when they could have been had. We did not. Why? Where is the honor in that?

What was wraught by an allied victory in WWII? Britain was ruined, never to be a great power again.

My own country, America, rode high on the hog for awhile but the jew, those eternally despicable mischief makers, have enthroned for perhaps all time the ultimate symbol of White guilt. The Holocaust. The propagandistic noose around our necks that causes our people to slowly choak on our own guilt.

Perhaps we have our honor (truncated as it is), but at what price?

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:25 | #

Britain tried to bluff Hitler over Poland, he called it. There was nothing Britain could do at that stage to stop Hitler (or Stalin) taking Poland.

Its not just that Hitler could have been stopped earlier, its that we should never have allowed many of the pre-conditions to arise in the first place.

Its said we should have opposed the German re-occupation of the Rhineland, that was where the rot set in, well we shouldn’t have been occupying it in the first place. The Sudaten Germans and their territory should never have been lumped in with Czechoslovakia, they should have been part of Austria. if not Germany itself. Talking of which I believe in 1919 the Austrian parliament voted for union with Germany, vetoed by France, yet in retrospect would that have been so bad?

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:32 | #

Re: slavery

Fair enough. We cant take pride in our past collective achievements without accepting some responsibility for things like slavery.

I would argue the rise of industry, science and engineering make slavery pointless, its not some lovely liberal change in human nature so much as designing out of existence. Something the world has Europeans to thank for as we know there is scant evidence that industry would have arisen anywhere else.

Not to decry the western Christian morality that did for slavery too. Something that, like the genesis of industry, is very thin on the ground in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Posted by Revolution Harry on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:37 | #

.357, I can’t make my mind up as to whether you’re ill, insane, evil or just stupid. ‘Heil Hitler’, ‘white messiah’, reconstitute Nazism’? Nazism #2 would be every bit as dangerously malign and doomed to failure as the #1 version. If nothing else it shows a staggering lack of imagination as to how to solve the current problems with such as immigration and multiculturism.

I’m only an occasional reader of this blog but I do find things of interest even if I sometimes find some of the content a little ‘esoteric’. I’m left wanting, if possible, a few questions answering. I can’t help but notice that much of the blame for the parlous situation we find ourselves in is laid, by some, at the door of ‘the Jews’. Do you mean all Jews? If not please say so explicitly as clarity is very important if the war of words is to be won.

The BNP state they’d like to reduce the number of ethnic minorities to around 2 to 3% of the population. Is there a general agreement with this? The reason I ask is because if it was it would have an influence on possible strategies. Appeals to the ‘better nature’ of the, possibly, more anglo-centric minorities might be of value.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:04 | #

Lurker: “We cant take pride in our past collective achievements without accepting some responsibility for things like slavery.”

Lurker,

Are you saying that Whites are “guilty” for something? Are you saying that slavery is inherently “wrong”? Based on what? Why do you say that? Just curious. Lots of people take it as a given that slavery is morally wrong but don’t know why.

Posted by .357 on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:35 | #

“.357, I can’t make my mind up as to whether you’re ill, insane, evil or just stupid.”

I was just being stupid; that’s what drinking too many brewskis does to me.

BTW— There is no way Britain is EVER going to reduce the number of ethnic minorities to around 2 to 3% of the population. Unless of course, force is used. I can’t foresee white people ever using force again to remove non-indigenous populations from their midst. I don’t know much about the BNP, but my gut feeling tells me their limited opposition to white dispossession will eventually wither and die.

Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:35 | #

“I can’t help but notice that much of the blame for the parlous situation we find ourselves in is laid, by some, at the door of ‘the Jews’. Do you mean all Jews? If not please say so explicitly as clarity is very important if the war of words is to be won.”

I get the feeling you’re a Jew, Harry. But because I’m a nice guy, I’ll answer your question.

It’s not all Jews. It’s the ‘Jewish supremacists’ that are at the center of causing the genocide of whites.

http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Supremacism-My-Awakening-Question/dp/1892796058

Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:00 | #

I foresee civil wars in Britain and Europe, easy. European history is rife with revolution and war. Blood will be shed on the continent again in massive quantities, I’m certain of it. A low-level insurgency against the West is already underway in Europe; the natives, restrained by the power elites, have not begun to react. Same thing with the US. Americans tend to forget the bloody years of settlement, conquest, and war required to settle the country, in the early days. Some day, we will be required to start the process all over again. Are we so naive and arrogant to believe that modern-day Europeans and Americans are above war? That our essential character has changed, that we are somehow immune to human nature? I highly doubt it.

Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:38 | #

“A low-level insurgency against the West is already underway in Europe; the natives, restrained by the power elites, have not begun to react. Same thing with the US.”

OH LORD!!! If what you say is true, then how the f**k can you explain the fact that John McCain and Barrack Obama are the two candidates for President?

The only insurgency going on aganist the West, is a leftist insurgency!

Posted by Selous Scout on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:22 | #

I was referring to a left-wing insurgency (“against the West” etc.).

Posted by GT on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:36 | #

357,

Are you “Onlooker?”

Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:35 | #

GT,

Aren’t you the guy that is promoting micro-communities, i.e., quasi hippie communes, as the solution for the salvation of the white-race? How’s that working out for you?

Posted by GT on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:53 | #

A straight yes or no would have sufficed, Onlooker. Why the change in your handle?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:08 | #

Harry, since I probably do most of that generalizing you refer to, I’ll reply a bit. There’s nothing wrong with “generalizing” when the “generalization” is an accurate reflection of some aspect of the vast majority of a group’s members. It goes without saying there are exceptions. Among the only Jews that are visible to us (the sole exception being the Jewish Task Force, http://www.jtf.org) essentially all not only want race-replacement of Euros but want it with a passion, LOVE the idea, and are prepared to fight and fight hard to see it to completion. You can’t say,

“But all these Jews we see don’t claim to want race-replacement of whites. They only want open borders, multiracialism, multiculturalism, white-non-white miscegenation, affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, denial to whites of the right of free-association in any sphere of community life, general subordination of whites to non-whites through preferences given to non-whites in hiring, promotion, renting, university admissions, bank loans, generous welfare benefits given to non-whites paid for by taxing struggling young white men and women who as a result are prevented from starting their own families while the non-whites, using the tax money confiscated from struggling whites, bear all the children they want, all Hollywood movies, TV series, TV commercials, and media advertisements showing only non-whites plus white women, never white men except as undesirables, harsh anti-hate laws for any who question any of that, and so on. Jews only want those things, not race-replacement of whites.”

You can’t say that, because all of those things in combination lead inevitably to the race-replacement of whites and it’s obvious they do. So to want them is to want race-replacement of whites, and since Jews want them (all Jews visible to us do, at any rate — if any don’t, they must be in hiding), Jews want race-replacement of whites. (“Whites” here refers to Euros, not Jews. Jews don’t want race-replacement of themselves. When Jews hyped the “Whites are the cancer of history” idea for forty years they intended “whites” as a code word for their age-old ethnoracial enemy, Eurochristians. They weren’t hyping the idea that Jews were part of that cancer of history. Definitely not.)

Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:09 | #

GT,

I’m not going to engage in silly games with you.

Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:41 | #

Professor MacDonald contends: “Jewish intellectuals have advanced important intellectual movements throughout the twentieth century and beyond.” He says: These movements, which include Freudianism and the Frankfort School, have been “covertly designed to advance specifically Jewish interests, often at the expense of larger non-Jewish populations.” He also exposes the important Jewish role in Marxism/Communism and neo-conservatism.

MacDonald says: Self-deception and rationalization are central elements of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. He also cites how Jews have worked to transform the racial demographic character of the USA to make it a more multicultural and less European. In this regard, he documents the important Jewish role in changing US immigration policy. He says: One of the constants of twentieth century Jewish intellectual movements has been to lessen the power of Europeans in America because Jews feel that power represents a threat to them.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:04 | #

Rusty Mason: “Are saying that slavery is inherently “wrong”? Based on what?”

It seems to me that a serious morality must at least transcend self-interest sometimes, this includes the “self-interest” of the group.

Is slavery wrong?

Work all day in Master’s fields, if you refuse its the whip for you, boy! Want a small farm of your own one day? Want your kids to be able to learn how to read? NO, keep your head down and pick that cotton, nigger!

I don’t know, Rusty, it all just seems kind of cruel to me. How would you like that shit done to you? How would you like that shit done to your children?

Is slavery wrong? Was it wrong as practiced in the south? Yes, that seems like a no-brainer to me.

Posted by GT on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:30 | #

Pot, kettle and black, Onlooker. Silly games are your specialty. I’ll add self-contradiction, easy online racialism, general stupidity, and alcoholism to the list as well. Did my past posts re: easy online racialism and dysfunctional behavior strike too close to home? Was your handle change to .357 a quick means of re-establishing credibility and attaching a sense of “badass” to your easy online person?

Just curious.

Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20 | #

ROTFL! ShowBiz is missing a comedian.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29 | #

Slavery just seems plain wrong to me. Are you willing to be a slave? Your family slaves too. If there is a moral argument for it you would have no objection to be amongst the first batch down at the slave auction.

Posted by silver on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:49 | #

The slavery practised in ancient societies doesn’t strike me as particularly abominable. Most often, as I understand it, those enslaved were those defeated in battle. The conqueror’s only other alternatives were to set the enemy free to fight again or kill them. Given those choices, slavery seems reasonable. With the limited economic knowledge of the period, it provided livelihoods for those who otherwise would have faced great difficulty providing for themselves in the conquered environment; provisions for manumission were a staple feature of such systems; the moral teachers of the day encouraged ethical treatment of slaves; and the time spent as slaves certainly served to acculturate the aliens into the new society (no multiculti for the ancients). By the time of the trans-atlantic slave-trade, economic systems had evolved sufficiently that slaves were unnecessary and the forward-thinking could have probably foreseen the burden that large numbers of them might prove to be. Unfortunately, the trans-atlantic period coincided with civilizational and racial self-confidence strong enough to brush aside such concerns.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:39 | #

Captainchaos: “I don’t know, Rusty, it all just seems kind of cruel to me.”

So, slavery is inherently wrong or evil simply because you don’t like it?

Captainchaos: “How would you like that shit done to you? How would you like that shit done to your children?”

Your comment reminds me of a cartoon I saw. It had an old lady chastising her cat, which had a freshly caught mouse at its feet. The old lady pointed her finger at the cat and said, “How would you like it if the mouse did that to you?”

Lurker: “If there is a moral argument for it you would have no objection to be amongst the first batch down at the slave auction.”

That is completely illogical.

Captainchaos and Lurker, personal preferences are irrevelent to my question, irrevelant to a moral principle. My question is, On what basis is slavery wrong?

Consider that some people are better than others. That’s just a fact. It is also a fact that some people are incapable of running their own lives. If allowed to act freely, they will destroy themselves and those around them; they are a menance to society. These types are actually better off when they are not free. Why should they not be slaves?

I am not arguing for or against slavery, simply wondering why you think slavery is wrong. We have millions of people in debt slavery—they can move about freely, but they owe more than they can ever pay. They work forever for someone else and pass their burdens onto their children. Is that inherently wrong too, simply because you don’t personally like it?

Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:06 | #

I find the very idea of one human being OWNING another human being to be morally repugnant. There aren’t any mitigating circumstances that could ever justify the vile practice of slavery. None.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:10 | #

Rusty Mason,

If you know where the touchstone of morality is you let me know, alright?

Is it in your backyard?

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:10 | #

In 1913, the international bankers staged a coup on the entire US population and all their descendants. Until we break free, we are effectively owned—lock, stock, and barrel—by foreign interests. Is that wrong, too? Why? Again, I don’t want opinions, I want principles.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:34 | #

I assume by “international bankers” you mean “the jews”.

I guess its “wrong” (in our opinion) because it screws with our EGI mojo, is that the answer you’re looking for?

But if that is the only basis for morality, the advance ment of EGI, why was it wrong for Hitler to pursue Lebensraum?

Were he successful that certainly would have advanced German EGI.

Guessedworker, you chastised me for flirting with Nazism, what do you think of all this?

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:48 | #

Captainchaos: If you know where the touchstone of morality is you let me know, alright? Is it in your backyard?

.357: I find the very idea of one human being OWNING another human being to be morally repugnant. There aren’t any mitigating circumstances that could ever justify the vile practice of slavery. None.

Jeff Bridges as “The Dude”: Well, that’s like, your opinion, Man…

Including Lurker, we now have three confirmed radical invidualists who can apparently only argue this issue using their own personal feelings. We also have more insistence that slavery, per se, is inherently wrong, and one wild accusation that I am a Nazi.

But unfortunately there is still no answer to my question from the anti-slavery preachers. On what principle is slavery wrong?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:06 | #

Indentured slavery appears maladaptive because of the threat of insurrection. By it’s very nature slaves must outnumber masters in order to be profitable. It strikes at the heart of ethnic genetic interest. A large homogeneous foreign population competing for resources, with a founding people, portends disaster, at least for the yeomanry.

George Fitzhugh’s CANNIBALS ALL! OR SLAVES WITHOUT MASTERS is an interesting comparative examination of wage and indentured slavery.

Posted by Revolution Harry on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:15 | #

‘I get the feeling you’re a Jew, Harry’.

Sorry to disappoint .357, I’m not. Although a confirmed methodist (aged 12) I soon saw through literalist Christianity. I’m far more attracted to the Gnostic version but in general I avoid any of the organised religions.

I posed my questions because I’m keen to see progress made and as I said the war of words needs to be won. Generalising about ‘Jews’ leaves open the accusation of anti-semitism which, as I’m sure most here will agree, is up there with ‘racist’ as one of the worst of all possible crimes in these days of political correctness. I don’t think for a second that all Jews have, for example, ‘worked to transform the racial demographic character of the USA to make it a more multicultural and less European’. It’s therefore far more accurate to say that, it seems to me, given all the available evidence I have at this moment, that some (or a significant number) of Jews have etc. You may say this is just semantics and you’d be right but it’s no less important if you’re to avoid giving your enemies easy ammunition and the chance to assume an imagined moral high ground. Of course you then have to explain the evidence for your assertion in order to win the argument.

In my own small way I’m trying to imagine a strategy for ‘doing something’. Halting immigration is the obvious start, followed by enforcing the law regarding illegal immigration and deportation of foreign criminals. If this could be done the wave will have broken. The next step would be working out how to encourage as many as possible to return home. Reduction in welfare benefits, generous grants and encouraging educated ethnic minorities to return as part of foreign aid programs designed to improve the condition of their home countries are just a few of the possible methods. If the wave can then begin to roll back it remains to be seen if it could ever reach the 2 to 3% envisaged by the BNP. Surely anything would be an improvement.

The key to making the above possible is public opinion and the only way of changing public opinion is through dissemination of information. If the source of that information can easily be vilified as anti-semitic then it’s power is greatly diminished. That’s why it’s important be to specific and careful in what is said. The challenge than is devising a successful method of widely distributing information in order to ‘wake people up’ to the consequences of current policies. With the greatest respect some of the stuff I read on here is quite difficult to follow and as such is of little direct value to most people. That doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate it’s importance in part of the wider ‘struggle’ which is why I make the suggestions regarding the careful use of words.

Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:23 | #

“On what principle is slavery wrong?”

Rusty, other people cannot be your property.

Richard Overton, 1646:-

“To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one, as he is himself, so he has a self-propriety, else could he not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive any of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature and of the rules of equity and justice between man and man. .... No man has power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man’s. I may be but an individual, enjoy my self and my self-propriety and may write myself no more than my self, or presume any further; if I do, I am an encroacher and an invader upon another man’s right .... every man by nature being a king, priest and prophet in his own natural circuit and compass, whereof no second may partake but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose natural right and freedom it is.”

Posted by elitist on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:50 | #

Is that a serious question Rusty? Generally speaking, ethical arugments against slavery rest on one of two ethical systems.

1. Utilitarianism, which seeks to minimize human suffering and maximize human happiness through a sort of emotional calculus. Most people do not accept that the suffering of the enslaved can be adequately counterbalanced by the happiness of enslavers when you are talking about enslaving a race of people anyway. Defining certain groups as sub or unhuman and therefore unworthy of having their happiness/suffering considered is also (deservedly) unpopular.

2. Ethics of reciprocity or the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would prefer to be treated were situations reversed. How would you like it if I came over and enslaved you simply because I could and it would please me to see you lick my boots? Others mentioned this, but you failed to understand that they weren’t just expressing their personal feelings, they were making an argument from the golden rule or the categorical imperative if you want to be more academic about it.

A more interesting question would be: Is interracial marriage unethical?

For all the complaining about race replacement and racial mixing here, no one is making you personally go out and marry interracially. Most individuals in the wider culture are increasingly in favor of interracial marriage, is there an ethical argument for them not to be? And please, state your assumptions and reasoning, repeating EGI, EGI, until you’re blue in the face is not an ethical argument.

Posted by .357 on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:04 | #

“Generalising about ‘Jews’ leaves open the accusation of anti-semitism which, as I’m sure most here will agree, is up there with ‘racist’ as one of the worst of all possible crimes in these days of political correctness.”

Agreed.

And sorry about suspecting you of being something that you’re not.

Posted by elitist on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:13 | #

Two minor clarifications:

By the public being increasingly in favor of interracial marriage I mean taking a neutral view, seeing them as no different from a intraracial marriage. I think the data is pretty clear based in interracial marriage rates and

Things to consider in making your argument:

If you are arguing net costs to society from a Utilitarian perspective, will it outweigh the costs of not allowing people to marry whomever they choose or censuring people for marrying whomever they want? (this slope, it’s pretty slippery)

If you are making an argument based on the ethics of reciprocity keep in mind this type of argument is based on an internal morality. While it be possible for you assert that two people should only consider marriage if they are of the same race, you can’t impute that belief to others and then assert that they must ethically accept that two people should only consider marriage if they are of the same race.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:41 | #

.357:Rusty, other people cannot be your property.

I’m not saying they should be. But Overton’s is a gentleman’s agreement between men who would consider themselves equal. What about those who are not considered such? What about those who cannot or will not rule themselves? Even men such as the American Founders, the radical liberals of their day, did not really think ALL adults to be the same. They thought that men were better at ruling, that only Whites (NW Europeans) could really rule themselves properly, and that some people were only fit for servitude.

The excerpt even admits that some men, even good men, may put themselves into slavery or endentured servitude by their own actions. By this, some slavery is morally justifiable.

So, the argument against slavery per se really comes down to the Golden Rule, doesn’t it? A perfectly natural personal fear of being enslaved. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course, I was just wondering. Now I know your aversion it is based on enlightenment philosophy; now I know where you are “coming from.” Given the fervor with which so many people preach against it, one would’ve thought it was a law of the primordal universe.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:58 | #

I suspect that the White Man will need to revisit this brotherhood-of-all-mankind philosophy once he becomes a minority in all of his own lands and sees that the gentleman’s agreement is not honored by the new rulers. He may continue to believe it himself, but he will have to come to realize that he is the only one who does.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:02 | #

elitist,

Slippery slope be damned. Just try for a moment to apply your observations to a healthy, normally ethnocentric society. It may call for an act of the imagination! Why? Because the societies in which we live in postmodernity are not historically normal or healthy. They have been made sick with hyper-individualism. There is no moral guidance to be got from self-estrangement and ethno-suicide.

Basically, you are too unaware of our value system to pass a worthwhile judgement upon us. We can see you, and we know you well. But you cannot see us. You only think you can.

When you become like us, then you may discriminate between us and make all the moral judgements you please. But that time is not yet, evidently.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:04 | #

What about a lineage of caste slaves? What about those blacks (as an example) such as Shelby Steele and Clarence Thomas who can rule themselves?

What if your slave refuses to obey your orders? What if he keeps running away? Would you be prepared to torture him into submission?

If not, why not? He is your property, just like your coffee table. If you want to smash your coffee table who will object?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:28 | #

What if your slave refuses to obey your orders? What if he keeps running away? Would you be prepared to torture him into submission?

What if he commits torturous criminal acts against you, your family and your community?

If you want to smash your coffee table who will object?

Civilized man.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:50 | #

.357: If not, why not? He is your property, just like your coffee table. If you want to smash your coffee table who will object?

One could argue from a traditionalist point of view that owning coffee tables in one’s realm is permissible. Masters have had coffee tables working for them since pre-historic times. Master and table have managed to get along quite well, excepting when Master stubs his toe on said table or Master possesses more tables than he can handle.

However, smashing coffee tables or scarring them without just cause is not only repugnant to every member of civilized society, it is contra the decrees of the gods. Coffee tables, although not as good as Masters or even most serfs, nonetheless have feelings, hopes, and desires, just like all normal furniture. People, especially good masters, have a natural, built-in sense about this. Damaging a coffee table unjustly damages others’ souls as well; the whole society suffers a little.

There is received, time-tested ancient wisdom against abusing coffee tables, but not against owning them. We are only now beginning to recognize the folly of assuming coffee table consciousness and ability to be equal to our own. Only when enough men realize the proper relation of Master to coffee table will Midgard have a chance at normalcy, safety, and real freedom once again.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:23 | #

Here is a little scenario, Massa Rusty:

Lets say my brother is a little slow, he is just not responsible. He gets himself in trouble alot. He often borrows money from people and doesn’t pay it back. This happens once too often with regards to Mr. X. Mr. X, through the proper legal channels, obtains a legal writ which will render my brother his personal property until such time as my brother can work off his debt. I know that my brother will not be capable of doing this. So the balance of his life will be spent in the custody of Mr. X. I do not know Mr. X, I do not know if he is a decent man. I am fraught with worry about my brother’s welfare for what will be the balance of his life.

The day arrives, Mr. X shows up, along with officers of the law, to take custody of my brother and take him to Mr. X’s personal debtor’s gulag. My brother is crying, screaming, begging me…not to let them take him. I try to comfort him, choaking back my tears, knowing that it is a lie. ENOUGH! They grab him. He tries to fight back. They begin beating him to subdue him to their malign will. “Please, don’t let them take me, don’t let them hurt me!”

Enough, I run back into the house. I grab my gun. I shoot each one of those bastards in their pig faces and spit on their filthy corpses!

YOU GOT THAT MASSA RUSTY?!?!

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:46 | #

I just dont think we have anything to gain from arguing for slavery, even from the standpoint of an intellectual exercise.

I bore people I know by pointing out that the only unique aspect of white people and slavery is that out of all cultures/races we are the ones who ended it. Both from a moralistic standpoint - just not liking it and from a technological standpoint. We made it obsolete at least in the common form of one person owning another. Sure there are other forms. The whites of South Africa have been turned into a kind of slave caste after all.

Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:28 | #

White people tried to end slavery. Non-whites are perpetuating it.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:35 | #

Captainchaos, you have the wildest delusions I’ve ever seen! Thank you, that was LOL funny!!!

But seriously, folks ... It’s interesting: Whites fought for the end of slavery based purely on modern “laws” and rights of their own devising which were mainly designed to fend off attacks from each other. Feeling good about their new mastery over the universe, they then, godlike, extended those new-found rights to the Other. But the Other did not and does not recognize these fresh new “laws.” Now reality is back to bite die neuen Ubermenschen for this gross ignorance of real truth and for the rebellion against real natural law.

Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:02 | #

LOL, Me thinks, Rusty, is a proponent of my man, John C. Calhoun.

Posted by GT on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:40 | #

Step back from yourself for a moment, Onlooker .357. Beer with friends is one thing, beer at the keyboard is pathetic.

ROFL

More likely rolling on the floor drunk. Easy online racialism 24/7/365 and afffirming jewish stereotypes with “Heil Hitlers” from the keyboard is no way to go through life. Have you considered AA?

White people tried to end slavery. Non-whites are perpetuating it.

Not altogether true. Drunk, dense, and childishly disingenuous blightwingers who think they are fooling folks by changing their handle from Onlooker to .357 are perpetuating it.

Posted by eliteist on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:57 | #

I think that you want to return to a period and a culture that never existed. My understanding of your position is you reject both the “GW: hyper-individualistic” materialistic/scientific worldview and any religious worldview in favor of your ideal non-individualistic ethnocentric culture.

(I know there is one christian priest type poster here, but he is so far away from any consensus view of christianity that referring to him as a christian just confuses matters, it’s as if I referred to myself a a physicist when what *I* meant by physicist was fortune teller and then got upset when this confused people)

To get to any sort of ethnocentric European culture you would have to be talking about prechristian Europe, throwing out basically all of the fruits of western civilization. After the arrival of Christianity, the worldview in Europe was fundamentally religious and Christian, not ethnocentric. There was little interracial marriage, it’s true, but mostly because there was little opportunity. Populations were generally stationary which led to pretty stable ethnic groups, but there never existed firm lines between one ethnic group and another living in close proximity (Why do you think Italians are darker skinned than Norwegians…)

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all dissaprove of interfaith marriages, but not interracial marraige per se. (In general, in any huge movement you can find splinter factions advocating arbitrarily strange things)

For a hilarious modern day example check out: Kalman Packouz aka Kenneth Packouz
This rabbi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_Packouz
Who wrote this book: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/HowToPreventAnIntermarriage.pdf
(Chapters 14 and 15 are particularly funny)
And whose masseuse son is in trouble for defrauding the US gov’t:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/world/asia/27ammo.html

In cases where interracial marriage itself was discouraged there was generally a particular historical/cultural reason for it. (e.g. slavery in America). The main stream of Christianity has always supported the conversion of other peoples and opposition to intermarriages wasn’t a matter of principle, but usually a matter of geography. (The Spanish didn’t exactly refrain from interbreeding with natives of South America)

The last 400 years have seen a gradual shift from a religious worldview to a scientific materialist worldview, but that is equally alien to your ethnocentric worldview. (As you understand, labeling these people (me) homo economicus)

It is a biological law that populations that can interbreed will interbreed. The only way to maintain distinct popluations is through geographically or otherwise isolating those populations. (Judaism is a big topic on here, in America the jewish interracial marraige rates are over 50%, well above those of whites, they are of course much lower in Israel due to the artificial (and I personally doubt sustainable) barriers put in place.) Given we have the transport technology to render geographical barriers impotent, any social barriers you try to erect in a mixed population will eventually fall before the power of the human sex drive, given time and a lack of genocide. Scientists generally don’t buy arguments about greater intelligence in one race or another because to do that you have to argue, basically, that some places would be less selective for intelligence than others. This is hard to imagine, intelligence is all we have going for us, and evolution is pretty good at selecting for it. Evolution isn’t going to up and decide to do a worse job in one location, the human animal, like all animals is fantastically optimized for it’s environment, which is human cultural groups where intelligence and cunning is a pretty damn good predictor of mating success.

You want people to reject the two worldviews, Christian and secular/scientific, that have been dominant in the western world for the last 1700 years, do you believe that any sort of ethnocentric worldview could dominate without a complete collapse of our technological society and a return to small villages of hunter gatherers?

If you had to assess where most people’s worldviews lie, could you honestly not place 99.9% of the population in either the religious or secular scientific category? I don’t see how you could ever hope to recruit more than a vanishingly small percentage of the population to your ethnocentric views in the absence of a complete cataclysm.

Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:41 | #

A glimpse into GT’s micro-community/micro-economics—rare footage:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6GP_aE3iOs

Posted by GT on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:07 | #

The mis-characterization of ideas involving competence and work is typical of dense, alcoholic, “Heil Hitlering” easy online racialists such as Onlooker 357 who is limited to “onlooking” as real men work.

Onlooker “activism”: Sieg Heil, sieg heil, sieg heil, sieg heil! Drunk and on the Internet, of course.

There is a place for alcoholics like Onlooker. It is called VNN Forum. There, one may post 4,500+ inconsequential posts since January 2007, call it “activism,” and have your ass scratched by other alcoholics, felons, fat chicks, and what-have-you.

Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:28 | #

And you’re the epitome of class and virtue? LOL. My interaction with you, GT, is over. I’m not going to waste my time fending off a disturbed half-wit like you.

Posted by GT on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:25 | #

Many “racialists” are socially dysfunctional in the real world and consider easy online racialism to be a safe outlet due to it’s remote, electronic nature. All that’s required to join the White nationalist “chat” community, for example, is a drunken Heil Hitler, advocacy of GLR’s failed strategies, adopting a badass handle/avatar, and “naming the jew” by blaming the jew for personal deficiencies in judgment and character. Buy the excuses, throw ‘em a beer and a few dollars and you’re “In Like Flynn.”

My interaction with you, GT, is over.

Right. The favor is not returned. I reserve the right to address your stupidity on this board at any time. Your best bet is a return to VNN Forum, where it’s always a drunken easy online Oktoberfest 24/7/365.

Posted by GT on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:04 | #

One more thing Onlooker before I’m finished for the day,

And you’re the epitome of class and virtue? LOL.

Alcoholics typically invoke childish, Platonic standards against their accusers. No, you’re not “laughing out loud.” You’re a drunken, easy online racialist with absolutely no concern for anything beyond drink and the electronic “social” acceptance that can just as easily be found at the local “Click & Connect.” This thread was interesting until you inserted the “Heil Hitler” crap and childishly attempted to justify your behavior by attributing it to alcohol. That straw broke the camel’s back. When I asked a simple question regarding cyber identity you failed to answer forthrightly. Instead, you played silly mindfuck games on the computer. Okay, I’m game, although I would prefer to ban you in a heartbeat if it were in my power to do so.

Take your onlooking .357 persona to VNN Forum.

Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:09 | #

“I reserve the right to address your stupidity on this board at any time.”

Okay, GT, since to pretend to be so smart, surly you can (in your own words) answer this “stupid” question:

Why are so many people of European decent engaging in many forms of ethno-suicide?

Posted by .357 on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:47 | #

Well, I guess little Charlie “GT” Manson Jr. is too busy to answer my question. He’s probably with his “Family” planning a new “Helter Skelter War” out at the ranch?

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:09 | #

I will answer your question.

“Why are so many people of European decent engaging in many forms of ethno-suicide?”

There are several suspects who were close to the scene of the crime: Jewry, liberalism, the left, the NWO, managerialism ...

But the chief suspect, the one that really deserves the rap, is the hyper-individualism to which we have dedicated our energies over the last sixty years. Here are a few descriptive phrases drawn from a video on Rudolf Steiner, as it happens, that someone posted on a forum elsewhere. They explain the score pretty well:-

In the present day, human interests tend to centre on the veneration of human individuality. An energetic effort is made to shake off authority of every kind. Nothing is accepted as valid unless it springs from the roots of individuality. Everything which hinders the individual in the full development of his powers is thrust aside. We are convinced that in each of us, if only we probe deep enough into the very heart of our being, there dwells something noble, something worthy of development. We no longer believe there is a norm of human life to which we must all conform. Never have artists been less concerned about rules and norms in art than today. Each of them asserts their right to express, in the creations of their art, what is unique in them. All this results from the individual’s pursuit of freedom, developed to the highest pitch.

Plainly, the kind of devotion that trapped Europe’s young men in the trenches of the First World War, and brought them obediently back at eachother’s throats again little more than twenty years later, would scandalise the precious, rarified European beings who walk the Earth today.

But this is no more than the inevitable trajectory of liberalism, and its end is nihilism as the European world collapses into a demographic disaster. How else could it possibly end. Free men don’t ... can’t love and won’t care.

Of course, if you would rather believe it’s those world-class Middle-Eastern opportunists ...

Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:43 | #

I think that’s a very reasonable explanation. I’ve noticed the phenomenon, in my conversations with young people (my step children and their friends). Every one believes that he or she is absolutely, utterly unique (“special”) in the world, in every aspect, so the notion that one belongs to a race or a tribe, or probably even a family in some cases, is offensive to them. The idea that they are part of something much larger than themselves, doesn’t even cross their mind. They don’t like to be reminded that they exhibit features and traits of relative and ancestors, that they are the current representatives of a line.

This attitude seems to be especially prevelant among whites, for some reason, but members of other races do exhibit it too, though on a lesser scale I think because it is politically, economically, and morally advantageous to be identified as a member of a protected ‘victim class’.

Posted by .357 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:31 | #

I think Selous Scout is begining to wake up.

Posted by Lurker on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:03 | #

I hope we are not going to have any more futile theoretical justifications for slavery though.

Any moral justification for slavery - no, none that are going to convince more than a handful of people.

Any economic justification for slavery - no, none Im aware of given the current level of technological development.

We want to win arguments, win people over dont we? Any stray undecided strolling through here and seeing some WN arguing for slavery. Yeah, great, thats really going to go down a storm and its bound to circulate around other sites. And that helps how exactly?

Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:40 | #

For what it is worth, I generally sympathise with Aristotle’s view of slavery. I find slavery neither unnatural nor morally offensive. However, I would not base a political platform or manifesto on it, and I certainly would not waste time here arguing its (supposed) merits, or lack thereof. Surely there are other matters more pressing.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:08 | #

HyperIndividualism.

Hyper individualism and the way we live, is simply an adaptation of life only made possible by the technological civilisation we have fashioned. This civilisation has only been made possible due to the ability of man to release enormous amounts of locked up energy in the form of fossil fuels. It is this which has enabled us as human beings - to live the way we live.

Our current way of living is rapidly coming to an end, the abundant energy we have enjoyed is abundant no longer, it is to all intents exhausted, and by extension so is the way we live.

Just ask yourselves, would liberalism and all that it spawns, be possible be to flourish in the conditions which humans are shortly to face?

It’s back to the future.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:18 | #

Just an example of what I mean.

It is after lunch, my dog’s enquiring look says it’s time we were gone , I unwind from my chair and and shake off my nap, it’s time to go.

Two minutes is all it takes and we are are in the world that I love best., It’s an ancient cart track and is part of the village local footpaths, that criss cross this ancient land. I vary our route according to whim, I slip through a barred gate a down the side of a hay meadow, already I have transgressed, but I’m on speaking terms with the farmer, luckily he’s not around today.

We make our way down to the river, hugging the hedgerows so not to trample the grass, here, on a clear breezy summer’s day we might catch site of a pair of buzzards soaring the thermals, I actually saw two the other week disappear into the wispy clouds - what a site! We walk the river bank, hoping to see the Barbel spawning, sorry not today, maybe tomorrow.

I am alone with my thoughts, the turmoil of our once stable world is never far from my mind, I try and picture the yeoman stock that once tilled these fields, what would they think I wonder? On top of the mound, I can see for miles across the river valley, an isolated church spire rising from the green foliage, perhaps tomorrow we shall walk that way and pay a visit.

Two days later we are are on the same route but something is different now, it takes me a moment to figure what it is, of course! they’ve mown the hay, not only have they cut the grass (and of the two adjoining meadows) but have carted away the bales, only the cropped grass, looking like a new mown lawn remains. How could this be?

When I was a boy, what we take for granted today would not have been possible. To mow, dry, bale. and cart away three fields of hay would have taken the farmer and his hands more than a week of hard work. One shire horse pulling a mowing machine, labourer’s turning the hay for drying, followed by a horse an hay cart to transfer to the farmyard, to stack and thatch - all would have taken a small group of men days to accomplish what can be achieved in two days today.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:09 | #

Dorset or Wiltshire, Bill? Don’t tell me it’s not a chalk stream.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:12 | #

From limestone hills it wanders down.

Posted by GT on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:36 | #

After reading Bill’s description of his day in rural Britain, who could think comfortable social associations of family and friends striving for economic independence - microcommunities - are not possible in the 21st century? The mischaracterization of rural microcommunities as “hippie communes” or “Charlie Manson Enterprises” by America’s easy online “racialist” blightwing underscores the poverty of their tactical and strategic position

——

Re: GW’s post.

The fat, poorly-conditioned man is more susceptible to disease and illness than the conditioned man. Europids are susceptible to jewish virulence because too many are moral slobs, blightwingers included. This is an issue the majority of us evade and some passively accept. No, it is not “overlooked.” Evasion is encouraged and the idea that Europids “were fundamentally healthy before the sickness” is promoted. One response to calls for self-examination is silence. The other response is, “You’re a jew or Anti.” Why? Because a) we lack the courage for it, b) it threatens our “leadership” and dysfunctional “members,” and b) our enemies exploit the weakness in argument.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:27 | #

Ten men went to mow….

Did you know, that one 42 gall. barrel of oil contains the equivalent of 25000 of man hours labour?

Not a lot of people know that, as Michael Caine would say.

http://allderdice.ca/?p=50

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:46 | #

Is that a serious question Rusty? Generally speaking, ethical arugments against slavery rest on one of two ethical systems.

1. Utilitarianism, which seeks to minimize human suffering and maximize human happiness through a sort of emotional calculus. Most people do not accept that the suffering of the enslaved can be adequately counterbalanced by the happiness of enslavers when you are talking about enslaving a race of people anyway. Defining certain groups as sub or unhuman and therefore unworthy of having their happiness/suffering considered is also (deservedly) unpopular.

2. Ethics of reciprocity or the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would prefer to be treated were situations reversed. How would you like it if I came over and enslaved you simply because I could and it would please me to see you lick my boots? Others mentioned this, but you failed to understand that they weren’t just expressing their personal feelings, they were making an argument from the golden rule or the categorical imperative if you want to be more academic about it.

How does the golden rule oppose slavery? Blacks would have no problem putting whites in chains if they could. This has little to do with history, and a lot to do with behavioral genetics and resulting black psychology. So there goes the “do unto others as they’d do unto you” aspect of the golden rule.

Then there’s the “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.” Well, that’s pretty obviously stupid when dealing with a group like blacks. Hell, it’s pretty stupid when dealing with humans generally. It amounts to unilateral surrender; morality becomes synonymous with weakness.

I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the Hebrews meant what Christians say they meant with TGR, originally. Traditional Judaism is a fairly explicit dual moral code.

For all the complaining about race replacement and racial mixing here, no one is making you personally go out and marry interracially.</blockquote>

No, they’re just lying about the consequences and pretending laying down with negros is a mitzvah (for goys, anyhow). Not much of a distinction, morally; they’re just doing as much as they can get away with, but no more.

<i>Most individuals in the wider culture are increasingly in favor of interracial marriage, is there an ethical argument for them not to be? And please, state your assumptions and reasoning, repeating EGI, EGI, until you’re blue in the face is not an ethical argument.

Why bother? You’ve decided to be obtuse, so what can we possibly do with you? Short form: an organism’s primary interest is in seeing itself replicated; ethics follow from interests.

As for my arguments against slavery, I say because it’s not good for whites. Whites don’t have the intestinal fortitude (in other words, they’re too nice) to carry it off, and wind up doing monumentally stupid things like turning slaves loose on their own populations. This is more or less the ingroup morality version of your utilitarian argument. I mean, I find slavery repugnant but that isn’t much basis for an argument.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments