|
|
|
A Journey to The Hague - a novella or, at least, a prediction The first chapter of another of my books that will never be written. A fiction today. But one hopes that one day the important parts of it will be fact. Chapter One “The Court will hear your opening statement if you please, Mr Truscott-Brown,” announced the presiding chief justice in perfectly fluent but by no means native English. For that was to be the only language spoken in the room during the next three days. No translators would be whispering into microphones, no one in Court would be hurriedly adjusting his or her earpiece to catch some mangled phrase. This was an entirely English, or British, affair except that it was taking place at the Hague before one judge from Alsace, another from Heidelberg, and a third from Uppsala, all of whom had forgone the privilege of hearing the proceedings in their native tongue. “Thank you, your Honour,” came the reply in ringing received pronunciation. George Truscott-Brown QC OBE, lead advocate for the plaintiff, eternal renegade and inveterate fighter of lost causes, peered over his glasses at the unknown quantity which was the bench. He steadied himself inwardly and, with a final, ever so slightly uncertain pat of the neat rectangle of papers on the table in front of him, began his work for the day. “Learned judges will be fully aware that this is a complex and, in some quarters, controversial action which presents a number of tests for the 1948 Convention. If the plaintiff is successful at this review, a subsequent plenary hearing may set precedent in several areas of high significance for the jurisdiction and practise of the ICC and to future interpretation of Article 2. “Mindful, therefore, of the profound responsibility which would weigh upon the trial judges, it is our intention, at the kind invitation of the Office of the Prosecutor, to present you with the greatest possible wealth of evidence and legal argument within the time available to us. It is our firm belief that all of the former will be ruled admissable and the latter applicable, and that your Honours will be led to the only possible conclusion that the Court must grant the Prosecutor leave to investigate the complicity of those individuals named in the Court papers.” In private, Truscott-Brown had never really believed that the case would come this far. But here they all were, within just one review of the ICC taking it on, and with the prospect of a media sensation of a trial of serving and former ministers of the Crown and, by extension, of six decades of British politics itself. But he had not been alone in his scepticism. No one of any note outside their little circle thought any of this could happen - not his legal peers, certainly not the politicians, not the civil service or the gaggle of back-office advisors, not the Attorney General of any government past or present or any of his officers. It had proved a very nasty shock indeed for them all, and a shot across the bows of government in every other European country where the life of the people had been held just as cheap. Every august president, every sleek, self-satisfied prime minister, every jockeying, ambitious minister of home affairs or justice, immigration, integration, equality, or whatever they liked to call their sinecures these days, was looking on and thinking, “There but for the grace of God ...” And they were absolutely right. If this case actually produced a guilty verdict the world was going to change. And if that happened, the names of John Driscoll, Peter Upton and Veronica Haymes, respectively a retired venture capitalist and one-time poker professional, a constitutional historian teaching at Brasenose, and an ONS statistician sacked for whistle-blowing, would go down in history. These three had believed ardently from the start, and had not given way to the discouragement from all sides when they came forward initially with, so to speak, the bare bones of an application. No reputable London firm of solicitors would touch it. One severe looking woman, offended on behalf of all humanity, declared, “It’s ridiculous. Actually it’s hypocrisy. You are seeking some kind of Apartheid. But that’s been a crime against humanity for forty years. The ICC could not allow its process to be used to, in effect, licence a subsequent crime it is bound to recognise under Article 7 of the Rome Statute.” “So you are saying,” replied Peter Upton, with all the measured authority and donnish gravitas he could muster, “that Rome supersedes Geneva, and no native people may liberate itself from a government-generated replacement by another people without that constituting a crime of Apartheid? By which foolishness you legitimise any and all colonisation! And you render defunct the very principle of self-defence! “Or perhaps we are talking of different things,” he continued, “and Rome and Geneva each have their own quite separate and distinct legal application. Which I have not the slightest doubt you fully understand, in reality.” The woman made no reply. The comforting and, for her, habitual thesis that her first from Cambridge and her position as a salaried partner with a respected London firm automatically implied that clients were there to benefit from her sagacity, not the other way round, had taken a hit. “And you say we are hypocritical,” Upton continued, “Yet our argument flows entirely from the principles of the sanctity of human life, the right to life, and the universality of law which cannot be qualified by some one-eyed postmodern morality.” Stung, the poor woman pieced together her professional dignity and tried a different tack, delivering herself of the opinion that “Perhaps, Professor Upton, you have not noticed that Article 2c refers to physical destruction. Taking away food, poisoning wells ... that sort of thing. You are simply not taking genocide seriously.” Upton shot back, “2c does not stipulate the method, time-scale or speed of a genocide event, does it? For example, would it be a genocide under 2c to separate men and women in labour camps, keeping them alive but, in effect, preventing the people from reproducing? Would not the end result be a forced extinction of that people? Or a physical destruction, if you prefer?” “But ... that’s … not happening. None of it is happening,” she complained, finding no further legal argument to clothe her political revulsion. “Nothing so crude as separating men and women, no,” Upton replied, “But you do concede that a long-term process of genetic destruction is accommodated within 2c, don”t you? So it remains only to further accommodate the identity of the victim, which is the real problem for the liberal mind.” Of course, Upton’s adversary was not at all unusual in possessing, or being possessed by, the liberal mentality on race and ethnicity. The opinion of her peers was uniformly that not only was the trio’s case legally tendentious, even absurd, but it offended against the very concept of human rights. It could only give succour to racists and xenophobes. One ideologue, for whom the very thought of a people native to Britain was offensive, spluttered, “When you define ‘your’ people as belonging to a particular racial group excluding others that is racist - it is judging people totally by their race. What else would you call that except racist?” “So let’ get this straight,” said Upton wearily, “Nobody can identify his own people without being racist. The prefix ‘gen’ has no meaning in reality, and until the invention in the 20th century of the denial of human difference, all humanity mistakenly supposed itself to possess some innate particularity which, oddly enough, 21st century multi-array DNA analysis confirms. “It is a miracle, then,” he concluded, “that the ICC investigator has ever brought to court those whom he has charged, isn’t it? Back on the High Holborn pavement with Driscoll, but still without legal representation, Upton dropped his professorial mein and observed, “Smug little git. Didn’t understand the bloody law anyway.” “Don’t let the bastards get you down, Peter,” said Driscoll dryly. “It’s not them really, is it? It’s the whole social pricing thing. It’s very powerful, and these people are very weak. And in a way they are right to be negative. Any one of them who break ranks and becomes associated with us could well be committing professional suicide. Social too, probably.” It was, however, becoming ever more apparent to them just what they had taken on with this initiative. The chances of finding even one free-thinking solicitor with an appetite to do down the entire British Establishment were slim, to say the least. Then, if one was found how, in turn, would he or she find a silk willing to go to the ICC Prosecutor with a genocide in which not a single shot had been fired, nor to which a single death could be directly attributed to the defendants, and in which hitherto no politically respectable observer believed. And even if a man for that job could be found, the precedence in law was so thin and the terms of reference of the Court itself so narrow, there was no legal basis on which it could sanction a prosecution anyway. How does one take a crime before a prosecutor who cannot investigate it, and expect him to take the case before a court which cannot hear it? Even so, the trio pushed on with the search. But their reputation as carriers of the plague began to precede them. It was looking bleak in London, where they felt the case needed to be mounted. Then, early on a Saturday morning in April, someone had the gambler’s confidence to turn up uninvited at the security gates of Driscoll’s Esher home. The disembodied voice of an educated male floated from the intercom, making profuse apologies for imposing himself in this way. “My name is John Dunstan. We’ve met before, very briefly” he said, “If you recall, the Children’s Trust people managed to mix up our tables at their banquet last May.” “I ... sorry, I don’t ...” replied Driscoll. “Well, not to worry. Look, I drove out of town on the off-chance that I might have a word with you on a matter, I assure you, of great mutual interest.” “Well, I suppose you’d better come up to the house,” Driscoll replied. He pressed the gate release button, and went to wait at the front door. Perplexed but expecting to be tapped for a donation to some worthy cause, he had the shock of his life when Dunstan, a casually but well dressed man in his mid-thirties, stepped into the entrance hall and, after more apologetics about having no other way to make contact, blithely declared, “I hear that you have been having some trouble finding a solicitor to handle a prospective human rights action. You won’t find one by looking as you are now. But you don’t have to go the solicitorial route, you know. I’m an HR advocate at Lawrence Travers. I think what you are doing is important. I’d be happy to give an opinion, if you’re interested. Why don’t you drop by my chambers and we can discuss it?” In the evening of that same day George Truscott-Brown, dinner-jacketed among the academic gowns, was standing in his place at High Table as guest of honour of the Dean of Balliol. A gratifying haze of candle smoke, mirth and mellow contentment had settled upon the hall and its sixty diners, all of them paying guests. Nothing goes down better in such a place and on such an occasion than a catalogue of one’s own youthful indiscretions, and Truscott-Brown had a rich and artfully embellished store upon which to draw. He wound up with an account of his first brush in court with government to prove the point – a favourite one - that no matter how much of a hash one makes of things there is always one body in life which aspires to make a bigger one. Twenty minutes later he was standing by the main doors grasping the hands of people whose names he did not know, and would certainly not remember. When an opportunity came to disentangle himself he strode a few paces across the room to a figure in academics waiting patiently and quite alone to meet him. “You’ve been trying to catch my attention all evening,” he said, extending his hand. “I … didn’t mean to intrude on … well yes, perhaps I did. Was I that transparent? Actually I wangled a place at High Table this evening because I do want to meet you. My name is Peter Upton.” “I know who you are, and why you would want to meet me. As a matter of fact, I heard about you from one of the solicitors who your group approached at the end of last year. Do you want to know why he turned you down?” “We assumed it was fear of association with something that could be perceived as anti-progressive, anti-liberal, even racist.” “Well, you assumed wrong. There may be a few idiots like that about. But lawyers are a fickle bunch. If the money’s good we’ll dance with the devil. We frequently do.” Truscott-Brown was staying at a small hotel ten minutes away in Hampton Poyle. They met in the bar at 10.30 pm, and were spoilt for choice for a quiet corner in which to nurse a large brandy. “So this fellow you people approached last December,” Truscott-Brown began, as bluntly as possible, “He had been leaned on no less than three times in the forty-eight hours before you saw him. First, his senior partner was contacted by the firm’s biggest client. You know, all very predictable. Any association with racial prejudice would be extremely unhelpful and unfortunate - that sort of thing. Then a creature from the British Board of Deputies telephoned our man with some helpful advice.” “The British Board of Deputies? Are you serious?” “Then the biggie – an unannounced visit from two very unsubtle, very sinister-looking chaps who said they were from the Justice Ministry, but who you can assume were Intelligence. They ordered our friend, actually ordered him, not to cancel the meeting with you, but to see you and discourage you.” There was a lengthy silence while Upton took this in. “Quite Macbethian, I suppose,” he finally said. “Except there were four witches instead of three,” said Truscott-Brown, “But it’s only to be expected. It’s the Establishment’s first line of defence – that is exactly how the spooks explained it.” “And what’s the second line? Did they happen to mention that?” enquired Upton laconically. “Perhaps they did. Our man said to them that sooner or later someone was going to take the brief. They agreed. Probably sooner, one of them said. Which is something you might want to think about.” When Upton rose to leave, Truscott-Brown reached into his pocket and produced his business card. “Open an email account in an assumed name,” he said, “Access it from any public computer but not your own, either at home or in your room at college. Mail me when you’ve done it. Otherwise, don’t change your behaviour in any way; and don’t tell anyone else, anyone at all, about this conversation.” On the following Monday Driscoll telephoned Dunstan at his chambers to arrange for a consultation, with Upton and Haymes in attendance. Dunstan was only too eager to please. Having had his fill of law offices lately, Driscoll suggested a more convivial environment. A week later the four of them lunched in one of the private rooms at Rules. Dunstan found Driscoll in fine form and very friendly. The woman too. But to Dunstan’s initial confusion, Upton, not Driscoll, turned out to be the moving spirit behind the whole venture, and spokesman for the group; and he was more cool and distant. He laid out the legal substance of the claim for Dunstan straightforwardly and with a disarming freshness and fidelity to the facts that rebuffed all association with racist diatribe. He spoke of the native British peoples as victims not of the postmodern age nor of the dynamics of history or even economics, but of men, mostly very small men striving to make their mark in history. “Tawdry politicians,” he called them, “who, for reasons that they have never explained, embarked upon and maintained a deliberate and calculated programme of the re-population of Britain while materially confiscating all that the natives need for their own existence.” Dunstan left the restaurant satisfied that the group had nowhere else to go. But he wasn’t entirely comfortable with things. It was clear now that Driscoll only provided the finance, while Haymes specialised in data gathering. But Upton was the intellectual muscle, and it was Upton who he had to win around. The next morning at Dunstan’s chambers Veronica Haymes delivered by hand a memory stick with some four hundred hard-won FoI documents, all painstakingly filed by source and cross-referenced. She insisted that Dunstan must come down to Reception to collect it in person. “Some of these documents will turn out to be dynamite,” she told him, “if we can strike down the redactions, which I don’t believe can be defended on security or public interest grounds. There has got to be some highly damaging material to go at in disclosure. A mountain of it.” On the face of it, she might be right. There were releases clawed from the Cabinet Office, the No.10 Policy Unit, the Research and Analytics Unit, the ONS, the EHRC, the Home Office, the Treasury, the FCO, Justice, and Education. Despite the predictable black-lining of the greater part of them it was obvious to Dunstan within minutes where Haymes had made her breakthrough. For at least twenty years governments had maintained secret objectives for British population structure and growth. These incorporated negative projections for the native English, Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish populations, crucially alongside explicit measures to generate “a truly multi-racial society”, which was claimed to be desirable “for the opportunities it brings to create a more open, equal, just, and peaceful world.” Even speed reading the documents threw up repeated examples of thinking that could never be allowed into the public domain. About twenty memos and one lengthy paper were dedicated to the means to “adjust” the white British to “their place in the new multi-ethnic society”. These included an aggressive “muting” of white British identity as a source, apparently, of “separation and exclusion”, and “exposing white Britons to the maximum social, sexual, cultural, educational and economic interaction with the non-native - especially non-white - population.” Often, the writers of these documents could not even admit to each other the real meaning of their intent. Jarring euphemisms stood out like broken front teeth. Treasury documents cited “the demographics of economic redundancy” and talked ominously about “the permanent demographic solution”. Welfare provision for immigrants was also too sensitive a topic to be named clearly, and came under the heading of “assymetrical funding mechanisms”. Cabinet Office and Home Office interchanges discussed framing electoral debate on race and immigration in terms of “public knowledge deficit” (lying) and “unity of discourse” (intolerance of dissent). One of the oldest Home Office documents Haymes had pried loose made recommendations for the “assignment and proofs of racism”. It contained no reference to non-white racism. On the contrary, its opening gambit was that, “To defeat racism is not simply necessary for an increasingly multiracial society, but an increasingly multiracial society is necessary to defeat racism.” Dunstan particularly enjoyed the FO documents torturously discussing the long and winding process at the UN in New York that led to the General Assembly’s approval in September 2007 of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Among them was a plaint from an official in the UK delegation to the effect that, “The Eastern Europeans will simply not agree that their own peoples are not indigenous.” The restriction of the term to “naked tribes-people living in the jungle” was, the official said, “artificial, dishonest, and, in the long run, indefensible.” The Americans were brooding on the sidelines and would certainly abstain from the final vote. It would be down to the European Commission Delegation to break the deadlock. Another document from the same batch featured a proposed draft for a statement by the British Ambassador to be read out after the final vote, to the effect that no ethnic group in the UK was indigenous and none of the provisions in the Declaration applied within the borders of the country. Haymes had also exposed the existence of bi-annual, carefully-framed meetings between officials from the Home Office, Cabinet Office, No.10 Policy Unit and Conservative and Labour Party managers at which planned developments in immigration policy and related housing, employment, and legal matters were broached. What had been presented as a self-generating and haphazard process of population change in which government was driven by irresistible external forces to do things it knew would be unpopular now emerged as something very close to a stable plan. This revelation alone had the potential to persuade the ICC judges that specific intent and prior knowledge of the consequences for the native British existed for decades in Whitehall and in the party hierarchies. Dunstan clicked the last document off the screen and pulled the memory stick from its USB port. He was tired. He had been reading for over three hours without a break. The picture he now had was indisputably not one of prudent political management of some irresistible historical force. Nor was it one of some mammoth political mistake. Upton was right. There plainly was a designed process of native British marginalisation which had been maintained without pause by successive governments. Whether that constituted any form of genocide, never mind one that fell within the remit of the ICC, was still doubtful on this evidence. Nevertheless, a curious fervour clung to the officials who had produced this stuff. If that was teased out into the open, it might prove to belong to a very dark and malignant heart. But that heart was also his. Comments:2
Posted by vo on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:11 | # yeah, it sucks when an entire comment practices excessive didacticism 3
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 03:11 | # GW, I normally don’t enjoy fiction, but I did enjoy this piece very much. I hope that there are some influential people out there who read it, feel its unfolding significance, then puzzle momentarily over the last line as I did. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:13 | # Leon, I am not a novelist, and I don’t have sufficient familiarity with legal forms to write an entire novel along the above lines. Perhaps I will never be “a writer”, and obviously I will never make the grade as a proper intellectual. But I might make an attempt at a chapter two, just to allow some expansion and some unfolding of the dynamics contained in the initial set-up. Daniel, the last line ties into Truscott-Brown’s comment about the second line of defence and someone accepting the brief. 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:14 | # GW, Be ambitious! You never know what might come of it. On another note: GO SCOTLAND!! (no, really, go away, and leave the English to get their own nation back in order):
And maybe this will kickstart US secessionist movements. Lord knows, real Americans have to take our territories out of this mess while there’s still time! 6
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:55 | # ............... You treat people as adults and some are not ready, they want a parent in Jesus or perhaps Hitler. Haller may maintain a certain mannerly register in his writing, and write clearly enough. He may even have pedigree and law background, but what it amounts to for our purposes is empty snob appeal to his fellow travelers Thorn and the like Christian trolls who are backed perhaps by (for us) badly motivated handlers; who wish to encourage his empty logic to divert WN into the haplessness, sheepish and anti-intellectual rote of Catholicism or other failed conservative forms of expression. Their power comes from those whose primarily motive is to make us safe for Jews, i.e, don’t get anywhere near something penetrating beyond the faux conservatism (viz. liberalism) of Christianity, Austrian School Tractatus… or as in the state approved and controlled means of political diffusion he tries to blow smoke with above. The powers that encourage Haller and Thorn would like to leave us one of two choices: Jesus or Hitler. They know how to play those cards. If Jesus then we are hapless sheep, led to slaughter under a Jewish god - that’s fine with Jews. They know how to handle that, its safe. If Hitler, they know how to play that too: we would be radioactive to any thoughtful and authentic pursuit of our interests. Followers would be foolishly headlong and easily divisive of eminently worthwhile allies and an eminently worthwhile cause - easily manipulated into self destructive identity and acts. Either way, we are not supposed to think for ourselves anew, according to our authentic needs, but sheepishly follow. Either way, we are easily manipulated to our destruction. Haller chooses Jesus, Greg Johnson chooses Hitler. But the intellectual choice on behalf of native European interests is neither. Where our own erudition and capacity does not cover all the bases, we have all known better scholars - to whom we may refer. We need not endure Haller, he is free to create a Catholic WN site, where we would not go to insist that he and Thorn must accept another religion. Greg Johnson of course is a bit better of a scholar but no big deal, we have all known scholars, better ones in fact, who do not insist upon others being like him, all greased-up and ready for Hitler. Unlike the others in the struggle, you do not weigh matters down with these allegiances nor with some such character defect as obnoxious conceit. Yet, your thoughts are subtle and you are ambitious in your wish to penetrate matters deeply. Couple that with your good and important motives and you are indeed worthy of the scholarship, the intellectual rigor and imagination ready to enhance your platform. .... I wish someone like Nora would read your piece and respond with an interview.
........................... 7
Posted by Jon on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:01 | #
The entries for “pedantic” in 5 different English dictionaries and for cognates of the word in several others include a picture of Haller sitting in the Podunk Catholic University library reading the Thesaurus from cover to cover. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Jan 2014 23:58 | # Jon, I think even Leon will laugh along with that one. Daniel, In a sense the argument about which way European Man must destin is being settled by the fact that his crisis is not one of potency this time, or one of an offense against his honour. It is existential, and his response is ethno-nationalism, not some latter-day derivative of fascism. So I think that we are working on the right and logical track. I very much wish that the ontology project was of wider interest and others like Gregg and O’Meara would test its verities. If and when we see that happening, even if the results are negative, we will know that we are not merely talking to ourselves. 9
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 02:58 | # I’ve never attended any “Podunk” institution. Reading the Thesaurus would make for a better world, however ... To more important matters: TIME TO FIGHT THE GOP IMMIGRATION TRAITORS ... AGAIN!!
ALL AMERICAN PATRIOTS MUST FIGHT NOW!! THE VERY SURVIVAL OF OUR COUNTRY IS LITERALLY AT STAKE (as in about to be burned at the stake). COPY AND SPREAD THIS NUMBER AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE ACROSS THE INTERNET. 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:06 | # AMERICAN AMNESTY INSANITY:
11
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 05:45 | # On to more important matters…personally, I enjoyed Greg Johnson’s recitation of Aristotle’s concern for actualization and how it does not fly in the face of what I needed to say about it. Still, I’m not overly concerned about what he or even O’Meara might think in a positive sense… I’m more concerned about their negative impact. And I am totally disinterested in what Leon Haller has to say. He has shown himself to be worthy the status of a troll, nothing more. He has proven time and again a conceited ass, who willfully ignores a myriad of important matters and directs them into futility. He is going to vote and lobby out of the mess his mindset’s Republican/ Democrat apparatus created? ... or direct us into “White Zion” ...“the only hope” with he the new Pope? So much is bad will evident that suspicion of his motives toward WN remains more than valid. A black heart with regard to authentic concern indeed. Call your congressman…LOL good luck! Too bad Johnson banned Haller from Counter-Currents and he got dumped here. He actually would fit better on the pendulum between Johnson’s Hitler fetish and O’Meara’s dabbling as such along with an interjection of Jesus stuff. No, I can live without their assessment. Feedback is a help but when has Haller’s ever been particularly worthwhile? With regard to Haller, but even Johnson and O’Meara, they can provide occasional tools and some affinity for our concern, but not the final table of judgment. 12
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 06:58 | # Yes, Leon’s life-long record of Republican libertarianism ...er, “conservatism”..rather Austrian cheap labor….er school economics, and…of all the goddamn things Catholicism!! are going to save us from this demographic crisis??? Sure! Make a phone call and notify everyone of Haller’s efforts! 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:28 | # Daniel, My intellectual orientation towards the Nietzsche/spirit of race folk is revolutionary. Their notions (which are not actually theirs at all - they only regurgitate a meal eaten long ago) are the default setting for opposition to canonical liberalism, and I use the religious terminology quite intentionally. Take another look at Greg Johnson’s intro to part 1 of his Aristotle piece:
So here is somebody - let’s call him a scholar - who, right off the bat, reifies the spiritual; and off we trip towards The Life of Glory. The journey is never interrogated. It is merely communicated as the natural philosophical underpinning for WN. Of course, what our scholar is doing is writing about Aristotelian thought precisely in order to do that. He reduces Aristotle to the role of happy little helper. What he is saying, and what O’Meara says and Bowden said, can be reduced to eight words: “my religious thought must be your religious thought”. This is no sort of basis for a new intellectual dominion. Actually, there is only one possible basis for that, which is human truth. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:08 | # Daniel S really does sound like he writes when drunk, doesn’t he? There is no other way to account for the endless meandering ... Forget style, many great thinkers have been poor stylists (Kant, Hegel). It is the sheer inaccuracy, buffoonery, historical ignorance, illogicality, invention of meaningless phrases, etc etc that is so off-putting. Really, GW, don’t you have some greater degree of site-pride? Why do you tolerate this clown? Silver was right: this Daniel character’s musings really are about the very lowest point MR has ever sunk. Incidentally, Clown, my presence at MR predates not only yours, but the formation of Counter-Currents. And I was never a troll here. I was encouraged to visit here by others who had seen my comments elsewhere. I was invited. Stopping this immigration treason is by so many light years the most important issue facing white Americans today that only a total moron would think otherwise. If you think that mass phone calls and emails do not have an effect on Congressional votes, then you are even more ignorant of the American political system than you routinely appear to be. Patriots stopped the treason in 2007; we can do so again. So run off and play your ludicrous “I’m a real intellectual” charades with yourself and any masochists who can endure you. For serious souls, there is work to be done. 15
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:10 | # A good point. Where are the pre-2013 archives, posts an comments? They haven’t all been erased, have they? There was a lot of great stuff! 16
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:31 | # Good piece of writing, GW. I think putting the ethnocide narrative in fictional form is a brilliant strategy. As they say: “Nothing is more real than fiction.” Looking forward to chapter two. 17
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:35 | # Posted by Leon Haller on January 29, 2014, 08:08 AM | # Daniel S really does sound like he writes when drunk, doesn’t he?
NOT THAT I WANT YOU TO. There has been no opportunity to address content and that is yours and your partner Thorn’s strategy. I don’t meander, I conform to facts and necessity. You and Thorn have set it out as a job for yourself to smear and divert attention from what I have to say. It’s clear. I’ve developed ideas in conversation with serious scholars and have verified the worth of the content of the discussion with them. I know, that you and Thorn are acting out of bad will when you carry on as if there is nothing to consider and try to bury threads with your Catholic bullshit and the like.
Haller has established himself as something tantamount to a troll, along with his fellow Thorn, whose purpose here is to derail genuine concern for WN interests and direct us into..what? Catholicism? Austrian school economics? And he is calling people clowns without pride? And I was never a troll here. I was encouraged to visit here by others who had seen my comments elsewhere. I was invited. You are as good as a troll. Whatever doesn’t conform to Catholicism, Austrian school economics and tinkering with GOP libertarianism is ignored and smeared by you in an attempt to divert discussion into your hapless forms. Everyone is concerned about immigration, but there is a need to organize. There are, however, obstructions to organization, which I have addressed and which your conceited ego (or whatever your problem is) refuses to acknowledge as not being mutually exclusive to concern for immigration. You pig headedly insist upon your failio conservative platform which has been editorially rejected here. 18
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:11 | # This is excellent, GW. Do you intend to continue? 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:25 | # Thanks, Ben. What with Leon and Thorn making a similar request I guess I will do a bit more. But I can’t help but think that you would be better placed to be writing this sort of thing than I am! 20
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:34 | # Nevertheless it was written.. And the train of reality brings the fate of a higher cause over Thorn and Haller - ding ding ding: eeeert, aaaaaaaaah! ... we are in a better place now, where the verifiable does inspire and the truth matters. Have you heard? the Church has been provided with an entirely new text by the Hauge, a new and ever lasting narrative of the people of Europe, and not of Israel. Our God is good as are our people forever, amen!
21
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 30 Jan 2014 04:05 | # ....post script a funny thing happened, we discovered our inspiration was not exactly to be unsafe for Jews, but to find them in the place of un-chosen, insignificant others ...be they a marginal extant tribe or their hairy backs assimilated… Zion lost its turger.. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:30 | # A couple of days ago Morgoth, myself and a few others were chatting amiably with a bunch of perfectly mad Jews on this thread: The conversation was wrestled on to the history of genocides and the non-exceptionalism of the one that afflicted Jews from 1941-45. At one point a couple of us starting asking them “Are 1000 Jewish deaths the same as 1000 French deaths?” The question was probably asked six times. The nearest to a reply was “... any death is tragic, regardless of who dies.” The difference between Jewish ethnocentrism and any other ethnocentrism is the completely implacable, sociobiologically-rooted conviction that Jews are everything the Torah and Talmud claim they are. It’s not simply self-preference, as with any other group. There is no possibility at all of making these people comprehend their true position. They are literally living a lie. The must live this lie. There is no other life they can live, and they are evolutionarily fitted to our sociobiology, as their environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, to the “End” of living it. There is no final solution to the Jewish Question in rendering them “insignificant others”, short of the Lemba option. Our only protection is knowledge. 23
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:01 | # ///// But that’s what I meant, a focus on our own organization - self knowledge. When we deal with our authentic concerns as a priority, their (negative) imposition emerges and then we deal with it as a secondary phenomenon from a Eurocentric position. As Eurocentrism takes on a more explicit religious sense of being a transcendent cause, the Jews as “chosen people” (of the Judeo-Christian text) become demoted to insignificant others (relatively, anyway), in a culturally guiding sense. I’m not talking about deliberate efforts to negotiate with them, but rather an endeavor to forge ahead without them. When we are going about our business (and then attacked) we are in a far stronger position than if we start by sniffing-out and hunting down enemies as the priority cause - that would be inauthentic grounding.
24
Posted by Silver on Sat, 01 Feb 2014 05:32 | #
I’m forced to retract that comment after Graham Lister put me in my place. These are the “conversations” MR needs to have. Besides Daniel’s inestimable contributions, “conversations” like Lister’s tiresome heaping of abuse on a system that, whatever its ideological blindspots and shortcomings, actually existed - America: pro-white, pro-Christian, pro-capitalist and which knew how to handle blacks - in favor of unremitting leftwing equalitarian ‘voodoo sociology’ (Badiou, Zizek, and pretty soon Gayatri Spivek and Homi Bhaba - why not?), none of whose intellectual leaders care a whit about white existence. That’s apparently what MR should be all about. 25
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:25 | #
HEH! Surely you jest.
Indeed. — Craig Bodeker Interviews Dr. Paul Gottfried That interview serves to demonstrate the folly of dismissing or disqualifying a person’s POV simply on the basis of their race or religion. Of course Gottfried is a Jew, but he certainly voices some sage insights we all could or should benefit by. 26
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 01 Feb 2014 14:31 | #
Yes, that’s what MR should be all about….that and saving the white race by placing its main focus on Europe.
27
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:29 | # I believe that Radix with the Richard Spencer/ Paul Gottfried orientation has the kind of platform that you are looking for, Thorn. They have comments too; you’d be right at home there.
28
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:21 | # Here’s a better question, Danny: Why don’t you stop making a pest of yourself? You can start by ceasing your ankle biting of other MR commenters. Trust me when I tell you, Danny, it’s bad enough that 99% of your entries are tortious to read. What I don’t quite understand is why you insist on making a bad situation even worse for yourself; i.e., why you insist on punctuating your repugnance by unnecessarily pestering others? 29
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 01 Feb 2014 19:36 | # Posted by Thorn on February 01, 2014, 01:21 PM | # Here’s a better question, Danny: Why don’t you stop making a pest of yourself? You can start by ceasing your ankle biting of other MR commenters.
I do not trust you for ANYTHING Thorn, except to act like the troll you are. All you do is try to impose Christianity here, when there are other places to go for that: Occidental Dissent is another perfect place for someone like you.
What I don’t quite understand is why you insist on making a bad situation even worse for yourself; No, Blossom, it is YOU who does not understand that there are places for you: Radix, Occidental Dissent. But you refuse to understand because your mission is to troll here. Where is “Thorn the inferior” remember your handler, who was encouraging you to make this a Jew friendly site? Why your concern for Paul Gottfried? i.e., why you insist on punctuating your repugnance by unnecessarily pestering others? Again, it is you who pesters, Thorn. You are a troll, that is what you do. You are here to distract from and derail the threads. Your would not have to insist on Christian authority at Occidental Dissent. Silver posts there, he can tell you that it is Christian and Traditional in orientation. I believe you are Southern as well, so it is all the more occasion to take yourself there. Blast-off dickhead. 30
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:16 | # Danny, is this your blog or is it Guessedworker’s? Just askin:....... Here’s another question for yaDanny: If MR were so anti-Christian why does it link to so many explicitly pro-Christian—or at least implicit pro-Christian—websites? Here, let me list some: 1) IncogMan 2) cambriawillnotyield 3) Irish Savant 4) Turnabout 5) CoCC 6) Political Cesspool Of course there are many more but my case is made…... That said, let’s get to the central point of my comment: What you are, Danny, is a brat. For the good of MR, GW needs to correct your brattiness. Seriously.
31
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 01 Feb 2014 21:53 | # ///// Danny, is this your blog or is it Guessedworker’s? Just askin:....... Dickhead, you are free to go to any of the Christian sites that you list and which are linked. Nobody is preventing you. It is not your site to require that it be Christian. Here’s another question for yaDanny:
Here, let me list some:1) IncogMan2) cambriawillnotyield3) Irish Savant4) Turnabout5) CoCC
Ok dickhead? Undersand! Of course there are many more but my case is made…... Go there dickhead!
What you are, Danny, is a brat. No Thornblossom, you are a dickhead who does not want to allow for a secular site…because you say so.
Seriously.
We don’t need your shit. .........
Here is Whitney Sara Cohen, who calls herself “Whitney Avalon” in order to cover her Jewish identity and Jewish agenda: She is the one in the interracial Cheerios commercial that will be aired during the super bowl
32
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 01 Feb 2014 22:23 | #
Uhhhh…..I never insisted MR become a Christian site nor a Jew friendly one either. You’re a delusional asshat. I’m compelled to reassess your condition, Danny. You’re not just a brat; you are a hysterical, delusional, hypersensitive, brat who overreacts to the slightest perceived —real or imagined—threat. Or could it be that you’re a victim of some sort of severe psychological trauma? Perhaps actual physical brain trauma, too? If so, that could very well explain thus excuse your irrational behavior. If that’s the case. it would make you truly a pitiable character. Pitiable in the sense of evoking compassion rather than contempt. Either way, I really feel sorry for you, guy. Get help.
33
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 00:39 | # For the good of MR, GW needs to correct your brattiness. This has always been an open blog, as I have explained before, and it must remain so. Hence there are only two rules: keep it legal, keep it civil. People have been banned from time to time for failing on the first of these, but very rarely indeed for the second. I would, however, prefer civility to be maintained. Regardless, no one is going to be shown the door at this moment. But the primary objective of MR is to divine the lineaments of a corrective to our common philosophical, political, demographic, and cultural crisis that is neither Christian, traditionalist, conservative, fascistic, or scientistic, and there should be no doubt that this will go as far as those of us interested in it can push it. 34
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 09:22 | # GW, Daniel attacks us for being Christian, or, perhaps more often, he defames Christianity and then accuses those of us who leap to its defense of attacking him, trolling MR, etc. The Christians associated with MR (except for that pathological conspiracy pest “Joe”, another, albeit different, delusional type) couldn’t care less whether other commenters are Christian or not. Neither I nor anyone else is here to try to convert others to our faith. When do I ever offer Catholic or Christian apologetics? But the relationship between Christianity and white preservation is surely one of the most important issues facing the white race, if only because no one can deny the historic relationship between the faith and the race. The whole of Western Civilization is not encompassed by Christianity, but the faith has been one of the largest components of our people. Daniel and others are within their “forensic rights” to argue either that 1) Christianity in its theological essence leads to racial universalism (ie, race-denial, and therefore indifference to race-replacement), or 2) that contemporary Christianity has become so infected with race-liberalism that, assuming the religion’s ontological falsity (which obviously we Christians won’t do), it has become more of an impediment than advantage to WP. I strongly disagree with the first contention, though I’m not going to try to prove a ‘negative’. There is nothing in the New Testament which suggests that being a Christian requires one to disavow (or remain silent in the face of) sociologically significant observed patterns among human groups (eg, blacks and crime; Muslims and terrorism; Orientals and quantitative aptitude; Jews and money), or that a society can only be ‘Christian’ insofar as it practices geographic or genetic race-mixture. Nor is there anything that I have encountered thus far in canonical Christian (OK, ‘Catholic’ - I haven’t studied much in non-Catholic Christian traditions) writings which can be reasonably interpreted as leading to the modern multiculti ideology. That Christians say “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, and liberals say “Down With (Western) Imperialism”, hardly means that Christianity and liberalism are identical in their approaches to relations between human populations. Likewise, that Christianity preaches universal brotherhood in Christ does not necessitate its support for secular expressions of such brotherhood, especially when coercively imposed (as with mass immigration, and various cultural assaults on white heritage). As I reiterate endlessly, Christianity is NOT liberalism (despite the occasional, modern, heretical overlap)! [That I feel compelled to keep saying this merely reveals the depth of ignorance around here wrt the historical confrontation between the Church and liberal modernity. The secular apostles shouting “ecrasez l’infame!” would certainly have considered it strange to find themselves grouped with the ideology of the Altar!] If Daniel and others think Christianity leads ineluctably to multiculturalism, the burden of proof rests with them to demonstrate the intellectual logic of this. [If attempting to do so, kindly first familiarize yourselves with actual Christian doctrine, and not some leftist parody of it, or your own ‘feelings’ on the subject.] The second contention is far more interesting, and really ought to be extensively debated among the WP community. For Christian WPs, we cannot simply discard what we regard as ultimately true merely because the Church has been infected with false doctrines culled from secular thinkers. But why should we? Who throws the baby out with the bathwater? If Pope Francis reveals himself to be ignorant of the truths of economics, what is the proper response: to denounce the Church (or at least the Papacy) - or to seek to educate Francis about his errors? This common sense response is ignored by Daniel and his ilk (which suggests that they are either psychotically stupid, or have some ulterior motive). Such common sense applies across the board, too. Because the US Constitution is not a white supremacist document, does that make it irredeemably ‘tainted’? Should it be shredded because it only embodies some truths about human society (that a government of strictly limited and enumerated powers is more conducive to national happiness and success that one theoretically unlimited), and not all truths (eg, that racially homogeneous countries are happier than ‘diverse’ ones)? Or should its virtues be celebrated, and its defects reformed? So naturally the Christian WP will seek to educate his fellow whites (and Christians) as to the truth about race and his religion. He will point out that, though the spreading of race-hatred is almost certainly forbidden, that of racial truth is not. He will also explain that, though it is implausible to argue that Christianity requires racial segregation, it certainly does not forbid it, and still less does it forbid lesser measures to ensure WP, like laws forbidding interracial romance or disallowing biological aliens to flood your homeland. Indeed, a true Christian thinker might very well one day attempt to demonstrate theologically that, indeed, racially divergent immigration is actually a form of aggression, and that immigrants who are racially and therefore culturally unassimilable and who impose themselves on someone else’s homeland (especially when doing so illegally) are themselves violating the spirit of Christ, regardless of their individual hardships. Nowhere in Christian thought is it argued that a poor man has a right to commit theft - except for such resources as literally are needed to prevent death, and even there, restitution must ultimately be made when it becomes possible to do so. And no one to my knowledge has ever alleged that the swarms of aliens annually crossing the Rio Grande have no other options to prevent their literal deaths beyond illegal immigration to the US. These are simply poor persons who want to better themselves - even if doing so comes at the expense of the cultural integrity and ultimate survival of the nation they’re criminally invading. The really, really interesting issue is whether Christianity (assuming it’s been or is being intellectually purged of its doctrinally false racial leftism) should be embraced even by atheist WPs. At first glance that might seem ridiculous. Why would an atheist embrace any supernatural doctrine? But as I argued in what I dimly recall may have been my very first comments here at MR, Christianity is a total vision of life, an outlook which (contrary to the foolish Nietzsche - a deeply perceptive and unsettling fool, but fool nonetheless) renders life, and particularly sacrifice, profoundly meaningful. It has also been an extraordinarily successful form of social organization, and could be even more so in an anxious future. The strident author of “ecrasez l’infame” also famously opined that “if God did not exist, we should have to invent Him” [for purposes of maintaining social order and progress]. Is it not possible that a suitably ‘nationalistically’ reformed Christianity might again serve as a bulwark of the West, one recreating the type of family-oriented, tradition-oriented, nation-proud, manly character that once predominated among our people? In other words, pre-liberal Christianity, even if should be proven ontologically false, was evolutionarily highly racially adaptive. Our race flourished under the old faith, and it has racially declined in direct tandem with its increasing secularization. So why then would any WP want to further diminish the West’s faith? So as to be taken more seriously by psychologically malformed leftist intellectuals, who hate both Christ and the West, and whose doctrines are destroying us? Whatever the best answers to these questions, the least that can be said is that Daniel’s attempt to ‘read’ them out of MR or the WP movement is unnecessary, unwarranted, and strategically incompatible with any serious examination of how the white race might best avert its impending extinction. On that ground, he should himself be censored for lack of racial comity. 35
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 14:25 | # I do not go to Christian WN sites and tell them how to conduct their social experiment. Majority Rights is a site which will allow for experiment in secular WN. When Haller and Thorn come here and continually ignore the myriad of other discussions to be had and, after brief ad hominem attacks (yes, diametrically opposite to their claim, they are the ones who initiate attack), go on to clog-up the threads, derail them, harass even, and dump a bunch of stuff that Haller calls Christian “apologetics” (i.e. bullshit) that is supposed to excite interest, keep us looking backward, away from productive discourse, I have tried to advise them, politely at first, that there are sites where the editorial framework is better suited for their wishes. They have been unremitting pests in their unwillingness to allow for experiments in secular WN. I am not trying to interfere with WN Christian experiments on other sites. I do not advise Christianity, but of course I do not seek to abolish WN sites where it provides the overall experiment. Though I recognize the Christian text and religion as deeply flawed (yes, more than a bit stupid, even), there are people who manage to do brilliant work despite professing Christianity. I imagine that for one thing, Christianity busies certain parts of the brain which might otherwise be obstructive. My frustration comes to a head with Thorn and Haller when they ignore this very fundamental point: This is editorially a non-Christan site, and should have the prerogative to experiment with non-Christian ways of thinking. There are Christian sites where their view would have “comity” with the threads. Here, they are obstructing much good discussion to be had - though they will lie, blatantly even, in order to say that is not true. But then, how could they be honest when they are recommending the Christian text? I visit Christian WN sites myself. They often have good things to say. So, I am very familiar that there are places where Thorn and Haller would be right at home - free to expound their thoughts without obstruction of and to secular discussion. Here, I am going to defend people who want to hear WN discussed from a non-Christian perspective. It is my guess that that is the better way to go, and I am sure that I am not alone. We should be free to have that experiment without being pestered by Christians who try to derail every discussion (experiment). Haller and Thornblossom are guessing that Christian WN is the way to go. As the Blossom has noted, there are many of those sites - they are free to go there and have that experiment as well. I respect the Majority Rights site very much. I trust GW’s judgment. If part of the rigor he wishes to see here are teachable moments of how we might hold up to the traditional attacks of Christianity, then so be it. I will do the best I can while pursuing non-Christian WN. The latest Political Cesspool has provided some good fodder. More on that to come. 36
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 15:00 | #
A few moths back, Joe showed up at a mainstream conservative website I hang out at and he was banned without warning. He did manage to post his crap there for about two days. I doubt Danny would’ve lasted that long. Danny wouldn’t last more than one minute outside a rabid WN sphere. In any event, great post, Leon. I think most whites recognize the traditional Christian Church can be a potent ally in the war the cultural Marxists are waging—and winning handily—against Western civilization. I find it an undeniable truth that there is a direct relationship between the decline in the practice Christian moral teachings and the rise of ‘progressive’ secular-liberalism and multicultural indoctrination. The indoctrination has become so effective, that it’s even become intertwined in most Christian denominations thus their eschewing teaching absolute moral truths and replacing them with moral-relativistic message. Even Pope Francis has been sounding more like a Marxist/leftist college professor than a Vicar of Christ….albeit much of what he says in taken out of context by the lefty press only to be used for their own propaganda purposes…. Anyway, as Dr. Paul Gottfried lamented*, post-Christian Western European countries have already lost that war against the cultural-Marxists. I’m not as pessimistic as Gottfried (I simply cannot allow myself to be) but he sure sounds like a realist to me. Craig Bodeker Interviews Dr. Paul Gottfried
37
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 15:48 | # As we have seen, time and again, Thorn treats this as his dumping ground. After an ad homimen comes a profusion of Christian bullocks (including insistence upon Haller’s crap and endorsing Paul Gottrried’s Jewish ruses rather than going to Radix, where he is the guiding light) in obstinate refusal to allow for unfettered secular discussion. Now why would anybody be angry with the ass that is the Thorn Haller tandem? 38
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:34 | # Poor Danny, he has foot in mouth disease. Every time he opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it. Re. Paul Gottfried. He is highly regarded and respected by eminent professionals such as Kevin MacDonald, Peter Brimelow, Pat Buchanan, Jared Taylor, Steve Sailor, John Derbyshire, the list goes on and on and on ......... But heeeeeerrre comes DANNY! Danny reflects badly on Gottfried and we should listen to what Danny says because Danny is so much smarter and wiser than all the people I listed. Danny isn’t fooled by Gottfried’s “ruses” like all the rest of those gullible rubes. Right, Danny? 39
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:15 | #
I’m not quite sure he doesn’t, Daniel A. What did he say to give you that impression? I ask that question from a position of not being very familiar with Gottfried. The extent of my familiarity with him is mainly via reading his articles at VDARE, and reading favorable articles about him at KMac’s OO.
40
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:30 | # Yes, Thornblossom, what I say about Gottfried is accurate. And Daniel A, I am relaxed. But I recognize Christianity for the shit that it is, and do not enjoy having to clean the Augean stables of Thorn’s horseshit. 41
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:58 | # @43 LOL! Wrong, Danny. All the ordure on this thread is directly a result of your presence. Had you not gave into your childish urge to react to my comment @25, the crud you generated and the fights you instigated on this thread would never have happened. You, Danny, are the problem. BTW, that Gottfried interview contained subject matter than is related to the content GW’s novella thus is very relevant to the discussion. That’s why I linked to it.
42
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 17:59 | # DanielA, Not all smart folsk think that Christanity is shit, but they have other places to go for that. And WN’s who think that it is shit, should have a place to go as well.
DanielS, This site is older than you Western intellectual tradition is older than me, MR and Christianity too.. ..../ Metaphysics is inescapable. And the kind of man that holds his metaphysiks unconsciously is really just a bad doctor. I love you GW.
I know that you were addressing GW, but speaking for myself, hermeneutics is not strict physicalism, nor am I secular/irreligious - my race is my religion. GW is at least open to something like that idea, though he believes the time is not ripe, that there is still some ontological grounding to work-out. . On the other hand, I found his criticism of Johnson to ring true. Moreover, GW does have huge, great options.. The Christians here would try to obfuscate that fact, and that is why I cannot stand them. ...... 43
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 02 Feb 2014 19:50 | # Posted by Daniel A on February 02, 2014, 01:07 PM | # On the other hand, I found his criticism of Johnson to ring true. I’m not sure it was a criticism of Johnson. He plays his cards close to his chest. He was just describing what he thought Aristotle to be saying.
This is where I think your attitude is a bit petulant. You sound like Howard Cosell (sorry, couldn’t resist the comparison). We aren’t obfuscating brother! We are disagreeing. There’s a rather large gulf separating the two. You are not disagreeing, because you (and they, the Christards) are not addressing anything that I might say. Just ignoring, issuing ad hominem attacks and dumping a load of shit. The unwillingness to stay on topic is a form of war. Pandering to stupid women is the immediate reward. Take it up with Hume. Why should I do that? I am not a positivist nor an empiricist.
But there is plenty of discursive space (lolz) here bruddah.
We are not post critical, we are post Jewish critical. Of course it is possible to assert realism and transcend mere physicalism even though the Jews have convinced you otherwise. I have said so a million times now. You are laughing at me? 44
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:11 | # Gentlemen, I have made some aesthetic improvements to the thread, which I am sure will be widely appreciated. Can we return, please, to civil debate. Thank you. 45
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 03 Feb 2014 14:30 | # Daniel A @44 I believe Gottfried’s thinking vis-à-vis the decline of post-Christian states in Western Europe is consistent with Robert Bork’s main thesis expounded in Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. (Highly recommended reading!)
http://www.amazon.com/Slouching-Towards-Gomorrah-Liberalism-American/dp/0060573112 47
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:03 | # After a typical troth of boiler-plate which would be most welcome at Gottrfried’s Radix, DanielA’s blog or Matt Heimbach and Parrott’s new show at The White Voice, Thorn exposes his efforts to impose his editorial prerogative here with a new feature, “quote of the day.”
48
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:57 | # Why should I do that? I am not a positivist nor an empiricist. Yes that is right, DanielA Absolutely not true. Do you want to outline for you why? How it lead to Kantianism and why Kant’s take destroys ‘knowledge’ (Knowledge) just as readily as Hume’s? - I think (if I understand you correctly) that you asserting it is possible to transcend physicalism without idealism (or say my Christian Presuppositialism) but I haven’t seen you or GW demonstrate that Already done (several times). I’ll go over it again in the next post, among other things.
Yes, I stand by that. Honestly, I don’t care what you say. I will continue to ignore what you say And there you have it. That is why you think that I have not rendered this demonstration. If you would accuse me of being Humean that just goes to show how far in outer space you are removed from things that I have been saying, and saying consistently. Guy, you haven’t read what I’ve said. That’s your prerogative. I don’t care what you think either. I find you not only stupid, but willfully ignorant. 50
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:16 | # Lets pray that god takes you home (i.e., somewhere far from MR). When talking about stinking attitudes, of course it is a projection of your nasty little vanity, as usual, with a “classic sparkle.” Your religiosity has not made you decent. Its always been about your nasty competition to go one-up for (lolz) sharp little points in your conceit, not to join in a cooperative pursuit of truth. True, I posted some material at MR prematurely, originally. This would have provided someone like you all you needed - an excuse to be abusive. Look at how unclear he is! But I am satisfied that the articles are very worthwhile now, particularly as I have shored them up for those superficial mistakes. Still, this is not your concern, you rather need the excuse to ignore any threat the truth might pose to your true purpose, which is feeding your ego. For those who care to read the material I’ve posted since I have had the capacity to edit - that is to say, since December of 2012 - they will find it more clear. Before that time, material posted at VoR provided the platform for yours and Silvers “unreadable” meme - and what you mean by “unreadable” is more on the order of “don’t read, because it is not suitable to the motives” of you et al. However, that material began with a posting of notes that were meant to fill up hour audio shows (which would wind-up being long text - 10,000 words); and again, these were just devised as notes for audio shows, not originally meant to be text. Mike asked me to post text there. He was very good to do that, but he was in control - I was beholden to him regarding the editing of the text and discovered as I went along that he did not always have time and temper to edit the material as it should be ultimately. More, I did not set out to be a writer, but one who saw significant errors being committed in the theory of WN and endeavored to correct them - thus, not focusing on style, but primarily on matters of content, I figured I was doing favor enough at that. And being satisfied that I was accomplishing what I has set out to do, happy to merely reach an audience with the content as such, I was able ultimately to endure the abuse and surprisingly poor criticisms of people like you, Uh, Joe and the other Christards here. Uh was particularly absurd in charging that my purpose was fundamentally ego (that was a projection of his motives). He accused me of steering the movement all wrong, writing three part, 10,000 word essays demanding that sex be a sacrament, whereas he knew better, that we should encourage “fucking and cumming.” With remarks like that, he would completely ignore the fact that I could not have been more clear that I sought to promulgate sex as a sacrament as an optional enclave, even for however small a percentage of people who would choose that option. It is not mutually exclusive to treating sex as a celebration, etc. But as I said, the matter is not so much truth with people like you and Uh. Its about abuse, sadism, your ego. And that was just one example of why MR is better off without some old members of the club. Your latest straw man is Hume. ... now maybe a new coalition with the Christards, while the Nazis have gone elsewhere. Unfortunately, I still carry a bit of a nervous tick which has me hurrying comments at times, and I cannot edit my comments; thus, I will still overlook typos which provide opportunities for the ill disposed toward what I have to say (Haller places a great deal of stock in this), to make an issue over ostensible incoherence and lack of clarity. I say ostensible deliberately, because we are mainly talking about typos - editorial oversights. This has me cringe at times, the latest example being in my response to Cecil, where I wrote: “Thinking of “delicate” and “subtle” as adjectives might refine the focus of what I mean by asymmetry.” Writing it as follows would have been more clear: The adjectives “delicate” and “subtle” as applied to the examination of symmetry might refine the focus of what I have meant. But again, those with good-will will tend to read me with an understanding of what I meant. As you have made it abundantly clear, that is not your purpose, your purpose is to abuse, ignore and divert attention away. You’ve got Christards who are praying for you, doing all that they can to help you.. Hitler heads may be routing for you too.. I look back on the abuse that Uh issued forth, and I don’t say anything such as, “by golly, that guy was right. It was good to have gone through that.” I think rather, what a Jerk. His criticisms were so wrong and so off the mark, such straw men. What a shame that he would do what he did in diversion from truth. Of course the reason in his case is the same as yours. You are about yourselves or motives removed from WN. Perhaps I am problematic for you since you are gamers and apologists for miscegenation. But that is not the thing that really bothers me about you, it is that you obstruct the recognition and discussion of really worthwhile ideas in favor of your conceits, your vain competition. And…Christianity, DanielA?: as we have said, there are places were that rubric holds sway. If you are disappointed because we are leaving you behind in pursuit of the truth and not a popularity contest, you have come to the wrong place Nevertheless, my next post (should be today) will clarify things yet again and even more. Not for you, but because I had already recognized that the time is right for some WN theoretical house cleaning. 51
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 10:12 | # Daniel A, Maybe the first paragraph could be construed as “criticism”. The “criticism” following the quote from Greg doesn’t really hit the mark since Greg is asserting what Aristotle thought and not what Greg thinks. The criticism is that Greg Johnson is concerned to enlist Aristotle. The same acquisitive tendency animated O’Meara’s 2006 essay on Martin Heidegger, critiqued here: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_ontology_of_the_material_part_1 Even in his famous Freiburg address (The Self-Assertion of the German University), just after he had joined the National Socialist Party, Heidegger did not turn himself over to spirit-of-race thinking. He never did this. But O’Meara manages to conflate his very difficult, phenomenologically grounded thesis with exactly that. This tendency to find confirmation from the luminaries of the Western canon for what is essentially fascist thinking is part of the time-loop in which nationalism, as a worldview, has been trapped for seventy years. I am interested in breaking out of it. For that, obviously, we have to have something new to say, and it has to be Truth and it has to offer a way forward. Daniel S supports this point of view and is thinking (perhaps a little too close to the political for my tastes) about ways to achieve that. He can be a difficult read. But he has some liberating moments, and that is very valuable. We are calling upon all who consider themselves dissenters from the liberal worldview and the diet of racial dissolution to turn away from the faith objects of the nationalist past and to develop a philosophical product fit for a nationalist future. This does not require of the truly religious like you, Daniel, that you turn away from an emotional conviction in deity. But it does require understanding that there is something of the mind that is beyond that, and which goes to the very heart of what you hold sacred. And this difficult, elusive thing is the same for you and me and for all men. That you think we are talking about something different is only a limitation of faith. 53
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:11 | # Posted by Daniel A on February 04, 2014, 08:47 AM | # When talking about stinking attitudes, of course it is a projection of your nasty little vanity, as usual, with a “classic sparkle.” Sigh. And you’re humorless. Greasers are humorless, guy: that’s your mirror you are slicking your hair in…everything is a goddamn competition with you.
Fine. And I’m satisfied they aren’t and that my own interests, pursuits, and comments are worthwhile. We’ve already established the fact that you could not know. Put your head back in a hole in the ground so that you don’t see something which might threaten you or ruin your hair.
Psychobabble is for women and jews. I don’t do it. I find it incredible repulsive to try to discern other purposes behind people’s stated purposes. It is an incredibly aggressive tactic. Ego is just a conventional way of talking in this context. You know goddamn well what I meant. It poses no threat to me. Who is trying to threaten you? You prove my point. Everything is a vain competition with you. The greaser, simonizing his car to a classic sparkle for his classy broads. If you were dealing with the arguments of presuppositionalism you might pose a threat. No, that’s the thing that YOU are not doing. But then if you successfully dealt with those arguments I would be converted to your position. You are just plucking assertions out of the air, so this it this pointless. Ok, now I see your disease. Uh was particularly absurd in charging that my purpose was fundamentally ego (that was a projection of his motives). He accused me of steering the movement all wrong, writing three part, 10,000 word essays demanding that sex be a sacrament, whereas he knew better, that we should encourage “fucking and cumming.” With remarks like that, he would completely ignore the fact that I could not have been more clear that I sought to promulgate sex as a sacrament as an optional enclave, even for however small a percentage of people who would choose that option. It is not mutually exclusive to treating sex as a celebration, etc. Uh is a pessimist brah. Oh yeah, brah, like a give a damn, like he wasn’t easily discernible (and dismissible) as a wailing modernist, i.e, one who longs to go back to pre modern conditions. As I said, you want to act like the guy is a mystery, he isn’t. Typically inveterate optimists cannot fathom the truly pessimistic. Blow it out your ass. In analogous fashion, good cannot imagine evil. Ha ha, you do have a sens of humor!
54
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:33 | # But Danny, I’m way too interested in the new religion you’ve invented to leave. You know, the religion in which you’ve declared that the white-race is your god. You must keep your brilliant ideas flowing, Danny! How could we ever survive without them? 55
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 15:47 | # Posted by Thorn on February 04, 2014, 10:33 AM | # But Danny, I’m way too interested in the new religion you’ve invented to leave. No you aren’t Thornblossom. You know, the religion in which you’ve declared that the white-race is your god. I believe that was Jon’s touch. I probably would say that it serves as a god concept as opposed to yours, a Jew on a stick. You must keep your brilliant ideas flowing, Danny! I suppose, so that your Jewish handlers might get a sense of what angle to play, huh? How could we ever survive without them? Maybe we won’t survive without them them. Who knows? We ought to be able to experiment .. we should have the possibility to consider non-Christian ways without being harassed. But I’ll tell you what Thornblossom, we have survived and will survive just fine without your Jew god. Surely we should be free to have our secular experiment especially while you are free to go to Christian sites. Take DanielA with you to The White Voice, where you can share an Orthodox Christian community with Matt Parrott and Heimbach. The site is very popular and your thoughts can be heard by many there. So many Christian sites in fact! Have fun!
56
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:16 | #
No, Danny, you own that one. It has your fingerprints all over it. Be proud if it, Danny. Moreover, it reflects perfectly the level at which your mind operates.
57
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 16:46 | # Posted by Thorn on February 04, 2014, 11:16 AM | # I believe that was Jon’s touch. No, Danny, you own that one. It has your fingerprints all over it. Be proud if it, Danny. Moreover, it reflects perfectly the level at which your mind operates. No Thornblossom, I believe that was Jon’s touch, but I do not have a particular problem with it. Moreover, anyone was welcome to provide input so that it might conform to a natural form of European religion. Which your middle eastern sun cult/ transformed into Jew worship, certainly does not. By the way, do you remember when you said (referring to me), “I got an anti-semite on my hands.” ? I remember. Was that your handler’s concern? Get out of here Thorn. 58
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:01 | # Quit lying, Danny. It’s your touch. Jon merely agrees with it.
Now please do the white-race a favor and evaporate. 59
Posted by Morgoth on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:02 | # I look forwards to the next part of this, it kinda reminds of a Tom Wolfe style. Anyway, on the genocide discussion I think we are getting hung up definition, this is a wide field and there some other areas of interest such as the rights of indigenous peoples, Tony Blair apparently went to the UN and wrote it into law that there were no indigenous people in the Britain, right before he threw open the floodgates. Why this has received so little press I can hardly get at but here are the rights of indigenous peoples ‘‘Article 7 of a 1994 draft of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples uses both the word “ethnocide” and the phrase “cultural genocide” but does not define what they mean.[10] The complete article reads as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocide Now, watching GW arguing against the Left Wing lunatic and probable hoax Fabian Solutions I note that the argument against Article 2 always boils down to ‘’ But you are being killed, you aren’t being destroyed!!’‘ Article 7 would change that debate, they would then argue that we aren’t an indigenous people, but as we know, that is because Tony Blair and Jack Straw made it so, thus the genocidal aims of New Labour are compounded. This may well be a more devastating meme to push, particularly given the DNA evidence which is on our side, and again, it has the advantage for bringing a clear villain into the picture. 60
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:18 | # Thanks for making a sane and relevant post, Morgoth. Posted by Thorn on February 04, 2014, 12:01 PM | # Quit lying, Danny. It’s your touch. Jon merely agrees with it.
See Thorn’s concern and angle? And, it isn’t true. I hate those who hurt my people because they hurt my people, not because of who they are. That describes misfits like you to a tee. Every irrational bit of it. Therefore, it does not fit me. Now please do the white-race a favor and evaporate. I’m afraid you are going to have to disappear Thorn: look at what you are doing, gunking-up the thread. Morgoth just made a very meaningful comment relevant to the main post and you go on and on attacking me because I don’t accept your Christianity nor the mandate of your Jewish handlers. 61
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:05 | # Here’s the darling little lying Danny in his own words WRT his newly invented religion:
Danny’s an ideal representative of WN, eh GW? Oh, and BTW, it was you, Danny that started the shitstorm on this thread. Own up to it Danny boy. Or are you going to try to lie your way out of that, too?
63
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:42 | # Morgoth@70 + GW Yes, I have long thought that pushing the genocide line could be a very fruitful approach to awakening our people, as it’s obviously what’s occurring. That said, what if the average people just don’t care? Isn’t this the real problem? White apathy is at the back of my White Zion. If whites in “Old” Europe, after witnessing the alien savagery in France in 2005, and the UK in 2011, still can merely express “concern” about immigration, it’s time to recognize that, as long as individual whites are more or less physically OK, they will never be roused as a race to resist their slow boiling dispossession. Only a minority of us care about saving the group, and that is our collective downfall. WZ is about rounding up and gathering in the minority of us who do care, so that we at least can have our own sovereign territory which we can control and defend, and in which our race and civilization, if not necessarily all particular white ethnocultures, can endure. I have yet to see a serious empirical argument against it. 64
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:46 | # Notice how Danny skips over the fact I caught him in a lie. And do you really think that “your god is a Jew on a stick” is going to offend me? If so, think again Danny boy. Listen perve, don’t you understand that when you spew vile idiocy like that, it only serves to expose how big of a moral and intellectual leper you are? See ya later, liar. 65
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:06 | #
Leon, I a world where the PTB have made the white race an object of hate, and should by chance a WZ state actually formed, how long do you think it would before the multicult enforcers obliterated it? I ask that in light of what the multiculturalist progs did to the Christian Serbs in Kosovo on behalf of the Muzzies. Do you remember what General Wesley Clark said Serbia and homogeneity? 67
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:25 | # “In the modern Europe there is no room for homogeneous national states. It was an idea from 1800s, and we are going to carry it (multi-culturalism) through…and we are going to create multi-ethnic states.” —Wesley Clark If anything, the movement to create multicultural states in Europe is stronger now than back in 1999 when NATO forces attacked the nationalistic minded Serbs. 68
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 04 Feb 2014 21:48 | # Can anyone guess who they intend to round up?
69
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:48 | # Thorn@76 I agree only slightly. WZ has to be quietly formed. But past a certain point, I doubt the PTB would do much of anything. Their peoples have their own problems, and antiwar sentiment (which during the despicable Balkans intervention was mostly coming from the Left) is only growing in the West, mainly due to financial stagnation and instability. There are now both Left and Right anti-interventionist spokesmen and movements. Also, much as I admire the righteous Serbs, there were atrocities on all sides, giving the NWO the excuse (however tenuous) they needed for intervention. WZists aren’t going to commit genocide. The Mexicans haven’t murdered me (yet) in CA. They’ve just moved in, and are in the process of taking over. That is what WZists will do - move into a sparsely inhabited, mostly white country (Australia, Uruguay, Alaska even?), and peacefully conquer it ideologically and politically. As we grow stronger, politically, then economically and militarily, our destiny will be our own. We will offer $10 mil per annum salaries to nuclear scientists (and we will easily acquire them, I assure you), and we will develop nuclear weapons (later ICBMs). Who’s going to stop us? Who’s stopping Iran? Who’s doing anything about North Korea? Nationalism in Europe, and Middle American anti-Washingtonism, are only growing. You think there’s going to be a national uproar over a bunch of “rightwing yahoos”, as we’ll be mocked in the MSM, moving to a foreign country to take it over and pass anti-nonwhite-immigration laws? I think the attitude will be more like “good riddance”. Seriously, don’t be bamboozled and intimidated by US/NWO conspiracism. The world is not run by Jews (though they do have excessive influence), and Israel certainly wouldn’t oppose us, as we wouldn’t be hostile towards it, nor would we be engaging in terrorism, or harboring jihadists. If anything, increasingly isolated Israel, run as it is by good ethnonationalists, would see us as kindred spirits and, given our innate white genetic superiority, future worthy allies. I think Israeli scientists might even help us go nuclear. [Of course, this scenario envisions our remaining paleocon white separatists, and not neo-Nazis - and that hypothesis might be naive, given that the most gung-ho transoceanic separatists might very well be the most extreme WNs. But in that case, WZ might have to ally with Iran and the jihadists in common cause against Israel and the US. I would strongly argue against this as obviously suicidal (though maybe not - see “Iran” again), but the prospect can’t be denied. It all depends on which version of WP predominates in WZ - rational white conservatives like us, or unhinged fire-and-mouth-breathers like DanielS and the Stormfronters?] I do espy the lineaments of a coming serious intra-movement struggle, whose fate could determine the very existence of whites on this Earth, between those who are simply true conservatives - those wishing to preserve the West and recognizing that it cannot be preserved unless it retains its race/blood purity as well as ethnonational sovereignty (positions merely commonplace among whites in the past - and not only white rightists) - and radicals who really are consumed with hate and itching for race war. What, after all, are we about: racial conflict, or race-preservation? I stand for the latter, though I do not deny that the former is routinely visited upon us and must be resisted with appropriate lethality. But the Christian WP is never the aggressor, nor need we be. Even the eventual race-cleansing of Europe is a morally justifiable response to the earlier structural assault and treason of the elites who allowed for the genocidal alien colonization (along with the connivance of the immigrants themselves, who should have stayed home, especially once they knew they weren’t wanted), and it should be effectuated as humanely as possible (though if encountering resistance, the patriot forces must respond mercilessly, on the understanding that the racial reacquisition, and civilizational restoration, of Europe is a higher good in terms of any universal ethical calculus than interracial humaneness, and thus outweighs and justifies whatever we must do to secure it, especially insofar as the nonwhites have had abundant opportunity (and presumably will be given still greater encouragement in the future) to show respect to the indigenous and voluntarily repatriate themselves). 70
Posted by Silver on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 10:59 | # Haller, I think you’d have a lot more success bringing your fellow conservatives (and even unthinking, habituated “liberals”) around to racial views closer to your own if you exhibited the same patience with them as you do with Thorn. Changing the subject, it was brought to my attention that Thomas Fleming at Chronicles has changed his tack on race and now considers it appropriate to treat white racial concerns as valid. If you’re still a reader, any thoughts about what’s been taking place there? Morgoth,
Drawing attention to the deliberate nature of what’s being done could go a long way to curing people of the apathy that Haller rightly highlights. I think many people are resigned to the status quo because they are convinced it is has arisen from a wholly natural, innocent process and that there is therefore little that can be done about it (little that they consider moral, anyway). Learning that the whole thing has been engineered by bastards so devious they’d go to the lengths of defining British natives out of existence simply in order to preempt recourse to indigenous rights arguments would, you figure, jolt a whole lot of people out of their complacency. On the topic of Britons’ longstanding presence in the British Isles David Conway’s book is an valuable non-genetics-based resource, particularly for those people unable to grasp DNA arguments or put off by them. I’m uploading a copy here.
71
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:08 | #
But people are more interested in attending to their everyday lives than delving into the subject of race-replacement. All indications are whites will continue to sit quietly whilst allowing their dispossession. The only REAL forces I see forming to fight against the multicult beast are ex-military patriots talking about civil war and or succession. But their main focus is fighting against socialism and cultural-Marxism—not necessarily fighting to preserve their own race. And don’t think the Department of Homeland Security hasn’t taken notice of that particular group. They’ve issued a report that states US soldiers who’ve returned from Iraq and Afghanistan tours of duty pose the greatest domestic terrorist threat. The intelligence gathered for that official government document was done by the SPLC. Yep the SPLC —a quasi Jewish activist organization—is a primary intelligence gathering arm of the DHS. Think about THAT! Leon, WZ is in theory a great idea. But I will say this: If WZ were to ever work, like minded WP’s first must form/establish micro-communities in predominantly white the countries or states such as those you’ve suggested. The only other way a WZ could work is if the international community and international bankers backed and funded the endeavor—similar to the way they back Israel. The key to success is “like minded” WPs. Good luck with that. But most of all, and in honor of Silver, I thank you for your patience. /sarc 72
Posted by Jon on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:17 | # “No, Danny, you own that one. It has your fingerprints all over it.” Go reread the thread and the one that prompted it. Completely my idea. BTW, your accusatory metaphor is incongruous with the nature of the “accusation”. That it offends your religious sensibilities does not warrant you accusing anyone of anything, as noone has been harmed. “Be proud if it, Danny. Moreover, it reflects perfectly the level at which your mind operates.” For me or Daniel to view Our sacred People as Our god is no better or worse than some desert-dwelling goat-herders to view some dude named Jesus as theirs. That we don’t eat our god or drink his blood (or “worship” him) makes us far less weird than you lot. 73
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:58 | # For me or Daniel to view Our sacred People as Our god is no better or worse than some desert-dwelling goat-herders to view some dude named Jesus as theirs. That we don’t eat our god or drink his blood (or “worship” him) makes us far less weird than you lot. It even goes beyond that Jon. For our religion is true, his is utterly false, a Jewish affectation tyrannically imposed upon our people, as Thorn would yoke us, if he could. But as we continue to pursue and arrive at the authentic nature of our religiosity, its engagement with the truth will have us prevail for aeons after Thorn’s fake religion has rightfully been destroyed by the rigors of truth. 74
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 05 Feb 2014 21:44 | #
Even though I think that view is sophomoric, it certainly is a vast improvement over the Negro worship most whites currently practice. 75
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 00:54 | # As sophomoronic as it may seem to Thorn, Jon’s comment stands the test of truth. Both Christianity and Negro Worship have been presented to us by that hybrid race of predators and parasites whose time - honoured methodologies we know so well. 76
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 01:51 | #
There, fixed it for ya big Al. BTW, do you approve of Danny’s plagiaristic use of your infamous “Your God is a Jew on a stick” comment? LOL! IMHO, only you, Al, can get a belly laugh out of that one. DannyS?—not so much. 77
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 04:59 | # Thorn takes prep-school snob appeal lessons from Haller and his Hebrew masters.. “Even though I think that view is sophomoric”
78
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:21 | # Silver + Thorn Not sure what you mean re “patience with Thorn”. Honestly, guys, I’m the same with everybody, except those who are rude to me; think they know things that in fact they do not (this is especially true when it comes to the economy); are Christ-haters; or are race traitors. Re Chronicles, I’m at least 5-6 issues behind (in free time, I;ve been reading more of Foreign Affairs, and The National Interest, not to mention my daily WSJ). In general, I think Fleming is very learned and quite intelligent, but like some of the neocons finally discovering the disaster of immigration, Fleming is way behind on race. Maybe now he understands that the dreaded racialists were right all along. 79
Posted by Jon on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:47 | # Jesus wrote nothing down himself and all we have are statements attributed to him that are themselves attributed (as in we don’t know who wrote or possibly altered them) to others. From what I can tell, Jesus had a message to his people not at all unlike from those who came after him like Myron Fagan, Benjamin Freeman, Norman Finkelstein, Jack Bernstein, David Cole and others. I can see why they by and large didn’t receive it well but I wouldn’t call it fraudulent. Of course I don’t disagree that it’s poison for us. Imo, Paul is the fraud, not Jesus. 80
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 06 Feb 2014 14:30 | # Leon Haller, I still can’t quite understand why so many MR criticize you—and often with extreme malice. It makes no sense. Paradoxically, you are one of the most incisive, knowledgeable and well written commenters that ever visited MR, yet you remain the most misunderstood. Go figure…......
81
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:41 | # Thanks for the vote of confidence, Thorn. I like to sound off, but I’ve come for several years now to see the internet as a huge waste of time. Increasingly, I want my racial work to be of two varieties. I want to produce scholarship at the highest intellectual level I can, with the focus being the ethics (and Catholic theology) of race (which, I cannot repeat too often, is the real philosophical issue wrt WP; ontology, metaphysics, etc, are all interesting subjects, but their practical relevance to WP is remote). I also want to get more involved in low-level activism (“community-organizing”?) on behalf of our oppressed fellow white Americans. I especially intend, come 2016, to have some fun “dogging” any GOP sellouts who might be running for Prez, should they decide to visit SoCal. I really hope Paul Ryan comes to Orange County, does a “townhall”, and takes some questions. If nothing else, I’ll be a guy holding a very provocative but very conservative anti-Ryan placard outside his fundraiser(s). That might get me interviewed by MSM types looking to stir things up. 82
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:02 | # You’re welcome, Leon. The internet has been a great disappointment WRT trying to wake up white people. I’ve concluded whites feel too safe in their denial to want to change. They’ve already consented to their own extinction and nothing is going to change that mindset. For each person our side converts to WP, the power structure convert 50,000 “young sculls full of mush” into “anti-racist” drones. That’s a ratio of 50,000:1 Am I exaggerating the numbers? I think not. Notwithstanding the internet being a nonproductive use of time, enjoy sites like MR while you still can.
83
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:12 | # Thorn, But, you see, you’re making my point wrt White Zion. The internet has been very revealing. Actually, it has massively confirmed something I worried about in the pre-net days (well, at least for me and most others; I started on the net first (email) around ‘92, but didn’t really start using it until around ‘97). In the late 80s, I used to think the problem was MSM information-and-therefore-thought-control. How could we ever get the TRUTH about race out to the brainwashed white masses? But I also had a dim worry, one casually alighted upon by a drunken friend when we were partying in Santa Monica in 1990 (so not long after the Wall fell, and shortly after Mandela had been released), but never forgotten by me. We were talkin’ race in between oggling chicks and my pal said, “You think anybody gives a s—- about saving the white race? Nobody wants communism because it sucks. But that doesn’t mean conservatives have really won anything.” I argued vociferously against my friend’s observation, but secretly I feared he might be correct. Up to that point (ok, I was quite young, but very ideologically aware) I had entertained fantasies that someday whites were going to “awaken”, and at least end nonwhite immigration; get murderously militant wrt black crime; end affirmative action; and generally tell minorities, “Assimilate and behave yourselves - and quit whining! - or just get out”. It had literally never occurred to me that a substantial portion of the white population had no innate race pride (as opposed merely to being forced by PC libtards and violent blacks into keeping it to themselves). Maybe I wasn’t so wrong - circa 1953. If we had had the race understanding then that we do today (esp wrt the sheer ingratitude and violent unpleasantness of nonwhites), would whites have awakened and secured their race future? I don’t know. But what is undeniable is not simply that white nations have allowed themselves to be physically colonized by nonwhites, but that they have allowed themselves to be psychologically integrated with them as well. This I never would have thought possible for a white majority. I always took it for granted that non-Jewish, non-homo libtards were insane. But I assumed that such libtards were in the minority (they certainly were among people I knew growing up), and that white majorities were healthy, and simply sublimated their true feelings. What we now know is that a sizable portion of whites is racially demented, that no matter how much racial truth gets shoved in their faces, they will continue to engage in DENIAL about racial reality. Perhaps worse, we also know that there are not large numbers of racial or civilizational patriots among whites, persons like us who care about race not because we are pathological haters (though I have no particular use for nonwhites - what normal person does? - I happen to like my half-Asian gf because she’s pretty, nice, fun, and likes me; but I’d prefer it if she were white), but because we love the ways of our people, wish to preserve them, and understand that white societies are as they are because they are white, and that if the race is lost, so is that culture and mode of being in the world (which, at least wrt to Old Europe, was far superior to anything that nonwhites have produced). Apparently, most whites, including a huge portion of WNs, couldn’t give a s—- about preserving Russell Kirk’s “eternal verities”, and are perfectly content to see the civilization of Rome, Berlin, Paris and London disappear into foreign degradation or simple weirdness, provided the economy is humming, and persons are only in a little danger of being molested or murdered by savages. [Note: WNs are themselves, not only a symptom, but an element, of the West’s decline. If I had to go to one of our barbarous modern multiracial prisons, I might try to join up with an Aryan gang, if only for personal protection. But is some toothless and tatted up ex-meth dealer really “superior” based on skin color - even when his behavior and beliefs contradict the very elements which made the white race great, and thus worthy of its own racism? Racist belief has to be earned via moral and cultural superiority.] The bottom line is that guys like us are a distinct psychological, as well as ideological, minority. That is what the internet has taught us. Any white who wishes to be awakened, and can access a computer, can become so. And there are today more WPs - and of a greater sophistication - than ever before in our lives. The new racists are not like the old, ‘unreconstructed’ kind, either. We’re not inheritors of ancient prejudices; we are, rather, those who have seen the multiracial future, and know it doesn’t work (for us). But that is all the internet has done. It has allowed those with racialist tendencies to access the information necessary for full awakening. It has also exposed just how few are “those with racialist tendencies”. That is why, as I keep saying here at MR, it’s WZ or bust. There are enough of “those with racialist tendencies” to fill up a significant, small-to-medium white nation. But we will never be the majority anywhere - unless we ingather (WZ). And no one here has ever offered a plausible argument as to why I might be wrong. 84
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:21 | # Leon, What I can’t come to grips with (even assuming a large enough population is willing to pick up stakes and move to, say, Uruguay, for example), is how, exactly, you propose we work out the logistics? Where will money come from? I.e., will there be enough employment opportunities for those that are not going to become small business owners? How about housing? Will the government and or local population welcome a huge influx of White Nationalists? Even over a period of decades? Those just a few practical questions we need to answer before we can move forward. 85
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:46 | # Daniel A, I thought you meant Minsky in your initial comment. Yes, I know who he is, even before he got famous via the subprime meltdown. I knew a trader who was talking about him in the 90s. This trader didn’t do especially well as far as I could see, so I never really pursued the matter. I suspect from what I do know that whatever of value there is in Minsky’s finance arguments constitutes merely a minor critique of abuses within a financial system that is far better understood and much more comprehensively critiqued by the Austrians. Indeed, the Austrians have for decades been criticizing “partial deregulation”, especially in finance. It is perfectly possible that Clintonian 90s deregulation partly caused the subprime problem, and that without those deregulatory moves the Fed’s low interest policy of the past decade (even before QE) would have blown up an asset bubble somewhere else in the economy, and perhaps one of less severity, too. That deregulation under conditions of statism can cause worse outcomes than stasis in no way necessarily invalidates Austrian criticisms of the larger statist situation itself. I looked at Wiki on Minsky, and doubt I would agree with him in toto were I to read his work (important thinkers of whatever persuasion often produce valuable specific insights, even where their general approaches are dangerously wrong). Mises is almost certainly more valuable than Minsky. As for MMT, I have seen it mentioned, perhaps here or elsewhere. If I were really interested in it, there seems to be a good “primer” here: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html It might be interesting for me to check it out sometime, if I have some real free time (dashing off blog comments, or going to a BBQ with my lady, don’t count: I mean free study time). On the whole, however, I am doubtful. Why study pre-Copernican astronomy, except out of antiquarianism or intellectual history? I was an economics major at one of the best universities in the US (and the world). I was always extremely sceptical of what I was forced to regurgitate on exams, esp wrt macroeconomics (which, as you might imagine, was thoroughly Keynesian). I have had my fill of neoclassical and Keynesian paradigms. I also went through one of the better UC b-schools. I did not study econ there, but I did do some finance and accounting classes. I worked in finance for a while post-grad, later switching to bank marketing (and then marketing more broadly). I’d heard of Rothbard while still an undergrad, but only as a libertarian, not an Austrian. I discovered the Austrians some years after undergrad. Seriously reading them was like turning on the proverbial lightbulb. Here was the sound economic theory for which I had been searching! I read roughly 100-150 books in the Austrian tradition - probably 10-15% of all the books written from that POV (at least of those translated into English), and including all the major works (there is a growing body of Austrian works in recent years which I have not kept up with). I also read many articles, whether academic in the Review of Austrian Economics and Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, or popular in The Free Market and Mises Daily. I continue to read investment books (and too many articles), as well as descriptive works about the economy and its trends, by persons with differing intellectual perspectives, but I really do not read non-Austrians on economic theory. Why would I, given my sense that the Austrians are correct? Note there is a difference between economics and political economy. Interesting technical work respecting specific economic topics can be done by any serious economist. I do not, however, think useful public policy work respecting the economy and related matters can be done unless it builds from an Austrian microeconomic foundation. Your MMT does not look promising. 86
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:51 | # I scanned some articles from that MMT site. The following quoted text appears here:
Someone who writes such drivel (and there is scads of it at that site - no wonder! followers of the fool New Dealer Abba Lerner, what can you expect?) cannot be taken seriously. Economic growth occurs at base because humans discover new techniques for rearranging physical reality to suit their preferences. That is, knowledge growth powers economic growth. Note I refer to per capita economic growth. Absolute growth can occur simply by increasing the number of persons working within any given territory or economy under measurement. Thus, unless a majority of immigrants are terrorists or welfare bums, it is literally true that immigration increases GDP, but who cares about that (other than governments, perhaps)? What matters is whether immigration increases per capita GDP, and that in turn depends entirely on the economic quality of the immigrants as compared to the costs they impose on natives. The notion that government is necessary to an economy, beyond its obvious functions of providing military security, public order, and mechanisms for civil litigation, betrays a complete misunderstanding of how an economy works. Economic growth in general only is able to take off when there is a glut of capital. For that to occur, someone must underconsume relative to his productivity. When you have a lot of people doing this, there is the possibility, ‘ceteris paribus’, of future growth, which occurs due to an increase in labor productivity caused by capital investment. A virtuous circle, indeed. Look, pal, this really isn’t rocket science. Mises et al. spell all this out beautifully. If you haven’t read them (or done so with profit), just consider the empirical proof of the efficacy of capitalism: West Germany v. East Germany etc ad nauseum. Capitalism works. The freer markets are, the better, at least for prosperity. I am not a doctrinaire Austrian, however. While I think Austrian micro has closed the deal, I do think there are macroeconomic concerns that are not merely larger unit or ‘higher level’ micro ones. I have broached these here at MR. I would like to learn more about so-called “ecological economics”, the idea that modern economies do not truly account for (factor into pricing) long-term ecological damage, especially of renewable resources which can be permanently obliterated (eg, biological resources, like fish). Free markets will always allocate resources with maximum efficiency (“maximum” in light of human errors, not “ideal”) at any given present time, but they are far from perfect wrt future costs. The ecologists have a huge literature on this, which I would like to study at greater length someday. I also think a “nationalist economics” is called for. This would be not merely an economic agenda geared towards national (or ethnic or racial) survival, but one which, like the ecologists’, seeks to incorporate future costs into present prices (so to speak - future costs into present policies), recognizing that what can be economically beneficial in the short run (eg, selling weaponry to al-Qaeada; flooding your country with Asian medical professionals, who turn around and vote for leftist governments, who in turn throw open the borders to unskilled migrants, who then vote for socialistic wealth redistribution, thereby misallocating precious investment capital while destroying incentives for new wealth creation), can destroy the whole economic system in the long run. I think Austrianism may very well fail at the levels of race and environment. But the answers to those failures will not come from revamped Marxists or updated Keynesians (which is what these MMT types seem to be).
87
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:13 | # Go starting point: “Money is a fungible proxy for man’s ability to reason, labor, create and produce. All currency is fiat, including gold.” —Ann Barnhardt Some say the form of economic system the United States is practicing is Keynesian economics. I think John Maynard Keynes would disagree. 85 billion USD being created out of thin air, per month, then pumped into the system just to keep an already collapsed system from feeling the consequential pain of the collapse, is not Keynesian economics. This fiat money creation without the commensurate wealth creation has been occurring since Reagan took office in 1981. That’s when the heavy deficit spending (credit card prosperity) started. The lowering of interest rates whilst increasing the money supply is in effect robbing peoples’ savings via inflation. If the inflation rate is higher than the rate of return of CDs or investment grade bond yields equates to confiscation of a persons acquired wealth. That is exactly what is happening—and is intended to happen that way. The only way to beat the current system is invest in the risky stock market. Good luck! Holding long term bonds can be as risky as investing in the stock market too. I.e. if the Fed suddenly decides to slow QE, long and medium term bond principles will plummet. In that event, you have two choices: you could sell at a loss or hold the low yield long or medium term bond in a high interest rate, high inflation environment, thus lose that way. We are living under is a combination of cleptocracy, corporatism, fascism, racial socialism, crony capitalism, spoils system, globalism and a few other isms thrown into the aggregate. In a system such as that, only a few win big time (mainly insiders) whilst the vast majority will end up being driven into a much lower standard of living because of it. But not to worry. Multiculturalism and racial diversity is going to fix it all! /sarc 88
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:39 | # The long-term proletarianization of the Middle American people. Amazing that we (and our British counterparts) have so meekly tolerated this, and for so long. What is truly unclear is whether this process was somehow intended or planned from the beginning, or whether it began with a confluence of trends, after which it garnered an ex post facto intentionality. Consider contemporary Big Business support for immigration. I cannot recall in my readings in the history of immigration policy any early broad push from BB for the 1965 changes (though maybe my reading has been insufficiently comprehensive). But once the effects of those changes - masses of unskilled laborers lowering unskilled wage rates while (in part) upending private sector unions - started to become apparent, BB became and remains very active in keeping the foreign avalanche flowing. On another note: I do not wish to be seen here at some kind of friend of the rich. In theory that might be true, insofar as I strongly support private property rights and the free enterprise system. But in practice, I hate today’s rich. How many of them are actual patriots? One of the few, of all people, is Donald Trump, who came out strongly against the amnesty. Most are racial, cultural, social and moral leftists, who aren’t even strong defenders of capitalism. They’re just wealthy douchebags (Buffett, Gates, Ellison, Steve Jobs’s wife, Lucas, Spielberg, Bloomberg, Zuckerberg, the Google guys, etc etc). Why should we defend them? I say SQUEEZE THE SUPER-WEALTHY, not to increase government socialism, but rather, to lower taxes on the working class. I would gladly “sacrifice” the rich in order to advance white EGI. But I also want much more capitalism, as capitalism plus immigration termination is the American worker’s best policy. 89
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:26 | # In spite of BB pressure, John Boehner announced amnesty isn’t going to happen this year. He is giving the excuse he can’t trust Obama to enforce border security. Yeah right. It’s obvious, to me anyway, Boehner is making a political calculation. He knows passing amnesty this year would be a disaster for the GOP in the upcoming elections. So to placate the simmering outrage of the base, he musters up a phony excuse to delay matters. Mark my words: The day after the fall election Boehner will have a change of heart and suddenly proclaim that he is sufficiently confident that Obama will in fact enforce border security thus he will go ahead and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will grant amnesty to the estimated 11 to 30 million illegal aliens and triple legal immigration from its current rate of 1 million per year to 3 million. And remember, all these new immigrates will be protected groups thus benefit from affirmative action and all the other preferential goodies the government is ready to bestow on them. Where does that leave the white Christian population that built America? Footing the bill that’s where. The following piece is from The Irish Savant’s blog. Google sensors his blog, but it’s safe to clink on a view.
90
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:34 | # House Financial Services Committee Chairman to Question Yellen on Fed’s Bond-Buying Program 91
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:27 | # Re my comments @ 80, 84, 95
92
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:46 | # I see Daniel A makes insinuations, but does not defend them. If Boner betrays us in 2015, as he will probably try to do, we just have to keep up the pressure on other House Republicans. They know that the grassroots is riled, and will continue to fear primary challenges and election day stay-at-homes. The bulk of the GOP in the House has not the slightest incentive to vote for amnesty. Boner is another matter. He wants a high-income lobbying job with the US Chamber of Commerce (watch him to retire in a few years, and then watch what he does post-retirement), so engineering a sellout on amnesty would be a huge “feather” in his rat-fur cap. We just have to fight as we can. 93
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:14 | #
Yeah we can fight as we can, but I’ve come to conclusion amnesty as a done deal—it just hasn’t become official yet. Truth be known, I came to that conclusion over 10 years ago. I’m I a fucking modern day Nostradamus? No, just a realist. The writing on the wall back during Dubya’s time as POTUS was loud and clear. Moreover, as you already know, Will’s position is the dominate one amongst virtually all BB executives and editorial boards of the major MSM outlets, e.g. the Wall Street Journal. Lastly Boner knows the GOP’s platform as currently written is a loser in today’s multcult Amerikwa. Thus they are floundering and groping trying to find a way for the GOP to stay relevant and viable in an Amerikwa that is overwhelming socialist—especially at the national level.
94
Posted by Leon on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:32 | # Except it isn’t. The anti-immigration side has truth as well as Americans’ self-interest behind it, and could easily prevail, if forcefully presented. Virtually everyone I know is`against the amnesty; most, but not all, are Republicans. Anyway, the GOP grassroots is growing very angry and merciless, and that will never abate, as it is a natural expression of whites’ dispossession. More whites than ever before are anti-immigration; once awakened, people don’t go back to sleep. Boner may try again to betray us, but he won’t get it done (via Democrats + GOP sellouts, like Paul Ryan) until he’s ready to retire - and I think he wants to wait on that until he’s accomplished something, which won’t be until the GOP takes the Senate and WH. We will see who is today’s Nostradamus ... 95
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:38 | # Leon @109 Most Americanos are pro-immigration, even so-called “conservative” Republicans—that’s the problem. Ask yourself how many times you’ve heard someone say: “I’m against illegal immigration, BUT I’m all FOR LEGAL immigration?” That is the mantra repeated over and over by the chattering class. That mantra is then repeated over and over again by the brainwashed Americano masses who mindlessly take the chattering classes’ word as gospel….. The GOP grassroots is the TEA Party. The TP has been constantly attacked and propagandized against form all quarters for four years now; as a result, their power has been considerably weekend. At any rate, there’s going to be a [url=“TEA Party rally in DC on Feb 27.</a> That event will serve as a barometer as to the level of interest that’s left in the TP movement. We’ll see if my assessment is right or wrong. If the GOP is going to retake the Senate and WH, the planets better align quickly or an unforeseen watershed event must take place between now and the 2016 fall elections. I know it’s too early to make predictions, but all <a herf=”]polling data indicates[/url] Hillary “The Red” Clinton will be the next POTUS. There is no claim to be a Nostradamus on my part, just a realist. 96
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:48 | # HTLM tags mangled my comment @ 110 —- Leon @109 Most Americanos are pro-immigration, even so-called “conservative” Republicans—that’s the problem. Ask yourself how many times you’ve heard someone say: “I’m against illegal immigration, BUT I’m all FOR LEGAL immigration?” That is the mantra repeated over and over by the chattering class. That mantra is then repeated over and over again by the brainwashed Americano masses who mindlessly take the chattering classes’ word as gospel….. The GOP grassroots is the TEA Party. The TP has been ruthlessly attacked and propagandized against form all quarters for four years now; as a result, their mojo has been considerably weekend. At any rate, there’s going to be a “TEA Party rally in DC on Feb 27. That event will serve as a barometer as to the level of interest that’s left in the TP movement. We’ll see if my assessment is right or wrong. If the GOP is going to retake the Senate and WH, the planets better align quickly or an unforeseen watershed event must take place between now and the 2016 fall elections. I know it’s too early to make predictions, but all polling data indicates Hillary “The Red” Clinton will be the next POTUS.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/5yearanniversary/ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html 97
Posted by wobbly on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 05:43 | # @GW Good stuff - meme warfare at its best.
“Tony Blair apparently went to the UN and wrote it into law that there were no indigenous people in the Britain, right before he threw open the floodgates.” Which for most people would be enough to convict if we ever got to a trial. “Now, watching GW arguing against the Left Wing lunatic and probable hoax Fabian Solutions I note that the argument against Article 2 always boils down to ‘’ But you aren’t being killed, you aren’t being destroyed!!’‘” One of the things to remember is exactly how this stealth genocide is being implemented. They import large numbers of young men from violent and/or clannish populations into a settled neighborhood thus upsetting the ratio of young males to young females. This leads to competition over the available females and a great deal of violence, ethnic gangs (including indigeneous ones), rape and forced prostitution. This youth gang violence results in the indigenous population with school-age children moving away thus allowing the replacement population to move in and take over that living space. Given the scale it’s staggering that the media have managed to keep it quiet so long but that’s basically what has been happening everywhere from Sweden to Australia. The only difference between what has been happening for 60 years and what would be clearly recognized as ethnic cleansing - if the media didn’t cover it up - is they are only doing it to 1% of the indigenous population at a time, replacing them and then doing the same thing to the next 1%. West Side Story is based on an early example of this. The critical point being that it’s not really the immigrants doing the ethnic cleansing. They’re just following ape sub-routines for reproduction. It’s the politicians and media acting as a team who are doing the cleansing. That scenario could possibly be used in hypothetical form to see if the bad guys would deny it was stealth genocide? 98
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 08:52 | # Thorn@111 I don’t know if the GOP takes the WH in 2016. If they back amnesty in 2015, they won’t. Presidential polls this far out are completely meaningless. Hillary knows that literally better than anyone. I predict the GOP will screw up, and yet again fail to take the Senate in 2014, though I think it will end up very close - 49-51 (or 49-49 + 2 Democrat-caucusing Independents). If they do take it, it will still be very close - probably 51-49 the other way. I think they will then lose it again in 2016. However, I predict they will keep the House at least until 2020, maybe longer. Americans are not pro-immigration. I disagree with you empirically. First, it depends how the issue is phrased; that is, what ‘facts’ are provided about immigrants. If the truth, then Americans are mostly against immigration. However, and this is what is really germane to my own position on this, even where the immigration sounding questions are skewed so as to make immigrants look like less of a burden than they really are, no polls ever show that Americans rate legal immigration as a ‘top tier’ issue (ie, one they strongly care about). In other words, what all the data I have seen on this issue over the past few years have shown is that when Americans are told the truth about immigration when being asked their opinion of it they are pretty overwhelmingly against it. When they are not told about immigration’s burdens, however, they still majority oppose amnesty for illegals, but only generally and passively support legal immigration. The only Americans who are intensely in favor of immigration are the pundit classes. Why they are so pro-immigration is, for me, literally one of the Great Inexplicables of our age. The answer really may be simply that it is the Jews’ fault; that is, that Jews are passionately pro-immigration, as well as heavily disproportionately present amongst elites, and this in turn causes Majority elite members to adopt pro-immigration stances as a way of currying favor with Jewry. Or it may well be that those potential ‘elitists’ like me, who had the right pedigree, are kept out of opinion-moulding elite professions in the first place because of our PinC views. Look at how Joe Sobran and Sam Francis, and even Murray Rothbard and other less-PinC libertarians, were all kept from attaining the positions in their fields that they obviously merited. 99
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:45 | #
That’s almost exactly as I see it too. Come the 2014 fall election, the GOP will win a few Senate seats, and easily hold onto the House. The GOP’s last stand will be their ability to hold onto the House for the next decade maybe two. The Senate and WH are a different story due to obvious demographic reasons. The GOP has a small window to employ the Sailor strategy in the next two presidential elections but we both know they won’t. So much for The Stupid Party…. Even if the GOP manages to become the majority in the Senate and House, it really doesn’t matter much. I say this because the Constitution has been all but entirely trashed. The Rule of Law is laughed at by the progs. The progs make policy at the unelected, bureaucratic level—and the progs have been taking over control of the bureaucracies for decades now. Check this out:
100
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 16 Feb 2014 13:08 | # Is the way of Venezuela the economic road Amerikwa is driving towards? Ominous parallels, you say?
101
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:46 | # Thorn, More on who cares about immigration at all? Post a comment:
Next entry: Mythos and democracy - Part 2 of 3
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:27. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:48. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:01. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:50. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:49. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:15. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 15:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 10:43. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 23:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 13:01. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:56. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 06 Apr 2024 11:54. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 22:27. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 20:02. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 05 Apr 2024 13:22. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:41. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:16. (View) |
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:51 | #
GW,
You really must develop this! One is NOT a writer, or even an ‘intellectual’, until the publication of the first book (if you have published already, my apologies). Why not go for it? Your countryman Derek Turner recently published Sea Changes, his first book (and it, too, is a novel).
One word of advice. Beware the trap of falling into excessive didacticism (not that you’ve done so in the post, but I could imagine you succumbing in subsequent chapters). That is, the story shouldn’t only be millinery covering a political lecture underneath. In a novel with the multicult as a theme, there must be psychological examinations of the main characters. Why do some betray? Why do others resist? (Why, indeed? I don’t have good answers myself.) Do appeasers justify themselves to themselves, or is it all a public act?
And beware too much character symbolism (each protagonist ‘standing’ for some principle, ideology, outlook, social class, etc). The social world is chaotic; ideas mostly ill-formed; and motives confused. The best stories are sometimes beautifully written, but rarely neatly drawn.
Good luck!
PS- On another note: anyone noticed how many black British film stars have risen to prominence in recent years? Why is that, and what’s its significance?