|
|
|
A reasoned reply to Ronald Bailey I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey. Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science. But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one. It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history. Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos). Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion. But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel. One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments. Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance. It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant. Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race. In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments. I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument. Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know. But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position. I doubt it somehow. My reply is reproduced below the fold.
Comments:2
Posted by Mickey Dodds on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:46 | # It appears that Bailey has no scientific credentials or qualifications - or he hasn’t bragged about them, which is most unusual. 3
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:41 | # I’ve left a few comments there. I’m amazed by the appalling standard of comments there, lots of retards & unthinking liberals regurgitating the elite’s sanctioned platitudes. 4
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:43 | # A social order that is founded upon the mythos of radical individualism and a liberal version of ‘freedom’ that in turn generally abhors any collective forms of agency is unlikely to be robust to the tropes and arguments of liberalism as it mutates and expands its definitions. American politics are disagreements within liberalism. Frankly, American is already as good as lost as a ‘Euro majority’ nation in demographic terms and is likely to adjust itself to the new realities on the ground as a post-modern, post-Western nation over time. A block of the young and other progressive whites plus minorities is likely to hold the electoral whip-hand - the Republican party as a kind of ‘white’ party is in decline. I’m not sure how much energy and focus of Europeans should be taken up with these processes in America as such. It is in many ways a very different society from any European one. One might even say it is atypical within the West - for good and for bad. It might serve as a bad example I guess. 5
Posted by daniel on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:29 | # Terrific response, GW. I hope that we will be hearing more of your voice, you interviews, whether here on MR or elsewhere.. I think this part could be opened up a bit: “For example, let us suppose that you granted a people the right to life but not living space, water or food resources. You would be acting disingenuously (and genocidally). You must grant everything together or the right to life is not extant.”
This is not meant to concede our traditional lands, but among other things, a means of coordinating their being re-taken and expansion where need be. I have a readied article which bears upon this. I guess it is going to be posted in another place soon - hope so. 6
Posted by Good Ol' Dirty Bull on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:34 | # Graham Lister, you’re dead right. Firstly we must remember the sheer youth of the USA as an entity and the fact that it more or less aped its mother country, England, for the first 150 years or so of its existence. 8
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:31 | # As I have said before individualistic liberal concepts of the self have full-spectrum dominance in politics, culture and economics. Nowhere more so than the USA. Intellectually, and imaginatively, that has meant a remorseless closure of space. It was Thatcher’s rule that coined the new motto of our Neo-Liberal times: ‘there is no alternative’. Soon it was no longer even necessary to proclaim that the combination of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism was superior to any of its historical rivals, as summed up by Fukuyama’s echo of Hegel in “The End of History and the Last Man”, as if there could be any other choice. Liberal ‘super-modernity’ in all things is then the only ‘conceivable’ social system, coextensive with humanity for all time to come; and so, if we look at the parameters of public debate across the globe, give or take a local euphemism or two, it substantially remains. In these conditions, it is little surprise that not just the contours of the political have been sharply attenuated but effectively in general suspension with elections little more than moderately different flavours of technocratic managerialism on offer. It was after all Reagan that approved the largest amnesty of illegal aliens in American history for both ideological and pragmatic reasons. It would not be shocking to anyone if the Republicans repeat the exercise at some point. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:09 | # Graham,
You have just proved my thesis that, essentially, liberalism is, and always was, Jewish thought, and required little adjustment to end in the destruction of the goyim. G’day Melba, Glad ya got yer dicktionary. 10
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:35 | # GW Do you mean it’s origin is in Judeo-Christian thought? Whatever, what we do have is systemic stasis today, all over the world - in the twin condition of the free-market and globalization, commodification and financial speculation – and that stasis does not even take on a baleful religious sense of an implacable human nature; but it certainly seems to have outstripped any place for human agency, and to have rendered the latter obsolete – at least in the bleakest view of the situation. What does the territory of any robust and sustainable alternative look like? It does require very serious thought - there are no easy answers. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:46 | # Graham, I mean the dynamic is Jewish, not European in character. How can “super-modernity” as “the only conceivable social system” be mistaken for anything but “the end of days”? How can one not see the inevitability of our ethnic dissolution but as the perfection of the world (Olam Ha-ba), and the self-authored as the Chosen? Dirty Bull said it all. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:10 | # Daniel, The non-interview with Greg Johnson was a weird thing. It cropped up after I had written a little about the cloistered and elitist tendency within CMS. Greg asked me for an radio interview but I wasn’t sure whether he was acting in good faith, so I confined things to a written Q&A format. He sent me one question, which I posted here, duly answered, but I don’t think he posted it at C-C. He arrived on our thread and said there would be no second question. I guess he found me unsuitable or uninteresting, or he just didn’t like my opposition to his own idealist approach. If I do an interview at VoR it will be because I think I have something original to say, and know how to say it. You should not assume that from my writings here. I have too much respect for true scholars and for the well-read - which I am not - to parade myself as their equal. 13
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:15 | # GW You mean in a teleological conception of history with a quasi-utopian end-point? Unfortunately many have drunk from that particular well. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:19 | # However many have drunk from the well, our bucket of slurry is Jewish and only Jewish in origin, since it comes to us courtesy of Paul’s reworking of his fathers’ faith. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:31 | # Daniel, To me, as a son of the English soil, it is completely inconceivable that we shall share our land with other races in perpetuity. It is the most heinous defeatism to accept such a thing. Our survival militates against it. So ... it is quite difficult for me to imagine landless Europeans successfully self-identifying in a multiracial America. I don’t really agree with O’Meara and his emphasis on myth - I think it is poorly thought out - but land is an absolute essential both to survival and to the idealisation which O’Meara writes about. We must have land, and where we do not have land today we must have the prospect of land, even the dream of land. It is the least nationalists must offer their people. 16
Posted by Hail on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 02:02 | # This is an excellent reply to Bailey’s article, which after reading it I believe can be summarized as “the cause is lost; there never was a cause anyway; [and more implied:] Racial-Europeans are Evil, and if you are tainted with European blood, you can escape the shame by working against that Evil group”. The reply, by GW, in the main entry, is devastating to the second and third premises, at least. I am here reminded why I first started coming back to read this website on a semi-regular basis, a long time ago, now. Interestingly, Ronald Bailey “has described himself as a ‘libertarian transhumanist’...”, according to Wiki. His book: “Liberation Biology: The Scientific And Moral Case For The Biotech Revolution”. 17
Posted by Hail on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 02:08 | #
And if anyone doesn’t believe it, just carefully watch what is said on questions which touch on the Race Issue in the Republican presidential debates. All candidates fall over each other to seem more passionate advocates of maintaining and expanding the peculiar institution of our Multicultacracy. Rick Santorum: “I am the son of an immigrant; we love immigrants!” 18
Posted by Hail on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 02:27 | # An interesting comment at ‘Reason’:
From an Amazon.com review of the book:
Author: Born in England, 1934.
19
Posted by Circassian on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:54 | #
Sounds like Single Cause hypothesis to me. I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: GW is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. “I recognize the lion by his paw,” - Jacob Bernoulli, after reading an anonymous solution to a problem that he realized was Newton’s solution. Well said and well done, GW. 20
Posted by Circassian on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:52 | # I had an interesting experience today. At lunch time I have noticed a large group of mostly black people in the break room. A black lady invited me to join the party and enjoy the meal - it was a celebration of Black history month. I did. I looked around the walls with Black figures and asked that lady: Are you well versed in Black heritage? She replied: Well, yes, I might say so, - and started enthusiastically sharing her knowledge with me, perhaps, compelled to prove that she, indeed, was well versed in the topic. When the window of opportunity in the conversation finally presented itself I ceased it and asked: How come I do not see the picture of Minister Lewis Farrakhan here. She was taken aback a little, but quickly recovered and explained: Well, you see he is a Muslim… Is that bad? - I asked, and added - for the record, I am a Muslim. Well, of course there is nothing wrong with being Muslim, but it’s just we are mostly Christians. The poor lady started precess and nutate around me like a spinning top in an attempt to wrap up the conversation and leave. But I wouldn’t let her go. I’ve explained to her, as nicely as I could, that Minister Lewis Farrakhan is the true leader of the Blacks and in fact the only one, and she better get to know him directly and not from the media. I didn’t torture the black woman any longer, I said that I wish Whites had a leader of the same caliber as Farrakhan, and left. 21
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:02 | # Robert Reis - Im blowing my own trumpet here; I linked to Unamusement Park months ago, its in the links on the left. However I see I forgot to mention it in the Latest Link thread. You had a site at one point, I wanted to link to that, any news on that front? 22
Posted by Circassian on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:00 | # @Guessedworker
Too bad. I would suggest a healthy dose of disrespect for those you call true scholars and the well-read. As far as I can tell, not a single true scholar has ever appeared on the waves of VoR, except for Dr Kevin MacDonald, perhaps. There is a lot of Noise, not much Reason, there. What that “scholar” of Croatian sciences was thinking about when he invited for an interview another “scholar” Soren Road Runner? That’s a shame. 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:44 | #
I don’t see how that could categorically be the case. It seems to be the European racial traits of high individualism and altruism directed toward outgroup members taken to their logical conclusion. These traits, at least according to MacDonald, are a part of the evolved European nature - Jews did not put them there, selective pressures did, however much indoctrination of Europeans to ideas of Jewish origin may exploit them.
MacDonald claims that race/ethnicity becomes more salient to identity as exposure to outgroup members increases.
24
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:30 | # At least the problematic concept of “self-estrangement” was not included in GW’s rejoinder to Bailey. Problematic in what way? It is GW’s contention that Europeans of faith, not merely faith in liberalism, but any faith are inherently “self-estranged”. This seems a quite contradictory notion in that GW also claims that these European individuals of faith are expressing a central psychological tendency that their genes code for. In having faith, they are being true to their nature, true to their genes. So…they are being true to their “self-estranging” nature and the further they move from their nature the less “self-estranged” they will be?! 25
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:33 | # Well ‘liberal transhumanism’ is not so far from the topics I covered in my essay on the New Man under Liberalism. 26
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:38 | # Strict altruism does not exist, even as a European trait. It is either manipulated or is the product of subtle self-interest. “If human behaviour is viewed from the perspective of natural selection, the effect that counts is survival and reproduction. Reward in heaven and brotherhood of class, race or creed are not real reciprocity or kin selection, but just illusions; illusions that make people commit altruistic acts.” How do we know that illusions exist? It’s because palingenesis does not exist in nature but does exist in theology and historico-political discourse. It is a potent vehicle for promoting acts of altruism. Bailey is advocating altruism because it serves self-interest. No doubt he does not live in neighbourhoods that are predominantly Hispanic. He is a hypocrite and gains value, a status, by advocating for tolerance. However, this is not liberalism, which grew from the palingenetic myth of the rebirth of the golden age of Anglo-Saxon England. It is something very different in nature. He is definitely manipulated, however, and if self-estranged, it is an estrangement from the true meaning of English liberalism, an altruistic model which advocated for the EGI of the English. This is the true meaning of the American experiment, advancing property rights that limited the power of the State to enclose (like the Spanish model in S.America) and excluding any right of the native to a claim of blood and soil. 27
Posted by daniel on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:41 | # GW, We must have land, no doubt. But in provisional terms of our survival, it can be in number of places, in a number of sizes and in more than one place. There is no implication that non-natives should be accepted to European and UK lands. On the contrary. I appreciate and in fact like your determination that England be for the native English. I am talking about provisional agility not an indefinite acceptance (of non-natives) for people like the English with regard to their land. Perhaps that will be more clear with my next essay - it’s a short one, waiting to be published. Moreover, there is an essence in which our DNA is most vital to preserve - a little bit more important than a particular land, a little. This basis is one means of coordinating our nation; and maintaining what someone like yourself would see as a vital category - the English. While I might concede that there are metaphoric aspects in interpretation and in terms of how it counts, it has as little to do with myth as possible - we are talking about DNA. While Michale O’‘Meara is not exactly wrong as to the importance and guiding value of myths, it is an instance where he goes a bit to the other extreme from MR, a bit too much toward the verbal; from what I can gather, based on what I have read of him. Whereas MR has probably been a bit too empirical - scientistic. There are ways to integrate these polar extremes. I have indicated some. As for what did not transpire with Johnson, oh well. I can only guess - some of the commentary here at MR is a bit rough, but I am not sure that is why it fell through. I am being subjective when I think it would have made for an interesting conversation. I am not being presumptuous as to your merit; your audio and writings show enough experience, consideration and sincere concern for relevant matters to be of interest to me and I am sure many people concerned for the well being of The English. By analogy and connection therefore, to other peoples of indigenous European descent as well. You may like to establish measurable scientific standards, comparing say, your erudition to others; or the verifiablility of certain subject matter for yourself. While that may make you all the more sharp when time for a conversation may come around, as to the value of a conversation with your self, it was not the standard for an interlocutor by which I was presuming that you would make for a good one. Where the subject matter requires such rigor by your estimation and you’d like to hold off, fair enough. But let’s try to avoid a situation where a potentially useful conversation never materializes because incommensurate standards were applied or because of personality conflicts - the matter is too important for that; the situation has a sense of urgency to where a paraphrase or Heidegger can be appropriate viz., “the worst has happened.” I am experienced enough, have talked to enough “ordinary people” (also worth hearing from) and scholars, I have been concerned for the struggle for long enough to know what I am talking about. Our interests are enough in alignment, you are experienced and concerned enough, so that a conversation with you can be worthwhile whenever you are ready. However, I do not want to ruin the possibility by trying too hard to persuade you that information more related to your biography makes for a worthwhile conversation of itself. Share a conversation when and if you are ready - hopefully sooner not later - it is about quality; therefore, when you are ready is a valid standard. 28
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:14 | #
And yet it is still highly adaptive.
Even though white evangelicals heartily imbibe this Jewish derived slurry it functions, unconsciously apparently, through the power of their faith alone, toward forming group homogeniety. Astonishing. 29
Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:30 | # Evangelicalism - is that the whole of the religious field? Is it really a proximate mechanism for some evolutionary end or just a mirror to implicit forms of segregation already in play? I’m planning to write on contemporary religion in US culture - it certainly is not quite as ‘adaptive’ as a naive reading of it would suggest nor indeed is it a serious phenomenon, in and of itself, even if it does have serious sociological and cultural consequences. It very easy to shout ‘adaptive’ in a lose manner. I’m all for functional explanations but ideas are not always ‘selected’ for their truth value but also perhaps for their ideological usefulness - but of course that pushes the question onto issues of for whom or what vested interests are such ideas useful? In non-biotic selection (culture, social systems) the optimization criteria for ‘fitness’ is much more difficult to track. Read Cavalli-Sforza on the topic rather than the banalities of Dawkins. 30
Posted by daniel on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:33 | # We must have land, no doubt. But in provisional terms of our survival, it can be in number of places, in a number of sizes and in more than one place. ..it can be in more than one place, non-contiguous and in a number of sizes. 31
Posted by Mullin on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:11 | #
The level of identity that becomes more salient is probably related to the level of outgroup that one is exposed to. This probably facilitated, and continues to facilitate, the mixing of whites in places like America. Founding stock American and white ethnic identities would probably have been more salient and robust without the presence of blacks. Exposure to blacks, a level of outgroup further out, allowed for a level of identity that was further out, facilitating greater mixing among this wider identity. A founding stock American father who under normal circumstances would disapprove of his daughter mixing with white ethnics becomes more tolerant of such relations in an environment with blacks, relieved that at least she isn’t mixing with blacks.
32
Posted by Mullin on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:55 | #
Note how the neocon Jews have exploited this to advance Jewish imperialism by heightening the exposure to the Arab/Muslim outgroup. They have successfully manipulated and corralled many whites into identifying their interests with Jewish imperialism. This makes the Jewish problem more difficult and intractable these days. They are able to mask themselves and dangle other outgroups in front of us. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 00:54 | # Daniel,
OK, I understand the meaning of the word provisional here. But to create something great, something permanent, one must eventually concentrate the mass of Europeans in America. How do you get them from these “non-contiguous places”, where they feel connected, unless said places are relentlessly diversifying? And what is the use of such places anyway if they are doing that? I mean, how and at what point is this roadmap to a real homeland for, certainly, scores of millions of white Americans to be drawn up?
MR has always been a work in progress, and remains so. The explosive problems we have here are always because some people hold fixed ideas, and react accordingly. The Single Jewish Cause is one, and fascist palingenesis is another. My criticism of O’Meara was, basically, that real myth cannot be manufactured and advertised to order, and what can be manufactured actually doesn’t work. Self-interest does, however.
Revolutionary nationalist economics is a little-visited subject area. If you want me to visit it - which I am happy to do - you are going to have to let me satisfy my own investigative standards. I will be in touch. 34
Posted by Hail on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:03 | # Ronald Bailey is out with a new article in Reason Magazine: Bioconservatives vs Bioprogressives
Bailey clearly sees himself as the heroically-‘bioprogressive’ man of the future, i.e. a good guy. Considering his screed against “the European struggle for existence”, perhaps he regards Racialism as not even “bioconservative”, but “bioreactionary”, to borrow the fitting Marxist term. 35
Posted by daniel on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:34 | # Hi GW, You say Daniel, OK, I understand the meaning of the word provisional here: We must have land, no doubt. But in provisional terms of our survival, it can be in number of places, in a number of sizes and in more than one place. Actually, that sentence contained a silly oversight, was redundant - it should have been written: But in provisional terms of our survival, it can be in more than one place, non-contiguous and in a number of sizes GW But to create something great, something permanent, one must eventually concentrate the mass of Europeans in America. Yes, and my latest and as yet unpublished essay began to coalesce around the notion of coordination of the White nation between three major goods for Whites: One facet requiring that it be as big as possible so that it can have a sufficient economy and power for example to fund a space program and to hold up to china. That thought was provoked by Mike Conner’s expressed wish for an America as big and White as possible for those kinds of reasons. The other two facets, two “goods” for Whites to coordinate: Second, a notion largely articulated by Bowery - i.e., freedom to vote with one’s feet, and establish deliberate, experimental human ecologies through freedom of association - for example, with Whites and freedom from association with non-Whites. That seems to be a White value we’d want to preserve, but what is also interesting is how to coordinate that in relation to a very different, and deeper value. Third, a notion that I naturally gravitate toward, and one which seems to be your central concern as well - that is to say, the truly deep, ancient and situated ecologies of Europe - such as England and its native people - this is less an ecology based on choice and experiment; but it is surely also a good that we as Whites would want to preserve. These three goods: The big White nation, the freedom of White association/from association with non-Whites and the deeply situated ecologies of Europe seem to be in need of coordination. How do you get them from these “non-contiguous places”, where they feel connected, unless said places are relentlessly diversifying? And what is the use of such places anyway if they are doing that? I mean, how and at what point is this road-map to a real homeland for, certainly, scores of millions of white Americans to be drawn up? So, in contrast, but not necessarily in conflict and opposition to exogenous approaches (outside-in) which would seek to establish a border of White lands first and then fill them in, I am proposing an endogenous approach (from the inside out) to coordination, one that begins with an essence and ultimate aim to preserve of our native European DNA - as the means to establish our nation. With that, people could specify subcategories to maintain, should they match it genetically, such as the English. With an agreement on the basis of a DNA nation, beginning with people who are awake and want to to be a part of it (the 14 words serves as guiding myth enough for me and I suspect can for others as well), we would have a clear and palpable criteria by which to establish and coordinate our White nation(s), quite flexibly, beyond the control of the anti-White powers that be; with one of our chief aims being to retake our ancient European lands, ultimately.
MR has always been a work in progress, and remains so. The explosive problems we have here are always because some people hold fixed ideas, and react accordingly. The Single Jewish Cause is one, and fascist palingenesis is another. MR is certainly among the best in our struggle, and I respect what you say about MR evolving, that is why I used the past tense in relative terms “has probably been” My criticism of O’Meara was, basically, that real myth cannot be manufactured and advertised to order, and what can be manufactured actually doesn’t work. Self-interest does, however. O’Meara is clearly very intelligent and highly erudite, making criticism a bit of a challenge, but you’ve got a good one there. But let’s try to avoid a situation where a potentially useful conversation never materializes because incommensurate standards were applied Great. I look very much forward to hearing what you have to say. 36
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:07 | # </em>
If you listen to Bowery’s last interview you will discover he is actually leaning away from explicit whiteness (big, free and Euro) to a de facto implicit whiteness model, like the evangelicals, although that may not exactly be a model. The fundies are virulently anti-racist in their waking consciousness but overwhelmingly homogeneous in their unconscious sense of belonging. JB’s model attempts, it appears, to establish that sense of belonging to a community by economic means, a land value tax and a wealth distribution plan via the citizen’s dividend. No exclusive white nation but an implicit white nation; de facto/implicit free association; implicit Europeaness. Why? It’s because he, it appears, believes that explicitness has not/does not/ will not work. 37
Posted by daniel on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:14 | # Well, Desmond, one of he good things about what I am proposing is that it is not mutually exclusive to other efforts. On the contrary, it can be supportive of these implicit and economically based White communities, and to a North-West Front White homeland or a nativist English nationalist movement; and more. In addition, there is not a requirement of large numbers to begin. Any number of native Europeans agreeing on a DNA nation - or rather, expressing a wish for one, to begin, would suffice. This is an endogenous (from the inside-out) approach. It is not guessing what will work in the end, but going with what already works in terms of who already wants to be a part. 38
Posted by Silver on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:50 | # Daniel, those are some encouragingly incisive viewpoints. Further development along those lines would see greater numbers of racial others willing to voice open support for WN(ish) positions. Granted, they are unlikely to be those who depart most wildly whiteness or who benefit most from despoiling—I’m going to use Bowery’s terminology here—white ecologies, but it would still represent a major step forward. Furthermore, it’s easier to take your own side after others have taken it for you—think of black racial activists encouraged by Jewish instigators—so I believe this kind of “multi-pronged” racialism would, in time, greatly lessen resistance on the part of whites (particularly the northern variety) to transition from implicit to explicit whiteness. 40
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:27 | # It’s interesting the latest couple of threads on MR – we have the idea that verbally abusing the disabled is some ‘key’ issue. Is childishly impolite behaviour such as using the term ‘retard’ central to European experience or being in some way? The Western tradition reduced to the banality of ‘Beavis & Butthead’. On the Bailey thread I see the old tropes about religion being ‘adaptive’ again on show - failing to distinguish between functional explanations in general and the highly specific notion of adaptive fitness sensu stricto. Moreover the idea that various forms of fundamentalist Christianity will be the deus ex machina of Euro-America. Well religion in American culture is just another consumerist product for many – a post-modern form of public piety with little more meaning than “I signal I am normal and mainstream”. The old Kierkegaardian thought that in a society were all are Christians none really are probably holds true. It’s a superficial piece of cultural posturing (I have data to indicate as much but that is for another time). But for those that take it most ‘seriously’ - emotionally and expressively - as opposed to intellectually (intellectually serious theists are as rare as hen’s teeth) what to they tell us are their key ideas – crawling on their metaphorical bellies to genuflect before the ‘holy of holies’ Israel (Christian Zionism), the impermissibility of abortion, and idiocy over their creation mythology being empirically valid and scientifically accurate. Let alone the cognitive dissonance of universalism – are not their black, yellow, green whatever fellow Christians equally their brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ? If so why is this very temporary, very short sojourn, before one is forever in the direct company of God, so important that ideas of ethnically differentiated communities be of the slightest material significance? Are they to God one wonders? No doubt I’ll be dubbed a ‘liberal/J-lizard’ troll for raising such issues. 41
Posted by Circassian on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:31 | # James Bowely, Søren Road Runner, Gei Murros, Norman Lowlife, Constantine von Halfmaster are, as Russians say, berries of the same field - a field carefully cultivated by the Jews, a poisoned field. Nothing good grows in that field. James Bowely - a self-absorbed ‘scholar’ of horizontal and vertical bowel movements, formal duel, and other idiotic jerk off theories designed with one goal in mind - obfuscation. Every idiot can make simple things complicated, to make complicated things simple by lucid analysis - that’s the task worthy of natural scholars like Ivan. Søren Road Runner: Billions will die. We, the Jews, will win. Gei Murros: We need one more war - a war of all wars - one magnificent, glorious, noble, mesmerizing, enticing, breath-taking war. We must never be ashamed to admit that the resurrection of Europe requires the greatest war this planet has ever seen. ... we destroy entire civilizations, we desolate continents and we start world wars. Europeans are masters of violence. For us war is the logical culmination of evolution. For us politics is secondary to war, for us politics is just a prelude to war. All the great questions of our time can and will be solved through war. WTF. Give this little eunuch a rifle and let him wage as much war as he wants. Norman Lowlife: We can starve Muslims by millions. This idiot can barely feed himself, and still he is talking about starving millions of Muslims by withholding his food from Muslims’ tables. Constantine von Halfmaster: Misagination is good. James Bowely and Søren Road Runner are the only ones who couldn’t resist the impulse to suppress sniper shots from Ivan. J Richards has suggested that it was GW who banned Ivan. With all due respect to J Richards’ reasoning skills, I don’t believe GW would fall that low. My intuition tells me that it was Judas Søren who crucified Ivan. 42
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:07 | # I did not shoot the Circassian. I did buy some chalk and start drawing a Caucasian chalk circle, however. Ivan, with such a disastrous ethnic history at the hands of so many unsympathetic groups, why would a Circassian pick out Jewry for the blame treatment? I am not saying you are wrong about that. It’s just that Russians, Turks and just about everyone in the Balkans had had a go at your people at one time or another, with devastating results. I would expect you to care little about Jews in the West. 43
Posted by daniel on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:18 | # Ivan, I am reluctant to take you on because your position is boring to me - highly predictable. You are a Muslim who wants to depict as a Jewish agent or a weakling anybody who who sees other problems besides Jewish, even if they recognize Jewish interests as the foremost problem. You value negro style men, perhaps because you are all too much of a negro yourself. Go live with them, nobody is stopping you - there is no shortage of them. As for your list of complaints. Bowery - I don’t see him as self absorbed but ready to help solve problems. A clearly intelligent and good man. Because I listen to someone does not mean that a I agree with everything that they say. He has many keen insights. I agree with others that his notion of dueling requires some revision, but he is quick to take up the conversation and discuss civilized alternatives. He is perhaps more empirical and individualistic in his tastes than would serve White interests as a self defense at this point; but he recognizes that as well and does not intransigently hold on to positions which might not be effective. Kai Murros. I like him, like what he has to say. I don’t care if every man is not 6-5 and athletic. Soren Renner: Billions will die, we will win. I like this phrase very much. I am sure that he is not on the side of the Jews. You don’t like him because he is not on the side of the Muslims either. Nor should he be, in those cases where their genetics are not in common with native European; or when will they do not divest that stupid religion. You can keep Islam. We don’t need it. Note, I do not disagree with Graham Lister’s last post either - you can keep Christianity too. And the religion from which it emerged. You can keep the Jews and their religion. We don’t need anything from them. We have a better religion and a better morality. I like Norman Lowell very much. I respect him. I cannot see a White man calling him Norman Lowlife. He strikes me as an eminently fair man, a man of wisdom and judgment. But then you are not White, are you? So that explains it. Your interests are not ours. You only care about us inasmuch as we oppose the Jews. von Halfmaster: I don’t know. Somethings he has said have made me recoil a bit: When he said that Germans should intermarry with Russians. Well, maybe a little. But he seems to lean toward blending all Europeans, which I think would be a tragedy of human ecology. When one advocates that kind of thing no holds barred, it is bound to run rough-shod over important justices. He also has spoken at times as if he thinks Jews are darn ok and of an expanded Israel. Maybe that is a part of his troll persona…he is being strategic, not honest. It still makes me uncomfortable. But I don’t know. I have heard him say other things that I thought were excellent. One things seems clear: You are paranoid. Anybody who is not all anti Jew 24/7 and maybe pro Islam too (oh what a stupid religion), who says anything bad about that stupid religion, seems to stir a rage in those irrational Caucasian J2 genes of yours. Have some vodka. We don’t want war with Iran or any of the Islamic countries. We just don’t want them and their stupid religion here, en masse. 44
Posted by Circassian on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:37 | # Since this post has something to do with reasoning, let us give the floor to Ivan again so he can continue to teach the art of solid reasoning to the but heads. Excerpt from Maxwell’s letter to Lewis Campbell: I was thinking to-day of the duties of [the] cognitive faculty. It is universally admitted that duties are voluntary, and that the will governs understanding by giving or withholding Attention. They say that Understanding ought to work by the rules of right reason. These rules are, or ought to be, contained in Logic; but the actual science of Logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) we have to reason on. Therefore the true Logic for this world is the Calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability (which is, or which ought to be in a reasonable man’s mind). This branch of Math., which is generally thought to favour gambling, dicing, and wagering, and therefore highly immoral, is the only “Mathematics for Practical Men,” as we ought to be. Now, as human knowledge comes by the senses in such a way that the existence of things external is only inferred from the harmonious (not similar) testimony of the different senses, Understanding, acting by the laws of right reason, will assign to different truths (or facts, or testimonies, or what shall I call them) different degrees of probability. Now, as the senses give new testimonies continually, and as no man ever detected in them any real inconsistency, it follows that the probability and credibility of their testimony is increasing day by day, and the more man uses them the more he believes them. He believes them. What is believing? When the probability (there is no better word found) in a man’s mind of a certain proposition being true is greater than that of its being false, he believes it with a proportion of faith corresponding to the probability, and this probability may be increased or diminished by new facts. This is faith in general. When a man thinks he has enough of evidence for some notion of his he sometimes refuses to listen to any additional evidence pro or con, saying, “It is a settled question, probatis probata; it needs no evidence; it is certain.” This is knowledge as distinguished from faith. He says, “I do not believe; I know.” “If any man thinketh that he knoweth, he knoweth yet nothing as he ought to know.” This knowledge is a, shutting, of one’s ears to all arguments, and is the same as “Implicit faith” in one of its meanings. “Childlike faith,” confounded with it, is not credulity, for children are not credulous, but find out sooner than some think that many men are liars. I must now to bed, so good night; only please to write when you get this, if convenient, and state the probability of your coming here. We perhaps will be in Edinburgh when the Wise men are there. Now you are invited in a corner of a letter by JAMES CLERK MAXWELL. 45
Posted by daniel on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:07 | # oh yeah, and that’s another thing….or anyone who isn’t well within the analytical empirical type school… Clerk Maxwell had some good ideas, not only for 1850, but.. 46
Posted by Circassian on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:34 | # @daniel
You have taken me on, and that was your mistake - never take on somebody you cannot handle properly. Wizards like Schlomo Kievsky, Gei Murros and Søren Road Runner know better. From now on your life will be anything but boring.
A religion can be vigorous, life-affirming, discipline-setting social force like Islam, or Orthodox Christianity, for example. Or it can be hijacked, emasculated and rendered as life-degenerating opiate for the cattle like the one pushed by John Hagee, or Pat Robertson. But there are no stupid religions. There are plenty of stupid individuals, though, and, I’m sorry to break the bad news to you, One things seems clear: You are one of them. 47
Posted by daniel on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:55 | # Don’t threaten me, Ivan. I did not come to an Islamic site, I did not seek to go and live in your countries, nor do I condone war with them. Yes, there can be stupid religions: Christianity, Islam and Judaism, for example. Go fish in your own pond. 48
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:13 | # Ivan, Do not use insult, please. There are only two rules here - civility and intelligence in all that is said - and I would prefer them to be respected. It is not necessary, in any case, to break them continually in order to make your point. Thank you. 49
Posted by Silver on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:16 | # Ivan, for the life of me I can’t understand why insist on posting here. Can you possibly be so delusional as to think anyone here cares about your opinion? Before you turn to insult, let me assure you I have no doubt that a substantial number—perhaps a majority, even a sizable majority—don’t care for mine. Surely one measure, though, is the quality of response one’s posts elicit; by it, I think I can confidently assert I have more standing than you. Turning to religion now, judged in their totality, there are plenty of stupid religions (irrational, dysfunctional, inhumane, idiotic—in short, perfectly stupid), and even more stupid adherents of them (the former playing no small role in producing the latter). On the other hand, no major religion could seriously be considered completely “stupid” or worthless. I’m sure the practise of Islam (as opposed to its written content, which is a steaming pile of crap) does much to provide a sense of meaning and rootedness to its practitioners. Unfortunately for you, given its utterly alien racial-cultural provenance, it’s not a religion that’s at all attractive to any identitarian (calm down GW) European. Islamic racialists face at least as great an uphill battle against their religious establishment as Christian racialists, probably even more so, given Islam’s determination to raise its flag over others soil, so if you’re as serious about race as you claim, it’s unclear to me why you imagine leading the charge with Islam makes any sense. (Honestly now, just how keen are you to share living space with endless numbers of coreligionists like Nigerians and Indonesians? The Meccan Marauder doesn’t seem to have been thinking very far ahead…) daniel,
There are few ways to read this lukewarm response (not even a capital G!). The first is a sarcastic yawn, based either on the quality of thought put forward or on it being put forward by me. The second is impatient disbelief—you’ll believe it when you see it. The third is cautious enthusiasm—an idea so attractive you can’t wait to hear more. If it’s anything but #3, okay, I’d very much love to hear how you think conditions of “[land in] more than one place, non-contiguous and in a number of sizes” might be achieved. I want to hear abotu practical steps and stages. What sort of developments would we be looking out for, seeing occur, hearing being discussed, with whom etc? I have my own thoughts on this, but I’d like to hear what you think. For my part, I’m willing to tell anyone who’ll listen (and many who won’t!): “Whites deserve to live. Of course, all peoples do, but today only whites are targeted for destruction/disintegration [unsure which is more effective], whether actively or indirectly, by denying them the right to speak in their own name.” There are a thousand and one variations on that basic theme, but that’s the gist of it. Mightn’t mean much, but bear in mind that with it I’m referring to your group rather than my own (well, my own is contained within the phrase “all peoples,” but the thrust of the message is aimed at your group); to my knowledge, that’s a uncommon (and uncommonly difficult) stance indeed.
50
Posted by Circassian on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:35 | # @Guessedworker
Now I can see why you got the wrong impression that I am a biter, living in the past lunatic who is seeking revenge for what had transpired throughout the 19th century. Nothing could be further from the truth. You should know better. No one has the right to blame the past, But I am not about vengeance, nor am I playing the blame game. I am not seeking reparations or apologies - I am a Circassian, not a Jew. If I were to blame somebody, the Jew would be the last one in the long list of those who used small Caucasian ethnic groups as expandable pawns in the big strategic games of that time. But today, the alliance of the world Jewry with bought and paid for white bustards is the real danger threatening to all of us, a real threat to deliver the fate of my people to all peoples in the world, including people of European descent. Don’t you see that? If you do, isn’t it natural to seek alliances to counter that threat, or, if we are not smart enough for that, at least, not to fall into the traps set up for us. Who do you think arranged the burning of Koran in Afghanistan? Surely you don’t think it was done by somebody who cares for the safety and well being of American troops stationed there, do you. I have nothing against the Jewish people per se, or indigenous people of England, or the people of any other European country. Why is it so difficult to understand? 51
Posted by Circassian on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:50 | #
There is nothing wrong with thinking, in general, and being confident in your own qualities, in particular, Silver. Good for you. Congratulations on your good estimates of your own achievements. 52
Posted by Hesper on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:01 | # Quick comment chappies concerning the Ivan-the-Circassian Question. I like Ivan’s bluntness and stout-hearted, albeit somewhat rudely engendered, sense of honour; he’s a true man of the mountains. His keenness of understanding in perceiving Jewish, or Jew-serving, tricks and delusions is admirable. However, I’m bewildered by beloved leader Guessedworker and others’ clumsy treatment of him as if he is the product of our sensibilities, races and civilisation, as if the white Asiatic indigenes of the Caucasus, across the Black Sea in western Tartary (or Kipzak as it’s named in some of our earlier modern charts) who profess Mohammedanism, are part of a Turco-Persian High Culture and tasted the residue of the fallen Arabian empire founded by the Prophet of Islam’s armies (after a few centuries of obdurate local paganism heartily imbibing its universal Semitic religion), can be brought to a level where he sees the world and operates upon it according to our expectations. The Caucasus, aside from the fact that beyond the Wikipedia world, is not nor cannot historically, biologically or even geographically be considered European, was never included in the native sphere of the two world-civilisations Europe has begotten, i.e. the Classical (Greco-Roman [northern] Mediterranean Pagan) or Western (Germanic-Latin Catholic in western Europe, viz. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, England, Scotland, Norway, etc). “...and just about everyone in the Balkans had had a go at your people…” My dear fellow, the Caucasus is (relatively speaking) not within a thousand miles of “the Balkans”. Does any south-eastern European nation (none of which are Western in High Culture - Hungary and Slovenia certainly, probably also Croatia, being more central European Western Catholic nations than non-Western Orthodox ones) abut the Caucasus even remotely? No. Greeks (authors of, and for above two thousand years, the entombed remnants of the Classical civilisation), Bulgarians, Wallachians, Serbo-Croat-speaking South Slavs, etc (excluding the plainly Asiatic Turks of course) have never had any relation with the Caucasus of a permanent or organic kind. Your geography is noticeably poor my good chappy. Incidentally the natives of the Caucasus, Circassians and all, possess greater genetic identity with their religious brethren, and biological near-cousins, of the Moslem Near East than their post-1800 Slavic European colonial subjugators or other Europeans so they’re more genetically south-western Asiatic than European in either geography or genes. Ivan’s arguing for Mohammedan-facilitating, pro-Asiatic positions - I choose to believe in good faith - because he is a white Asiatic Mohammedan (who undoubtedly passes for a white American in Yankee land but has no business in Europe except perhaps the Caucasus’s still-existing colonial era master, Russia). Trying to change him is like ramming your head against the synagogue’s gilt-embossed hard oaken doors. 53
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:12 | # Hesper, As I understand, in the 19th century the Circassians were driven out of their own land almost to a man, and lived in other lands where they were generally not at all well-treated. 54
Posted by Hesper on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 23:56 | # Guessedworker, I thank you for the prompt reply (my joking manner was obviously friendly not sarcastic and I’m pleased your natural gentility took it in that way). “As I understand, in the 19th century the Circassians were driven out of their own land almost to a man, and lived in other lands where they were generally not at all well-treated.” With respect, that’s our problem why? Yes, yes, I know their unhappy history in resisting the colonial advance of the Russians, an invasion and displacement equalled in energy and pitilessness only by various British colonisations of the New World and parts of Asia and Africa. Prior to that catastrophe, from homo sapiens sapiens’ pre-history say to the period 1825-1850, the Circassians had been employed by their Ottoman and Persian suzerains as guards, generals and (the women) harem inmates. They’re clearly not receiving the same animus from the New World Order as English, Dutch, or even Bulgarians and Europeans in general, so overstrained camaraderie with them is unwarranted. “...they were generally not at all well-treated…” That’s their opinion of the whole affair of course. No doubt the victims of Circassian Moslem piracy and 55
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:18 | # So your objection is to calling Istanbul and Western Turkey part of the Balkans? How about Kosovo? Well, if it bothers you, strike the word and just focus on “Turkey”. You will be glad to learn that those refugees from the Northern Caucasus who went into the Middle East fared much better, being under the British Protectorate. 56
Posted by Circassian on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:00 | #
Good-tempered and benevolent comments by Hesper, who undoubtedly knows what he is talking about, is a welcome change in the see of arrogance, vain blabbering, pseudoscientific jockeying, and moralizing from those who have no idea what morality is. But I am not sure from where did Hesper get the impression that someone here was trying to change me. True, GW called gently for me to be more respectful. Not much to ask for, I guess, and perhaps I even owe him an apology for abusing his patience. But pray tell, dear Hesper, does someone who is trying to deceive others, who is pushing for a war with innocent people, who is talking about starving by millions people who have done nothing to him, except that they just want to live on their own land, do such people deserve respect? Why are we waging a war on Iraq? Why are we killing the Afghanis? Who is pushing for a war with Iran and why? Do these people deserve respect? I don’t care who these war mongers are - jews, whites, blues, or greens - I am going to kick them like a mad dogs they are. And you should be thankful to me for doing so, not patronize me. Half of the MR population simply wants me out of here - the sooner the better. The other half is so preoccupied with their vanity, they couldn’t care less who Ivan is or what he is talking about. As of me, I have no illusions of what kind of change I could effect on these people. Ivan is not trying to present himself “as if he is the product of our sensibilities, races and civilisation” either. This product feels pretty comfortable with the SKUs he’s got from his parents and from his culture. But I do believe that the sense of honour is not something that is restricted to the mountaineers. At least, it shouldn’t be so. 57
Posted by jamesUK on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:01 | # Dugins Eurasia website wrote a piece on The Russian army in the Caucasus http://evrazia.org/article/1883 Google translte http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://evrazia.org/article/1883 58
Posted by daniel on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:55 | # Silver said. quoting me “daniel,”
then you say “There are few ways to read this lukewarm response (not even a capital G!). The first is a sarcastic yawn, based either on the quality of thought put forward or on it being put forward by me. The second is impatient disbelief—you’ll believe it when you see it. The third is cautious enthusiasm—an idea so attractive you can’t wait to hear more.”
Particularly if you are not, however, that is if you have a vested interest, the best for Whites at heart, or even if you are just a non-White who likes Whites anyway, your feedback is most welcome.. Other reasons for my lack of effervescence…the essay is not published yet…if it does not go up in about a week on another site, perhaps I will post it here as a comment…. Whatever the case, I honestly do appreciate your appreciation…and I look forward to discussing the matter..
60
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:07 | # @HW Unfortunately for you, I’m not gone for good. It’s not worth it to be posting here anymore. The latest: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//the_ghosts_of_the_past [a Khazar urinates on nationalism, and if you confront him, he’ll say he’s discussing others’ viewpoints and that “Nationalism need not end in such disastrous voyages”... and it won’t because the voyage wouldn’t start in the first place.] I’m working on a different website and will announce it here when it’s ready. After that it’ll be few occasions when I’ll post anything at MR. 61
Posted by Circassian on Wed, 29 Feb 2012 04:06 | # J Richards, I want to apologize to you, and especially to the owner of this site Guessedworker, for hijacking some MR forums with “Circassia” theme. I understand perfectly well that there are things much more important than my concern for the fate of my people. My only excuse is that I do not separate the concern I have for my own folks from that I have for all gentile peoples of the world. We are all in this shit up to our necks, brothers. Either we all make it, or we all lose it to the pimping Jew. Ivan: Ignis vitalis aestimo nobilitatem 62
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:57 | # @Richards Wow such analytical insights! No need to discuss ideas just shout ‘J-lizard’. Perhaps you could expand on your conceptual understanding of nationalism as a political phenomena? Are you suggesting that totalitarian National Socialism is your goal, or a ‘good’ example? If so can you discuss the number of bona fide Germans left dead and displaced at the end of that regime, or even the number of European deaths? And your say you have our best interests at heart, really are you sure? Forgive me if I think you have all of the moral and political insight of an amoeba. Is you definition of a ‘nationalist’ basically a Nazi? How stupid can one get? And people like you wonder why you and your ‘ideas’ are so utterly marginal. Could it be that non tin-foilers think you’re rather untrustworthy in your world-view, reasoning and judgments No of course not - it’s a conspiracy people! 63
Posted by MULLIGAN & O'HARE on Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:56 | # The ever changing moods of J. Richards are a thing of beauty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qv1DhdPAS8 Frustrated by Weeds by Mulligan & O’Hare As I gaze into a pool to receive a reflection of me. Please enjoy the glorious Gallic sentimentality on display and the sinister undertones, it is OK to openly weep upon listening to such wondrous mood-music. 64
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:48 | #
I seem to have discovered a very large trove of very intellectually serious theists. Of course, in secular academic venues, atheism, along with liberalism and race-treason, seem to be the order of the day. Is this all admirable? If the liberalism is properly questioned, perhaps the atheism ought not to be merely assumed?
There is no cognitive dissonance. Yes, Christians are judged individually, and thus race has no relevance to the quality of one’s character (any more than it does to one’s abilities). And yes, the material world is finally of very little ultimate relevance, considered metaphysically. But it is of tremendous importance insofar as it is the site of human moral struggle. Man’s fitness to enjoy God’s companionship is determined not only by his piety, but also by his conduct towards his fellows. Whether genetically delimited societies are important to God (while this cannot be known one way or the other with any degree of certainty, note that such delimitedness is the reality Christians believe God made, and could be argued thereby to possess a presumption in favor of its continuity) is hardly the only moral argument in their favor. The real issue is whether one type of situation (diversity v. homogeneity) minimizes suffering to a greater degree than its antithesis. There are two fundamental questions re the ethics of race, for the Christian: 1. Is it ethically permissible to maintain ethnocultural communities by force? And, if ‘yes’, a followup: what type and amount of force is permissible (eg, forbidding aliens from taking up residence in your historic territory is obviously not the same thing as coercively expelling those already present)? 2. Is it ethically mandatory for a race or an ethnoculture to preserve itself (leaving aside the otherwise vital issue of what constitutes ‘preservation’ in a world of ceaseless flux)? I would answer ‘yes’ to the first question, and ‘yes, but only for whites’ to the second.
65
Posted by Moloney on Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:26 | # Is this Ivan and Richards in action, sorta funky groove dudes! 66
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:58 | #
And yet there is no cognitive dissonance, no conflict or discomfort, strangely, in being unwittingly, ‘unconsciously’ gregarious or herd like, instinctively, (highly segregated), and then embracing universalism through waking consciousness. There is no discomfort, it appears, because they are unaware of the conflicting positions. Even if Christianity eschews differentiation, consciously, unconsciously it allows the herd to gather and behave in an unwittingly intuitive fashion. Hamilton suggested the herd instinct is driven by self-interest because animals will try to move to the center of the herd when threatened. If there is some instinctively threat recognized (unwittingly) we see evangelicals moving, as individuals, closer to the center of the herd (their church/religion) which is adaptive for the individual but also incidentally adaptive for the herd. 67
Posted by Randy Garver on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 02:07 | # Leon said:
Let’s see if we have this straight: You’re advocating for a great socio-political re-arrangement whose beneficial effects will likely skew primarily in favor of the globally small number of Europeans, at the real or perceived expense of a larger body of non-Europeans, and which runs directly counter to the currently ascendant ethnological viewpoint. And to sell this idea, you’ll philosophically undergird your arguments with a purely self-benefitting morality, rather than encouraging a belief system or noble truth which could mollify your potential political opponents as they come to see how they would also benefit. Seems a bit like trying to sell your old car by telling prospective buyers that you can’t wait to be rid of the old junker. Pure genius, old chap! 68
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:35 | # Randy, I don’t think you’ve grasped my point in the slightest. 69
Posted by Mark Ronin on Sat, 03 Mar 2012 20:13 | # But the claim that “whites” will be a minority in America by 2050 implies an invidious view of the importance of ethnicity and race. Whites Proper or the Nordish peoples, the founders, pioneers and rightful progenitors of Western civilization in the New World are already a minority in America. Their importance is tied directly to the importance of Western civilization itself, and many are against that civilization entirely, advocating vehemently against “Eurocentrism,” while rewriting our history and planning our future demise. The invidiousness is much more often used as a sadistic provocation against Whites, a sort of “rubbing our noses in it.” To which most Whites either scoff at and dismiss as unimportant or rather not discuss such “controversial” topics, as the media love to say and condition us against. “Whites,” by earlier definitions cherished by nativists, are already a minority in this country and have been for many decades. The successful amalgamation of previously scorned “races” is a testament to the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project. Correct, I’ve been saying this for over a decade. There are really two issues, both important, racial miscegenation and subracial miscegenation. For all intents and purposes, Hispanics will become as “white” as Irish, Italians, Jews, and Poles Rather the White population and the perception of White among the mainstream will become less White on average to accomodate a broader appeal (similar to Latin America). This has already happened in “White nationalism” itself. This is essentially a Nordicist argument, but strangely used in a way to delegitimize White racial preservation and invoke a sense of hopelessness, which is illogical. On the contrary, because traditional Americans were essentially Nordicists and the standard of White has been compromised and degraded, and we have more peripheral Caucasoid peoples and hybrids who pass for “white” doesn’t mean we should just accept our mongrel fate, it should rather increase awareness and motivation to turn it around, the situation is dire. It is nice to see you engage in public discourse against our enemies, GW. For it is not enough to just do verbal sparring among our ranks, like a martial artist that only trains in the gym, we need to engage in public confrontations as well, real fights not just practice. Post a comment:
Next entry: Two hundred vigilantes in revenge attack on Moslem shops in Heywood.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Moderation Policy on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:42 | #
The Reason website does not seem to have any sort of moderation policy either. A quick look at the comments posted under that article (Yetis & rape numbering among them) shows that any thoughtful interaction there is useless.