|
|
|
A short prescription for a nationalism in Britain The BNP Reform Group held a conference today. No doubt video will be released in due course. The conference was announced on the Reform Group’s blog just yesterday. The second comment in the thread to the announcement bewailed the undoubted fact that:
This evening I posted a direct reply which may or may not find its way onto the thread. Independent thinking is not necessarily encouraged. The Reform Group appears to have been won over by Lee Barnes’ culturist notions, and at least one traditionalist contributor there who is well known to us, and who disagrees with Lee, has been frozen out. Surely not an inspiring decision. This was my reply, and sets out where I think nationalism in Britain must start from.
Comments:2
Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:51 | #
Lee John Barnes speaks like a maniac, uses innapropriate tones and volumes, and interlaces his comments with profanities. The icing on the cake: he excoriated other Brits for criticizing the BNP’s weaknesses but then had a “road to Damascus” conversion in which he becomes the BNP’s most outspoken opponent. Ridiculous.
Agreed. 3
Posted by PF on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 01:04 | # Gorboduc wrote:
The insistence on the irrelevance of culture and civilization has four purposes. 1. It underlines the clarity of our understanding that race generates culture. 2. It makes clear which of these two things we wish to preserve. 3. It prevents all proxies for race being used - such as “good behavior”, “Britain-loving”, 4. It ceases petty infighting and fogeyism from splitting whites apart and lays a claim to unity on us based on our blood. Each of these purposes brings us a strategic advantage and they are: 1. We don’t lose ourselves in endless argument defining the Magical Tradition, the meaning of Virtue, The-One-Thing-That-Is-Necessary. 2. We know what practical means we need to undertake. 3. Larry Auster, the Neocons, and every other moderate accomodationist cannot inveigle us with their promises of an England-like-that-of-yesteryear. We are immune because we said we want an English England and not a spiffy, good-natured well-behaved Christian England. 4. We are united by the commonality which truly does unite us, not imaginary things which each cleaves to as his own means of self-consolation against the chaoticness of life. There is no unity in that which is only imaginary anyway. You like apples but I like bananas - that is the story of cultural preference-based unity. 4
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:12 | # PF: well, I think the Bantu and skull-worshipping and cannibalism has begun. When you and GW have defined who WE are - probably the two of you - you can begin the racial cleansing of the rest of us. A few of the “proxies” you might bring forward to promote your “pure” racialism might be ” bad behaviour”, “Britain-hating”, “refusing to speak English properly at all”...I’ll exempt anything about footy because I’ve heard talk like this down the Millwall pubs. Thank God I can stand above your “blood” unity: you won’t want me to survive because I have a large amount of Irish in me, and I suppose that the “practical means [you] need to undertake” include an aggressive persecution of people like me and an active brainwashing and dumbing down programme for the survivors. I’m still a purer Englishman than you could ever be. I say this with confidence as I know my make-up: and yes, Englishness IS partly a matter of attitude. My attitude won’t change if I discover a French or Roumanian great-grandmother in my line, while the discovery of such an entity in your line would plunge you into noisy denial and cause you limitless grief. What exactly is the commonality that unites you? Is it your infallible ability to demonstrate to all comers your blood’s “purity”? It is something concrete as opposed to the presumably imaginary things to which I have pledged myself? Luckily my life isn’t particularly rich in “chaoticness”: yours presumably is, and it seems to be interfering rather with your claimed “clarity”. A result of your confusion is that although you have “the English” but you won’t be able to identify and collect them: as there is no such thing as “Englishness” they will be “men without qualities” and unrecognisable. It seems that after all that the claim I make in the paragraph copied by you is actually correct. 5
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:18 | # Sam Davidson:
How dare you mock English-Fuhrer Barnsey, who alone is guarantor of victory. Gorboduc:
Palingenesis, a heroic rebirth of a mythicized vision inexorably bound to the flesh-and-blood life of the English people, would be inspirational. Symbolism and cultural artifice that is capable of effectively sparking a emotional resonance consistent with said will be essential.
The vast majority will not understand it anyway. What they will understand is you going to the wall for them in order to produce palpable and positive change in their lives. When they become desperate enough then they will be receptive to a vision that promises them victory, bounty and glory. GW: “First, if you want an inspirational leader to materialise you, the political foot-soldiers, must accept certain (very large) premises.” This is ass backwards. It is inspirational Leaders (no, not leaders) that can only effectively sway the masses to their vision.
Mass movements of this historic scope cannot materialize without Leaders; yet more hack politicians will not do the job. Btw, can you name one Englishman up to the job that you know of besides Jonathan Bowden? Doesn’t the possibility of being remembered as a great man and not merely a practitioner of at best second rate “art” appeal to him in the least? Well, look on the bright side, there’s always English-Fuhrer Barnsey. 6
Posted by PF on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:50 | # Gorboduc wrote:
The whole point of GW’s philosophy is to stand above any definition of what we are that wants to go further than to say what we are - which is white English, in my case Anglo-saxon, people. Its weird that you think I or GW wants to ethnically cleanse you.
I can’t make each post a pithy recapitulation of every intellectual attainment achieved by this blog and its contributors.
Wow, do you really think this? GW’s English racialism isn’t (I dont think) so rabid that it wants to expunge neighbor and relative Celtic influences in the violent manner you name. I would never dream of persecuting you or people like you - I think you are a part of what we want to preserve! I just dont see you being in any way an intellectual revolutionary who can lead a movement.
I’m not an Englishman! LOL.
OK. In that case I guess people of African ancestry can also be partly English? What is it that they have to have? A bit of good old fashioned grit? A bit of honestness? A bit of gumption? If Englishness is a matter of attitude, then its as superficial as a tramp’s hair-color, because attitudes change at every significant life-junction you care to name. I wonder if I have a Polish attitude today…
I would be quite surprised to find out I was one-fourth or one-eighth Roumanian. You would not be? A significant discovery like that ought to shake a person up. I wouldnt deny it, I would try to live my Roumanianness just like I try to live my Englishness and Germanness because I am both these things. If I was black, I would be living my Blackness. If I was Persian, I would be the most enthusiastically Persianest guy in the world. I think all peoples have things to get excited about and no one is short-changed, but there is NO DOUBT about who we are and there is no need to mix and destroy these bloodlines we have.
Its not me and GW you should be thinking of. What unites the man on the street with his mates? What unites the guys in those Padstow videos?
Your life would be as chaotic as mine, only you impose unreal elements of structure which allow things to appear more simple than they are. So does everyone, its man’s lot on earth. But you are constricted and cannot move outside the circle of your religion, your cultural pride, when dealing with others. Just like they cannot move towards you. Its why a nationalism that is based in illusion and proxies-for-race is doomed to .... you know… silliness.
No such thing as Englishness? Why, because GW didn’t give a list of qualities? Because we arent all going to agree on one central idea that is based in culture, behavior, and religion? I think our splintered thinking if anything, just makes the fact of our Englishness all the more clear. Funny, I think given the morass that is Great Britain, I’m pretty confident that Englishness is all that people will have left. Consumer culture it wont be, Christianity it wont be - whats left - the musical genre you like? favorite sports team? 7
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 02:57 | # Good article. Amazing, clear-eyed analysis of motive by PF. 8
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 03:03 | # my comment on PF’s analysis applies to his first post. In the second he allows himself to be drawn into a vortex. Still, good form at treading water in the second PF 9
Posted by danielj on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 03:55 | # I’m not an Englishman! LOL. You’re not an Anglo-Saxon either! LOL. 10
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:09 | # Great stuff as always from GW. I would say that while the nationalist cause is, at heart, existentialist that doesn’t mean that cultural considerations are irrelevant only that they cannot supersede the existentialist considerations of identity. Stated differently, the reality of who we are cannot be sacrificed in the name of defending the products of our reality. 11
Posted by danielj on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:15 | # Great stuff as always from GW. I think he is contradicting himself here. What does it matter if we listen to classical music or pop music as long as our genes are proliferating? I would say that while the nationalist cause is, at heart, existentialist that doesn’t mean that cultural considerations are irrelevant only that they cannot supersede the existentialist considerations of identity. Stated differently, the reality of who we are cannot be sacrificed in the name of defending the products of our reality. One cannot exist in a cultural vacuum. Genes don’t operate outside of culture. They don’t exist outside of the sphere of human interaction. Defending one requires the defense of the other. 12
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:27 | #
I was trying to say that cultural considerations are important (not irrelevant) but that they shouldn’t be elevated above who we are existentially, which is what culturism does if I understand the term correctly. I would be very surprised if we actually disagreed on this. 13
Posted by danielj on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:54 | # I was trying to say that cultural considerations are important (not irrelevant) but that they shouldn’t be elevated above who we are existentially, which is what culturism does if I understand the term correctly. We are, existentially, cultural. A man without a culture is a man without DNA. I would be very surprised if we actually disagreed on this. We don’t. Methinks it is just semantics. 14
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 05:02 | #
I think so as well. 15
Posted by Bill on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:57 | # Methinks it is too late, the main event kicked off proper when Cameron took over the baton. Headline news is - Britain is about to do a Greece, Boris wants more immigrants. Britain needs immigrants, but it also needs tough border controls Just a quick burst down the comments tells you the fuse is getting shorter by the day. The BNP should have been in good shape to harness all this angst, but no they pissed it away. We’re on a wing and prayer from now on in. This monster is gathering a momentum all of its own. IMO, Cameron is more dangerous than Blair. 16
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:47 | # Notus Wind,
Stated as it actually is: The lemmings are not so wired as to perceived the reality of what we actually are, so we must satisfy ourselves with reengaging their emotional attachment to the products of what we actually are, and yes, in reality and not on the fucking Internet. And Notus Wind, I would like your straight and unequivocal answer, If it takes something akin to National Socialism as being absolutely necessary to securing the genetic continuity of our people, are you on board or are you not? But be forewarned before you answer, if you answer “yes”, you will for all intents and purposes have confirmed your eventual commitment to Nazism; but if “no”, you will have confirmed your ultimate betrayal of your race. Gorbo, “The more you insist on the irrelevance of culture and civilasation, the more I fear that your desire is for the establishment of a race of pure white Nordic zombies, who could with your permission be speaking Bantu, worshipping skulls, and indulging cannibalism.” Don’t play dumb, and never mind PF’s attempts to submerge you in the verbosity he reserves for those he considers his intellectual inferiors; you are absolutely distinguishable genetically from niggers as a Northern European. If a DNA test were run on you as against them it would show just that: distinguishment. Niggers cannot possibly conform to our standards of excellence as they are our genetic/racial inferiors. So then, in not preserving our genetic constitution, in allowing ourselves to be mongrelized, we will be lowered to the level of the subhuman, of niggers. Have I not stated it bluntly enough for you, now? 17
Posted by Julius Whacket on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:14 | # Stumbled across this thread by accident so am speaking as an outsider so to speak. Isn’t the reality that we the English are so culturally depleted that we we lack the imagination to turn unease about immigration etc into political movement? Prof Arthur Aughey put it well recently in the context of English nationalism: “There is a weakness of politicised Englishness; the anxieties are a mood, not a movement. People in England have become more willing to call themselves English rather than British and there is widespread sympathy for an English Parliament, but support for it is not deeply rooted at the moment”. Calling for inspirational leadership is like praying for divine intervention. 18
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:23 | # PF: if there’s “no doubt” about who we are, then hurry up and tell GW so that he will no longer feel the need for his ponderous lucubratuions on ontology, being, existentialism and authenticity and on the questions of identity?
and a bit further down you mention
Please explain this dichotomy. If culture (which includes speech) isn’t important, perhaps because it’s an artefact or a mere “behaviour”, you and your friends can’t complain if it becomes completely niggerised, can you? Please don’t mention those Padstow videos until you’ve rid yourself of your noxious desire to “piss on culture” (12.04 AM). Try going down there on the day and insulting the locals in that way. Ok, it’s just a metaphor: but does it represent somehow your response to your history and language/ When you have purged yourself of culture and language we will not be surprised if something very strange indeed should wing its way from some arid and windswept Mongolian desert and take up its abode in your shell. You partially revise your reductionist attitude in your second post, but what will you be saying tomorrow on this - and WHO will be speaking? Be careful! I’d better offer one up for you next Sunday! Incidentally, talking about Sunday devotions - sorry, they WILL be going on in Nu-White Britain - Father got in a good one yesterday from the pulpit. DanielJ:
Is this a scientific ststement? Did our genes radically change all their functions at some time? What were they doing in pre-awareness, pre-cultural days? Does our survival depend upon our culture, or vice-versa? So culture is important to DanielJ, but a target for PF’s corrosively urinatory propensities. Can this be harmonised without a nasty splash? And DanielJ, on the pop music question: I’d like to think that my genes were operating to pass on a love and understanding of the music of William Byrd rather than an ignorant infatuation with some agressive destructivenesss. Beatles - Bad enough. That’s the result of pissed-on culture. Keep it for the compost heap, PF: it’s been done. Nietzsche gives birth to Schonberg: Schonberg produces a new anti-music, first in classical music, and later, as Philip Larkin shows in “All What Jazz” in jazz. (Larkin claimed that the Second Viennese School had taken over jazz musicians at the Juilliard and couldn’t bear to review discs by Coltrane, Rollins and Davis for the Daily Telegraph, so they fired him.) That same process then takes place in popular music, de-naturing it further. 19
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:53 | # ulius: Good morning! Please look in again! CC: just saw yours. Yes, very blunt indeed, thankyou. but I was already well aware of the problem. But if our genes no longer exhibit a desire for racial survival, what then? I was not getting hoodwinked by PF’s verbosity but responding to the clear sense of his statements. (Grimoire points out that things have changed a bit by PF’s 2nd. post) I’m wondering just how high the general standards of our excellence are now set. You think they are still high, I infer. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:18 | # Gorb, would Europeans have created, could they have created under any circumstances, Chinese culture down through the ages or Chinamen European culture? No, obviously, and the reason isn’t the climate, the particular layout of the trade routes, or the rice diet. It’s the genes. That’s all men like GW and PF are getting at. Calm down and stop being so dense please. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:28 | # “IMO, Cameron is more dangerous than Blair.” (—Bill) Correct. For the same reason, The Chimp was both more dangerous and worse than Slick was or The Magic Negro will prove to be. (The Chimp ranks as the most damaging president in U.S. history, with Abraham Lincoln coming in right behind him, LBJ third, Slick Willy fourth, FDR fifth. Anyway, something like that is the ranking.) 22
Posted by BGD on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:56 | # Gorbuduc The objection to culturism is primarily directed at the position developing over in the BNP Reform quarter. This holds that provided an individual gives his assent to an agreed notion of Britishness then anyone can be considered British. What that grab-bag of Britishness includes I’ll leave you to decide but Robbie Williams as opposed to Gangsta rap probably. It seeks to remove the racial (UK ethnic) perspective. Many of its proponents believe this will allow a more civic / cultural nationalism to hoover up the votes of ethnic minorities and natives alike in their millions because no-one on God’s green earth will be able to voice any moral objection. Many of the supporters of such a view are in awe of the small successes of Wilders on the continent and suggest “if we only..” then power awaits. It is seen as a magic shortcut to success over the seemingly failed “racial nationalism” of bygone days. I assume that this is not what you are hoping to be enacted being such a regular commentator on this site nor what you are objecting to when you take up the cause of culturism. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:01 | # ”Identity is largely based on the unscientific truth that is found in myth” (—Julius Whacket, at his blog here, http://out-of-england.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-science-is-killing-national.html) Yes but it’s also based, and in a more fundamental and lasting way, on blood, that is, on traits that are inborn and won’t be shared by another race which will have different inborn traits, or manifested by individuals of another race in their aggregate no matter how much an individual person of another race may learn to imitate the outward appearance: his own kind will in their aggregate manifest their own inborn traits, it’s to do with the law of large numbers Julius, you can’t go against it, no one can, certainly not the Jews with their radical egalitarian schemes which are the new Stalinism of our era. In their aggregates, other races are going to give you something else, not what you want. You can count on that like you can count on the law of gravity and it’s just as un-doable. Blood is merely the older word for genes. 25
Posted by danielj on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:20 | # Is this a scientific ststement? No. It could be if I had money for some experiments. Did our genes radically change all their functions at some time? They’ve never radically changed their functions. What were they doing in pre-awareness, pre-cultural days? There is no such period in my opinion. I believe in direct creation by the Almighty. Does our survival depend upon our culture, or vice-versa? Are you talking about DNA or something else? I look at it the same way a Southerner looks at Yankees and Negroes. Daniel (in his best Southern accent): There has never been and is not a race (Negro) problem in the Occident, there has been and is a problem of culture (Yankess) After the culture problem is solved, the race problem is solved by default, but, solving the race problem provides not an automatic solution for the culture problem. Still, the two are inseparably intertwined. ignorant infatuation with some agressive destructivenesss. Yeah. That is me all right. There isn’t even anything really that wrong with the Beatles or the Stones other than the context in which they operated. It is just pop music. It isn’t going to destroy the world if properly contained. 26
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:02 | # CC, I am in favor of repatriating and recolonizing the third world peoples in our midst and for restoring the pride and grandeur of our Western identity in a vigorous way. I think that should answer your question. 27
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:19 | # The Chimp ranks as the most damaging president in U.S. history, with Abraham Lincoln coming in right behind him, LBJ third, Slick Willy fourth, FDR fifth. (Fred Scrooby) I cannot agree with this. By far the most damaging president of all was LBJ. He imposed racial integration (thus destroying thousands of neighborhoods, as well as schools - though Ike obviously played a role in the latter, too). He massively expanded the welfare state, which is the origin of the (non-Social Security) entitlement crisis soon to bankrupt, or at least economically cripple, the country. And worst of all, he deliberately changed our immigration laws from favoring to disfavoring white immigrants, thus setting in motion the Third World conquest and abolition of the Founders’ America. I cannot imagine how an argument could even be broached that any other president was as damaging as LBJ. May he rot. 28
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:44 | # CC, I am in favor of repatriating and recolonizing the third world peoples in our midst and for restoring the pride and grandeur of our Western identity in a vigorous way. I think that should answer your question. (Notus Wind) Well said, but it doesn’t. The Captain’s implicit point above is that repatriation will never occur except by means of a regime that is either neo-Nazi or close enough to it that it will be (fairly) labeled “Nazi” (eg, perhaps it will not instantiate the fuhrerprinzip, or co-invade Poland with the Russians, but wrt the core, the racial stuff ...). I truly hope I will never have to make that choice - become a Nazi, or (effectively) betray my race - but I cannot state a strong conviction that CC is wrong. Certainly, we must forever understand and acknowledge that repatriation (more honestly: racial cleansing) is simply not going to be applied peacefully, and this not only because some portion of the aliens will resort to violent resistance and terrorism. Many of our fellow whites will likewise engage in violent anti-fascist activities (and so they, too, will have to be reeducated, or, more likely, liquidated). Western lands, as currently semi-democratically constituted, will never legislate this, as the great majority of all peoples would rather be gradually displaced and miscegenated out of existence, than face the Hobbesian horrors of civil insurrection (especially when fought at the racial/genetic level, “where the color of our skin / is our uniform of war”). Thus, in all likelihood, before there will be repatriation, there will have to be fairly radical changes in government (this is why it was so so so vital never to have dropped our racial guard and allowed non-white immigration in the first place - or even merely to allow any more). All the philosophizing is mere coffee club chit-chat, when you reach bottom. These are facts CC has faced, but my sense is most others haven’t (yet). 29
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:03 | # Fred: Yes. I know about Chinamen. What worries me is that PF: a) rejects and dislikes tradition and those who respect it - he said so, and that PF b) pisses on culture - he said so. Cewrtainly the old bladder nags a bit when I look back on all that: I’ve outgrown my early conditioning, but I’m still worried about PF’s capacity and the toxicity of his effluvium. BGD: it’s not so much that I’m espousing culturism - which the BNP has been forced officially to accept without the party’s becoming unmentionable here - it’s that I’m objecting to the anticulture platform. I’m concerned that over the past four and a half centuries our culture has tamely acquiesced in measure after measure that have brought in radical changes to our way of life, our relations with each other, our attitude to “authority”, our relationship with the land, and I share Maisie Ward’s astonishment that all this has left hardly any trace in the popular memory. Does PF want to restore our ancient culture, or do away with the last tattered shreds? And what part of our DNA, Fred, will be fired up to enable us collectively to find a brand-new and strong substitute? 30
Posted by Tom on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:18 | # >That means taking to ourselves the power to issue our own currency, and abolishing usuary by abolishing existing debt at every level. Are you proposing privately issued, commodity backed currency, then? 31
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:24 | # How eloquent is the whole, how hopeful and thus naive is the following: The demand for survival ... the abolition of debt ... a philosophy of life befitting the European character ... if nationalism is made intellectually expansive in this way it will attract to itself the men and women it needs to address the modern political age (GW) If only, my virtual friend, if only. If only beautiful theories, and not raw, material concerns (and how ironic is that switch? the metaphysical materialist suddenly transmogrifies into the most idealistic of politicals), were ever enough to attract sufficient Men of (physical, martial) Quality. Christianity did in its infancy attract precisely the men it needed to spread its Good News across the civilized Western world. But what political movement in history, especially among those devoted to hard physical/military tasks, has ever been borne on the backs of men primarily motivated by disinterestedness, by philosophy? As with the market, so with the arena: men are motivated to action by greed and fear. Material matters. We will only, practically succeed when enough of our fellow whites come to agree that their futures under culturally vicious and/or distasteful (eg, Islam), or merely Third World democratic-demographic, domination will be even more intolerable than the spectre of present-day civil strife, and so will suffer the latter to prevent the former. But, our people must also feel that what they will have to do to win back the world their immediate ancestors insanely gave away is ethically justified. This fact simply reflects a hitherto (pre-war) latent defect in the collective genome (I’m speaking metaphorically) of the white race. We are more ethical than other races, and that is a fact the WN must factor into his strategizing. Thus, we must provide a sound ethical basis for the inevitable violence of race-repatriation. Beyond that, however, we must focus our efforts on persuading enough of our fellows that life is going to get very bad in a very easily understood way, unless we take some hard and expensive steps now. Surgery to avert death. Unfortunately, a hard sell (which is why I elsewhere at MR have spoken at some length about peaceful WN demographic conquest-by-immigration of some particular polity as the last hope to preserve our race). 32
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:33 | # It is foolish even to think of allowing traditional Western cultures to go by the wayside, as we build some new society (the permanent gleam in the eye of the totalitarian) founded solely in genetic similarity, which is only a foundation of European life, not its adornment. GW, PF and some others in their camp are racial revolutionaries. All we really need, however, are racial reactionaries - but ones with backbones. 33
Posted by BGD on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:36 | # Gorboduc, I understand and agree. But the culturism / civicism referred to in this post in particular relates to moves to deracialise ‘New BNP’ policy rather than whether genes or culture should take precedence. Therefore the criticism seems to be off target? Perhaps you might like to throw some of your well formed cultural hand grenades in the general direction of this growing civic consensus and ask them what it means to “accept British culture” or get out. Will courts test people on their knowledge, if someone swaps the hijab for a basque and stockings do they get a pardon? The omnipresence of the bad habits that you outline above, the growth of barbaric sounds directed at youth and dressed up with gyrating over-sexualised hard bodies to compel their attention; how will this suggested ‘National Culture’ avoid that. If one puts a tweed suit and a monocle on a Papua New Guinean and teaches him the sonnets of Shakespeare and the answers to the Official Citizenship Test is he in whereas a Finnish heavy metaller is out etc etc 34
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:41 | # Leon,
I am not interested in engaging CC about NS or what it means for a government to be akin to NS Germany because I know next to nothing about NS Germany. In order to truly understand the substance and historical context of NS (for the purposes of such a conservation) I would probably have to learn German, procure as many primary sources as possible about NS Germany, and finally travel to Germany in order to get a feel for the land and its people. It would take a great deal of work in order to get outside of my American self and truly understand NS Germany, the gulf between them is vast. Now we can skip all this hard work if we’re not interested in the real thing but in the cardboard cutout version of history that we Americans are force-fed, but if that is the case then the question hardly matters as anything to right of mainstream conservatism is considered neo-Nazi. To even read MR sympathetically is to be a neo-Nazi by today’s standards. 35
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:17 | # Now we can skip all this hard work if we’re not interested in the real thing but in the cardboard cutout version of history that we Americans are force-fed, but if that is the case then the question hardly matters as anything to right of mainstream conservatism is considered neo-Nazi. To even read MR sympathetically is to be a neo-Nazi by today’s standards. (Notus Wind) This may be true, but it’s not quite relevant to CC’s point. First, I don’t speak German either, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t trust what serious scholars have written about the Third Reich (and I can always balance out my reading with some revisionism if I’m worried about getting a biased picture). Most debates about that period focus on the extent to which the Nazi Party hierarchy was primarily ‘principalled’, or opportunistic, and on the question of Hitler’s authorization of the Holocaust, and how far down the hierarchy knowledge of that (ostensible) authorization extended. For our purposes here, there is no academic disagreement, even among revisionists, that the Nazis were extreme racists, anti-Semites, militarists, and imperialists. We have Mein Kampf, as well as many of Hitler’s speeches and cabinet minutes, attesting to this. In other words, we have a very good idea of what Nazism was, ideologically as well as historically. Second, and of obviously greater importance, what is “considered” neo-Nazi is not necessarily what is neo-Nazi, and that does make a difference to intellectually honest persons. I do not consider myself to be a Nazi, nor do I think that what I have written is Nazist. That some liberal idiot or liar falsely labels Pat Buchanan a Nazi for polemical purposes, does not mean that there is no core Nazi doctrine which is very different from Pat’s paleoconservatism. What I think CC is getting at is something I have gotten at, previously and here on this thread. He wants to know the extent of your commitment to white racial survival, and he is posing an extreme situation to clarify matters (though, as I’ve intimated, I don’t think CC’s dichotomy is unrealistic). Who is willing to embrace (a version of) Nazism (ie extreme, militarized racism - not just the race realism and white patriotism mostly on display here at MR, as well as amren and similar sites), if the alternative is white extinction? That is a tough question, and it may one day be an urgent one. 36
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:26 | # Leon,
How are we, as layman, to separate the serious scholars from the fraudsters? After all, we are talking about a piece of history that comes to us with a great deal cultural distortion. And while some may disagree, I am not sure that anyone will be able to give a proper scholarly treatment of this time period until the current leftist regime is gone and its authority is no longer feared.
It’s a fact of life that no really knows to what extreme they are willing to go until the moment presents itself, any discussion beforehand about what kind of commitment we are willing to profess on the internet or how we might align ourselves with the cultural specter of “Nazism” will just be a pissing contest. In contrast, if we are talking about repatriation and recolonization then those are concepts that I can wrap my mind around and have a real discussion about. 37
Posted by John on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:29 | # CC: “If it takes something akin to National Socialism as being absolutely necessary to securing the genetic continuity of our people, are you on board or are you not?” If National Socialism were politically possible, it wouldn’t be necessary. 38
Posted by Julius Whacket on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 20:45 | # @Fred Scooby - also see http://out-of-england.blogspot.com/2010/09/race-matters.html for e,ntertainment. 39
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:14 | # CC, Don’t do that again, please. It was tasteless and unnecessary, and it was beneath you. I live in hope that you will, eventually, discover or re-discover the serious part of yourself, and put away this churlish, tedious and lazy desire to shock. Next time, do the right thing, please, and think your way to the heart of what it is you really want to say. 40
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:32 | # John,
If a general racialist instauration were politically possible, it wouldn’t be necessary. Guess we’re fucked then. What you need is a pep talk from English-Fuhrer Barnsey. Notus,
How are you, even as a man with some professional qualifications, though not nearly as qualified as, say, Richard Lynn is in psychometrics, to know with absolute certainty that niggers really are as dumb as we all think they are? Maybe Lynn cooked the books. Maybe black-on-blonde is where it’s at. Or maybe, either a guy has the juice to detect verisimilitude or he don’t. He can think or he can’t.
This is a level of obfuscation (straight out of PF’s playbook, I might ad) you would not apply to other topics. The question makes you uncomfortable. You wish to avoid it. You deplore the enthronement of the, some of us will argue at least, necessary brutality that the Nazis did. I do understand. The brownshirts beat, tortured and killed fellow Germans who were opponents of National Socialism so that total power could be consolidated. So that Germany could rearm and the German people be steeled. So that Jewish power and Bolshevism could be Finally ended. So our race might live. 41
Posted by Rusty on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:33 | # A real solution must emcompass more than politics. It must employ old myths in a new, inspiring way. It must have something for (almost) everyone at all ages to appeal to their spiritual, physical, intellectual, and economic needs. In such a solution would be varying levels of understanding possible, esoteric and exoteric, and mysteries even the wisest cannot understand. It would go around, over, and right through existing liberalized institutions. It would make use of all known mass marketing principles. It would take current liberal understandings and twist them creatively into new ones. It would have hierarchical structure yet allow for republican and some democratic, even anarchistic, implementations/elements. It would work at different scales, and there would be a synergistic effect between implementing groups. Most importantly, it would not need to be implemented all at once from some as-yet-undifined central commander or messiah. Just a thought. 42
Posted by Sam Davidson on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:34 | # CaptainChaos, I have a collection of German propaganda issued in English. I have scanned several pages of it onto my computer, and am willing to upload them (somewhere) if you had an interest it. Some questions for all the “culturalists”: What culture are we supposed to be defending? Does it even exist anymore? 43
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:03 | #
In the West, sad to say, the only place I’ve found the culture you are searching for is within the once-upon-a-time minds of those who long for the way things used to be. I, myself, probably fall into that category. 44
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:26 | # CC,
[laughs] I’m glad you appreciate my direct style. 45
Posted by Armor on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:22 | # GW: “2. It is the Money Power that is truly waging an existential war against our people, and it is the Money Power that must be destroyed.” Do you mean the problem comes from people like bankers, capitalists, and so on, or do you mean the problem is that people by and large give too much importance to money? GW: “3. Even when the hard things have been done and the future for our people appears to be secure, yet the greatest task lies ahead. This is to replace liberalism as the general system of philosophical belief ...” Once we are rid of the current regime, it will become possible to serenely examine what else is wrong with society. 46
Posted by Armor on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 01:48 | # Julius Whacket: ”Identity is largely based on the unscientific truth that is found in myth” Fred Scrooby: ”Yes but it’s also based, and in a more fundamental and lasting way, on blood” We ARE our genes. But the way we see ourselves is based on blood and myth. In fact, every nation should be based on blood and myth. Also, if two nations are genetically close, the borders may be drawn arbitrarily. In that case, it is all the more important to rely on tradition and history. By the way, myth is not a synonym for humbug. 47
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 02:11 | # Sam,
I would be privileged if you do.
No, it does not; its dismemberment being near complete and those pieces less than conspicuous. How it must be: We will do much as Rusty suggests. Though our effort must be more tightly sculpted and tailored than I surmise would be to Rusty’s tastes, for not so much political, but mass resonance consonant with carving out a space for our people and their mobilization so that space expands eventually encompassing all we need it to. GW, I don’t know that I have ever significantly disagreed with your ideas in the broad scope. It is a matter of differential emphasis. Do I believe that much of what the Krauts did was not what a good man could countenance easily and am I upon that basis disgusted with those outrages insofar as they actually occurred? Of course. But first comes the realization that the destruction of our race must not be allowed under any circumstances whatever. Nothing I expect you don’t already agree with implicitly. 48
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 02:48 | # CC, Check http://eternalforms.angelfire.com in a few days. I’ll put the zip files under “Latest Updates”. (I’ll probably do it Wednesday.) 49
Posted by danielj on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 03:19 | # What culture are we supposed to be defending? Does it even exist anymore? The one that stretches from Rome to the English Empire and forward across the seas to her colonies. Western Christendom, the Enlightenment, the Reformation, etc. European civilization. No. It doesn’t exist anymore. We ARE our genes. This is really like saying A = A and it should be nothing more than a passing observation. Moving on! 50
Posted by url on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 03:40 | #
What did the lunatic CC do? Take a page out of Alex Linder’s playbook? 51
Posted by url on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 03:42 | #
Is that you, Clyde Wilson? 52
Posted by url on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 03:47 | # Posted by Captainchaos on October 21, 2008
53
Posted by Gudmund on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:17 | #
People change their minds all the time. What I think we should be more concerned with is the recent upswing in anonymous attacks on longtime users in good standing. You may not like CC, but many of us do. Btw, I’ll take an uncompromising radical like CC over a waffling, reputation-obsessed moderate every time. History teaches us that the former, not the latter, are its victors. 54
Posted by danielj on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:28 | # Is that you, Clyde Wilson? I knew I read that in Chronicles somewhere. Thanks for the link brah. 55
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:34 | #
That was a good read, Julius. I agree with your thoughts on the subject of race and thanks for linking it. Incidentally this site, MR.com, has an article explaining race scientifically — at the top left of the home page find “Existential Issues” then click on “Race FAQ” underneath. It’s a good antidote to the current academic race-denial craze.
I can’t tell what in my prior comment you’re saying yes to, Gorb — not to “Euros and Chinamen could have created each other’s culture” I hope! (If so I’m sorry but you may be at the wrong blog. Have you ever considered the Daily Joss House as an alternative? That site is more for people who think the answer to that question is yes.)
The same part that created it (in its essentials) in the first place. Gorb can’t you see we want the preservation of both our culture and our blood but what we consider a non-negotiable sine qua non is preservation of our blood? That’s all we’re saying when we insist on “genetic continuity” or its equivalent. No one here is spitting on culture, no not even PF I’m sure. But our answer to those who say “culture is all” is a resounding “No!” 56
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:28 | # Julius, Are you unaware that genes express through sociobiology, which include faith and morality? Are you unaware that this effects a narrowness to culture, and renders it a passing thing? You seem to me to be another dreamer who mistakes the dream for reality. What “myth of Englishness” is this? There is no myth. I assume that you are neither a latent fascist nor a Jew attacking us with the social construct, and in fact you just don’t understand life. My advice to you is to learn from us, and not seek to visit your “wisdom” upon us. You will be wrong. 57
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:20 | # Fred! However, I do think that if PF WASN’T “pissing” on culture, he could come forward and say so: as a few days ago he was saying that he disliked tradition and traditionalists, I’m wondering whether he will. As we appear to be in a very weak position at present, I wonder if “non-negotiability” enters into the equation? A man who is forced to adopt a die-hard” position looks hardly certain of victory! Well, it’s the old DNA question as before. I’ve asked GW (who made this theme particularly his own, and provided variations but not a development) WHAT part of my (presumably aberrant) DNA codes for faith? And the answer wasn’t forthcoming. Can ANY behaviour or cultural pattern or reaction or whatever you like to call it be linked to ANY part of DNA? Does PF have a gene that makes him like heavy metal? Do I have a gene that makes me prefer the harpsichord? Do you and I share one that makes us both interested in steam power? Do the Japs have a Sushi gene? If it’s theirs alone, what gene European gene has been forced to reproduce its function in so many of us, and how? Whatever gene it is that codes for awareness of the need for racial survival seems to be switched off in 90% of the whites I know, but apparently it’s pretty active in the huge numbers of the swarthy that I see in the streets. Perhaps the gene in question doesn’t exist, and the one that’s operative in this context is the one for obeying orders. Or perhaps, as I keep saying, genetics may be absolutely nothing to do with it at all - other factors may be in play here. How can you INSIST on genetic continuity if the genes don’t - and if they were there wouldn’t be such a kerfuffle, would there? Something’s turned off ours - is it one of those ethnically-sensitive weapons that made the news a few years ago? http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19981126-ArabGerm.html Perhaps this “insistence” is a CULTURAL choice, NOT a genetic imperative. Propaganda and persuasion seem to play a part in it, don’t they, and I don’t think that my genetic coding wavers and re-adjusts itself when I read a newspaper. Or is the claim really that in matters of choice, rather than of things like hair colour, our genes resemble our conscience - it’s there, we know we should obey it, but we’re perfectly free to ignore it, although at our peril? BTW, I like the way you seem to act as this establishment’s doorkeeper, politely (or not!) redirecting punters to inferior establishments - the fate of those who turn up at Harrod’s in tatty jeans. 58
Posted by danielj on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:42 | # Does PF have a gene that makes him like heavy metal? No. He has a gene that makes him like rap music. 59
Posted by Rusty on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:03 | # CC, Hey, whatever works. 60
Posted by Wexler on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:13 | # It’s my opinion that CC’s question does not need to be answered (beyond the case of to yourself, and then only if a person feels the need to answer it). And, it’s a bit much to think that it does (need answering). As i see it, that’s prescriptive, fantasy-land politics ... as if any one person’s opinions are that influential. 61
Posted by Wexler on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:24 | # The question being, Would you be willing to embrace this or that extreme measure? Isn’t that question hypothetical? As in, contingent upon circumstances that are not now in existence. In other words, it can’t be answered. Or, it’s assumed in the question, that such conditions, requiring extreme measures, are in existence? But, ... they are not, as long as there is food on the table. On another note, i like Gorby’s criticism, taking the philosophers to task. Someone has to do it. And it keeps the dictionary well-thumbed. 62
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:23 | # Who is willing to embrace (a version of) Nazism (ie extreme, militarized racism - not just the race realism and white patriotism mostly on display here at MR, as well as amren and similar sites), if the alternative is white extinction? Yes. 63
Posted by MOB on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:48 | # “Who is willing to embrace (a version of) Nazism (ie extreme, militarized racism - not just the race realism and white patriotism mostly on display here at MR, as well as amren and similar sites), if the alternative is white extinction?” A less drastic alternative would also prompt my hand to raise. : ) Captain Chaos is one of the most valuable posters at this website; he needs to be sure not to give any weight to GW’s ‘naughty boy’ chastisements when he chances to brush against GW’s Achilles’ heel—his very misplaced, self-defeating hatred for Germany that’s woven into the fabric of MR. Does Captain Chaos have a forum? MOB 64
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:10 | #
I’ve said before that if this was the only means to end the war on my people’s existence, all others having failed and it being unanswerably true that only a militant and militarised, National Socialist-style strategy - Judaised as it is - could deliver, I would not merely accept it but would work for it. Then, in the aftermath I would tear it down with a will, and work to create a polity, and not just a polity, that received its content from our nature as a people of northern Europe. Marge, I don’t hate any people. I don’t like falsehood. 65
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:38 | #
I must admit, I hate Hal Turner. He was a falsehoodlum. 66
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:41 | # So you’re not 5 feet 6 inches tall with a pair of iron lungs, then? 67
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:39 | #
Was it really extreme racism? Or is this just another retrospective view masquerading as a prospective view? And secondly if it was extreme then certainly the Slavocaust is not a good barometer for believing that Nazism really cared about white extinction, now is it? Is this the new Jewish construct, White National Socialism?
68
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 02:40 | #
No. If I did, I wouldn’t be able to swim the English Channel.
While I lack interpretive aptitude in music, I will offer a spatial interpretation of this sentiment. It’s that recurring Aryan symbol, the Swastika. To imagine an Eternal Reich would be a monotheistic, (i.e. Jewish), endeavor, as spatially depicted by the oppositional stasis of the Magen David, and the Cross. I hope my relative Nazism doesn’t offend my Nazi relatives. 69
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:45 | # I reiterate something from above: Certainly, we must forever understand and acknowledge that repatriation (more honestly: racial cleansing) is simply not going to be applied peacefully, and this not only because some portion of the aliens will resort to violent resistance and terrorism. Many of our fellow whites will likewise engage in violent anti-fascist activities (and so they, too, will have to be reeducated, or, more likely, liquidated). Western lands, as currently semi-democratically constituted, will never legislate this, as the great majority of all peoples would rather be gradually displaced and miscegenated out of existence, than face the Hobbesian horrors of civil insurrection (especially when fought at the racial/genetic level, “where the color of our skin / is our uniform of war”). Thus, in all likelihood, before there will be repatriation, there will have to be fairly radical changes in government (this is why it was so so so vital never to have dropped our racial guard and allowed non-white immigration in the first place - or even merely to allow any more). (me, with new underline) This comment elicited no response, but it should have. 1. Will we be able to achieve WN goals democratically? If yes, in which countries? 2. Will we be able to achieve lasting racial security (ie, non-white re/expatriation) through political means at all? If yes, how (one possibility: WN parties actually win political majorities, which then gradually ‘tighten the screws’ on alien populations, until the latter either erupt in mass violence, or quietly slither away, with the final holdouts easily rounded up and forcibly deported)? 3. If it should prove unlikely if not impossible that political mechanisms will ever empower an expatriationist regime, or series of regimes, in the West, at what demographic level and/or point of political development should (militarily) revolutionary strategies be implemented, if ever? 4. Lastly, if revolutionary strategies are inevitable (this assumes my own counter-strategy for a stealth conquest-by-WN-immigration is never realized), what types of organizations ought we to be conceptualizing (and then building) now, that could function as historical precursors of (ie prepare the ground for) the WN revolutionary groups of the future? 70
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 02:02 | # @Captainchaos, The Wehrmacht propaganda is the first update on the website. It’s a zip file under 4mb. Some of the images are flipped, but you can rotate them with MSPAINT or an image editor.
No. All legal and/or democratic attempts to halt the genocide of White Europeans will not be allowed to succeed.
Political symbolism will play an important part in rallying people behind the idea, although it won’t directly achieve anything lasting.
That depends on circumstances. Anyone who advocates violence for its own sake, like Hal Turner, is a fed… like Hal Turner.
I’ve written before that our only workable organizational model is a tight underground organization. Public organizations, if they survive the media defamation, will be susceptible to infiltrators. And spies are the least of your worries. The real killer is a federal agent entrapping you into saying something stupid and sending you to prison for life. (It happened to Matt Hale.) Or, the SPLC will connect you to some hate-crime on flimsy evidence, sue you for millions, and you’ll be totally ruined. (It happened to Tom Metzger.) Don’t give your enemies a means of attacking you. The best organization that could possibly exist would be one that no one knows about except for the members themselves. “By way of deception thou shalt wage war.” 71
Posted by anon on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:12 | #
Agreed. I like most of the commenters here at MR, they are great! But the Captain and the Scroob are my all time faves. 72
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:59 | # Good stuff, Sam, thanks for the response. Trying to keep a practical focus. Intellectuals love to theorize things out to the nth degree, but I’m less concerned with trying to figure out the precise constituents of the “European Race Soul”, or the “Constitution of der rassestaat” ,and more with getting the ball constructively rolling forward now. At the end of the day, we know legislative Step 1, the sine qua non, End Immigration. No, what I’m thinking of is the development of practical, real world organizations which are not extremist at all, either in form, activities, or charter, but could one day be transformed fairly quickly into harder nationalist cells or operations. I’d like to hear about this type of an organization. 73
Posted by MOB on Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:25 | # Greg Johnson, formerly editor of The Occidental Quarterly and TOQ Online, has produced an extremely interesting website, Counter-Currents, which has the distinction of being the only website among the various pro-White forums that has a visible focus and direction. That focus seems to me to consist primarily of identifying who we are (by way of the arts), and offering action prototypes, such as the present 5-part series that began here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/for-a-positive-critique-part-1/ - taken from this source: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/venner.html It’s obvious to me that Greg has a clear vision, is able to find materials with which to present it, and attracts people who share that vision. Counter-Currents has dignity, and because it knows what it’s doing and just does it—without fanfare, it has a quiet, driving power. That’s my impression. MOB 74
Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:03 | #
The problem is not so much coming up with an organizational model as keeping it alive. In an age where even a private swim club can’t eject nonwhites without being sued, starting a public pro-white organization is basically a dead strategy. So what can we do? Instead of starting a membership organization you should collaborate with other WNs to write leaflets about non-white crime, immigration, the Jewish Question, anti-white discrimination in academia, etc. Distribute these leaflets in residential areas, write links to useful websites, etc. (Be careful about distribution: putting leaflets in mailboxes is illegal, dropping them on lawns and driveways might be considered littering, etc. Distribute anonymously to avoid stupid legal problems!) I can’t remember the exact link, but on the calvin.edu website there was a page where a NSDAP member described how his realization that Jews constituted outrageous percentages of the elite professional class in Berlin was his conversion point. Similar realizations (about racial disparities) are what converted me to WN as well. There are probably many white people who have a feeling in their gut that this multiracial paradise is not what it seems, but they need someone to point out the details. We can start doing that right now. Marxists typically organize public “study groups” to initiate people into their ideology but unfortunately WNs can not do this. Once we achieve a certain critical mass of racially conscious whites we can begin organizing either for a racial partitioning of the U.S. or your “demographic conquest.” Today we have more evidence about racial differences than any point in history. Why aren’t we using them? Why do racialist websites waste time publishing articles about obscure Europeans and their esoteric philosophies instead of something relevant? 75
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:34 | # Very good comment, Sam, couldn’t agree more. My whole point here is just that WNs need somehow to start connecting in the real world, as well as face to face educating other whites (say, starting with Tea Party types, who are not only on about govt spending, but are an incipient ethnonationalist movement). We need an organization that is soft-WN, without ever publicly saying so. Just something that brings whites together, mainly socially. My point is that whites need to feel part of a collective (strength in numbers, etc), which also really does exist, and which can operate as a network of mutual support in our increasingly non/anti-white society. It doesn’t have to be ideologically WN ,and in fact should not start out that way. It should begin as American nationalist, but with an undertow of WN (say by making people aware of domestic outrages, as well as the problems associated with immigration). It definitely should not be a hard-edged org at the beginning; rather, something that the average conservative could be comfortable with - but with the emphasis on 1) WN issues (without calling them WN), and 2) simply building networks of reasonably likeminded white people. Basically, we need a white version of the NAACP, but at the beginning even less directly political. 76
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:23 | # I disagree. Most TPers are strongly anti-immigration. I don’t care if they feel a pathetic need to fool themselves (though in fairness, there are plenty of non-racialist reasons to oppose immigration), and maintain an anti-racist self-image. We must stop immigration before anything else. The fact that TPers are overwhelmingly white, with tremendous contempt for Obama (which I noticed at the only TP rally I attended), is an excellent start, regardless of their present level of EGI understanding. Sadly, most white countries are just not ready yet for WN. But the groundwork of an oppositional, predominantly white American (in fact, if not yet in ideology) group consciousness must be laid first. As things worsen down the road, that group will harden, and be more receptive to WN. This was precisely why I wanted Obama to win, and said so on many sites. In fact, the wakeup call that his arrogance and incompetence have produced has exceeded my then expectations. I made a prediction in the mid-80s, which caused my dirtbag of a thesis advisor to refuse to recommend me for graduate study. I said that someday most whites would be racists, but that the turn to WN (as I/we call it today) would be too little, too late to save traditional America (I could not then imagine that Europe would embark on its own path of racial suicide; though I had seen minorities in Europe, at that point I still thought of them as “guestworkers”, never to be permanent citizens). My predictions always eventually come true, and so will this one. We WNs will eventually be a majority voice for whites - but only after whites have been “minoritized” in the US, and likely everywhere else. 77
Posted by zunc on Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:46 | #
I assume you are talking about the US? I am in the UK (and not a regular poster, so I hope you don’t mind my chipping in), but I agree – I think leafleting is a good idea for reaching more people. I can’t help wondering – why is there not more of it happening already? Did people stop when the internet came along? I have only ever received one piece of free nationalist literature through my mailbox: a BNP leaflet.
Not sure what my conversion point was. First came observing black behaviour, then came islamic terrorism (and the liberals’ reactions to it), then came the realisation that the jewish neocons weren’t on our side either.
I remember guessedworker saying he did not think race realism was the best place to start when trying to awaken people. I meant to ask why. Perhaps laying it on thick with scientific research papers is not the way to go, but news stories about how easy it is for genetic testing to match people to their self-designated races, or how difficult it is for mixed-race people to get bone marrow transplants should certainly be useful. Also we can point out how “strange” it is that the incompatible views of richard lewontin and alon ziv are both deemed socially acceptable, whereas the work of lynn and rushton is not. 78
Posted by Sam Davidson on Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:45 | #
Yes, but a leaflet campaign could work anywhere.
I have no idea. I’ve seen short newspapers distributed but their content was mostly crude and low-taste. It was not crisp and clear. Ordinary people would not understand it. The internet is very useful for distributing information but unfortunately it tends to attract only people who are already aware of it. I had some idea of racial differences before I started reading websites like Amren.com, but this resource helped strengthen my understanding. We need to begin hammering away at very basic issues such as the ever declining percentage of Whites/Europeans both worldwide and in their own respective countries. In fifty years White America has declined from 90% to 60% of the national population. This change is occurring just as rapidly in Europe. A very effective leaflet could be created around this single fact with a short discussion of the resulting rise in crime rates and loss of social cohesion. Throw in a graph and couple of illustrations for people to look at. It would work. 79
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:50 | # zunc, You make some interesting points. In the end, the making of any one of our arguments is better than the making of none, and I would never suggest that race-realism has no place in our effort. It might underpin a narrow-focussed protest movement, say of the anti-knife-crime kind that flowered last year after the deaths of some young white men in London. But it is not a basis for a proper politics for out time. Real politics rest on large ideas about the world. It is these, actually, that we lack, and it’s my firm belief that we will never do justice to ourselves and our people until we have resolved that. 80
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:13 | # This has to be my favourite comment ; Lee John Barnes speaks like a maniac, uses innapropriate tones and volumes, and interlaces his comments with profanities
You mug. Yes, I swear - big fucking deal, so does everyone. This site is a pit of despair. Reading comments from Nazi dickheads like Captain Chaos, and the rest of the puerile purists, one can only sigh and pity them. Sigh. 81
Posted by Sam Davidson on Sat, 25 Sep 2010 16:39 | #
A representative of a serious political party does not use your foul language. 82
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 04:39 | #
LOL! That’s Mr. Nazi Dickhead to you, Barnesy. I have too much respect for the office you unofficially hold (English-Fuhrer) to raise a hand against you. I never claimed to be anything but a racist gadfly (“Nazi” or otherwise), but you, Barnesy, you…stop shooting while you still have some toes left. P.S. If “the” English would just vote for the (”“) BNP they would be a good way towards being saved. Yeah, yeah, corruption, incompetence, false opposition, ties to the security services. Nothing much that can’t be said about Jew Labour or the Whories. P.P.S. Go easy on those Krauts. 83
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:12 | # Errr I spoke on this site as myself, not as a representative of the BNP. I am also a bit perplexed about this English Fuhrer tag - where did that come from ? Seeing as I advocate a Nationalist movement that escapes the Fuhrerprinzip and stands for autonomous nationalists co-operating towards common goals, then the idea of a ‘Fuhrer’ I regard as anachronistic. The tragedy is that with the NF being a white racial party, the BNP being an race and ethno-nationalist party - one wonders just what sort of party you do want - do you want swastikas etc then join the BPP as they do that already. We want an electable party based on British Nationalist Culture and Nationalist Producerism. http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2010/09/economic-nationalism.html 84
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:35 | # You don’t seem to have much of a sense of “deconstructive irony”, Barnesy. I must question if you are indeed English. Is there per chance any Irish in your woodpile? Enquiring Nordicist minds are dying to know. You’re alright in my book, Barnesy. But thank Odin your hands are no where near the wheel of the ship of state as it would quickly be driven onto the shoals. You need a leader (lower case “l”) for your splinter party, or whatever it is. Why not give convincing Bowden a try? Don’t know if he has the chops, but he sure as shit gives an electrifying stump speech. 85
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:47 | # I am a quarter Irish and quarter scottish as well as English. I guess that makes me English culturally, but British ethnically. I do have good legs though and would look great in Lederhosen if you wish to imagine me in such apparel if that doth pleaseth thee. I also do great yodelling. Bowden is a good speaker, but not a mass communicator. There is a difference between rhetoric and communication. As a ‘leader’ he would be as much of a nightmare as his paintings, as he is too much of an egotist - as are all artists. What we need is a political party that operates simply as a machine, based on merit, efficiency and loyalty - not a group of lemmings led by an egotist. Each part of the machine operates to its own maximum efficiency , whilst it is steered by the group collectively based on consensus. 86
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:50 | # Lee,
That’s OK. But eventually public opinion will decide the matter anyway. The Greens, as a bunch of Marxists, practised their egalitarianism for decades by not offering the electorate an identifiable leader. But latterly Caroline Lucas became known to the public, and at that point the leader principle asserted itself. The party political animal is impossibly ambitious anyway. But nationalism also has to cope with the burdens of the past in this respect. The meme of “the great man” appearing at the critical moment in the nation’s history, and leading the people to the sunlit uplands, is never far away. It is well that nationalist party animals don’t think too hard about themselves in this respect, because “the great man” is rather unlikely to be one of them. But this isn’t to downplay the idea completely. Such a national leader would be an immense political asset to nationalism, if he existed. It’s only right that, in his absence, modesty and utilitarianism rule. But let part of that utility be to shape the debate in terms which encourage better quality people to step forward. Let the terms be large enough, then, to let large characters make that step. 87
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:43 | # I dont think Caroline Lucas as leader of the Greens had anything to do with her being elected, it was a combination of her media exposure and the media conditioning of the masses on the issue of climate change that led to her being elected. The great man archetype is present in nationalism, but not in the masses. They are not stupid enough to think a great man exists other than as a figment of the imagination. We all shit, piss, fart and leave stains in our underpants at times. We are all humans, and the Great Man Myth is just that - a myth constructed by propagandists. What the masses want is a party who they can trust with power, that is led by people like them who they like and respect, who they can trust and who are competent in their roles. The only great men to come are the ones that we can create amongst our youth after we take power, as anyone raised in this society is as corrupted as the rest of us. There are no great men amongst us, a great men do not grow or come forth from sewers. The Great Ones are the generations to come after Nationalism takes power and creates a youth not as corrupted by this degenerate society and culture as we all are. Ours is a revolution of youth, from them will come the Great Ones. 88
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:56 | # Lee, The very, very hard truth you must eventually face, because the political world will force you to face it, is that you cannot make a revolution with the quality of leading party members currently to hand. They are middle-management not boardroom quality. They are not good enough. They are too small. They cannot make great politics, move great ideas to the fore, enlist an entire nation, change history. If you hang on to your present divisive, low-brow prescription, you will never attract the quality of individual you need, and we as a people will never get out of political nationalism what we deserve and need. 89
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:48 | # GW, I don’t understand the distinction you draw between what you term “white nationalists” and “nativists.” Could you explain it? 90
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:04 | # Fred, It’s only my own usage, but I regard White Nationalism as a movement among the European diaspore. The NF types who claim they are White Nationalists are, imo, deluding themselves. There are no White Nationalists within the European heartland. There are nationalists who can label themselves ethno-nationalists if they wish. But then we come to the difficulty of what political philosophy these nationalists espouse. From where do they draw their ideology? For the preponderant majority I think it is just an instinctive thing. They are nativists in more or less the same sense that Amazonian tribal activists are. There’s nothing wrong with that if the people are not self-estranged by the action of the times in which they live. But we are, and hence ideas necessarily must become the hand-maiden to instinct. 91
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 03:20 | #
You were doing so well, only to now take this wrong turn. You should rightly concern yourself with the best electability a low-rent political “machine” can buy. The recognition of the need for great men to lead your people into a better time hardly imaginable by contrast now is the aspiration queers and psychotics. 92
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:20 | # The very, very hard truth you must eventually face, because the political world will force you to face it, is that you cannot make a revolution with the quality of leading party members currently to hand. They are middle-management not boardroom quality. They are not good enough. They are too small. They cannot make great politics, move great ideas to the fore, enlist an entire nation, change history. If you hang on to your present divisive, low-brow prescription, you will never attract the quality of individual you need, and we as a people will never get out of political nationalism what we deserve and need. A collective leadership means the cogs can work together to create something bigger than the sum total of the parts. I dont believe that Lenin or Hitler were great men, just men who knew how to form vanguards and organise their memberships. The individuals we need are simply technocrats, people put into positions of power on the basis solely of merit, talent and efficiency. We need a machine, not a master. A master without a machine is just an egotist. A machine does not need a master.
A generation raised from birth to be great will become great. 93
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:34 | # Lee,
Yes and no. A people can be itself or, through moral degradation, self-forgetting, self-estrangement, less than itself. It can never be more. What many self-described nationalists, and not just fascists and European New Righters, take to be passages of greatness in a people’s creativity and industry is an error of perception. They are no more than periods of particular focus which can be stable or unstable, depending on whether they proceed from that people’s nature or from artifice. Only nature is authentic and permanent. If a people does not act out of its own nature, it does not realise itself historically. It realises a falsehood. Therefore, I am interested in the active process of self-discovery and habitation as the antidote to the victimhood and self-estrangement which bedevil us today, and the only real foundation for lived truth. 94
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:59 | # Lee, A generation raised from birth to be great will become great. Yes and no. A people can be itself or, through moral degradation, self-forgetting, self-estrangement, less than itself. It can never be more. = It can via Creative Self Evolution and technology eg Genetic engineering that creates a higher humanity cleansed of all genetic defects, a perfect race. What many self-described nationalists, and not just fascists and European New Righters, take to be passages of greatness in a people’s creativity and industry is an error of perception. They are no more than periods of particular focus which can be stable or unstable, depending on whether they proceed from that people’s nature or from artifice. Only nature is authentic and permanent.
Man can become more through an act of creative will, through Creative Self Evolution. Man evolves, as does all of nature - though that is either an upwards or downwards evolution of course.
If a people does not act out of its own nature, it does not realise itself historically. = I agree, but mans nature is constrained by other mens desires. Remove them, and nature will renew itself.
It realises a falsehood. Therefore, I am interested in the active process of self-discovery and habitation as the antidote to the victimhood and self-estrangement which bedevil us today, and the only real foundation for lived truth.
He has not become man, but is becoming the Higher Race. Our role is to enable the becoming and stop the downward spiral back into the mass animal. Religions, and the promise of heaven, are mere distractions from the path to the Higher Race that we must create for ourselves via genetic engineering - and accomplish an act of creation almost god like in its enormity and beauty. 95
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:39 | # Lee,
But eugenics is not really relevant today, is it? Both you and are are interested today in doing what must be done so our people remain who they are. That is the point. We do not want our people to be changed for another people, whether directly or through miscegenation, through the dictates of hostile interest groups.
I mean more than Nature as the natural world. I mean the inimitable truth of self.
To end the designs of the aforementioned hostile interest groups will require an authentic, thoroughgoing revolution, given that the groups are intrinsic to neoliberalism and western Marxism. Also, I am not a fan of automaticity of renewal, which I’ve labelled isostatic recovery. If we were an Amazonian tribe, mean IQ 80, with a traditionalist polity of headman and shaman and not much else, then isostasy could apply - though there have been few cases, I think, where recovery from Western culture shock has been successful. A flight into kitsch seems more to be the experience. But we are not a basic tribal society, so that does not apply. We have a complex inner world of thoughts and values formed from informational sources which very much include liberalism in the broad sense (ie, include neoliberalism and the Marxisms). We have a complex and pluralist social organisation which holds that information, and which is a bulwark against change. The whole issue of what it really means to imbue this at every level with the imprimateur of nationalism, and what it will take to do so, has not been seriously thought about, that I have seen.
This is not what evolution does. Man is not travelling ever upward to a higher state. Evolution is a fitting to environment, that’s all.
Well, if someone produced a Bantu superman tomorrow I would not feel any more connected to him than I do to any Rwandan in Kigali or Somali in Mogadishu. I do not care about superman but about the transmission of my genes and, most especially, of my shared distinctive genes - meaning I care about my people as they are now, warts ‘n all. 96
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:42 | # Lee, = It can via Creative Self Evolution and technology eg Genetic engineering that creates a higher humanity cleansed of all genetic defects, a perfect race ... Man can become more through an act of creative will, through Creative Self Evolution But eugenics is not really relevant today, is it? Both you and are are interested today in doing what must be done so our people remain who they are. That is the point. We do not want our people to be changed for another people, whether directly or through miscegenation, through the dictates of hostile interest groups. ~~~~~ Agreed.
I mean more than Nature as the natural world. I mean the inimitable truth of self.
To end the designs of the aforementioned hostile interest groups will require an authentic, thoroughgoing revolution, given that the groups are intrinsic to neoliberalism and western Marxism.
Also, I am not a fan of automaticity of renewal, which I’ve labelled isostatic recovery. If we were an Amazonian tribe, mean IQ 80, with a traditionalist polity of headman and shaman and not much else, then isostasy could apply - though there have been few cases, I think, where recovery from Western culture shock has been successful. A flight into kitsch seems more to be the experience. ~~~~ We have seen various revolutionary renewals throught western history, why not in the future. The basic western archetype is the return of the Golden Age.
But we are not a basic tribal society, so that does not apply. We have a complex inner world of thoughts and values formed from informational sources which very much include liberalism in the broad sense (ie, include neoliberalism and the Marxisms). We have a complex and pluralist social organisation which holds that information, and which is a bulwark against change. The whole issue of what it really means to imbue this at every level with the imprimateur of nationalism, and what it will take to do so, has not been seriously thought about, that I have seen.
He has not become man, but is becoming the Higher Race. This is not what evolution does. Man is not travelling ever upward to a higher state. Evolution is a fitting to environment, that’s all. ~~~~~ But man does evolve upwards, and that is what differentiates him from the rest of the animal world. Man consciously evolves, animals do not. Man alone is capable of Creative Self Evolution. Man will become his own salvation via genetic engineering. Well, if someone produced a Bantu superman tomorrow I would not feel any more connected to him than I do to any Rwandan in Kigali or Somali in Mogadishu. I do not care about superman but about the transmission of my genes and, most especially, of my shared distinctive genes - meaning I care about my people as they are now, warts ‘n all.
Do you value those genes as much as the genes that form your racial inheritance , warts and all ? If you dont, then you welcome the Higher Race - a race of all racial types that no longer carries those diseased genes. 97
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:30 | # Lee,
Well, Lee, none of that is right ... not the Freudian prescription and not the failure to distinguish acquired personality from what we are born with. It is difficult to progress a conversation with someone stuck in Freud, and doubly so with someone who does not discriminate for the authentic.
That’s a fair point, and many people would agree with you. Something of a reply was expressed in my post titled “A consistent self”. But this is an area you have to be prepared to work at. The worth of “renewals”, “archetypes” and “Golden Ages” may not be as advertised. There may not be any worth at all unless they emerge from “the inimitable truth”. But how do you build on something the existence of which you don’t admit?
The moulding of mind I am interested started in the womb, and takes us away into inauthenticity. You want to know why we can’t act? Because at a formative psychological level we are dependents of the “complex social organisation”. A movement towards authenticity is requisite to change on the scale needed to save a race on three continents and with fifty national and regional cultures.
Please check out some source on evolution. You will find that this is in error.
I had written that I care most about “my shared distinctive genes - meaning I care about my people as they are now, warts ‘n all.” This is a reference to the writings of Frank Salter. I am saying that ethnic genetic interests comprise the ultimate interest in human life. Eugenics is interesting and genetic engineering is beneficial medically. The latter could constitute a secondary or tertiary genetic interest. But that is not the point I was making - which was actually a technical restatement of the point higher up about our shared political goal, to which you replied “I agree”. 98
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:15 | # Lee, The self is never static. The self contains the unconscious, which is as old as life itself and not under the control of the ego and the consciousness. The self also evolves in line with social conditions. Well, Lee, none of that is right ... not the Freudian prescription and not the failure to distinguish acquired personality from what we are born with. It is difficult to progress a conversation with someone stuck in Freud, and doubly so with someone who does not discriminate for the authentic.
We have seen various revolutionary renewals throughout western history, why not in the future? The basic western archetype is the return of the Golden Age. That’s a fair point, and many people would agree with you. Something of a reply was expressed in my post titled “A consistent self”. But this is an area you have to be prepared to work at. The worth of “renewals”, “archetypes” and “Golden Ages” may not be as advertised. There may not be any worth at all unless they emerge from “the inimitable truth”. But how do you build on something the existence of which you don’t admit? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - If it real then it doesnt need to be admitted, it just is and will be again. Those who control the state, control the information flow and can mould minds The moulding of mind I am interested started in the womb, and takes us away into inauthenticity. You want to know why we can’t act? Because at a formative psychological level we are dependents of the “complex social organisation”. A movement towards authenticity is requisite to change on the scale needed to save a race on three continents and with fifty national and regional cultures.
But man does evolve upwards Please check out some source on evolution. You will find that this is in error.
Do you value those genes as much as the genes that form your racial inheritance, warts and all? I had written that I care most about “my shared distinctive genes - meaning I care about my people as they are now, warts ‘n all.” This is a reference to the writings of Frank Salter. I am saying that ethnic genetic interests comprise the ultimate interest in human life. Eugenics is interesting and genetic engineering is beneficial medically. The latter could constitute a secondary or tertiary genetic interest. But that is not the point I was making - which was actually a technical restatement of the point higher up about our shared political goal, to which you replied “I agree”.
99
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:11 | # Lee,
I fear there is no such thing as the Unconscious, Lee. It is an invention. There is, however, the state of ordinary waking consciousness, which is characterised by absence and mechanicity - and that’s all there is, ordinarily speaking. Jungianism is, ultimately, religious imo, and not for me. I wrote about my opposition - argued it, actually - here: It is a long post, I’m afraid.
The question is whether our collective reality can inform a politics of survivalism. Or, if you think it can’t, what else can? My answer is nothing. The final value in an existential crisis is survival, and that does root back into our being, not our behaviour (culture). That does not mean that culturism is without utility. It means that it is the servant of something much greater, indeed sans pareil.
Social organisation certainly reflects the nature of the organizing principle (say European Man) and, in turn, becomes a factor in the environment so that if it survived over evolutionary time (ie, a long time) it would influence gene selection. But you need to get away from this idea in the context of political and ideological formulations for today. A less kindly interlocutor than I would batter you to death with it.
You are conflating social development with the evolutionary process. If you wish to speak of Man evolving (the evolutionary process) you cannot instance scientific advancement (social development) because it is not accomplished by gene selection. You need to confine yourself to one category of argument. A blogger’s point, Lee: use the buttons above the comment box, with which you can italicize, embolden or blockquote to excellent effect. And don’t forget to copy your comment before you hit the submit button because the darned EE software is session-timed and some browsers don’t cache. 100
Posted by Bill on Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:47 | # On a lesser cerebral plane, I notice this morning the Green Arrow website has upped sticks and decamped to pastures new. Green Arrow is no more. This rather took me by surprise as I had no hint such a move was in the offing, I must have missed something somewhere. I must say in passing since the latest spat in the BNP has mushroomed, GA has declined in substance to the point where there was no point. Renewal beckoned. I looked upon the raison detre of the Green Arrow website as the (self appointed?) heavy lifting agent for the BNP, whose official website’s reluctance to handle such traffic always baffled me. The Green Arrow’s new improved formula of Green Arrow is perhaps coincidental to the the mumblings of a BNP rebrand. The new site can be found at The British Resistance. 101
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:42 | # Thanks for uploading that German war propaganda, Sam. I just took a look at it. Most impressive. Like a trip back in time. The one I found of greatest interest was the “The Defenders of French Culture” (a bunch of muds - LOL) piece. That the caption describes the non-White troops from France’s colonial empire as members of the “colored races” gives incite into the fact that Germans, in the course of conducting the war, conceived of Europeans as constituting a single, though obviously internally differentiated “white” entity; their usage of the word “race” being very similar to the Salterian term “ethny”. 102
Posted by bruce on Sat, 19 May 2012 17:20 | # mooselums can not live in a civilized socity with out trying to turn it into a sharia shit hole and the same goes for negroes because they can not be trained to act like humans.sooner or later all negroes will chimp out and murder white people and if you allow this to go unchecked they will destroy your socity.don’t believe me just take a look at detroit in the usa. Post a comment:
Next entry: Broken clock. Twice a day.
|
|
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) |
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:21 | #
GW: sorry, I’ve said it before and I suppose before tumbling into the arms of Morpheus I should say it again.
Existentialism isn’t. repeat ISN’T, inspirational.
“My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky!
And down it sinks when you unfold
Your theories: God knows why!
I knocked upon a lady’s door,
And this is what I said:
“Vote Existential - ” “What a bore!”
Cried she, “Just drop down dead!”
If culture isn’t important, then what’s wrong with being imprisoned in The Matrix?
The more you insist on the irrelevance of culture and civilasation, the more I fear that your desire is for the establishment of a race of pure white Nordic zombies, who could with your permission be speaking Bantu, worshipping skulls, and indulging cannibalism.
It won’t merely be “doubly” hard to impose your new system: you’ve got
a) to work it out, then you’ve got to
b) become strong enough to impose it, then
c)you’ve got to teach it to us, then you’ve got to
d)make us love it.
I’ll come back in 2015 to see when a)‘s going to start.
There’s a perfectly good “philosophy of a European life” to hand already.
It’s the “scientian” spirit that you espouse that destroyed it.
The philosophy I’m recommending alone had the intellectual ability to a) define usury, b) and the moral means to condemn it and c) the strength to combat it.
I don’t understand the abolition of debt “at every level”.
I don’t mind my bank loan being abolished, but I won’t feel so good about my deposit with them vanishing. Better define or refine “at every level.”
“Exordia” in this context means what, precisely?