Posted by DanielS on Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:53 | #

Interesting article by Colin Liddell, proposing an “I.Q. sweet spot” at around 100 - the range of most Europeans - corresponding with enough logic to construct self deceptive excuses, put off the moment of reckoning and to cope with exploitation.

This ensconces a lack of revolutionary response - requiring rather circumstances of populations with I.Q. below the “sweet spot” of coping intelligence .

http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-iq-of-revolutions.html#more

Colin’s hypothesis implies that wealthy Whites would not be inclined to invite the lowering of I.Q. (as will happen) through mass non-White immigration since it will lower the value of their property, investments, enterprises, consumer-tax payer base and leave them susceptible to that newly created critical mass of revolutionaries, those below coping I.Q. Whereas those with coping level I.Q. are easily manipulated, thus good for wealthy Whites. 

Therefore, Colin rejects the “leftist” theory that mass immigration is invited by monied elites in order to create “easily manipulated population.”

If White plutocrats do not have a motive to promote mass non-White immigration, is Colin implicating the YKW, or just “leftists” in general?

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:58 | #

A point to make today:

Our football coaches were not Marxists imposing integration with blacks.

Rather, they were objectivists imposing integration with blacks.

Consider “the great football coach”, Vince Lombardi, and his indignation with regard to “racism.” Vince Lombardi was not a “cultural Marxist.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Lombardi#Unprejudiced_nature

Vince Lombardi’s Unprejudiced nature

In 1960, on at least one team, a color barrier still existed in the NFL. But Jack Vainisi, the Scouting Director for the Packers, and Lombardi were determined “to ignore the prejudices then prevalent in most NFL front office in their search for the most talented players.” Lombardi explained his views by saying that he “... viewed his players as neither black nor white, but Packer green”. Among professional football head coaches, Lombardi’s view on discrimination was not de rigueur in the midst of the American civil rights movement.

An interracial relationship between one of the Packer rookies and a young woman was brought to the attention of Lombardi by Packer veterans in his first training camp in Green Bay. The next day at training camp, Lombardi, who had a zero tolerance policy towards racism, responded by warning his team that if any player exhibited prejudice, in any manner, then that player would be thrown off the team. Lombardi, who was vehemently opposed to Jim Crow discrimination, let it be known to all Green Bay establishments that if they did not accommodate his black players equally as well as his white players, then that business would be off-limits to the entire team. Before the start of the 1960 season, he instituted a policy that the Packers would only lodge in places that accepted all his players.

This same paradigm that flouts “equality” would insist on integration of “the best.”

Perhaps because I was never immersed in Marxist/Leftist literature, but rather was repulsed by radicals, their advocacy of non-Whites in particular, repulsed enough to be averse to embracing even its better critiques, I never saw “equality” as an issue one way or another.

But even though it may have had something to do with not circulating among Marxists and immersing in their literature, I never really heard many “leftists” or anybody, for that matter, talking about wanting “equality.”

It has been rightists who are overusing opposition of this term, adopting this paradigm and it is blueprint for disaster - setting matters into false comparison and necessary conflict/dominance-subordination, whereas our concern for separatism is to be negotiated in qualitative terms of differences that make a difference (qualitative non-sameness as opposed to inequality).

Coming back to “the point of the day”, objectivism and its most pointed corollary of turning issues into quantitative comparisons - equality/inequality - is what our football coaches were going by - not cultural Marxism - when they considered it unthinkable that blacks should be kept off the football team and eventually, that the cheerleaders should not cheer them on…and couple with them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh1QuJ6JPY

This runaway objectivism and flouting of equality is the load of race mixing poison that our right wing brings to the equation. This part of the blame comes from our ranks, not from Jews.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 05 Sep 2014 06:59 | #

David Duke says that black and White antagonism is all about Jewish divide and conquer strategy.

Well, while we ought not lose sight of the fact that Jews are the most powerful organized group in antagonism to White interests, and that they do, indeed, instigate blacks against us in a myriad of ways, it is the “conquer” part of the strategy that we want to stave-off.

But “divide”, as in, we do not want to be divided from blacks?

Absolute disingenuous, milquetoast, coal-burner - pandering nonsense.

We ought to have blacks on our team? Bullocks. We (those Whites with sense and meaningful experience) want to be divided from blacks and them from us.

Posted by Chris on Sun, 16 Nov 2014 22:01 | #

“David Duke proposes that we divest concern for all other antagonists to Whites and focus singularly on Jewish power”.

I would deny that he advocates that solely. Just because someone goes down one route does not mean they think that is the only route. I have never heard or read him advocating this be the only route.

Dr Duke’s works have had influence on far more people than any other Pro-White advocate since Rockwell. He tried the US politics route for 20+ years but sadly the forces that Jews put against him were so great that he was not able to advance far.

His current route is good as it exposes Jewish Power to an international audience and introduce are position to them.