|
|
|
Beyond the 14 words David Lane’s famous formulation of the nationalist purpose is, though a very adequate imperative, not actually political. Our people should have a secure existence. Our children should have a secure future. In the sense that these are necessities of racial life they do not constitute more than a statement of the obvious and a claim on Nature, though, of course, in a European age as grotesquely internationalist and anti-Natural as ours, they are also a bit of a shock to the liberal moral sensibility. Still, the question is left hanging: what final politics, what system of ideas, what permanent political purpose do you, dear reader, want? I mean, beyond the securing of our people’s existence and our children’s future. Are you truly political in that sense? Do you, for example, want a return to the Christian life? That would qualify as an answer of sorts. Do you want something along the lines of Bowden’s “life of glory”? Or something else entirely? If your political ambition does not end with the fourteen words - in essence, if you are not a Western liberal albeit with normal, non-Judaised racial instincts - I’d be interested to know what life you want our people to lead in the sunlit future. Comments:2
Posted by No Thanks! on Sun, 13 May 2012 00:47 | #
They also excavated Masada, where the Jews’ famously were supposed to have committed mass suicide instead of surrender to the Roman army…and lo and behold, no signs of any kind of mass suicide were found. http://blog.hmns.org/?tag=mass-suicide 90% of the tribe’s history is pure BS, and that goes all the way up today, They don’t even know what’s true or not anymore; probably why so many of them are in therapy and mental institutions. You can only lie to the goyim so much that you start believing your own lies. 3
Posted by No Thanks! on Sun, 13 May 2012 00:49 | #
4
Posted by Hail on Sun, 13 May 2012 02:03 | # Hasn’t regular commenter Leon Haller said that he is in favor of moderate-leftism (liberalism) given a state with unquestioned racial integrity? A racialist Sweden. In this sense, perhaps “Fascism” was always a false-ideology, that is, a non-ideology. Leon Haller, and many of the regular readers here, would-have-been-called/(are-called) “fascists”. Greece’s “Golden-Dawn” and its 21 MPs are called ‘fascist’. It seems to me that ‘fascist’ is just a cover word for ‘racialist-nationalist’. Given no racial/civilizational threat (from Marxism, e.g., in the old days), most fascists of three generations ago would have been apolitical, would have had no fundamental gripe with the systems of their day. 5
Posted by Hail on Sun, 13 May 2012 02:16 | # Is a long-term “Racialist Sweden” possible? (I allude to Sweden’s notoriously-lavish welfare-state). Perhaps the very act of setting up a ‘Mother State’—in which the people are told they will taken care of for life—weakens ‘voelkisch’ institutions. It has certainly weakened churches in Europe. We forget that there was a time churches were ‘right-wing’.
A center-left welfare-state tends to fail on (3) and (4) [See the ongoing Euro Crisis], and may lead to racial chaos, (1), ipso-facto [See above]. Far-left Marxism generally fails on points (4) and (5) and usually on (1), with the modern Western Far-Left failing totally on (3) as well. Classic-Liberalism (libertarianism) is strong on (4) and (5) but easily leads to weakness of (3) and consequently (2), and generally (1) is seen as a result of various drives of Capitalism: cheap labor, common markets, you know. A racialized Theocracy may be strong on (1), (2), and (3), but is clearly weak on (4) and (5). 6
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sun, 13 May 2012 04:40 | # Dear Diary, Our meeting with the President of the Northwest Republic went far better than expected. Sales of my factory’s widgets to China have risen for the third straight quarter and while I would prefer to rest my gratitude at the feet of our skilled technicians and reliable assembly workers, the Prime Minister’s trade policies have been vital to our expansion. In this condition of full employment, it’s increasingly difficult to find good workers to facilitate that expansion, but word from the local trade school is that they have a bumper crop of skilled technicians in the pipeline who will be ready for hire in the late Spring. Mr. Smith’s unfortunate industrial accident earlier this year continues to haunt me, both emotionally and practically. While he’s quite satisfied with his bionic arm and his neighborhood and the Church have been most helpful, he confided in me during our last visit that he’s terribly disappointed that the disability disqualifies him altogether from the National Service he was looking forward to. In my opinion, one would have to be brave or a fool to want to join the NS with Aztlan’s drug cartels growing increasingly belligerent and Deseret’s role as a buffer state growing increasingly uncertain. If he envisioned himself joining to assist with wildlife management or tending to the elderly, then his having been struck with shrapnel could have helped him dodge a bullet! My youngest daughter Helena was crying earlier today because she’s convinced she’s the ugliest of my four girls. I tried to console her, reminding her that she’s got some maturing yet to do and may prove to be the fabled ugly duckling. Her vanity is rather disappointing, and her fixation on her being attractive and popular is so gratingly American. If we were satisfied with vain and selfish considerations, my grandfather would have never pioneered his way from Alabama to help fight for this nation. Rather than reassure her that she will indeed grow up to be a beautiful woman, I should reassure her that our nation’s Great Father was ugly, obese, and had an overbite, but went on to become a national hero. My grandfather claimed until his dying breath that he met Great Father once at a conference and was a prolific polemicist under a pseudonym for decades before the revolution. Of course, everybody after the revolution was won claimed to have been anonymously supporting the revolution beforehand, so it’s hard to tell. Sometimes I question whether some of his tall tales were true. He claims, for instance, that things were so bad that gangs of Blacks would beat White teenagers nearly to death and that everybody felt sorry for the attackers for being charged for the crime. He even spoke of how one of our women was raped by the New Liberian slumdwellers nearly every hour of the day and how the majority of people thought it monstrous to acknowledge being concerned about that. I have a hard time believing any people could be quite so reprehensible, much less my own people only a couple generations ago. I must retire early this evening, as the neighborhood beautification and gardening team is meeting at sunrise and I’ve been recruited to prune nearly a dozen trees within the couple hours before I have to go to work. I’m not looking forward to it, but at this point, I do believe our neighborhood has a shot at winning this year’s competition. Forrest G. 7
Posted by Stupid Is As Stupid Does on Sun, 13 May 2012 05:36 | # why can’t jews figure out you can’t tell people to do one thing while you do another…. Can I say stupid??? 8
Posted by MILITIA on Sun, 13 May 2012 06:02 | # An armed citizenry is of vital, lifesaving importance. I must say that it warms my heart every time I read about the skyrocketing sales of guns and ammunition, which I am convinced is overwhelmingly being driven by the white demographic group in America. Granted, less than 10 percent of those Whites are probably racially awake and are able to recognize the identity of our #1 enemy and are aware of their murderous, diabolically evil history – but, I think these millions of firearms being purchased by millions of White Americans really is the only thing that has prevented the jews from starting to slaughter whites openly – like their ancestors did when they controlled the USSR. If the current US Govt can’t control 10-20 million illegals, how the fuck are they going to control 250 million ARMED whites?
In almost every case where Jews run into trouble historically, they have overplayed their hand. They seem to be doing the same thing now. The influx of Asians, Mexicans and Muslims does not augur well for a sympathetic ear to Jewish issues: http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back1301.html Steinlight says that Jews will be able to hang on to their disproportionate political power (pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) for perhaps a decade longer. The fact is, the “jewish” subclass has through out recorded history been used as an interface or tool of the elite. They use “jewish” subclass to do their banking dirty work. And their “doctoring” and to write the intellectual justifications for what has amounted to ages of vile cruelty and oppression by the elite on the underclasses. Jews are used by them either knowingly or unknowingly. For example I am sure Alan Greenspan knows exactly who he is serving. When the masses finally have enough then the elite abandon the jews to “pogroms” or whatever horror arises at the time. They are at best an unwitting tool of the hidden rulers. At worse they know exactly what they do and don’t care because they despise the rest of humanity believing themselves to be better than the “goys” as they carry out the banking and other functions allotted to them. History seems to be repeating itself with disastrous results. Real wealth is national produce. The jews and Chinese only have paper that must eventually be repudiated. America and Europe will recover as soon as they unload the foreigners and start producing for themselves. 9
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 13 May 2012 07:02 | # Given how far we must travel to realize the 14 words, is it useful to theorize about the journey’s end? Indeed, is it harmless? Nationalism is in many ways a negative ideology without deeply considered positive content. It was born in the 18th century (some might go all the way back to the Reformation), and grew considerably in the 19th, out of a desire of newly ‘nationalized’ groups (ie, groups which had developed group awareness and identity) to possess group sovereignty. It was originally a revolt against multinational empires (and perhaps still is, come to think of it), a desire to live amongst, and be ruled by, those with whom one shared ethnocultural commonality. But beyond rejecting foreign rule or control (“foreign” understood genetically as well as nationally), nationalists don’t have anything like a common political philosophical outlook. Our ideology is about banding our people together in order to contest, or, if battle is called for, prevail over, a common foe. But once we have achieved the 14 words, nationalism will only continue to exist as such insofar as it embodies a certain approach to the ‘national’; that is, the main nationalist concern, which is basic national survival. Imagine a Scottish ethnonationalist. His concerns today are both genetic, and ‘national’ proper. First, he wishes to achieve sovereignty - political independence from the UK. Second, he would wish to ensure that ‘Scotland remains Scotland’, that is, that the abandonment of the genetic foundation of the nation not be legitimated by the continued presence of non-(ethnic)Scots as lawful residents of Scotland. So beyond achieving sovereignty, a Scots nationalist would also want to end all immigration, and humanely repatriate either all non-Scottish permanent residents, or at least those whose children, by virtue of their genetic dissimilarity from the historic Scottish people, cannot ever be expected to assimilate to the Scottish ethnoculture. But what role would nationalism qua nationalism play in a Scotland which was both politically sovereign, and racially cleansed? At most, nationalism would become the voice of a kind of national security focused conservatism. Nationalists as nationalists would be the loudest voices reminding people of the need to defend the genetic basis of the nation. Perhaps they would demand certain collectivist activities meant to further the sense of ethnic community which the modern world seems naturally to attenuate. For whites especially, the nationalist might demand a certain type of post-14words educational propaganda, the aim of which is to instill WN consciousness in the young (just as Christian churches were traditionally held to have the vital role of inculcating in them the Christian faith). But wrt the broad issues of political life, I’m not sure how much the nationalist ultimately has to contribute. I see nationalism as somewhat akin to anti-communism. The broad community of anti-communists was composed of many ideological tendencies - from Christianity to libertarianism to conservatism to Occidentalism to fascism. They were properly united against the horrendous evil of international Bolshevism. But once that evil had abated, what happened? The anti-communists largely disappeared from the political conversation (as might have been expected), transmuting themselves into advocates of other ideologies. Similarly, once a new national independence has been achieved throughout Europa, I suspect WN will fissure into other, more natural or commonplace ideologies. As long as the new societies remain committed to their racial preservation (understood as a permanent and ideologically transcendent national goal), former nationalists will adopt various political stances, some favoring a minimal state, others a strong one, some secular, others Christian, etc. The caveat to all this is that it won’t happen for quite a while even post-14words. Once a white nation has truly become racially independent (removed non-Aryans from its territory), it will obviously face tremendous hostility from much of ‘world opinion’ (cf - apartheid SA). This hostility is likely to continue for several generations. Thus, there will be a long interregnum between the victory of WN, and any return to national (pre-‘diversitarian’) normality. During this period, victorious WNs will have to construct (and, ceteris paribus, doubtless will as a practical outgrowth of racial mobilization and conflict) a brutally authoritarian Racial State. Indeed, to see how things might proceed (not literally, but analogously) it would be useful for WNs to acquaint themselves with the Russian Revolution and its immediate aftermath. Specifically, we must always remain cognizant, in all pre-war-of-racial-liberation strategic thinking, of what we will have to do, long before victory, to control the post-war domestic situation. It will not be enough for a European country merely to drive out its racial aliens. It must also permanently neutralize any domestic antifa opposition, as well as ensure that the WN leadership understands that there will be a long period of time following war’s end in which there must be rigorous ‘de-diversitarian’ indoctrination (which must include, inter alia, public race traitor (“war crimes”) trials for the genuinely, intentionally treasonous), during which the nation must maintain a permanent war-footing. So imagining a normal life (and hence politics) in a white country is really, for now, nothing more than, at best, inspiration, if not mere ‘future nostalgia’. Not one current reader will live to see racial normality. The sequence is : Racial Revolution—> Racial State (heavy military collectivist orientation with concurrent mass anti-diversitarian psychological deprogramming) for several generations—> Something Else (probably some variant of ethnocommunitarian market democracy). 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 13 May 2012 07:14 | #
I support firearms freedom as much as anyone. But this statement presumes the US government actually wants to control illegals, which I strongly doubt ... If they wanted to, they could, fairly easily.
Chinese have more real production than any other nation. They are becoming the factory of the world. And Jews may be famed as ‘middle-men’, but they are also an extremely intelligent and skilled people (as are the Chinese). They do well everywhere they go throughout the world. 11
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 13 May 2012 07:30 | #
I think you may have me confused with Dr. Lister (though he is certainly not in favor of any species of liberalism). The closest I have ever come to this iteration is my claim that I would rather live in a racially homogeneous social democracy, like Norway (if it didn’t have any immigrants), than under mixed-race capitalism. Put another way, if I were already living in a secure Racial State, I don’t think I would be very ideological at all. My orientation is towards a minimal state, capitalist economy, with strong private property rights and rights to self-defense; reasonable environmental protections; harsh laws against violent criminality, but few laws otherwise; and a general ethos of moral and cultural conservatism. But in a Racial State, I just wouldn’t care about practical politics that much (unless the voters started getting really socialist). My focus would be on family, reading novels, traveling, the outdoors, making money, and generally doing what I enjoy. I am politically and intellectually activist only because of the race problem, which I (correctly) perceive literally threatens Western Civ and white survival. BTW, wrt “Sweden’s notoriously-lavish welfare-state”, you may be a bit behind the times. Sweden today has a more supply-side approach to its economy than America under Obongo. It has cut marginal tax rates in recent years, as well as pruned some of its excessive spending. Not coincidentally, it is practically the only European country presently enjoying real economic growth (albeit only of around 3%). (I agree, however, that Europe’s present economic crisis is wholly self-inflicted.) 12
Posted by daniel on Sun, 13 May 2012 07:31 | # Beyond the 14 words First, I would take issue with the title of the essay, as the 14 Words are said to do no more than “constitute a statement of the obvious and a claim on Nature.” I do not see the 14 Words as something to be moved beyond but rather to be a central tenant, connecting with the practical and natural yes, but also having a religious and relatively transcendent status. They would occupy a core principle to be returned to periodically as a gauge of progress or over-speculation. After all, one of the reasons that we are in this catastrophic situation is likely to be because we lost sight of the obvious all too often. Thus, the fourteen words are not to be moved beyond this time, but rather, they are to occupy a central place. I have been satisfied with the 14 Words noting that they are practical, palpable, forward looking and transcendent. Among those four qualities, they have a natural appeal to women, who care about children. We need that aspect desperately, as feminism and de-classification have wreaked havoc with gender relations. They have a natural appeal to men, who care about the beauty of women (second version). Moreover, in being forward looking (a future for…must not perish), they suggest activity, not accepting the present state of political affairs - thus, I would say that they are political, not a mere natural imperative. Though they do serve to re-align our politics and religion with a biological imperative, they are a crucial correction to our historical wrong-turns. That is, they work fine in a hermeneutic sense. While being accountable to the people, they also provide the second liberation, the liberation from mere facts. Hence, they are practical for political purposes also in the sense that they allow for disengagement from brute pragmatism, the mere practical concerns of daily goings-on which have been as much, if not more of a diversion from our overall survival than have the speculations of traditional religion. Hence, they provide a narrative that expands over and encompasses our polity. They are transcendent and organizational by talking in terms of the collective “we” and “our people”, “for White children.” There is a measure of altruism there, at least toward those people who are more closely related as native European. This taps into the narrative expanse that allows us to move beyond, to transcend infighting, cynicism and entanglements with the bad people among us as well as the flawed aspects that all of us have. Having established that I see the 14 words as central, not trivial, I might begin to take the question in good faith, as it is meant, and state a few basics of the political systems that I would want. 13
Posted by Hail on Sun, 13 May 2012 11:17 | # Leon Haller wrote:
You appear to be right about Sweden’s economic growth, recovering all its recession losses in one year and showing impressive growth for a European country. (<a href=“https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2003.html?countryName=World&countryCode=xx®i>CIA</a>) (IMF) GDP - Sweden CIA IMF (constant prices) Sweden’s GDP Growth Since 1980, IMF Sweden had a very good 14 years, 1994-2007, averaging 3.33% GDP growth. (Which matches the UK but exceeds France, Germany, and other major EU economies—Germany managed only 1.7%/year, average, in those years). 2008-9-10 were “lost” years for Sweden, a sharp recession and prompt recovery, thus zero net growth. ———— This is all interesting and valuable, but beside the point, at least to what I had intended. My point has to do with the welfare-state mentality tending to weaken and slowly extinguish ‘voelkisch’ feeling. Sweden has had a welfare-state longer than most of the rest of us, more pervasive than the rest of ours. Its situation with nonwhite immigrants and so on is ghastly, so it is said. Where is the native-Swedish backlash? The Sweden-Democrats, a mildly-racialist party, got only 5.7% in 2010. A true racialist opposition, the National-Democrats, are in the “Zero-Point-Something” electoral ghetto. Where is Sweden’s racialist opposition? I say that the Swedes have been weakened by decades of, generations of, Mother State handing out money. Getting handouts—the culture that this sort of thing builds up around it—breeds nihilism, like the proverbial spoiled rich child. This is just a supposition, but I think it makes a lot of sense. 14
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 13 May 2012 12:10 | # Hail, I agree strongly with your equation of welfare statism and racial weakness. I have made that observation many times over the years, though it can never be done too often. I doubt that the postwar collapse in white consciousness is solely due to the explosion of domestic welfare socialism throughout the West. But certainly the correlation is more than coincidental. The leftist depictions of rabid neoliberalism really are not accurate. Capitalism is a just social order (perhaps the only one outside of Christian religious communities, imo). It is also the most economically efficient one. Most persons recognize these attributes. What too many fail to see is that different economic systems also produce different societies, and even, different types of men. Obviously, the West had heroes long before it had meaningful debates over forms of economic organization. But given the demands as well as desirability (and, militarily, necessity) of modern economic life (there can be no return to the bucolic paradise that lefty ecology types fantasize about, for a renunciation of technology will simply open us up to foreign military or even criminal gang conquest), the West needs to remain as capitalist as possible, not only for reasons of wealth-maximization, but because the bourgeois (private-property) order is more conducive to the development of a firmer, more self-reliant citizen character than the pathetic, democratic, economic ‘rent-seeking’ regime that is now universal (if to differing degrees) throughout the West. More broadly, however, you simply if doubtless unintentionally are reiterating my case for White Zion. WNs will never become a majority in any existent white nation. Our people are no longer evolutionarily viable, at least on the collective level. I know actual whites, wonderful people, whom I have forced to read basic race realist articles, say, on crime and race, attacks on whites, employment victimization, double standards, etc ad nauseam - NOTHING PENETRATES! They are literally mentally defective, incapable of accepting racial truth as we understand it. And these persons are not Jews, not poor and/or uneducated, and live around LA, so don’t have the excuse of never witnessing the multikult. A large portion of whites are neurologically maladapted to life in the contemporary world. When I was younger, even as recently as the mid-90s, I still thought the issue was just a matter of actually exposing normal whites to the truth about race. If only we could just get the TRUTH out there ... But I was young and wrong. The typical white doesn’t give a shit about the truth, not when it comes to race. They simply cannot bring themselves to accept racism, no matter how objectively it is presented. They just possibly might be able to accept raw fact - eg, that blacks commit a lot more crime than whites. But they cannot use such facts to reach appropriate conclusions: that diversity sucks, that racial integration has been disastrous for whites, and that whites need to start forming political and social organizations dedicated to our racial interests, in this new multiracial shithole that is today’s America. I think there is an upper limit on possible WN ‘conversions’ (and not one of you has any convincing data demonstrating that I am wrong, or, in the preponderance of evidence, likely wrong), and that that limit is unfortunately lower than 50% of any modal white population (especially in the racial Nordic lands, including the US). No one really ever argues against WZ, because there is no argument. There has been more than enough time for whites to have realized the catastrophe of forced integration, and the resulting uproar wouldn’t wake a single house, let alone the world. GW is simply fantasizing in the OP (unless he’s obliquely referring to WZ). 15
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 13 May 2012 13:29 | # The ultimate polity’s purpose is the ultimate purpose of existence: Joy of creation. 16
Posted by HW on Sun, 13 May 2012 14:32 | # The 14 Words is the ultimate statement of “White Anxiety.” It only makes sense in the historical and cultural context of late twentieth century America: a world where mass immigration, cultural decline, and changing racial demographics in a consolidated liberal democracy has caused some Americans to lose all faith in their government. Just think about the statement: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White Children.” Lane is describing an emergency situation. It is definitely not normal to spend so much time brooding about “securing the existence” of your people and “a future” for your posterity. The 14 Words could only emerge in the context of a legitimacy crisis. It appeals to a group of people who are radically alienated from their state and established institutions. In the long run, the emergency must either pass or prove fatal. Should it ever pass, our existence will be secured and the anxiety will subside. Then what? The source of the anxiety is changing racial demographics in a consolidated liberal democracy. It is the dystopian vision of becoming a degraded and exploited minority in which democracy is used to justify the tyranny of racial aliens. The question answers itself: in order for the crisis to pass and the anxiety to subside, consolidated liberal democracy must necessarily fail, whether it be through revolution, secession, decentralization or more probable, simply the demise of the non-White voter and the restoration of white supremacy. 17
Posted by HW on Sun, 13 May 2012 15:04 | #
IMO, “securing our existence” requires separation from the Northeast and the West Coast, or Southern independence. If we could rid ourselves of the Union, I think we could resolve any problem within the context of a Southern national government.
It has come to this before. For ideological reasons, Yankees were determined to push negro equality down our throats. The political backlash against anti-slavery stimulated a broader intellectual movement that identified liberal democracy as a threat to our way of life. The solution that our ancestors favored was a rejection of Enlightenment-based liberal republicanism in favor of Greco-Roman-based classical republicanism. Rome and Sparta were considered models worth emulating. The Romans were unperturbed by these questions because they were unaccustomed to defining themselves in terms of ideologies. Liberal democracy has nearly succeeded in destroying our civilization. Perhaps a few happy centuries of Roman-style conservatism would be a welcome change? No more liberalism, communism, fascism, Nazism, anarchism, postmodernism, Marxism or any other type of “-ism.” Instead of trying to find some kind of false ideological grid to impose on reality, why not simply allow communities to have a free hand to adapt to challenges as they face them by creating social institutions? If something works, it will become incorporated into tradition.
I think the Christian tradition is deep enough to be shored up and restored for the benefit of the masses. European atheism strikes me as a dead end. The demise of traditional religion has only succeeded in opening the door to even more dangerous ideological pseudo-religions.
A healthy starting point would be a skeptical attitude toward all ideologies that advertise themselves as being “universal.” 18
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 13 May 2012 17:12 | # RE - the welfare state and multiculturalism. Can we ask two simple questions? What is the Swedish Gini-coefficient and the % of non-Europeans in their population? What is the US Gini-coefficient and % of non-Europeans in their population? I think the value of the Gini-coffiecient is a useful approximation to how market-orientated a society is (in the developed world). I was going to write a fairly long piece on my politics (communitarianism, intra and inter-generational moral-economies etc.) but why bother when the typical MR types cannot: (i) think outside of the dead cliché of boiler-plate American ideological tropes, (ii) even be on speaking terms with empirical reality let alone allow mere facts spoil their ‘insights’, (iii) cannot break the mono-causality habit - for one tendency it’s J-lizards behind ever shadow and for another it’s the failure to embrace capitalism red in tooth and claw (yes it’s all the fault of government health care systems or some such!). Really? So why not be a ultra-free-market globalist - if market efficiency (apparently regardless of any political, cultural, social or physical externalities) is your highest value - fine! But please don’t waste everyone’s time by repeating such banalities here. Free-market ideology is liberal ideology - if your a free-market fanatic you’re a damn liberal. It seems many don’t wish to acknowledge such an obvious insight either out of intellectual dishonesty or ignorance (it’s hard to tell) but Locke, Hayek, Nozick - guess what they were all unashamed and fully-committed liberals and maintained the ‘free-market’ as the holy of holies. So if your starting point is within the liberal ontology of the individual as the fundamental and only ‘real’ social unit (‘no such thing as society’ etc.) and the subsequent evils of collective action, agency and identity please perhaps the political concerns and intellectual scope of MR are not for you? Market exchange and relationships are secondary to the social order not the primary embodiment thereof. Wealth maximization (for whom, at what larger costs, for what purpose?) by trading in CDSs (or whatever) and associated bovine mass-consumerism are not and never have been any civilizations highest goals within its hierarchy of values. And for all the Christian stuff - sorry it’s sociologically dead. Yes many Americans say ‘in public’ they believe but it’s really only a display of public piety for the purposes of ‘social respectability’. It’s not seriously coming back - we live in a post-religious world - not to say that new forms of theological-style beliefs do not spring up. But the notion that Christianity can again be unquestionably, unchallengeably and unproblematically foundational to European society strikes me a species of non-thought. At time it feels like MR embodies Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence - we go over the same banal terrain again and again and again. It’s becomes tiresome and deflationary of serious or substantive thought. Can we not move beyond ‘the free-market without black or Jews as utopia’ trope? Or the ‘bring on the end of the world’ stuff (via total war and/or an ultimately revivifying environmental collapse)? I know people have their favourite narratives but really do you think either of the previous ones I just outlined past muster as serious insights? Both are simply not good enough as a critique the dynamics, trajectory and ontology of hyper-liberalism within super-modernity. Understanding the problem fully and seriously (beyond ideological clichés - many places in cyberspace can serve them up if you so wish to consume them in the echo-chamber style) is the first step to an outlining of a possible range of real-world solutions. Theoretical, empirical and political insights into such matters must be much, much, more serious than ‘big government is inherently evil’ etc. Public action and public policy can be smart or dumb; it can be used for politically and socio-cultural positive purposes or negative ones. It’s too simple-minded to think otherwise - the intellectual equivalent of braying “Four legs good, two legs bad”! Aren’t people capable of a little more than such tripe? 19
Posted by Hail on Sun, 13 May 2012 18:11 | #
As Leon Haller wrote above: “different economic systems produce…different types of men”. This is of paramount importance. What kind of Men are/would-be created under various systems? That is the true essence of GW’s question in the OP, or should be. Where would an archetypal Man’s loyalties be under a given economic-political system; what would he regard as sacred? Most British (or so is my impression) regard the NHS and so on as sacrosanct (being offended at the suggestion of dissolving it, as a Christian would be about dissolving churches “because Jesus was just a crazy man, anyway”). The typical White-British person today is also not openly concerned with racial integrity, certainly not to the level they should be, given the present threat. This is the product of generations of life under a certain political-economic system. 20
Posted by Hail on Sun, 13 May 2012 18:27 | # The White “Chav” in Britain. The Welfare-State is a primary cause of that unfortunate phenomenon. The Chav would not be able to live such a lifestyle without Mother State handing him money for doing nothing. (That is the welfare-state at its core, stripped of all pretenses, after all—Rewarding indolence and punishing initiative). Greece is perhaps a state-based example of the same. Greece (1990s thru late 2000s): Why care about running a tight-ship if the EU will keep handing us money? Chav: Why do anything non-antisocial if I can live a decent life by being handed money by the State? // Both examples are extreme. Similar effects, a depression of feelings of honor, are surely seen in all classes and stations of life in the White-West today. Why rely-on, or become attached to, Voelkisch institutions (broadly defined) if Mother State will simply give you your daily bread from cradle to grave, as if it were manna from heaven? Unrestrained Capitalism is troublesome for other reasons. Whatever Sells is King: Flood the market with pornography and drugs (were they legalized). Appeal to the lowest-common-denominator. You know how it goes. A system with no welfare-handouts can end in decadence and social decay, too. This is a dilemma. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 14 May 2012 00:13 | # Some interesting, some predictable answers. My own answer to this metapolitical question is brief. The kind of life that must be facilitated by the ruling corpus of ideas and politics of a post-salvatory future is: an authentic life, a life which comes out of who and what we are quite naturally and without any forcing. Any other life, be it religious or some other form of idealism, will involve into something different, probably quickly. The only true, sustaining foundation of human action is authenticity. 23
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 14 May 2012 03:54 | # Lister@19 My comments #9, 12, to some extent, and 15, constituted a cogent response to GW’s OP. I pointed out that:
I noted that racial survival is my prime issue, but beyond that (the realization of the 14 words), my personal
This is my preference. If others have a different ‘ideal society’ vision, by all means, spell it out. I’m not censoring alternative views. But I see no reason why I shouldn’t express my own. Of course, I would emphasize that my “free-market/limited (rule of law) government minus nonwhites” “trope” rather nicely describes most of my nation’s history, a history generally accounted rather successful as nations go. The White Constitutional Republic (WCR) ascended to Great Power status even as it also provided its citizens with a degree of liberty and prosperity (and thus mass-happiness) nearly unknown in the annals of man. I have asked in the past whether the criticism this trope has elicited from some is due to intrinsic dislike of this form of political and economic organization, or, rather, a belief that it was inherently, ontologically ‘unstable’, and thus always contained the seed of its eventual multiculti demise within it. This is a grand and fascinating issue of what might be called ‘metahistory’, but I cannot recall any answer having been provided. IMO, there was nothing wrong with the WCR, as long as it remained racially delimited (as the Founders intended). The great mistake was in disregarding the Racial Principle, and instantiating its opposite, starting in a large way in the 1960s. Furthermore, I have long argued for recognizing the link between capitalism and economic wealth maximization (argue against that link, one and all - but neither theory nor history is on your side), as well as that between economic wealth and military power - and, last but hardly least, between the survival of any recrudescent WN or ethnorestorationist political order, and immediate post-restorationist military strength. It would seem that it is I who am the practical thinker (unless one hypothesizes that a white nation that repatriates, however humanely, its nonwhites will NOT face extreme economic sanctions if not outright military attack; I suggest, in farsighted manner, that such possible outcomes must be factored into the very conduct of white revolutionary politics, or alternatively, White Zion planning - though the latter is a more gradualist, revolution-within-the-form project). Moreover, the hypothesized link between large welfare states and decline in racial ‘backbone’ may be invalid, but not prima facie so. Yes, correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but sometimes it does, and where there is correlation that might plausibly be causative, the hypothesized link ought to be explored, even if it should finally be discredited. Men forced to ‘grow up’ and ‘stand on their own two feet’, as a free market order requires of most (beyond obvious charity cases), will surely develop somewhat different characters (within their personal, genetically inscribed limits) than cradle-to-grave welfare coddling, and such self-reliant characters might also be expected to be less ‘tolerant’ or ‘generous’ towards parasites, among whom nonwhites seem to predominate (in Europe as well as the US). At least, these assessments are not implausible. On another note, you are shredding straw men. I never said I was a “free-market fanatic” who places wealth maximization ahead of collective concerns like racial and cultural survival. Indeed, I have specifically disavowed such ‘libertarian’ stances. I have, moreover, never held myself out to be a radical (ontological) individualist, one who denies the existence or proper claims of ‘society’. I am, and will continue to be, a relentless critic of socialism, in its deontological ethics, its economic efficiency, its sociological effects, and its effects on national and racial character. Such a stance does not thereby make one a Stirnerite or Randian. Assertions to the contrary are intellectually sloppy. Lastly, Dr. Lister, why don’t you avail us of your own preferred political economy? Criticism is one thing, construction another.
24
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 14 May 2012 04:04 | #
No need to be so specific, old boy! Why not just bring in everybody and say, “What we want is to live a really human life!” ? Hip hip hooray! 25
Posted by J Richards on Mon, 14 May 2012 05:03 | # <h2>The beak speaks!</h2>
The filthy Khazar omits the crucial details. Parrot’s community caused a civil war in Liberia. Then they “extended” humanitarian assistance by shipping Liberian refugees, by the busload, to Western nations. These refugees lost no time turning a normal part of a Western city into a slum. The Khazars also awashed the Western nation with illegal recreational drugs. The gangraped woman was a victim of the illegal drug deluge, and had strayed too close to the slum to get her hit. How did the Khazars report the incident? They would’ve buried it, but independent bloggers had created a ruckus, and the Khazar spin machine had to be invoked. The mainstream media reported the woman—ALL LIES—as a crack whore who suffered from sexual masochism, had gangbang fantasies and had agreed to entertain three homies for drugs, but 40 showed up. Unsurprisingly, the majority of people were largely unsympathetic and thought that the woman had invited the act upon herself. As reported in the New York Times, NOW declined to comment. Reporters working for the NY Times found that many people on the streets criticized the “white supremacists” who had turned the event into a rallying point. Heidi Feingold, pictured, who identified herself as a long-term NOW member, said, “It is terrible that white supremacists are exploiting a tragedy.” A “white supremacist,” Leon Haller, was quoted as saying “I am ashamed to belong to a race of brain-dead people, indifferent to a horrific gangrape by N*****s and even criticizing us white nationalists for bringing attention to it!” Behind-the-scenes info: A New York Times editor nixed Leon Haller’s photograph because Haller’s hook-beak was too obvious and the editor’s colleague had advised against having it corrected in an image editor, saying it’d take too much work and there was no need to feature the photograph in the first place. CONCLUSIONS Now that we know the details that Parrott has omitted, it’s easily understood why the futuristic vision of this hook-beak “Jew aware” creature takes no position on Jews. 26
Posted by HW on Mon, 14 May 2012 07:00 | #
World Star! World Star! 27
Posted by Harumphty Dumpty on Mon, 14 May 2012 07:04 | # “I’d be interested to know what life you want our people to lead in the sunlit future.” Well first I’d like there to BE a future for our people, sunlit or otherwise, which means stopping the program of White genocide that’s being carried out by flooding White countries with non-Whites and forcing us to integrate with them so we will “assimilate,” i.e. intermarry, and be blended out of existence. Today we see this blending process well begun in the ever increasing number of mixed race couples. Anti-Whites have fastened this genocidal program on us in large part by skilled use of their loaded terminology, principally the R-word and its extended family. But now a verbal system has been developed and tested that is overturning that Anti-White terminology along with the falsehoods it propagates, and is putting in its place our own terminology and the understanding that genocide is being committed against us. The system’s general outline along with many specifics on how to use it is explained clearly by the very gifted Mr. Beefcake, in his new series of podcasts at White GeNOcide Project: BEEFCAKE’S BOOTCAMP: Basic Training for the Fight Against White Genocide 28
Posted by Bill on Mon, 14 May 2012 08:24 | # Hail/Leon are right, different regimes bring different people to the top table. Gramsci and his adherents knew this and at the end of WWII Gramsci admirers began in earnest to put his theories into practice. By the end of the 1950’s Britain the die was cast, the noblesse oblige traditional ruling class had been targeted for destruction (or should that be deconstruction.) People like Churchill, Eden and Macmillan of the old grouse moor school were put on notice to quit, to be replaced by names like Wilson, Callagan and Healey, who were cut from a different cloth. Alongside this unseen coup the new Clement Atlee labour government embarked on a massive programme of nationalising public utilities. Transport, energy, water, coal and steel, were taken over and by the end of the decade the required infrastructure was in place for the coming welfare state. I find out 60 years later a third unseen force has been clandestinely chomping away at Britain’s social political foundations. A funny thing happened on the way to a socialist Britain, leftism morphed into liberalism, some say it was after the time of the implosion of the Soviet Union and the cementing of Reagan and Thatcher and third man Gorbachev.. I also learned, much later in life, this period became known as the postwar consensus, a bulwark against the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. Britain’s welfare state was designed to provide a bulwark against the spread of communism, the workers could not be trusted better to keep them sweet and on-side. Socialism had joined with capitalism much like it has today. Perhaps it was this mixed economy period that gave the elites the idea of what has come to pass. Does socialist (leftism) hegemony bring to the fore a different type of governance? Sure it does. For the past 65years leftism has tacked forever leftwards with conservatism scrambling to keep in in the slipstream. Zero tolerance to the right became the lefts mantra. Boy, does it work! All this hand wringing searching for a new living arrangement that works will be the death of us, I’ve got news for such people, history tells us there ain’t no such thing, the nearest I got to such a life was the decade of the 1950’s and even then, half the world was at the other half’s throat. But it was good while it lasted, at least for me it was. I’ve read where civilisations are born, just like all living matter. Civilisations have a life and eventually die. What role does man play in all of this? Can utopian civilisations be engineered by man? Some think man can perfect even man himself. To continue what is proposed requires endless supplies of energy and resources. How’s that story coming along Dan? 29
Posted by Justus of Tiberias on Mon, 14 May 2012 11:43 | # Jim Stark
30
Posted by Justus of Tiberias on Mon, 14 May 2012 12:13 | #
Israhell can’t exist without US support. Israel cannot exist as a self-sustaining entity. As a ‘nation’ Israel is an artificial entity, which cannot exist without the financial support of the USA. The United States’ unwavering support and promotion of Israel has proven to be the biggest diplomatic and foreign policy disaster of the 20th century. There was one thing back in the Cold War days of USA opting for an alliance in the Middle East as a strategical point, but as soon as the cold war ended, Israel lost its strategic value. That is why the Jewish media and lobby within the USA is extra hard at work to keep some enemies afloat (Iraq/Iran/Syria etc), because they know, that without a formidable enemy who threatens Europe or USA , the Israel -USA alliance will be severed. This is inevitable , the Jews know it, the zionists within the USA know it and so do others. They are only delaying this process (by Iraq and Iran), but they cannot stop it. ‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
fender The yids have a psychological need to hate, so they deceive themselves into thinking the world is out to get them , which gives them justification to murder and loot their “enemies.” Remember, these nonexistant atrocities were the justification for their extermination of millions of Russians and Ukrainians during the communist era. I wonder if they realize how screwed-up they are, psychologically. Nancy White Good stuff. Not surprising in any way, but revealing nonetheless. They simply repeat the same pattern over and over and over. They take over, deal in financial chicanery, people get angry and throw them out, they pretend they did nothing wrong.<em> ———————————————- Walter L Mr. Ethnonationalism, Serbs, Hungarians, Romanians, Croats, Albanians do not invade every nation of Europe and the Americas and set up economic and cultural organizations to overtake the host nations institutions. And people do care about the suffering of others that is why the Jews have been so successful. There are no Serb, Hungarian, Romanian, Croat, and Albanian monopolies of publishing, movie making, TV, newspapers and magazines anywhere. Serbs, Hungarians, Romanians, Croats, Albanians do not spend time and money on convincing everyone that they are victims. The Jew is unique. The Jew is in Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, and Albania seeking to exploit the people and re-form the culture, but the Serbs, Hungarians, Romanians, Croats, and Albanians are not in Israel trying to exploit the people and re-form the culture. 31
Posted by Messenger of Allah on Mon, 14 May 2012 12:29 | # The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) carried out the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Jews of Medina for their treachery and betrayal. The same thing needs to happen to the Jews of America…... Islam was also originally formed “as recorded with much detail in the Qur’an, within the context of the destruction of the largely Jewish kingdom of Arabia.” http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/theprophet.html “Every time Muhammad came back from his raids, he would find treachery and betrayal by the Jews of Medina, since treachery and betrayal are two character traits of the Jews’ nature, that their descendants inherited from their ancestors until today.” http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=852&fld_id=852&doc_id=5186 32
Posted by Harumphty Dumpty on Mon, 14 May 2012 18:32 | # To those of you who responded to my call above to activism that works, with ringing declarations that what matters is the continued exchange of ideas and theories among enclosed groups of pro-Whites, I’m curious as to what your theoretical underpinnings for this position are?
33
Posted by Justus of Tiberias on Mon, 14 May 2012 21:45 | # “Lying is a more acceptable behavior in collectivist than in individualist cultures, if it saves face or helps the in-group.” – Triandis. That partially explains why jews are compulsive liars. Indoctrination and Group Evolutionary Strategies: Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination 34
Posted by jamesUK on Mon, 14 May 2012 23:56 | #
I don’t think everybody thinks that way. 35
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 15 May 2012 03:04 | #
Living with “authenticity” will inevitably mean different things to different people. Two examples will suffice to flesh out the point. For Bowery the “Joy” of creativity must include the ability to slit the throats of his fellow Whites. For Richards it would truly be a life lacking elan were he forbidden to, erm, ‘expose’ the secret Jews who just so happen to be those who will not back his byzantine conspiracy theories down to the last jot and tittle.
36
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 15 May 2012 03:20 | # Hey Richards, what is your take on Bowery’s plan to implement single deadly combat, or “Natural Duell” as he calls it? 37
Posted by Captainconspiracy on Tue, 15 May 2012 03:58 | #
Either Wandrin is referring to his desire for Sam Francis’ “Middle American Radicals” to set the revolutionary political tone or this is a sly dig on his part at the nether-region of lunacy (a veritable ‘other planet’ unrecognizable to our own) MR’s resident “creative intelligences” would see us dragged into. LOL P.S. Yes, “Duell” is indeed spelled with two “L’s” as they symbolize the blades of the two combatants. LOL 38
Posted by Geoff Davies on Tue, 15 May 2012 05:36 | # This is the book you should all be reading. The Jewish author demonstrates that Jews are not an Abrahamic people.
39
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 15 May 2012 06:22 | #
I think I’ll pass.
*yawn* Or maybe Richards should stop bitching and announce the url of his new site already. It is not as if the site, when it makes its Grand Debut, will not feature the usual Richards-style conspiracy-mania front and fucking center, as it surely does now whilst secreted away. Shit or get off the pot, Richards. 40
Posted by Pat on Tue, 15 May 2012 07:14 | # Captainchaos, Do you think you could beat James Bowery in a Natural Duel? 41
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Tue, 15 May 2012 10:40 | # >> Top Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has denied the existence of Jewish roots in the city of >> Jerusalem
what we have already dug out from the ground from Solomon’s Temple, would fill most of a large American living-room. To get at the rest of Solomon’s Temple (well, the rubble that the Babylonians left behind), we’d need politicians who have the balls to tear down the two Mosques that now stand on the Temple Mount. By the way, no one can show me any archeological evidence that “Prophet Mohammed” was ==ever even at== the Temple Mount to “ride a horse straight to heaven” from…. And where does Professor Finklestein think that the Hebrew Bible came from…... his friends at “American Jewish Council for Progressive Liberal Bleeding-Heart Philosophies” ?!? Tell you what, Mr “No Thanks”..... you don’t stick your nose into the quarrel between us and the Fakestinians; and then we won’t have to start paying attention to those AmerInds want to throw you into the sea and let you swim back to Europe. And some would say that we ==do know how== to manipulate situations when it’s Good for the Jews (tm)!! Armed neutrality between our nationalisms….. Kinda like the quiet, de facto cooperation between Mossad and the Saudi Mukhabarat…. Deal, or no deal? 42
Posted by ORION on Tue, 15 May 2012 10:41 | # Here is an elaboration on Lane’s original 14 words: “If you are strong and healthy, sire 14 Aryan children” Here in multilingual video format. 43
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 15 May 2012 10:54 | # Yes, things are bad and getting worse. But some of the problems are eminently correctable -if and only if we had the right type of, yes, CONSERVATIVE political leadership. We are being destroyed in the US due to : 1. Third World immigration ‘diversity’ (do I have to explain this?) 2. badly behaved domestic diversity 3. Government at all levels spending vastly too much money 4. Too much economy killing government regulation of business 5. the dysgenic trend (US IQ has been falling for a century). There are other problems, but there are solutions, too. For starters: Stop immigration. End affirmative action. Hang violent criminals en masse (and make every convict do productive and hard physical labor, like road repair - bring back the chain gang). Legalize the right to carry firearms. End foreign non-security aid. Militarily seal the border with Mexico. Abolish the Fed and return to a 100% gold dollar. Radically privatize and downsize govt at al levels. Radical tax simplification. Radical deregulation of economy. End harassment of energy producers. Restrict job-killing EPA. End animal rights nonsense. Raise age of eligibility for SS and Medicare to 70, in line with longevity increases. Revamp public schooling, to focus relentlessly on the basics - reading and math. Recognize that most people DO NOT BELONG IN COLLEGE. Encourage high school vocational training for the unintelligent (bottom 90%) instead. End welfare for non-disabled. Bring back loud, public support for traditional morality and mentality (whose foundation is criminal punishment). We need to get seriously rightwing - economically libertarian, socially authoritarian - and fast. 44
Posted by Papa Luigi on Tue, 15 May 2012 12:54 | # Guessedworker’s question is a very important question and one that we must answer if we are to offer the electorate a compelling view of a future ‘nationalist’ world, rather than simply trying to frighten them into voting for us by constantly foretelling of the imminent arrival of a time of doom and destruction. The question digs down into the philosophical and ontological roots of our ideology and demands answers if we are to achieve unity of purpose and action in the struggle ahead. Without this ‘nationalism’ becomes simply a reactionary response to external threats, as some have already deduced. Some above have suggested various economic systems and discussed the limitations of current economic systems and in doing so have made the mistake of placing ‘economics’, i.e. the pound Sterling or the Dollar at the centre of their thinking, as if ‘money’ should be the ultimate arbiter of our destiny as a race, or as if the pursuit of a utopian economic system should be our goal, once White self-determination has been achieved. Guessedworker has asked us “Do [we] ... want a return to the Christian life?” and in doing so indicates that in his view there is a need for something spiritual or metaphysical to underpin our thinking and that our thoughts should not simply be concentrated on the what seems to be economically or socially expedient. Indeed, should Christianity feature in our thinking at all, especially as Christianity is an outgrowth of the primarily Jewish Old Testament, the Christian establishment have traditionally aligned themselves with our racial enemies, and the bulk of ‘Christendom’ is now non-White and to be found residing in the Third World. For ‘nationalism’ to present a compelling vision that will capture the imagination of our target electorate, we need to structure our ideology around a credible cosmology that is consistent with scientific thinking. 45
Posted by ORION on Tue, 15 May 2012 16:10 | # Any ideologically or politically uniform scenario in which every I’m willing to settle for far less. A future setting with a healthy I would certainly approve of a scenario with more or less the present 10+ generations of something approaching those circumstances would How to achieve it? 1. Keep up the good work of waking up hypnotized kinsfolk by exposing MSM.
46
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 15 May 2012 18:43 | #
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Auftragstaktik Objective: Mars 47
Posted by Robert in Arabia on Tue, 15 May 2012 18:45 | # My favorite video. 48
Posted by uh on Tue, 15 May 2012 23:27 | #
White women are too narcissistic and neurotic, usually, for two children: do you realize how much money you’d have to bribe them with to encourage them give fourteen children? Moreover, if you look at household and income data, you’ll find without much trouble that white families with two or more children earn ~$40,000 per annum — which means they won’t have many more than two, basically. White families with more than two children are your wealthy liberals and republicunts with all the usual preconditioning against thinking in terms of race. Dispossession means we don’t have money or room to have huge families. That said, it makes more practical sense to be low-income and have many underfed children than high-income with a few well-placed, liberal narcissists. 49
Posted by Circassian on Wed, 16 May 2012 01:44 | #
CC is a fake Nazi and a coward - he wouldn’t confront anyone face to face. I know of only one man crazy enough to contemplate dueling with Bowery the Creator. His name is Jim Giles the Goat Fighter. But Bowery is even more cowardly than the good captain, so he would naturally bail out of Natural Duel with natural JG. Bets? Anyone? 50
Posted by J Richards on Wed, 16 May 2012 04:48 | # @Captainchaos The captain’s very eager to read conspiracies! What gives? Leave a valid email, I’ll send you a link to the website. BTW, I think Bowery’s natural duels are a splendid idea: an opportunity to perform nose jobs without needing a medical license. I know people who need them. Make these duels legal and I can see myself approaching Matt Parrott, advising him that if he’s going to lead “white nationalist” groups, the hat that hides his Khazar-ific cranial shape isn’t enough. He needs to stop looking like a Jew, and nose jobs happen to be my specialty. @Papa Luigi
The irony of these passages in the same comment! It’s been shown time and again that what the electorate wants is completely irrelevant if it conflicts with the desires of the money power. A recent example in the passage of the NHS bill: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//how_money_issue_could_work_in_a_nationalist_economics#c126037 An earlier example: political upheaval in the U.S. 2008 and 2010 elections, where the electorate tried to get America to end its foreign wars. Yet Luigi’s thinking in terms of appealing to the electorate! The money masters didn’t acquire their power from votes.
Luigi reveals complete ignorance of the money issue. The utopian economic system doesn’t come after white self-determination. White self-determination will come after the pre-requisite: monetary reform. Self-determination of any people requires that they control their money. This control won’t be achieved via vote. The military needs to intervene. Now those with good intentions should either be laying the stage for a military intervention or keep their opinion to themselves unless they learn better. Luigi refers to the money issues pointed out by Hail and Haller. Hail is at best useless and may be a malicious Jew like Haller. They lament excessive government spending. Government spending = government borrowing since the government only issues coins as money, yet the kikepest Haller complains about government regulation of the economy. Since private banks create money for loans out of thin air and destroy it once the loan’s paid, society has to keep borrowing to maintain a stable money supply, and the amount that needs to be borrowed keeps increasing because interest needs to be paid and is never issued by private banks. So reduced government spending = a reduction in the volume of money available to society = worsened quality of life for most people overall. But the kikepest doesn’t call for interest-free money issued by the government or public-owned banks; he calls for a gold standard, the enemy of the true free market, and further consolidation of power by private bankers. 51
Posted by Tom on Wed, 16 May 2012 05:47 | #
Funny thing about Giles is that when he used to do his radio show, he interviewed a lot of prominent mainstream people and pundits and the like, in addition to internet figures from Majority Rights and elsewhere. He took down most of the interviews from his site though. I think the interviewees thought that Giles was interviewing them from an actual radio station based in Mississippi, since he advertised the show as “Radio Free Mississippi”. They didn’t realize that it was just some guy in a trailer on Skype. 52
Posted by daniel on Wed, 16 May 2012 08:17 | # Posted by Guessedworker on May 13, 2012, 07:13 PM | # Some interesting, some predictable answers. My own answer to this metapolitical question is brief. The kind of life that must be facilitated by the ruling corpus of ideas and politics of a post-salvatory future is: an authentic life, a life which comes out of who and what we are quite naturally and without any forcing. Any other life, be it religious or some other form of idealism, will involve into something different, probably quickly. The only true, sustaining foundation of human action is authenticity.
What I have gleaned from the way authenticity has been used (by Jaspers et. al for example), is that while it maintains the individual’s concern for their personal health and survival - it would never stray so far as to violate those interests - that it extends the gauge of motivation beyond impulse, technique and concern for mere survival. With that, I come to a better appreciation of why G.W. used the word, “beyond.” I was struck and pleased that Jaspers commented that there was no possibility for “authenticity” in Darwin’s “philosophy.” Authenticity, from what I gather, would extend concern beyond the moment and episode and into the social, into the way of life allowing for the qualitative meandering of natural developmental processes - the authentic individual would move freely and without great fret as to how they coalesce with the historically unfolding but bounded social group. Nevertheless, they would move in and among the social group only so far as it is truly symbiotic in the sense of being predominantly reconstructive of its inherited forms and ways. Toward that end, authenticity requires most fundamentally the delimitation of the social group through its maintained classification. Whereas anti-racism is anti classification, an evil, destroying in one generation evolution and ways which have been achieved through millennium, the re-institution of classificatory bounds would allow for the qualitative processes of development to unfold, but be coddled, as it were, to turn back to the historically patterned sources of support and sustenance where they begin to extend too far. This notion of authenticity extending motivation beyond the episode of survival goes along with a perhaps hokey “etymology” of “culture” that I like to play with - a cultivated-tur-ning back that would correspond with qualitative conformity to organic requirements - which, nevertheless, because people, particularly White people/relationships, have a protracted rate of maturity, would move over an appreciable breadth of time and space.
53
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 16 May 2012 11:56 | # Papa Luigi
When the Bolsheviks were making no headway among the Russians Lenin sent them to find out what the population were calling for which if i recall correctly was “bread, land and peace” which is what the Bolsheviks then put on their banners. If you’re going down the electoral route i don’t think you need to figure out and offer a compelling view you just need to offer people what they already want - which will be an average middle of the road view - and then get them to believe the other side won’t give it to them - which is true. This was very difficult during economic good times but will become very much easier now everything is crumbling. Basically “we want what you want but *them* won’t let you have it” where the “them” is marxists and liberals on one side and banksters and neo-liberals on the other. Nationalists potentially have the advantage here because they can attack both enemies whereas the left and right only attack one. That’s the public face. In private some discussion of some of the nuts and bolts for afterwards is worthwhile and here i agree with JR that the money supply is one of the two most critical component to get right (alongside biology-based citizenship). Control of the money supply is why a tiny group - not even all Jews, we’re talking a minority of a minority - is bringing down the civilization of hundreds of millions of people. The two things are designed for two different audiences- simple populism on the outside combined with hard thinking on the inside regarding the optimal nature of a ethno-state.
54
Posted by anti-daniel on Wed, 16 May 2012 11:57 | # If a professor of the English language were correcting daniel’s blather, his endless parade of pseudo-philosophic garble, here’s how it would look ....
“Of ideas that I have come across ... ” — Why sound so important, daniel?
Try, “From what I gather ... ” — Again, why so important?
There is in reality, daniel, very little sense to be made from this sentence, if one may call it that; and to be quite frank, this notion of ‘authenticity’ calls to mind nothing so much as a ball of — what do you Americans call it — “Silly Putty”, to be stretched this way and that as befits one’s preference.
While grammatically irreproachable, I must remark that the logical caesura introduced between “the social” and “the moment and episode” is so queer as to be ungrammatical — for is not “the social” also momentary and episodic, and if it is not, what do you, important as you are, understand by “the social” that lifts it so very far from such qualifiers?
Here we are — something firm at last. Not exactly terra firma but terra firmior, perhaps. So “authenticity”, this monster of an English word, means, as we used to say, leaving well enough quite alone? or even of letting Nature take its course?
He’s very much at home, he is. My “greatest fret” are expressions such as “without great fret”, by the way.
This is of course a restatement of the foregoing: for if this “authentic individual” is already, and without great fret, moving freely and coalescing with the historically unfolding but bounded social group, which, you do see, implies a certain enduring coherence, what need is there of another sentence? The only difference I can spot is the idea of self-perpetuation justifying the “authentic individual"s membership in this “social group”. Very well. Why not simply tack that idea onto the foregoing? And by the bye, how is this different at all from “Darwin’s ‘philosophy’ “?? One would think his tortoises and peacocks at least as authentic as Mr. Jaspers. I despair; philosophy is meaningless to me, and .... well I nearly said meaningless in itself, but of course that is all wrong: the problem with philosophy, it seems to me now, is rather an obsessive concern with meanings which endlessly leads away from reality.
This ‘authenticity’ sounds like a fascist! Or at least a very stern bug collector.
Having recovered my breath from that one: —
Since when is survival a mere “episode”?
Ah ... hummm .... err ....... <big>F</big>. 55
Posted by Randy Garver on Wed, 16 May 2012 12:08 | # uh:
Hyperbole. Utah has twice the fertility rate of the national average, the 3rd lowest rate of mothers living in poverty, and 87% of children being born in wedlock. So what exactly is stopping you from doing your part? 56
Posted by uh on Wed, 16 May 2012 12:08 | # That was unduly harsh, Herr Professor! Lesser minds than daniel’s have been seduced by the inverted reality-sprach of the deconstructionists! Never you mind that “natural developmental processes” is code for “I haven’t studied the history of industry and its role in bringing about the circumstances I dislike, so am free to posit ‘anti-racism’ as this great disruption of edenic white existence” — see how expertly he turns shit inside out, how deft-clumsy he is with their favorite byword ‘authenticity’! There is even a peppering of real sociology to make believe he has some fundamental grasp of human nature. Really you must allow those who would stand reality on its head — or reverse history — some latitude in the elaboration of their awkward wish-fulfillment fantasies .... permit me, an outsider, to suggest a <big>D</big> in grading this fellow’s pathetically earnest attempts to sound like a philosopher; for, inasmuch as he mercilessly tortures concepts and invents entities & relations with abandon, has he not pulled it off? 57
Posted by uh on Wed, 16 May 2012 12:27 | #
You know, Garver, for a white man who married an Asian, you have a REALLY BAD white knight complex. What the fuck is wrong with you? Can you honestly state that your decision to marry an Asian had nothing to do with the repugnant behavior of white women and their literally die-hard reluctance to breed without absolutely favorable conditions which a very low percentage of white men can bring about? Wait, don’t answer — you can’t be honest about this. You are in denial. Hey, with the exchange of two vowels, denial spells daniel. Lolzozozozozz!!!!
Utah being the exception. We’re not all going to convert to Mormonism, and even if we did, we’d just be a bunch of dispossessed, undermonied pseudo-Mormons, not the kind that can afford huge families. The AUTHENTIC kind.
You know this. Io non ho i soldi!! QED motherfucker!!!! 58
Posted by uh on Wed, 16 May 2012 12:33 | # NOTHING kick-starts my day like a few pot-shots at daniel sinkybitch. 59
Posted by daniel on Wed, 16 May 2012 13:20 | # You know, Uh, if you want to be an English teacher, go ahead. You can correct the English of all the non-Whites and brag about how you got them to write with better English style than mine. In regard to things that matter to me and to anyone else that I respect, that post served well as a test and you failed. 60
Posted by uh on Wed, 16 May 2012 15:01 | #
Sixth form wogs in Port-of-Spain and Hyderabad write better English than you, and make more plain sense — a quotidian project you have clearly abandoned.
You are not Guessedworker. You are not a writer, nor a scientist, nor a philosopher, nor a thinker. You have merely smashed together deconstructionist lingo and white nationalist orthodoxy. You are an internet homunculus. You are not “onto something”; you merely huff the gas of your own conceit. A test that you failed: Making solid sense (i.e. treating properly of realia) depends upon writing sensible English. Denial also spells daniel. 61
Posted by daniel on Wed, 16 May 2012 15:33 | # Uh, I barely have to read what you say. It is totally predictable - so stupid that it does not even bother me. I disagree with you and am not interested in what you have to say. You are not the first person that I have known who is weird and boring at the same time. I have already addressed the attributions you make of me and do not want to repeat myself. Maybe your English is very good. I don’t give a shit. Maybe you’ve read some books. Go post. I don’t find it hard to ignore your comments and it would be fine with me if you’d ignore mine. By going on like this, all you make it clear is that all is not well with you. Normally I would try to discourage people from committing suicide, but in your case it may be best. You are suffering too much. 62
Posted by uh on Wed, 16 May 2012 16:38 | # Do not affect to speak over me, boy. Suffering, especially of the ocular and posterior sorts, oozes from every tortured line of pretentious tripe you deliver ... as though anyone mistakes you for the genius you take yourself to be .... I have three questions for you. They speak to the essence of your misbegotten project of playing connect-the-dots between deconstructionism and white nationalist dogma. Here they are: 1 - Are you overweight? 2 - When is the last time you slept with a woman who was not overweight? 3 - Have you ever started a fire using only your hands and natural objects?
63
Posted by daniel on Wed, 16 May 2012 17:24 | # Do not affect to speak over me, boy. Eat my shit, Uh. Suffering, especially of the ocular and posterior sorts, oozes from every tortured line of pretentious tripe you deliver ... Again, you continually attribute motives to me that I do not attribute to myself. It is really weird. I don’t use deconstructionism, you are the one who is into Derrida or whatever.
1 - Are you overweight? 2 - When is the last time you slept with a woman who was not overweight? 3 - Have you ever started a fire using only your hands and natural objects? I disagree with you and am not interested in what you have to say.
Last night. You poor, busy bodied, frustrated academic. 64
Posted by Silver on Wed, 16 May 2012 18:10 | # Hunter Wallace,
As crazy as it sounds, the funny thing is restoration of a “white supremacy” of sorts could very well be more likely than revolution, secession or decentralization. Paradoxically, white supremacy is more likely to be restored thanks to the (initial) efforts of revolutionaries, secessionists, separatists and decentralizers than it is thanks to the efforts of those who’d propose it from the outset. Lister,
Yes, it’s a useful approximation, but I’d phrase it as a measure of commitment to intervention. I say this because low Ginis are ‘unnatural’; they are the result of human will. (Sweden’s are only marginally higher than the Ginis achieved in the Eastern Bloc during communism, which is impressive.) Absent that will, the tendency is for a society-economy to revert to its ‘natural’ level around 50-60 (Latin America-like inequality) which existed throughout most of history. You see this occurring in computer simulations of economic agents (“agent-based simulation”) programmed to follow simple rules of resource acquisition (and even trade and procreation); inequality fast results and perpetuates itself. Look up ‘Sugarscape.’ Simulations like this are a step in the right direction for economics—away from glitzy (and probably basely self-interested) theorizing towards evidence and empiricism. Try telling an American rightwinger, though, and “NOTHING PENETRATES”; intervention is daylight robbery to hear them tell it. Haller,
The problem is you are arguing for a link between economic freedom and wealth maximization, rather than merely the link between the existence of a ‘decent’—say at least 50%+ of GDP—private sector and wealth maximization, and you are totally unwilling to accept evidence (“nothing penetrates”) that maximizing economic freedom doesn’t seem to make very much difference. That is, that beyond a certain level of economic freedom, ever more freedom doesn’t really accomplish anything except make the rich proportionally richer.
As if anybody disputed that.
65
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 16 May 2012 19:10 | #
You can keep yourself warm by rubbing two fat women together. Useful tip. 66
Posted by daniel on Wed, 16 May 2012 19:56 | # You can keep yourself warm by rubbing two fat women together. Useful tip. Yes, good tip. It may be strenuous enough to help with excess weight as well. ..roll them in flour and look for the wet spot, etc. 67
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 16 May 2012 20:41 | # A ‘return’ to Christian life - you mean being controlled by a cabal of pederast protecting celibates in frocks or a state run by politically correct gay vicars ? ‘A life of Glory’ - you mean a country based on hysterical rhetorical hyperbole and historical nostalgia for a time when we were slaves to royalty and the most dangerous lunatic who was good with a sword or club ? No thanks. I think most real people, as opposed to those trapped in a delusional world, simply want their country back, all the colonists and immigrants criminals deported and immigration to stop, their kids to be safe and our national culture and liberty restored. 68
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 16 May 2012 20:44 | # Only hipster faggots worry and fret about what is “authentic” and what isn’t. 69
Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:27 | #
Good point. Well made. 70
Posted by daniel on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:42 | # I don’t normally think a whole lot about authenticity. But since G.W. mentioned it, I dd care to say that I think it is an ok concept as I understand it. I wrote my first comment when I was tired, first thing in the morning after coming home from my girlfriend’s house (whom Uh expects to know about). Looking at my posts, I can see a few grammatical mistakes. A cursory glance at Uh’s posts indicates he is dissatisfied with the style. So I’ll fix the mistakes here:
What I have gleaned from the way authenticity has been used (by Jaspers, for example), is that while it maintains the individual’s concern for personal health and survival - it would never stray so far as to violate those interests - it extends the gauge of motivation beyond impulse, technique and concern for mere survival. With that, I can perhaps see why G.W. used the word, “beyond.” Regarding authenticity, I was struck and pleased that Jaspers commented that there was no possibility for “authenticity” in Darwin’s “philosophy.” Authenticity, from what I gather, would extend concern beyond the moment and episode and into the social, into the way of life allowing for the qualitative meandering of natural, developmental processes - the authentic individual would move freely and without great fret as to how they coalesce with the historically unfolding but bounded social group. Nevertheless, they would move in and among the social group only so far as it is truly symbiotic in the sense of being predominantly reconstructive of inherited forms and ways. Toward that end, authenticity requires most fundamentally the delimitation of the social group through its maintained classification. Whereas anti-racism is anti classification, an evil, destroying in one generation evolution and ways which have been achieved through millennium, the re-institution of classificatory bounds would allow qualitative processes of development to unfold as they are protected from the necessity of rigid defense at all times. However, in being circumscribed, these processes would be coddled as it were to turn back to the historically patterned sources of support and sustenance where process begins to extend too far. This notion of authenticity extending motivation beyond the episode of survival goes along with a perhaps hokey “etymology” of “culture” that I like to play with - a cul(tivated)-tur-ning back that would correspond with qualitative conformity to organic requirements of the group system. Nevertheless, because people, White people/relationships in particular, have a protracted rate of maturity, they would unfold over an appreciable breadth of time and space. 71
Posted by daniel on Wed, 16 May 2012 21:52 | # Whereas anti-racism is anti classification, an evil, destroying in one generation evolution and ways which have been achieved through millennium, the re-institution of classificatory bounds would allow the qualitative processes of development to unfold as they are protected from the necessity of rigid defense at all times. 72
Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 16 May 2012 22:54 | #
Who is James Bowery?
73
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 17 May 2012 01:42 | #
But that mainly is what nationalism is. I couldn’t have put it better. It is the political expression of tribalism, especially of tribes under siege. Trying to develop a deeper philosophy simply involves one in all the unending quarrels of philosophers who will never forge consensus at the level of first principles. We are physical, biological beings clinging to life, and it is out of that attachment that our desire for group success develops. We will not resolve all the basic issues of philosophy, nor need we to in order to prevent white or Western extinction. I disagree with Lee Barnes on any number of issues, but he is right that the battle will be won or lost through the extent to which we are able to motivate ordinary men - and not with the elegance or even ultimate coherence of our thought. 74
Posted by Wolf Glupper on Thu, 17 May 2012 06:54 | # ” “top American public-opinion-concensus-expert Barack Obama has declared that Whites are not a race and do not have the right to act as such””
Herod’s temple does not stand. The building and what it stood on is gone, all you’ve got left is a wall of the larger perimeter, and there’s two allahbot shrines there now. Scholars, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, have no idea where the actual temple stood…because it isn’t there and no one knows where precisely it was.
1. Jews are already anti-White full force. There is nothing more you can do to us, you are already trying to kill us down to a man. What are you going to do, hate us more?
No such thing. Whites have no cognate to Israel. Any attempt at making one would result in sever persecution…led by Jews.
75
Posted by Randy Garver on Thu, 17 May 2012 11:28 | # Uh: “White knight complex”? Those are my people whom you’re disparaging, though I’ll concede that there’s a reasonable criticism of modern mores buried in your comments. To the extent that my wife’s “traditional family values” might be considered group-related, they are assuredly of cultural rather than racial derivation. Communities where similar values among the native-born can be found in large numbers still exist in the US, should one be disposed to look for them. One might deduce that you and your fellow spawnless race-consternatchiks simply don’t value procreation enough to seek out such environments. Perhaps you might ask Mr. Matt Parrott to introduce you to some nice sturdy Hoosier gals. Combined with my stellar advice to you about solving the kinder-elder care problem through multigenerational householding, you should be well positioned to begin fulfilling an ambitious breeding agenda. Put me on your Christmas card list and we’ll call it even. 76
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 17 May 2012 18:10 | # >>> There is nothing more you can do to us Sounds like the stuff the German Jews were saying after Kristal nacht. Some turned down visas to British-occupied Judea. It cost them their lives. Cookies were born to crumble, eh?
Is the Queen of Sweden responsible for the sins of the Madison WI scandinavian-american Leftists? Hebrews are not responsible for the sins of the Jews. Anyway, we here in the Hebrew homeland do not have time enough to bother with Kalispell. We have more immediate problems, at our own gates.
because they never used the word until 1964. Until they saw Hebrew nationalism, they didn’t know what nationalism is. Did they ever rebel against Turkish rule, during hundreds of years? No, they did not.
the Hebrew Nation is not based upon genetics; it is based upon language. You could join us, if you learned Hebrew. You do not need to change religions. In fact, there’s so many Christians in the IDF that they went through two printings (and are now doing a third) of the New Testament IN HEBREW, to swear them in with, at the Western Wall. And Herod built that, and he didn’t build it to store absinthe. It was the outer retaining wall of the Temple Mount. That we are CURRENTLY INFESTED with “dat-Moshe” (“Jewish”) government Ministers who make Population Registry decisions based on “religion” is like the fact that Florida officials USED TO make decisions about gets a Concealed Carry Permit based upon their assessment of your “need” for it…. a historical change which is not yet completed. Stuff from Herod’s Temple Itself will be dug up, once we move those two mosques to the Arabic-speaking side of the river; and start digging. That we don’t currently know EXACTLY WHERE on that hilltop it was, is as immaterial as the fact that you can’t tell me exactly where the White Nation will be. And people with passports written in Hebrew are more likely to someday see Herod’s concubine’s underwear in a Museum, than the probability that any of your descendants will ever carry a passport of a White Nation. That’s not hatred, nor dis-respect; it’s a measurement of probabilities…. a business judgement . Insurance actuaries don’t calculate the probability that your house will burn down because they have feelings about it; it’s about the money. And that’s how I approach the White Question…. does it do me any good to pay attention to it, or is it just entertainment in between the periodic episodes of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue?
Jews are people who don’t speak to their dog in Hebrew. You can handle them as you please. We don’t need them. they aren’t of that much use to us. Believe it or not, on average, they do more zionist-speechify-ing from Brooklyn, than standing guard duty at the checkpoints where one confronts these Arabics with knives and dynamite-belts hidden in their clothes. Really, I wish you good luck in building a “white race”-based exclusivist nation. That emotion is ==separate from== my assessment of whether or not y’all have got enough strength to get it done. Your record of accomplishment so far is….. you conquered the AmerInds. Gosh, that’s a difficult job! 77
Posted by uh on Thu, 17 May 2012 18:45 | # Randy, I’ll settle for rubbing a giggidy out into one of your daughters’ mouth the moment she’s of whatever age stipulated by the laws of your state. PS - All of my male friends have children. PPS - Denial also spells daniel. PPPS -GIGGIDY! 78
Posted by uh on Thu, 17 May 2012 18:51 | # <big><big>LEE JOHN BARNES FOR EMPEROR OF THE WEST</big></big> 79
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 17 May 2012 19:53 | # Posted by uh on May 17, 2012, 01:51 PM | # LEE JOHN BARNES FOR EMPEROR OF THE WEST
Only if I get a nice crown and a horse whip. 80
Posted by Papa Luigi on Thu, 17 May 2012 22:28 | #
I don’t know how J Richards managed to incorrectly deduce that I was referring to control of the money supply in my earlier post, as I never even broached the subject, let alone gave any indication as to what my views are regarding monetary reform. Accordingly, J Richards berates me quite unnecessarily regarding aspects of monetary reforem that are common knowledge. @ Wandrin - Post 53
I’m not.
Wandrin, I believe what you have stated here is self-evidently true. @ Leon Haller - Post 73
Correction, it is what nationalism has been to date.
That viewpoint would have merit in a world in which White people are desparately aware of the dire threat to their future survival. But we don’t live in such a world, we live in a world in which most White people are blindly complacent and therefore we must be able to defeat all of our enemies arguments, so that ideas we preach can crystalise in our peoples’ minds before a state of desparation is reached.
81
Posted by Wolf Glupper on Fri, 18 May 2012 00:20 | # “Sounds like the stuff the German Jews were saying after Kristal nacht.” ??? Good for them…
Hebrew, Jew, what’s the difference? “Anyway, we here in the Hebrew homeland do not have time enough to bother with Kalispell. We have more immediate problems, at our own gates.” Your brethren in the USA don’t feel the same way. Gosh they are annoying to say the least!
That’s all good and well, but are you seriously suggesting that the people there do not exist because they had no nation in the modern sense of the word? Who did the Jews fight against in 1948? Imaginary opponents? Regarding the lack of rebellion against Turks: that is a non-issue. By now you must have noticed that no muslim ever cares about anything until they find out it is important to someone else.
That’s silly. I predict you will either have to change the rules, or you will be Arab within a century.
You are splitting hairs again. Certain duties had to be carried out within the Temple itself, not the “temple mount”, an arbitrary geographical area which does not appear in the Scriptures. That is why the religious Jews don’t want anyone to go up to the mount itself, because that person may accidentally enter the spot where the Holy of Holies was. They have to make the whole mount off-limits because they don’t know where the spot was. Because the temple itself is completely destroyed. Which was my entire point. “That we are CURRENTLY INFESTED with “dat-Moshe” (“Jewish”) government Ministers who make Population Registry decisions based on “religion” is like the fact that Florida officials USED TO make decisions about gets a Concealed Carry Permit based upon their assessment of your “need” for it…. a historical change which is not yet completed.” I don’t follow your point. Are you saying you don’t want to live with your co-ethnics? “Stuff from Herod’s Temple Itself will be dug up, once we move those two mosques to the Arabic-speaking side of the river; and start digging.”
“as the fact that you can’t tell me exactly where the White Nation will be.”
We went to the moon sonny. The moon! Top that, if you can! “and right now, you’re being out-smarted by…. Mexicans and Africans.” Right now we are under political repression, largely led by treasonous Whites and their Jewish cheerleaders. Mexicans and Africans have no plots and are doing everything on reaction. When Whites get together and refuse to hire blacks or try to send Mexican criminals back to their homeland, it’s other Whites (/w Jewish cheerleaders) that stop us. Not blacks or mexicans.
I would bet Trayvon’s little brother becomes a “civil rights activist” by default and becomes a lifelong parasite. 82
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 18 May 2012 06:34 | #
Wandrin is apparently ready to throw in the towel on England and begin the colonization of Mars. He should make sure to take Bowery and Richards with him; something tells me they would feel quite at home on another planet. LOL 83
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 18 May 2012 06:56 | # Uh, you receive Supplemental Security Income for a diagnosis of manic-depression, do you not? 84
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Fri, 18 May 2012 14:52 | # >> Hebrew, Jew, what’s the difference?
If Whites want autonomy to define Who is White, then they can expect that the others will start doing the same inside their own corrals. And we Hebrews =do already have= our Border Police. Thus, we are not inclined to listen to lectures from those who (say for example) cannot consistently do better in USA elections than the Socialist Workers Party.
no Semitic or Asian engineers or scientists involved? Careful now, you’re treading into fact-check-able territory.
>> Top that, if you can! How about: we stole shiploads of uranium yellowcake from the Europeans and the Americans right under their noses; then turned it into a large number of nuclear weapons. Because you know, sometimes a nationalist-program has to do what a nationalist-program has to do. Or as President Reagan said when we bombed the Osirak reacotr in Iraq: “boys will be boys!”
> Can’t you just convince them to make Aliyah and then throw them at the Arabs if you don’t want them? They’re not my community to deal with or be bothered with. You let them in, now it’s your headache.
Only y’all can judge that, and I will not complain about your decision. Although, that you think they’re COMPLETELY USELESS almost makes me want to say: “when the dog fetches in the wrong way, do we blame the dog, or the one who trained the dog?”. Either you dominate your space, or you don’t. Even roosters know that.
A real echo of the nationalistic-camp rhetoric and writings here, for gosh sakes!!
> their Jewish cheerleaders your opponent’s cheerleaders cause your side to lose its nerve, to the point of forfeiting the game? Maybe you should look in the mirror and solve THAT problem, first. I’ll spare you the myriad of cutesy Americanisms I’ve picked up about getting some bone into your back..
Sounds very…. “rootless cosmopolitan”.... You ==sure== you want to go there?
>> and non-White people have no permanent habitation So you don’t mind if we parachute the Sudanese infiltrators that are cluttering up south Tel Aviv, into Kalispell?
So, we have points of agreement. As per that wonderful White saying: “great minds run in the same gutter!”
85
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 18 May 2012 16:44 | #
For the slow of understanding White Zion: All of Europe up to the Bosphorus Then Mars
86
Posted by ORION on Fri, 18 May 2012 20:42 | #
—A life of which our people(s) are their own supreme masters. Plato, 424-347 BCE, elucidated and specified thus in The Republic: Suggesting as a criterion sine qua non, independence. Collective independence from, obviously, other racial groups. Moreover, in my opinion, a continuation of a multitude of mutually independent, and entirely different, white nations would be desirable and most beneficial.
87
Posted by Wolf Glupper on Sat, 19 May 2012 06:06 | # “White, hispanic…. what’s the difference?” White is an ethnic identifier. Hispanic was invented by Richard Nixon. You haven’t answered my question. What’s the difference between a Hebrew and a Jew? “If Whites want autonomy to define Who is White, then they can expect that the others will start doing the same inside their own corrals.” We are not the ones telling other people they do or do not exist. That is the province of Jews (Noel Ignatiev), “Hebrews” (Fakestinian related comments), and other semites and their hangers-on.
We have border police too, so that comment doesn’t make sense. That we can’t get everything our way does not prove we aren’t serious or legitimate, it simply proves we are at war with determined, dangerous opponents.
“Fact check” yourself into reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_von_Braun http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/40th/index.html Hmmm…. where are all them foreigners at? ” How about: we stole shiploads of uranium yellowcake from the Europeans and the Americans right under their noses; “ So your counter to a manned moon landing is theft? That’s your great accomplishment? Man, you must be proud! You’re like…desert blacks, or something! Next you’ll be stealing someone else’s country and calling yourself a native of the area…oh, wait… You say “assert yourself”, I point out real obstacles, and you act like this is irrelevant. Here, let me try: Next time your entire army surprise attacks ragtag camelfuckers in Lebanon, don’t let them win! And why do you still have problems with “Fakestinians”? Just shoot/nuke them with your stolen A-bombs and be done with it! What, is world opinion holding you back? What kind of nationalist rhetoric is that? Tell Bibi to push the button and get on with it. Otherwise you can’t tell others “you aren’t doing enough”. No one is losing nerve, it’s an issue of 40+ years of brainwashing. That is not something that can be undone overnight.
The physical location is not as important as who is there.
“So you don’t mind if we parachute the Sudanese infiltrators that are cluttering up south Tel Aviv, into Kalispell?” As long as the parachutes don’t work, I don’t mind at all. But you must pay for cadaver disposal, plus any damage done to structures on the way. To complete this exchange, we will send you our Africans and their admirers. If they complain, you can remind them that they don’t speak modern Hebrew (a language that did not exist 150 years ago) and therefore aren’t citizens. Considering that Israel is united in purpose but still can’t get rid of African fakers and Arab rock-throwers, nationalists all over may be in trouble. 88
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 19 May 2012 11:01 | # I occasionally (OK, more than occasionally) wonder about the general IQ level around here. I have presented over time (though not formally) all of the main arguments in favor of the White Zion project. The core ones never seem to be understood, or, at least, they are always glossed over. The ‘core of the core’ is this: only a minority of whites, both throughout the planet , as well as across historic white nations, actually gives a rat’s ass whether our race survives. Truth hurts, but what else can be said? If whites really cared about racial survival, as everyones does about personal survival, then WNs would only have to make clear the relation between the multikult and white extinction (perhaps along with a debunking of any claims that ‘diversity’ is beneficial), and the multitudes would long ago have demanded at least a modified WN political agenda. That they haven’t speaks volumes. Alex Linder, JRichards, and others of their persuasion, seem to think that seeming white racial purblindness is simply the result of Jewish financial power and the PC propaganda it buys. There is some truth here, but no more than some. The question of why this propaganda is so effective wrt whites must still be answered. The simple answer is that whites are less inclined towards tribalism than other peoples. Perhaps this wasn’t true in history, and, of course, the precise relation between biological instinct and its cultural expression remains to be worked out. But this hypothesis certainly seems true today. Mass media, even if Jewish controlled, is consumed by all racial and ethnic groups in places like the US and UK, yet only whites really seem to take the anti-tribalist propaganda seriously (there is so much evidence for nonwhite racialist activity, and concurrent white racial abasement, that I think this assertion needs none here). Whites are uniquely anti-racist, and that is our doom in a shrinking, multicultural world. Unless WNs gain a territory of our own, one in which a teleological (racial) state is imposed, whites will find themselves continuously shrinking in numbers (assuming to be ‘white’ one must be purebred, at least to some considerable degree; say, 31/32 or better white) due to constant miscegenationist losses, with remaining WNs not only bereft of formal power, as everywhere today, but even residual demographic power. WNs can reproduce white children freely because our larger racial community, even if ideologically opposed to WN, still is numerous enough to protect intra-white reproduction. But what will happen within a century or two when most non-instinctually tribalist whites have had their genomes miscegenated (ie, they have been bred out of the race), and the remaining whites are mostly WNs, but also demographically powerless minorities everywhere (thanks to immigration + nonwhite fertility + miscegenation)? Savage anti-white mobs are already attacking whites out of pure race hatred. What happens when whites within all sovereign polities are less than 10% of the population, and for once really are the “haters” that PC mythology makes us out to be? The idea of WN microcommunities trying to ‘live white’ in the belly of multikult beasts is ludicrous. White culture is probably necessary for ultimate white survival, and that culture cannot survive unless protected from sheer overwhelming nonwhite numbers. True and lasting protection can only come from territorial sovereignty. Thus, White Zion, the great ingathering of WNs from all corners of the world.
89
Posted by Randy Garver on Sat, 19 May 2012 13:53 | # Leon:
Ah, the old “Perfect Solution Fallacy”. So unless you can succeed completely, why take any action at all? What a convenient argument to excuse your lack of efforts to develop an organization to fulfill your ambitious agenda, to improve the lot of your fellows in any material way, or to grow a family of your own.
90
Posted by Circassian on Sun, 20 May 2012 05:00 | #
James Bowery is the creator of vertical reality in virtually horizontal direction where he lives now with his partner Soren Road Runner. Living there, he says, is fun and enjoyable. 91
Posted by ORION on Sun, 20 May 2012 06:15 | #
—Also known as all-or-nothing defeatism. We need to meticulously and unswervingly grind out every single micrometer of political edge on our enemies on all fronts: careers; propaganda; demographics; culture; war; debate; organizational rigour; ideological flexibilty; daily profane multicult life; religiosity; spirituality; education; morality; civilizational refinement; sexual virtue; technology and raw willpower (add your own fields of endeavour of choice). Fighting is winning. Philosophically, at least. It is absolutely imperative, however, to stay focused on realistic and achievable goals. Aryans of the pre-aquarian age should win all contests — including muliticulturalism. 92
Posted by Robert in Arabia on Sun, 20 May 2012 07:48 | # 93
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 20 May 2012 11:25 | # What do MR readers think of the England First Party? Where is it located ideologically in relation to the BNP and the EDL? And what is its relation to the parties of Lee John Barnes and Paul Weston (sorry, but as a Yank, I have problems remembering all these different factions and their stances)? 94
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 20 May 2012 11:39 | # This has the ring of truth to it 9despite the ridiculous genuflections to the idea that immigration is “needed”): Bagehot IN “The Night Face Up”—a 1956 short story by Julio Cortázar, an Argentine master of magical realism—a young man lies in a hospital at night, one injured arm held aloft by weights and pulleys. He is tormented by a recurring nightmare in which he is being hunted by Aztec warriors. The dreams are vivid, from the cling and reek of the jungle swamp in which he is captured to the chill of a dungeon floor and the hands dragging him up stone steps to an altar slick with human blood. The gore is mostly hinted at. The story’s menace turns on the man’s repeated struggles to wake and return to his darkened ward. Across the rich world and above all in western Europe, lots of voters know just how that young patient feels. They yearn to hear that today’s unhappy realities—of austerity and spending cuts, debt, intermittent growth and relative decline—are a nightmare from which they can wake. They long to return to the “normality” of the boom years ended by the credit crunch of 2007. As incumbents wobble or fall across the continent, opposition politicians fall over themselves to agree with voters that today’s miseries are a bad dream which their policies would end. Dismaying numbers have turned to extremists, peddling fantasies that would do this trick: vows to “reject austerity” and confiscate elite wealth; plans to slam the door on foreigners or enact rules to keep global competition at bay. To their credit, the British, a sceptical, stolid bunch, are pretty wary of extremists and obvious charlatans. True, recent local elections were tough on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that make up the coalition government at Westminster. But this was mostly to the benefit of the mainstream opposition Labour Party, rather than to extremists on the far-right or far-left. Perhaps the loudest message was sent by the two-thirds of people who did not vote for anybody. Britain “is not Greece or France,” says Rick Nye of the polling firm Populus. Though the coalition’s talk of austerity is not popular, a “significant enough minority” are willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt that Mr Cameron has something his continental peers lack: time to try to fix the economy. But if Britain’s politicians have largely avoided the politics of outright fantasy, too many hint that—with the right policies—the British, too, could wake up and find that the country’s problems have vanished, like bogeymen vanquished by the rising sun. Start with Labour. Ed Balls, Labour’s shadow chancellor of the exchequer, blames Britain’s economic woes on the government’s plan to eliminate the structural deficit within five years (a plan that nonetheless saw Britain run a deficit above 8% last year, a hefty support to the economy). Mr Balls talks up micro-wheezes that would supposedly change everything: plans to tax bank bonuses to create 100,000 jobs for young people, tax breaks for small firms that hire workers and a temporary cut in VAT. In one sense, Mr Balls’s Keynesian conscience is clear, because he is merely making a technical argument about the optimal pace of deficit reduction and the impact of stimulus spending. Labour “can’t reverse every Tory cut,” concedes his boss, Mr Miliband. Yet for all that supposed realism, lots of voters are meant to hear a simpler promise—that they can wake from the nightmare of austerity, because Labour has “pro-growth” plans that pay for themselves. As Mr Balls puts it, Britain’s recent return to recession was “entirely avoidable”. Labour is not the only party playing “if only” politics. North of the border, the core message of the Scottish National Party (SNP) is that independence from Britain would spell a new dawn, dispelling the bad dream of English misrule. On the right, for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), the nightmare from which to wake is European Union membership. Such battle-cries can attract voters: the SNP took control of the Scottish government in 2011. UKIP (which won 13 seats at the 2009 European elections, beating Labour into third place) hovers around 10% in current national polling, and took enough disgruntled Tory votes in this month’s local elections to deny the Conservatives council seats in some southern strongholds. Not all of its supporters believe in magic and bad dreams. Professional polling and focus groups of UKIP voters after the 2010 general election found Europe to be their third-biggest concern, behind the economy and—by a long way—immigration. In one two-hour focus group, nobody raised Europe—the party’s ostensible reason for existence. Yet if UKIP’s vote continues to rise, its angry promises of quitting the EU will have real world consequences. Should UKIP come first in the 2014 European election, senior Labour and Conservative sources predict their parties will feel under intense pressure to promise a referendum on Britain’s EU membership in their next general election manifestos. As for the Conservatives, their pledge to cut net migration to the tens of thousands is unrealisable, and implicitly endorses the idea that immigrants are, on balance, a job-stealing nightmare. The twist in the tale: the bad stuff is real Cortázar’s story ends with a twist: the man realises that he is, in reality, an Aztec prisoner. Modern life, the hospital, his motorcycle like “an enormous metal insect, whirring away between his legs”, was the absurd dream, falling away as he awaits death. Britons and other Europeans need to go through a similarly vertiginous moment. For decades workers, faced with exploding global competition, were compensated by governments with cheap goods, early retirement and welfare on credit: a dream of affluence for life to replace jobs for life. Now the competition is as intense as ever, societies are ageing and their nations are poorer than they thought only a few years ago. The boom years were the dream. Hard work and tighter belts are the new reality. Economist.com/blogs/bagehot 95
Posted by Hymie in Afula on Sun, 20 May 2012 12:24 | # Hello Mr Haller,
Really, this same problem exists in TelAviv as in Orange County. At least the VN’ese chix you guys got, are fairly hot. And they make good coffee (if you think that a cup of Joe should taste like a cup of milk). We’re getting stuck with Sudanese. It’s not fair! 96
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 20 May 2012 14:15 | # Leon
There’s so many now as a result of the BNP’s problems it’s difficult to keep track. 97
Posted by Bill on Sun, 20 May 2012 17:51 | # There is no coherent formulation in England for a nationalist party simply because there is no demand for such a party. The mass of the people are divided roughly into two camps, the increasing number who are disengaging from politics through apathy or disillusionment ( they’re all the same) and others who still invest there confidence in the existing ‘democratic’ political system. It is only a minority that is sufficiently troubled to seek an out of the box solution. The mainstream media is playing an influential role in keeping the people confused and sedated, plus the fact that they (people are still comfortable with their lot, having a full belly and a roof over their head.) Those on social security (welfare state) probably feel more secure than those in work. Bread and circus works its magic. The ongoing soap opera crisis that is the European Union is an added confusion. The people’s perception Cameron’s cluelessness as prime minister is also adding to the confusion and chaos. Add these ingredients to the natural liberal propensity for chaos and you get endemic bemusement, which is the default position in Britain. Multiculturalism doesn’t seem to be overly influencing English people’s political opinion or its (people’s) participation in the (sham) system. Identity politics is becoming evident as seen with the recent Muslim vote in Bradford. This can only be an indication for the future. Blue team Red team politics still holds sway. The BNP has become an also ran among a number of minnow parties. Only the EDL seem to pack any sort of punch. As pointed out, there is no popular demand for a Britain first party. Things are so bad that if an election was to held tomorrow the people would vote for the labour opposition, (Red team.) Despite the fact it is these same people who were at the wheel overseeing the treachery for well over a decade. You really couldn’t make it up. Something big has to come about to shake the English out of their lethargy, trouble is I haven’t got a clue as to what it will be. 98
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 21 May 2012 04:17 | # GW writes: “The only true, sustaining foundation of human action is authenticity.” Author! 99
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 21 May 2012 09:46 | # Bill@97 You have the ring of truth, I’m sad to say. But all should therefore re-read .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Not to beat a dead horse, but people never persuade me of the wrongheadedness of White Zion. Where and when will there ever be a WN national government?! 100
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 21 May 2012 19:02 | # This behaviour is criminal. We are talking about deliberate concealment of financial transactions that aided terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation and large-scale tax evasion; assisting in major financial frauds and in concealment of criminal assets; and committing frauds that substantially worsened the worst financial bubbles and crises since the Depression. The wonders of the free-market eh? 101
Posted by daniel on Tue, 22 May 2012 07:34 | # With regard to the preliminaries of White national politics - and economic systems that are inextricable to its consideration at the same time - I believe that there are some common matters that should be cleared away from the onset. 1. First, free enterprise vs socialism is a false either/or as there has never been nor ever will be avoiding some combination of the two. Therefore it is counterproductive to waste time opposing them against one another. Runaway capitalism has been at least as destructive to our race as has been communism. The issue is what is to be left more to free individual, joint-couple enterprise and what is better dealt with in social distribution. I like what I hear about distributism from Bowery et. al. I have nothing against some people, particularly those who have done other Whites a lot of good, having even a great deal more wealth than others, but there does come a point where individual wealth is ridiculous and they should be taxed a certain extent after a certain amount of wealth - as Bowery argues, land tax for excesses beyond the homestead (particularly seeing as landowners are dependent upon mutual defense of their holdings) sounds like a fair way to do it. There ought to be accountability and prohibition of making money (or a great deal) on certain enterprises. I suppose athletes do not deserve a great deal of money, nor pornographers, “exotic dancers” and random prostitutes etc. There should be a much better assessment of the social good that a given activity is providing. Drugs should be decriminalized (though not manufacture and trafficking in some substances - e.g., heroine). Sin taxes should be instituted. Believing that narcotic abuse is more a symptom than a source of problems, counseling, support groups etc, in a word, people to talk to, should be readily available. 2. To say that “The Left/Right dichotomy is phoney” is wrong. It is only phoney as it has been construed by Jewish interests, in their interest - viz., they have had White nationalists referring to “the left” what is really Jewish interests and obsequious liberalism imposed upon Whites (while some social organization for other groups is legitimized at White expense). The Right is an illusion. The left is social organization, which is the only meaningful reality, ultimately. 3. Non-equality vs. equality as an issue is both too abstract (still functioning within the universal paradigm, it says everything and nothing at the same time), and prone to provoke insecurity, hostilities and needless mutual destruction: it does not appreciate qualitative, paradigmatic differences in (e.g., biological) process and therefore entails inadvertent destruction or reciprocally escalating hostilities - typically culminating in poorly conceived warfare. 4. If there is to be anything like democracy, it should be a tool on behalf of people as opposed to people being beholden to this would-be tool. If there is to be anything like democracy, its most important issues should be reserved for people over a certain age and those who have demonstrated certain understandings of the issues that concern us as Whites. Where democracy is not the means of negotiation, matters would be discussed in terms of accountability and warrant. 5. I think people who suggest that we need to get back to Christianity are giving a terrible bum steer. It is important to move beyond Christianity. The biblical text, if nothing else, is obsolete and worse, altogether too Jewish (including New Testament) and too prescriptive of self destruction (as far as we are concerned, too destructive for Whites). Having said that, my girlfriend does have me going to church on Sunday, and though I am not a believer, the idea of getting together every Sunday with White people and only White people, no Jews, surrounded by imagery suggesting that they be non-violent and compassionate, has its merits. * We go to a different Catholic church every Sunday and the artwork is an elaborate source of wonderment, surprisingly good. It is a peaceful time with people who do not hassle me. I hope that one day these churches can be transformed into the churches of a religion serving the interests of the 14 Words. * Though there is certainly a place for violence and non-compassion, which is one of the critical shortcomings of Christianity, esp. in its text. 6. While there should be some specialists in National-border defense, every White nationalist should be required to serve in some way where the necessity arises. And everyone should be required national service, particularly in regard to border security specifically for certain periods in their life. I like the idea of 18-20 and 68-70, but there can some be options. Nevertheless, it seems to me that young people should be building lives and families (not sacrificing them to war) and that older people have less to lose and therefore could, or should, make perfect warriors in some regards. Border camps could also provide occasion for the old to mentor the young. 7. I like the idea of people being provided jobs in order to receive public help where they need it: food, housing, electricity, heat, clothing, medical, water. Where work is required, it should probably not be more than 3 days a week. 8. While there can be a certain amount of forgiveness for repentant race traitors given the torrents of brainwashing and media antagonism, once our people begin to know the score, the penalties for race traitors ought to be expulsion from the White nation - at a minimum. 9. With regard to gender relations, as I have argued elsewhere, a quaternary system can be managed which would allow for both traditional and non-traditional gender roles as an option, from time to time and where practical. Most critically for now, the right of White males to Be, i.e., to live, on the basis of their evolution should be respected and granted the benefit of the doubt - innocent until proven guilty. Some of what passes for merit or non-merit has undoubtedly stemmed from confirmation, support, luck and sharp elbows that the “non-meritous” have not had. To correct runaway effects of the declassification era through which we have passed, a platform should be instituted which is critical of female predilections, so that understanding and choices made by women are subject to somewhat more rigorous moral standards, particularly if they are to exercise public influence beyond the ramifications of the self assertion they already enjoy. 10. There should be an institutionalization and respect for enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls, however small they are to begin with. I believe there is no freedom of choice without that option socially recognized. 11. Pervasive ecology - human and all ecology ought to become a central concern. 12. Agreed, National, regional and community separatism ought to be recognized against globalism and monculturalism (e.g., mulatto supremacism). Though we ought not be preoccupied with non-White nations and ways beyond concerns of how they may impact the overall ecology of the world. 12. Paradigmatic conservatism, the overall framework, maintains strong borders against outsiders, viz., non-Whites, and allows for a good amount of flexibility for different ways of individuals and communities within the borders. 102
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 22 May 2012 11:26 | # Daniel@102 Some good stuff here. I’m not quite finished with my term, and thus cannot respond as I would like wrt certain severe disagreements. Actually, I’ve dealt with those issues before; eg, the need for capitalism, but one bounded by racial interests (eg, we don’t allow private interests to sell vital weapons technologies to our racial competitors); likewise, the value of Christianity, but a racially-theologically renovated one. The problem with WN criticisms of Christianity is that they are usually the product of incredible ignorance of Christian tenets. I agree that most Church leaders today are PC assholes, but the relevant question is whether race-liberalism (esp as understood today) is somehow a conclusion necessarily derived from fundamental theology. I assure you, it is not. Obviously, ideologies espousing violent racial imperialism are incompatible at least with Catholicism (though I’m quite sure with all other Christian theologies, too). But the 14 words does not contradict Christian teaching, any more than a father violates Church tenets by devoting greater care to his own offspring than he might to others’. Christian moral obligation is an involved topic, but nationalists actually have an instinctive feel for it, even when they reject the metaphysics of the faith. The faith recognizes a hierarchy of moral obligations: (in general) the duty of care one owes to a friend is not as great as to a family dependent; to a stranger is less than to a friend; and so forth. I have yet to encounter anything suggesting that it is wrong for me to favor my nation or race above others. Of course, it is wrong for me to exploit or abuse others, for racial as well as for other reasons. But I think that our race can be preserved without violating Christian tenets. This is actually much more complex than I can get into here, as the real issue (the kind of topic I will be working on after graduation) concerns the extent to which Christians must accept existent realities which themselves resulted from antecedent injustices. For example, the UK has been invaded and colonized by racial aliens whose very presence is a kind of existential act of aggression against the indigenous. What ought to be the response or policy advocated by a Christian English patriot (assuming that the prior issue - do indigenous cultures have a right to take measures to ensure their perpetuity? - has been affirmatively demonstrated)? The complicating factor is that this colonization was not effectuated by military invasion, but domestic subversion. So what should a Christian Englishman advocate? As I’ve oft stated (though never philosophically proven - which would necessitate a long chain of propositions and supporting evidence), I think it morally acceptable to demand repatriation, but that it should be effected in the most humane possible way (at least if there should be no violent resistance) - rather like removing a no longer wanted houseguest. I have the right to tell my girlfriend to vacate my home, but I would hardly be acting like a Christian if I just threw all her stuff onto my front lawn without any prior notice. Obviously, I’ve barely scratched the surface here, but don’t underestimate the tremendous reasonableness of Christianity. And don’t confuse the cult of Diversity with Christian belief in the (potential) spiritual unity of all mankind. All men can be (and really in fact are) spiritual brothers in Christ, without thereby being forced to disregard the divisions of man and their social and political implications. Men are temporal (biological) as well as eternal (spiritual) beings. (Sorry that this doesn;t read too well, but I am pressed. Plus there is a lot to say about the ridiculous equating of Christian ethical universalism with PC denial of empirical racial differences.) 104
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 22 May 2012 12:42 | # Just to add. One of the things about the economic left and right argument is the right have empirical proof of the failure of traditional socialism and treat it as a given while the left quibble defensively over details. Neither side analyzes *why* socialism failed empirically. One of the reasons socialism fails is people are more productive when there is competition and incentives. Free markets have this by default and socialism doesn’t by choice but it doesn’t have to be that way. In a way it’s a variation on the same theme that unconsciously underlies all nationalist politics: biology-based economics. 105
Posted by Silver on Tue, 22 May 2012 16:37 | # Leon Haller, You stated on a recent thread that I was coming around to your view regarding the necessity of moral racialism. But I’ve never denied the necessity of it. Rather, I’ve suggested that racial views be presented in such a way that they fit the existing moral paradigm (of your target), which, typically, isn’t anywhere near as devoutly “anti-racist” as people often think. If you can manage that, then you’ve yourself a crowd that is actually interested in what else you may have to say. If you can’t manage that, you can formulate the most race and Christianity-friendly moral system in the world, but fat lot of good it will do you if no one’s paying attention. Okay? Whether you agree or not, it’d be nice to know you have understood the difference between what I am saying and what you are saying. I know you’re a headstrong, all-conquering White Man, who simply will not stand to be contradicted, but honestly now, how far has that gotten you in life? Come down to earth for a moment, and admit I’m the best damn racialist you ever met. Okay, you don’t have to admit that, but come down to earth that the opinions of another only have value to the extent they confirm your own (a psychic disorder known as far back as the ancients which we might today dub Leonalla mentis). Also, as a treat, I am uploading a copy of a tome entitled “What Is Money?” for your edification. Chapters 7 and 11 will be of most interest to you, penned as they are by two Austrians and one sympathetic to Austrian views. Their Austrian views means you should find the problems they have with orthodox Austrian accounts of money creation and evolution interesting. Aside from those, Chapter 3 is probably the most accessible hetorodox (from your POV) essay on the evolution of money. Chapter 1 is the Introduction, which is also worth reading, but whatever you do don’t start with Chapter 2—the thick sociological prose will probably put you off reading anything else (though I suppose daniel would find it appealing). 106
Posted by daniel on Wed, 23 May 2012 08:51 | # I have been busy myself and before I read the posts which come after my last one, there is one thing that I would itemize a little more distinctly. I probably did not mention it because I take it so much for granted (though it does correspond with nationalism, regionalism and community): 14. That the distinct varieties of Europeans would be maintained. Some intermarriage should be looked upon as healthy. Undoubtedly there can be too much intermarriage and immigration between European peoples. Of course there can be inappropriate pairings between different Europeans in some instances as well. The point is, the ancient Europeans should not be blended into one. The aim should be for their distinctions to be maintained - especially in Europe. 107
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 23 May 2012 16:43 | # Silver,
I’m actually not sure. “tailor your rhetoric to your audience”? Perhaps in your brilliance you could express yourself in a way I might find clearer. Yes, the upload as you describe it (no time until after this week even to look at it) sounds interesting. Thanks. Who is the lead author, and who the publisher? My work will have two forms. Call them scholarship and propaganda. The former is in pursuit of truth, and thus will be ‘tailored’ to nothing but that objective. The latter will obviously require more cunning. But note: my concern is not with persuading nonwhites of the value of white preservation (though I believe there is global value to it). It seems more fruitful to attempt to persuade whites of the truth and ethics of our cause. 108
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 24 May 2012 04:08 | #
Thing is, Silv, that is what non-Whites more or less must believe of Whitey in order to have incentive to come to the bargaining table. It’s called negotiating from a position of strength. “Please, please. let us negotiate!” non-Whites will say. Then cooler heads can prevail. That is unless I adopt an all too uncharitable understanding of human nature. But I’m afraid not. 109
Posted by daniel on Thu, 24 May 2012 08:05 | # Posted by Wandrin on May 22, 2012, 07:19 AM | # daniel Thanks, Wandrin 110
Posted by Robot Sam on Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:45 | # There must be certain tenets to a sustainable white society. These are just a few but you asked for it… 1. Declare it as a white society from the beginning. Anyone who says otherwise must be forcefully ejected from the country to go live around the nonwhites they love. Make this the law; either you can accept the country is going to be white or shut up and get out. 111
Posted by Robot Sam on Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:56 | # Wow, reading through the comments, which I hadn’t before I posted my list, I can’t believe how many overlaps there are. We truly are one people. 112
Posted by Gary Lee Yarbrough on Tue, 03 Apr 2018 08:43 | # Order Member, Gary Lee Yarbrough, 62, passed away early Monday morning at the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado, a facility best known as Supermax.
Post a comment:
Next entry: A conversation with an Irish homosexual analytical empiricist anti-racist. I think.
|
|
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 No Thanks! on Sun, 13 May 2012 00:42 | #
The whole Old Testament Prophesies & Bible scriptures mumbo jumbo nonsense was written about 500 B.C.
Stories of Samson & Delilah , the Exodus , temple of king David etc are all glorious fiction.
Where are the ruins of this glorious Ancient Jewish Civilization ?
Yet the foundation of Israel is based on all those Biblical myths.
Jewish delusional history as told in the “Greatest Story ever Sold”.
Top Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has denied the existence of Jewish roots in the city of Jerusalem.
Proffessor Finkelstein at Tel Aviv University, said Jewish archaeologists have failed to unearth historic sites to support some of the stories in the Torah. Among those stories are the Jewish Exodus, the forty-year wandering in the Sinai desert, and Joshua’s victory over the Canaanites. He also said there was no archaeological evidence that concludes that the alleged Temple of Solomon ever existed.
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/top-is….
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/13/israeli-scho…
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/04/ricardo-duchesnes-review-of-niall-fergusons-civilization-the-west-and-the-rest/#comment-68707