|
|
|
Constituencies of mere disaffection Notwithstanding the vast amount of straitening post-election commentary that has appeared across the right-wing media, I thought it might be in order to offer one or two thoughts of my own. Apologies now to anyone who doesn’t mind if they never read another word about this sorry issue! As every politically-minded person has surely realised, the impressive block-voting of non-whites has put demographics at the centre of political calculation. The GOP in its current form is already electorally obsolete. Two-thirds of a static white electorate will never again be sufficient to command an electoral majority. The one-third of white Americans, particularly single women, voting Democrat were already gestured towards by the GOP’s rejection of Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, and the libertarian Constitutionalist Ron Paul. Romney was supposed a flip-flopper, a RINO, and therefore electable to all those Republican voters lost in 2008. Now he is the point from which the party has to migrate to find a majority. It has to reach out to blacks and Hispanics, and it cannot even rely any more on conservative minorities like Alan West. For mainstream political observers the interesting question is how the GOP will adapt to this new reality and retain its present constituencies. Nationalists, however, already know that the constant pursuit of conservative movements is not principle but relevance. Ultimately, it’s about power, and nothing is likely to change this time. The party managers will take the Christian Right for granted. After all, where can it go without entirely marginalising itself? The new party line will say little that is critical of illegal migrants, abortion, or homosexual politics. It will trumpet a more anti-statist and economically liberal platform. This, in turn, will redefine the political centre, and narrow the national debate even further, and that will generate a new bout of radicalism on the left. Now let’s look for a few aspects in this of particular interest to nationalists. Liberalism is a process politically and a project intellectually. It has a halting gait, whereby the trailing right leg is dragged up to the standing left, the electoral weight is transferred for a parliament or two, the left leg steps forward again and the weight is transferred to it. The Christian Right and the Tea Party activists, and the right generally, are now discovering that their only role in this ungainly comport is to provide equilibrium. It is not to lead ideologically. The lame man never takes a backward step. This discovery will not necessarily bring any part of the disaffected constituencies of the GOP to our political door. For one thing, there remains a gulf between nationalists and the right of liberalism as profound and alienating as that between us and the left. In both cases it is the gulf between a notional value system and blood. It is, therefore, psychological in character, not merely ideological. Nationalists are men and women from the least suggestible of our race. That is, they are less susceptible to the constant rain of external, temporalising influences - the formative factors of personality. Somewhere in our hearts a root of the real and most human is exposed, and being exposed it never leaves us alone. It is the truth of us. For nationalism, though it genuflects before the material, is no less an expression of the will to the emergent, to meaning and wholeness as is any practik in the esoteric or monastic traditions of whole faith systems. All will to stand in one’s own truth flows in the same direction, regardless of whether the focus is collective or singular, regardless whether the work is a people’s re-finding and re-experiencing of its truths, or the individual’s much more intense but, of course, much more fleeting act of liberation. This really is the only dynamic of Mind. All other calls to the good, to freedom, power, virtue, glory, faith ... all these are but poor servants of it But that, to those all filled up with “the spirit of God” or a belief in the benefactions of the American Constitution, free market economics, or tax reform, is simply incomprehensible. They think they already have the answer to the nature of the times. They think they are somehow excepted personally from their deadly embrace. Even if you reveal to them the acquired and mechanical nature of their undoubted impulse to disdain blood nationalists, and explain from whom it came and why ... even if you succeed so well that they cannot execute the programme, still they will not know that most particular truth which fills you. We mistake them, and all others, as men exactly like ourselves. Therefore we mistake the journey towards us as political. It really is psychological. It is a journey out of self-estrangement, faux-morality and supinity, out of the deadly embrace of modernity and the liberal zeitgeist, out of the Judaic prescription. And that won’t be accomplished by the Republican Party’s disaffected simply because they are once again being dragged along by liberalism’s halting gait. A more prosaic reason why disaffected white Americans won’t easily morph into White Nationalists is that they, or 99% of them, are not explorers, not pioneers but followers, with the follower’s political capital to invest in an extant, viable movement or political party. That capital is not the same thing as a racial awakening. It is, as we have often seen in elections in Europe (which does have viable movements and parties), an inconstant and unreliable attachment. One would call it a fair weather friend were not the weather in which it befriends nationalism invariably foul. This is not to say that such friendship is not greatly welcome and needed. Electorally, it is. But it doesn’t represent a firm, consensual foundation on which to build a non-liberal political system, which is the ineluctable destiny of nationalism. A disaffected liberal is not a nationalist. Even in his manifestation as the eponymous angry white male, to whom the Regnery circus look for salvation, he doesn’t bridge the gulf and operate morally, intellectually and politically in racial or ethnic terms. What, then, we need to understand is that he is fully capable of holding “right-wing” positions without ever being a nationalist. He can like Arizona SB 1070 and vote in droves for immigration control candidates. In Britain, as was revealed by an Ipsos Mori surviey last year, he can agree with a whole series of propositions critical of immigration:
He can be utterly cynical about the political class, fiercely hostile to Islam, completely aware of the ties between politicians and the banks ... But he remains a captive of postmodernity. All that is happening is that the process of his dispossession has reached a pinch-point, and he is being pulled through it and being forced to adapt to the painful new reality. He remains, though, the same man. He was not a nationalist before and he is not one now. The process of dispossession does not bear upon him in an appropriately formative way. That’s why nationalism functions philosophically, changing the man in himself before it changes the politics he espouses; and that’s why at the beginning philosophy, and not policy, matters. Comments:2
Posted by Can it be right? on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:01 | # @GW ‘He remains, though, the same man. He was not a nationalist before and he is not one now. The process of dispossession does not bear upon him in an appropriately formative way’ This has been duly noted by many further down the IQ food chain within the pro-white blogosphere. Their answer seems to be that we will have to jettison the dead wood at some point. That if they are not reachable now, they never will be. This will consign so many of our fellows and their progeny to an unwelcome fate. Can this approach be right? And what encouragement can we offer that at least a portion of our lost souls can be reclaimed? 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:13 | # James, The meaning of all philosophy, as an agent of change, is the making of a new or better or more real man. Mind is the ultimate prize for the thinker - his mark on the human future. I see no conflict here other, potentially, than in methodology. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 01:53 | # To my friend at post no.2, That “dead wood” is our brother, and we have to reach him. But we tend to see that in terms of a journey to awakening to be accomplished by him while we wave a lantern in the political darkness. In no way does this model address the absolute and constant formative power of the world as it is. That is what continues to regulate him, even while he suffers from it, and that is what we are, or should be, fighting to oppose and overturn. All revolutions are philosophical. Thy have not always come about electorally or even violently, but often aesthetically and culturally. The “how” is not the first question to answer. It’s “what”. Movements and methods must follow. This is a very big thing we are talking about, not simply a bit of Jew-talk or anti-immigrant debate, and it’s long past time that we took it seriously. 5
Posted by Hail on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:18 | #
That is ‘metapolitics’.
6
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:31 | # /. Daniel Sienkiewicz, Theory of White Separatism That was an excellent post, GW. You make really fine distinctions and I hope people pay careful attention. e.g., liberal principle, its faux-morality, vs nationalist relevance This paragraph is especially great:
The only minor reservation that I have is the flip flopped interposing of “liberalism” for “leftism” in different places and “modern” for “post modern” in others.
Similarly, as you probably anticipate, White advocates are still shy about using the term “post modern” in a positive sense, its having been abused and misrepresented so badly by Jewish academia. Whereas, properly understood, it is in sync with national, regional, racial separatism and discrete communities. WN’s might be sticking their toe in the waters of using the term “modernity” in a negative sense. But that seems to be coming along slowly as many seem to be reversing or overcompensating modernists as yet. Nevertheless, the subtlety of this piece has me reconsidering the idea that objectivism parses so easily as either naive or disingenuous at top (though I maintain it does that well enough, at point it goes beyond one’s group and/or personal interests). Perhaps it can be pursued to noble optimum, objectivity stopping short at an optimum level, recognizing its limits - its relevance as opposed to principle, as you say. Examining and becoming adept with subjective and psychological terms in that relevance just might be a key to nationalist organization. 7
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:45 | # GW, I have a hard time understanding your substitutability—a form of equality—between the psychological and the philosophical given a stark raving reality continually sand-blasting the face of reason: Whites don’t count and non-whites* do. There is nothing philosophical about this. It is entirely psychological**. *The entire debate over the “individualist” aspects of philosophy being diagnostic must ignore the point that non-whites do count as a group and non-whites are a “category” within the “Lockean”, “modernist”, “empirical”, “Cartesian”, “Nietzschean” (or whatever smear-term you want to (mis)define and then apply to suit your sophistry). **There was nothing philosophical about the Frankfurt School. It was merely one front of an all-fronts psychological warfare campaign by Jews. The “philosophical” front of the Frankfurt School was no more philosophical than is a bullet through the skull medical. Likewise the media front should not be mistaken for art or news. Nor, indeed, should JudeoChristianity be mistaken for religion. Its all psychological warfare with biological components of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology having, as (at least part of) its ultimate goal, the subjugation if not biological elimination of whites. 8
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:06 | # VERY SIGNIFICANT REALIZATION DEPARTMENT:
Jonathan Last, The Weekly Standard
9
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:25 | # James, Many of us would agree that “the problem” is rooted, ultimately, in Christianity which, from the outset, presented as a Jewish mode of thought about the gentile perspectivised for the gentile. But it was nativised by Europeans. For example, there was the re-emergence of Platonism from Plotinus to Boethius and the church humanism of the pre-Renaissance period. In the secular field there was the Renaissance itself, with its second Platonic re-emergence. Even the liberal canon, and its project of the individual, flows from the process of nativisation. We should view the two Marxisations of liberalism as digressions in that light. You are not wrong to absent philosophy from the Jewish dispensation. But, as a race, we are not so intellectually diffident that all we have is what we began with from Paul and what came later from Marx. 10
Posted by Pat on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:47 | #
Is it the monotheism that’s incorrect? What is the true or correct religion then? 11
Posted by daniels on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:38 | # .... Allows for different ways of life and different kinds of communities (e.g., more individuality or more cooperation) providing that they do not transgress the White class. It allows for private property and works on economic models outlined by Bowery, Brown et al. There can be people who are quite wealthy as Graham observes in Denmark, but not many very poor people. Prohibits rape, pedophilia and miscegenation (miscegenation meaning expulsion at a minimum) Membership requires defending the class against non-Europeans - what those duties are and what it means to fulfill them are detailed later. “Compartments in a Ship:” It recognizes the European and Russian homelands as sacrosanct but extends the nation to DNA so that diaspora might become contingents of the nation. Provides means of helping people to identify an appropriate partner. ..that’s what comes off the top. 14/41,000 Note: Christian converts to our religion, or those who modify Christian practice to conform to The White religion need not look upon their time and efforts in Christianity as a waste of time. Any successful effort in garnering a moral order that serves White interests is a worthwhile effort (we just think Christianity is obsolete in large part). 13
Posted by John on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:32 | # Jim: “There was nothing philosophical about the Frankfurt School. “ Adorno, like Marx is a dysosopher. 14
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:28 | # Posted by Pat on November 15, 2012, 04:13 AM | # My question was for James Bowery.
15
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:23 | # Daniel, First, let’s deal with the linguistics. I routinely assume, probably wrongly, that thinking WNs do not confuse liberalism and leftism in the manner of mainstream right-wing commentary. Liberalism is All, and from its centre-left it develops leftward from social democratic positions (which may include socially liberal attachments) to the universalist egalitarian positions of the Marxisms. “Liberal” and “left” are only partially coterminous, and are not interchangeable. “Modernity”, as you note in your excellent essay, is the phase of Western history begun with the Enlightenment and encompassing the effects of industrialisation and urbanisation on the lived life. It reaches up to the present time, by my reading. Accordingly, “postmodernity” does not signify a period but a condition. Of course, that is only my interpretation. I can’t go with you in your exploration of objectivism. I am pretty much stuck trying to explain one simple, basic, important thing. I have to give up most of the rest to the hope that its advocates will find ways to root their thinking in what I’m talking about. If they don’t care or don’t notice or acknowledge it - and they don’t - then for the nationalism that our race needs in order to survive it will be offered only the usual misreading of Nietzsche and the endless, politically barren truths of race-realism and Jew talk. It will all come down to reaction and an inchoate, intellectually unformed identitarianism - a good precursor for war but not for a bloodless revolution. I am thinking about a post on Christianity at the moment, and will answer your second comment in that. 16
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:16 | # GW, If you decide to write a critique on Christianity, please include a shout out to Charles “The Hammer” Martel. 17
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:05 | # Posted by Guessedworker on November 15, 2012, 07:23 AM | # Daniel, First, let’s deal with the linguistics. I routinely assume, probably wrongly, that thinking WNs do not confuse liberalism and leftism in the manner of mainstream right-wing commentary. Agreed. I am sure that most understand what you mean, in good faith, as I do. Yes, it is the manifestation of the political problems which European organization, defense and accountability faces. Yes, liberalism as we experience it does indeed, extend from “individual differences from standard European groups, to openness to non-Europeans, to inclusiveness and integration of non-Europens among non-Europeans and finally to a Marxist designation of groups of non-Europeans (or those antagonistic to Europeans) as the ‘proletarian’ to be incorporated, revolutionize and overthrow the so called White/European right wing, capitalist hegemony. “Liberal” and “left” are only partially coterminous, and are not interchangeable. Yes. However, there is a need for a greater distinction here, of the White Left or European Lefts so that we are making it clear just who is potentially welcome under our union’s rubric. This will allow for protection against exploitative and traitorous elite while guarding against union buster scabs – non-Europeans – at the same time. It will provide incentive to participate and defend the group as there might be a reasoned allocation of resource and reward since there is a means of accountability which neither liberalism nor the right sufficiently afford “Modernity”, as you note in your excellent essay, is the phase of Western history begun with the Enlightenment and encompassing the effects of industrialisation and urbanisation on the lived life. It reaches up to the present time, by my reading. True enough Accordingly, “postmodernity” does not signify a period but a condition. Of course, that is only my interpretation. Actually, post modernity as it has been formulated quite well, would represent a new epoch, and one that provides explicitly for the separatism of European/White nationalisms; it was formulated originally with an eye toward defending particular cultures against the ravages of modernity’s universalism. I believe I have done a fair job of articulating the formula in comment number 156 on the Euro DNA Nation essay. I can’t go with you in your exploration of objectivism. I am pretty much stuck trying to explain one simple, basic, important thing. Well, you seem to have done quite well with this post – have parsed some matters very finely. I have to give up most of the rest to the hope that its advocates will find ways to root their thinking in what I’m talking about. “Rooting” is a very good metaphor. I see your project as reasonable. If they don’t care or don’t notice or acknowledge it I see no necessary conflict between what I am talking about and what you are advocating – differing perspectives and starting points on compatible, if not the same goals. and they don’t - then for the nationalism that our race needs in order to survive it will be offered only the usual misreading of Nietzsche and the endless, politically barren truths of race-realism and Jew talk. It will all come down to reaction and an inchoate, intellectually unformed identitarianism - a good precursor for war but not for a bloodless revolution. Though I must say, discussions with MacDonald broke down temporarily because, I would say, he was all too used to hearing “hermeneutics” associated with anti-science. It is not anti-science. It is at one end of a continuum. He is perhaps too inundated by pseudo-leftism at the university to trust that I am not antagonistic to his projects. I finally got tired when I tried to assert that scientific epochs (certain ones, in history, anyway) began with a radical skepticism (and I maintain that still, that some epochs, such as the Epicureans and Enlightenment era Empiricists had a scientific outlook which is characterizable as having an outlook radically skeptical of traditions, religions, customs and habits) and, at that point, Professor MacDonald insisted that radical skepticism was only something that The Frankfurt School did; I became frustrated. From my point of view, I was only trying to tie what was an obvious knot to mark a standard historical epoch, not looking to debase science and champion the Frankfurt school. Because I greatly admire MacDonald’s work and it is a large part of why I came into open activism, I decided to take a step back. The same as with Bowery and Lister, I may feel there are a few things here and there that could use modification, but it is not my purpose to be a pain and cause trouble. On the contrary. Nevertheless, there are some nuances that still need to be addressed. I am thinking about a post on Christianity at the moment, and will answer your second comment in that. I appreciate your eloquence on this topic as well. As your post implies, in building a constituency of the disaffected, it is not enough to reject Christianity, we need a sufficient moral order, and that is why I felt compelled to render my last comment out of turn here (because I had been highly critical of Christianity in the prior thread; and it is not enough to try to tear down this two thousand year old tradition); we must have a moral order which readily speaks to our organic needs, to our roots, as you say above. I look forward to more of what you have to say. 18
Posted by uKn_Leo on Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:50 | # Off topic, but. Hunter makes his move (this is Hunter in the following clips): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLP07YaS-ZY&feature=plcp 19
Posted by uKn_Leo on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:18 | # lol But. I’d rather see one man speaking the truth, speaking from the heart on behalf of his kin, than 1000 slick Red/Blue dirtbags. No matter how Ama Churrish.
20
Posted by daniels. on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:10 | # *The entire debate over the “individualist” aspects of philosophy being diagnostic must ignore the point that non-whites do count as a group and non-whites are a “category” within the “Lockean”, “modernist”, “empirical”, “Cartesian”, “Nietzschean” (or whatever smear-term you want to (mis)define and then apply to suit your sophistry). Non-Whites count as a group and a category despite the Lockeatine, modernist, empirical, Cartesian and Nietzschean basis of America because of Jewish sophistry. They are the ones rendering non-White and anti-White classifications sacrosanct and White classifications evil. To respond as if a critique of Lockeatine, modernist, (lets say bad) empirical, Cartesian and Nietzschean underpinnings could only be motivated by Frankfurt school anti-White chimera, is a little paranoic - perhaps understandable in the harrowing context of America, but nevertheless. It is an expression of overcompensating modernism following the wails of modernity’s destruction. The truth is, these philosophical underpinnings are obsolete and questionable in important respects to the interests of European peoples, including the purest and most individualistic ones. But after the wails bemoaning modernity’s failures (and the Jews and other groups taking advantage of it) rather than taking a post modern turn to the group relative interests of one’s people, the initial reaction of some is to become more determinedly modernistic than ever - (think Uh) an overcompensating modernist. The focus on empirical rootings is fine, and not at all obsolete; but it is one leg of an ongoing process; the other leg takes a step back to orient and account for the historical and group perspective; it is therefore critical of these influences (Locke, Descartes, bad or mis-applied empiricism, modernity, even Nietzsche) and not the enemy of your interests. It is not Jewish, though they have been successful at branding such notions as theirs and misapplying them where White interests might be concerned. Moreover, Jews are defending themsleves as a group and trying to do what it takes to defend themselves as a group. For example, they might have criticisms of Darwinism for that reason. Does that mean that all of their criticism are bad and invalid? that we should not do something just because Jews are doing something similar? Of course not. We should defend ourselves as a group as well. Toward that end, there will be many things that we do differently than Jews, with our distinctly European styles and morals. Again, you may be concerned that in that group defense that northern European individualism will be lost; and the answer is no, especially not in cooperation (the compartmentalized ship model) because European states which value a more individualistic way are sovereign to maintain and cultivate that kind of people. The only difference being that as opposed to allowing modernity to proceed unabated and sort things out however it might, that these more individualistic European states might avail themselves of alliance with more cooperative ones. ........ Yes, liberalism as we experience it does indeed, extend from individual differences from standard European groups, to openness to non-Europeans, to inclusiveness and integration of non-Europeans among Europeans and finally to a Marxist designation of groups of non-Europeans (or those antagonistic to Europeans) as the ‘proletarian’ to be incorporated, revolutionize and overthrow the so called White/European right wing, capitalist hegemony. 21
Posted by Bill on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:30 | #
. With link to Guardian (With comments) 22
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:36 | # uKn_Leo @ 18 Thanks for posting those vids. H/T to Hunter. He builds a good case. +++++++++
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-14/over-100000-supporting-texas-secession-ron-paul-weighs 23
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43 | # Stay tuned.
24
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:43 | # “Comments are closed”, Bill, at the DT. The joke is that the piece ends with a question: “Do people still believe in that old, poisonous conspiracy theory?” But they don’t want to hear the answer given by, we must presume, the five commenters who got in early and whose offerings are now disappeared. 25
Posted by Bill on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:40 | # GW @ 25 Yes I noticed that. I think O’Neill wants to test the water. ‘Are you thinking what I’m thinking’? sort of thing. A bit like hiding behind the Guardian’s skirt or holding their jackets. I see Damian Thompson’s joined the fray, I haven’t read his piece yet. Guardian comments overwhelmingly screaming antisemitism. They are mostly confining the conversation to Israel - Hamas of course. They, (media) must agonise endlessly over such ventures. I think the Obama election has run shock waves through our useless idiots, far more so than is realised. IMO. These shock waves seem to be gathering momentum recently, there’s been a bit of a spring in my step lately. I suppose you’ve listened to the GJ, MP, K.Mac discussion. http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/round-table-on-secession/ 26
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:06 | # Are the race realist ranks within the Americano MSM growing? It seems Pat Buchanan was a lone voice, until now. Has Ann Coulter joined him? If so that would be a 100% increase! Could this FINALLY be the start of something big? I’m not holding my breath…........ Check out Ann’s most recent piece: DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY 27
Posted by Graham_Lister on Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:48 | # To quote J.G. Ballard: “The American Dream has run out of gas. The car has stopped. It no longer supplies the world with its images, its dreams, its fantasies. No more. It’s over. It supplies the world with its nightmares now…” Who could disagree with the sentiment? The ‘American Dream’ is a nightmare to be awoken from. As for the relationship between politics and philosophy of course GW is correct. Ideas are ultimate, methodology proximate. My political philosophy starts from the concept of the fundamental ontological stratification of reality as such. The social world of human affairs does not escape from this phenomenon, even if the ultra-deflationary, ultra-reductionist ontological commitments implicit to modern liberal theory would deny this. And what is a more universalistic creed than Christianity? Why would Zizek (The Fragile Absolute) and Badiou (Saint Paul -The Foundation of Universalism) waste their time writing about how the subversive core of the Christian legacy forms the foundation of a politics of universal emancipation etc.,? http://www.versobooks.com/books/350-the-fragile-absolute http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=4042 Are they completely wrong? Bonkers? Willfully misunderstanding their source material? No intellectually honest and semi-serious Christian could deny the universality at the heart of their religious cosmology. 28
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:01 | # MR has now been reduced to quoting rancid Marxists like Zizek and Badiou?! There’s a great foundation for a nationalist politics!
Really? What is meant by “universality”? That Christ came to save the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and that the offer of salvation through Him is therefore open to all, is of course undeniable. But I’d like to be shown how this “metaphysical universalism” in any way overrides particularist temporal attachments - provided, of course, those attachments do not result in basic ethical breaches. Though love of God supersedes any lesser love, Christianity does not disavow or castigate lesser loves. Indeed, the Catholic Church recognizes that the path to God often begins with such inferior yet immediate and more ‘natural’ affections. Christianity, like every other Western institution, has been severely compromised by (leftist/modernist) political intrusions. The answer, however, is not to discard its truth (or, for foolish unbelievers, its instrumental usefulness in rendering life, family and continuity meaningful), but to Take Back the Church, neutering its PC heresies, and rendering it once again an ally in the maintenance of our civilization. WNs would do well to spend a bit of time studying, if not traditional theology, at least Christian history, before assuming that today’s Church leadership (sadly, virtually across the Christian world, especially in the West; Eastern Orthodoxy seems to be not quite as politically polluted) is somehow representative of the essence of the faith. Nazi/pagan WN will obviously never be acceptable to Christians (and perhaps not to most ordinary whites, either). But I see nothing in the 14 words which violates Christian ethics, nor in calls for European ethnonational self-determination.
29
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:03 | #
What do you mean, Bill? Which batch of useless idiots are you referring to? 30
Posted by Bill on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:38 | # @ 30
Senior moment I’m afraid. Useless idiots should have read useful idiots. (A subliminal mix of useless eaters and useful idiots. Sorry about that.) I take my soundings from mainly the BBC, the Telegraph, and the Guardian for good measure. I should also include the Times but it’s subscription only. It is these organs which generate opinion for the likes of me. Obama euphoria seems to have evaporated, (surprise, surprise) our media was sombre in comparison to 2008, in fact the post election analysis were couched in protective terms. A collective media penny seemed to have dropped, perhaps the elephant had trodden on some toes. To mix metaphors further, reality had bitten them in the ass. I see the media as being useful idiots every bit as much as the suburban liberal. Useful Idiot. Someone who supports a cause, programme, agenda, which will prove ultimately not to be in their best interests. Indeed it will prove opposite. You know who they are. From leftists who align with Islam to white students linking arms with the UAF. What about the enforced useful idiot? Those who by dint of job their lively-hood depends on it. Across the West there must be hundreds of thousand if not millions of workers in the public sector who are force fed to aid the globalist cause. This amply brings home to me the meaning of dictatorship of money.
I know it is unfair to categoriese these people as useful idiots as they will also suffer a double whammy when they are job replaced . 31
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:32 | # Listerwatch: Let’s follow Argentinian economics (NOT)!
———————— Graham Lister thinks Argentina is a “refutation” of free market economics (aka “economics”). Please. Understanding and espousing correct economic understanding does not make one a dreaded “neoliberal” - a point I have been at pains to make here at MR for several years, though apparently one Dr. Lister, who is lacking in either intelligence or open-mindedness, can’t seem to grasp. Any nationalist economics, that is, a model of political economy structured to enhance the prospects for national/racial survival, must be built on a foundation of correct theoretical understanding (which is provided by the Austrian School of Menger, Mises and Hayek), lest its inevitable failures discredit the broader nationalist agenda in the eyes of proletarians, who, after all, think first and foremost with their stomachs. 32
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:40 | # Bill@31 Got it. Wisdom is a valuable commodity, always in short supply (sadly, among nationalists, too -see comment #32 above). History is a long record of greed and folly, punctuated by rare periods of civilization rooted in wise rule. The problem today is that the scale of human development is such that our ‘margin for folly’ is so much less than in the past. Practice racial ‘idealism’ for a few decades, and your nation is lost. 33
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 20 Nov 2012 06:09 | # WHY ROMNEY LOST (leaves out his own weakness as a campaigner, due, in part, however, to his own moral decency as compared to the Obama jerk):
34
Posted by Silver on Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:13 | # It’s been proven here many times before that when it comes to economics Leon’s capable of providing plenty of bluster but precious little substance. As well, he is a good example of the classic rightwing paranoiac, forever on the lookout for signs of imminent economic doom. That’s why he swallows whole propaganda like this piece from some no doubt well-connected, self-interested Latin American fat cat. A quick recap of Argentina’s economy over the last decade or so: Annual GDP Growth 2004-2012 (%) 8.9, 9.2, 8.5, 8.7, 6.8, 0.9, 9.2, 8.9, 2.6 (Note to Haller: those are outstanding sustained growth rates.) Annual Inflation 2004-2012 (%) 4.4, 9.6, 10.9, 8.8, 8.6, 6.3, 10.5, 9.8, 9.9 (Note to Haller: that’s not “sky high” inflation.) Unemployment 2004-2012 (%) 13.6, 11.6, 10.2, 8.5, 7.9, 8.7, 7.8, 7.2, 7.2 (Note to Haller: that’s an ongoing diminution.) Gross Government Debt 2004-2012 (% of GDP) 127.0, 87.1, 76.4, 67.1, 58.5, 58.7, 49.2, 44.9, 45.2 (Note to Haller: IMF’s own figures.) And an important social statistic: Average Homicide rate (per 100,000) 1992-2003: 8.0 Note also in the propaganda piece the insistence that the government is “faking” the inflation statistics. Rightwingers have been claiming this for decades the world over. The ludicrous “Shadow Stats” site is a good example of an extreme American outfit dedicated to this task (only it knows the “true” inflation figure, see).
35
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:38 | # Silver, YOU exhibit no understanding of the issues at all, nor even basic reading comprehension.
Yes, we are to believe that the American Statistical Association is some rightist organization? I hope it is, but you have adduced no evidence for such a ludicrous assertion. Moreover, the Hudson Institute is a liberal organization, not a rightist one. Note also that all governments fake their inflation figures. This is the Age of Central Banking, during which the US dollar has lost 99% of its value from a century ago (how did that happen Silver? I mean, give us your pathetic Keynesian explanation, if you can). Finally, your own stats, even if verifiable (and where did you get them from - the Argentine Govt?! the Keynesian buffoons at the American Economics Association, or the Federal Reserve?), say nothing about the current state of affairs, nor do they explain away the real, alternative answer to the origin of such growth as Argentina experienced in the 2000s (ie, a Federal Reserve Board created global commodity boom, from which Argentina disproportionately benefitted - this is an indisputable fact to anyone conversant with global economics, regardless of errant ideologies). Also, recall that the parasite Argentines simply defaulted on over $100 billion in debts a decade ago. Wouldn’t it be great if I could rack up huge debts on credit, you know, buy lots of real stuff, and then just - poof! - default? That would sure help the Haller bottom line! And, of course, people are massively protesting right now, when the economy is in the throes of collapse, as free marketers and shrewd business persons have been predicting for some time. Indeed, why has Argentina recently seen the largest protests since the return of democracy in the early 80s? There is no way out from the laws of economics. Neither individuals nor nations can spend (or tax) their way to wealth. Wealth increases only from increases in physical mastery over material reality. Government macroeconomic manipulations only distort (and impoverish); they do not improve. At best, governments can force people to be more productive by, say, taxing consumption instead of income, or by encouraging work but making leisure difficult or boring or socially disapproved. 36
Posted by Bill on Tue, 20 Nov 2012 20:37 | # In response to a Google Search ‘Politics of the future’ I came across this piece by Phillip Blond. Phillip Blond shot to prominence when he advised prime minister David Cameron on the Big Society, which some saw as nothing more than Saul Salinski’s commutarianism. The Big Society idea has spluttered in fits and start since its unveiling. Personally, I have a feeling it is being quietly proceeded with as I type. We shall see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Blond In the real politics of the future will be anti-oligarchical - it will require a new right and a new left. For increasingly, from the perspectives of those who are shut out, the elites of authoritarian and democratic states will look remarkably similar. The West used to produce self-sacrificing elites; now it has those who are assiduously self-serving. Too many of our institutions are corrupt, and too many of their leaders rest easy in the falsehood that their interests are ours. A revulsion against oligarchy will soon define both eastern and western states, and it will of necessity draw on new and unexpected resources to shape a new political idealism. http://www.respublica.org.uk/item/Our-political-bankruptcy-demands-a-renewed-political-idealism Since the beginning it has always puzzled me why capitalism would throw in its lot with Cultural Marxism, ok, a capitalist is not fussy about the colour of his money especially when he is on a sure winner, globalism. I’ve always hankered a suspicion that an alliance built such shifting sands is bound to end in tears, even more-so when leftists holding hands with Islam is also included in the mix. Phillip Blond is confirming my thoughts when he says wealth creation cannot keep pace with the demands of welfare which we can now see proof of. The welfare tax pool is shrinking fast, the remaining dregs from the middle classes are being dredged out, the bottom is clearly visible. Where next? There’s only one place, well more actually if you don’t mind trillions being created from thin air. Our politicians are hearing the screams from across the water from Greece and they don’t like the sound of it. Our politicians don’t want it here and are calling for contributions from the 1% and I don’t think the 1% is very impressed. This is only the beginning. Our political system is performing a dying swan act, it becomes clearer with each Telegraph article but like their political soul-mates they cannot bring themselves to ‘fess up to their readers. Blond goes on to give us his version of the politics of the future, but for myself, I couldn’t possibly comment further. 37
Posted by Bill on Tue, 20 Nov 2012 22:06 | # Video. (22: 38) Meet Phillip Blond. Red Tory. The future of progressive Conservatism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxMdwBL0EV4 Strange. No mention of demographic change. The elephant is alive and well. 38
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:28 | # Bill, In all honesty, while you have had to live through the agony of watching your fatherland’s slow-motion suicide, at least you have lived the bulk of your life in a still mostly recognizable England (unless you’re from one of those London neighborhoods thoroughly colonized already). If you are 74, that means you were born probably in 1938 (or 37). Your early childhood may have been a bit deprived or even treacherous, if lived through the bombings, and your youth would have been passed in “Austerity Britain” (coming round again, it seems). But by the time you were of age (18), Britain and Europe were well into the postwar recovery. For your entire adulthood, you have known, absent a race riot or three, national peace - a rare achievement as European history goes. The material standard of living for the average Englishman today is much higher than it was when you were born. Even if it may now be set to go somewhat lower than it has been for many decades, I doubt - absent a second English civil ‘warre’ - it will fall to a pre-war level. So you have passed your life in an overwhelmingly white nation, in peace and relative national prosperity. In tough and depressing times, such as the 1970s and today, one can be forgiven for forgetting this. But, while each individual’s life experiences are unique, from a national perspective, and compared to the horrors that are coming, I would say you have lived in a privileged period. I recently said the same thing to my newly widowed mother, after Obama’s reelection (yes, the last couple of months have really been depressing for her) finally solidified for her what I’d been saying for years: that (our) America was done, and that though we live here and will likely die here, this is no longer our country, nor will it ever be so again. Now consider a bloke like me in his 40s. I’m old enough to remember growing up in an all-white neighborhood in Orange County, CA, USA, and feeling that that was what defined or exemplified “normal” America (even if I also knew that my own childhood was more economically privileged than than that of many of my chronological peers). My life is half over, perhaps a bit more, but already I am a complete stranger in my own land, not just ideologically, but even racially. When I return home to Southern CA, to my own or to visit my mother and sister (who also lives in OC), I no longer think of myself as really being in America. I’m sure that CA today will resemble most of the USA when I’m 74 (while whites in CA in three decades will be regarded as English expats no doubt were in Singapore or Kenya decades back - as tourists or foreign business persons or mere ‘colonials’). Now consider a bloke in his 20s. I met a guy like this back in LA over the summer. Mid-20s, metrosexual, multiculti, all-round douchebag. This guy was not like the ‘tolerant’ members of my generation (the “Reagan youth”). The liberal friends I have who are my own age may make fools of themselves professing their admiration for Obongo, or trying to show how ‘accepting of diversity’ they are, but scratch a bit beneath the surface, and they know what the Real America is, even if they themselves are ideological PC liberals. That is, they still think of the USA as a white nation, which must learn to ‘embrace diversity’ (and similar rot). The 20-something doucher I casually met was an entirely different creature. He was not necessarily any more Left/liberal than my 40-something Obama supporting acquaintances (though he was an Obongo supporter himself). But he had a completely different understanding of the USA. This indoctrinated, history-less buffoon literally had no conception that the USA was ever regarded as a white nation. He had no sense at all that white Americans are the modal Americans; that American culture (impoverished as it is) is white culture; that it might be thought improper or just bizarre for a white woman to be seen ‘coupling’ with a Chinaman; or that America might have evolved into something other than a multicultural society. In other words, even my mid-40s, uber-liberal, Obama-‘bundler’ (fundraiser) buddy, thinks of America as white, only that we must never ‘discriminate’, and ought not to ‘resist change’ (as he actually said to me once). The 20-something not only embraces diversity, he cannot imagine how matters might be otherwise. So of the three ages - mid-70s, mid-40s, mid-20s - who is the least fortunate? You are watching England die, but you lived in your land for most of your life. The 20s douches can’t even imagine their real homelands, so in a sense, don’t know what they’ve lost. It’s the persons like me in middle age who are the true sufferers. We know what was, and could have been, yet we will have spent the bulk of our lives under always increasing, multikulti oppression. Put yet another way: you think white, and lived mostly white I think white, but will have lived mostly nonwhite the brainwashed 20 year olds think nonwhite and will live nonwhite. Which is worst? 39
Posted by Gogol on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:31 | # Leon, I’m in my 20s and have been racial all my life. My parents are working class, and I grew up in London, attending, basically, a non-white school. I’ve not even had the pleasure of an all white neighbourhood and don’t think I ever will. Many white youngsters see what’s going on, but are powerless. Many whites youths in London have to adopt Jamican creoles and black culture to survive. And on top of that, you always have these middle class twats looking at the working class whites as if they’re the scum of the earth, while simultaneously praising every minority (that’s a funny word; they’re a bloody majority) under the sun. England is a joke. 40
Posted by daniels. on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:27 | # That’s a real problem that I have noticed in my experience of the English monied classes: espousing anti-racist poison as if it adds to their moral superiority. In that manner, they lord themselves over their “inferiors” and relegate their lives to be destroyed by immigrants. 41
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:11 | #
I know what I’m about to say sounds a bit trite, Leon, but to borrow from Tennyson: ‘Tis better to have loved and lost Hence, the 20 year old you describe is worse off—MUCH WORSE OFF—IMO. I, too, spent my youngin’ years, (toddler through 14 during the 1960 through the early 70s midwest America) living in a white kid’s paradise (of course we white kids didn’t know at the time it was a paradise, but looking back from what it was then to what it is now .... and what it’s becoming…........). Anyhow, I treasure the memories of those days; I wouldn’t trade them for anything. Hopefully Bill will chime in and give his perspective. 42
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:59 | # H/T to GoV and WRSA
Dr. Bill Warner is the founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). The video below records a talk he gave recently about the real history of Islam, and why there is such a powerful tendency towards collective amnesia about it in the West. His account of the destruction of classical civilization by the Great Jihad is a superb follow-up to Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited by Emmet Scott, which was examined at length here last month. This is possibly the best concise exposition of the history of Islamic violence that I have ever heard:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-we-are-afraid-1400-year-secret.html</blockquote>
43
Posted by PM on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:01 | # Leon Haller “But I’d like to be shown how this “metaphysical universalism” in any way overrides particularist temporal attachments - provided, of course, those attachments do not result in basic ethical breaches”
But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” “And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life” Jesus was always saying things that overrided family attachments, wasn’t he? I was raised a Christian, and used to be endlessly irritated by left-wing Christians who claimed Jesus was a radical, revolutionary figure who would have sided with Marxist causes if he were alive today. Now I wonder if they were, at least in many ways, correct. 44
Posted by Bill on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:06 | # Leon @ 39 That is a remarkably accurate summation of my life’s journey so far, almost eerily so. Yes my life of 74 years has been all of those things. Age 74 is not considered old these days, just much nearer the end than the beginning I say. When visiting my parents’ grave I stroll haltingly down the neat aisles of those who have gone before, what is most sobering is the number I note who never made it thus far. Kinda puts in perspective, I’m in Injun territory. It is a village cemetery (quiet as the grave) in a country setting and as such one can contemplate the faces that go with the names engraved on the headstone. I pulled up sharp recently when I came across my neighbour’s resting place, he was my neighbour of 47 years! What’s it like where you are Ray? I digress however. In addition to what you say about someone who has not known any difference confirms what I posted recently, that when my generation has gone a whole layer of historical culture will go with us. The architects know full well that it’s a long haul job, all they have to do is wait for us to shuffle off this coil and wait for the fruit to fall into their lap. I note my grandchildren, (12, 19, 23,) accept multicultural television as ‘normal,’ the eldest is up to speed sort of., it’s difficult to know how much to tell him, I don’t want to scare him. He realises the situation but doesn’t grasp the significance of it all, most likely he doesn’t want to contemplate the future. The BBC (MSM) have done a thoroughly professional job of normalising multiculturalism, and not only among the young. Unlike the ‘in yer face’ culture war in America, Britain’s culture war was for many years an incremental softly, softly Fabian style subterfuge, superbly orchestrated by the BBC. Mainly concentrating on distorting Christian morality, it has taken over two generations to accomplish complete victory. The architects appeared to be in no hurry, but that is rapidly changing. Which is better? What was worse? As regards myself you hit the nail with unerring accuracy, but that doesn’t mean I’ve escaped unscathed, I have children and grandchildren and my thoughts are inevitably with them. I’ve just seen where Thorn says it’s better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. In love you have another chance, with multi racism it’s a one way ticket. Not quite the same thing. I’ve written quite a bit about myself of those days kidding myself it was for my children and grand children, to let them know who they are and where they come from. In reality I’m not so sure they’ll care all that much, I suppose in a way I wrote about those times simply because I enjoy doing so. My country died sometime in the 60’s, it’s confusing really, I ask myself am I remembering through the eyes of a young man of that time or am I remembering with the hindsight of an old man? I suspect it is with a bit of both. The golden years for me was from my earliest childhood memories up until the end of the 1950’s. Britain was an homogeneous disciplined Christian nation, adhering to living a life to a well defined set of moral principles framed within a law abiding society. There were no grey areas, boundaries were well defined, if you crossed them then you did so at your peril, everyone knew the score. Punishment was harsh but fair, hanging wasn’t abolished until 1955. If only we could combine the social times of the 50’s with the scientific developments of today, I’d settle for that. Having lived all of my life in a world as briefly described I am being forced to trade it in for a world where those boundaries of certainty have been blurred or erased completely, a disciplined world is to be traded in for a world of relativism and pursuit of pleasure, a world where there are no truths, only chaos, uncertainty and confusion. I am being forced to share what has been my tribes historical homeland with aliens who have no notion or regard for what we are. In such circumstances nature demands a choice to be made, a decision to come down on the side you think is right. To defend it with your life if need be, it is the only human right nature recognises. I’ve never been a believer in a God per se. Though my life has been guided by Christian tenets, the very tenets that liberalism despises. The path that humankind is about to embark upon is complete nonsense, a sham, I suspect the architects know this and are just using it as an excuse to get rid of us. And what of you Leon? What you describe it appears is not too different from the situation of my grandson of 23 years will be. By the time he is 40 something the life as he has known it up to the present day will be but a distant memory, I wonder what he will think then? I cannot even visualise the world he is about to enter. I’ve never met a 20 year old liberal so sadly I cannot relate to such a person. Of the future, nobody knows where all this is leading, the only similar (to me) historical guide is what happened to the Soviet Union, that is, untold death, misery and eventual collapse. That’s as far as I can see. Although having said that, I have posted in the past that when resistance comes we could find ourselves pushing against an open door. Britain is buckling at the knees, the quality of people’s lives is in straight decline, there are no winners for whites in any true sense. It is only the BBC (MSM) that maintains the faux matrix that passes for normality. 45
Posted by uKn_Leo on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:49 | # There is another generation too, that haven’t all left us yet. My grandfather is now 91, and still going strong. He fought in the war, RAF radar operator, then worked for customs and excise. He was a Methodist preacher. He has lived through all of this, and he is aware. Imagine what the world looks like through his eyes. The betrayal, the corruption. The injustice. We are part of an eternal struggle, good men vs bad. Babylon will fall. We will prevail. 46
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:51 | # Jesus was always saying things that overrided family attachments, wasn’t he? I was raised a Christian, and used to be endlessly irritated by left-wing Christians who claimed Jesus was a radical, revolutionary figure who would have sided with Marxist causes if he were alive today. Now I wonder if they were, at least in many ways, correct.
One can see whatever God makes one see in Scripture. Hence the repeated admonition: “He who hath ears!” Ephesians 6:2 “Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;)” 47
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:06 | # Mainstream news broke out today reporting that three children of Eastern European parents who were being fostered by whites were taken back into care by Rotherham (Yorkshire) Social Services on the claim that the couple were members of UKIP. A spokes-woman claims the couple are reported to be members of UKIP and as such are considered unsuitable to be the children’s carers. Rotherham Social Services cited UKIP an anti EU, anti immigration and anti Multiculutralist party and such views were incompatible with the children’s interests. The Telegraph and major tabloids ran with the story, the government and opposition leader distanced themselves from this action, Michael Gove, Tory Education Minister roundly condemned Rotherham Social Services, Nigel Farage UKIP’s leader is outraged. The Telegraph thread was stung into Over 2000 comments. The 10.00pm BBC News ran the the piece as leader and reported in length, covering the events factually. It’s events such as this that will bring to the public’s attention to how far down the fascist road our elite’s are taking us. I heard on the BBC news a by-election is soon to take place in Rotherham in which UKIP will be contesting. which hints there is more to this story than meets the eye. Watch this space. 48
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:22 | # Back again. Should have included @ 48 Just a thought. Rotherham Social Services have no concerns at all in giving vulnerable children to homosexual couples. 49
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:47 | # Sounds interesting. Could this be the start of something? 50
Posted by Bill on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:46 | # If Farage doesn’t seize the moment, What then? Big question mark. 51
Posted by Bill on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:00 | # Common Purpose has reared its head in the Rotherham Social Services furore. Common Purpose. http://www.londonpatriot.org/2009/10/24/common-purpose-philosophy-communitarianism/
Common Purpose trained facilitators are readying themselves for the Big Society, Obama is an ex community organiser. Nice to see the above Telegraph thread more up to speed than most. The other threads are still floundering. It won’t be long before a Telegraph reader will be declared a racist bigot by the left. Any signs of camp like structures along the Welsh Marches? 52
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:08 | # Bill, I read that article about Farrage. I think everyone should read it to get a flavor of just how far gone Britain has become. It is as though your country is one giant Ivy League faculty lounge. It is posted here:
——————————————————- This was one of the most depressing articles I’ve ever read. Layers upon layers of left-liberal bullshiiiite! Could a WN even critique this? It would take hours. Every last thing about this article stinks of the most craven PC. Truly we are living under a new form of Orwellian totalitarianism. And despite the mentalities on display in this DT article (“Oh I never would have done xyz if I thought it was racist” ... boohoo boohoo ... “I love legal immigration, but can;t we be just a little bit concerned about Brussels determining our immigration policy” ... boohoo boohoo ... etc etc), many MR readers think my White Zion idea is somehow unrealistic?! Are you joking? Muds are NOT the problem. Jews are NOT the problem. WE ARE THE PROBLEM! Any race of men which exhibits the mental proclivities on display in the quoted article will not endure, nor does it deserve to. Most whites are mentally defective, and there isn’t much we can do about it. All we - the last true white men - can do is segregate ourselves, and gain independence for our own country. 53
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:48 | #
I know what’s going through your head, Leon. I know who you are. I know you are at least partially Jewish. Just as I know this of Silver and his assorted sockpuppets (“Hesper” and “Daybreaker”). You are the type of latter-day Jew both too genetically and psychologically assimilated to bring himself to hate with the totality of his being European-derived people who have the good fortune to be free of Jewish ancestry. You have had too many good laughs, too many small moments - that in the end are the whole of our lives - which filled you with affection, to fully hate these people. I am being charitable here, as is the wont of Northern Europeans. If you are partially or fully Jewish (of course you are), and never had one bit of affection stirred in his heart for his fine hosts, you would walk through life as a cripple and a wretch of a man not even fit for the company of his fellow Jews. I think you really do know that most European-derived people do not appreciate being forced in proximity with the limitless hordes from every corner of this earth. It is not that they are mentally defective, it is that they are too affable, too timid, to raise their hand against what their very viscera tells them to be noxious. In the end, however, there is such a thing as an abuse of one’s hospitality. Any bar does after all have its owners and its bouncers. However much they may like you, Leon, when you are on good behavior, there will come a time when you are thrown out into the street by your shirt collar if you will not refrain from pissing on the floor and spitting in the faces of your fellow patrons.
Wouldn’t that just suit your infantile tastes the best, if the owners and bouncers left and you were free to continue pissing and spitting until the bar you yourself enjoy became uninhabitable? Nice try, but it ain’t gonna happen, faggot.
54
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:28 | #
“So what the fuck’s up, Captain? Why do you do that same shit? Are you nuts? Are you some kind of sociopath? Are you a Jew?” LOL No, not the last time I checked. It’s just a simple combination of vanity and mischief; assholery and horse-play. I enjoy interacting with the characters whom I wouldn’t bother fucking with if I didn’t like the cut of their jib. It is a jocular place-marker until I get around to seriously studying the books and concepts I would need to contribute seriously. Post a comment:
Next entry: Civilization Takedown: Crabtree’s IQ Realism vs Harpending and Cochran’s Happy Talk
|
|
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 James Bowery on Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:48 | #
Your seamless transition from talking of the psychological to the philosophical requires some additional exposition, does it not?