|
|
|
Crack this Walnut Genes have loose correlations to all sorts of things. Personality, behavior, beliefs, ideals, emotional tendencies, and of course the mother of them all IQ. However, none of these correlations are 100%. Many are as low as 20%. What would become of a society that accepted genetic differences, good and bad, and concentrated solely on developing everyone we can to their fullest potential? For instance, suppose someone has a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. If raised correctly, and with enough force of will, this person can avoid drinking and thus never become an alcoholic. Here we have genes weaving their nefarious webs, and culture cutting right through them. How many other victories could we as a nation, and we as individuals, score over our genetic default? Is there really no hope of progress, no chance at a better life? Are we doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over, we as individuals and we as groups, just because we have certain tendencies, or correlations, or predispositions, towards those things? There are no 100% correlations between genes and anything else. This means nothing is decided, no one is past hope, we can always change people for the better—if only we try hard enough. At a certain period in US history, blacks were all free, and were also committing very few crimes, they wore respectable dress, they had a solid family life, and for all intents and purposes they were completely harmless additions to our society. Take a picture of blacks in 1910, 1920, or what have you and they look just like anyone else. No government handouts were being rewarded to them, no drug gangs were infesting inner cities, nothing. The genes of the black race probably haven’t changed much in the last few generations, but their behavior certainly has. This means culture can determine everything. Who cares if blacks start from a lower base? They can still become decent fellows with good lives, perfectly integrated into our society and economy. Ditch the bad habits, relearn the lessons of the past, and blacks will be as good as new. If even blacks can perform well, with their genetic flaws, what then of any other race? Do we really believe hispanics are irretrievably bad, when blacks wore dapper coats and hats just a century ago? When blacks bowed to the ladies, didn’t cause trouble, and went to work just like the rest of us? What about arabs, asians, subcons, amerindians? Is there nothing culture couldn’t cure? So long as people obey the law, earn their keep, and leave us free to associate with whom we choose, what harm are they doing us? Sure, theoretically, a higher population puts a strain on public goods and resources, but without any handouts luring degenerates into the country, we can be assured they’ll always contribute more to the economy than they’ll cost. What if we could develop some perfect government policy, some perfect set of laws, that would allow all races to coexist and even thrive in harmony? Suppose we gave pre-natal care to pregnant minorities, followed by the perfect schooling starting from age 1, insist the children be given breast feeding for the first six months, banish all possibility of drug use (singapore did it, so can we) and require babies only be born into stable married homes? Suppose we gave a citizen’s dividend to all married couples that could help pay for their health care and made corresponding laws requiring people lead healthy lives? Suppose we taught children in new, unorthodox manners that show much better results than our current ‘sit in a desk all day’ classrooms manage? Why won’t we even try? It’s heartless to simply give up on someone, simply because it would be easier on a genetically ‘fitter’ individual. That ‘fitter’ individual doesn’t exist, this one does. He’s alive, he’s suffering, and he needs our help. It’s too late to dream of an easier task with some 20% improvement due to some genetic correlation, we have a real breathing human, who like it or not is here and has to be taken care of, with the genes they like it or not have. Let’s work around it—has anyone bothered to even try? Blacks don’t perform well in school. So change the schools to something that they perform well in. Teach them something they’re good at, or become good at teaching them. Does anyone seriously believe 2009 is the last word in education, that there is no way to improve our schools, whatsoever? That despite our lack of perfection in every other field, education is done, we’ve maximized its potential, it is just the optimal schooling experience that even Jesus has set up for babies in heaven? Blacks have a crime problem. Well, when was there less crime? What were people doing in that age? Can we mimic that period? Can we bring back their policies? What was it? A no-nonsense enforcement policy? Higher culturual expectations and ostracism of ne’er do wells? Why can’t we bring it back? If there was any time blacks were doing less crime, we know we at least have the potential to bring it back to that level. Voting has become a grab-bag for ethnic and special interests. Well then, when did voting work better? Was there a time when votes were limited and the results more rewarding for our republic? Could we not change voting to rest more on merit, or have some other qualifications, or change government entirely to something that might work better? If minority voting habits are a problem—change voting! Why immediately insist on going after the minority? There’s more than one way to skin a cat—-and this way is more humane, which is all that matters. People come first, not projects. Jews are defrauding us of trillions of dollars by gaming the business world. Well when were they not defrauding us? Perhaps we could change the way debt works, or perhaps the fed could be abolished, or new regulations be set so that such fraudulent practices would be illegal? America has had many recessions and the economy is a complicated business. Mistakes will be made, but there’s no need to get out the tar and feathers. Every time a crash occurs, we learn something, all we have to do is culturally apply what we’ve learned. With a proper set of laws, it will become impossible for anyone, regardless of the malice in their hearts, to steal from anyone. All it takes is a serious interest and effort in making things transparent, fair, and safe for the everyday investor. Muslims are taught silly things in their Koran that promotes violence. Well, why don’t we teach them a different way in our schools, and show them love is always better than hate? It’s not like terrorism is a big deal, it kills fewer people than car accidents do every year. What is a big deal is giving up on millions of people, all fellow human beings, who if we tried even just a little could be shown the western cultural way. So long as muslims don’t do crime, go to work, and aren’t rioting in the streets, we can forgive each other our differences and move on! Life is too good to concentrate on what your neighbor is doing in the privacy of their homes, or what they are thinking in the privacy of their heads! Sure diversity causes problems we wouldn’t ordinarily have. But let’s face it, so long as rich people have jobs, and poor people need them, diversity is going to happen. And more importantly, they’re already here. We can’t do anything about it now, they’ve just as much a right to live here as anyone else does. All we can do is try to make the best of it, for everyone’s sake. Are they suffering from a disease? Let’s get together and cure it. Do they have bad moral habits? Let’s get together and raise them right. Do they have a tendency to violence? Let’s teach them what is and what isn’t acceptable. Do they vote the wrong way? Let’s change government until only correct decisions are capable of being made. Do they make too little money? Let’s provide a generous citizen’s dividend that will help ends meet. After all, the rich of this country, the top 1%, earn as much as the bottom 50%! That kind of balance is disgusting, and I doubt it’s merited either. Regardless, the first few thousand dollars someone receives can buy food, clean water, a place to stay —the next few billion can only buy yachts and chandeliers—who needs it? We should be looking out for everyone, after all, we’re all in this together. A little less poverty goes a long way. People will not be as sick, if they just have a good diet and a good neighborhood—in the end it will save us money by avoiding all the complications poverty brings to people down the road. There’s so much we can do! Lots of people have good suggestions. Republicans want to be tough on crime—fine! Democrats want to provide better health care—good! Republicans want school choice—excellent! Democrats want school funding—let’s do it! What we all want is the betterment of our people’s lives. A place we can live, and our children can live, in peace and prosperity. Think for a second, what would YOU do to improve the life of EVERYONE in this country, from the most genetic superman to the lowest genetic reject? Think of that one change that would rise all boats, across the board, that you’d implement if you could. And then go do it! Make a crusade out of it. Go for it! Do you want mothers to breast feed their children, because it rises IQ by 5 points and helps the child’s immune system forever—children of any color? How much would it hurt to change that? Let’s do it! Do you want children as young as 1 to 5 year olds being given a healthy, nutritious diet no matter where they live? Do you want young children to receive top quality daycare that’s proven to energize and engage children’s minds? Let’s do it! How much could it cost? How much more will it cost, rather, if we DON’T do it? If we abandon these children, who in turn will someday abandon their country, and cause the chaos we so abhor? Do you want english to be taught to all children at the time they learn it best, so we have a common language we can engage each other in, as one nation, as one people? Do you want english to be as innate to hispanics and haitians as it is to the purest boston clubhouse? Let’s legislate it! Test scores are certain to rise when hispancis aren’t busy trying to translate everything into their native tongue, before they can even address the question. Life could be so much better, we know it can, in so many ways. Off the top of my head, I know of 30 different changes that would improve the life of every single human on earth, if only they gave it a shot. When we are so deficient as nurturers, what does nature have to do with it? Suppose we are stuck in a brace, blindfolded, our hands are tied behind our backs, and there’s a gag in our mouth. Now someone walks up and says to you: “You know why you can’t win this 100 meter dash? it’s because your genes are just too weak! If you simply had better genes, you could’ve been the winner. But now we’re carting you off to Ecuador, and good riddance!” If only you could protest through your gag, you could tell him that the genes had nothing to do with it, it was really the blindfold, the hand tying, and the brace holding you back. And that with all those things removed, heck, you could’ve given the race quite a shot! This is how race-on-the-brains determinists are thinking, and it’s positively insane. Sure, maybe in the end they still couldn’t run as fast as a rocket. But you know what, they could run pretty damn fast. All we have to do is work together, and give it a real, honest-to-goodness shot. Until we have gotten the best out of everyone, how do we know it isn’t good enough? How do we know it isn’t wonderful? Lovable? Beautiful? Brilliant? Inspiring? Great? How do we know? How can we judge until we’ve let them bloom? There’s nothing wrong in this country that couldn’t be made better, with the very people living in it today. If we’ve done everything and made it as good as we can, and you’re still not content—well okay THEN tell us we were wrong, and we’ll admit it and apologize. Until then, taking into account the humaneness of our position, and the compassion we must all feel for our fellow man, what reason to jump the gun? I won’t question your motives or intentions, but I still can’t help but think how sad it must be to turn to violence, exclusion, and hate as the first and only recourse to every problem. If your daughter said she wasn’t going to eat the broccoli, do you get out the hammer and slug her across the head? Or do you work with her? Individuals make mistakes, societies make mistakes. Sometimes they do the wrong thing. The important thing is to love them, forgive them, and teach them a better way. Life is a process, there is no end point. If you let love enter your heart, you’ll always find a way to make up. This world is big enough for all of us, nurture is powerful enough to lift all boats, so let’s put the hammers away and give it another go, okay? Comments:2
Posted by Homelander on Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:14 | # A side point about blacks and eugenics. Back in the day when the illegitimacy rate among blacks was - although higher than the white rate during that period - much lower than the illegitimacy rate among whites now, the black middle-class/working-class family was LARGER than the families of the truly poor. And the indigent were less likely to have children (legitimate or not) at all. Now, the three-quarters of black children born illegitimate are mostly born to the indigent. Meanwhile educated (and simply working-class) blacks have small families, much like most whites. Like the Obamas…two kids. Eugenicists used to worry - mostly needlessly - about the shiftless out-breeding the provident among whites. If there were any eugenicists anymore…they would have a much more valid concern re. blacks. 3
Posted by Homelander on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:13 | # The fantasy Diamed has sketched above is/was basically the Neo-Conservative project from the late ‘60s until today. I was there for most of it. Consisted of Market Reform, combined with government interventions (when there were any) rooted in traditional, consensus values and VERY agenda-driven: assimilate and civilise the outlanders! Whether or not, in some alternate universe, this COULD have worked…it is obviously too late by far. The “we” in all these propositions is implicitly mainstream whites. And whites have become depleted - both in numbers, and in resources and leverage over events. It is all we can do to save ourselves. The Neo-Conservative project consisted of shelving questions of Race Realism. Before one gets TOO censorious, it should be acknowledged that few Race Realists examine the evidence - noted by Diamed above - that the behavior of blacks and other minorities was once much BETTER than it is today. Race Realists tend to posit that contemporary dysfunctions are some kind of default or baseline for blacks…but it would not appear to be so. As I said, dysgenics may play a part. But it hasn’t been that long. 4
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:52 | #
You don’t actually believe this BS do you? The fear of Southerners and manumission was a Haitian repeat. The race riots in East St. Louis, Chicago and Detroit were a result of blacks behaving better, is that your premise? The criminality of the past was not overwhelmingly, Catholic, Jewish and black, is that the shtick? Ever heard of Murder, Inc? Ever heard of the battles between Charlie (Shachna Itzik) Birger and the Klan?
Crap! The ‘White’ race, as a unified group, has done exactly nothing, nada, zippo, bubkis. The ‘White’ race has done more to ‘partition off’ nativists than it has natives. 5
Posted by danielj on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:04 | #
Murder Inc.: The Story of the Syndicate But He Was Good to His Mother: The Lives and Crimes of Jewish Gangsters 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:45 | #
Or better still, how about “Culture is blood externalized,” “blood” being simply the older word for the modern term “genes” — “Culture is the genes externalized,” same thing: culture is an outward manifestation of the unique inner biology of the race. No two races produce the same culture. 7
Posted by Homelander on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:08 | # Desmond - I’m not sure what you’re on about, or if you understood my point. America would be DELIGHTED if blacks today behaved as well as they did in the 1950’s - in Northern cities. Hell…America would be delighted if whites today behaved as well as blacks did in the 1950’s. Off the top of my head, it goes something like this: the black rate for illegitimacy in the 50’s (in the northern urban areas) was something like 10%, and the white rate was 5%. So tthe black rate was twice as high, right? Scandal! Oh my lord! But… ...the white rate nowadays is 30% - and the black rate is 70%-80%. If we could get blacks to behave as well as they did fifty years ago, that would be stupendous, no? And, if we could get whites to behave as well as blacks did fifty years ago that would be no small thing either. And this plays out across the board, with almost any kind of social dysfunction you can think of - welfare dependence, chronic un-and-under-employment, street crime and incarceration, transmittable disease. Northern blacks in the 50’s would be by today’s standards, a fairly well-behaved minority, like Asians or American Moslems. They even had higher rates of personal savings and business start-ups, and comparable rates of education and home-ownership relative to the national average and adjusted for the period. Desmond, if you read something besides pre-digested and dumbed-down hate literature you might learn something. 8
Posted by cold equation on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:12 | # First of all, this screams for some actual data. I don’t doubt that blacks had a lower crime rate back when it wasn’t tolerated, but it was as low as the white crime rate? Really? Also, back then whites were the overwhelming majority, and they set the tone. Not so in the present, and certainly not in the future. Not only are our relative numbers declining, being white is uncool now. It’s more likely that whites of the future will imitate minorities, not the other way around - in fact, the “wigger” phenomenon is about 20 years old by now. Look at the demographics of the next generation. How, for example, are the 33% (and falling) of Californian children who are white supposed to assimate the 47% (and rising) who are Hispanic? It’s not going to happen. The Hispanics will have to create this favorable culture/environment themselves, but if they were going to do that, why wouldn’t they have done it already in Guatelombia and built a society that they would prefer to stay in rather than sneaking into the US to wash dishes? I don’t doubt that the right policies could improve the genetically challenged (which is not to say that they would be made equal to everybody else, just that they could be better than they are), but I don’t see how they would be implemented when the genetically challenged are the majority, or even a large minority. I also think they would be so non-liberal that they’re no more likely to be implemented than the National Socialist Movement’s candidate is likely to be elected president. Even acknowledging that all people are not created equal is unthinkable to a liberal, which is why their actual programs are always so counterproductive. 9
Posted by Homelander on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:34 | # cold equation - I still think my point has escaped you. I did not say that black crime in the 50’s was as low as white crime in the 50’s...just that it was lower than it is now, and in fact lower than the white crime rate is now. If Obama could get the black crime rate to even approach what it was in the 50’s, he would be hailed as a post-racial savior. He won’t…but if he did, I’d have to convert. Who could reasonably argue? You are certainly right that solutions which might have worked when whites were 80-85%, are already sluggish at 65-70%, and doomed at 50-55%...which is where we are going. 10
Posted by Homelander on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:55 | # Diamed - I think the only possibility for white homelands depends on how events are shaped by peoples who are not Americans, and in some cases not whites. In my favorite fantasy, four “catastrophes”: 1.) Western English-speaking Canda seperates from eastern French-speaking Canada. Either side, or both, initiates this. 2.) An Hispanic majority in the SouthWest demands either autonomy, or full accession to Mexico. 3.) Much of southern and eastern Europe just gets ceded to the Muslims. 4.) The world just gets uglier in an ongoing and unresolvable economic crisis. Except for the last, the “catastrophes” needn’t be all that painful. The opportunity is for a North West Homeland, allied (to some extent) with white redoubts in Northern Europe, Australia/NZ and South America. At 10-13% of world population, that’s all we deserve really. For the rest…we have to grow toward it. 11
Posted by danielj on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:22 | #
I agree that no two races will produce the same culture but there is neither a corollary which necessitates that one race create one single culture. Therefore, Culture is the intersection of blood and religion. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:10 | # (Can’t say the same for Homelander’s comment just above his, though.) 14
Posted by Armor on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:05 | # “Culture is the intersection of blood and religion” In fact, culture is the intersection of blood and environment. 15
Posted by Armor on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:25 | # Religion is part of the environment, but is also determined by blood (and by God’s inspiration), just like : tradition, history, language, institutions, economy… 16
Posted by cold equation on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:13 | # Diamed: if you’re talking about a return to pre-WWII policies where there was no welfare and potential criminals were kept in line by the threat of harsh punishments, up to and including lynching (this is not too far from the neocon position, except for they lynching part), how are you going to get that in Mexamerica? Minorities vote Democrat and Democrats would never do anything like that. Maybe it could work in a military dictatorship, but not in a democracy. A military dictatorship would actually be the logical endpoint of where diversity is taking us. We’re already getting rid of freedom of speech in the name of getting along with each other, and if you go to a minority-heavy city that actually works (sort of), like Houston, you’ll see that there are cops everywhere. That’s what they have to do to keep crime down to tolerable levels. Could a mulatto or mestizo version of Yugoslavia’s Tito keep it together here? Maybe, but it probably wouldn’t be any more stable than Yugoslavia turned out to be in the long run. Homelander: I was referring to Diamed’ statement:
17
Posted by Armor on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:54 | # Diamed: “crime is not an argument for racial separation any more than it is an ... “ Diamed and Homelander seem to be competing for a prize of some sort.
Even today, when whites are still the majority, the right policies can not be implemented. It isn’t just immigration and moral order. It is also true regarding the economic policy. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:12 | # @ Diamed: Keeping diversity is not a significant departure from today’s forced race-replacement régime. If you’re saying we can’t get Euro-race homogeneity you’re saying the game’s up, because homogeneity is what we’re after. Homogeneity is the game. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:17 | # You look as if in one post you’re meeting them half-way, then in the next post you’re meeting them 70% of the way, then in the post after that you’re meeting them 90% of the way, then in the following post 95% of the way, then .............. No. I meet them zero percent of the way. You’ll say, “Well, we won’t get 100%.” But with your approach we won’t either: you’re ending up meeting them 99.99% of the way. 20
Posted by Wandering Internet Commentator on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:53 | # Out of curiosity, Diamed, if you’d forgive a wandering Internet commentator (new to MR, but not philosophically opposed to white nationalism/separatism), you mention the “European Soul” a lot in this entry. However, in a previous entry, I also saw you talk about evolution and adaptation. I’m wondering, do you consider yourself to be a Christian? Or are you more of a deist/pantheist? Pardon me for asking, it’s just that the tone of your posts seems somewhat religious, but judging from your writings on evolution you also have a scientific bent. 21
Posted by danielj on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:17 | # In fact, culture is the intersection of blood and environment. Even better! The cult is an outgrowth of the intersection of blood and environment. 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:57 | # Diamed is saying the game’s up and we should stop dreaming and start compromising. I’ll never say that and I don’t think people come here to hear that. Furthermore, if enough people say the game’s up the game will be up. The only way for the game not to be up is for enough people not to say the game’s up. If I’m the last man on Earth not to mentally capitulate I’ll be the last man on Earth not to mentally capitulate. 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:02 | # I dislike and reject all of Diamed’s compromises. I’m in this for white race preservation. That means white race preservation. If there are a hundred white couples still standing when all the dust has settled I’m with them and they’ll re-breed the white race from scratch. I don’t mentally compromise. If Diamed is getting tired of thinking up scenarios or whatever, and wants to throw in the towel, let him take a vacation. 25
Posted by weston on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:35 | # This is without question the single stupidest log entry I’ve read at this site. The descent of MR parallells the descent of the white West. Exit JW Holiday, Phil Petersen, and Geoff Beck, and enter Diamed.
There’s no evidence for this.
Idiocy. Only a tiny minority of people ever profess anything resembling that sentiment. And that’s because they’re subject to relentless pro-diversity propaganda, and anyone who dissents from the party line is punished. If push came to shove, whites aren’t going to choose to live in a military dictatorship over a place like Switzerland just so they can get Thai take-out. Diversity is always a source of conflict, in every country where it exists. That’s why it takes so much force and so much propaganda to keep the current system functioning as well as it does.
Or how about Apartheid? Blacks were perfectly happy to live under minority rule in South Africa, and didn’t agitate for self-rule at all. Apartheid was also wildly popular the world over. Most importantly, it’s worked out great for the Boers. I would bet virtually none of them regret that they choose diversity over separatism. 26
Posted by Wandering Internet Commentator on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:06 | # Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification. Out of curiosity, then, if you wouldn’t mind me asking yet another question, qould you consider yourself a science enthusiast, or even an atheist in the same vein as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, PZ Myers, etc. who actively campaign against religion? Pardon me for asking, of course, I’m just wondering if you’ve read any of their books. A lot of atheists I know have recommended them to me 27
Posted by Wandering Internet Commentator on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:17 | # Ah. Thanks again. I’m particularly interested in your answer about science just being a means to an end, I was wondering about that. Thank you again for your time and patience, I apologize if I’ve been intrusive. It’s just that most atheists I’ve met have been “anti” racism rather than for it, as you are. They seem to take pride in being anti-darwinians even if they believe in evolution—Richard Dawkins specifically, for instance, author of the Selfish Gene, believes that ostensibly, human beings have an obligation to buck the evolutionary trends you’ve described in other entries—be nonselfish “anti-darwinians,” so to speak—because we are the only species intelligent enough to do so. It is interestung to see another outlook. Thank you again for your time. 28
Posted by apollonian2nd on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:23 | # Christian Dialectic Retains Relevance To This Very Day, Never Doubt Diamed, if u ck dictionary definition and etymology of word, “religion,” u find it has to do with programming full mentality, esp. w. ref. to sub-conscious, not only conscious intellect, that’s all. So “religion” has nothing necessarily to do with mysticism or anti-reason, for example. Thus one could as well be “religiously” rationalistic, logical, scientific, etc. So what can we do for white folk?—and what’s proper nature of things ethical, aside fm that deterministic nature which otherwise makes things so hopeless for so many? Well, object is to have fun, much as possible, and this then requires philosophy for what’s “fun.” Thus we observe as we consider it pays to observe most accurately. For humans want to know, no less than they urge to eat. Thus to have “fun,” we choose (so “tragically,” according to Greek forbears) to accept challenge to fight other humans; hence we “game” the system—all founded upon accurate (as possible) observations of what we assume is objective (Aristotelian) reality—such is the Western, “white” way, at any rate—it works for me. And this Western way of things we see is quite successful—even if in negative way. Thus moving down (or up) fm beginning metaphysical premises/assumptions, (a) objectivity, (b) determinism, we arrive at (c) CYCLICALITY—which not a lot of people want to accept, which then renders them weak and vulnerable, hence easily (relatively) victimized by clever, vicious, low-life scum like myself, personally (I try not to be too proud, however). Thus we observe most excellent AMBUSH pt. coming up with the CULMINATION of this CYCLIC process. It’s really very simple for this CYCLIC-scheme, already pre-saged by such as Hegel and esp. Oswald Spengler’s “Decline of the West,” not to mention original Greeks, Thucydides, Herodotus, and Hesiod, among the others. Thus we see predatory Jews, for foremost example, have enjoyed tremendous WINNING STREAK now for at least 200 years in this latest “modernist” CYCLE of (a) subjectivism (“romanticism”), and (b) moralism-Pharisaism featuring “good-evil” fallacy/delusion/heresy—specifically neo-Pelagianism which now entails merely that Kantian rationalistic styling. There are other subjectivists-Pelagians (“neo-” sort) among gentiles, of course, but they’re naturally less organized than thematically collectivist Jews. And again, simple mechanism is socio-biologic parasite-host relationship—EVENTUALLY parasite will eat-up all the practical victims which then eventuates crisis for erstwhile parasites, thus Jews (foremost frauds, according to their Talmud—see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for expo/ref.), who we see are already falling-out, Walt-Mearsheimer (CFR-Bilderberg conspirators—see TheNewAmerican.com for expo/ref.) pointing “finger” at “The Israel Lobby” and “zionist” “bad-cops.” So what do white folks have to do?—they need to get on “right side of history”—thus the CYCLIC phase which must necessarily do something (or not) about these Talmudic parasites, heretofore so successful. Thus the answer/solution for our dear white volk is to look to history to emulate the victors of yore—led by St. Constantine the Great. And remember Jews’ secret weapon which has worked so brilliantly for them, the foundation of their lies: (a) subjectivism (esp. in form of mysticism), and then (b) esp. neo-Pelagian heresy of Rousseau, Eng. utilitarians, Kant, et al. which then (c) all provided for that practical weapon, COUNTERFEIT monopoly, also known technically as fractional-reserve money and banking, like US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed)—see RealityZone.com for expo/ref. Jews thus are demonstrably foremost criminal masterminds. Again, what happened, historically/socio-biologically?—simple: West was (CYCLICALLY) successful, producing excess over-population of off-spring who were (and still are) losers without their parents to guide them, who fell victim then, as we see, to HUBRIS, thus subjectivism, and again, esp. that (neo-) Pelagianism. Jews then were/are that disease-of-opportunity which capitalized, but are now approaching critical over-population themselves, etc. Crux socio-biologic observation is people don’t want to accept that CYCLIC necessity, being rather obsessed with hubris and this absolute FIXATION with present neo-Pelagian Pharisaism-moralism. For some reason Immanuel Kant is so captivating for these modern inferiors who still require extinction. Thus the critical pt. for us white folks presently is “Judeo-Christian” (JC—see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) goons, suckers, and dupes to Jew masterminds who simply lead these poor, pathetic creatures and weaklings by means of Mammonistic manipulations, style, and hype, and bribery/extortion of leaders, all of this by means of simple COUNTERFEITING and financing. There are other, atheistic-styled Pelagianists (and subjectivists) too, but they’re far less organized and more easily treated. So practical problem, again, is to solve and overthrow this criminal conspiracy led by Judeo-conspirators. CONCLUSION: So again, note it’s really matter of having one’s “FUN,” fighting these Pelagianists, both mystic and rationalist -styled, and the sublime irony is observing original Christian “message”/theme (Truth vs. Jew lies, as Gosp. JOHN) remains so “relevant,” appropriate, and actually INFORMATIVE, even to this day. And it simply gets down, once again, to that crux metaphysical dichotomy, objective vs. subjective, this within CYCLIC circumstances. Irony, surely, is Christian aesthetic is really so sublimely, supremely rational, not to mention appropriate and applicable, despite all the hereticalist and Jew lies. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian 29
Posted by danielj on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:41 | # Now that we have better explanations than “God did it,” it’s folly to not adopt them. Even assuming that, that is true, how do you have any idea whether the lie of the truth will be more beneficial? 30
Posted by danielj on Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:27 | # Sorry for muddled comment. It should read: Even assuming that is true, how are you certain that the truth serves us better than the lie? 31
Posted by danielj on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:28 | # Honesty is always the best policy. That isn’t how people make it to the top. You just have insufficient “will to power” for a WN 32
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:11 | # So, to sum up: “Correlation doesn’t imply causation.” “Why don’t ‘we’ try XYZ?” Have you missed everything I’ve been writing about assortative migration? There is only one ‘human right’ worthy of the name: The right of mutually consenting adults to form human ecologies, within which to live out their strongly held shared beliefs, on territories of sufficient carrying capacity (given reasonable agricultural practices). Anything else denies us the ability to discover causation in the social sciences such as political science and economics, not to mention violating basic ethics. Assortative migration will only be resisted by parasites. It is simply not true that non-Euros are essentially parasites. Sure, it may be necessary to neutralize many parasites, of all stripes—particularly those who are effective at resisting the termination of their malign policies imposed on unwilling human subjects. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Unnecessary Faith
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsJames Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:24. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:16. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:19. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) |
Posted by Wheeler MacPherson on Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:08 | #
Nice satire, Diamed.
Turning serious for a moment, though, it’s sobering to realize how many folks actually do believe this sort of thinking. One of the most formidable truths such people ignore is the fact that culture doesn’t just boil up out of the ground like spring water. Culture, as a wiser man once said, is religion externalized. We can no more force a nonwhite to truly grasp our culture than we can dress an iguana in doll clothes and expect it to appreciate fashion.
Race is simply a nation, and a nation is simply a family extended outward. One of the traps into which white people fall with tedious regularity is the desire, the need to “rescue” the poor Negro, mestizo, Pakistani, etc.
When our people try to rescue their people, we end up like the Washington, DC anti-racism harpy in recent media reports who got her bone structure rearranged by one of the noble savages for whom she’s squandered her life.
One other thing, from my perspective as a descendant of God’s nation…our Creator warned Israel (the true Israel, not the usurping Khazar Jews) that if they lived among the heathen nations, they would learn the ways of the heathens. He never promised that living in close proximity with non-Israelites would cause the foreigners to take on Israel’s ways. So it is with our situation now. Allowing strangers to live amongst us will only serve to harm our people. It will never ennoble the alien.
Again, good job at wryly pointing our such foolishness.