|
|
|
David Mamet’s fraud conservatism In considering this comment by ukn_leo “I have learned so much from reading Leon’s posts, Dan. As someone with natural conservative leanings”… As someone who has natural conservative leanings as well, I thought a discussion might be useful to move toward a better understanding of what we mean by “conservatism”, and to help European peoples better discern the fraudulent “neo-conservatism” being put across to the public: taking the example of David Mamet’s fraud awakening. Notice in the clip provided below, the slick, Jewish deception that Mamet, via Hayek, makes with the idea of constraint - to focus on limiting government. To limit and constrain government is Not a big problem for we true conservatives, but it is not the fundamental point. The fundamental point of true conservatism is constraint on demographics.
David Mamet is a prominent screen and play write - and very Jewish. It may be instructive to look at his work from a European person’s perspective. By examining the particular talk posted, we may get a better idea not only of how conservatism is being misrepresented, but also develop a better feel and skill for countering Jews as they operate so confidently and smoothly in an array of verbal misrepresentations. Besides diverting true conservatism by misdirecting the notion of constraint, notice also in the clip what Mamet does to the notion of accountability: You are there for the goods or you are not – snooze, you lose. That is a convenient position now that his conspefics have amassed such wealth, power and influence from the union of their people. Mamet gives the example that it would be a good idea to end cab driver licensing (We might guess that would end any notion of appeal on its grounds as well). Private drivers will come in there and make deals with pedestrians looking for a ride. Mamet is putting across a slick, Jewish deception via Hayek, that the primary conservative function of “constraint” is to limit government. While to limit and constrain government is Not a big problem, it s not the primary issue for we true conservatives, it is not the fundamental point. The fundamental point of true conservatism is constraint on demographics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIio8Jt7yLw
The left the left the left…poor Israel, poor Jews
Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:43 | # Conservatism is probably easier to define by what it is not. It is not simply social conservatism ... the politics of conserving traditions, customs, mores, national dispensations, social structures, institutions, freedoms, privileges, prosperity, and/or the fruits of time and labour. It almost goes without saying that it is not modern political conservatism of the hayekian kind, in which Man is reduced to an “individual” freely making “choices” of an asinine, consumerist nature, through which his “happiness” can be pursued, and coming together and separating again to that end under contractual agreement with other “individuals”. The “individual” is not a conservative concept at all but a liberal one, and the pursuit of material happiness is not remotely robust enough or sufficiently grounded in Nature to satisfy a conservative definition of what life is. Nevertheless, self-interest and, especially, economic self-interest, is clearly fundamental to all political visions of conservatism in the West. This leaves us struggling with a similar problem to the thinking liberal who can never quite reconcile the two wings of his secular faith: social democracy and radical individualism. It is not easy to capture the socially and economically particular aspects of conservatism in a singular formulation. But, of course, we must try ... Conservatism is the politics of increase out of stability. It pursues the freedom of men, not the “individual”, and not as an end in itself but as a means to increase. It understands instinctively (for it is not a philosophy, and it does not come from books) that while the fraud “liberty” is the product of endless conflict, freedom is not. When conservatives speak properly of freedom they do not mean the won freedom to do. They mean the freedom to be, the indispensable basis for which is precisely the maintenance of that organically-arising, historically attested familial, social, and ethnic true life of peoples and nations. But here we run into the difficulty. For we do not know such a life, and conservatism is not an engine of change. It is a reactionary pair of heels dug into the ground and hauling on the rope of history. It has no transformational capacity. It wants to revive the past as a necessary corrective of the present (and the impending future). But once that past is cut historically and generationally adrift it cannot do so. At best, it can appeal to the organic. But its attempt to re-create it never rise above mimicry. This is its tragedy, and this is why nationalism, as a radical anti-liberal politics, holds out the only hope we have of creating - not re-creating - the kind of existence for our people that conservatism, one day, will laud and maintain. 3
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:59 | # For conservatism is not an engine of change. That has been because unionization of our people has not been thought of as conservative but “leftist.” (we know who I would accuse of this misrepresentation) A nation, a union of natives, is a most excellent candidate. That unionization is the engine of its proper change - i.e. homeostasis: the turning away of impositions and the cultural return of marginal over extensions back toward the mainstream. ...in addition to the change of its strengthening and advance:
4
Posted by Robert Reis on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:21 | # http://feministconservative.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/my-first-week-of-work/ feministconservative Like I said in my last post, I’m working in my school’s admissions office for the time being. This is a great opportunity for me, and I’m so glad to have the ability to decide who will come in and who won’t. We are here to make future leaders of America and the world, and as such we have the responsibility do keep those who would make the world a worse place far away, while admitting those who have potential to use their abilities to improve the world. For instance I can’t tell you how many applications I saw that were just dripping with white male privelege. Any of those that I saw basically went straight to the garbage can regardless of how good their qualifactions were. If I saw an application from a white male that basically was just good test scores, and activities like chess club or math club or what not then it shows me this person is not interested in a diverse environment. Obviously he made no effort in integrating with minorities or to sympathize with them and is counting on male privelege to get in. So that kind of application should get ignored. In their place I admitted a female student. This goes double especially for math/science majors. Another time this I had an application for what sounded like an arab male who wanted to study computer science. On paper he looked good enough, decent above average scores, and such. But I checked facebook and sure enough on his wall I came came upon a particularly hateful post about Israel supposedly not having a right to exist. I promptly trashed the application and sent out a rejection letter. The lesson here is that people are multi-dimensional. We can’t boil people down to numbers or statistics, or reject people based on the color of their skin. I’m happy to say that I approved nearly 90% of all female minority and 80% of all (white female applicants especially if the girls want to study math or science) while rejecting over 50% of white males this week and hope this trend holds out. 5
Posted by Bill on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:27 | # GW @ 2
When, in the opinion of the author, has there ever been such a time, such an era of conservatism? My life began at the close of the 1930’s, my formative being the years of the 1940’s and 50’s, rising to manhood by the onset of 1960’s. Aside. For people of my generation the changes that have taken place, (all in the span of a single lifetime) are truly breathtaking. I can only comment that for me as a teenager, the 1950’s was as good as it gets. Conservative-wise that is. Life in the 40’s and 50’s was to me decidedly conservative, although I had known no other. Perhaps it was the marked contrast of the 60’s and thereafter, that conservatism congealed in my mind. Aside from God is dead, why would modernism eclipse conservatism as to the extent that it has? I’ve remarked time without number that social liberalism has progressed in tandem with scientific achievement, or conversely, conservatism has regressed as science has advanced. It is opined by the right that the conservatism of my young days can never be recreated, it is also said that civilisations have a life (and death) of their own. They are born, they live their allotted span and then die, all of which says civilisation arises, lives and dies as an organic entity. If this is true, where does human philosophy enter into to it? And If man can shape civilisation, what role does evolution play? The big question facing mankind is for how much longer can man continue his onward and upward progress (new improved modernity,) and if he cannot, where to from here? Stone age? Hey Jo, you haven’t mentioned the intended cull. (Unless I missed it.) 6
Posted by Bill on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:18 | # @ 5 Just to add that when thinking about conservatism, rarely do you see the word/term discipline mentioned in association thereof. I suppose social discipline is a four letter word to the liberal, but surely discipline is the cement that holds a society together. When thinking of my young days the hegemony of conservative social cohesiveness was discipline, pure and simple. Discipline is perhaps too strong a word, perhaps conjuring too many visions of goose stepping stormtroopers, but in all seriousness, a well ordered life played a huge part in being conservative in my day. Even before attending school, most parents had inculcated a sense of what was right and wrong, of what was acceptable and what was not. So by the time of starting school the groundwork had already been laid by the parents. I’m barely into my stride here but can already see the winces and hear the groans emanating from the liberal, for it is these sort of attitudes that we’re slated for pack a suitcase time. Needless to say I could go on and on in similar vein, discipline of the self is at the heart of today’s struggle, a struggle in which the disciplinarians are losing wholesale. Yea…. discipline is a seldom used term these days. 7
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:54 | # /// I believe discipline “of itself” would have merit in a Britain of native British people. Even Christianity, bizarre and anachronistic as I am convinced that it is, would not be wholly destructive if it were practiced amongst native European Nations/White people. But coming back to discipline: when one is subject to a demographically mixed-up circumstance, where accountability is greatly ruptured, where new people are introduced, who do not have deep, common motive to share in the discipline, in fact are often not as capable of discipline, less able to control their impulses, to be merely disciplined in this circumstance is to leave oneself vulnerable to a kind of servitude, exploitation and violence. Something similar would go for practicing Christianity while hordes with wholly different moral rules are coming aboard. 8
Posted by Bill on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:01 | # Thinking out loud. During my childhood I lived an almost rural existence on the edge of suburbia, I spent a lot of my time around farms and the open countryside where tradition among the country folk was very strong. Horses and very basic machinery was the technology of the time, hand milking, steam traction threshing machinery, stooks and hay carts and scythes. Church played a large part in their lives, the importance of the seasons evident in Harvest Festival celebrations, the village fete. Modernity was heralded with the new Fordson tractor, electricity and the mowing machine, a successful farmer owned a car. Little change over hundreds of years following the dictates of the seasons, had produced a natural leaning conservative. Which brings me to something called Pantheism. I did a super quick Wiki on Pantheism and find that it is an emerging world view associated with the New Age Movement. Strange that. 9
Posted by Euro on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:55 | # Amazing; I stumbled upon an old comment regarding this very topic by Wintermute just last night searching for something by Jimmy Bowery (still searching by the way Jim). I’m going to post copy the comment (in two parts) rather than posting the link, because it’s just that good. Part 1: “Again, one is entitled to ask: What has happened to these people that they have been turned into willing servants of a programme that would draw the approbation of any revolutionary Marxist?” This is just an obstinate question, GW. These are conservatives, for heaven’s sake. They have just spent one hundred years - or more - capitulating to the tiniest whims of the Opposition. Why should they start resisting now? That you evince such surprise at their behavior demonstrates that you are reasoning and acting from unexamined presuppositions. I’ll be more blunt, since this question has given you especial difficulty over the years: what is deemed ‘conservatism’ has three primary components. The first is moneygetting, which we distinguish from the pursuit of livelihood by the degree to which the pursuit of money displaces other values. Moneygetting, for the conservative, is also mixed up with status competition, not only ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ - though that is vital to the conservative project - but also doing harm to the working classes, when this is possible. The passion for distinction leads to cruelty just as reliably as other passions, if not more frequently. Despite the fact that moneygetting and status are intertwined for the conservative, we must persist in our attempt at differential diagnosis: these are two drives at work, not one. The conservative is not a moneygetter solely on account of status. Moneygettting also explains (partly) the oft observed impotence, if not outright betrayal, of societal interest by conservatives. For the conservative, the first question must be, is my money safe? In order to guard the safety of his money and position, he will make any number of tactical retreats (a limitless number, in fact). To stave off revolution brought about by bad conservative management - or even just Jewish mob-agitation - a simple act - like tossing the colleges and the whole of academia to the wolves - is nothing. What is culture for a conservative? Another trading chip and nothing more. Conservatives traded the means of transmission of culture and the means of creating and legitimating public opinion when they caved to sixties radicals and student demonstrations. Now, forty years after this particular great betrayal, they all alone bemoan their outcast state. How has the world grown so foolish? they yawp, unaware they are barking at their own shadows. The world has grown old through the ministrations of ‘conservatives’, who now regard their handiwork with equal parts of shock and scorn. Are we supposed to laugh or cry? You will note that, though our cultures and nations are rotting before their eyes, the first law - moneygetting - has actually been safely conserved. The fact that a larger proportion of the population slips into poverty on account of rampant inflation, increasing land prices, and the destruction of a living wage - why should this bother a conservative any more than the handing over of our universities? It doesn’t because his money is still safe. So, from a short and medium term perspective, conservatism must be accounted a partial success on its own terms. It has conserved the material fortune of the families that prop it up, and it has passed off the negative externalities to the larger society.
Never. Not one. The very idea is oxymoronic. “Foresight”, for a conservative, is buying only blue-chip stocks. It does not extend to matters of culture or metapolitics. Indeed, we might label “foresight” the prototypical anti-conservative act. Since it accepts and refers to the one Reality which the conservative fears most - Change - it is simply never indulged in. The idea of environmentalism - to take but one example - is the province of Progressives (Teddy Roosevelt), Fascists (Hitler), and the Left (Rachel Carson). Any “conservatives” to add to that list? I didn’t think so - though all conservatives now carefully toe the party line that the Left has prepared for them on this issue. The Left (Progressives, Communists, whomever) leads, and the conservatives grumble and then give in. There has never been an exception to this rule so far as I know. Even Edmund Burke eventually moderated his rhetoric on the French Revolution so as to not appear to be at odds with Providence itself. A group of people who deny the Dynamic nature of reality is in no position to fend off change - which they couldn’t do anyway - or even to effectively anticipate it. From a standpoint of practical politics, there never was so lame a beast as “Conservatism”. He is the ultimate loser in the Red Queen’s race: he thinks that he can hold his position by standing in place. But the fact of the matter is, to even do that, one must run and run and run, endlessly. It is no accident that Lewis Carroll’s literary diversion has become a metaphor for Darwinian reality: all must run just to stay in place. Moving on: the status drive of the conservative must be examined. Though central to conservative identity, the universal passion for distinction takes on a particular flavor in the conservative psyche. It is not an overweening pride, like Lucifer or Napoleon, nor is it a passion for notoriety, as might drive a criminal or an artist. It is not even garden variety hankering for fame, as we see with actors. Rather, it is the very peculiar passion to be as much like one’s neighbors as is humanly possible. We might even recast the phrase ‘the passion for distinction’, in the case of the conservative, as ‘the passion for indistinctness’. The conservative wishes for the neighbors to see he has a nice car, but does not wish to be seen in an ostentatious one - though often, because he has not cultivated his tastes, he ends up in one anyway! Conservative status drives are not univalent, as we have seen in the examples of world conquerers, criminals, artists, or actors. It is always tempered by the ideal of respectability. The conservative does not ask, “Who? Whom?” His life is not an elaboration of that premise. The conservative does not ask, “How then shall we live?” or “Who benefits?” or “How do the Many proceed from the One?” or any other similar question, (possibly excepting “Am I my brother’s keeper?”). Rather, the conservative life is an elaboration of the principle, “What will the neighbors think?”. So, between the first principle of conservatism, moneygetting, and the second, the passion for indistinction, we are already in a position to not only describe, but to predict, conservative behavior. However, there is a third leg to the stool of conservatism that we should examine: the law of requisite moderation, and its primary correlate, physical and mental ease. This is a subtle point, so I beg the reader’s indulgence. The Law of Requisite Moderation states that any any activity which does not further moneygetting or status is illegimate if it is pursued to a degree which interferes with the above stated objectives. And yes, this does most certainly apply to religion and every other pursuit: love, the arts, the sciences, literature, invention, etc. ‘Conservatism’ is an eros-killer and eros-hater. Whatever is not money or respectability is a regarded as a mortal enemy of these supreme goals. Again, I wish to state: this is description and not judgement. Since scientific, religious, and artistic pursuits most likely will either result in the pursuer either not realizing his earning potential OR violating the ‘status with indistinction’ law, conservatism correctly , and let me repeat that, correctly identifies these pursuits as prima facie illegitimate. A man can have a hobby, even two or three - but a passion, never. The man who regards religion as something more than a visit to church on a Sunday and a smattering of moral guidelines is a fanatic. A man who writes poetry has a hobby. A man who is a poet is probably an anarchist and therefore to be avoided. And so forth. I hardly need add that anyone who talks too much about the Jews is endangering both his earning potential and the possibility he will be talked about, and is therefore an almost perfect object of hatred for the conservative mind: a mind capable of passion and foresight, a veritable anti-conservative. Someone who has a passion for the life of his race is already convicted by conservatism: he has placed a value on something that is not money or status with indistinction and is therefore a blood enemy. That this passion will likely expose its holder to comment by others - and negative comment at that! - makes it further unaccaceptable to conservative tastes. Don’t take my word for it: go and talk to some conservatives. Finally, I should mention the chief correlate to the Law of Requisite Moderation: physical and mental ease. Regarding the first, we may take it as descriptive of conservatism that there is no excess in the pursuit of physical and mental ease. The path that leads to hot baths and blessed quiet in the home, and not hard questions about life or politics (except as they relate to money and status) can never be an excessive one. Therefore the pursuit of physical ease can never violate the Law of Requisite Moderation, nor can the pursuit of mental ease. Mental toil is as disdained as physical toil, and is regarded by the conservative as twice as unpleasant. Hence no conservative Gramsci - the conservative does not play to win, he plays to preserve money, “kept appearances”, and maximum personal comfort while trying to pretend that a life and death game isn’t going on all around him. 10
Posted by Euro on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:56 | # Part 2: To review, the three laws of Conservatism: 1)Moneygetting: all values are subordinate to the acquisition of cash. 2)Status with Indistinction: After cash-acquisition is initiated, status should be pursued, though not in a way that draws attention to the status seeker. 3)The Law of Requisite Moderation: all human pursuits, including but not limited to: religion, painting, communion with nature, science, invention, poetry, sport, etc. are and must remain subordinate to A)Moneygetting and B)Status with Indistinction. The pursuit of these other goals, if they conflict with A or B, have exceeded what is moderate and must be discontinued or attenuated. 3a)The pursuit of physical and mental ease is intrinsically incapable of becoming immoderate, and is therefore exempt from the third Law.
There is not. Therefore we may may deduce from this, that conservatism, far from being an optimal strategy for the goal of the preservation of this Race-Culture, is in fact its enemy, and must be torn out, root and branch, that we might have any chance of success. More specifically, you - GW - should cease to be surprised at the things that conservatives have been doing since before you were born, and lay down the burden of your endless apologia. The Holocaust Deniers will sooner be invited to White House dinners, than conservatism will be of some aid to the White Race. Finally, I would like you stop retreating into counterfactuals during our discussions of conservatism. This is ‘bait and switch’ at its very worst. Everytime discussion of real conservatism appears, you repair to the Forest of Arden. No-one appreciates misty Druidism more than myself, but your Stonehenge-upon-Avon appeals to ‘wise kings’ and such as useful instances of conservatism are just laughable. Likewise your other favorite retreat, C.S. Lewis’ appropriation of Taoism for his book, The Abolition of Man. Taoism is not conservatism, and the attempt to make it appear so is both a slander against Taoism and an unearned accolade for conservatism. If you adhere to the ideals as presented in Lewis’ Abolition of Man, call yourself a Lewistonian or a Taoist. The “Right”, as it is presently constituted, has only two varieties: haute and petit. Because if the apologia for conservatism I constantly see here is for something besides the interests of the bourgeoisie, including their mental comfort, I cannot make it out. I do think you have real political ideals, GW, but you’re going to have to articulate them outside the realm of reaction and foggy idealisation. Your current state of outraged surprise at conservatives and conservatism, expressed above, indicate that you are inwardly positing a period when conservatism was something besides the three laws that I describe. In other words, your feeling while perusing conservative websites, that you have been betrayed, indicates to me that you have been holding false ideas about conservatism and protecting them from scrutiny, precisely by retreating to Lewis or sometime before legal memory, when they are discussed. In many ways, your stated ideals are nothing more than an elaboration on the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. No true conservative would . . . ah, but they do and they always have. A word of friendly advice: you will not emerge from the struggle you have allied yourself with unscathed. Specifically, your petty nationalism, your atheism, and your conservatism will be joining your economic opinions on the the ash-heap of memory. I know you to be a very stubborn man, we have been arguing the same topics for three years now. The longer you put off the sacrifices entailed by your committment to your Race-Culture, the more terrible they will be when they come. Therefore, I commend to you a willing spirit and not a conservative one during these unavoidable changes. You cannot have continued life for our Race-Culture and conservatism at the same time, to grasp the next rung on the ladder it is needful to let go of the one you are clinging to. I wish you as painless a transition as is possible. The link: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_law_and_the_conservative_party_is_gay/#c41891 11
Posted by Joe on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:06 | # @ Bill, and All Readers I have often spoken about the up-coming “intended cull” ; Yes, Bill, you “missed it” : The up-coming “intended cull” is directed at white Christians. That’s why I don’t care for Heidegger Daseinites. Daseinites have the same exact hatred for Christianity as did/do the Nazis, and those whites who follow all the various forms of the “white race religions”, and simultaneously, Dasenites have the same exact hatred for Christianity as do the Communists. Daseinites, for all of their pretentions of being opposed to the way we’re ruled—the world matrix—have the same exact ontology and eschatology as do the Satanists who rule over us. Heidegger’s Dasein philosophy/religion comes to us from Sufism. Sufism = the occultic, satanic dynamic of Islam. It’s not true Islam, not really. It’s a distortion. It’s a distortion that came about through the work of donmeh Jews, Sabbatean Jews, and Satanists of all stripes, Jewish and Non-Jewish : The hatred of Christianity that emanates from Daseinites is intense ; Same terrible hatred of Christianity the Nazis had/have, the same fierce hatred of Christianity the Communists have, the same furious hatred of Christianity the Islamic Jihadists have, the same desperate hatred for Christianity the die-hard, vehement Zionists have, the same adamant hatred for Christianity the Freemasons have, the same eternally feral hatred for Christianity the Satanists have. Daseinites fit into the New World Order perfectly fine. I imagine, considering the great and intense hatred the followers of the Heidegger’s Dasein “religion/ faith” have for Christianity, the Daseinites will be the foot-soldiers for their atheistic, murderous Over-Lords, doing the bidding of the New World Order Capos ; Seems to me, considering the intense hatred the Daseinites have for Christianity, the Daseinites will be the ones rounding up us Christians and throwing us Christians into the FEMA camps in willing and loving service to their Over-Lords, just as Communist Daseinites threw Christians into the Soviet gulag death camps, just as Nazi Daseinites threw Christians into the Nazi death camps ; Communism and Nazism being two sides of the same coin : And the coin is owned by satan. Daseinites have a disgusting and putrid vision for America. In point-of-fact, the Daseinite vision for the USA is NO different than the Communist vision for the USA, and the Communist vision for all of the West as well. Daseinites feign to be opposed to the New World Order, but Daseinite ontology and eschatology is Exactly the same as that of the New World Order Over-Lords. I will continue to be extremely, negatively critical of Heidegger Daseinites, and Dasenites of all stripes. No Bill, you haven’t been paying attention to any of my posts. Yes, you “missed it”. I will continue posting in my usual vein—my usual truthful manner, with truthful posts backed-up with solid source references— until you do NOT “miss it” : http://americanholocaustcoming.blogspot.com/
12
Posted by wobbly on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:22 | # off-topic this may or may not be significant but “The Old Bailey heard how the apprentice chef was “obsessed with little white girls” Ethnicity and skin colour is a major factor in these attacks - even when there aren’t any potential white victims left in an area the attackers tend to go for the lightest skinned girls available: Indians, Thais, Phillipinos, mixed black-white etc - but that’s the first time i can remember race being specifically mentioned as a factor. 13
Posted by wobbly on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:30 | # on-topic If successful reproduction is the primary directive from an individual genetic point of view then the optimal political idealogy would be the same but from a group point of view. I don’t much care what the label on that optimal political idealogy says but whether it’s Conservatism or Anarcho-Syndicalist-Futurism i think the content needs to be the same - successful reproduction at a group level or in other words the political expression of Salter’s EGI. 14
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:36 | # Euro: Aside from your dispute with GW (I am not familiar enough with that) I would like to comment on what you’ve said.
The next thing that I would like to address: Conservatives traded the means of transmission of culture and the means of creating and legitimating public opinion when they caved to sixties radicals and student demonstrations. It is important to distinguish Jewish agency here. I tried to stay away from mentioning this when Bill mentioned the 60s. Since you mention it as well, I would add that it is not a decade that caused the problem, nor were demonstrations against the Viet Nam War wrong of themselves. The problem was Jewish radicalism and its influence. However, that aspect of the 60s would be even harder for people to see in the UK. Next, you say: Moving on: the status drive of the conservative must be examined. Though central to conservative identity, the universal passion for distinction takes on a particular flavor in the conservative psyche. I’ve discussed this in several essays now - where I talk about Maslow’s hierarchy and pathologies of modernity. And, with that, regarding what you call 3 and 3a, in these same essays I continually recommend, (you would apparently agree), that it is necessary to take these pursuits into an optimal balance, including with a fundamental ease of being at its basis.
15
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:41 | # The intended cull that the moron Joe speaks of is a conspiracy theory that Jews are putting out to protect non-Whites from population control. 44 out of the first 51 countries in per capita birth rate are black African, so stemming their population would be a good thing indeed (but not to Joe, if they are Catholic). Hence, you’ve got the likes of Adrian Salbuchi with this theory saying watch out for those corporations, they are looking to reduce the population of Africa. ...wouldn’t that just be horrible?
16
Posted by Joe on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:15 | # On “Darwinian Conservatism” : http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2010/01/nazi-philosophers-plato-fichte.html 17
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:20 | # Cull the evil Joe, cull the evil Joe, beast 666 Joe Joe Joe. Cull the evil mystery religion of Joe! Free Europe from his false religion! Go Daseinists!
18
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:39 | # Joe says:
19
Posted by Joe on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:58 | # “What We Really Mean By ‘Dasein’” : http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/daseinfordummies.htm 20
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:14 | # Joe thinks he is going to tell you and I what we mean by “dasein” I’m going to try this once more, fuck face (that’s you, Joe) The proprietor of the site, GW, expresses interest in ontology and used the term “dasein.” It has not been a focus at any other time in my life. But for the purposes of the ontology project I rendered the most accurate understanding of it that I could to mean non-Cartesian “there-being” That’s all. But the worthless piece of dog shit, Joe, this evil virus Joe, keeps shitting out of his mouth. He is not a cook, is he? Joe = Beast 666
21
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:32 | # Now, we wouldn’t want to discuss a better notion of accountability, a more fair and less corrupt unionization of Europeans. No, none of that “pseudo-intellectual” stuff that Thorn doesn’t like. Nothing “communist”, like defending European people. Nothing of this evil “daseinist” stuff (ever impervious, Joe simply doesn’t care that what he has to say about terms has nothing to do with what we are saying about them) No, we have to here what Joe has to say instead. I have rarely encountered a more stupid and selfish creature. 22
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:50 | # Notice in the clip the slick, Jewish deception that Mamet, via Hayek, makes with the idea of “constraint” - to focus on limiting government. Limiting, constraining, government is Not a big problem for us true conservatives, but it is not the fundamental point. The fundamental point of true conservatism is constraint on demographics. 23
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:42 | # Notice in an earlier screenplay, prior to his “awakening to ‘conservatism”, that Mamet portrays unionization in a very favorable way, even putting the most benign spin on mobster Jimmy Hoffa’s union organizing. That union organizing, however, was not based on race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoffa
24
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:01 | # Daivd Mamet’s faux - conservatism has little to do with his love for America and everything to do with his support for his true country of citizenship, Israel. Put simply, Mamet believes that a Leftish US Government will not back Israel fully in the way that the previous Presidential resident of Jerusalem - on - the - Potomac did. 25
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:13 | # Well, Al, you may or may not know that I would exchange the term left as it is commonly applied, as is it is not a left for Whites, but rather wild liberalism as forced on Whites as a property of Marxism and even more descriptively, Jewish machination. But I agree with you enough otherwise and have too much on my plate at the moment to make a litmus test of what I believe to be White leftism properly understood. The White Class is not an economic division, but a differentiation of native Europeans and their various kinds 26
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:17 | # Let no one misunderstand: Mamet is Jewish, he is not White, he is not European, not European American. 27
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:18 | # And true, of course, he does not have the interests of America at heart. 28
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:55 | # You might say, it means that the class division is not conceived within the class but where it would be transgressed. This would entail at least a modicum of fairness and decency at the basis of the White class so that loyalty makes sense. And for those doing better, they could be quite successful and wealthy actually; their being more successful is not necessarily a problem providing they are accountable to and do not transgress the interests of the class, particularly by aiding and abetting non-Europeans upon it.
29
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:00 | # Leftism or Liberalism (in the American sense) can, of course, DanielS, vary in their degree of Marxian adherence thus making them dilutions of Communism. Communism (Jesus - jabber about equality minus the Supernatural element) and Christianity (with its nauseous, underdog - venerating dogma) are two sides of the same Shekel. National Socialism is, of course, different as its roots lie in opposition to the Judeo - Communist plan to enslave Aryans. 30
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:24 | # I more or less agree Al: it is not about veneration of underdogs. Its about not betraying the group, whether by low or high, and maintaining reasoned loyalty. I just don’t want to relinquish the term leftism because that is the perspective by which we maintain a vigilance on the whole group, even those not on top of the game (e.g. children); and in particular on scab (read non native Europeans) entry, and those who would aid and abet the imposition of them, with a particular eye on that betrayal by elites. It calls for some duty and regulation of course, so that we do not provide an exponential breeding realm for idiots; and so that those who are gifted are free to pursue their abilities, to be rewarded accordingly and to have families. 31
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:36 | # Most people that purport to be Christians are actually, first and foremost,practicing the religion of jewish inspired liberalism. They’ve bought into the notion that it is immoral to think of another racial group as somehow undesirable or repellent or inferior. But instinct being what it is, automatically induces a revulsion in whites especially for the negroid race. This is where the perversion of white-guilt takes over. The typical liberal Christian will overcompensate for their normal/healthy instinctual revulsion of others races by inviting those other races into thier families and communities. By doing so, they feel absolved of the sin of prejudice. Those actions and reactions are truly a fatal disease only white people contract. Jewish inspired liberalism in combination with a perverted version of Christian teachings makes for a racially-suicidal ethnomasochistic witches brew which white liberal-Christians delight in drinking. Remove jewish inspired liberalism from the mix and you are left with something very healthy and quite White. 32
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:04 | # I don’t agree Thorn. The Christian texts are what they are - obsolete and all too Jewish - even for an all White demographic nowadays. Though I would not try to prohibit people from setting up Christian communities. I just don’t want them trying to prevent me from setting up non-Christian ones. 33
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:15 | #
That’s fine with me, DanielS. People can beleive whatever they want, it’s there choice. But just remember, we all have faith in something—even atheists. Especially atheists. 34
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:40 | # Ok, but I am not an atheist: my religion is about my race, though its formation as a religion is nascent. 35
Posted by Joe on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:12 | # About Al Ross, about Al Ross’ conservatism, about Al Ross—the jew-Nazi-jew—who play-pretends he’s on the side of the White Race, when he is—in point-of-fact— a jew-Nazi-jew, just like the Nazi-Jew John Kaminski, just like ” Hitler Was A Jew Himself ” = excellent Search term, by the way : http://haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-and-African-roots-1.309938 Search Term—will access a lot of information about jew-Nazi-jews : ” Sabbatean Jews + Nazism” More info about Al Ross , the jew-Nazi-jew, and what Al Ross is really and truly ALL about : http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2013/04/stars-of-david.html
36
Posted by Joe on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:29 | # This is for Al Ross—the jew-Nazi-jew, this is for Hymie-in-Afula, Israel, another jew-Nazi-jew, and this is for Rabbi Lipshitzz, yet another jew-Nazi-jew ; For all the jew-Nazi-jews who work so hard and so diligently, ever so incessantly, to steer the White Race towards Zionism, towards the New World Order, albeit in a convoluted and disambiguous, serpentine, mendacious, covert, Sabbatean and surreptitious manner ; To all Sabbatean jews everywhere in the world, including the Sabbatean jews who post here at Majority Rights : 37
Posted by Satyagraha on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:04 | # Someone please call a nurse for Joe as he has a dreadful case of logorrhea. Quite possibly terminal in his case of being both pathologically incoherent and repetitious. 38
Posted by Joe on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 20:31 | # @ Satyagraha Some more “logorrhea” for you, “wise”- ass “yogi” satyagraha that you are : 39
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:11 | # I’ve discussed Christianity and Race too many times here at MR to want to regurgitate it all. It’s not that complicated. There are four questions: 1) What is Christianity? 2) Is it true (ie, an accurate description of reality)? 3) What is the Christian view of or approach to biological realities in general? 4) What is the Christian morality of race? There are learned disagreements wrt #1, though there is a core which cannot be denied while remaining Christian: God exists, and is (consubstantially) triune; souls exist, are immortal, and will be morally judged in some way by God; salvation is through Christ; the essence of morality consists in “Do unto others ...”. There is vastly more, wrt both metaphysics and morality, but its heart is found in the virtues of piety (whose essence in turn is humility - something sorely lacking among WNs, very much including at MR), and charity. Is this true? All scientific arguments for the existence of God (or anything supernatural) have thus far proven empirically indeterminate, while all philosophical arguments have either been defeated logically, or, perhaps, are true in ways that cannot be known by the general run of even intelligent men (eg, Anselm’s Ontological Argument, which most intellectuals judge a failure, though several exceptional intellects, even in this day, have thought valid; the same can be said for Descartes on God (the latter was more Deist than Christian, but his “rational” argument for God’s existence might still be true)). For most Christians, we are talking about the perpetuity of simple ancestral belief. Is that, ipso facto, evidence of falsity? I think not. I believe in God, because I believe in the resurrection of Christ; or more precisely, I’m willing to give His NT story the benefit of the doubt. I do so partly out of a “will to believe”, but also out of what might be called evidentiary instinct. I am not credulous (I was, eg, a racialist long before I knew there were others of my ‘kind’). But though my rational intellect might incline towards atheism (reduced to agnosticism out of respect for all the brilliant men who have been believers), in my gut I go the other way. I don’t pretend to possess a logical, let alone scientific, argument establishing God. God explains nothing about observed reality (as Graham Lister likes to assert), and, as noted, none of the analytical proofs for His existence are finally dispositive. But the NT narrative seems true to me. Perhaps we can look at this in terms of historical probabilities. I doubt the story of the Resurrection would have survived all this time if it were not a real historical event. Why did Christianity survive and advance? The ancient Mediterranean was not primeval Africa. These people were more ignorant, but no less intelligent, than we. If you told me you saw a man jump over the Eiffel Tower, would I believe you? Of course not. Only a few retards or fanatics might. Who would ever believe that a man who was widely witnessed crucified, judged to be dead, and undeniably buried, later rose from the dead, and was seen resurrected by many persons, none of whose recorded behavior in any way suggests mental instability? People would laugh at an assertion of resurrection. But they didn’t. Moreover, the men who claimed to have seen the risen Christ were utterly transformed to the point of willingly accepting often gruesome martyrdom. Would you martyr yourself to the cause of some crackpot who claimed to have jumped over the Eiffel Tower, or saw someone else do it? Obviously not. You simply can’t lie about something like this and really be believed. One lunatic might fit the bill, but not a large group - and not the Apostles as they are presented in the NT. They were believed by converts because they were convincing. They were convincing because they were willing to die for Christ, something that at first they had not been willing to do (recall Peter’s denials). Why did they become willing to die for Christ? Because the truth of His teachings was in His physical resurrection. So it is my gut instinct, based on what I know of men and the reality of the world of men, to believe in the historicity of Christ. Because I accept Christ, I am inclined to accept the rest of the core Christian message (albeit in a somewhat purified, and thus heterodox, form), part of which is that all men are presumptively possible brothers in Christ, and thus deserve the benefit of being treated as ‘ends’, and not mere animals or ‘means’. I have discussed points 3 and 4 many times. Christianity is decidedly other-worldly in primary focus, yet there is nothing in the faith suggesting that the world is so evil that it must be abnegated (although traditions of monasticism and holy hermeticism are much admired, at least by Catholics and the Orthodox). While attaining the Kingdom of Heaven is the primary goal of any Christian, achieving that goal does not require super-human efforts. One does not have to be a saint, or pursue some kind of radically ascetic existence, though there is a reasonable duty of charity (many Protestant groups talk about ‘tithing’ - giving 10% of one’s income to the Church; note that the Obamas and Blairs and Graham Listers demand far more be given to the State), and gross sybaritism is obviously incompatible with living in the spirit of Christ. The Christian morality of race is simply a subset of its general morality. One should act peaceably and charitably towards others. Does this require that whites give up their homelands to nonwhites? Of course not. Race-replacement is not a part of Christianity (it is liberalism, which unwise Churchmen have unthinkingly and improperly adopted). One has obligations towards others, but they are staggered and hierarchical. The primary worldly duty is towards one’s own biological family, to honor one’s parents, and provide for one’s spouse and children. There is nothing in the Christian tradition suggesting that one owes the same obligation of care to one’s neighbor as to one’s family. Similarly, one owes a greater duty of care to one’s literal and “biological neighbors” (which in ancient times were mostly the same), than to someone outside the boundary of genetic interest, to whom, I would extrapolate, only ‘negative’ duties (basically, to be left in peace) are owed. Liberalism denies the reality of innate psychological differences between races, and even that acquired historical and cultural differences have serious social and political significance. Thus liberals have no regard for community, or at least white community (at this point liberalism’s self-hatred enters the picture). Liberalism denies that whites have legitimate interests as communities (and ultimately as a race), but liberalism is not Christianity. Someday I am going to elucidate for publication exactly why Christian and liberal moralities are quite distinct, but that will be after I receive my doctorate, which is still some years away. For now, I will end this by saying that I have thus far encountered nothing in the Catholic intellectual tradition suggesting that the desire to preserve white communities and their associated ways of living violates either the letter or spirit of Scripture and Christ’s teachings. Being charitable towards others, for example, does not necessitate mandatory racial integration; open immigration; promoting false conceptions of the contribution of nonwhites to the growth of civilization; or gigantic interracial wealth transfers (or any kind of wealth transfers, especially those to be effected through the mechanism of the State). There is absolutely nothing suggesting that people, whether as individuals or tribes, have some right to equal incomes or portions of worldly goods (a Christian community does have certain provisioning duties to the poor - but those are considerably less than what modern social(ist) democracies require). The typical WN conflating of Christianity with liberalism is tiresome, and needs to be thoroughly debunked. I am not aware that this task has been done, however, at least at an intellectually definitive level of analysis. So confusions persist. 40
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:30 | # Obviously I thought the post after the Mamet one was true and necessary, otherwise I would not have made it. However, I am not particularly sorry that it was taken down either as it may allow the said parties to save face and act like human beings instead of like bureaucrats of a skewed, elitist cult. I doubt it, but that would be the better resolution. 41
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:13 | # /.
Admittedly, this decision was partially a simple response to failure. I…’m really not even a racist… I believe Breivik’s actions were indefensible. I’m sure there were klan lynchings which amounted to mob violence against innocent Black people. I’ve got all sorts of opinions about this or that decision by Hitler, most of which don’t settle well with neo-Nazis and historical revisionists. I can’t answer for every excess, error, or atrocity of his. I don’t stand behind everything he did. But I do stand firmly in solidarity with him in an overarching metapolitical sense. The North American New Right speaks with its own voice and it exists to address the future, not apologize for the past. It’s not beholden to any particular movement, symbols, or strategies of yesteryear, but it’s not obligated to apologize for those influences and forerunners who preceded us. I find Hitler more of an influence and an inspiration than any living American. If my audience can’t abide that, then they likely can’t abide any of the other radical transformations they would need to undergo in order to be a credible threat to Modernity, Global Jewry, and the multicultural dissolution of our heritage and traditions.”
As if we need Uncle Adolf to do the thinking for us and as if we must genuflect to him if he had some good thoughts. We do not. 42
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 06:14 | # Wow! My lengthy comment @41 elicited no responses. This site needs a higher caliber of reader. 43
Posted by ukn_leo on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 06:50 | # (calibre). Gee, you sure don’t show much humility or compassion for a religious nationalist L_H. The spirit of Christ either lives within you. Or it does not. I wonder if too much exposure to the system has warped the values of some of my brethren here. Too much comfort. Too much ease. What does Jesus have to teach us with regards to arrogance and elitism? What would he have to say to the progeny of Oxbridge or the Ivy League? White Zion could be a heartless, soulless, cold and very deserted place if we do not take care. Will we tend our hypothetical flock? or pull their tails and poke them in the eye. 44
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:53 | # I have my disagreements with Dr. Graham Lister, but I do agree with him that there seems to be no correlation between the worth of particular comments, and their subsequent influence on the direction of various conversations. It makes me wonder, as he has done, whether trying to write something of value (here, or perhaps on any website) is really worth it. 45
Posted by Satyagraha on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:45 | # So by Leon Haller’s logic extraordinary events or claims are true because of the passion of those that claim to have witnessed such events or the intensity of passion of those subsequently inspired by such events. I’m sure that really is a totally robust premise in Bible school but nowhere else buddy. Geez Louise why with that airtight logic in play then I guess then that the claims of Mohammed and Islam are equally plausible? And yes in the summer of 1987 good old Uncle Bubba really did meet some aliens and had himself a forbidden yet secretly delightful anal probe in the backwoods of Alabama. And this risible jerk Haller thinks himself an intellectual! The gasbag Leon Haller is as pathetic as the likes of this Joe asshole, but this extreme bloviator doesn’t recognize it. As for Matty Parrot why would anyone sane give a damn what a total nonentity like that has to say about anything at all? 46
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:44 | # Leon, You know I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: You are one of the most misunderstood commenters in the sphere of WN. What’s really mysterious about that is you are one of the few at MR who writes in clear and concise terms. Even the average Joe such as myself gets the message you’re trying to convey on the first reading. That said, don’t assume that just because there weren’t any responses to your well laid out comment @ 41 that it wasn’t appreciated by many readers, myself most certainly included. So rest assured, Leon, there are more on the same page as you than not. In any event, keep up the good work and soldier on, comrade! PS, The belief-system/faith of stiff necked atheists is the most fanciful, improbable, implausible, thus unbelievable of all the belief -systems out there. Infinite Regression Fallacy http://www.atheismsfallacies.com/infinite-regression-fallacy/ 47
Posted by Graham_Lister on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:40 | # @Thorn OK I’m lurking and despite myself I’ll comment very briefly. Don’t worry it’s a one-off. No-one on this planet cares what version of Voodoo you wish to cling to in the privacy of your own idiocy. What I, and anyone that’s not a brain-dead fuckwit come historical ignoramus, object to in the strongest terms possible, is the constant assertion from the Christians here is that their version of Voodoo is ‘essential’ or the ‘essence’ of Europe or European man. Was Aristotle and those other clever Greek people (back in the day) Christian? The answer is no. Does that mean that they and their culture is to be classified as non-European? The answer is again an emphatic no. Before Scandinavia’s relatively late conversion to Christianity were the people of Scandinavia non-European? The answer is again no. Are the many millions of contemporary Europeans who are non-believers now non-European? Again the answer is no. If Thorn, Joe and Haller and like-minded ‘Christianity is the essence of Europe’ fellows wish to maintain their stance then they might do people the service of actually explaining the numerous count-examples to their hypothesis – you know those troublesome things known as EMPIRICAL FACTS. P.S. Oh the old infinite regress argument. Yawn - as if the ex-nihilo ‘brute’ fact of the Christian God is any less of a mysterious explanation (and is in fact a great deal more outrageous and extravagant as an explanation) than some aspect of physical reality being properly brute. At least we have good reasons to trust physicality. We have very little reason to trust in the explanatory power of the self-generated but infinitely benevolent Flying Spaghetti Monster - dreamed up, by the way, by some really radically ignorant folk from back in the day. People far more ignorant and credulous that Aristotle and his ‘non-European’ contemporaries. Some people really needs to read Feuerbach. After all what’s the more creditable explanation for religious belief? That God invents everything and tells about it indirectly via obscure texts, rituals etc., or some really ignorant motherfuckers didn’t know why the sun came up and invented an explanation that the invisible man did it? What’s more likely that human being invented numerous deities (as a form of ‘explanation’ for various phenomena) or that the one true Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and reveals himself to us via us eating his transubstantiated, but ever so tasty, meatballs? Seriously who can honestly take this religious bullshit seriously? Answers on a postcard to Credulity (a small town in Jesusland). There’s a nice little book that Thorn and his like-minded friends should read. It’s called “Against All Gods” by A.C. Graying on the urgent need we have to reject Voodoo in all its forms, without compromise. Graying isn’t entirely my cup of tea and his efforts are somewhat introductory, but we talking MR here aren’t we? Now Thorn and his Voodoo friends are all atheists – yes it’s true. They reject every God found within human culture except one. Go on you know you want to. In fact you already have. God is dead and we have killed him. No-one, that is on speaking terms with intellectual honesty, judgemental rationality and critical self-reflection, can with certitude say they know (beyond all doubt) that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a undeniable fact – you know like the fact that Bismarck is the capital of North Dakota, which in turn is a state of the USA. Or the objective fact that the atomic number of oxygen is 8 etc. Voodoo simply doesn’t have that type of status - except with the deluded. Even the motley crew of child rapists, that we must apparently genuflect before in order to be ‘authentically European’, don’t actually believe their bullshit story any more. Please if you all must insist upon the never-ending repetition of the ‘essentiality thesis’ you must collectively do much, much better than any hitherto offered efforts to convince anyone but a simpleton of the ‘analysis’. I doubt anything serious will be forthcoming along those lines. Oh and now Ivan is back. Fucking hell I’ll leave you all to the ‘essential’ conspiracy chit-chat. GW I do hope you will enjoy the ever increasing intellectual standards you implicitly endorse here. Seriously J. Richards could hardly make them the site any worse could he? Which is not a complement. 48
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:22 | # @Graham Lister WRT Europe and the various European nations contained therein, was not Christianity an essential integral part of the larger philosophical whole which worked towards a common cultural cause? Of course it was. Moreover, the moral absolutes the Church taught functioned quite effectively as a countervailing force against immorality. And let’s not forget the teachings were simple enough even the ‘fuckwits’ could understand them. IOWs the peasants need not be Greek philosophers to grasp the the simple abstract moral concepts taught by the Church. But more to the point, I never contended Christianity is the essence of Europe. But I will say this: absent a better alternative, Christian moral values are needed now more than ever; especially in order to fend off the social and cultural degradation brought on by radical liberalism. Radical liberalism defined as the drastic reduction to limits on personal gratification. Can you argue that the decline of Christianity is in direct proportion to the rise of radical liberalism? In any event, all your talk about spaghetti made me hungry. I’m going to take a dinner break. See ya later. 50
Posted by Joe on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:02 | # Graham Lister doesn’t really deny God. He thinks there’s a God—except Graham Lister thinks he and his ilk actually “killed” God. So at one time there was a God—as per Lister—except Lister and ilk were so mighty they were able to “kill” the Holy Creator, as per Lister. So Lister doesn’t truly deny God as an atheist would. Atheists think there was never any God period. Lister is not an atheist. There was a God—Lister “killed” God”. Lister is a “Deicide”, or so he thinks, so he wishes to be. I don’t think so, Dasein dude Mr. Lister. Lister thinks he is—he yearns to be, a Deicide : Man proposes, God disposes, as the old saying goes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtmAVGPEPSI Please excuse the commercial. 51
Posted by n/a on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:19 | #
Then there’s the issue of his being, in regard to his life experiences and the scope/sources of his alleged knowledge, a hardcore bullshitter of almost Grimioire proportions. Bring back Dasein, notuswind, Desmond Jones, etc. The takeover of this site by the incessantly droning likes of Haller and DanielS almost makes me miss Fred Scrooby. 52
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:22 | # If I was able to take over this site, do you think that Joe, Thorn and Haller would be commenting here? 54
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:13 | # For those who have don’t get what Matt is doing: I had been almost apologetic for posting such an indictment of Matt Parrott’s motives, then he goes on to say, on his way to a counter-queers homo erotic Reich/Nietzsche cult retreat Admittedly, this decision was partially a simple response to failure. I…’m really not even a racist… I believe Breivik’s actions were indefensible. I’m sure there were klan lynchings which amounted to mob violence against innocent Black people. I’ve got all sorts of opinions about this or that decision by Hitler, most of which don’t settle well with neo-Nazis and historical revisionists. I can’t answer for every excess, error, or atrocity of his. I don’t stand behind everything he did. But I do stand firmly in solidarity with him in an overarching metapolitical sense. The North American New Right speaks with its own voice and it exists to address the future, not apologize for the past. It’s not beholden to any particular movement, symbols, or strategies of yesteryear, but it’s not obligated to apologize for those influences and forerunners who preceded us. I find Hitler more of an influence and an inspiration than any living American. If my audience can’t abide that, then they likely can’t abide any of the other radical transformations they would need to undergo in order to be a credible threat to Modernity, Global Jewry, and the multicultural dissolution of our heritage and traditions.” You see, the Counter-Queers really are timidly conservative followers, not leaders. As if we need Uncle Adolf to do the thinking for us and as if we must genuflect to him..
Joe’s very obvious pathologies would be merely uninteresting, nasty, and unpleasant if the broad stance he adopts weren’t shared by so many others. Still Joe is so stupid in his tirade of spam I for one think he must be commenting in bad faith. No-one can genuinely believe in such nonsense can they? Or he could be as much of an obtuse gasbag as he actually appears to be? Just a basic level of Jesuitical sophistry would be something for Joe to aspire to. Sadly he can’t even reach that goal. Joe can you honestly believe anyone other than the cognitively subnormal would actually be convinced by your epic douchebaggery? You know that wonderful combination of blatant stupidity, unfathomable ignorance, and insolence that you have. Mind you to be fair much the same could be said for your interlocutors. Never let be thought or said that MR is a home to intelligent or informed debate. The reason you do not yet have the Parallel Euro-DNA Nation is Because threatened career “girl” egos (Matt, in particular) of Counter-Currents stands in the way, coddled by his cohorts in a homo-erotic Reich/Nietzsche cult. http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/04/remembering-adolf-hitlerapril-20-1889-april-30-1945/ He went from “give the mudshark a bath and go build community” to…”it’s very nice that you want to date a black man, but I’m sorry, you will have to leave.” From puerile anarcho-communitarianism to a notion of let’s promote deportation but settle for giving blacks the South East U.S. - that way the “little ladies” (read puerile girls, true ladies) will keep them in power because they will not have to travel far for black weenie. The reason that you do not have a Euro DNA Nation now is because these fat career egos have stood in the way. In dread that you might find out that someone is 1/8 Amerindian and take away their position as leader among White nationalists (as if normal people would care that one is 1/8 Amerindian, or whatever minor fraction of Amerindian they are) and as if normal people do not see that their best roles are as advisers on technical details; that they are not leaders, they are followers. But being career girls (we are talking about males) with egos to be in power, they bring fellows along to concede that there must be this grand vision of a parallel nation – not to call it a Euro DNA Nation because their fat egos and fag cohorts did not come up with it; hence, there are copious straw men to issue forth so that the faggot Nietzsche/Reich cult can be atop along with a few switch hitting octoroons that they make exception for because they are of a like vithion - we need a vithion of outer-thpace exploration for White people as if others have not envisioned that. Despite the career girls.. .....
.
55
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:47 | # This is the same, but corrected for a few typos and a non distinction of one other commentator’s remarks For those who don’t get what Matt is doing: I had been almost apologetic for posting such an indictment of Matt Parrott’s motives, then he goes on to say, on his way to a counter-queers homo erotic Reich/Nietzsche cult retreat “On my way to my first Counter-Currents retreat, I passed a large sign immediately before the airport exit: the exit to Peoria. I kept going, symbolically committing myself to personally and publicly sticking to a radical position instead of exhaustively attempting to reconcile what I actually believe with “Will it play in Peoria?” Admittedly, this decision was partially a simple response to failure. I…’m really not even a racist… I believe Breivik’s actions were indefensible. I’m sure there were klan lynchings which amounted to mob violence against innocent Black people. I’ve got all sorts of opinions about this or that decision by Hitler, most of which don’t settle well with neo-Nazis and historical revisionists. I can’t answer for every excess, error, or atrocity of his. I don’t stand behind everything he did. But I do stand firmly in solidarity with him in an overarching metapolitical sense. The North American New Right speaks with its own voice and it exists to address the future, not apologize for the past. It’s not beholden to any particular movement, symbols, or strategies of yesteryear, but it’s not obligated to apologize for those influences and forerunners who preceded us. I find Hitler more of an influence and an inspiration than any living American. If my audience can’t abide that, then they likely can’t abide any of the other radical transformations they would need to undergo in order to be a credible threat to Modernity, Global Jewry, and the multicultural dissolution of our heritage and traditions.” You see, the Counter-Queers really are timidly conservative followers, not leaders. As if we need Uncle Adolf to do the thinking for us and as if we must genuflect to him..
“Joe’s very obvious pathologies would be merely uninteresting, nasty, and unpleasant if the broad stance he adopts weren’t shared by so many others. Still Joe is so stupid in his tirade of spam I for one think he must be commenting in bad faith. No-one can genuinely believe in such nonsense can they? Or he could be as much of an obtuse gasbag as he actually appears to be? Just a basic level of Jesuitical sophistry would be something for Joe to aspire to. Sadly he can’t even reach that goal.” Joe can you honestly believe anyone other than the cognitively subnormal would actually be convinced by your epic douchebaggery? You know that wonderful combination of blatant stupidity, unfathomable ignorance, and insolence that you have. Mind you to be fair much the same could be said for your interlocutors. Never let be thought or said that MR is a home to intelligent or informed debate.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/04/remembering-adolf-hitlerapril-20-1889-april-30-1945/ “Give the mudshark a bath and go build community” to…”it’s very nice that you want to date a black man, but I’m sorry, you will have to leave.” From puerile anarcho-communitarianism to a notion of let’s promote deportation but settle for giving blacks the South East U.S. - that way the “little ladies” (read puerile girls, true ladies) will keep them in power because they will not have to travel far for black weenie. The reason that you do not have a Euro DNA Nation now is because these fat career egos have stood in the way. In dread that you might find out that someone is 1/8 Amerindian and take away their position as leader among White nationalists (as if normal people would care that one is 1/8 Amerindian, or whatever minor fraction of Amerindian they are) and as if normal people do not see that their best roles are as advisers on technical details; that they are not leaders, they are followers. But being career girls (we are talking about males) with egos to be in power, they bring fellows along to concede that there must be this grand vision of a parallel nation – not to call it a Euro DNA Nation because their fat egos and fag cohorts did not come up with it; hence, there are copious straw men to issue forth so that the faggot Nietzsche/Reich cult can be atop along with a few switch hitting octoroons that they make exception for because they are of a like vithion - we need a vithion of outer-thpace exploration for White people as if others have not envisioned that. Despite the career girls.. ..... 56
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:03 | #
Please expand on this. In what have I EVER bullshitted? I’m among the perhaps very least of the bullshitters. Thorn, Thanks for the vote of confidence. I think WNs may be a hopeless cause. I don’t care about their anti-semitism, though I do think it overdone. The JQ is complex and the proper Aryan response to it must change with exigent circumstances. But when these types start going after Christianity per se, instead of criticizing, as I do relentlessly (including in my doctoral program - and I am making allies among some of the students, interestingly), the subversive liberal tenets which have seeped into the faith, then they reveal both their philosophical error (they would deny this, obviously), and, more importantly, their political stupidity. Christianity is at the core of Western Civ. Attacking the Church has been a centerpiece of the centuries-long assault on that civilization (including the assault by leftist Jews). There is a near-perfect EMPIRICAL (listening, Lister?) correlation between Christ-haters and white-haters (does Richard Dawkins fight for the white race? AC Grayling? Anthony Kenny? Daniel Dennett? the ACLU? the ADL? I could go on ... and on with this list). Even if all religion is false, does it make even the slightest sense to drive an ideological wedge between conservative Christians and WNs? What is the goal here: stopping the alien colonizations of our territories, or pushing atheism and socialism? Note none of the above touches on the real matters of interest: can an atheist civilization long endure? Evidence? Is it not far more likely that atheist secularism breeds selfishness and nihilism, than children (civilizational continuity)? Is it not more intelligent policy to seek to purge the Christian churches of their completely doctrinally-aberrant diversity-mongering, and then rebuild optimistic, conservative, pro-children and pro-tradition communities with revivified churches at their centers (as in past times) - than to ludicrously expect people to make sacrifices for their ... genetic interests? [One could do a wonderful anti-WN dramatic satire from a Christian conservative perspective, and call it Genetic Interests.] Who really is the realist here? I again restate my central point: we need a widely agreed-upon nationalist minimum, which I think ought obviously to be immigration termination. If we can’t stop the invasion, everything else is irrelevant. The rest of the alleged WN agenda should be shelved in the interests of building comity and maximum effectiveness among the anti-immigration community. What WNs are apparently too foolish to understand is that politics is about electoral addition, not doctrinal purity.
57
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:30 | # Lister@49 In what sense could we speak of Europe before Christianity? How about the West? Of course Aristotle et al were white men. But it was the marriage of Hellenism and the Bible which produced Western Civ. WC is what I value - not whiteness per se. There are plenty of dirtbag or disgraceful whites (these days, more than ever). As I’ve said before, I value whiteness per se only in the context of a mixed race prison (and for aesthetic reasons: our best women are the most beautiful in the world, and it seems like a shame if they miscegenate themselves out of existence). I am a personal racialist because I prefer white society and dislike diversity. But I am a philosophical racialist because I see no evidence that the unique Western cultures can be appropriated and perpetuated (except in the most superficial ways) by nonwhites. No whites, or too few whites in all sovereign polities = no Western Civ. BTW, what do you do about the history of Christian assertion? In other words, is it your opinion that Christ never existed in history? Or merely that He was not resurrected? 58
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:33 | # Thorn, Let me add, I’m leaving MR anyway. I got sucked back in when Thatcher died, as I wanted to see what would be said about the best UK PM in the postwar period. Her PMship was the last time I think it could be said that the true and ancient Britain still existed (rather the same could be said about America in the Age of Reagan - it still existed then; indeed I think we can date America as having lasted from 1776 (or 1787 for purists) - 1989, with the Fall of the Berlin Wall as our last triumph; then the “interregnum”: 1990-2008; and now the Age of Obama, or the New America). I have very fond memories of the 80s. I still thought of America as my country (perhaps I was merely young - high school, college, most of grad school - but that case could be made ... it was the ‘92 riots in my city that signaled to me just how far gone things had fallen ...). And Thatcher was a presence for me in those years, fighting in the UK something akin to Reagan’s fight here. But commenting is really a new way to waste precious time. Just think: all the lengthy comments of all of us - GW, Lister, me, you, Daniel, Bowery, everyone - will simply one day disappear or be forgotten. To what real end were they written? Even ideological journalists face this problem. Think of all the immense writings of William F. Buckley, Jr. What of them will be remembered? Anything? Or even the much greater Enoch Powell? I have a wonderful collection of his writings, bought dirt cheap used many years ago. “Rivers of Blood” might be read several generations hence, but what else? I’d rather devote myself to writing a few large works that might live, and/or to trying to break into radio, which is my other long term goal. I prefer live to written ideological arguing. More people can be influenced, too. 59
Posted by n/a on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:41 | # DanielS, You and Haller account for about half the text being posted to this site. Before that, it was Haller and Lister. You don’t actually have that many interesting things to say. My suggestion would be to seriously edit your shit (and by that I mean cut 90% of it, not fix typos and post it again), but it’s GW’s site and apparently he’s satisfied with the state it’s in, so keep it up.
I mostly stopped reading your comments long ago, but at least at that time you were quite free in filling your posts with extraneous detail about your background and supposed current activities. It was clear to me you were more often than not dissembling. Just because your lies were not spectacular does not mean you’re a good liar or managed to avoid coming off as the second biggest bullshitter in MR history. 60
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:46 | # I get the distinct impression that Graham Lister along with so many others in Britain cannot relate to the following ... which truly is unfortunate. Decades upon decades of being subjected secular liberalism have resulted in the loss of their ability to experience such sentiments. The term *liberty* doesn’t carry the same weight or have the same meaning to the secularists in Britain as it does with patriotic Americans, I suppose. But then again, we, here in the States, have our own share of Jane Fonda wannabes to contend with ... such a DanielS, for instance. HEH!
61
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:33 | # Posted by n/a on April 23, 2013, 06:41 AM | # DanielS, You and Haller account for about half the text being posted to this site. Before that, it was Haller and Lister. You don’t actually have that many interesting things to say. My suggestion would be to seriously edit your shit (and by that I mean cut 90% of it, not fix typos and post it again), but it’s GW’s site and apparently he’s satisfied with the state it’s in, so keep it up. n/a You sound like a faggot sent to do the bidding of the counter queers. Shut-up. You might have some interesting scientific things to contribute here and there if you weren’t committed to the Nazi faggot camp. Shut-up. 62
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:52 | #
It’s very easy to make cheap accusations (I could say it’s clear to me that n/a is a Jewish plant, or a homo, etc), but one ought to have some proof. Or at least alleged proof. I’d like to hear what you think I lied about. Being American? From Orange County? University back East? Grad school in CA? Catholic? Northern European heritage? Old Stock American? Unmarried, no kids? My half-Asian girlfriend? Return to grad school? My business background? Skiing and snowshoeing at Squaw? Being a gunowner? Being tall? Not sure what else I ever mentioned about myself. Perhaps I should have said I was a Hollywood movie star, or a billionaire hedge fund guy. Maybe that would have generated more “response”. Really, more often than not dissembling? I have never lied about anything, except a few posts under different names when that ass Richards kept putting all my stuff in Trash. Why should I? What was I not dissembling about, in your expert opinion? And who’s the biggest bull—- in MR history? 63
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:19 | # Found this from “Trash”; should be my last testament here:
64
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:27 | # No, my real Last Testament: Our race is dead. We died in the Long White Civil War of 1914-45. We’re all just survivors after the Apocalypse. The Revolution has already happened. 1. Will there be a Euronationalist government anywhere in Western Europe at any time before 2050? 2. Will America ever stop nonwhite immigration? 3. Will Canada or Australia still be majority (50% + 1) white in 2050? 4. Will England be majority white in 2050? Answers? I predict: 1. No Interested to hear what others think. 65
Posted by n/a on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:03 | # Haller, Others are free to form their own opinions. That’s mine. “Return to grad school?” Definitely lying about this. As for the rest, it could be broadly accurate, or the persona could be completely made up. Either way, the details as you presented them rarely rang true to me. “Why should I?” Why do bullshitters bullshit? The most charitable explanation I could imagine is that you thought it was okay lie to obscure your identity, though this would not really make sense when you’ve also claimed to be posting using your real last name. “And who’s the biggest bull—- in MR history?” Grimoire, whose storied history included diving with ex-Navy Seals on the morning of 9/11 (the SEAL agreed with him they were watching a psy-op go down) and making use of NSA mandated backdoors in Microsoft Windows for routine technical support tasks while working at a call center.
(1) I’m not a fan of Greg Johnson. (2) If you were meaning to act tough on the internet, you’re going to need to take the hyphen out of “shut up”. Go ahead and fix that and post it again. 67
Posted by gramarye on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:16 | #
Why? Is it because he’s not into twinks like you? 68
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:19 | #
That’s hilarious. I thought you were going to say that I was a short Jew, as somebody else (I think it was Genotype) used to allege. Why would I lie about returning to grad school? I could prove this easily, if there were someone in the MR community I knew and trusted. I have a university id, issued mainly so I can access various libraries. I cannot be identified in real life with MR, as I might get blackballed in my program (though I am known as a conservative here - but not that conservative). They’re overwhelmingly liberals, but this combination of racism plus anti-Christianity would not go over well, I assure you (even if I’m always trying to defend the faith). (Sadly, I think the racism would be judged more harshly than the Christ-hating.) Anyway, what can I say? You are far off base. I use my real last name (which is not so uncommon as to be readily identifiable) so someday I can go back and take credit for many things I have said and written over the years. OTOH, I need to get more established before I come out of the closet. At least, I need to have graduated. In around 3-4 years, start looking at Amazon, to see what’s being published by persons named “Haller”. In the meantime, as I’ve said previously, I owe GW a book review, but otherwise I’m leaving MR (and all web commenting). So those who don’t want Christians or capitalists at MR can breathe a little easier. 69
Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:09 | # Daniel, Counter-Currents is a publicly accessible website, so readers can easily hop over to the article in question and see that you’ve selectively redacted the relevant sections of the essay. I’m glad you shoved your insincere apology for throwing a tantrum at me for offering constructive criticism of your essay back up your vapid and vindictive ass. Place it far enough up in there that I never, ever, am obligated to respect another one of your catty little notpologies ever again. Thanks. 70
Posted by Morgoth on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:50 | # @ Matt Parrott I have no idea what this spat is about but I would just like to say I think Counter- Currents is a fantastic website and I’m avid reader, carry on the great work ! 71
Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:10 | # Morgoth, Thank you! I’m excited about several of the ideas and projects we’ve got coming down the pike. I’ll try to stop being all fat ‘n sassy in here and get back to work! 72
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:25 | # Hey Matt! A question. Why is your editor so quick to ban pro-white commenters who don’t agree with him or his writers? I’m constantly surprised at how many MR regulars (like me) have been literally banned from CC. You guys are awfully thin-skinned to be WNs. 73
Posted by Matt Parrott on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:53 | # Leon,
Greg has a rather narrow view of which comments are and are not appropriate for the site. Most of the authors there don’t want anything to do with the personality conflicts and eternal feuds which spill over from one comment thread to the next in most blog comment communities. Personally, I love comments, I love answering tough questions, I thrive on the chaos, and I think it’s worth the grief to cultivate a community and groom exceptional writers who bubble up from the comment cesspit from time to time. I can’t speak for Greg, but I’m pretty sure he knows exactly what you think, exactly what you stand for, exactly what you’ll say, and exactly the impact you’ll have on the conversation, and he doesn’t care for it. It’s not a place for pushing your bland and nagging incrementalist shtick. To put it bluntly, you don’t belong there. You’re firmly and integrally opposed to the mission of the site. Let a hundred flowers bloom and blah blah blah, but you’re going to need to plant your flower elsewhere. You’re going to continue pushing your capitalist and contemporary Christian message there. There’s a subtle distinction between a man who’s having an ideological discussion and a man who’s broadcasting an ideological agenda. I would allow it if I ran the site, because I love the mosh pit, but I totally get why Greg woudn’t welcome it there. It’s absolutely free for you to create a WordPress.com blog. That’s what you really ought to be doing, given the investment of time and energy you’ve put into your work. 74
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:33 | # Matt, Thanks for the response. I disagree emphatically, not because of my attachment to my own agenda, but because good comments from whatever ideological source sharpen the issues. If I ran a comments site, I, too, would keep out many blatherers (as I’ve suggested to GW in the past). There is a world of difference, however, between a “spammer poster”, and a person seriously engaged with the issues at hand, albeit from a different perspective. Note that not only have I been banned there, but I know the very different Graham Lister (among others) has had comments rejected, too. I don’t doubt your answer is truthful, but I suspect it is not the whole truth, which is rather as I have implied. CC either doesn’t want, for psychological reasons (the “guru” or “little Hitler” syndrome), or can’t handle, for intellectual ones, serious alternative ideological challenges (at least from within the white preservationist community - do you ban all Marxists, progressives, neocons, libertarians, etc, too?), so it just “Eiger Sanctions” all opponents, cutting loose the thoughtful with the spam. You’re in good company, at least: most political websites want to ‘shape’ the conversation along preferred lines, and aren’t manly enough to face down real criticisms, even if well- articulated (perhaps especially if well-articulated). I still wish CC success, however, as we need as many intellectual pro-white voices as possible, and I don’t deny CC is producing good stuff, even if I find its overall philosophical perspective distasteful, and the political agenda derived from that perspective unpromising. 75
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:40 | # Posted by Matt Parrott on April 23, 2013, 05:09 PM | # Daniel, Counter-Currents is a publicly accessible website, so readers can easily hop over to the article in question and see that you’ve selectively redacted the relevant sections of the essay. Yes, Matt, the public can see the entire pile of shit which was that essay of yours. I may as well have posted the whole thing as it is damning.
Matt, it is established by now that you are a straw-man-making-machine. That is what you do as an aspiring bureaucrat. I did not apologize with taking issue for your self serving purblindedness with regard to the Euro DNA essay. Rather, I was confused by that initially, only to become directly angry, and rightfully so, when I began to see your motives, to place the ego and the career advancement of your position over the interests of the cause. As if you were going to figure everything out all by yourself, while pushing other people aside with straw men - I already cited the example (it was not your “critique” of the DNA Nation, which revealed that you had not moved through the first paragraph) which changed my mind and made my “apology” void as your insincerity and motives became revealed in a subsequent essay of yours - where you said you were going to figure everything out. for offering constructive criticism of your essay back On to the topic now of your “critique.” It was the reason for suspicion of you , but not for my view of you turning negative. I became negative toward you when you said you were going to figure it all out and I noticed you had a bureaucratic way of making straw men and pushing people aside.
I did like your computer image of Hitler saying that the DNA Nation sucks. LOL. You have the nerve to use the terms vapid and vindictive ass? I’m vindictive? because I recognize you as a self serving career girl? Who would kiss the gay asses of counter queers so much as to get behind Hitler’s program? No, Matt, you have only confirmed what I have suspected.
Thanks. Yes, that was your mission to begin with - to find any straw man you could to push people aside, toop and top, the career girl advances. I don’t care what you think of me Matt or my efforts Matt. I recognize your opinions to be injudiciously self serving. Maybe you’ll change, but I do not respect your judgement to this point. Instead of being a bureaucratic ego, be an honest Injun Matt: people have a right to the truth as opposed to your straw man factory. 76
Posted by Matt Parrott on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:27 | # Daniel,
Huh? Where are we going with this bureaucrat thing? Where did that come from him?
No grown man throws this sort of tantrum in response to a polite but negative response to an essay. I don’t give a shit what you think of my associations, my motives, my private business, or my politics. Your fragile ego couldn’t handle constructive criticism. Every stick you’ve thrown at me has just been whatever stick you could find lying on the ground or thought would pass with the conspiracy cranks in here. You haven’t figured me out. You haven’t seen through my bullshit. You’ve just had your feelings hurt and had a sweet sixteen birthday party princess meltdown. Period.
Zoinks! We better warn Fred and Daphne about this, Scoob!
Like every loser in the movement, you imagine that there’s some formal hierarchy that you’re not a part of. And like every loser in life, you insist that those who aren’t losing are only winning because they’ve somehow stooped to indignities that you’re too dignified for. I’m not sure exactly what career or position or whatever you’re even talking about. I post blogs and podcasts from time to time, and help with tech stuff for the cause. I do boring corporate database stuff for my “career”.
Great. Then stop caring about and throwing little tantrums about my own efforts and we’ll be all set. 77
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:14 | # Posted by Matt Parrott on April 24, 2013, 12:27 AM | # Daniel, That is what you do as an aspiring bureaucrat. Huh? Where are we going with this bureaucrat thing? Where did that come from him? It is in what you say and do in more than one example, Matt. I could go back and find the particular example (just for one example) when you described to people how they should put someone off in just the right way so as not to incur their anger. You were not only being bureaucratic, but instructing others in how to do it.
Yes, that is right, I did not.
I did not have a “tantrum.” That is your straw man machine at work.
It is a second straw man that I became disillusioned with you over the essay. No, I became disillusioned with you as I saw yourself and your career advancement was weighing far too heavily in your judgment.
Of course you don’t care, you are an entrenched bureaucrat.
I’m fine. But as for your “constructive” criticism, it was not. It was clear that you had not made your way past the first paragraph before making up your mind that you had an excuse to try to bury the essay because it was not authored by your ego and someone might find out that you are part Amerinidan.
Man, that is as good as a lie. That’s not what I’m doing at all. I never try to appeal to conspiracy cranks. Do you think that I am trying to gain Joe’s affection? Holy shit.
Actually, I have. But even if you were to be more honest, and people were to know the true Matt, it would only give you an opportunity to be a better person.
Not one of your better straw men, Matt. No, Matt, you have only confirmed what I have suspected [holds flashlight up to face, darting his eyes about menacingly]. Zoinks! We better warn Fred and Daphne about this, Scoob! I don’t know who Fred and Daphe are nor Scoob…. ..don’t need darting eyes and a flashlight to see where you are coming from, Matt: you’ve made it clear enough.
LOL. Thank you for making me laugh, Matt. I literally did. No, I don’t imagine that. You have your bureaucrat role to play to try to build a hierarchy for the counter queers. the career girl advances.
Hmm. I don’t see myself as a loser at all. Nor do I see you and the counter queers as winners. Just marginals too vain to recognize their niche is not leadership. I’m not sure exactly what career or position or whatever you’re even talking about. I post blogs and podcasts from time to time, and help with tech stuff for the cause. I do boring corporate database stuff for my “career”. It’s a thematic thing. And I don’t care, except when ego’s get in the way of the best interests of native European folks. I don’t care what you think of me Matt or my efforts Matt. Great. Then stop caring about and throwing little tantrums about my own efforts and we’ll be all set. It is not about the straw man of a temper tantrum, Matt. It is about the straw men of your bureaucratic ways and how it keeps out better ideas while allowing you to injudiciously baby and indulge the promotion of the homo erotic Reich Cult. 78
Posted by Matt Parrott on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:08 | # Daniel,
I did use my own fractional Amerindian ancestry as an anecdote to try to explain to you why outright blood testing people for inclusion in your “DNA Nation” is silly and extreme. I did ask you to keep that to yourself. And, yes, I caught you subtly blackmailing me to accept your insults and accusations earlier in this discussion. Pro-Tip: Grown men keep their confidences to themselves, even when they’re rending their garments with outrage about Hitler. And what’s with the queer thing, now? There’s no popular rumor that I’m a homosexual, at least not that I’m aware of. Do you want to drag all of my associates in on this because all the gossip dirt you’ve really got on me is that I have some Cherokee great-great-...-great grandparents [factual, btw]? Look, I think your essay sucks and I think we should avoid bashing Hitler. Get over it and leave me alone. You may be 100% White, but you’re also 100% untrustworthy, 100% vindictive, and 100% faggot. I don’t know or care to speculate on your sexual preferences, and I don’t follow the tabloid gossip mill, but I know with 100% certainty that you’re some kind of faggot. 79
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:45 | # Posted by Matt Parrott on April 24, 2013, 06:08 AM | # Daniel, someone might find out that you are part Amerinidan. I did use my own fractional Amerindian ancestry as an anecdote to try to explain to you why outright blood testing people for inclusion in your “DNA Nation” It is not “my” DNA Nation anymore than native European DNA is mine. is silly and extreme. Nothing silly nor extreme about it. Nor is it even the complete picture. In fact, you only go to illustrate why I feel obligated to use many words in other essays - because if there is any wiggle room, people like you will try to worm in misinterpretations.
You did, and I decided it was an unreasonable request - not important to conceal, but important that it be known. It went to your motivation.
Its not primarily about Hitler, Matt. I was looking at your motivation prior to your coming out with an endorsement of Hiter’s program.
Matt, one thing at at time. About your being a fraction Cherokee Indian, I don’t care and I do not think any normal people (WN’s even) would care. About the homosexuals, I do not consider it a priority issue except that people do need to be able to be critical of the fact as it can influence the perspective of the homosexual. However, as being a homo may, and I am sure does, skew the perspective of people with a prominent voice in WN such Counter Currents have, they have deal with the fact that people are correctly going to be critical of the foibles of their perspective. Look, I think your essay sucks and I think we should avoid bashing Hitler. Well, I disagree, about the essay- to say it “sucks” is hardly a dispassionate assessment - MacDonald apparently liked it. But whatever he may think about it, I am satisfied that it achieves what I set out to do with it. Now then, avoid bashing Hitler? Are you serious? Matt, the a Euro DNA Nation as an alternative rallying point, as a parallel organization for those who would choose it - “that sucks”? but we should rally under Hitler’s banner? Matt, this is the problem when men who are too young and inexperienced, such as yourself, try to ascend to prominence too quickly. Your judgement is insufficient.
Did I just hear correctly? Matt Parrott says we should avoid bashing Hitler?
Who is untrustworthy Matt?
Well, you are mistaken because I like only women sexually. 80
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:29 | # There is further clarification that should be made where you say: “Look, I think your essay sucks and I think we should avoid bashing Hitler.”
Maybe he has changed his mind, I don’t know. I doubt it. It seems to me that working out an implementation program and its “sortology” is the next step. 81
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:39 | # I’m not familiar with Counter Currents; but according to its guiding principles, I can’t see where traditional Christians such as Leon Haller shouldn’t fit in quite nicely there ... but are prohibited from doing so. Which begs the question: What is it about traditional Christianity the editors at CC are so troubled by? Is it traditional Christianity’s unambiguous stance against homosexuality, perhaps? Just askin’.
82
Posted by Matt Parrott on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:44 | # Daniel,
That’s some ignoble faggotry right there.
Sure it is. I arrived at the concise assessment before I knew you were a faggot.
You’re breaking promises, taking back apologies, blackmailing, and spreading sexual rumors faster than a preteen girl on bathtub crank.
I can’t speak for other regions within the Anglosphere. But in the Midwest, being a faggot is only tangentially related to homosexuality. 83
Posted by Matt Parrott on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:56 | # Thorn,
With Leon Haller, I suspect the tacky capitalist thing is probably the primary consideration. There are Christian authors and even explicitly Christian essays there. Some variants of Christianity are aligned with the site’s Radical Traditionalist aims, and some are incompatible with it. From what I can recall, I think Leon’s promoting the “least welcome” sort of “Let’s embrace Christianity because it feels normal and ingratiates us to our mainstream audiences.” variety. Bottom line is that I don’t run the site or approve the comments, and am not here to speculate on or apologize for the editor’s every move. 84
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:04 | # Posted by Matt Parrott on April 24, 2013, 07:44 AM | # Daniel, ...not important to conceal, but important that it be known. It went to your motivation. That’s some ignoble faggotry right there.
to say it “sucks” is hardly a dispassionate assesment Sure it is. I arrived at the concise assessment before I knew you were a faggot. Fuck you Matt, you are the one going on retreats with queers. I’ve never done a gay thing and never would so fuck off.
You’re breaking promises, taking back apologies, blackmailing, and spreading sexual rumors faster than a preteen girl on bathtub crank. No, Matt, your strawman factory, egotistical, unsteady, immature motives are what is unreliable.
I can’t speak for other regions within the Anglosphere. But in the Midwest, being a faggot is only tangentially related to homosexuality. Well then, you are the faggot, Matt.
85
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:08 | # Thanks for providing your take, Matt. With that, I can steer clear of falling victim to the rumor mill WRT CC. 86
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:11 | # ...to add, his “concise” assessment was contradicted by MacDonald. 87
Posted by Silver on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:31 | #
That’s an uncharacteristically reckless accusation from n/a, whose judgment is usually most astute. Fwiw, Leon, I haven’t had the impression that you’re lying about anything. Perhaps the reason you’ve aroused such suspicions is that you’re too good a sport about the heckling you receive here. For a man as embarrassingly conceited as you there’s something fishy about your debonair keenness to get on with the job after being roundly roasted the way you often are. Lowering yourself to the occasional “go fuck yourself” might serve you better.
Now that’s a damned lie.
88
Posted by Silver on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:21 | #
Matt, I respect your willingness to get your hands dirty. I do recall one episode, however, in which you “cheated” by deleting one of my replies to you (the Bloomberg financier/media mogul dispute). That sort of thing happens all the time in these realms and I usually forget it as soon as it occurs but this one stuck in my memory because it was decidedly unlike you (if we ignore your Amren days, since those decisions were largely out of your hands). (If it wasn’t you, someone deleted that comment.) It’s the reason I didn’t comment on your “fallen comrades” piece. If I have your attention, I’ll comment here briefly. Most conspicuous was the lack of any cognizance of why “incrementalism” was ever adopted or recommended in the first place: the very failure of the hardline stance you’ve now adopted. (You’ve heard of GLR and WLP, right?) Incrementalism isn’t about pulling fast ones. Incrementalism seeks to transform “the narrative” from anti-white to pro-white; to impose its own set of core truths on society that are as accepted a part of the fabric of life as anti-racism (aka anti-white BS) is today. (Anti-racism no longer has to be argued for, only defended, as one would defend one’s children or loved ones, as obvious response to obvious threat.) With respect to grander racial objectives, it brings society to a point where those objectives may be seriously contemplated, even if they’re ultimately rejected—in stark contrast to what obtains today. That whites should be able to live on rather than perish from the earth is not as radical or outrageous a proposition as even many WNs themselves seem to believe; it’s preposterous that society should hold it in contempt. But society will hold it in contempt as long as the only meaningful alternative to anti-racism (or more broadly, anti-discrimination) is sincerely believed to be some kind of hate-‘em-all, kill-‘em-all, fanatical “Nazism.”
100% agree.
89
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:41 | # Silver,
It wasn’t me. If you can recall and reproduce it here, I’ll be happy to answer it. Unless it involves rumors, pasted mantras, or spam, it almost certainly wasn’t me.
Ultimately, I’m not choosing my position because the other positions failed. I’m certainly not advocating for a crude “kill ‘em all” position. I’m under the belief that I’m developing a model which transcends the stale and problematic “Nazis vs. Republicans” dichotomy within which most of these conversations operate. As a matter of principle, I’m not going to spit on the graves of men whose projects were similar in spirit and motive as my own, but I feel it should be obvious from my repeated “BUT I HAVE BLACK FRIENDS” shtick that I’m not arguing for a vulgar, parochial, dehumanizing, or genocidal position. I look forward to your feedback on my work when it’s a little further along. But for now, the best I can really do is be like, “It’s not Nazism.” That’s not what I’m getting at when I’m talking about a radical vanguard-driven departure from contemporary values and culture. 90
Posted by DanielS. on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:59 | # Silver, you are 100% worthless: go comment with the Counter Queers. I was supposed to walk around on eggshells because the bureaucrat is 1/16th Amerindian or something, then tries to black mail me by calling me a black mailer for not obeying this absurdity… 91
Posted by Silver on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:45 | #
I wasn’t accusing you of having adopted crude “nazism.” I was simply making the point that opponents of racialism or of positive white identity (and so on) typically oppose the harshest possible version of it that their minds can conjure, even when, as is usually the case, what is being proposed falls far short of that version. In short, it’s the old “image problem” problem. Since you can’t rely on your opponents to portray you fairly—they’re not investing all that time and money in opposing you in order to give you a fair go, after all—it’s important to present yourself as positively as you can. If that asks more of you than you think is necessary or advisable that’s your choice. I was taking issue with your characterization of incrementalism rather than taking you to task for swearing it off.
92
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:05 | # Leon @66 Wow, Leon. You wrote a post that I almost completely agree with.
I agree. You correctly answered all of your questions. The answers to your questions are in beyond any reasonable argument. And the conclusions are the same whether the ‘race’ (whatever that was) is dead or whether the geographic polities you listed are dead as useful civil vehicles for the ‘race’. Surely many others have also noticed the latest magnitude of decline in the non-movement in the wake of Mitt Romney’s ongoing self-humiliation. This is the only ‘collapse’ in evidence or likely to be seen anytime soon. There is no conceivable success in sight for the traditional sort of policies and politics advocated by the non-movement. The course of events has already rendered almost all of these issues archaically obsolete, irrelevant and incomprehensible to child-bearing age whites. And since there is no possibility of success for a politics organized around these failed ideas, there is also no further need for the sort of agit-prop the non-movement has traditionally used as a preliminary to try to mobilize mass white political support. I will quibble with your caveat to #2. Alex Kurtagic wrote an excellent essay awhile back summarizing why the entire immigration issue is merely a waste of resources. One may as well lobby the government of modern Botswana on ‘pro-white’ issues as agitate for non-white immigration restrictions in the USA, the UK or in “western Europe”. From the viewpoint of regimeists, these periodic incidents justify accelerating the police state measures they intend to implement as soon as possible anyway. As to the geographic locale you mentioned in #4, it may barely be majority white European in 2050 but it will assuredly be minority native born “white”. ‘White English’ as free falling numbers still identify themselves. Nothing that can or will happen there will be of the slightest importance to anyone anyway. The park-shagging ostensible white skank “English women” are too busy interbreeding with African descended bucks to bring forth yet another generation of “English” j-lizard fool tools. And this is justice. They can only atone for their crimes against the white race by collectively ceasing to exist. Thus will be excised this incurably malignant tumor on the body politic of the white race.
93
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:03 | # Daniel,
Please, I want to hear this. Explain how I blackmailed you. 94
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:09 | # Already explained how you attempted to do so. Go back to Counter Queers, nobody can post unpleasant comments about you there. 95
Posted by Matt Parrott on Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:35 | # Daniel,
I looked and can’t find it. Please re-post. 97
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:14 | #
I have a thick skin. I may get “roasted”, but I have yet to encounter anyone disproving my various positions. I’m just here or elsewhere to engage serious persons - though the real reason (as I suspect with many others) is that I don’t have any regular real life outlet to discuss and do something about these issues. I wish we had a bunch of WN clubs (alas, minus the skinhead/Nazi factions) around the US, that whites could belong to and hang out at just to be white among whites.
Funny, but probably correct. 98
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:49 | # XPWA@94 Yes, but ... what then is to be done? We still have to live here, which implies as long as whites exist, there must be some kind of ‘white politics’, however ineffectual. My point for years has been (as I restated somewhere earlier on this thread) that the real problem is that most whites simply don’t care about white preservation. Sam Francis always understood this, which is why he emphasized identifying and mobilizing that econo-demographic stratum (“Middle Americans”) whose material interests are being undermined by continuing ‘diversification’. That could have happened, and even maybe in time to have saved America (by “saved” I mean kept it 80-90% unmiscegenated white forever, with concomitant white cultural and political hegemony). But it required real leadership, as well as a racially awakened population, and those never arose. Still, and again as I have pointed out repeatedly and to much ridicule (despite the matter being perfectly obvious), there are large numbers of still existent whites who do wish to live white, and preserve the race, but who are scattered throughout the West, and remain always ideological minorities in every white land. Hence my call for “White Zion”, the ingathering of all WPs into a single sovereign polity, as the ‘last ditch’ behind which to save our race. Lister talks about Scotland being 98% white (I would have said the same, when I visited there in 1994), and how it is thus ridiculous for at least Europeans to consider an ‘inorganic’ project like WZ. But what he hasn’t assimilated is that in the future the only whites who survive race-pure will be those who affirmatively do so; that is, those who consciously wish to preserve their whiteness. Scotland is 98% white because it is behind the curve of race replacement, that’s all. It will catch up eventually. In an ever-shrinking globe, in which interracial fraternization will only grow more common, it is only a matter of time before all raceless persons are genetically amalgamated. None of us will live to see this, of course, but we can make race-survival plans in confidence that that will indeed be the future. Thus, at best, in the far future, the planet will be divided in many different ways, some of which will not correspond to traditional nations. There will be Bowery’s “sortocracy”, but on a planetary scale. The best the West can hope for, I think, is that there will be one sovereign, militarily defensible place that will remain white (or the home of EuroDNA nation, if one prefers). That place may or may not come into existence within the borders of the contemporary USA, though I doubt it. The continuing immigration invasion, along with ever advancing miscegenation and multiculti indoctrination, as well as intensifying geographic dispersal and professional economic integration, basically preclude any Northwest Front or White Republic or even recrudescent Dixie. But I’m in my 40s, and for the remaining 3-4 decades of my life, I’m not leaving America (unless it were to go to an overseas WZ as part of a mass relocationary movement). What should remaining Americans do? Just give up? Let the muds dispossess us of everything we have? I don’t think so. Even if the white presence in North America is fated to end, that won’t be for a long time, and in the meanwhile, we still need an intelligent pro-white politics to defend our interests, a need which will only intensify with our falling population. It is to the development of such that I think our ideological energies should be directed. 99
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:43 | # Leon @100
I don’t think Dr. Doo-Doo Bag is interested in anything other than indulging and justifying his hatred of “Cheesus” and by extension a great many “Americans”. To the extent he is he has certainly not been paying attention to and learning from relevant trends and events close at hand to him. It matters not. The majority of Tory Conservatives ignored Enoch Powell, too. And they no doubt told themselves that “England is 98% English” at the time and therefore what could possibly happen? 1. If Scotland really becomes “independent” of the London government what will it do for money? Issue its own, remain with the Bank of England and continue using pounds or join the euro? 2. How will a ruling SNP in a “98% white” Scotland avoid being treated like Golden Dawn come to power? That is, avoid being treated like the Serbs were in the 1990s as a new manifestation of “Naziism”? I predict the SNP elites will do exactly what the Irish elites in Dublin (and Belfast) are already doing: this is import large numbers of Africans to demonstrate their physical commitment to anti-racism and diversity. The reason the SNP is not worried about these matters is the SNP is merely a rebel elite group with magnified personal ambitions. They don’t give two shits about the average white ‘Scotsman’ and will happily sell them all to the - ahem - j-lizards, to use the phrase adopted in the diverse and free speech-less UK. Genuine Irish nationalists have already divined this reality about the real inner nature of Sinn Fein and the modern IRA. I will wager real stakes a SNP in control of an independent Scotland will behave identically and even copy the Sinn Fein/IRA/Dublin policy book page for page.
I agree your first statement is true. Let us start from the standpoint that for at least this generation whites acting collectively in conscious white self-interest will not be able to positively alter any policies (i.e. immigration, affirmative action et al) in Washington DC, in every state capital or in foreign capitals. The outcome of “gridlock” might be available. However, the post-election behavior of vital fractions of the GOP elite puts even this idea in grave doubt. So what in fact is vital outside of beltway politics? Subsequent white generations are vital, and thus the local physical environment issues that either foster or retard them are vital. This was the entire message of ‘micro-communities’, PLE or whatever name one wishes to call it.
In my opinion few of them will so correspond. Technology is exerting a powerful acidic effect on all existing States. Nearly all of them are now over-scaled compared to the functions they perform. An additional factor is the modern anti-racial idea has proven powerful in government and academia. The one place it is weak is its ability to actually deliver.
I think you severely underestimate the difficulties in executing such a movement. 100
Posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:23 | # Leon,
I think these borders are vanishing away and will prove increasingly irrelevant. What matters is the dominance of extended racial phenotypes in more localized areas. Look at Detroit, Michigan. Representative & power divided government in the European style has proven completely unworkable for this increasingly homogeneous mass of blacks. The State of Michigan has therefore essentially revoked it by installing a black lawyer as “emergency manager” to rule over the dysfunctional black mayor and council. iow the usual autocratic style of government we see everywhere in sub-saharan Africa is seen to appear yet again.
California is another case in point. The altered genetic profile and the resulting majority of minorities is eliminating any possibility of controlling of state and local spending in the presence of white European government forms of city council/legislature and mayor/governor. But the spending in Stockton and San Bernardino is being effectively controlled by U.S. bankruptcy trustees. Are these just ‘temporary’ measures? Or do they represent permanent changes that few are willing (yet) to recognize? Nearly all real constitutional innovations start out as ad hoc temporary measures. The course of time provides these practices the legitimacy of tenure, habit and tradition. Out in your state further SHTF is coming at the state level when CALPERS and CalSTRS eventually announce it is actuarially impossible for them to continue to meet their pension obligations. My further expectation is that Proposition 13 will be repealed once Obama manufactures enough new non-white Democrats in your state. And we can see this dynamic at work across the entire southern rim. Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are functionally flipping over to more Latino friendly governmental forms in practice.
101
Posted by ukn_leo on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:43 | # Hey X-PWA, hope you’re keeping well. Scotland hasn’t yet decided what currency to use post independence. Continued use of the pound recently got slapped down by the UK Chancellor. Very difficult to sell joining the Eurozone at the moment, but they would have to if they wanted to join the EU (mandatory for new members). The Scottish Independence debate is mired by deceptive politicians spouting lies and disinformation. The Scots will almost certainly reject independence. The SNP are civic nationalists. Your assessment of their intentions is wholly accurate. They have all but said as much already I believe. Their plan for Scotland will see a nation of Iqbal Mohammed Wallaces eventually predominate rather than Williams. 98% (no way, not still) and dropping fast. We can mention the Jew X-Pro. G_L uses the term J-lizards more to take the piss really. Y’all don’t understand real Scotsmen through lack of exposure to this hardy breed. Think Canada, populated by ginger haired Taliban in skirts. Welcome to our world! Have you guys heard of The Republic of Texas? If not, please watch this clip from RT. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) 104
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:01 | # ukn_leo, Your first link on the Republic of Texas did not work, but I just watched the second. Those are my kind of people (ideologically, not, I admit, culturally or socially). California (at least on the coasts) is a lot nicer place than Texas, but at some point great weather and scenery are less important than liberty, property, opportunity and personal security. I hope the RofT arises, though it had better do so quickly, or when it finally does get off the ground, it will simply become a new North Mexico. Thanks so much for providing that link. I wish Lister would watch it. He might learn something about liberty and real free enterprise. Maybe the Free Scots could adopt RofT gold and silver coins for their currency? Not bloody likely, I should say ... You sure they won’t vote for independence? Love to hear your reasoning. I vaguely recall GW seeming to think they will get it. Would you support Scottish independence? Please post any UK nationalist videos you like. I’m very interested in what the English Man on the Street is thinking these days. 105
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:12 | # XPWA@101,102 Lister seems to think that an independent Scotland, or other such microstates like his beloved Denmark, can remain free, sovereign and white (probably also socialist; or at least, free from grubby, ‘commoner’ worries over how wealth will actually get created to pay for all his, I suspect, desired state expenditures; Lister is almost certainly a lifelong creature of governmental paychecks). Issues like military security over long periods of time, in other words, real issues of governance, don’t seem to occupy a large place in his thinking, which revolves around science, ontology, history of ideas and literature - all worthy subjects, to be sure, but not the stuff of pragmatic affairs of state. Lister truly reminds me of utopian American liberal intellectuals, minus the diversity crap. I would like to see an independent Scotland as that may be the only way that the indigenous English might muster up the political support (say, via UKIP) to end the invasion. As I’ve pointed out previously, the English really seem to get the short end of things under current arrangements: the Scots support Labour or SNP (not much difference domestically, as far as I can tell, other than independence) to get more money than they contribute, while the English get stuck with all the Third Worlders the labour traitors love. Plus, the more breaking up of existing political structures the more ‘spaces’ open up for radical change.
But for these white microcommunities, even if they proceed for a while beneath the notice of the DC occupationists, to survive over the long term, they must have some type of political ‘buffer’ or defense. Whites cannot simply abjure politics, or they will continue to be dispossessed, at an accelerating rates. Take the Amish. How do they survive, really? I’m not referring to their livelihoods or even lifestyles. I’m talking about how a pacific people, who create real wealth, and have nubile daughters, aren’t simply invaded and destroyed by muds, their wealth and women confiscated. Answer? They are able to exist because they are allowed to exist by those who do have physical power; that is, because there are plenty of (non-pacifist) whites who still possess enough physical power to prevent mud-rapine of said Amish. But whites are rapidly giving up their physical power, through increasing nonwhite numbers via both immigration and, to a lesser extent, greater fertility, as well as by being confused and morally disarmed via multiculturalist and diversitarian propaganda. Eventually, when whites, including liberals (who themselves are ultimately parasites off of people like us), can no longer control the muds, who will protect the Amish - and finally, all whites, whether in microcommunities or not? My point is that while increasing white birthrates is obviously important (but how to accomplish this exactly? - I suspect stopping immigration would actually be simpler than trying to get our females to breed more; though note also, this is yet another instrumental reason why I am in favor of rapprochement, or at least mutual respect, between WNs and Christians: the latter, among whites, are the ones having the most children, something true even in Western Europe), there can never be a substitute for white political activism in defense of racial interests. This activism need not, and probably should not, actually be WN, but it must seek to concentrate white political ‘capital’ on those issues maximally affecting whites: eg, protecting gun rights, fighting immigration on all fronts and with whatever rhetoric is most contingently useful; holding the line on new social(ist) spending, which always disproportionately benefits nonwhites, and harms whites; and generally seeking to uphold white liberty and sovereignty, as well as seeking to diminish nonwhite political power to whatever limited extent is possible (eg, National Voter ID, national felon disenfranchisement, “three strikes”, etc). Without white “community organizing” a la pre-Senator Obama, I just don’t see how anything much can be done. And while that community organizing should be about building up social and professional networks of race-conservative whites, to rebuild ‘white tribalism’, as it were, we’ve got to build a political voice, too, or our efforts will be laudable but finally overwhelmed by sheer force of numbers and oppressive power. 106
Posted by Joe on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:19 | # Graham Lister, Daniel S, and James Bowery, are fuckin’ useless period. 107
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:30 | # Oh, and I totally admit that White Zion is a longshot, but my point has always been that modernity allows for race treason in a way never seen before, and that we are living through a great psychological sorting out period in history, and WZ is a response to this. Ultimately, all white gene lines will become polluted, except for those consisting of hardcore nationalists. It is inevitable, due to three facts: a. global communications b. easy, global transportation; and the most significant, c. the abdication of the racial principle - the maintenance of racially distinct polities, and that white miscegenation is disallowed. Eventually, only those whites committed to whiteness will remain white. How could it be otherwise? If Western nations are increasingly diversified, and there is neither law nor social sanction against miscegenation, at some point, some white descendant will fall in love with a mud. Planet Tiger Woods really is the future, as self-hating whites (and Jews) like to gloat. The only way to prevent this is to ensure that those whites who do not wish to be ‘muddied’ live in breeding pools large enough to support continued white existence, and defensible (which means in no small measure, sovereign) territories. But if the modal WN psyche is a minority everywhere among whites, as empirically it seems to be, then what choice is there besides WZ (ie, some type of WN ingathering)? Without WZ, even race-conscious whites will be too geographically dispersed to survive for very long, even without direct physical oppression or genocide. WZ is a dream, a goal to work towards, but not at all utopian. A lot fewer Jews created Israel.
108
Posted by ukn_leo on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:40 | # You’re welcome L_H, there is only one clip - the one you have watched. Support for Scottish independence always seems stubbornly stuck at just over the 30% mark, if polling is to be believed. The SNP are not very transparent or honest, it seems, when stating their full range of policies, ideals and objectives. They certainly do not seem to be offering a holistic package offering full, genuine freedom and independence. Far from it in fact. Freedom for them seems to entail either remaining shackled to the UK or joining the EU. Is there any real prospect of Scotland being allowed to escape the clutches of the UK/world establishment and their agenda? Historically, it has proven unwise to underestimate the Scotsman, yet even their own leaders seem to have forgotten that lesson. Yes, I support Scottish independence. I want the same thing for Scotland as I do for England, and the rest of the white world/nations for that matter. Self-determination, prosperity, cohesion, contentment. A combination of Listerian social values with a Hallerian economic model to pay for them, and Joe on the drums. The man on the street appears to be marching in the direction of UKIP at the moment. There is a huge smear campaign against them currently under way in the media here. Our liberal elite and their supporters amongst the general populace are visibly panicking (local council elections imminent where UKIP are expected to perform strongly). So they must be doing something right UKIP policies include leaving the EU, and at least a temporary moratorium on new immigration. Possibly the first steps in creating a white Zion UK/Scotland/England of which even X-PWA may be proud? All to play for still.
109
Posted by n/a on Wed, 01 May 2013 19:52 | # Leon,
Weren’t you at one point threatening to arrange a parking lot scuffle with danielj, and didn’t you indicate you’d trust GW with your personal information? Send GW a photo of your student id, with your first name and face blacked out if you want. You won’t do this because Haller is not your real name and you’re not a graduate student.
My judgment is as astute as ever. A couple minutes with Google suffices to demonstrate that Haller has without question lied about his identity at least twice (considering he’s given at least three contradictory versions of the relationship between “Leon Haller” and his real name). - “Leon Haller” is his real name (when originally posting at Chronicles). - “Haller” is not his real name. - “Haller” is his real last name but his real first name is not “Leon”. I’m not going to explain all the ways it’s obvious to me he’s lying about graduate school, but I’m very confident he is. See if you find the excuse he comes up with for not wanting to verify his identity with GW and prove me wrong convincing. His immediate reason for making up the “going back to graduate school” story is also obvious: feeling a need to puff up his credentials, thinking it would lend his arguments greater credibility vs. “Dr” Graham Lister. This seems to be the pattern in most of the elements of his posts that throw up flags of deception for me: Haller will lie freely and copiously to give himself credentials he thinks will help back up his arguments, or to just make himself sound as important as possible in general while maintaining what he thinks is some degree of plausibility for his audience. I don’t even think he has the half-Asian girlfriend—I think he just thought it would stretch credibility to claim he had a young, attractive white girlfriend, but that we might believe he had a young, “hot” “eurasian” girlfriend. Haller is probably reasonably sincere in his political beliefs. One of the few statements by Haller bearing on his real life that I actually believe: “I’m just here or elsewhere to engage serious persons - though the real reason (as I suspect with many others) is that I don’t have any regular real life outlet to discuss and do something about these issues.” Note that this admission is hardly consistent with his claims of having been an immigration activist, writer for conservative publications, speaker for prop 209, organizer of American “nationalist clubs”, close personal friend of many important people who share his views, etc.
110
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 May 2013 11:20 | # n/a@111 Don’t have my girlfriend? WTF??!! I did have a fairly hot white gf in the mid-2000s, but she turned out to be a total user bitch. I’d like to find another white gf, the last one, one who is intelligent and conservative and not bad looking, to marry. My Eurasian was never intentional, and I didn’t realize it would last as long as it has. I know she’ll leave me at some point, esp as we’re no longer regularly living together - AS I’M IN FUCKING GRAD SCHOOL YOU SHITHEAD, WHICH ISN’T IN LA (and why would I sell my house, when my mom is there and other family?)!! Although why exactly would it be a stretch to say I had a young hot white gf? A good friend of mine, same age, has a really hot blonde gf, age around 30 tops. Another friend, who is 6 years older, has a pretty wife who is 5 or 6 years younger than I am. As to the rest, Haller is my last name, but Leon is simply a web name (I discovered there were several “Leon Haller"s after I had long chosen “Leon”, which actually is close to a family name of several ancestors). If I implied otherwise at Chronicles, it was because they wouldn’t allow comments under a moniker (like “Silver” or “n/a”), and I wasn’t just going to publish under my full actual name. Anyway, why don’t you publish under YOUR name? No, I never tried to arrange a scuffle with danielj. His friend “uh” tried to do that with me, but someone else (maybe daniel?) warned me off. I’m too old for that shiite anyway. Do YOU trust GW? If so, how much might YOU be willing to wager that I’m in grad school? Anyway, I don’t trust you. You could be trying to flush me out, in order to embarrass me at my school (it wouldn’t have worked with my former business partners, as they knew my views, and to some extent shared them, esp re immigration, which we all hate). Indeed, you could easily be “uh”, under a different moniker. As to “puffing up my credentials” - as though I need to! My comments either speak (or do not) for themselves. I have an excellent pedigree already. If you can’t tell that from the multitude of comments I’ve left here over the years, then you yourself are poorly educated. Maybe Lister had 1 or 2 years more schooling (unless he spent a really long time on his doctorate). Anyway, I could easily lie and say I have a PhD. How would you know? I don’t independently know that Lister has a PhD, but the mind at work behind his comments suggests he very well might. Finally, as to this:
This really reveals your ignorance of life and the world. First, I have not identified any WNs or even hardcore conservatives (except some pro-life types) at school. So, no, I don’t have anyone to discuss these issues with live. Second, and this is what shows you to be probably very inexperienced in life, people who have jobs (and in the case of most of my friends, wives and families) don’t spend a lot of time engaging in intellectual discussions, even if they happen to be ideologically sympatico. I have many friends who are conservatives or even in a few cases WNs - how often do you think we can get together, in person or by phone (most of my most ideological friends don’t even live in CA or my current state) for intellectual discussions about politics? Are you a total jackass? My three best friends are all hardcore conservatives. But I’m the only intellectual among them. Do you think when we do meet up we debate immigration strategy? Again, are you some little cybergeek who has no friends? My “people” are NORMAL, meaning they talk about their jobs, careers, wives or girlfriends, children if any, home remodeling, the new car they’re looking at, vacation spots, stock tips, upcoming parties, maybe movies or sports - and yes politics. But even wrt politics, discussions are more practical or bitch sessions than deep theoretical debates. I do not have a regular politics, let alone WN, outlet. I wish I did, esp one in real life. Do you think I keep up with any of the 209 people? I don’t. And I never claimed to have organized a nationalist club. I’ve said I wish such existed, and that I have ideas in that regard. I never said I was a close personal friend of any ideological luminaries, although I have known several, a few of whom are dead (eg, Rothbard). I’ve met many others at conferences. Several persons have asked if I wished to write for their publications. Don’t put words in my mouth. Anyway, what you think of me is irrelevant to me. What is strange, though, is that I don’t recall any comments by you. Must not have been very memorable. 111
Posted by n/a on Thu, 02 May 2013 22:49 | #
Yet, strangely, they did allow posts from people calling themselves things like “Lone Racer”—including posts in which “Lone Race” indirectly acknowledges that “Lone Racer” is not his real name while indicating “Leon Haller” is.
Because I choose not to. And I’m not telling you to post under your real name. I’m telling you your pretending (badly) to be posting under your real name (along with your need to regale us with the rest of your pretend life) makes your comments unreadable to me.
We’re not going to wager anything. This is an all-reward proposition for you. You get to defend your honor and embarrass someone who is calling you a liar to your face. But of course you’re not going to take advantage of the opportunity because you can’t.
If I wanted to out you, and if even half of what you’ve said about yourself were accurate, it would be possible to link you to your real identity in a couple hours just using google. That during your over half a decade of antagonizing people on various comment sections no one ever bothered is a pretty good indicator the “facts” you choose to drop about yourself are not in general true.
That’s how it should be. But that’s obviously not how you actually think, as illustrated even by just the rest of that same paragraph.
I don’t know or care if Lister has a PhD. I’ve never been impressed by him and it makes no difference to me either way. You went with the “return to grad school” story line rather than directly claiming you had a PhD because you’d already claimed to have a dual JD/MBA and it would have looked a little strange that you’d previously forgotten to mention the other advanced degree. Also, it gave you the opportunity to claim you were making great sacrifices for the cause, another of the sorts of things you think add weight/authority to your comments.
Here’s what you did say in a 2010 comment:
Back to your current comment:
A 2009 comment:
So we go from 2009, when you were “still writing for various publications”, to 2010, when you were looking to get yourself “a place within the broader conservative media”, to 2013, when “Several persons have asked if I wished to write for their publications”—but don’t put words in your mouth. And of course you also had a forthcoming book back in 2009, just like now. 112
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 03 May 2013 11:52 | #
EVERY single statement above is true - EVERY SINGLE ONE. 1. My firm did work for Buchanan, and I did a lot of volunteer work, too, including putting on one good sized fundraiser which I co-produced. That was a huge pain in the ass. And I’ve done work for many other candidates. 2. I worked full-time for one of the anti-immigrant organizations. I’m not going to say which one, or what the battle was, because that would completely out me. Someday, I will. Right now, I’m surrounded by liberals, and I don’t want my hard work jeopardized for PC reasons. 3. There were a bunch of persons who were sent around CA to speak on behalf of 209, often at schools. I was one - totally unpaid. 4. A good friend was for many years a JRC member. I attended a bunch of their conferences in the 90s to early 2000s. At one point I was asked if I were interested in joining, but I never did. I no longer remember why. 5. I am absolutely working on a book - two in fact. But they won’t be out for long time. They will deal with some of the various issues I discuss here. And, yes, I have been published, including, in the movement, on vdare.com and a couple of non-internet publications (pseudonymously). Jared Taylor once asked if I wanted to write for AR, but we couldn’t agree re the precise topic, and I let the matter drop (I’ll bet you $1000, and will send GW one of the email exchanges between us, if you don’t believe me - care to wager?). I’ve also been published under another name in non-political publications. Indeed, most of my admittedly limited published oeuvre has not been in ideological publications at all. You’re making an assumption here:
that I only write for rightwing stuff. Frankly, I’ve only written a small amount for rightist periodicals, though I ghost wrote a lot of stuff for my employer organization in the 90s. Do you think it’s possible for someone to write articles in business magazines and financial newsletters, and also write for vdare, or AR, or MR, unless anonymously? Are you crazy? There are no contradictions here. Until a couple of years ago (when I returned to grad school), I had a position in a firm doing marketing and PR. Even though we were all good conservatives, do you actually think it would be good for business to be associated with MR? Hello? I don’t lie, ever. I don’t need to. I really hate not being able to come out of the closet, because I’m damn proud of my pedigree, and I stand by what I say. I don’t care if I’m denounced by people, either. But I cannot allow my normal career and life to be ‘tainted’ by WN any more than they already are (eg, I don’t put my 209 activism on my resume, obviously, or parade it before clients, though to me that’s real volunteer work, and something which ‘broadens’ me in a positive way). I wish I could have my life viewed as an integrated whole, but I’m not there yet, professionally or financially. If we were living in White Zion, there wouldn’t have to be any bullshit subterfuge. BTW, on the nationalist club - where’s the contradiction? I didn’t say I had gotten one going, only that I’m in discussions with people about it. And that remains true to this day. Lastly, let me get this straight: what do you mean “claimed to have my JD/MBA”? Are you alleging that I did not do my professional degrees? Really? Is that your position? And what would convince you? And why do you assume I’m not back in school? Too old? Too stupid to do a doctorate (what a joke! you should see some of these people; some impressive, many not)? I didn’t claim to have a PhD because I don’t. I could easily have lied from the beginning about having a PhD. And I don’t need to claim to be pursuing one just for web comments, or anything else. My education is full enough as it is. I don’t talk about my kids - because I don’t have any! I don’t claim to have 6-pack abs - ditto! I don’t claim to own a yacht - ditto! I don’t claim to be from Texas or Alaska - because I’m not! I’ve been to the French Riviera. I could say I summer there regularly. But I don’t, because I’ve only been there once. I’ve also been to Gstaad. I could say I ski there. But again, I’ve only been there once. If I wanted to, I could really “jazz” up my web “personality”, precisely because my life has been interesting enough for me to have experienced some high level stuff, without it being regularly lived at that level. But I’m actually a low key guy. If you think my life is “pretend”, then yours must be really boring, because I’ve known so many guys who have led truly fascinating and/or successful lives. I wish I were one of them. I have to repeat this. If you think my life as I have described it is too exciting or special to be real, then you must be a hog farmer in rural North Carolina, or something similarly uninspiring. I know so many persons, have had so many clients, with such cooler lives than mine. To think that what I’ve told people of my own could be thought “pretend” - that’s pathetic! And depressing! I do admit one thing: once I have my doctorate, “Leon Haller” will probably disappear, and some other person will appear. And I think that will close out my comments on this crap of yours. Deal with it. Think what you want. 113
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 03 May 2013 12:30 | # n/a, I must thank you for one thing. I swear on the blood of Christ that I had totally forgotten about Lone Racer! Indeed, at first I wasn’t sure what you were referring to. I googled it and then started remembering. I’ve posted thousands of comments under many aliases, some of which I have now forgotten. Chronicles banned Leon Haller first, then later Lone Racer. Here’s one comment I rediscovered, still pertinent (I hope Dr. Lister reads it):
Someone should get that comment to the fools in the GOP today. 114
Posted by Dasein on Sun, 05 May 2013 19:42 | # n/a, Thanks. I’ve actually been thinking to start writing again, having been inspired recently by Spiro’s Grant biography. 115
Posted by J Richards on Sun, 05 May 2013 21:18 | # n/a, Great job dissecting the Leon Haller! As you’ve discovered, no special knowledge of taxonomy is needed to ascertain his pedigree. The pest says “I don’t lie, ever. I don’t.”! Everyone lies some of the time. Now we shouldn’t be concerned with Haller’s white lies or other minor lies, but too many malicious lies come from this creature. The pest is probably too old to realize that a search engine isn’t his friend. The first time this pest promoted the Austrian School lie on government control of money, he could’ve been given the benefit of ignorance, but after being pointed to the lie and evidence for the private ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks, he kept repeating the same lies. These lies got so repetitive that I gave him an ultimatum on Jan. 31, 2012: justify the fundamental tenets of the Austrian School [government control of…, soundness of gold standard] or have his comments rest in a trash folder created for him and his fans: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/sound_money_arthur_kitson#c122196 . The ultimatum followed repeated warnings that the vermin didn’t heed, and he again didn’t, thereby ending up in trash. On Feb. 9, 2012, Haller wrote that he didn’t see the ultimatum, an obvious lie; then he said in response to the ultimatum, “...I will comment on the Kitson thread before the end of the week, however.”: http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/free_speech_open_discussion#c122721 Unfortunately GW, for reasons best known to him, wanted this pest to defecate all over MR, and Haller was given free reign to crawl inside the living room, bedroom,... all over the house except the toilet. The pest claims to be in grad school studying something like Catholic theology. What are the odds? How did Jesus describe the Pharisees? Jesus called the Pharisees the sons of the devil who’ll lie and murder like the devil (John 8:44); serpents, generation of vipers, devourers of widows’ houses, extortionists, full of dead men’s bones, unclean, concerned with gold and baubles but not law, judgment, mercy, or faith (Matthew 23:14-33); and satanic blasphemers lying that they’re Judahites (Revelation 2:9, 3:9; in modern texts, these passages usually substitute Judahite with the mistranslation “Jew”). Who were the Pharisees? The Pharisees were the people who a few centuries after Jesus came up with the Mishnah, Midrashim, and Talmudism, i.e., they were the ones who, down the road, invented Judaism. A Christian-cum-grad student of Christian theology would know the latter, and couldn’t possibly be a philosemite, but Haller is one! Authentic and knowledgeable Christians—and a grad student of Christianity is expected to be knowledgeable—not the garden variety ones, would know of numerous resources that should disabuse any Christian of philosemitism, such as: Dalman, Gustaf. Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the liturgy of the synagogue (1893). Cambridge : Deighton, Bell. http://archive.org/details/cu31924074488150 Yet Haller doesn’t strongly dislike Jews! When challenged to cite historical evidence for Jesus, Haller cited Jewpedia! Some grad student! You’ve already noted Haller’s tall claims about involvement in immigration-restriction activism. Now check out the following. When I posted an article on [predominantly Jewish] bankers creating the immigration mess in many Western nations, Haller wrote: “...[Richards ignores] all the historical and sociological particulars which have led to the Third World immigration disaster. I have been involved with that issue for several decades, and I can assure you, why immigration is caused and why it continues are very complex matters…” http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_economics_of_mass_immigration#c121429 Notice that all of Haller’s replies to the immigration argument are instances of him discombobulating and trolling: More than one year later, Haller has yet to offer an alternative thesis on the causes of the immigration mess, and this is coming from someone with a decades-long involvement in the area! On economics aspects of the immigration problem, NAFTA, a “free trade” agreement, discussed in response to said article, was shown to have devastated Mexican peasants, giving them the choice of either watching their families starve or cross the border to earn money. But “free trade,” banker euphemism for [not-free] trade dictated by banker interests, remains fine with Haller, and for all his ad nauseum lamenting of immigrations problems, he has yet to emphasize the repeal of NAFTA and similar legislation. The fact is that Haller on immigration is mere crocodile tears, feigned concern/outrage and piddly-poo calls to action. He knows what happened to California proposition 187: when California whites could [now they can’t], they tried to vote into law a measure to tackle the illegal alien problem, but a Jew judge killed the measure. In general, there’s no solving the immigration problem without tackling the Jew problem first, which is what the article on economics aspects of the immigration problem was a step toward clarifying. Haller’s also on record urging that those defaulting [on loans] be made to suffer for the “loss of capital”; the “loss” here is of money that the bankers created ex nihilo! 116
Posted by n/a on Mon, 06 May 2013 04:51 | # Dasein, Glad to hear.
Let’s recap, just in case anyone’s as easily distractible as you appear to hope: you’re the one who brought up your “university id” and how it could “easily prove” your story if only there were someone at MR you trusted. I merely called your bluff, suggesting you send an image of your student ID to GW, who you’d previously named as someone you’d trust with your personal information. I even said you could black out your first name and photo. I wasn’t asking you to reveal any private information, but merely to confirm a small piece of what you’ve announced publicly. You proceeded to repeatedly sidestep this simple request while stuffing your posts with additional irrelevant supposed personal details I never asked for—not really the actions of someone spooked and afraid of revealing too much.
A previous version: “I’m talking about the tens of thousands I’m spending on grad school at the moment - and that after giving up a job in finance where I had a six figure income”. And then there’s the version where you were “an independent businessman”.
Again: I can tell you’re lying because you’re a bad liar, not because your made-up life is unbelievably exciting or enviable or because someone would need to be inconceivably intelligent to be accepted into a theology doctorate program. I just tend to notice when someone’s trying to bullshit me. I’m sure you’re above average in intelligence. You’d be capable enough of being a theology graduate student. But you’re not. I’m sure you could write books (though probably not momentously important ones), but I don’t think we’ll be seeing any from you regardless of how far into the future—Important Prospective Book is just set dressing.
Yes, I found that pretty funny. Surveys and personality inventories sometimes feature a “lie scale” or “social desirability scale” designed to detect people presenting an idealized self-image / faking in a positive direction. “I never lie” is literally a textbook example of the “wrong” answer to a lie scale / social desirability item. “Other topics that are sensitive to social desirability bias”, from Wikipedia:
I don’t think Haller is actively malicious. Before coming to MR, it appears he was explicitly advocating for white interests (as he saw them) in the comments section at Chronicles—despite the dominant faction over there apparently having been sanctimoniously “anti-racist”. So the political views he’s promoted appear to have remained more or less consistent and I’d guess they are his actual views. While I do find it bizarre when people lie as extensively as Haller, I think he’s guilty mainly of unwarranted intellectual vanity / pretension / grandstanding (a failing he shares with Lister) combined with a willingness to freely make up personal details he thinks will lend weight/authority/credibility to his comments. 117
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 06 May 2013 21:11 | # Why do I keep bothering? JRichards@117
Maybe you lie a lot. I only do so to the extent I need to in order not to have my political opinions negatively impact my career, whether in business or school. I think people like you have strangely internalized the Left’s critique of white preservationism, and therefore at some level feel guilty about what opinions you espouse. I do not feel that way at all. I’ve been known all my life as an extreme conservative, and my version of it has been the same my whole life: anti-diversity, pro-capitalist, pro-2nd Amend., moderately but firmly Christian (by “moderate” I mean I really don’t care about the issues that exercise the Christian “Right” - abortion, marriage, etc - even as I agree with the Christian position). Re: the Austrian School / Ron Paul view of money and banking: I don’t need to defend that view. Unlike White Zion, there is a huge literature on the subject (just go to Mises.org). What could I add to it? If the Mises site doesn’t convince you of the need for sound, commodity money, then I’m not going to. And I have better things to do than engage in futile quests.
No one but you has ever called me a “philosemite”. I am, as evidence by my writings, a realist wrt JQ. I am not a fierce antisemite, nor any sort of Christian Zionist. The Zionists would actually probably consider me an antagonist. I have always openly recognized the problems that disproportionately Jewish leftism has brought to Western countries. I oppose all aid to Israel (but also all foreign aid in general). I opposed the Iraq War. I favor discovering the historical truth about WW2, and own a decent number of revisionist volumes, including works by David Irving. I retroactively opposed US involvement in the European theater of WW2. I dislike the neocons. I oppose the FRB cartel. I did volunteer work for Pat Buchanan. How much more do you want?! I am clearly on the Right side of the JQ. I happen to have many Jewish friends, and being a Christian and fairminded man, I’m not going to disavow them just on the basis of race or religion. Nor am I going to deny the considerable contributions Jews have made, esp in the US. Life is not usually simple. The JQ is morally as well as historically complex. But you are not a man given to nuances. Note also that the Catholic Church has officially condemned antisemitism (Nostra Aetate). This was Vatican II, and maybe should be opposed (maybe all Vat2 should be opposed, but that again is a very complex issue). But it is the Church’s position, and thus demands a presumptive measure of respect. Your dismissiveness of everything contradicting your preferred theses cannot be taken seriously. I stand by what I’ve said about the complex causes of immigration, something I have always opposed. Recognizing complexity isn’t a sign of weakness or treason. Blaming everything on “Jewish bankers” is embarrassing.
FLAT OUT LIE! I opposed NAFTA at the time, and support its repeal today. I am a national sovereigntist; always have been. (You’re slipping here, Richards, overreaching and thereby demonstrating your mental instability).
I voted for 187. I told everyone I knew to support it. I seem to recall it was a Pakistani judge who overturned it (“Patel”, I think - yes, I can use a search engine, too, but I’m not interested enough to check this). As to the “Jew first” strategy, my rejection of which is the real crux of your resentment of me, I think it’s a loser, always has been, always will be. And as I’ve said many times, you fundamentally do NOT understand monetary issues, and refuse to be educated, although all the necessary materials are there at Mises.org. I do not agree with your various stances, and probably never will.
118
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 06 May 2013 22:05 | # n/a, Sorry, but you don’t really address my comments @118.
I don’t “appear to hope” for anything. I responded to you plainly. And didn’t I ask for a wager? What’s in it for me? My inclination is to trust GW, but I don’t know him, and am still ‘outing’ myself to some extent. Because I basically trust him, however, I might be persuadable if money were on the table. We could both send $1000 to him (now that would be real trust! though not being interfered with in my career is worth much more to me than $1000), and if the proof is submitted by me, then he gives me the money (minus say a hundred for his trouble). But I don’t think you would go for this, because you’re not really sure I am lying. You’re obviously and pathetically striking a pose. I could say I’m a NASA scientist (and could really be one), but nothing I have written indicates I am (eg, reliance on scientific metaphors), so you might take the bet if it were offered about that. But though you express great certainty that I’m lying about grad school (without supplying any reasons to think I am lying, other than psychological speculations), you won’t take this bet. Likewise you made some claims about my writing for movement sites or publications. I’ve never done so under “Leon Haller”, and I’ve never done so for pay within the movement. So that I have written for, eg, vdare, is something I can’t prove to you through my Leon Haller email without exposing another name or names, which I choose not to do. But I can prove that I as Leon Haller was solicited to write for AR, and I can do so without any other exposure. I just have to forward emails to GW. I offered to bet money on this. I’m waiting for a response.
I was an independent businessman. Several of us started a marketing and PR firm, of which I was a principal (though not the head). I call that being “an independent businessman”. What would you call it? That was what I was doing pre-grad school. I did work in finance right out of college for several years before returning to law school (while doing enough to work in the MBA, too - many schools offer this option), and then I went back into finance after graduation. I worked in finance (not going to say doing what) until I had a career setback, at which point a friend, managing the marketing department of a bank (not going to say more, so don’t ask me), hired me. Eventually, we, along with others, decided to strike out on our own. I did relinquish a six-figure income to return to school, and most of my career was in finance. At the end I was technically in marketing, not “finance” (oh boy! little ‘fisherman’ thinks he GOT ME!), but whom do you think our clients were, and how was I able to ‘talk’ to them? We had financial clients, and I was brought on board because of my financial background (and general smarts and education). If you think this profile is somehow so unusual as to indicate I’m lying, then you just don’t know much about the professional world (which is what I think anyway). I mean this honestly, blood of Christ: you’re showing yourself in a bad light, revealing that perhaps you’re not very experienced, or else successful. You don’t seem to know how things get done, so you rummage around with a search engine, thinking you’re clever.
But again, this is just assertion and speculation. I can say,“I think n/a is a homosexual. When he says he’s straight, I can tell he’s lying. Detecting bullshit is just a talent I have.” But what is the proof of queerness? Nothing is offered wrt me but irrelevant psychological theory, and lots of restatements of my alleged mendacity. Have you offered one single piece of proof? And you don’t address most of the substance of my responses anyway, so this is just wasting my time. 119
Posted by n/a on Tue, 07 May 2013 23:26 | # Haller, “But I don’t think you would go for this, because you’re not really sure I am lying.” Dude, you’re like a toddler who thinks that if you put your hands over your eyes people can’t see you. No, I’m absolutely sure you’re lying. I was confident to begin with, just from having skimmed your comments over the years. A couple minutes with google, combined with your unsatisfactory and entirely predictable responses to my calling you out removed any shred of doubt. I told you what was in it for you: you’d have gotten to defend your honor and prove me wrong while not putting your identity at any risk you hadn’t already by announcing the “facts” you had. The “wager” was never anything except a delaying tactic, and had I accepted, excuses and stipulations would have begun to pile up until you managed to come up with a faked student ID (which I doubt you’d be competent or resourceful enough to do, but you probably imagine you’d be able to with enough time and incentive) or I lost interest (which I have).
The claim you’d written for “various publications” was obviously a lie. Your comment clearly implied you wrote for mainstream conservative publications under your real name, a claim you now disavow. And you didn’t need to bother telling me you “can’t prove” you’ve written for vdare. I knew immediately that if I were to ask for confirmation only excuses would be forthcoming. Similarly it was clear that you probably had actually exchanged emails with Jared Taylor as “Leon Haller”—an irrelevance and attempt at changing the subject that does nothing to support the claim that as of 2009 you’d written for “various” conservative publications. And, yes, faggot, I “got you”. Being confused about whether you gave up a “job in finance” or “a position in a firm doing marketing and PR” to return to grad school has exactly one explanation: you’re a pathetic fucking liar, and an incompetent one at that. Likewise for being confused about how “Leon Haller” relates to your real name, whether you come from northern or southern California, etc.
As unfortunate a discovery as it may be for you, this is one of the things humans can do—tell when other humans are lying. Some are better at it and some are worse. I have a reasonable sense of my ability in this department, and I’m not afraid to test my judgment—which is the main thing this thread was about for me. The “proof” you’re a liar and fantasist is in the inconsistencies in your backstory over the years—but again your responses in this thread constitute proof enough to any reasonably socially competent person. The more you flail the more you confirm I’m right. 120
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Wed, 08 May 2013 00:35 | # Reconciling libertarianism with racial nationalism: 121
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 08 May 2013 04:23 | # n/a, You keep saying you’ve “proved” something, but you have proved precisely nothing. That is clear to anyone reading this exchange from the beginning. Your method is to make an assertion - “when will you stop beating your wife?” - and when the person claims he never beats his wife, this is taken as “flailing about”, with such “proofs” offered as “studies show that people who beat their wives routinely deny that they do, and also ask for proof of the beatings - the asking for which is actually statistical proof that beatings in fact took place”. Your reasoning is completely circular. You also never address the substance of what I say, but keep trying to fool other readers that I’ve said something inconsistent, by stating that I have without demonstrating that I have. I have written for many publications, including several in the broad conservative movement (there are dozens). I have used several names, including my real one. I have not written under the name Leon Haller (never said I did), though I’ve been asked to. No inconsistencies. I have no intention of revealing these pseudonyms, so take it or leave it, I don’t care. Your whole worthless “case” against me is based on alleged inconsistencies in what I’ve stated about my real person. You gave examples above of where I allegedly made inconsistent statements about my professional life pre-doctoral program. Here it is with my response: [quote
Now, look at your response:
Your rejoinder doesn’t quite follow from what I stated, does it? What’s the “lie” this time? Again, you reveal your limited intelligence (obviously without realizing it). And, lastly:
Irrelevant and/or again circular. You haven’t demonstrated a SINGLE inconsistency; you just keep repeating that you have. Otherwise, you offer innuendo: like my GF is nonexistent, or otherwise different from what little I’ve claimed about her; or that I never went to professional school; or that I am not in a doctoral program - I’m going to fake an ID? what kind of a child are you? how many “Hallers” do you think are in my program? more than one? how big do you think my program is? I could “out” myself to GW, but what’s in it for me? Proving something to some internet douchebag like you? Why should I? Make it worth my while. Then at least I would consider it.
122
Posted by n/a on Wed, 08 May 2013 10:56 | # Shameless little bitch, I know you’re wasting my time, and you know you’re wasting my time, but I’ll give you one more chance to flail. You overnight $1,000 to GW. When GW confirms he’s received it, I’ll send him $1,000. Within 24 hours of that you send him photos of your student ID from multiple angles, and if he finds the evidence convincing that you’re currently a graduate student with the last name Haller you win. Otherwise you forfeit, GW keeps the money, and you publicly admit you’re an incompetent lying bitch and that even your half-asian girlfriend is fictional. No excuses. No stipulations. No delays. 123
Posted by J Richards on Thu, 09 May 2013 23:06 | # <h2>Haller continued…</h2> n/a, The $1,000 bet was a great thing to do; Haller’s finished. Regarding the rest, I do believe that Haller’s a sincere advocate of a very limited number of positions he’s been expressing at MR, such as the soundness of the Austrian School. In general, however, if Haller’s behavior at the Chronicles and some other websites is consistent with him genuinely holding the core stances he’s been expressing here, then his behavior at MR can only mean that his ego is so big that he must be right even at the cost of righteousness [initial arguments made in error but refusal to correct them even after being shown how mistaken and harmful they are]. What sort of ego would make one defend policies that are demonstrably harmful to the community one cares about when one created a very false persona to recommend these policies? It’s highly unlikely that Haller isn’t malicious. His posting history may reflect one or more of the following: * pretending to be the opposition, then coming up with arguments that can only make the opposition look bad. Notice he’s been banned from commenting at many websites, which isn’t because his arguments were so devastating that they had no choice. The reasons have to do with his presentation of the matter, which guarantees no conversion of his opponents to his side. See http://classicalvalues.com/2011/07/we-get-annoying-comments/ * an attempt to build a history for the future when he may need to cite his posting history to make himself appear credible; he’d then use this credibility to do damage control and deflect attention from them if the need came up. The last possibility is the one where some of Haller’s expressed desires, such as a reduction in Third World immigration to America, could be genuine but not because he’s concerned about white welfare. Haller’s latest responses are again most consistent with maliciousness; don’t just focus on him being a bad liar. Haller accuses me of dismissing everything contradicting my preferred theses, but in a specific example such as the Austrian School, he has yet to cite any evidence proving government control of money or any criticism, by himself or any Austrian School personality, of Arthur Kitson on the utility of the gold standard. Empty assertions come out of Haller, no evidence. Haller says he opposed NAFTA at the time and supports its repeal today. But you can see the links I left to the immigration argument. When the discussion on NAFTA came up within the right context, that of international bankers being primarily responsible for the immigration mess in the U.S. and some other nations, he wasn’t saying this; he was discombobulating and trolling. He’s also been adamant on supporting what the bankers euphemistically call “free trade,” and he says he opposed NAFTA, an instance of a “free trade agreement”! Haller accuses me of not being given to nuances. In order to make this argument, Haller needs to mention “the complex causes of immigration” that I’ve ignored and challenge me to explain them while maintaining the same thesis, but he doesn’t even mention these causes. Haller allegedly voted for proposition 187, and thinks a “Pakistani” Judge named “Patel” overturned it but doesn’t care enough to use a search engine to verify! Haller cared enough about immigration to learn about p-187 and to vote for it, but he didn’t care to find out who killed the measure and why! So how would a decades-long anti-immigration activist come up with a different, more effective strategy in the future? We should also consider some of the latest insights this long-term activist has to offer given his decades-long involvement: “But I think we can get majorities (or at least a majority, somewhere - cf White Zion) to agree that coercive racial diversification via immigration and totalitarian legal integration is undesirable…” It’s as if one’s starting from square one! Haller’s already been pointed to representative surveys of American whites showing that the great majority have rejected racial diversification for a very long time, but it makes no difference to him. Two phrases on Haller: pathetic liar, malicious pest. 124
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 11 May 2013 21:09 | # n/a@124 Does GW agree to this? If you’re as smart as you think you are, you should obviously understand that there are two issues here: my grad program, and my last name. Supposing I send him a private email from the Haller account with which we have corresponded in the past, telling him I will be sending him the photo ID, but under a different name? Do I then get to keep your $1000? I other words, what’s the real issue: my name or my program? 125
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 11 May 2013 22:15 | # Richards@125
This is some of the most convoluted shit I’ve ever seen. Very poor reasoning. I mean this with complete sincerity: you’re a nutcase. The conclusion of the first paragraph does not follow at all. When do I defend Jews (in the conventional sense of the term “defend”)? I’ve always noted their liberalism, and that they have been the main (“white”) instigators of the racial changes to the US that I bemoan. OTOH, I’ve personally known lots of decent Jews, plus I acknowledge that their community has made a lot of positive contributions to the US (unlike other non-Europeans, whose presence ranges from unnecessary to disastrous for whites), in business, science and even philanthropy. I would never oppose any European country’s efforts to deport Jews to Israel, along with nonwhite repatriation. Indeed, I think Europe would be much better off if it deported its Jews to Israel (Israel might be better off, too). I do think antisemitism in the US is massively counterproductive, and I do not support it. My position has always been the same as Jared Taylor’s: we should encourage Jews to think of themselves as white, and to align their interests with ours. However, Jewish issues are of little concern to me either way. I don’t give a shit if you or others are antisemites, but I think pushing antisemitism has been a catastrophic mistake for those of us who really are pro-white preservation. Indeed, I think it is YOU (and other extreme antisemites) who may be the false flagger here. Most ordinary whites are not antisemitic, and it is extremely time-consuming to try to get them to be so. OTOH, many whites instinctively understand that the nonwhitening of the USA is bad for them, and they don’t want it (esp when neutral scholarship reveals the costs of immigration). In light of these sociological facts, what kind of an idiot fixates on the JQ instead of beginning the ‘re-racialization’ process by focusing on stopping immigration, something easy to understand, and for which there is wide acceptance? Employing your own mode of reasoning, it is someone who doesn’t want real pro-white progress to be made, who wants to redirect WP sentiment into self-harmful channels. As I have said many times, initial victories are what are need now. If WP ever could stop immigration, they would be in a much better position to deal with the JQ later. OTOH, if we don’t stop the invasion, all else is lost, including the very possibility of what you would deem ‘progress’ on the JQ. For the record, I support total US disinvolvement in the Middle East. I always have. No aid, no wars, no treaties, no ‘peacemaking’ attempts, etc. America First - always my position. As for 9/11, Lister effectively discredited you on that. I’m not an expert in any of the technical areas needed to judge the official story, so what can I say? I do doubt the conspiratorial version because of my understanding of human nature. The numbers who would have to be involved in this type of coverup make coverup unlikely. Possible, perhaps, but simpler explanations usually suffice. I told you that a relative, an engineer who dislikes Jews, thinks the official technical story is completely plausible, though he also thinks the Jews may have had advanced knowledge which they didn’t share. Who knows? and who cares? I have mentioned repeatedly that I have disagreements with the CC, esp in areas pertaining to sexual theology. What’s new? And re the CC and antisemitism, here’s what I said:
I didn’t say one absolutely couldn’t be a Catholic and an antisemite, only that Church doctrine can’t be dismissed easily (and I don’t do so on sexual matters), and that, obviously, being a Catholic doesn’t require one to be an antisemite (or a philosemite). The truth of the proper relation, for a Christian, between Jews and Christians in historically/territorially integrated societies is COMPLEX. Clearly, it would be better for whites if we had our own race-pure countries, if, eg, some whites’ ancestors hadn’t had black slaves, or if the blacks had been returned to Africa post-Civil War. But that didn’t happen, and we have to deal with the consequences of past actions. Thus, just because it would have been better for whites today to have never imported blacks to the US, that fact does not thereby give us moral license to mistreat American blacks, including forcing African repatriation. And likewise, the fact that we didn’t keep out Jews originally changes what types of resistance are morally permissible today. On other matters: I’m not going to defend the Austrian view on money or markets. You know where to look to read the experts on the subject. If they don’t convince you, I won’t either. I opposed NAFTA on immigration grounds, and I and others were right. It is not “free trade”, however, but “government managed trade”, which I always oppose. Re immigration: explain the link between Jewish bankers and those Texas and CA ranchers and farmers (and construction firms, and the restauarant industry) who lobby for easy immigration, no employer verification, etc. Explain why the Catholic Church is pro-immigrant. Ditto evangelicals. Explain all the glowing tributes to immigration from non-Jewish whites. Etc etc etc. 126
Posted by Ken Stern leaves "the left" on Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:42 | # Former (((NPR))) (National Public Radio) CEO Ken Stern has a similar “awakening” as David Mamet…. “He left the liberal bubble and learned how to survive” - gee, I wonder (((why?))). Ken Stern (Former CEO of NPR) joins Dave to discuss his new book “Republican Like Me: How I Left the Liberal Bubble and Learned to Love the Right.”
127
Posted by Elon on Tue, 04 Aug 2020 02:56 | #
Post a comment:
Next entry: A Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein
|
|
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 DanielS on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:23 | #
Here is a discussion of Hayek and his influence on Thatcher
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/there-is-no-such-thing-as-society