Drew Fraser at Inverell 2008

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 05 January 2009 00:05.

“What I do want to talk about is, essentially, the Anglo-Saxon identity crises, the source of Anglophobia, the sort of spiritual disorder that I believe Anglo-Saxons are suffering from. What I want to start with is the nature of the disorder, move on to talk about the deep roots of the disorder, and then conclude by discussing a possible remedy for it.

First of all, the source of the nature of this crises seems to me is in the official description called constitutional patriotism, or civic nationalism, which translates in real terms into the idolatrous worship of the state and the corporate system - in practical terms.”

So began a speech by Prof Andrew Fraser given last March at the Inverell Forum, Australia’s famously incorrect annual celebration of dissident opinion and free speech. The Forum organisers produce DVDs of each of the speeches, and it is thanks to MR reader John Fitzgerald that the Fraser speech is now in transcribed form and I can quote from it.

In the first part of the speech, Fraser traces the roots of white racial consciousness through the period of slave-owning in the American South, the development of white skin privilege and white equality, and the emergence in the North of the fundamentals of modern human rights.

“In Australia,” he asks, “how can you run an immigration policy on the basis of discrimination between white and non-white, especially once you start to play around with the notion of white, because white is not synonymous with Anglo-Saxon. Afterwards you get massive numbers of Italians, Greeks and Lebanese Christians. Are they white? Just where is the boundary of whiteness? So then it became human-ness that really counts. And so you have what came to be known as the non-discriminatory immigration policy.”

Now, Fraser had begun by using the term “spiritual disorder”, so it should be no surprise that from here on the speech focuses heavily on the, as he sees it, broad failure of Christianity in the crisis of Anglo-Saxon identity. “It’s a mistake,” he tells us, “to do what a lot of people on the right would do; blame it all on the Frankfurt School, or the Jews or, as I hear here, the Illuminate.” Fraser roots the entire process in the Papal revolution which confined the action of kings to the secular world. “The world becomes flattened, “he says, “God is a being, we are beings, he is an infinite being, we are finite beings ... In that kind of context God, because he’s infinite, becomes very remote and only accessible to us through his will.”

This is not how it had been in earlier times. Fraser says, “The ancient Romans, for example, saw a division of society between those who pray and/or ruled, those who fought and those who worked. And each of these orders in society had their own divinities, their own Gods. Each order participated in the divine in their own particular way. Even after the conversion of Anglo-Saxons to Christianity that same tripartite order persisted. King Alfred, the great Anglo-Saxon king, saw society in essentially those terms. He saw Anglo-Saxon society like a three-legged stool, with those who prayed and those who fought supporting his position, and his role as king was to preserve and protect society as a whole.”

The ultimate expression of this divorce of the divine principle from everyday life is, Fraser claims, Darwinism. It “replaces the idea of God altogether with an even more impersonal force known as natural selection. The fittest survives and passes on genes to the next generation. Once again you have a world that operates and can be understood in terms of its own logic. You don’t need God or the divine to explain it.”

This secularising process has proved disastrous for the modern Anglican church as demonstrated by Rowan William’s recent observation that the adoption of Sharia is inevitable in UK law.

“Why?” demands Fraser, “Because social cohesion demands it. Clearly, here is a guy who’s using the term social cohesion, which is a secular term. Muslims don’t talk about social cohesion, they talk about Allah’s will. So he’s concerned about the social cohesion of the Muslim colony in Britain, but in the very act of making that claim he’s destroying ... further weakening the social cohesion among Anglo-Saxons. And any Anglo-Saxon who thinks England is the ancestral home of the English, and there ought to be an anti-colonial movement to get rid of the Muslim colonies, is absolutely a sinner in the eyes of the Archbishop of Canterbury. So we need to get away from Anglican secularism.”

Where we need to get, in Fraser’s view, is back to “the Anglo-Saxon Volkgeist”. It won’t be achieved by a continuation of secularism in any form: “We don’t need ... a white nationalist movement focussed on capturing state power to somehow serve the interests of white people because we know that the state won’t serve the interests of white people, much less the interests of Anglo-Saxons. The state is embedded in a system of global corporate capitalism, and that’s what they are about. They would be doing that, I’d argue, even if the BNP managed to form a government. That false religion is just too powerful to go back.”

So Fraser proposes that Anglo-Saxons must resile from that salvation which comes “from the state and, especially, from the market”, and return to “an Anglo-Saxon orthodoxy ... we need to return to our ethnic roots through the Church of England. In the Church of England you’d see God’s gift to the Anglo-Saxon people, not as Henry VIII saw it, as an arm of the English state, nor would you see it as most Anglican Evangelicals see it now, as a movement to carry the good news of Christianity to the Third World. Anglican Evangelicals should be engaged in a mission to the Anglo-Saxon people, today, now, here, and in every other former Anglo-Saxon country. At least to create a solid core of orthodox Anglicans who would serve the same function in effect in our ethnic group or our ethnic culture as orthodox Jews do for Judaism.”

Well, I hope that these few quotes from John’s transcription have done justice to Drew Fraser’s thesis. I want now to make a few observations of my own, which I hope Drew will take the opportunity to comment upon (although it’s been few years since he graced the MR threads).

My first point is a purely personal one, offered as somebody who has no glimmer of feeling for the worship of deity, whose parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts were all the same and whose progeny is too! There is an important sense in which the optionalisation of religious observance has been a great liberation for, at least, a non-trivial minority of our people ... perhaps a quarter. The evangelist’s notion that a religious conviction equal in force to his own lies at slumber in every man’s breast is, to my certain knowledge, a conceit. From childhood, past generations of my family will certainly have taken their places on the stone-cold pews at Evensong, and exhibited all the usual outward signs of faith. But if they ever believed it was only faintly and for the sake of expediency. The communal life of the times demanded it. For the faithless, faith was no field of choice but a narrow path hedged about by moral and social inadmissability.

Do we want to re-submit ourselves to the hegemony of the Christian faithful, even Drew’s Anglo-Saxon orthodoxy? I don’t wish this hypocrisy upon myself or mine. But I have to acknowledge that the faith-geners, by far the majority of whom have secularised and now profess the state-mandated religion of the individual, do enjoy the advantage of overwhelming numbers. If they herd together in any direction - anti-fascism, anti-racism, or holocaustism every bit as much as some new Anglican orthodoxy - I will lose freedom of conscience. That could be acceptable in the twin cause of my people living aright (ie, acting adaptively) and reclaiming their land (acting nationalistically). But it would still be an intellectually regressive step.

This brings us to my second, much more interesting point. Here we are deep in the Age of Knowledge. Scientific Man, godless and European in every fibre of his being, has his attention fixed on unlocking all life’s mysteries. He is bound to go forward, with no crisis of confidence, forever extending the realm of the “impersonal” and shrinking God’s, forever “flattening” the world. He cannot pause to allow “Anglican orthodoxy” control over the historical process, which it would surely desire even if its hostility to the impersonal was directed primarily at the state and the market, as Drew proposes.

The long and fruitful era of faith was the era of the faith-gener. It increased him so that, today, he is in the overwhelming majority in Europe as he is among all the races. But now the game is done with us. Faith is splintered and secularised and without national feeling, and its once all-conquering reproductive fitness is in terminal decline. Who is to say it is not simply an anachronism?

But ... as an alternative, the pursuit of Knowledge has not increased us either, that’s the problem - and, of course, it is a disastrous problem if the invaders of our lands are the only ones to exploit the huge increase in carrying capacity which Knowledge has brought. But that does not mean it can never serve our own genetic interests, as any assisted fertility clinician will tell you. Which, then, would be the easier to engineer: a return to a pre-Papal revolution faith or a forging onward to a new eugenic Europe? Well, which is closer to what you expect the future to contain, given current trends?

Of course, even given a more scientific approach to European fertility, the problem of acting nationalistically - the problem we blog about every day - remains. Is Drew right that only religion can contain both racial consciousness and adaptive living? Is he right about the impotence of “a white nationalist movement focussed on capturing state power”?

I, for one, wouldn’t be in this business if I thought that ideas held no sway. I see the world wholly in terms of the ideas that are in it, not the expressions of belief.

I will close on a more colourful note, also from last year’s Inverell Forum - the moment when a faith-gener of the godless leftist persuasion demonstrated what has become of Puritanism in the postmodern West.

Helen Caldicott is, according to Drew, a national treasure in the eyes of the Australian left because she has devoted her life to the anti-nuclear campaign. “After I spoke”, Drew wrote in an email to me, “Caldicott was spluttering with incoherent rage and couldn’t wait to accuse me of being a Nazi, full of hate, eager to start a war, etc. It was intensely satisfying to see her lose her cool in that way. I had been praying that she would attend my talk (she had been conspicuously absent from the session featuring an anti-vaccination activist) precisely because I was pretty sure she would do her nut - which she did. I was highly amused, but many in the audience were outraged by her attitude. I couldn’t imagine why since it was totally predictable. She is, after all, a member of the secular theocracy and not one likely to stand by idly in the face of rank heresy.”

That, Drew, is your natural market for a new Anglican orthodoxy. Believe me, the violence of her feelings is infinitely more fertile ground than the mystification of the faithless.

Tags: Christianity

Comments:

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:28 | #

Andrew Fraser: “We don’t need ... a white nationalist movement focussed on capturing state power to somehow serve the interests of white people because we know that the state won’t serve the interests of white people, much less the interests of Anglo-Saxons.”

So the state wouldn’t serve the interests of White people if controlled by a pro-White government, why? Because Fraser says so? Did the rule of National Socialists over Germany pre-war increase or decrease the genetic interests of Germans? And what specific programs did they implement, with the full authority of the state to punish and reward, that accomplished this? Would this have been possible without state power? How did the National Socialists attain power? Are the genetic interests of a given people better protected when a specific demarcated territory is secured for their exclusive benefit by force of arms or not? By what better means can one secure a given territory for a given people by force of arms than by full control of the state with all its powers bent towards securing said end?

Of course Fraser can’t be bothered with any of these questions.

I am quickly souring on the idea that our “best minds” have anything of practical value to offer whatever: Let’s colonize other planets; let’s make some art films; let’s leave the rule of the state to the anti-White genocidalists; if we get state power let’s not criminalize miscegenation because that would cut down on the freedom to miscegenate and freedom is good per se. LOL!

Whatever these “intellectuals” are smoking I want some of it, it sounds like a lot more fun than reality.

How about this: what “ideas” can get White people do to what it takes to get power and to use that power to secure the existence of their people?

Or is our time better spend on thinking about how we can colonize Mars?

Posted by Diamed on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:17 | #

I agree Fraser is crazy. He, if given the choice, would choose NOT to put white nationalists in power and would prefer the current governments of brown, sarkozy, obama, etc? That right there just makes me turn off the listening switch in my brain. Whatever excuses about how the white nationalist movement would also fail, how the government would end up serving big business, etc, are just that—excuses. Anyone who believes in our values would want as much power backing them up as possible. Anyone who tells us not to seek power doesn’t want our values to prevail.

As GW said, I see no further place for old fairy tales told 2,000 years ago that completely lacked any knowledge of science or genetics. It is just completely obsolete. There is nothing good about it anymore. Its day is done. We should as soon go back to Christianity as go back to hand-picking cotton or plowing wheat fields with horses instead of tractors. Why don’t people understand that ideas, just like machines, become obsolete once a better idea emerges? In Science we had Ptolemy’s almagest. It could accurately predict the motions of the planets almost to the T. But when Copernicus offered a better model, this time with the Earth revolving around the Sun, we Scrapped the old model and took up the new one. It didn’t matter how admirable Ptolemy was for his time or how accurate his predictions were, he was utterly worthless, he possessed no value at all, the moment there was a better model. The same for Paul Bunyan. He was a giant, he carried a huge axe, he personally could cut down more trees than hundreds of other lumberjacks combined. However, when a nerdy looking guy with a chainsaw challenged him to a tree-cutting duel, even Paul Bunyan lost. From there on Paul Bunyan retired and chainsaws took over.

Religion gave us an explanation for the origin of the world and life and man. Later, physics gave us the explanation for the origin of the world, biology gave us the origin of life, and evolution the origin of man. That was hundreds of years ago. Dear God how long must we pick cotton by hand and reap wheat with sickles and scythes? Face facts. Face facts. Face facts. And then let’s get on with our lives and see what kind of world we can live in with the new, more true, more correct, modern model of life. Christians are like theological luddites! Let’s just smash our intellectual machinery so we can continue living in the past. That’s all well and good unless someone else refuses to do it with you, becomes a super-power due to the incredible powers of correct ideology and correct technology, and utterly demolishes the ghost-dancers still clinging to their ancestral Indian religions trying to use voodoo to get back the past. Like GW said, any return to religion would just be a regression, a devolution of the European soul.

Now CC, don’t be too hard on us. I happen to believe space flight is, short of killing all non-whites on earth, the Only true win for the white race. Anything else can eventually be reversed, any advantage we gain can be temporary, we could fall back into ignorance or complaisance, and the third world would come right back. In England all the jews were kicked out for centuries, but that still wasn’t a win. Cromwell eventually came to power and invited all the jews back in. So you see, no win on earth lasts, short of a Turner Diaries win. As hokey as space flight sounds, do you honestly think it’s less likely than getting everyone to agree with the Turner Diaries and then actually winning that war? I’d say that’s a greater fantasy than spaceflight, surely you see what a long shot That is. Any measures we take now are temporary and transient—if white nationalists don’t use the breathing room won by some sort of state takeover and translate it into spaceflight (or some other technological miracle) I promise you, I PROMISE you our chance will come and go and our new Vinland will also fall. Every nation falls eventually, every empire, no matter how noble or glorious its beginning. So no matter what the nation we build in the future, it is only a stepping stone to space. I’m interested in something eternal, or as long as possible. Winning a temporary respite while surrounded by threats and dangers that will inevitably crash down on us just like the barbarians that hammered Rome for centuries is Not my ideal world. We can do better than that. We can also do better than being christian and worshiping a lying jew during that meager respite. I can’t think of anything more humiliating for whites than to get their very own nation only to serve a jewish God with it. UGH. How does that not disgust everyone else here?

What ideas could get whites to adopt the 14 words? “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” I don’t know. If we did, we’d have already won, neh? All we can do is offer them an attractive package and an admirable example in our own lives. Either it works or it doesn’t.

Posted by Ex ISKCON robot on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 02:25 | #

It’s interesting to compare the liberation theories, or rather, the practical application of the same, in other religious cultures.

Whereas Christianity positions itself as the GREAT EQUALIZER culture wise, other religions do not posit such a concept.

A distinction is made between spiritual equality and material sameness.

For example; in the various Hindu and Buddhist traditions, they welcome converts from around the world, from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds, but they do not seek to;

1. wipe out these peoples’ previous ethno-cultural traditions, or
2. force these people to adopt their cultures and marry them

Distinctions are made and that is why you see Asian people, by and large, not marrying outside of their ethno-cultural groups, even with people who share the same religion.

Even Islam, which attempts to compete as the GREAT EQUALIZER with Christianity, is inward looking and inward marrying amongst most of it’s Arab and Asian members.

The only Asians whom I have seen significantly open to inter-racial, inter-cultural and inter-ethnic marriages are Korean and Vietnamese CHRISTIANS. And then it’s very telling that these are Christians, members of the GREAT EQUALIZING religion, so it would make sense that these Asians outsource marriage more often than their non-Christian Asian counterparts.

Asian wisdom traditions that recognize the SPIRITUAL EQUALITY of human beings but maintain and allow for real differences on a material level between human beings are the ones that are truly worthy of the title ”wisdom traditions”.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:00 | #

I agree Fraser is crazy. He, if given the choice, would choose NOT to put white nationalists in power and would prefer the current governments of brown, sarkozy, obama, etc?

He said nothing of the sort. He quiterightly opposes STATE power, because “the State” means non-self-government.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:04 | #

So the state wouldn’t serve the interests of White people if controlled by a pro-White government, why?

“The State”, by definition, is a government not constrained by the same morality that constrains the people. In other words, it serves its own interests rather than those of its subjects.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:08 | #

I am quickly souring on the idea that our “best minds” have anything of practical value to offer whatever:

You’re betraying your ignorance of political theory. Trust me—Fraser is right, and you need to study.

Posted by john on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:11 | #

Whether you truly believe or not isn’t important. What is is whether it’s useful. The C of E is boring because boring people have infested it. It doesn’t have to be that way. Women Bishops, homo’s and blacks have had a cakewalk down the pews. There are many empty churches that could be renewed by racially aware whites.
The belief in the state has to be countered by something, white nationalists forming a government won’t change the nature of the state, it will still be a false god.

Posted by danielj on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:27 | #

Power corrupts.

It corrupts “White Nationalists” just as easily as it does deracinated cosmopolitans.

Decentralization is important. Localization is important.

Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:25 | #

Captainchaos on January 05, 2009, 12:28 AM, said: “How about this: what “ideas” can get White people do to what it takes to get power and to use that power to secure the existence of their people?”

There are innumerable ideas that can inspire diverse white peoples to engage in local efforts that might look like little things (and they are little things in the beginning). Here are some:

1) Review school texts at your elementary, middle, and high school to critique them for errors and for bigotry against the diverse white peoples. Insist on a meeting with the text book review committee. Take your complaints to the board, go public.

2) Speak on public issues wherever possible as a member of the diverse white peoples (to get people accustomed to the idea) and criticize others as individuals, not as members of demographic groups. (Saves a lot of trouble.) This is done by saying, “As a member of the diverse white peoples, I insist….”

3) Identify a local issue from which diverse white youth suffers disproportionally, and demand government programs to serve this issue.

There are probably 100 possible local issues which can be engaged with, all to emphasize our demographic status as more than “allies” of other demographic groups and less than raging outsiders.

Use jokes—they are little revolutions.

Attack from the left—it freaks our adversaries out.

Attract other diverse white peoples to join in and gradually become supporters of a defensive white political identity.

It took the Mayflower passengers 155 years until those Pilgrims (not Puritans) completed the rebellion against one-man rule. Those few people found themselves among savages and wild beasts, as we find ourselves now. “Let down your bucket where you are,” and get to work. And for God’s sake, everybody get white-centric.

Posted by Drew Fraser on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:48 | #

GW concludes by pointing to post-Christian rationalists such as Dr Helen Caldicott & Co as the “natural market for a new Anglican orthodoxy.” He assures us that “the violence of her feelings is infinitely more fertile ground than the mystification of the faithless.” In doing so, he equates religion with the “mystification of the faithless.” His definition departs from the conventional understanding of religion as a private matter of personal belief only its negative connotation.

It is important to recognize that the privatisation of religion is itself a manifestation of secularism. Even more significantly, secularism itself is really the product of a Christian heresy. The separation of the spiritual and the temporal realms, in other words, is inconceivable apart from a revolutionary movement that arose in the world of medieval Christendom. By asserting its monopolistic hegemony within the spiritual realm, the medieval papacy, in effect, ceded the autonomy of the secular realm to other, more worldly powers and principalities.

Previously, and even today, Orthodox Christianity strives to create and maintain a symphonia between church and state, faith and reason. In Anglo-Saxon England prior to the Papal Revolution, the Church was the spiritual core of an ethnoreligious community of those who prayed, those who fought, and those who worked. The secular corporate welfare state has flattened that tripartite order. We are all proletarians now. But religion has not departed from the realm of the secular. Instead, the state and the corporate sector vie with each other in an endlessly futile effort to reconstitute themselves as secular parodies of the Church.

My argument is simply that Anglo-Saxons have worshiped at the idolatrous shrines of the state and the market for far too long. That position arises not just from a reading of orthodox Christian theology but from the avowedly secular science of socio-biology.

Sociobiology tells us that religion has considerable secular utility; membership in a religious group may contribute to both individual and collective reproductive fitness and material success. We also know that the theology of the Republic, the American civil religion, was created by and for a predominantly Anglo-Saxon people who broke deliberately with their ancestral ethnoreligious community.

There can be little doubt that Chesterton was right when he described the American republic as “a nation with the soul of a church.” For sociobiologists, the question must arise: Was the political theology of the American republic (or, come to that, of the Crown-state in Great Britain) good for the Anglo-Saxons?

It seems to me that the time has come to recognize that the answer to that question is clearly “No.” The USA was the first and the most powerful state grounded in the political theology of white nationalism. That constitutional faith has shown itself to be a false religion. The Commonwealth of Australia was also founded on the political theology of an “explicitly white” civil religion. There too white nationalism turned out to be a spectacular failure.

To the orthodox Christian that failure is all too obvious. (see eg any of the posts at http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/) Sooner of later, even the WASP sociobiologists will have to concede that neither the market-state nor white nationalism have been good for the Anglo-Saxons.

It is high time for Anglo-Saxons to secede culturally, economically, spiritually, and theopolitically from the transnational corporate welfare state. It makes far more strategic sense for Anglo-Saxons to reclaim control over the Anglican Church from the neo-communists who presently infest it than to waste time, energy, and other scarce resources breeding a new generation of power-hungry white nationalist politicians.

Anglo-Saxons have been brought low, turned into the pathetic practitioners of the WASP lifestyle, by the spiritual disorder I call Anglo-Saxon Anglophobia. Spiritual problems require a spiritual remedy; they cannot be solved by political action. For Anglo-Saxons, an excessive faith in political theology is a large part of our problem.

The ethnoregenesis of the Anglo-Saxons presupposes their spiritual regeneration, in England and throughout the Diaspora. The Church of England created the English nation in the Dark Ages of medieval Europe. In the new Dark Age it must fall to the Church to save the Anglo-Saxon peoples around the world from the satanic forces to which they have become enslaved.

To wage that battle the Church will have to become the nucleus around which an regenerated Anglo-Saxon ethnoreligious community can begin to crystallize. The Church would have to embrace not just those who pray but also those who work to feed, clothe, and shelter their Anglo-Saxon co-ethnics as well as those who fight to defend the territorial and ethnocultural integrity of the Anglo-Saxon race against its enemies.

We need to recognize that the corporate welfare state is entering a period of crisis and decline. Under these circumstances, we need to prepare for a world that may have more in common with the 14th century than with the 20th. In the 21st century, Anglo-Saxons are going to have to learn how to play the game of identity politics.

As part of that learning process, wimpy WASPs should draw the appropriate lessons from the all-too-obvious social cohesion of the Muslim colonies proliferating in every formerly Anglo-Saxon country. We can learn much more from ethnoreligious movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention Orthodox Jews, the Amish and the Mormons than from the anemic political theology preached by either Nick Griffin or Rowan Williams. Such separatist religious groups know how to support and defend communities, enabling them to escape dependence upon the state, even for the most basic services.

The bottom line is this: Anglo-Saxons will secure neither their salvation nor their reproductive success by maintaining the established wall of separation between sociobiology and orthodox Christian theology.

Posted by ex ISKCON robot on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:00 | #

As the argument was made elsewhere, if there were sufficient numbers of skilled and unskilled workers, we would not have to import them from beyond.

Unskilled; white Americans do not want to do manual labor for the low wages that companies and corps are offering. Mexicans don’t mind because the American dollar still travels further in Mexico, though that’s changing. So the Mexicans work hard at low wages but due to simple lifestyles are able to save and send money back home to their poor family members.

Solutions? White American teenagers who do not like school or who are unruly. Put them to work. I’m not talking child labor, but teen labor. Not everyone has to grow up to become an Einstein. Manual laborers, the working class is just as important for any society as the intellectual class or the white collar workers. Take restless 16 year olds out of high school and put them to work for the same wages as the Mexicans are currently earning. Teens that live at home with mom and dad don’t need a whole lot of money. The longer they work, the more their wages will increase and by the time they reach marriageable age, if they don’t blow their income on drugs, alcohol and sex, they will have a pretty penny saved with which to start a family.

That solves the un-skilled labor problem.

As far as skilled labor; for the teens who like school, like to study, well, promote math and science. Hard science, not soft science and pop psychology. They can start majoring in their senior high school year to speed up the process of producing white American scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, software professionals etc. That way we will no longer be dependent on Asians and outsourcing.

When the demand for these foreigners goes down, their supply will decrease as well. Meaning there will be no need to import them in high numbers.

And all of this of course depends upon a strong family unit, of which the reason why I’m sure I don’t have to explain to you. Christianity could even be utilized for it’s ability to encourage strong family structures, frugality, simplicity; in which case then the religion would prove useful and not have to be phased out totally from the broader white American culture.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:33 | #

“As part of that learning process, wimpy WASPs should draw the appropriate lessons from the all-too-obvious social cohesion of the Muslim colonies proliferating in every formerly Anglo-Saxon country. We can learn much more from ethnoreligious movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention Orthodox Jews, the Amish and the Mormons than from the anemic political theology preached by either Nick Griffin or Rowan Williams. Such separatist religious groups know how to support and defend communities, enabling them to escape dependence upon the state, even for the most basic services.” (—Drew Fraser, 3:48 AM)

This is, essentially, the same as GT’s call for the formation of microcommunities.

Posted by Ex ISKCON robot on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:20 | #

“As part of that learning process, wimpy WASPs should draw the appropriate lessons from the all-too-obvious social cohesion of the Muslim colonies proliferating in every formerly Anglo-Saxon country. We can learn much more from ethnoreligious movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention Orthodox Jews, the Amish and the Mormons than from the anemic political theology preached by either Nick Griffin or Rowan Williams. Such separatist religious groups know how to support and defend communities, enabling them to escape dependence upon the state, even for the most basic services.” (—Drew Fraser, 3:48 AM)

Glad to see you folks finally coming around to my point of view and common sense.

Self. Immediate family. Extended family. Community. Society. Country. World.

Finally you get it.

But he’s wrong about the Mormons. They are famous for dependency on state welfare.

It’s an insult to the other groups he lists to include Mormons in the same sentence.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:48 | #

A brilliant piece by Drew, however, it appears that Islam, with sword in hand, is the only power capable of restoring Anglo-Saxon atavism because it will not come easy to the people “characterized by ‘non-kinship based forms of reciprocity’ ... a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism.”

Posted by the sangha on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:23 | #

There is more than a learning process needed. As Kevin MacDonald points out in Culture of Critique, Northern Europeans evolved in an environment which shaped their exaggerated individualistic character—a character that has become accentuated in the modern, industrial age.

Northern Europeans (I use them as the example, as they possess individualistic tendencies to the greatest degree among Europeans) cannot simply transform themselves into collectivist ethnoracialists by immersing themselves in Hamas or Orthodox Jewish group strategies or ideologies. If you think this is the solution I suggest you stop reading dusty books and instead talk to young White Australians—for years if need be, to deprogram yourself from the academic muck.

I think we can both agree that the increased standard of living and creature comforts of modern life have encouraged the type of liberalism and consumerism we see among Whites today. I hardly would call it “worship.” I would instead call it complacency.

You, Mr. Fraser, caught up in your own self-righteous ideological illusions, don’t seem to want to attribute some of the base qualities we observe in White peoples to their genetic makeup. You instead look for “ideological” or “spiritual” nostrums for traits that appear largely hard-wired. We need to realize, if Whites are being outreproduced by Negroes with IQs a standard deviation lower, and are willingly surrendering political power to non-Whites, that there could very well be a moral defect in the European man’s evolved nature—one which arguably puts him inferior to the Negro in key respects. Natural selection is continuous and brutal.

I give you credit for looking for solutions. Your solutions are certainly well-constructed and show plenty of erudition. Unfortunately they do not appear grounded in reality.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:50 | #

Diamed: “Any measures we take now are temporary and transient—if white nationalists don’t use the breathing room won by some sort of state takeover…”

To acquire the necessary means to explore space with an eye towards colonization we would need control of the full might of the modern technological/industrial state. We need to get power before it can happen.

“I don’t know. If we did, we’d have already won, neh? All we can do is offer them an attractive package…”

Exactly, you at least have to make them think they are going to get what they want out of the deal. Appeal to their self-interest in acquiring the necessities and comforts of life. If a White Nationalist government could produce the goods then the people would be open to ideological indoctrination, which is not as scary and totalitarian as it sounds. It is what we are given by the state these days anyway. Pro-White indoctrination would be substituted for anti-White indoctrination.

ben tillman: ““The State”, by definition, is a government not constrained by the same morality that constrains the people.”

“The State” is an abstraction. What is it but the product of the collective actions of the men in power and those under its power? Whether or not the people elect who is to man the apparatus of state they are still under its power so long as they are dependent upon it and work to sustain it.

the sangha: “We need to realize, if Whites are being outreproduced by Negroes with IQs a standard deviation lower, and are willingly surrendering political power to non-Whites, that there could very well be a moral defect in the European man’s evolved nature—one which arguably puts him inferior to the Negro in key respects.”

And if Whites were to implement an explicit National Socialist government that would make the actions necessary to save their race and civilization mandatory you would be whining about that too. You know it would work because it did historically. No, what you want is for the White race to degenerate so south Asians can come in and inherit what Whites built. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t in your eyes - because you are our racial enemy.

Posted by the sangha on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:23 | #

No, what you want is for the White race to degenerate so south Asians can come in and inherit what Whites built. We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t in your eyes - because you are our racial enemy.

I am not South Asian.

Posted by Darren on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25 | #

MacDonald does not say that Northern Europeans are incapable of becoming “racially aware”. He merely says they possess less of the traits of ethnocentrism that other groups possess.

He does cite examples where ethnocentrism among NE experiences periods of increase. I would also say that, while our ethnocentrism is weaker, we are still capable of having a group identity.

“Despite the decline of extended kinship and the rise of individualism, Europeans had not entirely shed all sense of being part of a larger community. In the U.S., Europeans retained a sense of peoplehood based on race well into the 20th century. This sense of peoplehood and being a member of a race was buttressed by Darwinian-inspired scholarship, which not only viewed racial differences as well-established scientific findings, but also viewed the white race as uniquely talented. But this final attempt to find a biological sense of peoplehood went into steep decline, and is now widely viewed with horror in the academic establishment, largely because of the intellectual movements I discuss in The Culture of Critique”

I believe he gives some more examples on his blog, IIRC.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WesternOrigins.htm

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:57 | #

There needs to be a breakthrough in our understanding of paranormal phenomena. The big problem there hasn’t been lack of evidence, but lack of formal theory yielding reproducible experimental validation.

I did some work in this area in the late 1990s and found it is all-too-dominated by the usual suspects.

Posted by ex ISKCON robot on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:18 | #

To acquire the necessary means to explore space with an eye towards colonization we would need control of the full might of the modern technological/industrial state. We need to get power before it can happen.

Back to the movies again are we?

You would just eff up another planet the same way this one is.

First and foremost we need to get our act together where we currently are. The Earth is the best environment for Earthlings. We cannot survive organically longterm on a planet that does not have the features of Earth - predominant water, because our makeup is predominantly water.

This is what I mean by HARD science needs to be revitalized and emphasized in our school systems, not soft science or science fiction.

I can’t believe what I just read.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:30 | #

ex ISKCON robot writes:

The Earth is the best environment for Earthlings.

What do you think of cities?

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:16 | #

Facts do not move people or mountains—faith and hope do.

Posted by apollonian on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:18 | #

Patriots Require Patience As Victorious Orthodoxy, Dialectic Is Constructed
(Apollonian, 5 Jan 09)

I find not only white race, but all humankind in quite a malaise, presently. “White” race continues to NOT be able to “get it together”—there are still too many counter-productive agents, still too effective for their divisiveness. There are still too many “whites” who imagine it’s expedient to work for those Jew COUNTERFEITERS (see RealityZone.com for expo/ref. on US Federal Reserve Bank [Fed] fraud). Task then is to rebuild white racial ORTHODOXY.

For there are still TWO things tremendously plain, still working so brilliantly for Judeo-conspirators (see TheNewAmerican.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy): (1) The Federal Reserve Bank, and (2) the “Judeo-Christian” (JC—see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists, keeping the people confused.

Thus we see it’s so hard for people to co-operate to work towards a common positive goal—we need rather a NEGATIVE goal, like Jew-expulsion, and only as we work for such overall negative can we hope to improve things on the side.

Thus, fighting the Jew will require removing the Fed COUNTERFEIT machine—but to do this, we also require removing Jews’ most effective allies, the JCs who are mainly dupes, but whose leaders are purveyors of “good-evil” delusion/fallacy/heresy. What will replace such “good-evil”?—only HONESTY.

Thus we see things just have to continue GETTING WORSE, in order to hope (a) more people will then see necessary objectives, (b) more of the weaklings will die out, allowing the healthy more freedom of action, more productive effect upon the survivors.

Thus real, true patriots require (c) PATIENCE—even as things get worse, but also (d) confidence that what we know will work will then actually kick-in when/as we need it. Thus I suggest/recommend patriots have to look to parallel time in history: the original Jew-expulsion of all time, early 4th cent. Roman Empire.

So what did Christian patriots do for success then in 3rd and 4th cents?—they devised a most brilliant THEOLOGY and narrative (or dialectic), esp. historical, which went on and produced Western civilization—aside fm that original, liberating Jew-expulsion, which was cyclic, Jews slowly but surely returning as gentiles achieved success, then hubris, now mired in horrific “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler.

And that’s how we patriots must work presently, patiently building our regime—while Judeo-conspirators collapse and fall-apart. Thus we patriots must keep and heed to Christian HONESTY and that OBJECTIVE reality.

Thus presently we see lots of people know and understand Fed COUNTERFEIT machine has to go (like Ron Paul [see CampaignForLiberty.com] and his fans)—but unfortunately too many of these don’t want to admit it will require complete REMOVAL of Jews—Jew-expulsion.

And to accomplish this Jew-expulsion will require SERIOUS, genuine Christianity—which requires neutralization of the JCs—especially their leaders, collaborators with Jews, in the pay of Jews.

So there we have it: mighty Apollonian diagnosis and analysis of the horrible situation—WE STILL NEED TO BUILD THAT REGIME, that core of Christian ORTHODOXY for theology and narrative (or dialectic), this consisting of HONESTY, anti-dote to present moralist-Pharisaist malaise consisting of that continuing, persisting “good-evil” delusion among the people, within the mentality.

Thus people have to learn: (1) Christianity is NOT AGAINST REASON. (2) “Faith” merely means loyalty. (3) Christianity IS AGAINST JEWS—is anti-semitic, indubitably—as anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13. (4) Christianity is about TRUTH AND HONESTY FIRST—EVEN MORE than about “love”—regardless of good old St. Paul.

CONCLUSION: Thus Christian ORTHODOXY must be re-built, this as Judeo-conspirators continue to collapse. Thus Christian patriots must be confident and patient as core of patriot cadre and regime is (re-) built, even as CYCLIC “Decline of the West” continues that inexorable process by which “weak,” esp. JCs, fall by proverbial “wayside.” This patriot re-building then requires patience and the courage of strong stomach. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Posted by Bill on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:11 | #

Drew Fraser January 05, 2009, 03:48 AM

“We need to recognize that the corporate welfare state is entering a period of crisis and decline. Under these circumstances, we need to prepare for a world that may have more in common with the 14th century than with the 20th.”

Why is this line of thought and expression almost non-existent on this site?

The future of mankind is in the enforced returning to it’s past. I really have lost count of the number of times I have said this, only to be returned with stony silence.

It is not only the welfare state that is to soon disappear, it’s the whole bloody shooting match. Our civilisation has only achieved this scientific matrix by a fluke one off jackpot win - abundant energy.

It is more than well documented elsewhere that this store of energy, in the form of fossil fuels is almost depleted. From that moment on, our civilisation will collapse swifter than it developed.

By the end of this century (almost certainly before) our current way of life will have all but disappeared, I think parachuting into the 14th. century is way too generous, but I won’t quibble, I’ll settle for that.

In a nutshell, to debate the future of mankind outside the framework and to the exclusion of the parlous state of his habitat and living arrangements, is to me, a no brainer.

It is no coincidence that the ‘net is rampant with speculation of the coming of a New World Order, it seems the World’s elites are fully cognisant of where mankind is at, and are going for broke to implement their plan. They recognise only too well the system is unsustainable and broke.

It is interesting to note that the elites do not share my concern for future lack of energy supplies, as their plan is wholly dependant on a limitless supply of the stuff.

There are some comments here alluding to the answer may be somewhere out there! Colonisation of another planet. There was a time when I was convinced that space travel technology was the answer to Man’s future. I think the rapidly depleting energy situation will not allow the development of space travel to fruition - maybe, it could be a close run thing.

There is no doubt, the scientific achievements of Man’s world have torpedoed Christianity, we are left floundering, funny thing is, our local church is thriving. I wonder why?

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:52 | #

The Sun is the source of petroleum via geochemical processes on algae. Why do you think it so improbable to farm petroleum?

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:11 | #

“The future of mankind is in the enforced returning to it’s past. I really have lost count of the number of times I have said this, only to be returned with stony silence.”

But people are listening, Bill. Believe me, people are listening!

Gerald Celente, the world’s most accuarate trends forecaster has allot to say about the economy too. Amongst many things, he accurately, imo, views the USA as an UNdeveloping country.

Here’s a sample. Check him out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqvZwo2qhIo&feature=related

Posted by Armor on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:27 | #

It is interesting to note that the elites do not share my concern for future lack of energy supplies, as their plan is wholly dependant on a limitless supply of the stuff. (—Bill)

So, are you saying that the elites are hoping for disaster?
or are you saying that the elites are stupid and can’t see the disaster coming?

My own view is that the non-elites don’t have a plan and don’t care much about anything.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:52 | #

The old method of farming used crop rotation including oats to feed the horses. Lower yield for humans but you got your fuel right from the farm. It can happen again but using some fraction of the acreage for petroleum production to keep the machines fed. I like horses too but really guys, how many horses can you power per acre of oats once every 3 years vs horsepower of engine you can fuel per acre?

Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:20 | #

It is not only the welfare state that is to soon disappear, it’s the whole bloody shooting match. Our civilisation has only achieved this scientific matrix by a fluke one off jackpot win - abundant energy.

It is more than well documented elsewhere that this store of energy, in the form of fossil fuels is almost depleted. From that moment on, our civilisation will collapse swifter than it developed.

By the end of this century (almost certainly before) our current way of life will have all but disappeared, I think parachuting into the 14th. century is way too generous, but I won’t quibble, I’ll settle for that.

(Bill)

Defeatism. I’ve met you “Long Emergency” types before. So nuclear power is not a viable source for the future? I suggest you do some reading. It has become far safer than it was during the ‘70s. The reactors can now gain energy by spinning depleted bars of uranium. Given time, we may find ways to sterilize nuclear waste or get rid of it (that’ still a ways off, but it can already be reduced in potency).

Other forms of energy development will continue to occur, and hopefully we can find a way to make solar, wind and biofuel energy more efficient than it is today (it isn’t very good yet, we know). There is still abundant coal as well.

I like to think, pessimists though we are here at MR, that this gloom-and-doom stuff is really self-defeating. Preparing for a circumstance is one thing, but acting like the world has already ended is quite another.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:26 | #

Drew,

Thank you for the reply to my post. Others here - CC and Diamed and the sangha among them - have raised some interesting points of dissent, and I don’t want to reprise those arguments. So instead, I will challenge not your Christian faith nor your analysis nor your solution, but your understanding of who we are.

I fondly imagine myself and my entire family (which is large - my mother was one of twelve children born in a country town in the south Midlands) as connected, if only representationally, to a strain of Anglo-Saxon who was little if at all “enriched” by Christianisation. I realise that this is a conceited view. But, regardless, a people of Dark Age England who pre-dated Christianisation, and who possessed the full panoply of naturally-evolved northern European characteristics, including tribalism and individualism, did exist, and something of them exists in us today.

But something of the harsh and monkish, Irish strain of Christianity, which beat the warmer and more social southern strain to faith-hegemony in these Isles, also exists in us. Early Christianity was an effective evolutionary strategy. Had it not been so, it could not have prevailed. But as it was it fathered consequences at the genomic level which we see everywhere today. Genes favouring the uncommon capacity to cleave to a universalised but still Abrahamic faith must have been strongly favoured. Where once private devotions were made to the nature gods of the sacred grove, a peculiarly and unattractively intense and self-righteous devoutness was on display. Where once divination was sought to complement human agency, prayer for divine intercession declared an end to that agency. In this new faith, individualism was segregated from tribalism, and the very idea of the life of Man as it was known to pre-Christian northern Europe was similarly split, between earthly sin and heavenly salvation. The tribal warrior became the Christian warrior, and his virtue became Christian too.

Thus, there was no more of the ancient life. The ache of its absence, though, marked the antics and occasional erudition of the unChristian. Aleister Crowley played at raising Pan, even driving one of his acolytes temporarily insane. Robert Graves invented the White Goddess, Carl Jung the collective memory. Today hundreds, perhaps thousands of our young people take their faith gene off each year to some Ashram on the stinking banks of the Ganges, and a bunch of even bigger jokers turn up at Stonehenge for a shag and a bit of weed on the summer solstice. If we were ever lions we are lost sheep now. Christianised ... Abrahamicised ... we were estranged from self long before the Papacy despatched its kingly rivals to their worldly domain.

That self-estrangement is nowhere more tragic and final than among our genetically-modified faith-carriers ... the devout ones who insist that the answer is always and everywhere more faith, more devoutness. Of course, they are the majority. They are, in that sense, “us”. But they still only speak for themselves. The faithless among us they cannot abide, and damn in the eyes of their Jew in the Sky, or their equally Jewish liberal g-d of mass immigration and panmixia.

I simply have no faith in faith of any kind. I would far rather trust to the Promethean scientist, the analytic philosopher, the instinct-driven voter ... and my faithless self.

Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:30 | #

Back to the movies again are we?

You would just eff up another planet the same way this one is.

First and foremost we need to get our act together where we currently are. The Earth is the best environment for Earthlings. We cannot survive organically longterm on a planet that does not have the features of Earth - predominant water, because our makeup is predominantly water.

This is what I mean by HARD science needs to be revitalized and emphasized in our school systems, not soft science or science fiction.

I can’t believe what I just read.

(...robot)

Their points have been considered in serious scientific circles - the process is called Terraforming and is not merely a creation of science fiction. Though we don’t have the technology to do this now, it is possible that we could create “second Earth” on barren planets.

No, it isn’t possible now and won’t be in the lifetimes of our grandchildren probably. But it is a possibility. Theory today can become practice tomorrow.

If a man can’t dream…

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:21 | #

Is Prof. Fraser working on a book?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:29 | #

You, Mr. Fraser, caught up in your own self-righteous ideological illusions, don’t seem to want to attribute some of the base qualities we observe in White peoples to their genetic makeup.

This position is nonsensical. If the following is true.

But, regardless, a people of Dark Age England who pre-dated Christianisation, and who possessed the full panoply of naturally-evolved northern European characteristics, including tribalism and individualism, did exist, and something of them exists in us today.

If in fact the traits that make us were already evolved in “Dark Age England” then why did they provide a fitness gain then but are dysgenic now? If we were hardwired to be lions then, then why are we lambs now?

Posted by Drew Fraser on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:42 | #

GW: “I simply have no faith in faith of any kind. I would far rather trust to the Promethean scientist, the analytic philosopher, the instinct-driven voter ... and my faithless self.”

That quotation would make the perfect epitaph on the tomb of Anglo-American civilization. Famous last words!

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:48 | #

the shitgha: “I am not South Asian.”

Then what are you? Whatever you are, you are anti-White filth.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:48 | #

GW, do you want to work with what you have or make the majority into something else first?

Posted by n/a on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:12 | #

It took the Mayflower passengers 155 years until those Pilgrims (not Puritans) completed the rebellion against one-man rule.

I’m not sure what point “diverse white” Bo Sears is going for here, but:
(1) If he is suggesting “Mayflower passengers” formed some sort of separate, inbreeding caste that waited around to start the War of Independence, he is quite confused.
(2) There is no racial distinction between the “Pilgrims” and the “Puritans” who settled New England. They were English. They weren’t “diverse” Irish, Italians, or Poles.
(3) The religious distinction has no later political relevance I’m aware of. The Pilgrims were separatists while the Puritans remained members of the Church of England. Theologically, as I understand it, the Pilgrims were merely an offshoot of Puritanism.
(4) The Puritan Great Migration, starting about 10 years after the Mayflower landed, contributed the bulk of early New England settlers. Puritans were numerically and poliically dominant in colonial New England. There’s a reason Massachusetts is called Massachusetts and not Plymouth.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:19 | #

Drew Fraser: “That quotation would make the perfect epitaph on the tomb of Anglo-American civilization. Famous last words!”

Fraser, I have suggested several times that Jonathan Bowden write a pro-White history of the Anglosphere slanted to the effect that the necessity of the genetic survival of our people and retaining/reconquering all of our previously attained living space is effected in the reader’s mind. So that the “moral” of the work is internalized with the perceived “mandate” of history itself. To which I was met with the correction that Mr. Bowden has more pressing matters than pulling his weight consistent with his talents in the struggle to save our race; it seems he and our people would be better served by his making “art” films (LOL!).

What say you to that Fraser?

And what do you say to this?

Our race will perish unless, with iron-hard conviction and unshakable self-confidence, we seize control of the modern technological/industrial state and turn its full might to nothing less than the complete physical and spiritual salvation of our people. If we don’t have control of the modern technological/industrial state our enemies will (if we don’t then someone else will, and that someone will not be us).

Fraser, I’m quite certain that I don’t have a PhD, and I am no less certain that I have a functioning brain; and a functioning pair of balls.

In other words Fraser, where is the beef (where are your balls)?

P.S. Failure to respond to me directly, to my specific questions, is not a sign of refinement and good taste in this instance; it is a sign of cowardice.

I’ll be waiting patiently.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:24 | #

Rusty Mason: “GW, do you want to work with what you have or make the majority into something else first?”

Fraser is afraid if people like GW got power they would use the power of the state to destroy Christianity (I would not, by the way). GW, why don’t you allay Fraser’s concerns? Or can you?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:26 | #

GW: “I simply have no faith in faith of any kind. I would far rather trust to the Promethean scientist, the analytic philosopher, the instinct-driven voter ... and my faithless self.”

This quantifies, to reasonable scientific and statistical standards of confidence, the “power of faith” as a bias of about 1 in 3000 tosses of a fair coin, within an otherwise rather pointless laboratory environment.

I suspect that with appropriate models of what is really going on here, there is a lot more relevance to “faith”, etc. than we have been led to believe even by our religious authorities.

Posted by Drew Fraser on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:26 | #

CC. It may have escaped your notice but “the modern technological/industrial state is visibly spinning out of anyone’s control, much less “ours.” In any case, who are “we”? How does one transform a collection of “faithless selves” into a “race” possessed of an innate sense of in-group solidarity? Why didn’t white Americans secure their “complete physical and spiritual salvation” by establishing the Republic as a secular parody of the Christian ecclesia? Haven’t they already been there and done that?

Posted by danielj on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:36 | #

ekklesia

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:13 | #

Drew Fraser: “It may have escaped your notice but “the modern technological/industrial state is visibly spinning out of anyone’s control, much less “ours.””

Then in order to properly constrain it, to avoid a Brave New World type scenario (if I guess your fear/criticism correctly), we must have mastery of it (yes, of course it can be done, with an iron will), not cede it to our enemies; for they certainly will not restrain it.

“In any case, who are “we”?”

“We” are genetically European, more specifically northwestern Germanic Europeans, more specifically Englishmen (I am of English-Scottish-Dutch-German descent, so the latter does not include myself).

“How does one transform a collection of “faithless selves” into a “race” possessed of an innate sense of in-group solidarity?”

By raising racial consciousness in a critical mass of the White population and gaining control of the state and then subjecting the remaining Whites to race-consciousness raising indoctrination. It worked in National Socialist Germany, why would it not work again?

“Why didn’t white Americans secure their “complete physical and spiritual salvation” by establishing the Republic as a secular parody of the Christian ecclesia?”

What’s done is done, I look to the future.

“Haven’t they already been there and done that?”

To my knowledge they have never tried National Socialism (this is not my first, prefered solution; but I will “go there” if I must).

Old men quibble over trivia whilst our race withers on the vine; I say enough. I don’t have a PhD, Fraser. Nor would I sully myself by getting one. Is that perhaps the reason why I have such an unerring ability to cut through all the bullshit?

BTW, I, among a few others here, have stood up for Christianity. If I had my way, I would see a renewed Christianity in the West, but one that is pro-White.

P.S. Did you hear about the number I did on the faileocons at Takimag?

P.S.S. I think I may be forced to e-mail Bowden directly and run my brilliant idea of what he should do with his talent by him (or “snale mail” him, if that is what it takes). LOL!

At least I’ll give you credit for being a sport, Fraser. Even if you do have a PhD.

Posted by cladrastis on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:35 | #

James Bowery,

One problem that arises from modern mechanistic farming, which uses tractors instead of beasts of burden, is soil compaction, which drives oxygen out of the soil and reduces crop yields over time. Because horses and oxen do not compact the soil (at least not to the same degree), perhaps we should start farming with machines that walk rather than roll, similar to these:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/theo_jansen_creates_new_creatures.html

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:39 | #

iron will

Is that your brother?

Posted by the sangha on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:40 | #

Then what are you? Whatever you are, you are anti-White filth.

Yeah, I am anti-White. I listen to classical rock; unlike many American WNs I regularly travel to Europe; I earn an honest living and befriend as many people as I can; I hit on as many White girls as I possibly can every week of my life; and I so happen to have offended you in one of my posts.

By the way, Guessedworker found value in my post. He seems more level-headed and civil than you—perhaps he’s a standard deviation or two above you, or maybe you are just drunk and posting on the ‘net, which would lead some to assume you are less intelligent than you really are. Lighten up and stop acting like a hotheaded Med. :D

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:50 | #

Desmond Jones: “Is that your brother?”

Yup.

the suckgda: “...I hit on as many White [men and boys] as I possibly can every week of my life;”

LOL!

“He seems more level-headed and civil than you…”

What can I say? I’m just dumb White trash.

“...which would lead some to assume you are less intelligent than you really are.”

When the game isn’t moving fast enough for me I like to speed it up.

Posted by ex ISKCON robot on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:35 | #

I am not South Asian.

Neither am I, Sangha, but I appreciation many of the philosophies that have been birthed there.

There is currently a 6 part series showing on PBS, the first 2 series aired tonight, entitled THE STORY OF INDIA. It traces the history of India from pre-historic times to modern.

Tonight they covered the migration of early hunters and gatherers from Africa into Kerala, taking DNA samples from one community in contemporary Kerala and traced that DNA back to that first migration. Basically they were saying that that particular community in Kerala is comprised of the first Indians.

They covered the “pre vedic” brahmins, and how that legacy and culture is still in tact today there in South India, still chanting incantations that pre-date the Rig Veda. Then of course they travelled up to Harrapa/Indus Valley and covered the Vedic period, the Mauryan Empire, Ashok, Buddha, Iskander (Alexander the Great), etc.

The narrative is more of a travel channel type. In fact, the British guy from travel channel is doing it.

Remember him?

Good viewing, informative and entertaining. To catch it next go the webiste -http://www.pbs.org/thestoryofindia/

Next up is the Mongal Invasion I think.

Maybe some type of neo-buddhist-vedic mish mash religion can replace Malcolm Xtianity in the West?

I think those religions are more favorable to math and science. Buddhism at least is based on pure reasoning and the vedas break everything down mathematically.

Posted by Neuköln on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:29 | #

CC wrote: P.S. Did you hear about the number I did on the faileocons at Takimag?

Yeah, and I supported you (kinda) in many of those threads. Shame they deleted the comment function. WTF?! Anyway, Takimag is why I’m no longer a Paleocon. Honestly, your comments (as well as those of Fred, GW, Narrator, Armor, et al.) are immensely vaulable to White guys such as myself. Not sure you chaps have any idea. As Fred wrote recently, it’s as if you are providing a “mind dump” here for burgeoning WNs, at no cost. Your essays and comments are very useful. I appreciate it.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:00 | #

James: I suspect that with appropriate models of what is really going on here, there is a lot more relevance to “faith”, etc.

A heck of a lot more, I would say. The fundamental characteristic of faith, and its whole problem, is the overwhelming importance it has for its gene-carriers - far beyond the level required to underscore adaptive living and promote trust. Whichever Earth goddess or spirit of the wind or whatever kicked this off, She/He set in motion a process of very rapid gene-selection that had no natural point of balance and just kept on trucking. When a bastardized version of perhaps the most refined faith-tool of them all - Judaism - crossed streams into a people who had evolved in an ethnic competitive environment profoundly different to Jews, the unforeseen was inevitable - in this case, the engendering of the uber-devout as a chosen caste of gatekeepers and chastisers.

Rusty: GW, do you want to work with what you have or make the majority into something else first?

I want to develop an unimpeachably ethical basis for the life of our people. The totality of it I see as being systemic in the same sense that liberalism is a dominant intellectual and ethical system. Being referential to the liberal status quo - essentially, being nothing more than protest movements - White Nationalism, race-realism and European political nationalism (nativism) lack this possibility. As every moral philosopher knows, to fight against evil is to define oneself against it, and thereby forever to be a part of it, as it will forever be a part of one’s own self. One simply institutionalises the fight. That’s not my idea at all. I want to sweep away the very moral ground upon which liberalism stands, and to plant our people’s feet on new ground entirely - even, over time, make a new and more healthy people.

How does that work? Systems sanction certain patterns of thought and behaviour, and disfavour others. Desmond, who is an intelligent man, has noted that liberalism is an adaptive strategy for our political, corporate and cultural elites. It increases their genetic interests in the same, broad sense that early Christianity increased the genetic interests of the uber-devout. This is the Salterian sense in which liberalism’s priesthood is quite literally at war with the great bulk of their own people, and the sense in which early Christians were at war with the pagan masses. Both campaigns are/were prosecuted ruthlessly. Neither campaigner is owed gratitude by us.

CC: Fraser is afraid if people like GW got power they would use the power of the state to destroy Christianity

If Christian believers could adapt to the system, even add to it, they would get along fine - at least as well as they have got along through adapting to the liberal system. The system would, of course, disfavour universalism and favour particularism, and it would disfavour devoutness, relegating faith to a level of societal value more akin to that once accorded to the old belief. Christianity itself could continue.

None of this would be state-mandated in the sense that the state would be leading the process. The world is made by ideas, not laws. Law has a secondary role, since it exists to serve ethics.

Desmond: If we were hardwired to be lions then, then why are we lambs now?

We are self-estranged ... and highly suggestible, of course. In other words, it’s cultural, not genetic.

The bump to the individualistic bottom has been sudden - only five decades in the doing. But it was many centuries in the making. Even so, my father’s generation, and his father’s, were leonine enough. That is still there. The right ideas are needed to free it, that’s all.

Posted by apollonian on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:21 | #

Patriot Heroes: On The Brink Of Successful Orthodoxy—Within Sight Thereof
(Apollonian, 6 Jan 09)

By standing for TRUTH and honesty (thesis to Gosp. JOHN), Christian patriots can successfully unite ALL GENTILES, and as these gentiles endorse and accept honesty as topmost virtue, they naturally agree to common sense virtue of racial loyalty, 5th of original Ten Commandments, don’t forget (“Honor thy race”).

Thus we have most excellent model: St. Constantine the Great showed everyone for all time how to do it—uniting all the races, YET keeping that ideal of HONESTY, hence racial pride and exclusiveness. Evermore people understand what the problem is—“it’s Jews, stupid.” And it’s getting evermore difficult for Jews to distract people. Gaza, Palestine, is just too overwhelmingly “real.”

Key to necessary patriot offensive to be prosecuted is that RATIONALIST-dominated Christian orthodoxy. Too many people think “faith” is against reason, but it (“faith”) only needs (proper) DEFINITION which is loyalty, again.

But regardless, note it isn’t, at this pt., too necessary to be or to get too fancy, too subtle, why?—because we have an easier option—ANTI-SEMITISM. Just get rid of these Jews—Jew-expulsion, once again.

Key then to our necessary offensive to be prosecuted is that RATIONALIST-dominated Christian orthodoxy. Too many people think “faith” is against reason, but it (“faith”) only needs (proper) DEFINITION which is loyalty.

But regardless, note it isn’t, at this pt., too necessary to be or to get too fancy, too subtle, why?—because we have an easier option—ANTI-SEMITISM. Just get rid of these Jews—Jew-expulsion, once again.

Thus to sum up the necessary strategy: we need THREE (3) things simultaneously in prosecuting our necessary Christian orthodoxy: (a) removal of Federal Reserve Bank and all fractional-reserve (COUNTERFEITING fraud) mechanisms. (b) Hence we must remove Jews—Jew-expulsion—and (c) We must remove their (Jew) cohorts and dupes, the “Judeo-Christians” (JCs—see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.), and a few of the other hereticalists too (for some hereticalists, like Pelagians (“good-evil” delusionaries), are avowedly non-Christian and atheistic, don’t forget).

Thus we see why/how we must be rationalist—in order to remove both Jews AND their SUBJECTIVISTIC cohorts. Another way to characterize the problem is removing Jews and hereticalist co-conspirators. But again, that’s why we must always keep to rationalism in order to make sure people understand “hereticalist” means Jew-sympathizers—subjectivists and Pharisaist-moralists (like Pelagians).

Thus that’s the great trick for our anti-semitic ORTHODOXY task: keeping BOTH that (a) Christian aesthetic, giving overall UNITY, and (b) rationalism AT SAME TIME, giving integrity and substance.

CONCLUSION: And note there’s nothing the Jew enemy can do about it—the ONLY thing they have left TO TRY TO ATTEMPT is to ban and remove mighty INTERNET, in which case we’ll simply be tested to do verbally what we’re presently doing by means of the keyboard. Keep up all ur great work, patriot comrades—we’re riding a distinct MOMENTUM which cannot be resisted, never doubt. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:21 | #

Neuköln: “Yeah, and I supported you (kinda) in many of those threads.”

I went to Toilet Mag with the goals of taking converts or scalps, assassinating the credibility of the faileocon leadership in front of the entire court, and, of course, just because I like to attack (HaHa!).

“Not sure you chaps have any idea.”

Brits and Yanks, shoulder to shoulder, but not in the Tony Blunder sense. Why can’t we get more Brits to comment here? Any BNP members interested (I know Glyn Roach is a man of enthusiastic opinions)?

“I appreciate it.”

Your appreciation is appreciated. A little lesson is sociology: what they call “chavs” in merry old England we call “White trash” in America. But the British aristocracy is cleaning up the mess, they’re hunting chavs now; didn’t you know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9_YhKbrhnY

GW: “...in this case, the engendering of the uber-devout as a chosen caste of gatekeepers and chastisers.”

Unless the genetic potential was there to being with it couldn’t have been selected for with the selective pressure of Christianity. BTW, wasn’t the SS an “uber-devout” “chosen caste” of “gatekeepers” and “chastisers”?

“I want to develop an unimpeachably ethical basis for the life of our people.”

What is the basis of this basis? With what is it to resonate? The “dysgenically” Christianized European gene-pool of today? The “eugenic” pagan gene-pool of yesteryear? What other basis can there be than, ultimately, that we like X, and from X we shall not budge as our guiding star? (C.S. Lewis, Abolition of Man - he may have been a “Christer”, but a moron he was not)

“As every moral philosopher knows, to fight against evil is to define oneself against it, and thereby forever to be a part of it, as it will forever be a part of one’s own self.”

To fight against Nature (muds, Jews, Christardianity, wolves, miscegenation, the cold, the vacuum of space, etc.) as a devouring force that ushers in Death to one’s People is a fight against Evil that “will forever be a part of one’s own self.”

“One simply institutionalises the fight.”

One simply instituionalises the fight.

“That’s not my idea at all.”

See above for why it must necessarily be, in one form or another.

“I want to sweep away the very moral ground upon which liberalism stands, and to plant our people’s feet on new ground entirely - even, over time, make a new and more healthy people.”

Bye, bye, faith-gene. Anti-faith-gene eugenics de facto or de jure. Maybe that’s why Fraser snapped at you?

“How does that work? Systems sanction certain patterns of thought and behaviour, and disfavour others.”

You mean we have to get control of the system and microcommunities won’t cut it? Uh oh. Not that I have a problem with that, it’s more to my liking. Take control of the system and indoctrinate the lemmings, I can dig it.

“Both campaigns are/were prosecuted ruthlessly. Neither campaigner is owed gratitude by us.”

The SS “prosecuted ruthlessly” enemies in fact, and enemies potential, of the genetic interests of the German people. What if it was a choice between that and genetic annihilation: would we owe them gratitude?

“If Christian believers could adapt to the system, even add to it, they would get along fine - at least as well as they have got along through adapting to the liberal system.”

Yes, they could adapt. In your sense that they lie down and have their faith-gene bred out of them, or, in the sense that their fiery faithism could be harnessed to the purposes of preserving our race and our living space.

“We are self-estranged ... and highly suggestible, of course. In other words, it’s cultural, not genetic.”

And none of that has anything to do with the “dysgenic” effect of Christardianity? I find it hard to believe.

“Even so, my father’s generation, and his father’s, were leonine enough. That is still there. The right ideas are needed to free it, that’s all.”

Mercy and concern for “the other”, I strongly suspect, is a product of the “dysgenic” effects of Christardianity (not Christianity, as you and others conceptualize it). Just what would our “barbarian” Germanic ancestors have done to “the other” if they were in his way? Mercy for “the other” doesn’t strike me as terribly “leonine”, not terribly consistent with Nietzsche’s Blond Beast; although consistent with C.S. Lewis’ Aslan. Now, your desire for mercy and pity for “the other” is well established. Are you sure you do not unwittingly pay tribute to the “dysgenic” Christardization of European Man? Or are you aware of it but just don’t say it?

Quite frankly, I think those that bash “Christers” (not you GW) would have little compunction in showing no mercy whatever to “the other”, and no, not just as an expedient. BTW, there is no reason that they should feel offended or ashamed by this imputation; if it be not true, if they themselves believe such things are not offensive, if they themselves believe such actions are not shameful.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:15 | #

It’s a fallacy to think that the concept of mercy upon others (the other/whomever) had not been intuited in Man BEFORE Christianity. Puh-leeze. That is a major theme in MOST, if not all, of the world’s known religions. And it does not stop at other humans, it carries into other species as well like plants and animals.

Christianity has done alot of harm to others in “the name of God”, but that is another topic. It can probably still redeem itself if it wanted to, in counsel with other religions, that is.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:19 | #

And now to lay down my cards face up on the table. It seems to me, GW, that you are in spirit, a better “Christian” than some who call themselves Christian and certainly a worse pagan than those who affirm some kind of pagan spirituality/mentality - though you denounce “faithism” and probably, privately, ridicule it. I believe you reflexively accept the moral goodness of “Christian” mercy and pity for “the other” whilst denouncing (and privately ridiculing) the “faithism” that is said’s likely origin. What is this affirmation of the moral goodness of universal mercy and pity but a “faith” in said’s validity? I realize you feel it, but why not fight against it? Because you think that it is “good”, and it would therefore not be “good” to fight against it.

Obviously, if we eugenically strive towards more ethnocentricism, our degree of universal mercy and pity will be decreased. And, if we so strive, it is not to preserve what we are - for what we are will have been deemed “inferior” and “unadaptive” - it will be to become something else, and that something else will not give so much heed, if any, to the well-being of “the other”. How could it be otherwise?

Nietzsche realized the importance of tension of the spirit, and that due to the nature of life as struggle, that the bow can never be unstrung. It is the sign of a healthy animal that it is a good bow and that it is well-strung. And, also, that Nietzscheans enjoy unstringing the other guy’s bow whilst stringing their own, as mature children at play. Cheers.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:57 | #

Dharma Chakra: “It’s a fallacy to think that the concept of mercy upon others (the other/whomever) had not been intuited in Man BEFORE Christianity.”

Perhaps there was the custom of hospitality, to genetically like strangers from a neighboring tribes; but universalized mercy/pity? Puh-leeze. I’m not so sure that un-“dysgenically” Christianized Nordics would have seen any benefit in not exterminating the “natives” of the lands they expanded into. The Vikings were not known for their mercy.

“That is a major theme in MOST, if not all, of the world’s known religions.”

Islam? Judaism? LOL! Yes, Buddhism; but it also suffers from effeminate Asiatic nihilism. Christianity requires spiritualized struggle against the temptations of the flesh to enter the next life; and to struggle to spread the faith; and to turn the other cheek to the enemy, within reason, given a reasonably life affirming interpretation taking into account the OT.

Buddhism affirms taking it in the ass until you achieve “Nirvana”. Of course one could say that in Buddhism is is desirable that one desire to do “good” (as in mercy/pity), but once one achieves “Nirvana” one will no longer desire to do good. LOL!

“And it does not stop at other humans, it carries into other species as well like plants and animals.”

Malaria bearing mosquitoes are your friends.

“Christianity has done alot of harm to others in “the name of God”, but that is another topic.”

Yes, it certainly didn’t hinder the expansion for the increase of the genetic interests of Whites; previously, but once again?

“It can probably still redeem itself if it wanted to, in counsel with other religions, that is.”

Non-Whites can best redeem themselves by leaving the lands of their betters (Whites). They can take “council” with Whites if, in the final analysis, that means submitting to repatriation.

P.S. Now you know why the faileocons had to shut down their comments section. It’s one thing to talk about the Alpine heights but quite another not to habitually wade in the Ganges.

P.S.S. Why is it that I can better argue the position of Christardianity than the “Christers”? Get your shit together, “Christers”.

Posted by apollonian on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:00 | #

Christian Thesis Must Be Analyzed In Fullest Historic Perspective
(Apollonian, 6 Jan 09)

“Captain Chaos,” note it’s important to define terms, etc., for philosophy of Christianity.

Thus Christianity defends the Greek, Aristotelian, OBJECTIVE reality, criterion for truth (as in Gosp. JOHN, 8:32, 14:6, and 18:37) which is thematic for the West—this, against the Jew, Babylonian, Talmudic subjectivism in which reality is whatever one pleases in accord w. Jew collectivism as determined by Rabbis. See RevsionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo.

Thus note Christianity is so brilliantly analyzed in accord with Hegelian dialectic, thesis-counterthesis, and also Spenglerian historic cyclicality. See extensive Apollonian expo at NewNation.org under “commentary” heading.

The trick is to understand the buzz-word “faith” in proper manner which might otherwise throw the acolyte; “faith” then, is merely loyalty, properly understood.

CONCLUSION: Thus Christianity solved a horrific historic problem by which Jew lies (and fraud—like present COUNTERFEITING of US Federal Reserve Bank) had taken control of the entire culture by means of that subtle subjectivism in which Pharisaist moralism trumps reality—as recurred again in Immanuel Kant’s neo-Pelagianist hereticalism for present “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler. And thus Jews aren’t “evil” as they’re simply parasite disease-of-opportunity which removes over-populated, hubristic gentiles—like especially “Judeo-Christians” who imagine Christ was Jew (hence Talmudist), etc. Paganism was never anything but front for Jews. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Posted by danielj on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:00 | #

P.S.S. Why is it that I can better argue the position of Christardianity than the “Christers”? Get your shit together, “Christers”.

I work a lotta hours!

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:42 | #

Islam? Judaism? LOL!

Basically when I think of religion I think of eastern wisdom traditions, Captain Chaos. But even Judaism and Islam have always had their mystics who recognized the spiritual unity between all forms of life. And that does not require taking it in the ass, as you put it. I refer to the struggle in Sri Lanka if you are unaware of current day examples where Buddhists are defending themselves when need be.
All of the wisdom traditions that have sprung from South Asia - from Shavism, to Vaishnavism, to Adwaitism, to Yoga, to Tantra, to Shakta paths, to Buddhism, to Jainism even (which is the most pacifist), all recognize the inborn proclivity towards protecting one’s own survival when being threatened, while at the same time striving to honor and preserve all of life when not in crises.

DUH! It’s common sense. And these all sprouted up BEFORE Christianity and Christianity takes alot of ideas from them. At least Jesus did when he travelled for all those years unaccounted for in the Bible.

The problem with both Islam and Xtianity is their insistence on the acceptance of just one “savior” in order to be deemed worthy in the eyes of God for eternal life or paradise or whatever.

It lacks logic and reason more than any other school of religious thought I have ever come across.

Thus Christianity defends the Greek, Aristotelian, OBJECTIVE reality, criterion for truth

How then does Christiantiy objectively explain it’s illogical approach to “being saved”?

Posted by apollonian on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:55 | #

Objectivity: Key To Truth
(Apollonian, 6 Jan 09)

“Darma,” surely in same way we all need to be “saved” presently fm these Jew psychopaths who control the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) COUNTERFEIT scam (see RealityZone.com for expo/ref.) which dominates and oppresses the world.

CONCLUSION: U dinks are smart, no doubt—but u don’t and can’t handle Jew lies and fraud which is what Christianity was specifically devised by Greeks to counteract. Jews and their lies and psychopathology are the ultimate curse of this world—and Christ reminds us truth is the anti-dote, which truth then requires objectivity. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:14 | #

So Jesus is the only one who can save me from frauds? WTF?

See what I mean about no logic whatsoever?

Classic.

Posted by Prozium on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:29 | #

White Nationalism isn’t the problem. The American experiment failed because it was ideologically committed from the beginning to the liberal values of “liberty” and “equality” which proved to be extremely corrosive of racial consciousness and ethnic solidarity.

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:40 | #

Dharma and Greg: “Basically when I think of religion I think of eastern wisdom traditions, Captain Chaos.”

Why is it that every punk and geek off the street comes at me as if it’s going to be me who stuffs my face in the pillow but ends up calling me Daddy? LOL! Hmm, let me see, The Monitard, silver, and now you.

“But even Judaism and Islam have always had their mystics who recognized the spiritual unity between all forms of life.”

I think chicken McNuggets is plenty-o-tasty: so long as the Negroes don’t spit on my food. Whether or not “the Force” is with our little feathered friends, I couldn’t tell ya.

“And that does not require taking it in the ass, as you put it.”

I never have experienced the displeasure. And no, I am not “open minded” enough to try. Nothing against you if you have, or wish to in the future, though. To each his own (ass).

“I refer to the struggle in Sri Lanka if you are unaware of current day examples where Buddhists are defending themselves when need be.”

Not very Buddhist of them.

“All of the wisdom traditions that have sprung from South Asia - from Shavism, to Vaishnavism, to Adwaitism, to Yoga, to Tantra, to Shakta paths, to Buddhism, to Jainism even (which is the most pacifist), all recognize the inborn proclivity towards protecting one’s own survival when being threatened, while at the same time striving to honor and preserve all of life when not in crises.”

The Dalai Lama is able to reconcile his universal faith with wanting to preserve his ethnic group, culture and country - good man.

“The problem with both Islam and Xtianity is their insistence on the acceptance of just one “savior” in order to be deemed worthy in the eyes of God for eternal life or paradise or whatever.”

My aim is to get the “Christers” to start offering White Nationalism better than the usual slop; but in a way that doesn’t turn them against us (which is the mistake that the Microcommunity Wonder Twins keep making). If the “Christers” still want to engage in missionary (no not that kind of missionary) work in the turd-world, that’s on them; and on the turd-worlders if they get sick of it and throw them out.

“How then does Christiantiy objectively explain it’s illogical approach to “being saved”?”

What illogic? Have faith in Jebarb and try not to be a total prick and you enter the Pearly Gates. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Faith AND good works.

P.S. Too bad the Microcommunity Wonder Duo had to stick their foot in their mouth. Drew Fraser is a White Christian racialist who digs on the decentralized, let’s form our own Hezbollah approach. A collaboration maybe? IT’S A DAMN FUCKING SHAME! Eh?

Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:43 | #

Liberal values in and of themselves are not the problem. Liberal values in a homogeneous white nation are a very good thing, acually. But when non-white racial groups are integrated into the mix, then they, liberal values, become the problem. And make no mistake about it, our enemies know full well how to exploit liberal values as a weapon against us.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:03 | #

Appollonian said;

Christianity defends the Greek, Aristotelian, OBJECTIVE reality, criterion for truth

My question;

How then does Christiantiy objectively explain it’s illogical approach to “being saved”?

Appollonian answered;

“Darma,” surely in same way we all need to be “saved” presently fm these Jew psychopaths who control the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) COUNTERFEIT scam (see RealityZone.com for expo/ref.) which dominates and oppresses the world.

I ask again;

What does Jesus have to do with saving me from frauds, Jewish or otherwise????

And will Jesus save me from Christian frauds as well?

Mind you, I have nothing against anyone choosing to believe in any religion and practice it in their personal life. Just don’t try to convince me that I need to convert to your religion in order to save my soul, my psyche, my culture, my family, my body, whatever. I’ve got my own.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:08 | #

Dharma: Just don’t try to convince me that I need to convert to your religion in order to save my soul, my psyche, my culture, my family, my body, whatever. I’ve got my own.

Do you live in your own land too?

CC,

You are asking me, in effect, whether the human impulses of mercy and pity predate Christianity, and, since they do, of course, what would happen about a wretched and pitiful out-grouper in a non-Christian West. This issue I addressed in a recent essay thus:-

Making people nationless on grounds of ethnicity is not a small thing. On the face of it one would say without hesitation that it is immoral? But is it? Well, it cannot be that immoral to return foreign populations to their own ancestral homelands, and still less so if Jus solis is excluded from grounds of citizenship. No, it is the others, the ones with complex racial histories, who present the dilemma.

But let’s turn the issue round. What moral reason can such an individual show for his claim to membership of the eternal nation? Economic productivity isn’t one. An increase to carrying capacity strikes me as unlikely in 99.99% of cases. All that’s left, I think, is family sentiment … the human right to belong with those closest to oneself. Does it outweigh the rights of the eternal nation, with which it is in conflict here? No, decidedly not. The latter’s are rights of an existential character. The individual’s right to family is profound, but it is not existential for the individual. In fact, the loss of family is part of life’s journey for us all.

The higher interest for the greater number must prevail.

Now, that said, let’s look a little closer at the terms of this debate. In that essay I used the term “laxity and humanism” to describe the present abdication of decision by the ruling class. Let’s be sure to distinguish these from mercy and pity. Mercy and pity are not qualities which look out upon an unlimited vista. Mercy and pity for an out-grouper eventually run up against mercy and pity for the in-group. And since equal love for all men is a conceit, the out-group must eventually be disacomodated. Mercy and pity simply do not authorise the gift of the European homeland to out-groups. That is the business of those given to the moral laxity and debasement of humanism.

Because I am a man the same as any other, I am bound to claim the right to exercise mercy and pity, and not have it disappear into some trinket box labelled “Christian virtues”, or indeed “liberal virtues”. We can be virtuous and we can be true to ourselves as particularists. It is all a matter of being whole men, something rare in the West today, I fear.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:30 | #

Dharma: Just don’t try to convince me that I need to convert to your religion in order to save my soul, my psyche, my culture, my family, my body, whatever. I’ve got my own.

Do you live in your own land too?

I’m a homeowner.

Look, I’ve got nothing against people if they want to believe in Jesus, the flying spaghetti monster, or anyone or anything. They have a right to their own personal religious beliefs and practices, as do I. I would never suggest that they have to lose it in order to live in my country. I would never propose a genocide or religiocide against Christians in USA. Religion/spirituality is a very personal thing and needs to be kept that way.

In some places people are executed for converting to another religion. Certainly I would not propose such a thing in the USA for those who wish to convert to or practice Christianity, would you?

Let them convert and practice all they want, but leave me out of it, unless I ASK for it, which I am not.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:34 | #

GW wrote:
I want to develop an unimpeachably ethical basis for the life of our people. The totality of it I see as being systemic in the same sense that liberalism is a dominant intellectual and ethical system. Being referential to the liberal status quo - essentially, being nothing more than protest movements - White Nationalism, race-realism and European political nationalism (nativism) lack this possibility. As every moral philosopher knows, to fight against evil is to define oneself against it, and thereby forever to be a part of it, as it will forever be a part of one’s own self. One simply institutionalises the fight. That’s not my idea at all. I want to sweep away the very moral ground upon which liberalism stands, and to plant our people’s feet on new ground entirely - even, over time, make a new and more healthy people.

And what progress has been made toward this goal? Where or how do you see further progress?

I don’t think I understand what you mean by not defining oneself against evil. Do you mean that in a Neitzschean Beyond Good and Evil sense, or are you talking about defining oneself by being opposed to liberalism. If it’s the first, I wouldn’t know where to go from here. If the second, I agree.

Do you think it is feasible to work within the Christian legacy we’ve been handed? You know, trying to turn the ship in a different direction? Our enemies seem to be doing a fine job of turning it in the other direction, against us. Would that take too long for you, or is it a pointless exercise in your opinion?

Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:41 | #

Religion/spirituality is a very personal thing and needs to be kept that way.

Utter nonsense.

Religion is no more private than is human ecology.

The only question of geopolitical importance is: “What is the minimum ecological range for a given religion before it is effectively a victim of ‘religiocide’?”

Holocaustianity posits that “There is NO PLACE for racism, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism (except Israel), or barriers to immigration.”

Therefore, Holocaustianity’s minimum ecological range is the entire universe.

There are other religions that are more or less consistent with limited ecological ranges—“white separatism” for instance.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:51 | #

GW: “You are asking me, in effect, whether the human impulses of mercy and pity predate Christianity, and, since they do, of course, what would happen about a wretched and pitiful out-grouper in a non-Christian West.”

My contention is that, in addition to boosting the reproductive fitness of those with the faith-gene, Christianity also tended to boost the reproductive fitness of those genetically disposed towards mercy and pity. Christianity acted as a selective pressure on existing variation.

“Mercy and pity are not qualities which look out upon an unlimited vista. Mercy and pity for an out-grouper eventually run up against mercy and pity for the in-group.”

Perhaps I could have made myself more clear. I take it as a given that most non-Whites should be removed from White homelands, and that Whites will once again become their own self-possessed masters. I also take it as a given that Whites are genetically superior as civilization builders. It seems that mercy and pity are most reasonably thought of as a humane gesture of condescension of the stronger to the weaker (e.g., Whites to non-Whites).

One either gives the thumbs up or thumbs down to my contention that universalistic mercy and pity were emphasized under the selective pressure of Christianity in Europeans. If it did as such with the faith-gene why not also with mercy and pity? Put it another way: If our Viking ancestors - not noted for their mercy and pity for out-groupers - had conquered North America sans the selective pressures of Christianity would they have been more or less likely to exterminate Amerindians? Given that my contention is true, obviously more likely.

I take it you have no problem with the land being conquered, but would have a problem with the Amerindians being intentionally exterminated in the process. Would you have thought that had the genetic inclinations of the Vikings played out? No, most likely not, if my contention is correct. Why do you think that it would be wrong then? Because of the selective pressures of Christianity, if my contention is correct.

“Because I am a man the same as any other, I am bound to claim the right to exercise mercy and pity, and not have it disappear into some trinket box labelled “Christian virtues”, or indeed “liberal virtues”.”

Since you spare no effort in lambasting “self-authoriality” I take it you mean “choosing” (if there is not free will how can one choose?) to embrace the genetic potentiality for mercy and pity already possessed by us - but with more restraint in its exercise towards out-groupers - due to the selective pressure of Christianity.

But, as Desmond Jones brings up frequently, selective pressures that erode the built up mercy and pity impulse to out-groupers may also have the effect of eroding it towards in-groupers.

And, if Christianity ushered our refined sense of pity and mercy in, a lack of it may usher it right back out. Then, perhaps, neither us, nor out-groupers will enjoy its benefits.

I realize you don’t like “faithism” or the faith-gene, because you don’t have them. But most Europeans do, and it will find some expression, something to latch onto whether you like it or not. This being the case, why not harness it to our purposes? It can work for us or against us; and something so powerful we don’t want against us. Since Christianity is the object of many European’s faith, and Christianity seems most likely to not disappear, it seems we have little choice tactically but to try to turn what could be a huge obstacle into an opportunity. Christians we can get on our side with the right apologetic finessing; secular faithist leftists, I doubt it. It is no coincidence, I think, that so many Christian paleocons are fence-sitting racialists - we need them, we can get them, with the right finesse; but that will probably necessitate giving up the plan to eugenically dispense with their faith-gene.

Posted by Armor on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:04 | #

Dharma Chakra,

Are you a friend of Silver, by any chance?

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:11 | #

Dharma Chakra,

Are you a friend of Silver, by any chance?

I don’t know her, or him. Don’t know anyone on this site actually, I’m new here.

Faith gene. I wonder if there is a separate gene for all the varying faiths on this planet?

Posted by Armor on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:20 | #

Mercy and pity simply do not authorise the gift of the European homeland to out-groups. (—Guessedworker)

I think you are too theoretical. In the real world, we let in third-world people who do not need any help and who are sometimes needed in their countries, while we ignore other third-world people who would need help. Obviously, helping third-world people does not entail giving them Europe and the USA. Detroying the West can only make life more difficult for the third-world in the future. It should be obvious that the ideology of mass immigration to the West has little to do with mercy and pity. The reason why most people do not say publically that immigrants should be repatriated is that they are afraid to say so. It has nothing to do with mercy and pity either. Also, some people probably think we should stop immigration before we start talking about repatriation.

It isn’t just immigration. The way we help the third-world is crazy, as Kevin Myers explained in the Irish Independent:

It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia’s (and Bob Geldof’s) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia’s population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today. So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. [ . . . ] By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley. (—Kevin Myers)

As for christianism:

Friday, December 12 2008 - source
Pope Benedict XVI yesterday criticized financial aid provided by rich countries to poor countries on the condition that the latter implement birth control campaigns. The Holy Father said , “The population is an asset and not a factor in poverty.”

[He] accused rich countries of a type of “blackmail” on poor countries by imposing economic aid policies that are “contrary to life.”

I think the Pope should try to be more realistic.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:47 | #

The problem in those countries is that many people are not educated and aware enough to use condoms. Women have very little say in the manner. Do you think women in Africa, India and wherever else want to keep risking their lives having more and more kids? They don’t. But in male dominated societies where education is little to none, especially for the female, and where sex education and openly discussing matters of sexuality are taboo, well, what do you expect?

Now, in India you have something of a reverse situation in the states of Haryana and Punjab where women are being forced by their friggin in-laws to abort FEMALE fetuses, until they have a boy.

That is just plain sick as hell.

The male to female ratio in the state of Haryana has thus been severly skewed and will cause serious social ramifications down the line, very soon.

I don’t think this is putting a dint in the population though, because those same families that force women to abort female fetuses, want them to keep on having boy after boy.

Weird. Very weird. But it all comes down to money.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:48 | #

I think the idea that Vikings would’ve behaved differently due to their genes is far from certain. I don’t even see it as probable.

Give the Vikings material wealth like ours and is it really so obvious that they’d be a bunch of hardasses after a couple generations?

I’ve never bought this “white man’s weakness” thing, and I still don’t. Not saying it’s crap, just saying I’m not sold. AFAICT, the white man’s weakness is that Jews look enough like him to cause confusion. Not a comprehensive list, but I see that one at the top.

Posted by apollonian on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:53 | #

Realism Requires Premises, Definition
(Apollonian, 7 Jan 09)

“Armor,” the Roman Pope is mere paid flunky, flack/front for Jews, hence subjectivism, hence Pharisaism-moralism—specifically then “good-evil” hereticalism (Pelagianism) founded (specifically) upon altruism, the proposal that rich, well-off, able, fit, healthy “OWE” the inferiors, weaklings, etc., for some strange reason which Pope and associated witch-doctors pretend to derive fm Gospel.

But note again, Christianity properly understood (Gosp. JOHN 8:32, etc.) defends truth, hence objective, Aristotelian reality of West, this against Jew, Talmud, Babylonian MYSTICISM, specifically subjectivism, again.

Yes, it’s true there’s a style which can plausibly be called “Christianism,” as u put it, now used by Jews and their co-conspirators like present pope which thus falsely endorses anti-Christ mysticism and Pharisaism-moralism of “good-evil,” etc.

Hence then for Christianity to be “realistic,” as u rightly advise, it must be more truthful, hence honest, hence objectivistic, hence then, specifically (a) anti-semitic and (b) anti-heretical—which then means against the criminal conspiracy which continues to consolidate “world government”—but really just domination in socialistic dictatorship, this by specific FRAUDULENT (Jew lies) method of COUNTERFEITING, as by means of fractional-reserve money and banking, the US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed), etc.

CONCLUSION: But then, the pope would tell u, he’s being more “realistic” going along with Judeo-conspirators (see TheNewAmerican.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy). Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Posted by Al Spanker on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:36 | #

“It’s a mistake,” he tells us, “to do what a lot of people on the right would do; blame it all on the Frankfurt School, or the Jews or, as I hear here, the Illuminate.”

That is all I need to know about this guy. Reminds me of the dork who runs BNP.

Posted by silver on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:16 | #

Are you a friend of Silver, by any chance?

Interesting. Can you actually a state a point I have raised that you disagree with or consider some sort of impediment to your political objectives?

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:49 | #

Interesting. Can you actually a state a point I have raised that you disagree with or consider some sort of impediment to your political objectives?

(Silver)

Listen, you Serb-Greek. I’ve seen your philosemitic tendencies first-hand. You talked about how Arabs and other Muslims were worse than the Ashke-Nazi tyrants. Why the hell should we take your opinions as anything other than an endorsement of Israeli murder? Because, from what I’ve seen of your posts, you are a supporter of ZOG and Jewish tyranny.

To be honest, Greeks are supporters of ZOG. Greeks often identify with Jews as a fellow “oppressed people.” The difference, Silver, is that your people have a legitimate claim to oppression. Jews don’t. All they have is lies about how gentiles murdered them en masse, even though the facts don’t support said argument.

Silver also says “I’m no nationalist.” In fact, there is not ONE Serbian I’ve met (and I’ve met many) that wasn’t a nationalist. Nationalism is the state religion of the Serbs. If a Serb-Greek tells me he’s not a nationalist, I can tell that he’s an ADL operative because what he does is not normal for his race.

Fuck you. I’m sick of your obfuscation.

Posted by Dave Johns on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:02 | #

Welcome back, silver.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:12 | #

silver: “Can you actually a state a point I have raised that you disagree with or consider some sort of impediment to your political objectives?”

As far as I can discern, you wish to see America divided amongst its current inhabitants; and not restored to its 90% White status qou ante (don’t bother asking me which status qou ante, because I’ll reply with, “The one that was 90% White.”).

That you assert that the above should be, and were it in fact to be, is an “impediment to [our] political objectives.”

P.S. How is the pussy in Thailand (how much does it cost)?

Posted by Thai Gook on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:24 | #

Silver also says “I’m no nationalist.” In fact, there is not ONE Serbian I’ve met (and I’ve met many) that wasn’t a nationalist. Nationalism is the state religion of the Serbs.

Exactly! The chances are greater a fish says it does not like water than a Serb saying they are not a nationalist. Silver is a liar.

To be honest, Greeks are supporters of ZOG. Greeks often identify with Jews as a fellow “oppressed people.”

Not true.

http://cm.greekhelsinki.gr/index.php?cid=2419&sec=192

By Spyros Payiatakis

“If what is being written or reported by most journalists on the war in Lebanon expresses the public opinion in our country, then I conclude that what interests us is not to look more closely into the real problem of the affair. We merely wish that the Jews may lose, and that’s all,” a commentator noted yesterday in To Vima newspaper. And the paper’s popular Pandora column concluded by remarking: “How strange that composer Mikis Theodorakis, who has maintained that ‘Jews are at the root of evil’ has not spoken out yet.”

Well, let’s face it, one cannot call it systematic anti-Semitism. But there is unquestionably a “time-honored antipathy toward Jews,” as Kathimerini commentator Pantelis Boukalas once expressed it.

Let’s admit it for once: There is anti-Semitism in Greece and it is not just prevalent now that Israel is pursuing a successful and predatory course of military expansion and it is not just among extreme rightists and leftists, but is embedded in mainstream society. Well, at least in Thessaloniki.

Also here…

http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/perdurant-on-greek-antisemitism.html

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:31 | #

P.S. How is the pussy in Thailand (how much does it cost)?

Captain Chaos, if we want to see a united, strong, progressive and prosperous WHITE future, we must stop exotifying other ethnicities, which I have seen done on this site more than once, especially with regards the Asian female. The following exotifications are myths;

1. Asian women are submissive and good in bed
2. Black men have big penises and are good in bed
3. White women know how to treat a black man with more respect than a black woman does and white women are more freaky in bed than black women.
4. Black women have the shapliest bodies.
4. Asian women are the most feminine and hence the most physically attractive to men.
5. Black men are the most masculine and hence the most physically attractive to women.

Although we all probably know some people who fit into the above stereotypes, we probably also know some people who go against them totally.

If you want to put a stop to inter-ethnic dating and mating, then the exotification and sexualization of the “other” must cease.

Tell any hormonally charged young man that black women have the best bodies or Asian women are good in bed and that is who he will pursue. Tell any hormonally charged young woman that black men will deliver her more orgasms and that is who she will pursue.

Then someone gets pregnant and a lifelong bond is created.

How about finding one’s OWN opposite gender as feminine or masculine or sexy or whatever? How about exotifying and sexualizing one’s OWN?

Sure, maybe on some very primal, evolutionary, biological level my wife finds black men more masculine, muscular and sexually attractive than me. MAYBE. But when it comes to sharing a life together, there is more at play then just evolutionary impulse.

My wife finds me sexy precisely because we share so much in common that is not purely sexual, biological, or evolutionary.

And sure, I may think Beyonce has a better bod, but so what? I can find plenty of other things in and on my wife that are just as attractive.

So instead of emptying our pockets because we have naively fallen into the trap of believing largely MYTHICAL stereotypes about “exotic others”, how about we start exotifying our own and becoming just as, if not more so, sexually attracted to them?

The myth about the big, sensual and sexually satisfying black man has spread so far around the world that the Jamaican sex tourism industry is currently making a pretty penny off of sexually unsatisfied women and wives from around the globe;

Maybe instead of fantasizing about the appeal of Asian women, we should rather concentrate on pleasing our own, lest one day she come home and say, “honey, I need some “me” time. I’m going on a little excursion next weekend.”

Let’s hope none of us find our wives in this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtU3m2M1Ivs

We can put a stop to this.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:08 | #

Dharma Chakra: “Captain Chaos, if we want to see a united, strong, progressive and prosperous WHITE future, we must stop exotifying other ethnicities, which I have seen done on this site more than once, especially with regards the Asian female.”

I am an individualist, a libertarian, and a cognitive elitist. In other words: I place my faith in my White Cock, my White Fist, and my White Brain. I can out fight and out fuck any nigger on the block; and I can out smart any gook. LOL!

I think you make some good points. Seriously.

Posted by Dharma Chakra on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:19 | #

The Jew and the Christian are forever united;

O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide people who are unjust. (Quran 5:51)

Islam was the politico-religio answer to both, at least in “Arabia” back in the day.

For Asians, the Jew and the Christian were never much of an issue, being so few in numbers.

Don’t know why Europe gave up her indigenous religions in favor of Christendom.

Anyone can refer me to any links on that? I mean, I’m sure indigenous Euros had their own mystics, peacekeepers and prophets as well, right? Or were they lacking in that department and Christianity filled the void?

Just trying to understand the appeal of that religion. I mean, look how widely it spread in such a short time. It must have filled some sort of void for the Euro. Or was it spread by force?

Posted by silver on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:27 | #

Listen, you Serb-Greek. I’ve seen your philosemitic tendencies first-hand. You talked about how Arabs and other Muslims were worse than the Ashke-Nazi tyrants. Why the hell should we take your opinions as anything other than an endorsement of Israeli murder?

Gudmund, I said I can sympathize with Israelis who are forced to attempt to make peace with Arabs because I’ve known a quite a few Arabs and find them rowdy, irrational and unreasonable to the hilt—in this they’re very similar to neo-nutzis, so I can understand the mutual affection.

Because, from what I’ve seen of your posts, you are a supporter of ZOG and Jewish tyranny.

Your making that up. The separation along racial lines I endorse precludes any possibility of supporting “ZOG”.

To be honest, Greeks are supporters of ZOG. Greeks often identify with Jews as a fellow “oppressed people.” The difference, Silver, is that your people have a legitimate claim to oppression. Jews don’t. All they have is lies about how gentiles murdered them en masse, even though the facts don’t support said argument.

This is just silly. You’re in no position to lecture me (“to be honest….”). Stick to what you can most easily defend: racial consciousness, racial communitarianism and the territory and independent rule required to establish and preserve it.

Silver also says “I’m no nationalist.” In fact, there is not ONE Serbian I’ve met (and I’ve met many) that wasn’t a nationalist. Nationalism is the state religion of the Serbs. If a Serb-Greek tells me he’s not a nationalist, I can tell that he’s an ADL operative because what he does is not normal for his race.

Ridiculous. Stick to what I recommended above. You do yourself (nor your cause) no favours by spouting indefensible, easily refutable nonsense; you only confirm suspicions and concerns that WNs are a pack of ranting, raving lunatics.

Posted by silver on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:48 | #

Exactly! The chances are greater a fish says it does not like water than a Serb saying they are not a nationalist. Silver is a liar.

Another idiot. How racialism’s intellectual wing must despair with clods like this, who never before gave a moment’s thought to matters more cerebral suddenly transforming into geniuses qualified to tell the world what to think, running around barking at everyone.

Look, I don’t necessarily have a problem with something we could call “nationalism.” But I am certainly greatly opposed to historical examples of it, the “nationalism means never having to say you’re sorry” variety. Yet that’s the flavour of nationalism that tends to predominate in that part of the world—indeed, in most of the world. But there is a certain level of nationalism I could support: one which doesn’t artificially magnify its national grievances and center itself around them, that forgives and seeks co-operation with neighbours, that leaves itself open to rationality. From what I’ve seen of nationalists, that’s an unlikely formula, so I tend to flatly state opposition to “nationalism” itself.

Posted by Joe on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:08 | #

This idea is ridiculous. The the last thing we need is to return to some kind of archaic religious fundamentalism. The Jews, Japanese and other high IQ races don’t need to religion to be ethnically conscious and loyal to their own group.

Posted by silver on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:40 | #

As far as I can discern, you wish to see America divided amongst its current inhabitants; and not restored to its 90% White status qou ante (don’t bother asking me which status qou ante, because I’ll reply with, “The one that was 90% White.”).

I support partition, yes. My motivation may vary, but I’m not unique in this regard. For example, long time unabashed Nazi Harold Covington (author of four very readable (by the look of them) racialist novels—hardly the sort of thing I can imagine an ADL/SPLC op doing) advocates a “Northwest Republic,” comprising Washington, Oregon, Idaho and parts of surrounding states, to be established via massive white internal migration and military insurgency. It’s worthwhile briefly comparing the sort of partition plan I support with Covington’s.

The three core states in Covington’s secure 250,000 square miles (a territory some 15% larger than France). If parts of neighbouring states (probably based on geographical features—I don’t know the area) are added, maybe some 300,000.

The partition plan I support, Richard McCulloch’s, in contrast, secures 75% of the are of the 48 contiguous states—some 2,200,000 square miles (and you still have Alaska in hand).

Covington has a rather loose conception of “whiteness,” basing it on a “common sense community understanding.” McCulloch strives to be much more precise (and nordish).

Covington, like you, appears to go out of his way to be as abrasive towards racial others as possible, fantastically diminishing any prospect of non-white support, and greatly fortifying the already formidable (indeed, rabid) opposition.

McCulloch, on the other hand, while not attempting to rely on non-white support, welcomes it (or at least he’s hoodwinked me). But, in reality, whether he (or anyone) welcomes it or not, his plan itself does. And by allocating such a large portion of the territory to northerners (its original and rightful owners), the plan lessens the possible impression of non-white support as “carving up” the US (which, one would hope, might still the anxieties of racialism’s loser wing—you, diamed etc).

I believe this is a far superior arrangement to returning the US its “90% white status qou[sic—you wrote it twice, no typo:)] ante.” And I think one would have a far, far, far easier time advocating it than a “return to 1965.” I’ve previously touched on reasons why I believe this and, if you’d like me to, I could recapitulate (and expound upon) them here; very briefly, I believe many of the reasons that make this partition easier to advocate than back-to-65 are also reasons why the partition is superior, resulting, in my view, in a net gain (believe it or not), not a net loss. (Actually, I’d make some adjustments to McCulloch, which I believe would lessen opposition/increase support even more.)

Posted by apollonian on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:39 | #

“Just trying to understand the appeal of that religion [Christianity, as I presume]. I mean, look how widely it spread in such a short time. It must have filled some sort of void for the Euro. Or was it spread by force?” -“Dharma…”

* * * * *

Chritian-Jew Anti-Theses Work In Cyclic Fashion, According To Hegelian Dialectic
(Apollonian, 8 Jan 09)

Judaism/Talmudism (see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo) is ultimate corruption, its most active force, of a culture, any culture, such Judaism featuring, at its OPERATIONAL core, COUNTERFEIT fraud/conspiracy, technically known as fractional-reserve money and banking—as of present US Federal Reserve Bank—see RealityZone.com for expo/ref.

Thus Judaism/Talmudism features SUBJECTIVISM, the basis of lies. What is a lie?—a subjectivist imagination presented as objective fact. What is lying?—excessive subjectivism posing as objective fact(s). What is a liar?—someone “challenged” for objectivity, Jews very worshippers of subjectivity, by which they feed, like cannibals, upon gentile suckers, dupes, weaklings, inferiors, etc.

Thus Christianity features Hegelian anti-thesis to such Talmudism, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13, captured best of all by most explicit reverence for TRUTH, as Gosp. JOHN 8:32, 14:6, and 18:37.

Hence then historically, Christianity arose first most decisively during Crisis of 3rd cent. Roman Empire, definitively established then by St. Constantine the Great in early 4th cent. Note then Christianity takes the form of religion—NOT MYSTICISM—aesthetic, drama, and especially literature. And core value of Christianity is aforementioned OBJECTIVITY, necessary criterion of truth.

Note especially that Christ, resurrection, all the miracles, “salvation,” etc. ARE LITERARY PLOT DEVICES, and are not necessary to the essential moral lesson presented, which is the supreme value of TRUTH and honesty, these the Hegelian anti-theses, again, of Judaism/Talmudism/Pharisaism, hubris, subjectivism and hereticalism, as “good-evil” Pelagianism, etc.

Note further Christianity and it’s virtue and ideals are emphasized and manifested historically in a culture in CYCLIC manner, in accord w. “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler. Judaism/Talmudism occur CYCLICALLY, as when the gentile population becomes too large, thus too hubristic, typically obsessed and overcome with gross hereticalism, such as Pelagian “good-evil,” etc.

CONCLUSION: Jews then are a parasite disease-of-opportunity who function to reduce the excess over-population by means of lies, fraud, esp. COUNTERFEITING, the supreme cultural fraud, thence Orwellian “perpetual war for perp. peace,” etc.—as indeed, we observe presently in this very day. Such then is the Hegelian dialectical form and function, socio-biologically (see KevinMacDonald.net), for the Christian vs. Jew cyclic mechanism, demonstrated in History. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Posted by apollonian on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:01 | #

“Covington has a rather loose conception of “whiteness,” basing it on a “common sense community understanding.” -“silver”

* * * * *

“Whiteness” Mere Nomos For Western Virtue, Adherents Thereto
(Apollonian, 8 Jan 09)

Indeed, “whiteness” is obvious abstraction, hence utterly useless and meaningless without perceptual referents. “Whiteness” then only makes sense as it refers, basically to objectivity, truth, and honesty, the supreme Western values, Hegelian dialectic anti-theses to Judaic/Talmudic lies, hubris, and subjectivity.

So what is happening socio-biologically is simply another CYCLIC culmination, historically, the evermore desperate gentiles seeking respite and deliverance fm bolsheviki and Judeo-conspiratorial murderers as we see now operating in Gaza, Palestine.

Hence the CYCLIC mechanism will work to kill-off evermore gentiles, the survivors forced to realize and achieve that anti-semitic virtue and principle: TRUTH and honesty, rejecting Pelagian hereticalism and “good-evil” for children which has worked so well for Jew masterminds, dominant in West since Rousseau, Eng. Utilitarianism, and esp. Immanuel Kant.

CONCLUSION: Thus observe as Jew Parasite disease-of-opportunity steadily destroys host-victim gentiles, the parasites are forced to turn-in/-against themselves, Walt-Mearsheimer CFR-Bilderberg conspirators (see TheNewAmerican.com for expo/ref.) pointing “finger” at “The Israel Lobby.” Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:00 | #

silver: “I support partition, yes. My motivation may vary…”

I support secession as an expedient to break the grip of the Washington regime on American Whites, and Whites worldwide - one domino falls and it will be much easier to push the others down. I don’t support anything like giving a blood oath to non-Whites that a “partition” will be forever respected. We will nurture our strength, and when the time comes we will take it all back; and they would be powerless to stop us. Of course tricking non-Whites into believe a “partition” would be respected is certainly a noteworthy tactic (HeHe!).

“For example, long time unabashed Nazi Harold Covington (author of four very readable (by the look of them) racialist novels…”

I thought you liked to read Shakespeare.

“—hardly the sort of thing I can imagine an ADL/SPLC op doing)”

You mean they don’t want their operatives to read the manifestoes of their enemies? LOL! I will give you this, silver, if you are an ADL/SPLC operative you are doing a piss poor job.

“Covington has a rather loose conception of “whiteness,” basing it on a “common sense community understanding.” McCulloch strives to be much more precise (and nordish).”

I like Rienzi’s way: get tested at the lab.

““90% white status qou[sic—you wrote it twice, no typo:)] ante.””

“...secures 75% of the are [sic, er, I mean, wog - careful, two strikes and you’re out, Wogspeare] of the 48 contiguous states…”

Posted by silver on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:46 | #

. I don’t support anything like giving a blood oath to non-Whites that a “partition” will be forever respected. We will nurture our strength, and when the time comes we will take it all back; and they would be powerless to stop us.

Well, there are never any guarantees in life. So I figure what the hell, it’s worth a roll of the dice. Almost anything’s better than the crap being served up now.

This conference Fraser spoke at, did you have a glance at the assorted UFO-spotters the line-up featured? Not quite poised to crack the mainstream just yet, I figure. By the time they are, things will have deteriorated a good deal further. Employing the purely selfish reasoning that I’ve had good run up to here myself, regardless of whatever happens here on out, I may as well call the truth as I see it, despite whatever jam it might get me in later (if the likes of you should ever win out). I find it difficult to understand people like “the sangha’s” reluctance to see things this way (not even mentioning any of the host of other good reasons to do so).

Of course tricking non-Whites into believe a “partition” would be respected is certainly a noteworthy tactic (HeHe!).

I take it, dorkus, you meant “effective” or “ingenious” or “better than any tactic my numb skull has ever been able to concoct” tactic. And that it certainly is.

You mean they don’t want their operatives to read the manifestoes of their enemies? LOL! I will give you this, silver, if you are an ADL/SPLC operative you are doing a piss poor job.

I’m not sure I get whatever “joke” that was trying to be. In case you were seriously wondering, though, I meant taking the time to pen four quality (seemingly) novels isn’t something I’d really expect an ADL/SPLC operative to bother with, implying “they’re real” and Covington’s for real. (I’m no expert on Covington but I understand he’s been at it since at least ‘78. That’s, let’s see.. 1, 2…5…8,9.. carry the “1”... 30 years! You’ve been at it for what, two, three? Don’t you ever think it worth your while to familiarise yourself with what your predecessors have come up with, even if only to avoid futilely following in their footsteps? Take your time answering.)

I like Rienzi’s way: get tested at the lab.

That really only marginally improves “accuracy.” There’s still the question of where you draw the line, regardless of whether you’re talking faces or autosomal data.

Talking about Rienzi [note to GW: he brought him up], I wonder what his reaction to Mr. Fraser’s scoffing at the idea of a “white” unity stretching from the Orkneys all the way to Lampedusa would be. I imagine he’d be none too pleased.

“...secures 75% of the are [sic, er, I mean, wog - careful, two strikes and you’re out, Wogspeare] of the 48 contiguous states…”

Groan. You can do better than that.

Posted by danielj on Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:00 | #

Anyone can refer me to any links on that? I mean, I’m sure indigenous Euros had their own mystics, peacekeepers and prophets as well, right? Or were they lacking in that department and Christianity filled the void?

Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition parts one and two.

How the Irish Saved Civilization.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:36 | #

CC: My contention is that, in addition to boosting the reproductive fitness of those with the faith-gene, Christianity also tended to boost the reproductive fitness of those genetically disposed towards mercy and pity. Christianity acted as a selective pressure on existing variation.

Quite likely, but not necessarily the case. The interesting question is where faith comes from, and whether it is necessarily allied to altruism.

I assume it to be a very ancient variation, perhaps even dating from Rift Valley times. Probably the oldest of any people still present today is the Khoisan of southern Africa. Their principal deity is Kaggan, the trickster. Not much pity there, I think. Shamanism, which the San practise as do many ancient peoples, has its purpose in healing people, foretelling the future, controlling the weather, ensuring good hunting, etc. Altruism doesn’t figure. It’s all self-interest.

Now, Khoisan IQ is in the 60s, I believe. So the exquisite metaphysics of certain Christian and, especially, Indian philosophy are plainly not relavent to the formation of faith. It doesn’t exist specifically to deal with First Cause. It is an evolutionary tool - sufficient unto the day for whichever people it arises in and whatever avowed “spiritual” purpose it serves.

So to get back to your point, the altruistic expression of the faith gene, as it was favoured by early Christianity, is likely to be quite superficial. I’ve made the point at the Guardian many times, when confronted with the usual shriekers and Godwinists, that the very virtue they ascribe to themselves today as they punish me is the same virtue that the witch-burners ascribed to themselves as they carried the kindling to the town square. It is projected self-hatred, of course, and obviously nothing whatsoever to do with mercy or pity.

I agree with Svi, I think it was, who said that the Vikings were probably not strangers to altruism. They were only protection racketeers, not crazed psychopaths. The old saying was that once you pay Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.

That said, I have a vision of our people as being noble and great, not in any way Viking racketeers or insufferably arrogant Prussian militarists. I want our dealings in the world to be informed by the sort of moral confidence that Victorian England possessed. That is why I “claim the right to exercise mercy and pity”. You said that you “take it as a given that Whites are genetically superior as civilization builders”. Just so. We need virtue as well as intelligence, cooperativeness, creativity, adventure, vision and strength. We need to be a fully-rounded people.

Since Christianity is the object of many European’s faith, and Christianity seems most likely to not disappear, it seems we have little choice tactically but to try to turn what could be a huge obstacle into an opportunity.

Yes, I know. No choice. But ... the faithist cannot but put his particular faith first. Working with faithists on a non-faith based initiative like Euro-nationalism will always involve a struggle to prevent them skewing things towards their damned bloody Jew in the Sky. If they could behave themselves for five minutes it would be different. But they can’t. So in the long term they have to go, I am afraid.

CC, I have made a couple of attempts to contact you by e-mail, but never received a reply. If you could contact me through the button under the header I would be grateful.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:49 | #

Rusty,

I will probably put up a new post in a few days to answer your questions. But I think we need a bit of a break before another irreligious offering!

Posted by Dave Johns on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:01 | #

I forgot to make my New Years eve prediction.

Here it is:

Guessedworker will see the light and become a Christian this year.

Amen!

Posted by danielj on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:10 | #

But they can’t. So in the long term they have to go, I am afraid.

Are you gonna get rid of us or the bootlips first?

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:16 | #

Dave,

Now we know why divination was a pagan thing!

Daniel,

Faith will go out by the same way it came in: natural selection (aka nationalist selection in this case).

Posted by danielj on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:19 | #

And what about the bootlips?

100

Posted by Dave Johns on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:38 | #

Dave,

Now we know why divination was a pagan thing!

I SAID you are going to become a CHRISTIAN! Is there anything about that don’t you understand!?!?

101

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:41 | #

I’ve made the point at the Guardian many times, when confronted with the usual shriekers and Godwinists, that the very virtue they ascribe to themselves today as they punish me is the same virtue that the witch-burners ascribed to themselves as they carried the kindling to the town square.

Conformism and punishment[PDF] of defectors appears to provide a fitness benefit. Withcraft was considered a heresy and thus a threat to the Christian community.

I take it you have no problem with the land being conquered, but would have a problem with the Amerindians being intentionally exterminated in the process.

Savages had not evolved altruism and thus sealed their fate in Virginia. Sir Arthur Bryant examines Alfred’s great victory over the Danes at Edington in his epic Set in A Silver Sea. The Christian Alfred, despite the constant treachery of the pagan Danes in past encounters, took pity on his foe and offered them food, peace and Christian virtue. The great King’s display of altruism aided in civilizing the Danes and enabled English and Dane to live together in peace. This display of out group sympathy enhanced the survival of his people.

102

Posted by Dave Johns on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:45 | #

Opps, I just banned myself.

103

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:19 | #

GW: “Working with faithists on a non-faith based initiative like Euro-nationalism will always involve a struggle to prevent them skewing things towards their damned bloody Jew in the Sky.”

I think that if Fr. John had his way the “Jew in the Sky” would be conceived of as a White man.

“If they could behave themselves for five minutes it would be different. But they can’t. So in the long term they have to go, I am afraid.”

First, we secure the existence of our race, then we’ll see what comes next. So long as religious folk continue to out breed the secular, they will not be going anywhere. We should have some measure of gratitude to White Christians who have large White families. The Mormons of Utah breed at the level of mestizoes; and, if it ever came to it, they will fight to the bone to protect the land they believe God has given them. I can’t help but grin at the thought of ANYONE, whether Aztlaners or lemmings on behalf of Uncle Sam, coming into the teeth of that meat grinder. Iraq is a cake walk, an insurgency of religiously motivated, fanatical White men is the real deal.

I won’t deny my own sentimental attachment to the Western White Christianity of Tolkien and Lewis; and I believe something of delicacy, depth and beauty will have been lost if it passes from the world. I don’t think it will have escaped your attention the central role Christianity played in the Victorian era.

As you adumbrate, first things first. Afterwards, we’ll see what plays out.

Dave Johns: “Opps, I just banned myself.”

I wouldn’t be too worried, Dave. If I can get away with ripping on the English, I figure you’re safe.

104

Posted by Armor on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:51 | #

Some of you see moral dilemmas where there isn’t any.
The real problem is masochism, not altruism.
Altruism is good if it is remains reasonable.
Crazy altruism that entails the destruction of your own people should not be called altruism at all.
I think expelling immigrants is all right and does not contradict the Christian faith.
I’m sure most Christians do not support the race replacement policy.

105

Posted by apollonian on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:00 | #

“But ... the faithist cannot but put his particular faith first. Working with faithists on a non-faith based initiative like Euro-nationalism will always involve a struggle to prevent them skewing things towards their damned bloody Jew in the Sky.”

“Faith will go out by the same way it came in: natural selection (aka nationalist selection in this case).”

-“GuessedWorker”

* * * * *

Facile, Presumptuous Use Of Terminology Is What Causes Confusion, Distress, Grief—Surely Requires “Selecting” Out
(Apollonian, 9 Jan 09)

Above quotes indicate an affected, presumptuous, and highly prejudicial use and understanding of words which are extremely significant. Hence we see buzzwords being bandied about in a way presently (above-quoted) which makes the dialectic potentially more understandable—if the moment is seized properly.

“Faith” properly means (in accord w. New Testament [NT] original meaning) LOYALTY, nothing more. True, it has come to be understood by many (but not everyone) as synonym for MYSTICISM, which then is CONTRARY to original purpose of Christianity which was a rationalizing effort to OPPOSE JUDAISM and Judaic mysticism, subjectivism, hubris, hystericism, etc., indeed all and any mysticism, subjectivism, etc.

But Christianity understands Judaism as the pinnacle of deliberate lying, conspiracy, mysticism, subjectivism, etc., Jews deliberately making use of such mysticism and subjectivism as predicates for their lies and conspiracies.

And Christian God is emphatically NOT Jew (Talmudist), again, but CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY opposed to Jew/Talmud—as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13. There are many other passages in NT which make the anti-semitic intent most clear, e.g., entire chapter 23 of Gosp. MATT, also Gosp. JOHN 8:44. There is no doubt regarding Christian anti-semitism (Jews themselves certainly understand it and express it most forthrightly—too bad gentiles can’t take the hint). PURPOSE OF CHRISTIANITY IS ANTI-SEMITISM.

Pls see my above-posted expo for further clarification. Christianity endorse REASON over mysticism, but super-adds motivation to such rationalist endorsement, as reason is mere method, never forget.

CONCLUSION: “GuessedWorker” imagines human stupidity is to be “selected” out—but humans are sinners, subject to HUBRIS, always have been, and always will be—such is the necessary condition which will never change, the reason humans make use of reason, so to speak. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

106

Posted by torgrim on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:29 | #

Dharma—
“Islam was the politico-religio answer to both, ie.(Chistianity,Judaeoism), at least in “Arabia” back in the day.”
I’m sure indigenous Euros had their own mystics, peacekeepers and prophets as well, right?”

Well, not according to the public school, teevee version of history, that is popular, due to obfuscation and out right propaganda, from centuries of repeated writings by Church scribes and historians.

Like most indigenous people, Euros had, believe it or not, mystics, prophets, (volu), and peacekeepers, (Lawspeakers).

What the Vedas are for India, and the Homeric poems for the Greek world, the Edda signifies for the Teutonic race, it supplies the ethical views and cultural life of the the North during the late heathen and early Christian times. But for a small island in the North Atlantic, ie., Iceland, isolated and a fluke of luck, this great body of knowledge would have met the flames of the fires that swept over Europe, taking both tomes and creating tombs with the bodies of the heretic, (Heathen).
The case of comparing the Christianization of the Mediterranian and the same in N. Europe, is a non-starter, as the people of the Med were sharing culture and genes for thousands of years with the same form the Orient.
When, finally, Christianity made it’s way into N. Europe, it did so with the sword as recorded in the Saxon Capitulation, under Charles the Great.—
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/Source/carol-Saxony.html

Danielj—-

“Law and Revolution” by Berman and
“How the Irish Saved Civilization” By Thomas Cahill

resonse; Berman I see, from a quick look at his work, places Canon Law, (Church Law) first, in making his point. However, Anglo Saxon common law pre-dated Christianity and in my opinion, shows Bermans, prejudice in regards to his faith when it comes to truth.

Thomas Cahill also authored the work titled, ” The Gift of the Jews”, which I have read, and yes, it is biased.

It seems that we of the North, must have been a bunch of knuckle dragging oafs, without land or light, until, “gifts” were sent to us in the form of a “Trojan Horse”?

Christianity was remade, when it came into N.Europe. As said before on MR, without Europe there would be no Christianity.
Not just my opinion but by an very respected academic, James Russell phd., for a well documented reference see; “The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity”

107

Posted by danielj on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:43 | #

resonse; Berman I see, from a quick look at his work, places Canon Law, (Church Law) first, in making his point. However, Anglo Saxon common law pre-dated Christianity and in my opinion, shows Bermans, prejudice in regards to his faith when it comes to truth.

Berman shows how the Germans and others morphed their existing traditions and combined them with what predated Christianity. I think you should read the entire work.

Everybody is biased so I try to read sources/authorities from all sides.

108

Posted by Dave Johns on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:07 | #

Dave Johns: “Opps, I just banned myself.”

I wouldn’t be too worried, Dave. If I can get away with ripping on the English, I figure you’re safe.

Fact: It was the idiotic English that dispersed Negroes all over the new world.

109

Posted by torgrim on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:15 | #

danielj-
“I think you should read the entire work.”

I said I had not read Berman’s work. Plan to however. May I suggest something a bit more scholarly, than Thomas Cahill, such as Dr. James Russells, work, “The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity”?

110

Posted by torgrim on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:53 | #

Here is another work about Christianity coming into N. Europe, from a Scandinavian viewpoint.
At this link, the *review* of the book and author, makes some points about this convulsive time, that are new and speculative, and yes, I am biased in favour of the conclusions of the author, professor Titlestad, not so much, because of his conclusions, which I agree with, but because of my ancestor, of which this work mentions.

http://www.sagapublishers.com/author.html

Torgrim

111

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:09 | #

To become further acquainted with some of Professor Fraser’s ideas:

Prof. Fraser was interviewed on MajorityRadio: click on the MajorityRadio logo at MR.com‘s upper left-hand page margin (underneath “Important Issues” and “Practic”), and on the Index Page that comes up, scroll down to “Fraser II” and “Professor Andrew Fraser: A Conversation.” Click on them to listen.

A little bit of additional thread discussion of some of Fraser’s ideas took place in the first several comments of the comments thread for this log entry on Jim Kalb:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/jim_kalbs_transcendent_can_we_fill_this_gap/

(Prof. Fraser was working on a book — I don’t recall if he or anyone has said when that will be coming out. Anyone know the latest on that?)

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments