Engaging with the world

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 23:47.

by The Narrator

One of the interesting side affects of contemplating, writing or commenting on the issue of Europe and her people’s identity is the general awareness it awakens in one in regard to the wide world around us. Accepting the reality of race and its impact on actions and events makes the world smaller in the sense that it becomes more understandable. But simultaneously it becomes much larger than it might initially have been thought. And with that realization comes the need/urge to explore that larger world whose depth and richness so exceeds by every measure the shallow rubric of “one race, the human race”. The promoters of that particular monotony, having locked themselves away in the dark corridors of their egalitarian universities/dungeons to listen only to their own echoes, would never accept nor could ever comprehend the true diversity of the world.

When you walk out into the light of day and embrace the world as it is, what one begins to grasp, for example, is that to say ‘a tree is a tree’ is a bit of a misleading and tragic casual, modern, nomenclature. A pine tree and an oak may both be called trees, yet only the dull of mind, heart and understanding would not see that they are in may ways as different as one species is from another. And if you cannot understand or are not willing to see and accept those differences, then for you a pine tree does not exist. It does not live and it does not die. It does not grow needle like leaves instead of the lush leaves of the oak and it does not bear the cones that adorn many a Christmas wreath. What a small and pitiful worldview that must be.

For those of us who have accepted and embraced the world as it is, the world is alive with color and meaning. It is full of characters, opposing ideas, varying places and interesting people. For us, Germany is a place second and a people first. The same is true of England, Scotland, France, Japan, Mongolia etc. These are not simply zip codes but living organisms. They have as distinct a history and personality as the individuals who collectively compose them. And that is an important point that those who embrace reality understand. A people do not inhabit a nation, they compose one. If the people of Ireland were to pack up and move, en mass, to central Asia, then Ireland would be in Asia and not on that little island next to Britain.

Accepting reality leads to initial realization (with a capital R), of people, places and things. Once that has commenced that initial understanding expands and the thought processes kick into high gear as reality reveals her depths and complex dimensions.

To be willing, and able, to partake in a discussion on race and reality you must engage, to one degree or another, science, sociology, geography, anthropology, history, math (demographics), archeology, biology, theology, folklore and so on. You must withdraw yourself from the shell that the “one race, the human race” anti-philosophy puts you in. And though many who have endured the universities/dungeons of The Left have been taught to fear the real world, the truth is once you shed that fear and leave your
equalitarian shell, you will find the light of the real world a brilliant revelation of color and contrast and the fresh air of truth to be like a mountain spring in a lifeless desert.

The result is that you end up engaging the world about you in ways that our critics and detractors can seldom grasp but only envy. For, as was said earlier, from the reality-embracing view of the race-realist, a place or people becomes not merely a name or spot on a map, but living, breathing things with attributes and characteristics all their own. Thus the dull gray colors of the egalitarian world are shattered and turn to ash. Life outside that shell literally becomes magnified for the race-realist, as we have embraced and accepted the vivid colors and contours of the environment about us. The blue sky looks bluer than ever before and the fact that it is blue holds more meaning. Grass, rocks, sand and water become more real because we are more willingly aware of their distinct attributes in that those attributes make them distinct of their own make and design and purpose.

And people!

For the race-realist people are more unique and special when seen as both individuals AND as representatives of a particular group. A person standing and viewed outside of the context of his natural race/people and their unique history and character is like a sentiment expressed in a vacuum of time and space; real but without function or form, quality or meaning.

Let there be no doubt about it, the rewards of such an authentic worldview are numerous in their benefits to mental and physical health. To be, not merely an individual, but a member of a race gives you a greater sense of your place in the world and the world’s history. For it is not enough to say that you know who you are, but to know why (and how) you are gives shape to that meaning. Mr. Smith may say that he is Mr. Smith, but to know why and how he came to be born, where and when he was, illuminates his sense of being. A man without a history is a man lost in the present. And history does not, cannot, be limited to the space and time into which each individual occupies. For no man is an island in place, nor in time.

We are not born anew every moment. We have one birth and the blood in our veins shapes the content of our character and reflects the reality of all those ancestors who have gone before us. Blood is the chain that links one generation to the next and gives meaning to the trials and struggles of those who went before us.

Therefore judging a man for what he is, and not who you wish him to be is the gateway to truly knowing and understanding that person. It should go without saying that each person you meet for the first time is not created in the moment they meet you. They have a history and personality independent of your own personal ideals or projections. So do races and ethnic groups.

In natural terms, an oak leaf does not form on its own, but is part of a tree which existed long before each leaf and will go on being long after each one has fallen. Truly, every leaf is connected to individual branches, which are in turn connected to individual trees which, themselves, are connected to a single space of land in a particular country on a certain continent and within certain space in time, though their time is not determined of their own accord but dependent upon the fall of the proverbial acorn from another tree to which each tree owes its descent and likeness. The leaf that leaves its place and mingles with the other leaves on the forest floor has died or is dying.

Indeed, it is an instructional paradox that the beauty one associates with the colorfulness of autumn is actually an indicator that winter is approaching and nature’s death is near. Let the lesson be learned then; societies, like nature, are at their most diverse before they die.

And we, like the rest of nature, are not self-forming entities without a historical (genetically distinct) context. In fact you might say that race, in many ways, is a modern word for heritage. We are extensions of the branches to which we cling for substance, for life, for history and for place. Those extensions link us not only to the present life but the past as well.

In short, to deny race (which is to say, heritage) is to embrace death before your time. It is to cast yourself into the winter winds, cut off from that which gives you life and thus gives your life meaning and shape, both in place and in time.

More than that, to embrace racialism and its complimentary components is, in many ways, like attending the universities of old where scholastics were broad and deep but never vexed the imagination nor dimmed the light into which knowledge and understanding were pursued.

For those of us who have attended its classes, Race Reality allows us the freedom to discuss and consider political viewpoints ranging from fascism to Marxism. It gives us the freedom to debate the pros and cons of religion, various aesthetics, architecture, music, culture and so on without fear of offence. Indeed, in the university of Race Reality we are given the encouragement to look for truth, not as an abstract but as an absolute (make no mistake, confusion, doubt and uncertainty are chains that confine understanding and knowledge).

Egalitarianism and the doctrinization of equality have stagnated Western civilization because they have, through necessity of their own ideological prisms, suppressed free thought and imprisoned all manner of descent. They have made sacred the illegality of the pursuit of truth. They have left their students/disciples crippled and blinded in the dungeon of Political Correctness where the truth of life cannot shatter their delusions of a world without light AND darkness, beauty AND ugliness, truth AND lies, the present AND the past.

So here we stand. The university of racial reality vs. the university of “equality”. The university of racial reality embraces and engages the world because it accepts it for what it is, warts and all. The university of equality hides itself from the world, choosing to become
deaf, dumb and blind to nature’s multitude of inequalities because, to them, they are frightening and evil because they are eternally challenging their false assumptions.

But there is hope for such.

For the dark PC dungeons in which they reside are easy to escape. All it takes it the willingness to follow the light, and a desire to engage the world.

Tags: No particular place to go

Comments:

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:18 | #

A people do not inhabit a nation, they compose one. If the people of Ireland were to pack up and move, en mass, to central Asia, then Ireland would be in Asia and not on that little island next to Britain.

This is surely not the case. If it were true, what possible objection could there be to Central Asians (or Indians, say) colonising Ireland? As a proposition it completely ignores the Boden side of Blut und Boden.

And if it’s true, why should speech like this be quite so moving?

This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England

Richrad II, Act II scene I

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:50 | #

And then there is Roger Scruton, in England:an Elegy. His observations about topography, landscape and countryside could equally well apply, in certain degree, to other situations where nationhood and place have become inextricably and inseperably entwined over centuries and millenia of attachment to a Heimat. It is simply inconceivable that the English would have become English if domiciled on a Central Asian steppe.

… The topography of this [island] home also played its part in shaping the English character. England is a country of gentle gradients, slow-moving rivers, long and well-drained valleys; even the uplands are level and unsurprising. Almost every part of it can be crossed on foot or horseback, and to none of it is access barred by nature. When the forests had been tamed and cleared, and the land enclosed for agriculture, there emerged a web of gradual transitions, in which hills and valleys, plains and moorlands melted together imperceptibly as in a painting. The undulating surface of the land made visible the many settlements; village greeted village across a grey-green sea of trees. In whichever direction you looked, the countryside revealed its human meaning, and the English enhanced the effect by building tall steeples to their churches, and equipping them with bells that could fill the valleys with their jubilant changes, claiming the landscape as ours.

This easily domesticated landscape, where settlements displayed themselves to the traveller, abounded in short cuts. The English did not need roadways to beat a path to places they could see from afar; they took their own way across the meadows. English law found ways to reconcile this habit with the private ownership of land. Rights of way and byways, footpaths and bridlepaths were inscribed on the landscape. When common land was enclosed, it nevertheless remained partially open. The hedges and walls had to permit the long-established paths that breached them. The resulting landscape has, to my knowledge, no parallel elsewhere: it was entirely enclosed, with the most intricate pattern of walls and hedgerows, and also entirely open, with a way through to every point. In a very real sense, the landscape was both privately owned, and owned in common. [pp75-75]

…

The transformation of the language was matched by an equal transformation of the landscape, which, like the human face, became transparent to the moral entity that shone from it. Your love of your native landscape is quite different from the tourist’s interest in scenery. The landscape and townscape of your native country are irradiated by the national character, as the face is irradiated by the soul. You do not consciously infer from their contours the history, laws and institutions that shaped them; you see these things directly, as you see the moral character of another when you look him in the eyes.

And that is what I mean when I describe England as an enchanted landscape: it was enchanted in just the way that a human face is enchanted, when a person lives in it not for himself but for others, and bends its contours so as to reveal his heart. To describe the attitude of the English to their landscape as Arcadian is to miss the real significance of what they did. They remade the landscape as the outward sign of their inner unity, as a place that was a fitting home for their collective act of dwelling. And all that they most loved in their society - the permeable boundaries that kept them apart, the negotiations and compromises that healed the wounds of conflict, the overarching law-abidingness and the sense of belonging and ownership which redeemed the accidents of nature - they unconsciously imprinted on the face of England, to produce that inimitable patchwork which was one of the few things, besides the clouds and the climate, that their painters knew how to furnish with a soul.

England was a place, a climate and a language, which had been welded together and endowed with personality by an experience which was fundamentally religious in its meaning. The institutions and culture which grew with the English religion were not accidental additions but organic outgrowths, and expressions of a collective soul. In surveying the institutions of the English we are surveying the essence of England - the genius loci which enchanted the land. [pp 85-86]

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:02 | #

The original posting is good - life-affirming, like GK Chesterton!

But Dan, why not go on with the Shakespeare quotation?

... this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Feared by their breed, and famous by their birth,
Rinowned for their deeds as far from home
For Christian service and true chivalry
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry
Of the wortld’s ransom, blessed Mary’s son:
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out - I die pronouncing it -
Like to a tenement or pelting farm.
England, bound in with the triumphant sea,
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds.
That England that was wont to conquer others
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself ...

There are plenty of other passages in which England’s unhappy condition is lamented: the Bishop of Carlisle’s speech in Act IV, sc.ii is notable in the same way. Shakespeare, almost certainly a catholic, is probably giveing vent to his feelings aboutv the Reformation. The Earl of Essex and his followers paid for a special performance of the play at the Globe in 1601, on the eve of the famous Essex rebellion: this may have been part of a ploy to enlist Catholic sympathies. Certainly Elizabeth angrily assured the archivist andantiquary Lambarde, “I am Richard II, know ye not that?”. She probably feared to meet Richard’s fate, deposition and death.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:37 | #

But Dan, why not go on with the Shakespeare quotation?

Because it conjures up disturbing visons of Tony Blair. I much prefer the ‘radical nostalgia’ stimulated by the first (and most enduring) bit.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:39 | #

But I meant to add that, quibbling aside, I do concur with your general assessment of the piece.

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:27 | #

A people do not inhabit a nation, they compose one. If the people of Ireland were to pack up and move, en mass, to central Asia, then Ireland would be in Asia and not on that little island next to Britain.

This is surely not the case. If it were true, what possible objection could there be to Central Asians (or Indians, say) colonising Ireland? As a proposition it completely ignores the Boden side of Blut und Boden.

Posted by Dan Dare on October 28, 2009, 11:18 PM

Always I hope that we are not merely singing to the choir here.
Various people currently straddling the civilizational fence will no doubt happen upon some of our conversations here and it is to them also that the piece was addressed.
A great many today consider nations to be nothing more than arbitrarily designated zip codes for the convenience of tourist maps.
My point was that people are not interchangeable. You cannot become Irish by moving to Ireland or English by moving to England. The English and the Irish are peoples, not by location, but by blood. An Englishman born in Calcutta is still an Englishman just as an Asian born in Ireland is still an Asian.

Now people do indeed have an impact upon the land in which they live. In many ways the land and people become one, indeed. And so Asians moving en mass to Ireland would certainly alter the land in dramatic ways (but they would not become Irish by moving there).

In America we can see that already, where the new majority presence of blacks or hispanics has amassed, the physical and “spiritual” attributes of the land have been dramatically altered. It’s like seeing the Mordor-ification of Middle-Earth

http://www.white-history.com/hwrdet.htm

But the how and why of that is topic for another conversation and would no doubt make an interesting addendum to this one.

Blood and Soil is certainly a rallying cry. But many have not yet considered the blood and so the soil upon which it resides means nothing to them, thus they are not particularly inclined to fight for it.

Once the issue of blood and identity has been established then the next (and natural) step is the importance of the land and, by extension, who dwells in it.

...

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:19 | #

WB Yeats, from his first beginnings in rime, cast himself as an Irish poet: he is generally accepted as one. Yet his family was English.
Patrick O’Brien assumed an Irish name and seemed happy to have people believe that he had an Irish ancestry, possibly hoping that his invented character, the sea-going physician Stephen Maturin, possessor of a degree from Trinity College, Dublin, might even be taken as a sort of alter ego , aself-portrait: so it must have been a terrible blow to him and his readers when - in the midst of celebrations at Trinity to mark his being offered rooms there - some nosy journo discovered that O’Brien’s real name was Russ, son of a foreign sex-doctor, wasn’t Irish at all, and that he’d never been to sea. It had transpired that he didn’t even know how the tune “The Roast Beef of Old England” went - and this makes an appearance in about half of bis novels! This would be no discredit in a real irishman. The books are still great, though.
The composer Arnold Bax was born of Dutch ancestry in, of all places, Streatham - not so far from GW’s Wandsworth! Under the pen-name Dermot O’Byrne he published Yeatsian stories and poems, re-inventing himself as a son of the so-called Gaelic Revival. There must be something about modern England that makes some fine minds ashamed to belong.
There seems to be a desire on the part of many to re-invent themselves as Celts. For a really startling take on this, check out “The Orthodox Celts”;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDTlQ9xgtGk&feature=related

and check out the extraordinary career of Michael Macliammoir, who hailed, I think , from Watford…

Now the serious stuff. ST Coleridge, c.1795, thought there were two Englands:
“Let England be Sir Philip Sidney, Shakespeare, Milton, Bacon, Harrington. Swift, Wordsworth: and never let the names of Darwin [He must mean Erasmus, Charles’s grandfather, physicain, poet and mad scientist: though Gorboduc would like to suggest that STC’s objection would have certainly remained in force as regards Charles] Johnson, Hume fur it over. If these too, must be England, let them be another England; or, rather, let the first be old England, the spiritual, Platonic , old England, and the second, with locke at the head of the philosophers and Pope at the head of the poets ... be the representatives of Commercial Great Britain ...”

Personally, I find it hard to understand why the verminous and wicked Bacon is included in the list of English luminaries, and why that sturdy old English Tory Johnson is included in the second, but I see the general principle. Blake seems to have had the same idea: on the one hand the mystical England, visited by the young Christ, on the other the Newton-inspired scientific hell of the Industrial Revolution.

The theme is reworked more intricately and more resonantly by CS Lewis in the closing pages of his amazing sci-fi romance, “That Hideous Strength”: beneath Lewis’s contemporary Britain, then supposed by him to be in the grip of a particularly nasty Satanically-inspired scientific conspiracy, there lies Merlin and the true Arthurian realm of Logres, a secret kingdom, the hereditary responsibility of a line of true Pendragons: their task is to keep the sparks of faith, heroism and chivalry alight and to prevent the final descent of Britain into tyranny.
The passage is too long to quote, but I do urge you to look up the book for yourself. It may remind some of Guenon’s ” Le Roi du Monde” or of Arthur Machen’s “The Secret Glory”.

The point is, can you belong to the Charles Darwin “materialist” camp and still love the ideal England, with the mystical brigade?

Posted by dodheimen on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:57 | #

Narrator-

How many hours of dungeons and dragons and world of warcraft (and maybe a little Tolkien thrown in to boot) in seclusion from the physical world were you subjected to when you wrote this? Go out in the world and get some fresh air. Racial-realism has little to do with history and more to do with establishing an outmoded order of organization that leads to eventual stupidity. Does the blood of kings flow through my veins? No, I am not an inbred.
Do I believe in egalitarianism? No, for I am peerless in a mountain of false brahmins mascarading as caretakers for a culture. Do I believe in market forces? Certainly not. I believe that we are individuals and if you’re dumb enough to be influenced by idiocy and anti-intellectual through consociative reign holding (grouped by flimsy arbitrarily assigned categories) then it is you who have declared an early grave.

Viking conquest beween the 9th and the 11th centuries yielded Russian city establishments. So wait, are they Russian or Viking? Which historical imperative should they align themselves with? We don’t live 1000 years in the past, so now that we have the internet, what is to say of them then, oh nimious arbiter of junior high prose, of the boredom that will ensue with no desire to wander and your progeny’s airsickness with its own cultural constraints. No one is fixed to a point and you can’t go back/return home. History does not superecede personal narrative: gaulic conquest has little to do with why I like grindcore. It’s because one time I rocked out so hard I gave myself whiplash and it was totally awesome, bro. Humans are the result of their environments. Anyone who says anything different lives a life of bourgeois entitlement and belies the definition of racial-realist.

If you want your own reservation though, you should put in a letter to your congress person and let him or her know that you’re an endangered species and you have some great candidates for tribal cops and a white-Indian casino.

P.S. Ever breed and oak tree with a pine tree? Didn’t think so. History is subjective and surprise-you yourself are the result of mixing “races.” In fact, you probably share more in common genetically with someone from Africa, though maybe not culturally. You’d never understand the mindset of a philosopher king, anyway. My suggestion to you is to cultivate an identity of true self-awareness apart from your history and you will be reborn and hopefully won’t subject anyone else to this Holy Mountain prosaic drivel you all a contemplation.

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:32 | #

Dodheimen’s prose is sometimes as opaque and elliptical as, well guess who’s.
What’s “nimious”? I enjoy the odd typo myself, but this seems a new coinage. I like it. But I don’t understand, as it’s not made clear, the connection between “gaulic conquest” and “grindcore”.And the bit about Africa;
.”In fact, you probably share more in common genetically with someone from Africa, though maybe not culturally”. More than what, or with whom? More than a fellow European? Hmmmm. I suppose it all depends what environment actually IS.
Perhaps the whole problem could be brought up closer.
Some of the posters here must be living in the US of A.
Do those with names like Smith, Brown and Robinson think of themselves as English?
What about those with German, French or Polish names?
Were your Brit/Irish ancestors loyalists or rebels?
Or did you go there after 1776?
US composer Andrew Law stated about 1795 that not merely was there now a distinctively American way of composing music, there was a distinctively American way of singing it, a particular vocal tone-colour. Sounds like the melting pot ... One of the posters has declared himself as being mostly German in ancestry, I think - doed that mean there can be no basic agreement between him and his “Brit” colleagues, if that’s what they can be called/
“Go with change! You’ve adapted before!” say the liberals who like to claim that the English are already a mongrel race, built up from Angles, Britons, Celts, Jutes, Picts, Romans, Norsemen and Normans: that we have many groups in our ancestry is true, but what the liberals don’t understand is that these apparently disparate groups were, as pointed out by the antiquary Richard Verstegan in the 17th. century, actually all racial cousins.
The blend wasn’t, isn’t perfect: traces of post-1066 mistrust still surface even in our reasonably homogenous community; both Saxons and Normans acknowledged Papal supremacy and shared the same faith, yet the fissure between Saxon and Norman attitudes made itself violently felt at the time of the Civil Wars, with the Parliamentarian side urging older Saxon traditions against Norman innovations: and this dichotomy to some extent survives, as does a certain amount of resentment over the origins, actions and attitudes of our present Germanic Royal Family, as well as the totally underhand way they came to power. (Well, Dan’s first post mentioned kings, otherwise I wouldn’t have.)
And a few people are worrying about an apparent Pictish/Scottish attempt to dominate the affairs of the UK (John Buchan sometimes contemplated the way in which members of the chosen found it easy to disguise themselves as Scottis lairds.
Rupert Brooke cd. be quoted, to the effect that There’s one corner of a foreign land That is for ever England…
Now HERE’S an interesting case: read it carefully. Loved the Maoris!

http://newsstand.pavilion.net/users/users/subweb/tartarus/potocki.html

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:01 | #

The point is, can you belong to the Charles Darwin “materialist” camp and still love the ideal England, with the mystical brigade?

Posted by Gorboduc on October 29, 2009, 12:19 PM |

I would hope so. I’m pretty sure some who post here do.

I’ve never read The Hideous Strength so I’m not sure what your reference point there is.

.
.
.
.
dodheimen, your post is all over the place. It almost looks like a living example of what I wrote above, which is that, A person standing and viewed outside of the context of his natural race/people and their unique history and character is like a sentiment expressed in a vacuum of time and space; real but without function or form, quality or meaning.

You write,

Do I believe in egalitarianism? No, for I am peerless in a mountain of false brahmins mascarading as caretakers for a culture. Do I believe in market forces? Certainly not. I believe that we are individuals and if you’re dumb enough to be influenced by idiocy and anti-intellectual through consociative reign holding (grouped by flimsy arbitrarily assigned categories) then it is you who have declared an early grave.

You state you do not believe in egalitarianism then proceed to describe your views, which are in fact, egalitarian to the letter. You’re not a chapter president per chance?
.
.
.
.

[

u]Humans are the result of their environments.

Posted by dodheimen on October 29, 2009, 02:57 PM

Uh, no.
Social environments do not just pop into existence out of nowhere, waiting for a group of people to happen along to inhabit them.
.
.
.
.

Racial-realism has little to do with history and more to do with establishing an outmoded order of organization that leads to eventual stupidity.

Posted by dodheimen on October 29, 2009, 02:57 PM

So you’ve never heard of La Raza, the ADL, the SPLC, the Black Congressional Caucus, affirmative action, etc…etc….?
There are legal and social “orders of organization” for Arabs, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Asians. From awards shows like BET to religious organizations such as the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, race is an intricate and significant aspect to peoples identities all over the world.

But you’re saying they’re all outmoded? Really?

Well, that will come as quite a blow to the United Negro College Fund, for one!

.
.
.
.

History is subjective and surprise-you yourself are the result of mixing “races.”

Posted by dodheimen on October 29, 2009, 02:57 PM |

You realize that by placing races in scare quotes you completely shot down whatever point you were attempting to make.

But no, I am not the result of mixed races.
.
.
.
.

My suggestion to you is to cultivate an identity of true self-awareness apart from your history and you will be reborn and hopefully won’t subject anyone else to this Holy Mountain prosaic drivel you all a contemplation.

Posted by dodheimen on October 29, 2009, 02:57 PM

So in other words, I struck a nerve.

...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:09 | #

Dodgy,

1. Do any ethnic groups or peoples - Tibetans, say, or Khoisan or Palestinians or Ashkenazic Jews - exist within the family of Man? If not, why not?

2. If Tibetans, Khoisan, Palestinians and Ashkenazic Jews exist, do they severally possess a natural interest in their own survival? If not why not?

3. If Tibetans, Khoisan, Palestinians and Ashkenazic Jews exist, do they enjoy the natural rights to survival accorded in principle by the UN under its 2007 Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? If not, why not?

4. If Tibetans, Khoisan, Palestinians and Ashkenazic Jews exist, do European peoples also exist? If not, why not?

5. If European peoples exist, do they also severally possess the aforemented natural interest and rights to survival? If not, why not?

6. Do you recognise that all peoples have value to themselves and to humanity, and the loss of any people is a loss to all humanity? If not, why not?

7. Do you recognise that European peoples throughout the West are declining demographically and are enduring a process of physical dispossession in their ancestral lands and living spaces?

9. What is your ethnicity?

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:32 | #

GW and Narrator, the pithiness of your posts made me want to laugh out loud.
Why does dodheimen seem to link to something so odd and grotesque? It doesn’t seem very MR-ish. is he trying to sell us a used TV set - in which case GW’s Question 9 is answered.

GW’s questionnaire should be sligtly adapted, multiplied in print, and everyone should take a supply whenever he/she goes out.

But, Narrator i) -“I would hope so” - is that actually an affirmative?
ii) Read THS: but be warned, CSL believed that in the Renaissance science and magic (Dee, Bruno, Campanella et al) were growing from the same branch, and what he feared in our time was a combination of dark magic and science. Certain aspects of evolution-basewd scientific therapies may seem to come under that heading!
If you like, I’ll post up the relevant passage of THS.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:39 | #

“GW’s questionnaire should be sligtly adapted, multiplied in print, and everyone should take a supply whenever he/she goes out.” (—Gorboduc)

I second that (with a footnoted copy of the text of the U.N. Declaration in question appended, in case one runs into doubters). Powerful list GW has assembled there — bound to stop most of the argumentation you typically run across dead in its tracks, I’d reckon.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:43 | #

I forgot to put argumentation there in quotes. Make that:

bound to stop most of the “argumentation” you typically run across dead in its tracks

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:03 | #

But, Narrator i) -“I would hope so” - is that actually an affirmative?
ii) Read THS: but be warned, CSL believed that in the Renaissance science and magic (Dee, Bruno, Campanella et al) were growing from the same branch, and what he feared in our time was a combination of dark magic and science. Certain aspects of evolution-based scientific therapies may seem to come under that heading!
If you like, I’ll post up the relevant passage of THS.

Posted by Gorboduc on October 29, 2009, 05:32 PM

Gorboduc, you’re being a bit to cryptic for me to know what exactly you are asking or driving at.
I believe you can in fact be an atheist and still love your people, present and historically.

You aren’t deriving your question from the debate at SpiritWaterBlood are you?
That’s an interesting one over there for sure.

If you’d like to post the exert from Lewis, that’s fine. Or if there is a link to the text that’s okay as well.
.
.
.
.
I just noticed this from dodheimen’s post,

P.S. Ever breed and oak tree with a pine tree?

Posted by dodheimen on October 29, 2009, 02:57 PM

Now that’s funny!

No dodheimen I haven’t. And if its all the same with you I’d rather not here about your adventures in tree husbandry.

...

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:44 | #

Narrator:I’ve never heard of SpiritWaterBlood but will look it up as soon as I’ve finished this.
I suppose I’m a bit of a Strasserite - Blut und Boden are all very well, but they need Geist to give them any meaning. And Geist is NOT a function of the other two, but is their begetter.
I’m sure you CAN be an atheist and still love your people. But it just may be a different sort of love. The Christian theory of love is a mystical one, ie, it believes that in some way it originates with an order outside our restricted. space-time set up: and this order was set up for us by an actual consciousness and will.

The whole repertoire of thought and lore to which this belief gives access can really only be understood/experienced by a believer. The atheist can only study it, as he would a set of anthropological data. Of course, the anthropologist can always “go native” ...

The THS plot is long and complicated and it’s easier to grasp if you’ve read the two previous parts of CSL’s trilogy, “Out of the Silent Planet” and “Perelandra” (or “Voyage to Venus”)

Also it helps if you’ve read CSL’s “The Discarded Image”, a revisionist survey of mediaeval (and earlier) science and cosmology, demonstrating that things that are often regarded as recent discoveries may well be ancient cliches - and he made certain aspects of these matters part of his own world-view, and they underpin THS. He did much to dispel the popular view concerning the “Dark Ages” - unusual in a Protty! (Get the full version of THS, not the abridged one)

The whole lot should be in print. Although there’s a disparity of cult between CSL and self - he was a perhaps slightly bigoted Ulster Prot, I’m more of an RC - he certainly changed my world-view in a big way.
His “Narnia” books for kids are perhaps not among the best things of his output, although they do show his amazing ability for constructing myths - but Philip Pullman has paid them the tribute of attempting to suppress them, as they make, in his eyes, Xtianity a damn sight too attractive!

Pullman’s own “Dark Materials” kiddy books are outspokenly atheistical, but an awful lot of the books’ mechanisms seems to demand an unstated but implicit and necessary theistical intervention. He won’t admit this, of course; but I think it’s obvious.

Lewis’s view was certainly that peoples have a destiny: and that they are given a particular landscape to live in to help them achieve it.

I’ll scan in the relevant THS bits when I’ve set up my creaking apparatus and summoned my familiar.

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:03 | #

As i said, I’d never heard of SpiritWaterBlood nor of Kinism.
Totally fascinated! Thanks!
Does Kinism have much of a presence here on MR?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:33 | #

Does the blood of kings flow through my veins?

Most probably yes, at least for the English, according to Greg Clark.

The Indicted and the Wealthy: Surnames,
Reproductive Success, Genetic Selection and
Social Class in Pre-Industrial England

Gregory Clark, University of California, Davis
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
January 19, 2009

A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World, argued
controversially that in pre-industrial England the rich replaced the
poor demographically, and that this helps explain why England
became more “bourgeois” in these years: less violent, thriftier,
more literate, more numerate. Here evidence from a different
source, surnames, again shows the takeover of English society by
the economically successful between 1600 and 1851, and the
disappearance of the criminal and the poor. A man’s economic
success in pre-industrial England predicted a permanent increase
of his surname frequency, and hence his gene frequency, by 1851.
But the surnames also shows that despite this mechanism, preindustrial
England was a society of great social mobility, with no
permanent upper class.

http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/Farewell to Alms/Clark -Surnames.pdf

The Vikings were race-replaced by absorption.

The Rus (Vikings) intermarried with the subject Slavs and took on their customs to such an extent that though they were still ruled by the descendants of Rurik, they had practically ceased to exist as a separate race by the 13th century.

Race denial, known as Lewontin’s Fallacy in a work published by A. W. F. Edwards.

In fact, you probably share more in common genetically with someone from Africa,

“Talking of two genomes being “more similar” or “less similar” implies the existence of a metric. The most naive metric, and the one used implicitly by Lewontin, is that of simply counting the number SNPs. Edwards’s criticism of Lewontin amounts to the statement that it is a “fallacy” to use this naive metric, because some SNPs may be in a meaningful way more significant to other SNPs.”

There are also issues of sequencing which produce differences.

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

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:52 | #

There seems to be a desire on the part of many to re-invent themselves as Celts.

Probably not as Celts but as Anglo-Irish.

“Yeats declared that Anglo-Irish were ‘no petty people’ “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish

Lothian, disproportionately, home of the Scottish Renaissance, is also home to an Anglo-Saxon derived population who migrated there after the Norman invasion.

Posted by John on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:00 | #

dodheimen: “Ever breed and oak tree with a pine tree? Didn’t think so.”

I never have. I’ve never watched a race on a two furlong track that had Yellow Jacket and Black Ruby in the lineup either. There’s a reason, if such a race were allowed, though each is the best in its class, that Yellow Jacket would go off at 1:9 and Black Ruby at 999:1. In spite of cross-breeding possibilities, there are differences between them. Do you mind if I appreciate such differences?

Posted by dodheim on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:46 | #

“Do you mind if I appreciate such differences?”

Depends on what exactly it is that you were looking for earlier. A horse on a racetrack bred for a specific quality would be a bad choice in war. So appreciate the differences as one appreciates still life photography, framed.

“You realize that by placing races in scare quotes you completely shot down whatever point you were attempting to make.

But no, I am not the result of mixed races.”

Did you write this thinking you were actually making a point? Your pedigree is questionable. I guess you suppose I am an egalitarian because I somehow implied everyone is equal. No. What you should have gleaned from that, oh ent, is that I believe in the individual and not one predetermined by a fixed notion of regurgitated pseudoscience. There are idiots and geniuses in every civilization. Race is in fact man-made and is a fairly modern invention. Are you putting yourself at odds with this view because you truly believe that you are god’s chosen people? How convenient it is to, in retrospect, scan for delimiters with a preconceived notion already in mind. It’s like looking for a needle in a needle stack.

“Uh, no.
Social environments do not just pop into existence out of nowhere, waiting for a group of people to happen along to inhabit them. ”

What an amusing conclusion to draw from my comment. I did not even specify nor imply “social”. Again, looking for something? The environment however can certainly trigger social change. There’s a reason the horse sacrifice is present in multiple civilizations around the same time.

“Human societies respond to environmental (e.g., climate) signals through multiple pathways including collapse or failure, migration and creative invention through discovery. Extreme drought, for instance, has triggered both social collapse and ingenious management of water through irrigation. - http://www.eoearth.org/article/Evolution_of_the_human-environment_relationship”

“dodheimen, your post is all over the place. It almost looks like a living example of what I wrote above, which is that, A person standing and viewed outside of the context of his natural race/people and their unique history and character is like a sentiment expressed in a vacuum of time and space; real but without function or form, quality or meaning. ”

This is my favorite part of your reply. You are saying absolutely nothing of meaning other than that you think “things” (as you refer to in your essay) as living organisms are best represented in their respective environments/history. This is a non-intellectual position to take because you would have to prove that two civilizations in the exact same environment would change the environment to make it suit them in totally different ways without any previously extant civilization around before it. We can’t all be satraps, least of all you. Did you paypal money for a genetic test? Someone’s telling me that

“So you’ve never heard of La Raza, the ADL, the SPLC, the Black Congressional Caucus, affirmative action, etc…etc….?
There are legal and social “orders of organization” for Arabs, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Asians. From awards shows like BET to religious organizations such as the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, race is an intricate and significant aspect to peoples identities all over the world. “

Again, you’re trying to define what is “natural.” You’ll never know. I don’t care about these organizations because, unlike you, I don’t find them to be much of a threat because self-preservation means doing everything 100%. Maybe you think, “but dodheim, I worked my ass off for this degree in sociology and medieval studies and now I’m unemployed and angry that some colored guy is teaching the Punic wars in my place. He has no right!” Maybe you’re angry at being outsourced or that there are societal preferences not granted to you and you can’t do anything to change that. Like I said, maybe if your arguments held any weight, you could get your own reservation in the Alcase-Lorraine and show the world that you can form your own hierarchical-less society based on alikedness. Unfortunately, you can’t because you don’t really have a culture that you’re proud of - you defer to the European ones already printed out for you - and you want to paint yourself as a victim.

Fine be a victim, if it’s sympathy you want and not empathy, then continue the parade.

In the end I guess what it boils down to is that what you define as your people, is a contrived notion of what you think is shared by everyone. Thus you’re making your own culture. And that’s fine. The race thing is a joke, though, primarily because 1)you want to be viewed as separate and 2)disenfranchised. I don’t celebrate black or brown history month. If there were a white history month, why should I celebrate it? Your movement is a reaction to the established definitions of race because you’re scared because you have nothing and then subsequently, this thing that does not exist will be taken away and destroyed.

None of my allies are idiots by the way. If I were to joint one of your tribes, it would be nothing more than a incestuous kissing circle. You wouldn’t want me in your tribe at any length because I would probably be the one you would depend on for survival.

My people make logical arguments of their own accord without tying themselves to some fixed notion of what is natural or correctly morally reasoned nor do I sing any songs of separation. Perhaps I could convey my point better if I had a liberal arts degree or volumes of books and online materials to reference, but my point is not to sway any of you, just to point and laugh and wait for a genuine furnishing of why I should consort with your helpless pack of fingerpointing anti-social entitled suburban nerds.

This is even more hilarious, a litmus test.

1. Do any ethnic groups or peoples - Tibetans, say, or Khoisan or Palestinians or Ashkenazic Jews - exist within the family of Man? If not, why not?
-irrelevant

2. If Tibetans, Khoisan, Palestinians and Ashkenazic Jews exist, do they severally possess a natural interest in their own survival? If not why not?
-all humans possess a natural interest in their own self-preservation. stand as an “other” to a group of people who define themselves religiously and require societal ties, point the gun and gee, what do YOU think would happen?

4. If Tibetans, Khoisan, Palestinians and Ashkenazic Jews exist, do European peoples also exist? If not, why not?

5. If European peoples exist, do they also severally possess the aforemented natural interest and rights to survival? If not, why not?
-First of all, what is a natural interest? Furthermore, how does one possess a right, you either excercize it or you don’t within a set of societal norms and standards. Does a voivod possess the right to legitmacy over its peasants? There are no rights to survival.

6. Do you recognise that all peoples have value to themselves and to humanity, and the loss of any people is a loss to all humanity? If not, why not?
Another completely loaded question. Humanity is defined as a group: the human race. Human is associated with compassion. What are you asking? Do you want me to say that I’ll be sad if my people’s eradication is a loss to some bigger goal? I don’t care. There have been many such losses and continuing losses. The european decline is just one ore. Do you have an account with some eastern Bank of Reincarnation?

7. Do you recognise that European peoples throughout the West are declining demographically and are enduring a process of physical dispossession in their ancestral lands and living spaces?
Of course, but did Rome not move to conquer the world and spread its cultural influence throughout the world? Were the Parthian civilizations not subsumed? Did you share a tear for them? What about Basques and Uyhgurs? Another loaded question, my answer to your real question is I don’t care if you believe in tribal organizations for society, but don’t be naive in assuming that preexisting tribes exist as historical re-enactments.

8. If you are a self-proclaimed believer in the absolute sovereignty of the individual, and have nothing to say yourself about (7), why are you agitating against the choice of others here to stand with and support European peoples in this time of stress? Aren’t you either a hypocrite or a liar?
How would I be a hypocrite or a liar when I say that even if we share ancestry, you are unable to provide a reason outside of that to exist. You may or may not be European but I do not believe it is a time of stress. I see very little in common with people like me here or abroad. Am I a hypocrite to laugh at the grandfathers who tell me that it is my destiny to build a kingdom, write beautiful poetry and conquest? I’ll tell you what, my best friends and closest allies are culturally, ethnically, and otherwise completely different from me physically. They are fellow geniuses and they have their lives together. They work hard. This is my tribe. My bloodline needs to continue as much as the military-industrial complex needs to persist.

9. What is your ethnicity?
German, Irish, and I have been told Hungarian. My culture is American. Now you can put me into your trading card deck!

I have not read anything about class on this site. Class is a bigger divisive figure than “race” (yeah I scare quoted it again, narrator…i guess i shot it down once more…blah) and all of you seem entitled. I’m a broke philosopher-king with no affinity for the empire. I shall leave you to your own advices and devices. I am no longer amused. Stay “white” and be burnt by the sun.

“Even hares can pull the mane of a dead lion. There is no joke about courage. Give way to the first and you must yield to the second, and so on till the last, and to gain your point at last costs as much trouble as would have gained much more at first. Moral courage exceeds physical; it should be like a sword kept ready for use in the scabbard of caution.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:24 | #

A piece of shit like Tothirn should not be given space here.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:27 | #

You can argue with men. You cannot walk up to a pile of dog shit on the sidewalk and expect to argue with it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:38 | #

I believe in the individual and not one predetermined by a fixed notion of regurgitated pseudoscience.

Belief in the individual is an evolved trait, an extended English phenotype, like a beaver “believes” in its dam.

Only a people such as the English, characterized by the “non-kinship based forms of reciprocity” associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating such a “society of strangers.”

There are idiots and geniuses in every civilization.

True, but disproportionately so. See Murray’s On Human Accomplishments. It is also an obvious difference between males and females in all species. Women tend to cluster at the IQ mean and men tend to greater variance. There are also significant differences in verbal and spatial IQs.

It’s like looking for a needle in a needle stack.

A watcher of the tribal propaganda, Criminal Minds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCglzVLJb8Q

Posted by RF on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:40 | #

Fred Scrooby,
agree with your last posts

here we deal with a bored self-enamored “genius” who considers derivations of his mental regurgitation to be something solid. A tragedy of destroyed self-deception is horrible, so let him live in his illusory world.

Posted by PF on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:30 | #

A lot of people rail against rootless intellectuals.

Yet today I was thinking to myself: I don’t know any rootless intellectuals.

Then I began to wonder…

If one were to come across such a rootless, effete intellectual, what would this person look like and how would they comport themselves in an internet comments thread?

Just some random questions thrown out, apropos of nothing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:02 | #

“today I was thinking to myself: I don’t know any rootless intellectuals.” (—PF)

Maybe brainless intellectuals is a better term then. You must know tons of those. (Doesn’t everyone?)

Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:25 | #

“The difference between an intellectual and a man of intellect is precisely that between a gent and a gentleman”
(attrib. Stanley Baldwin)

Posted by Armor on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:51 | #

A people do not inhabit a nation, they compose one. (—The Narrator…)

Similar quotes :

“There is nothing magical about the land. The Land is the People”. (D.Barber)

“The nation is the race - it’s not the state. People need to wake up and see that.” (Frank)

“A nation is not a territory, but a people.” (Svi)

“Mexico is wherever Mexicans are.” (Mexican president, quoted by the Narrator)

Posted by Armor on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:56 | #

“A people do not inhabit a nation, they compose one.”

By contrast, we could say that third-world immigrants inhabit our white nations, composed of white people.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:20 | #

I’m sure you CAN be an atheist and still love your people. But it just may be a different sort of love. The Christian theory of love is a mystical one, ie, it believes that in some way it originates with an order outside our restricted. space-time set up: and this order was set up for us by an actual consciousness and will.

The whole repertoire of thought and lore to which this belief gives access can really only be understood/experienced by a believer. The atheist can only study it, as he would a set of anthropological data. Of course, the anthropologist can always “go native” ...

Posted by Gorboduc on October 29, 2009, 06:44 PM

I’m not sure how you can assume that. Atheism is, for many, the word to best describe their unblief in the supernatural. All else remains about the person. The end is certain, but memory and works live one. Blood lives on. Immortality is found in the continuation of your people.
It’s a crude example, but for the constraints of time, what of a Christian with Alzheimers or other such conditions which affect the memory or personality?
Many faced with those tragedies might conclude that a person is indeed flesh and blood (material) and not spirit.
.
.
.
.

As i said, I’d never heard of SpiritWaterBlood nor of Kinism.
Totally fascinated! Thanks!
Does Kinism have much of a presence here on MR?

Posted by Gorboduc on October 29, 2009, 06:44 PM

I would assume. I’ve seen links there to pieces written here.
.
.
.
.

Race is in fact man-made and is a fairly modern invention.

Posted by dodheim on October 29, 2009, 09:46 PM

How ironic.
No dodheim, race is not man-made, nor a modern invention anymore than gender is man-made and a modern invention. The term redskin, for example, goes back to the 1600’s.
In the Heimskingla, written about 800 years ago, Africa is refereed to as Black-Man’s Land.

But the word “racism” is indeed man-made and completely modern.

The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling

In late December, after a fourth murder, police set up a dragnet to obtain DNA from some 1200 white men. Authorities spent months and more than a million dollars running those samples against the killer’s. Still nothing.

In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer’s race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.

“Your guy has substantial African ancestry,” said Frudakis. “He could be Afro-Caribbean or African American but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian. No chance at all.”

There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint

There are a multitude of such examples.
.
.
.
.

What an amusing conclusion to draw from my comment. I did not even specify nor imply “social”.

Posted by dodheim on October 29, 2009, 09:46 PM

Yes you did. But by all means get into the physical environment aspects of the debate. There is no question that climate effected the outcome of modern European man and modern African man, for example. That is a large pretext to our argument. In fact that it what a significant portion of my essay addressed. I guess you missed that.
.
.
.
.

This is a non-intellectual position to take because you would have to prove that two civilizations in the exact same environment would change the environment to make it suit them in totally different ways without any previously extant civilization around before it.

Posted by dodheim on October 29, 2009, 09:46 PM

Okay…..

Dodheim, what is a civilization?
When you’ve answered that, look at what you wrote above and explain how it isn’t completely circular in reasoning.
.
.
.
.

I don’t care about these organizations because, unlike you, I don’t find them to be much of a threat because self-preservation means doing everything 100%.

Posted by dodheim on October 29, 2009, 09:46 PM

Whether you are threatened by the plethora of race-based social, political and legal organizations wasn’t the point, now was it.
Their existence crushes your entire sermon and you know it.

Your existence, your personality, your proclivities, the color of your skin, etc… did not just pop into existence out of thin air. Your qualities and properties are not unprecedented in the history of the world. All that you are is the accumulation of those who came before you, generation to generation.

My friend, you are not the center of your own self created and self sustained universe.
.
.
.
.

In the end I guess what it boils down to is that what you define as your people, is a contrived notion of what you think is shared by everyone. Thus you’re making your own culture. And that’s fine. The race thing is a joke, though, primarily because 1)you want to be viewed as separate and 2)disenfranchised. I don’t celebrate black or brown history month. If there were a white history month, why should I celebrate it? Your movement is a reaction to the established definitions of race because you’re scared because you have nothing and then subsequently, this thing that does not exist will be taken away and destroyed.

Posted by dodheim on October 29, 2009, 09:46 PM

Affirmative action, integration and the pursuit of “diversity” are legal and social recognitions of the White race. Just as the NAACP, the ADL and La Raza are legal and social recognitions of black, jewish and hispanic races.

There is not one square inch of public life in all the world that does not legally and socially recognize the existence of race.

.
.
.
.

My people make logical arguments of their own accord without tying themselves to some fixed notion of what is natural or correctly morally reasoned….

Posted by dodheim on October 29, 2009, 09:46 PM

Wow! I appreciate the confession.
.
.
.
.
For the record, I am not posting as dodheim in an attempt to make the opposition look ridiculous.

...

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:19 | #

There seems to be a desire on the part of many to re-invent themselves as Celts.

Hollywood and victimology - the more of a victim your group is or was the more virtuous you are, so jews first, black second etc.

If you notice, most Hollywood films the villains, as well as being disproportionately blond, have Anglo (or sometimes German) surnames while the heros have Irish or Scottish. There are also many films where it’s explict: nice Irish vs nasty Anglos e.g Titanic, Gangs of New York etc.

Divide and rule.

As the white rabbits of America get ever closer to becoming a minority i’d expect that to end and for there to be many more films where the Irish are the villains as the jews make up for lost time.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:25 | #

Wandrin,

You’d expect the Jews to make films where Jews are defending whites, really…

Are we so terrifying that we must be exterminated before working on the servant races which are prone to rebel? And what of the East Asians who aren’t really a servant race?

White can rule Amerindians and blacks, but I’m doubtful Jews can. And it remains to be seen how Jews will explain why they must rage against the white man, but Jews only “look” white. The servant races don’t comprehend a reality v. appearance explanation. Surely the end result is they’ll seek refuge among whites yet again?

Posted by Frank on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:28 | #

Pronoun confusion: the servant races are the ones currently told to rage against whites. Jews will seek refuge among whites.

I guess they figure they’ll breed quickly enough to secure strategic areas before the supply of white hosts has run dry?

They’re wholly bent on white extermination: we’re they’re number 1 perceived threat, clearly (and number 1 supporter…)

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:32 | #

Race is in fact man-made and is a fairly modern invention.

Members of the jewish social contruct are currently in the process of trying to exterminate the various indigenous white european social constructs through mass immigration because they’ve decided that jews and white rabbits can’t coexist on the same terriotory.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:12 | #

The Narrator,

I like your piece, the general theme, but as is typical of criticism I want to point out some errors (and note I haven’t written any worthwhile political essays):

in many ways as different as one species is from another.

They’re of different Phylum.

Indeed, it is an instructional paradox that the beauty one associates with the colorfulness of autumn is actually an indicator that winter is approaching and nature’s death is near. Let the lesson be learned then; societies, like nature, are at their most diverse before they die.

This is an analogy not a lesson I’d say, though a very good analogy. A great splendor is often just prior to a society’s collapse, and diversity seems to come with success. And even if the society continues on after some sort of bloodless revolution, it’s no longer the same tree - at best it’s like grafting a scion onto a root.

A lesson might be learned if, say, a sign of demise for a grove of pines might be when the oaks began rising among them. Or… to go with the “tree as a nation”... ah, when parasites are to be found within a tree I suppose.

—-

I find people with a distinct history and place to be more interesting and respectable than those without and in search of colouring and definition.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:17 | #

Race is in fact man-made and is a fairly modern invention.

Race is in no way modern. I can cite a Plato quote if you so desire that’s identical to “racial nationalism” as we’d define such today.

The claim that race is modern is a lie, and all who claims such are liars or fools repeating others’ lies.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:29 | #

Frank,

Yes, because they see themselves as so completely separate to White they don’t seem to realise the people they are importing to be our executioners will be their executioners also.

It’s like the relatively recent left-liberal hostility to Israel. jews see it as anti-semitic when it’s actually anti-white. They don’t seem able to understand that they’ve created this hostility through the politically correct religion of white genocide that they’ve built on top of the holocult.

I think it’s a side-effect of their secret supreme talent which i believe basically boils down to just being vastly more racist than normal people. By being both invisible as a group and vastly more racist as a group they can always out-compete the host population through the use of internal blitzkrieg: using overwhelming force of numbers at whatever critical point in banking, media, education, politics etc that they are trying to capture for the tribe at that moment.

However their USP also seems to be their blind spot - they see themselves as more distinct than others do. Another factor could be simply that their USP is what makes them underestimate blacks and browns as an eventual threat.

You’d expect the Jews to make films where Jews are defending whites, really…

Yes, I could imagine them making films where jews were constantly presented as the smart and loyal side-kicks of whatever majority elite they were among. I think their preference for invisibility implies malice aforethought.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:34 | #

The claim that race is modern is a lie, and all who claims such are liars or fools repeating others’ lies.

I was joking btw in case it wasn’t obvious.

Posted by Frank on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:40 | #

Wandrin,

sorry, I was replying to “dodheim”, though yea quoting from your quote.

I like your reply:

Members of the jewish social contruct are currently in the process of trying to exterminate the various indigenous white european social constructs through mass immigration because they’ve decided that jews and white rabbits can’t coexist on the same terriotory.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:58 | #

Frank,

Cool, just checking.

Posted by John on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:16 | #

“Do you mind if I appreciate such differences?”

Depends on what exactly it is that you were looking for earlier. A horse on a racetrack bred for a specific quality would be a bad choice in war. So appreciate the differences as one appreciates still life photography, framed.

I can’t believe it. He minds. Under certain conditions, even.

It was a rhetorical question, dumbass.

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:03 | #

The Narrator,

I like your piece, the general theme, but as is typical of criticism I want to point out some errors (and note I haven’t written any worthwhile political essays):

in many ways as different as one species is from another.

They’re of different Phylum.

Posted by Frank on October 30, 2009, 10:12 AM

Yes, good point. However that is why I added the qualifier, “in many ways.” I hope the context of it all was apparent though.
Maybe not.
Dodheim got Dungeons and Dragons and World of Warcraft out of it!?!?
Oh well…

.
.
.
.

This is an analogy not a lesson..

Posted by Frank on October 30, 2009, 10:12 AM

The two have been known to be synonymous. But I take your point.
.
.
.
.

I find people with a distinct history and place to be more interesting and respectable than those without and in search of colouring and definition.

Posted by Frank on October 30, 2009, 10:12 AM

Most people do.
Those who claim the world is full of randomly associated individuals who never-the-less managed to diverge into distinct groups and construct societies and cultures reflective of themselves, are just engaging in Orwellian doublespeak.
If we were all"just individuals” then there would be no such thing as cultures.
It’s kinda like a Hobo talking about Hobo City when obviously there can be no Hobo City due to the fact that it would negate the connotation of the term hobo.

Yeah I know, not the best analogy. But I’m sleepy, so….

Posted by Frank on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:14 | #

Yes, good point. However that is why I added the qualifier, “in many ways.” I hope the context of it all was apparent though.

Oh, I see now. So human “races” were the species there.

Yeah I know, not the best analogy.

It works.

The two have been known to be synonymous.

It wasn’t a perfect analogy is what I meant. A perfect analogy would teach the lesson, but an imperfect one would merely help with understanding.

The essay doesn’t have to be perfect - you still got your point across which is what matters. I like the allure and promise of seeing the world more completely if accepting race. And I like the condescension actually, since racial acknowledgment is a point worth revering. There is a hierarchy in the world, and those who hide from racial reality are, in that regard, below those who accept it. Complete tolerance requires one to believe in and value nothing.

Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:00 | #

Frank and Narrator: your seasonal metaphor.

Hang on a sec, Nature doesn’t DIE in Winter! It is preparing for the spring: gathering her forces, storing energies, thinking quietly about firing up all those green fuses! You may as well say that bears DIE when they hibernate!

“If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind…”

“When the hounds of Spring are on Winter’s traces…”

Fancy a poor benighted Christian having to remind you hard-headed materialists that the seasons are cyclical, not one-offs. You might have noticed. I hope you are still around in January.

Oh. perhaps you’re thinking of some Norse myth.

Posted by g on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:09 | #

Wandrin: films and the Irish.
You bet: and remember the wicked Engish officers in “The Patriot” and “Pirates of the Caribbean”. Such spurious Brit archetypes are replacing the “Ve haff vays off makink you talk” Nazis in older war films.
The “Master and Commander” Patrick O’Brien film was an honourable exception, and even made a point about tough seamen willing to be led by 13-years-old upper-class midshipmen.

Someone coined the word “faminist” for those who still feel bad about Ireland’s potato famine.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:15 | #

Frank and Narrator: your seasonal metaphor.

It painted a picture well though - that was what I intended to praise.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:18 | #

we just need our own film industry to unseat Hollywood.

For the record: I do know some nice Jews… but the issue is their impact as a group, which can change if they’ll cease hating.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:50 | #

Here is something you might find interesting, Frank.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)at the College of Charleston and as the lone conservative writer at the school paper, was asked to participate in the television tapings. I remember telling MTV I believed Shepard’s murderers should receive the death penalty. I also told them, when prodded, that I believed homosexuality was “against God.”

It’s a comment I’ve regretted ever since.

My first regret stems from the blasphemous assumption that I could know the mind of God and secondly, that I had portrayed gay men and women as somehow lesser children of that God. Despite my youthful ignorance, there is nothing more obvious to me today than the fact that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are born gay. It is nature, not nurture and certainly no choice.

Jack Hunter, the “Southern Avenger,” indeed. Now, for myself, LGBT is a peripheral issue; out of sight out of mind, and out of sight is where it should be kept. But for you, for conservative Christians? No. There is nothing these men will not give away, including the existence of their people.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:59 | #

CC,

I don’t mind homos so long as they strive for celibacy and to do their duty. I’m sure some are born that way, and I pity their burden.

I’ve held such a position for years, and I’ve met numerous unstable, degenerate homos.

It’s clearly a mental disorder, possibly genetic or otherwise hardwired, and abnormal. However we all have to overcome hurdles - some hurdles though higher than others.

We seem to be slowly degenerating from Creation, so I have no problem with genetic defects existing. Hurricanes also exist and cause suffering… Earth is not Heaven.

Lol, here’s an “it” (formerly a she) singing a pretty good song: link goes to ehud would‘s blog.

They may help as best they can, though they ought to acknowledge their limits and accept their place in society, albeit potentially a place of honour. There’s great honour I think in overcoming such a curse.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:01 | #

Ah, the it in the video likely has done things I wouldn’t approve of.

Overcoming such a curse is apparently very difficult. Possibly society isn’t designed to care for them properly, though society (and thus the race inhabiting it) must be protected from them as well.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:58 | #

Many homos are likely just perverts who go that way out of perversion though.

I meant my previous two posts in reference to legitimate homos who are legitimately so cursed.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:06 | #

Oh, right. The Hate legislation. I see now. Still, just so long as he doesn’t accept sodomy, Hunter’s not selling out.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:11 | #

I’m glad to see you feel that way, Frank. But I take it for granted that the instinctive resonance for ethnocentrism is stronger in our fire-breathing Christian brethren who consider it their Biblical duty to, er, smash all queers (the Bible commands they be executed, does it not?) - it is part and parcel of their stronger innate will to regulate intra-tribal behavior. Many of these gentlemen wish for a theocracy, and I don’t think it should be above us to lead them to believe they will get it. They’ve got that oh so indispensable fire in the belly that may just lead them to go to the wall for their people if properly directed. I have no desire to be ruled over by atavistic lunatics, even if they are White. But first we have to win, scores can be settled later.

Re: the hate bill: I think it is better that it passes. I hope more pass. That will give us an indispensable propaganda prop to point to as out of step with America’s over 200 year tradition of free speech. They want to destroy America -> they want to destroy our race.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:45 | #

But it may be objected: ‘It is wrong to lie.’ Well now, Nick Griffin claims, “I am not a Nazi, I never have been!” And, ‘I do not deny the Holocaust.’ LOL! Pure bullshit. If it is not wrong for him to do it for the greater good, it is not wrong for us to do it. Unless, of course, the usual British double standard applies.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:24 | #

I’m not an expert on the Bible - it’s not as simple as only reading it alone. What I’m often told is sodomy is no worse than adultery. In the present society the death penalty would go too far for those crimes, though I’m all for it for treason.

I think it is better that it passes.

Yes, they’re finally pushing us too hard, too quickly.

I don’t mind not speaking on homoerotism - there are currently larger issues.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:59 | #

I would recommend that you do speak out against queers. But in moderate, temperate language that none the less expresses stern disapproval. That is what will resonate with your constituency, so to speak. This is Amerikwa, we’ve got to make that work for us. Now is the time to go to all the monkey houses and rattle the bars, hoping to incite the crazies therein to bust out (this includes the theocratic Christians). Now is the time to maximize Balkanization. Now is the time to incite the government to take ever more repressive measures to restore ‘order’. It can all come crashing down on Obongo’s watch, Apocalypse In Blackface. And what will we do? Triangulate against it all, be the ‘voice of reason’, thus leveraging ‘respectability’ to our position. Our racialism will not seem nearly so extreme by contrast.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:42 | #

Now is the time

Before folks fall in line for the 2010 elections? (which essentially run all year long…)

To be sure, the time is before 2012. Huckabee would be a disaster.

But in moderate, temperate language that none the less expresses stern disapproval.

I like the idea of emulating Nick Griffin’s censored picture without saying much more. That is to say: hint at having this wonderful defence without giving it, which potentially makes it appear better than it really is (growing in the imagination).

I’m not up to speed on the details of the Hate Bill and what’s truly covered though. One politician was quoted along the lines of “it’ll only apply to violent crimes and not speech”. We’ll see. I’m not a fan of the Constitution, but Orwellian “fuzzy laws” are annoying: it’s increasingly difficult to figure where the boundaries are.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:59 | #

Narrator: Sorry, still think that as a simile/metaphor/illustration it’s useless. The wonderful display of colours in an autumnal woo are nothing to do with “diversity” as the trees were just as diverse before they donned their livery of crimson, scarlet, russet, gold, umber etc.
You need to illustrate an irreversible and irreparable loss by picturing another example of destruction, such as a city overwhelmed by a flood,or a volcano, or a ship sunk with all hands drowned.

CC: I don’t understand your rather opaque comments, above, on Christians.

I vaguely feel that some sort of insult is being offered me, as a Christian.

Please could you be less hermetic, more direrct, and spell it out?

Oh, and btw:

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Social-Care/949441/Betrayal-LGBT-Youth-Scotland-paedophile-ex-chief/

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:27 | #

Gorbo, a personal question if I may.

I’m not trying to be provocative or confrontational, but I’m deeply interested to understand how someone can reconcile being a practising Christian (in the sense of being a member of a mainstream denomination) with being a racialist. It seems to me that the two are fundamentally incompatible.

I realise there may be (and quite possibly are) two unwarranted assumptions at play here, but please address the question in the spirit in which it was put.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:27 | #

Nothing against Christians per se. It’s just that I think it would be a mistake to allow the ones who would like to literally stone heretics to come to power. Surely that can’t be controversial in your mind. What I said was that the genuine theocratic fanatics should be encouraged to assert themselves in all their snake handling glory as one of a thousand points of light in a Balkanized Amerikwa.

Posted by honest white guy on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:54 | #

@dodheimen: You are one of maybe a few reasonable voices I’ve heard on here so far.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments